Roman Imperial Statue Bases: From Augustus to Commodus (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity - Volume 7)

Jakob Munk Højte Roman Imperial Statue Bases from Augustus to Commodus Aarhus University Press Aarhus Studies in ...

Author: Jakob Munk Højte

246 downloads 1285 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Jakob Munk Højte

Roman Imperial Statue Bases from

Augustus

to

Commodus

Aarhus University Press

Aarhus Studies in

Mediterranean Antiquity

(ASMA)

VII ASMA is a series which will be published approximately once a year by The Centre for the Study of Antiquity, University of Aarhus, Denmark. The Centre is a network of cooperating departments: Greek and Latin, Classical Archaeology, History, and the Faculty of Theology. The objective of the series is to advance the interdisciplinary study of Antiquity by publishing articles, e.g., conference papers, or independent monographs, which among other things reflect the current activities of the centre.

JAKOB MUNK HØJTE

ROMAN IMPERIAL

STATUE BASES

FROM AUGUSTUS

TO COMMODUS

Acta Jutlandica LXXX:2

Humanities Series 78

a AARHUS UNIVERSIT Y PRESS

Roman Imperial Statue Bases © Jakob Munk Højte and Aarhus University Press 2005 Cover: Lotte Bruun Rasmussen Photo: Jakob Munk Højte, Caserna dei Vigili, Ostia,

Statue bases on a podium in the sacellum.

Typeset with Trajan (cover) and Mignon (body)

ISBN 87 7934 906 4

Aarhus University Press

Langelandsgade 177

DK-8200 Aarhus N

Fax: (+45) 8942 5380

73 Lime Walk

Headington, Oxford OX3 7AD

Fax: (+44) 1865 750 079

Box 511

Oakville, CT 06779

Fax: (+1) 860 945 9468

Preface

This book is an altered and revised version of my PhD dissertation defended at the University of Aarhus in May 2001. Due to other obligations and a certain fatigue and nausea at the thought of taking another swing at the large corpora (they do tend to have a rather musty odour), the manuscript was put in the drawer. Earlier this year it would remain hidden no longer. Over the summer and during a stay in Rome in the autumn, the tedious task of checking the entries in the catalogue and editing the text was carried out. Two major changes have been made. First of all, the three separate papers that formed part of the dissertation: The Epigraphic Evidence Concerning Portrait Statues of Hadrian’s Heir L. Aelius Caesar, Imperial Visits as Occasion for the Erection of Portrait Statues?, and The Statue Bases of Claudius. A Reassessment of The Portraiture of Claudius by M. Stuart have been published elsewhere, and are therefore not included here (see bibliography). This meant that a good number of cross-references had to be sorted out and text supplied where necessary. Secondly, the catalogue of statue bases has been revised and updated. A number of inscriptions included in the dissertation, as pointed out by the assessment committee, demonstrably did not belong to statue bases, and have consequently been excluded. In addition, a number of inscriptions that seemed too uncertain to include have also been removed. On the other hand, more material has been published in the intervening period. The catalogue has been updated to include the bases mentioned in Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 2000 and L’Année épigraphique 2001. In the dissertation only a minimum of information about the individual bases went on paper, while the bulk was stored on a CD-ROM. Here I have chosen to include more information in the printed text, which has resulted in a rather voluminous catalogue. It is

Preface · 5

my hope that the expanded format will improve its usefulness and encourage others to make use of the collected data, which I believe holds potential far beyond what has been covered in this book. Since my interest in Roman imperial statue bases was first aroused by reading Meriwether Stuart’s dissertation from 1938 on the portraiture of Claudius, which includes the first attempt at systematically compiling and analysing the epigraphical evidence from statue bases, many friends and colleagues have commented and made valuable suggestions that have greatly improved the outcome. Some require particular mention: Ittai Gradel for inspiration and rewarding discussions. His encouragement is one of the primary reasons why the study has been brought to completion. Niels Hannestad and Lise Hannestad, my supervisor, for valuable help and advice both during and after my time as a PhD student. Niels’ interest in Roman sculpture and imperial portraiture in particular initially got me started on this project. Robert Fleischer, my external supervisor, for making my much too short stay in Mainz pleasant and rewarding. More importantly for his comments on the part of my original project, which will unfortunately have to stay in the drawer for some time yet, namely an unfinished study of the statue bases for the Hellenistic kings. The external members of the assessment committee Geza Alföldy and Jane Fejfer, who gave precise criticism and good directions for both possible and required improvements far beyond the call of duty. I have tried as best I could to follow their recommendations. Finally and most dearly I want to thank my family, who have tirelessly accompanied me on countless journeys in (often futile) search of statue bases. The book was made possible by generous financial support from the University of Aarhus, the University of Aarhus Research Foundation, Elizabeth Munksgaard Fonden, Landsdommer V. Gieses Legat, and the Danish Research Council for Humanities. Århus, December 2004 Jakob Munk Højte

6 · roman imperial statue bases

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures and Tables

5

..............................

11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Types of Monuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

19

25

27

40

43

52

56

Identification of statue bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The language of the inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of statue base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literary testimony for imperial statue bases and inscriptions . . . . . . . Statue types and materials used for imperial statues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The cost of imperial statues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Damnatio memoriae and the reuse of statue bases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dating the Inscriptions

from Imperial Statue Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imperial nomenclature and honorific titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other dating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dating by negative evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability of the dating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dating accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dates chosen for dedicating imperial statues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

65

70

72

74

77

78

Contents · 7

The Applicability of the Evidence

of the Statue Bases to the Extant Portraits . The Geographical Distribution

of Imperial Portrait Statues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The geographical distribution of extant imperial portraits . . . . . . . . . . The geographical distribution of statue bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The number of sites and the number of bases per site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

85

86

88

103

109

Statues Dedicated Before and After a Reign . 125

Pre-accessional dedications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posthumous dedications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125

132

Occasions for Erecting Imperial Statues . . . . . . . 143

Accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jubilees (decennalia and vicennalia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imperial visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of chronological distribution during a reign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

144

157

159

165

Dedicators of Roman Imperial Statues . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Statues dedicated by communities or their executive bodies . . . . . . . . Private dedicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public or private? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corporations as dedicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Military units as dedicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statue bases without dedicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional differences and developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

168

171

179

181

182

184

185

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195


Catalogue

...................................................

Introduction to the Catalogue

.....................

What is included? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sorting system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Histograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215

217

217

218

218

222

222

222

Abbreviations and Bibliography for Catalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Catalogue of Statue Bases Arranged According to Emperor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229

Augustus 229 · Tiberius 263 · Caligula 288 · Claudius 294 ·

Nero 319 · Galba 319 · Otho 330 · Vitellius 330 · Vespasian 330 ·

Titus 344 · Domitian 354 · Nerva 365 · Trajan 373 · Hadrian 404 ·

Antoninus Pius 466 · Lucius Verus 509 · Marcus Aurelius 531 · Marcus

Aurelius or Lucius Verus 569 · Avidius Cassius 571 · Commodus 571

Statistical Analysis, Emperors (Tables SE -) .

591

Augustus 591 · Tiberius 592 · Caligula 593 · Claudius 594 · Nero 595 · Galba · Otho · and Vitellius 596 · Vespasian 597 · Titus 508 · Domitian 509 · Nerva 600 · Trajan 601 · Hadrian 602 · Antoninus Pius 603 · Lucius Verus 604 · Marcus Aurelius 605 · Commodus 606

Statistical Analysis, Geographical

(Tables SG -) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

Italy 607 · Northern provinces 609 · Gaul 611 · Spain 613 · Western

North Africa 615 · Greece 617 · Asia Minor 619 · Eastern provinces 621

Contents · 9

Statistical Analysis, C omparative

(Tables SC -) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 Chronolo gical Distribu tion (histo grams)

(Figs. C -) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Augustus 633 · Tiberius 633 · Caligula 634 · Claudius 634 · Nero 635 · Vespasian 635 · Titus 636 · Domitian 636 · Nerva 637 · Trajan 638 · Hadrian 638 · Antoninus Pius 639 · Lucius Verus 639 · Marcus Aurelius 640 · Commodus 641 · All emperors 642 · East-West comparison 642

Geo graphical Distribu tion (distribu tion maps)

(Figs. G -)

...................................................

Augustus 653 · Tiberius 644 · Caligula 645 · Claudius 46 · Nero 647 · Vespasian 648 · Titus 649 · Domitian 650 · Nerva 651 · Trajan 652 · Hadrian 653 · Antoninus Pius 654 · Lucius Verus 655 · Marcus Aurelius 656 · Commodus 657 · All emperors 658


643

List of Figures and Tables

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

Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15.

Statue base in the National Museum in Athens with oval depression for a marble statue. Base for a statue of Claudius (Claudius 87) in the Athenian Agora. Statue base for Trajan in Delphi (Trajan 110). Built-up bases in a building adjoining the forum in Lucus Feroniae. Marble slab from a built-up base for Trajan (Trajan 37) in Lucus Feroniae. Statue base for Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 20) from Fidenae. Exedra opposite the theatre in Emerita Augusta, with statues of the imperial family placed in niches in the wall. Consoles carrying statues of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus on the colonnaded street in Apamea ad Orontem. Comparison between extant portraits and bases according to region. Damnatio memoriae. The number of bases per year in Italy. The relative importance of the statue bases in Italy. The relative importance of the statue bases in the northern provinces. The relative importance of the statue bases in Gaul. The relative importance of the statue bases in Spain.

List of Figures and Tables · 11

Fig. 16.

The relative importance of the statue bases in western North Africa. Fig. 17. The relative importance of the statue bases in Greece. Fig. 18. The number of bases per year in Asia Minor. Fig. 19. The relative importance of the statue bases in Asia Minor. Fig. 20. The number of sites according to region and the number of bases per site. Fig. 21. The percentage of sites with statue bases according to region. Fig. 22. The number of sites in relation to the number of bases for individual emperors. Fig. 23. The number of precisely dated bases according to year of reign. Fig. 24. Public and private dedicators. Fig. 25. Map of the Roman Empire. Tables SE 1-SE 48. Statistical analysis according to emperor.

Tables SG 1-SG 24. Statistical analysis according to region.

Tables SC 1-SC 24. Comparison between emperors and regions.

Figs. C 1-C 20. Chronological distribution. Histograms.

Figs. G 1-G 16. Geographical distribution. Distribution maps.


Introduction

When the senate voted him [Didius Julianus] a statue of gold, he declined to accept it, saying: “Give me a bronze one, so that it may last; for I observe that the gold and silver statues of the emperors that ruled before me have been destroyed, whereas the bronze ones remain.” In this he was mistaken, for it is virtue that preserves the memory of rulers; and in fact the bronze statue that was granted him was destroyed after his own overthrow. Dio Cass. 74.14.2a

In a short perspective the reflections of Didius Julianus and Dio Cassius on the preservation of one’s memory for posterity were to some extent correct. Until AD 193, the year Didius Julianus for a brief period succeeded in bribing his way to the purple by offering a large sum of money to the praetorians, the Roman Empire had witnessed a long period of stability. Since the murder of Domitian in AD 96 the emperors, even if they were not equally liked, at least had the privileges of choosing their own heir, dying of natural causes and being elevated to divinity. The murder of Commodus some months previously had ended this era and once again brought the Empire to the verge of civil war. It is not entirely clear whether Didius Julianus, in Dio’s rendering of the speech, is supposed to be referring to the statues of his two immediate predecessors, the unfortunate emperors Commodus and Pertinax, or to those of former emperors in general; but being a virtuous ruler was apparently no guarantee against having one’s statues made of precious metals ending up in the melting pot, and such images generally seem to have had a rather short existence.1 Dio 1. Pekáry 1985, 66-67 and below p. 47.

Introduction · 13

Cassius and his audience, knowing the fate of Didius Julianus, could in hindsight of course see the folly of his argument. In a longer perspective, however, it was not necessarily the kind of virtue advocated by Dio that would preserve the memory of an emperor. Nero, who had been hated with good reason by the senatorial aristocracy to which Dio belonged, seems to have been rather popular in the late fourth century to judge from the frequency of his portrait on the contorniats of the period.2 When it comes to the preservation of the memory of a ruler by means of statues, which was evidently the intention of such monuments to judge from the speech by Didius Julianus, neither bronze nor virtue has proven effective. Instead, the single most important factor for preservation of portraits and statues for posterity was whether they were made of stone. Bronze seems to have been the preferred material for honorary statues in most parts of the Roman Empire, but of the countless bronze statues of emperors made in antiquity only a minute fraction have been preserved because their value as commemorative monuments soon fell below the relatively high scrap value of bronze.3 Consequently they were melted down for other uses, the same fate that has overcome practically all portraits in precious metal. To a large extent only bronze statues placed out of human reach by unusual conditions, like those afforded by the eruption of Vesuvius or landslides like that in Boubon (or statues lost at sea or in rivers during transport) have survived.4 The scrap value of marble statues was much lower, and they thus stood a larger chance of survival, although lime kilns have taken their share of these too. This process of selection has profoundly influenced the study of imperial portraits, which naturally must begin with the preserved specimens i.e. the marble portraits. The issue of how these relate to those originally in existence has unfortunately not received the attention it deserves. The primary aim of nearly all studies of imperial portraits has been to compile the genuine specimens, establish a typology, and date the introduction of new portrait types.5 To this end the numismatic evidence has proven especially useful, since the typology of the coin portraits regularly corresponds to that of the portraits in the round, and 2. Mittag 1999, 128-133. 3. Lahusen & Formigli (2001), in their recent monograph on bronze portraits, include 45 portraits of emperors from the first two centuries AD. In contrast, more than 1,000 marble portraits are known. 4. For the contexts in which bronze portraits have been, see Lahusen & Formigli 2001, 455459. 5. Pfanner 1989, 162; Rose 1997b, 108-120; Pollini 1987, 8-17. This approach is prevalent in the series Das römische Herrscherbild and in most museum catalogues.


the coin legends often supply an exact date. Because of the strong focus on the extant portraits, which often have no archaeological context, and because of the remarkable advances made within the field of portrait studies during the last two generations, other archaeological, literary and epigraphical sources related to the dedication of imperial statues have been relegated to a very subordinate position in nearly all studies of imperial portraits. It is the aim of this study of one of these documentary sources – namely the epigraphical evidence from the statue bases6 – to compensate for this lack of research and show that the study of statue bases is relevant if not crucial for the understanding of Roman imperial portrait statues. In his significant study The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire, Ramsey McMullen observed that “Papyri and ostraca from Roman Egypt survive in sufficient numbers to invite statistical analysis and thus to teach us something out of the numbers themselves that is not evident in the body of any single text”.7 This applies to the statue bases of Roman emperors as well. By themselves the inscriptions from each individual base yield information about the specific statue once placed on the base, but since these almost invariably have been lost or moved beyond recovery of their original context, the immediate testimony has little direct value for the study of imperial portraits. Of the limited number of portraits that have been found with their accompanying inscriptions, only the relief from Ostia dated AD 160 showing Lucius Verus in the portrait type, thought to have been created on his accession a year later, has modified the chronology of an emperor’s portrait types during the period under consideration here.8 By systematically compiling the statue bases and using them as statistical data, however, they can reveal valuable information about where imperial statues were erected, when, by whom and for what reason; questions that cannot be answered by studying the extant portraits.

6. Th e term “statue base” will be applied below to all types of inscribed monuments intended to carry a sculpted representation of the emperor, see p. 19. In the text, statue bases are referred to as numbers in the catalogue. 7. MacMullen 1982, 234. 8. Fuhrmann 1939, 294-302 = (Lucius Verus 16). Other first and second century portraits of emperors that have been found with accompanying inscriptions: Herculaneum (Tiberius 13 (theatre); Claudius 8 (basilica); Lanuvium (Claudius 9 uncertain); Misenum (Vespasian 8 [augusteum]); Neúilly-le-Real (Augustus 75 [bronze bust]); Lepcis Magna (Augustus 114, Tiberius 76, Claudius 73 [Temple of Roma and Augustus]); Olympia (Antoninus Pius 201, Lucius Verus 108 [Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus]); Aphrodisias (Claudius 115, Nero 40, 41, [Sebasteion]; Domitian 37 [theatre]); Boubon (Lucius Verus 113); Perge (Hadrian 373 uncertain); Philadelphia (Commodus 87 [relief ]); Cyrene (Tiberius 109 [Strategeion]).

Introduction · 15

The epigraphical evidence from statue bases has been discussed before in connection with imperial portraits. The first person to systematically compile the statue bases for an emperor was Meriwether Stuart, who collected all the documentary sources relating to statues of Claudius in 1938.9 Soon afterwards followed studies along similar lines concerning the other Julio-Claudian emperors10 and the family of Augustus.11 The statue bases of empresses have been systematically compiled for Sabina12 and Julia Domna,13 and so have those for the emperors from the mid-fourth century AD to the end of antiquity.14 Although the results of these studies were noteworthy, they have had limited impact for two reasons. Firstly, a direct relationship between the chronological distribution of the statue bases and that of the extant portraits has not been established. Secondly, the studies have been too scattered chronologically to offer comparative evidence that could reveal any consistent patterns in frequency and geographical and chronological distribution of the statue bases. It is characteristic that the recent works on the portraits of Augustus,15 Caligula,16 Hadrian17 and the Antonine princes18 that do include investigations of the epigraphical evidence make limited use of it for questions relating to the extant portraits. Other studies have dealt more or less thoroughly with the statue bases relating to portraits in a certain setting or region. Examples of these are the excursus in Inan and Rosenbaum’s study of the portraits from Asia Minor,19 the regional studies of statue bases in Conventus Tarraconensis and in Venetia et Histria,20 and recent works concerning Julio-Claudian statue groups21 and imperial women in the Greek East.22 To overcome the obstacle of lack of comparative material, this study compiles the imperial statue bases from a long continuous period. It includes all the emperors from Augustus to Commodus, a period of approximately 250 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Stuart 1938. Stuart 1939, 601-617. Hanson & Johnson 1946, 389-400. Carandini 1969. Fejfer 1985, 129-138. Stichel 1982. Boschung 1993a. Boschung 1989. Evers 1994. Fittschen 1999. Inan & Rosenbaum 1966, 42-53. Alföldy 1979, 177-275; Alföldy 1984. Rose 1997a; Boschung 2002a. Hahn 1994.


years that covers a large part of the principate including the second century AD, when the production of portraits of emperors reached its height. The compiled corpus of statue bases comprises 2,300 monuments from nearly 800 different sites throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. The broad chronological perspective of this large sample shows that the statue bases provide a consistent and reliable picture of the geographical and chronological distribution of imperial statues in antiquity which challenges previous assumptions regarding the principles that governed the erection of imperial statues in a number of ways.

Introduction · 17

Types of Monuments

Portrait statues in antiquity were almost invariably placed on some sort of base that acted as a support for the statue, lifting it off the ground or creating an architectural setting for it. The term statue base traditionally describes a free-standing monument consisting of one or more square or round blocks of stone sufficiently large to carry a statue, and erected for this purpose alone. In the following, however, the term will be broadened to signify any monument intended to carry a three-dimensional representation of approximately life size and larger. This wider definition may seem awkward when applied to singular monuments, such as an arch or a niche holding a statue, but it may prove useful in describing the function of the variety of monuments, which all served the same purpose despite their different appearance.

Identification of statue bases All the monuments compiled in the catalogue of imperial statue bases have one common feature. They carry an inscription that identifies the emperor whose statue was placed on the base. This was, naturally, not a requirement for a base, but merely the only means by which we can identify them today. Imperial statues could be placed on uninscribed bases, but since imperial portrait statues have only very rarely been found together with their accompanying bases, these are practically impossible to identify. The inscriptions as a general rule follow the standardised pattern for tituli hono-

T ypes of Monuments · 19

rarii,23 allowing us with a high degree of probability to identify monuments as statue bases from their inscriptions alone. This is useful because numerous inscribed monuments are inadequately described in publications. In particular, the editors of the early corpora of inscriptions generally showed little or no interest in the physical form of the monuments on which the texts were inscribed, or in the context in which they had been found; and since many of the inscriptions have later disappeared, such information has been irrevocably lost. Even if satisfactorily published, the state of preservation of the monument often does not allow unambiguous identification as a statue base from the physical properties alone; either because the inscription has been removed from the monument and reused in another context, or because only a fragment of the monument without any recognisable features has survived. In his study of the portraits of Claudius, Stuart established two criteria for identifying statue bases: “One, whenever an inscription employs a dative formula in Latin or an accusative in Greek and is cut on a stone reliably described as a statue base or as part of an arch or other monumental pedestal, there can be no doubt of the portrait character of the inscription. Two, whenever a description of the stone on which an inscription is cut is not available, the dative case of the imperial name in Latin, or the accusative in Greek, is presumptive proof of the portrait character of the inscription”.24 The first criterion encompasses approximately 1,300 inscriptions, or well over half of the monuments in the catalogue. This criterion is nearly foolproof. It should be noted, however, that for lack of a common terminology for different types of monument, descriptions may be misleading. One example, emphasised by Benjamin and Raubitschek, concerns a number of monuments from Athens described as statue bases by the editors of Inscriptiones Graecae, which on closer examination proved to be altars.25 915 inscriptions in the catalogue (40% of the total) have been identified as being or pertaining to statue bases according to Stuart’s second criterion,

23. For Greek tituli honorarii, see Gerlach 1908; Larfeld 1914, 432-456; Klaffenbach 1966, 65-69. For Latin see Cagnat 1914; Kajanto 1971, 3-19. Tituli honorarii consist of two elements: the name of the honorand and the name of the dedicator. To this basic scheme can be added a variety of information about the nature of the dedication, the date or the dedicator’s reason or motivation for erecting the monument. For an interesting view of the development of Latin honorific inscriptions, see Salomies 1994, 63-106. 24. Stuart 1938, 13-14. 25. Benjamin & Raubitschek 1959, 65-85.

20 · roman imperial bases

which as he himself pointed out is not unfailingly accurate.26 These inscriptions fall in two groups. The first and largest consists of about 600 monuments that lack description altogether, or are described in terms so vague as to preclude determination of the type of monument involved. Often this is no longer possible because of the present state of the monument; but in many instances, especially with regard to the inscriptions in the older corpora, it is simple negligence on the part of the editors. The other group consists of inscriptions cut on what is described as tabulae or plaques of stone. These may have been deliberately sawn from a larger block of stone for secondary use, even for display in museums as is the case for the inscriptions in the Lapidarium of the Vatican Museum, but normally they were meant to be affixed to built-up bases or otherwise non-monolithic structures. The problem with the second criterion is that monuments other than statue bases employ inscriptions that follow exactly the same schema. This is especially pronounced for Latin inscriptions, where the dative case for the name of the emperor was used not only for statue bases, but also for altars, milestones and building inscriptions. Statue bases with Greek inscriptions can more easily be detected, because to my knowledge no other types of monument use the accusative formula. Whenever a reliable description of the stone is lacking, it is necessary to take into consideration all the available information concerning dimensions, layout of the inscription on the stone, size of the letters and content of the inscription; and, based on comparison with other monuments identified as statue bases, in each case to judge whether the monument could have served as a statue base.27 This method, of course, is open to mistakes, and a number of entries in the catalogue undoubtedly should not have been included, while some statue bases probably have been unjustly excluded. Given the number of statue bases, however, this inaccuracy should not have any impact on the conclusions drawn from the material unless the figures involved are exceedingly small, in which case caution at any rate should be taken.

Aberrant formulations Whilst close to 90% of the inscriptions in the catalogue follow the standard pattern for honorific inscriptions described above, Stuart’s criteria do not take 26. Stuart 1938, 14. 27. For a discussion of the construction of statue bases, see Alföldy 1984 and Fabre, Mayer & Rodà 1984, 11-21.


into account the remaining 10% that belong either with certainty, or with a high degree of probability, to monuments that served as statue bases but for a variety of reasons employ aberrant formulations. Since these inscriptions have not been discussed before in the general context of imperial statue bases, it is necessary to present the various types and the reason for their inclusion in the catalogue.

The use of the dative case in Greek The commonest deviation from the standard formula for honorific inscriptions on statue bases is the use of the dative case in Greek for the name formula of the emperor. The 135 examples of this can be divided into three categories. Firstly, the form of the Greek inscriptions could be flavoured by the Latin practice of using the dative case. This is most obvious in the bilingual inscriptions, where both the Latin and Greek texts normally employ the same case (p. 27). It is also frequently found among dedications with Greek inscriptions erected in predominantly Latin-speaking areas in the West (Antoninus Pius 10, 15; Marcus Aurelius 1, 2, 9), as well as in cities in the East with a strong presence of Latin speakers. Secondly, buildings dedicated in the name of the emperor in Greek inscriptions take the dative case, and monuments that served as statue bases but whose physical form resembles that of buildings, such as arches and city gates, therefore always follow the pattern for building inscriptions and employ the dative case. One monument, an architrave in Perge with an inscription for Claudius in the accusative case, was long believed to pertain to an arch (Claudius 145).28 New excavations on the site have shown that the arch according to the newly found inscription was instead dedicated to Domitian and the deified Vespasian and Titus (Vespasian 70; Titus 61; Domitian 61). The nature of the monument for Claudius remains obscure. Even monuments that were much closer in form to statue bases, and which served no other purpose, like the pillar on the Athenian Agora originally constructed as a monument for Attalos II of Pergamum but later re-dedicated to Tiberius (Tiberius 89),29 could employ the dative case. Finally, the dative case could be used to give the dedication religious overtones and connotations, since the dative case was generally reserved for statues of

28. Merkelbach & ahin 1988, 110, no. 10. 29. Vanderpool 1959, 86-90.


gods as distinguished from honorific statues with inscriptions in the accusative case.30 One particularly interesting example of this is found among the statues erected in the temple consecrated to Vespasian in Kestros in Cilicia. The cult statue of Vespasian placed centrally against the back wall of the cella stood on a base with an inscription in the dative case, as would be expected for a cult statue (Vespasian 76). On both sides of the cult image stood statues of his sons, and later those of successive emperors lined the side walls of the cella; but unlike the original cult statue, all of these were accompanied by inscriptions in the accusative case. In only two instances do we find the influence reversed in the form of the accusative case used in Latin inscriptions (Augustus 194; Antoninus Pius 275). Both bases stem from the interior of Asia Minor, where neither Latin nor Greek inscriptions had long traditions. The inscription for Augustus from Lystra is described as a pedestal, and although consecravit in l. 5-6 is unusual for a statue base, it has parallels in Asia Minor (Antoninus Pius 217). The other inscription lacks description. Two further such monuments for Caracalla, Julia Soaemias and Julia Mammaea, which beyond doubt served as statue bases, are attested in Pergamum.31

The use of the nominative case The name of the emperor in the nominative case could be used both in Latin and in Greek as a label under a statue that formed part of a large ensemble of statues with a common dedicatory inscription. An illustrative example is the numerous bases in Eleusis, which may have been placed on the arches outside the entrance to the sanctuary or, in analogy to the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus in Olympia, could have been placed on the nymphaeum identified next to the southern arch (Hadrian 247; Marcus Aurelius 191).32 Other examples are the group of statue bases for deified emperors erected in Thugga in the third century AD (Augustus 118; Vespasian 42-43; Trajan 91; Hadrian 160; Marcus Aurelius 170), and the labels under the reliefs placed between the columns in the two upper storeys on the two porticoes

30. Mitford 1947, 224; Veyne 1962, 49-98; Price 1984, 179. 31. Wiegand 1932, 54-55, no. 7 a-b. 32. Clinton (1989, 56-68) proposes two arches with imperial statues. Fittschen (1999, 122126) suggests the nymphaeum as a possible location for the bases. For the nymphaeum at Olympia, see Bol 1984.


flanking the processional way from the propylon to the imperial temple in Aphrodisias (Claudius 115; Nero 40, 41, and possibly 39). 22 further monuments with the emperor’s name in the nominative have been included in the catalogue. These have predominantly been described as statue bases or arches (Trajan 72). The exceptions are inscriptions with the name of Tiberius in Aenona and Chalkis (Tiberius 48, 91), which entirely lack description. The portrait character of the latter is implied by the presence of an identical monument for Gaius Caesar.33 It is not entirely clear why the nominative case was chosen for these bases, but they may originally have belonged to a group of bases such as the one in Eleusis. Naturally, the bases may have supported objects other than statues of the emperors, and the emperor may in fact have been the dedicator. This might be the case for three bases found in the theatre in Lepcis Magna (Hadrian 149-151). Except for the base for Tiberius in Iader (Tiberius 49), erected by the seventh and eleventh legions, none of the statue bases with the name of the emperor in the nominative case mention the name of the dedicator.

The use of the ablative case The name of the emperor in the ablative case is frequently used in Latin building inscriptions to indicate the date of construction, and this must be its function in the inscription on the city gate erected by Sex. Iulius Frontinus in Hierapolis (Domitian 54). The gate, however, probably also carried a portrait statue of Domitian. The inexplicable use of the ablative case on a base for Caligula in Narbonensis (Caligula 6) might be a simple spelling error.34 Four inscriptions from Thamugadi that employ the ablative case have been included in the catalogue (Antoninus Pius 145-147; Marcus Aurelius 131). All are described as bases, and have been accepted as such by Zimmer in his study of the statues bases from the forum of Thamugadi.35 The three inscriptions for Antoninus Pius mention a paved street constructed from public funds, and we cannot be absolutely certain that the statues placed on the bases were in fact those of the emperor.

33. IG XII, 9, 940. 34. Caesare for Caesari in l. 1. 35. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 78, no. T 21; 82-83, T 45.


Inscriptions with deviating compositions The inscriptions normally begin with the name of either the emperor or the dedicator. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The most important are the 38 Greek inscriptions headed by the formula ∆Agaqhì tuvchi. All except one of these – a marble gable with a bust of Commodus that continues with uJpe;r and the genitive case (Commodus 89)36 – otherwise follow the standard pattern for honorary inscriptions. ÔUpe;r and the genitive case is found on six further monuments all described as statue bases (Augustus 175; Tiberius 124, 134; Caligula 26; Vespasian 62). In these instances the bases most probably carried imperial statues, but otherwise the formula most commonly appears in building inscriptions on buildings dedicated on behalf of the emperor.37 Pro salute or the Greek equivalent uJpe;r swthriva~ normally indicates altars, but in a few cases the formulation was employed on arches (Hadrian 411; Marcus Aurelius 133; Lucius Verus 83). One monument described as a base, although it was more likely an altar, carried an inscription specifying that the dedication consisted of both imagines and an ara (Marcus Aurelius 103; Lucius Verus 69). The altar probably carried the inscription, and the statues stood in the immediate vicinity. In Stratonicaea an inscription begins by stating the reason for the dedication – apparently that Hadrian had carried out a successful hunt in the city’s territory (Hadrian 360). Other bases begin with a dedication to a deity in the dative case: Aphrodite at Paphos (Tiberius 148150) and Artemis at Ephesus (Trajan 144), or they are joint dedications to one or more gods and the emperor (Hadrian 362; Antoninus Pius 105).

The language of the inscriptions Latin was the official language of the administration of the Roman Empire. However, thanks to its wide use, Greek attained a status almost equal to that of Latin. Other languages were spoken in various parts of the Empire, and some, like Neo-Punic, found their way into the epigraphical record of the first centuries AD. Hieroglyphs also continued to be used for religious writings until late antiquity, but none of these languages are attested on imperial

36. Premerstein 1911, 45-48. 37. This type is particularly common in Egypt. For example Milne 1905, no. 176.


statue bases.38 The epigraphical evidence shows that Latin was the predominant language, at least for writing on stone, north and west of a line running approximately from the point on the Adriatic coast where the Via Egnatia begins to the mouth of the Danube and in the landscapes west of Cyrenaica in North Africa. The province of Moesia Inferior is divided evenly between Latin and Greek inscriptions.39 Statue bases with Latin inscriptions, a total of 1,309, completely dominate in the western part of the Empire, and in addition 129 bases with Latin inscriptions have been found in provinces where Greek or other languages were otherwise more common. These bases are concentrated in two settings: Roman colonies and areas with a strong military presence. In the province of Iudaea, for example, four out of five attested imperial statue bases are in Latin. A military unit dedicated one in Samaria (Hadrian 408), and the decuriones in Colonia Aelia Capitolina another (Antoninus Pius 288). Likewise, the other provinces in the East had large percentages of statue bases with Latin inscriptions: Syria (54%), Cappadocia (33%), Galatia (45%), and Aegyptus (23%). Apart from these predominantly military dedications, we find statue bases with Latin inscriptions in the provincial capitals of Ephesus and Gortyn, and in the Caesarean and Augustan colonies: Alexandria Troas, Ancyra, Antiochia en Pisidiae, Berytus, Knossos, Comana, Corinthus, Germa, Iconium, Lystra, Olbasa, Parium, and Philippi. In many of these colonies, Latin was persistently used for centuries after the original influx of Latin colonists, at least for official documents.40 In Athens the colonies of Caesarea Antiochia and Iulia Diensium (Hadrian 207, 208) employed Latin for their contribution to the statues of Hadrian in the Olympieion. To complete the picture, we find statue bases with Latin inscriptions in the civitas Stektorion in the province of Asia, and in the municipium of Stobi in Macedonia. The use of Greek is almost completely confined to the area east of the language division line. Of the 975 inscriptions in Greek, the only exceptions are eleven bases in Rome and two more in Italy that were dedicated either by Greek cities or in two instances by Greek individuals (Claudius 13; Titus 14). 38. Hieroglyphs are frequently found on statues and bases of the Ptolemaic kings (Stanwick 2002), and also appear in connection with reliefs depicting the emperor as pharaoh, for example at Philae. 39. Marrou 1965, 377 shows a map with an indication of the approximate language boundary. 40. Corinth serves as an example. Here the preferred language gradually changes from Latin to Greek throughout the first and second centuries AD (Kent 1966, 18-19). Among the imperial statue bases, 14 of 17 inscriptions are in Latin.


25 inscriptions, predominantly from Asia Minor and the northeastern provinces, are bilingual. In most instances the Greek text is an exact translation of a Latin original with the emperor’s name in the dative case in both Greek and Latin.41 Only one inscription on a base found in Sagalassos (Claudius 146) translates the meaning of the text and employs the accusative case in the Greek text. Other inscriptions use the Latin formula for the emperor’s name, but have the name of the dedicator, usually a Greek city, in Greek alone or in conjunction with a Latin translation.42 This could indicate that the name formula of the emperor in Latin was readily identifiable even for a Greekspeaking audience,43 while the other elements had to be in Greek to ensure comprehension.

Types of statue base No typology exists for statue bases from the Roman imperial period like those devised for the statue bases from the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods.44 What follows is not an attempt to produce a typology for statue bases

41. Augustus 191; Tiberius 152; Caligula 20; Claudius 121; Nero 44, 52; Titus 53; Domitian 54 (ablative case in Latin), 57; Nerva 45; Trajan 175; Hadrian 84, 287, 288, 373; Antoninus Pius 66, 67. 42. Augustus 6, 167; Tiberius 7; Hadrian 196, 217. 43. Basic knowledge of the imperial nomenclature in Latin could be learned from coins with Latin inscriptions that circulated freely in all parts of the Empire. Even if only a fraction of the population in antiquity was truly literate, the number of people that could read simple formulaic inscriptions must have been many times larger. The content of the inscriptions on imperial statue bases certainly had an audience, and could certainly be understood by the peers of the dedicator, who often use the bases for self-glorification, see Eck 1994, 650-662. On epigraphic literacy in general, see Harris 1983, 87-111; Harris 1989 and Franklin 1991, 77-98. 44. Bulle 1898; Jacob-Felsch 1969; Schmidt 1995. Bonneville’s (1984, 117-152) proposal for a system to achieve a uniform description of primarily Latin epigraphical monuments divides inscriptions on stone into 14 different categories, each with a number of subgroups. This typology focuses on the form of the monuments rather than their function, and the statue bases in this study fall within four of the fourteen different categories. Type 4 “piédestaux”, for example, only include monolithic bases and bases with a monolithic shaft, either circular or polygonal with a moulded bottom and plinth. Built-up bases with affixed marble slabs can be found under type 8 and 9 “Pierres et plaques moulurées et non moulurées” which also include a broad range of other types of inscription. The best discussion so far of western Latin statue bases is that of Alföldy (1984, 23-35) concerning the bases from →


of the Roman imperial period, being rather intended as an introduction to the variety of different types of base that were used for imperial statues, together with an evaluation of their frequency. Given the strict hierarchy that existed for dedications with regard to placement in towns, materials used and monument size, it is reasonable to expect that statue bases for emperors deviated in a number of respects from those erected for persons of lower social standing, and a typology for imperial statue bases does not necessarily apply to statue bases in general or vice versa.

Bases for life-size standing statues By far the most frequent type employed is a free-standing base for a life-size standing (or sitting) statue. These could be constructed in a variety of ways. The simplest consisted of a square or cylindrical45 monolithic block of marble or sandstone46, on which the plinth of the statue was attached for marble statues (Fig. 1). Bronze statues were normally fastened directly into sockets on top of the base (Fig. 2). Some form of moulding was often carved at the top and bottom of the base (front page). The mouldings were very frequently carved separately and fastened with dowels to a monolithic shaft, in which case we are unfortunately often left with nothing but the shaft, and no means of determining the material of the statue (Fig. 3).47 The same is true of orthostat bases in the Hellenistic tradition, which were still used in the Roman period in Greece and Asia Minor. The second large group of bases consists of built-up cores to which marble slabs were fastened (Figs. 4-5). Unless the slab with the dedicatory inscription is found in situ or with great certainty can be associated with

→ Venetia et Histria. Here a differentiation between bases and altars with similar inscriptions is achieved on the basis of the cuttings on top of the monuments, and slabs from built-up bases are identified by their dimensions and the layout of the inscription. 45. The catalogue includes approximately 60 cylindrical bases. This form was particularly popular in Asia Minor and in Achaea, where round bases had a long tradition, but they are also found in Southern Spain and in North Africa. Polygonal base shafts that are common in late antiquity have only been attested in one instance for imperial statue bases from the fist two centuries AD (Commodus 96). 46. The choice of stone naturally depends largely on what was available locally. Granite is reported in Spain (Titus 25; Lucius Verus 59) and in Egypt (Caligula 28). In Syria basalt was used (Lucius Verus 135; Commodus 108). 47. For a number of drawings of the impressions on tops of base shafts without the top moulding, see Alföldy 1984, 167-169.


Fig. 1. Statue base in the National Museum in Athens with oval depression for the plinth of a marble statue (Author’s photo).

Fig. 2. Base for a statue of Claudius (Claudius 87) in the Athenian Agora with typical traces from a bronze statue (Author’s photo).

Types of Monuments · 29

a base-like structure, identification of the type of monument to a large extent rests on the formulation and layout of the inscription. However, the dimensions of the slab with the inscription often correspond to those of the front of the base, i.e. tall and narrow unlike building inscriptions, which are generally wider than they are tall.48 Obviously built-up bases were far more susceptible to damage than monolithic ones, and the slabs are often rather fragmentary. Not all built-up bases were covered with marble slabs. Sometimes bronze sheets were used instead. In areas with a dearth of stone suitable for cutting inscriptions, this would be a particularly attractive solution, but the use may have been more widespread as shown by its occurrence in Rome on a base for Tiberius dedicated by the Aenatores tubicines liticines cornicines Romani (Tiberius 1). Because of the high scrap value of bronze, very few of these monuments have survived. Bronze sheets pertaining to imperial statue bases have been found in Augustomagus in Lugdunensis (Claudius 47),49 Fodinae in Baetica (Nerva 19), and Herculaneum (Claudius 8). Other less durable media for inscriptions may have existed as well – inscriptions painted on stucco, for example. However, in Pompeii and Herculaneum, where such inscriptions have been found in great numbers, none were painted on statue bases.50 In Italy built-up bases covered with stone slabs seem to have been more common than elsewhere judging from the large number of monuments found here described merely as tabulae. These bases are generally taller than they are wide, but depending on the setting, they may also be low and squat, such as the bases on the podium in the Caserma dei Vigili in Ostia (front page). The height of the bases in Italy and the western provinces generally ranges from 0.80 to 1.40 m. The tallest complete bases for a standing statue in Italy, a base in Puteoli (Marcus Aurelius 35), measures 1.74 m, while there are more examples of significantly taller bases in western North Africa. A pair of bases for statues of Marcus Aurelius and the deified Lucius Verus erected in the basilica in Cuicul (Marcus Aurelius 99; Lucius Verus 67) measure about 2.40 m. Bases over 2.00 metres tall are an exception, however. 48. Of course this is only a general rule. Built-up bases had the same variety of form as other bases, and in addition the plaque with the inscription did not necessarily cover the entire front of the base. Even busts could stand on built-up bases, as shown by the find of a bust of Cato in Volubilis (Lahusen & Formigli 2001, 42-44). This bronze bust with an inscription on its lower part stood on a tall, very narrow brick base that originally must have been covered in plaster. 49. Piganiol 1959, 450-457; Boon 1980, 117-152. 50. For inscriptions on bronze plaques, see France-Lanord 1960; Eck 1997, 195-207. For the unlikelihood of monumental inscriptions on wood, see Eck 1998, 203-217.


Fig. 3. Statue base for Trajan in Delphi (Trajan 110) with separately sculpted mouldings top and bottom (Author’s photo).

In the Greek East relatively few bases of the built-up type exist.51 Instead, orthostat bases seem to have been used to save expencive building material, especially for large monuments. Throughout the period two different formats of base were in use: the taller narrow type common in the West (Fig. 3), and a much lower type with a height of between 40 and 65 cm (Fig. 2). Although there are a few monuments with a height above 2 m in Asia Minor (Augustus

51. Examples are attested in Pergamum (Trajan 168), Ephesus (Nerva 33) and in Corinth (Nerva 25); all places with a strong Italian presence.


Fig. 4. Build-up bases in a building (Augusteum?) adjoining the forum in Lucus Feroniae (Author’s photo).

182; Antoninus Pius 263; Marcus Aurelius 248; Lucius Verus 118; Commodus 104), the tall and narrow bases tend to be slightly lower than those encountered in the West. Common for all statue bases used for approximately life-size statues is that their width generally ranges from 50 to 75 cm. Most bases are square, but often material and transport costs could be lowered by making the bases slightly rectangular. The letter size varies according to the language used. Of the 658 monuments described as statue bases with Greek inscriptions, only eight contain letters taller than 7 cm, and on 85% the letters range between 2 and 5 cm. While Greek bases almost always employ a homogeneous letter size throughout the inscription (Fig. 2-3), bases with Latin inscriptions often use very different letter sizes to emphasise important elements in the inscription, typically the


Fig. 5. 10 cm. thick marble slab from the front of a build-up base for Trajan (Trajan 37) from the Augusteum? in Lucus Feroniae (Author’s photo).

names of the emperor and the dedicator (Fig. 6). The less significant elements of the inscriptions are normally written with letters of approximately 4 to 5 cm; the name of the emperor normally appears in letters 6 to 8 cm high.


Fig. 6. Statue base for Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 20) from Fidenae, now in Museo Nazionale Romano, with varying letter sizes for the different parts of the inscription (Author’s photo).


Equestrian statue bases Equestrian statues ranked above standing statues in the hierarchy of honours,52 and their majestic size and the fact that they could be viewed from all sides made them ideally suited to define and dominate open spaces like fora. The equestrian statues in the Forum of Augustus and of Trajan and the Forum Romanum serve as excellent examples of this. Thus equestrian statues would seem an obvious medium for representations of the emperor. However, only 17 statue bases for equestrian statues of the emperors of the first and second centuries AD have been identified.53 In one instance, the inscription mentions that the statue was an equestrian statue (Marcus Aurelius 135), but otherwise the size and especially the depth of the base or the marks of hooves on top of the base are the only criteria for identification. This of course means that if only the part of a monument with the inscription has been preserved, it is not normally possible to identify it as an equestrian base, and we must expect the actual number of such bases to be somewhat higher than the extant examples indicate. It is worth pointing out that the percentage of statues for emperors among the equestrian statues does not exceed the percentage of imperial statues among standing statues.54 There are three types of equestrian base. One consists of a built-up core on which marble or limestone slabs are affixed. Bases of this type were preferred in the West, for example the two bases in the forum in Veleia (Claudius 27; Vespasian 14). In the East the Hellenistic tradition for orthostat bases constructed from several blocks continued (Tiberius 99), but equestrian statues with the horse standing on its hind legs only could also be placed on a single block (Claudius 94). Apart from this last example, which is rather shallow, the depths of the extant examples range from 1.44 m (Claudius 119) to 3.78 m (Antoninus Pius 110), the widths being from 0.60 m to 2.00 m.55 Like equestrian statues in general, the majority of the imperial equestrian statue bases belong 52. Cic. Phil. 9.13. 53. Augustus 52 (uncertain), 105, 192; Tiberius 71, 99, 101, 130; Claudius 27, 63 (uncertain), 94, 119; Vespasian 14; Trajan 62 (uncertain); Hadrian 114 (uncertain); Antoninus Pius 110; Marcus Aurelius 135; Commodus 99 (uncertain). For equestrian statues, see Bergemann 1990; 1992, 315-324. 54. Less than one-quarter of the epigraphical material relating to equestrian statues of the imperial period concerns statues of the imperial family (Bergemann 1990, 119-155). In Venetia and Histria, imperial statues made up 20% of the total (Alföldy 1984, 36-38), and in the forum in Cuicul more than 60% (Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 53). 55. For the size of equestrian monuments, see also Bergemann 1990, 119.


to the Julio-Claudian period (65%). After the reign of Claudius we only have six examples, so the decline in the number of equestrian statues did not result from this honour becoming a prerogative of the emperor, although after the second century AD hardly any examples of non-imperial equestrian statues are known.56 They seem to have gone out of use for other reasons. At the eastern end of the forum in Thamugadi, seven extremely large statue bases made of orthostat blocks have been identified. The largest, a monument for Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 148), has a width of no less than 6.25 m and a depth of 3.90 m, and another for Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 131) a width of 4.10 m. Zimmer proposes reasonably that the bases carried quadrigae. In Hierapolis a recently published inscription on a base constructed of at least four blocks mentions the erection of a a{rma, which in this connection can only mean that the statue of the emperor stood in a quadriga. While such statue groups certainly stood on many arches, the bases in Thamugadi and Hierapolis are to my knowledge the only certainly identified bases for quadrigae.57

Arches, columns and pillars According to Pliny the Elder, the function of columns and arches was to elevate the statue of the honorand above other mortals.58 While columns are rare – included in the catalogue are only the well-known columns of Trajan and Antoninus Pius (Trajan 13; Antoninus Pius 17); a third column in Rome still to be seen today, that of Marcus Aurelius, does not have its base with the inscription preserved59 – triumphal and honorary arches and other types of gate and portal imitating the architecture of the triumphal arch are prolific in all parts of the Empire.60 Most of (if not all) the arches dedicated to the

56. Bergemann 1990, 3, n. 22. 57. Bergemann 1988, 115-128. 58. Pliny, HN 34.27: “Columnarum ratio erat attolli super ceteros mortales, quod et arcus significant novicio invento”. 59. Columns as statue bases have been discussed most recently by Jordan-Ruwe (1995). See also Settis 1988 and Vogel 1973. 60. The catalogue of Kähler (1939, 373-493) is still the most complete collection of Roman arches. De Maria (1988) updates and expands the Italian evidence, see also the review by Kleiner 1989b, 195-206. Other recent works on arches include Pensa et al. 1979; Kleiner 1985; Pfanner 1983; Hesberg 1992, 277-293; Wallace-Hadrill 1990, 143-181; Eck & Foerster 1999, 294-313; Kader 1996; Küpper-Böhm 1996; Roehmer 1997.


emperor seem to have carried some form of sculptural representation of the emperor, and thus fall under the definition of statue bases. Unlike most other arches, the one example of an arch where the presence of a statue of the emperor is disputed, the arch of Hadrian in Athens, does not carry a dedication to the emperor but instead a statement about the two sections of the city that the arch separates, and is thus excluded from the catalogue.61 Most of the 106 statues from 86 arches in the catalogue have been identified by association with finds of architectural fragments. 20 of the inscriptions pertaining to arches specify that the object was an arch. Six inscriptions also mention the statue placed on top.62 To the 86 identified arches should perhaps be added a small number of inscriptions described as lintels, architraves and epistyles that might have belonged to arches. Pillars were a favoured form of pedestal for statues of kings during the Hellenistic period, but they seem to have fallen out of use during the imperial period, and we know of no new pillars constructed for statues of emperors. However, existing pillars could be reused for imperial statues, like the pillar in front of the Stoa of Attalus II in Athens, which was supplied during the reign of Tiberius with a new inscription and possibly a new or re-modelled quadriga on top.63

Statues in architectural settings Many imperial statues were placed in an architectural setting. Sometimes they stood on separately worked bases, as can be observed on the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus in Olympia (Antoninus Pius 201; Lucius Verus 108), the Nymphaeum Traiani in Ephesus (Nerva 35; Trajan 143), or in the scenae frons of the theatre in Aphrodisias (Domitian 37). Statues that stood in niches, on the other hand, were accompanied by an inscription on a marble plaque affixed

61. Adams 1989, 10-16; Post 1999, 179. 62. Arch and statue mentioned in the inscription: Trajan 86; Hadrian 142 (statue and quadriga); Antoninus Pius 109, 179; Marcus Aurelius 132, 152. Arch but not statue mentioned in the inscription: Augustus 164; Tiberius 116, 79 (inscription on what is described as a lintel. The inscription concerns the dedication a forum, a paved area, an altar of Augustus, a temple of Saturn and an arch. It seems reasonable to associate the inscription with the arch); Claudius 74, 75, 117; Vespasian 56; Hadrian 121, 147, 152; Marcus Aurelius 133, 152, 156; Lucius Verus 83, 91. 63. Tiberius 93. See, Vanderpool 1959, 86-90.


Fig. 7. Exedra opposite the theatre in Emerita Augusta with statues of the imperial family placed in niches in the wall. The fastening for the inscribed plaques are visible below the statues (Trillmich, W. et al. 1993. Hispania Antiqua. Mainz, taf. 49c).

under the niche. An excellent example of such an arrangement of imperial statues has been preserved in the theatre complex in Emerita. In a small room attached to the peristyle opposite the theatre, seven statues were placed in


niches.64 None of the dedicatory inscriptions are extant, but their positions below the niches can still clearly be discerned (Fig. 7). The posthumous inscription for Vespasian in Misenum that was reused from a Domitianic dedication (Vespasian 8; Domitian 5) almost certainly belonged under the niche that held a nude statue of Vespasian in the back wall of the meeting house of the Augustales.65 The inscription measures 30 by 93 cm, and its portrait character would thus not be immediately recognisable if it had not been found near the statue. The same can be said of the 143 cm wide inscription for Tiberius from the theatre in Herculaneum (Tiberius 13), which may have been fastened to the wall under the bronze statue of Tiberius found there. In the South Bath in Perge, two wide panels found in the apodyterium were fastened below niches that held statues of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (Marcus Aurelius 238; Commodus 95).66 One could suspect that many of the monuments described as tabulae whose measurements do not comply with the average size of statue bases may have been placed under niches holding statues.

Other types of monument In Cilicia and Syria there was a local tradition for placing statues on consoles high above the ground along the colonnaded streets that were a common feature in the area. Even though this position often rendered the inscriptions virtually unreadable, they still comply with the standard pattern for honorary inscriptions. Consoles with imperial statues are known in Olba (Tiberius 145), Pompeiopolis (Augustus 196, 197; Hadrian 401; Commodus 105), Palmyra (Hadrian 407), and Apamea ad Orontem (Antoninus Pius 282; Marcus Aurelius 251; Lucius Verus 134) (Fig. 8). Reliefs with portraits of emperors accompanied by dedicatory inscriptions have been included when the dedication concerns the emperor portrayed. These are the reliefs from the sebasteion in Aphrodisias (Claudius 115; Nero 40, 41), the fragmented relief with a portrait of Lucius Verus in Ostia (Antoninus Pius 36; Marcus Aurelius 27; Lucius Verus 16), and the pediment with a portrait of Commodus in Philadelphia (Commodus 89). Generally the object of the dedicatory inscriptions in the catalogue is the statue of the emperor. However, a few inscriptions recording the dedication 64. Fuchs 1987, 167-169. 65. Franciscis 1991. 66. IGSK 54, 148-149.


of buildings have been included – either because statues were closely associated with the building in question, or because a statue of the emperor is mentioned in the inscription together with the structure dedicated. To the first category belong two monuments described as aediculae with statues of Vespasian and his two sons in Side67 and Lamos in Cilicia68 (Vespasian 72, 77). To the second belong a macellum in Tolocaesarea in which the statue of Hadrian evidently had a prominent position since it is mentioned before the building in the inscription (Hadrian 362),69 and two temples with statues in Uzaae and Volubilis (Trajan 92; Antoninus Pius 102). Finally the horrea in Myra with busts of Hadrian and Sabina inserted over the inscription (Hadrian 371) and the Tropaeum Augusti (Augustus 80) have been included, although it is not absolutely certain that the second monument actually carried a representation of Augustus.70

Literary testimony for imperial statue bases and inscriptions While imperial statues are mentioned frequently in the literary sources,71 there are far fewer references to statue bases and their inscriptions.72 Among the few examples that we do have, there is a wide variety of monument types. The smallest is a bust of the young Octavian with an inscription in iron letters naming him Thurinus, seen by Suetonus;73 the largest the colossus of Nero in his Golden House,74 which was later changed into a statue of Sol before being revamped as Commodus in the guise of Heracles. At least in this last instance an inscription following the normal pattern for dedicatory inscriptions must have

67. Mansel 1962, 198-208. 68. Bean and Mitford 1970, 208-209. 69. Hadrian 366: ajnevªsº⁄thsan Tolokaisavreªi~ ⁄ to;n ajndriavntºa kai; to; ªbavq⁄ron kai; to; mºakevllon ejk⁄ªtw`n th`~ kºw`mh~ porw`n. The most probable reconstruction, but of course other objects than a statue could come into question. 70. Lamboglia 1938. 71. Lahusen 1984, 61-91, 111-120. 72. For inscriptions in literary sources, see Stein 1931. 73. Suet. Aug. 7.1, with comments by Gross 1980, 126-34. A pair of bronze busts of Augustus and Livia with inscriptions engraved on the bases (Augustus 75) have been found in Neuilly-le-Réal, now in Paris, Louvre Br 28 & 29. 74. Bergmann 1994.


Fig. 8. Two of the originally three consoles carrying statues of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus on the colonnaded street in Apamea ad Orontem (Antoninus Pius 282; Marcus Aurelius 255) (Author’s photo).

been present, since Commodus, according to Herodian, had the title Germanicus replaced by the number of his victories as a gladiator.75 Another lost monument known through literary sources and coins is the columna rostrata of Octavian in the Forum Romanum, crowned by a golden statue voted by the senate after his victory over Sex. Pompeius in 36 BC. The base carried an inscription, part of which is repeated by Appian.76 To the ancient spectator, the statue and base constituted a single inseparable entity; and like statues, which have often

75. Hdn. 1.15.9: “… uJpogravya~ thì bavsei aujtou` a}~ eijwvqasi basilika;~ kai; patrwvia~ ajnti; de; Germanikou` monomavcou~ cilivou~ nikhvsanto~”. Similarly in SHA Comm. 17.10: “… ac suum imposuit et titulum more solito subscripsit, ita ut illum Gladiatorium et Effeminatum non praetermitteret”.


only been recorded because of their exceptional size or material costs, inscriptions have been handed down because of their unusual content or their remarkable afterlife. Of particular interest is the inscription from a triumphal statue of Domitian, mentioned by Suetonius,77 which was torn off in a storm and fell into a nearby grave shortly before the death of the emperor. Even though the story is most probably an invention, it illustrates that to a contemporary Roman audience it was not an unfamiliar phenomenon for inscriptions to fall off their bases – the point of the anecdote being where the inscription eventually ended up. Evidently the base must have been built up and covered with plaques, in this case most likely of bronze, since marble plaques would hardly have been carried away by a storm however thin they may have been cut. Another example of removal of an inscription is a base for a statue of Augustus on the Capitol that was struck by lightning in AD 14, damaging the inscription and leaving only aesari for Caesari, which meant god in Etruscan.78 The missing C supposedly indicated the time of his death 100 days later. Other references are to the content of inscriptions on statues in general. Inscriptions from statues of Galba, for example, evidently postulated a family relation to Q. Catulus,79 although this cannot be confirmed in the epigraphical record. Statues of Titus with inscriptions, again according to Suetonius,80 were erected in great numbers during his term as military tribune in Germania and Britannia. This has not been confirmed archaeologically either. The only extant inscription from a statue base mentioned in the literary sources is the one from the Tropaeum Augusti near Nicaea, which Pliny the Elder reproduced in full (Augustus 80).81

76. App. B Civ. 5.130: “ejpigrafh;n e[cousa, o{ti æth;n eijrhvnhn ejstasiasmevnhn ejk pollou` sunevsthse katav te gh`n kai; qavlassan”. See also Jordan-Ruwe 1995, 64-66. The phrase by land and sea occurs in inscriptions for Sextus’ father Pompeius Magnus in the East (see Amela Valverde 2001, 87-102), for example on statue bases in Mytilene (IG XII, 2, 202) and in Miletupolis (IGSK 26, 24), and we find it in other inscriptions for Augustus (Augustus 175: pavsh~ gh`~ kai; qalavssh~ ejpovpthn, 200: to;n pavsh~ gh`~ kai; pavsh~ qalavssh~ a[rconta, 180, 187). The phrase is used once on a base for Tiberius, but then disappears until the reign of Trajan. 77. Suet. Dom. 15.2: “E basi statuae triumphalis titulus excussus vi procellae in monimentum proximum decidit”. 78. Suet. Aug. 97.2 and Dio Cass. 56.29.4. For a similar incident, this time concerning a Greek inscription, see Dio Cass. 76.11.2. 79. Suet. Galb. 2. 80. Suet. Tit. 4.1. 81. Lamboglia 1938. Pliny HN. 3.136-137.


Statue types and materials used for imperial statues Imperial images were transmitted using almost any material imaginable. Owing to poor conditions for preservation of organic materials in most areas of the Roman Empire, painted images – one of the commonest types of portrait in antiquity – have been lost almost entirely. No painted images of the emperors under consideration have been preserved. The style may be glimpsed from the example in Berlin showing Septimius Severus with his wife and children.82 The emperor’s portrait appeared on the obverse of the majority of the coins in circulation in the Empire. It could also be found on ceramics83 and silverware,84 lamps,85 cameos86 and medallions, and in the military the standards carried their portraits, as did the weaponry in some instances.87 Buildings and commemorative monuments carried reliefs showing the exploits of the emperor,88 or had decorative elements with imperial portraits like imagines clipeatae.89 Portraits in the round range in size from miniature portraits90 and other transportable images91 to busts and life-size statues, or portraits of truly colossal proportions.92 The portraits of the emperor that were accompanied by inscribed bases represent only a fraction of these different representations, namely the life-size or larger standing, sitting or riding statue. There are three basic types: statues of the emperor wearing the toga (togata) or with his head covered by the toga (togata velato capite) in his capacity of pontifex maximus, cuirassed statues (loricata) stressing the aspects of the emperor as general, and nude or seminude statues of the emperor in a heroic pose or in the guise of a god.93

82. McCann 1968, 79-80. See also Euzennat 1994, 111-115; Blanck 1969b. 83. Facsády 1996, 21-25. 84. The Boscoreale Cup with a portrait of the triumphant Tiberius, Héron de Villefosse 1899. 85. Buchholz 1961, 173-187. 86. Megow 1987. 87. Exhibition Catalogue Berlin 1988, 558-560, no. 383-386. Among these “The sword of Tiberius” in the British Museum, inv. no. PS 107808. 88. Bonanno 1976. 89. Winkes 1969; Winkes 1999, 91-95; Budde 1965, 103-117. 90. Schneider 1976; Jucker 1964, 81-92. 91. Blanck 1971, 90-93. 92. Kreikenbom 1992. On the largest statue in antiquity – the Colossus of Nero, see Bergmann 1994. 93. For the use of statue types in general, see Wegner 1939, 285-287 and Niemeyer 1968, 14-20. Togate statues: Goette 1990. Cuirassed statues: Stemmer 1978. Heroic statues: Maderma 1988.


Statues mentioned in the inscriptions from statue bases In the original context it was normally quite obvious what the object of the dedication was, and consequently this information was superfluous in the dedicatory inscription. If, however, the dedicator wished to specify the conditions under which the dedication took place, or if the inscription was not placed immediately below the statue, the object could find its way into the inscription. Against this background, we should not expect the examples to constitute a representative selection of the monuments in existence. Since the statue bases under discussion for the most part carried life-size standing statues, it is not surprising that the most commonly used term in the Latin inscriptions is statua, which roughly translates to statue.94 In a few of the 43 occurrences, the type of statue dedicated is described in more detail. A statua triumphalis of Trajan was erected in Olvera in Baetica (Trajan 68), and a statue of Hadrian is specified as being seven foot tall (Hadrian 115). One inscription mentions an equestrian statue (Marcus Aurelius 135) erected in connection with the building of the basilica in Thugga, four others mention statues placed on arches (Hadrian 142; Antoninus Pius 109, 179; Marcus Aurelius 132). In Thugga, Nanneia Instania Fida dedicated two colossal statues (Marcus Aurelius 169; Lucius Verus 97). A newly elected sevir dedicated statuae sacrae of Antoninus Pius and his two sons because of the honour of office and out of gratitude for the city’s new aqueduct (Antoninus Pius 95; Marcus Aurelius 92; Lucius Verus 61). Three times we hear of statues that needed repair (Claudius 60; Tiberius 78 [aedem et statuas corruptas]; Marcus Aurelius 16 [vetustate corruptis]). Imago was used to denote a wide range of different types of portrait.95 In the ten instances where the word is mentioned on statue bases, however, the meaning seems to be bust or statuette, five of which were made of silver (Trajan 92; Hadrian 123; Antoninus Pius 65; Marcus Aurelius 66, Lucius Verus 38). A diminutive base (0.145 x 0.255 x 0.21 m) mentions an aedicula with an imago of Nero (Nero 3). If this image was placed on the base, it must have been a bust or a statuette. Another inscription, evidently from an altar dedicated to the wellbeing (pro salute) of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Marcus Aurelius 103, Lucius Verus 69), mentions that the dedicated objects included both the altar and imagines. Since there was more than one imago, those of the emperors seem more probable than personifications of Salus. These inscriptions imply 94. For Latin and Greek terminology for various types of portrait, see Roux 1962, 366-380; Daut 1975; Letta 1978, 3-19; Price 1984, 176-180. 95. Daut 1975.


that imago, at least when used on imperial statue bases, often referred to religious objects. One inscription refers to statues as signa (Augustus 51; Tiberius 38) placed in a temple. Because the marble slab on which this inscription is cut has three separate dedications to Augustus, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar (with later additions of Tiberius and Agrippa Posthumus), it was most probably affixed to a large base carrying the statues. Two terms for statue frequently found in the literary sources, simulacrum and effigies, are not attested on the statue bases in the catalogue.96 The two commonest Greek terms for statues, ajndria~v and a[galma, both denote life-size statues. The distinction between them seems to be one of context and function rather than one of type or material. ∆Andriav~, the slightly more frequent term (12 examples),97 refers to honorific statues, whereas a[galma (known in eight inscriptions)98 has generally been interpreted as meaning cult statue. Unfortunately the contexts of nearly all these bases have been lost, but the frequent use of the dative case in inscriptions referring to ajgavlmata supports the notion. However, the dative case was not restricted to cult statues – as seen from its use on a base for an ajndriav~ in Lyktos (Trajan 131). Eijkw`n, the vaguest term applied to imperial images, like imago denotes a likeness. It is only mentioned in one inscription (Trajan 188) for an image, probably a bust or miniature representation that was part of a larger dedication of four fluted columns, an iron door, three craters and three kantharoi.

Bronze or marble The vast majority of the extant portraits of emperors are made of marble. This does not reflect the situation in antiquity – marble portraits have simply survived better than metal ones. During the Hellenistic period marble generally seems to have been used for statues of deities, while honorific statues were far more often made of bronze.99 From this it has been inferred that marble 96. Plenty of examples in Lahusen 1984, 61-91. 97. Augustus 168; Claudius 131; Nero 32; Vespasian 18; Titus 18; Nerva 34; Trajan 131; Hadrian 273, 341, 362; Antoninus Pius 212, 260. 98. Tiberius 148; Trajan 197; Hadrian 267, 425; Antoninus Pius 14, 298; Marcus Aurelius 9; Commodus 93. 99. Discussion by Tuchelt 1979, 70-90. Tuchelt (1979, 76) found that 26 out of 30 bases for promagistrates in the province of Asia erected during the last century BC carried bronze statues. This tendency is confirmed by the evidence from Kos collected by Höghammer 1993, 68-70.


was the more valuable material, and that honorific statues in marble, because of their affinities with cult statues, also had religious significance.100 According to Lahusen the distinctive meaning of marble statues continued into the Roman period, and in his opinion this could explain why so many portraits of the imperial family in marble still exist compared with portraits of private individuals. The former could be erected in public, whereas the latter were presumably only erected in private houses and villas “wo es für das Material und die Form der Bildnisrepräsentation keine Einschränkungen gab”.101 Countless examples prove the incorrectness of this assumption, of course, and during the Roman period there does not seem to have been any connection between the function of an image and its material. Both marble and bronze could evidently be used for public honorific statues. We can obtain an idea of the frequency of lost bronze statues by close study of the statue bases. By investigating the marks on the top of fully preserved statue bases, it is often possible to discern what type of material the statue that stood on the base was made of.102 Bases for marble statues sometimes have a large round, oval or square depression into which the plinth of the statue could be lowered. The plinth of the statue could also be placed on top of the base, like the statue of Hadrian in the library in the Asklepieion in Pergamum, in which case detection is rendered more difficult. Bases for bronze statues, on the other hand, have “footprints” on top or two to four dowel holes for fastening the feet of the statue (Fig. 2). Unfortunately very few publications of inscriptions record this type of information, and in order to obtain reliable figures for the marble/bronze ratio all bases would have to be re-examined. The only systematic investigation of the issue within the imperial period is that of Alföldy for the statues from Venetia et Histria,103 which showed that bronze statues were slightly more common than marble ones in this area. However, the percentage of bases where anything definite could be determined about the material of the statues was rather small, and as pointed out by the author, the choice of material may have varied depending on the rank of the honorand. A small sample of statue bases on Kos shows that the

100. Tuchelt 1979, 79-86. On the other hand, Smith (1988, 3) remarks about the portraits of the Hellenistic kings that: “Our surviving portraits are mostly lower-grade works in marble, often very generalised in character.” 101. Lahusen 1992, 192. 102. For illustrations of the different traces left by marble and bronze statues, see Alföldy 1984, 164-165. 103. Alföldy 1984, 37.


preference for bronze statues extended into the Roman period,104 and in the fora in Cuicul and Thamugadi bronze statues predominate from the second to the fourth century.105 Another indicator of the frequency of bronze statues in an area is the ratio between extant portraits and statue bases. Since bases survive regardless of the material used for the statues, the ratio between extant bases and portraits should change with the preference for marble or bronze statuary. In Italy there are about the same number of portraits as bases (Fig. 9), and in the northwestern and Hispanic provinces the ratio is two bases for each extant portrait. In Greece and North Africa the ratios are 5:1 and 7:1 respectively, and Asia Minor and the northeastern provinces top the list with around ten bases for each extant portrait. Although this by no means constitutes a very precise measurement, it indicates that large differences in the choice of material prevailed within the Empire. In the East the Hellenistic tradition for bronze honorific statues seems to have continued unchanged, while in the West and in Italy in particular marble was more popular.106

Statues in precious metals There is an extensive body of literature drawing on a large number of ancient literary sources on the topic of imperial statues in precious metals.107 The questions of whether statues in silver and gold were a prerogative of the emperor, and whether they implied divine properties and had religious connotations, which has occupied much of the discussion, need not detain us here since the statue bases offer no new insight regarding this question. Instead we can consider their frequency among the honorific statues, as well as considering which emperors had this type of monuments dedicated, who erected them and where. Unlike the ample literary evidence, the archaeological evidence is rather scarce. Hardly any examples of imperial statues in precious metals have sur104. Höghammer 1993, 68-70.

105. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 54-84.

106. The same tendency can be seen for the 130 attested Julio-Claudian statue groups collected

by Rose (1997a). Among the western examples more than 50% are attested by sculptural evidence, while the figure for the statue groups in the eastern part of the Empire is only 13%. 107. Most importantly Scott 1931, 101-123; Pekáry 1968, 144-148; Pekáry 1985, 66-80; Lahusen 1978, 385-395; Lahusen 1999a, 251-266; Lahusen & Formigli 2001, 505-524.


Fig. 9. The number of extant approximately life size or larger imperial portraits (before slash) and the number of statue bases (after slash) according to region.1 Notice that while the numbers are approximately even in Italy, there are far more bases than portraits in most other regions. Emperor Augustus2 Tiberius3 Caligula4 Claudius5 Vespasian6 Titus7 Nerva8 Trajan9 Hadrian10 Antoninus Pius11 Lucius Verus12 Marcus Aurelius13 Commodus14

Italy 77/69 -/47 14/2 28/38 19/17 23/17 14/12 60-70/41 93/75 ca. 40/65 59/38 ca. 70/66 ca. 20/17

North- Gaul ern 0/7 -/3 2/0 1/7 1/3 0/2 0/5 3/14 2/24 0/15 0/10 4/16 2/5

10/11 -/8 1/9 2/11 1/1 0/0 0/1 3/3 3/2 3/1 1/3 2/2 0/0

Spain

North Africa

Greece

Asia Minor

East

13/22 -/14 2/0 4/10 2/8 1/7 0/2 6/10 4/15 7/18 3/13 5/9 0/5

6/11 -/7 2/0 2/10 4/14 2/14 0/3 2/24 8/52 5/82 17/36 8/84 1/36

19/40 -/30 3/6 6/31 1/9 1/8 0/7 8/45 16/124 6/31 7/10 8/31 4/13

14/41 -/41 3/10 2/46 1/26 1/16 0/18 3/57 10/115 3/70 4/22 5/42 4/31

8/2 -/1 0/1 1/1 0/3 1/2 0/1 3/11 10/11 1/10 2/7 9/10 1/4

1 This is by no means an all inclusive illustration of the geographical distribution of the extant impe-

rial portraits, and neither do the figures lend themselves for comparison between different emperors.

Since the chart was built on the works of others its accuracy depends entirely on these. Note that the

date of publication effects the number of known portraits. A more correct chart of the geographical

distribution could naturally be worked out by consulting the publication of each individual portrait.

This would, however, require a considerable effort. In the most recent studies cited, Evers for Hadrian

and Boschung for Augustus and Caligula, great effort has been exerted to identify the provenience of

as many portraits as possible, and these therefore offer the most reliable evidence for the geographical

distribution of the portraits.

2 Boschung 1993a, 227-230. ▶

vived until the present108, and most probably had a very short lifespan.109 Those that have survived, although we would expect them to be the most outstanding examples of Roman art, are of rather mediocre quality at best, and also seem to deviate from the official portrait types in marble. The evidence from 108. From the period in question, the imperial portraits in precious metal are: a gold bust found in Aventicum, most probably a likeness of Marcus Aurelius (Jucker 1981c, 5-17; Witchel in Stemmer 1995, 257-262; Lahusen 2002, 46-65). Silver portraits have been attributed to Galba (Die Silberbüste des Kaisers Galba 1995), and Lucius Verus (Bendinelli 1937) (from Marengo, now in Torino Mus). 109. Statues could even be melted down during an emperor’s lifetime (Tac. Ann. 3.70.1). Note also IGSK 11, 1, 25, on the reuse of old imperial portraits in Ephesus.


3 No complete figures exist for all the portraits of Tiberius. However, a list of 25 specimens of Typus Kopenhagen NCG 623 can be found in Fittschen & Zanker 1985, no. 10. 9 of these derive from Italy, 9 from other parts of the empire, notably 4 portraits from Egypt, and 7 with no known provenience. Fittschen & Zanker 1985, no. 12, also lists 23 specimens of Typus Berlin-Neapel-Sorrent of which at least 15 have provenience in Italy. Only the portraits in Toulouse, Tripolis and Carthage have definitely been found outside Italy. Boschung 1990, 365-367. and Boschung 1993b, 56-58 lists a total of approximately 90 portraits of Tiberius. 4 Boschung 1989. 5 Based on the 54 portraits appearing in Fittschen (1973, 55-58, cat. no. 17). Updated figures will appear in Massner, forthcoming. Massner has kindly informed me that she has found approximately 80 life size portraits of Claudius in the round. 6 Daltorp, Hausmann and Wegner 1966 and Bergmann and Zanker 1981, 332-349. 7 Daltorp, Hausmann and Wegner 1966, Fittschen 1977, 63-67, cat. no. 21, and Bergmann and Zanker 1981, 332-349. 8 Bergmann & Zanker (1981, 380-403) believed 14 life size portraits of Nerva in the round to be in existence. Of these only two or three were new creations while the others were reworked – mostly from portraits of Domitian. Most if not all the portraits seem to derive from Italy. 9 Gross 1940. Balty (1977/1978, 45-61) enumerates a total of 120 portraits but his catalogue does not always include precise information about provenience. 10 Evers 1994. 11 Wegner 1979, 96-123. Many of the entries lack precise information about provenience. Very often the location of the museum gives a good indication of the find spot, especially in the case of local museums, but for the large European and North American collections, whose portraits to a very large extent was bought in Italy, this method is useless and the proportion of portraits from Italy may therefore be even higher. The portraits from the old Italian collections have been counted as having been found in Italy. 12 Wegner 1980, 38-66. See also note 11. Fittschen (1999) suggests that 11 of the 17 known portraits of Lucius Verus erected prior to AD 161 come from Italy. For the distribution of the portraits of the fourth portrait type, see Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 79-81. 13 Wegner 1979, 139-181. See also note 11. Fittschen (1999) suggests that 44 of 61 portraits of Marcus Aurelius with known provenience erected prior to AD 161 come from Italy. The remaining portraits have been found in the Eastern provinces 4, North Africa 3, in the Northern provinces 4, Asia Minor 2, Spain 2, Greece 2. 14 Wegner 1980, 76-181. See also note 11. Note also Fittschen 1999 for the portraits prior to AD 180. Thirteen portraits of Typus Capitol are known. Eleven have been found in Italy.

the statue bases is somewhat richer, but it does not seem that they were as common in antiquity as the volume of ancient literary references and modern scholarship devoted to them would suggest. This may well be a result of the tendency of ancient authors to give prominence to the unusual at the expense of the ordinary. Of course the nine inscriptions from statue bases mentioning thirteen portraits are a poor representation of the statues in precious metal once in existence, since our only way of knowing whether statues were made of gold or silver is if the material is specified in the inscription. The purpose of mentioning the material in the inscription was not to state the obvious, but to denote the weight of the metal used for the statue or bust. This measurement seems to have been of some importance, and occurs invariably except


when the statue is referred to indirectly (Trajan 92).110 We may therefore have a fairly representative segment of the inscribed statue bases for statues in precious metals permanently affixed in one place. Transportable images, on the other hand, such as busts and statuettes in gold and silver used by the army and as cult objects, seldom had accompanying inscriptions and consequently do not appear in the epigraphical evidence.111 Imperial statues in gold referred to in inscriptions from statue bases are for the most part found in Rome. This could explain their overrepresentation in the literary sources, which to a large extent concern circumstances in the capital. In Rome, Gaius Geminius Atticus dedicated an image of Tiberius weighing 5 pounds of gold and 5 pounds of silver (Tiberius 8). The base is described as small, and probably carried a bust of the emperor. A centurion of the third Augusta, Gaius Papirius Aequos, spent 10 pounds of gold on gilt statues or busts of Vespasian and his two sons (Vespasian 3; Titus 1; Domitian 1). Outside Rome we hear of a statue of Titus in Conimbriga erected by the province for which 10 pounds of gold was used (Titus 23). The fact that the provinces of southern Spain erected statues in gold naturally reflects the rich deposits found there. Silver statues seem to have been more common – even outside Rome. The largest amount of metal used that we know of from the inscriptions is 300 pounds of silver for a statue of Claudius in Minturnae (Claudius 10). Unfortunately, the identity of the dedicator of this statue is unknown. For a statue of Tiberius in Teate Marrucinorum, a centurion of the sixth Ferrata bequeathed 10 5/12 pounds of silver according to his will and testament (Tiberius 31), and in Rome Marcus Petronius Sura, a procurator, joined his two sons in spending just over five pounds of silver on an image of Hadrian (Hadrian 11). From Bosa on Sardinia there is a dedication of small silver busts of Antoninus Pius and his family paid for by Q. Rutilius V[- - -] according to a decree of the decuriones (Antoninus Pius 65, Marcus Aurelius 66, Lucius Verus 38). These busts may have belonged in an augusteum.112 Finally, an imperial temple or shrine with a silver image of Trajan of unspecified weight was dedicated by a newly appointed flamen in Uzaae (Trajan 92). In Hippo Regius a duumvir quinquennalis, in addition to a promised silver statue perhaps of the emperor, 110. Note also that Domitian set a minimum weight for the statues of himself in gold and silver erected on the Capitol, Suet. Dom. 13.2: “Statuas sibi in Capitolio non nisi aureas et argenteas poni permisit ac ponderis certi”. 111. Blanck 1971, 90-93. 112. L. 1: “[Imagines in Augusteo] has” is however, a restoration. 113. Scott 1931, 123.


made an offering of at least two smaller silver images of Hadrian with golden crowns (Hadrian 123). Even though this sample of thirteen statues is rather small, it gives a coherent picture of the use of statues in precious metals. Apart from the statue of Claudius in Minturnae, the amounts of metal referred to in the inscriptions are quite small, 3 to 10 pounds (enough for a bust or perhaps to plate a bronze statue). Even the 300 pounds or close to 100 kg of silver used in Minturnae would hardly suffice for a life-size statue. Geographically Rome and Italy dominate, and with the exception of the statues erected by the two provinces on the Iberian Peninsula, they are all private dedications. It would seem, therefore, that the choice of erecting statues in precious metal was a result of personal devotion on the part of the dedicator rather than being the obligation of communities. Portraits in precious metals could be powerful symbols with connotations of monarchy and divinity, and almost every emperor felt obliged to formulate a policy regarding this type of portrait.113 Several emperors renounced them altogether, and most at least placed restrictions on their use. The exceptions were Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus and Caracalla, who according to the ancient authors actively promoted the erection of such images in a variety of contexts.114 The evidence of the statue bases on this point contradicts the literary sources. Domitian is the only one of these notorious emperors that we find among the statue bases, but the image in question was erected during the reign of his father years before he developed autocratic tendencies. It is true that our record of their statue bases has been diminished because of their “damnatio memoriae” (pp. 56-62), but still we should expect at least some evidence if the extent of the practice paralleled the literary accounts.115 Instead we find statues of Tiberius, who according to the literary sources observed a very restrictive policy with regard to his images – including those in precious metals116 – the otherwise miserly Vespasian,117 and Trajan, who according to Pliny forbade images in silver and gold.118 The truth of the matter is probably that the emperor had rather limited control of and interest in placing restrictions on what was practised outside the public sphere in Rome. When asked directly for permission, some emperors saw it as an opportunity to display

114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

Scott 1931, 123.

Dio Cass. 67.8.1.

Suet. Tib. 26. Tac. Ann. 3.18.2.

Suet. Vesp. 23.3.

Plin. Paneg. 52.


modestia. The image of emperors wanting excessive amounts of statues in gold and silver is nothing but a topos exemplifying the bad emperor.

The cost of imperial statues Duncan-Jones, in his study of prices and price-levels in North Africa and Italy, presents a large number of inscriptions mentioning the cost of erecting statues.119 A large percentage of these pertain to imperial statues.120 The study suffers, unfortunately, from the evidently wrong assumption that where nothing else is specified in the inscription a marble statue was probably present.121 Until the material included in Duncan-Jones’ study has been re-examined for traces left by the statues on top of the bases, I would be inclined to think that the opposite was the case (pp. 45-47). The evidence from Cuicul and Thamugadi collected by Zimmer certainly shows a preference for bronze.122 One of the exceptions, a base from Cuicul for a marble statue of the deified Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 100), mentions a price of 7,000 sesterces.123 In three further instances where the cost is noted in the inscription, we know the material of the statue. Two bases in Cuicul carried bronze statues of Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 99) and Lucius Verus (Lucius Verus 67), the first costing 3,000 sesterces and the other slightly more, and in Thamugadi a base for a bronze statue of Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 140) mentions a price of 5,000 sesterces. These few examples where the price and material of the statue can both be determined with certainty, together with the base for Marcus Aurelius from Thuburbo Maius, where a bronze statue costing just over 2,000 sesterces is mentioned in the inscription, indicate that marble statues were the more expensive of the two, but the sample is rather small to be of wider significance. Oliver’s attempt at calculating the price of a bronze statue from its metallic value plus the wage of a bronze-worker as specified in Diocletian’s Edict on 119. Duncan-Jones 1982, 78-79, no. 77-212. The North African material is particularly prolific. The Italian, on the other hand, is more restricted and generally refers to the weight of the statues instead of the cost. 120. Of the approximately 130 inscriptions in the catalogue, 35 mention the price of statues of the imperial family. 121. Duncan-Jones 1982, 94. 122. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 54-84. 123. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 69, no. C66.


Maximum Prices is highly problematic, although he achieves a result within the normal price range found in the inscriptions.124 Apart from the fact that he calculates the cost of the material for the bronze statue in question (a headless statue in the Cleveland Museum of Art said to be Marcus Aurelius) from the weight of a sesterce, whose purchasing power during the Empire was not justified by its metal value, it is highly questionable whether the cost of manufacturing set at 8% of the value of the metal in Diocletian’s edict applies to a second century AD sculpture workshop as well.125 In the catalogue there are 24 inscriptions (1% of the total) which mention the cost of the statue expressed in sesterces.126 However, with one exception these examples are limited chronologically and geographically to second-century North Africa. During this period it became customary in this region to note the summa honoraria paid for holding office in dedicatory inscriptions. Consequently, there is a fairly large amount of statistical material available concerning the price level of statues in North Africa. But there is great uncertainty as to how this relates to other regions of the Empire, or to the cost of statues during the first century. The prices mentioned are relatively homogeneous, but this might very well have been caused by the similarity in the type of funding.127 On the other hand, it matches the general price-level of other types of statue in Duncan-Jones’ study,128 although there may be a few more examples at the very expensive end. Most fall within the range of 2,000 124. Oliver 1996, 146-147.

125. Doyle 1976, 96.

126. The inscriptions mentioning prices are: Hadrian 123 (17,000 sesterces for silver statues

with golden crowns); Hadrian 142 (42,600 sesterces for an arch with a quadriga); Hadrian 156 (5,525 sesterces for statues of Hadrian and L. Aelius Caesar); Hadrian 165 (2,400 sesterces); Antoninus Pius 46 (4,000 sesterces); Antoninus Pius 109 (30,000 sesterces for an arch with three statues); Antoninus Pius 115 (6,000 sesterces); Antoninus Pius 154=Lucius Verus 86 (10,407 sesterces spent on two statues. An additional silver bust of Faustina only cost 1,593 sesterces); Antoninus Pius 140 (5,000 sesterces); Marcus Aurelius 99 (3,000 sesterces); Marcus Aurelius 101 (12,000 sesterces); Marcus Aurelius 126 (5,000 sesterces); Marcus Aurelius 157 (38,000 for two statues, either both of Marcus Aurelius or one of Marcus Aurelius and one of Lucius Verus); Marcus Aurelius 164 (8,000 sesterces); Marcus Aurelius 166 (2,000 sesterces); Marcus Aurelius 100 (7,000 sesterces); Marcus Aurelius 169 and Lucius Verus 97 (15,000 sesterces for each of two colossal statues); Lucius Verus 95 (3,000 sesterces); Lucius Verus 67 (3,000 sesterces); Commodus 37 (10,000 sesterces); Commodus 49 (2,000 sesterces). 127. The few examples of prices for statues that were not erected for summa honoraria were significantly higher than the average (Hadrian 123; Antoninus Pius 109; Marcus Aurelius 101, 157). 128. Duncan-Jones 1982, 78-79.


to 8,000 sesterces, with the lowest price being 2,000 (Marcus Aurelius 166; Commodus 49) and the highest being 38,000 sesterces for two statues (Marcus Aurelius 147). The only price of an imperial statue base known outside Africa – 4,000 sesterces for a statue of Antoninus Pius in Fagifulae in Regio IV (Antoninus Pius 46) – is slightly below the average in North Africa. Arches naturally cost considerably more. The three examples with imperial statues (Marcus Aurelius 152; Hadrian 142; Antoninus Pius 109) cost 120,000, 42,600 and 30,000 sesterces respectively. The latter two were cheap compared with the prices paid for other arches in North Africa.129 On the evidence available at present, we must conclude that we are unable to differentiate between prices for marble and bronze statues – and that therefore we have no means of determining which was considered the more valuable. In addition, we should expect considerable regional differences in the price levels for statues. The price of marble statues would depend on the availability of marble and the amount of transport involved in dedicating a statue at a certain location. Furthermore, we have reason to believe that the price of marble statues fell throughout the period from the late first century BC to the second century AD. It certainly became easier to obtain larger blocks of marble suitable for making life-size statues, as shown by the drop in the number of statues pieced together from more than one block.130 There were many other contributing factors: the re-organisation of the quarries under imperial administration, the beginning of full-scale operations in the Carrara quarries, and safer, more efficient transport at sea being the most important of these. Furthermore, the higher efficiency gained by mass production probably resulted in a lower price for each individual piece. The material for bronze statues was costlier than marble but easier to transport and involved less labour, but how this affected the price over time is extremely difficult to determine. Dedicating a small statue or a bust in precious metals need not have been more costly than dedicating a statue in bronze or marble. From a base in Cillium (Antoninus Pius 154; Lucius Verus 86) we know that 12,000 sesterces were spent on statues of Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus and a silver bust of Faustina. Furthermore, the inscription specifies that the two statues together cost 10,407 sesterces, which left only 1,593 sesterces for the silver bust, well below the average price of a life-size marble statue. Otherwise the prices of

129. Duncan-Jones 1982, 91. 130. Claridge 1988, 139-152.


statues in precious metals are expressed in terms of weight. Duncan-Jones suggests, on the basis of a few inscriptions for which both the cost and the weight of an object is known, that manufacture constituted roughly 50% of the total cost.131 It is curious, however, that the dedicators, who in inscriptions for statues in bronze and marble often state the amount spent on the dedication down to the last sesterce, should choose to mention a figure that bore only a slight relation to the actual outlay. So I think that the cost of imperial portraits in gold and silver was generally relatively close to their bullion value – or alternatively that the cost of manufacture was taken out of the amount of metal supplied for the portrait. The dedications of imperial portraits in precious metals range from the humble to the extravagant. An inscription from a statue base for a duumvir in Beneventum relates that he had dedicated a silver quadriga with a statue of Hadrian weighing 1,567 pounds of silver (approx. 512 kg).132 The bullion value alone exceeded 700,000 sesterces. The cost of the golden images of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian in Rome weighing 10 pounds was more than 40,000 sesterces (Vespasian 3, Titus 1, Domitian 1), which was indeed a substantial donation for a centurion whose pay was probably in the vicinity of 20,000 sesterces a year.133 Smaller silver images, like the one of Hadrian dedicated by a procurator in Rome (Hadrian 11) at a bullion value of approximately 2,500 sesterces, or those of the family of Antoninus Pius in Bosa (Antoninus Pius 65), must have been affordable compared with bronze or marble statues.134 Imperial statues can be considered a luxury commodity. However, with a general price level of between 3,000 and 8,000 sesterces (sometimes less) for an imperial statue suitable for public display in provincial towns in North Africa in the second century AD, honouring the emperor with a statue was not a privilege reserved purely for a small, exceedingly wealthy aristocracy. Compared to other types of munus, like outlays for the construction of temples and public buildings,135 erecting an imperial statue was a relatively cheap way 131. Duncan-Jones 1982, 126. Martial (3.62) mentions a price of 5,000 sesterces for a pound of worked silver. Here manufacture would account for about 90% of the cost. A similar calculation for a marble statue indicates that manufacture consumed approximately 9% of the total cost. 132. CIL IX, 1619. 133. Brunt 1950, 71. 134. Numerous similar images weighing one or two pounds are listed in an inventory from a collegia in Ostia (AE 1940, 62). 135. Duncan-Jones 1982, 90-92, 107-108, no. 324-341 (individual sums paid in honour of office), 108-110 (summae honorariae).


of showing beneficence towards the city and thereby also having one’s own name preserved for posterity.136

Damnatio memoriae and the reuse of statue bases During the first and second centuries AD, imperial statues were, as a general rule, only changed or demolished if the emperor had been deposed.137 This fate befell no less than eight of the nineteen emperors included in this investigation: Caligula, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Avidius Cassius, and Commodus. Following their deaths, their statues and the monuments inscribed with their names were destroyed either spontaneously or by decree of the Senate.138 Modern scholarship has coined the term “damnatio memoriae” for all such incidents, but the legal and practical aspects of the phenomenon differed from case to case.139 Officially sanctioned destruction of statues seems to have occurred only after the murder of Domitian and Commodus. It has always been common knowledge that bronze statues and portraits were melted down and reused.140 The consequence for imperial portraiture

136. For the self-glorification of the dedicator on statue bases for others, see Eck 1994, 650-662. 137. Naturally, there were exceptions to this rule. Granius Marcellus had charges brought against him for having exchanged the head of a statue of Augustus with that of Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 58.1; Tac. Ann. 1.74.3: “in statua amputato capite Augusti effigiem Tiberii inditam”. Note the choice of terms used), and a silver bust of Tiberius was melted down while he was still alive (Tac. Ann. 3.70.1). There exist at least two portraits of emperors not suffering damnatio memoriae that were re-worked within a century of their erection: a portrait statue of Tiberius in the basilica in Veleia re-cut to Vespasian (Rose 1997a, 124), and a portrait of Octavian now in the Vatican re-cut to a young Nero (Jucker 1981b, 284-295). For examples of statue bases, see below pp. 63-64. 138. Literary evidence for the removal of imperial statues: Claudius prevented the senate from officially banning the images of Caligula (Dio Cass. 60.4.5-6), but had his statues removed at night (Dio Cass. 60.4.5 & 60.22.3). Nero (Suet. Nero 49.2). Antonius Primus and Domitian restored statues of Galba in Germania and Rome in AD 69 (Tac. Hist. 3.7 & 4.40). Images of Vitellius were torn down in military camps, for example in the camp of the fleet in Ravenna (Tac. Hist. 3.13). Later they were reinstated for a brief period in Germania (Tac. Hist. 4.37). Domitian (Suet. Dom. 23). Commodus (SHA Com. 20.4). 139. Vittinghoff 1939; Rollin 1979, 151-174; Pekáry 1985, 134-142; Varner 1993, 2004. 140. Statues of Sejanus ended up as “pipkins, basins, frying-pans and slap-pails” (Juv. 10.5864), but often a mere change of heads was all that was required, for instance in the bronze equestrian statue of Nerva from Misenum (Franciscis 1991) and the naked bronze statue of Septimius Severus in the museum in Nicosia (McCann 1968, 133-134, no. 11).


in marble was not fully realised until a quarter of a century ago, when it was pointed out that a large number of portraits, especially those of the Flavian emperors and Nerva, had in fact been re-cut from those of their deposed predecessors. This explains the curious inconsistencies in the iconography of these emperors.141 While the portraits have been closely scrutinised for signs of re-working over the past years, no one has so far given any thought to the epigraphical evidence from the statue bases,142 even though it offers valuable information about the afterlife of monuments and the level of effectiveness of official damnatio memoriae. Two things could be done to monuments to obliterate the memory of a deposed emperor. Either they could be removed and destroyed, or they could be transformed into monuments honouring other emperors. Both these options can be observed in portraits as well as in statue bases. Generally, there are slightly more fragmented inscriptions and poorly preserved monuments for the emperors who suffered damnatio memoriae. So the logical conclusion must be that at least some of these fragmented monuments had been subject to deliberate destruction shortly after the emperor’s death. However, it is well-nigh impossible to determine the exact time of destruction of each individual inscription, and monuments could have been removed without inflicting damage to the inscriptions. In fact, inscriptions taken down and reused as fill or building material may feasibly have had a greater chance of survival than those exposed to weathering over the centuries. Altered inscriptions lend themselves more easily to detection, especially if only parts of the inscription have been changed. Even if the inscription was completely removed and another put in its place, it is usually possible to discover faint traces of the former inscription.143 Ten of the 28 extant statue bases for Caligula show signs of destruction or reuse. Most of these had large parts of their inscriptions containing the

141. Jucker 1981b, 236-316; Bergmann and Zanker 1981, 317-412. Previously Blanck (1969a) had discussed the general practice of re-using monuments. 142. Blanck (1969a) includes very few examples of reuse of imperial statue bases. Pekáry (1985, 134-142) consulted the index of ILS and ascertained that inscriptions for emperors who suffered damnatio memoriae have in fact been preserved despite the fact that they should have been destroyed. Varner (2004) includes sporadic information about the reuse of imperial statue bases. 143. A recently re-examined inscription for Domitian from Puteoli (Domitian 8) offers a very interesting example of a nearly completely eradicated inscription that can in fact be restored in full on close examination.


name of Caligula removed (Caligula 2, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15). Fragments of one inscription were found in a well in a house in Spoletium (Caligula 1), where it probably ended up shortly after Caligula had been murdered. The inscription for Caligula on the scenae frons in the theatre in Thera (Caligula 17) was completely removed and another for Vespasian inscribed in its place. Its existence can only be inferred from the survival of the inscriptions honouring the parents of Caligula, Antonia as Hestia Boulaia and Germanicus as Zeus Boulaios, flanking it.144 The block may well have been left blank in the intervening period. More curious is the existence of a base for Caligula from Syene in Egypt (Caligula 28) with its inscription intact that was later reused as a base for a statue of Trajan (Trajan 205). Perhaps the base had been placed so that the former inscribed surface faced a wall. The partial removal of lines one and two in an inscription from Didyma (Caligula 21) seems to have been an attempt to change the dedication to one for his father Germanicus. This practice was later carried out with greater success with monuments for Nero, Domitian and Commodus. The simple removal of the word Nevrwn made it possible to change the Greek inscriptions for Nero into dedications honouring Claudius,145 and this proved an attractive solution in eight instances (Nero 36, 40, 41, 42, 45-47, 55). It seems likely that this involved a change of the head of the statue as well, but we cannot tell with certainty. On one statue base the inscription was changed to the name of Augustus (Nero 23). Similarly, monuments for Domitian could be altered in a variety of ways. By removing the name Domitian from inscriptions dedicated before the death of Vespasian, these could pass as dedications for Titus (Domitian 27, 38 and perhaps 1146). In several inscriptions both the name Domitian and the victory title Germanicus, which was clearly identified very closely with the deposed emperor, have been erased. This leaves a generic imperial formula of Aujtokravtwr Kai`sar Sebastov~ that could imply Augustus, Vespasian, Titus or his successors Nerva and Trajan (Domitian 41, 58, 59). Either Nerva or Trajan was certainly intended by the removal of the

144. IG XII, 3, suppl., 1393-1394. Rose 1997a, 160-161. 145. Monuments altered in this way have not been included in the catalogue of statue bases under the emperor to whom the inscription was changed, unless new inscriptions were added. 146. Since the name of Titus already appears in this inscription from Rome, it was more likely a matter of removing Domitian’s name. However, this was not done very thoroughly since princeps iuventutis was left untouched.


name of Domitian in an inscription in Lilybaeum (Domitian 14). Further dedications in Athens (Domitian 29), Idyma (Domitian 55) and particularly Ephesus (Domitian 42-53) were changed to Vespasian. Another base seems simply to have been destroyed (Domitian 60). The commonest modification of statue bases for Commodus is the removal of the name Commodus and the epithet Felix, in which case the honorand could pass as Marcus Aurelius (Commodus 17, 91, 100, 102, 106, 107). Two of these bases (Commodus 106, 107) had a rather peculiar history. Originally funerary cippi of the fourth century BC, they were changed to accommodate statues of Commodus and placed in the parodoi in the theatre in Salamis. Upon his death the name of Commodus was removed, so the inscriptions could be taken to concern the deified Marcus. Finally, a century later, they were turned and supplied with new inscriptions for Constantius Chlorus and Gallerius. An attempt at changing an inscription in Rome (Commodus 1) from Commodus to Lucius Verus did not turn out very successfully because of the obvious problem of the filiation. We cannot be absolutely certain that the monuments whose inscriptions had been partially removed were actually reused as bases for other emperors, but the care exercised in removing only the elements specifically referring to the deposed emperor indicates that this was indeed the intention. It is interesting that while portraits were predominantly re-cut, or transformed by other means to portray the successor or a member of the new ruling family,147 the exact opposite can be observed from the inscriptions on the statue bases. The vast majority of these were altered to honour the father of the deposed emperor. Reuse of a base for an immediate successor can only been observed in three instances. In Thugga an arch originally intended to honour Caligula was dedicated to Claudius instead in the first year of his reign (Claudius 75), and in Lilybaeum a base for Domitian after his death seems to have accommodated a statue of either Nerva or Trajan (Domitian 14). Finally, a monument for Domitian in Histria (Domitian 15) with a Greek inscription in the dative case was turned over and supplied with an inscription for Nerva in the accusative case (Nerva 13). This contradiction between the evidence of the portraits and the statue bases may stem from regional differences in the reaction to damnatio memoriae. With few exceptions, the imperial portraits of the first and second centuries AD that show signs of re-working originate

147. Varner (2004) enumerates 23 portraits reworked to former emperors, while 98 portraits were changed to a successor or a later emperor.


in the West.148 Here existing inscriptions on statue bases seldom reveal alterations intended to bring them in accordance with the nomenclature of other emperors. Instead, they seem to have been destroyed or otherwise removed from view. For example, the plaque under the statue of the deified Vespasian in the meeting place of the Augustales in Misenum carries the name of Domitian on the reverse side (Vespasian 9). The inscriptions from the Greek East, on the other hand, lend themselves much more readily to alterations because of their shorter form and frequent omission of the filiation. Since bronze was the preferred material in the East, we unfortunately do not possess any examples of portraits altered to previous emperors. Another possibility, of course, is that the statue remained unaltered, and that it was simply taken to represent whoever the inscription honoured. Damnatio memoriae was not observed with equal enthusiasm everywhere, as the statue of Domitian with its original base found in the theatre of Aphrodisias clearly shows (Domitian 37). According to the excavator, this statue was still standing on view well into the third century.149 By comparing the number of extant bases for emperors who suffered damnation with those of other emperors of the same period, we can obtain an idea of the effectiveness with which damnatio memoriae was carried out. Naturally, we can only say anything definite about the number of monuments that were completely obliterated, since the extant monuments may well have been removed from view as a result of the changed political situation. The low number of extant bases for Nero, Domitian, and Commodus can easily be attributed to damnatio memoriae (Fig. 10). These emperors only have approximately one-third as many bases per year as their predecessor. If we assume that the number of dedications stayed constant, or perhaps rose slightly to match the general trend throughout the first one and a half centuries of the principate, then about two-thirds of the original bases must have been completely obliterated. The evidence for Domitian from the reign of Vespasian is particularly interesting because the number of extant bases can be compared directly with the number for Titus. From this period we have 13 bases for Domitian and 35 for Titus. Domitian had definitely not been promoted nearly as much as his older brother during the reign of Vespasian,

148. Varner (2004) includes only 12 portraits with provenience in the Greek East out of a total of approximately 130 reworked portraits (cat.nos. 1.5, 1.22, 1.23, 1.33, 2.6, 2.15, 2.32, 2.37, 2.62, 4.3, 5.22, 6.7). 149. Erim 1973, 135-142. For continued display in general, see Varner (2004), 42-44 (Caligula), 79-81 (Nero), 134 (Domitian).


25

Bases/year

20

15

10

5

0 -30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 10. The number of extant statue bases per year of reign. The lower bars for the emperors Caligula (37-41), Nero (54-68), Domitian (81-96) and Commodus (180-192) indicate the number of bases per year that do not show signs of alteration or destruction.

and the number of his statues and consequently statue bases around the Empire was undoubtedly lower. Thus the rate of destruction could have been no higher than two-thirds, probably less. This ratio in turn indicates that during his own reign Domitian did not have more statues erected than his predecessors, even though the literary sources declare the opposite. But then “bad” emperors were always characterised as wanting excessive numbers of statues erected, particularly those made of precious metals and those in temples.150 The situation for Caligula is somewhat different, since there are actually more extant bases per year of his reign than per year of Tiberius, but short reigns sometimes produce a higher frequency of statues because the accession could give impetus to the erection of more statues, and the frequency is still significantly lower than for his successor Claudius. If, however, we subtract the altered bases and those that show signs of destruction, the figure for Caligula compares with figures for Nero, Domitian, and Commodus (Fig. 10). It would seem, therefore, that complete obliteration of monuments for Caligula was not as common as it became later for Nero and Domitian. The statue bases 150. Dio Cass. 67.8.1: “kai; tosau`ta autwì ejyhfivsqh w{ste pa`san ojlivgou dei`n th;n oijkoumevnhn th;n uJp aujto;n ou\san eijkovnwn aujtou` kai; ajndriavntwn kai; ajrgurw`n kai; crusw`n ejmplhsqh`nai”.


for Commodus have survived in slightly larger numbers than bases for the deposed emperors of the first century AD. This may be explained in part by his rehabilitation three years after his death, when Septimius Severus claimed to have been adopted by Marcus Aurelius. The fictitious adoption made Commodus the brother of the reigning emperor, a fact that was heavily propagated through the erection of statues of the deified Commodus (pp. 138-139). The policy may also have involved the re-erection of dismantled monuments, and it may have prevented the destruction of others. Thus, statues of Commodus may not have been such an unusual sight after his death. Statues of Caligula, Nero and Domitian were rarer, although some evidently escaped destruction and remained on view long after they ought to have been removed. While the effectiveness of damnatio memoriae varied from one emperor to another, there do not seem to be any consistent geographical differences in its observation. Statue bases for Caligula are certainly underrepresented in Italy (Table SG 1 & Fig. G 3), but the figure is subject to uncertainty because of the limited statistical material, and a similar tendency cannot be observed for Nero and Domitian. In Asia Minor a relatively large number of statue bases have been identified for all the emperors who suffered damnatio memoriae (Table SG 19). However, many of these monuments have only been preserved because they were altered to accommodate statues of other emperors. Neither do we find any discrepancy among the dedicators of the remaining bases for deposed emperors and those for other emperors (Tables SC 7, 10, 11), and consequently both publicly and privately erected monuments must have suffered damnatio memoriae equally.

Reuse of older monuments as statue bases for imperial statues The reuse of old statue bases was not an uncommon phenomenon in antiquity,151 particularly in sanctuaries where the accumulation of statues would cramp the limited space available. Statue bases for imperial statues, however, relatively seldom show signs of previous use, perhaps because the dedicator would be less inclined to save money on a prestigious object like an imperial statue. A few examples do exist. On the Acropolis in Athens, a third century BC monument later served as a base for statues of Augustus, Drusus the Younger and Tiberius (Augustus 130; Tiberius 88). In the sanctuary of Aphrodite in

151. Blanck 1969a.


Paphos, where a large number of statues had been dedicated during the Hellenistic period, we find statue bases for Tiberius and Caligula (Tiberius 148, 150; Caligula 27) with earlier Hellenistic inscriptions, one of which had formerly served as a base for a statue of Ptolemy V Epiphanes. A fourth-century equestrian base was reused for a statue of Claudius in Delphi (Claudius 94), and in Side the Side branch of the ecumenical synod of Artists of Dionysos erected his statue on a three-hundred-year-old base (Claudius 148). Bean wonders why such a solution was chosen at a time of general prosperity,152 but the financial benefit may not have been the primary motivation for reusing this old monument. Again on Cyprus a statue base in Kourion, originally supporting a statue of a second-century BC governor of the island, was later used for a statue of Nero (Nero 55). Trajan’s statue was placed on a Hellenistic base on Kos (Trajan 153), and a base for a statue of Antigonos Gonatas of around 272 BC erected in Epidauros four hundred years later was used as a base for a statue of Hadrian (Hadrian 250). Finally, on Crete a base for a statue of the Spartan king Areus was changed to honour Augustus (Augustus 158).

Reuse of imperial statue bases Few imperial statue bases from the first and second centuries AD show signs of secondary usage as statue bases except in case of damnatio memoriae. If they were reused it was primarily as building material at a significantly later date, when the practice of erecting honorary statues had largely vanished.153 Apart from the two bases in the theatre in Salamis mentioned above, there is a base in Tegea that may have been a statue base for Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 204), later reused as a base for a statue of a M. Aurelius Agathokles, whose name implies a date after the Constitutio Antoniniana of AD 212, and a base in Carthago for Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 145) was altered to support a statue of Constantine the Great. In Thugga a cycle of statues of deified emperors was erected in the Forum in the early part of the third century AD. For some reason, some if not all of the inscriptions were cut on existing imperial statue bases. A dedication to Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 175) was replaced by one to Augustus (Augustus 118), and another to

152. Bean 1965, 47, no. 147.

153. Imperial statues largely disappear during the early part of the fifth century AD, see Stichel

1982 and Smith 1985, 209-221.


Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 43) was changed to Vespasian (Vespasian 42). Whether the remaining three bases in the group for Trajan (Trajan 91), Hadrian (Hadrian 160) and Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 170) were also reused older imperial statue bases is not noted in their publication. In Tanagra a base for Augustus (Augustus 149) later carried a statue of Vespasian’s wife Flavia Domitilla in the guise of Tyche.


Dating the Inscriptions

from Imperial Statue Bases

One of the principal reasons for studying the inscriptions from imperial statues is that unlike the extant portraits, these can often be dated with great accuracy – enabling us not only to determine when individual monuments were dedicated, but also to determine the chronology of dedications during the reign of an emperor. In the following the different types of information by which inscriptions can be dated will be discussed. It was not always a conscious choice of the dedicator to date monuments, and often when a system of dating was intended it is incomprehensible to us, for instance any mention of the eponymous magistrates of a city. Still, most inscriptions contain several different pieces of information that can date a monument more or less precisely. Furthermore, some important aspects such as the reliability of the information supplied in the inscriptions, and whether the dated evidence is representative of the material, will be discussed.

Imperial nomenclature and honorific titles The most important criterion for dating inscriptions is imperial nomenclature including the name, offices and honorific titles of the emperor in question.154 Roman offices were as a general rule limited in time. The title conferred on 154. For a discussion of imperial nomenclature and titles with relevant literature, see Kienast 1996, 1-58; Syme 1958; Deininger 1972; Alföldy 1991.

Dating the Inscriptions · 65

the person holding office was, however, not confined to the term of office. It followed the person instead of the office, and when the cursus of a person is listed in inscriptions, no distinction is made between holding office and having held office. Thus, when someone was elected consul he could use the title of consul. When his term of office was over he could still use the title, now in the sense of “once consul”. An inscription calling Hadrian consul twice can therefore be dated to AD 118, the year he was consul for the second time, but only because he was consul for the third time the following year. On the other hand, inscriptions calling Hadrian consul three times cannot be dated more precisely than between AD 119 and his death in AD 138, since his third consulship in AD 119 was his last. In other words, offices like honorific titles in essence only provide a terminus post quem. Tribunician power is no exception to this rule. However, since it was renewed annually it provides the most accurate criterion for dating the inscriptions from imperial statue bases. Augustus, like Caesar, had assumed the power of a tribune without actually holding the office – as a patrician he was in fact not eligible. With the settlement of 1 July 23 BC Augustus laid down the consulship that he had held continuously since 31 BC, and the tribunician power was from then on numbered, used perhaps instead of consulships to count regnal years.155 Tribunician power without numbering appears in an inscription from a statue base dated no later than 20 BC (Augustus 63),156 which could signify tribunician power for the first time. However, numbering tribunician power does not seem to have come into regular use in inscriptions until a decade later.157 The earliest inscriptions from statue bases to number tribunician power belong to the year 13-12 BC (trib. pot. 11) (Augustus 2, 50), and from then on almost every year is known from statue bases (Fig. C 1). All succeeding emperors received tribunician power upon accession or shortly thereafter, if it had not already been conferred on them from the moment of their adoption.158 Given the importance of tribunician power as a precise dating criterion for all types of epigraphical evidence, including inscriptions on coins, the 155. Hammond 1938, 24. On the use of tribunician power for counting regnal years, see also Dio Cass. 53.17. 156. The date is given by the title imperator 8 in l. 3, although this is a reconstruction. If there is room for VI[iii], the date would be before 15 BC. 157. Judging from the indices of CIL, Augustan inscriptions with tribunician counts of less than ten are extremely rare. 158. For instance Tiberius, Trajan, L. Aelius Caesar, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. Titus and Commodus likewise received tribunician power during the reigns of their fathers.


question of when exactly the renewal took place each year has been studied in great detail.159 However, consensus has not been reached as to the exact date for all emperors. In general, tribunician power in the first century AD was renewed on the day of its first conferment, usually a day shortly after the accession, or perhaps even the dies imperii. At some point after the Flavian emperors the date was changed to 10 December, the traditional date for the election of tribunes. We are still not certain who instituted this change, and for what reason. Chastagnol has advocated Nerva as the originator because a third tribunician power is mentioned in a few inscriptions.160 This could only have occurred if his tribunician power had been renewed twice in AD 97, and it could explain why the vota soluta decennalia II for Trajan took place in AD 115-116. Others have maintained that these inscriptions are erroneous and that the change occurred under Trajan, who wished to return to constitutional government, or that it was a result of Trajan counting his tribunician power from the accession of Nerva.161 Hadrian seems to have begun using his dies imperii but changed the date later in his reign, whereas Antoninus Pius may have used the day of his adoption, 25 February.162 Whatever the correct interpretation of the sometimes inconsistent evidence may be, we must expect some confusion as to the exact count, especially in areas with a tradition for counting regnal years163 and where people were unaccustomed to the Roman cursus. As we shall see, minor mistakes can also be observed in the inscriptions from statue bases. Approximately 700 of the 858 bases datable to specific years (Table SC 4) are dated on the basis of their tribunician count. That is about 30% of all the statue bases. Unfortunately, the tribunician count predominantly appears in Latin inscriptions, which is the primary reason for the difference in dating accuracy between the inscriptions from the Latin West and the Greek East (Table SC 16). Roughly half of the Latin inscriptions can be dated to a specific year, whereas this is only possible for one-quarter of the Greek inscriptions. The other two consecutively numbered elements in the imperial title, consulships and imperatorial salutations, occur as often as tribunician power, 159. Most important Hammond 1938, 23-61; 1949, 36-73; 1956, 63-133; Mattingly 1930, 78-91; 1949, 36-76; Mommsen 1887, II3, 796-802; Le Roux 1999, 55-65. 160. Hammond 1938, 38; Chastagnol 1984a, 282-284. 161. Mommsen 1887, II3, 796-802; Hammond 1938, 38; Mattingly 1950, 158, 183-184, n. 12. 162. For a brief discussion of the tribunician power of Hadrian, see Højte 1999, 220-222. For that of Antoninus Pius, see Mattingly 1930, 82-83. 163. Alexandrian coins, for example, continue the Hellenistic tradition of displaying regnal years, Förscher 1987.


but seldom offer the same accuracy of dating. The number of consulships constitutes the most precise dating criterion, either alone or in conjunction with other information, in approximately 250 inscriptions. Particularly the inscriptions for the Flavian emperors and Nerva, who held the consulship almost continuously throughout their reigns, can be dated this way. Hadrian’s third consulship, Antoninus Pius’ second, third and fourth, and Marcus Aurelius’ second consulship also help us narrow the date range for several monuments. Salutations to an emperor can be used to date monuments less frequently. They are most useful if parts of the inscription with more accurate information are missing, and only in a few of the 58 examples are they used as the sole dating criterion. The remaining elements in the imperial cursus have less importance when it comes to dating inscriptions. The emperors assumed the highest priesthood, pontifex maximus, shortly after their accession because this position fell vacant when the previous emperor died. Only for Augustus was there a substantial interval. He waited until his former colleague in the triumvirate, Lepidus, died in 12 BC before taking over the position as head of the state religion. As an indicator of date, pontifex maximus only serves as the most precise criterion in eight inscriptions (Augustus 22, 34, 38, 43, 53, 67, 137, 138). Augustus, Claudius and the Flavian emperors held the office of censor, which dates nine inscriptions (Claudius 64, 65, 92; Vespasian 38; Titus 2, 35; Domitian 25, 63). Honorific titles and epithets supply dates for numerous inscriptions, although seldom with the same precision as the consecutively numbered elements of the cursus. Their most important contribution is that they lower the number of undated inscriptions considerably for some emperors, which allows us to obtain a far more detailed picture of how dedications are distributed within their reigns, and to minimise the uncertainty of the chronology of the undated inscriptions. Especially Greek inscriptions, which regularly omit the Roman cursus, usually include honorific titles and epithets, and can thus be assigned an approximate date. The origin and significance of victory titles has been discussed thoroughly by Kneissel,164 and only their relevance for dating inscriptions needs to be considered here. Domitian is the first emperor whose inscriptions can be dated by victory titles. After his expedition against the Chatti and the triumph in AD 83 he was given the title Germanicus, which is the sole dating criterion in 20% of the inscriptions from statue bases. The title Germanicus was closely associated with the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and several emperors 164. Kneissl 1969.


and male members of the imperial family carried the name. However, none of the statue bases for any of the Julio-Claudians included in this investigation can be dated based on its inclusion. For the statue bases for Trajan we depend to an even larger degree on victory titles as a dating criterion. 40% of all statue bases for Trajan can be dated more precisely on the basis of the victory titles Germanicus, Dacicus and Parthicus, and because of these the number of bases for Trajan with no indication of date is as low as 27 or 13.2% of the total number (Table SE 32). The following honorific titles are important when dating the inscriptions from statue bases. First of all pater patriae, the title that Cicero held to be the highest, which the senate voted for Augustus on 5 February 2 BC and was offered to all succeeding emperors within the first year after their accession. Most emperors accepted it, in which case it is of no consequence as a dating criterion. Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus declined the title for a period, and accepted it only when they had “earned” it, possibly in imitation of Augustus, who had received it for his long service to the state.165 Of the emperors of the first two centuries AD, only Tiberius and Otho never received this honorary title. In all, 30 statue bases can be assigned an approximate date because of its inclusion in the inscription. However, since it was such a common element in the imperial name it is not a foolproof dating criterion. It mistakenly appears in a few instances in inscriptions for emperors who had not accepted the title at the time (p. 75). Other titles and epithets were given to specific emperors only. In August AD 114 the senate voted in favour of a decision to call Trajan optimus princeps, but, as with pater patriae, this is not an unfailing criterion since it was sporadically used prior to this date (p. 75). The epithets Olympios and Panhellenios given to Hadrian, on the other hand, were most probably new innovations from the time of Hadrian’s second and third sojourn in Athens in AD 127-128 and 131-132 AD. Olympios is found as the sole dating criterion in 39 inscriptions, and Panhellenios in 5. Titles and offices of other members of the imperial family can date statue bases either if they appear in filiation in the inscription, or if statues of several members of the imperial family comprised a statue group likely to have been erected simultaneously. Most of the approximate 130 examples of this pertain to pre-accession dedications. The early statue bases of Tiberius, for example, can normally be assigned an approximate date because of the titles of Augustus. Twenty bases for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus before they became emperors can be dated to specific years because of the appearance 165. Res gestae 34-35.


of the number of Antoninus Pius’ tribunician count in the filiation. Finally, the year of reign is indicated in a few inscriptions in eastern Asia Minor, on Cyprus and in Egypt, where this system of calculating years was frequently used during the Hellenistic period.166

Other dating criteria Apart from the imperial nomenclature, a range of other information given in the inscriptions can help us to date monuments. Often the information was intended to supply a specific date for the dedication, but sometimes it is mere coincidence. In other instances, a monument can be dated because of external reasons such as the context of the dedication, or because it was erected together with more accurately dated statue bases. Compared with the imperial titles these criteria are far more rarely applicable, and seldom offer the same accuracy in dating.

Local calendars Many cities throughout the Empire kept local calendars using eponymous magistrates, and used these frequently to date official documents, including inscriptions on statue bases. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions these are meaningless to us. The most obvious exception is the calendar of Rome, where years are named after the two ordinary consuls. This calendar also gained acceptance far beyond the city of Rome, and inscriptions from statue bases dated by consuls have been found in Ostia, Praeneste, Cures and Perusia in Italy, in Vicus Marosallensis in Belgica, and in Collippo (Claudius 6, 46; Trajan 19; Hadrian 15; Antoninus Pius 15, 53, 92; Marcus Aurelius 9, 32, 42). The other calendar using eponymous magistrates known to us in some detail is the Athenian, by which three bases can be dated (Augustus 129; Hadrian 186, 194), including the one for Hadrian in the theatre of Dionysos in the year he held the office of archon himself. Cities could also date documents in years from their founding, or as in the case of Sebastopolis in Cappadocia, from its synoichism with Karana in 3-2 BC (Trajan 182, 184). 166. Tiberius 148; Nero 58; Trajan 190, 193, 194; Hadrian 298, 391; Commodus 78, 106, 107, 110.


Regional calendars In addition to city calendars regional calendars were employed for inter-city relations, particularly in the East, where the Roman consular calendar was seldom employed. The oldest functional calendar used for dating statue bases during the Roman imperial period is the Seleucid era, starting with the taking of Babylon by Seleukos I Soter in 312 BC. A base for statues of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in Palmyra was dedicated in the 478th year of the Seleucid era (Marcus Aurelius 253; Lucius Verus 137). A few of the republican calendars also survived into the imperial period. The Sullan era, calculated from Sulla’s expulsion of Mithridates VI Eupator from Greece and the province of Asia in 85 BC, has been observed on statue bases in Traianopolis and Apollonia (Domitian 38; Hadrian 363; Marcus Aurelius 230; Lucius Verus 124), and the Lucullan era was used for a single inscription from Amastris (Antoninus Pius 212). In Macedonia the years were counted from the year of the reorganisation of the province (Augustus 119; Tiberius 80; Vespasian 46; Marcus Aurelius 73). The base for statues of Divus Augustus and Tiberius in Berge shows the year of the Actian era as well as the year of the provincial calendar. Finally, a base for Hadrian (Hadrian 417) found in Pantikapaion uses the Bithyno-Pontic calendar going back to the year 297 BC.

Other individuals Members of the imperial family have been mentioned as a criterion for dating imperial statue bases, but the names and titles of other individuals sometimes supply useful information as well. The most important of these is the name of the governor at the time of the dedication, either because he erected the statue himself, or because he had been given the honour of dedicating a public monument.167 North Africa and Asia Minor figure prominently among the 61 examples of inscriptions dated by governors. Only five bases from other regions feature the name of the governor. The dates for the reigns of Dynamis, queen of the Bosporan Kingdom at the time of Augustus, and Kotys, king half

167. It is not always possible to discern the role of the governor from the inscriptions themselves. In Thamugadi M. Aemilius Macer seems to have paid for the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 135). L. Novius Crispinus, on the other hand, only dedicated the statue of Antoninus Pius paid for from public funds (Antoninus Pius 144). This was also common practice for arches as well as for other public buildings.


a century later, help us date the statues they dedicated to Augustus and Nero (Augustus 202, 203; Nero 59) in Pantikapaion and Phanagoreia.

External criteria With varying degrees of cogency, external criteria have previously been employed to date imperial portraits and statue bases. The commonest assumption is that portrait statues were erected at the time of imperial visits. Another assumption connects military victories and triumphs with statues, for example the bronze equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome.168 As will be shown below, such criteria are highly uncertain, and possible connections with historical events have therefore deliberately been omitted as dating criteria for the statue bases in the catalogue, except in those few instances where absolute certainty prevails – for instance the base for Hadrian in Hadriani in Asia (Hadrian 327), which must post-date the founding of the city in AD 123, and a base for Tiberius in Paphos (Tiberius 149) that was erected after the city had become a colony in AD 15.

Dating by negative evidence Most statue bases can be dated more or less precisely on the basis of the appearance of elements in the emperor’s name formula, or at least a terminus post quem for the dedication can be obtained. Imperial titles accumulated during the course of a reign, so there are in general more criteria to date monuments towards the end of the reign of an emperor. This applies especially to victory titles and other honorific titles. The effect of dating by positive evidence is that dated monuments will tend to be overrepresented in the later material. The extent of the distortion depends on the evolution of the imperial title, and differs from emperor to emperor. The only dating criterion from the early part of Hadrian’s reign (apart from the tribunician count) is consul once and twice in the years AD 117 and 118. But from the latter half of the reign the titles Olympios and Panhellenios were frequently used in the Greek East, pater patriae from AD 128 mostly used in the West, and imperator twice after the end of the Jewish rebellion. Together these criteria make a noticeable impact 168. Knauer 1990, 277-306.


on the histogram of the bases of Hadrian (Fig. C 12, notice the difference in the height of the blue bars before and after AD 128). The question therefore arises whether it is possible to obtain a terminus ante quem for dedications on the basis of the omission of elements in the imperial title. This can without further consideration be accepted, if the omitted element forms part of a list of accumulating elements such as victory titles. An inscription for Marcus Aurelius containing the titles Armeniacus, Medicus and Parthicus must date after AD 166. The lack of the title Germanicus in the same inscription almost certainly indicates that the base was dedicated before the Germanic triumph celebrated in AD 172. The next question is whether inscriptions for Marcus Aurelius containing no victory titles can be dated before Marcus Aurelius received the first victory title in AD 164. The evidence from the statue bases for Trajan makes a strong case in favour of this possibility. Trajan received his first victory title, Germanicus, while still on the Rhine frontier before he became emperor, and in effect all inscriptions from his reign should include at least one victory title. Of the 208 inscriptions from statue bases for Trajan, 182 do in fact include Germanicus, and 23 of the remaining 26 inscriptions (Table SE 32) are too fragmentary to allow determination of the presence of any victory titles. Thus only three inscriptions do not include any victory titles (Trajan 142, 179, 188). This indicates that this particular element of the imperial title was very rarely omitted deliberately. However, the victory titles of Trajan seem to have been especially closely attached to his person, and he is one of the few emperors that retain any of his lifetime titles after deification – Divus Traianus Parthicus. Among the inscriptions for Marcus Aurelius, the victory titles are missing in two instances demonstrably later than AD 176 (Marcus Aurelius 211, 216). Less disconcerting is their absence from an inscription dated AD 170, since Marcus Aurelius renounced the use of the victory titles won by his deceased brother after AD 169 (Marcus Aurelius 157). Generally, the inscriptions omitting the victory titles are in Greek, and do not contain any other elements of the imperial name formula. We do however have one example of a base with a Latin inscription, with the emperor’s full name formula and dedicated by a military unit, which omits a newly won victory title (Lucius Verus 48). So the omission of victory titles can in most instances be used to date inscriptions, but the criterion is not unfailingly accurate. The omission of pater patriae can be used with some confidence to date Latin inscriptions, but its use in Greek is too sporadic to offer a reliable terminus ante quem. Among the statue bases for Hadrian erected in the Olympieion in AD 132, for example, the title only appears in 2 out of 25 fully preserved inscriptions, although he had received the title officially four years previously.


Another problem is posed by the omission, in both Latin and Greek, of the numeral one after the first consulship and tribunician power. Imperatorial salutations are not affected since the names of most emperors already include imperator as a praenomen. Consequently, this element only appears twice in inscriptions if there are any succeeding salutations. The numeral after consul and tribunician power could sometimes be omitted for other reasons, and we cannot be absolutely certain of the date of these inscriptions unless other elements support the date. Tribunician power for the first time is almost certainly meant in fourteen inscriptions (Caligula 10; Claudius 22; Nero 31, 32; Trajan 205; Hadrian 53, 159, 253, 276; Antoninus Pius 45, 180, 282; Lucius Verus 59, 84). However, there are plenty of inscriptions from statue bases that with certainty are dated later than the year of the first conferment of tribunician power, but which nevertheless lack a numeral.169

Reliability of the dating criteria Using statue bases as statistical material to answer questions about the chronological distribution of imperial statues requires that we can rely on the correctness of the information supplied in the inscriptions. For those who believe that the administration in Rome was asked for permission every time someone wanted to erect an imperial statue, the problem is non-existent.170 The correct imperial title could simply be copied from the rescript from the emperor granting permission to erect the statue. Even if one does not subscribe to this theory, imperial correspondence with cities and individuals must have been the most important source for knowing the correct nomenclature and titles of the emperor at any given time. There are several ways to check the reliability of the dating criteria found in the inscriptions. Firstly we can estimate the number of observable errors in the imperial titles. The most easily detected mistakes are inconsistencies between the tribunician count and the number of salutations, consulships or victory titles. It must be kept in mind that there could be a considerable lapse of time between events taking place in Rome and the arrival of the information

169. Caligula 28; Nero 55; Titus 12; Nerva 38; Trajan 80; Hadrian 267, 310; Antoninus Pius 75; Marcus Aurelius 192, 248; Lucius Verus 104. 170. Rollin 1979, 102-112.


in the provinces,171 and while tribunician power and sometimes consulships172 could be calculated for a specific date, salutations and honorific titles could not, and some delay for their inclusion should be expected. The observable mistakes are remarkably few. In an inscription for Titus in Perinthus (Titus 41), consul seven times must be a mistake. Both imperator ten times and tribunician power for the sixth time indicate AD 76. A base for Augustus in Saguntum (Augustus 91) presents an insoluble problem, as the numbers of tribunician powers, salutations and consulships indicate three different dates between 9 BC and 2 AD. The error in an inscription on a base from Luna (Augustus 48) is easier to explain. Here the stonecutter by mistake has written consul six times instead of consul twice. The count of the tribunician power of Antoninus Pius seems to have caused some confusion, and several minor inaccuracies occur. The inscription from the Mausoleum of Hadrian (Antoninus Pius 16), made in the period between his death and his deification, mentions a 24th tribunician power also known from a few other bases (Antoninus Pius 69, 155). In Ain-Ghechil, however, they must have thought that the last count was the 23rd. This is apparent from one of the few posthumous inscriptions to include all the emperor’s titles (Antoninus Pius 152). In Kainepolis, an inscription for Lucius Verus includes the title Germanicus (Lucius Verus 104), although he never received it, and in Acci the tribunician count is five even though it must have been at least seven, because of the appearance of consul three times (Lucius Verus 52). A commoner mistake is the premature use of the title pater patriae for emperors who had not accepted the title on or immediately after their accession. An inscription from Beneventum for Hadrian from the year AD 126-127 (Hadrian 49) includes the title, although he only accepted it officially a year later. The same mistake is found in an inscription from Singilia Barba (Hadrian 113), with the addition of the curious mistake imperator six times. Similarly, the titles optimus princeps and Parthicus appear on statue bases for Trajan before they became official titles (Trajan 46, 62, 67, 68).173 Optimus princeps continued to be used in inscriptions for Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (Hadrian 42-44, 46, 100, 110; Antoninus Pius 12, 19, 75, 99, 153, 233), although it was not an officially accepted title. The same is true

171. Duncan-Jones 1990, 7-29.

172. Emperors, like other senators, were usually designated as consuls for the following year.

173. For unofficial imperial titles see Frei-Stolba 1969, 18-39. Three out of nine inscriptions

for Trajan in the province of Baetica use titles not officially recognised. In Cisimbria and Olvera Parthicus appears in AD 114 (Gonzales, 1987, 237-250) and in Nescania optimus maximusque princeps appears as far back as AD 109.


for the victory titles of Trajan (Hadrian 254, 273, 275, 404). Antoninus Pius appears as Olympius in an inscription from Parium (Antoninus Pius 249) – this epithet is otherwise unattested for emperors besides Hadrian, except for an inscription for Caligula on Mytilene (Caligula 24). These examples may indicate some uncertainty on the part of the dedicator as to the official title of the emperor, although they may also be an attempt to show exceptional honours to the emperor. Although only a minority of the inscriptions can actually be checked for chronological inconsistencies between different pieces of information, we can with some confidence conclude that mistakes were rare. Naturally, it is always possible that the information included was outdated at the time of dedication, even though it had once been correct. Furthermore, we do not know whether the imperial titles in the inscriptions refer to the moment when the decision to erect a statue was taken, or the time when it was dedicated. If we can take the inscription for Claudius from Vicus Marosallensis (Claudius 46) at face value, there could be a considerable interval between the two. This base, to judge from the imperial titles, seems to have been adopted in AD 43 when Claudius passed through Gaul to Britannia, but the statue was not dedicated until 27 September, the anniversary of Augustus’ birthday, the following year.174 In Rome the interval, not surprisingly, was much shorter. Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius on 25 February 138, and 80 days later a statue of Antoninus Pius was dedicated (Antoninus Pius 1). Another way to check the reliability of the information is to examine the distribution of the tribunician count. If the dedicator, or indeed the stonecutter, had no clue as to what number he should write, he would be naturally inclined to choose a figure divisible by ten or five.175 This of course only applies to Latin inscriptions, which fortunately account for the majority of the inscriptions mentioning this element of the title. It must be kept in mind that the round figures for tribunicia potestas coincide with the decennalia and the vicennalia, which have been proposed as occasions for erecting imperial statues (p. 157). Counting the number of occurrences of each number,176 we can observe that the tenth tribunician power is more frequent than the ninth, equally frequent with the eleventh, but less frequent than tribunicia potestas 7, 8, 13 and 14. The fifth and the fifteenth tribunician power occur less frequently than an even 174. Stuart 1938, 23-24, n. 145. 175. The same phenomenon that can be observed in Roman funerary inscriptions, Moretti 1959, 71; Duncan-Jones 1992, 79-92. 176. The number of inscriptions assignable to specific years on the basis of tribunicia potestas are as follows: →


distribution might lead us to expect. Only for the twentieth tribunician power do we see a pronounced difference from the previous and the following year. However, compared with the 16th, 17th and 18th tribunician power the figure is not conspicuous. The sharp drop after the twentieth is to be explained by the falling number of emperors to rule this long.177 Against this background we can conclude that whenever a date is supplied in an inscription, whether intentionally or not, the information is most probably correct.

Dating accuracy An average of 37.3% of the inscriptions from imperial statue bases can be dated to specific years (Table SC 4), predominantly on the basis of the tribunician count. During the reign of the three first emperors the percentage is somewhat lower, while it remains steady around 40% for the rest of the period studied. An additional 30.8% can be dated to limited periods within the reigns to make the total of dated inscriptions 68.1%. Here the differences between emperors become more apparent. The statue bases of Trajan have the highest percentage of datable inscriptions at 86.8%, followed by those of Titus and Domitian at 86.4% and 81.5% respectively. At the low end, only 28.6% of the statue bases for Caligula have criteria for dating. The question is whether the two-thirds of the inscriptions that are datable, either to specific years or within a limited period within the reign, are representative of the whole group of statue bases. A substantial part of the undated inscriptions are either too fragmentary or otherwise illegible to determine the date, although they once must have included some form of dating criteria.

→

Trib pot Inscrip- Trib pot Inscrip- Trib pot Inscrip- Trib pot Inscrip- Trib pot tions tions tions tions 2 50 10 17 18 28 26 3 34 3 37 11 17 19 18 27 1 35 4 42 12 12 20 26 28 5 36 5 26 13 19 21 13 29 5 37 6 23 14 19 22 7 30 6 38 7 22 15 16 23 6 31 2 39 8 27 16 26 24 6 32 3 40 9 15 17 23 25 5 33 5 41

Inscr. 4 2 2 2 3 0 0 0

Sample size: 520 inscriptions. 177. The last tribunician count was 18 for Commodus, 21 for Trajan, 22 for Hadrian and 24 for Antoninus Pius.


These almost certainly have the same chronological distribution as the dated inscriptions, since weathering and destruction are independent of chronology. In addition, it is worth pointing out that the inclusion of the imperial titles by which the inscriptions can be dated depends heavily on the language used. Among the Latin inscriptions the percentage of bases which can be assigned to brief periods within the reign is much higher than for the Greek counterparts. In North Africa, 52.0% of all inscriptions can be dated to specific years, whereas the figure for Asia Minor is as low as 20.6% (Table SC 16). In Italy and in North Africa close to 80% of the inscriptions hold some form of dating criteria, and if we add to this the inscriptions that cannot be dated because of their fragmentary state, we achieve a very high accuracy. This is not the case with the Greek inscriptions from Greece and Asia Minor, where the tradition for recording the Roman offices of the emperor by which we can date the inscriptions was not practised. Here just above half of the inscriptions can be dated more precisely, and chronological differences between the dated and undated inscriptions could potentially distort the outcome. However, there are no apparently significant differences in the chronological distribution within the reign between Latin and Greek inscriptions, as the particularly well-dated evidence for Trajan shows. Thus, we can say with a high degree of probability that the dated inscriptions are representative of the material as a whole. Still, conclusions concerning chronology drawn solely on the evidence from the Greek East should be treated with caution.

Dates chosen for dedicating imperial statues The exact date on which the dedication of a statue took place is seldom mentioned in the inscriptions. We do however possess a small group of 13 statue bases, predominantly found in Italy, which specify the date on which the dedication took place. Eight of these were dedicated on the emperor’s birthday, his dies natalis (Tiberius 146; Claudius 4; Trajan 19; Hadrian 255; Antoninus Pius 92; Marcus Aurelius 42; Lucius Verus 3, 15). In addition, a base for Claudius was dedicated on Augustus’ birthday. This was most probably a conscious choice, since the decision to erect the statue was apparently taken a year and a half in advance (Claudius 46).178 The remaining five bases – two for Nerva

178. Stuart 1938, 23-24, n. 145.


and Trajan from the meeting place for the Augustales in Misenum dedicated 19 September and 9 November (Nerva 8, Trajan 15), two bases for Antoninus Pius dedicated in Rome on 15 May and in Perusia on 21 March (Antoninus Pius 1, 53), and a base for Commodus in Alexandria dated 8 January (Commodus 110) – cannot be connected with any red-letter day in the imperial fasti. Although it is tempting to do so, we cannot deduce from this small sample that imperial statues were regularly dedicated on the emperor’s birthday. Since the inscriptions would have to be prepared in advance, the date could only be included if a choice of date had already been made. We can however infer that the emperor’s birthday was apparently a favoured occasion when a specific date was chosen.


The Applicability of the Evidence

of the Statue Bases

to the Extant Portraits

The epigraphical evidence from the preserved statue bases of Roman emperors constitutes a chronologically random sample within each reign, and their chronological distribution is beyond all reasonable doubt representative of all the statues accompanied by bases carrying dedicatory inscriptions that were originally erected. The date on which any given statue base was erected within the reign of an emperor is not a contributory factor in determining its chance of survival. Differences in survival rates between different areas of the Roman Empire, on the other hand, may have caused minor biases if the chronological distribution differed regionally. The question is whether the chronological distribution of the statue bases applies to the extant portraits as well. While this may seem a logical conclusion, it is not necessarily true. The extant portraits and statue bases represent two different excerpts of the entire body of imperial portraits and portrait statues once in existence. The vast majority of the extant portraits are made of marble and have predominantly been found in Italy, whereas the statue bases have a much wider distribution and regularly carried bronze statues. Furthermore, some portraits have been found in contexts where inscribed bases were superfluous, such as busts erected in private houses and villas and cult statues in imperial temples, and these portraits may have been erected for entirely different reasons and at different times than the honorific statues erected in public. Consequently, their chronological distribution within a reign may not have been congruent. However, there is evidence indicating that this was in fact the case. Throughout the first and second centuries AD the ratio between extant portraits and extant bases remains fairly constant. More importantly, the length of reign of an emperor was not a factor in determining the ratio, and thus it can be

The Applicabilit y of the Evidence … · 81

concluded that chronology was not a factor in determining which portraits and statue bases were preserved. It follows that the chronological distribution of the extant portraits in general terms must have been the same as that of the statue bases.179 As a general rule there are two statue bases for each portrait. For some emperors, however, calculating the ratio is made difficult by the lack of recent studies with updated catalogues of their portraits. Claudius is a case in point. Using the number of portraits listed in Stuart’s study from 1938 – the last published compilation of the portraits – the ratio is rather high at 2.7 bases per portrait. In the forthcoming study by A.-K. Massner in the series Das römische Herrscherbild, the ratio may be lowered to approximately 1.8:1.180 This ratio corresponds well with the ratio for Tiberius, which can be calculated as being approximately 1.7:1.181 The ratio for the Flavians, if we use the number of portraits reported by Daltorp, Hausmann and Wegner (1966), is approximately 1.8:1. This rises to around 2.6:1 to 2.8:1 during the period from Nerva to Antoninus Pius. During the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus the ratio drops again to approximately 1.5:1. Two ratios, those of Augustus and Caligula, deviate significantly from the others. For both the ratio is approximately one to one. In his review of Boschung’s book on the portraits of Caligula, Smith pondered on the basis of the then known ratios of Claudius (2.7:1) and Julia Domna (2.4:1) on the curious ratio for Caligula, which according to the material presented by Boschung was even as far removed as 1:2. Smith invoked chance, the brevity of the reign and forgery as contributing factors, rightly ruling out the effect of damnatio memoriae, as the same pattern could not be detected for Nero.182 I think the brevity of the reign can be ruled out as well, since the evidence for Nerva clearly points in the opposite direction. Chance could very well be a factor as the figures are quite small, but one cannot rule out the possibility of forgery. Imperial portraits are often collected using the stamp collector’s method – one of each. Portraits of Caligula would be among the more sought after, thereby increasing the incentive for making forgeries. The reason for the low ratio for Augustus must be sought elsewhere. According to Boschung, nearly 200 life-size or large portraits of

179. See also Højte 1999. 180. A.-K. Massner has kindly supplied me with information about the number and format of the portraits included in her catalogue (Massner forthcoming). For the number of portraits of individual emperors see Fig. 9. 181. Boschung (1993b, 56-58) mentions around 90 portraits. 182. Boschung 1989, with a comment on the curiosity of the ratio by Smith (1992, 272-273).


Augustus still exist,183 a number equal to that of the statue bases. The reason for the odd ratio clearly lies in the large number of surviving portraits. The number of bases is as high as we should expect it to be given the steadily rising frequency of dedications throughout the first 150 years of the principate (Fig. C 19). Thus, either a larger share of the portraits was placed in contexts where dedicatory inscriptions were not needed, or the portraits had a higher survival rate than usual for imperial portraits. One of the factors that might affect the ratio is the geographical distribution of the dedications. A higher percentage of dedications in Italy, which clearly has the highest survival rate for sculpture, should result in a lower ratio. While this goes some way to explain the low ratio for Augustus, and, as we shall see, for heirs to the throne whose statues were more frequent in Italy, it certainly cannot explain the low ratio for Caligula, as statue bases for him are almost non-existent in Italy (Table SG 1). However, these discrepancies between the ratios for different emperors do not affect the claimed similarity in the chronological distribution, as long as the ratio does not depend on the length of the reign of an emperor. We can therefore with confidence apply the chronological distribution of the statue bases to the extant portraits. In some instances, this new insight into the chronological distribution of the dedication of imperial statues offers an opportunity to verify the dates assigned to the different portrait types of an emperor. If the proposed chronology of the portrait types causes the portraits to have a significantly different distribution within the reign than that of the statues bases, it is probable that one or more of the portrait types have been assigned wrong dates. Since the introduction of new portrait types regularly did not terminate the production of older types,184 it is of course only possible to detect the portrait types that have been assigned dates too late in the reign in this way. This seems to be the case for the “Decennalienbildnis” of Trajan dated by Gross to AD 108.185 This portrait type and the following types that depend heavily on it account for approximately two-thirds of the extant portraits.186 The later part of the reign of Trajan is characterised by a slightly higher frequency of dedications (Fig. C 11), but an earlier date for the “Decennalienbildnis”, perhaps AD 105, would 183. Boschung 1993a. 184. Several examples of this exist. Even long after the introduction of the Prima Porta type, earlier portrait types of Augustus continued to be produced (Boschung 1993a, 70), and on the column of Trajan a range of different types appears (Gross 1940, 43-53). 185. Gross 1940, 95. Jucker 1984, 17-78 suggests instead AD 107. 186. Gross 1940, cat. no. 26-74. See also Fittschen and Zanker 1984, 43 and Bergmann 1997, 141-142, who include more copies of the portrait types prior to the Decennalienbildnis.

The Applicabilit y of the Evidence … · 83

bring the portraits into better accordance with the chronology of the bases. Another example is the fourth portrait type of Marcus Aurelius, the Typus Imperatori 38. This portrait type has been dated either AD 169, when Marcus Aurelius became sole emperor, or AD 176, in connection with his return to Rome and the triumph over the Sarmatians.187 Given the large number of copies of this portrait type,188 and the very low frequency of statue bases for Marcus Aurelius during the 170s (Fig. C 17), the later date can easily be ruled out. Even the earlier date hardly brings consistency between the chronological distribution of the portraits and the bases, and an even earlier date may be preferable. The primary argument against dating the portrait type before the death of Lucius Verus is that no comparable portrait type existed for Lucius Verus.189 However, the two emperors did not necessarily have new portrait types created simultaneously. These two examples of portrait types that have been assigned wrong dates are the most obvious, but it is quite possible that closer studies of the chronological distribution of the portrait types of other emperors might reveal other instances of types dated too late in the reign.

187. Wegner 1939, 43-44; Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 71-73.

188. Wegner and Unger 1980, 12-116; Bergman 1978, 26; Albertson 1982, 56.

189. Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 72.


The Geographical Distribution

of Imperial Portrait Statues

The literary sources are almost silent when it comes to the question of how imperial portraits were produced and distributed throughout the Empire, and the preserved monuments are therefore our primary source of knowledge. This of course has been a challenge to archaeologists, and perhaps one of the most important motivations behind the enormous effort put into compiling and studying Roman imperial portraits.190 By detailed study of the portraits it was hoped that it would be possible not only to determine stylistically where portraits were created, but also to detect unique traits such as technical peculiarities and mannerisms that could identify works as having been produced in a specific workshop. This could give us an insight into how production and distribution were organised, not just with regard to imperial portraits, but possibly also with other types of sculpture. However, the extant portraits by no means constitute a representative sample of the statues originally dedicated, and the conclusions drawn from this material cannot be applied to the Empire as a whole. Where both the literary sources and the extant portraits are strongly biased towards Rome and Italy, the statue bases represent a far more random sample and can thus give a more correct impression of the distribution. Furthermore, imperial statue bases survive in sufficient numbers to allow statistical analysis of developments of the practice of erecting imperial statues within a region, and in relation to other regions of the Empire, which we can relate to the political and economic situation in an area. Before turning to the evidence of the statue bases, let us first look at what has been discovered so

190. Zanker 1973, 10.

The Geo graphical Distribu tion … · 85

far from the extant portraits with regard to the production and geographical distribution of imperial statues.

The geographical distribution of extant imperial portraits A consensus has been reached among scholars of imperial portraits that new official portrait types were created by a court artist at the wish of the emperor or his closest advisors, and that the initiative may have been connected with important events related to the emperor.191 This procedure normally took place in Rome; and only under special circumstances, for instance when a newly elected emperor was not present in Rome, could an image be created elsewhere in the form of either a painting or a three-dimensional image.192 Plaster casts or some other form of copy of the original portrait or “Urbild” were then distributed for serial production among workshops in Rome,193 which may or may not have been under the control of the administration. Soechting, who was the first to investigate the question of workshops producing 191. This very important question for the understanding of imperial portraits has not received the attention it deserves. Numismatic evidence sometimes suggests a connection. It is, however, impossible to establish a governing principle for the creation of new portrait types. While one type of commemorative event may have served as an occasion for the creation of a new portrait type of one emperor, it can be proven not to apply to others. For instance, it has been proposed that Hadrian’s second and third consulship was the occasion for the creation of the types “Chiaramonti” and “Rollockenfrisur” (Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 48-51). However, this suggestion only makes sense because Hadrian was consul only three times. Domitian, on the other hand, was consul 17 times and consequently any connection with portrait types would be absurd. The fact that the many different portrait types of Faustina Minor should be connected with childbirth, as proposed by Fittschen (Fittschen 1982), seems reasonable. But there is no similar principle that can explain why there are seven different portrait types of Trajan and Hadrian (Gross 1940, Evers 1994) and only one of Antoninus Pius (Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 64). Furthermore, the creation of new portrait types did not always relate to the most obvious occasions, as shown by the presence of the latest portrait type of Lucius Verus on a relief dated a year before his accession (Fuhrmann 1939, 294-302, Calza 1964, no. 8, plate V). For Lucius Verus, and in analogy possibly Marcus Aurelius, no new portrait type was created on their accession, and neither did the triumph celebrated in AD 166 or his acceptance of the title pater patriae call for this. It seems highly problematic, therefore, to automatically assume that new portrait types were connected to important events in the life of the emperor. 192. According to Herodian 5.5.6, Elagabalus had his picture sent to Rome from Syria before his arrival, apparently to accustom the Romans to his strange appearance. 193. For the procedure see Pfanner 1989, 157-257; Trillmich 1971, 179-213.


imperial portraits, identified four workshops in Rome producing portraits of Septimius Severus. He saw in the organisation an analogy to the imperial mint in Rome, which although controlled by the emperor was split into a number of officinae.194 However, a coherent output of portraits could be achieved by other means than the unified management of the workshops proposed by Soechting, and the production may easily have been left to privately owned workshops and the ordinary channels of the art trade.195 Although the emperors clearly had an interest in presenting themselves in a certain fashion, and although their portraits and portrait types were often carefully designed to convey specific political and dynastic messages, it would also be in the interest of the purchaser to follow current fashion. From Rome portraits or exact models196 were distributed to centres in the provinces where local workshops copied the Roman models more or less faithfully, but usually supplied the copy with a distinctive regional style or tradition to suit the taste of the local audience.197 Each time the process was repeated and portraits moved from the regional centres to local workshops, the result would be further removed from the original.198 These local copies often startle us, because we have grown accustomed to seeing high-quality work from the best workshops in Rome, and the fact that there are relatively few of them among the extant portraits has caused them to be treated as a phenomenon separate from the orderly “Replikenreihen” of the portraits produced in Rome.199 The geographical distribution of the extant portraits shows that between one-half (Augustus and Caligula) and two-thirds (Hadrian) of all portraits have been found in Rome and Italy (Fig. 9). This would be the natural market 194. Soechting 1972, 83-106 & 275-282. The officina system definitely existed during the third and fourth centuries AD, and most probably in the second as well, see Göbl 1974, 898-903. For the question of whether it existed during the Julio-Claudian period, see MacDowal (1978, 32-46), who advocates the idea, and Kaenel (1986, 252-255), who rejects it. 195. Stuart 1939, 601-617. 196. Swift (1923, 286-301) proposed that wax models were disseminated throughout the Empire upon accession of a new emperor. Stuart (1939, 601-617) argued that this was not the case during the Julio-Claudian period. 197. For provincial portraits in general see Zanker 1983. Regional studies of imperial portraits or general studies of portraits including imperial portraits: Greece: Stauridis 1970, Asia Minor: Inan & Rosenbaum 1966 & 1979, Syria: Skupinska-Løvset 1999, Egypt: Jucker 1981a, Kiss 1984; Bonacasa 1971, Cyrene: Rosenbaum 1960, Spain: Baena del Alcázar 1985, 230-246. 198. Pfanner 1989, 158-161. 199. A rather long section in Wegner’s (1956, 33-44) study of the portraits of Hadrian is devoted to the portraits from the provinces. Only portraits from Italy were discussed under the different portrait types.


for portraits produced in Rome. Rome was undoubtedly the most important production centre in the Empire, and these workshops, with their products of superior quality, certainly had a large share of the long-distance trade. It is characteristic, however, that the portraits attributed to workshops in Rome have predominantly been found in the much closer markets of Rome and Italy. Among the 84 portraits attributed by Soechting to four workshops in Rome, only the portrait from the legionary camp in Bonn, the three portraits from the villa at Chiragan and two portraits in Maastricht and in Luxembourg originate from outside Italy.200 Another attempt by Evers at distinguishing workshops in Rome, this time concerning the portraits of Hadrian, shows a similar tendency.201 With the exception of the portrait from Carthago now in Paris, the interesting portrait from Milreu showing traits of two different portrait types,202 and possibly the statue in Vaison-la-Romaine, the 65 portraits attributed by Evers to five different workshops all originate in Italy. The predominance of the Italian material among the extant portraits, and the superior quality of these products, has led to an overestimation of the degree of centralisation and the importance of Rome as a centre of production. The extent to which the geographical distribution of the extant portraits was biased towards Rome has not yet been fully realised. Three factors have contributed to the high survival rate of sculptures in Italy. First of all, marble seems to have been preferred to bronze in Italy for honorary statues. Secondly, we have knowledge of a large number of private contexts in Italy where marble busts seem to have been the preferred medium for imperial portraits. Finally, the long tradition for collecting sculpture in Italy has saved portraits that elsewhere might have ended up in lime kilns.

The geographical distribution of statue bases Since the factors that have biased the selection of the portraits influence the preservation of statue bases to a much lower degree, we can obtain a more correct impression of the distribution of imperial portrait statues by studying these. This is not to say that the distribution of statue bases mirrors the situation in antiquity exactly. Conditions of preservation vary from one region to 200. Soechting 1972, 150-151, no. 28, 155, no. 34.

201. Evers 1994, 295-335.

202. Fittschen 1984, 197-207.


the next, and differences in the degree of investigation and excavation naturally affect our knowledge of statue bases – the same being true of portraits. In addition, the survival rate is influenced by the durability of the preferred medium for writing inscriptions in the area. Was bronze or inferior stone more susceptible to wearing used, this naturally effet survival rates.203 These conditions, however, are of little importance compared with the crucial difference that statue bases have an equal chance of survival regardless of the material used for the statue. Thus we should exercise some caution in comparing different regions directly in terms of the absolute numbers of extant statue bases. Within a single region, on the other hand, we can compare the evidence for different emperors and determine developments over time, since chronology is only a factor in determining the survival rate of statue bases to a very limited extent. Statues of former emperors were, as we have seen, generally not removed except in case of damnatio memoriae (pp. 63-64). The Roman Empire has been divided into eight regions in order to facilitate comparison. Italy:

Rome, the eleven Augustan regions, Sicilia, Sardinia and Corsica Northern provinces: Moesia Inferior, Moesia Superior, Dacia, Dalmatia, Pannonia Inferior, Pannonia Superior, Noricum, Raetia, Germania Superior, Germania Inferior, Britannia and the Bosporan Kingdom Gaul: Belgica, Lugdunensis, Aquitania, Narbonensis, Alpes Maritimae, Alpes Cottiae and Alpes Graiae et Poeniae Spain: Tarraconensis, Lusitania and Baetica Western North Africa: Mauretania Tingitana, Mauretania Caesariensis, Numidia and Africa Proconsularis Greece: Thracia, Macedonia, Achaea and Creta et Cyrene Asia Minor: Pontus et Bithynia, Asia, Lycia et Pamphylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia and Cyprus Eastern provinces: Syria, Judaea, Arabia and Aegyptus 203. Duncan-Jones (1982, 360-362) calculates that a maximum of 5% of the inscriptions originally in existence in North Africa have been recovered. The figure, as pointed out by the author, is highly uncertain due to the many variables involved, and in addition North Africa probably has one of the highest survival rates for inscriptions due to the low number of continuous settlements.


Italy 539 imperial statue bases from the period from Augustus to Commodus have been found in the region of Italy. This amounts to 23.4% or just under one-quarter of the total number of bases within the Empire (Table SC 13). Although this places the region among those with the highest concentration of evidence, it does not by any means justify the dominating position of the extant portraits from Italy. While Rome and the surrounding regions Latium, Campania and southern Etruria certainly have the highest concentration of statue bases anywhere in the Empire, other regions of Italy show remarkably little evidence of imperial statues. From Regio IX on the Ligurian coast only three bases are known, and the area thus has one of the lowest concentrations of statue bases. The Augustan regions II, III, V and XI likewise show very little evidence of statue bases (Fig. G 16, insert). Central Italy, on the other hand, not only had a higher concentration of cities – each city also produced more bases. This may be a result of more systematic investigation in Central Italy, but these cities were probably more prosperous because of their proximity to the capital and consequently could be more richly adorned with statues. The geographical distribution of imperial statue bases in Italy almost exactly parallels that of honorary inscriptions for other individuals, as seen in a recent collection of 482 honorary inscriptions from the eleven Augustan regions.204 This of course does not confirm that the distribution of the extant bases matches that of the original distribution, since both groups have been subject to the same conditions for preservation. But it does indicate that the economic, social and political factors that governed the erection of imperial portrait statues were the same as those regulating the erection of honorary statues of other individuals. The frequency of imperial statue bases in the region of Italy expressed in terms of number of dedications per year of reign generally shows a slightly rising tendency from Augustus until the 170s (Fig. 11). The most significant fluctuations in the frequency can readily be explained as the result of damnatio memoriae of Caligula, Nero, Domitian and Commodus, the effect of the brevity of the reign of Nerva, or because of the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus from AD 161 to 169, which practically doubled the number of dedications. 204. Forbis 1996, 233. The regions I and VII have slightly higher percentages of imperial statues, while the sixth region accounts for only 8% of the total number of imperial statues in Italy but 16% of statues of others.


8 7

Bases/year

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -30 -20 -10

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 11. The number of statue bases per year in Italy. Based on Table SG 1.

% of total number of bases for each emperor

Because the number of imperial statue bases in most other regions of the Empire increases more rapidly than in Italy, and because the practice of dedicating statues of the emperor spread to new territories, the importance of Italy within the Empire, at least as a market for imperial statues, seems to wane almost continuously throughout the period (Fig. 12). During the reign of Augustus more than one-third of all statue bases were erected in Italy. By the time of

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5 0 -30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 12. The relative importance of statue bases from Italy expressed as a percentage of the total. Based on Table SG 1.


Claudius the figure had dropped to 24.7%, and to 20.0% under Trajan. During the early Antonine period the proportion of statue bases in Italy again rises slightly, but then drops sharply during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The relatively high figure of 25.4% for Marcus Aurelius (Table SG 1), being an average for the reign as a whole, conceals the fact that only 13% of the bases dating to the 170s AD were erected in Italia. The only reasonable explanation for this sudden change must be the devastating effect of the Antonine Plague, which seems to have been particularly hard on Italy.205 The low level of activity in Italy continues during the 180s AD under Commodus, and can be traced into the third century as shown by the statue bases for Julia Domna. Only 10% of these originate in Italy.206 Later the region may have recovered. Regio X, from which we have the only reliable figures, certainly seems to have prospered during the third and early fourth centuries, but this could be a local phenomenon connected to the growing importance of Northern Italy as a link to the northeastern frontier that may not apply to the whole region.207 Regional differences in the development within Italia can be observed during the first and second centuries AD. The northwestern part of Italy, the regions VII, IX, and XI, witnessed a significant decline after the Julio-Claudian period. In Etruria, where statue bases had been prolific during the early Empire, the change is particularly abrupt. Nearly two-thirds of the statue bases in this region were erected before the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, compared with 31% for the whole of Italy and only 23.5% of the total number of bases within the Empire. On the other hand, the regions in the eastern part of Italy, Regio V and VI, seem to prosper during the Antonine period. During the whole period the percentage of bases from the city of Rome remains constant between 4% and 6% of the total. The evidence for Nerva (10%) is the exception.

The northern provinces The provinces along the northern Rhine-Danube frontier were for the most part clearly marginal areas for honorific imperial statues. An exception within this region are the Greek cities on the Black Sea coast, which follow the pattern 205. Duncan-Jones 1992, 108-136.

206. Fejfer 1985, 129-138.

207. Alföldy (1984, 51-52) in Regio X enumerates six first century AD imperial statue bases

and ten second century, but no less than 25 from the third century.



12

10

8

6

4

2

0 -30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 13. The relative importance of the statue bases from the northern provinces. Based on Table SG 4.

of the cities of the Aegean as far as the practice of dedicating imperial statues is concerned. Along the frontier hardly any bases have been found. Two factors have contributed to this poor rate of discovery. Firstly, we have reason to believe that limited access to good-quality stone for making inscriptions may have facilitated more widespread use of bronze-covered bases, which are less likely to survive (p. 30). The preference for bronze also explains the very limited number of extant portraits from the region. It is certainly true that the overwhelming majority of the sculptural evidence found within military installations is made of bronze.208 So the figure of 5.2% of the total number of bases may not accurately reflect what was once in existence. Secondly, the tradition for dedicating honorific statues with inscribed bases seems not to have extended to the military contexts that dominate the area. It is probable that life-size imperial statues were present in the military camps, but epigraphically they are invisible. In the western part of the region the evidence is much too scarce to show any patterns. In the eastern part a higher level of activity can be detected from the reign of Trajan, which probably relates to the Dacian Wars. Whereas the statue bases for the Julio-Claudian emperors are almost completely confined to the coastal cities of Dalmatia, where the three colonies of Iader, Narona 208. Gamer 1969, 76-77; Stoll 1992; Pop 1978, 135-165; Vízy 1988, 148-151.



10

8

6

4

2

0 -30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 14. The relative importance of the statue bases from Gaul. Based on Table SG 7. The percentage for Caligula is no less than 32.1%

and Salona figure prominently (Figs. G 1-5), the dedications move to the cities on the coast of the Black Sea under the Flavians, with the emphasis on the second century AD (compare Figs. G 1-2 with Figs. G 11-12). While the practice of dedicating imperial statues had penetrated very slowly into the area in the first century AD, we see an abrupt change in the latest addition to the Empire – the province of Dacia. Although no dedications for Trajan exist, there is quite a lot of evidence for his immediate successors.

Gaul In Gaul and in the small Alpine provinces, the majority of bases belong to the period before the reign of Nero. Of the 53 bases, 39 were erected between Augustus and Claudius. Since northwestern Italy is the only other area where a similar pattern can be observed, it is natural to see the two as part of the same development. With the advent of the Flavians the number of dedications declines sharply (Table SG 7). A similar development can be observed for other types of monument. Curious are the nine bases for Caligula in the area, four of them erected prior to his accession, which have escaped the destruction of monuments following his death. Compared with the number of extant portraits (Fig. 9), relatively few statue bases have survived. It must


% of tota l number of bases for each emperor

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

-30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 15. The relative importance of the statue bases from Spain. Based on Table SG 10.

be remembered, however, that a large part of the second-century imperial portraits originating in Gaul stem from a single context, the late Roman villa at Chiragan.209 The somewhat surprising dearth of statue bases in Gaul can to some extent be explained by the relatively poor chance of finding such bases. The provinces in Gaul are characterised by a high degree of continuous occupation since antiquity, and the ancient towns are largely buried deep beneath modern cities. Where fora have been fully excavated, as in Ruscino and Glanum,210 imperial statue bases have been found (Tiberius 56; Caligula 5; Marcus Aurelius 71; Lucius Verus 39).

Spain The frequency of imperial statue bases in the provinces on the Iberian Peninsula remained fairly constant during the first and second centuries AD (Table SG 10). As in Italy, this of course meant that the proportion of these bases within the Empire continuously declined (Fig. 15). The one exception 209. Espérandieu 1908, 29-93. For a discussion of the imperial busts, see Hannestad 1994, 127-133. 210. Barroal and Marichal 1987, 45-54; Giacoppi-Lequément 1993, 282-286.


is the Flavian period, when the reforms of Vespasian211 seem to have had an immediate impact on the number of statue bases, but no long-term effect. Overall the share of the bases from Spain drops from 11% during the reign of Augustus to between 4 and 6% during the second century. Within the region, the province of Baetica has produced the most evidence, and ranks among the provinces with the highest concentration of statue bases throughout the period under consideration (Fig. G 16). Tarraconensis is unusual compared with the rest of the Empire. The evidence is limited, but it clearly seems to be concentrated in the coastal area after the Julio-Claudian period – when other regions show penetration into the hinterland. Most of the inland sites like Bilbilis, Clunia, Segobriga and Valeria show no evidence later than the reign of Claudius.

Western North Africa North Africa is the region within the Empire that underwent the most dramatic change during the first and second centuries AD as far as the number of imperial statues is concerned. From a position as one of the most insignificant areas throughout the Julio-Claudian period, the area rises in prominence during the late first and early second centuries, and emerges during the Antonine period as the area with the most evidence of imperial statue bases (Fig. 16 and Table SG 13). Only four statue bases for Augustus are known dedicated during his lifetime in all of western North Africa. During the much shorter reign of Antoninus Pius there were no less than 66, plus many more for his two sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The high level of activity in North Africa seems to continue into the Severan period, or it may even rise in some areas, notably in Proconsularis and in Lepcis Magna in particular, the home town of Septimius Severus. The statue bases for the Severan emperors have yet to be compiled, but the number of bases for Julia Domna indeed suggests an extremely high concentration in North Africa.212 During the Julio-Claudian period dedications concentrate in the coastal areas and in a few major cities in Proconsularis. Later the evidence becomes more prolific further west in Numidia, and we find more statue bases in the 211. Mackie 1983, 215-217.

212. 50 of 120 or 41.7% of the bases for Julia Domna compiled by Fejfer (1985, 129-138) have

been found in western North Africa.


% of the total number of bases for each emperor

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 16. The relative importance of the statue bases from North Africa. Based on Table SG 13.

inland towns, many of which were founded or granted new status during the late first and early second centuries AD. This includes many of the towns that have revealed a notable amount of imperial statue bases like Cuicul, Diana Veteranorum, Lambaesis, Sitifis, Thamugadi, Thevestis, Thubursicu Numidarum, Thamugadi and Verecunda.

Greece The provinces of Thrace, Macedonia, Achaea and Creta and Cyrene account for 17.7% of the total number of statue bases – slightly more than North Africa. Greece had a long tradition of erecting honorary statues, and until the very end of the Republic the area produces the most evidence of statue bases for Romans and Italians.213 Even during the early part of the reign of Augustus,

213. Payne (1984) collects the evidence for statue bases for Romans and Italians in Greece. The evidence for statue bases in Italy and the western part of the Empire during the republic is very limited. While statue bases for Caesar erected before his deification are fairly common in Greece and Asia Minor (Raubitschek 1954, 65-75), they are practically unknown in Italy and the West (three are known in Alba (CIL I2, 2966), Bovianum (CIL IX, 2563), and Vibo Valentia (AE 1967, 107).


nearly half of the known imperial statue bases come from Greece. Some were erected after his victory at Actium, but most belong to the period before this, when Augustus, or at that time Octavian, had relatively little direct influence in the area.214 The statues and bases for Marc Anthony, which surely must have existed, were evidently thoroughly removed after his death since none have survived in either Greece or the province of Asia. During the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius, approximately 20% of the evidence derives from Greece. For Nero the figure rises to 25.8% (Table SG 16), and one is inclined to see this increase in the light of Nero’s interest in Greek culture. However, the specific events of his visit to Greece and the grant of freedom to the province came too late to have any general influence, and only a single base can be connected with his sojourn in Greece (pp. 161-162). The contrast to the Flavian period is striking, and further suggests that the policy of the emperor towards a province could result in fluctuations in the number of dedications of imperial statues. Whether in this particular case it was as a result of a decline in prosperity after the province had come under direct Roman control again, or because of general antipathy towards the regime, cannot be determined. Although Nero suffered damnatio memoriae, there are actually twice as many extant bases for Nero as for Vespasian. Immediately following the Flavian period the area regains its former importance, and reaches its zenith with an impressive 124 bases during the reign of the second philhellene emperor, Hadrian. No less than 29 of these bases belong in the Olympieion in Athens, where the member cities of the Panhellenion each dedicated a statue of Hadrian at the inauguration of the temple of Zeus Olympios in AD 131-132 (Hadrian 203, 208-235).215 Without this evidence the relative frequency for Hadrian would not be significantly higher than that of his predecessor Trajan, for whom, it must be remembered, a parallel situation exists in that no less than 13 bases for Trajan have appeared in the small town of Lyktos on Crete. The actual number of bases is of course much higher for Hadrian than for any other emperor, since the frequency of dedication during his reign was exceptionally high, not just in Greece, but throughout the Roman Empire. With the advent of the Antonine dynasty, the frequency of dedication again falls to a constant level comparable to that of the Julio-Claudian period in absolute numbers, and to that of the Flavian

214. On the other hand, Boschung (1993a, 87) found no early portraits of Augustus in the Greek East, and explains this by the dominance of Marc Antony in the area. 215. Benjamin 1963, 57-86.


% of total number of bases for each emperors

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

-30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 17. The relative importance of the statue bases from Greece. Based on Table SG 16.

period in relative terms (Table SG 16). While statue bases for Hadrian have been found at 50 different locations, those for Antoninus Pius have appeared at only 25, and those for Marcus Aurelius at 12. The statue bases in Greece are mostly concentrated in the relatively small area of the province of Achaea with 293 bases. This high figure is achieved due not only to the large number of sites with statue bases in the province, but also to the fact that several bases have been found at each site. Within the region as a whole the number is 3.70 bases per site, in Achaea alone 4.74 bases per site (Table SC 14).

Asia Minor With 592 statue bases, the region of Asia Minor has the highest number of imperial statue bases within the Empire. The geographical distribution of the bases is nearly congruent with the distribution of the evidence for imperial cult in Asia Minor.216 Both depended on the distribution of cities that were heavily concentrated in the coastal regions of western and southwestern Tur-

216. Price 1984, XXV & 78-100.


6

Bases/year

5 4 3 2 1 0 -30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 18. The number of statue bases per year in Asia Minor. Based on Table SG 19. The frequency for Nerva is actually as high as 11.25.

key (the provinces of Asia and Lycia et Pamphylia), while the interior and the northern coast have fewer, more scattered communities (Fig. G 16). Fluctuations in the distribution during the period are limited to a slight tendency towards a growing importance of the interior and the northern coast in the second century. Of all the regions, the chronological distribution of statue bases from Asia Minor most closely resembles the development within the Empire as a whole (compare Fig. 18 with Fig. C 19). However, small variations do occur. The region reaches its height of importance during the second half of the first century AD, when more than one-third of all known imperial statue bases were erected here. During the Antonine period the frequency remains high, but their share within the Empire falls to between 15 and 20%, primarily as a result of a tremendous rise in the number of bases in North Africa. The frequency of statue bases for Nerva in most regions exceeds that of other emperors because short reigns were likely to produce a higher frequency of statue bases (p. 155). In Asia Minor, however, the frequency is conspicuously high. If not accidental, this shows that the cities in Asia Minor responded more rapidly to the changed political situation after the death of Domitian than cities in other parts of the Empire.


% of total for each emperor

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -30 -20 -10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year

Fig. 19. The relative importance of the statue bases from Asia Minor. Based on Table SG 19.

The eastern provinces The evidence from the eastern provinces is extremely scarce, probably as a result of the low survival rate in the area affecting not only the epigraphical evidence, but other archaeological material as well.217 From the first century AD only twelve imperial statue bases have survived. A monument consisting of a cornice, with cuttings for statues of Tiberius, Germanicus and Drusus II, was erected in the temple of Bel in Palmyra before the death of Germanicus (Tiberius 153).218 An inscribed stone, probably a statue base, with only the first line with the name of Vespasian preserved has been found in Seleukeia Pieria (Vespasian 80), another inscription with uncertain portrait character has recently been uncovered in Caesarea (Vespasian 81), and in Heliopolis two posthumous bases for Vespasian and Titus (Vespasian 79; Titus 65) were erected as testamentary gifts. The remaining seven bases come from Egypt, which is the only place within the area where bases were dedicated continuously throughout the period. During the reign of Trajan the frequency of 217. Skupinska-Løvset 1999, 15-18 for the preservation of portraits, and below pp. 105-106, n. 227. 218. For the history of this monument, see Rose 1997a, 189, no. 130.


dedications rises to approximately 0.5 bases per year, at which level it remains constant to the end of the second century AD (Table SG 22). The rise can mainly be attributed to the active policy of Trajan. This involved not only the long Parthian campaign towards the end of his reign, but also the annexation of the Nabatean kingdom in AD 106, signalling a growing prosperity in more outlying areas as well as a stronger and more dispersed presence of the army. The military presence influenced the frequency, since army units were responsible for several of the dedications (Table SC 20).

Conclusion The evidence of the statue bases shows that the practice of dedicating imperial statues with inscribed bases was observed in cities in all parts of the Empire. However, the frequency with which imperial statues were erected differed widely from region to region. Four areas (central Italy, the provinces of Africa Proconsularis and Numidia, the province of Achaea and the provinces of Asia and Lycia [Fig. G 16]), each with approximately the same number of bases, clearly emerge as the most important centres. Nearly two-thirds of all imperial statue bases known today have been found in these relatively restricted geographical areas. So the dominance of extant portraits from Italy does not reflect the situation in antiquity, but rather the uniquely high survival rate for sculpture in this area. Since the majority of the portraits found outside Italy seem to have been manufactured locally, and the same is presumably true for the many lost bronze statues, we can assert that the workshops in Rome accounted for a significantly smaller share of the market for imperial portraits than can be discerned from the extant portraits. Greece and Asia Minor probably sustained an overall production almost comparable to that of Rome. As the Roman Empire expanded, the practice of dedicating imperial statues penetrated into the newly incorporated areas; during the first century AD rather slowly, but more rapidly during the second. The development can be discerned by comparing the distribution of the statue bases for Tiberius (Fig. G 2) with that of Hadrian (Fig. G 11) a century later. The provinces along the Danube and the Black Sea, the central and northern areas of Asia Minor, western North Africa and Syria, which hitherto had been practically without imperial statues, all had them in the second century. Although the number of bases in these peripheral areas within the period investigated does not reach levels comparable to the numbers applying in central Italy and the provinces of Achaea and Asia, it certainly diminishes the importance of particularly


Italy as the primary market for imperial statues. Furthermore, it indicates the beginning of a development away from the core areas that becomes more pronounced during the third century219 and is completed in the late fourth. By then cities in Italy outside Rome and in Greece completely stop dedicating statues of the emperors.220

The number of sites and the number of bases per site Nearly 800 different sites are represented among the 2,300 imperial statue bases from the first and second centuries AD. The vast majority of these sites can be described as urban centres. Only a very limited number of bases have been found outside urban areas.221 Such sites include military installations, extra urban sanctuaries or points of interest in the landscape, like the Tropaeum Augusti or a bridge at the crossing of a river (Trajan 60; Antoninus Pius 113). Consequently, the number of statue bases found in an area closely resembles the degree of urbanisation and the concentration of cities.222 The number of statue bases found at a site does not necessarily bear any relation to the size of the city, nor to its prosperity. This depends to a large extent on the survival rate for inscriptions, which varies even more between cities than it does between regions. Chief factors to be considered are the level of investigation and excavation carried out at a site, and the level of reuse of material from the site in antiquity as well as in more recent times. However, within a large sample like the present one, with close to 800 sites represented, it is possible to detect a general correlation between the size of a city and the number of imperial statue bases found there (Fig. 21).223 Twelve cities have produced 20 or more bases. Naturally Rome takes first place with 127 dedi219. Fejfer 1988, 299, fig. 2 and Fejfer 1985, 134-136.

220. Stichel 1982, 75-115.

221. Also noted by Alföldy (1984, 52) in his study of the statue bases in Venetia et Histria.

While bases for statues of gods are also found in the countryside to some extent, he only records one imperial statue base outside a city centre. This base, which was found in connection with a way station, may, however, have been dragged there from Tergeste. 222. The illustration of the concentration of cities found in Pounds (1973, 120) needs revision, and only includes the European part of the Empire. The maps in the Barrington Atlas (Talbert 2000), on the other hand, cannot easily be compared. 223. Determining the sizes of antique cities is of course exceedingly difficult. The Barrington Atlas (Talbert 2000, Guidelines for Reference) has adopted a system of a range of five sizes that gives an impression of the distribution of different types of city.


cations, or 5.5% of the total number of bases found throughout the Empire. Athens is second with 89 bases, helped by the extremely large number of bases for Hadrian in the Olympieion. If the evidence for Hadrian is excluded, Athens falls behind both Ephesus and Ostia, where 69 and 48 bases have been found. From these four cities there is a large gap to the next group, which is dominated by five North African cities: Thamugadi with 34 bases, Lepcis Magna with 24, Thugga with 22, and Lambaesis and Cuicul both with 20. The figures for the relatively small towns of Thamugadi and Thugga of course do not reflect their size or importance within the Empire, but rather their unique state of preservation.224 Carthago, one of the largest cities in the Empire, has produced only six bases due to its poor state of preservation. In Pergamum 24 bases have been found, and Puteoli, Rome’s other harbour besides Ostia, is also to be found on the list with 20 bases. Finally, we find the city of Lyktos on Crete represented with 22 bases. Although Lyktos was a regional centre, the large number of bases is nowhere near justified by the size of the city. Instead it can be ascribed to a high survival rate for inscriptions, due to the limited rebuilding and robbing of the site.225 With one exception all the largest cities in the Empire are represented in the material, although not with a number of statue bases that matches their importance. Only Antiochia ad Orontem, perhaps the second largest city, has not produced any evidence of imperial statue bases. This can be ascribed to the limited number of excavations carried out. Among the cities with at least ten but less than twenty bases we find Miletus with 19, Magnesia ad Maeandrum 18, Corinthus 17, Delphi 16, Olympia 15, Megara 14, Perge 14, Thera 12, Tarraco 12 and Verecunda 11. Ten bases have been found in Herculaneum, Diana Veteranorum, Aphrodisias, Attaleia, Kestros and Salamis. What is more remarkable is the extremely wide distribution of the statue bases. Nearly 700 sites had between one and three statue bases, and at another 100 sites between four and nine bases have been found. In Spain, for example, bases have been found at 74 different sites. Only four of these are represented with more than three bases: the provincial capitals of Tarraco with 12 and Emerita Augusta with 7, and two smaller towns, Olisipo and Munigua, with 6 each. In the remaining 70 cities only between one and three have been found. In Gaul the same situation prevails. Bases have been found at 37 sites, but only Vienna in Narbonensis had more than three

224. On the preservation of Thamugadi, see Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 13-16. 225. For a discussion of the statue bases from Lyktos, see Harrison 1993, 205-211.


Region/no. of bases

-

-

-

>

Italia Northern provinces Gaul Spain Western North Africa Greece Asia Minor Eastern provinces Total

151 57 37 70 102 77 139 27 660

21 8 1 3 16 12 31 6 98

1 0 0 1 2 5 7 0 16

3 0 0 0 5 2 2 0 12

Fig. 20. The number of sites categorised by region and number of statue bases.

bases, and only because of the surprising three pre-accessional inscriptions for Caligula. This may indicate that dedications of imperial statues in these areas were distributed among a large number of cities of approximately equal size. It could, on the other hand, be a result of conditions of discovery in these areas, and if the survival rate was higher we might be able to detect a higher degree of differentiation between cities, like that found in Italy, Greece, Asia Minor and North Africa (Fig. 20). Finally, it is possible that imperial statues erected in the forum and other public buildings were simply an indispensable element of any town, regardless of its size (down to a certain limit naturally), because it was one of the features that defined a city in relation to the emperor and not least in relation to neighbouring towns.226 There is a clear correlation between the size of a city and the chance that bases have actually been found (Fig. 21). If we consider the Empire as a whole and ignore any regional differences in survival rates, this chance must depend on the number of bases once in existence at a given site.227 226. A fourth century petition from the town of Orcistus to Constantine for a grant of higher civic status mentions, as one of several justifications, that the forum held statues of the former emperors: “… forum istatuis veterum principum ornatum, …” (MAMA VII, 305). 227. Regional differences in the survival rate for statue bases certainly did exist, but their exact extent is unfortunately very difficult to determine. If we assume that the number of imperial statue bases once in existence in a city primarily depended on its size and not on its geographical position within the Empire, we can compare the percentage of sites that have yielded imperial statue bases in different regions to obtain some idea of the survival rates. The following percentages of cities of Barrington category 1 to 3 have yielded imperial statue bases: Asia Minor 51%, North Africa 49%, Italy 47%, Spain 42%, Greece 35%, →


Size category (Barrington) 1 2 3 4 5 ?

Total no. No. of  of sites of sites sites with with bases bases 12 180 1001 ? ? -

11 104 367 135 49 135

92% 58% 37% ? ? -

Average no. of bases 27.0 5.4 2.8 1.8 1.4 -

Fig. 21. The percentage of sites with statue bases and the average number of bases per site according to the size of sites as found in the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World.228

Almost all the cities in category 1 in the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World have produced imperial statue bases, and so have the majority of the cities in category 2. Just over one-third of the cities in category 3 are represented. This share is sufficiently high to demonstrate that all (or nearly all) of the locations in this category, which could be called the average Roman provincial town, must have had imperial statues with inscribed statue bases erected by the city council and by private individuals in the forum and in other public buildings.229 From category 3 to 4 the number of sites with statue bases falls from 367 to 135. I have not counted the category 4 sites in the Barrington Atlas, but their number certainly exceeds that of category 3. The percentage of

→ Northern provinces 35%, Gaul 31%, Eastern provinces 18%. In reality the number of imperial statues erected in a town of a certain size probably did vary considerably from region to region, and the lower percentages for the areas along the northern frontier could reasonably be attributed to a lower level of development of the civic architecture such as fora, theatres, baths etc., in which context most of the imperial statue bases belong. The very low percentage for the eastern provinces indicates a low survival rate which is noticeable for other types of archaeological evidence as well. The seemingly small regional differences in survival rates confirm that the geographical distribution of the extant statue bases in general reflects the distribution of imperial statues in antiquity. 228. Talbert (2000). The number of cities in category 3 is a close approximation. It has not been taken into account whether towns of this category during the Roman imperial period had become defunct, or were founded only at a later date. I have not counted the sites in category 4 and 5, but their number is certainly many times greater than the number in category 3. 229. Pompeii, Cuicul, Nicopolis ad Istrum and Priene could serve as examples of well preserved towns of this type.


Number of sites

250 200 150 100 50 0 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Number of bases

Fig. 22. The number of sites in relation to the number of bases for individual emperors.

sites with statue bases in this category is thus much lower than the percentage in category 3, probably between 5 and 10 percent. The decline is significant because it seems to indicate a lower limit to the size of cities where we can expect to find imperial statues as a general feature. Naturally, smaller settlements could have imperial statues like the one described by Pausanias in the small town of Kynaithai in the landscape Achaea: “… in their market-place have been made altars of the gods and a statue of the emperor Hadrian.”230 Since Pausanias seldom mentions any of the imperial statues that must have been a conspicuous element in most towns he visited, we can assume that the forum in Kynaithai did not have much else to offer. There are two reasons why it is not surprising that the statue portrayed Hadrian. Hadrian had visited the Peloponnese, and although there does not seem to be any immediate relationship between imperial visits and the erection of statues, visits might have had a motivating long-term effect.231 What may have been more important is that the number of sites where bases for a particular emperor have been found rises proportionally with the total number of bases for that emperor. This means that the higher the number of bases for an emperor, whether due to a long reign or a high frequency of dedications within the reign, the wider the geographical distribution of the extant bases (Fig. 22). The one figure that deviates significantly from this pattern is the figure for Hadrian (the dot furthest to the right in Fig. 22), and as we have seen before

230. Paus. 8.19.1. 231. Højte 2000, 221-235.


this can be explained by the exceptionally large number of bases for him in the Olympieion in Athens. We cannot deduce with absolute certainty that more cities erected statues of Hadrian because of the large number of extant bases for him, since in effect all cities may have erected statues of all emperors. It seems probable though, and we can at any rate say that a rise in the number of dedications was distributed evenly among all cities both large and small. The geographical distribution of imperial statue bases was far wider than that of statue bases for the Hellenistic kings,232 and to some extent wider than the distribution for Roman generals and promagistrates in Greece233 and Asia Minor234 during the republican period that tends to cluster in a few locations, typically the Panhellenic sanctuaries. The prevalent competitive element of the Hellenistic and republican monuments with regard to their size, execution and visibility within a sanctuary had disappeared. It was replaced by a system where honouring the emperor, by erecting his statue, became an integral part of the life of every community.235 It was not only a way for a city to show loyalty towards the emperor and the imperial system. Dedicating imperial statues became, as we shall see, a field of competition for the local elite, who could show themselves as beneficiaries to the city, and at the same time have their names associated with that of the emperor on the base.

232. A catalogue of the statue bases for the kings of the four most important Hellenistic kingdoms was compiled in connection with the preparation of the dissertation. It was origianlly intended as a comparative study to the statue bases for the Roman emperors. The evidence for the Hellenistic kings however, is numerically far inferior and thus does not lend itself to statistical analysis like the Roman imperial material. With regard to geographical distribution, the Hellenistic evidence has a pattern quite distinct from that of Roman imperial statue bases. 150 statue bases are known for the kings of Macedonia (18 bases), Egypt (81 bases), Pergamum (31 bases) and the Seleucid Kingdom (20 bases). Of these 39 or 26% have been found in the Panhellenic sanctuaries on Delos, in Delphi and in Olympia. Further statue bases are known in regional or local sanctuaries in Epidauros, Oropos, Thermon, Kos, Lindos, Samothrace, Thermon, Didyma, Letoon, Miletus, Pergamum, Sardis, Kourion, Paphos and Cyrene, and on the island of Philae. For statues of Hellenistic kings in the province of Achaea, see also Højte 2002, 55-63. 233. Payne 1984. 234. Tuchelt 1979. 235. Højte 2002, 61.


Context Portraits of the Roman emperors were omnipresent, and could appear in nearly any context imaginable. When moving about a city in antiquity, one was constantly reminded of the emperor by the presence of his image, as we learn from the often cited letter from Fronto to Marcus Aurelius.236 The images referred to by Fronto as being of poor quality and not doing the young prince justice are not the type of statue under discussion here, but rather painted portraits, busts and miniature representations used to decorate interior space of a private or semi-private nature, much like images of present or former rulers are used in many countries today. Several studies have dealt with the question of the context of imperial images. The most comprehensive to date, by Pekáry, contains an impressive list of different known contexts, primarily based on the literary sources with the addition of a few pieces of epigraphical evidence.237 Unfortunately, this study makes only a vague attempt to distinguish between the importance of each context. Niemeyer addresses this issue for the extant imperial statues, but the poor conditions for discovery and the common lack of exact origin leaves him with an empirical material of only 35 groups of statues with known contexts – too small a sample to be of any statistical value.238 As shown above, neither the literary sources nor the preserved portrait statues are a representative sample of the statues originally in existence. These sources may, therefore, not give an entirely reliable impression of the frequency of different contexts. The literary sources, however, are important because they record contexts in which imperial statues generally were not accompanied by inscribed bases – for example in private houses. Better results have been achieved by studying different types of sculpture in a given context, for example fora, theatres, baths or villas,239 or in a certain

236. Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.12: “Scis ut in omnibus argentariis mensulis pergulis tabernis protectis vestibulis fenestris usquequaque ubique imagines vestrae sint volgo propositae, male illae quidem pictae pleraeque et crassa, lutea immo, Minerva fictae sculptaeve; quom interim numquam tua imago tam dissimilis ad oculos meos in itinere accidit, …”. 237. Pekáry 1985, 42-65. Lahusen has compiled and discussed the literary evidence for imperial statues in Rome (Lahusen 1983) and in the Empire in general (Lahusen 1984). 238. Niemeyer 1968, 28-36 with a review by Blanck 1971, 93-95. 239. Fora: Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989. Theatres: Fuchs 1987, Özren 1996, 99-128. Baths: Manderscheid 1981. Villas: Neudecker 1988; Koppel 1993, 193-203.


region.240 These studies not only give a more precise impression of what types of statue were used and where. They also offer valuable information about the importance of imperial statues in comparison with other types of sculpture. The scope of these studies, however, necessarily limits the geographical area included or the number of different locations singled out for closer examination. The strength of the epigraphical evidence from imperial statue bases with regard to the question of context lies in its large volume. Of the 2,300 statue bases in the catalogue, more than one-quarter have a reliable context. Given the size of the material, it has been impossible to make a detailed study of the context of each individual base. Closer scrutiny of the evidence would undoubtedly increase the number of known contexts, and yield more precise information about the location of each base, but this falls outside the scope of this investigation. The following is not an attempt to describe the exact context of individual statue bases, but should rather serve to give a general impression of the frequency of imperial portrait statues in different contexts, reflecting chronological and regional differences in the distribution pattern. Although the percentage of bases with a known context may not seem impressive, they are numerically many times more plentiful than the extant portraits. There are two primary reasons why contexts can no longer be determined. Reuse of bases as building material, both in antiquity and in more recent times, has removed a significant proportion of the evidence from its original location. Church building in particular has taken its toll. The other is insufficient publication. The early editors were often unconcerned about the context of inscriptions, and they do not seem to have made a great effort to investigate the circumstances of the finds. Such information is now often beyond recovery even if the material is re-studied. One further source of error that must be taken into account is that some contexts, like theatres and fora, are more easily identifiable than less distinctive buildings. Such information, therefore, may have been more likely to go on record.

240. Alföldy 1979 (Conventus Tarraconensis) and Alföldy 1984 (Regio X, Venetia et Histria).


Forum/agora and adjoining buildings Fora and agorai and their adjoining buildings seem, from the surviving evidence, to have been the most favoured place for erecting imperial statues. This is not surprising, since the forum not only served a variety of political, judicial and religious functions in which the imperial portrait often played a central role, but was also the representational area of a city.241 Since the actual point of discovery of statue bases within the forum is seldom known with precision, it is often difficult to determine whether the statue base belonged in the square itself, was connected with one of the temples that regularly adorned the forum,242 or was placed in a basilica, curia or some other building adjoining the forum. There are two studies offering comprehensive investigations of statue programmes in fora. Both concern North Africa.243 Zimmer and WeschKlein, who selected the two remarkably well preserved North Africa cities of Cuicul in Mauretania Caesariensis and Thamugadi in Numidia for closer investigation, concluded on the basis of the study of a collection of approximately 120 statue bases found in these fora, that statues of emperors and their families held a dominating position. This is true not only in the choice of location and size of the dedication, but also in sheer numbers, particularly in Cuicul, where 60% of all statue bases belonged to statues of emperors, members of the domus Augusta, or personifications of the virtues of the emperor.244 In Thamugadi the figure is somewhat lower (39%).245 The large number of emperors represented by only one statue base might indicate that the objective of the city was to have at least one representation of each emperor in the forum. Since imperial statues, unlike statues of ordinary citizens, could not be demolished to make room for more dedications, this eventually led to an accumulation of imperial statues that left little room in the forum for other statues. At both locations we find a majority of emperors from the second century together with a significant number of dedica-

241. Witschel in Stemmer 1995, 334-336.

242. The temple of Augustus and Roma in the Forum Vetus in Lepcis Magna, for example,

Aurigemma 1940, 1-94. 243. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989; Kleinwächter 2001. See also Zimmer 1992 and Witschel in Stemmer 1995, 342-352. 244. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 17-37, esp. 20-21. 245. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 38-51, esp. 40-43.


tions for third- and early fourth-century emperors. We can also turn the evidence around and find out how many of the imperial statue bases found in these two cities were erected in or near the forum. In Cuicul fourteen of the twenty imperial statue bases seem to have been erected in the forum (Hadrian 117, 118: Antoninus Pius 110; Marcus Aurelius 98, 100; Commodus 32), in the adjoining basilica (Marcus Aurelius 99; Lucius Verus 67; Commodus 31), or near the Capitol (Hadrian 116; Antoninus Pius 106, 107; Marcus Aurelius 97; Commodus 30). Of the remaining six, one is an arch for Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 109), and the last five have no known context (Trajan 69 (taken to Paris); Antoninus Pius 108; Marcus Aurelius 96, 101; Lucius Verus 66). In Thamugadi the situation is similar, with five bases definitely attributed to the forum, four being erected in the basilica, and three in the curia. In addition, four inscriptions not included in Zimmer’s study seem to belong to statue bases that have been found in or near the forum (Hadrian 133, 134; Antoninus Pius 142, Marcus Aurelius 130). Another six inscriptions belong to arches or city gates, and the remaining ten have no record of a reliable context. This means that well over half of the imperial statues in these two cities during the period investigated were erected in or near the forum. However, Cuicul and Thamugadi were not ordinary Roman provincial towns, and the focus on the imperial house is not repeated to the same extent elsewhere. This can probably be explained by the fact that both cities were new foundations with a military background. In the early history of the cities, the forum was the only suitable place to dedicate statues, while towards the end of the second century imperial statues appeared in the newly constructed baths and theatre. The cities, in addition, lacked the local aristocracy that in older cities accounted for a large percentage of the honorary statues dedicated in the forum.246 Kleinwächter’s monumental study of North African fora also includes information on the statue programmes displayed, and offers valuable additions and corrections to Zimmer’s study of Cuicul.247 Unfortunately, none of the other localities treated (Carthago, Mactaris, Pheradi Maius, Calama, Lepcis Magna and Thubursicu Numidarum) can match Cuicul and Thamugadi in terms of the amount of material found or the precision with which the bases can be located.

246. Alföldy 1984, 58-60. 247. Kleinwächter 2001.


Pompeii, one would think, should be the ideal place for an investigation of the position of imperial statues in a forum. However, because of the unsystematic way excavations were carried out, we cannot associate any of the inscriptions naming emperors with the remains of the monuments preserved in the forum. On the south side of the forum a number of republican equestrian statues were moved during the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods, possibly to another location in the forum, to make room for three monumental bases, which still dominate the forum today. It has been suggested that the central base in the form of an arch, the earliest of the three, carried a statue of Augustus, and that the other two carried statues of Claudius and Agrippina. There can be no doubt that these bases carried colossal statues of emperors, and perhaps empresses, but since the inscriptions are lost we have no way of knowing which. The same can be said for the supposed equestrian statues of Caligula and Nero in the central part of the forum, and for the arches placed on both sides of the Capitolium on the north side attributed to Julio-Claudian princes, because of the similarity with the arrangement in the Forum of Augustus in Rome.248 The imperial statue bases from the fora in Rome itself have been studied in detail,249 but their number compares unfavourably with our knowledge from the literary sources, and they add little to our knowledge.250 Only eight bases have been found in or close to the Forum Romanum (Augustus 1, 5; Tiberius 7; Titus 2; Trajan 9; Hadrian 7, 12; Antoninus Pius 7). With the exception of the inscription from the arch erected for Augustus after the battle of Actium, and a monument with images (possibly imagines clipeatae of Tiberius and Lucius Caesar) in Basilica Aemilia,251 their exact position can no longer be determined. The evidence from the imperial fora is even more limited. In the Forum of Augustus two bases for Trajan have been found (Trajan 1, 4), but the point of discovery of these inscriptions does not necessarily correlate with their original position. In the Forum of Trajan the most prominent statue base, naturally, was the column of Trajan (Trajan 13), topped by a large bronze statue of the emperor, but there were several other images of him placed around the forum. It was long believed that the three identical bases in front of Basilica

248. Mau 1896, 150-157. Zanker 1995, 110-115.

249. Lahusen 1983, 18-30.

250. For an overview of honorary statues in the Forum Romanum, the Forum of Augustus

and the Forum of Trajan, see Zanker 1968; Zanker 1972; Packer 1997. 251. Rose 1997a, 111-113, no. 40.


Ulpia stood by each of the three entrances to the basilica (Trajan 10-12). But recent work by Packer252 shows that the bases stood beside the entrances instead, and that originally the group consisted of a total of eight statues. This rules out the suggestion by Zanker that the statues illustrated the emperor’s three primary functions as commander of the army, magistrate and pontifex maximus.253 This display attracts interest because it is one of the very few examples of dedications of multiple statues of the same emperor in the West. In the East this particular type of statue group was not uncommon, as shown below. A total of 167 bases have been found in fora in 50 different cities, predominantly in the Latin West.254 The evidence is generally too limited to determine whether it was the objective of cities to have at least one statue of each emperor in the forum, as suggested by the bases in Thamugadi. The dedications in other African towns (Cuicul, Gigthis, Thibilis and Thugga), and the colonies of Tarraco and Corinthus, seem to point in that direction. On the other hand, in Ephesus, Magnesia and Miletus255 there are numerous statues of the same emperors, apparently erected very close to each other in the agora. The fact that there is a geographical and historical difference between these two groups of cities may be coincidental, but might also indicate a fundamental difference in the approach to dedicating imperial statues between the Latin West and the Greek East that can be traced in other contexts as well. The forum was public property, and the local executive body regulated the dedication of statues. This does not mean that the forum was reserved for public dedications, and the ratio between publicly and privately sponsored statues in fora almost exactly equals that of the complete corpus. Private individuals however, had to obtain permission from the executive body prior to the dedication of statues – a procedure that is expressed in the formula l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) or simply d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) found on several privately sponsored monuments as well as on most public ones.

252. Packer 1997, 218: “In each of the four bays between the porches, two white marble pedestals stood on the giallo antico steps, aligned with the two columns behind. All eight pedestals apparently had the same inscription. Two large oval sockets in the top show that the pedestals originally supported an over-life-size standing statue, probably of gilt bronze”. 253. Zanker 1970, 521, n. 71. 254. 35 cities in the West and 15 in the East. 255. Pekáry 1978, 727-744.


Theatres We have no evidence that statues of Hellenistic kings were used as permanent installations in theatres;256 but many theatres in the Roman period, particularly in the Greek East, were adorned with statues of emperors.257 These could be placed almost anywhere in the theatre – either in the scenae frons (Thera, Caligula 17; Vespasian 52, the theatre in Aphrodisias, Domitian 37), in the parodoi (in Salamis, Commodus 106, 107) or in the cavea (in Athens, Hadrian 186, 188-191, and Ephesus, Antoninus Pius 227-232). But often their exact location can no longer be determined. Among the 60 examples of statue bases in theatres, the vast majority belong to the Hadrianic and Antonine periods. The earlier examples predominantly belong in Italy and the western provinces, where more theatres had a sacellum above the cavea containing imperial statues that may have been connected with the imperial cult.258 Otherwise the evidence for imperial cult images in theatres indicates that transportable busts or statuettes were used instead of life-size statues as pointed out by Blanck and Pekáry.259 One array of imperial statues in a theatre that deserves mention is the sculptural decoration of the Theatre of Dionysos in Athens. Here, one of the two pre-accessional bases for Hadrian in existence was erected when he served as archon of the city in AD 112-113 (Hadrian 186), and at a later date prior to AD 128, further statues of Hadrian were added.260 Four extant bases, dedicated by four different phylai (Hadrian 188-191), strongly suggest that each of the twelve phylai dedicated a statue. Ostensibly these statues were placed facing towards the stage in each cunei left and right of the central statue erected in AD 112-113. Apart from obstructing the view for a considerable number of people in the audience, they would only have been visible from the back! In Ephesus a group of six statue bases for Antoninus Pius dedicated by different phylai has been

256. Schwingenstein 1977, 104-114.

257. Bases are known in theatres in Caere, Cales, Casinum, Firmum Picenum, Herculaneum,

Falerio, Lanuvium, Pompeii, Beneventum, Tauromenium, Eburovices, Tarraco, Emerita Augusta, Rusicade, Lepcis Magna, Demetrias, Athenae, Corinthus, Sparta, Thera, Hierapytna, Aphrodisias, Ephesus, Hierapolis, Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Pinara, Termessos, Hiero Kastabala and Salamis. 258. Fuchs 1987, 180. Tiberius 14. 259. Blanck 1971, 90-93; Pekáry 1985, 47-49. The busts of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus in Athens (Oliver 1941, 108-111), and the interesting dedication of Vibius Salutaris in Ephesus including silver busts of Trajan and Plotina carried from the temple of Artemis to the theatre and back on the birthday of the goddess (IGSK 11, 1, 27 and 28-36). 260. For the date of the dedications see Graindor 1934, 45.


found (Antoninus Pius 227-232), and although nothing certain is known about their original position within the theatre, the analogy with the bases from Athens suggests a similar arrangement. The only certain example of statue bases in an amphitheatre is a group consisting of statue bases for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius, found in the amphitheatre in Hierapytna (Marcus Aurelius 206, Lucius Verus 110).

Baths and gymnasia Manderscheid’s study of the sculptural decoration of 66 baths throughout the Empire shows that statues of emperors were not part of the standard repertoire of decoration.261 Of the 560 pieces of sculpture found in these baths, only 19 were portrait statues of emperors,262 and there are only 3-7 extant imperial portraits from the period under discussion.263 One characteristic of the extant portraits, at least in the second century, is that statues of the emperor were often erected in his capacity of donor of the baths – just as many of the private portraits were. Unlike statues in most other contexts, those erected in baths were almost invariably made of marble, owing to the high level of humidity. Consequently we should not expect to find many more bases in baths, since both statue and base would have approximately the same chance of survival. The earliest base in a bath is that of Augustus reported in the tepidarium in the Stabian Baths in Pompeii (Augustus 23). However, this may have been moved there at a later date. The same could be the case for the base for Antoninus Pius in the Office Baths in Sabratha (Antoninus Pius 169). Two further bases in baths, in Octodurum (Trajan 58) and Augusta Praetoria (Marcus Aurelius 61), are known from the West. Otherwise our evidence stems from Asia Minor. In the Hellenistic gymnasium in Stratonikeia in Caria, a base for a statue of Titus was found in an exedra together with bases for Domitia and the

261. Manderscheid 1981, 28 & 35-38.

262. To this should be added a number of statues of empresses and other members of the im perial family. 263. A statue of Trajan (Manderscheid cat. no. 36) and possibly two statues of Hadrian (cat. no. 37, 38) in the bath in Italica, a statue of Trajan (cat. no. 99) in the Bath at Porta Marina, possibly a statue of Hadrian (cat. no. 474) in the bath in Hippo Regius, a statue of Antoninus Pius (cat. no. 416) in the Baths of Antoninus Pius in Carthage, and possibly a statue of Marcus Aurelius (cat. no. 221) in the Baths of Faustina in Miletus.


Demos. It has been suggested that the exedra functioned as a location for the imperial cult, but there is no further evidence to support this notion.264 In the south apse of hall BSH in the bath-gymnasium complex in Sardis, a base for Lucius Verus, still in situ, has been found (Lucius Verus 123).265 It seems likely that another for Marcus Aurelius once stood on the opposite side of the building in the north apse, although this was replaced at a later date by a statue group of the children of Kore. Two severely fragmented plaques, carrying inscriptions with the names of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus in the accusative case, have been found in the apodyterium in the South Baths in Perge (Marcus Aurelius 238; Commodus 95). They were most probably placed under niches with statues of the two emperors.266 Finally, two bases for Hadrian and Antoninus Pius have been found in the Scholasticia Baths in Ephesus (Hadrian 319; Antoninus Pius 233). The low number of statue bases confirms that imperial statues were not particularly common in baths and gymnasia.

Other public structures Apart from the statue bases in military installations and in sanctuaries, which will be discussed below, there is very little evidence of imperial statues in extraurban contexts.267 The bases that have been found outside cities mostly relate to bridges. An inscription from an arch (Trajan 60) was found at the Pons Alcantara in Lusitania, where a small temple or naiskos for the imperial cult was also constructed. The highly interesting inscription from the temple dedicated by the architect of the whole complex has survived, as one of the few examples of a building signed by the architect.268 Similarly, on a bridge in Mauretania Caesariensis a statue of the deified Antoninus Pius was erected (Antoninus Pius 113). The emperors were deeply involved in constructing and maintaining the infrastructure of the Empire, and the name of the emperor responsible for a particular stretch of road appears on its milestones. It is only natural, therefore, to find their statues at the most exposed point on the road, for instance on a bridge. However, compared with the number of known milestones there is surprisingly little evidence of statue bases along the road network.

264. 265. 266. 267. 268.

For a discussion of imperial cult in baths, see Manderscheid 1981, 36-37.

Yegül 1986, 169-170, no. 2.

IGSK 54, 148.

Alföldy 1984, 52.

CIL II, 761. Donderer 1996, 230-233.


Honorific arches and city gates adorned with imperial statues were common in most parts of the Empire, but since the context of almost all these monuments can be identified, their frequency should not be compared with that of bases in other contexts. Their share of the total number of bases is in fact lower than 5%. The 86 arches (with 106 statues) from 57 different sites served a variety of functions.269 Relatively few of the arches seem to have been erected in celebration of a specific triumph, and those that were mostly belong in Rome (Actium: Augustus 1; the Britannic victory: Claudius 5; the Sarmatian triumph: Marcus Aurelius 14). However, as the arch of Titus (Titus 7) commemorating the triumph in AD 71 but according to the inscription only constructed at least a decade later shows, it is sometimes difficult to establish such a connection unless the inscription mentions the military victory in question, or the sculptural decoration contains references to events that can be placed geographically or chronologically. Even when not directly related to a triumph, the origin and the intent of the monuments were sometimes transmitted through the sculptural decoration, such as the spolia and captives on the arch at Arausio.270 Outside Rome, arches with imperial statues more commonly mark the entrance to a city271 or serve as a demarcation between different sections within the city. The occasions for their erection were often determined by the urban development of the city, for example the monumentalised entrances to fora found in Ephesus (Augustus 166), Athens (Augustus 129), and Viroconium Cornoviorum in Britannia (Hadrian 96). A few other public contexts deserve to be mentioned, although they represent a rather insignificant number of dedications. In the Asclepieion in Pergamum, the library donated by Flavia Melitine contained a statue of the deified Hadrian – one of the rare examples of a statue found with its accompanying base. In Olympia, the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus carried an elaborate group of statues showing the imperial family together with Herodes’ own family (Antoninus Pius 201; Lucius Verus 108). In Ephesus the Nymphaeum Traiani seems to have included statues of Trajan with his

269. Arches are discussed by Kähler 1939, 373-493, De Maria 1988, Kleiner 1989b, 195-206. Wallace-Hadrill 1990, 143-181, and Eck & Foerster 1999, 294-313. 270. Amy, Duval, Formigé, Hatt, Picard, Picard & Piganiol 1962. 271. Arches could be placed either in or immediately in front of the city wall as at Asseria (Trajan 91) or at Beneventum (Trajan 22, Rotili 1972), or as free-standing monuments further away, for instance at Orange (Tiberius 56), Thamugadi (Marcus Aurelius 129=Lucius Verus 79, Marcus Aurelius 132) and Gerasa (Hadrian 411).


deified father Nerva (Nerva 35; Trajan 143). Of semi-public nature are the statues erected posthumously in the mausoleums of Augustus and Hadrian (Tiberius 11; Vespasian 4; Nerva 3; Hadrian 16; Antoninus Pius 16; Lucius Verus 7; Commodus 3).

Military installations Images of the emperor certainly played a prominent role in the military, and every soldier was well accustomed to the appearance of the emperor. Portraits of the reigning emperor were placed inter signa in the sacellum in the principia272 where soldiers took their oath of allegiance; small busts were carried on the signa; and the emperor’s portrait could appear on weapons. Except for a large group of bases found in or near the so-called praetorium in Lambaesis (Hadrian 125, 126; Antoninus Pius 126-128; Marcus Aurelius 112-113, 115-117) and a single base in a military camp near Dumeir in Syria (Lucius Verus 133), the statue bases located in military camps have been found on the northern frontier. Where exactly within the camps the bases stood can only be determined in a few instances, and none of these can be shown to belong in a sacellum.273 This may be coincidental, but it might also indicate that bases with honorific inscriptions generally did not accompany these images. Such bases have however been found in the fire station in Ostia, the Caserma dei Vigili, in what has been interpreted as the sacellum of the detachment of fire fighters (front page). Whether this arrangement reflects that of the sacella of regular military camps, or whether it is peculiar to fire stations, remains unclear.274 Statues could also be erected at the approach to the camp, as at Mogontiacum, where a plaque, once affixed to a large base, was found next to an arch 50 metres east of the entrance to the Castellum Mattiacorum (Trajan 54). Not surprisingly, all the bases found in military installations were dedicated by military units or their officers.

272. Domaszewski 1972, 90-95.

273. The extant fragments of statues from military camps along the northern frontier accord-

ing to Gamer (1969, 76-77) cluster around the principium, and he proposes that they belonged in or in front of the sacellum. For statues in general in the military installations on the Limes between the Rhine and the Danube, see Stoll (1992). 274. Lanciani 1889, 72-83. The bases CIL VI, 1057-1058 may have belonged to a similarly arranged display of imperial statues in the station of the cohors V vigilum in Rome.


Sanctuaries and temples After fora, sanctuaries were the commonest place to erect imperial statues. Imperial statues in fora are overrepresented in the western part of the Empire, and statues in sanctuaries are overrepresented in the eastern part. To some extent, this is due to the fact that the position of many Greek sanctuaries outside cities, for instance Delphi, Olympia, Eleusis, Epidauros, Didyma, Kos, Samos and Paphos, facilitates the identification of a general context. In the west temples were regularly placed in a central place in the city, which renders exact identification of context more difficult. One extra urban sanctuary in the west, that of Diana Nemorensis, has produced bases for Vespasian and Hadrian (Vespasian 9; Hadrian 25). Most of the 151 statue bases found in sanctuaries definitely belong to the category of honorary statues, which were erected in great numbers for both public and private benefactors within the temenoi of all sanctuaries. A few may have served as bases for cult images, erected in temples dedicated to other deities, but there are no absolutely certain examples of this, and it was certainly possible to erect honorary statues within the cella of a temple as well. This seems, for example, to be the case for a base for a statue of Hadrian erected in the Parthenon (Hadrian 187), which Pausanias also saw.275

Imperial cult Temples and shrines dedicated to one or more emperors naturally had some form of representation that served as a cult image.276 While many such temples have been identified epigraphically, inscribed statue bases are attested far less frequently, and there is reason to assume that cult statues of emperors, like cult statues of deities, regularly did not carry dedicatory inscriptions.277 Furthermore, it is not always entirely clear which images in a temple received cult, and which did not. The most famous example of this is the statue group in the Metroon in Olympia.278 In his discussion of this building, Pausanias says that it no longer held a cult image (ajgalma) of Meter, but instead statues

275. 276. 277. 278.

Raubitschek 1945, 128-133. Paus. 1.24.7.

For cult statues in imperial temples, see Price 1984 and Hänlin-Schäfer 1985.

Veyne 1962, 63.

For the statues and the chronology of the group, see Hitzl 1991 and Stone 1985,

377-391.


(ajndriavnte~) of the Roman kings.279 His choice of words certainly indicates that these were not cult images. An inscription over the entrance of rather poor quality indicates that the building, probably referred to in the inscription as a navo~ (restoration), was dedicated to Augustus.280 Thus the colossal statue of Augustus placed centrally at the back of the cella must in fact have been the cult image. Unfortunately, the base for this statue is not preserved. However, the six other statues placed along the side walls were not necessarily cult images. Two fragmented inscriptions from statue bases for Vespasian and Domitian (Vespasian 50; Domitian 31), one found in the cella of the Heraion, the other in a lime kiln near the treasuries, may indeed have belonged to the statues found in the Metroon. Their use of the accusative case might explain why Pausanias judged the statues to be honorific rather than cultic statues. A similar arrangement of statues is found in Kestros. The temple dedicated to Vespasian held a cult statue of Vespasian with an inscription employing the dative case (Vespasian 76), surrounded by statues of his sons with inscriptions in the accusative case (only Titus 63 preserved). The later additions of statue bases likewise employ the accusative case (Nerva 46; Trajan 187; Hadrian 397, 398). This distinction between the original cult image and the later additions may indicate that they did not receive cult. In Boubon, however, all the inscriptions from the so-called sebasteion employ the accusative case (Nerva 32; Lucius Verus 113; Marcus Aurelius 213; Commodus 81),281 and so does the inscription on a base for Commodus from temple B in Cyrene (Commodus 76). In both instances it has been generally accepted that the statues served as cult images. Two dedications of imperial temples have been included in the catalogue because the inscriptions mention both the temple and cult statue (Trajan 92; Antoninus Pius 102). Whether the inscriptions were placed in the immediate vicinity of the images is unknown in both instances. In Pagus Stellatinus a 2.44-metre wide slab of stone that may have belonged to a built-up base has ordinary honorific inscriptions for Augustus and Gaius and Lucius Caesar (Augustus 51), but the object of the dedication according to the inscription was an aedes with signa, which could imply a cult building. Statue bases have also been found in buildings belonging to the Augustales in Misenum (Ves-

279. Pausanias 5.20.9.

280. IvO 366.

281. Inan 1993, 213-239.


pasian 8; Domitian 5, 6; Nerva 6, 7, 8; Trajan 15) and in Rusellae (Augustus 53), but there is no proof either that these images ever served as cult statues or whether only those statues erected in the imperial temples received cult.282

Private contexts From the literary sources we know that portraits of the emperor were found in private houses and villas in great numbers,283 and many extant portraits are known to have been found in such contexts, notably in Italy.284 The commonest type of portrait in private contexts seems to have been the bust, but there are also examples of life-size statues, like the statue of Augustus in Livia’s Villa at Prima Porta. Small portraits of emperors kept in the lararium, reported by several authors,285 have not been identified archaeologically, but may exist among the numerous extant miniature imperial portraits. In sharp contrast to this, we hardly have any epigraphical evidence for statues in private contexts. The only two imperial statue bases found in private houses may have been moved there from some other location. The first was found in the well in the atrium of a house in Spoletium. The base belonged to a statue of Caligula, and it seems probable that it found its way into the well after Caligula had been murdered (Caligula 1). The excavator however, suggests that the base once stood in the atrium. The other inscription has been found in a villa near Knossos (Domitian 33), but again it may have been re-utilised there.286 In both instances the bases belong to emperors whose portraits and inscriptions were removed from public view, and it is probable that they did

282. Statues in aedes augustales have been discussed by Witchel in Stemmer 1995, 367-381.

283. Pekáry 1985, 53-54.

284. Neudecker (1988, 84-91) discusses the archaeological and literary evidence for imperial

portraits in villas in Italy. Eight of the 78 villas in the catalogue contained imperial portraits of the first and second centuries AD. Imperial portraits in villas outside Italy are less common, but we have examples in Chiragan (Hannestad 1994, 127-144) and in the two villas of Herodes Atticus at Marathon (portraits of Marcus Aurelius Lucius Verus found at Probalinthos: Wegner 1939, 185-186) and at Loukou (a portrait of L. Aelius Caesar: Stauridis 1985, 339-341). Portraits in domus are known from Rome (Hill 1939, 401-409), Lanuvium, Velia (Johannowsky 1980, 201-204), Ephesus (Fleischer 1972-1975, 438-442), Notabile on Malta (Ashby 1915, 34-39), and Patras (Petsas 1971, 151). 285. Ovid, Pont. 2.8.1-6. Suet. Aug. 7.1. SHA, Alex. Sev. 29.2. 286. Chaniotis and Preuss 1991, 191, no. 1.


not serve as bases at their final destination. However, even damned emperors in some instances continued to be revered privately, as the portrait of the young Domitian found in a grave near Ostia suggests.287 The almost complete lack of inscriptions in private contexts naturally raises the question of the purpose of inscriptions on statue bases. In private contexts inscriptions of the honorific type were superfluous, since there was no doubt as to the identity of the dedicator of the statues. We could expect some form of labelling of the portraits, but this does not seem to have been prevalent. Hardly any busts with imperial portraits carried inscriptions – unless of course they had been made of a perishable material.288 It seems reasonable to conclude that labelling imperial statues was not essential for the purpose of identification of the emperor – at least not to a contemporary audience in a private house. By analogy this cannot have been strictly necessary in public contexts either. Those who could read the inscription were probably familiar with the appearance of the emperor already. So why do the inscriptions on imperial statue bases consistently adhere to the honorific formula? The implication is that the imperial statues with inscribed bases were intended and understood as honorary statues that in principle were not distinguished from the dedication of statues of any other benefactor. Furthermore, this stresses the importance attached to the second element in the honorific inscriptions, the identity of the dedicator.

287. Calza 1964, 47-48. 288. To my knowledge the two bronze busts of Augustus (Augustus 75) and Livia are the only examples of imperial busts with dedicatory inscriptions, and since they were ex voto they probably did not belong in a private context. Another curious example is the date written on the back of a bust of Commodus in the Sala degli Imperatori del Museo Capitolino, inv. n. 445: IMP. COM. IIII|AUF. VICT. II|COS|PR. K. F.


Statues Dedicated Before

and After a Reign

Pre-accessional dedications Prior to their accession, most emperors had been heirs to the throne for a while, and in the capacity of crown prince would have had their portraits erected. These dedications are interesting for three reasons. Firstly, because it has been argued that the presence or absence of statues erected prior to the accession affected the rate and speed at which statues were erected once a new emperor ascended the throne.289 This problem will be further elaborated below (p. 144) in the discussion of occasions for erecting imperial portraits. Secondly, differences in the geographical distribution and the composition of the group of dedicators between the pre-accessional bases and those erected during the reign of an emperor may illuminate regional differences in attitudes regarding the honouring of Roman emperors. And finally, the number of preaccessional bases indicates the likelihood of the existence of pre-accessional portraits and portrait types of an emperor.

289. Stuart 1939, 602.

Statues Dedicated Before and After a Reign · 125

The pre-accessional statue bases during the Julio-Claudian period The statue bases for Tiberius from the period before his accession total 41 (26.8% of the total number, Table SC 5).290 Of the emperors under discussion, only the figure for Marcus Aurelius exceeds this. The earliest attested base for a statue of Tiberius is dated to the years immediately prior to his first consulship in 13 BC (Tiberius 64), and from this time onward portrait statues were erected throughout the Empire (Figs. C2 and G2). Unlike the statue bases for most other heirs, those for Tiberius have largely been found in the Greek East. Although relatively few bases can be dated with precision, they seem to have been dispersed fairly evenly throughout the period. His voluntary exile on Rhodos during the period 6 BC to AD 2, when Gaius and Lucius Caesar were Augustus’ first choices as heirs, cannot be shown to have decreased the number of statues. The adoption in AD 4, when Tiberius became heir apparent for the second time, resulted in a slight increase. There is a clear distinction between the western and the eastern part of the Empire in the attitude towards erecting statues of Tiberius before he became emperor. In the east 16 of the 25 statues were dedicated by cities or their executive bodies, while only four name private individuals. Of these four, two were erected in Olympia by the same person, Tiberius Claudius Apollonios (Tiberius 99, 102). In the west the exact opposite prevails. Here we find six bases dedicated by private individuals, and only one by a city. Contemporary dedications for Augustus in both the West and the East show a nearly equal share of private and public dedicators. Generally we find a tendency for a larger share of public dedication in the East than in the West (Tables SC 19 and SC 22), but for Tiberius this tendency is strongly accentuated, and its significance is confirmed by similar observations for other later heirs to the throne. Of the six identified portrait types in the round of Tiberius, the five first seem to have been created during the reign of Augustus!291 Only the last, Typus Kopenhagen 624, has no copies dated prior to AD 14. Even if we assume that most of the copies of the Typus Chiaramonti created in the late Augustan period belong to the reign

290. The statue bases for Gaius and Lucius Caesar compiled by Hanson and Johnson (1946, 389-400) show approximately comparable figures, allowing for the fact that the amount of evidence has increased slightly since their investigation. These have also for the most part been found in the Greek East. For the extant portraits of Gaius and Lucius Caesar, see Pollini 1987. 291. Boschung 1993a, 56-58.


of Tiberius or later,292 there is still a curious predominance of portraits from the period before his accession compared with the 26.8% of the bases. Perhaps other portrait types also continued to be used after his accession. Like Tiberius, Caligula was not an unfamiliar face before his accession to the throne, thanks to the popularity of his father Germanicus. Eight statue bases are known from the period before AD 37 (Caligula 2, 5, 7-9, 20, 22, 23). To this should be added an unknown number of bases, destroyed or reused, after Caligula had been deposed. Whether the pre-accessional bases of Caligula were treated less harshly than those dedicated during his reign we cannot tell. Even if we subtract the three bases found in Vienna, which are clearly not representative, it is still reasonable to conclude that a fair proportion, perhaps as much as one-fifth, of the statue bases of Caligula, were dedicated before he became emperor (Table SE 8). It is curious, therefore, that no portrait types or even sculpted portraits of the prince have been identified with certainty.293 Apart from the two bases on Kalymna dedicated by the Demos, nothing is known of the dedicators of these statues. Those at Ephesus and Ruscino (Caligula 5, 20) belonged to groups honouring the family of Germanicus, and it is likely that some of the others originally did so as well. I have discussed the extremely meagre evidence for pre-accessional statue bases for Claudius elsewhere.294 The situation for his adopted son Nero during the four years from his adoption to AD 54, when Nero became emperor on the death of Claudius, was rather different. During this period a relatively large number of statues of the young prince were erected, particularly in Italy and in Asia Minor (Table SE 14). These are either part of family groups (Nero 2, 6, 46, 49), or dedications to Nero alone (Nero 7, 8, 33, 42, 51).295 Only the statues in Pompeii and Halasarna on Kos were dedicated by communities, while five were by private individuals. In Apollonia Salbakes, Apollodorus, who seems to have been a priest of the young prince (Nero 42), dedicated a statue, and another statue in Magnesia was erected by a priest of his father (Nero 49). G. Iulius Sostratos, who dedicated a statue in Olympia (Nero 33), was apparently also highly devoted to the imperial house. He called himself filokai`sar.

292. As in the case of the statue of Tiberius from the Claudian statue group in Lepcis Magna (Rose 1997a, 184). 293. Boschung 1989, 62-70, with literature for previous attempts at identification. 294. Højte 2002, 370-371. Only three pre-accessional bases are known: one from the reign of Augustus, and two from the reign of Caligula (Claudius 30, 37, 111). 295. Naturally, some of these may also have belonged to statue groups that have left no trace apart from the base for Nero.


The Flavians The next four emperors, during the years AD 68 and 69, became emperors rather unexpectedly, and not surprisingly there is no evidence of honorific statues of them before their accession. Vespasian’s two sons Titus and Domitian, on the other hand, had a large number of portraits erected prior to their accession. We know of 34 bases (51.5% of the total) for Titus from the reign of Vespasian, or nearly half the number for Vespasian himself (Table SE 23). For his younger brother, who had not been given a share in the government but only carried the title princeps iuventutis, we know of 15 bases. However, to this should be added an unknown number of monuments that were destroyed after the murder of Domitian. Two characteristics clearly distinguish the pre-accessional statue bases for Titus and Domitian from those of their father. They are far more prolific in the West than in the East, and they were predominantly dedicated by private individuals. 76% of the pre-accessional bases for Titus have been found in the West, none have turned up in Greece, and in Asia Minor only one of the seven bases found was not apparently part of a statue group together with his father (Titus 51). Only six communities appear as dedicators (Titus 16, 19, 20, 23, 30, 59), while no less than 12 mention private individuals or corporations. By contrast, among the statue bases for Vespasian from the same period we find nearly twice as many public as private dedications. Nearly half of all the pre-accessional bases for both Titus and Domitian can be shown to belong to statue groups with Vespasian, and more may have done so in antiquity.296 Dynastic commemoration thus seems to have been a prevalent reason for erecting these statues.

The heirs of the adoptive and Antonine emperors Marcus Cocceius Nerva, a most distinguished senator and twice consul, was chosen by the Senate as the new emperor after the murder of Domitian. We have at least three bases dedicated to a Marcus Cocceius Nerva,297 but since the emperor’s father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all carried that name, it is difficult to distinguish between them. Two of the bases almost

296. Titus 1, 3, 18, 28, 33, 34, 37-39, 50, 62-64; Domitian 1, 22, 25, 27, 34, 62, 64. 297. Tanagra: (Nerva 28). Lagina: BCH 44 (1920) 73-74, no. 4. Teos: SEG 4, 604.


certainly carried statues of his grandfather, but the one in Tanagra (Nerva 28) probably refers to the future emperor. Nerva adopted Trajan, who was stationed on the Rhine frontier at the time, late in October 97 AD and approximately three months before his own death on 28 January 98. While cities were busy erecting statues of Nerva, no statue bases for the new heir have been preserved from this period. The time available seems to have been too short, especially during the winter, when sailing was avoided if possible. Throughout the reign of Trajan, Hadrian had been the emperor’s closest male relative, and with the betrothal to Sabina around AD 100, he had been brought closer into the family. He never achieved the position of heir apparent, and was not adopted until immediately before the death of Trajan in August AD 117, if at all.298 The number of statue bases erected before his accession is limited to two bases in Athens and Coronea (Hadrian 186, 238). The first almost certainly belongs to the year AD 112-113, when Hadrian served as archon in Athens,299 and the second may well have been erected on the same occasion. It is remarkable that there are only two statue bases for a relative of the emperor during a period of twenty years, and this certainly indicates that Hadrian had not taken an active part in the administration of the Empire, and was not presented as the obvious successor to Trajan. Antoninus Pius had only been heir to the throne for four and a half months when Hadrian died at Baia. This period was only slightly longer than between the adoption and the succession of Trajan, but unlike 40 years previously we possess bases for Antoninus Pius erected during his period as heir to the throne. One was dedicated in Rome on 15 May. The other was erected in Cyrene together with a statue of Hadrian at an unspecified date (Antoninus Pius 1, 209). Prior to that a statue had been erected in Hierapolis when he served as governor in Asia (Antoninus Pius 235). Antoninus Pius was not Hadrian’s first choice as heir. In the autumn of AD 136, Hadrian had adopted L. Aelius Caesar, and in the period from his adoption to his death, approximately a year and four months later, L. Aelius Caesar was honoured with an extraordinarily large number of statues for a designated heir.300 The high level of activity apparently extended to the second choice Antoninus Pius as well. This striking difference between the number of pre-accessional 298. On the adoption of Hadrian and its consequences, see Syme 1984, 32-35 and Mertens 1977, 247, 260. 299. Graindor 1934, 18. 300. Højte 1999, 217-238.


statue bases for Hadrian, and Hadrian’s own choices of heirs, indicates that the emperor’s policy on succession was made public, and that communities in some way were encouraged to dedicate statues of the heir apparent. They were not necessarily instructed to do so, but they may have felt an obligation. Personal devotion or general popularity, like that of the young princes Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Titus and Domitian or Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, was probably not the reason in light of the relatively short period L. Aelius Caesar and Antoninus Pius were heirs. Communities erected the vast majority of the statue bases for L. Aelius Caesar. The systematic way in which statues of Hadrian’s heirs were distributed strongly suggests that an official portrait type of Antoninus Pius had been conceived at the time of the adoption.301 However, it is far from certain that any pre-accessional portraits of the emperors from Nerva to Antoninus Pius should have been preserved. During the reign of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius was clearly more favoured and promoted than Lucius Verus judging from the surviving state bases, as we possess more than twice as many bases for Marcus Aurelius (77) as for Lucius Verus (33) (Tables SE 41 & SE 44). With regard to the portraits the difference seems to be even more pronounced.302 However, once they both became emperors this discrepancy immediately disappeared and throughout the 160s an equal number of statues were erected to the two emperors (Tables C 15 & C 17). Although the number of bases for each prince varies, their geographical distribution is almost identical. 40% were erected in Italy, about 30% in North Africa, and 15% in Greece and Asia Minor. Compared to the contemporaneous dedications for Antoninus Pius, Italy had a far larger share, whereas the Greek East seems to have been less interested in dedicating statues of the princes. We have little knowledge of the chronological distribution in the period AD 138 to 161, since relatively few of the bases can be dated with any precision. The 18 precisely dated bases for Marcus Aurelius and the nine for Lucius Verus seem to have been erected continuously throughout the period (Tables C 14 and C 16). The numbers are generally too small to identify any connections with historical events. One difference in the evidence of the two princes is worth commenting on. There are far more communities among the dedicators of statues of Marcus Aurelius than of Lucius Verus. This may reflect

301. As also suggested by Evers (1991, 249-262). 302. Fittschen (1999, 13-31) enumerates 69 portraits of Marcus Aurelius of Typus Capitol and Typus Uffizien-Toulouse. Presumably no portraits of these types were created after his accession. In contrast there are only 17 portraits of Lucius Verus (32-45).


the position of Marcus Aurelius as official heir to the throne after Antoninus Pius. The earliest evidence of a statue base for Commodus is the plaque found in the Capitolium in Sabratha belonging to a large monument for all the children of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Minor. This must have been erected after AD 164, but before AD 166 when Commodus was given the title Caesar. He was only three to five years old at this time (Commodus 55). It is no longer possible to determine where the monument originally stood. Before Marcus Aurelius elevated Commodus to co-regent in AD 176-177, two or perhaps three further statue bases are known (Commodus 6, 33, 72).303 Fittschen remarks that there is surprisingly little evidence of statue bases in the period from AD 176 to 180 compared with the number of extant portraits, and ascribes this to the destruction of monuments after the damnatio memoriae of Commodus.304 However, in addition to the four monuments referred to by Fittschen (Commodus 22, 80, 82, 83), I think we can add another 13 (Commodus 1, 2, 10, 11, 24, 50, 54, 61, 63, 72, 75, 92, 93). Even with the addition of these there still seem to be more portraits than bases.305 With respect to the composition of the group of dedicators, the pre-accessional bases for Commodus deviate significantly from the norm. In all 16 instances where the identity of the dedicator can be determined, communities had dedicated the statue. This does not necessarily signal a changed attitude towards erecting statues of Caesares, since the same development can be observed for the statue bases for Marcus Aurelius. With the exception of North Africa, where summa honoraria continue to pay for a few statues, private individuals almost completely disappear as dedicators of imperial statues during the 170s.

Conclusion Two characteristics distinguish the statue bases for heirs from those for emperors. Geographically they tend to be far more numerous in the Latin West than in the Greek East. Italy in particular accounts for a high proportion of

303. The base in Sitifis (Commodus 30) can probably be dated prior to AD 172 because of the lack of the title Germanicus in the name formula of Marcus Aurelius, but as we have seen this criterion is not infallible. 304. Fittschen 1999, 62, n. 336 and 66, n. 345. 305. Fittschen (1999, 53-66) enumerates 25 portraits of the four types created before the accession in AD 180.


the dedications. Exceptions to this rule are the heirs of Augustus, who seem to have been very popular in Greece and in the province of Asia. The view that the Greeks were more interested in paying honours to the reigning emperor is confirmed by the nearly identical distribution of the statue bases of Divi (p. 139). The higher percentage of dedications in Italy may also explain the high survival rate for the portraits of the Flavian and Antonine princes compared with the epigraphical evidence. The second distinguishing characteristic is that with regard to the composition of the group of dedicators, the epigraphical evidence shows that private individuals generally were more inclined than communities to honour an heir to the throne even when the geographical differences are taken into account.

Posthumous dedications Since external reasons can rarely be used to identify portraits as posthumous – typically statues belonging to dynastic statue groups306 – and since it has proven impossible to determine any characteristics unique to posthumous portraits, their identification relies predominantly on stylistic analysis. This method is of course open to subjective opinions, and scholars often disagree on which portraits of an emperor are posthumous. Furthermore, the method is unlikely to distinguish between portraits that were produced only a few years or even months apart, because the largely mechanical method of copying portraits would repeat stylistic traits beyond the period to which they belong.307 The evidence of the statue bases can help us determine more precisely how common posthumous statues of emperors were in antiquity, as well as giving us valuable information about who dedicated statues of Divi and where.

306. Statue groups with deceased emperors were particularly common during the Julio-Claudian period, see Rose 1997a, cat. nos. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 45, 50, 51, 65, 69, 85, 125, 126, 127. 307. See the discussion of the identification of posthumous portraits of Augustus in Boschung 1993a, 66-68. One trait that can be used to identify portraits of Divus Augustus is the radiate crown, but these crowns could feasibly have been added posthumously to already existing portraits. The statue types showing the emperor naked or half-naked may have been preferred for statues of Divi, but they are not exclusively used for this purpose.


Augustus As the founder not only of the Julio-Claudian dynasty but of the imperial system, Augustus enjoyed great popularity after his death. Honorary statues of him continued to be erected in significant numbers into the third century and probably later. No less than 47 or almost one-quarter of all the dedications of statues of Augustus were posthumous (Table SC 6).308 Italy accounts for the largest share, but the bases generally have a wider distribution than that of the later Divi. Posthumous dedications are more frequent in Spain and the Greek East in particular. 15 of these bases can be shown to belong to statue groups. In most of these the statue of Divus Augustus was included to lend an aura of divinity to his successors Tiberius: Lucus Feroniae (Augustus 47),309 Berge (Augustus 119), Apollonia (Augustus 159), Lindos (Augustus 176); Caligula: Veleia (Augustus 56); Claudius: Casinum? (Augustus 14),310 Herculaneum (Augustus 16), Verona (Augustus 62), Cyzicus (Augustus 164), Lepcis Magna (Augustus 114), and even Vespasian: Tarraco (Augustus 93), Thibilis (Augustus 110). In the Greek East, communities dedicated nearly all the statues of Divus Augustus. In the West, on the other hand, the initiative to a large extent came from private individuals, very often people involved in the imperial cult. We find a flamen Divi Augusti provinciae Lusitaniae dedicating a statue in Emerita (Augustus 96), and the Augustales dedicated statues in Herculaneum, Trebula Sufenas, Clunia, Conimbriga, Olisipo and Corinth (Augustus 17, 37, 88, 94, 97, 133).

The Julio-Claudian emperors Tiberius was the only emperor who was not deified, but still had statues dedicated after his death. The lack of official recognition within the state cult, however, does not seem to have affected the number of posthumous statues negatively. The nine known bases are naturally far below the number

308. Augustus 7, 8, 14, 16-18, 25, 27, 35-37, 41, 47, 49, 56, 59, 62, 72, 88, 92-94, 97, 99, 108, 110, 113-115, 117, 118, 119-122, 132, 133, 154, 159, 160, 164, 176, 191, 194. 309. Moretti 1985, 71-109. A large number of fragmented marble slabs with inscriptions for members of the Julio-Claudian family have been found in Lucus Feroniae. It seems probable that they once belonged in the building adjoining the forum with remains of several bases, including one for Trajan (Figs. 4-5). 310. Fuchs 1987, 22-26.


for Augustus, but exceed the number for Claudius.311 The first posthumous dedication was probably the huge base in the Mausoleum of Augustus (Tiberius 11). Although the emperor’s name appears in the nominative case, it is reasonable to assume that the stone served as a support for a representation of the emperor.312 The only other base that may date to the reign of Caligula is the testamentary gift by M. Pulfennus of a silver bust of the emperor in Teate Marrucinorum (Tiberius 31). The other bases belong to the reign of Claudius, and most frequently form part of dynastic groups (Tiberius 14, 41, 76, 116). The nature of the dedication in Tarracina (Tiberius 19) is unclear, but may have been accompanied by statues of Tiberius and Livia. From the inscription it would appear that the statues had been erected during their lifetime and then changed and re-dedicated after Livia had been deified in AD 42. While there are five dedications sponsored by private individuals, only one city chose to honour Tiberius after his death. The city of Sardis dedicated a statue of him during the reign of Claudius (Tiberius 139) in his capacity of founder and benefactor, and out of gratitude for his care for the city after the earthquake in AD 17. The base was later reused, and its original setting is unknown. It may have stood in one of the building projects initiated by the emperor. The inscriptions from the posthumous statue bases for Claudius are much less informative than those for Tiberius.313 Only the base from Ephesus, which probably carried statues of the deified Claudius and Nero (Claudius 121),314 and a monument with statues of Claudius and Vespasian (Claudius 81), can be assigned approximate dates. It is unclear whether the second dedication was conceived as a group, or whether the statue of the deified Claudius was later joined by one of Vespasian and possibly one of Titus.315 Two inscriptions carry information as to the motive for the erections. One was a testamentary gift (Claudius 53), and the inhabitants of Volubilis dedicated a statue because the city had been elevated to the status of municipium by Claudius (Claudius 68).

311. Tiberius 11, 14, 19, 31, 41, 76, 90, 116, 139.

312. The function of the inscribed blocks from the mausoleums of both Augustus and Hadrian

is not entirely clear. All the inscriptions from the Mausoleum of Hadrian have long been lost, but the well preserved base for Nerva (Nerva 3) from the Mausoleum of Augustus definitely looks as if it served as a statue base. See also Hesberg and Panciera 1994. 313. Claudius 26, 53, 68, 70, 80, 81, 121. 314. The identification rests on the assumption that the statues erected by the procurator were those of Divus Claudius and Nero mentioned earlier in the inscription. 315. Stuart 1938, 16.


The Flavians Apart from the bases erected in the provincial temple in Ephesus, which were altered after AD 96 from dedications for Domitian and seemingly placed in different places throughout the city (Domitian 41-53), all the statue bases for the deified Vespasian belong to statue groups.316 In Tarraco (Vespasian 26) and in Thugga (Vespasian 43) the statues belonged with bases for Divus Augustus, and the latter seems to have been erected in the third century AD. In Munigua (Vespasian 28; Titus 25), and in Heliopolis (Vespasian 79; Titus 65) the statues were accompanied by those of the deified Titus. The first two were erected by the municipium, a status the city of Munigua had received from Vespasian, while the other two were testamentary gifts. The combination of Vespasian and Titus is also found in the meeting place of the Augustales in Misenum, probably erected in the post-Domitianic period since the inscription cut on a marble plaque accompanying the statue of Vespasian (Vespasian 8) on the reverse side contains a dedication to Domitian (Domitian 5).317 Monuments honouring Domitian, which also included statues of Vespasian and Titus, have been found in three locations in Asia Minor (Vespasian 56, 60, 70; Titus 51, 55, 61; Domitian 36, 56, 61). The remaining eight dedications for the deified Titus do not seem to have been part of statue groups. Only the two arches in Rome, one of them dedicated by Trajan (Titus 10), can be dated with any precision.318

Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian Nerva was in a sense the founder of a new dynasty that lasted into the third century. Thanks to his fictitious adoption by Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus became a descendent of all the emperors back to Nerva. The fact that he promoted this dynastic link is seen not only in the filiation in his inscriptions, but also in a monument he dedicated to his great-great-grandfather in Rome (Nerva 5). Possibly this inscription is the sole survivor of a group of statue bases for all the “ancestors” of Septimius Severus. The dynastic role of Nerva probably also caused him to be included in the statue group dedicated 316. Vespasian 4, 8, 23, 28, 42, 43, 56, 60, 70, 79; Titus 6, 7, 10, 25, 26, 36, 42, 48, 51, 55, 61, 65, 66. 317. Franciscis 1991. 318. For the date of the arch of Titus, see Pfanner 1983.


by Plancia Magna in Perge during the reign of Hadrian (Nerva 45). Divus Nerva also appears on a base together with Trajan (Nerva 49), and once he is referred to as the father of Trajan (Nerva 41). Otherwise the bases are rather uninformative.319 Since Nerva reigned for only a very short period, his statues could not possibly have been erected in all the contexts in which statues of his predecessors stood, but there does not seem to have been any attempt to add his statue later; unless of course some of the many bases seemingly erected during his lifetime in fact only went up after his death with the inscriptions as they would have appeared at the time the statue was decided on. The number of posthumous statue bases for Nerva equals those for earlier Divi – Vespasian and Titus. Still, with more than a quarter of the bases erected posthumously (Table SC 6), we should expect a fair share of the portraits of Nerva to be posthumous creations.320 Contrary to what we might expect judging from the popularity of Trajan, both in his own and in later times, remarkably few posthumous bases for statues of him exist.321 This becomes even more curious when we consider that the reign of Hadrian probably saw more imperial statues being dedicated than during any other period of the principate (Fig. C 19). The deified Trajan appears in the series of Divi in Thugga (Trajan 91) and the monument dedicated by Plancia Magna in Perge (Trajan 175), both mentioned above; all the other eight bases are single monuments, and it would seem that Trajan was not particularly promoted as a dynastic link during the reign of Hadrian. We know of 18 posthumous statue bases for Hadrian – almost twice as many as Trajan’s. Only the base from his mausoleum (Hadrian 16) and three bases that refer to Hadrian as the father of Antoninus Pius can be dated with certainty (Hadrian 156, 165, 407). Although Hadrian’s arrangements for the succession in AD 138 had far-reaching consequences, his role in the dynasty was apparently not emphasised to any great extent. A statue of the deified Hadrian was included in the family group on the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus in Olympia,322 but probably only because of his relationship to Herodes Atticus’ family. Later we find the scene of the adoption depicted on a relief from a monument, possibly in honour of Lucius Verus in Ephesus.323 A no-

319. 320. 321. 322. 323.

Nerva 3, 5, 11, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 35, 41, 45, 49.

For the portraits of Nerva, see Bergmann and Zanker 1981, 380-403.

Trajan 17, 40, 47, 61, 66, 84, 90, 91, 175, 191.

For the arrangement of the group, see Bol 1984.

Hannestad 1985, 201-204.


table change from former Divi is that the bases for Hadrian were predominantly dedicated by communities, three of which honoured Hadrian as the founder of their municipium (Hadrian 115 [Choba], 162 [Turris Tamalleni], 94 [Mursa]). This may reflect the very active policy of Hadrian towards the cities of the Empire, which caused a number of cities to erect his statue not only during his reign, but also after his death.324

The Antonine emperors After Augustus, the 26 bases for Antoninus Pius is the largest number of dedications. It is curious that while plenty of evidence exists for statue groups of Antoninus Pius with his two adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus,325 we only possess one Antonine group of statue bases including the deified Antoninus Pius. In Apamea his statue, flanked by those of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, was placed on a console on the colonnaded street (Antoninus Pius 282, Fig. 8). Thus the large number of bases cannot be explained solely by his dynastic role. However, seven inscriptions state that Antoninus Pius was the father of the reigning emperors (Antoninus Pius 18, 105, 110, 113, 121, 165, 177). Communities become more numerous as dedicators of posthumous statues, and at least two of the communities that dedicated statues of the deified Antoninus Pius, Lanuvium and Verecunda, did so to express their gratitude for benefits they had received from the former emperor (Antoninus Pius 25: Senatus populusque Laurens quod privilegia eorum non modo custodierit sed etiam ampliaverit, 150: Ex cuius indulgentia aqua vico Augustorum Verecendens perducta est). Private initiative was still frequent, and statues were dedicated both as summa honoraria (Antoninus Pius 104, 105, 121), and by people who had enjoyed direct benefits like the alimentari in Sestinum (Antoninus Pius 51). Lucius Verus was one of the deified emperors to have the fewest posthumous statues dedicated. All eight bases seem to belong to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and at least three of them are companion pieces to bases for Marcus Aurelius (Lucius Verus 44, 67, 97). The obvious explanation for the limited interest in dedicating posthumous statues of Lucius Verus is that he had only been a junior colleague to an emperor who was still reigning,

324. Boatwright 2000, 39-40. 325. Fittschen 1999.


and that according to later sources he was incapable as an emperor.326 On the other hand, the number of statue bases for Lucius Verus erected during the almost eight years of joint rule equals or may even exceed that of his colleague Marcus Aurelius (compare Figs. C 15 and C 17). A more correct interpretation of the evidence should take into consideration that the 170s AD, the period when we should expect statues of Divus Verus to be erected, generally show very little evidence of dedication of imperial statues, possibly because of the effects of Antonine Plague and the fierce and costly wars being fought on the northern frontier. When Marcus Aurelius died in AD 180 the number of dedications of imperial statues had risen again, and consequently we find more posthumous bases for Marcus Aurelius than for Lucius Verus.327 Furthermore, Commodus was the first emperor since Domitian to inherit the throne from his natural father, and the numerous bases referring to Marcus Aurelius as the father of Commodus may reflect the political use of Marcus Aurelius to legitimise the rule of Commodus. However, only one of these bases can be shown to belong to statue groups with Commodus. In Eleusis one or more cycles of statues, placed on either one or both of the arches flanking the greater propylon or in a nymphaeum near the arch, included statues of both the deified Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, although the base for the latter is not preserved (Marcus Aurelius 191).328 After being declared a public enemy and having his name removed from public monuments, Commodus was rehabilitated and deified in AD 195 as a consequence of Septimius Severus’ attempt to legitimise his rule by claiming that he had been adopted by Marcus Aurelius fifteen years previously. This in effect made Commodus the brother of the new emperor. The post-

326. The harsh judgement of the author of Historia Augusta, for example, looms large over Wegner’s (1939, 57) wonderful yet dubious characterisation of his portraits: “Über die Gesichtszüge des Lucius Verus scheint sich ein Abglanz der hohen und edlen Gesinnung des Marcus Aurelius zu verbreiten. Darunter aber verbirgt sich ein gemeiner Charakter. Hinter der niedrigen Stirn findet kein weiter und hoher Gedankenflug Raum. Der Blick der Augen ist leer und vordergründig. Trägheit und Schlaffheit zeigen sich in der unbeweglichen Ausdruckslosigkeit der glatten Wangen. Unsteten Hang und Treibhaftigkeit verrät die ungeschlachte fleischige Nase. Am Mund, an den sinnlichen Lippen, ist das Verlangen nach üppiger Schwelgerei zu erkennen. Es ist das Bild eines verantwortungslosen, ausschweifenden Schwächlings, den Marcus Aurelius mit Nachsicht und Pietät an seiner Seite ertrug”. 327. Marcus Aurelius 74, 93, 100, 101, 119, 141, 163, 170, 177, 191. 328. Clinton 1989, 56-68; Willers 1990, 93-96; Fittschen 1999, 122-126.


humous statue bases of Commodus clearly reflect the propaganda nature of the dedications. Nearly half of the inscriptions, particularly those erected in North Africa, use much more space on enumerating the titles and offices of Septimius Severus than on the name of the actual honorand (Commodus 4, 26, 32, 35, 36-38, 42, 59). However, we have no evidence of Severan statue groups in which statues of Commodus were included. No less than 21 posthumous statue bases are known for Commodus; a figure only surpassed by Augustus and Antoninus Pius.329 The large majority of these were dedicated by communities that were evidently eager to right the wrong that had been done three years previously with the removal of monuments, and thereby please the new regime. A further factor that might explain the high figure is that imperial statue bases again became much more common during the reign of Septimius Severus, and this may have extended to the posthumous dedications for Commodus.330

Conclusion 192 or 8.3% of the statue bases in the catalogue were dedicated posthumously (Table SC 6). The number of posthumous dedications for each individual emperor remains fairly constant throughout the period, with Augustus as the notable exception. There are nearly twice as many posthumous dedications for him as for the second most commonly honoured Divus, Antoninus Pius. Thus, whereas the number of pre-accessional bases depends on how long the later emperor had been the obvious heir to the throne, the number of posthumous statues is independent of the length of reign. The rise in the number of imperial statue bases from the first to the second century only influenced the rate of posthumous dedications to a limited extent. With regard to geographical distribution, the posthumous bases show a pattern distinct from that of reigning emperors (Table SC 18). Posthumous dedications, like pre-accesional bases, are much more frequent in the Latin West than in the Greek East, where honours in the form of statues as well as cult generally focus

329. Commodus 3-5, 16, 21, 26, 30-32, 35-38, 42, 43, 45, 51, 59, 60, 94, 101, 108.

330. The statue bases of Julia Domna have already been mentioned (Fejfer 1985, 129-138).

Further indications are the large number of extant portraits of Septimius Severus (McCann 1968; Soechting 1972) and the large number of statue bases in North Africa and Asia Minor (Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 42-53).


on the ruling emperor.331 Italy, which had been the most important place for posthumous statues of Augustus and Tiberius, has waning importance after the Julio-Claudian period, and, with the exception of the city of Rome, such statues disappear from Italy almost completely during the Antonine period. At this time posthumous dedications become very common in North Africa, and these account for more than half the total of the second-century evidence. With the exception of Augustus, it is characteristic that statues of Divi were generally erected within a very short period after their death. 64 of the posthumous bases for Divi, other than Augustus, can be dated more precisely. 58 of these belong to the reign of the immediate successor – or in the case of Tiberius, Vespasian and Commodus to the reigns of Claudius, Domitian and Septimius Severus. 33 of the bases can be dated more precisely within the reign of the successor, and of these 24 were dedicated within five years of the death of the emperor. The bases dedicated later are the monuments in Larissa with statues of Divus Claudius and Vespasian, which may originally have been a Neronian monument, the arch for Titus dedicated by Trajan in Rome (Titus 9),332 a base for a statue of Nerva dedicated by Plancia Magna in Perge during the early Hadrianic period (Nerva 45), a statue group which also included a statue of Augustus (Augustus 191), and finally the base for Nerva dedicated by Septimius Severus (Nerva 5). Another three bases may be added to the list if the group of Divi in Thugga is included in the Severan period (Vespasian 42; Trajan 91; Hadrian 160). As regards the less well-dated monuments, we have no reason to believe that these should have a different chronological distribution, and it would seem that – with the exception of

331. Price 1984, 216. Only 5% of the bases in Greece and Asia Minor are posthumous. Latin inscriptions make a clear distinction between dedications to living and dead emperors by exchanging all titles and offices with Divus, and are thus easily recognised. In Greek inscriptions the transition is much less clear. Qeov~ could be employed as a translation of Divus denoting deification, as seen in the bilingual inscriptions dedicated by Plancia Magna in Perge (Augustus 191; Nerva 45; Trajan 175), but these are very literal translations using for example Aujgouvstwi instead of Sebastwi`. Qeov~ was also frequently employed in dedications for living emperors in the sense divine (Augustus 142, 144, 173, 190, 202; Tiberius 144; Caligula 19, 25; Claudius 131, 149; Nero 53, 54, 56; Domitian 59; Trajan 112), and it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between the two meanings. The Greek posthumous dedications, like their Latin counterparts, tend to use an abridged name formula (Hadrian 407), but its usage is not consistent. In the corpus those inscriptions that can be dated by the content of the inscription or because of its context, and those that employ the abridged name formula, have been assigned posthumous dates. 332. Magi 1975, 100-116.


Augustus – portraits erected long after the death of an emperor were extremely rare. This argument is further strengthened by the fact that while the majority of the posthumous bases for Commodus refer to him as the brother of Septimius Severus, no posthumous bases for Marcus Aurelius refer to him as his father, and it would seem therefore that none of these were erected after the death of Commodus. On the other hand, statues of Augustus were erected over a longer time span. The last known base was dedicated in the early part of the third century (Augustus 118). Somewhat earlier we find a base during the reign of Hadrian (Augustus 191). At this time we also find the last coin portrait of Augustus before the mid-third century consecratio coins under Decius and the fourth century contorniates again revive the portraits of former emperors.333 Seven bases can be assigned to the Tiberian period (Augustus 8, 18, 72, 113, 119, 159, 176), one to the reign of Caligula (Augustus 56), five to the Claudian period (Augustus 49, 62, 96, 114, 164), and two to the Flavian period (Augustus 93, 110). Private initiative was more prevalent among posthumous dedications than among dedications of statues of reigning emperors; and when public bodies decided to honour a deified emperor, they regularly had very specific reasons for doing so – for instance the granting of a higher civic status (Augustus 108; Claudius 68; Trajan 47; Hadrian 94, 115, 162), or because of benefits and gifts given during the lifetime of the emperor (Tiberius 139; Hadrian 41; Antoninus Pius 25, 150). Personal devotion seems to have been a factor for the dedicators of the statues. Among the Latin inscriptions, 8 out of 26 testamentary outlays for imperial statues were for Divi. Perhaps the emperors named in the testaments had died after a testament was drawn up and before it was executed, but it is equally possible that the testators wanted to honour an emperor they had served, or who had furthered their careers. For instance, flamines and seviri were responsible for the majority of the privately funded dedications for Divus Augustus (Augustus 17, 37, 88, 94, 96, 97, 133). During the second century AD, flamines erected a number of statues of Divi from their summa honoraria in North Africa (Hadrian 156; Antoninus Pius 121; Marcus Aurelius 100; Lucius Verus 67, 97; Commodus 37, 38), although it was always more common for priests in the imperial cult to erect statues of the reigning emperor. Among the dedicators of posthumous statues, we also find an unusually large number of people who do not seem to have held public office. 333. Mattingly 1949, 117-118. Mattingly 1930-1940, vol. II, 404. For emperors on fourth century contorniats, see Mittag 1999, 127-146.


In the Julio-Claudian period, Augustus and to some extent Tiberius as well as other prominent members of the imperial family, were included in dynastic statue groups to legitimise the position of the reigning emperor. After the Flavian period, the political role of the Divi diminishes and they largely disappear from statue groups, which instead emphasise succession. Statues of Divi more often appear as single monuments erected by communities or individuals that had a specific reason for honouring the former emperor. The continuity of the imperial system is instead expressed by appending statues of reigning emperors to already existing statue groups, for instance in the Caserma dei Vigili in Ostia, in the basilica in Veleia, in front of the Parthenon, in the Metroon in Olympia, and in the so-called augustea in Boubon, Kestros, Asar, Patara, Syene and Cyrene.334

334. Ostia: Lanciani 1889, 72-83; Veleia: Saletti 1968. Rose 1997a, 121-126; Athens: Trajan 103; Olympia: Hitzl 1991, Stone III 1985, 377-391; Boubon: Inan 1993, 213-239; Kestros: Vespasian 76; Titus 63; Nerva 46; Trajan 187; Hadrian 397. In Asar a group of nearly identical bases for the Antonines have been found (Antoninus Pius 2765; Marcus Aurelius 231). Similar to the arrangement in Kestros, the base for Antoninus Pius employs the dative case for the name, whereas the others are in the accusative (Bérard 1892, 436-438); Patara: Hadrian 372; Marcus Aurelius 237; Lucius Verus 128; Syene: Trajan 205; Antoninus Pius 291; Lucius Verus 139; Cyrene: Goodchild 1961, 83-87.


Occasions for Erecting

Imperial Statues

In order to understand not only the practical aspects of production and distribution but also the meaning and function of imperial statues, it is necessary to know what occasions motivated their erection. Although portraits of emperors have been studied systematically for the past two hundred years, and we today have knowledge of minute details in the arrangement of the hair on many of the extant portraits,335 ideas about when and for what reason imperial statues were erected have remained intriguingly obscure. This lack of knowledge is closely connected to the problems inherent in the current methodology in the study of imperial portraits described above. The strong focus on the determination of the characteristics and the date of the “Urbild” for each successive portrait type, have led to an overemphasis on imperial propaganda and occasions related to the emperor as a motivation for erecting statues. Well-dated coins show that the introduction of new portrait types sometimes coincided with important events in the life of an emperor, with accession, military victories, jubilees, the holding of magistracies and the granting of honorific titles being the commonest of these. Since the portrait types on coins usually correspond to portrait types in the round, they must have had a common origin, most probably a statue created for that specific occasion by a court sculptor. The fact that new portrait types were sometimes created in connection with specific events related to the emperor, and that these “Urbilder” were erected at a prominent position in Rome to commemorate

335. For example, the thorough study of the portraits of Augustus by Boschung 1993a, Beilage 1-9.

O ccasions for Erecting Imperial Statues · 143

the event, does not mean that such events necessarily served as occasions for erecting imperial statues throughout the Empire. Since very few portraits can be dated with enough precision to address such issues, the literary and epigraphical evidence has been scrutinised for answers. The approach, as adopted for example by Pekáry,336 is to find examples of occasions mentioned in literary sources and inscriptions. These sometimes confirm the pre-eminence of the role of the emperor for the choice of occasion.337 The problem with such investigations, however, is that they only take into account the relatively few examples that explicitly state the reason for the dedication, and leave out all the ones that do not. By detailed investigation of the chronological distribution of a complete corpus of inscriptions from statue bases of an emperor, we can obtain a much more reliable impression of the importance of events related to the emperor’s person. If it was customary for communities throughout the Empire to erect imperial statues on such occasions, this should have a noticeable impact on the histograms. On the other hand, if it is not possible to establish a general connection between important events in the lives and careers of the emperors and increased frequencies of dedications, it can be inferred that these events did not generally serve as occasions for erecting imperial statues, and other motivating factors must be sought.

Accession Literary and epigraphical sources, together with preserved portraits of emperors and empresses who reigned for only a brief period, testify that imperial portraits could be erected within a very short time span.338 However, the fact that this was possible does not necessarily mean that it was actually

336. Pekáry 1985, 22-28. 337. Although Pekáry stresses that there was not necessarily a specific reason for erecting imperial statues and that local conditions played a role, all the occasions discussed except one relate to the emperor’s person. 338. The literary evidence for rapidly erected imperial statues appears in Friedländer (1923, III 61-62), together with a few epigraphic examples. Swift (1923, 299-300) merely repeats this. Pekáry (1985, 23-24) adds a few more pieces of evidence. For portraits during the brief reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius, see Fabbricotti 1976; Jucker (1961-62, 331-357); Bergmann and Zanker (1981, 346-347); Varner (1993).


widely practised. In certain contexts and situations it was obviously desirable to have the current emperor’s portrait in place within the shortest possible time after his accession. The first concern of a new administration was to attend to the legions, and it is quite possible that portraits of the new emperor were despatched to the military camps to be erected in the sacellum where the soldiers took the oath of allegiance. This naturally became more urgent in times of political turmoil, such as in AD 68 following the death of Nero or during the third-century anarchy, to which periods most of the literary evidence symptomatically belongs. Whether this urgency also extended to civilian contexts, where the majority of portraits in the round once belonged, is another question. It has been argued that communities were obliged to erect statues of the emperor,339 and if (as is generally accepted) erecting statues was considered an expression of loyalty towards the emperor, it follows logically that failing to do so could be considered an offence preferably to be avoided.340 The accession should consequently rank as the single most important occasion for erecting imperial statues, since every community would want to erect statues of the new emperor as soon as possible. The fact that this was not always the case was first shown by Stuart, who, on the basis of the epigraphical evidence from the statue bases, concluded that during the Julio-Claudian period”a new administration was, if not indifferent, at least unconcerned about the speedy or widespread distribution of the imperial portrait.”341 Stuart found that the first year of reign of the Julio-Claudian emperors was characterised by very few statue bases, whereas the second had an above-average number of dedications (Figs. C 2-5). Only in the case of Claudius, however, did the number rise significantly. Stuart explained this surprising result by the fact that statues of the Julio-Claudian emperors, with the exception of Claudius, were already present in most cities before their accession, and that these could serve as models for portraits of the new emperor wherever these were necessary for

339. For example, Alföldy 1984, 56: “Die Verehrung des Herrschers mit Statuen war für die Gemeinde eine ständige Verpflichtung politischer und zugleich religiöser Natur, ohne daß sie hierfür jeweils einen konkreten Anlaß benötigt hätten. Die Hauptsache war offensichtlich, daß jede Gemeinde jedem Herscher – wohl je früher nach seinem Regierungsantritt, desto besser – mit einer Ehrenstatue huldigte”. 340. Pekáry 1985, 22: “Selbstverständlich war es jedem Untertan klar, daß die Nichtaufstellung von Kaiserbildern bereits einer indirekten Kritik am Herrscher gleichkam und deshalb nicht ganz ungefährlich war”. 341. Stuart 1939, 602.


judicial or religious purposes. The relatively slow distribution showed that the administration was not actively involved in distributing portraits or models. Instead, this was left to the ordinary channels of the art trade. Suetonius and Tacitus, in their account of the events in AD 68-69, refer to statues of Galba and Vitellius that must have been erected within a remarkably short period after their proclamation as emperors.342 Since third-, fourth- and fifth-century sources indisputably show that portraits were distributed by the new administration upon accession,343 and that cities were ordered to erect images of new emperors or caesares,344 a change in attitude concerning imperial images has been attributed to the reign of terror under Nero and the subsequent civil war, which allegedly should have taught cities the importance of showing loyalty to the emperor by erecting his portraits rapidly.345 As we shall see, in the light of the epigraphical evidence from the statue bases of the later first century AD, this evidence is not attainable. A change towards greater emphasis on the accession can only be traced in the second century AD, and even during this period the pattern is not consistent.

The accession during the Julio-Claudian period Even though much new material has been published since Stuart’s study,346 his general conclusions about the distribution of statues upon accession of a new emperor during the Julio-Claudian period still prove correct. Augustus’ ascent to power was a gradual process, and no specific date could have been understood by the Roman people as the beginning of Augustus’ reign. Thus there was no accession to celebrate with statues. The first succession was that of Tiberius in AD 14, at which time statues of Tiberius must have been in existence in most cities (p. 126). In the first couple of years of his reign the number of bases is only just above average for the reign (Fig. C 2). This can to some extent be attributed to better criteria for dating during this

342. Tac. Hist. 3.7; Tac. Hist. 3.12; Suet. Vitell. 9. See Stuart (1939, 616, n. 6) for a discussion of the meaning and significance of these passages. 343. IGRR III, 481 and Swift 1929, 297-300. 344. Pekáry 1985, 25; Bruun 1976, 122-131. 345. Pekáry 1985, 24, 152. 346. Stuart in 1939 (1939, 603-609) enumerated 119 portrait inscriptions for Tiberius, 15 for Caligula, 105 for Claudius, and 40 for Nero. Today the figures have risen by approximately 30-80% to 153 for Tiberius, 28 for Caligula, 154 for Claudius and 59 for Nero.


period, for example connection with statues of Germanicus and Livia, who died in AD 19 and 29 respectively. No bases can be dated with certainty to the initial period of the reign, the second half of AD 14. An inscription on a reused base from a statue of Ptolemy IX in Paphos (Tiberius 148) specifies that the statue was erected in the first year of his reign. However, Paphos is called Paphos Augusta, a title the city did not receive until AD 15. Two further bases from Grumentum and Saturnia in Italy (Tiberius 23, 39) can be dated to late 15 or early 16 AD. Although the inscriptions from statue bases for Tiberius are not among the most precisely dated (Figs. SC 3 and SC 4), there is no reason to distrust the evidence, which clearly shows that the accession was not considered an important occasion for erecting statues of the successor of Augustus rapidly after his death. The reason, as Stuart argued, may have been that portraits of Tiberius were already present in most cities around the Empire. Tiberius’ reluctance to accept honours has also been suggested as an explanation, but the often cited passage in Suetonius regarding prohibition against erecting statues without the emperor’s consent clearly concerns statues in sacred contexts, and in all likelihood did not extend to statues in secular ones.347 The evidence regarding Caligula is less significant, because only four inscriptions from statue bases can be dated with precision within his reign (Caligula 4, 6, 10, 28). Two of these were erected in AD 37, which might suggest that his accession gave some impetus to the erection of his portraits (Fig. C 3). Claudius, unlike his predecessors, must have been practically unknown before his unexpected elevation to power, and not surprisingly we find a different pattern of chronological distribution of the statue bases within his reign than for statue bases of his predecessors (Fig. C 4). The second year had far more bases, and a higher frequency extends into the third to fifth year. Although much material has been found since Stuart’s study from 1938, his conclusions are still to a large extent valid, although the tendency is no longer as pronounced as Stuart thought.348 Since Claudius died on 13 October 54, we should not expect any bases for Nero from the remaining two and a half months of the year. Nero held his first consulship in AD 55, and any inscriptions omitting to mention this should date to this short interval. None have been identified with certainty. 347. Suet. Tib. 26.1: “Templa, flamines, sacerdotes decerni sibi prohibuit, etiam statues atque imagines nisi permittente se poni; permisit que ea solo condicione, ne inter simulacra deorum sed inter ornamenta aedium ponerentur”. 348. Højte 2002, 369-375.


A fragmented inscription from Rome (Nero 3) combines Nero’s imperial titles with at least one of the minor priesthoods he held prior to his accession. This implies that he had not been elected pontifex maximus at the time of the dedication. Whether the inscription should date to AD 54 or early in 55 is unfortunately impossible to tell, due to its fragmentary state. The second year of Nero’s reign has more inscriptions than any other (Fig. C 5). Five bases dated to AD 55 were erected in Marchena, Delphi and Messene (Nero 19, 27, 31, 32), and two further bases in Rome and in Delphi (Nero 4, 28) can be dated to either AD 55 or 56. This peak in the second year can reasonably be connected with his accession.

Accession during the Flavian period The epigraphical evidence we possess for statues of Nero’s three unfortunate successors is too limited to be of any significance. Only four bases (Galba 1, 2, Otho 1, Vitellius 1), three from Central Italy and one from Salona in Dalmatia, have been preserved from the approximately 18 months these three emperors reigned. This gives a rate of 2.7 statue bases per year – a figure that compares unfavourably even with the evidence regarding other emperors who suffered some form of official “damnatio memoriae” (pp. 56-62). The destruction or reuse of imperial monuments was widely practised in AD 68-69,349 but one suspects that the low figure was also a result of the relatively few statues originally in existence. The origin of the four preserved statue bases may imply that there was simply insufficient time for a wider distribution (Table SE 16). On the other hand, for the fourth contender, Vespasian, who primarily differed from his predecessors in that he succeeded in staying in power, we possess plenty of exceptionally well-dated statue bases.350 This applies to his two sons as well, particularly Titus, who held all the imperial titles and offices except those of pontifex maximus and pater patriae. Needless to say, no statue bases for any of the Flavian emperors have been preserved from the period before 1 July 69, the day from which Vespasian counted his reign.351

349. For reused imperial portraits of the period, see Bergmann and Zanker 1981, 317-412 and Varner 2004. 350. The numerous consulships held by the Flavian emperors supply very exact dating criteria alongside the tribunician power. See tables SC 3 and SC 4. 351. Statues of Titus erected during his service at the Northern frontier are reported by Suetonius Tit. 4.1.


Following Stuart’s theory that accessional portraits could be modelled from pre-accession images, the Flavian family presented a problem, and in addition the new emperor was not even in Rome but in Egypt at the time. The early portraits could of course have been in other forms and media than those related to statue bases – painted images, portrait busts etc. – but given the lack of statues of the new emperor around the Empire before AD 69, we should expect a pattern of chronological distribution somewhat like that applying to Claudius, i.e. significantly more statue bases at the beginning of his reign (Fig. C 4). The earliest dated statue bases for Vespasian are an arch and a base erected by the people and the council in Xanthos in either AD 69 or 70, possibly with the active involvement of the governor Sextus Marcius Priscus, who had served in Lycia from AD 67.352 Vespasian may have stopped here on his way from Alexandria to Rome in AD 70,353 but the dedication need not have any connection with this. To AD 70 belong two further bases in Formiae (Vespasian 6) and Veleia (Vespasian 14). In AD 71 the Roman senate voted a statue for the reason that Vespasian had restored the streets of the city, which had long been neglected (Vespasian 2), and at Nemi the senate and people of nearby Aricia erected a large monument probably with statues of Vespasian and his two sons (Vespasian 9).354 The same year Vespasian was honoured as master of all Bosporus by the Bosporan king at Phanagoreia (Vespasian 83). In AD 72 to 73 six bases were erected (Vespasian 3, 12, 16, 24, 25, 47) – two by private individuals and two by public bodies. Since 36 statues bases for Vespasian can be dated to specific years (Table SE 20), the number of dated statue bases from the first four and a half years of Vespasian’s reign is just below the average for the whole reign (Fig. C 6). The exact same pattern is repeated for the statue bases for Titus (Fig. C 7). The earliest dated evidence of a statue of Titus is the monument erected in Rome as a testamentary gift by Gaius Papirius Aequos, a centurion of the third Augusta (Vespasian 3, Titus 1, Domitian 1), carrying golden images of the imperial family – busts, judging from their weight of only ten pounds. Only in the year AD 74 does the number of statue bases match the level known for Claudius after his accession in AD 41. There is no apparent explanation why the dedications cluster in this year, and unfortunately we only 352. Eck 1970, 244.

353. Halfmann 1986, 178-180.

354. Since l. 5 of the inscription seems to extend across the preserved block to the left and to

the right, the editor suggests that these carried statues of Titus and Domitian.


know the dedicator in a few instances. Q. Cornelius Placidus’ dedication was a testamentary gift (Vespasian 15), and T Flavius [- - -]ni[- - -]us erected the statue because he had been appointed pontifex. Since they were motivated by very personal reasons, it is probably coincidental that they dedicated statues in this particular year. The epigraphical evidence, therefore, does not support (either in relative or absolute numbers) the notion that the accession of Vespasian served as an occasion for erecting statues of him or his sons, and that these were distributed rapidly. Instead, it seems as if communities and individuals responded to the political turmoil by refraining from erecting statues altogether. Perhaps it was considered safer not to erect statues of the emperor than to have erected statues of a losing candidate in the struggle for power, or perhaps few found it worthwhile to spend money on statues that stood a good chance of being destroyed shortly afterwards. Only after it had become evident that the new imperial family was unlikely to be deposed did the number of honorary statues rise. A further contributing factor to the low frequency at the beginning of the reign may have been the strained economic situation after the civil war. The treasury in Rome was certainly empty, but whether the crisis had affected the cities other than those directly involved in the fighting negatively is more difficult to determine. Titus’ portraits were widely distributed before he became emperor (p. 128, Table SC 7). Vespasian’s wish that Titus should succeed him was widely known355, and with the exception of being pontifex maximus he held the same offices, titles and powers as his father. In addition, Titus seems to have enjoyed great popularity. When Vespasian died, the transition of power went smoothly, and the incentive to show loyalty to the new emperor may not have been great. Of the 17 bases for Titus erected during his brief reign, only four can be assigned to specific years, and consequently we obtain no direct information about the importance of the accession as an occasion for erecting his statues. The average of 8.0 statue bases for Titus per year is almost identical to the figure for Vespasian (Table SC 2), so the accession does not seem to have been a motivating factor. The destruction of statues and inscriptions following the murder of Domitian has greatly reduced the evidence and rendered it less reliable for the present purpose because even small numbers of bases can change the conclusion significantly. Domitian had not been promoted nearly as much as his older brother during the reign of Vespasian, and he had not been given the 355. Suet. Vesp. 25.


same share in the government. The number of his statues around the Empire was undoubtedly lower than that of his brother (p. 128), and greater importance may have been attached to his accession as a consequence. Titus died on 13 September 81, and no statue bases for Domitian can be dated before the end of the year. In both AD 82 and 83 one base was dedicated, and three further bases date to 84/85. This places the output during the first four and a half years close to the average for the reign if we do not consider the very large number of bases dedicated in Ephesus in AD 89/90, which are clearly an exception. 11 inscriptions from bases – more than one-quarter of the total – do not include the title of Germanicus, which might indicate a date before the summer of AD 83. However, ten of these are either too fragmentary to actually determine the date, or they do not include the full imperial title. Only the base in Emerita Augusta (Domitian 17) may belong to the period before Domitian’s first triumph. The accession thus had no noticeable effect on the output of statues of Domitian (Fig. C 9).

Accession under the adoptive emperors The accession of Nerva marks a turning point in the practice of dedicating imperial statues. We have seen that the number of statues of the Flavians was surprisingly low, and that the distribution of statues upon their accession was rather slow. Nerva’s dies imperii was 18 September 96. Before the end of the year statues had been erected by the seviri Augustales in Ostia (Nerva 9), but also in faraway Kition (Nerva 47). The number of statue bases per year during the short reign of Nerva soars to 25.5, a rate more than three times that of Titus less than 20 years before (Fig. C 10 and Table SC 2). It is true that statues of Titus were to be found in most parts of the Empire before his accession, but this cannot wholly account for the difference. Vespasian had not been known before his accession either, and more than half the number of statue bases from the ten-year reign of Vespasian was reached within just over a year under Nerva. While the geographical distribution of the bases of Domitian and Nerva is almost identical to judge from the surviving evidence (Figs. G 8 and G 9), the share of bases dedicated by communities or their executive bodies rises significantly from around 30% during the Julio-Claudian and Flavian period to 55% under Nerva. The statues of Claudius erected within the first few years of his reign were likewise dedicated predominantly by communities.356 356. Højte 2002, 369-371.


The brevity of the reign may therefore in part explain the rise. However, the same high percentages of public dedicators are found for Nerva’s successors as well (Table SC 7). Especially the cities in the Greek East were quick to respond to the new political situation. Statues dedicated by public bodies have been found in Histria, Delphi, Gythion (by the koinon of Laconia), Tithorea, Knossos (dedicated by the colonia; inscription in Latin), Aphrodisias, Boubon, Ephesus, Herakleia Salbakes, Lindos, Magnesia, Stektorion (dedicated by the civitas; inscription in Latin), Arneai, Letoon, Pednelissos, Kestros and Kition (dedicated by the civitas; inscription in Latin). From Italy and the western provinces we only have bases erected by communities in Tusculum, Brixia, Axima and Arupium. This significant change in the practice from the Flavian period raises the question of the trustworthiness of the evidence. Is the rate of 25.5 statues per year merely a consequence of the brevity of Nerva’s reign? As argued above (p. 78), we have every reason to believe that undated monuments have approximately the same chronological distribution as better dated ones, so the length of the reign should have no effect on our interpretation of the undated evidence. In addition, more than half of the bases for Nerva can be dated to specific years, and these alone signify a change. 14 bases for Nerva date to AD 97. In comparison, the second year of reign of the three Flavian emperors have 3, 4, and 1 dated bases respectively. With regard to the question of the accession as an occasion for erecting statues, particular importance is attached to the evidence relating to Trajan because of the very low number of bases with no criteria for dating during the reign (Table SE 32). For other emperors it could be suspected that a large proportion of the undated bases belongs in the early part of the reign. With Trajan we can determine the number of bases within three periods defined by the use of the victory titles of Germanicus, Dacicus and Parthicus with almost absolute certainty. After the extremely large number of statues of Nerva erected immediately after his accession, the early bases of Trajan show an entirely different pattern complying more with that of the Flavian emperors than the succeeding adoptive emperors. In AD 98, throughout which Trajan reigned with the exception of the first 27 days, bases were dedicated in Sitifis, Neviodunum and Sebastopolis in Cappadocia (Trajan 48, 70, 182). Two further bases in Thubursicu Numidarum and in Pappa Tiberiopolis (Trajan 81, 181) do not have an indication of the tribunician count, and may well belong to the first year of reign although this criterion is not infallible (p. 74). In Thisbe and in Syene bases were dedicated in either AD 98 or 99 (Trajan 123, 205). In AD 99


bases were dedicated in Larinum, Mogontiacum and yet another in Thubursicu Numidarum (Trajan 27, 54, 83). In addition, 23 bases of Trajan can be dated to the period AD 98 to 102 because of the victory title Germanicus without mentioning Dacicus. With one exception, these have all been found in the Greek East. They are so to speak the less well-dated Greek parallels to the precisely dated Latin inscriptions. To parallel the evidence regarding Nerva, the early bases of Trajan before AD 102 were predominantly erected in the East by communities or their executive bodies. Later bases in the West become more numerous, and during the reign as a whole Latin and Greek inscriptions are found in equal numbers. The level of activity and the speed at which statues of Trajan were erected nowhere near matches that of Nerva only a year before, and the number of bases from the first three years of the reign is actually lower than the average for the reign. One explanation of the difference between Nerva and Trajan could be the numerous statues of Domitian that were available for re-modelling into portraits of Nerva. The reuse of portraits, however, continued well into the reign of Trajan as most of the early portraits were evidently altered from portraits of Domitian.357 Hadrian counted 11 August, the day he received news of Trajan’s death, as his dies imperii. At that time he was in Antioch as governor of the province of Syria, and it is not entirely clear how the issue of an official portrait was handled.358 Still, before the end of the year AD 117 statues were dedicated in Amiternum and in Sarmizegetusa in Dacia (Hadrian 53, 88). The inscription from Sarmizegetusa mentions the second tribunician power of Hadrian, but has no number after consul. Since a number follows the tribunician power, the omission of a number after consul must be intentional. Whatever the official day for the renewal of Hadrian’s tribunician power was, the inhabitants in Sarmizegetusa evidently believed it to be 10 December, and the inscription thus dates between 10 and 31 December 117 AD. Surely this portrait erected in Sarmizegetusa could not have been based on a new official portrait type sent from Rome within an interval this short. During the year AD 118 no less than 17 bases were erected (Hadrian 4, 5, 37, 51, 72, 75, 91, 102, 103, 159, 253, 275, 276, 287, 288, 316, 418) in all parts of the Empire, and even in Tyras at the mouth of the Dnestr. This marks a significant increase over the level in the later part of the reign of Trajan, and is more than three times the average number of precisely dated bases for Hadrian (Fig. C 12). However,

357. Bergmann 1997, 138-147. 358. Wegner 1956, 54.


from the following year the frequency had already fallen to an average level. 14 or 82% of the bases in AD 118 were dedicated by communities, while the figure for the whole reign only amounts to 49.3% (Table SE 36). This pattern is repeated after the accession of Antoninus Pius, although the high frequency of dedications starts as soon as the autumn of AD 138 with no less than six bases in Rome, Ostia, Sipontum, Dertosa, Thugga and Hatne (Antoninus Pius 2, 27, 45, 87, 175, 283), and extends into the third year. Furthermore, there are slightly more private individuals among the dedicators (Fig. C 13). Even though a few of the bases for both Hadrian and Antoninus Pius can only be dated to their second year of reign because of their second consulship mentioned in the inscriptions, there can be no doubt that their accession served as an occasion for erecting their portraits. No other heirs to the throne had been honoured with a number of statues equal to that of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus during the reign of Antoninus Pius. Despite this, their accession as joint regents in AD 161 caused a significant increase in the number of dedications that lasted until AD 164 (Figs. C 15 and 17). For each emperor the number of bases in the second and third year is somewhat lower than for Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, but added up it constitutes the highest frequency experienced during the first two centuries AD. For Lucius Verus in particular the dedications cluster in the early part of his reign, and we should expect that the majority of the portraits of the fourth portrait type belong to this short period.359 Given the custom that developed during the second century AD for communities to dedicate statues of the new emperor upon accession, it is surprising that the accession of Commodus apparently had no effect on the frequency of his dedications (Fig. C 18). In fact the number of bases in the first years after AD 180 barely equals those erected in the years prior to the death of Marcus Aurelius. Perhaps the fact that Marcus Aurelius had already elevated him to co-regent with all the powers and titles of an emperor in AD 176 to 177 made the transmission of power less of an occasion for celebration. It is also to be noted that the decennalia of Commodus was celebrated in both AD 186 and 190.360

359. For the portraits of the fourth portrait type of Lucius Verus, see Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 79-81. Fittschen suggests that it is not possible to discern the portraits chronologically within the reign. 360. Chastagnol 1984b, 110-115.


Conclusion From the evidence of the precisely dated statue bases, we can conclude that the accession of many emperors served as an occasion for erecting their statues. During the first century the accession of Claudius clearly gave impetus to the erection of his portraits, and for Nero we likewise find a slight increase in the frequency of dedications during the first few years of his reign. The very large number of statues erected during the short reign of Nerva signals a change in attitude towards the accession as an occasion for erecting statues, which had a clearly noticeable impact on the chronological distribution of the statue bases of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. There are exceptions to the rule. For Tiberius, Vespasian and Trajan, the number of dedications during the first years are close to the average for their reigns, and in the case of Commodus the number even falls below the average. Since the accession had no noticeable effect on the frequency of dedications for Vespasian and Trajan, Stuart’s assumption that the lack of pre-accessional dedications gave a strong impetus to dedicate statues immediately upon accession of the new emperor proves wrong. Neither did the countless statues in existence of the princes Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus decrease the enthusiasm for erecting their statues once they became emperors. The distribution of imperial portrait statues upon accession of a new emperor was generally not very rapid. And it is never the first year of a reign that shows an above-average frequency – it is the second (Fig. 23). This indicates that the imperial administration in the first and second centuries AD was generally unconcerned about the rapid and widespread distribution of the imperial portrait. Very often the increased frequency continues into the third and fourth years of the reign. From the fifth year onwards the number of dedications normally remains stable until the end of the reign. The increase in the number of dedications applies to both public and private dedications, but it is much more pronounced for public dedications (especially in the second century AD), and for statues erected in the second year of a reign. This could indicate that communities from the reign of Nerva onwards felt some obligation to erect the emperor’s portrait more rapidly after his accession. One possible explanation for the interval between the accession of a new emperor and the erection of the majority of the monuments evidently connected to this event might be that in some instances communities sent delegations with petitions to the emperor for permission to erect his statues. While these certainly were not obligatory every time an imperial statue was


Year of reign

Public

Private

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

28 72 28 32 20 19 15 18

8 28 15 16 13 11 10 9

41 110 61 59 38 42 33 37

Fig. 23. The number of precisely dated statue bases categorised by year of reign. Public dedications include both communities and the military, private dedications include both individuals and corporations. Included are only those emperors whose reign lasted more than eight years.

erected,361 many communities probably saw the occasion as an opportunity to direct the emperor’s attention to problems that the city might be experiencing. The London Papyrus 1912 containing a rescript from the emperor Claudius in response to a decree of the Alexandrians sent by an envoy to Rome concerning different honours for the emperor is particularly interesting because of its precise date.362 The letter was read aloud in Alexandria by the prefect of Egypt on 10 November AD 41 – nearly ten months after the accession of the emperor. And even more time would pass before the statues of the imperial family that Claudius had consented to could be procured. The dedication could have taken place in the spring of AD 42 at the earliest. The three golden chariots also mentioned in the letter from the emperor would probably have taken even longer to manufacture.

361. The speed at which statues could evidently be erected shows that the emperor’s consent was not required. 362. London Papyrus 1912, l. 20-21: “… your envoys delivered your decree to me and discoursed at length concerning the city, directing my attention to your good will towards us, …” (Hunt and Edgar 1934, II, 212). Another rescript concerning the erection of statues dated to the first year of the reign of Caligula has been found in Delphi (IG VII, 2711).


Jubilees (decennalia and vicennalia) In his explanation of the Augustan restitutio rei publicae of January 27 BC, Dio says that Augustus received extraordinary powers for a ten-year period only, but that when this period came to an end another was voted first for five years, and later for ten years and then repeatedly until his death. Under the year AD 24 Dio relates that there was no vote for the continuation of the powers conferred on Tiberius upon his accession in AD 14, but that the tenth anniversary was celebrated nonetheless.363 This practice continued throughout the principate. The exact timing of the tenth and twentieth anniversaries, the decennalia and the vicennalia, has already been discussed at length. The most straightforward solution, that it took place on the emperor’s dies imperii ten years after the accession, has its adherents.364 However, a date earlier in the year, perhaps even the day of the beginning of the tenth year, may also be considered – at least in the second century AD.365 Both options will have to be considered here. The decennalia and vicennalia as occasions for erecting statues are interesting for two reasons. Firstly, these events could be predicted and could therefore be prepared in advance, unlike the accession and military victories. Dedications commemorating the event should consequently fall within a very limited period. Secondly, because they have been suggested as the occasion for the creation of new portrait types, most notably the innovation of a whole new concept for the portrait of Trajan, which Wegner termed the “Dezennalienbildniss”.366 The decennalia and the vicennalia have likewise been suggested as occasions for the creation of new portrait types of Hadrian367 and Antoninus Pius.368 But this did not actually apply to Antoninus Pius, because all his portraits are variations of the same type, not three independent types.369

363. 364. 365. 366.

Dio Cass. 53.16.2-3 and 57.24.1.

Rachet 1980, 200-242.

Mattingly 1923-1940 III, lxxvi and Chastagnol 1984b, 104-124.

Gross (1940, 85-98, especially 95-96), following Strack (1931-37 vol. I, 29), who dated

the corresponding type T∆ to AD 108: “In dieser Zeit sind nun die Dezennalien Traians sicher das hervorstechendste Ereignis, durchaus geeignet dazu, aus diesem Anlaß ein neues Herrscherbildnis herzustellen und in alle Welt zu versenden. Wir werden, glaube ich, kaum fehlgehen, wenn wir unseren Typus als den offiziellen Dezennalientypus bezeichen”. 367. Wegner 1956, 60-61 and 63. 368. Wegner 1939, 24. 369. Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 64.


The following ten emperors during the first and second centuries AD celebrated their decennalia: Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Augustus, Tiberius, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius also celebrated their vicennalia. Unlike third- and fourth-century AD dedications,370 neither the decennalia nor the vicennalia is ever mentioned in any of the inscriptions from statue bases included in this survey. The anniversaries of Augustus fell in the years 18-17, 8-7 BC, AD 2-3 and 12-13.371 The number of dated bases in most of these years is below average. Only in the year of the additional renewal of Augustus’ powers mentioned by Dio in 13-12 BC do we find an increase in the number of dedications (Fig. C 1).372 However, the year had other causes for celebration. Augustus had just returned to Rome, and had been elected pontifex maximus. Tiberius’ decennalia was celebrated in AD 23-24, and his vicennalia in AD 33-34. Neither of these years shows an increase in the number of dedications. Likewise, the decennalia of Claudius in AD 50-51, Nero in AD 63-64, Vespasian in AD 7879 and Domitian in AD 90-91 have left no trace in the epigraphical record. Trajan’s decennalia was celebrated some time between AD 105 and 108.373 A large number of bases were dedicated in AD 107. However, of the seven inscriptions in question two were erected in Lyktos, where the chief magistrate erected one or more statues of the emperor each year (Trajan 127, 128). Another two were erected by individuals in honour of their appointment as flamen and augustalis respectively (Trajan 26, 86). The occasions for these dedications did not relate to Trajan decennalia, and it seems that the higher frequency in AD 107 is purely coincidental. The decennalia of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, and the two celebrations of the decennalia under Commodus also seem to have gone unnoticed. Only the vicennalia celebrated by Antoninus Pius in AD 157 may have served as an occasion for dedicating statues. From a level of approximately three precisely dated bases 370. The Arch of Constantine in Rome is of course the most notable example. Otherwise it occurs on altars, and on statues of deities and personifications erected on behalf of the emperor: CIL VII, 4767; AE 1960, 102; AE 1980, 768. 371. For the numismatic evidence for vota, see Mattingly 1950, 156-157. Notice that the renewal of Augustus’ powers in 13-12 BC mentioned by Dio was not commemorated on coins. 372. Four bases can be dated to the period 13-11 BC (Augustus 51 [13-12 BC], 4, 101 [12 BC] and 171 [12-11 BC]). 373. For differing views of the date, see Mattingly 1923-1940 III, lxxvi, Mattingly 1950, 183184, n. 12 and Chastagnol 1984b, 104-124.


each year during the late 140s and early 150s, and only one base dated AD 156, we suddenly find 12 in the year AD 157. This rise is too large to be coincidental, and no other occasion than the vicennalia seems to offer a possible reason. While jubilees were celebrated in Rome, and the event was often commemorated in the second century by special issues of coins,374 the notion of commemorating such events with statues was definitely not prevalent in cities throughout the Empire. Even in Rome we cannot establish a connection between jubilees and dedications, and the event thus seems an unlikely reason for the introduction of new portrait types.

Imperial visits Imperial visits to cities around the Empire were “a social and economic event of significant proportions”.375 The presence of the emperor offered a unique opportunity to attract the emperor’s attention to problems that a city was unable to handle itself, and great effort was undoubtedly exerted to make the stay as pleasant and enjoyable as possible. The question is whether the preparations for an imperial visit included the dedication of statues. I have argued elsewhere that the travelling activities of Trajan and Hadrian only served as an immediate occasion for erecting their portraits in a few exceptional cases.376 The evidence of statue bases for the other emperors of the first and second centuries AD who travelled outside Italy will be considered below. Augustus spent more time outside Italy than any other emperor.377 The evidence of the statue bases for Augustus offers some examples of statues that were erected in connection with these journeyss. A monument in Syracuse described as an architrave with an inscription mentioning a statue of Augustus (Augustus 68) can be dated to the period around the conflict with Sextus Pompeius in 36 BC. It seems reasonable – although not certain – that this monument was dedicated in connection with Augustus’ sojourn on the island, which most likely

374. Mattingly 1950, 155-195; 1951, 219-268.

375. Millar 1977, 35.

376. Højte 2000, 217-238, with a discussion of the approach to the problem and considerations

about the validity and significance of the evidence. 377. Halfmann 1986, 157-162.


included a stay in Syracuse. In Achaea, four inscriptions can be related with some certainty to his presence in the area after the battle of Actium. The base for statues of Augustus and Livia found in Eleusis carries no precise dating criteria, but Augustus’ initiation into the mysteries in the autumn of 31 BC seems the obvious choice (Augustus 140). Bases in Megara and Thespiai and on Thera (Augustus 146, 151, 152) were dedicated in the period soon after the battle, but we do not know whether he visited any of these cities. Augustus travelled in the East again in 21 to 19 BC, but none of the few dated bases belong to this period. The second group of inscriptions that relate to his sojourns outside Italy is found in the Alpine provinces. Here six monuments including the Tropaeum Augusti and the arch in Segusio were dedicated between 9 and 6 BC (Augustus 80-85). During this time Augustus was campaigning in the area, with first in Ticinum in 9 BC, and later in Gaul.378 Caligula’s journey to Sicily in the summer of AD 38 to relieve his sorrow over the death of his sister Julia Drusilla has left no trace in the form of statue bases, not surprisingly considering the short duration of the stay and the generally low number of bases found on Sicily. The following year he travelled to the frontier in Germania and carried out an expedition across the river perhaps from Mainz.379 The sources regarding his whereabouts in the northwestern provinces are meagre, but he appears in Lugdunum, where he began his third consulship, on 1 Jan. 40.380 No statue bases for Caligula have been found in Germania Superior or Inferior, but an exceptionally large percentage of the bases for Caligula derive from Gaul (Table SG 7). However, of the nine bases (Caligula 3-11) seven or possibly eight are dated before his accession or in the first year of his reign. An undated base erected by a libertus in accordance with a vow (Caligula 3) in Avaricum, which Caligula feasibly could have passed through on his way to or from the English Channel in AD 40, and a base dedicated by a priest in the imperial cult in Maritima (Caligula 4)381 are the only candidates, however remote, for a possible connection between Caligula’s journeys and the erection of statues of him. In late 43 AD, Claudius set out northwards along the Ligurian Coast and through Gaul with the intention of inspecting the newly conquered Britan-

378. 379. 380. 381.

Halfmann 1986, 159.

Suet. Cal. 44 and 51,2. Suet. Galba 6.2. Dio Cass. 59.21.2-4.

Halfmann 1986, 171.

Espérandieu 1929, 29-30, no. 89 identified the monument as an altar. Nothing in the de scription, however, precludes that it could have served as a statue base – as also indicated by the dimensions of the stone.


nia. He crossed the Channel and went as far as the Thames, but stayed in Britannia only 16 days.382 The winter was probably spent in Lugdunum,383 his birthplace, before returning to Rome early the next year. Two bases found in the northwestern provinces can be dated to AD 43/44 (Claudius 44, 46). One in Mogontiacum was dedicated by Romans selling blankets, probably as contractors to the army, and the other by the inhabitants of Vicus Marosallensis, which Claudius may have passed through.384 Of the other ten bases found in Gaul, one is dated to AD 42 (Claudius 50) and four are dated significantly later than his visit (Claudius 47, 49, 52, 53). In addition, five inscriptions contain no criteria for dating (Claudius 48, 51, 54-56). The majority of these, however, have been found at places definitely not visited by Claudius. The relative number of statue bases of Claudius in the northwestern provinces is the highest of any in this investigation (Tables SG 4 & 7). Naturally many factors contribute to this fact. Claudius was a native of the area, and there may have been growing activity in the area as a result of the operations connected with the British campaign. In the fall of AD 66, Nero finally set out on a long-contemplated journey to Greece. Our knowledge of his itinerary is limited, but he certainly visited Actium, Olympia, Isthmus, Delphi, Nemea and probably Argos, and Halfmann suggests that he had winter quarters in Corinth. Nero’s itinerary in Greece was, as Kennel has convincingly shown, determined by his wish to become periodonivkh~,385 which in the early Roman imperial period included victories in the six games at the locations mentioned above, and this purpose also offers a more reasonable explanation than that of Dio as to why Nero did not visit Athens and Sparta.386 These cities were simply not on the circuit. The statue bases for Nero from Greece account for the highest proportion (27.1%) for any

382. Dio Cass. 60.23.1. 383. Le Glay and Audin 1976 discuss the building projects initiated at this time. No statue bases for Claudius have been found in Lugdunum, but the number of inscriptions found there is meagre. The only base for an imperial statue belongs to a statue of Tiberius (CIL XIII, 11789). 384. This interesting inscription reveals an interlude of approximately one and a half years between the voting of the statue (if the titles of Claudius are correct this would be before he arrived in Britannia) and the dedication which took place on the birthday of Augustus 23 September in AD 44. 385. Kennel 1988, 239-251. 386. Dio Cass. 62.14.3: “He avoided the latter [Sparta] because of the laws of Lycurgus, which stood in the way of his designs, and the former [Athens] because of the story about the Furies”.


emperor besides Hadrian. Compared to his two predecessors (Table SG 16), the number is, however, not conspicuously high. Seven of the fourteen bases are firmly dated before Nero’s arrival, and of the six undated inscriptions four were erected in Athens (Nero 23, 24, 25) and Sparta (Nero 36), which Nero did not visit. Only the base from Corinth (Nero 26), probably erected at the time of his journey, could possibly have been inspired by Nero’s presence.387 The only journeys Vespasian and Titus undertook outside Italy, while they were emperors, went to Rome from the East, where they had participated in the crushing of the insurrection of the Jewish people and where Vespasian was hailed emperor by the troops in Egypt on 1 July 69. Vespasian went first to Syria and then to Egypt before he set sail for Rome, where he arrived around the middle of AD 70. Titus followed much the same route a year later. As shown above, very few statue bases have survived from the first years of Vespasian’s reign, and few of the undated bases have turned up near the route. One exception is the arch and base erected in AD 69-70 in Xanthos (Vespasian 73-74), where Vespasian may have stopped on his way to Italy. The bases for statues of Titus erected in Syria and Egypt are predominantly posthumous (Vespasian 79; Titus 65, 66). Domitian went on at least three expeditions to the northern frontier. First in AD 83 against the Chatti, for which he received the epithet Germanicus, and around AD 85 and again in 89 he took the field against peoples along the Danube frontier. Relatively few bases for Domitian have been found in the northern provinces (Table SG 4), and only the one in Histria in Moesia Inferior (Domitian 15) is not dated precisely enough to rule out any possible connection with the expeditions. At the beginning of AD 162 Lucius Verus travelled east to Syria to deal with the Parthian problem, remaining in the area for four and a half years until the summer of AD 166.388 The duration of the outward journey was much longer than usual. First he had fallen ill already before leaving Italy,389 and then he spent a considerable time in Athens with his former teacher Herodes Atticus, being initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries before sailing to Syria along the

387. Kent (1966, 41-42) dated the inscription to AD 66-67 because a Cleander mentioned in the inscription is probably identical with P. Memmius Cleander, who was duumvir at the time of Nero’s visit. However, the base was not necessarily erected at the time of his tenure. 388. For a discussion of the evidence for the sojourn of Lucius Verus in the East, see Barnes 1967, 70-72. 389. SHA Verus 7.


coast of Asia Minor. We know almost nothing about his movements in the East. Ancient sources unfavourable to Lucius Verus place him in the vicinity of Antioch living an easy life for the duration of the campaign, leaving the fighting to his generals.390 During the outward journey Lucius Verus certainly visited Erythai,391 and he could easily have stopped at Chios on the opposite side of the strait, where a base dated AD 162 has been found (Lucius Verus 114). One base out of 11 dated to AD 162 found along the route he travelled is not impressive. In addition, three important locations Lucius Verus visited – Athens, Corinth and Eleusis – have produced statue bases for nearly all emperors, but so far none for Lucius Verus. This we would certainly expect if Lucius Verus’ visit had been celebrated with statues. Lucius Verus travelled through or along the coast of Asia Minor on four occasions. The trip in 163 must have been cause for particular celebration, since Lucius Verus was en route to his marriage in Ephesus. No statue bases can, however, with certainty be connected with any of Lucius Verus’ journeys in the area. Not even in Ephesus, where he must have stayed for some time while festivities were going on, do we know of any bases from his reign. Generally the frequency of statue bases in Asia Minor falls in this period, and of all the emperors the bases for Lucius Verus in Asia Minor actually represent the smallest percentage of the total (Table SG 19). In AD 168 both emperors left Rome to inspect the northern frontier, a precursor of the two long expeditions against Germanic tribes which were to deeply influence the 170s AD. For Lucius Verus, who died on the way back to Rome the following January, three undated bases from Moesia Inferior (Lucius Verus 39, 41, 42) are the only possible – though unlikely – candidates for statues erected in connection with Lucius Verus’ last journey. The evidence of statue bases for Marcus Aurelius along the northern frontier in this period amounts to the same number of undated examples (Marcus Aurelius 71, 81, 82). With the exception of the joint dedication to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in Callatis (Marcus Aurelius 67=Lucius Verus 39) dated before the death of Lucius Verus, these could have been erected at any time during his reign. In the period of the two expeditions (AD 169-175 and 178-180) we have a few examples of statue bases. Traianopolis dedicated a statue of their ktistes at the emporium of Discoduratera some time between AD 175 and 180 (Marcus Aurelius 178). Marcus Aurelius may have aided the city in some way. Another inscription that probably belongs to a statue records that Colonia 390. SHA Verus 7. 391. IGSK 1, 224.


Ulpia Traiana dedicated the monument because the city had been saved from imminent danger (Marcus Aurelius 76). Considering that Marcus Aurelius stayed on the Danube frontier for almost nine years, his absence from Rome from AD 169 to 176 being longer than both Trajan’s during the Parthian war and any of Hadrian’s journeys,392 we should have expected more evidence if the imperial presence in any way motivated the erection of his statues. Far more statue bases in the area can be dated to the period before Marcus Aurelius ever left Rome as emperor (Marcus Aurelius 67, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 80). In AD 175 Marcus Aurelius travelled rapidly to Syria because the governor of the province, the unfortunate Avidius Cassius, for whom only a single statue base has been preserved (Avidius Cassius 1), had been hailed emperor after a false report had reached Syria that Marcus Aurelius had fallen in battle. Avidius Cassius had already been murdered by his own troops before Marcus Aurelius left the northern frontier, but he probably found it wise to attend to the problem in person to prevent further unrest among the troops in the East. Marcus Aurelius continued to Egypt, where he most likely wintered in Alexandria before returning to Rome via Antiochia, Halala (where Faustina died), Miletus and Athens (where he was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries).393 Unfortunately, very few Greek bases in this period contain criteria for specific dating, although most bases can be dated within short periods of the reign because of the victory titles. One of the few Latin inscriptions from a base dedicated by a tribune of the second Traiana Fortis in Alexandria (Marcus Aurelius 258) can be dated AD 176, when Marcus Aurelius was present. Otherwise only six of the 88 Greek inscriptions contain the title Sarmaticus confirming a date later than AD 175 (Marcus Aurelius 188, 201, 211, 216, 247, 255), so Marcus’ journey does not seem to have led to the erection of his statues. In Athens news of the emperor’s impending visit to the city and his intention of being initiated into the mysteries had arrived well in advance.394 Still, none of the bases found in Athens or Eleusis can be related to his visit. Commodus, after the death of his father, concluded a treaty with the Germanic tribes and returned to Rome, arriving before the end of the year.395 In the Danube provinces all except one undated base in Dacia (Commodus 19) were erected long after Commodus had left the area.

392. Dio Cass. 71.32.1 relates that the people of Rome were well aware of the emperor’s long absence. 393. Halfmann 1986, 212-216. 394. Philostr. VS 2.1.12. Millar 1977, 5. 395. For a description of the joy his journey to Rome caused, see Herodian 1.7.


Conclusion The evidence of the statue bases for each individual emperor in terms of correlations between journeys and dedication of statues regularly falls below a statistically significant level. Uncertainties in the itineraries and the large number of undated inscriptions make comparisons hazardous. Examples can naturally be cited for almost every emperor, but they are few and scattered. Seen in the longer perspective of the first and second centuries AD, there can be no doubt that imperial journeys as a general rule did not cause the cities visited by the emperor or the cities in the general area to erect statues – neither on the occasion of the visit nor in anticipation or in appreciation of it.396 Only in a few instances when an imperial visit was accompanied by substantial largesse, or a military victory was won in the area under the direct leadership of the emperor, can we detect an influence of the imperial presence.397 Consequently, it is not justified to date portraits398 or indeed statue bases399 found in places visited by an emperor on the sole basis of such a visit. Furthermore, the presence of statue bases should not be used to reconstruct the itineraries of imperial journeys.

Patterns of chronological distribution during a reign Two different patterns emerge from the histograms showing the chronological distribution of statue bases within reigns (Figs. C 1-18). The commonest pattern displays a higher frequency of dedications in the second year of a reign that sometimes extends into the third and fourth years. Hereafter the number of dedications gradually tapers off throughout the rest of the reign. This pattern can be observed for Claudius, Nero, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. For these emperors the accession evidently served as an occasion for erecting their portraits. The statue bases of Hadrian also

396. Kleiner 1992, 238: “There are more surviving portraits of Hadrian than of any other emperor besides Augustus. This was owing to two factors: because Hadrian was emperor for twenty-one years and because statues of him were erected in cities throughout the empire in anticipation of or in appreciation of his visits”. 397. For examples, see Højte 2000. 398. Most notably the provincial portraits of Hadrian, see Højte 2000. 399. Grim examples can be found in IG, for example IG II2, 3410.


follow this pattern initially. However, the exceptionally large number of statue bases erected in the Greek East after the middle of the reign causes a large increase in frequency during the 130s. Another pattern can be observed for the statue bases of Tiberius, Trajan and Commodus. For these emperors the frequency of dedications remains constant throughout the reign, or may even rise slightly towards the end of the reign. The chronological distribution of the statue bases of Augustus and Vespasian follows neither of these patterns. There are relatively few statue bases for Augustus during the first half of his reign, and before Actium these mostly belong in Achaea and Asia Minor. The same low frequencies of dedications have been observed for other members of the imperial family.400 This dearth of evidence continues until around 12 BC, when the frequency nearly doubles from approximately two bases per year to a constant level of four bases per year (Fig. C 1). Few statue bases for Vespasian are known during the first years of his reign; perhaps as a consequence of the civil war. Except for the year AD 74, when there was an unusually high frequency, the number of dedications remains fairly constant but seems to taper off during the late 70s. Apart from the accession, which gave impetus to the erection of statues of some emperors, it is characteristic that the frequency of dedications remains remarkably stable throughout each reign. The small fluctuations that do occur from year to year seem to be purely incidental, and can hardly ever be related to important events related to the emperor’s person or career. It seems, therefore, that imperial statues generally were not meant to commemorate such events. The continuity with which statues were erected indicates that no occasion was needed – or that the decision was motivated by events related to the dedicator of the statue rather than to the honorand.

400. Hanson and Johnson 1946, 399-400. Octavia and Marcellus in particular.


Dedicators401 of Roman

Imperial Statues

Contrary to common belief, in the first two and a half centuries of the principate imperial statues were never erected by the emperor himself or his administration – neither in Rome nor anywhere else.402 In contrast to portrait statues in the republican age, which often formed part of monumenta erected by victorious generals or magistrates to commemorate their own achievements and to promote their family, imperial statues were always honorific. As long as there were communities and individuals willing and able to honour the ruling family with statues, there was no need for the emperor or his administration to get actively involved in the distribution of the imperial image. This does not exclude the emperor’s influence on what type of statue should be erected, as is evident from the passage of Dio referred to in the introduction.403 The fact that the emperor would go to great lengths to follow this principle can be seen in the sculptural decoration of the Forum of Trajan, which included a statue of Trajan on the column and statues in front of the Basilica Ulpia. Although these formed an integral part of a building project initiated by the

401. Dedicator is the commonly used term to denote the person or community paying for the erection of a statue. However, the term is not entirely unproblematic since the act of dedicating the statue (dedico) was not always carried out by those who had paid for having it made (facio). I have used dedicator throughout, although donor may be a better term. 402. According to Dio (59.4.4), Caligula supposedly had statues of himself manufactured, although these could still have been dedicated by the Senate. One possible exception is the statue that Caligula intended to erect in the temple in Jerusalem (Josephus, BJ 2.184-203, Philo, Leg. 337). 403. Dio Cass. 74.14.2a.

Dedicators of Roman Imperial Statues · 167

emperor himself, the statues were still officially dedicated by the Senate and the People (Trajan 10-13). 90% of all the fully preserved inscriptions contain information about who dedicated the statue of the emperor. In what follows I will consider the composition of the group of dedicators, and, whenever possible, give an idea about their motives for erecting the statues. Naturally it is impossible to include all the different types of dedicator, and the ones mentioned in the text serve as examples only.

Statues dedicated by communities or their executive bodies The most frequently encountered dedicators of imperial statues are communities or their executive bodies. The local executive bodies had authority over all dedications on public property, and also granted individuals permission to erect imperial statues. In more than 1,000 inscriptions from statue bases (43.9% of the total) it is either specified that communities paid for the monument, or only the name of the community or the authoritative body is mentioned in the inscription, in which case it is reasonable to infer that public funds had been spent. In Rome the Senate and the People were responsible for the dedication of statues, and Senatus populusque Romanus appears on 16 of the bases found here. Other statues in Rome were dedicated by the Senate alone (Vespasian 2), the plebs urbana (Titus 4, 5; Hadrian 62), and the tribus XXXV (Augustus 5; Trajan 6). In Italy and in the western part of the Empire, the commonest dedicatory formula by far is decreto decurionum, often specified by the addition of publice or pecunia publica. The formula for public dedications varies depending on the status and constitution of the city in question. In a few instances the senate of the town appears as the authoritative body.404 Statues erected in colonies sometimes only carry the name of the colony or name of the colony and decreto decurionum. Other formulas are decuriones et municipes, res publica, or simply the names of the inhabitants of the city. Outside Italy, we also find statues erected by vici, pagi, civitates and municipia. In the Greek East, oJ dh`mo~ (111 examples), hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ (169 examples), and hJ povli~ (158 examples) account for the vast majority of the dedications.

404. For example Fidenae (Marcus Aurelius 20), Lanuvium (Claudius 9; Titus 13; Antoninus Pius 24).


It is unclear what made cities choose one in preference to the others, but the types were evidently not interchangeable, and most cities consistently use the same formula throughout the period under discussion. Exceptions to this rule can be found in Ephesus and Miletus, where statues were dedicated by both hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ and hJ povli~. Normally cities erected imperial statues within the city itself, but a city could also decide to erect statues of the emperor elsewhere. Naturally Rome was the most favoured place, and it seems likely that the dedications took place in connection with petitions delivered by delegations sent to the emperor in Rome. The first foreign city we know of to erect a statue of an emperor in Rome was Seleukeia Pieria (Augustus 6). During the reign of Tiberius we find a colonia, whose name has been lost due to the fragmentary state of the inscription (Tiberius 3), and another free Greek city (Tiberius 6). For nearly 100 years, we know of no foreign cities before the Colonia Iulia Augusta Pietas Catana erected statues of Hadrian and Sabina in the Porticus ad Nationes (Hadrian 10), and Colonia Iulia Augusta Tertiadecimanurum Uthina dedicated a statue of Hadrian with an almost identical inscription (Hadrian 12). Antoninus Pius and his family were honoured by several Greek cities. The council of the Areopagos in Athens dedicated a statue of Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 8), and so did the city of Mopsuestia (Antoninus Pius 10). The latter is the counterpart of a dedication in Mopsuestia itself (Antoninus Pius 281). Statues of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius were dedicated by Ephesus (Antoninus Pius 15; Marcus Aurelius 9), and the city of Delphi dedicated a larger group consisting of Antoninus Pius, Diva Faustina, Marcus Aurelius, his wife Faustina Minor, Lucius Verus and Apollo Pythios (Antoninus Pius 14; Marcus Aurelius 7; Lucius Verus 2). The relatively large number of cities dedicating statues in Rome during the reign of Antoninus Pius may reflect the fact that he, unlike Hadrian, never left the capital, and consequently cities had to send delegations to Rome. The Roman Senate and People, on the other hand, dedicated the arches of Trajan in Beneventum and in Ancona (Trajan 24, 32), and the Tropaeum Augusti in Alpes Maritimae (Augustus 80). In Ephesus at least 12 different Lydian, Phrygian and Carian cities erected statues of Domitian in the vicinity of the provincial temple (Domitian 41-53), and in Athens all the member cities of the Panhellenion erected at least 30 statues of Hadrian in the Olympieion. Finally, the citizens of Apollonia in Cyrene, through their official at the Panhellenion, dedicated a statue of Marcus Aurelius in Eleusis (Marcus Aurelius 189). Statues dedicated by institutions above city level are comparatively rare. The province of Lusitania erected a golden statue of Titus (Titus 23). In the Greek


East these are more common, and we have 22 examples of statues erected by no less than 16 different koina. Several towns could pay for statues jointly, as two examples for Caligula dedicated by civitates IIII Vallis Poeninae show (Caligula 10, 11). We have seen above (p. 155) that communities, particularly in the second century AD, frequently erected statues of new emperors within the first few years of their reign. Otherwise we cannot establish any relationship between events related to the emperors and the dedication of statues. Consequently, the initiative to erect the statue seems primarily to have depended on local conditions. Unfortunately, it is only possible to determine these in a few instances. Lucian relates that the emperor is rewarded for his “thought and care” and “continual watch over the common weal and its improvement” with “praise, universal fame, reverence for his benefactions, statues and temples and shrines bestowed on him by his subjects”.405 The examples we possess confirm that direct imperial benefaction to cities, in the form of either building projects or changed status for the city, played an important role. Even the Senate in Rome erected statues of the emperor in gratitude for public works, for example Vespasian’s care for the roads, which had suffered from neglect (Vespasian 2), or Trajan’s construction of the harbour at Ancona, making navigation to Italy safer. Other examples are Hadrian’s restoration of public buildings that had collapsed in Aequiculi (Hadrian 52), his diversion of the river Kaystros, which had silted up the harbour of Ephesus (Hadrian 323), and restoration of a temple in Nomentum (Hadrian 59). In Verecunda, Antoninus Pius had supplied the city with an aqueduct, but the statue offered for this benefaction was not erected until after his death (Antoninus Pius 150). Repairs after the damages caused by the flooding of Lacus Fucinus were the reason for erecting a statue of Trajan in Alba Fucens (Trajan 29) in AD 117. Sometimes grant of higher civic status or other privileges also caused cities to erect statues of the emperor. However, often a substantial interval elapsed between the grant and the dedication, as shown by the posthumous dedication for Claudius at Volubilis (Claudius 68), and those for Hadrian in his capacity of conditor in Mursa and Turris Tamalleni (Hadrian 94, 161). Conditor, ktivsth~ and oijkisthv~ occur in approximately 100 inscriptions. It is not always clear whether this implies any actual founding or re-founding, or whether these epithets were simply regarded as honorific titles without any substance. In an inscription from Stratonicea-Hadrianopolis Hadrian is called both ktivsth~

405. Lucian, Apol. 13.


and oijkisthv~ (Hadrian 360), but the cause of the dedication was most likely a successful hunt carried out by the emperor in the city’s territory. A statue of Hadrian was erected in Rome because he remitted private debts totalling 900 million sesterces shortly after his accession (Hadrian 4), and the city of Abdera erected a statue, likewise of Hadrian, because he had settled a dispute over borders through his legate Agrippa (Hadrian 168). Statues could also be erected as a consequence of military victories, as seen in inscriptions in Rome, Axima and Cyzicus (Augustus 80; Claudius 5, 117, Trajan 57; Hadrian 13). These are the only examples of occasions specified in the inscriptions that were not directly related to the community dedicating the statue. The question remains whether these frustratingly few examples of specific reasons and occasions mentioned in the inscriptions dedicated by communities are representative of the whole, or whether they are distinct for the very reason that their dedication was motivated by specific events. The formulaic nature of the inscriptions naturally imposed some restrictions on what could be included, and it is quite possible that the reasons for erecting the statue were elaborated on during discussion in the council or the assembly, which may also have been brought to the attention of the emperor through an embassy to Rome with a petition for permission to erect the statue, as the Alexandrians did immediately after the accession of Claudius according to the reply sent by the emperor.406 On the other hand, a specific reason could easily be included if it was deemed of importance to the city, as shown above. The conclusion must therefore be that the vast majority of the statues erected by public bodies were dedicated for more general reasons such as loyalty towards the emperor and the imperial system, tradition, and competition between cities.

Private dedicators There were apparently no general restrictions as to who was allowed to erect imperial statues. Anyone who could afford to pay for a statue and obtain permission from the local authorities responsible for the use of public space was, in principle, entitled to do so. Among the 526 privately sponsored statue bases we find statues erected by slaves (Commodus 19) as well as by consuls (Augustus 18; Tiberius 41; Claudius 22). Typically, however, the dedicators

406. London Papyrus 1912; Stuart 1938, 6-13.


belong to the municipal aristocracy, and many held or had held public office at the time of their dedication.

Magistrates and priests as dedicators The most prolific evidence of dedications made by local magistrates comes from North Africa. Here magistrates in most cities were required to spend a minimum sum of money for holding office, summa honoraria, on public works from which the city would benefit. Very often the required sum was spent on statues of the emperor.407 This had the further convenience that the sum to be paid was often similar to the cost of a statue. Regularly, however, additional funds above the required amount were spent. Other statues were erected for sums that had been promised in connection with the election to the magistracy. These sums may well have included the required summa honoraria. The following magistrates dedicated statues in North Africa: decuriones (Marcus Aurelius 173), sufetes (Antoninus Pius 172; Lucius Verus 100), aediles (Antoninus Pius 115, 138, 154, 159; Lucius Verus 86; Commodus 32, 35), duumviri (Augustus 104, 107; Tiberius 79; Hadrian 142; Commodus 42), and duumviri quinquennales (Claudius 75; Hadrian 123; Antoninus Pius 135, 157; Marcus Aurelius 126, 156, 157; Lucius Verus 91; Commodus 37, 38). Twothirds of these specify that summa honoraria had been paid for the statues, or that the specified amount had been promised before the election. In the western part of the Empire outside North Africa, statues were dedicated by aediles (Tiberius 10; Nerva 2), a quattorvir (Titus 15), duumviri (Augustus 14; Vespasian 29; Domitian 20), and duumviri quinquennales (Nero 11; Vespasian 11, 30; Nerva 23; Hadrian 49; Antoninus Pius 46; Commodus 7). Local Greek magistrates occur less often as dedicators. These include: ajrconte~ (Nero 56; Hadrian 299; Commodus 78, 79), strathgov~ (Claudius 87), grammatei~` (Nero 31; Trajan 141; Hadrian 255), ajgoranovmoi (Claudius 124; Nero 32), kosmhth~v (Hadrian 194), stefanhfovroi (Caligula 18; Claudius 131; Domitian 58), and gumnasivarcoi (Augustus 183; Claudius 39, 139; Vespasian 70; Titus 61; Trajan 138, 153). Only in two instances is it directly specified that the dedication took place while the person was holding office (Claudius 139; Hadrian 255), but this may have been the case for many others as well.

407. Duncan-Jones 1982, 82-88, 93-99.


113 inscriptions record that the dedicator held a priesthood, either as the only item in the cursus or in connection with another public office. Most active were the many different priests connected with the imperial cult. Augustales, magistri Augustales and seviri either alone or in groups dedicated 19 statues. In Veii the seviri, all of them freedmen, dedicated a statue of Augustus pro ludis (Augustus 55). Seviri also dedicated two statues of Augustus in Spain (Augustus 97, 102) and C. Annius Praesius erected sacred statues of Antoninus Pius and his two sons in Iliturgicola in honour of being appointed sevir (Antoninus Pius 95; Marcus Aurelius 92; Lucius Verus 61). In Volubilis a freedman, in honour of his appointment, erected a statue of Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 104). Otherwise the dedications are all found in Italy. Flamines are particularly common among the dedicators of statues in North Africa, where they like magistrates were required to pay summa honoraria upon entering the priesthood. At least some of these flaminates were evidently connected to imperial worship (Claudius 71; Hadrian 166). Flamines Augusti are also known from a few inscriptions outside North Africa, for example the two statues of Divus Augustus erected by two different flamines divi Augusti provinciae Lusitaniae (Augustus 94, 96). Another flamen of Roma and Augustus dedicated a statue of Claudius in Eburovices (Claudius 48). In Mediolanum Santonum a sacerdos Romae et Augusti ad aram quae est ad confluentem erected an arch in honour of Tiberius, Germanicus and Drusus II (Tiberius 54). In the Greek East priests in the imperial cult were designated either iJerei`~ or ajrcierei`~. Most often these were priests of the currently reigning emperor (Augustus 187; Caligula 16; Claudius 123; Nero 42; Vespasian 78; Trajan 100, 101, 153; Hadrian 334, 377; Antoninus Pius 192), but in a few instances we find the worship of the emperor connected with the cult for Roma and Divus Augustus (Nero 31, 32; Titus 52), or priests of all the Divi (Nero 59; Vespasian 83; Hadrian 264; Commodus 95). Persons holding priesthoods other than those connected to the imperial cult are less frequent. Only very seldom are they found as the only or the highest ranking element in the cursus. One such was a priest of Apollo Pythios in Delphi (Hadrian 243), another example is Gaius Iulius Antiochus, a profhvth~ at the temple in Didyma, who with his namesake, who served as stephanephoros, erected a statue of Domitian in Miletus (Domitian 58). In Savaria a person whose name has been lost held the priesthoods of augur, sacerdos and pontifex (Trajan 49). Common to all the dedications by magistrates and priests is that the motive for erecting the statue – whenever specified – invariably relates to the honour of holding office.


Army officers and officials in the imperial administration as dedicators Approximately 40 of the 520 dedications by private individuals were made by people who refer to their post as army officers in their cursus. The actual number of dedicators serving as officers in the army at some point was undoubtedly higher, since those appointed to posts in the imperial administration regularly had a long military career behind them, although this was often left out of their cursus at a later stage. As with magistracies, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between individuals serving as officers and individuals who had completed their military careers. Frequently the location of the dedication is the only indicator, if no other elements follow the military career in the cursus. While military units, as we shall see (pp. 182-184), only become active as dedicators of imperial statues in the second century AD, their officers appear in the first century as well. The lowest ranking officers,408 the centurions, were the most numerous and the ones appearing most frequently as dedicators. In his will, one centurion, C. Papirius Aequos, left ten pounds of gold for busts of Vespasian and his two sons (Vespasian 3; Titus 1; Domitian 1) to be dedicated in Rome. Another centurion, M. Pulfennus, also left ten pounds of silver in his will for a statue of the then late emperor Tiberius (Tiberius 31). The monument was dedicated in Teate Marrucinorum, probably his home town, by a procurator who may also have been a native of this town. More active than the ordinary centurions were the primi pili, the senior centurions. P. Timinius Tertullus, the primus pilus of legio III Augusta, erected a statue of Antoninus Pius in the military camp in Lambaesis (Antoninus Pius 127). The actual dedication of the monument was left to the commander, C. Prastina Messalinus, who as legatus Augusti of legio III Augusta was de-facto governor of the province. Furthermore, during his term as legate in AD 143 to 146,409 he dedicated a statue of the emperor in the forum at Thamugadi that he ostensibly paid for himself (Antoninus Pius 135). Other inscriptions from statue bases erected in Lambaesis show a similar arrangement. Various legates during the period from Hadrian to Commodus dedicated statues offered by primi pili (Hadrian 125; Antoninus Pius 127, 129, 131), a centurio ex corniculario (Commodus 41), and an unspecified officer (Antoninus Pius

408. For military ranks, see Domaszewski 1967. 409. Alföldy 1977, 247.


132). In Lambaesis we also find a group of officers from the third Augusta, the primi ordines, the other centurions, and the evocatus all erecting a statue together (Marcus Aurelius 112). The statue base dedicated by Cn(aeus) Octavius Titinius Capito, a praefectus vigilum in Rome (Trajan 1), is interesting because it clearly shows the extent to which an honorary inscription could serve to glorify the dedicator. Of the nine lines of the inscription, only the first two concern the honorand; the remaining seven enumerate the cursus of the dedicator. Higher-ranking officers were equestrians, and their career regularly consisted of the tres militiae: praefectus cohortis, tribunus militum and praefectus alae. These are known in seven inscriptions. C. Rufius Moderatus Iunianus Iuncinus, who had served as tribunus militum in Spain in the seventh legion, erected a statue of Trajan in his home town of Celeia in Noricum (Trajan 51) – to mention just one. Finally, statues were erected by imperial legates and governors. Minucius Rufus, the legate of legio X Fretensis, for example, erected a monument with statues of Tiberius and Drusus in the temple of Bel in Palmyra (Tiberius 153). A particularly illustrative example regarding occasions for erecting imperial statues is offered by the dedications of M. Aemilius Papus. In AD 128-129 he dedicated a statue of Hadrian in Callenses (Hadrian 106) before setting out for Britannia, where he had been appointed as commander of the legio XX Valeria Victrix. Eighteen years later he reappears in Salpensa in Baetica as dedicator of a statue of Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 99), now as consular (cos. suff 136?) and chosen as governor for the province of Dalmatia, where he served from AD 147 to 150. In both instances appointment to a new post was almost certainly the occasion for the dedications. Not surprisingly, Latin was the preferred language amongst soldiers and officers, even for inscriptions erected in areas where Greek was otherwise used. However, we do have an inscription in Greek by a veteran, Ma`rko~ Sevio~ ∆Ioulianov~, who according to the inscription had served 35 years in Pannonia before returning to Prostanna in Lycia. Here he apparently spent a good deal of his savings on a statue of Nero (Nero 54). Another statue of Nero with an inscription in Greek was dedicated in Magnesia ad Maeandrum (Nero 49) by two appointed provincial priests, one of whom had been a tribunus militum in the 12th legion. Only a single base for an imperial statue was dedicated by an ordinary soldier, a miles cohortis XIII urbanae, who bequeathed a sum of money for a statue of Claudius to be erected in Herculaneum (Claudius 8). The bequeathed money probably also financed the accompanying bronze statue of Augustus,


whose inscription has been lost.410 In addition the inscription specifies that a sum of four sesterces should be paid to each of the citizens at the dedication.

Dedications by other individuals Even emperors occasionally dedicated statues of other emperors with bases and inscriptions following the standard pattern for honorary monuments described above. For obvious reasons, these few dedications are posthumous. An arch for Titus was erected or completed and dedicated by Trajan (Titus 10). An inscription from a base for a statue of Nerva mentions Septimius Severus as the dedicator (Nerva 5). Septimius Severus considered himself a direct descendant of Nerva, and the inscription reads: the deified Nerva, the great-great-great-grandfather. Birley suggests that Septimius Severus dedicated this monument when in Rome in AD 196 in celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of the accession of Nerva.411 One could speculate whether this was just one of a series of bases for statues of the emperor’s ancestors. Trajan had an ancestor gallery in the form of imagines clipeatae incorporated into his forum,412 and Alexander Severus erected bronze statues of the deified emperors in the Forum Transitorium.413 Hadrian dedicated a statue of Trajan in the sanctuary of Apollo by Kourion on Cyprus (Trajan 191).414 This now lost monument is curious for several reasons. The choice of location seems odd, since Hadrian most probably did not visit Cyprus at this time.415 In addition, communication between the emperor and the person who actually carried out the dedication cannot have been very close, judging from the inclusion of the victory titles Germanicus, Dacicus and Parthicus in Hadrian’s name – titles that Hadrian never officially accepted. Hadrian, while still alive, had a statue erected in Arrabona in Pannonia Superior by his adopted son and first choice as successor, Lucius Aelius Caesar. He was at the time serving as governor of the two Pannonias (Hadrian 95). His second choice as successor, Antoninus Pius, appears as the dedicator

410. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415.

Rose 1997a, 91-92.

Birley 1971, 192.

Packer 1997.

SHA, Alex. Sev. 28.6.

Mitford 1971, 157-159, no. 85.

Halfmann 1986, 188.


of a monument “to his parents” from the Mausoleum of Hadrian (Hadrian 16). Whether this inscription was directly related to statues of Hadrian and Sabina, or whether it signifies the whole tomb, is impossible to determine today, since the inscription has disappeared. The final example in the catalogue, the column of Antoninus Pius, was erected by his two adopted sons the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Antoninus Pius 17).416 Testamentary gifts of imperial statues were remarkably common, and account for almost 9% of all privately sponsored imperial statues. The 46 known examples417 were erected throughout the period and in most parts of the Empire. A few examples suffice: Marcus Pulfens, a procurator who had a long military career from centurion to praefectus veteranorum during the reign of Tiberius, left ten pounds of silver for an image of Tiberius (Tiberius 31). Since he had served as procurator under Caligula as well, Tiberius was obviously dead at the time. Livia appears in the inscription under the name of Iulia Augusta, which probably indicates that the dedication predated her deification in AD 42. Thus, Marcus Pulfens died shortly after the death of his patron. The three statues of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, placed on consoles in the central part of decumanus in Apamea ad Orontem (Antoninus Pius 282; Marcus Aurelius 251; Lucius Verus 134), were dedicated by Titus Flavius Appius Heraclides and Sopatros according to the will and testament of their father. Apparently the will only called for statues of the deified Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, and the two sons themselves paid for the inclusion of Lucius Verus in the group. An even larger group consisting of Antoninus Pius (Antoninus Pius 248), Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius 226), Lucius Verus (Lucius Verus 120), Faustina Minor and Domitia Faustina was erected in the gerontikon in Nysa by Sextus Julius Antoninus Pythodorus according to the will of his mother, Julia Antonia Eurydice.418 Placing statues of family members in association with a group of imperial statues also served as an opportunity to promote the family, in analogy with the composition on the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus in Olympia. Obviously the occasions for all the testamentary dedications related to the dedicator and not the emperor.

416. Vogel 1973.

417. Augustus 70; Tiberius 19, 30, 31, 59, 62, 103; Claudius 8, 53, 111, 118; Nero 5; Vespasian

3, 11, 15, 19, 79; Titus 1, 41, 53; Domitian 1; Trajan 40, 49, 115, 140, 148, 151, 165, 195; Hadrian 3, 68, 163, 165, 411; Antoninus Pius 11, 19, 109, 176, 212, 248, 282; Marcus Aurelius 98, 101, 226, 251; Lucius Verus 120. 418. ∆Iouvlio~ ∆Antwni`no~ Puqovdwro~ ejk diaqhvkh~ ∆Iouliva~ ∆Antwniva~ Eujrudivkh~ th`~ auJtou` mhtrov~. Fittschen 1999, 133-136.


Women as dedicators The monuments under discussion are by nature very public. Few women were prominent public figures, and given the close relationship between the holding of office and display of munificence,419 it is not surprising that women seldom appear as dedicators of imperial statues.420 When they dedicate statues, it is often in the function of either testators or heirs carrying out the will of a dead relative. However, some of the 29 dedications by women were very substantial donations.421 In her will, Anicia Pudentilla left 30,000 sesterces, to which Manlia Macrina, her mother, added 8,000 sesterces for two statues (Marcus Aurelius 157). One of them was evidently of Marcus Aurelius. The other may have been of Lucius Verus, or possibly a second statue of Marcus Aurelius. The price of 38,000 sesterces for two statues is among the highest paid for statues in North Africa.422 Plancia Magna, an elderly lady of a prominent family in Perge, adorned the entrance to the city with a large group of statues of the Genius Civitatis, Diana Pergensis, Divus Augustus, Divus Nerva, Diva Marciana, Divus Traianus, Diva Matidia, Plotina, Hadrian and Sabina in AD 121-122 (Augustus 191; Nerva 45; Trajan 175; Hadrian 377). Likewise in Perge, in the South Bath, another prominent woman, Aurelia Paulina Aeliane, priestess of Aphrodite for life and high priestess in the imperial cult, dedicated a statue of Commodus and most probably one of Marcus Aurelius as well (Marcus Aurelius 238; Commodus 95). Another woman who held office is the chief priestess Julia Menylleina, who dedicated a statue of Hadrian in StratoniceaHadrianopolis (Hadrian 361). In Heliopolis two sisters, Antonia Pacata and Antonia Priscilla, erected a statue of the deified Vespasian (Vespasian 79) and probably the less well-preserved companion piece for the deified Titus (Titus 65). This was done according to the will and testament of a man who was most likely a relative of theirs. A larger dedication is found in Akmonia,

419. For the role of women in civic life in the Greek East during the principate, see van Bremen 1996, 41-81. Women were not excluded from office, but the range of offices available to them was narrow. 420. Women may have been more inclined to dedicate statues of empresses. There are, however, no females among the dedicators of statues of Julia Domna, Fejfer 1985, 133. 421. Augustus 191, 202, 203; Tiberius 110; Caligula 1; Claudius 59; Nero 36; Vespasian 56, 79; Titus 51, 65; Domitian 36; Nerva, 45; Trajan 151, 165, 175; Hadrian 104, 357, 361, 373; Antoninus Pius 48, 248; Lucius Verus 97, 120; Marcus Aurelius 157, 169, 226, 238; Commodus 95. 422. Duncan-Jones 1982, 94-99.


where Claudia Rufilla erected the gate to the agora according to a promise of her father given before his death (Vespasian 56; Titus 51; Domitian 36). Other women were of more humble origin, for example the freedwoman who dedicated a statue of Claudius in Emerita Augusta (Claudius 59).

Trade Whilst most private dedicators refer in the inscriptions to either a public office or the priesthood, it is far less common to find information about their profession. A Flavius Pytheas who served or had served as duumvir quinqeunnalis in Puteoli (Commodus 7) calls himself marmorarius, which probably signifies that he owned a marble workshop. Doctors dedicated statues in Perge and Phaselis (Trajan 174, Hadrian 375), and a group of blacksmiths are listed on the relief with a bust of Commodus found in Philadelphia in Asia (Commodus 87). Only in three instances do inscriptions inform us about the artist who made the statue (Tiberius 121; Claudius 87; Hadrian 219). The reason for the dedication of all the privately sponsored statues seems to relate to events that were of importance in the life of the dedicator, instead of events related to the emperor.

Public or private? It is not always entirely clear whether statues were paid for by public funds or by private individuals. Very often communities, particularly in the Greek East, decided to erect statues of the emperor, but left the actual task of procuring the statue and dedicating the monument to one or more individuals – epimeletai. Unfortunately, the inscriptions rarely inform us as to how the statue was financed, but in a few instances it is specified that the person given the task of carrying out the decision also paid for the statue. One such example is a statue of Hadrian in Magnesia (Hadrian 341).423 Another in Smyrna of Antoninus Pius was paid for by Eikonion, daughter of Demokles (Antoninus Pius 260).

423. (Hadrian 341): ÔH filosevbasto~ boulh;i ajnevqhken ejpimelhqevnto~ Ti(berivou) Klaudivou Caridhvmou Tatianou` tou` grammatevw~ aujth`~ to; bæ tou` kai; poihsamevnou th;n ajnavqesin tou` ajndriavnto~ ejk tw`n ijdivwn.


An inscription in Kythera from a statue base for Trajan, on the other hand, makes it clear that the money spent consisted of public funds (Trajan 113). The same applies to the numerous dedications for Trajan and Hadrian in the South Market in Miletus (Trajan 160-164; Hadrian 342-345). Since most of the persons in charge of the dedications held public office, it cannot be ruled out that a system comparable to summa honoraria in North Africa existed in other areas as well. Given the obvious interest of the epimeletes to state his own involvement, we should expect it to be specified more often, if this was generally practised. In Lyktos on Crete, a remarkable series of ostensibly annual dedications of bases for imperial statues has been found. The series starts before AD 82 with a base for a statue of Domitia (IC 1,18,16), but only during the reign of Trajan can we follow the annual dedications (Trajan 125-137). There may have been bases for Domitian as well, which were reused for other statues after his death. The dedications continue into the reign of Hadrian (Hadrian 281-286), but wane around the middle of the reign with only two later examples for Marcus Aurelius – once as caesar and once as emperor (Marcus Aurelius 207, 208). In addition to the statue bases for emperors, there are numerous bases for the female members of the imperial family, a total of thirteen bases for Domitia, Plotina, Macrina, Mathidia, Paulina and Sabina.424 The bases are very homogeneous in size and execution, as well as in the formulation of their inscriptions. All have the name of the city in the nominative case with the addition of “on behalf of the head of the Council” followed by the name of the magistrate.425 Who paid for these statues: the city, or the annually elected Head of the Council? One of the inscriptions informs us that the statue was paid “from the remains of the entertainment budget earmarked for the celebration of the birthday of the emperor”426 but since this fund was possibly privately financed, this does not solve the problem. Harrison suggests that: “these statues would seem to prove the ruse by which a magistrate advertised himself under the guise of paying homage to the emperor”.427 He admits, though, that their homogeneous sizes and inscriptions indicate a common dedicator. 424. IC 1, 18, 20; 24; 25; 26; 31; 34-38; 43 and SEG 42, 811, 813.

425. Luttivwn hJ povli~ dia; prwtokovsmou deinou` tou` deinou`. For the translation and a discus sion of the funding for the statues, see Harrison 1993, 205-211. Note also Chanoitis and Rethemiotakis 1992, 27-38. The last of the series also says that it was done according to a decision of the council. 426. IC 1, 18, 23: ejk qewriva~ mevrou~ tou` perisseuvsanto~ th`~ genesivou tou` kurivou. Translation by Harrison 1993, 208. 427. Harrison 1993, 205.


On the basis of the evidence of the inscriptions themselves, it seems reasonable to conclude that unless otherwise specified, we can assume that the community paid for the construction, and the epimeletes simply carried out the decision.

Corporations as dedicators Corporations appear as dedicators in 80 inscriptions from statue bases. The commonest among this varied group are trade-related organisations, for example the bakers, divers and carpenters in Ostia (Marcus Aurelius 24; Antoninus Pius 30, 35). Others are the Roman citizens selling blankets in Mogontiacum (Claudius 44), the scribes of the armoury in Rome (Antoninus Pius 2), the linen weavers in Salamis (Hadrian 405), the boatmen on the Rhone (Hadrian 99) and those who traded at Romula (Antoninus Pius 94; Marcus Aurelius 91). In all, 30 such dedications exist. The second-largest group consists of sacrificial collegia. We have seen that individual Augustales often erected statues, but in other inscriptions they appear as a group without mentioning each individual member (Augustus 17, 88, 133; Marcus Aurelius 141; Commodus 23). The boys and girls who received money from the alimenta system, and consequently must have been rather poor,428 dedicated statues in Ficulea, Sestium, Pitium Mergens and Rome (Trajan 3; Antoninus Pius 50, 51; Marcus Aurelius 19, 51). They naturally had every reason to be grateful to the emperor. The seniores in Ucibi in Proconsularis, once in AD 150 and again in AD 165, collected money to dedicate statues of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus Pius 180; Marcus Aurelius 175). The inscriptions from bases mentioning corporations seldom offer any clues as to the reason for their dedication. Most specific is an inscription from the large base for Tiberius in Puteoli, with personifications of twelve cities in Asia Minor (Tiberius 18), which was erected because the emperor had restored 12 cities in Asia Minor after the earthquake in AD 17. However, it is curious why the Augustales in Puteoli should erect such a monument in AD 30. The carpenters in Ostia give a much less specific reason for their dedication: quod providentia et liberalitate indulgentissimi principis (Lucius Verus 19).

428. Duncan-Jones 1982, 288-319.


Military units as dedicators Images of the emperor played a prominent role in the military, and every soldier was well accustomed to the appearance of the emperor. Portraits of the reigning emperor were placed in the principia, both in the sacellum and on the square in front of it; small busts were carried on the signa; and his portrait could appear on weapons. While some of these official portraits may have been sent from Rome, others were paid for by the soldiers themselves.429 Military units, or their officers, were certainly responsible for the honorary dedications also found in military camps. This need not surprise us, considering the reciprocity of the relationship between the emperor and the army. Only 38 or 1.7% of the extant statue bases were dedicated by military units. This figure may not represent the situation in antiquity accurately, since bronze or precious metal seem to have been the preferred material for imperial statues in the military camps along the frontiers. What is even more important is that the inscriptions on the bases may also have been engraved on bronze sheets, as shown by finds in Germania.430 The monuments dedicated by military units that have been included in the catalogue are frequently poorly published, and in many cases their portrait character cannot be established with certainty. Nearly half the monuments are not described properly, and their identification as statue bases rests alone on the formulation of the inscription. The most frequently encountered military unit as dedicator is the cohors, known from 19 inscriptions. Among the cohortes the first cohors was the most active, with approximately half of the known examples. In one instance in Samaria, the cohors I dedicated a statue together with its primus pilus (Hadrian 408). This may be coincidental, but erecting imperial statues within the camps could have been a special privilege, or perhaps a duty of the first cohors. Legions are by comparison only known from six inscriptions, and no legion appears more than once. Less important as dedicators were alae (Antoninus Pius 75, 76) and special detachments within the army, such as vexallationes (Antoninus Pius 286; Commodus 102). Only one inscription from a monument in Misenum was erected by units within the fleet (Marcus Aurelius 23). Finally, five bases were erected by veterans, evidently at the time they were

429. Pekáry 1985, 9-10, 19. Most notably a 4 drachme deduction in the pay ad signa, known from a papyrus in the year AD 81. 430. For the choice of bronze statues in military camps, see Gamer 1969, 76. Fragments of inscriptions on bronze plaques for statue bases have been found in Strasbourg (Gamer 1969, 73) and near Koblenz (Driehaus, 1969, 424-436).


relieved of service (Hadrian 126; Antoninus Pius 289; Marcus Aurelius 113, 117; Lucius Verus 135).431 Except for the statues donated by the veterans, there are no direct references to the occasion for the dedications. One obvious occasion, suggested by Gamer,432 would be the accession of a new emperor, but this is not supported by the dating of the bases. These are distributed randomly throughout the reigns. Neither does there seem to be an obvious connection between major military victories and dedication of statues. One exception could be the arch for Trajan in Dura Europos dedicated by a legion, which unfortunately cannot be dated accurately (Trajan 196). Not surprisingly, dedications by military units are concentrated in regions with a strong military presence, i.e. the northern and eastern provinces and North Africa (Table SC 20). In the eastern provinces, where they account for 15% of all bases (Table SG 24), there are nearly as many dedications by military units as by private individuals. Here we find military dedications both in cities with garrisons and in military installations at or near the frontier, such as Dura Europos (Trajan 196), Dumeir (Lucius Verus 133) and Syene (Caligula 28; Trajan 205; Antoninus Pius 291; Lucius Verus 139), and in cities on the Mediterranean coast like Seleukeia Pieria (Antoninus Pius 286) and Alexandria (Antoninus Pius 289). Two regions, Gaul and Greece, have produced no bases dedicated by military units, and in the rest of the Empire they account for insignificant numbers. In Italy, it was mostly the detachment of fire fighters in Rome (Commodus 1) and Ostia, the cohors VII vigilum (Marcus Aurelius 33; Lucius Verus 18) that dedicated statues. One other base in Italy was dedicated by the fleet stationed at Misenum (Marcus Aurelius 23). Chronologically the dedications are very unevenly distributed (Table SC 8). Until the reign of Trajan, only two inscriptions can be identified with reasonable certainty as belonging to imperial statues (Tiberius 81; Caligula 28). Curiously, no bases for the Flavian emperors dedicated by military units have been found. From AD 68 the military had become an extremely important political factor, and the identity of the emperor as commander of the armies comes more into focus during this period. This is seen in the shift from the heroic nude or half-nude statue types that were popular during the Augustan and Julio-Claudian period, to statues of the emperor in military attire.433 Only 431. In three inscriptions the imperial titles can be compared with the consular year in which their service started. These indicate an interval of 25 or 26 years. 432. Gamer 1969, 75. 433. Stemmer 1978, 126-130.


from the reign of Hadrian do we find military units continuously dedicating imperial statues. This coincides to a certain extent with the petrification of the frontier and the construction of permanent military camps in stone, which facilitated monumental sculpture in bronze instead of easily transportable images.434

Statue bases without dedicators In a significant proportion of the inscriptions we are unable to determine who dedicated the monument in question. This lack of dedicator was either intentional, or is due to poor preservation of the inscription through fragmentation or weathering. Since the inscriptions from statue bases are strictly formulaic – at least with regard to imperial nomenclature – these can be identified from even tiny fragments. Such identifications from smaller fragments do not usually include the name of the dedicator.435 The nature of the dedicator was most probably not a factor in determining the chance of survival of each individual base, so we can assume that the composition of the group of dedicators was the same for these as for the better preserved monuments. This group amounts to approximately one-fifth of all bases, and there are relatively small fluctuations in their share throughout the period (Table SC 12). On the other hand, there is a clear regional distinction between the Latin West and the Greek East (Table SC 24, note the low figures for Greece and Asia Minor). The most reasonable explanation for this difference is that built-up bases, whose inscriptions were far more susceptible to fragmentation, were more widespread in the Latin West, and in Italy in particular (p. 30). The other group of bases consists of inscriptions that, although fully preserved, specifically name no dedicator in the text. These show only very slight regional differences (Table SC 23).436 Instead we find a clear chronological evolution. From a high percentage during the Augustan and Julio-Claudian

434. Gamer 1969, 75-78. 435. Note for example the recently published base in Callatis (Marcus Aurelius 67; Lucius Verus 39), with its 16-line inscription reconstructed from only 19 letters. Naturally, the fact that the dedicator in this case should be the city of Callatis is only a qualified guess. 436. The two regions that deviate significantly, the northwestern and the eastern provinces, represent only a small number of bases, and the statistical uncertainty is therefore correspondingly higher.


periods, it falls to a steady level of about 5% during the second century AD (Table SC 11). This development was also noted by Alföldy in his study of the bases in Venetia et Histria.437 Many of the bases without a dedicator probably belonged to larger groups of statues with a common dedicatory inscription that has not been preserved.438 They may also have been placed in a setting that left no doubt as to the identity of the dedicator.439 For other inscriptions the lack of dedicator cannot be explained. One could speculate whether some of these bases represent statues erected by the emperor himself, or by the administration for propaganda purposes. However, it is not possible to detect any pattern in the dedications that could support this notion. The size and quality of the monuments do not differ from those with dedicators, as could be expected if they were sponsored by the emperor. Furthermore, posthumous dedications account for an unusually high percentage of the bases without dedicators. Whilst posthumous dedications make up 8.3% of all the bases, they account for no less than 20.8% of those without dedicators. This does not indicate a propaganda purpose for the statues without dedicator.

Regional differences and developments In Italy, 32.1% of all bases were dedicated by communities or their executive bodies (Table SC 19), and comparable percentages are found in Spain, North Africa, and along the northern frontier. Greece (58.2%) and Asia Minor (54.9%) have much higher percentages, and communities seem to have played a much greater role as dedicators of imperial statues in the East. The figures may have been somewhat lower, if we accept that some of the statues voted by communities, but carried out by epimeletai, were in fact paid for by private individuals. Another contributing factor to the high percentages is that there are relatively few bases in which the dedicator can no longer be determined, either because of fragmentation or poor preservation of the inscription. Whilst 437. Alföldy 1984, 53.

438. For example the bases found in the vicinity of the greater propylon in Eleusis (Hadrian

247; Marcus Aurelius 191), the statue group in front of the Temple of Augustus and Roma in Lepcis Magna (Augustus 114; Tiberius 76; Claudius 73), the group from the Basilica in Veleia (Augustus 56; Nerva 11), or from the forum in Glanum (Marcus Aurelius 84; Lucius Verus 49). 439. For example in the two mausolea in Rome or the lack of dedicator on some of the bases in the Caserma dei Vigili in Ostia (Antoninus Pius 27; Marcus Aurelius 26).


10 9

Bases/year

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -30 -20 -10 0

10

20 30 40

50 60 70

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Year Fig. 24. Comparison of the number of public (black) and private (gray) dedications expressed in bases per year of reign.440

these account for nearly one-third of all inscriptions in Italy, the figures for Greece and Asia Minor are much lower at approximately 14% (Table SC 24). Furthermore, the military presence was very limited in these areas, and dedications by military units and their officers, as we have seen, constituted a large share in provinces where the legions were stationed (Table SC 20). The highest percentage of statue bases dedicated by private individuals is found in Spain (29.6%), closely followed by North Africa (28.6%, Table SC 22). The high figure for North Africa becomes even more remarkable when we consider that the dedications here predominantly belong to the second century AD (Table SG 13). During this period private dedications elsewhere account for much smaller percentages. Clearly the institution of summa honoraria, so strongly attested in North Africa, kept private munificence towards cities at a high level, even throughout the 170s when private initiative practically ceased elsewhere. Greece and the eastern provinces have the lowest percentages of

440. Based on Tables SC 7-12. Public dedications include those erected by communities and by military detachments. Private dedications include dedications by both private individuals and corporations. Only bases dedicated within the reign are considered.


private dedications. In the latter region, this can to some extent be explained by the existence of a large number of dedications by military units. In Greece the number of private dedications is remarkably low compared with other regions with a similar number of statue bases (compare Tables SC 19 and SC 22). Here there are three public dedications for every private one, while in Italy the two groups account for almost equal shares if we include the dedications by corporations. Dedications by corporations make up 7% of the evidence from Italy, but only insignificant proportions elsewhere (Table SC 21). The frequency of statue bases dedicated by communities practically equals that of statue bases dedicated by private individuals throughout the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods. During the Flavian period we can observe a discrepancy in favour of more public dedications that becomes very prevalent from the reign of Nerva and during most of the second century. For Commodus they reach approximately the same level again (Fig. 24). The figures for Commodus cannot be explained as a result of his damnatio memoriae, since the evidence regarding Caligula, Nero and Domitian follows the general pattern. Unfortunately, we have no comparable figures for Septimius Severus, but the statue bases for Julia Domna suggests a continuation of the high percentages of dedications by communities into the Severan period.441 Both public and private dedications were clearly subject to the same factors that governed the frequency of statues in general, and they invariably show the same fluctuations from reign to reign. However, while private dedications continue at an almost unchanged level throughout the entire period, we see a dramatic increase in public dedications during the second century. Perhaps this reflects a change in the way the administration of the Empire was conducted. During the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods, much of the contact between communities and the emperor had been conducted through personal contacts. With the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty a more regular administrative system arose, and more transactions took place directly between communities and the administration with the emperor as its figurehead. Consequently, communities may have been more inclined to honour the emperor in appreciation and anticipation of imperial benefaction.

441. Fejfer 1985, 133.


Conclusion

On a number of points the evidence of the epigraphical material from the Roman imperial statue bases gives a fundamentally different picture of the principles that governed the erection of Roman imperial portraits than that deduced from the extant portraits, and several of the assumptions based on the extant portraits therefore need re-evaluation. Traditional studies of imperial portraits have placed much emphasis on the group of high-quality portraits produced in the workshops in Rome, and predominantly found in central Italy. Provincial portraits, on the other hand, have often received only peripheral treatment.442 Very little consideration has been given to the fact that the empirical material for such studies has been subject to great selection, most notably the almost complete disappearance of bronze portraits, and therefore by no means represents a random sample of the statues once in existence. The geographical distribution of the statue bases shows that Italy was only one of several centres with a high frequency of imperial statues. Asia Minor, Greece, and parts of North Africa have figures comparable to those in Italy. Since the majority of imperial portraits found outside Italy were produced locally in the local style, we can conclude that these were far more common in antiquity than can be deduced from the extant portraits. This means that we should expect a far greater diversity to have existed in imperial portraiture. To the vast majority of the inhabitants in the Roman Empire, the high-quality portraits from the workshops in Rome that we have grown so accustomed to were the exception and not the rule.443 442. Zanker 1983, 8; Rose 1997b, 108-109. 443. For this problem, see also Zanker 1983, 44-50.


The statue bases testify to the remarkably wide distribution of imperial portrait statues during the first two centuries AD. Nearly 800 sites – almost exclusively urban centres – are represented among the 2,300 entries in the catalogue of statue bases. This high figure clearly indicates that statues were erected in practically all cities and towns throughout the Empire, and that the number of statues in an area depended solely on the degree of urbanisation and the concentration of cities. 28 cities have produced more than ten statue bases each, while at nearly 700 locations only between one and three bases have been found. Statue bases, unlike extant portraits, can often be dated with great precision by means of objective criteria – most commonly elements in the imperial nomenclature of the inscription. A corpus of statue bases can give us an impression of how dedications were distributed chronologically within the reign of an emperor. The histograms of the chronological distribution unanimously show that imperial portrait statues were erected continuously and at very constant frequencies throughout the reigns of nearly all emperors. Furthermore, the small fluctuations in the frequencies that can be observed do not occur in years in which events of importance to the emperor took place, for example jubilees, military victories, journeys throughout the Empire and family-related events. It can therefore be inferred that such occasions had no or very little importance as a motivation for erecting statues. To some extent, this weakens the prevalent assumption that new portrait types were created to commemorate or propagandise such events. If new portrait types were created with this intention in mind, we should expect at least some reflection of this in the chronological distribution of the statue bases. A general practice of dedicating statues of the emperor with new portrait types on such occasions in Rome would, most likely, soon have spread to the provinces. However, one event related to the emperor that was regularly observed as an occasion for erecting his statues throughout the Empire was his accession. With the notable exceptions of Vespasian, Trajan and Commodus, the frequency of dedications increases noticeably during the second and sometimes the third and fourth years of a reign; but never during the first. This shows that distribution of the imperial portrait was neither rapid nor widespread immediately upon accession of a new emperor, and as Stuart noted,444 this indicates that the new administration was not actively involved in the process. Perhaps the delay to the second year of the reign reflects that in more

444. Stuart 1939, 602-603.


remote areas it could take considerable time to procure an imperial statue. It is also possible that many communities, like the Alexandrians in AD 41,445 took the accession of a new emperor as an opportunity to send embassies to Rome with honorary decrees, and thereby attract the emperor’s attention to local problems. From the reign of Nerva it is predominantly the dedications by communities that cause the increase during the initial period of the reign. Sometimes the frequency in the second year could be up to three times that of the average for the reign (Antoninus Pius, Fig. C 13). The lack of an increase in frequency during the first years of the reigns of Vespasian and Trajan disproves Stuart’s suggestion that the strength of the impetus to dedicate statues upon the accession of a new emperor depended on the presence or absence of pre-accessional portraits in cities around the Empire.446 Of crucial importance to the study of imperial portraits is the realisation that the evidence of the chronological distribution of statue bases can be applied to extant portraits as well. This is made probable by the fact that the ratio between extant bases and portraits remains constant for large parts of the period, and that the discrepancies we find do not depend on the length of the reign of an emperor. This offers an opportunity to verify the dates assigned to the different portrait types of an emperor. If the proposed chronology of the portrait types causes the portraits to have a significantly different distribution within the reign than that of the statues bases, it is probable that one or more of the portrait types have been assigned wrong dates. Since the portraits often show a considerable overlap between succeeding portrait types,447 this primarily applies to portrait types that have been assigned dates too late in the reign. The most obvious example of a portrait type that has been assigned too late a date is the fourth portrait type of Marcus Aurelius, dated either AD 169 when Marcus Aurelius became sole emperor, or AD 176 in connection with his return to Rome and the triumph over the Sarmatians.448 The statue bases show that remarkably few statues of Marcus Aurelius were erected during the 170s AD (Fig. C 17), possibly as a consequence of the Antonine Plague and the costly war being fought on the northern frontier. Given the large number

445. London Papyrus 1912.

446. Stuart 1939, 610.

447. For continued use of earlier portrait types of Augustus, see Boschung 1993a, 70. Tiberius,

Boschung 1993b, 56-58. Trajan, Gross 1940, 43-53. Hadrian, Evers 1994, 139: the posthumous portrait from the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus in Olympia shows clear affinities with the “earliest” portrait type, Stazione Termini. 448. Wegner 1939, 43-44. Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 71-73.


of copies of this portrait type449 the later date can easily be ruled out. Even the earlier proposed date, AD 169, hardly establishes any consistency between the chronological distribution of the portraits and the bases. Another portrait type that seems to have been dated too late in a reign is the Decennalia type of Trajan. Gross dated the creation of this portrait type to AD 108 on comparison with numismatic evidence connected with Trajan’s tenth anniversary.450 The Decennalia type, and the types that developed from it, account for more than two-thirds of the extant portraits of Trajan.451 AD 108 is thus too late to accommodate the many portraits, even though the frequency of dedications increases towards the end of his reign (Fig. C 11). With regard to posthumous statues, the statue bases offer reliable evidence that has hitherto lacked in the study of imperial portraits. They show that from Tiberius to Commodus the number of posthumous statues of each emperor remains relatively constant (Table SC 6). Length of reign and frequency of dedications during the emperor’s lifetime had only limited effect on the number. Furthermore, with very few exceptions statues of Divi were erected within a very short time-span after their deification – usually within the first five years. Thus, we should not expect that posthumous portraits can be differentiated stylistically from those erected during the later part of an emperor’s lifetime. The posthumous statue bases are geographically biased towards the western part of the Empire, and in all probability there are few posthumous portraits among those found in Greece and Asia Minor. The pattern for the posthumous statue bases for Augustus deviates considerably. They are far more numerous than for other emperors, and were erected over a notably longer period. Only during the Flavian period do the dedications decrease, although a few much later examples exist. The bases indicate that nearly one-quarter of all portraits of Augustus were created posthumously. The statue bases of emperors who suffered “damnatio memoriae” give an impression of the effectiveness of the destruction of monuments. Evidently this was not carried out with equal enthusiasm everywhere. It is noteworthy that while portraits of deposed emperors were predominantly re-worked to portray the new emperor or members of his family, the bases, particularly

449. Wegner and Unger 1980, 12-116. Bergman 1978, 26. Albertson 1982, 56.

450. Gross 1940, 95, following Strack 1931, 29. Note that Mattingly (1923-1940 III, lxxvi and

1950, 183-184, n. 12) dates the decennalia as early as AD 106. 451. Gross 1940, cat. no. 26-74. See also Balty 1977/1978, 45-60; Fittschen and Zanker 1985, 43 and Bergmann 1993, 141-142, who includes copies of the portrait types prior to the Decennalienbildnis.


the ones with Greek inscriptions, were regularly changed to commemorate the father of the murdered emperor instead. Whether this involved a change of the statue as well remains unknown. Since very few re-worked portraits have been found in the Greek East, we have no sculptural evidence of such a practice.452 The absence of increased frequencies of dedications in connection with important events related to the emperor shows that imperial statues generally were not intended to commemorate such events. Instead, the occasion that motivated the erection of a statue of the emperor often related to the dedicator of the monument. This is clearest for privately sponsored dedications, which account for more than a third of the inscriptions mentioning a dedicator. Many of these were erected on an appointment to public office or some priesthood often in the imperial cult, and the inscriptions often reflect that they largely served to advertise the dedicator’s own achievements and merits. In many inscriptions the cursus of the dedicator takes up more room than that of the emperor. Another group of dedications where the occasion relates to the dedicators comprises statues erected as testamentary gifts. We have less exact knowledge about what motivated communities or their executive bodies to erect imperial statues. The inscriptions that give a reason often refer to imperial benefaction in the form of construction of public buildings, or grants of higher civic status. Appreciation or anticipation of benefaction is further implied by the frequent inclusion of epithets like eujergevth~ and ktivsth~. The frequency of imperial statue bases within the Roman Empire rises steadily from a very slow beginning during the early part of the reign of Augustus up to and including the reign of Hadrian, after which we see a period of greater fluctuation in the number of dedications (Fig. C 19). Most of the fluctuations, like the low frequencies during the 60s and 80s, can easily be explained by the removal of monuments after the murder of Nero and Domitian. Similarly, the high frequency during the 160s was caused by the co-regency of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, which called for statues of both emperors. The low frequency during the 170s as argued above probably resulted from the effect of the Germannic War and the Antonine Plague. During the reign of Commodus the number of dedications rises again, although many were evidently destroyed after his murder. This increase seems to continue into the

452. The portraits of Nero on the reliefs from the Sebasteion in Aphrodisias were left intact, while the inscriptions were removed (Smith 1987, 88-138).


early Severan period. After that a sharp decline sets in in most regions of the Empire.453 What governed this development from a frequency of 3.2 bases per year during the reign of Augustus to 19.0 bases per year under Hadrian? The significant increase in the frequency of dedications can be ascribed to a rise in the number of statues erected by communities. During the Julio-Claudian period the number of privately sponsored dedications equalled those paid for by communities; but from the Flavian period and notably during the second century AD, dedications by communities account for a much larger share. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. Perhaps imperial benefaction had attained increased importance and more communities consequently awarded statues in return for favours. It is equally possible, however, that many communities began to feel an obligation to erect imperial statues. The pressure need not have come from the central administration alone, but might have stemmed from a desire to equal the dedications offered by neighbouring communities. In antiquity, dedications of honorific statues of the emperor consisted of a statue and a statue base with a dedicatory inscription. Although these two elements almost without exception have become separated over the centuries, the epigraphical evidence from the statue bases still constitutes our best source with regard to the practice of erecting imperial statues. Through statistical analysis, statue bases also provide valuable information about the chronology of the extant portraits, and they ought therefore to be taken more into consideration in future studies of Roman imperial portraits.

453. For Severan statue bases, see Fejfer 1985, 129-138. For a discussion of the practice of erecting statues in the third century AD, including statues of the imperial family, see Borg & Witschel 2001, 47-120. While the geographical distribution of the statue bases during the first two centuries AD only spread slowly to the peripheral areas, the evidence for the middle of the third century indicates a radically changed situation. The system governing the erection of statues seems to have broken down in many places. Bases begin to be reused and statues are erected without regard for previous monuments.


Bibliography

Adams, A. 1989. The Arch of Hadrian at Athens, in: S. Walker & A. Cameron (eds.), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire (BICS suppl. 55). London, 10-16. Albertson, F.C. 1982. The Sculptured Portraits of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius AD 161-180. Creation and Dissemination of Portrait Types. Diss. Ann Arbor. Alföldy, G. 1975. Die römischen Inschriften von Tarraco. Berlin. Alföldy, G. 1977. Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorische Führungsschicht. Bonn. Alföldy, G. 1979. Bildprogramme in den römischen Städten des Conventus Tarraconensis – Das Zeugnis der Statuenpostamente, in: Homenaje a García Bellido IV. Revista de la Universidad Complutense 18, 177-275. Alföldy, G. 1984. Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria. Epigraphische Quellen. Heidelberg. Alföldy, G. 1991. Augustus und die Inschriften: Tradition und Innovation. Die Geburt der imperialen Epigraphik, Gymnasium 98, 289-324. Alföldy, G. 2001a. Pietas immobilis erga principem und ihr Lohn: Öffentliche Ehrenmonumente von Senatoren in Rom während der Frühen und Hohen Kaiserzeit, in: G. Alföldy & S. Panciera (eds.), Inschriftliche Denkmäler als Medien der Selbstdarstellung in der römischen Welt. Stuttgart, 11-46. Alföldy, G. 2001b. Ein Statueprogramm in Tarraco: Die Schutzgottheiten der Verwaltungsbezirke der Hispania citerior, in: Rom und die Provinzen. Gedänkschrift für Hanns Gabelmann. Mainz am Rhein, 139-149. Almar, K.P. 1990. Inscriptiones Latinae. Eine illustrierte Einführung in die lateinische Epigraphik. Odense. Amela Valverde, L. 2001. Inscriptiones honoríficas dedicadas a Pompeyo Magno, Faventia 23.1, 87-102.

Biblio graphy · 195

Ameling, W. 1992. Die Kinder des Marc Aurel und die Bildnistypen der Faustina Minor, ZPE 90, 147-166. Amy, R., P.-M. Duval, J. Formigé, J.-J. Hatt, Ch. Picard, G.-Ch. Picard & A. Piganiol 1962. L’Arc d’Orange. Paris. Arafat, K.W. 1996. Pausania’s Greece. Ancient Artists and Roman Rulers. Cambridge. Ashby, T. 1915. Roman Malta, JRS 5, 34-39. Aurigemma, S. 1940. Sculture del Foro Vecchio di Leptis Magna raffiguranti la Dea Roma e principi della casa dei Giulio-Claudi, Africa Italiana 8, 1-94. Baena del Alcázar, L. 1985. Retratos romanos imperiales de la Bética, BVallad 51, 230-246. Ballu, A., E. Boeswillwald & R. Cagnat 1905. Timgad. Une cité africaine. Paris. Balty, J.C. 1963. Notes d’iconographie julio-claudienne, 1. Le togatus d’Otricoli, Vatican, Salle des candélabres, IV, 93 (208), MonPiot 53, 95-134. Balty, J.C. 1977-1978. Un nouveau portrait de Trajan, CahMariemont 8-9, 45-62. Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1974. Zur Entstehung des römischen Porträts, in: H. von Heintze (ed.), Römische Porträts. Darmstadt, 349-368. Barnes, T.D. 1967. Hadrian and Lucius Verus, JRS 57, 65-79. Barnes, T.D. 1989. Emperors on the Move. Rev. of H. Halfmann, Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich, JRA 2, 247261. Barroal, G. & R. Marichal 1987. Le forum de Ruscino, in: Los foros romanos de las provincias occidentales. Madrid, 45-54. Bastien, P. 1992. Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains. Paris. Bean, G.E. 1965. Side kitabeleri. The Inscriptions of Side. London. Bean, G.E. & T.B. Mitford 1970. Journeys through Rough Cilicia 1964-1968 (Österreicheische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften 102). Wien. Begg, W.R. 1931. Domitian: An Epigraphic Study. New York. Bendinelli, G. 1937. Il tesoro di argenteria di Marengo. Torino. Benjamin, A.S. & A.E. Raubitschek 1959. Arae Augusti, Hesperia 28, 65-85. Benjamin, A.S. 1963. The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program, Hesperia 32, 57-86. Bérard, V. 1892. Inscriptions d’Asie Mineure, BCH 16, 417-446. Bergemann, J. 1988. Die Pferde von San Marco. Zeitstellung und Funktion, RM 95, 115-128. Bergemann, J. 1990. Römische Reiterstatuen. Ehrendenkmäler im öffentlichen Bereich. Mainz am Rhein.


Bergemann, J. 1992. Die öffentliche Statuenrepräsentation am Beispiel der Reiterstatuen – Der Weg zur elitären Bildsprache, in: H.J. Schalles, H.v.Hesberg & P. Zanker (eds.), Die römische Stadt im 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Der Funktionswandel des öffentlichen Raumes. Köln, 315-324. Bergmann, M. 1978. Marc Aurel. Frankfurt am Main. Bergmann, M. 1982. Zeittypen im Kaiserporträt?, WissZBerl 31, 143-147. Bergmann, M. 1994. Der Koloss Neros, die Domus Aurea und der Mentalitätswandel im Rom der frühen Kaiserzeit (Trierer Winckelmannsprogramme 13). Mainz am Rhein. Bergmann, M. 1997. Zu den Porträts des Trajan und Hadrian, in: Itálica MMCC. Actas de las jornadas del 2200 aniversario de la fundación de Itálica, Sevilla 8-11 noviembre 1994. Sevilla, 138-147. Bergmann, M. & P. Zanker 1981. Damnatio memoriae. Umgearbeitete Nero- und Domitiansporträts. Zur Ikonographie der flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva, JdI 96, 317-412. Bernouli, J.J. 1882-1899. Römische Ikonographie I-III. Stuttgart.

Birley, A. 1971. Septimius Severus. The African Emperor. London.

Blanck, H. 1969a. Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei Griechen

und Römern. Rome. Blanck, H. 1969b. Porträt-Gemälde als Ehrendenkmaler, BJb 168, 1-12. Blanck, H. 1971. Rez. zu: “Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser”, GGA 223, 86-103. Boatwright, M.T. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton. Boatwright, M.T. 1991. Plancia Magna of Perge: Women’s Roles and Status in Asia Minor, in: S.B. Pomeroy (ed.), Women’s History and Ancient History. Chapel Hill, 249-272. Boatwright, M.T. 1993. The City Gate of Plancia Magna in Perge, in: E. D’Ambra (ed.), Roman Art in Context, an Anthology. Eaglewood Cliffs, 249-272. Boatwright, M.T. 1994. Hadrian, Athens and the Panhellenion, JRA 7, 426-431. Boatwright, M.T. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Empire. Princeton. Bol, R. 1984. Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes-Atticus-Nymphäums (Olympische Forschungen 15). Berlin. Bonacasa, N. 1962. Contributo all’iconografia di Tiberio, BdA 47, 171-179. Bonacasa, N. 1971. Due note sul ritratto romano imperiale dell’Egitto. Palermo. Bonanno, A. 1976. Portraits and other Heads on Roman Historical Relief up to the Age of Septimius Severus (BAR Suppl. 6). Oxford. Bonneville, J.N. 1984. Le support monumental des inscriptions. Terminologie et analyse, in: Epigraphie hispanique. Problèmes de méthode et d’édition. Paris, 117152.


Boon, G.C. 1980. Bronze-mounted Statue-bases at Carmarthen and Silchester, AntJ 60, 98-101. Borg, B. & C. Witschel 2001. Veränderungen im Repräsentationsverhalten der römischen Eliten während des 3. Jhs. n. Chr., in: G. Alföldy & S. Panciera (eds.), Inschriftliche Denkmäler als Medien der Selbstdarstellung in der römischen Welt. Stuttgart, 47-120. Boschung, D. 1989. Die Bildnisse des Caligula (Das römische Herrscherbild 1.4). Berlin. Boschung, D. 1990. Prinzenbildnis des Tiberius, in: E. Berger (ed.), Antike kunstwerke aus der Sammlung Ludwig III. Basel, 369-377. Boschung, D. 1993a. Die Bildnisse des Augustus (Das römische Herrscherbild 1.2). Berlin. Boschung, D. 1993b. Die Bildnistypen der iulisch-claudischen Kaiserfamilie: ein kritischer Forschungsbericht, JRA 6, 39-79. Boschung, D. 1999. Militärische Aspekte im Bild des Kaisers, in: Das Militär als Kulturträger in römischer Zeit. Köln, 201-230. Boschung, D. 2002a. Gens Augusta: Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses. Mainz am Rhein. Boschung, D. 2002b. Das römische Kaiserbildnis und seine Aufnahme im griechischen Osten, in: Patris und Imperium. Kulturelle und politische Identität in den Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Kolloquium Köln, November 1998. Leuven, 135-147. Bremen, R. van 1996. The Limits of Participation. Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Period. Amsterdam. Brunt, P.A. 1950. Pay and Superannuation in the Roman Army, BSR 18, 50-71. Bruun, P. 1976. Notes on the Transmission of Imperial Images in Late Antiquity, in: Studia Romana in Honorem Petri Krarup. Odense, 122-131. Buchholz, H.G. 1961. Kaiserporträts auf Tonlampen, JdI 76, 173-187. Budde, L. 1965. Imago clipeata des Kaisers Traian in Ankara, Antike Plastik 4, 103117. Bulle, H. 1898. Griechische Statuenbasen. Skizze zu einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der antiken Postamentformen. München. Buttrey, T.V. 1980. Documentary Evidence for the Chronology of the Flavian Titulature. Meisenheim am Glan. Cagnat, R. 1914. Cours d’épigraphie latine. Paris. Calza, R. 1964. Scavi di Ostia 5,1. I ritratti. Ritratti greci e romani fino al 160 circa d.C. Rome.


Carandini, A. 1969. Vibia Sabina. Funzione politica, iconografia e il problema del classicismo adrianeo. Firenze. Carcopino, J. 1949. L’hérédité dynastique chez les Antonins, REA 51, 262-321. Carettoni, G. 1939. Cassino. Esplorazione del teatro, NSc 1939, 99-141. Chanoitis, A. & G. Preuss 1991. Neue lateinische Inschriften aus Knossos. ZPE 89, 191-195. Chanoitis, A. & G. Rethemiotakis 1992. Neue Inschriften aus dem kaiserzeitlichen Lyttos, Kreta, Tyche 7, 27-38. Chastagnol, A. 1984a. Un chapitre négligé de l’épigraphie latine: la titulature des empereurs morts, REL 62, 275-287. Chastagnol, A. 1984b. Les jubilés décennaux et vicennaux des empereurs sous les Antonins et les Sévères, RevNum 26, 104-124. Claridge, A. 1988. Roman Statuary and the Supply of Statuary Marble, in: J.C. Fant (ed.), Ancient Marble. Quarrying and Trade (BAR International Series 453). Oxford. Clauss, M. 1999. Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im römischen Reich. Stuttgart. Clinton, K. 1989. Hadrian’s Contribution to the Renaissance at Eleusis, in: Proceedings of the Tenth British Museum Classical Colloquium: The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire. London, 56-68. Cogitore, I. 1992. Séries de dédicaces italiennes à la dynastie julio-claudienne, MEFRA 104, 817-870. Dahmen, K. 1995. Bleiplomben mit Kaiserporträts, Boreas 18, 205-220. Dähn, A. 1973. Zur Ikonographie und Bedeutung einiger Typen der römischen männlichen Porträtstatuen. Diss. Marburg. Daltorp, G., U. Hausmann & M. Wegner 1966. Die Flavier. Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Julia Titi, Domitilla, Domitia (Das römische Herrscherbild 2.1). Berlin. Dareggi, G. 1982. Il ciclo statuario della “basilca” di Otricoli: la fase giulio-claudia, BdA 67, 1-36. Daut, R. 1975. Imago. Untersuchungen zum Bildbegriff der Römer. Heidelberg. Davis, P.J.E. 1997. Politics and Design. The Funerary Monuments of the Roman Emperors from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (28 B.C. – A.D. 193). Ann Arbor. De Maria, S. 1988. Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell’Italia romana. Rome. Deininger, J. 1972. Von der Republik zur Monarchie. Die Ursprünge der Herrschertitulatur des Prinzipats, ANRW I 1. Berlin, 982-997. Die Silberbüste 1995. Die Silberbüste des Kaisers Galba. Il busto argenteo del imperatore Galba. Bonn. Domaszewski, A. von & B. Dobson 1967. Die Rangordnung des römische Heeres (2. ed.). Köln.


Domaszewski, A. von 1972. Aufsätze zur römischen Heeresgeschichte. Darmstadt. Donderer, M. 1996. Die Architekten der späten römischen Republik und der Kaiserzeit. Epigraphische Zeugnisse. Erlangen. Doyle, E.J. 1976. Two New Fragments of the Edict of Diocletian on Maximum Prices, Hesperia 45, 77-97. Driehaus, J. 1969. Bronzeverkleidungen römischer Statuenbasen aus Weißenthurm Landkreis Koblenz, BJb 169, 424-436. Duncan-Jones, R. 1962. Costs and Outlays from Roman Africa, BSR 30, 47-115. Duncan-Jones, R. 1982. The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies (2. ed.). Cambridge. Duncan-Jones, R. 1990. Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge. Duncan-Jones, R. 1992. The Impact of the Antonine Plague, JRA 9, 108-136. Durrbach, F. 1921. Choix d’inscriptions de Délos. Paris. Duthoy, R. 1978. Les Augustales, ANRW II 16,2. Berlin, 1254-1303. Dürr, J. 1881. Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian. Wien. Eck, W. 1970. Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Prosopographische Untersuchungen mit Einschluss der Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der Statthalter. München. Eck, W. 1994. Statuendedikanten und Selbstdarstellung in römischen Städten, in: L’Afrique, la Gaule, la religion à l’époque romaine. Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay. Bruxelles, 650-662. Eck, W. 1995. “Tituli honorarii”, Curriculum vitae und Selbstdarstellung in der hohen Kaiserzeit, in: Acta colloquii epigraphici Latini Helsingiae 3. – 6. sept. 1991 habiti. Helsinki, 221-237. Eck, W. 1997. Fünf Ehreninschriften auf Bronze auf Spanien, Chiron 27, 195-207. Eck, W. 1998. Inschriften auf Holz. Ein unterschätztes Phänomen der epigraphischen Kultur Roms, in: Imperium Romanum. Studien zu Geschichte und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 75. Geburtstag. Stuttgart, 203-217. Eck, W. & G. Foerster 1999. Ein Triumphbogen für Hadrian im Tal von Beth Shean bei Tel Shalem, JRA 12, 294-313. Erim, K. 1973. A Portrait Statue of Domitian from Aphrodisias, OpRom 9, 135-142. Espérandieu, E. 1908. Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule Romaine II. Paris. Espérandieu, E. 1929. Inscriptions latines de Gaule (Narbonnaise). Paris. Euzennat, M. 1994. Le clipeus de Tamuda (Maroc). Imagines impériales et serment militaire, in: L’Afrique, la Gaule, la religion à l’époque romaine. Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel le Glay. Bruxelles, 111-115. Evers, C. 1991. Propagande impériale et portraits officiels. Le type de l’adoption d’Antonin le Pieux, RM 98, 249-262.


Evers, C. 1994. Les portraits d’Hadrien. Typologie et ateliers. Bruxelles.

Fabbricotti, E. 1976. Galba (Studia Archaeologica 16). Rome.

Fabre, G., M. Mayer & I. Rodà. 1984. Inscriptions romaines de Catalogne I. Barce lone. Paris. Facsády, A.R. 1996. Kaiserdarstellungen aus Terracotta im Museum von Aquincum, in: Akten des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums über Probleme des provincialrömischen Kunstschaffens. Köln, 21-25. Fejfer, J. 1981. De severiske kvinder. Diss. Århus. Fejfer, J. 1985. The Portraits of the Severan Empress Julia Domna. A New Approach, AnalRom 14, 129-138. Fejfer, J. 1988. Official Portraits of Julia Domna. Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato, in: Atti della II Conferenza internazionale sul ritratto romano, Roma 26-30 settembre 1984, Rome, 295-301. Fejfer, J. 1998. The Roman Emperor Portrait. Some Problems in Methodology, Ostraka 7, 45-56. Fishwick, D. 1987-1992. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire I-II. Leiden. Fittschen, K. 1977. Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach. Berlin. Fittschen, K. 1982. Die Bildnistypen der Faustina Minor und die Fecunditas Augustae. Göttingen. Fittschen, K. 1984. Eine Büste des Kaisers Hadrian aus Milreu in Portugal. Zum Problem von Bildnisklitterungen, MM 25, 197-207. Fittschen, K. & P. Zanker 1985. Katalog der römischen Porträts in der Kapitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Samlungen der Stadt Rom 1. Mainz am Rhein. Fittschen, K. 1999. Prinzenbildnisse antoninischer Zeit. Mainz am Rhein. Fleischer, R. 1972-1975. Skulpturenfunde, ÖJh 50 Beibl. col. 421-468. Florescu, F.B. 1965. Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi. Tropaeum Traiani. Bukarest. Forbis, E. 1996. Municipal Virtues in the Roman Empire. The Evidence of Italian Honorary Inscriptions. Stuttgart. France-Lanord, A. 1960. La statue de bronze reconstituée, dite de Pacatianus, au Musée de Vienne, MonPiot 51, 93-104. Franciscis, A. de 1991. Il sacello degli Augustali a Miseno. Napoli. Franklin, J.L. 1991. Literacy and the Parietal Inscriptions of Pompeii, in: J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Literacy in the Roman World (JRA Suppl. 3). Ann Arbor, 77-98. Frei-Stolba, R. 1969. Inoffizielle Kaisertitulaturen im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., MusHelv 26, 18-39.


Frenz, H.G. 1989. Eine Bemerkung zur Traianus-Inschrift CIL XIII,7285 aus Mainz-Kastel, AKorrBl 19, 155-158. Friedländer, L. 1921-1923. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms I-IV (10th ed.). Leipzig. Friesen, S.J. 1993. Twice Neokoros. Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden. Fuchs, M. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer Theater in Italien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum. Mainz am Rhein. Fuhrmann, H. 1939. Ein Reliefbildnis des Prinzen L. Aelius Aurelius Commodus aus dem Jahre 160 n.Chr., AA 54, 294-302. Förscher, G. 1987. Die Münzen der römischen Kaiser in Alexandrien. Frankfurt am Main. Gamer, G. 1969. Kaiserliche Bronzestatuen aus den Kastellen und Legionslagern an Rhein- und Donaugrenze des römischen Imperium. Diss. München. Gascou, J. & D. Terrer 1996. La présence de Tibère en Narbonnaise: les portraits et les inscriptions, RANarb 29, 31-67. Gerlach, G. 1908. Griechische Ehreninschriften. Halle. Giacoppi-Lequément, M.F. 1993. Cinq inscriptions impériales à Glanum, Latomus 52, 281-293. Goette, H.R. 1990. Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen. Mainz am Rhein. González, J. 1987. Trajano Part(h)icus, trib. pot. XIIX, imp X, AEsp 60, 237-250. Goodchild, R.G. 1961. The Decline of Cyrene and Rise of Ptolemais: Two New Inscriptions, QuadALibya 4, 83-95. Graindor, P. 1927. Athènes sous Auguste. Cairo. Graindor, P. 1934. Athènes sous Hadrien. Cairo. Gregory, A.P. 1994. “Powerful Images”: Responses to Portraits and the Political use of Images in Rome, JRA 7, 80-99. Grenier, J.-C. 1989. Les titulatures des empereurs romains dans les documents en langue égyptienne. Bruxelles. Gross, H.W. 1980. Ein Jugendbildnis des Augustus?, in: R. Stucky & I. Jucker (eds.), Eikones. Studien zum griechischen und römischen Bildnis. H. Jucker zum sechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet. Basel, 126-134. Gross, W.H. 1940. Bildnisse Trajans (Das römische Herrscherbild 2.2). Berlin. Guadagno, G. 1983. Herculanensium augustalium aedes, CronErcol 13, 159-173. Göbl, R. 1974. Die Rekonstruktion antiker Prägesysteme und ihre Bedeutung für die historische Forschung, ANRW II 1. Berlin, 890-918.


Hahn, U. 1994. Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses und ihre Ehrung im griechischen Osten anhand epigraphischer und numismatischer Zeugnisse von Livia bis Sabina. Saarbrücken. Halfmann, H. 1986. Itinera Principium. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich. Stuttgart. Hanfmann, G.M.A., C.C. Vermeule, W.J. Young & H. Jucker 1957. A New Trajan, AJA 61, 223-247. Hammond, M. 1938. The Tribunician Day during the Early Empire, MAAR 15, 2361. Hammond, M. 1949. The Tribunician Day from Domitian through Antoninus: A Reexamination, MAAR 19, 36-76. Hammond, M. 1956. The Transmission of the Powers of the Roman Emperor from the Death of Nero in A.D. 68 to that of Alexander Severus in A.D. 235, MAAR 24, 63-133. Hammond, M. 1957. Imperial Elements in the Formula of the Roman Emperors during the First Two and a Half Centuries of the Empire, MAAR 25, 19-64. Hannestad, N. 1974. The Portraits of Aelius Caesar, AnalRom 7, 67-100. Hannestad, N. 1985. Roman Art and Imperial Policy. Århus. Hannestad, N. 1994. Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture. Århus. Hanson, C. & F. Johnson 1946. On Certain Portrait Inscriptions, AJA 50, 389-400. Harris, W.V. 1983. Literacy and Epigraphy, ZPE 52, 87-111. Harris, W.V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass. Harrison, G.W.M. 1993. The Romans and Crete. Amsterdam. Hausmann, U. 1980. Bemerkungen zur julisch-claudischen Ikonographie, in: R. Stucky & I. Jucker (eds.), Eikones. Studien zum griechischen und römischen Bildnis. H. Jucker zum sechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet. Basel, 135-140. Herbert, B. 1989. Schriftquellen zur hellenistischen Kunst: Plastik, Malerei und Kunsthandwerk der Griechen vom vierten bis zum zweiten Jahrhundert. Horn. Héron de Villefosse, A. 1899. Le trésor de Boscareale. Paris. Herz, N. & M. Waelkens 1988. Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade. Dordrecht. Herzog, R. 1928. Die heilige Gesetze von Kos. Berlin. Hesberg, H. von 1992. Bogenmonumente der frühen Kaiserzeit und des 2. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. Vom Ehrenbogen zum Festtor, in: H.J. Schalles, H.v. Hesberg & P. Zanker (eds.), Die römische Stadt im 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Der Funktionswandel des öffentlichen Raumes. Köln, 277-293. Hesberg, H. von & S. Panciera 1994. Das Mausoleum des Augustus. Der Bau und seine Inschriften. München.


Hiesinger, U.W. 1975. The Portraits of Nero, AJA 79, 113-124. Hill, D.K. 1939. A Cache of Bronze Portraits of the Julio-Claudians, AJA 43, 401409. Hitzl, K. 1991. Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung des Metroon (Olympische Forschung 19). Berlin. Hänlein-Schäfer, H. 1985. Veneratio Augusti: eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers. Rome. Hunt, A.S. & C.C. Edgar 1934. Select Papyri. London. Hurlet, F. 1997. Les collègues du prince sous Auguste et Tibère: de la légalité républicaine à la légitimité dynastique. Rome. Höghammar, K. 1993. Sculpture and Society. A Study of the Connection between the Free-standing Sculpture and Society on Kos in the Hellenistic and Augustan Periods (Boreas. Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 23). Uppsala. Højte, J.M. 1999. The Epigraphic Evidence Concerning Portrait Statues of Hadrian’s Heir L. Aelius Caesar, ZPE 127, 217-238. Højte, J.M. 2000. Imperial Visits as Occasion for the Erection of Imperial Statues, ZPE 133, 221-235. Højte, J.M. 2002. Cultural Interchange? The Case of Honorary Statues in Greece, in: E. Ostenfeld & K. Blomqvist (eds.), Greek Romans and Roman Greeks. Århus, 55-63. Højte, J.M. 2003. The Statue Bases of Claudius. A Reassessment of “The Portraiture of Claudius” by Meriwether Stuart, in: P.G. Bilde, J.M. Højte & V.F. Stolba (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas. Studies presented to A.N. Sceglov on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Black Sea Studies 1). Århus, 365-388. Inan, J. & E. Rosenbaum 1966. Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor. London. Inan, J. & E. Rosenbaum 1979. Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträtplastik aus der Türkei – Neue Funde. Mainz am Rhein. Inan, J. 1993. Neue Forschungen zum Sebasteion von Boubon und seinen Statuen, in: J. Borchhardt & G. Dobesch (eds.), Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990. Wien, 213-239. Jacob-Felsch, M. 1969. Die Entwicklung griechischer Statuenbasen und die Aufstellung der Statuen. Waldsassen. Johannowsky, W. 1980. Note sull’edificio della cosidetta “Insula II” presso Porta Marina Sud di Velia, in: Forschungen und Funde. Festschrift Bernhard Neutsch. Innsbruck, 201-204. Jordan-Ruwe, M. 1995. Das Säulenmonument. Zur Geschichte der erhöhten Aufstellung antiker Porträtstatuen. Bonn.


Jucker, H. 1961. Das Bildnis im Blätterkelch. Geschichte und Bedeutung einer römischen Bildform. Olten. Jucker, H. 1961-1962. Vitellius, JbBernHistMus 41-42, 331-357. Jucker, H. 1964. Porträtminiaturen von Augustus, Nero und Traian, SchwMüBl 1314, 81-92. Jucker, H. 1981a. Römische Herrscherbildnisse aus Ägypten, ANRW II 12.2. Berlin, 667-725. Jucker, H. 1981b. Iulisch-claudische Kaiser- und Prinzenporträts als “Palimpseste”, JdI 96, 236-316. Jucker, H. 1981c. Marc Aurel bleibt Marc Aurel, BAProAvent 26, 5-17. Jucker, H. 1984. Trajanstudien zu einem Chalzedonbüstschen im Antikenmuseum, JbBerlMus 26, 17-78. Kader, I. 1996. Propylon und Bogentor. Untersuchungen zum Tetrapylon von Latakia und anderen frühkaiserzeitlichen Bogenmonumenten im Nahen Osten. Mainz am Rhein. Kaenel, H.-M. von 1986. Münzprägung und Münzbild des Claudius. Berlin. Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik. Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau Berlin 9. Juni-14. August 1988. Mainz am Rhein. Kajanto, I. 1971. Un’analisi filologico-letteraria delle iscrizioni onorarie, Epigraphica 33, 3-19. Kähler, H. 1939. Triumphbogen, RE VII a1, 373-493. Kent, J.H. 1966. The Inscriptions 1926-1950 (Corinth VIII, 3). Princeton. Kienast, D. 1996. Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. (2. ed.). Darmstadt. Kiss, Z. 1984. Etudes sur le portrait impérial romain en Egypte. Warsaw. Klaffenbach, G. 1966. Griechische Epigraphik (2. ed.). Göttingen. Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. Yale. Kleiner, F.S. 1985. The Arch of Nero in Rome. A Study of the Roman Honorary Arch before and under Nero. Rome. Kleiner, F.S. 1989a. The Arch of Galba at Tarragona and Dynastic Portraiture on Roman Arches, MM 30, 239-252. Kleiner, F.S. 1989b. The Study of Roman Triumphal and Honorary Arches 50 Years after Kähler, JRA 2, 195-206. Kleinwächter, C. 2001. Platzanlagen nordafrikanischer Städte. Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Polyzentrismus in der Urbanistik der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz am Rhein. Kluge, K. & K. Lehmann 1927. Die antiken Grossbronzen I-III. Berlin.


Knauer, E.R. 1990. Multa egit cum regibus et pacem confirmavit. The Date of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, RM 97, 277-306. Kneissl, P. 1969. Die Siegestitulatur der römischen Kaiser. Untersuchungen zu den Siegerbeinamen des ersten und zweiten Jahrhunderts. Göttingen. Koppel, E.M. 1993. Die Skulpturenausstattung römischer Villen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel, in: Hispania Antiqua 2. Denkmäler der Römerzeit. Mainz am Rhein, 193-203. Kraeling, C.H. 1938. Gerasa. City of the Decapolis. New Haven. Kreikenbom, D. 1992. Griechische und römische Kolossalporträts bis zum späten ersten Jahrhundert nach Christus (Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 27. Ergänzungsheft). Mainz am Rhein. Kruse, H. 1934. Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reiche. Paderborn. Kuhoff, W. 1993. Felicior Augusto Melior Traiano. Aspekte der Selbstdarstellung der römischen Kaiser während der Prinzipatszeit. Frankfurt am Main. Küpper-Böhm, A. 1996. Die römischen Bogenmonumente der Gallia Narbonensis in ihrem urbanen Kontext. Espelkamp. Lahusen, G. 1978. Goldene und vergoldete römische Ehrenstatuen und Bildnisse, RM 85, 385-395. Lahusen, G. 1982. Statuae et Imagines, in: Festschrift für Ulrich Hausmann. Tübingen, 101-109. Lahusen, G. 1983. Untersuchungen zur Ehrenstatue in Rom. Literarische und epigraphische Zeugnisse. Rome. Lahusen, G. 1984. Schriftquellen zum römischen Bildnis, 1. Von den Anfängen bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Bremen. Lahusen, G. 1992. Ars humanissima – Zur Ikonologie des Materials der römischen Plastik und Skulptur, in: T. Fischer-Hansen, J. Lund, M. Nielsen & A. Rathje (eds.), Ancient Portraiture: Image and Message (Acta Hyperboreas 4). Copenhagen, 173-195. Lahusen, G. 1999a. Zu römischen Statuen und Bildnisse aus Gold und Silber, ZPE 128, 251-266. Lahusen, G. 1999b. Es ist nicht alles Gold, was glänzt. Vergoldete Statuen in Rom, in: H. von Steuben (ed.), Antike Porträts. Zum Gedänknis von Helga von Heintze, Möhnesee, 97-106. Lahusen, G. 2002. Die goldene Büste des Kaisers Marc Aurel aus Aventicum. Zu römischen Statuen und Büsten aus Gold und Silber, HelvA 33, 46-65. Lahusen, G. & E. Formigli 2001. Römische Bildnisse aus Bronze. Kunst und Technik. München. Lamboglia, N. 1938. Il trofeo di Augusto alla Turbia. Rome.


Lanciani, L. 1889. Nuovi rinvenimenti nella caserma dei vigili, NSc 1889, 72-83.

Larfeld, W. 1914. Griechische Epigraphik (3. ed.). München.

Le Glay, M. & A. Audin 1976. Notes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie lyonnaise. Lyon.

Le Roux, P. 1999. Sur les puissances tribuniciennes de Trajan, in: E. Schallmayer

(ed.), Traian in Germanien. Traian im Reich. Bad Homburg, 55-65. Letta, C. 1978. Le imagines Caesarum di un praefectus castrorum Aegypti a l’XI coorte pretoria, Athenaeum 56, 3-19. Lewis, N. (ed.) 1974. The Roman Principate: 27 B.C.–285 A.D. Greek Historical Documents. Toronto. Liebenam, W. 1909. Fasti consulares Imperii Romani von 30 v.Chr. bis 565 n.Chr. mit Kaiserliste und Anhang. Bonn. Liertz, U.M. 1998. Kult und Kaiser. Studien zu Kaiserkult und Kaiserverehrung in der germanischen Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur römischen Kaiserzeit. Rome. MacDowal, D.W. 1978. The Organisation of the Julio-Claudian Mint at Rome, in: Scripta nummaria Romana. Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland. London, 32-46. Mackie, N. 1983. Local Administration in Roman Spain A.D. 14-212 (BAR International Series 172). Oxford. MacMullen, R. 1982. The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire, AJPh 103, 233-246. Maderna, C. 1988. Iuppiter, Diomedes und Merkur als Vorbilder für römische Bildnisstatuen. Untersuchungen zum römischen statuarischen Idealporträt. Mainz am Rhein. Magi, F. 1950. L’inscrizione perduta dell’arco di Tito. Una ipotesi, RM 82, 100-116. Magie, D. 1975. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Princeton. Manderscheid, H. 1981. Die Skulpturenausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen. Berlin. Mann, C. 1985. Epigraphic Consciousness, JRS 75, 204-206. Mansel, A.M. 1962. Das Vespasiansmonument in Side, in: Festschrift für Max Wegner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. Münster, 38-48. Marrou, H.I. 1965. Histoire de l’education dans l’antiquité (3. ed.). Paris. Martin, A. 1987. La titulature épigraphique de Domitien (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie, Band 181). Frankfurt am Main. Martin, F. 1996. The Importance of Honorific Statues. A Case Study, BICS 41, 53-70.


Massner, A-K. 1982. Bildnisangleichung. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte der Augustusporträts (43 v.Chr.-68 n.Chr.) (Das römische Herrscherbild 4.1). Berlin. Massner, A.-K. 1994. Zum Stilwandel in Kaiserporträt claudischer Zeit, in: V.M. Strocka (ed.), Die Regierungszeit des Kaisers Claudius (41-54 n.Chr.). Umbruch oder Episode?, 159-173. Mainz am Rhein. Massner, A.-K. (forthcoming). Die Bildnisse des Claudius (Das römische Herrscherbild 1.5). Berlin. Mattingly, H. 1930. Tribunicia Potestate, JRS 20, 78-91. Mattingly, H. 1923-1940, reprint with alterations 1966-1968. A Catalogue of the Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. I (1923) Augustus to Vitellius. Vol. II (1930) Vespasian to Domitian. Vol. III (1936) Nerva to Hadrian. Vol. IV (1940) Antoninus Pius to Commodus. London. Mattingly, H. 1949. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 4.3 Gordian III-Uranius Antoninus. London. Mattingly, H. 1950. The Imperial “Vota”, Proceedings of the British Academy. London, 155-195. Mattingly, H. 1951. The Imperial “Vota” (Second Part), Proceedings of the British Academy. London, 219-268. Mau, A. 1896. Die Statuen des Forums von Pompeiji, RM 11, 150-156. McCann, A.M. 1968. The Portraits of Septimius Severus (MAAR 30). Rome. Megow, W.-R. 1987. Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus. Mainz am Rhein. Merkelbach, R. & S. ahin 1988. Die publizierten Inschriften von Perge, EpigrAnat 11, 97-168. Mertens, E. 1977. Die Adoption Hadrians, in: Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub zum 65. Geburtstag am 18. Oktober 1977. Bonn, 247-260. Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. London. Milne, J.G. 1905. Greek Inscriptions. Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte: Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Oxford. Mitford, T.B. 1947. Notes on Some Published Inscriptions from Cyprus, BSA 42, 201-230. Mitford, T.B. 1961. The Hellenistic Inscriptions of Old Paphos, BSA 56, 1-41. Mitford, T.B. 1971. The Inscriptions of Kourion. Philadelphia. Mittag, P.F. 1999. Alte Köpfe in neuen Händen. Urheber und Funktion der Kontorniaten. Bonn. Mlasowsky, A. 1996. Nomini ac fortunae Caesarum proximi. Die Sukzessionspropaganda der römischen Kaiser von Augustus bis Nero im Spigel der Reichprägung und der archäologischen Quellen, JdI 111, 249-388.


Moretti, A. 1985. Statue e ritratti onorari de Lucus Feroniae, RendPontAcc 55-56, 71-109. Moretti, L. 1959. Statistica demografica ed epigrafia. Durata media della vita in Roma imperiale, Epigraphica 21, 60-78. Mrozek, S. 1973. A propos de la répartition chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le Haut Empire, Epigraphica 35, 113-118. Neudecker, R. 1988. Die Skulpturenausstattung römischer Villen in Italien. Mainz am Rhein. Niemeyer, H.G. 1968. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser. Berlin. Niquet, H. 2000. Monumenta virtutum titulique. Senatorische Selbstdarstellung im spätantiken Rom im Spiegel der epigraphischen Denkmäler. Stuttgart. Nock, A.D. 1930. Synnaos Theos, HarvStClPhil 41, 1-60. Oliver, A. 1996. Honors to Romans: Bronze Portraits, in: C.C. Mattusch (ed.), The Fire of Hephaistos. Large Classical Bronzes from North-American Collections. Cambridge, Mass., 138-160. Oliver, J.H. 1941. The Sacred Gerusia. Hesperia Suppl. 6. Athens. Özren, A.C. 1996. Die Skulpturenausstattung kaiserzeitlicher Theater in der Provinz Asia, am Beispiel der Theater in Aphrodisias, Ephesos und Hierapolis, Thetis 3, 99-128. Packer, J.E. 1997. The Forum of Trajan in Rome. A Study of the Monuments. Berkeley. Paris, P. & M. Holleaux 1885. Inscriptions de Carie, BCH 9, 324-348. Payne, M.J. 1984. Aretas Eneken: Honors to Romans and Italians in Greece from 260 to 27 B.C. Diss. Michigan State. Pekáry, I. 1968. Goldene Statuen der Kaiserzeit, RM 75, 144-148. Pekáry, T. 1978. Statuen in kleinasiatischen Inschriften, in: Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976. Leiden, 727-744. Pekáry, T. 1982. Das Bildnis des römischen Kaisers in der schriftlichen Überlieferung, Boreas 5, 124-132. Pekáry, T. 1985. Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft, dargestellt anhand der Schriftquellen (Das römische Herrscherbild 3.5). Berlin. Pekáry, T. 1995. Zeitgenössische Quellen über römische Bildnisse, ActaClDebrec 31, 203-218. Pensa, M. et al. 1979. Studi sull’arco onorario romano (Studia archeologia 21). Rome. Petsas, Ph.M. 1971. ArchDelt 26, Chronica 1, 151. Pfanner, M. 1983. Der Titusbogen. Mainz am Rhein.


Pfanner, M. 1989. Über das Herstellen von Porträts. Ein Beitrag zu Rationalisierungs-massnahmen und Produktionsmechanismen von Massenware im späten Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit, JdI 104, 157-257. Piganiol, M.A. 1959. Une inscription romaine inédite de Senlis sur un socle de bronze, CRAI 1959, 450-457. Pollini, J. 1984. Damnatio Memoriae in Stone. Two Portraits of Nero Recut to Vespasian in American Museums, AJA 88, 547-555. Pollini, J. 1987. The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar. New York. Pop, C. 1978. Statui imperiale de bronz in Dacia romana, ActaMusNapoca 15, 135165. Post, A. 1999. Zum Hadrianstor in Athen, Boreas 21-22, 171-183. Pouilloux, J., P. Roesch & J. Marcillet-Jaubert 1987. Salamine de Chypre XIII. Paris. Pounds, N.J.G. 1973. An Economic Geography of Europe 450 B.C. – A.D. 1300. Cambridge. Premerstein, A. von & J. Keil 1911. Marmorgiebel mit Commodus-Büste, ÖJh 14, Beibl., 45-48. Price, S.R.F. 1984. Rituals and Power. Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge. Quass, F. 1993. Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Rachet, M. 1980. “Decennalia” et “vicennalia” sous la dynastie des Antonins, REA 82, 200-242. Raubitschek, A.E. 1945. Hadrian as the Son of Zeus Eleutherios, AJA 49, 128-133. Raubitschek, A.E. 1954. Epigraphical Notes on Julius Caesar, JRS 44, 65-75. Reynolds, J. 1981. New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias, ZPE 43, 317-327. Roehmer, M. 1997. Das Bogen als Staatsmonument. Zur politischen Bedeutung der römischen Ehrenbögen des 1. Jhr. n. Chr. München. Rollin, J.P. 1979. Untersuchungen zu Rechtsfragen römischer Bildnisse. Bonn. Rose, C.B. 1987. Julio Claudian Dynastic Group Monuments. Diss. New York. Rose, C.B. 1990. The Supposed Augustan Arch at Pavia (Ticinum) and the Einsiedln 326 Manuscript. Sulla porta Appia, JRA 3, 163-171. Rose, C.B. 1997a. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the JulioClaudian Period. Cambridge. Rose, C.B. 1997b. The Imperial Image in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: S.E. Alcock (ed.), The Early Roman Empire in the East. Oxford, 108-120. Rosenbaum, E. 1960. A Catalogue of Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture. Oxford. Rotili, M. 1972. L’arco di Traiano a Benevento. Rome.


Roux, G. 1962. Pindare, le prétendu trésor des Crétois et l’ancienne statue d’Apollon à Delphes, REG 75, 366-380. Saletti, C. 1968. Il ciclo statuario della basilica di Velleia. Milano. Salomies, O. 1994. Observations on the Development of the Style of Latin Honorific Inscriptions during the Empire, Arctos 28, 63-106. Schmidt, I. 1995. Hellenistische Statuenbasen. Frankfurt am Main. Schneider, B. 1976. Studien zu den kleinformatigen Kaiserporträts von den Anfängen der Kaiserzeit bis ins dritte Jahrhundert. Diss. München. Schwingenstein, Chr. 1977. Die Figurenaustattung des griechischen Theatergebäudes (Münchener archäologische Studien, 8). München. Scott, K. 1931. The Significance of Statues in Precious Metals in Emperor Worship, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 62, 101-123. Segre, M. 1993. Iscrizioni di Cos. Rome.

Sehlmeyer, M. 1999. Stadtrömische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Zeit. Historiz-

ität und Kontext von Symbolen nobilitären Standesbewusstseins. Stuttgart. Settis, S., A. La Regina & G. Agosti 1988. La Colonna Traiana. Torino. Sijpesteijn, P.J. 1982. More Remarks on Some Imperial Titles in the Papyri, ZPE 49, 97-111. Skupinska-Løvset, I. 1999. Portraiture in Roman Syria. A Study in Social and Regional Differentiation within the Art of Portraiture. Lodz. Smith, R.R.R. 1985. Roman Portraits: Honours, Empresses, and Late Emperors, JRS 75, 209-221. Smith, R.R.R. 1987. The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion af Aphrodisias, JRS 77, 88-138. Smith, R.R.R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford. Smith, R.R.R. 1992. Rev. of “D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula”, JRS 82, 272-273. Soechting, D. 1972. Die Porträts des Septimius Severus. Bonn. Spawforth, A.J. & S. Walker 1985. The World of the Panhellenion 1, Athens and Eleusis, JRS 75, 78-104. Stanwick, P.E. 2002. Portraits of the Ptolemies. Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs. Austin. Stauridis, A. 1970. Untersuchungen zu den Kaiserporträts in Griechenland. Augustus bis Caracalla. Berlin. Stauridis, A. 1982. Ein Porträt des Vitellius (?) im Nationalmuseum zu Athen, RM 89, 457-458. Stauridis, A. 1985. Porträts aus dem Museum von Astros, RM 92, 339-341.


Stein, A. 1931. Römische Inschriften in der antiken Literatur. Prague.

Stemmer, K. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie der

Panzerstatuen. Berlin. Stemmer, K. (ed.) 1995. Standorte – Kontext und Funktion antiker Skulptur. Berlin. Stewart, A. 1979. Attika: Studies in Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. London. Stichel, R.H.W. 1982. Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike. Untersuchungen zum plastischen Kaiserporträt seit Valentinian I. (364-375 n.Chr.). Rome. Stillwell, R. (ed.) 1976. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton. Stoll, O. 1992. Die Skulpturenausstattung römischer Militäranlagen an Rhein und Donau. Der obergermanisch-rätische Limes. St. Katharinen. Stone III, S.C. 1985. The Imperial Sculptural Group in the Metroon at Olympia, AM 100, 377-391. Strack, P.L. 1931-1937. Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. I Reichprägung zur Zeit des Traian. II Reichprägung zur Zeit des Hadrian. III Reichprägung zur Zeit Antoninus Pius. Stuttgart. Stuart, M. 1938. The Portraiture of Claudius. Preliminary Studies. PhD diss., Columbia University, New York. Stuart, M. 1939. How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed throughout the Empire?, AJA 43, 601-617. Stuart, M. 1940. Tacitus and the Portraits of Germanicus and Drusus, CP 35, 64-67. Sutherland, C.H.V. 1984. The Roman Imperial Coinage. From 21 BC to AD 69 (Rev. ed.). London. Swift, E.M. 1923. Imagines in Imperial Portraiture, AJA 27, 286-301. Syme, R. 1957. Antonine Relatives: Ceionii and Vettuleni, Athenaeum 35, 306-315. Syme, R. 1958. Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature, Historia 7, 172-188. Syme, R. 1984. Hadrian and the Senate, Athenaeum 62, 31-60. Talbert, R.J.A. (ed.) 2000. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton. Tanner, J. 2000. Portraits, Power, and Patronage in the Late Roman Republic, JRS 90, 18-50. Taylor, L.R. 1931. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Middletown, Connecticut. Thomasson, B.E. 1960. Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus I-II. Lund. Thomasson, B.E. 1996. Fasti Africani. Senatorische und ritterliche Amtsträger in den römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletian. Stockholm. Thomsen, R. 1947. The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Invasion. Copenhagen.


Trillmich, W. 1971. Zur Formgeschichte von Bildnis-Typen, JdI 86, 179-213. Trillmich, W. 1989-1990. Un sacrarium del culto imperial en el teatro de Mérida, Anas 2/3, 87-102. Trummer, R. 1980. Die Denkmäler des Kaiserkultes in der römischen Provinz Achaia. Diss. Graz. Tuchelt, K. 1979. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien. Teil I, Roma und Promagistrate (IstMitt Beiheft 23). Tübingen. Vanderpool, E. 1959. Athens Honors the Emperor Tiberius, Hesperia 28, 86-90. Varner, E.R. 1993. Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture I-III. Diss. Yale. Varner, E.R. 2004. Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Leyden. Vermeule, C.C. 1968. Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor. Cambridge, Mass. Veyne, P. 1962. Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla et les dédicaces grecques et latines, Latomus 21, 49-98. Visconti, E.Q. 1818. Iconografie Romaine. Milano. Vísy, Z. 1988. Kaiserbasen in den Limeskastellen der Provinz Pannonia Inferior, in: Griechische und römische Statuetten und Grossbronzen. Wien, 148-151. Vittinghoff, F. 1936. Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Untersuchungen zur “damnatio memoriae”. Berlin. Vogel, L. 1973. The Column of Antoninus Pius. Cambridge, Mass. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1990. Roman Arches and Greek Honours. The Language of Power at Rome, ProcCambPhilSoc 216, 143-181. Walter-Karydi, E. 1980. Die Entstehung der griechischen Statuenbasis, AntK 23, 3-12. Wegner, M. 1939. Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (Das römische Herrscherbild 2.4). Berlin. Wegner, M. 1956. Hadrian (Das römische Herrscherbild 2.3). Berlin. Wegner, M. 1984. Verzeichnis der Bildnisse von Hadrian und Sabina, Boreas 7, 105-156. Wegner, M. 1988. Bildnis des Aelius Verus, ÖJh 58, 63-71. Wegner, M. 1989. Bildnisreihen der zwölf Caesaren Suetons, in: Migratio et commutatio. Studien zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Festschrift fü Thomas Pekáry zum 60. Geburtstag am 13. September 1989. St. Katharinen, 280285. Wegner, M. & R. Unger 1979. Verzeichnis der Kaiserbildnisse von Antoninus Pius bis Commodus, Boreas 2, 87-181.


Wegner, M. & R. Unger 1980. Verzeichnis der Kaiserbildnisse von Antoninus Pius bis Commodus 2, Boreas 3, 12-116. Wiegand, Th. 1932. Zweiter Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Pergamon (Abhandl. Preuss. Akad. 1932, 5). Berlin. Willers, D. 1990. Hadrians panhellenistisches Programm. Archäologische Beiträge zur Neugestattung Athens durch Hadrian. Basel. Winkes, R. 1969. Clipeata imago: Studien zu einen römischen Bildnisform. Bonn. Winkes, R. 1999. Clipeata imago. Eine Bemerkung zu Kopf und Buste, in: H. von Steuben (ed.), Antike Porträts. Zum Gedänknis von Helga von Heintze, Möhnesee, 91-95. Wrede, H. 1981. Consecratio in formam deorum. Vergöttlichte Privatpersonen in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz am Rhein. Yegül, F.K. 1986. The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis. Cambridge. Mass. Zanker, P. 1968. Forum Augustum. Das Bildprogramm. Tübingen. Zanker, P. 1970. Das Trajansforum in Rom, AA 1970, 499-544. Zanker, P. 1972. Forum Romanum. Die Neugestaltung durch Augustus. Tübingen. Zanker, P. 1973. Studien zu den Augustus-Porträts I: Der Actium-Typus. Göttingen. Zanker, P. 1979. Prinzipat und Herrscherbild, Gymnasium 86, 353-368. Zanker, P. 1983. Provinzielle Kaiserporträts. Zur Rezeption der Selbstdarstellung des Princeps. (AbhMünchen 90). München. Zanker, P. 1995. Pompeji. Stadtbild und Wohngeschmack. Mainz am Rhein. Zimmer, G. & G. Wesch-Klein 1989. Locus datus decreto decurionum. Zur Statuenaufstellung zweier Forumslagen im römischen Afrika (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen). München. Zimmer, G. 1992. Statuenaufstellung auf Forumsanlagen des 2. Jahrhunderts n.Chr, in: H.J. Schalles, H.v. Hesberg & P. Zanker (eds.), Die römische Stadt im 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Der Funktionswandel des öffentlichen Raumes. Köln, 301-313.


CATALO GUE

Introduction to the Catalogue

The catalogue of statue bases was originally conceived as a database and never intended to be printed in its full extent. However, merely offering a list of 2,300 references would make it difficult to check the validity of the arguments presented and discourage further use of the material that has been gathered. After due consideration, I have chosen a set of information that seemed the most important, bearing in mind the space available.

What is included? Under each entry the following information is included when available: province, location, short bibliography, type of monument, dimensions and letter size, date and reason for the proposed date, description and comments, and finally the part of the inscription mentioning the dedicator. The full texts have been left out, as they are mostly repetitive and of little value. As to the descriptions of the statue bases, I have relied heavily on the work of others. In most instances the lemma from one of the corpora or the description by the editor princeps or a later editor has simply been copied. This has been done because I have, for obvious reasons, only been able to examine a fraction of the material myself. Most of the descriptions would therefore at any rate merely be a rephrasing of an existing lemma. While this undoubtedly would have resulted in far more homogeneous descriptions, it would have completely blurred the grounds for including a particular inscription in the catalogue. Only in a few instances have I supplied descriptions of monuments that I have seen.

Introduction to the Catalo gue · 217

Sorting system The catalogue of statue bases is presented according to emperor, and sorted geographically by province and site; within each site bases are arranged chronologically. Each dedication of a statue has a unique ID consisting of the emperor’s name and a serial number, but since some bases carry more than one statue, these will have an ID for each statue on the base.

Geography Ancient topographical names are given throughout as in R.J.A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (2000). Names of sites not included here are given as indicated by the editor of the inscription. Whenever the ancient name of a site is unknown or the point of discovery is uncertain, the modern name of the location where the inscription was first registered is given. The provinces are arranged in the following order: Rome, the eleven regions of Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. The provinces then follow from Moesia Inferior going counter-clockwise to Africa Proconsularis and then the provinces in Greece with Cyrene, Asia Minor, and finally the eastern provinces ending with Egypt. In order to ease diachronic comparison of the geographical distribution, the same division into provinces is used throughout the entire period. The division chosen closely follows the administrative organisation under Hadrian and the Antonines, which was also applied to the regional maps in Cornell, T. & J. Mathew. 1982. Atlas of the Roman. Oxford. This served as a base for the distribution maps. Practical reasons, however, dictated a few alterations: Numidia, which was not separated from Africa Proconsularis officially until the reign of Septimius Severus, is treated as an independent province. Epirus is not counted as an independent province but is included under Macedonia. The division of the regions of Italy follows Thomsen, R. 1947. The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Invasion. Copenhagen. Abbreviations for provinces are those devised for Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg with one exception; I prefer Tarraconensis=Tar to Hispania Citerior=HiC.


Abbreviations used: Ach=Achaea Aeg=Aegyptus Aem=Aemilia Afr=Africa Proconsularis AlC=Alpes Cottiae et Poeniae AlG=Alpes Graiae AlM=Alpes Maritimae ApC=Apulia et Calabria Aqu=Aquitania Ara=Arabia Asi=Asia Bae=Baetica Bel=Belgica BiP=Bithynia et Pontus Bri=Britannia BrL=Bruttium et Lucania Cap=Cappadocia Cil=Cilicia Cor=Corsica Cre=Creta Cyp=Cyprus Cyr=Cyrene Dac=Dacia Dal=Dalmatia Etr=Etruria Gal=Galatia GeI=Germania Inferior GeS=Germania Superior Jud=Iudaea

LaC=Latium et Campania Lig=Liguria Lug=Lugdunensis Lus=Lusitania LyP=Lycia et Pisidia MaE=Macedonia et Epirus Mac=Mauretania Caesariensis MaT=Mauretania Tingitana MoI=Moesia Inferior MoS=Moesia Superior Nar=Narbonensis Nor=Noricum Num=Numidia PaI=Pannonia Inferior PaS=Pannonia Superior Pic=Picenum Rae=Raetia ReB=Regnum Bosporanum Rom=Roma Sam=Samnium Sar=Sardinia Sic=Sicilia Syr=Syria Tar=Tarraconensis Thr=Thracia Tra=Transpadana Umb=Umbria VeH=Venetia et Histria


Fig. 25. The provinces of the Roman Empire.

Chronology All dates are given numerically. Thus, 10 BC appears as “-10” and AD 10 as “10”. If an inscription is dated within an interval of more than one year, both end years are indicated, unless the period covers less than one month of the year, in which case the previous or the following year is indicated. For example, Claudius’ third tribunician power running from 25 January 43 to 24 January 44 will appear under the year AD 43, but Vespasian’s third tribunician power from 31 June 71 to 30 June 72 is listed as AD 71-72.

Distribution maps On the distribution maps G 1-G 15, the number before the slash indicates the total number of bases in the province. The number in parentheses is the number of pre-accession and posthumous bases. The number after the slash indicates the number of bases in the province for each year of the reign. Only those bases erected within the reign are included in the calculation. Not included on the distribution maps are the 12 bases that might belong to statues of either Lucius Verus or Marcus Aurelius.

Histograms Histograms serve as a convenient tool to visualise patterns of chronological distribution within a large statistical material. They reveal connections between historical events and the dedication of statues, and they facilitate comparison in the distribution between reigns with different frequencies of dedications. Because the bases cannot be dated with equal precision, the histograms for each emperor (Figs. C 1-18) consist of three categories of inscriptions: inscriptions dated to specific years (bottom), inscriptions dateable within a limited period within the reign (middle), and inscriptions with no indication of date (top). Detailed study of the patterns of distribution requires that the histograms are divided into the smallest possible segments – in this case one-year intervals – as this corresponds to the most frequently occurring dating criterion, tribunician power. This leaves open the question of how to present the less well-dated bases in the histograms. The problem can be approached in


two ways. The approach chosen for the histograms here distributes the bases evenly over the periods to which they can be dated. The other method distributes the bases in accordance with the distribution of more precisely dated bases. The statue bases for Trajan show that the chronology of the less welldated bases generally follows that of the precisely dated bases, which speaks in favour of using the second method. However, there is not necessarily an exact correspondence between the two groups, and the method tends to enlarge fluctuations that may be incidental. One example is the large number of bases for Hadrian from the Olympieion in Athens dated AD 132/33, which of course have no bearing on the general chronological distribution of the bases for Hadrian. It is important to consider the relation between the questions asked and the evidence used to answer them. When investigating very specific questions such as the importance of the emperor’s tenth anniversary as an occasion for dedicating statues, only the precisely dated bases should be consulted, whereas the less well-dated bases can be included when considering variations between different reigns. Please note that the scale on the axis of ordinates, for practical reasons, varies from one chart to another. When comparing the histograms it is necessary to compare not just the height of the bars, but also the value they represent.


Abbreviations and Bibliography

for Catalogue

Abbreviations used in the catalogue generally follow those of Archäologische Bibliographie (1993) IX-XXV. Those not included there are: AE CIG CIL IC IG IGBulg IGRR IGSK Insc. Ital. Insc. Syrie MAMA SEG TAM

1888-. L’Année épigraphique. Paris. Boeckh, A. 1828-1877. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin. 1863-. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin. Guarducci, M. 1935-50. Inscriptiones Creticae I-IV. Rome. 1877-. Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin. Mihailov, G. 1958-1997. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae I-V. Sofia. Cagnat, R. 1906-1927. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes I, II, IV. Paris. 1972-. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien. Bonn. 1931-. Inscriptiones Italiae. Rome. 1929-. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Beyrouth. 1928-. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. Manchester. 1923-. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden/ Amsterdam. 1901-. Tituli Asiae Minoris. Wien.

Abbreviations and Biblio graphy for Catalo gue · 225

Bibliography Alföldy, G. 1975. Die römischen Inschriften von Tarraco. Berlin. Alföldy, G. 1977. Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Führungsschicht. Bonn. Alföldy, G. 1979. Bildprogramme in den römischen Städten des Conventus Tarraconensis – Das Zeugnis der Statuenpostamente, in: Homenaje a Garcia Bellido IV. Madrid, 177-275. Alföldy, G. 1984. Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria. Epigraphische Quellen. Heidelberg. Ballard, A. 1981. Fouilles de Xanthos VII: Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létôon. Paris. Barkóczi, L. & A. Mócsy (ed.) 1972. Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns 1. Savaria, Scarbantia und die Limes-Strecke ad Fleux-Arrabona. Budapest. Bergemann, J. 1990. Römische Reiterstatuen. Ehrendenkmäler im öffentlichen Bereich. Mainz am Rhein. Bivona, L. 1970. Iscrizioni latine lapidarie del Museo di Palermo. Palermo. Blinkenberg, Chr. 1941. Lindos. Fouilles de l’acropole 1902-1914, II. Inscriptions. Berlin & Copenhagen. Cagnat, R., A. Merlin & L. Chatelain 1923. Inscriptiones latines d’Afrique (Tripolitaine, Tunisie et Maroc). Paris. Cavallaro, A.M. & G. Walser 1988. Iscrizioni di Augusta Praetoria. Mainz am Rhein. Chantelain, L. 1942. Inscriptions latines du Maroc. Paris. Coarelli, F., I. Kajanto, U. Nyberg & M. Steinby 1981. L’area sacra du Largo Argentina. Rome. De Maria, S. 1988. Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell’Italia Romana. Rome. Dittenberger, W. & K. Purgold. 1896. Olympia. Die Ergebnisse der von dem deutchen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung, Textband V. Die Inschriften von Olympia. Berlin. Dittenberger, W. 1915-1924. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum I-IV. 3 ed. Leipzig. Duncan-Jones, R. 1974. The Economy of the Roman Empire. Cambridge. Eck, W. 1970. Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Prosopographische Untersuchungen mit Einschluß der Jahres-und Provinzialfasten der Statthalter. München. Espérandieu, E. 1929. Inscriptions latines de Gaule (Narbonnaise). Paris. Euzennat, M. & J. Marion 1982. Inscriptions antiques du Maroc 2. Inscriptions latines. Paris. Franciscis, A. de 1991. Il sacello degli Augustali a Miseno. Napoli. Fränkel, M. 1895. Altertümer von Pergamon VIII, 2. Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Berlin.


Fuchs, M. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer Theater in Italien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum. Mainz am Rhein. Gerov, B. 1989. Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgaria repertae. Serdica. Gonzáles, J. 1982. Inscripciones romanas de la Provincia de Cádiz. Cádiz. Gordon, A.E. & J.S. Gordon 1958-1965. Album of Dated Latin Inscriptions. Rome and the Neighborhood I-IV. Berkeley. Gsell, S. 1922. Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie I. Paris. Habicht, C. 1969. Altertümer von Pergamon VIII, 3. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Berlin. Heberdey, R. 1912. Forschungen in Ephesos II, Das Theater. Wien. Hicks, E.L. 1890. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part III, Section II, Ephesos. London. Herrmann, P. (ed.) 1997. Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Band VI, Teil 1. Inschriften von Milet. Berlin. Kähler, H. 1939. Triumphbogen, RE VII a1, 373-493. Kent, J.H. 1966. The Inscriptions 1926-1950 (Corinth VIII, 3). Princeton. Kern, O. 1900. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander. Berlin. Khanoussi, M. & A. Mastimo 1997. Uchi Maius. Sassari. Kraeling, C.H. 1938. Gerasa. City of the Decapolis. New Haven. Lanckoronski, K. 1890. Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens I. Wien. Lanckoronski, K. 1892. Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens II. Wien. Langlois, V. 1854. Inscriptions grecques, romaines, byzantines et arméniennes de la Cilicie. Paris. Latyschev, B. 1885-1901. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae, vol. 2. St. Petersburg. Marek, Chr. 1993. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia. Tübingen. Merlin, A. 1944. Inscriptions latines de la Tunesie. Paris. Mitford, T.B. & I.K. Nicolaou 1974. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Salamis. Nicosia. Moretti, L. 1968. Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae I. Rome. Paton, W.R. & E.L. Hicks 1891. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford. Pflaum, H.G. 1957. Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie II.1. Paris. Pflaum, H.G. 1976. Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie II.2. Alger. Pflaum, H.G. 2003. Inscriptions latines de l’Algérie II.3. Paris. Pippidi, D.M. & I.I. Russu 1983. Inscriptiones Histriae et viciniae. Bucuresti. Pouilloux, J., P. Roesch & J. Marcillet-Jaubert 1987. Salamine de Chypre XIII. Paris. Ramsay, W.M. 1885. Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia I. London.

Abbreviations and Biblio graphy for Catalo gue · 227

Reynolds, J.M. & J.B. Ward-Perkins 1952. The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. Rome. Roehmer, M. 1997. Der Bogen als Staatsmonument. Zur politischen Bedeutung der römischen Ehrenbögen des 1. Jhr. n. Chr. München. Rose, C.B. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the JulioClaudian Period. Cambridge. Roussel, P. & M. Launey 1937. Inscriptions de Délos 6. Paris. Russu, I.I. 1980. Inscriptiile antice din Dacia si Scythia Minor III.2. Bucuresti. Segre, M. 1993. Iscrizioni di Cos. Rome. Sitlington Sterret, J.R. 1888. The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor. Boston. Stoian, I. 1987. Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris graecae et latinae, vol. 2, Tomis et territorium. Bucharest. Struve, V. 1965. Corpus Inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Moskva. Stuart, M. 1938. The Portraiture of Claudius. Preliminary Studies. Diss. Columbia University, New York. Stuart, M. 1939. How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed Throughout the Roman Empire?, AJA 43, 601-617. Thomasson, B.E. 1996. Fasti africani. Senatorische und ritterliche Amtsträger in den römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus. Stockholm. Walser, G. 1980. Römische Inschriften in der Schweitz, für den Schulunterricht ausgewählt, photographiert und erklärt 3. Zürich. Zimmer, G. & G. West-Klein 1989. Locus datus decreto decurionum. Zur Statuenaufstellung zweier Forumsanlagen im römischen Afrika (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen). München.


Catalogue of Statue Bases

Arranged According to Emperor

Augustus Augustus 1

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 873. CIL VI, 31188 a. Kähler 1939, col.

379-380, no. 8. De Maria 1988, 267-268, no. 56.

Roehmer 1997, 19-32.

Type: Arch Dim.: 2.65 × 0.90 ×? m.; l.:? Date:

-29 Cos 5 / cos des 6.

CIL add.: In marmore Pario quadrato long. ped.

9 lat. 3 spiss. 2. Num inscriptio saec. XVI prope

arcum inter aedem Divi Iulii et aedem Castoris

et Pollucis exstructum descripta ad arcum Au-

gusti ob victoriam Actiacam consecratum per-

tinuerit.

Dedicator: Senatus populusque Romanus

Augustus 2

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40307. AE 1996, 246 a-d.

Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.16 × 5.00 × 0.90 m.;

l.: 0.025-0.07 Date: -12 Cos 11 / trib pot 11.

CIL: Basis magna ex lapidibus tophaceis et ex

opere caementicio quattuor statuis superpo nendis exstructa, cui tabulae ex marmore Lun ensi tres inter se coniunctae affixae sunt. Frons

basis corona crepidineque praedita erat. In facie

coronae sursum versa foramina terebrata. Rep.

in effossionibus nuperrime a C. Panella apud

arcum Constantini et metam sudantem (Urbs P 23) institutis in aedicula temporibus Claudii extructa. Asservatur in M.N.R. (Palazzo Massimo) in repositis. Chronologiam monumenti puto talem: Loco, qui musicis Romanis nescio cur sacer erat, aeneatores tubicines liticines cornicines Augusto inter d. 6 Mart. et d. 25 Iun. a. 12 – fortasse ob pontificatum maximum accepteum – monumentum i.e. haud dubie statuam dedicaverunt (inscriptio fortasse in tabula aenea incisa fuit non aliter ac titulus infra n. 40334). Cui monumento accedit a. 7 a.C.n. (vel fortasse inter a. 6 a.C.n. et a. 4 p.C.n.) statua Tiberio nondum Caesari ab iisdem dedicantibus posita, quae eodem loco i.e. contra basem tituli n. 40307 in lucem venit. Inter d. 1 et 24 Ian. a. 42, i.e. paulo postquam Claudius imperium accepit, loco monumenti Augusto dedicati basis maior constructa esse videtur, cui statuae Augusti et Claudii (et fortasse Messalinae tunc Claudii uxoris) superpositae sunt inscriptione Augusti antiquiore repetita (forma quidem Caesari more temporis in Caisari commutata), titulo Claudii tunc primum conscripto, statua Tiberii, qui a Claudio non in domo sua numeraretur, loco suo separata mansit. A. 55 vel 56, i.e. paulo postquam Nero imperator factus est et paulo post incendium circ. a. 53/54, quo monumenta aereae ex parte consumpta sunt, monumentum a musicis denuo renovatum est, i.e. basis ampliatae

Augustus · 229

quattuor statuae superpositae sunt titulis antiquioribus Augusti Claudiique repetitis, inscriptionibus Neronis matrisque eius tunc conceptis. Monumentum a. 64 incendio Neronis destructum esse me docuit Morizio. Dedicator: Aenatores tubicines liticines cornicines Romani

parte mutila, a dextra fracta. Effossa a. 1872 in

foro Romano. Extat in porticu basilicae Aemiliae,

Lap. For. (inv. n. 12.478).

JMH: The inscription probably belonged to the

porticus of Gaius and Lucius erected in 2 BC.

Dedicator: Plebs [omnis XXXV tribuum]

Augustus 6

Au gustus 3 Rom, Roma. CIL VI, 875. CIL VI, 31190. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.17 × 0.21 ×? m.; l.: 0.025 Date: -12- -6 Pont max / Cos 11. CIL add.: Tabula marmorea undique fracta. Extat in aula domus Via di Monserrato n. 20 parieti inserta.

Au gustus 4 Rom, Roma. CIL VI, 31266. Ch. Hülsen, Jahresbericht über neue Funde und Forschung zur Topographie der Stadt Rom 1889-1891, RM 6 (1891) 136-137. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.48 × 0.96 ×? m.; l.: 0.060.08 Date: -12 – 14 Trib pot? / Pont max? Hülsen: Prati di Castello. In der Linie der Ostfront des neuen Justizpalastes, 20 m. von S.O. Ecke, wurden im November 1889 zwei Sarkophage, 9.28 m. unter modernem, cr. 5 m. unter antikem Niveau ausgegraben. Zum Deckel des andern ganz schmucklosen ist verwandt das Fragment einer Monumentalinschrift in sehr schönen Buchstaben. CIL add.: Tabula marmorea a dextra posterius desecta, ut usui esset ad sarcophagum claudendum, in fronte expolita sed ex parte adesa. Extat in Mus. Cap. in repositis (inv. n. 6.771). Dedicator: Provincia [---]

Au gustus 5

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 3747. CIL VI, 31291. CIL VI, 36896. CIL

VI, 40310.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 1.90 × 0.97 × 0.18 m.; l.:

0.225-0.265 Date: -2 See comment.

CIL: Tabulae marmoreae magna ex tribus par-

tibus coniuncta superne et a sinistra et infra ex

Rom, Roma.

SEG 41, 869. CIL VI, 40313. Coarelli, Kajanto,

Nyberg & Steinby 1981, 108, no. 27 a. G. Alföldy,

Zwei augusteische Monumente in der Area Sacra

des Largo Argentina in Rom, in Epigrafia. Actes

du Colloque international d’epigraphie latine

Rome 27-28 Mai 1988, Collection de l’École

Française de Rome 143 (Rome 1991) 675-686.


l.: 0.023-0.04 Date: 5 – 6 Trib pot 28.

Alföldy: Nach der hier vorgeschlagenen Rekon-

struction muß die Augustus-Inschrift mindestens

etwa 100 cm hoch und mindestens etwa 170-180

cm breit gewesen sein, während sich die Höhe

und die Breite der anderen Inschriften auf min destens ungefähr 100 bzw. 250-260 cm berechnen

lassen. Da in der Augustus-Inschrift, wie oben ge-

zeigt, sehr wahrscheinlich von der Basis einer Sta tue oder Statuengruppe die Rede ist, waren diese

beiden Inschriften offenbar nicht nebeneinander

in der Wand eines Gebäudes eingelassen, sondern

bildeten die Verkleidung verschiedener seiten ei nes großen Statuenpostamentes. Was auf diesem

Postament stand, können wir nur rätseln. Ob es

die stehenden Figuren der Herrscherfamilie trug,

die in den Inschriften genannt wurden, muß da hingestellt bleiben; wir dürften solche Statuen

eher in einer durchgehenden frontalen Aufstel lung oder vor einem halbkreisförmigen Hinter-

grund erwarten als in einer Anordnung, in der

sie einander z.T. den Rücken kehren. Vermutlich

kommt eher eine andere Statuengruppe, z.B. eine

allegorische Szene, in Betracht.

Dedicator: [---] eorumq[ue--- per Numenium

Numeni f(ilium) et Stratonem Stratonis f(ilium)]

| [Stratonis nepotem et ---xenum f(ilium)] lega tos basi[m cum ---] || ªÔO dh`mo~ th`~ pov lew~ tw`n Seleukºevwn ejn Peierivai th`~ iJªera`~º kai; ajsuv-

230 · rom a n i m per i a l stat u e base s · cata logu e

lou kai; aªujtonovmou kai;º summavªcou ÔRwmaivwnº ⁄ ªpresbeusavntwn Noumhnivºou tou' Noumhnivou Stªrºavtwno~ tou` Stravtwnoª~ div~ ---º xevnou tªou' ---º

Augustus 7

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 881.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.13 × 0.44 × 0.22 m.; l.: 0.035

Date: 14 - Divus.

CIL: Frag. basis marmorea, rep. 1861 m. Febr.

Romae trans Tiberim.

CIL add.: Basis marmorea a tergo fracta, in la teribus levigata, infra in usum posteriorem ita

secta, ut pars posterior altior sit quam prior. In

facie sursum directa levigata foramen rotunda-

tum terebratum. Extat in Mus. Vat., Lap. Prof.

Ex-Lat. (inv. n. 25.695).

Augustus 11

LaC, Capua.

CIL X, 3826.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -

31 Cos 3 / Imp 6.

CIL: Ad S. Angelum in Formis in ipsa porta.

Dedicator: D(e) c(onscriptorum?) [d(ecreto)]

Augustus 12

LaC, Capua.

CIL X, 3827.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 2

– 3 Trib pot 25.

CIL: Capuae rep. a. 1862, deinde apud Cipul lum, postea apud Raphaelem Cuccari, qui dedit

museo Campano.

Dedicator: P(ecunia) p(ublica) | d(ecreto)

d(ecurionum)

Augustus 8

Augustus 13

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 879. CIL VI, 40315.


– 37 Divus / Tiberius.

CIL: In exiguo marmore. Periit.

Dedicator: [A(ulus) Vitellius P(ubli) f(ilius)] |

legatus pro pr(aetore) [eius et] | A(ulus) Vitellius

A(uli) f(ilius) dederunt

LaC, Casinum.

CIL X, 5169. I. Cogitore, Séries de dédicaces Itali ennes à la dynastie Julio-Claudienne, MEFRA

104 (1992) 817-870.


23- -15 Cos 11 / imp 8-9.

CIL: Extra civitatem Casini in capella S. Libera toris. Deinde in porticu tabularii Casinatis.

Dedicator: P Rubrius M f Mae(cia tribu)

Barba[tus]

Augustus 9

LaC, Bovillae.

AE 1936, 73. A. Dobosi, Bovillae, Ephemeris Da-

coromana 6 (1935) 254.


– 8 Trib pot 30.

AE: Près des arcs des carceres du cirque.

Dobosi: E incisa in un bloco di marmo.

Augustus 10

LaC, Cales.

CIL X, 4637.


11- -10 Trib pot 13.

CIL: Calibus repperit negotians quidam rerum

antiquarum Neapolitanus.

Dedicator: Ex s(enatus) c(onsulto)

Augustus 14

LaC, Casinum.

AE 1946, 175. Fuchs 1987, 24. G. Carettoni, NSc

(1939) 126, no. 155. H. Fuhrmann, AA (1941)

564-565.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.66 × 0.90 × 0.11 m.; l.: 0.06-

0.09 Date: 14 - Divus, see comment. AE: A Cassino, dans le théâtre. Base. Le second des duoviri est connu comme praefectus fabrum à Casinum au temps de l’empereur Claude (CIL X, 5188). Dedicator: L Sonteius L f [Flo]rus | M Obultron[ius] | M f Cultel[lus] | IIvi[ri]

Augustus · 231

Au gustus 15

LaC, Castrimoenium.

CIL XIV, 2459.


– 2 Trib pot 24.

CIL: Fragmenta lapidum eruta prope Marinum

oppidum in vinea Septimii.

Dedicator: [Castri]moenienses

Au gustus 16

LaC, Herculaneum.

AE 1979, 172. G. Guadagno, Supplemento epi grafico ercolanese, CronErcol 8 (1978) 138-139,

no. 7.

Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.387 × 0.362 × 0.017

m.; l.: 0.053-0.064 Date: 14 - Divus, see com ment.

Guadagno: Due frammenti della stessa lastra

di marmo bianco; ricomposto ciascuno da piú

parti. L’iscrizione è probabilimente pertinente

ad una statua.

JMH: The similarity of the monuments dedicated

by L Mammius Maximus in Herculaneum for

Iulia Augusta (CIL X, 1413), Antonia (CIL X,

1417), Divus Augustus, Tiberius (AE 1979, 173),

Germanicus (CIL X, 1415), Agrippina (CIL X,

1418), and Nero (AE 1979, 175) suggests that

they were erected as a single group. Find spots

are, however, only known for the inscriptions for

Iulia Augusta and Antonia. It seems likely that

statues were added at different times. The statue

of Antonia was probably erected before 37, the

one of Livia after her deification in 42. Agrip pina entered the group in 49, while the statue

of Nero erected before his accession must date

between 50 and 54.

Dedicator: [L(ucius)] Manniu[s] Maximus

p(ecunias) [s(ua)]

Au gustus 17

LaC, Herculaneum.

CIL X, 1412. Rose 1997, 91, no. 14. G. Guadagno,

Herculaneum Augustalium Aedes, CronErcol 13

(1983) 159-173.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 -

Divus.

CIL: Rep. Herculanei in theatro. Extat Napoli

in museo.

Rose: Two inscribed statuary bases (the other

CIL X, 1411: Divus Iulius) were discovered in

1740 in the front section of the headquarters of

the Augustales. The eighteenth-century French

excavator Pierre Bardet transcribed the inscrip tions and drew them on his plan, and both are

still extant. The letter forms and sizes of the two

inscriptions are identical, and they were clearly

set up as a group.

Dedicator: Augustales

Augustus 18

LaC, Lanuvium.

CIL XIV, 2095.


- Divus, see comment.

CIL: Nella chiesa de Civita Lavinia.

JMH: Valerius Catullus is probably identical with

Sex. Tedius Valerius Catullus, consul suffectus in

AD 31. It is uncertain whether this inscription

belongs to a base or an altar.

Dedicator: [---] L f Valerius Catull(us) co(n)[s(ul)

---] | Catullus pontif(ex) [---]

Augustus 19

LaC, Nola.

AE 1971, 82. A. Ferrua, Cimitile ed altre in scrizioni dell’Italia inferiore I, Epigraphica 33

(1971) 100.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.19 × 0.035 × 0.52 m.;

l.:? Date: -5- -4 Trib pot 19.

AE: Fragment de marbre taillé pour un remploi

dans un pavement d’église.

Dedicator: Proculus? augur de s[ua ---]

Augustus 20

Sam, Nomentum.

CIL XIV, 3942.


– 11 Germanicus questor but not yet consul.

CIL: Nomenti rep. mense Oct. 1833 effossioni bus Borghesianis.

JMH: The stone seemingly carries two dedica tions. Given the date of the left inscription for


Germanicus, Augustus is the only possibility for

the fragmentary dedication to the right begin ning with: IM[p].

Augustus 21

LaC, Pompeii.

CIL X, 795.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27 – 14

Augustus.

CIL: In basi ex marmore cipollino. Pompeiis in

curia q. d. tertia. Quamquam non suo loco re-

perta est, probabile est stetisse olim in foro vel

ad forum.

Augustus 22

LaC, Pompeii.

CIL X, 805.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -12

– 14 Pont max.

CIL: Litteris magnis. Rep. Pompeiis in basilica.

Est in museo Neapolitano.

Dedicator: S Soc(iorum?) l(ib?) A[ga]tho Phi[-

--] | S Diogene[s] D Carpr[asius ---] | cum suis

orn(amentis) d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecerunt)

idemq(ue) [---]

Augustus 23

LaC, Pompeii.

CIL X, 931.


9- -8 Imp 13.

CIL: Pompeiis in via Stabiana in tepidario ther-

marum lacus fuit olim marmoreis tabulis sec tilibus ornatus, quae cum deciderint, elementa

haec scripta in parte earum aversa apparuerunt

tectorio impressa.

Augustus 24

LaC, Pompeii.

CIL X, 842.


2- -1 Trib pot 22.

CIL: Rep. Pompeiis in theatro maiore 28 Iun.

1792. Extat Neapoli in museo.

Augustus 25

LaC, Puteoli.

CIL X, 1619.


- Divus.

CIL: Neapoli apud Ian. Mazzam. Nunc ibi in

museo publice.

Dedicator: Ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) [---]

Augustus 26

LaC, Rufrae.

CIL X, 4830.


29 Cos 5.

CIL: Adhuc est in porta eiusdem tabernae S. Fe-

licis prope stationem ferroviariam Presenzan ensem, sed hodie magnis imminuta.

Dedicator: [Ruf ]rani vicani q[uorum] | aedifi cia sunt

Augustus 27

ApC, Aquilonia.

CIL IX, 6255.


- Divus.

CIL: Extra Lacedognam in turri campanaria ec clesiae quae dicitur la Capitale meridiem versus

XXX palmis a solo.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Augustus 28

ApC, Larinum.

AE 1966, 73. D. Freda, Epigrafi inedite di Larino,

Contributi dell’ Instituto di Filologia classica, sez.

di stor. ant., vol. I (Milano 1963) 237-238.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.89 × 0.69 × 0.25 m.; l.:

0.05-0.065 Date: -40- -37 See comment.

AE: Bloc trouvé dans le cimetière il y a 5 ou 6

ans; conservé in situ. Texte daté par l’auteur entre

40 av. J.-C. (moment où Octavien abandonne

le gentilice Iulius pour le cognomen de Caesar

employé comme gentilice et adopte Imperator

comme prénom) et 37 (fin du 1er triumvirat,

habituellement exprimé par la mention III (viro)

r(ei) p(ublicae) constituendae iterum).

Augustus · 233

Au gustus 29

ApC, Ligures Baebiani.

AE 1988, 388. J. Patterson, Sanniti, Liguri e Rom-

ani (Circello 1987) 171, no. 1.

Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.79 × 0.48 × 0.48

m.; l.: 0.053-0.055 Date: -2 – 14 Pater patriae.

AE: Bloc de calcaire, probablement base de

statue.

Patterson: Limestone block; in front of the el ementary school at Macchia di Circello. It is in terresting that the piece of the stone bearing the

letter P.P. stands out from the rest of the carved

face; perhaps an earlier inscription was deleted

from the stone before it was dedicated to Au-

gustus.

CIL X, 404. Insc. Ital. III, 1, 15.


– 14 Cos 13.

Insc. Ital.: Titulum, Buccini, ante a. 1540 exsti tisse constat.

JMH: Probably associated with a statue base for

Agrippa Postumus (Insc. Ital. III, 1, no. 16).

Augustus 33

Sam, Angulus.

CIL IX, 3342.


23- -6 Cos 11.

CIL: Spoltore rep. m. Sept. a. 1876 dum nova

domus ibi fit; est in apotheca domus Ioannis de

Leonardis.

Au gustus 30

ApC, Saticula.

CIL IX, 2142.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -43-

-40 Triumvir / not Imperator Caesar.

CIL: S. Agathae Gothorum in porticu ecclesiae

cathedralis.


Au gustus 31 BrL, Regium. M. Buonocore, Supplementa Italica 5 (1989) 49, no. 2. Type: Base Dim.: 1.01 × 0.758 × 0.56 m.; l.: 0.10 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Buonocore: Base di statua in pietra locale ben conservata; coronamento, tronco a base sono lavorati nello stesso blocco; sulla faccia superiore sono ancora presenti gli incavi per l’alloggio della probabile statua. Rinvenuta nell’estate del 1920 a Reggio Calabria durante gli scavi per le fondazioni del nuovo Banca di Napoli, inglobata in un muro d’epoca bizantina. JMH: The name of Augustus is in the genetive case. Possibly the statue on top was not of the emperor but of some deity dedicated to the emperor.

Augustus 34

Sam, Aufidena.

AE 1991, 540. M. Buonocore, Supplementa Ita lica 8 (1991) 57-58, no. 2


0.042-0.069 Date: -12 – 14 Pont max.

Suppl. Ital.: Porzione laterale di lastra marmorea;

retro liscio; il bordo superiore preserta gli incassi

atti per il fissaggio.

AE: Au début du sièle, au lieu-dit Campitelli, à

Castel di Sangro. Partie g. d’une plague de mar-

bre brisée à dr. Points triangulaires. Bibliothèque

municipale de Castel di Sangro.

Dedicator: [---] | coniugi le[iberisq(ue)] |

M(arcus) Pomponi[us ---] | Petronian[us sua]

| pecunia po[nend(um) cur(avit)]

Augustus 35

Sam, Herdoniae.

AE 1967, 89. F. van Wonterghem, Ordona II,

Études de philol., d’arch. et d’hist. anc. (1967)

135, no. 7.


m.; l.:? Date: 14 - Divus.

AE: Bloc de calcaire, probablement base de statue

trouvée devant le temple B sur le forum.

Au gustus 32

Augustus 36

BrL, Volcei.

Sam, Saepinum.


AE 1959, 277 a. C. Cianfarani, Vecchie e nouve iscrizioni septimati, in Atti del terzo Congresso internazionale di Epigrafia greca e latina, Roma, 4-8 settembre 1957 (1959) 376, no. 3. Type: Tabula Dim.: 1.10 × 0.80 ×? m.; l.: 0.0750.09 Date: 14 - Divus. Cianfarani: Lastra di pietra in opere nella muratura di un locale sotteraneo nella casa di proprietà Losella Giuseppe, prospiciente il foro dal lato sud-occidentale.

Augustus 37

Sam, Trebula Suffenas.

AE 1990, 274. M.G. Granino Cecere, Supple-

menta Italica 4 (1988) 143-144, no. 9.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.60 × 0.64

× 0.04 m.; l.: 0.03-0.075 Date: 14- Divus.

Suppl. Ital.: Diciotto frammenti appartenenti ad

una stessa lastra marmorea. L’inscrizione incisa

su una lastra, probabilmente posta a rivestimento

di una base.

Dedicator: C [T]urranius Paris | [VIv]ir Augusta-

lis d(e) s(uo) p(osuit) | l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto)

d(ecurionum)

Augustus 38

Umb, Ameria.

CIL XI, 4350.


– 14 Pont max.

CIL: Ameriae in aedem S. Secundi.

Dedicator: Rei p[---] Amer[---]

Augustus 39 Umb, Prolaqueum. CIL XI, 5642. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.63 × 0.33 × 0.10 m.; l.: 0.042-0.055 Date: -33- -32 Cos 2. CIL: Tabula ex marmore vili margine circumdata litteris. “Si conserva dai Piorachesi … trovato sotto al ponte marmoreo fuori di Poiraco sul quale si crede che fosse anticamente collocato.” Est inserta in novo theatro Pioracensi intus ante ipsam scaenam in pariete qui est a dextra, ita ut paries, qui separat scaenam, partem sinistram tabulae tegat.

Augustus 40 Umb, Suasa. S. Antolini, Supplementa Italica 18 (2000) 353354, no. 1. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.66 × 0.995 × 0.08 m.; l.: 0.06-0.12 Date: 6 – 14 After the adoption of Tiberius. Antolini: Lastra calcarea rettangolare, segesta lungo il margine destro e rotta lungo quello sinistro secondo una frattura obliqua discendente verso destra, i cui lati superiore e inferiore conservano una cornice a gola e listello. Rinvenuta nel 1998 nel corso di un saggio nella necropoli meridionale (tomba nr. 147); si conserva nel laboratorio di scavo presso il Tappatino. Dedicator: [Ca]m(ilia) Galeo trib(unus) mil(itum) le[g(ionis) ---]

Augustus 41

Umb, Urvinum Hortense.

AE 1995, 445. L. Sensi & M.R. Picuti, in M. Mat teini Chiari, Raccolta di Cannara. Materiali ar-

cheologici, monete, dipinti e sculture (Perugia

1992) 91, no. 48.


0.024-0.045 Date: 14 - Divus.

AE: Fragment d’une plaque de marbre blanc,

brisé de tous côtés.

Augustus 42

Etr, Caere.

CIL XI, 3596.


Augustus.

CIL: Basis marmorea. Rep. a. 1846 Caere in

fundo Regolini archisacerdotis ubi fuisse vi dentur rudera theatri antiqui. Iam est Romae in

museo Laterano.

JMH: Belongs to a statue group with Tiberius,

Drusilla, Agrippina, and two unidentifiable em-

perors (CIL XI, 3597, 3598, 3600, 3601, 3604)

Dedicator: Ex s(enatus) [c(onsulto)]

Augustus 43

Etr, Caere.

CIL XI, 3595. Rose 1997, 83-86, no. 5.

Augustus · 235

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -12 – 14 Pont max. Rose: The statues and inscriptions traditionally associated with this group were discovered during two different excavation campaigns of Caere. In 1840, eight statues and part of an altar were discovered in a well or underground chamber near the centre of the city. The excavation of 1846, conducted in the theatre of Caere, yielded a colossal head of Augustus and a number of inscriptions, some of which were clearly dedications for statues. In the records there is no indication that the two excavations were conducted in the same area. Although the excavation produced both a portrait and a dedication to Augustus, they do not seem to be contemporary. Dedicator: S(enatus) populusque Caeres

Au gustus 44

Etr, Cosa.

CIL XI, 2631.

Type: Altar? Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27

– 14 Augustus. CIL: Nel plintho di un ara scoperta in un sotterano della nobil casa Tozzani Orbitello m. Iunio 1821. JMH: Possibly thought by the editor to be an altar because the dedicator was a magister Augustalibus. Dedicator: Pl[---]ius P f Sta[t]ius | ma[gis]ter Augustali[s] | posuit

Au gustus 45 Etr, Falerii Veteres. CIL XI, 3085. I. Di Stefano Manzella, Supplementa Italica 1 (1981) 132-133, no. 9. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.27 × 0.36 × 0.037 m.; l.: 0.05-0.06 Date: -2 – 14 Pater patriae. CIL: Fragmenta duo tabulae marmoreae. Esse allata a. 1823 in museum Vaticanum testatur nota in lapide incisa “1823 C.C. 24”. Post in repositis musei Laterani, ubi sunt adhuc. Suppl. Ital.: Frammento composto da due pezzi contigui appartenuti a una lastra di marmo bianco, liscia nella faccia posteriore, ricavata forse già in antico dal taglio di un piedistallo come

suggeriscono i margini rettilinei in alto e a sin istra, conseguenti entrabi a un reimpiego.

Augustus 46

Etr, Lucus Feroniae.

AE 1988, 544. L. Sensi, Le iscrizioni di Lucus

Feroniae negli appunti di Renato Bartoccini,

AnnPerugia 23 (1985-86) 281, no. 1. Rose 1997,

93. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.40 × 0.43 × 0.022 m.; l.: 0.035-0.068 Date: -2 – 14 Pater patriae. Sensi: Lapide in marmo giallo: 10 frammenti ricomposti, rinvenuti “al foro ed al tempio, ai piedi di quella che sarà poi una basilica”. JMH: Because no records were kept during the excavation of the forum it is no longer possible to reconstruct this large Julio-Claudian statue group with any certainty. Nine bases are known: two for Augustus, two for Tiberius, one for Drusus the Elder, Agrippa Postumus, Drusus the Younger, Nero Caesar, son of Germanicus and one for one of the wives of Claudius. In addition a portrait of Augustus, a togate statue of Agrippa, three other headless togate statues, and five headless draped female statues were found.

Augustus 47




AnnPerugia 23 (1985-86) 281-282, no. 2. A.M.S.

Moretti, Statue e ritratti onorari da Lucus Fero-

niae, RendPontAcc 55-56 (1982-1984) 71-109.

Rose 1997, 93.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.82 × 1.73 ×? m.; l.: 0.135-

0.19 Date: 14 - Divus. Sensi: Lapide frammentaria in marmo rinvenuta “ai piedi di quella che poi diverrà la basilica”, ricostruita con almeno n. 10 frammenti, appartenenti a due lastre. JMH: See Augustus 46 Dedicator: Publice

Augustus 48 Etr, Luna.


10. Rose 1997, 99, no. 27. AE 1995, 504 a-b. L.

Gasperini & R. Zucca, Miscellanea Graeca e Ro mana 19 (1995) 245-280.

Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.61 × 2.44 ×? m.; l.:?

Date: -4- -3 Trib pot 20.

CIL: In lapidibus ex quibus efformata est vetus

urna, in qua iacet corpus S. Eutichii Soriano.

AE: Église Sant’Eutizio. Plaque brisée à dr. et à

g. Sur la plaque appartenant à un Augusteum

étaient gravées non trois mais cinq dédicaces.

Outre les noms d’Auguste, ceux de C. et L. César,

gravés entre le 1er juillet 4 et le 30 juin 3 a. C., on

lisait ceus d’Agrippa Postumus à g. et de Tibère

à dr., ajoutés dans une seconde phase du monu-

ment. Agrippa Postumus était représenté à la

Augustus 49

dr. d’Auguste: à cette date, Auguste lui accordait

encore la préférence sur Tibère. Date: ap. le 26

Etr, Luna.

AE 1985, 392. G. Mennella, Il Lapidario della juin 4 p. C., jour de l’adoption d’Agrippa Pos Raccolta archeologica Lunense, Annali del tumus et de Tibère.

Museo Civico della Spezia 2 (1979-1980) 205, Dedicator: P Sergius P f Rufus | T Braetius T f Ru-

no. 7.

fus mag(istri) iter(um) | [p]agi St[ell]atini [a]e-

Type: Base Dim.: 0.18 × 0.14 × 0.05 m.; l.: 0.01- dem et signa de sua pecunia faciunda curarunt

0.027 Date: 41 – 54 Divus / in the reign of

Augustus 52 Claudius.

AE: Fragment d’une petit base en marbre blanc Etr, Perusia. AE 1991, 666. L. Sensi, Una dedica ad Augusto de Carrare.

da Perusia, Athenaeum 78 (1990) 517-522. Dedicator: Ex voto An[---]

Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.40 ×? × 0.60 m.; l.:? Augustus 50

Date: -14- -13 Tiberius cos 1. Etr, Nepet.

AE: En 1899, piazza Municipio, à 1,80 m de profondeur. Plaque de revêment du couronnement CIL XI, 3200. Fiorelli, NSc (1885) 220.

Type: Cippus? Dim.: 1.19 × 0.68 ×? m.; l.:? d’un monument (base de statue équestre?), avec cadre mouluré inscrit comme frise et une derDate: -13- -12 Trib pot 11.

CIL: Cippus ex lapide albo non ornatus supra nière ligne sur un bandeau plat de la corniche excavatus. Rep. Nepe scavandosi una fogna nella au-dessous. La partie conservée, l’extrénité g., via del Foro, alla profondità di m. 2,25. Servatur présente le retour de la corniche sur le côte g. in porticu aedium municipalium.

Museo Archeologici Nazionale dell’Umbria. L’a. Dedicator: Magistri Augustal(es) prim(ari) | ferait remonter ce monument honorifique à une Philippus Augusti libert(us) | M Aebutius Se- phase de réorganisation urbaine et de réhabilitacundus | M Gallius Anchiatus | P Fidustius An tion morale de la cité, durement punie par Octigonus

tave, phase à laquelle il faudrait assigner les cinq autels de délimitation du territoire CIL XI, 1923 Augustus 51

(Augusto sacr.| Perusia restituta). Pour des raiEtr, Pagus Stellatinus.

sons de “mise en page” touchant la l. 1, le premier CIL XI, 3040. C. Hanson & F.P. Johnson, On Cer- des deux consulats de Tibère antérieurs à son tain Portrait Insciptions, AJA 50 (1946) 391, no. avènement semble préférable au second. CIL XI, 1330. AE 1999, 618. P. Sangriso, Epi graphica 61 (1999) 47-50.


l.:? Date: -33 See comment.

CIL: Saxum marmoreum non ornatum. Rep.

a. 1706 Lunae loco quo erat olim templum S. Marci a Io. Bapt. Benettini canonico et nobili Sarzanesi. JMH: The most logical solution to the problem of the date of the inscription would be to suppose that cos VI is a mistake for cos II. The second period of the triumvirate ended in 33; the the same year he was consul for the second time and imperator for the fifth.

Augustus · 237

Dedicator: Perusini [ob civitatem restitutam] parte superiore (una o due righe) e di quella in| Ti(berio) Claud[io P(ublio) Quintillio] | feriore (forse ancora una riga), levigata anche c[o(n)s(ulibus) ---]

sulla faccia posteriore, presenta un’abrasione sulla destra. I margini laterali sono originali. Au gustus 53

Dedicator: Q Numisius Q l(ibertus) Thyrsus | M Etr, Rusellae.

Numicius C l(ibertus) Acastus | L Postumius L AE 1980, 450. V. Saladino, Iscrizioni latine di l(ibertus) Eros Maior | L Messius [---] l(ibertus) Roselle II, ZPE 39 (1980) 221-222, no. 14. S. Salvius | C Volumnius C l(ibertus) Bello | Q MarConti, Supplementa Italica 16 (1998) 111-112, ius Q l(ibertus) Stabilio | seviri Augustales pro [ludis] no. 5. Rose 1997, 116-118, no. 45.

Type: Part of a base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:

Augustus 55 -12 – 14 Pont max.

AE: Fragment de plaque en calcaire rose (en trois Aem, Ariminum. morceaux dont deux jointif): a) 13 × 17 × 1,2 CIL XI, 365. De Maria 1988, 260-262, no. 48. cm.; b) 10,7 × 18 × 1,2 cm.

Roehmer 1997, 45-51. Type: Arch Dim.: 17.70 × 15.00 × 4.10 m.; l.:? Rose: The statues and inscriptions were discov ered in 1966 in an apsed rectangular building Date: -27 Cos 7. at the southwest corner of the Rusellae forum. CIL: Super arcum ad portam Flaminiam versus The interior of the building, measuring 11.30 Romam. m in length and 8.50 m in width, contained five Roehmer: Der eintorige Bogen hat eine Breite shallow statuary niches on the south wall and von 15 m, eine Tiefe von 4,10 m und eine rekonpresumably the same number on the north. In- struierte Höhe von 17,70 m. scriptions from the augustales to Claudius and JMH: This arch and its counterpart on the Milvian Bridge outside Rome marking the termini Britannicus were discovered inside, and the simi larity of the plan to other known Augustea indi of the Via Flaminia were voted and erected in cates that the building was the headquarers for 27 BC on occasion of the completion of the the augustales of Rusellae.

road. Cassius Dio (53.22.2) mentions the statJMH: This statue group which was erected in ues placed on the arches. several phases eventually comprised statues Dedicator: Senatus populusq[ue Romanus] of at least: Germanicus, M. Agrippa, Drusilla,

Julia, Livilla?, Nero, son of Germanicus, Drusus Augustus 56 I, Drusus III, Antonia II, Divus Augustus, Diva Aem, Veleia. Livia, Claudius, Agrippina?, Nero, Britannicus, CIL XI, 1164. C. Saletti, Il circlo statuario della Octavia III, and Lucius Caesar.

basilica di Velleia (Milano 1968) 61, no. 1. Rose 1997, 121-126, no. 50. Au gustus 54

Type: Tabula Dim.: 1.00 × 0.65 ×? m.; l.: 0.095 Date: 37 – 41 Divus / Caligula. Etr, Veii.

CIL XI, 3782. P. Liverani, Municipium Augustum CIL: Tabula ex bardiglio. Rep. Veleiae d. 18 Veiens (1987) 74-77, no. 33.

Iun. 1761, rep. in basilica. Nunc in museo ParType: Tabula Dim.: 0.542 × 0.722 × 0.035 m.; l.: mensi. 0.029-0.042 Date: -2 – 14 Pater patriae.

Rose: All of the statues and inscriptions pertainCIL: Tabula magna marmorea. Rep. in effosibus ing to this group were discovered during the exVeientibus recentibus. Est inter reposita musei cavation of the basilica at Velleia between June Laterani.

3 and 17, 1761. There are dowel holes at the rear Liverani: Dedica frammentaria posta dai seviri of each statue, and they seem to have been disaugustales a un imperatore. Lastra priva della played in niches in the basilica. This is an agglu-


tinative group, begun under Caligula and ex panded under Claudius, with more additions

and recuttings during the Flavian period.

JMH: During the reign of Caligula the group

consisted of: Caligula (later reused as Claudius),

Tiberius Gemellus, Diva Drusilla, Germanicus,

Agrippina I, Livia, Divus Augustus, Tiberius

(later recut to Vespasian), Nero, Drusus. During

the reign of Claudius the following were added:

Claudius (recut from Caligula), Agrippina II,

Nero, Britannicus. Finally additions were made

during the Flavian period and the reign of Nerva:

Vespasian, Nerva (recut from Drusus III), Nerva

(recut from Nero).

Augustus 57

Lig, Augusta Bagiennorum.

CIL V, 7696. Insc. Ital. IX, 1, 117.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.85 × 0.60 ×? m.; l.:? Date:

-5- -4 Trib pot 18-19 / cos 12.

Insc. Ital.: Tabula e marmore. Cavata nel territo rio di S. Albo regione del Molino dalle rovine di

un antico convento di monache Cistercesi.

Dedicator: Urbani

Augustus 58

Lig, Industria.

CIL V, 7477.


– 14 Augustus.

CIL: Monteù in ecclesia parochiali.


Augustus 59

VeH, Patavium.

CIL V, 2812.


- Divus.

CIL: Patavi in aedibus Hieronymi, postea Fran-

cisci Quirini.

Augustus 60 VeH, Pola. AE 1999, 689. A. Starac, Opuscula Archaeologica 23-24 (1999-2000) 136, no. 5.


m.; l.: 0.04-0.06 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

AE: Fragment dr. d’une base de calcaire, dé coré sur le petit côté d’un lituus. Ch. ép. endom magé, au-dessous patera. Musée archéologique

de l’Istrie, inv. A 27001.

Dedicator: [---] Vibiu[s] C [f ] V[el(ina)] |

[p(osuit)] libens

Augustus 61

VeH, Tergeste?

CIL V, 852. Insc. Ital. X, 4, 337. Alföldy 1984, 87,

no. 42 & note 140.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.70 × 0.70 × 0.40 m.; l.: 0.06-

0.09 Date: 14 Trib pot 37. Alföldy: Statuenpostament aus grauen Kalkstein mit leicht hervorspringenden Sockel auf der oberen Fläche, mit breiter viereckigen Standspur; während die linke Schmalseite rauh ist, befindet sich auf der rechten Schmalseite die Darstellung eines Augurstabes. Bekannt seit dem 17. Jahrhundert; damals und auch noch später befand sich das Monument in der Kirche S. Canziano del Carso. AO: Trieste, Civici Musei di Storia ed Arte, Orto lapidario. Diese inschrift stand ursprünglich vielleicht in einer Villa oder wurde möglicherweise aus Tergeste verschleppt.

Augustus 62 VeH, Verona. AE 1992, 740 a-c. CIL V, 3326. G.C. Manasse, L’Imperatore Claudio e Verona, Epigraphica 54 (1992) 9-41. Type: Arch Dim.: 0.54 × 1.55 × 0.57 m.; l.:? Date: 44 Divus / Claudius trib pot 4. CIL: Epistylii pars, Veronae ad theatrum in fundamentis domus vetustae rep. m. Sept. 1851 una cum n. 3364. Titulum stetisse non in theatro ipso, sed in aedificio alio contiguo collegit Monga cum ex loco, in quo effosus est, tum ex artificii diversitate. Extat in museo philharmonico. AE: Bloc mis au jour en 1851. … Lettre de meme fractur que l’inscription ci-dessus. Sur la face sup., trous de fixation de statue. L’a. réétudie cette inscription monumentale a la lumière de la précédente et admet l’existence de cinq textes

Augustus · 239

épigraphiques sur une longueur de 5 mètre en viron. Pour a), elle suggère la restitution du

nom d’Auguste: [Diuo August]o | [diui Iulii f.

| --- publice] d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). Pour c)

l’initiale de Gaius ne peut se référer a Caligula;

l’a. se demande si le personnage honoré a dr. ne

pourrait pas être Gaius César. L’a. situe le deux ième groupe sur le côté opposé (face Nord) de la

porte et relie ces manifestations dynastiques au

passage possible de Claude par l’Italie du Nord

a son retour de Bretagne.

Dedicator: Pub[lice d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)]

Au gustus 63

Insc. It.: Titulius inscriptus in tabula e marmore

albo. In basi statuae pedestis imperatoris.

Augustus 65

Tra, Ticinum?

CIL VI, p. 4301. CIL V, 6416. De Maria 1988,

249-250, no. 31. C.B. Rose, The Supposed Augus tan Arch at Pavia (Ticinum) and the Einsiedln

326 Manuscript, JRA 3 (1990) 163-168.


– 8 Tiberius trib pot 9, see comment. CIL: In porta Papiae. JMH: Rose argues that “the Augustan Arch at Pavia” is in fact a series of inscriptions reused in the 5th c. on the Porta Appia in Rome. All inscriptions appear to belong to the Augustan period, but they did not necessarily originate from the same monument. Alföldy in CIL, on the contrary, is of the opinion, that the inscriptions do not belong in Rome but rather in Ticinum.

Tra, Augusta Praetoria.

AE 1895, 22. Insc. Ital. XI, 1, 6. E. Ferrero, NSc

(1894) 369-370. Cavallaro & Walser 1988, 20 21, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.92 × 0.69 × 0.29 m.; l.: 0.08

Date: -23- -20 Cos 11 / imp 8.

Cavallaro & Walser: Base en grès gris trouvée

en 1894 dans le matériel romain, qui servait

au Moyen Age à fermer la partie inférieur de

al Porta Principalis Dextera d’Aoste (torre di

Bramafam). Aujourd’hui conservée au Musée

Archéologique d’Aoste.

Dedicator: Salassi incol(ae) | qui initio se | in

colon(iam) cont(ulerunt)

Sic, Halaesa.

CIL X, 7458.


– 14 Pater patriae. CIL: Ad S. Mariae de Palatio. Dedicator: Municipium

Au gustus 64

Augustus 67

Tra, Augusta Praetoria.

CIL V, 6834. Cavallaro & Walser 1988, 22-23, no.

2. Insc. Ital. XI, 1, 7. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.52 × 0.52 ×? m.; l.:? Date: -1 – 1 Trib pot 23. Cavallaro & Walser: Les auteurs du XVIIe siècle nous ont transmis le texte d’une inscription encastrée autrefois dans un mur de l’église des Capucins (aujour’hui Piccolo Seminario) à Aoste. Promis et Mommsen ne l’ont plus vue. D’après Promis il s’agissait d’une plaque de marbre blanc de 52 cm. carrés. L’inscription ne peut donc provenir ni d’un temple ni d’un arc d’honneur, car de tels monuments demanderaient une inscription plus grande.

Sic, Haluntium.

CIL X, 7463.


– 14 Pont max.

CIL: In S. Marci oppido extra pomerium in via

Caturelli.

Dedicator: Municipium

Augustus 66

Augustus 68

Sic, Syracusae.

AE 1989, 342 b. G. Manganaro, Iscrizioni latine

della Sicilia, Epigraphica 51 (1989) 181, no. 57.

Type: Architrave Dim.: 0.35 × 0.84 × 0.30 m.;

l.: 0.15 Date: -36 See comment.

AE: Bloc d’architrave en calcaire. Si la restitution

est juste, la dédicace serait à dater de 36 a. C.,


en relation avec le conflit entre Octave et Sex tus Pompée.

Manganaro: Blocco di architrave in calcaire (inv.

n. 11034).

Augustus 69

Cor, Aleria.

CIL X, 8035. Rose 1997, 81-82, no. 2. C. Hanson

& F.P. Johnson, On Certain Portrait Insciptions,

AJA 50 (1946) 391, no. 7.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 1.00 × 0.70 ×? m.; l.:?

Date: -11- -9 Imp ≥ 12 / trib pot ≤ 14.

CIL: Beau marbre 1 m sur 70; rep. prope Ale riam meridiem, est in aedibus iis ubi servatur.

Rep. a. 1847 in ruderibus Aleriae; extat Bastìae

in bibliotheca.

JMH: Inscriptions for Gaius and Lucius Caesar

were placed left and right on the same block.

Dedicator: Dec(uriones?) et c(oloni) c(oloniae)

V(eneria) P(acansis) f[---]

Augustus 72 Dal, Narona. AE 1999, 1223. E. Marin, The temple of the imperial cult (Augusteum) at Narona and its statues. Interim report, JRA 14 (2001) 80-112. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 – 15 Divus, P. Cornelius Dolabella. AE: Vid, dans l’Augusteum. Plaque en deux morceaux jointifs découverts l’un en 1995, l’autre en 1996: dimensions non indiquées. Arrivé comme gouveneur de l’Illyricum au printemps de 14 p.C., du vivant donc d’Auguste, P. Cornelius Dolabella a contribué fortement à l’introduction du culte impérial dans cette province: à la mort du premier empereur, il dédia un monument au Divus Augustus, vraisemblement une statue, en or ou en argent, placée sur une base portant la plaque inscrite. Dedicator: P Dolabella co(n)s(ul) | Caesaris August(i) | leg(atus) pro pr(aetore)

Augustus 70

Dal, Cissa.

CIL III, 3113.


- Divus.

CIL: In insula Pagi in Liburnia in loco qui nunc

Vlasaci.

Dedicator: L Quinctius C f(ilius) Gallus testa mento poni iussit

Augustus 71 Dal, Narona. CIL III, 14625. Type: Cippus? Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -40-27 Imperator Caesar / not Augustus, see comment. CIL: Cippus calcarius superne et infra laesus, sed titulus integer est. Rep. a. 1899 Tasovcic ad sinistram Narentae ripam. Titulus haud dubie a. 718 exeunte de victo Pompeio positus est. JMH: The mention of the recapture of Sicily can probably date this inscription to 36 BC or shortly thereafter. Dedicator: C Papirius Cels[us] | M Papirius Kanus fratres

Augustus 73 Dal, Salona. J. Sasel & A. Sasel, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iuguslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMXL repertae et editae sunt (Ljubljana 1986) 194, no. 2070. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -12 – 14 Pontifex Maximus. Sasel: Quinque fragmenta marmorea inscriptionis litteras magnas exhibentis et ad Portam Caesarem q.d. pertinentis.

Augustus 74

GeS, Augusta Raurica.

AE 2000, 1031. P. Schwartz & L. Berger, Tituli

Rauracenses 1 (Augst 2000) 41-83.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: × × m.; l.:

Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

AE: Angle inf. dr. d’une plaque de bronze.

Dedicator: [Colonia Paterna] | [[Munatia Felix]]

| [Apollin]aris | [Augusta E]merita | [Raur]ica |

[publ]ice

Augustus · 241

Au gustus 75

Augustus 78

Aqu, Bituriges Cubi.

CIL XIII, 1366. K. de Kersauson, Musée du Lou vre. Catalogue des portraits romains I. Portraits

de la République et d’époque Julio-Claudienne

(Paris 1986) 96-97, no. 42.

Type: Bronze bust Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:

-27 – 14 Augustus, see comment.

CIL: Protomae duae aheneae litteris scripto rae actuariae saeculi primi rep. 7 Maii a. 1816

prope Neuilly-le-Réal in praedio dominorum

Guillemainse a. quibus P. Saulnier notarius

Moulinensis emit; postea Parisiis apud Rollin et

Feuardent, a. 1868 venditae Napoleoni impera tori, qui museo q. d. le Louvre intulit.

JMH: The two bronze busts of Augustus and

Livia were, because of their similar bases, clearly

bought as a set and dedicated by the same per-

son. The title Augusta on the bust of Livia indi cates a date after the death of Augustus, as this

title was given to her according to the will of

Augustus. However, the inscription on the bust

of Augustus shows that he was still alive at the

time of the dedication. Perhaps Liviae Augustae

is a mistake for Liviae Augusti.

Dedicator: Atespatus Crixi fil(ius) v(otum)

s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

Nar, Nemausus.

CIL XII, 3149.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.05-0.07

Date: -25 Cos 9.

CIL: See Augustus 77.

Augustus 79

Alm, Tropaeum Augusti.

CIL V, 7818.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.11 Date: -27

– 14 Augustus, see comment.

CIL: Basis magna. Prope Turbia Monacum ver-

sus in vinea Gastaud.

JMH: The date of this base is probably the same

as that of the Tropaeum, i.e. 7-6 BC.

Augustus 80

Nar, Aquae Sextiae.

CIL XII, 513.


– 14 Augustus.

CIL: Fuit in vico Vernègues, periit.

Alm, Tropaeum Augusti.

CIL V, 7817.

Type: Tropaeum Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 7- -6 Trib pot 17.

CIL: Tropaea Augusti.

JMH: The reconstruction is based on a few frag ments of a monumental inscription and the de tailed description of the inscription by Pliny the

Elder (NH 3.20). In all likelyhood the monu-

ment was designed to carry a portrait statue of

Augustus.

Dedicator: [S(enatus) p(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus)

| quod eius ductu auspicisque gentes Alpinae

omnes | quae a mari supero ad inferum per-

tinebant sub imperium p(opuli) R(omani) sunt

| redactae]

Au gustus 77

Augustus 81

Nar, Nemausus. CIL XII, 3148. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 25 Cos 9. CIL: Deux pierres entièrment semblables (CIL XII, 3149), qui avoient chacune 4 pieds d’élevation, 2 pieds 3 pouces 8 lignes de largeur et 4 pouces 9 lignes d’épaisseur, et toutes deux cintrées par derrière, ce qui dénote qu’elles étoient vraisemblablement adossées à chaque escalier.

AlC, Segusio.

CIL V, 7231. De Maria 1988, 329-330, no. 110.

Roehmer 1997, 61-66.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.035-0.055


Roehmer: Der eintorige, aus Marmor gebaute

Bogen hat eine Frontbreite von 10,75 m. Die re-

konstruierte Höhe beträgt 13,20 m., die Tiefe

6 m.

Dedicator: M Iulius Regis Donni f Cottius prae -

Au gustus 76


fectus ceivitatum quae | subscriptae sunt Seg oviorum Segusinorum | Bellacorum Caturigum

Medullorum Tebaviorum Adanatium | Savin catium Ecdiniorum Veaminiorum | Venisamo rum Iemeriorum Vesubianiorum Quadiatium et

ceivitates | quae sub eo praefecto fuerunt

Augustus 82

AlC, Segusio.

CIL V, 7243.


8- -2 Imp 14.

CIL: Susae antea in aedibus episcopi, nunc in

seminario.

Dedicator: C Iulius Escin[---] | P Iulius Es[---] |

L Iulius Escingi f [---] | P Iulius Congonn[---] |

M Iulius Congonni [---] | M Iulius Congonni f

Mo[---] | [---]ius Escingi f Ma[---]

Augustus 83

AlG, Axima.

AE 1969/70, 332.


0.05-0.09 Date: 2 – 3 Trib pot 25.

AE: Savioe. Chapelle Saint-Sigismond. Dalle en

tuf. Cette date pourrait correspondre à la forma tion de la province romaine.

Augustus 84

AlG, Saint-Maurice-en-Valais.

CIL XII, 145. Walser 1980, 32-33, no. 259.


0.08 Date: -12- -6 Cos 11 / pont max. Walser: Fragmente einer Kalksteinplatte, früher in der Kirchhofmauer der Abtei St-Maurice verbaut, heute im Vestibül der Abtei St-Maurice (Wallis) einzementiert. Dedicator: Nantu[ate]s

Augustus 85

AlG, Sedunum.

CIL XII, 136. Walser 1980, 20-21, no. 253.


0.07 Date: -8- -7 Trib pot 16. Walser: Kalksteinplatte, früher an der Pforte der Kathedrale von Sitten (Wallis) angebracht (15.

Jahrhundert), heute im Eingang des Rathauses

Sitten eingemauert.

Dedicator: [Civi]tas Sedunorum

Augustus 86

Tar, Astures Augustani.

CIL II, 2703.


l.:? Date: 11 Trib pot 33 / imp 20.

CIL: Al presente se guardia la Peñalua en Carrió,

pueblo cercano al rio Aboño y cabo de Torres.

Augustus 87

Tar, Bilbilis.

CIL II, 5852.


– 14 Augustus.

CIL: Piedra negra que se halló en el misno monte

Bambola, y un labrador se la tenia en el umbral

de su puerta en el barrio de Huermeda.

Dedicator: T C [---] T f | [---]

Augustus 88

Tar, Clunia.

CIL II, 2778. P. de Palol, Anas 2-3 (1989-1990)

39-40.


- Divus. CIL: Sacada del sitio de Clumia, a. 1774 en el zaguan de la casa de un vecino de Peñalba, ara de vara y media de alto y vara y media quarto de ancho, muy maltratada. JMH: May equally well have been a statue base. Dedicator: [---]arr[---] | [---] | [--- Augustal--] | [---]

Augustus 89 Tar, Emporiae. AE 1990, 662. J.-N. Bonneville, Les patrons du municipe d’Emporiae, REA 88 (1986) 181-200. G. Fabre, M. Mayer & I. Rodà, Inscriptions Ro maines de Catalogne III Gérone (Paris 1991) 52 53, no. 19.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27

– 14 Augustus.

Bonneville: Deux fragments de marbre blanc,

Augustus · 243

propriété de D. José Oliveras de La Escala, ce qui indique nécessairement Ampurias comme lieu de découverte. JMH: The reconstruction of the inscription is most uncertain. IRC reads C in l. 1 and suggests Gaius Caesar instead of Augustus.

Au gustus 90 Tar, Ilici. CIL II, 3555. J. Corell, Inscriptiones Romanes d’Ilici, Lucentum, Allon, Dianium i els seus respectius territoris (València 1999) 52-54, no. 3. Type: Base Dim.: 1.24 × 0.60 × 0.60 m.; l.: 0.0450.05 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

CIL: In agro Illicitano. Est basis rotunda litteris

optimis, sed hodie evanidis.

Dedicator: C Maecius C f(ilius) Celer | dedit

dedicavit

Au gustus 91 Tar, Saguntum. CIL II2, 14, 305. CIL II, 3827. F.B. Lloris, Epigrafia latina de Saguntum y su territorio (Valencia 1980) 24-26, no. 10. J. Corell, Inscriptiones romanes del País Valencià Ia (València 2002) 7880, no. 19. Type: Base Dim.: 1.15 × 0.75 × 0.55 m.; l.: 0.040.05 Date: -9- -4 Trib pot 15 / cos 12 / imp 14. CIL II2, 14: Basis statuae lapis calcarii fusci corona et crepidine in fronte et ab utroque latere prominentibus, in omnibus lateribus levigata. Superne foramen grande ad plantam dextram statuae continendam, minus ad pedem sinistrum adfigendum ferebratum, in parte postica in media altitudine foramen quad rigonum ad basim in pariete adfigendam immissum. JMH: This bronze statue was erected together with one for Gaius Caesar (CIL II2, 14, 306). Later statues of Tiberius, Germanicus, and Drusus were added. Dedicator: Municip(es) | Saguntini

Au gustus 92

Tar, Tarraco.

CIL II, 4093. Alföldy 1975, 34, no. 64.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 - Divus. Alföldy: Verlorener Inschriftstein, wahrscheinlich ein Weihaltar oder Statuenpostament. Bekannt durch eine Abschrift aus dem 18. Jahrhundert. Damals befand sich der Stein “en la huerta de S. Clara”, also im Monasterio de Santa Clara, das zwischen dem Balcón del Mediterráneo und der Calle de Gerona stand.

Augustus 93 Tar, Tarraco. CIL II, 4094. Alföldy 1975, 34, no. 65. Type: Base Dim.: 0.62 × 0.63 × 0.62 m.; l.: 0.040.125 Date: 79 - Divus Vespasianus, see comment. Alföldy: Würfelförmiges Statuenpostament aus grauem Kalkstein (piedra de Santa Tecla), mit profiliertem Rahmen für das Inschriftfeld. Oben befindet sich ein Dübelloch, in dem die Statue befestigt wurde. Bekannt seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Damals stand der Stein in den Ruinen der Kirche Santa Magdalena, zwischen der frühchristlichen Nekropole und der heutigen Plaza de Toros. Mus. Arq., Inv. nr. 676. Von demselben Dedikanten stammt auch die Inschrift Nr. 69 mit der Weihung Divo Vespasiano, gefunden in der frühchristlichen Nekropole. Ursprünglich standen die beiden Denkmäler möglicherweise auf dem Forum im westlichen Stadtteil, das etwa 300 m östlich von der Fundstelle der inschrift Nr. 65 lag. Vielleicht weihte derselbe Dedikant auch Inschriften und Statuen der weiteren Divi imperatores. Er war vermutlich ein Freigelassener. In Tarraco sind auch weitere Acilii bekannt. Sie dürfen nach der Schriftform etwa vom Ende des 1. Jahrhunderts stammen. Dedicator: M. Acilius Nymphodotus

Augustus 94 Lus, Conimbriga. J. Alarcão & R. Etienne, Fouilles de Conimbriga

II (Paris 1976) 51-52, no. 25.

Type: Altar? Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 -

Divus.

Alarcão & Etienne: Trouvé à Conimbriga “dans


les ruines de murailles antiques”; perdu. Aucune indication sur le type de monument, sans doute un autel, ni sur la présentation du texte. JMH: Could just as well be a statue base. Dedicator: L Papirius L f(ilius) flamen Augustalis provinciae Lusitaniae

Augustus 95 Lus, Emerita Augusta. CIL II, 472. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 25- -20 Imp 8. CIL: In conventu S. Andreae ad formanda scuta armorum lapidem magnum iaspidem contriverunt; de inscriptione eius solum conservatur hoc fragmentum. JMH: Very difficult to reconstruct. One attempt proposed by CIL: [Imp C]aesari | [Augusto cos ---] Imp VIII | [tr pot ---] | [M Agrippa l f ] Cos III | [principi optim]e merito.

Augustus 96 Lus, Emerita Augusta. AE 1946, 201. CIL II, 473. J. Alvarez & S. de Buruaga, Mémorias de los Museos arqueologicos provinciales 4 (1943) 45. AE 1997, 777 b. J. Edmonson, Two dedications to Divus Augustus and Diva Augusta from Augusta Emerita and the early development of the imperial cult in Lusitania re-examined, MM 38 (1997) 89-105. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.125 × 0.385 × 0.315 m.; l.: 0.016-0.031 Date: 42 - Divus, probably after the consecration of Livia in AD 42. CIL: In domo Ferdinandi de Vera in fragm. lap. Nisi error subest, e domo Fernandi de Vera, i.e. comitum postea de la Roca, lapis videtur translatus est in domum Fernandi de Herrera. AE: Petit bloc de marbre (sans doute d’Estremoz) mouluré, incomplet à dr. Sur le dessus, les restes d’un trou d’origine, circulaire et à fente rectangulaire, placé à 23 cm du bord g., invitent à restituer un second symétriquement et à y placer les offerandes du dédicant, deux bustes en métal précieux probablement (ou des statuettes en bronze). Dedicator: Albinus Albui f(ilius) flamen D[ivi

Augusti et] | Divae Aug(ustae) provinciae

Lusitan[iae dedicavit]

Augustus 97

Lus, Olisipo.

CIL II, 182.


- Divus.

CIL: Pro foribus gubernatoris urbis litteris cul tissimis.

Dedicator: C Arrius Optatius | C Iulius Eutichus

| Augustales

Augustus 98

Lus, Salacia.

CIL II, 5182. J. d’Encarnação, Inscrições romanas

do Conventus Pacensis (Coimbra 1984) 256-257,

no. 184.


0.04-0.05 Date: -5- -4 Trib pot 19.

CIL: Rep. en Alcacer do Sal, lapis granites;

servatur Olisipone in accademia artium.

d’Encarnação: Bloco paralelepipédico em granito

moscovítico de grão grosseiro, com inscrição

honorífica.

Dedicator: Vicanus Bouti f(ilius) | sacrum

Augustus 99

Bae, Contributa Iulia Ugultunia.

AE 1994, 903. D. Fishwick, An Inscribed Ped estal at Cala, Epigraphica 56 (1994) 53-58. CIL

II, 105*.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.00 × 0.50 ×? m.; l.: 0.04-0.07

Date: 14 - Divus.

AE: Cala, Huelva, chapelle de la Vierge. Piédestal

de marbre blanc.

Fishwick: A pedestal of white marble, originates

from the hermitage of the “Virgin de Cala”, where

it was built into the exterior garden wall.

Augustus 100

Bae, Iponuba.

CIL II, 1583. CIL II2, 5, 369.


Augustus.

CIL: Entre la villa de Baena y la de Luque en

Augustus · 245

los confines de los terminos estaba puesto por

limite y mojon de ellos un pedestal muy grande

de piedra de marmol blanco con lindas moldu ras, y tiene un letrero muy grande, pero no se

lee mas que esto.

Au gustus 101

Bae, Mellaria.

CIL II, 2347.


– 14 Augustus.

CIL: En el cortijo de Casablanca 3 leguas al ori ente de Cordoba, camino de Madrid, ay una pie dra en que se leen estas letras.

Dedicator: M Ra[cilius ---] | Firm[us ---]

la estatua. Rep. inter parietinas antiquas en la

encomienda de Viboras, que está una legua de

la Peña de Martos.

Augustus 104

Bae, Tucci.

CIL II, 1666. CIL II2, 5, 72.


– 14 Augustus.

CIL II2: Lapis infra fractus. En una esquina de

una torre de la muralla de Martos, à la parte de la

calle en las casas de D. Bernardino de Avoz.

Dedicator: Q Iulius Q f Serg(ia) | Celsus aed(ilis)

IIvir | [---]

Augustus 105

Au gustus 102

Bae, Ossigi.

CIL II2, 7, 3. CIL II, 3349. C. Gonzáles Román,

Corpus de Inscriptiones Latinas de Andalucía

III, Jaén, vol. 2 (Sevilla 1991) 334.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.05 × 0.55 × 0.45 m.; l.: 0.04-

0.055 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

CIL: Basis ex marmore rosaceo corona et crepi dine undique resectis supra et infra fracta. Rep.

saec. XVIII medio en Mancha Real.

JMH: It is suggested in CIL on the basis of the

letter forms that the honoree is in fact not Au-

gustus but rather Vespasian in the year AD 69

or 70. Another possible solution could be that

a monument to Augustus was re-inscribed in

Flavian times.

Dedicator: Q Vibius Felicio sevir et | Vibia Fe-

licica ministra Tutelae | Augustae | d(e) s(ua)

p(ecunia) d(ederunt) d(edicaverunt)

Au gustus 103

Bae, Tucci.

CIL II, 1664. CIL II2, 5, 198.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.67 × 0.84 × 0.42 m.; l.:?


CIL: Pedestal de marmol negro muy precioso,

tiene dos varas en largo y una de ancho y media

de grueso, con muy particulares molduras y dife-

rencias de labores, tienes unos cartones y tra bazones curiosamente labrados que abrazaban

Bae, Ulia Fidentia.

CIL II2, 5, 486. CIL II, 1525. Bergemann 1990,

140, no. E 63.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -12 See

comment.

Bergeman: Gruppe von Reiterbasen für die kai serliche Familie (Augustus CIL II, 1525, Lu-

cius Caesar, Gaius Caesar CIL II, 1526, Marcus

Agrippa CIL II, 1527, Puplius Agrippa CIL II,

1528, Tiberius CIL II, 1529), aus Ulia. 12 v.Chr.

Montemayor, Prov. Cordoba, in der Festung ver-

baut. Herkunft unbekannt. Wegen des Gruppen zusammenhangs vermutlich Basis einer Reiter-

statue.

Augustus 106

Bae, Urgavo Alba.

CIL II2, 7, 70. CIL II, 2107.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.87 × 0.62 × 0.62 m.; l.: 0.04-

0.045 Date: -6- -5 Trib pot 18.

CIL: Basis statuae rotunda ex marmore rosa-

ceo.


Augustus 107

Bae, Urgavo Alba.

CIL II2, 7, 69. CIL II, 2106.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.06 × 0.555 × 0.555 m.; l.:

0.025-0.05 Date: 11 – 12 Trib pot 34.

CIL: Basis statuae rotunda ex marmore rosaceo.


Dedicator: L Aemilius L f Nigellus aed(ilis) IIvir

d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit)

JMH: Only the four letters AUGU are preserved. Ascribed to Augustus on account of the statue of him found in the vicinity.

Augustus 108

Num, Sicca Veneria.

AE 1898, 94. CIL VIII, 27568.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 -

Divus.

CIL: Tabula marmorea, rep. el Kef dans les

traveaux de construction du nouvel hotel des

Postes, à côté de la ruine dite Dar-el-Djir.

Dedicator: Siccenses

Augustus 109

Num, Thabraca.

CIL VIII, 5205.


6- -5 Trib pot 18.

CIL: Dans la ville du cap Roux, en Barbarie.

Dedicator: L Asp[renas? ---]

Augustus 110

Num, Thibilis.

AE 1907, 6. M. Gsell, BAParis. Comptes ren dus des séances, novembre (1906) CCLXI, no.

3. Pflaum 1976, 435, no. 4658. Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 74 Divus / Vespasian cos 5. Pflaum: Marbre, brisé à droite, trouvé au forum, dans la curie. Sur la face suprieure, au-dessus des deux premières inscriptions, petites mortaises carrées (pour fixer des bustes). Il y en avait sans doute une autre au-dessus de l’inscription de Titus. Il est probable qu’après cette inscription il y en avait une quatrième en l’honneur de Domitien.

Augustus 111 Afr, Gigthis. CIL VIII, 11019. Type: Base Dim.: 0.55 × 0.56 ×? m.; l.: 0.09 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. CIL: In basi; rep. Bu Ghâra prope templum in fori parte ea, quae est inter meridiem et orientem. Statuae Augusti caput haud procul ab eo loco repertum est.

Augustus 112 Afr, Lepcis Magna. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 98, no. 320. Type: Base Dim.: 0.39 × 0.785 × 0.465 m.; l.: 0.035-0.045 Date: -3- -2 Trib pot 21. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Rectangular base of grey limestone, with four sockets on the upper surface, inscribed on one face within a moulded panel. Uniform with J.M. Reynolds & J.B. Ward Perkins, The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, p. 99-100, no. 328 (C. Caesar) Dedicator: Fulvii Lepc[itani]

Augustus 113 Afr, Lepcis Magna. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 99, no. 325. Type: Base Dim.: 0.18 × 0.61 × 0.54 m.; l.: 0.06 Date: 14 – 37 Divus / Tiberius, see comment. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Rectangular base of grey limestone, inscribed on one face. Chalcidium, in the central shrine. JMH: Found together with bases for Tiberius and Drusus the Younger.

Augustus 114 Afr, Lepcis Magna. AE 1948, 12. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 99, no. 326. Rose 1997, 184-185, no. 126. S. Aurigemma, Sculture del foro vecchio di Leptis Magna raffiguranti la Dea Roma e principi della casa dei Giulio-Claudi, Africa Italiana 8 (1940) 31. D. Boschung, Gens Augusta. Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses (Mainz am Rhein 2002) 8-24. Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.70 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.050.06 Date: 45 – 46 Divus / Claudius trib pot 5, see comment. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Low moulded base of grey limestone, inscribed on one face; one of a series of five uniform bases (Divus Augustus, Diva Augustae, Tiberius, Claudius, Messalina).

Augustus · 247

Afr, Masculula.

Eph. epigr. 6, no. 597. CIL VIII, 15775.

Type: Column Dim.: 0.29 × 0.39 ×? m.; l.: 0.02-

0.045 Date: 14 - Divus.

CIL: In columna, rep. loco antiquo Hr. Gergur.

Dedicator: Conventus | civium Romanor(um) |

et Numidiarum qui | Mascululae habitant

littéraires, nouvelle série, fasc. 8 (1913) 35, no. 31. M. Khanousi & L. Maurin, Dougga, Fragments d’histoire. Choix d’inscriptions latines éditées, traduites et commentées (Ier-IVe siècles) (Bordeaux 2000) 19-20, no. 1. Type: Base Dim.: 1.00 × 0.60 × 0.59 m.; l.: 0.17 Date: 14 - Divus, see comment. Cagnat: Partie nord-ouest du forum. Base avec inscriptions sur deux faces adjacentes. Khanousi & Maurin: Base. Calcaire. La plateau et le socle de la base ont disparu. JMH: On the opposite side of the base a dedication to Antoninus Pius (AE 1914, 174). This base undoubtedly belongs with a base for Livia (ILAf no. 557) which also has the name in the nominative case. Khanousi & Maurin suggests on account of the letter forms, which are similar to those of the time of Caracalla, that the inscriptions for Augustus and Livia dates to the third century AD.

Au gustus 116

Augustus 119

Afr, Sufes.

CIL VIII, 11418. CIL VIII, 255.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.52 × 0.70 ×? m.; l.: 0.11

Date: -2 – 14 Pater patriae.

CIL: Hr. Sbiba in basi statuae.

MaE, Berge. M.N. Tod, Macedonia. Inscriptions, BSA 23

(1918-19) 91-93, no. 17. SEG 1, 286. AE 1921,

3. F. Papazoglu, Notes d’épigraphie et de topo-

graphie Macédoniennes, BCH 87 (1963) 526 531. SEG 24, 613. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997,

145-146, no. 77.


0.04 Date: 21 – 22 Year 53 of the Actian Era,

see comment / Divus.

SEG 1: In aula ecclesiae Mekes tabula lapidis

calcarii columnibus ita sustinetur ut mensam

quandam efficiat. 1-3 divum Augustum et im peratorem Tiberium his commemoratos esse

versimile est. 5 ejtouv~ gn Sebastouevtou~ (aerae Actiacae) = qxr (Scil. aerae provinciae Macedoniae) = 21-22 p. Chr. Dedicator: ªÔH povli~º ⁄ --- ⁄ ªejpimelhqevnto~ iJerevw~ Kaºivsaro~ Sebastou` qeou` kai; gumnasiavrcou ⁄ ªth`~ povlew~ --- tºou` Dioskourivdou e[tou~ gnæ Sebastou` ⁄ ªojgdovou de; Tiberivou Kaivsaºro~ kai; ∆Iouliva~ Sebastw`n tou` kai; qxræ

Forum Vetus, behind the Temple of Rome and

Augustus.

Rose: The inscribed statuary bases of Augustus,

Livia, Tiberius, Claudius and Messalina clearly

constitutes a Claudian family group. The dedica tion to Claudius indicates a date of A.D. 45-46

for the entire group. Such a date fits well with

the other inscribed bases, because Livia’s title

of diva Augusta requires a date after 41, and the

lack of official titles for Tiberius suggests a post humous dedication.

Au gustus 115

Au gustus 117

Afr, Thinissut.

AE 1912, 51. Cagnat 1923, no. 306. A. Merlin,

Séance du 22 décembre, CRAI (1911) 836-837.

Z.B. Ben Abdallah, Catalogue des inscriptions latines païennes du Musée du Bardo (Rome 1986) 73-74, no. 190. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.24 × 0.29 ×? m.; l.: 0.0250.035 Date: 14 - Augustus Deus? Cagnat: Plaque de marbre jaunâtre. Auj. au Musée Alaoui. Dedicator: Cives Romani | qui Thinissut | negotiantur | curatore L Fabricio

Au gustus 118

Afr, Thugga.

AE 1914, 170. Cagnat 1923, no. 556. L. Poinssot,

Nouvelles Archives des Missions scientifique et


Augustus 120

MaE, Larissa.

AE 1991, 1411. SEG 35, 612. A. Tziafalias, ADelt

39 B (1984) 155, no. 60.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.57 × 0.17 × 0.54 m.; l.:?

Date: 14 - Divus.

AE: Base honorifique en marbre blanc. Larissa

Mus. 84/62.

JMH: The base is likely to have been posthu-

mous, but theos can be found in a few inscrip tions from his lifetime as well.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ Lareisaivwn

Augustus 121

MaE, Pherai.

IG IX, 2, 425.


Divus.

IG: Basis, in superficie tre excavationes. Pheris

(Velestino) in ecclesia.

IG XII, 3, 205.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.33 × 0.60 ×? m.; l.: 0.07

Date: -40 – 14 Imperator Caesar.

IG: Basis a sinistra dextra superiore parte fracta,

cuius l. 0,60, a. 0,33 quae unum versum continet

litteris ingentibus satis bene incisum. Exscripsi in

castello apud Constantinum Mariakis.

Augustus 126 Ach, Athenae. A.S. Benjamin & A.E. Raubitschek, Arae Augusti, Hesperia 28 (1959) 67. Type: Base Dim.: 0.26 × 0.22 × 0.25 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Benjamin & Raubitschek: Fragment of grey Eleusinian stone, broken on both sides and on the back. The top and bottom surfaces are smooth as far as preserved. Neither provenience nor previous publication is recorded. We assume that the base once carried a bronze statue. Dedicator: ÔO dh`ªmo~º

Augustus 122

MaE, Pythion.

IG IX, 2, 1288.


- Divus.

IG: Selos in domo privata.

Augustus 123

MaE, Trikka.

IG IX, 2, 306.


l.:? Date: -40 – 14 Divi filius.

IG: Marmor, nunc iacens Triccae in demarchia.

Augustus 124

Ach, Anaphe.

IG XII, 3, 264.



IG: Fragmentum in coenobio Panagiva

~ Kalamiwtivssh~ conservatum.

Dedicator: ÔO ªda`mo~º ⁄ ªoJ ∆Anafaivwnº

Augustus 125 Ach, Astypalaia.

Augustus 127

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3262. IG II2, 4725. D. Peppas-Delmouzou,

A Statue base for Augustus IG II 2, 3262 + IG II

2 4725, AJPh 100 (1979) 125-132. SEG 29, 167.

P. Graindor, Inscriptions Attiques d’époque romaine, BCH 51 (1927) 255-256, no. 19. Stuart 1939, 606. Type: Base Dim.: 0.22 × 0.733 × 0.51 m.; l.: 0.020.027 Date: -27 – 14 See comment. Peppas-Delmousou: A Statue base for Augustus IG II 2, 3262 + IG II 2 4725. To the right side of the fragmentary base of Hymettian marble bearing the inscription IG II 2 3262 restored with the name of the emperor Tiberius joins perfectly the fragment IG II 2 4725. This joining provided us with the end of a four-line inscription with the original right edge of the rectangular base preserved, but broken away at the back. It is the upper part of a pedestal. The fragmentary base has the form of a low concave cyma surmounted by a plinth, the face of which carries the inscription. This crowning block possibly stood high up. On the upper surface a large and deep socket

Augustus · 249

has been cut; its right corner is rectangular, but the continuation to the left is ellipsoidal. These traces suggest that the emperor was represented standing with his left foot forward. Dedicator: Posªeidwvniºo~ Dhmhªtrivouº Flueu;~ ⁄ ajgwnoqevth~ ejn ejfhvbªoiº~ aujtou` ⁄ genovmeno~

Au gustus 128 Ach, Athenae. O. Alexandris, ADelt 29 B (1973-74) 84. SEG

29, 168.


-27 – 14 Augustus.

SEG: Fragment of a stone slab found at the in tersection of Antiphanes, Distomos, and Drama

streets.

Au gustus 129

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3175 & 3251. P. Graindor, Athènes sous

Auguste (Cairo 1927) 189.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -9 – 2

Nikias / Lucius Caesar.

IG 3175: In epistylo porticus Aqhnav ~ ∆Archgevtido~. Titulum, qui primum commemorator saeculo XV in codice Ambrosiano C 61. IG 3251: Basis statuae porticui Aqhnav~ ∆Archgevtido~ imposita, periisse videtur. Graindor: Le fronton était couronné par la statue de Lucius César; on ne posséde plus que la copie de la dédicace de la base. Il en résulte que l’edifice fut achevé entre 17 et 2 de notre ère, date de l’adoption, par Auguste, de Lucius César, et de sa mort. De plus, l’archontat de Nikias ne peut être antérieur à 10/9, les noms d’archontes de 18/17 à 11/10 étant connus. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Au gustus 130

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3253. Rose 1997, 138, no. 68.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.33 × 4.575 × 0.73 m.; l.:

0.021 Date: 4 – 14 Tiberius adopted.

IG: Occidentem versus a Parthenone. Basis mar-

moris Pentelici.

Rose: The inscribed base of this group is still in -

tact and is located on the west side of the Parthenon, which was probably its original position. The order of the names is secure from the clamp cuttings and from an earlier third-century B.C. inscription on the back side, which spans the entire line of stones. The order is, from left to right, Drusus II (IG II2, 3256), Tiberius (IG II2, 3254), Augustus and Germanicus (IG II2, 3255); a statue of Trajan was added at the right end of the group in the early second century. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Augustus 131 Ach, Corinthus. A.B. West, Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926 (Cor-

inth VIII, 2) (Cambridge 1931) 12, no. 14 & 214.

Kent 1966, 38, no. 69.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.76 × 0.42 × 0.23 m.; l.: 0.031-


Kent: Inv. 653, 689. Two adjoining fragments of

a white marble base, found in the Julian Basilica

in May and June 1915.

Dedicator: Cn Cn Cn [Pompeii] | Pius Rom[ulus]

| Mosc[hus ---] | [d(e)] s(ua) p(ecunia)

[f(aciundum) c(uraverunt)]

Augustus 132 Ach, Corinthus. A.B. West, Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926 (Cor-

inth VIII, 2) (Cambridge 1931) 28-29, no. 50.


0.08 Date: 14 - Divus.

West: A marble revetment slab found in 1898

near the Lechaeum Road. Inv. No. 118.

Augustus 133 Ach, Corinthus. Kent 1966, 32, no. 53. Type: Base Dim.: 0.62 × 1.75 × 1.75 m.; l.: 0.08 Date: 14 - Divus. Kent: Inv. no. 1750, 2140. Three fragments of a cylindrical statue base of white marble. The base was originally one large block, but it has been badly broken: there survive two large pieces and twelve smaller fragments. The base, with diameter ca. 1,75 m., rested upon steps of blue marble


2.98 m. square, and stood in the Agora northeast of the Bema. Its inscription consisted of three lines, below which two horizontal roundels surrounded the cylinder. Dedicator: [Au]gustales

Augustus 134

Ach, Delos.

Roussel & Launey 1937, 61, no. 1588. CIG 2282.

F. Durrbach, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos (Paris 1922) 260-261, no. 171. Th. Maurojannis, Apollo Delio, Atene e Augusto, Rivista di antichità 4, 1 (1995) 85-86. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -40- -27 Imperator Caesar / not Augustus. IDelos: Marbre transporté de Délos à Venise, dans la maison de la famille Maurosini. Statue élevée à Octave par Athènes et les habitants de l’île. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ ∆Aqhnaivwn ⁄ kai; oiJ th;n nh`son katoikou`nte~

Augustus 135 Ach, Delos. Roussel & Launey 1937, 61-62, no. 1589. CIG 2283. Th. Maurojannis, Apollo Delio, Atene e Augusto, Rivista di antichità 4, 1 (1995) 85-86. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -40- -27 Not Augustus. IDelos: Base aujourd’hui perdue, dont le texte a été copié à Delos en 1753 par J. Stuart. Dedicator: ∆Artwvrio"

Augustus 136

Ach, Delos.

Roussel & Launey 1937, 62, no. 1590. CIG 2283

b. Th. Maurojannis, Apollo Delio, Atene e Au-

gusto, Rivista di antichità 4, 1 (1995) 85-86. Th.

Homolle, Les Romains a Délos, BCH 8 (1884)

154.


Augustus.

Maurojannis: Base andata perduta.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ ∆Aªqhnaivwn kai; oiJ th;nº ⁄ ªnh`ºsoªnº oijªkºoªu`nte~ ---º

Augustus 137 Ach, Delos. Roussel & Launey 1937, 62, no. 1591. J. Bousquet, Inscriptions de Delos, BCH 85 (1961) 89. Rose 1997, 151, no. 83. Th. Homolle, Inscriptions de Délos, BCH 3 (1879) 162, no. 11. Type: Base Dim.: 0.27 × 0.64 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.04 Date: -12 – 14 Pont max. IDelos: Inv. E 154. Partie, trouvée en 1877 dans la cella du temple d’Apollon, d’une base quadrangulaire en marbre blanc retaillée ultérieurement en oblique; aujourd’hui déposée près du côté Sud du Temple des Athéniens. Dedicator: ªÔOº dh`mo~ oJ ∆Aqhnaivwn

Augustus 138

Ach, Delphi.

AE 1962, 130. J. Bousquet, Inscriptions de Del phes, BCH 85 (1961) 88-90.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.31 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.026-0.028

Date: -12 – 14 Pont max.

AE: Au total, quatre éclats d’une base de calcaire.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ ∆Aqh⁄naivwn

Augustus 139

Ach, Dyme.

Eph. epigr. 4, no. 85. J. Martha, Inscriptions

d’Achaie, BCH 2 (1878) 100, no. 10.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -40- -27

Imperator Caesar but not Augustus.

Eph. epigr.: Dyme? (Kato-Achaia). Litteris

pulcherrimis in basi quadrata, in qua fortasse

stetit aliquando statua loricata manu elata ea,

cuius fragmenta duo in eodem vico reperiuntur.

Kato-Achaia, prope Khani q.d. ante domum K.

Georgiadis.

Dedicator: Philomusus l Epiroticus

Augustus 140 Ach, Eleusis. E. Vanderpool, Three inscription from Eleusis, ADelt 23 A (1968) 7-9, no. 3. Rose 1997, 140141, no. 71. SEG 24, 212. AE 1971, 439 b. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.68 × 0.67 × 0.21 m.; l.:? Date: -38- -27 Livia / not Augustus, see comment.

Augustus · 251

Vanderpool: The chapel of St. Zacharias, situated about 150 meters outside the entrance court of the sanctuary at Eleusis along the road leading to Athens, is set down into the apse and part of the central aisle of a large Early Christian Basilica. The inscription is built into the northern colonnade of the basilica. Cuttings in the top show that the block was clamped at either end to an adjoining block, and there are roughly cut letters near the joints, B at the right and G at the left which also indicate that the block is one of a series. There are pry holes and dowel holes for the setting and fastening of the course above. JMH: The internal evidence does not allow the base to be dated more precisely, but a date after Actium seems most probable. Augustus visited Eleusis in 31 BC and was initiated into the mysteries. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Au gustus 141

Ach, Eleusis.

SEG 47, 218. A. Skias, AEphem 1897, 51-52, no.

22. K. Clinton, in M.C. Hoff & S.I. Rotroff (ed.),

The Romanization of Athens (Oxford 1997) 166 67. AE 1998, 1262. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27 – 14

Augustus.

SEG: Fragment of a statue base of white marble

with top preserved, broken on all other sides;

found in the excavations of the Greek Archae ological Society at Eleusis. The base probably

stood near the Bouleuterion at Eleusis.

Dedicator: ªÔO iJereºu;~ auJtou` kai; aJªgwnoqev th~º ⁄ ª---º kai; kh`rux bºoulh`~ kai; dªhvmou Kalliº⁄ªkrativdh~ Sundrovmou Trikºoruvsªio~ ---º

Au gustus 142 Ach, Hypata. IG IX, 2, 40. C. Hanson & F.P. Johnson, On Certain Portrait Insciptions, AJA 50 (1946) 392, no. 13. M. Giannopulus, Nouvelles et correspondance, BCH 21 (1897) 158-159, no. 7. Rose 1997, 145, no. 75.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 17- -2 Gaius and Lucius Caesar. Giannopulus: Dans une maison d’Hypata. Bloc de marbre blanc, mouluré en haut et en bas. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ ÔUpavta

Augustus 143 Ach, Hyria. SEG 38, 819. B.K. Lambrinoudakis & G. Gruben, Archaiognosia 5 (1987-1988) 169-170. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. SEG: Fragment of a large statue base of “Naxian” marble found in excavations of a marble temple at Hyria. Mentioned in the Greek newspaper Kathemerini of 14.2.1988 (non vidimus) and AR (1987/1988) 58 (twì Qewì Kaivsari). Lambrinoudakis & Gruben speculate that the base originally carried an inscription honoring Marc Antony which was erased before the present one was carved. In Festschrift für Nikolaus Himmelmann (Mainz 1989) 341-350 (dr.), Lambrinoudakis returns to this stone in the course of a discussion of the statue of Antony as Neos Dionysos which probably first stood on the base: ª---Sebasºtwì Qewì Kaivsari.

Augustus 144 Ach, Ioulis. SEG 14, 537. C. Dunant & J. Thomopoulos, Inscriptions de Ceos, BCH 78 (1954) 331-333, no. 7. Rose 1997, 153, no. 86. Type: Base Dim.: 0.17 × 0.775 × 0.735 m.; l.: 0.02 Date: -40- -27 Not Augustus. Dunant & Thomopoulos: Base de statue en marbre blanc, casée à la partie inférieure. Sur la face supérieure, divers trous de scellement pour une statue de bronze: l’un en forme de semelle, l’autre rond, et deux trous de goujon carrés. La face inférieure (lit de pose) porte aussi des trous de scellement en forme de semelle: la base avait été employée à deux reprises pour supporter des statues de bronze, une fois d’un côte, une fois de l’autre. La base se trouve encore sur le Kastro de Chôra, parmi les ruines de la chapelle de la Panaghia dans les murs de laquelle elle avait été maçon-


née. Cette dédicace du peuple d’Ioulis honorant le successeur de César ne comporte pas la mention de Sebastov~, habituelle dans les inscriptions postérieures au décret sénatorial de la fin de l’an 27 av. J.-C., par lequel Octave recevait le titre d’Augustus. Elle paraît donc avoir été gravée avant cette date, et doit se situer entre la bataille d’Actium et 27 av. J.-C. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Augustus 145

Ach, Karystos.

IG XII, 9, 19.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.10 × 0.40 ×? m.; l.: 0.025


IG: Palaeochora. Fragmentos baseos, a parte su periore et a dextra integrum. In muro quodam

horti prope ecclesiam Metamorfwsew~.

Augustus 146

Ach, Megara.

IG VII, 63. CIG 1069.


40- -27 Imperator Caesar.

IG: Megaris.

Dedicator: ÔO dh` mo~

Augustus 147 Ach, Olympia. Dittenberger & Purgold 1896, col. 479-480, no. 367. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.585 × 0.79 × 0.24 m.; l.:? Date: -40- -27 Imperator Caesar / not Augustus. Dittenberger & Purgold: Basisblock aus großem, grauem Kalkstein mit Rißen und gelblichen Adern. Link obere Ecke gebrochen, oben an drei Seiten umlaufendes Profil. Der Stein scheint als Vorderplatte zur Verkleidung eines grösseren Bathron gedient zu haben. Inv. 120. Gefunden 25. Januar 1877 vor der Ostfront des Zeustempels, etwas westlich von der Basis der Stiers der Eretrier. Dedicator: To; koino;n tw`n ∆Acaiw`n

Augustus 148

Ach, Olympia.

Dittenberger & Purgold 1896, col. 479-480, no.

368.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.13 × 0.20 × 0.015 m.; l.:?

Date: -40 – 14 Imperator Caesar.

Dittenberger & Purgold: Fragment einer Platte

aus großkörnigem Marmor. Nur oben Rand,

sonst ringsum gebrochen. Inv. 769. Gefunden

5. Februar 1880 vor der Ostfront des Zeustempels.

Augustus 149

Ach, Tanagra.

IG VII, 569. B. Haussoullier, Inscriptions de

Béotie, BCH 3 (1879) 386, no. 33. A. Schachter,

Cults of Boiotia I (London 1981) 209. P. Veyne,

Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla,

Latomus 21 (1962) 52.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.265 ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27

– 14 Augustus. Haussoullier: Musée de Tanagre. Base cylindrique en pierre noire. H. 0,265 m. Circonf. 1,92 m. Schachter: IG 7.569 and 572 are on the same stone. The first was taken by P. Veyne as an altar of Augustus, later re-employed under Vespasian or Titus for the dedication of a statue of Vespasian’s wife Flavia Domitilla, as Tyche, the statue dedicated by the priestess – Flavia Domitilla’s? – Alexo Herakleia. JMH: Although the genetive form of the name is used, it is quite possible that the base carried a statue of Augustus. Certainly it served as a statue base in its reused form.

Augustus 150 Ach, Thera. IG XII, 3, 474. Type: Base Dim.: 0.29 × 1.00 ×? m.; l.: 0.0320.035 Date: -40 – 14 Imperator Caesar. IG: Basis longa. E monte S. Stephani in vicum Mesa Gwnia delata est. Dedicator: ªTºi(bevrio~) Kl(auvdio~) Kavllisto~ ª---º

Augustus · 253

Au gustus 151

Ach, Thera.

IG XII, 3, 470.


l.: 0.018 Date: -31- -30 Cos 4 / imp 5.

IG: In regione ea, quae proxime a Basilica septen triones versus sita est, duo fragmenta marmoris

maculati effodimus, dextrum m. Iunio, sinistrum

m. Augusto anni 1896, quae postea demum intellexi inter se fuisse coniuncta. Marginis superioris (ubi cymatium seorsum exsculptum erat) partes in utroque fragmento, cymatii inferioris frustulum in sinistro conservata sunt. Dedicator: ÔO da`ªmo~º

Au gustus 152

Ach, Thespiai.

IG VII, 1836.


See comment.

IG: Basis inventa in patietinis ecclesiae aJgiva~ Triavdo~ in monte Helicone; nunc in Thespiis in museo. Monumentum dedicatum post annum 30, sed ante annum 27 a. Chr., quo Caesar nomen Augusti assumpsit. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ Qesªpiº⁄evwn

Au gustus 153

Cre, Gortyn.

IC IV, 268. CIL III, 13563.


– 14 Augustus, see comment. CIL: Gortynae rep. ad Hagioi Deka in area Manoli Alegyzaki. JMH: The base may belong with a base for Drusus the Younger (CIL III, 13565). In that case the date would be AD 4-14.

Au gustus 154

Cre, Hierapytna.

SEG 32, 874. K. Davaras, Kretikes epigrafes III,

AEphem (1980) 17, no. 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.23 × 0.15 × 0.14 m.; l.: 0.017-

0.025 Date: 14 - Divus.

SEG: Small poros base; traces of red paint in the

inscription.

JMH: Although SEG calls this a base it could

very well be an altar. The use of theos is not a

certain indication that Augustus was dead at the

time of the dedication.

Augustus 155

Cre, Lappa.

IGRR I, 959. IC II, XVI, 12.


Augustus.

IC: Augusti Imperatoris parvam statuam basis

sustinuisse videtur.

Augustus 156

Cre, Lato.

IC I, XVI, 36.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.25 × 0.22 × 0.14 m.; l.: 0.02


IC: Nunc in Museo Candiensi (inv. 88). Tabula

e marmore albo.

Dedicator: Lativwn ⁄ aJ povli~

Augustus 157 Cre, Lato. IC I, XVI, 36 bis. G. Doublet, Inscriptions de Crète, BCH 13 (1889) 55-56, no. 3 Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.25 × 0.22 × 0.14 m.; l.: 0.02 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus, see comment. JMH: The almost similar inscription IC I, XVI, 36 has Sebastos in l. 3. Both dedications were probably set up at the same time. Dedicator: Lativwn ⁄ aJ povli~

Augustus 158

Cre, Polyrrenia.

IC II, XXIII, 12.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.35 × 0.92 × 0.775 m.; l.:?


IC: Functus lapis calcarius subniger, ubi sub al tero titulo ad Augustum imperatorem pertinente

antiquioris saec. III a.Chr. incisi vestigia agno scuntur. Basis.

JMH: This base originally held a statue of king

Areus of Sparta dedicated in the third century

BC.

Dedicator: ÔH povl

i~


Augustus 159

Asi, Apollonia.

MAMA IV, 49-56, no. 143. Rose 1997, 169-170,

no. 107.

Type: Base Dim.:? × 4.45 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14

– 19 Divus / Germanicus. MAMA: Uluborlu, in the three places mentioned below; three pieces of white limestone: (A) Rectangular block, with moulding projecting along the top; both ends and top and bottom smoothly finished, the front lower edge much chipped and broken, the rear surface not smoothed but tooled to a plane parallel to the lower inscribed strip on the front. H. 0,335; w. 0,81; th. (at top) 0,55, (at bottom) 0,46; projection of moulding beyond the inscribed surface, 0,09; letters in top strip 0,04, in the second strip 0,035, in lowest strip 0,01-0,012. Found as the lowest step in front of a small mosque, no longer used, on the south side of the street leading to the castle gateway, about 100 m. from that gate. (B) Block roughly rectangular, smoothly finished on r. broken on three other sides, rear concealed. H. 0,55; w. 0,45; letters 0,01-0,015; built into the outer wall of the house of Hadji Nebioghlu Hadji Husni, situated on the south side of the street below the ruins of the old Greek quarter. (C) Block roughly rectangular, smoothly finished on l., broken on three other sides. H. 0,51; w. (at top) 0,44, (at bottom) 0,18; th. 0,29; letters, 0,01-0,015; built into the outer wall of the house of Husni Bey, as one of the corner-stones. The size and appearance of the original and the position of the fragments A-F are shown in Fig. 17: In this drawing some details are of course conjectural, but as to the character of the monument – a pedestal for statues of Augustus, his widow, his successor and the two “crown-princes”, bearing on its front the Greek version of his Res gestae – there can be little doubt; this version was engraved, not as at Ancyra on the wall of a temple, but on a pedestal designed to support the five statues and to display the whole document in a form that could easily be read. The statues and pedestal of Apollonia must date from the period between the deaths of Augus-

tus and Germanicus, i.e. A.D. 14 and 19. That the personages whom it honours were the five named above is shown by the decree of Gytheion, also of A.D. 14-19, where by a rule of precedence identical with ours they are honoured in the following order: 1 Augustus, 2 Tiberius, 3 Iulia Augusta, 4 Germanicus, 5 Drusus. Rose: Due to the staggered format of the Imperial inscriptions, it has always been assumed that statues were positioned above them, but the evidence speaks against this. The block with the dedication to Augustus still survives, and the upper surface is not “smoothly finished” as Buckler and Calder reported in MAMA. A rectangular area 0.66 by 0.42 m. has been incised on the surface, presumably for a statue base. A part of the area within this rectangle has been pointchisled, apparently to provide anathyrosis for the base, although the work was never completed. It looks as if the statue were originally intended for the monument, thereby explaining the use of the accusative in the primary inscription, and work was begun on the upper surface to prepare it for the bases. But a decision was made to stop work before the cutting was finished, and no statues were ever placed there. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ∆Apollwniatw`n Lukivwn Qraikw`n kolwnw`n

Augustus 160

Asi, Arassos.

Eph. epigr. 2, no. 1042.

Type: Epistyle Dim.: 0.34 × 1.04 ×? m.; l.:?

Date: 14 - Divus.

Eph. epigr.: In epistylio. Ahars (a septentrione

oppidi Isbarte), ubi videtur fuisse Arassos op-

pidum Pisidiae.

Augustus 161

Asi, Bargylia.

IGSK 28, 2, 601.


– 14 Augustus.

IGSK: Gefunden in Assarlik (Ruinen von Bar-

gylia).

Dedicator: ÔO dh` ªmo~º

Augustus · 255

Au gustus 162

Asi, Cnidus.

IGSK 41, 42. AE 1992, 1596.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.62 × 0.64 ×? m.; l.: 0.05


IGSK: Block aus großkristallinem, grauem Mar-

mor, im Erdboden eingelassen in der nähe des

Triremenhafens.


Au gustus 163

Asi, Cyzicus.

AE 1983, 910. E. Schwertheim, Die Inschriften

aus der Sammlung Necmi Tolunay in Bandirma,

EA 1 (1983) 110-112, no. 3.

Type: Stele? Dim.: 1.18 × 0.24 × 0.16 m.; l.: 0.01-


AE: Kyzikos, stèle fragmentaire en marbre. Col lection Tolunay à Bandirma.

Dedicator: ª---ºqento~ aujtoi`~ ⁄ ª---oºu Petrwnivou tou` ⁄ ª---ºmetevpeita tw`n ⁄ ª---º ajpo; stevgh~ e⁄ª---ºnon uJpæ aujtou` ⁄ ª---º ∆Etewnevw~ ⁄ ª---º

Au gustus 164

Asi, Cyzicus.

CIL III, 7061. Eph. epigr. 4, no. 53. Rose 1997,

171-172, no. 110. G. Perrot, Une inscription de

Cyzique, RA 31 (1876) 99-105.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 43 – 54

Divus / After Claudius’ Britannic vicitory.

CIL: Cyzici nuper rep.

Dedicator: Vind lib de vi[ctori regum xi] | Bri tanniae ar[cum posuerunt] | c(ives) R(omani)

qui Cyzici [consistunt] | et Cyzi[ceni ---] | cu-

ratore [---]

lich der Latrine des sog. Variusbades (Inv.-Nr. 3602). Dedicator: ÔO ªqivaso~Ùº ⁄ tw`n nevwn guªmnasiº⁄arcou`nto~ ÔHrªakleivº⁄dou Passaªla`º

Augustus 166 Asi, Ephesus. IGSK 17, 1, 3006. AE 1904, 98. AE 1924, 68. Rose 1997, 172-174, no. 112. Kähler 1939, col. 454454, no. 10. R. Heberdey, Forläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesos 1902/3, ÖJh 7 (1904) Beibl. col. 49-51. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.12-0.14 Date: -4- -3 Trib pot 20. AE 1904: Sur l’attique de l’agora en lettres de bronze. JMH: On the south side of the attic of the arch at the entrance to the agora. Letters in bronze. Inscription a) honoring Augustus and Livia is located above the left arch; inscription b) honoring Agrippa and Julia above the right and c) the dedicators above the middle arch. Later a base for a statue of Lucius Caesar was added. Dedicator: Mazaeus et | Mithradates patronis || Mavzªaiºo~ kai; Miqridavth~ ⁄ tªoi`~º paªtºrwsi kai; twi` dhªmwi`º

Augustus 167

Asi, Eresos.

IG XII, suppl., 128.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.12 × 0.40 × 0.32 m.; l.: 0.014-

0.018 Date: -40 – 14 Imperator Caesar.

IG: Basis a dextra dissecta.

Dedicator: Povplio~ Kuintivlªio~ ---º ⁄ tw`n tw` Sebavstw ªajpeleuqevrwnÙº

Au gustus 165

Augustus 168

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 252. AE 1972, 584. D. Knibbe, Neue

Inschriften aus Ephesos III, ÖJh 49 (1968) Beibl.,

col. 57-60, no. 1.


0.02-0.025 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

Knibbe: Quader aus bläulich-weißem Marmor,

rechts Abarbeitung und Bruchfläche, alseitig

Mörtelspuren. Gefunden als Mauerstein süd -

Asi, Ilium.

IGSK 3, 81. IGRR IV, 201. CIG 3604.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.73 × 0.78 ×? m.; l.: 0.025


CIG: Tabula candidi alta pedes II pollices III,

lata pedes II pollices V, reperta in coemeterio

vici Kalileli.

IGSK: Basis; gefunden in Halileli.

Dedicator: ∆Iliei`~ kai; aiJ povlei~ aiJ koinw-


nou`sai th`~ ªquº⁄siva~ kai; tou` ajgw`no~ kai; th`~ panhguvreªw~º ⁄ ⁄ ”Ipparco~ ÔHghsidhvmou ∆Ilieu;~ sunedªreuvº⁄wn to;n ajndriavnta ajnevqhken ejk tw`n ijdªivwnº ⁄ dia; th;n pro;~ to;n Sebasto;n kai; eujergevªthnº ⁄ kai; swth`ra eJautou` eujsevbhan

Augustus 169

Asi, Ilium.

IGSK 3, 82. IGRR IV, 200.


Augustus.

IGSK: Säulenbasis, gefunden in Halileli.

Dedicator: ª∆Iliei`~º kai; aªiJ povlei~ aiJ koinwº⁄ªnou`sai tºh`~ qusªiva~ kai; tou`º aj⁄gw` no~ kai; th`~ panhguv rew~

Augustus 170

Asi, Ilium.

IGSK 3, 83. H. Schliemann, Inschriften aus Ilion,

AM 15 (1890) 217, no. 1. IGRR IV, 203. Rose

1997, 177-178, no. 119.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.32 × 1.36 × 0.76 m.; l.: 0.04


IGSK: Vier Fragmente einer Marmorbasis, ge-

funden in Ilion.

Rose: Dörpfeld discovered both of these in scribed statue bases (IGSK 3, 89: Tiberius) in

the orchestra of the Bouleuterion.

Dedicator: Melanippivdh~ Eujqudiv kou tªo;n eJautou`º ⁄ xevnon kai; eujergevthªnº

Augustus 171 Asi, Klaros. AE 2000, 1391. SEG 49, 1513. J.-L. Ferrary, Les inscriptions du sanctuaire de Claros en l’honneur de Romains, BCH 124, 357-359, no. 8. Type: Base Dim.: 0.46 × 0.69 × 0.65 m.; l.: 0.0260.027 Date: -31- -27 Not yet Augustus. Ferrary: Temple d’Apollon. Trouvée, en même temps que des fragments des atatues cultuelles, lors du dégagement de la partie postérieure del’adyton souterrain. La base est complète à droit; la surface est brisèe à gauche, mais la base est en partie conservée dans la totalité de sa longeur. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Augustus 172 Asi, Korsiai. AE 1974, 623. G. Dunst, Die Inschriften von Korsiai, in Mélanges helléniques offerts a G. Daux (1974) 121-124, no. 3. IG XII, 6, 2, 1205. Type: Base Dim.: 0.35 × 1.15 × 1.45 m.; l.: 0.04 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Dunst: Ehreninschrift für Kaiser Augustus in Form einer Felsinschrift unterhalb einer “natürlichen Nische” auf einem Basisblock in dem “hellenistischen, bis weit in die Römerzeit hinein belegten Kastell”. Es ist der Punkt, den Bent so beschrieb: “Under the highest point stood a colossal statue the holes for the feet of which are still visible with an inscription round the base so obliterated that scarsely any letters can be deciphered.” Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ ª---º

Augustus 173 Asi, Kos. K. Höghammar, Sculpture and Society. A Study

of the Connection between the Free-standing

Sculpture and Society on Kos in the Hellenis tic and Augustan Periods (Uppsala 1993) 190,

no. 80.


Imperator Caesar but not Augustus.

Höghammar: From the sanctuary of Apollo (Ag.

Theotis).

Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ ÔAlasarneita`n ajnevqh ken

Augustus 174 Asi, Kos. M. Sasel, Inscriptiones Latinae in Graecia reper-

tae. Addimenta ad CIL III (Faenza 1979) 21-22,

no. 16.


Augustus.

Sasel: Basis marmorea ad statuam pertinens. Ex-

stat Coi inaedificata turri in eo angulo Castelli,

qui est inter meridiem et occidentem.

Dedicator: ÔErmhì ⁄ grutopw`lai ⁄ Prostatou`nto~ Diogevnou~ tou` ⁄ Polucavrou~ filokaivsaro~

Augustus · 257

Au gustus 175

Asi, Lindos.

Blinkenberg 1941, col. 738, no. 386.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.715 × 0.828 × 0.33 m.; l.:


Blinkenberg: Bloc rectangulaire qui a fait partie

d’une base dont le couronnement, fait séparé-

ment, n’a pas été retrouvé. Marbre de Lartos.

JMH: This base probably belongs with a similar

one for Livia.

Dedicator: Lindiv oi

Au gustus 176 Asi, Lindos. AE 1948, 184. Blinkenberg 1941, col. 766-770, no. 414. Rose 1997, 154-155, no. 89. Type: Exedra Dim.: 0.46 × 5.60 × 0.60 m.; l.: 0.023-0.026 Date: 14 – 19 Divus / Germanicus. Blinkenberg: Cinq blocs qui ont fait partie du dossier d’une exèdre, sur laquelle étaient placées les statues de six membres de la maison impériale; les autres blocs du même monument font apparemment défaut. Marbre de Lartos. JMH: Of the six or more inscriptions under bronze statues of the imperial family four are preserved (from l. to r.): Tiberius, Drusus the Younger, Augustus, and Germanicus. Dedicator: Lindivoi

Au gustus 177 Asi, Pergamum. Fränkel 1895, 283, no. 401. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.27 × 0.35 × 0.64 m.; l.: 0.018 Date: -40 – 14 Imperator Caesar. AvPergamon: Deckplatte einer Basis aus bläulich weißem Marmor, gefunden September 1886 im Schutt der byzantinischen Mauer, dicht unterhalb des Dionysostempels (Inv. III 582. Original in Pergamon). Rechts unvollständig; links Stoßfuge; auf der unteren Hälfte der Vorderseite Reste einer abgemeißelten Profil. Auf der Oberseite eine fußförmige und eine runde Standspur von einer Bronzestatue. JMH: Augustus seems the best candidate for this base although the name is not completely preserved.

Dedicator: Cari`no~ iJereªuv~ ---º

Augustus 178

Asi, Pergamum.

IGRR III, 309. Fränkel 1895, 272-273, no. 381.


l.: 0.05 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

AvPergamon: Fünf Bruchstücke oben profilirter

Quadern aus bläulich weißem Marmor, vermut-

lich von einer sehr grossen Basis, gefunden das

erste Herbst 1884 im Theater (Inv. III 327), das

letzte September 1883 in der byzantinischen

Mauer gegen Westen (III 89), die übrigen März,

April und Juli 1879 in der Umgebung des großen

Alters (Inv. I 86, 64 a, 65). Die Blöcke waren auf

der Oberseite durch Klammern verbunden und

trugen Deckplatten. Rückseite gänzlich unbear-

beitet.

Augustus 179

Asi, Pergamum.

IGRR III, 311. P. Jacobsthal, Die Arbeiten zu Per-

gamon 1906-1907, AM 33 (1908) 411, no. 45.

AE 1909, 41.


l.: 0.025 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

Jacobsthal: Block blauen Marmors. Wie auf der

Hinterseite zu sehen ist, gehörte er ursprünglich

zum Sockel eines Rundbaus. Gefunden 1906,

verbaut in der späten Mauer, vor dem Mittelsaal

des oberen Gymnasions.


Augustus 180 Asi, Pergamum. IGRR III, 312. Fränkel 1895, 273 no. 382. Type: Unknown Dim.:? × 0.18 × 0.055 m.; l.: 0.018 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Frankel: Bruchstück aus blauem Marmor, unbekannten Fundortes (Inv. II Anh. l). Nur oben vollständig. JMH: It is not certain that the base was dedicated to Augustus. This seems to have been determined by the editor on account of the shape of the letters.


Augustus 181

Asi, Pergamum.

IGRR III, 314. Fränkel 1895, 514. A. Conze & C.

Schuchhardt, Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1886 1898, AM 24 (1899) 173, no. 16.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27

– 14 Augustus. Conze & Schuchhardt: Platte aus weissem Marmor. Im Fussboden der Gimurtale-Mesdschid im Hadschi-Faki-Machalá, wieder aufgefunden von Herrn Dimitrios Tscholakidis. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ ∆Amishnw`n kai; oiJ ⁄ sumpoliteuovªmenoiº kai; oª---º

Augustus 182 Asi, Pergamum. IGRR III, 315. Fränkel 1895, 273-275, no. 383. SEG 36, 1129. S. Stucci, Una moneta detta “di Pergamo”, ArchClass 36 (1984) 198-215. Type: Base Dim.: 2.48 × 5.25 × 5.25 m.; l.: 0.0160.065 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Franke: Große Rundbasis aus blauem Marmor, deren zahlreiche Werkstücke September und October 1880 größtenteils im Athenaheiligtum gefunden sind. Die Basis war aus großen, sorgfältig behauenen, in Flach- und Hochschichten gelegten Quadern erbaut und setze sich aus Sockel, Schaft und Deckplatte zusammen. Der Sockel bestand aus drei Stufen, zwei je 0,255 und eine 0,385 hoch, von denen die letzte auf dem freiliegenden Teil ihrer Oberseite die Standspuren kleiner Bronzebildwerke und merkwürdigerweisenach außen gerichtete Klammerbettungen trägt. Darüber erhob sich, wahrscheinlich unten und oben von profilierten Gesimsen eingefast, der cylindriche Schaft dessen Höhe Bohn zu ca. 1,30 angenommen hat. Sein Durchmesser betrug ohne die Profile 3,15, während der Durchmesser der Denkmals in der Höhe der untersten Stufe sich auf 5,24 berechnen ließ. Deckplatten sind nicht mehr vorhanden. A (Inv. II 40) Ecke links oben abgebrochen. B (Inv. II 52, 39) beide Stücke an der gemeinsamen Fuge stark bestoßen. C (Inv. II 23) in zwei Stücke gebrochen und links bestoßen.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ ªkºai; oiJ kªaºtoikou`nte~ ÔRwmaiòi ⁄ kaqievªrºwsan ªejpimelhqevntwnº ⁄ ª--ºmhvnoªuº ⁄ ∆Aªqhnaivou tou` ∆Askºlhpiªavºdªouº ⁄ Dionªusivou tou` Diºodwvrou ⁄ Menemavcou ªtou` Mhtºrofavnou~ ⁄ ∆Artemidwvroªu tou` ÔIpºpivou ⁄ strªathgw`nº ⁄ hJ boulªh; kai; oJº dh`mªo~º ⁄ ªejºpeskeuvasen kai; ajpo⁄katevsthsen ⁄ ejpimelhqevntwªnº tw`n peri; ⁄ ªTºi(bevrion) ∆Iouvlion ÔRou`fon strathgw`n

Augustus 183 Asi, Pergamum. IGRR III, 317. Fränkel 1895, 275-276, no. 384. Type: Base Dim.: 0.43 × 0.56 × 0.37 m.; l.: 0.0220.039 Date: -17 – 2 Augustus, see comment. AvPergamon: Vollständiger Block von der rechten Ecke einer Basis aus weißem Marmor und links anschließendes Bruchstück eines zweiten Blockes. Der Block (Inv. II 93. Original in Pergamon) gefunden März 1881 in der Schutt unterhalb der Südseite des Athenaheiligtum, das Bruchstück (Inv. III 536) Juli 1886 in der Südostecke der Hochburg. Auf der Oberseite beider Stücke eine Bettung für die sie verbindende Klammer; auf dem vollständigen Block, der rechts Außenfläche, hinten Stoßfuge hat außerdem eine nach hinten gerichtete Klammerbettund und eine Dübelloch mit nach vorn gerichtetem Gußkanal. JMH: The mention of the children of Augustus dates this inscription to the period from the adoption of Gaius and Lucius in 17 BC to the death of Lucius in AD 2. Dedicator: ªEujagºgelivwn ⁄ ªtou` Mhtºrodwvrou oJ gumna⁄ªsivarco~ ejk tºw`n ijdªivºwn kai; pruvta⁄ªni~ kai; ajgwºnoqevth~ tw`n Sebas⁄ªtou` paivºdwn toªu`º Kaqhgeªmºo⁄ªno~ Dionuvsoºu ejk tw`n perissw`n th`~ ⁄ ªeJorth`~ crhºmavtwn kaqeievrwsen

Augustus 184 Asi, Samos. P. Herrmann, Die Inschriften römischer Zeit aus dem Heraion von Samos, AM 75 (1960) 101103, no. 9. Type: Base Dim.: 0.29 × 0.85 × 0.61 m.; l.: 0.018 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus.

Augustus · 259

Herrmann: Inv. M 187 + M 188. Zwei unten aneinanderpassende Fragmente eines Blockes aus weißem Marmor, links und hinten gebrochen, oben, unten und rechts Kante erhalten. Auf der Oberseite in der Mitte 18 cm von vorn rechteckiges Dübelloch mit einem nach vorn laufenden 7,5 cm langen Gußkanal, was darauf schlißen läßt, daß auf diesem beschrifteten Block noch ein weiterer stufenförmig etwa 11 cm zurückgesetzter Block ruhte. Gefunden 1912, M 187 nördlich der Kapelle, M 188 im nordöstlichen Peribolos. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mªo~º

Au gustus 185

Asi, Stratonikeia.

IGSK 21, 13. G. Deschamps & G. Cousin, In-

scriptions du temple de Zeus Panamaros, BCH

12 (1888) 271, no. 56.

Type: Probably a base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:?


Deschamps & Cousin: Sur un bloc de marbre

blanc. Grandes lettres. Gravure nette et profonde.

Probablement sur la base d’une statue d’Auguste.

Auguste, ayant reconstruit le temple d’Hécate,

avait des titres particuliers à la reconnaissance des

Stratonicéens (cf. BCH XI, p. 11). Une inscription

de Lagina mentionne un sebastos oikos (Newton

n. 101). “Perhaps the heap of ruins, to the southeast of the Corinthian temple, are those of an Augusteum (Id. Halicarnassus, t. II, p. 799).

Au gustus 186 Asi, Tabai. L. Robert & J. Robert, La Carie. Histoire et géographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques. Tome 2, Le plateau de Tabai et ses environs (Paris 1954) 112, no. 16. G. Doublet & G. Deschamps, BCH 14 (1890) 626, no. 29. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Robert: Statue d’Auguste. Davas. Fragment de colonne. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ kaªqievrwsenº ⁄ ejpimelhªqevnto~º ⁄ Papivou tou` Papªivouº ⁄ Gorgosqevªnou~º

Augustus 187 Asi, Thyateira. AE 1949, 251. L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques 6 (Paris 1948) 71-72, no. 23. Type: Base Dim.: 0.62 × 0.61 × 0.48 m.; l.: 0.0350.04 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. AE: Grande base de marbre, brisée à droite. Dedicator: Leukivo~ Ai[lio~ ª∆Arº⁄tevmwno~ uiJo;~ ª---º ⁄ ª---ºtarco~ oJ iJereu;~ ⁄ aujtou`

Augustus 188

LyP, Antiochia en Pisidia.

CIL III, 6803.

Type: Column Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -2

– 14 Pater patriae.

CIL: Columna rotunda. Altü Kapü prope Yalo wadj in coemeterio.

Augustus 189 LyP, Apollonia. IGRR III, 694. R. Heberdey & E. Kalinka, Bericht über zwei Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien, DenkschrWien 45 (1897) 18, no. 57. Type: Base Dim.: 1.29 × 1.48 × 0.67 m.; l.:? Date: 4 – 14 Tiberius adopted. Heberdey & Kalinka: Assar bei Sidschak. Kalksteinbasis auf der Burg, oben und unten Ablauf, oben von später Verwendung herrührende Balkenlager eingearbeitet, hinten rauh. Die Oberseite zeigt Standspuren zweier Statuen. JMH: Dedication for Augustus and Tiberius on the same base. Augustus on the right; Tiberius on the left. Dedicator: ∆Apollwniavtwn oJ dh`mo~

Augustus 190

LyP, Myra.

IGRR III, 719. Rose 1997, 161-162, no. 100. E.

Petersen & F. von Luschan, Reisen in Lykien II

(Wien 1889) 43, no. 78-79.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.70 × 0.30 ×? m.; l.:? Date:

-27- -12 Agrippa?

Petersen & Luschan: Einige Schritte nördlich vom

Granarium ist eine gute Quadermauer, von deren

obersten, durch einfaches Kyma mit Abacus gezi -


erten, etwa 0,7 m breiten, 0,3 m hohen Blöcken zwei, der erstere an seinem Platze, der zweite herabgestürtzt, Nr. 78 und 79 (Marcus Agrippa) zeigen. Die Mauer wird Standbilder der beiden grossen Freunde getragen haben, vermutlich auch die von späteren Kaisern. Man könnte vermuthen, dass sie erst gleichzeitig mit dem Hadrianischen Bau aufgeführt sei, doch scheint dafür der Schriftcharakter zu alt. JMH: Rose suggests that the bases for Augustus and Marcus Agrippa were erected when Agrippa was present in the area between 16 and 13 BC. This is by no means certain. To this nucleus of statues were later added the statues of Diva Iulia (IGRR III, 720), Tiberius (IGRR III, 721), Germanicus (IGRR III, 715) and Agrippina I (IGRR III, 716). Dedicator: Murevwn oJ dh`mo~

Rand ist zum Teil erhalten. Der Stein liegt heute in der nordöstlichen Ecke des Innenraumes des hellenistischen Tores. Dedicator: [Plan]cia M f Magna | ªPlaºnkivªa Mºavgna

Augustus 192

LyP, Termessos.

IGRR III, 426. TAM III, 1, 36. Bergemann 1990,

154-55, no. E 127. Lanckoronski 1892, 203, no.

60.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.53 × 0.96 × 2.11 m.; l.: 0.03


Bergemann: Fundort: In der Skene des Theaters.

Wegen der Abmessungen Basis einer Reiter-

statue.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ Termhsªsevwnº

Augustus 193

Augustus 191 LyP, Perge. A.M. Mansel, Bericht über Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in Pamphylien in den Jahren 1946-1955, AA (1956) col. 112-120. S. Jameson, Cornutus Tertullus and the Plancii of Perge, JRS 55 (1965) 55. IGSK 54, 91. Type: Base Dim.: 0.61 × 0.86 × 0.67 m.; l.: 0.06 Date: 121 – 122 Divus / Hadrian trib pot 5, see comment. JMH: Plancia Magna dedicated a series of statues of Genio Civitatis, Diana Pergensis, Divus Augustus, Divus Nerva, Diva Marciana, Divus Traiaus, Diva Matidia, Plotina, Hadrian and Sabina with bilingual inscriptions which in all probability was conceived as a single monument. The date of the group is given by the inscription for Hadrian which was set up during his fifth tribunician year. Further support for this date is given by the inscription for Plotina made before her death in 122, and that of Mathidia made after her death in 119. However the base for Sabina refers to her as Augusta, a title she did not receive until 128. Perhaps this statue was added later, or perhaps Augusta was simply a mistake. IGSK: Der rechte Teil einer Statuenbasis im Bereich des hadrianischen Ehrenbogens. Der linke

LyP, Tlos.

TAM II, 556. IGRR III, 546. CIG 4238.


Augustus.

TAM: In parva basi.

Dedicator: Tlwevwn ªoºiJ nªevºoi kaªi; hJ geºrouªsºiva

Augustus 194

Gal, Lystra.

MAMA VIII, 2, no. 5. AE 1888, 89. CIL III, 6786.

Sitlington Sterret 1888, 142, no. 242.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.52 × 0.82 × 0.63 m.; l.: 0.06-

0.065 Date: 14 - Divus.

MAMA: Zoldera. Pedestal, panelled on three

sides, back rough, hole for tenon on top.

JMH: Latin inscriptions from statue bases with

the name of the emperor in the accusative case

are rare. One for Antoninus Pius has been found

in Comana (CIL III, 6885), and another example

for Caracalla in Pergamon (AE 1933, 281).

Dedicator: Col(onia) Iul(ia) Fe|lix Gemina | Lu-

stra | conse|cravit d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Augustus 195

Cil, Kasai.

AE 1972, 629. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Journeys

Augustus · 261

through Rough Cilicia 1964-1968, DenkschrWien 102 (Wien 1970) 49-50, no. 27. Type: Base Dim.: 0.35 × 0.52 × 0.76 m.; l.: 0.020.04 Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Bean & Mitford: Asar Tepe, some 50 m. below and to the south-east of the apse of the church: the upper member of a limestone statue-base, moulded to front and back, the sides plain, broken away above but for the rest complete. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

luten bisweilen Niken und Eroten oder zwischen den Voluten bätige und unbärtige Köpfe von ziemlich roher Arbeit. Viele Säulen tragen in etwa drei Virtel der Höhe der Innenseite Consolen, die als Basen aufgestellter Skulpturen dienten (auf den abgestürzten waren Fussspuren von Statuen nicht wahrzusehen) und theils in die Trommeln eingelassen, theils mit diesen aus einen Stücke gearbeitet sind; an der Straßenseite, besonders gegen der Hafen hin, Inschriften. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Au gustus 196 Cil, Pompeiopolis. L. Duchesne, Inscriptions de Pompeiopolis, BCH 5 (1881) 316-317, no. 1. CIG 4434. A. PeschlowBindokat, Zur Säulenstraße von Pompeiopolis in Kilikien, IstMitt 25 (1975) 373-391. Type: Consol Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -40- 27 Imperator Caesar but not Augustus. Peschlow-Bindokat: Insgesamt sind aus Pompeiopolis zehn Konsolinschriften veröffentlicht. Darunter begegnen vier Kaiserinschriften, zwei davon an Augustus heute noch an Säule 1 und 9, eine an Hadrian und eine an Commodus; die beiden letzteren waren nicht mehr aufzufinden, ihr ursprünglicher Ort nicht mehr auszumachen. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Au gustus 197 Cil, Pompeiopolis. IGRR III, 870. R. Heberdey & A. Wilhelm, Reisen in Lykien, Denkschr. der Akad. in Wien 44 (Wien 1896) 44, no. 103. A. Peschlow-Bindokat, Zur Säulenstraße von Pompeiopolis in Kilikien, IstMitt 25 (1975) 373-391. Type: Consol Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -40- 27 Imperator Caesar but not Augustus. Heberdey & Wilhelm: Von der Hallenstrasse sind 28 Säulen aufrecht, über 100 nachweisbar. Wo sie ursprünglich an den Hafen stiess, erweierte sie sich zu einer grösseren Anlage, von der sich eine ausserhalb der Front stehende isolierte Säule erhielt. Die Säulen sind korinthischer Ordnung und aus Kalkstein, theils canneliert, theils uncanneliert; die Capitelle haben an Stelle der Eckvo-

Augustus 198

Cil, Tarsus.

IGRR III, 876. Langlois 1854, 44.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -40-

-27 Imperator Caesar but not Augustus.

IGRR: Tarsi.

Dedicator: ªÔO dh`mºo~ oJ Tarsevwn

Augustus 199 Cyp, Amargetti. D.G. Hogarth, Excavation in Cyprus 1887-88, JHS 9 (1888) 260, no. 1. T.B. Mitford, Further Contributions to the Epigraphy of Cyprus, AJA 65 (1961) 108-109. SEG 20, 241. Type: Base Dim.: 0.145 × 0.31 × 0.28 m.; l.: 0.028-0.055 Date: -2 – 2 See comment. SEG: Amargetti, in domo privata inaedificata. Fragmentum baseos marm., supra et a sinstra mutilum, ed. D.G. Hogarth, JHS IX 1888, 260, n. 1. Recensuit T.B. Mitford, AJA XLV 1961, 108/9 c. im. ph. ectypi pl. 39, qui hunc tit. cum praecedente (SEG 20, 240: base for Caius and Lucius Caesar, date: 2 B.C. – A.D. 2) consocians contendit aediculam et imaginem ipsi imperatori hic dedicari. Mitford: In 1952 I was shown, built above the doorway of a house in this village, a fragmentary inscription readily indentified as Hogarth’s JHS 9 (1888) 260, no. 1: a buff-coloured local marble complete to the right and below only, with little doubt part of a pedestal. Dedicator: ªTivto~ ∆Apika`to~ Sabeºi`no~ tamiva~ ⁄ ªdhvmou ÔRwmaivwnº kaqievrwsen


Augustus 200 Aeg, Thebae. AE 1941, 1. P. Jouguet, Note sur les inscriptions grecques découvertes à Karnak, Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 39 (1939) 603-604, no. 1. IGRR I, 1206. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Jouguet: Voici de rapides copies, que dans un trop court séjour à Karnak, j’ai pu prendre des inscriptions sur les bases de statues que M. Chevrier a trouvées et qu’il a eu l’amabilité de me montrer. L’inscription est en partie palimpseste.

Augustus 201 Aeg, Thebae. AE 1941, 1. P. Jouguet, Note sur les inscriptions grecques découvertes à Karnak, Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 39 (1939) 604, no. 2. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: -27 – 14 Augustus. Jouguet: Voici de rapides copies, que dans un trop court séjour à Karnak, j’ai pu prendre des inscriptions sur les bases de statues que M. Chevrier a trouvées et qu’il a eu l’amabilité de me montrer.

Augustus 202 ReB, Pantikapaion. IGRR I, 875. B. Latyschev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, vol. 4 (St. Petersburg 1885-1901) 117-118, no. 201. Struve 1965, no. 38. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.165 × 0.75 × 0.70 m.; l.: 0.022 Date: -8 – 8 Dynamis, see comment. Latychev: Tabula marmoris candidi. Planum superius bene politum est. In parte postica foramina duo exstant clavis infigendis inservienta, quibus tabula alteri lapidi videtur fuisse adiuncta. Reperta est vere a. 1895, exstat in museo Kertchiensi. JMH: Dynamis, the grand daughter of Mithridates VI Eupator, was recogniced as vassal queen of the Bosporan Kingdom by Augustus in 8 BC. She died in AD 7 or 8.

Dedicator: ªBºasivlissa Dªuvnamºi~ filorwvmaioª~º

Augustus 203

ReB, Phanagoreia.

IGRR I, 901. Latyschev 1885-1901, 180-181, no.

354. Struve 1965, no. 1046.


Dynamis, see comment.

Latyschev: Ex basi statuae marmorea in horti ec clesiae oppidi Taman prope Phanagoriam.

JMH: Dynamis was recogniced as vassal queen

of the Bosporan Kingdom by Augustus in 8 BC.

She died in AD 7 or 8. This base was probably

found together with a base for Livia (Struve 1965,

no. 1047).

Dedicator: ªBºasivlissa Duvnªami~ filorwvºmaiªo~º

Tiberius Tiberius 1

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40334. AE 1996, 247.

Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.39 × 0.525 ×? m.;

l.: 0.03-0.45 Date: -8 – 4 Imp 2 / before adop tion.

CIL: Fragmenta plurima tabulae aeneae, quae

fronti basis lapidis Tiburtini corona et crepidine

praeditae affixa fuit. Tabulae moduli fuerunt circ.

77 × 52,5 ×?; basis circ. 139 alt. fuisse videtur.

Rep. a. 1986 in effossionibus fra l’arco di Con stantino e le pendici del Palatino (Urbs P 23)

ante aedem a Claudio imperatore restitutam

peractis. Extant in M.N.R. (Palazzo Massimo)

in repositis.

Dedicator: [Ae]nator[e]s tubicines | l[iti]cines

cornicines | Romani

Tiberius 2

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40342. CIL VI, 3750. CIL VI, 31277. Stu art 1939, 606.

Tiber ius · 263

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.555 × 1.22 × 0.02 m.; l.: 0.035 Date: 14 – 29 Livia. CIL: Tabulae marmorea expolita ex tribus partibus coniuncta, a dextra et infra mutila, in marginibus scabra. Rep. ante a. 1876 in coemeterio Praetexati, in quod in usum posteriorem translata erat. Extat ibid. in accesso alla spelunca magna muro inserta.

Tiberius 3 Rom, Roma. CIL VI, 40343. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.45 × 0.60 × 0.085 m.; l.: 0.09-0.12 Date: 14 – 29 Livia. CIL: Tabula marmorea superne et a sinistra et infra fracta, a dextra recte secta, in fronte caelo dolata, a tergo levigata, sine dubio pars tabulae magnae ex pluribus partibus inter se coniunctis compositae. Rep. loco incerto, vix dubie in area meridionali campi Martii ut tituli ceteri eodem loco i.e. in repositis Ripartizione × conservati; cogitare potui de titulo in Area Sacra di Largo Argentina (Urbs O 24) in lucem prolato, vide infra Extat in repositis supra dictis, ubi descripsi a. 1987. Dedicator: Colonia [---]

Tiberius 4

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 905. Stuart 1939, 606.


Date: 14 – 29 Livia.

CIL: Parvus cippus; in viridario domus Albaniae;

nunc latet. Periit.

Dedicator: L Postumius Primus | Mensor | d(e)

s(ua) p(ecunia)

Tiberius 6

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 1230. CIL VI, 40345. IGRR I, 119. Insc.

gr. Sic. et Ital. 1049. Stuart 1938, 19.


14 – 37.

CIL: Parisiis in museo ducis Blacas.

CIL: Tabula marmorea superne et dextra fracta,

a sinistra et infra in usum posteriorem opinor

recte scissa, in fronte expolita.

Dedicator: ªÔH ejleuvqeraº povli~ tªw`nº ⁄ ª---

tºw`n eujergesivwªnº ⁄ ªpollw`n e{neken tºw`n eij~ aujtªhvnº ⁄ ª---º

Tiberius 7

Rom, Roma.

AE 1969/70, 19 a-b. CIL VI, 40346. Rose 1997,

111-113, no. 40. S. Panciera, Miscellenea epi graphica iv: iscrizioni onorarie della basilica Ae-

milia, Epigraphica 31 (1969) 104-112.

Type: Imago clipeata? Dim.: 0.42 × 1.80 ×? m.;

l.: 0.034-0.045 Date: 27 – 28 Trib pot 29.

CIL: Plurima fragmenta tabulae marmoreae ex politae magna ex parte inter se coniuncta.

Rose: Present location: Cloister of San Francesca

Romana, Rome. This plaque with inscriptions of

Tiberius and Lucius Caesar was discovered in the

southeast corner of the basilica Aemilia, near the

wall dividing the hall of the basilica from the

tabernae near the forum. The images with which

these inscriptions were associated were probably

imagines clipeatae.

Tiberius 8

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 904. Stuart 1939, 606. Gordon 1958, 80,

no. 73. Th. Pekáry, Tiberius und der Tempel der

Tiberius 5

Concordia in Rom, RM 73/74 (1966/67) 105 Rom, Roma.

133.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.34 × 0.295 × 0.15 m.; l.:

CIL VI, 3749. CIL VI, 31278. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.335 × 0.32 × 0.06 m.; l.:? 0.015-0.03 Date: 31 See comment.

CIL add.: Basis parva marmorea a tergo ex parte

Date: 14 – 37.

CIL add.: Tabulae marmorea a sinistra et infra mutila, in fronte et a sinistra expolita. In facie

fracta. Extat in M.N.R. in repositis (inv. n. sursum versa foramen terebratum. Extat in Mus.

51.576).

Vat., Prof. Ex-Lat. (inv. n. 25.699). Peráry demon stravit titulum una cum aliis similibus in aede


Concordia a. 31 dedicatum et tempore recentiore

in basilicam Aemiliam translatum esse.

Dedicator: C Geminius Q f(ilius) Cam(ilia tribu)

| Atticus | auri p(ondo) V | argenti p(ondo) V

Tiberius 9

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 902. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 31 – 32

Trib pot 33.

CIL add.: Basis vel tabula superne a dextra mu-

tila. Periit.

Tiberius 10

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 903. Stuart 1939, 606.


36 – 37 Trib pot 38.

CIL add.: Basis marmorea parva superne et infra

cymatiis ornata. Extat Veronae in Museo Maf feiano.

Dedicator: L Scribonius L f(ilius) Vot(uria tribu)

Celer | aedil(is) ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) | pro

ludis

Tiberius 11

Rom, Roma.

AE 1994, 233. CIL VI, 40371. H. Hesberg &

S. Panciera, Das Mausoleum des Augustus (München 1994) 135-136, no. 15. Type: Base Dim.: 1.32 × 2.075 × 0.85 m.; l.: 0.140.165 Date: 37 Posthumous. CIL: Basis marmorea ex compluribus fragmentis coniuncta, in lateribus mutila, superne recte scissa. In facie sursum directa foramen quadrigonum 21,5 longum excavatum. Area titulo inscribendo destinata excavata ab utroque latere cymatio, infra crepidine mutila cincta. Periit corona separatim scalpta. JMH: It is curious why this base for a posthumous statue of Tiberius in the Mausoleum of Augustus has his name in the nominative case.

Tiberius 12

LaC, Forum Clodii.

CIL XI, 7552 a-b. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.053-0.07 Date: 15 – 23 Drusus II Cos. CIL: Fragmenta duo marmorea ad idem ut videtur monumentum pertinentia. Extant coniunctae Bracciano in ecclesia dell’Ospendale, in qua sunt in usum tabulae summae arae maximae.

Tiberius 13 LaC, Herculaneum. CIL X, 1414. Stuart 1939, 606. Fuchs 1987, 28. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.21 × 1.432 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 36 – 37 Trib pot 38. CIL: Rep. Herculanei 2 Sept. 1741. Extat Napoli in museo. Fuchs: Neapel, Museo Nazionale, Inv. 5615 (Statue), 3716 (Inschrift). Die Inschrift CIL × 1414 wurde drei tage nach der Statue gefunden und daher vermutlich in ihrer nähe; ihre Zusammengehörigkeit erscheint somit sehr wahrscheinlich. Der Fundort der Statue “tra due piedestalli di statue equestri di bronzo dorato” bestätigt diese Annahme: diese Podeste befanden sich zum Teil noch auf den Sitzreihen der summa cavea und flankierten in deren Mitte und seitlich jeweils eine mit zwei Säulen in der Front versehene Ädikula; in einer von ihnen muss also das Bildnis aufgestellt gewesen sein. Da an dieser Stelle oberhalb des Zuschauerraumes Sacella für Gottheiten, häufig aber auch Kaiserkultstätten nachgewiesen werden konnten, liegt es nahe, in dem Dargestellten einen Kaiser zu vermuten. Dasselbe gilt für die in ähnlicher Position gefundene Statue C I 2 (Livia?), die mit der des Tiberius auch durch dieselbe Werkstatt verbunden ist. Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Tiberius 14 LaC, Herculaneum. AE 1979, 173. G. Guadagno, Supplemento epigrafico ercolanese, CronErcol 8 (1978) 139-140, no. 8. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.45 × 0.30 × 0.016 m.; l.: 0.038-0.059 Date: 37 - Posthumous, see comment.

Tiber ius · 265

Guadagno: Due frammenti di una stessa lastra.

JMH: See Augustus 16

Dedicator: [L(ucius)] Manni[us Maximus p(e-

cunia) s(ua)]

Tiberius 15

LaC, Ostia.

AE 1911, 129. CIL XIV, 4339. D. Vaglieri, Varia

epigrafiche, BullCom (1910) 333, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.23 × 0.15 × 0.15 m.; l.:?

Date: 14 – 37.

CIL: Basis parva fracta. Rep. presso Ostia modena

nei lavori per la conduttura del gaz acetilene,

Vaglieri, qui addit, se il luogo di ritrovamento é

quello de origine, questa basetta doveva trovarsi

in un podere suburbano. Nota statuam impera tori ex voto dedicatam.

Dedicator: Q Orfius P[---] | ex vo[to]

Tiberius 16

LaC, Praeneste.

CIL XIV, 2910 b. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 14 After adoption / non regnans. CIL: Extat in atrio aedium olim Petriniarum. Dedicator: [Praen]es[tin ---]

Tiberius 17

LaC, Praeneste.

CIL XIV, 2911.


– 17 Trib pot 18. CIL: Marmor longum palm. 12, altum palm. 4, litteris v. 1 palm. 1 unc. 3, v. 2 unc. 7. Rep. Praeneste nella vigna del cavalier Petruccini. Olim ad caput veteris fori, in vinea scilicet, quae in conspectu aedis S. Liciae adiacet, repertum marmor.

Tiberius 18

LaC, Puteoli.

CIL X, 1624. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 30 Trib

pot 32 / cos 4.

CIL: Basis ingens, in cuius quattuor lateribus

cernuntur quattuordecim Asiae civitates cum

suis quaeque ejpishvmoi~, nominibus subscrip-

tis. Titulis legitur in antica inter statuas primam

et secundam. Reperta est m. Dec. 1693 Puteolis

in fundo fratrum Migliarese; deinde stetit ali quamdiu in foro ante ecclesiam cathedralem,

donec translata est in museum Neapolitanum,

ubi hodie extat inter anaglypha.

Dedicator: Augustales | res publica | restituit || [--

-]ihena Sardes Ulloron [Magnes]ia Philadelphea

Tmolus Cyme [Te]mnos Cibyra Myrina Ephe sos Apollonidea Hyca[nia] Mostene [Aec]ae

[Hieroc]aesarea

Tiberius 19

LaC, Tarracina.

CIL X, 6309.

Type: Epistyle Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 42 -

Posthumous / Diva Augusta.

CIL: Epistylum longum ped. 15 unc. 5, altum

ped. circ. 3, lat. ped. 2 unc. 2.

JMH: This does not seem to be an ordinary

statue base. However, the way the names of Ti-

berius and Livia are situated in either end of the

block could indicate, that they were meant to

refer to statues placed above.

Dedicator: M Iunius C f(ilius) Gal(eria tribu)

Proculus praef(ectus) equit(um) Divi Aug(usti)

fab(rum) sua pec(unia) fec[it] | Popeia Q f

Trebula testamento suo ex C (sestertium) refici

iussit [---]

Tiberius 20

LaC, Treba.

CIL XIV, 3448. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 34 Trib pot 35.

CIL: Trevi rep. d. 25. Apr. 1600 in una posses sione di Luca Donati fuori la porta detta Mag giore presso le due chiese de S. Lorenzo e di S.

Nicola. Fragmento di pietra di marmo finissimo

in sacrestia nel luogo del fonte.

Dedicator: M Castricius M f Men(enia tribu)

Mutro | quinq(uennalis) d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia)

Tiberius 21

LaC, Tusculum.

CIL XIV, 2591. Stuart 1939, 606.



Trib pot 31.

CIL: Basis magna marmorea. Frascati in villa

Rufinella.

Dedicator: Ex s(enatus) c(onsulto)

Segenni: Blocco in pietra locale, fratturato in

senso obliquo il margine sinistro, gli altri mar-

gini risultano originari.

AE: Plaque en calcaire, trouvée en 1953 à Civi tatomassa (Foruli).

Dedicator: [Amiternini?]

Tiberius 22

LaC, Tusculum.

CIL XIV, 2592. Stuart 1939, 606. D. Gorostidi, Ti-

berio, la gens Claudia y el mito de Telégono en

Tusculum, in P. Xella & J.A. Zamora (eds.), Epi grafia e religione: dal documento epigrafico al

problema storico-religioso (Rome forthcoming).

Type: Epistyle Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 32

– 33 Trib pot 34.

CIL: Epistylium marmoreum. Frascati in villa

Rufinella.

Dedicator: [---] L Priscus Filius curator lusus

[iuvenalis]

Tiberius 23

BrL, Grumentum.

CIL X, 207. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 15 – 16

Trib pot 17.

CIL: Tabula maxima litteris pedalibus. Grumenti

ante altare ecclesiae S. M. Assumptae.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ublice)

Tiberius 26

Sam, Amiternum.

AE 1992, 376. N. Persichetti, Iscrizioni e rilievi

del museo civico Aquilano, RM 27 (1912) 305,

no. 16. S. Segenni, Supplementa Italica 9 (1992)

77-78, no. 24. M. Buonocore, Le iscrizioni im periali d’età giulio-claudia nella Regio IV. Nuove

proposte di lettura, Epigraphica 60 (1998) 51-55.

AE 1998, 409.


l.: 0.018-0.03 Date: 14 – 29 Livia.

AE 1992: Bloc de marbre blanc, brisé sur les

bords. Musée National, à L’Aquila. L. 1-3: l’a. sup pose la présence de deux dédicaces sur deux co lonnes; seule la dédicace à Tibère (col. de dr.) est

conservée. Le dédicant est peut-être C. Norbanus

Flaccus, consul en 15 p. C. Voir la dédicace dont

le destinataire était peut-être sonpère, le consul

homonyme de 24 a. C.

Dedicator: [C Norbanus] Flaccus [co(n)s(ul)?]

Tiberius 27

Tiberius 24

BrL, Thurii.

CIL X, 8088. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 33 Trib pot 34.

CIL: Lapide alquanto mancante in monasterio

S. Mariae de Pativio in pavimento aediculae S.

Crucifixi.

Tiberius 25 Sam, Amiternum. AE 1983, 327. S. Segenni, Iscrizioni da Amiternum, Epigraphica 42 (1980) 83, no. 3. S. Segenni, Supplementa Italica 9 (1992) 76-77, no. 23. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.48 × 0.545 × 0.325 m.; l.: 0.04-0.065 Date: -8 – 4 Imp 2 / before adoption.

Sam, Amiternum.

CIL IX, 4334. Stuart 1939, 606. M. Buonocore,

Le iscrizioni imperiali d’età giulio-claudia nella

Regio IV. Nuove proposte di lettura, Epigraphica

60 (1998) 54-55. AE 1998, 410.


– 29 Livia. CIL: Rojo in villa Collis rep. a. 1768. AE: Olle di Rojo (terr. d’Amiternum). Fragment d’une dédicace à Tibère connue par la tradition manuscrite. Comme dans l’inscription précédente (AE 1998, 409) l’a. propose de rétablir, dans la colonne g. manquante, le nom de Livie à côté de delui de Tibère. Dedicator: [C Norban]us Flaccus | [dono dedicavit e]x voto suscep[to]

Tiber ius · 267

Tiberius 28

Sam, Aveia.

CIL IX, 3606. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 37. CIL: Fossae in stabulo doctoris Placido.

Tiberius 29

Sam, Nomentum.

CIL XIV, 3943. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 35 Trib pot 36.

CIL: Nomenti rep. mense Oct. 1833 fossionibus

Borghesianis.

Tiberius 30 Sam, Saepinum. AE 1991, 530. M. Gaggiotti, Nota sulla classe dirigente sepinate età Augustea, Athenaeum 79 (1991) 502-503, n. 25. M. Gaggoitti, Le iscrizioni della basilica di Saepinum e i rectores della Provincia del Samnium, Athenaeum 56 (1978) 147148, no. 4. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.80 × 0.76 × 0.23 m.; l.: 0.065-0.10 Date: 5 – 6 Trib pot 7. Gaggiotti: Iscrizione proveniente dallo sterro della piazza del forum, conservata presso il locale magazzino, incisa su blocco calcareo frammentario, attraversato diagonalmente da una frattura determinata dalla scomparsa della parte superiore e dall’angolo sinistro, cha ha pregiudicato la conservazione degli elementi utili per fissarne la cronologia. Il testo risulta distinto in due sezioni: la prima relativa ad una titolatura imperiale, le cui lettere erano originariamente metalliche, come si desune dalle relative sedi incavate recanti tuttora tracce di piombo in numerosi fori di fissaggio, la seconda relativa alla ragione della dedica e al personaggio per conta del quale essa si effettura, le cui lettere sono invece incise. Dedicator: Naevius Pansa ex testamento

Tiberius 31 Sam, Teate. AE 1941, 105. M. Buonocore, Supplementa Italica 2 (1984) 163-165, no. 4. Duncan-Jones

1974, 164, no. 522. H. Fuhrmann, AA (1940) col. 524-526. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.30 × 0.295 × 0.22 m.; l.: 0.009-0.017 Date: 37 - Posthumous. AE: Le buste de Tibère, en argent, d’un poids de 10 livres romaines, soit plus de 3 kilos, était un buste posthume. L’inscription est le plus ancien témoignage épigraphique d’un buste impérial en argent. Buonocore: Blocco quadrato di marmo; abrasioni e scheggiature sono visibili lungo tutti i margini e particolarmente a destra ed in basso. Dedicator: Ex testamento M Pulfenni | Sex f Arn(ensis) (centurionis) leg(ionis) VI Ferr(atae) | C Herennius [T] f Arn(ensis) Capito | trib(unus) milit(um) III praef(ectus) alae | praef(ectus) veteranorum | proc(urator) Iuliae Augustae | proc(urator) Ti Caesaris Aug(usti) | proc(urator) C Caesaris Aug(usti) | Germanici | arg(enti) p(ondo) X

Tiberius 32 Umb, Suasa. S. Antolini, Supplementa Italica 18 (2000) 353354, no. 1. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.66 × 0.995 × 0.08 m.; l.: 0.06-0.12 Date: 6 – 14 After adoption by Augustus. Antolini: Lastra calcarea rettangolare, segesta lungo il margine destro e rotta lungo quello sinistro secondo una frattura obliqua discendente verso destra, i cui lati superiore e inferiore conservano una cornice a gola e listello. Rinvenuta nel 1998 nel corso di un saggio nella necropoli meridionale (tomba nr. 147); si conserva nel laboratorio di scavo presso il Tappatino. Dedicator: [Ca]m(ilia) Galeo trib(unus) mil(itum) le[g(ionis) ---]

Tiberius 33

Etr, Caere.

CIL XI, 3597. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.06-0.065 Date:

14 – 37.


CIL: Basis. Rep. Caere a. 1846 cum n. 3596. Iam

Romae in museo Laterano.

Stuart: Seems too doubtfull to be included.

JMH: Was found with bases for Augustus,

Drusilla, Agrippina and two unidentifiable em-

perors (CIL XI, 3596, 3598, 3600, 3601, 3604).

Tiberius 34

Etr, Capena.

CIL XI, 3872. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 33 Trib pot 34.

CIL: Apud Arignanum in eccl. S. Abundii et

Abundatii.

Dedicator: A Fabius Fortunatus viator

[co(n)s(ul)] | et pr[aet(or)] Augustalis prim[us]

| voto suscepto p(osuit)

Tiberius 35

Etr, Centum Cellae.

CIL XI, 3517.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.035-0.04

Date: 4 – 14 After adoption / non regnans.

CIL: Tabula marmorea. Centumcellis in aedi bus praesidis.

Tiberius 36




AnnPerugia 23 (1985-86) 282-283, no. 3. Rose

1997, 93.


0.056 Date: -13 – 4 Cos? / before adoption.

Sensi: Lastra di marmo colorato, frammentari,

perduto il margine destro “rinvenuta ai piedi di

quella che poi diverrà la basilica”.

JMH: See Augustus 46.

Tiberius 37




AnnPerugia 23 (1985-86) 285-286, no. 6. Rose

1997, 93.

Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.87 × 0.56 ×? m.; l.: 0.053-0.113 Date: 27 – 28 Trib pot 29. Sensi: Lastra quadrangolare frammentaria ricomposta da oltre cinquanta elementi rinvenuta 21/5/1958. La dedica, che doveva essere apposta ad una base per la statua in onore di Tiberio, fu realizzata verso l’anno 27-28 d.C. JMH: See Augustus 46. Dedicator: Seviri Au[g]usta[les] M Ap[pi]us [La]rgu[s] | Q Pin[a]rius [F]austu[s] | ex honoraria sum[ma] | d(ecurionum) d(ecreto)

Tiberius 38 Etr, Pagus Stellatinus. CIL XI, 3040. C. Hanson & F.P. Johnson, On Certain Portrait Insciptions, AJA 50 (1946) 391, no. 10. Rose 1997, 99, no. 27. AE 1995, 504 a-b. L.

Gasperini & R. Zucca, Miscellanea Graeca e Ro mana 19 (1995) 245-280.


l.:? Date: 4 – 14 After adoption of Tiberius and

Agrippa Postumus.

CIL: In lapidibus ex quibus efformata est vetus

urna, in qua iacet corpus S. Eutichii Soriano.

AE: Église Sant’Eutizio. Plaque brisée à dr. et à

g. Sur la plaque appartenant à un Augusteum

étaient gravées non trois mais cinq dédicaces.

Outre les noms d’Auguste, ceux de C. et L. César,

gravés entre le 1er juillet 4 et le 30 juin 3 a. C., on

lisait ceus d’Agrippa Postumus à g. et de Tibère

à dr., ajoutés dans une seconde phase du monu-

ment. Agrippa Postumus était représenté à la

dr. d’Auguste: à cette date, Auguste lui accordait

encore la préférence sur Tibère. Date: ap. le 26

juin 4 p. C., jour de l’adoption d’Agrippa Pos tumus et de Tibère.

Dedicator: P Sergius P f Rufus | T Braetius T

f Rufus mag(istri) iter(um) | [p]agi St[ell]atini

[a]edem et signa de sua pecunia faciunda cura runt

Tiberius 39

Etr, Saturnia.

CIL XI, 2647.


Date: 15 – 16 Trib pot 17.

Tiber ius · 269

CIL: Ex Tiburtino. Era molto lunga a lateralmente scorniciata; rupta est ante non multos annos cum archipresbyter aedis S. Mariae Magdalenae antiqua porta clausa novam instituit …, ubi reliqua pars posita sit ignoratur, haec, cum aedis rursus aedificaretur, a fabro inversa posita est in muro exteriore. Ibi adhuc extat. Dedicator: [---]em p(?) l(?) l(?) Varius Anchialus | [---]i l(ibertus) Hilario seviri August(ales) posuerunt

in any of the publications, that the two should

not be contemporaneous. Usually the number

of consulships precedes a designation unless the

emperor had only been consul once. Further-

more there is no indication of the number of

times Claudius had held tribunician power. Thus

consul designatus II must be the correct restora tion of the title of Claudius in l. 4. L Iunius Sila nus was consul in AD 28.

Dedicator: [L Iu]nius C [fil(ius) Sila]nus flam[en

Martial(is) co(n)s(ul)]

Tiberius 40 Etr, Veii. CIL XI, 3786 a-b. Rose 1997, 120, no. 48. P. Liverani, Municipium Augustum Veiens (1987) 8182, no. 35. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.605 × 0.968 × 0.045 m.; l.: 0.065-0.068 Date: 31 – 37 Cos 5. CIL: Tabula magnae marmorea. Rep. in effossionibus Veientibus. Post in museo Laterano inter reposita fracta. Liverani: Lastra di marmo bianco ricomposta da due frammenti; mancano i due angoli superiore e si notano scheggiature sui margini, ma le dimensioni sono quelle originali. JMH: Inscriptions honoring Tiberius and Germanicus. At the time of the dedication, Germanicus had been dead for at least ten years.

Tiberius 41 Etr, Veii. CIL XI, 3790. Stuart 1939, 606. P. Liverani, Municipium Augustum Veiens (1987) 82-85, no. 36. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.515 × 0.965 × 0.095 m.; l.: 0.066-0.084 Date: 41 Posthumous / Claudius trib pot 1 / Cos des 2, see comment. CIL: Duo fragmenta eiusdem tabulae magnae marmorea. Rep. in effossionibus Veientanis recentibus. Utrumque servatur in museo Laterano inter reposita. Liverani: Due frammenti non contigui di lastra di marmo bianco pertinenti a una stessa iscrizione. JMH: Two dedications to Tiberius and Claudius, one above the other. There is nothing to suggest

Tiberius 42

VeH, Civitas Camunnorum.

Insc. Ital. X, 5, 3, 1190. CIL V, 4961.


0.02-0.026 Date: 14 – 37.

Insc. It.: Fragmentum tabulae et retro expolitae

ex lapide calcairo albo cui supra alius lapis natu-

raliter insertus est.

Dedicator: [---]mus haec efi[---] | [---]tibus

curam doc[---]

Tiberius 43

VeH, Verona.

CIL V, 8845. AE 1985, 460. AE 1994, 713. Stuart

1939, 606. A. Buonopane & W. Eck, Praefect[us

… Caes]aris, nicht Praefect[us aerarii milit]aris.

Zu CIL V 8845, ZPE 102 (1994) 195-205.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.78 × >11.00 ×? m.; l.: 0.149-

0.161 Date: 16 – 30 Imp 8 / cos 2-4.

CIL: Villafrancae rep. m. Oct. a. 1872 in funda mentis turris primariae castelli vetusti. Stetit for-

tasse statua haec in villa eius qui eam dedicavit.

AE: Villafranca di Verona. Un 5e bloc (de cal caire dur blanc) a été découvert en octobre 1988

lors de travaux de restauration du château, com plétant partiellement l’inscription qui se lit sur

les trois blocs de CIL V, 8845 et sur le 4e bloc

d’AE 1985, 460. Cette inscription appartenait

sans doute à un arc de triomphe.

Dedicator: L Cassius L f Corneo[lus prim(us)]

pil(us) bis tr[ib(unus) mil(itum) bis? ---]

praefect[us--- Caes]aris d(e) p(ecunia) s(ua)

d(edit)


Tiberius 44

Tiberius 48

Tra, Comum.

AE 1983, 442. A. Sartori, Una base a Tiberio?

Una proposita di lettura, RAComo 164 (1982)

247-273.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.17 × 0.68 × 0.65 m.; l.:?

Date: 14 – 37.

AE: Base en calcaire, découverte en 1914,

près de la Porta Pretoria. Sur le dessus, trous

d’encastrement d’une statue ou plutôt d’un objet

metal. Sur la face principale, subsistent 44 trous

(profonds de 3 a 4 cm). L’encastrement d’une

inscription en lettres appliquées, sans doute de

bronze. Dans le Lapidario du Museo Archeo-

logico “Giovio” de Come.

Dal, Aenona.

CIL III, 2972. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 17 Trib pot 18.

CIL: Nonae in Dalmatia ad aedem S. Mariae

Virginis.

Tiberius 45

Tra, Ticinum?



326 Manuscript, JRA 3 (1990) 163-168.


– 8 Trib pot 9. CIL: In porta Papiae. JMH: See Augustus 65.

Tiberius 46

Sic, Agathyrnum.

Eph. epigr. 8, no. 708. Fiorelli, NSc (1884) 163.


14 – 37.

Eph. epigr.: Tabula marmorea fracta reperta

Capo d’Orlando in fundo Philippi Cangemi,

qui possidet.

Dedicator: P Clodius C f Rufus Latro p(ecunia)

s(ua) | f(aciundum) c(uravit)

Tiberius 49

Dal, Iader.

CIL III, 2908.


Trib pot 20.

CIL: Basis alta pedes 4, lata pedes 2. Iader in

domo Boccarea. In museo Danielli viderunt.

Dedicator: Leg(io) VII leg(io) XI | P Cornelio

Dolabella | leg(ato) pro pr(aetore)

Tiberius 50

Dal, Oneum.

AE 1922, 40. F. Bulic, Bulletino di archeologia e

di storia dalmata 37 (1914) 104. Stuart 1939, 606.

J. Sasel & A. Sasel, Inscriptiones Latinae quae

in Iuguslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMXL

repertae et editae sunt (Ljubljana 1986) 176, no.

1988.


l.:? Date: 33 – 34 Trib pot 35.

Sasel: Titulus ad opus aliquod pertinens (?).

Fragmentum margine superiore conservato. Ef fossum a. 1914 in oppido Omis in praedio ad

Giovanni Pavisic pertinente.

Tiberius 51

Bel, Bagacum.

CIL XIII, 3570. Stuart 1939, 606.


l.: 0.07-0.11 Date: 4 – 14 After adoption / non

Tiberius 47

regnans.

Sic, Lilybaeum.

CIL: Lapis calcarius. Rep. a. 1716. Bavaci in horto

CIL X, 7226. Stuart 1939, 606.

Oratorii, insertus nunc est muro circa introitum

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 18 horti praefati collegii; stylobatae hinc inde super

– 19 Trib pot 20.

positas gerunt statuas Tiberii et Liviae sat affabre

CIL: Lilybaei rep. deinde Hafniae apud sculptas e subalicante lapide.

Muenterum. Adhuc ibidem in domo episcopi.

Dedicator: Cn Licinius C f Volt(inia tribu)

Navos

Tiber ius · 271

Tiberius 52

Tiberius 55

Bel, Mediomatrici.

CIL XIII, 4481. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 21 Trib pot 22.

CIL: Nunc Metz in museo.

Dedicator: [N]eg(otiatores) [q]ui co(nsistunt)

vico | [---]

Aqu, Rouessium.

CIL XIII, 1590. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 14 After adoption / non regnans. CIL: Fragmenta duo eiusdem lapidis. St.-Paulien rep. in campo Ouillon; extant Le Puy in museo. Stuart: Seems too doubtfull to be included.

Tiberius 53

Tiberius 56

Lug, Lugdunum.

CIL XIII, 1789.


– 37. CIL: Fragmentum. Rep. m. Febr. a. 1847 Lugduni

rue Martin in muro coenobii veteris S. Michaelis.

Videtur periisse.

Nar, Arausio.

AE 1962, 400. Stuart 1939, 606. Kähler 1939, col.

418-420, no. 17. CIL XII, 1230. P. Mingazzini, La

datazione dell’arco di Orange, RM 75 (1968) 163 167. J.C. Anderson, Jr., The Date of the Arch at

Orange, BJb 187 (1987) 159-192. R. Amy, P.-M.

Duval, J. Formigé, J.-J. Hatt, Ch. Picard, G.-Ch.

Picard & A. Piganiol, L’Arc d’Orange. XV. Sup plément à Gallia (Paris 1962). Roehmer 1997,

81-94.


Trib pot 28.

CIL: Orange, sur la face septemtrionale de l’arc

la frise est couverte de trous propres à fixer les

crampons d’une inscription en bronze.

Tiberius 54

Aqu, Mediolanum Santonum.

AE 1980, 623. CIL XIII, 1036. Stuart 1939, 606.

Rose 1997, 130, no. 56. Kähler 1939, col. 422,

no. 21. L. Maurin & M. Thaure, Inscriptions du

Musée de Saintes, Inscriptions révisées ou nou velles du Musée Archéologique de Saintes, Gal lia 38 (1980) 198. M. Thauré & F. Tassaux, In-

scriptions latines d’Aquitaine, Santons (Bordeaux

1994) 79-95, no. 7. Roehmer 1997, 156-159.


Germanicus cos 2.

CIL: Arcus triumphalis Santonae. In fluvio ad

urbis Santonae ingressum pons est lapidus, opus

certe stupendum.

AE: Dédicace de l’arc de Germanicus. Les nomes

impériaux, inscrits sur la face occidentale de

l’attique doivent être lus.

JMH: Carried statues of Germanicus, Tiberius,

and Drusus the Younger.

Roehmer: Der Bogen aus örtlichem Stein hat

eine Frontbreite von 15,90 m, eine Höhe von

14,70 m und eine Tiefe von 3,90 m.

Dedicator: C Iuli[us] C Iuli C[a]tuaneuni(i) f Ru-

fus C Iuli Agedomo[patis] nepos Epotsorovidi(i)

pron(epos) V[olt(inia tribu)] | [sacerdos Romae

et Aug]usti [ad a]ram qu[a]e est ad confluent[e]m

praefectus [fab]rum d(e) [s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit)]

Tiberius 57

Nar, Ruscino.

Rose 1997, 130-131, no. 57. Espérandieu 1929,

183-187, no. 616. M. Gayraud, Les inscriptions

de Ruscino, RANarb suppl. 7 (1980) 72, no. 1.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.:? ×? × 0.015

m.; l.: 0.05-0.07 Date: 8 – 9 Trib pot 10.

Espérandieu: Sur ce forum, d’environ 3000 mé tres carrés de superficie, les statues, dont on

reconnu les piédestaux étaient disposées ainsi

que l’indique la figure insérée au Bull. archéol.

du Comité (1914) p. 185. Toutes les dédicaces

sont gravées sur des tablettes de marbre de faible

épaisseur, quelquefois opisthographes. Fragment

trouvés en 1911, 1912 et 1913.

JMH: Other inscriptions from the forum hon our: Germanicus, Drusus II, Agrippina I, Ca-

ligula?, Drusilla?, Drusus III, Claudius?, and

Agrippina II.


Tiberius 58

Nar, Vienna.

Espérandieu 1929, 83, no. 264.


14 – 37.

Espérandieu: Saint-Romain-en-Galle. Tablette

de marbre brisée de tous les côtés sauf en haut,

trouvée en 1896, avec d’autres débris, dans le clos

Barroud.

Dedicator: [Ti Iul]ius Proculus | [Aug(usti)

libert]us pro T[i Iulio--- filio]

Tiberius 59

Tar, Bilbilis.

AE 1981, 557. M.M. Bueno, La inscriptión a Ti-

berio y el centro religioso de Bilbilis, MM 22

(1981) 249-251. L.A. Curchin, Cult and Celt:

indigenous participation in emperor worship,

in A. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler (Ann Arbor

1996) 145, note 16. AE 1997, 936. M. Martin-

Bueno & M.N. Caballero, Veleia 14 (1997) 20,

no. 1.


0.08 Date: 27 – 28 Trib pot 29. AE: Plaque honorifique trouvée dans les fouilles en 1980; il manque des fragments latéraux et la partie inférieure. Curchin: Prof. G. Alföldy kindly informs me that the last line should be restored: [ex te]stam[ento fieri iussit vel sim.]. JMH: Curchin further suggests that a marble head found in the vicinity represent Tiberius and belongs with this base. Dedicator: [--- Ae]milius C [f(ilius) ---] | [--- ex te]stam[ento poni iussit ---]

Tiberius 60

Tar, Carthago Nova.

CIL II, 5930. Stuart 1939, 606. Eph. epigr. 3, no.

33. J.M. Abascal Palazón & S.F. Ramallo Asensio,

La ciudad de Carthago Nova: La documentaión

epigráfica (Murcia 1997) 173-175, no. 41.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.43 × 0.58 × 0.40 m.; l.: 0.05

Date: – 4 Before adoption.

CIL: Carthagine nova rep. in parietinis castelli

de la Conception; servatur Matriti in museo ar-

cheologico.

Abasca Palazón: Pequeño pedestal de piedra gris

azulada con inscripción honorífica.

Tiberius 61

Tar, Castulo.

CIL II, 3268.


– 33 Trib pot 31-34.

CIL: En la caseria de la Huelga, delante de las

ruinas de Castulo.

Dedicator: Ex d(ecreto) [d(ecurionum)]

Tiberius 62 Tar, Saguntum. CIL II2, 14, 307. F.B. Lloris, Epigrafia latina de Saguntum y su territorio (Valencia 1980) 30-31, no. 13. J. Corell, Inscriptiones romanes del País Valencià Ia (València 2002) 82-84, no. 21. Type: Base Dim.: 0.53 × 0.75 × 0.54 m.; l.: 0.0550.065 Date: 14 – 37. CIL: Fragmenta basis latae calcarii fusci fronte et lateribus levigatis. Mensurae basis restitutae 0,53x0,75x0,54. Rep. in effossionibus in foro peractis. JMH: This bronze statue together with statues of Germanicus and Drusus were added to an already existing statue group of Augustus and Gaius Caesar. Dedicator: Testamen[to] Cn | Baebii [---]i

Tiberius 63 Tar, Segobriga. G. Alföldy, Römisches Städtewesen auf der kastilischen Hochebene. Ein Testfall für die Romanisierung (Heidelberg 1987) 80. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 17 – 18 Trib pot 19. JMH: Alföldy refers to this inscription as a statue base. From the picture it seems to be the lower part of a square block. In Segobriga there are also bases for Drusus and Germanicus (CIL II, 3103 & 3104).

Tiber ius · 273

Tiberius 64

Tar, Tarraco.

CIL II, 6080. Stuart 1939, 606. Eph. epigr. 2, no.

325. Alföldy 1975, 35, no. 66.


m.; l.: 0.06-0.07 Date: -16- -14 Praetor / not

consul.

CIL: Tarrocone rep. 1868 al derruir un baluarte;

est in museo n. 11. Praetor Tiberius a.u.c. 738

= a. C. 16 cum Augusto in Galliam profectus

est post cladem Lollianam Galliamque comatam

rexit. In Hispaniam tum saepius honoratus est

uno cum Augusto aliisque domus Augustae ho-

minibus primariis, veluti Oliae (n. 1529). Eo fere

tempore, quo haec basis ei dedicata est privato,

videtur Tarracone instituto esse ara deae Romae

et Augusti.

Alföldy: Bruchstück einer Tafel aus hellgrauem

sandhaltigem Stein. Oben und rechts ist noch

je ein Stück Rand erhalten. Gefunden 1864 im

Hause Calle del Commandante Rivadulla 42

neben der Plaza Poniente, also in unmittelbarer

Nähe des Forums in der unteren Stadt. Mus.

Arq., Inv.-Nr. 674.

Dedicator: [---]manus

Tiberius 65

Tar, Valeria.

AE 1987, 665. HispEpigr 2, no. 390. G. Alföldy,

Römisches Städtewesen auf der neukastilischen

Hochebene ein Testfall für die Romanisierung

(Heidelberg 1987) 86.


Trib pot 25-29.

AE: Fragment d’une base de statue, trouvée non

loin de forum en réemploi dans une construc tion tardive.

Tiberius 66

Lus, Emerita Augusta.

CIL II, 476. Stuart 1938, 15. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: – 4

Before adoption.

CIL: In fragmento supra limen domus cuiusdam.

Extat in porta domus calle Brudo n. 1.

Stuart: Seems too doubtfull to be included.

JMH: Could also be a dedication to Claudius as

emperor if there was room for Imp Caes to the

left in line 1.

Dedicator: P Lucr[---]

Tiberius 67


Eph. epigr. 8, no. 22. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 37. Eph. epigr.: Emeritae, lapis ex marmore albo,

altus et latus cinco palmos, crassus pedum unum,

rep. a. 1758 en el hospital de Jesus.

Tiberius 68

Bae, Anticaria.

CIL II2, 5, 747. CIL II, 2037. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.52 × 0.73 × 0.66 m.; l.: 0.04-

0.05 Date: 24 – 25 Trib pot 26. CIL: Parallelepipedum (basis videtur corona crepidineque aut separatim edolatis aut posteriore tempore resectis) ex lapide calcario subrutilo infra mutilum. Antequera, in coemeterio oppidi publico; servatur eodem in oppido in M.A.M. JMH: This base probably belongs to a statue group consisting of Livia (CIL II, 2038), Germanicus (CIL II, 2039), Drusus (CIL II, 2040). Livia and Germanicus were set up by M Cornelius Proculus, pontifex Caesarum, while Drusus was set up by […] Cornelius Bassus.

Tiberius 69

Bae, Corduba.

CIL II2, 7, 254.


0.07-0.075 Date: 14 – 37.

CIL: Tabula marmorea a tergo levigata, undique

fracta sed non a sinistra latus est scabrum. Extat

Cordubae M.A.P. (sine n. inv.).

Tiberius 70

Bae, Ilurco.



Trib pot 28.

CIL: In ponte de Pinos viderunt reliqui, sed sae -


culo proximo exeunte translata est una cum Gra natam ad hortum suburbanum Petri Paschasio

ad ripam fluvii Darro situm, ubi extat; est basis

rotunda litteris optimis.

Dedicator: T Papirius Severus

Tiberius 74

Tiberius 72

Tiberius 75

Bae, Ulia Fidentia.

CIL II2, 5, 490. CIL II, 1529. Bergemann 1990,

140, no. E 68. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.13 × 0.42 × 1.50 m.; l.: 0.045-

0.052 Date: -12 See comment.

CIL: Parallelepipedum ex lapide calcario caesio

undique sed non superne levigatum, utrimque

in parte antica imminutum.

Bergemann: Gruppe von Reiterbasen für die

kaiserliche Familie (Augustus CIL II, 1525, Lu-

cius Caesar, Caius Caesar CIL II, 1526, Marcus

Agrippa CIL II, 1527, Puplius Agrippa CIL II,

1528, Tiberius CIL II, 1529), aus Ulia. 12 v.Chr.

Montemayor, Prov. Cordoba, in der Festung ver-

baut. Herkunft unbekannt. Wegen der Abmes sungen Basis einer Reiterstatue. Kalkstein.

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

AE 1948, 1. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 100,

no. 330 and 100-101, no. 331. P. Romanelli, Gli

archi di Tiberio e di Traiano di Leptis Magna,

Africa Italiana 7 (1940) 91-96. Roehmer 1997,

159-161.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.50 × 4.75 ×? m.; l.: 0.08-0.12


Reynolds & Ward-Perkins (no. 330): Monumen tal inscription cut on each of the two faces of a

simple arch of grey limestone.

Dedicator: C Rubellius Blandus q(uestor) Divi

Aug(usti) tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) pr(aetor) co(n)s(ul)

proco(n)s(ul) pont(ifex) patr[onus] | ex rediti bus agrorum quos Le[pc]itanis resti[tui]t vi[a]s

o[mnis] | civitatis Lepcitanae [ster]nend[as] sil ice [curavit] | M Etrilius Lupercus leg(atus) pro

[p]r(aetore) patronus [sub hasta f(aciundum)

l(ocavit)]

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 100, no. 329.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.17 × 0.61 × 0.53 m.; l.: 0.04-

0.045 Date: 14 – 37.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Rectangular base of

Tiberius 71

grey limestone, inscribed on one face. Chalci Bae, Sacili.

dium, in the central shrine.

Tiberius never accepted the praenomen Imper-


Type: Base Dim.: 1.26 × 0.66 × 0.66 m.; l.: 0.042- ator or the title pater patriae. The inscription

0.065 Date: 27 – 28 Trib pot 29.

was perhaps cut immediately after the death of

CIL: Basis rotunda ex lapide calcario albo cum Augustus, before his deification and before the

venis violaceis superne mutila. In summa parte proper titles of the new emperor were known.

JMH: Imperator occurs sporadically in inscrip foramen quadratum 0,15 × 0,15 nescio antiq uum. Rep. en la dehesa del Caño, nunc in hortis tions for Tiberius. It appears for example in a

very late inscription in Thugga (AE 1914, 172).

publicis oppidi.

Dedicator: L(ucius) Sempronius La[---]cus | Companion inscription to IRT 325 for Augus mag(ister) Larum Augus(torum) dedit

tus.

Tiberius 73

Afr, Carthago.

CIL VIII, 10526/7. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 37. CIL: Cathagine in museo S. Ludovici.

Dedicator: Cn f Arn(ensis) | Senti[---]

Tiberius 76

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

AE 1948, 14. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952,

101, no. 333. Rose 1997, 184-185, no. 126. S.

Aurigemma, Sculture del foro vecchio di Leptis

Magna raffiguranti la Dea Roma e principi della

Tiber ius · 275

casa dei Giulio-Claudi, Africa Italiana 8 (1940) 33. D. Boschung, Gens Augusta. Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses (Mainz am Rhein 2002) 8-24. Type: Base Dim.: 0.45 × 0.70 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.05 Date: 45 – 46 Posthumous, see comment. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Low moulded base of grey limestone, inscribed on one face; one of a series of five uniform bases. Forum Vetus, behind the Temple of Rome and Augustus. Rose: The inscribed statuary bases of Augustus, Livia, Tiberius, Claudius and Messalina clearly constitutes a Claudian family group. The dedication to Claudius indicates a date of A.D. 45-46 for the entire group. Such a date fits well with the other inscribed bases, because Livia’s title of diva Augusta requires a date after 41, and the lack of official titles for Tiberius suggests a posthumous dedication.

Tiberius 77

Afr, Tacape.


Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.22 Date:

14 – 37.

CIL: Kabes in vico Menzel. Imperator est Ti-

berius.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.47 × 3.97 ×? m.; l.: 0.080.105 Date: 36 – 37 Trib pot 38. AE: Au Forum. ILAf.: Mur méridional du fort byzantin. Linteau. Dedicator: L Manilius L f Arn(ensis) Bucco IIvir dedicavit | L Postumius C f Arn(ensis) Chius patron(us) pag(i) nomine suo et Firmi et Rufi filiorum | forum et aream ante templum Caesaris stravit aram Aug(usti) aedem Saturn arcum d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(aciundum) c(uravit)

Tiberius 80 MaE, Berge. M.N. Tod, Macedonia. Inscriptions, BSA 23

(1918-19) 91-93, no. 17. SEG 1, 286. F. Papa zoglu, Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie

Macédoniennes, BCH 87 (1963) 526-531. SEG

24, 613. AE 1921, 3. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997,

145-146, no. 77.


0.04 Date: 21 – 22 Year 53 of the Actian Era,

see comment.

SEG 1: See Augustus 119.

Dedicator: ªÔH povli~ ejpimelhqevnto~ iJerev w~ Kaivºsaro~ Sebastou` qeou` kai; gumnasiavrcou ⁄ ªth`~ povlew~ --- tºou` Dioskourivdou e[tou~ gnæ sebastou` ⁄ ªojgdovou de; Tiberivou Kaivsaºro~ kai; ∆Iouliva~ Sebastw`n tou` kai; qxræ

Tiberius 78

Afr, Thugga.

CIL VIII, 26518. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.54 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.035-

0.10 Date: 14 – 37. CIL: Fragmenta tria. Thuggae rep. prope Capitolium. Dedicator: M Licinius M l(ibertus) Tyrannus patronus pa[gi] | restituit aedem et statu[as] corruptas exornavit opus intestinu[---]

Tiberius 79

Afr, Thugga.

AE 1914, 172. Cagnat 1923, no. 558. L. Poinssot,

Nouvelles Archives des Missions scientifique et

littéraires, nouvelle série, fasc. 8 (1913) 88, no.

20. Stuart 1939, 606. Roehmer 1997, 159.

Tiberius 81 MaE, Larissa. SEG 37, 484. C. Habicht, Demetrias V (Bonn 1987) 308-309, no. 2. Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.08 × 0.385 × 0.21 m.; l.:? Date: 14 – 37. Habicht: Museum Larisa, Inventar 797. Bruckstück einer Basis aus weißem Marmor. Rechts Rand, sonst ringsum gebrochen, doch ist auf der oberen Fläche noch der Ansatz einer Vertiefung, wohl von einer Standspur, sichtbar. Da unter der zweiten Zeile mehr freier Raum ist, als für den Abstand zwischen der Zeilen erforderlich, ist der Text wohl nur zweizeilig gewesen. Dedicator: Sebasthvwn


Tiberius 82

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3243. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Column Dim.: 0.19 × 0.77 × 0.77 m.; l.:?


IG: In ecclesia Panagiva Purgiwvtissa. Columna rotunda lapidis Pentelici. Dedicator: ÔH boªulh; hJ ejx ∆Areivou paºv|gou dªiavº progo⁄nw`n tªou`º dh`mou

Tiberius 83

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3244. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Column Dim.: 2.27 × 0.37 × 0.37 m.; l.:?


IG: Orientem versus a Parthenone. Columna

marmoris Hymettii.


Tiberius 84

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3245. Stuart 1939, 606. A. Milchhöfer,

Antikenbericht aus Attika, AM 13 (1888) 347,

no. 599.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? × 0.80 ×? m.; l.:? Date:

– 4 Before adoption.

IG: Sepoliae in scala domus apud H. Dimitrium.

Marmor.


Tiberius 85

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3246. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.33 × 0.70 × 0.60 m.; l.: 0.025


IG: Inter Propylaea et Erechtheum. Fragmentum

baseos marmoris Pentelici a dextra truncatum.

Dedicator: ÔO dh` mªo~º

Tiberius 86

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3247. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.17 ×? × 0.25 m.; l.:?


IG: Ad septentrionalem Propylaeorum partem.

Fragmentum marmoris Pentelici.

Dedicator: ªÔH boulh; hJº ejx ª∆Areivou pavgouº ⁄ ªkai; hJ bºoulh; tªw`n Cº

Tiberius 87 Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 3248. P. Graindor, Inscriptions Attiques d’époque romaine, BCH 51 (1927) 254-255, no. 18.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.22 × 0.65 × 0.22 m.; l.: 0.023


IG: EM 3132. Basis marmoris Pentelici a parte

postica mutila.


Tiberius 88

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3254. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997, 138,

no. 68.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.33 × 0.95 × 0.73 m.; l.:?


IG: Occidentem versus a Parthenone. Basis mar-

moris Pentelici.

Rose: See Augustus 130.


Tiberius 89 Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 4209. E. Vanderpool, Athens Honors the Emperor Tiberius, Hesperia 28 (1959) 86-90. AE 1960, 183. Type: Pillar Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.05-0.08 Date: 14 – 37. Vanderpool: IG II2, 4209 + Agora Inv. No. I 6120 a & b. In front of the Stoa of Attalos and about on its axis there stood a tall monument supporting a bronze quadriga, similar to the “Agrippa” Monument at the entrance to the Acropolis. This monument was erected in the middle of the second century B.C., at the same time as the Stoa, and, although no trace of a contemporary inscription belonging to it has been found, there seems little doubt that it was dedicated to Attalos II, the donor of the Stoa. Later it was re-dedicated to the Emperor Tiberius as we learn from an inscription cut on its face. The inscription is cut on three contiguous orthostate blocks of Hymettian

Tiber ius · 277

marble which together make up the full width of

the monument.

Dedicator: ÔH ªboulºh; hJ ejx ∆Arhvou pavgou

⁄ ªkai; oJ dºh`mo~ kai; hJ boulh; ⁄ ªtw`n eJºxakosivwn

FdD: Inv. no. 4450. Mars 1903, hors du téménos, à l’Ouest de la maison 291 Convert. Sur la face antérieur d’un bloc de calc. gris, base appareillée. Dedicator: ÔA povli~ tw`n Delfw`n

Tiberius 90

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3265.


Posthumous?

IG: In ecclesia Ag. Mauvr

h (prope viam Minervae). Fragmentum baseos.

Tiberius 91

Ach, Chalkis.

IG XII, 9, 939. CIG 2149. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 37. IG: Chalcide in museo. In alio marmoreo lapide. JMH: The use of the nominative case must be understood as a label for the statue. Another base (IG XII, 9, 940) with a statue of Gaius Caesar from Chalkis also use the nominative case.

Tiberius 92

Ach, Corinthus.

Kent 1966, 39, no. 72.


0.026-0.046 Date: 14 – 18 Trib pot 15-19.

Kent: Inv. no. 1483, 1584. Two fragments of

a white marble slab, found in the Agora near

the South Basilica in 1934 and 1935. Both ends

of both fragments are broken off, but the total

height and the original smooth back are pre served in both fragments. While the ends do not

join, their dimensions and the lettering show that

they come from the same inscription.

Tiberius 93

Ach, Delphi.

Syll. 791 A. Stuart 1939, 606. Fouilles de Delphes

III, I, 348, no. 529.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.80 × 0.615 × 0.27 m.; l.:

0.018-0.025 Date: 14 – 37.

Syll.: In cippo calcario.

Tiberius 94 Ach, Delphi. M. Homolle, BCH 20 (1896) 708. Dittenberger 1915-1920, 791 B. Fouilles de Delphes III, I, 348349, no. 530. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.90 × 0.52 × 0.395 m.; l.: 0.018-0.035 Date: 14 – 37. Homolle: Inv. no. 203. Cippe en calcaire, brisé haut et bas. Haut. indéterminée; larg. 0,52; ép. 0,395. Les plus soignes de ces monuments sont de petit dimensions. Les suivants sont encore plus misérables; c’est sur une base portant une dédicace à peine effacée, dans un coin de la pierre, en lettres grêles, superficielles irréguilères comme celles d’un grafitte, que se lit l’inscription suivante à l’empereur Claude. Dessous on distingue une dédicace des Thessaliens de Pharsale, qu’on n’a pris soin d’effacer aux extrémités, pas même complètement sous le nom de l’empereur. FdD: Inv. nos. 203+3868. 3868, 17 juin 1896, à l’Ouest du théâtre, sous le mur du portique Ouest. 3868 n’est qu’un éclat, coin en bas à droite, détaché du piédestal inv. 203, en calc. gris de Saint-Elie sans moulure, sur une face duquel, au IIe siècle avant J.-C., avait été un décret de proxénie (no. 455). Dedicator: To; koino;n ⁄ tw`n ∆Amfiktiovnwn kaªqiº⁄evrwsen ejpimelhtªeuvºon⁄to~ aujtw`n Qeoªklevou~º ⁄ tou` Eujdavªmouº Filokaivsa⁄ro~ ªNikopoleºivtou

Tiberius 95

Ach, Eleusis.

IG II2, 3261. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.31 × 1.48 × 0.36 m.; l.: 0.045

Date: 14 – 37.

IG: Eleusine in ecclesia S. Zachariae. Basis.

Dedicator: ªÔH boulh; hJ ejx ∆Aºrivou pav gou kai; hJ boulh; tw`n eJxakosivwn kai; oJ dªh`mo~ ejpi; iJereiva~ Kleou`~º ⁄ ªth`~ Eujklevou~º Fluevw~ qugatrov~ ej-


pimelhqevnto~ th`ª~ ajnaqevsew~º ⁄ Papiv(ou) Maraqwnivou iJerevw~ o[nto~ dia; ªbivouº ⁄ Papiv(ou) Maraqwnivou

Tiberius 96 Ach, Eleusis. IG II2, 3263. Stuart 1939, 606. Type: Base Dim.: 0.30 × 0.51 × 0.20 m.; l.: 0.035 Date: 14 – 37. IG: Eleusine, nunc in museo Eleusinio. Fragmentum baseos marmoris caerulei a dextra mutilum. Dedicator: ª---eº⁄pwvnªuºmo~ kai; kª--- dia;º ⁄ bivªou qeºovfilo~ Eª---º ⁄ ªth`ºi Dªhvmhtriº

Tiberius 97

Ach, Epidauros.

IG IV, 1396. IG IV2, 1, 597. Stuart 1939, 606.

P. Cavvadias, Epigrafai ex Epidaurou, AEphem

(1884) 31, no. 78.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.55 × 0.72 × 0.38 m.; l.:?

Date: -13- -8 Consul.

IG: Basis infra mutila.

Dedicator: ÔA povli~ tw`n ∆Epidaurivwn

Tiberius 98

Ach, Epidauros.

IG IV, 1399. IG IV2, 1, 599. Stuart 1939, 606.

P. Cavvadias, Epigrafai ex Epidaurou, AEphem (1884) 31, no. 78. W. Peek, Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros, AbhLeipzig, Band 60, Heft 2 (1972) 115, no. 254. Type: Base Dim.: 0.23 × 0.36 × 0.26 m.; l.: 0.038 Date: 14 – 37. IG: Basis superne integra.

Tiberius 99

Ach, Olympia.


220. Stuart 1939, 606.


l.:? Date: – 4 Before adoption.

Dittenberger & Purgold: Basisblock aus gelbem

Sandstein. Der Stein bildete den Vorderblock

eines größeren Bathron, wie deren eine Anzahl

auf der Terrasse vor der Ostfront des Zeustempels

aufgestellt war, offenbar für ein Reiterstandbild bestimmt. Auf der oberen fläche des hochkantig gestellten Blocks Dübellöcher zur Verbindung mit dem oben anschließenden Oberprofilstein. Inv. 767. Gefunden 3. Februar 1880 vor der Mitte der Ostfront des Zeustempels, südlich von der Basis des Stiers der Eretrier. Dedicator: ∆Apollªwvº⁄nio~ ∆Apollwnivou uJo;~ ⁄ ∆Hleiò~ oJ kai; Tibevrio~ ªKlº⁄auvdio~ ⁄ to;n eJautou` pavtrwna kai; eujergev⁄thn Dii; ∆Olumpivwi

Tiberius 100 Ach, Olympia. Dittenberger & Purgold 1896, col. 481-484, no. 370. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.865 × 0.88 × 0.36 m.; l.:? Date: – 4 Before adoption. Dittenberger & Purgold: Vorderblock einer Basis aus grauem, von Quarzadern durchzogenem Kalkstein. Auf der Oberfläche am hinteren Rande zwei Klammerspuren zur Verbindung mit den Blöcken der Landseiten des Bathron, am vorderen zwei Zapfenlöcher zur Befestigung des oben aufliegenden Profilsteins. Inv. 97. Gefunden 4. Dezember 1876 an der byzantinischen Ostmauer, nördlich von der Nikebasis. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ hJ tw`n ÔHlhvwn

Tiberius 101

Ach, Olympia.


371. H.B. Siedendopf, Das hellenistische Reiter-

denkmal (Waldsassen 1968) 105-106, no. 54.

Bergemann 1990, 154, no. E 124. Stuart 1939,

606.


l.:? Date: – 4 Before adoption.

Dittenberger & Purgold: Vorderblock von der

oberen Bekrönerung eines großen Bathron aus

pentelichem Marmor, 0,27 hoch, 0,98 breit, 0,92

tief. Oben lief ein 0,025 breiter Rand herum,

der aber fast ganz abgestoßen ist, wie auch die

Vorderseite großenteils abgeschlagen wurde, von

der sich ein Fragment wieder anfügen liest. Die

Rückseite zeigt Anschlußfläche mit zwei Klam-

Tiber ius · 279

merspuren auf der Oberfläche. Auf derselben

nach vorn zu zwei runde Einlaßungen von 0,08-

0,09 Durchmeßer, welche in Übereinstimmung

mit der Form der ganzen Basis erkennen lassen,

daß dieselbe eine Reiterstatue trug. A) Inv. 117.

Gefunden 27. Januar 1877 bei der Philesiosbasis.

B) Inv. 135. Gefunden 17. Februar 1877 vor der

Ostfront des Zeustempels.

Dedicator: ÔH ªpovli~ hJº tw`ªn ÔHºlhvwn

Tiberius 102 Ach, Olympia. Dittenberger & Purgold 1896, col. 479-482, no. 369. Rose 1997, 146, no. 78. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.40 × 1.60 × 0.185 m.; l.:? Date: -15- -9 Drusus I. Dittenberger & Purgold: Vorderblock eines großen Bathron aus feinkörnigem grauem peloponnesischem Marmor. Von den fünfzehn Stücken, aus denen sick der Stein wieder zusammensetzen liest, hat keins den unteren oder den rechten Rand erhalten, so daß sich die ursprüngliche Breite und Höhe nicht mehr konstatieren läßt. Die Oberfläche und Rückseite sind rauh zugehauen, die Schriftfläche leicht charriert. Dedicator: Tiªbevrio~ Kº⁄lauvdio~ ∆Apollwnivou uiJo;~ oJ kai; ∆Apollwvnªio~º

Tiberius 103 Ach, Pagai. E. Vanderpool, Athens Honors the Emperor Tiberius, Hesperia 28 (1959) 90. IG VII, 195. IG II2, 3264. Stuart 1939, 606. M. Rayet, BCH 4 (1880) 66-67. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.19 × 0.77 ×? m.; l.: 0.027 Date: 14 – 37. IG II: Tabula marmoris Pentelici. Rayet: Deux citoyens de Pagae consecrent une statue de l’empereur Tibère, pour exécuter la clause d’un testament. C’est donc un monument privé, ce qui explique l’emploi de titre qui ne se rencontrent pas dans les dédicaces des statues que les villes élevaient aux empereurs. Dedicator: Povplio~ ∆Okkio~ ∆Antevrw~ kai; ∆Arivs⁄twn Teimoxevnou Pagaiòi ajnevqh⁄ªkaºn

kaqw;~ dietavxato aujtoi`~ ejn th`/ d⁄ªiaqºhvkh/ ∆Arivstwn Pagaiò~

Tiberius 104

Ach, Pholegandros.

IG XII, 3, 1058. CIG II, 2442. Stuart 1939, 606.

F. Koepp, Eduard Schauberts handschriftlicher

Nachlaß, AA (1890) 142, note 26.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.13 × 0.845 × 0.60 m.; l.:

0.018-0.02 Date: 14 – 37.

IG: Basis simplex marmoris albi cymatiis,

quae seorsum exsculpta erant, nunc carens.

Lapis in summo arcis antiquae monte ecclesiae

Taxiarcw`n dirutae tabulam effecit sacram.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ kai; oJ iJereu;~ Teimh`~ ⁄ Sw-

sitevlou~

Tiberius 105

Ach, Thespiai.

IG VII, 1837. Stuart 1939, 606.


Trib pot 15.

IG: Basis marmoris albi, in superficie vestigia

pedum statuae. Thespiis in museo.


Tiberius 106

Cre, Chersonesos.

IC I, 7, 8.


0.046-0.06 Date: 14 – 37.

IC: A vico Chersònisos, in domo Georg. Mount-

raki. Tabula e lapide calcario, undique integra.

Dedicator: ÔH povl

i~

Tiberius 107 Cre, Eleutherna. IGRR I, 958. Stuart 1939, 606. F. Halbherr, Inscriptions from Various Cretan Cities, AJA 11 (1896) 580, no. 65. IC II, 12, 27. Type: Dim.: 0.26 × 0.85 × 0.21 m.; l.: 0.04-0.045 Date: 4 – 14 After adoption / non regnans. Halbherr: Six adjoining fragments of a cornice of local stone in the field of Manolis Jerakarakis, on the western slope of the Acropolis. The inscription is deficient on the left, complete on the right.


JMH: The use of the accusative makes it likely

that the stone carried a statue of Tiberius.

Tiberius 108

Cre, Olous.

IC I, XXII, 12. IGRR I, 1011. Stuart 1939, 606.


0.015-0.02 Date: 14 – 37.

IC: Tabula e lapide calcario subcaeruleo.

Dedicator: ÔA povli~ ejpi; kovsmoªuº ⁄ Swthrivou tou` ∆Aªgaºqªoº⁄davmou kai; iJerevw~ ª---º ⁄ ª---ºterew~ prwqierevw~ de; Te⁄berivou ∆Alexivwno~ toªu`º ⁄ ∆OnaªsavdouÙ tºou` Sª---ºmoªuº

Tiberius 109 Cyr, Cyrene. L. Polacco, Il volto di Tiberio (Padova 1955) 49 56. I. Rosenbaum, Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture

(London 1960) 43-45, no. 17.


4 – 14.

JMH: Polacco tav. IV shows the so-called statue

of Tiberius placed on a large base, approximately

1m by 1m, which is moulded at the bottom. See

Rosenbaum for a discussion of whether the

statue originally belonged to the base.

Dedicator: Sufenas Proculus | f(aciendum)

c(uravit)

Tiberius 110 Asi, Aphrodisias. MAMA VIII, 92, no. 434. AE 1907, 30. Stuart 1939, 606. Th. Reinach, REG 19 (1906) 108, no. 25.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.395 × 0.71 × 0.70 m.; l.:

0.0225-0.03 Date: 14 – 37.

MAMA: Geyre, in the city wall. Top member of

marble basis.

Dedicator: ª∆Iºouliva Pau`la kai; ∆Iouªlivaº ⁄ ª--quºg≥avtªhr ---º

Tiberius 111 Asi, Apollonia. MAMA IV, 49-56, no. 143. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997, 169-170, no. 107.


Divus Augustus / Germanicus.

MAMA: See Augustus 159.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ∆Apollwniatw`n Lukivwn Qraikw`n kolwnw`n

Tiberius 112

Asi, Blaundos.

IGRR IV, 714. Stuart 1939, 606. K. Buresch, Aus

Lydien (Leipzig 1898) 122, no. 61.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 –

37. Buresch: Güllü. Weiße marmorne Basis, in eine Hausmauer außen vermauert. Die in kleinen zierlichen Buchstaben eingegrabene Inschrift steht dicht unter dem oberen Rande der Basis; unter ihr sind etwa vier Zeilen weggemeißelt.

Tiberius 113

Asi, Cibyra.

SEG 49, 1909. AE 1999, 1608. T. Corsten, EA 31

(1999) 94. IGSK 60, 3.


0.05 Date: 31 – 32 Trib pot 33. IGSK: In den Ruinen von Kibyra auf der Hügelkuppe hinter dem Grossen Theater. Block aus Kalkstein, links verwittert. Links und unten sind breite, oben und rechts schmale Ränder gelassen. Dedicator: ÔH Kiburatw`n povli~ twì ijdivwi swth`ri kai; ⁄ ktivsthi Povplio~ Petrw`nio~ u{pato~ ⁄ ajnquvpato~ to; trivton kaqievrwsen

Tiberius 114

Asi, Cyme.

IGSK 5, 20. A. Plassart & Ch. Picard, Inscrip tions d’Éolide et d’Ionie, BCH 37 (1913) 179.

IGRR IV, 1739.


l.: 0.15 Date: 31 – 32 Trib pot 33?, see com ment.

IGSK: Statue des Tiberius. Blauer Marmor, rechts

und links auf Anschluss gearbeitet.

Plassart & Picard: Devant l’église de Tchak makli; marbre bleu, préparé à joint à droite et

à gauche.

Tiber ius · 281

JMH: The tribunician count ends with three. Since the inscription probably dates after the earthquakes in 17, 23 and 29, the most likely number is 33.

IGSK 12, 254.

Type: Architrave Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:

14 – 37.

IGSK: Architrav-Fragment, das Tiberius nennt.


Tiberius 115 Asi, Cyme. IGSK 5, 21. CIL III, 7099. D. Baltazzi, Inscriptions de l’Eolide, BCH 12 (1888) 365-366, no. 14. Type: Base Dim.: 0.37 × 0.80 × 0.27 m.; l.: 0.060.08 Date: 34 – 35 Trib pot 36. IGSK: Marmorbasis in zwei Fragmenten.

Tiberius 116

Asi, Cyzicus.

CIL III, 7061. Eph. epigr. 4, no. 53. Stuart 1939,

606. Rose 1997, 171-172, no. 110. G. Perrot, Une

inscription de Cyzique, RA 31 (1876) 99-105.


Posthumous / After Claudius’ britannic vici tory.




ratore [---]

Tiberius 119

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 17, 1, 3226.


m.; l.: 0.022-0.03 Date: 14 – 37.

IGSK: Teil der Oberplatte einer Basis aus bläu-

lichen Marmor. Bei Hassan Tschavuschlar,

zwischen dem Dorfe und der Mühle des Hadji

Nikolau, an einem Laufbrunnen eingemauert.

Dedicator: Povplio~ Kªornhvlio~º ⁄ ª--- kai; th;nº bavsin ejk ªtw`n ijdivwn ajnevsthsenº

Tiberius 120

Asi, Eresos.

IG XII, 2, 539. IGRR IV, 10. Stuart 1939, 606.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.54 × 1.10 × 0.20 m.; l.: 0.028-

0.07 Date: 16 – 17 Trib pot 18. IG: Erat in area inter urbis Eresi parietinas et vicum hodiernum basis marmoris fusci in duas partes fracta. Nunc fragmentum dextrum periit. Dedicator: Davmarco~ Levonto~ eujsª---º

Tiberius 117

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 257. Rose 1997, 174-175, no. 114.



Rose: Although this inscription has disappeared,

it is clear from the excavation notes that Ger-

manicus appeared at the left, Drusus II in the

center, and Tiberius at the left. The group was

discovered in the vicinity of the sanctuary of Ar-

temis, and it may have been associated with the

city’s Augusteum.

Dedicator: OiJ neopoihvsante~ ⁄ ªejn tw`º/ ejpi; prutavnew~ ∆Alexavndrou tou` ∆Apollwnivou Passala` to; ªbæº ejniautw`/

Tiberius 118

Tiberius 121

Asi, Halicarnassus.

CIG 2657. Rose 1997, 177, no. 118.


After adoption / non regnans.

CIG: Olim Halicarnassi ad portam praefecti Tur-

cici in basi grandi.

Dedicator: ∆Arcivdamo~ Nikomavcou ejpoivhsen

Tiberius 122 Asi, Halicarnassus. AE 1994, 1714. SEG 44, 873. P. Pedersen, The Mausolleion at Halikarnassos, vol. III: The Mausolleion Terrace and Accessory Structures (Aarhus 1991) 128. W. Blümel, Arkeoloji Dergisi 2 (1994) 101, no. 6.

Asi, Ephesus.


Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 – 37. SEG: Fragment built into a house and copied

by A. Biliotti.

Tiberius 123 Asi, Ilium. IGSK 3, 89. IGRR IV, 207. H. Schliemann, Inschriften aus Ilion, AM 15 (1890) 217 no. 2. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997, 177-178, no. 119. Type: Base Dim.: 0.33 × 1.36 × 0.72 m.; l.:? Date: 31 – 32 Trib pot 33. IGSK: Marmorblock; die Inschrift steht auf der radierten Fläche einer früheren Inschrift; gefunden im Bouleuterion. Rose: Dörpfeld discovered both of these inscribed statue bases (IGSK 3, 83: Augustus) in the orchestra of the Bouleuterion. Dedicator: ÔH boulh; ⁄ kai; oJ dh`mo~

Tiberius 124 Asi, Lindos. AE 1948, 183. Blinkenberg 1941, col. 736-738, no. 385. Rose 1997, 153-154, no. 87. Type: Base Dim.: 0.495 × 1.84 × 0.655 m.; l.: 0.02-0.03 Date: -9- -2 Drusus Germanicus / before Iulia’s exile. Blinkenberg: Quatre blocs qui ont fait partie de la base commune de trois statues, placée côte à côte. Marbre blanc à gros grains, veiné ou tacheté de bleu. La partie inférieure de la base était composée des trois pierres, sur lesquelles reposait un entablement mouluré formé de deux grandes dalles, dont une seule est conservée. Les faces qui se touchaint sont préparées à joint, les faces externes aplanies avec un instrument dentelé. En bas, face de joint: les trois blocs étaient donc placés sur une socle commun. JMH: This group consisting of statues of Tiberius, Julia, and Drusus the Elder was set up in front of the temple of Athena on the acropolis. Dedicator: Lindivoi

Tiberius 125 Asi, Lindos.

AE 1948, 184. Blinkenberg 1941, col. 766-770, no. 414. Rose 1997, 154-155, no. 89. Type: Exedra Dim.: 0.46 × 5.60 × 0.60 m.; l.: 0.023-0.026 Date: 14 – 19 Germanicus. Blinkenberg: Cinq blocs qui ont fait partie du dossier d’une exèdre, sur laquelle étaient placées les statues de six membres de la maison impériale; les autres blocs du même monument font apparemment défaut. Marbre de Lartos. JMH: Of the six or more inscriptions under bronze statues of the imperial family four are preserved (from l. to r.): Tiberius, Drusus the Younger, Augustus, and Germanicus. Dedicator: Lindivoi

Tiberius 126 Asi, Mylasa. IGSK 34, 32. IGRR IV, 1288. A. Hauvette-Besnault & M. Dubois, Antiquités de Mylasa, BCH 5 (1881) 41, no. 4. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 – 37. IGSK: Runde Basis aus Marmor, gefunden bei Ausgrabungen im Hof eines Privathauses “au bas de la colline où s’élève la ville moderne de Mélès ou Mélasso, presque en face du Konak”. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Tiberius 127

Asi, Mytilene.



– 37. IG: Prope Mytilenas apud turrim in via ad ther-

mas ducente.

Dedicator: ªÔO dh` mo~º

Tiberius 128

Asi, Mytilene.



– 37. IG: Cyriaci apographum exstat in Cod. Paviano

cum lemmate “in templo baeti Antonii”.


Tiber ius · 283

Tiberius 129

Asi, Mytilene.

IG XII, suppl., 59.


– 37. Dedicator: ªÔO da` mo~º

Tiberius 130 Asi, Pergamum. IGRR III, 320. Fränkel 1895, 277, no. 386. Stuart 1939, 606. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.26 × 2.39 × 0.74 m.; l.: 0.015 Date: – 4 Before adoption. AvPergamon: Deckplatte einer großen Basis aus bläulich grauem Marmor, in zwei Stücke gebrochen, gefunden Juli 1881 und October 1884 auf der Westterrasse unterhald des großen Alters (Inv. II 173, III 297. Original in Pergamon). Auf der Unterseite zwei tiefe Dübellöcher, auf der Vorderseite und der rechten Seitenfläche, die also Außenseite war, Ansatz eines überall weggebrochenen Profiles; links und hinten Auschlußflächen. Die Überdeckung der Basis war also aus mindestens drei Platten gebildet, und hatte, wenn die Inschrift die Mitte der Vorderseite einnahm, eine Länge von 2,39, während die Tiefe beträgtlich über 0,74 gemessen hat. Schon deshalb ist es wahrscheinlich, daß die Basis ein Reiterbild trug, was durch die Standspuren der Oberseite bestätigt wird. Es find zur Loslösung der Statue roh ummeißelte Einsatzlöcher, wie bei anderen Bronzewerken von quadratischer Form (ca. 0,1 breit und lang): eines etwas rechts von der Plattemitte, 0,02-0,03 vom vorderen Rande; ein zweites, rechts hinten, griff auf die anstoßenden Platte über; ein drittes war in der Ecke links hinten, die weggebrochen ist. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mªo~ ejtiv mhseº

tinischen Grabes im nördlichen Teil der Westterasse. Links und rechts gebrochen; die Unterseite nur am vorderen Rande, auch die Vorderseite nicht ordentlich geglättet; auf der Oberseite links ein großes Zapfenloch. Gewis Unterschrift einer Statue, nicht einer Weihung des Tiberius. JMH: Another base for Claudius (134), likewise with the name in the nominative case, has been found in Pergamum.

Tiberius 132 Asi, Pergamum. IGRR III, 322. Fränkel 1895, 278, no. 388. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? × 0.08 m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 4 – 14 After adoption / non regnans. AvPergamon: Zwei Bruchstücke einer Rundbasis aus weißem Marmor, gefunden das größere Herbßt 1884 im Theater (Inv. III 330), das kleinere 1879 (Fundstelle nicht angegeben; Inv. III Anh. i). Beide, 0,080 dick, nur hinten vollständig; Rückseite der Rundung der Vorderseite entsprechend ausgehöhlt. Vielleicht vom oberen Rande der Basis, in deren Oberseite die gleichfalls kreisrunde Plinthe tief eingelassen war.

Tiberius 133 Asi, Priene. C. Fredrich, H. von Prott, H. Schrader, Th. Wiegand & H. Winnefeld, Inschriften von Priene (Berlin 1906) 146, no. 227. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.80 × 0.66 ×? m.; l.: 0.024 Date: 14 – 37. IvPriene: Platte, links oben abgebrochen; im Pflaster der byzantinischen Basilika; stark abgetreten. Dedicator: ªTo; kºoino;n tw`n ∆Iwvnwn ⁄⁄ ªkaqievºrwªseºn

Tiberius 134 Tiberius 131

Asi, Pergamum.

IGRR III, 321. Fränkel 1895, 277-278, no. 387.


m.; l.: 0.023 Date: – 4 Before adoption.

Fränkel: Deckplatte einer Basis aus weißem Mar-

mor, gefunden Juni 1883 als Decke eines byzan -

Asi, Rhodos. AE 1948, 198. G. Pugliese Carratelli, Note su epigrafi rodie dell’età imperiale, in Studi di antichita classica offerti da colleghi e discepoli a Emanuelle Ciaceri (Rome 1940) 254. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: – 4 Before adoption.


Carratelli: Dello stesso periodo è una nuova dedica incisa, in lettere ineleganti, su una base ritrovata a Rodi, sull’acropoli di monte S. Stefano, presso il tempio di Apollo Pitio. Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ ÔRwdivwn

Tiberius 135 Asi, Samos. P. Herrmann, Die Inschriften römischer Zeit aus dem Heraion von Samos, AM 75 (1960) 116, no. 17. Type: Base Dim.: 0.05 × 0.27 × 0.13 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 14 – 37. Herrmann: Inv. J 244. Fragment einer Basis aus weißem Marmor, auf allen Seiten gebrochen. JMH: It is not certain that this base carried a statue of Tiberius. It could have been erected in honor of one of his sons.

Tiberius 136

Asi, Samos.

SEG 1, 390. M. Schede, Aus dem Heraion von

Samos, AM 44 (1919) 38, no. 27 c. IGRR IV,

1724 c.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.82 × 0.66 × 0.58 m.; l.: 0.035

Date: 14 – 37.

Schede: Inschr. Inv. 179. Statuenbasis aus Mar-

mor, mit schlichtem Kopf- und Fußprofil.

JMH: If this indeed is a statue base and not an

altar, the statue could possibly be of Hera and

not Tiberius.


Tiberius 138

Asi, Sardis.

AE 1995, 1457. SEG 45, 1643. P. Herrmann, Sar-

deis, in E. Schwertheim, Forschungen in Lydien,

Asia Minor Studien 17 (Bonn 1995) 27.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.12 × 0.32 × 0.105 m.; l.: 0.02-

0.035 Date: 14 – 37.

AE: Origine inconnue. Fragment d’un petit bloc

de marbre, brisé à dr.

Dedicator: Fulh; Dionªusia;~º ⁄ ejteivmhsen ejk

tªw`n ijdivwnº

Tiberius 139 Asi, Sardis. SEG 36, 1092. F.K. Yegül, The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis (Cambridge, Mass. 1986) 169, no. 1. P. Herrmann, Sardeis, in E. Schwertheim, Forschungen in Lydien, Asia Minor Studien 17 (Bonn 1995) 32-33. Type: Base Dim.: 1.61 × 0.61 × 0.61 m.; l.: 0.0650.075 Date: 41 – 54 Posthumous / Claudius Augustus. Yegül: Cylindrical base for statue of Tiberius erected under Claudius; cut down for reuse so the the last two lines are mutilated. White finegrained marble. The top has a centrel cutting 0.13 m. × 0,05 m. × 0,085 m. deep, and two dowel holes and pour channels. The underside has two dowel holes. Dedicator: Eujsebeiv⁄a~ kai; eujcaristiva~ ⁄ e{neken oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ kaqievrwsen ⁄ ejrgepistathvsanto~ ⁄ Tibªerivou Klaudivouº ⁄ ªDhmhtrivou uiJou`º ⁄ ªKureivna ∆Apollofavnou~º

Tiberius 137

Asi, Sardis.

IGRR IV, 1503. CIG 3451. Stuart 1939, 606. W.H.

Buckler & D.M. Robinson, Sardis 7,1 (Leiden

1925-1932) 55, no. 34.


37.

CIG: Sardibus in arce super columella capitulo.

Buckler & Robinson: Capstone of a cylindrical

pedestal, now lost, formerly within the acropo lis enclosure.

Dedicator: Fulh; Tumwli;~ ejteivmh⁄sen ejk tw`n ijdivwn

Tiberius 140 Asi, Smyrna. IGSK 24, 1, 618. IGRR IV, 1391. CIG 3172. Stuart 1939, 606. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 4 – 14 After adoption / non regnans. IGSK: Vermutlich auf einer Statuenbasis. Die Inschrift wurde vor ihrer Aufnahme durch Prokesch-Osten gelöscht und eine hebräische eingemeißelt. Ehemals auf dem jüdischen Friedhof in Smyrna; verschollen. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Tiber ius · 285

Tiberius 141

Tiberius 144

Asi, Stratonicaea-Hadrianopolis. AE 1997, 1471. M.C. ahin, EA 29 (1997) 93. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 14 – 23 Drusus II. AE: Dans l’orchestre du théâtre. Deux inscriptions mentionnant un culte de Drusus le Jeune et de Tibère et qui devaient provenir du temple des empereurs situé au-dessus de théâtre de Stratonicée. Base de statue circulaire. Dedicator: ªÔO dºh`mo~

LyP, Myra.

IGRR III, 721. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997, 162 163, no. 102.


Livia, see comment.

IGRR: In Granariis Hadriani.

JMH: Together with a base for Livia (IGRR III,

720).

Dedicator: Murevwn oJ dh`mo~

Tiberius 145

Tiberius 142

LyP, Antiochia en Pisidia.

AE 1941, 145. W.M. Ramsay, Anatolian Studies

Presented to W.H. Buckler (Manchester 1939)

210. W.M. Calder, Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia,

JRS 2 (1912) 104, no. 42. W.M. Ramsay, Colo nia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch) in the Augustan

Age, JRS 6 (1916) 134.


– 29 Livia, see comment. JMH: In Ramsey this inscription is restored as a dedication of statues of Tiberius and Livia, but there doesn’t seem to be anything left of the inscription mentioning Livia. Dedicator: [L] Calpu[rnius Piso Frugi]

Tiberius 143 LyP, Apollonia. IGRR III, 694. R. Heberdey & E. Kalinka, Bericht über zwei Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien, DenkschrWien 45 (1897) 18, no. 57. Type: Base Dim.: 1.29 × 1.48 × 0.67 m.; l.:? Date: 4 – 14 After adoption / non regnans. Heberdey & Kalinka: Assar bei Sidschak. Kalksteinbasis auf der Burg, oben und unten Ablauf, oben von später Verwendung herrührende Balkenlager eingearbeitet, hinten rauh. Die Oberseite zeigt Standspuren zweier Statuen. JMH: Dedication for Augustus and Tiberius on the same base. Augustus on the right; Tiberius on the left. Dedicator: ∆Apollwniavtwn oJ dh`mo~

Cil, Olba.

IGRR III, 845. AE 1898, 60. Stuart 1939, 606.

R. Heberdey & A. Wilhelm, Reisen in Lykien,

Denkschr. der Akad. in Wien 44 (Wien 1896)

88, no. 160.

Type: Consol Dim.: 0.30 × 0.67 ×? m.; l.:? Date:

14 – 37.

Heberdey & Wilhelm: Auf ein Consol der Hal lenstrasse.

Tiberius 146 Cyp, Lapethos. IGRR III, 933. Stuart 1939, 606. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 29 Trib pot 31, see comment. JMH: The temple and cult image mentioned in the inscription were dedicated on the 16th of November, the birthday of Tiberius. Dedicator: ∆Adravsto~ ∆Adrastou` filovkaisar oJ ejggeniko;~ i{ereu~

Tiberius 147 Cyp, Paphos. T.B. Mitford, Some Published Inscriptions from

Cyprus, BSA 42 (1947) 228, no. 12. IGRR III,

943. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997, 156, no. 91.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:- -

2 Iulia’s exile.

Mitford: A rough stone built into a later wall.

Broken right and bottom.

Rose: In the vicinity of the temple of Afrodite.


Tiberius 148 Cyp, Paphos. IGRR III, 941. E.A.G, D.G.H. & M.R.J., Excavation in Cyprus 1887-1888, JHS 9 (1888) 227, no. 5-6. Stuart 1939, 606. Type: Probably a base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 15 First year of reign. JHS: Pink pedestal found in debris outside east wall. Inscribed on two sides. a) Ptolemy IX.; Alexander I., who ruled in Cyprus 114-107 B.C. and b) Tiberius, probably erected in gratitude for a decision as to right of asylum granted to the embassy under Tiberius. Dedicator: Sebasth`~ Pavfou hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~

Tiberius 149

Cyp, Paphos.

IGRR III, 942. E.A.G, D.G.H. & M.R.J., Excava tion in Cyprus 1887-1888, JHS 9 (1888) 227-228,

no. 7. Stuart 1939, 606.


– 37 See comment.

JHS: Pink, lying on surface, south of site: broken

at top and bottom.

JMH: Paphus was named Augusta in AD 15.

Dedicator: ªSeºbasth`~ Pavfou hJ bªoulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~º

Tiberius 150

Cyp, Paphos.

SEG 41, 1480. IGRR III, 944. E.A.G, D.G.H. &

M.R.J., Excavation in Cyprus 1887-1888, JHS 9

(1888) 250-251, no. 107. AE 1991, 1568. M. Cor-

bier, La descendence d’Hortensius et de Marcia,

MEFRA 103 (1991) 655-701. W. Eck, Marcius

Hortalius, nobilis iuvenis, und seine Söhne, ZPE

95 (1993) 251-260.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.301 × 0.718 × 0.69 m.; l.:?

Date: 26 – 29 See comment.

JHS: Pink pedestal. Palimpsest.

SEG: Dedication of a statue of Tiberius to Aphro dite Paphia, 26-29 A.D.? = IGRR III, 944 (Domi tian), SEG XXX, 1635 (Titus) and SEG XXXIX,

1532. Corbier identifies the proconsul with [.]

Marcius Hortalus, praetor peregrinus of 25 A.D.,

who recently emerged from a new Latin fasti

found in Rome. C. dates his proconsulate be-

tween July 26 and July 29 A.D.

Dedicator: ªSebaºsth; Pav fo~

Tiberius 151

Cyp, Salamis.

CIL III, 12104. Stuart 1939, 606. Pouilloux, Roe sch & Marcillet-Jaubert 1987, 60, no. 132.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.165 × 0.27 × 0.18 m.; l.:

0.016-0.032 Date: 14 – 37.

Pouilloux: British Museum. 1890. Trouvé à

l’Agora, en surface. Fragment d’une base de statue

en marbre bleu, complet en haut, en bas et peut-

être à droite, brisé à gauche et dans l’épaisseur.

Dedicator: [Senatus Sala]minorum

Tiberius 152

Cyp, Salamis.

Pouilloux, Roesch & Marcillet-Jaubert 1987, 60,

no. 133. SEG 30, 1645. AE 1989, 736.


0.021-0.038 Date: 14 – 37.

AE: Dédicace bilingue a Tibere, cassée a dr., mise

au jour en 1970 sur le site du temple de Zeus.

Le premiere éd. n’a pas suggéré de restitu-

tions, mais il a noté que la titulature impériale

se présentait vraisemblablement sous la forme

courte. Le dédicant, L(ucius) Mar[…], inscrit

dans la tribu Stellatina, pourrait être un procon-

sul de Chypre, ou en tout cas un fonctionnaire

sénatorial. Un rapprochement possible avec

I.G.R.R. III, 952, qui fait connaître un […]arius Rufus, identifié tantôt comme un [V]arius Rufus et tantôt comme [L. T]arius Rufus, consul en 16 a. C., est prudemment envisagé. Les auteurs du recueil Salamine de Chypre font observer qu’il demeure aléatoire. Pouilloux: E. 124 (Inv. 6154). Trouvé le 3 novembre 1970 en E VII/ß5. Fragment d’une plaque de marbre gris, brisée à droite, complète ailleurs. Dedicator: L Mar[--- f Stell--- proco(n)s(ul) Cypri]

Ca ligu la · 287

Tiberius 153

Syr, Palmyra.

AE 1933, 204. H. Seyrig, L’incorporation de

Palmyre à l’empire romain, Syria 13 (1932)

274-276. Stuart 1939, 606. Rose 1997, 189, no.

130. J. Cantineau, Inventaire des inscriptions

de Palmyre. Fasc. 9, le sanctuaire de Bèl (Beirut

1933) 7-9, no. 2.

Type: Corniche with cuttings for statues Dim.:

0.30 × 2.08 × 0.66 m.; l.:? Date: 14 – 19 Germanicus. Rose: The three dedications were inscribed on a cornice, above which are cuttings for the statues. At first, the inscription consisted only of the names of Drusus, Tiberius and Germanicus with imperatoribus posuit centred below them. At a later point, the titles of Germanicus and Drusus were expanded with Ti. Aug. f. divi nepoti written below their names in smaller and less careful letters. The group was probably erected at the time of Germanicus’s eastern campaign in A.D. 18. When Germanicus met with Cn. Calpurnius Piso, governor of Syria and his alleged murderer, he came into direct contact with the legio X Fretensis at their winter quarters in Cyrrhus. The dedications were discovered in the temple of Bel, which was not finished and dedicated until A.D. 32, and the group was probably first set up in the courtyard of the sanctuary and then transferred to the temple on its completion. Dedicator: Imperatoribus posuit | [--- Min]ucius T f Hor(atia tribu) Rufus legatus leg(ionis) X Fretensis

Caligula Caligul a 1

Umb, Spoletium.

CIL XI, 4778. AE 1892, 4. Stuart 1939, 608.

Archäologisch – epigraphische Mittheilungen

aus Österreich-Ungarn 15 (1892) 34-35. G.F.

Gamurrini, NSc (1886) 326-327.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.168 ×

0.165 × 0.015 m.; l.: 0.02-0.039 Date: 37 – 41.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marm. supra et infra

integrum. Rep. a. 1886 in effossionibus ante aedes

municipales in fondo alla cisterna. Servatur in

aedibus municipalibus in horreis.

Arch. epigr.: Im Atrium dieses Hauses fand sich

beim Ausräumen des Brunnens von einer In-

schrifttafel aus Marmor ein links und rechts

gebrochenes Stück. Das Denkmal steht, so viel

ich sehe, vereinzelt da. Zwar sind römischen

Kaisern währen ihrer Regierungszeit äußerst

zahlreiche Standbilder errichtet worden, und

regelmäßig gaben die Inschriften auf den Sock eln an, von wer die Errichtung herrührte. Aber

auch wenn dies Einzelpersonen waren (nach

den erhaltenen Inschriften zu Urtheilen ist dies

eine verhältnismäßig geringe Minderzahl der

Fälle gewesen), befanden sich die Bildnisse wohl

gewöhnlich auf Plätzen oder in öffentlichen Ge-

bäuden, oder wenn sie auf einem Boden standen,

der Privateigenthum war, so werden dies meist

Stellen gewesen sein, die einem größeren Publi kum zugänglich waren, wie Gärten und Villen.

In unserem Falle kann nach der Fundstelle, der

Beschaffenheit und den Maßen der Platte wohl

kein Zweifel bestehen, dass das Kaiserbildnis im

Atrium des Hauses selbst sich befand.

JMH: The woman dedicating the inscription

could very well be the mother of Vespasian.

Dedicator: [Vespasia L] f Polla

C aligul a 2

Etr, Veii.

CIL XI, 7744.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: – 37

Non regnans.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae. Fuit a.

1909 Isola Farnese insertum in pavimento ante

scalas, quibus adscenditur ad aedes, quae sunt

observae palatio baronali.

C aligul a 3

Aqu, Avaricum.

CIL XIII, 1189. Stuart 1939, 608.



37 – 41.

CIL: Basis. Rep. m. April a. 1882 Bourges, rue

Coursalon, in fundamentis moenium Romano-

rum. Extat ibi in museo antiquariorum.

Dedicator: Etnoso | Anavus Attici lib(ertus) |

v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

Caligul a 4

Nar, Maritima.

Espérandieu 1929, 29-30, no. 89.

Type: Altar Dim.: 1.11 × 0.60 × 0.47 m.; l.: 0.05

Date: 40 Cos 3.

Espérandieu: Autel trouvé au pont de l’ille et

conservé à Carry-le-Rouet, dans le jardin de M.

Ph. Jourde.

Dedicator: Sex Aelanius Pisinus | sevir Augusta-

lis | d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(edit)

Caligul a 5

Nar, Ruscino.

Rose 1997, 130-131, no. 57. Espérandieu 1929,

183-187, no. 620. M. Gayraud, Les inscriptions

de Ruscino, RANarb suppl. 7 (1980) 76-77, no.

5. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.:? ×? × 0.02 m.; l.: 0.05-0.06 Date: – 37 Non regnans. Espérandieu: Sur ce forum, d’environ 3000 métres carrés de superficie, les statues, dont on reconnu les piédestaux étaient disposées ainsi que l’indique la figure insérée au Bull. archéol. du Comité (1914) p. 185. Toutes les dédicaces sont gravées sur des tablettes de marbre de faible épaisseur, quelquefois opisthographes. JMH: Other inscriptions from the forum honour: Germanicus, Drusus II, Agrippina I, Tiberius, Drusilla?, Drusus III, Claudius?, and Agrippina II.

Caligul a 6

Nar, Saint-Jean-de-la-porte.

CIL XII, 2331. Stuart 1939, 608.


pot / cos.

CIL: Basis.

JMH: The name of Caligula seems to be in the ablative case as indicated by the final e in Caesare in l. 1. This could well be an error in the copying of the inscription. Dedicator: Ratiari | Voludnienses

Caligul a 7 Nar, Vienna. AE 1995, 1039. F. Bertrandy, Études Savoisiennes 4 (1995) 67-76. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.19 × 0.18 × 0.08 m.; l.: 0.05 Date: 33 – 37 Pontifex. AE: Fragment de plaque de marbre. La restitution de ce document est rendue possible par la comparation avec les deux inscriptions CIL XII, 1848 et 1849.

Caligul a 8 Nar, Vienna. CIL XII, 1848. Stuart 1939, 608. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 1.20 × 0.83 × 0.27 m.; l.: 0.065-0.09 Date: 33 – 37 Pontifex. CIL: Tabula. Rep. a 1823 vel 1824 Viennae in fundamentis archiscopatus, delata in museum, ubi extat. JMH: Vienne, Mus. Lapidaire, inv. no. 536. Seen and measured in July 1999. The block could either be part of a base or belong to a larger monument. Mouldings were possibly attached top and bottom.

Caligul a 9 Nar, Vienna. CIL XII, 1849. Stuart 1939, 608. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 1.15 × 0.74 × 0.20 m.; l.: 0.065-0.09 Date: 33 – 37 Pontifex. CIL: Tabula. JMH: Vienne, Mus. Lapidaire, inv. no. 680. Seen and measured in July 1999. The block could either be part of a base or belong to a larger monument. Mouldings were possibly attached top and bottom.

Ca ligu la · 289

Caligul a 10

AlG, Saint-Maurice-en-Valais.

AE 1897, 2. Stuart 1939, 608. Walser 1980, 58-59,

no. 272. J. Michel, Anzeiger für Schweizerische

Alterthumskunde (1896) 110.


0.10 Date: 37 Cos 1. Walser: Platte aus feinem Kalkstein, 1896 bei Ausgrabungen am Glockenturm (Marotlet) der Abtei St-Maurice (Wallis) gefunden, heute im Vestibül der Abtei eingemauert. Dedicator: [Civi]tates IIII vallis Poenin(ae)

Caligul a 11

AlG, Saint-Triphon.

CIL XII, 5524. AE 1985, 659. G. Walser, Die

Straßenbau-Tätigkeit von Kaiser Claudius, His toria 29 (1980) 440-442.


See comment.

JMH: The almost identical inscription for Ca-

ligula from Saint-Maurice-en-Valais can almost

certainly be dated to AD 37. This probably ap-

plies to the present inscription as well.

Dedicator: [Civitates I]III | [V]alli[s Poeninae]

Caligul a 12

Ach, Aigiale.

IG XII, 7, 437. A. Thomb, Inschriften von den

griechischen Inseln, AM 16 (1881) 174, no. 4.

Stuart 1939, 608.


37 – 41.

IG: Fragmentum baseos marmorae.

Thomb: Marmorbasis, vielleicht zu dem daneben

liegenden Fragment einer Statue gehörig, auf der

Südseite der Akropolis von Vigla.

Dedicator: ÔO dh` mªo~º

Caligul a 13

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3266. P. Graindor, Inscriptions Attiques

d’époque romaine, BCH 38 (1914) 401, no. 19.

Stuart 1939, 608.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.78 × 0.61 × 0.335 m.; l.: 0.02-

0.025 Date: 37 – 41.

IG: In arcis angulo, qui inter septentriones et orientem spectat. Fragmenta duo baseos quadriangulae marmoris Pentelici, quae copulavit Graindor a: a. 0,78, l. 0,28, cr. 0,28. b: a,78, l. 0,28, cr. 0,335. Graindor: Deux fragments d’une base quadrangulaire de marbre pentélique, tous deux sur l’Acropole, l’un, près du Belvédère, l’autre, un peu plus au Sud, près du mur Est. JMH: A name has been deleted in line 4-6. Probably one of Caligula’s sisters: Julia Livilla or Julia Drusilla. Dedicator: ª--ejpiº⁄melhqevnto~ tªh`~ kaº⁄taskeuh`~ ejk tw`n ªijdivwnº ⁄ tou` iJerevo~ aujth`ª~ tou` ejpi;º ⁄ tou;~ oJplivta~ stªrathgou`º ⁄ to; ª-º Gaivou Silivou Poªlukrivtouº ªhJ ejx ∆Areivou pavgou boulh; kai; hJ boulh; tw`n Cº kai; oJ dh`mo~ to;n swth`ra kaªi; eujº⁄ªergevthn --- ejpimelhqevnto~ Gaivou Silivouº Polukrivtou tou` ejpi; toªu;~ oJplivta~º ⁄ ªstrathgou`º ⁄ ª--- ejpi; iJereiva~ ---º qugatrov~

C aligul a 14

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3267. Stuart 1939, 608.


– 41. IG: In arce.

C aligul a 15

Ach, Delphi.

SEG 1, 156. CIG 1696. H. Pomtow, Die Römer-

statuen in Delphi, Klio 17 (1921) 166-167, no.

152.


41. SEG: Cippus (?). Prope templum, duo fragm. eiusdem lapidis (dom. 71 et Inv. n. 2204). Pomtow: Gaiusstatue der Amphiktyonen. Es steht im CIG 1696 ein unscheinbares Fragment in Maiuskeln, das Boeckh unergänzt ließ; es war von Clarke auf dem Platze vor der Häusern 6970 aufgefunden, also an der Südseite des Apollontempels unweit des Pronaos. Wie in den Scheden IG VIII n. 320/22 nachgewiesen, habe ich zwei Brocken des Clarkeschen Steins aufge-


funden, den einen mit erhalterner linker Kante, a. 1887 eingemauert in Augenhöhe in Haus 71, den zweiten rechts anschließenden, rings gebrochenen, im alten Museum n. 162 (jetzt Inv. 2204), und ergäntzte sie nach der Tiberius-statue Syll. n. 791 B zu dem Namen eines der folgende Kaiser. Da von Claudius schon drei Statuen (Syll n. 801 A-C), von Nero eine (Syll. n. 808) bezeugt sind, mußte man unsere Bildsäule mit wahrscheinlichkeit zwischen die beiden des Tiberius und die drei des Claudius setzen, sie also auf Caligula beziehen. Dann wäre sie wie nebenstehend zu ergänzen. Dedicator: ªTo; koino;n tw`nº ⁄ ª∆Amfiktiovnºwn ªkaqievrº⁄wsen ejpimeªlhteuvonto~º ⁄ aujtw`n Kallistravtou ªtou`º ⁄ Kallistravtou Devlªfouº

IG: In theatri scenae Romana qui olim fuerant, lapidis inventi sunt. Rose: The dedications were inscribed on stones that formed part of the roman scaenae frons of the theatre, and W. Dörpfeld proposed that the associated statues were placed between the columns of the scenae. The mason marks are still preserved on the blocks, thus permitting a reconstruction of the statuary arrangement: Germanicus (IG 12, 3, suppl., 1393), as Zeus Boulaios, appeared on the left, Vespasian in the centre, and Agrippina (IG 12, 3, suppl., 1392), as Hestia Boulaia, at the right. The Vespasian dedication is clearly a replacement of an earlier one of Caligula.

Caligul a 18 Caligul a 16 Ach, Exarkhos. R. Mellor, Qea; Rwvmh, The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Göttingen 1975) 106, 211, no. 40. G. Klaffenbach, Reise durch Mittelgrieschenland und die Ionischen Inseln, SBBerlin (1935) 705-706. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 37 – 41. Klaffenbach: Ein Neufund war aber auch hier

beschert: die Weihung einer Statue des Kaisers

Caligula durch den ajrciereu~ aujtou` dia; bivou an den Göttin rJwvmh;. In Namen des Kaisers ist das Wort Gavion durch Rasur getilgt. JMH: The inscription could come from either Abai or Hyampolis. To my knowledge the inscription has still not been properly published. Dedicator: ª---º ajrcivereu~ aujtou` dia; bivou ª--º

Caligul a 17

Ach, Thera.

IG XII, 3, suppl., 1392-1394. H. Dörpfeld, Das

Theater von Thera, Thera III: Stadtgeschichte

von Thera (1904) 259-260. Rose 1997, 160-161,

no. 97.

Type: Scenae frons Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:

37 – 41.

Asi, Amyzon. J. & L. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie (Paris 1983) 266, no. 68. Type: Base Dim.: 0.10 × 0.90 ×? m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 37 – 41. Robert: Au mur Ouest, près de l’angle NordOuest, sommet d’une base de marbre. Sur le petit côté droit, en haut, anathyrose; en bas, trou de goujon; il devait donc y avoir à droite une autre base, formant un ensemble avec celle-ci. Dedicator: ∆Antigoni;~ ∆Apollwnivou stefanhfovro~

Caligul a 19

Asi, Didyma.

AE 1912, 134. Stuart 1939, 608. A. Rehm, Di dyma II. Die Inschriften (Berlin 1958) 132-133,

no. 148.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.95 × 0.75 × 0.75 m.; l.: 0.015-

0.02 Date: 37 – 41.

Rehm: Inv. 156. Gefunden an der Südseite

des Tempels, nahe der Südwestecke. Basis aus

weißem Marmor. Das obere Profil abgearbeitet,

dabai linke obererechteckige Einarbeitungen.

JMH: The name of Caligula has been deliber-

ately removed.

Dedicator: H Neopo⁄ioi; oiJ prwvtw~ neopoªihvº-

sante~ aujtou` ⁄ ejpi; ajrcierevw~ Gnaivou Oujergilivou Kapivtwno~ ⁄ tou` me;n ejn Meilhvtwi naou`

Ca ligu la · 291

Gai?ou Kaivsaro~ to; prw`⁄ton th`~ de; ∆Asiva~ to; trivton ªkai;º Tiberivou ∆Ioulivou ⁄ Dhmhtrivou nomoqevtou uiJou` Mhnogevnou~ ajrcierevw~ ⁄ to; deuvteron kai; newkovrou tou` ejn Meilhvtwi naou` hJ kai; ⁄ Prwtomavcou tou` Gluvkwno~ ∆Ioulievw~ tou` ajrcineop⁄oiou` kai; sebastovnewi kai; sebastolovgou ejk tw`n ijdiv⁄wn ajnevqhkan

Caligul a 20

Asi, Ephesus.

AE 1968, 476 c. D. Knibbe, Epigraphische Nach-

lese im Bereiche der ephesischen Agora, ÖJh 47

(1964-65) Beibl., col. 14-16.


0.03-0.045 Date: – 37 Non regnans.

AE: Trois blocs de marbre blanc, trouvés, le pre mier en 1956 dans la région des thermes de Scho lastique, le second réemployé dans un mur by-

zantin au N. de la porte septentrionale de l’Agora,

le troisieme, en 1956, en second remploi dans le

temple d’Hadrien ou il avait deja servi lors d’une

réfection du batiment. Les deux premiers blocs

concernent les deux fils aines de Germanicus,

Nero Iulius Caesar et Drusus Iulius Caesar et

la fille ainée, la mere de Néron, Iulia Agrippina.

L’éditeur croit reconnaitre le nom de Germani cus pere de ces trois princes, dans les vestiges

du troisieme bloc. Nous ne saurions partager

cette opinion, parce que le fils adoptif de Tibere

s’appelait Germanicus Caesar, Germanicus étant

emploué comme prénom. Le seul prince valable

est Caligula, qui portait le nom de Caius Caesar

Germanicus avant son avenement, et celui de

Caius Caesar Germanicus Augustus, quand il

fut monté sur trône.

tuli Calymnii, ASAtene 22-23 (1944-1945) 149,

no. 109.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.36 × 0.41 × 0.18 m.; l.: 0.02

Date: – 37 Non regnans.

Segre: Basis lapidis tophini infra et a dextro latere

mutila. Ad templum Apollinis invenit Newton;

nunc in Museo Britannico servatur.

Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ Kalumnªivº⁄wn sunkaqievrwse ⁄ ∆Apovllªwºni ªDaºlivwi Kaluvmªnºa~ medevonti

C aligul a 23

Asi, Kalymna.

IGRR IV, 1023. Stuart 1938, 18. M. Segre, Tituli

Calymnii, ASAtene 22-23 (1944-1945) 164-165,

no. 143.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.72 × 0.57 × 0.57 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: – 37 Non regnans.

Segre: Basis rotunda marmoris albi, superne

mutila.

Dedicator: ªÔO da`mo~ oJ Kaºlªumnivwnº ⁄ ªejteivma senº

C aligul a 24

Asi, Mytilene.



37 – 41.

IG: In ruderibus veteris ecclesiae S. Therapontis

repertum fragmentum baseos.

JMH: Olympios is otherwise unattested for em perors besides Hadrian.

Dedicator: Divh~ oJ i[reu~ ª---º ⁄ ª--- kai; ajgºwnoqevta~ Aujtªokravtoº⁄ªro~ Kaivsaro~ Divºo~ ∆Olumpivªw Sebavstwº

Caligul a 21

C aligul a 25

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 259. CIL III, 428.


– 41. IGSK: Am Aquaduct vermauert.

Asi, Sardis.

AE 1995, 1459. SEG 45, 1645. P. Herrmann, Sar-

deis, in E. Schwertheim, Forschungen in Lydien,

Asia Minor Studien 17 (Bonn 1995) 31-32.


0.09 Date: 37 – 41. AE: En 1965, dans les fondations d’un édifice d’époque tardive, au SE de la synagogue. Bloc de marbre brisé à g., avec moulure sup. abat-

Caligul a 22

Asi, Kalymna.

IGRR IV, 1022. Stuart 1939, 608. M. Segre, Ti-


tue; surface inscrite détruite en b. à g. Les deux dernières lettres de la première l. sont gravées sur un martelage. Herrmann: Besonders eindrücksvoll ist ein über zwei Meter breiter Marmorblock, der 1965 freigelegt wurde, und zwar im Unterbau eines spätantiken Tetrapylon. Dedicator: ÔO dh`⁄ªmo~ kaqievrwºsen

Caligul a 26 LyP, Perge? IGSK 54, 25. SEG 2, 703. AE 1922, 3. B. Pace, La zona costiera da Adalia a Side, ASAtene 3 (19161921) 29, no. 13. R. Merkelbach & S. ahin, Die Publizierten Inschriften von Perge, EpigrAnat 11 (1988) 110, no. 9. Type: Base Dim.: 1.10 × 0.63 × 0.63 m.; l.: 0.0350.045 Date: 37 – 41. Pace: A cirta tre ore da Adalia verso oriente, nella direzione della strada di Gundur segnata nella carta del Kiepert presso Lanckoronski, nel Caragialler Mezarlik esiste una base di pietra del diam. di cm. 63 piantata capovolta nel suolo, da cui emerge m. 1,10. In belle lettere regolari porta l’iscrizione: (inscription); le lettere delle prime cinque linee sono di cm. 3,5, quelle dell’ultima di cm. 4,5. Si tratta di una delle solite “acclamationes”, all’imperatore Caligola, il cui nome ufficiale era appunto, com’ è noto, Caio Caesare Augusto Germanico. Il demos era probabilimente quello di Perge. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

the inscription JHS 9 (1888) no. 35, of the earlier half of the 3rd century B.C. On the other, now reduced by fracture on the right to a width of 0.29, is a deleted inscription overlooked by the JHS editors. The mutilation being perfunctory and directed rather against the inscribed surface as such than against letter or line, much is still legible. Dedicator: ·Ma`rko~ Fivrmio~ Sekoªu`ndo~ tamiva~ kai; ajntistravthgo~ dhvmouº‚ ⁄ ·ÔRwmaivwn w|i Temioikluª---º‚ ⁄ ·ejpi; prostatw`n Divwno~ ª---º‚ ⁄ ·∆Apollwnivou tou` Meoneoª---º‚ ⁄ ·tamiv tou` e[tou~ ªbº Gaªivou Kaivsaro~ Sebastou` ou Germanikou`º‚

Caligul a 28

Aeg, Syene.

CIL III, 14147, 1. Stuart 1939, 608. R. Cagnat,

BAParis. Comptes rendus des séances, janvier

(1896) 37-45.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 39 Cos

2. CIL: Assuan inter rudera praetorii antiqui “auf Granitsockeln hinter dem Bahnhof beim Graben von Sebah gefunden” una cum sequentibus duabus dipositis sic: … In ripa Nili orientali infra casas vici Arabici inter eum et coemeterium Arabum a sepulcro q. d. Abu-Leilah m. 30 meridiem versus. Adde quae de titulis his exposuit Jouguet sublatis auctore Borchardito et consentiente ipso Jougueto erraris quibusdam. Les bases n. 14147, 3 et 4 sont à côté l’une de Caligul a 27 l’autre, tout près, sur le même alignement. A Cyp, Paphos. côté de la base 14147, 4 on voit les restes d’une T.B. Mitford, Roman Cyprus, ANRW II 7.2 sorte de pilier; les pierres étaient parfaitement (1980) 1315 note 103. SEG 30, 1633. T.B. Mitford, appareillées et unies entre elles par des tenons en New Inscriptions from Roman Cyprus, Opuscula queue d’aronde. Il ne reste que peu de chose de Archaeologica 6 (1950) 56-58, no. 30.

ce pilier, deux assises au plus. La base 14147, 1-2 Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.235 × 0.85 × 0.68 ne fait pas exactement face à celle de n. 14147, 3. m.; l.: 0.008-0.016 Date: 37 – 41.

On ne peut guère supposer une allée de statues Mitford (Opuscula): A dedication to Caligula. ayant la même largeur que l’ouverture masquée Kouklia, in the Inscription House; found in par le reste d’édifices que l’on voit auprès de la March, 1888 during excavation of the Aphro base n. 14147, 4, parceque la base n. 14147, 1-2 dite Temple: a pedestal of slate-coloured marble. parait un peu éloignée des autres. Of the two longer faces, one, still, intact, carries JMH: Dedicated 28 April 39 AD. The number

Ca ligu la · 293

after trib. pot. is left out. It should have been 3. Later reused as a base for a statue of Trajan (CIL III, 14147, 2). Found together with staue bases for Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus. Dedicator: Per C Vitrasium Pollionem praef(ectum) Aegyp(ti) cohors Ituraeor(um) | cui prae(e)st L Eienus L f(ilius) Fal(erna tribu) Saturninus anno III C Caesaris Augusti | Germanici IIII Kal(endas) Maias n(?) d(?) h(?) III

Claudius Cl audius 1 Rom, Roma. CIL VI, 924. CIL VI, 31205. CIL VI, 40412. Stuart 1938, 14. Gordon 1958, 98-99, no. 100. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.19 × 0.805 × 0.305 m.; l.: 0.045-0.05 Date: 41 – 54. CIL VI, 924: Litteris grandiusculis et bene cultis in quadrato exciso nunc et erecto inter pluteos ante aram maiorem aedis S. Salvatoris prope pontem S. Mariae. CIL VI, 31205: Nuper iterum emersit bipertita ex alveo Tiberis, servatur in thermis Diocletiani in repositis. CIL VI, 40412: Extat in M.N.R. in repositis (inv. n. 29.274).

Cl audius 2

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40307. AE 1996, 246 a-d.


l.: 0.025-0.07 Date: 42 Cos 2 / trib pot 1.

CIL: See Augustus 2

Cl audius 3

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 915. Stuart 1938, 14.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 43 Trib

pot 3.

CIL: Lapis videtur fuisse peristilium quoddam

portae seu ostii alicuius aedificii; supra portam

vel arcum videtur stetisse. Periit.

Dedicator: (Socii) publici XX libertatis et XXV venal[ium]

Cl audius 4 Rom, Roma. AE 1953, 24. CIL VI, 40414-40415. Gordon 1958, 90-91, no. 90. G.Q. Giglioli, Dedica del collegium Augustianum maius Castrense, RendPontAc 2526 (1949-1950; 1950-1951) 67-74. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.21 × 1.145 × 0.04 m.; l.: 0.02-0.028 Date: 45 See comment. CIL: Tabula marmorea a sinistra fracta, ex quattor fragmentis coniuncta, in fronte expolita, in latere dextro et a tergo levigata, in lateribus superiore et inferiore scabra. Extant in Mus. Vat., Lap. Prof. Ex-Lat. (inv. n. q III 1.129/25.704). AE: A Rome, aux environs du viale Aventino; auj. au Musée du Latran. Deux inscriptions en substance identique, dont nous reproduisons la plus complète (a). De l’autre plaque de marbre (b), un fragment donnant le bout des lignes figure au Bull. comun. di Roma, LXVIII (1940) p. 177, no. 6, qui comportait deux lignes supplémentaires: [---] Saturnina | [---] iisdem dedicarunt. La ligne précédente commençait avant [dedicatum] par [Ti. I]ulius Daph[nus---]. Les consuls suffects, qui sont nouveaux, sont probablement de 45 ap. J.-C.; le second est le frère aîné de Vespasien, qui a dû être consul très peu de temps en juillet ey en août; c’est lui qui a été praefectus Urbi et massacré par les Vitelliens. Le collegium Augustianum maius Castrense, sans doute funéraire, était inconnu jusqu’ici. Dedicator: [Mag(istri) coll(egii)] huius anni d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(ono) d(ederunt) aediculam marmoratam ita uti est | [---] Aug(usti) Iulianus pediseq(uus) M(arcus) Livius Augustae liberti libertus Tanais | [--- At]talus Ti Claudius Aug(usti) l(ibertus) Soterichus Ti(berius) Iulius Olimpicus q(uestor) prim(us) factus ex decurion(ibus) | [Ti(berius) Iul(ius) Daphnus decu]r(io) dedicatum K(alendis) Aug(ustis) Cn(aeo) Hosidio Geta T(ito) Flavio Sabino co(n)s(ulibus)


Cl audius 5

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 920. CIL VI, 40416. Stuart 1938, 14. S.B.

Planter, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient

Rome (completed and revised by T. Ashby)

(London 1929) 35. Kähler 1939, col. 384, no. I

20. Roehmer 1997, 171-191. Type: Arch Dim.: 3.20 × 1.69 ×? m.; l.: 0.20-0.30 Date: 51 Trib pot 11. CIL: Tabula marmorea ex quinque fragmentis inter se coniunctis (a-d) vel paene (e) composita in fronte expolita, a tergo levigata, marginibus dextro integre, superiore magna ex parte, inferiore ex parte conservatis. Frg. a-b extant in Mus. Vat. Lap. Prof. Ex-Lat. (inv. n. 25.707). Frg. c-d extant in Mus. Cap. in repositis (inv. n. 5.082, frg. e in Pal. Esp. cassa 180. Stuart: CIL VI, 921 proves that on the same arch were erected statues of Germanicus, Antonia, Agrippina, Nero and Octavia. Undoubtedly, the statues of Drusus Nero and Britannicus, belong to CIL VI 920-921. JMH: Triumphal arch erected over the Via Lata in honor of the Britannic victory. Dedicator: Senatus po[pulusque] Ro[manus q]uod | reges Brit[annorum] XI d[iebus sine] | ulla iactur[a devicerit et regna eorum] | gentesque b[arbaras trans oceanum sitas] | primus in dici[onem populi Romani redegerit]

Cl audius 6

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 31283. Stuart 1938, 14. Eph. epigr. 3,

no. 777.


0.05-0.08 Date: 52 Trib pot 12.

CIL add.: Tabula marmorea a dextra et infra

fracta. Extat Catania in Museo di Castello Urs ino.

Cl audius 7

LaC, Herculaneum.

AE 1979, 174. G. Guadagno, Supplemento epi grafico ercolanese, CronErcol 8 (1978) 140-141,

no. 10.


0.032-0.05 Date: 46 Trib pot 6.

AE: Deux fragments d’une plague de marbre: a)

23,6 × 29 × 2,7 cm; b) 23,6 × 16 × 2,7 cm.

Dedicator: [D(ecreto)] d(ecurionum)

Cl audius 8

LaC, Herculaneum.

CIL X, 1416. Stuart 1938, 15. Rose 1997, 91-92,

no. 15.


l.:? Date: 48 Trib pot 8.

CIL: In basi aere incrustata reperta Herculanei

20. Dec. 1741 cum ipsa statua aerea alta palm. 9 unc. 3. Extat Neapoli in museo. Stuart: This is a bronze tablet, not a base, but the circumstances of its discovery guarantee that it was affixed to a base. Rose: Each of these statues was set up in front of one of the semicircular apses flanking the central exedra in the Herculaneum basilica. Discovered in 1741, their original location was clearly indicated by Pierre Bardet, the French excavator of Herculaneum from 1741 to 1745. On his plan of the basilica, he recorded the discovery in front of these apses of “deux statues de bronze de 9 palmes de haut representant des hommes nuds.” JMH: The bronze plaque and the bronze statue belonging to it are now in the museum in Napoli (Napoli, Mus. Nazionale 5593). Dedicator: Ex testame[nto ---]essi L f M[e]n(enia tribu) Senecae | milit(um) cohor(tis) XIII urbanae et | dedicationi eius legavit municipib(us) | singulis IIII (sestertium) n(ummum)

Cl audius 9

LaC, Lanuvium.

CIL XIV, 2097. Stuart 1938, 15. Gordon 1958, 89,

no. 88. Fuchs 1987, 34.


Date: 42 Trib pot 2.

CIL: Tabula marmorea. In palatio Vaticano in of-

ficina sculptoris. Nunc in museo Vaticano.

Gordon: Inscribed front of a long, narrow piece

of marble, seen in March, 1949, set in the wall

Cl au di us · 295

of the Gall. Lap. of the Vatican, where it was first

reported by Marini.

Fuchs: Der Fundort und Zeitpunkt der Auffind-

ung der Inschrift CIL XIV, 2097 aus dem Jahr

42/43 n.Chr., die man mit der Statue verbinden

wollte, sind unbekannt.

Dedicator: Senatus p(opulus)q(ue) Lanuvinus ex

p(ecunia) p(ublica)

Cl audius 10

LaC, Minturnae.

AE 1989, 138. A. Codagnone, L.M. Proietti & G.

Rosi, Schede epigrafiche, in F. Coarelli, Mintur-

nae (Rome 1989) 150, no. 3.


× 0.25 m.; l.: 0.04-0.053 Date: 50 Trib pot 10.

AE: Plaque de marbre blanc, brisée à gauche.

Dédicace par des citoyens de la colonie à

l’empereur Claude. Probablement était-elle placée

aux pieds d’une statue en argent de l’empereur,

dont le poids est précisé: 300 livres = environ 90

kg. La forme Caisar pour Caesar apparaît dans le

inscriptions postérieures a la cencure de Claude

(47 p. C.).

Dedicator: [---] h(onoris?) c(ausa?) f(ecerunt?)

arg(enti) p(ondo) CCC

Cl audius 11

LaC, Ostia.

Eph. epigr. 9, no. 445. D. Vaglieri, NSc (1909)

128, no. 2. Stuart 1938, 19.


l.:? Date: 41 – 54.

Eph. epigr.: Via dei vigili.

Stuart: Doubtful.

Cl audius 12

LaC, Puteoli.

AE 1995, 309. C. Gialanella, Pozzuoli, BollArch

22 (1993) 90 & 138, note 177.


Trib pot 5.

AE: Dalle de marbre blanc avec cadre mouluré.

Dedicator: [---] Honorat[us ---]

Cl audius 13 Sam, Neapolis? IG XIV, 728. AE 1912, 219. IGRR I, 434. N. Persichetti, Iscrizioni e rilievi del Museo Civico Aquilano, RM 27 (1912) 303, no. 12. Stuart 1938, 15.


54.

AE: Environs d’Aquila.

Persichetti: Piccola base marmorea, con foro

circolare.

Dedicator: Navouio~ “Atto~ ⁄ ajpokatastaqei;~ uJpo; aujtou` ⁄ eij~ th;n patrivda

Cl audius 14

Sam, Trebula Mutuesca.

CIL IX, 6361. CIL IX, 6362. Fiorelli, NSc (1881)

245. Stuart 1938, 15. AE 1998, 414. AE 1998,

413. M. Buonocore, Le iscrizioni imperiali d’età

giulio-claudia nella Regio IV. Nuove proposte di

lettura, Epigraphica 60 (1998) 64-69.


– 50 Agrippina / cos des. CIL: Chiliom. II a Monteleone in loco q. d. il Castellano, ubi amfitheatri rudera cernuntur et ipsa Trebula antiqua vere videtur stetisse, in cisterna antiqua repperit marcho Arthurus Galletti-Cambiagi. Fiorelli: Dei non pochi pezzi di lastre marmoree portanti inscrizioni, i più notevoli son quelli conservano i seguenti frammenti, in bellissime lettere.

Cl audius 15 Pic, Montegiorgio. AE 1985, 341. L. Gasperini, Spigolature epigrafiche marchigiane, Picus 1 (1981) 58-59, no. 4.


0.052 Date: 41 – 54.

Gasperini: Frammento di dedicata a Claudio.

Mattonella, probabilmente quadrata, ricavata per

evidente reimpiego da una lastra di marmo bi-

anco a grossi cristalli, levigata sulle due facce.


Cl audius 16

Cl audius 21

Pic, Urbs Salvia.

CIL IX, 5532. Stuart 1938, 15.


– 54. CIL: Urbisalviae in domo Bandinia.

Etr, Luna.

CIL XI, 6954. Stuart 1938, 15.


0.013-0.021 Date: 41 – 54.

CIL: Tabula marmorea ab omnibus partibus

praeter superiorem marginata, a sinistro latere

fracta, in dextro levigata. Reperta a. 1885 in villa

marchionis Gropallo intra moenia Lunae una

cum n. 6971 inter lapides in opere aedificiorum

antiquorum adhibitos. Servatur in museo.

Cl audius 17

Umb, Forum Sempronii.

CIL XI, 6114. Stuart 1938, 15.


0.0305 Date: 43 – 54 Imp 7-27.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae.

Stuart: May have been an arch.

Cl audius 18

Umb, Sestinum.

CIL XI, 5999. Stuart 1938, 15.


42 Trib pot 2.

CIL: Nel marzo passato il (1856) parroco di Ses tino.

Stuart: Tablet of marble which, once, was most

probably affixed to a statue base.


Cl audius 19

Etr,?.

CIL XI, 7793. Stuart 1938, 15.

Type: Part of a base Dim.:? ×? × 0.02 m.; l.: 0.07

Date: 41 – 54.

CIL: Incerta Etruriae Meridionalis. Tria frag-

menta tabulae marmoreae.



Cl audius 22

Etr, Veii.

CIL XI, 3790. Stuart 1939, 606. P. Liverani, Muni cipium Augustum Veiens (1987) 82-85, no. 36.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.515 × 0.965 × 0.095 m.;

l.: 0.066-0.084 Date: 41 Trib pot 1 / cos des 2,

see comment.

CIL: Duo fragmenta eiusdem tabulae magnae

marmorea. Rep. in effossionibus Veientanis re-

centibus. Utrumque servatur in museo Laterano

inter reposita.

Liverani: Due frammenti non contigui di las tra di marmo bianco pertinenti a una stessa is crizione.

JMH: Usually the number of consulships pre cedes a designation unless the emperor had only

been consul once. Furthermore there is no indi cation of the number of time Claudius had held

tribunician power. L Iunius Silanus was consul

in AD 28.

Dedicator: [L Iu]nius C [fil(ius) Sila]nus flam[en

Martial(is) co(n)s(ul)]

Cl audius 23

Cl audius 20

Etr, Caere.

CIL XI, 3599.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.015 Date:

41 – 54.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae margine

ornatae. Cerveteri in hortis fratrum Augustia norum.

Etr, Veii.


Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.017-0.021


CIL: Basis marmorea parva. Rep. Veiis a. 1812,

nunc in museo Vaticano. A. 1861 inter reposita

musei Laterani.

Cl au di us · 297

Cl audius 24

Cl audius 27

Etr, Veii.



m.; l.: 0.044-0.075 Date: 50 – 54 Imp 20-27.

CIL: Tabula marmorea. Rep. in effossionibus

Veientibus recentibus. Nunc in museo Laterano

inter reposita fracta.



Liverani: Angolo superiore sinistro di una lastra

di marmo bianco ricomposto da due frammenti.

La faccia posteriore della lastra mostra in parte

la superficie appena sbozzata che è quella del

blocco da cui è stsata segesta la lastra.

Aem, Veleia.

CIL XI, 1169. Bergemann 1990, 136-137. Stu art 1938, 15.


l.: 0.045-0.06 Date: 42 Trib pot 2.

CIL: Tabula marmorea. Rep. Veleiae d. 22 Aug.

1760. Nunc Parmae in museo.

Bergemann: Gemauerter Sockel mit Verkleidung

aus Kalksteinplatten. Verkleidungsplatte der Rei terbasis. Maße: Inschrift: H 118 B 98 Bh 6-4,5.

Basis: H (ergänzt) 197. Mindesthöhe (Profile +

Inschrifttafel) 182. Sockel (durch Aussparung

im Pflaster belegt) B 153 T 275. Schaft (rekon-

struiert) B 96 T 216. Fundort: 22.8.1760, Vel leia, Forum, vor der Reiterbasis im Süden des

Platzes, zu der die Inschrift deshalb gehört haben

wird. An der erst in jüngster Zeit wiedererrich-

teten Basis ist sie auf der rechten Langseite ange-

bracht worden, doch weist schon ihr hochrech teckiges Format darauf hin, daß die Inschrift an

der vordere Schmalseite gehört Zwar ist sie um

2 cm breiter als der rekonstruierte Basenkörper,

doch kann diese Differenz durch die seitlich an-

stoßenden Verkleidungsplatten der Langseiten

ausgefüllt werden.

Dedicator: P(ecunia) p(ublica) | d(ecreto)

d(ecurionem)

Cl audius 25

Aem, Regium Lepidum.

AE 1996, 669. G. Ambrosetti, R. Macellari & L.

Malnati, Lepidoregio. Testimonianze di età ro-

mana a Reggio Aemilia (Reggio Aemilia 1996)

90, no. 1.


Date: 41 – 54.

AE: En 1923, dans les fouilles de la crypte de la

cathédrale. Fragment d’une plaque de marbre.

Cl audius 26

Aem, Regium Lepidum.

AE 1996, 668. G. Ambrosetti, R. Macellari & L.

Malnati, Lepidoregio. Testimonianze di età ro-

mana a Reggio Aemilia (Reggio Aemilia 1996)

90, no. 1.


0.032 Date: 54 - Divus.

AE: Fouilles des années 1980 sur le site du Cred-

ito Emiliano, en remploi dans les fondations d’un

édifice de la fin du Ier s. p. C. Angle inf. dr. d’une

plaque de marbre gris veiné, partiellement re-

constitué à partir de neuf fragments. Musées

communaux de Reggio Emilia.


Cl audius 28

VeH, Acelum.

CIL V, 2088. Stuart 1938, 15.


– 54. CIL: Archa nobilissima di pietra, ad S. Floriani

prope Marosticam in valle in aedibus archipres byteri.

Dedicator: M Saloniu[---]es

Cl audius 29 VeH, Brixia. CIL V, 4309. Stuart 1938, 15. I. Cogitore, Séries de dédicaces Italiennes à la dynastie Julio-Claudienne, MEFRA 104 (1992) 817-870. Insc. Ital. X, 5, 87.



Date: 41 – 54.

CIL: Nave (Val Sabbio) in ecclesia S. Caesarii.

Deinde Brixiae apud Lechium; nunc in museo.

Stuart: Although the inscription is fragmentary,

it is certainly of Claudius. The size and quality

of the letters seem to justify the restoration as a

dedicatory inscription.

Cl audius 30

VeH, Pola.

CIL V, 24. Insc. Ital. X, 1, 37. Alföldy 1984, 77 78, no. 2. Stuart 1938, 15. R. Weisshäupl, Zur

Topographie des alten Pola, ÖJh 4 (1901) Beibl.,

col. 185.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.95 × 0.43 × 0.48 m.; l.:?

Date: 37 – 41 Cos 1 / non regnans.

Insc. It.: Basis e lapide calcairo, cui sinistra pars

et posterior desunt. Polae reperta in foro antiquo

in muro domus cuiusdam prope aedem Romae

et Augusti. Fortasse una ex multis statuarum ba sibus quae ante duo templa existerant. Nunc in

museo inv. 305.

Alföldy: Links abgeschlagenes Statuenposta ment aus grauen Kalkstein, mit leicht hervor-

springenden Aufsatz. Gefunden spätestens 1847

auf dem Forum in Zweitverwendung. AO: Pula,

Arch. Muz.

Type: Arch Dim.: 1.05 × 2.37 × 0.30 m.; l.:

0.047-0.102 Date: 44 Trib pot 4.

CIL: Epistylii pars, Veronae ad theatrum in fun damentis domus vetustae.

AE: En remploi dans une structure médiévale

mise au jour en 1988, lors de travaux dans un

immeuble au 7/9 via Redentore. Plaque de pierre

blanche locale en deux morceaux, brisée a dr.

privée de l’angle inf. g.: 105x237x30 a 31 cm. Ch.

ép. avec encadrement mouluré: 80x225 cm. Texte

sur trois colonnes (a,b,c). H. des lettres différente

pour chaque personnages honoré: a) 10,2 a 4,7

cm; b) 7,5 a 6,5 cm; c) 7,4 a 6,0. Gravure des let tres irrégulière; chiffres surlignés.

Restitution proposée par l’a. pour c): [Germa nico] | [Caesari] | T[i. Augusti f.] | di[ui Aug(usti)

nep.] | diui I[ulii pronep.] | aug[(uri) flam(ini)

Aug(ustali)] | Iimper[atori II] | [co(n)s(uli) II].

La dédicace a Messaline, au centre, était légère ment plus basse que les deux autres. Le nom de

Messaline a été martelé en 48 (cf. Tac. Ann.; 11,

38). L’a. suppose l’existence d’une seconde plaque,

a g., portant les noms de Drusus, Antonia et Au-

guste. L’ensemble aurait comporté ainsi six textes

épigraphiques. Les plaques auraient été fixées au

sommet d’une façade monumentale placée sur

la porte de l’enceinte romaine dont l’ensemble

de la fouille permet de restituer l’existence a cet

endroit.

Cl audius 31

VeH, Pola.

Insc. Ital. X, 1, 38. CIL V, 25. Stuart 1938, 15. R.

Weisshäupl, Zur Topographie des alten Pola, ÖJh

4 (1901) Beibl., col. 185.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.91 × 0.58 × 0.36 m.; l.:?


Insc. It.: Basis e lapide calcairo, in duas partes

scissa; aliquid lateris dexteri et posteriores deest.

Postea in aede Romae et Augusti dicata, nunc in

museo inv. 307.

Cl audius 33

VeH, Verona.

AE 1992, 740 a-c. CIL V, 3326. Stuart 1938, 15.

G.C. Manasse, L’Imperatore Claudio e Verona,

Epigraphica 54 (1992) 9-41.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.54 × 1.55 × 0.57 m.; l.:?


CIL: See Augustus 62.

Dedicator: Pu[blice d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)]

Cl audius 34

Cl audius 32

VeH, Verona.

AE 1992, 739 a-c. G.C. Manasse, L’Imperatore

Claudio e Verona, Epigraphica 54 (1992) 9-41.

Tra, Augusta Taurinorum.

CIL V, 7150. Stuart 1938, 15.


Trib pot 2.

Cl au di us · 299

CIL: Taurinis dans le fossé du chasteau. Iam in

museo.

Stuart: The formula is in honorem. The dedica tion was, therefore, probably not a portrait. A

portrait, however, appears to have been set up

with the only other in honorem dedication of

Claudius (CIL III, 6983).

Cl audius 35


CIL V, 6969. Stuart 1938, 15.


Trib pot 8.

CIL: Fragmentum I Taurinis in aedibus Vagno niis, translatum nunc apud castrum vetus agri

Taurinensis, hodie Tauriis in museo.

Stuart: May have been an arch.

Dedicator: [ ---G]litius T f Stel(latina tribu) Bar-

barus prim[ip]ilaris p[raef(ectus) coh(ortis) ---]

| [t]ribunus militum praef(ectus) fabr(um) T[i

C]laudi Caesaris [Aug(usti) Germ(anici)]

Cl audius 36

Tra, Mediolanum.

CIL V, 5804. Stuart 1938, 15.


49 Trib pot 9.

CIL: Mediolani marmorea tabula eruta ante por-

tam monasterii S. Ambrosii, dum ibi novum fit

vestibulum mense Maio a. 1683.



Dedicator: Vicus Venerius

Cl audius 37

Tra, Ticinum?



326 Manuscript, JRA 3 (1990) 163-168.


– 8 See comment. CIL: In porta Papiae. JMH: See Augustus 65.

Cl audius 38 Sar, Sulcis. CIL X, 7515. AE 1992, 865. G. Sotgui, Iscrizioni latine della Sardegna (Padova 1961) 31-32, no. 35. D. Vaglieri, NSc 1897, 438-439. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.50 × 0.96 × 0.27 m.; l.: 0.10 Date: 48 Trib pot 8. Sotgui: Blocco di calcare smussato verso il margine laterale sinistro, con nella parte superiore quattro buchi circolari distanti cm. 20 l’uno dall’altro, buchi che hanno cm. 5 di diametro e 4 cm. di profondità. Fu rinvenuto presso il ponte di S. Caterina del Sulcis. Dedicator: [---]ocium L Aemil[ius] L f Quir(ina tribu) Saturninus | dedicavit

Cl audius 39

MoI, Mesembria.

IGBulg I2, 322. AE 1928, 150. Stuart 1938, 17. A.

Salac & K. Skorpil, RCA, no. 74 (1928) 44-45.


× 0.20 m.; l.: 0.02 Date: 41 – 54.

IGBulg: Mesembriae, inaedificata erat parieti

moscheae, quae nunc destructa est, postea periit.

Non vidi. Tabula marmorea.

Stuart: Base, broken on l.

Dedicator: Gnavio~ Gnaivou ⁄ ªgumºnaªsiarcºhvsa~ kai; ajgwnoqethvsa~ ⁄ ªkai; tou`~ qeou`~º ÔErmh`n kai; ÔHraklh`n ajnevqhkeªnº

Cl audius 40

Dal, Iader.

CIL III, 2942.


– 54. CIL: Iader potius quam Nadini.

Stuart: Doubtful.

Cl audius 41

Dal, Novae.

CIL III, 13880.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 51 –

52 Imp 25.

CIL: Tabula lapidea litteris bonis rep. Gradac. Est

Sarajevo in museo.


Cl audius 42

PaS,?.

CIL III, 4591. Stuart 1938, 16.


– 54 Imp 27.

CIL: Litteris magnis. Vindobonae in bibliotheca

Caesarea; hodie ibi desideratur.

Dedicator: [---] Cla[---] Vipstano Gallo [---] |

[---] C Rutilio Ga[ll]ico [---]

II T Statilio Tauro consulibus = 23 September 44 AD. CIL: Extrait dans des fouilles, dans la place de Marsal; nunc Metz in museo. Stuart: Pedestal, 1.50 h, 0,70 b, 0,70 d. JMH: Dedicated on 23 Sept., the birthday of Divus Augustus, AD 44. There is a discrepancy of approximately one and a half year between the titles of Claudius – if correct – and the date of the dedication. Stuart suggests that it took time to acquire a suitable portrait from a larger centre, but surely this would not take 18 months. Dedicator: Vicani Marosa|llense pub(lice) | dedicata VIIII K(alendas) | Octob(res) anno C | Passieni Crispi | II T Statilio Tauro co(nsulibus)

Cl audius 44

Cl audius 47

GeS, Mogontiacum.

CIL XIII, 6797. Stuart 1938, 16. W. Selzer, Rö mische Steindenkmäler. Katalog zur Sammlung

in der Steinhalle, Landesmuseum Mainz (Mainz

1988) 248, no. 280.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.25 × 0.90 × 0.54 m.; l.:?


CIL: Basis a. 1878 bei der Kanalarbeiten am Ende

der hinteren Bleiche zu Mainz, nach dem Mün sterthore zu, gefunden, nunc in museo Mog.

Dedicator: Cives Romani manti|culari negontia tores | C Vibio Rufino leg(ato) pro pr(aetore)

Lug, Augustomagus. AE 1960, 149. A. Piganiol, Une inscription romaine inédite de Senlis sur un socle de bronze, CRAI (1959) 450-457. P. Wuilleumier, Inscriptions latines des Trois Gaules (Paris 1984) 147148, no. 357. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.525 × 0.65 × 0.85 m.; l.: 0.03-0.07 Date: 48 Trib pot 8 / imp 14. Piganiol: Le socle, haut de 1 m. 525, dont la reconstitution n’est pas encore tout à fait certaine, repose sur de puissantes moulures. La plus grande largeur, au pied du socle, est de 1 m. 40. Au-dessus vient un dé de métal, dont l’arête supérieure mesure 0, m. 82. La plaque sur lequelle l’inscription est gravée mesure 0 m. 85 de haut sur 0 m. 655 de large; elle est encadrée de quatre larges bandeaux plats. AE: A Senlis (Oise). Plaque de bronze ayant appartenu à un socle. C’est la plus ancienne forme du nom du peuple des Silvanectes. Nous ignorons le motif de la reconnaissance publice; peutêtre la cité a-t-elle été crée par Claude, pendant sa censure, aux dépens de celle des Suesiones. Dedicator: Civitas Sulbanectium | publice

Dal, Salona.

CIL III, 1977. Stuart 1938, 16.


Trib pot 11.

CIL: Inter Salonitana.

Cl audius 43

Cl audius 45

GeS, Noviodunum.

CIL XIII, 11468.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.46 × 0.38 ×? m.; l.:

0.089-0.102 Date: 41 – 54.

CIL: Fragmentum marmoream. Nyon repperit

a. 1892 Wellauer, iam ibi in museo. JMH: Could also be restored as a dedication to Nero.

Cl audius 46

Bel, Vicus Marosallensium.

CIL XIII, 4565. Stuart 1938, 16.


l.:? Date: 44 VIII K Octob C Passieni Crispi

Cl audius 48

Lug, Eburovices.

CIL XIII, 3200. Stuart 1938, 16.

Cl au di us · 301

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41 – 54. CIL: Fragmentum lapidem. Est ibi in museo

Évreux rep. a. 1843 in ruinis theatri Romani.

Dedicator: Ti Cl[audius ---] | fl[amen] | Rom[ae

et Aug ---]

CIL: Fragmentum. Rep. a. 1881 Saintes in amphi theatro dans l’angle formé par le mur du podium

et celui du vomitorium du grand axe.

Thaurè & Tassaux: Fragment d’un bloc de grand

appareil dont le Musée archéologique de Saintes

ne posséde qu’un moulage.

Dedicator: Petrucorii?

Cl audius 49

Aqu, Ager Vellavorum.

CIL XIII, 1610. Stuart 1938, 15. B. Rémy, In-

scriptiones latines d’Aquitaine (Bordeux 1995)

96-97, no. 37.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.48 × 0.85 × 0.44 m.; l.:?

Date: 47 Cos 4 / imp 11 / trib pot 5, see Stuart

(1938) 24, note 152.

CIL: Basis quadrata lapidea (non est lapis mili arius); (0,48 × 0,85 × 0,44) in parte superiore

foramen est statuae recipiendae. In castro Apol-

loniaco in provincia Velaunia, in pariete turris

antiquae.

Rémy: Base de statue en partie brisée à gauche,

retaillée à droite.

Cl audius 50

Aqu, Burdigala.

CIL XIII, 590. C. Jullian, Inscriptions Romaines

de Bordeaux, vol. 1 (Bordeaux 1887-1890) 91 95. Stuart 1938, 15. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 42 Cos 2. CIL: Burdigalae rep. una cum n. 589 [Drusus, son of Germanicus]; no. 591: [Valeria Messalina]. CIL XIII, 589: Burdigalae le 21. juillet 1594 furent trouvées dans un champ hors la ville près le prieuré St.-Martin, le long de la Divize, trois grandes statues de marbre blanc, avec quelques inscr. Latines et autres antiquitez. Dedicator: C Iulius [---]

Cl audius 51


CIL XIII, 1038. Stuart 1938, 15. M. Thauré & F.

Tassaux, Inscriptions latines d’Aquitaine, Santons

(Bordeaux 1994) 100-103, no. 10.


Date: 41 – 54.

Cl audius 52


CIL XIII, 1037. Stuart 1938, 15. E. Espérandieu,

Épigraphie Romaine du Poitou et de la Saintonge

(Melle 1888-1889) 97. M. Thauré & F. Tassaux,

Inscriptions latines d’Aquitaine, Santons (Bor-

deaux 1994) 98-100, no. 9.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.16 × 0.95 × 0.76 m.; l.: 0.025-

0.12 Date: 49 Trib pot 9.

CIL: Fragmentum duo eiusdem lapidis. Rep. a.

1887 Saintes in muro antiquo ad septentriones

hortorum hospitii.

Thauré & Tassaux: Base. Calcaire. Deux blocs

superposés sous la l. 1 du texte. La base com-

prenait un troisième bloc, un socle mouluré, qui

a disparu.

Dedicator: [C I]ul(ius) C f Volt(inia tribu)

V[ictor]

Cl audius 53

Nar,?.

CIL XII, 641. Stuart 1938, 16. J. Gascou, Inscrip tions latines de Narbonnaise (I.L.N.) III (Paris

1995) 333-334, no. 273.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.486 × 0.324 × 0.054

m.; l.:? Date: 54 - Divus.

CIL: Arelate in archiepiscopio a. 1737.

Gascou: Marbre blanc haut de un pied et demi sur

un pied de largeur et deux pouces d’épaisseur.

JMH: Where this inscription originally was

found cannot be determined with certainty.

Dedicator: Ex testamento | L Valeri | Placidi

Cl audius 54

Nar, Arelate.

CIL XII, 666.


54.


CIL: Basis, Arelate in museo.

JMH: This inscription could be restored to other

emperors or members of the imperial family as

well.

Cl audius 55

Nar, Nemausus.

CIL XII, 3160. Stuart 1938, 20.


– 54. CIL: Nemausi rep. ante nymphaeum in quo de posita est.

Dedicator: [--- C]n [f(ilius)] Vol(tinia) Par[---]

| [---] prae[f(ectus) ---]

Malhay: Lápide rectangular de mármore con esta

elegantíssima e rica inscriçao.

d’Encarnação: Pequeno cippo (?) em mármore

branco do tipo Estremoz/Villa Viçosa. Alisado

em três faces; por dentrás, apenas esponteirado;

rudimente alisado em cima, polido em baixo.

JMH: The block is too small for a statue base.

If the inscription has portrait character, it must

have held a bust.

Dedicator: Civitas Ammaiensis | ex voto annuo

| L(ucio) Calventio Vetere | Carminio leg(ato) |

Tib(erii) Claudii Caesaris Aug(usti) | Proculo

Pisiri f(ilio) | Omuncione Cilai f(ilio)

Cl audius 59

Cl audius 56

Alm, Vintium.

CIL XII, 5. Stuart 1938, 19.


54.

CIL: Basis cuius superficie cernuntur foramina

pedibus recipiendis. Rep. Vintii a. 1878.

Stuart: Doubtful.


J. Vives, Inscriptiones latinas de la España ro-

mana (Barcelona 1971) no. 1063.


– 54. Dedicator: Claud[ia] | haec liberta | d(onum)

d(at)

Cl audius 60

Cl audius 57

Tar, Segobriga.

CIL II, 3105. Stuart 1938, 19.


Trib pot 3.

CIL: En la pared exterior de la casa de D. Diego

Serrano en Sahelices, puesta a reves.

Stuart: Doubtful.

JMH: In Segobriga there are bases for Drusus

and Germanicus (CIL II, 3103 & 3104) and it

seems probable therefore that this could also be

a base.

Bae, Cartima.

CIL II, 1953. Stuart 1938, 15.


Trib pot 13.

CIL: In oppido Cartama. “En la esquina de la ig lesia hácia la parte alta de la plaza, junto à la casa

de Cayetano Guerrero” cum reliquis Berlanga.

Dedicator: Vestinus Rustici f X|vir et Rusticus f(?)

d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(ederunt) d(edicaverunt)

cuiius | basis cum vetustate currupta | esset invice

eiius Vibia Rus|ticana nurus novam restituit

Cl audius 61

Cl audius 58

Lus, Ammaia.

AE 1969/70, 238. AE 1950, 217. E. Malhay,

Epigrafia Amaiense (Lissabon 1947) 20-22. J.

d’Encarnação, Inscrições romanas do Conven tus Pacensis (Coimbra 1984) 676-677, no. 615.


l.: 0.015-0.033 Date: 44 Trib pot 4.

Bae, Castro del Río.


CIL II2, 5, 394.


Date: 45 Trib pot 5 / imp 10 / cos des 4.

CIL: In humilis columnae trunco lapidis albi cantis, littera valde minuta et exesa. Basis ro-

tunda ex lapide calcario caesio.

Dedicator: Optatus Reburri l(ibertus) ima-

Cl au di us · 303

g(inem) | Caes(aris) Aug(usti) p(atris) p(atriae)

imp(eratoris) primus d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) d(edit)

| eamque cum Optato et Reburro filis dedicavit

| senatus decrevit perpetuo | bonis publicis in teresse

CIL II2: Marmol redondo negro o cardeno muy

oscuro singularmente labrado, con letras muy

bien esculpidas. En la puente del rio de Aguilar.

Periisse videtur.

Dedicator: L Cornelius L f(ilius) | d(e) d(ecu-

rionum) s(ententia)?

Cl audius 62

Bae, Epora.


Type: Base Dim.: 0.41 × 0.75 × 0.75 m.; l.: 0.06


CIL: Basis rotunda ex lapide calcario fusco cum

venis violaceis supra et infra et a tergo fracta.

Rep. en las haçuelas de la muela. Extat in M.A.P.

Corduba (inv. n. 29367).

Dedicator: L Aemilius Gal(eria) [---] | L Aemil ius f cur(averunt)

Cl audius 63

Bae, Iliturgi.

CIL II2, 7, 30.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.40 × 0.39 × 0.90 m.; l.: 0.05


CIL: Cubus basis statuae equestris ex lapide cal cario a sinistra et infra fractus. Rep. fortasse a.

1939 en Las Torres al hacer hoyas para plantar

olivos.

Cl audius 64

Bae, Ipagrum.


Type: Column Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 47

Censor designatus, see comment.

CIL: Columna marmorea. Rep. a. 1768(?) en el

sitio de los Moriles immediato al cerro de Arjona,

servabatur en el patio de las casas de D. Pedro de

Ciscar Carrillo, calle del Moralejo. Periit.

JMH: That Claudius was designated censor is not

absolutely certain. The similar inscription CIL II,

1519 only has censor.

Cl audius 65

Bae, Ipagrum.

CIL II, 1519. Stuart 1938, 15. CIL II2, 5, 583.


Date: 47 – 54 Censor.

Cl audius 66

Bae, Regina.


Type: Base Dim.: 0.37 × 0.88 × 0.99 m.; l.: 0.06-

0.065 Date: 41 – 54.

CIL II2: Basis statuae marmorea supra a dextra

fracta, infra resecta. Reginae repertam et in oppi-

dum Llerena asportatam esse suspicati sumus.

Cl audius 67

MaT, Volubilis.

AE 1924, 66. Euzennat & Marion 1982, 233-235,

no. 369. Stuart 1938, 19. Chantelain 1942, 16 17, no. 54.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.27 × 0.775 × 0.53 m.; l.:

0.028-0.033 Date: 44 Trib pot 4.

Euzennat & Marion: Base de statue trouvée en

1923 à 20 m environ au sud de l’angle sud-est

de la basilique.

Dedicator: Munic(ipium) Volub(ilitanorum)

im|petrata c(ivitate) R(omana) et conubio | et one ribus remissis | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) d(edit)

| M(arcus) Fadius Celer Flavianus | Maximus

proc(urator) Aug(usti) proleg(ato) | dedicavit

Cl audius 68

MaT, Volubilis.

Euzennat & Marion 1982, 235-236, no. 370.

Chantelain 1942, 17-18, no. 57.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.42 × 0.57 × 0.66 m.; l.: 0.052

Date: 54 - Divus.

Euzennat & Marion: Base de statue trouvée en

1923 dans une salle située à l’est, sur la place du

capitole. Inscrite sur deux faces. Cette inscrip tion rapelle la transformation de Volubilis en

municipe romain, sous le regne de Claude, qui

eut effet de conférer aux habitants de Volubilis

la citoyenneté romaine.


Dedicator: Volubilitani civitate | Romana ab eo

donata

Cl audius 72

Num, Hippo Regius.

AE 1935, 32. Stuart 1938, 19. E. Marec, Le forum

d’Hippone, Libyca 2 (1954) 375-376. E. Alber-

tini, BAParis (1935) 244-247.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.63 × 0.56 × 0.50 m.; l.:?


Marec: Base de pierre calcaire dont manque la

partie supérieur, brisée. Cette inscription, mise

au jour lors de la découverte de l’angle N.E. du

péristyle du Forum.

Dedicator: Senatus populusque [Hipp(onensium)

Regior]|um p(ecunia) [p(ublica)] | Q Marcio C

f Baria co(n)s(ule) xvv[ir(o) sa]|cris faciund(is)

fetial(e) proco(n)s(ule) II | patrono Q Allius

Maxi|mus leg(atus) pro pr(aetore) II patron(o)

dedi|cavit

Afr, Lepcis Magna. AE 1987, 989. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 136, no. 482 a+b. F. Silvestrini, Due iscrizioni frammentarie de Leptis Magna, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere et Filosofia, Univ. degli studi di Perugia 22 (1984-1985) 279-287. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41 – 43 Q. Marcius Barea Soranus was governor in Africa in AD 41-43 (Thomasson 1996, 34). Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Three blocks of hard yellowish-grey limestone, inscribed on one face: two belong to the same inscription, while the third, on which the lettering is smaller, may be from a lower course of the same monument. Probably re-used in the IV cent. wall and now lying loose beside the W gate. Dedicator: [Q Marcius C f B]area co(n)[s(ul) XVvir sacris faci]undis f[etialis proco(n)s(ul) II dedicavit]

Cl audius 70

Cl audius 73

Afr, Carthago.

CIL VIII, 1015. Stuart 1938, 19.


- Divus.

CIL: Carthagine rep.; litterae primi versus anti quiores sunt, alterius recentiores.

Stuart: Doubtful.

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

AE 1948, 15. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952,

102, no. 337. Rose 1997, 184-185, no. 126. S.

Aurigemma, Sculture del foro vecchio di Leptis

Magna raffiguranti la Dea Roma e principi della

casa dei Giulio-Claudi, Africa Italiana 8 (1940)

33. D. Boschung, Gens Augusta. Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses (Mainz am Rhein 2002) 8-24. Type: Base Dim.: 0.50 × 0.70 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.0350.05 Date: 45 Trib pot 5. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Low moulded base of grey limestone, inscribed on one face; one of a series of five uniform bases [Augustus, Diva Livia, Tiberius, Claudius, Messalina]. Forum Vetus, behind the Temple of Rome and Augustus.

Cl audius 69

Cl audius 71 Afr, Ghardimaou. CIL VIII, 14727. Stuart 1938, 19. Z.B. Ben Abdallah, Catalogue des inscriptions latines païennes du Musée du Bardo (Rome 1986) 91, no. 229. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.50 × 1.00 ×? m.; l.: 0.0350.07 Date: 52 Cos 5 / imp 26.

CIL: In lapide rep. Ghardimau. Nunc adservatur

intus in Francogallorum castello muro immis sus.

Abdallah: Dalle en marbre de Chemtou, brisée

à gauche et à droite.

Dedicator: [---C]eler procurator Di[vi---] | [---

sua] pecunia fec[eru]nt cu[r]ant[ibus ---] | [---]

flamine Augu[sti---] | [---]mil[---]

Cl audius 

Afr, Thibari.

CIL VIII, 26177 a.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.46 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.06 Date:

41 – 54.

CIL: Rep. dans les ruines de Thibaris.

Cl au di us · 305

Dedicator: [--- f A]rn(ensis) Celsus Ma[---] | [ -- a]rcum d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit)

Cl audius 75

Afr, Thugga.

CIL VIII, 26519. CIL VIII, 1478. AE 1914, 173.

Stuart 1938, 19. Kähler 1939, col. 431, no. 16.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.60 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.04-0.07

Date: 41 See comment.

CIL: Thuggae olim iuxta Capitolium, denuo pro diit dans une maison arabe voisine du temple,

nuper translata in Capitolium.

AE: Nouveaux fragments d’une dédicace à

Claude, en partie déjà connue. Inscription dédiée

d’abord à Caligula: après sa mort elle fut martelée

et regravée au nom de Claude (41 ap. J.-C.).

Dedicator: L Iulius L f Cor(nelia tribu) Crassus

aedil(is) ornam(entarius) tr(ibunus) m[il(itum)

leg(ionis) XXI rapacis in Germ(ania)] |

praef(ectus) fab[r(um) I]Ivir augur IIvir

quinque[nnalis des(ignatus) pat(ronus) pagi

ded(icavit)] | C Caesetius C f Arn(ensis) perpet uus sacerdo[s ---] | patro[n]us pagi Thuggensis

nom[ine suo et fil ---] | et perpetui arcu[m d(e)

s(ua) p(ecunia) f(aciundum) c(uravit)]

Cl audius 76

Afr, Zitha.

CIL VIII, 11002. Stuart 1938, 19.


0.10-0.12 Date: 42 Cos 2.

CIL: In fragmentis quinque altis m. 0,50, latis a)

0,75, b) 0,75, c) 0,72, d) 0,92, e) 0,83, litt. 0,10-

0,12, rep. Zian in fori angulo meridional.

Dedicator: [Q Marc]ius C f Barea [co(n)s(ul)

XVvi]r s(acris) f(aciundis) fetiali[s] proco(n)s(ul)

| dedicavit

Cl audius 77 MaE, Berroia. J.H. Oliver, The Dedication to Claudius at Beroea, ZPE 30 (1978) 150. I.P Touratsoglou, Ancient Macedonia 2. Papers read at the second international symposium held in Thessalonika, 10-24 August 1973 (Thessalonika 1977) 487-493, no. 2. SEG 27, 263.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41 – 54.

SEG: Marble statue base.

Dedicator: Beroiaivwn hJ povli~ kª---º ⁄ ª--presºbeutou` Tiberivou Klaudivou Kaivsaro~ Sebasªtou` ---º ⁄ ª--- ∆Iºoulivou Qeofivlou ∆Arpavlou tou` ∆Arpavlou ⁄ ªpolitarºcouvntwn ⁄ ª---º tou` Kallikravtou~ ⁄ ª---º tou` Filoxevnou ⁄ ª---º tou` ∆Aristomavcou ⁄ ª---º tou` Menavndrou ⁄ ª---º tou` Dioskoupivdou ⁄ ª---ºasoivta tou` ∆Alkivmou ⁄ ª--ºtravtwno~ tou` Qeodovtou

Cl audius 78

MaE, Dyrrachium.

AE 1966, 390. H. Ceka & Sk. Anamalli, Buletin

Universitetit Shteteror Tiranes, seria Shkencat

Shoqerore XV, 1 (1961) 108, no. 5; 130, no. 5

(non vidi).


0.04-0.08 Date: 44 Trib pot 4.

AE: Musée de Dyrrah. Plaque, brisée à droite,

ornée d’une corniche profilée. Nos restitu tiones, plus longes que celles des éditeures, tin nent mieux compte de la titulature de l’empereur

Claude, qui, fils de Drusus, n’a jamais lui-même

ce surnom.

Dedicator: C(aius) Helvius T(iti) f(ilius) Aem(ilia

tribu) Niger [---]

Cl audius 79

MaE, Lamia.

IG IX, 2, 81. A. Jardé & M. Laurent, Inscriptions

de la Grèce du nord, BCH 26 (1904) 390-391, no.

100. AE 1908, 59. Stuart 1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.80 × 0.56 m.; l.: 0.02

Date: 41 – 54.

IG: Lamiae in gymnasio “base avec trou de scel lement; au dessou de l’inscription moulure”.

Dedicator: Povli~ Lamievwn ãwJnÃ ⁄ ªejpi; tw` n peºri; ∆Apollwvnion tagw`n

Cl audius 80

MaE, Larissa.

IG IX, 2, 605. Stuart 1938, 16.


54 - Divus.


IG: In vico Catih` Moustafala;r in vicinia Larisae. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ Lareisaivwn

Cl audius 81 MaE, Larissa. IG IX, 2, 606. H.G. Lolling, Mittheilungen aus Thessalien, AM 7 (1882) 239-240. Stuart 1938, 16.

Type: Part of a base Dim.:? × 1.78 ×? m.; l.:?

Date: 69 – 79 Divus / Vespasian.

IG: Tabula marmoris albi “in einer Ecke der Um-

fassungsmauer einer verfallenen Moschee beim

Gyphtikviertel Larisas.

Stuart: Lolling restored this inscription oJ dh` mo~ Klauìon ktl. and von Gärtringen (IG) restores it Qessaloi? Klau`dion ktl. to koivnon Qessavlwn appears under Vespasian’s name whose portrait stood to the left of Claudius. Generally, however, when a joint Greek dedication is made the name of the dedicator is repeated in the same form. Since the stone is large (1,78 m.) in spite of its mutilation, it is possible that Claudius was portrayed between Titus on Claudius’ right, where the stone is broken, and Vespasian. In that case the name of the dedicator might have been repeated under the portrait of Titus and omitted from that of Claudius. Whatever the correct explanation may be, to me it seems better to restore the break Tibevrion klau`dion ktl. The possibility that the dedications were made at different times is precluded by the size of the base on which the inscriptions are cut.

ing from the city of Thessalonica to the emperor Claudius. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ Poliªtºaªrºcouvntwn ⁄ Neikhravtou tou` Qeoda` ⁄ ÔHrakleivdou tou` Dhmhtrivou ⁄ ejpimelhtou` Menavndrou tou` ⁄ Pelhgeivnou

Cl audius 83

Ach, Athenae.


d’époque romaine, BCH 38 (1914) 407, no. 19.

Stuart 1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.40 × 0.70 × 0.67 m.; l.: 0.02-

0.025 Date: 41 Cos des 2.

IG: Basis marmoris Pentelici a dextra et infra

fracta.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; hJ ejx ∆Areivou pav ªgou kai; hJ boulh;º ⁄ tw`n eJxakosivwn kai; ªoJ dh`mo~ ---º ⁄ ªajºnaqªevºnªto~ tou` ---º ⁄ Dioklevou~ Peiraievw~ ªejpimelhteuvsanto~º ⁄ ejpi; to;n Peiraieva di;~ sebª---º ⁄ aijrhvou kai; qeoi`~ megavloªi~

strathgou`nto~º ⁄ ªejpi;º tou;~ oJpleivta~

Dioª--º ⁄ ªBhsºaievw~ ejpwnuvmªou de; a[rconto~ th`~ povlew~º ⁄ ª---ºouivou Lewª---º

Cl audius 84

Ach, Athenae.


d’époque romaine, BCH 51 (1927) 259. Stuart

1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.19 × 0.52 × 0.42 m.; l.:?

Date: 41 Cos des 2.

IG: Fragmentum baseos marmoris Pentelici.

Cl audius 82

Cl audius 85

MaE, Thessalonica. AE 1888, 39. Stuart 1938, 16-17. D.G. Hogarth, Inscriptions from Salonica, JHS 8 (1887) 359361, no. 2 Type: Probably part of a base Dim.:? ×? × 0.075 m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 44 Trib pot 4. Hogarth: On a tablet found on the property of M. Bitzo, dragoman to H.B.M. Consulate-General. It is 3 in. in thickness and has evidently been let into a wall. This is evidently the dedicatory tablet affixed to a statue or other votive offer-

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3270. Stuart 1938, 17.


See comment.

IG: In ecclesia diruta sub septentrionalem par-

tem arcis. Tabula superior baseos marmoris

Hymettii ternos pedes alta et longa, dimidium

pedem erassa.

JMH: Must belong early in Claudius’ reign since

Ti. Claudius Novius was strategos four times

under Claudius, and this was his first term.

Cl au di us · 307

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; hJ ejx ∆Areivou pavgou kai; hJ boulh; tw`n eJxakosivwn kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ strathgou`nto~ ejpi; tou;~ oJpleivta~ tou` kai; ajgwnoqevtou prwvtou ⁄ tw`n Sebastw`n ajgwvnwn Nouivou tou` Fileivnou ejx Oi[ou

Cl audius 86

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3273. Stuart 1938, 17.


l.:? Date: 41 – 54.

IG: Agora. Marmora quadratum Hymettium.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; hJ ejx ∆Areivou pavgou ⁄ ªkºai; hj boulh; tw`n eJxakosivwn kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ strathgou`nto~ ejpi; tou;~ oJpleivta~ to; dæ ⁄ ªTiberivou Kºlaudivou Nouivou ejx Oi[ou

Cl audius 87

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3274. Stuart 1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.41 × 0.92 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.015-

0.035 Date: 41 – 54.

IG: Ad ecclesiam Panagiva~ Purgiwtivssh~,

nunc in porticu Attali. Basis marmoris Pente lici.

Dedicator: ÔO iJereu;~ aujtou` ªkai; tou` gevnou~º ⁄

dia; bivou kai; strathgo;~ ejpi; ªta; o{plaº ⁄ to; trivton Dionusovdwro~ Soª---º ⁄ Sounieu;~ to;n eJautou` te kaªi; tou` suvmº⁄panto~ oi[kou swth`ra kai; eujeªrgevthnº ⁄ Eujboulivdh~ Piraieu;~ ejpoivei

Cl audius 88

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3276. Stuart 1939, 608.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.38 × 0.40 × 0.28 m.; l.: 0.028

Date: 41 – 54.

IG: In arce, nunc EM 10018. Pars superior baseos

marmoris Hymettii.

Dedicator: ª---º ⁄ ejpi; iJereivªa~ ∆Iouniva~

Megivsth~º

Cl audius 89

Ach, Athenae.

AE 1929, 74. IG II2, 3271. P. Graindor, Inscrip tions Attiques d’époque romaine, BCH 51 (1927)

258-260, no. 22. Stuart 1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.32 × 2.05 × 0.37 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 42 Cos 2.

Graindor: Inv. nos. 7617 & 3617. Sept fragments

d’une base de marbre de l’Hymette.

kai; Dedicator: ªÔH boulh; hJ ejºx ∆Areivou pavgou

hJ boulh; tw`ªn eJxaº⁄kosivwn kai; oJ dh`mo~ to;n swth`ra kai; eujergevthn ejpimelhqevnªto~º ⁄ tou` e[rgou Tiberivou Klaudivou Nouivou ejªx Oi[ou khvruko~ th`º~ ejx ∆Areivou pavgªouº ⁄ boulh`~ kai; ajgwnoqevtou kai; iJerevw~ Dhlªivou ∆Apovllwºno~

Cl audius 90

Ach, Athenae.


d’époque romaine, BCH 51 (1927) 260. Stuart

1938, 17. SEG 3, 240. B. Tamaro, Pianta epigra fica dell’Acropoli, ASAtene 4-5 (1921-1922) 62,

no. 108.


42 Cos 2.

IG: Fragmenta sex marmoris Eleusinii.

Dedicator: ÔO dh` ªmo~º

Cl audius 91

Ach, Corinthus.

Kent 1966, 40, no. 74.


0.04-0.05 Date: 42 Trib pot 2 / cos 2.

Kent: Inv. no. 2287. A fragment of a white marble

slab, found in a pit in the east end of the peri-

bolos of the Theatre in April, 1928. Parts of the

original right side and bottom margin are pre served. The back is roughly picked. The slab

seems to have been re-used, for the lines except

the last are cut in rasura.

Dedicator: [---] P f(ilius) Aem(ilia tribu) Pri mus f

Cl audius 92

Ach, Corinthus.

Kent 1966, 40-41, no. 77.


0.04-0.09 Date: 47 – 54 Censor.

Kent: Inv. no. 1217, 1218, 1229. Twenty frag ments of a white marble slab, all found in the

southeastern area of the Agora in 1933 and 1934.


Part of the original left edge is preserved on two

of the fragments, and part of the original top

edge on four.

Dedicator: [D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) colo]ni

curantib[us--- et ---] | I[Iviris ---]

l’honneur d’Agrippine est gravée de même et

aussi imparfaitement sur une base réemployée.

JMH: The dedication to Agrippina may not be

contemporary.

Dedicator: ÔH iJera; Delfw`n ⁄ povli~ ∆Apovllwni

⁄ Puqivw/

Cl audius 93

Ach, Coronea.

IG VII, 2878. Stuart 1938, 17.


– 54. IG: Fragmentum lapidis subcaerulei, inaedificatum ad deversorium Constantini Rossutis in vico Mamura sito prope Coroneam veterem. Dedicator: To; koinªo;n ∆Acaiw`n Fwkevwnº ⁄ ªEujbºoevwn Loªkrw`n Boiwtw`nº

Cl audius 94

Ach, Delphi.

Bergemann 1990, 151, no. E 111. Stuart 1938,

17. H.B. Siedendopf, Das hellenistische Reiterdenkmal (Waldsassen 1968) 116-117, no. 82. M. Homolle, BCH 20 (1896) 708. Dittenberger 1915-1920, 801 A. Type: Base Dim.: 1.40 × 0.89 × 0.25 m.; l.:? Date: 41 – 54. Siedentopf: Zwei Fragmente einer Flach-Basis, gefunden an den römischen Agora. Die Basis bestand aus einem einzigen block, in der mitte gebrochen. An den Seitenflächen spiegel. Obenauf am hinten Ende zwei ovale Hufeinbettungen, auf der vorderen Hälfte des Steins keine weiteren Einlaßspuren: die Basis trug also ein sich aufbäumendes Bronzepferd ohne Bauchstütze. Es handelt sich bei der Basis um die spätere Wiederverwendung einer pharsalichen Weihung aus dem 4. Jh. v. Chr. mit den Signaturen der thessalischen Bildhauer Herakleidas und Hippokrates. Die spätere Ehreninschrift für den Kaiser Claudius steht auf der schmalen Stirnseite des Blockes über der Weihinschrift der Pharsaler. An der Langseite Proxeniedekret für Nikomachos und Polemokles aus Pharsalos. Homolle: Inv. no. 3198. Base calcaire gris; haut. 0,255; larg. 0,89; ép. 0,475. Une dédicace en

Cl audius 95

Ach, Delphi.

Fouilles de Delphes III, IV, 4, 148-150, no. 469.

Dittenberger 1915-1920, 801 B. Stuart 1938, 17.

Th. Homolle, BCH 20 (1896) 711.


l.: 0.018 Date: 42 Trib pot 2.

FdD: Inv. 1889+2179; le premier trouvé le 12 sep tembre 1894 au Nord de l’opisthodome; le sec ond inventorié en février 1895 au Musée: deux

fragments de calcaire gris que se rejoignent pour

former la partie supérieure gauche d’une base

moulurée.

Dedicator: ÔH povªlºi~ tw`n Dªelfw`nº

Cl audius 96

Ach, Delphi.

Dittenberger 1915-1920, 801 C. Stuart 1938, 17.

Fouilles de Delphes III, I, 349, no. 531.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.653 × 0.712 × 0.527 m.; l.:

0.016-0.018 Date: 46 Trib pot 6.

Dittenberger: In basi calcaria satis magna.

FdD: Inv.no. 1384. Mai 1894, entre le Trésor

d’Athènes et le mur Ouest de téménos, sur la

terrasse à l’Ouest du Trésor. Bloc de calcaire gris

verdâtre de Saint-Elie, préparé à joints à droite,

avec des scellements sur la face supérieure qui

prouvent que la pierre était appuyée contre une

autre.

Dedicator: ÔA povli~ tw`n Delfw`n

Cl audius 97

Ach, Epidauros.

IG IV, 1401. IG IV2, 1, 601. Stuart 1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.72 × 0.48 × 0.35 m.; l.: 0.04

Date: 41 – 54.

IG: Basis quadrangula lapidis calcarii.

Dedicator: ÔA povli~ tw`n ∆Epi⁄daurivwn

Cl au di us · 309

Cl audius 98

Ach, Epidauros.

AE 1974, 610. AE 1980, 855. Rose 1997, 141,

no. 72. W. Peek, Neue Inschriften aus Epidauros,

AbhLeipzig 63, Heft 5 (1972) 42, no. 76.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 1.00 × 0.53 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 49 – 54 Agrippina.

AE: D’un mur tardif de l’enceinte extérieure de la

Tholos, au sud de l’escalier actuel. Base moulurée,

brisée de partout, en calcaire gris-bleuatre. Le

texte est le même que celui d’I.G. IV 2, 602 a cela

près que le nom d’Agrippine n’y à pas été martelé.

Des traces d’une inscription antérieure on ne lit

plus que la signature de l’artiste entre les lignes 3

et 4: Alkidamo~ Xenoklªeou~º ou ªeidouº.

Dedicator: ªTibevroiº~ Klauvdio~ Eujnovmou uiJo;

~ ⁄ Nikotevlh~

Cl audius 99

Ach, Epidauros.

IG IV, 1403. IG IV2, 1, 602. Rose 1997, 141-142,

no. 73. Stuart 1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.40 × 1.20 × 0.57 m.; l.:?


IG IV2: Basis a dextra mutila.

Dedicator: Ti Klauvdio~ Eujnovmou uiJo;~ Nikotevªlh~º

Stuart: … as reproduced in IG, seems certainly

a statue base.

Cl audius 102

Ach, Minoa.


Th. Homolle, BCH 15 (1891) 671, no. 1.


54.

IG: Basis quadrata in regione ∆Axourgiav prope

Catapola.


Cl audius 103

Ach, Rhamnous.

SEG 31, 165. IG II2, 3275. Stuart 1938, 17. J.

Pouilloux, La fortresse de Rhamnonte (Paris

1954) no. 47.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.20 × 0.80 × 0.75 m.; l.: 0.035

Date: 41 – 54.

SEG: Honorary statue base for the emperor Clau dius. B.C. Petrakos, after the dicovery of more

fragments in his excavations, presents a new, ex panded text with restored drawings of the base.

He suggests that the base may have been reused

for the imperial statue.

IG: Rhamnute. Fragmentum baseos a sinistra et

dextra truncatum.

Cl audius 100

Ach, Lykosoura.

IG V, 2, 532.


0.012 Date: 41 – 54.

IG: Athenis in museo nationali. Lapis undique

fractus.

Cl audius 101

Ach, Megara.

IG VII, 67. Stuart 1938, 17. A. Stschukareff, Meg arikai epigrafai, AEphem 3 (1886) 231, no. 3.


l.: 0.027-0.03 Date: 47 Trib pot 7 / imp 12 /

cos 4.

IG: Marmor album quadratum inaedificatum

Megaris ad scalas cellae iuxta tabernum (café)

quam possidet Georgius Dallas.

Cl audius 104

Ach, Thebae.

AE 1974, 599. D. Peppas-Delmouzou, ADelt 25A

(1970) 129.


Date: 41 – 54.

AE: Deux fragments de marbre emmurés: a)

25x26 cm; b) 25x26,5 cm.

Dedicator: Kallikravth~ Kalliªkravtou~Ùº ⁄ Luvsanªdro~Ù ---º

Cl audius 105

Ach, Thebae.

IG VII, 2493. Stuart 1938, 17. CIG 1610.


54.


IG: Magna basis marmoris albi, Thebis nunc in Cl audius 110

Asi, Aizanoi.

museo n. 32.

IGRR IV, 559. Stuart 1938, 18.

Dedicator: ÔO dh` mo~ Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 43

Cl audius 106

– 50 Britannicus / father of Britannicus only.

Ach, Thera.

IGRR: Aezanis.

IG XII, 3, 473. Stuart 1938, 17.

JMH: The restoration of the first line of the in Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41 scription is very speculative and highly unusual.

– 54. I would suggest, that the inscription belongs to a

IG: In monte S. Stephani inter Therae urbis ru- base for statues of Claudius and Britannicus.

dera (credo in regione fori).

Dedicator: ªTib(evroi~) Klauvºdio~ Navnna Dedicator: Koivrano~ ⁄ ÔAgnosqevnou~ kai; oJ uiJo; ~ uiJovª~ Mhnovº⁄ªgenh~ ejk tºw`n ijdivwn crhvmªatwn ajneqhvkenº ⁄ aujtou` ÔAgnosqevnh~ ⁄ uJpe;r tou` dhvmou

Cl audius 107

Cl audius 111

Ach, Thera.

IG XII, 3, suppl., 1395. Stuart 1938, 17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.565 × 0.445 × 0.23 m.; l.:

0.022-0.025 Date: 41 – 54.

IG: Basis lapidis calcarii e regione portae, quae in

theatri orchestram fert, a. 1899 efossa, a postica

dextra sinistraque fracta.

Dedicator: ÔO da` moª~º

Asi, Alexandria Troas.

CIL III, 381. Stuart 1938, 18. IGSK 53, 15.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.86 × 0.73 × 0.25 m.; l.: 0.035

Date: 37 – 41 Cos 1 / non regnans.

IGSK: From Kemalli; today in the Çanakkale

Museum (Inv. no. 5485). Marble base cut away

on the left and right.

Dedicator: [C N]orbanus C f An(iensi tribu)

| [Qu]adratus prim(us) pil(us) | [trib(unus)]

milit(um) praef(ectus) castr(orum) | augur IIvir

| [tes]tamento poni | iussit

Cl audius 108

BiP, Heraclea.

IGSK 47, 40. AE 1994, 1626.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.70 × 0.60 ×? m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 41 – 54.

IGSK: Fragment of a white marble basis. Con struction workers unearthed the stone at a build ing site in 1987 near Akarca Camii. The original

top line and the lines for most of the third line

and thereafter have been destroyed.

Cl audius 109

Asi, Aizanoi.

IGRR IV, 558. Stuart 1938, 18.


– 54. IGRR: Aezanis. Dedicator: Kaqievrwsan ⁄ prw`toi ejk tw`n ijdivwn Dionªuvº⁄sio~ Dionuvsiou tou` Mhnªovº⁄filou kai; ∆Asklhpiavdh~ Dh⁄movsqenou~ oJi newvkoroi ⁄ aujtou` dia; bivou

Cl audius 112

Asi, Alexandria Troas?




CIL: Litteris pulcherrimis. Oxonensi museo

dedit Thomas Sprat archidiaconus Roffensis.

De origine cum non constet, nos huc rettulimus

propter vicum qui dedicarit.

IGSK: Find-spot unknown (assigned by Mom msen to Alexandria Troas on the basis of the

mention of a vicus in l. 6); today in the Ash molean Museum, Oxford. Marble base? damaged

below and on right.

Dedicator: Vic(us) [---]

Cl audius 113 Asi, Antimachia.

Cl au di us · 311

IGRR IV, 1103. Stuart 1938, 18. Paton & Hicks

1891, 282, no. 393.


– 54. IGRR: Antimachiae. Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ ∆Antimacida`n ⁄ kai; Aijghlivwn kai; ∆Arciada`n ⁄ kaqievrwsen

Cl audius 114

Asi, Aphrodisias.

MAMA VIII, 94, no. 447. CIG 2739. Stuart 1938,

18.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.47 × 0.82 × 0.72 m.; l.: 0.02

Date: 41 – 54.

MAMA: Geyre, in the city wall. Marble basis.

Dedicator: ªÔO dºh`mo~ kai; Mevnandro~ Diogevnou~ ⁄ ªtºou` Zhvnwno~ ajrciereu;~ aujtou` kai; ⁄ Dionuvsou

Cl audius 115

Asi, Aphrodisias.

SEG 31, 918+913. Rose 1997, 164-169, no. 105. J.

Reynolds, New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in

Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias, ZPE 43 (1981) 317,

no. 1 & 323, no. 8.

Type: Relief Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 50 – 54

After Nero’s adoption.

SEG: Aphrodisias. Inscriptions on panels, 1st 2nd cent. A.D. Inscriptions on a series of panels,

fallen from the facades of two porticoes; they

served as bases for; and their inscriptions pro-

vided captions to, sculptured reliefs above them.

Nos. 6-11 are from the southern portico. Nos.

12-18 from the northern portico. Fr. 19-21 were

found in the theatre but may well come from the

northern portico.

Dedicator: Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ Diogevnh~ filopolivth~ ⁄ a} ejphngeivlato ⁄ Diogevnh~ oJ path;ªr aºujtou` kai; ∆Attaliv~ ⁄ kai; uJpe;r ∆Attavl⁄ou tou` qeivou to; ka⁄q eJauto;n mevro~ ajpoka⁄ªqºevssthsen

Cl audius 116

Asi, Apollonia.

MAMA IV, 56, no. 144. Stuart 1938, 19.


l.: 0.06 Date: 41 – 54.

MAMA: Ulubortu, in a fountain. Plain lime

stone slab. The lower part of the pedestal of a

statue of Claudius or Nero or Trajan. At the bot tom a space of 0,40 h. is blank.

Stuart: Doubtful.

JMH: Claudius seems to be the most likely can didate.

Cl audius 117

Asi, Cyzicus.

CIL III, 7061. Eph. epigr. 4, no. 53. Rose 1997,

171-172, no. 110. Stuart 1938, 18. Kähler 1939,

col. 454, no. 9. G. Perrot, Une inscription de Cyzi que, RA 31 (1876) 99-105.


After the campaign in Britannia.




ratore [---]

Cl audius 118

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 259 b. O. Riemann, Inscriptions

grecques provenant du recueil de Cyriaque

d’Ancone, BCH 1 (1877) 293-294, no. 86.


– 54. IGSK: Im byzantinischen Aquaduct vermauert.

Riemann: Ad aliam magnam de marmore

basim.

Dedicator: Kata; th;n ⁄ diaqhvkhn Tiberivou Klau⁄divou Damonivkou oiJ klh⁄ronovmoi ajpokatevsthsan

Cl audius 119

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 17, 1, 3019. AE 1924, 69. Bergemann 1990,

151, no. E 112. Stuart 1938, 18.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.50 × 0.75 × 1.44 m.; l.: 0.025


IGSK: Niedrige Basis aus bläulichem Marmor;


die Form der Basis weist auf ein Reiterstand bild.

Bergemann: Die Tiefe von 144 cm ist für eine

lebensgroße Reiterstatue zu kurz. Eher könnte

auf einer solchen Basis eine Sitzstatue gestanden

haben. Möglicherweise war jedoch ein weiterer,

kürzerer Block hinten an den vorhandenen an-

gefügt, so daß auch für eine Reiterstatue genü-

gend Platz vorhanden war. Die plinthe fehlt. Die

Inschrift steht auf der Schmalseite.

Dedicator: Conventus c(ivium) R(omanorum)

qui in Asia n|egotiantur curam agentibus | T Ca-

murio T f Qu(i)r(ina) Iusto tr(ibuno) mil(itum) |

leg(ionis) XIII geminae et | L Manlio L f Col(ina)

Marito

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.022 Date: 41 – 54. IG: Eresi, in muro scholae insertus lapis marmoris candidi, cuius margo sinister integer est. Dedicator: ªOij au[tw kai;º ⁄ tw`n a[llwn Seªbavstwn ijevree~ kaqieº⁄rwsan v ªDºavmªarco~ Levonto~ ---º

Cl audius 123

Asi, Eresos.

IG XII, 2, 542. IGRR IV, 13.


– 54. IG: Eresi, in schola.

Dedicator: ªÔOº iJevreu~ au[tw Davmarco~

Levªonto~º

Cl audius 120

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 259 a.


Trib pot 8.

IGSK: Von der Agora.

Cl audius 121

Asi, Ephesus.

SEG 39, 1178. AE 1990, 935. D. Knibbe, H.

Engelmann & B. Iplikcioglu, Neue Inschriften

aus Ephesos XI, ÖJh 59 (1989) Beibl., col. 225 228, no. 60.


l.: 0.055-0.095 Date: 54 – 68 Divus / Nero.

Knibbe & Engelmann & Iplikcioglu: Inv. 4576.

Aus der sog. Villa in Pamucak. Dicke Sockel verkleidungsplatte aus Marmor, allseitig Rand,

rechts und links Anschlußbearbeitung, hinten

roh.

Dedicator: [--- Arniensi procurator] … [huius

monumenti basim et s]tatuas de sua pec[unia

faciendos curavit consecravitque] || ª---º ∆Arnh-

siva ejpivtropªo~º … ªbavsin kai; ajndrivanta~ ejk

tw`n ijdivwnº ⁄ ajnaqei;~ kaqªievrwsenº

Cl audius 122

Asi, Eresos.


Cl audius 124

Asi, Goloida.

IGRR IV, 551. Th. Wiegand, Reisen in Mysien,

AM 29 (1904) 319. Stuart 1938, 18.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.70 × 0.65 ×? m.; l.: 0.025

Date: 41 – 54.

Wiegand: In Bahtyly fand sich im Stall des Mol-

lah Hassan Oglu Alid Tschauss folgende Kalk-

steinbasis (oben und unten Bruch).

Dedicator: Diovdoto~ Kleavndrou ⁄ iJerateuvsa~

k(ai;) ajgoraªnomhvsa~º ⁄ ejk tw`n ijdivwn ajnevqhªken ---º

Cl audius 125

Asi, Halasarna.

IGRR IV, 1099. AE 1901, 204. Stuart 1938, 18.

R. Herzog, Das Heiligthum des Apollo in Halasarna, Sitzungsberichte der Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1901) 493-494, no. 6. Type: Base Dim.: 0.90 × 0.57 × 0.49 m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 41 – 54. Herzog: Basisblock von weißem Marmor. Fundort, Hagios Theotis, jetzt in der neuen Kirche eingemauert. Als Deckplatte gehört sicher dazu Hg 186, so dass die ganze Inschrift lautete: Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ ÔAlasarnita`n ⁄ kaqievrwsen

Cl au di us · 313

Cl audius 126

Asi, Hydai.

IGSK 38, 256. SEG 14, 703. P.M. Fraser & G.E.

Bean, The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (Oxford

1954) 40-41, no. 27.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.21 × 0.63 × 0.69 m.; l.: 0.027

Date: 41 – 54.

IGSK: Grosse, rechteckige Basis, rechts oben ge-

brochen, Fussprofil auf drei Seiten; auf dem Kopf

stehend einzementiert vor dem karakol am Kai

des Hafens von Bozburun. Nach Angaben von

Einheimischen stammte der Stein aus Selimiye.

Die Erstherausgeber hatten offenbar nicht über

die Information verfügt, dass der am Kai von

Bozburun gefundene Stein mit der obenstehen den Inschrift aus Selimiye stammte, und ver-

mutet, dass dies derselbe Stein sei wie der von N.

und M. Chaviaras in Arch. Eph. 1913 6 Nr. 105

(=Nr. 206) publizierte, “with the lines wrongly

divided”. Ihr Vorbehalt allerdings, “unless this

be a separate inscription”, hat sich als zutreffend

erwiesen.

Oberseite mit mehreren Dübellöchern versehen, oben bestoßen. Dedicator: Ti(bevrio~) Klauvdio~ Menavndrou ⁄ uiJo;~ Kurivna Meneklh`~ ⁄ filorwmaiò~ eujsebiva~ ⁄ cavrin

Cl audius 129

Asi, Kos.

Segre 1993, 248, no. EV 248.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.87 × 0.60 × 0.27 m.; l.: 0.023


Segre: Base semicircolare di marmo bianco, is critta sulle due facce. Proviene da demolizioni

in quatiere turco.

Cl audius 130

Asi, Kos.

Segre 1993, 237, no. EV 243.


0.025 Date: 51 Trib pot 10 / cos 5.

Segre: Lastra di marmo bianco intera a sinis tra. Fu rinvenuta facendo le fondazioni di una

casa in città.

Cl audius 127

Asi, Kalymna.

IGRR IV, 1023. Stuart 1938, 18. M. Segre, Tituli

Calymnii, ASAtene 22-23 (1944-1945) 165, no.

144.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.50 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.038

Date: 41 – 54.

Segre: Basis rotunda marmoris fusci, quam Ros sius integram vidit “in occidentali insulae plaga,

intra vineam quandam prope portum qui voca tur Linari”.

Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ ªKaluº⁄mniv wn

ejteivma⁄sen

Cl audius 128

Asi, Klazomenai.

IGSK 2, 512. IGRR IV, 1550. Stuart 1938, 18. J.

Keil, Aus Chios und Klazomenai, ÖJh 14 (1911)

Beibl. col. 55, no. 6.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.552 × 0.552 × 0.552 m.; l.:

0.03 Date: 41 – 54.

Keil: Basisschaft aus grauem Marmor, auf der

Cl audius 131 Asi, Kys. G. Cousin & G. Deschamps, Emplacement et ru-

ines de la ville de KUS en Carie, BCH 11 (1887)

306-308, no. 1. Stuart 1938, 18.


Trib pot 12.

Cousin & Deschamps: Dans le champ de Déli-

Osman Oglou Méhémet.

Dedicator: ∆Eratofavnh~ Careivnou ÔRovdio~

oJ ejnestw;~ stefa⁄nhfovro~ kai; iJereu;~ tou` qeou` Sebastou` kai; ajrchgevtou ⁄ th`~ povlew~ Dio;~ ∆Eleuqerivou ejw;n de; kai; gumnasivar⁄co~ kai; ejlaioqethvsa~ louvsa~ de; kai; to; balaneiòn ejn de; ⁄ tw`/ aujtw`/ ejniautw`/ kai; ajgoranomw`n kai; parascovmeno~ ejn th`/ ⁄ ªajºrch`/ parav prasin tw`n ejn th`/ ajgora`/ pwloumevnwn ejpeuwnivsa~ ⁄

ªejpºitelevsa~ de; kai; ta;~ qusiva~ toi`~ te qeoi`~ kai; toi`~ Seªbº⁄ªastºoi`~ uJpe;r th`~ tou` oi[kou aujtw`n eij~ a{panta to;n aijw`na di⁄ªamonºh`~ kai; uJgeiva~ poihsavmeno~ de; kai; e{tera ajnalwvma ⁄ ªta ejkº tw`n ijdivwn kai; ejpangeliva~ ajrgurika;~


ejpi; th`/ koinh`/ tw`n po⁄ªlitºw`n wjfeliva/ kai; stefanwqei;~ uJpo; th`~ ÔRodivwn boulh`~ ⁄ ªejpºi; th`/ eij~ to;n Sebasto;n eujsebeiva/ crusevw/ stefavnw/ ⁄ kai; ajndriavnti kai; proswvpou ajrgurevou ajnaqevsei ⁄ kai; teimhqei;~ uJpo; tou` dhvmou tou` Kueitw`n tai`~ megivs⁄tai~ megivstai~ ejk tw`n novmwn teimai`~ ejpi; th`/ eij~ to;n Sebas⁄to;n eujsebeiva/ kai; th`/ eij~ tou;~ poleivta~ ajnuper⁄blhvtwi ejkteueivai to;n pavntwn ajnqrwvpwn swth`ra ⁄ kai; eujergevthn kaqievrwsen ejk tw`n ijdivwn kai; hJ gunhv ⁄ aujtou` ∆Ammiva~ ∆Iavsono~ ÔRodiva kai; ta; tevkna aujtw`n Faniv⁄ªa~º kai; Carei`no~ kai; ∆Artemw` kai; Mhniva~ ∆Eratofavneu~ ÔRovdioi ⁄ eujsebeiva~ e{neken kai; eujcaristiva~ ⁄ Qeoi`~ kai; twì Kueitw`n dhvmwi

Cl audius 132 Asi, Magnesia ad Maeandrum. Kern 1900, 122-123, no. 157. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.99 × 1.50 × 0.32 m.; l.: 0.02-0.03 Date: 50 – 54 Non regnans. Kern: Marmorplatte, die später zur verkleidung der Kultbildbasis in der Cella des Zeustemples verwendet worden ist. A und c griffen auf die anschliessenden Platten über; b steht in der Mitte. Die Inschriften sind aus derselben Zeit; aber b und c von anderen Hand als a. b) Weihinschrift für Nero aus der Zeit zwischen seiner Adoption durch Claudius uns seiner Thronbesteigung; später durch Rasur getilgt. Eine Staute des Kaisers Nero ohne Kopf mit der Inschrift Nevrwna Klau`dion qeou` Klaudivou Kaivsaro~ u{ion ist in Omarbeili bei Eirbeli gefunden worden, die sich jetzt im Museum zu Konstantinopel befindet (AM 16 (1891) p. 148). Dedicator: Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ Dh⁄mokravtou uiJo;~ Kurivna/ ⁄ Dhmokravth~ oJ iJereu;~ ⁄ dia; bivou tou` Sebastou` ⁄ Germanikou` kai; cilivar⁄co~ legiw`no~ ibæ ⁄ kai; Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ ⁄ Tibe dia; rivwn uiJo;~ Kurivna/ Teiv⁄mwn oJ iJereu;~ aujtou` ⁄ bivou oiJ ajpodedigmevnoi ⁄ th`~ ∆Asiva~ aj rcierei`~ ⁄ kaqievrwsan

Cl audius 133 Asi, Magnesia ad Sipylum.

TAM V, 2, 1359. Stuart 1938, 18. O. Riemann, Inscriptions Grecques provenant du recueil de Cyriaque d’Ancona, BCH 1 (1877) 83, no. 12. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41 – 54. TAM: Titulis Magnesiae ad Sipylum asservatus.

Cyriacus Anconitanus a. 1446 descripsit.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`m

o~

Cl audius 134

Asi, Pergamum.

Fränkel 1895, 280, no. 393. IGRR IV, 321. Stu art 1938, 18.

Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.16 × 0.43 ×? m.; l.:

0.021 Date: 41 – 54.

Fräkel: Deckplatte einer Basis aus bläulichem,

weißgeflecktem Marmor, in einer späten Mauer

auf der Nordseite der Hochburg, unweit der

höchßten Stelle des Berges verbaut. Beiderseits

unvollständig.

Stuart: The formula of this inscription, which is

otherwise without parallel in Claudius’ Greek

portrait inscriptions, is in the nominative. The

stone, however, is certainly the top stone of a

statue base, so that there can be no hesitation

in admitting it as a portrait inscription. An in scription of Tiberius with a similar nominative

formula was also found at Pergamon.

Cl audius 135

Asi, Philadelphia.

SEG 49, 1631. H. Malay, Researches in Lydia,

Mysia and Aiolis (Wien 1999) 159, no. 183.


Date: 41 – 54.

SEG: Philadelphia (area of: Sarigöl/Derbent,

south of the city). Marble block moulded above

and now in the museum in Manisa.

Dedicator: OiJ kavtoikoi ⁄ ejpimelhqevnto~ ⁄ Mivqreo~ ∆Artevmwno~

Cl audius 136

Asi, Samos.

IGRR IV, 1711. AE 1912, 215. M. Schede, Mit teilungen aus Samos, AM 37 (1912) 218, no. 20.

Stuart 1938, 18.

Cl au di us · 315

Type: Base Dim.: 0.265 × 0.635 × 0.61 m.; l.:

0.025 Date: 41 – 54 See comment.

AE: Dans l’île de Samos. Base d’une statue de

bronze.

Schede: Statuenbasis aus Marmor, gefunden Dez.

1911 zu Tigani in einer Weinbergmauer, jetzt im

Hause des Limnarchen Wurrias.

JMH: Ktistes may refer to a restoration by Clau dius of the temple of Liber Pater, which had col lapsed in an earthquake in AD 47, cf. Schede

1912, p. 217-18, no. 19.


Cl audius 137

Asi, Sardis.

IGRR IV, 1502. CIG 3453. Stuart 1938, 18. W.H.

Buckler & D.M. Robinson, Sardis 7,1 (Leiden

1925-1932) 57, no. 39.


Date: 41 – 54.

Buckler & Robinson: Text, now lost, seen in 1709

by W. Sherard at Kasaba and in 1811 by C.R.

Rockwell who places its copy among those from

Sardis; it was apparently inscribed on the base

of a statue which had stood at Sardis or on Sar-

disian territory.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ oJ Kaisavrwn

Sardi⁄anevwn

wvrou uiJou` Kureivna ⁄ Diogevnou~ ejn twì th`~ gumna⁄ªsºiarciva~ crovnwi

Cl audius 140 Asi, Tralles. IGSK 36, 1, 38. J.R.S. Sterrett, Inscriptions of Tralleis, AM 8 (1883) 336, no. 16. AE 1974, 622. R. Merkelbach, Inschrift für Claudius in Tralles,

ZPE 16 (1975) 216.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41

– 54. Sterrett: Slab in the Turkish cemetery in Aidin.

The slab has been worn smooth by the action

of water.

Dedicator: ªÔO dh`ºmo~ ªKaisaº⁄ªrevwºn

Trªallianw`nº ⁄ ª---ºamª---º ⁄ ª---ºanª---º ⁄ ª--ºatª---º

Cl audius 141

Asi, Tymnos.

IGSK 38, 206. N. Cabiara, M. Cabiara, Peraia~

th~ Rwdiwn epigrafai, AEphem (1913) 6, no.

105.


54. IGSK: Große Basis, oben gebrochen. Anfang Upevr uJgieiva~ zu ergänzen?

Cl audius 142 Cl audius 138

Asi, Skepsis.

AE 1973, 508. J. M. Cook, The Troad (Oxford

1973) 400.


0.021 Date: 41 – 54.

Cook: Bayramiç, from Kursunlu, a white marble

slab broken at the bottom, quite plain. Cramp-

hole in upper surface at left end.

Cl audius 139

Asi, Tralles.

IGSK 36, 1, 37. CIG 2922. Stuart 1938, 18.


– 54. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ kaqievrwsen ⁄ ajnaqevnto~

ejk tw`n ijdivwn Tiberivou ⁄ Klaudivou ∆Artemid-

LyP, Arneai. TAM II, 760. IGRR III, 328. Stuart 1938, 19. Rose 1997, 170-171, no. 108. Sitlington Sterret 1888, 334, no. 466. Type: Base Dim.: 0.35 × 1.35 × 0.32 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 43 – 48 Britannicus / Messalina. TAM: Immissus moenibus oppidi septentrionalibus basis quadratae lapis summus calcarius a sinistra fractus, in plano summo pedum vestigia. Dedicator: ∆Arnea⁄tw`n hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ ejteivmhsen tai`~ prwvtªai~º ⁄ ªteimai`~º

Cl audius 143

LyP, Attaleia.

Lanckoronski 1890, 153, no. 1.


Date: 41 – 54.


Lanckoronski: Nahe dem Boden des Schanzgrabens links von Hadriansthor verkehrt eingemauert. Dedicator: ªÔOº dh`mo~

also zu einem anderen Ehrendenkmal gehören, welches die Statue des Kaisers Claudius trug. Dedicator: ªÔO dh`mo~ oJº Pergaivwn

Cl audius 146

Cl audius 144 LyP, Patara. SEG 44, 1205. S. Șahin, Ein Vorbericht über den Stadiasmus proviniae Lyciae in Patara, Lycia 1 (1994) 130-133. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.60 × 2.35 × 5.50 m.; l.:? Date: 45 Trib pot 5. SEG: The stadiasmos provinciae Lyciae. Șahin reports on the sensational find of a large, monumental pillar containing 53 inscribed blocks (eight of which are missing) and topped by a superstructure consisting of architraves and probably an imperial statue. The monument was inscribed on three sides. On one lateral side a dedication to Claudius. Dedicator: Luv⁄kioi filorwvmaioi kai; ⁄ filokavisare~ pis⁄toi; suvmmacoi ajpal⁄lagevnte~ stavse⁄w~ kai; ajnomiva~ kai; lhi⁄steiw`n dia; th;n qeivan ⁄ aujtou` provnoian

Cl audius 145

LyP, Perge.

IGSK 54, 33. IGRR III, 788. Lanckoronski 1890,

165, no. 30. Stuart 1938, 18. Kähler 1939, col.

458, no. 23. R. Merkelbach & S. Șahin, Die Pub lizierten Inschriften von Perge, EpigrAnat 11

(1988) 110, no. 10. CIG 4342 b3. G. Radet &

P. Paris, Inscriptions d’Attaleia BCH 10 (1886) 158, no. 6. Type: Unknown Dim.: 2.45 × 0.36 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41 – 54. Merkelbach & Șahin: Vier zusammengehörende Teile eines Architravs oben mit Leisten. Sie wurden am Kanal der Hauptstraße gesehen und aufgenommen. Lanckoronski und Petersen, S. 41 vermuteten, daß der Architrav vielleicht zu den Triumphbogen gehöre. Dieser Triumph- bzw. Ehrenbogen wurde aber nun während der Ausgrabung in Perge freigelegt; es zeigt sich, daß er zu Ehren des Domitianus, Vespasianus und Titus errichtet worden ist. Der obige Architrav muß

LyP, Sagalassos.

IGRR III, 344. CIL III, 6871. Stuart 1938, 19.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:

42 Cos 2.

CIL: Litteris evanidis; saxum quadratum rep. Sa gallassi in foro inferiore a parte septentrionali

inter rudera aedificii.

Stuart: Imp pont maximo iii cos ii appears on

the stone. It is probably to be explained as a cut-

ter’s error for imp iii pont maximo cos ii, which,

though not the usual Latin order, would serve

well enough in the Greek speaking world where

the title imperator was regarded as the most sig nificant of the imperial titulature.

Cl audius 147

LyP, Seleucia Sidera.

SEG 49, 1863. AE 1999, 1642. D. Kaya, in K.

Fuhrmeister (ed.), Studien zum antiken Klein asien IV (1999) 163-174.


0.05-0.07 Date: 41 – 54.

SEG: Rediscovered by D. Kaya in the village

square of Bayat and republished by him. Rect angular limestone block; inscription in two col umns.

Cl audius 148

LyP, Side.

IGSK 43, 31. AE 1966, 455. G.E. Bean, The In-

scriptions of Side (1965) 47, no. 147.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.38 × 0.69 × 0.69 m.; l.: 0.048-

0.052 Date: 41 – 54.

Bean: Statue of the Emperor Claudius erected

by the Side branch of the ecumenical synod of

Artists of Dionysus. The reuse of an old base for

the Emperor’s statue is noticeable, at a time when

there is no reason to suppose that the city suf fered from the poverty which afflicted her later,

in the 3rd and 4th centuries. But Apollonius’

Cl au di us · 317

statue was of course three hundred years old in

Claudius’ time.

Dedicator: ÔIera; ⁄ qumelikh; suv nodo~ hJ pe⁄ri; to; ejn Sivdhi tevmeno~

Cl audius 149 LyP, Sidyma. AE 1988, 1040. SEG 37, 1221. E. Frézouls & M.-J. Morant, Inscriptions de Sidyma et de Kadyanda, Ktema 10 (1985) 233-234, no. 1. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.56 × 0.53 × 1.09 m.; l.: 0.032-0.034 Date: 41 – 54. Frézouls & Morant: Au voisinage de l’agora – mais il n’est pas in situ –, fragment de bloc parallélépipédique calcaire, mutilé à droite. La face inférieur est légèrement plus basse dans la partie antérieure qu’à l’arrière, ce qui devait correspondre à la pose du bloc, à l’horizontale, sur deux blocs verticaux de hauteur différente. La face inscrite présente, au-dessous et au-dessus de champ épigraphique, une base et un couronnement dont les moulurations ont été grossièrement ravalées (en vue d’un remploi?) jusqu’ua plan vertical de l’inscription. JMH: qeov~ does not necessarily imply that Claudius is dead at the time of the dedication. Usually all titles and epithets are left out in posthumous inscriptions. Dedicator: Sidumevªwn hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~º

Cl audius 150

LyP, Sidyma.

IGRR III, 579. TAM II, I, 184. E. Petersen & F.

von Luschan, Reisen in Lykien I (Wien 1889) 64,

no. 32. Stuart 1938, 18.


41 – 54.

Petersen & Luschan: In der Nähe des Forums

fand sich, einer Mauer der Gräberstraße einge-

fügt Mittelstück einer Basis für eine Statue des

Kaisers Claudius, welche wahrscheinlich vor

oder in der Halle aufgestellt war.

Dedicator: ∆Epav⁄gaqo~ ajpeleuvqe⁄ro~ ijatro;~ ajkkh`sºso~ tou` ijdivou pavºtrwno~ kai; Tibevrio~ ⁄ Klauvdio~ Tiberivou ⁄ uiJo;~ Kureivna Leioui⁄ano;~ to;n eJautw`n ⁄ ªeujergevthnÙº

Cl audius 151

Gal, Olbasa.

CIL III, 6889. Eph. epigr. 4, no. 47. Stuart 1938,

19.


pot 2.

CIL: In basi rotunda Belenlü in vico medio.

Dedicator: Colonia Olbasena

Cl audius 152

Gal, Yalihüyük.

CIL III, 288. CIL III, 6799. Stuart 1938, 19.


54. CIL: Jali-jük in Isauria, ad lacus Trogitidem et Carallitidem. In basi marmoris gilvi, prope vicum Yalihüyük ad lacum Sidi Scheher sive Soghla-Göl. Dedicator: M Annius Afrinus | leg(atus) eius dedicavit

Cl audius 153 Cil, Laertes. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Sites Old and New in Rough Cilicia, AnatSt 12 (1962) 197-198 no. 13. SEG 20, 69. AE 1963, 5. Type: Base Dim.: 1.50 × 0.54 × 0.44 m.; l.: 0.030.033 Date: 41 – 54. Bean & Mitford: Laertes, below the “CouncilChamber” among fallen blocks, a tall base, the top left corner broken off. Dedicator: Polemw`n ⁄ Nou` ojlumpionivke~

Cl audius 154 Aeg, Thebae. AE 1982, 913. G. Wagner, Bulletin de l’Institut d’Archéologie orientale du Caire 70 (1971) 2931. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 41 – 54. AE: Trois bases de statues, portant des inscriptions peintes en rouge sur un enduit blanc-jaunâtre.


Nero

CIL add.: Tabulae marmorea ab utroque latere

fracta. Num adhuc extet, nescio.

Nero 1

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 927. Stuart 1939, 609.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.145 × 0.255 × 0.21 m.; l.:

0.009-0.022 Date: 50 – 68 See comment.

CIL add.: Basis parva marmorea in marginibus

et infra a dextra mutila, in fronte expolita, ab ut-

roque latere caelo dolata, a tergo scabra. In facie

sursum versa scabra foramen magnum plinthidi

statuae recipiendae excavatum. Extat in M.N.R.

in repositis (inv. n. 39.801). Cum AUG v. 1 ex

litt. minusculis inscriptum sit, cogitare potui de

titulo Neroni Caesari inter a. 50 et 54 dedicato et

correcto a. 54, cum Nero Augustus factus est.

Dedicator: Faustus Caesaris [s(ervus)] | d(e)

s(ua) p(ecunia) [f(ecit)]

Nero 2

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 921. Stuart 1939, 609. Rose 1997, 113 115, no. 42. Gordon 1958, 101-102, no. 103.


×? m.; l.:? Date: 51 – 54 Cos des.

CIL: Tabulae magnae marmoreae.

Rose: Several inscribed stones were excavated in

1562 and 1641 in the vicinity of the arch of Clau dius on the via Lata. Preserved on one extant

stone are dedications to Germanicus, Antonia

II, Agrippina II, Nero before his accession. In

addition to this stone, five other inscriptions are

recorded among the discoveries: one of Octavia

III, daughter of Claudius; two of Britannicus, in

one of which he is called brother of Nero; and

another of Agrippina II who is named as mother

of Nero. The last two probably formed part of

another monument in the same area that was

set up in honor of Nero as emperor.

Nero 

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 31288. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 68.

Nero 4

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40307. AE 1996, 246 a-d.


m.; l.: 0.025-0.07 Date: 55 – 56 Trib pot 2 /

imp / cos.

CIL: See Augustus 2

Dedicator: Aenatores tubicines liticines cor-

nicines Romani

Nero 5

LaC, Casinum.

CIL X, 5171. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 67 Trib pot 13.

CIL: Casini superioribus annis visebatur in atrio

ecclesia cathedralis, non consumpta.

Dedicator: L Stenius Sil[---] | ex testamento

Nero 6

LaC, Herculaneum.

AE 1979, 175. G. Guadagno, Supplemento epi grafico ercolanese, CronErcol 8 (1978) 142, no.

11.


m.; l.: 0.037-0.062 Date: 50 – 54 Non reg-

nans.

Guadagno: Grosso frammento di lastra ricom posto da piú parti; marmo bianco.

JMH: See Augustus 16

Dedicator: [L(ucius) Ma]nnius Max[imus

p(ecunia) s(ua)]

Nero 7

LaC, Pompeii.

CIL X, 932. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 54 Non regnans.

CIL: Neapoli inter Pompeiana in museo.


Nero · 319

Nero 8

Nero 11

ApC, Aeclanum.

CIL IX, 1108. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 54 Non regnans.

CIL: Rep. in cryptis Aeclanensibus.

Etr, Luna.

CIL XI, 1332. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 68. CIL: Fragmentum in castro Hortonovi apud

Lunam.

Dedicator: [---]ius leg(?) ac(?) im(?) | [--- IIvir]

quinque[nnalis] | Neronis [---]

Nero 9

Sam, Aequiculi.

CIL IX, 4115. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 58 Trib pot 4.

CIL: In oppido Nescae in Aequiculis vocabulo S.

Silvestri iuxta aedes rusticas Petri Domitii.


Nero 10 Sam, Saepinum. AE 1959, 278. AE 1962, 37. V. Cianfarani, Vecchie e nuovo iscrizioni sepinati, in Atti del terzo Congresso internazionale di Epigrafia greca e latina, Roma, 4-8 settembre 1957 (Pome 1959) 376-377. M.G. Malatesta, Dedica a Druso Germanico e all’imperatore Nerone, ArchCl 12 (1960) 222-223. Type: Tabula Dim.: 1.19 × 0.79 × 0.29 m.; l.: 0.065-0.08 Date: 57 Imp 3. Malatesta: È una lastra in pietra locale da taglio, scoperta a Saepinum, cittadina romana di carattere rurale a circa tre km. a Nord della moderna Sepino in provincia di Campobassso, dove, da vari anni, sono in corso degli scavi a cura della soprintendenza alla Antichità degli Abruzzi e del Molise. La lastra è stata rinvenuta nel lato sud-occiedentale del foro dove numeroso tracce riscontrabili sul lastricato rivelano l’esistenza di altrettanti monumenti commemorativi o onorari di varia mole. L’iscrizione in esame sarebbe stata dunque in origine sul basamento della statua di Druso, dedicata presumibilimente nel 4 d. C. Più tardi poi, nel 57 d. C., essa sarebbe stata alterata in onore di Nerone, allora imperatore per la terze volta, e, con la scritta, sarabbe stata cambiata anche la testa della statua onoraria.

Nero 12

Etr, Luna.

CIL XI, 6955. AE 1904, 227. Stuart 1939, 609.

Rose 1997, 94-95, no. 21.


× 0.03 m.; l.: 0.015-0.02 Date: 62 – 63 Trib pot

9. CIL: Tabula marmorea a dextro fracta. Rose: Considering the staggered organization of the inscriptions, images were probably positioned above them; but because the dedications of Nero and Poppaea together occupy a lenght of only 0,56 m, they must have been small. Dedicator: L Titinius L f(ilius) Gal(eria tribu) Glaucus Lucretianus duovir IIII quinq(uennalis) primus creatus beneficio Divi Claudii praefectus Neronis Claudi Caesaris Aug(usti) patronus coloniae sevir equitum Romanorum curio sacrorum faciundorum fl(amen) Romae flamen Aug(usti) beneficio Caesaris creatus trib(unus) militum leg(ionis) XXII Primigeniae praefectus insularum Baliarum

Nero 13

Etr, Luna.

AE 1992, 577. G. Ciampoltrini, Ancora per L.

Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus, Athenaeum 80

(1992) 233-236.


– 67 See comment. AE: Une inscription antique sur dalle de marbre, dite brisée en trois fragments par les maçons lors de travaux aux fondations d’une maison près de l’église de S. Piero Somaldi, est “retrouvée” dans le “Zibaldone” de B. Fioriti.


JMH: L. Titinius Glaucus Lucretianus also dedi cated another base for Nero and Diva Poppaea

in Luna (CIL XI, 1331; Nero 14). The two monu-

ments are probably contemporaeneous.

Dedicator: [L Titinius L f(ilius) Gal(eria tribu)

Glaucus Lucre]tianus IIvir | [IIII quinqu(ennalis)

primus creatus bene]ficio Divi Claudi | [praefec tus Neronis Claudi Caesaris Aug(usti) p(atronus)]

c(oloniae) sevir eq(uitum) Romanor(um) |

[curio sacrorum faciundorum fl(amen) Romae]

flam(en) Aug(usti) beneficio | [Caesaris creatus

trib(unus) militum leg(ionis)] XXII Primigeniae

| [praefectus insularum] Baliarum | [--- voto]

suscept[o]

Nero 14

Etr, Luna.

CIL XI, 1331 a-b. Stuart 1939, 609. Rose 1997,

95, no. 22.


Trib pot 13.

CIL: Tabula marmorea. Erupta prope Caeci nam in agro Lunensi, adservata in aedibus Mo-

reschiorum. A. 1740 Florentiam translata. Nunc

servatur Romae in museo Capitolino. a) in parte

intuenti sinistra, b) in parte intuenti dextra.

Dedicator: L Titinius L f(ilius) Gal(eria tribu)

Glaucus Lucretianus flam(em) Romae et

Aug(usti) duovir | IIII p(rimus) c(reatus) sevir

eq(uitum) R(omanorum) curio praef(ectus)

fabr(um) co(n)s(ulis) tr(ibunus) mil(itum)

leg(ionis) XXII Primig(eniae) praef(ectus) pro

legato | insularum Baliarum tr(ibunus) mil(itum)

leg(ionis) vi victricis ex voto suscepto pro salute

Imp(eratoris) | Neronis quod Baliaribus voverat

anno A Licinio Nerva cos IIviris L Saufeto |

Vegeto et Q Aburio Nepote ubi vellet ponere

voto compos posi(i)t Iovi Iunon[i] | Minervae

felicitati Romae Divo Augusto

Nero 16

Bri, Noviomagus.

CIL VII, 12. Stuart 1939, 609. Eph. epigr. 9, no.

513.


Trib pot 4.

CIL: Tabula marmorea magna. Videtur peri-

isse.

Dedicator: M(arcus) A(tilius) L(aetus) S

C(aecilius) V(alens) m(agistri?)

Nero 17


Eph. epigr. 8, no. 24. Stuart 1939, 609.


Date: 61 – 62 Trib pot 8 / imp 8.

Eph. epigr.: In castello las Navas.

Nero 18

Lus, Olisipo.

CIL II, 184. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 68. CIL: Hum marmore famozisimo, que eu vo no priorado de Sao Thomé, e servia de campo, por culpa de haver poucos curiosos que se doessem dello. JMH: The name of Nero has been deliberately removed.

Nero 19

Bae, Marchena.

CIL II, 1392.


Cos 1 / imp 1, see comment.

CIL: Marchena, en el collegio de la Compañia,

muy maltrata.

JMH: The omission of a numeral after Imp(erator)

probably implies that he had not received his sec ond acclamation.

Nero 15

Nor, Virunum.

CIL III, 4825. Stuart 1939, 609.


– 68. CIL: Klagenfurt in domo episcopi.

Nero 20

Bae, Salpensa.

CIL II, 1281. Stuart 1939, 609.


Cos 2.

Nero · 321

CIL: Utrerae; cavando en la iglesia mayor de Sa.

Ma. para reedificar la capilla major, debajo del

altar, en lo mas hondo, se encontraron cuatro

tablas de marmol.

Dedicator: [Ordo r(ei) p(ublicae) Sal]pesa[na]e

epulo ob dedica[ti]on[e]m o[blato--- restituit]

Nero 21

MaE, Atrax.

AE 1994, 1557. A. Tziafalias, ADelt 45 B (1990)

219, no. 15. SEG 45, 551.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.21 × 0.08 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 54 – 68.

AE: Fragment de base de marbre gris-blanc, au

lit sup. encastrement pour la plinthe d’une statue

de marbre. Musée de Larissa, inv. 90/17.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.50 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.025

Date: 54 – 68.

IG: Fragmentum baseos rotundae marmoris

Hymettii supra et infra integrum.

JMH: Doubtful. Many of the stones described as

bases in IG with dedications in the dative case

are in fact altars. The name of Nero has been re-

moved intentionally.

Nero 24

Ach, Athenae.

SEG 32, 252. J.-P. Michaud, BCH 94 (1970) 911.

O. Alexandri, ADelt 23 B (1968) 70. E.I. Mastrokostas, AAA 3 (1970) 426-427. AE 1971, 435. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 54 – 68. Nero 22

SEG: Two marble bases carrying the same text MaE, Orestis.

found built into a late wall at 23-25 Lekkas Street. AE 1914, 216. A.J.B. Wace & M.S. Thompson, Alexandri only l. 1-3. Mastrokostas points out BSA 18 (1911-1912) 179-180. Stuart 1939, 609.

that below l. 3 there is a rasura of 2 lines previType: Base Dim.: 0.27 × 0.55 ×? m.; l.: 0.03 ously unreported in which the text is still legDate: 54 – 68.

ible. Wace & Thompson: Hrupishta, over the door of JMH: Although the two monuments (Nero 24 & the Turkish school. Base, thickly covered with 25) are described as bases in SEG, they could in whitewash. Restoration somewhat uncertain, fact be altars. The use of the genetive case occurs but from the names in l. 1 our choice is limited only sporadically on statue bases. to Claudius and Nero. If the stone relates to the

Nero 25

former ªtiberiw`º i must be restored in l. 1. The order of the titles is in any case unusual, but I Ach, Athenae.

SEG 32, 252. J.-P. Michaud, BCH 94 (1970) 911.

can find no other explanation of the opening letters of l. 2. O. Alexandri, ADelt 23 B (1968) 70. E.I. Mas JMH: Included by Stuart as a statue base for trokostas, AAA 3 (1970) 426-427. AE 1971,

Nero. A re-examination of the stone might set435.

tle the question. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 54 –

Dedicator: To; koino;n ∆Orestw`n ⁄ ª---ºnto~ 68.

JMH: See Nero 24.

Draka tou` ∆Alexavndroªuº ⁄ ª--- kºai; ejpimelhqevnto~ tou` e[r⁄ªgou kai; ajgwnoºqetou`nto~ Nero 26 ∆Alexavndrou ⁄ ªtou` ---º Ach, Corinthus. Nero 23

Kent 1966, 41-42, no. 81. Ach, Athenae.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? × 0.044 m.; l.: 0.029IG II2, 3278. AE 1929, 75. P. Graindor, Inscrip 0.055 Date: 67 – 68 P. Memmius Claender was tions Attiques d’époque romaine, BCH 51 (1927) duovir quinquennalis in Corinth at the time of Nero’s visit in AD 66/67. 260, no. 23. Stuart 1939, 609.

Kent: Inv. no. 694, 1747, 1855. Three fragments,


not adjoining, of a white marble slab, all preserving parts of the original smooth back. The original slab has been sawn into strips. Dedicator: [Curam agentibus IIviris P Memmio] | [C]leandr|[---] valer p(ecunia) p(ublica) | [---]p

Nero 27 Ach, Delphi. AE 1937, 52. J. Jannoray, A propos de deux dédicaces Delphiques de l’époque impériale, BCH 60 (1936) 374-385. Stuart 1939, 609. Fouilles de Delphes III, IV, 2, 287-288, no. 258. M. Homolle, BCH 20 (1896) 710. Type: Base Dim.: 0.72 × 0.54 × 0.36 m.; l.: 0.0350.039 Date: 55 Trib pot 1 / imp 1, see comment. Jannorary: Homolle. Inv. no. 3455. Calcaire gris de St. Élie. Sans être sompteuse, la base élevée à Néron, l’année même de son avènement, a du moins le mérite de n’avoir auparavant servi à personne et d’être faite pour lui. Elle a été trouvée vers l’angle S.E. du temple d’Apollon. FdD: Inv. 3455. Trouvée vers l’angle sud-est du temple d’Apolllon en mai 1886. Base de calcaire gris, partiellement brisée en haut et abîmée à gauche. JMH: The omission of a numeral after dhmarcikh`~ ejxousiva~ as well as after aujtokravtwr indicates a date in 55. Dedicator: To; koino;n tw`n ∆Amfiktuovnwn ⁄ ejpi; iJerevw~ tw`n Sebastw`n kai; ejpimelhtou` ⁄ ∆Amfiktuovnwn Poplivou Memmivou Kleavndrou

IG VII, 68. Stuart 1939, 609. CIG 1071.


See comment.

IG: Basis marmoris nigri. Olim fuit Megaris,

in pariete ecclesiae Beatae Virginis secundum

schedas Fourmonti et Villoisoni, supra collem,

circa quem aedificatum est oppidum, ex Sponii

testimonio.

JMH: The lack of qeov~ before the name of Clau-

dius could indicate a date before the deification

of Claudius.

Dedicator: ªÔH pov li~º

Nero 30

Ach, Messene.

SEG 41, 353. AE 1993, 1413. P. Themelis, A j naskafh; Messhvnh~, Prakt 145 (1990) 73-75 no. 2. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.021-0.036 Date: 54 – 68. SEG: Cube-like base of limestone found in excavations of the Greek Archaeological Society reused for a bronze statue of Nero in the fountain in the agora. AE: Base cubique de calcaire brisée à dr., trouvée près de la fontaine de l’agora; au lit sup., cavité pour une statue de marbre, remployée pour une statue de bronze de Néron. Musée de Messène, inv. 2080. Dedicator: ªTibevrio~º ⁄ Klauvdio~ Saiqivdaª~ Kailiano;~ ---º⁄ki~ filovkaisar ejªk tw`n ijdivwn ajnevqhkenº

Nero 31

Nero 28 Ach, Delphi. AE 1897, 90. M. Homolle, BCH 20 (1896) 710711. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 55 – 56 Trib pot 2. Homolle: Invent. 5 septembre 1894. Corniche de base en marbre bleuâtre. Dedicator: ªÔA povliº~ tw`n Dªelfw`nº

Nero 29 Ach, Megara.

Ach, Messene.

IG V, 1, 1449. Stuart 1939, 609.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.86 × 0.74 × 0.34 m.; l.: 0.028-

0.035 Date: 55 Trib pot 1 / imp 1, see com ment.

IG: Basis lapidis calcarii albi incolumis.

Dedicator: Kleovfato~ ∆Aristevw~ filovkai⁄sar oJ iJereu;~ aujtou` prw`to~ kai; iJereu;~ ÔRwvmh~ ⁄ kai; grammateu;~ sunevdrwn kai; ajgoranovmo~ ⁄ presbeuvsa~ uJpe;r th`~ ÔEllavdo~ pro;~ aujto;n ⁄ ejn tw`/ aujtw`/ e[tei ejk tw`n ijdivwn prw`to~ ⁄ uJpe;r th;n povlin ajnevqhken

Nero · 323

Nero 32

Ach, Messene.

IG V, 1, 1450. Stuart 1939, 609.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.80 × 0.59 × 0.62 m.; l.: 0.025

Date: 55 Trib pot 1 / imp 1, see comment.

IG: Basis lapidis calcarii infra cymatio ornata, in

latere superiore duo cava quadrata 0,05 l et 0,035

a. Inventa Messenae in ruinis, nunc iuxta fontem

illum celeberrimum.

JMH: The omission of a numeral after dhmar cikh`~ ejxousiva~ as well as after aujtokravtwr indicates a date in 55. Dedicator: Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ Dionusivou uiJo;~ ⁄ ∆Aristomevnh~ iJereu;~ aujtou` kai; ⁄ ªiJereu;~ ÔRwvmh~º kai; ajg≥oranovmo~ ⁄ ªajnevqhken uJpe;r th;n povºlin prosaggeiv⁄ªla~ meta; th`~ gunaiko;~º Gemwniva~ ⁄ ª--- to; ajnavlwma to; eºij~ to;n ajndri⁄ªavºntªaº

Nero 33 Ach, Olympia. Dittenberger & Purgold 1896, col. 485-486, no. 373. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.675 × 0.50 × 0.12 m.; l.:? Date: 50 – 54 Non regnans. Dittenberger & Purgold: Drei zusammenpassende Fragmente einer Platte aus feinkörnigem graublauem Marmor dem hymettischen ähnlich; rechts und unten Rand. Die Rückseite ist nur ganz roh zugehauen und zum Teil abgesplittert. Am rechten Rand ist sie bis zu 0,06 Dicke glatt abgearbeitet, offenbar um hier den Stein in den Verband anderer Platten einzufügen, mit denen er die Verkleidung eines gemauerten römischen Bathron bildete. A Inv. 539. Gefunden 24. Januar 1879 im Südosten des Zeustempels. B Inv. 368. Gefunden 12. März 1878 vor der Ostfront der byzantinischen Mauer. Dedicator: ªGº ∆Iouvlio~ Swvstra⁄ªto~º filokai`saªrº

Nero 34

Ach, Olympia.


374.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.34 × 0.17 × 0.10 m.; l.:?

Date: 57 Cos 2 / cos des 3.

Dittenberger & Purgold: Drei Fragmente einer

Basis aus parischem Marmor, vom oberen Rande,

sonst ringsum gebrochen. B) Inv. 578. Gefunden

19. März 1879 verbaut in einer späten Mauer im Osten. C) Inv. 1034. Gefunden 27. December 1880 in der Südosthalle.

Nero 35

Ach, Olympia.


375.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? × 0.135 m.; l.:? Date: 58

– 59 Cos 3. Dittenberger & Purgold: Zwei Fragmente eines Bathronblocks aus feinem, gelblichgrauem Kalkstein. A) Inv. 596, hat den oberen, nur vorn abgeschrägten Rand erhalten, ist aber sonst rings gebrochen. Gefunden 1. April 1879 im Osten. B) Inv. 272. Links Rand, sonst an allen Seiten Bruch. Gefunden 11. Dezember 1877 im byzantinischen Turm der Ostmauer.

Nero 36 Ach, Sparta. SEG 41, 315. AE 1992, 1541. E. Kourinou-Pikoula, jEpigrafe;~ ajpo; th; Spavrth, Horos 8-9 (1990-91) 93-94 no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.87 × 0.07 × 0.61 m.; l.: 0.06-

0.062 Date: 54 – 68.

SEG: Marble statue base found in salvage exca vation of the Greek Archaeological Service on

Odo~ Agido~ – OT9; now in the Sparta Museum,

inv. no. MS 7656.

JMH: The name of Nero has been deliberately

removed.

Dedicator: Klauvdia ⁄ Kallistovnika

Nero 37 BiP, Amisus. G.E. Bean, An Inscription of Amisus, Belleten

20 (1956) 213-216. SEG 16, 748. AE 1959, 224.

Rose 1997, 161, no. 98.


l.: 0.045-0.05 Date: 62 – 65 Poppaea Augusta.


Bean: The inscription came to light recently during the progress of the new harbour-works at Samsun. The stone is not itself a statue-base, being only 10 cm. thick; it evidently formed part of a larger monument which carried the three statues in question. JMH: It is extremely curious why Britannicus appears together with Nero and Poppaea in this statue group set up more than eight years after Nero had him killed. Perhaps the people of Amisus were simply ignorant of what must have been a fairly well know fact in the capital. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ dia; th`~ ejpimeleiva~ ⁄ Loukivou Eijoutivou Poteivtou kai; tw`n ⁄ sunarcovntwn

Nos. 6-11 are from the southern portico. Nos. 12-18 from the northern portico. Fr. 19-21 were found in the theatre but may well come from the northern portico. Nero adopted the name Drusus after his adoption by Claudius; normally it is dropped after his accession; the text may date from early in Nero’s reign. JMH: The name of Nero has been erased. The dedicators of the poticus are also taken as dedicators of the individual reliefs. Dedicator: Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ Diogevnh~ filopolivth~ a} ejphngeivlato ⁄ Diogevnh~ oJ path;r aujtou` kai; ∆Attaliv~ kai; uJpe;r ∆Attavlou tou` qeivou to; kaq eJauto;n mevro~ ajpokaªqºevssthsen

Nero 41

Nero 38

Asi, Alexandria Troas.


Type: Base Dim.: 0.60 × 1.05 ×? m.; l.: 0.085-

0.15 Date: 55 – 58 Trib pot 2-4. IGSK: A statue for the Emperor Nero. At Kemalli, built high up in the west window of the mosque. Marble base broken on the left and on the right.

Nero 39

Asi, Aphrodisias.

CIG 2740.


– 68. CIG: In theatri muro ad boream.

Asi, Aphrodisias.

SEG 31, 920. Rose 1997, 164-169, no. 105. J.

Reynolds, New Evidence for the Imperial Cult

in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias, ZPE 43 (1981)

324, no. 10.

Type: Relief Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 54 – 68

See comment.

SEG: See Nero 40.

JMH: The name of Nero has been erased, but it is

still possible to make out that it was erroneously

written in dative.

Dedicator: Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ Diogevnh~ filopolivth~ a} ejphngeivlato ⁄ Diogevnh~ oJ path;r aujtou` kai; ∆Attaliv~ kai; uJpe;r ∆Attavlou tou` qeivou to; kaq eJauto;n mevro~ ajpokaªqºevssthsen

Nero 42

Nero 40

Asi, Aphrodisias.

SEG 31, 919. Rose 1997, 164-169, no. 105. J.

Reynolds, New Evidence for the Imperial Cult

in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias, ZPE 43 (1981)

324, no. 9.

Type: Relief Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.035 Date: 54

– 68 See comment. SEG: Aphrodisias. Inscriptions on panels, 1st2nd cent. A.D. Inscriptions on a series of panels, fallen from the facades of two porticoes; they served as bases for, and their inscriptions provided captions to, sculptured reliefs above them.

Asi, Apollonia Salbakes.

MAMA VI, 56-57, no. 156. P. Paris & M. Hol leaux, Inscriptions de Carie, BCH 9 (1885) 344 345, no. 27.

Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.57 × 1.58 ×? m.;

l.: 0.07 Date: 50 – 54 Non regnans.

MAMA: Medet. In the fountain wall of the

mosque. Dark blue limestone block, complete

on three sides, broken below.

Paris & Holleaux: Bloc de pierre (base de statue?)

encastré dans un mur de la mosquée.


removed.

Nero · 325

Dedicator: ª∆Aºrtemivdwro~ ∆Artemi⁄ªdwvrou oJº iJereu;~ aujªtou`º

Nero 43 Asi, Boubon. C.P Jones, Some New Inscriptions from Bubon, IstMitt 27-28 (1977-1978) 290-291. SEG 27, 916. Rose 1997, 171, no. 109. J. Inan, Neue Forschungen zum Sebasteion von Boubon und seinen Statuen, in J. Borchhardt & G. Dobesch (ed.), Akten des II. Internationalen LykienSumposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990, 213-239. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 62 – 63 Poppaea not Augusta, see comment. Inan: Das Gebäude zeigt einen U-förmigen Grundriß von 4,80 m × 6,50 m Größe. Die Dedicationsinschrift des Gebäudes berichtet, daß das Sebasteion in Boubon unter Kaiser Nero erbaut wurde. Name und Titel des Kaisers müssen sich in den ersten drei Zielen der Inschrift befunde haben, sind aber wegen der damnatio memoriae Neros getilgt worden. Jedoch ist sein Name in Zeile 7 noch zu erkennen. Daher muß ursprünglich die Statue Neros auf dem Abschlußblock E 10.11 über dieser Inschrift gestanden haben. Sie muß natürlich nach seiner damnatio memoriae fortgeschafft worden sein. Dedicator: Boubwnevwn hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`⁄mo~ ajfievrwsen dia; Gaivou Li⁄kinivou Moukianou` pres⁄beutou` ·Nevrwno~‚ Sebastou` ⁄ ajntistrathvgou

Nero 44 Asi, Ephesus. SEG 39, 1178. AE 1990, 935. D. Knibbe, H. Engelmann & B. Iplikcioglu, Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XI, ÖJh 59 (1989) Beibl., col. 226228, no. 60. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.705 × 0.93 × 0.12 m.; l.: 0.055-0.095 Date: 54 – 68. Knibbe, Engelmann & Iplikcioglu: Inv. 4576. Aus der sog. Villa in Pamucak. Dicke Sockelverkleidungsplatte aus Marmor, allseitig Rand, rechts und links Anschlußbearbeitung, hinten roh. JMH: The name of Nero has been deliberately removed.

Dedicator: [--- Arniensi procurator] || [huius monumenti basim et s]tatuas de sua pec[unia faciendos curavit consecravitque] || ª---º ∆Arnhsiva ejpivtropªo~º || ªbavsin kai; ajndrivanta~ ejk tw`n ijdivwnº ⁄ ajnaqei;~ kaqªievrwsenº

Nero 45

Asi, Halasarna.

IGRR IV, 1097. Stuart 1939, 609. Paton & Hicks

1891, 264-265, no. 373.


– 54 Non regnans.

Paton & Hicks: Recently discovered at Car-

damina.


removed.

Dedicator: ÔO da` mo~ oJ ÔAlªaºsar⁄nita`n ejtivmasªeº ⁄ dia; napoa`n ⁄ ªtºw`n su;n ∆Attavlou ⁄ tou` Eujripivdou

Nero 46 Asi, Ilium. IGSK 3, 91. IGRR IV, 209. Stuart 1939, 609. Rose 1997, 178-179, no. 120. AE 1996, 1426 a-d. H. Pontes, Inscriptiones Iliacae: Two Epigraphical Notes from Ilion, Studia Troica 6 (1996) 209214. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.48 × 2.30 ×? m.; l.: 0.035-0.04 Date: 50 – 54 Non regnans. Pontes: Base for statues of the children of Claudius. These inscriptions were found in the foundations of a late Roman portico which abuts the Bouleuterion in Ilion. Alfred Breuckner described the two marble blocks as part of a statue base which bore inscriptions identifying the children of the Roman emperor Claudius. He observed that each inscription had been cut by a different hand. JMH: Base originally made for statues of Octavia, Antonia, and Britannicus. Nero was added at a later date after his adoption by Claudius. Dedicator: ÔH bou⁄lh; kai; oJ dh`mo~

Nero 47

Asi, Kos.

IGRR IV, 1090. Stuart 1939, 609. R. Herzog,


Koische Forschungen und Funde (1899) 121,

no. 176.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.26 × 0.52 ×? m.; l.: 0.025

Date: 54 – 68.

Herzog: Viereckige Marmorbasis, in mehrere

Stücke zerbrochen, von denen ich zwei zusam-

menpassende bei der Kirche Ag. Georgios Dei zou fand. Inschrift einer Ehrenstatue für Nero,

dessen Name nach seinem Tod getilgt ist.

Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ ÔIppiwtªa`nº

Nero 48

Asi, Lindos.

Blinkenberg 1941, col. 809-810, no. 433. IG XII,

1, 805. IGRR IV, 1145. Stuart 1938, 18.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.375 × 0.585 × 0.31 m.; l.:

0.024-0.03 Date: 54 – 68.

Blinkenberg: Fragment d’une base rectangulaire,

brisé en deux morceaux qui s’adapment. Marbre

de Lartos. Les faces antiques sont aplanies avec

un instrument dentelé; elles ont souffert par la

corrosion. La base a été munie d’un entablement

particulier, maintenant disparu.

Dedicator: Lindiv oi

Nero 49 Asi, Magnesia ad Maeandrum. Kern 1900, 122-123, no. 157. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.99 × 1.50 × 0.32 m.; l.: 0.02-0.03 Date: 50 – 54 Non regnans. Kern: Marmorplatte, die später zur verkleidung der Kultbildbasis in der Cella des Zeustemples verwendet worden ist. A und c griffen auf die anschliessenden Platten über; b steht in der Mitte. Die Inschriften sind aus derselben Zeit; aber b und c von anderen Hand als a. b) Weihinschrift für Nero aus der Zeit zwischen seiner Adoption durch Claudius und seiner Thronbesteigung; später durch Rasur getilgt. Dedicator: Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ Dh⁄mokravtou uiJo;~ Kurivna/ ⁄ Dhmokravth~ oJ iJereu;~ ⁄ dia; bivou tou` Sebastou` ⁄ Germanikou` kai; cilivar⁄co~ legiw`no~ ibæ ⁄ kai; Tibevrio~ Klauvdio~ ⁄ Tiberivwn uiJo;~ Kurivna/ Teiv⁄mwn oJ iJereu;~ aujtou` dia;

⁄ bivou oiJ ajpodedigmevnoi ⁄ th`~ ∆Asiva~ ajrcierei`~ ⁄ kaqievrwsan

Nero 50

Asi, Magnesia ad Maeandrum.

IGSK 36, 1, 40. AM 16 (1891) 148-149. Stuart

1939, 609. AE 1891, 151.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.15 ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 54

– 68. AM: In Omarbeili bei Eirbeli einer Eisenbahnstation zwischen Baladjik (Magnesia) und Aïdin (Tralles) wurde nach Mitteilung O. Kern’s am 25. Nov. 1890 auf dem Grundstück einer gewissen Fatme zufällig eine 2m hohe Panzerstatue ohne Kopf gefunden. Auf der 0,15m hohen Basis steht in sehr gezierten Buchstaben die Inschrift.

Nero 51

Asi, Pergamum.

IGRR III, 330. Fränkel 1895, 280, no. 394. Stu art 1939, 609.


0.017 Date: 50 – 54 Non regnans.

AvPergamon: Bruchstück einer Platte aus

weißem Marmor, gefunden 1881 am Thor der

Hochburg (Inv. II 71); abhanden gekommen.

Ringsum gebrochen.

Dedicator: ªOiJº ⁄ ªth;n ajkrºovpolin ªkatoikou`nte~º

Nero 52 Asi, Smyrna. IGSK 24, 1, 619. IGRR IV, 1392. CIL III, 7107. Stuart 1939, 606. R. Merkelbach, Ephesische Parerga 21. Ein Zeugnis für Ti. Claudius Balbillus aus Smyrna, ZPE 31 (1978) 186-187. SEG 28, 885. Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.28 × 0.21 m.; l.: 0.02 Date: 54 – 59 Agrippina. IGSK: Oben und unten profiliertes Fragment aus weissen Marmor, links und rechts gebrochen. Etwa eine Basis? Die Ergänzungen legen es nahe, das Fragment in einen umfangreicheren architektonischen Zusammenhang zu stellen. Merkelbach: Sie ist heute im Basmane-Museum (inv. nr. 733) und ist von J. Keil und von G. Petzl

Nero · 327

collationier worden. Sie soll auf dem Pagos von Smyrna gefunden worden sein und ist damals von der “Evangelischen Schule” gekauft worden. Die Inschrift steht auf einer Basis. Dedicator: [Ti Claudius Ti Cl]audi Thrasylli f [Quir(ina tribu) Balbillus] || ªTibevrio~ Klauvdiºo~ Tiberivou Klaªudivou Qrasuvllou uiJo;~ Kureina v Bavlbillo~º

Nero 53 Asi, Tralles. IGSK 36, 1, 39. CIG 2942 d. Stuart 1939, 609. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 55 – 56 Ti Plautius Silvanus Aelianus was governor in Asia in 55-56 (Vogel-Weidemann 1982, 582). IGSK: Fundort Kösk nahe Aydin; “on a large round pedestal in the cemetary”. JMH: The use of Theos is unusual. IGSK suggests a connection to the ovatio celebrated in Rome in AD 54/55, when Nero had his statue erected in the Temple of Mars Ultor. Dedicator: ªÔO dh`ºmo~ oJ Kaisarevwn kaqievrwse ⁄ ejpi; ajnqupavtou ⁄ ªTibºerivou Plaªutivºou Silouanou` Aijlianou` ⁄ ejpimelhqevnto~ ⁄ ªTºiberivou Klaudivou ÔIeroklevou~ ªuiJou`º Kureivna ÔIeroklevou~ filokaivsaro~ ⁄ Sarnou uiJou` povlew~

Nero 54 LyP, Prostanna. M. H. Ballance, The Site of Prostanna, AnatSt 9 (1959) 128, no. 3. AE 1961, 22. SEG 18, 566. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.70 × 0.29 × 0.78 m.; l.: 0.02 Date: 54 – 68. Ballance: South-east of building C, re-used in a rough wall. Marble block, broken below. The inscription must have been continued on a second block to the right. Dedicator: Ma`rko~ Sevio~ ª∆Iouliano;~ shmiº⁄ofovro~ ig Gemivnh~ legew`ªno~ straº⁄teusavmeno~ ªe[th triavkonta kai;º ⁄ pevnte eij~ Panªnwnivan ejk tw`n ijdivwnº ⁄ ajnalwmªav twn ajnevsthsenº

Nero 55 Cyp, Kourion.

T.B. Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion (Philadelphia 1971) 153-157, no. 84. IGRR III, 971. Type: Base Dim.: 0.31 × 0.78 × 0.82 m.; l.: 0.0290.038 Date: 65 – 66 See comment. Mitford: A statue of Nero, erected by the city of Kourion and dedicated by the proconsul, L. Annius Bassus, the cost being defrayed from monies sanctioned by his predecessor, Q. Julius Cordus. A.D. 65/6. A pedestal of light-grey marble, much broken away at edges and corners, in particular to the left and above. On the upper surface are two large dowel-holes, manifestly to be connected with the present inscription. The broad face to the right carries the Middle Hellenistic inscription, no. 45. My original suggestion that this stone was built into the aedicula of an emperor, I must now withdraw. A pedestal which for some 200 years had supported the statue of a Hellenistic governor of the island, now does a like service for a Roman Emperor. For the dative case with the honorand on Cypriot statue-bases, of which we have here an early example, I refer to our no. 87 below: an idiom doubtless due to the influence of Latin. The present document is silent on their number (of trib. pot.), dating itself rather by regnal year computed either on the system adopted in Middle Hellenistic times from Ptolemaic Egypt, or on the so-called Imperial calendar. It is of interest to find at this relatively early period such thorough control of civic finances: Kourion honors the emperor with her own monies, but the expenditure is sanctioned by the proconsul. Dedicator: Kourievwn hJ povli~ ⁄ ajpo; tw`n proskekrimevnwn uJpo; ∆Ioulivou ⁄ Kovrdou ajnqupavtou Louvkio~ “Annio~ Bavsªso~º ⁄ ªajnquvºpato~ kaqievrwsen ibæ

Nero 56

Cyp, Salamis.

Mitford & Nicolaou 1974, 24-26, no. 11. Pouil loux, Roesch & Marcillet-Jaubert 1987, 61, no.

136.


0.008-0.011 Date: 54 – 68.

Mitford & Nicolaou: Fragment of a slab of white


marble preserving something of the original upper surface and back, but for the rest broken away. Found in the surface soil in the area of the Gymnasium (S. Ins. 2); now in the Famagusta District Museum. Of the inscription part of the first seven lines survives, while its left margin appears intact. Letters, now much worn, deeply cut, with heavy, well pointed apices, are from 0,008 to 0,011 h. – too small, therefore, for the lettering of a statue-base. The present text, possibly on a stele which accompanied the statue of the emperor as god, is further evidence of Nero’s popularity in Salamis. Dedicator: ∆Apo; tou` ªcrhvmato~ ajpoteqevnto~º ⁄ uJpo; ÔHrakleivdou ª”Ullou tou` pavppouº ⁄ aujto;~ ÔHrakleivdhª~ Mevntoro~ a[rca~º ⁄ kai; timhteuvsaª~ kai; gumnasiarchvsa~ to;º ⁄ g kai; dadouchvsªa~ ---º ⁄ ª--- ejnº twì loutªrwì ---º ⁄ ª---º

Nero 57 Cyp, Salamis. T.B. Mitford, Some Published Inscriptions from Cyprus, BSA 42 (1947) 219, no. 8. Pouilloux, Roesch & Marcillet-Jaubert 1987, 60-61, no. 134. IGRR III, 985. H.A. Tubbs, Excavations in Cyprus, JHS 12 (1891) 172, no. 5. Type: Base Dim.: 0.24 × 0.61 ×? m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 59 Trib pot 6 / cos des 4. Mitford: The People of Salamis erect a statue of Nero. The inscription may still be seen at Enkomi, cut on a pedestal of slateblue marble, which save for chipping at the edges and at corners, is complete. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ ªoJ Saºlaminivwn

Nero 58

Aeg, Taleithis.

IGRR I, 1124. Stuart 1939, 609. OGIS 668.


– 60 Year 6 of reign. IGRR: In vico Talit. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ ⁄ hJ Ptolemaievwn dia; tw`ªnº ⁄ eJxakiscilivwn tetraªkoº⁄sivwn eJbdomhvªkonta kai;º ⁄ oiJ twì bæ qeou` Tªiberivouº ⁄ Klaudivou Kaivsarªo~ Sebastou`º ⁄ Germani-

kou` aujtokravªtoro~º ⁄ ejfhbeukovte~ pavnªte~º ⁄ ejªpºi; Leukivou ∆Ioulivou ªOujhstivº⁄tinou tou` hJgemovno~

Nero 59 ReB, Pantikapaion. IGRR I, 876. Stuart 1939, 609. Latyschev 18851901, 32-34, no. 32. Struve 1965, no. 41. Type: Base Dim.: 0.33 × 0.43 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 54 – 62 Kotys I king of the Bosporan Kingdom, see comment. Latychev: Fragmentum basis marmoris leucophaei a partibus dextra et sinistra mutilum. Lapis a. 1829 e rudibus arcis Turcicae, quae erat in oppido Kertsch, protractus Petropoli servatur in museo Imperiali. JMH: Kotys I disappears from the coinage of the Bosporan Kingdom after AD 61/62 and is replaced by Nero. It has therefore been suggested that Nero annexed the kingdom in 62/63. Struve further suggests cos 3 in the second line resulting in a date in 58 to 59 AD. However, other restorations are possible, and Kotys could have continued as king with restricted powers after 62. Dedicator: ªKovtu~º oJ ∆Aspouvrªgºou ªbºaªsºiªleu;~ fiº⁄ªlovkaisar kai; filorwvºmaio~ eujsebhv~ ajrcieªreu;~ tw`nº ⁄ ªSebastw`n dia; bivou kaqºievrwsen

Galba Galba 1

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 5323.


Date: 68 – 69.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae margi natae.

Dedicator: Decur(ionum) dec[r(eto)] | publice

Galba 2

Dal, Salona.

CIL III, 8702. Eph. epigr. 2, no. 522.

Ga l ba · 329


68 – 69.

CIL: Tabula de basi calcaria desecta litteris bonis.

Spalato rep. a. 1874; extat ibi in museo.

Otho Otho 1

Etr, Ferentinum.

AE 1911, 182. E. Galli, NSc (1911) 22.


0.07 Date: 69.

Galli: E incisa in lastra marmorea.

Dedicator: Municipe[s ---]

Vitellius

CIL VI, 931.


pot 3 / imp 8 / cos 3 / cos des 4.

CIL: Basis marmorea magnifica. Iuxta Capito-

lium. Periit.

Dedicator: S(enatus) c(onsulto) quod vias urbis

| neglegentia | superior(um) tempor(um) | cor-

ruptas in|pensa sua restituit

Vespasian 3

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 932. L. Cracco-Ruggini, Storia di Vicenza

I: storia totale di una piccola città, Vicenza ro-

mana (1986) 293. AE 1986, 250.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 72 Imp

9.

CIL add.: Basis marmorea in duas partes fracta,

quarum dextra periit.

JMH: Part of the inscription is now kept in Vi-

cenza.

Dedicator: C Papirius Aequos (centurio)

leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) testamento poni iussit

| ex auri p(ondo) X

Vitellius 1

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 929.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 69.

CIL add.: Basis marmorea exigua? Periit.

Vespasian Vespasian 1

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40449. Coarelli, Kajanto, Nyberg &

Steinby 1981, 102, no. 17.


0.07 Date: 69 – 79. CIL: Tabula marmorea undique fracta. Rep. in effossionibus in Area Sacra di Largo di Argentina institutis. Extat ibid. in repositis.

Vespasian 2

Vespasian 4

Rom, Roma.

AE 1994, 237. CIL VI, 40375. H. Hesberg &

S. Panciera, Das Mausoleum des Augustus (München 1994) 143-144, no. 19. A.M. Colini & G.Q. Giglioli, Scavi del Mausoleo d’Augusto, BCom 54 (1926) 202. Type: Base Dim.: 0.625 × 0.48 × 0.18 m.; l.: 0.05 Date: 79 Dead but not deified. CIL: Basis marmorea statuae superne et a dextra et a tergo decussa crepidinis parte conservata.

Vespasian 5

LaC, Aricia.

CIL XIV, 2160.


– 79. CIL: Prope Ariciam rep. anno 1776, nel luogo ove

esistono le vigne del Ragaglia e del Morelli (i.e.

in Vallericcia, vicino al fosso, ove corre l’acqua

dell’emissario del lago de Nemi).

Rom, Roma.


Vespasia n 6

LaC, Formiae.

AE 1978, 92. L. Gasperini, Le scoperte epi grafiche sotto S. Erasmo a Formia, Scritti storico epigrafici in memoriam di M. Zambelli (1978)

130-132, no. 4.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 1.19 × 0.78 ×

0.14 m.; l.: 0.083-0.20 Date: 70 Cos 2 / des 3. Gasperini: Frammento di grossa lastra di marmo bianco murata con la scritta in alto nel muro perimetrale sud della Chiesa, dietro l’altare di S. Antonio di Padova. Essa doveva constituire il rivestimento frontale della base di un monumento onorario, forse comportante statua e ipotizzabile in suolo o edificio pubblici. Dedicator: [--- S]aturnin[us] | [--- d]e sua pecu[nia ---]

non firerisco l’iscrizione a Tito perché dopo non

segue AUG: Domiziano infatti nel suo settimo

consolato che è dell’anno 80, era ancora Caesare e

non Imperatore, mentre Tito lo era già nell’anno

del suo settimo consolato. Si tratta dunque di

una lastra con iscrizione riferita a Domiziano,

la quale venne in un secondo tempo riutilizzata

per incidervi una dedica al divo Vespasiano. Se

anche questo fatto sia da collegare con la dam natio memoriae di Domitiano, o se si tratti di

un reimpiego dovuto ad un motivo qualsiasi è

difficile, a nostro avviso, stabilire.

JMH: On the back of the panel an inscription to

Domitian dateable to AD 80/81 is clearly visi ble. The dedication to the deified Vespasian must

postdate Domitian’s damnatio memoriae.

Dedicator: C Volusius Menecles

Vespasia n 7

Vespasian 9

LaC, Herculaneum. AE 1979, 171. G. Guadagno, Supplemento epigrafico ercolanese, CronErcol 8 (1978) 136-137, no. 3. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.084-0.13 Date: 76 – 79 Titus cos 5-7. AE: Cinq fragments d’une inscription de tres grande dimensions qui devait comporter trois lignes.

LaC, Nemi.

CIL XIV, 4191. L. Lanciani, NSc (1885) 160.


71 Trib pot 2 / cos 3 / des 4.

CIL: Tabula marmorea. Nemi rep. anno 1885.

Apparet ab altera parte Titi, ab altera Domitiani

nomen et honores perscriptos fuisse, ut in simili

inscriptione urbana Corp. VI, 932.

Dedicator: [Senatus pop]ulusque Ari[cinus]

Vespasia n 8

Vespasian 10

LaC, Misenum. AE 1975, 212. A. Gallina, FastiA 23 (1968) 321, no. 5049. Franciscis 1991, 39. Type: Base Dim.: 0.30 × 0.92 × 0.03 m.; l.:? Date: 96 - Divus / Domitian dead?, see comment. AE: Dans un édifice fouillé récemment, sous une statue de Vespasien. Franciscis: Sotto la statua di Vespasiano sulla parete ai piedi della nicchia sinistra una lastra marmor (dep. Castello Baia; n. inv. 153953) reca l’iscrizione. Si tratta però di una lastra riadoperata, perché sulla faccia posteriore reca un’altra iscrizione che doveva essere più lunga e di cui resta solo la estremità di destra [dedication for Domitian]. Integro: Domitiano e non Vespasiano, cioè

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 86. Gordon 1958, 130-131, no. 139.


Date: 75 Trib pot 7 / cos 6.

Gordon: Inscribed front of a large, but fragmen tary, marble tablet, apparently broken in three

pieces; seen in March, 1949, in the Gall. lap. of

the Vatican, where it was reported by 1887. Re ported found at Ostia in 1801-04.

Dedicator: [---] primigenius? [---]

Vespasian 11

Sam, Bovianum.

CIL IX, 2564.


Cos des 7 / imp 14.

Vespasian · 331

CIL: Boviani in ecclesia cathedrali.

Dedicator: Ex testam[ento ---] | [---] Marcelli

c(enturionis) leg(ionis) XI cl[aud(iae)] | [- - pr]aef(ecti) civitatis Maez[eiorum ---] | [--]iatium praef(ecti) cohor(tis) iii Alp[inorum ---] | [---]ianorum IIviri i(ure) d(icundo) quinqu[enn(alis) ---] | [--- patr]oni coloniae

Vespasian 12

Etr, Caere.

CIL XI, 3605.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 1.00 × 0.76 ×? m.; l.: 0.06

Date: 72 – 73 Cos 4 / imp 10.

CIL: Tabulae marmorea forma trapezophori.

Rep. m. Ian. 1874 in effosionibus Caeretanis

fratrum Boccanera inserta in pavimento aedi ficii magis recentis. Extabat a. 1874 itemque a.

1886 Caere apud Boccaneras in aedibus Ros pigliosiorum.

Dedicator: Senatus populusq(ue) | Caeres

Vespasian 13

Etr, Vulci.

AE 1991, 673 a. F. Buranelli, Gli scavi a Vulci

della Societa Vincenzo Campanari – Governo

Pontificio 1835-1837 (Rome 1991) 185-186.


×? m.; l.: 0.05-0.074 Date: 74 Trib pot 5 / cos

5. AE: = CIL VIX, 2957. Trouvée en 1835 dans l’habitat de Vulci comme le garantissent des documents d’archives. Plaque de marbre de Carrare opisthographe. Musée Archéologique de Tuscania. a) recto. Bords sup. et g. conservés; retaillée à dr. (et amputée de 1-2 lettres) et en bas (?) lors du remploi (la l. 5 n’est conservée que dans sa moitié sup.). Dédicace officielle d’une statue au forum (?).

Vespasian 14

Aem, Veleia.

CIL XI, 1171. Bergemann 1990, 137.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.85 × 1.50 × 2.44 m.; l.: 0.06-

0.07 Date: 70 Cos 2.

CIL: Tabula ex lapide flavo mutilata et fracta.

Rep. Veleiae a. 1761. Nunc Parmae in museo.

Bergemann: Gemauerter Sockel mit Verkleidung aus Kalksteinplatten. Wahrscheinlich Verkleidungsplatte der Reiterbasis. Fundort: Velleia. Weder der genaue Fundort noch das Funddatum sind bekannt. Bei Costa wird die Inschrift unter den Funden von 1761 aufgeführt. Auch die Zuweisung zu der Reiterbasis im Norden des Forums ist zumindest hypothetisch. Die Anbringung an der Langseite der Basis ist in Anbetracht der in diesem Falle auf die Vorderansicht ausgerichteten Reiterstatuen eher unwahrscheinlich. Die Differenz zwischen der Breite der Schmalseite des Schaftes und der Inschrift kann wohl noch ausgeglichen werden. Daher kann die Zugehörigkeit der Inschrift zu der Basis weder untermauert noch widerlegt werden. Direkt gegenüber der Reiterstatue des Claudius wird jedoch am ehesten die Reiterstatue eines Kaisers gestanden haben. Daher wird die Basis auch weiterhin mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit für Vespasian in Anspruch genommen werden können.

Vespasian 15 VeH, Brixia. Insc. Ital. X, 5, 89. AE 1952, 131. N. Degrassi, NSc (1950) 31-32, no. 1. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.83 × 0.69 × 0.025 m.; l.: 0.041-0.071 Date: 74 Cos 5 / cos des 6 / imp 13. Degrassi: Nel 1936, durante gli scavi al Capitolinum e nella zona vicina, si rinvenivano 11 frammenti di una grande lastra di granito scuro, che vien così ricomposta quasi per intero. I frammenti furono rinvenuti durante lo scavo dell’aula a pilastri adiacente al vicino teatro, forse caduti dai soprastanti porticati dell’area capitolina. La lapide era apposta evidentemente alla base di una statua di Vespasiano eretta nel 74 d. Cr. dal nostro Q. Cornelio Placido, forse in uno dei porticati dell’area capitolina. Dedicator: Q Cornelius Q f [Fab(ia)] | Placidus aedil(is) q(uaestor) t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit)

Vespasian 16 VeH, Pola.


CIL V, 26. Insc. Ital. X, 1, 40. Alföldy 1984, 78,

no. 4. R. Weisshäupl, Zur Topographie des alten

Pola, ÖJh 4 (1901) Beibl., col. 185.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.00 × 0.73 × 0.69 m.; l.:?

Date: 73 Trib pot 4 / cos 4 / cos desig 5.

Alföldy: Oben und rechts abgeschlagenes Statu enpostament aus grauen Kalkstein, links und

unten mit erhaltenem profilierten Rahmen für

das Inschriftfeld; die Rückseite ist rauh. (100) ×

(73) × 69 cm. Gefunden 1862 im Hafen in der Nähe des Forums.

Vespasia n 17

Tra, Vercellae.

CIL V, 6653.


79.

CIL: Basis parva quadrata, in superficie formen

habens.

Dedicator: [---]ar[---]c[---] Potentia [---] | [---

]ius [---]i[---] pris[---]

Vespasian 19 Nor, Celeia. CIL III, 5201. M. Sasel Kos, The Roman Inscriptions of Celeia Commemorating Emperors, Epigrafia Varia 17 (Faneza 2001) 383-402. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 79 Cos 9.

Sasel Kos: Dedicatory inscription on a base for

a statue, found in the river bed of the Savinja,

and since 1728 immured in the wall of the court

library in Vienna, the present day Austrian Na-

tional Library, along its staircase.

Dedicator: C Domitius | Florus | t(estamento)

f(ieri) i(ussit)

Vespasian 20

GeS, Aventicum.

CIL XIII, 5084.


Trib pot 3 / cos 3 / cos des 4.

CIL: Ante templum quod est in civitate diruta

Aventicensi.

Vespasia n 18

MoI, Odessus.

AE 1929, 172. AE 1928, 151. IGRR I, 594. IG-

Bulg I, 58. IGRR I, 1436. L. Robert, RPhil (1929)

150-152. A. Salac & H. Skorpil, Memoires de

l’Academie de Prague 74 (1928) 46-48, no. 17.


0.02 Date: 70 – 79 Titus Augustus. IGBulg: In vico Aboba antea et nunc Pliska dicto, prope urbem Sumen anno 1872 vidit Kanitz partem sinistram A, quam postea anno 1895 Dionysiopoli in aula ecclesiae cuiusdam destructae in coementerio Graeco exscripsit Skorpil. Hoc fragmentum eo tempore iam periit et anno 1897 Bormann frustra quaesivit. Anno 1927 Salec et Skorpil partem B Odessi invenerunt (nunc in museo Odessitano, inv. II 359) et anno 1928 ediderunt, qua de re titulum Odesso attributere debemus. Duo fragmenta coniunxir Robert. Lapis marmoreus. Dedicator: ÔHraklevwn ªDºionusivou ajrci⁄ereu;~ ejk tw`n ijdivwn to;n ajndriavªntºa prw`ton ajnev⁄sthsen dou;~ kai; nomh;n poleivtai~ kªai;º ÔRwmaivoi~ kai; xevnoi~

Vespasian 21

Aqu, Lugdunum Convenarum.

AE 1997, 1090. A. Badie, R. Sablayrolles & J.L.

Schenck, Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, I. Le

temple du forum et le monument à enciente cir-

culaire (Bordeaux 1994) 168-170.


0.054-0.07 Date: 74 Cos 5.

AE: Reconstruction d’une inscription à partir de

quatre fragments dont trois jointif. Ces derniers

ont été découverts respectivement près du péri-

bole du temple (1933-1938), au pied du podium

du temple à proximité d’une statue d’empereur

cuirassé et dans la “Villa Basc”. Le fragment non

jointif a été découvert dans la “Villa Basc”.

Vespasian 22 Tar, Emporiae. G. Fabre, M. Mayer & I. Rodà, Inscriptions Ro maines de Catalogne III Gérone (Paris 1991) 56,

no. 22.


0.042-0.052 Date: 71 Imp 6 / cos 3.

Vespasian · 333

Fabre: Trouvés dans la zone du forum romain en 1965. Conservés au Musée d’Empúries. Cinq fragments, dont quatre jointif, d’une plaque en marbre Luni.

do Visconde da Asseca, em Santos. Titulus a) in

arcu, b) in basi.

CIL II, 185: Hum cippo que vi no arruiando jar-

din, tem 3 palmos de comprido.

Dedicator: Felicitas Iulia Olis|[---]o[---]

Vespasian 23 Tar, Tarraco. AE 1930, 146. J. Serra Vilaro, Excavationes en la necropolis Romano-cristiana de Tarragona (1929) 92. Alföldy 1975, 36, no. 69. Type: Base Dim.: 0.67 × 0.67 × 0.67 m.; l.: 0.020.14 Date: 79 - Divus.

Alföldy: Würfelförmiges Statuenpostament aus

grauem Kalkstein (piedra de Santa Tecla), mit

profiliertem Rahmen für das Inschriftfeld. Ge-

funden zwischen 1927 und 1929 in der frühchrist lichen Nekropole, sekundär verbaut im Grab

Nr. 1095. Mus. Arq., Inv. nr. 21. Von demselben

Dedikanten stammt auch die Inschrift Nr. 65

mit der Weihung Divo Augustus. Ursprünglich

standen die beiden Denkmäler möglicherweise

auf dem Forum im westlichen Stadtteil, das etwa

300 m östlich von der Fundstelle der inschrift Nr.

65 lag. Vielleicht weihte derselbe Dedikant auch

Inschriften und Statuen der weiteren Divi im peratores. Er war vermutlich ein Freigelassener.

In Tarraco sind auch weitere Acilii bekannt. Sie

dürfen nach der Schriftform etwa vom Ende des

1. Jahrhunderts stammen.

Dedicator: M Acilius | Nymphodotus

Vespasian 24

Lus, Olisipo.

CIL II, 5217 a.


Trib pot 4.

CIL: Olisipone, no jardim do palacio do Vis conde da Asseca, em Santos. Titulus a) in arcu,

b) in basi.

Vespasian 25

Lus, Olisipo.

CIL II, 5217 b. CIL II, 185.


Trib pot 4.

CIL II, 5217 b: Olisipone, no jardim do palacio

Vespasian 26

Bae, Carbula.

CIL II2, 7, 728. CIL II, 2322.


Trib pot 5 / imp 11 / cos 5.

CIL II2, 7: Columna marmorea. Rep. a. 1790 en

Almodovar del Rio.

Dedicator: Liberisq(ue) eius | pagani pagi Car-

bulensis

Vespasian 27

Bae, Castro del Rio.

CIL II2, 5, 401. CIL II, 1570.


– 79. CIL: Piedra muy grande. En Castro el Rio, un

quarto de legua de la población en su ermita ó

iglesia de Sta. Sofia.

Dedicator: M Clodius [---] | pont(ifex)

desig(natus) cum Annia [---] | et M Clodio Rus tico et | [---] Clodio Marcello f(iliis) | d(e) s(ua)

p(ecunia) d(edit) d(edicavit)

Vespasian 28

Bae, Munigua.

CIL II, 1049. F.C. de Teran & C.C. de Dios, Epi grafia de Munigua, ArchEspA 45-47 (1972-1974)

349-350.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.48 × 0.74 × 0.75 m.; l.:?

Date: 79 - Divus.

CIL: Reperta a. 1756 en la dehesa de la Mulva,

postea Hispali in palatio regio, nunc ibidem in

museo; est basis ingens e lapide calcareo, litteris

optimis.

JMH: Found together with a base for Divus Titus

(CIL II, 1050).

Dedicator: Municipium M[u]|niguense d(onum)

d(edit) | L Aelius Fronto | dedicavit


Vespasia n 29

Bae, Nescania.

CIL II2, 5, 845. CIL II, 2041.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.98 × 0.56 × 0.56 m.; l.: 0.035-

0.04 Date: 77 Trib pot 8 / cos 8 / imp 18. CIL: Basis statuae rotunda ex lapide calcario subrutilo infra a dextra mutila. In ecclesia S. Iohannis in Antechera in columna. En la iglesia de San Juan, en un columna, que esta junto al altar a mano derecha de los que entran, en la pieça de arriba. Dedicator: L Porcius Sabelius IIvir | pecunia sua d(onum) d(edit) d(edicavit)

CIL: In lapide, rep. Hr. Hammam prope Khen schela in lacu, in quem fontes calidi influvat.

Vespasian 33

Num, Cirta.

AE 1959, 69 b. CIL VIII, 7019. Pflaum 1957, 52,

no. 551. H.-G. Pflaum, BAntFR (1954-55) 164.


– 79. Pflaum: Fragment trouvé à la Casba.

Dedicator: [C Pac]cius Afr[icanus procos ] | [--

-s]tatua impet[rata ---]

Vespasian 34

Vespasia n 30

MaC, Icosium.

AE 1896, 115. CIL VIII, 20853.


74 Cos 5.

CIL: Algerii rep. mense Iun. a. 1896 extra por-

tam Bab-el-Oued, dans le tombeau du rabbin

Barchichat.

Dedicator: [T] Flavius [---]ni | [---]us aed(ilis)

IIvi[r qui]nq|[u]enna(lis) pontife[x p]ri|mus in

colonia ex [---] d(edit) | ob honorem ponti|ficatus

epulo dato | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Vespasia n 31

MaC, Tubusuctu.

AE 1934, 39. M. Soulié & E. Albertini, BAParis.

Procès-verbaux des séances, février (1934) 94 95, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.80 × 0.52 × 0.58 m.; l.: 0.04

Date: 75 Trib pot 6 / imp 12 / cos 6.

Albertini: Base de marbre. La surface de la pierre

est écaillée à droite dans la moitié supérieure

da la base.

Dedicator: Col(oni) Col(oniae) Iuli(ae) | Tubu-

suctimae | leg(ionis) VII | immunis | p(ecunia?)

p(ublica?) p(?) c(?)

Num, Theveste.

CIL VIII, 1848. Gsell 1922, 292, no. 3027. CIL

VIII, 1849. CIL VIII, 16535.


Date: 69 – 79.

Gsell: Deux fragments d’une dédicace monu-

mentale, employés dans le rempart byzantin, à

l’est, dans un escalier situé à dr. de la porte dite

de Solomon.

Vespasian 35

Num, Theveste.

AE 1930, 126. Gsell 1922, 292, no. 3026. A. Truil lot, Inscriptions inédites de la region de Tébessa,

RecConstantine (1928-29) 248-249.


Date: 70 – 79 Titus Augustus.

AE: A l’entrée du forum.

Gsell: Fragment d’une inscription monumentale.

Vespasian 36

Num, Theveste.

CIL VIII, 1846. Gsell 1922, 292, no. 3025.


0.20-0.28 Date: 74 Cos 5.

CIL: Près de l’entrée du forum.

Vespasia n 32

Vespasian 37

Num, Aquae Flavianae.

CIL VIII, 17725.


Trib pot 7 / cos 7.

Num, Thibilis.

AE 1907, 6. M. Gsell, BAParis. Comptes ren dus des séances, novembre (1906) CCLXI, no. 3.

Pflaum 1976, 435, no. 4658.

Vespasian · 335


Date: 74 Cos 5.

Pflaum: Marbre, brisé à droite, trouvé au forum,

dans la curie. Sur la face suprieure, au-dessus

des deux premières inscriptions, petites mor-

taises carrées (pour fixer des bustes). Il y en avait

sans doute une autre au-dessus de l’inscription

de Titus. Il est probable qu’après cette inscrip tion il y en avait une quatrième en l’honneur

de Domitien.

Vespasian 38

Num, Tiddis.

Pflaum 1957, 324, no. 3586.


0.027-0.05 Date: 73 – 79 Censor.

Pflaum: Trouvée en contre-bas du sanctuaire

chrétien de la voie dallée en face du sanctuaire

de Mithras I. Brisée en deux fragments.

Vespasian 39

Afr, Chidibbia.

CIL VIII, 1331.


– 79. CIL: Presso Utica trou. 1815.

Dedicator: [---] | popu[lus ---]

Vespasian 40

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

AE 1951, 206. CIL VIII, 8 & 9. R.G. Goodchild,

BSR 18 (1950) 77-82. AE 1949, 84. Reynolds &

Ward-Perkins 1952, 104, no. 342.

Type: Arch Dim.: 2.00 × 4.90 ×? m.; l.: 0.20

Date: 77 – 78 Imp 19 / cos 8.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Blocks of grey lime stone, inscribed on front and back with identical

texts, probably from a destroyed arch. Found, in

part re-used in the Byzantine gate, in part scat-

tered near by; now recomposed beside the Gate.

One block is at Virginia Water, Surrey.

Dedicator: [C Pa]ccius Africanus pon[tif(ex)]

co(n)s(ul) | [pr]oco(n)s(ul) Africae patronu[s]

per | Cn Dom[itium] Ponti[c]um pr(aetorem)

leg(atum) | pro [pr(aetor) pat]ronum municipi

dedic(avit)

Vespasian 41 Afr, Thugga. AE 1991, 1666 a-b. M. Khanousi & L. Maurin, Dougga, Fragments d’histoire. Choix d’inscriptions latines éditées, traduites et commentées (Ier-IVe siècles) (Bordeaux 2000) 2122, no. 3. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 71 – 79 See comment. JMH: Originally a dedication to Vespasian and Titus dateable between AD 71 and 79. Later, but at any rate before the death of Vespasian, a third dedication for Domitian was added. Dedicator: [--- ded]icavit | [--- Nim]lilis fili(i) adiecta p[ecu]nia sua loco publ[---] || Ru[f ]inus Rufi Nimli[lis f]

Vespasian 42

Afr, Thugga.

CIL VIII, 26520.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.00 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.17 Date:

79 - Divus.

CIL: Basis. Thuggae rep. à l’ouest du Capitole

in ruderibus.

Vespasian 43

Afr, Thugga.

Cagnat 1923, 161-163, no. 560. M. Khanousi &

L. Maurin, Dougga, Fragments d’histoire. Choix d’inscriptions latines éditées, traduites et commentées (Ier-IVe siècles) (Bordeaux 2000) 2425, no. 5. Type: Base Dim.: 0.97 × 0.55 ×? m.; l.: 0.115 Date: 79 - Divus, see comment. Cagnat: Forum. Base avec inscription sur deux faces adjacentes. JMH: Originally a base for a statue of Marcus Aurelius before his accession, it was turned and re-inscribed in the third century AD with the name of the deified Vespasian in the nominative case. This base undoubtedly belongs with two other inscriptions for Augustus and Livia (Cagnat no. 556 & 557) both in the nominative case. These are also inscribed on reused monuments and have likewise been dated to the third century on account of the letter forms.


Vespasia n 44 MaE, Berroia. SEG 43, 383. A.B. Tataki, Ancient Beroia (1993) 132, no. 318. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 79 See comment. JMH: L Baebius Honoratus is attested as governor in Macedonia in 82/83 (Eck 1970, 244) and could feasibly have been the successor of P. Tullius Varro already in 79, just in time to appear in this inscription for Vespasian. However, nothing of the name of the empror has survived, and it could be that the name of Titus makes a more sensible restoration in l. 1. Dedicator: ªMºakedovnwn to; koino;n kai; ⁄ ªBeroiaivwn hJ mhtrovpoli~ kai; newkovro~ dievponto~ tºh;n ejparceivan L Baivbiou ÔOnwravtou ⁄ ªajgwnoqetou`nto~ kai; gumnasiarcou`nto~ tou` ---º toù ∆Amuvnta ejk tw`n ijdivwn iJerw⁄ªmenou tou` --- a[rcovntwn tou`º sunedrivou prwvth~ merivdo~ ∆Apevlªla --- Swtºaivrou tou` Klevwno~ tetavrth~ ∆Aleªxavndrou tou` ---º

Vespasia n 45 MaE, Larissa. IG IX, 2, 606. H.G. Lolling, Mittheilungen aus Thessalien, AM 7 (1882) 239-240. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.:? × 1.73 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 69 – 79. Lolling: Ich fand die 1,73 m lange weisse Marmorplatte, die als Deckstein einen hohen Postaments gedient zu haben scheint, in einer Ecke der Umfassungsmauer einer verfallenden Moschee beim Gyphtikaviertel Larisas. Dedicator: To; koino;n Qessalw`n

Vespasia n 46 MaE, Thessalonica. IG X, 2, 1, 34. SEG 37, 584. A. Martin, La titulature épigraphique de Domitien, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, Band 181 (Frankfurt am Main 1987) 90-91. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.205 × 0.38 × 0.07 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 73 – 74 Year 221 of the provincial era = AD 73/74. IG: Pars superior tabulae marmoris leucophaei

in partes duas contiguas fracta, undique mutila

praeter latera posterius et superius.

JMH: A. Martin offers a more correct restora tion than IG.

Dedicator: ªTo; koino; ºn

Vespasian 47 Ach, Chaeronea. IG VII, 3418. B. Latischew, Zur Epigraphik von Boeotien und Lamia, AM 7 (1882) 355-356, no. 7. Type: Base Dim.: 0.58 × 1.28 × 1.20 m.; l.: 0.0350.05 Date: 73 Imp 10 / cos 4 / des 5. Latischew: Im Frühling des Jahres 1881 wurde bei dem Umbau der Kirche der Panagia eine grosse viereckige und mit einem Gesimse verzierte Basis von grauem Marmor gefunden, die sich jetzt in dem Hofe der Kirche befindet. Auf der Oberseite haben sich Vertiefungen für die Füsse der Statue erhalten; neben der linken Vorderecke ist noch eine kleine runde Vertiefung zu sehen, wahrscheinlich für die Lanze bestimmt, welche in diesem Falle in der linken Hand der Statue gehalten wurde. Dedicator: Kaikiliva Lampri;~ ⁄ uJpe;r th`~ povlew~

Vespasian 48

Ach, Corinthus.

Kent 1966, 42, no. 82.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? × 0.018 m.; l.: 0.05-0.09

Date: 69 – 79.

Kent: Inv. no. 1300, 1306. Two fragments, not

adjoining, of a thin slab of white marble, found

in a trial trench south of Oakley House in Old

Corinth in November, 1933.

Dedicator: [Col(onia) Iul(ia)] Flav(ia) Aug(usta)

[Corinthiensis]

Vespasian 49

Ach, Nauplia.

IG IV, 670. CIG 1163.


Date: 69 – 79.

IG: Naupliae in claustro Meskitae. Pouqueville,

Voyage de la Grèce 2. éd. vol 5, p. 227: “Sur un

piédestal.”

Vespasian · 337

Vespasian 50

Ach, Olympia.


376.


Date: 69 – 79.

Dittenberger & Purgold: Zwei Fragmente einer

Platte aus pentelichem Marmor, beide ringsum

gebrochen. Rückseite glatt gesägt. A) Inv. 211.

Gefunden 19. Oktober 1877 in der Cella des He-

raion. B) Inv. 309: Gefunden 16. Januar 1878 im

Octogongraben.

Dedicator: G ∆Ioªuv lio~ ---º

Vespasian 51

Ach, Tenos.

IG XII, 5, 2, 962.


– 79.

Vespasian 52

Ach, Thera.

IG XII, 3, suppl., 1394. Rose 1997, 160-161, no.

97.


– 79. IG: In theatri scenae Romana qui olim fuerant,

lapidis inventi sunt.

Rose: See Caligula 17

Dedicator: ªÔO dh` mo~º

IGSK 7, 1. IGSK 9, 25-26. CIG 3745. AE 1900, 78. A. Körte, Kleinasiatische Studien V, AM 24 (1899) 400-403, no. 1. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.07-0.08 Date: 70 – 79 M. Plancius Varus was governor in Bithynia et Pontus under Vespasian (Eck 1970, 231, note 506). IGSK: Stadt- und Landseite des östlichen Stadttores (Lefke Kapi) von Nikaia (Iznik) tragen auf Fries und Architrav je zwei identischen Weihinschriften aus den Regierungszeiten des Vespasian und des Titus (Fries-Inschrift) sowie des Hadrian (Architrav-Inschrift). Dedicator: M Plavnkio~ Ouja`ro~ ajnquvpato~ kaqievrwsen ejpimelhqevnto~ ªth`~ kataskeuh`º~ G Kassivou Crhvstou

Vespasian 55

BiP, Nicaea.

IGSK 9, 27-28. CIG 3747. A. Körte, Kleinasia tische Studien V, AM 24 (1899) 403, no. 7.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.08-0.10 Date:

70 – 79 M. Plancius Varus was governor in

Bithynia et Pontus under Vespasian (Eck 1970,

231, note 506).

IGSK: Istanbul Kapi.

Dedicator: ªM Plavnkio~ Ouja`ro~ ajºnªquvpatºo~ ªkaºqiªevrºwsen ªejpimelhqevnto~ th`~ kataskeuh`~ G Kassivou Crhvstouº

Vespasian 56 Vespasian 53

BiP, Heraclea.

IGSK 47, 5. AE 1969/70, 591. F.K. Dörner, An zeiger Öst. Akad., phil.-hist. Klasse 100 (1963)

137.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.48 × 1.19 × 0.59 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 69 – 79.

IGSK: The basis for a statue.

Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ ⁄⁄ Teimhtw`n ejpimeleivai

⁄ Polemavrcou Polemavrcou fuvsei de; ⁄ Eujdamivcou Stafuvlou Stafuvlou ⁄ Qravswno~ Qravswno~ tou` kai; Aijmilivou

Vespasian 54 BiP, Nicaea.

Asi, Akmonia. MAMA VI, 92-93, no. 251. IGRR IV, 636. CIG 3861. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 83 – 96 Divus / Domitian Germanicus. MAMA: (A) Susuz. H. 0,32, w. 0,50, th. 0,46; letters 0,07, 0,045. Broken away under l. 2. (B) Susuz. In bank of stream. H. 0,435, w. 1,62, th. 0,46; letters 0,07, 0,05 and 0,04. (C) Susuz. In wall of a mosque. Marble entablature. H. 0,44, w. 1,81, th. 0,48; letters 0,07 and 0,05. These are three fragments – the first being newly discovered – of the inscription, dating after 84 (if the epithet Germanicus is correctly supplied), on a monumental gateway, probably to the marked-place.


Dedicator: Klwdiva Mavrkoªu quºgavthr ÔRouvfilla ejx uJposcevsew~ Mavrkou Klwdivou Postovmou tou` patro;~ to; provpulon ejpi; th`~ ajªgora~º ⁄ ªkaºtªaºskeuavsasa ajpokaqevsthsen

schreiben; gefunden auf dem Friedhof von Kum

Köy.

JMH: The layout of the text implies three sepa rate dedications, probably statues of Divus Ves pasianus, Divus Titus, and Domitian.

Vespasia n 57

Vespasian 61

Asi, Apamea Pisidiae.

MAMA VI, 67, no. 177. AE 1940, 195.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.05 × 0.60 × 0.77 m.; l.: 0.025


MAMA: Dinar. In a garden. Limestone basis. In

l. 7: any unit from d to q will suit.

JMH: The highest figure possible in l. 7 is 159

equivalent of AD 74/75.

Dedicator: Kaqievrwsen ⁄ hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mªo~º ⁄ kai; oiJ katoikou`nªte~º ⁄ ÔRwmaiòi ⁄ e[tou~ ræ kai; næ kaªi; ---º

Asi, Isthmos.

IGRR IV, 1105. Paton & Hicks 1891, 295, no.

410.


74 Cos 5.

Paton & Hicks: On the same stone as 409 (2. cent.

A.D.). Now lost.

Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ ⁄ oJ ∆Isqmiwita`n kaqievrwsen

Vespasia n 58

Asi, Eresos.

IG XII, 2, 543. IGRR IV, 14.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.24 × 0.59 × 0.14 m.; l.: 0.024

Date: 69 – 79.

IG: Eresi penes Panagioti Covra basis marmoris

candidi a sinistra fracta.

Dedicator: ÔO da` mo~

Vespasia n 59

Asi, Ialysos.

IG XII, 1, 679. IGRR IV, 1138. J. Martha, Inscrip tions de Rhodes, BCH 2 (1878) 616, no. 2.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.29 × 0.89 × 0.40 m.; l.:?

Date: 69 – 79.

IG: In montis Phileremi i.e. in arcis Ialysiae clivo

occidentali ante domum Chatzi-Basilis intra

scalem; in magna basi marmoris caerulei a pos tica parte mutila.

Dedicator: ∆Ialuv sioi

Vespasia n 60

Asi, Ilium.

IGSK 3, 92. IGRR IV, 211. CIG 3611.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.24 × 0.46 × 0.068 m.; l.:?

Date: 79 - Divus.

IGSK: Weisse Marmorbasis, auf zwei Seiten be-

Vespasian 62 Asi, Kedreai. IGSK 38, 554. G. Deschamps & G. Cousin, Voyage de Milet a Marmara, BCH 18 (1894) 30, no. 8. W.R. Paton, AM 15 (1890) 440. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 69 – 79. IGSK: Statuenbasis aus grauem Kalkstein in dem Ruinenfeld von Kedreai. Auf der linken Seite des Steins ist jetzt ein Stück abgebrochen und nicht mehr auffindbar. JMH: The use of ujper makes it uncertain whether the base carried a statue of the emperor or a statue dedicated to the emperor. Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ ⁄ oJ Kedreata`n tou` aujtw`n ⁄ eujergevta ⁄ qeoi`~

Vespasian 63 Asi, Lindos. Blinkenberg 1941, col. 817-818, no. 444. Type: Base Dim.: 0.54 × 0.70 × 0.625 m.; l.: 0.023-0.028 Date: 69 – 79. Blinkenberg: Bloc rectangulaire, dont deux coins sont cassés. Marbre de Lartos. Le devant est aplani avec un instrument dentelé. La pierre a servi auparavant (au 2e s.A?) à une autre dédicace presque effacée, dont on observe les restes (vln. 513) à la face supérieure; puisqu’on n’y voit pas de traces de la statue de l’empereur, il faut

Vespasian · 339

supposer que le bloc a été muni d’un entablement particulier. Dans le coin inférieur gauche est incisé un T (isole?). A la face supérieure a été gravée, probablement à une époque tardive, une table de jeu. Dedicator: Lindivoi

Vespasian 64 Asi, Magnesia ad Maeandrum. Kern 1900, 125, no. 167. F.H. v. Gärtringen, Ausgrabungen im Theater von Magnesia am Maiandros, AM 19 (1894) 27-28, no. 20. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.35 × 0.69 × 0.29 m.; l.: 0.03-0.04 Date: 69 – 79. Kern: Platte aus schlechetem, verwittertem gelbem Stein. Schrift unregelmässig und plump schwer lesbar. Gefunden beim nördlichen Logeion. Dedicator: ÔO ⁄ dh`mo~ yhfisamevnou ⁄ Ti(berivou) Kl(audivou) Ti(berivou) Kl(audivou) th`~ patriv⁄ªdo~º uiJou` Kur(eivna) Favnou tou` ajªrº⁄cierevw~

Vespasian 65

Asi, Nysa?

CIG 2943 b.


– 79. CIG: Prope oppidum Naske, in vicinia Nysae, in

columna fracta.

Dedicator: ÔO ªdºh`moª~ oJ ---º kaqievrªwsenº

Vespasian 66 Asi, Thera (Rhodian Peraia). IGSK 38, 732. SEG 14, 723. P.M. Fraser & G.E. Bean, The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (Oxford 1954) 48, no. 47. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.02-0.021 Date: 69 – 79. IGSK: Fragment aus einem Sims, auf beiden Seiten gebrochen; gefunden von G.E. Bean bei einer Örtlichkeit namens Pazaryeri am Rande von Yerkesik. JMH: Although described as “ein Sims” the layout of the inscription and the use of the accusa-

tive case makes it very likely, that the stone car-

ried a statue of Vespasian.

Dedicator: ªTo; koiºno;n to; Qhrªaiw`nº

Vespasian 67 LyP, Arneai. TAM II, 762. Type: Base Dim.: 0.35 × 0.60 ×? m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 69 – 79. TAM: Immissa moenibus oppidi septentrionalibus basis quadratae lapidis calcarii pars superior. Dedicator: ∆Arneavtwn hJ ªboulh;º ⁄ ªkai; oJ dh`mo~ ---º

Vespasian 68 LyP, Attaleia. G.E. Bean, Belleten 22 (1958) 23, no. 1. SEG 17,

558. AE 1972, 601. E. Bosch & S. Altan, Belleten

11 (1947) 89, no. 2.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.20 × 0.60 × 0.53 m.; l.: 0.05

Date: 69 – 79.

Bean: Inv. 288. From the Kale of Antalya. Statue-

base. The Emperor’s name was originally written

Ou||espasiavwi. Subsequently, this line division being felt to be faulty, ES was inserted in small letters at the end of l. 1 and the E at the beginning og l. 2 was erased. Dedicator: ÔH ∆Attalevwn ⁄ gerousiva

Vespasian 69

LyP, Perge.

IGSK 54, 54. AE 1986, 687. I. Kaygusuz, Perge,

Epigraphica Anatolica 4 (1984) 3. R. Merkel bach & S. Șahin, Die Publizierten Inschriften von

Perge, EpigrAnat 11 (1988) 110-111, no. 11.


0.06 Date: 69 – 79.

Merkelbach & Șahin: Kalksteinbasis ohne Profil;

der Stein befindet sich hinter dem Haupttor west lich der Hauptstraße (Grabungsinv. 1-79, 47).

IGSK: Vollständig erhalterneer Kalksteinblock;

gefunden 1979 im Raum I 7 der Südthermen, wo

er noch unter der Grabungsinv. I/79-183 aufbe wahrt wird. Auf der oberen Fläche des Blockes

befinden sich rechts und links am hinteren Rand


zwei Gußkanäle zur Befestigung des Blockes mit einem anderen Block auf der Rückseite. Der Nebenseite des Blockes sind glatt bearbeitet. Die rechte Seite weist an der hinteren Kante oben ebenfalls auf einen Gußkanal. Hier sind noch die Metallreste erhalten. Auf der Rückseite sind nur die Ränder geglättet, sonst roh gelassen. Der Unterteil der Blockes ist ebenfalls nicht bearbeitet und weist leichte Profilierungsspuren auf. Dies alles deutet darauf hin, daß der Block in einer Wand befestigt war, so daß er von allen Seiten – mit Ausnahme der Unterseite – zum grösten Teil sichtbar war. Der Block stand wahrscheinlich auf einer Basis direct an einer Wand wohl beim Eingang ins Frigidarium. Der erstaunlich gute Erhaltungszustand des Blockes trotz der ziemlich flach eingemeißelten Inschrift läßt annehmen, daß der Stein lange Zeit in einem geschützten Ort stand und nach der Zerstörung der Anlage gleich unter die Erde kam. Auffallend sind auch die gerige Tiefe (0,29m) und unprofilierte Art des Blockes. Diese Beschaffenheiten des Steins und die Formulierung der Inschrift in der Form einer Widmung lassen annehmen, daß er nicht als die Basis einer Statue des Kaisers diente, sondern an einer Stelle im Bereich des Fundortes vor dem Frigidarium als Widmungsurkunde angebracht war. JMH: Although not a statue base, this inscribed block was probably connected in some way with a statue or bust of Vespasian. It could definitely not have been the building inscription for the entire bath. Dedicator: C(ives) R(omani) et ordo | et res publica | Pergensium

Vespasia n 70 LyP, Perge. SEG 39, 1388. AE 1995, 1554 a-i. J. Inan, Der Demetrios- und Apolloniosbogen in Perge, IstMitt 39 (1989) 237-244. S. Șahin, Studien zu den Inschriften von Perge II, EpigrAnat 25 (1995) 410, no. 3. IGSK 54, 56. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.10-0.20 Date: 81 – 84 Divus / C. Caristanius Fronto was governor in 81/82-83/84 (Eck 1970, 244).

Inan: Der nach den beiden Stiftern, den Brüdern Demetrios und Apollonios, benannte Bogen steht bei der Kreuzung der beiden Säulenstraßen der Stadt Perge in Pamphylien. Der Bogen wurde bei den Grabungen der Jahre 1972 und 1973 unter der Leitung A.M. Mansels freigelegt. Der eintorige Bogen ist 8,45 m breit, 1,48 m tief und 11,27 m hoch. IGSK: Auf dem Bogen oberhalb der entsprechenden Widmung standen wahrscheinlich die Statuen der Kaiser, die stadtauswärts schauen. Dedicator: Iereu;~ th`~ ∆Artevmido~ kai; dhmiourgo;~ kai; gumnasivarco~ nevwn te kai; geraiw`n kai; paivdwn ⁄ Dhmhvtrio~ jApollwnivou ∆Epikuvdrou eujsebhv~ filovkaisar kai; filovpatri~ panavreto~ uiJo;~ th~` povlew~ kai; ⁄ ∆Apollwvnio~ ∆Apollwnivou ∆Epikuvdªrºou oJ ajdelfo;~ aujtou` ejk tw`n ijdivwn ªkaºtaskeuavsante~ ⁄ Gaivou ajnªevqhkaºn kaqierouvntwn Karistanivªouº Frªovntwºno~ presªbºeutou` ajªntiºstrathvgou tou` ªAujºtokravtoro~ ·Domitianou`‚ kai; ⁄ ªLoukivou Oujeiºhvnou Lovgªgoºu ejpitrovpou tou` Sebast(ou`)

Vespasian 71

LyP, Phaselis.

TAM II, 1188.


l.: 0.03 Date: 72 – 74 Cn. Avidius Celer Fis cillinus Firmus was governor in 72/73 – 73/74

(Eck 1970, 244).

TAM: Lapis calcarius quadratus.

Dedicator: Fashleitw` n hJ boulh; ⁄ ªkai; oJ dºh`mo~ dia; Gnaivou Aujidivou Kevlero~ ⁄ ªFiskillivºnou Fivrmªoºu presbeutou` ijdivou ⁄ ªkai; ajºntistrathvgou

Vespasian 72 LyP, Side. IGSK 43, 33. A.M. Mansel, Das Vespasiansmonument in Side, in: Festschrift M. Wegner (Münster 1962) 38-41. A.M. Mansel, Das Vespasiansmonument in Side, Belleten 38 (1964) 198-208. Type: Aedicula Dim.: 6.40 × 5.40 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 74 Titus trib pot 3 / cos 3.

Vespasian · 341

IGSK: Das Monument wurde bei den Aus grabungen im Jahre 1959 vor der Brecciamauer

zwischen Bogentor und Theater gefunden und

1962 unter der Aufsicht von A. Machatschek

wieder aufgerichtet. Das 6,40 m lange, auf einer

zweistufigen Plattform ruhende Monument hat

einen U-förmigen Grundriß mit einem zurück stehenden mittleren Teil und seitlichen vor-

springenden Eckrisaliten, die sich auf 1,15 m

hohen Sockeln erheben, die Fuß- und Kopfprofil

besitzen und mit Marmor verkleidet sind. Die

Gesamthöhe der Aediculae mit Sockel wird un gefähr 5,40 m gewesen sein.

Vespasian 73

LyP, Xanthos.

IGRR III, 609. TAM II, 1, 275.


Sex. Marcius Priscus was propraetor from 67/68

to 69/70 (Eck 1970, 244).

TAM: Basis near the arch of the gateway.

Dedicator: Xanqivwn hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ dia; Sevxstou Markivou Preivskou ⁄ presbeutou` aujtou` ajntistrathvgou

Vespasian 74 LyP, Xanthos. IGRR III, 610. TAM II, 1, 270. O. Benndorf & G. Niemann, Reisen in Lykien und Karien (Wien 1884) 91. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 69 – 70 Sex. Marcius Priscus was propraetor from 67/68 to 69/70 (Eck 1970, 244). TAM: Arcus triumphalis intra portam urbis meridianam situs, cuius superior paene tota delapsa, pars inferior obruta est, in epistylio inscriptus est tilulus. Dedicator: Kaqievrwsen Xanqivwn hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ dia; Sevxstou Markivou ⁄ Preivskou presbeutou` aujªtou` ajntistrathvgouº ⁄ ªtou` --ejpiºteleiwsavnto~ to; e[rgon

Vespasian 75

Gal, Pappa.

MAMA VIII, 60, no. 330.

Type: Dim.: 0.36 × 1.32 × 0.69 m.; l.: 0.045 Date: 69 – 79. MAMA: Yonuslar. Architrave block, carved on lowest fascia. JMH: The use of the accusative case makes it likely that the inscription was in some way related to a statue of Vespasian.

Vespasian 76 Cil, Kestros. AE 1972, 644. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Journeys through Rough Cilicia 1964-1968, DenkschrWien 102 (1970) 157-158, no. 159. Type: Base Dim.: 0.50 × 1.02 ×? m.; l.: 0.0250.048 Date: 76 Cos 7. AE: Dans le temple de Vespasien. Bloc de marbre blanc local. La cella du temple a une largeur de 3,5 m, alors que la largeur des trois bases de Vespasien, Titus et Nerva qui forment le mur du fond, n’atteint en tout que 2,5 m. Il s’ensuit que la base de Domitien, qui y avait eu sa place, a été enlevée lors de la damnatio memoriae de ce prince. Bean & Mitford: Macar Kalesi, in the temple of Vespasian on the south side of the agora: the central block in the back wall of the cella. The stone, a local white marble, is unmoulded, with no trace of foothole or dowel. The dative case contrasts with the accusatives of nos. 160-164. from this same temple. They record the erection of Imperial statues; here we have the construction of a temple, doubtless with cult-statue, for Vespasian – who is, however, not styled a god. Dedicator: Kestrhvnwn oJ dh`mo~ kataskeuvasen

Vespasian 77 Cil, Lamos. AE 1963, 11. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Sites Old and New in Rough Cilicia, AnatSt 12 (1962) 208209, no. 32. Type: Aedicula Dim.: 0.44 × >2.10 × 0.45 m.; l.: 0.085-0.13 Date: 77 – 78 Cos 8?, see comment. Bean & Mitford: Adanda, built into a terrace wall immediately below the small temple [for Vespa-


sian and his sons] noted above, two limestone blocks. It is clear that the city has constructed in honour of Vespasian and his sons an aedicula which the imperial legate, L. Octavius Memor thereupon dedicates. JMH: A]ug VIII in line 2 is strange. Is it a mistake for Cos VIII or does it signify the eigth year of reign. L. Octavius Memor was legate in Cilicia between AD 75 and 78, see. Eck 1970, 239. Dedicator: [L] Octavius M[emor leg(atus) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) co(n)s(ul) des(ignatus)]

Vespasia n 78 Cyp, Salamis. SEG 31, 1362. Pouilloux, Roesch & MarcilletJaubert 1987, 62, no. 138. P. Roesch, Une dédicace en l’honneur de Vespasien a Salamine de Chypre, BCH 95 (1971) 573-580. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.28 × 0.695 × 0.78 m.; l.: 0.017-0.02 Date: 69 – 79. Pouilloux: (Inv. 6155 = E 125). Fouille du temple de Zeus, 29 octobre 1970, en E VII/ß4. Bloc de marbre gris, complet mais très usé sur les arêtes en haut et en bas; il manque de grands éclats en haut à droit, à l’arête gauche et à l’angle inférieur droit de la face inscrite. Dedicator: OiJ Salaminivwn gumnasivarcoi ⁄ Diovdwro~ Diodwvrou oJ ajrciereu;~ ⁄ th`~ Kuvprou tou` Sebastou` Kaivsaro~ ⁄ kai; th`~ ejparcªeiva~ th`~ mhtropovlew~º ⁄ ªejpemelhvqhÙº

Vespasia n 79

Vespasian 80

Syr, Seleukeia Pieria.

Insc. Syrie 3, 2, 616-617, no. 1134.


Date: 69 – 79.

Insc. Syrie: Huit pas plus bas, à g. en descend ant, une grande inscription martelée, à hauteur

d’homme. L. 1 seule reconnaissable.

Vespasian 81

Jud, Caesarea Maritina.

C.M. Lehmann & K.G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima (Boston 2000) 51, no. 27. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.45 × 0.36 ×? m.; l.: 0.050.06 Date: 77 – 79 Cos 8. Lehmann & Holum: Fragment of a slab of local limestone, broken on all sides. Above the first line a moulding.

Vespasian 82

Aeg, Philae.

IGRR I, 1296. E. Bernard, Les inscriptions

grecques de Philae II (Paris 1969) 146-150, no.

161.


– 79. Bernard: Emplacement actuel des fragments?

Provenance: Inschrift, … die auf drei sicher

zusammenzusetzenden Sandsteinblöcken stand,

welche in und vor dem (Augustus) Tempel im

koptischen Häusern verbaut waren (L. Borchardt

1903).

Dedicator: OiJ ajpo; Filw`n kai; Dwdekascoivnou

Syr, Heliopolis. AE 1939, 55. H. Seyrig, Heliopolitana, BMusBeyrouth 1 (1937) 78, no. 1. Insc. Syrie VI, 84Vespasian 83

85, no. 2761. Type: Base Dim.: 1.61 × 0.69 × 0.90 m.; l.: 0.04ReB, Phanagoreia.

IGRR I, 903. Latyschev 1885-1901, 181-182, no.

0.09 Date: 79 - Divus.

Insc. Syrie: Base. Trouvée dans les murs de 355. Struve 1965, no. 1047.

l’ancienne basilique chrétienne.


JMH: Erected together with a statue of Titus.

l.:? Date: 71 Imp 7.

Dedicator: Antonia Ti(beri) f(ilia) Pacata et Latychev: Marmor candidum a dextra parte frac | Priscilla | ex testamento Antoni Tauri p(?) tum. Lapidem m. Septembri a. 1875 in oppido

p(osuerunt) p(io) a(nimo)

Taman repertum museo Kertchiensi vendidit

Andreas Tschischik casacus.

Vespasian · 343

Dedicator: ªBasileuvonto~º ⁄ ªbasilºevw~ w~ eujsebw`~ tou` ejk proªgovnwn basilevwn Tiberivou ∆Ioulivouº ⁄ ÔRhskoupªovriºdo~ basilevw~ ∆Ioulivou ªKovtuo~ kai; basilivssh~ Eujneivkh~º ⁄ uiJou` filokaivsaro~ kai; filorwªmaivou eujsebou`~ ajrcierevw~ tw`n Sebastw`nº ⁄ dia; bivou kai; eujergevtou th`~ patrªivdo~º

Titus Titus 1

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 932. L. Cracco-Ruggini, Storia di Vicenza

I: storia totale di una piccola città, Vicenza ro-

mana (1986) 293. AE 1986, 250.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 72 Ves pasian imp 9.

CIL add.: Basis marmorea in duas partes fracta,


JMH: Part of the inscription is now kept in Vi-

cenza.

Dedicator: C Papirius Aequos (centurio)

leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) testamento poni iussit

| ex auri p(ondo) X


0.05-0.075 Date: 73 Imp 5 / trib pot 2.

Gordon: Inscribed front of a fragmetary marble

tablet, obviously incomplete at right and at bot tom; seen in April, 1949, swinging from the east

wall of the Cortile of the Lateran, where it was

reported by 1876. Reported found in 1824 in

the Vigna Ammendola on the Appian Way, not

far from Rome.

CIL add.: Tabula marmorea utrimque inscripta

(A-B) ex duabus partibus coniuncta, in usum

posteriorem alterum undique recte secta, in

fronte et a tergo expolita. Extat in Mus. Vat. Lap.

Prof. Ex-Lat. (inv. n. 25.967).

Titus 4

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40453 a.


0.055-0.075 Date: 79 – 81 Divi filius.

CIL: Fragmenta tabulae marmoreae tria, quo rum duo inter se coniuncta sunt. Rep. in monte

Palatino. Frg. a periit aut latet, frg. b-c extant

in Magazzino dell’Antiquario Palatino (inv. n.

380.250).

JMH: Restored on the basis of CIL VI, 943.

Dedicator: [Plebs u]rbana | [quae frum]ent[um]

| [publicum accipit] | [et tribus xxxv]

Titus 2

Rom, Roma.

Eph. epigr. 4, no. 779. CIL VI, 40453. CIL VI,

31294. Fiorelli, NSc (1879) 113.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.575 × 0.695 × 0.675 m.; l.:

0.03-0.05 Date: 72 – 73 Censor des.

CIL: Basis marmorea bis inscripta corona cre pidineque minoribus undique prospicientibus,

retro a sinistra fracta. In facie sursum directa

levigata in angulis priore dextro et posteriore sin istro foramina rorunta, ad marginem dextrum

quadrigonum excavata. Basis effossa est mense

Aprili a. 1879 in eruderanda area inter eadem

Faustinae et arcum Titi ad sacram viam sita.

Titus 3

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 941. Gordon 1958, 125-126, no. 132.

Titus 5

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 943.


0.053-0.076 Date: 79 – 81 Divi filius.

CIL add.: Tabula marmorea ex duabus partibus

coniuncta. Rep. in monte Palatino. Extat in Mus.

Arch. Naz. Neapolitano (inv. n. 2.644).

Dedicator: Plebs urbana | quae frumentum |

publicum accipit | et tribus [xxxv]

Titus 6

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40455.


0.06-0.065 Date: 81 - Divus.

CIL: Tabula marmorea ab utroque latere fracta,


superne et infra rudis et ex parte mutila, in fronte

expolita. Rep. loco incerto. Extat in Mus. Cap. in

repositis (inv. n. CE 5.095).

Titus 7

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 945. De Maria 1988, 287-289, no. 74. M.

Pfanner, Der Titusbogen (Mainz 1983).

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 81 -

Divus.

CIL: In Arcu Titi in summa sacra via.

JMH: The arch was probably erected during the

reign of Domitian. It has, however, been sug gested that it in analogy with another arch for

the deified Titus (CIL VI, 946) was only finished

during the reign of Trajan.

Dedicator: Senatus | populusque Romanus

Titus 10

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 946. F. Magi, L’inscrizione perduta

dell’Arco di Tito, RM 82 (1975) 100-116. M.

Pfanner, Der Titusbogen (Mainz 1983).

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 102 –

115 Divus / Trajan Dacicus but not Parthicus.

CIL: Inscr. quam celabat epistilum columnarum

basilicae veteris S. Petri in Vaticano.

JMH: There exist no reliable information about

where this inscription originally comes from.

Pfanner rules out that it could have belonged to

the Arch of Titus on the Velia.

Dedicator: Imp(erator) Caesar Divi Nervae

f Nerva | [Traianus Aug(ustus) Germa]nicus

Dac(icus) [pont(ifex)] | max(imus) trib(unicia)

po[t(estate)--- imp(erator)--- co(n)s(ul) ---]

p(ater) p(atriae) fecit

Titus 8

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 934. T.V. Buttrey, Documentary Evi dence for the Chronology of the Flavian Titula ture (1980) 25 & 45-48. AE 1980, 41.


8 / cos des 9.

CIL add.: In basi marmorea, cuius corona supe-

rior cum bona inscriptionis parte deest. Iuxta

Capitolum. Periit.

JMH: Published as Vespasian in CIL, but Buttrey

argues convincingly for Titus.

Dedicator: Sodales Titi

Titus 9

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 944. De Maria 1988, 285-287, no. 73.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 81 Imp

17. CIL add.: Titulus arcus in circo maximo exstructi. Periit. Dedicator: Senatus populusque Romanus | | quod praeceptis patri[is] consiliisq(ue) et auspiciis gentem | Iudaeorum domavit et urbem Hierusolymam omnibus ante | se ducibus regibus gentibus aut frustra petitam aut | omnino intemptatam delevit

Titus 11

LaC, Herculaneum.

CIL X, 1421.


– 79 Trib pot? / Non regnans.

CIL: Speciem prae se fert originis ex Herculaneo.

Est Neapoli in museo inter reposita.

Titus 12

LaC, Herculaneum.

CIL X, 1420.


Cos 2 / Censor.

CIL: Rep. Herculanei in theatro. Extat Neapoli

in museo.

Dedicator: M Noviu[s ---]

Titus 13

LaC, Lanuvium.

CIL XIV, 2098. Fiorelli, NSc 1883, 346.


– 81. CIL: Tabula marmorea fracta. Rep. Civita La-

vinia in aedibus Frezza.

Dedicator: S(enatus) p(opulus)q(ue) L[anivi-

nus]

Titus · 345

Titus 14 LaC, Neapolis. SEG 38, 998. AE 1988, 323. E. Miranda, Tito a Napoli: una nuova dedica onoraria, Epigraphica 50 (1988) 222-226. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.36 × 0.42 × 0.04 m.; l.: 0.027-0.03 Date: 74 Cos 3. SEG: Yellow marble block found and kept in the sanctuary of St. Gaetano (near the temple of the Dioskouroi). Another fragment reading EYM plus an oblique stroke and probably belonging to this inscription was found in the same place. L. 3. ajrciereu;~ mevgisto~: error for ajrciereu;~, since Vespasian was pontifex maximus in 74 A.D., ed.pr. who points out that IGR IV 1105 (Isthmos; 74 A.D.), where Vespasian is styled ajrciereu;~ only, contains the inverse error. L. 6. initio a honorific title, e.g. dhmavrco~ (the eponymous magistracy of Neapolis), which, however, is probably too long, ed.pr.; ajgwnoqevth~: of the Sebasta, which were celebrated for the 19th time in August 74 A.D.; consequently our inscription should be dated to the second half of the year; from IG XIV 729 (CIL × 1481; 81 A.D.) Titus is known to have been agonothetes of the Sebasta three times, viz. in 70, 74 and 78 A.D. (chronology on the basis of the present text).

CIL: Tabula ex lapide calcairo. Rep. a. 1856 Ses tini a Rivio cum n. 5999 [Claudius].


Titus 17

Etr, Caere.

CIL XI, 3606.


Imp 6.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmorea margine

ornatae. Rep. Caere, donatum ab Ioanne Passeg-

gerio Instituto archeologico, apud quod extat.

Titus 18

MoI, Odessus.

AE 1929, 172. AE 1928, 151. IGRR I, 594. IG-

Bulg I2, 58. IGRR I, 1436. L. Robert, RPhil (1929)

150-152. A. Salac & H. Skorpil, Memoires de

l’Academie de Prague 74 (1928) 46-48, no. 17.


0.02 Date: 70 – 79 Imperator.

IGBulg: See Vespasian 18

Dedicator: ÔHraklevwn ªDºionusivou ajrci⁄ereu;

~ ejk tw`n ijdivwn to;n ajndriavªntºa prw`ton ajnev⁄sthsen dou;~ kai; nomh;n poleivtai~ kªai;º ÔRwmaivoi~ kai; xevnoi~

Titus 19

Titus 15 BrL, Volcei. V. Bracco, Supplementa Italica 3 (1987) 74, no.

3. AE 1978, 268. V. Bracco, Volcei, Forma Italiae,

regio III, vol II (1978) 42.


Trib pot 10.

AE: Fragment calcaire remployé dans la tour de

“Castello”, à 7 m de haut.

Bracco: Frammento calcareo di base onoraria.

Dedicator: [---] Annius Ruf[us] | IIIIvir i(ure)

d(icundo) [---] posuit

Titus 16

Umb, Sestinum.

CIL XI, 6000.


Date: 73 Trib pot 2 / cos 2 / des 3 / imp 4 / censor.

GeS, Vindonissa.

CIL XIII, 5195. CIL XIII, 245. Kähler 1939, col.

423, no. 25.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 79

Cos 7.

CIL: Brugg in pariete domus nobilium Efinger ad

exteriorem portam. Iam in museo Aroviensis.

Dedicator: Vicani Vindonissenses | cur(antibus)

T Urbano Mattoni T | Valer Albano L Veturio

Melo C Cottio | Rufo [Q] Sextio [---]

Titus 20

Tar, Baesucci.

CIL II, 3250.


Trib pot 6 / cos 5.

CIL: Vilces, in aedicula semidiruta Salvatoris te-

mere compacta loco alteris, marmor quadratum.



Titus 21

Tar, Tarraco.

Alföldy 1975, 37, no. 72.


m.; l.: 0.055-0.08 Date: 73 Imp 4 / cos 2 / cos

des 3.

Alföldy: Fünf zusammenhörende Bruchstücke

einer Tafel aus hellgrauem Marmor. Oben und

links und unten ist je ein Stück Rand erhalten.

Gefunden zwischen 1925 und 1930 neben dem

Forum in der unteren Stadt im Bau “E”, zwischen

den Calles Soler, Cervantes, Fortuny und Com mandante Rivadulla. Mus. Arq., Inv.-Nr. 5133.

Titus 22

Tar, Valentia.

CIL II2, 14, 13. CIL II, 3732. Alföldy 1979, 271,

no. 428. J. Corell, Inscripcions romanes de Valen tia i el seu territori (València 1997) 78-79, no.

14.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.45 × 0.84 × 0.72 m.; l.:

0.055-0.11 Date: 69 – 79 Non regnans, see

comment.

CIL II2, 14: Parallelepipedum, fortasse basis sta tuae, lapidis calcarii cineracei, superne et sinistra

et infra fractum, ex latere dextro rude. Rep. a.

1727 insertum muro hodiernae iglesia de Sto.

Tomás prope plaza de Sant Bult.

JMH: The dedication probably belongs early in

Vespasian’s reign because of the title conserva tori pacis.

Titus 23 Lus, Conimbriga. CIL II, 5264. J. Alarcão & R. Etienne, Fouilles de Conimbriga II (Paris 1976) 49-51, no. 24. Type: Base Dim.: 0.316 × 0.19 × 0.11 m.; l.:? Date: 77 Trib pot 7 / imp 12 / cos 6. CIL: Emeritae, tabula sive basis marmorea. A latere postico foramen est, quo ad parietem figebatur; supra alterum foramen, in quo protome fortasse imperatorii aurea inserta erat. Alarcão & R. Etienne: Trouvé à Mérida; actuellement au Musée Archéologique National de

Madrid. Petit piédestal en marbre, sans décora tion latérale, mais limité en haut et en bas sur sa

face antérieure par une moulure surplombant

le champ épigraphique; à la partie postérieure,

erforation ayant servi sans doute à fixer le monu-

ment contre une paroi; à la partie supérieure,

autre trou de scellement ayant puet-être été uti lisé pour tenir le portrait impérial ou la palme

d’un poids d’au moins 5 livres d’or.

Dedicator: Provincia Lusitania C Arruntio Catel lio Celere leg(ato) Aug(usti) pro pr(aetore) M

Iunio Latrone Conimbricese flamine provinciae

Lusitaniae ex auri p(ondo) V

Titus 24

Lus, Metellinum.

CIL II, 608.


– 77 Trib pot 6.

CIL: In Medellin, in la chiesa de S. Cecilia.

JMH: Could also be reconstructed as a dedica tion to Claudius or Nero.

Dedicator: [---] f(ilius) Cato leg(atus) Caes(aris)

[---]

Titus 25

Bae, Munigua.

CIL II, 1050. F.C. de Teran & C.C. de Dios, Epi grafia de Munigua, ArchEspA 45-47 (1972-1974)

353-355.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.455 × 0.775 × 0.51 m.; l.:?

Date: 81 - Divus.

CIL: Videtur periisse.

Teran & Dios: Dos fragmentos de basa de granito

corresponditas a la parte anterior de la misma,

esto es, a la cara del epìgrafe.

Dedicator: Municip|ium Muniguense d(onum)

d(edit) | Licinius Victor | dedicavit

Titus 26

Bae, Regina.

CIL II2, 7, 979.


0.08-0.11 Date: 81 - Divus.

CIL: Tabula marmorea lateribus et tergo scabris

fracta infra et sinistra. Rep. a. 1980 en la zona

Titus · 347

central del yacimiento arqueológico (prope templum Pietatis); servatur in M.A.P. Badajoz (inv. n. 10454). Dedicator: [R]es p(ublica) | [Regi]nensis | [---]

Titus 27

MaT, Volubilis.

CIL VIII, 21823. Euzennat & Marion 1982, 236,

no. 371. Chantelain 1942, 18, no. 59.


– 79 Non regnans. Chantelain: Au bas de la partie occidentale du plateau, un peu au-dessus de la piste qui longe l’oued. Relevée par La Martinière en juin 1888.

Titus 28


CIL VIII, 17725.


Vespasian trib pot 7 / cos 7.

CIL: In lapide, rep. Hr. Hammam prope Khen schela in lacu, in quem fontes calidi influvat.

Titus 29

Num, Hippo Regius.

AE 1955, 146. E. Marec, Le forum d’Hippone,

Libyca 2 (1954) 376-377.


80 Cos 8 / cos des 9.

AE: A Hippone, sur le forum. Plaque de marbre.

Deux fragments.

Titus 30

Num, Sicca Veneria.

CIL VIII, 15852.


0.10-0.10 Date: 69 – 79 Non regnans.

CIL: In lapidfe rep. el-Kef in domus privatae ru-

deribus.

Dedicator: [D(ecreto) d(ecurionum)] p(ecunia)

p(ublica)


Date: 69 – 79 Non regnans.

Gsell: Deux fragments d’une dédicace monu-

mentale, employés dans le rempart byzantin, à

l’est, dans un escalier situé à dr. de la porte dite

de Solomon.

Titus 32

Num, Theveste.

AE 1930, 126. CIL VIII, 1847. Gsell 1922, 292,

no. 3026. A. Truillot, Inscriptions inédites de la

region de Tébessa, RecConstantine (1928-29)

248-249.



Gsell: Près de l’entrée du forum. Fragment d’une

inscription monumentale.

Titus 33

Num, Theveste.

CIL VIII, 1846. Gsell 1922, 292, no. 3025.


0.20-0.28 Date: 74 Vespasian cos 5.

CIL: Près de l’entrée du forum.

Titus 34

Num, Thibilis.

AE 1907, 6. M. Gsell, BAParis. Comptes ren dus des séances, novembre (1906) CCLXI, no. 3.

Pflaum 1976, 435, no. 4658.


Vespasian cos 5.

Pflaum: Marbre, brisé à droite, trouvé au forum,

dans la curie. Sur la face suprieure, au-dessus

des deux premières inscriptions, petites mor-

taises carrées (pour fixer des bustes). Il y en avait

sans doute une autre au-dessus de l’inscription

de Titus. Il est probable qu’après cette inscrip tion il y en avait une quatrième en l’honneur

de Domitien.

Titus 35

Titus 31

Num, Theveste.

CIL VIII, 1848. Gsell 1922, 292, no. 3027. CIL

VIII, 1849. CIL VIII, 16535. Eph. epigr. 5, 657.

Num, Tiddis.

Pflaum 1957, 324, no. 3586.


0.027-0.05 Date: 73 – 79 Censor / Vespasian.




de Mithras I. Brisee en deux fragments.

Titus 36

Afr, Carthago.

AE 1990, 1031. L.A. Curchin, CEDAC Carthage,

Bull. 11, juin 1990, 10-11.


0.11-0.119 Date: 81 - Divus.

AE: Plaque de marbre gris, très fragmentaire,

dont sept morceaux ont été retrouvés dans des

murs tardifs.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) [d(ecurionum) p(ecunia)

p(ublica)]

Titus 37

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

AE 1951, 206. CIL VIII, 8 & 9. Reynolds & Ward-

Perkins 1952, 104, no. 342. AE 1949, 84. R.G.

Goodchild, Two Monumental Inscriptions from

Lepcis Magna, BSR 18 (1950) 77-82.

Type: Arch Dim.: 2.00 × 4.90 ×? m.; l.: 0.20

Date: 78 Vespasian imp 19 / cos 8.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: See Vespasian 40.

Dedicator: [C Pa]ccius Africanus pon[tif(ex)]

co(n)s(ul) | [pr]oco(n)s(ul) Africae patronu[s]

per | Cn Dom[itium] Ponti[c]um pr(aetorem)

leg(atum) | pro [pr(aetor) pat]ronum municipi

dedic(avit)

Titus 38

Afr, Mhammedia.

CIL VIII, 875.


Date: 70 – 73 Vespasian cos 2-4.

CIL: Mhammediae rep. nunc. Lugduni Bata-

vorum in museo in fragmentis marmoreis ab

utraque parte inscripti. a) in antica, b) in pos tica.

Dedicator: [---]cius Telesp[horus]

Titus 39

Afr, Thugga.

AE 1991, 1666 a-b. M. Khanousi & L. Mau rin, Dougga, Fragments d’histoire. Choix

d’inscriptions latines éditées, traduites et commentées (Ier-IVe siècles) (Bordeaux 2000) 2122, no. 3. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 71 – 79 See comment. JMH: Originally a dedication to Vespasian and Titus dateable between AD 71 and 79. Later, but at any rate before the death of Vespasian, a third dedication for Domitian was added. Dedicator: [--- ded]icavit | [--- Nim]lilis fili(i) adiecta p[ecu]nia sua loco publ[---] || Ru[f ]inus Rufi Nimli[lis f]

Titus 40

Afr, Utica.

AE 1913, 163. Cagnat 1923, no. 419. A. Merlin,

Découvertes a Utique, CRAI (1913) 108-110,

no. 2. Z.B. Ben Abdallah, Catalogue des inscrip tions latines païennes du Musée du Bardo (Rome

1986) 175, no. 437.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.24 ×? × 0.02 m.; l.: 0.03-

0.055 Date: 81 Imp 17.

Abdallah: Quatre fragments d’une plaque de

marbre blanc, opisthographe, très incomplète.

Dedicator: [---] co(n)s(ul) patron[us municipi

Utik(ae) ded]ic[a]vit d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

p(ecunia) [p(ublica)]

Titus 41

Thr, Perinthus.

M.H. Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereglisi) und umgebung (Wien 1998) 192-193, no. 6. CIL III, 7391. Eph. epigr. 4, no. 123. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 76 Trib pot 6 / imp 10 / cos 7, see comment. Sayar: Statuenbasis aus Marmor. Von Aristarchis südlich der Akropolis in der nähe der Windmühlen aufgenommen. JMH: The date of the inscription has caused some confusion. Both imp 10 and trib pot 6 indicate AD 76. Cos 7 would therefore seem to be a mistake for Cos 5. Titus did however not become Pontifex Maximus until after his father’s death although the title does occurs sporadically in inscriptions prior to his accession (SEG 38, 998

Titus · 349

from Neapolis). AD 76 requires the least correction of the text, and should be preferred. Dedicator: Ti Claudius Theopom|pi f(ilius) Quir(ina tribu) Sabinus ex test(amento) | Ti Claudi(i) Theopompi patris

Titus 42 MaE, Demetrias. D.P. Theocharis, “Ereunai ejn Dhmhtriavdi, Thessalika 3 (1960) 81-82, no. 3. SEG 23, 450. AE 1967, 460. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 81 Divus. SEG: Demetrias, in theatro inv. Basem statuae breviter. Dedicator: Mavgnhte~

Titus 43

Ach, Argos.

IG IV, 584.


– 81. IG: Fragmentum Argis muro inaedificatum.

Dedicator: ª---ºh~ ∆Alexavn drou gumna⁄ªsiarcºhvsa~ uJpe;r leita`~

Titus 44 Ach, Corinthus. Kent 1966, 42-43, no. 84. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.475 × 0.475 × 0.03 m.; l.: 0.085-0.12 Date: 79 – 81. Kent: Inv. no. 1555. A large fragment of a thin slab of white marble, found in the Theater in April, 1926. The top is original, and contains a dowel hole; the left edge is also original, but the inscription was cut on more than one slab. The back is smooth.

IDelos: Inv. E 165. Corps de base quadrangulaire en marbre bleuâtre, trouvé en 1876 pres du pilier d’Antiochos III.

Titus 46 Ach, Delphi. G. Daux, Inscriptions de Delphes, BCH 68 (1944) 122-123, no. 35. Type: Base Dim.: 0.20 × 0.46 ×? m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 79 – 81. Daux: Village moderne, dans un mur. C’est la dédicace d’une statue impériale: s’agit-il de Titus, qui a été, comme on sait, archonte de Delphes en 79/80, ou de Domitien, qui a fait preuve à l’égard du sanctuaire delphique d’une sollicitude particulière? Dedicator: ÔH Delfw`n povli~ ∆A⁄ªpovllwni Puqivwiº

Titus 47

Ach, Thebae.

IG VII, 2494. CIG 1612.


– 81. IG: Lapis inaedificatus Thebis in pariete ecclesiae

dublicis S. Demetrii et Panagiae.

Dedicator: ÔH povl

i~

Titus 48

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 15.


0.032 Date: 81 - Divus.

IC: Xida, in domo aliqua diruta. Lapis angulo in feriore a dextra mutilus, l. 0,50, a. 0,35. Litterae a.

0,032. Delineavit De Sanctis. Revisit Oliverio.

Titus 49

Titus 45 Ach, Delos. Roussel & Launey 1937, 63-64, no. 1595. F. Durrbach, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos (Paris 1922) 266-267, no. 178. Th. Homolle, Inscriptions de Délos, BCH 3 (1879) 162, no. 12. Type: Base Dim.: 0.50 × 0.80 × 0.74 m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 79 – 81.

BiP, Nicaea.

IGSK 7, 1. IGSK 9, 25-26. CIG 3745. AE 1900,

78. A. Körte, Kleinasiatische Studien V, AM 24 (1899) 400-403, no. 1. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.07-0.08 Date: 70 – 79 M. Plancius Varus was governor in Bithynia et Pontus under Vespasian (Eck 1970, 231, note 506).


IGSK: Stadt- und Landseite des östlichen Stadttores (Lefke Kapi) von Nikaia (Iznik) tragen auf Fries und Architrav je zwei identischen Weihinschriften aus den Regierungszeiten des Vespasian und des Titus (Fries-Inschrift) sowie des Hadrian (Architrav-Inschrift). Dedicator: M Plavnkio~ Ouja`ro~ ajnquvpato~ kaqievrwsen ejpimelhqevnto~ ªth`~ kataskeuh`º~ G Kassivou Crhvstou

Dedicator: ÔO ajpo; th`~ povlew~ ⁄ ajrciereu;~ qea`~ ÔRwvmh~ kai; qeou` Sebastou` Kaiv⁄saro~ ajrciereu;~ de; kai; tou` Aujtokravtoro~ ⁄ Tivtou Kaivsaro~ Sebastou` uiJou` Sebastou` Ouj⁄espasianou` kai; stefanhfovro~ to; bæ kai; iJereu;~ th`~ ⁄ ∆Artevmido~ th`~ Kinduavdo~ kai; tou` Sebastou` ⁄ Kaivsaro~ ∆Exhvkesto~ Diodwvrou Filopavtªrido~º ⁄ uiJov~ Filovkaisar Filovpatri~ Filosevbasto~ ªeujnoivº⁄a~ e{neken th`~ eij~ aujto;n ejk tw`n ijdivwªn ajnevqhkenº ⁄ kai; kaqievrwsen

Titus 50

BiP, Nicaea.





231, note 506).



Titus 51

Asi, Akmonia.

MAMA VI, 92-93, no. 251. IGRR IV, 636. CIG

3861.


Divus / Domitian Germanicus.

MAMA: See Vespasian 56.

Dedicator: Klwdiva Mavrkoªu quºgavthr

ÔRouvfilla ejx uJposcevsew~ Mavrkou Klwdivou Postovmou tou` patro;~ to; provpulon ejpi; th`~ ajªgora~º ⁄ ªkaºtªaºskeuavsasa ajpokaqevsthsen

Titus 52 Asi, Bargylia. IGSK 28, 2, 602. SEG 4, 209. Am. Hauvette-Besnault & M. Dubois, Inscriptions de Carie, BCH 5 (1881) 191-193, no. 14. G. Cousin & G. Deschamps, BCH 18 (1894) 25, no. 21. Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.72 × 0.65 m.; l.:? Date: 69 – 79 Non regnans. IGSK: Statuenbasis aus weißem Marmor, gefunden auf der Akropolis im Bargylia.

Titus 53 Asi, Ephesus. IGSK 12, 262. AE 1930, 86. J. Keil, XV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos, ÖJh 26 (1930) Beibl., col. 58-60. Type: Base Dim.: 1.20 ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 80 Trib pot 9 / cos 8. Keil: Zwei weitere bemerkenswerte epigraphische Texte stehen auf einem über 1,20 m hohen Quaderblock, der einst das Mittelstück einer Basis bildete und später zwischen dem Zollhaus und der byzantinischen Stadtmauer als Baustein Wiederverwendung gefunden hatte, wobei von der rechten Nebenseite ein Stück von 0,18 m Breite abgearbeitet wurde. Die ursprüngliche, lateinisch und griechisch abgefaßte Inschrift bezog sich auf die auf der Basis aufgestellte Statue des Kaisers Titus, die diesem von dem kaiserlichen Freigelassenen und Prokurator der Provinzen Asia und Lycia Eutactus auf Grund des Testamentes eines Claudius Symmachus zwischen dem 1. Jänner und dem 30. Juni des Jahres 80 n. Chr. errichtet worden war. Sie wurde später ziemlich flüchtig eradiert, so daß der Wortlaut ohne besondere Schwierigkeit noch überall einwandfrei festgestellt werden konnte. Dedicator: Eutactus lib(ertus) proc(urator) provin|ciarum Asiae et Lyciae ex | testamento Claudi | Symmachi dedicavit

Titus 54 Asi, Halasarna. G. Pugliese Carratelli, Nuovi documenti della romanizzazione di Cos, in Synteleia Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz (1965) 819.

Titus · 351

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 79 – 81. Carratelli: Dedica di una statua onoraria all’imperatore Tito, la cui base iscritta fu rinvenuta dal Herzog a Kardamena. Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ oJ ÔAlasar⁄nita`n kaqievrwsen ⁄ dia; napoa`n ÔElevnou ⁄ tou` bæ tou` Dionusªivº⁄ou kai; Leukivou ∆An⁄twnivou Leukivou uiJ⁄ou` Bavssou kai; Gaivoªuº ⁄ Oujettivou Gaivou uiJou` ⁄ ÔRouvfou ne(wtevrou)

Titus 55

Asi, Ilium.

IGSK 3, 92. IGRR IV, 211. CIG 3611.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.24 × 0.46 × 0.068 m.; l.:?

Date: 81 - Divus?


schreiben; gefunden auf dem Friedhof von Kum

Köy.

JMH: The layout of the text implies three sepa rate dedications, probably statues of Divus Ves pasianus, Divus Titus, and Domitian.

Titus 56

Asi, Laodicea.

MAMA VI, 6, no. 9. IGRR IV, 846. IGSK 49, 9.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.65 × 0.67 × 0.66 m.; l.: 0.026-

0.03 Date: 79 Cos 7. MAMA: Laodikea, among the ruins. Marble basis, broken above, no mouldings. The inscription ends 1,23 m. above the bottom. Date, A.D. 79. Neikostratos Theogenes was evidently first cousin of the Neikostratos who in the same year built the stadium which still exists. Dedicator: ªNeºikovstrato~ Neikostravtoªuº ⁄ tou` Neikostravtou Qeogevnhª~º ⁄ filovkaisar ejk tw`n ijdivwn

Titus 57

Asi, Stratonikeia.

IGSK 22, 1007. SEG 31, 943. E. Varinlioglu, In-

scriptions from Stratoniceia in Caria, ZPE 41

(1981) 192, no. 2.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.72 × 0.575 × 0.42 m.; l.:

0.038-0.043 Date: 79 – 81.

IGSK: Gefunden in der Exedra des hellenis -

tischen Gymnasiums (gebaut um 260 v.Chr.) im Jahr 1979 mit zwei anderen Statuenbasen (hier 1008 [Domitia] und 1026 [Demos]). Es ist klar, dass die Exedra als Kultraum für das Gymnasium diente. Die Marmorbasis ist hinten roh gelassen; sie stand wohl vor der Wand. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ kaqievrwsen

Titus 58

Asi, Teos.

IGRR IV, 1559. W. Judeich, Inschriften aus Ion ien, AM 16 (1891) 295, no. 19.


Date: 79 – 81.

Judeich: Sivrihissar. Haus Hadji-Marko. Mar-

mor.


Titus 59

Asi, Thyateira.

SEG 49, 1698. H. Malay, Researches in Lydia,

Mysia and Aiolis (Wien 1999) 35-36, no. 18.


Date: 76 – 77 Trib pot 5 / cos 6, see comment.

SEG: Right part of a marble block; now at Tepe

Mezaligi under control of the Manisa Museum.

JMH: The figures for the tribunician power and

the number of consulships are inconsistent. Most

probably the inscription was erected in late 76 or

early in 77 AD.

Dedicator: ªÔH bºoulªhvº ⁄ ªejpºimelhqevntwn th`~ kataskeuªh`~ ---º ⁄ kai; ∆Apollwnivou tou` Diogª---º

Titus 60

LyP, Myra.

IGRR III, 723. E. Petersen & F. von Luschan, Rei-

sen in Lykien II (Wien 1889) 37, no. 65.


– 81. Petersen & Luschan: Kalksteinbruchstück in einem Hause an der Südseite des großen Platzes am Kloster eingemauert. Große Buchstaben, unsichereingehauen.


Titus 61

Titus 64

LyP, Perge. SEG 39, 1388. AE 1995, 1554 a-i. J. Inan, Der Demetrios- und Apolloniosbogen in Perge, IstMitt 39 (1989) 237-244. S. Șahin, Studien zu den Inschriften von Perge II, EpigrAnat 25 (1995) 410, no. 3. IGSK 54, 56. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.10-0.20 Date: 81 – 84 Divus / C. Caristanius Fronto was governor in 81/82-83/84 (Eck 1970, 244). Inan: See Vespasian 70. Dedicator: Iereu;~ th`~ ∆Artevmido~ kai; dhmiourgo;~ kai; gumnasivarco~ nevwn te kai; geraiw`n kai; paivdwn ⁄ Dhmhvtrio~ Apollwniv j ou ∆Epikuvdrou eujsebhv~ filovkaisar kai; filovpatri~ panavreto~ uiJo;~ th`~ povlew~ kai; ⁄ ∆Apollwvnio~ ∆Apollwnivou ∆Epikuvdªrºou oJ ajdelfo;~ aujtou` ejk tw`n ijdivwn ªkaºtaskeuavsante~ ⁄ Gaivou ajnªevqhkaºn kaqierouvntwn Karistanivªouº Frªovntwºno~ presªbºeutou` ajªntiºstrathvgou tou` ªAujºtokravtoro~ ·Domitianou`‚ kai; ⁄ ªLoukivou Oujeiºhvnou Lovgªgoºu ejpitrovpou tou` Sebast(ou`)

Cil, Lamos.

AE 1963, 11. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Sites Old

and New in Rough Cilicia, AnatSt 12 (1962) 208 209, no. 32.

Type: Aedicula Dim.: 0.44 × >2.10 × 0.45 m.;

l.: 0.085-0.13 Date: 77 Vespasian cos 8?, see

comment.

Bean & Mitford: See Vespasian 77.

JMH: A]ug VIII in line 2 is strange. Is it a mistake

for Cos VIII or does it signify the eigth year of

reign. L. Octavius Memor was legate in Cilicia

between AD 75 and 78, see Eck 1970, 239.

Dedicator: [L] Octavius M[emor leg(atus)

Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) co(n)s(ul)

des(ignatus)]

Titus 62

LyP, Side.

IGSK 43, 33. A.M. Mansel, Das Vespasiansmonu-

ment in Side, in: Festschrift M. Wegner (Münster

1962) 38-41. A.M. Mansel, Das Vespasiansmonu-

ment in Side, Belleten 38 (1964) 198-208.

Type: Aedicula Dim.: 6.40 × 5.40 ×? m.; l.:?


IGSK: See Vespasian 72.

Titus 63

Cil, Kestros.

AE 1972, 645. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Jour-

neys through Rough Cilicia 1964-1968, Denk schrWien 102 (1970) 158-159, no. 160.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.50 × 0.67 ×? m.; l.: 0.025-

0.035 Date: 76 Vespasian cos 7, see com ment.

Bean & Mitford: Mactar Kalesi, in the temple of

Vespasian, in the back wall of the cella and im mediately to the east of no. 159 (Vespasian), an

unmolded block of white marble.

Titus 65

Syr, Heliopolis.

AE 1939, 56. H. Seyrig, Heliopolitana, BMus-

Beyrouth 1 (1937) 78, no. 2. Insc. Syrie VI, 85,

no. 2762.


m.; l.: 0.07 Date: 81 - Divus.

Insc. Syrie: Base? Brisée en bas et ébréchée à dr.

Trouvée dans les murs de l’ancienne basilique

chrétienne.

Titus 66

Aeg, Thebae.

AE 1941, 2. P. Jouguet, Note sur les inscrip tions grecques découvertes à Karnak, Annales

du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte 39 (1939)

605, no. 3.


Divus.

Jouguet: Voici de rapides copies, que dans un

trop court séjour à Karnak, j’ai pu prendre des

inscriptions sur les bases de statues que M.

Chevrier a trouvées et qu’il a eu l’amabilité de

me montrer.

Titus · 353

Domitian

D omitian 4

LaC, Lanuvium. CIL XIV, 2096. AE 1952, 172. J. Colin, Restitution de l’inscription des sevirs de Lanuvium au Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 932. L. Cracco-Ruggini, Storia di Vicenza Vatican, RPhil 77 (1951) 195-201. I: storia totale di una piccola città, Vicenza ro- Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 80 mana (1986) 293. AE 1986, 250.

– 81 Cos 7.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 72 – 73 CIL: Tabula marmorea litteris magnis. Romae in

Vespasian imp 9.

museo Vaticano.

CIL add.: Basis marmorea in duas partes fracta, JMH: Originally dated to the reign of Tiberius,


Colin argues that this inscription more likely

JMH: Part of the inscription is now kept in Vi- date to the reign of Domitian.

cenza.

Dedicator: Ex [decreto decurionum] | VI Dedicator: C Papirius Aequos (centurio) viri [et Augustales] | [--- lib(ertus) E]ros p(?)

leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) testamento poni iussit t(?) et Tiu[s--- lib(ertus) [---] | [--- lib(ertus)

H]ymeneus L Siciniu[s--- lib(ertus) ---] | [mul | ex auri p(ondo) X

sum et crustul]um populo dederunt K(alendas)

D omitian 2

[Oct(obres)--- ob comitia tribunicia Caesaris

Rom, Roma.

Divi f Domitiani Aug(usti)

CIL VI, 947.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.23 × 0.60 ×? m.; l.: 0.05 D omitian 5 Date: 92 Trib pot 11 / imp 21 / cos 16.

LaC, Misenum. CIL add.: Tabula? marmorea superne fracta, ab AE 1993, 476. Franciscis 1991, 39. utroque latere infraque hauddubie immurata, Type: Base Dim.: 0.30 × 0.92 × 0.03 m.; l.:? in fronte expolita. Extat in Mus. Vat. Gall. Lap. Date: 80 – 81 Cos 7. XLIII 6 (inv. n. 6.875).

AE: Dans la salle 2, chapelle à abside au cenDedicator: P(ecunia) publice

tre de laquelle se trouve la base (d’une statue, d’un autel? d’epoque julio-claudienne?) dédiée au D omitian 3

Genius Augustalium; la plaque de marbre sans Rom, Roma.

encasdrement portant la dédicace de la statue du AE 1982, 84. Eph. epigr. 9, 674. CIL VI, 40458. divin Vespasien, opisthographe, est un remploi E. Leone & A. Licordari, La collezione epigrad’une inscription plus longue, gardant des traces phica conservata nel Castrum Caetani, BCom de peinture rouge. Franciscis: Sotto la statua di marmor (dep. Cas87 (1980-81) 84-85, no. 1. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.52 × 0.71 × 0.026 m.; l.: tello Baia; n. inv. 153953) reca l’iscrizione [dedication for Vespasian]. 0.036-0.064 Date: 95 Cos 17 / trib pot 14. Si tratta però di una lastra riadoperata, perché CIL: Tabula marmorea ex duobus fragmentis coniuncta, a sinistra et infra fracta, in angulo sulla faccia posteriore reca un’altra iscrizione superiore dextro mutila, in fronte expolita. Rep. che doveva essere più lunga e di cui resta solo loco incerto, fortasse haud procul a loco, ubi asla estremità di destra. Integro: Domitiano e non Vespasiano, cioè non firerisco l’iscrizione a Tito servatur. Extat ad viam Appiam in Castro Caetani i.e. in lapidario Tombo di Cecilia Metella perché dopo non segue AUG: Domiziano infatti (Urbs S 16) parieti affixa (inv. n. 262.441). nel suo settimo consolato che è dell’anno 80, era Dedicator: [---]ib pecu[nia ---] ancora Caesare e non Imperatore, mentre Tito lo era già nell’anno del suo settimo consolato. Si tratta dunque di una lastra con iscrizione rifer-

D omitian 1


ita a Domiziano, la quale venne in un secondo

tempo riutilizzata per incidervi una dedica al

divo Vespasiano. Se anche questo fatto sia da

collegare con la damnatio memoriae di Domi tiano, o se si tratti di un reimpiego dovuto ad

un motivo qualsiasi è difficile, a nostro avviso,

stabilire.

Dedicator: [--- de]dit p(equnia) s(ua)

tian the entire text was erased. Later it was re-

worked into a relief showing praetorians that

may have belonged to an arch erected in hon our of Trajan.

Dedicator: [[Colonia Flavia Aug(usta) | Puteo lana | indulgentia maximi | Divinisque principis

| urbi eius admota]]

D omitian 9

D omitian 6

LaC, Misenum.

AE 2000, 345. G. Camodeca, Domiziano e il

collegio degli Augustali di Miseno, in Epigrafai.

Miscellanea epigrafica in onore di Lidio Gaspe-

rini I (Rome 2000) 171-187.

Type: Tabula Dim.: × × m.; l.: Date: 94 – 95

Trib pot 14.

AE: Inscriptions du collège des Augustales. En

facade du mur d’échiffre g. de l’escalier du tem ple.

JMH: Reused as a monument for Nerva after the

murder og Domitian.

D omitian 7

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 87.


– 96. CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae Romae in

repositis musei Lateranensis inter Ostiensia.

D omitian 8 LaC, Puteoli. AE 1941, 73. M. Cagiano de Azevedo, Una dedica abrasa e i Rilievi Puteolani, BCom 10 (1939) 45-56. AE 1973, 137). H.I. Flower, A Tale of two Monuments: Domitian, Trajan, and Some Praetorians at Puteoli (AE 1973, 137), AJA 105 (2001) 625-648. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.62 × 1.145 × 0.28 m.; l.:?? Date: 95 – 96 Trib pot 17. JMH: Flower re-evaluates this monument now in Philadelphia which originally carried a statue of Domitian erected by the community of Puteoli at the occasion of the inarguration of the Via Domitia in AD 95-96. After the death of Domi-

Sam, Cures.

CIL IX, 4955.


– 76 Cos 2-4. CIL: Ab altera parte est n. 4952, quam cum ex argumento constet Curibus venisse, id ad hanc quoque pervenit. Extat Romae in museo Vaticano, sed latens in muro.

D omitian 10

Sam, Reate.

CIL IX, 4677 a.


Date: 81 – 96.

CIL: Lapis altus m. 0,43 quatenus ex solo prostat,

latus m. 0,31. Pie di Luco in domo Pianciani.

Dedicator: F(ecit?) r(es) p(ublica) R(eatinorum)

D omitian 11

Umb, Hispellum.

AE 1988, 514. L. Sensi, Bolletino storico della

città di Foligno 11 (1987) 8, no. 4.


0.045-0.05 Date: 90 – 91 Trib pot 10.

AE: Bloc de calcaire blanc, de provenance incon nue, conservé dans l’église de S. Claudio.

Dedicator: Dec(urionum) decr(eto)

D omitian 12

Aem, Veleia.

CIL XI, 1172.


Princeps iuventutis.

CIL: Fragmenta tabulae ex bardiglio, nunc resti tutae. Veleia, nunc Parmae. Adhuc in museo.

Domiti a n · 355

D omitian 13

VeH, Civitas Camunnorum.

Insc. Ital. X, 5, 3, 1191. CIL V, 4955.


0.054-0.08 Date: 79 – 96 Divi filius.

CIL: Rep. in valle Camonica, nunc Bergomi apud

Sozzium.

Insc. It.: Fragmentum in duas partes fractum

tabulae et marmore albo.

Reconstituée hypothétiquement à partir d’une

transcription incorrecte. Perdue.

D omitian 17


CIL II, 477.


– 96 Divi filius / Imperator Caesar. CIL: En la pared de un patio del convento de Jesus.

D omitian 14

Sic, Lilybaeum.

CIL X, 7227.


Trib pot 3 / cos 10.

CIL: Marsalae in moenibus.

D omitian 15

MoI, Histria.

AE 1964, 199b. SEG 19, 474. Pippidi & Russu

1983, 310-311, no. 177. D.M. Pippidi, Despre o

ipoteza a lui patsch privind istoria Moesien in

sec. I e.n., StCIstor 12 (1961) 25-33. AE 1964,

199b. SEG 19, 474.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.97 × 0.54 × 0.20 m.; l.: 0.023-

0.025 Date: 81 – 96.

AE: Une base de marbre en deux fragments.

Musée d’Histria, inv. nos. 263 et 312. Sur le petit

côte de la base a) Aujtokravtora nev rouan Kaivsara oJ dh`mo~. Sur le côte long l’inscription a été partiellement martelée. JMH: The name of Domitian was deliberately removed and the base was turned and reused for a statue of Nerva. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

D omitian 16 Aqu, Aginnum. AE 1995, 1082. B. Fages, Carte archéologique de la Gaule. Le Lot-et-Garonne 47 (Paris 1995) 130-131. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 87 Cos 13. AE: En 1788, près de la place Jean-Babtiste-Durand, inscription réutilisée comme élément décoratif au voisinage probable de l’ancien forum.

D omitian 18

Lus, Mirobriga.

CIL II, 862.


Cos 8 / cos des 9.

CIL: Reperta videtur esse intra ipsam urbem;

iacebat enim per multos annos in aula semi narii, hodie in eiusdem seminarii bibliotheca

servatur.


D omitian 19

Bae, Iliberri.

CIL II, 5510.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.06 Date: 83

– 96 Germanicus.

CIL: Atarfe, certa de los baños de Sierra Elvira,

intra parietinas aedificii Romani, basis lapidea.

Servatur in museo Granatensi.

D omitian 20

Bae, Iluro.

CIL II, 1945.


– 96 Germanicus.

CIL: In columna quae sustinet portam Alorae.

Dedicator: L Munius Quir(ina tribu) | Nova tus et | L Munius Quir(ina tribu) | Aurelianus

| b(eneficio) e(ius) c(ivitatem) R(omanam) per

h[ono]rem | IIvir(atus) consecuti | d(e) s(ua)

p(ecunia) d(onum) d(ant)

D omitian 21 Bae, Munigua. CIL II, 1051.


Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 81 Dedicator: [L I]avoleno Prisc(o) [---] |

leg(ato) Aug(usti) pro pr(aetore) | Civitas

– 96. Tig[ens(ium)]

CIL: Reperta a. 1756 en la dehesa de la Mulva].

Dedicator: Res p(ublica) Munigu|ensium

D omitian 27

d(ecurionum) decreto d(edit) | L Licinius An nianus d(edicavit)

Afr, Thugga.

AE 1991, 1666 a-b. M. Khanousi & L. Mau D omitian 22

rin, Dougga, Fragments d’histoire. Choix


d’inscriptions latines éditées, traduites et com CIL VIII, 17725.

mentées (Ier-IVe siècles) (Bordeaux 2000) 21 Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 76 22, no. 3.


Vespasian trib pot 7 / cos 7.

0.044-0.08 Date: 71 – 79 See comment.

CIL: In lapide, rep. Hr. Hammam prope Khen JMH: Originally a dedication to Vespasian and

schela in lacu, in quem fontes calidi influvat.

Titus dateable between AD 71 and 79. Later, but

D omitian 23

at any rate before the death of Vespasian, a third

dedication for Domitian was added.

Num, Theveste.

CIL VIII, 1852. Gsell 1922, 293, no. 3030.

Dedicator: [--- ded]icavit | [--- Nim]lilis fili(i)

Type: Unknown Dim.: 1.50 × 0.87 ×? m.; l.: 0.14 adiecta p[ecu]nia sua loco publ[---] || Ru[f ]inus

Date: 81 – 96.

Rufi Nimli[lis f]

CIL: Tebessa, trouvé dans les déblais faits pour

D omitian 28

dégager le pied de l’arc-de-triomphe.

MaE, Larissa.

D omitian 24

IG IX, 2, 607.


Num, Theveste.

– 96. CIL VIII, 1850. Gsell 1922, 292, no. 3028.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.92 × 0.62 ×? m.; l.: IG: Larisae.

JMH: A base for both Domitian and Domitia.

0.055-0.09 Date: 83 – 96 Germanicus.

Gsell: Pierre, trouvée en faisant des déblais à Dedicator: Qessaloiv

l’intérieur de la ville.

D omitian 29 D omitian 25

Num, Tiddis.

Pflaum 1957, 324, no. 3586.


0.027-0.05 Date: 73 – 79 Vespasian censor.



de Mithras I. Brisee en deux fragments.

D omitian 26

Afr, Thiges.

CIL VIII, 23165.


Date: 83 Cos des 10.

CIL: Fragmentum, à Gourbata. Nunc Parisiis.

Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 3283 b. Type: Base Dim.: 0.76 × 0.54 × 0.54 m.; l.: 0.0220.024 Date: 69 – 79 Non regnans. IG: Ad Asclepieum. Basis rotunda a. 0,76, diam. 0,54. Ex duabus partibus lapidis sibi oppositis altera habet titulum a, altera b. JMH: On the same stone there is an earlier dedication; possibly to Claudius. A. Martin, La titulature epigraphique de Domitien (cf. SEG 37, 150) rejects the restoration in line one in IG on the grounds that there are no parallels for so plain a form of address in a context of this type. Instead he supplies the name of Domitian.

Domiti a n · 357

Dedicator: ÔH ejx ∆Areivou pavgou ⁄ boulh; kai; hJ boulh; tw`n ⁄ eJxakosivwn kai; oJ dh`mo~

D omitian 30

Ach, Ioulis.

IG XII, 5, 1, 630.


– 96 Germanicus. IG: Basis parva marmoris Pentelici, cuius in latere superiore statuae sunt vestigia. Fuit Ceae inter rudera ecclesiae S. Paraskevae, ubi frustra quaesivimus.

D omitian 31

Ach, Olympia.


377.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.16 × 0.27 × 0.135 m.; l.:?

Date: 81 – 96.

Dittenberger & Purgold: Fragment einer pen telichen Marmorbasis. Oben ein stück der Ober-

fläche. Das Profil darunter ist abgeschlagen; sonst

ringsum gebrochen. Gefunden im April 1880 im

Kalkofen an der Thesaurenterasse.

D omitian 32

Ach, Thebae.

IG VII, 2495. AE 1949, 88. CIG 1611. B.D. Meritt,

The Persians at Delphi, Hesperia 16 (1947) 61 62.



IG: Thebis in platea prope fontem publicam.

Postea magna pars a sinistra, nonnulla etiam a

dextra perierunt. Subscriptio statuae dedicatae

Domitiano patre etiam superstite.

Dedicator: ∆Aristivdh~ su;n toi`~ tevknoi~ ⁄ ª-- ºikw`/ kai; ∆Aristivdh/ ejk tw`n ijdivwn

Chaniotis & Preuss: Quader aus porösem Stein

(Museum Herakleion, Inv.-Nr. 269); die obere

Fläche ist geglättet, vielleicht für eine Zweitver-

wendung; der Stein ist unten und an den Seiten

abgebrochen. Die Inschrift ist wahrscheinlich

1935 in einer römischen Villa (in Zweitverwend ung?) gefunden worden.

D omitian 34

BiP, Nicaea.

IGSK 7, 1. IGSK 9, 25-26. CIG 3745. AE 1900,

78. A. Körte, Kleinasiatische Studien V, AM 24 (1899) 400-403, no. 1. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.07-0.08 Date: 70 – 79 M. Plancius Varus was governor in Bithynia et Pontus under Vespasian (Eck 1970, 231, note 506). IGSK: Stadt- und Landseite des östlichen Stadttores (Lefke Kapi) von Nikaia (Iznik) tragen auf Fries und Architrav je zwei identischen Weihinschriften aus den Regierungszeiten des Vespasian und des Titus (Fries-Inschrift) sowie des Hadrian (Architrav-Inschrift). Dedicator: M Plavnkio~ Ouja`ro~ ajnquvpato~ kaqievrwsen ejpimelhqevnto~ ªth`~ kataskeuh`º~ G Kassivou Crhvstou

D omitian 35

BiP, Nicaea.





231, note 506).



D omitian 33

Cre, Knossos.

AE 1991, 1599. A. Chaniotis & G. Preuss, Neue

lateinische Inschriften aus Knossos, ZPE 89

(1991) 191, no. 1.


l.:? Date: 83 – 96 Germanicus.

D omitian 36 Asi, Akmonia. MAMA VI, 92-93, no. 251. IGRR IV, 636. CIG 3861. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 83 – 96 Germanicus.


MAMA: See Vespasian 56. Dedicator: Klwdiva Mavrkoªu quºgavthr ÔRouvfilla ejx uJposcevsew~ Mavrkou Klwdivou Postovmou tou` patro;~ to; provpulon ejpi; th`~ ajªgora~º ⁄ ªkaºtªaºskeuavsasa ajpokaqevsthsen

D omitian 37 Asi, Aphrodisias. SEG 32, 1099. K. Erim, A Portrait Statue of Domitian from Aphrodisias, OpRom 9 (1973) 135142. J.M. Reynolds in J. Inan & E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträtplastik aus der Tyrkei. Neue Funde (Mainz 1979) 91, no. 38. Type: Base Dim.: 0.43 × 0.77 × 0.57 m.; l.: 0.0250.03 Date: 83 – 96 Germanicus. Erim: The statue and its inscribed base were found in several fragments in trenches excavated at the approximate junction of the stage and the north parodos area. A fragment of the left foot was discovered first, in 1966, but all the other in the debris of the stage decoration fallen near the north pulpitum. The missing portion of the face was found embedded in the ground of the southern half of the orchestra in 1971. The statue, now only partly restored, is in the depot at Geyre. The statue is carved of coarse-grained marble from Aphrodisias. Its surface is encrusted, much weathered and partly destroyed. The head and small patches on the body indicate that fleshparts at least were polished. Loss of surface is surely due to exposure to the elements: the statue must have stood in the open air for a long time. Probably, it formed part of the upper scenae frons decoration of the theatre and/or stood in a niche nearby. The base is molded above and below with dowel holes on its top for the attachment of the statue, which had its own oval or semicircular plinth. A round hole was also cut in the centre of the front face. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ka⁄qievrwsen ejpimelhqevnto~ ⁄ Diogevnou tªoºu` Eujklevou~ ⁄ tou` Diogevnou

D omitian 38 Asi, Apollonia. IGRR IV, 120. C. Cichorius, Inschriften aus Kleinasien, SBBerlin (1889) 365-367, no. 1. Type: Base Dim.: 0.66 × 0.575 ×? m.; l.: 0.039 Date: 69 – 70 The 153th year of the Sullan era. Cichorius: Apollonia am Rhyndalos. Basis aus gelblichem Kalkstein im Hause des Dimitri Philadarlo. JMH: The name of Domitian has been deliberately removed. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

D omitian 39

Asi, Brykous.

IG XII, 1, 994. IGRR IV, 1151.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.45 × 0.60 × 0.60 m.; l.:?

Date: 83 – 96 Germanicus.

IG: Brycunte in basi quadrata lapidis nigricantis.

Litteris pessime incisis et a parte sinistra prope modum deletis, quarum summa babaries typis

exprimi nequit.

Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ ⁄ oJ Bªrºuªkºontivwn kªaºi; toi; katoikeu`n⁄ªte~º ejn Bªruºkou`ªntºi pavnªtºe~ uJpe;r ⁄ ªtou` dºavmªoºu tªou` ÔRodivºwªnº

D omitian 40 Asi, Ephesus. IGSK 16, 2047. Heberdey 1912, 166, no. 47 Type: Base Dim.: 0.47 × 1.30 × 0.49 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 81 – 96. IGSK: Statue des Domitian. Gebälk einer Aedicula, an allen vier Seiten gleichmässig ausgeführt. Weisser Marmor, aus einer älteren Statuenbasis zurechtgemacht, wie die Standspuren der Oberseite zeigen. Die Inschrift steht auf der 0,16m hohen Attika. Gefunden auf dem Woodschen Schutte vor der Nordparodos, die angesprengte rechte Ecke von ihm nach London geschafft. JMH: The name of Domitian has been deliberately removed. Dedicator: OiJ neopoihvsante~ ⁄ ejpiv grammatevu~ Tivtou Flaouivou ª---ºwno~

Domiti a n · 359

D omitian 41 Asi, Ephesus. AE 1966, 426. J. Keil & G. Maresch, ÖJh 45 (1960) Beibl., col. 83-84, no. 9. IGSK 12, 234. Type: Base Dim.: 1.205 × 0.595 × 0.59 m.; l.: 0.03-0.05 Date: 88 – 89 L. Mestrius Florus was governor in 88/89 (Eck 1970, 139). Keil & Maresch: Scholastikiatherme, Torgang. Basis an der Ostwand als Pfeiler verbaut, I. Pfeiler nördlich des Praefurniums. Weißer Marmor. Unsere Inschrift gehört zu der von J. Keil, Num. Zeitschr. 12 (N.F.), 1919 S. 117f., zu sammengestellten Reihe von Baseninschriften, die von Städten der Provinz Asia in dem Provinzialheiligtum für Domitian aufgestellt und nach seiner damnatio memoriae auf seinen Vater Vespasian umgeschreiben worden sind. Im vorliegenden Fall ist zwar die Rasur, nicht aber die Einsetzung des Names Vespasian durchgeführt worden. Weitere Exemplare wurden bei den Ausgrabungen 1960 und 1962 gefunden. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to Vespasian by removing Domitian and Germanicus: Aujtokravtori ⁄ Kaivsari ⁄ Sebastwì. Dedicator: ∆Epi; ajnqupavtou ⁄ Loukivou Mestrivou ⁄ Flwvrou ⁄ oJ dh`mo~ oJ Keretapevwn ⁄ nawì twì ejn ∆Efevswi tw`ªnº ⁄ Sebastw`n koinwì th`~ ⁄ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ dia; Gluvkwno~ tou` ∆Aga⁄qoklevou~ ejrgepistavtou ⁄ ejpi; ajrcierevw~ th`~ ∆Asivaª~º ⁄ Tiberivou Klaudivou ⁄ ∆Aristivwno~

D omitian 42

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 16, 2048. Heberdey 1912, 166, no. 48.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.46 × 0.55 × 0.56 m.; l.: 0.025-

0.04 Date: 88 – 89 L. Mestrius Florus was governor in 88/89 (Eck 1970, 139). IGSK: Mittelstuck einer viereckigen Basis, weisser Marmor, … untere Hälfte abgebrochen. Gefunden im Schutte der Orchestra gegen Norden. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: ªAujºtokravtªoriº ⁄ qewì Kaivsari Sebastwì ⁄ Oujespasianwì. The base was found in the theatre, by it was probably trans-

ported here from its original position in the sanctuary of Domitian. Dedicator: ∆Epi; ajnqupavtou Loukivou ⁄ Mestrivou Flwvrou ⁄ oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ oJ Sunaeitw`n nawì twì ⁄ ejªn ∆Eºfevswi tw`n Sebastw`n ⁄ ªkoinwì th`~ ∆Asivaº~ dia; Fil⁄ªivppouÙ ---º

D omitian 43 Asi, Ephesus. IGSK 12, 239. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 88 – 91 See comment. IGSK: Zwei Fragmente eines unkannelierten Säulenschaftes, gefunden beim Pollio-Nymphäum am Staatmarkt. JMH: The other statues of Domitian erected in the temple in Ephesos by different cities in Asia Minor can all be dated between 88 and 91. After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to Vespasian with the text: Aujtokªravtoriº ⁄ ªKaivsari Sebastwìº ⁄ Oujªespasianwìº. Dedicator: ÔO dh`ªmo~ oJ Thi?wnº ⁄ naw`/ ªtw`/ ejn ∆Efevsw/ tw`n Seº⁄bastªw`n koinw`/ th`~ ∆Asiva~º ⁄ dia; ª---ºwno~ ª---º ⁄ ª---º≥mevnou Baª---º ⁄ ªajrgurºotamivou th`~ Thi?wªn povlew~º ⁄ ªejpºi; ajrcierevw~ th`~ ∆Asiva~ Tiberivou ⁄ Klaudivou ∆Aristivwno~

D omitian 44

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 232.


M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90 (Eck 1970, 140). IGSK: In der Kaystros zwischen Selçuk und Kosbunar verbaut. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: Aujtokravtori ⁄ qewì Kaivsari ⁄ Sebastwì Oujespasianwì.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ Aijzaneitw`n ⁄ naw` i twì ejn ∆Efevswi tw`n ⁄ sebastw`n koinwì th`~ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ dia; Klaudivou Mevnavn⁄drou prwvtou a[rconto~ ⁄ ejpi; ajrcierevw~ th`~ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ Tiberivou Klaudivou Fhseivnou ⁄ ª---º ⁄ ª---º ⁄ ª---º ⁄ ª---º


D omitian 45

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 232a.


M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90 (Eck 1970, 140). IGSK: In der Kaystros zwischen Selçuk und Kosbunar verbaut. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: ªAujtokºravtori ⁄ ªqewìº Kaivsari ⁄ ªSebasºtwì Oujespasianwì. Dedicator: ªÔO dh`mo~º oJ Aijzaneitw`n ⁄ ªnaw`ºi twì ejn ∆Efevswi tw`n ⁄ ªsebºastw`n koinwì th`~ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ ªdia; Kºlaudivou Mevnavndrou ⁄ a[rconto~ prwvtou ejpi; ajrci⁄ªerevwº~ th`~ ∆Asiva~ Tiberivou ⁄ ªKlaºudivou Fhseivnou ª---º ⁄ ª---º ⁄ ª---º ⁄ ª---º

durch das Archäologische Museum in SelçukEphesos (Wien 1974) 115-116. IGSK 12, 235. Type: Base Dim.: 0.90 × 0.58 × 0.59 m.; l.: 0.020.08 Date: 89 – 90 M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90 (Eck 1970, 140). Bammer, Fleischer & Knibbe: Gefunden 1955 westlich des Nymphaeum Traiani an der Kuretenstraße. Mittelkörniger blaülich-weißer Marmor. Links und seitlich je ein tiefer Sprung, rechts hinten ein Stück sekundär abgearbeitet. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: Aujtokravtori ⁄ qewì ⁄ Kaivsari ⁄ Sebastwì Oujespasianªwìº. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ oJ Klazomenivwn nawì ⁄ twì ejn ∆Efevswi tw`n sebas⁄tw`n koinwì th`~ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ dia; Tib Klaudivou Kleavn⁄drou uiJou` Kureivna Cavrmou ⁄ strathgou` ⁄ ejpi; ajrcierevw~ th`~ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ Tiberivou Klaudivou ∆Aristivwno~

D omitian 46

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 233.


M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90

(Eck 1970, 140).

IGSK: Am sog. Tor des Verfolgerung.

JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base

was converted to a dedication to the deified Ves pasian with the text: Aujtokravtori ⁄ qewì Kaivsari Se⁄bastwì Oujespasianw`ªiº.

Dedicator: ÔO filokai`sar ∆Afrodeisiªev wnº ⁄ dh`mo~ ejleuvqero~ w]n kaªi; aujº⁄tovnomo~ ajpæ ajrch`~ thì Seªbasº⁄tw`n cavriti nawì twì ejn ∆Efevsªwiº ⁄ tw`n Sebastw`n koinwì th`~ ∆Asivªa~º ⁄ ijdivai cavriti diav te th;n pro;~ tou;~ ªSeº⁄bastou~ eujsevbeian kai; th;n pªro;~º ⁄ th;n newkovron ∆Efesivwn ªpovº⁄lin eu[noian ajnevsthsan ⁄ ejpimelhqevnto~ ∆Arivstwªno~ tou`º ⁄ ∆Artemidwvrou tou` Kalliª---º⁄w~ iJerevw~ Plouvtwno~ ªkai;º ⁄ Kovrh~ kai; neopoiou` qea`ª~º ⁄ ∆Afrodeivth~ ejpi; ajrcierªevw~º ⁄ th`~ ∆Asiva~ Tiberivou Klaudªivouº ⁄ Fhseivnou ª---º ⁄ ª---º ⁄ ª---º

D omitian 47 Asi, Ephesus. A. Bammer, R. Fleischer & D. Knibbe, Führer

D omitian 48

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 238.


M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90 (Eck 1970, 140). IGSK: Verbaut in der Kaystros brücke zwischen Selçuk und Kosunar. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: ªAujtºokravtori ⁄ ªqºewì Kaivsari Seba⁄stwì Oujespasianªwìº. Dedicator: ∆Epi ⁄ ajnqupavtou Mavrkou ⁄ Foulouivou Givllwnªo~º ⁄ oJ dh`mo~ oJ Silandevªwnº ⁄ nawì twì ejn ∆Efevswi ⁄ tw`n Sebastw`n koinw`ªiº ⁄ th`~ ∆Asiva~ dia; Mavrkou ⁄ ªKºlaudivou ∆Agrivppa stªraº⁄thgou`, ejpi; ajrcierevw~ th`ª~º ⁄ ∆Asiva~ Tiberivou Klaudªivouº ⁄ Fhseivnou ª---º ⁄ ª---º ⁄ ª---º

D omitian 49

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 240.


M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90 (Eck 1970, 140).

Domiti a n · 361

IGSK: Gefunden nördlich des Hydrekdocheions des Laecanius Bassus. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: ªAujtokravtoriº ⁄ ªqeºwì ªKaivsariº ⁄ ªSebºastwì ªOujespasianwìº. Dedicator: ª∆Epi;º ajnqupavªtou Mavrkouº ⁄ ªFouºlouivou Givlªlwno~ oJº ⁄ ªdºh`mo~ oJ Kaisªaº⁄ªrºevwn Kumaivªwn naw`º/ ⁄ ªtw`/º ejn ∆Efevsªw/ tw`n Sebasº⁄ªtw`nº koinw`/ ªth`~ ∆Asiva~º ⁄ ªejpimeºlhqªevnto~ ---º ⁄ ª---ºouoª---º ⁄ ª---ºkivou ª---º ⁄ ª---º ajrconªto~ --- ejpi;º ⁄ ªajrcºierevwª~ th`~ ∆Asiva~º ⁄ ªTibºerivou ªKlaudivou Fhseivnouº

D omitian 50

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 242.


M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90 (Eck 1970, 140). IGSK: Verbaut in der Kaystrosbrücke zwischen Selçuk und Kosbunar. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: Aujtªokravtoriº ⁄ qewi Kaiv⁄sari Seªbastwìº Oujespa⁄sianwì. Dedicator: ∆Eªpi; ajnqupavtouº ⁄ Mavrkou Fªoul(ouivou) Givllwno~º ⁄ oJ dh`mo~ ªoJ --- nawìº ⁄ ªtºwì ejn ª∆Efevswi tw`n Sebaº⁄ªsºtw`n ªkoinwì th`~ ∆Asiva~º ⁄ ªdºia; Loª---º ⁄ ªa[ºrconªto~ ---º

D omitian 51

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 15, 1498.


M. Fulvius Gillo was governor in Asia in 89/90 (Eck 1970, 140). IGSK: Aus der byzantinisch-seldschukischen Zitadelle. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: ªAujºtokravtorªiº ⁄ qewì ⁄ Kaivsari ⁄ Sebastwì Oujespasianwì. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ Kaisarevwn ⁄ Makedovnwn ÔUrkanivwn ⁄ nawì twì ejn ∆Efevswi tw`n seba⁄stw`n koinwì th`~ ∆Asiva~ dia; ⁄ Teimoqevou tou` Te-

imoqev ou kaªi;º ⁄ Mhtrodwvrou tou` Mhtredwvrou ⁄ ajrcovntwn kai; dia; Mhnofivlou tou` ⁄ ∆Apollwnivou kai; Mhnogevnou~ ⁄ Mhtrofavnou kai; Menekravtou~ ⁄ ∆Ioukouvndou ejpimelhtw`n

D omitian 52

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 237.


L. Luscius Okra was governor in Asia in 90/91 (Eck 1970, 141). IGSK: Verbaut in der Kaystros brücke zwischen Selçuk und Kosunar. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: ªAujºtokªrºavtorªiº ⁄ qewì Kaivsªaº⁄ri Sebastwì Oujespasianªwìº. Dedicator: ∆Epi; ajnqupavtou Loukivoªuº ⁄ Louskivou “Okra oJ dh`moª~º ⁄ oJ Stratoneikevwn ejleªuvº⁄qero~ w]n kai; aujtovnomo~ ⁄ ajpæ ajrch`~ thì tw`n Sebaªsº⁄tw`n cavriti nawì twì ⁄ ejn ∆Efevswi tw`n Sebastw`n ⁄ koinwì th`~ ∆Asiva~ ijdiva/ cavriti ⁄ diav te th;n pro;~ tou;~ Sebas⁄tou;~ eujsevbeian kai; dia; th;n ⁄ pro;~ th;n newkovron ∆Efesivwn ⁄ povlin eu[noian ajnevsthsan ⁄ ejpi; ajrcierevw~ th`~ ∆Asiva~ Tib(erivou) ⁄ Klaudivou Fhseivnou kai; newªkovº⁄ªrºou tou` naou` Tiberivou Klaudivou ⁄ ∆Aristivwno~

D omitian 53

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 241.


L. Luscius Okra was governor in Asia in 90/91 (Eck 1970, 141). IGSK: Verbaut in der Kaystrosbrücke zwischen Selçuk und Kosbunar. JMH: After the murder of Domitian, this base was converted to a dedication to the deified Vespasian with the text: ªAujtokravtoriº ⁄ ªqewi Kaivsariº ⁄ ªSebastwì Oujespasianwìº. Dedicator: ∆Epi; ajnqªuº⁄pavtou Loukivou Louskivou “Okrªaº ⁄ oJ dh`mo~ oJ Tmwleitw`n ⁄ naw`/ tw`/ ejn ∆Efevsw/ tw`n Sªeº⁄bastw`n koinw`/ th`~ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ ejpimelhqevnto~ ⁄ Au[lou Leibivou

“Agrwnoª~º ⁄ grammatevw~ dhvmou tamivoªuº ⁄ boulh`~ kai;


uJou` Boulh`~ kai; iJerevw~ ⁄ kai; newkovrou ªDomitianou`º Kaivsaroª~º ⁄ kai; Domitiva~ Sebasth`~ kai; tou` oi[kou ⁄ aujtw`n kai; th`~ sunklhvtou dia; bivoªuº ⁄ kai; ∆Aqhnagovra Lusimavcou Bouvtoªuº ⁄ ejpi; ajrcierevw~ th`~ ∆Asiva~ ⁄ Tib(erivou) ∆Ioulivou Dama` Klaudianoªu`º ⁄ kai; newkovrou tou` naou` Tib(erivou) ⁄ Klaudivou ∆Aristivwno~

D omitian 54 Asi, Hierapolis. G. Monaco, Sull’inscrizione della porta onoraria nord di Hierapolis di Frigia, ASAtene 2526 (1963-1964) 409-410. AE 1969/70, 593. CIL III, 368. CIL III, 7059. Kähler 1939, col. 455, no. 11. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 84 – 85 Trib pot 4. Monaco: Nella campagna del 1958 a Hierapolis mi fu affidato l’incario di eseguire lo scavo, il più possibile completo, attorno alla Porta onoraria di Nord.

D omitian 55 Asi, Idyma. IGSK 38, 607. Ch. Diehl & G. Cousin, Villes inconnues du golfe Céramique, BCH 10 (1886) 428-430, no. 5. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 69 – 79 Non regnans. IGSK: Statuenbasis, in drei Teile zerbrocken; gefunden “dans un terrain parsemé de ruines antiques” in Gökova Iskelesi. JMH: If line 2 is in rasura, as it appears from the transcription, Domitian is a more likely candadate than Titus. Dedicator: To; koino;n to; ∆Idumivwn to;n ⁄ pavntwn ajnqrwvpwn swth`ra kai; eujergevªtanº ⁄ eujcaristiva~ e{neka ta`~ eij~ aujto;n qe⁄oi`~

D omitian 56

Asi, Ilium.

IGSK 3, 92. IGRR IV, 211. CIG 3611.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.24 × 0.46 × 0.068 m.; l.:?

Date: 81 – 96.


schreiben; gefunden auf dem Friedhof von Kum Köy. JMH: The layout of the text implies three separate dedications, probably statues of Divus Vespasianus, Divus Titus, and Domitian.

D omitian 57 Asi, Laodicea. MAMA VI, 1, no. 2. CIL III, 14192. CIG 3949. 408. IGRR IV, 847. AE 1996, 1477 a-b. IGSK 49, 24. T. Corsten & T. Drew-Bear, Inschriften aus Laodikeia am Lykos und Eumeneia, EA 26 (1996) 31-41. SEG 46, 1672. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.07-0.095 Date: 86 – 87 Sex. Iulius Frontinus was governor in 86/87 (Eck 1970, 236). MAMA: Laodikeia, on the south-east side of the city hill, near the Bas Pinar brook. Ten limestone blocks, with triglyphs and mouldings, from the top of a three-arch gateway. The design of this gateway probably resembled that of the single arch, dedicated to Vespasian, shown in TAM II, 270. Our inscribed course, with triglyphs over it, seems to have extended straight across, above the three archways, from tower to tower. JMH: Sex. Iulius Frontinus proconsul in Asia in 86/87 is the only known proconsul of the province of Asia under Domitian with the name Sextus. Dedicator: Teibevrio~ Klauvdio~ Sebastou` ajpeleuvqero~ Truvfwn

D omitian 58 Asi, Miletus. SEG 1, 426. Herrmann 1997, 11-12, no. 189. Type: Base Dim.: 0.99 × 0.88 × 0.88 m.; l.: 0.0240.028 Date: 83 – 96 Germanicus. Rehm: Inv. 832. Rundbasis aus Marmor, gef. 1905 in der nördlichen Halle des Nordmarkets, nicht in situ. Die Basis ist nach V. Gerkans Beobachtung späthellenistisch und für die jetzige Verwendung auf den Kopf gestellt (also nach unten verjüngt). Die (jetzige) Oberkante roh abgeschlagen, das (jetzige) untere Profil erhalten; hinten abgeflacht, also vor einer Wand angebracht. Dedicator: Gavio~ > ∆Iouvlio~ ∆Antivoco~ pro⁄fhvth~

Domiti a n · 363

kai; Gavi>o~ ∆Ioulio~ v ∆Antivo⁄co~ newvtero~ oJ stefanh⁄fovro~ ajnevqhkan ejk tw`n ijdivwn

D omitian 59 Asi, Priene. C. Fredrich, H. von Prott, H. Schrader, Th. Wiegand & H. Winnefeld, Inschriften von Priene (Berlin 1906) 147, no. 229. Type: Base Dim.: 0.75 × 0.69 × 0.69 m.; l.: 0.020.024 Date: 83 – 96 Germanicus. IvPriene: Runde, oben und unten profilierte Basis; auf der Oberseite Standspuren einer Bronzestatue. Gefunden beim kleinen Heiligtum im Hofe des oberen Gymnasion in einen späten rohen Aufbau eingebettet. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ oJ ⁄ Prihnevwn ⁄ ejpimelhqevnto~ ⁄ Swsibivou ∆Eravtw⁄no~ tou` Swsibiv⁄ou

a[rxanto~ ⁄ to; deuvteron

D omitian 60 Asi, Thyssanous. IGSK 38, 157. N. Chabiara & M. Chabiara, Peraias tes Rodion epigrafai, AEphem (1911) 6061, no. 52 b. Type: Base Dim.: 1.19 × 0.58 × 0.44 m.; l.: 0.0160.024 Date: 81 – 96. IGSK: Basis aus weissem Stein. Der Quader trug auf der Vorderseite das untenstehenden Egigramm [for Heracles 3. c. B.C.], auf der Rückseite die Weihinschrift Nr. 157 [for Domitian and Domitia Longina] und auf der Längsseiten die Ehreninschriften Nr. 158 und 159 [for statues of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna]. JMH: Since the stone later carried a statues of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna, it seem likely that it served a similar purpose in its Domitianic form although the greek inscription had the name of the honorees in the dative case. Dedicator: ∆Iavswn ∆Aristogevneu~ Boulªiv(da~)º ⁄ aJghsavmeno~ ejpi; Cersoªnavº⁄sou kai; Suvma~ ejfæ ou| ajpeªkaº⁄testavqh aJ pavtrio~ polei⁄teiva~ kai; ⁄ oJ da`mo~ oJ Qussanountivwn ⁄ kai; oiJ katoi⁄kou`nte~ ejn Qussanou`n⁄ti kai; aJ ktoivna aJ Strapi⁄ata`n ⁄ kaqievrwsan

D omitian 61 LyP, Perge. SEG 39, 1388. AE 1995, 1554 a-i. J. Inan, Der Demetrios- und Apolloniosbogen in Perge, IstMitt 39 (1989) 237-244. S. Șahin, Studien zu den Inschriften von Perge II, EpigrAnat 25 (1995) 410, no. 3. IGSK 54, 56. Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.10-0.20 Date: 81 – 84 C. Caristanius Fronto was governor in 81/82-83/84 (Eck 1970, 244). Inan: See Vespasian 70. JMH: The name of Domitian has been deliberately removed. Dedicator: Iereu;~ th`~ ∆Artevmido~ kai; dhmiourgo;~ kai; gumnasivarco~ nevwn te kai; geraiw`n kai; paivdwn ⁄ Dhmhvtrio~ jApollwnivou ∆Epikuvdrou eujsebhv~ filovkaisar kai; filovpatri~ panavreto~ uiJo;~ th`~ povlew~ kai; ⁄ ∆Apollwvnio~ ∆Apollwnivou ∆Epikuvdªrºou oJ ajdelfo;~ aujtou` ejk tw`n ijdivwn ªkaºtaskeuavsante~ ajnªevqhkaºn kaqierouvntwn ⁄ Gaivou Karistanivªouº Frªovntwºno~ presªbºeutou` ajªntiºstrathvgou tou` ªAujºtokravtoro~ ·Domitianou`‚ kai; ⁄ ªLoukivou Oujeiºhvnou Lovgªgoºu ejpitrovpou tou` Sebast(ou`)

D omitian 62

LyP, Side.

IGSK 43, 33. A.M. Mansel, Das Vespasiansmonu-

ment in Side, in: Festschrift M. Wegner (Münster

1962) 38-41. A.M. Mansel, Das Vespasiansmonu-

ment in Side, Belleten 38 (1964) 198-208.

Type: Aedicula Dim.: 6.40 × 5.40 ×? m.; l.:?

Date: 74 Titus trib pot 3 / cos 3.

IGSK: See Vespasian 72.

D omitian 63

Gal, Vasada.

SEG 6, 464. H.A. Ormerod, The Campaigns of

Servilius Isauricus against the Pirates, JRS 12

(1922) 56, no. 7.


Censor perpetuus, see comment.

Ormerod: Square basis upside down and broken

below and on the right, used as the wellhead of a

private house. Measurements were unfortunately


not recorded. Although the face of the stone was much worn, the space in line 4 seemed to have been caused by an intentinal erasure. Domitian is called teimhth;~ dihnekh;~ (=censor perpetuus) at Phaselis (IGRR III, 755), and tªeimhth;~ dia; bivouº, as restored in an inscription of Myra (JHS 34, p. 27). Vasada has been located at the Kestel Dagh, some 10 miles to the NE. of Seidishehir across the Kizil Irmak. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ Oujaªsaºdªevºwn

D omitian 64 Cil, Lamos. AE 1963, 11. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Sites Old and New in Rough Cilicia, AnatSt 12 (1962) 208209, no. 32. Type: Aedicula Dim.: 0.44 × >2.10 × 0.45 m.; l.: 0.085-0.13 Date: 77 Vespasian cos 8?, see comment. Bean & Mitford: Adanda, built into a terrace wall immediately below the small temple [for Vespasian and his sons] noted above, two limestone blocks. It is clear that the city has constructed in honour of Vespasian and his sons an aedicula which the imperial legate, L. Octavius Memor thereupon dedicates. JMH: A]ug VIII in line 2 is strange. Is it a mistake for Cos VIII or does it signify the eigth year of reign. L. Octavius Memor was legate in Cilicia between AD 75 and 78, see Eck 1970, 239. Dedicator: [L] Octavius M[emor leg(atus) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) co(n)s(ul) des(ignatus)]

D omitian 65 Cyp, Kourion. I. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, Inscriptiones Cypriae alphabeticae III, RDAC (1964) 203-205, no. 16. SEG 23, 631. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.23 × 0.16 × 0.077 m.; l.: 0.018-0.025 Date: 84 – 85 Trib pot 4. Nicolaou: A fragmentary plaque of whitish marble found early in 1963 at Curium during levelling operations on the site of the touristic pavillion. Now in “Curium House” at Episkopi.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ªoJ Kourievwn(Ù) to;n auJtou` pavtrwna kai;º ⁄ eujeªrgevthnº

Nerva Nerva 1

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 950.

Type: Dim.: 0.36 ×? × 0.18 m.; l.: 0.06 Date:

97 Cos 3.

CIL add.: Columna, cuius corona et cepido cir-

cum paululum egrediuntur, basis doni usui fuisse

videtur.

Dedicator: Ti Claudius | Felix et P Lollius | Paris

allectores | cultores Silvani | idem immun[---]

Nerva 2

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 951.


3.

CIL add.: Basis parva marmorea. Periit. Fortasse

aliunde Romam allata est, cum titulus ab aedili

coloniae cuiusdam dedicatus sit.

Dedicator: L Sertorius L f(ilius) | Volt(inia tribu)

Evanthus | aedil(is) c c n d d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia)

p(osuit)

Nerva 3

Rom, Roma.

AE 1930, 58. AE 1994, 238. CIL VI, 40376. H.

Hesberg & S. Panciera, Das Mausoleum des Au-

gustus (München 1994) 146-147, no. 20. A.M.

Colini & G.Q. Giglioli, Scavi del Mausoleo

d’Augusto, BCom 54 (1926) 222.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.465 × 1.01 × 0.795 m.; l.:

0.055-0.087 Date: 98 Dead but not deified.

Panciera: Grande base di marmo, pentelico se-

condo gli editori, parzialmente ricomponibile

de tra frammenti di cui uno constituente la metà

anteriore sinistra e gli altri due la metà posteriore

dello stesso lato.

CIL: Basis lapidis marmorei corona et crepidine

Nerva · 365

praedita ex tribus partibus coniuncta, a dextra in fronte decussa, in angulis anterioribus crepidinis mutila.

JMH: Inscription cut on a monument previously

dedicated to Domitian.

Nerva 7

Nerva 4 Rom, Roma. CIL VI, 40486. CIL VI, 31296. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.48 × 0.92 × 0.0125 m.; l.:? Date: 98 See comment. CIL: Tabula marmorea superne et a sinistra et infra fracta, in fronte et a tergo levigata. Rep. cum egereretur cloaca maxima inter forum Romanum et forum Augusti. Titulus basis magnae fuisse videtur statue Nervae. Quod monumentum collocatum opinor in medio eius foro i.e. ante templum Minervae (quo loco funda menta constructionis quadrigonae in lucem pro-

lata sunt) ad exemplum fori Augusti, ubi ante

aedem Martis Ultoris statua Augusti in quad-

riga stantis collocata fuit. Dedicatus paulo post

d. 28 Ian. a. 98.

Dedicator: [Senatus populusque Romanus]

Nerva 5

LaC, Misenum.

AE 1993, 471. Franciscis 1991, 24, no. 4.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.55 × 0.88 × 0.77 m.; l.:?

Date: 97 Cos 3 / trib pot 1?

AE: Base d’un statue in situ, avec sur le côté g. un

simpulum, sur le côté dr. une patère.

Franciscis: Base (in situ: n. inv. 155737).

Dedicator: C Volusius Atimetus | Augustalis |

nomine Augustal(ium)

Nerva 8

LaC, Misenum.

AE 1993, 474. Franciscis 1991, 28, no. 9.


3 / trib pot 1?, see comment.

AE: Base en marbre trouvée devant la salle 2,

contre les marches du pronaos, à g. Elle porte

sur le devant (côté A), et apparemment aussi

sur la face opposée, une inscription qui occupe

tout le fût.

Franciscis: In uno spazio immediamente

antistante il sacello o ambiente 2, ed accanto alla

gradinata del pronao: 9) A sinistra, base con due

iscrizioni. La base si data all’anno 97, e come

diremo, se gli onori e i ricordi a Nerva furono

contemporanei, allora anche la statua equestre di

bronzo, o meglio la sua transformazione in statua

di Nerva sarà da far risalire allo stesso anno.

Dedicator: P Herenn(ius) Callistus | Augustalis

| nomine Augustalium | pequnia sua

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 954.


l.:? Date: 196 Divus / Septimius Severus trib

pot 4.

CIL add.: Tabula Marmorea i.e. haud dubie frons

basis statuae.

Dedicator: Imp Caes L Septimius Severus | Pius

Pertinax Aug(ustus) | Arabicus Adiabenicus |

pont(ifex) max(imus) trib(uniciae) pot(estate)

IIII | imp(erator) VIII co(n)s(ul) II p(ater)

Nerva 9

p(atriae)

LaC, Ostia.

Nerva 6

CIL XIV, 4341.

LaC, Misenum.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.305 ×? × 0.05 m.; l.:?

AE 2000, 345. G. Camodeca, Domiziano e il Date: 96 Cos 2.

collegio degli Augustali di Miseno, in Epigrafai. CIL: Tabulae marmoreae marginate, fragmenta

Miscellanea epigrafica in onore di Lidio Gaspe- quinque.

Dedicator: [Seviri] Augustales

rini I (Rome 2000) 171-187.

Type: Tabula Dim.: × × m.; l.: Date: 96 – 98.

Nerva 10

AE: Inscriptions du collège des Augustales. En fa cade du mur d’échiffre g. de l’escalier du temple.

LaC, Tusculum.


CIL XIV, 2593.


– 98. CIL: Legitur sine loci indicatione in schedis.

Dedicator: S(enatus) p(opulus)[q(ue) Tus]-

culanus

Nerva 11

Aem, Veleia.

CIL XI, 1173.


98 - Divus.

CIL: Tabula ex bardiglio. Veleia, nunc Parmae.

Nerva 12

VeH, Brixia.

CIL V, 4314. Insc. Ital. X, 5, 92.


0.041-0.06 Date: 98 Cos 4.

Insc. It.: Fragmentum in duas partes fractum tabu-

lae ex lapide calcairo, sinistra, dextra et retro ex politae. Repertum est a. 1830 in effossionibus ad

templum Vespasiani.


Nerva 14

Dal, Arupium.

CIL III, 3006.


97 Cos 3.

CIL: Prope Ottochatz ad locum Vital dictum in

pariete templi S. Crucis.


Nerva 15

Dal, Nedinum.

CIL III, 2860.


- Divus.

CIL: Iader.


Nerva 16

Dal, Salona.



Cos 3, see comment.

CIL: Tabula de cippo desecta litteris magnis.

Spalati rep. a. 1874; extat in museo.

JMH: Trib. pot. III must surely be a mistake.

Nerva 13

MoI, Histria.

D.M. Pippidi, La seconde fondation d’Istros, BCH 92 (1968) 235. Pippidi & Russu 1983, 310311, no. 177. AE 1964, 199a. SEG 16, 432. SEG 24, 1106. Type: Base Dim.: 0.97 × 0.54 × 0.20 m.; l.: 0.0230.025 Date: 96 – 98. AE: Une base de marbre en deux fragments. Musée d’Histria, inv. nos. 263 et 312. Sur le petit côte de la base (inscription). Sur le côté long l’inscription a été partiellement martelée; l’auteur restitue: b) ªAutokravºtorªiº Dªomitianwìº Kaivsarªiº oJ dh`mo~. JMH: Reused from a statue base for Domitian. It is remarkable that the name of Nerva is written in the accusative case, while the name of Domitian was in the dative case. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Nerva 17

Dal, Salona.

CIL III, 1978.


- Divus.

CIL: Salonis rep. 1828 m. Martio. Extat in

museo.

Dedicator: L Vettius | L f(ilius) Serg(ia tribu)

| Catulus IIvir | i(ure) d(icundo) ex pecu(nia)

| honor(em) IIvir(atus) | sui l(ocus) d(atus)

p(ublice) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Nerva 18

AlG, Axima.

CIL XII, 104. L. Renier, Sur une inscription ro-

maine, RA 16 (1859) 359.


97 Cos 3.

CIL: Marmor. Aime in ecclesia S. Sigismundi.

Dedicator: Forocl(audienses) Ceutron(es)

Nerva · 367

Nerva 19

Bae, Fodinae.

CIL II, 956.


97 Cos 3.

CIL: Lamina ahenea, reperta d. 31 Iul. a. 1762 in

fodinis aerariis de Rio-tinto in duas partes divisa,

longa una vara menos dos pulgadas, lata dos ter-

cios menos una pulgada, margine affabre facto et

fastigio ornata. Carolo II regi dono missa illata

est in museum historiae naturalis Matritense, ubi

servatur imminuta.

Dedicator: Pudens Aug(usti) lib(ertus) | [p]rocu-

rator | [de su]o posuit

Nerva 20

Bae, Municipium Flavium V….

CIL II2, 7, 887. CIL II, 2339. CIL II, 5544. Eph.

epigr. 3, no. 18.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.09 × 0.665 × 0.52 m.; l.:

0.055-0.075 Date: 98 - Divus.

CIL II2, 7: Basis statuae ex lapide calcario albo

cum venis violaceis undique expolita sed non su perne, quae facies neglegenter levigata et duobus

foraminibus ad coronam vel statuam affigendam

instructa est.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) m(unici pium) F(lavium) V(---) | p(ecunia) p(ublica)

f(ecit) d(edicavit)

Nerva 21

Num, Calama.

CIL VIII, 5323. Gsell 1922, 25, no. 235.


Divus.

Gsell: Base.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia)

p(ublica)

Nerva 22

Afr, Gigthis.

CIL VIII, 22704.


98 - Divus.

CIL: Basis. Gigthi in foro rep. (au coin Sud-est

du Forum – la 1. base de la rangée du portique

Sud en partant du prétoire).

Nerva 23

Afr, Madauros.

CIL VIII, 16873.


– 98. CIL: Rep. Mdaurusch in castello vel basilica

Byzantica.

Nerva 24 MaE, Berroia. L. Gounaroupoulou & M.B. Hatzopoulos, In-

scriptiones Macedoniae Inferioris (Athens 1998)

163-164, no. 63.


l.: 0.068 Date: 98 - Divus.

Dedicator: ÔH Beroiaivwn povli~ ⁄ sunthrhvsanta aujhi` ⁄ ta; th`~ metropovlew~ ⁄ divkaia ejpidovnto~ th;n dapav⁄ªnhn ejºk tw`n ijdivwn T(iberivou) ∆Ioulivou ⁄ ª---ºkravtou~ tou` ajrxierevw~ ⁄ ªtw`n Sebaºstw`n kai; ajgonoqev⁄ªtou tºou` Koinou` Makedovnwn

Nerva 25 Ach, Corinthus. Kent 1966, 33-34, no. 58. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.76 × 0.52 × 0.175 m.; l.: 0.047-0.092 Date: 98 - Divus. Kent: Inv. no. 1655. Thirty fragments, most of them adjoining, of a grey marble block, all found in the south cryptoporticus of the South Basilica, just in front of the eastern exedra, in May, 1934 and March, 1935. The block has been reconstructed and placed in the colonnade of the museum. Fragments survive from the back and from all sides except the bottom. The fact that all the numerous fragmetns were found in the same building suggests that the base was broken in situ.

Nerva 26 Ach, Delphi. SEG 12, 264. AE 1953, 50. C. Dunant, Inscriptions de Delphes BCH 76 (1952) 627.


Type: Base Dim.: 0.74 × 0.53 × 0.425 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 96 – 98. Dunant: Inv. 7489. Base en calcaire, cassée à la partie inférieure, portant sur la face supérieure un trou de goujon avec canal de coulée. Trouvée en féverier 1952 dans un mur tardif au cours de nettoyages entrepris par G. Roux près de l’hérôon situé à l’Ouest du sanctuaire. Dedicator: ÔA povli~ tw`n Delfw`n

Nerva 27

Ach, Gytheion.

IG V, 1, 1161.


96 – 98.

IG: Basis quadrata marmoris albi.

Dedicator: To; ⁄ koino;n tw`n ∆Eleªuº⁄qerolakwvnwn ⁄ strathgou`nto~ ⁄ ∆Epineikivda tou` ⁄ Filocareivnou

∆Aªgivºa~ ⁄ kai; L(ouvkios) Flavbio~ Pwlliano;~ Aristivªwnº

Nerva 30

Cre, Knossos.



Date: 97 Cos des 4 / trib pot 2.

CIL: Litteris in lapidibus quadratis novem reper-

tis inter rudera Cnossi oppidi a. 1887 a militibus

Turcis che scavavano per ricerca di materiale de

construzione nei terreni del Teké di Chani-Ali

intorno agli avanzi di una grande construzione

romana.

JMH: The inscription could also be reconstructed

to Claudius.

Dedicator: Col(onia) I(ulia) n(obilis) Cn(ossus)

dedit

Nerva 31

Nerva 28 Ach, Tanagra. IG VII, 570. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: – 96 Non regnans, see comment. IG: Basis lapidis qui vocatur breccia, in superficie magna excavatio rotunda. In necropoli sita occidentem et septentrionem versus ab antiquo Tanagraeorum oppidum, non longe ab ecclesiola deserta S. Polycarpi. JMH: The Marcus Cocceius Nerva in question could be the future emperor, his father, grand father or his great grand father. I pressume it is the future emperor. Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~

Nerva 29

Ach, Tithorea.

IG IX, 1, 200. CIG 1733.


Date: 98 Cos 4.

IG: Lapis concavus, in sanctuario ecclesiae Pana giae, quae est in vico Velitza ad torrentem, qui

vocatur Kacavl

h~. Dedicator: ÔH povlªi~º ⁄ Tiqorevwn kai; T(ivto~) Flavbio~ Sªwvº⁄klaro~ kai; T(ivtos) Flavbio~

Asi, Aphrodisias.

Unpublished?


98.

JMH: Marble base on display near the Sebasteion

in Aphrodisias. To my knowledge unpublished.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ejk tw`n ⁄ Diovgenou~ tou` ⁄ Menavndrou ⁄ tou` Diovgenou~ ⁄ Newtevrou

Nerva 32 Asi, Boubon. C.P Jones, Some New Inscriptions from Bubon, IstMitt 27-28 (1977-1978) 291-292, no. 6. J. Inan, Neue Forschungen zum Sebasteion von Boubon und seinen Statuen, in J. Borchhardt & G. Dobesch (ed.), Akten des II. Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990 (1993) 213-239. SEG 27, 918. AE 1981, 792. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 96 – 98. SEG: Inscription on a base, copied in majuscules and photographed by Mehmet Yilmaz; the base is now again buried. Inan: Das Gebäude zeigt einen U-förmigen Grundriß von 4,80 m × 6,50 m Größe. Nach der Inschrift Nr. 6 sollte auf dem Nordposta-

Nerva · 369

ment eine Statue des Kaisers Nerva aufgestellt gewesen sein. Unter dieser Inschrift hat C.P. Jones eine frühere, getilgte Inschrift entdeckt, die er zu Recht mit der damnatio memoriae des Domitian in Verbindung gebracht hat. Dedicator: Boubwnevwn hJ boulh; kai; ⁄ oJ dh`mo~

Nerva 33 Asi, Ephesus. IGSK 12, 264. AE 1899, 71. A. Stein, Ephesische Ehreninschrift des Kaisers Nerva, ÖJh 2 (1899) Beibl, col. 71-74. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.60 × 1.02 × 0.22 m.; l.: 0.04-0.055 Date: 96 – 98 Sex? Carminius Vetus was probably governor in 96/97, but his proconsulship could have been prolonged to 97/98 (Eck 1970, 84; 148). Stein: Im Stadtgebiete von Ephesus fand Otto Benndorf im Herbst 1896 “am Nordhange des Büllbüldagh in ungefähr fünfzig Meter Höhe gegenüber dem großen Theater” die folgenden Inschrift. Platte aus weißem Marmor. Die Platte lag frei auf dem Boden, in keinem erkennbaren Zusammenhange mit einer Ruine, muss aber Theil einer gröseren Verkleidung (wohl einer Basis) gewesen sein, da sich die Schrift nach unten fortsetzte und in der linken Seitenfläche drei, in der rechten zwei Dübellöcher sich befanden. Dedicator: ªÔH nºeokovro~ ∆Efesivwn ⁄ ªpºovli~ kaqierwkovto~ ⁄ ªKºarminivou Oujevteroª~º ⁄ tou` ajnqupavtou ⁄ grammateuvonto~ ⁄ ª---º

Nerva 34 Asi, Ephesus. SEG 34, 1087. D. Knibbe & B. Iplikçioglu, Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IX, ÖJh 55 (1984) 109110. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.47 × 0.47 × 0.17 m.; l.: 0.018-0.036 Date: 96 – 98. Knibbe & Iplikçioglu: Inv. 4155, Dep. 2115. Aus dem Bereich der Johanneskirche. Fragment einer dicken (Verkleidungs)platte (einer Denkmalbasis?) aus Marmor. SEG: Several persons erected some monument for Nerva or, less probably, Nero. This monument

either consisted of metal statuettes referring to the ajretaiv of the emperor or of one statue of the emperor, the material of which was provided by the melting of already existing ajndriantivdia. In the latter case one could consider ejk thvªxew~ or ejkth;ªxei in L. 4. A third possibility would be

that a number of statuettes dedicated to the em peror was made from the melted metal of ear-

lier statuettes.

Dedicator: ∆Asklhpª---º ⁄ Dhmhtrioªu ---º

Nerva 35

Asi, Ephesus.

AE 1967, 474. IGSK 12, 420. F. Miltner, Vorläu figer Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos,

ÖJh 44 (1959) Beibl., col. 332.


98 - Divus, see comment.

AE: Pres du Nymphée. Sur le piédestal, haut 45

cm, d’une base de statue.

Miltner: An die westliche Schmalseite gehört

eine männliche Figur, welche auf einem 0,45

m hohen Sockel mit der Inschrift qeovn Nevrban

stand. Der allerdings nur an einer kleinen Bruch stelle anpassende Kopf lehrt aber, daß hier eine

erst gegen Mitte des 2. Jhs. n. Chr. anzusetzende

Porträtfigur, also ein mehr oder weniger willkür-

liche Ersatz der offenbar zerstörten Statue des

Kaisers Nerva vorliegt.

Nerva 36

Asi, Herakleia Salbakes.

MAMA VI, 33, no. 90. AE 1940, 186.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.71 × 0.75 × 0.58 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 97 Cos 3.

MAMA: Vakif. In the Byzantine wall. White

marble basis, complete on all sides.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ kaqievrwsen

Nerva 37

Asi, Lindos.

Blinkenberg 1941, col. 820-821, no. 447. AE

1948, 186.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.664 × 1.04 × 0.38 m.; l.:

0.022-0.025 Date: 96 – 98.

Blinkenberg: Bloc rectangulaire qui a fait partie


d’une grande base. Marbre de Lartos. Faces de joint en haut, à gauche et en bas. Le devant et la face latérale droite sont aplanis avec un instrument dentelé. A la face supérieur, un trou de goujon (à droite) et deux trous de crampon (à gauche et vers le milieu du bord postérieur); la base a, par conséquent, été munie d’un entablement particulier. Sur le devant, traces d’une inscription en quatre lignes qui a été complètement effacée avant l’incision de celle qui se rapporte à Nerva. Dedicator: Lindivoi

Nerva 38


Kern 1900, 125, no. 168.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.05 × 0.83 ×? m.; l.: 0.025-

0.03 Date: 97 Cos 3.

Kern: Marmorbasis. Auf der Oberfläche Stand spuren. Gefunden im Südosten des Zeustempels;

dicht dabei lag des etwa 0,50 m hohe Bruchstück

einer römischen Panzerstatue.

Dedicator: Ti(bevrio~) Kl(auvdio~) Caridavmou uiJo;~ ⁄ Carivdhmo~ ejk tw`n ijdiv⁄wn ajnevqhken

Nerva 39


Kern 1900, 126, no. 169.


3. Kern: In basi duo pedes lata et paulo super quattor pedes ex solo extante haec sunt in schedis Koehlerianis a me reperta (CIG). Von uns nicht gefunden. Dedicator: ÔH filosevbasto~ b⁄oulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ajne;⁄qhkan ⁄ ejpimelhqevªnºto~ Tivtou ⁄ Flaouivou Dhmocavrido~ ⁄ uiJou` Kureivna Dhmocavri⁄do~ tou` ajrxierevo~ kai; ⁄ grammatevo~ tou` dhvmou

Nerva 40

Asi, Stektorion.

CIL III, 12238. Ramsay 1885, 704, no. 640.


97 Cos 3.

CIL: Mentesch in sepulcro sancti Mentesch Baba,

cuius muro theatri quoque reliquiae quaedam

insertae sunt. Venire omnia probabile est ex ruinis in colle II m. p. a Mentesch inter septentrionem et occidentem extantibus, quod oppidum iam apparet Stectorium fuisse, non Eucarpiam collocandam potius ad Emir Hissar XVIII m. p. ab Eumenia.

Ramsay: The people of Stektorion were not well

acquainted with Latin.

Dedicator: Civitas | Stectoren(sis)

Nerva 41 Asi, Telos. G. Susini, Supplemento epigraphico di Caso, Scarpanto, Saro, Calchi, Alinnia e Tilo, ASAtene 25-26 (1963-1964) 279, no. 2. AE 1977, 785. SEG 25, 858. Type: Base Dim.: 0.68 × 0.54 × 0.54 m.; l.: 0.0210.031 Date: 98 – 117 Divus / Trajan, see comment. AE: Dans le mur occidental du cimetiere de Megalo Chorió, où la base cylindrique est surmontée de deux autre épitaphes. Base de piere calcaire, moulurée en haut et en bas, surmontée d’un coussinet destiné a supporter une statue. Le texte a été endommagé: 48x54 cm de diam. Susini: Base cilindrica, in pietra calcarea bianca, ornata in basso e nella parte superiore da alte cornici e sormotata da un pulvino, destinato evidentemente a sorreggere una statua. Profonde mutilazioni hanno danneiato la base, specialmente nella parte inferiore. La superfice iscritta è stata anche colpita da un grosso foro quadrangolare, dovuto certamente alla riutilizzazione della base in età non classica. La base si trova ora murata nel muro occidentale del cimeterio di Megalo Chorò, dove è stata sormontata da altre due are pure di forma cilindrica e di destinazione sepolcrale. JMH: The base could also belong to a statue of Trajan’s biological father.

Nerva 42

LyP, Arneai.

TAM II, 763.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.32 × 0.72 × 0.45 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 96 – 98.

Nerva · 371

TAM: Immissa moenibus oppidi septentrionalibus basis quadratae lapidis calcarii pars superior. Dedicator: ∆Arneªavtwnº ⁄ hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mªo~º

yard of the Hellenistic gate]; in mehrere Teilen gebrochen und wieder zusammengesetzt. Dedicator: Plancia M f [Magna] | ªPlaºnkiva Mavgna

Nerva 46

Nerva 43

LyP, Letoon.

AE 1981, 818. Ballard 1981, 53-55, no. 29.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.06 × 1.53 × 0.85 m.; l.:?

Date: 96 – 98.

Ballard: Base de calcaire blanc local, non mou lurée.

Dedicator: Xanqivwn hJ tou` Lukivwn ⁄ e[qnou~ mhtrovpoli~

Nerva 44

LyP, Pednelissos.

SEG 2, 728. B. Pace, Inscrizioni di Pednelissos,

ASAtene 3 (1916-1921) 156, no. 97.


98. Pace: Cippo che serve da base al precedente nell’ufficio di puntello: rivolto verso l’interno della città. É una dedica all’imperatore Nerva cui fa riscontro quella contenuta nel titolo segunte. Si noti l’uso promiscuo del S e C che ritroviamo in altre epigrafi di questa città. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

Nerva 45 LyP, Perge. A.M. Mansel, Bericht über Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in Pamphylien in den Jahren 1946-1955, AA (1956) col. 112-120. S. Jameson, Cornutus Tertullus and the Plancii of Perge, JRS 55 (1965) 55. IGSK 54, 92. Type: Base Dim.: 0.26 × 0.46 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.06 Date: 121 – 122 Divus / Hadrian trib pot 5, see comment. JMH: See Augustus 191. IGSK: Oberteil einer oben und unten leicht profilierten Statuenbasis aus Marmor am gleichen Platz wie dei vorangehenden Steine [for Augustus. In the north east corner of the inner court-

Cil, Kestros.

AE 1972, 646. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Jour-

neys through Rough Cilicia 1964-1968, Denk schrWien 102 (1970) 159, no. 161.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.59 × 0.77 ×? m.; l.: 0.035-

0.045 Date: 96 – 98.

Bean & Mitford: Mactar Kalesi, in the temple of

Vespasian, in the back wall of the cella and im mediately to the west of no. 159 (Vespasian), an

unmolded block of white marble, cracked to the

upper right. The cella is 3.50 m. wide, whereas

the collective width of nos. 160, 159 and 161,

which form its back wall, is only 2.50 m. They

have, however, interstices packed with smaller

stones; and it would seem that Domitian, who

cannot have been omitted, had his statue with its

base removed on damnatio memoriae. For this

inscription of Nerva is not palimpsest.

JMH: This base was still to be seen on the site

in 2002. The right part of l. 2 has now disap-

peared.

Nerva 47

Cyp, Kition.

CIL III, 216.


96 Cos 2.

CIL: Ex borgo delle Saline prope Larnacam, ubi

fuit in aedibus Graeci cuiusdam, translata Con stantinopolim ad Ainslie Britannum.

Dedicator: Civitas Citensium

Nerva 48

Cyp, Kition.

IGRR III, 976. CIL III, 12103.


97 Cos 3.

Dedicator: ÔH Kitivwn povli~


Nerva 49 Syr, Khirbet el-Bilaas. Insc. Syrie 5, 238-239, no. 2551. Type: Column Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.025-0.03 Date: 98 – 102 Divus / Trajan Germanicus but not Dacicus. Insc. Syrie: Sur le 3e tambourde la colonne honorifique un cartouche è queues d’aronde. La colonne honorifique était donc dédiée à Trajan et à “sou pere” Nerva. JMH: Khirbet el-Bilaas is situated approximately 60 kilometers southeast of Hama. The stone could have been taken here from a number of different localities.

Trajan Tr ajan 1 Rom, Roma. AE 1934, 154. CIL VI, 40489. R. Paribeni, NSc (1933) 466-467, no. 88. Type: Base Dim.: 0.30 × 0.46 × 0.29 m.; l.: 0.013-0.021 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. CIL: Basis marmorea infra et sinistra fracta, in latere sinistro ex parte conservato scabra, a dextra levigata. In facie sursum directa duo foramina rotunda terebrata, in quibus reliquae unci ferrei extant. Rep. in foro Augusto. Extat in aede de Cavalieri di Rodi (inv. n. 2.663). Dedicator: [Cn(aeus) Oc]tavius Titinius Capito praef(ectus) | [coh(ortis) trib(unus)] mil(itum) donatus hasta pura corona | [vallari proc(urator)] ab epistulis et a patrimonio | [iterum ab epi]stulis Divi Nervae | [eodem auctore ex] s(enatus) c(onsulto) praet(oriis) ornamentis | [ab epistulis tertio Im]p(eratoris) Caesaris Nervae | [Traiani Aug(usti) Germ(anici) pr]aef(ectus) vigil(um)

Tr ajan 2 Rom, Roma. CIL VI, 31295 a.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 98 – 117. CIL add.: Tabula marmoreaa dextra fracta. Per-

isse videtur.

JMH: The restoration is uncertain on two points.

The emperor could feasibly be Domitian and

there may be more victory titles after Germani cus.

Dedicator: Lictores [---] | [c]uratoribu[s ---] | Ti

Claudio Aug(usti) l(iberto)

Trajan 3

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 31298. CIL VI, 40497.


0.12 Date: 98 – 117. CIL: Tabula marmorea undique fracta, in fronte expolita sed adesa. Rep. a. 1886, cum disiceretur pars pontis Cestii. Dedicator: [--- p]ueri et puel[lae ---] | [--benefici]o eius civ[ium numero ---]

Trajan 4 Rom, Roma. R. Paribeni, NSc (1933) 465, no. 86. CIL VI,

40496.


0.06-0.125 Date: 101 – 102 Cos 4 / Germanicus

but not Dacicus.

CIL: Tabula marmorea superne et a sinistra et

infra fracta, a tergo levigata. Rep. loco incerto;

ex loco quidem, ubi asservatur, in foro Augusto

in lucem prolata videtur. Extat in aede Cavalieri

di Rodi (inv. n. 2.661).

Trajan 5

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 961.


Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus, see

comment.

CIL add.: Parva arula (fuit fortasse basis parva

statuae). Periit.

JMH: Optimus officially became part of his title

in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (CIL

II2, 5, 846).

Tr aja n · 373

Tr ajan 6

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 955. Gordon 1964, 22-23, no. 167.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.00 × 0.815 ×? m.; l.: 0.035-


CIL add.: Frons basis marmoreae desecta. Extat

in Mus. Cap., Sala terrena a destra II (inv. n.

7.653).

Dedicator: Tribus XXXV | quod liberalitate | op-

timi principis | commoda earum etiam | locorum

adiectione | ampliata sint

CIL: Quattuor fragmenta lapidis concavi mar-

morei helvoli lat. circ. 4,56 m ignis vi mutilata

ex pluribus particulis coniuncta. Facies sursum

sinistrorsumque versae scabrae. Rep. in area

fori Romani loco incerto, fortasse in area curiae

(Urbs P 24). Titulus opere gypseo restitutus et

suppletus extat in Lap. For., chiostro superiore

parieti orientali affixtus (inv. n. 5.245).

Dedicator: Sen[a]tus pop[ul]usqu[e Romanus]

| [---]ati s[---]

Trajan 10

Tr ajan 7

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 956. Gordon 1964, 23, no. 168.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.34 × 0.61 ×? m.; l.: 0.02-


CIL: Basis marmorea in marginibus mutila.

Gordon: Inscribed front, now apparently in three

or four pieces joined together, of a marble base,

set in the north wall of the second Sala terrena

a destra (no. 15 in the room) of the Capitoline

Museum.

Dedicator: Sagari t[hea]tri Marcell(i) | cultores

domus Aug(ustae)

Tr ajan 8

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 957.


Trib pot 9.

CIL: Tabula marm. alta pedes 2 1/2. Protome

Traiani Hercules d. clavam, s. pellem leoninam et

Mercurius d. crumenam, s. caduceum et vestem

gerens.

CIL add.: Tabula marmorea infra fracta. Periit.

Protome Traiani in aedicula superne semicir-

culata, anaglypha inter columnas capitulis Io-

nicis coronatas, inscriptio in tabula ansata in sculptae.

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 959a. J.E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan

in Rome (Berkeley 1997) 218.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.16 × 1.15 × 0.71 m.; l.: 0.05-

0.08 Date: 112 Trib pot 16. CIL: Tres bases marmoreae eiusdem magnitudinem et eodem titulo inscriptae. Packer: In each of the four bays between the porches, two white marble pedestals stood on the giallo antico steps, aligned with the two columns behind. All eight pedestals apparently had the same inscription. Two large oval sockets in the top show that the pedestals originally supported an over-life-size standing statue, probably of gilt bronze. Dedicator: S(enatus) p(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus)

Trajan 11

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 959b. J.E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan


Type: Base Dim.: 1.61 × 1.29 × 1.20 m.; l.: 0.05-


Packer: See Trajan 10.

Dedicator: [S(enatus) p(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus)]

Trajan 12

Tr ajan 9

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40502.


0.09-0.135 Date: 112 Trib pot 16.

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 959c. J.E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan


Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.71 × 0.54 m.; l.: 0.045-



Packer: See Trajan 10.

Dedicator: [S(enatus) R(omanus)]

p(opulus)q(ue)

Dedicator: L Kaninius Hermes | L Kaninius L

f Claud(ia) Philippus adlect(us) in ord(inem)

dec(urionum) | L Kaninius Hermes iunior | Au-

gustalibus peq(unia) sua

Tr ajan 13

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 960.

Type: Column base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:

113 Trib pot 17.

CIL: In basi columnae cochlidis Traiani Augusti

in foro Traiano adhuc superstitis litteris mag-

nis.

Dedicator: Senatus populusque Romanus | | ad

declarandum quantae altitudinis | mons et locus

tantis operibus sit egestus

Tr ajan 14

Trajan 16

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 4344/5. G. Calza, NSc (1923) 408.


Date: 115 – 117 Parthicus.

CIL: Tabula marmorea marginata, supra integra,

a ceteris partibus fracta.

Trajan 17

LaC, Ostia.

AE 1912, 93. CIL XIV, 4349. D. Vaglieri, NSc

(1911) 283.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.325 × 0.425 × 0.039 m.;

l.:? Date: 117 - Divus.

CIL: Tabula marmoreae fragmenta duo.

Dedicator: Colleg(ium) fabr(um) tig(nu-

ariorum)

LaC, Lavinium.

CIL XIV, 2069.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 102 Imp

3.

CIL: Inter ruinas Lavinii. Extat basis marmorea

Praticae litteris evanidis.

Dedicator: Laurentes La[vinates] | dec(reto) Trajan 18

d[ec(urionum)] | publi[ce]

LaC, Portus.

CIL XIV, 90.

Tr ajan 15 Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 112

LaC, Misenum. – 117 Cos 6.

AE 1993, 472-473. Franciscis 1991, 24-25, no. 6. CIL: Tabulae marmoreae fragmenta duo. Rep. in

Portu Romano, nunc Romae in villa Albani.

AE 1996, 424 a. Dedicator: [--- Por]tus Traiani felicis

Type: Base Dim.: 1.32 × 1.53 × 1.22 m.; l.: 0.0110.058 Date: 112 Trib pot 16. Trajan 19

AE 1993, 472: Grande base en marbre en situ, portant sur le long côté g. un relief d’interprétation LaC, Praeneste.

malaisée (une figure féminine sur une embarEph. epigr. 9, no. 767. F. Barnabei, NSc (1894)

cation: Annona?) et au-dessus à dr. un urceus, 96. sur le petit côté post. une tabella encadrement Type: Base Dim.: 1.20 × 0.69 × 0.69 m.; l.:? mouluré anépigraphe. Dédicace sur la face ant. Date: 101 Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus (petit côté A). and T. Sabidius Sabinus were consuls in 101, see AE 1993, 473: Côté B. Long côté dr. de la même comment. base portant à g. le texte d’un décret, à dr. une Barnabei: Nel terreno Galeazzi sull’entrata della figure masculine en relief, capite velato, tenant città, in contrada s. Rocco, nell’area ove si esune patère et une corne d’abondance. Date 9 tendeva la parte superiore dell’antico Foro di nov. 113. Praeneste, il giorno 15 dello scorso febbraio fu Franciscis: Grande base in marmo (in situ; n. dissotterrata una base di statua marmorea di inv. 155740). forma cilindrica. Ambedue notarono che il titolo

Tr aja n · 375

onorario ci riporta all’anno 101 dell’era nuova, e

che il giorno 18 di settembre, in cui la statua a

Traiano fu inargurata, era il giorno natalizio di

quell’imperatore.

Dedicator: Decuriones populusque | dedicata

XIIII K(alendas) Oct(obres) | Ti Claudio Attalo

Mamiliano | T Sabidio Sabino IIvir(is)

Tr ajan 20

LaC, Puteoli.

CIL X, 1635.


– 117. CIL: Puteolis in hortis principis Cardite.

Dedicator: Cn Pom[---] | Euphe[---]

Tr ajan 21

LaC, Puteoli.

CIL X, 1633.


Trib pot 15.

CIL: Extra Puteolos in sacello diruto.

Dedicator: L Plutius L f Pal(atina tribu) Phoebus

Tr ajan 22

LaC, Puteoli.

CIL X, 1634.


Trib pot 20.

CIL: Neapoli nella strada della prima schola di

Casimiro in casa di M. Gio. Battista Muscetta.

Dedicator: Cultores Iovis Heliopo|litani Bery-

tenses qui | Puteolis consistunt

Dedicator: L Licinius Telesinus

Trajan 24

ApC, Beneventum.

CIL IX, 1558. De Maria 1988, 232-235, no. 5.


Trib pot 18.

CIL: Titulis in arcu Beneventano sive porta aurea

q. d. utriumque repetitus.

Dedicator: Senatus P(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus)

Trajan 25

ApC, Brundisium.

CIL IX, 36.


pot 11.

CIL: Basis arae; pars aversa facta est ex capitello

Corinthiaco.

Dedicator: C Fulvius Hermae lib(ertus) | Epi tynchanus ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) | ob

honor(em) Augustal(ibus)

Trajan 26

ApC, Brundisium.

CIL IX, 37.


Trib pot 14.

CIL: Brundisii rep. 12. Mai. 1736 in domo

Montanerorum, dum ibi pavimentum sternitur.

Adhuc in iisdem aedibus.

Dedicator: Brundisini decuriones | et munici pes

Trajan 27

Tr ajan 23

ApC, Beneventum.

AE 1968, 120. P. Cavuoto, Iscrizioni inedite di

Benevento, Epigraphica 30 (1968) 130-131, no.

4.



AE: Plaque brisée en 18 morceaux et mutilée

à droite.

Cavuoto: Tra le epigrafi dedicante agli impera tori si trova una lastre marmorea con le seguente

iscrizioni dedicata a Traiano.

ApC, Larinum.

CIL IX, 728.


Trib pot 3.

CIL: Larini reperta in vinea Puchetti, est in ae dibus episcopi.


Trajan 28

BrL, Petelia.

CIL X, 112.


Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. CIL: Strongoli in un muro della torre del pubblico orologio. Dedicator: Q Fidius Alcimus ob honor(em) Aug(ustalis) | quem primus omnium post K(alendas) Aug(ustis) | a senatu conspirante populo acci|pere meruit bisellium ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionem) | hic ob eundem honorem dec(urionibus) IIII (sestertios) | Aug(ustalibus) II (sestertios) populo virit(im) I (sestertios) d[e]dit | Isdem l(oco) d(ato) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) | et hoc amplius im[aginem] | Imp(eratori) Caesari Traiano Au[g(usto) posuit?]

Tr ajan 29

Sam, Alba Fucens.

CIL IX, 3915.


pot 21.

CIL: Avezzani cum dirueretur ecclesia colle giata S. Bartholomaei a. 1615, inventa est basis

marmorea cum hac inscriptione, super quam

statua videbatur fuisse posita, nam simul locu-

lus in muro reperiebatur in quo statua recon dita fuerat.

Dedicator: Senatus populusq(ue) Rom[anus] |

ob reciperatos agros et possessores [reductos] |

quos lacus Fucini violentia [exturbarat]

Tr ajan 30

Sam, Cures.

CIL IX, 4956.


116 Imp 13.

CIL: Arci in Sabina repertam sibi videri ait.

Tr ajan 31

Sam, Nomentum.

CIL XIV, 3944.


– 117 Dacicus.

CIL: Nomenti sull’alto del campanile delle chiesa

della Pietà de’Santuce.

Trajan 32

Pic, Ancona.

CIL IX, 5894. De Maria 1988, 227-228, no. 1.


Trib pot 19.

CIL: In arcu Anconitano in parte ea quae op-

pidum spectat.

Dedicator: Senatus p(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus)

quod accessum | Italiae hoc etiam addito ex pe-

cunia sua | portu tutiorem navigantibus reddi derit

Trajan 33

Pic, Auximum.

CIL IX, 5825.


– 106 Imp 6.

CIL: Auximi in pariete ecclesiae S. Luciae. Ibi dem adhuc.

Dedicator: [---]liti municipiu[m]

Trajan 34

Umb, Ameria.

CIL XI, 4351.


– 102 Cos 4.

CIL: Marmor quadratum, a tergo austorium,

dextro guturium laevo pateram habens, basis

cum vase in lateribus. Trovata in Todi presso la

chiesa di S. Carlo l’a. 1713.

Dedicator: Nomine puerorum | puellarumque |

Ulpianorum | ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) publ(ice)

Trajan 35

Umb, Sarsina.

CIL XI, 6499.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.90 × 0.70 × 0.70 m.; l.:?

Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus.

CIL: Basis marmorea. Rep. a. 1848 ad ripam

Sapis fluminis paullo infra Sassinam; transtulit

Gaet. Pedrucci in aedes suas Sassinam. A. 1893

in museo.

Dedicator: C [C]a[esi]us Sabinus [---]

Tr aja n · 377

Tr ajan 36

Umb, Sarsina.

AE 1966, 117. AE 1980, 406. A. Donati, Aemilia

tributim discripta (Faenza 1967) 44, no. 84.


0.041-0.67 Date: 112 – 115 Cos 6 / not Parthi cus.

Donati: Tabella frammentaria provinente dal

centro urbano di Sarsina, ora nel Museo Ar-

cheologico.

Dedicator: [Au]lus L(uci) f(ilius) Pup(inia tribu)

| [Pud]ens trib(unus) coh(ortis) | VII vigilum


Trajan 40


CIL V, 6970.


- Divus.

CIL: Saxum, quod hermam sustinuit. Extat Tau rinis in museo.

Dedicator: C Quintius | Abascantus test(amento)

leg(avit) | medicis Taur(inis) | cultor(ibus) | As-

clepii et | Hygiae

Tr ajan 37

Trajan 41




AnnPerugia 23 (1985-1986) 289-290, no. 11.

A.M.S. Moretti, Statue e ritratti onorari da Lucus Feroniae, RendPontAc 55-56 (1982-1984) 75. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.04 × 0.75 × 0.10 m.; l.: 0.04-0.69 Date: 106 Trib pot 10. Sensi: Lastra di marmo bianco ricomposta da oltre quattordici frammenti rinvenuta nel dicembre 1958 in un ambiente destinato al culto imperiale, cioè nel piccolo augusteo, ai piedi della base qui apparteneva. Dedicator: Publice | ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Sic, Syracusae.

AE 1989, 342 d. G. Manganaro, Iscrizioni latine

della Sicilia, Epigraphica 51 (1989) 181, no. 59.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 98 –

117 Procos.

Manganaro: Lastra framm. di marmo (inv.

33617), la quale conserva l’inizio di una dedica.

Tr ajan 38

Etr, Luna.

CIL XI, 1333 a-c.


Trib pot 9.

CIL: Tabula marmorea. Rep. Lunae. Luna trans-

lata Genuam in aedes Ioannis Salvago.


Tr ajan 39

Lig, Augusta Bagiennorum.

Insc. Ital. IX, 1, 5. CIL V, 7151.


0.023-0.043 Date: 103 Trib pot 7.

Insc. It.: Tabula marmoris albi quadrati, super-

ficie tota contusa.

CIL: Tautinis in palatio. Hodie in museo.

Trajan 42 MoI, Callatis. A. Avram, Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graeca et Latinae, Vol. III. Callatis et Territorium (Bucarest 1999) 405-406, no. 83. AE 1964, 250. A. Radulescu, Inscription inédite de Callatis, StCIstor 4 (1962) 275-279. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.91 × 0.865 × 0.145 m.; l.: 0.028-0.032 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Avram: MN inv. 18 760. Lieu de trouvaille: à 35 m NO du rampart nord de la ville romaine, à l’occasion de quelques travaux de construction dans la ville de Mangalia (1958). Plaque de marbre entièrement conservée. Double moulure en relief sur la partie supérieure. Dedicator: T(itus) Turpilius Hermes | d(edit) d(edicavit) | civibus R(omanis) consistentibus Cal|latis circa C(aium) Iulium | Proculum quinquennal(em) perpetuom

Trajan 43

MoI, Tomis.

CIL III, 7538. G. Tocilescu, Archäologisch – epi -


graphische Mittheilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn

6 (1882) 12, no. 21. Stoian 1987, 71, no. 39.

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.65 ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date:

98 – 117.

CIL: Küstendsche rep.; nunc Bucaresti in museo

publico.

Stoian: Fragment dintr-un bloc de pietra.

JMH: Very uncertain. The preserved height of

the block indicates a monument of consider-

able size.

Tr ajan 44

MoI, Troesmis.

CIL III, 777. AE 1991, 1381. N. Gostar, Inscrip tia imperatului Traian de la Barbosi, Arheologia

Moldovei 9 (1980) 69-73.


Trib pot 16.

CIL: Tabula marmoris porphyretici, reperta

in Gyergyitza Moldaviae monte (?) ab socero

Michaelis principis hodie Valachis.

AE: Barbosi. Historie de cette dédicace à Tra jan, la plus ancienne inscription de Moldavie,

aujourd’hui disparue, et compléments au texte.

Dedicator: P Calpurnio Marco Cau|lio Rufo

leg(ato) Aug(usti) pro p[r(aetore) ---] | [---]

Tr ajan 45

MoI, Tropaeum Traiani (Adamclisi).

AE 1894, 110. CIL III, 12470. Archäologisch

– epigraphische Mittheilungen aus ÖsterreichUngarn 17 (1894) 106-107, no. 51. Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.95 × 0.80 m.; l.:? Date: 116 Trib pot 20. Arch. epigr.: Gefunden am 15. Juli 1891, als baumaterial verwendet in der Ecke einer Mauer im Innern der Lagerstadt. Jetzt zu Bukarest im Museum. Basis aus Kalkstein. Aus der oberen Fläche befindet sich eine 0,46 breite und 0,63 lange Einhöhlung. Dedicator: [Tra]ianenses Tropaeenses | [Q Ro]scio Murena Coelio Po[mpe]|io Falcone leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) [pr(raetore)]

Tr ajan 46 Dal, Asseria.

AE 1908, 193. Kähler 1939, col. 445-446, no. 1. H. Liebl & W. Wilberg, Ausgrabungen in Asseria,

ÖJh 11 (1908) Beibl. col. 72-74.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.66 × 2.40 × 0.19 m.; l.: 0.09-


Liebl & Wilberg: Bei den Grabungen am Trajans tore wurden gefunden: eine Reihe sorgfältig gear-

beiteter Steinplatten, welche die in zwei Absätzen

angeordnete Bauinschrift des Tores trugen.


in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (see

also CIL II2, 5, 846).

Dedicator: L Laelius L f(ilius) Cla(udia) Proculus

| t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit) epuloque dedicari

Trajan 47

Dal, Doclea.

CIL III, 12682.


Divus.

CIL: Basis calcaria rep. Docleae; extat in villa

Krusevac prope Podgoricam.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) | con[---]

Trajan 48

PaS, Neviodunum.

CIL III, 3924. M. Lovenjak, Inscriptiones Lat inae Sloveniae, Neviodunum (Ljubljana 1998)

71-72, no. 24.


0.06 Date: 98 Trib pot 2 / cos 2. Lovenjak: Nach Katancisich gefunden im Jahr 1786 in der Ruinen von Neviodunum beim Bau der Strasse von Brezice nach Krsko. Inschriftplatte mit mehrfach profiliertem Rand. Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Trajan 49

PaS, Savaria.

CIL III, 10919. CIL III, 4178. Eph. epigr. 4, no.

482. Barkóczi & Mócsy 1972, no. 45.


– 111 Cos 5.

Barkóczi & Mócsy: Früher in der St.-Martins-

kirche als Altartreppe. Verschollen. Marmor.

Dedicator: Ex colonia | [S]avaria

Tr aja n · 379

Tr ajan 50

Nor, Celeia.

CIL III, 5203. M. Sasel Kos, The Roman Inscrip tions of Celeia Commemorating Emperors, Epi grafia Varia 17 (Faneza 2001) 383-402.


117.

CIL: Basis pars Celeiae ad pedem area S. Apollo niae in sacello S. Maximiliani litteris proceribus

iisque castigatissimis.

AE: Nyon (Colonia Iulia Equestris). En 1996,

dans l’amphithéâtre, découvert lors de travaux

édilitaires. Fragments d’inscriptions monumen tales remployés comme couverture d’un égout

traversant l’arène. Deux plaques de calcaire

jointives, dont la seconde est incomplète à dr.:

100x123x12 cm et 101x86x9 cm.

Dedicator: [Equestr(es)?] publice

Trajan 54

GeS, Mogontiacum.

CIL XIII, 7285. H.G. Frenz, Eine Bemerkung

Nor, Celeia.

zur Traianus-Inschrift CIL XIII, 7285, AKorrBl

19 (1989) 155-158.

CIL III, 5202. M. Sasel Kos, The Roman Inscrip Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.485 × 0.34 × 0.09

tions of Celeia Commemorating Emperors, Epi grafia Varia 17 (Faneza 2001) 383-402.

m.; l.:? Date: 99 Cos 2 / cos des 3, see com Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 103 – ment.

Frenz: Im Jahr 1896 fand sich bei den Arbeiten

111 Cos 5.

CIL: Celeia. A. 1728 venit Vindobonam in bib zur Kanalisation der Großen Kirchenstraße in

liothecam.

Mainz-Kastel der Fragment einer Inschrift für

Sasel Kos: Dedication on a base for a statue.

Kaiser Traianus. Es handelt sich un eine dünne

Platte aus Kalkstein. Links und oben und unten

Dedicator: C Rufius Moderatus | Iunianus Iunci nus | praef(ectus) coh(ortis) VI Raet(orum) ist die profilierte Umrahmung des Inschrift trib(unus) | mil(itum) leg(ionis) VII C(laudiae) feldes erhalten, rechts ist die Platte gebrochen.

p(iae) f(idelis) | Codicil(lo) f(ieri) i(ussit)

Die Fundstelle der Inschrift lag in unmittelbarer

Nähe eines großen Sockel, der vielleicht für die

Tr ajan 52

Aufstellung einer Statue diente. Er wurde unge-

GeS, Argentorate.

fähr 50 m östlich der Landseite des flavischen

P. Wuilleumier, Inscriptions latines des Trois Steinkastells, d.h. ungefähr 6 m östlich des erst

Gaules (Paris 1984) 170, no. 419. 1986 erkannten Ehrenbogens neben der rö-

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 102 – 117 mischen Straße in Richtung Hofheim noch in

Dacicus. situ angetroffen. Landesmuseum Mainz, Inv. S

Wuilleumier: Trouvée à Strasbourg (Bas-Rhin), 592.

13, rue de la Mésange. Conservée au musée Dedicator: Leg(io) X[IIII g(emina) M(artia)

archéologique. Nombreux fragments de statue v(ictrix)]

impériale en bronze.

Tr ajan 51

Trajan 55

Tr ajan 53

GeS, Colonia Iulia Equestris.

AE 1998, 974. R. Frei-Stolba, F. Rossi & M.

Tarpin, Deux inscriptions romaines découvertes

dans l’amphithéâtre de Nyon, JbSchwUrgesch 81

(1998) 186-188.


0.117-0.153 Date: 111 Trib pot 15 / cos des 6.

GeI, Rigomagus.

CIL XIII, 11981. H. Lehner, Die antiken

Steindenkmäler des Provinzialmuseums in Bonn

(Bonn 1918) 4-5, no. 6.


l.:? Date: 98 – 117 See comment.

CIL: Zwei nicht aneinanderpassende Bruch stücke einer großen Inschriftplatte. Oben und


links sind an dem größeren Bruckstück Reste vom Rand und von einer plastischen Umrahmung erhalten, sonst allseits abgebrochen. Gef. Remagen bei den Ausgrabung des Provinzialmuseums auf dem Platz vor der Kirche, das Fragment a im Jahre 1916, Fragment b im Jahre 1917 nicht weit davon entfernt. JMH: Optimus officially became part of his title in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (cf. CIL II2, 5, 846).

Trajan 59

Tar, Dianium.

CIL II, 3581. J. Corell, Inscriptiones Romanes

d’Ilici, Lucentum, Allon, Dianium i els seus re-

spectius territoris (València 1999) 216-217, no.

123.


– 102 Cos 4. CIL: En la heredad del Dr. Bolecha se sacaron muchos pedazos de un losa de marmol fina, escrita y muy delgada; juntados dezian asi.

Tr ajan 56 Aqu, Saint-Bertrand. P. Wuilleumier, Inscriptions latines des Trois Gaules (Paris 1984) 22-23, no. 70. Type: Base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.67 ×? m.; l.: 0.04-0.07 Date: 100 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus / cos 3. Wuilleumier: Trouvée à Saint-Bertrand, sur le forum. Conservée au musée. Sept fragments de base en marbre blanc de Saint-Béat. Dedicator: [Conu]en[ae]

Tr ajan 57

AlG, Axima.

CIL XII, 105.


pot 12.

CIL: Basis marmorea, in qua foramen statuae re-

cipiendae aptum adhuc visitur. Aime in ecclesia

subterranea S. Martini.

Dedicator: Foroclaud(ienses) publ(ice)

Trajan 60

Lus, Pons Alcantara.

CIL II, 759 & 760. Kähler 1939, col. 423-424,

no. 1.


Trib pot 8 / imp 5, see comment.

CIL II, 759: Arcus in medio pontis in tabula mar-

morea utrinque eandem habet inscriptionem or-

natissimi litteris et primoribus, puta sexquipe-

dalibus.

CIL II, 760: Est in istius arcus parte dextra tabula

alta marmorea inscripta nominibus quorundam

municiporum.

JMH: If Trajan had his tribunicia potestas re-

newed on Dec. 10., tribunicia potestas 8 is not

consistent with imperator 5, which is the first ac clamation of the second Dacian campaign in the

summer of 105. Maybe the tribunicia potestas

signifies regnal years. In that case the arch was

made in the fall of 105.


Tr ajan 58

AlG, Octodurus.

AE 1985, 653. Walser 1980, 90-91, no. 288.



Walser: Zwei Bruchstücke einer Kalksteinplatte,

1974 bei den Ausgraungen der römischen Ther-

men in Martigny (Wallis) gefunden, heute in

Grabungshaus der Fouilles in Martigny aufbe wahrt.

Dedicator: Fo[ro Claudi]|en[ses publ(ice)]

Trajan 61

Bae, Aratispi.

CIL II2, 5, 730. CIL II, 2054.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.94 × 0.59 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.03-

0.07 Date: 117 - Divus. CIL: Basis ex lapide calcario rimoso subrubro corona et crepidine aut olim separatis edolatis aut posteriore tempore abscisis. Rep. a. 1731 Aratispi, deinde inserta est angulo dextro muri meridionalis turris ecclesiae vici Villanueva de Cauche, ubi descripsi a. 1989.

Tr aja n · 381

Dedicator: Res publica Aratispitanorum | decre vit Divo dedicavit

Tr ajan 62

Bae, Cisimbrium.

CIL II, 2097.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.63 × 0.56 × 0.87 m.; l.:?

Date: 114 Trib pot 18 / imp 6, see comment.

CIL: Reperta en las ruinas de Zambra postea Lu-

cenae in domo Brunae, ubi extat.

CIL II2: Basis statuae (equestris?) marmorea.

JMH: For the opinion that Trajan became Parthi cus already in AD 114, see Gonzales 1987, 237 250. Otherwise it seems only to have come into

official use in 115.

Dedicator: Municipes

Tr ajan 63

Bae, Italica.

CIL II, 1114.


Date: 98 – 117.

CIL: Fragmentum repertum “en el sitio de los

Palacios”. “En el convento de San Isidoro, en el

portico, inscripcion hermosisima con letras se-

miunciales”. Postea Hispali in palatio regio ubi

viderunt Delgado et Bofarull; in museo frustra

quaesivi. Litterae fuerunt praegrandes et opti mae. L. 4 Maecia tribus, si recte supplevi, indicat

eum, qui haec basim Traiano, puto, dedicavit,

non fuisse Italicensem.

Dedicator: [---u]s L f Mae[c---] | [C Tam]pius

Iustu[s Primus] | [Dom]iti [posuerunt]

Tr ajan 64

Bae, Iulipa.

CIL II2, 7, 903. CIL II, 2352.

Type: Column Dim.: 0.93 × 0.60 × 0.60 m.; l.:

0.045-0.065 Date: 100 – 101 Trib pot 4 / cos

4, see comment.

CIL: En la iglesia prioral, sirviendo de pila para el

agua bendita en la sangristia. Est basis rotunda,

a sepulcro antiquo, quod hodie turris ecclesiae

est, omnino diversa, ut dixi in praefatione huius

capitis.

JMH: Trajan was cos 4 in 101. This does not

match with trib pot 4, if Trajan had his tribuni cian power renewed on Dec. 10.

Dedicator: Munic(ipium) Iulipense | d(ecreto)

d(ecurionum)

Trajan 65


CIL II2, 7, 888. CIL II, 1028. CIL II, 5543. AE 1993, 1016. A.U. Stylow, Studia historica, His torica antiqua 9 (1991) 13-14.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.08 × 0.66 × 0.48 m.; l.:? Date: 115 Trib pot 19.

CIL II2, 7: Basis statuae de pietra esquistosa como de cuarzo blanco.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) m(unicipium) F(lavium) V(---) | p(ecunia) p(ublica) f(ecit) d(edicavit)

Trajan 66


CIL II2, 7, 893. CIL II, 5548. Eph. epigr. 3, no.

20.


- Divus.

CIL II2: En Azuaga. Perisse videtur.

JMH: Among the statue bases from Municipium

Flavium V… several are to Divi, and it seems

likely that they formed some sort of statue group.

Trajan 67

Bae, Nescania.

CIL II2, 5, 846. CIL II, 2010.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.76 × 0.59 × 0.86 m.; l.: 0.03-

0.06 Date: 109 Trib pot 13. CIL: Basis statuae rotunda ex lapide calcario subrutilo corona crepidineque sive olim separatis edolatis sive in usum posteriorem resectis a tergo neglegenteer levigata, in lateribus et fronte mutila. In summa parte cavum quadratum ad crucem infigendam. Dos leguas de Antequer adonte fue Nescania, en el lugar de Ballazis dentro de una casa por poste de una puerta. JMH: Optimus maximus was not an official title at the time of the dedication.


Dedicator: Nesca|nienses d(ecurionum) d(e-

creto)

Tr ajan 68

Bae, Saepo.

AE 1987, 499. HispEpigr 2, no. 267. J. Gonzales,

Traiano: Part(h)icus, trib. pot. XIIX imp. X,

ArchEspA 60 (1987) 237-250.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.98 × 0.66 × 0.65 m.; l.: 0.03-

0.04 Date: 115 Trib pot 18 / Parthicus / imp

10, see comment.

AE: Trouvé en 1982. Piédestal de marbre blanc,

décoré a l’arrière d’un trophée de boucliers et

javelots, à dr. d’une couronne à lemnisque, à g.

d’un palmier finement sculpté, chargé de fruits.

Au musée de Cadix.

JMH: Since both imperator 10 and Parthicus in dicate a date i 115, I will asume that trib pot 18

is a mistake. For the opinion that Trajan became

Parthicus in 114, see Gonzales 1987, 237-250.

Dedicator: Res p(ublica) Saeponensium | stat-

uam triump(h)alem | ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

dedit

Tr ajan 69

MaC, Cuicul.

CIL VIII, 8315. Pflaum 2003, 795, no. 7772.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.70 × 0.56 ×? m.; l.: 0.06


Pflaum: Sur un piédestal, aujourd’hui à Paris au

musée du Louvre, no. 2098.


p(ublica)

Trajan 71

MaC, Sitifis.

CIL VIII, 8464.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.64 × 0.66 ×? m.; l.: 0.04-0.06


CIL: Basis, Setif in hortis publicis.


p(ublica)

Trajan 72

Num, Calama.

CIL VIII, 5324. Gsell 1922, 26, no. 237.


– 117. Gsell: Ferme Cheymol, à 2,500 mètres de

Guelma, sur la route de Millesimo; cette inscrip tion y a été probablement apportée de Guelma.

Marbre rose. Cadre.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) [p(ecunia)

p(ublica)] | [---]s Balithonis [f ---] | [--- ob] hono rem fl[amonii ---] | [---]

Trajan 73

Num, Calama.

Gsell 1922, 26, no. 238.


98 – 117 See comment.

Gsell: Rue de Mogador, no. 39. Sur un bloc de

marbre qui été évidé en auge.



II2, 5, 846).

Trajan 74

Tr ajan 70

MaC, Sitifis.

AE 1949, 42. P. Massiera, BAParis. Procès-ver-

baux des séances, mai (1947) 345-346, no. 1.



Massiera: Sétif. Block dévouvert à quelques mè tres à l’Ouest de la Justice de Paix, près du boule vard de l’Hospital.

Dedicator: Col(onia) Nerv(ia) Aug(usta) Mar-

t(ialis)

Num, Calama.

CIL VIII, 5325. Gsell 1922, 25, no. 236.


103 Trib pot 7.

CIL: Gelmae rep.; salle première, mur sud de

fragmento inferiore. Id hodie est Parisiis in

museo publico.

Gsell: Base en marbre rose.

Dedicator: Kalamenses | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

p(ecunia) p(ublica) f(aciendum) c(uravit)

Tr aja n · 383

Tr ajan 75

Num, Cirta.

CIL VIII, 6988.



CIL: Constantine rep. a. 1855.

Tr ajan 76

Num, Henchir Tebrouri.

CIL VIII, 17792.


– 117 Dacicus.

CIL: In tabula alba rep. Hr. Tebruri in castello

septentrionem versus.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.61 × 0.60 × 0.51 m.; l.:?

Date: 115 – 117 Parthicus, see comment.

Zimmer & Wesch-Klein: Curia. Die Einarbei tungen in der Deckplatte weisen auf ein Stand-

schema mit rechtem Standbein; der linke Fuß

war leicht angehoben und zurückgesetzt. Die

Angaben zur tribunicia potestas und impera torische Akklamation sind inkorrekt; Trajan ver-

strab, als ihm die tribunizische Gewalt zum 21.

und die imperatorische Akklamation zum 13.

Mal oblag.

Dedicator: Dec(reto) dec(urionum) p(ecunia)

p(ublica)

Trajan 81

Tr ajan 77

Num, Rusicade.



0.09 Date: 107 Trib pot 11. Pflaum: Fragment de plaque de marbre, maintenant au Louvre (no. 2057).

Num, Thubursicum Numidarum.

Gsell 1922, 121, no. 1245.


Date: 98 – 117.

Gsell: Ruine au nord-ouest de la platea vetus.

Trois fragments d’une plaque de marbre, épaisse

1,5. Aujourd’hui au musée de Guelma.

Tr ajan 78

Trajan 82

Num, Thamugadi.

CIL VIII, 2355. CIL VIII, 17842. Kähler 1939,

col. 442, no. 49.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.075-0.16

Date: 100 Cos 3 / L. Munatius Gallus was lega tus of the III. Augusta AD 100-102, Thomasson

1996, 139-140.

CIL: Timghad au pied de l’arc de triomphe (qui

est occidentem versus a foro) sur plusieurs frag ments provenant de l’attique de ce monument du

côté de Lambèse.

JMH: On this arch Trajan’s name takes the nomi native case as subject for the creation of the col ony. Although the inscription is not dedicatory,

it seems probable that the arch still carried a

statue of him.


Gsell 1922, 121, no. 1246.


98 – 117.

Gsell: Fouilles de la platea vetus. Endommagée

en haut, brisée à dr.; je n’ai pas noté que le bas

fût mutilé: peut-être la suite de l’inscription se

trouvait-elle sur une autre pierre, placée sous

celle-ci.

Tr ajan 79

Num, Thamugadi.

CIL VIII, 2356. Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989,

84, no. T 50.

Trajan 83


Gsell 1922, 120, no. 1243.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.84 × 0.54 ×? m.; l.: 0.05-

0.055 Date: 99 Trib pot 3 / cos 2 / cos des 3.

Gsell: Fouilles du forum novum. Base qui sur le

côté g., porte une inscription plus récente, indi quant le transfert au forum novum d’une statue

de Constantin. Le haut est endommegé.

Trajan 80



CIL VIII, 4875. Gsell 1922, 120, no. 1244.


0.025-0.045 Date: 100 Cos 3.

Gsell: Plaque de marbre, qui avait été sans doute

encastrée dans la base d’une statue. Trouvée par

Masqueray, près de l’angle sud-ouest de la platea

vetus; maintenant au musée d’Alger.

Dedicator: Civitas Thubursi|citana p(ecunia)

p(ublica)

Tr ajan 84

Afr, Gigthis.

CIL VIII, 22705.


117 - Divus.

CIL: Fragmentum. Gigthi rep. dans la curie.

Tr ajan 85

Afr, Lares.

CIL VIII, 1777.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? × 1.06 ×? m.; l.: 0.12

Date: 106 – 115 Imp 6-8.

CIL: Loribus in lapide.

Tr ajan 86

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

AE 1948, 2. CIL VIII, 10. CIL VIII, 22670. Rey nolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 107, no. 353. P. Ro manelli, Gli archi di Tiberio e di Traiano di Lep tis Magna, Africa Italiana 7 (1940) 96-105.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.45 × 3.00 × 0.45 m.; l.: 0.07-

0.11 Date: 110 Trib pot 14. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Two blocks of grey limestone, all that survive of six which comprised the dedicatory inscription on the SW face of the Arch of Trajan. Dedicator: Con[sensu omnium] | [ordo et populus] Coloniae Ulpiae Tr[aianae Fid]elis Lepcis [Magnae arcum] | cum ornament[is pecunia pub]lica feceru[nt]

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.37 × 0.68 × 0.26 m.; l.: 0.11 Date: 102 – 117 Dacicus. AE: Fragment d’inscription découvert dans le thermes de l’Est en 1956.

Trajan 88

Afr, Mactaris.

AE 1963, 96. G. Picard, Pagus Thuscae et Gun zuzi, CRAI (1963) 124-130.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.33 × 1.15 ×? m.; l.: 0.06-0.10


AE: Base de calcaire remployée dans le perron

qui relie le portique ouest du forum à l’aire de

la place.

Dedicator: Civitates LXIIII | pagi Thuscae et

Gunzuzi pec(unia) sua | fecerunt idemque dedi caverunt curatore Victore Martia|lis praefecto

earum [---]

Trajan 89

Afr, Mactaris.

CIL VIII, 621. CIL VIII, 11798. Kähler 1939, col.

437, no 33.


Trib pot 20.

CIL: Hr. Makter in epistylio arcus triumphalis.

Dedicator: [Caecilius F]ustin[us pro]cos

dedic(avit) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia)

p(ublica)

Trajan 90

Afr, Sabratha.


Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.93 × 0.59 ×? m.; l.: 0.055

Date: 117 - Divus.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Panel of cream mar-

ble inscribed within a moulded border. Capito lium, found in the vaults.

Trajan 91

Afr, Thugga.

CIL VIII, 26521.


Afr, Mactaris.

AE 1966, 515. G.-Ch. Picard, Le conventus 117 - Divus.

civium Romanorum de Mactar, Africa 1 (1966) CIL: Basis. Thuggae rep. à l’ouest du Capitole in

muro quodam.

67, note 5.

Tr ajan 87

Tr aja n · 385

JMH: From a group of bases for statues of dei fied emperors. The bases for Augustus, Livia, and

Vespasian were inscribed on older monuments

some time in the third century AD. I have not

been able to establish whether this is true also for

the bases for the emperors of the second century

AD: Trajan, Harian, and Marcus Aurelius.

Trajan 95 MaE, Berroia. L. Gounaroupoulou & M.B. Hatzopoulos, In-

scriptiones Macedoniae Inferioris (Athens 1998)

164-65, no. 64. SEG 48, 752.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: × × m.; l.:

Date: 102 – 117 Dacicus?

SEG: Fragment of the covering slab of a base.

Tr ajan 92

Afr, Uzaae?

Merlin 1944, no. 148. AE 1938, 43. L. Poins sot, BAParis. Proces-verbaux des séances, mars

(1938) 79-80.


0.025-0.06 Date: 107 Trib pot 11.

Poinssot: L’inscription a été trouvée à Msaken. La

plaque épigraphe, de marbre blanc, mais présent ant quelques taches rougeâtres.

Dedicator: Namgiddo Camilli f Uzaen sis | pro honore flamoni perpetuie|tis aedem

Augustor(orum) et imagine[m ---] | argenteam

sua pecunia fecit ide[mque] | dedicavit

Tr ajan 93

Thr, Melnica.

IGBulg IV, 2318.


0.037 Date: 98 – 117.

IGBulg: Iacebat in ecclesia destructa Sv. Nikola in

colle ad oppidum Melnik, nunc in museo eodem

in oppido. Pars inferior tabulae marmoreae.

Tr ajan 94

Thr, Philippopolis.

IGRR I, 708. IGBulg III, 1, 880.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.39 × 0.71 × 0.45 m.; l.: 0.04-

0.05 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthi cus.

IGBulg: Prope Philippopolin (“in vico quodam”

Tacchella) reperta, olim in museo Philippopoli tano conservata, nunc in museo Serdicensi (inv.

2626). Basis marmorea parte superiore et infe riore fracta.

Dedicator: Ti(bevrio~) Klauvdio~ Polev⁄marco~ ajrciereuv~

Trajan 96

MaE, Larissa.

IG IX, 2, 608.


0.03 Date: 102 – 117 Dacicus. IG: Trabs marmoris albi.

Trajan 97

Ach, Ambrossos.

IG IX, 1, 17. CIG 1734. M. Beaudouin, Inscrip tions de Phocide et d’Amphissa, BCH 5 (1881)

445.


Germanicus but not Dacicus.

IG: Basis marmoris albi, cuius superior pars (a)

periit, inferior (b) exstat in adyto ecclesiae Pana giae, quae est Ambryssi.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; ⁄ oJ dh` mo~ ∆Ambros⁄sivwn

Trajan 98

Ach, Argos.

IG IV, 534.


0.03 Date: 98 – 117.

IG: Fragmentum in museo Atheniensi.

Trajan 99

Ach, Asopos.

IG V, 1, 968.


– 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ hJ ∆Asw⁄peitw`n

Trajan 100

Ach, Athenae.

AE 1950, 34. N.M. Verdélis, Inscriptions de


l’agora romaine d’Athèns, BCH 71-72 (1947-48)

42-46, no. 2.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.27 × 0.95 × 0.79 m.; l.: 0.032

Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus.

Verdélis: Base parallélépipédique en marbre

de l’Hymette, découverte auprès du propylée

d’Athéna Archégètis, à l’Est de l’agora romaine;

brisée de toute part. La partie supérieure de la

base à été disposée pour recevoir le socle d’une

statue en marbre.

Dedicator: ÔO ajrcie⁄reu;~ aujtou` Ti Klauvdio~

∆Attiko;~ ⁄ ªÔHrwvdºhª~º Maraªqwvºneªioº~

463, and republished in IG II2, 3285. In this last publication it was stated that the fragment is undique truncatum but a study of the squeeze and of the text reveals that the left edge must be preserved. This restoration differs from the one given in IG II2, 3285 inasmuch as it omits the word qeonv after Seªasto;nº in the second line.

Trajan 103

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3284. Rose 1997, 138, no. 68.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.33 × 0.85 × 0.73 m.; l.: 0.023


Trajan 101

IG: Occidentem versus a Parthenone; lapis per-

tinet ad monumentum, cuius tituli IG II 3253 Ach, Athenae.

AE 1973, 493. T. Leslie Shear Jr., The Athenian 3256 sunt. Basis marmoris Pentelici.

Agora: Excavations of 1971, Hesperia 42 (1973) Rose: See Augustus 130.

Dedicator: ÔH ejx ∆Areivou pav ⁄gou boulh; kai; hJ 175-176, no. 2.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.365 × 0.97 × 0.70 m.; l.: boulh; tw`n C kai; oJ dh`mo~ oJ ∆A⁄qhnaivwn to;n i[dion 0.03-0.035 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but eujergevthn kai; swth`ra ⁄ th`~ oijkoumevnh~ not Dacicus.

Shear: Inv. I 7353. Statue base of blue-grey Trajan 104

Hymettian marble built into the reconstructed Ach, Corinthus.

rear wall of the stoa along the street north of the Kent 1966, 47-48, no. 100.

Library of Pantaios. Rectangular base left rough- Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.76 × 0.363 × 0.28 m.; l.:

picked on top, perhaps to recieve another block. 0.036-0.045 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not

Parthicus, see comment.

There is no trace of a cutting for the statue.

Dedicator: ÔO ajrciereu;~ aujtou` Tib Klaªuvdio~º Kent: Inv. no. 1451. A slab of a white marble

∆At⁄tiko;~ ÔHrwvdh~ Maraqwvneio~ reconstructed from ten fragments which were

found in the southeastern section of the Agora

Trajan 102 in 1934, 1935, and 1936. Parts of the original top,

Ach, Athenae. right, left, and rear surfaces are preserved; all are

IG II2, 3285. A.E. Raubitschek, Hadrian as the smooth. The inscribed face has a moulded frame

Son of Zeus Eleutherios, AJA 49 (1945) 132along the edge.


133. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.26 × 0.25 ×? m.; l.: 0.03 in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (CIL

II2, 5, 846).

Date: 98 – 117. IG: Septentriones versus ab Erechtheo. FragDedicator: P Cornelius Crescens | promag(ister)

mentum tabulae marmoris Pentelici undique pub(lici) (vicesimae) lib(ertatis) | provinc(iarum)

trunctum. Achaiae et | Syriae

Raubitschek: The inscription was found on NoTrajan 105

vember 10, 1837, north of the Erecteion, and was first published by K.S. Pittakes, Eph. 1853, no. Ach, Corinthus.

1915, who did not recognize the significance of Kent 1966, 45-46, no. 99.

the text. O. Lueders copied the text again, some Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.435 ×

years later, and his copy was published in IG III,

Tr aja n · 387

0.302 × 0.087 m.; l.: 0.026-0.04 Date: 112 – 115 Cos 6 / not Parthicus. Kent: Inv. no. 1902. A fragment of a white marble slab, found in St. John’s Church, Old Corinth, in April, 1937. The piece is broken at top and bottom, and the sides were rounded and border margins were cut for re-use in Byzantine times. The back is similarly treated, but the smooth raised central area seems to be original. In thickness the slab tapered vertically, the bottom being noticeably thicker than the top. Dedicator: ªTo; koino;ºn tw`n ª∆Acaiw`nº

Trajan 106 Ach, Coronea. SEG 31, 404. A. Schachter, Cults of Boiotia I (London 1981) 121, note 4. W.K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography 2 (Berkely 1969) 87. P. Roesch, Epigraphica, Teiresias 13 (1981-1982) 21, no. 70. Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.16 × 0.27 ×? m.; l.: 0.028 Date: 98 – 117. Prichett: As I passed through the village, I noticed on the northwestern side of the road the ruins of a house shown in plate 62. The four inscribed blocks in the wall facing the road prove to be unpublished. SEG: Koroneia. Dedication of a statue of Trajan?

Trajan 107 Ach, Delos. Roussel & Launey 1937, 64, no. 1596. P. Roussel & J. Hatzfeld, Fouilles de Délos, BCH 33 (1909) 511-513, no. 31. Type: Base Dim.: 0.73 × 0.445 × 0.38 m.; l.: 0.02 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. IDelos: Inv. E 2. 26 juillet 1907, dans un mur récent à l’Ouest de la base de Théophrastos. Corps de base en marbre blanc, dont le coin supériour gauche est brisé. Dedicator: ∆Apel⁄lh`~ ÔIppoªnivkºou

Trajan 108

bach, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos (Paris 1922)

267, no. 179. Th. Homolle, Les Romains a Délos,

BCH 8 (1884) 156-157.


– 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. IDelos: Inscription copiée a Mykonos par Cyriaque d’Ancône. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ ⁄ ejpimelhqevnto~ th`~ ajnastavsew~ ⁄ Tivtou Flaouivou Dhmhtrivou

Trajan 109 Ach, Delphi. M. Homolle, BCH 20 (1896) 723-724. Dittenberger 1915-1920, 825 A. Type: Base Dim.: 0.67 × 1.10 × 1.23 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Homolle: Inv. 3447. Dédicace d’une statue à Trajan ejk tw`n tou` qeou` crhmav twn, sous l’épimelle de L. Cassius Petræus. Grande base moulurée

en bas; la partie postérieure, adossée sans doute,

est restée brute.

Dedicator: OiJ ∆Amfiktuvone~ ejk tw`n iJerw` n ⁄ crhmavtwn ejn thì Leukivou Kassivou ⁄ ªDerkivou uiJou` Petrºaivou ejªpºimelhteivai ⁄ ªÔUºpataivou

Trajan 110 Ach, Delphi. Dittenberger 1915-1920, 825 B. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus, see comment. Sylloge: Traiani statua a Cassio Petraeo dedicata. JMH: Optimus officially became part of his title in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (CIL II2, 5, 846). Dedicator: L Kavssio~ ⁄ Derkivou uiJov~ Petrai`⁄o~ ejk tw`n ijdivwn

Trajan 111

Ach, Gytheion.

IG V, 1, 1162.


– 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ hJ Guqeatw`n

Ach, Delos.

Roussel & Launey 1937, 64, no. 1597. F. Durr-


Trajan 112

Ach, Hermione.

IG IV, 701. CIG 1213.


– 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. CIG: Hermionae; ex iisdem Fourmonti schedis. Dedicator: Dia; ejmbathvrion ⁄ hJ povli~

Trajan 113

Ach, Kythera.

IG V, 1, 380.


– 117 Parthicus.

IG: Lapis a. 1757 ex insula Cytheris in museum

Nanianum illatus.

Dedicator: ∆Epi; ajrcierevo~ dia; bivou

tw`n ªSeºbªaºsstw`n filosebavsstou te kai; fil⁄opavtrido~ kai; khdemovno~ th`~ povleo~ ªG.º ∆Ioulivou Eujªruºklevou~ ÔHrklanou` Lou⁄kivoªuº Biboulivou ªPeivou ejpimelhqevnto~ th`~ ajnaqevsew~º Kevrdªwºno~ su;n ∆Abas⁄kavntw/ Parqenivw/ kai; ª--- to; ajnavlwma pºoihªsamevºnwn ejkk tw`n th`~ ⁄ povleo~ ªprºoªsovdwn ---º gumnasivou kai; ª--ontºo~ Kuntiªlivºou Maxivmou kata; to; yhvfisma ⁄ to; th`~ povleo~ boulª---º

Trajan 114 Ach, Lebadeia. J. Jannoray, Nouvelles inscriptions de Lébadée,

BCH 64-65 (1940-1941) 55-57, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.31 × 0.94 × 0.97 m.; l.: 0.02-

0.03 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Daci cus.

Jannoray: Plinthe de marbre bleu, composée

d’un bandeau rectangulaire surmontant une

partie moulurée qui fait retour sur les quatre

faces. Quoique brisée dans le sens de la hauteur

en deux parties qui se raccordent, la pierre est

complète; seule la face antérieure du bandeau,

sur laquelle est gravée la dédicace, est éclatée à

droite et à gauche. La face supérieure du bandeau

porte deux trous ronds d’encastrement, destinés

à la fixation d’une statue de bronze, et trou de

scellement rectangulaire qui arrive jusqu’au bord

latéral droit; aucune dalle n’ayant pu faire suite à

cette plinthe sur la droite, car la face latérale ne comporte pas d’anathyrose, il faut penser que cette cavité a servi à fixer un accesoire de marbre (trophée? colonnette?) de la statue de bronze. Dedicator: ÔH povli~ ⁄ Lebadevwn

Trajan 115 Ach, Melos. IG XII, 3, 1110. C. Smith, Inscriptions from Melos, JHS 17 (1897) 16-17, no. 37. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.50 × 1.20 × 0.13 m.; l.:? Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. Smith: On a slab of yellowish marble complete on all sides but l., used as a support for wine casks in the house of the tenant of site A at Klima. Surface a good deal worm. Said to have been found in the adjoining garden together with the Poseidon statue now in the National Museum at Athens and other marbles: among these are a marble equestrian figure presumably of an emperor which still lies in the garden, but which I understand will shortly be published in the Ath. Mitt. As this inscription apparently refers to the erection of a statue of Trajan set up by the high priest of his cult in Melos, it is possible that the equestrian group is the one in question: the size of the slab would be suitable for such a purpose. About 0,20 m. from the lower edge three small rectangular sinkings are wrought in the surface parallel to the inscriptions at regular intervals 0,30 m. apart. Dedicator: ªÔO iJerºeu;~ aujtou` Tivto~ Flavbio~ Damei`no~ ⁄ ªkai; oJ ajdelfo;~ aujtou`º Tivto~ Flavbio~ ∆Aristovdamo~ ejk diaqhvkh~ ⁄ ªtou` patro;~ aºujtw`n Flabivou Dameivnou

Trajan 116

Ach, Olympia.


378.

Type: Tabula Dim.:? ×? × 0.035 m.; l.:? Date:

102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus.

Dittenberger & Purgold: Vier Fragmente einer

Platte aus pentelichem Marmor, sämtlich eben falls ringsum gebrochen. Inv. 127a. Gefunden 12.

Februar 1877 in Nordosten des Ausgrabungs feldes.

Tr aja n · 389

Trajan 117 Ach, Paros. A.K. Orlandos, Adhmosiv j eutoi ejpigrafai; euJ reqeisai kata; th;n Asthvlwsin th`~ katapolianh`~ Pavrou`, AEphem (1975) Chronika, 5-6, no. 2.

AE 1977, 784. SEG 26, 959.


0.022-0.026 Date: 115 – 117 Parthicus.

AE: Plaque de marbre rectangulaire, trouvée

dans la cour de la basilique.

Trajan 118

Ach, Tenos.

IG XII, 5, 2, 935. H. Demoulin, Fouilles de Ténos,

BCH 26 (1902) 419, no. 7.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.10 × 0.50 × 0.27 m.; l.: 0.03


IG: Quattor frustula baseos marmoreae. Effodit

prope Neptuni templum a. 1902.

Dedicator: Kallª---º

Trajan 119

Ach, Teuthrone.

C. Le Roy, Lakwnika, BCH 85 (1961) 222-223. SEG 22, 303. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.60 × 0.35 ×? m.; l.: 0.035 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Le Roy: Sur la grève, à la naissance de l’isthme reliant à la terre la cap Scopa. Bloc de marbre blanc brisé à droite et en haut. H. 0,60. Largeur maxima de la face inscrite 0,35. La paroi gauche présente une anathyrose de 0,10 m de large entourant une surface piquetée. L’inscription, très usée, est difficilement lisible. Dedicator: ÔH povlªi~ hJ ---º ⁄ ª---º

Trajan 120

Ach, Thera.

IG XII, 3, 475.


– 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus.

IG: Trovasi nel Museo Vaticano un marmo bigio

venuto da Malta. Theraeam originem divinavit

Franz.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ ejpimelh-

qevntwn tw`n ajrcovntwn ⁄ Mavrkou Oujlpivou Klaudianou` ∆Aglªwºfavnou~ ⁄ Gorgosqevnou~ tou` Prataimevnou~ ⁄ ÔAghsippivda tou` ∆Aristopavmono~

Trajan 121

Ach, Thespiai.

IG VII, 1838.


Germanicus but not Dacicus, see comment.

IG: Basis lapidis albi, Thespiis in museo.

JMH: Nerva does not seem to have been deified

at the time of the dedication.

Dedicator: ÔH povl

i~

Trajan 122 Ach, Thespiai. A. Plassart, Inscriptions de Thespies, BCH 50

(1926) 452, no. 92.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.33 × 0.62 m.; l.: 0.025

Date: 115 – 117 Parthicus.

Plassart: Thèbes, inv. 992. Hagia Trias (Vallon).

Couronnement d’une base cylindrique.

Trajan 123

Ach, Thisbe.

IG VII, 2236.


– 99 Cos 2.

IG: Thisbae in ecclesia S. Charalampi.

Dedicator: Broca`~ Dhmosqevnou~ ⁄ filokai`sar kai; oJ uiJo;~ ⁄ aujtou` Dhmosqevnh~ ⁄ kai; aiJ qugatevre~ ⁄ Damovkleia kai; Eujporiva ⁄ ejk tw`n ijdivwn

Trajan 124

Ach, Thuria.

IG V, 1, 1381.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.84 × 0.79 × 0.86 m.; l.: 0.094


IG: Basis ex lapide calcario facta, a sinistra laesa;

supra infraque cymatio ornata. Nunc pro sacra

mensa in ecclesia Ag. Georgiou in vico Aslagana

usui est.

Dedicator: ÔA povli~ ⁄ ªoJ kateskeuºavsa~ ejforo~ Ma`rko~ Swvtw⁄no~


Trajan 125

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 39.


102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus.

IC: Lytti. Basis.

Dedicator: Luttivwn hJ povli~ dia; ⁄ prwtokovsmou T Flav⁄ouiou ∆Aristofw`nto~ ⁄ to; g

Trajan 126

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 17. B. Haussoullier, Inscriptions

de Crète, BCH 9 (1885) 22-23, no. 18. IGRR I,

982.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.71 × 0.555 × 0.40 m.; l.: 0.03


IC: Lytti, in ecclesiae S. Georgii. Basis e lapide

subcaeruleo angulo inferiore a sinistra mutila.

Dedicator: Luªttivº⁄ªwn hJ povliº~

Trajan 127

Cre, Lyktos.

IGRR I, 983. IC I, XVIII, 18. G. Doublet, Inscrip tions de Crète, BCH 13 (1889) 63-64.

Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.44 ×? ×? m.; l.:?


IC: Xida, in domo Gerog. Zouraraki. Lapis vul garis a sinistra mutilus.

Dedicator: (L)uttivªwnº ⁄ hJ povli~ dia; prwtokovsmoªuº ⁄ ªLoºukianou` Menavndrou

Trajan 128

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 19. IGRR I, 984.


pot 11.

IC: In ruinis Lytti.

Dedicator: L(u)ttivwn hJ povli~ dia; ⁄ prwtokovsmou Banaxi⁄bouvlou Kwmavsta to; bæ

Trajan 129

Cre, Lyktos.


Type: Base Dim.: 1.23 × 0.49 × 0.59 m.; l.: 0.035


IC: Apud ecclesiam S. Georgii. Basis e lapide

vulgari.

Dedicator: Luttivwn hJ povli~ tw`/ th`~ ⁄ oijkoumev nh~ ktivsth/ ⁄ dia; prwtokovsmou ⁄ Banaxibouvlou Kw⁄mavsta ªto; gæº

Trajan 130

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 22. F. Halbherr, Inscriptions from

Various Cretan Cities, AJA 11 (1896) 539-540,

no. 1. IGRR I, 986.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.11 × 0.76 × 0.70 m.; l.: 0.03


IC: In arce urbis antiquae. Basis e lapide vulgari,

superne et infra cymatio ornata; in superne latere

statuae vestigia exstant.

Halbherr: Base of local limestone. On top are

traces of the feet of the statue.

JMH: This inscription has the name of Trajan in

the dative case, but the base certainly carried a

statue of the emperor.

Dedicator: Luttivwn ⁄ hJ povli~ tw`/ th`~ oijkoumev⁄nh~

ktivsth/ dia; prwtokov⁄smou Ti. Klaudivou Boi⁄nobivou

Trajan 131

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 23.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.15 × 0.50 ×? m.; l.: 0.03


IC: Lytti, in ecclesiam tou` Staurwmev nou. Basis. Dedicator: Luttivwn hJ ⁄ povli~ tw`/ th`~ oijkoumev⁄nh~ ktivsth/ ejk qewriva~ ⁄ mevrou~ tou` perisseuv⁄santo~ th`~ genesivou ⁄ tou` kurivou to;n ajndri⁄avnta dia; prwtokov⁄smou

Ti. Klaudivou ⁄ Boinobivou

Trajan 132

Cre, Lyktos.



pot 17.

IC: Inter Lytti rudera. Ara.

JMH: Although described as an altar in IC and

the name takes the dative case, it is probably

Tr aja n · 391

rather a statue base, cf. Trajan 130 which has traces of the feet of a statue. Dedicator: Luttivwn hJ povli~ ⁄ dia; prwtokovsmou M. ⁄ Pomphi?ou Kleumeniv⁄da

IC: In ruinis Lytti, prope ecclesiam tou` Staurwmevnou. Basis. Dedicator: Luttivwn hJ povli~ ⁄ dia; prwtokovsmou T. ⁄ Flaouivou Kwmavsta to; bæ

Trajan 133

Trajan 137

Cre, Lyktos. IC I, XVIII, 28. IGRR I, 987. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 113 Trib pot 17. IC: Inter Lytti rudera. Arae titulus. JMH: Although described as an altar in IC and the name takes the dative case, it is probably rather a statue base, cf. Trajan 130 which has traces of the feet of a statue. Dedicator: Luttivwn hJ povli~ dia; prwto⁄kovsmou M Pomphi?ou Kleumenivda

Cre, Lyktos.

IGRR I, 990. IC I, XVIII, 33. F. Halbherr, Inscrip tions from Various Cretan Cities, AJA 11 (1896)

542, no. 4 b.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.72 × 0.53 × 0.42 m.; l.:?


IC: In ruinis Lytti, prope ecclesiam tou` Stau rwmev nou. Basis. Dedicator: Lut⁄tivwn hJ povli~ dia; prwto⁄kovsmou T. Flaouivou ⁄ Kwmavsta to; bæ

Trajan 138 Trajan 134

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 29. F. Halbherr, Inscriptions from

Various Cretan Cities, AJA 11 (1896) 541-542,

no. 3. IGRR I, 988.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.25 × 0.49 × 0.48 m.; l.: 0.03-

0.035 Date: 113 Trib pot 17.

IC: In arce antiquae urbis. Basis.

Dedicator: Luttivwn hJ povli~ dia; prw⁄tokovsmou Mavrkou Pom⁄phi?ou Kleumenivda

Trajan 135

Cre, Lyktos.

IC I, XVIII, 30.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.10 × 0.55 × 0.455 m.; l.: 0.04


IC: Lytti a. 1923 invenit Patriarca. Basis superne

et infra cymatio ornata.

Dedicator: Luttiv⁄wn hJ povli~ dia; prwtoªkovsº⁄mou Mavrkou Pomphªi?ouº ⁄ Kleumenivda

Trajan 136

Cre, Lyktos.

IGRR I, 991. IC I, XVIII, 32. F. Halbherr, Inscrip tions from Various Cretan Cities, AJA 11 (1896)

542, no. 4 a.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.03 × 0.47 ×? m.; l.: 0.03-

0.035 Date: 114 Trib pot 18.

BiP, Prusias ad Mare. IGSK 39, 3. AE 1991, 1466. F.K. Dörner, Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien (Berlin 1941) 108-109, no. 126. Type: Base Dim.: 0.70 × 0.74 × 0.66 m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. IGSK: Gefunden in Bursa im Bezirk Muradiye; heute im Mus. Bursa, Inv. 2548. Block aus weißem Marmor, allseitig beschädigt; links unten ist ein stück abgebrochen. Es handelt sich offenbar um die Basis einer Statue. Dedicator: T(ivto~) Flavªbio~º ⁄ Seivlwn gumnasivarco~ T(ivtou) Flaªbivº⁄ªoºu Fidivskou uiJov~ grammate⁄ªu;~º boulh`~ kai` dhvmou ejkk tw`n ⁄ ijdivwn ajnevqhken

Trajan 139

Asi, Aizanoi.

AE 1989, 701. MAMA IX, 4, no. 7.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.18 × 0.73 × 0.61 m.; l.:

0.025-0.0275 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but

not Dacicus.

AE: Base moulurée de marbre gris.

Dedicator: ∆Epemelhvqh Fivlippo~ Sw⁄ta` gramateu;~ th`~ gero⁄usiva~

Trajan 140 Asi, Apollonia.


MAMA IV, 56-57, no. 146. IGRR III, 313. CIL III, 6868. Type: Base Dim.: 1.04 × 0.33 ×? m.; l.: 0.04-0.06 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. MAMA: Ilegöp, in wall of mosque. Limestone block, part of a pedestal. The name of the testator was doubtless carved on the block forming the base of the pedestal. Dedicator: ªÔO dh`mºo~ | [ex tes]tamento | [---]

Trajan 141 Asi, Chios. IGRR IV, 932. F. Studniczka, Aus Chios, AM 13 (1888) 169, no. 9. CIG 2216 b. Type: Base Dim.: 1.00 × 0.70 × 0.70 m.; l.:? Date: 98 – 117. Studniczka: Festung von Chios, auf der Bastion “Zündan üstü” d. h. der oberhalb des Gefängnisses befindlichen, aufgestellt auf zwei übereinander gesetzten Säulentrommeln, grosse Basis aus Breccia. Dedicator: ªÔHº filosªevºbasªtºoª~ gerouºsiva

Trajan 142

Asi, Chios.

IGRR IV, 933. CIG 2216.


– 117. CIG: In Chio, in urbis regione Palaeo Castro vo-

cata, in via quae dicitur Agio~ Dhmhvt riou, in saxo grandi oblongo. Dedicator: ÔH gerousiva

Trajan 143

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 265. AE 1967, 475. F. Miltner, Vorläu figer Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos,

ÖJh 44 (1959) Beibl., col. 328-329.


– 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus.

IGSK: Basis der Kolossalstatue vom Nymphaeum

Traiani an der Kuretenstraße.

AE: Prés du Nymphée, sous une statue colossale

de l’empereur Trajan.

Miltner: Der Fundlage zufolge stand über dem

Wasserausfluß eine Kolossalstatue des Kaisers

Trajan von etwa zweifacher Lebensgröse; erh alten sind davon allerdings nur ein Brust und die

Plinthe mit dem rechten Fuß und der Inschrift.

Trajan 144

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 12, 422. F. Miltner, Vorläufiger Bericht

über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos, ÖJh 44

(1959), Beibl., col. 346-348. AE 1967, 468. AE

1961, 194.

Type: Propylon Dim.: 0.55 × 4.16 × 0.91 m.; l.:

0.045-0.065 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not

Parthicus, see comment.

IGSK: Architrav, gefunden an der Kuretenstraße

östlich des Nymphaeum Traiani.

Miltner: … eine zu einer größeren Anlage

führende Toranlage.


in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (cf.

CIL II2, 5, 846).

Dedicator: ªÔH nºewkovro~ ∆Efesivwn povli~

to; provpulon ejk tw`n ijdivwn kateskeuva⁄sen grammateuvonto~ tou` dhvmou Tiberivou Klaudivou ⁄ Loukkeianou`

Trajan 145

Asi, Ephesus.

IGSK 15, 1500. Hicks 1890, 164-165, no. 500.

Type: Stele? Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 115 –

116 Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Procolus was gov ernor in 115/116 (Eck 1970, 237).

IGSK: Statue Trajans. Aus dem Artemis-Heilig-

tum.

Hicks: Stelè of white marble; height 3 ft. 1 1/2 in.;

width 2 ft. 11 1/2 in.; broken at the bottom and

on the lower portion of the right side.

Dedicator: ÔH filosev⁄basto~ ∆Efesivwn boulh; ⁄ kai; oJ neokovro~ dh`mo~ ka⁄qievrwsan ejpi; ajnqupavtou ⁄ Bittivou Provklou ⁄ yhfisamevnou T(iberivou) Flaªouivouº ⁄ ∆Aristobouvlou ajsiavªrcou tou`º ⁄ grammatevw~ tou` ªdhvmouº ⁄ uiJou` Puqivwno~ ajrªcierevw~º ⁄ gumnasiarcouvntwªn th`~ aijwnivouº ⁄ gumnasiarciva~ ejn ªlovgw/Ù th`~º ⁄ ª∆Aºrtevªmiºdo~ to; ı Fªlaouivou Puqivwno~ kai;º ⁄ ªFlaouºiva~ Muvrtªouº

Tr aja n · 393

Trajan 146

Asi, Eresos.

IG XII, 2, 544. IGRR IV, 15. E. Pottier & An.

Hauvette-Besnault, Inscriptions de Lesbos, BCH

4 (1880) 442, no. 24.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.21 × 0.87 × 0.20 m.; l.: 0.017-

0.03 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. IG: Eresi in ecclesia S. Eliae basis marmoris candidi. Pottier & Hauvette-Besnault: Près d’Éréso, dans la chapelle Hagios Ilias, sur une hauteur à l’O. du Kastro, marbre en forme d’architrave encastré au-dessus de la porte. JMH: It is not entirely clear whether this is a base or an architrave. The use of the accusative case makes it highly probable that the inscription was accompanied by a staute. Dedicator: ÔO da`mo~ dia; tw` prwvtw ⁄ strotavgw Mousaivw tw` Mousaivw

Dedicator: ª---ºanou~ aª---º ⁄ ª--- ejºk diaqhvªkh~ T(ivtou)º Statiªlivouº ⁄ ªKrivtwno~ toºu` genomevnou ajrciavtªrou kai;º ⁄ ªejpitrovpou kai;º fªivlouº tou` kurivou Kªaivsaro~º

Trajan 149

Asi, Hierapolis.

AE 1984, 851. SEG 33, 1129. T. Ritti, RendLinc

38 (1983) 176.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.62 × 0.52 × 0.36 m.; l.: 0.04

Date: 102 – 117 Dacicus.

AE: Base de marbre reployée dans les fondations

de la cella du meme temple, en son angle nord.

L’inscription fournit un terminus post quem

pour la construction du temple d’Apollon.

JMH: Found together with bases for Hadrian

(852), Sabina (853), Commodus (854), The ois Sebastois (855), Julia Maesa (856) and Iulia

Mammaea (857).

Trajan 150

Trajan 147 Asi, Heraclea ad Latmum. B. Haussoullier, Inscriptions d’Héraclée du Lat-

mos, RPhil 23 (1899) 291-292, no. 12.


Dacicus but not Parthicus.

Haussoullier: Agora. Grand piédestal carré.

Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ ⁄ kaqievrwsen kata; to; yhvfis⁄ma ejpimelhqevntwn ⁄ Muwnivdou tou` Muwnivdou ⁄ fuvsei de; ÔIeroklevou~ ⁄ Levonto~ tou` ÔErmogevnou~ ⁄ ÔOmhvrou tou` Zhnodovtou ⁄ ∆Epikravtou tou` ∆Epikravtou~

Asi, Hyrkanis.

TAM V, 2, 1318. P. Foucart, Inscriptions d’Asie

Mineure, BCH 9 (1885) 396. IGRR IV, 1332.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.20 × 0.55 × 0.665 m.; l.:

0.018-0.022 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but

not Dacicus.

TAM: Basis marmoris rutili crepidinibus supe-

riore et inferiore ornata, a parte sinistra mutila,

prope vicum Karaagacli.

Dedicator: ÔH Tuanwlleitw`n ⁄ katoikiva kaqievrwsen ⁄ ªejpiºmelhqevnto~ Qeogevnou~ ⁄ tou` Dionusivou

Trajan 148

Trajan 151

Asi, Herakleia Salbakes. AE 1937, 85. MAMA VI, 34, no. 91. W.H. Buckler, T. Statilius Crito, Traiani Aug. medicus, ÖJh 30 (1936) Beibl. col. 5-8. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 115 Trib pot 19. MAMA: Karahisar. In a well near the village. Marble block, complete at top and on r. side, broken or cut away on l. side and on base; round hole cut in the middle. The topmost line was on a separate block.

Asi, Ilias.

IGRR IV, 877. Sitlington Sterret 1888, 423, no.

620. Ramsay 1885, 334, no. 151.


– 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Sitlington Sterret: Ilias. The stone has been split into three parts, which are now used as steps in the house of Khatib Mustafa Effendi. Dedicator: Fla⁄ouªivaº Tatªivºa kªaº⁄ta; ªdºiaqªhvºkhn ⁄ diªa;º Flaouªivoºu ⁄ Oujªiºbiaªoºu` ªtou`º klªhºronªovºmou


Trajan 152

Asi, Iulia Gordos.

IGRR IV, 1293. TAM V, 1, 697. P. Paris, Inscrip tions de Lydie, BCH 8 (1884) 390, no. 10.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.485 × 0.615 × 0.135 m.;

l.: 0.050.05 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not

Parthicus.

Paris: Dans un vigne, derrière Gordus; le mar-

bre, brisé á droite, sert de margelle à une petite

source.

TAM: Tabula marmoris albi a dextra fracta.

Dedicator: ÔO ∆Iouªlievºwn ªGºoªrdhnw`n dh`mo~ ---º

Trajan 153 Asi, Kos. Segre 1993, 226-227, no. EV 214 b. Type: Base Dim.: 0.99 × 0.39 × 0.37 m.; l.: 0.025 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Segre: Pilastrino quadrangolare di marmo bianco, recante in alto un incavo per l’impostazione di una statua, di cui si riconosce l’impronta di un piede e di un appoggio quadrangolare. Fu rinvenuto nella primavera del 1938 nello scavo presso le grandi terme di Porta Nuova, al di là della strada antica e poco dopo il Ninfeo, in terreno di riempimento. JMH: Reused base of the first century BC. Dedicator: Gnaiò~ Shvi⁄o~ ªGºnaivou uiJo;~ Ka⁄pivtwn oJ iJereu;~ auj⁄tou` gumnasiar⁄cw`n th`~ ajgevlh~ ⁄ tw`n paivdwn ejk tw`n ⁄ ijdivwn ajnevqhken

Trajan 154

Asi, Lindos.

IG XII, 1, 807.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.24 × 1.01 × 0.64 m.; l.: 0.025

Date: 98 – 117.

IG: Fragmenta duo quae coniuncta superiorem

magnae basis partem efficiebant. Inventa sunt

prope Minervae templum novum in arce.

Trajan 155


Kern 1900, 126, no. 170.


– 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus.

Kern: Marmorbasis. Oben verstümmelt. Gefunden im Süden des Zeustempels. Dedicator: ªÔHº filosevbasto~ boªuº⁄ªlh;º kai; oJ dh`mo~ ajnevqªhº⁄ªkºan ejpimelhqevnto~ ⁄ Koi?ntou ∆Antwnivou Lou⁄kivou uiJou` Sergiva Lon⁄geivnou tou` ajrcierªevwº~ ⁄ kai; grammatevw~ tou` ⁄ dhvmou

Trajan 156


Kern 1900, 127, no. 172.


Date: 98 – 117.

Kern: Marmorfragment, an allen Seiten gebro chen. Gefunden vor der Westfront des Artemis tempels.

Trajan 157


Kern 1900, 126, no. 171.


103 – 111 Cos 5.

Kern: Marmorbasis. Gefunden im Süden des

Zeustempels.

Dedicator: ÔH filosevb

asto~ boulh; ⁄ kai; oJ dh`mo~ ajnevqhkan ejpi⁄melhqevnto~ Ti(berivou) Klaudivou ⁄ Damarivwno~ ajrcierevw~ kai; ⁄ grammatevw~ tou` dhvmou

Trajan 158 Asi, Magnesia ad Sipylum. TAM V, 1360. IGSK 8, 8. IGRR IV, 1333. AE 1909, 178. J. Keil & A. von Premerstein, Bericht über eine Reise in Lydien und der südlichen Aiolis, DenkschrWien 53, 2 (1908) 2, no. 3. Type: Base Dim.: 0.86 × 0.54 × 0.485 m.; l.: 0.02-0.026 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. TAM: Basis calcaria crepidinibus superiore et inferiore ornata, in urbe Manisa scalae ad bibliothecam moscheae ducenti olim inserta, nunc in museo. Dedicator: ªÔO dh`ºmo~ kaªqºievrwsªenº ⁄ ªejpiºmelªhºqevnto~ Mª---º ⁄ ª---ºou Koi?ntou ∆Iouniªouº ⁄ ªMarkºelleivnou a[rcontªo~º ⁄ ªkai; tºw`n sunarcovntwn aªujtou`º

Tr aja n · 395

Trajan 159 Asi, Miletus. AE 1909, 88. H. Knackfuss, Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Band I, Heft II. Das Rathaus von Milet (Berlin 1908) 118-119, no. 17. Type: Base Dim.: 1.11 × 0.77 × 0.79 m.; l.: 0.020.03 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Knackfuss: Inv. 18. Basis aus bläulichem Marmor. Rechts abgerieben. Verbaut in der späten Stadtmauer beim Buleuterion. Dedicator: ÔH filosevbasto~ Milhsivªwºn ⁄ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ yhfisaªmºev⁄nwn tw`n peri; Ma`rkon Ou[lpªioºn ⁄ Pwllivwnªaº ajrcovntwn

Trajan 160 Asi, Miletus. Herrmann 1997, 42, no. 227. Type: Base Dim.: 1.10 × 0.92 ×? m.; l.: 0.035 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Rehm: Wir haben Grund anzunehmen, daß der Südmarkt und seine Hallen ein bevorzugter Ort für Aufstellung von Kaiserstatuen gewesen ist. Er ist der weitaus größte Platz der Stadt und er enthält (vor einer Anzahl Innensäulen der Osthalle) Unterbauten für Statuenbasen, wie wir sie für die Kaiserstatuen zu erwarten haben. Insbesondere aber hat die Justiniansmauer und der ihr am Markttor vorgelagerte Turm Kaiserbasen in besonderer Fülle geliefert, teils völlig unzerstört, teils in Trümmern, deren Zusammensetzung in einigen Fällen die wesentlichsten Teile der Inschrift wiederzustellen gestattete zu dieser Masse sind hier Funde aus anderen Teilen des Ausgrabungsgebietes gestellt, sofern anzunehmen war, sie seien verschleppt. Inv. 1411a. Gef. 1905, verbaut im Turm am Markttor. Basisblock von weißem Marmor. Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ kata; yhvfisma ejpimelhqevnto~ ⁄ tou` te ajrciprutavnido~ ∆Apollwnivou ⁄ tou` ∆Arollwnivou kai; tw`n sunarcovntwn ⁄ aujtou`

Trajan 161 Asi, Miletus.

Herrmann 1997, 42, no. 228.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.85 × 0.52 × 0.21 m.; l.: 0.045-

0.05 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Rehm: Inv. 260. Gef. 1900 im Felde südlich von Balad. Oben alter Rand, seitlich rechts und links spätere senkrechte Abarbeitung, linka vom ersten Drittel ab später Bruch, unten Bruch. Es ist der Rest einer vorderen Basisplatte, die ursprünglich mindestens die doppelte Breite hatte. JMH: South Market. For context see Trajan 160. Dedicator: ªMilhsivwn hJ boulh;º ⁄ ªkai; oJ dh`ºmo~ pªoleiteusamevº⁄nªwn tou`º te ajrciprutavnªido~ ---º ⁄ ª--- tou` Dºionusodovtou fªilokaivsaro~ kai;º ⁄ ªtw`n suºnarcovntwn aujªtou` ---º ⁄ ª--tou` ---º~ Tiv(tou) Flaouivou ª---º ⁄ ª---º~ to; bæ Ko(i?ntou) Kourª---º ⁄ ª---ºou tou` Hª---º ⁄ ª---ºou ∆Antwªnivou ---º

Trajan 162 Asi, Miletus. Herrmann 1997, 41-42, no. 226. Type: Base Dim.: 0.99 × 0.735 × 0.74 m.; l.: 0.035-0.04 Date: 103 – 104 C. Aquilius Proculus was governor in 103/104 (Eck 1970, 236). Rehm: Inv. 1005 (=1108). Gef. Dez. 1905 bei der zweischiffigen Halle. Pfeilerartiger Basisblock aus Großkörnigem weißem Marmor, unprofiliert; zur Verklammerung mit Basis- und Deckplatteunten und oben Dübellöcher und ringsum geglättete Anschußfläche. JMH: South Market. For context see Trajan 160. Dedicator: ÔH filosev⁄basto~ Milhsivwn boulh; ⁄ kai; oJ dh`mo~ ejpi; ajnqupavtou ⁄ Gai?ou ∆Akouillivou Provklou ⁄ poleiteusamevnou Ti(berivou) Klau⁄divou Qeodovtou filokaivsaro~ ⁄ ejrgepistathvsanto~ ∆Antigov⁄nou tou` ∆Apollwnivou

Trajan 163

Asi, Miletus.

CIG 2876.


– 107 L. Dasumius was governor in 106/107 (Eck 1970, 236).


CIG: Mileti inter dumeta pone theatrum, magnis litteris. Dedicator: ªKata; ta;º grafevnta yhfivsmata ⁄ ªejpimelhqevnto~ Lºoukivou Dasoumivou ⁄ ªejpi; Tivtou Flºabivou Solivdou ⁄ ªajrciprutavnºido~ to; bæ ⁄ ª---ºw`nto~

Trajan 164

Asi, Miletus.

Herrmann 1997, 43, no. 229.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.53 × 0.48 × 0.33 m.; l.:

0.035-0.04 Date: 117 Galeo Tettienus Severus

M. Epuleius Proculus was governor in 118/119, see comment. Rehm: Inv. 176. Gef. 1900, verschleppt, im Jurukendorf Patmiotiko auf der Insel Lade. Oben und unten leidlich sorgfältig, rechts roh zugehauen zu Quaderform. Linke obere Ecke der Vorderplatte einer Basis. Rehm p. 202: Der Proconsul Epuleius Proculus (sofern sein Name in Z. 5 zutreffend ergäntz ist) gehört nach IvEphesos 4333 in das Jahr 117/8. JMH: South Market. For context see Trajan 160. Dedicator: ªMilhsivwnº ⁄ hJ filosevbastoª~ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~º ⁄ ejpi; ajnqupavtou ∆Eªppoulhi?ou Provklouº ⁄ kai; presbeutou` Qª--poleiº⁄teusamevnwn tou` ªte ajrciprutavnido~º ⁄ Tivtou Flaouivou ∆Iouª---º ⁄ kai; tw`n sunaªrcovntwn aujtou`º ⁄ ∆Artevmwno~ tou` ÔImª---º ⁄ ª---º

Trajan 165

Asi, Mylasa.

IGSK 34, 35.

Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 102 –

115 Dacicus but not Parthicus, see comment.

IGSK: Inschrift auf der Basis einer Statue zu

Ehren des Traian, gefunden in der Nähe der

Brücke gegenüber der Ulucami, auf der rechten

Seite des Flusses.



II2, 5, 846).

Dedicator: Flaouiva ⁄ ªPºw`lla ejk diaqhvkh~

⁄ ªtoºu` patro;~ aujth`~ ⁄ ªTivºtou Flaouivou ⁄ ª--ºorevou~

Trajan 166 Asi, Notion. IGRR IV, 1654. Th. Macridy, Antiquités de Notion II, ÖJh 15 (1912) 60, no. C. Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.59 × 0.36 m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. Macridy: Bloc quadrangulaire de marbre. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~ kaqievrwsen

Trajan 167 Asi, Pergamum. IGRR IV, 331. Fränkel 1895, 281, no. 395. Type: Base Dim.: 1.22 × 0.80 × 0.73 m.; l.:? Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus, see comment. AvPergamon: Mittelstück einer Basis aus weißem Marmor, gefunden August 1886 unterhalb des Traianeum (Inv. III 551. Original in Pergamon). Vorder- und Seitenflächen als Außenseiten sein gespitzt; Rückseite weniger sorgfältig bearbeitet. In der als Lagerfläche behandelten Oberseite ein Dübelloch mit nach vorn gehendem Gußkanal. JMH: Optimus officially became part of his title in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (CIL II2, 5, 846). Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ tw`n prªwvtwnº ⁄ kai; di;~ newkovrwn Pergamªhnw`nº ⁄ ejpimelhqevntwn ⁄ M. Kairellivou ÔRouteilivou Louvpou Seª---º ⁄ Gn. ∆Otakilivou Senekivwno~ to; deuvteroªnº ⁄ M. ∆Albeinivou Bavssou Semprwniaªnou`º ⁄ Gn. ∆Otakilivou Senekivwno~ nevoªuº ⁄ M. ∆Antwnivou Oujlpivou Flaouianou` ⁄ tw`n strathgw`n

Trajan 168 Asi, Pergamum. IGRR IV, 332. Fränkel 1895, 281-282, no. 396. Type: Part of a base Dim.: 1.06 × >1.00 × 0.18 m.; l.: 0.032-0.075 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus, see comment. AvPergamon: Bruchstücke von Platten aus weißem, bläulich gestreiftem Marmor, vermutlich von der Verkleidung einer Wand oder einer großen Basis und nach den Fundorten aus dem Traianeum. Rückseite rauh gelassen; Seiten-

Tr aja n · 397

flächen auf Anschluß gearbeitet. A) aus zwei Stücken bestehend, gefunden das obere (Inv. III 182) Februar 1884, das untere (Inv. III 126) September 1883 bei der Skene des Theaters, bis auf die fehlende Ecke links unten vollständig. B) (Inv. III 507) gefunden Februar 1886 in der Gebäudegruppe V der Hochburg, links und rechts gebrochen, oben und unten anscheinend später abgemeisselt. C) (Inv. III 142) gefunden November 1883 südlich von der Agora auf der Ostseite des Hauptweges, überall gebrochen. D) (Inv. III 429) gefunden November 1885 am Abhang unterhalb des Traianeum, oben vollständig. JMH: Optimus officially became part of his title in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (CIL II2, 5, 846). Dedicator: ªÔH boulh; kai; oJ dºh`mªo~ tw`n prwvtwn kai; di;~ newkovrwn Pergamhnw`nº

Trajan 169

Asi, Potidaion.

IG XII, 1, 978. IGRR IV, 1153.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.27 × 0.50 × 0.40 m.; l.: 0.02-

0.03 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthi cus.

IG: In vico Phgadi, ej i~ kabon i.e. promuturio quod Potidaei situm significat, in agro Georgii Chatzipanagiotis f. basis est a dextra sinistraque fracta marmoris fusci. Dedicator: ªÔO da`ºmo~ oJ Karpaqiopoªlita`nº ⁄ ªkaºi; aJ ktoivna aJ Potidaevªwnº ⁄ qeoi`~

tou` ÔHrakleivdou kai; ∆Apollwnivou ⁄ tou` ∆Apollwnivou tw`n ajrcovntwn ⁄ aujth`~

Trajan 171 LyP, Cremna. IGSK 57, 3. Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.22 × 0.46 × 0.34 m.; l.: 0.07 Date: 98 – 117. IGSK: Found loose in an area of later domestic structures, about 40 m north of church D. Block of local limestone, broken above, left, and below, but complete on the right. There is an anathyrosis on the right hand edge, to accomodate an adjecent block. The find spot of this easily portable stone was not far from the Doric agora, where the inscription for Sabina Augusta was inscribed on a console and supported a statue of the facades of the building. This fragment could have come from a statue base for Trajan, displayed in the same area.

Trajan 172

LyP, Letoon. AE 1981, 819. IGRR III, 600. Ballard 1981, 5556, no. 30. TAM II, 2, 492. E. Petersen & F. von Luschan, Reisen in Lykien I (Wien 1889) 122, no. 92. Type: Base Dim.: 1.75 × 1.64 × 1.20 m.; l.: 0.040.045 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. Ballard: Grande base de calcaire blanc local, moulurée au sommet et à la base. Trajan 170

TAM: Basis quadrata undique crepidine supeAsi, Tralles.

riore ornata, cum pars lapidis inferior sub terra IGSK 36, 1, 41. A. M. Kontoleon, Variétes, lateat, inter rudera templi; in parte summa foBCH 10 (1886) 516-517, no. 7. K. Buresch, Zur ramina et vestigia. Lydischen Epigraphik und Geographie, AM 19 Dedicator: Xanqivwn hJ povli~ hJ tou` Luvkiwn ⁄ (1894) 110-111, no. 11.

e[qnou~ mhtrovpoli~ Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 98

Trajan 173

– 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. Dedicator: Filossevbasto~ Kaisa⁄revwn LyP, Pednelissos.

Trallianw`n ⁄ hJ gerousiva ejk tw`n ijdivwn ⁄ kaqievSEG 2, 729. B. Pace, Inscrizioni di Pednelissos,

ASAtene 3 (1916-1921) 156-157, no. 98.

rwsen sunthrhvsªanº⁄ta ejk progovnwn aujth`~ ta; ⁄ divkaia ejpimelhqevntwn ⁄ Ti(berivou) KlauType: Unknown Dim.: 0.84 × 0.58 × 0.58 m.;

divou Mivnnou tou` ⁄ grammatevw~ aujth`~ kai; l.: 0.04 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not

Fil⁄oumenou` tou` ∆Epafra` kai; Carmosuvnou ⁄ Dacicus.


Pace: Presso la stessa porte, nell’interno della città, blocco di cm. 58x58x84, nella parte superiore buco per saldatura di ferro. La dedica è posteriore alla vittoria sui Suevi del 97, quande Traiano presse il titolo di Germanicus. Dedicator: ÔO dh`mo~

JMH: See Augustus 191. IGSK: Die in vier Teilen zerbrochene Basis liegt auf der Nordseite des hadrianischen Ehrenbogen; ein Stück unten fehlt. Dedicator: Pla[nci]a Magna | Plankiva Mavgna

Trajan 176

Trajan 174 LyP, Perge. IGRR III, 790. Lanckoronski 1890, no. 36. R. Melkerbach & S. Șahin, Inschriften von Perge, EpigrAnat 11 (1988) 111, no. 12. IGSK 54, 75. Type: Base Dim.: 0.53 × 0.28 × 0.51 m.; l.: 0.035 Date: 102 – 117 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Merkelbach & Șahin: Profilierte Basis im Felde westlich der Stadt; erste zwei Teile der Inschrift sind beshädigt. Unterteil des Steins lag in der Erde. Sichtbare H. 1.03 m. IGSK: Profilierte Basis aus Kalkstein, die man ehemals im Felde westlich der Stadt gesehen hat. Die Basis hat in der Zwischenzeit weitere Zerstörung erfahren, so daß ich 1992 nur ihren Unterteil etwa 50m westlich der Südthermen, also im Bereich der Westnekropole wiederfand. Sie stand ursprünglich, wie die Panzerstatue des Traians selbst, wohl im Bereich der Südthermen. Die Basis und die Panzerstatue gehören aber wohl nicht zusammen, weil die Maße der Basis dazu ungeeignet scheinen. Dedicator: ª∆Aºpollwvnio~ b fuvsei de; ⁄ Trokovndou kai; Crusw; ⁄ hJ gunh; aujtou` kai; ta; tev⁄kna aujtou` ejk tw`n ijdªivº⁄wn ajnevqhkan kai; ⁄ kaqievrwsan

Trajan 175 LyP, Perge. AE 1988, 1037. A.M. Mansel, Bericht über Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in Pamphylien in den Jahren 1946-1955, AA (1956) col. 112120. S. Jameson, Cornutus Tertullus and the Plancii of Perge, JRS 55 (1965) 55. R. Melkerbach & S. Șahin, Inschriften von Perge, EpigrAnat 11 (1988) 121, no. 31. IGSK 54, 93. Type: Base Dim.: 1.16 × 0.89 × 0.55 m.; l.: 0.0750.09 Date: 121 – 122 Divus / Hadrian trib pot 5, see comment.

LyP, Phaselis.

TAM II, 1189.


98 – 117.

TAM: In foro basis quadratae marmoreae crepi dine ornatae angulus sinister summus.

Trajan 177

LyP, Phaselis.

SEG 31, 1298. J. Schäfer, Phaselis (Tübingen

1981) 145-146, no. 3.


0.042-0.045 Date: 115 – 117 Parthicus.

Schäfer: Found on its side rebuilt into a late wall,

A 13, by the modern path from Hadrian’s Gate to

the South Harbour. Only the sides of the original

stone are preserved; the top is lost, and the bot tom and back are roughly worked.

Dedicator: Fªashº⁄lei`t wn hJ boulh; ⁄ kai; oJ dh`mo~

Trajan 178

LyP, Pinara.

TAM II, 504. IGRR III, 574. R. Heberdey & E.

Kalinka, Bericht über zwei Reisen im südwest lichen Kleinasien, DenkschrWien 45 (1897) 20,

no. 3.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.37 × 1.05 × 0.70 m.; l.: 0.025-

0.03 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus, see comment. Heberdey & Kalinka: Hinterwand des kleinen Theaters, über den Sitzreihen nahe dem nördlichen Ende, in situ. Kalksteinquader, Inschrift gegen das Innere des Theaters gekehrt, ebendahin zeigen auch die Fussspuren auf der Oberseite. JMH: Pinarevwn in l. 3 is based on a similar inscription for Antoninus Pius (TAM II, 505).

Tr aja n · 399

Dedicator: ªPinarevwnº ⁄ hJ bouªlh;º kai; oJ dh`mo~

Trajan 182

Cap, Sebastopolis. SEG 41, 1109. AE 1991, 1478. T.B. Mitford, InTrajan 179

scriptiones Ponticae – Sebastopolis, ZPE 87 LyP, Sagalassos.

(1991) 190, no. 5. IGRR III, 346. Lanckoronski 1892, 226, no. Type: Stele Dim.: 1.71 × 0.585 ×? m.; l.: 0.045199.

0.06 Date: 98 Year 100 see comment. Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.63 ×? m.; l.:? Date: Mitford: Sulsusaray. Built into the eastern wall 98 – 117.

of the house of Abdullah Karakele at the top of Lanckoronski: Einfache Basis auf der westlichen the village. Large stele of grey limestone, broken Dromosmauer.

above, and moulded top and bottom. Year 100 Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ ⁄ dh`m

o~ of the era of Sebastopolis, spanning AD 97/98, refers here to AD 98, after the 28th January, TraTrajan 180 jan’s dies imperii. JMH: The block is probably the front of a statue Gal, Lystra. base. SEG 42, 1261. G. Laminger-Pascher, Die kaiserzeitlichen Inschriften Lycaoniens. Faszikel Dedicator: Sebast⁄opoleitw`n aj[⁄rconte~ I: Der Süden (Wien 1992) 52, no. 52. AE 1907, boul⁄ªh;º dh`mo~ ⁄ e[tou~ r 59.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 102 Trajan 183 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus.

Cap, Sebastopolis. SEG 41, 1111. AE 2000, 1474. T.B. Mitford, InLaminger-Pascher: Verbaut in Karaman im Ein gang der Khatynia Medrese.

scriptiones Ponticae – Sebastopolis, ZPE 87 (1991) 233 no. 43. Dedicator: ∆Ilistrevwn ⁄ oJ dh`mo~ Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.41 × 0.62 × 0.45 m.; Trajan 181 l.: 0.05 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Gal, Pappa. Dacicus. AE 1968, 493. A.S. Hall, Notes and Inscriptions Mitford: Masat, a village 20 kilometers south from Eastern Pisidia, AnatSt 18 (1968) 63-64, south west of Zela. Built into the eastern wall no. 2. of the house of Sadik Eken, on the main street Type: Part of a base Dim.: 0.85 × 0.64 × 0.35 of the village. Fragment of whitish limestone, m.; l.: 0.05 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not complete only above, but broken left, right and below. Dacicus. Hall: Yunisler, in the yard of a house in the vilTrajan 184 lage, a large limestone block, heavily damaged, brought from the ancient site by the river, broken Cap, Sebastopolis. right, left and above, probably complete below. SEG 41, 1110. AE 1991, 1479. T.B. Mitford, InThis massive stone, inscribed with slightly unscriptiones Ponticae – Sebastopolis, ZPE 87 even but clearly cut letters, is part of the base of (1991) 191-192, no. 6. Type: Base Dim.: 1.05 × 0.73 × 0.65 m.; l.: 0.05 an emperor’s statue, set up by the council and the Date: 105 – 106 Year 108, see comment. people of Pappa (presumably), upon a proposal from a leading citizen, who is named in the last Mitford: Sulusaray. Built into the corner of a two lines of the inscription. house wall at the top of the village. Statuebase Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dªh`mo~ gramof white limestone. Year 108 at Sebastopolis mateuvº⁄ªoºnto~ T Flaoªuivou T uiJou`º ⁄ ªFºronequates to AD 105/106. L. Antonius Saturninus, tw`no~ Newªnianou`º archiereus and high priest of the imperial cult,


had been honoured by his tribe some two years previously; and may plausibly be restored as the dedicant to Hadrian, perhaps in AD 117, of a stoa and ergasteria. Dedicator: L ∆Antwvnio~ Sator⁄nei`no~ ejk tw`n ⁄ ijdivwn e[tei hr

Vespasian, in the west wall of the cella, adjecent

to no. 161 (Nerva): a base of a light grey marble,

moulded at top and bottom, complete, with no

trace of foothole or dowel.


Trajan 188 Trajan 185 Cil, Diocaesarea. MAMA III, 70, no. 72. Type: Architrave Dim.: 0.509 × 0.80 × 0.92 m.; l.: 0.037 Date: 98 – 117. MAMA: Kalksteinarchitrav, unten glatt, mit reichem Oberprofil und beiderseits drei durch Astragalschnüre getrennten Fascien, rechts und links abgebrochen, in zwei Zielen auf der oberen und ein Zeile auf der mittleren Fascie. Weihinschrift, die natürlich auch in längerer Fassung ergänzt werden könnte, einer Statue des Kaisers Trajan, welche über dem Gebälk eines großen Bauwerkes oder auf einer von einem Säulenjoch gebildeten Basis aufgestellt gewesen sein muss. Die Arbeit ist mit der Architrave des großen Torbaus im Stadtmittelpunkte verwandt. Dedicator: ªÔH povli~º

Cil, Kestros. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Sites Old and New in

Rough Cilicia, AnatSt 12 (1962) 212. SEG 20, 105.

R. Paribeni & P. Romanelli, Studi e ricerche ar-

chaeologiche nell’Anatolia meridionale, MonAnt

23 (1915) col. 149-151, no. 110.

Type: Small column Dim.: 0.80 ×? ×? m.; l.:?

Date: 98 – 117.

Paribeni & Romanelli: Un tronco di colonnina.

JMH: The eikon mentioned in the inscription

could possibly be that of the emperor Trajan.

Dedicator: ∆Ingei oJ eiJereu;~ ⁄ tevssare~ kivwne~

xustrwtou;~ kai; th`n quvran si⁄dhra`n kai; to;n eijkovna kai; tri`~ krath`re~ kai; rJanth`⁄ra ejk tw`n ijdivwn ajnevsthse kai; Mavnti thì douv⁄lhi prosevqhke dhnavria ei[kosi tevssara

Trajan 189

Cil, Iotape. AE 1915, 52. R. Paribeni & P. Romanelli, Studi e ricerche archaeologiche nell’Anatolia meridionale, MonAnt 23 (1915) col. 181-182, no. 127. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.52 × 2.05 ×? m.; l.: 0.04 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Paribeni & Romanelli: Grande blocco di calcare. Dedicator: ∆Iwtapeitw`n oJ dh`mo~

Cil, Kolybrassos. K. Tomaschitz, Unpublizierte Inschriften West kilikiens aus dem Nachlass Terence B. Mitfords

(Wien 1998) 31, no. 13. AE 1998, 1415. SEG 48,

1775.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.61 × 1.92 × 0.41 m.; l.:

0.033-0.04 Date: 114 Trib pot 18.

AE: Ayasofya. Bloc de calcaire, provenant d’une

porte monumentale de la cité.

Dedicator: ÔH Kolubrass⁄evwn povli~ ajnevqh ken

Trajan 187

Trajan 190

Cil, Kestros. AE 1972, 647. G.E. Bean & T.B. Mitford, Journeys through Rough Cilicia 1964-1968, DenkschrWien 102 (1970) 159, no. 162. Type: Base Dim.: 0.705 × 0.79 ×? m.; l.: 0.030.035 Date: 98 – 102 Germanicus but not Dacicus. Bean & Mitford: Mactar Kalesi, in the temple of

Cil, Mopsouestia.

IGRR III, 914. CIG 4443 c. Langlois 1854, 56,

no. 182.


– 100 Year 3, see comment.

CIG: Mopsuestiae in domo quadam.

JMH: In the third year of his reign. Counting

from his adoption this would be from October

Trajan 186

Tr aja n · 401

99 to October 100; from his dies imperii: January

100 to January 101.

Dedicator: ÔH povl

i~

Trajan 191 Cyp, Kourion. T.B. Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion (Philadelphia 1971) 157-159, no. 85. T.B. Mitford, Further Contributions to the Epigraphy of Cyprus, AJA 65 (1961) 124-125. SEG 20, 157. IGRR III 969. IGRR III 972. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 117 – 118 Divus, see comment. Mitford: Two fragments of a statue-base, which I now associate: (a), copied by Sakellarios about the year 1850 at the Sanctuary of Apollo and (b), by Waddington in 1862 in a wall of the Turkish cemetary at Episkopi. Neither has since been seen by any other authority. No dimensions or accounts of the stones have been recorded. Dedicator: Aujtokªrºavtwr ªKai`sarº ⁄ ªÔAdrºiano;~ Sebasto;~ Gªerºmaniko;~ ªDakiko;~ Parqikov~º ⁄ ªqeou` Nevroua Tºrai>anªou`º Kaivsaro~ uiªJov~ qeou`º ⁄ ªNevroua uiJwnov~º

Trajan 192 Cyp, Lapethos. T.B. Mitford, New Inscriptions from Roman Cyprus, Opuscula Archaeologica 6 (1950) 22-24 no. 11. I. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, RDAC (1969) 73-74, no. 2. SEG 25, 1133. Type: Base Dim.: 0.363 × 0.385 × 0.22 m.; l.: 0.032-0.038 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Mitford: A statue of Trajan at Lapethus. At Karavas, in the house of one Photis Nikita in the Petroyitonia quarter; clearly taken fron the ruins of the neighbouring Lapethus: the left-hand portion of a statue-base of slate-blue marble. The stone has ragged edges, but is complete except to the right and behind. Above, a dowel hole for the support of the statue. Surface fair, but probably palimpsest. Examined July 3, 1938, and left in the above house. Dedicator: “Adrasto~ ∆Adravstoªu ---º

Trajan 193

Cyp, Salamis.

IGRR III, 987. CIG 2634. Pouilloux, Roesch &

Marcillet-Jaubert 1987, 62, no. 139.


l.: 0.03 Date: 99 – 100 Year 3.

Pouilloux: Musée de Farmagouste. Bloc de mar-

bre gris-bleu à veines blanches, longtemps placé

devant la cathédrale; retaillé à droite, à gauche et

au-dessous, écorné à la partie antérieure gauche,

brisé à l’arrière.

Dedicator: ÔH povl

i~

Trajan 194 Cyp, Soloi. T.B. Mitford, New Inscriptions from Roman Cyprus, Opuscula Archaeologica 6 (1950) 32-33, no. 16. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.315 × 0.325 × 0.16 m.; l.: 0.02-0.027 Date: 116 – 117 Year 20 of the reign? Mitford: A dedication to Trajan by a citizen of Soli. Cyprus Museum. Found at Soli by the Public Works Department on July 28th, 1916, and presented to the Museum. A block of hard limestone, complete above and behind, possibly also to the right, where however the face of the stone is oblique. Dedicator: ª---ºu~ “Arxa~ to; iq l

Trajan 195

Syr, Apamea ad Orontem.

Insc. Syrie 4, pp. 76-77, no. 1345. IGRR III,

1532.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.51 × 0.47 ×? m.; l.: 0.035


Insc. Syrie: Dans le village, base d’une statue,

remployée dans un mur, un peu au-dessus et à

g. d’une porte. Dedicator: Klhroªnºovmoi ⁄ ∆Appivou ”Hrkou⁄ªliou ajnevqhkanº

Trajan 196

Syr, Dura.

AE 1933, 225. P.V.C. Baur & M.I. Rostovtzeff &

A. R. Bellinger (S. Gould), The Excavations at


Dura-Europos, Preliminary Report of Fourth Season of Work October 1930-March 1931 (New Haven 1933) 56-65. Type: Arch Dim.:? × 4.54 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Baur: Measurements of the ruins which lie one mile outside Dura on the road to Palmyra disclose that they are the remains of a triumphal arch, whose size and probable proportions are indicated in the accompanying sketch. Since only parts of the upright piers are still standing, no trace of the original inscription was found in situ, but in the sand below were discovered sixteen fragments. Dedicator: [Le]gio [---]

IGRR III, 1346. AE 1903, 332. Kraeling 1938, 424, no. 141. Type: Base Dim.: 1.20 × 0.75 × 0.75 m.; l.: 0.0150.035 Date: 102 – 115 Dacicus but not Parthicus. Kraeling: A circular pedestal standing on the cardo in front of the structure at the northeast corner of the Artemis temenos, a companion piece to 143 [base for Hadrian]. It consists of two blocks. JMH: The inscription is hardly legible now. Approximate measurements: H. 1.20, diam.: 0.75. This base probably once belonged with a similar base for Hadrian standing nearby. Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`⁄mo~

Trajan 197

Trajan 200

Syr, Khirbet el-Bilaas.

Insc. Syrie 5, 238-239, no. 2551.

Type: Column Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.025-0.03


Insc. Syrie: Sur le 3e tambourde la colonne hono rifique un cartouche è queues d’aronde. La col onne honorifique était donc dédiée à Trajan et à

“sou pere” Nerva.

JMH: Khirbet el-Bilaas is situated approximately

60 kilometers south east of Hama. The stone

could have been taken here from a number of

different localities.

Ara, Gerasa.

SEG 7, 844. AE 1927, 147. Kraeling 1938, 401,

no. 56-57. F.M. Abel, Inscriptiones de Gérasa,

RBi 36 (1927) 250-252, no.1.

Type: Arch Dim.: 2.92 × 0.72 ×? m.; l.: 0.075-

0.09 Date: 115 Trib pot 19. Kraeling: Six fragments of the dedicatory inscription of the North Gate, which was inscribed on twin panels on the northern and southern faces of the gate above the arch. Dedicator: ∆Atiocevwn tw`n pro;~ twì ªCrusorovai tw`n pºrovteron Gerashnªw`nº ⁄ hJ ªpovlºi~ twì ijdivwi sªwºth`ri kªai; kºtivªsthi ejpi; Kºlaudivou Seouhvrou ⁄ ªuJpºatikou` presªbeutou` Sºebasªtou` ajntºistrathvgou

Trajan 198

Jud, Emmaus.

IGRR III, 1001. M. Perdrizet, Nouvelles et cor-

respondance, BCH 21 (1897) 165. Insc. Syrie 1,

99-100, no. 165.


– 117 See comment.

Insc. Syrie: A la fontaine d’Islâhîyé. La pierre est

dans la vase, la fin du texte est invisible.


in AD 114 but was occasionally used earlier (cf.

CIL II2, 5, 846).

Trajan 199 Ara, Gerasa.

Trajan 201

Ara, Petra.

SEG 32, 1550. G. Bowersock, Reviews and no tices of publications, JRS 72 (1982) 198. G. Bow ersock, A Report on Arabia Provincia, JRS 61

(1971) 232. AE 1999, 1703.


114 Trib pot 18.

Bowersock 1971: Unpublished triple arch at the

eastern end of the Qasr temenos.

Dedicator: ªÔH th`~ ∆Arabiva~ mhºtrovpoli~ Pev tra

ejpi; Gaivou Klªaudivoºu Seouhvrou

presbeªutºou` ajntistrathvgou

Tr aja n · 403

Trajan 202

Aeg, Alexandria.

IGRR I, 1058. S. Ricci, Archiv für Papyrusfor-

schung 2 (1903) 440, no. 47.


– 117.

Trajan 203

Aeg, Alexandria.

IGRR I, 1059. E. Breccia, Iscrizioni greche e latine.

Catalogue géneral des antiquités égyptiennes du

Musée d’Alexandrie (Cairo 1911) 47, no. 63.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.44 × 0.50 m.; l.:?

Date: 102 – 117 Dacicus.

Breccia: Marmo bianco. Base cubica. Prov.: Al exandria (Villa Nubar Pacha a Moharrem Bey,

presso il Calane Mahmudieh).

Trajan 204 Aeg, Philae. E. Bernard, Les inscriptions grecques de Philae II (Paris 1969) 154-155, no. 163. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.08-0.105 Date: 110 Trib pot 14. Bernard: L’emplacement de la pierre ne nous est pas connu.

Trajan 205 Aeg, Syene. CIL III, 14147, 2. R. Cagnat, BAParis. Comptes rendus des séances, january (1896) 37-45. Type: Base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 98 – 99 Cos 2 / trib pot 1. CIL: See Caligula 28. Dedicator: Per C Pompeium | Plantam praef(ectum) Aeg(ypti) et L Genucium Priscum | praef(ectum) castror(um) coh(ortes) tres I Hispanor(um) eq(uitata) cui praeest Q Claudius | Africanus et II Itur(aeorum) eq(uitata) cui praeest Ti Claudius Berenicianus | et I Theb(aeorum) eq(uitata) cui praeest P Claudius Justus curam agente P Claudio | Iusto praef(ecto) coh(ortis) I Theb(aeorum) eq(uitatae) et curatore coh(ortis) I Hispanor(um) eq(uitatae) et | coh(ortis) II Ituraeor(um) equit(atae)

Hadrian Hadrian 1

Rom, Roma.

AE 1992, 130. I. Di Stefano Manzella, Lapidario

profano en Lateranense: Nouvo iscrizioni sacre,

imperiali, sepolcrali, BMonMusPont 11 (1991)

55, no. 4. CIL VI, 40512/3.


m.; l.: 0.047-0.063 Date: 117 – 138.

Manzella: Frammento marginale superiore di

lastra, subbiata sul retro, frontalmente “petti nata” con gradina media, pertinente a una lastra

di rivestimento, forse posta in opera sulla base di

statua imperiale. Marmo bianco.

Hadrian 2

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 40522.


0.04-0.05 Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: Tabula marmorea a dextra infraque fracta.

In parte aversa titulus sepulcralis Conradi Teu tonici a. 1282 defuncti insculptus. Rep. fortasse

Romae. Asservabantur in collectione Lycei Ho-

siani oppidi Braniewo Poloniae, unde translatus

est in Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawe, ubi extat

(inv. n. 198.847).

Hadrian 3

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 978.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.135 × 0.24 × 0.34 m.; l.:?

Date: 117 – 138.

CIL add.: Basis parva statuae marmorea olim

haud dubie ita parieti cuidam affixa, ut pars

posterior parieti immissa, prior – in cuius facie

sursum versa rudi statua collocata erat – infra

quoque cernerentur. Extat in Mus. Vat., Lap.

Prof. Ex-Lat. (inv. n. 25.688).

Dedicator: N(umerus) collig(iorum) Aelianorum

sanctissimo Minervae Salvi Amarcus Aug(usti)

lib(ertus) ex testamen(o) d(edit) d(edicavit)

Hadrian 4 Rom, Roma.


CIL VI, 967.


0.09-0.13 Date: 118 Trib pot 2 / cos 2.

CIL: Tabula marmorea in fronte scalpro dentato

dolata, a tergo levigata. Fragmentum, quod su perest, superne et a dextra et infra fractum, a si nistra levigatum, in fronte fissuris leasum. Extat

in repositis fori Traiani (inv. Mus. Cap. n. 783).

Dedicator: S(enatus) P(opulus)q(ue) R(omanus)

|| qui primus omnium princip[u]m et | solus re-

mittendo sestertium novies | milies centena milia

n(ummum) debitum fiscis | non praesentes tan-

tum cives suos sed | et posteros eorum praestitit

hac | liberalitate securos

cussa. Rep. in eruderanda sacra viae prope tem plum Divi Romuli.

Hadrian 8

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 969.


– 127 Trib pot 10. CIL add.: Tabula marmorea cymatio inverso ita cincta, ut area titulo inscribendo destinata expolita promineat. Olim in via Flaminia parieti cuidam inserta nunc extat Firenze in Uffizi. Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 9 Hadrian 5

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 967a. Gordon 1964, 40-41, no. 176.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.56 × 1.27 × 1.05 m.; l.: 0.045-


CIL: Basis marmorea corona et crepidine circum

prospicientibus praedita, in corona nunc ex parte

mutila ramis floribus foliis ornata.

Gordon: Inscribed front of a large marble base,

standing against the east wall of the Atrio of the

Pal. dei Cons.

Dedicator: Viatores qui ipsi et co(n)s(ulibus) et |

pr(aetoribus) ceterisque magistratib(us) | appar-

ent et h(onore) u(si)

Hadrian 6

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 968.


pot 2 / cos 3.

CIL add.: Basis statuae. Rep. in luco fratrum Ar-

valium apud La Magliana. Periit.

Hadrian 7

Rom, Roma.

AE 1899, 148. CIL VI, 40515. CIL VI, 36915. G.

Gatti, NSc (1899) 77.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.78 × 0.40 ×? m.; l.: 0.035-

0.045 Date: 119 – 138 Cos 3.

CIL: Basis marmorea a dextra fracta, in corona

crepidineque et a sinistra magnam partem de -

Rom, Roma. CIL VI, 36916. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.28 × 0.40 ×? m.; l.: 0.040.045 Date: 126 – 138 Trib pot 10-22. CIL: Tabula marmorea opisthographa superne et a dextra et infra fracta. In via Nomentana prope aedem S. Agnetis reperta asservatur in eadem ecclesia.

Hadrian 10 Rom, Roma. AE 1992, 175. AE 1948, 91. CIL VI, 40516. Coarelli, Kajanto, Nyberg & Steinby 1981, 100101, no. 15. G. Marchetti Longhi, Gli scavi del Largo Argentina, BCom 71 (1943-1945) 65-67, no VII. Type: Tabula Dim.: 1.48 × 1.01 × 0.10 m.; l.: 0.08-0.13 Date: 128 – 137 Sabina Augusta. AE 1992: Zone sacrée du Largo Argentina. Porticus ad Nationes. Quatre fragments jointifs d’une plaque de marbre mis au jour 1927. Les deux dédicaces a) à g. et b) à dr. disposées symétriquement sul la même plaque de marbre ont fait l’objet, depuis leur publication, de restitutions très diverses. La. les date du règne d’Hadrien et estime qu’elles émanent de la même communauté, Catane (Catana ou Catina), qui a reçu le statut de colonie sous Auguste, mais dont la nomenclature complète est inconnue. L’ensemble, constitué de quatre plaques de dim. voisines, se serait développé sur 4 m de largeur.

Hadrian · 405

En raison de la place insolite du nom de Sabine

à la g. de celui d’Hadrien, l’a envisage la pos sibilité d’une inscription tripartite (et dans ce

cas d’un développement sur 6 m), la dédicace

à Hadrien étant flanquée à g. d’une dédicace à

Sabine et à dr. d’une dédicace (non conservée) à

Matidie divinisée.

Dedicator: Col[onia Iulia Aug(usta) Pietas

Catana] | ind[ulgentia eius aucta et ornata] |

max[imo et sacratissimo principi?]

stylii vel basis magna desecta) ex pluribus par-

tibus coniuncta a sinistra et in angulo inferiore

dextro fracta. Rep. sub templo Iovis Tonantis.

Nunc extat in Mus. Cap., Sala terrena a destra II

parieti inserta (inv. n. 7.156).

Dedicator: [S(enatus) p(opulus)q(ue)] R(o-

manus) || [quod summo pugnandi a]rdore

mi[ss]o | [exercitu suo superatis imperat]oribus

max[imis] | [Syriam Palaestinam ab ho]ste libe raverit

Hadrian 11

Hadrian 14

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 977. CIL VI, 31219.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.18 × 0.29 × 0.115 m.; l.:

0.008-0.02 Date: 128 – 138 Pater patriae.

CIL add.: Basis marmorea parva statuae.

Dedicator: M Petronius Sura proc(urator) | cum

Mamertino et Antonino | liberis | ex arg(ento)

p(ondo) V s(emuncia)

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 980 a.


– 138 Imp 2.

CIL: Tabula marmorea superne et a dextra fracta.

Extat in Mus. Vat. Gall. Lap. XLVII (inv. 6.795).

Hadrian 12

Hadrian 15

Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 975.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.50 × 1.35 × 1.32 m.; l.: 0.055-

0.10 Date: 136 Trib pot 20 / L Ceionio Commodo Sex Vetuleno Civica Pompeiano cos. CIL add.: Basis marmorea in fronte et in lateribus inscripta, corona crepidineque prospicientibus. In facie sursum directa scabra cavum rotundum plinthidi statuae accipendae excavatum. Basis, quae usque ad a. 1929 asservabatur in Pal. Cons. Dedicator: Magistri vicorum urbis | regionum XIIII

Rom, Roma.

AE 1901, 162. AE 1901, 85. CIL VI, 36917. CIL

VI, 40523. CIL VI, 3754. CIL VI, 31302. M.

Hülsen, RM (1901) 95-96. G. Gatti, Nuove sco perte nella città e nel suburbio, NSc (1900) 570.


0.075-0.17 Date: 134 – 136 Trib pot 18-19.

CIL: Tria fragmenta tabulae marmoreae inter se

non coniuncta. Fragmenta repertum sunt a in

foro Romano prope lacum Iuturnae, b a. 1872

in foro Romano, c in angulo quodam lacus Iu-

turnae. Extant in Lap. For., chiostro superiore

Hadrian 16

parieti affixa (inv. n. 5.244 et 5. 247).

Dedicator: Colonia Iu[lia Aug(usta)] | Rom, Roma.

CIL VI, 984. CIL VI, 31220. G. Walser, Die Ein Tertiadecim[anorum] | Uthina ex [Africa] | in dulgentia eius au[cta et ornata]

siedler Inschriftensammlung und der Pilger-

führer durch Rom (Codex Einsidlensis 326)

Hadrian 13

(Stuttgart 1987) 116-125.

Rom, Roma.


– 139 Dead but not deified. CIL VI, 974. CIL VI, 40524.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.: 0.90 × 0.70 JMH: Inscription placed above the door leading ×? m.; l.: 0.062-0.13 Date: 135 – 136 Trib pot into the mausoleum. Although not on a statue 19.

base, the inscription was certainly associated CIL: Tabula marmorea (vel fortasse frons epi with portrait statues of Hadrian, both inside the


tomb and on top. For some reason the author of

Codex Einsidlensis 326 did not include this in scription in his list of inscriptions on the mau soleum. It is know only through Renaissance

authors.

Dedicator: Imp(erator) Caesar T Aelius Hadri anus Antoninus Aug Pius | parentibus eius

Hadrian 17

LaC, Capua.

AE 1989, 155. G. D’Isanto, Iscrizioni latine in edite dell’Antiquarium di S. Maria Capua Vetere,

RendNap 59 (1984) 124-125, no. 1.


l.: 0.07-0.09 Date: 138 - Divus.

D’Isanto: Frammento di marmo bianco, tendente

al grigio, rotto a sinistra e nella parte inferiore.

AE: Fragment de plaque de marbre blanc. Dédi cace à Hadrien divinisé, probalbement gravée

sur la base d’une statue. On sait qu’Hadrien

s’est intéressé à Capoue, où il a fait restaurer

l’amphithéâtre: CIL X, 3832.

Hadrian 18

LaC, Capua.

AE 1989, 156. G. D’Isanto, Iscrizioni latine in edite dell’Antiquarium di S. Maria Capua Vetere,

RendNap 59 (1984) 125, no. 2.


m.; l.: 0.06-0.077 Date: 138 - Divus.

AE: Petit fragment de marbre blanc. Dédi cace à Hadrien divinisé, probalbement gravée

sur la base d’une statue. On sait qu’Hadrien

s’est intéressé à Capoue, ou il a fait restaurer

l’amphithéâtre: CIL X, 3832.

CIL XIV, 2796.


117 – 138.

CIL: Gabiis rep. anno 1792.

Hadrian 21

LaC, Gabii.

CIL XIV, 2799. Gordon 1964, 68-69, no. 197.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.793 × 1.42 ×? m.; l.: 0.059-

0.073 Date: 119 – 137 Cos 3 / Sabina.

CIL: Basis marmorea, rep. a. 1767 nella tenuta

della casa Borghesi chiamata Pantano, deinde

facta pontificis et destinata museo Vaticano. Ibi

extat.

Gordon: Inscribed front of a marble base, set in

the wall of the Galleria Lapidaria of the Vatican

(inv. no. 6882).

Dedicator: Ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) publice

Hadrian 22

LaC, Gabii.

CIL XIV, 2798.


– 124 Trib pot 7. CIL: Gabiis rep. JMH: The restoration of the inscription in CIL is wrong. Imp ii and p(atri) p(atriae) in line 6 are a mistake. Instead one would expect the name of the dedicator. Another possible solution suggested by M. Horster, Bauinschriften römischer Kaiser (Stuttgart 2001) 264, is that the name of Hadrian takes the nominative case and that he carried out some construction out of his own money. In that case the inscription was not connected with a statue. Dedicator: [---] sua pec(unia) fecit

Hadrian 19

LaC, Fabrateria Nova.

CIL X, 5577.


117 – 138.

CIL: S. Giovani in Carico in hortis Cayro ur-

banis.

Hadrian 20 LaC, Gabii.

Hadrian 23

LaC, Lanuvium.

CIL XIV, 2099. Fuchs 1987, 34.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.;

l.:? Date: 135 – 138 Imp 2.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmorea Civita La-

vinia rep a. 1865 ab Anconio. Postea fuit Romae

in Palatino, anno 1878 ibidem in museo Kirche riano amplificato.

Hadrian · 407

Fuchs: Das Fragment gehört wohl zu einer Basis

für eine Statue des Hadrian.

Hadrian 24

LaC, Minturnae.

AE 1982, 151. P. Cavouto, Iscrizioni latine di

Minturno, Ottava Miscellanea greca e romana

(1982) 505-506, no. 5.


0.10-0.15 Date: 128 – 138 Pater patriae.

Cavouto: Lastra di marmo di picole dimensioni,

rotta in diversi frammenti e quasi completamente

ricomposta attraverso la ricongiunzione di nove

di esse completamente combacianti.

Hadrian 27

LaC, Nola.

CIL X, 1242.


– 130 Trib pot 13.

CIL: Nolae nel cortile del palazzo di D. Luigi

Mastrilli.

Hadrian 28

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 4353. G. Calza, NSc (1923) 409.


117 – 138.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae margi natae.

Hadrian 25 LaC, Nemi. J.S. Østergaard, Romersk Kejsertid, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (København 1996) 298, no. 204. L. Borsari, NSc (1895) 430-431. P. Guldager Bilde, En undersøgelse af de centralitaliske helligdomskomplekser i republikansk tid, med særligt henblik på Diana-helligdommen i Nemi (unpublished dissertation, University of Aarhus 1989) 178, no. X.IV. 21. Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.98 × 1.04 × 0.07 m.; l.:? Date: 122 – 123 Trib pot 6. Østergaard (translated from danish): Marble. Broken into several pieces and then re-assebled. Missing pieces on the left and right restored in plaster, otherwise well-preserved. Bought 1896 in Rome. Formerly in Palazzo Savelli. Found in 1895 by Orsini during excavations in the sanctuary of Artemis by Lake Nemi, in front of Porticus 2, room f. Dedicator: Senatus populusque | Aricinus

Hadrian 26 LaC, Nola. AE 1971, 82. A. Ferrua, Cimitile ed altre inscrizioni dell’Italia inferiore I, Epigraphica 33 (1971) 100-101. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 119 – 138 Cos 3. Ferrua: Ne sono tornati alle luce tre grossi frammenti nello scavo della basilica occidentale detta di S. Stefano.

Hadrian 29

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 5325.


l.:? Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: Fragmentum.

Dedicator: [---]usa[---] | [---]s[---]

Hadrian 30

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 92.


– 138. CIL: Tabulae marmoreae. Romae in museo Vati cano. Ostiensem esse non traditur.

Dedicator: [T]i Claud[ius ---] | Pompo[n ---] |

quinquen[nalis ---] | Ostiensiu[m ---]

Hadrian 31

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 93.


– 138. CIL: Ostiae in museo.

Hadrian 32

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 4350. Vaglieri, NSc (1913) 353, no. 2

a.



Date: 121 – 126 Trib pot 5-9.

CIL: Tabulae marmoreae utriumque inscriptae

fragmenta duo.

Hadrian 33

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 94.


Trib pot 7 / 17.

CIL: Basis marmorea. Ostiae rep. anno 1803

nel gran tempio et ibi relicta. Extat in Ostiae in

templo quod vulgo Iovis vel Vulcani templum

dicitur.

Hadrian 34

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 4354. D. Vaglieri, NSc (1913) 184, no.

1.

Type: Probably a base Dim.: 0.34 × 0.255 ×? m.;

l.:? Date: 128 – 138 Pater patriae.

CIL: Fragmentum marmoreum (basis ut videtur,

non tabulae). Rep. innanzi al gran tempio; est in

repositis musei Ostiensis.

Hadrian 35

LaC, Ostia.

CIL XIV, 95. CIL VI, 972.


0.11 Date: 133 – 134 Trib pot 17. CIL: Tabula magna marmorea. Romae in S. Pauli via Ostiensi nella nave di mezzo incontro alla colonna da man destra entrado, fragmento in più pezzi in diversi luoghi della chiesa. Fragmenta nunc coniuncta servantur in coenobio S. Pauli. Dedicator: Colonia Ostia | conservata et aucta | omni indulgentia et | libertate eius

Hadrian 36

LaC, Puteoli.

CIL X, 1636.


117 – 138.

CIL: Neapoli in museo.

Hadrian 37

LaC, Puteoli.

CIL X, 1638.


118 Cos 2.

CIL: Neapoli in museo.

Hadrian 38

LaC, Puteoli.

AE 1890, 65. AE 1977, 200. A. Sogliano, NSc

(1890) 17-18. G. Camodeca, L’ordinamento in

regiones e i vici di Puteoli, Puteoli. Studi di storia

antica 1 (1977) 75-77.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.50 × 0.88 × 0.80 m.; l.: 0.04


AE: Base trouvée en mer, à 25 m du rivage ac tuel, près de l’usine de la Sofer, à 740 m à l’ouest

du macellum. Aujourd’hui an Musée national

de Naples.

Dedicator: Inquilini vici | Lartidiani

Hadrian 39

LaC, Puteoli.

AE 1977, 201. G. Camodeca, L’ordinamento in

regiones e i vici di Puteoli, Puteoli. Studi di storia

antica 1 (1977) 77-80.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.35 × 0.90 × 0.77 m.; l.: 0.023-

0.06 Date: 121 – 122 Trib pot 5.

AE: Base de marbre trouvée en 1972 en mer, à

300 m du rivage actuel, en face de l’usine Pirelli,

à 1500 m à l’ouest du macellum. Aujourd’hui à

l’amphithéâtre de Pouzzoles.

Dedicator: Inquilini [v]ici | [Lartidi]ani

Hadrian 40

LaC, Salernum.

CIL X, 514. Insc. Ital. I, 1, 4.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.60 × 1.30 × 1.18 m.; l.:?


Insc. It.: Statuae basis ingens e marmore venis

subcaeruleis distincto, cuius in latere sinistro

lituus, in dextro patera sunt insculpta.

Dedicator: Q [---]nius Q [---] | Epictetus Au-

gustalis pecunia sua | cuius dedicatione colonis

sing(ulis) IIII (sestertium) n(ummos) ded(it)

Hadrian · 409

Hadrian 41

Hadrian 45

LaC, Signia.

CIL X, 5963.


- Divus.

CIL: Signiae in choro S. Mariae super lapide mar-

moreo posito in pavimento sub tabula lignea.

Dedicator: Senatus populusq(ue) S[igninus]

| quod opera reipubl[icae utilia] | profusa

liberalita[te antea] | data pecunia t[est(amento)

perfici] | iusser[it ---]

ApC, Aeclanum.

CIL IX, 1110.


117 – 138.

CIL: Aeclani.

Hadrian 42

LaC, Surrentum.

CIL X, 676 a.


Trib pot 5.

CIL: Bases duae similimae. Surrenti in porta

quae dicitur Parzano. Ibidem vidi ego a. 1846.

Iam altera basis, scilicet ea quam primo loco ex hibui, extat in museo; altera videtur periisse, cum

porta diruta est.

Dedicator: Decuriones | municipesq(ue) Surrent(ionorum) | pecunia conlata

Hadrian 46

ApC, Beneventum.

AE 1969/70, 167. P. Cavuoto, Le epigrafi del tea tro romano di Benevento, RendLinc 24 (1969)

88. Fuchs 1987, 50. Type: Base Dim.: 1.35 × 1.12 × 1.09 m.; l.:? Date: 126 – 127 Trib pot 10. Cavuoto: Sulla scena del teatro si trovano poi due dediche imperiali entrambe incise su due basi onorarie lì collocate originariamente in occasione probabilimente di provvidenze dei principi a favore dell’insignie monumento benevantano. L’inscrizione dedicata ad Adriano dalla colonia di Benevento e posta sulla sinistra della scena rispetto alla caveo è ben conservata e perfetta mente leggibile. Dedicator: Colonia Iulia | Concordia Beneventum

Hadrian 43

LaC, Surrentum.

CIL X, 676 b.


Trib pot 5.

CIL: Bases duae similimae. Surrenti in porta

quae dicitur Parzano. Ibidem vidi ego a. 1846.

Iam altera basis, scilicet ea quam primo loco ex hibui, extat in museo; altera videtur periisse, cum

porta diruta est.

Dedicator: Decuriones | municipesq(ue) Sur-

rent(ionorum) | pecunia conlata

Hadrian 44

LaC, Teanum Sidicenum.

CIL X, 4782.


– 130 Trib pot 13.

CIL: Teani. Hodie in aede cathedrali.

Dedicator: Teanenses | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 47

ApC, Brundisium.

AE 1969/70, 125. C. Pagliara, Note di epigrafia

Salentina, Athenaeum 47 (1970) 98-99, no. 3.


0.034-0.05 Date: 117 – 138.

Pagliara: Parte superiore sinistra di targa in

marmo bianco.

Hadrian 48

ApC, Luceria.

AE 1996, 451. M. Silvestrini, Epigraphica: testa

inedite dall’agro di Lucera e un nuovo miliare

di Massenzio della via Herulia, in C. Stella & A.

Valvo (eds.), Studi in onore di Albino Garzetti

(Brescia 1996) 432-441, no. 1.


0.04-0.08 Date: 117 – 138.

AE: Pietramontecorvino. Dans les années 1980.


Plaque de marbre blanc en deux fragments, CIL IX, 4323.

brisée à dr. et en b.


Trib pot 1 / cos 1, see comment.

Hadrian 49

CIL: Coppiti in domo Barnardini Marinelli.

BrL, Grumentum.

JMH: Sometimes the numbers after trib pot and

CIL X, 208.

cos are left out, so the inscription could possibly

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 119 date later than AD 117.


– 120 Trib pot 3.

CIL: Grumenti in aede S. Laverii ad Sauram.

Dedicator: L Aquilius Mamius | aed(ilis) Hadrian 54

pr(aetor) IIvir q(uinquennalis) | ob hon(orem) Sam, Amiternum.

augur(atus) | d(onum) d(at)

CIL IX, 4359.


Hadrian 50

– 135 Trib pot 18.

CIL: Marmor iam excisum in urnulae modum.

BrL, Regium.

AE 1923, 63. AE 1914, 140. P. Orsi, NSc (1922) Dedicator: Vicani Forulani

157. M. Buonocore, Supplementa Italica 5 (1989)

Hadrian 55

49-50, no. 3. N. Putorti, NSc (1913) 158.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.87 × 0.828 × 0.045 m.; l.: Sam, Angulus.

0.025-0.061 Date: 120 – 121 Trib pot 4.

CIL IX, 3344.

Buonocore: Lastra marmorea ricomposta da otto Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 123

frammenti fra loco combicianti.

– 124 Trib pot 7.

CIL: In oppido Spultorii in ecclesia S. Pam AE: Dans les thermes.

phili.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) | publice

Dedicator: D(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ublice)

Hadrian 51

BrL, Velia.

AE 1966, 107.



AE: Plaque de marbre trouvée au fond d’une

vasque quadrangulaire de fontaine.


Hadrian 52

Sam, Aequiculi.

CIL IX, 4116.


– 130 Trib pot 13.

CIL: Civitella di Nesce iacet inter rudera.

Dedicator: Quot opera public[a] | vestutate

dilapsa | pecunia sua | restituerit | d(ecreto)

d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 53 Sam, Amiternum.

Hadrian 56

Sam, Herdoniae.

AE 1982, 217. J. Smeesters, Les inscriptions 1966 1975, Ordona VI (Rome 1979) 140-141, no. 67.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.30 × 0.56 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.067

Date: 117 – 138.

Smeesters: Inscription honorifique sur une base

de statue en calcaire blanc. Trouvée remployée

dans les soubassements d’un mur obturant la

fontaine près de l’entrée du macellum.

Hadrian 57

Sam, Nomentum.

AE 1976, 114. C. Pala, Nomentum, Forma Italiae,

regio I, vol. XII (Rome 1976) 48, no. 7.


– 137 Trib pot 20.

Pala: Lastra marmorea con bordi modanati,

spezzata sul lato destro, recante la segueste is crizioni.

Hadrian · 411

Dedicator: Res publica Nomen[tanorum pa trono] | suo et aedium sa[crarum restitutori]

Hadrian 58

Sam, Nursia.

CIL IX, 4537. R. Cordella & N. Criniti, Supple-

menta Italica 13 (1996) 78-79, no. 12.


m.; l.:? Date: 127 – 128 Trib pot 11.

Suppl. Ita.: Cippo onorario (forse basa di una

statua), in calcare bianco locale smarginato,

fratto in più punti, ma non in modo irrepara bile.

Dedicator: C(onsulto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 59

Sam, Trebula Mutuesca.

CIL IX, 2823.


– 138 Cos 3. CIL: Rep. prope Quadri ad ecclesiam Madonna degli Spineti. Ecclesia ea aedificata est super aedificium antiquum. Dedicator: Consc[ripti] | Trebu[l](ani) ob [merita] | Iovi Tre[bulano]

Hadrian 60

Umb, Hispellum.

CIL XI, 5267.


126 – 138 Trib pot 10-22.

CIL: Duo fragmenta unius tabulae marmoreae.

Extat utrumque in aedibus publicis a dextra in trantis.

CIL XI, 5955.


138 - Divus.

CIL: Tabula ex marmore bono a sinistra fracta.

Effossa a. 1874 in praedio Pole, servatur Cagli in

aedibus Orestis Mochi. Ibi adhuc parieti immissa

primo pianerottolo.

Dedicator: [Dec]uriones et | [pleb]s urbana

Hadrian 63

Umb, Trebiae.

CIL XI, 4998.


117 – 138.

CIL: Extra Trebiam in divae Mariae Petrae Ru-

beae. Fracturae certo indicatur a parte intuenti bus sinistra et ima, minus certo a dextra.

Hadrian 64

Etr, Castrum Novum.

CIL XI, 3575.

Type: Probably part of a base Dim.:? ×? ×? m.;

l.: 0.085 Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: Tabula marmorea, quae videtur fuisse an-

tica basis magnae, fracta, ornata margine. Ef fossa alla Chiaruccia in cupa balnearia marmore

constrata. Tum Romae in museo Vaticano, ubi

est adhuc.

Dedicator: Ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 65

Etr, Ferentinum.

AE 1982, 306. A. Bartoli, Ferentino: Ricerche epi grafiche e topografiche, Rendiconti. RendLinc,

serie 8, vol. 9 (1954) 494-495, no. 5. H. Solin,

Hadrian 61

Supplementa Italica 1 (1981) 39, no. 2.

Umb, Nuceria.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.22 × 0.15 × 0.25 m.; l.: 0.045

CIL XI, 5661.

Date: 117 – 138.

Type: Tabula Dim.: 0.365 × 0.25 × 0.125 m.; l.:? Bartoli: Frammento di base di calcaire com Date: 117 – 138.

patto.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae ex lapide calcario AE: Base en calcaire moulurée; trouvée en

bono. Insertum in angulo inferiori ecclesiae S. 1928.

Felicissimi extra civitatem.

Hadrian 66

Hadrian 62

Umb, Pitinum Mergens.

Etr, Luna.

CIL XI, 1334.


Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 133 – 134 Trib pot 17.

CIL: Sarazanae apud aedem b. Virginis.

Hadrian 67 Etr, Nepet. W. Eck, Iscrizioni dall’Etruria meridionale, Epigraphica 41 (1979) 104-105, no. 12. Type: Base Dim.: 0.48 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.03-0.045 Date: 117 – 138. Eck: Base marmorea. “Sotto il portico del palazzo comunale sul financo di una conca di marmo scolpita con una base antica”. Conservato ivi anche ora, a Nepi.

Hadrian 68

Etr, Perusia.

CIL XI, 7093 a. AE 1906, 73. G.F. Gamurrini,

NSc (1905) 196-197.

Type: Base Dim.:? × 0.90 ×? m.; l.:? Date: 120

– 121 Trib pot 4.

CIL: Basis marmorea marginata fracta. Reperta

in dextra ripa Tiberis trecentis fere passibus a

fluvio in praedio dicto Barca in agro S. Angelo

di Celle. Tum allata Derutam in museum mu-

nicipale.

Dedicator: L Velius L f Clu(stumina tribu)

Prudens (centurio) leg(ionis) X fret(ensis)

(trecenarius) princeps castror(um) (centurio)

coh(ortis) X pr(aetoriae) (centurio) coh(ortis)

X urb(anae) (centurio) coh(ortis) IIII vig(illum)

evoc(atus) Aug(usti) t(estamento) p(oni) i(ussit)

l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 69

Etr, Viterbo.

CIL XI, 3000.


Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: Tabula marmorea fracta. Viterbii in ardibus

Vanniis piazza delle pace.

Hadrian 70

Aem, Mutina.

CIL XI, 825.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.27 × 0.87 × 0.41 m.; l.:?

Date: 135 – 136 Trib pot 19.

CIL: Basis ex marmore Greco. Nunc in museo

Mutinensi.


Hadrian 71

VeH, Iulia Concordia.

CIL V, 1873. Alföldy 1984, 108, no. 123.


×? m.; l.: 0.055-0.075 Date: 117 – 138.

Alföldy: Links, rechts und unten abgeschlagenes

Bruchstück einer Tafel oder eines Statuenpos taments aus hellgrauen Kalkstein, oben mit er-

haltenem einfachen profilierten Rahmen für das

Inschriftfeld. Bekannt seit dem 19. Jahrhundert

aus Portogruaro. Museo Nazionale Concordiese,

Portogruaro.

Hadrian 72

VeH, Opitergium.

CIL V, 1966. Alföldy 1984, 113, no. 138.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.10 × 0.86 × 0.75 m.; l.: 0.04-

0.045 Date: 118 Cos 2, see comment.

Alföldy: Oben abgeschlagenes, auch auf der

linken Seite stark beschädigtes Statuenposta ment aus grauem Kalkstein mit erhaltenem

Sockel, ursprünglich zweifellos auch mit Auf satz, mit profiliertem Rahmen für das Inschrift-

feld und auch auf den Schmalseiten, die jedoch

rauh sind wie auch die Rückseite. Gefunden im

19. Jahrhundert in Oderzo in Zweitverwendung. AO: Treviso, Mus. Civ. Nach dem Textformular und auch nach der Paläographie am ersten aus dem 2. Jahrhundert. Es dürfte sich um eine Widmung entweder an Hadrian aus dem Jahre 118 oder an Antoninus Pius aus dem Jahre 139 oder an Commodus aus dem Jahre 180 (nach dem Tode des Marcus am 17. März dieses Jahre) handeln. JMH: The inclusion of optimus maximus suggests Hadrian as this element sometimes occurs in inscriptions from the first years of his reign. Dedicator: [O]pitergini

Hadrian · 413

Hadrian 73

VeH, Vicetia.

CIL V, 3110.


117 – 138.

CIL: Vicentiae in ecclesia S. Felicis. In sacello S.

Mariae post altare.

Hadrian 74

Sic, Mazara.

CIL X, 7202.


Trib pot 3 / cos 3.

CIL: In capitulo columnae; ab altera parte est

n. 7208 inverse scripta. Mazarae in ecclesia cathedrali. Dedicator: L(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 75 Sar, Sulcis. G. Sotgui, Iscrizioni latine della Sardegna (Pa dova 1961) 11-12, no. 1. F. Vivanet, NSc 1897,

407-408.


0.03-0.06 Date: 118 Cos 2.

Sotgui: Lastra marmorea in quattro frammenti,

rinvenuta alla profondità di m. 1,50 “nell’area

dell’antica Sulci e propriamente nel luogo detto Is

Narbonis, ove è stabilito il cimiterio comunale”.

Dedicator: [Sulc]itani

Hadrian 76

MoI, Histria.

Pippidi & Russu 1983, 215, no. 72.


0.075 Date: 117 – 138.

Pippidi & Russu: Muz. Histria, inv. 135. Locul si

data descoperirii necunoscute; oricum, in Ce-

tate, intre 1928-1941. Fragment dintr-o placa de

calcar galbui, rupta sus, jos si la dreapta.

aus Nicopolis ad Istrum, AM 48 (1923) 96, no. 1. IGBulg II, 601. Type: Base Dim.: 1.60 × 0.89 × 0.65 m.; l.: 0.035 Date: 136 – 137 Trib pot 20. Britschkoff: Profilierte Basis aus Kalkstein, oben und unten mit Ablauf, die drei Seiten oben mit Akroterien verziert. IGBulg: Nicopoli ad Istrum effossa, nunc ibidem in foro. Basis calcaria acroteriis ornata. Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ Oujlpiva~ Neikopovlew~ ⁄ th`~ pro;~ “Istrw/

Hadrian 78

MoI, Nicopolis ad Istrum.

SEG 44, 629. T. Ivanov & R. Ivanov, Nicopolis ad

Istrum (Sofia 1994) 147-148, no. 1.


m.; l.: 0.038 Date: 138 Trib pot 22.

SEG: Large limestone block.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ Oujlpiva~ Neiko⁄povlew~ th`~ pro;~ “Istrwi

Hadrian 79

MoI, Novae.

AE 1966, 348. J. Kolendo & J. Trynkowski, APol-

ski 16 (1965) 122, no. 3. Gerov 1989, 124, no.

265. V. Bozilova, J. Kolendo & L. Mrozewicz, In-

scriptions latines de Novae (Poznan 1992) 64 65, no. 34.


Date: 117 – 138.

AE: Fragment d’une inscription, trouvé en 1962,

laissé dans le mur, à l’angle N.-E. de la ville.

Hadrian 80

MoI, Oescus.

Gerov 1989, 11-12, no. 3.


0.11-0.13 Date: 117 – 138.

Gerov: Partes tres tabulae calcariae, repertae

fortasse a. 1906 in effosionibus Oesci, nunc in

museo Serdicensi (inv. no. 7878).

Hadrian 77

MoI, Nicopolis ad Istrum.

AE 1926, 90. M. Britschkoff, Neue Inschriften

Hadrian 81

MoI, Oescus.

CIL III, 14414. Gerov 1989, 12, no. 4.


Type: Arch Dim.: 0.50 × 1.00 × 0.43 m.; l.:

0.065-0.09 Date: 117 – 138.

Gerov: Pars arcus portae calcarii, reperta in vico

Gigen ante portam vicani Parvan Midanov, nunc

in museo Serdicensi (inv. n. 2234).

Stoian: Doua fragmente, din cinci bucati– cen trul lipseste – dintr-o placa de marmura, cu che nar de jur-imprejur.

Dedicator: Resp(ublica) Tomita(norum) | C

Ummidio Quadrato S[evero Serto]rio leg(ato)

| Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore)

Hadrian 82

MoI, Oescus.

CIL III, 7427. Gerov 1989, 12, no. 5.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.34 × 0.26 × 0.24 m.; l.:?

Date: 117 – 138.

Gerov: Fragmentum basis statuae imperatoriae,

exscriptum in domo cuiusdam vicani in Gigen.

Periit.

Hadrian 83

MoI, Tomis.

AE 1972, 542. AE 1977, 744. A. Radulescu, Note

epigrafice I, Pontica 1 (1968) 329-330, no. 4. A.

Aricescu, Adnotari epigrafice (2), StCIstor 27

(1976) 523-525. Stoian 1987, 81, no. 51.


0.015-0.06 Date: 117 – 138.

AE 1972: Fragment supérieur droit d’une plaque

de marbre moulurée, trouvée en 1960. Musée de

Constanza.

AE 1977: Un autre fragment de cette inscription

dédiée à hadrien à été trouvé en 1974.

Stoian: Fragment din dreapta sus, dintr-o placa

de marmur, dublu profilata. Gasit la Constanta,

in 1960, in edificiul roman cu mozaic. Astazi la

MINAC, inv. nr. 1433.

Hadrian 84

MoI, Tomis.

Stoian 1987, 77-79, no. 48. CIL III, 7539 & 12493.

IGRR I, 606. A. Radulescu & M. Munteanu, In-

scriptii inedite din Tomis si Callatis, Pontica 10

(1977) 84-87 no. 5. SEG 27, 400. AE 1977, 745. G.

Tocilescu, Archäologisch – epigraphische Mit theilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn 14 (1891) 29,

no. 59.


0.025-0.064 Date: 120 – 121 Trib pot 4.

AE: Fragment d’une inscription bilingue mutilée

à droite. Cadre mouluré.

Hadrian 85

MoI, Tomis.

CIL III, 765. Stoian 1987, 80, no. 50.


Date: 134 – 135 Trib pot 18.

CIL: Köstendje. Auf der Ostseite der Halbinsel

im August 1855 ausgegraben.

Stoian: Baza de statuie?, gasita, in 1837, la Con stanta, in partea de E a peninsulei.

Dedicator: [Senatus populusq]ue Tomi[t]a-

norum

Hadrian 86

Dac, Inlaceni.

AE 1960, 375. M. Macrea, Academia Republici

Populare Romine. Omagiu lui Constantin Dai coviciu (1960) 340-341.


Trib pot 13.

AE: A Inlaceni, base remployée.

Dedicator: Coh(ors) | VIII Raetorum | c(ivium)

R(omanorum) | eq(uitata) tor(quata)

Hadrian 87

Dac, Micia.

CIL III, 1371. I.I. Russu, Inscriptiile antice din

Dacia si Scythia Minor III.3. (Bucuresti 1984)

no. 51.


0.08 Date: 119 – 138 Cos 3. CIL: Eruta in pago Veczel ex ruderibus arcis, quae quondam infra Devam uno circeter miliari ad ripam Marusii in planitie sita fuit; nunc in coemeterio ad ecclesiam reformatorum. Hodie in hortis Gyulai comitis. Russu: Altar onorific (in forma de coloana-tambur), de augit-andezit. JMH: There is no description of the top of the stone, which has a square shaft and circular top

Hadrian · 415

and bottom. Could possibly have served as a

statue base.

Dedicator: Coh(ors) II Fl(avia) Com(magno-

rum)

Hadrian 88

Dac, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.

CIL III, 1445. Russu 1980, no. 70.


Trib pot 2 / cos.

Russu: Lespede (ara?) onorifica scoasa din ru-

inele Ulpiei Traiana.

JMH: Called an altar(?), but could equally well

be a statue base.

Dedicator: Colon(ia) | Ulpia Traiana Aug(usta)

| Dacic Sarmizeg(ethusa)

Hadrian 89

Dac, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.

CIL III, 1447. Russu 1980, no. 71.

Type: Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 117 – 138.

Russu: Altar (?) onorific, posibil de marmura,

fragment.

JMH: Possibly an altar but it could equally well

be a statue base.

Hadrian 90

Dal, Arupium.

CIL III, 10047.


– 138 Cos 3.

CIL: Lesce prope Otocac in parte postica eccle siae.

Hadrian 91

Dal, Burnum.

CIL III, 2828.


Trib pot 2 / cos 2.

CIL: Rep. ad arcus Romanos, delata Zaram in

museum historiae naturalis, in quo iam deside ratur.


Hadrian 92

CIL III, 2844.

Type: Cippus Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 119

– 138 Cos 3.

CIL: Cippus rep. in colle Gradina prope Med vigge.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) [d(ecurionum)]

Hadrian 93 PaI, Intercisa. J. Fitz, Die römischen inschriften Ungarns 5 (Bonn 1991) no. 1122. Type: Tabula Dim.: 1.23 × 0.77 × 0.14 m.; l.: 0.07 Date: 128 – 138 Pater patriae. Fitz: Aus dem Weingarten Janós Berkis. MNM (Inv. 22/1905.24). Sockel aus Kalkstein. Auf der Vorderseite Inschrift in Leistenrahmen. Dedicator: Pub(lius) Ael(ius) | Firmus | Rusconis f(ilius) | ob honorem | aedilitatis | l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 94

PaI, Mursa.

CIL III, 3279.


- Divus.

CIL: Eszeki rep. 30. Dec. 1785. Fissus deinde

lapis in tabulas plures; pars Quinqueecclesias

adlata.

Dedicator: Mursenses | conditori | suo

Hadrian 95

PaS, Arrabona.

CIL III, 4366. Barkóczi & Mócsy 1972, no. 251.


Trib pot 21 / L. Aelius Caesar cos 2.

CIL: Litteris palmaribus à Iavarin en l’église cath.

au lieu où on sonne les cloches à terre.

Barkóczi & Mócsy: Verschollen.

Dedicator: L Aelius Caes(ar) fil(ius) |

trib(ibunicia) potes(tate) co(n)s(ul) II |

proco(n)s(ul) XV vir | sacris faciund(is)

Hadrian 96

PaS, Siscia.

CIL III, 3968 a.

Dal, Hadra.


Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 124 – 125 Trib pot 8.

CIL: Siszek rep. m. Maio 1868 bei dem römischen

Keller, destinata museo Agramensi.

Dedicator: L Titius Proculus

Hadrian 97

Bri, Viroconium.

AE 1926, 84. R.G. Collingwood & M.V. Taylor,

Roman Britain in 1924, JRS 14 (1924) 244-245,

no. 5. AE 1925, 1.

Type: Arch Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 128 –

131 Trib pot 12-14.

Collingwood: Numerous fragments of a slab

measuring 11 ft. 8 in. by 3 ft. 10 in. found in

front of the entrance to the forum. The slab is 1

1/2 in. thick, of sandstone, and made up of two

pricipal pieces, the left-hand piece being supple mented by a narrow strip added to the bottom.

Fragments of a moulding in which it was framed

were also found, and it obviously stood over the

entrance to the forum.

Dedicator: Civitas Cornov[iorum]

Hadrian 98

Lug, Caesarodunum.

CIL XIII, 3078.


117 – 138.

CIL: Lapis quadratus. Rep. 1659 Tours in funda mentis turris archiepiscopii. Lapis non miliarius,

sed imperatori dedicatus videtur.

Hadrian 99

Nar, Vienna.

CIL XII, 1797.


119 – 120 Trib pot 3.

CIL: Basis.

JMH: Today the base is placed next to the church

in St. Jean-de-Muzols.

Dedicator: N(umerus) Rhodianici

Hadrian 100

Tar, Ilugo.

CIL II, 3239. M. Zahrnt, Ein hadrianisches Mu-

nicipium in der Hispania Tarraconensis?, ZPE

79 (1989) 173-176.


– 138 Imp 2.

CIL: “En la venta de San Andres, camino de

Montiel a hinares, en un pilar de la ermita”.

JMH: Zahrnt argues that the space in l.8 only al lows for the restoration conditori.

Dedicator: Ilugo[nenses d(ecreto) d(ecuri-

onum)]

Hadrian 101

Tar, Limici.

CIL II, 2516. J.L. Fernandez, Inscriptiones ro-

manas de Galicia IV (Santiago de Compostella

1968) 37-38, no. 9.


Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16.

CIL: Llanura llamada de Limia, en el valle de

Viso, una legua de la villa de Ginzo, obispado

de Orense, entre Monterey y Orense, junto a Lo-

doselo y Nocelo de Pena, en la fachada de la er-

mita de San Pedro, al lado derecho de la puerta

en medio de la pared.

Dedicator: Civitas | [Limicorum]

Hadrian 102

Lus, Civitas Aravorum.

AE 1954, 87. F. R. Cortez, International Associa tion for Classical Archaeology, FastA 6 (1951)

330-331, no. 4373.


Trib pot 3 / cos 2.

Cortez: Dedication discovered at Marialva (Beira

Alta).

Dedicator: Civitas Aravor(um)

Hadrian 103

Lus, Civitas Aravorum.

CIL II, 429.


118 Cos 2.

CIL: Deveza, “esta pedra me mostrou hum amigo

meu abbade da villa de Marialva que a tinha na

sua caza, e me dice que se achava em hums milens

(?) no mez de fevereiro do anno de 1587.

Hadrian · 417

Dedicator: Civitas Aravor(um)

Hadrian 104

Lus, Olisipo.

CIL II, 186.


– 122 Trib pot 5.

CIL: Ad mare ante S. Franc. in Cebregas procul

ad Olissipone lega dimidia.

Dedicator: Felicitas Iulia | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

| per M Gellium Ruf[um] | et L Iulium Avitium

d(uo)[v(iros)]


Pater patriae.

CIL: Basis supra fracta.

Dedicator: [Res p(ublica)] | Coloniae Fo[ri Iulii]

| Illiturgit(anorum) d(ecreto) [d(ecurionum)]

Hadrian 108

Bae, Ipolcobulcola.

CIL II, 1642.


117 – 138.

CIL: In arce de Pliego in Baetica in cementis tur-

ris maioris.

Hadrian 105

Bae, Aratispi.

CIL II2, 5, 731. CIL II, 2055.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.93 × 0.64 ×? m.; l.: 0.03-0.08

Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16.

CIL: Basis ex lapide calcario rimoso subrubro

corona et crepidine aut olim separatis edolatis

aut posteriore tempore abscisis infra et sinistra

fracta. Rep. a. 1731 Aratispi, deinde inserta est

muro orientali turris ecclesiae vici Villanueva de

Cauche prope angulum dextrum, ubi extat calce

inquinata; descripsi a. 1989.

Dedicator: Res p(ublica) Aratispitana | d(ecrevit)

d(edicavit)

Hadrian 109

Bae, Mirobriga.

CIL II2, 7, 852. CIL II, 2365.



CIL II2, 7: Capillae, en monasterio, en un torço

encima la puerta de la iglesia. Periit.

JMH: Germanicus indicates a date early in

Hadrian’s reign.

Dedicator: Mun(icipium) F[lav(ium)] |

Miro[brigense]

Hadrian 110

Bae, Munigua. AE 1966, 182 a. C. Fernandez Chicarro & C.C. Bae, Callenses?

de Dios, Dos nuevas inscriptiones alusivas al CIL II, 1371.

emperador Hadriano, Les empereurs romains Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 128 d’Espagne (Paris 1966) 305-307. F.C. de Teran & – 129 Trib pot 12.

C.C. de Dios, Epigrafia de Munigua, ArchEspA 45-47 (1972-1974) 359. CIL: En el Coronil en las casas capitulares.

Dedicator: M Messius Rusticus | Aemilius Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.38 × 0.70 × 0.02 m.; Papus Ar[r]ius Proculus | Iulius Celsus sodal(is) l.:? Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16. Augustal(is) IIIIvir | viarum curandarum AE: Deux inscriptions (AE 1966, 182 a & b) au tr(ibunus) mil(itum) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) | nom d’Hadrien, probablement avec la même pr(o) pr(aetore) provinc(iae) Africae trib(unus) texte, trouvées en 1962. La respublica responpleb(is) | pr(aetor) peregrinus curator viae Aure- sable de l’hommage est apparemment le municiliae | leg(atus) Aug(usti) leg(ionis) XX V(aleriae) pium Muniguense lui-même. V(ictricis)

Chicarro & Dios: Làpida rota en diez y siete fragmentos e incompleta. Es de màrmol bianco. Hadrian 107

JMH: Imp XVI seems to be an erroneous repetiBae, Iliturgi.

tion of trib pot XVI. Dedicator: Res [publica ---] CIL II2, 7, 31.

Hadrian 106


Hadrian 111 Bae, Munigua. AE 1966, 182 b. C. Fernandez Chicarro & C.C. de Dios, Dos nuevas inscriptiones alusivas al emperador Hadriano, Les empereurs romains d’Espagne (Paris 1966) 305-307. F.C. de Teran & C.C. de Dios, Epigfafia de Munigua, ArchEspA 45-47 (1972-1974) 357. Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.39 × 0.71 × 0.022 m.; l.:? Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16, see comment. AE: Deux inscriptions (AE 1966, 182 a & b) au nom d’Hadrien, probablement avec la même texte, trouvées en 1962. La respublica responsable de l’hommage est apparemment le municipium Muniguense lui-même. Teran & Dios: Deiciséis fragmentos de una lápida de mármol blanco, con marco formando por ancho listel y moldura de gola. JMH: The reconstruction and thus the date based on the similar inscription AE 1966, 182 a. Dedicator: Res [publica ---?]

Hadrian 112

Bae, Saepo.

CIL II, 1339. Gonzàles 1982, 284, no. 539.


– 124 Trib pot 7, see comment.

CIL: Humi iacet “en la dehesa de la Fantasia”

prope situm oppidi sive castelli antiqui la plaza

dictum.

JMH: There seems to be a lacuna before the

number of the tribunician count in l. 8. The right

figure could therefore be XVII instead of VII,

which would also fit better with pater patriae in

the same line.

Dedicator: Res p(ublica) V(ictrix) Saep(o-

nensium)

infra, a tergo resecta. Anticaris, in Foro. Olim

in angulo ecclesiae collegiatae et viae amplae,

nunc in arcu.

JMH: Dating this inscription is slightly problem atic. First of all, imperator for the sixth time is a

mistake, but for what? Imperator twice could be

a possibility, but then tribunician power for the

fourth time is wrong. If we on the other hand

believe the tribunician count to be right we are

faced with the problem of the title pater patriae,

which was only awarded in 128. It does however

occur in other inscriptions before this date.

Dedicator: M Acilius C f(ilius) Quir(ina)

Ruga Sing(iliensis) | de sua p(ecunia) d(edit)

d(edicavit)

Hadrian 114

Bae, Urgavo Alba.

CIL II2, 7, 74. CIL II, 2111.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.63 × 0.41 ×? m.; l.: 0.045-

0.08 Date: 130 – 131 Trib pot 14.

CIL II2, 7: Basis statuae de marmol azul. Po-

stea in ecclesia S. Mariae, ubi periit a. 1936 bello

civili.

CIL: Arionae (in basi statuae equestris).

Dedicator: Municipium Albense | Urgavonense

d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 115

MaC, Choba.

AE 1949, 55. L. Leschi, BAParis. Comptes rendus

des séances, novembre (1948) 495-496.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.52 × 1.00 × 0.40 m.; l.: 0.05-

0.06 Date: 138 - Divus. Leschi: Choba. Il s’agit d’un fragment d’une base honorifique. Dedicator: Decretum ordinis statuam | pedum VII quam municipes | municipii Aelii Chobae p(ecunia) p(ublica) de|creverant auctis pedibus

Hadrian 113

Bae, Singilia Barba.

CIL II2, 5, 775. CIL II, 2014.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.59 × 0.40 m.; l.: 0.045-

0.055 Date: 122 – 123 Trib pot 6, see com ment.

CIL: Basis statuae ex lapide calcario rutilo supra,

Hadrian 116

MaC, Cuicul.

Pflaum 2003, 796, no. 7777.


0.105-0.14 Date: 119 – 120 Cos 3 / trib pot 2 4 or 9, see comment.

Hadrian · 419

Pflaum: Six fragments trouvés près du Capi-

tole.

JMH: Erected after 1 January 119 when Hadrian

became consul for the third time. The number

after trib pot could be either 2, 3 or 9, all three

of which are too early for the inclusion of pater

patriae in the title.


p(ublica)

Hadrian 117

MaC, Cuicul.

Zimmer & Wesch-Klein 1989, 65, no. C 44. R.

Cagnat, BAParis. Comptes-rendus des séances,

février (1920) LX, no. 4. Pflaum 2003, 796, no.

7778.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.97 × 0.59 × 0.60 m.; l.:?


Zimmer & Wesch-Klein: Altes Forum. Inschrift-

block nicht profiliert, nur auf der Vorderseite ist

eine Begrenzungslinie eingeritzt. Auf der Deck-

platte Einlassungen für ein Standschema, bei

dem der rechte Fuß vorgesetzt ist. Hinter ihm

ein rechteckiges Dübelloch (Stütze?).

Cagnat: Pres de la porte en cours de reconstruc tion, et à l’ouest de la grande rue, base calcaire.


p(ublica)

Hadrian 118

MaC, Cuicul.

Pflaum 2003, 796, no. 7779.


0.035-0.06 Date: 123 – 124 Trib pot 7.

Pflaum: Forum, maintenant au jardin devant le

musée.

Dedicator: C Iulius M [f ---] | aed(ilis) praef(ectus)

i(ure) d(icundo) [--- statuam quam] | super

legit[imam ob hono]|[r]em q(uin)q(uennalitatis)

ex [(sestertium)--- milibus n(ummum) promis erat] | [pos(uit)] i[d]emq(ue) [dedicavit]


117 – 138.

CIL: Medea sous la poudrière.

Hadrian 120

MaC, Tubusuctu.

AE 1967, 641. J. Marcillet-Jaubert, Inscriptions

de Tubusuctu, BAAlger 1 (1962-1965) 163-164,

no. 1.


Trib pot 6.

AE: Base inscrite.

Dedicator: Col(oni) col(oniae) Iul(iae) Aug(ustae)

Tubusuc|titanae leg(ionis) VII immun(is) |

pecun(ia) publica | d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 121

Num, Castellum Arsacalitanum.


Type: Arch Dim.: 0.28 × 1.53 ×? m.; l.: 0.11

Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: Fragmentum epistylii. El Gulia iuxta arcum

triumphalem.

Dedicator: [---]i f Q(uirina tribu) Potitus arcum

[---]

Hadrian 122

Num, Gemellae.

AE 1950, 58. L. Leschi, Découvertes épi graphiques dans le camp de Gemellae, CRAI

(1949) 221, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.96 × 0.59 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.04-

0.065 Date: 126 – 127 Trib pot 10.

AE: Au centre du portique décorant la façade des

principia. Base adossée à la colonne de gauche;

auj. au Musée d’Alger.

Dedicator: Coh(ors) I Chalcid(enorum)

eq(uitata) | devotissima ipsi | statuam de suo

posuit | Sex Iulio Maiore | leg(ato) Aug(usti)

pr(o) pr(aetore)

Hadrian 123

Hadrian 119

MaC, Rusguniae.

CIL VIII, 9246.

Num, Hippo Regius.

CIL VIII, 17408. Eph. epigr. 7, no. 426. Gsell

1922, 2, no. 10. Duncan-Jones 1974, 94, no. 84.


Type: Base Dim.: 0.65 × 0.60 × 0.55 m.; l.: 0.0150.03 Date: 117 – 138. CIL: In basi marmoris indigenae, in cuius superficie supersunt fora, quibus statuae pedes olim immissi erant; rep. Hippone in hortis Raffeno sitis ad collis Sti Augustini pedem orientalem contra lautumias. Nunc adservatur Bone in museo. Dedicator: [C Salvius] L f(ilius) Quir(ina tribu) Fusc[us] | [prae]f(ectus) fabr(um) aedil(is) IIvir IIvir quinq(uennalis) | [st]atuam argenteam ex (sestertium) LI (milibus) CCCXXXV | tribus libel(lis) sing(ula) terr(uncio) et aeris quad(rante) cum rei p(ublicae) (sestertium) L (milia) prom(isisset) | amplius ad (sestertium) X m(ilia) n(ummum) legitima et (sestertium) VII m(ilia) n(ummum) | quae in imaginis argenteas | Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Traiani Hadriani Aug(usti) promisit suo et C Salvi | Restituti fili sui nomine posuit idemque dedic(avit) | cum corona aurea

Hadrian 124

Num, Lambaesis.

AE 1900, 33. Héron de Villefosse, BAParis. Ex-

trait des procès-verbaux, novembre (1899) XI.


117 – 138.

AE: Héron de Villefosse. Nouveaux fragments du

monument de Lambèse contenant le discours de

l’empereur Hadrien.

Dedicator: Le[gio III Aug(usta)] | adprob[ante

exe]rcitu

Hadrian 126

Num, Lambaesis.

CIL VIII, 2534.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.85 × 0.62 ×? m.; l.: 0.03-0.05

Date: 138 P. Cassius Secundus was legatus of the

III. Augusta in AD 138 and probably some years

earlier (Thomasson 1996, 146).

CIL: Au praetorium. Hodie ibidem servatur.

Basis.

Dedicator: Dedicante | P Cassio Secund[o] |

leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) | veterani

| leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) | qui militar[e] |

coeperun[t ---] | [---]

Hadrian 127 Num, Pagus Thigillava. AE 1895, 107. R. Cagnat, Chronique d’epigraphie africane, BAParis (1894) 344, no. 17. Pflaum 2003, 759, no. 7612. Type: Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.03-0.04 Date: 117 – 138. Pflaum: Stèle.

Dedicator: Q Publicus Crescens | magister pagi

Thigillavensium | sua p(ecunia) p(osuit)

Hadrian 128

Num, Rusicade.



– 124 Trib pot 7.

CIL: Philippeville rep. en creusant près du

port.


p(ublica)

Hadrian 125

Num, Lambaesis.

CIL VIII, 2533.


– 130 Trib pot 13.

CIL: Dans le camp de la légion, prés du praeto rium.

Dedicator: Dedicante | [Q Fa]bio Catullino

leg(ato) | Aug(usti) pro pr(aetore) | [---]s C f

Camil. Memo[r.] | [A]lba Pompeia | [p(rimus)

p(ilus) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae)]

Hadrian 129

Num, Rusicade.



0.07 Date: 134 – 135 Trib pot 18.

CIL: Fragmentum tabulae. Rep. Philippeville, est

Parisiis in museo (no. 2058).

Dedicator: [--- pecu]nia quam | [--- c]ultum |

[--- e]t communi | [---]

Hadrian · 421

Hadrian 130

Num, Sicca Veneria.

CIL VIII, 15854. Eph. epigr. 5, no. 616.


Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: In lapidfe rep. el-Kef près de Bab el-Cheur-

fine.

Hadrian 131

Num, Sigus.



Date: 126 – 138 Trib pot 10-22.

Pflaum: Base, trouvée à la basilique.


[p(ublica)]

Hadrian 132

dedicavit d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia) p(ublica)

Hadrian 135 Num, Thamugadi. S. Gsell, BAParis (1902) 317, no. 2.


– 138 Pater patriae.

Gsell: Timgad. Plaque trouvée près de la porte

de l’Est. La pierre est cassée à gauche.

Dedicator: [--- de]dic(avit) d(ecreto)

d(ecurionum) p(ecunia) p(ublica)

Hadrian 136 Num, Thamugadi. AE 1920, 121. A. Ballu, Gouverment général de l’Algérie Rapport sur les travaux de fouilles exécutés en 1918 par le Service des monuments historiques (Alger 1919) 79. Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 134 – 135 Trib pot 18. Dedicator: [---] patron(us) col(oniae) [de]dic(avit) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia) p(ublica)

Num, Thamugadi.

AE 1913, 119. R. Cagnat, Note sur deux inscrip tions d’Algérie, REA (1913) 39.


Date: 117 – 138.

AE: Atteste que Trajan fonda la ville de Timgad

pour y établir des vétérans de la IIIe légion.

Dedicator: [Curia Tra]|iana vet[eranorum] | Hadrian 137

leg(ionis) II[I Aug(ustae)] | [---]

Num, Theveste.

CIL VIII, 1853. Gsell 1922, 293, no. 3031.

Hadrian 133


Num, Thamugadi.

117 – 138.

CIL VIII, 2359.

CIL: Sul le seuil de l’atelier de menuiserie, près

Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.50 × 0.47 ×? m.; l.: 0.08 de la caserne.

Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: Au forum, sur un fragment bordé d’une Hadrian 138

moulure en haut.

Num, Thibilis.

AE 1907, 7. M. Gsell, BAParis. Comptes-rendus

Hadrian 134

des séances, novembre (1906) CCLXI-CCLXII,

no. 4. Pflaum 1976, 436, no. 4659.

Num, Thamugadi.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.87 × 0.51 ×? m.; l.: 0.045-


Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.80 × 1.75 ×? m.; l.: 0.055 Date: 121 – 122 Trib pot 5.

Pflaum: Announa, au forum, en place, dans une

0.05-0.055 Date: 121 – 122 Trib pot 5.

CIL: In fragmentis quinque rep. Timghad in salle qui paraît avoir été la curie. Base.

Dedicator: Thibilitani | s(ua) p(ecunia)

foro.

JMH: Cos 7 in l. 3 must be a mistake for cos 4.

Dedicator: P Metellius Secundus leg(ato) Hadrian 139

aug(usti) pro praetore | patronus coloniae Num, Thubursicum Numidarum.


CIL VIII, 4875. Gsell 1922, 121, no. 1248.


Date: 117 – 138.

Gsell: Fouilles de la platea vetus. Deux fragments

d’une plaque de marbre. Celui de droite est au

musée de Guelma.

sestertium) n(ummum) ob honorem flamoni

per|[petui adiectis ampli]us XXXIIDC (ses tertium) n(ummum) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

fe[c(it) idequem perm(issu) ---]cati P Valeri Pri[-

-- proc]o(n)s(uli) c(---) v(---) pa[tr]oni municipi

ded(icavit)

Hadrian 140

Hadrian 143

Afr, Althiburos.

CIL VIII, 27775 a-c. CIL VIII, 27775 d. CIL VIII,

1825. Kähler 1939, col. 435, no. 36.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.43 ×? × 0.37 m.; l.: 0.16-0.19

Date: 117 – 138.

CIL 27775 a-c: Fragmenta, quae videtur per-

tinuisse ad frontem arcus triumphalis, siti Me-

deina inter forum et Capitolium.

CIL 27775 d: Fragmentum quod videtur per-

tinuisse ad frontem oppositam arcus in quo erat

CIL VIII, 27775 a-c.


[p(ublica)]

Afr, Carthago.

CIL VIII, 1146. Z.B. Ben Abdallah, Catalogue

des inscriptions latines païennes du Musée du

Bardo (Rome 1986) 183, no. 464.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.26 × 0.42 ×? m.; l.: 0.06-

0.075 Date: 117 – 138.

Abdallah: Réserve. Partie supérieure gauche

d’une base en pierre calcaire.

Hadrian 141

Afr, Avitta Bibba.

CIL VIII, 799. CIL VIII, 12266. H. Kähler, RE

VII a, col. 432.


136 – 137 L. Aelius Caesar / Sabina.

CIL: Hr. Bu Ftis in fragmentis epistylii arcus tri umphalis, quae postea absumpta sunt in murum

iuxta ipsum arcus factum.

Kähler: Ein eintoriger Bogen von dem Blöcke in

einer späteren Mauer verbaut sind.

Hadrian 144

Afr, Carthago.



117 – 138.

CIL: In marmore; rep. Carthagine in loco q.

d. Damus Bogua-Amer. Nunc est St. Louis in museo.

Hadrian 145

Afr, Civitas (…)iana.

CIL VIII, 23945.


– 138 Imp 2.

CIL: Henchir-el-Allouani (à 10 kil. à l’ouest de

Henchir-Bou-Cha).

Dedicator: Civ[itas ---]iana

Hadrian 142

Afr, Capsa.

CIL VIII, 98. Kähler 1939, col. 433, no. 19.

Type: Arch Dim.: 2.29 × 0.62 ×? m.; l.: 0.05-0.08

Date: 135 – 136 P. Valerius Priscus was governor

in 135/136 (Eck 1970, 235).

CIL: Gafsae in duobus fragmentis epistylii arcus,

iuxta quem nuper effossa sunt.

Dedicator: P Aelius Papir(ia tribu) [--- arcum

a so]lo cum statua et quadriga ex | [--- (ses tertium) n(ummum) ob honore]m IIviratus

exepta [legetima summa item ex] X (milibus

Hadrian 146

Afr, Gigthis.

CIL VIII, 22706.


– 138. CIL: Basis. Gigthi in foro placée sur l’esplanade tout contre la face latérale Nord du Capitole dont il avant servi a réparer une brèche.

Hadrian 147 Afr, Henchir Aïn Gulea.

Hadrian · 423

CIL VIII, 25955. Kähler 1939, col. 434, no. 24.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.49 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.07-0.10

Date: 128 – 138 Pater patriae.

CIL: Fragmenta tria. El-Golea (á l’extrémité ori entale de la fortresse), inter rudera arcus trium phalis.

Dedicator: Philoxenu[s ---]ni fil(ius) arcum ob

[ad]lectione | et cenae P[hiloxeni f]ili sui adiecta

pecunia a solo | fecit [idemque] dedicavit

Hadrian 148

Afr, Lepcis Magna.


Type: Unknown Dim.: 0.50 ×? × 0.54 m.; l.: 0.09

Date: 119 – 138 Cos 3.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Four blocks of grey

limestone from a monumental inscription. Reg.

IV, ins. 1, in the building on the W corner, op-

posite the Chalcidium.

Dedicator: Aemilia Iou[ina ---] suo et p[---]

Hadrian 149

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 108, no. 358a.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.62 × 0.565 × 0.235 m.; l.:

0.035-0.05 Date: 120 – 121 Trib pot 4.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Pair of similar bases

(the other no. 359) of brown limestone inscribed

identically on one flat face; moulded at top and

bottom of the outer and rear faces; rough on the

flat inner face, from which a socket runs to the

center and extends into the upper face. Theatre,

one on the stage and one in the cavea.

Dedicator: Q Servilius Candidus pecunia sua

perduxit

Hadrian 151

Afr, Lepcis Magna.



0.04-0.05 Date: 120 – 121 Trib pot 4.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Broken marble block

inscribed on one face; on the under face is a

guilloche panel, which may be contemporary.

Theatre, possibly originally from the fountain

behind.

Dedicator: [Q Servilius Candi]dus pe[cunia sua

perduxit]

Hadrian 152

Afr, Lepcis Magna.


Type: Base Dim.: 1.15 × 0.85 × 0.75 m.; l.: 0.05-

0.06 Date: 133 – 134 Trib pot 17. Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: Rectangular base of cream marble, inscribed on one face within a moulded panel. Forum Vetus, Temple of Liber Pater. Dedicator: Lepcitani publice | per omnia conser[v]a|tori suo

Hadrian 153

Afr, Madauros.

Gsell 1922, 190, no. 2081.


0.055-0.09 Date: 119 – 138 Cos 3.

Gsell: Pierre, encastrée dans la muraille est de la

fortresse, à l’extérieur.

Dedicator: D(ecreto) [d(ecurionum) p(ecunia)

p(ublica)]

Hadrian 154

Hadrian 150

Afr, Lepcis Magna.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952, 108, no. 358b.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.62 × 0.565 × 0.235 m.; l.:

0.035-0.05 Date: 120 – 121 Trib pot 4.

Reynolds & Ward-Perkins: See Hadrian 149

Dedicator: Q Servilius Candidus pecunia sua

perduxit

Afr, Musti.

AE 1968, 589. A. Beschaouch, Sylloge Inscrip tionum Mustitanarum, Karthago 13 (1967) 174 176, no. 4.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.33 × 0.57 × 0.63 m.; l.: 0.05-

0.08 Date: 138 - Divus. AE: Base, remployée a l’entrée d’une piece ménagée contre la muraille méridionale de la citadelle byzantine.



p(ublica)

p(ublica) | civitas Tepelt | Maximus Saturi f | et L Lucisci f sufe|tes curaver(unt)

Hadrian 155

Hadrian 158

Afr, Sufetula.

Cagnat 1923, 38, no. 124.


Date: 128 – 133 Procos / pater patriae.

ILAfr: Enciete des temples. Bloc.

Afr, Thabbora. CIL VIII, 23896. Type: Base Dim.: 0.45 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.02-0.07 Date: 134 – 135 Trib pot 18. CIL: Basis ex parte valde corrosis. Rep. Henchir Tambra. Dedicator: S Calvius Lucilius Victor [---]m [--]s | Surrentius Saturninus Primus At[---]us [--]s | Maximus S[---]rianues Me[---]r Vict[or ---]|bens Saturninus Ma[---]us [---]| Brihis [--]be[--- S]ecundus [---] | [---]us Faustus [---]ves [---] | [---] Secundus [---] | [---]nus Saturninus Iul[i]us [---]us [---] | Plocamus Ter[---]ninus [--]o[---]|nius Prin[---] | [---]us Ni[---] | [---]

Hadrian 156

Afr, Sutunurca.

AE 1910, 154. Duncan-Jones 1974, 96, no. 138.

Cagnat 1929, no. 300. A. Merlin, BAParis. Procès

verbaux des Séances, mai (1910) CCVI-CCVII.

Z.B. Ben Abdallah, Catalogue des inscriptions latines païennes du Musée du Bardo (Rome 1986) 60-61, no. 160. Type: Base Dim.: 0.87 × 0.59 × 0.51 m.; l.: 0.040.09 Date: 146 Divus / Antoninus Pius trib pot 9. Merlin: M. Mandine, colon à Ain-el-Asher, a bien voulu offrir au Musée Alaoui l’ inscription suivante, exhumée sur la propriete, au kilometre 32 de la route Tunis à Pont-du-Fahs. Elle est gravée sur un do parallépipédique. Abdallah: Base en piere calcaire. Dedicator: Germanus Passi Germani f | Suturnuc(ensis) ob honorem flam(onii) perp(etui) | Quintae f(iliae) suae ex (sestertium) IIII mil(ibus) legitim(is) | statuam Divi Hadriani et L Aeli(i) Caes(aris) | adiectis a se (sestertium milia) DXXV n(ummum) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit) et | ob dedicationem viscerationem et | gymnasium populo dedit

Hadrian 157

Afr, Tepelte.



Date: 130 – 131 Trib pot 14.

CIL: In lapide, rep. Hr. B’laiet, sur une terrasse,

qui bord (au sud) le bassin de la Sebkha (el-

Koursia).


Hadrian 159 Afr, Thugga. CIL VIII, 1479. M. Khanousi & L. Maurin, Dougga, Fragments d’histoire. Choix d’inscriptions latines éditées, traduites et commentées (Ier-IVe siècles) (Bordeaux 2000) 2324, no. 4. Type: Base Dim.: 0.73 × 0.36 ×? m.; l.: 0.0350.08 Date: 118 Trib pot 1 / cos 2. CIL: Tucca à côté d’un autre édifice qui est un peu éloigné de la ville; ibidem basim viderunt posteriores. Nunc Parisiis in bibliotheca nationali alte posita. Khanousi & Maurin: Base. Calcaire. Sans doute, à l’origine, une base, transformée en plaque pour l’alléger afin de la transporter. Musée du Louvre inv. no. MA 3697. Dedicator: Civitas Thugge(nsis) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia) p(ublica)

Hadrian 160

Afr, Thugga.

CIL VIII, 26522.


138 - Divus.

CIL: Basis. Thuggae rep. à l’ouest du Capitole in

muro quodam.

Hadrian · 425

JMH: From a group of bases for statues of dei fied emperors. The bases for Augustus, Livia, and

Vespasian were inscribed on older monuments

some time in the third century AD. I have not

been able to establish whether this is true also for

the bases for the emperors of the second century

AD: Trajan, Harian, and Marcus Aurelius.

Hadrian 161

Afr, Tipasa.

CIL VIII, 17143. Eph. epigr. 5, no. 813. AE 1898,

40. R. Cagnat, Chronique d’epigraphie africane,

BAParis (1896) 277, no. 215. Gsell 1922, 178,

no. 1985.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.67 ×? ×? m.; l.: 0.045-0.07

Date: 128 – 129 Trib pot 12.

Gsell: A environ 150 mètres au sud-est de la for-

tresse byzantine. Base. Brisée à dr.

Dedicator: Cives Romani cul|tores larum et | ima-

ginum Aug(usti) s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit)

Hadrian 162

Afr, Turris Tamalleni.

CIL VIII, 83.


Divus, see comment.

CIL: Telmin in basi olim muro inserta domus

privatae; nunc videtur periisse.

JMH: The dedication may not be posthumous,

but the lack of titles makes the restoration of

Divo in l. 1 very probable.


p(ublica)

dispositions testamentaires de P. Sextilius Felix

Sulpicianus, sans doute d’une statue.

Dedicator: Ex testamento | P Sextili(i) Felicis

Sulpiciani | cives Romani | [q]ui Vreu moran tur

Hadrian 164

Afr, Vicus Haterianus.

CIL VIII, 23125. AE 1894, 63. R. Cagnat, Les bri gades topographique de Tunisie, BAParis (1893)

235-236, no. 100.


129 – 130 Trib pot 13.

CIL: Henchir-Zenngrou, à miroute entre Bir-

Magra et Tarf-ech-Chena.

Dedicator: Cives Romani qui | vico Hateriano

| morantur

Hadrian 165

Afr, Vina.

AE 1961, 199. Duncan-Jones 1974, 98, no. 202. P.

Vayne, Vina avant le statut municipal: pollicita-

tion d’un magister, Karthago 9 (1958) 91-109.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.76 × 0.54 × 0.47 m.; l.: 0.04

Date: 139 – 161 Divus / Antoninus Pius pater

patriae.

Vayne: A Bou Arkoub (Vina), dans la propriété

de M. Collombat. Base de pierre comune.

Dedicator: Heredes | Barculae Barmino|nis ob

honorem ma|gistratus patris sui | ex II mil(ibus)

CCCC (sestertium) n(ummum) | posuerunt |

d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)

Hadrian 166

Hadrian 163

Afr, Ureu.

AE 1974, 691. A. Beschaouch, Trois cités

d’Afrique Proconsulaire, CRAI (1974) 227-228.


m.; l.: 0.05-0.065 Date: 138 - Divus.

AE: Hr. Guennazia (Vreu), près de Vazari et

de Chiniaau, dans la Basse Medjerda à l’o. de

Carthage. Base trouvèe en remploi. Apres la mort

d’Hadrien, les citoyens Romains résidant à Vreu

ont honoré l’empereur divinisé, en exécution des

Afr, Zama.

CIL VIII, 16441. Eph. epigr. 7, no. 76. Kähler

1939, col. 430, no. 13.

Type: Arch Dim.: 0.67 × 2.38 ×? m.; l.: 0.07-0.12

Date: 117 – 138.

CIL: In lapide rep. el-Kef près de Bab el-Cheur-

fine.

Dedicator: L Ranius Felix f(lamen) Aug(ustalis)

p(er)p(etuus) pont(ifex) arcum cum [--- ex---

m(ilibus) (sestertium) n(ummum) promisset]

| adiecta pecunia fecit ampliu[s ---] | d(ecreto)

d(ecuriones) [---]


Hadrian 167

Hadrian 171

Thr, Abdera.

AE 1937, 170. G. Bakalakis, Thrakika 8 (1937)

25-27.


0.03-0.05 Date: 117 – 138.

AE: Bloc.

JMH: Two nearly identical inscriptions for

Hadrian were erected in Abdera, the present one

in the dative case the other in the accusative. It is

not entirely clear what caused the difference. Per-

haps this inscription belonged to an altar rather

than a statue base.

Dedicator: ÔH ∆Adrianevwn ∆Abdhrei`twªnº ⁄ povli~

Thr, Maroneia.

IGRR I, 830.


117 – 138.


Hadrian 168

Hadrian 173

Thr, Abdera.

AE 1937, 171. G. Bakalakis, Thrakika 8 (1937)

29-30.


0.03-0.06 Date: 117 – 138.

AE: Bloc.

Dedicator: ÔH ∆Adrianevwn ª∆Abdhrei`twn

povli~º

Thr, Perinthus. M.H. Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara

Ereglisi) und umgebung (Wien 1998) 194, no.

8. IGRR I, 784. CIG 2020.


0.045 Date: 126 – 127 Trib pot 10.

Sayar: In stadtmauer vermauert. Abschrift:

Cyriacus von Ancona (1444). Beschreibung des

Schriftträgers fehlt.

CIG: Perinthi, quae in nonnullis Heraclea dicta,

in ecclesiae cathedralis muro.

Hadrian 169

Thr, Kallipolis.

IGSK 19, 12. IGRR I, 814. CIG 2013. W. Turner,

Journal of a Tour in the Levant I (London 1820)

46.


– 125 Trib pot 8.

IGSK: Gefunden in Gelibolu.

CIG: Callipoli, in porta arcis, fragmenta duo di versi locis muro inserta, inverso altero.

Hadrian 170

Thr, Lysimacheia.

AE 1938, 140. G. Lampousiades, Odoiporikon,

Thrakika 9 (1938) 45, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.00 × 0.24 × 0.28 m.; l.: 0.035-

0.05 Date: 128 – 138 Olympius. Lampousiades: Bathron.

Hadrian 172

Thr, Palaiochora Maroneias.

SEG 49, 886. AE 2000, 1285. S. Doukata-De-

mertzi, AEMTh 13 (1999) 23.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.21 × 0.45 × 0.20 m.; l.:

Date: 128 Trib pot 11 / Pater patriae.

SEG: Marble base reused in a Byzantine church

at Paliochora.

Hadrian 174

Thr, Samothrace.

IG XII, 8, 243. IGRR I, 850.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.94 × 0.61 × 0.61 m.; l.: 0.025

Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16.

IG: Palaeopoli. Basis rotunda marmoris albi. Ex scripsi ad orani martimam prope Palaeopolim.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh` mo~ oJ ⁄ Samoqravkwn ejk tw`n iJerw`n ⁄ crhmavtwn

Hadrian 175 MaE, Bragylai. SEG 12, 349. E. Vanderpool, News Letter from Greece, AJA 57 (1953) 286. F. Papazoglou, Une signification tardive du mot politeia, R.E.G 72 (1959) 100.

Hadrian · 427

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 128 – 137 Sabina Augusta.

SEG: Titulum in vico Metallikon probe Kilkis

inv. ex actis Thessalonicae diurni~ Fw~ (9 Mar.

1952) commemorat E. Vanderpool, AJA LVII,

1953, 286. Unde nunc primum Bragylas accura tius locare possumus.

Dedicator: Bragulivwn ⁄ hJ boulh; kai; hJ povli~ kai; hJ ⁄ poleiteiva

Hadrian 176

MaE, Larissa.

IG IX, 2, 611.


l.:? Date: 117 – 138.

IG: Trabs marmoris subcaerulei a dextra et a si nistra partibus fracta, Larisae in museo. Titulus

in rasura scriptus.

Dedicator: ªÔH pºov li~

Hadrian 177

MaE, Leucas.

IG IX, 1, 540.


117 – 138.

IG: Leucade.

Dedicator: ÔH povli~ Leukadªivwnº ⁄ ajreth`

~ e{neken eujdaivmona~ ⁄ kai; eujergesiva~ th`~ eij~ ⁄ th;n patrivda kai; ejpi; kata; ⁄ panta; trovpon pepoliteuvqai

Hadrian 178

MaE, Pelasgiotis.

IG IX, 2, 1028.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.30 × 0.91 × 0.87 m.; l.: 0.035


IG: Locus ignotus prope vicos Topuslar et Sal silar. Basis marmoris subcaerulei inaedificata in

fonte prope ecclesiam S. Athanasii vici Salsilar.

JMH: Aristos could indicate a date early in

Hadrian’s reign.

Hadrian 179

MaE, Peparethos.

IG XII, 8, 661. CIG 2154 c.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 128 – 138 Olympios.

IG: Peparethus. Selinus. Scalae Glossae.

Dedicator: ÔO ajrciereu;~ th`~ Seleinousivwn

povleªw~º ⁄ ÔIkevsio~ Neikotevlou Sfhvttio~

Hadrian 180 MaE, Philippi. AE 1935, 48. P. Lemerle, Inscriptiones latines et grecques de Philippes, BCH 58 (1934) 454456, no. 2. Type: Base Dim.: 1.55 × 0.95 × 0.88 m.; l.: 0.0580.08 Date: 131 – 132 Trib pot 15.

AE: Base.

Lemerle: Stèle remployée dans la construction

du pilier S.O.

Dedicator: Publice dec(reto) dec(urionum)

Hadrian 181

MaE, Skiathos.

IG XII, 8, 633. CIG 2153.


– 138 Olympios.

CIG: In Sciathi loco Palaio Castro.

Dedicator: ÔO ajrciereu;~ ajpo; pa⁄tro;~ Fiv lippo~ Filivp⁄pou ∆Azhnieu;~ ejk tw`n ⁄ ijdivwn

Hadrian 182

MaE, Stobi.

CIL III, 629.


– 120 Trib pot 3.

CIL: Prope ruinas Stoborum ad confluentes Eri gonem et Axium in pago Sirkovo.

Dedicator: Municip(es) Stob[---]

Hadrian 183

Ach, Abia.

IG V, 1, 1352.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.80 × 0.58 × 0.18 m.; l.: 0.032-

0.05 Date: 119 – 138 Cos 3.

IG: Basis lapidis calcarii, olim Abiae; a. 1759

de insula Corcyra in museum Nanianum illata,

nunc in domo comitis Cancerini in vico Piazzola

prope Paduam.


Dedicator: ÔH povli~ tw`n ∆Abeatw`n ka⁄ta; to; tw`n ∆Acaiw`n ƒo dov⁄gma ajnevqhken ejpi; gramma⁄tevo~ Davmwno~ tou` ⁄ ∆Aristeva

Hadrian 187

Ach, Athenae. A.E. Raubitschek, Hadrian as the Son of Zeus Eleutherios, AJA 49 (1945) 128-133. IG II2, 3312, Hadrian 184

3321 & 3322. Ach, Aidepsos.

Type: Part of a base Dim.:? × 0.63 ×? m.; l.: IG XII, 9, 1234. G.A. Papabasileiu, Epigrafai, 0.034 Date: 117 – 138. AEphem (1907) 11, no. 1.

IG II, 3312: Fragmentum baseos marmoris PenType: Base Dim.: 0.64 × 0.92 × 0.71 m.; l.:? telici a dextra et infra mutilum. (0,18 × 0,43 × Date: 128 – 138 Olympios.

0,17). IG: Adepsi in muro vineae prope thermas. Basis IG II, 3321: Lapis inaedificatus fuit muro novicio marmoris albi. In superficie vestigia pedum in clivo occidentali arcis. Basis marmoris Pentelici supra margo. (0,35 × 0,30 × 0,20). non unius statuae. b) in altere parte eius IG II, 3322: Septentriones versus a Parthenone. dem basis: To;n ejpifanestaton ⁄ Aujvgouston Fragmentum marmoris Pentelici undique trunKwnstantei`non ⁄ hJ povli~ Aijdhyhnw`n ⁄ ªejk tw`n catum. (0,32 × 0,40 × 0,18) aujth`~º povrwªnº. Raubitschesk: Three of the five fragmentary inDedicator: ÔH bou⁄lh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ÔIstiaiw`n ejpi⁄melhqevnto~ L. Nooui?ou ∆Optavtou scriptions honoring the Emperor Hadrian which were found on the Athenian Akropolis are part Hadrian 185

of one and the same pedestal. A comparison of Ach, Anaphe.

the squeezes of IG II2, 3312, 3321, and 3322 IG XII, 3, 265. CIG II, 2480 i.

shows that these fragments belong together Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: and probably join. It may be assumed that the 117 – 138.

fragments belong to the inscribed front face of IG: Livqo~ Penthlhvsio~, qui olim in coenobio a large square pedestal. This pedestal consisted Panagiva~ Kalamiwtivssh~ fuit. not of one solid block, but of a stone core which was enclosed by four upright plaques and surHadrian 186

mounted by a profiled top stone which carried Ach, Athenae.

the statue. The original width of the front plaque IG II2, 3286. CIL III, 550.

was ca. 0,63 m. and the height can hardly have Type: Base Dim.: 0.56 × 0.83 × 0.83 m.; l.: 0.015- been much less than the width. The new inscrip0.04 Date: 112 – 113 Archon in Athens. tion contains a unique phrase which is more easIG: In medio cuneo in theatri Bacchi. Basis marily explained if one were to assume that it stood on a monument erected in the Parthenon near moris pentelici. the famous statue of Athena. CIL: Athenis dum theatrum Dionysi effoditur instante Strackio vere a. 1862, in cuneo medio Hadrian 188 in tertio gradu ab imo inter thronum gemellum, cui inscriptum est strathgou et khruko~, Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 3287 A. basemque alteram praegradem inscriptione Type: Base Dim.: 0.62 × 0.81 × 0.50 m.; l.: 0.04 carentem reperta est basis haec cum statuae olim Date: 117 – 138 See comment. ei impositae vestigiis, quadrata fere, larga a parte IG: Bases quattor marmoris Pentelici in theatro anteriore m. 0,76, a latere m. 0,85, alta m. 0,54. Dedicator: ÔH ejx ∆Areivou pavgou boulh; kai; hJ Bacci. A) in cuneo sexto (si a media parte numetw`n eJxakosivwn kai; oJ ⁄ dh`mo~ oJ ∆Aqhnaivwn to;n raveris) sinistrae partis, prope ipsum introitum a[rconta eJautw`n ⁄ ÔAdrianovn sinistrum.

Hadrian · 429

JMH: Originally there must have been twelve bases; one for each of the twelve phylai. It is generally assumed that these bases were erected during Hadrians first visit to Athens as emperor in AD 124/125 (P. Graindor, Athènes sous Hadrien (Cairo 1934) 18-20) but the inscriptions contain no criteria for dating. Dedicator: ÔH ejx ∆Areivou ⁄ pavgou boulh; kai; hJ boulh; tw`n C kai; ⁄ oJ dh`mo~ ejpimeloumevnh~ th`~ ∆Erecqhivdo~ fulh`~

Hadrian 189

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3287 B.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.64 × 0.83 × 0.83 m.; l.: 0.04


IG: Bases quattor marmoris Pentelici in theatro

Bacci. B) in cuneo primo sinistro.

JMH: See Hadrian 188.

boulh; kai; hJ Dedicator: ÔH ejx ⁄ ∆Areivou pavgou

boulh; ⁄ tw`n C kai; oJ dh`mo~ ejpimeloumevnh~ ⁄ th`~ ∆Akamantivdo~ fulh`~

Hadrian 190

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3287 C.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.58 × 0.81 × 0.82 m.; l.: 0.04


IG: Bases quattor marmoris Pentelici in theatro

Bacci. C) in cuneo primo dextro.


⁄ boulh; kai; hJ Dedicator: ÔH ejx ∆Areivou pavgou

boulh; tw`n C kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ ejpimeloumevnh~ th`~ Oijnhivdo~ fulh`~

Hadrian 191

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3287 D.



IG: Bases quattor marmoris Pentelici in thea-

tro Bacci. D) incertum qua in parte theatri in-

venta sit.


boulh; kai; hJ Dedicator: ªÔH ejx ∆Areivou pavgou

boulh; tw`n C kai; oJ dh`mo~ ejpimeloumevnh~ th`~ --- fulh`~º

Hadrian 192

Ach, Athenae.

AE 1974, 595. SEG 32, 255. D. Peppas-Del-

mouzou, Epigrafai ek tou Epigrafikou Mouseiou,

ADelt 25 A (1970) 191-193, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.60 × 0.72 × 0.14 m.; l.: 0.065-

0.07 Date: 117 – 138.

SEG 32: Five joining fragments of white mar-

ble of uncertain provenance (EM 4741 + 4634 +

4915 + 4672 + 4736) combined by D. Peppa-Del-

mouzou to form a rectangular base for a bronze

statue.

Dedicator: OiJ ”Ellªhnºe~

Hadrian 193 Ach, Athenae. W. Ameling, Tiberius Claudius Atticus als Kaiserpriester, ZPE 59 (1985) 182-184. SEG 24, 213. SEG 35, 148. IG II2, 3384. M.T. Mitsos, ADelt 22 B (1967) 15, no. 5. Type: Base Dim.: 0.40 × 0.78 ×? m.; l.: 0.04 Date: 117 – 138. IG: Fragmenta quattor baseos marmoris Pentelici, quorum tria inter se contingunt. SEG: IG II2 3384. Basis haec e fragmentis quattuor (EM nn. 358 a,b,g et 4012) composita est, quarum 4012 non ad dextram sed infra versum 3, ut videtur, locari debet. EM n. 3606 tituli eiusdem partem esse, infra EM n. 4012 collocandum, invenit M.T. Mitsos, ArchDelt XXIIB 1967, 15, n. 5, c. im. ph. reliquiarum monumenti recompositarum pl. IIg, et novum textum praebet. Dedicator: ªTºibevrioª~ Kl ÔHrwvdh~º ⁄ ª∆Aºttiko`~ oJ Mªaraqwvnio~º

Hadrian 194

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 2041.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.80 × 0.53 × 0.43 m.; l.: 0.035

Date: 128 – 129 Claudius Domitianus archon

in Athens.

IG: Apud S. Demetrius Kathfov rh, nunc EM 10368. Basis marmoris Hymettii.


Dedicator: ÔO kosmhth;~ tw`n ejpi; ⁄ Kl Dometianou` a[rcon⁄to~ ejfhvbwn uJpe;r ⁄ tw`n ejfhvbwn

Hadrian 195

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3288.


– 138 Olympios. IG: In porticu Hadriani.

Hadrian 196

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3311.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.36 × 0.48 × 0.56 m.; l.: 0.026

Date: 128 – 138 Olympios.

IG: Ad parietinas templi Athna~ Erganh~. Basis

marmoris Pentelici.

Dedicator: ªÔH ejx ∆Areivouº ⁄ pav gou boulh; kai; hJ boªulh; tw`n C kai; oJ dh`mo~º ⁄ oJ ∆Aqhnaivwn ejpi; pavsaªi~ eujergesivai~º

Hadrian 197

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3314.


128 – 138 Olympios.

IG: Inter Propylaea et Parthenona, nunc orien talem versus ab Erechtheo.

Dedicator: Saloustiano;~ Dhmov strato~ ⁄ Flueuv~

Hadrian 198 Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 3316. Type: Base Dim.: 0.61 × 0.46 × 0.34 m.; l.: 0.022 Date: 128 – 138 Olympios. IG: Olim inaedeficata in pariete ecclesiae Panagi~ Purgiwtissi~. EM 10364. Basis marmoris Hymettii. Dedicator: ∆Iouvlio~ ÔHrwdiano;~ ⁄ kai; ∆Iouvlio~ ÔHrwvdh~ to;n ⁄ i[dion eujergevthn

Hadrian 199

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3317.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.63 × 0.25 × 0.63 m.; l.: 0.041

Date: 128 – 138 Olympios.

IG: Prope Metropolin, nunc EM 10371. Basis

marmoris Pentelici undique mutila.

Dedicator: ªTibevrio~ Kºlauvdio~ ⁄ ª---º uiJo;~ ⁄ ª -- Kovºprio~ ⁄ ª---ºo~

Hadrian 200

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3383.


– 138 Olympios.

IG: Apud ecclesiam Panagia Blastiki.

Hadrian 201

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3382. SEG 32, 253. S.N. Koumanoudes,

Epigrafai ek tou Epigrafikou Mouseiou, ADelt 25

A (1970) 195, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.25 × 0.267 × 0.13 m.; l.:

0.036-0.04 Date: 128 – 138 Olympios.

IG: EM 2079. Fragmentum marmoris Pentelici.

SEG: Peppa-Delmouzou joins a previously un published fragment (EM 3843) to the right side

of this base.

Hadrian 202

Ach, Athenae.

AE 1974, 596. SEG 32, 254. D. Peppas-Del-

mouzou, Epigrafai ek tou Epigrafikou Mouseiou,

ADelt 25 A (1970) 193-194, no. 2.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.215 × 0.95 × 0.325 m.; l.:

0.04-0.042 Date: 128 – 138 Olympios, see com ment.

SEG: Three fragments of white marble of uncer-

tain pronenance (EM 4032+4060+3966) com bined to form part of a rectangular base by D.

Peppa-Delmouzou.

Dedicator: Aijmivlioª~ ∆Iou`nkºo~

Hadrian 203 Ach, Athenae. SEG 41, 143. AE 1992, 1552. H. KarapaMoulisani, A Dedication to the Emperor Hadrian, Praktika tou H diethous sunedrou el-

Hadrian · 431

lenikes kai epigrafikes, Athena, 3-9 Oktobriou 1982, tomos b (Athens 1987) 308-311. Type: Base Dim.: 0.675 × 0.41 × 0.205 m.; l.: 0.017-0.03 Date: 128 – 138 Olympios, see comment. SEG: IG II, 3966a. To this fragment of a marble base from the Acropolis, H. Karapa-Molisani, joins IG III, 3841 from the Acropolis and two unpublished fragments of unknown provenance, EM 3260 and 4046, to give the full height of the left side of the base. She sees in L. 10 a reference to the games inaugurating the temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens in 128/9 A.D. or to those celebrating the consecration of the cult statue in the same temple in 131/132 A.D. The dedicating city will be Philadelphia in Lydia, and in LL. 3-4 there was probably a geographical designation further defining the name to distinguish it from homonyms like Philadelphia in Syria and Egypt. “New Dionysos” in L.6 is a title of Hadrian or, more likely, the deified Antinoos. Dedicator: ªÔH Flºaouievwn Fªiladelfevwn povli~ ---º ⁄ ª-ºhª---ºia dia; th`~ iJªerwtavth~ -- bouº⁄lh`~ kai; tou` eujseªbestavtou dhvmou ---º ⁄ qeo;n Nevon Diovnuªson ---º ⁄ kai; th;n pro;~ ∆Aqhªnaivou~ ejk progovnwn filivan kai; sunº⁄gevªnºeian. Presªbeutai; ---º ⁄ path;r paivdwn ∆Oªlumpionikw`n --- ejnº ⁄ ∆Olumpiavdi prwvth/ ª--- kai; --- ∆Anº⁄twvnio~ Kornhliaªno;~ ---º ⁄ ∆Epimelhqevntwn ª---º ⁄ Markevllou bouªlºofuvlªako~ ª---º ⁄ Truvfwno~ kai; Eijsidwvrou tw`n ª---º ⁄ iJerofantw`n kai; sunqutw`n th`~ ijdivªa~ --- dia;º ⁄ bivou tetimhmevnwn hJmw`n politeªiva~ ---º

Hadrian 204

Ach, Athenae.

SEG 45, 179. B. Orphanou, ADelt 47 B (1992) 25 26. SEG 47, 222. S. Follet, BE 1999, 222.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.50 × 0.70 × 0.57 m.; l.:?

Date: 129 – 131 See below.

SEG 45: B. Orphanou briefly reports the discov ery of an inscribed base in salvage excavations of

the Greek Archaeological Service at 8-10 Odos

Tziraion, west of the Olympieion.

Follet: Elle fait peut-être connaître un archonte

noveau, à dater en 129/30 ou 130/1 si la titulature d’Hadrien est correctement restituée. Dedicator: ªÔH peripolistikh; sºuvnodo~ ⁄ ªtw`n apºo; tãh`Ã~ oijkoumªevº⁄nh~ iJeroneikw`ºn stafaneªiº⁄ªtw`n tecneitw`n kai; tw`ºn sunagwni⁄ªstw`n aujtw`nº dia; ⁄ ª---ºktou TaãrÃsev⁄ªw~ kai; Eºujkravtou~ Sidhv⁄ªtou ejpi; --º Menavndroªuº ⁄ ª---º ajrconto~

Hadrian 205 Ach, Athenae. AE 1947, 17. A.E. Raubitschek, Hadrian as the Son of Zeus Eleutherios, AJA 49 (1945) 131-132. T.E. Shear, The Campaign of 1936, Hesperia 6 (1937)352-354. Type: Base Dim.: 0.61 × 0.94 × 0.635 m.; l.: 0.055 Date: 132 – 133 See comment. Raubitschek: Fragment of Pentelic marble, found on May 29, 1936, in the Section N of the Agora Excavations. The stone is broken at the left side and at the bottom, and it shows traces of later use. The inscribed face and the top have already been illustrated by T.L. Shear, Hesperia iv, 1937, p. 353, figs. 16 and 17. Shear also discussed the possibility that this may have been the pedestal of the big marble statue of the Emperor which was found in the same region. Whatever may be the verdict on this combination, it obviously is not in keeping with the assumption that the marble statue should be identified with the Emperor’s image which stood in front of the Stoa of Zeus. For the inscription reveals clearly that the monument is a dedication made by a citizen of Byzantium. It therefore belongs in one group with several similar documents (IG II, 32893307, 3310). Almost all of these statues erected by or on behalf of foreign cities were set up in the sanctuary of Zeus Olympios. One of them, however, IG II, 3296, was discovered in front of the temple of Hephaistos in the Agora, thus in the same area where the inscription under discussion was found. Dedicator: ª---ºda~ Buzavntio~

Hadrian 206 Ach, Athenae.


CIL III, 7282. Type: Base Dim.: 0.87 × 0.88 × 0.59 m.; l.:? Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16. CIL: Basis quadrata rep. Athenis m. Iun. a. 1886 auf der Brandstätte des alten Bazars, ubi videtur fuisse gymnasium Hadriani. JMH: Block of marble, roughly picked on the back and on top. On top anathyrosis and two clamp holes near the back for joining another block and two larger holes for fastening the separately worked profile or possibly the plinth of the statue. Dedicator: Ob | multa beneficia quae viritim | quae publice praestitit resti|tutori coloniae suae Troadenses | per legatos M Servilium Tutilium | Paulum et L Vedumnium Aulum | Trwadevwn

Hadrian 207

Ach, Athenae.

CIL III, 6102. CIL III, 7283. G. Molisani, Epigra fia e topografia. A proposito di alcune iscrizioni

Latine del Museo Epigrafico di Atene, ASAtene

52-53 (1974-1975) 407-408.


m.; l.: 0.038 Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16.

CIL: Athenis in stoa Hadriani. Intellegitur An tiochia Pisidiae in nummis saepe dicta Caesarea

sive Caesaria.

Molisani: Nella sala terza con il nr. E.M. 8363.

Frammento di grosso blocco di marmo pentelico

visto dai compilatori del Corpus nelle rovine

dell’allora supposta Stoà di Adriano.

Dedicator: [C]aesarea Antio[chia ob multa] |

[be]neficia quae [viritim quae] | [publice praes titit coloniae] | [per legatum ---]

Hadrian 208

Ach, Athenae.

CIL III, 548. CIL III, 7281. IG II2, 3289. G.

Molisani, Epigrafia e topografia. A proposito di

alcune iscrizioni Latine del Museo Epigrafico di

Atene, ASAtene 52-53 (1974-1975) 404-407.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.12 × 0.76 × 0.48 m.; l.: 0.032

Date: 132 – 133 Trib pot 16.

IG: EM 10302. Basis marmoris albi.

CIL 3, 548: Athenis in angulo ecclesiae S. Nico -

lae. Fuit statua haec Hadriani ex numero dedica tarum a civitatibus Graecis in Olympieo.

CIL 3, 7281: Athenis hodie ante turrim Andro nici.

Dedicator: Colonia Iulia Augusta | Diensium per

legatum | C Memmium Lycum | Diestwn

Hadrian 209

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3290. CIG 331.


– 133 See comment. IG: Olim Athenis, nunc pars inferior Parisiis in bibliotheca nationalis. JMH: All of the statue bases in the Olympieion were presumably set up at the time of the inauguration of the temple in 132/33. The one base that can be dated precisely (IG II2, 3289) was certainly dedicated this year. Dedicator: ∆Abudhnoi; ⁄ to;n auJtw`n swth`ra ⁄ kai; ktivsthn ⁄ dia; presbeutou` ⁄ Markevllou Maivoro~

Hadrian 210

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3291. CIG 332.


– 133 See Hadrian 209.

IG: Athenis.

Dedicator: ÔH povli~ ⁄ hJ Aijgeinhtw`n to;n eJa⁄th`

~ swth`ra kai; ⁄ eujergevthn ⁄ dia; ejpimelhtou` Swsikl⁄eivdou

Hadrian 211

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3292.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.08 × 0.67 × 0.47 m.; l.: 0.03

Date: 132 – 133 See Hadrian 209.

IG: Athenis, nunc EM 1856. Basis marmoris

Hymettii. Postea lapidem quamvis mutilatum.

Dedicator: ÔH boulh; kai; oJ dh`m

o~ ⁄ ∆Amfipoleitw`n

Hadrian 212

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3293. CIG 334.

Hadrian · 433

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 132 – 133 See Hadrian 209.

IG: Athenis, perisse videtur.

Dedicator: ∆Anemouªrievwnº th`~ Kilikiv a~ ⁄ hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ dia; presbeutw`n ⁄ P. Aijlivou KaiwvlouÙ ⁄ kai; Gaivou tou` ∆Alexavndrou

Dedicator: ÔH mhtrovpoli~ ªprwvth kai; megivsthº ⁄ th`~ ∆Asiva~ kai; di;~ nªewkovro~ ∆Efesivº⁄ªwºn povli~ to;n i[dioªn ktivsthn dia;º ⁄ ªejpimelºhtou` Mavrkou Tigellivoªuº ⁄ ejpi; iJerevw~ Ti Klªaudivou ∆Attikou`º

Hadrian 217 Hadrian 213

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3294. CIG 338.


See Hadrian 209.

IG: Athenis, perisse videtur. Basis.

Dedicator: ªKºuzikhnoiv

Hadrian 214

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3295. CIG 336.


See Hadrian 209.

IG In ecclesia S. Ioannis Maguli. Basis.

Dedicator: Qavs

ioi ⁄ dia; presbeutou` kai; ⁄ tecneivtou Xenofavntou ⁄ tou` Cavrhto~ ⁄ ejpi; iJerevw~ Kl ∆Attikou`

Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 3298. AE 1916, 24. P. Graindor, Inscriptions Attiques d’époque impériale, BCH 38 (1914) 351. Type: Base Dim.: 0.76 × 0.21 × 0.67 m.; l.: 0.03 Date: 132 – 133 See Hadrian 209. IG: Frg. a ante theatrum Bacchi in parte dextra; b inventum ad meridionales arcis radicis, nunc EM 9564. Fragmenta duo marmoris Pentelici non contigua, quae coniunxit Graindor. Frg. A infra integrum a. 0,76, l. 0,21, cr. 0,67. B a dextra integrum a. 0,30, l. 0,22, cr. 0,32. Dedicator: ªÔH mhtrovpºoli~ th`~ Pªafºlagoniva~ ⁄ ªPomphiºovpoli~ ªdia;º presbeu⁄ªtw`n ---ºou tou` Leª--- kºai; ⁄ ª--- Qeºopropivwªno~ ---º ⁄ ªejpi; iJerevw~º Kl ∆Attªikou`º

Hadrian 218

Hadrian 215

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3296.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.89 × 0.81 × 0.84 m.; l.: 0.037


IG: Ante Theseum, nunc EM 10379. Basis mar-

moris Pentelici.

Dedicator: Kuprivwn ⁄ to; koino;n dia; presbeutw`n ⁄ G ∆Ioulivou ÔRouvfou Pafivou ⁄ kai; Kleagevªnºou~ tou` Klea⁄gevnou~ Salaminivou plistoneivkou ⁄ ejpi; iJerevw~ Kl ÔHrwvdou

Hadrian 216

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3297. CIG 335. SEG 33, 179. W. Ameling,

Herodes Atticus II (Hildesheim 1983) 71-72, no.

42.


– 133 See Hadrian 209.

IG: Ad Olympieum.

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3299.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.87 × 1.95 ×? m.; l.: 0.03


IG: In Olympieo, nunc ibidem. Basis rotunda

marmoris Pentelici.

Dedicator: ÔH povli~ ∆Ioulievwn tw` n kai; Lao⁄dikevwn tw`n pro;~ qalavssh/ th`~ iJera`~ kai; ajsuvlou kai; aujtonovmou ⁄ nauarcivdo~ sungenivdo~ fivlh~ summavcou koinwnou` dhvmou ⁄ ÔRwmaivwn, ejxairevtw~ teteimhmevnh dwreai`~ kaqw;~ kai; ejn Kape⁄twlivwi devltoi perievcousin dia; ejpimelhtw`n kai; presbeu⁄tw`n ∆Arcelavou tou` Teimavrcou kai; M Oujisellivou Gaivou ⁄ uiJou` Kollivna Preivskou kai; G Kornhlivou Gaivou uiJou` Kureivna ⁄ Maxivmou kai; ∆Apollwnivou Diognhvtou tou` ejpikalou⁄mevnou Gaivou

Hadrian 219

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3300. CIG 357.



See Hadrian 209.

IG: Ad Olympieum, periisse videtur. Columna

magna.

Dedicator: ÔH mhtrovpoli~ th`~ ∆Iwniva~

⁄ Milhsivwn povli~ ⁄ to;n ktivsthn kai; eujergevthn ⁄ ejpimelhqevntwn th`~ ajnastavsew~ ⁄ tw`n peri; Ti. ∆Iouvlion Mavkera genomevnwn ⁄ ajrcovntwn ⁄ ajndriantopoio;~ Au\lo~ Pantoulhvio~ Gaivou uiJo;~ ⁄ ∆Efevsio~ oJ kai; Meilhvsio~ ejpoivei

Hadrian 220

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3301. CIG 340.


See Hadrian 209.

IG: Ad Olympieum, periisse videtur. Basis.

Dedicator: ÔH povli~ Palevwn th`~ Kefalh⁄niva~

ejleuqevra kai; aujtovno⁄mo~ dia; ejpimelhtou` ∆Arnou⁄fivlou tou` ∆Agaqoklevou~ uiJou`

Hadrian 221

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3302. CIG 341.


See Hadrian 209.


Dedicator: Pomphiopoleitw`n ⁄ th`~ Kilikiva~ hJ povli~ dia; presbeutw`n ∆Ioulivou ⁄ Barciou` Pedivou

Hadrian 222

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3303. CIG 342.


See Hadrian 209.


Dedicator: Sebastopoleitw`n ⁄ tw`n ejn Povntw/ hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ to;n eJautw`n eujergevthn ejn th`/ prwvth/ ∆Olumpiavdi ⁄ dia; presbeutw`n Kapivtwno~ ⁄ Skipivwno~ kai; Gaivoªu ---ºmivou

Hadrian 223

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3304. CIG 343.


See Hadrian 209.


Dedicator: Shvstioi to;n eJautw`n swth`ra

⁄ kai; ktivsthn dia; presbeutw`n ⁄ T ÔRagwnivou Povrqmou kai; ⁄ Klaudivou ∆Abivou ªbouºleutw`n

Hadrian 224

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3305. E. Fouilles au monumente de

Lysicrate, Pottier, BCH 2 (1878) 416, no. 3.


132 – 133 See comment.

IG: Prope monumentum Lysicratis. Tabula mar-

moris Pentelici.

JMH: This inscription probably belongs to the

series of bases from the Olympieion, which pre-

sumably were set up at the time of the inaugura tion of the temple (see also IG II, 3289).

Dedicator: ÔH ªbouºlh; ªkai; oJ dºh`mªo~ tw`º⁄ªnº

Magnhvtwn tw`n ªpro;~ tw`/ Maiº⁄avndrªwiº to;n ªeJautw`n swth`raº ⁄ kai; ktªivsthºn dia; pªresbeutou`º ⁄ Kª---º

Hadrian 225 Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 3306. P. Graindor, Inscriptions Attiques d’époque impériale, BCH 38 (1914) 389, no. 15. AE 1916, 25. J.E. Harrison, Archaeology in

Greece 1887-1888, JHS 9 (1888) 127, no. 2. J.E.

Harrison, Archaeology in Greece 1887-1888,

JHS 9 (1888) 127, no. 2.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.98 × 0.605 × 0.545 m.; l.:

0.042-0.05 Date: 132 – 133 See Hadrian 209.

IG: Ad Olympieum. Basis quadrangula mar-

moris Pentelici infra truncata.

Dedicator: ∆Apollwnia`tai ⁄ oiJ kata; Kurhvnhn ⁄ ªdiºa; L Noouivou ⁄ ªÔRoºuvfoªuº

Hadrian 226

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3307.


132 – 133 See Hadrian 209.

IG: Athenis septentriones versus ab Olympio.

Basis quadrata marmoris Pentelici.

Hadrian · 435

Dedicator: Koropissevwn th`ª~º ⁄ Kihtw`n mhtropov⁄lew~ hJ boulh; kai; oJ ⁄ dh`mo~ dia; presbeu⁄tw`n Gaivou Ninnivou ⁄ kai; ∆Aqhnivwno~ Klh⁄vmento~ tou` kai; Lukiv⁄skou ejpi; iJerevw~ Kl ⁄ ∆Attikou`

Type: Base Dim.: 1.48 × 1.03 × 1.03 m.; l.: 0.05


IG: In peribolo Olympiei. EM 12350. Basis mar-

moris Pentelici.

Dedicator: G Klauvd io~ Silianov~

Hadrian 227

Hadrian 231

Ach, Athenae. IG II2, 3308. P. Graindor, Inscriptions Attiques d’époque romaine, BCH 51 (1927) 262-263, no. 26.


0.04 Date: 132 – 133 See comment.

IG: EM 3093. Capitulum Ionicum undique

fractum, cuius in parte inferiore titulus exara tus est.

JMH: This inscription most probably belongs to

one of the bases in the Olympieion, which pre sumably were set up at the time of the inaugura tion of the temple (see also IG II, 3289).

Dedicator: ª--- dia;º presªbºeutw`n ⁄ ª---ºou Sakevrdwtoª~º ⁄ ªkai ---ivouº Flavªkº⁄ªkouÙ ---º

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3318. CIG 345.


See Hadrian 209.


Dedicator: Filhvmono~ Filhvmwn ⁄ kai; Pavsippo~ oJ kai; ⁄ ∆Apollwvnio~ ⁄ to;n i[dion eujergevthn ⁄ diæ ejpimelhtou` tou` patro;~ ⁄ Poluouvcou Kartidavmanto~

Hadrian 228

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3309.


× 0.10 m.; l.:? Date: 132 – 133 See Hadrian

209.

IG: Para thi koinw~ kalomenhi pulhi th~

agora~. Tabula parva marmoris Pentelici a dex tra intera.

Dedicator: ªÔH pºovl

i~ ⁄ ª---º dia; ⁄ ªpresbeutw`n ---ºnna ⁄ ª--- qºeo ⁄ ª---ºlou

Hadrian 232

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3319. J.E. Harrison, Archaeology in

Greece 1887-1888, JHS 9 (1888) 127, no. 1.

Type: Base Dim.: 0.78 × 0.71 × 0.30 m.; l.: 0.045


IG: Ad Olympieum. Basis marmoris Pentelici.

Dedicator: Stavtio~ Kouadra`to~

Hadrian 233

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3320. P. Graindor, Inscriptions Attique

d’époque impérial, BCH 38 (1914) 388, no. 14.

Type: Base Dim.: 1.45 × 0.45 × 0.70 m.; l.: 0.05


IG: Ad Olympieum. Basis quadrangula mar-

moris Pentelici a dextra et infra truncata.

Dedicator: Kl Caª---º ⁄ to;n eJautou` eujergevthn

Hadrian 229

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3313. CIG 344.


See Hadrian 209.


Dedicator: OiJ prw`toi qehkovloi

Hadrian 234

Hadrian 230

Hadrian 235

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3315.

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3310. IGSK 30, 25. CIG 337.

Ach, Athenae.

IG II2, 3381.

Type: Unknown Dim.:? ×? ×? m.; l.:? Date: 132 – 133 See Hadrian 209. IG: In Olympieo.



Divus?

IG: Inter columnas Olympiei, periisse videtur.

Basis.

JMH: This inscription seem to have been added

after the death of Hadrian to the group of statues

in the Olympieion.

Dedicator: Keramihtw`n hJ boulh; kai; oJ dh`mo~ ⁄ dia; ejrgepistatw`n kai; presbeutw`n ⁄ ÔIevrwno~ tou` Muwnivdou ÔErmodwvrou ⁄ kai; ÔErmodwvrou tou` ∆Apollwnivdou ⁄ kaiv Eujavndrou tou` ∆Epafrodeivtou ⁄ ejpi; iJerevw~ St Kodravtou

Hadrian 236 Ach, Corinthus. A.B. West, Latin Inscriptions 1896-1926 (Cor-

inth VIII, 2) (Cambridge 1931) 19, no. 21.


0.075 Date: 117 – 138.

West: A fragment of white marble found March

22, 1902, near the Lechaeum Road Shops. Inv.

No. 174.

Hadrian 237 Ach, Corinthus. B.D. Merrit, Greek Inscriptions, 1896-1927 (Cor-

inth VIII, 1) (Cambridge 1931) 62-63, no. 84.

K.K. Smith, Greek Inscriptions from Corinth,

AJA 23 (1919) 383-384, no. 90. J.H. Kent, Cor-

inth VIII, 3 (Princeton 1966) 48-49, no. 102.


0.027-0.052 Date: 119 – 126 Cos 3 / trib pot

Roman Imperial Statue Bases: From Augustus to Commodus (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity - Volume 7)

Augustus (Roman Imperial Biographies)

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume III: Antoninus Pius to Commodus

Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Context, Ritual and Iconography (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity)

The Jews under Roman rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity)

Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume IV, Part II: Macrinus to Pupienus

Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume IX: Valentinian I to Theodosius I

Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome)

New Heroes in Antiquity: From Achilles to Antinoos (Revealing Antiquity)

Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome)

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume IV, Part I: Pertinax to Geta

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Themes

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Themes

Roman Imperial Coins

Roman Imperial Themes

Roman Imperial Coinage

From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy

ADVANCES IN CATALYSIS VOLUME 7, Volume 7

Roman Imperial Statue Bases: From Augustus to Commodus (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity - Volume 7)

Augustus (Roman Imperial Biographies)

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume III: Antoninus Pius to Commodus

Aspects of Ancient Greek Cult: Context, Ritual and Iconography (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity)

The Jews under Roman rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity)

Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume IV, Part II: Macrinus to Pupienus

Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume IX: Valentinian I to Theodosius I

Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome)

New Heroes in Antiquity: From Achilles to Antinoos (Revealing Antiquity)

Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome)

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume IV, Part I: Pertinax to Geta

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Themes

Roman Imperial Coinage

Roman Imperial Themes

Roman Imperial Coins

Roman Imperial Themes

Roman Imperial Coinage

From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy

ADVANCES IN CATALYSIS VOLUME 7, Volume 7

Recommend Documents