DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0114
23. MAGISTRATES AND OFFICIALS. 445
epistates, or Overseer of public works, no. 333, was probably named
for each special occasion1.
§ 24. Apameia in the Byzantine Period. When the province
Asia was divided by Diocletian, Apameia would naturally form part
of Phrygia Pacatiana ; but there is no evidence. In Hierocles Apameia
appears in Pisidia ; but this arrangement is not likely to be so old as
Diocletian. In 371-2, Pisidia lost a considerable territory, which was
taken from it to be part of the new province Lycaonia ; and it is
probable that some territory on the west, including Apameia, was then
added to it in order to maintain its importance as a province. We
may probably connect this transference with the honour paid to
Takina by Valens, 364-378, who granted it the title Valentia. The
Byzantine policy was to break up the territory of the great cities like
Apameia ; and moreover the causes described p. 369 must already
have affected the prosperity of the city, and benefited some of its
dependent villages such as Aurokra. It is probable, therefore, that
Valens divided the huge territory of Apameia, cut from it the city
Valentia on the one side, and the bishopric Aurokra on the other, and
attached the diminished Apameia to the province Pisidia.
• In the Byzantine Period Apameia practically disappears from history,
and seems to have sunk into a third or fourth rate city. Its decay is
a proof that no roads retained any real importance in that period
except such as radiated from Constantinople ; for any importance that
attached to the great highway between the Aegean coast and the
interior is concentrated at Apameia. Of the five routes that con-
verged at the city in the Roman period, three2 form part of the system
of roads connecting Constantinople with the southern districts; but
these three run more conveniently along the plain of Aurokra, on the
upper plateau ; and, though Apameia was so near that energy and
resource in the inhabitants might have enabled it to keep its hold on
the line of communication, yet these are the qualities which were
lacking in the Byzantine cities. Municipal enterprise and initiative
were discouraged by the whole character of government; and the cen-
tralized ecclesiastical system tended towards the same result. Every
one looked to Constantinople for guidance and protection.
As the three roads henceforth passed through Aurokra, it may be
expected that it should grow in importance ; and, even amid the
obscurity that envelops this region in the fourth and following
1 See p. 70 and BCH 1SS7 p. 100 yaylov.
ipyeTTi(jTaTr)v 'Eparav .... Kai oho- 2 Those numbered (2), (4), (5) on
(3atri\iKOv .... /ecu wapareiX'-a'H-aTOS ify"1" PP- 396 f.
epistates, or Overseer of public works, no. 333, was probably named
for each special occasion1.
§ 24. Apameia in the Byzantine Period. When the province
Asia was divided by Diocletian, Apameia would naturally form part
of Phrygia Pacatiana ; but there is no evidence. In Hierocles Apameia
appears in Pisidia ; but this arrangement is not likely to be so old as
Diocletian. In 371-2, Pisidia lost a considerable territory, which was
taken from it to be part of the new province Lycaonia ; and it is
probable that some territory on the west, including Apameia, was then
added to it in order to maintain its importance as a province. We
may probably connect this transference with the honour paid to
Takina by Valens, 364-378, who granted it the title Valentia. The
Byzantine policy was to break up the territory of the great cities like
Apameia ; and moreover the causes described p. 369 must already
have affected the prosperity of the city, and benefited some of its
dependent villages such as Aurokra. It is probable, therefore, that
Valens divided the huge territory of Apameia, cut from it the city
Valentia on the one side, and the bishopric Aurokra on the other, and
attached the diminished Apameia to the province Pisidia.
• In the Byzantine Period Apameia practically disappears from history,
and seems to have sunk into a third or fourth rate city. Its decay is
a proof that no roads retained any real importance in that period
except such as radiated from Constantinople ; for any importance that
attached to the great highway between the Aegean coast and the
interior is concentrated at Apameia. Of the five routes that con-
verged at the city in the Roman period, three2 form part of the system
of roads connecting Constantinople with the southern districts; but
these three run more conveniently along the plain of Aurokra, on the
upper plateau ; and, though Apameia was so near that energy and
resource in the inhabitants might have enabled it to keep its hold on
the line of communication, yet these are the qualities which were
lacking in the Byzantine cities. Municipal enterprise and initiative
were discouraged by the whole character of government; and the cen-
tralized ecclesiastical system tended towards the same result. Every
one looked to Constantinople for guidance and protection.
As the three roads henceforth passed through Aurokra, it may be
expected that it should grow in importance ; and, even amid the
obscurity that envelops this region in the fourth and following
1 See p. 70 and BCH 1SS7 p. 100 yaylov.
ipyeTTi(jTaTr)v 'Eparav .... Kai oho- 2 Those numbered (2), (4), (5) on
(3atri\iKOv .... /ecu wapareiX'-a'H-aTOS ify"1" PP- 396 f.