No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
The site of the Cilician city known during the period of the Roman Empire as Caesarea, Caesarea by Anazarbus, or Anazarbus, is some 28 km. south of Kozan in the Turkish province of Seyhan. The place still retains its name as Anavarza, a hamlet built just outside the walls of the ancient city.
The choice of Anazarbus as a subject for research may seem to require some explanation. It was never one of the great cities of antiquity; indeed it is not yet certain that it even existed before the 1st century B.C. It never received more than scant notice from ancient authorities, while modern travellers, hampered by bad communications, a difficult climate, and a lawless population, were unable to spend more than a day or two at the site and consequently could not give more than a general idea of its monuments.
In 1949, as Scholar of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, I had decided to study the Classical architecture of Cilicia, and at the same time to collect information on the many mediaeval castles in the district.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1952
References
2 Bossert, , Belleten, Vol. XIV, p. 665 ffGoogle Scholar.
3 “De Tarse à Trebizonde, fragment d'un journal de voyage, juin 1836,” Revue française, V, 1838Google Scholar.
4 Ainsworth, W. F., A Personal Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition, I, London, 1888, pp. 121, 169, 174Google Scholar.
5 Lares et Penates, London, 1853, pp. 54–56Google Scholar.
6 pp. 434–443.
7 LIAT, pp. 138–150; (for abbreviations used see p. 150 below).
8 Nos. 1513–1518.
9 Ramsay, , Journal of Philology, XI, 1882, pp. 142–160Google Scholar.
10 JHS, XI, 1890, pp. 231–233Google Scholar. For inscriptions, see pp. 238–242.
11 RK, pp. 34–38.
12 Schaffer, , Petermanns Mitteilungen Erganzungsheft, Nr. 114, Gotha, 1903, pp. 5, 41–43Google Scholar.
13 RA, jan.-fév. 1906, pp. 12–29.
14 Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Instituts, XVIII, Beiblatt, 1915, pp. 55–58Google Scholar.
15 King, , Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, XXIV, 1937, pp. 234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 IX, 195.
17 Chronographia, X.
18 Provinzeinteilung des Assyrischen Reiches, Leipzig, 1921, p. 90Google Scholar.
19 Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient Records of Assyria, II, Chicago, 1926, pp. 206, 212, 218Google Scholar.
20 Geography, XIV, 10.
21 Glotta, XXI, 1933, p. 235Google Scholar.
22 IGR,. I, 72.
23 Op. cit., p. 81.
24 Chronographia, X.
25 Lexicon, Άνάζαρβος.
26 De Urbibus, Άνάζαρβα.
27 Cumont, F., Mystères de Mithra, Brussels, 1900, pp. 54, 59Google Scholar.
28 BMC, ciii.
29 For Adana, see BMC, xci, pp. 15–16, Pl. III, 4; Mallus; p. 101, Pl. XVII, 10; Hieropolis Castabala; ci, p. 82, Pl. XIV, 1–2.
30 CERP, p. 203; but Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton, 1950, p. 1241Google Scholar, suggests that Tarcondimotus' port was on the Gulf of Issus.
31 IGR, III, 895; Jahresh., XVIII, Beiblatt, 1915, pp. 57–58Google Scholar.
32 The limits of the kingdom are not yet known. For a discussion of the problem, CERP, pp. 203–204. There is one inscription from Pisidian Antioch, JRS, 1912, p. 108.
33 Flaviopolis did not, of course, exist under the native kingdom, but the area later occupied and controlled by the city may have been subject to the dynasty. For inscriptions bearing the name Tarcondimotus (as applied to those who were not members of the royal house), see RK, p. 36, no. 87; Bossert, H. Th. and Alkim, U. B., Karatepe, Second Preliminary Report, Istanbul, 1947, XXXVI, no. 187Google Scholar; XXXVII, no. 202; below, pp. 142, 146.
34 CERP, p. 205.
35 BMC, p. 238, Pl. XXXIX, 9. I saw a very good specimen of one of these coins at Tozlu, 5 km. from Anavarza. It had been found in the village.
36 The foundation dates of these two cities are established by the era dates on their coinage. There has been considerable controversy about the site of Irenopolis, and doubts have been expressed about there having been an Eastern Cilician town of that name. Henri Seyrig, “Irenopolis—Neronias—Sepphoris,” Num. Chron., 39–40, 1950, p. 288, n. 9 and Postscript, seems satisfactorily to dispose of such doubts.
37 Hill, G. F. in BMC, ciiiGoogle Scholar, states that the attribution to Anazarbus of coins bearing the head of Claudius and the legend Καισαρέων is uncertain. The reverse type of Tyche sitting on a rock seems suitable enough however; and the curious letter after the word ἒτους, which looks like an epsilon with four horizontal strokes, might possibly be a bungled attempt at a ξ. If it is, the date of the coin—60 of the Anazarbene era—would correspond to A.D. 41. CERP, p. 204, accepts it. Argument seems superfluous, however, in view of the coin published in Num. Chron., XX, 1940, p. 240. This shows the head of Augustus on the obverse, and the legend Καισαρέων τῶν πρὸς Αναζάρ. on the reverse. There is no era date.
38 JHS, XI, 1890, p. 233.
39 Ibid., p. 236 ff.
40 RK, pp. 32–33.
41 Bossert an d Alkim, op. cit., Figs. 39, 45, 178a and b; also RK, p. 32, nos. 74, 78; p. 33, nos. 83, 84.
42 Two Greek inscriptions have been recorded there, but neither of them is of any great importance. See Yorke, V. W., JHS, XVIII, 1898, p. 310, no. 10Google Scholar; p. 311, no. 11.
43 To be published in a forthcoming issue of Belleten. See Appdx. ‘A,’ no. 1.
44 Jahresh., XVIII, Beiblatt, Vienna, 1915, pp. 55–56Google Scholar.
45 For epigraphic evidence, see IGR, III, 916, 923, 924.
46 Adana, Aegeae, Anazarbus, Augusta, Epiphanea, Irenopolis, Mallus and Tarsus all use either one or both. For refs., see BMC, Index II A, p. 251.
47 See n. 24 above.
48 See below, p. 148.
49 JHS, XI, 1890, p. 238Google Scholar, no. 4.
50 XXXIV, 21–23.
51 JHS, XI, 1890, p. 240Google Scholar, no. 8.
52 BMC, cxi.
53 Ibid., Pl. V, 10; Pl. VI, 4. For the reverse type of Zeus in front of the acropolis rock, see Imhoof Blumer, JHS, XVIII, 1898, p. 162, no. 4.
54 BMC, pp. 183–230.
55 Ibid., cxi.
56 Ibid., cxiv.
57 See below, pp. 137, 143. The title is, of course, one which occurs in abbreviated form on the reverse of a coin of Diadumenian as ῾Ρωμ. τροπ. κ.ε.κ. See BMC, p. 34, no. 16; PL. VI, 4.
58 See below, p. 130, no. 2.
59 See below, p. 128, no. 1.
60 BCH, VII, 1883, p. 282Google Scholar.
61 For titles of Tarsus, see Frank, Tenney, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV, Baltimore, 1938, p. 743Google Scholar.
62 P-W, Supplement, Heft i, p. 79, under Anazarbus.
63 BMC, p. 34, no. 20. For the demiurgia of Alexander Severus at Tarsus, see BMC, p. 202, no. 211. This was surely a reply in kind to the rival city.
64 For Shapur's invasion of Cilicia, see Magie, , Roman Rule in Asia Minor, II, Princeton, 1950, p. 1569Google Scholar.
65 Acta Sanctorum, Octobris, V, pp. 566£584.
66 Harnack, A., Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, II, Leipzig, 1904, p. 479, n. 5Google Scholar; also see Delahaye, H., Les Legendes hagiographiques, Brussels, 1927, p. 114Google Scholar.
67 To be published in a forthcoming issue of Belleten. See Appdx. ‘A,’ no. 2.
68 Life of Theodosius the Younger, Chronographia, XIV.
69 Not yet published.
70 Procopius, , Hist. Sec., XVIII, 10Google Scholar; Malalas, , Chronographia, XVIIGoogle Scholar; Cedrenus (Venice edition, 1729), p. 288; Theophanes (Venice edition, 1729), p. 117. At the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 553, Anazarbus was represented as Justinianopolis.
71 My authorities for the Arab and Armenian periods at Anazarbus are unfortunately, but unavoidably, at second-hand. I have made use of Lestrange, G., Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Gambridge, 1930, pp. 129–131, 140–141Google Scholar; The Cambridge Medieval History; and King, E. H., “A Journey through Armenian Cilicia,” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, XXIV, 1937, pp. 234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 My thanks are due to Dr. D. S. Rice of the London School of Oriental and African Studies who read my squeeze of this inscription.
73 Leo the Deacon, Historiæ, III.
74 A Personal Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition, I, London, 1888, p. 121Google Scholar.
75 See below, p. 140.
76 See below, p. 137.
77 Journal of Philology, XI, 1882, p. 157, no. 18Google Scholar.
78 See below, p. 137.
79 See below, p. 143.
80 RK, p. 36, no. 86.
81 First recorded by Bent in JHS, XI, 1890, p. 240, no. 7Google Scholar.
82 Ibid., p. 232.
83 Cp. a fragmentary relief of a figure standing on a sphinx published by Alkım, U. Bahadır, “Karatepe: Third Campaign,” Belleten, Vol. XIV, no. 56 (October, 1950), Pl. LXXGoogle Scholar.
84 LIAT, p. 91.
85 RK, p. 35.
86 BMC, p. 185, nos. 137, 138; p. 191, nos. 165, 166.
87 Ibid., p. 33, nos. 12, 13. A later coin of Julia Mamaea which makes use of the same reverse type, might suggest that Anazarbus had a temple of the κοινόν during the 3rd century; but there is no title of the Tarsian type in the legend of the coin in question, and Anazarbus was never backward with her claims at this time.
88 LIAT, pp. 149–150.
89 JHS, XI, 1890, p. 232Google Scholar.
90 RK, p. 35.
91 See below, p. 137.
92 VC, pp. 440–443.
93 LIAT, p. 148.
94 RA, jan.-fév. 1906, pp. 24–28.
95 LIAT p. 145.
96 JHS, XI, 1890, p. 231Google Scholar.
97 RK, p. 35.
98 RA, jan.-fév. 1906, p. 21.
99 Ibid., and also her Fig. 19, which does not, however, show the whole inscription.
100 Ibid., pp. 21–22.
101 See below, p. 117.
102 RK, p. 36., no 86.
103 RA, jan.-fév. 1906, pp. 15–19.
104 Ibid., p. 19, Fig. 15.
105 Diehl, C., Manuel d'art byzantin, Paris, 1910, p. 91Google Scholar.
106 RA., Jan.-fév. 1906.
107 VC, p. 43. Also see Langlois, V., Inscriptions grecques, romaines, byzantines et armeniennes de la Cilicie, Paris, 1854, pp. 16–17Google Scholar.
108 RA, jan.-fév. 1906, p. 26, Figs. 21, 23.
109 RA, p. 37.
110 I am indebted to Mrs. Seton Lloyd for pointing out this fresco, which had never before been noticed or recorded.
- 32
- Cited by