Thapsacus and Zeugma the Crossing of the Euphrates in Antiquity

Author(s): Michal Gawlikowski

Source: Iraq, Vol. 58 (1996), pp. 123-133
Published by: British Institute for the Study of Iraq
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200424 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Iraq.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 123

THAPSACUS AND ZEUGMA

THE CROSSING OF THE EUPHRATES IN ANTIQUITY

By MICHALGAWLIKOWSKI

One of the most uncertain points of historical geography of ancient Syria concerns the site of
Thapsacus, even if the uncertainty has sometimes been disguised by assertive pronouncements. This
city had enjoyed considerable importance during the Persian period, and possibly earlier, as a major
crossing of the Euphrates and the main link between Syria and Mesopotamia. It appears for the first
time in our record in the Bible, as the place on the Euphrates where the country "beyond the river"
begins.1 Even if referring to the purported extent of the realm of Solomon "from Thapsacus to
Gaza", this mention clearly applies to the Persian satrapy of Abar-Nahara, meaning the whole of
Syria and Palestine, and provides evidence for the conditions in the Achaemenid period.2 The
crossing at Thapsacus itself might of course have been used much earlier, whatever the name.
To the Massoretic vocalisation Tiphsah, generally accepted in modern translations, the form of
Tapsah should be preferred, as found in the Syriac Bible provided with vowel signs centuries before
the Hebrew original. This reading is moreover paralleled by the still earlier Septuagint version
Ta??. The Greek rendering confirms not only the vowels but also, if indirectly and by omission, the
final pharyngeal of the name, in contrast to the usual T??a??? found in Classical authors. This
form is indeed unexpected, but transcriptions of foreign names do not always obey strict rules.3
The importance of the crossing at Thapsacus is illustrated by the expedition of Cyrus the Younger
in 401 b.c. and again by the pursuit of King Darius by Alexander the Great. Still later, Thapsacus
was taken by Eratosthenes (as recorded by Strabo) as a keypoint for delimiting the geographical
regions he had distinguished and the maps representing them, using the route measurements taken
by Alexander's bematists.4 The location of Thapsacus is therefore of paramount importance for the
history of ancient geography. Yet, since 1907 when the problem was declared insoluble,5 the only
new solutions were offered by Herzfeld in 1911 and by Musil in 1927, both to be discussed later. It is
true that Thapsacus practically disappears from sight after Alexander, if we except historical and
geographical references to his campaign. Supposing, as it seems likely, that Thapsacus presented
some topographical or strategic advantage, it is hard to believe that it was entirely abandoned
during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The simplest explanation of its disappearance from the
record would of course be a change of name.6
Now, the main passage of the Euphrates under the Empire was known as Zeugma, that is "the
Bridge", or more specifically "Pontoon Bridge", a colloquial name for the city of Seleucia-on-the-
Euphrates, founded by Seleucus Nicator at the same time as the city of Apamea on the opposite
bank.7 The site, long held to correspond to a much-travelled modern ferry opposite the town of
Birecik on the left bank, is now safely located at Balkis some 12 km upstream from Birecik.8 Could it
be that Seleucia and Zeugma are just more recent names for Thapsacus?
Such a proposition has not yet found its place, I believe, among the various and diverging
opinions expressed at various times by modern travellers. Most of them knew the country still
untouched by mechanical means of transport, and were in the position to appreciate the practical
aspects involved, at the same time being generally conversant with the classical authors. In contrast
tn the river of toHav entirelv free of traffic the ninet.eent.h-cent.urv Funhrates was still used as a

11 5 V.
Reg. 5:4 (4:24 in the English Bible). The name is formed Chapot, La fronti?re de VEuphratede Pomp?e ? la
from the root psh, to pass over, and means simply "crossing, conqu?te arabe (1907), 283-4.
6 As
ford". It occurs again in 2 Reg. 15:16 as a place name in already suggested by E. Honigmann, RE V Al (1932),
Samaria (Josephus: e\g Tafa?), probably to be corrected to 1272-80, who also lists the principal identifications of the
Tappuah, after Luc. LXX ?af??. site.
2 Cf. ?sra 5.6 and 6.6. 7 NH V.86.
3 P. A. de 8 As established
Lagarde, Abh. G?ttingen 35 (1889), 131, sup- by F. Cumont, ?tudes syriennes
posed the Greek form to be influenced by ????a???. Cf. H. (1917), 119-50; on history of research, see the monograph
Lewy, Die semitischen Fremdw?rter im Griechischen(1895, by J. Wagner, Seleukeia am EuphratIZeugma (1976).
reprint 1970), 146. Birecik (known earlier as Bir) was shown by Cumont
4 Strabo II. 1. 21-39. Cf. O. A. W. Dilke, Greek and to correspond to ancient Birtha, also called Macedono-
Roman Maps (1985), 32-5. polis.

IraqLVIU(1996)

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 MICHAL GAWLIKOWSKI

'?

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THAPSACUSAND ZEUGMA:THE CROSSINGOF THE EUPHRATESIN ANTIQUITY 125

waterway, although presumably less so than in antiquity. There is a good chance that fords and
ferries of this time corresponded to the ancient ones, especially where there are some ruins on the
shore. As there are many such sites, and the favourite sport of matching ancient and modern place-
names failed to produce in this case anything worth quoting, we are left with a collection of possible
sitings of Thapsacus stretched along the river from Birecik as far as nearly 500 km downstream.
The first serious exploration of the course of Euphrates in modern times was conducted in the
years 1835-7 by Colonel Francis R. Chesney. Commissioned by the Duke of Wellington to test the
Mesopotamian river as a possible short-cut to India, he did so aboard two steamers, the "Euphrates"
and the "Tigris", brought in pieces from the Gulf of Issus (today the Gulf of Iskanderun) and
reassembled near Birecik (at "Port William"). The "Tigris" was soon lost near Abu Kemal, but the
"Euphrates" made it all the way to the Persian Gulf and then continued to explore the lower reaches
of the Tigris and Karun. The Chesney expedition provided the first, and for a long time only, precise
maps of the waterways of the region, which were published in 1850 together with the two imposing
volumes of the official publication, recently reprinted.9
Contrary to what might be expected, Chesney produced, after a general description of the
"regions situated between the rivers Nile and Indus" in Volume I, a ponderous history of the Near
East from Noah to his own time, occupying the whole Volume II, while Volumes III and IV,
presumably planned to contain an account of the actual exploration, never appeared. Feeling the
inadequacy of this reporting, the surgeon and geologist of the expedition William F. Ainsworth
provided, after Chesney's death and half a century after the event, his own account, lively and
detailed, and obviously relying on some notes, though not a real diary.10 However, Chesney's papers
were accessible to the prolific German geographer Carl Ritter, who used them as early as 1843 in the
relevant volume of his monumental "Erdkunde".11
Comparing the distances given by ancient authors with his own measurements, Chesney fixed the
site of Thapsacus at a ford called al-Funsa near al-Hammam, six miles (10 km) below the site of
ancient Sura, opposite the ruins of Hiraqla and not far upstream from Raqqa.12 He noticed there
stone embankments on both sides, and the remains of a stone bridge, called by the locals Hajar
Resas (in reference to leaden clamps holding the stones together). It is likely, however, that the
bridge dated back only to the same period as the main monuments on the left bank, that is
essentially to the time of Harun al-Rashid.13
Even less convincing is the proposal of E. Herzfeld, who picked Tell Thadayain, a prominent but
unexplored mound 30 km upstream from Raqqa.14 An elaborate reasoning was supposed to prove
the point by calculating distances between the sites mentioned in Ptolemy from their coordinates,
and adding them up along a preconceived route of Alexander to obtain the overall distance between
the Euphrates and the Tigris as provided by Eratosthenes. Both the principle and the often
perplexing details of this demonstration are highly questionable, but the most important objection
is that it renders the original assumption of Eratosthenes absurd: the line from Thapsacus to the
Tigris and on to Caspian Gates was supposed to form the northern limit of the relevant region, while
in Herzfeld's assumption it would run practically north-south.
Others proposed a passage further upstream, near Balis or at nearby Dibsi, the latter location put
forward for no better reason than the name, vaguely resembling that of Thapsacus.15 However,
between ?/75/?/Thapsacus and Dibsi, the only common element is the s ! In the opposite direction,
Deir ez-Zor and Mayadin, both sites with no ancient record to show, also ran in this competition.16
9 F. R.
Chesney, The Expeditionfor the Surveyof the Rivers M?sopotamie au Vie si?cle (1983), 53-4, reported to have
Euphratesand Tigris . . . infour volumes(1850, reprint 1969). seen there in the 1940s a simple water-wheel pile, and not a
10W. F. Ainsworth, A. Personal Narrative of the Euphrates bridge pier; the name al-Funsa was changed in the mean-
Expedition (1888). time to Qal'at Nimrod.
,l C. Ritter, Die Erdkunde . . . oder allgemeine verglei- 14F. Sarre-E.
Herzfeld, op. cit., 143-51.
chende Geographie, III. VIL "Das Stufenland des Euphrat- 15For the first time
by B. Moritz, "Zur antiken Topogra-
und Tigrissystems", vol. X (1843), vol. XI (1844). phie der Palmyrene", Abh. Berliner Akademie I (1889), 31;
12
Chesney, I, 48 and II, 416; Ainsworth, I, 275; Ritter, X. cf. Chapot, La fronti?re de l'Euphrate, 284.
16Deir ez-Zor:
1111-15. Cf. A. Musil, The Middle Euphrates(1927), 190 (as already d'Anville, L'Euphrate et le Tigre
al-Fansa). This is accepted by R. Dussaud, Topographie (1779). Mayadin: A. Musil, op. cit., 213-40 and 340. This
historique de la et m?di?vale(1927), 455. author made an otherwise valid distinction between Thap-
13F. Sarre-E.Syrie antiqueReise im
Herzfeld, Euphrat- und Tigris- sacus of Xenophon and Thapsacus of Ptolemy, identified
gebiet I (1911), 160-3. Recently, J. Lauffray, Halabiyya- respectively, with inconclusive arguments, with Samuma
Zenobia. Place forte du limes oriental et la Haute- near Balis-Meskeneh and a point near Mayadin.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 MICHALGAWLIKOWSKI

AU these proposals were deduced from the same ancient texts, taking into account such features of
topography as happened to impress the travellers, and sometimes with remarkable disregard for
larger historical context.
On the other hand, two professional soldiers, Colonel Arthur Boucher in 1913 and W. J. Farrell in
1961, firmly placed Thapsacus further north, at Birecik or Jerablus respectively, in contempt of all
modern authorities but in accordance with their own military training. Indeed, the site of Jerablus
impressed Farrell as the passage of a railway bridge! Both were ignored as mere dilettanti, and the
opinion most often accepted at present favours either Baus or Dibsi.18 Both sites have, in the
meantime, been flooded by the Tabqa Dam, but they were excavated prior to the filling of the lake, and
no clues to the Thapsacus question appeared. Indeed, the excavator of Dibsi has convincingly argued
against the identification of his site with Thapsacus,19 but firmly established convictions die hard.
The first documented use of the passage at Thapsacus goes back to 401 b.c. and is related much
later by Xenophon.20 The Greeks in the army of Cyrus the Younger learned there that they were
being led to confront the Great King and hesitated for a while before crossing into Mesopotamia.
Roughly counted distances, both from the port of Myriandrus on the Gulf of Issus (65 parasangs
covered in 12 days) and then along the eastern bank of the Euphrates, are recorded on this occasion.
While the march from the Mediterranean was so drawn out as to accommodate almost any location
of Thapsacus, once beyond the Euphrates the army made 50 parasangs in 9 days through "Syria" to
the river Araxes.21 As the distance from Meskeneh to the Balikh is merely 110 km, and from some
other places proposed even less, the proponents of the siting of Thapsacus at or below the great bend
of the Euphrates are obliged to identify the Araxes with the Khabur, leaving the former waterway
crossed without mention. More troubling for this hypothesis is the fact that the Greeks saw the
Euphrates for the first time at Thapsacus, while it would be practically impossible to reach any place
below the bend otherwise than along the river.
It is known from the account of Arrian that the passage at Thapsacus was used by the last Darius when
fleeing east across the Euphrates after the disaster at Issus, trying to "put that river as soon as possible
between himself and Alexander",22 and again by Alexander going after him, once he had secured
Phoenicia and Egypt. After crossing on two pontoon bridges prepared by his engineers, the conqueror
advanced through Mesopotamia having at his left the river Euphrates and the mountains of Armenia.23
As both military officers quoted above justly observed, it would not make much sense for Darius
to go completely out of his way down along the river to one of the places proposed by modern
scholars, only to go back again up the Balikh or the Khabur. His obvious objective was to cross the
river and reach the heartland of his kingdom with the fewest delays in order to muster a new army;
were Thapsacus situated so far downstream as it is pretended, he would probably have used another
crossing on a more direct route.
The same is true of Alexander, who would have been losing time pointlessly if he had followed
the Euphrates downstream and then reverted northwards, with the river on his left, far enough
to justify a reference to the Armenian mountains. And when we hear about Alexander ordering a
fleet to be built in Phoenicia and Cyprus and brought by land to Thapsacus (the task
accomplished in seven stages only) in order to be dispatched from there to Babylon,24 it
17A.
Boucher, L'Anabase de X?nophon (1913); W. J. ??f??t?? p?ta??? sp??d? ??a????, ?? t???sta ??s??
Farrell, JHS 81 (1961), 153-5. a?t?? t? ?a? ??e???d??? t?? ??f??t?? p???sa?. Trans-
18Cf.
recently A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary lation quoted after ?. J. Chinnock (1893), who thought
on Arrian's History of Alexander (1980), 222 (to Ait. IL Thapsacus to have been at Sura.
23
13.1), referring to R. Dussaud, loc. cit., and R. D. Barnett, An*.,Anab. III. 7. 3: "???e?8? ????e? ???, iv a??st^??
"Xenophon and the Wall of Media", JHS 83 (1963), 1-26. ???? t?? ??f??t?? p?ta??? ?a? t?? '???e??a? ta ???,
19R. D.
Harper, "Excavations at Dibsi Faraj", Dumbar- d?a t?? ?es?p?ta??a? ?a????e??? ???a?.
ton Oaks Papers 29 (1975), 321, n. 4. The site is probably 24
Aristobulos, Frg. 40 M?ller (= 139 F 55 Jacoby, II B,
A this of Ptolemy, V. 15.17, renamed later as Neocaesareia, p.792,21): t? ?a?t???? . . . ep? t?? ??f??t?? p?ta???
and transformed successively into Qasrin, Qseyr Dibsi (19th e? F??????? e?? ??fa??? p???? ... ; cf. Plutarch,
cent.) and finally Dibsi Faraj. Cf. Harper, "Athis-Neocae- Alex. LXVIII.2: Kai p???a pa?t?dap? pe?? ??fa???
sareia-Qasrin-Dibsi Faraj", in J.-Cl. Margueron (ed), Le ?p????t?; Curt. ?. 1.19: Jgitur Mesopotamiae praetoribus
Moyen-Euphrate,zone de contacts et d'?changes(1977), 327- imperavit ut materia in Libano monte caesa devectaque ad
48, and already K. Miller, Itineraria Romana (1916, reprint urbem Syriae Thapsacum septingentarum carinas navium
1988), 759. poner?, septemremis omnes esse deducique Babylona. The
20Xen., Anab.\.4:\\. recurrence of the name of Thapsacus in all three authors is
21Anab. 1.4:19.
compelling.
An*., Anab. II. 13.1: . . . ini T?fa??? re p???? ?a? t??

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THAPSACUSAND ZEUGMA:THE CROSSINGOF THE EUPHRATESIN ANTIQUITY 127

becomes perfectly clear that Thapsacus in question had to be as close to the Mediterranean as
possible.
Now Zeugma is at a distance of 150 km from the sea as the crow flies, and 175 Roman miles or
1400 stadia by road according to Pliny and Strabo, in both cases about 250 km starting from the
cities of Seleucia in Pieria and Issus respectively, both relevant in the geographical context.25 On the
other hand, the site of Dibsi is at a not much greater distance from the sea by way of Aleppo (some
270-90 km depending on which modern road we choose). It is then any place upstream from the
bend of the Euphrates that would more or less correspond to the distance from the Mediterranean
as provided; not every one, however, would meet other conditions we should expect from the
crossing at Thapsacus.
Rather obviously, the choice of route depended on the destination. If one wished to go to
Babylonia along the Euphrates, one of the more southerly crossings would do, provided the
conditions of security in the desert plain east of Aleppo were reasonably reliable. This route was
often used in ancient and modern times and has repeatedly made the fortune of Aleppo as a great
trading centre. It is however striking that neither Cyrus nor Alexander passed through the city. This
points to a crossing further north, approached through the more rugged but better-watered country
of the later Cyrrhestice.
However, while Cyrus went toward Babylonia along the left bank of the Euphrates, it is
obvious from Xenophon's account that this route was most unusual. It was practically never used
in Islamic times,26 and in antiquity only on some exceptional occasions.27 In more recent times the
crossing at Birecik provided access to the road through the fertile plain along the headwaters of the
Balikh and Khabur on to the Tigris valley. This is the route most Assyriologists take for granted for
the caravan traffic between Assur and Cappadocia in the 19th-18th centuries b.c.28 It could have
crossed the Euphrates at the station called Abrum, as suggested by etymology, parallel to that of the
name Thapsacus. Indeed, J. Lewy went as far as to identify Abrum and Thapsacus,29 but the
traditional siting of the latter around the bend of the Euphrates induced him to propose an entirely
improbable route from Assur to Cappadocia, while another author rejected this equation, precisely
because Abrum must have been not far away from Birecik.30
I think this is indeed where it was, and it was still where Alexander headed in pursuit of Darius.
This is also where Colonel Chesney brought his two steamers by ox-drawn carts, to be reassembled
at his "Port William" opposite Birecik, and the port of Alexander's Phoenician ships could well
have been there, too.
In fact, this was what Pliny thought. He was apparently not alone in this belief, as he reports that
an iron chain having served for the naval bridge of the Macedonian was still on display in Zeugma.31
It is not important for our query whether this relic was genuine or not; it seemed to all to be at its
right place. Some held it for even more venerable: Pausanias reported probably the same chain,
covered with vine and ivy, as a remnant of the bridge used by Dionysos himself on his way to India,
a belief obviously reminiscent of Alexander's crossing.32 The tradition was established firmly
enough for Crassus to be assured that he was following the footsteps of Alexander when he crossed
at Zeugma in 54 b.c.33 In another passage Pliny actually mentions Thapsacus: opposite the parts of
Mesopotamia inhabited by the Rhoali (certainly a variant of the name Osrhoeni), one finds in
Syria oppida Europum, Thapsacum quondam, nunc Amphipolis, Arabes Scenitae.34 Zeugma is
25Strabo XIV. 31NH XXXIV. 15:
2.29; N H V.125. ferream catenam apud Euphratem
26Cf. G. L.
Bell, "The East bank of the Euphrates from amnem in urbe quae Zeugma appellatur, qua Alexander
Tell Ahmar to Hit", The Geographical Journal 36 (1910), Magnus ibi iunxerit pontem . . .
513-537; Amurath to Amurath (1911), 76-92. 32Paus. X.29.4: (Dionysos)
27As p??t?? de ??f??t??
by Tukulti-Ninurta II in 885 b.c., see A. K. Grayson, ?ef???sa? p?ta???. ?e???a te ?????s&? p???? ?a&?t?
Assyrian Royal Inscriptions 2 (1976), 98-105 (text) and A. e?e??&? t?? ???a? ??f??t?? ?a\ ?st?? ??ta?Fa ? ?????
Musil (note 12), 199-205 (for the route). ?a? e? ???? e? ? t?? p?ta??? e?e??e?, ??pe?????? ????
28Cf. ?. J.
Beitzel, "The Old Assyrian Caravan Road in pep?e?????? ?a? ??ss??
the Mari Royal Archives**,in G. D. Young (ed.), Mari in 33Dio XL. 17: t? de ????as?. t??
d? ???ss? ??f??t?? ?at? t?
35-57. ?e???a (??t? ?a? ?p? t?? t?? ??e???d??? st?ate?a?
29From (1992),
Retrospect
'br, to cross (as in the later name of the province t? ?????? e?e???, ?t? ta?t? epe?a??t?, ?e???ta?)
Abar-Nahara): J. Lewy, Orientalia NS 21 (1952), 274 and d?a?a????t? ... Cf. Lucanus, Bellum civile Vili, 236-7:
286. Zeugma Pellaeum, i.e. "Alexander's Zeugma". The tradition
30A.
Goetze, JCS 7 (1953), 68; cf. M. Falkner, AfO 18 is also confirmed by Stephanus, s.v. Zeugma.
(1957/8), 36. 34A7/V.87-9.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128 MICHALGAWLIKOWSKI

conspicuously absent from this statement, though it was very close to Europus, modern Jerablus.
While "Pliny's words are ungrammatical and nonsensical and perhaps corrupt",35 they are perhaps
not hopelessly so.
The plural oppida relates here to at least two cities, Europus and Thapsacus, the latter apparently
renamed Amphipolis, but it seems likely that Pliny meant rather to mention three: Europus (modern
Jerablus), former Thapsacus (whatever its later name), and Amphipolis. The latter is said elsewhere
to have been, as the neighbouring Oropus (Europus), a foundation of Seleucus Nicator, and called
in the local (i.e. Aramaic) language Turmeda.36 It is highly improbable that its identity with
Thapsacus would have been omitted by the Greek sources quoted in Stephanus's dictionary; rather
some confusion or omission has intervened in Pliny's text. This Hellenistic foundation is perhaps
identical with the site of Jebel Khaled (earlier known as Kara Membij), currently excavated by an
Australian expedition.37
The three cities are said, in the same passage of Pliny, to be separated by a stretch of desert
inhabited by the nomad Scenitae from the city of Sura, where the Euphrates turns east and enters
the Parthian lands in which the town closest to Sura is called Philiscum. Judging from this passage,
Thapsacus simply cannot be in the general vicinity of Sura, contrary to what has been maintained
since Ritter and imposed by the authority of Kiepert, Dussaud and others. While Meskeneh, Dibsi
and Thadayain are all situated too close upstream from Sura to fit Pliny's description, because they
do not allow for the nomad territory, other proposed sites lie even below this Roman fortress. It will
not help to follow a suggested emendation of Suram locum to Barbalissum, while correcting it to
Thapsacum (with the deletion of this name where it actually stands) does more violence to the text
than it deserves.38
On the other hand, Strabo considered Zeugma as quite remote from Thapsacus, as he gives the
distance between them as amounting to 2000 stadia, that is 357 km.39 There is matter for
misunderstanding in another passage of this author, where he seems to say that there was also a
Zeugma in Commagene, likewise called Seleucia and counting as a Mesopotamian fortress
(f?????? t?? ?es?p?ta??a?), near the city of Samosata.40 This statement has sometimes been
understood as reporting a Seleucia on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, but it was convincingly
explained as resulting from the use of an antiquated source contemporaneous with Pompey and its
attribution, in 64 b.c., of Seleucia-Zeugma, considered as the gate to Mesopotamia, to the kingdom
of Commagene.41 Ten years later, however, the proconsul Cicero took Zeugma back from the vassal
king,42 and the city reverted to Cyrrhestice, consequently to be mentioned later by Pliny as
belonging to this district. Anyway, Samosata lies only 110 km upstream from Balkis, much too
close to accommodate the distance of 2000 stadia reported by Strabo. We are left, then, with a
contradiction: Thapsacus is stated to be far away from Zeugma and yet there is strong evidence for
the two being identical.
The solution to this contradiction is to be found in Strabo himself: he says indeed that there were
two zeugmata, the old one in Thapsacus and the one contemporary to the author at Zeugma
proper.43 If we take this statement at face value, we should conclude that Cyrus, Darius, and

35So ?. ?. ?.
Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman
Provinces2 (1971), 442.
36
Stephanus (ed. Meinecke, 1849): *??f?p????? p????
?a?ed???a? . . . ?st? ?a? p???? S???a? p??? t?
??f??t?, ?t?s?a Se?e????, ?a?e?ta? de ?p? t?? S????
?????eda. Also s.v. Oropos quoting Alexander Polyhistor
and Xenophon of Lampsacus. The name Surmagha (M?ller,
GGM I, 976, Dussaud, 458) is not compellingly related to
Turmeda, but above all the place so named lies on the
Mesopotamian side, opposite Jerablus, while Amphipolis is
clearly said to be in Syria.
37Cf. G.
Clarke, Mediterranean Archaeology 5/6 (1992/
93), 111-15, and forthcoming reports in Abr-Nahrain; for
Kara Membij, cf. ?. Miller, Itineraria Romana (1916, reprint
1988), 758 (would be Gerrha of Ptolemy ?); Chesney, II, 419;
Ainsworth I, 248-55, Dussaud, 451.
38R. P. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29 (1975), 442.
39StraboHarper,
XVI.1.22.
^Strabo XVI.2.3 and XIV.2.29: ap? Sa??s?t?? t??
????a?????, ? p??? t? d?a??se? ?a? t? ?e???at? ?e?ta?
. . . Wagner, op.cit., 42 and 48, attaches convincingly the
relative clause to Commagene and not to Samosata. Cf.
XVI. 1.22: ????a????? ?e???at??, ?pe? est?? ???? t??
?es?p?ta??a?.
41J.
Dobi?s, "S?leucie de TEuphrate", Syria 6 (1925),
253-68; Wagner, 56-64.
42Ad
Quintum fratrem 15 (II. 11(10)): extorsi. . . oppidu-
lum quod erat positum in EuphratiZeugmate. I do not share
the impression of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Epistulae ad
Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum (1980), 67, that Zeugma
would be here the name of a whole district in which the
oppidulumwas situated. The irony of the passage seems clear,
and the reference is therefore to the city of Zeugma. This
evidence, first advanced by Dobi?s, loc. cit., is stronger than
that of the use of the era of Actium on a coin of Trajan
64).
(Wagner,
43
Geogr. XVI. 1.23.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THAPSACUSAND ZEUGMA:THE CROSSINGOF THE EUPHRATESIN ANTIQUITY 129

Alexander all used the old zeugma at Thapsacus. This is, of course, the generally accepted version.
However, it makes us believe that the tradition of Alexander's crossing has been transferred to the
wrong site, one that it would have been more suitable for him to have chosen in the first place. This
does not look very likely.
Now, it is enough to admit a confusion in Strabo, not in the tradition. The geographer is given
away by his reference to Eratosthenes providing the distance from Thapsacus to the (unnamed)
Tigris crossing used by Alexander as 2400 stadia (427 km).44 In itself, this figure corresponds
roughly to the distance both from Zeugma to, say, Jeziret Ibn Omar,45 and from Meskeneh to
Mosul or thereabouts, and so cannot contribute much to the fixing of Thapsacus on the map.
However, this distance was meant above all to represent a part of the length of the third region
of Eratosthenes, which extended further to the Caspian Gates.46 While the route so defined did
not run exactly from west to east, nor even in a straight line, as Eratosthenes (or at least Strabo)
readily admitted, it should have followed this direction at least approximately, and as far north
as possible, if it were to be useful for the purpose of delimiting the region (and also to approach
the upper Euphrates and the mountains close enough to justify their mention as being on the left
of the conqueror). Strabo stated in this connection that the largest extent of the country is
towards the mountains and might be identical with the distance supplied by Eratosthenes. This
in turn excludes the manuscript variant of the distance in question as 1400 stadia,47 which would
indicate, if adopted, a Tigris crossing of Alexander far to the north, somewhere near later Amida
(Diyarbekir), a location improbable in itself. Any place down from the great bend of the
Euphrates must be likewise excluded as unfit to serve as the starting point of a line going to the
Caspian Gates, however vaguely they were located. This of course favours the identity of the
old and new Zeugma, and contradicts Strabo's own information about the distance between the
two.
The distance from Zeugma to Thapsacus given by Strabo applies, however, to a site well below
the bend of the Euphrates. This is corroborated by the information of Ptolemy: not only Thapsacus,
as well distinct from Zeugma, is listed there, and placed roughly half-way between the estuaries of
the Balikh and the Khabur, but its position is also related to the distribution of geographical regions
of Syria (rather idiosyncratic in Ptolemy).48 A line touching the Euphrates at Thapsacus is said to
mark the south-eastern limit of Syria and Palmyrene within it, and the beginning of Arabia Deserta:
Thapsacus is the first place on the Euphrates cited in the latter country.49
The region which Ptolemy calls Palmyrene included Sura and extended not further than the
next named place, the otherwise unknown Alamatha, located by its coordinates slightly short of
Nicephorium on the Mesopotamian bank; the latter place lay at the mouth of the Balikh (this
river being omitted from Ptolemy's account) and nearly coincided with modern Raqqa. All this is
incompatible with siting Thapsacus anywhere between Meskeneh and Raqqa, as most modern
authorities do, because this entire stretch of the right bank is counted within Ptolemy's
Palmyrene.
This lower Thapsacus, at any rate, could not have been connected with the campaign of
Alexander. It was much too far downstream to be useful for the Macedonian army heading for
Gaugamela, and far too distant from the sea to be a naval base for ships brought by land from
Phoenicia. It would also not do for the crossing of Cyrus the Younger: too far from the
Mediterranean, it would have implied a long journey through the Syrian desert, on the last leg
along the river, instead of the recorded leisurely march through the well-watered country of
northern Syria, reaching the Euphrates only at the site itself.50 After the crossing, the distances
counted by Xenophon in the approximate unit of parasang add up to a total of 198 parasangs, or
some 900-1000 km, between Thapsacus and Cunaxa, which is of uncertain location, but close to

"Strabo II. 1.38. IL 1.24, corrected since Casaubon after II. 1.38, cf. W.
45The station
Sapha ad fl. Tigrim (Peut. XI.5; Ptol. Aly, Strabonis Geographica(1968), 94.
V.17.6: S?pf?) near this city is credited, without 48Cf. G. Bowersock, "The Three Arabias of
Ptolemy", in
compelling reason, as being the scene of Alexander's P.-L. Gatier, B. Helly, J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), G?ographie
crossing, cf. J. Markwart, S?darmenien und die historique au Proche-Orient (1988), 47-53.
49Ptol. V.
Tigrisquellen nach griechischen und arabischen Geographen 14.5.
260. 50Anab. I.IV.18.
(1930),
46
Strabo, XVI.1.21.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130 MICHALGAWLIKOWSKI

Babylon.51 This corresponds rather neatly to the 724 miles from Zeugma to Seleucia-on-the-Tigris
(just over 1000 km) as given by Pliny.52
Strabo, for his part, quoted the distance from Thapsacus to Babylon as used by Eratosthenes to
demarcate the western limit of his third region. It was counted along the Euphrates, thus
representing a real itinerary, and amounted to 4800 stadia or 855 km. This is much longer than
the actual distance from the lower Thapsacus (less than 800 km), but should not, nevertheless, be
conflated with the distance given by Strabo, apparently after some other authority, from Zeugma to
Thapsacus as 2000 stadia. The total would be some 1200 km, this time exaggerated in the opposite
sense. We have here the length of two routes partly coinciding: from the upper Thapsacus (later
Zeugma) to Babylon and from Zeugma to the lower Thapsacus below the bend of the river.
Another piece of information from Eratosthenes, preserved by Strabo, may serve here as
counterpoint. We learn that the distance from Thapsacus northwards to Armenia amounted to
1100 stadia, which still falls short by an unspecified distance from the Caspian Gates.53 However,
applying the given distance (very nearly 200 km) to the lower Thapsacus in the upstream direction,
we arrive at a point rather close to Zeugma, Armenia being separated from there by the whole length
of Commagene. The distance to the Armenian Gates, wherever we should place them,54 should have
been counted from a place not far away from Zeugma, if not simply from Zeugma itself.
The information of Strabo is misleading in dubbing the homonymous sites as old and new
Thapsacus. In fact, it appears that the main road to Mesopotamia led by way of the more northern
crossing, and because the tradition of Alexander's bridge survived at Zeugma, there is no need to
look for another site for the crossing of Achaemenid times. The "flourishing city" Xenophon
saw was refounded as Seleucia and remained a major crossing point throughout the Roman period
as "The Bridge" par excellence. There was a change of name only (Thapsacum quondam), and not a
change of route across the Euphrates from the Mediterranean to the Tigris. Strabo became
confused, assigning the old Thapsacus to the site of that name further downstream, which in fact
is not mentioned before him, and after him only by Ptolemy. This lower Thapsacus had nothing to
do with Alexander and with the point on which Eratosthenes hinged his system.
It had nothing to do with the Biblical Tiphsah/Tapsah either. As already stated above, its mention
in the narrative makes sense only if the place was commonly known as a frontier town, the extent of
Solomon's kingdom being assimilated to the actual satrapy of Abar-Nahara. According to
Herodotus, the fifth satrapy included Phoenicia and Palestine from Poseideion to the border of
Egypt, as well as Cyprus.55 While nothing is said on this occasion about the extent inland, the name
of the "river Thapsacus", mentioned by Pseudo-Scylax in the mid-fourth century b.c. and con-
sidered as the frontier between Cilicia and Coele Syria,56 indirectly supplies the missing information.
This stream was situated between the ports of Myriandus and Aradus and cannot but be the
Orontes; as the site of Poseideion is today Ras el-Basit, 25 km south from the estuary of the great
Syrian river,57 the statement of Herodotus is consistent with this. Rather than suppose an otherwise
unattested name for the Orontes,581 would see here a misunderstanding: at or near the mouth of the
Orontes began the road to Thapsacus, the major crossing of another great river inland. As Pseudo-
Scylax was interested in the coast only, as were, most often, the Greek mariners for whom he wrote,
the information about the land route became somehow telescoped into the outwardly absurd
T??a??? p?ta???. Therefore we have good reason to believe that the line from the mouth of
Orontes to Thapsacus was considered as the approximate northern limit of the satrapy of Abar-
Nahara, here referred to already under its Hellenistic name of Coele Syria.59

51Cf.
Musil, 13-26, counting 5940 stadia (about 1060 km),
but his value of a parasang (30 stadia) is perhaps exagger-
ated.
52NH\. 125.
53Strabo II. 1.21
(so mss, emended since Casaubon as 2100
stadia, but correctly in II. 1.26 and 29) and II. 1.24: ? ?a?
T?fa??? p??? t?? ???? ?fest??e, s??p?pte? de ?a? t?
???? ?a? ? ap? Taf???? ?d?? ep? ras ?asp???? p??a?.
54Cf. Markwart
(note 45), 8, proposing K?m?r-chan east
of Malatya, some 230 km from Zeugma along the Euphrates.
55Hist. l\l.%9.
56GGMl,p. 78, 102 and 104.
57P. J.
Riis, Sukas I (1970), 137, after H. Seyrig, Syria 19
(1938), 312, in spite of C. L. Woolley, JHS 58 (1938), 28-30,
who preferred al-Mina at the mouth of the Orontes. Cf. more
recently Rey-Coquais, Arados et sa p?r?e (1974), 117.
So O. Leuze, Die Satrapieneinteilung in Syrien und im
Zweistromlande von 520-320 (1935), 203. Likewise, the river
Thapsus in Africa (Vibius Sequester, 144) is mentioned by
the same Pseudo-Scylax, 111, as a port (T?fa ?a? p???? ?a?
?????).
Cf. M. Sartre, "La Syrie Creuse n'existe pas", in P.-L.
Gatier, B. Helly, J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), G?ographie his-
torique au Proche-Orient (1988), 15-40.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THAPSACUSAND ZEUGMA:THE CROSSINGOF THE EUPHRATESIN ANTIQUITY 131

The Biblical reference points naturally in the same direction, and it was not lost on several
scholars who remained, however, dependent on the traditional siting of Thapsacus at the great bend
of the Euphrates.60 The resulting shape of the province would omit the Euphrates valley upstream
from the bend, while the supposed frontier town would be separated from Syria proper by the whole
width of the Syrian desert. Seeing the absurdity of this conclusion, O. Leuze rejected, however, not
the usual location of Thapsacus, to this day reproduced in countless Biblical atlases, but its function
as a key point of communication, obvious from all available evidence.61 The contradictions of
classical studies thus have a bearing on Biblical and Orientalist scholarship whose own resources
point in another direction. Putting Thapsacus at Zeugma restores to its rightful place a major Syrian
city within the Persian Empire, and perhaps even a crossing point of the Assyrian merchants of the
early second millennium b.c.
Counting with Strabo his 2000 stadia from Seleucia/Zeugma to the lower Thapsacus, one arrives
in the neighbourhood of the great d?fil? of Khanuqa,62 right above Halebiyeh and 180 km beyond
Meskeneh. This would coincide roughly with Ptolemy's coordinates for Thapsacus. It would also be
conceivable that a major landmark on the Euphrates route could be construed by Ptolemy as a
natural frontier between two of the regions he distinguished, the Palmyrene and Arabia Deserta.
On the other hand it is striking to find practically the same distance recorded between Zeugma
and two other places: Phaliga, mentioned by Isidorus of Charax as situated at the mouth of the
Khabur, and the enigmatic Oruros of Pliny, described as the terminus imperii established by
Pompey.63
The route described by Isidorus in his Parthian stations took a shortcut, crossing the Euphrates at
Zeugma and joining the course of the Balikh to follow it all the way to the Euphrates and down to
Phaliga. The name of this locality is explained in Greek as mesoporikon, "half-way" (Aramaic palga,
"half) and indeed, with some minor corrections of the text, such a result can be obtained for the
distances both to Seleucia in Pieria and to Seleucia-on-the-Tigris.64 Phaliga lay close enough to the
township (komopolis) of Nabagath for the distance between the two to be omitted. The two localities
were most probably separated by the Khabur: not only can the text of Isidorus be translated in this
way,65 but evidence from Dura shows that under the Parthian administration each place had
belonged to a different hyparchy.66
At the time of Isidorus, about the turn of the era, caravans were regularly ferried from Nabagath
to the other bank of the Euphrates.67 As for Phaliga, it must have been on the site of the Diocletianic
fortress of Circesium, which after the wars of the third century had become the last stronghold of the
Roman empire along the great river. As late as a.d. 363, the emperor Julian crossed the Khabur from
Circesium,68 only to embark immediately and rejoin the western bank of the Euphrates, as I shall try
to demonstrate elsewhere. Following thus exactly the Parthian stations of Isidorus as they were used
nearly four centuries before, and possibly still earlier, Julian was certainly taking a rational decision
and conforming to a generally accepted practice of several centuries. In all probability he followed
in the footsteps of Trajan, as the historian of the latter's Mesopotamian campaign had had the
occasion to mention "Phalga" on the Euphrates.69
The established habit, of crossing first the Khabur and only then the Euphrates, could not have
been as bizarre as it seems and must have had a good topographical reason behind it, but it remains
unexplained. The recrossing of the Euphrates was the result of taking the shorter route across this
60
E.g. H?lscher, Pal?stina in der persischen und hellenis- ?a?a???), ?a? pa?a??e? a?t?? p?ta??? ?????a?, ??
tischen Zeit (1903), 5; U. Karstedt, ''Syrische Territorien in e?????e? e\? t?? ??f??t??. The verb pa?a??e?? can be
hellenistischer Zeit", Abh. G?ttingen NF 19 (1926), 2. translated without violence as "to flow between".
61O. 66
Leuze, cit., 114. Pap. Dura 20 and 25; cf. M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 61
62For this op. cf.
feature, Sarre-Herzfeld, 164-6; J. Lauffray, (1984), 86.
66. The place is already mentioned in the Assyrian sources of 1??e??e?d?a?a??e?ta e???at? '???a???? p??a?. W. ?.
the 9th century: Grayson, 139. Schoff, Parthian Stations by Isidorus of Charax (1914), p. 5,
63? H VI. 120. The table in
Wagner, 49, fig. 3, mistakenly translates: "there the legions cross over to the Roman
gives 50 miles from Zeugma to Oruros, instead of 250, as in territory across the river" but st?at?peda here cannot be
the received text. This unnecessary correction goes back to taken in a military sense, pace M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 61
C. M?ller and his edition of Isidorus in GGM I, 1882, 245. (1984), 86: Parthian armies, whenever crossing into Roman
64M.
Gawlikowski, "La route de l'Euphrate d'Isidore ? territory, did so further north, close to Zeugma and the road
Julien", P.-L. Gatier, ?. Helly, J.-P. Rey-Coquais (eds.), to Antioch.
G?ographiehistorique au Proche-Orient (1988), 76-98. 68
Ammianus, XXIII.5. 5-8; XXIV. 1; Zosimus III. 1-2.
65Isidorus 5: 69
pa???e?ta? ?e t? F????a ????p???? Arrian, Parthica X, frg. 8 (Stephanus s.v.).

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132 MICHAL GAWLIKOWSKI

river and along the Balikh, rather than along the Euphrates all the time. Independently of any
strategic intentions that might be attributed to Julian in choosing this itinerary, this choice also
enabled him to stay as long as possible in Roman territory.
It might well be that Phaliga hides under the corrupted name Philiscum, quoted as the Parthian
town closest to the Roman stronghold of Sura,70 though this would make a long stretch of the
Euphrates valley between the mouths of the Balikh and Khabur entirely devoid of significant
settlements. The first Parthian town we know of on the same western bank as Sura was Dura-
Europos, still further downstream than Phaliga-Circesium on the eastern side, but of course
Nicephorium at the mouth of Balikh was barely 30 km downstream from Sura on the opposite
bank. Assuming the existence of a significant city of Thapsacus on the western bank across from
Phaliga would be entirely arbitrary, even more so in that the distance from Zeugma to Thapsacus
and to Phaliga, while practically the same, was measured in each case along a different route:
following the Euphrates in Strabo and the Balikh in Isidorus. Upon reaching the Euphrates, the
latter had behind it a gain of some 70 km over the former.
Pliny is alone in mentioning a place he calls Oruros, qualified as the limit of the Roman empire
established by Pompey.71 It is mentioned as one of the towns of Mesopotamia which lie close to the
Euphrates: after Nicephorion (at the mouth of Balikh), Apamea in Zeugma, and the destitute
satrapal seat Caphrena east of the latter, there are recorded Thebata and Oruros, "remaining as they
were". The text goes on to provide information on the river and its branches further downstream.
Carl M?ller in his edition of Isidorus has compared the name Oruros with the station of
Mavovoppa AvvprjS not far from Zeugma, understanding the first part of this corrupted name as
"Orhai of Mannos", i.e. Edessa.72 While Orhai was indeed the native name of Edessa, and Ma'n? a
well-known dynastic name of the rulers of Osrhoene, it is difficult to see why Isidorus should present
this royal city as a mere fort.73 Even if correct, this emendation would not impose the identification
of Manouorrha with Oruros, especially as the distance given is a far cry from the real span from the
Euphrates to Edessa. Although uncertain, M?ller nevertheless corrected the distance in Pliny from
250 to a mere 50 miles (supposing an improbable notation of "200 paces and 50 miles"), thus
obtaining a rough equivalent to 60 miles from Zeugma to Manouorrha as converted from Isidorus's
own distances measured in schoeni.
This unnecessary correction has been accepted by Th. Mommsen, who looked for Oruros
between Nisibis and the Tigris,74 admitting explicitly that this limit of Roman power could only
be understood as indirect, because Pompey had attributed the region to the king of Armenia, and
implicitly choosing as the starting point of the distance so corrected a Zeugma near Samosata,
which, as we have seen, never existed. However, once Oruros is dissociated from Edessa, there is no
longer any need to correct the distance given by Pliny; besides, the capital of a satellite king can
hardly be considered as a "Grezpunkt". So the whole hypothesis falls flat.
On the contrary, if we keep the distance of 250 miles from Zeugma, and remember that Oruros is
said at the same time to be in vicinia Euphratis, together with such cities as Nicephorion and Apamea
across from Zeugma itself, we cannot escape the conclusion that it was identical with the lower
Thapsacus of Strabo. Indeed, 250 Roman miles stretch practically as far as 2000 stadia, both
counted from Zeugma. It may be objected that Thapsacus certainly lay on the Syrian bank, while
Oruros is put among the cities of Mesopotamia. However, since the very name of Thapsacus carries
as it does the meaning of "crossing", it could perhaps be admitted that the last Roman post down
the river was situated at the site of a known crossing to Mesopotamia and thus was quoted among
the towns of that country subject at the time to the Parthians.
The distance indicated from Zeugma to Thapsacus (and Oruros) falls around the narrows of
Khanuqa, where the Byzantine city of Zenobia (today Halebiyeh) effectively closed the passage
along the right bank and controlled the water traffic of the Euphrates. On the opposite bank, the

70? H VI. 89: A Sura Griechenund R?mern V.2 (1829), 279.

autemproxime est Philiscum oppidum 73L.
Parthorum ad Euphratem. Cf. Th. Mommsen, RG V.424, Dillemann, Haute M?sopotamie orientale et pays
?. 85, and M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 61 (1984), 85. adjacents (1962), 168, 178, 181-3, identified Mannouorrha
71? H V. 120: ductu with the present day 'Ain el-'Ar?s, with good topographical
Pompei Magni terminusRomani imperi
Oruros, a Zeugmate CCL mil. arguments.
12GGM I (1882), 246, after G. Mannert, Geographie der 74RG III, 148.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THAPSACUSAND ZEUGMA:THE CROSSINGOF THE EUPHRATESIN ANTIQUITY 133

ruins of Zalebiyeh are believed to represent the station of Basileia mentioned by Isidorus as the site
of a temple of Artemis attributed to king Darius and a canal believed to have been dug under
Semiramis.75 This neighbourhood is certainly not different from the "narrows of the Euphrates"
(hinqu sa Puratte) reached by Ashur-nasir-apli II in 877 b.c.76 As Zalebiyeh is 83 km distant from
Raqqa, and so 243 km from Zeugma along the left bank, it may safely be admitted that the distances
of Strabo and of Pliny coincide with this site, and by the same token with the site of Halebiyeh-
Zenobia within view on the right bank.
The ruins of Halebiyeh represent, essentially, the stronghold of Zenobia built by Justinian in
order to lock the Euphrates road against Persia.77 This "bulwark of the Empire" cannot but be
identical with a city "second to no other", built by Justinian in a magnificent style on the site of a
ruined fort called Annoucas (i.e. Khanuqa).78 While Procopius reports this last stronghold as
located "beyond Circesium", that is well downstream from Zenobia, the very name does not allow
one to dissociate it from the narrows of the Euphrates, where no other site can possibly match the
vivid description. The ruins were rapidly investigated by J. Lauffray in the 1940s and the results have
recently been published.79 Whatever the perhaps only legendary relation of the site to the queen of
Palmyra, there are, outside the walls, several tower-tombs pointing to an earlier period. While the
proposal of A. Musil to locate there and in Zalebiyeh the cities of Kar-Ashur-nasir-apli and Nibarti-
Ashur, founded by the Assyrian king on opposite banks of the Euphrates, remains a mere guess,80
the settlement at the site of Zenobia could well have existed in the times of Pliny or even of Pompey.
However, the early dating of the tombs is only typological and cannot be relied upon.
It seems extremely likely, on the other hand, that the site appears in the account of the Persian
expedition of 253 under the name of Birtha Asporakou.81 This fortress is mentioned in the great
inscription of Ka'be-ye Zartost right before the city of Sura, also taken by S?hpuhr on the same
occasion. As for the name, there is no particular reason to link it with the only Sporaces known to
history, the ruler of the not far distant Anthemousias in the time of Trajan.
If accepted, this reasoning would lead us to locate the extreme point of Roman advance under
Pompey at or near the site of the future Zenobia, some 115 km below the fortress of Sura, which held
the same role later on. For Pliny, whose sources may go back to the time of Augustus, the first
Parthian post down from Sura was called Philiscum, and it should be identical with the place he
himself elsewhere calls Oruros, but the naturalist certainly did not realise that such is the logical
implication of two of his passages when compared. The presence of the twin site of Zalebiyeh on the
eastern bank could perhaps explain the mention of Oruros among the cities of Mesopotamia. The
text of Pliny is here, as so often, imprecise, but this is not a reason to reject his numerical data
unnecessarily. A local tradition holds the ruins of Halebiyeh and Zalebiyeh to have been linked by a
tunnel, and a story of a chain across the river attaches to a tower nearby.82 These stories might,
however vaguely, reflect a confusion with Thapsacus, its bridge and its chain. At any rate, Strabo
recorded the lower Thapsacus in this neighbourhood, not without some confusion, too. This
crossing is to be clearly distinguished from its more famous homonym known to Xenophon and
Alexander, the main link between Syria and Mesopotamia throughout the centuries, which I believe
now to be firmly established at Seleucia-in-Zeugmate.

75Cf.
Musil, 184-6, 211. For the identification of Basileia,
see already A. Poidebard, La trace de Rome dans le d?sert de
la Syrie (1934), 88-90. Cf. M. Gawlikowski, op. cit., 82.
7 Cf. A. K.
Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions2 (1976),
139.
77
Procopius, De aedif., IL 8:11: p??????? t?? *???a???
a????, ep?te?????a ?e d?ep???at? ???aa??.
?*De aedif., IL 6:12.
79J.
80Cf.Lauffray, op. cit. (note 13).
A. K. Grayson, op cit., 140; A. Musil, 208, 211.
81E.
Kettenhofen, Die r?misch-persische Kriege des 3.
Jahrhunderts?. Chr. nach der Inschrift S?hpuhrs I. an der
Ka'be-ye Zartost (1982), 52 (???&a? ?sp??????, pahl. byrt
'spwrkn);so already A. T. Olmstead, CPh 37 (1942), 404; ?.
Maricq, Classica et Orientalia (1965), 80; M.-L. Chaumont,
Historia 22, 1973, 671, ?. 39; J. Lauflray, 77. For the mean-
ing of birta in Aramaic, see A. Lemaire-H. Lozachmeur,
Syria, 64(1987), 261-6.
82For the
chain, Lauffray, 67. Naturally, it could have
been part of a fairly recent ferry.

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:09:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions