76 Dr. Kennepy Batiz’s Researches amongst the inscribed Monuments 
Vol. xxi. page 15, note”. 
Since this note was written it has occurred to me, that the following expla- 
nation of the passage in question may perhaps be deemed the most satisfactory of 
any hitherto proposed. It has been suggested by the occurrence of the word 
ANTIOXEON in the titulus, that is, of the citizens, not the city of Antiocheia. 
What is there, therefore, to prevent our availing ourselves, in the present instance, 
of the solution which the learned Pellerin* has offered of a numismatic difficulty, 
in the cases of the Antiocheans near Daphne and Callirhoé, or in Ptolemais, 
namely, that in each there had been corporations of Antiocheans established for 
commercial purposes, in the same way that there had been of certain Phoenician 
merchants in Puteoli, as also of Athenian and Samian in Delos ?+ Indeed, with re- 
gard to Daphne, no great ingenuity is requisite, one of the titles of the Syrian An- 
tiocheia having been ert Aadvy, but we nowhere read of Ptolemais of Galilee ever 
having been called Antiocheia, nor is the supposition at all probable that a city 
of that name had ever existed in the neighbourhood of the Callirhoé which Pel- 
lerin supposes to be understood in the inscriptions of the coms that have origi- 
nated this discussion. 
This view of the question enables us to resume, with a certain degree of mo- 
dification, our original hypothesis as to the Syrian Antiocheia. 
The district or territory (x#pos) of the Chrysorhoate here mentioned, may 
have been that through which the Chrysorhoas of Damascus . . . the Pharpar 
of the Scripture . . . flowed, within whose precincts a community of opulent 
traders from the capital may have been formed, with functionaries, both civil and 
sacerdotal, presiding over them and controlling their municipal relations. 
This supposition appears to me to be, on the whole, less encumbered with 
difficulties than any of those which have been hitherto advanced. We possessno 
evidence that the metropolis of Syria had ever been styled as in the territory of 
the Chrysorhoate, and as little of the same fact in the instances of any of the 
Antiocheie of Asia Minor.{ That they ever had been so is purely matter of 
* Recueil des Médailles, &c., vol. ii. p. 250. 
{ Vid. Muratori, pp. 231, 4; and Marm. Oxoniens. n. xxvii. cited in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 
p- 306. 
¢ To the catalogue of those which I have given in my Fasciculus Inscr. Apocal. pp. 89, 193, 
