Pedestals as 'altars' in Roman Asia MinorAuthor(s): J. J. CoultonSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 55 (2005), pp. 127-157Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20065539 .Accessed: 30/05/2011 07:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AnatolianStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

Anatolian Studies 55 (2005): 127-157

Pedestals as 'altars' in Roman Asia Minor

J.J. Coulton

cjo British Institute at Ankara

Abstract

The Greek word bomos usually means 'altar', but in inscriptions of the Roman period it sometimes refers to statue

bases and other forms of support, where the meaning 'altar' is not appropriate. Many scholars believe that in addition

to its normal meaning of cult or votive altar and (by extension) funerary altar, bomos could also mean a pedestal, socle

or platform in general. This paper examines the use of the term bomos in Roman Asia Minor for statue bases, for

pedestals for sarcophagi, ash chests and columns, and for other structures which are not altars, concentrating particu

larly on their shapes. It concludes that in all these cases the element called bomos had the shape of a normal type of

altar, and that in many cases (but not all) it also carried some of the symbolic value of an altar.

?zet

Yunanca bir kelime olan bomos genelde sunak anlamma gelmekle birlikte Roma D?nemi'ne ait yazitlarda bu kelime

bazen heykel kaidelerine i?aret etmekte ya da diger destek bi?imlerini de i?ermektedir. Bu durumda sunak s?zc?g?

dogru bir kullamm te?kil etmemektedir. Bir?ok bilim adami bomos s?zc?g?n? k?lt ya da adak sunagi ve -i?erigi

geni?letildigi takdirde- g?m? sunagi olarak yorumlamakla birlikte bu terimlere ilaveten genel olarak kaide, s?tun

kaidesi ya da platform anlamlanni i?erdigine de inanmaktadir. Bu ?ah?ma, Roma D?nemi'nde Anadolu'da bomos

kelimesinin heykel ve lahit kaideleri, k?l sandiklan, s?tunlar ve sunak olmayan diger str?kt?rleri kapsayan kullanimim

inceleyip ?zellikle bu str?kt?rlerin ?ekilleri ?zerinde yogunla?mi?tir. Sonu? olarak s?z? ge?en b?t?n durumlarda

bomos olarak adlandinlan ?ge normal sunak tipi ?eklinde olup, her zaman olmamakla birlikte bir?ok durumda sunagin bazi sembolik degerlerini de ta?imi?tir.

The

word ?coMOc (bomos) normally means 'altar'

(Couilloud-Le Dinahet 1991: 119), but sometimes

appears in epigraphic contexts where that sense seems

inappropriate. Robert (1950: 202-03, no. 204; 1978a:

404, n. 7) argued that in addition to its well-established

extension from cult or votive altar to funerary altar (Drew Bear 1972a: 64), bomos could still in the Roman period mean simply a pedestal, socle or platform. This general sense certainly occurs in Homer (//. 8.441; Od. 7.100), and is supported by the lemma in the Souda (s.v.):

?coiioi- outc?? ??yovTcn ai ?aaeic, crn?aSec

(bomoi: bases (or) heaps? are so called). Etymologically bomos probably derives from the same root ba- as the

more colourless basis or bathron (Chantraine 1968

1980: s.v. ?conoc). Robert's position has been followed

by a number of scholars (Kubiriska 1968: 73; Hellmann

1992: 74; Milner 1998a: 19; Nolle 2001: 490, n. 107;

compare also Drew Bear 1972a: 65-66; 1972b: 190), but

an examination of the shapes of the blocks or structures

concerned suggests that the usage was more limited. It

will be argued that where an element called bomos was

carrying something, it had the shape of an altar, and

might also carry some of the symbolic value of an altar.

Narrowly defined, an altar is the platform on which a

blood sacrifice was made (for the standard Greek ritual see

Burkert 1985: 55-57, 70-71). However, domestic altars

were used for offerings of fruit and food rather than blood, and it is not clear how far all the votive altars to be found

in a sanctuary were intended for regular blood sacrifice.

Some sanctuaries had more votive altars than can

reasonably have been required by the cult, and some altars

were personal offerings set up outside sanctuaries, and

motivated by specific events (for example, Milner 1998a:

no. 150), so that there might be no intention of regular sacrifice. Most votive altars show no provision for the

sacrificial fire. With appropriate protection they could

127

Anatolian Studies 2005

have been used for sacrifice (Fraser 1977: 21, n. 91;

B?schung 1987:48; Couilloud-Le Dinahet 1991:119-20); but even so, regular use would probably have left signs of

fire damage, and these are virtually never recorded. Some

votive altars were indeed rendered unusable by their size,

such as a monolithic altar to Zeus Bronton from the Nikaia

area with a height of 1.58m (?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1511). The shape of others made them useless; several votive

altars from Anazarbos and Tyana have gently domed tops

(for example, Sayar 2000: no. 57; Berges, Nolle 2000: no.

32, here fig. 1 ), which are not well adapted to carry a fire

slab or dish, or to hold a fire directly. Alternatively they

may have dished tops, which are equally unsuitable for a

fire or for a fire slab, but suggest rather that they received

wine or food offerrings. This is particularly clear when

there is a central dome in the dish, identifying it as a phiale

Fig. 1. Tyana. Round votive bomos with domed top

(Berges, Nolle 2000: no. 32, pi. 107.1; photo: D. Berges)

Fig. 2. Burdur region. Rectangular votive bomos with

mesomphalos top (Burdur Museum inventory no. 5586;

Horsley forthcoming: no. 26; photo: R.P. Harper by

permission ofG.H.R. Horsley)

mesomphalos, the characteristic libation dish (for

example, Horsley forthcoming: no. 26; here fig. 2). Thus

the role of many votive altars was probably much more as

votive offerings than as functional objects; that is, they were symbols of piety, but they were still called ?couoi,

they were meant to be understood as altars, and it is

reasonable to call them altars (Couilloud-Le Dinahet 1991 :

119; tables la and lb below). This acceptance of the altar form as a symbol or

representation of reverence probably combined with the

tendency for the deceased to be in some sense seen as

heroes, and their tombs as heroa, to explain the

widespread use of funerary monuments in the form of

votive altars (against the idea that altars imply formal

128

Coulton

heroization see Fraser 1977: 76-81). Like votive altars,

they commonly have flat tops, with no indications of the

protection needed for a sacrificial fire. But, also like

votive altars, some funerary bomoi have convex (for

example, Sayar 2000: nos 529, 531, 536), dished (for

example, Horsley, Kearsley 1997), or mesomphalos tops

(for example, ?ahin 1994: no. 136), which imply either

no offerings or offerings of wine or food. As with votive

altars, some funerary altars were also too high to be used

for offerings, such as a cylindrical grave monument from

Modrene in Bithynia 1.90m high (Marek 1997: 83). In

several cases dowel holes suggest that they carried upper elements which would prevent use. Pine cones are well

attested (Robert 1955: 247-56, pi. 32-34), and one

funerary altar carried a sundial (Wiemer 1998). Others

may have carried busts or statues of the deceased (Milner 1998a: xv, 19), and a damaged bust from the Olbasa area

with a funerary inscription has been suggested for such a

location (Milner 1998a: no. 130). So far, however, this

usage is attested only for funerary columns (as Petersen, von Luschan 1889: 165-66, nos 193-94, 174, no. 223;

compare Corsten et al. 1998: 70-71, no. 13), not for

round funerary altars; the distinction is discussed below.

These altar-shaped funerary monuments, then, were not

actual recipients of blood sacrifice, but were symbols or

representations of an altar, which by that means

conveyed a proper respect for the dead. Nonetheless they are widely and reasonably called funerary altars by

modern scholars, just as they were widely referred to in

antiquity as ?conoi (see tables 2a, 2b below). However this was not the only context in which the

altar form was used symbolically. A monument to

Claudius beside the newly built Roman road from Myra to

Limyra was given the clearly recognisable form and

decoration of an altar (fig. 3; Marksteiner, W?rrle 2002:

549), and passers-by were presumably meant to read it as

such. Being in all 4m high, however, it could never have

been used for sacrifices, and passers-by would presumably realise also that it was symbolic. The size of the

monument (2.44m by 1.54m on top) would suit an eques trian statue, as suggested for the Stadiasmos monument at

Patara (Salway 2001: 56-57); but Marksteiner and W?rrle

do not report appropriate cuttings on the completely

preserved top course of the Myra 'altar', and the pediments on its ends (only) would be abnormal on a statue base.

Turcan (1991) argues that several apparent 'altars' from

Mithraia had no connection with sacrifice either, although their form had (intentionally) specific features of an altar.

J . ,, , , \ Fassadenprofil Giebelprofil

i 1 1

0 1m i-1

Fig. 3. Kakhk near Myra. Roadside monument in the form of an altar (reproduced from Marksteiner, W?rrle 2002:

568, fig. 7, by permission ofT. Marksteiner and M. W?rrle)

129

Anatolian Studies 2005

Fig. 4a. Pergamon. Roman rectangular altar (after

Habicht 1969: no. 120, pi. 35; drawing: author)

Another monument with the form of a normal votive altar

probably served as the terminal of a water supply

(Schwertheim 1987: no. 47; from Hadrianoi), for the

inscription commemorates the construction of a piscina,

and there is a cylindrical hole running through the middle

of the stone, presumably to hold a pipe ending in a water

spout. It was marked out as an 'altar' by akroteria (see

below), but the connection with water supply meant that

this too was symbolic rather than functional.

The two main shapes of votive altar in Roman Asia

Minor are the round and the rectangular, both commonly monolithic. The basic form consists of a cylindrical or

squarish shaft with projecting crown and base mouldings

(fig. 4). Both these simple types go back to the late sixth

century BC (Yavis 1949: 131-37), and were common in

the Hellenistic period (Yavis 1949: 142-65); both

continued in use until at least the Severan period. At

least from the Hellenistic period, the same two shapes were also used as funerary monuments. Sometimes the

shaft has appropriate relief decoration and/or an

inscription which makes the function plain, but examples with neither are known (B?schung 1987: 47-48). Garlands and bucrania appear on a large group of

Hellenistic and early Roman round altars; in the city of

Rhodes these are almost all funerary, but on Delos and

elsewhere they are both funerary and votive (Hermann

Fig. 4b. Kamiros. Hellenistic round altar (after Berges 1996: pi. 57.2; drawing: author)

1961: 30; Fraser 1977: 25-33; Berges 1986: 26-28; Couilloud-Le Dinahet 1991: 113). Because this paper discusses such monuments in terms of both shape and

function, it will use the terms 'rectangular bomos' and

'round bomos' to refer to the two shapes, without any

implication of function; 'altar', 'votive altar', 'funerary

altar' and 'statue (or other) base' can then be used for the

main functions, without any implication of shape. Where

the usage of the ancient Greek word is discussed, either

italics or the Greek alphabet will be used (bomos or

?conog). In modern scholarship 'bomos' has been

widely used as the term to describe a rectangular bomos

(for example, Mitchell 1977: no. 20), but tables lb and

2b show bomos was as much the normal term for the

round form as for the rectangular, and the variety of

recent terminology suggests that no ideal alternative is to

hand. In recent scholarly literature in English a round

bomos has been called a columnar stele, a round bomos,

a circular pillar, a funerary column, or a column drum

(Levick, Mitchell 1988: nos 49, 51, 56; Milner 1998: nos

41, 140). Similarly inconsistent terminology appears in

other languages.

One general cause of inconsistency is the use in

descriptions of both terms defined by function and terms

defined by form. The forms of an altar and a statue base

may be identical, but they cannot both be described as

130

Coulton

rectangular altars. The problem is exacerbated if the

function of the stone in question is uncertain. The

commonly used terms 'altar' and 'base' may then be

stretched to include stones for which they are

functionally inappropriate; or there is a search for alter

native phrases which do not pre-empt the question of

function, but mask similarities of form. The approach used here is to separate the terminology of form from the

terminology of function.

A special cause of difficulty has been confusion

between a round bomos and a column. Round bomoi are

unfluted cylinders 1-3 diameters high with crown and

base mouldings (fig. 5a), whereas columns properly

speaking are considerably taller (6-10 diameters), may be

fluted, and would originally have carried a capital quite different from the crown mouldings of a bomos. The

individual drums which frequently constitute a column

can be distinguished from bomoi not only by fluting (if

present) but also by the absence of mouldings at the top and bottom (for example, fig. 5b). Naour (1980: 44-45) showed that this formal difference is reflected in ancient

terminology. The examples in tables lb and 2b show that

Fig. 5a. Territory of Keretapa-Dioskaisareia (?). Round

votive altar (Milner 1998: no. 121; photo: A.S. Hall)

inscriptions consistently refer to even the more slender

round bomoi of the Roman period as bomoi (altars), whereas columns in the architectural sense, which may also be used as funerary monuments, are called kiones or

styloi (columns, pillars; see Hellmann 1992: 214 on the

use of these words). Although the ancient terminology for different monument types was not perfectly consistent

in Roman Asia Minor, it was certainly not random.

Itacism occasionally causes confusion between stylos and

stele (as Milner 1998a: no. 160), and in the territory of

Hadrianopolis/Kaisareia in northern Galatia grave monuments in the form of a round bomos (often

unusually large) are called s/e/a/(Marek 1993: 101). But

I know of no example where a round bomos (as defined

above) is called kion, or a column (as defined above) is

called bomos.

A general problem in trying to determine the

ancient range of meaning of the term bomos (and other

architectural terms in funerary and other inscriptions) is that the stone carrying an inscription rarely consti

tutes a complete monument. Since the form of the

complete monument is frequently unknown, it cannot

Fig. 5 b. Territory of Balboura. Lower drum of funerary column (Milner 1998: no. 6; photo: A.S. Hall)

131

Anatolian Studies 2005

be assumed a priori that a term refers to the stone on

which it was inscribed. For instance, seven funerary stones from the district of Ikonion (McLean 2002: nos

57, 66-67, 77, 80, 83, 88) have the form of a rectan

gular bomos, but carry inscriptions referring only to a

larnax 'chest', either a smaller bone or ash chest (as

suggested by Robert 1965: 240-43, esp n. 4; Kubiriska

1968: 52) or a full-sized sarcophagus (McLean 2002:

no. 120). In theory one might argue for a lax termi

nology, supposing that larnax referred to the bomos.

But many stones of the same type from the same

district record the erection of t?v ?co|jov kc? tt)v

X?pvaKa (the bomos and the chest) as a two-part monument (McLean 2002: nos 50, 52-55, 58, 61-63,

71-72, 76, 78, 87). It is surely preferable to conclude

that the stones of the first group belong to similar

monuments, and that the bomos has in these instances

been omitted from the inscription. The presence of a

funerary bomos standing beside a sarcophagus is

clearly attested at Tyriaion (Naour 1980: 119) and

elsewhere in the territory of Balboura.

Fig. 6. Territory of Laodikeia on the Lykos. Funerary altar on block base, called bomos and thema (Corsten 1997: no 114; photo: T Corsten)

Similarly, when the word bomos appears on a block

other than a round or rectangular bomos with crown and

base mouldings, it need not imply a different type of altar

or a loose use of words. For example, McLean 2002: no.

69, a plain cylindrical block with a diameter greater than

its height (diameter 0.65m, height 0.42m), has an

inscription referring to a larnax and a bomos. This block

was obviously not the larnax, but there is no reason to

suppose that it was the whole bomos either. It has a

dowel hole and pour-channel in the top, and probably carried a normal round funerary bomos. For both round

and rectangular funerary altars usually stood on a plain base of one or more steps (Bean 1971: nos 24, 32; Fraser

1977: 25; Berges 1986: 12, 31-32; 1996: 32-33), and a

funerary monument from Laodikaia on the Lykos

(Corsten 1997: no. 19; here fig. 6) clarifies the termi

nology. It reads: t? Q?\xa kcc\ t?v ?tt' a?Tcp ?coiiov

(the base and the altar on it), and consists of a simple

square lower element (the thema) carrying a taller upper element with plain bevel crown and base mouldings (the

bomos, with the usual bomos shape).

Many bomoi of the Roman period have an additional

element above the crown mouldings, whose interpretation

requires further analysis, but the addition of akroteria at

the four corners of a rectangular bomos must be

mentioned here. The origin of this type, which is

sometimes called a 'horned altar', seems to lie in the

Levant, where altars/incense burners of basically similar

form are known from the Late Bronze Age to the

Hellenistic period. Although many of them are smaller

than a normal bomos, examples from Beersheba and Tel

Miqne-Ekron measure over a metre in all dimensions

(Aharoni 1974; Gitin 1989: esp. no. 29, fig. 2J). The altar

from Tel Miqne-Ekron (seventh century BC) has a plain

projecting band below the simple horns at each corner,

which makes its form comparable to a bomos with crown

moulding and akroteria. These Levantine altars must be

ancestors of the horned altars which appear in Egypt from

the third century BC, and on Delos from the second (fig.

7; Deonna 1934; Yavis 1949: 165-66; Soukiassian 1983); a late third-century altar to Attalos I at Pergamon already has 'horns' in relief. On some altars the 'horns' are large, but in Roman Asia Minor they normally have the form of

simple akroteria, which may be carved as flame

palmettes, or left as plain surfaces of similar shape. The

same forms appear as corner akroteria on sarcophagi and

stelai, and in other minor architectural contexts. Since the

relationship was presumably recognised in antiquity, they are here called akroteria rather than horns. However, their

origin is quite distinct from the akroteria which, from the

fifth century at least, decorated funerary and other stelai, for these are associated with a pedimental crown, and

include a central akroterion as well as the corner ones

132

Coulton

Fig. 7. D?los, Sarapeion B. Hellenistic altars with

akroteria ('horns') (photo: EFA/D. Mulliez)

(Boardman 1978: fig. 257; 1985: figs 147, 150-51, 157,

168; 1995: figs 120,123,127,147,150). There can be no

doubt that this feature originated in a cultic or votive

context, but it was already transferred to funerary contexts in the Hellenistic period. The earliest examples are square ash chest lids with akroteria, probably of late

Hellenistic date, which come from Pergamon and

Mytilene; it is usually presumed that they belonged to

altar-like monuments (Pfuhl, M?bius 1977-1979: nos

2229-31, 2234-35). Akroteria continue to appear on

votive altars in the Roman period, and become a common

feature of rectangular funerary bomoi (tables 3a, 3b). By the late first century BC they also appear on statue bases, the earliest instance being for the statue of a local seer at

Hadrianoi in Bithynia; they are common in this context

by the second century AD at latest (table 3c). The two basic forms of bomos used for votive and

funerary altars are also virtually indistinguishable from

the commonest statue base types of the Roman period. The similarity begins, in fact, as early as ca. 525 BC, for

the altar represented on the south frieze of the Siphnian

Treasury at Delphi shares its form with the pedestals of

the two Caryatids of the west fa?ade (Daux, Hansen

1987: 147-48). Statue bases consisting of a rectangular or cylindrical shaft with projecting crown and base

mouldings, although not yet the majority, appear

regularly thereafter (Bulle 1898; Jacob-Felsch 1969)

and similar bases were used for other offerings

(Amandry 1977; round bases for tripods). But it is only in the Hellenistic period that this similarity became

dominant. Monolithic, or apparently monolithic, round

and rectangular statue bases were now by far the

commonest types (Schmidt 1995: types II, V, 1.2, IV.l

2; here fig. 8), and outside Italy contemporary altars tend

to lose their distinguishing features, such as the volute

upper element shown on many fifth and fourth century BC representations. Torus and cyma recta are common

profiles for the base mouldings, and ovolo and cavetto

for the crown mouldings, but the profiles chosen vary with time and place.

The popularity of bomos-shaped statue bases, and

their similarity to contemporary altars, continued

throughout the Roman period, although minor elabora

tions increasingly appear. The fully worked profiles of

the crown and base mouldings are often replaced by a

simple bevel, but that is a matter of stopping at the penul timate stage in the normal sequence of working. One

might argue that since the similarity between altars and

statue bases had by now existed for some 500 years, it

would have lost any conscious significance. But the

akroteria, as we have seen, appeared in the Hellenistic

period as a feature of votive altars, but were added to

statue bases from at least the late first century BC (table

4a), when their initial association with altars must still

have been remembered. It seems likely that it continued

to be remembered in the second century AD, for on the

Hadrianic roundels re-used on the Arch of Constantine at

Rome, akroteria are shown on the altars of Hercules and

Apollo, but not on any of the statue bases represented

(Nash 1961: figs 110,113). Akroteria were not necessary to an altar, however, for many rectangular bomos altars

of the Roman period, and representations of them, have

none (for example, Sayar 2000: nos 30, 49). So a bomos

without akroteria may still have been envisaged as repre

senting an altar.

Statues on bomoi

This formal identity of statue base and votive altar may

help to explain the use of the word bomos for statue bases

(table 4a). The presence or absence of statue traces on its

top, or an unequivocal inscription is often required to

distinguish the two functions. The epigraphists who have

pioneered the exploration of Roman Asia Minor have

naturally concentrated on the texts, and description and

illustration of the stones has sometimes been scanty in

the past although with honourable exceptions. Although modern publications usually describe and illustrate

inscribed stones more carefully, their upper surface is the

least likely to receive attention. It has often been

difficult, therefore, to know whether the identification of

133

Anatolian Studies 2005

Fig. 8a. D?los. Hellenistic rectangular statue base

(reproduced from Schmidt 1995: no. IV. 1.76, fig. 212, by

permission of I. Schmidt)

a bomos-shaped stone as a statue base or altar depends on

the inscription alone. In cases of doubt an inscription

naming the honorand (mortal or divine) in the accusative

is taken to indicate a statue base.

There are some cases where it is quite clear that a

stone named as a bomos served as a statue base. A base

from the territory of Nikomedeia has both a clear

inscription: t?v ?coiaov ko? t? ett' cc?tco ccycc?ncc

(the bomos and the statue on it; ?ahin 1981-1982: no.

1503; here fig. 9) and a well recorded form. It is a

standard rectangular bomos-shaped statue base, but the

akroteria above its crown mouldings identify it as repre

senting an altar. It carried a statue of Zeus, and the

dedication could be regarded as a votive altar adorned

with a statue or as a statue on a base. The wording of an

inscription from Phrygia is equally clear (Drew Bear

1993: 147-52): t?v ??cc kg t?v ?tt' cc?tco ?conov ke

t?v ?v Tcp ?coiicp 'Atto??ovcc (the [statue of] Zeus

and the bomos below it and the [statue of] Apollo on the

bomos). In the case of L. Ant. Claudius Dometianos

Diogenes at Aphrodisias the wording and the archaeo

logical context work together. The inscription on the

statue base records that Ti. Claudius Ktesias oversaw the

erection of the statue, and 'had its bomos, and the other

things made through his own efforts' (Trorr|Gcc{aEVou 5?

\

0 0.25m

Fig. 8b. Lindos. Hellenistic round statue base (repro duced from Schmidt 1995: no. II. 5, fig. 208, by

permission of I. Schmidt)

kcc\ Tov ?coiaov cc?Tcp Kcc\ Ta AoiTT? Trapee ?auTcp;

Inan, Alf?ldi-Rosenbaum 1979: 210-13, no. 186, pl.

140.3). The statue was set up in the portico in front of the

bouleuterion; this portico has been excavated, and there

is no sign of a separate altar, so that bomos must again

refer to the base itself. The base is of the normal bomos

form, but there are very small akroteria (visible in Smith

1998: 67, fig. 1), which suggest that it could be read as

an altar.

In other cases listed in table 4a the association of

statue and bomos is obviously close, and the interpre tation of bomos as referring to the statue base is plausible but not certain. Unfortunately statues and altars (votive or funerary) were both appropriate in much the same

places, and their juxtaposition in an inscription may indicate two separate elements rather than a single whole.

Wording alone can not tell us whether a phrase such as

tov ?coiaov o?v Tcp ??ovTi (the bomos with the lion;

Robert 1938: 220, n. 10), or t?v ?couov Ka\ t?v

avSpiavTa (the bomos and the statue; CIG: 3776) referred to a bomos base beneath the lion or statue, or a

bomos altar beside the lion or statue. For, as we shall see

below, similar phrases linking bomos and sarcophagus can mean either a sarcophagus on a bomos or a

sarcophagus beside a bomos. Where the inscribed block

134

Coulton

is of bomos form and has cuttings on top for fixing a

statue (as Corsten 1997: no. 51b), it can be taken as effec

tively certain that the bomos was the stone that served as

base. But that physical evidence is not recorded for, for

example, Engelmann et al. 1980b: no. 1266, so doubt

must remain.

Where the form of the bomos is known, it is generally a normal rectangular bomos (with or without akroteria),

which might have served equally as statue base, votive

altar, or funerary altar. But in other cases the text clearly refers to a bomos and statue elsewhere, and there are two

more problematic cases. A stone from Ephesos carries a

relief of a goddess in a pedimented panel, and an

inscription referring to t?v ?coiaov o?v tco ?tt' a?Tcp

?uavcp (Robert 1955: 117, pi. 19.1; Meri?etal. 1981: no.

3228; the bomos and the image on it). The editors

suppose that the stone is the bomos and the relief figure is

the xoanon. But the stone is a slab rather than a block,

and a break to the left shows that a significant part of it is

missing. It is not obviously suitable as a statue base, and

the relief figure (for which the term xoanon would be

unusual) is not 'on it' in the way that ?tt' a?Tcp would

normally signify. It is easier to suppose that a statue stood

on a bomos base nearby. Another stone, from the territory of Antioch, carries a relief of two women and the words

Ta ?ya?naTa Kai t?v ?co|iov ?TroirjGa (Jarry 1982:

95-96, nos 41-42; I made the statues and the bomos).

Again the editor supposes that the inscribed stone is the

bomos and the relief figures are the agalmata, but again the block does not serve as a base for the relief figures, neither is it obviously part of an altar. It seems likely that

this is another case where the words of the inscription do

not refer to the stone on which they are written.

The inscriptions on two statue bases from Laodikeia

on the Lykos (Corsten 1997: nos 51b, 65) indicate that

bomos was not used as a general synonym for basis

(base), for they refer to both a basis and a bomos. In the

first case the block carrying the inscription, though not

fully preserved, was a rectangular bomos of the usual

kind; as Corsten observes, if this was the bomos, the

basis would have been another (lost) block which

carried it. The second inscription is on a plain block,

1.20m wide and 0.49m deep. Corsten again suggests that this was the bomos, but it seems more likely that it

was the front block of a pair forming a square or rectan

gular base (the basis) for a taller bomos, similar to no.

51b, which would have been the bomos. Both

monuments would then have matched the funerary altar

from the same city, discussed above (Corsten 1997: no.

114), for which the words thema (rather than basis) and

bomos were used. The use of bomos to refer to a statue

base must have been determined by the form of the

monument rather than its function.

Fig. 9. Territory of Nikaia. Statue base with akroteria,

called bomos (Bursa Museum inventory no. 2550; repro

duced from ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1503, by permission of S. ?ahin)

135

Anatolian Studies 2005

In the case of dedications, the usual assumption is that

the base is a negligible element, present only to focus

attention on the object carried ? whether statue or other

offering. However, this may be a modern imposition. An

inscribed bomos from Apollonia in Phrygia records the

offering of small figures of oxen to Zeus, but the

inscription also draws attention to the bomos, itself a

significant part of the dedication (MAMA 4: no. 140; Robert 1980: 244-45). Similarly a substantial bomos

dedicated to Zeus from the Nikaia area carries a bust of the

god on top (?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1089). ?ahin rightly calls this an altar, although clearly not for any sacrificial

use; to regard the bomos element as merely a base for the

bust ignores its greater size and equal complexity. Hellmann (1992: 74) has suggested that the

diminutive form, bomiskos, was used to refer to a statue

base in the Hellenistic period, which would imply that

bomos was probably similarly used at this time.

However, in most of the instances listed in her note 4 the

bomiskos is an isolated item, probably a votive in the

form of a miniature altar. Two mid-second century Delian inventories list a bronze statuette of Hestia seated

on a stone bomiskos (ID 1416 A 1.83-84; 1417 B 1.90), but since both Hestia and the bomiskos are distinguished from the stone basis which carried them both, the

bomiskos was part of the image, not the base of the

statuette. Hestia's seat may have been a plain rectangular

block (for this meaning of bomiskos see below), but it

might very appropriately have been a small altar (a sense

which bomiskos could equally carry; Hero, Spir. 1.38,

39), as on a round bomos altar from Ostia (Museo Ostiense 120; LIMC s.v. Hestia: no. 16, pi. 293). If this

explanation is correct, no Hellenistic examples of bomos

or bomiskos referring to a statue base have yet have been

found. On the other hand bathron and bema, normal

words for a statue base in the Hellenistic period, seem to

have dropped out of use later (tables 4d, 4e; LSJ and

Orlandos, Travlos 1986: s.w.; Hellmann 1992: 63, 69). Basis was probably the normal word for a statue base

(table 4c), and was already established by the Hellenistic

period, although not restricted to that meaning (LSJ and

Orlandos, Travlos 1986: s.v. ?aois; Hellmann 1992: 66

68). The indices to SEG 1976-1995 do not list many more instances of basis as statue base than of bomos in

this sense, but that is probably because basis as a statue

base seems too unremarkable to justify full indexing. As

discussed above, unambiguous instances of the word

bomos used for a statue base are comparatively rare, but

a link between statue bases and altars was much more

often expressed by their form than by terminology. For

statue bases of rectangular bomos shape were frequently

given the akroteria which, as we have seen, were initially a feature of votive or cult altars (table 3c, an incomplete

list). This connection is independent of the etymology of

bomos, and if statue bases could be related to altars by their form, then the use of the term bomos for statue

bases may also have conveyed the same connection, and

not simply a shape. The subjects and functions of statues

carried on a base called bomos do not obviously differ

from those carried on a base called basis, and the forms

of the bases do not vary with terminology either.

Similarly the subjects and functions of statues carried on

a bomos with akroteria are not obviously different from

those of statues on bases without akroteria. The choice

of term and form must have been based on subjective rather than objective criteria.

Ostothekai on bomoi

A statue was not the only thing that might be carried on

a base referred to as a bomos. An inscription on a

funerary monument from Ankyra (Kubi?ska 1997: no. 18 =

Jerphanion 1928: no. 30, fig. 42, 257) reads: t?v

?coiaov Kai tt^v ?tt' a?Tcp ?crro6r|Kr|V (the bomos and

the ostotheke on it); in this case the bomos carried an ash

chest (ostotheke)', the form of the stone (described as

'grande st?le sans ornement' built into a mosque

doorway) is unclear. The phrase t?v ?cojaov o?v Tfji

?oTo9r|Kr)i (the bomos with the ostotheke) on a

monument from Nikomedeia (Kubi?ska 1997: no. 4 =

?ahin 1974: no. 9 = TAMA.I: no. 170) is less decisive on

its own, but in this case the form of the stone removes

any ambiguity. It consists of a small circular chest with

garlands and bucrania (the ostotheke), cut in the same

block as a lower element with the form of a normal

rectangular bomos (fig. 10). In a detailed study of the

term ostotheke in Asia Minor Kubi?ska (1997) suggests that the phrases 'the bomos and the ostotheke' or 'the

bomos with the ostotheke'' always describe such a

monument, consisting of an ostotheke on a base, and

argues that this exemplifies the use of bomos in the

general sense of 'base or platform'; her examples are

summarised in table 5. Although it carries the ostotheke,

however, the form of the lower element at Nikomedeia is

that of a bomos with akroteria; word and form combine

to suggest that the lower element, although serving as a

base, was to be read as a funerary altar. Evidence for the

normal disposition of ostothekai is rare, but some four

centuries earlier the ostothekai in the Macedonian tomb

at Phinika near Thessaloniki were placed on two

separately built altar-shaped structures in the corners of

the burial chamber (Tsimpidou-Arvaniti 1987: 261).

Although we do not know what ritual took place at these

'altars', their form was not a normal one for statue (or

other) bases at the time. The altar-like shape must have

been chosen with the conscious intention that the

ostothekai would be seen as placed on an altar.

136

Coulton

Fig. 10. Territory of Nikomedeia. Funerary bomos

carrying round ostotheke, both named as such (Istanbul

Archaeological Museums inventory no. 5320; Kubi?ska

1997: no. 4, pi. 2.2; photo: courtesy of Istanbul Archae

ological Museums)

An inscription from Nikaia with the words t?v

?couov Kai t?iv ?GTO0r|KTiv (the bomos and the

ostotheke) (Kubi?ska 1997: no. 8 = ?ahin 1981-1982: no

1581) was carved on a stone beam with both ends treated

as consoles (fig. 11). Kubi?ska suggests that the

ostotheke would have been carved in the top of a tall

pillar with this beam as its lid, but this does not explain the form of the beam. ?ahin is surely right to suppose that the bomos was a bomos-shaped element carrying this

beam, which in turn carried the ostotheke, as a separate chest. The lower surface of the beam is ca. 0.64m by

0.65m, suitable for a bomos slightly larger than usual,

while its upper surface, 1.13m by 0.65m, could hold an

ostotheke in the form of a small sarcophagus. For, as we

shall see, the Nikaia area has revealed monuments of this

form which carry sarcophagi. A similar monument from

the borderlands of Isauria and Lykaonia consisted of a

rectangular bomos carrying a small sarcophagus (i.e. an

ostotheke?) with a lion on the lid, but no cantilever beam

was identified (Sterrett 1888: 91-93, nos 153-54; Robert

1937: 394-95; for the lid compare Keil et al. 1935: 20,

fig. 17); a cantilever beam from Sparta may have served

the same purpose (Altmann 1905: 31; top 1.77m by ca.

0.60m, under face 0.90m by ca. 0.60m). Another rectan

guiar bomos from the Nikaia area (Kubi?ska 1997: no. 6) has its upper part concealed in the earth, so when the

inscription speaks of 'this bomos with the ostotheke', it

remains open whether the ostotheke was carried on a

beam (as Kubi?ska 1997: no. 8), or was directly on the

bomos (as Kubi?ska 1997: no. 4), or was placed beside

the bomos.

At Ikonion the interpretation of the comparable

phrases 'the bomos and the chest (larnax)' or 'the bomos

with the chest' (see above, and McLean 2002: nos 50,

53-55, etc. [ko\], 61, 76, 78 [oi/v]) depends on the

nature of the larnax. Robert (1965: 240, n. 4) suggested that it might be a small round ash urn that could be

placed on top of the bomos concerned, and McLean

2002: nos 50 and 55 both have a cylindrical drum above

the bomos proper, which might support a round

ostotheke like that from Nikomedeia discussed above

(Kubi?ska 1997: no. 4). However, McLean reports no

dowel hole or clamp cutting to hold such an urn in place, so Robert's suggestion remains hypothetical. As noted

above, at least one sarcophagus was called a larnax

(Mclean 2002: no. 120; sows was the commoner term:

nos 180-83), and a larnax of this size must have been

placed beside its bomos, not on it, since the bomos

would certainly be too small to carry it. Although they do not include the word larnax in their inscriptions, chests in the form of small sarcophagi are commonly called larnakes today (Mclean 2002: nos 185-90; lids

for comparable chests: nos 191-94), and these might have been carried on the larger bomoi. But no dowel

holes are reported in the top of the bomoi or bottom of

the chests, and they may equally have been placed beside their bomoi. It might be simpler to explain Kubi?ska 1997: no. 10, from Amastris, in a similar way. The phrase 'the bomos and the ostotheke' appears on an

ostotheke which was re-used separately. Kubi?ska

supposes that it was cut from its bomos base for re-use,

but the re-use would have been easier if the ostotheke

had been a separate block from the start, perhaps origi

nally standing beside the bomos, not on it. Kubi?ska

1997: no. 9 is also on an ostotheke, but the existence of

a related bomos is hypothetical.

Fig. 11. Territory of Nikaia. Cantilever beam to carry ostotheke (Bursa Museum inventory no. 2742; repro

ducedfrom ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1581, by permission of S. ?ahin)

137

Anatolian Studies 2005

For the present purpose the important thing is that in

all the cases cited by Kubi?ska where a bomos is

mentioned, the 'base' element of the monument has the

same bomos form as a funerary or votive altar. Some

have akroteria (Kubi?ska 1997: no. 5, from Nikomedeia =

?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1318); others do not (Kubi?ska 1997: nos 2-4). The simple upper element containing the

ostotheke of Kubi?ska 1997: nos 1-3 is found on a

number of funerary altars from Bithynia and elsewhere,

but without being hollowed out to hold ashes (?ahin 1981-1982: nos 1242, 1319, 1354, 1450, 1460, 1469,

from Nikaia; MAMA 1: nos 72, 154, from Laodikeia). Further research is required to establish whether it origi nates in altar morphology or is a potential ostotheke

which was not always used as such. Kubi?ska 1997: nos

12-13, 15-18, all from the Ankara area, also consist of

apparently bomos-shaped blocks, though most are

unillustrated and incompletely described. Only no. 18

specifies the relationship of bomos and ostotheke: t?v

?conov K? t?\v ?tt' a?Tcp ?GTO0r|KTiv (the altar and the

ostotheke on it); it is not clear from the description whether the ostotheke was cut from the upper element of

the same block, or was formed by a separate block. The

less specific formulae 'the bomos and the ostotheke' or

'the bomos with the ostotheke' would cover an ostotheke

set beside the bomos, rather than on it, as suggested above. In Kubi?ska 1997: no. 14 the noun associated

with the ostotheke is not bomos but an unintelligible word. The stone carrying the inscription is nevertheless

in the form of a simple bomos (with bevelled crown and

base mouldings) below a tapering upper element whose

narrow top perhaps carried a separately made ostotheke

in the form of an urn.

A different connection between altar and ostotheke is

illustrated by three round bomoi from western Asia

Minor. The first (Kubi?ska 1997: no. 20), once in a

private collection at Izmir and probably from Smyrna, is

best known from a 19th century description by Baumeister. It was ca. 1.20m high and ca. 0.40m in

diameter, with garlands round the drum, which was

hollowed out to form an ostotheke. The second, from

Kyme (Yavis 1949: 149; Berges 1986: no. 98), is similar

in form, but the cavity for the cremated ashes is

concealed in the cone of leaves which comes above the

crown mouldings (fig. 12). The third altar, from Aphro

disias, has a rectangular cutting in the upper part of the

bomos, probably intended to hold the ashes (Berges 1986: 21, K102).

One of the inscriptions on the monument from

Smyrna refers to it as an ostotheke, and Kubi?ska

maintains that it is wrong to call it an altar, as some

scholars have. In terms of function she is right, but all

three monuments are representations of altars; their form

and decoration is exactly like those which are normally called bomoi in inscriptions, and funerary altars by

epigraphists. The pine cone which crowned the lid of the

piece from Smyrna can be matched on rectangular

funerary altars from Nikomedeia (D?rner 1941: no. 89,

pi. 35), Akmonia (Robert 1955: 247-56, pi. 32-34) and

elsewhere. The leaf-covered cone on the monument from

Kyme can be compared with omphaloid cones on

Rhodian funerary altars (Fraser 1977: 40, n. 229, pis

110a-d), or the imbricated omphalos on a square altar

from Phrygian Apollonia (MAMA 4: no. 181, pi. 43). It

seems likely that all three monuments were envisaged by

contemporaries as funerary altars containing an

ostotheke, and this conception is expressed by the

Fig. 12. Kyme. Round funerary bomos with leaf-covered

omphalos serving as ash container (Istanbul Archaeo

logical Museums inventory no. 282; Berges 1986: no. 98,

fig. 134b; photo: D. Berges)

138

Coulton

inscription on a monument from Ankyra which reads t?v

?coiaov o?v Tr? ?v a?Tcp ?GTo6r|Kfl (the altar with the

ostotheke in it; Kubi?ska 1997: no. 11). There is no

detailed description of this stone, but its early editor

called it a cippus, which often means a round funerary altar. Rectangular funerary altars at Rome also

frequently have an ash container, usually cut in the top, but sometimes in one of the sides; yet other features show

that they were conceived as, and meant to be read as, altars (B?schung 1987: 38, 47-48).

The style of the monument from Kyme is late

Augustan, and that from Aphrodisias has been dated to

the early first century AD, so this association of altar and

ostotheke precedes, and may explain, most of those

discussed above. Placing an ostotheke on a funerary altar

is not a large step away from cutting an ostotheke in the

top of a funerary altar.

Sarcophagi on bomoi

Bomos-shaped bases could also carry sarcophagi. Three

monuments from the Nikaia area consist of a

sarcophagus carried on a stone beam cantilevered above

a bomos-shaped pillar (fig. 13; ?ahin 1981-1982: nos

1231-33). The inscriptions on these monuments use

only the general terms of\[ia (marker), |avf)|aa or

livrmE?ov (monument), but the pillars of the two

monuments which have been illustrated have all the

trappings of a monolithic altar with akroteria, although on a gigantic scale. The height of the bomos element of

?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1232 was 5m and its width 2m.

A different tomb type, found at Nikomedeia, consisted of a large rectangular platform (about 1-1.5m

by 3m in plan) with a bold projecting moulding around

the top and bottom, often standing on a stepped base (fig. 14; D?rner 1941: 22, nos 63, 78, pi. 4). The inscription

on one of these refers to t?v Tro?aXov a?v tco

UTTOKEiiiEvcp ?concp (the sarcophagus and the bomos

beneath it), so this large platform was also known as a

bomos (D?rner 1941: no. 78). Tombs of the same type are numerous at Hierapolis, where a tall platform carried

the sarcophagi of the leading members of a family, and a

chamber within the platform served as a burial place for

the lesser members of the family (Humann 1898: 16-17; Kubi?ska 1969: 78-79, pis 7-11). Again, inscriptions make it plain that this large platform was known as a

bomos (Robert 1950: 202-03). In these monuments (see table 6a) the structure called

bomos did not resemble the common rectangular bomos

or monolithic altar, but altars were built in a variety of

shapes and sizes. Whereas monolithic altars were

commonly personal dedications arising from some

specific prayer or vow, the main public sacrifices in a

sanctuary would need a larger altar, which Yavis (1949:

Fig. 13. Territory of Nikaia. Sarcophagus carried on a

giant bomos with akroteria (?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1232;

reproduced from Athenische Mitteilungen 17, 1892, pi.

5, by permission of the Deutsches Arch?ologisches

Institut)

Fig. 14. Territory of Nikomedeia. Sarcophagus carried

on rectangular platform inform of large altar (named as

bomos); note that lower half is concealed by vegetation

(reproduced from D?rner 1941: pi. 4.3, by permission of the Deutsches Arch?ologisches Institut)

139

Anatolian Studies 2005

95-105, 177-83) classified as either a 'ceremonial altar'

or a 'monumental altar', depending on size. Both types

normally consisted of a platform from 2m to 20m long, 1

2m wide and l-2m high, with a projecting moulding or

cornice at the top and a base moulding at the bottom.

Some were rectangular, with a step or steps at one side for

the officiating priest (the prothysis); in others the prothysis was built between spur walls or antae, projecting from the

main altar mass (Yavis 1949: 183-87; Etienne 1991).

Fairly well preserved examples of the rectangular type have been found in the sanctuaries of Asklepios at

Messene (12.62m by 2.03m; Orlandos 1970: 133-35, figs

8-9; here fig. 15) and of Apollo at Cyrene (22.08m by

4.95m; Pernier 1935: 61-70), and a clear representation of

one appears on a Hadrianic relief from the Arco di Porto

gallo at Rome (Nash 1961: pi. 88). The structure set up by the Milyadeis and others in honour of Roma and Augustus is a possible example in Roman Asia Minor (Hall 1986:

139-40, no. 1, n. 2). Hall reasonably suggests that it was

an altar, at least 3.5m long, and the associated masonry, re

used in an Ottoman bridge abutment, includes a suitably

large cornice moulding (Hall 1986: pi. 12). These larger altars would always have been less numerous than the

votive bomoi, and, not being monolithic, they have rarely

preserved their full form to the present day. But in the

Roman period their higher status would compensate for

their fewer numbers, and they would naturally come to

mind in connection with the word bomos. The tomb

platforms at Nikomedeia and Hierapolis with their cornice

and base mouldings, often set on steps, resemble such

large rectangular altars, as seen from the back, the side

which the public would face. That means that the term

bomos here too means (at the least) 'altar-shaped

platform' not just 'platform in general' or 'funerary

platform'. And here too the symbolic value of the form

and of the term may have been intended and recognised.

Fig. 15. Messene. Reconstructed drawings of the altar of

Asklepios from northwest (above) and southeast (below)

(reproduced from Orlandos 1970: fig. 9, by permission of the Athens Archaeological Society)

In some other cases the monuments are lost, but the

inscriptions alone suggest monuments of similar form, with the bomos being a large built platform beneath a

sarcophagus. At Aphrodisias, for instance, some

inscriptions show that sarcophagi were carried on bomoi

containing several burial recesses (MAMA 8: nos 545

46, 554, 556, 570). An inscription from Hypaipa (near

Ephesos; Meri? et al. 1981: no. 3866) speaks unambigu

ously of 'this bomos and the chamber within it'

(toutov t?v ?couov Ka\ TOV EV a?Tcp oTkov). In

principle, phrases such as 'the bomos and the

sarcophagus upon it' (B?rker, Merkelbach 1980: no.

1637; Merkelbach, Nolle 1980: 2222c, 2228, 2241,

2266a, 2306a; Meri? et al. 1981: no. 3138) or 'the

sarcophagus and the bomos below it' (Merkelbach, Nolle 1980: no. 2304) could refer to gigantic monolithic

bomoi like those supporting sarcophagi in the Nikaia

district. But since the inscriptions are carved on smaller

blocks, they probably refer to built platforms like the

bomoi of Nikomedeia and Hierapolis. At Termessos a platform measuring 6.22m by 7.40m

and at least 1.4m high (TAM 3.1: 623) carries an

inscription claiming t?v ?coiaov Kai tt\v KprjTTE?Sa

(the altar and the platform) for the sarcophagi of the

owner and her children. This platform is much larger than those at Nikomedeia and Hierapolis, so it was

probably the krepis; the bomos would have been a more

restricted structure upon it, but still big enough to carry more than one sarcophagus. Another Termessian text

(TAM 3.1: 814) curses anyone who moves the owner's

sarcophagus from the bomos; the size and form of the

bomos are unknown, but a monument similar to those at

Nikomedeia and Hierapolis ? and altar-like for the same

reasons ? is again plausible.

Three earlier monuments support the idea that a tomb

and a large altar could be seen as related. The earliest

survives only in description. Pausanias (3.19.3) says that

the base (basis) of the statue of Apollo Amyklaios was in

the form of an altar (bomos), in which the hero

Hyakinthos was said to be buried; a door in the side gave access to the tomb chamber. Clearly this is meaningless if bomos meant just 'base or platform in general'; as at

Laodikeia on the Lykos (above) basis and bomos were

distinct terms, and bomos conveyed a form. The tomb

chamber was in the bomos platform, as at Nikomedeia

and Hierapolis. Tomb Kl at Messene, which probably dates to the second century BC, has the form of an in

antis altar of the type mentioned above, except that

slightly stepped base courses take the place of the

prothysis between the antae (Themeles 2000: 114-19,

figs 99-107; Ito 2002: 4-15; here fig. 16). A door in the

rear wall leads into a chamber with seven burial cists

below the floor. The form of the top is uncertain. It has

140

Coulton

Fig. 16. Messene. Restored plan of Hellenistic tomb Kl

(reproduced from Ito 2002: fig. 13, by permission of J. Ito)

been restored as a stepped pyramid, but flat slabs are

equally possible, resulting in an altar-like monument

comparable to the platform bomoi at Hierapolis and

Nikomedeia. The sarcophagus of L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (consul 298 BC) at Rome embodies the

connection between altar and tomb more clearly but in a

different way. It was given the unmistakeable form of a

monumental triglyph altar (Yavis 1949: 138-39),

complete with volute end barriers (Yavis 1949: 181-82,

fig 46; Coarelli 1972: 43-49, figs 4-9). A series of later

tomb monuments from Rome, Pompeii, Ostia and

elsewhere are variations on this theme. They take the

form of a normal monolithic altar (with projecting crown

and base mouldings), but many times magnified (fig. 17; Kockel 1983: 22-26; for the distribution, 25-26); the

'altar' component is roughly square with sides 1.5-3.5m

and a height of 2.5-3.5m, so comparable in scale to the

platform bomoi at Nikomedeia and Hierapolis. Those at

Pompeii are clearly identified as representations of altars

by their cylindrical end barriers (pulvini); although the

Ostian examples lack pulvini, they presumably carried

the same significance. Many of these altar monuments

were solid, but one at Pompeii (North 1; Kockel 1983:

111-15) contains a burial chamber like the platform bomoi at Nikomedeia and Hierapolis. In all these cases,

however, the burials were within or beside the altar

monument. There is no evidence that any of them carried

a sarcophagus, as the platform bomoi in Asia Minor did.

The change is the same as that from the early ostothekai

where the round bomoi contained the ashes (Kyme and

Smyrna) to the later ones where the bomos carried the

ash container (Nikomedeia and elsewhere). Four inscriptions from the area of Kibyra use the

adjective ?coiaiKOc (altar-like; Corsten 2002: nos 147,

151, 254, 369; table 6b). First, Corsten 2002: no. 369

refers to tt\v oop?v g?v tco ?coiaiKcp epycp (the

sarcophagus with the altar-like work or structure); this

text is written in large letters on a cornice or crown

course, which would suit the top of a built platform

carrying the sarcophagus, similar to those at Nikomedeia

and Hierapolis. Corsten 2002: no. 147, written on a

sarcophagus lid, mentions tt]v oop?v . . . o?v tco

?TTOKEiii?vcp ?coiiiKcp. Except that the adjectival form

?coiiiKOv (here used as a noun, perhaps with Epyov

understood) replaces ?coiioc, the words and context are

parallel to those at Nikomedeia, and Ephesos discussed

above, and the structure referred to must again be a built

platform carrying the sarcophagus. This use of ?couiKOv as a noun helps to explain Corsten 2002: no. 151, where

we find: ouv tco ?ttokeih?vco evttpogBev tou

?coMiKoO o'?Kcp KEVcbuaTo?. Previous scholars have

suggested that okou should be read in place of o?kco so

as to supply a noun to agree with ?coiaiKou (Petersen, von Luschan 1889: 191, n. 4; Kubi?ska 1969: 79). But

since Corsten 2002: no. 147 shows that ?coiaiKou can

serve as a noun, Corsten leaves the text unchanged, to

mean 'with the chamber below, in front of the altar-like

element'. The text of no. 151 is written on a round

bomos, which may be the 'altar-like element' referred to;

but it may alternatively be another example of an altar

shaped platform. Finally, Corsten 2002: no. 254, inscribed on another round bomos, mentions 5uo

?coniKa lavriHE?a (two altar-like monuments). It is

Fig. 17. Pompeii. Tomb monument N37 by the Hercu

laneum Gate, in the form of an enlarged altar (Kockel 1983: pi. 60a; photo: Deutsches Arch?ologisches Institut

Rom, Behrens, 05.1234)

141

Anatolian Studies 2005

simplest to suppose that the altar-shaped stone on which

the text is written was one of the 'two altar-like

monuments'. Milner (1998a: 19) and Corsten (2002:

168) explain the use of the phrase bomika mnemeia, in

place of the more usual bomoi, by suggesting that the

surviving bomos and its lost mate carried busts of the

deceased, making them more complex than the normal

funerary bomos. But there is no good evidence that

funerary bomoi (as opposed to columns) did carry busts, and in this case it is hard to see how two bomoi could

carry busts of the three people commemorated. Without

more knowledge of the original funerary context, no

certain explanation is possible, but the use of the phrase does indeed suggest something more complex than two

round bomoi (for which the normal term in this area was

undoubtedly bomos; 13 instances in the word index of

Corsten 2002). However, if ?coiaoc can mean 'altar

shaped thing' (whether votive altar, funerary altar,

funerary platform or statue base), ?coniKOc 'altar

shaped' would mean 'like any altar-shaped thing'; there

is no need to derive the adjectival form specifically from

?coiioc =

funerary platform (as Drew Bear 1972b: 190). Two inscriptions from Perge use ?com's, a diminutive

form of ?cojios, in conjunction with a sarcophagus

(Mansel, Akarca 1949: nos 4, 13; table 6b). Kubi?ska

(1969: 79) again supposes a built platform carrying the

sarcophagus, but Herodotos (2.125) used ?coiiioEc for

the steps making up the form of a pyramid before the

outer facing was added, so at Perge ?conic might equally have described a stepped base rather than an altar-shaped

platform of the Hierapolis type. However, the excava

tions at Perge revealed neither a platform nor a step beneath any of the sarcophagi, and since the inscriptions do not say that the sarcophagus was on the ?coiiic, a

normal monolithic funerary bomos beside it may be

meant, ?conic in the sense of bomos-shaped statue base

is attested at Pogla (Pisidia; Bean 1960: 61-62, no. 105).

Bomoi as column pedestals The final context where bomos appears as a bearer is

architectural (table 7). The usage is clearest at Aphro disias, where the architectural context survives. In listing

improvements to the gymnasium of Diogenes, CIG 3:

2782 refers to columns with ?coiiooTTEipa (bomospeira,

'altar-bases') and capitals. Since speira is a well-estab

lished term for a column base of Ionic type (Ginouv?s 1992: 70), Franz, editor of CIG 3, followed Otfried

M?ller in interpreting this compound as 'Ionic column

bases (spirae) placed on tall square pedestals in the form

of an altar'. De Chaisemartin (1989: 44-45) has argued that the gymnasium of Diogenes is what is now called the

Portico of Tiberius, and that the inscription relates to its

west end, where the columns do indeed stand on

pedestals (Erim 1986: 98; fig. 18). Their form, a square die with projecting crown and base mouldings, is

virtually the same as the basic type of rectangular monolithic altar.

The same compound, or its parts, occurs in two

inscriptions from the territory of Hypaipa in the Kaystros

valley (Meri? et al. 1981: nos 3851-52), which refer to

two-columned monuments with 'altar-bases' and capitals.

One uses the compound bomospeira, the other breaks it

down into bomoi, and speirai. The same sense (bomos =

column pedestal) would be appropriate, although the

architectural elements referred to have not been found.

The simple 'bomos' occurs in an equally clear context in

an inscription from Ephesos (Wankel 1979: no. 20.70-1; Rumscheid 1999: 54, n. 121): ke?ove? ?' ... o?v toi?

?TTOKEin?voi? ?coiiois (two columns with the bomoi

below them ? obviously pedestals). The same meaning

of bomos is probable, though unproven, in an inscription from Tyana (Berges, Nolle 2000: no. 39): t? TrpOTru?ov g?v Ta?? TrapaoT?oiv Ka\ to?? ?conoic (the propylon with the pillars and the bomoi). The context makes

pedestals a more likely meaning than votive altars. In the

fourth century AD a letter of Gregory of Nyssa discussing the design of a small church (Epist. 25, Migne, PG 46:

1100A) specifies that the eight main columns should have

bomoeideis speiras (altar-like bases) and Corinthian

capitals, and in an elaborate poetic description of an

ambon, Paul the Silentiary (Ambon 150-60; ca. AD 575) refers to bomoi beneath the columns. Since the archi

tecture relevant to these cases has not been found, the

proof is not conclusive, but all the contexts support the

sense of 'column pedestal' for the bomo- element.

Fig. 18. Aphrodisias, west stoa of south agora (?=

gymnasium of Diogenes?). West end with columns on

pedestals (photo: R.R.R. Smith)

142

Coulton

However, another inscription from the Hypaipa district cannot be easily reconciled with this expla nation. Meri? et al. 1981: no. 3828 records that 'the

sarcophagus with the bomospeiron' belongs to someone.

Although the bomo- element of the word bomo could

refer to a built platform beneath the sarcophagus as at

Nikomedeia or a monolithic pillar as at Nikaia there is

no obvious place for the -speiron element. It is possible that bomospeiron had come to be used of the column

pedestal alone, ignoring the much smaller column base

element; if so, the Hypaipa monument more probably followed the Nikaia form. Alternatively, bomospeiron

might have no direct connection with the sarcophagus, but referred to (for example) the base for a statue of the

deceased with the same profile as an Ionic column base

on a pedestal, as found frequently at Termessos (TAM 3.1: pi. II, types e-f).

Some later scholars have tended to blur the sharpness of the CIG interpretation of bomospeiron. Ebert (1911:

26) translates it as Untersatzring (base-ring), under

standing the first element as a lower element in general. Orlandos and Travlos (1986: 55-56, s.v. ?conooTTEipov) do not refer specifically to pedestals, and Ginouv?s

(1992: 70, n. 106), although translating the word as 'base

in the form of an altar', comments that it returns to the

sense of 'moulded column base', rather than linking it

with a pedestal. Nolle, discussing Berges, Nolle 2000:

no. 39 and Nolle 2001: no. 162 (where he restores bomos

in a phrase including column and base-and-capital),

suggests that bomos refers to the low square plinth which

forms the lower element of an Asiatic Ionic column base.

This does not fit with the usage of bomos which we have

seen in connection with ostothekai, sarcophagi and statue

bases, and the more usual sense of a taller element with

crown and base mouldings (i.e. a column pedestal) would

be equally appropriate here. On the other hand de

Chaisemartin (1989: 45), in reconsidering CIG 3: 2782,

rightly returns to the perception of M?ller and Franz that

bomospeiron must mean 'base with pedestal', and

Rumscheid (1999: 54, n. 21) saw that the bomoi in

Wankel 1979: no. 20 must also refer to column pedestals.

Performers on bomoi?

Weiss (1981) has suggested a fifth context where bomos

was used as a 'bearer' unrelated to an actual altar. He

supposes that it was used to describe the pedestal on

which trumpeters and heralds stood to compete in

festival games. The monument from which he started

this argument is a stepped block from Side in Pamphylia, decorated with reliefs. The inscription on it says that the

donors dedicated the altar (bomos) which they had

provided and gilded, together with the base (basis). Weiss supposed that this stepped block was the bomos,

with the figures of the relief once gilded. However, W?rrle (1988: 191) argues more plausibly that the gilded bomos was a portable metal altar, like the silvered altar

used in the Demostheneia festival at Oinoanda. The

stepped block would then be the basis, comparable to the

simpler steps that we have noted under other altars and

related monuments (see above). The parallels which

Weiss cites for bomos used in this sense also need further

examination. The strongest case is where Pausanias

(5.22.1) describes a bomosby the entrance to the stadium

at Olympia, 'where the Eleians sacrifice to no god, but it

is set up for the trumpeters to stand on, and the heralds, when they compete.' This monument was obviously used as Weiss supposed, but Pausanias felt bound to

explain that the Eleans did not sacrifice on it, which

shows that he was not using bomos as the normal word

for a herald's platform. Rather he was using it to

describe a monument which looked so much like an altar

that a visitor would naturally have supposed that it was

used as one.

The other two instances are quite different. The

Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi (315ff) tells how Homer

sailed to Delos and, standing on the KEpcmvo? ?coiaoc, recited the hymn to Apollo. However the keratinos

bomos (altar of horns) was a functioning altar, not

intended to be used as a reciting platform (Bruneau 1970:

19-29). Similarly, when Philostratos (Vitae Soph. 495) tells us that Gorgias 'proclaimed the Pythian speech from

the bomos ... in the Pythian sanctuary', there is no

reason to believe it was anything other than the cult altar

in front of the temple of Apollo, which had a stepped

prothysis from the top of which a speech could effec

tively be delivered to a festive crowd below.

Discussion

There are then four contexts in which something serving as a pedestal or base is referred to as a bomos: it may

carry a statue, an ostotheke, a sarcophagus,

or a column.

At the start of this paper it was noted that Robert and

other scholars have supposed that bomos in these

contexts meant a base, pedestal, socle or platform in

general, as it did for Homer. However, this sense is not

apparently attested between Homer and the first century AD, and original meanings may sometimes be forgotten

(as that of English 'nice', derived from Latin nescius =

ignorant). Examination of the form of the pedestals described as bomoi shows that most had the bomos

shape, that of the standard rectangular monolithic altar, while the remainder had the shape of a larger altar. Thus

bomos was used in these contexts not for a 'base or

platform in general', but for a 'base or platform in the

shape of an altar'. The instances where bomos and basis are used as mutually exclusive categories show that the

143

Anatolian Studies 2005

words were not seen as synonyms, and this is exemplified most strikingly by Pausanias' description of the basis of

the statue of Apollo at Amyklai as having the shape of a

bomos. Pausanias must have used the word bomos

because it conveyed a specific shape. The architectural context is the one where the use of

bomos is most likely to have been limited, in the Roman

period at least, to a definition of shape. Picard (1927:

255-60) suggested that a symbolic connection of column

pedestal and altar underlay the much earlier use of the

sculptured pedestals below certain columns in the

temples of Artemis at Ephesos and Sardis; the altar

shaped pedestals would have marked certain columns out

as having a higher status than the others. However,

Wannagat (1995) argues that the Hellenistic use of

column pedestals derives from the custom of placing

funerary columns on bases or pedestals, and that these

were conceptually and formally equivalent to the bases or

pedestals placed beneath statues and stelai. Like statue

bases they raised the object set on them physically and in

status, but the similarity to altars is coincidental, or at

least indirect. In the Roman period column pedestals never carry the akroteria or other features that might mark them specifically as representing altars. The

earliest instance of bomos used for a column pedestal is

in relation to a fish market at Ephesos (AD 54 and 59; see

above). This context would make a conscious connection

with altars inappropriate. In the architecture of Roman

Asia Minor, column pedestals were used as much in

ordinary civic porticoes as in temples. Gregory of Nyssa felt that 'altar-shaped bases', like 'carved capitals of the

Corinthian type', would raise the status of the architec

tural design, and that may have been a general under

standing, as Wannagat has suggested. It is unlikely that

either Gregory or Paulus Silentarius understood their

column pedestals to have a specific reference to pagan

altars, for such a reference would have been highly

inappropriate. In these cases bomos simply conveyed a

specific form.

This purely formal sense is attested much earlier in

bomiskos, the diminutive of bomos. In solid geometry bomiskos meant a cuboid, which differs from a cube in

having length, width and height unequal (Hero, Def 114;

in Hero, Stereom. 68 it also tapers). However this

geometrical use of bomiskos is probably based on the

specific shape of a common object, i.e. the rectangular monolithic altar, rather than on a loose meaning of bomos

as a 'base or platform in general'. Other terms for

geometrical solids derive similarly from everyday objects which have the relevant shape

? so kubos (cube) from a

dice, kulindros (cylinder) from a roller, sphaira (sphere) from a ball, dokos (a cuboid shape with length much

greater than height or width) from a beam, and so on.

Where Hero used bomiskos for the base element serving as the air and water container of a water organ (Spir.

1.42), he may have envisaged a simple cuboid as above; but given the decorative character of his models, he

might well have envisaged it with crown and base

mouldings, which would make it look more like a small

altar. Elsewhere in Hero's works bomiskos certainly means a miniature altar, functioning as part of a

mechanical model, but intended to represent an altar

(Spir. 1.38, 39; compare bomos in Hero, Spir. 1.12, 2.3,

2.21; Autom. 3-4, 12). The meaning of ara in Latin was extended in just the

same way as that of bomos. It usually means an altar, but

Varro uses ara for a statue base (Scholion on Vergil, Eel.

6.31: arae in quibus stant signa); an inscription from

Udelfangen uses it to refer to the pedestal of a column

monument (Esp?randieu 1907-: 6, no. 5230; CIL 13:

4117: . . . ]cum columfna e]t ara posuit); as Hero used

bomiskos, so Vitruvius (10.8.1,2) used ara for the air and

water container of a water organ ?

perhaps with crown

and base mouldings like an altar; and Cato (Agr. 18.6)

probably used it for the press bed of an olive press (some editors emend ara to area, the word used for a threshing

floor, but an olive press bed is usually a solid block, i.e.

it is a bomiskos as defined by Hero, Def. 114). These

extensions of meaning cannot be explained by

etymology, since the root of ara probably relates to ashes

(Glare 1982), and the word never meant a 'base or

platform in general', as bomos originally did. They can

only be explained as a transfer of the extended meanings of the normal Greek word for altar to the normal Latin

word for altar, on the basis of a shared understanding of

the normal form of an altar.

The comments of Pausanias (3.19.3) on the platform for trumpeters and heralds at Olympia suggest that a

bomos not only had a recognisable shape, but that this

shape was normally associated with the function of

sacrifice. That raises the question whether the same

association was also felt in connection with the other

altar-shaped pedestals discussed in this paper; that is, were they called bomoi only because of their shape? Or

did the form and terminology also carry some symbolic

meaning? We have seen that in the architectural context

the answer to the second question is probably 'no'. But

in the other contexts the transfer of meaning is suggested not only by the use of the term bomos (whose meaning is arguable), but also by the indisputable similarities in

form, both in general, in the transfer of specific features

from votive altars to statue bases, or vice versa. In

addition to the akroteria already discussed, a strong formal link can be seen between the statue bases and

funerary altars of Roman Macedonia. From the first half

of the second century AD a pediment was often added

144

Coulton

above the crown mouldings on three sides of a normal

rectangular bomos, both for altars and statue bases

(Adam-Velene 2002; Gounaropoulou, Chatzopoulos 1998: nos 75, 367 etc.). This addition may derive from

earlier funerary stelai with pediments and akroteria

(Adam-Velene 2002: 59), perhaps combined with the

pedimented wind breaks at the ends of rectangular Classical and Hellenistic altars (for example, Yavis

1949: 181, fig. 45; Fraser 1977: pi. 40b; Aktseli 1996:

17, fig. 15; Smith 1991: fig. 214). It is rather rare in

Italy and Asia Minor (Adam-Velene 2002: 59), but

appears on Augustan statue bases from Teos (Herrmann 2000: 91-93). Although one Macedonian statue base of

this form is dated to the first half of the second century AD (Adam-Velene 2002: no. 239), most of the early datable examples in Macedonia are funerary altars

(Adam-Velene 2002: nos 330, 299, 301, 304, 118, 93); most of the statue bases follow about 50 years later (for

example, Adam-Velene 2002: nos 229-30, 232-36). It

is possible that there the motif was transferred from

altars to statue bases; but at the very least it shows that

the two categories were regarded as equivalent and

developed in parallel. The difficulty, sometimes the impossibility, of distin

guishing altars from bases has often been noted (for

example, Altmann 1905: 4; Hermann 1961: 30, 60-73;

Schraudolph 1993: 23-27; Adam-Velene 2002: 28), but

it is normally regarded as just a puzzle for archaeologists,

arising perhaps from differences between ancient and

modern terminology (as Hermann 1961: 10). But, as

noted above, the similarity goes back in some cases to the

sixth century, and in the Hellenistic period it becomes

both closer and more widespread, with a large majority of statue bases taking the standard forms of round and

rectangular altars. A similar convergence of the forms of

marble well heads (putealia) and round altars occurred in

the late first century BC (Dr?ger 1994: 29-30). The long continuation of this similarity between altars and

pedestals, and the recurring transfer of detailed formal

features between them, must imply some convergence of

ideas relating to these objects over a period of several

centuries. Dr?ger is one of the few scholars to see that

the similarity of forms needs some explanation, and he

too suggests that when the altar form was used as a base, it carried over some of its symbolic meaning.

The use of altar forms as pedestals in a funerary context may not be so surprising. In addition to the

widespread use of funerary altars, the treatment of

sarcophagi as funerary monuments to be displayed above

ground also became widespread in Hellenistic Asia

Minor and the Aegean. Given the heroising ideology revealed by funerary inscriptions, the idea of placing the

ashes or body of the deceased in or on a funerary altar,

rather than beside it, does not seem a difficult step to

conceive or accept. Such changes would often make it

impossible to use the 'altar' for sacrifice, but, as we have

seen, funerary altars were frequently symbolic in intent, even when there was nothing in or on them.

The suggestion that statue bases might be given a

form with meaning is unremarkable in itself, for statues

on columns are well known, and the ship's prow beneath

the Nike of Samothrace has never been disputed. The

choice of the altar forms to carry statues is less straight forward. In a funerary context one might suppose that

placing a free-standing image of the dead 'hero' on top of

a funerary altar would be considered little different from

placing a container for his ashes or body on the altar, and

that this usage led to statues on 'altars' in other contexts.

But there is no evidence that this was the sequence

actually followed, and a first step in a sacred or civic

context is less easily understood. Although both sacri

fices and votive statues might seem to be offerings to a

divinity, different verbs were characteristically used for

blood sacrifice (6?eiv) and dedication (?cvaT?0Evai), and

in principle blood sacrifices were offered at a bomos, while other offerings were made at a trapeza (table).

However, there is evidence that the clear distinctions

to be found in the late lexicographers were not always maintained. The inscription on a rectangular altar from

2 the Asklepieion at Athens (IG 2 4986; third to second

century BC) uses the word B?eiv for cakes, while cult

regulations at Pergamon require the god's share of the

blood sacrifice to be put on the trapeza (Habicht 1969:

no. 16.6-7). An inscription from Termessos records that

a trapeza was placed on top of an altar (t?v ?conov o?v

Trj ?TTiKEin?vri TpaTr??ri; TAM 3.1: no. 916). A

catalogue of victors in the Romaia games at Xanthos in

Lycia (Robert 1978b: esp. 282-83) records that when

there was no contestant, the victor's wreath was

dedicated on the bomos of Roma. The practice of

worshipping living individuals as heroes had already

begun in the early fifth century (Currie 2002), and

continued in the Hellenistic period for non-royal as well

as royal benefactors (for example, SEG 1997: 1218; Gauthier 1996); in such cases an altar might seem an

appropriate base for the living hero's statue. But openly divine or heroic honours for the living were later

restricted to emperors; since the placing of statues on

recognisably altar-shaped bases continued, it can not

have carried such a strong message. The earliest

plausible instance of bomos used for a statue base is for

a statue of Zeus in the first century AD, but the termi

nology is not conclusive. The first more or less certain

usage is in the inscriptions relating to the silver figures of

the gods donated to Ephesos in the early second century

(table 4a). This may be an accident of the evidence,

145

Anatolian Studies 2005

however, for statue bases were already marked out by

akroteria as symbolising altars in the late first century BC

(table 3c). Vase paintings showing divinities (or their

symbols) on altars occur as early as the fifth and fourth

centuries BC (De Cesare 1997: for example, figs 36, 50,

71, 105, 124). These were often intended to show the

divinity in person on the altar, not a statue of the divinity, so they do not actually represent the phenomenon of

statue bases as altars. However, they show that a divinity could already be envisaged as present on the altar, and

the statue of a divinity might equally be thought to show

'the divinity in person', and so to be appropriately placed on an altar. Thus one might suppose that the practice of

putting statues on (symbolic) altars began with statues of

divinities on altars dedicated to them, and was extended

first to deified rulers, then to other local benefactors. But

such a chronological sequence has yet to be established.

However, the aim of this paper is not to explain how

the altar form came to be used as a pedestal for statues

and other things, but to show that the form of such

pedestals was recognisably that of an altar, and to argue that the use of the word bomos to refer to pedestals or

platforms reflects that form. Thus in addition to its

normal meaning of 'altar', bomos does not retain (or return to) an original meaning of 'pedestal or platform in

general', but rather it extends from the meaning 'altar' to

cover 'altar-shaped thing (regardless of use)' ? which

may include a pedestal or platform. Given the number of

bases produced in Roman Asia Minor, the conscious

reference to an altar would tend to become diluted, and

was no doubt sometimes absent (as in the case of column

pedestals). But the fact that the connection continued to

be conveyed by word or by form over several centuries

suggests that the formal similarity was often recognised, and that the symbolic value of the form could sometimes

still be felt. If so, it should affect our understanding of

one of the commonest and most prominent artefacts of

Greco-Roman city culture.

Acknowledgements

Many people have assisted my investigations on altars

and statue bases, some perhaps without knowing it. I

should like to thank particularly R.R.R. Smith and N.P.

Milner, who started the train of thought and helped

beyond any call of duty. I am also grateful for comments

and suggestions to T. Corsten, J.R. Green, J. Ma, S.

Mitchell, C. Rouech?, M. W?rrle, and to those who

contributed to the discussion at seminars in Oxford and

London where I presented preliminary ideas related to

this paper. It should be said that several of those named

disagreed with my argument, so although it is much

improved by their contributions, none of them is in any

way responsible for its shortcomings.

Note on the tables

Tables la, lb, 2a, 2b, 3a-3c and 4c-4e are not intended to

be exhaustive, but to provide a sufficient body of examples to sustain the argument. Tables 4a, 4b and 5-7 are

intended to be comprehensive, but no doubt fail in that aim.

Locations are normally given in terms of ancient city

(including its territory) or, where that is problematic, in

terms of geographical areas or reasonably well-known

modern settlements. The aim is to indicate the general

spread of a usage, rather than the specific find-places of

individual monuments. Dates are taken, where possible,

from the publication cited. Where no greater precision is

possible, 'Imp.' indicates broadly first to third centuries

AD, usually before AD 212 (non-'Aurelian' names); Aur.

N. indicates the presence of 'Aurelian' names (so

generally post-AD 212); ND means no date offered (but in most cases probably equivalent to Imp.).

Table la. Rectangular votive altars called ?coiioc

Nikomedeia, 1C BC/AD, to Zeus Soter. Halfmann, Schwertheim 1986: 132, no. 3

Hierapolis, 27 BC-AD 14, to Augustus. Ritti 1979: 186

87; to ava0E|ia Kai t?v ?couov

Doliche, AD 57/58, to Theos Dolichenos. Wagner 1982:

162-63, no. 5

Mopsuestia, AD 64/65, to the God and Demos. Dagron, Feissel 1987: 132-33, no. 85

Anazarbos, 1-2C AD, toThea Kassalitis. Sayar 2000: no.

34

Nikomedeia?, AD 147, to Theos Priettos. Merkelbach

1986

Pergamon, 2C AD, to Asklepios. Habicht 1969: no. 132

Prusa ad Olympum, 2C AD or after AD 212, to Apollo. Corsten 1991b: 1018; t?v ?conov o?v tco

?TTOoT?XXcp (for ?TTOGTu?icp = socle? [Corsten])

Ephesos, Imp., to Zeus, Ares, Enyalios, Andreia. Knibbe,

Iplik?ioglu 1981-1982: 147, no. 162

Kyme, Imp.?, to Kore Mise. Engelmann 1976: no. 38

Kotiaion, Imp., to Artemis. MAMA 10: no. 344

Nikaia, Imp., to Asklepios? ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1045

Pergamon, Imp., to Asklepios. Habicht 1969: no. 85

Pergamon, Imp., to Asklepios. Habicht 1969: no. 127

Kommagene, Imp., to the Rulers. ?ahin 1991: 107-08, no. 3

Pergamon, Imp., to Theoi katachthonioi and hero

Paulinus. Habicht 1969: no. 134

Smyrna, Imp., Nike; with akroteria. Petzl 1987: no. 763

Nikaia, ND, to Zeus. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1136

Nikaia, ND, to Zeus? ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1506

Krateia (Bith.), ND, to Zeus Bennios. ?ahin 1986:135, n.

37

Ephesos, ND, to Aphrodite. I?ten, Engelmann 1992: 285, no. 3

146

Coulton

Amaseia, ND, to Zeus Disabeites. French 1996: 90, no. 9

Synnada, ND, to Zeus. Drew Bear, Naour 1990: 2028, no. 30

Anazarbos, ND, to the Goddess (Artemis?). Dagron, Marcillet-Jaubert 1978: 379-81, no. 3

Kalchedon, AD 206, to Zeus. Merkelbach 1980: no. 103

Akmonia, AD 215/216, to Zeus Alsenos. Drew Bear, Naour 1990: 1929, no. 5

Apollonia, AD 222, to Zeus. MAMA 4: no. 140; Robert

1980: 244-45

Amaseia, AD 239/240, to Zeus Stratios. French 1996: 90, no. 11

Pisidian-Phrygian borders, Aur. N., to Sozon. MAMA 8:

no. 397

Termessos, Aur. N., to Apollo and Artemis (one of two

altars). TAM 3.1: no. 908

Dorylaion, Aur. N., Zeus Patrikios. Frei 1993: 124-26, 128

Appia (Upper Tembris), 3C AD, to Meter Zingotene. MAMA 10: no. 215

Didyma, 3C AD, to Apollo; slender bomos (broken). G?nther 1985: no. 5

Nikaia, 3C AD, to Zeus. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1511

Table lb. Round votive altars called ?conoc D?los, 114/113 BC, divinity unknown. ID: no. 1942

Delos, 107/106 BC, to Hygieia; with garlands and

bucrania. ID: no. 2233

Delos, Hellenistic, divinity unknown; with garlands and

bucrania. ID: no. 1744

Delos, Hellenistic, divinity unknown; with garlands and

bucrania. ID: no. 1791

Hierapolis, 5 BC-AD 4, to Caius Caesar; garlands and

bucrania. Ritti 1979: 183-86

Akmonia, AD 14-37, to Tiberius Caesar. Drew-Bear

1978: 1-14, no. 6

Denizli ili, AD 41-54, to Augusti and Claudius. Malay 1994: 183, no. 26

Aizanoi, AD 53/54 (or AD 107/108), to Zeus, Augusti and Demos. W?rrle 1995: 68-75

Anazarbos, 1-2C AD, Theos [Olybjris. Sayar 2000: no. 34

Hadrianoi, AD 117-138, to Demeter and Hadrian;

?cofiov TTEpiGG?TEUKTOV ?y?aov 6' ?'So?; the

bomos and edos are probably separate elements.

Schwertheim 1987: no. 72

Rhodian Peraia, AD 163, to M. Aurelius and L. Verus.

Bl?mel 1991: no. 514

Erythrai, ND, to Dionysos and Demos. Vannlioglu 1981:

47-48, no. 2

Mylasa, ND, to emperor and Zeus in honour of athlete.

Bl?mel 1987: no. 403

Flaviopolis? (Cilicia), ND, to the victory of the gods.

Dagron, Marcillet-Jaubert 1978: 389, no. 19

Table 2a. Rectangular funerary altars called ?conoc Hadrianeia, early Imp. Schwertheim 1987: no. 151

Nikaia, 1-2C AD. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1248

Prusa ad Olympum, AD 98-117?, deceased died in Syria. Corsten 1991: no. 98

Dion (Macedonia), late l-mid-2 C AD. Horsley 1994:

209-19

Alexandria Troas, 2C AD, upper part of bomos only. Riel

1997: no. 104

Hadrianoi, 2C AD, ofjiacx te Kai ?coiaov, described as

altar-shaped stele. Schwertheim 1987: no. 91

Nikaia, 2C AD. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1296

Arykanda, prob. 2C AD, dished top with central boss.

?ahin 1994: no. 136

Ikonion, 2 CAD, tt\v ?apvaKa Kai t?v ?coiaov. McLean 2002: no. 52

Ikonion, 2C AD, to tt??to o?v tco etteotcoIti]

?coiacp. McLean 2002: no. 65

Nikaia, 2-3C AD. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1316

Hadrianeia, 2-3C AD. Schwertheim 1987: no. 168

Ikonion, 2-3C AD, ?iToirioa ?auTcb ti^v ?apvaKa, Kai ?coiaov ?v?oTT?oa ?auTcb Kai tt\ yuvaiK? Hou. McLean 2002: no. 50 (= Brixhe 1997: no. 2)

Ikonion, 2-3C AD, Tf]v ?apvaKa Kai [t]?v ?coiaov. McLean 2002: no. 58

Eumenia (Phryg.), late 2-early 3C AD; with akroteria.

MAMA 4: no. 340

Herakleia (Phryg.), Imp. MAMA 6: no. 133

Ankyra, Imp. Mitchell 1977: no. 14

Nikomedeia, Imp.; two bomoi. Robert 1979: BE no. 558

Bolu ili, Imp. ?ahin 1978a: 55-56, no. 6

Nikaia, Imp. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1294

Afyon ili, Imp. French 1990: 53-54

Laodikeia/Lykos, Imp. Corsten 1997: no. 114

Ikonion, Imp., tt\v ?apvaKa Kai t?v ?coiaov. McLean

2002: no. 53

Ikonion, Imp., tt\v ?cc[p]vaKa Kai t?v ?coHOv. McLean 2002: no. 54

Ikonion, Imp., tt\v ?apvaKa Ka\ t?v ?coiaov. McLean

2002: no. 55

Ikonion, Imp., tt\v ?apvaKa o?[v] tco ?cojacp. McLean 2002: no. 61

Ikonion, Imp., [t]t\v ?apvaKa Kai t?v ?coiaov. McLean 2002: no. 62

Ikonion, Imp., t?iv ?apvaKa Kai t?v ?coiaov. McLean

2002: no. 63

Ikonion, Imp., [t]t)V ?apvaKa Kai t?v ?conov. McLean 2002: no. 72

Nikaia, ND. K?ova Kai ?coiaov lavi?iaris X^piv. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1307

Nikaia, ND. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1320

Saittai, ND. Bakir-Barthel, M?ller 1979: 191-93, no. 49

Hadrianoi, ND. Schwertheim 1987: no. 72

147

Anatolian Studies 2005

Hadrianeia, ND. Schwertheim 1987: no. 163

Ephesos, ND; lower part of 'base'. Knibbe et al. 1989:

235-36, no. 69

Arykanda, soon after AD 212. ?ahin 1994: no. 139

Hadrianoi, 3C AD. Schwertheim 1987: no. 66

Aizanoi, first half of 3C AD. Lehmler, W?rrle 2002: no.

10

Apameia (Phryg.), Aur. N. MAMA 6: no. 204

Kilbianoi (nr Ephesos), Aur. N. Meri? et al. 1981: no.

3712

Table 2b. Round funerary altars called ?coiioc

Kos, before ca. 50 BC. Berges 1996: 114, no. 16

Kibyra, 1-2C AD. Corsten 2002: nos 153,164, 227, 271

Anazarbos, 1-2C AD; small round bomos. Sayar 2000:

no. 595

Mopsuestia, 1-2C AD, t? lavriiaE?ov o?v tco ?coiacp.

Dagron, Feissel 1987: 89-91, no. 46

Hadrianoplis (Bith.), after AD 130. ?ahin 1978a: 50-52, no. 2

Magnesia ad Sipylum, AD 166/167 or 221/222. Malay 1994: no. 243

Kibyra, AD 207/208. Corsten 2002: no. 282

Mylasa, Imp. Bl?mel 1995: 41-43, no. 4

Kibyra, Imp. Bean 1956: no. 28

Kibyra, Imp. Corsten 2002: nos 200,218,219,284,375?, 401?

Anazarbos, Imp. Sayar 2000: no. 621

Arsada (Lycia), ND. Naour 1977: no. 8

Balboura, ND. CIG 3: 4380 1

Boubon?, ND. Naour 1976: no. 2

Kibyra, ND. Naour 1976: no. 18

Kibyra, AD 259. Corsten 2002: no. 261

Kibyra, 3C AD. Corsten 2002: nos 136, 347, 401?

Table 3a. Rectangular bomoi with akroteria as votive

altars

Pergamon, late 3C BC, to King Attalos I. Fr?nkel 1890:

no. 43

Delos, 2C BC, to Serapis, Isis and Anoubis, and to other

gods; 10 altars, horns sometimes made separately. Deonna 1934: 381-83

Tymandos, 1-2C AD, to Hercules. MAMA 4: no. 231

Nikaia, 1-2C AD, to Zeus. ?ahin 1981-1982: no 1055

Nikomedeia, AD 120/121, to Theoi Tembranoi. D?rner

1941: no. 46

Nikomedeia, AD 156/157, to Dioskouroi. D?rner 1941:

no. 36

Aizanoi, AD 195/196, to Zeus Bronton. MAMA 9: no. 50

Nikaia, prob. 2C AD, to Zeus. ?ahin 1981-1982: no.

1062

Nikaia, prob. 2C AD, to Zeus Bronton. ?ahin 1981

1982: no. 1089

Midas City, 2-3C AD, to Angdistis; five bomoi with

akroteria. MAMA 6: nos 390-96

Prusa ad Olympum, 2-3C AD, to Zeus. Corsten 1991:

no. 1016

Laodikeia Katakek., ca. AD 200, to Zeus. MAMA 1: no.

1

Laodikeia Katakek., Imp., to Sozon. MAMA 1: no. 8

Nikaia, Imp., to Zeus Bronton. ?ahin 1981-1982: no.

1092

Nikaia, Imp., perh. 3C AD, to Apollo. ?ahin 1981-1982:

no. 1034

Laodikeia Katakek., ND, to Zeus. MAMA 1: no. 3

Laodikeia Katakek., ND, to Zeus. MAMA 1: no. 4

Laodikeia Katakek., ND, to Apollo. MAMA 1: no. 9

Dorylaion, ND, to Meter Akreane. MAMA 5: no. 7

Dorylaion, ND, to Zeus. MAMA 5: no. 12

Laodikeia Katakek., ND, to Herakles. MAMA 1: no. 3

Hadrianopolis, ND, to Herakles. MAMA 1: no. 131

Hadrianopolis, ND, not certainly votive. MAMA 1: no.

139

Orkistos, ND, God Papias. MAMA 1: no. 303

Phrygian-Galatian borders, ND, Zeus. MAMA 1: no. 453

Lystra, ND, to Hermes. MAMA 8: no. 1

Nikomedeia, ND, to Zeus; akroteria probable. D?rner

1941: no. 37

Nikomedeia, ND, to Theos Preietos. D?rner 1941: no. 39

Tymandos, Aur. N., to Dioskouroi. MAMA 4: no. 228

Tymandos, Aur. N., to Men. MAMA 4: no. 230

Perta, Aur. N., not certainly votive? MAMA 8: no. 260

Synaos, AD 221/222, to Theos Hypsistos; akroteria

probable. MAMA 10: no. 435

Kotiaion, AD 254, to Theos Hypsistos. MAMA 10: no.

261

Nikaia, 3C AD, to Asklepios and Hygieia. ?ahin 1981

1982: no. 1044

Nikaia, 3C AD, to Zeus Bronton. ?ahin 1981-1982: no.

1083 Laodikeia Katakek., AD 308-314, to the Augusti.

MAMA 1: no. 19

Nikaia, 4C AD, to Zeus Epouranios. ?ahin 1981-1982:

no. 1114

Table 3b. Rectangular bomoi with akroteria as

funerary altars

Tiberiopolis, 2C AD? MAMA 10: no. 512

Nikaia, 2C AD? ?ahin 1981-1982: 1461

Aizanoi, 2C AD?; twin bomoi. Lehmler, W?rrle 2002:

no. 26

Aizanoi, late 2C AD. Lehmler, W?rrle 2002: no. 21

Aizanoi, Imp. MAMA 9: no. 152

Dorylaion, Imp. MAMA 5: no. 128

Dorylaion, Imp. MAMA 5: no. 134

Nikomedeia, Imp. D?rner 1941: no. 89

148

Coulton

Lysias (Phryg.), Imp. MAMA 4: no. 118

Sidyma, Imp. TAM 2.1: 230

Laodikeia Katakek., Imp. MAMA 1: no. 41

Laodikeia Ketakek., Imp. MAMA 1: no. 94

Ikonion, Imp. McLean 2002: no. 74

Ikonion, Imp. McLean 2002: no. 91

Ikonion, Imp. McLean 2002: no. 92

Ikonion, Imp. McLean 2002: no. 119

Ikonion, Imp. McLean 2002: no. 169

Ikonion, Imp. McLean 2002: no. 177

Kotiaion, ND. MAMA 10: no. 321

Synaos, ND. MAMA 10: no. 422

Synaos, ND. MAMA 10: no. 432

Tiberiopolis, ND. MAMA 10: no. 485

Tiberiopolis, ND. MAMA 10: no. 486

Tiberiopolis, ND. MAMA 10: no. 487

Eumenia (Phryg.), ND. MAMA 4: no. 346

Tiberiopolis, AD 112/113; tiny akroteria. MAMA 10: no.

492

Tiberiopolis, ND. MAMA 10: no. 502

Hadrianeia, ND. Schwertheim 1987: no. 152

Hadrianeia, ND. Schwertheim 1987: no. 175

Hadrianeia, ND. Schwertheim 1987: no. 182

Nikaia, ND. ?ahin 1981-1982: 1477

Nikomedeia, ND. D?rner 1941: no. 110

Nikomedeia, ND. D?rner 1941: no. 113

Laodikeia/Lykos, 2-3C AD. Corsten 1997

Sidyma, ND. TAM 2.1:231

Sidyma, ND. TAM 2.1: 233

Sidyma, ND. TAM 2.1: 237

Sidyma, ND. TAM 2.1: 238

Termessos, ND; hollowed top. TAM 3.1: 330

Dorylaion, Aur. N. MAMA 5: no. 106

Kotiaion, Aur. N. MAMA 10: no. 311

Termessos, Aur. N.; hollowed top. TAM 3.1: 333

Laodikeia Katakek., Aur. N. MAMA 1: nos 1, 55, 265

Laodikeia Katakek., Aur. N. MAMA 1: no. 262

Laodikeia Katakek., Aur. N. MAMA 1: no. 263

Pissia, Aur. N. MAMA 1: no. 264

Pissia, Aur. N. MAMA 1: no. 278

Eumenia (Phryg.), soon after AD 230. MAMA 4: no. 338

Akmonia, AD 255/256. MAMA 6: no. 325

Appia, second half of 3C AD. MAMA 10: no. 134

Appia, perh. AD 305-315. MAMA 10: no. 169

Table 3c. Rectangular bomoi with akroteria as statue

bases

Hadrianoi, late 1C BC, local seer. Schwertheim 1987: no.

24

Prusa ad Olympum, lC-early 2C AD, local ?lite. Corsten

1991: no. 22

Prusa ad Olympum, 1-2C AD, local ?lite. Corsten 1991:

no. 28

Nikaia, AD 114-117?, to Roman official. ?ahin 1981

1982: no. 1204

Pergamon, AD 117-138, local ?lite. Habicht 1969: no. 55

Pergamon, AD 117-138, Hadrian. Habicht 1969: no. 6

Prusa ad Olympum, AD 123-131/132, Hadrian. Corsten

1991: no. 5

Prusa ad Olympum, AD 123-132, local priest. Corsten

1991: no. 19

Nikaia, first half of 2C AD, to Roman official. ?ahin 1981-1982: no. 1205

Melli, AD 138-161, to Antoninus Pius, but foot holes for

statue. Horsley, Mitchell 2000: no. 149

Perge, Antonine, Apollo. ?ahin 1999a: no. 177

Tlos, mid-2C AD, local ?lite. TAM 2.2: no. 579

Kremna, mid-2C, local ?lite. Horsley, Mitchell 2000: no. 32

Prusa ad Olympum, 2C AD, local intellectual. Corsten

1991: no. 18

Ariassos, 2C-early 3C AD, boy athlete. Horsley, Mitchell 2000: no. 126

Anazarbos, 2-3C AD, local ?lite. Sayar 2000: no. 26

Ariassos, AD ca. 150-212, boy athlete. Horsley, Mitchell

2000: no. 127

Synnada, prob. AD 193-217, local ?lite. MAMA 6: no.

376

Ariassos, before AD 212, dead boy athlete. Horsley, Mitchell 2000: no. 130

Kadyanda, Imp., athlete. TAM 2.2: no. 682

Kadyanda, Imp., athlete. 7AM 2.2: no. 683

Perge, ND, athlete. ?ahin 1999a: no. 180

Pergamon, AD 211-217, Caracalla. Habicht 1969: no. 12

Nisa, AD 211-217, Caracalla. 7AM2.3: no. 738

Nikomedeia, after AD 212. D?rner 1941: no. 49

Prusa ad Olympum, Severan?, Roman legate. Corsten

1991: no. 12

Kremna, 3C AD, Roman official. Horsley, Mitchell 2000:

no. 26

Kadyanda, Aur. N., athlete. TAM 2.2: no. 685

Nisa, Aur. N., athlete. JAM2.3: no. 741

Synnada, Aur. N., local ?lite. MAMA 6: no. 377

Synnada, Aur. N., athletes. MAMA 6: no. 380

Table 4a. Statue bases called ?cojaos

Dionysopolis (Phrygia), 1C AD, Zeus?; to ?ya?iaa Kai

t?v ?coiaov o?v Trj ?TTOOKEurj TT?ori; on a rectan

gular bomos. MAMA 4: 265 (IGR 4: 766)

Ephesos, AD 98-117?, the gods; toc ?ya?iaaTa tcov

0EC?V Kai t?v ?coiaov; a shared base, or a separate altar? Engelmann et al. 1980a: no. 690

Ephesos, AD 107/108-109/110, all the gods;

aTTEiKov?oiaaTa [6]ecov 7TavTco<v>. . . . o?v t???

e?kooi ?[co]|aoi[c Kai] tco ?oittco TTavTi K?oiacp; on rectangular bomoi. Wankel 1979: no. 36a, 13

14, 21-22, compare nos 36b-d

149

Anatolian Studies 2005

Amastris, AD 117-138, satyr; t?v occTupov o?v tco

?coiacp ?v?6r|KEv; on lower part of rectangular bomos. Marek 1985: 133-34, no. 2

Laodikaia/Lykos, after AD 137, Hestia; 'EoT?av . . . o?v

Tr? ?aoEi Kai tco ?coiacp; on a rectangular block,

perhaps the step below a bomos. Corsten 1997: no.

65

Ephesos, Antonine?, Artemis Ephesia; ... to

?ya?iaa . . .o?v TravTi tco TTEpi a?T? K?oiacp

Ka\ t?v ?coiaov; on a round bomos; a separate altar or the statue's base? Engelmann et al. 1980b:

no. 1266

Thyateira, mid-2C AD, local ?lite; KaTaoKEu?oaoa

t?v ?coiaov Kai ?-rrioKEuaoaoa t?v ?vBpiavTa;

shape unknown. TAM 5.2: no. 974 (CIG 2: no.

3488) Laodikaia/Lykos, AD ca. 150-200, local ?lite; av?oTr|OE

[statue] o?v Tr? ?aoEi Kai tco ?coiacp; on a rectan

gular bomos. Corsten 1997: no. 51b

Aphrodisias, AD 150-200?, Asklepios and Hygeia; t?v 'AoK?riTTi?v Kai t?iv 'YyE?av o?v to??

?coiaoTc; on a rectangular bomos. Nutton 1977:

192, no. 1

Antioch, 2C AD?, relief of two women; t? ?ya?|aaTa Kai t?v ?coiaov ?Tro?r|oa; on a block with a relief, not appropriate to either of the items referred to.

Jarry 1982: 95-96, nos 41-42

Nikaia, AD 210, Zeus?; t?v ?coiaov Kai to ett' a?Tcp

aya?jaa; on a rectangular bomos. ?ahin 1981

1982: no. 1503

Aphrodisias, early 3C AD, local ?lite; Troir|oa|a?vou Se

Kai t?v ?coiaov a?Tcp Kai t? ?oitt? Trapa

?auTcp; on a rectangular bomos. Inan, Alf?ldi

Rosenbaum 1979: 210-13, no. 186

Ephesos, Imp., unknown; tt\v ??ETripiav Ka[\] Ta

tt?vte ?ya?jaaTa o?v to?? ?coiaoTc . . .; on a

rectangular bomos. Engelmann et al. 1980b: no.

1139

Ephesos, ND; t?v ?coiaov g?v tco ?tt' a?Tcp ?uavcp; words clear, but on a slab with a relief, not appro

priate to either of the items referred to. Meri? et al.

1981: (IEph 7.1) no. 3228

Nikaia, ND, Zeus?; t?v ?coiaov o?v tco ?ya?iaaTi; on

an 'ara'. TAM4.1: no. 57

Afyon ili, ND, Zeus and Apollo; t?v A?a ke t?v ?tt'

a?Tcp ?coiaov k? t?v ?v tco ?coiacp 'Att?aaovo

?v?6r|KEv; on the plinth of a statuette. Drew Bear

1993: 147-52

Apollonia, AD 222, small oxen dedicated to Zeus;

yEiap?Ta? Boio?? to?oS '?0?|ar|v ... o? |a?ya

Bcopov ?ycb t?v ?coiaov E?rjKa; on a rectangular

bomos, itself a significant part of the dedication.

MAMA 4: no. 140; Robert 1980: 244-45

Table 4b. Statue bases called ?coiiic

Pogla, AD 222-235, local benefactor; ccvSpi?oiv Tp?Giv [Kai ?co]|a?ioiv

. . . tcov ?v5piav[Tcov Ka]\ tcov

?coiaEi'Bcov; on a rectangular bomos. Bean 1960:

no. 105

Table 4c. Statue bases called ?aoic

Delos, 157/156 BC, Hestia; 'EoT?av . . . etti ?coiaioKou ?ioivou Ka6r|iaEvov Kai etti ?aoEcos ?ioivris; on

a stele; Hestia was probably shown sitting on an

altar (the bomiskos). ID: 1416 AI.83-84, 1417

BI.89-90

Delos, 146-144 BC, child; TraiS?ov xa^Kou[v] laiKpov etti ?aoEcos ?iBivris Kai ocpov5??[ou xa]^Ko?; on a stele. ID: 1442 A.79

Delos, after 166 BC, unknown; t? aya?iaa Kai tcc?

?aoEis ETTiGKEuaoa? ?v?6r|KEv; rectangular base.

ID: 1811

Larisa (Thess.), 150-130 BC, local ?lite; Tiiafjoai EKaOTOV a?Tcbv e?k?vi xa^Kcp ?9 ?ttttou . . .

yEvoia?vou tou ?vri?cojaaTo? eig t?? EiK?va? Kai tcc? ?aoEic ?tt? tcov ouv?Spcov; on a stele.

SEG 34: no. 588.64-65 (Gallis 1975: 176-78)

Miletos, Hellenistic, king; ?ya?iaaTa cxKE[p]aia ?

EOTr|[KEv] etti ?aoEcoc; presumably a stele. CIG 2:

2860 1.3

Smyrna, IC AD, Men; Mriv?? ?ya?jaa etti ?aoEi

laapiaap?vri; regulations on a stele. Petzl 1987: no.

753 (Dittenberger 1915-1924: no. 996.15) Hamaxia (E Pamph.), 1C AD?, Hermes; tt\v ?ccoiv tou

'Epiaou Kai t?v 'Epjariv Ka\ to?? ?cojaouc Kai

TT]V TpaTTE?av; rectangular bomos. Mitford 1990:

2142, n. 43

Tralleis, AD 117-138, Nike; t?? ?' NE?Ka? o?v Ta??

?aoEoiv . . . ?v?6r|KEv; on a stele. CIG 2925

Marathon, ca. AD 150; e?v t? te ?TTi0r||aaTa tcov

laopcpcbv ?oivfj Ka\ aK?paia Kai t?

?TrooTriiaaTa t?? ?aoEic cb? ETTOir|6r|oav; inscribed herm. Ameling 1987: 159 (AD 33 1978 B:

55-56), compare IG 22: 13188-91, 13195-96, 13206-07

Hierapolis, ca. AD 150; to?? 'HpaK??a? o?v Ta??

?aoEoi EK tcov 18?COV ?v?6r)Ka; two fragmentary

rectangular bomoi. Ritti 1985: 87-88, no. 27

Alexandria (Egypt), AD 157/158; t?v ?vBpiccvTa o?v

Tfj ?aoEi ?v?9r|KE. Dittenberger 1903-1905: no.

705.6

Smyrna, prob. 2C AD; ?ya?iaa o?v ?aoEi ?pyup?r]

y?you laEOTrj; miniature bomos. Petzl 1987: no.

757

Kibyra, 2C AD; t?v ?vBpiavTa o?v ttj ?aoEi Kai Tfj

?TTOKEiia?vri ?tt? y?, oopcb; rectangular bomos

with cutting for statue. Corsten 2002: no. 106

150

Cou Iton

Skythopolis, late 2-3C AD; t? ?coSiov o?v ?aoEi; basalt slab. SEG 37: 1530 (Ovadiah, Roll) 1988

Arymaxa, Imp., unknown; o?v Ta?g TTEpiKEiia?vai?

Kpr]TTE?oiv Kai ?aaEOiv jaovo?i?oi? ei?

?vBpiavTas T?ooapEg; on a sarcophagus. TAM

2.1: 157

Mylasa, ND, divinity; ?vSpa? 5?o ja?v o?tive? TToirioovTai tt)V ?ySooiv tou te ?ya?iaaTo? Kai Tfjg TpaiT??ri?, 6?o 5? ??tive? ?yScoa[ou]oiv tt]v ?aoiv; shape unknown. Bl?mel 1987: no.

502.6

Idebessos, ND; o?v Trj TrapaKEiia?vr] ?r?oTcp ?aoi eig avoTaoiv

avSpiavTcov; on a sarcophagus base

with projecting pillars as statue bases. 7AM2.3: 846

Side?, ND; t]?v [av8p]iavTa . . . [o?v t]t? ?cxoEi;

rectangular bomos in two blocks with cutting for

statue. Tomaschitz 1998: no. 2a

Syedra, ND; tt)v 8e ?aoiv Ka\ to?? ?vSpiavTa? ?vEOTrioav; long block, probably part of long bomos base for two statues. Bean, Mitford 1970: no. 93

Boubon, 3C AD, Ares?; . . . t?v ?vBpiavTa laETa Tfj?

?aoEcos; 'statue base'. Milner 1998: no. 2;

compare Schindler 1972: no. 4

Table 4d. Statue bases called ?a9pov Attica, 416/415 BC, Athena and Hephaistos; Ka\

?apxGai to ?a?pov to?v ?ya?iaaToiv Kai t??

?upas; stele. IG f: 472.158

Athens, 399/398 BC, Athena; ?a?pov t? ?ya?MaTo?; stele. IG 22: 1388.65

Miletos and Smyrna, 289/288 BC, local ?lite; t? 5?

S?yiaa t?Se ?vaypayai e?? t? ?a?pov ttjs

eik?vo? tou 'iTTTTOKpaTou?; stele, fragment of

block. Friedrich 1908: no. 10.21-2; Petzl 1987: no.

577

Rhodes, ca. 280 BC, Rhodian diplomat; ?vr|?co|aa . . .

eis T?]v EiK?va Kai t?-?a?pov Kai tt]v ott??tiv;

shape unknown; since the stele is clearly separate from the image, the bathron may be too.

Engelmann, Merkelbach 1973: no. 119.9

Delos, 276 BC, unknown subject; t? KuiaccTia t? ?v tco ?a?pcp tcov ?ya?iaccTcov; stele. IG 11(2): 163 Ba.4

Table 4e. Statue bases called ?fjua Delos, ca. 104 BC, Isis?; vlo]i5i 'A?po8?T[r)] (to)

?fjiaa KaTcc TTp?oTayiaa ?v?orjKav; rectan

gular base, not certainly carrying a statue. ID: no.

2080

Ilion, soon after 280 BC, Antiochos I; E?]K?va xpvOTJv

??' ?ttttou . . . etti ?rmaToc tou ?eukou ?ioou;

shape unknown. Frisch 1975: no. 32.36

Smyrna, ca. 200 BC, Knidian benefactors; E?K?va

XaAKflv ett? ?riiaaToc jaapiaap?vou; on stele. Petzl 1987: no. 578

Pergamon, 167/166 BC, priestess; e?k?vi xa^Kflu .

Ka\ ?Tnypayai ett\ tou ?riiaaTog ?ti ... ; on a

round bomos. Fr?nkel 1890: no. 167.15

Metropolis, ca. 130 BC, benefactor; oTqoai 8' auTou

Ka\ EiK?va xa^Kfjv ett\ ?riiaaToc jaapiaapi'vou . . .

ccvaypacpr|Tco t?8e t? yriq)io|aa . . . etti

?r)|aaTo$; large block, probably the shaft of a

rectangular bomos. Dreyer, Engelmann 2002: A

37-38, 45-46

Kyme, after 130 BC, benefactor; Trap[oTa]oai 8[e

a?]Ta etti tco a?Tco ?aiaaToc Ka\ E?K?va

XG?K?av tco ??[|acp . . . ot?oei 8? tco TraTp?? a?Ta?

. . . EiK?va xa^K?av ?tti tco a?Tcp

?ajaaTos; rectangular shaft (of a tall bomos?).

Engelmann 1976: no. 13.4

Priene, after 129 BC; ETnypayai 8? Kai etti tcov

?riiaaTcov tcov oTaor)oo|a?vcov e?k?vcov ... ; on

wall blocks. Hiller von Gaertringen 1906: no.

108.325-26

Mylasa, 2C BC, local ?lite; [E?K?va xla^[Knv] etti

?riiaaToc ?eukou ??oou; on a block. Bl?mel 1987: nos 119.8-9

Priene, Hellenistic; ?iaoico? 8? Kai etti tou ?r]|aaToc tt\s ?vaTE[ori]oo|a?vr|s e?kovo? ... ; on a wall

block. Hiller von Gaertringen 1906: no. 104.15

16

Smyrna, IC AD?, god; eotiv a?T?? ? oe?? etti

?ruaaTos laapiaap?vou. ...

?ya?iaaTa ... ett\

?riiaaToc EiaTTEcpiEoia?va; shape unknown. Petzl

1987: no. 753 (Dittenberger 1915-1924: no. 996.8,

21) Pergamon, early Imp., local ?lite; [e?k?vi x<xak]??? . .

ccvayp?yai ei? OTrj?riv r\v TrapaoTf?oai tt? e?k?vi . . .

ETriypa?fjvai tou ?ruaaToc; on a stele.

Fr?nkel 1895: no. 252.40

Compare Athens, first half of 4C BC, tripods; tco

Tp?TTo8i ?K?oTcoi ?flfaa TToifjoai. IG 2 : 1665.3

Compare berna for pedestal of a column carrying a

statue: Klaros, ca. 130-120 BC, local ?lite; t? 8? i? tt\v ?K?va Kai t? ?fliaa Kai tt\v OTu?i8a

Trpo?ouAEuoai uiv ttiv ?ouAr]v, Ta?ai 8? t?v

Sfjiaov; large square bomos. Robert 1989: Inscr. A

V.48-49

Table 5. Ostothekai on, or probably on, bomoi called

?couoc Amastris, IC AD; t?v ?coiaov ke ttjv ?otoot?ktiv.

Kubi?ska 1997: no. 10

Nikomedeia, 2C AD; t?v ?coiaov o?v Tfj ootootikt). Kubi?ska 1997: no. 6

151

Anatolian Studies 2005

Bithynia, Imp.; t?v ?coiaov o?v Tfj ooto?t?kt]. Kubi?ska 1997: no. 7

Nikaia, Imp.; t?v ?coiaov Ka\ tt]v ?oto?t?ktiv. Kubi?ska 1997: no. 8

Ankyra, Imp.; t?v ?coiaov Kai tt)v ?tt' a?Tcp

?oto?t?ktiv. Kubi?ska 1997: no. 18

Nikomedeia, ND; t?v ?coiaov o?v ttj ?oto?t?kt]. Kubi?ska 1997: no. 4

Nikomedeia, ND; t?v ?coiaov o?v ttj ?oto?t?kt). Kubi?ska 1997: no. 5

Ankyra, ND; t?v ?coiaov Kai tt\v ev a?Tcp

?oto?t?ktiv. Kubi?ska 1997: no. 11

Ankyra, ND; t?v ?coiaov o?v ttj ?oto?t?kti. Kubi?ska

1997: no. 12

Ankyra, ND; t?v ?cou.ov Kai tt]v ?oto?t?ktiv. Kubi?ska 1997: nos 15-17

Thessalonike, AD 224/225; t?v ?cojaov Kai tt]v

?oto?t?ktiv. Kubi?ska 1997: no. 9

The form of nos 4-5 is known; no. 18 is unambiguous; nos

9-10 lack the bomos; no. 8 has, and no. 11 suggests, a different form from nos 4-5; and nos 6-7,12,15 17 are unillustrated. Nos 1-3 have a form compa rable to nos 4-5, but do not mention a ?coiaos.

Table 6a. Large funerary platforms called, or

probably called, ?couoc Note. All instances from Aphrodisias, Ephesos and

Hypaipa are on plain blocks, but the sense demands

a structure rather than a monolithic bomos. All

instances from Hierapolis are on large altar-shaped structures except nos 85,162 (on marble slabs), 100,

103 (on sarcophagi) and 193 (on a small bomos).

Aphrodisias, Imp.; ? ?coiaos Ka\ ai ?v a?Tcp ioc?oTai

Kai t? ETriKEiuivri oopo?. MAMA 8: no. 545

Aphrodisias, Imp.; Ta?? ?v tco ?co[u.cp Eioc?oTaig]. MAMA 8: no. 546

Aphrodisias, Imp.; ? ?coiaos Kai r| ETnKEiu.[?vr) oop?g. MAMA 8: no. 551

Aphrodisias, Imp.; ? ?coiaos Kai r| oop?c Kai a[?

Eioc?oTai. MAMA 8: no. 554

Aphrodisias, Imp.; ? ?co]u.os Kai ai ?v a?Tcp Eioc?oTai. MAMAS: no. 556a

Aphrodisias, Imp.; ? ?coiaos o?v Ta?? e?gc?otois Kai

ttj ETTiKEiiaEVT] Gopco. MAMA 8: no. 570

Ephesos, Imp.; o?ro? ? ?coiaoc Kai tcc ?Tr' a?Tcp

E?iaio?pia belong to X; on a block. Knibbe et al.

1993: 139, no. 47

Ephesos, Imp.; outo? ? ?coiaos Kafi] t\ kot' a?Tou

oop?s; slab. Merkelbach et al. 1980: no. 2207b

Hypaipa (nr Ephesos)?, Imp.; toutov t?v ?coiaov Kai

t?v ?v a?Tcp o?kov; slab. Meri? et al. 1981: no.

3866

Hierapolis, Imp.; ? ?coiaos Kai ai ?mKE?iaEvai oopo?. Judeich in Humann 1898: nos 178, 234

Hierapolis, Imp.; ? ?coiaos Kai f) ?TTiKEiuivri oop?s. Judeich in Humann 1898: nos 55a, 158, 209, 213, 293

Hierapolis, Imp.; r\ oop?s Kai ? ?TTOKE?iaEvos ?coiaos. Judeich in Humann 1898: no. 100

Hierapolis, Imp.; t? oop?s t? ?eukt? Ka\ ri Tra?ai? . . .

Kai ? ?coiaos ?cp' ou ?iT?KEivTai. Judeich in

Humann 1898: no. 261

Hierapolis, Imp.; r? oop?s Kai ? utt' a?Triv ?coiaos. Judeich in Humann 1898: no. 265

Hierapolis, Imp.; x] oop?s Ka\ ? TTEp\ a?TT]v ?coiaos. Judeich in Humann 1898: no. 307

Hierapolis, Imp.; ?TT??r|KE tco ?coiacp oop?v. Judeich in

Humann 1898: no. 339

Nikomedeia, Imp.; t?v Troia?ov o?v tco uttokeiu?vco

?coiacp; on a sarcophagus on a large altar-shaped

platform. D?rner 1941: no. 78, pi. 4.3

Hierapolis, ND; ? ?coiaos Kai ai ?iTiKEliaEvai oopo?. Judeich in Humann 1898: no. 84

Hierapolis, ND; ? ?cou.os Ka\ r\ ?Tr' auTou oop?s. Judeich in Humann 1898: no. 193

Hierapolis, ND; t?v ?coiaov Kai tt?v kot' auTou

oop?v. Judeich in Humann 1898: no. 59

Hierapolis, 3C AD; ? ?coiaos Kai ai ?TTiKE?|a?vai oopo?. Judeich in Humann 1898: no. 52

Hierapolis, Aur. N.; ? ?coiaos Ka\ ai ?TTiKE?iaEvai oopo?. Judeich in Humann 1898: nos 85, 162, 211

Hierapolis, Aur. N.; ? ?coiaos Kai r? ?TTiKEiuivri oop?s. Judeich in Humann 1898: nos 103, 303

Ephesos, Aur. N.; ? ?coiaos Kai r\ Kaf <auT>ou oop?s Kai ai 8?o ?oTo6r|Kai

... ; on a sarcophagus.

Knibbe 1972-1975: 66, no. 5

Hierapolis, Aur. N.; ? ?coiaos Kai t? ?TTOKE?iaEVOv

??|aa o?v tt\ ?TriKEiuivr) oopcp. Judeich in

Humann 1898: no. 113

Termessos, Aur. N.; ?cou.ov koi KpETTE?8a to be for the

sarcophagi of self and children; on large platform

(KpriTT?s). TAM 3.1: no. 623

Termessos, Aur. N.; nobody to move sarcophagus from

the ?cojaos. TAM3.1: no. 814

Table 6b. Words related to ?couoc, implying, or

perhaps implying, a large funerary platform ?

Bcoua's

Perge, Imp.; tt\v ?]cou.Ei8a u.et? koi cxvyE?ou

TTpoKovvr|o?ou ?auTrj [\?vr\; on a sarcophagus.

Mansel, Akarca 1949: no. 4

Perge, Imp.; to ccvyE?ov Kai f] ?coiaEis Kai ? TTEpi a?T? t?ttos ?oTi KaiKi?ias; on a sarcophagus.

Mansel, Akarca 1949: no. 13

152

Coulton

? BcoiaiK?s

Kibyra, 1-2C AD; tt]v oop?v . . . o?v tco uttokeiu?vco

?coiaiKcb; on sarcophagus lid. Corsten 2002: no.

147

Kibyra, 1-2C AD; o?v tco ?TTOKEiia?vcp EVTrpoo?EV tou ?coiaiKo? okcp; on round bomos. Corsten

2002: no. 151

Kibyra, 1-2C AD; t?iv oop?v g?v tco ?coiaiKcp Epycp; on a cornice. Corsten 2002: no. 369

Kibyra, AD 195/196; t? 8?co ?coiaiKcx javriiaE?a for

man, his brother, and brother's wife; on round

bomos. Corsten 2002: no. 254

Table 7. Column pedestals called ?coiioc,

?couooTTEipov

Ephesos, AD 54-59; ke?ovos ?' tous Trapa t?

2a|ao?pccKiv o?v to?s ?TTOKEiuivois ?conois; on

a stele. Wankel 1979: no. 20

Side, high Imp.; t?[v KE?]ova g?v t[co ?coiacp (?) Kai]

tco OTTEipoKE?a?cp (uncertain occurrence); on

fragments of a low plinth. Nolle 2001: no. 162

Aphrodisias, 2C or early 3C AD; tous KE?ovas u.et?c

tcov ?coiaoGTTEipcbv

Kai KEcpa?cbv; on a rectan

gular bomos base. CIG 2: 2782

Hypaipa (nr Ephesos), ND; tous S?o ke?oves g?[v]

?oiaooTTEipois Kai KE?a?a?s; on a block. Meri? et

al. 1981: no. 3851

Hypaipa (nr Ephesos), ND; tous S?o ke?oves g?v

?co|a[ois] Kai oTTE?pais Kai KE?a?a?s; on an

architrave block. Meri? et al. 1981: no. 3852

Tyana, ND; t? TrpOTTu?ov o?v Ta?s TrapaoT?oiv Kai

to?s ?cojaoTs (pedestals or votive altars?); on a

round bomos. Berges, Noll? 2000: no. 39

Hypaipa (nr Ephesos), Aur. N.; r? oop?s o?v tco

?coiaooTTEipcp on a sarcophagus; not a column

pedestal here, but perhaps equivalent to o?v tco

?coiacp in table 6a. Meri? et al. 1981: no. 3828

Uncertain location, second half of 4C AD; ?cou.oEi8ETs

oTTE?pas aTraiTE? t? ?'pyov; below Corinthian

columns in a church. Gregory of Nyssa: Ep. 25

Constantinople, ca. AD 575; k?ovos i8pu??vTos

?O??oTcp etti ?coiacp; eight octagonal bomoi below

the columns of a pulpit. Paulus Silentarius, Ambon

148-62, esp. 160

Bibliography Abbreviations

CIG = A. Boeckh, et al. (eds) 1828-1877: Corpus

Inscriptionum Graecorum. Berlin

ID = Inscriptions de D?los. Paris 1926- ; nos 1497

2879: P. Roussel, M. Launey (eds). Paris. 1937

IG - Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin. 1873- ; I 1981

1998; 221913-1940; 11(2) 1912 IK = Inschriften der griechischen St?dten Kleinasiens

LIMC - Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zurich, Munich. 1981-1999

LSJ = Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon.

Rev. H. Stuart Jones, R. McKenzie. Oxford. 1940

MAMA - Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. 1: W.M.

Calder (ed.), Eastern Phrygia. Manchester. 1928; 3:

J. Keil, A. Wilhelm (eds), Denkm?ler aus dem

rauhen Kilikien. Manchester. 1931; 4: W.H.

Buckler, W.M. Calder, W.K.C. Guthrie, Monuments

and Documents from Eastern Phrygia and Western

Galatia. Manchester. 1933; 5: C.W. Cox, A.

Cameron, Monuments from Dorylaeum and

Nacolea. Manchester. 1937; 6: W.H. Buckler, W.M.

Calder, Monuments from Phrygia and Caria.

Manchester. 1939; 7: W. Calder (ed.), Monuments

from Eastern Phrygia. Manchester. 1956; 8: W.M.

Calder, J.M.R. Cormack (eds), Monuments from

Lycaonia, the Pisido-Phrygian Borderland, Aphro disias. Manchester. 1962; 9: B. Levick, S. Mitchell, J. Potter, M. Waelkens (eds), Monuments from the

Aezanitis Recorded by C. W. Cox, A. Cameron andJ.

Cullen. London. 1988; 10: B. Levick, S. Mitchell, J.

Potter, M. Waelkens (eds), Monuments from the

Upper Tembris Valley, Cotiaeum, Cadi, Synaus,

Ancyra and Tiberiopolis Recorded by C. W.M. Cox, A. Cameron andJ. Cullen. London. 1993

SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

TAM- TituliAsiae Minoris. Vienna: 2.1 E. Kaiinka (ed.),

1920; 2.2 E. Kaiinka (ed.), 1930; 2.3 E. Kalinka

(ed.), 1944; 3.1 R. Heberdey (ed.), 1941; 4.1 EC.

D?rner (ed.), 1978; 5.2 P. Herrmann (ed.), 1989

Adam-Velene, P. 2002: MaKE8oviKoi ?coiaoi* tiuxitiko? Kai TacpiKo? ?coiaoi auTOKpaTopiKc?v xp?vcov OTT] ?EGGa?OV?KTl TTpcOTEUOUOa TT]S ETTapXl'aS

Tris MaKE8ov?as Kai ott\ B?poia TrpcoTE?ouoa tou koivo? tcov MaKES?vcov. Athens

Aharoni, Y. 1974: 'The horned altar of Beersheba'

Biblical Archaeologist 37: 2-6

Aktseli, D. 1996: Alt?re in der archaischen und

klassischen Kunst: Untersuchungen zu Typologie und Ikonographie. Espelkamp

Altmann, W. 1905: Die r?mischen Grabalt?re der

Kaiserzeit. Berlin

153

Anatolian Studies 2005

Amandry, P. 1977: 'Tr?pieds d'Ath?nes 2: Tharg?lies' Bulletin de Correspondance Hell?nique 101: 165

202

Ameling, W. 1987: 'Eine neue Fluchinschrift des

Herodes Atticus' Zeitschrift fir Papyrologie und

Epigraphik 70: 159

Bakir-Barthel, S., M?ller, H. 1979: 'Inschriften aus der

Umgebung von Saittai: 2' Zeitschrift f?r

Papyrologie und Epigraphik 36: 163-94

Bean, G.E. 1956: 'Notes and inscriptions from the

Cibyratis and Caralitis' Annual of the British School

at Athens 51: 136-56 ? 1960: 'Notes and inscriptions from Pisidia II'

Anatolian Studies 10: 43-82 ? 1971: Journeys in Northern Lycia 1965-1967 (7AM

Erg?nzungsband 4). Vienna

Bean, G.E., Mitford, T.B. 1970: Journeys in Rough Cilicia 1964-1968 (TAM Erg?nzungsband 3). Vienna

Berges, D. 1986: Hellenistische Rundalt?re Kleinasiens.

Freiburg ? 1996: Rundalt?re aus Kos und Rhodos. Berlin

Berges, D., Nolle, J. 2000: Tyana; Arch?ologische Unter

suchungen zum s?dwestlichen Kappadokien, IK

55.1-2. Bonn

Bl?mel, W. 1987: Die Inschriften von Mylasa 1. Die

Inschriften der Stadt, IK 34. Bonn ? 1991: Die Inschriften der rhodischen Peraia, IK 38.

Bonn

Bl?mel, C. 1995: 'Inschriften aus Karien' Epigraphica Anatolica 25: 35-64

Boardman, J. 1978: Greek Sculpture: the Archaic Period:

A Handbook. London ? 1985: Greek Sculpture: the Classical Period: A

Handbook. London ? 1995: Greek Sculpture: the Late Classical Period and

Sculpture in Colonies and Overseas: A Handbook.

London

B?rker, C, Merkelbach, R. 1980: Die Inschriften von

Ephesos 5, IK 15. Bonn

B?schung, D. 1987: Antike Grabalt?re aus den

Nekropolen Roms. Bern

Brixhe, C. 1997: 'Deux ?pitaphes de Phrygie et de

Lycaonie' Poikila Epigraphika. Etudes

d Arch?ologie Classique 9: 59-65

Bruneau, P. 1970: Recherches sur les cultes de D?los ?

V?poque hell?nistiqe et ? V?poque imp?riale. Paris

Bulle, H. 1898: Griechische Statuenbasen: Skizze zu

einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der antike Posta

mentformen. Munich

Burkert, W. 1985: Greek Religion: Archaic and

Classical. Oxford

Chaisemartin, N. de 1989: 'Le "Portique de Tib?re" ?

Aphrodisias: Probl?mes d'identification et de

fonction' Revue des Etudes Anciennes 91.2: 23-45

Chantraine, P. 1968-1980: Dictionnaire ?tymologique de

la langue grecque. Paris

Coarelli, F. 1972: 'Il sepolcro degli Scipioni' Dialoghi di

Archeologia 6: 36-106

Corsten, T. 1991: Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum

1, IK 39.1. Bonn ? 1997: Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos 1, IK

49. Bonn ? 2002: Die Inschriften von Kibyra 1: Die Inschriften der

Stadt und ihrer n?heren Umgebung, IK 60. Bonn

Corsten, T., Drew Bear, T., ?zsait, M. 1998:

'Forschungen in der Kibyratis' Epigraphica Anatolica 30: 47-80

Couilloud-Le Dinahet, M.T. 1991: 'Autels monolithes et

monolitho?des de D?los' in R. Etienne, M.-T. Le

Dinahet, UEspace sacrificiel dans les civilisations

m?diterran?ennes de l Antiquit?. Paris: 109-20

Currie, B. 2002: 'Euthymos of Locri: a case study in

heroization in the Classical period' Journal of Hellenic Studies 120: 24-44

Dagron, G., Feissel, D. 1987: Inscriptions de Cilicie.

Paris

Dagron, G., Marcillet-Jaubert, J. 1978: 'Inscriptions de

Cilicie et d'Isaurie' Belleten 42: 373-420

Daux, G., Hansen, E. 1987: Fouilles de Delphes 2: Le

Tr?sor de Siphnos. Paris

De Cesare, M. 1997: Le statue in immagine: studi sulle

raffigurazioni di statue nella pittura vascolare

greca. Rome

Deonna, W. 1934: 'Mobilier d?lien II: bomoi

keraioukhoi' Bulletin de Correspondance

Hell?nique 58: 391-47

Dittenberger, W. 1903-1905: Orientis Graeci Inscrip tions Selectae. Lepzig

? 1915-1924: Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (third

edition). Leipzig

D?rner, F.K. 1941: Inschriften und Denkm?ler aus

Bithynien (Istanbuler Forschungen). Berlin

Dr?ger, O. 1994: Religionem significare: Studien zu reich

verzierten r?mischen Alt?ren und Basen. Mainz

Drew Bear, T. 1972a: 'Some Greek words; part I' Glotta

50: 61-96 ? 1972b: 'Some Greek words; part II' Glotta 50: 182

228 ? 1978: Nouvelles inscriptions de Phrygie. Zutphen ? 1993: 'Afyon M?zesi'nde bir heykel definesi'

Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 10: 147-52

Drew-Bear, T, Naour, C. 1990: 'Divinit?s de Phrygie'

Aufstieg und Niedergang des r?mischen Welts

2.18.3. Berlin: 1906-2044

154

Coulton

Dreyer, B., Englemann, H. 2002: Die Inschriften von

Metropolis 1: Die Dekrete f?r Apollonios, IK 63.

Bonn

Ebert, F. 1910: Fachausdr?cke des griechischen Bauhandwerks 1 : Der Tempel. W?rzburg

Engelmann, H. 1976: Die Inschriften von Kyme, IK 5.

Bonn

Engelmann, H., Knibbe, D., Merkelbach, R. 1980a: Die

Inschriften von Ephesos 3, IK 13. Bonn ? 1980b: Die Inschriften von Ephesos 4, IK 14. Bonn

Engelmann, H., Merkelbach, R. 1973: Inschriften von

Erythrai, IK 1-2. Bonn

Erim, K.T. 1986: Aphrodisias, City of Venus Aphrodite. London

Esp?randieu, E. 1907- : Recueil g?n?ral des bas-reliefs, statues et bases de la Gaule romaine. Paris

Etienne, R. 1991: 'Espaces sacrificiels et autels d?liens'

in R. Etienne, M.-T. Le Dinahet, L'Espace sacri

ficiel dans les civilisations m?diterran?ennes de

l Antiquit?. Paris: 75-84

Fraenkel, M. 1890: Altert?mer von Pergamon 8.1: Die

Inschriften von Pergamon: Bis zum Ende der

K?nigszeit. Berlin ? 1895: Altert?mer von Pergamon 8.2: Die Inschriften

von Pergamon: R?mische Zeit, Inschriften aus

Thon. Berlin

Fraser, P.M. 1977: Rhodian Funerary Monuments.

Oxford

Frei, P. 1993: 'Epigraphisch-topographische Forsch

ungen in Eski?ehir' Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 11: 123-28

French, D.H. 1990: 'The definition of territory:

Cappadocia' in O. Pelon (ed.), La Cappadoce m?ridionale jusqu' ? la fin de V?poque romaine.

Geneva: 49-59 ? 1996: Amasian notes 4: cults and divinities: the

epigraphic evidence' Epigraphica Anatolica 26:

87-98

Friedrich, C. 1908: 'Die Inschriften' in H. Knackfuss, Milet 1.4: Das Rathaus von Milet. Berlin: 100-22

Frisch, P. 1975: Die Inschriften von Ilion, IK 3. Bonn

Gauthier, P. 1996: 'Un bienfaiteur du gymnase au Let?on

de Xanthos' Revue des Etudes Grecques 109: 1-27

Ginouv?s, R. 1992: Dictionnaire m?thodique de Varchi

tecture grecque et romaine 2: El?ments constructifs,

supports, couvertures, am?nagements int?rieures.

Paris

Glare, P.G.W. 1982: Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford

Gounaropoulou, L., Chatzopoulos, M.B. 1998:

ETTiypa?Es kcxtco MokeSov?os A. ETnypacp?s

BEpoias. Athens

Gitin, S. 1989: 'Incense altars from Ekron, Israel and

Judah' Eretz-Israel 20: 52*-67*

G?nther, W. 1985: 'Inschriften von Didyma' Istanbuler

Mitteilungen 35: 181 -93

Habicht, C. 1969: Altert?mer von Pergamon 8.3: Die

Inschriften des Aklepieions. Berlin

Halfmann, H., Schwertheim, E. 1986: 'Neue Inschriften

aus Paphlagonien und Bithynien' Epigraphica Anatolica 8: 129-32

Hall, A.S. 1986: 'RECAM notes and studies no. 9: the

Milyadeis and their territory' Anatolian Studies 36:

137-57

Hellmann, M.-C. 1992: Recherches sur le vocabulaire de

Varchitecture grecque d'apr?s les inscriptions de

D?los. Paris

Hermann, W. 1961: R?mische G?tteralt?re. Berlin

Herrman, P. 2000: 'Eine ber?hmte Familie in Teos' in C.

I?ik (ed.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur

Kleinasiens und der ?g?ischen Bereiches:

Festschrift f?r Baki ?g?n (Asia Minor Studien 39). Bonn: 87-89

Hiller von Gaertringen, F. 1906: Inschriften von Priene.

Berlin

Horsley, G.R.H. 1994: 'A bilingual funerary monument

in Kiovr|8?v form from Dion in northern Greece'

Chiron 24: 209-19 ?

forthcoming: The Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the

Burdur Archaeological Museum (BIAA Monograph

34). London

Horsley, G.R.H., Kearsley, R.A. 1997: A paramone text

on a family bomos at Burdur Museum' Anatolian

Studies 47: 51-55

Horsley, G.H.R., Mitchell, S. 2000: The inscriptions of Central Pisidia, IK 57. Bonn

Humann, C. 1898: Altert?mer von Hierapolis. Berlin

??ten, C, Engelmann, H. 1992: 'Inschriften aus Ephesos und Umgebung' Zeitschrift f?r Papyrologie und

Epigraphik 91: 283-95

inan, J., Alf?ldi-Rosenbaum, E. 1979: R?mische und

fr?hbyzantinische Portr?tplastik aus der T?rkei; neue Funde. Mainz

Ito, J. 2002: Architectural Studies of the Three Grave

Monuments in the Gymnasium Complex at

Ancient Messene: Preliminary Report.

Kumamoto, Japan

Jacob-Felsch, M. 1969: Die Entwicklung griechischer Statuenbasen. Waldsassen

Jarry, J. 1982: 'Nouvelles inscriptions de Syrie du Nord'

Zeitschrift f?r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 47: 73

103

Jerphanion, G. de, 1928: M?langes d'arch?ologie anatolienne (= M?langes de l'Universit? Saint

Joseph 18). Beirut

Keil, J., Swoboda, H., Knoll, F. 1935: Denkm?ler aus

Lykaonien und Isaurien. Vienna

155

Anatolian Studies 2005

Knibbe, D. 1972-1975: 'Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos VI' Jahreshefte des ?sterreichischen arch?olo

gischen Instituts 50 Beibl: 57-66

Knibbe, D., Engelmann, H., Iplik?ioglu, B. 1989: 'Neue

Inschriften aus Ephesos XI' Jahreshefte des ?ster

reichischen arch?ologischen Instituts 59 Beibl:

161-238

Knibbe, D., Iplik?ioglu, B. 1981-1982: 'Neue

Inschriften aus Ephesos VIII' Jahreshefte des ?ster

reichischen arch?ologischen Instituts 53: 87-150

Kockel, V. 1983: Die Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner

Tor in Pompeji. Mainz

Kubi?ska, J. 1968: Les Monuments fun?raires dans les

inscriptions grecques d'Asie Mineure. Warsaw ? 1997: 'Les ostoth?ques dans les inscriptions grecques

d'Asie Mineure' Poikila Epigraphika; Etudes

d'Arch?ologie Classique 9: 7-58

Lehmler, C, W?rrle, M. 2002: 'Neue Inschriftenfunde

aus Aizanoi III: Aizanitica Minora I' Chiron 32:

571-646

Malay, H. 1994: 'New inscriptions from Phrygia (in the

Denizli Museum)' Arkeoloji Dergisi (Ege ?niver

sitesi) 2: 173-83

Mansel, A.M., Akarca, A. 1949: Perge'de Kazilar ve

Arastirmalar; Excavations and Researches at

Perge. Ankara

Marek, C. 1985: 'Katalog der Inschriften im Museum

vonAmasra' Epigraphica Anatolica 6: 133-56 ? 1993: Stadt, Ara und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynien

und Nord-Galatien. T?bingen ? 1997: 'Grab- Ehren- und Weihinschriften aus

Modrene' Epigraphica Anatolica 28: 81-84

Marksteiner, T, W?rrle, M. 2002: 'Ein Altar f?r Claudius

auf dem Bonda tepesi zwischen Myra und Limyra' Chiron 32: 545-69

McLean, B.H. 2002: Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the

Konya Archaeological Museum (BIAA Monograph

29). London

Meri?, R., Merkelbach, R., Nolle, J., ?ahin, S. 1981: Die

Inschriften von Ephesos 7.1-2, IK 17.1-2. Bonn

Merkelbach, R. 1980: Die Inschriften von Kalchedon, IK

20. Bonn ? 1984: Mithras. K?nigstein ? 1986: 'Ein Fest des Gottes Prietos' Epigraphica

Anatolica 1: 5-6

Merkelbach, R., Nolle, J. 1980: Die Inschriften von

Ephesos 6, IK 16. Bonn

Milner, N.P. 1998a: An Epigrahical Survey of the Kibyra Olbasa Region Conducted by A.S. Hall (BIAA

Monograph 24). London

Mitchell, S. 1977: 'RECAM notes and studies, no. 1:

inscriptions of Ancyra' Anatolian Studies 27: 63

104

Mitford, TB. 1990 'The cults of Roman Rough Cilicia'

Aufstieg und Niedergang des r?mischen Welts

2.18.3. Berlin: 2131-60

Naour, C. 1976: 'Inscriptions et reliefs de Cibyratide et

de Cabalide' Zeitschrift f?r Papyrologie und

Epigraphik 22: 109-36 ? 1977: 'Inscriptions de Lycie' Zeitschrift f?r

Papyrologie und Epigraphik 24: 265-90 ? 1980: Tyriaion en Cabalide, ?pigraphie, et

g?ographie historique. Zutphen

Nash, E. 1961: Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome.

London

Nolle, J. 2001: Side im Altertum 2, IK 44. Bonn

Nutton, V. 1977: 'Archiatri in the medical profession in

antiquity' Papers of the British School at Rome 45:

191-226

Orlandos, A. 1970: 'AvaGKacprj MEOGiivris' Praktika

tis en Athenais Ar chal?lo gikis Etaireias: 125-41

Orlandos, A.K., Travlos, J.N. 1986: AeCik?v tcov

apxoc?cov apxiTEKToviKc?v ?pcov. Athens

Ovadiah, A., Roll, I. 1988: 'A Greek dedicatory

inscription to Azizos' Israel Exploration Journal

38: 177-80

Pernier, L. 1935: 77 tempio e Valtare di Apollo a Cirene.

Bergamo

Petersen, E., von Luschan, F 1889: Reisen in Lykien,

Milyas und Kibyratis. Vienna

Petzl, G. 1987: Die Inschriften von Smyrna 1: Grabin

schriften, posthume Ehrungen, Grabepigramme, IK

23. Bonn

Pfuhl, E., M?bius, H. 1977-1979: Die ostgriechischen

Grabreliefs. Mainz

Picard, C. 1927: 'Notes d'arch?ologie grecque' Revue

des Etudes Anciennes: 241-85

Riel, M. 1997: The Inscriptions of Alexandria Troas, IK

53. Bonn

Ritti, T. 1979: 'Due iscrizioni di et? augustea da

Hierapolis' Epigraphica 41: 183-87 ? 1985: Fond letterarie ed epigrafiche. Rome

Robert, L. 1937: Etudes anatoliennes. Paris ? 1938: Etudes ?pigraphiques et philologiques. Paris ? 1950: 'Bulletin ?pigraphique' Revue des ?tudes

Grecques 1950: 120-220 ? 1965: Hellenica 13. Paris ? 1978a: 'Documents d'Asie Mineure 5. St?le fun?raire

de Nicom?die et s?ismes dans les inscriptions' Bulletin de Correspondance Hell?nique 102: 395

408 ? 1978b: 'Catalogue agonistique des Romaia de

Xanthos' Revue Arch?ologique: 277-90 ? 1979: 'Bulletin ?pigraphique' Revue des ?tudes

Grecques: 413-531 ? 1980: ? travers l'Asie Mineure. Paris

156

Coulton

? 1989: Claws I: D?crets hell?nistiques. Paris

Rumscheid, F. 1999: 'Vom Wachsen antiker Sa?len

w?lder. Zu Projektierung und Finanzierung antiker

Bauten in Westkleinasien und anderswo' Jahrbuch

des deutschen arch?ologischen Instituts 114: 19-63

?ahin, S. 1974: Neufunde von antiken Inschriften in

Nikomedeia (Izmit) und in der Umgebung der Stadt.

M?nster ? 1978a: Bithynische Studien. Bonn ? 1978b: 'Zeus Bennios' in S. ?ahin, E. Schwertheim,

J. Wagner (eds), Studien zur Religion und Kultur

Kleinasiens: Festschrift f?r F.K. D?rner. Leiden:

771-90 ? 1981-1982: Katalog der antiken Inschriften des

Museums von Iznik (Nikaia) II. 1-2, IK 10.1-2. Bonn ? 1986: 'Studien ?ber die Probleme der historischen

Geographie des nordwestlichen Kleinasien 1:

Strabon XIII.3.7 (p.543)' Epigraphica Anatolica 1:

125-52 ? 1991: 'Forschungen in Kommagene 1: Epigraphik'

Epigraphica Anatolica 18: 99-113 ? 1994: Die Inschriften vonArykanda, IK 48. Bonn ? 1999a: Die Inschriften von Perge 1, IK 54.1. Bonn

Salway, B. 2001: 'Travel, itineraria and tabellar?a' in C.

Adams, R. Laurence (eds), Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire. London, New York: 22-66

Sayar, M.H. 2000: Die Inschriften von Anazarbus und

Umgebung 1. Inschriften aus dem Stadtgebiet und

der n?chsten Umgebung der Stadt, IK 56.1. Bonn

Schindler, F. 1972: Die Inscriften von Boubon

(Nordlykien) (Sitzungsbericht Akad. Wien, phil hist. Klasse 278.3). Vienna

Schmidt, I. 1995: Hellenistische Statuenbasen. Frankfurt

Schraudolph, E. 1993: R?mische G?tterweihungen mit

Reliefschmuck aus Italien: Alt?re, Basen und

Reliefs. Heidelberg

Schwertheim, E. 1987: Die Inschriften von Hadrianoi

und Hadrianeia, IK 33. Bonn

Smith, R.R.R. 1991: Hellenistic Sculpture. London ? 1998: 'Cultural choice and political identity in

honorific portrait statues in the Greek East in the

second century AD' Journal of Roman Studies 88:

56-93

Soukiassian, G. 1983: 'Les autels "? cornes" ou "?

acrot?res" en Egypte' Bulletin de l'Institut

Fran?aise d'Arch?ologie Orientale 83: 317-33

Sterrett, J.R.S. 1888: The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor

(= ASCS Papers 3). Boston

Themeles, P. 2000: 'HpcoES Kai ripc?a otti Megot?vti

(Bi?Aio6r|Kr| Tris ?v A?rivais Apxouo?oyiKris

ETaipE?as 210). Athens

Tomaschitz, K. 1998: Unpublizierte Inschriften aus dem

Nachlass T.B. Mitford (ETAM 21). Vienna

Tsimpidou-Arvaniti, M. 1987: 'AvaoKa?iK?s ?pEUVEs ge TacpiKo?s TUja?ous tcov voiac?v ?EGoa

?ov?ktis Kai Xa?Ki8iKTis' To Ar chal?lo gikon

Ergon stin Makedonia kai Thraki 1: 261-68

Turcan, R. 1991: 'Les autels du culte mithra?que' in R.

Etienne, M.-T. Le Dinahet, L'Espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations m?diterran?ennes de

l'Antiquit?. Paris: 217-25

Vannhoglu, E. 1981: 'Inscriptions from Erythrae'

Zeitschrift f?r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 44: 45

50

Wagner, J. 1982: 'Neue Denkm?ler aus Doliche' Bonner

Jahrb?cher 182: 133-66

Wannagat, D. 1995: Saule und Kontext: Piedestale und

Teilkannelierung in der griechischen Architektur.

Munich

Wankel, H. 1979: Die Inschriften von Ephesos 1, IK

11.1. Bonn

Weiss, P. 1981: 'Ein agonistische Bema und die isopy thischen Spiele von Side' Chiron 11: 315-46

Wiemer, H.-U. 1998: 'Zwei Epigramme im

kaiserzeitlichen Sillyon' Epigraphica Anatolica 30:

149-52

W?rrle, M. 1988: Stadt und Fest in kaiserzeitlichen

Kleinasien (Vestigia 39). Munich ? 1995: 'Neue Inschriften aus Aizanoi' Chiron 25: 63

81

Yavis, CG. 1949: Greek Altars: Origins and Typology. Saint Louis

157