Boteva DEDICATORS WITH ROMAN NAMES AND THE INDIGENOUS CULT OF THE THRACIAN HORSEMAN

Dedicators with Roman Names and the Indigenous Cult of the Thracian Horseman (A Reprint)

75

Archaeologia Bulgarica XI 2007 3 75-89 Sofia

DEDICATORS WITH ROMAN NAMES AND THE INDIGENOUS CULTOF THE THRACIAN HORSEMAN (A REPRINT)*

DILYANA BOTEVA

The following text was presented in April2004 at the Conference “Nuove ricerche sullaRomanità danubiano-balcanica” organized bythe Romanian Academy in Rome and was pub-lished in its proceedings (Ephemeris Dacoro-mana, Serie nuova, XII, fasc. 1, 2004, pp.205-225). Unfortunately, it appeared with ma-ny editorial mistakes making the text unreadab-le. As so far my complaints gave no result, Ifind it justified to re-publish it here**.

During the Roman period of the Thracianhistory a huge amount of votive reliefs with rep-resentations of different deities had been pro-duced and a big part of them have come downto us. Thanks to these monuments there couldhardly be any doubt now that the votive reliefswith arched upper side reflect one essential fea-ture of the Thracians’ communication with theirGods. The most numerous representationsamong them, as well known, are connected witha personage not attested by the ancient authors– namely the Thracian Horseman. Despite thethousands of monuments with his image, foundwithin territories where the Thracians used tolive, the Thracian Rider still remains obscurefor the modern historians and has been inter-preted for over hundred years in quite contra-dictory ways1.

Still, the recent development of the sciencein the field of communications proved that amessage – and the votive monuments are a kindof a message - could be grasped only if at least

three elements are considered: the sender of themessage, the message itself and its addressee(Posner 1992). So far, a thorough analysis bothof the dedicators and the addressees of the vo-tive reliefs with a representation of the ThracianHorseman is still lacking, although some stepsin this direction have already been made(Hampar�umian 1979, 17-23; ��

A database with the votive monuments ofthe Thracian Rider, created back in 1994-1996and since then constantly enlarged, enablessuch a research of the dedicators and address-ees. Through an analysis of the dedicators withRoman names, the present paper attempts tofill in only partially this big gap in modern knowl-edge of the most popular Thracian cult (see alsoBoteva 2005).

At the beginning some important explana-tions are needed. When speaking about dedica-tors with Roman names I mean only suchnames, which are composed after the Romanonomastic pattern and do not include non-Ro-man components. Thus, names as �� (IGBulg. II, 537), or MarcianusLecti (CCET II-2, 619) are not consideredhere; neither are Graeco-Roman and any otherkind of mixed names as for instance GaiusAurelius Alexander (CCET IV, 48) and �� (IGBulg. V,5856). Excluded are also all dedicators withsupposed Thracian origin because of their eth-nic or of their father’s name as for instance

* The analysis presented here appears as a result of my research at the Laboratory for Semiotics of the Technical University– Berlin as an Alexander von Humboldt fellow. I am much obliged to both Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and to myscientific host Prof. Dr. Roland Posner for their kind and stimulating support.

**The list of literature looks here differently as it was expected to fit in another publishing model. Meanwhile an autopsy ofan inscription from Montana proved that it was twice wrongly published without an indication that it is only fragmentarilypreserved (��, 100; Kazarow 1938, no 587, fig. 295). This necessitated an alternation within the text: the inscrip-tion is moved from previous IV 3 position in the list of dedicators to present III 22 position, despite its fragmentarity. Iwould like to thank N. Sharankov for his valuable criticism.

1 For the last two decades see Go�eva 1997, Oppermann 1992; Toporov 1990; Stojanov 1985; Venedikov 1979. Most re-cently also Dimitrova 2002, Boteva 2000 and Boteva 2000a.

Dilyana Boteva

76

��(IGBulg. III-2, 1809). The present analysisdoes not consider such names that are onlyfragmentarily preserved and it is not clearwhether originally they were composed of Ro-man components only.

So far there are no monuments along theThracian Black Sea coast and its immediatehinterland to fulfill these conditions2 . Truly,eight members of a thiasos attested by the stelefrom Cump�na, district Constan�a (CCET IV, 48)are with Roman names. However, this monu-ment from the territory of ancient Tomis stays inconnection with “Mater Romanorum” and be-cause of this it will not be considered here.

The monuments under scrutiny attest fourdifferent types of Roman names:

I. Dedicators introduced by names withthree Roman components, following the pattern:praenomen, nomen gentile, cognomen.

II. Dedicators introduced by two nominagentilia and one cognomen.

III. Dedicators introduced by names withtwo components.

IV. Dedicators introduced by only one name.Types I-III point at a Roman citizenship. The

dedicators are listed here in Latin (not Greek!)alphabetical order of their family name.

I.So far twelve dedicators with names of the

first type are attested on votive monuments ofthe Thracian Rider within the provinces ofLower Moesia and Thrace:

NORTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE

1. P(ublius) Ael(ius) Felix: veteranus(C��)

Addressee: Heron(i) sanctoForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: a lion attacks a bull; R.’s r. hand is

on the horse’s croup.Quality: now lost; no photo is available

2. ��

(IGBulg. II, 557: Glava Panega)Addressee: ��Form: statuetteRelief: R. holds a phiale and a shield; fe-

male figure; a dog attacks a boarQuality: relatively good

3. ��

�� (IGBulg. II, 529: Glava Pane-ga)

Addressee: �� ! ��"��#�� $� %&'�(

Form: plate with a pediment and two ac-roteria

Relief: a boar hunt; female figure; ser-pent-entwined tree; in the pediment – smallTelesphoros; a frieze with fighting animals;

Quality: relatively good

4. T(itus) Fl(avius) Valens (CCET II-2,589: Razgrad)

Addressee: noForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: deer hunt; 2 women; attendantQuality: relatively good

5. M(arcus) Iulius Val(ens ?): eques legi-onis I Italicae (Kaz. 958, fig. 465 = ILBulg.245: Tr��

Addressee: [S]ancto deo AssallacanoForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: not clear; Kazarow claims a boar

hunt and an alopekis on R.’s head;Quality: now worn

6. L(ucius) Naevius Probus: vet(eranus)(ILBulg., 207: Glava Panega)

Addressee: Sal[daecaput]eno / Silva-no et Dianae

Form: rectangular plateRelief: bearded R. holds a phiale; altar;

female figure (goddess ?) with a short dressholding a long torch in her l. hand and a phiale

2 This is the territory covered by IGBulg I and CCET I. As a matter of fact, CCET I, 126=IGBulg I2356 (Bata, Burgas region)attests ��)��*+��[��]��,��-�. as a dedicator, but it is not sure if the relief was with a representation of theRider.


77

above the altar in the r.Quality: schematic faces

SOUTH OF THE HAEMUS RANGE

7. �� !�� (IGBulg.III-2, 1658: Malka-Vereja, St. Zagora region)

Addressee: broken if anyForm: only a fragment of a plateRelief: only a fragmentQuality: now worn

8. a) �� "��#��$�(IGBulg. V, 5806: Pernik)

Addressee: �� ! ��"Form: plate with a triangular topRelief: galopping R. with a spear; altar;

serpent-entwined treeQuality: very goodb) �� "��

#��$� (IGBulg. V, 5807: Pernik)Addressee: �� ! ��Form: plate with a triangular topRelief: galopping R. holds a lash; a ser-

pent creeping towards an altarQuality: very goodc) �� "��#��$�� (IGBulg.

V, 5808: Pernik)Addressee: �� ! ��"Form: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: a boar huntQuality: badly damaged but the high qual-

ity is still recognizable

9. �"�� ?��!��

(IGBulg. III-1, 1184: Batkun)Addressee: �� ! ��/�

�� Form: only a fragment of a plate with an

untypically broad lower frameRelief: only a fragmentQuality: the high quality is still recogniz-

able

10. %��&��' �� (IGBulg.III-1, 1193: Batkun)

Addressee: ! ��" sic��

Form: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: R. holds a deer, attacked by two

dogs; altarQuality: relatively good

11. �� (��''��)��(IGBulg. III-1, 1422: Voden, Asenovgrad reg.)


with an arched upper sideRelief: R.’s r. hand is on the horse’s neckQuality: poor

12. *�� +�� ,�-��<�>��

(=��,�-��) (IGBulg. III-1, 973: Plovdiv)Addressee: �� sicForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with a slightly arched upper sideRelief: R. holds high a hare; serpent-en-

twined tree; a dog attacks a boar.Quality: relatively good

Two of these dedicators trace their Romancitizenship back from the Flavian dynasty as at-tested by their names: Titus Flavius Valens (I-4) and Titus Flavius Primanus (I-10). Furtherthree of them - Publius Aelius Felix, a vet-eran (I-1), Publius Aelius Statilius (I-2) andPublius Aelius Lupus (I-7) – owe it to emperorHadrian.

Half of the dedicators within this first cat-egory (i. e. six) are attested to the north of theHaemus range and four of them are connectedwith the Roman army. Quintus AnthestiusValerianus, beneficiarius (I-3) and LuciusNaevius Probus, veteranus (I-6) dedicatedmonuments at the sanctuary near Glava Panega(table I/6). Their votive reliefs show importantdifferences both in form and in iconographywhen compared with the Thracian tradition (ta-ble IV/1-2). Thus, the relief dedicated byAnthestius Valerianus shows in front of theRider both a woman and a serpent (entwinedround a tree). This is not customary for theThracian iconography of the Horseman wherewe normally see either the snake or the woman(Table III) (Stojanov 1985, 275f.; Boteva2000, 113f; Boteva 2000a, 964). The names ofthe two dedicators testify definitely their non-

Dilyana Boteva

78

Table I.Sanctuaries within Lower Moesia and Thracia where votive monuments of the Thracian Rider brought by

dedicators with Roman names have been found. The single finds are not indicated.

A. North of the Haemus range��!�� "��#$�%��"��&��'()*$��"��+��#�%,�$�� "-�$�,�� "#$��.��$��#��"'��/��0��%�� "'��'�$(��"-��

B. South of the Haemus range9. Slivnica (Sofia region)10. Pernik11. Batkun (Pazardjik region)12. Ezerovo (Plovdiv region)&��1��"��1�2��$�,�14. Lozen (Haskovo region)


79

Table II.The Dedications of Publius Calpurnius Milo in the Sanctuary of Asklepios Keilaidenos in the present town of

Pernik

2. IGBulg. V, 5808�� ! �[�]�[��"]

[��]��0��[��][�1]��-[��](sic)

1. A. IGBulg V, 5806�� ! ��"23�,�.��0��4�56��

1. B. IGBulg. V, 5807�� ! ��23,��.��0�,��.��4�56��

Dilyana Boteva

80

Thracian origin thus explaining the iconographi-cal and formal peculiarities of these two votivereliefs.

From the territory to the south of Haemusrange originate also six votive reliefs, dedicatedby Roman citizens all of them giving no personalinformation. The most interesting case withinthis category is the one of Publius CalpurniusMilo (I-8). He is known to have dedicatedthree reliefs of the Horseman at the Thraciansanctuary of Asklepios Keilaidenos,3 exca-vated in the modern town of Pernik (Table I/10). These dedications reveal interesting infor-mation about him due both to the reliefs and theepigraphic data connected with them (Table II).

Thus, in two cases we read 4�56�� (Ta-ble II/1.A, 1.B), but we do have also an�� (Table II/2) that might followthe first two dedications. This supposition findsa further proof in the form of the plates. Due tothe form the first two plates point at a possibleassociation with a temple, while traditionally theThracian votive plates point at a possible asso-ciation with a cave (Boteva 2003, 386f.). Mostsignificantly, the dedication expressing a grati-tude, i.e. the one which dates to a later moment,follows already the Thracian customary formhaving an arched upper side.

Apart from the form, the two earlier platesattest numerous iconographical discrepancieswhen compared with the bulk of the monumentswith a representation of the Thracian Horse-man. On one of these reliefs we see the Riderarmed though alone with the serpent which isentwining round a tree in front of him (TableII/1.A), while customarily he is unarmed whenmeeting the serpent (Table III/1-2) (Boteva1997; Boteva 2000). On a relief representingthe serpent creeping under the horse towards

an altar (Table II/1.B), we see a lash in theRider’s right hand.4 This lash is almost uniquefor the monuments of the Thracian Horsemanand is certainly not connected with the Thraciantradition.

Only after some period of time, CalpurniusMilo brought a votive plate, which followed al-ready both the local iconographical canon andcustomary form of the Thracian votive reliefs(Table II/2).

Thus, one might guess that Calpurnius Milowas a new-comer to Thrace who had arrived(might be even settled down) shortly before hemade his first two dedications. Unfortunatelyhe did not left any further information abouthimself, i.e. about his profession and adminis-trative position. That he was socially and finan-cially well established is beyond doubt. This isclear due to the masterly work of the monu-ments he dedicated at the sanctuary that wereobviously very expensive.5 It is also sure thathe was a Greek-speaking Roman citizen whobecame gradually acquainted with the local tra-ditions. Nevertheless he “refused” to make onefurther step in the recognition of the local cultworshipped at the sanctuary in present Pernik.The addressee of all his dedications is Askle-pios (obviously the Greek one, firmly connectedwith a serpent). Calpurnius Milo never men-tions the Thracian epithet “Keilaidenos” whichappears together with the theonym Asklepioson many dedications found in this sanctuary(�� ).

II.Only two dedicators introduced by two

nomina gentilia and one cognomen are attes-ted so far:

1. Flavius Mestrius Ius[tus]: […]

3 He might have dedicated even four (IGBulg. V, 5806-5809). Due to the fragmentary character of IGBulg. V, 5809 and aniconographical detail which is not typical for the representations of the Thracian Rider, we can not be sure about the imageon this relief. For the sanctuary and its inscriptions see ��1980 and �� 1980.

4 A similar, though not the same, iconography of the serpent is seen on several further votive plates: IGBulg. II, 554; CCETI, 111; CCET II-2, 674. A lash is depicted also on CCET V, 57.

5 The stylistic features of these monuments coincide with the features of the group labeled by M. Oppermann “Batkun –Glava Panega”. He defines it chronologically as earlier reliefs of the Thracian Horseman ( !��"#$%��%f). The monu-ments here under scrutiny incline me suppose that this “group” appears as a phenomenon due not only to chronologicalreasons but had mostly a financial background. See also here below votive plate III-17, dedicated by the buleuta ValeriusMaximus (Table IV/ 4).


81

Table III.

3-4. Two examples for customary Thracian votive plates, representing a woman in front of the Rider.

1-2. Two examples for customary Thracian votive plates, representing a serpent entwined round a tree infront of the Rider

coh(o)r(tis) II Lucensium (ILBulg., 210:Brestnica)

Addressee: [Hir]one santo sicForm: fragment of a statuetteRelief: only a fragment; two dogs attack

a boarQuality: good

2. %�� &��

�� )�.��/��

� 0�� $�� 1��2�3�4�� 5� �6��

Dilyana Boteva

82

(...) ��3� �64�� (IGBulg. III-1, 1183=IGBulg. V, 5485: Batkun)

Addressee: 7"� ! ��"Form: only a fragment of a broad lower

frame of a plateRelief: not preserved

Flavius Mestrius Iustus (II-1) dedicated astatuette of the Horseman at a sanctuary nearthe present village of Brestnica, to the north ofthe Haemus range (Table I/7). The monumentis only fragmentarily preserved, and there aresome missing parts of the inscription as well.(Table IV/3). According to B. Gerov the nameof the dedicator should be read as Fl(avius)Mestrius Ius[tus], who might have been a sol-dier (Gerov puts a question mark after“miles”)6 of cohors II Lucensium.

Before Gerov, Kazarow had accepted areading of the name just as Fl(avius) Mestrius,also supposing him to have served in cohors IILucensium as a soldier7. However, another so-lution is also possible. Because of the two fam-ily names of the dedicator – so far almost aunique case among the monuments of theThracian Horseman – I incline to think thatFlavius Mestrius Iustus was not a commonsoldier but an officer, might be even of a higherrank.

Titus Flavius Varius Lupus (II-2) broughthis dedication with a Greek inscription to thesanctuary near Batkun to the south of theHaemus range (Table I/11). He appears as aprocurator ducenarius provinciae Thraciaeand a thracarch. Unfortunately, his votive mo-nument has come down to us only fragmenta-rily: The relief field is now lost and we do nothave any idea about its iconography.

III.Most numerous are the dedicators intro-

duced by names with two Roman components:so far 29 are attested. As a rule, almost all ofthem dedicated votive monuments of the Thra-cian Rider compatible with the indigenous Thra-cian tradition. The exceptions are few and theiriconography will be discussed elsewhere.

The names of almost all dedicators from thiscategory follow the onomastic pattern nomengentile+cognomen. There are two exceptions,each of them composed differently: praenomen+ praenomen (used as a nomen gentile);praenomen + cognomen/.


1. ��# ��/�� 7�6��

(IGBulg. V, 5301 = CCET II-2, 477: Dragano-vec)

Addressee: noForm: the upper part of the plate is bro-

kenRelief: a boar hunt; altarQuality: very good

2. ��+/� �� (IGBulg. V, 5293 =CCET II-2, 458: Draganovec)

Addressee: 6"� ��#�Form: rectangularRelief: galloping R. holds a spear; a

horned animal (CCET: a boar) hidden behind analtar and attacked by a lion

Quality: now worn

3. Ant(onius) Mercurius: eq(ues) n(ume-ri) c(ivium) R(omanorum) (�� 2, 96 =Kaz. 592, fig. 296: Berkovica, Montana reg.)

Addressee: Eroni sanctoForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: R. holds a deer, attacked by two

dogs; two women; attendantQuality: relatively good

4. Ant(onius) Valentinus: IIvir col(oniae)Napoc(ae) (CCET II-1, 410: V�rbak, 3umenreg.)

Addressee: Deo ApolliniForm: only the base of a statuetteRelief: R. (now lost) holds a deer, at-

tacked by a lion and a dog; a vessel with pour-ing out liquid; attendant


6 ILBulg., 210.7 Kaz. 372, fig. 204. In previous papers I accepted Gerov’s reading – see Boteva 2005, 200; &��%%��%.


83

Table IV.

1. IGBulg. II, 529 (Glava Panega)�� ! ��"��#�� $�%&'�(�,��.�! �85�� ,�.9,��.

2. ILBulg., 207 (Glava Panega)Sal]daecaput[eno vel enisL(ucius) Naevius Probusvet(eranus) posuit Silvano etDianae v(otum) s(olvit)l(ibens) n(uminibus) p(osuit)

��

Hirone santo sic Fl(avius) MestriusIus[tus mil(es) ?] | coh(o)r(tis) II Lucensiumvotu(m) posu[it . . .

4. CCET II-2, 657 = ILBulg. 413��o reg.)Val(erius) Maximus bul(euta)v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)

Dilyana Boteva

84

5. Aur(elius) Iovinus: miles leg(ionis) XIClaudiae (�� 2, 84: Lilja�e)

Addressee: noForm: rectangularRelief: bearded R. represented as Silva-

nus; two dogs; altar; woman.Quality: relatively good

6. Aur(elius) Max(imus): cornicen (CCETII-2, 485: Draganovec)

Addressee: broken if anyForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: R. holds a hare (or a little deer); a

lion attacks a little horse; woman;Quality: good

7. [A]ur(elius) Victor: mil(es) [leg(ionis)I] Italica sic (ILBulg., 244: Tr�n�ovica)


with an arched upper sideRelief: R. holds a hare (or a little deer);

boar; woman; attendantQuality: relatively good

8. �� ")�� ,�.�� $��(CCET II-1, 257: Avren, Varna reg.)

Addressee: :;�� Form: rectangularRelief: R.’s right hand on the horse’s

neckQuality: relatively good

9. �� ")�� #�8�'�� (IGBulg. II, 553: Glava Panega)

Addressee: : �� "<��

Form: customary Thracian votive platewith an arched upper side

Relief: R. holds a deer, attacked by twodogs; a vessel with pouring out liquid; altar.

Quality: very good

10. �� ,'(��"###�)%�)"��Fig. 3: Veliko T�rnovo)

Addressee: :;�� '6��Form: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper side

Relief: a boar hunt with a lion accompa-nying the R.; altar; serpent-entwined tree; aminiature Horseman in the upper left corner.

Quality: very good

11. Flavius Montanus: miles (ILBulg., 206:Glava Panega)

Addressee: Silvanu Salt(e)caputenoForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: R. with a spear; lion attacking a

bull; altar; serpent-entwined treeQuality: good

12. &�� sic ��/� (IGBulg. II, 558:Glava Panega)


with an arched upper sideRelief: a boar hunt; altarQuality: now worn

13. [I]ulius Iulianus: mil(es) leg(ionis) IItalicae Sev[erianae] (ILBulg., 205: GlavaPanega)

Addressee: broken if anyForm: fragmentarily preservedRelief: galloping RiderQuality: poor

14. Iul(ius) Val(ens?): decurio (ILBulg.,204: Glava Panega)

Addressee: noForm: brokenRelief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a dog

and a lion; a vessel with pouring out liquidQuality: very good

15. �,�"�� .�� 7�6��9� ��

)�"�� (CCET II-2, 658: Paskalevec)Addressee: broken if anyForm: broken.Relief: a lion attacks a bull.Quality: very good.

16. Ulpius Maximianus: speculator(CCET II-1, 194: Marcianopolis)

Addressee: Deo sancto HeroniForm: plate with a triangular top (part of


85

it is now broken)Relief: a stag hunt; serpent-entwined

tree.Quality: very good

17. Valerius Maximus: buleuta (ILBulg.,413 = CCET II-2, 654: Paskalevec)

Addressee: noForm: only a fragment of a plateRelief: a boar hunt; altarQuality: very good

18. Valerius Valens (CCET IV, 104: Ostrov,Constan�a region)


with an arched upper sideRelief: R.’s right hand is on the horse’s

neckQuality: poor

19. + ��+��/� (IGBulg. V, 5268 =CCET II-2, 603: Top�ii, Razgrad reg.)


with an arched upper sideRelief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a lion

and three dogs (or a three-heads dog); a vesselwith pouring out liquid; two women; attendant;small R. in the upper left corner, his horse look-ing backwards

Quality: good

20. �:�� "�� $�

(IGBulg. II, 530: Glava Panega).Addressee: 7�"�� <��3�

�� Form: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a lion

and a dog; a vessel with pouring out liquid; twowomen; attendant; frieze with fighting animals

Quality: good

21. �:�� ;��.��$�

6<��/�� =�&� �� +�.�� 4�� (IGBulg.V, 5290 = CCET II-2, 494: Draganovec)

Addressee: 7"� <��3 � ! �3�� #(

Form: base of a statuetteRelief: a lion attacks a bull; altarQuality: relatively good

22. [- - -] Vinus: vet(e)ranus (��2,100 = Kaz. 587, fig. 295: Montana)

Addressee: noForm: irregular; without framesRelief: galloping R., with his spear he had

reached the boar beneath the horseQuality: now worn, still a good work is

recognizable


23. �� /�� <�/��-�4�� .)� ��

8 (IGBulg. III-2, 1845: Zornica, Yambol region)

Addressee: =��"� ! �3��Form: a rectangular stele with a relief

decoration of a pediment and two acroteriaRelief: a deer hunt; altar; serpent-en-

twined tree; attendantQuality: now worn

24. ��>�� # �� (IGBulg. V,5833: Pernik)

25. ��>��# ��;�� (a statuettededicated together with 24)

Addressee: noForm: base of a statuetteRelief: a lion attacking a bullQuality: relatively good

26. ��>�� <�/�(IGBulg. V, 5819: Pernik)


with an arched upper sideRelief: a boar hunt; two women; atten-

dantQuality: poor

27. ��>��+��/�� (IGBulg. V, 5736:Slivnica)

Addressee: broken if any

8 For this soldier and number of his legion see Boteva 2005, 201; &��%%��".

Dilyana Boteva

86

11 In an earlier version of this paper I had included in this category the dedication of [M]ontanus dec(urio) Mo(ntanensium)(see Kaz. 589 = ��2, 101). Mr. Romeo Cirjan, to whom I express my gratitude, draw my attention to this monu-ment thus making me check the inscription again. It came out that what we have now from this dedication is only the rightpart of the lower frame and from the relief the figures of a lion attacking a bull. Because of this we can insist that Montanuswas a Roman citizen and that his nomen gentile was inscribed on the missing part of the lower frame thus remaining for usobscure. For another Montanus, who was a soldier and whose family name was Flavius see here above III-11 (from GlavaPanega). Noteworthy is the fact that both dedications are further similar because of the Latin language and of the same reliefscene (a lion attacking a bull) which otherwise was not very popular within the iconography of the Thracian Rider.

Form: only the lower part of a plate ispreserved

Relief: a dog running towards an altarQuality: now worn

28. ��>��[�]��<�>/��(IGBulg. V,5705: Slivnica)

Addressee: ! ��"�>�?�� Form: statuetteRelief: R. holds a deer, attacked by a lion

and a dog; a vessel with pouring out liquidQuality: relatively good

29.� ��>�� /�� <�/��-�� .)� ��

(IGBulg. III-2, 1597: Augusta Traiana)Addressee: 7"� <��3 � ?'��

��1��Form: a rectangular stele with missing

upper partRelief: a boar hunt; altarQuality: now worn

The great majority of these dedicators (22of all 29) are attested to the north of theHaemus range. This phenomenon is eloquentenough to explain the distribution of the Romancitizenship throughout this territory with the in-tensive military presence. No wonder that wefind here thirteen military dedications (out of22). Apart from them two priests are attested(III-1; III-15), one duumvir coloniae Napocae(III-4) and one buleuta (III-17).

Remarkable is the variety of nominagentilia attested to the north of Haemus andtheir relatively equal share in the names of theRoman citizens here under scrutiny. Thus weknow of three Aurelii, three Claudii and threeValerii, while Aelii, Antonii, Flavii, Iulii, areeach two. Only one Iunius and one Ulpius ap-pear as dedicators connected with the Thracian

Rider. This picture is due, beyond doubt, to theregular acquisition of Roman citizenship withthe constant military recruits and military pres-ence in the territory under scrutiny.

As already mentioned there are two casesof different onomastic patterns. A circitor ap-pears as Marcus Lucius (III-20). MarcusMarcellinus, a curator cohortis II FlaviaeBrittonum (III-21), has a praenomen and acognomen.

The onomastic situation attested for the ter-ritory to the south of the Haemus range is to-tally different. At present we know of onlyseven dedicators with two Roman names hereand they are very uniform in respect of theirnomina gentilia. One of them is Atilius and allother six dedicators are Aurelii. For the four ofthem who are not connected with the Romanarmy (III-24, 25, 27, 28) this, beyond doubt, isdue to the Constitutio Antoniniana; for thetwo soldiers (III-26, 29) this is not necessarilytrue as emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commo-dus should also be considered here.

Among the 29 dedicators from this third cat-egory the most frequent Roman cognomen isValens traditionally popular among the soldiers.Here the name is attested nearly in one third ofthe dedications written either in Latin or inGreek. A Greek dedication from Glava Panegawas brought by a certain Flavius Valens (III-12). Another Flavius Valens, a soldier, is at-tested as dedicator at the sanctuary near Lozen(Table I/14), but is not listed here because ofhis Thracian ethnic (IGBulg. III-2, 1809).

IV.So far three dedicators with one Roman

name only are attested, two of them found tothe north of Haemus 11.


1. Herculanus: actor Fl(avii) Gemelli


87

(Kaz. 556, fig. 285: Kramolin, near Sevlievo)Addressee: unreadableForm: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: R. holds a phiale in his r. hand;

attendant; two very small figures of a dog at-tacking a boar


2. #:�� 6�� (CCET II-1, 2+.��%��,��-��

Addressee: 8/��@��Form: only the lower part of a plateRelief: a dog attacking a boar; altarQuality: relatively good


3. ?@�!�� (IGBulg. III-1, 1399 = Kaz. 120,fig. 49: Brestovica, Plovdiv region)

Addressee: �� @�� Form: customary Thracian votive plate

with an arched upper sideRelief: R.’s r. hand is on the horse neck;

female figureQuality: good

All three votive reliefs fit in the indigenoustradition concerning the cult of the ThracianRider. Of course, this fact could not prove theThracian origin of their dedicators.

Summarizing, several points should beput forward:

Firstly. Among the dedicators of monu-ments of the Thracian Horseman with Romannames we find both Romans and Romanizedindividuals.

Secondly. Some of the monuments dedi-cated by persons with Roman names show se-rious violation concerning the customaryThracian iconography. For these cases wemight insist on the non-Thracian origin of thededicator. The opposite is not necessarily true.

Thirdly. Some of the monuments hereunder scrutiny have an addressee who is re-ferred to as 83� / deus (God) not :;��(Hero) / �0�� (Lord), the latter being cus-tomary for the Thracian dedications. For thesecases we might insist on Greek or Roman influ-ence, even on process of Hellenization or Ro-

manization of the dedicator. The opposite is notnecessarily true.

Fourthly. The Constitutio Antoninianaaffected to a greater extend the territory to thesouth of the Haemus range, giving to its inhab-itants a Roman citizenship. A greater part ofthe population living to the north of this moun-tain met Caracalla’s edict already as Romancitizens due mostly to the Roman army. Accord-ingly, here the Aurelii among the dedicatorsunder scrutiny are not so numerous as they arein the region to the south of Haemus.

Fifthly. The dating of a number of monu-ments that have been classified under the group“Batkun – Glava Panega” and thought to be“earlier” should be questioned. It seems nowthat the production of these plates dependedmuch more on quality of work and of course onthe financial potential of the dedicator.

BIBLIOGRAPHY��2 = �� 1994CCET I = Go�eva / Oppermann 1979CCET II, 1-2 = �� 1981-1983CCET IV = �� 1979CCET V = �� 1984IGBulg. I-V = Mihailov 1958-1997ILBulg. = Gerov 1989Kaz. = Kazarow 1938��2004. *!�+��,�-��.��/��-01��

-(��-�2�-�3�-��-��.��-��3��4�1��/�3��-�3��In5�6-�.��7��7��3��7��""%�+�.��8.��!��,��9�-��.�� :;� ��.�<��-� �� =&>�� 4�!��?@��.�/��-��A/��7��/�1�.��3��B. 19-29.

��2002.�A/��8��3��/-�/�C��+1�+��D��(�E0��7��1�,��-�2�-�3-��-��1�/��/��.��In: 2��0�)�A/�1�.��3��7��!��,��A��/��@�,�3. 395-406.

�� "##��*!�+��,�-�� !��F�� 2��

��. 1980.�=�.!��1�G��6�-1�!�2�H�21�2.��In5��-�2�-�!��F��II5��-�2�-��1�G�� @�,�3.48-93.

��1980. @��1�G��!��J��-�In5��-�2�-��!��F��II5��-�2�-��1�G�� @�,�3. 15-47.

�� 1970. K�� 7�� !1�7-��

Dilyana Boteva

88

1��0��G�3��-�2�-��-��-��-��!�E��&(1+��3��L�6�E��1�+�3 3, 19-31.

� ��!��"###��=3-��!�-��-01��-(��-�2�-�3� -��-� �� Regio Nicopolitana. –AMA��N�1�-��(��OVI, 78-87.

Boteva, D. 2005. Soldiers and veterans dedicatingvotive monuments with a representation of the Thra-cian horseman within the provinces of Lower Moesiaand Thrace. In: Römische Städte und Festungen an derDonau. Akten der Regionalen Konferenz (16-19 Oktober2003). Belgrade. 199-210.

Boteva, D. 2003. Darstellung einer thrakischenKatabasis-Sage? - Thracia 15 (in honorem AlexandriFol). Sofia. 383-394.

Boteva, D. 2000. A propos des “secrets” du Cavalierthrace. - Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 26/1, 109-118.

Boteva, D. 2000a. The Votive Reliefs of the ThracianHorseman as a Sign System: an Attempt at Modellingthe Thracian Mythology. In: Modelling History andCulture (= Angewandte Semiotik 16/17). Vol. II. Wien.961-972.

Boteva, D. 1997. A New Approach to the Monu-ments of the Thracian Horseman. - Archaeologia Bul-garica 1, 25-29.

Cermanov�� 1984. Corpus CultusEquitis Thracii. V: Monumenta intra fines IugoslaviaeReperta. Leiden.

Dimitrova, N. 2002. Inscriptions and Iconographyin the Monuments of the Thracian Rider. - Hesperia 71,209-229.

Gerov, B. 1989. Inscriptiones Latinae in Bulgariarepertae. Serdicae.

��1997. Changements cultuels et l’icono-graphie du cavalier thrace. In: Thrace ancienne. Actesdu 2e symposium international des études thraciennes.Vol. I. Komotini. 199-203;

��1990. Weihungen für den ThrakischenReiter von Mitgliedern der römischen Legionen. In: Stu-dia in honorem B. Gerov. Sofia. 88-93

��1982. Données épigraphiques sur les dé-dicateurs du Cavalier thrace de la province de Mésie.In: Actes du VIII-e Congrés International d’épigraphiegrecque et latine. Athènes. 239-241.

�� 1981-1983. CorpusCultus Equitis Thracii II, 1-2: Monumenta inter Danubi-um et Haemum reperta. Leiden.

�� , M. 1979. Corpus CultusEquitis Thracii. I: Monumenta orae Ponti Euxini Bulga-riae. Leiden.

�� , N. 1979. Corpus Cultus EquitisThracii. IV: Moesia inferior (Roman section) and Dacia.Leiden.

Kazarow, G. 1938. Die Denkmäler des thrakischenReitergottes in Bulgarien. Budapest.

Mihailov, G. 1958-1997. Inscriptiones Graecae inBulgaria repertae, I2-V. Serdicae.

Oppermann, M. 1992. Der Heros Equitans im Ost-balkanraum. In: Lexicon Iconographicum MythologiaeClassicae. Vol VI. Zürich. 1073-1077.

Posner, R. 1992. Was ist Kultur? Zur semiotischenExplikation anthropologischer Grundbegriffe. In: M.Landsch, M./Karnowski, H./Bystrina, I. (eds.). Kultur –Evolution: Fallstudien und Synthese. Frankfurt amMain. 1-65.

Stojanov, T. 1985. Le Cavalier et la Déesse. Observa-tion sur une série de reliefs thraces. - KTEMA 10, 273-285.

Toporov, V. 1990. The Thracian Horseman in an In-do-European Perspective. – Orpheus 46-63.

Venedikov, I. 1979. Der thrakische Reiter. In: ��4��5�677��8��, M. 1979. 1-6.

J @N*�A�*�A�@�MA�@HA�A�*=6�=6J6�*�=A'A�@�AK &M6P*=A*�=6

�M6HAQ@HA9� H ==AH

��$��

:��/��B

+��-�1�7��-�2�-��7��1�,��/��8��/1�7��8��,��(/.��.��!��/��-��!�E��/�!�/��.��<��.��,��.��1��7��7��!1�7-��(��/��1��+��+��1��+��(G��13��!��.��-��.��G0��(��+��.��/��0-��/��-��0��-�F��.�-�/��7��3-��.��!��1��8��.��(.��/��.��!��7��!��,�-��5��.��(��(��!��1��!��1��+��3��.��(2�-��7��!��F��/��(��.�!��1��.��7��+1��.��!��E��.��.�-��E��1�/��-�2��.��7��(G��,�-��.�.�-��.��-��.��-�J��.1�+��3�� 0-� ��1�/� �� !��F��

�/��8��-�2�-�3�-��-��7��!��1��3��-��!��/�,��-��7��7��,�!�!(1��.��(G��!��/��/�1�.��3��(�E0��/��2�!�!013��-�2��-��-01�.�J�.�?��-��D��0-��!��.��.��/��-��,��!��-�3��7��.�1��-1�7��-��(��-�� /��7�� 7�� -�� 1��Marcianus Lecti �� -1�7�� 1�/��=��7��,��+��/�!�/�� !�� -�� 1�!�� +0�� .�1�� -1�7��1��-��(��-��A/�(��/�1�.�


89

�� (G�� -�� +�(-��-�� 1�.�0+��-��!��Gaius AureliusAlexander�� /��1�/� �� /-1�7�� .�.�-�� (�� +0��-�2�-��!��/E�.��.�-�/��1��G�� 1�� -�� -�-�� !��.J��/�1�.��0-�!��F��/��.��

��1��7��/1�7��!��-��5I. J��1��7��!��.��

��-��(��-��!��.�1��praenomen, nomengentile, cognomen� L�"��3�

II. J��1��7��!��.��7��/�.��nomina gentilia ��.�� cognomen L��3.

III. J��1��7��.�0�(�� – 29 ��3.

IV. J��1��!��.��!��.��L��3�A��II��!��.��1��/��

�-��+��8.��6��1�/(��(��7��!��F�

�,��1�.��/��.�5"��A/��8.0�.�.�-��-��-��

��!��1��7��!��F��/��8��-�2�-�3� -��-�� -�� -�-�� 13��-��1�F��/1�7��!��/�F�3.��=3-��!��F��.�.�-��

�-��!�-�/��/��-1��3��-�2�-�3��-��+��,�-��?-��D. N��/��107�� +�13��+0��8��.��3��-�2�-�3�!��/E�.��E��!��1��:I��I�R��I�)B. ��8��.��3��/��+0�� J�� 3-�� /+1�8.�� 0-� ��F�

�.��(��!��.�1��-��83� / deus (&�+)��-�� :;�� (O��) �1��0�� (��!�.��), -�-��E��-��/��-�2�-��!��G��3.�,��F�3. K��/��107��8��.��(�.��+�(F�-��1��-��1�3�� .��!��F��1��/��F�3��1��/�F�3��!��13. ��8��.��3��/��+0��J��!�7��1��+�13��/��/��

��+��1��.�!��1��@��!1��3E��1��2��!��.��3��!��1�/��0-��-��+��8.��A/��Aurelii, ��Claudii��Valerii, .�-��*1��6��S1��T1��!��.��. @�!��G��3��(�E0�!��F��-��O��/��!��.��Iunius ��.�� Ulpius. @��.�!��7��/��/��-�� /� �(�� .��!�107��

��-��+��8.��7��/�!��3��-��0��!��(��/��O��0�.�� 7��0�F�3��/��.��1��

�8��O��0��/1�7��-��/��/��!1��K��+��/�� .�� .�.�-�� -�� @� �.��.��/-1�7��:AtiliusB��7-��Aure-lii. U��3E��-��(��+0��(�/��-��3�(III-24, 25, 27, 28)��.(1�8�� -�� +��8.�� /� �(�� Constitutio Antoniniana.R�� 7��.��1�.��1��7��.�-�(��

!��H��-�1��"��+�� 1�!��/��!��1�.�F��/��3��8��@��!1��, .��2-��2��1��-��+��8�.��J��+�13��7��8��G��/��!1��!��G��1��Constitutio Antoni-niana ��7��-��-��+��8.��.(18��+�13��!��07��-��3.K��6��1��/��8.0��1�/��0-.�.�-��-��+��2��-�-��/��+��O��0��$�� 4�� +��1�� Flavius Mestrius

Iustus :II�"B��.��3��/��+0��0-��/��7��2��-��2��-��co-hors II Lucensium,�-�-��!��H�F��,�F��3��(��1��-��.1(8��-��.��!��7��7��)�� 3��+�0!��“&��-0� – �1��

J��+�” ��E��1�+�7��-��!��F�!��/+1�8.��!��.��@(/.��/��7��!1�7-��3��/��2��7��-�7�� /��-�� (�/�� +��,��(/��8��.�.�-��.#��4��+��/��.��!��G��

��2��U��-��-��2��8��+��3��!��.��E��1��.��7�2��.�.�-��.��-��+��3G��,��01��0-��7�1��0�1��3

12 . ��/��,�-��/��(��/3��.��+�13��!��1��7��0�F�3��!��7��/��

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dilyana BotevaDepartment of Ancient History and Thracology“St Kliment Ohridski” University of SofiaBlvd. Tsar Osvoboditel 15BG-1504 [email protected]@yahoo.com

12=��71��1�+��/��.�08��/��-��07��1��Cump�na, ��3��7��3�+��.��(CCET IV, 48)��-��=��/��!��-��(�/��“Mater Romanorum”,!��.��-��7��0-�

Documents

Boteva DEDICATORS WITH ROMAN NAMES AND THE INDIGENOUS CULT OF THE THRACIAN HORSEMAN