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

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ On the other hand, Bousdroukis hesitated between claiming an Antigonid or a Seleucid origin for the settlement (Recherches 31–32 and n. 22). In fact, it is difficult to delineate clearly the exact frontier between land under Antigonid and that under Seleucid control in northern Mesopotamia before 301 B.C.; see pp. 18–19.

      6. For the royal mint at Nisibis see Newell, WSM pp. 56–78, nos. 803–77 (nota bene that Newell [ESM p. 418] considered the possibility of assigning nos. 875–877 to Susa; Mørkholm [RN (1965) 45 n. 1] preferred a western mint); see also Le Rider, Suse 25 n. 7. In Seleucid Coins 1.1:427–28, 429–30 Houghton and Lorber reattributed to an “Uncertain Mint 68” in northern Mesopotamia many of the coins of Antiochos III that Newell had assigned to Nisibis. However, in Seleucid Coins 2.1:692 they pointed to a new tetradrachm variety (no. Ad224) that seemed to provide a “bridge between Nisibis and Uncertain Mint 68” and, hence, appeared to vindicate Newell’s original classification. Houghton and Lorber suggested that no major mint was opened at Nisibis until the reign of Seleukos II (Seleucid Coins 1.1:271), though Houghton earlier allowed that Antiochos II might have struck a single bronze issue at the end of his reign (CSE p. 91); see Seleucid Coins 1.1: nos. 748–60; and CSE 895–908, 910–11.

      For coins of Seleukos IV that Mørkholm claimed had been minted at Nisibis see RN (1965) 44–50, nos. 1–13; see also P. Strauss, RN (1971) 112, nos. 20–21. Note, however, that Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover (Seleucid Coins 2.1:20–21) reattributed these coins to Damascus. For coins of Antiochos IV see Le Rider, Suse 410 n. 10. For the possibility that Timarchos may have minted coins at Antioch in Mygdonia see Le Rider, Suse 332.

      For the quasi-municipal coinage see, for example, RdS 602; Hunter. Coll. 3:52, no. 79; BMC Seleucid Kings 42, nos. 86ff.; CSE 909; CSE 2 371–72; Seleucid Coins 2.1:100–101 and nos. 1502–4.

      7. For the Dioskouroi on coins see, for example, WSM nos. 806–11, 815–17, 827; and Newell, WSM 66 n. 68.

      8. For Mørkholm’s discussion of Antiochos IV Epiphanes’ foundations see Antiochus 115–18.

      9. For the persistence of the native name see, for example, Josephus AJ 20.68; Pliny NH 6.42; Plut. Luc. 32.3; Julian Or. 2.62B; Stephanos s.v. “Antiocheia 3”; Theodoret Eccl. Hist. 755, 905 (PG 82:917, 1077); see also Theophylact Simocatta 3.6.1.

      10. Josephus (AJ 20.68) says: Νίσιβις δέ ἐστιν ὄνομα τῇ γῇ, καì ἐν αὐτῇ πρότερον Μακεδόνες ἐκτίσαντο πόλιν ’Aντιόχειαν, ἣν ‘Eπιμυγδονίαν προσηγόρευσαν. This passage is somewhat problematic for two reasons. First, Josephus describes Antioch as ’Eπιμυγδονίαν. If the reference is to the Mygdonios River we should have expected the masculine noun with πρός rather than the feminine (cf. Ioannes Lydus De Mag. 3.34, τὴν πρòς τᾦ Μυγδονίῳ ’Aντιόχειαν; and Menander frag. 60 = FHG 4:261). If the reference is to the district we should have expected the preposition ἐν rather than ἐπί. Second, Josephus’s description of Nisibis as a district is the only such explicit—and extant—reference and has been questioned by modern authorities (see, for example, L. H. Feldman, note b to AJ 20.88 in the Loeb edition, p. 36; see also Sturm, RE s.v. “Nisibis,” 729). Note, however, that districts were often named for the central city: e.g., ANTHEMOUSIAS, ANTIOCH near Daphne, and APAMEIA on the Axios; see Cohen, Settlements in Syria 98. For the victor at the Panathenaia of 166/5 B.C. see S. V. Tracy and C. Habicht, Hesperia 60 (1991) 188, col. II.25 ( = SEG 41:115). In general see Fraser, Terminology 329–30.

      Fraser (Terminology 330) called attention to an inscription in honor of Μά(ρκον) ’Aτίλιον Μά[γνον], an ’Aντιοχέα ἀ[πò Εὐφράτου] (FD III[1] 199; he is also mentioned as a native of the city by Eunapius, Vita Sophistarum 497, ed. Giangrande: ΜΑΓΝΟΣ. Οὗτος ἐκ μὲν ’Aντιοχείας ἦν γεγονώς, τῆς(000) ὑπὲρ τòν Εὐφράτην, ἣν νῦν Νίσιβιν(000) ὀνομάζουσιν) and a coin with the legend ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΠΡ[ΟΣ] ΕΥΦΡΑΤΗΝ (BMC Galatia, etc. 113, no. 1 [Fraser gave the legend as ’Aντιοχέων τῶν πρòς Εὐφράτου]; see also Mionnet, Description 5:111, no. 4; Hunter. Coll. 3:124–25, nos. 1–4 = SNG XII Hunterian 2622–25 = Butcher, Roman Syria 466, nos. 1–2). He identified these with Antioch in Mygdonia. But the latter is not on (or near) the Euphrates. We may note that the Vita Sophistarum describes this particular Antioch as ὑπὲρ τòν Εὐφράτην, i.e., “above, beyond, over” the Euphrates, not as ἐπί or πρός. Clearly, if the reading ’Aντιοχέα ἀ[πò Εὐφράτου] were correct, then the Antioch mentioned in FD III[1] 199 and the Antioch/Nisibis in Vita Sophistarum 497 would be identical. In this instance, however, it would appear that Fraser overlooked the article by Georges Daux, BCH 83 [1959] 492–94. The latter noted that two newly discovered fragments of FD III[1] 199 indicate that the second line of the inscription should be read as ’Aντιοχέα ἀπò Δάφ̣νης], and observed: “La restitution ’Aντιοχέα ἀπò Δάφνης me para paraît assurée”; see also Daux, BCH 102 (1978) 610; and D. Mulliez, BCH 112 (1988) 376.

      11. On the location of Nisibis at the foot of Mount Masios see Strabo 11.12.4, 11.14.2, 16.1.23; and Stephanos s.v. “Masion”; for its location on the Mygdonios River see Dillemann, Mésopotamie 51–53 (variant spellings) et passim; Bell, Tur ‘Abdin map at end; Olshausen, BNP s.v. “Mygdonia 3”; see also, for example, Julian Or. 1.27B, 2.62B-C; Ioannes Lydus De Mag. 3.34; Theodoret Eccl. Hist. 905 ( = PG 82:1077); Menander frag. 60 ( = FGH 4:261); and Weissbach, RE s.v. “Mygdonius.” Petrus Patricius incorrectly placed it on the Tigris River (frag. 14 in FHG 4:189 = CSHB 10:134); see also Stephanos s.v. “Nisibis”; Michael the Syrian Chron. Append. 5.2 ( = J.-B. Chabot, ed., Chronique de Michel le Syrien [Paris, 1905; repr., Brussels, 1963] 3:506).

      In general on the location and site see, for example, Sturm, RE s.v. “Nisibis,” 714f.; Honigmann and Bosworth, EI s.v. “Nasibin”; Sinclair, Eastern Turkey 3:343–44.

      APAMEIA ON THE EUPHRATES

      According to Pliny (NH 5.86, 6.119), Apameia was built by Seleukos I Nikator on the banks of the Euphrates on an alluvial plain opposite the site of SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma. Isidore of Charax (1), who mentions that Apameia was across the Euphrates from Zeugma, refers to it as a polis.¹ It is not clear whether Isidore’s characterization of Apameia as a polis reflects the situation in his day (i.e., the early first century A.D.) or that of an earlier period. In fact, P. Leriche and J. Gaborit noted the relative absence of the remains of civic or religious monumental structures. They also pointed to the evidence for an extensive fire—which accompanied the end of the city—around the walls of Apameia. This probably happened, they suggested, during one of the military confrontations between the Parthians and the Romans. Since the archaeological evidence indicates that by the early first century B.C. the town had apparently become deserted, Leriche and Gaborit suggested that Isidore’s description of Apameia as a polis might have resulted from his use of a source that dated to an earlier period, specifically, the second century B.C. (see below).²

      Apameia was located at the site of the Turkish Tilmusa Hüyük (Keskince).³ As a result of the building of the Birecik Dam it is now under water. In the course of rescue excavations before the completion of the dam archaeologists were able to reveal the outline of the city wall and demonstrate that the town was laid out on a north-south orthogonal grid in which the blocks were 105 × 38 m.⁴ The excavators dated both the wall and the city plan to the Hellenistic period. The excavators were also able to identify the site of the necropolis.⁵ On the other hand, the absence of an acropolis is noteworthy.⁶

      * СКАЧАТЬ