DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0254
6. THE KOMAI OF SEBASTE.
585
respect. I was of opinion, that the name cannot in our present state of
knowledge be recovered1: he considers that this old city and later
village was Alydda (Aloudda) of the Peutinger Table and the Anon.
Eavennas. It seems to me, however, that there is reason to place
Aloudda a little further to the west, § 7, and to give a different name
to this site 2.
The inscriptions in this place would probably reward a more careful
search than I could make in 1883 3. Among the few which I copied
we have examples from the last century B.C., the reign of Tiberius,
and the third century p. C, no. 500 ff.
§ 7. Aloudda. The Peutinger Table mentions a town Aludda: the
true form of this name is probably Aloudda, corresponding to Klan-
noudda and Attoudda4, and in later time the spelling Alouda (like
Attouda) probably came into use. Now in the Byzantine lists we
find a bishopric Elouza or Ilouza. Considering the examples which
we find of forms with d alternating with forms containing z5, I can
see no reason to doubt that Alouda and Elouza are the same place °.
The form Elaza also occurs in Notitia III: it is probably a dialectic
variety similar to those mentioned in § 2 (Pouza-Pazon, &c).
Elouza is mentioned by Hierocles between Sebaste and Akmonia,
1 As a heading for the section in CB,
I used the term Palaeo-Sebaste, expect-
ing that this would be understood as
'the anonymous town which was sup-
planted by Sebaste.' It has,' however,
led some critics to understand that I
fancied this to be the name applied to
the site under the Empire. I have
therefore refrained from using the
name; but my theory remainsunchanged.
2 The conjecture may be permitted
that this is the Katoikia Le[onna] of
no. 480. See § 15.
3 I went out from Sebaste in the fore-
noon ; and had to return in time to
make a long ride to the south. The
consequence was that much was left
undone both there and at Burgas : see
§3-
i Attoudda on the earliest coins, At-
touda on later: Klannoudda on the
rare coins (all early). On the Table
Aludda and Clanudda are the forms.
I do not know why M. Badet uses the
form Alydda, which is justified by no
analog)' known to me (see p. 617). He
also speaks of Clannuda. These two
wrong spellings obscure the arguments
that tell for my theory, and they have
probably weighed with him uncon-
sciousl}' in rejecting it.
5 See p. 293, and above, § 2: we find
Sebadios and Sabazios, Zizimene and
Dindymene, Nazianzos and Nadiandos
(Hist. Geogr. pp. 285, 348, Mitth. Ath.
1888 p. 237).
0 M. Badet differs to a slight extent:
he holds that the names are different
and denote different places, but Alouda
was only two miles from Elouza; that
the Byzantine bishopric corresponded
in every respect except name to the
older Alouda; and that Elouza is the
same name as the modern Eldeniz,
a village close to Payam-Aghlan. Pro-
bably most philologists will find it
easier to identify Elouza with Alouda
than with Eldeniz: on M. Badet's philo-
logical comparisons, see Ch. XI App. Ill,
Sec pp. 144, 169;;, 435 n.
585
respect. I was of opinion, that the name cannot in our present state of
knowledge be recovered1: he considers that this old city and later
village was Alydda (Aloudda) of the Peutinger Table and the Anon.
Eavennas. It seems to me, however, that there is reason to place
Aloudda a little further to the west, § 7, and to give a different name
to this site 2.
The inscriptions in this place would probably reward a more careful
search than I could make in 1883 3. Among the few which I copied
we have examples from the last century B.C., the reign of Tiberius,
and the third century p. C, no. 500 ff.
§ 7. Aloudda. The Peutinger Table mentions a town Aludda: the
true form of this name is probably Aloudda, corresponding to Klan-
noudda and Attoudda4, and in later time the spelling Alouda (like
Attouda) probably came into use. Now in the Byzantine lists we
find a bishopric Elouza or Ilouza. Considering the examples which
we find of forms with d alternating with forms containing z5, I can
see no reason to doubt that Alouda and Elouza are the same place °.
The form Elaza also occurs in Notitia III: it is probably a dialectic
variety similar to those mentioned in § 2 (Pouza-Pazon, &c).
Elouza is mentioned by Hierocles between Sebaste and Akmonia,
1 As a heading for the section in CB,
I used the term Palaeo-Sebaste, expect-
ing that this would be understood as
'the anonymous town which was sup-
planted by Sebaste.' It has,' however,
led some critics to understand that I
fancied this to be the name applied to
the site under the Empire. I have
therefore refrained from using the
name; but my theory remainsunchanged.
2 The conjecture may be permitted
that this is the Katoikia Le[onna] of
no. 480. See § 15.
3 I went out from Sebaste in the fore-
noon ; and had to return in time to
make a long ride to the south. The
consequence was that much was left
undone both there and at Burgas : see
§3-
i Attoudda on the earliest coins, At-
touda on later: Klannoudda on the
rare coins (all early). On the Table
Aludda and Clanudda are the forms.
I do not know why M. Badet uses the
form Alydda, which is justified by no
analog)' known to me (see p. 617). He
also speaks of Clannuda. These two
wrong spellings obscure the arguments
that tell for my theory, and they have
probably weighed with him uncon-
sciousl}' in rejecting it.
5 See p. 293, and above, § 2: we find
Sebadios and Sabazios, Zizimene and
Dindymene, Nazianzos and Nadiandos
(Hist. Geogr. pp. 285, 348, Mitth. Ath.
1888 p. 237).
0 M. Badet differs to a slight extent:
he holds that the names are different
and denote different places, but Alouda
was only two miles from Elouza; that
the Byzantine bishopric corresponded
in every respect except name to the
older Alouda; and that Elouza is the
same name as the modern Eldeniz,
a village close to Payam-Aghlan. Pro-
bably most philologists will find it
easier to identify Elouza with Alouda
than with Eldeniz: on M. Badet's philo-
logical comparisons, see Ch. XI App. Ill,
Sec pp. 144, 169;;, 435 n.