Between Kingdom and Koinon: Neapolis/Neoklaudiopolis and the Pontic Cities by Søren Lund Sørensen

Abstract

Reviewed by: Between Kingdom and Koinon: Neapolis/Neoklaudiopolis and the Pontic Cities by Søren Lund Sørensen Eliza Gettel Between Kingdom and Koinon: Neapolis/Neoklaudiopolis and the Pontic Cities. By Søren Lund Sørensen. Stuttgart, GR: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016. Pp. 1-224. Paperback, €48. ISBN: 978-3-515-11312-0. Although this book appeared in 2016, it has received little attention from review bodies. As the rich volume deserves more attention, I volunteer my thoughts on it here. Sørensen’s book, which started as a dissertation, grapples with limited but tantalizing evidence from Roman imperial Pontos. This region’s early interactions with the Roman state involved such figures as Mithridates, Pompey and Pythodoris, but its later integration into the Roman Empire has garnered less attention in English-language scholarship. This volume thus explores the process by which the region developed Hellenistic-style poleis, which were then incorporated into a Roman province (1st century BCE – early 3rd century CE). Neapolis/Neoklaudiopolis is the primary case study. The book consists of six chapters plus a short introduction and conclusion. The first chapter focuses on an inscribed imperial oath and the following five largely concentrate on institutions of various scales (e.g., koinon, polis, province). In short, Sørensen seeks to answer how a region with a famous history of antagonism towards Rome reached the point that its inhabitants celebrated the cult of Roman emperors, held Roman citizenship and did not rebel against Roman authority (13–15). The volume traces transitions of areas from kingdom to province to client kingdom back to province (107–108). As the title suggests, a major part of this story is the koinon, glossed as “league” but left largely untranslated (which makes sense given the imperfections of the common translation “provincial council”). Sørensen considers the koinon as a primary instrument of the concomitant Hellenization and provincialization of Pontos. He follows the argument of Marek that the region hosted multiple koina (versus the “unitary” theory of Deininger). In other parts of the empire, a former ruling class often held onto power during the transition to Roman power. However, based on onomastic study, Sørensen proposes that the Hellenized bouleutic class holding Roman citizenship that established itself through the new civic and federal institutions of Pontos was a foreign one, as in nearby Bithynia (176–177). [End Page 474] The questions and concerns of the book will look familiar to those used to reading about “Romanization.” Here, however, the stress is fittingly on Hellenization and institutions, given the role granted to the koinon. The book also consistently employs the term “provincialization” to describe the ultimate outcome of this process. This choice of language makes sense given trends in Roman imperial studies to treat the creation of a province as a process—and a non-linear one at that—rather than an event. The koinon-ization (please forgive the clunky neologism) of the region serves as an intermediary step on the way to provincialization. The implications of this intermediary step could use more teasing out, especially given that the book recognizes that a province and koinon are not the same thing. Indeed, I suspect that the koinon was more real than the province for local groups. The process of forming more locally oriented koina thus had different valences than forming a Roman administrative province, even if Rome imposed the koinon. The “commonness” expressed in the term koinon (and recognized by Sorenson briefly, 172) seems especially fitting for Roman stakes in the coherence of this region. Indeed, Roman stakes in the koinon-ization of Pontos arguably set the region apart from other parts of the empire where koina existed. Understandably, as its expressed intent, the volume is very focused on the Pontic region. Yet, its conclusions raise intriguing comparisons with other regions. In Pontos, Sørensen sees a close connection between the koinon and Roman power, and he consistently defines the primary purpose of the koinon as the organization of provincial-level imperial cult (e.g., 11, 13, 54, 57). It is worth noting that recent scholarship has expanded the purposes of koina across the eastern Mediterranean. Notably, Babett Edelmann-Singer’s Koina...