DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0323
6. TAKIN A. 297
strike coins not later than Trajan, and "was an important place in the
Byzantine period. See also Ch. IV § 2.
§ 7. Valentia is mentioned only in Hierocles, at the Council of
Ephesos 431 A.D. where its bishop Evagrius was deposed, and at the
second Nicene Council 787, where it was represented by the bishop
Pantaleon. Hierocles puts it between Themisonion and Sanaos ; and
his order in this part of his list suggests that Valentia is on the south
frontier, and that the list then goes northward to Sanaos and Diony-
sopolis. We might for a moment hesitate between two sites, viz.
Yarashli among the tribe Takineis, and Karamanli (or Tefeni) among
the tribe Ormeleis1 : but as the latter was certainly in Byzantine
Pamphylia, we must look for Valentia at Yarashli. Valentia then
was the town in the S.E. corner of Pacatiana.
Valentia as being a bishopric in 431 and 787 should have a place in
the Notitiae JEpiscopatuwm; but it nowhere appears in them. This
omission must be explained by one or other of two causes2, either
Valentia bore also another name under which it appears in the Notitiae,
or it was included in a double bishopric along with another city
(Ch. V, App. V). The former explanation cannot be applied here
(as any one may convince himself by going over the list); and we
must have recourse to the second. Valentia, then, was apparently
united in the same bishopric with another town of southern Paca-
tiana, i.e. either with Themisonion, or Keretapa, or Sanaos. Distance
puts Themisonion out of the question; it was united with Agathe-
Kome. Keretapa had a different bishop both in 431 and in 787, and
is therefore also out of the question. But Sanaos is mentioned by
Hierocles next to Valentia; and we have found that they adjoined
each other. We may therefore fairly suppose that Hierocles had
access to an authority in which 6 e7ricrKOTros OvaXevTias kcu Zavaov
was mentioned, and he puts them side by side in his list.
A further reason for the union of Valentia and Sanaos lies in their
relation to Apameia. The district of Milyas was bounded on the
north-west and north by Sagalassos and Apameia (Strab. p. 631).
Now the territory along the south-east and south of lake Askania
(Buldur lake) belonged to Sagalassos (no. 165), and the only point
where Milyas could touch Apameia was between Sagalassos and
Keretapa, i. e. the district of Phrygia inhabited by the Takineis. The
1 Elyes or Ilias would not suit; it 2 In one or two Notitiae accidental
would be difficult to allow that it could omission might be a sufficient expla-
be included in Pacatiana when Apameia nation ; but this cannot be admitted
was in Pisidia. where all Notitiae of every class agree.
strike coins not later than Trajan, and "was an important place in the
Byzantine period. See also Ch. IV § 2.
§ 7. Valentia is mentioned only in Hierocles, at the Council of
Ephesos 431 A.D. where its bishop Evagrius was deposed, and at the
second Nicene Council 787, where it was represented by the bishop
Pantaleon. Hierocles puts it between Themisonion and Sanaos ; and
his order in this part of his list suggests that Valentia is on the south
frontier, and that the list then goes northward to Sanaos and Diony-
sopolis. We might for a moment hesitate between two sites, viz.
Yarashli among the tribe Takineis, and Karamanli (or Tefeni) among
the tribe Ormeleis1 : but as the latter was certainly in Byzantine
Pamphylia, we must look for Valentia at Yarashli. Valentia then
was the town in the S.E. corner of Pacatiana.
Valentia as being a bishopric in 431 and 787 should have a place in
the Notitiae JEpiscopatuwm; but it nowhere appears in them. This
omission must be explained by one or other of two causes2, either
Valentia bore also another name under which it appears in the Notitiae,
or it was included in a double bishopric along with another city
(Ch. V, App. V). The former explanation cannot be applied here
(as any one may convince himself by going over the list); and we
must have recourse to the second. Valentia, then, was apparently
united in the same bishopric with another town of southern Paca-
tiana, i.e. either with Themisonion, or Keretapa, or Sanaos. Distance
puts Themisonion out of the question; it was united with Agathe-
Kome. Keretapa had a different bishop both in 431 and in 787, and
is therefore also out of the question. But Sanaos is mentioned by
Hierocles next to Valentia; and we have found that they adjoined
each other. We may therefore fairly suppose that Hierocles had
access to an authority in which 6 e7ricrKOTros OvaXevTias kcu Zavaov
was mentioned, and he puts them side by side in his list.
A further reason for the union of Valentia and Sanaos lies in their
relation to Apameia. The district of Milyas was bounded on the
north-west and north by Sagalassos and Apameia (Strab. p. 631).
Now the territory along the south-east and south of lake Askania
(Buldur lake) belonged to Sagalassos (no. 165), and the only point
where Milyas could touch Apameia was between Sagalassos and
Keretapa, i. e. the district of Phrygia inhabited by the Takineis. The
1 Elyes or Ilias would not suit; it 2 In one or two Notitiae accidental
would be difficult to allow that it could omission might be a sufficient expla-
be included in Pacatiana when Apameia nation ; but this cannot be admitted
was in Pisidia. where all Notitiae of every class agree.