Pierres Errantes: Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul

www.libridergi.org Epigrafi, Çeviri ve Eleştiri Dergisi Journal of Epigraphy, Reviews and Translations Issue XI (2025) Pierres Errantes : Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul Senem Dinç 0000-0002-8149-027X The entire contents of this journal, Libri: Journal of Epigraphy, Translation and Review is open to users and it is an ‘open access’ journal. Users are able to read the full texts, to download, to copy, print and distribute without obtaining the permission of the editor and author(s). However, all references to the articles published in the ejournal Libri are to indicate through reference the source of the citation from this journal. Libri, is a peer-reviewed journal and the articles which have had their peer reviewing process completed will be published on the web-site (journal.phaselis.org) in the year of the journal’s issue (e.g. Issue XI: January-December 2025). At the end of December 2025 the year’s issue is completed. Responsibility for the articles published in this journal remains with the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Citation Dinç S. 2025, “ Pierres Errantes : Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul”. Libri XI, 279-293. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo. 18039501 Received Date: 10.11.2025 | Acceptance Date: 16.12.2025 Online Publication Date: 24.12.2025 Article Type: Research Article Editing: Phaselis Research Project www.libridergi.org Received Date: 10.11.2025 | Acceptance Date: 16.12.2025 LIBRI XI (2025) 279-293 Online Publication Date: 24.12.2025 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18039501 Article Type: Research Article www.libridergi.org Pierres Errantes: Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul Gezgin Taşlar: Dokeimeion Mermer Ocaklarından İstanbul’a Taşınan İki Latince Yazıt Senem DİNÇ * Abstract: This study presents two Latin inscriptions currently exhibited in Sanatçılar Parkı in Ataköy, Istanbul, which originally belonged to the Roman Imperial marble quarries of Docimium (modern Iscehisar, Afyon). One of the inscriptions was previously discovered in the Bacakale sector of the Docimium quarries and was published in 1991. Although the other inscription remains unpublished, it was most likely brought to Istanbul together with the former piece. After situating these fragments within the broader corpus of quarry inscriptions, they are re-examined here in light of the earlier studies by J. C. Fant, M. Christol, and Th. Drew-Bear, with particular attention to their epigraphic and historical contexts. The inscriptions illustrate the use of standard abbreviations designating quarry sections ( bracchium, locus ), the workshop engineer ( officina ), and the quarry engineer ( caesura ), thereby providing evidence for the complex bureaucratic system that regulated production and transport. The paper also addresses the transfer of these inscriptions to Istanbul, while expressing concerns about the ongoing threats that modern quarrying activities pose to archaeological evidence. Keywords: Docimium, Marble Quarries, Bracchium, Officina, Caesura, Marble Trade Öz: Bu çalışmada, günümüzde İstanbul Ataköy Sanatçılar Parkı’nda sergilenen ve kökeni Roma İmparatorluk Dönemi Dokimeion (İscehisar/Afyon) mermer ocaklarına uzanan iki Latince yazıt ele alınmaktadır. Yazıtlardan biri daha önce Dokimeion taş ocaklarının Bacakale sektöründe tespit edilmiştir ve 1991 yılında yayımlanmıştır. Diğeri ise yayımlanmamış olup muhtemelen onunla birlikte İstanbul'a getirilmiştir. Bu fragmanlar, taş ocağı yazıtlarının daha geniş bir külliyatı içinde konumlandırıldıktan sonra, J. C. Fant, M. Christol ve Th. Drew-Bear'ın önceki çalışmaları ışığında epigrafik ve tarihsel bağlamları açısından yeniden incelenmektedir. Yazıtlar, taş ocağı bölümlerini ( bracchium , locus ), atölye mühendisini ( officina ) ve taş ocağı mühendisini ( caesura ) belirten standart kısaltmaların kullanımını göstermekte ve üretim ve nakliyeyi düzenleyen karmaşık bürokratik sistemin kanıtını sunmaktadır. Makalede ayrıca, söz konusu yazıtların İstanbul'a taşınması ele alınmakta olup modern taş ocağı faaliyetlerinin arkeolojik kanıtlar üzerinde oluşturduğu süreğen tehditlere ilişkin endişeleri de dile getirilmektedir. Anahtar sözcükler: Dokimeion, Mermer Ocakları, Bracchium, Officina, Caesura, Mermer Ticareti * Assist. Prof., Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, History Department, Kırşehir, Türkiye. [email protected] | 0000-0002-8149-027X The renowned French epigrapher L. Robert examined stones that had been displaced from their original locations under the title “Pierres Errantes”. We have adopted this term in our study due to its aptness to the subject matter. This choice was also influenced by the valuable insights of Emeritus Prof. Dr. A. Vedat Çelgin, who kindly took the time to read the manuscript of this article. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to him. Senem DİNÇ 280 In April 2025, we became aware that two Latin inscriptions and an architectural relief were on display in the Sanatçılar Parkı 1 in Ataköy, which had been opened to the public in 2018. 2 Our examination of these inscriptions shows that they originate from the imperial marble quarries at Docimium (İscehisar). One of the inscriptions was previously identified in the marble quarries located in the Bacakale area of Docimium and was published in 1991. The other inscription was probably brought to Istanbul with it. These, however, are not the only inscriptions brought from Docimium to Istanbul. There are four more inscriptions that were published after being added to the inventory of the Istanbul Archaeology Museums. Two of these were discovered in a marble workshop in Istanbul, while the other two were found in the garden of the Istanbul residence belonging to the family operating the marble quarries in Iscehisar 3 . In our study, while attempting to present and interpret the two Latin inscriptions that are today exhibited in a public park, we will also address - albeit briefly - the operation of the marble quarries in the Roman Imperial period, a subject that undoubtedly involves a wide and still not fully understood range of issues. Marble had been used primarily for small objects and figurines since the Neolithic Age; however, beginning with the Archaic Period in ancient Greece, it started to be worked in large blocks, notably in architecture (especially temple construction and sculpture). The difficulties involved both in its extraction and in its transportation to the place of use made marble a highly costly material 4 . The use of marble, which dates back to much earlier periods in ancient Greece, began in Rome only in the third century BCE. The capture of Syracuse by M. Claudius Marcellus in 211 BCE 5 and his transfer of Greek sculptures to Rome as war booty are regarded as the beginning of Roman interest in marble 6 .In the 1st and 2nd centuries 1 Milliyet, 22 May 2018. 2 I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Gülgün Köroğlu and Associate Professor Lale Yılmaz for their valuable contributions to this study. 3 Fant 1984, 177-178 no. 6-7; 1989, 109 no. 47, 115 no. 61. 4 For this reason, its use was initially deemed appropriate only for religious buildings, cf. Waelkens et al . 1988, 11. The challenges of transportation also meant that marble quarries located near the coast or in areas suitable for river transport were generally preferred over those requiring overland shipment, cf. Russell 2008, 108-109; 2013, 95-140. Over time, marble also began to be used in secular architecture, beyond religious buildings. The palace built at Halicarnassus by the Carian satrap Mausolos in the fourth century BCE—although its walls were constructed of brick—may be regarded as the first secular building whose entire wall decoration was executed in marble, cf. Vitr. de Arch . II. 8. 10; Coulton 1977, 25; Lawrence 1996, 143-144, 146; Albustanlıoğlu 2006, 98. In subsequent periods, marble became a prestige material employed in the construction of elite residences, serving as a marker of the owners’ social status within the city, cf. Coulton 1977, 30-33; Waelkens et al . 1988, 14-17; Albustanlıoğlu 2006, 98. 5 Liv. XXVI. 21. 6 After 146 BC, marble was imported from both Hellas and Numidia for use in sculpture as well as in construction, cf. Ward-Perkins 1980a, 326; Hirt 2017, 232-234. During the Roman Republican Period, a distinguished senator was entitled to use marble in public spaces as a reward for his own and his ancestors’ services to the Roman state, cf. Hirt 2017, 232. However, this right passed exclusively to the emperor during the Roman Principate Period, when military success began to be attributed solely to the emperor. From then on, costly public buildings such as temples, amphitheatres, and baths were commissioned solely by the emperor, cf. Hirt 2017, 237. The theatre of Balbi is considered to be the last structure commissioned by a senator, cf. Plin. nat. XXXVI. 60. With Egypt’s incorporation into Roman territory, its stone quarries came Pierres Errantes : Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul 281 CE, colored marbles had become a widely employed decorative material not only in the regions of Asia Minor and Greece where they were quarried, but also throughout many other parts of the Empire 7 . A Brief Overview of the Dokimeion Inscriptions Between 1868 and 1870, P. E. Visconti discovered more than three hundred inscriptions during his excavations in the Roman marble quarries. These inscriptions, which bore labels intelligible only to a limited number of people at the time of their use, were published by L. Bruzza in 1870. In 1959, a small number of labelled marble blocks and columns were also found at Portus 8 . Over the past four decades, the number of such inscriptions has steadily increased with new examples identified in various quarries, including pavonazzetto from the Docimium quarries, giallo antico from Simitthus, and granodiorit from Mons Claudianus 9 . Quarries producing white marble, such as those at Proconnesus (Marmara Island), Thasos, and Luna, were preferred because of their convenient access to maritime transport 10 . Nevertheless, some marble quarries were in demand regardless of their distance. Consumers’ interest in luxury products must have played a significant role in this demand 11 . The Docimium marble quarries were reopened in the 1980s. None of the architectural structures associated with the ancient marble quarries have survived to the present. From these quarries, white, light-grey, or purple-veined marble was extracted 12 . Scholars have long debated the route or routes by which this marble was exported in antiquity. Some have suggested that it was transported via the Sakarya (Sangarius) River to a port on the Propontis 13 , while others have argued that it was carried entirely overland to the harbour of under imperial control, and this administrative experience in Egypt led, during the reign of Tiberius, to some mines and quarries becoming the property and under the direct administration of the emperor. Thus, by a decision whose exact date remains uncertain, the emperor - as the holder of imperium - became the only individual entitled to request the use of coloured or white marble, cf. Ward-Perkins 1980a, 326. In the second and first centuries BCE, marble artefacts acquired by the Roman Republic Period from the East were used to adorn the houses of Rome’s elite families, cf. Plin. nat. XXXVI. 7. Over time, some leading families, emulating the lifestyles of the Hellenistic kings, began to commission residences resembling royal palaces, cf. WallaceHadrill 2008, 190-196; Russell 2013, 14. Suetonius’ famous quotation from Augustus - I found a city of brick and left one of marble - reflects the growing use of marble in Rome, cf. Suet. Aug . XXVIII. 3. These stones often reached the city only after arduous journeys, cf. Str. XII. 8. 14. The longer the distance they travelled, the more valuable they became; coloured marbles in particular were preferred because their provenance was more easily recognisable. Initially, stone for ordinary construction was obtained from the nearest available quarry, and in the absence of a local quarry, alternative materials were employed, cf. Ward-Perkins 1980b, 24. 7 Russell 2013, 14. 8 Bruzza 1870; Baccini Leotordi 1979; Baccini Leotordi 1989. 9 Fant 1984; 1985; 1989; Christol & Drew-Bear 1986; 1991; Kraus 1993; Peacock & Maxfield 1997. 10 Russell 2013, 94. 11 For instance, Docimium must have satisfied the demands of luxury consumers through the exceptional quality of its marble, its rare colours, and the prestige associated with products transported from such a distant source. B. Russell estimates that moving a 50-ton load by wagons drawn by pack animals would have taken five days to cover just 1 km on the way to the port, cf. Russell 2008, 113; 2013, 100. This provides an idea of how long deliveries from quarries located in inland regions could take. 12 Fant 1989, 41-8; Hirt 2010, 27-28. 13 Ward-Perkins 1980b, 30. Senem DİNÇ 282 Ephesus (Selçuk), or else transported along the route Synnada (Şuhut)→ Apamea (Dinar)→ Laodicea ad Lycum (Pamukkale/ Çürüksu Valley), and from there via the Maeander (Büyük Menderes) River to Tralles (Aydın)→ Miletus (Balat) → Ephesus 14 . B. Russell proposed three different routes: one via the Hermos (Gediz) Valley to Smyrna; another through Synnada and Apamea to the Maiandros Valley; and a third leading from Apamea entirely by land, using the Via Sebaste to reach Pisidia and Pamphylia, in order to avoid transshipment costs 15 . Whether by sea or by land, the stones were delivered only after long journeys 16 . Upon their arrival—if indeed they reached their destination 17 —recipients encountered them marked with a series of codes. These abbreviations recorded the processes the product had undergone, from production to delivery. Due to the difficulties of transport, the marble was often shipped in either unworked or semi-worked form, inscribed with these codes. Similar codes were generally used in each marble quarry 18 . However, it is thought that some of them had different meanings. J. C. Fant’s studies on the Docimium marble quarries provide extensive information on the meanings of the abbreviations used in these inscriptions 19 . Based on the examples Fant collected, he classified the inscriptions into three groups 20 , organizing them according to the operational structure of the quarry rather than chronologically 21 . B. Russell draws attention to an inscription previously published by J. C. Fant in order to clarify the purpose of the abbreviations found in the quarry inscriptions 22 . Dated to 179 CE, this inscription refers to stones borrowed by a person named Titus from another caesura (quarry engineer) 23 . These stones had been supplied by an officina (workshop engineer) to replace stones previously delivered. Russell suggests that this system of lending reflects an 14 Hirt 2004, 119, 2010, 28. 15 Russell 2013, 138-139. 16 Docimium's location has given rise to various opinions on how its goods were transported to the port. For discussions on this topic, cf. Robert 1962, 26; Röder 1971, 253-254; Walkens 1982, 124-125. 17 Russell 2008, 112. 18 The practice of writing information on marble fragments was not used by craftsmen in the private sector, cf. Fant 1989, 30. 19 Fant 1984; 1985; 1989. 20 For more detailed information on the three types of inscriptions; cf. Fant 1989, 17-32; Albustanlıoğlu 2006, 104-184. 21 The groups are as follows: Type I Inscriptions: This style of inscription is found on marble blocks extracted from quarries operated by contractors who signed a contract with the state between 96 and 173 CE. These inscriptions typically include the name of the contractor, the date, and the identification number of the block, cf. Fant 1989, 17-18. Type II Inscriptions: With the increasing demand for marble in the second century CE, quarrying began to be undertaken directly by the state. Indeed, even marble blocks that had previously been set aside as unsatisfactory or regarded as waste material were reprocessed in the state-operated quarries. In addition to the date, the inscriptions from these state-run operations also contain information such as the brachium (the area where the stone was extracted from the quarry) and the locus . Although the locus number was initially thought to indicate the place of extraction, the growing number of surviving examples has made it clear that it in fact served as an identifying number for the block; cf. Fant 1989, 19-22; Albustanlıoğlu 2006, 124. Type III Inscriptions: The emergence of this type of inscription occurred gradually between 119 and 130 CE. The complete form of Type III Inscriptions, which also included information on caesura (quarry engineer) and officina (workshop engineer), is known to have been used between 156 and 236 CE, cf. Fant 1989, 138 no. 122, 178 no. 222. 22 Russell 2013, 48. 23 Fant 1989, 162 no. 177. Pierres Errantes : Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul 283 arrangement in which those operating the quarries pledged by contract the quantity of marble they would produce each year 24 . According to him, two types of contracts 25 may have been employed in quarry management. One type, locatio conductio rei , involved the leasing of the right to operate a mine or quarry to private contractors for a specified fee or a share of production. Contractors in the group of inscriptions Fant designates as Type I 26 may have signed such agreements. The other type, locatio conductio operis , involved private contractors being engaged by the Roman administration to undertake a specific task 27 . Russell argues that the inscription mentioned above may provide evidence for the implementation of such a contract. The detailed information provided in the inscriptions designated by Fant as Type III 28 appears to have been of importance for attaining the figures promised in the contract. The most extensive research on the Docimium marble quarries near Synnada 29 was conducted by Fant in the 1980s. Following several articles, he published a catalogue in 1989 containing 238 inscriptions 30 . Around the same period, M. Christol and Th. Drew-Bear also carried out studies on the Docimium quarries 31 . In their publications, they republished some inscriptions and published others for the first time. Christol and Drew-Bear attribute the main reason for this partial overlap to the difficulties of working in the quarries. Chief among these challenges is the fact that, even today, several-ton blocks temporarily stacked at the entrance of the Bacakale quarries often cover one another before being cut 32 . In 2006, a doctoral dissertation on the inscriptions of the Docimium quarries was completed by T. Albustanlıoğlu, although it does not include all inscriptions from the quarries 33 . Inscriptions No: 1 The inscriptions no: 1-2, presently exhibited in the Ataköy Sanatçılar Parkı administered by the Bakırköy Municipality, were in all likelihood illicitly removed from Docimium, akin to the comparably sourced stones recovered in Istanbul discussed above. Their exhibition in this location was presumably determined on the grounds that they had been seized during an operation conducted within the municipality’s administrative jurisdiction. The Bakırköy Municipality was unable to provide information regarding the date on which the stones were transferred into its custody. Accordingly, it is considered likely that they were installed in the 24 Russell 2013, 48. 25 Johnston 2004, 65. 26 Cf. n. 22 above. 27 Schulz 1961, 542-544; Russell 2013, 46-49. For discussions on the types of locatio conductio ; cf. Lewis 1973, 164-171. 28 Cf. n. 22 above. 29 Str. XII 8 14. 30 Fant 1984; 1985; 1989. 31 Christol & Drew-Bear 1986; 1991. 32 Christol & Drew-Bear 1991, 114 n. 5. 33 Albustanlıoğlu 2006. Senem DİNÇ 284 park in 2018, the year of its opening. Carved from fine-crystalline pavonazzetto marble, the stone has a cut along its upper left corner and a break extending halfway down its left edge. The upper part of the stone has been cut inward by 10 cm in the form of a band, creating a recess. Along the lower part, it has likewise been cut inward by 30 cm, forming a recess 10 cm in width. These upper and lower recesses appear to have been created to slot the stone into another structure. Only the front face of the stone has been lightly smoothed, while the back face has been left rough. The letters are extremely shallowly incised (Fig. 1). Dimensions: H: 94 cm; L: 112 cm; D: 39 cm; Lh: N. 8 cm – O. 6 cm. Date: 148 CE. Fig. 1. Inscription no. 1 (Ataköy). Ph. S. Dinç Fig. 2. Christol & Drew-Bear 1987, 87 no. 25 Pl. 29 (Bacakale) Pierres Errantes : Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul 285 Torqua(to) et Iulian(o) co(n)s(ulibus) 2 loco An inscription with similar abbreviations has previously been published twice: first, by Christol and Drew-Bear in 1987 34 , including a photograph showing that the lower right corner had been cut and that the letters’ placement, size, and forms differ from those of the above inscription (Fig. 2); second, by Fant in 1989, without a photograph 35 . Fant did not provide the dimensions of the stone, noting only the letter height, and indicate that the back right corner was broken and that two consecutive notches appeared on the right side. Letter height was given as 4.5–5.5 cm. The inscription Fant identified among the rubble on the western side of Bacakale should correspond to the one published in 1987. However, the incomplete inscription presented above is a different piece, distinguished by the damage to its upper left corner, the neatly recut lower section further inward, and its larger letter size, suggesting it had not been published previously. Line 1: C. Bellicius Calpurnius Torquatus 36 and P. Salvius Iulianus 37 are dated to their consulship year, 148 CE 38 . Research conducted by Christol, Drew-Bear, and Fant in the Docimium quarries has identified numerous similar examples from the consular years of Torquatus and Iulianus, with the same inscriptions often republished. The conjunction et appears as a ligature in inscriptions from the Docimium quarries. Line 2: In the early period of the Docimium quarry inscriptions, the locus number was rarely indicated, but from 136 CE onward it was regularly included. Often considered as subdivisions of the bracchium , Fant argued that the locus number indicated the location from which a stone was extracted and thus varied for each block 39 . A. M. Hirt considers Fant’s interpretation plausible, given the absence of repeated locus numbers on the stones. The inscription previously published twice by Christol, Drew-Bear, and Fant lacks a locus number, as does a similar inscription in the corpus 40 . Fant identified another inscription similarly left incomplete 41 , suggesting that the omission resulted from the quarryman not yet being assigned a locus number at the time of cutting; the stone may have been left aside and 34 Christol & Drew-Bear 1987, 87 no. 25, Pl. 29; Hirt 2010, 381 no. 167. Another inscription shares similar features. However, this inscription consists of four lines and is incomplete, as the last two lines cannot be read due to the presence of another stone in front of it; cf. Christol & Drew-Bear 1987, 86 no. 19. 35 Fant 1989, 134 no. 111. 36 Girard & de Ricci 1906, 485, 495; Alföldy 1976, 266, 283 n.58; Ando 2000, 355; Rowlandson 2009, 90 no.70. 37 P. Salvius Iulianus, who came from an important family and was one of the most successful jurists of his time, had his quaestor salary doubled by Hadrian CIL VIII 24094 = ILS 8973. Dig . I 2. 2. 43-44, 3 32; PIR 2 VII/2 152; Kunkel 1966, 89, 101, 104, 109-110; Alföldy 1976, 266, 283 n.58, 292-294; 1977, 152; Schiller 1978, 335 no. 122; Frier 1989, 240-241; Honoré 2002, 745-755; Stein 2004, 14, 27, 59, 62, cf. Syme 1989, 181, for the omission of his name in the Historia Augusta . 38 Christol & Drew-Bear 1986, 69 no. 22-23; 1987, 86-88 no. 17-31; Fant 1989, 126-134 no. 91-112; DrewBear 1994, 773-780 no. 15-19. 39 Fant 1989, 19. 40 Hirt 2010, 293. 41 In this inscription, no numbers are given for either locus or bracchium ; cf. Fant 1989, 138-139 no. 123. Senem DİNÇ 286 subsequently forgotten 42 . With regard to the similar inscription that they had previously published, M. Christol and Th. Drew-Bear suggest that, unless its number was applied in paint, the inscription may never have been completed 43 . No: 2 Information and considerations regarding the circumstances under which inscription no. 2 came to be displayed in Ataköy Artists’ Park have been presented above in the discussion of inscription no. 1, with which it shares similar characteristics. The inscription in question was identified and published by Christol and Drew-Bear in 1991 at the Bacakale sector of the Docimium marble quarries 44 . Although the inscription exhibits many of the same features today, the measurements we have recently taken do not correspond to those provided by its first editors. Notable discrepancies are observed in both the letter height and the depth of the stone. Nevertheless, we consider it likely that this is indeed the same stone, and that the divergences are attributable to minor inaccuracies in the initial publication. This inscription, too, is currently under the protection of the Bakırköy Municipality. Carved from fine-crystalline pavonazzetto marble, the upper left portion of the stone is broken off down to its midpoint. Although this break was already present when the stone was first recorded, it appears to have enlarged in the intervening period. There is also a 7 cmwide break at the upper right corner. The lower right portion of the stone is 4 cm narrower. While the front face of the stone has been lightly dressed, the back face has been left rough. The letters are incised to an extremely shallow depth. The lower third of the stone is of a lighter colour, indicating that this part remained buried in the soil for a long period (Fig. 34). Dimensions: H: 100 cm; L: 97 cm; D: 70 cm; Lh: V. 6 cm – O. 4 cm. Date: 205 CE. The year of Caracalla and Geta’s first joint consulship. Ed.: Christol & Drew-Bear 1991, 144-145 no. 15. pl. 14, Hirt 2010, 394 no. 333. [loc(o)- - - -], b(racchio) tert(io) CO[M I] 2 M(arco) A[u](elio) Antonino [II] Aug(usto) et Sep(timio) Geta Cae(sare) 4 co(n)s(ulibus), off(icina) Sever(iana) caes(ura) A[urelii] Theophili 42 Fant 1989, 134 no. 111. 43 Christol & Drew-Bear 1987, 87 no. 25. 44 Christol & Drew-Bear 1991, 144-145 no. 15, Pl. 14: “Bloc rectangulaire retaillé sur le côté droit, parmi ceux empilés à l’entrée des carrières de Bacakale”. Pierres Errantes : Two Latin Inscriptions transported from the Docimium Quarries to Istanbul 293 Kienast D., W. Eck & M. Heil 2017, Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie . Darmstadt. Kraus T. 1993, “Steinbruchund Blockinschriften”. Ed. F. Rakob, Simitthus I. Die Steinbrüche und die Antike Stadt . Mainz, 55–64. Kunkel W. 1966, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History . Oxford. Lawrence A. W. 1996, Greek Architecture (5th ed.). New Haven. Lewis A. D. E. 1973, “The Trichotomy in locatio conductio”. Irish Jurist 8/1, 164-177. Monge A. P. 2001, “Algunos aspectos de las canteras imperiales de Dokimeion (Frigia) Durante los Antoninos y los Severos”. Memorias de Historia Antigua 21-22, 185-210. PIR2 Heil M., K. Wachtel, E. Groag, A. Stein, L. Petersen & A. Strobach 1933-2015. Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I. II. III (Ed. altera). Berlin. Peacock D. P. S. & Maxfield V. A. 1997, Survey and Excavation. Mons Claudianus 1987–1993. Vol. I. Topography and Quarries (FIFAO 37). Cairo. Robert L. 1962, “Les Kordakia de Nicée, le combustible de Synnada et les poissons-scies. Sur des lettres d’un metropolite de Phrygie au Xe siècle. Philologie et réalités”. JS 1, 5-74. Röder J. 1971, “Marmor Phrygium. Die antiken Marmorbrüche von Iscehisar in Westanatolien”. JDAI 86, 253-312. Russell B. 2008, “The Dynamics of Stone Transport Between the Roman Mediterranean and its Hinterland”. Facta: A Journal of Late Roman, Medieval and Post-Medieval Material Culture Studies 2, 107-126. Russell B. 2013, The Economics of the Roman Stone Trade . Oxford. “Sanatçılar Parkı Açıldı”. Milliyet , 22 Mayıs 2018. Kaynak: https://www.milliyet.com.tr/gundem/ sanatcilar-parki-acildi-2673566 Schiller A. A. 1978, Roman Law: Mechanisms of Development . New York. Schulz F. 1961, Classical Roman Law . Oxford. Stein P. 2004, Roman Law in European History . Cambridge. Syme R. 1989, “A Lost Legate of Aquitania”. ZPE 79, 181-187. Varner E. R. 2004, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture . Leiden. Waelkens M. 1982, Dokimeion. Die Werkstatt der repräsentativen kleinasiatischen Sarkophage. Chronologie und Typologie ihrer Produktion . Berlin. Waelkens M., P. De Paepe & L. Moens 1988, “Quarries and the marble in Antiquity”. Eds. N. Herz & M. Waelkens, Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade . Dordrecht, 11-28. Wallace-Hadrill A. 2008, Rome’s Cultural Revolution . London. Ward-Perkins J. 1980a, “The Marble Trade and its Organization: Evidence from Nicomedia”. MAAR 36, 325-338. Ward-Perkins J. 1980b, “Nicomedia and the Marble Trade”. PBSR 48, 23-69.