View

I. LOCATION

i.	Geographical area	Macedonia
ii.	Region	Northern Paionia
iii.	Site	Stoboi

II. NAME

i.	Full name (original language)	[θίασος] (Babamova 2012: 181 no. 3)
ii.	Full name (transliterated)	[thiasos] (?)

III. DATE

i.

Date(s)

ii / iii AD

IV. NAME AND TERMINOLOGY

iii.	Descriptive terms	Θίασος, thiasos (completely restored)
	Note	thiasos: Babamova 2012: 181 no. 3

V. SOURCES

i.	Source(s)	Babamova 2012: no 3 (l. ii / e. iii AD)
	Online Resources	Vulić 1934: 41 no. 20
i.a.	Source type(s)	Epigraphic source(s)
i.b.	Document(s) typology & language/script	Greek dedication
i.c.	Physical format(s)	Marble framed stele, broken to the right.
ii.	Source(s) provenance	Stoboi, at the Theodosian Palace.

VI. BUILT AND VISUAL SPACE

ii.

References to buildings/objects

An altar was dedicated by the presumed association.

VII. ORGANIZATION

v.

Other staff

If one accepts the restoration of Vulić 1934: 41 no. 20, the altar was dedicated by the dedicant along with the ἐπιμεληταί, epimeletai of the thiasos. The presence of epimeletai is epigraphically certain; Vulić's restoration and interpretation, however, are not secure. The epimeletai are usually ad hoc officials of an association, charged with specificic tasks (see Nigdelis 2006: 203), not 'regular' officials as they would be here in Vulić's restoration.

IX. MEMBERSHIP

ii.	Gender	Men
	Note	The dedicant and the two epimeletai are men.

X. ACTIVITIES

iii.	Worship	The dedication to Artemis Ephesia or Lochia (see Wiseman's commentary in Babamova 2012: 181-2 no. 7) in l. 1 suggests worship by the group.
	Deities worshipped	Artemis Ephesia or Lochia

XII. NOTES

i.	Comments	None of the editions of this inscription (see earlier views in the apparatus of Babamova 2012: no 3) is entirely satisfactory. The restoration [μετ]\|ὰ τῶν το̣[ῦ θιάσου ἐ]\|πιμελη[τῶν] ([met]a ton to[u thiasou e]pimele[ton]) in ll. 3-5 is awkward and without parallels: given that the epimeletai are usually ad hoc officials of an association charged with specific tasks (cf. Nigdelis 2006: 203), their presence is usually recorded with the phrase δι' ἐπιμελητῶν, di' epimeleton, 'through the epimeletai' and not 'along with the epimeletai' as in the text restored by Vulić. Finally, as Wiseman points out, [μετ]\|ὰ τῶν το̣[ῦ ἱεροῦ ἐ]\|πιμελη[τῶν] ([met]a ton to[u hierou e]pimeleton, ‘along with the epimeletai of the sanctuary’) is equally possible, and perhaps more plausible. If one accepts the latter restoration, there is no reference to an association in this dedication.
iii.	Bibliography	Babamova, S. (2012), Inscriptiones Stoborum. Stobi: no 3. Nigdelis, P.M. (2006), Επιγραφικά Θεσσαλονίκεια. Συμβολή στην πολιτική και κοινωνική ιστορία της αρχαίας Θεσσαλονίκης. Thessaloniki. Vulić, N. (1934), ‘Антигк и споменици’, Spomenik 77: 41 no. 20.

XIII. EVALUATION

i.	Private association	Discarded
	Note	The problems with the restorations involving the presence of a thiasos do not allow us to prove the presence of an association, and this piece of evidence should therefore be discarded.

CAPInv. 508: [thiasos] (?)