The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Getzel M. Cohen
Читать онлайн.| Название | The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India |
|---|---|
| Автор произведения | Getzel M. Cohen |
| Жанр | Документальная литература |
| Серия | Hellenistic Culture and Society |
| Издательство | Документальная литература |
| Год выпуска | 0 |
| isbn | 9780520953567 |
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,