Adam Łajtar

A Newly Discovered Greek Inscription at Novae (Moesia Inferior) Associated with pastus militum*

Tafeln 6–7

The inscription that forms the subject of this paper was discovered during the 2011 archaeological season in the legionary fortress of Novae in Moesia Inferior. The expedition responsible for the finding was led by members of the University of Warsaw’s Centre for Research on the Antiquity of Southeastern Europe (Ośrodek Badań nad Antykiem Europy Południowo-Wschodniej Uniwersytetu Warszaw­skiego). The stone that bears the inscription was retrieved in two pieces from a trench located between the principia and the barracks of the first cohors, in a Late Antique rubbish layer. A more exact description of the archaeological context should be available once excavations on the spot are brought to a conclusion.

The object, a parallelepiped made of local sandstone, must have originally served as the base for a statue. This is strongly suggested by the Greek inscription written on it (particularly lines 7–11, in which one finds a description of a statue) and by analogous artefacts from Novae. [1] At some point, the base seems to have been re­shaped with the aim of putting it to new use. Thus, an unspecified number of lines from the beginning of the inscription are lost as a result of its upper part being cut off. [2] The stone was hollowed out from behind (Pl. 6, Fig. 1) with the intention of making a massive grinder, or perhaps — though this is less probable — a stand for some other object, where the face with the Greek inscription would have served as the underside. Of the reshaped object we possess roughly half, this being split, as has already been mentioned, into two parts that may successfully be joined together to make a whole. The original dimensions of the base are unknown, although judging by the width of the reconstructed lines of the Greek inscription, one can venture to estimate the object’s original width at ca. 100 cm. The present dimensions of the stone are: height: 65 cm, width: 50 cm, depth: 45 cm. The stone bears two inscriptions, (A) and (B). The designations (A) and (B) are purely conventional. It has not been determined which inscription is the original, and which is secondary. It may well be the case that the texts are contemporaneous.

Inscription (A) is preserved in its lower right-hand part (Pl. 6, Fig. 2). The surface is weathered and chipped off, especially along the right-hand edge and the break. Here and there small holes are visible in the surface, which resemble dots used by the stonemason. The inscription is quite carefully executed, especially if one compares it with Late Antique standards. Sequences of letters are arranged in even lines, from which it may be inferred that guide lines were applied.[3] In the upper portion of the text, letters are big and widely spaced, but gradually become smaller and tighter in the lower segments, especially in the final two lines of text; one necessarily concludes that the lapicide found himself running out of space. Generally, the height of the letters falls in the range of 2.5 cm (omicron at the beginning of line 15) to 5 cm (phi in line 12). From a paleographic standpoint the letters are upright epigraphic majus­cules. They are decorated with simple serifs. Alpha has two forms: one with a broken bar, the other with a horizontal stroke in the middle. Sigma is of classical form when it stands alone, but square-shaped when occurring in ligatures. Epsilon is square-shaped throughout the inscription. One notes a strange form ofomega: a circle with an opening at the top, from which two incurved lines protrude, one at each side. [4] The inscription contains numerous ligatures; these not only merge letters within particular words, but also ones belonging to neighbouring words. The letters subjected to liga­ture are normally those with vertical strokes, but in six cases the ligature consists of a letter without a horizontal stroke inscribed in pi (ΠΡ and ΠΟ in lines 11 and 13, ΠΑ and ΠΟ in line 15). Words are occasionally abbreviated by suspension, with the ab­breviation being marked by a dot set midway through the line’s height (ΘΕΣ• in line 8, ΠΡ• in line 11, ΠΡ•ΠΟΛ• in line 13, ΚΟΛΩΝ• in line 12). In line 5, dots on both sides of the letter alpha mark the numeral.

Inscription (B) is preserved only in fragments, due to damage suffered by the stone’s surface (Pl. 7, Fig. 3). The fact that it is covered by a thick layer of grey patina suggests that the damage dates back to Antiquity. Traces of three, or perhaps even four lines of the inscription are visible. Letters are big (ca. 4.5 cm), round, loosely standing majuscules. Alpha has a broken bar.

[ - - - ] and to the [ - - - ] to the glorious city of the Novaesians and to the First Italic Legion in thanksgiving (and) because of the memory and [ - - - ] (erected) the marvelous statue [ - - - ] having a noble posture [ - - - ] of the army and in cuirass [ - - - ] Flavios (?) Bassos, primipilarius, citizen of the colony of Alexandrians, and Flavios [ - - - ]os, primipilarius, citizen of Ilion, praying the heavenly god [ - - - ] who saved us [ - - - ] near Hellespontos.

I am unable to say anything reasonable about inscription (B). We cannot even be sure of the language; it can be either Greek or Latin. Thus what follows will pertain only to inscription (A).

1. Traces of letters preserved on the stone suggest the transcript [ - - - ] . Γ̣Ε̣Ν̣Ε̣ΟΤ̣ΑΤ̣[ . ]. If so, we would be dealing with the adjective γενναιότατος, written γενεότατος. However, its case and number remain uncertain. We know that γενναιό­τατος is the Greek counterpart of the Latin fortissimus. Beginning with Severan times, it was used as an epithet of military units up until the seventh century, and, occa­sionally, also as an epithet of emperors.[5] Due to the damage suffered by the text, it is difficult to determine the epithet’s function in this particular case. We must acknow­ledge both possibilities — an epithet of a military unit garrisoning in Novae, and an epithet of one or more emperors.

2. The reading of this line is difficult. Apparently we are dealing with a male par­ticiple in accusative plural (note ΜΕΝΟΥΣ), but one does not know what verb is at issue and what this participle may refer to.

3. The reading τ]οῖσδε τοῖς, “to those here”, is possible as well.

It is possible that nothing is lacking after ΚΑΣ at the end of the line. One wonders what the correct reading of this fragment is. Among the possibilities is τοῖς κάσ[τ|
ροις] or τοῖς κάσ|[τροις]. This would be a reference to the castra of Legio I Italica, which is mentioned in lines 5–6. Another possibility is τοῖς κασ[τ|ρησίοις/τοῖς κασ|
[τρησίοις, “to those living in the camp”.

4–5. An ethnic of Novae, a city which began to emerge around the fortress of Legio I Italica in the second century AD, is known as: Novensius/Νοβήνσιος or Novesius/Νοβήσιος.[6] The former of these is attested in an entry inNotitia digni­tatum,[7] in the signature of Secundinus, bishop of Novae, under the acts of the synodos endemousa that took place in Constantinople in 448–449,[8] in the signature of Petrus, Bishop of Novae, which may be found in a letter addressed by Moesian bishops to the Emperor Leo in 458,[9] and finally in Marcellinus Comes’ Chronicon from 487.[10] The latter form also occurs in the acts of the Constantinopolitan synodos endemousa of 448–449, likewise in the signature of Secundinus, [11] but also in an inscription on an altar from Nicopolis ad Istrum, dating possibly from the third century.[12] The wavering between Novensius/Νοβήνσιος and Novesius/Νοβήσιος is due to the loss of /n/ in front of a sibilant, a phenomenon well attested in Latin from its very origins,[13] and observable also in Greek in the transcript of Latin words with /ns/.[14]

Considering that the lacuna on the left hand side is ca. 8 letter wide one has to assume that a word was recorded in an abbreviated form here. As καί is written in scriptio plena in this inscription it must have been πόλ(ει). Note that the word πολίτης is abbreviated twice in lines 11 and 13.

5–6. The Legio I Italica was transferred to Novae probably in or around AD 72, as part of the Flavian reorganisation of the limes, [15] and garrisoned there uninterruptedly up until Late Antiquity. The name of the legion still appears in stamps on bricks and tiles found on the site, which can be dated to the second quarter of the fourth century. [16] Legio I Italica is mentioned in a Greek inscription from Novae (probably 367/8) as the addressee of a dedication associated with pastus militum.[17] The last mention of the legion in the context of Novae comes from the Notitia Dignitatum, of which the pars Orientis was probably edited around 395, despite being a description of the situation in Constantine’s time.[18] In Late Antiquity, the legion gradually changed its character to resemble local militia. The final change, according to Sarnowski, took place “presumably not earlier than after the raids of the Huns in the second quarter of the fifth century”,[19] and may have coincided with the abandonment of the name Legio I Italica.

6–7. A motivation formula contained in these lines can tentatively be recon­structed as μνήμ|[ης καὶ τιμ]ῆς ἕνεκεν, “for the remembrance and as a mark of respect”; however, other reconstructions, e.g. μνήμ|[ης καὶ ἀρετ]ῆς ἕνεκεν, are possi­ble as well.

7–8. The only possible reconstruction appears to be θεσπ|[έσιον, here “marvellous, wondrous”. The adjective in question is occasionally used in descriptions of things that have been created by human hands, especially in poetic language; cf. e.g. Anth. Palat. IX 799, 3–4: Μουσεῖον Ῥώμῃ δ’ ἐχαρίσσατο καὶ βασιλῆος εἰκόνα θεσπεσίην ἐντὸς ἔγραψε δόμων. It is also attested to qualify words that metaphorically designate works of art; c.f. e.g. Michael Psellus, Orationes panegyricae 4 (ed. G.T. Dennis, Michaelis Pselli orationes panegyricae, Stuttgart 1994, ll. 492–495): ὅρα μοι τοίνυν τὸν θεοδώρητον τῆς πορφύρας βλαστόν, τοῦ βασιλείου γένους τὸ τελευταῖον καὶ θεσπέσιον ἄγαλμα, τὴν ζῶσαν καλλονήν, τὴν ἔμψυχον ἁρετήν. θεσπ|[έσιον was followed by a masculine participle in the accusative singular, as can be inferred from ]τα. A tentative reconstruction could look something like τὸν θεσπ|[έσιον παρόν]τα ἀνδριάντα.

8. θεσ( ) ΤΗ probably refers to the person represented by the statue (ἀνδριάς).

9. σχῆμα is a general term for “design” or “format” in the visual arts.[20] It is only in the Roman Imperial period that the term seems to have gained popularity and become part of the terminology pertaining to Greek art, replacing the older ῥυθμός. According to J.J. Politt, σχῆμα “refers to the composition of the statue — the position of the body and the arrangement of its drapery”. [21]

10–11. The sequence ]ΡΑΤΙΗΣ is clearly observable on the stone, and from this one might infer the reading στ]ρατιῆς or στ]ρατίης. However, I strongly doubt whether either of these readings is correct. The presence of the poetic forms στρατιῆς and στρατίης is hardly justified in a prose text dating from Late Antiquity. For this reason, I am inclined to think that the intended word was στρατιωτικῆς, rather than στρατιῆς/στρατίης. It was recorded ΣΤ]ΡΑΤΙΗΣ either intentionally, using an internal abbreviation (thus στ]ρατι(ωτικ)ῆς),[22] or by mistake (thus στ]ρατι⟨ωτικ⟩ῆς). στρατιω­τικῆς must have been the attribute of a feminine substantive in the genitive singular, e.g. σκευῆς, and this substantive would seem to have figured immediately before it. ΠΑΝΟΠΛΙ|[ between lines 10 and 11 can be read either πανόπλι|[ον [23] or πανοπλι|[τικῆς, depending on whether it referred to ἀνδριάς, or to the lost substantive in the lacuna at the beginning of line 10 (σκευῆς ?).

11. The choice of πρ(ιμιπιλάριος) here and in line 13 is based on analogous material provided by inscriptions erected in association with pastus militum in Oescus and in Novae.[24]

11–12. The reading πολε⟨ί⟩της | [τῆς Ἀλεξανδρ]έων κολων(είας) is also possible.[25] The reconstruction Ἀλεξανδρ]έων is quite unambiguous: the only two cities in the Hellespontic region to have the status of colonia civium Romanorum were Alexandria Troas and Parion, the latter of which we must eliminate because of the ending ]εων.[26] It may be inferred that the man mentioned here came from a city in Hellespont on account of the fact that his colleague was a citizen of Ilion — also a Hellespontic city. Separate sources confirm that the province of Hellespont had supplied the First Italic Legion in the late fourth and early fifth century. [27]

12. The nomen Φλάβιος, borne by the second of the two dedicants indicates that he was active in the state service, either as an official or a soldier.[28] It is most likely that the same nomen should be reconstructed for the first man: Φλάβιος] Βάσσος.

13–14. The lacuna between θε|[ὸν and οὐ]ράνιον may be filled in several ways, depending on whether we are dealing with the Christian God or rather a pagan divin­ity. In the first case, οὐ]ράνιον should have either been preceded by another epithet of God in the accusative singular, or contained the beginning of a compound adjective with Οὐράνιος as the second element, e.g. ὑπερου]ράνιον or ἐπου]ράνιον, and, optionally, the article τὸν. In the case of a pagan god, one expects his name. As the lacuna was apparently ca. 8 letters wide, the name must have been a rather short one. Οὐράνιος is attested as an epithet of several gods including Zeus, Men, Hermes, Ares.

14–15. The reading τὸν σώσαντ[α] is also possible. It is difficult to make out what is written between τὸν σώσαντ(α)/τὸν σώσαντ[α] and παρ’ Ἑλλήσποντο̣(ν). In view of the designation τὸν σώσαντ(α), one can take into consideration either the reading ἐν κιν(δύνο)ις παρ’ Ἑλλήσποντο̣(ν) or ἐν κιν⟨δύνο⟩ις παρ’ Ἑλλήσποντο̣(ν), depending on whether one is dealing with an abbreviation or a mistake made by either the editor of the inscription or the stonemason. Benedetto Bravo put forward the suggestion that this part of the text is corrupted owing to the inadvertence of the stonemason, who misunderstood the original τὸν σώσαντα ἡμᾶς ἐν πολλοῖς ἐφόδοις καὶ κινδύνοις παρ’ Ἑλλήσποντον. Although such an explanation is tempting, it requires further scrutiny, all the more so seeing that this alleged original phrase would have been much longer than the final text cut into the stone. Another possibility is to read ἐν κινίσ(ει), i.e. ἐν κινήσει (or in plural). For a possible interpretation of this reading see below.

The inscription has the form of a dedication addressed to the glorious city of the Novesians and the First Italic Legion. This brings to mind another Greek inscription from Novae, probably dating from AD 367/8, meant to be a dedication to the Legio I Italica alone. [29] The dative τ]ῇ λαμπρᾷ Νοβησί[ων πόλει καὶ τ]ῇ λεγιῶνει αʹ Ἰτα[λικῇ should most probably be understood as a dative of homage and not a dative of religious dedication.[30] The inscription tells us that we are dealing with a gift offered to these two bodies in remembrance of a visit to Novae, but also as a mark of respect for the city and the legion. However, the gift had a religious motive as well, and it was to thank Divinity (either Christian or pagan), whose intervention had saved the authors from a danger that occurred “near Hellespont”. It is almost certain that the dedication was also motivated politically. By analogy to the dedication of AD 367/8 mentioned above, this had likely assumed the shape of a typical formula ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας καὶ αἰωνίου διαμονῆς τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων κτλ., “for the safety and perpetual conservation of the Emperors, etc.”, and should have been located at the beginning of the inscrip­tion, but is lost now due to the damage to the inscription near the top. The epithet γεν­ναιότατος in what is now line 1, provided the reading is correct, may be remnant of this formula.

The object of the dedication was a statue showing a human figure (ἀνδριάς). The figure was depicted in a noble posture (ἄριστον σχῆμα) and clad in military attire, including a cuirass. Despite the fact that only certain fragments of the statue’s description have been preserved, it may be inferred that the person represented was an Emperor. The epithet θεσπέσιος, “marvelous, wondrous”, seems to confirm this hypothesis. The statue may have been made of bronze, but since the material was very expensive and its use required imperial consent, stone seems to be the safer assumption. [31]

The dedication was authored by two men: Bassos, nomen gentile not preserved, probably Flavios,[32] citizen of Alexandria Troas, and Flavios [ - - - ]os, citizen of Ilion. Both of them are designated as primipilarii. We know that in the Late Roman period, primipilarii were civilian officials employed by provincial governors and were responsible for supplying the legionaries stationing on the limes. The latter task, called pastus primipili (in legal sources) or pastus militum (in inscriptions), is attested from the start of the third century onwards as a responsibility of the primi pili, the most distinguished legionary centurions. The responsibility was then transferred over to the primipilarii sometime during the tetrarchy at the very latest, and probably much earlier, under Aurelian’s or perhaps even Gallienus’ rule.[33] Primipilarii were not occupied by collecting annona; this latter obligation was in the hands of civic magistrates. Their duty was to transport supplies from the province in which they were collected (i.e. their home province) to the location at which the legion garri­soned.[34] To this end, they were assisted by ancillary personnel (stationarii primipi­larium). The method of financing the transport is not clear. Fritz Mitthof put forward the hypothesis that this was taken care of by way of a tax called πριμιπῖλον, traces of which we find in Egyptian papyri. [35] Primipilarii, or rather their home provinces that provided the supplies, were assigned to particular legions.[36] András Mócsy was of the opinion that these “supplying provinces” and the provinces in which the legions garrisoned were not the same.[37] This claim was questioned by Hermann-Josef Horst­kotte,[38] but dedications of primipilarii found in Novae and Oescus, another legionary fortress on the Lower Danube, appear to refute his criticism, as the authors of these inscriptions originated invariably from distant supplying provinces.

The dedications of primipilarii from Oescus and Novae are the only epigraphic sources we know of that make direct reference to the civilian pastus militum. The inscriptions in question,[39] part of which are edited in Greek and part in Latin, are all quite akin in formal terms. All of them seem to commemorate the erection of statues by primipilarii following successful missions of transporting supplies from the officials’ respective home provinces to the legionaries on the Danube (post pastum militum). One necessarily concludes that there was a tradition in these two neighbour­ing legionary fortresses, otherwise nonexistent, which forced the primipilarii of these particular legions to act in this way.

The dedications of primipilarii reveal that the Legio V Macedonica, on garrison in Oescus, was supplied by the provinces of Asia and Syria Palaestina. Initially, in the time of the tetrarchy, the Legio I Italica in Novae received supplies from Phoenicia, and then, in the late fourth and early fifth century, from Hellespont and The Islands. Whilst publishing three Latin dedications of primipilarii from Novae, dated to just after the year 430, Tadeusz Sarnowski put forward the hypothesis that at that particular time Hellespont and The Islands may have supplied the legionaries in Novae in turns (Hellespont would be responsible for the provision in one year, The Islands in the next, and so on). This system may have been in force much earlier, as early as in the mid-fourth century, when the civilian pastus militum apparently reached the last stage of its evolution. The supplying provinces for each of the two legions were not chosen at random, but, as Sarnowski suggested, were dictated by the need for optimum transport conditions. In his view, Hellespont and the Islands sup­plied the Legio I Italica in Novae (the province of Moesia II) using the eastern water route (Aegean Sea, Sea of Marmara, Black Sea, Danube), whereas the Legio V Macedonica in Oescus (the province of Dacia Ripensis) received provisions from the provinces of Asia and Syria Palaestina through the mixed (part sea, part land) western route (via the Adriatic Sea all the way to Aquileia, then by the Sava and Danube). Each of the inscriptions from Oescus mentions one primipilarius, while those from Novae normally refer to two men.[40] Sarnowski proposed that this duality is associated with the Late Antique division of the Legio I Italica, attested in Notitia Dignitatum, Oriens XL 23, into two groups, one of which garrisoned in the old legionary fortress in Novae, and the other in Sexaginta Prista (modern Ruse).[41]

The inscription published here is quite consonant in character with the remaining dedications by primipilarii from Novae, and, to a lesser degree, with those from Oescus. It is identical in that it commemorates the erection of a statue by two primi­pilarii originating from the province of Hellespont, most probably on occasion of the successful fulfilment of their obligation, consisting in the transportation of supplies from their home province to Novae. Typical as it is, the text nevertheless presents some uncommon traits. Firstly, one should mention a somewhat developed form and the presence of sophisticated language, which strays from the standard epigraphic formularies. This may be observed both in the detailed description of the statue and in the justification of erecting it. Furthermore, the passage dealing with religious motivation, which, it would seem, seeks to reflect the personal experience that the two men acquired during their fulfilment of the task, has no parallel among other inscriptions within the group. However, the most uncommon and intriguing particu­larity is the establishment of a connection between Legio I Italica and the city of Novae in the dedicatory formula. It testifies to the fact that, at the time of the inscrip­tion, these two bodies were closely associated with one another, and that their statuses were perceived to be equal, at least by the two strangers who delivered the supplies.

Due to the lack of such precise dating criteria as are available for some of the other texts in the group in question, the date of the inscription can only be established approximately. The timeframe is delineated on one side by the introduction of the civilian pastus militum in the final quarter of the third century, and the destruction of Novae, probably by Hunnic incursions around 450, on the other. The use of the nomen Flavius allows us to further restrict the period in question to the time following the reign of Constantine. It is my impression that the piece comes from the second half of the fourth century. Perhaps it is loosely concurrent with another Greek dedica­tion by two primipilarii from Hellespont, Flavius Aphrodisius and Flavius Artemi­sius, which, according to Bresson, Drew Bear and Zuckerman, was erected in 367/8.[42] The dedications of primipilarii from a certain period tend to be in the same language, as is suggested by inscriptions from the years 430, 431, and 432,[43] all of them edited in Latin.

When deliberating over the date of the inscription, one should once again discuss lines 14–15, which possibly mention some dangers near Hellespont from which the two authors were saved through a divine intervention. Assuming that the reading ἐν κιν(δύνο)ις/ἐν κιν⟨δύνο⟩ις is correct, one wonders what kind of dangers the two men had in mind. The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of the word Ἑλλήσποντος, which may designate both the Sea of Marmara and the province in north-western Asia Minor. In the first case, κίνδυνοι are most probably perils at sea that the two primipilarii encountered while shipping the supplies from their home in north-western Asia Minor to Novae.[44] What the authors would have had in mind in the second case must be dangers associated with the plundering of their home prov­ince. The formulation παρ’ Ἑλλήσποντο̣(ν) seems to favour this latter meaning, as it suggests that the dangers did not occur at sea. [45] This meaning would go in hand with the reading of the letters ΕΝΚΙΝΙΣ as ἐν κινίσ(ει), i.e. ἐν κινήσει, “in a turmoil”, suggested in the commentary to line 15. If so, our men may be alluding to the tragic events that took place in and around the province of Hellespont in the second half of the fourth century. Two such events immediately come to mind: the revolt of Procopius in 365/366 and the rebellion of the Goths from Phrygia under the command of Tribigild in 399/400. The first of these two events affected the north-eastern part of the province, including its capital Cyzicus, which was captured by the troops of Procopius’ general Marcellus. [46] During the second event, the rebellious Goths plun­dered the southern and south-western areas of the province in their march from Phrygia to Europe, en route to a clash with the Imperial army in a battle near Abydos, which they won as a result of treachery in the opposing camp.[47] Both events must have had a considerable influence on the personal safety of the inhabitants of Helles­pont and the functioning of the entire province, including the collection and the transport of annona. If the assumed dangers refer to historical events, our inscription could be dated to either 366 or 399/400.

The original context of the three dedications of primipilarii from Oescus is unknown. Of the nine dedications from Novae (including the one published in this paper), six were discovered within principia:[48] one to the north of the northern por­tico, perhaps near its original location,[49] and five in various secondary contexts dating from the Late Antique period (from the fifth to the seventh century).[50] The remaining three occurred in the immediate vicinity of the principia: immured in the Episcopal complex situated to the west of them, [51] and cast into the Late Antique rubbish layer that accumulated near the north-eastern corner of the headquarters building.[52] It is almost certain that all these inscriptions along with their statues were originally located in the principia. This spacious structure of Flavian date still acted as the legionary headquarters in the late fourth and early fifth century, in a time when the majority of the old fortress buildings were already occupied by civilians. [53] Numerous pieces of the sculptural and inscriptional equipment that accumulated during the centuries-long use of the principia, including those of a clearly pagan character, were retained until the final abandonment of the building. [54] It is among these older monuments depicting pagan gods, personifications and emperors that the new objects were erected. In fact, three Latin dedications of primipilarii of AD 430, 431 and 432 state that their statues stood in vultu Dionisi, perhaps in front of the statue of Liber Pater, dedicated by another primipilarius, Aurelius Porphyrius, ca. 130 years earlier.

1) G. Kazarov, Epigraphisches aus Bulgarien, Philologische Wochenschrift 46 (1926) 767–768, and idem, in: Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Bulgare 4 (1926/1927) 96–97, no. 21 (AE 1927, 45); ILBulg. 8b. An ameliorated text: A. Bresson, Th. Drew Bear, C. Zuckerman, Une dédicace de primipilaires à Novae pour la Victoire impériale, Ant.Tard. 4 (1995) 141 (AE 1995, 1328). Found in Gigen, as­sociated with the camp of Legio V Macedonica in Oescus. Latin dedication to Liber Pater Conservator erected [p]os(t) pastum militum by a primipilarius (Flavius Zosi­mus) from the province of Asia, a citizen of Ephesus. Exact date unknown, but proba­bly no earlier than 340/350.

2) V. Beševliev, Epigrafski prinosi, Sofia 1952, 49–50, no. 78 (AE 1957, 288); ILBulg. 9. An ameliorated text: Bresson, Drew Bear, Zuckerman, Une dédicace (above no. 1) 141 (AE 1995, 1329). Found in Gigen, associated with the camp of Legio V Macedonica in Oescus. Latin inscription of a statue base set up [po]st pastum militum by a primipilarius (Flavius Tatianus) from the province of Syria Palaestina. Exact date unknown, but probably no earlier than 340/350.

3) V. Beševliev, Epigrafski prinosi, Sofia 1952, 49, no. 77 (AE 1957, 287); ILBulg. 10. An ameliorated text: Bresson, Drew Bear, Zuckerman, Une dédicace (above no. 1) 141 (AE 1995, 1330). Found in Gigen, associated with the camp of Legio V Macedonica in Oescus. Latin inscription of a statue base set up post pastum militum by a primipilarius (Flavius Euforbius) from the province of Asia, a citizen of Phokaia. Exact date unknown, but probably no earlier than 340/350.

4) V. Velkov, Eine neue spätgriechische Inschrift aus Novae, in: G. Susini (ed.), Limes, Bologna 1994, 149–152 (AE 1994, 1525). An ameliorated text: Bresson, Drew Bear, Zuckerman, Une dédicace (above no. 1) 139–146 (AE 1995, 1332 [without text]). IGLNovae 178. Found in a secondary context in the cathedral of Novae, overlying the ruins of the legionary bathhouse situated to the west of the principia. Greek inscription of a statue base dedicated to the First Italic Legion by two primipilarii, Flavius Aphrodisius and Flavius Artemisius, from the province of Hellespont. Probably 367/8 according to Bresson, Drew Bear, and Zuckerman.

5) IGLNovae 177 (AE 1997, 1310). Found in Novae in unknown circumstances.[55] Greek inscription of a statue base erected by two primipilarii, an ignotus and Aurelius Synesius, from the province of The Islands. Date unknown. The editors of IGLNovae suggested that the inscription is older than 324 on account of the name Aurelius borne by the second primipilarius, but the argument is not decisive. In my opinion, a date from the second half of the 4^th century is more likely.

6) T. Sarnowski, Drei spätkaiserzeitliche Statuenbasen aus Novae in Niedermoe­sien, in: M. Mirković (ed.), Römische Städte und Festungen an der Donau. Akten der regionalen Konferenz organisiert von der Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Beo­grad, 16–19 Oktober 2003 , Beograd 2005, 224 (AE 2005, 1328). The photo of the stone may also be found in: T. Sarnowski et alii, Novae. An Archaeological Guide to a Roman Legionary Fortress and Early Byzantine Town on the Lower Danube (Bulgaria), Warsaw 2012, 25, fig 10. Discovered in principia of the Legio I Italica in Novae, in a secondary context. Latin inscription of a statue base erectedpa[s]to milito by two primipilarii, Flavius Severinus and Flavius Eubolium, from the province of Hellespont [56]. AD 430, probably in the first half of the year on account of the fact that the name of the western consul is not indicated (i.e. it was not yet known in the East).

7) Sarnowski, Drei spätkaiserzeitliche Statuenbasen (above no. 6) 224–225 (AE 2005, 1329). The photo of the stone may also be found in: Sarnowski et alii, Novae. (above n. 6) 25, fig 10. Discovered in the principia of the Legio I Italica in Novae, in a secondary context. Latin inscription of a statue base erected pasto milite by two primipilarii, Flavius Agapitus (= Agapetus) [57] and Flavius Diogenis, from the province of The Islands AD 431.

8) Sarnowski, Drei spätkaiserzeitliche Statuenbasen (above no. 6) 225 (AE 2005, 1330). The photo of the stone may also be found in: Sarnowski et alii, Novae (above no. 6) 25, fig 10. Discovered in the principia of the Legio I Italica in Novae, in a secondary context. Latin inscription of a statue base erected pasto mil(ite) by two primipilarii, Flavius Afonius and Flavius Diodorus, from the province of Hellespont. AD 432.

9) Z. Goczewa, Postument z dwiema inskrypcjami w języku łacińskim i greckim z odcinka X w Novae, in: A. Biernacki (ed.), Biskupstwo w Novae (Moesia Secunda) IV–VI w., vol. I (Novae. Studies and Materials IV), Poznań 2013, forthcoming. Re­used as a floor support post in one of the rooms of the ptochotrophium complex situated to the south of the cathedral. Greek dedication of a statue of Dionysos erected by aprimipilarius from the province of Hellespont. Date unknown, apparently after 324 on account of the nomen Flavius borne by the primipilarius, perhaps still the first half of the fourth century.

10) The inscription discussed in this paper.

11) T. Sarnowski, Accepta pariatoria und pastus militum: Eine neue Statuenbasis mit zwei Inschriften aus Novae, in this volume. Discovered accidentally to the north of the northern portico of the principia and the groma, perhaps near the original location of the object. Latin inscription of a statue dedicated to Liber Pater Conservator by Aurelius Porfyrius, a primipilarius from Phoenicia. Tetrarchy period.

12) Unpublished. Greek metrical dedication of the statue of Phoebus (Apollo) made by a primipilarius whose name and origin have not been preserved. The statue was erected after the person in question fed (θρέψας) the legionaries (?). The inscrip­tion stands on a pedestal found in April 2013 during earthen preparatory works prior to the conservation and restoration project in the central zone of the site of the legion­ary fortress. Date unknown, probably fourth century.