The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Getzel M. CohenЧитать онлайн книгу.
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;