350 Stephan Witetschek documents, boast to be tri;" newkovro" prwvth, di;" me;n tw'n Sebastw'n, a{pax de; th'" ΔArtevmido" (IvE 300). This has considerable implications for the study of Acts 19,35: This verse is the earliest clear attestation of Ephesos as newkovro" of Artemis(59), and as such it is of essential significance for the discussion among historians. There are, it is true, some coins that are also often interpreted as evidence for Ephesos as newkovro" of Artemis in the second half of the 1st century CE, but this interpretation is not undisputed (60). Some coins from 65/66 CE feature the title newkovro" for Ephesos: On RPC I 438, No. 2626; 2627, the obverse shows Nero’s laureate head and the legend NERWN KAISAR, the reverse a four-column temple in three-quarter view and the legend AOUIOLA ANQUPATW AICMOKLHS, NEWKORWN, EF(E). On RPC I 438, No. 2628, the obverse shows Nero’s laureate head and the legend NERWN KAISAR, the reverse a six-column temple with two bees and the legend EFESIWN, NEWKORWN. However, it is not specified to which temple the designation newkovro" in the legends refers. Since the temples on these coins do not exactly match what is known about the Artemision, it is sometimes suggested that these coins refer to a temple of the provincial imperial cult. The provincial imperial temple and the title newkovro", it is argued, would have been granted to Ephesos already under Nero; the latter’s violent death and damnatio memoriae would have interrupted the construction of the temple and the use of the title, and both would have been resumed under Domitian (61). This theory could find some support in the inscription IvE 2034, a dedication from the theatre which addresses “an emperor who was Germanicus at the time of his eleventh imperial acclamation, and whose name was later obliterated” (62). The number of imperial acclamations would apply to (59) This is also acknowledged by BARRETT, Acts II, 935. PERVO, Acts, 498, n. 117 suspects that this title “may be a bit of an anachronism here”. (60) For this discussion see also WITETSCHEK, Ephesische Enthüllungen 1, 114-116. (61) Cf. recently BURRELL, Neokoroi, 60-61; KIRBIHLER, “Les grands-prêtres”, 109, n. 19. Against the possible objection that this postulated act by Nero is not recorded in Tacitus’ Annals, Kirbihler argues that the year 65 with Piso’s conspiracy was otherwise very exciting so that Tacitus could have omitted this relatively minor event, and if the neocorate was conferred only in early 66, it would have been a matter of book 16 of the Annals, which is partly lost. This is certainly possible, but far from compelling. (62) BURRELL, Neokoroi, 62.