The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India
However, Malalas’s information is insufficient for definitely positing an Alexandreian foundation near Nisibis.
5. See ALEXANDREIA Arbela.
ALEXANDREIA IN MYGDONIA
See ALEXANDREIA in Mesopotamia.
AMIDA
In his enumeration of settlements founded by Seleukos I Nikator, Ps.-Dionysius of Tel Mahre mentions Amida on the Tigris River.1 I am not aware of any other extant evidence to corroborate this information. In the early fourth century A.D. Constantius fortified the site and wanted it to be renamed after himself (Amm. 18.9.1).2 Amida was located north of the Tur ‘Abdin at the site of the modern Diyarbakir.3
* * * *
In general see Baumgartner, RE s.v. “Amida”; Gabriel, Turquie orientale 85–205; Oates, Northern Iraq 103–5; Pollard, Roman Syria 288–90.
1. Incerti Auctoris Chronicon Pseudo Dionysianum vulgo Dictum I, p. 47 (trans.J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 121, Scriptores Syri III.1 Versio 37 [p. 47]. Note that Synkellos (ed. Mosshammer, p. 331) omits this information. Cf. Germanikeia/Mar’ash, which both Michael the Syrian (5.4 [74], trans. Chabot) and Bar Hebraeus (37, trans. Wallis Budge) included in lists of settlements attributed to Seleukos I Nikator. Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus are the only extant sources I am aware of who made this attribution.
2. See Millar, Near East 209; Pollard, Roman Syria 288–90.
3. On Amida see Mango in Bell, Tur ‘Abdin 105; Mango, ODB s.v. “Amida”; Millar, Near East 209. For the city and its monuments under Muslim rule see M. van Berchem and J. Strzygowski, Amida (Heidelberg, 1910); description of the site and plan on pp. 7–12. On the city wall see D. van Bercham, Syria 31 (1954) 262–67. In general on Diyarbakir see Sinclair, Eastern Turkey 3:164–96.
For the location see map at the end of Bell, Tur ‘Abdin.
ANTHEMOUSIAS CHARAX SIDOU
According to Isidore of Charax (1), Charax Sidou was called ὑπὸ δὲ ‘Eλλήνων ’Aνθεμουσιὰς πόλις and was located 8 schoinoi (c. 44 km) from APAMEIA on the Euphrates. Tacitus remarked (Ann. 6.41) that Anthemousias, along with NIKEPHORION and other cities, was founded by Macedonians and had a Greek name. Stephanos (s.v. “Anthemous”) described Anthemous as a polis of Macedonia and Syria (sic).1 Anthemous was the name of both a region and a town in Macedonia, after which the Mesopotamian town was obviously named.2 Interestingly, in Mesopotamia “Anthemousias” was also used to refer to both the city and the region.3 Thus, Ammianus (14.3.3) says that the town of Batnai, which he describes as an important mercantile center, was earlier founded by a band of Macedonians in (the region of) Anthemousias. In fact, the identity of Batnai and Anthemousias is widely accepted. The Syrian Christians of the early sixth century A.D. called the town Batnai Sarugi or Batnai in Sarugo, namely, the modern Suruç in southeastern Turkey.4
A bronze of Antiochos I with the letters ΑΝΘ as a mint mark may have been minted (at Edessa?) for Anthemousias. Coinage also survives from the reign of Caracalla.5
Anthemousias/Charax Sidou was renamed Marcopolis. Precisely when this happened is not known; J. Teixidor has suggested it took place sometime after 213 A.D.6
* * * *
In general see Mannert, Geographie 5.2:290–91; Fraenkel, RE s.vv. “Anthemusia,” “Batnai”; Streck, RE Suppl. I, s.vv. “Anthemusia,” “Batnai”; G. F. Hill, BMC Arabia, etc. lxxxvii; K. Regling, Klio 1 (1901) 450–54; Dussaud, Topographie 480; Tcherikover, HS 85; Biffi, Strabone 169; Bousdroukis, Recherches 76–108.
1. A number of variant forms are attested for the toponym; thus, Anthemousias (Strabo 16.1.27; Tac. Ann. 6.41); Anthemusius (Festus Brev. 20 [ed. Eadie]); Anthem(o)usia (Pliny NH 5.86; Eutropius 8.3; Ptol. 5.18.4; Amm. 14.3.3; CIL VI.1377.17 = Dessau, ILS 1098, second century A.D.); Anthem(o)us (Pliny NH 6.118; Stephanos, s.v. “Anthemous”); see also Regling, Klio 1 (1901) 453.
2. For Anthemous in Macedonia see, for example, Hirschfeld, RE s.v. “Anthemus”; Papazoglou, Villes 202–3; and Bousdroukis, Recherches 76.
3. There is no agreement regarding the significance of the terms “Anthemous,” “Anthemousia,” and “Anthemousias.” According to Regling, Anthemousia referred to the region, while Anthemousias referred to the city (Klio 1 [1901] 453–54). Jones’s (CERP2 442 n. 4) claim that Anthemous was probably the name of the city and Anthemousias the name of the district is probably overstated. Syme observed (Anatolica 107) that “strictly speaking, Anthemus was the city (otherwise Batnae), Anthemusia the region, but the usage was lax.” Bousdroukis (Recherches 76–77) claimed that—especially in the Roman period sources—the name of the town appeared as “Anthemousia” while the name of the region was “Anthemousias.” It would appear, based on the extant evidence, that “Anthemous” referred only to the city. On the other hand, it is not clear in a number of instances whether “Anthemousias” referred to the city or the region: thus, for example, Strabo 16.1.27 (cf., however—also in 16.1.27—where Strabo specifically calls Anthemousias a τόπος); Eutropius 8.3; and Festus Brev. 20, ed. Eadie (Eutropius’s and Festus’s description of Anthemousias [“magnam/optimam Persidis regionem”] is most probably an error; undoubtedly it refers to Babylonia, which follows in their enumeration; see Dillemann, Mésopotamie 285). For the use of Anthemousias to describe the region see, for example, Ptol. 5.18.4; Amm. 14.3.3; Arr. Parth. frag. 55; and CIL VI.1377.17 ( = Dessau, ILS 1098.9–10, second century A.D.). At Cassius Dio 68.21 I believe the term refers to the city (Sporakes is described as the φύλαρχος of Anthemousias; cf. Arrian [Parth. frag. 42], who says that Abgar, the king of EDESSA at the time of Trajan, was ᾽Οσροήνης χώρας δυνάστης and was known as a phylarches because his districts were called phylai; on φύλαρχος meaning “sheik” see A. R . Bellinger and C. B. Welles, YCS 5 [1935] 134 n. 51). On the other hand, Dillemann (Mésopotamie 102) understands this to refer to the region. Interestingly, Batnai (which was probably identical with Anthemousias; see below, n. 4), was also used for both the region as well as the city; see Isidore of Charax 1; and Syme, Anatolia 107 n. 96.
In general see the discussions of Fraenkel, Streck, Regling, and Bousdroukis cited above.
4. The ancient evidence for the location of Anthemousias suggests a (relative) proximity to the Euphrates. Thus, Ammianus (14.3.3) says Anthemousias was close to the Euphrates (“ab Euphrate flumine brevi spatio disparatur”). Strabo (16.1.27) describes it as a place (τόπος) in Mesopotamia near which one could cross the Euphrates (ἡ μὲν οὖν διάβασις τοῦ Εὐφφράτου κατὰ τὴν Ἀνθεμουσίαν ἐστίν). For the identification of Batnai and Anthemousias and thence with Suruç see, for example, Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis 1:283–85; Ritter, Erdkunde 10:1118, 11:249; Chesney, Expedition 1:114; Müller in GGM 1:245–46; James, Dict. Geog. s.v. “Batnae”; Regling, Klio 1 (1901) 451–55; Streck, RE Suppl. I, s.v. “Anthemousia”; Fraenkel, RE s.v. “Batnai”; Dussaud, Topographie 480; Syme, Anatolica 107 n. 96; Gawlikowski in GHPO 81; T. Gnoli, Med. Ant. 2 (1999) 341–44; and Sartre, Alexandre 645 and n. 43, as well as other scholars cited in Bousdroukis, Recherches 78 and n. 16. For the identification of Batnai with Suruç in the Syriac texts see Assameni, Bibliotheca Orientalis 1:290, 2:321–22 (cf. Abbeloos, De Vita et Scriptis Sancti Jacobi 313). A major argument for the identification of Batnai and Anthemousias is the following: Isidore says the distance between APAMEIA and Anthemousias is 8 schoinoi. According to Gawlikowski (in GHPO 81), the distance as the crow flies between the Euphrates opposite Belkis (the site of ancient SELEUKEIA/Zeugma) and Suruç is 45 km. Chesney—who also equated Batnai with Suruç—estimated the distance from the Euphrates at Birecik (MAKEDONOUPOLIS) to Suruç to be 23 miles ( = c. 37 km) (Expedition 1:111, 114 and map I; Müller in GGM 1:246;