Ancient History & Civilisation

NOTES

ONE

1. Sources for Mesopotamian maps are reviewed in Röllig (1980–83). For a comprehensive discussion of building plans, see Heisel (1993), 7–75; Dolce (2000).

2. All dates are BCE.

3. Mellaart (1964), 55 and plates V–VI; Mellaart (1967), 176–77 and plates 59–60; Steward (1980).

4. For the study of ancient Mesopotamian toponyms, see Parpola (1970); Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients/Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes, Bd. 1–8 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1974–85).

5. Of course, the expression has reference only to the modern division of time into “hours,” which did not apply in Near Eastern antiquity; the translation “double-hour” for bēru is, therefore, a concession to modern terms for ease of comprehension.

6. Reiner and Pingree (1981), 42:22–22a and 42:24b; discussion in Koch (1989), 119–32.

7. See ab.sínsi.ginx (GIM) ìi.dúr.dúr.re.eš.àm mul.an.zag.til.bi: kīma šer’i sunnuqu kakkab šamê gimiršun, “in order to keep all the stars of the sky in their prescribed course like the furrow [on a field]”: Textes cunéiformes du Louvre 6 51 r.7f., see Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 11:145, line 29.

8. Heinrich and Seidl (1967); Baker (2004), 59. In Heisel (1993), see 8–19 and ills. M1–12 for the Early Dynastic and Akkadian periods; 23–24 and M15 for Ur III; 29–32 and M19–25 for Old Babylonian; 34–35 and M27–29 for Kassite; 40 and M32 for Neo-Babylonian; 50–51 and M42–43 for Achaemenid and Seleucid.

9. For example, Louvre AOT b.355 + 355 bis, on which see Heisel (1993), 13 and M2; Dolce (2000), 374n59 and fig.2, who draws attention to Sallaberger’s analysis of the inscription on the reverse in which men, women and children are listed. Louvre fragment AOT b 357 belongs to the same context: see Thureau-Dangin (1897a), xxiv.64; Heisel (1993), 14 and M3.

10. For discussion of the interpretation of the measurements given, and the scale of the cubit (1:180), see Heisel (1993), 23; Dolce (2000), 376n67; and further, Robson (1996).

11. King (1898–1900), pl. 242–43, BM 86349; see also Heinrich and Seidl (1967), 35–37.

12. The classification as a temple by Heisel (1993), 27–29, was corrected by Sallaberger, as Dolce (2000), 378nn83, 87, notes. The interpretation of PA.PAH (papāhum) as “reception room,” is discussed by Kalla (1996), 251n10.

13. Louvre AOT b 356; see Heinrich and Seidl (1967), 27–29; Heisel (1993), 9–11 and M1.

14. Nippur 6 NT-428; Heinrich and Seidl (1967), 33–35; Heisel (1993), 25 and M16.

15. Examples include Nemet-Nejat (1982), nos. 3, 12, etc. See further Baker (2004), 61; Wiseman (1972), 145.

16. This is also suggested by the appearance of a house plan on the reverse of a Late Babylonian copy of part of the lexical series ur⁵.ra; see Wiseman (1972), 145 and fig. 3 (BM 46740).

17. BM 132254; see Wiseman (1972), 145–46 and fig. 4; Heisel (1993), 39–40; Dolce (2000), 379 and fig. 11.

18. Hilprecht collection in Jena, HS 200a; see Oelsner (1984, 1989); Heisel (1993), 33–34 and M26; Sallaberger (2002).

19. Sallaberger (2002), 612–18, discusses the inscription.

20. Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum, VAT 8322+12886; see Jakob-Rost (1984).

21. BM 38217; see Wiseman (1972), 141–47; Heisel (1993), 42–44 and M35.

22. Statue B: see Edzard (1997), 30–38.

23. Sarzec (1884–1912) I, 138–40; II, vii–xv (copy), pl. 15, no. 1 (photo of plan), pls. 16–19 (photos of statue, all sides).

24. The “cubit” and stylus are also preserved on the inscribed Statue F, dedicated to the goddess Gatumdug. No ground plan is drawn on this statue, but it tells of the Ensi Gudea building the temple for Gatumdug on pure ground and giving her a throne and a treasure box; in return, Gatumdug guaranteed the health and productivity of livestock. See Edzard (1997), 46–48.

25. Edzard (1997), Cyl. A, 85 xxv 24-xxvi 14; Heimpel (1996), 17; cf. Dolce (2000), 368n21.

26. Paris, Louvre, AOT b 359, published by Thureau-Dangin (1897b); see Heisel (1993), 14 and M4; Dolce (2000), 373 and fig. 1.

27. For further discussion of Babylon’s assumption of the place of religious capital city, and a new edition of Tablet I of Tintir = Babylon, see George (1997).

28. For a drawing, see http://www.schoyencollection.com/babylonianhist.htm (text MS 2063).

29. CAD, s.v. ammatu, discussion section.

30. CAD, s.v. ammatu, usages b–g.

31. For example, IM 53965; see Baqir (1951), problem 7.

32. King (1912), no. 8 i 26; also no. 7 i 14.

33. See Liverani (1990), 176n6, for a complete bibliography.

34. A technique described by Jöran Friberg as the “false area formula” is used for the computation of such irregularly shaped fields by several stages of approximations: see Friberg (1987–90), 542.

35. Stephens (1953), 1–2, figs. 1, 2.

36. The fragmentary tablet BM 73319, published in CT 22 49, may be identified as a city map of Nippur, assuming that the building in the center is Enlil’s temple (bīt dEnlil); but it is oriented differently from the Nippur city map discussed in II.2.a below.

37. It is unclear whether the map fragment in Schroeder (1920), no. 25 (VAT 9423), is of Babylon. The text itself was found in Assur, but the Euphrates River is shown, which rules out the city of Assur.

38. A map showing the Euphrates and the Tabbištum canal may represent the city of Sippar: see CT 22 49 (BM 50644); Thureau-Dangin (1903) no. 154; Meissner (1920–25), 378.

39. Lenzen and Falkenstein (1956), 42, plate 23c.

40. See CAD, vol. 10, pt. 1, p. 315, s.v. “māru,” meaning 4 b for DUMU URU/mār āli.

41. See Sallaberger (1997); Lambert (1992); both are cited by George (1999), 83n49.

42. For the date and circumstances, see M. Gibson’s introduction to Zettler (1993), 4n6.

43. For cautionary remarks on the identification of Nippur’s “Small Shrine” with Kiur, see Zettler (1984), 238.

44. Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, c.1.2.1, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text-t.1.2.1#.

45. Borger (1956), 21, lines 47–51.

46. CT 22 49 (BM 35385). The city quarter called Tuba, on the right bank of the Euphrates, lay near another district called Kumaru/i, which may once have been a separate town that was later absorbed within the “metropolitan” area of Babylon. Both these districts, Tuba and Kumaru/i, came to be spelled the same way, with the logogram A.HA, by proximity; see Steinkeller (1980).

47. Tintir Tablet V: 101–2: see George (1992), 70; and 342–43 for further discussion of the mention of the Šamaš Gate in Tintir Tablet V: 56.

48. See Labat (1976), 166–67 (the KUR sign, meaning “hill”) and 236–37 (the A sign, meaning “water”).

49. Horowitz (1988); Finkel (1995).

50. Unger (1935), 318–22, which summarizes Unger (1931), 122–28.

51. Merodach-baladan in the Bible, Isaiah 39:1; 2 Kings 20:12; 2 Chronicles 20:31.

52. Asin, “Babylon, the place of creation of the great gods,” in George (1992), 68, lines 89–90.

53. Esarh. Prism A iii 25–52, in Potts (1982), 283.

54. Other kinds of stellar distances which are not so clearly systematic occur: see Horowitz (1998), 177–81.

55. Ptolemy Almagest 4.6.11, 5.14, 6.9, 9.7, 11.7. The Babylonian cubit is also used by Strabo (Geography 2.1.18).

56. For other terms for celestial “roads,” see Horowitz (1998), 257.

57. CT 26 45:11–15 (K. 2067); see George (1992), 366–67.

58. A photograph appears in al-Jadir (1987), 26–27.

59. See Brack-Bernsen (2005) for a discussion of the use of MUL.APIN for astronomical calculation, and for the idea that the MUL.APIN schemes constituted “methods of astronomical modeling of nature.”

60. MUL.APIN I iv 13–30; see further Hunger and Pingree (1989), 142, table IV.

61. O’Keefe (1993); O’Keefe and Nadel (1978); cf. Blaut (1991).

TWO

1. Baines (1987), 277–305, 344–53.

2. Bierbrier (1982); Lesko (1994); Andreu and Barbotin (2002).

3. Harrell and Brown (1992), 95. For ancient Egyptian cartography in general, see Shore (1987).

4. For Tell el Amarna, see Kemp (1989), chap. 7; on its administrative zone, Pendlebury (1951), especially chap. 7; on the Amarna Letters, Moran (1992).

5. Lichtheim (2006b), 57–72; Gardiner (1960); for a commentary, Kitchen (1982), 50–64, and for depictions 55 (fig. 18), 57 (fig. 19), 58 (fig. 20b); more completely, Heinz (2001), 281–303.

6. Heinz (2001), 293 lower left.

7. On Punt, see most recently Kitchen (2005); for the representation of Punt and the sea route thereto, see W. Smith (1965), 137–39.

8. Redford (1982); (1992), 92, 143.

9. Turin Papyri nos. 1879, 1899, 1969; see the bibliographies cited by Harrell and Brown (1992).

10. Harrell and Brown’s choice of term. An alternative is the “mine-map” of Turin (Janssen 1994, 91), but, as Harrell and Brown point out, the gold mines referred to on the papyrus complement its main purpose, rather than forming the center of interest.

11. For this identification, see Harrell and Brown (1992), 100–3; they are supported by a leading expert on Deir el Medina, Janssen (1994), 96n31. On Amennakhte, see B. Davies (1999), 105–18, and in index s.v. “Amennakht (V).”

12. Turin Papyrus 1885.

13. Harrell and Brown (1992), 85n14.

14. Another location, not far away from Bir Umm Fawakhir, is proposed by Klemm and Klemm (1988).

15. Omlin (1973), 27 and Blatt XII.

16. Harrell and Brown (1992), 86: “a beautiful grayish-green sculptural stone (chloritic sandstones and siltstones).”

17. Klemm and Klemm (1993), 355–76.

18. Klemm and Klemm (1988) prefer a different location.

19. Note again Redford’s theory (1982) that the toponym lists described above incorporated itineraries: in more maplike formats for these, approximate time-distances from one point to another would have been useful additions.

20. Note that the two men—Neferhotep and Amenhotep—identified as possible firsthand sources of information for Amennakhte were probably not inhabitants of Deir el Medina and thus not likely sources: Janssen (1994), 96n31.

21. Almost nothing is known about the range of topics and artwork that might have been included in a royal archive.

22. Bryan and Kozloff (1992), 137, fig. V.17; Hawass (2003), 160–63.

23. To display on the ground a papyrus so strongly associated with divinities (Tait 2003, 187) would seem disrespectful according to Egyptian concepts of decorum. The idea that it might have been displayed extended across a wall face is based on a suggestion about another papyrus altogether (P. Harris, over 40 m long); Tait (2003, 188) notes: “There is . . . no direct evidence for such an exhibition of a papyrus scroll, and the colored illustrations [on P. Harris] seem too well preserved to have been exposed to daylight in antiquity.”

24. For an introduction, Ashmore and Knapp (1999); see also especially Crumley (1999); van Dommelen (1999).

25. See, for example, Richards (1999); also O’Connor (2005); Dorman and Bryan (2007).

26. For an old but useful introduction, Kees (1961), chap. 8; see also Baines and Malek (2000), 18, 131.

27. Birket Qarun in Arabic; called Moeris by the Greeks, but by the Egyptians (since ca. 1550 BCE) “the sea” or p3 ym, whence is derived the modern word Fayum, via Coptic Peiom. See Beinlich (1991), 285.

28. Beinlich (1991), 27–66; Tait (2003), 183–84.

29. One copy, for example, was written in the reign of the emperor Hadrian (117–138 CE).

30. Unusually, the “Book of the Fayum” is designed to be read, or at least viewed, from left to right; normally, Egyptian texts on papyrus were laid out to be read in the opposite direction.

31. See especially Beinlich (1991), 79–80, with regard to the place “Pyramid land is its name” as modern Hawara.

32. Tait (2003, 192) describes this section somewhat differently as a “representation of the Fayum as a whole,” rendered as “a long rectangle, presumably showing the Fayum as raised, cultivable land,” but the narrower view taken by Beinlich fits the particularization evident in the succeeding sections.

33. In Beinlich’s view (1991, 92) as mentioned above, section 3 of the book depicts the lake as set within, and thus equivalent to, the framework or outline of a temple.

34. Ashmore and Knapp (1999), 16–18. For an instructive instance, note the situation regarding the ancient Maya, who, at “a variety of scales, from household to civic center and perhaps beyond . . . referred to and replicated the key elements of an ideational landscape: mountains of earth and stone, water lying within the earth, and caves linking them all together. Leaders of family and polity alike took hold of the critical anchoring complex, and created domestic, public, and mythical landscapes in which the continuities of human existence were verified by material reference to primordial landscape assemblages” (Brody and Ashmore 1999, 139).

35. Clagett (1995); Bryan (1997) for a three-dimensional sky map.

36. Hornung (1990); Quirke (2003); Robinson (2003).

37. See further chap. 5 below.

THREE

1. Known from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 5.51.

2. Newmeyer (1983); Romm (1992), 64–68.

3. Herodotus 4.44; Panchenko (1998, 2003). Scylax of Caryanda (fl. ca. 510–500), a Greek commissioned by the Persian Great King Darius I (522–486) to explore the Indus river basin, “proved” that Asia, like “Libya” (Africa), was almost completely circumnavigable.

4. Interpretation of a coin reverse from Ionia (ca. 335) as a topographic map of the hinterland of Ephesus fails to convince: see Johnston (1967); Dilke (1988), 92; Brodersen (2001), 10. Equally, both the authenticity and the scope of an unfinished map (perhaps of Spain) associated with a fragment of the Geographoumena of Artemidorus of Ephesus (ca. 100) are matters of ongoing debate: see now Brodersen and Elsner (2009), esp. 63–71. The “Soleto map” of Italy’s Sallentine Peninsula in the fifth century is surely a hoax: see Yntema (2006).

5. At Thoricus in southeast Attica there survives on the rock face immediately above the entrance to silver mine 3 (fourth century) a petroglyph which appears to be a plan of the mine corresponding to the 120 m section thus far excavated: see Mussche (1978), 44, 48, fig. 53.

6. See Jacob (1998), 30–36; Dueck (2005).

7. Harley and Woodward (1987), 106.

8. Pliny, Natural History 6.61.4.

9. See the maps in Willcock (1976), 24, 28, 36.

10. Odyssey 10.506–15; the translation of this passage, and those below, is by Lattimore (1965).

11. See Hexter (1993), 147. Homer’s view fails to explain seasonal changes in the length of daylight.

12. Severin (1987), 235–45, concludes that Homer neither thought in cartographic terms nor even had maps.

13. Neugebauer (1963), 529–30, 533.

14. Strabo 1.1.11; Hahn (2001), 202–3.

15. Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1983), 104; Harley and Woodward (1987), 134.

16. Couprie, Hahn, and Naddaf (2003), 32, 49.

17. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 2.1–2; Agathemerus 1.1 (for him, and other Greek scientists discussed in this chapter, see further Keyser and Irby-Massie 2008, s.v.).

18. Couprie, Hahn, and Naddaf (2003), 49.

19. For an overview of the debate about Anaximander’s map and its features, see Couprie, Hahn, and Naddaf (2003), 194–201.

20. Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 1.6.4–5; Aetius 2.20.1, 2.21.1; O’Brien (1967), 425–26.

21. Couprie, Hahn, and Naddaf (2003), 82–83. Full-scale architectural plans (made around 250 BCE) appear to be etched into the walls of the temple of Apollo at Didyma, south of Miletus: see Haselberger (1985), 129.

22. Agathemerus 1.1, 2.461; cf. Strabo 1.1.1.

23. Couprie, Hahn, and Naddaf (2003), 33.

24. No doubt the map marked the route of the Persian Royal Road, which Herodotus (5.52–54) proceeded to describe in some detail, stating the short distances between staging posts in both Persian parasangs and Greek stadia; see Silverstein (2007), 9–15.

25. See further Dewald and Marincola 2006.

26. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 9.46, where the title given, Kosmographie, emphasizes the orderly arrangement of the universe and the earth.

27. Pseudo-Plutarch, Epitome 3.10.4–5, 3.12.1–2; Taylor (1999), 100–2.

28. Strabo 1.1; Agathemerus 1.2 and 12; Dilke (1985), 25, 29.

29. Aristotle, On the Sky 285b25–27, 293b25–30.

30. Plato, Timaeus 31b4–34b9; Dicks (1970), 72–73; Dilke (1985), 25.

31. Strabo 2.2.1–2; Plutarch, On the Opinions of the Philosophers 2.12, 3.14 attributes the division to Pythagoras.

32. On the Sky 297a8–298a20.

33. Introduction to Phaenomena 16.4.5.

34. Barber (1935), 26–29, 175–76.

35. Pearson (1960), 22–49, 83–114; Pédech (1984), 15–158.

36. Strabo 2.4.1–2. For translation and discussion of the fragments of Pytheas, note Roseman (1994); Bianchetti (1998); Roller (2006), chap. 4.

37. Strabo 1.4.3; 2.4.1–2.

38. Strabo 2.1.18; he assumes that the measurement was taken on or near the same parallel as the Bactrians near the Caucasus.

39. Strabo 2.4.1, 2.5.8 and 43.

40. Hipparchus, Commentary on the Phaenomena of Aratus and Eudoxus 1.4.1; Dicks (1960), 171.

41. Strabo 2.4.2. Dicaearchus’s estimate of the earth’s circumference, derived from data reported by Cleomedes 1.8, adds up to 300,000 stadia: see Keyser 2001.

42. Cleomedes 1.10.3–4; Dutka (1993–94), 60–64; Irby-Massie and Keyser (2002), 120–21.

43. Strabo 2.5.6; Dueck (2005), 28, 45–46.

44. Strabo 2.5.16; Cimino (1982); Geus (2004), 19.

45. Geus (2004), 21; Strabo 2.1.21–24.

46. Eratosthenes himself was aware that his measurements were approximations at best: Strabo 2.77–78, 80–82, 86, 89, 91–92. Strabo, in turn, who had little tolerance for mathematics, considered Hipparchus’s criticisms unfair and unreasonable: cf. 3.131–32.

47. Dicks (1960), 32, 114–21.

48. Strabo 1.4.1, 2.5.34, 3.131–32; Duke (2001–2).

49. Strabo 1.4.6. To determine the circumference of any parallel or meridian of a sphere, one must first determine the radius at a given latitude and longitude, by multiplying the cosine of the latitude angle by the radius at the equator (for Eratosthenes’s earth: 40,127 stadia). Then, the circumference at that latitude is 2π times the latitude radius. Although the Greeks lacked sines and cosines, a table of chords prepared by Hipparchus served the same function (Theon, Commentary on Ptolemy’s Syntaxis 1.10).

50. Strabo 2.1.34, 2.1.27.

51. Dicks (1960), 35; Strabo 2.92, on promontories in the Peloponnese, Italy, and Liguria.

FOUR

1. The chief weakness of Ptolemy’s scheme is its susceptibility to errors arising from miscopying of the text. Such errors affect the maps mostly at the level of fine details.

2. For a general account of his life and work, see Toomer (1975), updated by Jones (2008).

3. The specific works alluded to are, respectively, the Harmonics, the Optics, and the Tetrabiblos.

4. Splendidly translated by Toomer (1984).

5. The broadest study of Ptolemy as a philosopher remains Boll (1894).

6. For English translations of these works, see, respectively, Barker (1989); A. Smith (1996); and Liverpool-Manchester Seminar (1989).

7. The scheme is described in a part of book 1 of Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses that survives only in Arabic translation; see Goldstein (1967), 6–7.

8. See On the Kriterion, sec. 15, and introductory secs. 1–8 of bk. 2 of the Planetary Hypotheses. The latter survives only in Arabic translation; for the only available modern-language version (in German), see Nix (1907).

9. For the rejection of Aristotle’s fifth-element cosmology, see Falcon (2001).

10. Harmonics, bk. 1, chap. 1, gives a lucid statement of this recursive strategy.

11. For the parts of the Geography referred to from here on, see Berggren and Jones (2000). The original Greek is now best consulted in Stückelberger and Graßhoff (2006).

12. Geus (2002), 261–63.

13. See further in this connection chaps. 6 and 7 below.

FIVE

1. For the former, see chap. 1 above.

2. This was first realized, it is said, by Thales of Miletus, the pioneer Greek geometer of the sixth century BCE (Kirk, Raven, and Schofield 1983, 76–86); but significantly he made the discovery in Egypt, and no doubt he learned it from Egyptians.

3. Edwards (1985), 99, 246–47.

4. Hero, Dioptra, ed. Schöne (1903); Africanus, Cesti, ed. Vieillefond (1970); Anonymus Byzantinus, Geodesy, ed. Vincent (1858); al-Karaji, Inbat al-miyah al-khafiyya (1940). All relevant passages are translated into English in Lewis (2001), 259–302.

5. For an overview, see Dilke (1971).

6. See, respectively, Dilke (1987a), 220–25; chap. 6 below; and Frontinus, Aqueducts 17.

7. The least unsatisfactory of earlier accounts are Kiely (1947) and (though brief) Adam (1994), 8–19.

8. Vitruvius, On Architecture 8.5.

9. For discussion, Lewis (2001), 82–89.

10. See above, chap. 2, sec. V.

11. The design and evolution of the dioptra are explored in Lewis (2001), 71–82, 101–5.

12. Hero, Dioptra (Schöne 1903), 25, 7, and 10 respectively.

13. Rodriguez Almeida (1981), 45–48, 52n1.

14. The manuals give several procedures for measuring river widths. This is the one described by Marcus Iunius Nypsus, Fluminis varatio (ed. Bouma 1993), 4–28.

15. For fuller detail, Lewis (2001), 89–97.

16. On aqueduct gradients and instrumental accuracy, see Lewis (2001), 172–78.

17. Africanus, Cesti (Vieillefond 1970), 1.15.2; Hero, Dioptra (Schöne 1903), 12.

18. The complex material is collected in Lewis (2001), 157–66.

19. Talbert (2000) (= BAtlas), 58D2.

20. Cited by Strabo, Geography 1.3.11. For further details see Lewis (2001), 168–70.

21. See above, chap. 3, under “Challenges to the Study of Greek Cartography.”

22. Scholiast on Ptolemy, Geography 1.3.3; John Philoponus, Commentary on the First Book of Aristotle’s Meteorology (ed. Hayduck 1901), 15.5–8; Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo (ed. Heiberg 1904), 548.27–549.10.

23. See further chaps. 6 below and 4 above.

24. Vitruvius 10.9. See further Sleeswyk (1979, 1981); Lewis (2001), 134–39.

25. See more fully Schiöler(1994).

26. For text, translation and commentary of most of the component manuals, Campbell (2000).

27. See, for example, BAtlas 32–33, 39–42, 44–45; note also Clavel-Lévêque et al. (1998, 2002).

28. H. Davies (1998), 4. On this complex and contentious subject see Lewis (2001), 217–45.

29. The gradients of the aqueducts of Rome are not adequately recorded: see Ashby (1935); Blackman (1978).

30. For Roman aqueducts in general, see Hodge (1992), an invaluable treatment which supplies much of the practical detail given in what follows here.

31. Faventinus, On the Diverse Skills of Architecture (ed. Plommer 1973), 6.

32. Ibn al-’Awwam, Kitab al-Filaha [Book of Agriculture] (trans. Clément-Mullet 1864), 1.131.

33. This whole matter is argued more fully in Lewis (1999).

34. Hodge (1992), 184–91; and Hauck (1988), 74–82 (a semifictional but insightful account of the building of the Nîmes aqueduct).

35. Fabre, Fiches, and Paillet (1991) is an admirable and exhaustive study; see also Lewis (2001), 181–93.

36. Crow, Bardill, and Bayliss (2008), 1; in BAtlas 52B2–D2 this line should extend further, to 6 km west of Bizye (B1).

37. Much the most authoritative (and splendidly illustrated) overview of ancient tunnels is Grewe (1998); many of the details in what follows are drawn from it. See also Oleson (2008), 319–33 (a chapter written by Grewe).

SIX

1. For a concise overview see, for example, Bispham (2008), 51–55, 62–65, 93.

2. Beard (2007), 143–86.

3. The description is by Livy (41.28), a historian active around the end of the first century BCE.

4. Varro, De Re Rustica.

5. The phrase is that of Pliny the Elder, Natural History 3.17, written around 70 CE. The limited surviving testimony for Agrippa’s work is gathered by Riese (1878), 1–8, and analyzed by Arnaud (2007–8). For the portico, see Steinby (1999), 151–53, s.v. “Porticus Vipsania.”

6. Brodersen (2003), 268–87, supported by Carey (2003), 41–74. For Augustus’s record and its presentation, see Cooley (2009), 6–22.

7. Note the opening chapter of Polybius, Histories, and discussion by Shahar (2004), 169–89.

8. On these claims, see Res Gestae 31–33, with commentary by Cooley (2009), 249–56.

9. Hyde Minor (1999).

10. Anthologia Palatina 9.778 (Philip of Thessalonica); Smallwood (1967), no. 369, esp. col. II, line 27.

11. Panegyrici Latini 9(4).20.2.-21.3 (Mynors); my translation is based on Nixon and Rodgers (1994), 171–77.

12. Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project (http://formaurbis.stanford.edu); see further Trimble (2007).

13. This orientation was evidently the norm for presenting and viewing Rome: see further chap. 7 below.

14. Inevitably, lack of space precludes the elaboration of potentially controversial claims in what follows; for further details and discussion, see now Talbert (2010).

15. Thomson (1961), xlvii, summarizing the view of “the crazy-looking construction” which he had expressed earlier in Thomson (1948), 379.

16. Brodersen (2003), 63, 187, with Garland (1994).

17. Talbert (2010), 108–17.

18. Giacchero (1974), 134 (lines 16–26), with Rees (2004), 139.

19. Duval (1987), 474, 476.

20. See now Canepa (2009), 84–99.

21. Giacchero (1974), 137 (lines 148–50).

22. Aillagon (2008), 86–91, 611–13 (by C. Panella).

23. Wilkes (1993), 60, 62, 72–73 with fig. 4. The hall measures 32 by 14 m, and the arc of the apse 12.1 m.

24. Woodward (2007), 1598 (by P. Barber).

25. Talbert (2012), 243–46.

26. Talbert (2007), 269–70.

27. The standard edition is Schnetz (1940); see further Talbert (2010), 164–66.

28. In his indispensable edition, Westrem (2001) takes the Antonine Itinerary to be the source of many of its names; but some, if not all, of these could equally well have been transmitted through maps. For the map’s position in the cathedral and its viewing, note Terkla (2004).

29. See, for example, Gautier Dalché (2008) and Lozovsky (2008).

30. Gautier Dalché (2004); Talbert (2010), 166–72.

SEVEN

1. See, for example, Bekker-Nielsen (1988); Brodersen (2001, 2003); Whittaker (2002).

2. The concept was applied to the Greco-Roman world by Janni (1984); for Rome specifically, see Rawson (1985), 259.

3. For discussion, see Lee (1993), 81–90; Mattern (1999), 24–80; Sidebottom (2007); Talbert (2008).

4. The method is applied to later material by Gautier Dalché (1991).

5. Sallmann (1971); Nicolet (1988, 1991).

6. For collections of various categories of materials derived from the medieval manuscript tradition, see Müller (1855–61); Riese (1878); Cuntz (1929); Schnetz (1940); Glorie et al. (1965).

7. Scott (2002); for Latin Christendom in late antiquity, Lozovsky (2000); Merrills (2005).

8. See, for example, Pretzler (2007).

9. See, for example, Clarke (1997); Dueck (2000).

10. Text in Müller (1855–61), vol. 2, 103–76; Tsavarē (1990); English translation in Greaves (1985).

11. The most accessible edition of both remains Riese (1878), although Schnabel (1935) is superior; Brodersen (1996), 329–66, offers a text and German translation. For the argument that these works preserve captions to maps, see Riese (1878), xvii.

12. The Demensuratio comprises 30 captions: [Asia, 7] India, Media, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Taurus, Armenia, Insulae; [Europe, 17] Dacia, Sarmatia, Creta, Macedonia, Epirus, Sicilia, Italia (peninsular), Italia (northern), Corsica, Sardinia, Illyricum, Germania, Gallia Comata, Gallia Narbonensis, Hispania citerior, Asturia-Gallaecia-Lusitania, Hispania ulterior; [Africa, 5] Gaetulia and Mauretania, Africa Carthaginiensis, Africa Cyrenaica, Aegyptus, Arabia-Aethiopia; [trans Oceanum, 1] Britannia. The Divisio comprises 25: [Overview, 1] Europe-Asia-Libya; [Europe, 13] Hispaniae tres, Baetica, Lusitania, Citerior, Gallia Comata with Britannia, Narbonensis, Italia, Raetia, Germania, Epirus-Achaia-Attica-Thessalia, Macedonia-Thracia-Hellespontus, Dacia, Sarmatia-Scythia-Taurica; [Asia, 9] Asia citerior, Asia superior, Armenia, Syria, Aegyptus, Arabia Eudaemon, Mesopotamia, Media-Parthia, India; [Africa, 2] Carthaginiensis, Gaetulia and Mauretania.

13. Gautier Dalché (2008).

14. Arnaud (1989); Salway (2004), 92–95.

15. On late republican geography and ethnography see Rawson (1985), 250–66; Vasaly (1993).

16. De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii 6; Stahl, Johnson, and Burge (1977) for English translation.

17. Institutiones 2; Saeculares litterae 6; Vessey and Halporn (2004) for English translation.

18. Rawson (1978), 31 = (1991), 348; Paniagua Aguilar (2006), 37–79 (agrimensura), 149–94 (geography).

19. Institutiones 1; Divinae lectiones 25.2.

20. His description of Rome as “home of the rulers” (οἶκον ἀνάκτων, 335) sits more comfortably in the mouth of a subject than a citizen. He is identified as a resident of Alexandria and as writing under Hadrian by acrostics at lines 112–34 and 513–32.

21. Texts in Müller (1855–61), vol. 2, 177–89 (Avienus), 190–99 (Priscian).

22. Edition with French translation: Arnaud-Lindet (1993).

23. Edition with English translation: Liddle (2003).

24. Freeman-Grenville et al. (2003); Notley and Safrai (2005).

25. Billerbeck et al. (2006–).

26. Nicolet (1991), 175–78.

27. Reynolds (1989), 265–318. The water transport chapters (nos. 35, 35A [= 69, 70 in the revised numeration of the forthcoming edition of Michael H. Crawford et al.]) appear at 303–5, 306–11.

28. Corcoran (2000), 206, 224–25.

29. Arnaud (2007), 323.

30. Seeck (1876); Rees (2004), 160–70, for partial English translation. See further Jones (1964), appendix 2, vol. 3, 347–80; Brennan (1996); Kulikowski (2000).

31. Discussion by Jones (1964), vol. 1, 712; vol. 3, 225 n. 2. Editions: Seeck (1876), 261–74; Mommsen (1892), 552–612; Glorie et al. (1965), vol. 2, 379–406.

32. 1–5: comes Orientis, proconsul Asiae, comes Phrygiae Pacatianae, comes Galatiae I, vicarius Longi Muri; 6–33: consulares Palestinae I, Palestinae II, Phoenicae maritimae, Syriae II, Theodoriadis, Osrhoenae, Ciliciae I, Cypri, Pamphyliae, Bithyniae, Hellesponti, Lydiae, Phrygiae Salutaris, Pisidiae, Lycaoniae, Novae Iustinianae, Armeniae II, Armeniae Maioris, Cappadociae I, Cappadociae II, Helenoponti, Europae, Thraciae, Rhodopae, Haemimonti, Cariae, Lyciae, Augustamnicae I; 34–48: praesides/correctores Libyae Superioris, Aegypti I, Aegypti II, Augustamnicae II, Palestinae III, Arabiae, Euphratensis, Mesopotamiae, Ciliciae II, Armeniae I, Galatiae II, Honoriadis, Insularum, Moesiae II, Scythiae. Libya Inferior, Thebais I and II, and Arcadia are missing, perhaps having dropped out in the last section between Libya Superior and Aegyptus I. On the context, see Kelly (2004), 158–65.

33. Mommsen (1892), 511–51, at 535–42.

34. Dilke (1987b); cf. Bekker-Nielsen (1988); Brodersen (2001), 44–65; Whittaker (2002), 99–103.

35. Delano-Smith (2007).

36. Salway (2004); Arnaud (2005).

37. Edition with English translation: Casson (1989). Note further Menippus’s periplus of the “Inner Sea” (i.e., the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts) of ca. 30 BCE, preserved largely only in an epitome by Marcianus of Heraclea; also the anonymous Stadiasmus of the “Great Sea” (i.e., the Mediterranean) of the Augustan age. Both appear in Müller (1855–61), vol. 1, 563–73, 427–514; for a more modern critical edition of the Stadiasmus, see Bauer and Helm (1955), sec. 4.9 (§§240–613), 43–69.

38. Rylands Papyri 628 recto and 638 [= 628 verso] carry drafts of the itineraries, which are partially incorporated into the fair copy of the accounts on 627 verso. See Matthews (2006), 56–61, for partial English translations.

39. Text in Cuntz (1929), 86–102; Glorie et al. (1965), vol. 1, 1–26.

40. Elsner (2000); Hunt (2004); Salway (2007), 188–90, 205–9; Salway (2012).

41. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (= CIL) XI 3281 (15.3 cm high × 7.7 cm diameter), 3282 (14 × 7.3–7.0 cm), 3283 (2.3 × 6.3–6.2 cm), and 3284 (9.5 × 6.8–6.5 cm); Chevallier (1976), 47–50.

42. CIL XIII 9158 = XVII/2 675. See further Salway (2007), 192–94.

43. Sundwall (1996), 631–40.

44. Text in Cuntz (1929), 1–85; note also the study by Löhberg (2006). On the nature of the text and its authorship, see Arnaud (1993); Talbert (2007).

45. Structure of the Antonine Itineraries: I, Africa-Egypt (1.1); II, Sardinia (78.4); III, Corsica (85.4); IV, Sicily (86.2); V, Italy-Egypt (98.2); VI, Thrace (175.1); VII, Cappadocia-Syria (176.3); VIII, Moesia-Bithynia (217.5); IX, Pannonia-Gaul (231.8); X, Pannonia-Germany (241.1–2); XI, Raetia-Asia (256.4); XII, Dalmatia-Macedonia (337.3); XIII, Italy-Germany (339.6); XIV, Italy-Spain (387.4); XV, Britain (463.3).

46. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (= SEG) 51 (2001) 1832 = L’Année Epigraphique (= AE) (2001) 1931, faces B (left) and C (right). For full publication, see Şahin (2007), 22–41.

47. For the detail of this analysis, see Salway (2007), 194–201.

48. Although given in stades, 83.9% of the distances are rounded to whole or half miles: Salway (2007), 201–2.

49. Hopkins (1983), 102–5; Corcoran (2000), 224–25.

50. Arnaud (2007), 331–36.

51. Mastino (1986); Nicolet (1991), 15–56; Dench (2005), 59–60, 217–21.

52. See Cooley (2009), 102–4.

53. SEG 51 (2001) 1832 = AE 2001, 1931, face B, lines 3–4: ὁ τῆϛ οἰκουμ[ένηϛ α]ὐτοκρά|τωρ.

54. Rajak (1991); Shahar (2004), 256–59.

55. Aelius Aristides, To Rome, 61–62, 80–81; for edition and English translation, see Oliver (1953).

56. Expositio totius mundi et gentium 45.1: Cappadocia is described as media terrena.

57. Berliner griechische Urkunden II 628r = Chartae Latinae Antiquiores X 415, col. II, lines 4–6. In later legislation, note provinciae transmarinae in 372 (Codex Theodosianus 6.14.1) and transalpinae ecclesiae in 445 (Valentinian III, Novel 17.1.pr.).

58. See further Salway (2008), 72–77 (with fig. 3.1).

59. Only around 300 CE was it used to designate the very tip of the continent, when this region was made a province separate from Thrace.

60. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie III I.718; see most recently Raggi (2004).

61. See further Merrills (2005), 35–99, with a translation of Orosius’s entire geographic preface at appendix A, 313–20.

62. Edson (2008), 222–25. Isidore’s encyclopaedia is translated by Barney et al. (2006).

63. On proportions in the T-O and mappa mundi tradition, see Harvey (1991), 19–24; Bremner (2006), 220.

64. E.g., Isidore, Etym. 14.3 (de Asia), 14.4 (de Europa), 14.5 (de Libya); trans. Barney et al. (2006), 285–93. The same order is found also in Josephus, Bell. Iud. 2.365–89 (16.4), the body of Ampelius sec. 6 (cf. the introduction to the same section, which has the order Asia, Africa, Europe), and the Demensuratio provinciarum.

65. In his edition and English translation Vassiliev (1936), 36, dates this work to 350. Rougé (1966), 9–26, prefers 359/60; Barnes (1993), 311n7, between 347 and 350.

66. A periplus by Artemidorus of Ephesus (ca. 100 BCE), however, took the continents in the order Europe, Africa, Asia, or so its epitome by Marcianus of Heraclea indicates; Müller (1855–61), vol. 1, 574–76.

67. Books 1–2, general introduction; (Europe) 3, Spain; 4, Gaul and Britain; 5–6, Italy and Sicily; 7, Central Europe, Cisdanubian areas, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace; 8–10, Peloponnese, central Greece, islands; (Asia) 11, Caucasus, Parthia, Media, Armenia; 12–14, Asia Minor; 15, India, Persia; 16, Mesopotamia, Syria, Judaea; (Africa) 17, Egypt, Libya. See further Clarke (1999), 194–95.

68. Mommsen (1895); an English translation by Frank E. Romer is in preparation.

69. 18.1: mediterranea maria; mediterranea litora; 23.13: mediterraneis sinibus.

70. Text: Berry (1997); English translations: ibid.; Romer (1998).

71. Menippus started at the Bosphorus, the Stadiasmus Maris Magni and Dionysius, Periegesis, both at Alexandria. See further Salway (2004), 53–67.

72. See Stückelberger (2004), 32.

73. See Scafi (2006). This orientation follows Old Testament precedent: Janowski (2007), 54–56.

74. Hispania superior (coupled, but not necessarily contrasted, with citerior) in an inscription of 7 September 227 CE may represent an exception, but the evidence is ambiguous: see Alföldy (2000).

75. Edition: Barnes (1982), 202–3; translation: Rees (2004), 171–73; dating: Barnes (1996), 548–50; Zuckerman (2002), 620–28, 636–37.

76. Nicolet (1991), 195–97, with fig. 54.

77. Thomsen (1947), 15–144; Nicolet (1991), 203.

78. Campbell (2000), 78–79.

79. CIL V 7749 = I² 584 = Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Reipublicae 517.

80. AE 1919.10 = SEG I 329 = XXIV 1109 = Inscripţiile din Scythia Minor I 68 (c. 100 CE), lines 1–8: ὁροθεσία Λαβερίου Μαξίμου ὑ[πατικοῦ]| fines Histrianorum hos esse con[stitui - - - Pe]|lucem laccum Halmyridem a do[minio - - -]| Argamensium, inde iugo summo [- - - ad c|o]nfluentes rivorum Picusculi et Ga[brani, inde ab im|o] Gabrano ad capud eiusdem, inde [- - - iuxta rivum | S]anpaeum, inde ad rivum Turgicu[lum - - -]| a rivo Calabaeo, milia passum circi[ter D?XVI]. See Oliver (1965); and, for this category of document, Burton (2000), 195–215.

81. AE 1989, 681; SEG 39 (1989) 1180; Cottier et al. (2008).

82. Nicolet (1994).

83. Plin. NH 3.37; Christol (1994), 47–50.

84. CIL VI 3492 = ILS (= Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae) 2288 = AE 1994, 37 and 1995, 44; English translation: Campbell (1994), 84–85; see further Cosme (1994), 172–73.

85. Their creation had been relatively recent; they are to be distinguished from the dioceses (Latin conventus) into which some provinces had been subdivided much earlier. For a survey of territorial divisions between 285 and 337, see Barnes (1982), 195–200.

86. Thus, in 314–316 CE, CIL III 13734 = ILS 8938 = AE 1984, 111 from Tropaeum Traiani, Scythia names Constantine ahead of Licinius; for the latter’s earlier precedence, note CIL III 6174 and 14215.2 (both from Scythia); AE 1924, 94 (from Thrace).

87. Cf. Shahar (2004), 258, who implies that the organization is to some extent hierarchical, the commencement of the description with Achaea, Macedonia, and Asia reflecting their status as consular provinces.

88. Bell. Iud. 2.365–89 (16.4): Greece and Macedonia (365); Asia and Pontus (366–67); Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Lycia, Cilicia, Thrace (368); Illyrians, i.e., Moesia and Pannonia (369); Dalmatia (370); Gaul (371–73); Spain and Lusitania (374–75); Germany (376–77); Britain (378); Parthia (379); Carthaginians, i.e., Africa (380); Cyrenaica, Numidia, and Mauretania (381); Egypt (384–85).

89. AE 1981, 777; English translation: Campbell (1994), 240; see further Lebreton (2009), 15–20 (with figs. 1–2) and 48–49.

90. Eadie (1967); Arnaud-Lindet (1994).

91. Brev. 4.1–2, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica; 4.2–5, Africa; 5, Spain; 6, Gaul and Britain; 7–8, Illyricum; 9, Thrace; 10, Asia and the islands (Asiana); 11, inland Anatolia (Pontica); 12, Cilicia, Isauria, Syria; 13, Cyprus, Cyrene, Egypt; 14, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Arabia; 15–30, history of Roman-Persian wars from Pompey to present.

92. Honigmann (1939). The text seems to have originated in the mid- to late fifth century and been haphazardly updated into the reign of Justinian; see Jones (1971), apps. 3 and 4, 502–40.

93. Feissel (1991), 448–53.

94. The order of the Synekdēmos: (Oriens: Thracica, 1–6) Europa, Rhodope, Thracia, Haemimontus, Moesia II, Scythia; (Illyricum: Macedoniae, 7–13) Macedonia I, Macedonia II, Thessalia, Hellas, Creta, Epirus Vetus, Epirus Nova; (Daciae, 14–19) Dacia Mediterranea, Dacia Ripensis, Dardania, Praevalitana, Moesia I, Pannonia; (Oriens: Asiana, 20–30) Asia, Hellespontus, Phrygia Pacatiana, Lydia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia Salutaris, Pamphylia, Lycia, Insulae, Caria; (Pontica, 31–41) Bithynia, Honorias, Paphlagonia, Galatia I, Galatia Salutaris, Cappadocia I, Cappadocia II, Helenopontos, Pontos Polemoniacus, Armenia I, Armenia II; (Oriens, 42–56) Cilicia I, Cilicia II, Cyprus, Isauria, Syria I, Syria II, Euphratensis, Osrhoene, Mesopotamia, Phoenice, Phoenice Libanensis, Palaestina I, Palaestina II, Palaestina III, Arabia; (Aegyptiaca, 57–64) Aegyptus, Augustamnica I, Augustamnica II, Arcadia, Thebais I, Thebais II, Libya Superior, Libya Inferior.

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!