AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS AND THE NISIBENE HANDOVER OF A.D. 363 Susannah Belcher Abstract This article focuses on the Roman Emperor Jovian’s handover of Nisibis to the Persian King Shapur II in A.D. 363. This event is presented by an eyewitness, Ammianus Marcellinus, as a definitive moment in the history of the Roman State: when the empire’s endurance diverges substantially from her age-old pact with Iustitia (which he defines as the presiding causative deity) towards deeds which contravene the historian’s ideal of Rome and the responsibility of her agents to further her interests. Alongside this wider interpretation, the article considers the trauma of the handover for citizens of the strategically important city of Nisibis, and the contrasting portrait painted by Ephrem. et principe permittente Romano, civitatem ingressus, gentis suae signum ab arce extulit summa, migrationem e patria civibus nuntians luctuosam. With the permission of the Roman emperor, he entered the city and raised the flag of his nation on the top of the citadel, announcing to the citizens their sorrowful departure from their native place. (Amm. Marc. 25.9.1). So Ammianus Marcellinus begins his account of the handover of the citadel of Nisibis to the Persians in A.D. 363.1 The Roman Emperor Jovian ceded Nisibis, Orientis firmissimum claustrum,2 to the Persian King Shapur II, along with Singara, some 15 other fortified sites in the Mesopotamian region, 5 satrapies along the Upper Tigris,3 and the concession that the Romans would not intervene on behalf of their client king in Armenia. This shameful treaty 4 was extracted from the hastily-elevated Jovian pro redemptione nostra,5 for the price of safe passage for Julian’s defeated Roman army, of which Ammianus was a part. Significantly, this handover 1 Amm. Marc. 25.9.8–11. 2 Amm. Marc. 25.8.14. 3 Amm. Marc. 25.7.9. The Persians had ceded this (including Nisibis) in A.D. 299. Block- ley (1988) 244. 4 Amm. Marc. 25.9.8. 5 Amm. Marc. 25.7.9. A. Sarantis, N. Christie (edd.) War and Warfare in Late Antiquity: Current Perspectives (Late Antique Archaeology 8.1–8.2 – 2010–11) (Leiden 2013), pp. 631–652 632 susannah belcher did not only include a series of key fortifications, but also the border’s pri- mary trading town and associated revenues. Said revenues were intended as compensation for the damage caused to Persian territory by the Julianic invasion. Analyses of this pivotal treaty have necessarily concen- trated upon Nisibis, rather than other cities handed over to the Persians, such as Singara. This is in part down to the nature of the surviving textual evidence (both Ammianus and Ephrem focusing on Nisibis), and in part down to Nisibis’ unusual position of having resisted falling to the Persians three times during the reign of Constantius II.6 This paper will be no dif- ferent in its focus. Modern day Nusaybin retains few of its older features, at least above ground. As Lightfoot notes, the layout, position and size of the fortress is unknown due to a lack of excavation, or even survey.7 The meagre nature of the extant remains does not help either. This is to say nothing of the problems associated with working directly on the Turkish-Syrian border, attested by the sad deaths of Metin Akyurt and Bahattin Devam in a bomb attack organised against the excavation team at Mardin, Nusaybin in 1991.8 The city of Nusaybin’s economy continues to be linked to frontier admin- istration, in particular, trade and contact with Syria, whose counterpart, Al-Qamlishi, it faces across the Görgarbonizra River.9 It is still situated on the upper trade routes from Mosul in Iraq (approximately 120 miles south- east), and is a stop on the Istanbul-Baghdad railway.10 It has a population of approximately 51,000 people (1990), up from 31,000 in 1980. The only extant antique building is the Church of Mor Ya’qub (St. Jacob), the baptistery of which appears from the epigraphic evidence to have been built by Bishop Vologaeses and the deacon Acepsimas in 6 The first invasion was probably in spring A.D. 338: Theod., HE 2.30.2; Philostorgius 3.23; Theophanes AM5829. The second was in A.D. 346: Jer. Chron. ann. 346; Theophanes AM5838. The third was in A.D. 350: Ephr. 1–3, 11.14–18; 13.14–18, 10.vv.143–150, 15.vv.55–62 and 101–44. 7 Lightfoot (1988) 109. I am much indebted to Lightfoot for a great deal of information concerning Nisibis. 8 http://www.arkeo.hacettepe.edu.tr/en.05.library.htm. They are to be memorialised by a library. 9 Although cross-border trade has been hampered by the recent civil war in Syria. 10 http://lexicorient.com/e.o/nusaybin.htm; http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-905 6540/Nusaybin Nisibis’ perpetual importance as a stage post is attested by Buckingham (1827) 1.415, who meets “less than two hours after our setting out” (from Mardin to Nisibis via a putative Dara) “two Tartars from Constantinople going to Bagdad, in charge of papers from the British Consul General at that capital, to the East-India Company’s resident at Bagdad.” For information about the railway, originally Berlin-Baghdad, see Henderson (1948). Nisibis was incorporated into the line during World War One..