That some kind of mix-up has occurred around Prusias, a two-towered
station shown inland without connecting routes, is generally recognized. It has
been contended by Miller and the archaeologist
David H. French that this Prusias is identical to another
site without a vignette further to the right on the TP, Prus[a] ad Olymp[i]um,
and is thus a duplication.
Moreover, all agree that the other two-towered inland station, drawn to the left of Prusias, ought hardly to be labelled Lamasco as marked, since the true Lamasco is correctly shown at the nearby coast.
In the view of Miller (712), the left-hand vignette properly represents Apamea, now the city of Mudanya on the Marmara Sea coast (see its entry in DARE), while the right-hand vignette represents Prusa ad Olympum, now the inland industrial city of Bursa at the foot of the Mysian Olympus mountain (DARE). He argues the route needs to be rectified to follow a course Appol[l]onia - Prusias - Apamea - Cio - Pylae (right to left on the page, but broadly eastwards on the ground). Thus Cio would need to be shifted leftwards along the line (694). The "second" Prus ad Olympum would be deleted (Miller fig. 232, Richtigstellung). Miller further draws a route from this Apamea to Cyizico and inserts Dascylio between them as a way-station (695).
Talbert's Database offers a different proposal: again that the left-hand vignette (Lamasco, TPPlace2201) should represent Apamea (known earlier in its long history as Brylleion and Myrleia and later styled Colonia Iulia Concordia Apamea on coinage), whereas the right-hand vignette (Prusias, TPPlace2202) be identified with Prusias ad Mare or Kios (now Gemlik, Turkey, see DARE). As with Mudanya, the latter town is sited on the coast. Talbert contends that an entry written further to the right, Cio, also attaches to this seaside place (Kios is written Cius in Latin; see also Wikipedia), and that a duplication has thus occurred, since the chartmaker "was evidently unaware that these two names refer to the same city." Unlike Miller, he draws the erased road to Kios and Apamea as a cul-de-sac and does not continue it to Cyzicus. He allows that Prus ad Olympum, TPPlace2198, is Bursa.
There is, I submit, a simpler solution which respects the broader route pattern. The line Mileopoli - Appollonia - Prusad Olympum - Cio - Pylae already makes good sense and is best left intact, just as it has been drawn. French splits this line into two Roman roads, which he numbers as follows with their archaeological evidence (French 2016, 32-33):
There is a way to combine the best of Miller's and Talbert's proposals, escape the evident weaknesses in each and also avoid impugning the competence of the chartmaker.
Hover your mouse cursor over the square button to see the emendation in action. The animated emendation I have created simply lowers the route which leaves Cyzico on the right. After this nudge, the line continues through the {Lamasco} and {Prusias} vignettes to terminate at the chicane marked Cio, leaving the rest of the linework intact. The stations remain as they are and only two re-identifications are required.
Talbert seems to have at least entertained this possibility too, yet offers no very convincing grounds in his comments (TPP2195) for having rejected it. The distances given by the TP for the three sections making up such a route are XXIIII, XX and XXI mille passuum, or 96 kilometres in total. The line is drawn just below an oval of water which seems to be a chimera of Lake Ascanius and the southern part of the Sea of Marmara.
The two double-towered intermediate stops are thus likely to be either Skylake or Daskyleion (Eşkel, Miller's Dascylio above) at left and Apamea at right.
One might attempt to reverse-engineer the labels {Lamasco} and {Prusias} by considering faulty transliterations from a semi-Greek original of the Tabula (see Talbert 2010, 100 note 78, and Talbert 166 recording Prisciani's observation of Greek text on a TP avatar). Could Lamasco result from a misreading of Δασκύλιον as "Lasco" (delta read as lambda)? Could Prusias be a misreading of Βρύλλιον (beta read as pi and the lambdas misinterpreted as cursive sigmas) to make "Prussi"? The similarities are sufficient for contemplation, but not substantial enough to convince. Perhaps it is best to assume the labels are nothing more than stupid scríbal mistakes, the genesis of which cannot be divined. What matters, as I have done here, is to fix them.
The route from Cius along the Marmara Sea was probably an offshore one, not a road. French 2016, 79 does suggest Colonia Apamea was a roadhead (caput viae) of either a route through Cius or through Prusa, but I cannot find his corroborating mention of any epigraphic data in connection with these conjectured routes C.13 Cybistra - Pylae and C.14 Tyana - Pylae.
On balance, it seems sure that the route is based on periplus data, not on a land itinerary, and the distances reflect nothing more exact than average sailing times. As the crow flies, the distance from the eastern side of the Cyzicus isthmus to Prusias/Kios is 105 kilometres clear across the bay, which is a good match, being not inordinately greater than the total of the m.p. numbers above.
Moreover, all agree that the other two-towered inland station, drawn to the left of Prusias, ought hardly to be labelled Lamasco as marked, since the true Lamasco is correctly shown at the nearby coast.
In the view of Miller (712), the left-hand vignette properly represents Apamea, now the city of Mudanya on the Marmara Sea coast (see its entry in DARE), while the right-hand vignette represents Prusa ad Olympum, now the inland industrial city of Bursa at the foot of the Mysian Olympus mountain (DARE). He argues the route needs to be rectified to follow a course Appol[l]onia - Prusias - Apamea - Cio - Pylae (right to left on the page, but broadly eastwards on the ground). Thus Cio would need to be shifted leftwards along the line (694). The "second" Prus ad Olympum would be deleted (Miller fig. 232, Richtigstellung). Miller further draws a route from this Apamea to Cyizico and inserts Dascylio between them as a way-station (695).
Talbert's Database offers a different proposal: again that the left-hand vignette (Lamasco, TPPlace2201) should represent Apamea (known earlier in its long history as Brylleion and Myrleia and later styled Colonia Iulia Concordia Apamea on coinage), whereas the right-hand vignette (Prusias, TPPlace2202) be identified with Prusias ad Mare or Kios (now Gemlik, Turkey, see DARE). As with Mudanya, the latter town is sited on the coast. Talbert contends that an entry written further to the right, Cio, also attaches to this seaside place (Kios is written Cius in Latin; see also Wikipedia), and that a duplication has thus occurred, since the chartmaker "was evidently unaware that these two names refer to the same city." Unlike Miller, he draws the erased road to Kios and Apamea as a cul-de-sac and does not continue it to Cyzicus. He allows that Prus ad Olympum, TPPlace2198, is Bursa.
There is, I submit, a simpler solution which respects the broader route pattern. The line Mileopoli - Appollonia - Prusad Olympum - Cio - Pylae already makes good sense and is best left intact, just as it has been drawn. French splits this line into two Roman roads, which he numbers as follows with their archaeological evidence (French 2016, 32-33):
- 35: Pergamo - Hadrianuteba - Mile(t)opoli - Appollonia - Prusa ad Olympum of which traces have been observed between Pergamum and Miletopolis. French says no Roman milestones have been found anywhere on its course, but his catalog does in fact list one candidate: 3,4.02 Beșevler, in a western suburb of Bursa. This line is contiguous on the TP and runs broadly eastward.
- 40: Prusa ad Olympum - Cio - Pylae, of which there are "possible traces" of a Roman road where it crosses the peninsula between Cius and Pylae. He cites one milestone likely associated with this route - 3,4.24 Tepecik found in the northwest suburbs of Bursa (RRMAM vol. 3,4, pages 69-71). The course runs broadly northward.
There is a way to combine the best of Miller's and Talbert's proposals, escape the evident weaknesses in each and also avoid impugning the competence of the chartmaker.
Hover your mouse cursor over the square button to see the emendation in action. The animated emendation I have created simply lowers the route which leaves Cyzico on the right. After this nudge, the line continues through the {Lamasco} and {Prusias} vignettes to terminate at the chicane marked Cio, leaving the rest of the linework intact. The stations remain as they are and only two re-identifications are required.
Talbert seems to have at least entertained this possibility too, yet offers no very convincing grounds in his comments (TPP2195) for having rejected it. The distances given by the TP for the three sections making up such a route are XXIIII, XX and XXI mille passuum, or 96 kilometres in total. The line is drawn just below an oval of water which seems to be a chimera of Lake Ascanius and the southern part of the Sea of Marmara.
The two double-towered intermediate stops are thus likely to be either Skylake or Daskyleion (Eşkel, Miller's Dascylio above) at left and Apamea at right.
One might attempt to reverse-engineer the labels {Lamasco} and {Prusias} by considering faulty transliterations from a semi-Greek original of the Tabula (see Talbert 2010, 100 note 78, and Talbert 166 recording Prisciani's observation of Greek text on a TP avatar). Could Lamasco result from a misreading of Δασκύλιον as "Lasco" (delta read as lambda)? Could Prusias be a misreading of Βρύλλιον (beta read as pi and the lambdas misinterpreted as cursive sigmas) to make "Prussi"? The similarities are sufficient for contemplation, but not substantial enough to convince. Perhaps it is best to assume the labels are nothing more than stupid scríbal mistakes, the genesis of which cannot be divined. What matters, as I have done here, is to fix them.
The route from Cius along the Marmara Sea was probably an offshore one, not a road. French 2016, 79 does suggest Colonia Apamea was a roadhead (caput viae) of either a route through Cius or through Prusa, but I cannot find his corroborating mention of any epigraphic data in connection with these conjectured routes C.13 Cybistra - Pylae and C.14 Tyana - Pylae.
On balance, it seems sure that the route is based on periplus data, not on a land itinerary, and the distances reflect nothing more exact than average sailing times. As the crow flies, the distance from the eastern side of the Cyzicus isthmus to Prusias/Kios is 105 kilometres clear across the bay, which is a good match, being not inordinately greater than the total of the m.p. numbers above.
No comments:
Post a Comment