REVUE BELGEDE

NUMISMATIQUEET DE SIGILLOGRAPHIE

PUBLIÉE

SOUS LE HAUT PATRONAGEDE S. M. LE ROI

PAR LA

SOCIÉTÉ ROYALEDE NUMISl\JATIQlJE DE BELGIQUE

ET SUBSroIÉE PAR LE

MIN'TSTÈRE DE L'ÉDUCATION NATlONAI.E

ET DE LA CULTURE

UITGEGEVEN

ONDER DE HOGE BESCHERMINGVAN Z. M. DE KONING

Doon HET

KONINKLIJK BELG ISCHGENOOTSCHAP VOOR NUMISMATIEK

EN MET DE STEUl' VAN HET

Ml:-:ISTERlE VAN NATIONALE OI'\'OI::llINO

EN CULTUUR

DIRECTEURS:

MARCEL HOC~ PAUL NASTER,LÉON LACROIX t ÉMILE BROUETTE

eXIlI - 1967

BRUXELLES BRUSSEL

A FOUNDATION·TYPE ON

THE COINAGE OF THE MUNICIPIUM STOBI

The city of Stobi (E-c6f3ot), situated at the junction of the riversAxios and Erigon (modern Vardar and Crna), was the centre ofPaeonia and eventual1y the greatest settlement in the NorthernMacedonia of the Roman epoch (1). For the first time it is men­tioned by Livy, in the narrative concerned with the warfare ofPhilip V with the Dardani (2). Further, Stobi figures in two moreLivian passages: as a velus urbs near to the newly-founded Per­sis (3) and, in connection with the division of 167 B. C., as a saltemporium belonging probably to the fourth Macedonian meris (4).V\~e do not hear again about it for a long period, until Pliny'sentry oppidum Siobi civium Romanorum (NB IV 34), which prob­ably attests an early and a strong community of the Roman citi­zens settled there, From Vespasian to Caracalla or Elagabalus (6),Stobi was issuing local money with the reverse inscription muni­cipium Siobensium, which reflects the elevation of the status ofthe city. In Elagabalus' time, the famous jurist Paulus Iabelled

(1) For its history see B. SARlA, Siobi, RE, II R. IV (1931), col. 47 sqq.and, especially, F. PAPAZOGLOU, Les cités macédoniennes â l'époque romaine,Skopje, 1957, p. 235 sqq. (in Serbian, with a French summary, p. 353). Thename is probably of the Paeonian, Illyrian origin: A. :MAYER, Die Sprache

der alleti llujrier, J, Wien, 1957, p. 32.2..(2) LIV. XXXIII 19: circa Slobos Paeoniae improoiso hostes obpressil (197

B.C.).(3) lb., XXXIX 53, 15 (183 B.C.).(4) lb., XLV 19: post non impetratam Paeoniam salis cotnmercium dedit,

teriiae reqioni imperauit, ut Stobos Paeoniae deoeherenl preiiumque staiuil.

Cf. PAPAZOGLOU, op. cii., p. 235 n. 21.(5) The coins attributed ta the latter are held by H. GAEBLER (Die anti­

ken Miinzen von Makeâonia und Paionia, Il, Berlin, 1935, p. 111 and n, 2)as being Caracalla's. The suggestion has not been accepted but a certaincriterium for a distinction bctween the two remained unestablished. Theproblem will be discussed in another paper,

12 S. DU5ANlé

the Stobenses as possessors of the ius ltalicum (6), the highestprivilege to he granted to a provincial urbs. During the Jateempirethe importance of Stobi as a route centre was considerably in­creased, and it early became the episcopal residence frequentlymentioned in the council acta (from A.D. 325 onward). To aIlappearances, it ceased to exist with the great. SIav invasions ofthe late sixth century. The excavations carried out at the siteof Stobi sinee 1924 unearthed important traces of the Romanand, especially, early Byzantine city (7).

The Stobian coins, struek in four periods, under (1) the Flavians(Vespasian, Titus, Titus and Domitian, Domitian and Domitia),(II) Trajan, (III) Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior, and (IV)the Severi (Septimius Severus, Domna, Caracalla, Geta and Ela­gabalus) (B) represent an interesting material, numismatieally andhistorically unexploited. Not only a corpus of them is wanting,but also sorne indispensable special studies of their chronology,types and metrology. While preparing a monograph on the mintof Stobi, we shall try to supply the lack of the latter in a numberof papers, of whieh the present is the first.

As generally held, the earliest issue of the mint is a pseudo­autonomous type which belongs, regarding its style and execution,to the Flavian period of the coinage of Stobi (9). There are knowntwo variants (10).

1. (fig. 1) Obv. ~1 - V (1. and r. in field). Victory, draped,standing 1. on globe, holding wreath in r. hand and trophy in 1.Border of dots.

(13) Dig. L 15, 8. 8.(7) A convenient summary of the dlscoverles is given by E. KITZINGBR,

A Survey of the Barly Christian Town of Slobi, Dumbarton Gales Papers, 3,1946, p. 81 sqq,

(8) Cf. supra, n, 5.(9) Cf. GAEBLER, op. eii., 111: « Ihrem SUI nach gehôrte diese Emission

der flavischen Zeit an ». A. BOUTKOWSKI (Dictionnaire numismatique, 1,

Leipzig, 1881, col. 1469 and 1471) assigned it, with sorne reserve, to the reignof Augustus (the same, recently, A. KERAMITCIEV, L'atelier de monnaiesromain à Slobi (in Macedonian, with a French summary), in Recueil des tra­vaux, Mus. arch. Skopje, 4/5, 1961-6, p. 41 no 14, p. 44). Apart from thetechnical indications for the Flavian period, mentioned above, against Bout­kowski's dating runs the faet that there Is no pre-Flavian currency from Stobî(the coin descrihed by hlm, op. cil., col. 1470 sq., does not belong here).

(10) Bath described here from the specimens in our collection.

A FOUNDATlüN TYPE OF STOBI 13

Rev, $TQBEN - SI - VM (starting high L, ending inexergue). Bovine standing r. Border of dots.

AE ~ 1,92 gm. 17 mm.2. (fig. 2) Obv. MVNI - CI - P. Victory, draped, walkîng L,

holding wreath in r, hand and trophy in 1. Border of dots.Rev. STüBENS - IVM (starting high L, ending in

exergue). Bovine standing r. Border of dots.AE J, 4,54 gm. 21 mm.

With slight differences, no. 1 has been published since J. Eck­hel (11) several tirnes (12), the Iast time by H. Gaebler, who gavealso its photograph (the Turin specimen) (13). AU the editors,due ta the imperfect preservation of the piece, omit the obverseabbreviation for the municipium, a circumstance which probablyled to an unacceptable classification of the type as an autonomousone (14). Eckhel, Mionnet, Musmov, take as its obverse the sameside we do and describe the animal as a male (« bos 1), « bœuf »,« ox 1»). whereas for Gaebler the Victory is on the reverse and theanimal should be labelled as the neutral « rind 1). In the firstpoint we agree with the former, since the beginning of the in­sciption - mu(nicipium), _. now clearly visible, has to be puton the obverse. As ta the second, it is difficult to say anythingwith certainty, considering the small dimensions of the repre­sentation, but the appearance of the animal's neck and the bearingof its head tend to identify it as a male.

The obverse inscription of the variety nO 2 has been read byits first and the only editor (15) in the unabbreviated form, mu­nicipiutn, and the reverse type described as an ox. With regardto the close resemblance of the specimens published by Petroviéand us, we are inclined to retain the form MVNI - CI - P as the

(11) J. ECKHEL, Doctrina numorum veterum, 1 2, Vindobonae, 1794, p. 77.(12) E. g. T. E. MIONNET, Description de médailles antiques, grecques el

romaines, I, Paris, 1806, p. 488; N. A. M~~MOV, The Ancient Coins ot {he

Balcon Peninsule, Sofia, 1912, p. 409 nO 6522 (in Bulgarian),(13) GAEBLER, op. cit., p. 111 nO 1 (Pl. XXI 22).(14) In addition to Eckhel, Mionnet, Musmov also B. V. HEAD, BMC,

AJac. eie., London, 1879, p. LXII; BOUTt<OWSKI, op. cit., col. 1469; S. \V.STFVENSON, A Diclionary of Roman Coins, London, 1889, p. 763; J. PETRO­

VJé, Slobi in der Numismalik (in Serbocroatian, with a German summary),Numizmalièar (Beograd) 1, 1934, p. 26 no 1 (Pl. I 1).

(15) PETROVlé, IDe. cil. (from a private collection).

14 S. DUSANIC

FIG. 1 Municipium Slobi : the foundation-issue from A.D. 72/73, variant

n" 1 (enlargement X 4).

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOBI 15

FIG. 2 Municipium Siobi : the foundation-issue from A.D. 72/73, variantn> 2 (enlargement X 4).

16 S. DUSANlé

correct one. The animal, rendered without force, seems more likelyto be a cow.

So far, there has been no serious attempt to interpret and datemore precisely the type in question. As the reverse representationsof the Stobian coinage show little affinity with the rich mytholo­gical illustrations from the neighbouring cities of Macedonia andThracia (16) and, on the other hand, as they sometimes closelyfollow the types of the imperial money (17), one should presumablytry to explain the reverses in question within the framework of a(Roman) symbolism, linked rather with a special occasion thanwith a local cult (l8). Consequently, it would seem natural to takeas a starting-point in this connection the contemporary imperialissues also bearing a cow (heifer) or a bull (ox) on their reverses.

As it is known, these are the aurei and denarii struck in Romefor Vespasian and Titus from 74 to 76 (l!J). Apart from the hybridcoins, the male animal seems to appear only in 75 and not to coin­cide with the female one which is confined to the years 74 and 76,but the two occur in such numerous series of so close a date, that

(16) lt has two standard types (the tetrastyle temple in the first two pe­riods and the Victory in the third and fourth), while an occasional departurefrom them, scarce as it is, aIways has a definîte association with the city It­self or with events of general importance. Cf. a similar content of the co­lonial coinage of Viminaciurn in Moesia Superior: S. DUSANIé, The Coins01 Colonia Ytminacium and the Dates from the Roman Historu of the MiddleThird Cenlury, in Siarinar, N. S. 12, 1961, p. 146 (in Serbian, with anEnglish sumrnary, p. 154).

(17) Cf. e.g. Victory, the main Stobian type of the Severan period. Char­acteristic are the Stobian reverses with a Victory Inscrlbing a shield (MION­NET, op. cit., Suppl, III, Paris, 1824, p. 117, nO 730; H. COHEN, Descriptionhistorique des monnaies frappées sous l'empire romain, 2e éd., IV, Paris, 1884,p. 128 nOS 262 sq., p. 218 na 722, p. 354 nO 321; PETROVlé, loc, eii., p. 27na 18, p. 29 nOS 35 and 38, Pl. II 18, IV 35 and 38), a strict imitation of thewell-known imperial representations.

(18) Cf. on the whole problem of the relation between the respective Greekand Roman representations C. H. V. SUTHERLAND, The lntelligibilily of Ro­man Imperial Coin Types, in J RS, 49, 1959, p. 46 sqq.

(19) H. MATTINGLY and E. SYDENHAM, RIC II: Vespasian io Hadrian,London, 1926, p. 22 na 71, p. 24 na 87, p. 25 nOS 95sqq., p. 36 nOS 181 and183, p. 37 nos 187 sqq. ; cf. p. 40 na 227, p. 123 na 67 (hybrids); H. MATTING­

LY, BMC, R. Emp. II: Vespasian io Dotnitian, London, 1930, p. 25 na 132,p. 30 nOS 159 sq., p. 32 nOS 170 sqq., p. 33 nos 175 sqq., p. 35 nOS 185 sqq., p.101 na 486; cf. p. 56 n- 330, p. 64 nOS 45 sqq., p. 249 na 3, p. 250 n» 8, p. 347na 245 (hybrids).

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOBI 17

they should undoubtedly be studied together. Without a char­acteristic inscription, however, the Flavian reverses in questiondid not receive a satisfactory explanation. The heifer has beenidentified with Myron's famous sculpture put by Augustus in the{( Porticus Apollinis » and transferred by Vespasian to his templeof Pax, while the bull has been simply taken as a borrowing fromAugustus' Lugdunum coinage, both reverses being commentedon as the restoration of sorne Augustan types on the occasion ofan important centennium (27 B.e. - A.D. 74) (20). Against theinterpretation given speak, inter alia, its isolated treatment oftwo obviously relative representations, as well as the chronologicalfactor. Namely, the allegedly Augustan bull reappears a yearlater than one should expect it, and, on the other hand, the heifermakes its début in 74, being « really distinctive » of 76, whereasthe completion of the temple of Pax and, very probably, the re­moval of Myron's statue took place in 75 (21). In any case, thereference to Augustan precedents of the Flavian « bovine» typemakes the situation somewhat clearer.

Notably, the former faB in three groupes. A butting bull wasstruck on the reverses of the Lugdunum imperial series frorn theperiod of ca. 19 to ca. 9 B.e., followed sometirnes by the imperaiorlegends (IMP X, IMP XII) (22). A cow or a heifer appears on sornefine aurei and detiarii of the Eastern provenance, dated variously,according to the interpretations proposed for, from ca. 27 to ca.14 B.C. (2a). Lastly, a bull marks the foundation-pieces of threeJulian cities from Spain: Celsa (44-42 B.e.), Carthago Nova (per­haps 29 B.C.) and Calagurris (ca. 28 B.e.) (24), and the well-known

(20) L. LAFFRANCHl, Un cenienario numismatico nell' an iichilà, in Rio,

Ital. di Num., 1911, p. 427 sqq.; MATTINGLY and SYDENHAM, op. cit., p. 6 ;MATTINGLY, op. cit., p. XXXVIII sq.; M. GRANT, Roman Imperial Moneij,Edinburgh, 1954, p. 186 and n. -, etc.

(21) WEVNAND, Flavius (no 206), RE VI (1907), col. 26€4 sq.(22) H. MATTINGLY and E. SVDENHAM, RIC 1: Auguslus to Vitellius, Lon­

don, 1923, p. 64 n> 59, p. 88 sq. nOS 327 and 334 sq. ; H. MATTINGLV, BMe,R. Emp. 1: Auguslus to Vitellius, London, 1923, p. 78 sq. nOS 450 sqq., p. 81sq, n OB 468 sqq., p. 93 n« 564; cf. p. 302 n- 51 (A.D. (8).

(23) MATTINGLY and SYDENHAM, RIC 1, 64 nO 60; MATTINGLV, Bj11.C,R.Emp. I, p. 107 nOS 659 sqq.

(24) M. GRANT, From Imperium to Auctoritas, Cambridge, 1946, p. 211

sq., 165 sq., 216 sq.

18 S. DU5ANlé

colonization issue of Mauretania Caesariensis (ca. 33-31 B.e.) (25).The exact meaning of the first two groups has not been established,but there exist several attempts in this connection. The bull onthe coinage from Lugdunum was interpreted as a personal allu­sion to Augustus whose nickname Thurinus could point to Thu­rium and recall the famous bull reverses of its coins (26) and, onthe other hand, as a deviee for conforming with the local, Gallictraditions (27). Since Gabrici, the heifer has been usually iden­tified with the bucula 111yronis (28), but sorne other explanationshave been suggested as weIl: it is supposed to have been coined

(25) Ib., p. 59 sq.; J. MAZARD, Corpus nummorum Numiâiae Mauretaniae­que, Paris, 1955, p. 70 no 124.

(26) After A. BLANCHET, Thurinus, surnom de l'empereur Auguste, in CRAI,1919, p.134 sqq, ; MATTINGLY and SYDENHAM, RIC l, p. 58; MATTINGLY, BMC,R. Emp. l, p. CXv; GRANT, From Imperiutn 10 Auctoritas, p. 124; H. MAT­

TJNGLY, Roman Coins tram lhe Earliest Times la the Fall of the Western Em­pire, London, 1960, p. 171. The fact that DIO CHRYS. (De reg. II 66 sqq.),starting from a quotation from Iliad (B 480 sqq.), denotes the bull ~ as atype of sovereignlty » cannat give support. due to the general character ofDio's treatise, to this interpretation, as it MATTINGLY (BMC, R. Emp. II,p. XXXIX n. 1) thought (even the application of Dio's passage to the famouscoins of Julian, though more plausible with regard to the circumstances ofthe fourth century and, especially, of the Apostatc's reign, does not seemsound: F. D. GILLIARD, Notes 011 the Coinage ot Julian the Apostate, in J RS,54, 1964, p. 138 sqq.).

(27) MATTINGLY, BMC, R. Emp., I, p. CXIII and cxv, EMe, R. Emp,II, p. XXXVIII sq., Roman Coins {rom the Earliesl Times to the Fall of theWestern Empire. p. 171 ; cf. E. GABRIGI, La numismaliea di Augusto, in si».di e mal. di Arch. e Num., 3, 1905, p. 101 ; A. BLANCHET, Traité des monnaiesgauloises, Paris, 1905, p. 254 and 428 sq, For sorne earlier and manifestlyuntenable views sec BLANCHET. CRAI, 1919. p.139. What relation could havean Interesting colonial issue of Lugdunum (J. GUEY, Encore le «semis» deLugdunum au taureau, in Reu, num., 1958, p. 47 sqq.) with a «taureau bon­dissant» on its reverse to the imperial type in question or to the foundationof Lugdunum (cf. ID., A propos de la fondation de Lyon: Dion Cassius et lesénalus-consulle d'avril 43 av. J.-C., in Bull. de la Soc. nat. des Ani. de France,1959, p. 128 sqq.) we cannat say; the only certain point as to another reverseof the city's colonial coinage, representing Hercules and the Cretan bull, isthat it alludes ta the deductor of the colony, L. Munatius Plancus (cf. J. GURY,

Lugdunum, Thurium, Thurinus, in Cab. d'Hist., 1, 1956, p. 103 sqq. ; M. RAM­

BAUD. Lucius Munaiius Plancus, gouverneur de la Gaule, ib., 3, 1958, p. 127 sq.),(28) GABRICI, loc. cil.; LAFFRANCHI, lac. cil. ; MATTINGLY, BMC, R. Emp.

II, p. XXXVUI sq.

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOBI 19

on the occasion of the Secular Games (29) or Agrippa's pacificationof the Bosporan kingdom, embodied here in the emblemof 10 (SO).However, the propositions enumerated are not free from object­ions. The bull as a symbol of Augustus would seem vague andnon-Roman, even in case that the sobriquet Thurinus be real andweIl understood (31). Leaving aside the discrepancies in the datingof the type, the interpretation of the Augustan heifer, like theFlavian one, sîmply as an illustration of Myron's statue wouldappear too particular, while its alleged connection with the LudiSaeculares remains unexplained. As to its identification with theCimmerian Bosporus and the hint to Agrippa's exploit of 14 B.e.,one should perhaps find this allusion, possible as it is, strikinglyremote and Iearned. With the third group, however, we are onthe firm ground. Its position in the respective local coinages un­doubtedly proves its foundation character and provides an ob­vious analogy with the Stobian (< bovine» type. The bull on theSpanish issues in question has been commented on by Grant asa playon the cognomen of the important Augustan general andadministrator, T. Statilius Taurus - an interpretation which re­quired, among other things, the assumption of Taurus' governor­ship of Tarraconensis in 44-42 and Hispania Citerior in 29-28 B.e.,and a role of his in the consliiutiones of Celsa, Carthage Nova andCalagurris (32). However, such an explanation is weakened notonly by the uncertainty of the close dating of the series mentionedand the lack of information about the then governors in the pro­vince and the earlier career of Taurus (most probably, C. CalvisiusSabinus was the proconsul of Spain from 31 (?) to 28) (33), buta180 by the manifestly relative types of Mauretania and Stobi,which cannot he understood as a jeu de mois. Grant himself wasDot categorical about his interpretation of these «bovine» re-

(29) MATTINGLY and SYDENHAM, RIC J, p. 47.(30) GRANT, Roman Imperial Money, p. 59.(31) Cf. the reserves of A. STEIN, Thurinus, RE, II R. VI (1936), col. 646.(32) GRANT, From Imperium to Auctorilas, p. 165 and 211 sq,(33) E. GROAG, PIR II2 (1936) 84 no 352; T. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON, The

Magistrales Dt the Roman Republic, II, New York, 1952, p. 421. His pre­sumptive successor in Hispania Citerlor was C. Antistius Vetus (27-25: 'G.ALFOLDY, Statthalter der Prouinz Hispania Ciierior (27 A C-284 PC), paperread on the Fifth Int. Congr. of Gr. and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge, Sep­tember 1967).

20 S. DUSANIé

presentations, noting that it is not « contradicted by numerouslater appearances of bulls, since the type was in any case appro­priate to Roman foundations, and alluded, moreover, to Caesar'stutelary goddess Venus and to Augustus's nickname Thurinus l) (34).In what way the bull was appropriate to Roman foundationsGrant did not specify, nor was it explained in conneetion with thetypes we are dealing with. This should be done in the subsequentshort commentary on the bovine role in ancient ktiseis, restrictedto the points of importance for Roman illustrations of the event.

As is known, the commonest and the most significant occurrenceof a bull and a cow in ceremonies pertaining to the foundationof Rome and the other Roman urbes, belongs to the scene of plough­ing the primigenius sulcus (35). lt is well-known through numerousancient descriptions and representations, included those fromcoins (36). We are going to quote only two relevant passages,in order to point out that the quadrupeds engaged in the sceneplayed sorne role, neglected as it seems, even without the ploughand consequently could have claimed a separate representation,with the same foundation symbolism. Dionysius of Halicarnas­sus, speaking of Romulus' founding the teichos of Rome, assertsthat at the end both the bull and the cow were sacrificed : (0 'Po»­J-tvÀoç) fJoàç aeeevoc; af.la e'YjÀetq. ~svX(jÉ'Vï:oç vn' If.eoreov ÉÂ:>l:V­

Gaç avÀaxa tJtrJvewij ri}'V J-tÉÀÀov(Ja'v vnotJ8~a(jeat '"ià '"iÛxoç'

•.. e(!yaaa/.tSvoç tJè -ravru »ai -rwv fJowv Éxa'"iÉeovr; leçeéocu; aÀ­

Àwv Te noÀÀwv 8Vflâ:uov xaTae~af.tevoç ècpiaTrjGt xoit; ËeYOtç TOP

Àew'V (Ani. Rom. 1 88, 2). Obviously, this part or sorne other, notattested but sirnilarly independent, the two bovines had beforeor after the ploughing rite, may have led to an illustration differentfrom the usual one with the conditor and the arairum. That a

-sole animal could stand and syrnbolize the whole important event,is confirmed by Tacitus' words: iqitur a [oro boario, ubi aereum

(34) GRANT, From Imperium to Auctoriias, p. 212.(35) Cf. on the entire ritual e.g. J. H. OLJVER, The Auguslan Pomerium,

in Mem. Am. Ac. Rome, 10, 1932, p. 145 sqq.; BLUl\ŒNTHAL, Pomerium, REXXI (1952), col. 1867 sqq. Us parallelism in a11 the cases of Roman ïoun­dations is stressed by several sources (for the municipia, cf. the cippi of thepomerium of Aricla seen by Varro, LL V 143).

(36) To choose from a large number of exarnples, chronologically andgeographically wide-spread, only one in the Stobian neighbourhood, Dium:GAEBLER, op. cit., p. 60 n> 1.

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOBI 21

lauri simulacrum asp icim us, quia id genus animalium aratro sub­ditur, sulcus designandi oppidi coeptus, ut magnam Herculis aramamplecteretur (Ann. XII 24) (37), and must be taken into accountwhen interpreting sorne coin-types. Closely associated to founda­tiens was, further, the ceremony of the lustration of the new ter­ritory and the people (38). The main thing in this was the Iamoustriple victim, the suauetaurilia (39). As is shown by the dictnmput by Cicero into the mouth of Scipio Africanus Minor, the bullcould also here figure as a pars pro tolo of the entire offering ritual :ut Aselle Africanus obicienti luslrum illud infelix, «noli » inquii{< mirari: is enim (sc. Mummiusï qui te ex aerariis exemit, lustrumcondidit et iaurum immolauit s (De or. II 268) (40). The same sim­plification could naturally appear in sorne illustrations of lus­irationes (41).

Another role given to the bovines in the foundation tales mayalso have a direct interest for the types discussed, viz. that of thecow-Io who marks the site of a new city (42). The myth, well­known in the case of Thebes (Schol. Eur, Phoin. 638, 1062) and

(37) Whatever the date, original provenance and the meaning should heassumed for this sitnulacrum (cf. on ît and the Forum E. HÛLSEN, Boarium.Forum, RE III (1899), col. 573 sqq.; D. V AGLIERI, Forum boarium, Diz.ep, III, p. 101 sq. ; J. G. FRASER ad vv. [ 582, VI 478 in his edition of theFasli of Ovid) it is obvious that it was understood, at least in 'I'acitus' times,as an abject situated at the begtnning of the urban sulcus to symbolize theploughing of the potnerium. Otherwise, the addition quia id genus animaliurnarairo (sc. condilorisi subâitur would be inexplicable in the context. Cf.E. KOESTERMANN, Cornelius Tacilus, Annalen, III. Heidelberg, 1967, p. 147.

(38) Cf. CIC., Divin. 1 45: in luslratuia colonia ab eo qui eam âeâucerei,et cutn imperator exerciium, censor populum lustraret, bonis nominibus quihostias ducereni eliqebantur, See e.g. BERVE, Lusirum, RE XlH (1927), col.2055 sq.; K. LATTE, Rëmische Rettqionsqeschiclüe, München, 1960, p. 41 sq.

(39) Cf. BERVE, loc. cil. ; KRAUSE, nuu«. RE, Suppl. V (1931), col. 258 sqq.(with a long list of the occasions for the oiciimae maiores, of which a numbercould also relate ta foundations), especially col. 264 sq.

(40) Cf. BERVE, loc. cit., col. 2044; KRAUSE, loc. cit., col. 267; M. ÛGILVIE,

Lusirum. cotuiere, in J RS, 51, 1961, p. 31 sqq. Also, only Lauri are perhaps men­tioned in Tob, Iguv. I b 20: enumek apretu tures el pure, where G. DEVOTO (Ta­bulae Iquoinae, Romae, 1937, p. 104,256,278 sq.) changes the earlier transla­tion ~ tum ambito tauris et igne » into ~ tum ambito opimis [hostiis] et igne. 0

(41) Notably, the SllS does not occur in the corresponding scene as carvedin Marcus' column.

(42) Cf. e.g, ENGELMANN, 10, in ROSCHER, My th. Lex. II (1890-1897), col. 268 ;O. CRUSIUS, Kadmos (II), ib. p. 834 and 887 ; En'REM, 10, RE IX (1914), col. 1737.

22 S. DUSANlé

more familiar to the Greeks than to the Romans, did not, however,remain unknown to Italy, as attested by Strabo's (V, 250) ïamousstory of the Samnites led to Samnium by a bull, and the two to­ponyms Bovianum. Like the ploughîng ritual, it was probablycornmon ta aIl the agricultural population in the East and theMediterranean, which, understandably, ascribed great importanceto cattle. To the same circle of concepts belongs, it seems, thesacrifice on the Fordicidia of the (ordae boves, whose ashes weredistributed on the natalîs urbis (the Parilia) for a purificationof herds (43), and the appearance of the bull as the zodiac signin April, the month of the Julian and the Roman goddess, Venus (44).

The facts enumerated above provide, we believe, a clue foran understanding of the indubitable foundation-types of Celsa,Carthago Nova, Calagurris, Mauretania and Stobi. The bull seenon the reverses of their initial coinages has ta be taken, in a11likelihood, as a representative of the group of the conditor andhis plough, similar to that from the Forum Boarium. In case ofStobi, where one should perhaps reckon with the representation ofa COW, too, it is to be assumed that both the animaIs figure in this

(43) See on both the festivals: G. WISSOWA, Pales, in ROSCHER, Mylh. Lex.

III 1, 1276 sqq. ; S. WEINSTOCI<:, Terra Mater, RE, II R. V (1934), col. 791; G.DE SANCTIS, Storia dei Romani, IV 2. l, Firenze, 1953, p.225 sqq.; LATTE,op. cit., 68 sq. and 87 sq. One should note the syncretism of the cults ofTellus/Terra Mater and Ceres/Demeter (cf. e.g. L OPPELT, Demeter, in Re~

allex. [, Anf. u. Christ. III (1957), p. -688 sq. ; LATTE, op. dt, p. 71 sq.) and theimportance of the qerius booillum for the latter, cf. F. LENORl\lANT, Ceres, inDicL. des ani. I 2 (1887), p. 1067 : ~ Le bœuf appartient à la déesse (sc. Déméter)par bien des raisons, mais en particulier comme l'animal qui traine la charruepour le labourage et qui trace le sillon sacré par lequel on détermine l'encein­te des villes au moment de leur fondation n. On a l'ole of Ceres /Demeter inRoman foundations cf. the verses of C. Licinius Calvus: (Ceres) el Leges sanc­las doeuil et cora iuqaoiucorpora conubiis el magnas coruiidit. urbes (Serv.ad Aen. IV 58 = frg. 6 Baehrens) and the coins of L. Cassius Caeicianus andC. Marius C. f. Capito with the bust of Ceres on their obverses and the plough­ing scene on reverses (E. A. SYDENHAM, The Coinage of the Roman Republie,London, 1952, p. 83 nO 594 and p. 119 nO 744 - cf. MATTINGLY, Roman Coinsfrom lhe Earliesl Times 10 the Fall of the Weslern Empire, p. 63).

(44) See WÈINREICH, Zwo/fgëller, in Roscnzn, Mylh. Lex. VI (1924-1937),825; C. KOCH, Venus. RE, II R. VIII (1955), col. 887. The connection be­tween the zodiac bull and the Lugdunum types has been propounded byBLANCHET (CRAI 1919, p. 142) and mentioned by GRANT (From Imperium

to Auctoritas, p. 212).

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOBI 23

roIe, a circumstance which should not surprise us. It is not ruledout, but it is less probable, that the laurus on these series should heinterpreted as the part of the lustration suoueiaurilia. The other«bovine » types rnentioned here, occuring on the imperial coins,are not sa easy to explain. Even in case that we have qualifiedthern rightly, there are tao many possible motives for a {( founda­tion 1) issue on the level of the coinage of the Empire. We shalloffer only sorne propositions in this connection.

The Flavian cow in 74 and 76, and the bull in 75, or only thelatter, may have been an allusion to Vespasian's extension of theRoman pomerium, which presumably began in 73 and ended in75 (45). Furthermore, one should take into consideration that thework connected with his censura and, consequently, with thelustrations, lasted till at least 75 (46). The heifer on the Augustanseries from the East may be dated to about 19 B.C., like the evidentIoundation-issue with two priests ploughing, struck perhaps on theconstitutio of the coIony at the Pisidian Antioch (4i). Then, itcould he cornmented on as the occasional illustration of the legendof the pave; nysf.uJ)'v, the more 50 since the la tales had containedso many points relating ta Asia Minor. As ta the Lugdunum bullpieces, one shouId not exclude the possiblity of a Gallic influence.If they are nevertheless to be interpreted in the sarne sense, oneshould bear in mind that between 18 and 8 B.e. two Augustanlecliones senatus (18, 13 B.C.) and the lustrum of 8 B.e. took place (48).The latter was naturally followed by the suouetaurilia, but theformer may have been also marked with lustration acts, thoughthey are not attested (49).

(45) WEYNAND, loc. cit., col. 2655 and 2665 sq. ; BLUMENTHAL, loc, cii., col.1874 sq, Cf. e.g, M. MCCRUM and A. G. WOODHEAD, Select Documents of lhePrincipales 01 the Flaoian. Emperors, Cambridge, 1961, p. 40 n D 51 : [i)mp.Cae[sar] Ve< sc-pasianu[s] Aug. pont, ma[x.] irib. pot. VI imp. X I['T] p.p. censor cos. VI desiq, V Il T. Caesar Aug. [. Yesposianus imp. V[I] pont.trib. 1 V censor cos. IV desiq. V auciis p. R. [inibus pomerium ampliaveruntterminaoeruntque 1CLV1II.

(46) WEYNAND, IDe. cii., col. 2659 and 2665 sq.(47) GRANT, Roman Imperial Money, p. 40.(48) See e.g, H. S. JONES, The Princeps, in CAB X2 (1952), p. 148 sq,(49) The imperaior Iegends on the Lugdunum reverses in question, quoted,

it seems, as a support for the thesis of their direct reference ta Augustus(MATTINGLY, BMC, R. Emp. II, p. XXXIX) could he understood also in thelight of Augustus' words: cottsulari eum imperia luslrum... [eci (RGDA 8, 3).

24 S. DUSANlé

As the Stobian type under discussion has received an explanation,one should try ta date it more precisely. Not counting this, theoldest output of the mint which can be dated with certainty isVespasian's issue with the titles cos. IIII and censor in the ob­verse inscription (50), originating consequently frorn the latterpart of 73 (between Match-June and the end of the year) (51).The « bovine » type thus may be assigned either to 73 or sorneearlier year. The scarcity of those Flavian pieces from Stob!which, not attributable ta a closer chronological context, couldbe placed somewhere at the inception of the mint's activity sug­gests a date not remote from the terminus an le quem, viz. in 73or the year earlier. This is corroborated by the appearance ofthe Victory on the obverse of the type which, retained bya regularStobian coin of Vespasian with cos. lIII and censor(52), representsan obvious imitation of the imperial reverses hegun in Rome in71, but much more frequent in 72-73 (53). Accordingly, the typein question was struck in 72/73, commemorating with its ohverse,Iike its imperial models, the Flavian success in Judaea, and withits reverse the foundation of the tnunicipium Stobi.

ln this way, the numismatic evîdence dates the municipal con­slitulio of Stobi to about 72/73. However, up to now it has almostunanimously been attributed ta Augustus' time (54.). Holding our

The inscriptions IMP XlIII (Vespasian) and IMP VIII (Titus) which accom­pany the bull types of 75 point probably to a cause of the pomerium exten­sion, perhaps ta the change of Achala's status (cf. WEYNAND, loc, cit., col. 2664and 2667; MATTlNGLY, EMC, R. Emp. II, p. XXVI n. 1).

(50) l\hONNET, op. eil., I, p. 488 110 289, Suppl. III, p. 107 n° 658 (106 na657 and 108 n» 664 misread); COI-IEN, op. cit., l, Paris, 1880, p. 420 n- 658 ;GAEBLER, op. cil., p. 111 nO 2.

(51) For the beginning of the censura see WEYNAND, loc. cit., col. 2655 (prob­ably in April) ; MATTINGLY, BMC, R. Emp. II, p. XXIV sq. Vespasian's fourthconsulate fell in 72, fifth in 74: A. DEGRASSI, 1 {asti consolari dell' imperoRomano, Roma, 1952, p. 21 and 276.

(52) ~lIONNET, op. cit., Suppl, 1II, p. 107 no 658 (Tab. II 1 25) = COHEN.

op. cit., l, p. 420 nO 657.(53) Cf. MATTINGLV, BMC, R. Emp, II, p. xxxv and n. 4 (the globe under

the feet of Vlctory symbolizes the œcumenical importance of the Flavianexploit).

(54) With the exception of GAEBJ.ER (op. cit., p. 111 and n. 1) who basclaimed, hesitatingly «1 vermutlîch n), a coincldence of the elevation to themunicipal rank and the beginning of the coinage (cf. C. PATSCH, Beilriiqezur Yôlkcrkunde von Siulosleuropa, V 1, Wien und Leipzig, 1932, p. 155:

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOBI 25

dating as a more plausible one, we shall try to eliminate the argu­ments put forward in support of the Augustan date.

The earlier scholars took Pliny's mention of the oppidum Slobicivium Romanorum (NH IV 34), quoted above, as the proof ofthe Augustan promotion of the city (55). Namely, they startedfrom the accepted and, generally speaking, correct derivationof the majority of the Plinian geographical data from Agrippa'slist (56) and, on the other hand, from an interpretation of the termsoppida c. R. used there, as synonîmous with municipia (or eolo­niae) (57). In faveur of an early municipium Stobi two more detailshave been subsequently cited. The Stobian tribe was Aemilia (58),which, if not pointing ta the specifie persan who promoted Stobi,anyhow prefers an early municipality (59) and does not approve,at first sight, the Flavian proposition sinee the tribe of the Fla­vians and of the most of their foundations was Quirina. The last

G Stobi Münzen zufolge seit Titus Munizipium »), explaining Plinian oppidumStobi cioium Rotnanorum (NH IV 34) as a subsequent insertion from theFlavian epoch (cf. infra). The Flavlan constituiio of Stobi has been probablyassumed also by F. VITTINGHOFF (Rôtnische Kolonisation und Btirqerrechis­politik unter Caesar und Auguslus, Wiesbaden, 1952, p. 38 n. 2, p. 128 na 4,

cf. the list on p. 150) who has left the treatment of the city, without expla­nations, for the (unpublished) Teil II (s von Tiberius bis Cornmodus e) of

his work. Cf. STEVENSON, op. cil., p. 763: (l by whom it (sc. Stobi) was in­vested with that character (sc. municipal), whether by Augustus or by Ves­pasian, is uncertain s.

(55) E.g. J. W. KUBITSCHEK, Itnperium Romanum tributim âiscriptum,

Vindobonae, 1889, p. 240 and 244; E. KORNE1\IANN, Coloniae, RE IV (1901),

col. 549; M. ROSTOVTZEFF, The Social and Economie Hislory DI the RomanEmpire, Oxford, 1926, p. 234; A.N. SFIERWIN-WHITE, The Roman Citizen­ship, Oxford, 1939, p. 172 n. 1, 174.

(56) Cf. e.g, D. DETLEFSEN, Untersuchungen zu den geographischen Bii­

chern des Plinius, Program Glückstadt 1884; O. CUNTZ, Agrippa und Au­

gus tus ols Que llenschrijts lelier des Plinius in den geographischen Büchern dernaiuralis historia, in Jahrbüeher 1. class. Phil., Suppl. 17, 1890, p. 473 sqq. ;E. KORNEMANN, Die Zahl der gallisehen ciuitates in der riimischeti Kaiser­zeii, in «u« I, 1902, p. 331 sqq.

(57) Cf. e.g. Th. MOMl\fSEN, Rômisches Staalsrecht, III, Leipzig, 1887, p.791 with no. 2 sq.; J. TOUTAIN, Munlcipium, Diet. des anl. III 2 (1904), p.2030; E. KORNEMANN, Oppidum, RE XVIII (1939), col. 718.

(58) Attested in CIL III 8203, CIL VI 2382 a 25, CIL X 6096. Cf. Ku­BITSCHEK, op. cit., p. 241 and 244; PAPAZOGLOU. op. cit., p. 236 and n. 24.

(59) As argued by SARIA, CDC. cii., col. 49.

26 S. DUSANlé

indication in this direction (60) would he Paulus' sentence, men­tioned ab ove : in provincia Macedonia Dyrrhacheni, Cassandrenses,Philippenses, Dienses, Slobenses iuris Iialici sunt (Dig. L 15,8.8). Since it does not quete the giver of the benefice, as it is donein the whole passage (L 15, 8) for aIl the respective Severan pro­motions, save Laodicea ad Mare (61), a natural conclusion .fol­lows that Stobi had acquired the ius Iialicum in the pre-Severanperiod. In view of the fact that the great majority of the pre­Severan possessors of the ius Iialicum, enumerated by Paulus,owed the privilege to Augustus (62), and that the normal practicewas to grant it together with the municipal status, one shouldinfer the elevation of Stobi to the municipium with the ius Ilalicumalready under Augustus (63).

AU this, however, does not exclude a dating of the Stobianconstitution to the Flavian time. Thorough investigations (64) haveshown that Pliny used the term oppidum c. R. in a hroad, untech­nical meaning of «a fortified place inhabited by Roman citizens 1)

that may relate to a colony, municipium or a settlement withoutan ager and a proper organization, whereas his geographicaI data,

(60) Pointed at, with reserve, by F. PAPAZOGLOU, L'inscription du Né­méseion el la date du théâtre de Stobi, in Ziva Aniika 1, 1951, p. 284 sqq. (inSerbian, with a French summary, 293), cf. Les cités macédoniennes à l'épo­que romaine, p. 236.

(61) Dig. L 15, 8. 3: Laoâicia in Syria et Bertjius in Phoenice iuris lia­lici surit el solum earum (Paulus); ib, L 15, 1. 3 : est et Laoâicena colonia inSyria Goele, cui divus Seuerus lus Ilalicum ob belli civilis merita concessit(Ulpian). Cf. E. HONIGMANN, Laoâikeia (n» 1), RE XIV (1924), col. 715;PAPAZOGLOU, zi.« Anlika, l, 1951, p. 285 nO 1.

(62) A.v. PREMERSTEIN, lus Ilalicum, RE X (1917), col. 1238 sqq., 1246 sqq.,with an able discussion of the content of this ius ; SCHERWIN-WHITE, op. cit.,p. 216 sqq.; M. HAMMOND, The Anionine Monarchy, Rome, 1959, p. 139and 158 sq, nn, 88 sqq.

(63) PAPAZOGLOU, Ziva Anlika, 1, 1951, p. 286 with n. 1-

(64) E. SCHONBAUER, Municipia und eoloniae in der Prinzipaiszeit, in Anz.Ale. Wien. phil.-hist. Kt, 1954. 2, p. 17 sqq., 47 (against a recent attemptat an identification of Plinian oppida c. R. with municipia done by F. VIT­TINGLOFF, Rbtnische Siadtrechisjormen zur Koiserzeit, in Zeilschr, d. SavignySiijtunq, 68, 1951, p. 435 sqq., cf. Rômische Kolonisaiion und Bûrqerrechls­polilik, p. 36 sq. n. 2, p. 75 n. 6); A. Mâcsv, Die Beoôlkerunq von Pannonienbis zu den Markomannenkrieqen, Budapest, 1959, p. 44 sq. Cf. the view ex­pressed already by E. KORNEMANN, Municipium, RE XIV (1930), col. 597.

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOBI 27

though mainly based on Agrippa's list (65), did sometimes reflectthe Flavian situation (66). As a result, one cannot conclude any­thing with certainty from Pliny's words in question, since neitheran exact date nor an exact meaning of theirs is established. Asto the Stobian tribe, one should note that sorne other, indubitableFlavian foundations did not belong to the Quirina, either, es­pecially tliose which, like Stohi, comprised an important com­munity of Romans before their constiiutio (67). The tribe Aemilia,in addition, was also given to the inhabitants of Doberus, a neigh­bouring city with the Greek constitution, who came in possessionof the Roman citizenship through their military service (68). Weare consequently entitled to assume an analogons case for Stobi,where the pre-municipal citizens-veterans had possibly lived insuch a number that on the occasion of the municipal foundationtheir tribe was retained instead of introducing the Quirina (69).Lastly, the ius llalicum may have been conferred to Stobi to­gether with the rank of municipium, by the Flavians, who alsoused to grant such benefices as shown by a similar, if not identical,privilege of Caesarea (70). With regard ta Paulus' exceptional

(65) Cf. also A. KLOZ, Die geographischen commentarii des Agrippa undihre Überreste, in Klio 24, 1931, p. 38 sqq., 386 sqq.; R. HANSLIK, Vipsa­nius (nO 2), RE, II R. IX (1961), col. 1270 sqq.

(66) See e.g. W. KROLL, Plinius (n« 5), RE XXII (1951), col. 306; cf.supra, n. 53.

(67) E. g. Scardona in Dalmatia, a municipium Plaoium (CIL III 2802)with the tribe Sergia (CIL III 2810), characteristlc of the Augustan founda­tions from the province. Cf. G. ALFOLDY, Beoôlkerunq und Gesellschajt derrômiscben Provinz Dalmatien. Budapest, 1965, p. 68 and 86 sq.

(68) KUBITSCHEK, op. cit., p. 240 and 242; PAPAZOGLOU, Les cités macé­doniennes à l'époque romaine. p. 252 and n. 103.

(69) The more so since the grant of the municipal rank in such a case mayhave been not followed by a âeâuctio or a large gift of the citizenship to thelocal pereqrini. Cf. the example of the Pannonian oppidum Scarbantia : Mée­SV, op. cii., p. 45. Be it noted that Stobl (the headquarters oI the coh, l Hi­spanorum oelerana in HUNT'S Pridianum) may have represented ~ the chiefbase for military operations in the first period of the Roman Conquest » ofthis part of the Balkans: R. SYME, The Lower Danube under Traian, in J RS,49, 1959, p. 19.

(70) Dig. L 15, 8. 7 sq.: Divus Yespaslanus Caesarienses colonos [ecll nonaâiecto, ut el iuris Ilalici essent, sed iributum his remisii capilis: sed diuusTitus eliam solum immune faclum inlerpretatus est. Similes his Capilülen­ses esse uidenlur ; cf. ib. L 15, 1. 6. See also PREMERSTEIN, loc. cii., col.1245 and PAPAZOGLOU, Ziva Anlika, 1, 1951, p. 285 n. 2.

28 S. DU8ANIé

omission to stress the Severan origin of Laodicea's lUS ltalicum,it is not impossible, though not plausible, to assume a parallelcaseeven for Stobi, and postpone its assimilition to the cornmu­nîties from Italy to as late as the end of the second or the beginningof the third centuries.

Accordingly, in absence of undeniable evidence for the Augustanfoundation of. the municipium Stobi (71), it seems hetter to keepthe Flavian date for this event, considering the time of the in­ception of its coinage and the meaning of its initial type. Neithercan this second dating, however, be regarded as fully certain,for there exists a possibility, slight as it is, that the tnunicipiumStobi began to issue the money long after its constiiutio, havingstruck the foundation-pieces discussed on the occasion of an anni­versary (72), perhaps the first centennium (28/7 B.C. -A.D. 72/3),of its life as a Roman municipality. One should wait for a direct

- testimony, most probable epigraphie, to solve the problem definiti­vely.

Beograd, summer 1966. Slobodan DUSANIé.

(71) The two epigraphie mentions of the municipium Slobi belong to 119­120 (CIL III 629) or the second half of the third century (E. SARlA, Die In­schrijten des Thealers von Stobi, in Jahresh, d. Osierr. Arch. Insl., 32, 1940,p. 7 sqq.) respectively. The dating of the latter is due to F. Papazoglou (Zi­va Anlika, 1, 1951, p. 279 sqq.) who has proved that there never was a co­

lonia Slobi as previously assumed. In a similar way, we know of no inscrip­tion quotîng Stobi as the personal origo which certainly antidates the Fla­vians (of the three in total, CIL VI 2382 a 25 undoubtedly derives from thesecond century, CIL 1II 8203 presumably from the end of the Iirst or thebeglnning of the second, while CIL X 6096 escapes a preciser date). Evenif we did, however, it could not be used as a decisive argument for the mu­nicipal rank, in view of numerous exceptions with non-autonornous cornmu­nities figuring in this place.

(72) For a list of such jubilee-series see e.g. GRANT, From lmperium lo

Auctoritas, p. 295.

A FOUNDATION TYPE OF STOEI

RÉSUMÉ

UN TYPE DE FONDATION SUR LES MONNAIES

DU MUNICIPIUM STûBI

29

La première période du monnayage du rnumcipium Stobi (Ma­cédoine du Nord), à l'époque flavienne, commence par un type({ bovin » (fig. 1-2), qui trouve ses parallèles dans des séries de Celsa,Carthago Nova, Calagurris et Mauretania (GRANT, From Itnperiumto Auctoriias, p. 211 sq., 165 sq., 216 sq., 59 sq.) et qui ont un rap­port certain avec la fondation de ces villes et en particulier avecla colonisation de Mauretania, Le rôle du bovin représenté surces monnaies n'a pas été expliqué d'une manière satisfaisantejusqu'ici. Selon toute probabilité, il symbolise la scène plus com­plète du labour du sulcus primigenius de la ville (cf. aereum iaurisimulacrutn dans TAc., Ann. XII 24). Le bovin jouait aussi unrôle important dans certains autres rites de fondation (cf. le mythede la vache 10 qui marque le site d'une nouvelle ville) et dansdes cérémonies de purification liées aux rites de fondation (etnotamment le taureau pourrait être pris comme une pars pro totopour les suouetaurilia, cf. CIe., De or. II 268). On pourrait peut­être avancer une interprétation dans le même sens pour certainesémissions impériales: ainsi pour des émissions d'Auguste de Lug­dunum (un bœuf de lustration en relation avec les lectiones se­natus de 18 et 13 av. J.-C. et le lustrum de 8 av. J.-C.?) et d'Orient(la génisse 10, allusion à la fondation d'env. 19 av. J.-C.?, cf.GRANT, Roman Imperial Moneq, p. 40) et pour des émissions fla­viennes de 74-76 (se référant à une extension du pomerium parVespasien et aux travaux au cours de sa censure ?).

Le type monétaire faisant allusion à la fondation de Stobi aété frappé aux alentours de 72/3, date qui peut être considéréecomme celle de l'établissement du municipium, Les argumentsavancés pour dater l'élévation au rang de municipe au tempsd'Auguste ne sont pas décisifs.