A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E

L. Hannestad N
A Royal Signature Landscape:
New Light on the Transformation
of Northern Syria after
the Conquest of Alexander

After the defeat of Antigonos in the battle at Ipsos in 301 BC, his rivals
divided up Antigonos’ territory among them. In this agreement, Syria and
Mesopotamia fell to Seleukos – though the area south of Arados was oc-
cupied by Ptolemy, and was to become a source of contention between the
two dynasties. Without the rich coastal zone of Phoenicia, northern Syria
may have seemed an unsatisfactory gain for Seleukos, whose forces had con-
tributed decisively to the victory at Ipsos, but it nevertheless meant more
than yet another territory to control and from which to gain acquisitions.
Syria provided him with access to the Mediterranean theatre, from which
he had been absent for more than ten years. This put him in a much better
position to line up for the final struggle to become king of Macedonia – an
ambition which remained a driving force in the generation of Alexander’s
successors1. As always, Seleukos saw the potential of the situation and de-
cided to make this area a second centre of his realm.
The coastal areas of Syria, with its Mediterranean climate and vegeta-
tion, had been known to the Greeks for centuries (Fig. 1). A very differ-
ent ecological zone was to be found east of the mountain ranges and the
Orontes River, i.e. the steppe and the desert. One of the characteristics of
this zone is the changing pattern in how far east the land is cultivated by a
sedentary population or to what extent it is used for nomadism, also in re-
gions where agriculture is actually possible. Surveys have shown that in an-
tiquity, as in modern times, there were great variations from period to pe-
riod2. Thus in the limestone country west of Aleppo, nomadism prevailed
until the beginning of our era3. Also from other parts of Syria results from a
number of surveys are accumulating fast4. Syria has as yet not offered us the
rich epigraphical documentary evidence so typical of the Seleucid reign in
Asia Minor, but by now archaeology is able to provide a new dimension to
the study of the region in this period, complementing the mainly political
history provided by the literary sources.
1 5
Austin 2003, 128–129; Hannestad 2004.
2 6
Wirth 1971; Wilkinson 2003.
3 7
Tate 1992.
4 8
Grainger 1990; Al-Maqdissi 1993; 1995; Weiss 1994; 1997; Lund 2004.
250
0 300 kм
Fig. 1. Map of Syria
The restructuring of the landscape in post-Iron Age times:
the problem of the Persian period
Several surveys and excavations have noted the striking scarcity of ma-
terial from the Persian period (539–333 BC). Grainger5 has argued that
this strongly suggests that the social structure in Syria before the arrival
of Alexander was almost entirely of a rural type with very few cities. He
assumes that the pre-Hellenistic period was a time of growing nomad-
ism compared with previous periods and concludes that de-urbanization
and the expansion of the uncultivated steppe strongly suggest that the
density of the total population of Syria during the Persian period was low.
Grainger’s scenario of the pre-Hellenistic period has been criticised, for
instance, by Lund in his study of the Gabla Plain6. However, one cannot
get away from the fact that in inland areas there is very little or even a lack
of evidence from the Persian period in many excavations and surveys.
Thus, a recent survey in the Euphrates valley7 has confirmed that also here
there is a lack of material from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods;
and Geyer and Rousset8 have concluded that it is only with the expansion
of settlements on the steppe during the Hellenistic period that a similar
pattern can be traced in the Euphrates valley. It has been debated among
archaeologists whether there actually was a hiatus on many sites or even
in whole regions or whether this is only an apparent one because so far
Grainger 1990, 7–9, 29–30.
Lund 2004.
Geyer, Monchambert 2003.
Geyer, Rousset 2001.
251
 L . H A N N E S TA D
it has not been possible to identify diagnostic material from the Persian
period. Wilkinson9 has suggested, that the material culture of the Persian
period may actually have been a continuation of the earlier local culture(s)
in contrast to the Seleucid period, which is easy to identify due to ‘their
(the Seleucids’) conspicuous material assemblage’. However, the fact that
further south on the Phoenician coast and in Palestine, archaeological ma-
terial from the Persian period is rich and easily recognized rather supports
Grainger’s view of Syria during the Persian period. In this connection it
is noteworthy that when Cyrus entered Syria from Cilicia, the main army
of the Great King in the region was stationed not in northern Syria but in
Phoenicia (Xen. Anab. I, 4). It was this coastal zone which was important
during Persian rule.
What can be definitely concluded at present is that a restructuring of
the landscape involving a significant diminishing of many old urban cen-
tres is clearly visible from the very beginning of the Hellenistic period. For
example, Ebla was reduced from a city to a fortress/rural village occupying
only the north-eastern part of the hill with a villa or small palace10. Reduced
habitations are recorded at many other important Bronze Age tells, such as
Umm el-Marra east of Aleppo11 and Tell Rifa’at, north of Aleppo12.
The decline of the nucleated settlements of many old tells is followed
by an increasing emphasis on settlements in small dispersed villages, a phe-
nomenon which reached its peak in the Late Roman period. This pattern
has been attested in the Amuq Plain, where villages spread across the whole
plain and in the surrounding highlands; the uplands had apparently been
left after the Neolithic period only to be resettled from the Hellenistic pe-
riod onwards13. A similar pattern is also attested in the area of Tell Rifa’at14,
where the Early Hellenistic period is attested at 12 out of 24 sites and the
Late Hellenistic at 20 sites. An extended survey in the area has revealed
Early Hellenistic pottery from 26 sites and Late Hellenistic pottery from 54
sites15. Surveys in the upper Lake Assad area also indicate that a settlement
pattern of villages characterized this region in the Hellenistic period16.
The third element of this restructuring of the landscape and the one
to have the most lasting effect in northern Syria was the foundation of new
urban centres, particularly under the first Seleucid kings. Seleukos marked
his conquest and control of the region with a string of new settlements or
refoundations17, and the de-urbanization of many old tells which may have
started during the Persian period was certainly accelerated by this process.
9
Wilkinson 2004.
10
Mazzoni 1991.
11
Weiss 1997, 147–148.
12
Seton-Williams 1961; 1967.
13
Yener et alii 2000; Casana 2003.
14
Matthers 1978.
15
Matthers 1981; Lund 1993.
16
Wilkinson 2004.
17
Cohen 2006.
252
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
The Tetrapolis
Within a few years after taking possession of northern Syria, Seleukos
I founded the famous Tetrapolis, the four cities of Antioch, Laodikeia,
Seleukeia in Pieria and Apameia, all named after close family members
or himself, along with a number of smaller cities in the coastal region of
northern Syria and the hinterland along the Orontes River. This ambitious
programme, which clearly shows how Seleukos saw the newly won territory
as the coming centre of his kingdom and that he wished to put forward
here an unprecedented display of wealth and power, changed the physical
landscape significantly and presents one of the most impressive and lasting
Hellenistic displays of royal power on a landscape.
Seleukos I was not the first of Alexander’s successors to have founded
cities in the region. Thus Antigonos founded an Antigoneia in 307/06 BC
(Diod. XX, 47, 5–6; Strab. XVI, 2, 4; Liv. XLIV, 10). According to Diodoros,
the city was dismantled by Seleukos and transported to Seleukeia. Strabo
(XVI, 2, 4), however, and two much later authors, the orator Libanios
(AD 314–393) and the chronographer Ioannes Malalas (c. AD 490/500 –
after 570) state that the inhabitants of Antigoneia were transferred to
Antioch. Seleukeia and Laodikeia were harbour cities, upholding access to
the Mediterranean and harbour facilities for the Seleucid Mediterranean
fleet. They also functioned as important emporia. Apameia in the hinter-
land with its rich pastures was the main base of the Seleucid army in Syria.
Seleukeia was undoubtedly intended to be Seleukos’ new western capital,
since it was given the king’s own name, as was his capital in Mesopotamia.
The fact that Seleukos was buried here after being murdered in 280 BC is
yet another argument that this was his capital.
The city was situated on the sea at the southern slope of the Amanos
Mountain Range. In his account of the reconquest of the city by Antiochos III
in 219 BC after it had been occupied since 246 BC by the Ptolemies,
the Greek historian Polybios offers us a precious description of the city
(V, 59, 3):
“The situation of Seleukeia and the nature of its surroundings are as follows.
It lies on the sea between Cilicia and Phoenicia, and above it rises a very high
mountain called Coryphaeum, washed on its western side by the extreme wa-
ters of the sea separating Cyprus from Phoenicia, but overlooking with its
eastern slopes the territories of Antioch and Seleukeia. Seleukeia lies on its
southern slope, separated from it by a deep and difficult ravine. The town
descends in a series of broken terraces to the sea, and is surrounded on most
sides by cliffs and precipitous rocks. On the level ground at the foot of the
slope which descends towards the sea lies the business quarters (ἐμπορία) and
a suburb defended by very strong walls. The whole of the main city is similarly
fortified by walls of very costly construction and is splendidly adorned with
temples and other fine buildings. On the side looking to the sea it can only be
approached by a flight of steps cut in the rock with frequent turns and twists
all the way up”.
253
 L . H A N N E S TA D
Polybios informs us that at the time of the conquest the city had 6000
free inhabitants and that Antiochos allowed people from Seleukeia who
had been in exile to return to the city ‘and restored them to their civic
rights and their property’. Walbank18 considered 6000 free inhabitants a
very small number, suggesting that they may represent free citizens or men
of military age. However, since the word “free” may also imply women, in
principle the 6000 may have been 3000 men and 3000 women. Thus, we
may calculate them as 3000 families consisting of the 6000 adults and may
add to these 3 children per family plus 1 slave. In this case we would reach
a total population of 15000, to which shall be added an unknown number
of people returning to the city. The free population undoubtedly included
a variety of ethnic groups, not only Greeks and Macedonians.
The site of Seleukeia was studied as part of the Antioch Expedition. The
city may have covered an area of about 300 ha19. One characteristic trait in
the townscape mentioned by Polybios, the staircase connecting the lower
and the upper city, was identified by the expedition. Also the Hellenistic
fortification walls are still preserved on a length of c. 5 km including at least
nine towers20. Furthermore, the expedition excavated the foundations and
a few other remains of a Doric temple. This temple may be identical with
Seleukos’ burial monument, the so-called Nikotoreion21.
Antioch was founded at the foot of Mount Silpios where the Orontes
River cuts through the mountains. At least from the reign of Antiochos I,
the city became the Syrian capital, flourishing to become second only to
Alexandria in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The city was well situated for communication with all regions of the
Kingdom, and the lower Orontes valley and the Amuq plain made it pos-
sible to sustain a substantial population. Studies by Leblanc and Poccardi22
have indicated that when the city was founded care was taken to connect its
main streets with a network of roads leading into the countryside.
The literary references to the city are numerous. In fact, Antioch is a case
where the literary evidence on its topography has caused confusion when
confronted with the archaeological evidence. The main problem is the at-
tempts to connect the wealth of literary evidence from the Late Antique pe-
riod and the scarcity of archaeological evidence from the Hellenistic. Among
the earlier literary sources, Strabo informs us (XVI, 2, 4) that the city in itself
was a Tetrapolis, ‘since it consists of four parts: and each of the four settle-
ments is fortified both by a common wall and by a wall of its own. Now Nikator
founded the first of the settlements, transferring thither the settlers from
Antigoneia, which had been built near it a short time before by Antigonus;
the second was founded by the multitude of settlers; the third (the palace
area) by Seleucus Callinicus; and the fourth by Antiochus Epiphanes’.
18
Walbank 1957.
19
Grainger 1990.
20
McNicoll 1997.
21
Hannestad, Potts 1990; for a different view see Held 2002.
22
Leblanc, Poccardi 1999.
254
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
The layout and the development of Antioch during Seleucid reign have
been studied and discussed by many scholars, though with different con-
clusions on essential points. In 1934 Weurlersse published a plan of ancient
Antioch based on aerial photos, identifying the modern main street as the
axis (here called ‘the central street’) of the ancient city and suggesting that
parts of the ancient grid plan were still to be traced. When archaeological
work on the site began (1932–1939), it turned out that large-scale excava-
tions in the city centre itself were impossible due to the modern city and
the fact that the ancient level is about 10 m below the present day surface.
However, a number of trial trenches were made along the modern main
street, and several layers were identified of which the oldest date from the
Hellenistic period. The trial trenches confirmed Weurlersse’s hypothesis
that the modern main street is identical to part of the ancient central street.
This has been accepted by all later scholars.
According to Lassus23, the central street had a width of 16 m and was
paved from the time of Antiochos IV (175–164 BC). Similar central streets
running N–S also seem to have existed in Apameia and Laodikeia, prob-
ably also Kyrrhos and other Seleucid foundations in Syria. Proof of such
streets as a striking element in the large cities of the Seleucid Kingdom
was confirmed during the 1960s with the excavations of Ai Khanoum in
Afghanistan. Here a central street more than 20 m wide – and in all phases
paved with small stones – was uncovered.
With the renovation paid by Herod the Great, the central street of
Antioch was paved with polished stone and adorned with porticoes along
both sides (Joseph. AJ. XVI, 148). By now the street had reached a width of
c. 30 m and according to Josephus (BJ. I, 425) a length of nearly 4 km. Thus,
at the very end of the Seleucid rule and just after the Roman conquest, we
witness the final development of the central streets of the Seleucid cities
with the additions of porticoes, an element which was to have great influ-
ence not only in the Roman East but also on much later architecture. In
the late 1990s, studies of two teams re-opened the question of the layout
of Hellenistic Antioch24. However, their results differ on many points, the
main issues of dispute being the size of the city in its different phases and
the location of Strabo’s fourth quarter, Epiphaneia (Figs. 2a–b). It was as-
sumed by Lassus and many other scholars including Leblanc and Poccardi
that the central street did not function as such until the time of Antiochos
IV and that before this period the city was concentrated between the river
and the area of the later central street. The background for this hypothesis
is that no buildings were identified at the earliest levels along the east side
of the central street, whereas building activity was attested along the west
side.
Leblanc and Poccardi suggest that their grid 1 (Fig. 2b) represents the
earliest part of the city, added to which was, either at the same time or a
bit later in the third century BC, the area north of the Parmenios Gorge
23
Lassus 1972.
24
Leblanc, Poccardi 1999; Hoepfner 1999.
255
 L . H A N N E S TA D A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E

N
(their grid 2). They calculate that grid 1 had a length of 2000 m and a width
of 750 m encompassing c. 150 ha; grid 2, a length of 1200 m and the same
a
width as the southern grid thus including 56 ha.
Hoepfner, on the other hand, and more convincingly, supposes that
the central street functioned as such from the very beginning. He is un-
doubtedly right in rejecting the idea of a defensive wall running close to
the area of the later central street, and in stressing that the geographical
position of Antioch necessitated walls running up more than 400 m in
height to reach the top of Mount Silpios (Fig. 2a). Such a city wall bril-
liantly making use of the advantages of a specific landscape together with
the ability to finance these ambitious structures are in fact typical of the
period of the Successors25. Hoepfner assumes that part of the area north
of the Parmenios Gorge was already included in the earliest phase. What
is certain is that it was included in the habitation before the middle of the
second century BC, since large quantities of black-glazed sherds have been
found in the area. Still, it is quite possible that the area south of the gorge
represents the earliest phase, whereas the area north of the gorge could be
b later but still within the third century. In fact, this area could be Strabo’s
second quarter, dating probably from shortly after the earliest nucleus.
As to the slight bent of the central street in the area of the Parmenios
Gorge, Leblanc and Poccardi reasonably assume this to be an element that
belongs to the time when this area was included in the city, i.e. the third cen-
tury BC (Fig. 2b). The reason for the bent may have been a wish to have side
streets and insulae situated parallel to the mountain wadis. Hoepfner, how-
ever, considers that such a bent is unthinkable in the layout of a Hellenistic
city and assumes it to have developed only in the medieval period
(Fig. 2a). However, if one assumes that the area south of the gorge was the
earliest and the area to the north was added somewhat later, and in par-
ticular if this area was partly inhabited before the official incorporation
into the city itself, this bent also becomes easily explainable in a Hellenistic
context (Fig. 2c).
c Though parts of the street grid, including the central street, have been
revealed, little is so far known of the details in the layout of the Hellenistic
city. Thus according to Leblanc and Poccardi, their grid 1 included 223 in-
sulae each measuring 116 × 58 m, i.e. twice as long as wide; their grid 2, 283
insulae of the same size. Hoepfner, on the other hand, supposes somewhat
smaller insulae of 102/104 × 51/52 m, and originally Weurlersee assumed
insulae of 112 × 58 m.
It has usually been assumed that Epiphaneia was situated on the slopes
of Mount Silpios. Hoepfner26, however, suggests that it was situated up on a
plateau of Mount Staurin (Fig. 2a). His hypothesis is based on Malalas’ ex-
pression that Epiphaneia was situated ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος. Since 2004 a German team
0 1000 kм
headed by Gunnar Brands27 has carried out research on the topography
25
Fig. 2. Sketch plan of Antioch. a) Based on Hoepfner 1999, end plan. b) Based on Cf. McNicoll 1997.
26
Leblanc, Poccardi 1999, plan 5. c) Suggestion by the author. On all three plans the Hoepfner 1999; 2004.
27
central street is marked with a thicker line Brands, Meyer 2006; Pamir, Brands 2007.
256 257
 L . H A N N E S TA D
of Antioch including geophysical prospections on the Staurin plateau. It
has brought to light remains of a regular grid structure which could be
Hellenistic according to Brands28. Also ceramic finds from the plateau29
and remains of polygonal walls point to habitation during the Hellenistic
period. Hoepfner calculates that the total area of the city from the time of
Antiochos IV was more than 600 ha.
Apameia and its location is briefly described by Strabo (XVI, 2, 10):
‘Apameia (like Laodikeia) also has a city that is in general well fortified; it
is a beautifully fortified hill in a hollow plain, and this hill is formed into a
peninsula by the Orontes and by a large lake which lies near by and spreads
into broad marshes and exceedingly large cattle-pasturing and horse-pas-
turing meadows’. The acropolis was situated on the separate hill. The site
was probably one of the few settled during the Persian period since Strabo
mentions that the city had had two earlier names, one of them Pharnake,
undoubtedly of Persian origin. So far no finds from that period have been
identified. Later it was called Pella by the earliest Macedonians according
to Strabo. Apameia was thus probably a renaming of an already existing set-
tlement rather than a new foundation.
Despite extensive excavations since 1965, Hellenistic Apameia leaves
us with just as many open questions as Antioch. The main reason is no
doubt — as stressed by Balty30 – the severe earthquake in AD 115. Recent
studies, however, have confirmed that the Hellenistic city wall can be traced
nearly everywhere in the preserved Roman wall31. That the wall had two
Hellenistic phases is attested by the reuse of blocs from an earlier phase in a
second phase datable by the find of a didrachm of Alexander Balas, struck
in 146/145 and in a very good condition32. The earlier phase probably be-
longs to the time of the foundation of the city. A lamp found at the founda-
tion of the city wall suggests that the wall dates from either the period of
Antigonos or perhaps rather Seleukos I33. Lamps – probably Attic imports —
of Howland’s types 25A–D34 bear evidence of very early Hellenistic layers in
most parts of the city.
The Hellenistic (and the Roman) wall included an area of c. 255 ha35.
Trial trenches in the area outside the northern gate have revealed a street
flanked by a Doric portico and shops on the western side36. Similar Doric
capitals reused in the Roman houses have led Balty to assume that the central
street inside the city may have been flanked by such porticoes. The extension
of the street outside the wall, however, dates from the late second or early first
century BC, and no remains of a portico on the east side have been found.
28
Personal communication.
29
Not yet published.
30
Balty 2003.
31
Leriche 1987.
32
Leriche 1987; Balty 2003.
33
Balty 2003.
34
Howland 1958.
35
Balty 2000.
36
Balty 1994.
258
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
Inside the walls, cisterns were the only water resource during the
Hellenistic period according to Balty37; however, this would be strangely
primitive for a city of the importance of Apameia.
Laodikeia is described by Strabo (XVI, 2, 9) as a beautifully built city
with a good harbour. J. Sauvaget38 has come to the conclusion that also
here the street grid of today’s Lattakie is based on the original layout of
the city with a central street. The importance of this city in the scheme of
Seleukos I may be supported by the fact that during his lifetime this was
the largest mint in Syria possibly targeted particularly at the international
market39.
Other Seleucid foundations
The Tetrapolis was not Seleukos I’s only foundations in Syria. A num-
ber of smaller cities were founded by him or his immediate successors at
strategic points to control the area and not least to secure the overland
routes to the Euphrates. Here only a few – representative of different land-
scapes of northern Syria – will be considered.
There seems to have been at least two important routes overland from
Antioch to the Euphrates, following trails that certainly existed already
in pre-Seleucid times, both heading towards a northern crossing of the
Euphrates at Zeugma40. Settlements along these routes often made use
of sites going back to the Bronze Age and possibly earlier, clearly indicat-
ing that the Seleucid re-organization of the region did not avoid making
use of ancient sites when these had important strategic positions. New
Macedonian and Greek names replaced the old ones, new fortifications
were built, and often whole new orthogonal street plans were laid out on
top of the old settlements. Along the Euphrates a number of fortified set-
tlements were founded to control and protect the river transports, river
crossings, and the fertile river valley.
Kyrrhos, on the northern route and probably among the foundations of
Seleukos, is characterized by its distinct and easily defendable acropolis. As
in most other Syrian cities, the remains are mostly Roman and Byzantine.
Frézouls41 has suggested that the wall surrounding the city dating from the
time of Justinian may simply follow a Hellenistic predecessor, since stretch-
es of polygonal walls incorporated in the wall have been detected. In this
case, the size of the city may have encompassed 80–100 ha laid out in an or-
thogonal grid with the main street running N–S. Black-glazed sherds scat-
tered on the site today attest to its existence in the early Hellenistic period.
The road distance between Antioch and Kyrrhos was c. 100 km, and
Gindaros in the Afrin valley must have been a convenient station on the
road. Here on the largest tell in the area, recent excavations have shown
37
Balty 2000.
38
Sauvaget 1934; 1936.
39
Houghton, Lorber 2002.
40
Comfort, Abadie-Reynal, Ergec 2000.
41
Frézouls 1955; 1978.
259
 L . H A N N E S TA D A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E

N
a stratigraphical sequence from the middle of the second millennium BC
to the Early Byzantine period42. Aerial photos and geophysical studies
combined with the excavations have revealed a well-preserved orthogonal
city plan with a central main street and probably 8 N–S streets and 6 E–W
streets with housing insulae each measuring 40 m43; the 40 × 40 m insulae
mentioned by Kramer are unlikely; we are rather dealing with insulae of
40 × 20 m dating back to the Seleucid foundation of the city. The plateau
on top of the tell encompasses altogether no more than 15 ha.
The edges of the tell are strongly eroded, and it remains uncertain
whether the site was fortified during the Hellenistic and later periods. The
excavations have brought to light rich material covering the Hellenistic,
Roman and part of the Byzantine period. The site was also inhabited dur-
ing the Iron Age, but apparently not, or only to a very limited extent, in
the Persian period. From the early Hellenistic period there is a significant
quantity of black-glazed pottery of which some seems to be imported, but
most of Syrian origin (possibly Antiochene). Megarian bowls are also com-
mon. The oldest coins from the site are one from the reign of Seleukos I
from the 280s and one from the reign of Seleukos IV. From the second half
of the second century there is a significant growth in the number of coins,
and in the first century BC Antiochene ‘city coins’ replaced the royal coins.
Also the pottery finds show distinct growth in the Late Hellenistic period,
with a large number of early shapes of ESA A. Of the Hellenistic amphora
stamps the majority, unsurprisingly, are of Rhodian origin. Of these only
8% are from the third century, whereas nearly half of them derive from
period III (according to Finkielstejn’s chronology c. 198 – c. 16144). 11%
are from period IV (Finkielstejn c. 160 – c. 146), and 5% from period V
(c. 146 – c. 108).
Further east, archaeological research in recent years has brought sig- 0 200
nificant news on settlements on the Euphrates. For example, geo-physical
surveys along with excavations carried out in the years 1996–1999 have of- Fig. 3. Sketch plan of Apameia. Based on Abadie-Reynal, Gaborit 2003, fig. 1
fered us insight into the history and layout of Apameia on the Euphrates45.
The extension and the plan of the city are now clear (Fig. 3). The city wall c. 105 m (N–S) 38 m (E–W), i.e. unusually long when compared with what is
has been traced over a length of 2200 m46. It surrounds a triangular area recorded in the cities of western Syria. The pottery from the latest floors of
(c. 40 ha), the curved bank of Euphrates forming one leg of the triangle. the excavated houses and shops, including black-glazed and early shapes of
The northern wall includes 27 square towers, and the gate at the north- ESA, suggests that the settlement was abandoned in the middle or towards
eastern corner was protected by a round tower. Three more gates have the end of the second century BC. A burnt destruction layer covers the site.
been revealed, two in the northern wall and one in the middle of the east- Zeugma, officially Seleukeia on the Euphrates, on the western bank of
ern wall. The wall was built using a polygonal technique with the upper the river where a bridge crossed the Euphrates (opposite Apameia)47, has
part made of mud brick and the entrances to the towers in an isodomic been studied by Wagner and more recently by D. Kennedy48. The majority
technique. The orthogonal city plan is well attested. The streets lead- of the remains date from the Roman period. Black-glazed sherds of the ear-
ing to the gates are the widest (c. 10 m) and the insulae are stated to be ly Hellenistic period have been found on Kara Tepe (Fig. 4), where an early
42
Seleucid fortress may have been situated. Similar sherds were also found
Weiss 1997. between the so-called chantiers 5 and 9 in the earliest level, and particularly
43
Kramer 2004.
44
Finkielstejn 2001. in chantier 5 the earliest remains seem to date back to the early Hellenistic
45 47
Desreumaux, Gaborit, Caillou 1999; Abadie-Reynal, Gaborit 2003. Comfort, Abadie-Reynal, Ergec 2000.
46 48
Desreumaux, Gaborit, Caillou 1999; Gaborit, Poccardi 2000. Wagner 1976; Kennedy 1998; Early 2003; Abadie-Reynal, Gaborit 2003.
260 261
 L . H A N N E S TA D
Fig. 4. General site plan of Zeugma. Based on Abadie-Reynal, Gaborit 2003, fig. 9 and
Abadie-Reynal, Bucak, Bulgan 2000, fig. 1
period. Abadie-Renal and Gaborit49 assume that during the third and sec-
ond centuries Zeugma was only a small site and call attention to the fact
that Strabo (XVI, 2, 3) calls the site φρούριον τῆς Μεσοποταμίας. At the end
of the second – beginning of the first century BC the settlement develops
into one of the wealthiest in the region. The explanation is undoubtedly to
be sought in the Parthian expansion and the Seleucid loss of Mesopotamia.
Apameia on the eastern bank ceased to exist and Zeugma on the west bank
grew in importance.
Dura Europos50 was founded during the time of Seleukos I on a rock
plateau cut through by deep wadis on the steep west bank of the Euphrates
(40 m high), possibly on the site of an ancient Assyrian fortress51. Only the
west side offered easy entry to the city, reflected in the defensive measures
on this side including numerous towers. The walled area covered c. 63 ha.
Most of the city lies flat on the plateau, the citadel being situated on a sepa-
rate plateau formed by the wadis (Fig. 5). Since its excavation (1922–23 and
1928–37) the city has served as the model for a Seleucid colony, though the
remains are mainly of the Parthian and Roman period. In particular, the
49
Abadie-Reynal, Gaborit 2003.
50
For the name see Cohen 2006, 156–157.
51
Leriche, Mahmoud 1988.
262
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
Fig. 5. Dura Europos. Isometric reconstruction of the Hellenistic city. From Hopkins
1979, fig. 2
city walls and the layout of the city with the orthogonal street plan and a
main street running SW–NE through the city have been considered part of
the earliest settlement on the site (Fig. 6). However, in recent years our tra-
ditional understanding of the development of Hellenistic Dura Europos
has been challenged by P. Leriche52.
Leriche assumes that during the reign of Seleukos I there was only a
garrison on the Citadel Hill and some habitation in the adjacent area to the
south and west of the Citadel where the Main Street descends into the wadi,
since test trenches laid out here have brought to light third century mate-
rial in situ (Fig. 6). He dates the orthogonal street grid and the associated
buildings to the second century BC, basing his revision of the chronology
of the city on a number of arguments:
1. The archive building on the agora (Block G3) contained seal impres-
sions dating from no earlier than 129/8 BC – less than two decades before
the city was conquered by the Parthians53. Leriche interprets the date of the
archive building on the agora as linked to the date of the layout of this part
of the city, and thus in fact of the whole street grid.
52
Leriche 1987; 2003; 2004; 2007; Leriche, Gelin 1997; Leriche, Mahmoud 1994.
53
Leriche 1996.
263
 L . H A N N E S TA D
0 200 m
Fig. 6. Sketch plan of Dura Europos. A thicker line marks the wadi through which the
river bank can be reached
2. According to Leriche, pottery from a number of soundings at the
lowest level of the interior side of the western city wall dates from after the
middle of the second century, indicating that the building of the wall took
place during this period. So far, apart from the locally produced pottery,
a single imported black glazed sherd of a fish plate is recorded from the
sector of tower 24. By Alabe54 it is dated quite broadly to the third and
second centuries BC. The profile of the foot rather suggests a date in the
third century BC.
3. A sounding under the earliest level of the main street has revealed a
mass of organic material mixed with pottery55. However, among the large
quantities of sherds (c. 3200) recorded here, less than a handful may be
used for indications of the date of this fill. Most important are five sherds
classified as ESA which indicate that the street above was not laid out until
after the middle of the second century BC.
The Citadel was strongly fortified with a solid stone-built wall56. It in-
cluded a palace of which two phases have been detected. The remains of
the building of the first phase are very scanty, whereas the second phase
is better preserved, though a large part of the northern section has fall-
en into the river valley. In this second phase (Fig. 7) – probably dating to
the second century BC57 – the palace was divided into two sections by a
54
Alabe 2005, cat. no. 1.
55
Alabe 2005.
56
McNicoll 1997, 93.
57
Nielsen 1994, 119.
264
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
0 50
Fig. 7. Plan of the Citadel Palace, Dura Europos. From Leriche, Mahmoud 1988, fig. 1
corridor from which doors led to both sections. The southern part is laid
out around a peristyle court. The south side of the peristyle is lined with
a single row of rooms, the largest of which – probably on the central axis
of the courtyard – was open in its whole length towards the peristyle with
three columns in antis. An internal row of five pillars supported the roof.
Nielsen suggests that this room functioned as an audience hall. On the
western side of the court were at least five rooms interconnected by doors,
of which Nielsen assumes that the central room looking onto the peristyle
may have functioned as a banqueting hall. A similar group of rooms may
have been situated on the east side of the peristyle court. Of the northern
section of the palace only a corner of a large “enclosure” remains. The size
of this section (which can only be estimated) suggests that it was an open
area, though the thickness of the walls of the east corridor would rather
indicate that they were meant to carry some kind of roof. Two entrances
to the corridor remain, one at its southern end, the other from the “en-
closure” west of the corridor. Whereas the southern part with its groups
of rooms arranged around a peristyle may be compared with the local pal-
ace at Jebel Khalid (see below) and also with the palaces at Vergina and
265
 L . H A N N E S TA D
Pergamon, the clear division in two sections and the corridors are more
reminiscent of architecture in Ai Khanoum58.
The other palace at Dura (the Redoubt Palace), often identified as the
Strategeion, probably controlled the defile where the road descends into
the Euphrates valley. Also here a court forms the centre of the building
flanked on two sides by what seems to be room complexes with an official
function. A sounding behind the northern façade of the Strategeion has
brought to light numismatic evidence that this façade, which belongs to a
second phase of the building, cannot predate the beginning of the second
century BC59. Among the coins found here is a small bronze denomination
from the reign of Antiochos III, probably the years 223–200, struck in a
western Seleucid mint (Antioch or possibly Apameia) according to Augé60,
which was found on the lowest floor level in one of the rooms. The first
phase of the building probably goes back to the time of the foundation of
the settlement. The Strategeion is situated beside the Parthian temple of
Zeus Megistos, and a course of gypsum blocks revealed here61 may actually
derive from an earlier (Hellenistic) temple.
The most intensive research by Leriche’s team concerns the defensive
walls. Von Gerkan’s view62 was that only the part constructed of mud bricks
over a socle of stone and gypsum and/or mud-mortar was Hellenistic,
whereas the parts of the west wall built completely of stone as well as the
north and south walls built of mud bricks derive from after the Parthian
conquest. This was already rejected by the excavators63, and later Leriche
and his team64 came to the conclusion that the two different types of walls
are contemporaneous and both Hellenistic. The use of mud bricks in the
northern part of the west wall and the northern and southern walls is con-
sidered a sign of haste by Leriche; he also notes that in the northern part
of the stone-built west wall there are traces of haste in the treatment of the
stones and the lack of cleaning up of stone debris from the cutting of stones
in the area inside the wall.
From at least 141 BC, with the fall of Seleukeia, the Seleucids must un-
doubtedly have invested massive resources into the defence line that the river
provided. As seen in Zeugma, efforts were now concentrated on the west bank
of the river. It is thus very likely that repairs and improvements – if not a com-
pletely new circuit, as suggested by Leriche – took place during these years.
It is interesting to note that suspicions about the size of the inhabited
area within the walls from the time of the foundation of Europos had actu-
ally been raised before Leriche began his research in Dura. Thus, Hopkins65
states ‘But it is puzzling that Hellenistic coins were a rarity except in the
58
Cf. Downey 1986.
59
Leriche, Mahmoud 1994.
60
Augé 1988.
61
Downey 1997.
62
Von Gerkan 1939.
63
Rostovtzeff 1937.
64
Leriche, Mahmoud 1994.
65
Hopkins 1979, 255.
266
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
vicinity of the Redoubt (Strategeion) and the Citadel. One may surmise
that when the Redoubt and the Citadel were built, the first settlement
clustered near the River Gate and below on the river plain. But the ques-
tion remains open’. Also the early Hellenistic lamps seem to concentrate
at the Citadel and around the Strategeion66. Hopkins may have suspected
that a substantial area within the walls was not inhabited in the early phase
of the settlement. The coins found during the Yale Expedition are nearly
all bronze coins. The vast majority come from the mint in Antioch, a few
from the large mints in the east, and three series, all dating from the time
of Antiochos I, are usually assumed to be minted at Dura67. Apart from a
peak in the time of Antiochos III, which is an element to be found at most
sites in the Kingdom, coin peaks are actually already seen with coins of
Antiochos I (89 pieces) and Seleukos III (80 pieces). A smaller peak dates
from the time of Antiochos VII (138–129 BC) (62 pieces). This pattern is
somewhat surprising if one accepts Leriche’s re-dating of the layout of the
city and of the city wall. One would expect a stronger reflection of the eco-
nomic activity connected with a completely new layout of the city and of
the building of the walls if this happened during this period. Thus, the
coins clearly suggest strong activity during the reign of Antiochos I and
Seleukos II, culminating during the late third and early second centuries68.
Yet another unlikely phenomenon in Leriche’s limited settlement of the
third century (his phase 1 with a smaller circuit), consisting of only a for-
tress and a fairly small habitation centred around the descent to the river
plain, would be that it had no fewer than two ‘palaces’, one on the Citadel
Hill and the Strategeion, indicating the existence of an administration
with at least two high-ranking officials. It should also be noted, that at Jebel
Khalid the defensive walls dating not later than the third century, encom-
pass c. 50 ha. Dura, with its 63 ha within the walls, would hardly be larger.
Thus Leriche’s reconstruction of the development of Dura Europos during
the early Hellenistic period still leaves many questions open.
In the middle of the 1980s, an Australian team began work at the site of
Jebel Khalid about 300 km upriver from Dura (Jebel Khalid. 1)69. The site
is located on a rock (max. height 450 m) overlooking the Euphrates. No
trace of occupation earlier than the Hellenistic period has been found on
the site, and finds from later periods are few.
The site is protected on the inland side and along the southern river
frontage by a wall, and the acropolis was further protected by a separate in-
ner wall, altogether amounting to 3.4 km. The outer wall had some 30 tow-
ers and bastions and a massive gate complex protected by towers. Clarke70
suggests that the gate was built in the first half of the third century BC.
However, the list of ceramic finds in the construction level of the main gate
66
Baur 1947.
67
Bellinger 1949; Newell 1941, 79–82; Houghton, Lorber 2002, 136–137.
68
For similar reflections see Yon 2003.
69
Harrison 2000; Clarke 2003; Jackson 2005.
70
Clarke 2002a.
267
 L . H A N N E S TA D A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E

suggests that this may have happened not earlier than the last quarter of N
the third century71.
The earliest coins from the site are two posthumous Alexander silver
coins and two bronzes of Seleukos I, the latest Hellenistic date from the
late 70s BC72. The overwhelming majority of the coins derive from Antioch
and attest a strong and continued contact with the west from the found-
ing of the site to its end. In contrast, hardly any coins from eastern mints
reached Jebel Khalid despite its location on the Euphrates. Coin peaks are
seen under the two first Seleucids, under Antiochos III and again in the
late second – early first century BC73.
A large building on the acropolis has been identified as the gover-
nor’s palace (Fig. 8)74. The building centres on a peristyle court with a
Doric colonnade. Both the room complexes on the south side and the
north wing must have had official functions such as audiences and ban-
quets. The floor of the large room in the north wing was covered with
marble slabs and decorated with wall paintings in the so-called Pompeian
First Style, imitating marble slabs, and a kind of floral decoration. One
unusual element in a Greek context and undoubtedly a result of the in-
fluence of local oriental traditions is the two corridors that close off the
peristyle from the suite of rooms on the south and the north side. The
dating of the palace is probably in the first half of the third century, or at
least in the third century BC75. In the long room in the west wing, two of-
ficial Seleucid seal impressions were found on the lowest floor level along
with a coin of Seleukos II. Clarke suggests that the room may have func-
tioned as an archive. One of the seal impressions shows a standing Athena
(similar to a type found on coins of several Seleucid kings) and traces of a
monogram. Clarke76 assumes that the seal would have been that of a royal
official.
Part of a domestic quarter has been identified in the northern part
of the site. One insula has been excavated completely77, showing a width
of 35 m and a length of 90 m, that is the unusually long proportions also
found at Apameia on the Euphrates. The houses were mainly built of rub-
ble with mud bricks used for the upper parts. A common feature is a court-
yard. Most rooms contained two floor levels, the earlier level directly on
the bedrock and the later one connected with a time of radical renovations
in the houses. The dating of the second floor levels seem to coincide with
the appearance of early ESA pottery, i.e. c. 150 BC. Remains of a third level,
apparently a kind of squatter habitation, have been traced in some areas78.
The coins found in the insula range from the reign of Antiochos I to the
71
Cf. also Berlin 2003.
72
Nixon 2002.
73
Nixon 2002.
74
Clarke 2002b; 2003.
75
Clarke 2002b, 47-48; 2003. 0 20
76
Clarke 2002c.
77
Harrison 2000; Jackson 2003; 2005.
78
Jackson 2005, 119. Fig. 8. Jebel Khalid, Acropolis palace. From Jebel Khalid. 1, fig. 1
268 269
 L . H A N N E S TA D
first quarter of the first century BC, the majority dating from the second
century. Also in these houses remains of painted wall stucco are recorded.
In the saddle between the Acropolis to the south and the Domestic
Quarter to the north, excavations have revealed remains of a Doric tem-
ple which must have been immediately visible from the main gate79. In the
same area are also remains of houses and what may have been a civic struc-
ture including a peristyle court or possibly rather a pi-shaped stoa.
The majority of the amphora stamps are Rhodian (at least 67.6%)80.
Of those which can be dated precisely through eponym names, one dates
from c. 244, one from c. 219–210, one from c. 203–199, one from c. 199,
eight c. 199–160, and four from c. 160 – c. 146 according to the chronol-
ogy of Finkielstejn81. A particularly interesting element is some stamped
handles definitely made of local clay and with names probably of Semitic
origin. The stratigraphic evidence suggests that these vessels belong to the
second half of the second century, i.e. a time when the import of Rhodian
wine seems to have stopped.
Finds of animal bones at Jebel Khalid allows us some insight into the
diet and animal economy of the people living on the site82. The animal
husbandry was mainly based on goats and in particular sheep83. Equines
(ass/onager being dominant in this group) and cattle seem only to have
been slaughtered at a late stage of their life after having served for trans-
port and labour. Camel is also represented, and pigs were quite common,
whereas fish bones are surprisingly few taking into account the location
of the site. Hunting animals include in particular young gazelles and deer.
Conclusion
Fergus Millar’s hypothesis84 that absence of tangible evidence from
Syria in the Hellenistic period might reflect ‘a real absence of development
and building activity in an area dominated by war and instability’ has al-
ready been criticised by other scholars. In fact the archaeological evidence
brought to light in recent years clearly contradicts any such assumption.
On the contrary, from the very beginning of Seleucid domination, possibly
from the time of Alexander onwards, northern Syria saw a distinct change
in settlement pattern and a strong growth of building activity attesting
substantial royal economic investments in the newly gained territory and
a substantial influx of immigrants. As Chaniotis85 has stressed, the founda-
tion of new cities and military settlements of the Hellenistic world provided
opportunity for large numbers of immigrants from mainland Greece, the
islands and the coast of Asia Minor.
79
Clarke 2005b; Harrison 2005b.
80
Clarke 2002d; 2005a.
81
Finkielstejn 2001.
82
Steele 2002.
83
Steele 2002, fig. 2.
84
Millar 1987.
85
Chaniotis 2005.
270
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
The archaeological evidence suggests that the middle of the second
century saw a new peak of wealth in Seleucid Syria. Thus the political dis-
asters befalling Antiochos III in his wars with the Romans and later the
rivalry for the throne still left the western core area of the earlier empire
in a state of wealth not wasted by endless taxations or use of manpower for
costly wars86.
One more element should be noted, i.e. that settlements even as far east
as the Euphrates have their strongest ties to the west from the very begin-
ning. This is clearly attested by the coins. But also the pottery and the lamps
show very strong affinities to the west and thus to the Greek Hellenistic
pottery tradition – a picture very different from what is to be found in
Mesopotamia – and further east. Also western imports, such as Rhodian
wine, seem to have been more common in Syria than in Mesopotamia in
general. The overall pattern strongly suggest that the Euphrates may have
formed a tax barrier between Syria and Mesopotamia87 which drastically
reduced the amount of trade in daily life things and /or that the number
of immigrants from Greek areas and from the coastal region of Syria com-
paratively small when it came to the regions east of the Euphrates from the
early third century onwards88.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abadie-Reynal C., Gaborit J. 2003: Le developement urbain en Syrie du Nord: étude
des cas de Séleucie et d’Apamée de l’Euphrate // Topoi. Suppl. 4, 149–169.
Abadie-Reynal C., Bucak E., Bulgan F. 2000: Zeugma, moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate.
Rapport préliminaire de la campagne de fouilles de 1999 // Anatolia Antiqua. 8,
279–337.
Alabe F. 2005: Céramiques hellénistiques d’Europos à Doura: hasards ou cohé-
rences? // Doura-Europos. Études. V. 1994–1997 / P. Leriche, M. Gelin and A. Dandrau
(eds.). P., 163–198.
Al-Maqdissi M. 1993: Chronique des activités archéologiques en Syrie (I) // Syria.
70, 443–576.
Al-Maqdissi M. 1995: Chronique des activités archéologiques en Syrie (II) // Syria.
72, 159–266.
Augé Ch. 1988: Note sur les monnaies découvertes en 1986 et 1987 // Syria. 65,
283–284.
Austin M.A. 2003: The Seleukids and Asia // A Companion to the Hellenistic
World / A. Erskine A. (ed.). Oxf., 128–129.
Balty J.-Ch. 1994: Grande colonnade et quartiers nord d’Apamée à la fin de l’époque
hellénistique // CRAI, 77–101.
86
Cf. Kramer 2004.
87
Cf. Bikermann 1938, 115–118; Lindstroem 2003, 54.
88
Acknowledgments. My thanks go to Vincent Gabrielsen for discussions with me on
the demography of Seleucia in Pieria; to FranÇoise Alabe for providing drawings of pot-
tery from Dura Europos and answering a number of questions concerning the French
excavations at Dura; to Sidsel Westh-Hansen for the drawings used for most of the il-
lustrations in this article; and, last but not least, to Toennes Bekker-Nielsen for reading
a draft of this paper and making helpful suggestions and corrections. All translations of
ancient authors are taken from the Loeb Classical Library.
271
 L . H A N N E S TA D
Balty J.-Ch. 2000: Claudia Apamea. Données nouvelles sur la topographie et l’his-
toire d’Apamée // CRAI, 459–495.
Balty J.-Ch. 2003: À la recherche de l’Apamée héllenistique: les témoignages archéo-
logiques // Topoi. Suppl. 4, 223–252.
Baur P.V.C. 1947: The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report IV, III. The
Lamps. New Haven.
Bellinger A.R. 1949: The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report VI. The Coins.
New Haven.
Berlin A. 2003: Review of: Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates: Report on Excavations
1986–1996. Vol. I // Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research. 331, 88–91.
Bikermann E. 1938: Institutions des Séleucides. P.
Brands G., Meyer C. 2006: Antioch-on-the-Orontes and Seleucia Pieria 2004. Preliminary
Results of the Geophysical Survey // Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı. 21, 149–154.
Casana J. 2003: The Archaeological Landscape of Late Roman Antioch // Culture
and Society in Later Roman Antioch / J.A.R. Huskinson, I. Sandwell (eds.). Oxf., 102–125.
Chaniotis A. 2005: War in the Hellenistic World. Oxf.
Clarke G. 2002a: The Main Gate // Jebel Khalid. 1, 17–23.
Clarke G. 2002b: The Governor’s Palace // Jebel Khalid. 1, 25–48.
Clarke G. 2002c: Four Hellenistic Seal Impressions // Jebel Khalid. 1, 201–203.
Clarke G. 2002d: Stamped Amphora Handles // Jebel Khalid. 1, 273–289.
Clarke G. 2003: Excavating and Interpreting the Governor’s Palace, Acropolis, Jebel
Khalid (The Australian Academy of the Humanities. Trendall lecture 2001). Canberra.
Clarke G. 2005a: Jebel Khalid: Stamped Amphora Handles 2000–2005 //
MeditArch. 18, 175–191.
Clarke G. 2005b: Jebel Khalid: Area B: The Jebel Khalid Temple // MeditArch. 18,
128–135.
Cohen G.M. 2006: The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin and
North Africa. Berkeley–Los Angeles.
Comfort M., Abadie-Reynal C., Ergec R. 2000: Crossing the Euphrates in Antiquity:
Zeugma Seen from Space // Anatolian Studies. 50, 99–126.
Desreumaux A., Gaborit J., Caillou J.-S. 1999: Nouvelles découvertes à Apamée d’Os-
rhoène // CRAI, 78–105.
Downey S.B. 1986: The Citadel Palace at Dura-Europos // Syria. 63, 27–37.
Downey S.B. 1997: Excavations in the Temple of Zeus Megistos at Dura-Europos,
1992 // Doura-Europos. Études IV. 1991–1993 (Collection de la Bibliothèque archéo-
logique et historique. 149) / P. Leriche, M. Gelin (eds.). Beyruth, 107–116.
Early R. 2003: Rescue Work by the Packard Humanities Institute: Interim Report
2000 // Early R. et alii. Zeugma: Interim Reports (Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Suppl. 51). Portsmouth RI, 8–56.
Finkielstejn G. 2001. Chronologie détaillée et revisée des éponymes amphoriques
rhodiens du 270 au 108 av. J.-C. environ (BAR International Series. 990). Oxf.
Frézouls R. 1955: Recherches sur la ville de Cyrrhus // Les Annales archéologiques
arabes syriennes. 4–5, 89–128.
Frézouls R. 1978: Cyrrhus et la Cyrrhestique jusqu’à la fin du Haut-Empire //
Temporini (ANRW. II, 8) / H. Haase, W. Haase (eds.). B., 164–197.
Gaborit J., Poccardi G. 2000: Séleucie-Zeugma et Apamée sur la frontière de l’empire
romain // MediterrAnt. 3, 95–109.
Gerkan A., von 1939: The Fortifications // The Excavations at Dura-Europos.
Preliminary Report of the Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work 1933–1934 and 1934–
1935 / M.I. Rostovtzeff, F.E. Brown, C.B. Welles (eds.). New Haven, 4–61.
Geyer B., Monchambert J.-Y. 2003: La basse vallée de l’Euphrate syrien du néolitique à
l’avènement de l’Islam: Géographie, archéologie et histoire. Beyrouth.
Geyer B., Rousset M.-O. 2001: Les steppes arides de la Syrie du Nord à l’époque byz-
antine ou la ruée vers l’est // Conquète de la steppe et appropriation des terres sur les
marges arides du Croissant Fertile / B. Geyer (ed.). Lyon, 111–121.
272
A R O YA L S I G N AT U R E L A N D S C A P E
Grainger J.D. 1990: The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxf.
Hannestad L., Potts D. 1990: Temple Architecture in the Seleucid Kingdom //
Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom / P. Bilde, T. Engberg-
Pedersen, L. Hannestad, J. Zahle (eds.). Aarhus, 91–124.
Hannestad L. 2004: Seleukos Nikator and Syria // From Handaxe to Khan. Essays
Presented to Peder Mortensen on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday / K. Folsach,
H. Thrane, I. Thuesen (eds.). Aarhus, 165–184.
Harrison D. 2000: Recent Australian and New Zealand Field Work in the Mediterranean
Region, Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, Excavations 2000 // MeditArch. 13, 123–159.
Held W. 2002: Die Residenzstädte der Seleukiden. Babylon, Seleukia am Tigris, Ai
Khanoum, Seleukia in Pieria, Antiochia am Orontes // Jahrbuch des Deutschen ar-
chäologischen Instituts. 117, 217–249.
Hoepfner W. 1999: Antiochia die Grosse und Epiphaneia // Geschichte des
Wohnens. Bd. I, 5000 v. Chr. – 500 n. Chr. Stuttgart, 472–491.
Hoepfner W. 2004: „Antiochia die Grosse“, Geschichte einer antiken Stadt //
Antike Welt. 35,2, 3–9.
Hopkins C. 1979: The Discovery of Dura-Europos. New Haven.
Houghton A., Lorber C. 2002: Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Pt. I.
Seleucus I through Antiochus III. Lancaster–L.
Howland H. 1958: Greek Lamps and their Survival (The Athenian Agora. Results
of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 4).
Princeton.
Jackson H. 2003: The Housing Insula // MeditArch. 16, 175–181.
Jackson H. 2005: Jebel Khalid: The 2004 and 2005 Seasons: The Housing Insula //
MeditArch. 18, 119–160.
Kennedy D. 1998: The Twin Towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates. Rescue Work and
Historical Studies (Journal of Roman Archaeology. Suppl. 27). Portsmouth RI.
Kramer N. 2004: Gindaros: Geschichte und Archäologie einer Siedlung im nord-
westlichen Syrien von hellenistischer bis in frühbyzantinischer Zeit. Rahden/Westf.
Lassus J. 1972: Antioch-on-the-Orontes V. Les portiques d’Antioche. Princeton.
Leblanc J., Poccardi G. 1999: Tracés urbains et ruraux antiques à Antioche //
Syria. 76, 91–126.
Leriche P. 1987: Urbanisme défensif et occupation du territoire en Syrie hellénis-
tique // Sociétés urbaines, sociétés rurales dans l’Asie Mineure et la Syrie hellénistiques
et romains. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, novembre 1985 (1987) / E. Frézouls (ed.).
Strasbourg, 57–79.
Leriche P. 1996: Le chreophylakeion de Doura-Europos et le problème de la mise en
place du plan hippodamien de la ville // Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique
(BCH. Suppl. 29) / M.-F. Boussac, A. Invernizzi (eds.). Athens, 157–169.
Leriche P. 2003: Doura-Europos hellénistique: les témoignages archéologiques //
Topoi. Suppl. 4, 171–191.
Leriche P. 2004: La rue principale et l’urbanisme d’Europos-Doura, étude prélimi-
naire // Parthica. 6, 145–159.
Leriche P. 2007: Le città dell’Oriente ellenistico // Sulla via di Alessandro da
Seleucia al Gandhara. Milano, 83–91.
Leriche P., Mahmoud A. 1988: Bilan des campagnes de 1986 et 1987 de la mission
franco-syrienne à Doura-Europos // Syria. 65, 261–282.
Leriche P. 1994: Doura-Europos. Bilan des recherches récentes // CRAI, 395–420.
Leriche P., Gelin M. 1997: Le palais du stratège à Doura-Europos // Doura-Europos.
Études IV. 1991–1993 (Collection de la Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. 149) /
P. Leriche, M. Gelin (eds.). Beyruth, 55–80.
Lindstroem G. 2003: Uruk. Siegelabdrücke auf hellenistischen Tonbullen und
Tontafeln. Mainz.
Lund J. 1993. The Archeological Evidence for the Transition from the Persian
Period to the Hellenistic Age in Northwestern Syria // Transeuphratène. 6, 27–45.
273
 L . H A N N E S TA D
Lund J. 2004: The Iron Age and the Graeco-Roman Period // Topographical
Studies in the Gabla Plain (Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter. 28) / P. Riis, I. Thuesen,
J. Lund, T. Riis (eds.). Copenhagen, 38–84.
Matthers J. et alii 1978: Tell Rifa’at 1977. Preliminary Report of an Archaeological
Survey // Iraq. 40, 119–162.
Matthers J. et alii 1981: The River Qoueig, Northern Syria, and its Catchment.
Studies Arising from the Tell Rifa’at Survey 1977–1979 (BAR International Series. 98).
Oxf.
Mazzoni S. 1991: The Persian and Hellenistic Settlement at Tell Mardikh / Ebla //
Ho Hellenismos stin Anatoli. Athens, 81–98.
McNicoll A.W. 1997: Hellenistic Fortifications / Revised by N.P. Milner. Oxf.
Millar F. 1987: The Problem of Hellenistic Syria // Hellenism in the East /
A. Kuhrt, S. Sherwin-White (eds.). L., 110–133.
Newell E.T. 1941: The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to
Antiochus III. N. Y.
Nielsen I. 1994: Hellenistic Palaces. Tradition and Renewal. Aarhus.
Nixon C.E.V. 2002: The Coins // Jebel Khalid. 1, 291–335.
Pamir H., Brands G. 2007: Archäologische Untersuchungen im Stadtgebiet von
Antiochia am Orontes/Antakya 2005 // Araútirma Sonuçları Toplantısı. 24, 397–418.
Rostovtzeff M. 1937: Rapport sur les fouilles de Doura-Europos, campagne de 1936–
1937 // CRAI, 135–205.
Sauvaget J. 1934: Le plan de Laodicée-sur-mer // Bulletin d’Études Orientales. 4,
81–114.
Sauvaget J. 1936: Le plan de Laodicée-sur-mer (note complémentaire) // Bulletin
d’Études Orientales. 6, 51–52.
Seton-Williams M.V. 1961: Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Rifa’at //
Iraq. 23, 68–87.
Seton-Williams M.V. 1967: The Excavations at Tell Rifa’at, 1964. Second Report //
Les Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes. 17, 69–84.
Steele D. 2002: Faunal Remains // Jebel Khalid. 1, 125–145.
Tate G. 1992: Les campagnes de la Syrie du nord du IIe au VIIe siècle. P.
Wagner J. 1976: Seleukeia am Euphrat/Zeugma. Wiesbaden.
Walbank F. W. 1957: A Historical Commentary on Polybios. Vol. I. Oxf.
Weiss H. 1994: Archaeology in Syria // AJA. 98, 101–158.
Weiss H. 1997: Archaeology in Syria // AJA. 101, 97–148.
Weulersse J. 1934: Antioche. Essai de géographie urbaine // Bulletin d’Études
Orientales. 4, 27–79.
Wilkinson T.J. 2003: Archaeological Landscapes in the Near East. Tucson.
Wilkinson T.J. 2004: On the Margin of the Euphrates: Settlement and Land Use at
Tell es-Sweyhat and in the Upper Tabqa Area, Syria. Chicago.
Wirth E. 1971: Syrien, eine geographische Landeskunde. Darmstad.
Yener K.A., Edens C., Harrison T.P., Verstraete J., Wilkinson T.J. 2000: The Amuq Valley
Regional Project, 1995-1998 // AJA. 104, 163–220.
Yon J.-B. 2003. Les villes de Haute-Mésopotamie et de l’Euphrate // Topoi. Suppl. 4,
193–210.
M. Piérart
Une nouvelle proxénie argienne de la bassе
époque hellénistique et les synèdres d’Argos
Clarisse Prêtre a présenté, sous le titre «Une nouvelle mention des
synèdres dans une inscription argienne inédite», un décret de proxénie ar-
gien de la basse époque hellénistique pour un citoyen de Kleitôr1. L’étude
paléographique, onomastique et prosopographique très fouillée qu’a four-
nie l’éditrice l’a conduite à dater le texte de 90–80 av. J.-C. environ, une da-
tation qui est plausible et que nous ne remettrons pas en cause ici. Comme
presque tous les textes argiens de cette période, son établissement est très
difficile, faute de parallèles, et l’on sera reconnaissant à l’éditrice de ne pas
en avoir retardé plus longuement la publication.
Le décret, gravé sans soin particulier sur un support médiocre2, est
présenté par sept ou huit personnes3 dans lesquelles C. Prêtre n’a pas hé-
sité à reconnaître des synèdres. Les synèdres ont effectivement joué, après
la conquête romaine, un rôle déterminant dans les institutions d’Argos
et d’un grand nombre de cités grecques et, comme le prouvent les textes
parallèles, leur nom est attendu dans la formule de résolution du nou-
veau décret. Toutefois, en dépit des mises en garde de P. Charneux4 et de
P. Rhodes5, l’éditrice continue à suivre, à propos de cette institution, le
commentaire de W. Vollgraff. Abusé par une notice mal interprétée de
Pausanias, celui-ci faisait des synèdres des magistrats d’un Koinon Argolikon
dont aurait fait partie la cité d’Argos6. Des études récentes ont largement
renouvelé la question de l’apparition des synèdres dans les institutions des
cités grecques7. Les documents en notre possession aujourd’hui permettent
1
Prêtre 2003, 71–84 (SEG LV 2005, 409; Bull. ép., 2007, 296 [S. Minon, L. Dubois]).
L’inscription avait fait l’objet de brèves mentions par Charneux 1990, 397 et Charneux
1992, 337–338.
2
La médiocrité du support n’étonne pas dans cette période difficile financière-
ment: cf. Piérart 2010, 27.
3
Huit d’après l’éditrice, sept selon Charneux 1990, 397. On ne discutera pas ici le
commentaire paléographique, onomastique et prosopographique qu’offre l’éditrice.
4
Charneux 1990, 397, n. 17.
5
Rhodes, Lewis 1997, 71, n. 5.
6
Vollgraff (1904, 424; 1909, 176–178), égaré par Paus. VIII, 22, 1 et 23, 1. Sur cette
interprétation, cf. Piérart 2010, 26, 32.
7
Cf. Knoepfler 1990; 2001; Fröhlich 1999; 2002; Deshours 2004; Müller 2005 (Bull.
ép. 2006, 194 [D. Knoepfler]); sur les synèdres d’Argos: Piérart, Touchais 1996, 73–74;
Piérart 2010, 24–26.
275