DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0342
3l6 IX. PHRYGIAN CITIES ON PISIDIAN FRONTIER.
APPENDIX II.
PHEYGIA TOWARDS PISIDIA (Strab. pp. 576, 577, 569, Polyb. 22, 5, 14).
§ 1. Pisidian Phrygia indicates a district which Ptolemy V 5, 4,
{Add. 40), considers to be originally a part of Phrygia, now reckoned to
Pisidia. In a strict sense this term should include the entire country
which was Phrygian in early time and Pisidian in later time. Pisidian
Antioch1 and the country south from it as far as the frontier of the
Orondian country, the north coast of the Limnai, the valley of Apollonia
and Talbonda, ought to form part of it; but Ptolemy's list omits several
of these parts. He puts Talbonda (Tymandos)2 in Pisidia proper and
Apollonia in Galatia 3, yet assigns the valleys to the south with Seleuceia,
Konana, Baris, and Lysinia, to Pisidian Phrygia4. His intention, how-
ever, seems to have been to apply the term Pisidian Phrygia to the
districts enumerated, along with the valley of Seleuceia, Konana, Minas-
sos, and Baris, and the Askanian lake district; but he failed to carry
out his intention perfectly, as was inevitable in his circumstances. He
used some Roman lists, e. g. in maritime Pamphylia and Cilicia ; but
he has given them in a contaminated form. The reason is that they
belonged to the first century (which implies that he could not go directly
to official sources, but used them as worked up by an older authority);
and they gave Pisidia as part of prov. Galatia. Ptolemy had to adapt
them to his own time, when most of Pisidia had been transferred to
prov. Pamphylia; and in this attempt he made several mistakes. He
seems also to have used a list of Pisidia as a whole, apparently by some
Greek (probably pre-Roman) authority. He had also lists of districts
into which the Roman provinces were divided. If he had given his
various lists side by side he would have been more useful to us; but
1 tt6\k >S>pvyiaKq Strab. p. 577. puts in Galatia, though it was certainly
2 Talbonda and Tymandos identical, in the Triple Eparcheia from about 138
see Hist. Geogr. p. 402, CIL III 6866. onwards, as its inscriptions prove) ;
3 This is strange : if they are not in whereas an error about the obscure
prov. Galatia, they ought both to be in Talbonda is natural from the way in
Pisidian Phrygia. I am not aware that which his list of Pisidia was made,
decisive proof can be given whether Apollonia was Phrygian Strab. p. 576.
Apollonia was retained in Galatia after i Besides this in Pisidian Phrygia he
a. d. 74 or assigned to Pamphylia ; but has Antiocheia, Palaion Beudos, and
we must follow Ptolemy's authority about Kormasa, i.e. Pisidian Antioch the
so important a city until definite proof Roman colony, Bindaion or Vinda (§ 5 ;
is found that he is wrong (though he Hist. Oeogi: p. 405), and Kormasa near
makes a mistake about Isaura, which he Lysinia (§ 6).
APPENDIX II.
PHEYGIA TOWARDS PISIDIA (Strab. pp. 576, 577, 569, Polyb. 22, 5, 14).
§ 1. Pisidian Phrygia indicates a district which Ptolemy V 5, 4,
{Add. 40), considers to be originally a part of Phrygia, now reckoned to
Pisidia. In a strict sense this term should include the entire country
which was Phrygian in early time and Pisidian in later time. Pisidian
Antioch1 and the country south from it as far as the frontier of the
Orondian country, the north coast of the Limnai, the valley of Apollonia
and Talbonda, ought to form part of it; but Ptolemy's list omits several
of these parts. He puts Talbonda (Tymandos)2 in Pisidia proper and
Apollonia in Galatia 3, yet assigns the valleys to the south with Seleuceia,
Konana, Baris, and Lysinia, to Pisidian Phrygia4. His intention, how-
ever, seems to have been to apply the term Pisidian Phrygia to the
districts enumerated, along with the valley of Seleuceia, Konana, Minas-
sos, and Baris, and the Askanian lake district; but he failed to carry
out his intention perfectly, as was inevitable in his circumstances. He
used some Roman lists, e. g. in maritime Pamphylia and Cilicia ; but
he has given them in a contaminated form. The reason is that they
belonged to the first century (which implies that he could not go directly
to official sources, but used them as worked up by an older authority);
and they gave Pisidia as part of prov. Galatia. Ptolemy had to adapt
them to his own time, when most of Pisidia had been transferred to
prov. Pamphylia; and in this attempt he made several mistakes. He
seems also to have used a list of Pisidia as a whole, apparently by some
Greek (probably pre-Roman) authority. He had also lists of districts
into which the Roman provinces were divided. If he had given his
various lists side by side he would have been more useful to us; but
1 tt6\k >S>pvyiaKq Strab. p. 577. puts in Galatia, though it was certainly
2 Talbonda and Tymandos identical, in the Triple Eparcheia from about 138
see Hist. Geogr. p. 402, CIL III 6866. onwards, as its inscriptions prove) ;
3 This is strange : if they are not in whereas an error about the obscure
prov. Galatia, they ought both to be in Talbonda is natural from the way in
Pisidian Phrygia. I am not aware that which his list of Pisidia was made,
decisive proof can be given whether Apollonia was Phrygian Strab. p. 576.
Apollonia was retained in Galatia after i Besides this in Pisidian Phrygia he
a. d. 74 or assigned to Pamphylia ; but has Antiocheia, Palaion Beudos, and
we must follow Ptolemy's authority about Kormasa, i.e. Pisidian Antioch the
so important a city until definite proof Roman colony, Bindaion or Vinda (§ 5 ;
is found that he is wrong (though he Hist. Oeogi: p. 405), and Kormasa near
makes a mistake about Isaura, which he Lysinia (§ 6).