LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

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’

Скачать книгу