The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Getzel M. Cohen

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ general see the discussions of Fraenkel, Streck, Regling, and Bousdroukis cited above.

      4. The ancient evidence for the location of Anthemousias suggests a (relative) proximity to the Euphrates. Thus, Ammianus (14.3.3) says Anthemousias was close to the Euphrates (“ab Euphrate flumine brevi spatio disparatur”). Strabo (16.1.27) describes it as a place (τόπος) in Mesopotamia near which one could cross the Euphrates (ἡ μὲν οὖν διάβασις τοῦ Εὐφφράτου κατὰ τὴν Ἀνθεμουσίαν ἐστίν). For the identification of Batnai and Anthemousias and thence with Suruç see, for example, Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis 1:283–85; Ritter, Erdkunde 10:1118, 11:249; Chesney, Expedition 1:114; Müller in GGM 1:245–46; James, Dict. Geog. s.v. “Batnae”; Regling, Klio 1 (1901) 451–55; Streck, RE Suppl. I, s.v. “Anthemousia”; Fraenkel, RE s.v. “Batnai”; Dussaud, Topographie 480; Syme, Anatolica 107 n. 96; Gawlikowski in GHPO 81; T. Gnoli, Med. Ant. 2 (1999) 341–44; and Sartre, Alexandre 645 and n. 43, as well as other scholars cited in Bousdroukis, Recherches 78 and n. 16. For the identification of Batnai with Suruç in the Syriac texts see Assameni, Bibliotheca Orientalis 1:290, 2:321–22 (cf. Abbeloos, De Vita et Scriptis Sancti Jacobi 313). A major argument for the identification of Batnai and Anthemousias is the following: Isidore says the distance between APAMEIA and Anthemousias is 8 schoinoi. According to Gawlikowski (in GHPO 81), the distance as the crow flies between the Euphrates opposite Belkis (the site of ancient SELEUKEIA/Zeugma) and Suruç is 45 km. Chesney—who also equated Batnai with Suruç—estimated the distance from the Euphrates at Birecik (MAKEDONOUPOLIS) to Suruç to be 23 miles ( = c. 37 km) (Expedition 1:111, 114 and map I; Müller in GGM 1:246; and map in Dillemann, Mésopotamie 178). Cf. Bousdroukis (Recherches 79–95), who has argued that Anthemousias and Batnai were distinct towns that were, however, very close to each other. Among other things, Bousdroukis claims (79, 88) that Isidore (1) distinguished between the towns of Anthemousias and Batnai. In fact Isidore says Χάραξ Σίδου, ὑπὸ δὲ Ἑλλήνων Ἀνθεμουσιὰς πόλις. One may well question whether Batnai is the name of a town (as Bousdroukis suggests) or—more probably—the name of the region in which Koraia was located. On the other hand—in support of Bousdroukis—we may note that Stephanos mentioned both Anthemous and Batnai (s.vv.). Amir Harrak informs me that in Yakut, 1:447–48 (Yāqūt al-Hamawi, Shahab al-Dīn, Mu‛jam al-buldan [Beirut, 1986]), “Batnan is ‘the name of the valley between Manbij and Aleppo’ so slightly south of Saroug, unlike the Syriac references which associate it with Saroug. Yakut highlights Batnan as a region.”

      At NH 5.86 Pliny mentions Anthemusia and NIKEPHORION in Mesopotamia; at 6.118–19 he says that southeast of the Sitrae is the town of Azochis and nearby (“mox in campestribus oppida”) are the towns of DIOSPAGE, POLYTELIA, STRATON IKEIA, and Anthemous. He then says that in the vicinity of the Euphrates was Nikephorion. The latter passage is problematic and may simply reflect, as Tcherikover (HS 85) and Dillemann (Mésopotamie 101) have suggested, carelessness on the part of Pliny. On confusion in Pliny see ALEXANDREIA in Mesopotamia, n. 2.

      5. The royal bronze with the letters ΑΝΘ (Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins 1.1:136, no. 361.1): Houghton and Lorber called attention to a similar coin—head of Athena in crested Corinthian helmet on the obverse, trophy and ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ and the letters ΕΔΕ on the reverse—from Edessa (Seleucid Coins 1.1: no. 361.2; and WSM 797). Newell interpreted the letters ΕΔΕ as a mint mark representing the name of Edessa. Houghton and Lorber pointed out that the letters ΑΝΘ were in the same position on Seleucid Coins no. 361.1 as ΕΔΕ on WSM no. 797. Hence, they suggested that Edessa, which was the more important of the two towns, may have minted the coin for Anthemousias.

      For the coinage see, for example, BMC Arabia, etc. 81, nos. 1–2. The coins have either the toponym (ΑΝΘΕΜΟΥΣΙΑ) or the ethnic (ΑΝΘΕΜΟΥΣΙΩΝ).

      6. The identification of Anthemousias/Charax Sidou with Marcopolis was demonstrated by U. Monneret de Villard (Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 6 [1951] 81–82), who noted that Kaioumas, the bishop of Marcopolis who attended the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (ACO 2:1.1, p. 59; 2:2, p. 100[296]; 3:1, p. 32; 3:2, pp. 142 and 76) was recorded in the Syriac list of attendees as Qaiuma from Haikla de-Sida (F. Schulthess, “Die syrischen Kanones der Synoden von Nicaea bis Chalcedon,” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen [1908] 115, l. 42). (For the comparative use of the evidence of Greek, Latin, and Syriac episcopal lists to identify settlements cf., for example, HERAKLEIA Arka in Phoenicia and MAKEDONO UPOLIS in northern Mesopotamia.)

      Further support for the identification of Charax Sidou/Anthemousias with Marcopolis was provided by two Syriac texts on parchment that were part of a group of documents dated to the mid-third century A.D. found in the region of the Middle Euphrates (for the initial announcement of this discovery see D. Feissel and J. Gascou, CRAI [1989] 535–61). Both texts mention a certain Worod son of Nisharyahab. The first text—dated to 240 A.D.—was written at Haikla-Karka-de-Sida la Neuve. The second text—dated to 242 A.D.—was written at Marcopolis TR [Thera?] (J. Teixidor, ZPE 76 [1989] 219–22 and CRAI [1990] 146–56; Drijvers and Healey, Old Syriac Inscriptions 237–42 and 243–48; see also D. Feissel and J. Gascou, JS [1995] 65–119; and T. Gnoli, Med. Ant. 2 [1999] 341–44).

      For the date of the renaming of Anthemousias as Marcopolis see Teixidor, CRAI (1990) 156.

      ANTIOCH ARABIS

      Pliny (NH 6.117) mentions Antiochia Arabis, which he says was founded by Nikanor when he was governor of Mesopotamia (“item in Arabum gente qui Orroei vocantur et Mandani/Mardani Antiochiam quae a praefecto Mesopotamiae Nicanore condita Arabs [or Arabis/Arabes] vocatur”). This is all that is definitely known regarding this settlement. It is not clear whether Antioch Arabis is a separate settlement or identifiable with one of the two already-known Antiochs in northern Mesopotamia (ANTIOCH in Mygdonia, ANTIOCH on the Kallirhoe/EDESSA), with some other unknown settlement, or, less probably, with NIKEPHORION Constantina/ Constantia.¹ Furthermore, given Pliny’s occasional tendency to repeat geographic information, it is unlikely—unless new evidence appears—that a definitive identification can be made.

      * * * *

      In general see Fraenkel, RE s.v. “Antiocheia 9”; Rostovtzeff, Kondakov Institute (1938) 103–4; Dillemann, Mésopotamie 78; Bousdroukis, Recherches 30, 50–55; ALEXANDREIA in Mesopotamia, n. 2; ANTIOCH in Mygdonia; and NIKEPHORION Constantina/Constantia, n. 4.

      1. Regarding the identification of Antioch Arabis: at one point (NH 5.86) Pliny quite specifically says EDESSA/ANTIOCH on the Kallirhoe was in Arabia. At another point (NH 6.42) he mentions that ANTIOCH Nisibis was in Mygdonia. Hence it might be argued that Pliny was thinking of the former city. However, Theophylact Simocatta (5.3.2, ed. de Boor and Wirth) refers to Nisibis as τῆς ’Aραβίας. Pliny’s additional note, that the tribes to which Antioch belonged were the Orroei and the Mardani, confirms that Edessa and Nisibis were both considered to be in Arabia (see Bousdroukis, Recherches 50–53). As a result, Rostovtzeff has reasonably suggested that Arabis might have been one of the names of one of the Antiochs of Mesopotamia—either Antioch on the Kallirhoe/Edessa (which Pliny mentions at NH 5.86) or Antioch in Mygdonia (which he mentions at NH 6.42). In short, Rostovtzeff has suggested (Kondakov Institute [1938] 104) that Pliny had “probably confused two Antiochs, both in Arabia, both founded by Seleucus and both, perhaps creations of Nicanor.” See also Newell, WSM 66 n. 68. Grainger hesitated between Edessa and Nisibis, though he ultimately opted for the latter (Seleukos 96). Bousdroukis vacillated. At one point (Recherches 30) he (tentatively) preferred identifying Antioch Arabis with Nisibis (“sans qu’on puisse décider de façon définitive sur l’identité de cette Antioche”). At another (Recherches 52–53) he expressed a preference for EDESSA.

      Dillemann’s suggestion СКАЧАТЬ