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

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