Inscriptions from the Middle
Strymon Region
Archaeologia Bulgarica
ХХIV, 2 (2020), 79-123
1
I do not repeat here the emendations pub-
lished in that article. However, some addition-
al notes to inscriptions from the corpus of G.
Mihailov are proposed in the present article as
well.
2
Henceforth quoted as ‘Manov’ followed
by the number of the inscription in the cata-
logue.
3
In some cases, the author gives the strange
explanation ‘липсват данни за размери’
(‘there is no information about the dimen-
sions’), which seems to suggest that he has not
examined these inscriptions personally, but
has published them using only photographs
or copies made by others.
(4th c. BC – 4th c. AD):
New Readings and Interpretations
Nicolay SHARANKOV
Abstract: The article proposes various revisions and corrections for inscriptions
from the Middle Strymon Valley which have been published after the fifth vol-
ume of G. Mihailov’s Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (1997). The notes
presented here are the result of the author’s examination of inscriptions kept at the
National History Museum in Sofia (NHM-Sofia), the Regional History Museum in
Blagoevgrad (RHM-Blagoevgrad), the Archaeological Museum in Sandanski (AM-
Sandanski), the History Museum in Petrich (HM-Petrich), and the archaeological
collections in Kresna and Strumyani. The more important new readings include
some inscriptions related to the early history of Neine (## 5, 9, 10, 59); a dedication
of statues of Isis and Serapis by an imaginifer of the First Italian Legion (# 22); an
inscription of two cavalrymen from a cohors Macedonica (# 61); a funerary inscrip-
tion for a soldier or veteran of the Ninth Legion (# 78); an invitation for gladiatorial
games in Parthicopolis (# 84a); etc.
Key words: Greek and Latin inscriptions, Hellenistic and Roman Macedonia, Heraclea
on the Strymon, Parthicopolis.
The Middle Strymon Region – the only part of the Roman province of
Macedonia within the territory of Bulgaria – has provided a large num-
ber of inscriptions dating from the Late Classical to the Late Antique
period. My work on these inscriptions during the last years showed
that many readings and interpretations needed to be revised and cor-
rected. In a recent article dedicated to Georgi Mihailov and his cor-
pus Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (IGBulg), I already pub-
lished numerous corrections concerning inscriptions from the Middle
Strymon Valley (Sharankov 2016a, 340-345, 352-357)1. Various other
corrections and emendations have also been proposed in other pa-
pers where I discussed inscriptions from that region (Sharankov 2004;
2009, 53-55; 2016b; 2017, 18, 23-24, 30, 32); it should be noted that
some of my readings have been used by other authors as well (often
without acknowledging the source).
I. Inscriptions in the Epigraphic Catalogue of M. Manov
In 2008, Metodi Manov published numerous inscriptions in the large
epigraphic catalogue of his book on the settlements in the valley
of Middle Struma (Манов 2008, 73-136, # 1-205)2. Unfortunately,
some of Manov’s readings are erroneous, and for many inscriptions
there is no information about provenance, present location, inven-
tory numbers, dimensions3, etc., which could hamper the study of
the monuments and confuse the reader. For clarity, my notes and
revised readings of these inscriptions follow their order in Manov’s
catalogue.
80 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

1. Kresna. Dedication to Artemis (Manov 1 = IGBulg V, 5889). The inscription

is kept at RHM-Blagoevgrad (without inventory number). In l. 1, the name of the god-
dess is not in the nominative, Ἄρτεμις, as given in the editions of G. Mihailov and M.
Manov – the last preserved letter in this line is clearly Δ (fig. 1), and the name and the
epithet of the goddess should therefore be restored as datives:
Ἀρτέμιδ[ι]
ἐλαφηβόλ[ῳ]
[- - - - - -]
‘To Artemis the deer-huntress [...]’
The inscription seemingly continued on the lower frame below the relief with the
name(s) of the dedicant(s) and a dedicatory formula. The lettering rather points to a
date in the 2nd c. AD, and not the 3rd c. AD.

2. Kresna or Neine. Dedication by the Traleis (Manov 2 = IGBulg V, 5890).

According to G. Mihailov and M. Manov, the inscription is from Kresna, but
V. Gerasimova gives as provenance the ancient town of Neine, in the locality of
Hilyadnitsata near the village of Dolna Gradeshnitsa (Герасимова 1993, 238-239, #
5, обр. 5-6; Gerassimova-Tomova 1994). According to Gerasimova, the inscription is
from the second half of the 2nd c. AD, an opinion which is more acceptable than that of
Manov, who dates it in the first half of the 3rd c. AD. Gerasimova is also the only author
who provides information about the dimensions of the stone. The inscription is kept
at the National Archaeological Museum in Sofia (inv. # A 8480).
Manov classifies the inscription as ‘funerary’, and after commenting that its in-
terpretation is ‘somewhat difficult’, only mentions the two interpretations of the name
Τραλις at the end of the text – a personal name (according to G. Mihailov) or an eth-
nonym (according to V. Gerasimova)4. In fact, the inscription, as already explained by
Gerasimova, is most probably a dedication:
Πύρρος
Κειλαιβει-
θυος καὶ οἱ
περὶ αὐτὸν
Τραλις.
‘Pyrrhos, son of Keilaibeithys, and the Traleis around him (made the dedication).’
V. Gerasimova thinks of dedicants from the Thracian tribe of the Traleis. However,
Τραλεις in texts from the Hellenistic period rather designates not the tribe, but special
military units consisting of Thracian mercenaries. The opinion about the Traleis as
groups of soldiers, originating from the tribe of that name, is accepted by D. Dana who
examines the problem in two recent papers (Dana 2014b, 183; 2016a, 145-146, # 23). It
is indeed strange that even this author, despite his correct observations on the meaning
of Τραλ(λ)εις in other texts, has omitted the inscription from Neine in his comments
on the Traleis and thinks that Τραλις here is a personal name (Dana 2014a, 378-379).
One should however doubt whether, during the Roman period, the name Traleis still
denoted some special type of soldiers or people from the tribe, or was rather the name
of an association with other purposes and functions, e.g., a religious society.

2a. A dedication from Drama (Archaeological Museum – Drama, inv. # Λ 82;

fig. 2) appears to be a close parallel for the Neine inscription and could throw some
additional light on the Traleis of the Roman period. It appears useful to give its entire
text because of some inaccuracies which have crept into previous editions5. In my
opinion, the date in the 2nd c. BC, proposed by the editors, is also questionable, because
the lettering points rather to the 1st c. BC – 1st c. AD.
[Τ?]ασις Δουλεους καὶ οἱ μεθ᾿ αὑ-
[τ]οῦ Τραλις Διονύσῳ
Σωτῆρι εὐχαριστήριον·
Τορκος Ταρουλου, Δανβερενθη̣[ς]
Δινικενθου, Κετριζεις 5
Αλλουζελμιος, Ταρουσινας
4
Manov mentions the opinion of
Gerasimova, but quotes neither of her two
Tηρη̣πεου, Αρτιδονις Μενίσκο[υ].
publications dealing with this inscription.
‘[T?]asis, son of Dules, and the Traleis around him (dedicated) this thank-offering 5
See SEG 57, 577, and the much better edi-
to Dionysus the Saviour: Torkos, son of Tarulas, Danberenthes, son of Dinikenthos, tion by D. Dana (Dana 2014b, 181-183, # 1 А),
Ketrizis, son of Alluzelmis, Tarusinas, son of Terepes, Artidonis, son of Meniskos.’ who however appears to have used only pho-
In l. 1, Dana proposes B[ρ]ασ[ι]ς, but a letter B is certainly not present on the tographs without having personally examined
stone (which is broken at the beginning of the line) and there is no space for more than the stone.

Fig. 1. Dedication to Artemis (# 1). RHM-Blagoevgrad
(photo: N. Sharankov)
6
I thank to my colleague Ph. Kolev for
drawing my attention to this publication.
7
Manov 26 = IGBulg V, 5883; cf. my notes
and the corrected reading of the text below (#
10).
8
Some scholars unfoundedly refute the city
status of Neine, which is attested in two more
inscriptions – the already mentioned build-
ing inscription of AD 77/78 (see # 10 below),
and a fragment, most probably of AD 83/84 or
87/88, which informs us about the dekaprotoi
of the city (see # 59 below).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 81
Fig. 2. Dedication by the Traleis (# 2a). Archaeological
Museum in Drama (photo: N. Sharankov)
one lost letter before the alpha; Dana also omits the article οἱ. In l. 5, the first name
was initially written ΔΙΝΙΚΕΘΟy, with omission of N before Θ, and then corrected to
ΔΙΝΙΚΕΝΘΟy; however, the traces of the letters from the first variant are clearly vis-
ible. In l. 6, the editors read Δαλουζελμιος as an otherwise unknown name, possibly a
variant of Δαλαζελμις. In fact, the first letter is alpha (corrected over a delta), followed
by two clear lambdas: i.e., the name is Αλλουζελμις, most probably a local variant of
the widespread name Αυλουζελμις, as one can judge by the similar case of the name
Αλλουπορις, which was used in that region instead of the common Αυλουπορις (cf.
Dana 2014a, XCVII).
In my opinion, the Τραλις in the inscriptions from Neine and Drama cannot be
interpreted as a group of soldiers (note their Thracian names and the Roman date).
The name could simply be an ethnic of the dedicants, but since such a use would also
be somewhat uncommon, and since both inscriptions mention the Traleis as a group
of people with their leader, I would rather suggest that they could have been members
of a (religious?) association.
3. Kresna. Dedication by a priestess of AD 235/236 (Manov 4 = IGBulg V,
5892). The text was published by G. Mihailov (and re-published by M. Manov) ac-
cording to a drawing of the inscription made by B. Sandanski. I was unable to examine
the stone, but a recently published photograph (Сандански 2011, 75)6 shows that it
is a small altar or statue base, and the text reads: Οὐαλερία | Ἰοῦστα ἱέρι|α ἀνέθηκεν
| ἔτους ζξσ′ (ligatures: HK in l. 3; Oy in l. 4) – ‘Valeria Iusta, the priestess, made this
dedication in the year 267 (of the Augustan era) [= AD 235/236]’.
4. Ilindentsi. Dedication to theos Salenos (Manov 11 = IGBulg IV, 2246 =
IGBulg V, 5877). L. 4 of this lost inscription, read by S. Verković as CEIΔΕΤΙΜΟ, pos-
sibly contained a Greek name with second element -τιμος, i.e. the name of the person,
according to whose vow the dedication was made. This name could be restored as
<Ф>ι<λο>τίμο[υ] or <Φ>ειδ<ο>τίμο[υ]: ‘Philippos, son of Faustus, made (this dedica-
tion) for theos Salenos according to the vow of Philotimos (or Pheidotimos) in his name’.
5. Neine. Inscription of Valerius Crispus (Manov 12 = IGBulg IV, 2247).
Following the corrected reading of the inscription of AD 77/78 for building a temple
in Neine7 and assuming the identity of one of the curators for the building, L. Valerius
Crispus, with the person who erected this inscription, I propose to read the praeno-
men in l. 1 as Λ = Lucius, and not Μ = Marcus (Sharankov 2017, 32, note 47):
Λ̣(ούκιος) Οὐαλέριος
Κρίσπος οὐε-
τρανὸς τοῖς
συμπολείταις.
‘Lucius Valerius Crispus, a veteran, (dedicated/erected) for his fellow citizens.’
This inscription, which has unfortunately been lost, should be of similar date
with the one about the temple, most probably in the 70s or 80s AD. As it has been
pointed out, the mention of συμπολῖται (‘fellow citizens’) in this text is an important
argument for the status of Neine as a city8.
82 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

6. Neine. Funerary monument (Manov 17 = IGBulg IV, 2252). The inscription,

formerly kept in the school in the village of Ilindentsi, has been donated to NHM-Sofia
and is presently exhibited in its lapidarium. In l. 1, G. Mihailov, followed by Manov,
gives the patronymic as Ὀνησε[ίμ]ου, but it should be Ὀνησείμου, with no missing let-
ters, as already indicated by V. Gerasimova (Gerassimova-Tomova 1980, 22, note 12,
23, Abb. 4-6): the stone has ΟΝΗCЄΙΜΟΥ with an entirely preserved iota, and the mu,
although part of its left half is lost, is also certain. There is however some damage on the
right side of the frame, and two letters, read by previous editors, are now lost: μνή̣[μ]ης
χάριν. In l. 2, after δηναρ-είων, there are some rather faint traces from an unclear letter
(apparently used as a number; see the comments to ## 81 and 81a below).

7. Ilindentsi. Funerary monument representing an axe (Manov 19 = IGBulg

IV, 2254). This inscription, found in the locality of Pushovets to the southwest of
Ilindentsi and formerly kept in Ilindentsi, is presently part of the main exhibition of
NHM-Sofia.

7a. Ilindentsi. Another gravestone with representation of an axe (Gr. σκέπαρ-

νον, Lat. ascia) is kept at the Museum of the village of Strumyani. It is rather crudely
made from a piece of rock, shaped in its upper part as a pedimental stele (fig. 3). It
has an inscribed field, divided in two parts, with the name of the deceased, and a sche-
matic representation of an axe below. The text (Sharankov 2017, 24) reads:
Ἀρτεμί-
δωρος
Μουκ-
κωνος.
‘Artemidoros, son of Mukkon9.’

8. Ilindentsi. Fragment from a funerary inscription (Manov 24 = IGBulg IV,

2259). This inscription, previously considered lost and known only from a copy made
by S. Verković, was found by M. Manov in the Museum in Sandanski. I already pro-
posed an improved reading of the text and especially of the first name in it (Sharankov
2016a, 341)10. After re-examining the stone, I can now confirm the reading of the
name as Δεπυζαις (fig. 4). As I noted (Sharankov 2016a, 341, note 76), the preserved
part of the inscription (with no missing letters on the left) shows that the line division
in Verković’s copy was incorrect – he obviously wanted to divide the words, and not
to reproduce exactly their arrangement on the stone11. For the first line in Verković’s
copy, ΔΚΑΤΑC, G. Mihailov (followed by D. Dana) suggests that it could have pos-
sibly represented <Θ>(εοῖς) κατα<χ>[θονίοις] (written on the upper frame above the
relief), while according to me the letters ΔΚΑΤΑC could simply be a repetition of 9
The name Μουκκων, formed from the
the beginnings of l. 2 ΔΕΠΡΥΖΑ and l. 3 ΚΑΤΑCW in the copy. Equally unclear are typical Thracian root Μουκ(α)- and the Greek
the last letters in the copy ΤΟΔΕ, which are now missing on the stone (cf. Sharankov suffix -ων, is attested for the first time in this
2016a, 341). The inscription could be read as follows: region (cf. Dana 2014a, 245).
10
------------? The inscription was republished also by D.
Dana (Dana 2017, 120-121, # 1).
Δεπυζαις ἑαυτῇ κα<ὶ> 11
Cf., for example, that his copy gives ΤΗ in
Ασῳ τῷ ἀνδρὶ ἑ̣αυ- ligature both in (his) l. 2 and l. 4, while there is
τῆς ἀνέθηκεν τόδε (?). such ligature only in the second case; he also
‘Depyzais dedicated this (monument) for herself and for her husband Asos.’ gives ἀνδρί with ligature ΔΡ, while the two let-
ters are clearly separate on the stone.
12
9. Neine. Fragment from a funerary inscription (Manov 25 = IGBulg IV, 2260). The name Δημέας, never written with
According to the first publication, the inscription was some kind of a boundary mark an additional iota (*Δημειας), is attested
connected with mortgaged property (Detschew 1952, 17-18, # 1, Abb. 1; cf. BullÉp in several other inscriptions from this re-
gion – in the letter of Antoninus Pius of AD
1954, 147, # 165). However, a better-grounded explanation has been proposed by B.
157/158 from Sandanski (IGBulg IV, 2263),
Gerov (accepted also by G. Mihailov) who interprets the marble block as part of a one of the envoys sent to the Emperor was
sepulchral monument and thinks that the inscription might have contained the testa- named Demeas, son of Paramonos (Δημέας
ment of the deceased (Геров 1961, 206, note 1). I think that a stone of such dimensions Παραμόνου); one Paramonos, son of Demeas
could actually be part of the front side of a sarcophagus, and the letters ΗΜΕΙΟΥ in l. (Παραμόνος Δημέου), possibly a descen-
5 should be restored as [μν]ημείου, ‘funerary monument’, and certainly not as the per- dant of the envoy to Antoninus Pius, made a
sonal name [Δ]ημείου, as it has been restored by previous editors: the name Demeas dedication to theos Salenos (IGBulg V, 5901);
is attested in l. 3 of the inscription as Δημέα (in the genitive) or Δημέᾳ (in the dative) an unpublished funerary inscription, kept at
RHM-Blagoevgrad, was erected by a certain
and it would be absurd to suggest that two lines below, in l. 5, the same name could
Nikostratos for his father Demeas and his
appear in another variant with an erroneously added letter -ι- (instead of [Δ]ημέου), mother Tioula: Νεικόστρατος Δημέᾳ | τῷ
or even in a different form for the genitive case, if we accept ΔΗΜΕΑ on l. 3 as the πατρὶ καί Τιουλᾳ τῇ μη|τρί καὶ ἑαυτῷ ζῶν
genitive Δημέα and not as the dative Δημέᾳ12. The preposition παρά in l. 5 could have ἐποίει (Τιουλα, apparently a Thracian name,
been used with genitive to introduce the name of the person, by whom the woman, has not been attested elsewhere).
 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 83

Fig. 4. Funerary stele from Ilindentsi (# 8): detail

of the inscription. AM-Sandanski (photo: N. Sharankov)

Fig. 3. Funerary stele from Ilindentsi (# 7a). Museum

in Strumyani (photo: N. Sharankov)

subject of the participle εἰληφυεῖα, was given (or was not given, if we accept ΜΗ as the
negative μή and not as the end of a personal name) the right to use the funerary monu-
ment, e.g. εἰληφυεῖα [τὸν τόπον? τοῦ μν]ημείου παρὰ [τοῦ δεῖνος] – ‘she who received
[the place (?) for the] funerary monument from [so-and-so]’; or παρά with accusative
with the meaning ‘in violation of ’, i.e. an interdiction to use the monument for other
persons besides those who have been listed in the text; a third possibility is to think of
παρά as ‘beside, near’ in a description of the place of the sarcophagus/the tomb. For
each of these possibilities, numerous parallels in inscriptions on sarcophagi and tombs
could be adduced, but since we have only a very small part of the text (and the stone
itself is now lost), I would rather abstain from choosing one variant and proposing a
more complete restoration. Nevertheless, we could positively identify the fragment as
part of a funerary inscription mentioning the persons for whom the monument was
made, as well as the provisions for its use. The lettering points to the last decades of the
1st or the beginning of the 2nd c. AD, and the fact that the inscription contained a legal
text is one more proof for the busy city life in Neine at that period.

10. Neine. Building inscription for a temple of AD 77/78 (Manov 26 = IGBulg

V, 5883). Several corrections have already been proposed for the reading of this in-
scription (Sharankov 2016a, 352; 2017, 32, note 47), which I will now summarize and
supplement. The dimensions of the marble plate, which is part of the archaeological
collection in Kresna, are 49 х 76 х 12 cm; the letter-height is 3-3.2 cm.
Ἔτους θρ′ Σεβαστοῦ τοῦ καὶ εκσ′.
Θεοῖς Σεβαστοῖς, Εἴσιδι καὶ
Σέραπι θεοῖς συννάοις Νει-
νηνων ὁ δῆμος καθείδρυ-
σεν ἐπιμελουμένων Κίμ- 5
βρου τοῦ Βειθυος, Λ(ουκίου) Οὐαλερί-
ου Κρίσπου, Μοκασου τοῦ Δρα-
σκολα, Καλδενθου τοῦ Ασου,
Μοκασου τοῦ Κειλαιβειθυος,
[Β?]ρ̣ιτουλουσου τοῦ Μοκασου. 10
84 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

‘In the year 109 of the Augustan era, which is also 225 [of the Macedonian era
= AD 77/78]. The people of Neine built (this temple) for the divine Augusti and
for the gods sharing the same temple, Isis and Serapis; curators (of the building)
were: Kimbros, son of Beithys; Lucius Valerius Crispus; Mokases, son of Draskolas;
Kaldenthes, son of Asos; Mokases, son of Keilaibeithys; [B?]rituluses, son of Mokases.’
In l. 6-7, all previous editors have read the names of the Roman citizen as
Νουμερίου Κρίσπου, Numerius Crispus13, but the letters on the stone are clearly
Λ·ΟΥΑΛΕΡΙ|ΟΥΚΡΙSΠΟΥ, the first letter being lambda followed by a vacat and an
interpunct, and certainly not nu (fig. 5); the lack of a praenomen for a Roman citizen
in an inscription dated to the 1st c. AD would also be unexpected. As I already noted
(see # 5 above), in my opinion the curator L. Valerius Crispus was the same person
as the veteran who erected for his fellow citizens the inscription discussed under # 5
above (IGBulg IV, 2247 = Manov 12). The veteran must have had some important role
in the administration of the (newly-founded?)14 city of Neine. The patronymic in l. 7-8,
previously read as Δρακολα, contains one more letter, a sigma (written throughout
the inscription as Latin S)15 in the beginning of l. 8: ΔΡΑ|SΚΟΛΑ; the name, which
should be Δρασκολας in the nominative, is otherwise unknown. In the first name in
l. 10, previously read as Ḅιτουλουσου, the first preserved letter is rather Ρ̣, and there
was one more letter (now entirely lost) before it: [.]Ρ̣ΙΤΟΥΛΟΥSΟΥ16. The restora-
tion of the missing first letter remains uncertain – it could have been, e.g., [Β]ρ̣ιτου-,
[Δ]ρ̣ιτου-, [Κ]ρ̣ιτου-, etc., but none of these variants has been attested so far as the first
element in a compound Thracian name17. 13
M. Manov has even erroneously interpret-
ed Crispus as a patronymic (‘Numerius, son of
11. Neine. Dedication to Isityche of AD 179/180 (Manov 27 = IGBulg V, 5884). Crispus’), despite the lack of an article, which
The inscription is part of the collection of RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/489. It is a we see before all the patronymics in this in-
marble altar, with dimensions 72 х 43 х 32 cm (in the middle part, the altar is 36.5 cm scription.
14
w. and 26 cm th.). The letters are 2.2-3 cm h., Φ in Μαφθου (l. 3) is 4.5 cm h., and O The large number of inscriptions from
in the same name is 1.5 cm h. The similar lettering suggests that the dedicant Πύρρος Neine and its territory, which could be dated
to the last decades of the 1st and the first half
Πυρρίου could be the same person as Πύρρος Πυρρ[ίου] attested in another inscrip-
of the 2nd c. AD, is rather not a coincidence
tion found in this area (Manov 33 = IGBulg V, 5888 ter). and could be interpreted as a sign of prosper-
ity, which would fit well a recently founded
12. Neine. Part of a funerary stele (Manov 28 = IGBulg V, 5885). The monu- or re-organised city. It is possible that these
ment is kept in the archaeological collection of Kresna. The reading of the beginning changes in the settlement’s status were due to
of the preserved part of the text is κα|ὶ ἑαυτῷ (not αὑτῷ); the word μν<ή>μης was er- the place of Neine near the border with Thrace
roneously written with two N: MNNMHС. (turned into a Roman province ca. AD 46), or
to the presence of Roman soldiers on active
duty or veterans in that area.
13. Neine. Funerary inscription of AD 221/222 (Manov 29 = IGBulg V, 5886). 15
For another example of the use of Latin
The pedestal, now in Kresna, is made of marble (not limestone), 115 х 50 х 34 cm; the letters in Greek inscriptions in the region, see
dimensions of the epigraphic field, delimited by a moulded frame, are 33 х 20 cm; the # 58 below.
letter-height is 1.7-2.7 cm. Ligatures: l. 2 – ΟΣ; l. 5 – ΝΗ, ΟΥ. 16
The possibility that there could have been
one more letter in the beginning of the line
14. Neine. Funerary inscription of Dionysios and his family (Манов 30 = was already commented by V. Gerasimova
IGBulg V, 5887). The monument, kept in Kresna, is a pedestal (not a plaque), 75 х 40 (Gerassimova-Tomova 1980a, 25).
17
х 26 cm (32 cm w. х 22 cm th. in the middle part). The name in l. 1 was initially written If we consider the interchange of τ/θ/σ
in some Thracian names (e.g. Ταρουτινας/
ΔΙΟΝΥCIΔ, and then the second Δ was corrected into О. The division of the name in
Ταρουθινας/Ταρουσινας), most probably
l. 2-3 is Νεικοστρατι|ανοῦ. representing a specific sound which was not
typical for the Greek language and therefore
15. Neine. Latin funerary inscription (Manov 34). The inscription, published was transcribed through different letters, then
by D. Detschew (Дечев 1950, 54, # 6, Abb. 6)18 and afterwards considered lost, has the first element of [Β]ριτου-λουσης could
been recently rediscovered in the locality of Valogi (between the villages of Ploski be compared to another name attested in the
and Ilindentsi) by a resident of the village of Ploski and is now in the Archaeological region, Βρισουλας (IGBulg IV, 2251), formed
Museum in Sandanski. The remains of mortar on the stele attest to its secondary use from a root Βρισ(ου)- with an l-suffix.
18
Detschew gives the provenance of the in-
as building material. The fragment (fig. 6), broken from all sides except from the
scription as ‘to the southwest of the Shtavenska
right, is 55 х 40 х 16 cm; the letter-height is 4.3-5.2 cm. The first two lines of the text Skala, in the territory of the village of Belitsa
have been intentionally erased. Above the inscription, a small part of the relief is pre- [now Ilindentsi]’.
served, most probably from a ribbon which descended from a garland (as in the steles 19
The assertion of B. Gerov (Геров 1961,
IGBulg IV, 2271-2274). An important observation is the well-preserved right end of 344, # 30), repeated also by M. Manov, that
the stele, which shows that the lines could not have continued to the right, as supposed Detschew has dated the inscription to the 3rd
in D. Detschew’s restoration. The original width of the stone is however unknown, c. AD, is incorrect. Detschew did not provide
and therefore the number of missing letters to the left is not clear. The date of the a date for the monument, and mentioned the
3rd c. only as the date of another inscription,
inscription could be set to the late 1st or the first half of the 2nd c. AD according to the
which he adduced as parallel for the form sebe
lettering19. The following letters have been preserved: instead of sibi (in fact, there is no such form
- - - - - - /////////////////////// in the inscription from Neine, cf. my reading
- - - - - - ////////////////N/// below).

Fig. 5. Building inscription from Neine
(# 10); detail of l. 6. Archaeological col-
lection in Kresna (photo: N. Sharankov)
Fig. 6. Latin funerary inscription from
Neine (# 15). AM-Sandanski
(photo: N. Sharankov)
20
At the end of the line, after I, there can be
seen an upper left corner belonging to a letter
like B, D, E, F, P, or R.
21
It is much less probable to think of SE as
the beginning of a personal name, and of МА
as the beginning of another name: Se[--- pa]-
ṭri et Ma[---] f̣ṛạtṛi, ‘for his father Se--- and his
brother Ma---’.
22
It is improbable that the erased text could
have contained the name of an emperor or of
another person whose name could have been
subjected to damnatio memoriae.
23
However, neither Atacinus, nor the cog-
nomina suggested by Gerasimova have been
attested so far in Macedonia.
24
This cognomen has not been attested in
Macedonia so far, but there is one example of
Atticia and one of Atticilla (Tataki 2006, 109, #
80, 479, # 11).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 85
- - - - - - MILITAVIT·/
- - - - - - ẸCIT·IPSI SE
- - - - - - +ṚI·ET·MA// 5
- - - - - - ////F̣ṚẠTṚI- -
On l. 2, only a partially preserved N (or, less probably, M) is visible; before
this letter, there are possibly traces of an A, but the available space after N could
have hardly contained more than one letter, i.e. we could not restore here the word
[veter]ạn[us] or a cognomen ending in -ạn[us]; [vixit] ạn[n(os)] is also not probable,
because the monument appears to have been erected while the person was still alive,
and the space which was available in l. 3 before militavit could have hardly been filled
with a number for the age. On l. 5, the first partially preserved letter, of which there
remains only an upper horizontal stroke, could have been E, F, or T; the second letter,
preserved only in its upper part, could have been B, P, or R.
For l. 4, Detschew restored [f]ecit ipsi seb[e] as an incorrect variant of ipsi sibi.
But there are no evident traces of letters after SE, and the available space to the end of
the line could have hardly contained two letters; besides, there is a large vacat before
SE, which the stone-cutter would not have left if he intended to write more letters at
the end of the line. Therefore I think that this line ended with SE, with vacats on both
sides. Possibly, the text is to be restored as [f]ẹcit ipsi se | [vivo], which would be a literal
translation of the common Greek formula ἐποίησεν ἑαυτῷ ζῶν, ‘made for himself dur-
ing his lifetime’. Detschew’s restoration for l. 5 [pa]ṭri et ma[tri] seems convincing (but
the second syllable of ma|[tri] should have been on the next line) and is confirmed
by the presence of another word of kinship in l. 6, f̣ṛạtṛi or f̣ṛạtṛiḅ(us)20, ‘brother’ or
‘brothers’21.
One could therefore propose the following restoration for the text:
[[ [- - - - - -] ]]
[[ [- - - - -]ẠN[.] ]]
[- - - qui] militavit
[annos - -, f]ẹcit ipsi se
[vivo et pa]ṭri et ma- 5
[tri obitis et] f̣ṛạtṛiḅ(us) (?)
[- - - - - -]
‘So-and-so ... who served in the army for -- years, made (this monument) for
himself during his lifetime, for his deceased father and mother, and for his brothers ...’
The erasure of lines 1-2, which must have contained the names of the veteran
who erected the inscription, is rather unusual for a private funerary inscription22. As
I already mentioned, traces of mortar on the fragment suggest its secondary use, but
this could hardly provide the reason for the careful effacing of this part of the text. It
is possible that the intentional erasure was connected with the position of the veteran,
who could have been an official in Neine, similarly to the veteran L. Valerius Crispus
in inscriptions # 5 and # 10.
16. Neine. Latin funerary inscription (Manov 35). The inscription, originally
published by V. Gerasimova (Gerasimova-Tomova 1985), was recently commented
by D. Dana (Dana 2017, 121-123, # 2). The present location of the inscription is un-
known and it can be examined only through the photograph published by the first
editor (Gerasimova-Tomova 1985, Taf. 3, Abb. 2).
[- - - - -]Ḷ[- - - - - -]
[At]ṭịcinu[s (?) vet(eranus), militavit]
in c(o)hor(te) V[--? pr(aetoria) annos --, sibi et]
Zaepiro u[xori (?) et - - - - - -]
filiae suae v[ivis (?) vivus fecit]. 5
‘- - - Atticinus (?), a veteran, who served -- years in the Fifth (?) Praetorian co-
hort, made (this monument) during his lifetime for himself, for his living (?) wife (?)
Zaepirus and for his living (?) daughter - - -.’
For l. 2, Gerasimova gives in her text only [...(.?)]cinu[s], but notes that the lower
parts of two vertical strokes are preserved before the letter C (they are visible on the
photograph as well) and lists several possible restorations of the cognomen (Graecinus,
Licinus, Lucinus, Ursicinus, etc.). Dana reads [..(.)]acinus and mentions in a footnote
that the name could have been Atacinus or another rare cognomen. The two pre-
served parts of vertical strokes, however, do not seem to have belonged to an A, so I
would rather suggest a name ending in -ṭịcinu[s] like Atticinus24, or even -ṇcinu[s], e.g.
[Lo]ṇ<g>inu[s], which is a widespread name and was typical for soldiers. In l. 3, the
number of the cohort could have been from V to VIIII. Gerasimova thinks of a cohort
86 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

stationed in Thrace or Macedonia, but Dana’s suggestion about a praetorian cohort

seems more plausible. I suppose that the text mentioned also the years of service, as in
the inscription of the praetorian from Dzhigurovo (Manov 120, cf. # 29 below). In l.
4, according to Gerasimova, Zaepirus is a male name which was followed by another
name starting with V-; Dana hesitates whether this name belonged to the daughter
mentioned in l. 5, or to another member of the family, without specifying if he con-
siders Zaepirus a masculine or feminine name25. In my opinion, it is rather feminine
(cf. the feminine name Ζαιπα, possibly from the same root) and the letter V after it
could be part of the word u[xori]. At the end of the text, Gerasimova restores v[ivus
sibi fecit], and Dana only v[ivus fecit]. Another possibility – if the daughter had been
deceased – is to regard the last preserved letter in l. 5, V, as part of the formula v[ixit
annos --], “(she) lived -- years”.

17. Parthicopolis. Plaque with two wreaths (Manov 49 = IGBulg V, 5899). The
first line on the upper frame reads ΤΗΘΕΩΙ·ΟΙΣΥΝΚΛΙΤΑΙ·ΝΕỌ--, i.e. τῇ θεῶι οἱ
συνκλίται νέọ[ι]. The dedication was therefore not to the Heros, [Θεῶι] Ἥρωι, as it was
read in previous editions, but τῇ θεῶι, ‘to the goddess’ (Artemis, or possibly Isis?)26.
In the upper part of the right wreath – where Mihailov suggested two effaced lines, of
which he was able to read only the letter sigma – there was apparently no text at all:
the writing inside the wreath consisted only of the three lines in its lower half. If there
was an inscription inside the left wreath, it should have been again in its lower part.

18. Parthicopolis. Dedication from the sanctuary of theos Salenos (Manov 56

= IGBulg V, 5907). On the present first line, the initial letter is also preserved: ΛΟ---,
probably part of a personal name. CΠΟ in l. 2 could have belonged to a form of the
name Κρίσπος, which was popular in the region; the following name was possibly a
patronymic and could be restored in the genitive: - - -|λο[- - - Κρί]|σπο[ς Ἰου?]|λιανο[ῦ
εὐξά]μενο[ς ἔθηκεν] | ἔτους [- - -].
M. Manov did not recognize this inscription and published it one more time un-
der his # 176 (cf. # 65 below).

19. Parthicopolis. Funerary inscription erected by Bithys, son of Teres, in

AD 149/150 (Manov 66 = IGBulg ІV, 2274). The missing part of the text on the left
was small, as one can judge by comparing the entirely preserved upper part of the
stele, therefore the lost letters at the beginnings of the first three lines were only one
or two. The first name (l. 1) could therefore have been written through I, and not
through ΕΙ, and the name of the deceased (l. 2) could be restored as the common
[Τ]ηρῃ, and not as a name with an unusual ending [-]ηρηᾳ. One could object that the
name of the uncle would then be the same as the name of the father, but the Greek
θεῖος could also mean maternal uncle. The restoration of the patronymic on l. 2-3 as
Τηλο[κλ]έως seems improbable – there would not be enough place for the letters ΚΛ
at the beginning of l. 3; besides, the name Τηλοκλῆς is rarely found after the 3rd c. BC27.
One could therefore suggest the following reading for the inscription: [Βι]θυς Τηρου |
[Τ]ηρῃ Ατηλο|[.]εως τῷ θείῳ. | απρ′ – ‘Bithys, son of Teres, (made this) for his (mater-
nal) uncle Teres, son of Atelo[-]is. (year) 181 (of the Augustan era) [= AD 149/150].’

20. Ilindentsi. Funerary inscription for the family of a veteran, AD 130/131 25

There are one or two more examples for
(Manov 82 = AE 2003, 1598 = SEG 53, 663). A few minor mistakes in Manov’s text this name, but both are unclear (Dana 2014a,
need correction: the name in l. 1 is written ΠΟΥΔΗΣ, Πούδης (which was the only 391).
possible form for the Latin Pudens in Greek), and not Πούδηνς with a ligature ΗΝΣ; 26
Cf. IG X.2.1, 58 (Thessalonica), inscrip-
the participle in l. 3-4 is entirely preserved, ζώ|ωσιν; as is the one in l. 7-8, κατῳχη|κόσι. tion of a group of ἱεραφόροι συνκλίται con-
nected with the cult of the Egyptian gods;
other inscriptions from Thessalonica mention
21. Laskarevo. Funerary inscription of Asklepiodoros (Manov 91 = IGBulg ІV, συνκλίται connected with the cult of theos
2294). Several mistakes in this inscription have not been mentioned by the editors. Hypsistos (IG X.2.1, 68, 69, and possibly 70).
The name in l. 1 was initially written with sigma (ΕΚΑΛWH), which was then cor- For the cult of Isis in Laskarevo, in the vicin-
rected to Ζ. The last word on l. 3 is written as ΛИΔΡΙ, with a lambda (i.e. an unfinished ity of Parthicopolis, see # 22 below. Cf. also,
alpha) in the beginning and a reverse nu: <ἀν>δρί (fig. 7). in inscriptions from Parthicopolis, the names
Ἰσιδωριανός (IGBulg V, 5910) and Ἰσίδωρος
22. Laskarevo. Dedication to Isis (Manov 96 = IGBulg ІV, 2299). The inscrip- (unpublished dedication by Artemidoros,
tion is not well preserved and G. Mihailov gave but a partial text (he mentioned some Isidoros and Dizalas in AM-Sandanski, cf.
Sharankov 2017, 24), as well as Εἰσίδωρος
of the possible readings only in the commentary): in an inscription of unknown provenance
------ (Manov 161).
[- - -]νο[- - -] 27
The only later occurrence is a graffito
[- - -]π̣ωνι πρωτα̣ρ̣[χ-] from Egypt dated to the 1st c. AD (SEG 9, 464).

28
It was certainly not the original first line of
the text.
29
IGBulg V, 5891 (cf. Sharankov 2016a, 353):
Γ(αίῳ) Σεουή̣ρῳ Π[ρ]όκλῳ παλ[αι]στρατιώτῃ
καὶ Αὐρ(ηλίᾳ) Οὐρσούλῃ (?) [τῇ] κ̣αὶ Κάλπ̣ῃ (?)
(or [τῇ καὶ] Ζ̣αικαλω̣ῃ?) Π(όπλιος) [Αἴ?]λ̣ιος
Πρόκ[λος] ὀπτίων λεγιῶ̣[νος] α′ Ἰταλικῆ[ς]
καὶ Π(όπλιος) Αὐρ(ήλιος) Ο[----]ος (possibly
Ο[ὔρσουλ]ος?) Σεου[ῆρος?] οἱ υεἱοὶ αὐτῶ[ν
ἐ]π̣οίησαν..., ‘For Gaius Severus Proculus, vet-
eran, and for Aurelia Ursula (?), named also
Kalpe (or Zaikaloe?). Publius Aelius Proculus,
optio of the First Italian Legion, and Publius
Aurelius - - - (Ursulus?) Severus, their sons,
made (this monument)...’
30
IGBulg IV, 2270: Marcus Herennius Rufus,
veteran from the First Italian Legion, a benefi-
ciarius, who served 25 years.
31
I understand the word ξόανον simply as
‘statue, carving’, as in other inscriptions (e.g.
Vidman 1969, 258, # 556a, from Ostia: τὸ
ξόανον τοῦ ἁγιοτάτου θεοῦ Σαράπιδος [σ]ὺν
τῇ Ἴσιδι), and not with the specific meaning
of ‘cult image made of wood’ which is attested
in some ancient texts and has influenced the
modern scholarly use of the term xoanon.
32
For the use of ζῴδιον for images of deities,
cf. e.g. Vidman 1969, 186, # 367 (Gerasa): Διὶ
Ἡλίῳ μ̣ε̣γ̣ά̣λῳ Σαράπιδι ... τὸ ζῴδιον ἀνέθηκεν,
‘... dedicated the statuette to Zeus Helios the
great Sarapis’; or IG XI.2, 162 (Delos): ζώιδια
ἀργυρᾶ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος, ‘silver
figurines of Apollo and Artemis’.
33
The letter N in the ending of the name of
Isis is almost certain. The distance between
its oblique and right vertical strokes rather
excludes the possibility to read here Δ̣Ι and
to restore the names in the dative, Εἴσ[ι]δι καὶ
Σερά[πιδι], ‘to Isis and Serapis’ (as addressees
of the dedication).
34
Cf., in inscriptions from Thessalonica,
Πολύκλειτος ... κατ’ ὄνειρον ... Εἴσιδι,
Σεράπιδ[ι], (IG X.2.1, 88); [Εἴσ]ιδι, Σεράπιδι
Π(όπλιος) Φώλιος Νίγερ κατ’ ὄναρ (IG X.2.1,
91); etc.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 87
[- - -]κη̣το[...]ον
[- - -].IC̣Ṃ?[..]I.ντα
[- - -]δ̣ια̣.....Λ̣ισετα
[- - -]Π̣[...]Ρ̣Ν̣?[.]Υ̣[- - -]
M. Manov reproduced Mihailov’s text, but without πρωτα̣ρ[̣ χ-] in l. 2. The exami-
nation of the stone (fig. 8) enabled me to read large part of the preserved text. The let-
ters are proportionate and precisely cut and their forms are not among the typical for
the region; the marble is fine-grained and of excellent quality. The plaque is relatively
thin (7 cm) and seems to have been put in some larger structure. The lettering points
to a date in the 2nd c. AD, possibly in the middle or the third quarter of the century.
[- - -].ΝΟΦΟΡ̣ỌC
[- - -]ỊNIΠΡTḤΙ
[- - -]ΚΗΤΟΞ̣ . ẠΝΟΝ
[- - -]ЄΙCỊΔỌCKẠITA
[- - -]ΔΙẠЄ̣ΙС̣.ṆΚΑΙCЄΡa 5
[- - -]Ḳ . T . . ẠP . Ι Ι . Ι
The word on the present l. 128 should represent some office, e.g. [στεφα]νοφόρ̣ο̣ς
(‘wearing crown’), i.e. a magistrate who erected the inscription, or [εἰκο]νοφόρος
(‘image-bearer’). On l. 2, the first letter was read by Mihailov as Π, but only the lower
part of a vertical stroke survives of it; the distance before the following omega is too
small for Γ (e.g. [ἀ]γῶνι) or Τ; the word [- - -]Iωνι is obviously in the dative case.
After the clear πρωτ-, two partially preserved verticals can be seen, most probably
part of the letter H (it is certainly not A, therefore it is impossible to accept Mihailov’s
suggestion about a form of the verb πρωταρχέω). The word is most probably πρώτῃ
or πρώτη ‘first’ (feminine, in the dative or in the nominative), possibly connected
with the word ending in -κῃ/-κη in l. 3. At the end of the line, there is one more
vertical; if it was not an iota, but part of a consonant (e.g. Т), it could have been fol-
lowed by a vowel (with smaller dimensions, as is the final alpha in l. 5); however, no
traces are visible on the stone. The word in the dative case ending in -ωνι (in l. 2),
if Greek, should be masculine, and would not agree with the two feminine endings
in l. 2-3; I would therefore propose to restore here a feminine noun of Latin origin:
[ἐν | λεγ]ιῶνι πρώτῃ Ἰ|[ταλι]κῇ, ‘in the First Italian Legion’. Such a restoration should
not be a surprise, because we already have two inscriptions connected with this le-
gion in the area – a grave inscription erected by an officer from legio I Italica for his
parents29, and another one, for a veteran who served in the same legion30. If this is the
case, the first word in l. 1 should be a military office, e.g. [εἰκο]νοφόρ̣ο̣ς = imaginifer,
or even [στεφα]νοφόρ̣ο̣ς, i.e. a priest, or a soldier awarded with a crown (corona)
(?). On l. 3, after ТО, two horizontals in the upper and lower parts of the line could
have belonged to Ξ, so I restore here τὸ ξ[ό]ανον, ‘the statue’31, as the object of the
dedication. On l. 4, I read the name of Isis in the genitive, which I interpret as an
additional explanation for the image which has been dedicated; the name of the god-
dess was preceded by an article and – if the lines were wider – possibly by an epithet:
τὸ ξ[ό]ανον | [τῆς - - -?] Εἴσιδος, ‘the statue of (---) Isis’; τὰ | [- - -]δια, which are
mentioned afterwards, must have comprised another part of the dedication; if the
lost part of the lines was small – which is seemingly supported by the small thickness
of the plaque (7 cm) – one could think of τὰ [ζῴ]δια, ‘the small statues/figurines’32;
if the lines were longer, it is possible that the noun was preceded by some attribute
defining the type, number or material of the figurines. Then follow the names of
Isis and Serapis in the accusative – Εἶσιν καὶ Σέρα|[πιν], probably explaining what
has been represented in the figurines33. It should be noted that Isis and Serapis were
connected with the imperial cult in this region, so such a dedication by a legionary
soldier is by no means unexpected. The last preserved l. 6 could have contained some
dedicatory formula or the reason for the dedication (if the latter had not been already
mentioned in the now lost beginning of the text), but the remaining traces of letters
are rather scarce and uncertain. In the beginning, a small part of the letter Κ, Χ or
Υ (or even Є/C?); then, after space for one missing letter, a certain Т; after one more
missing letter, a trace of a vertical can be seen; then Ạ; P; possibly Є/C; and several
vertical strokes. It is not impossible to see in these traces the formula κ̣[α]τ’ [ὄν]α̣ρ,
i.e. a dedication made after the deity appeared in the dedicant’s dreams, which would
be rather common for the cult of Isis and Serapis34.
I could therefore propose the following restoration:
[- - - - - -]
[εἰκο]νοφόρ̣ο̣ς (?) [ἐν]
[λεγ]ιῶνι πρώτῃ Ἰ-
88 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

Fig. 7. Funerary inscription from Laskarevo (# 21).

RHM-Blagoevgrad (photo: N. Sharankov)

Fig. 8. Dedication to Isis from Laskarevo (# 22).

RHM-Blagoevgrad (photo: N. Sharankov)

[ταλι]κῇ τὸ ξ[ό]ανον
[τῆς] Εἴσιδος καὶ τὰ
[ζῴ]δια, Εἶσ[ι]ν καὶ Σέρα- Fig. 9. Funerary stele from Piperitsa
[πιν], κ̣[α]τ’ [ὄν]α̣ρ (?) ε̣++[---] (# 24): detail of l. 1. RHM-Blagoevgrad
‘So-and-so, imaginifer (?) in the First Italian Legion, dedicated the statue of Isis as (photo: N. Sharankov)
well as the figurines – Isis and Serapis – following a dream vision (?) ...’
It is unknown if there was a separate sanctuary of Isis (and Serapis) at Laskarevo
(as e.g. in Neine, where Isis and Serapis were connected with the imperial cult as well),
or the goddess was worshipped in the sanctuary of Artemis35.

23. Kovachevo. Funerary inscription of AD 145/146 (Manov 101 = IGBulg ІV,

2303). At the end of l. 3, the first letter of the verb has been left unfinished by the
stone-cutter: CΠΟΙЄI for <ἐ>ποίει.

24. Piperitsa. Funerary inscription for the family of Kleopatra (Manov 112).
In l. 1, the publications erroneously give the pronoun as ἑα(υ)τῇ instead of the correct
form ἑαυτῇ with ligature ΥΤΗ which can be seen on the stone (fig. 9).

25. Piperitsa. Funerary inscription of Zekaidenthe and her son (Manov 113).
35
The letter-height, not indicated by M. Manov, is 1.5-2.7 cm. At the end of l. 2, the The existence of a sanctuary of Artemis at
Laskarevo, formerly (Dolni) Orman, has been
reading is CΑΥΤΟΥ, as given in the first publication of the inscription (Божинова
suggested already by P. Perdrizet, who saw
/ Русинов 1987, 25, # 2): the stone-cutter apparently left the first letter unfinished several votive reliefs there (Perdrizet 1904,
(cf. the same in inscription # 23 above); one should also note the incorrect use of the 20; he took one of them and donated it to
masculine pronoun ἑαυτοῦ instead of the feminine ἑαυτῆς. the Louvre, cf. Héron de Villefosse / Michon
1902, 370, # 10). On the votive monuments
26. Piperitsa. Funerary inscription for the family of Dionysios (Manov 114). of Artemis at Laskarevo, see IGBulg IV, 2300;
All publications of this inscription contain some errors. The correct text should be: Дечев 1955, 102-104, # II.A.1-3, II.Б.1-3; Düll
Διονύσιος Σονκου Μαμακου τῇ 1977, 58-59, 292-295, # 42-47; Deoudi 2010,
122-123, # S 1-3, 125, # S 7, 129-130, # S 14-16
γυναικὶ καὶ Πυρουλᾳ τῷ ὑῷ καὶ
(note that Deoudi incorrectly puts Laskarevo
Σκαρκεζαι τῇ θυγα<τ>ρὶ καὶ ἑαυτῷ ζῶ˹ν˺ in provincia Thracia and connects the monu-
[ἐπ]ο̣ίε̣ι μνήμης χάριν. ments with the territory of Philippopolis).
‘Dionysios, son of Sonkos, made (this) in memory of his wife Mamakus, his son In Levunovo, another centre of the cult of
Pyrulas, his daughter Skarkezais, and for himself, during his lifetime.’ Artemis in the region (cf. Дечев 1955, 101-
In l. 1, the name of the wife was read by the first editors as Μαμακούτῃ (Божинова 102, # I.1-4; Düll 1977, 58-60, 295-297, # 48-
/ Русинов 1987, 25-26, # 3), while M. Manov added an article: Μαμακουτῃ [τῇ]. But 52; Deoudi 2010, 124, # S 5, 127, # S 10, 128,
there are no missing letters, so the name should be Μαμακου, followed by the article # S 13, 131, # S 17, 132-133, # S 19-21), there
are also monuments connected with Isis, e.g.
τῇ, as already noted by M. Slavova (Slavova 2010, 43) and D. Dana (Dana 2017, 123,
a marble relief with two footprints (a smaller
# 3). In l. 3, the stone has ΘΥΓΑΓΡΙ instead of ΘΥΓΑΤΡΙ. At the end of l. 3, all editors and a larger one) between a sistrum and two
read ζῶ(ν) or ζῶ|[ν], adding a missing letter nu; in fact the letter N is present on the basileia (RHM-Blagoevgrad; unpublished),
stone, but was written above the omega due to lack of space. In l. 4, all editions omit similar to the two reliefs with feet from Neine
the verb [ἐπ]ο̣ίε̣ι, although it is partially preserved: [- -]Ο̣ΙЄ̣Ι. (Gerassimova-Tomova 1980b, 95-97, Abb. 5).

36
The part of the stone with these two let-
ters is already missing on the photograph
published in Герасимова-Томова 1989, 164,
обр. 1.
37
Prague, Archiv Národního muzea, f. 410,
# 111-54.
38
Cf. also the names with first element
Dens-, Δενθ(η)-, Δεντ(ου)- etc. in Dana
2014a, 120-123.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 89
27. Melnik. Inscription honouring Emperor Trajan, AD 98-102 (Manov 115 =
IGBulg ІV, 2318 = V, 5920). A small part of the stone with the first two letters in l. 3
is now missing36:
[Αὐτοκράτορα Νέρου]-
[αν] Τ̣ρ̣αι<α>νὸν Καίσ[αρα Σε]-
βαστὸν Γερμανικό[ν].
‘(In honour of) Emperor Nerva Trajan Caesar Augustus Germanicus.’
In IGBulg IV, Mihailov dated the inscription to AD 97-117 (according to the
name Germanicus), but in IGBulg V, he narrowed the date to AD 97-102 (according
to the lack of the cognomen Dacicus which was given to Trajan in AD 102). Following
a misprint in the fourth volume of IGBulg (117 instead of 97 as a date for the name
Germanicus), M. Manov and V. Gerasimova (Герасимова-Томова 1989, 164, # 1)
dated the inscription to AD 117. Since Trajan is already Σεβαστός (Augustus) in this
inscription, it should be dated between 28 January AD 98 (dies imperii of Trajan) and
the autumn of AD 102, when he was named Dacicus (Kienast et al. 2017, 116-117).
It has been suggested that the inscription could have been erected in AD 98, on the
occasion of Trajan’s accession (which could explain the error in the name of a new
emperor), or ca. AD 101, when the borders of several territories in Macedonia were
adjusted and the emperor was honoured with statues in the province (cf. Sharankov
2017, 32-33 and note 46).
28. Zlatolist. Funerary inscription of AD 124/125 (Manov 118 = IGBulg ІV,
2321). The provenance of this inscription was uncertain. The first publication stated
that it was from the village of Sushitsa (Филов 1919, 169). However, there were two vil-
lages of that name, Gorna (‘Upper’) and Dolna (‘Lower’) Sushitsa (the latter now named
Zlatolist), as already noted in the second publication (Димитров 1941, 109, # 1). The
actual provenance is revealed thanks to a note from the last years of the 19th c., preserved
in the archive of V. Dobruský37, then director of the National (Archaeological) Museum
in Sofia, and based on information provided by A[nastas] Naumov: the stone was seen
by Naumov ‘in the village of D[olna] Sushitsa, district of Melnik, near the church doors’.
In l. 2, the name of the wife, read by G. Mihailov as [..]ΝỌΑΙΒΑΡΙ and restored
as [Δε]νθ̣αιβαρι, could be [..]ΝCAIΒΑΡΙ, i.e. [Δε]νσαιβαρι (Δενσαιβαρις in the nomi-
native). The interchange Θ/Σ, obviously caused by a specific sound, which it was im-
possible to adequately transcribe with Greek or Latin letters, is common in Thracian
names, as evidenced in examples like Δενθηλῆται/Denseletae38 or Ζβελθουρδος/
Ζβελσουρδος.
29. Dzhigurovo. Funerary inscription of a veteran (Manov 120 = AE 1975,
764). At the end of l. 2, the reading is clearly PRA[-], not PRE, so the form was writ-
ten correctly pra[e]|torio. At the end of l. 1, I can now see only PVDE[-] before the
fracture, and the stone does not seem more damaged compared to the photographs in
the first publication (Герасимова-Томова 1973, 10, обр. 1-2); it is therefore possible
that this name was also written correctly as Pude[ns].
30. Heraclea. Funerary inscription of Klearite (Manov 121). The actual dimen-
sions of the stele are 45 x 32 x 8 cm; letter-height 2.7-3.5 cm. It is possible that the
unattested name Κλεαρίτη should be understood as Κλεαρί<σ>τη.
31. Heraclea. Funerary inscription of Antigona (Manov 122). The dimensions
of the stele are 38.5 x 29.5 x 8 cm; letter-height 2.7-3.5 cm. The patronymic in l. 2 of
the inscription has been read differently by the editors: Δειδάμου (Манов 2005, 184, #
2); (Χει vel Δει)δάμου (Манов 2008); [Λυ]σιδάμου (Митрев 2011, 36-37, # 9, 52, обр.
7). The examination of the stone (RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/1467; fig. 10) showed
that the correct reading was the one proposed by D. Dana (Dana 2017, 123-124, # 4):
Ἀ̣ντιγόνα
Ἀ̣σιδάμου.
‘Antigona, daughter of Asidamos.’
32. Heraclea (?). Dedication by Marcia Mestria (Manov 125). M. Manov reads
the epithet of the goddess as Ἐλαφηβόλῳ, while G. Mitrev and S. Ivanov comment
that the stone incorrectly has Ἐλαφηβόλι instead of Ἐλαφηβόλ(ω)ι (Митрев / Иванов
2011, 10-12, # 1). Actually, the form of the epithet on the stone (fig. 11) is even more
incorrect: ЄΛΔΦΗΒΟΛΙ = Ἐλ<α>φηβό<λῳ>, with Δ instead of Α, and with the final
letters ΛΙ connected, possibly as an unsuccessful attempt to create a ligature contain-
90 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

Fig. 11. Dedication to Artemis from Heraclea (# 32):

inscription. HM-Petrich (photo: N. Sharankov)

Fig. 10. Funerary stele from Heraclea (# 31): inscription.

RHM-Blagoevgrad (photo: N. Sharankov)

ing an omega. The name of the dedicant Mestria in this inscription is rather Thracian,
as is the opinion of Manov, and not Roman (cf. also Sharankov 2016b, 65, note 29);
it is certainly not Greek, pace Mitrev and Ivanov. Concerning the representation on
the votive plaque, the image is possibly connected not with Nike, but with Nemesis,
whose cult appears to have been important for Heraclea, as evidenced by the recently
discovered sanctuary of the goddess at the city agora.

33. Heraclea. Funerary inscription of Aptos (Manov 126). The text of the in-
scription (see fig. 38), partially read by Manov, was then fully published by G. Mitrev
(Митрев 2011, 40-41, # 17, 54, fig. 15):
Ἀρτεμιδώρα Ἄπτῳ τῷ ἀνδρὶ μνήμης χάριν
τῷ φιλοστόργῳ καὶ φιλοτέκνῳ.
βρ′
‘Artemidora (made this) in memory of her husband Aptos, who loved his family
and his children. (In the year) 102 (?).’
The year 102 (of the Augustan era)39 would correspond to AD 70-71, but such
a date seems somewhat early for the appearance of the stele as well as for the pal-
aeography of the inscription, which contains ligatures and points rather to the 2nd
c. AD; it is therefore possible that the number for the tens has been omitted in the
date.

34. Heraclea. Lower part of a funerary inscription (Manov 127). The inscrip-
tion has been published by G. Mitrev as well (Митрев 2011, 42-43, # 21), but his edi-
tion, although better than that of Manov, also contains some inaccuracies.
----------
[.?]κ̣ᾳ τῇ συνβίῳ
μνία<ς> χάριν
κὲ αὑτῷ κὲ Ἀρτεμι-
δώρῳ τῷ ὑῷ
ζῶν ἐποίει. 5
‘[So-and-so] made (this monument) during his lifetime in memory of his wife
[Zai?]ka as well as for himself and for his son Artemidoros.’
In l. 1, Manov reads [--] κὲ τῇ συμβίῳ, but the second letter on the stone is clearly
Α; it is possible that the name of the wife was [Ζαι]κ̣ᾳ, which is well attested in the
region; however, if the first preserved letter is not Ḳ, but Λ̣, than this could be the end
of a patronymic. For l. 2, Manov gives [--] μνίας, but there are no missing letters in the
beginning of the line, and the word μνία<ς>, as noted by Mitrev, is written without the
final sigma. On l. 3, Manov correctly gives twice κέ (the letters Κ and Ε are in ligature),
while Mitrev thinks of Κ as an abbreviation. The last line, as already noted (Sharankov
2009, 53, note 9), has been omitted by mistake by Manov. The inscription should be
dated to the 2nd c. AD.

35. Heraclea. Funerary inscription for a family (Manov 128). The stele repre-
sents busts of a man, a woman and a child, and has a heavily worn inscription on the
upper frame, of which Manov gives only - - - - - | (ζ)ῶσα (ἐποίει) (?). I would propose 39
Manov gives the year as ΒΡ Σ(εβαστοῦ),
the following more complete text: but there is no sigma on the stone.

40
A similar reading has been proposed by
D. Dana: [Ἐνθ]άδε κατά|[κιτ]ε Α(ὐ)ρ(ήλιος)
Πέτρος̣ | [υἱὸ]ς̣ Ἀπολεινα|[ρίο]υ̣ (Dana 2017,
124, # 5).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 91
[...(.)]η Μαρ̣τ̣ίν̣ῳ (?) τῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ ἑα̣[υ]-
[τ]ῇ ζῶσα.
‘[So-and-so] (made this monument) during her lifetime for her husband Martinus
(?) and for herself.’
The reading of the name of the husband is not certain.
36. Heraclea. Dedication to Demeter (Manov 130). The inscription was found
in re-use as a covering slab of a grave in the necropolis of Heraclea in the locality of
Metlata; it is now kept in RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/675. The dimensions of the
stone are: 25.5 х 94 х 12 cm; letter-height 2.5-3 cm. The date of the inscription, as
already noted (Sharankov 2016b, 67), is not in the 1st – beginning of the 2nd c. AD, but
much earlier, in the 2nd or early 1st c. BC. The name of the dedicant Ἀνναία, used as a
single name, is rather not the Roman nomen Annaea, but an epichoric name.
37. Unknown provenance. Late antique funerary inscription (Manov 131).
M. Manov gives the text only in majuscules, without proposing a restoration:
---ΑΔΕΚΑΤΑ--- | ---ΕΑΡΙΠΕΤΡΟΒ--- | ---ΤΑΠΟΛΕΙΝΑ---. He also hesitates about
the date – the Hellenistic period or the 1st-2nd c. AD. As I already explained elsewhere,
the inscription is in fact a late epitaph, seemingly from the 4th c. AD (Sharankov 2016b,
67, note 33)40:
[Ἐνθ]άδε κατά-
[κι]τ̣ε Ἀρ(ήλιος) (!) Πέτρος,
[υἱὸ]ς Ἀπολεινα-
[ρί]ọυ.
‘Here lies Aurelius Petros, son of Apolinarius.’
The reading for l. 1 was proposed by A. Avram (BullÉp 2010, 793, # 430). In the
name Ἀρ(ήλιος), instead of Αὐρ(ήλιος), the upsilon is omitted due to the change of the
pronunciation of the former diphthong αυ to [aβ/af] and the dropping of [β] before a
consonant. The abbreviation Ἀρ(ήλιος) is marked with an S-shaped sign, typical for
Late antique inscriptions: ΑΡS.
38. Neine. Dedication to Artemis (Manov 132). Manov gives neither provenance
nor dimensions for the dedication, and incorrectly puts it among inscriptions from
Heraclea. According to the inventory of RHM-Blagoevgrad (inv. # 1.2/266), this votive
relief was found in [Dolna] Gradeshnitsa, i.e. should be connected with Neine. It is
made of marble; dimensions 48 x 38 x 8 cm; letter-height 1.5-2.2 cm (fig. 12). Manov
proposed the following ‘probable’ reading: (Ἀρτέμιδι) (Μουκα)|τραλεις ΚΑΕΙΛΑ
- - - | ΠΑΙΛΑ εὐχήν. The actual names of the dedicant were read by N. Sharankov
(Sharankov 2017, 23 and notes 31-32) and D. Dana (Dana 2017, 124-125, # 6). The
correct reading of the inscription is:
[Ἀρτέ]μιδι
Τραλεισκαειλα
Παιλα εὐχήν.
‘To Artemis – Traliskaila, daughter of Pailas, (dedicated this) votive-offering.’
For l. 1, Dana, who has used only the photograph (not so good) in Manov’s pub-
lication, gives the first letters in the name of Artemis as partially preserved: Ἀ̣ρτ̣ ̣έ̣μιδι
…[---?]; on the stone, however, there are no traces of any preserved letters before Μ,
nor of any epithet after the name of the goddess. For the names in l. 2-3, Dana, in
his comments, proposes also a second, less probable division: Τραλεις Καειλα|παιλα.
In fact, there is no place for such hesitation, because the patronymic Pailas, as it was
recently shown, is attested in another inscription (Sharankov 2017, 23-24, fig. 8; see #
46 below). The name of the dedicant Traliskaila appears here for the first time, but its
elements Τραλ(ε)ι- and -σκα(ε)ιλα are known from other names.
39. Zornitsa. Funerary inscription erected by Skaidenthe (Manov 140 =
IGBulg V, 5921). The information about the provenance of the inscription is contro-
versial, as already noted by G. Mitrev (Митрев 2012a, 78; 2012b, 212-213). According
to the first publication of V. Gerasimova (Gerassimova-Tomova 1980c, 43-45, # 1, fig.
1; followed by G. Mihailov and M. Manov), it was found in the locality of Kozhuh near
the village of Muletarovo [now Rupite], i.e. in Heraclea. However, in a later publication
Gerasimova gives another provenance (Герасимова-Томова 1989, 164, # 2, обр. 2),
which agrees with the information in the inventory of the Melnik Museum (inv. # 36),
where the plaque was entered in May 1976: the locality of Lagămite near the village of
Dzegveli/Dzivgeliya (now renamed Zornitsa, to the southwest of Melnik). The plaque
92 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

Fig. 12. Dedication to Artemis from Neine (# 38): inscription. Fig. 13. Funerary stele from Zornitsa (# 39): detail
RHM-Blagoevgrad (photo: N. Sharankov) of the inscription. NHM-Sofia (photo: N. Sharankov)

is presently part of the main exhibition of NHM-Sofia. The text, on the upper frame
above the relief which represents the busts of a man, a woman and a child, reads:
Σκαιδενθη Πυρουλᾳ τῷ ὑῷ
μνήμης
χάριν.
‘Skaidenthe (made this) in memory of her son Pyrulas.’
The first publication of Gerasimova, followed by Mihailov and Manov, gives the
end of l. 1 as TWKW, interpreted as a personal name (Τώκῳ), and the line is un-
derstood as a sequence of three personal names in the dative, Σκαιδενθῃ, Πυρουλᾳ,
Τώκῳ (Manov misprints the first name as Σκαιδεντῃ). However, such an interpreta-
tion is unconvincing and does not agree with the letters on the stone, which are clearly
TWyW (fig. 13). The reading was corrected in the second publication of Gerasimova
(Герасимова-Томова 1989, 164, # 2, 165, обр. 2), which was apparently unknown to
Mihailov and Manov. The name Σκαι-δενθη is feminine in the nominative, and not
masculine in the dative, as thought by Gerasimova (in her first publication), Mihailov,
Manov and Mitrev. In her second publication, V. Gerasimova hesitated whether the
name was feminine in the nominative (i.e. of the mother who made the monument),
or was masculine in the dative and belonged to the son (Герасимова-Томова 1989,
160-161). D. Dana, despite following the wrong reading of the inscription in IGBulg
where Σκαιδενθῃ is in the dative, correctly lists the name as feminine (Dana 2014a,
306). It is possible that the name Σκε-δεση, attested in a funerary inscription from
Neine (IGBulg IV, 2252 = Manov 17, in the dative: Αὐρ. Πυρουλας Ὀνησε[ίμ]ου τῇ
νείνῃ Σκεδεσῃ...), is another variant of the same name, showing the common confu-
sion of E and AI, as well as the interchange Θ/Σ (and subsequent omission of Ν before
Σ) in the transcription of a specific sound (cf. on this my comments to # 28 above).

40. Heraclea. List of names (Manov 141 = IGBulg V, 5922). The inscription
(RHM-Blagoevgrad) was re-examined and its reading was corrected as follows
(Sharankov 2017, 30, 32, fig. 25):
[- - - - - -]
[-?].Λ̣Α̣Ξ̣Ο̣+++
Π̣αρ̣ά̣μονος
Μάρκου
Διονύσιος
Ἀσκληπίδη 5
Ἀλέξανδρος Φ̣[ι]-
λίππου
Ἡ̣ρακλέων Π̣ύ̣ρ̣[ρου?]
Διόδωρος Κρ̣ί̣[σ]π̣[ου?].
‘- - - Paramonos, son or Marcus, Dionysios, son of Asklepides, Alexandros, son of
Philippos, Herakleon, son of Pyr[rhos?], Diodoros, son of Crispus.’
In l. 1, the first preserved letter is rather unclear; each of the two following letters
could be Α, Δ or Λ; then Ζ or Ξ; then part of an oval letter, i.e. Ο, Ω, Є or C; and the
remaining letters are unclear (the last one could have been C); this line possibly con-
tained a patronymic. In the earlier publications41, it was read as ΑΞC, i.e. the year 261
41
(of the Augustan era = AD 229/230), but this would not correspond to the lettering, The reading of the earlier publications
was: αξσʹ. | [Παρα]μ̣όνῳ | Μάρκου | Διονύσιος
which points to an earlier date in the late 1st or 2nd c. AD. Of the names included in this
| Ἀσκληπῆ, | Ἀλέξανδρος | [Φ]ι̣λ̣ίππου, |
list, only Asklepides and Herakleon are hitherto unattested in the region42. Ἀσκληπίδ[ης] | Διοδόρου (vel Διοδότου).
42
The name Diodoros is attested in an un-
41. Heraclea. Inscription with the name of an agonothete (Manov 142 = IGBulg published funerary inscription from Heraclea
V, 5923). The date of the inscription, which the first editor sets to the mid-2nd c. AD Sintica: ... Διωδώρῳ (sic) καὶ τῇ μητρί.

43
The idea of L. Zareva that Tiberius
Claudius Bakchios was a freedman (Зарева
1983, 31-32) is improbable; he was apparently
one of the most eminent citizens of Heraclea,
and the imperial names Tiberius Claudius
show that he – or rather one of his ancestors
– was granted Roman citizenship under one
of the emperors with these names in the 1st c.
AD.
44
The text continues with the names of the
main magistrates of the city – five politarchs
and a treasurer (ταμίας).
45
According to Manov, *Πυρίον/Πυρίος
should be a diminutive form of Πύρρος
(translated in Bulgarian as ‘Пирчо’). D. Dana
accepts the name as Πυρῖον and even pro-
vides, according to his practice, a ‘correct’
form Πυρρῖον (Dana 2014a, 281).
46
In the original text of my note about this
inscription, I had proposed ‘L. 1-2 : génitif
d’un patronyme en -λας ?’, but the editors of
L’Année épigraphique eventually replaced it
with the more neutral ‘L. 1-2 : peut-être un
nom ?’. The reading of the name in l. 2 as
Πύρρον was suggested by S. Follet.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 93
(Зарева 1983, 32), could well be in the second half of the 1st or the early 2nd c. AD. The
name of the agonothete Tiberius Claudius Bakchios43 was recently attested in another
inscription, discovered in 2018 during the excavations of the agora of Heraclea. It was
erected by the city, when Bakchios was agonothete: ἡ πόλις, ἀγονοθετοῦντος (sic)
Τι(βερίου) Κλαυδίου Βακχίου, etc.44
42. Poleto. Inscription from an altar (Manov 143 = IGBulg V, 5924). This in-
scription, as it was recently shown, was not found in the territory of Heraclea, but in
the village of Poleto (to the north of the Kresna Gorge), i.e. in the territory of Pautalia
in the province of Thrace (Sharankov 2016b, 68-70, with a revised reading of the in-
scription).
43. Heraclea. Rescript of Emperor Galerius and Caesar Maximinus of AD 307-
308 (Manov 144 = AE 2002, 1293). Two small corrections should be made to this inscrip-
tion (Sharankov 2016b, 57, note 2): at the end of l. 1, Augustus, not Augustos; in l. 23-24,
the text reads dignos vos in omnibus nostra provisione faciatis (dignos written with smaller
O, not dignis(sime) or dignius), i.e. ‘to show yourselves worthy of our care in everything’.
44. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription erected by Pyrusala (Manov
153 = IGBulg V, 5927). The end of the text (l. 2-3) has been read as ἔτι | ·Ι·ΖΜ, in-
terpreted as ‘in the year’ (ἔτει), followed by an unclear number. For the end of l. 2, I
would rather read (from a photograph; cf. also the drawing in Dain 1933, 36-37, # 28)
ЄΠ[.], which, together with the ·Ι· in the beginning of l. 3, could be restored as the
verb ἐπ[ύ]|ι (= ἐποίει); the form is written in the same way, ЄΠy·Ι·, on another stele
(Manov 190). As for the year, it could have been ZMC̣, 247. The whole text could then
read as follows:
Πυρουσαλα Τίτῳ οἱῷ κατυχομένῳ,
ἑαυτῇ δὲ καὶ τοῖς τέκνυς ζῶσιν ἐπ[ύ]-
ι. ζμσ̣′ (?).
‘Pyrusala made (this monument) for her deceased son Titus as well as for herself
and her living children. (year) 247 (of the Augustan era) [= AD 215/216] (?).’
45. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription erected by Charmosyne
(Manov 154). The dimensions of this lower part of a stele (fig. 14) are 25 x 34 x 7.5
cm; letter-height 1.5-2.1 cm (Φ – 2.5 cm).
Χαρμοσύνη Ἡρ̣α̣κλείδῃ
ἀδε˹λ˺φῷ μνήμης χάρ[ιν].
‘Charmosyne (made this) in memory of her brother Herakleides.’
In l. 1, Manov reads Χαρμοσίνῃ with iota, but the upsilon is clear on the stone; at
the end of the line, he restores Ἡρακλείδη[ι τῷ], but I doubt if there was enough place
for the article. In l. 2, the stone-cutter initially wrote ΑΔΕΦW, and then added a small
Λ between Ε and Φ.
46. Parthicopolis. Statue base for Pyrrhos (Manov 155). The inscription (fig.
15) should be read as follows (Sharankov 2017, 23-24, fig. 8):
Κρίσπος Παι-
λα Πύρρον
τὸν υἱὸν κα-
τὰ {τα} τὸ δό-
ξαν τῇ συνέ- 5
δρωι.
‘Crispus, son of Pailas, (erected a statue of) Pyrrhos, his son, according
to the decision of the council.’
M. Manov reads the beginning of the text as Κρίσπος παῖδα Πυρίον τὸν υἱον,
but in his Bulgarian translation omits υἱόν and translates only παῖδα: ‘Crispus (erect-
ed) a statue for his child Pyrios’45. The unreliability of this reading was noted by N.
Sharankov and S. Follet (AE 2008, 1238)46 and was utterly confirmed by the examina-
tion of the stone, which has ΚΡΙΣΠΟΣΠΑΙ|ΛΑΠΥΡΡΟΝ. The patronymic of Crispus,
which should be Παιλας in the nominative, is attested in one more inscription, again
as a patronymic in the genitive (see # 38 above). The substantivized ἡ σύνεδρος (scil.
βουλή) in the formula κατὰ {τα} τὸ δόξαν τῇ συνέδρωι is attested here for the first
time with the meaning of ‘(city) council’; the formula can be paralleled with κα̣τὰ τὸ
δόξαν τῆι βουλῆι in an inscription on a statue base from the village of Damyanitsa
near Sandanski (AM-Sandanski; unpublished).
94 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

Fig. 14. Funerary stele of unknown provenance (# 45).

RHM-Blagoevgrad (photo: N. Sharankov)

Fig. 15. Honorific inscription from Parthicopolis (# 46).

AM-Sandanski (photo: N. Sharankov)

47. Laskarevo. Funerary inscription for the parents of Aurelius Pyrulas

(Manov 158). The provenance, not indicated by Manov, is the village of Laskarevo.
Actual dimensions: 63 x 45 x 7.5 cm; letter-height 1.4-1.8 cm (Sharankov 2004, 199,
# 5). The abbreviation of the nomen in l. 1, as correctly noted by the first editor of the
inscription (Angelov 2003, 142, # 5), is Αὐρή(λιος), ΑΥΡΗ (with ligature ΡΗ).

48. Katuntsi. Funerary inscription erected by Charmosyne (Manov 159). M.

Manov gives neither provenance, nor dimensions for this inscription. According to
the inventory of RHM-Blagoevgrad (inv. # 1.2/939), it was found in the locality of
Kalinkovitsa to the northwest of the village of Katuntsi. The dimensions of the stele
are 56 x 38 x 8 cm.

49. Ilindentsi. Funerary inscription of AD 206/207 erected by Asos (Manov

160). It has been published also by V. Gerasimova (Герасимова 2009; the omission of
the name Ασος in Gerasimova’s Greek text is apparently a misprint). Neither Manov,
nor Gerasimova give provenance or dimensions for the stele. According to the inven-
tory of RHM-Blagoevgrad (inv. # 1.2/236), it was found near the village of Ilindentsi
and donated to the Museum in 1969; one should note that there are two other ex-
amples for the rare name Ασος from the area of Neine/Ilindentsi (IGBulg IV, 2259 =
Manov 24 = # 8 above; IGBulg V, 5883 = Manov 26 = # 10 above)47. The dimensions of
47
the stele, which is presently part of the main exhibition of RHM-Blagoevgrad, are 59.5 See # 90 below for an example for the
name from Heraclea; cf. also, in an unpub-
x 45 x 7 cm; letter-height 1.9-2.1 cm (Φ – 2.3 cm).
lished epitaph from the village of Mihnevo
(ca. 5 km to the north of Heraclea), the name
50. Vinogradi. Funerary inscription erected by Mukases (Manov 161). The Ασας, attested as a patronymic in the geni-
inscription is now in the main exhibition of RHM-Blagoevgrad. Its dimensions are tive: Λυσίμαχος Ασα (or Ἀσᾶ?) Αὐρ(ηλίῳ)
56 x 52 x 6 cm. Of the first letter in l. 1, only the lower part of a vertical is preserved: Ἀρτεμιδώρῳ τῷ τέκνῳ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ Ζαικᾳ
//IOyKACHC (Μ̣ουκασης). (cf. Sharankov 2017, 24).

Fig. 16. Funerary monument
of unknown provenance (# 56): oblique
view from the left. RHM-Blagoevgrad
(photo: N. Sharankov)
48
The word is abbreviated in a similar way in
IGBulg IV, 2330 = Manov 146: ·Μ·ΝΗ· ΧΑΡΙΝ
(for a corrected reading of this inscription, see
Sharankov 2016a, 344-345; 2016b, 65, fig. 7).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 95
51. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription erected by Zelsus and Pyrulas
(Manov 162). The dimensions of the inscription (RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/224)
are 42.5 x 60 x 9 cm; letter-height 2-3 cm. In l. 1, the name of Pyrulas has not been en-
tirely preserved: Πυρọ[υ]λας. In l. 3, the stone-cutter has erroneously written ΜΗC-
ΜΗC (with two ligatures HC) for μ<νή>μης.
52. Unknown provenance. Fragment from a stele (Manov 163). As D. Dana
has shown (Dana 2017, 125, # 7), there is no participle συμφορών(των) (?), as was the
reading of Manov, but the personal name Symphoros in the dative case; he also cor-
rectly notes the traces of a second line. However, the restoration [- - -] Συμφόρῳ τ̣ῶι
[- - - | αὐτο]ῦ is dubious, because the letter after Συμφόρῳ is certainly not T (nor N,
as read by Manov), but Λ̣ (or Α̣); the traces from the following letter do not resemble
an omega, but rather y; it is possible that this was the beginning of Symphoros’ patro-
nymic (e.g. Λ̣υ̣[σιμάχου]).
53. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription for a family (Manov 164). The
dimensions of the inscription (RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/251) are 78 x 58.5 x 13.5
cm; letter-height in l. 1: 1.8-2.5 cm (Φ – 3 cm); in l. 2-4: 1.5-2 cm. Emendations for
the reading have been recently proposed by D. Dana (Dana 2017, 125-126, # 8) as well
as by N. Sharankov (Sharankov 2017, 21, note 24). For the beginning of l. 1, Dana,
misled by Manov’s reading [E]βρυζελμεις, proposes the unattested personal name
*Βρ[ο]υζελμεις. Actually, the stone has only [.?]B[..]ΥΖЄΛΜЄΙC: the two letters after
B are entirely lost, and it is possible that there was one more letter before B. The only
hitherto attested name which would match these letters seems to be Β[ιθ]υζελμεις (cf.
Dana 2014a, 61), but one should certainly not reject the possibility for an unknown
name. For l. 2, Dana restores [τῇ συμβίῳ αὐτοῦ κ]αὶ ΠΟ-, which is plausible but rather
long, so I would prefer only [τῇ συμβίῳ κ]αί. The end of l. 3 obviously contained the
name [Ἑ]σπέρῳ, as suggested by both Dana and Sharankov; in an attempt at a more
complete restoration, I had proposed, for l. 2-4, [κ]αὶ Πο|[πλίῳ Αἰλίῳ (?) Ἑ]σπέρῳ
| [τῷ υἱῷ στρατιώ(?)]τῃ, which would suit well the preserved letters, but would not
match the relief which represented more than one child in the family.
54. Vinogradi. Funerary inscription for the family of Paibes, AD 153/154
(Manov 165). It was first published in 1989 by V. Gerasimova (Герасимова-Томова
1989, 166, # 6, обр. 6), but Manov considers it as unpublished and provides no infor-
mation about the provenance and the dimensions of the stele. The provenance is in
the locality of Sorakevo near the village of Vinogradi (to the south of Melnik). The
monument was formerly kept at the Museum in Melnik (inv. # 120), but is presently
part of the main exhibition of RHM-Blagoevgrad. The dimensions are 86 x 52 x 14.5
cm; letter-height 1.5-2 cm.
Παιβης Μουκασου Μαντᾳ τῇ γυνεκὶ καὶ
Μουκάσῃ τῷ υἱῷ μνή(μης) χάριν.
επρ′.
‘Paibes, son of Mukases, (made this monument) for the memory of his wife
Manta and his son Mukases. (year) 185 (of the Augustan era) [= AD 153/154].’
In l. 1, ligatures ΤΗΓ, ΥΝ. In l. 1, ΠΑ·Ι·ΒΗC with dots around the iota. In l. 2, the
stone-cutter initially wrote ΥΙΟ with omicron, and then transformed the omicron into
omega by adding two strokes below it. The word μνή(μης) is abbreviated: Μ·Ν·Η, as
duly noted by Gerasimova48 (Manov gives μνήμης without indicating the abbreviation).
55. Vranya. Funerary inscription for the family of Paramonos (Manov 166).
Published by Manov without provenance. According to the inventory of RHM-
Blagoevgrad (inv. # 1.2/488), it was found in 1982 in the locality of Vachovitsa to
the northwest of the village of Vranya. The letter-height, not indicated by Manov, is
1.5-2 cm.
56. Unknown provenance. Fragment with the name Antigo[n-] (Manov 167).
The dimensions of the fragment are 35 x 29 x 11 cm; letter-height 2.8-2.9 cm. The ap-
pearance of the left side (fig. 16) shows that it was not a plaque, as thought by Manov,
but a block, possibly an altar or a statue-base. A hypothetical restoration would be:
Ἀντιγό[νη Μαρτι]-
άλῃ (?) τῷ̣ [ἀνδρὶ/υἱῷ - -]
Α̣[- - - - - -]
‘Antigone (made this) for Martialis (?), [her husband/son (?) - - -].’
96 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

The name in l. 1, as noted by Manov, could have been Ἀντίγο[νος] or Ἀντιγό[νη].

In l. 2, ΑΛΗ is apparently the end of another name, [Μαρτι]άλῃ, [Αἰγι]άλῃ, etc., fol-
lowed either by an article τῷ̣ (if the name was masculine) or τọ[ῦ], or by a patronymic
starting with Τọ-. The partially preserved letter at the beginning of l. 3 is rather Α,
Δ, or Λ, and not Μ, as in Manov’s edition; it could have been part of the pronoun
[ἑ]|α̣[υτῇ/-ῆς].

57. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription erected by three brothers

(Manov 168). In l. 1, the nomen is not in the singular (Αὐρήλιος), as it was read by
Manov (cf. Манов 2007, 69-70), but in the plural, Αὐρήλιοι, and belongs to all the
three brothers, as already indicated (Sharankov 2009, 53, # 2)49.

58. Parthicopolis (?). Funerary inscription for a family (Manov 169). In l. 1, the
first letter in the name Διονυσιανός, as I already noted (AE 2008, 1239), is not ‘written
like an omicron or rather as a cursive delta’, but actually resembles a Latin D (fig. 17):
DΙΟΝΥCΙΑΝΟC; quite strange is also the form of the ‘delta’ in Ἀρτεμιδώρα (l. 2). In l.
4, the stone has ΜΝΗMΠC for μνήμ<η>ς, a mistake apparently due to the confusion
of cursive eta and pi. In l. 5, the stone has ΚΑΤΟΙΧΟΑΛЄΝW for κατοιχο<μ>ένῳ,
with M misunderstood and written as ΑΛ.

59. Neine. Inscription mentioning dekaprotoi (Manov 170). It was found not
in Sandanski, but in Neine50, and is presently part of the archaeological collection in
Kresna (it is not in AM-Sandanski, as Manov asserts). The dimensions of the marble
block are 40 x 42 x 28 cm; letter-height 3 cm. All sides except the front are only roughly
shaped (fig. 18), which shows that the block was meant to be inserted in some struc-
ture, e.g. into the wall of a building. The front surface is broken in the upper part, and
the initial lines of the inscription are lost. The missing lines must have been three:
there is no place for more than three lines to the upper end of the stone, and less than
three lines would have been insufficient for the beginning of the text. This beginning
must have contained: the subject of the verb ἐποίουν (e.g., οἱ πολῖται or ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ
δῆμος, rather than personal names); a preposition or a participle before the personal
names in the genitive; one more name (with patronymic, or two/three names of a
Roman citizen)51 in the genitive before Παραμόνου τοῦ Διονυσίου (because of the
pronoun αὐτούς which is plural, i.e. points to at least two persons).
[- Οἱ δεῖνες -]
[e.g. ἐπὶ/μετὰ/ἐπιμελουμένων]
[- δεῖνος τοῦ δεῖνος - καὶ]
Παραμόνου τοῦ Διο-
νυσίου καὶ τῶν περὶ
αὐτοὺς δεκαπρώ-
των ἐποίουν
+ι̣ρ′ (?) ἔτει′. 5
‘- - - made (this inscription/building). So-and-so, son of so-and-so, Paramonos,
son of Dionysios, and the dekaprotoi around them [were in charge (?)]. In the year 11-
[between 112 and 119 of the Augustan era = AD 80/81 to 87/88].’
Unclear traces from the lower ends of two letters can be seen over the first omi-
cron and the upsilon of ΠΑΡΑΜΟΝΟΥ. The number for the year in the last line has
not been well preserved. It consisted of three letters, with interpuncts in between, and
marked with horizontal lines above. On the photograph published by Manov (fig. 19
= Манов 2008, 239, fig. 170), one can still see large part of the number, while now all
which is extant is the tip of the second letter and the loop of rho as well as the two 49
D. Dana accepts this correction but, for
horizontal lines above them (fig. 20)52. The letter for the tens was very narrow, i.e. iota, reasons unknown (possibly mislead by the
as visible on Manov’s photograph and confirmed by the still preserved very short hori- photograph?), writes Αὐρήλιοι̣ with a dotted
zontal line which stood above the letter and marked it as a number. The first letter of final iota (Dana 2017, 126, # 9). The final iota
the number – part of which can be seen only on the photograph published by Manov is however absolutely clear on the stone.
50
– ended with a horizontal stroke or a loop in the upper part, i.e. it could have been Β I have already indicated the correct prove-
(2), Γ (3), Ε (5), F (6), Ζ (7), or Θ (9). Thus the year could have been 112, 113, 115, 116, nance of the inscription in a note to AE 2012,
117, or 119 of the Augustan era, i.e. AD 80/81, 81/82, 83/84, 84/85, 85/86, or 87/88. 1295, as well as in Sharankov 2016b, 60, note
14.
Manov hesitates whether the inscription is funerary or dedicatory (Манов 2008, 51
It would be improbable to think of more
47), but both the text and the shape of the stone suggest a building inscription, pos- than one lost name and patronymic, because
sibly connected with a temple or another important public structure. the number of missing lines could not have
The most important piece of information provided by this text is the mention been larger than three.
of dekaprotoi – civil officers with various functions, which are attested in numerous 52
The scratch where the stone broke is well
inscriptions throughout the Eastern provinces of the Empire from the mid-first to visible on Manov’s photograph.

Fig. 17. Funerary inscription from Parthicopolis (?) (# 58).
AM-Sandanski (photo: N. Sharankov)
Fig. 19. Building inscription from Neine (# 59): an earlier
photo (after Манов 2008, 239, fig. 170)
53
See a catalogue of the inscriptions men-
tioning dekaprotoi and eikosaprotoi in Samitz
2013, 37-58, # 1-136.
54
In Achaia, there are 23 examples, two of
them not so certain (Samitz 2013, 37-40, #
1-22; Sideris 2013). The only example for
δεκάπρωτοι in Thrace is in an inscription of
AD 309-310 from Cabyle, but these dekapro-
toi, at such a late date, should be understood
as equivalent to the decemprimi in the West,
and different from the dekaprotoi of the ear-
lier period (Шаранков 2017, 231-237).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 97
Fig. 18. Building inscription from Neine (# 59): side view from
the right. Archaeological collection in Kresna
(photo: N. Sharankov)
Fig. 20. Building inscription from Neine (# 59): detail of the
remains of the year (condition in 2016; photo: N. Sharankov)
the second half of the third century AD (Samitz 2013)53. The only other text attest-
ing dekaprotoi in the province of Macedonia is an inscription of similar date (AD
73/74) for building a temple in an unknown city in Pieria (Nigdelis / Arvanitaki 2012
= Samitz 2013, 40, # 23 = AE 2012, 1295)54.
According to the inscription from Neine, the dekaprotoi in the city were subordi-
nate to two higher magistrates, most probably politarchs.
60. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription erected by [Kleo?]nike
(Manov 171). Manov supposes that the inscription is almost entirely preserved, with
only one letter lost at the beginning of l. 1, but the tenon of the stele shows that about
1/3 of the lower frame with the text is missing to the left (fig. 21). The text could
therefore be restored as follows:
[Κλεο]ν̣είκη τοῖς ἰδίυς τ[έκ]-
[νυς ζ]ῶσα ἐπύησε μνήμης
χάριν.
‘Kleonike made (this monument) during her lifetime for the memory of her own
children.’
In the beginning, Manov has [Ν]είκη, but a small part of the lower right end of N
is preserved, so I write a dotted nu; the restoration of the name as Κλεονείκη is made
exempli gratia, according to the supposed number of missing letters, and because the
same name – written [Κ]λεονίκη – is attested in an unpublished funerary stele (frag-
ment) of the 2nd c. AD in RHM-Blagoevgrad. In l. 1-2, Manov reads ἰδίυς ζ|ῶσα, but the
last preserved letter in l. 1 is undoubtedly T, so I restore ἰδίυς τ[έκ|νυς] (= ἰδίοις τέκνοις).
98 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

Fig. 21. Funerary inscription

of unknown provenance (# 60).
AM-Sandanski (photo: S. Stournaras)

61. Ilindentsi. Funerary inscription for M. Munatius Silvanus (Manov 172).

The dimensions of the stele are 96 (91 without the tenon) x 66 x 10 cm; letter-height
0.8-1.2 cm. Manov has followed my edition (Sharankov 2004, 198, # 2), since in the
first publication the text was only partially read (Angelov 2003, 140-141, # 2)55. After
re-examining the stele, I am now able to make some minor improvements:
Μά(ρκωι)
Μουνατίωι Σιλ-
βανῶι ἥρωϊ ἱππ(εῖ) σπείρης
Μακε̣δονικῆς Γά(ιος) Σείλιος Καπίτ̣ων, ἱππ(εὺς)
σπείρης Μακεδονικῆς κατὰ δια̣θήκ̣ην ἐπ̣οίε̣ι̣. 5
‘For the heros (i.e. deceased) Marcus Munatius Silvanus, horseman of the
Macedonian cohort. Gaius Silius Capito, horseman of the Macedonian cohort, made
(the monument) according to the testament (of Munatius Silvanus).’
For the name in l. 3, I previously preferred to divide the praenomen and nomen
as Γ(άιος) Ἀσείλιος (Angelov gives only ..ειλιος) and proposed the other possible
reading Γά(ιος) Σείλιος only in the critical apparatus; however, a nomen Asi(l)lius is
rather improbable and should be rejected in favour of the widespread Silius; for the
abbreviation of the name Γάιος as ΓΑ, cf. ΜΑ· = Μά(ρκωι) in l. 1. At the end of l. 3,
the word ἱππ(εύς) was apparently abbreviated (as in l. 2), because the available space
to the end of the line would have been insufficient for writing the word in full (as I
proposed in my first publication). For κατὰ δια̣θήκ̣ην in l. 5, corresponding to the
Latin formula ex testamento, one could compare an inscription from Parthicopolis
(Manov 187), where the letters ΔΙΑΘΗ are apparently part of the same phrase,
[κατὰ] διαθή[κην]56.
The verb at the end of the text appears to have been in the imperfect, and not in
the aorist. M. Manov assigns the inscription to the second half of the 2nd or the begin-
ning of the 3rd c. AD. However, the lettering (and especially the forms of mu, sigma, 55
For l. 4-5, Angelov reads only
omega) suggests an earlier date, second half of the 1st – beginning of the 2nd c. AD (cf. Μακ̣ε̣δονικῆς ..ειλιος καὶ ....... | ...... Μακεδον...
Sharankov 2017, 21). ΚΑΤΑΔΙΔΟ̣Η...Η...
This σπεῖρα Μακεδονική (cohors Macedonica) must have been stationed not far 56
In l. 2 of the same inscription, Manov pro-
away from the findspot of the stele, which is the locality of Pushovets (to the southwest poses to read ΓΜ[Ρ] or ΓΜ[Σ] as a year (143
of the village of Ilindentsi, and ca. 4 km to the south of the city of Neine)57. The same or 243 of the Augustan era), which is not con-
cohort is attested in one more inscription from the province of Macedonia – a recently vincing. The remains after the upper horizon-
tal stroke (Γ or Ε) do not seem to belong to M,
published funerary inscription found in the locality of Dvata Groba near the village of
but could be the tip of Α, Δ or Λ, followed by
Dolni Disan, ca. 15 km to the southeast of Stobi (Babamova 2018, 122-125, 131, fig. the upper left part of Υ; one could propose,
7-8): Βακχᾶς Δηζυνθου στρα|τιώτης σπείρας Μακεδο|νικῆς ἐστράτευται ἔτη ε′, | ἀνέ- e.g., ἑ̣α̣υ[τοῦ].
θηκαν ἀδελφοί, ‘Bakchas, son of Dezynthes, a soldier of the Macedonian cohort, has 57
The idea of D. Angelov (Angelov 2003,
served for 5 years; his brothers dedicated (this monument)’. Babamova gives the years 141; accepted also in Babamova 2018, 124-
of service as [-]ε′, and in her comments suggests that the number was most probably 15. 125) that the camp of the Macedonian cohort
On the photograph, I see ЄTH′Є, i.e. the letter Є is preceded by a short oblique stroke; could have been one of the two military camps
no other letter is visible after Є, but one cannot exclude the possibility that the surface of mentioned in the petition from Scaptopara
(IGBulg IV, 2236 = SEG 44, 610) is unaccept-
the stone has been damaged and the number was originally Є[I] (the available space to
able. The text of the petition explicitly men-
the edge of the stele would not have allowed a wider letter, e.g. K). It is noteworthy that tions δύο στρατοπέδων τῶν ὄντων ἐν τῇ σῇ
the soldier in this inscription (apparently an infantryman) does not have the names of a Θρᾴκῃ, ‘two of the military camps which are
Roman citizen, unlike the two horsemen in Ilindentsi who both have tria nomina. Since in your [i.e. Emperor Gordian’s] Thrace’, while
the stele was dedicated by the relatives of the soldier – and not by a fellow-soldier, as is the territory of Neine undoubtedly belonged
the case in Ilindentsi – it is uncertain if the cohort (or part of it) had been moved from to the province of Macedonia.

58
Cf. also the epitaph of an eques alae
Maced<o>nicae from Thessalonica, dated to
the time of Augustus (IG X.2.1, 1360).
59
The last letters in AVGG[[G]] NN[[N]]
which denoted the third emperor have been
intentionally erased, which appears to con-
firm his identification with Geta.
60
‘The space between COH and MACED
is very narrow, and if any figure was given
it must have been I’ (Goodchild / Reynolds
1962, 38).
61
As Goodchild and Reynolds comment,
‘one might hazard a guess that it [the cohort]
had been sent to Cyrenaica at the time of the
Jewish Revolt and remained thereafter; but
that is pure conjecture’ (Goodchild / Reynolds
1962, 39).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 99
its camp in the vicinity of Neine and stationed in the area of Stobi, or this was only the
place where the family of Bakchas lived. Babamova assigns the inscription from Dolni
Disan to the early 3rd c. AD, according to the date of one inscription attesting a cohors
Macedonica in Cyrenaica under three emperors (AE 1969/1970, 636), i.e. possibly in
the joint rule of Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta, AD 209-211. But the lettering
of the Dolni Disan stele rather suggests a date not later than the mid-2nd c. AD, i.e. close
to the one proposed for the inscription from Ilindentsi.
It is unknown if the Macedonian cohort attested in these two inscritpions from
the province of Macedonia is identical to the unit(s) with the same or similar name
in inscriptions from other parts of the Roman Empire (Spaul 2000, 352)58. (1) The
earliest of these inscriptions is from Ferentium in Etruria; it was erected in honour of
L. Pomponius Lupus, whose cursus honorum includes IIIIvir iure dicundo, two times
quinquennalis, tribunus militum of legio IIII Macedonica, prefect of cohors equitata
Macedonum, of cohors Lusitanorum, and of the Balearic Islands (CIL XI, 7247 = AE
1909, 58: praef. coh. equitatae Macedonum et coh. Lusitanor. et Baliarium insularum). It
is apparent that all these military offices were connected with Hispania. The date of the
inscription is in the 1st c. AD, possibly not much later than the mid-1st c., because legio
IIII Macedonica left Spain in AD 43 (Demougin 1992, 319, # 383; PIR2 P 730). If this is
the same cohort as the one attested in Macedonia (as suggested in Sharankov 2017, 21,
note 23), it could have been transferred from Spain to the area of Neine after the crea-
tion (ca. AD 46) of the new province of Thrace or in the Flavian period. (2) The second
inscription is from Tarraco in Hispania Citerior; it is dated to the time of Hadrian and
honours L. Numisius Ovinianus, a flamen of the province, who has held all the honor-
ary offices in Tarraco and has also been a tribune of cohors I Macedonica (CIL II, 4232
= CIL II2/14.2, 1156: tribuno c(o)hort(is) I Macedonicae). The place where the cohort
was stationed at this time remains unknown – it could well be Macedonia. The third
and fourth attestation are from Cyrene, where a Macedonian cohort was present in
the 3rd c. AD – (3) an honorary inscription erected by Valerius Valens, a prefect of co-
hors Macedonica, during the rule of three joint emperors, i.e. most probably Septimius
Severus, Caracalla and Geta in AD 209-21159 (Goodchild / Reynolds 1962, 37-38, #
1(a), Pl. XXIII a = AE 1969/1970, 636: prạ[e]f. coh. [I? M]aced.)60, and (4) an honorary
inscription for Emperor Gordian III of AD 238-244 erected by a cohors Macedonica
equitata with the surname Gordiana (Goodchild / Reynolds 1962, 38-39, # 1(b), Pl.
XXIII b = AE 1969/1970, 637: [coh. I?] Mac. [G]or[di]ana [e]q.). It is unclear if this was
the cohort previously stationed in Macedonia and then transferred to Cyrene61, or a dif-
ferent one. But if inscriptions (1), (3) and (4) refer to the same unit which is attested in
the two epitaphs from Macedonia, cohors Macedonica/Macedonum (equitata) = σπεῖρα
Μακεδονική, then its history could be restored as follows:
– possibly created already under Augustus and originally recruited from
Macedonia;
– in the 1st c. AD, stationed in Spain;
– possibly in the third quarter of the 1st c., transferred to Macedonia and stationed
near Neine (close to the border with Thrace);
– at some point in the period from Hadrian to Septimius Severus, transferred to
Cyrenaica;
– under Gordian III, still in Cyrenaica, receiving the epithet Gordiana.
62. Parthicopolis. Funerary inscription erected by Apollodoros (Manov 173).
The rosette in the pediment shows that the preserved part comprises half of the origi-
nal monument, the lines must have been longer, and there must have been two more
busts to the right.
Ἀπολλόδωρος Πύρρου ἑαυτῷ κ̣[αὶ - - - - - - Ἀρτε]-
μιδ̣ώ̣[ρῳ/-ου/-ᾳ μνήμης] χάριν ἐποί[ησεν/-ει - - - - - -].
‘Apollodoros, son of Pyrrhos, made (this) in memory of himself and of - - -
Artemidor[os/-a].’
The beginning of l. 2 is read by Manov as Μισ?[- - - -], but the stone has ΜΙΔ̣Ẉ[-
- -], which is seemingly the name Ἀρτεμίδωρος (in the dative, or in the genitive as
patronymic) or Ἀρτεμιδώρα (in the dative).
63. Unknown provenance. Fragment from a funerary inscription erected by
Mukianos (Manov 174). The dimensions of the fragment are 34 x 29 x 10 cm; letter-
height 1.6-2 cm.
Μ̣ουκια̣ν̣ὸς Ζωΐλ[ου τῷ/τῇ δεῖνι τῷ]
[γλ]υκυτ̣άτῳ τέ̣[κνῳ e.g. ἐποίησεν].
100 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

‘Mukianos, son of Zoilos, made (this monument) for so-and-so, his sweetest child.’
Manov suggests only a few lost letters at the ends of the lines: Μουκιανὸς Ζωΐλ[ου
| γλ]υκυτάτῳ τῷ τ[έκνῳ]. However, the remains of the relief – right foot of a standing
figure which must have been placed in the centre – show that half of the inscription
is missing. In l. 2, there is no article τῷ after [γλ]υκυτ̣άτῳ. At the end of the line, we
could restore a verb (ἐποίησεν/ἐποίει), a funerary formula like μνήνης χάριν, or a year.

64. Unknown provenance. Fragment from an inscription of AD 190/191

(Manov 175). The dimensions of the fragment are 18.5 x 25.5 x 8 cm; letter-height
2.2 cm. Above the inscription, there was once a relief, of which only the hind legs of
an animal (a dog?) walking to the right have been partially preserved. The text of the
inscription has been corrected in Sharankov 2009, 53-54:
Ἔτους βκσ′ Σεβα[στοῦ, μηνὸς Ὑ]-
περβερτα̣ί̣ου. Πατ[- - - - - -]
[- - - -]ι Μαργαρει̣[τ- - - - -]
[- - - - - - - - -]+[- - - - - - -]
‘In the year 222 of the Augustan era [= AD 190/191], in the month of
Hyperberetaios. Pat--- [- - - - - -] Margarite(s) [- - - - - -].’
If the lines were shorter, l. 1 could be restored without the word μηνός. In l. 2,
Manov read [ὑ]πὲρ Βερτακου (?) πατ[ρός] and thought of an unknown Thracian name
*Βερτακος (cf. Манов 2007, 71). In fact, this is the name of the Macedonian month
Ὑπερβερεταῖος (here written with syncope of the epsilon as -βερταῖος). Πατ- appears
to be the beginning of a personal name, possibly of the person who erected the monu-
ment; it could have been Greek, Latin (e.g. from the root Πατρ-/Pat(e)r-), or Thracian
(e.g. Πατουμασης which is attested in Macedonia). The name in l. 3 could have been
either masculine (Μαργαρ(ε)ίτης) or feminine (Μαργαρ(ε)ίτη); both names are very
rare and have not been attested in Macedonia so far. Μαργαρείτης, however, was fre-
quently used as a stage name by gladiators, and this might be the case here as well62.

65. Parthicopolis. Fragment from a dedication (Manov 176). As I already noted

(see # 18 above), this is the same inscription as Manov 56 = IGBulg V, 5907, but it was
not recognized by Manov and so was published twice.

66. Piperitsa. Funerary inscription erected by Artemis (Manov 177). Manov

gives no provenance and dimensions, nor mentions that there is one more fragment,
from the lower left part of the stele (there is no text on the lower frame of the relief).
The stele (RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/253), 86 x 72 x 17 cm, was found in 1978 be-
tween the villages of Piperitsa and Lehovo.
Ἄρτεμεις {μεις} Μουκα-
σου ἑαυτῇ κα<ὶ τ>ῷ τέκνῳ.
‘Artemis, daughter of Mukases, (made this monument) for herself and for her
child.’
In l. 1, the stone-cutter, after having engraved the name Ἄρτεμεις and the initial
letter of the patronymic, Μ-, made a mistake and instead of continuing with the patro-
nymic Μουκασου, inadvertently repeated the last syllable of Ἄρτε-μεις which started
with the same letter Μ. In l. 2, the stone-cutter misunderstood the letters ΙΤ as Π and
wrote ΚΑΠW instead of ΚΑΙΤW.

67. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription erected by Mukases (Manov

178). Both M. Manov and D. Dana, who recently proposed a new reading for the in-
scription (Dana 2017, 128, # 14), suppose that the stele was rather wide and therefore
long part of the text is lost. In my opinion, only a small part of the text is missing to
the right, as indicated by the relief, which seemingly contained only one more figure
(part of which is preserved). The widely spaced letters of ζώω[ν] in l. 3 also support
the idea that the lines have been short: this was the end of the text and the stone-cutter
apparently wanted to use as much space as possible, in order to fill up the line. I would
therefore propose the following restoration:
Μουκαση[ς γυ]-
62
ναικεὶ Δεκ̣[αλ?]- Gladiators with that name have been at-
tested at Aphrodisias (Robert 1940, 170-171,
ωῃ ζώω[ν].
# [160]-161; cf. also # 159 – Πάτροκλος);
‘Mukases (made this monument) during his lifetime for his wife Dekaloe (?).’ Claudiopolis (SEG 39, 1339); Ephesus (AE
For l. 1, Manov has Μουκαζη[νης - - - - - -], while Dana reads correctly the name, 1999, 1574); Hierapytna (SEG 32, 875);
but restores a rather long missing text after it: Μουκαση[ς - - - αὑτῷ καὶ τῇ (ἰδίᾳ) γυ]|- Metropolis (?) (AE 2002, 1402); Rome (IG
ναικεί. At the end of l. 2, both Manov and Dana (who depended on Manov’s not so good XIV, 1832).

63
The two busts on the left fragment, inter-
preted by Manov as depicting a man and his
wife, are apparently a father (the larger male
bust above) and a daughter (below).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 101
photograph) read ΛΕ---, which Manov interprets as part of the name Κειλε[ιβειθυος],
and Dana as the beginning of a name Λε[ο---], e.g. Λεοντίς or Λεοντώ, which he con-
nects with the word [γυ]ναικεί. Actually, the letters on the stone are ΔΕΚ̣ (the delta
is certain). The ligature in the beginning of l. 3 was interpreted as ΝW by Manov and
Dana, but it is rather a combination of H and W – the horizontal stroke of H is sub-
stituted with an omega. One could therefore think of a name *Δεκαλωη as a variant
of Ζεκαλωη.
68. Unknown provenance. Fragment from a funerary stele (Manov 180). As
it was suggested to me by R. Milcheva, there is seemingly one more fragment from
the right part of this stele in the Archaeological Museum in Sandanski (inv. # 105). It
depicts a large female bust and a smaller bust of a boy below it63; traces of four lines
on the right: -ΤΗ (in ligature) | -KЄ | -KЄ̣ | -++. The inscription on this second frag-
ment is not well preserved and needs further examination, but the joint text of the two
fragments could have been: [- - -]|.αλ- - - τῇ | θυγατ[ρὶ] κὲ | Πυρίᾳ (?) κὲ̣ | Μοκ- - - |
τῷ υἱῷ [μν]|ίας χάριν.
69. Parthicopolis. Fragment of an inscription (Manov 183). As noted by D.
Dana (Dana 2017, 126, # 11), this fragment has been published long ago (Велков
1961, 252, # 3, 253, Abb. 6) and is included in V. Beševliev’s corpus of late Greek and
Latin inscriptions from Bulgaria (SIBulg, 253). However, I think that the lettering does
not point undoubtedly to the Late antique period, and the inscription could well be
from the 3rd c. AD. The restoration of [κα]τάκε[ιται] in l. 2, proposed by Dana, is
also uncertain, especially since this is not the beginning of the text (there is at least
one more line above), while ἐνθάδε κατάκειται was commonly the starting formula of
Late antique epitaphs; moreover, there is seemingly a small part of a diagonal stroke
preserved after the epsilon, so it could have been, e.g., [κα]τὰ κέλ̣[ευσιν], ‘following
the order’ (of a deity or a magistrate). In l. 4, where all editors read [---]ME-[---], the
first letter is actually Λ, and the third, partially preserved letter, is either Ζ or Ξ, which
strongly suggests the name Alexander, [Ἀ]λέξ̣[ανδρος] (or in another case).
Polenitsa
70. Unknown provenance. Relief of Artemis (Manov 184). The restoration of
the inscription as (Ἀρτέ)μιδε[ι] | (ἐλα)φηβό[λῳ] is unconvincing; the only certain let-
ters, to the right of the image of the goddess, are ΔΕ on l. 1 and ΒΕ on l. 2.
71. Unknown provenance. Fragment of an inscription (Manov 188). The di-
mensions, not indicated by Manov, are 20 x 25 x 15 cm; letter-height 4.3-4.8 cm.
[- - - - - Z]ωΐ̣-
[λῳ (?) - - -]+ καὶ Μου-
[κ--- Ζωΐ]λ̣ο̣υ (?).
‘... for [Z]oi[los (?), son of ---], and for Mou[k---], son of [Zoi]los (?).’
The fragment belonged to the right end of the inscription, as evidenced by the
preserved part of the frame on the right. Manov gives only two lines (l. 2-3 in the
present reading), but there are remains of one more line above. In l. 1, possibly part
of the name [Ζ]ωΐ|[λῳ] (or in another case) rather than -ωι as a dative ending (which
was usually written without the iota adscriptum). In l. 2, apparently the beginning of a
name starting with Μουκ-, e.g. Μουκασης or Μουκιανός (cf. Μ̣ουκια̣νὸ ̣ ς Ζωΐλ[ου] in
# 63 above). In l. 3, where Manov reads ΛΕΝ or ΛΟΝ, the first letter could have been
also Δ, and the last preserved letter is certainly Υ, and not Ν, therefore I restore here
the end of a patronymic.
72. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription erected by Zoilos (Manov 189).
The name of the deceased was read by the first editor E. Penkova as Γειτρίονι (Колекция
Арес 2000, 109-110, # 53), while Manov proposed Εἱερίονι (= Ἱερίονι); it was corrected
by D. Dana, who suggested Π̣ειερίονι (Dana 2017, 126-127, # 12). The letter Π, in liga-
ture with E, is indeed clearly read on the stone: Ζωΐλος Πειερίο|νι (!) τõ (!) τέκνῳ, ‘Zoilos
(made this monument) for his child Pierion’. The name Pierion, again written with ΕΙ for
the long [i], is attested, except in Parthicopolis (IGBulg V, 5899), also in an unpublished
inscription from Heraclea (cf. # 41 and note 44 above) as the name of the fourth poli-
tarch Pierion, son of Dionysios: Πει|ερίωνος τοῦ Διονυσίου (in the genitive).
73. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele of Aphrodito (Manov 191). Several
readings have been proposed for the inscription on the lower frame of this funerary
stele. Manov reads the text as [Ἀ]φροδιτῷ τῇ θυγατριδεῖ | [ε]ὐσεμνίας χάριν. A. Avram
102 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

has pointed out that the reading of the word [ε]ὐσεμνίας does not give much sense and
suggested [Ἀ]φροδιτὼ τῇ θυγατρὶ ΔΕΙ[.]ΥΣΕ μνίας χάριν, where ΔΕΙ[.]ΥΣΕ could be
a Thracian name (BullÉp 2010, 794, # 430), an idea accepted also by D. Dana (Dana
2017, 127, # 13). In fact, the letter I read by Manov at the end of l. 1 is not visible on the
stone (cf. Колекция Арес 2000, 112-114, # 55), while on l. 2, before y, there is part of
an upper horizontal stroke, which could have belonged to Γ, Π, or Τ (but rather not to
Є or C). If the letters ΔЄ[.?]|[.?]+ΥCЄ really represent a personal name64, it could have
been Δε|π̣υσε, phonetic spelling for Δεπυσαι, i.e. a dative case of *Δεπυσαις, a variant
of the name Δεπυζαις which I read in an inscription from Ilindentsi (see # 8 above):
[Ἀ]φροδιτὼ τῇ θυγατρὶ Δε|π̣υσε μνίας χάριν, ‘Aphrodito (made this) in memory of
her daughter Depysais’. However, as I already suggested elsewhere (Sharankov 2017,
18, note 6), the reading of the text could also be [- - - - - - | Ἀ]φροδιτῷ τῇ θυγατριδε[ῖ
| ἐ]π̣ύσε μνίας χάριν, ‘So-and-so made (this) in memory of Aphrodito, his/her grand-
daughter’, with [ἐ]π̣ύσε instead of ἐποίησε, and with the name of the person who
erected the stele in a now missing first line on the upper frame above the relief. Or, if
the text was only below the image, the granddaughter might have been not named and
[Ἀ]φροδιτώ would be in the nominative.

74. Unknown provenance. Dedication to Artemis (Manov 194). The letters

ΥΙΑ, part of the name of the dedicant, were interpreted by Manov as either the ending
of a longer name or a complete name Ὑ<γ>ία. However, the second variant – which
suggests both an omitted letter and an unusual double name (Ὑγία Ἀκυλεῖνα) – is
rather suspicious. Much more plausible is the idea of J.-y. Strasser (AE 2008, 240), ac-
cepted also by D. Dana (Dana 2017, 128, # 16), that -υια is the end of a Roman nomen,
most probably [Φλα(ο)]υία, i.e. the dedicant Flavia Aquilina had Roman citizenship65.

75. Unknown provenance. Fragment from a funerary stele (Manov 197). The
letter-height, not indicated by Manov, is 1.5-1.9 cm. In l. 1 of the fragment (NHM-
Sofia, inv. # 39411), there is part of one more letter at the beginning, Κ̣ΝΟΙC, so the
line division should be [τοῖς τέ]|κ̣νοις.

76. Heraclea (?). Fragment from a funerary stele (Manov 198). The letter-
height is 1.2-1.8 cm. The ornament on the vertical frame of the stele (NHM-Sofia, inv.
# 39407) has exact parallels in the frames of two votive reliefs from Heraclea, one of
Heracles (Peeva 2010, 67-69, # 1, fig. 1) and one of Nemesis (unpublished), therefore
I suggest that the provenance of the funerary stele should also be Heraclea. The verb
[ἐ]ποίουν in l. 3 could be in the first person singular, and not the third person plural.

77. Ribnovo. Dedication by a strategos (Manov 199). The provenance of the

monument (NHM-Sofia, inv. # 45842), as I have shown elsewhere, is not in the
Strymon Valley, but the sanctuary of Heros Arbesenos near the village of Ribnovo in
the Nestos Valley, province of Thrace (Шаранков 2015, 71). For an improved reading
and comments on this inscription, see Шаранков 2015, 71, # 8; Sharankov 2016a, 321,
note 36; as well as Dana 2016b, 108-112, # 5.

78. Unknown provenance. Funerary inscription of a legionary soldier/veteran

(Manov 200). The letter-height is 2-2.5 cm. For this inscription, Manov gives only a
text in majuscules, without proposing a restoration: [...]ΙΕΓΙΘΚΕΝ ΜΟΥΝ ... | [...]
ΟΙΟΥ. The examination of the inscription (NHM-Sofia, inv. # 39414; fig. 22) shows
that the first preserved letter in l. 1 is actually Λ; there is a horizontal stroke above the
letter Θ (marking it as a number); and punctuation/abbreviation marks after ΛΕΓΙ·
and ΚΕΝ· in l. 1, as well as at the end of l. 2. All these observations strongly suggest the
following restoration for the text (cf. Sharankov 2017, 21, note 24):
[- - - στρατιώτῃ (?)] λεγι(ῶνος) θ′, κεν(τουρίας) Μουν(ατίου?)
[- - -]ρίου.
‘... for so-and-so, soldier in the Ninth Legion, in the centuria of Munatius (?) ...’
The text possibly started on the upper frame above the relief with the names
of the deceased soldier or with the names of the person(s) who erected the monu-
64
ment. In the present l. 1, I suggest στρατιώτῃ rather than παλαιστρατιώτῃ/οὐετ(ε)- But one should note that the usual order
in funerary inscriptions was (name) (word of
ρανῷ, because the mention of the centuria was more common for serving soldiers
kinship), and there are only a few cases with
than for veterans; but it is certainly possible that the deceased was a veteran. It is the opposite order.
also possible, but less probable, that the soldier/veteran was the person who erected 65
For the nomen Flavius/Flavia and the cog-
the monument for someone else, and then his names as well as the noun στρατιώτης nomen Aquilinus/Aquilina in Macedonia, see
(or παλαιστρατιώτης/οὐετ(ε)ρανός) should have been in the nominative. The name Tataki 2006, 220-232, # 221, and 479, # 9.

Fig. 22. Funerary inscription of un-
known provenance (# 78). NHM-Sofia
(photo: N. Sharankov)
66
Cf., for example, the horseman in the
Macedonian cohort M. Munatius Silvanus in
# 61 above.
67
On the history of the legion, see Ritterling
1925, 1664-1671, # LXIV; Birley 1971; Keppie
1989; Sijpesteijn 1996; Campbell 2018.
68
CIL III, 551 = IG II2, 4126: tribuno
mil(itum) leg(ionis) VIIII Macedonic(ae);
AE 1919, 1 = Corinth VIII.2, 54: trib(uno)
milit(um) leg(ionis) VIIII Mac(edonicae).
69
Amandry 1988, 106-107, Annexe 4;
Rizakis / Zoumbaki 2001, 267-268, # 83 (with
the number of the legion misprinted as VIII).
The alternative date proposed for the inscrip-
tions of Corinth and Athens and Aquillius’
proconsulship of Achaia was ca. AD 52-53.
70
One could also compare the case of the vet-
eran (most probably of Thracian or Moesian
origin) L. Valerius Proculus, whose last mili-
tary position was as (centurio) leg(ionis) VIIII
Hisp(anae), in a funerary inscription from
the first half of the 2nd c. AD from Nedan in
the territory of Nicopolis ad Istrum, provincia
Thracia (CIL III, 12411 = ILBulg, 432).
71
In Manov’s Greek text, Ἀρο-τῷ is possibly
a misprint; in the index (Манов 2008, 144),
the name appears as Ἀρό-πος (?), as it is in
the Bulgarian translation, while in the intro-
ductory part (Манов 2008, 49), the author
hesitates between ‘Aropos’ and ‘Arotoros’. For
l. 3-5, I had previously suggested Ἀρότῳ τῷ
κούρῳ (Sharankov 2009, 53, note 9), while
A. Avram proposed Ἀρότῳ τῷ Κόρῳ (BullÉp
2010, 795, # 430).
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 103
of the centurion was seemingly abbreviated (the edge of the stone is damaged at that
place and it is uncertain if there was an abbreviation mark at the end of the line after
Ν), so I restore it as the frequent nomen Munatius66, but it is also possible that the
name continued on the following line (e.g. Μουν|[δικίου]). The letters -ριου in l. 2
could be the end of a name (but probably not the cognomen of the centurion – except
if the lines were rather short).
According to Manov, the stele was ‘probably from the end of the 2nd or the be-
ginning of the 3rd century’. Actually, the lettering points to a much earlier date in the
1st or early 2nd century AD. Another argument for a date before the mid-2nd c. AD is
the military unit to which the deceased belonged: the Ninth Legion which disappears
from record ca. AD 130-14067.
It should be noted that, at some point in its early history, the Ninth Legion was con-
nected with Macedonia, as evidenced by the name legio VIIII Macedonica. It is attested
in two honorary inscriptions (from Athens and Corinth) for the proconsul of provincia
Achaia L. Aquillius Florus Turcianus Gallus who had served earlier in his career as
tribunus militum of the legion68. These two inscriptions – despite some controversies
in the past – are now commonly dated to ca. 4-3 BC68, and the service of Aquillius
Florus in the Ninth Legion should be assigned to a much earlier date. Certainly, it is not
possible to connect our much later funerary inscription with this stay of the legion in
provincia Macedonia. The Ninth Legion was then transferred to Hispania and received
the title Hispana; later, in the first half of the 1st c. AD, it is attested at Siscia in Pannonia.
From AD 43 until ca. AD 110, the legion was stationed in Britannia, and then, in ca.
AD 110-120, it (or at least a detachment) stayed for a certain period at Noviomagus
in Germania inferior. There is no evidence that the legion – or a vexillation of it – has
been active in Macedonia during the period to which the funerary inscription under
discussion seems to belong, although it is possible that it participated in some military
campaign on the Balkans. But it should be noted that we know of a soldier who origi-
nated from Heraclea (probably Sintica, because of the tribe Fabia) and served in the
Ninth Legion in Britannia, according to a funerary inscription from Lindum (present
Lincoln) dated to the second half of the 1st c. AD: C. Saufeius C. f. Fab(ia) Her(aclea),
miles legio(nis) VIIII, stip(endiorum) XXI (CIL VII, 183 = RIB I, 255; cf. Malavolta 2011,
33, # 19). It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the soldier/veteran mentioned in the
funerary inscription from the Middle Strymon Valley was a man of local origin who
was recruited in the legion, similarly to C. Saufeius of the Lindum inscription70.
79. Unknown provenance (Heraclea?). Funerary inscription erected by a
Roman citizen for his father-in-law (Manov 201). The letter-height is 1.5-2 cm. The
examination of the inscription (NHM-Sofia, inv. # 45838) allowed me to propose an
entirely new reading for the text (Sharankov 2016b, 66, # 10, fig. 8; AE 2016, 1419):
Γ(άϊος) Ἀνί- κιος
Γλαῦ- κος
Ἀρό- γῳ (sic)
τῷ πε<ν>θε̣-
ρῷ (sic) 5
μνή- μης
χά- ρειν (sic).
‘C. Anicius Glaukos (made this) in memory of Arogos, his father-in-law.’
In l. 3, the name is written Ἀρόγῳ instead of Ἀρώγῳ. In l. 4-5, the stone has
ΠЄΘЄ̣|Ρ. Manov gives the following reading for the text: Γλαύ-κιος | Γλαύ-κου |
Ἀρο-τῷ (?) | τῷ ρῳ(?)|ρῳ | μνή-μης | χά-ρειν; and a partial translation: ‘Glaukios, son
of Glaukos, (made) in memory of Aropos (?) ...’71
The stele was erected by a Roman citizen, but seemingly of local origin, since
he has a Greek cognomen; the nomen Anicius is so far unattested in Macedonia. The
single Greek name of the father-in-law Ἄρωγος has only one more attestation in
Macedonia, in Beroia (ΕΚΜ Βέροια, 240).
80. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele (Manov 202). The letter-height
is 1.5-2 cm. Manov gives the text as ‘Πιρουλοππ (sic!) τοῦ Βυτιοι (sic!) | πατρὶ
κὲ [μη]τρὶ ζῶ (sic!) | τέ[κνοις] [ἔτο]υς (?) ΔΜ[Σ] (?)’, with the following transla-
tion: ‘Pirolop (?), son of Bytios (?), (made in memory) of his father, of his mother
and of his children, during his lifetime. year 244 (?)’; in the index, he gives an-
other possible interpretation of the names: ‘Πιρουλοππ (sic!) τοῦ Βυτιοι (sic!) vel
Πιρουλοππτης Βυζιου (?!)’ (Манов 2008, 148). For the first name, D. Dana accepts
Manov’s second suggestion and gives it as an otherwise unattested Πιρουλοππτου
104 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

(?), with a ‘corrected’ form [Πυρουλοππτου] (Dana 2014a, 285)72, while the sec-
ond name is presented as Βυτίου (in the genitive), with one more attestation from
Sirrha, where it is in the genitive73 (Dana 2014a, 74). After having examined the
inscription (NHM-Sofia, inv. # 45838; fig. 23), I would suggest a different interpre-
tation for the names:
Π<υ>ρουλ<ας> Π<η>τουβυτιοι (vel Π<υ>ρουλ<ᾳ> Π<η>τουβυτιο<ς>)
πατρὶ κὲ <μη>τρὶ (?) ζω(--?)
vac. ΤC̣Ị[- - - Πυρο]υσ̣α<λᾳ> (?) (vel [Πυρο]υσ̣α<λα>)
vacat [- - - - - -?]
‘Pyrulas (made this monument) for his father Petubytios (?) and for his living
(?) mother (?) ... Pyrusala (?)’; οr ‘For Pyrulas, son of Petubytis, the father, and for the
living (?) mother (?)...’
In l. 1, the stone has ΠΡΟΥΛΟΠΠΤΟΥΒΥΤΙΟΙ. The second letter is not an
iota, as read by Manov, because the vertical is crossed with a slanting stroke; I there-
fore interpret this letter as an unsuccessful attempt at upsilon and understand the
sequence ΠΡΟΥΛΟ as a form of the common name Πυρουλας. The final O could
be the result of misunderstanding of a cursive alpha by the illiterate stone-cutter,
i.e. a dative Π<υ>ρουλ<ᾳ>; or an intended ΛAC could have resulted in ΛO, i.e. a
nominative Π<υ>ρουλ<ας>. Then I read a second name Π<η>τουβυτιοι, with the
second pi written instead of an eta – a mistake which was not so uncommon and
could easily be explained by the similarity of the two letters in cursive writing; cf.
for example, ΜΝΗΜΠC for μνήμ<η>ς in # 58 (fig. 17) above, or ΝΙΚΟCΤΡΦΤΠC
for Νικοστράτης in IGBulg IV, 2271, where we also see a phi instead of an alpha. In
l. 2, the two partially preserved letters after κὲ were seemingly ṬΠ (rather than Π̣Π),
but the interpretation as an attempt at writing <μη>τρί still seems most probable,
again with a pi substituted for an eta. In l. 3, after the letters TЄ̣ or ΤC̣, the upper
part of a vertical stroke is visible (i.e. H, I, or K). The letters ζω(--?) in l. 2 could be
understood either as a nominative ζῶ(ν) (or ζῶ(ν)|τε̣(ς), if the stele was dedicated by
more than one person?), or as a dative ζώ(σῃ) connected with <μη>τρί (‘for his living
mother’); it seems less probable to think of Ζω|τε̣ί̣[κῃ] or Ζώ|τε̣ι̣[κος] as a personal
name of the mother or of the son who erected the stele for his parents. At the end
of l. 3, where Manov suggested [ἔτο]υς δμ[σ′], the letters on the stone are actually
yC̣AM (or yЄ̣AM) followed by vacat, so I am not inclined to see here a date (with
72
the letter of the hundreds having been omitted)74. Moreover, a year αμ<σ′>, 241 of In the reverse index, this form of the name
the Augustan era = AD 209/210 (or Manov’s 244 = AD 212-213) would be somewhat is quoted as a genitive (Dana 2014a, 454).
late for the stele, which rather belongs to the second half of the 2nd c. AD. I would
73
SEG 30, 605: Μαντω Βυτιου θυγ[άτηρ];
photograph in Καφταντζῆς 1967, 106, # 33,
suggest that this is the end of the personal name [ΠΥΡΟ]ΥC̣A<ΛΑ> (in the dative or
who reads the first name as Μαντή; the read-
in the nominative), with the letters ΛΑ misunderstood and written as Μ: cf. the same ing Μαντω was proposed by G. Mihailov, who
confusion of Μ and ΛΑ (although in the opposite direction) in the already quoted however interprets Βυτίου as a Greek name
inscription # 58 (fig. 17), where ΚΑΤΟΙΧΟΑΛЄΝ is written with ΑΛ instead of (Mihailov 1980, 10, # 23).
ΚΑΤΟΙΧΟ<Μ>ЄΝ. 74
A. Avram also notes that Manov’s ‘resti-
tution de la dernière ligne n’est pas plausible’
80a. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele of AD 165/166 for Petubeithys and (BullÉp 2010, 795, # 430).
75
Pyrusala. The interpretation of the letters ΠΠΤΟΥΒΥΤΙΟΙ as a compound name with NHM-Sofia, exact provenance unknown.
Unpublished. Ligatures: ΠΥΡ, ΠΗ (l. 1); Υ (l.
first element Πητου- is supported by the presence of a similar name in another in-
2); ΜΗ (l. 3).
scription from the Middle Strymon region (fig. 24)75: 76
Cf. however Πατου- in Πατουμασης
Σειτας καὶ Πυρουλας Πητου- (Dana 2014a, 269). The reading of the name
βειθυ τῷ πατρὶ καὶ Πυρουσα- Πετουλας (?) in SEG 30, 597 (cf. Dana 2014a,
λᾳ τῇ μητρί. ζqρ′. 270) is uncertain, because it could well be
‘Seitas and Pyrulas (made this monument) for their father Petubeithys and for Ṭετουλας, see Dana 2014c, 151, # 13.C.
77
their mother Pyrusala. (year) 197 (of the Augustan era) [= AD 165/166].’ Cf. also Pilhofer 2009, 806-807, # 643/
The name Πητου-βειθυς (here in the dative Πητουβειθυ instead of Πητουβειθυι) G762: Μαντα Ρε̣[σκου?]βιτου τυγά[τηρ] (sic),
with one or even two examples (if we accept
is attested for the first time. It has as second element -β(ε)ιθυς, known from other
the proposed restoration of the patronymic)
names in that part of Macedonia, cf. Κειλαι-βειθυς in Neine (three examples: IGBulg for T instead of Θ.
IV, 2254; V, 5883 = # 10 above; and V, 5890 = # 2 above). Πητου- has not been attested 78
If inscription # 80, as it seems, is somewhat
as a first element in compound names except in these two inscriptions76. In my opin- later than # 80a, and the name Π<υ>ρουλ<ᾳ>
ion, Π<η>τουβυτιοι in inscription # 80 could actually represent an illiterate variant of (l. 1) is in the dative and [Πυρο]υσ̣α<λα> (l.
the name Πητουβ(ε)ιθυς, with τ instead of θ (as in Συρα-βιτυς, SEG 51, 859; cf. Dana 3) is in the nominative, one could think of
2014a, 342)77 and confusion of the vowels ι and υ (cf. the genitive Βυθυος in SEG 24, the following reconstruction: Petubeithys and
591). I should also note that Petubytios/Petubeithys in both # 80 and # 80a had a son Pyrusala had two sons, Seitas and Pyrulas,
who erected their funerary monument (#
named Pyrulas, and – if we accept the proposed interpretation for the end of l. 3 in
80a); the second son Pyrulas had a daughter
# 80 – both inscriptions contain the name Pyrusala as well. The names Pyrulas and Pyrusala (bearing the same name as her pa-
Pyrusala are certainly not rare in this region, but one could still think of the two funer- ternal grandmother), who erected his funer-
ary inscriptions as belonging to the same family78. ary monument (# 80).

Fig. 23. Funerary inscription of unknown provenance (# 80).
NHM-Sofia (photo: N. Sharankov)
79
For another possible example of the name
Δεντουπης, see note 113 below with the new
restoration of IGBulg IV, 2291 proposed in
Sharankov 2016a, 343.
80
Cf. BullÉp 2010, 795, # 431: ‘le sens
m’échappe’; Dana 2017, 129: ‘La somme de 10
deniers concernerait-t-elle le prix de l’épitaphe ou
une décision (legs ?) impliquant les villageois ?’
81
The same phrase, as I noted above, should
be restored in the inscription Manov 187:
[κατὰ] διαθή[κην], see the comments to # 61
and note 56 above.
82
Although the stone is slightly damaged in
this part, it is clear that there was no sigma –
or any other letter – after ΚΟΙΛΗΝΟΙ.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 105
Fig. 24. Funerary inscription of unknown provenance (# 80a).
NHM-Sofia (photo: N. Sharankov)
81. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele of Mukases and Artemidora (Manov
203). The letter-height is 1.4-1.5 cm. A corrected reading for this inscription (NHM-
Sofia, inv. # 45836) was proposed by me (Sharankov 2009, 51-52) and accepted by A.
Avram (BullÉp 2010, 795, # 430 and # 431) and D. Dana (Dana 2017, 128-129, # 17).
Μουκασης Διζα καὶ Ἀρτεμιδώρα
Δεντουπου – δηνα(ρίων) ι′ – Κοιληνοί.
‘Mukases, son of Dizas, and Artemidora, daughter of Dentupes, from Koile. 10
denarii.’
In l. 1, the stone-cutter initially engraved ΔΙΖΔ and then corrected the second del-
ta into an alpha. In l. 2, Manov read Δεντουπουδηνα <ο>ἱ Κοιληνοί (reading repeated
in Митрев 2012b, 206-207) and interpreted ‘Dentupudena’ as a second, Thracian name
of Artemidora (Манов 2007, 71; 2008, 50, 136). I explained this sequence as a patro-
nymic Δεντουπου, in the genitive (although reconstructing a non-existing nominative
Δεντουπους instead of the correct Δεντουπης, cf. Dana 2014a, 12279), and an abbrevia-
tion for δηνά(ρια) before the number ·Ι· = 10; in fact, already Manov had mentioned
that the letter ·Ι· between two separation marks could represent the number 10 (Манов
2008, 50), but rejected this possibility in favour of the suggestion that it was an error
instead of the article <ο>ἱ, connected with the ethnic Κοιληνοί (cf. Манов 2007, 71-72).
I am now more inclined to understand the abbreviation as a genitive: δηνα(ρίων), as
it is e.g. in inscriptions from Neine (IGBulg IV, 2252 = V, 5880 = Manov 17: δηναρείων
[.?]) and Malino (Вулић 1941-1948, 202, # 403: δηναρίων  κε′).
More problematic, however, is the meaning of that mention of ‘10 denarii’ in the
text80. For the inscription from Neine, G. Mihailov assumed that it was an incomplete
text specifying a fine for violating the tomb (IGBulg V, p. 390), while M. Manov con-
nects it with the cost of the monument (Манов 2008, 78); the latter explanation seems
more plausible, especially if we presume that Aurelius Pyrulas erected the monument
for Skedese not only as her grandson, but also as her heir. It would then be similar to
inscriptions which specify that a funerary monument was erected in fulfillment of
the will of the deceased or out of their money, cf. κατὰ δια̣θήκ̣ην ἐπ̣οίε̣ι̣ ‘he made (the
monument) according to his testament’ (= ex testamento) in # 61 above81; or ἐκ τῶν
αἰκίνου (sic) ὡς διετάξετω (sic) ‘out of his money, as he ordered in his will’ in IGBulg
IV, 2323; as well as the inscription published below as # 81a.
As for the epitaph of Mukases and Artemidora, if the 10 denarii indicated the
amount of a fine, one would rather expect a dative: δηνάρια ι′ Κοιληνοῖς82, i.e. ‘(if
106 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

anyone violates the grave, he shall pay) 10 denarii to the inhabitants of Koile (= to the
village)’, or an accusative with a preposition, as in other inscriptions of this type; but
since the ethnic is in the nominative, it should refer to Mukases and Artemidora. So
it is most probable that the monument was worth 10 denarii. The amount of only 10
denarii may appear too insignificant for the cost of a stele (or for a sepulchral fine)83,
but there are examples for comparable sums of money in such context, e.g. a fine of 50
denarii payable to the village, for a much larger stele with two reliefs from the territory
of Philippopolis84; or 25 denarii as the cost (?) of a stele from Malino85.
A third possibility is to interpret the 10 denarii as a sum connected with some
funeral rituals, e.g. money for an annual adorning of the grave. One could compare
an inscription from Neos Skopos, where a certain Dioscurides leaves by his will 15
denarii to the village of Olde on the condition that the interest from that money might
be used for filling the krater in front of the grave as well as for crowning the grave once
per year on the festival of the Maenads; an additional clause states that if the village
authorities fail to comply with this bequest, the money should be given to the heirs of
the deceased86. Similar is the case with the priestess Euphrosyne in Thessalonica, who
bequeaths for the perpetuation of her memory two plethra of vineyard, on condition
that the revenue ‘to the value of no less than 5 denarii’ should be used for sacrifices87.
The partially preserved inscription of an association from Thessalonica apparently
stipulates 100 denarii for the funeral rites of its members88; while an epitaph from
Kalandra mentions that the Augustales had contributed 75 denarii for the funeral89. 83
Note, however, that the stele is a rather
Certainly, the amount of money bequeathed for annual commemorations was usually small one: 47 x 38 x 7 cm.
much larger, e.g. 1000 denarii (IG X.2.2, 348-349; AD 192/193) or 1500 denarii (IG 84
IGBulg III.1, 1536: ὃς ἂν καταστρέψει, ὃς
X.2.2, 300; AD 95/96); the amount of the donation of Demetrios for the gerusia of ἂν λιθο̣κοπήσει, δώσεις (sic) εἰς τὴν κώμην
Heraclea is not preserved, but it had to be large enough, since the interest thereof was δηνάρια πεντήκοντα. The dimensions of the
destined for commemorations and rosalia not only for the donor, but for the ances- stele are 83 x 52 x 8 cm, and the two reliefs
tors of the members of the gerusia as well (IGBulg V, 5925 = Manov 151 = Sharankov (a Thracian Rider and a cena funebris) are of
relatively good quality. In comparison, the
2016a, 353-357; 2016b, 61-64, # 2).
stele of Mukases and Artemidora is much
smaller and has only one relief with two busts.
81a. Parthicopolis (?). Inscription of the freedmen of the praetorian Aurelius 85
Вулић 1941-1948, 202, # 403: [--- μνήμης
Pyrrhos. I will adduce one more example of an inscription which mentions the cost of χ]άριν δηναρίων  κε′. Τhe stele was not a
the monument. It is a fragment of a marble block, broken on all sides, 49 x 22 x 16.5 small one – the preserved part is 82 cm h.
cm (NHM-Sofia; fig. 25). Its provenance is not recorded (it was donated to the mu- and 51 cm w.; it is unclear if there was a relief
seum), but since the lettering is virtually identical to that of IGBulg IV, 2268 = Manov in the now lost upper part, but another stele
44 from Parthicopolis (see e.g. the letters A, Є, Ρ, Μ, , the specific ligature Ρ, as well from the same place (Вулић 1941-1948, 202,
# 402; dimensions 120 x 63 x 16 cm) has in
as the finishing of the surface), the two inscriptions must have been made by the same
its upper part an aedicule with three sculpted
stone-cutter and should therefore share the same provenance. Some letter-forms (Η busts.
with wavy middle stroke, Κ with short diagonals) closely resemble those in Manov 160 86
Καφταντζῆς 1967, 298-300, # 496
= # 49 above90, which is dated to year 238 of the Augustan era (= AD 206/207), so the = Pilhofer 2009, 692-694, # 568/G477:
date of the inscription discussed here must be similar. The epigraphic field on the front [Δι]οσκουρίδης Σύρου Ὀλδηνός ... ἀπέλιπεν
side was delimited by a moulded frame, partially preserved above, on the right and τῇ Ὀλδηνῶν κώμῃ δηνάρια ιε′, ἵνα ἐκ τοῦ
below; the inscription apparently started on or above the upper frame, and there could τόκου κρατὴρ γεμισθῇ ἔνπροσθε τῆς ταφῆς
have been one bottom line on or below the lower frame. The letter-height is 2.7-3 cm. καὶ στεφανωθῇ ἡ ταφὴ ἐν ταῖς Μαινάσιν κατ’
ἐνιαυτὸν ἅπαξ· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ποιήσουσιν, τότε ὁ
[(Οἱ) ἀπελεύ]-
χαλ[κ]ὸς ἔστω τῶν κληρονόμων μου...
θ̣εροι 87
IG X.2.1, 260 = Edson 1948, 165-175: ...
[Α]ὐρη(λίῳ) Πύρ- καταλίπω εἰς μνίας χάριν αἰωνίας ἀνπέλων
[ρ]ῳ τῷ κυ- πλέθρα δύω σὺν τες τάφροις, ὅπως ἀποκέηταί
[ρί]ῳ στρατι- 5 μοι ἀπὸ ἀγορᾶς μὴ ἔλατον  ε′...
ώτῃ ἐκ πρ[ε]- 88
IG X.2.1, 1048: ... περὶ τῆς κηδεία[ς - - -] 
τ̣ωρίου ἐκ τ[ε]- ἑκατόν...
τ̣α<γ>μένων
89
SEG 29, 614: ... ἔδω[κ]α̣ν δὲ καὶ οἱ
Αὐγουσ̣τάλαι κα̣τὰ τὸ δόγμα τὰ ἰς τὴν κηδείαν
ἑαυτῦς (sic) ἀ-
δηνάρια οε′.
πὸ (δηναρίων) τ+′. 10 90
The latter inscription is from Ilindentsi
[- - - - - -?] (according to the inventory of RHM-
‘The freedmen (made this monument) for Aurelius Pyrrhos, their master, a prae- Blagoevgrad), but its high quality might sug-
torian soldier, out of the money bequeathed to them, at the cost of 300 (?) denarii. [(In gest that it was purchased in Parthicopolis.
91
the year) ---(?)].’ It is less probable to think of a rectangular
Ligatures: l. 3 – ΡΗ, ΥΡ; l. 6 – ΤΗ; l. 7 – Ρ. In l. 8, a slightly incised vertical is Ε (instead of Є) or Ρ; I am also not inclined
visible between the letters A and M: this could have been an attempt to add the omit- to think of a number written in full and con-
tinuing on the lower frame or below it, e.g.
ted gamma of τ[ε]τ̣α<γ>μένων. In l. 10, the letter after Τ, of which only the upper left
τε̣||[τρακοσίων] or τρ̣[̣ ι||ακοσίων].
tip is preserved, could have been Γ̣, Ξ̣ or Ṭ; if this letter was part of the number, it was 92
Cf., in a funerary inscription from
probably τξ̣′ = 360 denarii rather than τγ̣′ = 303 denarii (TṬ has to be excluded)91. Hierapolis-Kastabala (SEG 39, 1507):
The restoration of the first word as [ἀπελεύ]|θ̣εροι is obvious next to κυ[ρί]ῳ, Παρθένιος ἀπελεύθερος Ἀντιπάτρᾳ τῇ κυρίᾳ
here to be interpreted as ‘(former) master’ and equivalent to patronus92. This is the μνήμης χάριν τὴν σορόν.

Fig. 25. Funerary inscription from
Parthicopolis (?) (# 81a). NHM-Sofia
(photo: N. Sharankov)
93
Or οἰκέται, as in IGBulg V, 5906 = Manov
55.
94
The only preserved part of the text is ἐκ
πραιτωρίου̣ (cf. στρατιώτῃ ἐκ πρ[ε]τ̣ωρίου in
the inscription of the freedmen of Aurelius
Pyrrhus). Since the text consisted of a single
line, the structure, which this fragment
belonged to, must have been a relatively
large one: the preserved fragment, which is
57 cm wide, contains only 12 letters, while
the complete inscription must have included
at least the two or three Roman names of
the praetorian soldier as well as the word
στρατιώτης/οὐετ(ε)ρανός, and probably
much more.
95
Cf. also EAM I, 11 (AD 148/149): the
heir of a deceased veteran dedicates a statue
for 500 denarii to Dionysus according to the
will of the testator (ἀνδριάντα κατὰ διαθήκην
Διονύσῳ δηναρίων φ′).
96
Cf. IGBulg IV, 2319 = Manov 116, where
the names Κλαυδιανὸς Πύρρος (nomen and
cognomen) belong to one and the same per-
son.
97
Cf. Герасимова 2010, 191; Вагалински
2009, 109, 201, # 104; Петков 2010, 376;
Petrova 2017, 137, note 12.
98
For the back side, where a christogram
and another inscription were engraved in the
Late antique period, see # 84b and fig. 29 be-
low.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 107
first mention of freedmen in an inscription from Parthicopolis. Other categories of
people attested for the city – in the letter of Antoninus Pius (IGBulg IV, 2263 = IGBulg
V, 5895 = Manov 39 = Sharankov 2016b, 58-61, # 1) and in the donation of Flaviana
Philokrateia (IGBulg IV, 2265 = Manov 41) – are the citizens, πολῖται; the slaves,
δοῦλοι93; and the foreigners, ξένοι; the imperial letter mentions also ‘the free persons’,
τὰ σώματα τὰ ἐλεύθερα (seemingly a different category from the citizens); as well as οἱ
ἐνκεκτημένοι παρ’ ὑμῖν, the landowners (apparently Roman citizens) in the territory
of Parthicopolis (see Oliver 1958, 57-58; Геров 1961, 194, 198-199; Papazoglou 1988,
374-375). Since the date of the inscription, as it seems, is before AD 212, the nomen
of Aurelius Pyrrhos is either due to his service in the praetorian guard or to a soldier
ancestor. For other praetorians in Parthicopolis, see P. Aelius Longinus in IGBulg V,
5897 = Manov 47 (AD 139/140) and the fragment IGBulg IV, 2285 bis = Manov 79
(2nd c. AD)94; cf. also the praetorian veteran M. Petronius Pudens in an inscription
from Dzhigurovo (Manov 120 = # 29 above), and the evocatus Augusti M. Herennius
Maximus in Neine (IGBulg IV, 2250 = Manov 15). The cost of the monument, 300 (or
360?) denarii, can be compared to the 300 denarii mentioned at the end of a 2nd-centu-
ry inscription on a pedestal found in re-use in the Late antique basilica in Mikrevo: ...
μνήμης χάριν ἐποίη|σεν vac  vac τ′ (unpublished; see Петков / Петрова 2006, 247)95.
82. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele of Nepotianus (Manov 204). The
letter-height, not indicated by Manov, is 1.2-1.3 cm (NHM-Sofia, inv. # 45841).
83. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele of Teres and Severa (Manov 205).
The letter-height is 2.2-3.5 cm. Ligatures: l. 1 – TH, H. The examination of the stele
(NHM-Sofia, inv. # 48294) showed that the name Severa is actually written ΕΥΗ|ΒΛ,
Σευή|<ρᾳ>. For the beginning of the inscription, Manov gives, in the Greek text, ‘Τηρης
Κλαυ (sic!)’, and in the translation, ‘Teres Clau(dianus?)’; in the introduction, how-
ever, he explains Κλαυ(---) as an abbreviated patronymic Κλαυδίου (Манов 2008, 50),
which seems to be a better solution. Indeed, if Κλαυ(---) was an abbreviated nomen,
one would rather expect the order of the names to be *Κλαύδιος Τηρης or *Κλαυδιανὸς
Τηρης96; besides, the surface of the stele is broken before the name Τηρης, so it is not
impossible that there was an abbreviated Roman nomen there, e.g. [Αὐρ(ήλιος)] Τηρης.
As Manov notes (but without providing any comments), two letters ΤΟ were added
above the inscription. These two letters are placed exactly above ΕΑ in ΚΛΑΥΕΑΥΤ,
as if they were an attempt to write the omitted end of the name Κλαυ(---); one wonders
if this Κλαυ˹το˺ could be an illiterate version of Κλαυ<δί>ο<υ>.
II. Inscriptions in Other Publications
II. 1. A re-used inscription from Parthicopolis
The fragments of this inscription – originally a 3rd-century AD invita-
tion for munera (# 84a), re-used in the Episcopal Complex in the late
4th c. AD (# 84b) – were found near the northwestern entrance of the
baptistery at Basilica # 4 (Episcopal Basilica) in Sandanski97 and received
a preliminary publication by V. Gerasimova (Герасимова 2010).
84a. Parthicopolis. Invitatio ad munera. V. Gerasimova proposed only a partial
restoration for the text on two groups of fragments. After examining the inscription and
joining some of the separate pieces, I was able to restore a more complete text. The forty
preserved fragments belonged to the upper left part of a much larger marble slab (the
original edges are preserved only to the left and above); the main inscription was in the
upper central part, surrounded by incised depictions of gladiators and scenes from the
games (fig. 26-27)98. The letters were painted with red colour; the incised images were
also painted, apparently with different colours, of which the red and the brown (used on
the image of a bear) are well preserved. The main text can be restored as follows:
1 [Ὑπὲ]ρ ὑγεία[ς καὶ σωτηρίας καὶ νίκης καὶ τύχης καὶ αἰωνίου διαμονῆς τοῦ
μεγίστου καὶ θειοτάτου καὶ ἀνικήτου]
2 [κυρί]ου ἡ̣μ̣[ῶν Αὐτοκ]ρά[τορος Καίσαρος Μ(άρκου) Αὐρ(ηλίου) Σεουήρου
Ἀλεξάνδρου Εὐσεβοῦς Εὐτυχοῦς Σεβαστοῦ, ἀρχιερέως με]-
3 [γ]ί̣σ̣τ̣[ο]υ, δη̣[μαρχικῆς] ἐξο̣[υσίας τὸ η′, ὑπάτου τὸ γ′, πατρὸς πατρίδος, καὶ
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἱερωτάτης μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰουλί]-
4 ⟦ [ας Μα]μ[αί]ας ⟧ Σ̣[εβαστῆς κ]αὶ ὑπ[ὲρ τοῦ σύμπαντος θείου οἴκου αὐτῶν καὶ
ἱερᾶς συνκλήτου καὶ τῶν διασημοτάτων ἐπάρ]-
108 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

Fig. 27. Inscription for gladiatorial games from Parthicopolis

(# 84a): 1 main inscription. AM-Sandanski
(photo: N. Sharankov)

Fig. 26. Inscription for gladiatorial games from Parthicopolis

(# 84a). AM-Sandanski (photo: N. Sharankov)

2 3

Fig. 27. Inscription for gladiatorial games from Parthicopolis (# 84a): 2-3 details of the gladiatorial scenes. AM-Sandanski
(photos: N. Sharankov)

5 χ̣ων καὶ ἱερῶν̣ [στρα]τευμ[άτων καὶ δήμου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων ὁ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος καὶ
ἡ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος ἡ γυ]-
6 [νὴ] αὐτοῦ οἱ̣ ἀ̣ρχι[ερεῖς] τῶν Σε[βαστῶν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
7 +[- - - - - - κυ]ρίου [ἡμῶ]ν Α̣ὐτοκρά[τορος - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ἐπιτελέ]-
8 [σουσιν ἡμέ]ρ̣α̣ς̣ (?) [- - κυνηγεσί]ω̣ν κα[ὶ μονομαχιῶν (?) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - ἄρξονται δὲ τῶν φιλοτιμιῶν]
9 [- - - - - - - - - Ἰου]λί̣[ων (?), Αὐτ]ο̣κράτορι Κ[αίσαρι Μ(άρκῳ) Αὐρ(ηλίῳ)
Σεουήρῳ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ Εὐσεβεῖ Εὐτυχεῖ Σεβαστῷ]
 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 109

99
The latter suggestion is accepted by A.
Avram in his comments to Gerasimova’s pub-
lication (BullEp 2012, 625, # 293). S. Petrova
also opts for the first half of the 3rd c. and
considers a date in the 2nd c. AD improbable
(Petrova 2016, 199).
100
However, Gerasimova refuted the pos-
sibility that the emperor could have been
Severus Alexander (Герасимова 2010, 196,
note 1, commenting on the date indicated in
Вагалински 2009, 201, # 104, note 188).
101
The first, partially preserved letter is ap-
parently C, and not Є, so a restoration like
[κυνηγ]ε̣σίω[ν] is improbable.
102
Unlike IG X.2.1.S1, 1073 (invitation for
munera in Beroia found in Thessalonica),
this cannot be an invitation for the games
in Beroia, because the organizers in our in-
scription are the (local) archpriests of the
imperial cult: οἱ̣ ἀ̣ρχι[ερεῖς] τῶν Σε[βαστῶν]
(cf. IGBulg IV, 2267; V, 5896); while those in
Beroia were the macedoniarchs. Note that
June 26 was apparently the day on which
Severus Alexander became Caesar in AD 221
(Kienast et al. 2017, 171).
10 [καὶ Κλαυδίῳ Κα]σ̣σίῳ [Δίωνι ὑ]πάτοις, ἑλ̣[ληνικῇ δὲ ἔτους ξσ′ Σεβαστοῦ τοῦ
καὶ ςοτ′, - - - (?).]
L. 1: Gerasimova gives only [Ὑπὲ]ρ ὑγεί[ας] in her text, but comments that the line
possibly continued with καὶ σωτηρίας καὶ νείκης and the titulature of the emperor. L. 2:
Ger. restores here a cognomen [Ση]ουήρ[ου] or Οὐήρ[ου], thinking that the emperors
could have been M. Aurelius and L. Verus, or rather Septimius Severus with his sons
because of the damnatio in l. 499; since there is no damnatio on the supposed cogno-
men Verus or Severus in l. 2, Ger. excludes emperors like Macrinus, Severus Alexander
and Maximinus Thrax. Actually, the letter after the eta is either Ṃ or Ṇ, so I restore
[κυρί]ου ἡμ̣[ῶν]. L. 3: Ger. gives [ἀρχιερέως μεγί|στο]υ δη[μαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας - - -],
and reads on the other fragment ЄZy (she publishes the two groups of fragments with-
out attempting to connect them). L. 4: Ger. notes the damnatio, and reads in the sec-
ond group of fragments ΑΙΥΙ. L. 5: [δήμου Ῥω|μαί]ων καὶ ἱε[ρῶν στρατευμάτων] and
[- - - στρα]τευμ[άτων - - -] Ger. L. 6: αὐτοῦ ο[ἴκου] and τῶν σε[βαστῶν] Ger. L. 7: - -ΡΙΟΥ-
- and [- - - τῶ]ν αὐτοκρα[τόρων] Ger. L. 8: AЄ or ΛЄ and [κυνηγεσιῶ]ν κα[ὶ μονομα-
χιῶν] (?) Ger.; on the first fragment, it is possible to read also ṂЄ̣ (e.g. [ἡ]μ̣έ̣[ρας]?). L. 9:
[αὐτο]κράτορι κ[αί - - -] Ger. L. 10: [- - - ὑ]πάτοις ἔ[τους - - -] Ger.; after the
‘Greek’ year, there could have been an indication for the month and day according
to the Macedonian calendar. There is one more small fragment with traces of a few
letters in two lines, which I am uncertain where to include: --Ị·Aỵ--|--Λ̣+--; in the
first line, probably a form of Αὐ̣[τοκράτωρ] or the names Μ̣. Αὐ̣[ρ(ήλιος)]; it could
have been part of the imperial titulature in l. 2.
The restoration of the text proposed above is based upon the other invitations
for gladiatorial games from Macedonia. Unfortunately, neither the names of the
archiereis, nor the name of the city is preserved. The munera – as it was common
for the cities in the Eastern Roman provinces – probably took place in the theatre of
Parthicopolis (Petrova 2016, 198-200).
On l. 4, some of the letters which have suffered damnatio are partially visible,
mainly because of the red colour; I see them as ---Ṃ..AC, i.e. the name of an Augusta
in the genitive, apparently Iulia Mamaea. The first consul in the consular date, as
already noted by Gerasimova, was the emperor100; if the small fragment with the let-
ters C̣CI101 contains part of the name of the second consul, this should be Cassius
Dio, [Κα]σσίῳ [Δίωνι], who was consul together with Emperor Severus Alexander
in AD 229. If this suggestion for the place of the small fragment is correct, the letters
Λ̣Ι above C̣CI should be part of the name of a (Roman) month, i.e. [Ἰου]λ̣ί[ων]/
[Ἰου]λ̣ί[οις] which would give a date between June 14 (πρὸ ιδ′ Καλανδῶν Ἰουλίων)
and July 15 (Εἰδοῖς Ἰουλίοις); [Μ]α̣ΐ[ων]/[Μ]α̣ΐ[οις], i.e. a date between April 14 and
May 15, seems less probable, because the letter is rather not an alpha. The duration
of the munera could have been three days, as it was in the other Macedonian cities in
that period (table 1). If the dates in the other 3rd-century invitations for gladiatorial
games from Macedonia (including one of AD 229 from Beroia) are compared, we
see that the dates for the munera in Beroia, organized by the Macedonian koinon,
were June 25-27; but is it reasonable to suggest the same dates for the games in
Parthicopolis as well102?

City Year Date Emperor Publication

IG X.2.1, 141 (cf. Bartels
Thessalonica ? AD 226-228 ? Severus Alexander
2008, 207-212, # 6.1)
Beroia AD 229 June 25-27 Severus Alexander ΕΚΜ Βέροια, 68
mid-June to mid-July?
Parthicopolis AD 229 Severus Alexander present publication
mid-April to mid-May?
Beroia AD 240 June 25-27 Gordian III EKM Βέροια, 69
December 11-13 IStob, 38 (cf. AE 2012, 1312;
Stobi AD 238-243 Gordian III
(date added in paint) Sharankov 2015, 96)
Thessalonica AD 245 ? Philip the Arab IG X.2.1.S1, 1072
Thessalonica
AD 252 June 25-27 Trebonianus Gallus IG X.2.1.S1, 1073
(for Beroia)
mid-September
Thessalonica AD 259 Valerian and Gallienus IG X.2.1.S1, 1074
to mid-October
Thessalonica AD 260 September 20 Valerian and Gallienus IG X.2.1.S1, 1075
110 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

The main inscription was surrounded with depictions of gladiators and scenes
from the spectacles (fig. 27/2-3). The closest parallel is the invitation for gladiatorial
games from Thessalonica, dated to AD 259 (IG X.2.1.S1, 1074; Adam-Veleni 2012):
the main text in the central part is surrounded by images of the gladiators identi-
fied by their names; however, unlike the invitatio from Parthicopolis, the one from
Thessalonica had the images only painted and not sculpted/incised (fig. 28). It is prob-
able that painted images originally existed on some of the other invitations as well,
although they have not survived.
On the invitation from Parthicopolis, there is a vertical row of standing gladia-
tors to the left103, and a composition of more dynamic scenes under the inscription;
unlike the invitation from Thessalonica, there were seemingly no images above the
inscription. On the left side, we see (1) part of the leg of a heavily-armed gladiator; (2)
fragment from the upper part and, after a gap, the lower half of a gladiator, possibly
retiarius, identified with the name Πασίν[ι]|κος; (3) heavily-armed gladiator (mur-
millo, secutor, provocator?), named Χρυσάμπ̣[ελος] and designated with the letter Θ,
i.e. ‘deceased, killed’; (4) upper part of a gladiator with the name Χ̣ρυσόμα[λλ]ο̣ς. In
the field below the inscription, from left to right: (5) a bull or wisent, pierced with a
spear and bleeding profusely; (6) an acrobat, named [Δι]ό̣σκορος, leaping over (7) a
jumping bear, painted in brown and identified as Γλυκέρα; (8) a pair of hind hoofs of
a bull or wisent; (9) below them, a retiarius, named Ὀψαρᾶς, holding his net; there are
also three separate pieces, with (10) an animal’s long tail; (11) part of a spear (?); and
(12) a rather small fragment with painted stripes of blood. V. Gerasimova reads the
names as follows: (2) Πασιν[ί]|κος; (3) Χρυσαντ[ος], together with the letter Θ, inter-
preted as the number 9, possibly related to the victories of the gladiator; (6) Σκορος,
interpreted as a Thracian name; (7) Γλυκέρα; (9) ---ΥΑΙ--- and ---ΡΑ CA--- (without
joining the fragments).
The names of the gladiators are mostly stage names, most of which are well-
known. Πασίν(ε)ικος (‘all-conquering’) is attested e.g. in Beroia (ΕΚΜ Βέροια, 376);
Patrai, for a retiarius (Papapostolou 1989, 378-380, # 1, fig. 20 = Rizakis 1998, 214-
215, # 166); Cyzicus (Robert 1940, 228-229, # 294). Χρυσάμπελος (‘golden vine’) was a
rather popular stage pseudonym, cf. two gladiators with that name in Patrai (Rizakis
1998, 213-214, ## 164-165; Papapostolou 1989, 380-382, # 2, fig. 21-22); a provoca-
tor in Claudiopolis (SEG 39, 1339); gladiators in Philadelphia and Cyzicus (Robert
1940, 163-164, # 144, 229, # 295); etc. Χρυσόμαλλος (‘golden fleece’) was the name of
retiarii in Nicaea and Pergamum (Robert 1940, 132-133, # 81, 217-218, # 263; the one
in Nicaea a former venator). Διόσκορος – if a stage pseudonym and not a birth name
– could have been a mythological name; but one should note that this person was rath-
er an acrobat performing together with the bear Glykera (for a close parallel of that
scene, cf. Вагалински 2009, 209, # 139); the name Διόσκορος has not been attested
in Macedonia so far, but there are several examples for the feminine Διοσκόρη (LGPN
IV, 106, Διοσκόρη # 1-4); Διοσκο(υ)ρίδης was also frequent in Macedonia. The name
of the bear Γλυκέρα (‘sweetie’) could have been connected with the animal’s behaviour
or appearance; it is also possible that the name was taken from the New Attic Comedy,
as e.g. the bear Fedra on a mosaic from Maxula in North Africa, obviously named after
the tragic heroine Phaedra (Dunbabin 1978, 72-73, Pl. XXIV/58). Glykera’s prominent
place in the composition and the mere fact that the invitation mentions her name
indicate that this bear was one of the featured performers in Parthicopolis. Ὀψαρᾶς
(‘fisherman’) is unknown as a gladiatorial name, but is most suitable for a retiarius;
the noun ὀψαρᾶς was hitherto attested only from the Medieval period on (as was the
name Ὀψαρᾶς), but its use as a stage name in the invitation from Parthicopolis shows
that the noun existed as early as the 3rd c. AD. For another depiction of two gladiators
with their names from the vicinity of Parthicopolis, see # 85 below.

84b. Parthicopolis. Inscriptions from the Episcopal Complex. The marble slab
with the invitation # 84a was re-used in the late 4th – early 5th c. AD at the baptistery
in the Episcopal Complex together with several other slabs which show no traces of
earlier inscriptions. At least three such slabs were adorned with large christograms
(with alpha and omega) and used for wall facing. The specific shape of two of the slabs
– with an oval cut on the right, resp. the left end – suggests that they were used on the
two sides of an arched entrance/niche (fig. 29); they also bear inscriptions, arranged
in two columns (imitating the facing pages of a codex) and symmetrically placed at the
lower outer corners of the slabs. The slab which stood on the left – the re-used gladi- 103
There must have been an identical row of
atorial inscription – is worse preserved; only small parts of the christogram (the upper figures at the right side, and possibly along the
right part with the letter ) and of the inscription are extant (fig. 30/1): lower end of the plaque.
 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 111

Fig. 28. Inscription for gladiatorial

games from Thessalonica (IG X.2.1.S1,
1074). Archaeological Museum in
Thessaloniki (after Adam-Veleni 2012,
634, Pl. XII/α)

Fig. 29. Slabs with christograms and in-

scriptions from the Episcopal complex
in Parthicopolis (# 84b). AM-Sandanski
(photo: N. Sharankov)

[- - -]θρ[...]ω̣ χάριν ἐγ̣[- - -]

[- - - - - - -] ος πολλά [- - -]
[- - - - - -]α τοῦ̣
[- - - - - - - - -]
5 [- - - τ]ὸν ἅγιον̣
[- - - -]λ̣πεν πρ̣[ο]-
[- - - -]ων επ̣[- - -]
[- - - -]ειτον[- -]
[- - -]σαμενος

In l. 1 of the left column, possibly [ἀν]θρ[ώπ]ῳ/-ω[ν]; Gerasimova reads [- - -]

ЄN[….]. There is one more small fragment from the left column (exact place un-
known) which reads: [ὑπὲρ?] σωτη|[ρίας] μου (or [Ἀνθί]μου?). In l. 1 of the right col-
umn, it could be ἐγ[ώ] or a verb starting with ἐγ- or ἐπ. In l. 4-5, Ger. restored [εἰς
τοὺς ἐ]|ῶν[ας] ἀμήν, but this does not correspond to the preserved letters, which are
ΑΓΙΟΝ̣ or ΑΠΟΝ̣. In l. 9, Ger. adds N- or M- after -σαμενος.
The slab which was placed on the right is better preserved (16 joining fragments)
– a large part of the christogram with the letters A –  survives, and the inscription in
the lower right corner is virtually complete (fig. 30/2):
112 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

1 2

Fig. 30. Detail of the two inscriptions from the Episcopal complex in Parthicopolis (# 84b): 1 the remains of the two columns on
the left slab; 2 the two columns on the right slab (photos: N. Sharankov)

Ὁρκισμὸς Σολο- εἰς τοὺς ἐῶ-

μῶνος ὑε[ι]οῦ Δαυ-
εὶδ ὃς ἐβασε[ί]λευσεν
ἐν Εἰσστραή[λ]· εὐλο-
γητὸς κύριο[ς ὁ δοὺς]
τῷ Σολομῶ[νι] τὴν
σοφίαν ταύ[τ]ην.
Σοῦ ἡ δόξα
νας, ἀμήν.
Τίς τεχνίτης
ἐποίησεν εἰς ἥλι-
5 ον μνημόσυνον
τοῦ(το); μνημονεύ-
ε{σ}τε αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς
ἐῶνας. Θ(ε)ὲ βοήθι τῷ
δούλῳ σου Ἀνθίμῳ.

‘Oath of Solomon, son of David, who was king in Israel. Blessed is Lord, who
gave Solomon such wisdom. Glory to thee unto the ages, amen! Which artisan created
into the world this monument? Remember him unto the ages! God, help thy servant
Anthimos!’
In l. 2-8 of the left column, Ger. reads ὑεοῦ Δαυ(ίδ) | ὁ βασιλεὺς [ὁ ἡμῶν?] | ἐν
Εἰσστραή[λῳ ε]ὐλο|γητὸς κύριος [ὁ θεὸς?] | τῷ Σολομῶνι Δ(α)υ(ὶδ) | σοφίαν [- - -] |
σοῦᾳ (?) δόξα. For l. 4-7 of the right column, Ger. gives ἐπ[ο]ίησεν ὐκητήρι|ον μνη-
μόσυνόν | του. μνημηνεύ|εσ(α)τε αὐτὸν... L. 9: ligature MW. The beginning of the text
imitates the beginning of the so-called Testamentum Salomonis: Διαθήκη Σολομῶντος
υἱοῦ Δαυείδ, ὃς ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ... Εὐλογητὸς εἶ, κύριε ὁ θεός, ὁ δοὺς τῷ
Σολομῶντι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην· σοὶ δόξα καὶ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν. καὶ ἰδοὺ
ἀνοικοδομουμένης τῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἐργαζομένων τῶν τεχνιτῶν, etc. (McCown
1922, 5*, 98*-99*); cf. also the beginning of Proverbia (1.1): Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος
υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, ὃς ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ἰσραὴλ, γνῶναι σοφίαν καὶ παιδείαν. The second part
with the question can be paralleled with the inscription of Bishop Ioannes in Basilica
# 2 in Parthicopolis: τίς ἔτευξε θέσκελον ἔργον καλλονῇ ὄμματ’ εὐφρενον ποθῖς μαθῖν;
(SIBulg, 239).
85. Palat. Terracotta medallion with gladiators. This medallion depicting gladi-
atorial fight (RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/154; fig. 31) was published without the
inscription which provides the names of the two gladiators (Вагалински 2005; 2009,
119, 141, 204, # 121)104. The inscription (letter-height 0.5-0.8 cm) was apparently
made on the mould105 and the thin letters are not well visible under the glaze, but the
reading is nevertheless certain:
Σωτηρίδα̣ς vac. Αἴας
‘Soteridas, Ajax.’
The terracotta was almost certainly produced locally and not imported, so it is
safe to suppose that the scene represented gladiators who were famous in the region
and probably took part in munera in the nearby Parthicopolis (Вагалински 2009, 119,
141). Σωτηρίδας was possibly not a stage name, since it is a common name and has 104
I thank my colleague E. Nankov for
not been attested for gladiators elsewhere; the only possible parallel could be a certain
drawing my attention to the existence of an
[Σω]ζόμεν[ος] in an inscription from Laodicea ad Lycum, but his name was most prob- inscription on the medallion.
ably not a stage pseudonym either (Robert 1940, 152, # 118, 298, note 5). In Macedonia, 105
The terracotta was produced by pressing
there is perhaps only one more uncertain example for the name (Вулић 1941-1948, 64, the clay into a mould, as clearly indicated by
# 134: Σωτηρίδ̣[ῃ]; cf. LGPN IV, 326, Σωτηρίδης # 1, where Σωτηριχ[ῳ] is proposed as the finger impressions on its back.

Fig. 31. Terracotta with gladiators from
Palat (# 85). RHM-Blagoevgrad
(photo: N. Sharankov)
106
It is an epigram which emphasizes the
origin of the stage name: ‘I, whom you see,
am neither Ajax of Locri nor the Telamonian
Ajax, but the one who pleased the public in
the stadia in warlike fights...’
107
It was discovered in 2003 during illegal
digging near the village of Rupite, but was
hopefully seized by the authorities and en-
tered the collection of the Museum.
108
Note especially the wide alpha with a
straight cross-bar, the large omicron and
omega, the nu with longer left vertical, the
sigma with diverging outer bars; there are no
apices. The date in the 3rd – 2nd c. BC proposed
by G. Mitrev according to the palaeography
(Митрев 2011, 19, note 3) is improbable.
109
One should however note that a dative of
the second declension would not have lacked
the iota adscriptum at that early period.
110
For the Roman imperial period, cf. EKM
II.1, 215, dated to the late 2nd – early 3rd c. AD,
mentioning two persons named Μυρτάλη (a
grandmother and a granddaughter).
111
A partially preserved graffito from
Heraclea (cf. Vagalinski 2020, 8 and note
11), probably from the 1st c. AD, reads
[---]ς Μιλησίου, but it is unclear if Μιλησίου is
a patronymic or rather an ethnic (‘Milesian’).
Cf. also LGPN IV, 237, s.v. Μιλήσιος # 2, for
a Macedonian bishop with that name attested
in AD 366.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 113
an alternative reading), but it is well attested e.g. in Epirus. Other names of that group
are frequent in Macedonia, e.g. Σωτήριχος (incl. in an unpublished inscription from
Heraclea). Although Αἴας could have also been a birth name, it should be noted that
Αἴας/Aiax was used as stage name of gladiators (after the two famous heroes of the
Trojan War), e.g. an Αἴας in Thasos (Robert 1940, 113-115, # 55)106, Αἴαξ in Smyrna
(SEG 18, 546), or Aiax on a mosaic from Augusta Vindelicorum (CIL III, 5835a).
II. 2. Funerary inscriptions from Heraclea
Several funerary inscriptions from the region of Heraclea were
published – or just mentioned – by G. Mitrev in his study on the
sepulchral monuments from the region of Petrich (Митрев 2011). I
present some corrections and additional notes to five of these inscrip-
tions (## 86-90).
86. Heraclea. Funerary stele for Niko. One of the funerary stelae is only men-
tioned as an example for an early monument of this type in the area, but without the
Greek text (Митрев 2011, 19, 50, обр. 2). I provided a reading of the text elsewhere
(Sharankov 2017, 25, note 38), but since it is seemingly the earliest known inscrip-
tion from Heraclea, it deserves a proper publication. The stele is made of limestone,
moulded at the top, 45 x 32 x 8 cm (RHM-Blagoevgrad, inv. # 1.2/1502; fig. 32)107. The
letter-height is 3.1-3.6 cm, and the lettering points to a date in the second half of the
4th c. BC108.
Νικὼ
Ἀσκληπι-
οδώρου
γυνή.
‘Niko, wife of Asklepiodoros.’
G. Mitrev, who does not give the Greek text, only mentions that the stele was
‘erected for Nikos, son of Asklepiodoros, by his wife’, obviously thinking of ΝΙΚΩ as
the dative of the name Νῖκος109. It is actually the nominative of the feminine name
Niko, which is well attested in Macedonia, as is the name of the husband Asklepiodoros
(LGPN IV, 55-56, s.v. Ἀσκληπιόδωρος ## 1-37; 256, s.v. Νικώ ## 1-4; for Νικώ, cf. also
IG X.2.1.S1, 1196).
87. Heraclea. Stele of Myrtale. One more inscription was only mentioned by G.
Mitrev (Митрев 2011, 19, 51, обр. 5). It is a marble pedimental stele, 80 x 51 x 9 cm
(RHM-Blagoevgrad, without inv. #). Letter-height: 3.5 cm; the lettering suggests a date
in the 3rd or the 2nd c. BC.
Μυρτάλη
Μιλησίου.
‘Myrtale, daughter of Milesios.’
The name Μυρτάλη is attested in Amphipolis in the 4th c. BC (LGPN IV, 244)110.
Μιλήσιος, derived from the ethnic Μιλήσιος (‘of Miletus’), is attested for the first time
in this region111.
88. Heraclea. Funerary inscription of Phila. In this inscription (now apparently
lost), which G. Mitrev reads as Λυσίμαχος φίλα and translates as ‘Lysimachus (made)
for his beloved beings’ (Митрев 2011, 38, # 11, 52, обр. 8а-б), Φίλα is obviously not
an adjective in the neuter plural, but a personal name: Λυσίμαχος Φίλᾳ, ‘Lysimachos
(made this) for Phila’ (it is less probable that Φιλα- was the beginning of a longer
name). The personal name Φίλα is rather well attested in Macedonia (LGPN IV, 342,
s.v. Φίλα ## 1-30).
89. Heraclea. Funerary inscription for the children of Petronia. As I already
noted, the name in l. 2 in this inscription (Митрев 2011, 39-40, # 16, 54, обр. 14) is
not the feminine Οὐαλερί(ᾳ), because the last preserved letter is clearly an omega:
Πετρωνία [cognomen] | Λ(ουκίῳ) Οὐαλερίω[ι cognomen] | καὶ Λ(ουκίῳ) Οὐαλε[ρίωι
cognomen] | τοῖς τέκ[νοις e.g. ζῶσα?] | κατεσκεύ[ασεν - - -?], ‘Petronia - - - made (this
monument) for her children L. Valerius - - - and L. Valerius - - -’ (Sharankov 2016b,
66, # 6-8 and note 31). The nomen of the two sons apparently was that of their father
(Valerius could point to the family of a soldier / veteran), while the mother had a dif-
ferent Roman nomen.
114 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

90. Heraclea. Funerary stele for Menandros and Aidebasa of AD 165/166.

Another inscription (Митрев 2011, 43-44, # 22, 57, обр. 25), for which I proposed a
small correction, is the stele erected by Asos for his parents (Sharankov 2016b, 68, #
2, 69, fig. 10)112: Ασος Μενάνδρῳ τῷ ˹πα˺|τρὶ καὶ Αειδαιβασᾳ τῇ | μητρὶ μνήμης χάριν.
ζqρ′, ‘Asos – for his father Menandros and his mother Aidebasa, in memory. (In the
year) 197 (of the Augustan era) [= AD 165/166]’. In l. 1, the stone-cutter first engraved
ΔΡΠΑ|ΤΡΙ, omitting the article, and afterwards corrected the letters ΠΑ to Τ and
added the now missing ΠΑ above the line. The name in l. 2 was read by Mitrev as
Αειδαιρασᾳ (reading repeated in Milcheva 2015, 294-295).

II. 3. Inscriptions of unknown provenance in the Middle Strymon

region

91. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele erected by Pyruzais for her husband
Posidonios. The stele, which was donated to NHM-Sofia in 2014, was published by
K. Karadimitrova, but the text of the inscription contains several inaccuracies, some of
which could be misprints (Карадимитрова 2015): Πυρουσαλις Πο|σιδωνίω | τω ανδρί
μνέμες χάριν. As I already noted (Sharankov 2017, 24, fig. 9), the correct text reads:
Πυρουζαις Ποσιδωνίῳ
τῷ ἀνδρὶ μνήμης χάριν.
‘Pyruzais (made this) in memory of her husband Posidonios.’
The name in l. 1 was read by Karadimitrova as Πυρουσαλις, ‘with a ligature of Λ and Fig. 32. Funerary stele from Heraclea
Α’, and explained as a variant of the name Πυρουσαλα (Карадимитрова 2015, 49-50). In (# 86). RHM-Blagoevgrad
fact, it is a different name, Πυρουζαις, which is already attested in Parthicopolis (IGBulg (photo: N. Sharankov)
IV, 2270 = Manov 62, AD 120/121, in the dative: Ἑρεννίᾳ Πυρουζαι; cf. Dana 2014a, 112
The corrected reading was accepted by D.
286). It belongs to a group of feminine names with the suffix -ζαις (sometimes written
Dana (cf. Dana 2017, 129-130, # 19).
-ζες) which are typical in that region (cf. Dana 2014a, 385; 2017, 121; and especially 113
IGBulg IV, 2291 = Manov 88 (Laskarevo),
Dana 2014b, 150-151, # 13B): Δεντουζαις113, Δεπυζαις114, Μωμωζαις115, Σκαρκεζαις116. corrected reading by Sharankov 2016a, 343:
I should add that there is one more instance of the name Μωμωζαις, written Δ̣ε̣ν̣τουζαι[ς Δεντ]ο̣υ̣που ἡ γυνή (in the nomi-
Μωμοζες, which has been incorrectly divided and accepted as an example of the name native).
Μωμω; the inscription, on a funerary stele of unknown provenance in Macedonia,
114
IGBulg IV, 2259 = Manov 24 = # 8 above
(Neine): Δεπυζαις (in the nominative).
now kept in the Louvre (SEG 48, 881; cf. Dana 2014a, 225), should be read as follows: 115
Καφταντζῆς 75-76, # 4 = Samsaris 1989,
Μωμοζες Μισι (?) Ἀλέξου τῷ ἀνδρὶ κ(αὶ) τῷ ὑῷ117. 240, # 43 (Sirrha, AD 179); corrected in Dana
2014b, 150-151, # 13B: Μωμωζαι τῇ θυγατρί (in
91a. Vinogradi. Funerary stele. Another example of a name in -ζαις is seen in the dative).
an unpublished inscription from Vinogradi (fig. 33)118, which I have already men-
116
1) IGBulg IV, 2330 = Manov 146 (region
tioned on several occasions (cf. Sharankov 2016a, 341, note 77; 2017, 28): [---]υζαις of Petrich, ancient Terepara?), corrected in
Sharankov 2016a, 344-345; 2016b, 65, # 3, fig.
Μητου | [Κλεοπάτ]ρᾳ (?) Ζωΐλου, ‘---uzais, daughter of Metos, (made) for Kleopatra 7/1-2: Σκαρκαιζες Πύρρου Τηρηπαρηνή (in
(?), daughter of Zoilos’. The first name could be restored as, e.g., [Δεντο]υζαις, the nominative); 2) Manov 114 = # 26 above:
[Δεπ]υζαις, or [Πυρο]υζαις; but it could have been a name unattested elsewhere. The Σκαρκεζαι τῇ θυγα<τ>ρί (in the dative).
patronymic is unknown; its nominative could have been Μητος119, Μητας, or Μητης; 117
In SEG, the beginning of the text reads
however, one should not exclude the possibility of an error instead of Μητ<οκ>ου120, Μωμὸ ΕΕΜΙΣΙ; Dana gives it as Μωμο
.ΕΕΝΙΣΙ. It is actually MWMOЄC, with
due to a confusion of the two omicrons in OK and Oy. The name in -ΡΑ (l. 2) is rather
MW in ligature and a reversed zeta (a form
in the dative than in the nominative and could be restored as, e.g., [Κλεοπάτ]ρᾳ or of the letter which is not unknown in inscrip-
[Ἀρτεμιδώ]ρᾳ. tions from the Roman period).
118
HM-Petrich. Marble stele with a garland,
50 x 38 x 10 cm; the lower left corner is miss-
Four stelae, donated to NHM-Sofia by B. Radev, were published by D. ing. Inscription on the lower frame; slightly
Dana (Dana 2016b)121. Here I present corrected texts for three of them incised letters, 2-2.3 cm h. End of the 1st – first
half of the 2nd c. AD.
(# 92-94). 119
Μητος and ΜΤΣ in two graffiti of the
5th c. BC from Ikthvisi in Georgia (Braund
92. Unknown provenance. Funerary stele for Pyrusela. D. Dana published 1994, 101-102, notes 127 and 128; LGPN IV,
the text of the inscription as follows (Dana 2016b, 105-106, # 2): Διζας Μ̣εν̣άνδρου 235) rather represents a local name and could
Πυρουσελᾳ τ̣ῇ̣ | σ̣υ̣ν̣β̣ίῳ̣ ̣ μνήμης χάριν. The examination of the stele (NHM-Sofia, inv. hardly be used as a parallel.
120
# 52208; fig. 34) showed that the reading should be: The name Μητοκος is attested as a patro-
nymic in an inscription of AD 164/165 from
Διζας Μελάνδρου (sic) Πυρουσελα- Laskarevo, IGBulg IV, 2288 = Manov 85, cor-
νι μνήμης χάριν. rected reading in Sharankov 2016a, 343: Πύρσῃ
‘Dizas, son of Melandros (!) (made this) in memory of Pyrusela.’ Μητοκου. For another example, in two epi-
For the patronymic in l. 1, Dana reads Μ̣εν̣άνδρου, noting that ‘la lecture ... est taphs of unknown provenance in Macedonia,
plus difficile’, and proposes an alternative reading in a footnote: ‘Ἀ̣λ̣εξ̣άνδρου est égale- cf. Dana 2014a, 221; and SEG 52, 651-652.
121
ment possible’ (Dana 2016b, 106, note 18); actually, the reading of the name on the The four stelae were also published –
without the inscriptions – in a catalogue
stone is certain: ΜЄΛΑΝΔΡΟΥ. It could be an error for Με<ν>άνδρου, or a variant of of the donation of B. Radev to the Museum
the name due to dissimilation of the first of the two [n] in -ναν- or created by analogy (Dimitrov 2017, 11, # 11; 9, # 8; 16, # 19; 39, #
with names starting with Μελ-/Μελαν-. There is one more example for Μέλανδρος 64; corresponding to Dana’s ## 1-4).

Fig. 33. Funerary stele from Vinogradi (# 91a): detail of the
inscription. HM-Petrich (photo: N. Sharankov)
122
IG X.2.1, 686; stele with a Thracian Rider,
possibly from Thessalonica; corrected reading
in Mihailov 1975, 50; SEG 26, 754.
123
Cf., in Latin inscriptions, T. Malio
Melandro in CIL XIV, 1291 (in the dative), and
Melander in AE 2001, 245, which are possibly
to be explained as variants/erroneous forms of
Menander.
124
Cf. Dana 2016b, 106. Nevertheless, as
with Μελάνδρου, the explanation of the form
Πυρουσελανι with -ε- instead of -α- as a mere
mistake cannot be excluded.
125
The beginning of that inscription, in-
stead of ἔτους αξ̣τ′, μ(ηνὸς) Ξανδίκο̣υ̣ κθ′,
should be read as ἔτους αξτ′ Μα(κεδόνων),
Ξανδίκο̣υ̣ κθ′, because there is a ligature ΜΑ
after the number for the year, i.e. ‘in the year
361 of the Macedonian era [= AD 214], on the
29th of (month) Xandikos’.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 115
Fig. 34. Funerary stele of unknown provenance (# 92). NHM-
Sofia (photo: N. Sharankov)
in Macedonia: Δεῖα Μελάνδρῳ τῷ τέκνωι ζῶσα{ι}122. According to G. Mihailov,
Μέλανδρος is a name connected with μέλας (Mihailov 1975, 50); the editors of LGPN
IV follow the interpretation of Mihailov and list Μέλανδρος as a distinct name (LGPN
IV, 226, s.v.). However, since the name Μένανδρος is attested no less than 90 times
in Macedonia (LGPN IV, 228, s.v. Μένανδρος ## 7-95; cf. also # 90 above), I doubt if
Μέλανδρος should be separated from it123.
After the patronymic, Dana reads Πυρουσελᾳ τ̣ῇ̣ | σ̣υ̣ν̣β̣ίῳ̣ ̣(l. 1-2), but both
the article τ̣ῇ̣ and the noun σ̣υ̣ν̣β̣ίῳ̣ are not present on the stone. At the end of l. 1,
after ΠΥΡΟΥCЄΛΑ, the surface of the stele is slightly damaged, but it is certain
that there were no more letters to the right; at the beginning of l. 2, there are only
two letters NI, followed by a large vacat. The form Πυρουσελανι is a specific dative
from Πυρουσελα, a name which is apparently a variant of the typical for the region
Πυρουσαλα124. Similar datives appear in several inscriptions from Macedonia (cf.
Mihailov 1975, 52-53; Daux 1976, 223; Dana 2014a, XCIII), e.g. Μαντανι (ΕΚΜ ΙΙ.2,
577), Κρισπείνανι (ΕΚΜ ΙΙ.1, 209), Κ<λ>αυδίανι (ΕΚΜ ΙΙ.2, 621), Πρόκλανι (IG
X.2.1, 692; corrected in Daux 1976, 223, 222, fig. 14); they are attested for masculine
names as well, e.g. Πυρουλανι τῷ ἀνδρί (Dana 2016a, 147-148, # 25B = AE 2016,
1432)125.
93. Unknown provenance (Heraclea?). Funerary stele of AD 144/145 for the
family of Zoilos. In the first publication, only the date in l. 5 was read, and the rest was
considered unreadable (Dana 2016b, 106-107, # 3). After carefully examining the stele
(NHM-Sofia, inv. # 52211; fig. 35), I was able to present a complete text (Sharankov
2016b, 67, # 1, fig. 9):
Ζωΐλος Νικά̣νδ̣ρ̣[ου]
ζ̣ῶν καὶ φρ̣ονῶν ἐ̣π̣[οί]-
[ει?] Ζω<ϊλ>ᾷ (?) υἱῷ καὶ Κλευπά̣-
[τ]ρ̣ᾳ (sic) τῇ συνβίῳ μνήμης
[χ]ά̣ριν. ϛορ′. 5
‘Zoilos, son of Nikandros, living and of sound mind, made (this) in memory of his
son Zoilas and of his wife Kleopatra. (year) 176 (of the Augustan era) [= AD 144/145].’
In l. 3, the stone has ΖΛΙΑ, which I understand as an error instead of Ζω<ϊλ>ᾷ,
from the hypocoristic Ζωϊλᾶς (cf. the name of the father Ζωῒλος). The number for the
year in l. 5 was read by Dana as ΓΟΡ (173) instead of FΟΡ (176). It should be noted
that this is the only example from the region with the formula ζῶν καὶ φρονῶν, which
was common in the inscriptions from Thrace.
116 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

Fig. 35. Funerary stele of AD 144/145 from Heraclea (?) (# 93):

inscription. NHM-Sofia (photo: N. Sharankov)

Fig. 36. Funerary inscription from Heraclea (?) (# 94).

NHM-Sofia (photo: N. Sharankov)

94. Unknown provenance (Heraclea?). Funerary stele erected by Ingenua for

her mother. D. Dana reads the text on this stele as follows (Dana 2016b, 107-108, #
4): [1-2]Ε̣Ν̣Ο[Σ? ---]ι̣μῃ̣ τ̣ῇ | μ̣η̣τ̣ρί. The examination of the stele (NHM-Sofia, inv. #
52214; fig. 36) allowed me to propose a more complete reading (cf. AE 2016, 1418):
[Ἰν]γ̣ένουα Δ̣ή̣μῃ τῇ
μ̣ητρί.
‘Ingenua (made this monument) for her mother Deme.’
[Ἰν]γ̣ένουα (Latin Ingenua) is used as a single name; it has several attestations in
Macedonia, usually as a cognomen of Roman citizens126; Ἰνγένουα appears as a sin-
gle name in a Late antique epitaph from Stobi127; and there is one inscription where
Ingenuus is possibly a nomen128. For Δήμη, there is a single example from the 4th c.
BC in Amphipolis129, but cf. the masculine name Δημέας, which is well known in the
region (see # 9 and note 12 above), as well as the feminine Δημώ (LGPN IV, 95, s.v.).

One more stele, donated to NHM-Sofia by B. Radev, was published in

the catalogue of his donation (Dimitrov 2017, 40, # 65), but without
the inscription.
126
Cf. Pilhofer 2009, 138-140, # 127a (=
95. Unknown provenance (Heraclea?). Funerary stele erected by Aeliana CIPhil II.1, 73): Aiania Q. f. Ingenua (also Q.
Cestia. The stele (NHM-Sofia, inv. # 52212; fig. 37), 128 x 68 x 18 cm, is made of me- Aianius Ingenus); 307-308, # 242: [Va]riniae
dium-grained marble and represents a man in high relief. The ornament in the curved M. f. Ingenuae; 376-377, # 314: Vellaea C. f.
pediment is very similar to those on the funerary stelae # 33 (= Manov 126) and # 94 Ingen[ua].
above, which, however, have it within a triangular pediment (fig. 38); it is therefore
127
IStob, 275; cf. also Ingenuus as a single
name in CILAlb, 27 = LIAlb, 30: Ingenuus
probable that # 94 and # 95 are also from Heraclea130. The inscription is engraved in
Mutiliani.
the upper left corner of the relief field. The letters are 1.5-3 cm h., and the lettering 128
CIL III, 1420346 = Juhel / Νίγδελης 2015,
points to a date in the 2nd c. AD. 116-117, # 66; cf. Tataki 2006, 253, # 275.
Αἰλιανὴ 129
IGBulg I2, 459 (Apollonia Pontica): Δήμη
Καιστία Ἀριστοκλείους Ἀμφιπολῖτις.
130
Λύκῳ μ- Cf. Митрев 2012b, 208 and note 12.
 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 117

Fig. 37. Funerary inscription from Heraclea (?) (# 95): 1 general view; 2 inscription. NHM-Sofia (photos: N. Sharankov)

Fig. 38. Ornaments in the pediments of

the funerary stelae # 33, # 94, and # 95.
HM-Petrich (# 33) and NHM-Sofia
(## 94, 95) (photos: N. Sharankov)
118 NICOLAy SHARANKOV

νήμης
χάριν. 5
‘Aeliana Cestia (made this) in memory of Lykos.’
Ligatures: l. 1 – ΝΗ; l. 4 – ΝΗ, Η. Here Αἰλιανή could be understood as the
nomen and Καιστία as the cognomen131, and not vice versa; similar is the case with the
archiereia Τερεντιανὴ Ἰουλία in Parthicopolis (IGBulg V, 5896 = Manov 46; cf. Tataki
2006, 406, # 594.2). This is the first attestation of Aelianus/Aeliana (as a nomen?) in
the Middle Strymon region132. However, among the numerous Aelii in Macedonia133,
there are several in the Middle Strymon region, mostly Publii Aelii, including two
from Parthicopolis and one each from Neine and from the vicinity of Heraclea134; this
could be connected with the foundation of Parthicopolis and the changes in the region
during the first years of Emperor Hadrian’s rule. For Cestius/Cestia, the only other
attestation of the name in Macedonia is in a dedication of AD 162 from Kovachevo,
where it is used as a nomen: Λ. Κέστιος Οὐλπιανὸς Λονγεῖνος135. The two could have
been related, especially if the names in our inscription are in reverse order and Cestia
is a nomen. The husband (?) of Cestia bears a single name and was seemingly not a
Roman citizen. Λύκος is rather frequent in Macedonia (LGPN IV, 214, Λύκος # 3-37),
but has not been attested in the Middle Strymon region.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to the colleagues at the muse-
ums who have continuously helped me in my research: Antonia
Kocheva, Anton Kovachev and Vladimir Petkov at the Archaeological
Museum in Sandanski; Sotir Ivanov at the History Museum in
Petrich; Denis Isaev, Tsvetana Komitova and Hristina Tsoneva at
the Regional Museum of History in Blagoevgrad; Ivan Hristov, Elka
Penkova, as well as the late director Bozhidar Dimitrov at the National
History Museum in Sofia. I want to thank also my colleagues Vanya
Popova, Svetla Petrova, Rumyana Milcheva, Mirena Slavova, Lyudmil
Vagalinski, Georgi Mitrev, Emil Nankov and Philip Kolev for the use-
ful discussions on various topics related to the Middle Strymon valley
in Antiquity.
Provenance of the inscriptions:
Drama: # 2a
Dzhigurovo: # 29
Heraclea: ## 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 76 (?), 79 (?), 86, 131
For the use of Cestia as a cognomen, cf.
87, 88, 89, 90, 93 (?), 94 (?), 95 (?) TAM V.3, 1485: Αἰλ(ία) Κεστία; or CIL 10,
Katuntsi: # 48 7060: Claudia Cestia. Κέστος is used as a cog-
Kovachevo: # 23 nomen in IG X.2.1, 69. Κέστιλλος in Beroia
(EKM Βέροια, 382), used as a single name, is
Kresna: ## 1, 2 (?), 3 apparently a stage name, cf. gladiators bearing
Laskarevo: ## 21, 22, 47 the same name in Smyrna (ISmyrna, 419; 843)
Melnik: # 27 and Aphrodisias (IAph2007, 10.101; written
Καίστιλλος).
Neine/Ilindentsi: ## 2 (?), 4, 5, 6, 7, 7a, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 132
For the Aeliani in Macedonia, see Tataki
16, 20, 38, 49, 59, 61 2006, 68, # 17.
133
More than 210, see Tataki 2006, 69-84, #
Palat: # 85 18.
Parthicopolis: ## 17, 18, 19, 46, 58 (?), 62, 65, 69, 81a (?), 84 134
Parthicopolis: IGBulg IV, 2268 = Manov
Piperitsa: ## 24, 25, 26, 66 44; IGBulg V, 5897 = Manov 47; and an Aelius
without a praenomen in IGBulg IV, 2266 =
Poleto: # 42 Manov 42; Neine: Manov 82; Heraclea: IGBulg
Ribnovo: # 77 IV, 2330 = Manov 146 (corrected reading in
Vinogradi: ## 50, 54, 91a Sharankov 2016a, 344-345; 2016b, 65).
135
IGBulg IV, 2304 = Manov 102, a statue-
Vranya: # 55 base with a dedication to the god Πυρμηρυλας.
Zlatolist: # 28 Here Ulpianus could be a second nomen. Note
Zornitsa: # 39 that both the stele of Cestia and the statue-
base dedicated by Cestius are of good quality
Unknown: ## 37, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 63, 64, 67, 68, 70, and relatively large compared to the usual di-
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 80, 80a, 81, 82, 83, 91, 92 mensions for these types of monuments.

Bibliography
Божинова, Ю. / Русинов, В. 1987. Три
надгробни паметника от долината на
Средна Струма. – Археология 29/1,
24-26.
Вагалински, Л. 2009. Кръв и зрелища.
Спортни и гладиаторски игри в
елинистическа и римска Тракия.
София.
Вагалински, Л. 2005. Гладиаторски
керамичен релеф от Югозападна
България. In: Stephanos
Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris
Ludmili Getov (= Studia archaeologica
Universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. IV).
София. 89-90.
Велков, В. 1961. Нови епиграф-
ски данни за античната история
на град Сандански. – Известия на
Археологическия институт 24, 245-260.
Вулић, Н. 1941-1948. Антички спомени-
ци наше земље. – Споменик 98, 1-279.
Герасимова, В. 2010. Два надписа от
базилика № 4 в Сандански (предва-
рително съобщение). – Нумизматика,
сфрагистика и епиграфика 6, 191-206.
Герасимова, В. 2009. Портретът на
един тракиец. In: Ваклинова, М.
(ed.). Иванка Акрабова-Жандова. In
Memoriam. София. 43-46.
Герасимова, В. 1993. Находки от град
Нейне. – Годишник на Националния
археологически музей 9, 237-239.
Герасимова-Томова, В. 1989. Каменна
пластика. In: Мелник 1. Градът в под-
ножието на Славова крепост. София.
160-183.
Герасимова-Томова, В. 1973.
Паметник на преторианец от района
на Средна Струма. – Музеи и памет-
ници на културата 4/1973, 9-11.
Геров, Б. 1961. Проучвания на
западнотракийските земи през
римско време [I]. – Годишник
на Софийския университет,
Филологически факултет 54/3 (1959-
1960), 153-407.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION...
Дечев, Д. 1955. Култът на Артемида
в областта на Средна Струма. –
Известия на Археологическия
институт 19, 95-109.
Дечев, Д. 1950. Антични надписи
от областта на средна Струма. –
Годишник на Народния археологиче-
ски музей Пловдив 2, 51-55.
Димитров, Д. П. 1941. Портретът
върху античните надгробни плочи
от римско време в Североизточна
Македония. – Известия на
Българския археологически институт
13 (1939), 1-128.
Зарева, Л. 1983. Два надписа от
античния град при с. Мулетарово,
Благоевградски окръг. – Археология
25/3, 29-33.
Карадимитрова, К. 2015. Надгробна
плоча от Средна Струма. – Известия
на Народния музей – Бургас 5, 48-52.
Колекция Арес 2000 = Кабакчиева, Г.
(ed.). Колекция Арес. Каталог. София.
Манов, М. 2008. Селищният живот в
долината на Средна Струма според
античните епиграфски паметници
от ІV/ІІІ в. пр. Хр. – ІІІ в. сл. Хр. (=
Разкопки и проучвания 38). София.
Манов, М. 2007. Нови тракийски
имена в епиграфски паметници
от долината на Средна Струма. –
Нумизматика, сфрагистика и епигра-
фика 3/2, 67-73.
Манов, М. 2005. Два надгробни
паметника от елинистическата епоха
от Рупите (Мулетарово), Петричко.
– Нумизматика, сфрагистика и епиг-
рафика 2, 183-186.
Митрев, Г. 2012a. Тракийските скаи –
същностна, пространствена и хроно-
логическа реализация. – Епохи 16/3-4
(2008), 75-86.
Митрев, Г. 2012b. Долината на
Средна Струма през Античността.
Племена и селища. Книга 1.
Асеновград.
Митрев, Г. 2011. Антични надгробни
119
паметници от Петричкия район. In:
Митрев, Г. / Иванов, С. Проучвания
в долината на Струмешница. І.
Благоевград. 18-60.
Митрев, Г. / Иванов, С. 2011.
Антични култови паметници от
Хераклея Синтика и околност-
та. In: Проучвания в долината на
Струмешница. I. Благоевград. 7-17.
Петков, В. 2010. Археологически
разкопки на Епископската базилика
в град Сандански. – Археологически
открития и разкопки през 2009 г.,
375-376.
Петков, В. / Петрова, С. 2006.
Проучвания на обект „Епископска
базилика“ при с. Микрево. –
Археологически открития и разкопки
през 2005 г., 247-248.
Сандански, Б. 2011. Древен живот
между Пирин и Малешевска плани-
на. София.
Филов, Б. 1919. Новооткрити стари-
ни. – Известия на Българското архе-
ологическо дружество 6 (1916-1918),
165-170.
Шаранков, Н. 2017. Надписи от
Кабиле. Нови прочити и тълкувания.
– Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 7,
199-243.
Шаранков, Н. 2015. Нови данни за
тракийските стратези. – Археология
56/1-2, 62-78.
Adam-Veleni, P. 2012. An Illustrated invita-
tio ad munera gladiatoria from the Agora
of Thessaloniki and Roman Spectacles in
Macedonia. In: Tiverios, M. / Nigdelis, P. /
Adam-Veleni, P. (eds.). Threpteria. Studies
on Ancient Macedonia. Thessaloniki. 278-
315, 634-647.
AE = L’Année épigraphique. Paris,
1888–.
Amandry, M. 1988. Le monnayage des
duovirs corinthiens (= Bulletin de cor-
respondance hellénique, Supplément
15). Athènes.
Angelov, D. G. 2003. New Greek
120
Inscriptions from the Strymon Valley.
– Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 143, 138-142.
Babamova, S. 2018. Notes on the
Prosopography of Stobi. In: Blaževska,
S. (ed.). Studies in the Antiquities of
Stobi IV. Gradsko. 110-131.
Bartels, J. 2008. Städtische Eliten
im römischen Makedonien.
Untersuchungen zur Formierung und
Struktur (= Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
242). Berlin / New york.
Birley, E. B. 1971. The Fate of the Ninth
Legion. In: Butler, R. M. (ed.). Soldier
and Civilian in Roman yorkshire:
Essays to Commemorate the Nineteenth
Centenary of the Foundation of york.
Leicester. 71-80.
Braund, D. 1994. Georgia in
Antiquity. A History of Colchis and
Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC – AD 562.
Oxford.
BullÉp 2012 = Bulletin épigraphique.
– Revue des études grecques 125/2,
515-692.
BullÉp 2010 = Bulletin épigraphique.
– Revue des études grecques 123/2,
661-876.
BullÉp 1954 = Robert, J. / Robert, L.
Bulletin épigraphique. – Revue des
études grecques 67/314-315, 95-193.
Campbell, D. B. 2018. The Fate of the
Ninth: The Curious Disappearance of
One of Rome’s Legions. Glasgow.
CILAlb = Anamali, S. / Ceka, H. /
Deniaux, É. 2009. Corpus des inscrip-
tions latines d’Albanie (= Collection de
l’École Française de Rome 410). Rome.
CIPhil II.1 = Brélaz, C. 2014. Corpus
des inscriptions grecques et latines de
Philippes. Tome II: La colonie romaine.
Partie 1: La vie publique de la colonie.
Athènes.
Corinth VIII.2 = West, A. B. 1931.
Corinth. Results of Excavations
Conducted by The American School
of Classical Studies at Athens. Volume
NICOLAy SHARANKOV
VIII, Part II: Latin Inscriptions 1896-
1926. Cambridge, Mass.
Dain, A. 1933. Inscriptions grecques
du musée du Louvre. Les textes inédits.
Paris.
Dana, D. 2017. Inscriptions de la vallée
du Moyen Strymon récemment pu-
bliées: quelques corrections. In: Nankov,
E. (ed.). Sandanski and Its Territory
during Prehistory, Antiquity and Middle
Ages. Current Trends in Archaeological
Research (= Papers of the American
Research Center in Sofia 3). Veliko
Tarnovo. 120-134.
Dana, D. 2016a. Notices épigraphiques
et onomastiques III. – Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 198, 145-
161.
Dana, D. 2016b. Quatre épitaphes
grecques inédites de la vallée du Moyen
Strymon (Macédoine orientale). –
Studia classica Serdicensia 5, 101-118.
Dana, D. 2014a. Onomasticon
Thracicum. Répertoire des noms
indigènes de Thrace, Macédoine
orientale, Mésies, Dacie et Bithynie (=
Μελετήματα 70). Athènes.
Dana, D. 2014b. Notices épigraphiques
et onomastiques I. – Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 188, 181-
198.
Dana, D. 2014c. Notices épigraphiques
et onomastiques II. – Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 190, 149-
167.
Daux, G. 1976. Notes de lecture. –
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
100/1, 201-234.
Demougin, S. 1992. Prosopographie des
chevaliers romains julio-claudiens (43
av. J.-C. – 70 ap. J.-C.) (= Collection de
l’École française de Rome 153). Rome.
Deoudi, M. 2010. Die thrakische
Jägerin. Römische Steindenkmäler
aus Macedonia und Thracia (= Peleus:
Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte
Griechenlands und Zyperns 51).
Wiesbaden.
Detschew, D. 1952. Antike Denkmäler
aus Bulgarien. In: Festschrift für Rudolf
Egger. Beiträge zur älteren europäischen
Kulturgeschichte. Bd. I. Klagenfurt.
17-24.
Dimitrov, B. 2017. Boyan Radev
Collection. Sofia.
Düll, S. 1977. Die Götterkulte
Nordmakedoniens in römischer
Zeit. Eine kultische und typologische
Untersuchung anhand epigraphi-
scher, numismatischer und archäo-
logischer Denkmäler (= Münchener
Archäologische Studien 7). München.
Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1978. The Mosaics
of Roman North Africa. Studies in
Iconography and Patronage. Oxford.
Edson, C. 1948. Cults of Thessalonica
(Macedonica III). – The Harvard
Theological Review 41/3, 153-204.
Gerasimova-Tomova, V. 1985. Zur
Kriegsgeschichte der Mittleren Struma.
In: Weber, E. / Dobesch, G. (eds.).
Römische Geschichte, Altertumskunde
und Epigraphik. Festschrift für
Artur Betz zur Vollendung seines
80. Lebensjahres (= Archäologisch-
epigraphische Studien 1). Wien. 267-
273.
Gerassimova-Tomova, V. 1994. Τραλις.
In: Roman, P. / Alexianu, M. (eds.).
Relations thraco-illyro-helléniques.
Actes du XIVe symposium national de
thracologie (à participation internatio-
nale), Băile Herculane (14-19 septembre
1992). Bucarest. 301-303.
Gerassimova-Tomova, V. 1980a. Zur
Untersuchung einer antiken Stadt am
mittleren Strymon (Struma). (Bericht
auf dem VII. Internationalen Kongreß
über Epigraphie in Constanţa). – Klio
62/1, 19-26.
Gerassimova-Tomova, V. 1980b.
Wirtschaftliche und religiöse
Beziehungen Thrakiens zum Osten. –
Klio 62/1, 91-97.
Gerassimova-Tomova, V. 1980c. Beiträge
zur thrakischen Onomastik. In: Vulpe, R.
(ed.). Actes du IIe Congrès international

de thracologie (Bucarest, 4-10 septembre
1976). III. Linguistique, ethnologie
(ethnographie, folkloristique et art popu-
laire), anthropologie. București. 43-55.
Goodchild, R. G. / Reynolds, J. M.
1962. Some Military Inscriptions from
Cyrenaica. – Papers of the British
School at Rome 30, 37-46.
Héron de Villefosse, A. / Michon, E.
1902. Musée du Louvre, département
des antiquités grecques et romaines.
Acquisitions de l’année 1902. – Bulletin
de la Société nationale des antiquaires
de France 1902, 369-383.
IAph2007 = Reynolds, J. / Roueché,
Ch. / Bodard, G. 2007. Inscriptions of
Aphrodisias <http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/
iaph2007>.
IG X.2.1 = Inscriptiones Graecae,
vol. X, pars 2, fasc. 1. Inscriptiones
Thessalonicae et viciniae, ed. C. Edson.
Berolini, 1972.
IG X.2.1.S1 = Inscriptiones Graecae,
vol. X, pars 2, fasc. 1. Inscriptiones
Thessalonicae et viciniae.
Supplementum primum: tituli inter a.
MCMLX et MMXV reperti, ed. P. M.
Nigdelis. Berolini, 2017.
IG X.2.2 = Inscriptiones Graecae, vol. X,
pars 2, fasc. 2. Inscriptiones Macedoniae
Septentrionalis. Sectio prima: in-
scriptiones Lyncestidis, Heracleae,
Pelagoniae, Derriopi, Lychnidi, ed. F.
Papazoglu, M. Milin, M. Ricl, adiuv. K.
Hallof. Berolini / Novi Eboraci, 1999.
IGBulg = Inscriptiones Graecae in
Bulgaria repertae, ed. G. Mihailov. Vol.
I2-V. Serdicae, 1958-1997.
ISmyrna = Petzl, G. Die Inschriften
von Smyrna. T. I – II.2 (= Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 23 –
24.2). Bonn, 1982-1990.
IStob = Babamova, S. 2012.
Inscriptiones Stoborum (= Studies in
the Antiquities of Stobi, Monograph
Series, Book 1). Stobi.
Juhel, P. O. / Νίγδελης, Π. Μ. 2015.
Un danois en Macédoine à la fin du
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION...
19e siècle. Karl Frederik Kinch et ses
notes épigraphiques (= Μακεδονικά
επιγραφικά 1). Kerkyra.
Keppie, L. 1989. The Fate of the Ninth
Legion – a Problem for the Eastern
Provinces? In: French, D. H. / Lightfoot,
C. S. (eds.). The Eastern Frontier
of the Roman Empire. Proceedings
of a Colloquium Held at Ankara
in September 1988. Part 1 (= BAR
International Series 553-I). Oxford.
247-255.
Kienast, D. / Eck, W. / Heil, M. 2017.
Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge
einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. 6.,
überarbeitete Auflage. Darmstadt.
LGPN IV = Fraser, P. M. / Matthews,
E. (eds.) 2005. A Lexicon of Greek
Personal Names. Vol. IV: Macedonia,
Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black
Sea. Oxford.
LIAlb = Ehmig, U. / Haensch, R.
2012. Die lateinischen Inschriften aus
Albanien. Bonn.
Malavolta, M. 2011. Per l’illibatezza di
Clio: corrigenda a I.G. X 2, 2, 1 (82 e
111) (= Themata β 4). Tivoli.
McCown, C. C. 1922. The Testament of
Solomon. Leipzig.
Mihailov, G. 1980. Inscriptions de la
Thrace égéenne. – Philologia (Sofia) 6,
1-19.
Mihailov, G. 1975. Inscriptiones
Graecae, Vol. X, Pars II: Inscriptiones
Macedoniae, Fasc. I: Inscriptiones
Thessalonicae et viciniae [Review]. –
Classical Philology 70/1, 47-56.
Milcheva, R. 2015. Roman Gravestones
with Portraits from the Middle Struma
Valley. In: Vagalinski, L. / Nankov,
E. (eds.). Heraclea Sintica: From
Hellenistic Polis to Roman Civitas
(4th c. BC – 6th c. AD) (= Papers of the
American Research Center in Sofia 2).
Sofia. 292-303.
Nigdelis, P. / Arvanitaki, A. 2012. Direct
Taxation in Roman Macedonia: A New
Votive Inscription of a δεκάπρωτος in
121
an Unknown City of Western Pieria. –
Chiron 42, 271-286.
Oliver, J. H. 1958. A New Letter of
Antoninus Pius. – American Journal of
Philology 79/1, 52-60.
Papapostolou, I. A. 1989. Monuments de
gladiateurs à Patras. – Bulletin de corre-
spondance hellénique 113/1, 351-401.
Papazoglou, F. 1988. Les villes de
Macédoine à l’époque romaine (=
Bulletin de correspondance hellénique,
Supplément 16). Paris.
Peeva, N. 2010. Two Late Roman
Anepigraphical Votive Plates from
Heraclea Sintica, SW Bulgaria. –
Archaeologia Bulgarica 14/3, 59-63.
Perdrizet, P. 1904. Relief du pays des
Maedes représentant un Dionysos thra-
ce. – Revue archéologique, IVe série/3,
19-27.
Petrova, S. 2017. The Baptistery of the
Episcopal Basilica in Parthicopolis. In:
Rakocija, M. (ed.). Niš and Byzantium
XV. Niš. 133-152.
Petrova, S. 2016. The Roman Theatre
in Paroicopolis/Parthicopolis and Its
Historical Fortune. In: Rakocija, M.
(ed.). Niš and Byzantium XIV. Niš. 187-
212.
Pilhofer, P. 2009. Philippi. Band II.
Katalog der Inschriften von Philippi. 2.,
überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage (=
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 119). Tübingen.
PIR2 P = Petersen, L. / Wachtel, K. (eds.)
1998. Prosopographia imperii Romani
saec. I, II, III. Editio altera. Pars VI (P).
Berolini / Novi Eboraci.
RIB I = Collingwood, R. G. / Wright,
R. P. 1965. The Roman Inscriptions of
Britain. I. Inscriptions on Stone. Oxford.
Ritterling, E. 1925. Legio (Fortsetzung).
In: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classi-
schen Altertumswissenschaft, Bd. 12/2.
Stuttgart. 1329-1829.
Rizakis, A. D. 1998. Achaïe II. La cité
122
de Patras: épigraphie et histoire (=
Μελετήματα 25). Athènes.
Rizakis, A. D. / Zoumbaki, S. 2001.
Roman Peloponnese I. Roman Personal
Names in Their Social Context (=
Μελετήματα 31). Athens.
Robert, L. 1940. Les gladiateurs dans
l’Orient grec (= Bibliothèque de l’École
des Hautes Études 278). Paris.
Samitz, C. 2013. Die Einführung der
Dekaproten und Eikosaproten in den
Städten Kleinasiens und Griechenlands.
– Chiron 43, 1-61.
Samsaris, D. C. 1989. La vallée du
Bas-Strymon à l’époque impériale.
Contribution épigraphique à la to-
pographie, l’onomastique, l’histoire et
aux cultes de la province romaine de
Macédoine. – Δωδώνη 18/1, 203-382.
SEG = Supplementum epigraphicum
Graecum. Leiden, 1923–.
Sharankov, N. 2017. A Verse Epitaph
and Other Unpublished Inscriptions
from Heraclea Sintica. – Archaeologia
Bulgarica 21/1, 15-38.
Sharankov, N. 2016a. Notes on Greek
Inscriptions from Bulgaria. – Studia
classica Serdicensia 5, 305-361.
Sharankov, N. 2016b. Heraclea Sintica in
the Second Century AD: New Evidence
from Old Inscriptions. – Archaeologia
Bulgarica 20/2, 57-74.
Sharankov, N. 2015. S. Babamova.
Inscriptiones Stoborum [Review]. –
Archaeologia Bulgarica 19/3, 95-100.
NICOLAy SHARANKOV
Sharankov, N. 2009. Notes on
Ancient and Mediaeval Latin and
Greek Inscriptions from Bulgaria. –
Archaeologia Bulgarica 13/3, 47-61.
Sharankov, N. 2004. Inscriptions from
the Strymon Valley: Corrigenda.
– Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 148, 198-200.
SIBulg = Spätgriechische und spätlatei-
nische Inschriften aus Bulgarien, her-
ausgegeben von V. Beševliev (= Berliner
byzantinische Arbeiten 30). Berlin, 1964.
Sideris, A. 2013. A dekaprotos in
Antikyra of Phokis. – Eirene 49, 54-74.
Sijpesteijn, P. E. 1996. Die legio nona
Hispana in Nimwegen. – Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111, 281-282.
Slavova, M. 2010. The Struma Valley
Revisited: Cultural Encounters in
Roman Times on the Balkans (The
Epigraphic Data). – Archaeologia
Bulgarica 14/2, 39-51.
Spaul, J. 2000. Cohors2: The Evidence
for and a Short History of the Auxiliary
Infantry Units of the Imperial Roman
Army (= British Archaeological Reports
International Series 841). Oxford.
TAM V.3 = Petzl, G. 2007. Tituli Asiae
Minoris. Vol. V: Tituli Lydiae linguis Graeca
et Latina conscripti. Fasc. 3: Philadelpheia
et Ager Philadelphenus. Wien.
Tataki, A. 2006. The Roman Presence
in Macedonia. Evidence from Personal
Names (= Μελετήματα 46). Athens.
Vagalinski, L. 2020. Heraclea Sintica
and Some of Its Recently Found Marble
Sculptures. – Archaeologia Bulgarica
24/2, 1-39.
Vidman, L. 1969. Sylloge inscriptio-
num religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (=
Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und
Vorarbeiten 28). Berolini.
EAM Ι = Ῥιζάκης, Θ. / Τουράτσογλου,
Γ. 1985. Ἐπιγραφὲς Ἄνω Μακεδονίας
(Ἐλίμεια, Ἐορδαία, Νότια Λυγκηστίς,
Ὀρεστίς). Τόμος Α′, κατάλογος
ἐπιγραφῶν. Ἀθήνα.
ΕΚΜ Βέροια = Γουναροπούλου, Λ. /
Χατζόπουλος, Μ. 1999. Ἐπιγραφὲς κάτω
Μακεδονίας (μεταξὺ τοῦ Βερμίου ὄρους
καὶ τοῦ Ἀξιοῦ ποταμοῦ). Τεῦχος Α′.
Ἐπιγραφὲς Βέροιας. Ἀθῆνα.
EKM ΙΙ.1 = Γουναροπούλου, Λ. /
Πασχίδης, Π. / Χατζόπουλος, Μ. Β.
2015. Ἐπιγραφὲς κάτω Μακεδονίας
(μεταξὺ τοῦ Βερμίου ὄρους καὶ τοῦ
Ἀξιοῦ ποταμοῦ). Τεῦχος Β′, μέρος Α′.
Ἐπιγραφὲς Ἀλώρου, Αἰγεῶν, Μίεζας,
Μαρινίας, Σκύδρας, Νεαπόλεως,
Ἔδεσσας. Ἀθῆνα.
EKM ΙΙ.2 = Γουναροπούλου, Λ. /
Πασχίδης, Π. / Χατζόπουλος, Μ. Β.
2015. Ἐπιγραφὲς κάτω Μακεδονίας
(μεταξὺ τοῦ Βερμίου ὄρους καὶ τοῦ
Ἀξιοῦ ποταμοῦ). Τεῦχος Β′, μέρος Β′.
Ἐπιγραφὲς Κύρρου, Γυρβέας, Τύρισσας,
Πέλλας, Ἀλλάντης, Ἰχνῶν, Εὐρωποῦ,
Βόρειας Βοττίας, Ἀλμωπίας. Ἀθῆνα.
Καφταντζῆς, Γ. Β. 1967. Ἱστορία τῆς
πόλεως Σερρῶν καὶ τῆς περιφερείας της
(ἀπὸ τοὺς προϊστορικοὺς χρόνους μέχρι
σήμερα). Τόμος Α′: μῦθοι, ἐπιγραφές,
νομίσματα. Ἀθῆναι.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE MIDDLE STRyMON REGION... 123

Надписи от района
на Средна Струма
(ІV в. пр. Хр. – ІV в. сл. Хр.).
Нови прочити и тълкувания
Николай ШАРАНКОВ

(резюме)
В статията са преразгледани надписи от долината на Средна
Струма, публикувани след излизането на петия том на „Гръцките
надписи, намерени в България“ на Г. Михаилов; най-голям дял
от тях са обнародвани в каталога към изследването на М. Манов
„Селищният живот в долината на Средна Струма според антич-
ните епиграфски паметници от IV/III в. пр. Хр. – III в. сл. Хр.“
от 2008 г. Предложени са множество поправки в четенето и ин-
терпретацията, а в някои случаи – и напълно нови прочити; за
немалко надписи са уточнени и данните за местонамирането и
размерите, които в досегашните публикации липсват или са по-
грешни. Представените бележки се основават на изследвания-
та на автора върху паметниците, съхранявани в НИМ-София,
РИМ-Благоевград, АМ-Сандански, ИМ-Петрич и археологи-
ческите сбирки в Кресна и Струмяни. Сред по-важните нови
четения и интерпретации могат да бъдат споменати няколкото
надписа, свързани с ранната история на град Нейне (## 5, 9, 10,
59); посвещението за Изида и Серапис от имагинифер на Първи
Италийски легион (# 22); надписът, споменаващ двама конници
от Македонска кохорта (# 61); надгробният надпис на войник
или ветеран от Девети легион (# 78); поканата за гладиаторски и
ловни зрелища, организирани в Партикопол през 229 г. от жре-
ците на императорския култ (# 84a); както и редица надписи, съ-
държащи непознати или редки тракийски имена.

Asst. Prof. Nicolay Sharankov

St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia
Department of Classics
15 Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd.
BG-1504 Sofia
nsharankov@yahoo.com