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

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