Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity 2004
[Close Print-Friendly Version]
92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 244 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 236 | 107 | 239 | 240 | 108 | 246 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112
VII.1 The inscriptions in this section — nos.92-112 — are all apparently formal public texts carefully cut on architectural features; they are all either associated with ecclesiastical buildings of some sort, or specifically Christian. This group of inscriptions is noticeably less informative than are the secular public texts of the preceding chapters. This may be the result of chance — there are many examples from other sites of church building inscriptions which give detailed factual information about donors, and dates. But it is also possible that we should see this as evidence of a general development in late roman and Byzantine epigraphy, away from the sense of inscriptions as publicly accessible records, towards their use as validating and even decorating public monuments, without needing to convey substantial information.
VII.2 The inscriptions fall into four principal categories. Many are simple prose texts in the form of prayers, and invocations, of a kind also found in 'private' prayers. The classification of such texts as formal public inscriptions rather than private informal prayers is therefore based on their form, lettering and (sometimes) location. The prayer for help (βοήθει, βοήθησον) in 92, 93, 94e and 97 is one of the most widespread of such formulae; it is also found in many of the private prayers on the site, and throughout the Byzantine world.1 The formula appears most often invoking The Lord, Κύριε, but with variants: Christ is invoked in 93, described as He who helps all who love him, and in 142; God in 135 and 145; the Theotokos in 146; and an archangel in 92 and 236. The next major category is verse inscriptions — reflecting the parallel move to the use of verse in public secular inscriptions: see Introduction.6. Another characteristic group is that of monograms: see Introduction.11. Finally there are a couple of prohibitions (111, 112) which seem to come from sacred buildings. From all these texts, therefore, we can reach some conclusions about the Christian building history of the city.
VII.3 The earliest Christian building so far found at Aphrodisias is the small basilica — Basilica A — which lies south east of the Theatre; the building is perhaps fourth century, but no inscriptions were found in it.2The Temple-Church3
VII.4 The Temple of Aphrodite, which was remodelled as a church in late antiquity; this involved an extremely ambitious piece of engineering, by which the columns which originally stood across the east and west ends of the Temple were removed, and added to the columns on the north and south sides, thus converting a rectangular enclosure into a long nave. This major feat of engineering can now be dated to the later fifth century; two coins of Leo I (457-74) were the latest in a group of coins found in the foundations of the north apse of the narthex.4 Inscriptions 92-99 are all building inscriptions from the Temple Church; texts 117-133 are private, apparently informal, prayers from the building. Texts 92-98 are clearly late Roman, and it seems most economical to associate them with the original remodelling work. In particular, nos.92-96, which were inscribed in a position of particular sanctity, on the chancel barrier very probably record the prayers of some of the contributors to this conversion. The names which appear there — Anastasius, Theodoretus and Cyriacus — are however not otherwise known to us, although they must have been prosperous and important citizens.5
VII.5 This dating provides an interesting contrast with the evidence, presented in sections V and VI, for active paganism at Aphrodisias. The story of the pagan philosophers at Aphrodisias (see V.8 ff.) demonstrates the existence of a powerful and prosperous pagan élite in the late fifth century, as well as the existence of a Christian community which was to be expanded and developed by the monophysite activities of Paralius and Athanasius (V.25) and later missionaries (VI.37). Such an élite is unlikely to have been neutral to the conversion to Christian use of the city's major pagan shrine, even if it had already ceased to function as such as a result of earlier legislation.6 Damascius specifically claims that the cult of Aphrodite flourished during Asclepiodotus of Alexandria's stay at Aphrodisias (Frag.204, cited at V.13). It is even possible that the tensions which this situation must have provoked are reflected in references to strife in nos.37 and 64.
VII.6 There had been a bishop of Aphrodisias since at least 325 (see List of Bishops.); the fourth century bishops must have used some earlier structure — perhaps Basilica A — as their cathedral church. But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Temple, once converted, must have become the principal church of the site, and so the cathedral. It is worth noting that the adjacent complex known as the 'Bishop's Palace' produced several seals of bishops from the middle Byzantine period, and so was perhaps used by ecclesiastical officials once the Temple had become the cathedral.
VII.7 Inscription 92 is the invocation of a name ending in —ηλ, most probably that of an angel; compare the further invocation of an archangel in 94.D. When I first read this text, I believed that I could interpret the fragmentary letter before the final ηλ as an A, giving the name Michael. I am now no longer convinced by this reading, but feel that the fragment must be read as a true vertical, giving --ιηλ — probably from the name Gabriel. The prominent position of this text, on the chancel barrier suggests that it should be associated with the original dedication of the church; but my original suggestion, that it was apparently dedicated to St. Michael, would now appear to need modification. It might have been dedicated to Gabriel, or, perhaps more probably, to the heavenly host.7 Of these dedications that to the heavenly host seems to me more likely, because there seems to be some evidence that the dedication came to be either generally understood, or specifically changed, to one to the commander of the heavenly host, St. Michael. John Nesbitt, in his publication of the Byzantine seals from Aphrodisias, drew attention to the appearance of St. Michael on several of those seals, and suggested that it seems very likely that there was a major shrine on the site dedicated to that saint.8 While we now know of another shrine to Michael, at Plarasa (236) this does not imply that the Temple-Church could not have been so dedicated. Several private prayers inscribed in the Temple-Church appear to invoke Michael (nos.124, 132.3, 133.1, 2); and the archangels were depicted in a 'shrine' created in the Theatre.9
VII.8 This identification is further reinforced by evidence from the renovation of the Temple-Church, apparently in the 10th or 11th century. The design was modified to meet contemporary liturgical requirements, with the installation of a sanctuary screen of the type which had become standard by the ninth or tenth centuries to replace the earlier balustrade: see VII.10.10 This is probably the occasion for the installation of the feature bearing no. 99,: see VII.14. The text refers to a "leader of the angels", ἀγγέλων πρωτοστάτης, in a phrase which could most easily be taken to describe Michael, although there are other possibilities; Professor Mango, in proposing the restoration, has pointed out that it is used of Gabriel in the Akathistos Hymn.11
VII.9 All this evidence is conjectural; but there is one more testimony which is perhaps more significant. After the defeat of the Byzantine army at Myriocephalon, in 1176 the Maeander valley was in the front line for Turkish attacks, and in a state of increasing anarchy, exacerbated by the civil war which followed the death of Manuel Comnenus in 1180. In 1188-89 Theodore Mangaphas revolted at Philadelphia and, having recruited some Turkish freebooters, went plundering in the upper Maeander valley. Nicetas Choniates describes how he attacked and plundered Laodicaea and Chonae (Nicetas' own home town), and then describes his process on into Caria — ἐμβαλὼν δὲ τῇ Καρίᾳ — where he also plundered. Then he continues, with the connective ἀλλὰ καί, Mangaphas allowed the barbarians (his Turkish freebooter troops) to burn the church of the archistrategus Michael, a very great work, and well-known, exceeding in beauty and in length the shrine of the noble martyr Mocius in Constantinople.12 Although this has been taken as a reference to the famous church of St. Michael at Chonae,13 Professor W. Kaegi pointed out that the narrative reads far more easily if we take the reference to be to a church in Caria; and the name Caria was by this date the term regularly used to describe Aphrodisias/Stauropolis (see VI.54). That Mangaphas' expedition did reach Aphrodisias is perhaps suggested by the discovery of one of his coins on the site.14 It therefore seems very probable that the church burned by Mangaphas' men was the Temple-Church at Aphrodisias/Stauropolis/Caria, by then regularly known as the church of St. Michael. The church at Chonae still had its decorations intact when in was plundered and defiled by the troops of Pseudo-Alexius in 1193, as described by Nicetas Choniates (422, 85 ff.), emphasising that this took place in his home town. The specific reference to the length of the church is noticeable; the effect of the remodelling of the former temple by lengthening the sides was to create a very long vista up the central nave, will have been very impressive.
VII.10 The fragments, all of blue marble, which make up 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 were mostly found during excavation in 1962 of the east end and chancel of the Temple-Church, although some were stray finds in later years. They appear to come from at least five different texts, distinguishable by their script and by variations in the profiles of the stones on which they are inscribed; but they all seem to have formed part of similar architectural features. These all have a polished top, a moulded profile on one side — inscribed on the upper fascia or the moulding — and a smooth edge on the other side, tapering down to a narrow underside, which has been left rough. They appear to be fragments of the upper rim which crowned a partition or balustrade. Several similar fragments, uninscribed, are to be found, re-used as coursing in the wall and reinforced with re-used statue bases, along the north side of the chancel. That wall appears to be part of the middle Byzantine remodelling of the area: see VII.8. It is likely that the rim fragments re-used in it, and those bearing these texts originally crowned a chancel barrier of the type normal in the early Byzantine period — probably coming to waist-height — which was dismantled to permit creation of the later screen. A structure on this scale would explain the relatively small lettering of the inscriptions, which could not have been read at any great distance. Since the profiles of the fragments show some variation, they probably came from different sections of such a balustrade, which would have been divided by supporting pillars. For other fragments from similar balustrades see 107, 239, 240.
VII.11 The evidence for the dating of the conversion to the late fifth century (see VII.4) agrees with that of the script. The abbreviation of καὶ with the abbreviation scroll hanging from the lower arm of the K, is similar to that in no.42 (mid fifth century) and no.62 (late fifth century or early sixth); but none of these are identical in form, and the abbreviation is widespread in the fifth and sixth centuries (see Avi-Yonah, Abbreviationss). The form of Β, with two separate bowls, is also one that seems to come into use during the fifth century (see text 81). The texts seem all to have taken the form of prayers (see VII.2). 92 and 93.b refer to Theodoretus and Cyriacus; 94 and 95 are from texts on behalf of Anastasius; the fragments of 94 apparently come from more than one sentence, one expressed — as perhaps was 95 — by Anastasius in the first person, as a prayer on behalf of himself and his household. These were presumably donors. In 96 God is invoked as Lord, then described as the God, presumably with a subsequent phrase or clause.
VII.12 In 97 the formula is the common invocation of divine help, but the elaborate care with which it is cut suggests that it is part of a formal text, invoking the Lord's help probably for a donor to the Temple-Church: see VII.2. The script is not unlike those of 92—6, and so perhaps, like them, dates from the conversion of the Temple in the late fifth or sixth century. The decorative lines, however, cut above and below certain letters or groups of letters, without any explicable function, are perhaps more like the decorations found on inscriptions of the middle Byzantine period.
VII.13 Text 98 is apparently a fragment from a monumental inscription. The man whose name is recorded, Anatolis for Anatolius, was presumably a donor to the Temple-Church; the name is found only here on the site. There is no evidence as to the date.
VII.14 The fragments presented as 99 appear, from the style of the script and decoration, to date from the tenth or the eleventh century, when the Temple-Church was remodelled in accordance with current liturgical practice, and a chancel-screen was constructed at the east end.15 They apparently adorned an aedicule with a diameter of about 3 metres; but the foundations of such a structure have not been located. Despite the survival of so many fragments, it is not possible to reconstruct much of the text. It was evidently a poem in dodecasyllables. For the leader of angels in a see the discussion at VII.8; the life of the dead in b perhaps indicates that the monument incorporated relics; θυήπολος in c is a poetic term for a priest, probably a bishop of Caria, responsible for putting up the monument.16The Triconch Church17
VII.15 This church, which lies south-west of the Acropolis, has been the subject of recent study. As Robin Cormack first suggested, it appears to have been built round a Tetrakionion — a four-column structure where two roads cross. Cormack dated on the basis of the design, and the architectural sculpture to the late tenth or early eleventh century; this suggestion is supported by recent excavation, showing that the first building phase of the church must be later than the first half of the seventh century.18 The only formal Christian inscriptions found in the church, however, are 100 and 101. 101, from both content (a hexameter poem with debts to Nonnus) and script, seems to be of the later fifth or, more probably, the sixth century, but not later. Of the three fragments, however, only one was found in the Triconch, and it may well have been re-used. Similarly, 101 should, on the basis of the box monograms, be no later than the sixth century (see Introduction.11); but the capitals on which the monograms appear show every sign of having been re-used.
VII.16 The fragments of text 100 are from the beginning (a) or the ends (b, c) of three different hexameter lines. The poem, which may have had four or more lines, probably began with a, and ended with c, and was demarcated at either end by a cross. The first two fragments are best understood as coming from a description of the life of Christ, from His birth from Mary, whose child was God, through the harsh experiences of His life — and perhaps the Passion — to the God-receiving garden; as Grégoire suggested, this might refer to Paradise, or to the Mount of Olives, but it might suit this interpretation better to take it as the κῆπος where Christ was buried (Jo. 19. 41). The poem apparently recorded the building ? of a church, and the first lines perhaps describe a programme of decoration with scenes from the life of Christ. As in 73 and 74 there are echoes in these fragments of Nonnus: see discussion at V.37. Θεοπαίς apparently first applied to the Virgin in Nonnus' Paraphrase of St. John's Gospel (19.26); it is used of her by Romanos.19 Θεοδέγμων also appears in the Paraphrase (1.148, 10.55. 18.73) and in the Dionysiaca, (18.88) used, as here, in an oblique case, as the penultimate word in a line; it is also used, in the same position, by Dioscorus of Aphrodito (Frag. 1.v, 6). It is therefore plausible to date this inscription after Nonnus' influence had become widespread in the late fifth century (see V.51). but before hexameters became very uncommon at the end of the sixth century.20
VII.17 Texts 101, 102, 103 are all monograms, found on architectural features; all are prominently marked with crosses, and almost certainly originated in churches (for discussion of monograms see Introduction.11). Despite their obscurity, they should be seen as recording the names of donors to the structures in which they stood; but in no case can we identify the structure. The capitals recording Symbaticius, text 101 were found in the Triconch Church, but apparently re-used (see VII.15); text 102 records another donor, Theochares. These two texts, in the form of box monograms, should be no later than the late sixth century; after that date the cross monogram becomes standard, as in text 103, recording Mamas and ?Pakos, and 244, with a name that I cannot resolve.
VII.18 Text 248 is inscribed on one of the column bases in the Tetrapylon, and appears to be a prayer for the salvation of an archbishop: it should perhaps be associated with the reconstruction of the Tetrapylon in the late fourth or early fifth century, but it seems rather casually cut for a donor's inscription. In text 104 the use of ἄγιον makes it virtually certain that this fragment is from a Christian text: the adjective is probably applied to a saint, although it might refer to a sacred building. Since it is from an architrave block, it probably comes from the dedicatory inscription of a church, inscribed, as was very common, on the lintel. Little can be deduced about the likely date; and there is no indication as to the building from which this fragment originally came.
VII.19 Text 105 is on a fragment from an open-work marble balustrade which decorated a church somewhere in or around Aphrodisias. The text may have been a dedication, or simply an appropriate sentiment; the lack of articles may indicate that this is a verse text, presumably dodecasyllabic. If so, the script, not unlike that of 104, may be a middle Byzantine continuation of the simple fifth- or sixth-century style exemplified in 92, 93, 94, 95, and 96.
VII.20 In text 106 Heliodorus bears a pagan name, attested at least three times in the Roman period at Aphrodisias but is clearly Christian; the deprecatory epithet, ἐλάχιστος, that he uses is one commonly assumed by men at various levels in the priesthood,21 and by monks.22 The text here, starting with Heliodorus' name in the nominative, almost certainly describes his work in building or restoring the building of which this cornice formed a part; in this position, outside the walls, it might have been a mortuary chapel or perhaps a monastic building.
VII.21 Text 236 comes from a church building even further away, at Bingeç, almost certainly the site of ancient Plarasa. It invokes Michael, and probably comes from a building dedicated to him. The block itself is an architrave of Hellenistic or early Roman workmanship. Michael is asked to help (in the standard formula discussed at VII.2) all the contributors to the building, who remain anonymous; this is a common Christian usage, perhaps increasingly used in the sixth century.23 A sixth century date may also be suggested by the lettering, not unlike that of 166.
VII.22 Texts 107, 239 and 240, all found without a context, clearly served the same purpose as the parapet rims from the Temple-Church, 92, 93, 94, 95, and 96. Although one fragment of 107 was found near the Temple-Church, the design of the moulding is quite different from that of the other rim fragments found there, and the script bears no resemblance to theirs; it therefore appears that all these fragments are from the chancel barriers of one or more other churches. In 107 σπουδῇ is regularly used in inscriptions describing the efforts of a donor.24 The donor named here was probably called John. The script is exceptionally rough; that of 239 and 240 is more elegant, and more similar to the scripts in 92—96. Eutychianos in 239 was presumably a donor. 240 apparently comes from a prayer, presumably on behalf of a donor; the restoration reflects a phrase commonly used by donors, who pray that their sins might be forgiven (cf. 109) While these texts offer little basis for dating, a chancel barrier of this kind would not have been built after the eighth century.
VII.23 Text 108 apparently stood on the lintel of a church dedicated to the holy martyrs Barbara and Anastasia. I have been unable to find any other example of a dedication to these two saints together; the martyrs referred to here may not be those venerated elsewhere, but two local martyrs (for two men known to have been martyred at Aphrodisias see II.20). There is a reference in a funerary inscription (163) to the traces of the martyrs at Aphrodisias, presumably referring to relics, and perhaps to the two martyrs commemorated here. The text is in two lines of fairly unsophisticated dodecasyllabic verse — thus φῆμι is inserted just to fill out the line. The use of syllabic verse, replacing hexameters, was apparently universal in inscriptions by the seventh century and continued throughout the Byzantine period.25 The script of this text, as so often, gives little indication of date, but could be ninth or tenth century. Another fragment, probably of the 10th century, is 246, but no words can be determined: it is only the apparent date which makes it likely to be from an ecclesiastical rather than a secular building.
VII.24 The transcription of 109 is only known to us from a copy by the notoriously unreliable Bailie.26 The text given here is slightly more elaborate than that published in paper which he read to the Royal Irish Academy, but is what Bailie chose to publish in the later Fasciculus. It is not certain where the join between the two faces comes, but Bailie's account implies that it would be at or after the stop, if the small circle reported in the Fasciculus (not in the Transactions) is correctly so interpreted. Bailie restored Ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου: τὸ ὄνομα σου ἁγιασθήτω that is, Thy Kingdom come; Hallowed be thy name, two phrases from the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6.9-10. Luke 11.2, but in reverse order), and was followed by all subsequent editors; but this must remain uncertain.
VII.25 The fragments of 110 come from a text in dodecasyllabic verse, from which we have the end of a line (c). The phrase in c is found in a dedicatory poem inscribed in a small church near Heraclea-Latmos: καὶ λύσιν αἰτῶ τῶν ἐμῶν ὀφλημάτων; the last three words form a common clausula.27 The text here, inscribed very elegantly on a substantial piece of architectural masonry, is likely also to be a dedicatory poem. The only indication of date is the script, which, with its careful use of accents and breathings. seems to be twelfth century. It is certainly the latest public inscription from the site.
VII.26 I had thought that some late building activity should be associated with a bronze Stauropegion cross, with an inscription which records the dedication of a church of St Nicholas by Leo, Metropolitan of Stauropolis, in 1172 (see List of Bishops).28 The cross, purchased in Constantinople in 1926 by W. H. Buckler, was said by the dealer to have been found several years ago, together with a few Byzantine enamels, in an underground vault near Enos/Ainos, in Thrace. But Professor Mango pointed out that it should almost certainly be identified with a cross seen in the monastery of Skaliotissa, near Ainos, in the early 1900s by L. Petit.29 That cross, therefore, rather than being evidence of building activity at Aphrodisias/Stauropolis at this late date, suggests that the metropolitan of Stauropolis was active away from his own diocese, which, even before the defeat at Myriocephalon in 1176, was on the front line between the Byzantines and the Turks.
VII.27 That 110, a twelfth-century inscription, should be the latest example of Byzantine public building at the site is hardly surprising. The disturbed situation in the area after the battle of Myriocephalon culminated in the attack by Theodore Mangaphas in 1188-9: see VI.9. Ten years later, in 1197, the Sultan of Iconium attacked the area, and took prisoner the inhabitants of the κωμοπόλεις Caria and Tantalus, before advancing on Antioch on the Maeander: προσπεσὼν ἀπροσδόκητος ταῖς κατὰ Μαίανδρον κωμοπόλεσι Καρίαν τε καὶ Τάνταλον καθ' ἡλικίαν ἠνδραποδίσατο καὶ πόλεις ἄλλας ὅτι πολλὰς ληϊσάμενος πρὸς αὐτὴν ἠπείγετο τὴν κατὰ Φρυγίαν Ἀντιόχειαν (Nic. Chon. 494). The reference to Tantalus is presumably to the modern settlement of Dandalas on the river of the same name, a little way north of Aphrodisias, and Caria here must mean the settlement at Aphrodisias/Stauropolis. The tone of the passage suggests that both these settlements were less important than Antioch on the Maeander, and the term comopolis seems to mean something between a city and a village. The Sultan captured and took away apparently the entire able-bodied population of these settlements, which only came to some 5,000 people; they were resettled by the Turks at Philomelium, on terms so reasonable that many others came to join them (Nic. Chon. 495). All this suggests that the population of the area had been much reduced, and that their circumstances were already fairly intolerable before the Sultan's raid.
VII.28 Until the reign of Michael VIII Palaeologus (1259-82), Caria was still formally within the Byzantine empire (Ducas 2. 2); but there is no numismatic evidence of Byzantine occupation of the site in the thirteenth century.30 By 1278, when Andronicus Palaeologus, the future emperor, led a campaign to clear the Turks from the Maeander valley, Antioch and Caria were already lost: τὰ γὰρ κατὰ Μαίανδρον καὶ Καρίαν καὶ Ἀντιόχειαν ἤδη καὶ τετελευτήκει (Pachymeres 468. 16). This loss seems to have been final, and is reflected in the change or status or the episcopal see, which during the reign of Andronicus (1282-1328) drops from twenty-first to twenty-sixth place in the Notitiae, and disappears completely in the fourteenth-century listing.31 The compiler of a seventeenth-century Notitia commented specifically on the elimination of the see of Caria, as of many others in Asia Minor: Σταυρουπόλεως Καρίας εἶχεν ἐπισκόπας κή καὶ ἐρηνώθησαν σὺν τῇ μητροπόλει.32
VII.29 Before the see finally disappeared during the fourteenth century, there seem to have been some endeavours to keep it alive. In July 1361 the function of metropolitan of Stauropolis was being exercised by the metropolitan of Bizye;33 but in 1369 the metropolitan bishoprics of Miletus and Antioch on the Maeander were attached to that of Stauropolis.34 In 1387 there was still a metropolitan of Stauropolis, who had been forced, apparently by the effective loss of his diocese, to petition the patriarch; it was agreed that, to relieve his distress (τὴν τοῦ Σταυρουπόλεως ἀθυμίαν διαλῦσαι καὶ λύπην), the bishopric of Rhodes, Cos and the Cyclades should be transferred to him after the death of the current incumbent, the bishop of Myra.35 This duly took place in or around 1394. The man himself was a native of Rhodes, and also apparently influential with the patriarchate, since he is described as most excellent, ὑπέρτιμος, exarch of Caria, which explains his success in winning the new see.36 But an explanation is also given in terms of the circumstances in Caria: τῆς κατ' αὐτὸν ἐκκλησίας ταῖς συνεχέσι καὶ ἀλλεπαλλήλοις αἰχμαλωσίαις εἰς στενὸν κομιδῆ καταντησάσης, καὶ πολλὴν ἐχουσης τὴν ἀπορίαν.37 Since there are no later mentions of the see, it was probably only the influence of this particular incumbent that had kept the office in being. The Christian population of the area seems to have virtually disappeared in the constant captivities referred to, and the region was firmly under Turkish rule; a Turkish satrap of Caria is mentioned in 1329 (Cantacuzenus I.388.16).
VII.30 111 and 112 are 'public' inscriptions, in that they were both presumably put up by official authority — secular or ecclesiastical — to warn, in specifically Christian terminology, against the infringement of certain rules. This kind of prohibition was frequent throughout the ancient world on funerary monuments, but in the Christian period the use of such texts, with religious sanctions, to cover a wider area of misbehaviour, seems to have become more common.38
VII.31 Christian prohibitions phrased in the manner of 111, with ἔχειν or εἶναι πρὸς (usually) τὸν Θεόν, first appear in the third century in 'crypto-Christian' inscriptions, especially in Phrygia, and then widely in openly Christian texts. L. Robert analysed these phrases and particularly those with the formula ἔχειν πρός, showing that their use develops simultaneously in Christian and in Jewish inscriptions.39 The formula here, invoking the judgment seat of Christ, is relatively uncommon; Feissel cites parallels from Attica and from Anazarbus.40 This rather fuller development of the standard formula was perhaps considered appropriate for a public inscription. There is no way of determining where this column originally stood; it was found reused in the Byzantine defence wall built around the Theatre and the Acropolis. It may have come from the Theatre Baths, since we know that theft was a problem in baths (see, at Aphrodisias, Reinach no. 17 with his commentary); at least one other stone used in building these fortifications is known to have come from just outside the Theatre Baths (41). The script offers little indication of date; a terminus ante quem is provided by the construction of the defence wall, in or after the reign of Heraclius.
VII.32 The prohibition in text 112 invokes the anathema of the 318 fathers — that it, the bishops who attended the Council of Nicaea in 325. From the contemporary sources we know only that about 300 bishops attended the Council. 318 is the number of servants in the household of Abraham at Genesis 14.14, which was being interpreted with some ingenuity as an isopsephistic indication of the name of Jesus by Christian authors of the second century;41 M. Aubineau traced the tradition by which this significant number came to be used of the bishops at Nicaea.42 It first appears in 358/9, used by Hilary of Poitiers, and is then found widely in both Latin and Greek texts of the later fourth and early fifth centuries, and in the Acts of the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). It is found as early as c. 360 in the formulation of an anathema in a Latin text, written in the east: anathema tibi trecenti decem et octo convenientes apud Nicaeam episcopi sunt.43
VII.33 The formula is quite widely attested in inscriptions, and although a considerable proportion of the known examples can be dated to the middle Byzantine period, it was probably used at any time from the later fourth century.44 The evidence cited above, however, suggests that it could not have been used before about 360. Since the stone is built into a bastion on the eastern stretch of the city wall, it cannot be ruled out that the text was inscribed in its present position, and that the prohibition was against throwing earth on to or against the city wall. On the other hand, no other cross of the kind so carefully cut on this block is displayed elsewhere on the city wall; the block looks as if it might have originated in a wall surrounding a church or some other Christian establishment. Furthermore, τείχιον would more properly describe such a wall than the fortifications of a city (see LSJ s.v.).
VII.34 It is therefore most likely that the block originally came from a Christian building, and was later re-used in the city wall. If it was re-used in the original construction of the walls, we should have to date that construction well into the fifth century, to allow for the inscription to be cut in its original position after the mid-fourth century, and for the block to fall out of use thereafter; but the walls were apparently built in the middle or late fourth century (see III.17) and repaired in the mid-fifth century (42). Examination of the walls, however, does suggest that many of the bastions were added after the original construction. Another bastion on the eastern stretch of the walls may have been built or repaired as part of the work undertaken in the mid-fifth century by Ampelius: see discussion at IV.33. This block, therefore, is probably in the city wall because it was re-used in the construction or repair of a bastion, either by Ampelius in the mid-fifth century, or at some later date.
|1||For a bibliography see Besevliev, 25 and commentary; cf. especially Peterson, 3 ff.|
|2||K. T. Erim, AJA 67, (1963), 184.|
|3||See Robin Cormack (1990a) and 1990b); Smith and Ratté (1995), 43-46; Smith and Ratté (2000) 227-231; Ratté (2001), 130-133.|
|4||Smith and Ratté (1995), 44-46. On the topic of temple conversions see now B. Caseau, Polemein lithois, in M. Kaplan ed., Le sacré et son inscription dans l'éspace (Paris, 2001), 61-123.|
|5||For the importance, not yet fully understood, of the role of private contributors to church building projects, see C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (London, 1976), 28.|
|6||For which see Jones, LRE 938.|
|7||Gabriel at Miletus, IGC 220 bis; the heavenly host: Μυριάγγελοι, at Pessinus, Vit.Theod.Sykeon. 101.40, pointed out by C. Mango; Ἀσώματοι at Thessalonica, pointed out by Robin Cormack.|
|8||DOP 37, 1983, 160-61.|
|10||Cormack (1990b), 84-6.|
|11||ed. C. A. Trypanis, Fourteen early Byzantine Cantica (Vienna, 1968), 1. The term is also used of Lucifer before his Fall, by John Damascene Expositio fidei, 18.2 and others.|
|12||Nic.Chon. Hist., 400.|
|13||e.g. Ramsay, CBP I, 215-16.|
|14||M. F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (Cambridge, 1985), 439.|
|15||Cormack (1990b), 86.|
|16||cf. IGC 215 bis, where a donor uses the term of himself in a poem of this sort.|
|17||Cormack (1981), 113-16; Cormack (1990a), 34-36; Smith and Ratté (1995), 48-51, Smith and Ratté (1997), 16.|
|18||Smith and Ratté (1995), 51.|
|19||Εὐλογημένος ὁ τεχθεὶς ἐκ κόρης θεόπαιδος, Cantica, Hymn 13.3.5|
|20||Grégoire, Byzantion 4 (1928), 456.|
|21||A bishop, SEG4.182: an archbishop, IGC 108, sixth century.|
|22||IGC 138 bis; cf. also BE 1972, 615.|
|23||e.g. IGC 2, Alexandria Troas, IGC 39, Cyzicus; abundant examples in Syria and Palestine.|
|24||so e.g. IGLS vi, 2945, Gerasa, 215.|
|25||Grégoire, Byzantion 4 (1928), 456.|
|26||On Bailie see History and Bibliography of the Inscriptions.|
|27||IGC 2260, dated by Grégoire to the thirteenth century; C. Foss and T. Drew-Bear, Byzantion 39 (1969), 76, 78-9.|
|28||Published by W. H. Buckler, BZ 28 (1928), 98-101, and now in the Ashmolean, inv. no. 1952.437; See C. Asdracha, Inscriptions byzantines de la Thrace orientale, Archaiologikon Deltion 43 (1988, published 1995), 219-91; D. Buckton, Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture (London, 1994), no. 189.|
|29||IRAIK 13 (1908), 19.|
|30||M. F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c.300 — 1450 (Cambridge, 1985), 122.|
|31||H. Gelzer, Texte der Notitiae episcopatum (Munich, 1900), 598 and 613ff.|
|32||Gelzer, op. cit. 639.|
|33||MM I, 429, doc. 183.|
|34||MM I, 511, doc. 258.|
|35||MM II, 106, doc. 398.|
|36||For this title for a patriarchal representative see J. Darrouzès, Recherches sur les ophikia de l'Eglise byzantine (Paris, 1970), 308.|
|37||MM II, 197-9, doc. 451.|
|38||Ch. Michel, art. Anathème, DACL i. 2, 1932-6; Michel cites the text published here as 112 twice, once from the publication by Paris and Holleaux, and once from Ramsay, apparently not realizing that only one inscription is involved.|
|39||Hellenica 11-12, 398-413, REG (1966), 769 and J. Strubbe, Mnemosyne (1981), 107 f., no.6, with BE 1982.428.|
|40||Feissel (1991), 375.|
|41||Ps. Barnabas, followed by Clement of Alexandria and Ps.Cyprian.|
|42||M. Aubineau, RHE 61 (1966), 5-43.|
|43||PL X, 6028; Aubineau, loc.. cit., 15.|
|44||See C. H. Haspels, The Highlands of Phrygia (Princeton, 1971), no. 59; Besevliev, 160, with full bibliography; Halkin, AB 70 (1952), 126: BE 1959.467 and 523.|
(c) Creative Commons Copyright by-nc-nd-2.0
[Close Print-Friendly Version]