Читать книгу The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India - Getzel M. Cohen - Страница 14

II

NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA

ALAGMA

Before ICHNAI and NIKEPHORION Isidore of Charax (1) mentions Alagma and says it was a fortress and a royal station. Tcherikover incorrectly recorded the toponym as “Agalma.”¹ Following on this misreading, he noted that the word is Greek, but questioned whether we are dealing here with a city.

* * * *

In general see Fraenkel, RE s.v. “Alagma”; Tcherikover, HS 85–86.

1. The texts of both Müller (GGM 1:246) and Jacoby (FGrH 781) have “Alagma.”

ALEXANDREIA IN MESOPOTAMIA

The Armenian version of the Alexander Romance includes an “Alexandria of Mesopotamia” (285, trans. Wolohojian) in the list of settlements it ascribes to the Macedonian king. This, incidentally, is the only attestation in the Romance tradition for this settlement.¹ Can we identify this settlement?

Pliny (NH 6.42)—who occasionally jumbles his information—refers to both an Alexandreia and an Antioch (which he specifies was Nisibis) in Mygdonia.² Of course, Mygdonia was in northern Mesopotamia. P. M. Fraser, who did not refer to Pliny, NH 6.41–42 in his brief discussion, has suggested that the Alexandreia of Mesopotamia mentioned in the Armenian list corresponds to the third Antioch in Stephanos’s enumeration of cities of that name.³ Stephanos (s.v.) describes the latter as Μεσοποταμίας, Μυγδονία καλουμένη ἣτις πρὸς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων Νάσιβις καλεῖται . . . ἥτις [καὶ] Νέσιβις λέγεται καὶ Νίσιβις. If this identification is correct and if the information about Alexandreia is reliable, it would indicate that there was an Alexandreia in Mygdonia. It would, of course, also strengthen the view that ANTIOCH in Mygdonia was previously founded as an Alexandreia.⁴

Fraser, however, would remove Pliny’s Alexandreia from Mygdonia and locate it in either Adiabene or Assyria.⁵

* * * *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:669–70; Tcherikover, HS 96; Tarn, Alexander 2:239 and n. 5; M.-L. Chaumont, IrAnt 17 (1982) 151–53; Fraser, Cities 33.

1. In the list of settlements attributed to Alexander at the end of the Alexander Romance the Armenian version has Alexandreia of Scythia followed by Alexandreia of Mesopotamia, Alexandreia on the Dklat’ (the Armenian name for the Tigris) River, and Alexandreia of Babylon. The A recension (ed. Kroll) has Alexandreia in Scythia followed by Alexandreia on the Tigris River, and Alexandreia in Babylonia. On the importance and reliability of the Armenian version of the Alexander Romance see, for example, Wolohojian, Romance 3–5; and Jouanno, Roman 7.

2. Pliny NH 6.41–42 (trans. Rackham): “Adiabene, where the land of the Assyrians begins; the part of Adibene nearest to Syria is Arbilitis, where Alexander conquered Darius. The Macedonians have given to the whole of Adiabene the name of Mygdonia. . . . Ιts towns are Alexandria and Antiochia.” For errors in Pliny’s geographic discussions see, for example, NH 5.108, where he mistakenly inserted a list of Phrygian localities into his enumeration of Carian cities, and NH 6.159, where he erroneously inserted a comment about some Syrian cities in the middle of his description of Arabia; see further EUMENEIA in Caria; LARISA Sizara; Jones, CERP² 504; and Fraser, Cities 93–96. See also ANTIOCH Arabis and ARETHOUSA (in southern Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf).

3. Fraser, Cities 33.

4. Another possible—weak—reference to Alexander founding or naming a settlement in the area of Nisibis is Malalas (16.10, CFHB 35.327). He recounts a story (probably apocryphal) of how Alexander named a chorion DORA. Dara/Dora, which was subsequently refounded as Anastasiopolis by Anastasios I in the early sixth century A.D., was located approximately 30 km northeast of Nisibis. However, Malalas’s information is insufficient for definitely positing an Alexandreian foundation near Nisibis.

5. See ALEXANDREIA Arbela.

ALEXANDREIA IN MYGDONIA

See ALEXANDREIA in Mesopotamia.

AMIDA

In his enumeration of settlements founded by Seleukos I Nikator, Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre mentions Amida on the Tigris River.¹ I am not aware of any other extant evidence to corroborate this information. In the early fourth century A.D. Constantius fortified the site and wanted it to be renamed after himself (Amm. 18.9.1).² Amida was located north of the Tur ‘Abdin at the site of the modern Diyarbakir.³

* * * *

In general see Baumgartner, RE s.v. “Amida”; Gabriel, Turquie orientale 85–205; Oates, Northern Iraq 103–5; Pollard, Roman Syria 288–90.

1. Incerti Auctoris Chronicon Pseudo Dionysianum vulgo Dictum I, p. 47 (trans.J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 121, Scriptores Syri III.1 Versio 37 [p. 47]. Note that Synkellos (ed. Mosshammer, p. 331) omits this information. Cf. Germanikeia/Mar’ash, which both Michael the Syrian (5.4 [74], trans. Chabot) and Bar Hebraeus (37, trans. Wallis Budge) included in lists of settlements attributed to Seleukos I Nikator. Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus are the only extant sources I am aware of who made this attribution.

2. See Millar, Near East 209; Pollard, Roman Syria 288–90.

3. On Amida see Mango in Bell, Tur ‘Abdin 105; Mango, ODB s.v. “Amida”; Millar, Near East 209. For the city and its monuments under Muslim rule see M. van Berchem and J. Strzygowski, Amida (Heidelberg, 1910); description of the site and plan on pp. 7–12. On the city wall see D. van Bercham, Syria 31 (1954) 262–67. In general on Diyarbakir see Sinclair, Eastern Turkey 3:164–96.

For the location see map at the end of Bell, Tur ‘Abdin.

ANTHEMOUSIAS CHARAX SIDOU

According to Isidore of Charax (1), Charax Sidou was called ὑπὸ δὲ ‘Eλλήνων ’Aνθεμουσιὰς πόλις and was located 8 schoinoi (c. 44 km) from APAMEIA on the Euphrates. Tacitus remarked (Ann. 6.41) that Anthemousias, along with NIKEPHORION and other cities, was founded by Macedonians and had a Greek name. Stephanos (s.v. “Anthemous”) described Anthemous as a polis of Macedonia and Syria (sic).¹ Anthemous was the name of both a region and a town in Macedonia, after which the Mesopotamian town was obviously named.² Interestingly, in Mesopotamia “Anthemousias” was also used to refer to both the city and the region.³ Thus, Ammianus (14.3.3) says that the town of Batnai, which he describes as an important mercantile center, was earlier founded by a band of Macedonians in (the region of) Anthemousias. In fact, the identity of Batnai and Anthemousias is widely accepted. The Syrian Christians of the early sixth century A.D. called the town Batnai Sarugi or Batnai in Sarugo, namely, the modern Suruç in southeastern Turkey.⁴

A bronze of Antiochos I with the letters ΑΝΘ as a mint mark may have been minted (at Edessa?) for Anthemousias. Coinage also survives from the reign of Caracalla.⁵

Anthemousias/Charax Sidou was renamed Marcopolis. Precisely when this happened is not known; J. Teixidor has suggested it took place sometime after 213 A.D.⁶

* * * *

In general see Mannert, Geographie 5.2:290–91; Fraenkel, RE s.vv. “Anthemusia,” “Batnai”; Streck, RE Suppl. I, s.vv. “Anthemusia,” “Batnai”; G. F. Hill, BMC Arabia, etc. lxxxvii; K. Regling, Klio 1 (1901) 450–54; Dussaud, Topographie 480; Tcherikover, HS 85; Biffi, Strabone 169; Bousdroukis, Recherches 76–108.

1. A number of variant forms are attested for the toponym; thus, Anthemousias (Strabo 16.1.27; Tac. Ann. 6.41); Anthemusius (Festus Brev. 20 [ed. Eadie]); Anthem(o)usia (Pliny NH 5.86; Eutropius 8.3; Ptol. 5.18.4; Amm. 14.3.3; CIL VI.1377.17 = Dessau, ILS 1098, second century A.D.); Anthem(o)us (Pliny NH 6.118; Stephanos, s.v. “Anthemous”); see also Regling, Klio 1 (1901) 453.

2. For Anthemous in Macedonia see, for example, Hirschfeld, RE s.v. “Anthemus”; Papazoglou, Villes 202–3; and Bousdroukis, Recherches 76.

3. There is no agreement regarding the significance of the terms “Anthemous,” “Anthemousia,” and “Anthemousias.” According to Regling, Anthemousia referred to the region, while Anthemousias referred to the city (Klio 1 [1901] 453–54). Jones’s (CERP² 442 n. 4) claim that Anthemous was probably the name of the city and Anthemousias the name of the district is probably overstated. Syme observed (Anatolica 107) that “strictly speaking, Anthemus was the city (otherwise Batnae), Anthemusia the region, but the usage was lax.” Bousdroukis (Recherches 76–77) claimed that—especially in the Roman period sources—the name of the town appeared as “Anthemousia” while the name of the region was “Anthemousias.” It would appear, based on the extant evidence, that “Anthemous” referred only to the city. On the other hand, it is not clear in a number of instances whether “Anthemousias” referred to the city or the region: thus, for example, Strabo 16.1.27 (cf., however—also in 16.1.27—where Strabo specifically calls Anthemousias a τόπος); Eutropius 8.3; and Festus Brev. 20, ed. Eadie (Eutropius’s and Festus’s description of Anthemousias [“magnam/optimam Persidis regionem”] is most probably an error; undoubtedly it refers to Babylonia, which follows in their enumeration; see Dillemann, Mésopotamie 285). For the use of Anthemousias to describe the region see, for example, Ptol. 5.18.4; Amm. 14.3.3; Arr. Parth. frag. 55; and CIL VI.1377.17 ( = Dessau, ILS 1098.9–10, second century A.D.). At Cassius Dio 68.21 I believe the term refers to the city (Sporakes is described as the φύλαρχος of Anthemousias; cf. Arrian [Parth. frag. 42], who says that Abgar, the king of EDESSA at the time of Trajan, was ᾽Οσροήνης χώρας δυνάστης and was known as a phylarches because his districts were called phylai; on φύλαρχος meaning “sheik” see A. R . Bellinger and C. B. Welles, YCS 5 [1935] 134 n. 51). On the other hand, Dillemann (Mésopotamie 102) understands this to refer to the region. Interestingly, Batnai (which was probably identical with Anthemousias; see below, n. 4), was also used for both the region as well as the city; see Isidore of Charax 1; and Syme, Anatolia 107 n. 96.

In 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 that Antioch Arabis was one of the ancient names of Viranshehir is not convincing (Mésopotamie 78); see further NIKEPHORION Constantina/Constantia.

ANTIOCH IN MYGDONIA

Nisibis in Mygdonia was an old, native city where a Hellenistic settlement was established. It is not clear, however, who the founder was. There are at least two pieces of evidence—both problematic—that can be brought to bear on this question.

An inscription found at Rome says Nikator founded the settlement at Nisibis: πόλιν παρ’ ἱρήν, ἣν ἔδειμε Νικάτωρ | ἐλαιόθηλον ἀμφὶ Μυγδόνος νᾶμα.¹ Note, however, that there is no mention of the actual name of the settlement. As for the founder, Mommsen suggested emending Νικάτωρ to Νικάνωρ.²

Pliny (NH 6.117) says: “item in Arabum gente qui Orroei vocantur et Mandani/Mardani Antiochiam quae a praefecto Mesopotamiae Nicanore condita Arabs/Arabis vocatur.” Unfortunately, we cannot definitely identify either the Nikanor³ or the Antioch⁴ mentioned by Pliny. It is quite possible that the Nikanor in question was the Seleucid official who also founded DOURA EUROPOS. In the years before the battle of Ipsos in 301 B.C., Babylonia formed the heartland of Seleukos’s empire. Thus, the founding of EDESSA in 302 B.C.—and possibly DOURA EUROPOS and Antioch in Mygdonia around the same time—would have provided an important defensive barrier in the north, if the region was already under Seleucid control.⁵

It is unclear whether there was a royal mint at Nisibis in the early third century B.C. E. T. Newell tentatively raised the possibility that there might have been a mint there as early as the reign of Seleukos I Nikator. On the other hand, A. Houghton and C. Lorber claimed that no major mint could be identified at Nisibis until the reign of Seleukos II. The mint was then active under Antiochos III. There is no extant royal coinage under Antiochos IV Epiphanes. However, during his reign the city issued quasimunicipal coins with the ethnic ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΜΥΓΔΟΝΙΑΙ. Following this, royal minting continued: Demetrios I produced coins there. In addition, Timarchos (during his revolt against Demetrios, c. 162–160 B.C.), as well as Alexander Balas and Demetrios II, may also have minted coins at Nisibis.⁶ The appearance of the Dioskouroi on some of the coins of Nisibis provides evidence for the importance of these divinities there.⁷

The ethnic ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΜΥΓΔΟΝΙΑΙ on the quasi-municipal coinage has prompted the suggestion that Antiochos Epiphanes refounded—or renamed—the city. However, O. Mørkholm correctly noted that the appearance of these coins provides only the terminus ante quem for the foundation or refoundation and not the precise date for that event.⁸ Nevertheless, in the case of Antioch in Mygdonia we may have some additional evidence. According to Julian (Or. 2.62B), the city was named for “King Antiochos” (italics mine). This information excludes Seleukos Nikator as the person who gave the city its name, because his father, Antiochos, was not a king. It does leave open the possibility that a later Seleucid king—quite possibly Epiphanes—named it for himself or for his father. It is quite possible, therefore, that—as happened at EDESSA—Seleukos founded a colony at Nisibis and Antiochos renamed/refounded it.

The only other extant information about Hellenistic Antioch is given by Polybius (5.51.1), who says that during his pursuit of Molon, Antiochos III stopped at “Antioch in Mygdonia” for forty days; this happened in 221 B.C. We do not know if Polybius was using the toponym retrospectively or if the town had that name in 221. If the latter, then obviously Epiphanes would be excluded as the founder. In later times we know that the city was called Antioch by the Greeks but Nisibis by the natives.⁹

The city was variously known as Ἀντιόχεια ἡ ἐν Μυγδονίᾳ (Polyb. 5.51.1); Ἀντιόχεια ἡ ἐν τῇ Μυγδονίᾳ (Strabo 16.1.23); Ἀντιόχεια Μυγδονική (Plut. Luc. 32.3); Ἀντιόχεια τῆς Μυγδονίας (Theophylact Simocatta 3.6.1; Theodoret Hist. Eccl. 755 [PG 82:917]); ἡ πρὸς τῷ Μυγδονίῳ Ἀντιόχεια (Ioannes Lydus De Mag. 3.34); and Ἀντιόχεια ἡ ᾽Επιμυγδονία (Joseph. AJ 20.68). Plutarch says the barbarians called it Νίσιβις and the Greeks called it Ἀντιόχεια Μυγδονική (Luc. 32.4). Among the victors of the Panathenaia in 166/5 B.C. was Menodoros the son of Artemidoros, an Ἀντιοχεὺς ἀπό Μυγδονί(ας).¹⁰

Nisibis was located at the foot of Mt. Masios (Tur ‘Abdin), on the Mygdonios (modern Jaghjaghah) River at the site of modern Nusaybin.¹¹

* * * *

In general see Tcherikover, HS 89f.; J. Sturm, RE s.v. “Nisibis 1”; Markwart, Provincial Capitals 62, 64; Honigmann and Bosworth, EI s.v. “Nashibin”; Orth, Diadochenzeit 130; M. Mango in Bell, Tur ‘Abdin 142; Bousdroukis, Recherches 30–34; A. Primo, AClass 80 (2011) 179–84.

1. For the inscription found at Rome see CIG 6856.5–6 = IG 14:1374 = IGUR 3.1151 = I. Estremo Oriente 3 = Euphrat 505.

2. For the suggested emendation of Νικάτωρ to Νικάνωρ see Mommsen in Kaibel, Epigr. 549; and Rostovtzeff, Kondakov Institute (1938) 104 (“corrected perhaps correctly into Νικάνωρ”). The emendation makes sense. We may note Rostovtzeff’s observation that Nikanor was a rather common name (102–3). We may also note that Isidore of Charax (1) referred to DOURA EUROPOS as “a polis of Nikanor.” Furthermore, the use of Νικάτωρ in CIG 6856—if it is being used as the epithet for Seleukos I—is certainly problematic. Normally one would expect the king’s name, rather than just the epithet alone, as here. On the principle of lectio difficilior, therefore, I would be inclined to (reluctantly) accept the reading as it appears on the stone. The extant information relating to NIKATOR IS in Cyrrhestice/ northern Mesopotamia, NIKATOR in Assyria, and *NIKATOROPOLIS in Babylonia does not provide any further assistance for resolving this difficulty. SOTEIRA in Aria or Parthia provides an example of a settlement whose toponym may possibly have been derived from the founder’s epithet. On the other hand, the toponym may relate to a sacrifice in commemoration or hope of deliverance from danger or sickness, or for a festival in the commemoration of same; see Appendix VIII.

3. Four possibilities emerge in the attempt to identify the Nikanor mentioned by Pliny: (a) Nikanor I was the general of Antigonos I Monophthalmos, satrap of Cappadocia; (b) Nikanor II was an officer of Demetrios I Poliorketes whom we encounter after the battle of Ipsos in 301 B.C.; (c) Nikanor III was a nephew of Seleukos who, Malalas (8.10, CFHB 35.150) says, was given control of all of Asia (along with his brother, Nikomedes) by the king; (d) Nikanor was simply an error for Nikator, i.e., for Seleukos. See further DOURA EUROPOS, n. 6.

Rostovtzeff (Kondakov Institute [1938] 103–4) suggested that Nikanor III probably founded Doura Europos before 294 or 292, when Antiochos was put in charge of the eastern satrapies. He also noted that Seleukos’s founding of EDESSA in c. 302 B.C. suggests a similar date for Nisibis; see also Jones, CERP² 216–18. Contra: Tarn (GBI² 7 n. 3), who identified the founder as Nikanor I and denied that Antioch Arabis = Nisibis. See also Grainger (Seleukos 96ff.), who was bothered by the “multiplication of Nikanors.” He noted that Appian says Nikanor I was killed in 311 B.C. (Syr. 57). However, observing that Appian is not always reliable, Grainger suggested that Appian might have been wrong—hence Nikanor did not die in 311 B.C. but in fact lived on. Grainger then constructed two possible scenarios with Nikanor founding Doura Europos and Antioch Nisibis as an employee of (a) Antigonos or (b) Seleukos. Neither the basis for the reconstruction (an error by Appian) nor the possible scenarios are convincing. Finally, P. Bernard has focused on Antigonos (in Topoi Supplément 1 [1997] 185–86 n. 181). He remarked: “On a tendence à l’oublier, car la plupart de ces foundations [i.e., in northern Mesopotamia] ne sont pas identifiables, soit qu’elles aient été immédiatement rebaptisées par Séleucos à son nom ou à ceux de ses parents et de sa femme . . . soit qu’elles aient porté des noms empruntés aux villes de la Macédoine, qui empêchent de reconnaitre si leur fondateur est Antigone ou un Séleucide. Les sources anciennes ont cependant gardé le souvenir de deux d’entre elles, Doura-Europos et Nisibe (ou Édesse) qu’aurait fondées Nicanor, general d’Antigone.” Finally, A. Primo has suggested (AClass 80 [2011] 181) that Nikanor should be identified with Seleukos Nikator himself, who would thus have been the real founder of both DOURA EUROPOS and Antioch in Mygdonia.

4. On ANTIOCH Arabis see also ALEXANDREIA in Mesopotamia.

5. Rostovtzeff, Kondakov Institute (1938) 104. 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

* * * *

In general see Tcherikover, HS 84; Dillemann, Mésopotamie 100, 169; Wagner, Seleukeia 71–84; M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 61 (1984) 74–75; J. Gaborit and G. Poccardi, Med. Ant. 3 (2000) 98–100; C. Abadie-Reynal in L’ Orient méditerranéen (Nantes) 354–73; P. Leriche and J. Gaborit in L’ Orient méditerraneen (Nantes) 376–81; Gaborit, Géographie historique 472–73.

For the results of fieldwork at Apameia see A. Desreumaux, J. Gaborit, and J.-S. Caillou, CRAI (1999) 75–105; C. Abadie-Reynal et al., Anatolia Antiqua 6 (1998) 397–406.

1. On the mention of Apameia in Isidore of Charax see M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 61 (1984) 74–75. Stephanos also mentions Apameia (s.v.) and describes it as τῆς Περσαίας, ‘Eδέσσης πρòς ἄρκτους. The mention of τῆς Περσαίας is a problem and has not yet been convincingly resolved. Kennedy (in Zeugma 156, 159) translated it as “of the territory of Persa.” He also called attention to Capersana, which is mentioned by Ammianus (18.8.1), and Caphrena, which is noted by Pliny (NH 6.119), and speculated that Capersana might be a conflation of Capher Persa(na). Earlier, Droysen (Hist. 740) suggested τῆς Περσαίας was corrupt; Dussaud (Topographie 459) had suggested that the toponym Capersana was Caphrena déformée. The suggestion that Apameia should be identified with Caphrena (Streck, RE Suppl. I s.v. “Apameia”; Kahrstedt, Artabanos III 72) is not convincing. As Chaumont noted (Syria 61 [1984] 75), Pliny (NH 6.119) distinguishes between Zeugma, Apameia, and Caphrena.

On Capersana and Caphrena see also Streck, RE Suppl. I s.vv. “Apameia,” “Caphrena” and “Capersane”; Chapot, Frontière 274–75; Dillemann, Mésopotamie 169 and n. 3; De Jonge, Comment. on Ammianus XVIII 252–53; Wagner, Seleukeia 74 n. 16

2. A. Desreumaux et al., CRAI (1999) 83–84, 105; Leriche and Gaborit in L’Orient méditerranéen (Nantes) 379–81. With the apparent desertion of the settlement by the end of the first century B.C. we may note—by way of comparison—that the settlement at JEBEL KHALID was apparently abandoned when Seleucid rule in the region ended. On the other hand, SELEUKEIA/Zeugma and DOURA EUROPOS flourished long after the collapse of Seleucid rule.

For the subsequent reoccupation of the site and the archaeological remains at the site—acropolis, city wall, necropolis—dating from the Imperial period, see Wagner, Seleukeia 74–83; Leriche and Gaborit in L’ Orient méditerranéen (Nantes) 381; Gaborit and Poccardi, Med. Ant. 3 (2000) 99, 103–7.

3. On the location of Apameia see Wagner, Seleukeia 70ff., map II and photographs (pls. 3 and 4) at end; Desreumaux et al., CRAI (1999) 75–78; see also SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates /Zeugma.

Wagner called attention (Seleukeia 76, 82–84; see also Chaumont, Syria 61 [1984] 74) to Bronze Age ceramic finds that suggest Apameia was a refounded native village. Nota bene, however, that no post–Bronze Age archaeological evidence has been found to indicate continuous habitation at the site prior to the Hellenistic period (J. G. Fuesanta et al., KST 23.1 [2002] 136; Abadie-Reynal in L’Orient méditerranéen [Nantes] 357–58).

4. For the plan of the town and the fortification walls see, for example Desreumaux et al., CRAI (1999) 79–82 (plan on p. 80); Leriche and Gaborit in L’Orient méditerranéen (Nantes) 378–79. For the city blocks see Desreumaux et al., CRAI (1999) 83 (105 × 38 m); Leriche and Gaborit in L’Orient méditerranéen (Nantes) 379–80 (107 × 38 m). Cf., for example, the city blocks at ANTIOCH near Daphne (112 × 58 m), LAODIKEIA by the Sea (112 × 57 m), APAMEIA on the Axios (c. 107 × 54 m), and ALEXANDREIA near Egypt, n. 13.

5. For the necropolis see Wagner, Seleukeia 79–82; A. Desreumaux et al., CRAI (1999) 84–103; G. Algaze, Anatolica 20 (1994) 20.

6. Abadie-Reynal (in L’Orient méditerranéen [Nantes] 358) suggested that despite the absence of a citadel, the river and the fortification walls would have played a role in protecting the settlement. Leriche and Gaborit (in L’Orient méditerranéen [Nantes] 378) suggested that SELEUKEIA/Zeugma served as an acropolis for Apameia.

DARA/DORA

Evagrius (Hist. Eccl. 3.37) says that Dara was so named because Alexander the Great defeated Darius there. According to Malalas (16.10, CFHB 35.327; see also Chronicon Paschale 609, CSHB 4.1), the name Dora in Mesopotamia was given to it by Alexander because he struck Darius with a sword (dorati) and captured him at this place (chorion).¹ In any event, the attribution to Alexander is more fanciful than plausible. One thinks of the charming — but unconvincing—etymology of PARAITONION. Dara/Dora was renamed Anastasiopolis and fortified by Anastasios I in 505–507 A.D.² It was located approximately 26 kilometers northwest of Nisibis (ANTIOCH in Mygdonia).

* * * *

1. Droysen (Hist. 2:669) and M. Whitby (The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus [Liverpool, 2000] 182 n. 142) correctly dismissed both etymologies (i.e., Dara and Dora).

2. For similar accounts of Anastasios’s activity in other late authors see also, for example, Procop. Pers. 1.10.9; Etym. Magnum s.v. “Daras”; Evagrius Hist. Eccl. 3.37 (ed. Bidez and Parmentier); Theophanes Chron. 150 (ed. De Boor); John of Nikiu 89.32 (trans. Charles); Theodore Anagnostes 558 (ed. Hansen).

On Dara see Mango, ODB s.v. “Dara” and references cited there; for the location see map in B. Croke and J. Crow, JRS 73 (1983) 149.

DIOSPAGE

According to Pliny (NH 6.118–19), southeast of the Sitrae was the town of Azochis and nearby (“mox in campestribus oppida”) were the towns of Diospage, POLYTELEIA, STRATONIKEIA, and ANTHEMOUS.¹ We know nothing else about this town.² The name, at least, suggests a Greek or Macedonian settlement.

* * * *

In general see Tcherikover, HS 85; and Dillemann, Mésopotamie 100f.

1. See further STRATONIKEIA in Mesopotamia and ANTHEMOUSIAS.

2. Markwart suggested that Diospage was Ras el ‘Aïn (Südarmenien 427; ain in Arabic means “spring” or “sources,” and pege/paga means “stream” or “source” in Greek). This is a reasonable suggestion, but speculative.

EDESSA/ANTIOCH ON THE KALLIRHOE

According to Stephanos (s.v. “Edessa”), Edessa was a city of Syria that was named for the Macedonian city “because of the flow/rush of the waters.”¹ It was established by Seleukos I Nikator, who was possibly refounding the native town of Adme.² At some later point, probably under Antiochos IV Epiphanes, it was renamed Antioch on the Kallirhoe.³ Kallirhoe was undoubtedly a reference to the Skirtos (Daisan) River, which flowed through the city, as well as to the two pools in the city that, like the pond at HIERAPOLIS Bambyke, contained the sacred fish.⁴ In the later, Syriac texts the city name was usually given as Orhay (the modern name Urfa is derived from this).⁵

The Chronicon Anonymum ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens (p. 107; 84, trans. Chabot) tells the charming—if unlikely—story that Seleukos named the city after his oldest daughter and gave it to her as a dowry. The same chronicle (pp. 105–6) provides an idealized account of the building of Edessa; according to the account, Seleukos built a strong and high wall with towers, one of which still existed in the author’s time. There were also fortified citadels at the four corners of the city. The author also mentions palaces, temples, and markets and a water supply system.⁶

Strabo’s claim (16.1.27) that Bambyke was known both as HIERAPOLIS and as Edessa is probably incorrect; in any event, there is no other extant evidence providing unequivocal support for this equation.⁷

E. T. Newell suggested that Antiochos I Soter minted bronze coins at Edessa. Under Antiochos IV Epiphanes the city minted quasi-municipal coinage with a portrait of the king on the obverse and the ethnic ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΙ ΚΑΛΛΙΡΟΗΙ on the reverse.⁸ We have no explicit information regarding the organization of Hellenistic Edessa.⁹ The city streets were laid out on north-south, east-west axes. According to Stephanos (s.v. “Edessa”) the ethnic was both ’Eδεσσηνóς (according to the egchorioi) and Eδεσσαĩος (which was the ethnic παρὰ δὲ τοĩς πλείοσιν [τῶν ἀρχαίων], i.e., of the Macedonian city).¹⁰

The founding of the kingdom of Edessa in 132–131 B.C. marked the effective end of Seleucid rule in Edessa.¹¹ Despite the collapse of Seleucid rule the names Seleukos and, less so, Antiochos, remained popular at Edessa.¹² The primary gods of Edessa were Nebo (who was identified with Apollo) and Bel; in addition, Atargatis was one of the important divinities worshipped there.¹³

Edessa was located 85 kilometers east of SELEUKEIA/Zeugma and 45 kilometers southeast of SAMOSATA at modern Urfa.¹⁴

* * * *

In general see E. Sachau, Reise 189–92; Duval, Edesse 3–24; Meyer, RE s.v. “Edessa”; Tcherikover, HS 88; Markwart, Provincial Capitals 62–65; Hayes, Edesse 16; Gabriel, Turquie orientale 277–86; Kirsten, RAC s.v. “Edessa”; Segal, Edessa 5f., 46ff. et passim; id., PECS s.v. “Antioch by the Callirhoe”; H. J. W. Drijvers, ANRW 2.8 (1977) 863–69; Brodersen, Komment. 152; Sinclair, Eastern Turkey 4:2–28; P. Bernard, Topoi 5 (1995) 388–93; Orth, Diadochenzeit 117–18; Ross, Roman Edessa 6–9; Bousdroukis, Recherches 48–75.

For the Syriac and Arabic sources relating to Edessa see A. Harrak, JNES 51 (1992) 209 n. 2.

1. Herodian described Edessa as an apoikia of the Macedonian city (Katholike Prosodia 11 in A. Lentz, Grammatici Graeci, vol. 3, Herodiani Technici Reliquae [Leipzig, 1867] 1:268). According to a fragment of the Chronicle of Jacob of Edessa (p. 281, ed. E. W. Brooks, CSCO Scriptores Syri III.4 Versio, Chronica Minora [211]), soldiers of Alexander the Great from Edessa in Macedonia founded Mesopotamian Edessa and named it for the Macedonian city; see also Jacob of Edessa in Michael the Syrian (77 = 1:119) and 639 (3:278, trans. Chabot) who said that the Macedonians named the city after the name of their own city in Macedonia (see also Bousdroukis, Recherches 74 n. 145). On Jacob of Edessa as a chronicler see A. Harrak in Studies on Jacob of Edessa 43–64. For Seleukos I Nikator as founder see below, n. 2. On the water at Macedonian and Mesopotamian Edessa see Papazoglou, Villes 128 and n. 20; Bernard, Topoi 5 (1995) 392 n. 89; Bousdroukis, Recherches 55–56.

Stephanos’s reference to Edessa’s location in Syria is not necessarily an error. Although the eastern boundary of Syria in the Graeco-Roman period was normally understood to be the Euphrates, the term could be used in a wider sense to include adjacent areas beyond the Euphrates. Thus, Stephanos also included Anthemous in Syria; see also, for example, Strabo 16.1.1–2; Chronicon Anonymum ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens I, p. 112 (trans. Chabot, CSCO Scriptores Syri III.14 Versio [88–89]); and Honigmann, RE s.v. “Syria,” esp. 1718f.

2. For Seleukos I Nikator as the founder see Appian Syr. 57 (see below, n. 7); Agapius of Membij Univ. Hist. I.2, p. 237 (PO XI p. 109, ed. A. Vasiliev); Isidore Etym. 15.1.14–5; Eusebius Chron. p. 199 (ed. Karst); Hieronymus Chron. p. 127 (ed. R. Helm²); Synkellos 520 (ed. Mosshammer, p. 330); Kedrenos P166, XXXIV, I 292; Malalas 18.15, CFHB 35.345; Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre Incerti Auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo Dictum p. 47 (ed. Chabot, CSCO 121, Scriptores Syri III.1 Versio [37]); Chronicum Anonymum p. 35 (ed. Guidi, CSCO Scriptores Syri III.4 Versio, Chronica Minora [29]); Chronicum Maroniticum p. 44 (ed. and trans. Brooks and Chabot, CSCO Scriptores Syri III.4 Versio, Chronica Minora [38]); Jacob of Edessa in Michael the Syrian 639 ( = Chronique de Michel le Syrien 3:278, trans. Chabot); Chronicon Anonymum ad Annum Christi 846 Pertinens p. 167 (trans. Chabot, CSCO Scriptores Syri III Versio [130]); Chronicon Anonymum ad Annum Christi 1234 Pertinens I, pp. 105–7 (trans. Chabot, CSCO Scriptores Syri III.14 Versio [83–84]); and a Syriac chronicle published by Guidi (T. Nöldeke, ed., SAWW 128.9 [1893] 41). See also Markwart, Südarmenien 337–38.

As for the date of the founding, it is often claimed that Seleukos did this in 303–302 B.C.; see, for example, Meyer, RE s.v. “Edessa 2,” 1933; see also Kirsten, RAC s.v. “Edessa,” 553; and Segal, Edessa 5. The basis for this is Eusebius Chron. p. 199 (ed. Karst) and Hieronymus Chron. p. 127 (ed. Helm²), who attributed the building of ANTIOCH, LAODIKEIA, SELEUKEIA, APAMEIA, EDESSA, BEROIA, and PELLA to Seleukos and placed this note under ann. Abr. 1715, i.e., 303–302 B.C. (Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre [see above] placed this in ann. Abr. 1712). Eusebius and Hieronymus then added the comment that Seleukos built Antioch in the twelfth year of his reign (also Synkellos; see above). In fact Seleukos cannot have built Laodikeia, Seleukeia, Apameia, Pella, or Beroia in 303 or 302; as was the case for Antioch, he did not come into possession of the territory in which they were located until after the battle of Ipsos in 301 B.C. As for Edessa, it is not clear whether Seleukos’s territory in Mesopotamia extended as far north as this area in 303/2 B.C. or whether it was still under Antigonos’s rule or influence at the time (see, for example, Brodersen, Komment. 122; Billows, Antigonos 240–42 and map 5; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 11. Mehl, Seleukos 210, suggested that [northern] Mesopotamia came under Seleukos’s rule after Ipsos). For the suggestion that Edessa might have first been founded as an Antigonid settlement before passing to Seleucid control see P. Bernard in Topoi Supplément 1 (1997) 185–86 n. 181; and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia, n. 3.

Adme, which is attested in various Assyrian and Babylonian texts, was near Harran (see A. Harrak, JNES 51 [1992] 212–13). The occurrence of Adme in these texts and the absence of pre-Hellenistic evidence for the name Orhay has prompted the reasonable—though ex silentio—suggestion that Adme was, in fact, the ancient name of Edessa (see, for example, M. Astour, JAOS 109 [1989] 687; Harrak, ZA 81 [1991] 148; id., JNES [1992] 209–14; Bousdroukis, Recherches 48).

3. Both Malalas’s observations (18.15, CFHB 35.345) that Seleukos first called the settlement Antioch and that the name was later changed to Edessa and Pliny’s comment (NH 5.86) that Edessa was previously called Antioch on the Kallirhoe are probably erroneous; the sequence was surely the reverse. At NH 6.117 Pliny says: “item in Arabum gente qui Orroei vocantur et Man/rdani Antiochiam quae a praefecto Mesopotamiae Nicanore condita Arabs [Arabis or Arabes] vocatur.” Unfortunately, as I have noted elsewhere, we cannot definitely identify either the Nikanor or the Antioch mentioned by Pliny; see further ANTIOCH Arabis and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia, nn. 2 and 3. Hence, we ought not to speculate further about the possibility that Nikanor might have founded Edessa.

After saying that Seleukos I founded Edessa, Malalas (18.15, CFHB 35.345) adds that Seleukos named the city ’Aντιóχεια ἡ μιξοβάρβαρος. Meyer dismissed Malalas’s comment (RE s.v. “Edessa”) as “worthless.” Neverthless, one should recall that Kedrenos (P166, CSHB 34.I: 292) and Synkellos (520, ed. Mosshammer, p. 330) remarked that Seleukos settled Jews along with Greeks in Edessa (as well as in the other settlements they attributed to him: LAODIKEIA, SELEUKEIA, APAMEIA, BEROIA, PELLA, and BABYLON); see also Josephus AJ 18.372. In this connection P. Bernard (Topoi 5 [1995] 392 n. 88) suggested that μιξοβάρβαρος reflected the cultural situation in Edessa. He noted, for example, that Syriac quickly replaced Greek and that Greek inscriptions are rare. In fact, Greek inscriptions are relatively rare in practically all of the Hellenistic settlements in Mesopotamia. Note also Jacob of Edessa (in Michael the Syrian 77 = Chronique de Michel le Syrien 1:119, trans. Chabot), who described the population there as “Syro-Macedonians” (cf. the woman of Tyre in Mark 7:26, who is called a “Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth”).

4. For the pools and the sacred fish see Meyer, RE s.v. “Edesssa,” 1935f.; Segal, Edessa 6, 55; and Drijvers, Edessa 79f. In the late fourth century A.D. Egeria/Etheria referred to the “fontes piscibus pleni” at Edessa (Itinerarium Egeriae/Peregrinatio Aetheriae 19.7 [ed. Weber, 1994]). Presumably these pools were the same ones that earlier contained the sacred fish. On the Skirtos River see Weissbach, RE s.v. “Skirtos 2.”

5. For the native name Orhay see Meyer, RE s.v. “Edessa 2”; Markwart, Provincial Capitals 62; Segal, Edessa 1–7 and n. 1; A. Luther, Klio 81 (1999) 446–48; Bousdroukis, Recherches 54 and n. 36.

6. With the story of the naming of Edessa for Seleukos’s eldest daughter compare, for example, the equally unlikely story about THYATEIRA in Lydia. The latter, according to Stephanos (s.v. “Thyateira”), was named by Seleukos for his daughter (Θυγάτειρα)! On the other hand, we should bear in mind Appian’s observation (Syr. 57) that Seleukos I Nikator named settlements he founded for his father, his mother, himself, and his wives. As for the Syriac account of the building of Edessa, we may compare it with the Syriac account of the founding of KARKA de BETH SELOK as well as the Arabic accounts of the founding of ANTIOCH near Daphne and of ALEXANDREIA near Egypt.

7. Appian (Syr. 57) included Edessa in the list of settlements he attributed to Seleukos I Nikator. Most scholars have assumed Appian was referring to Edessa/Antioch on the Kallirhoe (e.g., Meyer, RE s.v. “Edessa,” 1933; Kirsten, RAC s.v. “Edessa” 553; Syme, Anatolica 107–8). Brodersen, however, claimed that Appian meant an Edessa west of the Euphrates (Komment. 152). According to Strabo (16.1.27), Bambyke was also called Hierapolis and Edessa. It has generally been assumed, however, that Strabo was mistaken when he equated Hierapolis with Edessa (see HIERAPOLIS Bambyke, n. 12). Brodersen, on the other hand, suggested that Strabo was not in error. Calling attention to the fact that Hierapolis Bambyke does not appear in Appian’s list, Brodersen claimed that, as with PELLA, we have an example of the coexistence of a “Macedonian” and an “official” name.

At Syr. 57 Appian says that “in Syria and among the upper barbarian regions of Upper Asia many of the towns bear Greek and Macedonian names . . . such as Berrhoia, Edessa, Perinthus, Maronea, Callipolis, Achaia, Pella, Oropus, Amphipolis, Arethusa, Astacus, Tegea, Chalcis, Larissa, Heraea, Apollonia; in Parthia also Sotera, Calliope, Charis, Hekatompylos, Achaia; in India, Alexandropolis; in Scythia Alexandreschata . . .” (trans. White). Thus, the settlements Appian mentions were located in two general regions, Syria and the “upper barbarian regions above it.” It is clear that Appian considered Syria to encompass the territory from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean (Syr. 50; cf. Mith. 106). What is less clear is whether, as Brodersen apparently assumed, all the cities mentioned in the first group—Beroia to Apollonia—were in Syria. In any event, the location of a number of these foundations is unknown.

8. For coins minted by Antiochos I see, for example, WSM nos. 797–801 (letters ΕΔΕ on the reverse of WSM no. 797; see further ANTHEMOUSIAS, n. 5); and CSE 891–93. Le Rider and Olcay (RN [1989] 40 and n. 24) suggested that a silver tetradrachm found at Tell Halaf might have been produced at a temporary mint in Osrhoene (where Tell Halaf is located); hence, they speculated that the coinage could possibly have come from Karrhai or Edessa; see also Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins 1.1: no. 583. For the quasi-municipal coinage minted under Antiochos IV see, for example, Hunter. Coll. 3:52–53, nos. 80–87; RdS 603ff.; BMC Seleucid Kings 41, nos. 74–80; SNG (Cop) Syria, Seleucid Kings 222; CSE 894; CSE 2 369–70; Seleucid Coins 2.1:99 and nos. 1499–1501.

For coins minted under Parthian and Roman hegemony see, for example, Hunter. Coll. 3:305–15, nos. 1–83; BMC Arabia, etc. 91–118, nos. 1–172; and Babelon, Mélanges 2:209–96. On coins of the Imperial period, a common type is the widely attested figure of the city goddess with the river god swimming at her feet (e.g., BMC Arabia, etc. 99, no. 55); cf., for example, ANTIOCH near Daphne, n. 11.

9. A contract of sale from Edessa and dated to 243 A.D. (A. R. Bellinger and C. B. Welles, YCS 5 [1935] 95–154, esp. 96–98 and 124ff.), though written in Syriac, is very much of “Greek character” (118). Among other things, it refers to Aurelius Hafsai as the archon of the twelfth tribe. Nevertheless, the terms probably referred to the Arab clan and the head of the clan rather than to the Greek political apparatus (132ff.). Thus, according to Arrian (Parth. frag. 42 = Suda s.v. “Phylarches” = FGrH 156 F171), Abgar, the king of Edessa at the time of Trajan, was known as a phylarches because his districts were called phylai (ξυμβάλλει τᾦ Τραιανᾦ περὶ Αὐγάρου, ὃς ἦν ’Oσροήνης χώρας δυνάστης, οὕσπερ φυλάρχας ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ ἐκείνῃ, ὅτι καὶ τὰ χωρία αὐτῶν φυλαὶ ὀνομάζονται). On the other hand, two of the Edessan officials mentioned in the prescript are called strategoi, an obvious recollection of Greek titulature.

10. For the possibility of the ethnic ’Εδεσση[νóς] referring to Macedonian Edessa on a fragment of an inscription see P. Petsas, Makedonika 9 (1969) 176; and J. Robert and L. Robert, BE (1970) no. 362. See also Fraser, Terminology 332. However, in a private communication Kent Rigsby suggests the more likely reading is ἐξ ’Eδέσση[ς, as in IG XII.9 1135.

11. For the founding of the kingdom of Edessa see, for example, Ps.-Dionysios of Tel Mahre Chronicon p. 50 (40, ed. Chabot); and Jacob of Edessa (in Michael the Syrian [77 = 1:119, trans. Chabot]); see also Gutschmid, Osroëne 3–10 (the king list in Dionysios); Duval, Edesse 20–31; Babelon, Mélanges 2:213–16; Kirten, RAC s.v. “Edessa” 554f.; Segal, Edessa 16.

12. On the appearance of the names Seleukos and Antiochos in later generations at Edessa see, for example, Bellinger and Welles, YCS 5 (1935) 96; and Segal, Edessa 16f., 28 n. 4, and 42 n. 3.

13. For Nebo and Bel see, for example, Jacob of Sarug, The Fall of the Idols (p. 131 in P. Martin, ZDMG 29 [1875] 107–47, French translation on 130–44); see also Drijvers, Edessa 4 off.; and A. Bounni, LIMC s.v. “Nabu.”

For Atargatis at Edessa see, for example, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle, 24 and note c (ed. G. Phillips), which explicitly connects the worship of Atargatis at Edessa with the great goddess of HIERAPOLIS Bambyke; see also Drijvers, Edessa 76ff. According to Drijvers, the worship of Hierapolitan Atargatis at Edessa was so strong that Strabo (erroneously; see above and HIERAPOLIS Bambyke, n. 12) identified Edessa and Hierapolis (ἡΒαμβύκη, ἣν καὶ ’′Εδεσσαν καὶ ‘Iερὰν πóλιν καλοῦσιν, ἐν ᾗ τιμῶσι τν Συρίαν Θεòν τὴν ’Aταργάτιν, 16.1.27).

14. For the location and site of Edessa see, for example, Segal, Edessa 5ff. (map, plans, and photographs at end). For the location of Edessa on various overland routes see K. Regling, Klio 1 (1901) 1–34.

ICHNAI

According to Isidore of Charax (1), Ichnai was located between ALAGMA and NIKEPHORION. Isidore describes it as a “Greek polis” and a Μακεδóνων κτίσμα located on the Balicha (Balikh) River. The toponym Ichnai is found in both Thessaly and Macedonia.¹ Presumably Mesopotamian Ichnai was named for one of the Macedonian towns. In 54 B.C. Crassus defeated the Parthian governor Silakes at Ichnai (Cass. Dio 40.12.2).² We do not know the precise location of Ichnai.³

* * * *

In general see Weissbach, RE s.v. “Ichnai 2”; Tcherikover, HS 86; Kessler, BNP s.v. “Ichnae”; Bousdroukis, Recherches 111–18.

1. On Thessalian and Macedonian Ichnai see Strabo 9.5.14 and Herodotus 7.123. On Macedonian Ichnai see also Papazoglou, Villes 154–56; and Bousdroukis, Recherches 109–11.

2. On Crassus’s operations in Mesopotamia see, for example, A. Garzetti, Athenaeum 22–23 (1944–45) 40–45; and B. A. Marshall, Crassus 151.

3. The attempt to equate Ichnai with modern Chnez (see, for example, Kiepert, FOA Karte V, p. 5 (7); K. Regling, Klio 1 [1901] 465 n. 3; Weissbach, RE s.v. “Ichnai 2”; Garzetti, Athenaeum 22–23 [1944–45] 40) has not met with general acceptance; see, for example, Dillemann, Mésopotamie 183 n. 3; Kessler, BNP s.v. “Ichnae.”

Bousdroukis has suggested that Ichnai might have been located at the site of Tell as-Saman (which is near Chnez) on the upper Balikh River (Recherches 113–18 and map 3). For Tell as-Saman see, for example, P. M. M. G. Akkermans, Villages in the Steppe (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1993) 149 (“one of the largest mounds in the Balikh valley”). The Gazetteer to the Barrington Atlas notes “Ichnae = Tell al-Sadde(?)” without further comment; see map 89, B4.

KALLINIKON

According to the Chronicon Paschale (330, CSHB 4.1), Seleukos II Kallinikos (246–226/5 B.C.) founded the town of Kallinikon in the first year of the 134th Olympiad, i.e., 244 B.C. The same attribution is given by Bar Hebraeus (Chronography 38, trans. Wallis Budge), who dated the founding to the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–221 B.C.), by the Syriac Chronicon Maroniticum (40 [47]) and by Michael the Syrian (5.6 [78]). The last says: “Seleukos Kallinikos built cities on the banks of the Euphrates, he called one after his own name, Kallinikon, and another Carchis (i.e., KIRKESION)” (trans. Chabot). On the other hand Libanius (Ep. 21.5, ed. Förster), who refers to Kallinikon as a stathmos near the Euphrates, says the town was named to honor the Sophist Kallinikos of Petra, who lived in the third century A.D. and was murdered there.¹ Ammianus (23.3.7), who described Kallinikon as well fortified, also noted its importance as a commercial center.

It is not clear whether or not Kallinikon was simply the renamed NIKEPHORION (Raqqah) or was a separate town.² In 1926 Tcherikover observed that the problem of Nikephorion-Kallinikon was insoluble but expressed the hope that archaeological or numismatic discoveries could some day throw further light on the question. No such evidence has yet appeared.

In the mid-fifth century a.d. Kallinikon was briefly renamed Leontopolis.³

* * * *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:742f.; Chapot, Frontière 288f.; Tcherikover, HS 86f.; Weidner, RE s.v. “Nikephorion 2”; Ulbert in Archéologie 291–92.

1. For the Chronicon Maroniticum see E. W. Brooks and J. B. Chabot, Chronica Minora II (CSCO 4, Scriptores Syri IV). For other literary references to Kallinikon see, for example, Procop. Arc. 3.31, Pers. 2.21.30, Aed. 2.7; Zosimus 3.13; Theophylact Simocatta 3.17 (ed. de Boor and Wirth); Theodoret Hist. Rel. 1276 (PG 82:1472); The Chronicle of Zuqnin (trans. Harrak), e.g., pp. 51, 114, 165, 192, 194, 195, 231, 233, and Harrak’s note.

2. Droysen (Hist. 2:742f.) distinguished Kallinikon from Nikephorion. Chapot (Frontière 288f.) suggested they were identical; see also Weidner, RE s.v. “Nikephorion 2”; Brodersen, Komment. 162; and Ulbert in Archéologie 291. Tcherikover noted (HS 87) that the argument for identifying the two cities was based on the fact that (a) Nikephorion is not mentioned in the literature after the third century A.D., and (b) Kallinikon is not mentioned before the third century A.D. Hence it could be claimed that Nikephorion was simply renamed Kallinikon. However, as Droysen pointed out, the argument is ex silentio. Furthermore, although both cities are mentioned in connection with the Euphrates (Libanius [Ep. 21.5, ed. Förster] refers to Kallinikon as “near the Euphrates,” περὶ τòν Εvφράτην; Isidore describes Nikephorion as “by the Euphrates,” παρ’ Eὐφράτην; Pliny [NH 6.119] places it “in vicinia Euphratis”; the Chronicle of Zuqnîn 165 [trans. Harrak] says that “Hishâm the Caliph built a bridge over the Euphrates opposite Callinicum”), this does not demonstrate the two cities were identical. After all, it could simply mean there were two cities—Kallinikon and Nikephorion—that were on/near the Euphrates.

Droysen also called attention to coinage from the reigns of Gordian and Gallienus with the legend ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΙΩΝ (Mionnet, Supplément 8:414f., nos. 72–73). He pointed out that the existence of coinage of Nikephorion from the time of Gallienus—when the Sophist Kallinikos was supposedly alive—demonstrated that the two cities were distinct (on Kallinikos see A. Stein, Hermes 58 [1923] 448–56). Nota bene, however, that the attribution of the coinage to the settlement at Raqqah has not been confirmed and is highly doubtful (see NIKEPHORION, n. 4). On the danger of citing the evidence of coins attested only in Mionnet see KARRHAI, n. 2.

In favor of a separate identity for Nikephorion and Kallinikon are the different traditions regarding the founder of each town. For Nikephorion the tradition recorded either Alexander (Pliny NH 6.119) or Seleukos Nikator (Appian Syr. 57). For Kallinikon the Chronicon Paschale specified Seleukos II Kallinikos. One, of course, might suspect the Chronicon of ex post facto reasoning in assigning the settlement to Kallinikos. One should note, however, that Bar Hebraeus (Chron. 38) also placed it in the period of Kallinikos’s reign. On the other hand, Bar Hebraeus equated Kallinikon with Raqqah. Musil also believed the two towns were separate and that Nikephorion was destroyed as a town in the third century a.d., remaining only as a suburb of Kallinikon. In support of this he noted the following (Middle Euphrates 327): “the Arabic writers, especially the poets of the era before the Abbassides, . . . mention two towns of the name ar-Rakkatan, calling one the ‘black’ or ‘burnt’, the other the ‘white’ ar-Rakka. The white town of ar-Rakka they call also by the name Callinicus, from which I conclude that the ‘black’ or ‘burnt’ town was ancient Nicephorium.”

I have noted elsewhere (NIKEPHORION Contantina/Constantia) that Ouranios (in Stephanos, s.v. “Nikephorion”) equated Nikephorion with Constantina (the modern Viranshehir) and that Hierokles (714.2, 715.1) and George of Cyprus (894, 897; see H. Gelzer’s comment in his edition, p. 153) distinguished Constantina from Kallinikon but located both in Osrhoene. In short, there were two different cities named Nikephorion: a southern one in Mesopotamia (modern Raqqah) near the Euphrates and a northern one in Mygdonia (Constantina) on the Edessa-Nisibis road at modern Viranshehir. Kallinikon cannot be equated with the northern Nikephorion. Whether it can be equated with the southern city remains unclear.

3. For the renaming of Kallinikon as Leontopolis see, for example, Hierokles 715.1; George of Cyprus 897; Chronica Edessenum LXX (CSCO Scriptores Syri Versio III.4, p. 8, trans. Guidi); Chapot, Frontière 288 n. 5; Honigmann, RE s.v. “Leontopolis 6.”

KARRHAI

From Diodorus (19.91.1) we learn that in 312 B.C. there were Macedonians settled in Karrhai.¹ It is not clear whether Alexander or Antigonos I Monophthalmos had settled them.² Antigonos may have minted Alexander coinage at Karrhai. Coins continued to be produced under Seleukos I Nikator.³ In 65 B.C. the inhabitants of Karrhai, whom Cassius Dio (37.5.5) described as Μακεδóνων τε ἄποικοι ὄντες καὶ ἐνταῦθά που οἰκοῦντες, gave assistance to Pompey’s general, L. Afranius.⁴ Dio’s Greek, incidentally, appears to suggest that in the first century B.C. there were Macedonians living both in Karrhai and in the surrounding region. Karrhai was located south of Urfa (EDESSA) at modern (and ancient) Harran.⁵

* * * *

In general see Weissbach, RE s.v. “Karrai”; Tcherikover, HS 89; Sinclair, Eastern Turkey 4:29–43; Billows, Antigonos 295–96.

1. Nota bene that the text of Diodorus reads ἐπεὶ δὲ (sc. Seleukos) προάγων κατῳντησεν εές Μεσοποταμίαν, τῶν ἐν Κάραις κατῳκισμένων Μακεδóνων. Diodorus was certainly refering to Karrhai in Mesopotamia rather than Karai or the villages of the Karai in Babylonia (Diod. 17. 110.3, 19.12.1; Weissbach, RE s.v. “Karai”; see also Bosworth, Legacy 231–33 against J. K. Winnicki, AS 20 [1989] 77–78).

2. For Alexander as founder see Berve, Alexanderreich 1:296, 2:669; for Antigonos, see Billows, Antigonos 295f.

Some coins of Caracalla from Karrhai bear the legend COL(onia) MET(ropolis) ANTONINIANA AUR(elia) ALEX (andriana) (e.g., Eckhel, Doctrina 1.3:508; Cohen, Médailles Imperiales² 4:239, no. 926; BMC Arabia, etc. 85, nos. 16–70), a reflection of Caracalla’s veneration of the Macedonian king (Herodian 4.8.1). See also, for example, Levick in Hommages à Marcel Renard 2:426–46 (but cf. A. Johnston, Historia 32 [1983] 58–76); Espinosa in Alejandro Magno 37–51. The question is whether the ALEX(andriana) on the coinage of Karrhai refers to a personal name or a toponym; i.e., should it be understood to refer to Alexander or to Alexandreia? Some scholars have suggested that the reference is to Alexander; thus, Leschhorn and Franke, Lexikon AGM 1:321.

On the other hand, we may consider the evidence from ALEXANDREIA Troas. Mionnet claimed that a coin from that city (Supplément 5:529, no. 214) had the legend COL. AUR. ANTONINIANA. ALEX. On the basis of this coin B. Levick remarked (in Hommages à Marcel Renard 2:431) that during Caracalla’s reign Alexandreia Troas took the titles Aurelia Antoniniana and Alexandreia. However, if the reading is correct it is apparently a hapax: it is the only example I could find of this particular legend on the coinage of Alexandreia Troas; note, in this connection, A. Johnston, who remarked that Mionnet “appears to have . . . invented ANTONINIANA” (Historia [1983] 65 n. 16; see also her salutary warning [60]: “The early numismatic catalogues . . . tend to be inaccurate. It is extremely unwise to use Mionnet [published 1807–37] and Eckhel [published (1792–98] without checking the volumes of the British Museum Catalogue and the Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum”). The usual legend—that incorporated ALEX—from the reign of Caracalla is COL ALEX AUG TRO (and occasionally, COL ALEX AUG) and variants thereof (e.g., SNG [von A] 1462–65, 1471–74, 7559–60, 7562–63, 7575). The presence of these legends prompted Bellinger (Troy: The Coins [Princeton, N.J., 1961] 118) to conclude that the name Alexandreia was conferred on the colony by Caracalla (italics mine), probably during his visit in 214 A.D. (the Hellenistic settlement, of course, had been renamed Alexandreia by Lysimachos). If that is the case, it raises the possibility that at Karrhai, COL. MET. ANTONINIANA AUR. ALEX. on the coinage reflects the fact that the name Alexandreia was conferred on or assumed by the colony there. This would reflect the municipal claim (or conceit) that its origins went back to the Macedonian king, a claim that is also found at other Hellenistic settlements in the early third century a.d.; see, for example, discussion and references in OTROUS, n. 2; CAPITOLIAS; GERASA, nn. 2 and 3; SELEUKEIA Abila n. 2.

3. For the coinage see, for example, WSM 4 off., nos. 1–14 (Antigonos?), 766–82 (Seleukos I); CSE 887–88 (Seleukos I); Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins 1.1: 27–29 and nos. 39–47. The appearance of fish on WSM nos. 12–14 may be related to the sacred fish of Atargatis; on which see HIERAPOLIS Bambyke.

G. Le Rider and N. Olcay, RN (1988) 47, nos. 180–87 (see also Price, Alexander and Philip nos. 3796, 3803, 3805), also tentatively assigned eight Alexander coins from a hoard buried in 317 or early 316 B.C. to Karrhai (discussion on 50–53). They suggested these particular coins were minted c. 320–317 B.C. and preceded WSM 4 off., nos. 1–14 by a decade. The hoard was found at Akçakale, which is on the Turkish-Syrian frontier, 50 km south of Karrhai. Le Rider and Olcay noted (50 and n. 10) that in antiquity Akçakale, which was on the road from Karrhai to NIKEPHORION, was probably located in the territory of the former.

There is no extant coinage that can definitely be attributed to the mint at Karrhai under Antiochos I; coins that Newell had attributed to Karrhai under Antiochos I (nos. 783–802) have been reassigned. Thus, Waggoner reattributed WSM nos. 780–83 to SELEUKEIA on the Tigris (ANS MN 15 [1969] 24–25); Kritt reassigned WSM nos. 784–88 ( = Seleucid Coins 1.1: nos. 469–72) to AÏ KHANOUM (Bactria 48–51); Houghton and Lorber reattributed WSM nos. 789–96 to Coele Syria under Antiochos III (Seleucid Coins 1.1:27 and nos. 1089–92).

4. Dio uses the same term, ἄποικοι, elsewhere (40.13.1) to describe the Greeks and Macedonians in Mesopotamia who welcomed M. Licinius Crassus in 54/3 B.C. (τῶν γὰρ Μακεδóνων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν συστρατευσάντων σφίσιν ‘Eλλήνων ἄποικοι πολλοί . . . ). See also NIKEPHORION.

5. Location. Karrhai was located at the site of modern Harran, approximately 40 km southwest of EDESSA; see Bernard in Topoi Supplément 1 (1997) 186 n. 181. On Harran see, for example, Sinclair, Eastern Turkey 4:29–43.

KIRKESION

Both Bar Hebraeus (Chronography 38, trans. Wallis Budge) and Michael the Syrian (5.6 [78]) claimed that Seleukos II Kallinikos founded Kirkesion. There are no other extant sources supporting this claim. Kirkesion was located in Mesopotamia at al-Baseira, where the Khabur River flows into the Euphrates.¹

* * * *

In general see Weissbach, RE s.v. “Kirkesion”; Musil, Middle Euphrates 334–37; Wiesehöfer, EIr s.v. “Circesium”; J.-Y. Monchambert, Ktema 24 (1999) 236 (map on 235).

1. For the location see, for example, TAVO 19.

MAKEDONOUPOLIS

The evidence for Makedonoupolis is late. The Greek and Latin lists of those attending the Council of Nikaia mention a Mareas of Makedonoupolis. The Syriac lists refer to a Mareas of Birtha.¹ The Latin list for the Council of Chalcedon records a Daniel of Makedonoupolis; Michael the Syrian records a Daniel of Birtha in the Syriac list.² In each case we are undoubtedly dealing with one and the same person and, therefore, the same town. The toponym obviously suggests a connection with or a recollection of Macedon. Birtha was located at modern Birecik.³

* * * *

In general see Gelzer in Festschrift Kiepert 59–60; Cumont, Ét. syr. 145–47; Tcherikover, HS 84–85; Dussaud, Topographie 449.

1. For Mareas (Marius) of Makedonoupolis in the Greek and Latin lists of the Council of Nikaia see Patr. Nicaen. Nom. p. 64 (XI.81: Greek), pp. 22–23 (IX.81, 82; XI.77, 80: Latin); for Mar(e)as of Birtha in the Syriac lists see Patr. Nicaen. Nom. p. 103 (IX.81); and Cumont, Ét. syr. 145. For Birtha see also The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite 91 (p. 71, trans./ed. Wright).

2. For Daniel of Makedonoupolis/Daniel of Birtha at the Council of Chalcedon see Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum 7:403; Michael the Syrian 2:62 (trans. Chabot), XVI.113; and Cumont, Ét. syr. 147. Cf. the identification of HERAKLEIA in Phoenicia with Arka and ANTHEMOUSIAS Charax Sidou with Marcopolis.

3. For the location see Cumont, Ét. syr. 144–47. The Syriac chronicle of Joshua (507 A.D.) describes Birtha as “situated beside us on the River Euphrates” (The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite 91 [p. 71, ed./trans. Wright]). Wright noted that this description suggested the identification of Birtha and Birecik. The identification of Birtha and Birecik was securely made by Cumont on the basis of the discovery of a Syriac inscription in the fortress of Birecik dated to 6 A.D. that contained the epitaph of Zarbian, the “commandant of Birtha” (M. A. Kugener, Rivista degli studi orientali 1 [1908] 587–94). See also Kennedy in Zeugma 54.

Ammianus (20.7.17) mentions a “Virta” in Mesopotamia that he describes as a very old fortress built by Alexander the Macedonian. Cumont reasonably suggested (Ét. syr. 146f.) that this city was in fact the Birtha that was renamed Makedonoupolis. The Virta of Ammianus is the κάστρον Βίρθας mentioned by George of Cyprus (937; and H. Gelzer’s note in his edition, p. 164). Prior to Cumont, Birecik was believed to be the site of SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma. On Birecik in the Achaemenid period see Fuensanta and Charvat in Briant and Boucharlat, L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide 151–58. For the location of Seleukeia at the site of modern Belkis (10 km from Birecik) see SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates, n. 7.

On “birtha” (stronghold) see, for example, PCZ 59003.3,13 ( = CPJ 1), ἐν Βίρται τῆς’Αμμανίτιδος; and E. Will, Syria 64 (1987) 253f.

NIKATORIS

According to Stephanos (s.v. “Nikatoris”), who is our sole source of information, Nikatoris was a πóλις Συρίας πρòς τῇ Εὐρώπῳ, κτίσμα Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάτορος. He also adds that the ethnic was Νικατορίτης. It is not clear whether this settlement was located east or west of the Euphrates. R. Dussaud speculated that AMPHIPOLIS, which he located on the east bank of the Euphrates, was renamed Nikatoris by Seleukos.¹

* * * *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:728; Tcherikover, HS 55; Honigmann, “Hist. Topog.” 20, no. 326; Fraser, Terminology 359.

1. For the suggestion that Seleukos Nikator refounded Amphipolis as Nikatoris see Dussaud, Topographie 461; and Jones, CERP² 216. Tcherikover (HS 55) placed Nikatoris—without comment—in eastern Syria. See also NIKATORIS in Cyrrhestice.

Note that Fraser (Terminology 359) claimed that Stephanos s.v. “Nikatoris” referred to DOURA EUROPOS. In support, he cited Stephanos, s.v. “Doura”: πόλις Μεσοποταμίας, ὡς Πολύβιος πέμπτῃ. Polybius 5.48.16 says that Molon “occupied Parapotamia as far as the town of Europus and Mesopotamia as far as Dura” (trans. Paton). As Walbank noted (Comment. 1:579), this Doura should be identified with the town on the east bank of the Tigris (cf. Polyb. 5.52.2; and Ammianus 25.6.9). See also J. den Boeft et al. in Comment. on Ammianus 25.6.9. The exact location of Doura on the Tigris is not known.

NIKEPHORION CONSTANTINA/CONSTANTIA

In addition to NIKEPHORION near the Euphrates (at modern Raqqah), there was another Nikephorion in Mesopotamia. The latter was located farther north, at some distance from the Euphrates. Our only unequivocal source for this settlement is Ouranios (in Stephanos, s.v. “Nikephorion”), who remarked that Nikephorion was also renamed Constantina and that it was περὶ ’‘Εδεσσαν.¹ (The Suda s.v. “Nikephorion” repeats the information in Stephanos but refers to the settlement as “Constantia.”) The Syriac name for Constantina was Tela. In this connection G. W. Bowersock pointed to a previously unnoticed passage in the Syriac life of Rabula of Edessa that confirms Ouranios’s testimony. There Tela is described as “the victorious city of great renown.”² We may therefore accept the identification of Nikephorion-Constantina-Tela on the Edessa-Nisibis road. It is generally agreed that the town was located at modern Viranshehir.³ The toponym suggests that Nikephorion quite possibly originated as a Hellenistic settlement that was founded by Seleukos I Nikator.⁴

* * * *

In general see Mannert, Geographie 5.2:286–88; Droysen, Hist. 2:689; Dillemann, Mésopotamie 254–55; Bowersock, Late Antiquity 128–34; and NIKEPHORION (Raqqah); Sinclair, Eastern Turkey 4:191–93; Biffi, Strabone 165.

1. Strabo (16.1.23) refers to a Nikephorion, which he locates in Mygdonia. It is generally agreed that Mygdonia was the region of northeast Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, in Strabo’s narrative the extent of the territory of Mygdonia is problematic. He says it reached west and southwest to the Euphrates at Zeugma and Thapsakos and north to include Tigranokerta, a far larger area than normally believed. This has prompted the suggestion that Strabo was misinformed (see further Weissbach, RE s.v. “Mygdonia 5”). Whether or not Strabo was mistaken in his description of the extent of Mygdonian territory, we may note the cities he assigned to this region: Chordiraza, Sinnaka, Nikephorion, Antioch Nisibis, Tigranokerta, and Karrhai (see also 11.14.2). Antioch, Tigranokerta, and Karrhai were considerably removed from the Euphrates. The same was certainly true for the location of Sinnaka (see K. Regling, Klio 1 [1901] 458; id., Klio 7 [1907] 390; Marshall, Crassus 159f.). The location of Chodiraza is not known. In any event, we may note the following: (a) the fact that—where known—these cities were located at a considerable distance from the Euphrates leaves open the possibility that the Nikephorion included by Strabo with this group was likewise far from the Euphrates; (b) Viranshehir—the site of Constantina-Tela—is located near Edessa, between Antioch/Nisibis and Karrhai. It is possible, therefore, that the Nikephorion mentioned by Strabo was the northern one.

Hierokles (714.2, 715.1) and George of Cyprus (894, 897; see H. Gelzer’s comment. in his edition, p. 153) distinguished Constantina from Kallinikon and placed both towns in Osrhoene. Neither, incidentally, mentioned Nikephorion. Obviously if Nikephorion was renamed Constantina it could not have been previously renamed KALLINIKON. We are therefore faced with the following possibilities: (a) Ouranios erred in equating Nikephorion with Constantina, or (b) there were two different cities named Nikephorion: a southern one in Mesopotamia on the Euphrates mentioned by Pliny (modern Raqqah) and a northern one in Mygdonia east of Edessa that is (possibly) also recorded by Strabo (Constantina). I believe that Ouranios was not in error (for Ouranios’s reliability see Bowersock, Late Antiquity 128), and that there were two cities named Nikephorion, and Ouranios was referring to the northern town.

2. In 1797 K. Mannert called attention to the Ouranios passage in Stephanos; he raised the possibility that there had been a second Nikephorion in Mesopotamia and suggested the identification of Nikephorion with Constantina/Constantia (Geographie 5.2:287–88). Mannert was followed by Droysen (Hist. 2:669). Dillemann mentioned the Ouranios fragment and also raised the possibility that there were two Nikephorions in Mesopotamia (Mésopotamie 255). M. M. Mango noted—without further comment or reference—the identification (in Bell, Tur ‘Abdin 154). In 1997 Bowersock also called attention to the Ouranios passage and by reference to the passage in the Syriac life of Rabula of Edessa convincingly confirmed the Nikephorion-Constantina connection (Late Antiquity 128–34).

On Constantina/Constantia see, for example, M. M. Mango in Bell, Tur ‘Abdin 154; Mango, ODB s.v. “Constantina”; Pollard, Roman Syria 291.

See further, Markwart, Südarmenien 428.

3. For Tela see Bowersock, Late Antiquity 132. For the probable location of Nikephorion-Constantina-Tela at Viranshehir see Millar, Near East 209 (“Constantia or Constantina, may well be Viranshehir”). See also Mango in Bell, Tur ‘Abdin 154; Mango, ODB s.v. “Constantina”; and Pollard (Roman Syria 291), who accepted the identification without reservation.

4. Founder. Bowersock has reasonably suggested that Seleukos I Nikator may have founded Nikephorion Constantina (Late Antiquity 131). Earlier, Rostovtzeff remarked (Kondakov Institute [1938] 104) that Seleukos I Nikator’s founding of EDESSA in 302 B.C. as well as his possible founding of DOURA EUROPOS and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia around the same time provided an important northern bulwark that protected the Babylonian heart of his empire. If he founded Nikephorion as well this would have further strengthened the protective wall around Babylonia; but this is speculation. Note, too, that the date of Seleukos’s acquisition of northern Mesopotamia—before or after Ipsos—is not definitely known; see further EDESSA, n. 2.

The suggestion of Dillemann that Anti och Arabis (Pliny NH 6.117) was one of the ancient names for Viranshehir is not convincing (Mésopotamie 78).

NIKEPHORION (RAQQAH)

There are two traditions regarding the founder of Nikephorion.¹ Pliny (NH 6.119) says Alexander ordered it founded because of the advantageous location; Isidore of Charax, who described it as a “Greek polis,” also ascribed it to Alexander. On the other hand, Appian (Syr. 57) included it in the list of foundations he attributed to Seleukos I Nikator.² According to Tacitus (Ann. 6.41), Nikephorion—along with ANTHEMOUSIAS and other cities—was founded by Macedonians and had a Greek name. Cassius Dio says (40.13.1) that when M. Licinius Crassus was preparing for his campaign against the Parthians Nikephorion was one of the “Greek poleis” that supported him.³ According to Dio, many of the Greek and Macedonian colonists in the region regarded the Romans as “philhellenes.” Coinage with the legend ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΙΩΝ survives from the reigns of Gordian and Gallienus; however, the attribution of the coins to the Mesopotamian city is doubtful.⁴ It is also not clear whether Nikephorion was renamed Kallinikon in the third century A.D.⁵

The ruins at Raqqah on the east bank of the Euphrates have been identified with Nikephorion. Note, however, J. Gaborit’s sober observation: “L’insuccès dans la localisation de Nicephorion nous paraît être le point le plus regrettable. . . . Alors que les sources indiquent clairement que cette fondation se trouve à la confluence du Balikh et de l’Euphrate, aucune prospection, aucune fouille dans cette région n’a permis de détecter l’existence de cette fondation.”⁶

* * * *

In general see Mannert, Geographie 5.2:286–88; Ritter, Erdkunde 10:1125–49; Droysen, Hist. 2:742–43; Kiepert, FOA Karte V, p. 5 (7); Chapot, Frontière 288f.; Herzfeld in Sarre and Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise 1:156–61; Tcherikover, HS 86; Weidner, RE s.v. “Nikephorion 2”; Musil, Middle Euphrates 227–29, 325–31; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:292; Tarn, Alexander 2:248; Toueir in DAI 1829–1979 210–14; Brodersen, Komment. 162; Ulbert in Archéologie 291–92; M. al-Khalaf and K. Kohlmeyer, DaM 2 (1985) 133–62; Biffi, Strabone 165.

1. For other literary references to Nikephorion see, for example, Pliny NH 5.86; Ptolemy 5.18.6; Florus 1.46 (3.11.4); and Fronto Ep. ad Verum 2.24 (p. 131, ed. Van den Hout²). For the Nikephorion mentioned by Strabo 16.1.23 see NIKEPHORION Constantina/Constantia.

2. Founder. Berve, Alexanderreich 1:292, preferred Alexander; see also Droysen, Hist. 2:668, 742f.; and Herzfeld in Sarre and Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise 1:145. Tarn, Alexander 2:248, objected to Alexander as founder because (a) there is no attestation for the term νικηφóρος being applied to or used by Alexander (Tarn, however, does note the term is found in the Alexander Romance [2.21.3, 3.17.33, 3.26.3, ed. Kroll]), and (b) the form of the toponym belongs to a group of names—like DOKIMEION—of settlements named for an official, and no officer of Alexander with that name is known. Both of these objections are reasonable, though it should be noted they are both ex silentio. In any event, Tarn referred to Appian and suggested the town was a Seleucid settlement. See also Tcherikover (HS 86), who noted (a) that before Gaugamela Alexander would not have settled soldiers needed for the forthcoming battle, (b) in the short time it took to get from Tyre to Thapsakos the king would not have had the time or opportunity to found a colony, and (c) toponyms with νίκη were normally given to settlements near the battlefields where the victory took place. Tcherikover could not bring such objections against Seleukos; hence he suggested the Seleucid king founded it and named it for some military victory; see also Honigmann, RE s.v. “Thapsakos,” 1274. Tcherikover’s objections are quite subjective and based on probability rather than fact. In fact there is no compelling historical context that allows the definite ascription of Nikephorion to either king (Brodersen, Komment. 162). Furthermore, it is worth recalling that some of the ascriptions in Appian’s list are questionable (see further Cohen, Settlements in Syria 3). Nevertheless, it would appear that Seleukos is the more probable candidate; see also Grainger, Seleukos 99–100.

3. Acording to Florus 1.46, Crassus was at Nikephorion when an embassy from Orodes came to him; see further A. Garzetti, Athenaeum (1944) 4 of.; Marshall, Crassus 153.

4. For the coinage see, for example, Mionnet, Supplément 8:414f., nos. 72–73; and Hill, BMC Arabia, etc. p. cix on Nikephorion: “Vaillant has attributed to this place, the modern Raqqa, coins of Gordian (rev. Zeus seated holding Nike and scepter) and Gallienus (rev. female figure holding phiale and cornucopiae) on which he reads the inscription ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΙΩΝ. His attributions have not been confirmed.” Regarding this coinage, Kevin Butcher has supplied the following information: “Certainly I have never come across any coins purporting to come from Nikephorion, and I very much doubt that any exist. The reference to Mionnet suggested that the coins in question are likely to have been either in the Paris collection or quoted from very much older catalogues (or both). I had a look in J-F Vaillant’s Numismata imperatorum, Augustarum et Caesarum, a populis, Romanae ditionis, Graece loquentibus, 3rd edition, Paris, 1700, and sure enough, the coins of Gordian and Gallienus are listed there. The Gordian is on p. 154, the reference being a certain V. Valchner (not listed in his index of collectors); the Gallienus is on p. 182, in the collection of Jos. Felice (secretary to a cardinal in Rome). The coins must be misidentified coins of other cities, but the types (a seated Jupiter for Gordian and a standing female figure for Gallienus) do not permit me to guess which ones. In his alphabetical summary of mints Vaillant ascribes only coins of Gordian to Nikephorion (p. 202), evidently having forgotten the Gallienus.”

5. See KALLINIKON, n. 2.

6. Location. Pliny (NH 5.86, 6.119) places Nikephorion in Mesopotamia, “in vicinia Euphratis”; Isidore of Charax (1) locates it downstream from Zeugma on the Euphrates. On Raqqah see Musil, Middle Euphrates 91, 228–20, 325–27, and map at end. For a map and plan of the site see al-Khalaf and Kohlmeyer, DaM 2 (1985) opposite 134 and 136; see also Chapot, Frontière 289; Kiepert, FOA Karte V and p. 7; and Gaborit, Géographie historique 507. For Islamic Rakkah see M. Meinecke, MDOG 128 (1996) 157–72.

POLYTELEIA

Pliny (NH 6.118–19), who is our only source, says that southeast of the Sitrae was the town of Azochis and nearby (“mox in campestribus oppida”) were the towns of DIOSPAGE, Polyteleia, STRATONIKEIA, and ANTHEMOUS. Polyteleia was apparently located in Mesopotamia; precisely where we do not know.¹ The name, at least, suggests a Greek or Macedonian settlement.

* * * *

In general see Tcherikover, HS 85; Treidler, RE s.v. “Polyteleia”; and Dillemann, Mésopotamie 100f.

1. See further STRATONIKEIA in Mesopotamia and ANTHEMOUSIAS. Markwart’s suggestion (Südarmenien 428) that Polyteleia was the Greek reinterpretation of the native toponym, Tella (later Viranshehir), is not convincing. On the multinamed Viranshehir (Nikephorion, Constantina, Antoninopolis, Maximianopolis, Tella) see NIKEPHORION Constantina; Mango in Bell, Tur ‘Abdin 154; Mango, ODB s.v. “Constantina.”

SELOK

E. Honigmann called attention to a spring called Selok southeast of KARRHAI.¹ The name is evocative. It recalls, for example, KARKA de BETH SELOK. Nevertheless, we would obviously need more information before suggesting there had been a Hellenistic settlement (a Seleukeia?) at or near the site of the spring.

* * * *

1. Honigmann, RE s.v. “Seleukeia 14.” For the location see PGM 57 (1911) II, map 18.

STRATONIKEIA

According to Pliny (NH 6.118–19), southeast of the Sitrae was the town of Azochis and nearby (“mox in campestribus oppida”) were the towns of DIOSPAGE, POLYTELEIA, Stratonikeia, and ANTHEMOUS[IAS]. Pliny, then says that in the vicinity of the Euphrates was NIKEPHORION. In his description Pliny was apparently swinging around from beyond the Tigris westward toward the Euphrates (Anthemousias was probably located at or quite near the Euphrates; Nikephorion was on it). It would appear, therefore, that Diospage, Polyteleia, and Stratonikeia were located in Mesopotamia. We do not know the exact location.¹ The founder is, likewise, not definitely known; most probably it was Seleukos I Nikator or his son, Antiochos.²

* * * *

In general see Tcherikover, HS 85.

1. In his enumeration of the settlements founded by Seleukos I Nikator, Appian (Syr. 57) mentions one Stratonikeia (see Brodersen, Komment. 149f.). Four settlements of that name are known in Asia Minor and Asia from the extant evidence. Two—STRATONIKEIA in Caria and Lydia—were probably founded by Antiochos I. Both Strabo (14.2.25) and Stephanos (s.v. “Stratonikeia”) refer to a STRATONIKEIA near the Tauros and describe it as a small town (πολίχνιον). This particular city has not yet been firmly located. The Tauros Mountains, it is true, extended eastward to the region north of ARSAMEIA and AMIDA. In fact, Stephanos specified that ANTIOCH near the Tauros was in Commagene. Presumably the Stratonikeia mentioned by Pliny was also a small town. Nevertheless, it would undoubtedly be stretching belief to expect that a Stratonikeia in Mesopotamia—even northern Mesopotamia—could be described as “near the Tauros.”

2. Stratonike I, the daughter of Demetrios I Poliorketes, was the wife of Seleukos I Nikator and later of his son, Antiochos I. She and the latter were, in turn, the parents of Antiochos II and Stratonike II. In short, the list of possible founders includes Seleukos I and Antiochos I and II. The two most likely candidates are Seleukos I or Antiochos I. Seleukos married Stratonike I soon after the battle of Ipsos in 301 B.C. and subsequently gave her to his son as his wife (probably in 293 B.C.; see Mehl, Seleukos 230). If Seleukos founded it, presumably he will have done this between 301 and 293 B.C. At the same time Seleukos gave Stratonike to his son in marriage he also gave him control of the eastern half of the empire (Plut. Demet. 38: διέγνωκε τῶν ἄνω πάντων τóπων ’Αντίοχον ἀποδεĩξαι βασιλέα; on the marriage of Antiochos and Stratonike see also App. Syr. 59–61; Lucian, Syr. D. 17–18; Synkellos 330 (ed. Mosshammer). See also Beloch, GG² IV.1 219f.; Seibert, Verbindungen 50f.). This certainly raises the possibility that Antiochos I founded the settlement in honor of his new wife.

ZENODOTION