This paper discusses a widely accepted emendation to an earlier version of IG X 2.1 137. Early draft copies of the Herennia announcement show that Antoninus Pius was hailed as Σωτήρ by the city of Thessalonike, a rare epithet for this emperor. This reading was later replaced due to an expert’s claim that σωτῆρος has to be read σωτηρίας. Since this seems to conform to a well-known salutary formula, the emendation was adopted from then on. This paper suggests that the reading of σωτῆρος is based on reliable and published reports instead, and ought to be preferred over the expert claim. Empirical evidence is given to support reading σωτῆρος. 

本文聚焦罗马元首制时期刊刻于马其顿贝瑞亚城（Beroia）的一则行省总督政令（EKM I. 7）以及其中提到的水力驱动生产设施，并从《政令》来看行省总督面对水资源和相关生产设施的经济效益与社会意义时，治理视野可能产生的变化。在此所谓的治理视野，是考量位处高层的中央政府派员介入地方治理问题时，出于资讯不对称以及显贵政治主导的地方政治形态所会产生的迷雾效应，必然会面对的治理障碍。这种治理视野的限制在希腊语区容易出现，因为有许多城市获得罗马中央政府特许，能够维持相当高度的自治。例如小普林尼《书信集》第十卷第47篇写到，当他要检视阿帕美亚（Apamea）的收支与债务时，即便全城都想配合，但没人知道应该要怎么配合，因为长久以来，他们就是在特许状态下，用自己的方式管理城市。本文希望以总督对地方问题认识有限的假设为出发点，讨论马其顿省贝瑞亚城在爆发治理危机时，行省总督如何看待该城所拥有的比较完善、且具有特殊经济效益的水力驱动设备和水利设施。

本文从区域性视角，讨论罗马时期马其顿省的共同体发展情形。以下首先简短介绍本文脉络中所谓的"共同体"和区域性为何，再介绍以马其顿地区的共同体视野，看马其顿行省如何经由这类城际的、社群间纽带联系的组织，形成互联相依的行省整体。考量若干学界长期以来对罗马时期共同体的研究与观察角度后，本文从铭刻的地理联系网络视觉化，来塑造马其顿共同体在帝国时期所呈现出的地理纵深，并从承担马其顿共同体公职的显贵所能展现的实际作为，来描绘此机构在帝国时期对于区域性的影响力。本文还考虑了马其顿共同体在公职选拔、发布褒扬令的地理纵深、共同体钱币流通的广度，说明此组织的区域性特质。本文分析显示，马其顿共同体虽然在罗马击溃马其顿王族、消灭王权势力后，一并受到打击，但从铭刻证据来看，不论是共和时期还是帝国时期，王国体制下的马其顿各级组织都无法不以某种罗马中央政府允许的方式集会、议事。到了帝国时期，这种必须进行的年度聚会转化为爱琴海地区常见的共同体形式，以元首和皇室等中央政府和权力核心为号召，系统性地进行跨城、跨地域的区域性祭司与庆典活动。承担马其顿共同体公职的显贵，厉害者若如皮松之类，则近乎重新再见马其顿王的格局，不仅承担罗马中央政府期待的仪式性花费，还自费投入基础建设、缴纳税金、与元首就贝瑞亚城的头衔资格谈判等复杂任务。稍微逊色的显贵，也是能够在担任共同体的公职之外，承担地方上的公职，支持锻炼活动经费和油品支出等。在一般情况下，马其顿共同体似是可以视为一种透过抽取显贵的资源、并以区域性的政治社会地位作为回馈的正循环机构，能够解决不同地域的在地问题。透过地理纵深分析也可看见，马其顿共同体的穿透力从钱币、职官、甚至决议的效力，都为显著。所谓的自由马其顿地区的共同体地界，可发现马其顿共同体相关的铭刻与钱币，虽然不能完全排除偶然、随机流通或搬迁所造成的结果，但也可理解为马其顿共同体的影响力确实达到了其它共同体的地界之内。马其顿共同体是否有影响到其它共同体运作的模式，或对这些共同体造成利益上的冲击，尚待更多证据讨论。就目前来看，马其顿共同体的社会经济影响力如此显著，或许确实如赫佐普洛所言，与其顿共同体的地位不是一般的行省共同体，而是国族共同体有关。这也意味着马其顿共同体的研究，应该要适当地与其他地区的共同体在资料类型区分与比较等研究方法上有所区分。马其顿共同体是个具有高强度纽带联系的组织，随着罗马征服的过去阴影日渐淡化，个成员有趋近于互联相依的国族整体的态势。

Gladiatorial spectacles became an integral part of the Roman experience in the second century CE. Texts such as the Martyrdom of Polycarp (6-19) help illucidate the details of gladiation in Smyrna and the medical treatises of Galen (13.599; 18B. 567) discuss flesh wounds suffered at Pergamon. A considerable amount of inscriptions that offer skeletal information and its spread in the Greek-speaking part of the Roman empire (Robert 1971; Mann 2011). What is less clear is how spectacles were actually arranged, who attended and participated. This paper wishes to take a closer look at the two questions through the lens of Lucian's tale of a gladiatorial duel in Toxaris or On Friendship. Toxaris is Lucian's Scythian persona who claimed to have been saved by a friend called Sisinnes. The two of them found their possessions stolen at Amastris, and Sisinnes volunteered to fight at a local gladiatorial event for money and won a large sum that more than recuperated their losses. Lucian’s clear fondness for Amastris elsewhere and his vignette here suggests an attempt to create resonance with an Amastrian audience, whom he addresses at the end of the story ( Luc. Tox. 60; Cumont 1903: 274 fn. 5; Kokolakis 1958: 335-343). This paper would like to suggest that Lucian’s narrative provides us with a version of what his knowledgeable Amastrian audience would have expected a gladiatorial spectacle to be like, as well as how local variations may have been a separate driver of gladiation's popularity in different Anatolian localities. Bibliography Cumont, F. 1903. "Gladiateurs et Acteurs dans le Pont." Festschrift Zu Otto Hirschfelds Sechzigsten Geburtstage. Nabu Press. Kokolakis, M. 1958. "Gladiatorial Games and Animal-Baiting in Lucian." Platon 10: 328-349. Mann, C. 2011. "Um keinen Kranz, um das Leben kämpfen wir!" Gladiatoren im Osten des Römischen Reiches und die Frage der Romanisierung. Berlin, Verlag Antike. Robert, L. Les gladiateurs dans l'orient Grec. Amsterdam, Adolf Hakkert.

This paper wishes to use the epigraphical record of Amastris to discuss how a sympolity founded in the Hellenistic period continued to evolve and develop additional diversity and dynamics in the Roman period. I will first discuss how literary sources describe the early history of Amastris as an integrative and cooperative space in Hellenistic northern Anatolia, then move to epigraphical sources and discuss how this trend likely continued to evolve as Amastris came under Roman rule. An important caveat must be raised beforehand. While this paper wishes to suggest that some trends such as the integrative and cooperative aspects of this locale can indeed be observed and described, the materials used for the description – both the literary tradition and the epigraphic sources – can only provide minimalist impressions of large socio-political trends, if even these at all. What I hope to achieve, despite such reservations, is to establish some baselines that can be used for asking further questions at a regional level, where additional evidence can be used to discuss integrative and cooperative dynamics across different cities.