DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0264
238 VII. LOUNDA, PELTAI, ATTANASSOS.
coins of the city seems too remarkable a coincidence to be accidental.
Again it is improbable that if a city in so accessible a position as
Lounda had struck coins regularly they should not be known in col-
lections. It is also improbable that it was dependent on any other
city, because it seems to have had a complete constitution of the usual
Graeco-Roman type; and this same reason prevents us from making
it a member of the Koinon of the Hyrgaleans (Ch. IV § 5). We must
therefore suppose that it was only a small city so poor as to strike
few or no coins. The Hyrgaleans, Colossai, and Peltai, all of which
had a larger extent of fertile territory, struck very few coins ; and
it is probable that Lounda struck still fewer. Possibly inscr. 86
may belong to Lounda, and the coins there mentioned may yet
gladden some numismatist with the legend FFAPA • AfTOAAOAO-
TOY • AOYN AEHN. The custom that rich citizens should defray the
cost of striking coins for their state was widely spread, and is often
expressly mentioned on the coins themselves; but this is the only
inscription known to me in which it is so emphatically mentioned1.
The record that he struck coins is given as the climax of the services
rendered to the state by Apollodotos.
Inscriptions 84 and 85 reveal the existence at Lounda of a Senate
and a body of Neoi; while 86 (which may however belong to Peltai)
mentions a board consisting of at least two Strategoi. These scanty
hints make it certain that Lounda was an organized polis, similar in
type to Laodiceia.
Except in inscriptions Lounda is never mentioned till we come
down to the Byzantine period. Hierocles and the later Notitiae give
it, the former between Peltai and Attanassos2, the latter next to
Attanassos. The eaulier Notitiae omit it. The difference might lead
one to suppose that Lounda was made a bishopric by Leo VI; but
the corrupt 'ApS'iSasv of the Notitiae published by De Boor should
certainly be corrected to AovvScav, which would prove that the changes
introduced not later than the earlier Iconoclasts included the elevation
of Lounda to be a bishopric ; and the same inference follows from the
presence of Nicephorus bishop of Lounda at Nikaia in 787.
A solitary- reference to the plain of Lounda occurs in A. D. 1176,
when Manuel Comnenus made a slight effort against the Seljuks, and
1 Legends with hia (Carian and Lao- p. 373, suggesting that the coins were
dicean p. 166) or napd (Apameanp. 276) a congiarhcm distributed to the whole
exemplify this custom ; also the coins people ; but this last suggestion narrows
of Tripolis and Hierapolis with the the reference too much,
verb in ixapdrTciv, p. 107. Eckhel adds 2 Assuming here that Krassos in Hiero-
the coins with legend uveOrjKtv D. N. IV cles is a mere error, see App. II.
coins of the city seems too remarkable a coincidence to be accidental.
Again it is improbable that if a city in so accessible a position as
Lounda had struck coins regularly they should not be known in col-
lections. It is also improbable that it was dependent on any other
city, because it seems to have had a complete constitution of the usual
Graeco-Roman type; and this same reason prevents us from making
it a member of the Koinon of the Hyrgaleans (Ch. IV § 5). We must
therefore suppose that it was only a small city so poor as to strike
few or no coins. The Hyrgaleans, Colossai, and Peltai, all of which
had a larger extent of fertile territory, struck very few coins ; and
it is probable that Lounda struck still fewer. Possibly inscr. 86
may belong to Lounda, and the coins there mentioned may yet
gladden some numismatist with the legend FFAPA • AfTOAAOAO-
TOY • AOYN AEHN. The custom that rich citizens should defray the
cost of striking coins for their state was widely spread, and is often
expressly mentioned on the coins themselves; but this is the only
inscription known to me in which it is so emphatically mentioned1.
The record that he struck coins is given as the climax of the services
rendered to the state by Apollodotos.
Inscriptions 84 and 85 reveal the existence at Lounda of a Senate
and a body of Neoi; while 86 (which may however belong to Peltai)
mentions a board consisting of at least two Strategoi. These scanty
hints make it certain that Lounda was an organized polis, similar in
type to Laodiceia.
Except in inscriptions Lounda is never mentioned till we come
down to the Byzantine period. Hierocles and the later Notitiae give
it, the former between Peltai and Attanassos2, the latter next to
Attanassos. The eaulier Notitiae omit it. The difference might lead
one to suppose that Lounda was made a bishopric by Leo VI; but
the corrupt 'ApS'iSasv of the Notitiae published by De Boor should
certainly be corrected to AovvScav, which would prove that the changes
introduced not later than the earlier Iconoclasts included the elevation
of Lounda to be a bishopric ; and the same inference follows from the
presence of Nicephorus bishop of Lounda at Nikaia in 787.
A solitary- reference to the plain of Lounda occurs in A. D. 1176,
when Manuel Comnenus made a slight effort against the Seljuks, and
1 Legends with hia (Carian and Lao- p. 373, suggesting that the coins were
dicean p. 166) or napd (Apameanp. 276) a congiarhcm distributed to the whole
exemplify this custom ; also the coins people ; but this last suggestion narrows
of Tripolis and Hierapolis with the the reference too much,
verb in ixapdrTciv, p. 107. Eckhel adds 2 Assuming here that Krassos in Hiero-
the coins with legend uveOrjKtv D. N. IV cles is a mere error, see App. II.