DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0247
578 XIII. THE BANAZ-OVA.
Writing in 1883, I inferred from Hierocles that the territory of
Bria lay between Banaz-Tchai, Burgas-Dagh, the Eumenian valley,
and Tchal-Ova; and, as the only remains of ancient life in that wide
district were situated near Sarikli and Karib-Hassan, I supposed that
the city which owned that territory was situated there. But we have
now seen reason to conclude that there must have been two cities in
that large district; and, as Bepouza occupied the SW. part of it. we
must give the NE. to Bria. M. Kadet has independently reached the
same conclusion about Bria, and approximates to this localization of
Bepouza1.
As to the history or antiquities of Bria nothing is known, except
that on coins of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna the name of
CTP Arrj-yov AnOA[A.Q]N IOY occurs.
In the earlier Notitlae the name Bria is usually corrupted to'iKpia,
with prothetic iota, and the clerical error K for B ; but some MSS.
which I have collated read 'Ifipias. The form ' iKpias coming imme-
diately before 'l\ov(a>v in Not. I has caused the latter bishopric to be
corrupted in one MS. into Kapias2.
Hierocles mentions both Bepouza and Bria: the earlier Notitlae
mention only Bria, and omit Bepouza: the later mention the latter
alone (under the new name Justinianopolis) and omit Bria. Must we
not infer from this that there was only one bishop for the entire
district of Bepouza and Bria, and the earlier system gave precedence
to Bria (doubtless from hatred of Bepouza the nest of heretics), while
the system of Leo gave precedence to Justinianopolis %
Justinianopolis is always united in the same bishopric with Oiko-
kome. Can we look for the latter near Bria, understanding that Bria
was in a higher position on Burgas-Dagh, and Oikokome in the
plain? As to the origin of the name, it appears in the forms OIko-
Kdo/xr], OUovofiov, and OlvoKa>firi: may we not infer from these variants
that the full name was eh ttjv OiKovofiov Ka>p.r}v1 Evidence may be
discovered to prove or disprove these suggestions, which are purely
hypothetical as yet.
In these identifications I have returned to my original view, as
shown in the table attached to my CB part 13, where Justinianopolis
1 My identifications are published in his edition of Georg. Cypr. also gives
vol. I pp. 244 f. M. Radet's appeared the true reading. This false reading
almost simultaneously in his EnPhrygie Kapias has given rise to some vain
p. 112. imaginings in M. Radet's always inge-
2 Parthey prints it so in his text, but nious mind (see Rev. des Univ. du Midi
gives the true reading from a better 1896 p. 7).
MS. in his appendix p. 319. Gelzer in 3 See JHS 1883 p. 373 : above § 2.
Writing in 1883, I inferred from Hierocles that the territory of
Bria lay between Banaz-Tchai, Burgas-Dagh, the Eumenian valley,
and Tchal-Ova; and, as the only remains of ancient life in that wide
district were situated near Sarikli and Karib-Hassan, I supposed that
the city which owned that territory was situated there. But we have
now seen reason to conclude that there must have been two cities in
that large district; and, as Bepouza occupied the SW. part of it. we
must give the NE. to Bria. M. Kadet has independently reached the
same conclusion about Bria, and approximates to this localization of
Bepouza1.
As to the history or antiquities of Bria nothing is known, except
that on coins of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna the name of
CTP Arrj-yov AnOA[A.Q]N IOY occurs.
In the earlier Notitlae the name Bria is usually corrupted to'iKpia,
with prothetic iota, and the clerical error K for B ; but some MSS.
which I have collated read 'Ifipias. The form ' iKpias coming imme-
diately before 'l\ov(a>v in Not. I has caused the latter bishopric to be
corrupted in one MS. into Kapias2.
Hierocles mentions both Bepouza and Bria: the earlier Notitlae
mention only Bria, and omit Bepouza: the later mention the latter
alone (under the new name Justinianopolis) and omit Bria. Must we
not infer from this that there was only one bishop for the entire
district of Bepouza and Bria, and the earlier system gave precedence
to Bria (doubtless from hatred of Bepouza the nest of heretics), while
the system of Leo gave precedence to Justinianopolis %
Justinianopolis is always united in the same bishopric with Oiko-
kome. Can we look for the latter near Bria, understanding that Bria
was in a higher position on Burgas-Dagh, and Oikokome in the
plain? As to the origin of the name, it appears in the forms OIko-
Kdo/xr], OUovofiov, and OlvoKa>firi: may we not infer from these variants
that the full name was eh ttjv OiKovofiov Ka>p.r}v1 Evidence may be
discovered to prove or disprove these suggestions, which are purely
hypothetical as yet.
In these identifications I have returned to my original view, as
shown in the table attached to my CB part 13, where Justinianopolis
1 My identifications are published in his edition of Georg. Cypr. also gives
vol. I pp. 244 f. M. Radet's appeared the true reading. This false reading
almost simultaneously in his EnPhrygie Kapias has given rise to some vain
p. 112. imaginings in M. Radet's always inge-
2 Parthey prints it so in his text, but nious mind (see Rev. des Univ. du Midi
gives the true reading from a better 1896 p. 7).
MS. in his appendix p. 319. Gelzer in 3 See JHS 1883 p. 373 : above § 2.