War der Galaterkönig Deiotaros ein Städtegründer? Neue Vorschläge zu einigen kleinasiatischen Toponymen auf Sin-/Syn-
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the arrivalof the Galatians in central Anatolia, Phrygian cities such as Gordion andAnkyra continued to exist, but the little interest the new rulers took in thembecame apparent when those cities were not re-founded after the Romans hadsacked them in 189 BC. Neither historiographic nor geographical sourcesprovide any evidence for a city built by the Galatians, and the lack ofarchaeological remains appears to concur with this negative assessment. Thesame even seems to hold true for King Deiotaros, although he was most closelyconnected with Roman senators, occasionally acted as a benefactor in the Greekworld, and effectively succeeded to the throne of Pontus: so as a (late)Hellenistic king some interest in constructing, fostering or at least dynasticnaming of cities would fit his role well. But only one isolated reference inPlutarch's Life of Crassus (17.1) credits the king with thefoundation of a city (54 BC). However, so far it has been impossible toidentify any Galatian site with this city. It is therefore suggested that wemight have to look for it in Armenia Minor near the Euphrates, for there was asettlement with the Celtic name Sintoion which Stephanos ofByzantion explicitly attests as a Galatian foundation. Even more interestingis the case of Synhorion, originally a frontier fort established byMithradates VI Eupator: in all likelihood, this was renamed or ratherreinterpreted as Sinorix Phrourion (App. Mithr. 101.463;107.503) or *Sinorigia by Deiotaros, son of Sinorix, which yieldedthe later form Sinoria (Strab. geogr. 12.3.37). Here thedynastic naming pattern – so widespread among Hellenistic kings, and so oftenapplied by Mithradates – is manifest. One may thus go on and venture thehypothesis that this was also the city Deiotaros was building when Crassus camealong on his ill-fated Parthian campaign.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".