As recent trends in comparing the Han and Roman empires from primarily the point of view of literary evidence has brought forth new frameworks and opportunities of research, one asks how these developments could contribute to the comparison of the two empires' governance behaviors. The paper first surveys current literature published in the past decade and identify common themes in the scholarship on the Han and the Roman metallurgical advances and aspects of their iron industries. Of particular focus is the gradual awareness in the importance of iron semi-products in the Han and the Roman domains. In the second and third section, literary sources from the Qin-Han and the Roman domains are reviewed in order to identify general trends that can be juxtaposed for closer discussion. Particular emphasis is placed on the relationship between the private iron operators with generational legacies in the iron industries even be fore the formation of the Qin-Han and the Roman states, and how the state administrators engage with and adapt to the sophisticated and complex traditions of the Qin-Han and Roman iron industries. The fourth section provides a comparative discussion on issues concerning the states' juridical or statutory approaches to regulating iron mining and smelting operations, and observations on the intersect between semi-products, local ironworks andsmithies, and the needs of agricultural producers.

This paper examines two inscriptions used by Christian Marek (2003, pp. 66-67; 2015, pp. 308-309) to support his thesis that the coastal Paphlagonian koinon – known in epigraphical sources as “the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus” – was already established in the Julio-Claudian period, if not earlier.The first inscription from Pompeiopolis is reported by Fourcade (1811) that can date to the early Augustan period or earlier. Marek himself focused on the Pompeiopolis inscription in his rejoinder to Loriot’s thesis in a recent article (2015), arguing that Loriot is wrong to date this inscription to the imperial period. Alternatively, this paper proposes that a separate inscription invoked by Marek in his earlier work may be more effective.The second inscription dates to the reign of Claudius. It comes from a rupestral column-and-niche roadside monument in the outskirts of ancient Amastris. The monument concerns two cults, Theos Hypsistos and Divus Augustus. Theos Hypsistos received a dedication consisting of a column and a perched eagle, and the column base inscribed with a short dedicatory inscription. There are two other tabulae ansatae, possibly associated with the niched figure, recording the same title ὁ τοῦ ἐπουρανίου θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς, and the Latin equivalent of this priesthood was perpetuus sacerdos Divi Augusti. That ἐπουρανίου does not have a correlate term in the Latin title, along with the presence of a dedication to Theos Hypsistosimmediately next to the niche monument, suggests that this priesthood was in charge of a syncretistic imperial cult, and was different from the highpriesthood of the municipal imperial cult attested in a separate Amastrian inscription dated to the Neronian period.This paper argues that the syncretistic imperial cult dedicated to Divus Augustus and Theos Hypsistos may have been established as an extra-urban cult designed for an audience broader than the inhabitants of Amastris proper. The so-called Oath of Gangra makes it clear that part of the binding force of such an oath of loyalty was the invocation of local deities to enforce retribution. We are also informed by the same oath that such oaths of loyalty had to be administered in both the city proper and the chora “at the altars of Augustus in the sanctuaries of Augustus” as part of an annual and province-wide exercise. The two information points to the possibility that the the syncretistic cult from the extra-urban monument near Amastris may have been part of a complex that could be described as a sanctuary of Augustus, with a targe audience not from Amastris proper, but from the Amastris chora. The fact that the extra-urban monument was carved into the rockface beside a Roman road that was cut but Gaius Iulius Aquila, an equestrian and permanent holder of the highpriesthood overseeing this syncretistic cult, has further implications. Tacitus reported a campaign in 49 CE in the Bosporus, in which one Iulius Aquila successfully led a coalition force against the uprising of Mithridates (Tac. Ann. 12.15-21). If this military commander was indeed Gaius Iulius Aquila the highpriest, the extra-urban monument may have further political significance that resembles the Ara Romae et Augusti ad confluentes Araris et Rhodani, which was built and maintained by a priesthood created by a local elite following the successful suppression of the Sugambri and their allies by Drusus (Dio Cass. 54.32.1), and served as the gathering place for the concilium of the Tres Galliae. Fishwick argues that Drusus created a federal concilium by inviting the leading men of the Gallic provinces to participate in its management and organization, so that leading men could have the opportunity to discuss mutual concerns and put for complaints against Roman authorities (Fishwick 2002, pp. 12-13).

This paper discusses the importance of a passage in book 5 of Lucretius’s De rerum natura (DRN) in relation to known Epicurean teachings during the Principate, and the significance of this disjunct between the Epicurean epic and the Epicurean teachings in the Roman world. Discussions on Lucretius' DRN 5.1011-1027 often focus on the Hobbesian reading, with particular interest in Lucretius' theoretical contribution that begins with an "original condition" of mankind to the arrival of the social contract and the formation of society. Another common strand of discussion evolves around the question whether Lucretius "had more of Epicurus' works to follow than we do," as David Sedley and Campbell assumes. Yet, as Brook Holmes pointed out, DRN 5.1011-1027 have often been used to "shore up reconstructions of Epicurean views on the nature of social relationships, about which we know relatively little." Sedley's attempt to reconstruct the Epicurea "without" using Lucretius as guide, for instance, chose to leave out our focus passage altogether, for it did not fit into any existing account of Epicurus' writings. While the relationship between our focus passage and Epicurus' own writings remain uncertain, there are two aspects that inform us of how to approach the significance of the focus passage with Roman society. The first is Arrian's account of the Stoic Epictetus, whose mockery of Epicurean positions regarding marriage and offspring illustrates a clear if not biased social perception of Epicurean views on topics of the family. The second is that some of the fragments in the Herculaneum papyri include passages showing some Epicureans discussing such topics concerning marriage, offspring, and parental affinity. This paper examines the two sets of data and consider Lucretius' account in social context. This paper takes the view that Lucretius was providing an innovative account of Epicureanist creation story that was tailored for an elite Roman audience, and the "familial topics," presented not only at DRN 5.1011-1027, but in other sections of his work as well, show a clear intention to introduce Epicureanism as a form of social discourse compatible with the circle of the Roman elite that placed emphasis on "familial topics."

The earliest evidence for the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus, comprised of a group of cities in coastal Paphlagonia, is a Trajanic honorific inscription, which happens to be one of two lost "official documents – as Søren Sørensen (2016) describes them – that provide the full title of the koinon’s existence, as well as some indication that their findspots at Amastris and Heraclea were likely the metropoleis of the koinon (Sørensen 2016, p. 73- 74). Sørensen’s treatment of the two inscriptions, while brief, represents a trend in scholarship that is shifting away from the entrenched acadmic debate on the geographical extent of the elusive coastal Paphlagonian koinon, a century-long tradition which he artifully summarized as “a war of analysts and unitarians” (Sørensen 2016, p. 75-84). This paper takes a closer look at the contents of the two documents (Kalinka 1933, p. 73 no. 21; p. 95 no. 67), along with a reference to a krima issued by the koinoboulion in concert with the boule and demos of Heraclea (Kalinka 1933, p. 93 no. 69), in order to study the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus based on the information that could be elicited from the words of the koinon itself. While the documents concerning the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus provide only snippets of its operational aspects, including the eligibility of candidates, the preferences of the koinon assembly, and deeper involvement in affairs concerning civic training and testamentary execution, they together indicate that the Koinon was likely a permanent institution that did not convene or focus its operation solely on affairs pertaining to the honoring of the emperors or the organizing of festivities, as Marek supposed in his short treatment on the matter (Marek 2003, pp. 63-67). The degree of engagement of the Koinon on municipal affairs of its constituent communities is considerable: it took interest in the performances of its leading men in the Amastrian neoi, and it joined the boule and demos of Heraclea in honoring a citizen from Heraclea for volunteering to take up the koinon archierosyne. The invocation of the krima – a joint “opinion” of the koinoboulion and the Heraclean boule and demos – in the execution of a private will indicates that the authority of the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus was regarded as an important factor even in testamentary execution. This document in particular suggests that there must have been some degree of administrative integration between the Koinon of the Cities and its constituent communities. These findings help integrate the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus into the recent academic discourse concerning the role in provincial administration that the koina of the Greek East played during the Principate. Jürgen Deininger’s 1965 study on koina and concilia during the Principate argued that such provincial- level institutions as primarily ceremonial, with only some diplomatic functions in addition to the worship of the emperors organization of games in the emperors’ honor. Sporadic objections since the initial publication of his work have been recently tabulated and assessed by Babett Edelmann-Singer (2015), who convincingly rejected Deininger’s limiting interpretation of evidence concerning financial and administrative aspects already available to him, and further demonstrated how Deininger’s thesis require revision in light of new epigraphical discoveries, such as the lex portorii Lyciae (Takmer 2007). As Edelmann-Singer did not touch upon the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus extensively, nor did she take note of the evidentiary value of the three documents highlighted by Sørensen, the analyses of the three documents of the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus in this paper supplements her work in exploring the various aspects that were downplayed by Deininger or unknown to him.

In the Epistulae ex ponto, Ovid describes how he dealt with the arrival of the silver images of Augustus, Livia and Tiberia that Cotta Messalinus sent him (2.8). He also described his sacrum Caesaris while celebrating the Pomponius brothers for attaining consulships (4.9). The theme of emperor worship as a medium of communication between patrons and their exiled client is striking. Millar noted how Ovid was kept informed of the metamorphoses of the imperial household (Millar 1993, 15-17), and Syme pointed to Ovid’s ability to use concurrent language of homage at Rome (Syme 1978, 167-8). As such, Ovid’s descriptions bear significance beyond proving that domestic worship of living emperors and his household existed (Gradel 2002, 202-203; Martelli 2013, 200).   This paper argues that Ovid’s epistles show how elite Roman society cared about emperor worship. Ovid received the proper set of statues of the imperial family from his friend and patron Cotta Messalinus. He reported to the Pomponius brothers regarding how Tiberius and Livia stant pariter beside the deified Augustus in his sacrum Caesaris, and about his prayers that are meant for public consumption (Price 1984, 92). At stake is his hope to return to Rome: the proper exercise of worship demonstrates not only his pietas but also how he projected imperial symbolism on the edge of the empire. Hence, he boasted how Pontus knew of his pietas as part of his metric resumé submitted to his friend and patron Pomponius Graecinus (Helzle 1989, 22-26). Together with Pliny the Younger’s foundation of a temple at Tifernum (Ep. 10.8), the literary sources offer a potential model for the foundation process of small temples such as the one found at Eretria (Schmid 2001, 113), or others as documented by Simon Price (1984) and Heidi Hänlein-Schäfer (1985).

This paper studies the high priests found in inscriptions from Amastris concerning the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus (henceforth “the Koinon”), commonly recognized as an assembly of cities in coastal Paphlagonia (Marek 2003, Vitale 2012; contra Loriot 2006).  The Amastrian high priests (7 in total) comprise of three types: 1) ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ Πόντοῦ, which can be securely associated with the Koinon; 2) ἀρχιερεύς, without specific designation as to what sort of imperial or local cult it was in charge; 3) ὁ τοῦ ἐπουρανίου Θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ἀρχ[ιερεὺς διὰ βίου, which also has the Latin equivalent Divi Aug. perpetuus sacerdos inscribed together as a bilingual text.  Should all three types titles be interpreted as the same office? Christian Marek (2003) assumed that they were: he included 2) and 3) under 1), without clarification. Xavier Loriot (2006) assumed differently: in his tabulation of dignitaries of Pontus, he omitted the office holders of 2) and 3), and he also did not state his rationale.  The discrepancy is significant because of dating. Time-reckoning markers on inscriptions of 2) and 3) help date the former to 62 CE, and the latter c. 50 CE, all considerably earlier than the earliest inscription in 1), which is Trajanic. The problem, on the other hand, is that Marek’s inclusion of 2) and 3) may be wrong: Frija (2012) demonstrated that when a high priesthood was not specified, they could be instead high priests of the municipal imperial cult.  This paper considers the possibility that 2) and 3) may have been local/municipal office(s), and could have been the precursor to the High Priesthood of Pontus. Particular emphasis will be on the bilingual text of 3), which contain the surprising attribution ἐπουρανίος, commonly associated with Zeus or Theos Hypsistos and without a Latin equivalent.

Lucian’s short pamphlet Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ Ψευδόμαντις (Alexander, or The False Prophet) gives an account on how a conjurer by the name of Alexander concocted a syncretistic snake oracle to victimize Paphlagonians. Alexander met resistence, however. Lucian claims that Amastris in particular was Alexander’s most despised city in Pontus, because “the followers of Lepidus and others like them were numerous in the city; and he would never deliver an oracle to an Amastrian” (Luc. Alex. 25). While the snake oracle is widely attested on coins, statues and iconography, there is no corroborating evidence on Alexander of Abonuteichos and Lepidus of Amastris beyond Lucian’s text. Yet, scholars used two inscriptions mentioning a Tiberius Claudius Lepidus (CIG 4149 & 4150, now lost) to establish Lepidus as a historical figure (Robert 1980: 146; Marek 1993: 98; Gordon 1996: 114; Victor 1997: 151). The rationale behind this identification, however, seems to have only been based on the identical cognomen and the hypothesis that the inscribed Lepidus, being an archpriest of Pontus (ἀρχιερεύς τοὺ Πόντου), controlled both the sacred and the profane domains of Amastris. After a literature review concerning the historicity of Lucian’s Alexander and Lucian’s Lepidus, this paper presents a close reading of the Lepidus inscriptions from Amastris previous studies. Since previous studies seldom considered the definitions and functions of the different types of archpriesthood found in Amastris, this paper studies Amastrian inscriptions and associated literature to establish context. A reassessment of the hypothesis that Lepidus controlled the religious domain of Amastris during the Antonine period will conclude the paper.

This paper studies how displaced royal families in the Roman principate speak about their royal ancestry. Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes "Philopappos" and his sister Julia Balbilla, who were descendents of the Orontid dynasty of Commagene in northwestern Syria, are objects of this study. The kingdom of Commagene was twice incorporated into the Roman province of Syria, first upon the death of Antiochos III Epiphanes in 17 CE, then during Vespasian's reign in 72 CE. Philopappos and Balbilla were displaced and eventually integrated into the circle of the Roman senatorial élite. The two siblings are examples of displaced royal families "at work," creating their extraordinary status within the Roman principate through monumental and literary works that claim inheritance to their ancestral past.  This paper will first review relevant scholarship – such as David Braund on client kingship (1984), Joel Allen on hostage and hostage taking in the principate (2006), Paul Burton on Roman foreign relations in the Republic (2011) – to clarify the operating terms of amicitia, fides, and foedus that formed the socio-political context within which Philopappos and Balbilla operated. The second part of the paper will discuss how the visual and inscriptional programme of Philopappos' monument at Athens and Babilla's graffitti poetry on the statue of Memnon in Egyptian Thebes negotiate socio-political contexts. This paper argues that Philopappos' monument did not only speak to his extraordinary status as humbled royalty under Rome, but also his belonging to Athens, and how Commagenian royalty and Roman citizenship attributed to his sense of belonging. Similarly, Balbilla was a valued member of Hadrian and Sabina's court specifically because of her conscious pronouncement of her family's royal blood and their piety, which qualities were pronounced in her graffiti poetry. Together, Philopappos and Balbilla marks a change in the nature of client kingship from Trajan onwards, as royal members become valued not for their ability to govern kingdoms, but for their extraordinary status as royal Roman citizens.

本文讨论一枚公元前五世纪的石碑在定年方面遇到的问题。《艾格斯塔决议》是众多无法透过雅典执政姓名精确定年的公元前五世纪雅典─阿提卡地区碑文之一。研究者采用了字母定年法来判断此碑应该落于哪个可能的时间区块内，再用碑文第三行中雅典执政姓名的残存字母精确定年。这个字母定年方法十九世纪开始成为定年参考，到了二十世纪中叶，随着《雅典贡银清册》这个大型计划的支持，一时成为学界除了雅典执政姓名以外主要的定年方法。但从一九六〇年代开始，学界开始针对未能利用雅典执政姓名定年的石碑挑战。经过三十年的文字争论后，Mortimer Chambers et al.于1990年发表了摄像成果，成功地挑战了文字定年的权威性，使得公元前五世纪雅典阿提卡地区铭刻的定年问题再次成为开放议题。