DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0151
482 XI. A PAM EI A.
Polybius (from whom Livy borrowed) used. But AvpoKp-qval UrjyaC are
obviously the Fountains of Aurokra; and it would be perverse to dis-
tinguish the bishopric of Aurokra-Aurokla-Aulokra from the Aurokra-
Aulokra which gave its name to the fountains.
The sole reason that M. Radet gives for denying this identification is
that the Apamean and Metropolitan Plains were assigned to Pisidia, and
therefore the plain of Aulokrene, which lies between them must also have
been in Pisidia. But this argument is very weak. (1) The boundary
between two provinces is often very irregular j and it is often difficult to
give a good reason why a district was assigned to one province rather
than to another, (2) Moreover, if the theory stated on p. 445 as to the
extension of Pisidia in a. d. 372 to include Apameia is correct, we can
understand how the frontier that resulted from the operation was irregular
at this point. (3) Finally it is not necessary to suppose that the bishopric
Aurokra included the whole of the valley. The valley extends well up
to the north and is divided from the Pentapolis by undulating ground,
over which easy carriage roads can be carried at almost any point.
I have always supposed that the centre of population was at Bei-Keui,
where the only inscriptions of the valley were found; and that the
northern part of the valley was classed in Salutaris with the Pentapolis,
while the southern part with the lake and the fountains continued subject
to Apameia (as it certainly was when Maximus Tyrius visited the lake
and springs). Already in the map accompanying my paper JHS 188
the boundary between Salutaris and Pisidia is marked in this way.
The frontier between Byzantine provinces often crosses the middle of
a valley.
APPENDIX IV.
BISHOPS OF APAMEIA-KELAINAI AND AUROKBA.
i. Julianus acted in company with Zoticus of Comama (Conana?)
against the Montanists about a. d. 180-90, Euseb. II.E. V 16.
2. Tharsicius Apamenus 325. Le Quien attributes to Apameia Kibotos
(which he wrongly gives as a separate bishopric under Phrygia Pacatiana)
Paulus Apamenus or Apameensis (classed to Phrygia) who was also
present at this Council, and who must probably be bishop of Apia or
Appia (on p. 1045 he suggests Acmoniensis for Apameensis, but Apia-
nensis seems the easiest correction).
3. Theodoulos, who signed the will of Gregory Nazianzen, was perhaps
Polybius (from whom Livy borrowed) used. But AvpoKp-qval UrjyaC are
obviously the Fountains of Aurokra; and it would be perverse to dis-
tinguish the bishopric of Aurokra-Aurokla-Aulokra from the Aurokra-
Aulokra which gave its name to the fountains.
The sole reason that M. Radet gives for denying this identification is
that the Apamean and Metropolitan Plains were assigned to Pisidia, and
therefore the plain of Aulokrene, which lies between them must also have
been in Pisidia. But this argument is very weak. (1) The boundary
between two provinces is often very irregular j and it is often difficult to
give a good reason why a district was assigned to one province rather
than to another, (2) Moreover, if the theory stated on p. 445 as to the
extension of Pisidia in a. d. 372 to include Apameia is correct, we can
understand how the frontier that resulted from the operation was irregular
at this point. (3) Finally it is not necessary to suppose that the bishopric
Aurokra included the whole of the valley. The valley extends well up
to the north and is divided from the Pentapolis by undulating ground,
over which easy carriage roads can be carried at almost any point.
I have always supposed that the centre of population was at Bei-Keui,
where the only inscriptions of the valley were found; and that the
northern part of the valley was classed in Salutaris with the Pentapolis,
while the southern part with the lake and the fountains continued subject
to Apameia (as it certainly was when Maximus Tyrius visited the lake
and springs). Already in the map accompanying my paper JHS 188
the boundary between Salutaris and Pisidia is marked in this way.
The frontier between Byzantine provinces often crosses the middle of
a valley.
APPENDIX IV.
BISHOPS OF APAMEIA-KELAINAI AND AUROKBA.
i. Julianus acted in company with Zoticus of Comama (Conana?)
against the Montanists about a. d. 180-90, Euseb. II.E. V 16.
2. Tharsicius Apamenus 325. Le Quien attributes to Apameia Kibotos
(which he wrongly gives as a separate bishopric under Phrygia Pacatiana)
Paulus Apamenus or Apameensis (classed to Phrygia) who was also
present at this Council, and who must probably be bishop of Apia or
Appia (on p. 1045 he suggests Acmoniensis for Apameensis, but Apia-
nensis seems the easiest correction).
3. Theodoulos, who signed the will of Gregory Nazianzen, was perhaps