DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0228
202 V. PHRYGIAN CITIES OF THE LOWER MAEANDER.
three cases of the Actian era, one quoted p. 199 at Tralla1, one at Phila-
delpheia [WocAenschr. f. Klass. Pkilol. 1891 p. 1242, 1892 p. 22), and
perhaps one in the Kaystros valley (Buresch Ath. Mittk. 1894 p. 125, Ber.
Sachs. Gesettsck. 1892 p. 48 f, Kubitsehek-Reichel Wien. A/cad. Anz. Nov.
1893 p. 9).
It seems doubtful whether my critics have understood my position.
Dr. Kubitschek (Pauly's Real-Encgcl. s.v. Aera I p. 638) brings as argu-
ments against me cases of the Sullan era at Trajanopolis and Diokleia;
but these are in the strictest agreement with my statement2. One
example quoted by him would be clear against me, if his interpretation
is correct, an inscription of Teira dedicated to M. Aurelius Antoninus in
the year 261, which gives on the Sullan era a.d. 176-7. But it seems
quite possible that this city, like many in Syria, &c, would prefer to
date by the era of Caesar's triumph 48 b. c, so that the inscription was
dedicated in a.d. 213 to Caracalla. I see no reason to retract my
statement (save in one respect, see below). Dr. Kubitschek says that
I made my statement without proof. But I merely stated a fact:
I have not found this era used beyond the area stated, and I now
suspect that I allowed perhaps even too wide an area.
Why (my critics ask) should there be a special era used in Upper
Lydia and Phrygia ? I am not bound to explain that: I have shown
that four different eras at least were used in different parts of Asia ; and
that fact cannot be denied; but it is not incumbent on me also to show
why certain districts preferred the Actian era, and others the Asian
133 B.C. But it seems easy and natural to suppose that Sulla (or perhaps
still more his pro-quaestor Lucullus) made far more changes in the upper
country than in the coast-valleys. Moreover Phrygia Magna at least
was precluded from using the Asian era 133, for it belonged to the Pontic
kings long after that year 8.
Thyateira occur various dated inscrip- in dating; and M. Radet's reading
tions (Radet BCH 1887 pp. 470-2, of 11 (Aur. Apollonides, anno 98) is not
450-1), but their era remains uncertain, likely.
In nos. 10, 11, p. 450-1, either the tran- ' Unless it ought to be dated from
scription or the copy must be modified. 48 B. c, see next paragraph.
Accepting as correct M. Radet's copy 2 The era ' is confined to Phrygia and
I should read 10 (tov(s) pyr) and 11 the eastern parts of Lydia.'
'irov(s) a-yn ; M. Radet on the other hand 8 In every eastern province where
changes his copy in his transcription dates are frequent numerous eras were
of 10, and his text makes the era 85-4 in use. Why should we assume that
impossible, while my reading leaves it every uncertain era in Asia is the
possible and even probable. The form Sullan ? It would be more scientific to
£TOY, indeed, is elsewhere unknown take district by district, and seek in
to me ; but variations are common each for some determining inscription.
three cases of the Actian era, one quoted p. 199 at Tralla1, one at Phila-
delpheia [WocAenschr. f. Klass. Pkilol. 1891 p. 1242, 1892 p. 22), and
perhaps one in the Kaystros valley (Buresch Ath. Mittk. 1894 p. 125, Ber.
Sachs. Gesettsck. 1892 p. 48 f, Kubitsehek-Reichel Wien. A/cad. Anz. Nov.
1893 p. 9).
It seems doubtful whether my critics have understood my position.
Dr. Kubitschek (Pauly's Real-Encgcl. s.v. Aera I p. 638) brings as argu-
ments against me cases of the Sullan era at Trajanopolis and Diokleia;
but these are in the strictest agreement with my statement2. One
example quoted by him would be clear against me, if his interpretation
is correct, an inscription of Teira dedicated to M. Aurelius Antoninus in
the year 261, which gives on the Sullan era a.d. 176-7. But it seems
quite possible that this city, like many in Syria, &c, would prefer to
date by the era of Caesar's triumph 48 b. c, so that the inscription was
dedicated in a.d. 213 to Caracalla. I see no reason to retract my
statement (save in one respect, see below). Dr. Kubitschek says that
I made my statement without proof. But I merely stated a fact:
I have not found this era used beyond the area stated, and I now
suspect that I allowed perhaps even too wide an area.
Why (my critics ask) should there be a special era used in Upper
Lydia and Phrygia ? I am not bound to explain that: I have shown
that four different eras at least were used in different parts of Asia ; and
that fact cannot be denied; but it is not incumbent on me also to show
why certain districts preferred the Actian era, and others the Asian
133 B.C. But it seems easy and natural to suppose that Sulla (or perhaps
still more his pro-quaestor Lucullus) made far more changes in the upper
country than in the coast-valleys. Moreover Phrygia Magna at least
was precluded from using the Asian era 133, for it belonged to the Pontic
kings long after that year 8.
Thyateira occur various dated inscrip- in dating; and M. Radet's reading
tions (Radet BCH 1887 pp. 470-2, of 11 (Aur. Apollonides, anno 98) is not
450-1), but their era remains uncertain, likely.
In nos. 10, 11, p. 450-1, either the tran- ' Unless it ought to be dated from
scription or the copy must be modified. 48 B. c, see next paragraph.
Accepting as correct M. Radet's copy 2 The era ' is confined to Phrygia and
I should read 10 (tov(s) pyr) and 11 the eastern parts of Lydia.'
'irov(s) a-yn ; M. Radet on the other hand 8 In every eastern province where
changes his copy in his transcription dates are frequent numerous eras were
of 10, and his text makes the era 85-4 in use. Why should we assume that
impossible, while my reading leaves it every uncertain era in Asia is the
possible and even probable. The form Sullan ? It would be more scientific to
£TOY, indeed, is elsewhere unknown take district by district, and seek in
to me ; but variations are common each for some determining inscription.