Forging the Crown: A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia from Its Origin to Prusias I 8891318957, 9788891318954, 9788891318985

Citation preview

Centro Ricerche e Documentazione sull’Antichità Classica

47

The kingdom of Bithynia arose during the age of Alexander and his successors, and, thanks to its ambitious and charismatic kings, became the dominant power in the Propontic area within a few decades. This book explores its emergence through an in-depth analysis of the surviving sources in order to reassess its role in the Hellenistic political landscape.

MONOGRAFIE

C.E.R.D.A.C.

Paganoni cope Moncerdac 47.indd 1

FORGING THE CROWN A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA FROM ITS ORIGIN TO PRUSIAS I «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

E. PAGANONI - FORGING THE CROWN

ISBN 978-88-913-1895-4

ELOISA PAGANONI was awarded her doctorate from the University of Padua in 2017 and is currently a post-doctoral fellow at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Her research interests focus on the history of Hellenistic Asia Minor, Greek epigraphy, and local historiography. She has published several articles on these topics.

Eloisa Paganoni

28. G  alimberti A., Adriano e l’ideologia del principato. 29. Bearzot C., Vivere da democratici. Studi su Lisia e la democrazia ateniese. 30. Carsana C.-Schettino M.T. (a cura di), Utopia e Utopie nel pensiero storico antico. 31. Rohr Vio F., Publio Ventidio Basso. Fautor Caesaris, tra storia e memoria. 32. Lo Cascio E., Crescita e declino. Studi di storia dell’economia romana. 33. Migliario E.-Troiani L.-Zecchini G. (a cura di), Società indigene e cultura greco-romana. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Trento, 7-8 giugno 2007. 34. Zecchini G., Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica II. Dall’Historia Augusta a Paolo Diacono. 35. R  aimondi M., Imerio e il suo tempo. 36. C  ristofoli R.-Galimberti A.-Rohr Vio F. (a cura di), Lo spazio del non-allineamento a Roma fra tarda Repubblica e primo principato. 37. Z  ecchini G. (a cura di), L’Augusteum di Narona. 38. H  ölkeskamp K.-J., Modelli per una Repubblica. 39. B  earzot C. Landucci F. (a cura di), Alexader’s Legacy. 40. Bianchi E., Vulci. Storia della città e dei suoi rapporti con Greci e Romani. 41. C  ristofoli R.-Galimberti A.-Rohr Vio F. (a cura di), Costruire la Memoria. Uso e abuso della storia fra tarda repubblica e primo principato. 42. Pellizzari A., Maestro di retorica, maestro di vita: le lettere teodosiane di Libanio di Antiochia. 43. C  asella M., Galerio. Il tetrarca infine tollerante. 44. Schettino M.T. - Zecchini G. (a cura di), L’età di Silla. Atti del Convegno “Istituto italiano per la storia antica” Roma, 23-24 marzo 2017. 45. Schettino M.T., Prospettive interculturali e confronto poli tico da Augusto ai Severi. 46. Prandi L. (a cura di), EstOvest. Confini e conflitti tra Vicino Oriente e mondo Greco-Romano. 47. Paganoni E., Forging the Crown. A history of the Kingdom of Bithynia from its origin to Prusias I.

FORGING THE CROWN

1. Piana Agostinetti P., Documenti per la protostoria della Val d’Ossola S. Bernardo di Ornavasso e le altre necropoli preromane. 2. Ianovitz O., Il culto solare nella «X Regio Augustea». 3. Letta C., I Marsi e il Fucino nell’antichità. 4. Cebeillac M., Les «quaestores principis et candidati» aux Ier et IIeme siècle de l’empire. 5. Poggio T., Ceramica e vernice nera di Spina: le oinochoi trilobate. 6. Gambetti C., I coperchi di urne con figurazioni femminili nel Museo Archeologico di Volterra. 7. Letta  C.-D’Amato S., Epigrafia della regione dei Marsi. 8. Zecchini G., Aezio: l’ultima difesa dell’Occidente Romano. 9. Gillis D., Eros and Death in the Aeneid. 10. Gallotta B., Germanico. 11. Traina G., Paludi e Bonifiche nel mondo antico. Saggio di archeologia geografica. 12. R  occhi G.D., Frontiera e confini nella Grecia Antica. 13. L  evi M.A., I Nomadi alla frontiera. 14. Z  ecchini G., Ricerche di storiografia latina tardoantica. 15. Agostinetti A.S., Flavio Arriano. Gli eventi dopo Alessandro. 16. L  evi M.A., Adriano Augusto. 17. L  evi M.A., Ercole e Roma. 18. L  anducci Gattinoni F., Duride di Samo. 19. AA.VV., L’Ecumenismo politico nella coscienza dell’Occidente. Alle radici della casa comune europea. 20. AA.VV., L’ultimo Cesare. Scritti riforme progetti poteri congiure. 21. AA.VV., Identità e valori. Fattori di aggregazione e fattori di crisi nell’esperienza politica antica. 22. AA.VV., Integrazione mescolanza rifiuto. Incontri di popoli, lingue e culture in Europa dall’Antichità all’Umanesimo. 23. AA.VV., Modelli eroici dall’antichità alla cultura europea. 24. AA.VV., La cultura storica nei primi due secoli dell’Impero Romano. 25. Prandi L., Memorie storiche dei Greci in Claudio Eliano. 26. Chausson F., Stemmata aurea: Constantin, Justine, Théodose. 27. Colonnese C., Le scelte di Plutarco. Le vite non scritte di greci illustri.

A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA FROM ITS ORIGIN TO PRUSIAS I

Monografie 47

Eloisa Paganoni

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

On the Front cover: Statuette of satyr from Nicomedia, 2nd century B.C. Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, inventory 5985.

15/01/20 11:04

CENTRO RICERCHE E DOCUMENTAZIONE SULL’ANTICHITÀ CLASSICA MONOGRAFIE 47

ELOISA PAGANONI

Forging the Crown A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia from its Origin to Prusias I

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Roma - Bristol

ELOISA PAGANONI Forging the Crown A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia from its Origin to Prusias I

© Copyright 2019 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Via Marianna Dionigi, 57 70 Enterprise Drive, Suite 2 00193, Roma - Italia Bristol CT, 06010 - USA www.lerma.it

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission of the publisher. Il volume è stato sottoposto a procedura di Peer-Review Sistemi di garanzia della qualità UNI EN ISO 9001:2015 Sistemi di gestione ambientale ISO 14001:2015

Eloisa Paganoni Forging the Crown A History of the Kingdom of Bithynia from its Origin to Prusias I: «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2019 - 280 p. 24 cm. ISBN (BROSSURA) 978-88-913-1895-4 ISBN (PDF) 978-88-913-1898-5 CDD 930 1. Ancient History

This Volume has been made possible with the Contribution of the Dipartimento di Culture e Civiltà dell’Università degli Studi di Verona

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface................................................................................................

VII

Introduction ........................................................................................

IX

CHAPTER ONE. BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA................. 1. The Origin of the Bithynians ................................................... 2. Bithynia and the Bithynians in the Archaic and Classical Ages.

1 1 10

CHAPTER TWO. THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM. BITHYNIA IN THE AGE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DIADOCHS (334-280 BC) .......... 1. The Turning-Point. Bas and Zipoites in the Late 4th Century BC ........................................................................................ 2. Troubled Years 301-280 BC. Zipoites’ Politics between Expansion and Defence ................................................................ 3. Zipoites: from Ruler to King.................................................... 4. Independence ........................................................................... CHAPTER THREE. BUILDING THE HEGEMONY. THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA UNDER NICOMEDES I AND ZIAELAS (279-229 BC) ............................. 1. 279-277 BC Nicomedes I’s Wars ............................................. 2. Fragments of Nicomedes I’s Politics ....................................... 3. International Recognition......................................................... 4. The Traditional Portrayal of Nicomedes I, Hellenisation and Peer Polity Interaction.............................................................. 5. From Nicomedes I to Ziaelas ................................................... 6. Ziaelas in His Father’s Footsteps ............................................. 7. An Appraisal of the Reigns of Nicomedes I and Ziaelas ......... CHAPTER FOUR. BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST (229-182 BC) ................................................................................ 1. The Early Years of Prusias I ..................................................... 2. Great Expansion in a Changing World. Prusias I’s Politics in the Turn of the 2nd Century BC ................................................

23 23 29 37 43 45 45 58 68 70 76 81 95 97 97 110

3. Prusias I’s Last Years. Deescalation to West and Escalation to East ........................................................................................... 129 4. Prusias I’s Politics between Economy and Propaganda, Hellenising and National Claims ................................................... 140 5. A Final Assessment of Prusias I ............................................... 148 Conclusion .........................................................................................

151

Appendix. Epigraphic Evidence ........................................................

157

Abbreviations .....................................................................................

191

Bibliography ......................................................................................

195

Kings of Bithynia ...............................................................................

239

Tables .................................................................................................

241

Index ..................................................................................................

251

PREFACE

This work originates from my PhD dissertation Bithynia. Politics of a Hellenistic Kingdom, which I submitted to the University of Padua in March 2017. I owe a debt of gratitude to many people, first of all, to my supervisors, Luisa Prandi and Thomas Corsten, for their generous advice, constant encouragement and endless patience. Words cannot express my gratitude to Franca Landucci, who initiated me into Hellenistic history and drew my attention to the kingdom of Bithynia. She has carefully followed my work during these years, providing me with insights and thought-provoking suggestions. My research has benefitted from feedback from many scholars who commented on individual parts of this work. I am particularly indebted to Domitilla Campanile, Andrew Meadows, Federicomaria Muccioli, Christof Schuler, Giuseppe Squillace, and Peter Thonemann. Michael Wörrle disclosed to me the meaning of a mysterious abbreviation. Marco Bonechi suggested many good readings to me, one of which was fundamental to this work. Raffaela G. Rizzo helped me with designing the maps. Thomas R.P. Coward kindly proofread the English for me. My warmest thanks to all of them. Any mistakes that remain are my own. I thank several institutions for their support in making this work possible. The University of Padua awarded me a three-year PhD fellowship, which also funded my stays in Vienna (2014-2016) and Oxford (spring 2016). The Jacobi Fellowship from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut allowed me to spend some fruitful weeks at the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik in Munich in summer 2016. I prepared and revised the manuscript for publication while I was a research fellow at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. In the final stages of revision I benefitted from a fellowship of the Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica. My parents, Angelo and Margherita, have always supported and encouraged me. This book is dedicated to them.

INTRODUCTION

The dominant view reduces the Hellenistic world to the realms of the Antigonids, Seleucids, Ptolemies and Attalids. A cursory look at the main reference works, encyclopaedias, handbooks and companions confirms this perception. Among the countless contributions, three works can serve as an example. In the second edition of the Cambridge Ancient History, the seventh (divided into two parts), eighth and ninth volumes deal with the Hellenistic centuries1. The first part of the seventh volume has the illustrative subtitle The Hellenistic World and its chapters on the historical account focus on the establishment of the kingdoms of the Diadochs. The second part and the eighth volume are entitled The Rise of Rome to 220 BC and Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 BC respectively. Their titles reveal that the history of the Greek world in the 2nd-1st centuries BC is conceived as the history of the rise of Rome in the East. It follows that the historical narrative pivots on Rome, its enemies (Philip V, Perseus, and Antiochus III) and its friends (the Attalids). This approach is confirmed by the ninth volume on The Last Age of the Roman Republic 146-43 BC. The narrative of the history of the Hellenistic East is limited to a chapter of roughly thirty-pages (from a volume of more than nine hundred pages), which deals with the wars against Mithridates VI, the last enemy of Rome in the East. The 2003 A Companion to the Hellenistic World introduces the reader to many aspects of the Hellenistic period2. The second section entitled Protagonists is composed of four chapters on The Ptolemies and Egypt, The Seleukids and Asia, Macedon and the Mainland, 280-221, and The Attalids of Pergamon. In 2017 the second edition of Le monde hellénistique appeared3. It includes chapters on the rise of the Hellenistic kingdoms down to 276 BC, Egypt in the 3rd-1st century BC, the Seleucid empire in the 3rd century BC,

CAH2 VII.1 and 2; VIII; IX. ERSKINE 2003. 3 GRANDJEAN et. al. 2008, 2nd ed. 2017. 1 2

X

ELOISA PAGANONI

Macedonia until the end of the Antigonids, followed by two chapters on the Eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the later Hellenistic era. Like the two aforementioned works, the 2017 handbook ‘selects’ the protagonists of the Hellenistic age according to the ‘traditional’ approach. Furthermore, as far as we can see from the table of contents, the kingdoms ‘disappear’ from the account when they enter the sphere of Roman influence. The chapters about the second half of the Hellenistic age, indeed, are devoted to Greece, the East, and the Ptolemies, the last dynasty to capitulate to Rome. The reader has the overall impression that the Hellenistic era was, broadly speaking, the ‘age of the kingdoms’, and that this era came to an end when Rome entered the East. This idea is not new in scholarship. Johann Gustav Droysen, the father of Hellenism, planned to describe the history of the Eastern Mediterranean from Alexander’s to Cleopatra’s death. But in fact he concluded his Geschichte des Hellenismus with the account of the Greek and Asiatic situation in the 220s, that is, before the arrival of Rome4. In the historical account at the beginning of The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Michail Rostovtzeff called this ‘age of the kingdoms’ the ‘Hellenistic balance’, in contrast with the following decades between the 220s and the 130s BC, when, he thought, the ‘decay of the Hellenistic monarchies’ took place5. The picture of the Hellenistic world is deeply affected by Rome. Its entrance in the East is considered a turning-point. Afterwards, the history of the Hellenistic world is presented as a step of Roman imperialism. The years between the age of Alexander and the coming of Rome are reduced to a mere preamble to Rome’s conquest of the East. The account of them focuses on the Macedonian monarchies and the Attalids, in other words, those kingdoms that were the most involved in the rise of Rome in the East. Modern scholars are not solely responsible for this situation. Due to the loss of nearly all of Greek local and general Hellenistic historiography, they mostly depend on the Histories of Polybius, the Historical Library of Diodorus of Sicily, the Ab urbe condita of Livy, the Roman History of Appian and Justin’s summary of the Philippic Histories of Trogus. In what survives of the first four works, the narrative on the Hellenistic centuries coincides with the account of Roman imperialism. As a consequence, it focuses on the Hellenistic kingdoms (Macedonia, Syria, Egypt and Pergamum) that were in contact with Rome, and information is limited on Rome’s relations with 4 5

DROYSEN 1952-1953. Cf. MARI 2019, p. 18. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, pp. 24-73.

INTRODUCTION

XI

them. Nearly nothing is said about the Eastern situation; the inter-state relations between the kingdoms and with other Hellenistic entities are completely overlooked unless they concern Rome. The universal history of Trogus has been defined as ‘una storia «non romana» e, se non proprio contro Roma, almeno senza Roma’6. The unique perspective of this work, however, cannot remove the fact that only a summary of Justin survives. It often offers a viewpoint different to events told in other sources and testifies to episodes otherwise unknown. On the other hand, Justin’s information turns out to be unreliable in some cases. When trustworthy, it is sometimes difficult to contextualise within the historical frame the Roman focused sources depict. In fact, the history of the Hellenistic realities between the age of the Diadochs and the oncoming of Rome in the East is barely known to us. This contributes to the bi-dimensional, simplified, and incomplete view of the Hellenistic world still in vouge. It allows little room for the other protagonists of that world, which are generally called with the diminishing designation of ‘minor kingdoms’ in contrast to the monarchies ruled by Macedonian dynasties, Macedonia, Syria and Egypt7. Nonetheless, from the 1980s onwards, scholarship has taken a fresh interest in these kingdoms, testified by a growing number of monographs on Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Commagene, Armenia, Parthia, and Bactria8. With regard to the kingdom of Bithynia, recent contributions include the monographs by Henri-Louis Fernoux and Christoph Michels9. These works provide fresh insights on the society of Hellenistic Bithynia and the cultural politics of its kings respectively. The historical account, which informs the background of their studies, dates back to some decades ago, though. It was elaborated in a long season of studies that began in the late 19th century. In 1861 Karl A. E. Nolte presented the dissertation De rebus gestis regum Bithynorum usque ad Prusiae I mortem10. A few years later Theodor Reinach devoted two essays on the history and coinage of the kingdom of Bithynia11. In 1925 Johann Sölch published the paper Bithynische Städte im Altertum12. In 1953 SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 26. Cf. GABELKO 2017, pp. 319-321. 8 SCHOTTKY 1989; STROBEL 1996; LERNER 1999; ARSLAN 2004; PRIMO 2004; FACELLA 2006; COLOROU 2009; PANICHI 2018. 9 FERNOUX 2004; MICHELS 2009. 10 NOLTE 1861. 11 REINACH 1888; REINACH 1902. 12 SÖLCH 1925. 6 7

XII

ELOISA PAGANONI

Giovanni Vitucci wrote the first monograph on the Bithynian kingdom with the title Il regno di Bitinia13. It was the only volume on Hellenistic Bithynia for decades. Notwithstanding, it never became a reference work. This purpose was fulfilled by the entries about Bithynia and the Bithynian kings, which appeared in the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft between the 1890s and 1970s14. In 2005, fifty-two years after Vitucci’s work, Oleg Gabelko presented the monumental monograph NСтОрия ВиϕинСKОго царСтва, an updated history of the kingdom of Bithynia15. Regrettably, it has remained unknown to non-Russian speaking scholarship. Nearly no European or American scholar mentions it, and it is difficult to find a copy in Western libraries. In fact, the current interpretation of the politics of the kingdom of Bithynia is based on contributions published in the 1970s. They show the faults of the traditional storia evenemenziale, among which the little effort to contextualise events. This traditional approach conceived the history of a political entity just as a sequence of events. Its politics were not interpreted in light of the wider historical context, and they did not contribute to the definition of this context. Despite recent progress, an easily accessible and updated study on the history of Hellenistic Bithynia is still lacking. This book aims to contribute to filling this gap through a reassessment of the emergence of the Bithynian kingdom in the Hellenistic world. It is a political history of Bithynia in the ‘age of the kingdoms’. It points out the conditions that allowed the rise of the kingdom and investigates the agency of the kings, who ruled before Bithynia entered Rome’s sphere of interest, Zipoites, Nicomedes I, Ziaelas and Prusias I. This work explores their domestic and foreign policies, as far as can be ascertained from the sources, in order to determine the role of the kingdom of Bithynia in the Hellenistic world. Outlining the rise and consolidation of this kingdom involves reassessing the history of the whole of northern Asia Minor in the first decades of the Hellenistic era. It reconsiders the history of this region taking Bithynia as the focus of the historical analysis. The investigation of Bithynian politics reveals the contact networks of powers involved in this region. In this way, it contributes to the understanding of the interests that shaped the history of this area. Although the evidence from the 3rd-early 2nd century BC is scanty, the VITUCCI 1953. MEYER 1897; GEYER 1936; GEYER 1936a; GEYER 1936b; GEYER 1936c; HABICHT 1957; HABICHT 1957a; HABICHT 1972; HABICHT 1972c. 15 GABELKO 2005. 13 14

INTRODUCTION

XIII

state of sources about the kingdom of Bithynia is appreciably different from others. To outline the role of Bithynia in the ‘age of the kingdoms’, we can rely not only on sources mentioned above but also on Memnon’s On Heraclea. What survives of this work is a long summary of Books IX-XVI, that constitutes Codex 224 of Photius’ Bibliotheca. It is a detailed account of the history of the Propontic area from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC. It provides a decisive contribution to the understanding of the history of the kingdom of Bithynia, especially in its earliest decades. Here and there, it is affected by the consequences of works which are preserved as a summary. Photius’ narrative is in some cases unclear or imprecise. Some episodes for which it is the only testimony are difficult to contextualize. However, scholars agree that the historical information that Photius preserves is reliable16. The wealth of information and the local perspective of the summary of Memnon’s work, which also provides a glimpse into domestic events, is a source of regret for the loss of local literary production on Bithynia. It should have been remarkable, judging from the number of the authors who are known to have devoted a work to this region or one of its cities. Two fragments survive from the On Nicaea by a certain Menecrates, who is often identified with the 2nd-century-BC Menecrates of Tralles17. Demosthenes of Bithynia, who is supposed to have lived in the Hellenistic age, wrote the Bithyniaka, an epic poem in at least ten books18. In the second half of the 2nd century BC, Nicander of Chalcedon composed the Misadventures of Prusias, a satiric work on Prusias II19. The works of Asclepiades of Myrlea, active in the 2nd-1st century BC included a Bithyniaka in at least ten books20. Alexander Polyhistor wrote an On Bithynia21. The obscure Artemidorus of Ascalon was the author of an On Bithynia of which nothing is extant but the title22. Arrian of Nicomedia wrote his Bithyniaka in ten books recounting the history of his country from the origin to the end of the kingdom23. A few fragments of these works are extant and most of them concern geographical and mythological information. However, 16 YARROW 2006, pp. 109-110; PAGANONI 2015, pp. 61-62. On Photius, see HÄGG 1973; HÄGG 1975; SCHAMP 1987; WILSON 1992; BEVEGNI 1996. On Memnon and his work, see JANKE 1963; DESIDERI 1967; DESIDERI 1970-1971; DUECK 2006; YARROW 2006, passim; ARSLAN 2011; HEINEMANN 2010; Billows, Nymphis BNJ 432, Biographical Essay; DAVAZE 2013; TOBER 2013, pp. 387-414; GALLOTTA 2014; PAGANONI 2015. 17 Trachsel, Menekrates, BNJ 701. 18 Trachsel, Demosthenes, BNJ 699. 19 Trachsel, Nikandros, BNJ 700. 20 Trachsel, Asklepiades, BNJ 697. 21 Blakely, Alexandros Polyhistor, BNJ 273 FF 12-13, 125 with Commentary and Biographical Essay. 22 Trachsel, Artemidoros BNJ 698. 23 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, FF 14-29, 57-109 with Commentary; STADTER 1980, pp. 152-161; DANA – DANA 2014, pp. 27-32.

XIV

ELOISA PAGANONI

they attest to the existence of a thriving local tradition, that was probably in part produced at the Bithynian court24. The research on some aspects about Hellenistic Bithynia, such as international relations and cultural and economic politics, benefits from numismatic and epigraphic evidence as well as from literary sources25. The coinage of the Bithynian kingdom has raised the attention of scholars since the time of Theodor Reinach. The achievements of decades of studies have been recently concentrated in the handbook on the coinage of northern Anatolia by Oliver D. Hoover, which is now the standard reference work26. The documents from Bithynia are collected in the catalogues of inscriptions from Cius/Prusias ad Mare, Prusa ad Olympum, Bithynium, Myrlea/Apamea, Pylai, Cierus/Prusias ad Hypium and Nicaea of the series Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien27. The absence of a volume about Nicomedia is remarkable. For this city the only reference remains the first part of the fourth volume of the Tituli Asiae Minoris28. Other inscriptions relevant to this research are published in other corpora. It is therefore difficult to acquire an overall overview of this evidence, its value and the matters it raises. For this reason, I collect it in an appendix. It intends to be a useful tool for the reader looking for texts and translations as well as an update of the scholarship about each document. It reassesses the main matters and provides a proper space for issues that would be relegated to a footnote in the historical account. NOTE Translations from Greek and Latin are my own. Personal and place names have been Latinized (e.g. Byzantium, Nicaea instead of Byzantion, Nikaia) except for unfamiliar names or names usually quoted in the Greek form (e.g. Tios). Words, such as institutions, epithets, and special designations, are transliterated (e.g. boulē).

PAGANONI 2016 with further literature on the authors of these works. Archaeologic sources too could offer a valuable contribution to the historical investigation, but no extensive excavations, bringing to the light the Hellenistic layers, have been so far conducted in the Propontis. 26 HOOVER 2012, pp. 206-226. 27 IK Kios; IK Prusa ad Olympum; IK Klaudiu Polis; IK Apameia und Pylai; IK Prusias ad Hypium; IK Nikaia. MAREK – ADAK 2016 collect the inscriptions from Bithynia that have been found after the publication of these corpora. Unforunately, they do not provide new evidence for the history of the kingdom of Bithynia. 28 TAM IV, 1. See also DÖRNER 1941; DÖRNER 1952; ROBERT 1980. 24 25

CHAPTER ONE BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

1. THE ORIGIN OF THE BITHYNIANS Ancient sources often call the Bithynians Θρήικες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ1, Βιθυνοὶ Θρᾷκες2, Θρᾷκες Βιθυνοί3, Θρᾷκες οἱ περὶ Βιθυνίαν4 or Θρᾷκες οἱ Βιθυνοί5 and their region – broadly corresponding to the Propontic peninsula – Βιθυνὶς Θρᾴκη6, Θρᾴκη ἡ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ7, Asiae Bithynia8 or Thracium Bosphorum9. These names refer to the Thracian ethnicity of the Bithynians, which is confirmed by onomastics and archaeological evidence10. Literary sources explain that they were among the Thracian tribes that passed from Europe to Asia in remote time. The information is fragmentary, occasionally unclear and sometimes not trustworthy, as usual for distant events, but it produces a sufficiently detailed account of the peopling of the Propontic peninsula. Herodotus first relates the migration of the Thracians: the Thracians... who crossed over to Asia were called Bithynians. Formerly, they were called Strymonians – as they themselves say – since they lived by the Strymon11.

Hdt. VII, 75. Thuc. IV, 75, 2. 3 Xen. An. VI, 4, 2; Ps. Scylax 92. 4 Diod. XIV, 38, 3. 5 Arr. An. I, 29, 5. In his account of the arrival of the Bithynians in the Propontis, Appian (Mithr. 1) uses the words τὴν Θρᾳκῶν τῶν Βιθυνῶν to describe a region near to Byzantium (therefore in Europe). For the whole passage, see below in this chapter. 6 Xen. Hell. III, 2, 1. 7 Xen. An. VI, 4, 1; cf. 2, 17, where the Asiatic coast of the Propontis is referred to as τῆς Θρᾴκης. 8 Sall. Hist. III, 50. 9 Mela I, 14. 10 About onomastics and toponymy, see DURIDANOV 1980; CORSTEN 2007; MICHELS 2009, pp. 12-13 n. 5. ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010; AVRAM 2013; OnomThrac, pp. LXXIX-LXXXII. About archaeological sources, see below p. 6 n. 42. 11 Hdt. VII, 75: Θρήικες... δὲ διαβάντες μὲν ἐς τὴν Ἀσίην ἐκλήθησαν Βιθυνοί, τὸ δὲ πρότερον ἐκαλέοντο, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, Στρυμόνιοι, οἰκέοντες ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι. 1 2

2

ELOISA PAGANONI

Herodotus focuses on the name change of the Thracians who moved to Asia, identified here with the Bithynians only. In doing so he locates the region they inhabited in Europe. It was the area along the Strymon, today’s Stryma, which has its source in the Vitosha Mountains and flows into the Aegean Sea near Amphipolis12. Elsewhere, Herodotus13 lists the Thracians among the peoples subject to Croesus, and what seems a gloss14 clarifies that they were Thynians and Bithynians. In this case, the Bithynians are associated with another Thracian tribe, similar by name, which supposedly passed into Asia with them. In this regard Strabo is explicit. In Book VII, he records both the Bithynians and the Thynians among the Thracian tribes migrating to Asia15, and in Book XII, he says: It is commonly accepted that the Bithynians, who formerly were Mysians, changed their name after the Thracians, the Bithynians and Thynians, who settled in the region16.

As with these passages, sources often couple the Thynians with the Bithynians17. The assonance of their name created some confusion already in ancient times18, but actually they were two distinct tribes that inhabited different areas in Europe. The Bithynians, as we have seen, lived in the Strymon valley, while the Thynians occupied the south-eastern Thrace, bordering the Black Sea19. Most of them were still living there in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. This suggests that just a few of them passed to Asia. The same conclusion cannot be drawn confidently for the Bithyni-

12 For the identification of the European land of the Bithynians with the Strymon’s valley, see also Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a (deriving from Herodotus); Eus. II, 66-67 Schoene. Cf. Pliny (NH V, 142-143), who says that Asiam Bithyniamque... ea appellata est Cronia, dein Thessalis, dein Malianda et Strymonis (‘Asia Bithynia... was called Cronia, then Thessalis, then Malianda and Strymonis’). 13 Hdt. I, 28. 14 MACAN 1908, p. 99 n. 75. 15 Strabo VII, 3, 2. 16 Strabo XII, 3, 3: οἱ μὲν οὖν Βιθυνοὶ διότι πρότερον Μυσοὶ ὄντες μετωνομάσθησαν οὕτως ἀπὸ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν τῶν ἐποικησάντων, Βιθυνῶν τε καὶ Θυνῶν, ὁμολογεῖται παρὰ τῶν πλείστων. 17 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a; Eust. De capta Thess. p. 30 l. 26; Porphyr. Quaest. homericarum ad Il. XIII, 3, 5. 18 Pliny (NH V, 145) says that the Bithynians were the Thynians who changed name after crossing over to Asia and also HANNESTAD 1996, p. 68 thinks so. 19 On the Thynians, see MEYER 1897, col. 513; LENK 1936; FOL [– MARAZOV] 1977, pp. 141-142; LENDLE 1995, pp. 431-433; MIHAILOV 1991, pp. 604-605; STRONK 1995, pp. 185-186; MÜLLER 1997, p. 959; VON BREDOW 2002; WEBBER 2011, pp. 203-204. About the Thynias region near Salmydessus, see OBERHUMMER 1936; MÜLLER 1997, pp. 922-924; VON BREDOW 2002b.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

3

ans, as their presence in Europe in the historical time is too scarcely attested20. The Bithynians and Thynians came from different areas of Thrace and continued to live separately when they settled in Asia. Fragment 77a of Arrian, probably from Book I of the Bithyniaka for content21, records the migration of the Thracians into Asia and describes the land the Thynians and Bithynians inhabited: It is also said that at that time the Bithynians occupied the region from the Bosporus to the Rhebas. The Thynians inhabited the mountainous region bordering on the Pontus as far as the river Cales, as the Thynians and the Bithynians were neighbouring peoples22.

It is clear from the reference to ‘that time’ that Arrian is dealing with the situation in a distant past, probably close to the arrival of the Thynians and the Bithynians in Anatolia. According to him, the territory of the Thynians extended as far as the river Cales, the current Alaplı Çayı, which flows into the sea a few kilometres south-west of the promontory of Heraclea Pontica23. The Bithynians inhabited the area between the Bosporus and the river Rhebas, that was – Arrian said above – a tributary of the river Sangarius. It corresponds to the modern Gökçe Suyu, that flows south of Askania Lake24. The rivers Cales and Rhebas constituted the southern borders of the Thynians and the Bithynians who inhabited the eastern and the western Propontic peninsula respectively, as confirmed by other sources. Toponymy suggests the presence of the Thynians on the shores bordering 20 According to the edition of MEINEKE 1877, Strabo XII, 3, 3 says: καὶ σημεῖα τίθενται τοῦ μὲν τῶν Βιθυνῶν ἔθνους τὸ μέχρι νῦν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ λέγεσθαί τινας Βιθυνούς (‘[As for the migration of the Bithynians] they present as evidence of the Bithynians that in Thrace some people are still called Bithynians’). In his edition, LASSERRE 1981 ad loc. prefers the alternative reading handed down by the manuscript tradition: καὶ σημεῖα τίθενται τοῦ μὲν τῶν Βιθυνῶν ἔθνους τὸ μέχρι νῦν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ λέγεσθαί τινας Μαιδοβιθυνούς (‘they present as evidence of the Bithynians that in Thrace some people are still called Maidobithynians’). It is risky to turn this passage into the only evidence of the presence of the Bithynians in Europe in historical times, most of all in the light of the alternative reading that refers to the Maidobithyoi. They are generally identified with the Maidoi, who are attested by other sources. About them, see LENK 1928; DANOV 1972, p. 185 n. 1; VON BREDOW 1999; BORA 2017. 21 Cf. PAGANONI forth. 22 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a: Λέγεται δὲ καὶ ὅτι τὴν ἀπὸ Βοσπόρου γῆν ἕως ἐπὶ Ρήβαντα Βιθυνοί ποτε κατέσχον. Τὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπέκεινα ἐπὶ Πόντον ὀρεινὴν οἱ Θυνοὶ ἔσχον ἄχρι ποταμοῦ Κάλητος, ὡς εἶναι ὁμόρους τούς τε Θυνοὺς καὶ τοὺς Βιθυνούς. 23 ŞAHIN 1986, p. 146; STROBEL 1996, pp. 193-194; TALBERT 2000, Map 52, E-G 2. 24 DÖRNER 1964, col. 909; ŞAHIN 1986, pp. 144-147; STROBEL 1996, p. 192 n. 149; ROELENS-FLOUNEAU 2018, p. 297. About the homonymous river Rhebas flowing through the northern Propontic peninsula, corresponding to the modern Riva Deresi, see ŞAHIN 1986, pp. 144-147; STROBEL 1996, p. 192 n. 149.

4

ELOISA PAGANONI

the Black Sea: about thirty-five kilometres north-west of the Sangarius’ mouth, there was the island of Thynias25. As for the Bithynians, Arrian’s information fits with what is known about their spread in the Hellenistic and Imperial times when they are attested in the today’s Yalova peninsula between the Astacenean Gulf and the area of Cius and Myrlea26. Only Arrian and a few other authors27 set a clear distinction, at least for what concerns geography, between the Bithynians and Thynians. Most sources just speak of ‘Bithynians’ and ‘Bithynia’ in regard to the inhabitants of the Propontic peninsula and the region they occupied. Arrian himself does so in his Anabasis, where he describes the Propontic area at the time of Alexander28. Moreover, literary evidence testifies to the presence of the Bithynians in the area originally occupied by the Thynians. According to Xenophon29, the Bithynians were settled on the eastern Propontic shores and according to Mela30, the island of Thynias was inhabited by the Bithynians. Pliny says that Bithyniae Thynias had got to be called Bithynia31. Again, there is nearly no historical information about the Thynians of Asia. These elements invite us to conclude that the Thynians assimilated themselves to the Bithynians32. This process was presumably facilitated by the ethnic similarity of these two tribes. Although it was already in an advanced stage in Xenophon’s time, it was not yet complete at the beginning of the 3rd century BC when the latest information about the Thynians dates back33. The accounts of the Thracian migrations connect the Bithynians to the Mysians and the Bebrycians. These were two other Thracian tribes that seem to have occupied the Propontic peninsula before the Bithynians and Thynians34. Some sources35 claims that the Bithynians (and Thynians) set25 About this island, see ZIEGLER 1936; DÖRNER – HOEPFNER 1989; VON BREDOW 2002a; BITTNER 1998, pp. 125-126; RADT 2008, p. 354. 26 Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4; 52, 6-9; Strabo XII, 3, 7. 27 Plin. NH V, 150: tenent oram omnem Thyni, interiora Bithyni (‘the Thynians occupy the coast, the Bithynians the hinterland’); Steph. Byz. s.v. Ψίλιον: ποταμὸς μεταξὺ Θυνίας καὶ Βιθυνίας (‘a river between Thynia and Bithynia’). 28 Arr. An. I, 29, 5. 29 Xen. An. VI, 4, 1-2. 30 Mela II, 98. 31 Plin. NH V, 151. 32 BURSTEIN 1976, p. 9. 33 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5. On the Thynians see also Nep. Datames 2. 34 On their ethnicity, Strabo VII, 3, 2. On the Bebrycians, see RUGE 1897; PRÊTEUX 2005, esp. pp. 246-250; FERRARI 2011, pp. 164-165; CHIAI 2017, p. 109. On the Mysians, see SCHWERTHEIM 2000; DEBORD 2001; WEST 2013. 35 App. Mithr. 1; Eus. II, 66-67 Schoene; cfr. Sall. Hist. III, 50.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

5

tled in the lands of the Bebrycians, while others36 say it was in those of the Mysians. Strabo37, then, says that the Mysians established themselves in the lands of the Bebrycians. These pieces of information set in one area – the Propontic peninsula and the nearby region – four Thracians tribes, the Bithynians, Thynians, Mysians and Bebrycians. They suggest that these tribes migrated in different waves and that the Bosporus was the ‘gate of Asia’ for them38. The Bebrycians arrived first, the Mysians followed, then it was the turn of the Bithynians and Thynians. These two latter pushed the Mysians westwards to the region they inhabited in the historical age. As for the Bebrycians, they left no significant trace in the ethnic landscape of northern Asia Minor. As we read in Pliny, Eratosthenes already listed them among the perished peoples39; they were probably assimilated to the other inhabitants of the region like the Thynians. In the passage on the establishing of the Bithynians in Asia at the beginning of the Mithridatikē Appian covers historical information with the veil of myths: The Greeks think that the Thracians who marched to Ilion with Rhesus – Rhesus was killed by Diomedes by night in the manner Homer says in the poems – fled to the outlet of the Pontus at the site where the crossing to Thrace is shortest. Some say that since they found no ships they remained there and took possession of the country called Bebrycia. Others say that after crossing over to the country beyond Byzantium, which is said to be of the Thracian Bithynians, they settled by the river Bithya and were forced by hunger to return to Bebrycia. They called the region Bithynia, instead of Bebrycia, from the river by which they had previously settled. Or perhaps the name was changed by them insensibly with the lapse of time since Bithynia is not very much different from Bebrycia. Some think so. Others say that the first one who ruled them was Bithys, the son of Zeus and Thracia. (Bithys and Thracia) gave name to the two countries40.

36 Strabo XII, 3, 3; 4, 8. According to Herodotus (VII, 75), the Mysians and the Teucrians expelled the Bithyinians from their lands in Europe. Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 97) and Pliny (NH V, 143) hint at the presence of the Halizones in the area occupied by the Bithynians (cf. DANA 2016, p. 222 n. 294). These almost unknown people, that is already attested by Homer (Il. II, 856; V, 39) and lived in northern Asia Minor, might be part of the indigenous substratum on which the Thracian tribes overlapped. On the Halizones, see DAN 2012-2013. 37 Strabo XII, 3, 3; XIII, 1, 8. 38 Cf. SIEGERT 1983, pp. 75-76; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, pp. 507-508 and n. 8. 39 Plin. NH V, 127. 40 App. Mithr. 1: Θρᾷκας Ἕλληνες ἡγοῦνται τοὺς ἐς Ἴλιον μετὰ Ῥήσου στρατεύσαντας, Ῥήσου [γὰρ] νυκτὸς ὑπὸ Διομήδους ἀναιρεθέντος ὃν τρόπον Ὅμηρος ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσι φράζει, φεύγοντας ἐπὶ τοῦ Πόντου τὸ στόμα, ᾗ στενώτατός ἐστιν ἐς Θρᾴκην ὁ διάπλους, οἳ μὲν οὐκ ἐπιτυχόντας πλοίων τῇδε καταμεῖναι καὶ τῆς γῆς κρατῆσαι Βεβρυκίας λεγομένης, οἳ δὲ περάσαντας ὑπὲρ τὸ Βυζάντιον ἐς τὴν Θρᾳκῶν τῶν Βιθυνῶν

6

ELOISA PAGANONI

Appian hands down two traditions about the settling of the Bithynians. Both present the Bithynians as Thracians who escaped from Troy after their leader Rhesus was murdered. These traditions thus place the migration of the Bithynians after the Trojan War, commonly dated to 1184 BC on the basis of Eratosthenes41. The arrival of the first Thracians in Asia Minor is attested by the sudden appearance of Thracian building techniques and pottery in c. 1200 BC42. The archaeological datum is echoed in the Iliad, which mentions the Mysians43. As the Homeric poem contains no reference to other Thracian tribes44, these ones are supposed to have migrated after the end of the Trojan War45. This conclusion is perfectly in line with the traditions Appian hands down about the Bithynians and the Thynians and with Eusebius as well, who dates their settlement to 972 BC46. λεγομένων παρὰ Βιθύαν ποταμὸν οἰκῆσαι καὶ λιμῷ πιεσθέντας ἐς Βεβρυκίαν αὖθις ἐπανελθεῖν καὶ Βιθυνίαν ἀντὶ Βεβρυκίας ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ, παρ’ὃν ᾤκουν, ὀνομάσαι ἢ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῖς ἀλόγως σὺν χρόνῳ παρατραπῆναι, οὐκ ἐς πολὺ τῆς Βιθυνίας παρὰ τὴν Βεβρυκίαν διαφερούσης. ὧδε μὲν ἔνιοι νομίζουσιν, ἕτεροι δὲ Βῖθυν ἄρξαι πρῶτον αὐτῶν, παῖδα Διός τε καὶ Θρᾴκης, οὓς ἐπωνύμους ἑκατέρᾳ γῇ γενέσθαι. Cf. Sall. Hist. III, 50: Igitur introrsus prima Asiae Bithynia est, multis antea nominibus appellata. Nam prius Bebrycia dicta, deinde Mygdonia, mox a Bithyno rege Bithynia nuncupata (‘So inwards there is first Asia Bithynia that was called by many names earlier. It was said Bebrycia, then, Mygdonia and now it is called Bithynia after the king Bithynus’). 41 Jacoby, FGrHist 241, F 1d; cf. BLEGEN 1975, p. 163. 42 BLEGEN 1975, pp. 163-164; BRYCE 2006, pp. 66-68; DE BOER 2007, pp. 127-129; ÖZDOĞAN 2011, p. 673; BELTRAME 2015, p. 64; CHIAI 2017, pp. 34-35. Until a very recent time, findings that attested to a Thracian presence in Asia in this period came from Troad mostly. A dome-structure tomb in the modern village of Ku(r)tluca, twenty-three kilometres away from ancient Nicomedia, dating to the 4th century BC, had been considered as the earliest evidence of Thracian material culture from the Propontc peninsula for a long time (MANSEL 1970, pp. 175-176; MANSEL 1974; HODDINOTT 1981, p. 120; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; CORSTEN 2007, p. 120 n. 9; MICHELS 2009, p. 12 n. 5 and p. 267 n. 1356; GÜNEY 2012, p. 69; on Thracian tombs, see ARCHIBALD 1998, pp. 283-303; STOYANOVA 2015). But recent excavations brought to light fragments of Thracian pottery dating around 1200 BC (AYDINGÜN 2015). 43 Hom. Il. II, 858; X, 430; XIV, 512; XXIV, 278. 44 The spread view considering the Phrygians one of the Thracian tribes moving to Asia (e.g. OLSHAUSEN 2000, col. 965; ROLLER 2011, pp. 560-561; SAMS 2011, p. 607; ZAHARIADE 2013) on the basis of Herodotus (VII, 73) and Xanthus (Jacoby, FGrHist 765, FF 14-15) is not confirmed by evidence (DREWS 1993; TUNA et al. 1998). 45 CARRINGTON 1977, pp. 118-119; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, pp. 507-508; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 66-67. Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 60) says that the Thracians were expelled from their European lands by the Cimmerians. On this basis and in contrast with the archaeological evidence, some scholars argue that the Thracians moved to Asia in the 8th-7th century BC (REINACH 1888, p. 93; MEYER 1897, coll. 510-511; DANOV 1972, p. 184; STRONK 1995, p. 40; DE BOER 2007, pp. 131-133). BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 7, 102 n. 81 tries to conciliate the information from Arrian and the other sources. In his opinion, Arrian means not the historical but the mythic Cimmerians. Nicolaus of Damascus (Jacoby, FGrHist 90, F 71) preserved an anecdote dating the migration of the Thracians at the time of the Lydian king Alyattes in about the first half of the 6th century BC. According to Jacoby (FGrHist 90, F 71, Commentary, pp. 253-254) the narrative is modelled on an episode in Herodotus (V, 12) having as protagonists not the Thracians but the Paeonians. Cf. CORSTEN 2007, p. 121 n. 2. 46 Eus. II, 66-67 Schoene.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

7

Accordingly, scholars place the arrival of these tribes in Asia Minor in the turn of the 1st millennium BC47. The passage of Appian closes with three traditions about the origin of Bithynia’s name. The first one derives it from the otherwise unknown river Bithya, which supposedly flowed near Byzantium48. We find here a trend already attested in Herodotus who claims that the Bithynians were earlier named after the river by which they lived in Europe49. The second one considers Bithynia the corrupted form of Bebrycia, again deriving the toponym from a geographic element. The last one shows an ennobling tendency, which links the region’s name with the eponymous hero. However, neither of these can be considered the true origin of the place name. Since regions are usually named after the people inhabiting them50, Bithynia’s name probably derives from the Greek form of the name of the Thracian tribe living there51. At the turn of the 1st millennium BC, the Bithynians and Thynians took the place of the Bebrycians and Mysians in the Propontic peninsula. The peopling of this region was not completed yet. When the Bithynians and Thynians had already definitely settled, the Greeks colonized the Bosporus and the Black Sea coast52. They founded Cius, Astacus, Olbia, Chalcedon and Heraclea Pontica on the most favourable spots along the shore. By occupying areas so far controlled by the Bithynians, they raised the rivalry, which characterised the Greek-Bithynian relations in the Classical and early Hellenistic ages. The accounts on the geography of Bithynia testify to the layered ethnic landscape of the Propontic area. They show how the settlement of the Greeks affected the extension of the lands of the Bithynians. The earliest passage relevant in this regard is in Thucydides. In the description of the Athenian operations in the Propontis in summer 424 BC, he says: And not long after Lamachus sailed into Pontus, laying at anchor in the river Cales in the territory of Heraclea, he lost the ships as much rain fell (in that region) and after the flood went suddenly down; he himself and his army came by land through the country of the Thracian Bithynians (who are in Asia on the other side) to Chalcedon, a colony of the Megarians in the mouth of Pontus53. CARRINGTON 1977, pp.118-119; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, pp. 507-508; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 66-67; KLEU 2013. OBERHUMMER 1897; GOUKOWSKY 2001, p. 126 n. 13. 49 Hdt. VII, 75. 50 GARCÍA-RAMÓN 1998. 51 Cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 70. 52 On the Greek colonisation of the Black Sea, see TSETSKHLADZE 1996; TSETSKHLADZE 1998; BURSTEIN 2006. 53 Thuc. IV, 75, 2: καὶ οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον ἐς τὸν Πόντον ἐσπλεύσας Λάμαχος, ἐν τῇ Ἡρακλεώτιδι 47

48

8

ELOISA PAGANONI

This passage suggests that the Bithynians were inhabiting the inland Propontic peninsula as the Athenians crossed their land to come from the territory of Heraclea to Chalcedon. It contains no evidence to establish how vast Chalcedon’s chōra was, but it is supposed to have been very far reaching54; it likely corresponded to the northern edge of the Propontic peninsula. Thucydides provides a piece of information about the southern borders of the Bithynian lands. The river Cales is said to be in the land of Heraclea. Since, according to Arrian55, it delimited to the east the territory of the Thynians in prehistorical time, it follows that the Greeks founding Heraclea occupied some lands of the Thynians/Bithynians. This is confirmed by Pseudo Scylax, who attests the presence of the Heracleans on the island of Thynias56. Xenophon says that Bithynia bordered on the territory of Heraclea but he does not point out any geographical element as delimitation57. This may be found in Arrian58, who claims that at the time of Alexander the land of the Bithynians extended as far as the river Sangarius. The same information is in Strabo. He describes Bithynia at his own time, when the region was a Roman province together with Pontus: the Paphlagonians and Mariandynians and some of the Epicteti delimit Bithynia on the east; the Pontic Sea from the outlets of the river Sangarius to the mouth of the sea at Byzantium and Chalcedon on the north; the Propontis on the west; on the south Mysia and the so-called Phrygia Epiktētos, the one which is also called Hellespontine Phrygia59. ὁρμίσας ἐς τὸν Κάλητα ποταμὸν ἀπόλλυσι τὰς ναῦς ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου καὶ κατελθόντος αἰφνιδίου τοῦ ῥεύματος: αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ ἡ στρατιὰ πεζῇ διὰ Βιθυνῶν Θρᾳκῶν, οἵ εἰσι πέραν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, ἀφικνεῖται ἐς Καλχηδόνα τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι τοῦ Πόντου Μεγαρέων ἀποικίαν. 54 AVRAM 2004, p. 979. 55 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a. 56 Ps. Scylax 92; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, pp. 955-956. 57 Xen. An. VI, 4, 1-2: τὸ δὲ χωρίον τοῦτο ὃ καλεῖται Κάλπης λιμὴν ἔστι μὲν ἐν τῇ Θρᾴκῃ τῇ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ: ἀρξαμένη δὲ ἡ Θρᾴκη αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ Πόντου μέχρι Ἡρακλείας ἐπὶ δεξιὰ εἰς τὸν Πόντον εἰσπλέοντι. καὶ τριήρει μέν ἐστιν εἰς Ἡράκλειαν ἐκ Βυζαντίου κώπαις ἡμέρας μακρᾶς πλοῦς: ἐν δὲ τῷ μέσῳ ἄλλη μὲν πόλις οὐδεμία οὔτε φιλία οὔτε Ἑλληνίς, ἀλλὰ Θρᾷκες Βιθυνοί (‘This place which is called Calpe Harbour is in Asiatic Thrace; and this part of Thrace extends from the mouth of the Euxine as far as Heraclea, on the right to one who sails into the Euxine. For a trireme the journey to row from Byzantium to Heraclea is a day-long, and between them there is no other city, either friendly or Greek, but Bithynian Thracians’). About Calpe Harbour, today’s Kirpe on the eastern coast of the Propontic peninsula, see MANFREDI 1986, pp. 242-244; LENDLE 1995, pp. 384-389; DEBORD 1998, pp. 142-143; STRONK 1995, p. 63. 58 Arr. An. I, 29, 5. 59 Strabo XII, 4, 1: τὴν δὲ Βιθυνίαν ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀνατολῆς ὁρίζουσι Παφλαγόνες τε καὶ Μαριανδυνοὶ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικτήτων τινές, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἄρκτων ἡ Ποντικὴ θάλαττα ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκβολῶν τοῦ Σαγγαρίου μέχρι τοῦ στόματος τοῦ κατὰ Βυζάντιον καὶ Χαλκηδόνα, ἀπὸ δὲ δύσεως ἡ Προποντίς, πρὸς νότον δ᾽ ἥ τε Μυσία καὶ ἡ ἐπίκτητος καλουμένη Φρυγία, ἡ δ᾽ αὐτὴ καὶ Ἑλλησποντιακὴ Φρυγία καλουμένη.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

9

If in the Hellenistic and Imperial ages the Sangarius was the southwestern border of Bithynia, one can conclude that the land seized by the Greeks of Heraclea went from the Cales to the Sangarius’ mouth. The Thracian Thynians/Bithynians probably continued to live there, but the area became part of the chōra of Heraclea. As for the other borders of Bithynia, they are clear to us when identified with natural elements, such as the shores of the Propontic peninsula. They are less clear when Strabo refers to peoples or ancient regions: they had shifting borders in ancient times and are not easy to ‘translate’ in current geographical terms. From the east to west Strabo mentions the Paphlagonians, an indigenous people that inhabited northern Anatolia as far as the river Halys60, the Mariandynians, a people of unknown origin who settled in the lands around Heraclea Pontica61, Phrygia Epiktētos, a region south of Mt. Olympus62, and Hellesponitine Phrygia, which extended to the Hellespontic coast. With regard to the southwestern border, Strabo63 says elsewhere that the land of the Bithynians extended as far as the river Gallos, a tributary of the Sangarius. The identification of this river is debated but most scholar recognise it in the today’s Mudurnu Suyu, that flows through the region of Bithynium64. In sum, the evidence in our sources indicates that the Bithynians (and the Thynians) inhabited a wide area corresponding to the Propontic peninsula as far as the Sangarius and the region of Askania Lake as far as the Gulf of Cius to the east and Mt. Olympus to the south, and possibly including the region of Bithynium65. However, the territory of the Bithynians rulers, which became the core of the Hellenistic kingdom, was smaller. Judging from the targets of their earliest military actions known to us, it was limited to the Propontic peninsula as far as the Gulf of Astacus66. On the Paphlagonians, see BARAT 2013; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2014. Strabo (VII, 3, 2; XII, 3, 4; XIV, 5, 23) says that the Mariandynians were a Thracian tribe, but their ethnicity is questioned by scholars (BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 6-11; MANFREDI 1986, p. 240; BITTNER 1998, p. 10; SHIPLEY 2011, p. 160; GÜNEY 2012, p. 76 n. 351). On the Mariandynians, see BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 6-11, 2830; IVANČIK 1997. About their status, see the bibliographical references below p. 14 n. 90. 62 About this region, see below, pp. 129-131. 63 Strabo XII, 3, 7. 64 ŞAHIN 1986, esp. pp. 125-129, 149; STROBEL 1998; TALBERT 2000, Map 86, AB, 3; RADT 2008, p. 353; ROELENS-FLOUNEAU 2018, p. 297. For remarks about this identification, see GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 83-87, 154-158. About the traditional identification of the Gallos with the current Gökçesu, see RUGE 1910; cf. GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 83, 155-156; RADT 2008, p. 353. 65 ŞAHIN 1986, p. 146; HANNESTAD 1996, p 68; STROBEL 1996, pp. 193-194; STROBEL 1997, col. 698; MICHELS 2009, p. 12; GÜNEY 2012, p. 68. 66 DÖRNER 1964, coll. 908-909; HABICHT 1972, col. 449; STROBEL 1994, p. 35; KOBES 1996, p. 115; STROBEL 1996, pp. 194-196; FERNOUX 2004, p. 31; CORSTEN 2007, p. 123; KLEU 2013. MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 184: ‛Ihr (i.e. of the Bithynians) früher Herrschaftsbereich ist stattdessen viel eher in den Bergen 60 61

10

ELOISA PAGANONI

2. BITHYNIA AND THE BITHYNIANS IN THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL AGES The earliest information about the history of the Propontic peninsula concerns the arrival of Thracian peoples from Europe in the late 2nd-early 1st millennium BC67. Then, we know nothing until the time of the Greek colonisation. According to Stephanus of Byzantium, in the first half of the 6th century BC the Lydian king Alyattes founded the city of Alyatta in Bithynia68. The foundation of this city might have been connected with the conquest of Bithynia. In this case, the new settlement could serve to strengthen control over the recently seized region69. Herodotus confirms that Bithynia was part of the Lydian kingdom. With regard to Croesus, Alyattes’ successor, he says: Going on time and having been subjugated almost all the peoples living west of the river Halys, with the exception of the Cilicians and Lycians, Croesus held subject under him all the other people. These were the Lydians, Phrygians, Mysians, Mariandynians, Chalybes, Paphlagonians, the Thracian Thynians and Bithynians, Carians, Ionians, Dorians, Aeolians, and Pamphylians70.

When Cyrus defeated Croesus, traditionally in 546 BC, the lands of the Lydians were annexed to the Persian empire. The earliest evidence for Bithynia under the Achaemenids concerns Darius I’s administrative reform that organized the empire in satrapies. According to Herodotus the third satrapy included the Hellespontians who lived on the right of the entrance of the straits, the Phrygians, the Thracians of Asia, the Paphlagonians, the Mariandynians, and the Syrians71.

am mittleren Sangariosbogen zu suchen’. Contra STROBEL 1996, p. 193 n. 150; CORSTEN 2007, p. 123 n. 10. 67 According to Diodorus (II, 2, 3), before the Bithynians settled, the region was seized by Ninus, the mythic king considered to be the founder of the Assyrian empire. FORLANINI 2013, pp. 43-45 thinks that the territory of the Hittites extended as far as the Sangarius or even beyond it. GÜNEY 2012, p. 66 argues that the Propontis was under control of the Kaskas. 68 Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀλύαττα. 69 BURSTEIN 1976, p. 16. 70 Hdt. I, 28: χρόνου δὲ ἐπιγινομένου καὶ κατεστραμμένων σχεδὸν πάντων τῶν ἐντὸς Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ οἰκημένων: πλὴν γὰρ Κιλίκων καὶ Λυκίων τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας ὑπ᾽ἑωυτῷ εἶχε καταστρεψάμενος ὁ Κροῖσος. εἰσὶ δὲ οἵδε, Λυδοί, Φρύγες, Μυσοί, Μαριανδυνοί, Χάλυβες, Παφλαγόνες, Θρήικες οἱ Θυνοί τε καὶ Βιθυνοί, Κᾶρες, Ἴωνες, Δωριέες, Αἰολέες, Πάμφυλοι. 71 Hdt. III, 90: ἀπὸ δὲ Ἑλλησποντίων τῶν ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ἐσπλέοντι καὶ Φρυγῶν καὶ Θρηίκων τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίῃ καὶ Παφλαγόνων καὶ Μαριανδυνῶν καὶ Συρίων. About the Persian satrapies and Herodotus’ related pas-

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

11

The territorial district described by Herodotus was in northern Anatolia. It was called either satrapy of Hellespontine Phrygia or satrapy of Dascylium after its administrative centre and it included the lands of the Bithynians that Herodotus refers to as Thracians of Asia72. The next piece of information dates back to 480 BC when the Bithynians, like many other peoples of the Achaemenid empire, took part in Xerxes’ expedition against the Greeks under the leadership of a Persian general73. Then, sources inform us about the realtions between the Bithynians and the Greeks. The Bithynians were in contact with the Greeks since these settled on the Propontic shores74, but the earliest pieces of evidence of their interaction date to the late 5th-early 4th century BC. Although fragmentary and unclear in terms of chronology, this information contributes to the understanding of the relations between the Bithynians and the cities of Astacus, Chalcedon and Byzantium. The earliest piece of evidence is preserved in Memnon and concerns the Megarian colony of Astacus that was re-founded by the Athenians in 435 BC: After it (i.e. Astacus) resisted many attacks from its neighbours and was often exhausted by wars when the Athenians founded it after the Megarians, it finished its misfortunes and it gained great renown and power. At that time Doidalses was ruling over the Bithynians75.

We read that in the 5th century BC Astacus suffered continuous attacks of ‘neighbours’ (who were undoubtedly Bithynians), and only the intervention of the Athenians relieved its situation. This passage is the first attestation of the Bithynians as players in the political scenario of Asia Minor. So far nearly nothing is known about them. In these few words they literally ‘appear’ in the history as a people organised under a ruler, Doidalses, who was causing serious problems to a polis76. We cannot say how the

sage (III, 89-96), see CAMERON 1973; CUYLER YOUNG 1988, pp. 87-91; JACOBS 1994, esp. pp. 31-39; DEBORD 1999, pp. 69-82; BELLONI 2000, p. 160; ASHERI 2005, pp. 305-307. 72 On this satrapy, see DEBORD 1999, pp. 91-110; BELTRAME 2015. 73 Hdt. VII, 75; Diod. XI, 2, 1. 74 Cf. DEBORD 1998, p. 142; FERNOUX 1999, p. 175. 75 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 3: αὕτη πολλὰς ἐπιθέσεις παρά τε τῶν ὁμορούντων ὑποστᾶσα καὶ πολέμοις πολλάκις ἐκτρυχωθεῖσα, Αθηναίων αὐτὴν μετὰ Μεγαρέας ἐπωικηκότων, ἔληξέ τε τῶν συμφορῶν καὶ ἐπὶ μέγα δόξης καὶ ἰσχύος ἐγένετο, Δοιδαλσοῦ τηνικαῦτα τὴν Βιθυνῶν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντος. On the date of the re-foundation of Astacus by the Athenians, see DAVAZE 2013, p. 370; ROBU 2014, p. 214. 76 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 14; FERNOUX 1999, pp. 187-188; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 369-371; ROBU 2014, pp. 213-215. For the occurrences of Doidalses’ name in inscriptions and its correct form, see LGPN V.A, p. 146; DAVAZE 2013, p. 368 n. 971; OnomThrac, p. 155.

12

ELOISA PAGANONI

Athenians stopped the raids of the Bithynians, but the situation seems to have evolved quickly. According to Strabo77, Doidalses re-founded Astacus after the Athenians. Admitting that this information is correct78, the Bithynian ruler succeeded in seizing the city finally79. The conquest of Astacus is generally dated between 412 BC and aftermath of the battle of Aigospotamoi (405 BC)80. Doidalses likely exploited the weakening of Athenian power in the Propontic area during in the last phase of the Peloponnesian War. After the re-foundation by Doidalses nothing is known of the relations between the Bithynians and the Asaceneans until the Hellenistic age. At that time, sources attest that the city was no longer under the control of the Bithynians81. The conflicts between the Bithynians and Astacus concerned the fertile lands of the Propontic peninsula that were essential to their survival82. These also were a point of contention in the conflicts between the Bithynians and Chalcedon and Byzantium. The earliest information in this regard is found in Diodorus. He sets the chronological frame of the account of the sixteenth year of the Peloponnesian War (416 BC) by some synchronisms. Among the events of that year he records a military expedition of the Chalcedonians and the Byzantians against the Bithynians: The Byzantians and the Chalcedonians, taking the Thracians with themselves, made war with a great number of men against Bithynia, plundered the region, Strabo XII, 4, 2. TOEPFFER 1896, p. 125 considers the conquest of Astacus by Doidalses ‘historisch unmöglich’, and SCHOTTKY 2002 says that Strabo’s information ‘ist wohl ein Mißverständnis’. 79 Cf. MEYER 1897, col. 515; MEYER 1905, col. 1266; VITUCCI 1953, p. 14; HARRIS 1980, p. 860; ASHERI 1983, p. 41; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 69; FERNOUX 1999, pp. 187-188; SCHOTTKY 2002; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 1-3, Commentary; HEINEMANN 2010, p. 225; GÜNEY 2012, p. 75; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 369-371; ROBU 2014, pp. 213-215. 80 ATL I, p. 472 ; LASSERRE 1981, p. 169 n. 4; ASHERI 1983, p. 41; STROBEL 1996, p. 191; STROBEL 1997a; DEBORD 1998, p. 141; DEBORD 1999, p. 91; HEINEMANN 2010, p. 225 n. 818; ROBU 2014, p. 215 n. 426. 81 See below, pp. 25-27. Polyaenus (II, 30, 3) refers that the tyrant of Heraclea Clearchus (364-352 BC) besiged Astacus and he adds that during the operations against the city he organised a military force to guard against raids of the Thracians (i.e. the Bithynians). It is assumed that Clearchus, maybe upon request of the Astacenians themselves, intended to put an end to the control of the city by the Bithynians (BELOCH 1922, p. 138; SÖLCH 1925, p. 145 n. 4; FERNOUX 1999, p. 187; ROBU 2014, pp. 212-213, 215). The passage, yet, proves at most that the Bithynians still were a serious threat for the Greeks (cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 14; BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 129-130 n. 64; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 360-371; GÜNEY 2014, p. 416). About the possible reference to the siege of Astacus by Clearchus in Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 1, 2, see BURSTEIN 1976, p. 50; BITTNER 1998, p. 31; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 1, Commentary. On Clearchus’ western politics, see BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 54-58; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 135; BITTNER 1998, p. 31; DEBORD 1999, pp. 300301; ROBU 2014, pp. 212-213. 82 About the relevance of agriculture in economy of the Greek colonies of the Propontic and Black Sea areas, see TSETSKHLADZE 1998a, p. 68. 77 78

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

13

and destroyed many of their small settlements after besieging them, carrying out deeds of exceeding cruelty. They slew many prisoners, both men and women and children83.

Diodorus does not describe the background of this expedition. As far as we can understand from this passage, at that time the Chalcedonians were attempting to consolidate their control over the lands they contended with the Bithynians; during this military action they were supported by the Byzantians, who brought a force of Thracians from Europe84. The intervention of Byzantium has been interpreted as an expression of the so-called solidarieté mégarienne, the friendship linkage that tied the Megarian colonies on the basis of their ancestral kinship85. It manifested itself in the aid the Megarian colonies brought one to another on several occasions. The earliest collaboration between Byzantium and Chalcedon dates to the Archaic era, when Chalcedon sent epoikoi to help Byzantium against the Thracians86. Then, it was Byzantium to aid Chalcedon against the Bithynians in the expedition here in question and on another occasion in the early Hellenistic period87. The Byzantians, however, were not moved just by feelings of solidarity towards their ‘kinsmen’ on the other side of the Bosporus. They were probably defending their own interests. Since the 3rd century BC, literary sources attest to a peraia of Byzantium in Asia, which stretched from the Gulf of Astacus to the area of Cyzicus, interrupted by the chōrai of Myrlea and Cius88. It included some lands inhabited by the Bithynians, and this explains the statement of the 3rd-century-BC historian Phylarchus: 83 Diod. XII, 82, 2: Βυζάντιοι δὲ καὶ Καλχηδόνιοι παραλαβόντες Θρᾷκας ἐστράτευσαν εἰς τὴν Βιθυνίαν πολλοῖς πλήθεσι, καὶ τήν τε χώραν ἐπόρθησαν καὶ πολλὰ τῶν μικρῶν πολισματίων ἐκπολιορκήσαντες ἐπετελέσαντο πράξεις ὠμότητι διαφερούσας· πολλῶν γὰρ αἰχμαλώτων κρατήσαντες ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων ἅπαντας ἀπέσφαξαν. Even guarding against overestimating the lexical datum, it is worth noticing that the word πολισμάτιον, here used to refer to the Bithynian settlements, occurs just seven times in Diodorus, who commonly uses κώμη to mean ‘village’. The choice of πολισμάτιον, which is a diminutive with the same root as πόλις (cf. LSJ s.v. πολισμάτιον), and the reference to sieges by the Greeks may suggest that the Bithynian settlements were fortified. On the Chalcedonian-Byzantian expedition, cf. NEWSKAJA 1955, p. 95; FERNOUX 1999, p. 188; FERNOUX 2004, p. 28; GABELKO 2005, p. 103; GÜNEY 2014, p. 423. 84 It is unclear whether these were Thracians living in the chōra of Byzantium or, as BOSHNAKOV 2003, p. 195 thinks, the Odrysians allied with Byzantium. 85 ROBU 2012, pp. 183-189; ROBU 2014, pp. 211-213; BARAT 2012; ROBU 2014a, p. 193; cf. GÜNEY 2014, p. 423. 86 Hesychios of Miletos BNJ 390, F 7, 20-23; ROBU 2014, pp. 208-209, 278-292. 87 Plut. Mor., 302 e-f; see below pp. 29-31. 88 Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4; Strabo XII, 8, 11; ROBERT 1949, pp. 38-44; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 504505; GABELKO 1996; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 32-33 n. 50; GABELKO 2005, pp. 103-111; ROBU 2014, pp. 289-290. According to Strabo (XII, 8, 11), the westernmost Byzantian lands were near the Dascylitis Lake, close to

14

ELOISA PAGANONI

The Byzantians are said to dominate the Bithynians as the Lacedaemonians did with the helots89.

Phylarchus compares the condition of the Bithynians to that of the helots, but the Mariandynians may be a closer term of comparison for what concerns geography and status. The Mariandynians had been subdued by the Greeks who founded Heraclea Pontica and lived as agricultural serfs ‘between freedom and slavery’90. If this parallel rests on a solid foundation, the Bithynians who lived in the peraia of Byzantium were in a similar condition and had become subject to the Byzantians when the latter had had established their territory on the opposite coast91. The expedition here in question is the earliest episode that suggests the existence of the peraia of Byzantium. It is possible, at least in theory, that Byzantium established it throughout this expedition. Likewise the peraia could already exist in 416 BC92. In this case, no evidence allows us to determine when it was created. One of the possibilities sets its formation at the time of the foundation of Byzantium, when the Greek colonists would have looked for fertile soil on the other side of the Bosporus because of the continuous attacks of the Thracians93. The 416 BC expedition was a local event, whereas the next episode is to be placed for certain within the last phase of the Peloponnesian War94. In Cyzicus. The location of this lake had been considered unknown for a long time (WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504), but it is now identified with the today’s Manyas Lake (e.g. TALBERT 2000, Map 52, B-C, 4; ÜNVER 2016, p. 299). The influence of Byzantium over the coast of the Yalova peninsula is confirmed by epigraphic evidence. Some inscriptions (the earliest ones are IK Apameia und Pylai 117; 121; 123; 125, dating to the 2nd-1st century BC) show a clear Doric influence, mostly in onomastics (IK Apameia und Pylai, pp. 47-48; GABELKO 1996, pp. 125-126). Other documents refer to a hieromnemos, the eponymous official of Byzantium (IK Apameia und Pylai 114, dating to the 2nd century AD; CORSTEN 1991, pp. 81-87 nr. 1 = SEG 41 [1991] 1102, dating to the 1st-2nd century AD; cf. ROBERT 1949, pp. 34-38; WIEMER 2002, p. 202 n. 24). Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀστακός: πόλις Βιθυνίας... ἔστι καὶ χώρα Βυζαντίων, ὡς Θεόπομπος (‘city of Bithynia... it also is territory of the Byzantians as Theopompus [says]’). 89 Phylarchos BNJ 81, F 8: Βυζαντίους φησὶν οὕτω Βιθυνῶν δεσπόσαι ὡς Λακεδαιμονίους τῶν εἱλώτων. 90 Poll. III, 83: μεταξὺ δ’ ἐλευθέρων καὶ δούλων; BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 9-11, 28-30; CORSARO 1983, p. 529; BURFORD 1993, pp. 203-205; CORSARO 2001, pp. 32-33; PARADISO 2007; THOMPSON 2011, pp. 195-196. 91 LOTZE 1959, pp. 57-58; PAPAZOGLOU 1997, pp. 50-52; THOMPSON 2011, pp. 195-196; RUSSELL 2017, pp. 192-194. 92 GABELKO 1996; GABELKO 2005, p. 110-111; GABELKO 2006, p. 219. Contra HABICHT 1970, pp. 116121 and STROBEL 1996, pp. 193, 256, who argue that Byzantium established its peraia in the 270s BC. 93 ROBU 2014, p. 288; Landucci, Phylarchos BNJ 81, F 8, Commentary. About the conflicts between Greeks and Thracians in Bosporan area, see ISAAC 1986, pp. 230-231; LOUKOPOULOU 1989, pp. 185-190; LOUKOPOULOU – ŁAITAR 2004, pp. 912-913. Concerning Greek-Thracian relationships in northern Aegean area, see TSIAFAKI 2018. 94 On the events of the Peloponnesian War in Asia Minor, see DEBORD 1999, pp. 203-232, esp. 220-222.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

15

408 BC, during his campaign against the Propontic cities, Alcibiades defeated Chalcedon, although the satrap of Dascylium Pharnabazus and the Spartans assisted the city95. When the Chalcedonians were informed that Alcibiades was coming, they entrusted their goods to the φίλοι Bithynians96, so that they guarded them. This was not enough. Under the threat of a war, the Bithynians delivered what belonged to the Chalcedonians to the Athenians and signed an alliance with them97. Unlikely the earlier events, on this occasion there was a form of collaboration between Chalcedonians and Bithynians. We see, therefore, that their relations changed a few years after the 416 BC expedition. It might be argued that this change was connected to the outcome of the previous expedition. The Chalcedonians might had prevailed in 416 BC and compelled the Bithynians to accept an agreement. It is impossible to determine what was agreed. But it is likely that the Bithynians were compelled to to put an end to their continuous attacks for the time being. The effect of this agreement might be found in the episode Plutarch narrates, where non-belligerency turned into collaboration98. Doidalses was leading the Bithynians when the Athenians re-founded Astacus in 435 BC and he still was in power some years later when he himself re-founded this city in approximately 405 BC. By implication, he was the chief of the Bithynians when Chalcedon and Byzantium made an expedition against them and when the Athenians attacked Chalcedon99. No evidence allows us to establish when he died, but we know that he was succeeded by Boteiras. This is mentioned only by Memnon100. As far as can be seen in Photius’ summary, Memnon recorded his name (Thracian like the one of his predecessors) and his lifetime (seventy-six years), but he did not specify if Boteiras was connected to Doidalses by a blood tie101. Boteiras died in 377 BC, and his son Bas succeeded him102. No deed can be attributed to Boteiras and it is doubtful whether he was already ruling at the time of the following episodes related by Xenophon.

Xen. Hell. I, 3, 2-4; Plut. Alcibiades 29; ARSLAN 2011a. Plut. Alcibiades 29, 3. 97 Xen. Hell. I, 3, 2-4; Plut. Alcibiades 29, 3. 98 Cf. ROBU 2014, p. 211 n. 413. 99 Doidalses’ rule is broadly dated to the second half of the 5th century BC (Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 3, Commentary). 100 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4. 101 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 12-13 n. 3; SCHOTTKY 2002; DAVAZE 2013, p. 371. On Boteiras, see also KIRCHNER 1897. Boteiras’ name is nowhere else attested (cf. LGPN V.A, p. 103; OnomThrac, p. 64). 102 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4. 95 96

16

ELOISA PAGANONI

The earliest of them is in the Hellenika. In winter 399 BC, during the Spartan-Persian War, the Spartan general Dercylidas plundered the region without any complaint by Pharnabazus, as the Bithynians often made war on him103.

A few months later the raids of Dercylidas, the Ten Thousand led by Xenophon reached Bithynia and set their camp at Calpe Harbour104. For all the time they spent there – about three weeks105 – they plundered the region and attacked the villages of the Bithynians repeatedly. Xenophon recounts in detail two clashes in his Anabasis. The first one occurred when the Greeks arrived at Calpe Harbour. Some of them moved to attack, but after the counterattack by the Bithynians, they were surrounded on a hill and their comrades in arms rescued them by a stratagem106. As with this, the second episode began with a raid of the Greeks, but this time the Persian authority intervened107. The day after the raid a battle took place. The Persian horsemen sent by Pharnazus and the Bithynians fought against Xenophon’s mercenaries108. The clash finished with the retreat of the Bithynians and the Persians and from that moment on there was no resistance to Greek raids109. Xenophon is the only evidence about the interaction of the Bithynians with the Persian authority, and in this regard, two key points emerge from his account. Firstly, the Bithynians often rebelled. For this reason Pharnabazus welcomed any factor, such as Dercylidas and his soldiers, that could weaken them, even temporarily. Revolts confirm that the Bithynians were building up a sort of autonomy, which also manifested itself in the wars against the Greek cities. They yet – this is the second point – still were subordinated to the satrap. By intervening against the Ten Thousand, Pharnabazus affirmed his power over the Propontic peninsula and the Bithynians. In the battle against the Ten Thousand the Bithynians fought not just at the side of the satrapal troops but at the orders of the Per103 Xen. Hell. III, 2, 2: οὐδὲ τοῦ Φαρναβάζου πάνυ τι ἀχθομένου: πολλάκις γὰρ οἱ Βιθυνοὶ αὐτῷ ἐπολέμουν. 104 Xen. An. VI, 2, 17. About Xenophon’s project to found a colony at Calpe, see MANFREDI 1986, p. 242; STRONK 1991, pp. 97-100; DEBORD 1998, pp. 142-143; HØJTE 2008, pp. 156-158. 105 MANFREDI 1986, p. 244. 106 Xen. An. VI, 3, 2-26; MANFREDI 1986, pp. 241-242; LENDLE 1995 pp. 379-385; STRONK 1995, pp. 63-75; GABELKO 2005, pp. 113-115. 107 Xen. An. VI, 4, 23-27. 108 Xen. An. VI, 5, 7-31; LENDLE 1995, pp. 400-401; STRONK 1995, pp. 115-118; GABELKO 2005, pp. 115-118. 109 Xen. An. VI, 5, 31; 6, 1.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

17

sian generals110. This proves Pharnabazus’ authority over the Bithynians, and it suggests that they, like the indigenous peoples, such as the Mysians and Paphlagonians, provided troops to the Persians111. Pharnabazus sent the Persian cavalry because he perceived the Ten Thousand as a danger. He could accept raids against local populations as far as they turned to an advantage to himself. But he could not tolerate Xenophon and his soldiers, who were planning to cross to Phrygia and to head to the heart of his estate112. This also explains the decision to withdraw during the battle. Pharnabazus ordered his generals to prevent the Ten Thousand from heading to the inland of his satrapy. Once understood that they would have never done so, the Persians had no reason to fight any longer. The most recent achievements about the interaction between local peoples and Achaemenid power have gone beyond the bi-dimensional model ‘dominant people – subject peoples’. It is now accepted that the Persians looked for support of the local élites and involved them in the management of power113. This guaranteed to the Persians the control of their vast territory – a control that they could obtain in no other way, since they were a minority in most parts of the empire. To no surprise, this favoured the rise of local autonomies most of all in the peripheries114. These forms of autonomy were intrinsic to the Achaemenid administration and even fundamental for its existence, but created conditions for revolts115. It is difficult to say to what extent they affected the stability of the Achaemenid empire and to what extent Greek sources overstate them in order to stress the weakness of the Persians116. With regard to Hellespontine Phry-

Cf. MAFFRE 2007, p. 128, Table 1, nr. 39. WEISKOPF 1989, pp. 32-33; SEKUNDA 1988, pp. 182-184; MAFFRE 2007, pp. 120-121, 126. On the ethnic components of the Achaemenid army, see DUSINBERRE 2013, pp. 89-93. About the Persian-Bithynian interactions weaving between collaboration and competition, see SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 18. According to WEISKOPF 1989, p. 32 n. 50 and DEBORD 1999, p. 95, the passage of Xenophon (An. VII, 8, 25) saying that Pharnabazus was ἄρχων of the Bithynians proves the firm power of the satrap over the Bithynians. But this passage cannot serve as evidence because it is in fact an addition by a late editor of the Anabasis (BROWNSON 1922, p. 370 n. 1; LENDLE 1995, pp. 486-487; BROWNSON – DILLERY 1998, p. 650 n. 15; MASQUERAY 2009, p. 174 n. 1). 112 Xen. An. VI, 4, 24. 113 MAFFRE 2007; BELTRAME 2015, pp. 73-79 (with literature); BRIANT 2015; cf. FERNOUX 1999, pp. 181-182. 114 Local dynasts are attested, for instance, in north-western Anatolia in the 5th-4th century BC (BELTRAME 2015, p. 74 n. 60), Lycia (ASHERI 1983, pp. 58-65; POTTER 2007) and Caria (REGER 2007). About forms of autonomy in Hellespontine Phrygia, see below in the text. 115 Cf. WEISKOPF 1989, pp. 15-16. 116 MAFFRE 2007, pp. 120-121; BELTRAME 2015, p. 74 n. 61. About the structural weakness of the Achaemenid system, see WEISKOPF 1989, pp. 14-19. 110 111

18

ELOISA PAGANONI

gia, however, it is well known that the political situation of the satrapy was particularly unstable throughout the 4th century BC. Since the 360s BC, it was shaken by the so-called Great Satraps’ Revolt and the lack of a strong central power endured in the following decades117. This condition promoted the strengthening of those who were already exercising any form of power in the eastern part of the satrapy118. Since the 5th century BC local dynasts, who were connected with the satrapal family, but with a great degree of autonomy, ruled the portion of Mysia around Cius119. In the late 5th century BC, sources record the Paphalgonian rulers Korylas and Otys, who were fighting against the Greek cities and rebelling against the Persian authority120. Then, there were the Bithynians, whose condition between autonomy and subordination was similar to that of the Paphlagonians. As we have seen, they also competed with the Greek cities for the Propontic soil. Conflicts between indigenous people and Greeks are attested elsewhere in the Pontic region121. As with the relationship with the Achaemenid power, scholars try to go beyond the traditional view that presents the interaction of these groups as exclusively conflictual. They highlight regional differences and look for traces of peaceful interaction and exchange in archaeological evidence122. However, such evidence is absent in the Propontic peninsula123 and conclusions are based only on Greek literary sources, which refer almost exclusively to conflicts. Joseph B. Scholten observes that the ‘binary opposition may be an inappropriate generic characterization for ethnic interaction in Anatolia’, but ‘in the case

117 On the Great Satraps’ Revolt, see WEISKOPF 1989; HORNBLOWER 1994; DEBORD 1999, pp. 301-426. On the satrapy of Dascylium in those years, see also PRIMO 2002. 118 On the local powers in the eastern Hellespontine Phrygia, cf. FERNOUX 1999, pp. 181-182; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 139-140. 119 On these dynasts, see MEYER 1879, pp. 31-38; OLSHAUSEN 1978, col. 398; IK Kios, pp. 26-30; MCGING 1986, pp. 248-253; MCGING 1986, pp. 13-15; SEKUNDA 1988, pp. 180-181; BALLESTEROS PASTOR 1996, pp. 22-25; KOBES 1996, pp. 96, 118; BOSWORTH – WHEATLEY 1998, pp. 155-161; DEBORD 1999, pp. 96-104; PRIMO 2002; PRIMO 2004, pp. 11-34. 120 Xen. An. V, 5-22; VII, 8, 25 (about this passage, cf. the remark above p. 17 n. 111); Nep. Datames 2; Aelian. V. H., I, 27; Athen. IV, 144d, 25; X, 415d, 8; DEBORD 1999, pp. 112-115; FERNOUX 1999, p. 182; MAFFRE 2007, pp. 120-121; BARAT 2013, pp. 153-154. On the condition of the Paphlagonians within the Achaemenid empire, see also JOHNSON 2010, pp. 142-159; BRIANT 2015, pp. 180-181. 121 DESIDERI 1967, pp. 415-416; FERNOUX 1999, pp. 187-189; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, pp. 926-927; SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 17-20; GÜNEY 2012, p. 78. 122 Among the others, TSETSKHLADZE 1998a; FERNOUX 1999; HØJTE 2008, pp. 151-152; RUSSELL 2017, pp. 165-204. 123 Cf. e.g. LLOYD 1956, p. 6; BOADRAM 1980, p. 239; TSETSKHLADZE 1998a, pp. 14, 18; AVRAM 2004, p. 975; IVANOVA 2013, p. 277.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

19

of the Bithynian-Greek relations it has at least some initial validity’124. The collaboration between the Bithynians and the Chalcedonians in 408 BC might suggest that realty was more complex and maybe ‘less extreme’ than what it appears125. There is no point in overrating the episode126, but it is possible that the Greek-Bithynian interaction weaved between conflict and (forced?) collaboration over time. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze127 has recently introduced the chronological component in the interpretation of the Greek-indigenous relationships. According to him, the contacts were peaceful in the early phases and became conflictual from the Classical age when ‘local (proto?)kingdoms’ – to use his words – arose. This change might have been more apparent than real. For the Archaic age we mainly depend on the archaeological evidence, that tends to highlight exchanges and peaceful coexistence. Instead, since the 5th century we are dependent on the accounts of Greek historians, who focused on conflicts but were often silent about periods of peace. Tsetskhladze, however, rightly stresses that conflict is mostly attested in areas where the indigenous populations had a political organization. The Bithynians first came into contact with the Greeks when these ones settled on the Propontic shores and with the Persians when the Achaemanids conquered the Lydian empire. But the earliest information about them dates back to the late 5th-4th century BC and it deals with several conflicts. During the same period, we know of Bithynians rulers. Memnon lists Doidalses, Boteiras, Bas and Zipoites, who became the first king of Bithynia128. Doidalses is considered the founder of what would have become the Bithynian royal house129, but there is no reason to assume that he was the first-ever Bithynian ruler. The Bithynians are supposed to have a tribal organisation similar to the European Thracians130, and thus, the existence of a chief leading the clans was intrinsic to their social organization. Some sources may hint at other Bithynian dynasts. Dionysius Periegetes says that the SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 18. Cf. FERNOUX 1999, pp. 179-182; ROBU 2014, pp. 208-209, 211. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 69. 126 Cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 20 n. 20 ‘(it) does not offer a counterbalancing example of good BithynianGreek relations’. 127 TSETSKHLADZE 2017, pp. 28-29. 128 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 3-5. About Bas and Zipoites, see below pp. 23-44. 129 KLEU 2013: ‘although Memnon does not mention this explicitly, Doidalses is considered to have been the founder of the Bithynian dynasty’; MICHELS 2013, p. 6. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 17 n. 1 speaks of ‘Boteirids’, i.e. the dynasty ‘from Boteirias, the earliest certain member of the line’, with reference to the blood tie between Boteiras and his successors. 130 CORSTEN 2007, esp. p. 128; GÜNEY 2012, p. 79; MICHELS 2013, p. 11; cf. ARCHIBALD 2015, esp. pp. 385-388. 124 125

20

ELOISA PAGANONI

Gulf of Moucaporis, probably to be identified with today’s Beykoz limanı on the Bosporus, was named after a king of the Bithynians131. Recently it has been argued that Moucaporis was a member of the dynasty ruling Bithynia in the Hellenistic age132. In absence of evidence in this matter, it remains possible that he was one of the rulers of pre-Hellenistic Bithynia, whom Dionysius Periegetes anachronistically calls ‘king’. Appian claims that Prusias II was the most important of the forty-nine kings who ruled the country before the Romans133.

The passage alludes to the organization of the Bithynians under a single leadership since a very distant time. Scholar brands it as pseudo-historical for the anachronistic use of word βασιλεύς and the high number of ‘kings’134. In the form we read in Appian, this tradition can be a creation of royal propaganda to legitimatise the power of the Hellenistic kings of Bithynia through the invention of a list of rulers that potentially went back to the settlements of the Bithynians in the Propontic peninsula, judging from the long list of entries135. Nevertheless, it contains a kernel of truth admitting that it refers to the existence of many rulers before the Hellenistic age. While, as seems, the presence of a chief was implicit in Bithynian society, and so Bithynian rulers existed ‘since ever’136, sources suggest that the Bithynians increased their position progressively. Conflicts with the poleis and the Persian authority prove that the Bithynians were eager to build up their own estate. The later developement into an independent kingdom is a further proof of their ambitiouns. Not by chance, in regard to pre-Hellenistic Bithynia, scholars speak of a kingdom in nuce137. It is impossible to determine the stages of the development from indigenous population under 131 Dion. Per. 96. On the identification of this site, Müller, GGM, vol. II, p. 83; BELFIORE 2009, p. 319 n. 197. For the occurrences of Moucaporis’ name, see LGPN V.A, p. 324. About the attestations and distribution of Mouc- names, see OnomThrac, pp. 243-244 and Fig. 3.3. 132 GABELKO 2017, p. 325. 133 App. Mithr. 2: τῶν δὲ πρὸ Ῥωμαίων αὐτῆς βασιλέων, ἐννέα καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἐφεξῆς γενομένων. 134 DAVAZE 2013, p. 371. VIERECK – ROOS 1962, p. 419 notice that the manuscript tradition is in part corrupted and argue that the text refers to the number of years the kings of Bithynia ruled (cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 12-13 n. 3). 135 Cf. DAVAZE 2013, p. 371, who assumes that Appian echos ‘une tradition bithynienne, laquelle avait pour objectif de faire remonter le plus loin possible dans le temps la royauté en Bithynie afin sans doute de renforcer sa légitimité’. 136 GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a, pp. 251-252; MICHELS 2009, p. 13. 137 JONES 1971, pp. 147-149 defines ‘kings’ Doidalses, Boteiras and Bas; VITUCCI 1953, p. 12: ‘staterello autonomo’; ASHERI 1983, p. 41: ‘nascente regno bitino’; FERNOUX 1999, p. 188: ‘embryon du royaume’; GÜNEY 2012, p. 81; cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 18.

BITHYNIA BEFORE THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA

21

Persian power to independent kingdom in nuce. Nevertheless, such a process was ongoing and possibly in an advanced stage in the 5th-4th century BC. At that time, the lack of strong Achaemenid power over the Propontic peninsula boosted it138. Far from the administrative centre of the satrapy, the Bithynians were free to increase their power, waiting for the occasion to realise their ambitions of independence.

138

Cf. GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a, p. 252; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 139-140.

CHAPTER TWO THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM. BITHYNIA IN THE AGE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE DIADOCHS (334-280 BC)

1. THE TURNING-POINT. BAS AND ZIPOITES IN THE LATE 4TH CENTURY BC In 378 or 377 BC Bas succeeded his father Boteiras. Like this one, he is nearly unknown to surviving sources. The only information about him is in Photius’ summary of Memnon’s history. It records that Bas lived seventy years and ruled fifty and it deals with one victory: ... Bas who also defeated Calas, Alexander’s general, who was prepared in an excellent manner for the battle, and ensured that the Macedonians kept away from Bithynia1.

The clash occurred in the last years of Bas’ rule, at the time of Alexander’s campaign. The enemy of Bas, Calas, had a noteworthy career, which reached the peak at that time2. He took part in the Battle at the Granicus3 and shortly after was appointed satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia4. In this position, he strengthened Macedonian control over the region. He seized the χώρα τῆς Μέμνονος, which is supposed to be the land of Memnon of

1 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4: Βᾶς… ὃς καὶ Κάλαν τὸν ᾽Αλεξάνδρου στρατηγόν, καίτοι γε λίαν παρεσκευασμένον πρὸς τὴν μάχην, κατηγωνίσατο, καὶ τῆς Βιθυνίας παρεσκεύασε τοὺς Μακεδόνας ἀποσχέσθαι. The phrase ‘(Bas) also defeated Calas’ suggests that Memnon may have dealt with other victories of the Bithynian ruler that Photius did not include in his summary. According to MEYER 1897a, Bas is mentioned in Bekker Anecdota 1181 recording Βᾶς τοῦ βᾶ (‘Bas son of Bas’) who ἱστορεῖται δὲ οὗτος βασιλὲυς Πόντου (‘he is said [to be] the king of Pontus’); cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 124. About Bas, see MEYER 1897, col. 515; MEYER 1897a; BERVE 1926, p. 104; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; SCHOTTKY 2002a; GABELKO 2005, pp. 124-126; HECKEL 2006, p. 71; GÜNEY 2012, p. 81; DAVAZE 2013, p. 372; KLEU 2013. 2 About Calas, see BERVE 1924; BERVE 1926, pp. 188-189; HECKEL 1994, p. 93; HECKEL 2006, pp. 74-75; HECKEL 2016, pp. 217-218. 3 Diod. XVII, 17, 4. 4 Arr. An. 17, 1.

24

ELOISA PAGANONI

Rhodes in Troad5. In 332 or 331 BC he led a campaign in Paphlagonia probably against the Persians who had sought refuge there after the Battle of Issus6. The expedition against Bas is to be framed within these politics of consolidation: Calas tried to establish control over the Bithynians and to deprive them of the autonomy that they had gained under the Persians. Calas’ campaign took place between his appointment as satrap and the death of Bas in 328 or 327 BC7, but it is impossible either to date it more closely or to prove any connection with the expedition in Paphlagonia8. By referring to the military skills of Calas and his troops, Memnon exalts Bas’ success. There might be a trace of pride in stating explicitly that this victory prevented the Macedonians from taking control over Bithynia. The tone of Memnon’s passage, along with the knowledge of the rise of a Bithynian kingdom, affect the assessments about Bas’ victory. It is considered a turning point and the first stage of the birth of the Bithynian independent state9. However, its impact is possibly overrated. There is no hint at the scale of the conflict and Bas’ victory seems to confirm that the Macedonians were not interested in affirming a strong power over the Propontis10. In any case, it is a matter of fact, this victory marked the begin5 Arr. An. I, 17, 8. For the debated identification of Memnon’s lands, see BOSWORTH 1980, p. 131; HECKEL 1994; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 137-139 n. 5 (with literature). 6 Curt. IV, 5, 13; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 43-45; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 140-142. 7 BERVE 1924; BERVE 1926, p. 188; VITUCCI 1953, p. 13; STROBEL 1996, pp. 190-191; HECKEL 2006, p. 75; SCHOTTKY 2002a, MICHELS 2009, p. 13. BURSTEIN 1976, p. 73 dates Calas’ campaign to 327 BC. LEHMANN 2015, p. 181, dates Bas’ victory to 330/29 BC; DEBORD 1999, p. 159 n. 12, places it ‘peu avant la mort d’Alexandre’. 8 Likewise, no evidence supports the widespread opinion that Calas died in the battle against Bas (BADIAN 1961, p. 18; HECKEL 2006, pp. 75, 298 n. 171; HECKEL 2016, p. 218). This assumption (BERVE 1926, p. 188; VITUCCI 1953, p. 13; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 73; BILLOWS 1990, p. 45 and n. 85; DEBORD 1999, p. 159, BATTISTINI 2004) served only to explain the appointment of Demarchus as satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia a few years before Alexander’s death (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 1, 6; on Demarchus, see BERVE 1926, pp. 133-134; BADIAN 1961, p. 18; BATTISTINI 2004a; HECKEL 2006, p. 108). With regard to the ‘disappearance’ of Calas, BADIAN 1961, p. 18 suggests that he fell into disgrace in Alexander’s eyes along with his relative Harpalus the Treasurer. 9 BILLOWS 1990, p. 441: ‘Bas... established the independence of Bithynia by defeating Alexander’s satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia’; SCHOTTKY 2002a, col. 913: ‘Hierdurch (i.e. thanks to the victory over Calas) wurde die Entstehung eines unabhängigen bithynischen »Reiches« begründet’; MICHELS 2013, p. 6: ‘Mit der erfolgreichen Abwehr makedonischer Eroberungsversuche unter Bas und Zipoites betrat Bithynien die Bühne der hellenistischen Staatenwelt’. 10 VITUCCI 1953, p. 13: ‘Nessuna idea precisa possiamo farci delle proporzioni del conflitto, ma nell’insieme è facile arguire che esso dové essere di piccola entità, perché da parte macedonica si era appena agli inizi della grande spedizione contro i Persiani, mentre d’altro canto le risorse del regno bitinico non possiamo valutarle che modeste’; according to JONES 1971, pp. 148-149, Calas’ defeat confirms that ‘Alexander showed little interest in northern Asia Minor’; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a, p. 252: ‘Alejandro... non se molestó en reparar la derrota que infligió el rey bitinio Bas a su sátrapa Calas’. About the scarce interest of Alexander in northern Asia Minor, cf. ASHLEY 1998, p. 185.

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

25

ning of Bithynian independence. For centuries Bithynia had been part of the Persian empire. When this disappeared Alexander wished to take the Great King’s place, but failed to include the region in his sphere of influence. Bithynia was free from any external power. This condition promoted – if not boosted – the process of consolidation that the Bithynians were undertaking at least from the late 5th century BC, and that would have led to the rise of the kingdom in a few years. When Bas died aged seventy in 328 or 327 BC, his son Zipoites succeeded him11. As with the other Bithynian rulers, Memnon12 provides some biographical information: Zipoites ruled for forty-eight years, died aged seventy-six in 280 or 279 BC and had four sons. The first years of his rule are completely unknown. No source deals with his engagement either with the Greek cities or with the satrap of Dascylium, who now embodied the Macedonian authority13. We may infer from this silence that Zipoites was not involved in the First and Second War of the Diadochs which saw Antigonus Monophthalmus taking control of Asia Minor. Zipoites is mentioned for the first time in the account of the Third War of the Diadochs. While besieging the Ptolemaic fortress of Tyrus in 315 BC, Antigonus Monophthalmus charged his generals to secure the north-eastern borderlands. Antigonus’ nephew and lieutenant Polemaeus was sent to northern Asia Minor. He first moved to Cappadocia, then crossed to Paphlagonia and Bithynia, and finally went to Lydia14. With regard to his passage in Bithynia, Diodorus says: Afterwards, when (Polemaeus) advanced through Bithynia and found the king

Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5; cf. MEYER 1897, col. 516; MEYER 1925, p. 108; VITUCCI 1953, p. 20; HABICHT 1972, col. 448; VOLKMANN 1979, col. 1538; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; KOBES 1996, p. 114; STROBEL 1996, p. 190; SCHOTTKY 2002b; FERNOUX 2004, p. 31; GLEW 2005, p. 134; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; Keaveny – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3, Commentary; WATERFIELD 2011, p. 172; KLEU 2013; SCHOLZ 2015, p. 155. 13 According to BERVE 1926, p. 163, BATTISTINI 2004 and BATTISTINI 2004a, Calas’ successor as satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia Demarchus was defeated and killed by Zipoites. They thus propose for Demarchus what is commonly supposed for Calas (see above p. 24 n. 8). In the case of Demarchus yet, not only is there no evidence about his death, but there is no evidence of any clash with Zipoites either. 14 For the debated chronology of 321-311 BC I follow the proposal of STYLIANOU 1994 and BOIY 2007, which has been gathering consent (LANDUCCI 2011; MEEUS 2012; for an alternative proposal, see BOSWORTH 1992). For the date of Polemaeus’ expedition to 315 BC, cf. MEYER 1897, col. 515; BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p. 95; BELOCH 1925, p. 234 n. 1; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 14-15; HABICHT 1972, col. 449; KOBES 1996, p. 115; BITTNER 1998, p. 78; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-31; AVRAM 2004, pp. 977-978; GLEW 2005, p. 136; MICHELS 2009, p. 266; ROBU 2014, p. 216. WEHRLY 1968, p. 49 and BILLOWS 1990, pp. 217, 441 prefer 314 BC. ORTH 1993, p. 32 fluctuates between 314 and 315 BC. On Polemaeus, see BILLOWS 1990, pp. 425-426. 11 12

26

ELOISA PAGANONI

of the Bithynians Zibytes, who was besieging the city of the Astacenians and the Chalcedonians, he forced him to abandon the siege. After he made alliances both with these cities and with Zibytes and took hostages from them, he proceeded toward Ionia and Lydia15.

As far as we read, in 315 BC Zipoites (here mentioned as Zibytes16) was laying the siege to Astacus and Chalcedon. Aside from the possibly inaccurate description of Zipoites’ operations – he seems to wage war against both these cities at the same time17 – Diodorus adds a new piece to the understanding of the relations between the Bithynians and the Greek cities. The latest information before the Hellenistic era presented Astacus in the hands of the Bithynians and Chalcedon in good relations with them18. At some time this situation changed and in 315 BC we find Zipoites in war with both these cities. His operations are usually considered the first stage of an expansionist plan to take control over strategic harbours, which would have been decisive for the economic and political development of Bithynia19. Without any doubt, the control over harbours could be a relevant goal to Zipoites. However, this assessment seems to be affected by the role Bithynia would have gained in trade after the foundation of Nicomedia20. No element, I think, suggests that this war was different from the previous conflicts between the Bithynians and the Greeks. Zipoites and the Greeks were probably competing for the Propontic hinterland, which was the main source of livelihood for both of them21. Consequently, if Zipoites’ war against Astacus and Chalcedon might have had ‘maritime implications’, it firstly had ‘terrestrial aims’. 15 Diod. XIX, 60, 3: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πορευθεὶς διὰ Βιθυνίας καὶ Ζιβύτην τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Βιθυνῶν καταλαβὼν πολιορκοῦντα τήν τε τῶν Ἀστακηνῶν καὶ Χαλκηδονίων πόλιν συνηνάγκασε λῦσαι τὴν πολιορκίαν. ποιησάμενος δὲ συμμαχίαν πρός τε τὰς πόλεις ταύτας καὶ πρὸς τὸν Ζιβύτην, ἔτι δὲ λαβὼν ὁμήρους προῆγεν ἐπὶ Ἰωνίας καὶ Λυδίας. 16 For a list of the forms of Zipoites’ name, see LGPN V.A, p. 191; OnomThrac, p. 395. 17 If Diodorus’ information is correct (cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 132), Zipoites had many soldiers and excellent military equipment, able to stand up to the siege of two cities several kilometres apart from one another at the same time. It is however more likely that Diodorus awkwardly sums up his source. A trace of his carelessness survives in the text, which refers to τῶν Ἀστακηνῶν καὶ Χαλκηδονίων πόλις (‘the city of the Astacenians and the Chalcedonians’). 18 Strabo XII, 4, 2; Plut. Alcibiades 29, 3; above pp. 12, 14, 15. 19 VITUCCI 1953, p. 14: ‘La fascia costiera del Ponto essendo in massima importuosa, si cercava uno sbocco al mare nella Propontide, e il porto che per primo si offriva alle mire espansionistiche dei sovrani di Bitinia era appunto quello di Astaco’, cf. p. 16: ‘... (la) lotta di Zipoites per assicurarsi uno sbocco sulla Propontide’; HABICHT 1972, col. 449; FERNOUX 2004, p. 31: ‘L’expansion du royaume bithynien dès le début du IIIe s. av. J.-C. marca una rupture très nette dans l’histoire des cités de la region... La recherche d’un débouché pratique sur la Propontide fut la première priorité de la monarchie’; cf. BITTNER 1998, p. 64. 20 See below pp. 61, 64. 21 Cf. above p. 12.

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

27

According to a Macedonian perspective, Diodorus’ narrative focuses on Polemaeus. Apparently intervening only diplomatically22, in a short time he put an end to Zipoites’ sieges to Astacus and Chalcedon and restored peace in the western Propontic peninsula23. He established an alliance between Antigonus Monophthalmus, Chalcedon, Astacus and Zipoites, and took hostages to secure the agreement. Polemaeus left the condition of the Bithynians unchanged: they remained independent and entered in alliance with Antigonus24. One might wonder why Polemeus negotiated with a local dynast such as Zipoites. Polemaeus’ task was to reinforce Antigonid influence over the Propontic area in order to prevent a possible attack of Cassander from Europe25. He probably had not enough time and numbers to make war against Zipoites. And in any case, he would not have done so. Any conflict in the area would have favoured Cassander. For this reason Polemaeus made his best to stop the war of Zipoites against Astacus and Chalcedon. Ultimately, Polemaeus’ decision was imposed by the current situation. By allying with the Bithynians, Antigonus unwittingly was the first Macedonian ruler to recognise them as independent. He accepted them as counterparts and an autonomous political entity, like Astacus and Chalcedon. According to Dennis Glew, Antigonus (through Polemaeus) would have granted Zipoites with generous offers for the intervention of Nicomedes son of Aristander from Cos. This one was a philos of Antigonous, who became involved in the relations between Antigonus and the cities of the Aegeus and Asia Minor on several occasions26. According to Glew, Nicomedes interceded for Zipoites during the negotiations with Polemaeus and the Bithynian ruler thanked him by naming his first-born Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 16; GLEW 2005, p. 136 n. 36. Cf. TOEPFFER 1896, p. 136; ORTH 1993, p. 32. 24 JOUGUET 1932, p. 348; TARN 1953, p. 489; DORYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, pp. 218-219; VITUCCI 1953, p. 20; HABICHT 1972, coll. 449-450; cf. WATERFIELD 2011, p. 172. Contra MEYER 1897, col. 515; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 92 n. 29: ‘I suggest that Antigonos’ action should be seen as an indication of his de facto sovereignty over Bithynia’. Doubts on the status of Bithynia at Antigonus’ times in BILLOWS 1990, pp. 239 n. 3, 251, 278, 308, 441, who however admits (p. 308): ‘he (i.e. Antigonus) left the Bithynian dynast in undisturbed control of his native realm’. GABELKO 2005, pp. 132-133 agrees with Billows. 25 Cf. BEVAN 1902, vol. I, pp. 95-96; VITUCCI 1953, p. 15; FORTINA 1965, pp. 52-54; HABICHT 1972, col. 450; GABELKO 2005, p. 134; WATERFIELD 2011, pp. 108-109. Accordingly, Polemaeus’ intervention in Bithynia was not due to the mere desire of helping two Greek cities threatened by a local dynast, as some scholars assume (see e.g. JOUGUET 1932, p. 348; VITUCCI 1953, p. 15; ORTH 1993, p. 40: ‘Im Auftrag des Antigonos kommt Polemaios ὁ ἀδελφιδοῦς den belagerten Kalchedoniern zur Hilfe’; GLEW 2005, p. 136: ‘By assaulting Astacos and Chalcedon, the Bithynian was, in effect, challenging both Antigonus’s hegemony and his policy toward the Greeks’). 26 About him, see GLEW 2005, pp. 1135-137; DANA – SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2019, pp. 16-17. 22 23

28

ELOISA PAGANONI

son after him. Glew’s proposal offers an explanation of the introduction of Nicomede’s name in the Bithynian dynasty. Recently Madalina Dana and Ivana Savalli-Lestrade have argued that Nicomedes’ support to Zipoites was connected with Coan interests in the Black Sea area27. In their opinion, Nicomedes could have acted in view of already existing realtions between Cos and Zipoites or to establish new ones. In any case, this would reveal the growing relevance of Zipoites in the early Hellenistic political landscape. It could set the beginning of the firm relations between the Bithyninan dynasty and Cos in the late 4th century BC28. The 315 BC alliances fell within Antigonus’ policies to strengthen influence over the Propontic region. In 318 BC he had taken Hellespontine Phrygia29; in 315 BC, along with Astacus, Chalcedon and Zipoites, he also allied with Heraclea30; between 318 BC and his death, he re-founded a settlement on Askania Lake with the name of Antigonea31. With regard to Zipoites, the 315 BC alliance was the beginning of a ‘long, peaceful relation’32 with Antigonus. The lack of evidence of conflicts in the Propontic area in the period of Antigonus suggests Antigonus’ influence over the region and over Zipoites33.

DANA – SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2019, p. 17. About the relations the kings of Bithynia and Cos, see below pp. 68, 81-82, 86-88, 176-177. 29 Diod. XVIII, 50, 5-52, 2. 30 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 4, 6; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 14; WEHRLI 1968, p. 49; FRANCO 1993, pp. 141-142; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 113, 217, 441; GLEW 2005, p. 136; PAGANONI 2019, pp. 154-156. 31 Strabo XII, 4, 7; Steph. Byz. s.v. Νίκαια; TSCHERIKOWER 1927, p. 46; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 296-297; COHEN 1995, pp. 398-400; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 23-25; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-31; MICHELS 2009, p. 263. According to a scholion on the Notitiae Episcopatuum (3 143, note), probably deriving from Arrian’s Bithyniaka (AVRAM 2004, p. 976), the original settlement was named Helicore (MERKELBACH 1985, pp. 1-2; MERKELBACH 1987, p. 10; IK Nikaias, vol. II.3, T 1; TALBERT 2000, Map 52, F4. The reliability of this information is questioned by GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 305-307). CHOEN 1995, p. 398 and DEBORD 1998, p. 144 prefer the form Angkore handed down by Steph. Byz. s.v. Νίκαια, instead of Helicore. The original settlement was thought to be a Greek colony (MERKELBACH 1985, pp. 1-2; MERKELBACH 1987, p. 10), but it was more probably an indigenous/Thracian village (GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 19-23, 305-307). DELORME 1960, p. 216 n. 1 sets the re-foundation by Antigonus in 316 BC, WEHRLI 1968, pp. 83-84 in 309-307 BC. About the unlikely identification of Antigonea on Askania Lake with the city Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Ἀντιγόνεια calls Antigonea near Dascylium, see CORSTEN 1988, pp. 59-61; MAREK 1993, p. 15; COHEN 1995, p. 392. 32 GLEW 2005, p. 136. 33 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 16: ‘Finché durò intatta la potenza di Antigono, egli (i.e. Zipoites) non riuscì a realizzare le sue mire di conquista’; BILLOWS 1990, p. 442: ‘The successful assertiveness of Zipoites against Lysimachos, Seleukos, and Antiochos forms a marked contrast to his quiescence under Antigonos’ rule, testifying to Antigonus’ power and, perhaps, his conciliatory policy’; GABELKO 2005, pp. 132-133; GLEW 2005, p. 136. 27 28

29

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

2. TROUBLED YEARS 301-280 BC. ZIPOITES’ POLITICS AND DEFENCE

BETWEEN

EXPANSION

In 301 BC the death of Antigonus Monophthalmus opened a new season of political instability. Antigonus’ son Demetrius unsuccessfully tried to preserve the domains of his father against the other Diadochs, first of all Lysimachus, who took control of Asia Minor. In this context, local conflicts in the Propontic peninsula began again. Zipoites resumed his aggressive politics against both the poleis and those who succeeded Antigonus in ruling Asia Minor34. In the Quaestiones Graecae Plutarch recounts a war between Zipoites and Chalcedon that is presumably to be ascribed to these years: (The Chalcedonians) were in war against the Bithynians, being provoked with every pretext. When Zeipoites was king, they, with the army and receiving the aid of the Thracians, set fires and laid waste to the country. When Zeipoites attacked them near the so-called Phalion, they, who fought badly for rashness and indiscipline, lost over eight thousand soldiers. And they were not completely annihilated at that time just because Zeipoites granted a compromise to please the Byzantians35.

The development of events is clear: during a war, Zipoites and the Chalcedonians fought at Phalion, Zipoites won, but the hostilities ceased because of the intervention of Byzantium. It is less clear when this war occurred. The only chronological indication comes from the mention of Zipoites, which dates the war between the late 4th and early 3rd century BC. The phrase Ζειποίτου δὲ βασιλεύσαντος (‘when Zipoites was king’) in itself is not decisive to date the episode after Zipoites proclaimed himself king: it could be an anachronistic reference to the royal title like many others in our sources36. According to many scholars37, Plutarch is telling some episodes related to the war Polemaeus stopped in 315 BC38. Diodorus’ account of the 315 Cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 135. Plut. Mor., 302 e-f: πόλεμος ἦν αὐτοῖς πρὸς Βιθυνοὺς ἐκ πάσης παροξυνομένοις προφάσεως·Ζειποίτου δὲ βασιλεύσαντος τούτων, πανστρατιᾷ καὶ Θρᾳκῶν ἐπικουρίας προσγενομένης, ἐπυρπόλουν καὶ κατέτρεχον τὴν χώραν. ἐπιθεμένου δὲ τοῦ Ζειποίτου περὶ τὸ καλούμενον Φάλιον αὐτοῖς, κακῶς ἀγωνισάμενοι διὰ θράσος καὶ ἀταξίαν ὑπὲρ ὀκτακισχιλίους ἀπέβαλον στρατιώτας· καὶ παντελῶς μὲν οὐκ ἀνῃρέθησαν τότε, Ζειποίτου Βυζαντίοις χαρισαμένου τὰς διαλύσεις. 36 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 15-16; HABICHT 1972, col. 450; cf. below pp. 37-38. 37 MEYER 1897, col. 515; RUGE 1919, col. 1557; MAGIE 1950, p. 1194 n. 36; IK Kalchedon, p. 94; BOULOGNE 2002, p. 423 n. 269; FERNOUX 2004, p. 30; ROBU 2014, pp. 211-212; ROBU 2014a, pp. 193-194. 38 Diod. XIX, 60, 3; see above pp. 25-27. 34 35

30

ELOISA PAGANONI

BC events tells about the sieges by Zipoites against Chalcedon and Astacus and the cessation of hostilities due to an Antigonid general. Plutarch refers to raids in which the Chalcedonians were supported by the Thracians, a victory of Zipoites and the intervention of Byzantium. The relevant differences in these accounts cannot just be due to different perspectives, Macedonian one in Diodorus and local one in Plutarch39. The accounts have nothing in common but the reference to Zipoites and Chalcedon. It is difficult to demonstate that they deal with different phases of the same war. Rather, they may describe two different conflicts. The war related by Plutarch is to be set in a moment when Zipoites was free to carry out aggressive politics, in other words, when there was no strong power over him. This rules out the years 315-301 BC when Zipoites suffered the influence of Antigonus, and keeps open two possibilities. Either to set this episode the in ‘dark’ years of Zipoites’ rule from the succession to Bas to 315 BC. Or, as seems preferable to me, in the aftermath of Antigonus’ death when Zipoites was carrying out the last moves toward the title of king40. According to Plutarch, Zipoites began the war by provoking the Chalcedonians ‘with every pretext’, which likely means by plundering their land. The Chalcedonians responded devastating the Bithynian lands with the support of the Thracians41. The answer of the Bithynian ruler was immediate and his raids gave a start to a battle at Phalion42. The Chalcedonians were defeated and lost many men – if Plutarch is right, nearly the whole male population of the city perished43 – but this battle did not mark the end of the war. The victory boosted Zipoites, who would have been determined to continue the hostilities if the Byzantinas had not intervened. Like in 416 BC, Byzantium aided Chalcedon against the Bithynians pursuing to the ancient solidarieté mégarienne44. According to Plutarch, Plutarch’s account may derive from a local history of Bithynia (BOULOGNE 2002, p. 423 n. 267). VITUCCI 1953, pp. 15-16; HABICHT 1972, col. 450; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; ORTH 1993, p. 40; KOBES 1996, p. 115-116; STROBEL [– WIRBELAUER] 1999, col. 154; SCHOTTKY 2002b, col. 817; GABELKO 2005, pp. 139, 141. KOBES 1996, pp. 115-116 connects the episodes related by Plutarch with Zipoites’ wars against Lysimachus (about these wars, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5, below pp. 31-34). About the introduction of the royal title see below pp. 37-41. 41 It is worth noting that Greek sources stress the aggressive attitude of indigenous people, but episodes like the 416 BC expedition of Chalcedon and Byzantium (Diod. XII, 82, 2; above pp. 12-14) and this one suggest that reprisals were the key feature of the wars for the fertile lands. 42 This place, otherwise unknown (cf. HABICHT 1972, col. 450), was probably in the chōra of Chalcedon, and its name might have been connected with a topographical feature. 43 In view of the nature of the work, Plutarch may provide an exaggerate number (VITUCCI 1953, pp. 15-16; HABICHT 1972, col. 450). 44 ROBU 2014, p. 212; ROBU 2014a, p. 193; cf. ROBU 2012, pp. 183-189. On the 416 BC war, see Diod. XII, 82, 2; above pp. 12-14. 39 40

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

31

‘Zipoites granted a compromise to please the Byzantians’45. These latter are told neither to take part in military operations nor to lead negotiations. However, they decisively influenced the outcome of the war by ‘affecting’ Zipoites’ decision. They had leverage over Zipoites, who was worried about their possible reprisals. The danger was closer than what one could think: Byzantium controlled some territories in Asia that were inhabited by the Bithynians and almost bordered on Zipoites’ chiefdom46. The involvement of Byzantium sheds light on the intervention of the Thracians in aid of Chalcedon. Plutarch describes the Thracian contingent by the word ἐπικουρία, that means ‘aid’ or ‘auxiliary force’47. So, the Thracians could be either mercenaries hired by the Chalcedonians or a force sent by an ally. The second option is more likely in view of the long-lasting alliance between Chalcedon and Byzantium, and the influence of the latter over Zipoites’ decision to stop the war. If so, we can outline the role of Byzantium more in detail. It not only ‘persuaded’ Zipoites to sign a compromise but also sent a force of Thracians to Chalcedon. This episode concerns the relations between Chalcedon, Byzantium and the Bithynians. The information about contacts with Heraclea and Astacus also hints at conflicts between Zipoites and Lysimachus. In the account of Zipoites’ attack to Heraclea in the late 280s BC Memnon recounts the cause of his hostility against the city: Zipoites, the ruler of the Bithynians... was hostile to the Heracleans, earlier for Lysimachus, then for Seleucus (as he was in disagreement with each of them)48.

According to this passage, the origin of Zipoites animosity to Heraclea was related to Lysimachus and Seleucus, that is, by the contacts of the city with them49. In concrete terms, Heraclea probably supported them against the Bithynians. As for Lysimachus, Heraclea entered in friendly relations with him in the late 4th century BC when he married Amastris, who was ruling the city after the death of her husband50. Later this friendship became

Plut. Mor., 302 f: Ζειποίτου Βυζαντίοις χαρισαμένου τὰς διαλύσεις. On the peraia of Byzantium, see above and below pp. 13-14, 105-106. 47 LSJ s.v. ἐπικουρία. 48 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3: Ζιποίτης δέ, ὁ Βιθυνῶν ἐπάρχων, ἐχθρῶς ἔχων ῾Ηρακλεώταις πρότερον μὲν διὰ Λυσίμαχον, τότε δὲ διὰ Σέλευκον (διάφορος γὰρ ἦν ἑκατέρωι). About Zipoites’ attack see below, pp. 36-37. 49 BITTNER 1998, p. 60. 50 Diod. XX, 109, 6-7; Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 4, 9; SEIBERT 1967, pp. 93-94; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 81; LUND 1992, p. 75; FRANCO 1993, pp. 141-142; BITTNER 1998, pp. 44-45. 45 46

32

ELOISA PAGANONI

closer: Lysimachus took control of the city in 289 or 284 BC and turned it in his stronghold on the Black Sea51. This guaranteed to Lysimachus the support of Heraclea. The city aided him on two occasions at least: earlier in the preamble of the Battle of Ipsus52 and then, in view of Memnon, during the operations against the Bithynians53. The destruction of Astacus by Lysimachus, told by Strabo54, could be related to his wars against the Bithynians. Lysimachus is supposed to have razed this city to the ground because it was in Bithynian hands55. In 315 BC Zipoites had tried to conquer Astacus, but he had come to nothing due to Polemaeus’ intervention. If he was controlling the city when Lysimachus destroyed it, as generally assumed, it follows that he made another undocumented but successful attempt. This is to be placed after Antigonus’ death, when Zipoites restarted his expansionistic politics in detriment of the Greek cities56. It is often argued that a passage of Pausanias testifies to the foundation of Astacus by Zipoites and thus confirms the seizure of the city by the Bithynian ruler57. In the description of the temple of Zeus in the sanctuary of Olympia, Pausanias claims: As for the statues set up in the round buildings, the one made of amber represents Augustus the Roman emperor, the one made of ivory is said to be a portrait of Nicomedes, the king of the Bithynians. The name of the greatest city in Bithynia was changed (in Nicomedia) after him; formerly it was called Astacus, and its first founder was Zipoites, a man of Thracian origin according to his name58.

51 LUND 1992, pp. 119-120; FRANCO 1993, pp. 140-149; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 154-157; BITTNER 1998, pp. 44-61. 52 Diod. XX, 109, 6-7. 53 Cf. HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 84; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 151. 54 Strabo XII, 4, 2. 55 MEYER 1897, col. 515; MEYER 1925, p. 109; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 16-17; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; FRANCO 1993, p. 139; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 188; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 71; KOBES 1996, p. 116; STROBEL 1997, col. 116; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-32; GABELKO 2005, p. 138; ROBU 2014, pp. 215-216. 56 BELOCH 1925, p. 234; FRANCO 1993, p. 139; ORTH 1993, p. 32; STROBEL 1996, p. 191; STROBEL 1997, col. 116; STROBEL [– WIRBELAUER] 1999, col. 154; GABELKO 2005, p. 141. Contra those who date the seizure of Astacus to 315 BC (VITUCCI 1953, p. 16; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 31-32; ROBU 2014, p. 216). 57 MAGIE 1950, p. 1184 n. 10; VITUCCI 1953, p. 16 and n. 4; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 143 n. 34; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 269-270; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 188; ORTH 1993, p. 32; KOBES 1996, pp. 228-229; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 34-35; SCHOTTKY 2002b; DAVAZE 2013, p. 375; ROBU 2014, pp. 215-217. 58 Paus. V, 12, 7: αἱ δὲ εἰκόνες αἱ τοῖς κατασκευάσμασι τοῖς περιφερέσιν ἐγκείμεναι, ἡ μὲν τοῦ ἠλέκτρου βασιλέως Ῥωμαίων ἐστὶν Αὐγούστου, ἡ δὲ τοῦ ἐλέφαντος βασιλέως Νικομήδους ἐλέγετο εἶναι Βιθυνῶν. ἀπὸ

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

33

It is well-known that Astacus was founded by the Megarians59. Only Pausanias mentions as first founder a certain Zipoites, who was Thracian by ethnicity as his name and Pausanias himself confirm. Pausanias, then, says that Nicomedes I refounded Astacus in Nicomedia, which is recorded by many other sources60. Although Pausanias specifies no kinship between Zipoites, the first founder, and Nicomedes I61, the former is generally identified with Nicomedes I’s father Zipoites. And yet, the passage does not suggest that they lived nearly at the same time, as a possible kinship would require. Instead, the phrase ἐξ ἀρχῆς, meaning ‘in origin’, ‘from the beginning’ literally, seems to refer to a distant time. On these grounds, the first founder mentioned by Pausanias cannot be easily identified with the Hellenistic ruler of the Bithynians. But, the fact that they were namesakes may be not a chance. This situation recalls the case of Prusa ad Olympum. This city was founded by Prusias I in the early 2nd century BC, but sources record a foundation by a certain Prusias who lived in the Archaic period62. This latter Prusias is considered a mythic hero, a sort of ‘projection’ of the Hellenistic king who founded the city63. On comparison with this case, it is permissible to wonder whether the Zipoites mentioned by Pausanias too was a mythic projection64. Like Prusias I in the case of Prusa ad Olympum, Zipoites (the Hellenistic ruler) permanently annexed Astacus to the Bithynian chiefdom. It is possible that the royal propaganda celebrated this success of the founder of the Bithynian kingdom by creating the tradition we read in Pausanias. Presenting Astacus as a Bithynian settlement legitimised the claim of the Bithynians over the city. The homonymy of the mythic founder and the historical conqueror, then, strengthened the message. If these remarks have some validity, the passage of Pausanians provides at most an indirect attestation to the seizure of Astacus by Zipoites. Likewise, the passages so far examined allude to wars between Zipoites and Lysimachus. The only explicit testimony in this regard is in Memnon: Zipoites, who became illustrious in war and killed one of the generals of Lysiτούτου δὲ καὶ τῇ μεγίστῃ τῶν ἐν Βιθυνίᾳ πόλεων μετεβλήθη τὸ ὄνομα, Ἀστακῷ τὰ πρὸ τούτου καλουμένῃ· τὰ δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτῇ Ζυποίτης ἐγένετο οἰκιστής, Θρᾷξ γένος εἰκάζοντί γε ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος. 59 About the accounts on the foundation of Astacus, see ROBU 2014, pp. 201-213. 60 See below pp. 60-61. 61 Cf. the commentary ad locum by [POUILLOUX –] JACQUEMIN 1999, p. 170. 62 Strabo XII, 4, 3; Steph. Byz. s.v. Προῦσα; see below pp. 144-147. 63 See below pp. 146-147. 64 MICHELS 2013, p. 9 n. 33: ‘Möglicherweise ist aus der Passage ein erster Wiederaufbau zu erschlißen’.

34

ELOISA PAGANONI

machus and drove the other far from his own domain, after having prevailed in battle over Lysimachus himself etc.65

As far as we see, Zipoites clashed with two lieutenants of Lysimachus and with Lysimachus himself66. It is impossible to say either when these battles occurred during Lysimachus’ rule over Asia Minor or if they were connected with other episodes known to us67. But it is clear from Memnon that Zipoites won all of them. According to these pieces of information, Lysimachus made not one war, but several attacks against Bithynians. They are to be framed in his operations to establish control over the Propontis68. He allied with Heraclea and re-founded Antigonea in Nicaea69. These cities became the outposts for his attacks against the Bithynians. While Antigonus had set a strong influence over this region through a wide alliance network including the Bithynians, Lysimachus strove for a domain without satellite states. His attempts, however, were frustrated. Lysimachus not only did not manage to subdue Zipoites, but Zipoites continued to grow stronger throughout his rule. Sources preserve just a few hints at his successes, but they should have been meaningful since one of them, occurring in 297 BC, was celebrated as the birth of the kingdom70. As already said, Memnon records the contacts of Heraclea with Seleucus among the causes of Zipoites’ hostility to this city71. This is the only hint at relationships between Zipoites and Seleucus, that seem to have not

65 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5: Ζιποίτης, λαμπρὸς ἐν πολέμοις γεγονώς, καὶ τοὺς Λυσιμάχου στρατηγοὺς τὸν μὲν ἀνελών, τὸν δὲ ἐπὶ μήκιστον τῆς οἰκείας ἀπελάσας ἀρχῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοῦ Λυσιμάχου… ἐπικρατέστερος γεγονώς κτλ. A few words of Justin (XVI, 3, 3: Inde Thraciae ac deinceps Heracleae bellum intulerat, ‘Then [Lysimachus] had moved against Thrace and Heraclea’) may allude to Lysimachus’ wars against the Bithynians (HABICHT 1972, col. 452; GABELKO 2005, pp. 136-137). 66 Cf. REINACH 1888, pp. 94-95; MAREK 1993, p. 21; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 71-72; KOBES 1996, p. 116 and n. 20; STROBEL 1996, pp. 191-192; GLEW 2005, p. 136; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 373-374. 67 VITUCCI 1953, p. 18 says: ‘nell’insieme pare assai poco probabile che Lisimaco, condotta personalmente una spedizione contro la Bitinia, toccasse una sconfitta’ and HABICHT 1972, coll. 452-453 and HEINEN 1972, p. 36 agree with him. According to them, this evaluation supports the opinion that the battle where Zipoites defeated Lysimachus was at Curupedium, in which Zipoites would have supported Seleucus. About the inconsistency of this hypothesis, see below, pp. 40, 160-162. 68 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 16-17; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; LUND 1992, p. 105; MAREK 1993, pp. 20-21; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 71; GABELKO, pp. 135-136; DAVAZE 2013, p. 248; MICHELS 2013, p. 14. 69 Strabo XII, 4, 7; Steph. Byz. s.v. Νίκαια; Eust. Il. II, 863; TSCHERIKOWER 1927, pp. 46-47; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 255-257; FRANCO 1993, pp. 139-140; COHEN 1995, pp. 398-400; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 71; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 26-27; STROBEL 2000; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30-31. The most extensive study on Nicaea from its origins to the Roman era is GUINEA DÍAZ 1997. On mythic traditions concerning the foundation and the eponymous nymph, see GUINEA DÍAZ 1989; GUINEA DÍAZ 1992; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 294-312; PERÒ 2013. 70 See below pp. 37-41. 71 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3.

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

35

been friendly. Like Lysimachus, Seleucus probably attacked the Bithynians with the support of the Heracleans72. Whereas the alliance between Lysimachus and Heraclea is well documented, it is difficult to detect contacts between Heraclea and Seleucus in our sources. The only certain information in this regard dates after the defeat of Lysimachus in 281 BC and alludes to not-friendly relationships73. However, in light of the passage concerning the Bithynian attack, Heraclea (or a Heraclean party) likely supported Seleucus against the Bithynians. In absence of determing indications we can only speculate about the context of Seleucus’ attack. Most scholars set it in the few months between Curupedium and the death of Seleucus since the scanty evidence of Seleucus’ interest in the Propontis (testified by the contacts with Heraclea) dates back to that period74. Seleucus’ attack had to be unsuccessful since his successor Antiochus I made another expedition against the Bithynians while reasserting control over the peripheral areas of the empire in the aftermath of his accession to the throne. Memnon notes the campaigns of Antiochus’ generals Patrocles and Hermogenes of Aspendus75. The latter was charged to seize Heraclea, but after receiving an embassy from the city, he accepted to sign an alliance76. Then (Hermogenes) turned towards Bithynia through Phrygia. When he was caught in an ambush by the Bithynians, he himself and his army were destroyed, even if he showed deeds worthy of a man in front of the enemy77.

Memnon states that Hermogenes was defeated and killed by the Bithynians but does not mention who was their leader. In addition, as a result of 72 BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p. 99; VITUCCI 1953, p. 18; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 441-442; BITTNER 1998, p. 60. 73 Memnon BNJ 434 F 1, 7, 1-4; HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39; GRAINGER 1990, pp. 183-184; BITTNER 1998, pp. 57-61. Some scholars (MEYER 1925, p. 110; HEINEN 1972, p. 38; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 162-163; BITTNER 1998, p. 60) argue that Seleucus was in contact with the Heraclean party hostile to Lysimachus before 281 BC. 74 BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p. 99; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 19-20; HABICHT 1972, col. 453; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 87; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 73; KOBES 1996, p. 117; BITTNER 1998, pp. 60, 78. Contra BURSTEIN 1976, p. 84 dates the attack of Seleucus to the early years of Lysimachus’ rule over Asia Minor. MEYER 1925, p. 110 and HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39 place the episode after Lysimachus took control over Heraclea, either in 289 or 284 BC; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 151 proposes 284 BC. 75 Memnon presents Hermogenes’ and Patrocles’ campaigns as separate events, but Hermogenes was probably an assistant commander of Patrocles (VITUCCI 1953, p. 20 and n. 2; GRAINGER 1990, pp. 198-199; BITTNER 1998, p. 66; MEHL 1998, col. 442; contra OTTO 1912, col. 868). 76 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 1-2; GRAINGER 1990, p. 199; BITTNER 1998, p. 79. 77 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 2: ἐπὶ τὴν Βιθυνίαν διὰ τῆς Φρυγίας τραπόμενος. ἐνεδρευθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν Βιθυνῶν, διεφθάρη τε αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ σὺν αὐτῶι στρατιά, ἀνδρὸς ἔργα τὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν εἰς πολεμίους ἐπιδειξάμενος.

36

ELOISA PAGANONI

Photius’ excessive shortening of Memnon’s narrative, the context of this episode is quite unclear. Immediately after Hermogenes’ defeat indeed it recounts the war of Antiochus I against Zipoites’ successor Nicomedes I78. One could doubt whether Hermogenes’ defeat occurred under Zipoites or Nicomedes I. But the second possibility is ruled out by another passage of Photius’ summary, that records (Zipoites) prevailed in battle... over Antiochus, son of Seleucus, the ruler of Asia and the Macedonians79.

This sets Hermogenes’ attack between Antiochus’ accession in autumn 281 BC and Zipoites’ death, for which terminus ante quem is the earliest mention of his successor Nicomedes I in 280-279 BC80. The attack of Zipoites on Heraclea also dates back to the last years of his rule. We have already mentioned this episode, but it is here worth considering the passage of Memnon in full: Zipoites, the ruler of the Bithynians, who was hostile to the Heracleans, earlier for Lysimachus, then for Seleucus (as he was in disagreement with each of them), showing his viciousness, made an attack against them. However, his army did what it did not without suffering damages; it suffered things not much more tolerable than those it carried out81.

The passage describes the degeneration of relations between the Bithynians and Heraclea, caused by Heraclea’s support of Lysimachus and Seleucus. Memnon provides us with a clear chronology. It sets Zipoites’ attack See below pp. 45-48. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5: καὶ ᾽Αντιόχου τοῦ παιδὸς Σελεύκου ἐπικρατέστερος γεγονώς, τοῦ τε τῆς ᾽Ασίας βασιλεύοντος καὶ τοῦ Μακεδόνων. 80 MEYER 1897, col. 516; MEYER 1925, p. 108; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 19-20; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; VOLKMANN 1979, col. 1538; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; KOBES 1996, pp. 114, 117; STROBEL 1996, p. 190; FERNOUX 2004, p. 31; GABELKO 2005, p. 143; GLEW 2005, p. 134; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; SCHOTTKY 2002b; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; Keaveny – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3, Commentary; WATERFIELD 2011, pp. 172, 208; KLEU 2013. This already short timespan might be further narrowed down to the only war season within it, i.e. summer-autumn 280 BC (OTTO 1912, col. 862; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 441-442; GRAINGER 1990, p. 199; STROBEL 1994, p. 35; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 165; MICHELS 2009, p. 265 n. 1342; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94; DAVAZE 2013, p. 327). Cf. BITTNER 1998, p. 66: ‘um 279 BC’. The earliest information about Nicomedes I is in Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 3. 81 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3: Ζιποίτης δέ, ὁ Βιθυνῶν ἐπάρχων, ἐχθρῶς ἔχων ῾Ηρακλεώταις πρότερον μὲν διὰ Λυσίμαχον, τότε δὲ διὰ Σέλευκον (διάφορος γὰρ ἦν ἑκατέρωι), τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπιδρομήν, ἔργα κακώσεως ἀποδεικνύς, ἐποιεῖτο· οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸ αὐτοῦ στράτευμα κακῶν ἀπαθεῖς ἔπραττον ἅπερ ἔπραττον, ἔπασχον δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὧν ἔδρων οὐ κατὰ πολὺ ἀνεκτότερα. According to BURSTEIN 1976, p. 143 n. 35 (cf. DAVAZE 2013, p. 241), Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 5, 1 might concern the warring relations between Heraclea and the Bithynians. 78 79

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

37

against Heraclea after Lysimachus and Seleucus had attempted to subdue the Bithynians. It follows that Zipoites attacked the city after Seleucus’ expedition and before his own death82. Memnon’s patriotic attitude stresses Zipoites’ disloyal behaviour and diminishes the range of his victory by recording the many losses among the Bithynian troops. In this campaign Zipoites is supposed to have seized a wide portion of the Heraclean chōra, corresponding to what Memnon calls thynis gē and maybe Cierus83. If so, this event reveals Bithynian politics in the aftermath of the rise of the kingdom. Far from being an isolated episode, as it seems from Memnon, the attack against Heraclea was the last stage of a war that almost led to Zipoites seizing the city. 3. ZIPOITES: FROM RULER TO KING Zipoites expanded the Bithynian heartland by conquering Astacus and some Heraclean lands. These territorial expansions were not the most important achievement of his successful policies, though. Sources suggest that he took the title of king at some point. In doing so he turned Bithynia into a kingdom. The Bithynians had got their independence in their victory over Alexander’s satrap Calas. But when Zipoites declared himself king, he, in effect, claimed that Bithynia was an independent power. Literary sources are in disogreement about when this happened84. In the account of Polemaeus’ campaign (315 BC), Diodorus calls Zipoites βασιλεὺς τῶν Βιθυνῶν, ‘the king of the Bithynians’85. According to Plutarch, the battle at Phalion, supposedly dating after 301 BC, occurred Ζειποίτου δὲ βασιλεύσαντος, ‘when Zipoites was king’86. Memnon calls Zipoites ὁ

82 MEYER 1897, col. 516; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, p. 42; HABICHT 1972, col. 453; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 441-442; MAREK 1993, p. 21; KOBES 1996, p. 117; BITTNER 1998, pp. 78-79. Some scholars (MCGING 1986, p. 17; BILLOWS 1990, pp. 441-442; GABELKO 2005, p. 163) set this episode before Hermogenes’ attack. They argue that it was Heraclea who asked the Seleucid general to attack the Bithynians to avenge Zipoites’ attack. As far as we see in Memnon, however, Hermogenes’ alliance with Heraclea and the clash with the Bithynians were stages of the same campaign to incorporate the Propontic peninsula into the Seleucid empire (SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 165-167; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 20). 83 For discussion about this hypothesis and the identification of the thynis gē, see below p. 50. There is no evidence that Zipoites also seized the area where Bithynium would have been founded (see below pp. 141-142) as STROBEL 1996, p. 203 argues. 84 Cf. REINACH 1888, p. 95 n. 1; HABICHT 1972, coll. 451-452; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 187; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 93 n. 34; KOBES 1996, p. 84 and n. 46. 85 Diod. XIX, 60, 3. 86 Plut. Mor., 302 e.

38

ELOISA PAGANONI

Βιθυνῶν ἐπάρχων, ‘the chief of the Bithynians’87, and the successors of him kings88. But, he says that Zipoites’ father Bas ἐβασίλευσε, ‘ruled as a king’, over the Bithynians89. A decisive contribution comes from the numismatic evidence. Some silver tetradrachms and a gold stater minted under Nicomedes II, Nicomedes III and Nicomedes IV record an era starting in October 297 BC90. All these coins have Nicomedes II’s portrait on the obverse, so that only the indication of the year on the reverse distinguishes Nicomedes III’s and Nicomedes IV’s series91. This suggests that it was Nicomedes II who introduced this era. He is supposed to have done so immediately after ascending the throne because the earliest of these coins date to the first year of his reign (149 BC). Hellenistic royal eras were later creations. Their foundation year celebrated the rise of the kingdom that supposedly coincided with the introduction of the royal title92. These eras were an expression of royal propaganda. Kings had interests in dating the rise of their kingdoms as early as possible. These eras, thus, probably indicated an earlier year than the actual beginning of the kingdom. With regard to Bithynia, we can say that the Bithynian kings presented 297 BC as the official date of their independence at least from the mid-2nd century BC. Scholars generaly simplify the issue and conclude that Zipoites took the royal title in 297 BC93. The following matter is on what occasion he did Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 3; 10, 1; 14, 1; 19, 1; 22, 5. 89 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 4. 90 For a list of these coins, see LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 484-485. According to DE CALLATAŸ 1986, pp. 2224, a part of these series was minted by Nicomedes IV’s brother Socrates. REINACH 1888, pp. 95, 131-133 pointed out 297 BC as the beginning year of this era. Afterwards, in Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure, he proposed 298 BC (WADDINGTON et al. 1908, p. 217). Some scholars agreed with Reinach’s latter proposal (MAGIE 1950, pp. 1194 n. 32, 1200-1201 n. 49; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, pp. 390, 430; VITUCCI 1953, p. 17 n. 2; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 162 n. 14; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 8; MERKELBACH 1990, p. 100; KOBES 1996, p. 84), but BENNETT 1961, pp. 460-463 presented strong points in favour of the former one, which is now commonly accepted (MEYER 1897, col. 516; FRUIN 1934, p. 30; POLLAK 1970, pp. 51-52; PERL 1968, pp. 299-306; HABICHT 1972, col. 451; KLEINER 1974, p. 8; BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 142143 n. 29; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 179-180; DE CALLATAŸ 1986, p. 12 n. 86; BENGTSON 1987, p. 127; GLEW 1987, p. 24 n. 3; GEHRKE 1990, p. 45; SULLIVAN 1990, p. 344 n. 17; LANDUCCI 1992, p. 158; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 189; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 72; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 31, 35; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; JAKOBBSON 2009, p. 508; POVALAHEV 2011, p. 148 n. 33; ROBU 2014, p. 216). In doubt MAREK 2009, pp. 39-40. 91 PERL 1968, p. 299; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 178-179. 92 Cf. JAKOBBSON 2009, p. 507: ‘(royal eras) celebrate the independence of a dynasty, that is the birth of a new kingdom’. 93 MEYER 1897, col. 516; BELOCH 1925, p. 234 n. 1; SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1978, p. 610; HABICHT 1972, coll. 451-452; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; GEHRKE 1990, p. 45; LANDUCCI 1992, p. 158; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 186-187; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 72; KOBES 1996, p. 84; SCHOTTKY 2002b, col. 817; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 31, 35; HECKEL 2006, p. 273; ROBU 2014, p. 216. The Bithynian royal era might have 87 88

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

39

so; or rather, what event the mid-2nd-century-BC royal era celebrated as the rise of the kingdom. According to Karl J. Beloch94, it was the seizure of Astacus. This episode was for certain important to Zipoites and his successors and played some role in their propaganda95. It was the successful conclusion of seizure attempts recorded by the sources since the time of Doidalses, and the city turned into the capital of the kingdom when it was re-founded in Nicomedia96. Most scholars, however, prefer the proposal of Reinach97, who connects the royal era with Zipoites’ victories over the generals of Lysimachus and Lysimachus himself98. The end of Lysimachus’ power over Asia Minor was interpreted as a turning point in the Propontic area. A few coins from Nicaea, Prusa ad Olympum, Apamea, Nicomedia, Tios and Bithynium minted in 61-47 BC are dated according to an era beginning in 282/1 BC99. This era was already in use many decades before if, as seems, it appears in an inscription from Prusa ad Olympum dating to the 180s-170s BC100. The beginning year is supposed to refer to the victory of Seleucus over Lysimachus at Curupedium in February 281 BC; but speculations about the introduction or other matters related to this local era find no confirmation in the scanty evidence. According to Wolfgang Leschhorn101, Nicaea first introduced this era to celebrate the end of Lysimachus’ control and the inclusion to Zipoites’ domain. He accepts the widely-spread opinion that it was Zipoites who annexed Nicaea to the kingdom of Bithynia in the aftermath of Curupedium. However, a careful reassessment of the evidence suggests that the seizure

been introduced in Pontus by Mithridates Eupator (REINACH 1888, p. 132; BENNETT 1961, pp. 460-461; PERL 1968, pp. 300-306; MCGING 1984, p. 14; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 82-86; POVALAHEV 2011, p. 148; cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 93 n. 33; PRIMO 2004, p. 238). About the probably incorrect information in Syncellus (525, 593) concerning the duration of the kingdom of Bithynia and the year of its independence, see FRUIN 1934, pp. 35-36; PERL 1968, pp. 323-328; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 187-188; GABELKO 2009. 94 BELOCH 1925, p. 234 n. 1; cf. ROBU 2014, pp. 216-217. 95 See above, pp. 32-33. 96 See below pp. 61- 62. 97 REINACH 1888, pp. 131-133, followed by MEYER 1897, col. 516; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, pp. 390, 430, vol. III, p. 57 n. 49; VITUCCI 1953, p. 17 n. 2; PERL 1968, p. 323; HABICHT 1972, coll. 451-452; WILL 1979, p. 137; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; BENGTSON 1987, p. 127; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 186-187; STROBEL 1996, p. 192; GRAINGER 2007, p. 144. 98 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5; see above pp. 33-34. 99 For a list of these coins, see LESCHHORN 1993, p. 486. On this era, see FURIN 1934, pp. 30-33; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 191-197; MAREK 1993, pp. 21-24; STROBEL 1996, pp. 201-203. About the foundation year, cf. ROBERT 1937, p. 232; MAGIE 1950, p. 1254 n. 68; VITUCCI 1953, p. 17; PERL 1968, p. 328 and n. 123; HEINEN 1972, p. 36 n. 114. According to FRUIN 1934, pp. 30-33 this era begun in 283/2. 100 IK Prusas ad Olympum 1, see below Appendix nr. 2. 101 LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 194-196.

40

ELOISA PAGANONI

of Nicaea occurred under Nicomedes I102. The fact that Nicaea was likey embedded to Bithynia later than what Leshhorn supposes undermines his proposal. According to Karl Strobel103, the Battle of Curupedium had a special value for the cities of Bithynia as Zipoites took part in it at Seleucus’ side. This remark is grounded on another wide-spread assumption: Zipoites was involved in the Battle of Curupedium104. As aready said above105, scholarships tends to give little regard to Memnon’s information about the victory of Zipoites over Lysimachus106. According to them, Zipoites would not be able to win over Lysimachus, and so he was allied with someone more powerful on that occasion. This is identified with Seleucus, the definitive winner over Lysiamchus. Memnon’s information is thus considered an allusion to Zipoites’ involvement in the Battle of Curupedium. This assumption would be proved by the famous tombstone of Menas son of Bioeris, the Bithynian chief of infantry who died Κούρου ἐμ πεδίωι107. Regardless of the speculations about this debated document, the point is to understand whether it may be considered as evidence of anything. The answer would be in the affirmative under one condition: that Menas’ tombstone dates to the early 3rd century BC. The dating of this document relies on no internal reference, but on lettering and style of the reliefs in the upper part of the stone. Upon these criteria, the inscription is alternatively placed in early 3rd century BC or in 2nd century BC108. There is no decisive argument in favour of either of these proposals, and the validity of both of them is questionable. These criteria indeed are not reliable due to the impossibility of tracing the evolution of script and art in Hellenistic Bithynia. Accordingly, the tombstone of Menas can substantiate no hypothesis, and the involvement of Zipoites at Curupedium remains the subject of scholarly speculation109. If the Bithynian royal era alluded to Zipoites’ victories over Lysimachus and his generals, Bithynian propaganda presented Lysimachus as the last obstacle to the rise of the kingdom. The local era attested in several cities of Bithynia depicted the final defeat of Lysimachus as the beginning of a new epoch of freedom. Thus, these eras, which co-existed since the mid-2nd century

See below p. 60. STROBEL 1996, pp. 201-202. 104 See refernceces below p. 160 n. 13. 105 See above p. 34 and n. 67. 106 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5. 107 IK Kios 98; see below Appendix nr. 1. 108 See the discussion below pp. 159-160. 109 Cf. HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 71-72. 102 103

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

41

BC, broadcasted a similar message110. They presented Lysimachus as the bitter enemy of the kingdom and the cities, and his defeats as a turning point of the history of both of them. But they referred to events of different relevance. The royal era was connected to Zipoites’ victories, which had a local impact, but would have been presented as pivotal to the kingdom. The local era referred to the Battle of Curupedium as a turning-point for the whole of Asia Minor. The fact that, to our knowledge, this victory had no role in Bithynian propaganda could corroborate the idea that Zipoites was not involved. There is another point to raise. Royal and civic eras seem to have been the creation of separate and non-communicating entities (the kingdom and the cities). Nicomedes II would have introduced a royal era ‘in competition’ with the local era already in use. Furthermore, the fact that both these eras referred to a victory over Lysimachus rendered him (or better, each defeat of him) the only ‘reference point’ for the history of all institutions of the Propontic area. This is theoretically possible, but – I think – not fully convincing. Whereas a connection between the local era and the Battle of Curupedium is likely, the beginning year of the royal era can easily refer to an episode different from a victory over Lysimachus. Lise Hannestad rightly states that ‘our sources are simply too meagre to tell us which event may have led to the assumption of the royal title’111. By founding Zipoition, Zipoites carried out an act fit for a king. Memnon says that after having prevailed in battle over Lysimachus himself and Antiochus, son of Seleucus, ruler of Asia and the Macedonians, (Zipoites) founded a city named after himself at the foot of Mount Lyperos112.

The location of this city is unknown113. This is the only attestation of Mount Lyperos and any attempt to identify it with other places known to us has been unsuccessful114. Scholars, however, suppose that Zipoition was in the Bithynian hinterland and it possibly served to strengthen About the co-existence of these eras, cf. MAREK 2009, p. 40. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 72. 112 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5: καὶ αὐτοῦ Λυσιμάχου, εἶτα καὶ ᾽Αντιόχου τοῦ παιδὸς Σελεύκου ἐπικρατέστερος γεγονώς τοῦ τε τῆς ᾽Ασίας βασιλεύοντος καὶ τοῦ Μακεδόνων, κτίζει πόλιν ὑπὸ τῶι Λυπερῶι (?) ὄρει τῆι αὑτοῦ κλἡσει ἐπώνυμον. Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ζιποίτιον: πόλις Βιθυνίας, ἀπὸ Ζιποίτου βασιλέως (‘city in Bithynia [named after] king Zipoites’). 113 Cf. MEYER 1897, col. 516; VITUCCI 1953, p. 20; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; MAREK 1993, p. 21 n. 188; KOBES 1996, p. 84 n. 44; MICHELS 2009, pp. 264-265. 114 The identification with the site Λύ[π]εδρον, in turn unknown, mentioned in an Attalid dedication (OGIS 298, l. 4; Appendix nr. 10; IvP I 65, p. 52; OGIS 298, p. 467 n. 4; REINACH 1888, p. 96 n. 1; RUGE 1927; MAGIE 1950, pp. 1196-1197 n. 39; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 55-56; HABICHT 1957, col. 1100; HANSEN 1971, p. 99; 110 111

42

ELOISA PAGANONI

Zipoites’ control on an area recently annexed115. In light of Memnon’s words, Benedikt Niese116 argues that Zipoition was founded after the victory over Hermogenes in 280-279 BC. Christian Habicht117 rejects this proposal stating that Memnon’s chronology cannot be considered reliable. Even if he does not present decisive arguments, scholars seem to agree with him. Most of them118 date the foundation to 297 BC or immediately after. So, they place the introduction of the royal title, Zipoites’ victories over Lysimachus, and the foundation of Zipoition in one moment. In this way, they propose an attractive, though unfounded, synchronism. More cautiously others119 conclude that the foundation of Zipoition occurred at any time after the acquisition of the royal title. These too connect the foundation of Zipoition with kingship. The implicit reference is to the Graeco-Macedonian basileia that included foundation and re-foundation of cities among the acts characterising a king120. Independently from what was the concrete exemplum Zipoites was following121, by founding Zipoition he showed to imitate the example of the Diadochs and to recognise the key patterns of an emerging model of kingship122. In fact, he began to promote propaganda that his son Nicomedes I would have developed. HABICHT 1972, col. 455; MCGING 1986, p. 25; tentatively FERNOUX 2004, pp. 34-35) is just a guess based on assonance of these name places. 115 ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; VITUCCI 1953, p. 20: ‘fondazione di carattere militare’ or a ‘stazione su una via di traffico commerciale’; HABICHT 1972, col. 454; FERNOUX 2004, p. 35: ‘la seconde hypothèse (by Vitucci) conduirait plutôt à situer la cité dans l’intérieur des terres’; MICHELS 2009, pp. 265-266. There is no evidence that Zipoition would have been the capital of the kingdom in Zipoites’ mind as many think (ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 269; SARTRE 1995, p. 36; SARTRE 2003, p. 68; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 265). Some scholars (JONES 1971, p. 419 n. 6; STROBEL 1997a, col. 116; FERNOUX 2004, p. 35) argue that Zipoition is to be identified with Astacus in light of Pausanias (V, 12, 7). Against this, LESCHHORN 1984, p. 269 n. 1 and MICHELS 2009, p. 266 n. 1352 note that Astacus was re-founded as Nicomedia shortly after by Nicomedes I (below pp. 60-62). If Astacus had been Zipoition, Nicomedes would have carried out an act of damnatio memoriae toward his father. 116 NIESE 1899, p. 73. 117 HABICHT 1972, coll. 454-455; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 265 n. 1342. 118 TSCHERIKOWER 1927, p. 50; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, vol. I, p. 446; JONES 1971, p. 149; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 268-269; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; KOBES 1996, pp. 117, 227-228; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 35-36; MICHELS 2009, p. 265; MICHELS 2013, p. 9. 119 HABICHT 1972a, col. 460; COHEN 1995, pp. 408-409. Cf. HABICHT 1972, coll. 454-455; MICHELS 2009, p. 265 n. 1342. 120 On Hellenistic kingship, see VIRGILIO 2003; ECKSTEIN 2009; HANNESTAD 2013; GRAINGER 2017. 121 According to SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 19 Zipoites was imitating the Thracian king Seuthes, but MICHELS 2009, p. 54 (cf. MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-12) rightly notes that he had ‘closer models’, such as Antigonus Monophthalmus and Lysimachus who re-founded Antigonea/Nicaea in the years of Zipoites’ rule. 122 ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 20-21: ‘ma la notizia (about the foundation of Zipoition) ha la sua importanza soprattutto perché ci mostra Zipoites muoversi anche in questo campo sulle orme dei maggiori sovrani ellenistici, mentre il nome prettamente greco del suo figlio e successore Nicomede... pare racchiudere in sè l’ambizioso programma di inserirsi nel sistema politico dei nuovi potentati sorti nel

THE BIRTH OF A NEW KINGDOM

43

This propaganda featured ‘Hellenistic’ or ‘Hellenising’ marks beside Thracian-national elements123. 4. INDEPENDENCE In the first years of his rule, Zipoites continued the wars with the Greek cities for the fertile lands of the Propontis. In 315 an official of Antigonus Monophthalmus put an end to one of these conflicts and signed an alliance with Zipoites. With this act, Antigonus was the first among the Diadochs to accept the independence the Bithynians had gained after the Persian empire had collapsed. On the other hand, this alliance clamped down on Zipoites’ expansionistic ambitions that manifested again after Antigonus’ death. In that context, Zipoites carried out new wars against the poleis and obtained relevant successes in seizing Astacus and some lands of Heraclea. Meanwhile, he drove back Lysimachus, Seleucus and Antiochus who repeatedly tried to take Bithynia. After one of these military successes (or another not recorded in the surviving sources), Zipoites is supposed to take the title of king and to turn Bithynia into a kingdom. This was the last step of a long process which had begun when the Bithynians were under the Persian rule. The satrap’s leverage over them had never been strong on account of the distance of Bithynia from Dascylium, the administrative centre of the satrapy. It was further weakened throughout the 4th century BC when the Great Satraps’ Revolt caused a deep instability in Asia Minor. After the arrival of Alexander and the consequent disappearance of the Achaemenid empire, the Bithynians became de facto independent and their new situation received official sanction under Zipoites. The prolonged absence of a firm power over Bithynia was a key condition to the rise of the kingdom124. However, this alone is not mondo greco-orientale’; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 269 and n. 1; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 187; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 74; MICHELS 2009, p. 54; MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-12. 123 About the cultural aspects of Bithynian politics and the interpretation of Hellenization, see below pp. 70-76. 124 REINACH 1888, pp. 82-95; SARTRE 1995, p. 36: ‘Si Bas avait été vassal des Perses, au moins nominalement, son fils Zipoitès se trouvait libéré de cette tutelle. L’effondrement des Achéménides créait l’occasion de transformer l’autonomie de fait dont jouissaient les Bithyniens en une réelle indépendance’ (cf. SARTRE 2003, p. 67); HANNESTAD 1996, p. 72: ‘The reason for the rise of the minor kingdoms in Asia Minor is explained by the historians as a result of the sheer size of the Seleucid kingdom. However, one might ask whether the situation in Bithynia was not to a large extent simply a continuation of that during the Achaemenid rule, which seems to have left a fair amount of room for enterprising local dynasts’; in his analysis on the rise of local dynasties in Anatolia, KOBES 1996, p. 85 groups the dynasts

44

ELOISA PAGANONI

enough to explain the establishing of an independent state. No kingdom would have ever existed without highly-capable, ambitious leaders125. Sources do not deal with the personality of the first Bithynian rulers, but they probably had good military skill judging from their deeds. With regard to Zipoites, he was not only a capable military leader but also the first ideologist of Hellenistic Bithynia. He founded a state that took the shape of a Hellenistic kingdom.

of Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia ‘die sich im Verlauf der Zersetzung des Achämenidenreiches im 4. Jahrhundert eine unabhängige Position schufen, die es ihnen ermöglichte, noch nach dem Alexanderzug und den Diadochenkriegen ihr Territorium zu behalten und auch zu vergrößern’. Wrongly STROOTMAN 2013 claims that under Antiochus I ‘the vassal states Bithynia and Pontos became autonomous kingdoms’. 125 The case of the Paphlagonians is meaningful in this sense. Their condition under the Acheamenids was similar to the Bithynians’, and like them, they did not endure a firm Macedonian influence. Nevertheless a Paphlagonian state never arose. Cf. PAGANONI 2019, p. 159.

CHAPTER THREE BUILDING THE HEGEMONY. THE KINGDOM OF BITHYNIA UNDER NICOMEDES I AND ZIAELAS (279-229 BC)

1. 279-277 BC NICOMEDES I’S WARS Nicomedes I, the eldest of Zipoites’ four sons, ascended the throne of Bithynia at the death of his father in late 280 or early 279 BC1. The first pieces of information about his rule are in Chapters 9-11 of Photius’ summary of the history of Heraclea by Memnon. Due to the excerptor’s intervention, the narrative of these chapters appears to be an unclear series of juxtaposed episodes2. It is difficult to understand both the relation of one episode with another and their connection with events known from other sources. The earliest of these episodes is recounted after the account of Zipoites’ ambush on Hermogenes, the general of Antiochus I: When Antiochus had decided to march against the Bithynians for this reason (i.e. Zipoites’ ambush), their king Nicomedes sent ambassadors to Heraclea asking for an alliance. He received a positive answer, having promised aid in exchange in similar moments and need3.

Antiochus I’s attack on Nicomedes I is explicitly connected with the victory of Zipoites over the Seleucid general. So, it apparently occurred short-

1 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5-6; GEYER 1936, col. 493; SCHOTTKY 2000; MICHELS 2009, p. 433. Nicomedes I supposedly was born in 325-310 BC (GLEW 2005, pp. 134-135). 2 DAVAZE 2013, pp. 335-336; PAGANONI 2015, p. 63. 3 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 3: διὰ ταῦτα δὴ ἐπιστρατεύειν ἐγνωκότος ᾽Αντιόχου κατὰ Βιθυνῶν, ὁ τούτων βασιλεὺς Νικομήδης διαπρεσβεύεται πρὸς ῾Ηράκλειαν συμμαχίαν αἰτῶν, καὶ τυγχάνει τῆς σπουδῆς, ἐν ὁμοίοις καιροῖς καὶ χρείαις τὴν ἀμοιβὴν ὑποσχόμενος. On Zipoites’ ambush, Memnon, BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5; above pp. 35-36.

46

ELOISA PAGANONI

ly after the Bithynian success in 280-279 BC4. The narrative of Photius’ Chapter 9 continues with some episodes that are said to be contemporaneous to Antiochus’ attack, but, as far as we see, not directly linked with it5. Then, Chapter 10 refers to an alliance between Nicomedes I and Heraclea to confront Antiochus I again: At the same time a war began between Antiochus, son of Seleucus, and Antigonus, son of Demetrius, confronting great armies on both sides, and it lasted a long time. The king of Bithynia Nicomedes allied with the latter, many others with Antiochus. Since Antigonus was in conflict with Antiochus, this latter undertook the war against Nicomedes. Nicomedes collected forces from elsewhere and sent an embassy to the Heracleans asking for an alliance6.

The account seems to describe the same events told in the former passage. Protagonists and developments are the same, and most of all, these events are presented as contemporaneous to those of Chapter 97. In the first passage, Nicomedes I asked the Heracleans for aid to face an apparently isolated attack by Antiochus I. Nicomedes’ request, instead, is here connected with a war between Antiochus and Antigonus II Gonatas, in which Antiochus attacked Nicomedes because he was an ally of Antigonus. The only other evidence about this conflict is in the Prologus of Trogus’ Book XXIV that dealt with: The war which was fought in Asia between Antigonus Gonatas and Antiochus, son of Seleucus8.

In the light of this information, scholars think that in c. 279-278 BC Antio4 BITTNER 1998, p. 79; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94; cf. BURSTEIN 1976, p. 144 n. 58; DAVAZE 2013, p. 335. 5 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4-5; below in the text. 6 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 1-2: Κατὰ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους ᾽Αντιόχωι τῶι Σελεύκου καὶ ᾽Αντιγόνωι τῶι Δημητρίου, μεγάλων ἑκατέρωθεν στρατευμάτων ἀντιπαραταττομένων, κινεῖται ὁ πόλεμος, καὶ χρόνον συχνὸν κατέτριψε· συνεμάχει δὲ τῶι μὲν ὁ τῆς Βιθυνίας βασιλεὺς Νικομήδης, ᾽Αντιόχωι δὲ πολλοὶ ἕτεροι. οὕτω δὲ συρραγεὶς ᾽Αντίοχος ᾽Αντιγόνωι, τὸν πρὸς Νικομήδην χειρίζεται πόλεμον. ὁ δὲ Νικομήδης ἀλλαχόθεν τε δυνάμεις ἀθροίζει, καὶ συμμαχεῖν πρὸς ῾Ηρακλεώτας διαπρεσβευσάμενος κτλ. Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 2 translate the sentence οὕτω δὲ συρραγεὶς ᾽Αντίοχος ᾽Αντιγόνωι, τὸν πρὸς Νικομήδην χειρίζεται πόλεμον as follows: ‘Antigonus, having thus come into in conflict with Antiochus, undertook the war against Nicomedes’. It is clear that they confuse Antiochus and Antigonus and consequently return an interpretation, which is opposite to the meaning of text. A correct translation is proposed by DAVAZE 2013, p. 343, who considers Antiochus the subject of συρραγείς and χειρίζεται: ‘Entré ainsi en conflit avec Antigone, Antiochos entreprit la guerre contre Nicomède’. 7 Cf. SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 166-167; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 328-329, 340. 8 Trog. Prol. XXIV: Bellum quod inter Antigonum Gonatam et Antiochum Seleuci filium in Asia gestum est.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

47

chus and Antigonus clashed in Asia and the latter was supported by Nicomedes I9. The war would have been caused by Antiochus, who would have tried to pass into Europe to compete with Antigonus for the throne of Macedonia but would have been stopped by Nicomedes10. Sources and scholarship present this as a fair fight between two kings. In other words, they look at these events in light of the situation after the Battle of Lysimachia in 277 BC, when Antigonus already had taken the throne. In 279 BC yet, Antigonus was no more than a mercenary captain who was looking for a territory. He was not in the position to engage a war with the Seleucid king. The pieces of information at our disposal are to be read – I think – from the perspective of the first passage in Photius/Memnon. The war was not between Antiochus and Antigonus but between Antiochus and Nicomedes I. The Seleucid king attacked Nicomedes to accomplish the mission of Hermogenes, that is, to subdue Bithynia11. In support of this, it is worth noting that Antiochus I and Nicomedes are the protagonists of Memnon’s following narrative. The relationships between Heraclea and the Bithynians had never been good. Notwithstanding, Nicomedes asked the city for help. This decision suggests that he was running a serious risk. The search for external aid (it is noteworthy that the text speaks of a collection of forces from elsewhere) could be the key to explain Antigonus’ involvement. Under the threat of a war, Nicomedes could have hired him and his soldiers of fortune. While the danger was concrete to Nicomedes, it was not to Heraclea. The city had just signed an alliance with Hermogenes to secure itself from attacks12. However, when Nicomedes asked for aid, Heraclea put aside the rivalry and joined him to fight against Antiochus I13. Heraclea probably hoped of freeing itself from the alliance of convenience with Antiochus. If successful, Heraclea would have removed the Seleucid threat maybe defin9 BELOCH 1925, pp. 561-562; GEYER 1936, col. 493; TARN 1913, pp. 160-164; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 23-25; WELLES 1970, p. 480; MATHISEN 1978, pp. 72-74; WILL 1979, pp. 109, 142-143; BURASELIS 1982, pp. 110119; WILL 1984, p. 116; STROBEL 1991, pp. 114-115; STROBEL 1994, p. 36; STROBEL 1994a, p. 73; KOBES 1996, p. 184 n. 65; STROBEL 1996, pp. 205, 214; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 166-168; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 328-329, 340-342. 10 TARN 1913, pp. 160-162; BURASELIS 1982, pp. 110-119; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 328-329, 340-341. WILL 1979, p. 109 (cf. WILL 1984, p. 116) supposes that Antigonus tried to build a personal domain in Asia Minor and so caused Antiochus’ reaction. 11 Cf. CORRADI 1929, pp. 110-118; MCGING 1986, p. 17; BITTNER 1998, p. 79, who thinks that Antiochus I’s ‘Hauptinteresse’ was the conquest of Bithynia; FERNOUX 2004, p. 32 n. 48. 12 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 1-2; see above p. 35. 13 Cf. BITTNER 1998, pp. 79-80; SARTRE 2003, p. 68. GEYER 1936, col. 493 assumes that Nicomedes I and Heraclea were already allied before Antiochus I’s attack.

48

ELOISA PAGANONI

itively. After a possible, short collaboration with Seleucus14, this threat had remained constant. In 281-280 BC Heraclea had allied with Mithridates I of Pontus, Byzantium and Chalcedon in order to address it. The alliance of these powers marked the beginning of what scholars call the Northern League15. Soon this network extended: in 279 BC it included Nicomedes I who asked Heraclea for aid16. The only military operations connected with the war between Nicomedes I and Antiochus I concerns the antecedents of a naval battle that never happened: (Nicomedes I) received thirteen allied triremes and then he set against the fleet of Antiochus. And although they set against each other for some time, neither of them began the battle, but they dispersed without having done anything17.

Nicomedes gathered some ships probably from the Heracleans18. Then, just as Antiochus, he displayed his forces. Neither of them, yet, initiated conflict. After the first reference to Nicomedes I’s war against Antiochus and his alliance with Heraclea, Photius’ Chapter 9 deals with Heraclea’s recovering of some lands and a war between Heraclea and a certain Zipoites ‘who ruled over Thynian Thrace’19. These events are related neither to the war of Nicomedes and Antiochus nor to Nicomedes’ alliance with Heraclea, but they are said to be contemporary to them. Furthermore, they are actually framed between the two references to Nicomedes’ war against Antiochus and his alliance with Heraclea in Photius’ Chapters 9-10. For these rea-

See above pp. 34-35. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 7, 2; DESIDERI 1967, pp. 408-411; HEINEN 1972, pp. 38-39; WILL 1979, pp. 138-139; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 161-178; BITTNER 1998, pp. 63-69; GALLOTTA 2010; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 284287. MCGING 1986, pp. 16-20 has doubts about the involvement of Mithridates I, but contra see STROBEL 1996, p. 213; cf. BURSTEIN 1976, p. 88; WILL 1979, p. 138; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 286-287. 16 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 22-23; BURASELIS 1982, p. 116; STROBEL 1991, pp. 114-115; MITCHELL 1993, pp. 15-16; STROBEL 1994, pp. 35-36; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 73-74; STROBEL 1996, p. 205; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 167-168; BITTNER 1998, pp. 79-80; GABELKO 2005, pp. 168-169; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 341-342. The common assumption that Antigonus Gonatas was involved in the Northern League implicitly acknowledges to him the status of political counterpart, but as said above, at that time he probably was a mercenary of Nicomedes I. In this sense, it is worth remarking that he is not mentioned in any operation of the Northern League. 17 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 2: τριήρεις ιγ συμμάχους λαμβάνει, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀντικαθίσταται τῶι τοῦ Αντιόχου στόλωι. ἐπὶ χρόνον δέ τινα ἀντικαταστάντες ἀλλήλοις, οὐδέτεροι μάχης ἦρξαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἄπρακτοι διελύθησαν. 18 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 23-24; HABICHT 1972b, col. 455; StV III, pp. 100-101; DAVAZE 2013, p. 331. However, it cannot be ruled out that other members of the Northern League sent some aid. 19 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4-5. 14 15

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

49

sons, scholars look for any connection among these pieces of information. They aim to restore a picture as coherent as possible of the events that involved Nicomedes, Antiochus and Heraclea in the early 270s BC. About Heraclea’s land recovery Photius writes: Meanwhile, the Heracleans recovered Cierus and Tios and the thynis gē by paying a lot of money. As for Amastris (that also had been taken away with the others), they did not succeed, although up to that time they wanted to regain it both by war and by money, because Eumenes who was controlling it, gave it, through an irrational impulse, to Ariobarzanes, the son of Mithridates, as a free gift rather than to the Heracleans who were offering money20.

The issue of Amastris is the better-known to us21. Amastris founded the city through synoecism and named it after herself following her divorce from Lysimachus. After her death, Lysimachus seized the city and appointed Eumenes, the elder brother of Philetaerus, as its governor. At some time, likely after the death of Lysimachus, Heraclea tried to recover Amastris repeatedly. It both attacked Eumenes and offered him money. Nevertheless, he preferred to hand over the city to Ariobarzanes, the crown prince of the new-born kingdom of Pontus. This decision discloses the hostility of Eumenes to the democrats who were ruling Heraclea after 281 BC. He was still loyal to the late lord of Heraclea Lysimachus. Heraclea instead succeeded in recovering Tios, Cierus, and the thynis gē. Tios was a Milesian colony on the Black Sea east of Heraclea22. It is unknown when it became part of Heraclea’s chōra, but it was for certain under its control when it was annexed to Amastris maybe by Lysimachus23. As far as we see in Memnon, the fate of Tios diverged from Amastris’ in 279 BC when Tios became a possession of Heraclea again. Cierus was a settlement on a secondary branch of the river Hypios. It is supposed either

20 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4: ἐν τούτωι δὲ ῾Ηρακλεῶται τήν τε Κίερον καὶ τὴν Τῖον ἀνεσώσαντο καὶ τὴν Θυνίδα γῆν, πολλὰ τῶν χρημάτων δαπανήσαντες· τὴν δὲ ῎Αμαστριν (ἦν γὰρ καὶ αὐτὴ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἀφηιρημένη) καὶ πολέμωι καὶ χρήμασι βουληθέντες τέως ἀναλαβεῖν αὐτήν, οὐ κατώρθωσαν, τοῦ κατέχοντος αὐτὴν Εὐμένους ᾽Αριοβαρζάνηι τῶι Μιθριδάτου παιδὶ προῖκα μᾶλλον παραδοῦναι ταύτην ἢ παρέχουσι χρήματα τοῖς ῾Ηρακλεώταις διὰ τὸ τῆς ὀργῆς ὑπαχθέντος ἀλόγιστον. 21 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 4, 9; 5, 4; 9, 4; Strabo XII, 3,10; JONES 1971, p. 150; MCGING 1986, pp. 17-19; FRANCO 1993, pp. 150-153; COHEN 1995, pp. 383-384; MAREK 1996; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 151-157, 171-174; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, p. 960; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4, Commentary, DAVAZE 2013, pp. 252-253, 239-240, 332-333. 22 On Tios, see RUGE 1937; MAREK 2002; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, pp. 963-964; ATASOY 2012; ATASOY 2013; ÖZTÜRK 2013; ATASOY – YILDIRM 2015. 23 Strabo XII, 3, 10.

50

ELOISA PAGANONI

to have developed from an indigenous settlement or to have been a colony of Heraclea24. The identification of what Memnon calls thynis gē (‘land of Thynis’) is debated. The designation recalls the Thynians. Accordingly, scholars identify this area with a region inhabited by this tribe25. A proposal that had some success identifies the thynis gē with the eastern Propontic shores26, that is, with most of (if not all) the land of the Thynians. It has been noted, however, that Memnon refers to the region of the Thynians in the very next passage and calls it ἡ Θυνιακή... Θράικη (‘Thynian Thrace’)27. It is unlikely that in a few lines the same region is called with two different names. Furthermore, to assume that Heraclea claimed back the eastern Propontic shores would mean that it had gained control of a good part of the Thynian/Bithynian chiefdom. For these reasons, some scholars28 prefer to see the thynis gē in the island of Thynias and maybe some land on the opposite coast. This second assumption has – I think – some validity. It rests on the assonance of thynis gē with the island of Thynias and the fact that Heraclea exerted a strong influence over this island29. But, there is another (in my opinion better) possibility. The thynis gē could be the area between the mouths of the rivers Sangarius and Cales30. This region was part of the lands the Thynians had occupied when they had settled in Asia and once the Greeks had founded Heraclea, it had passed under the control of the city. This area complies with the key features the thynis gē should have. It was inhabited by the Thynians and it had been under Heraclea’s control. Moreover, this proposal does not assume an excessively extended and unproved expansion of Heraclea in the Thynian/Bithynian chiefdom. Judging from the extent of the recovered lands, Heraclea had lived through hard times in the previous years. It had lost a good part of its territory, but no source records under what circumstances. In light of the hostile relationships between Heraclea and the Bithynians, Zipoites is supposed to have taken Tios, Cierus and the thynis gē from Heraclea in his 24 On Cierus, see RUGE 1921; STROBEL 2001, col. 492; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, p. 929; DEBORD 1998, p. 142. According to BURSTEIN 1976, p. 55, Heraclea seized Cierus at the time of Clearchus. 25 About the land of the Thynians, see above pp. 3-4. 26 NIESE 1899, p. 72; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 138 n. 59; KOBES 1996, pp. 117; SCHOTTKY 2000; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222. 27 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5; MEYER 1897, col. 512; STROBEL 1996, p. 213; DAVAZE 2013, p. 331. 28 MEYER 1897, col. 512; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 4, Commentary; DAVAZE 2013, p. 331. 29 In this regard, see BITTNER 1998, p. 126; AVRAM – HIND – TSETSKHLADZE 2004, p. 955 with literature; cf. Ps. Scymn. F 34. 30 STROBEL 1994, p. 36; STROBEL 1996, p. 213; BITTNER 1998, p. 79 n. 483.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

51

281-280 BC campaign31. Such an assumption has suggested a connection between the recovering of these lands and the alliance of with Nicomedes. This one would have promised to return them to Heraclea in exchange for aid against Antiochus I32. The money that, according to Memnon, Heraclea paid for these territories would have compensated Nicomedes for the territorial loss33. Against this hypothesis, it has been pointed out that no evidence testifies that the Bithynians controlled Tios, Cierus and the thynis gē; these areas may have been in the hand of other local dynasts34. We can add that Zipoites unlikely could have seized so extended and not neighbouring areas. Considering the route he probably followed in his campaign against Heraclea, he might have at most conquered the thynis gē and perhaps Cierus35. But it is unlikely that he went beyond Heraclea and reached Tios. Another point of the traditional hypothesis raises some difficulty. Heraclea would have not only provided military support to Nicomedes, but also paid money in exchange for the lands. This depicts Nicomedes as the dominant figure in the agreement, but he was not since he, and not Heraclea, was looking for help. Due to these remarks, the reliability of Memnon’s passage must be reconsidered. In shortening the account of Heraclea’s ‘recovery campaign’, Photius groups the successful steps in contrast to the failure of Amastris and focuses on the latter. He devoted just a few words to the former ones, but Memnon probably dealt with them separately and in detail. It is pos-

31 MEYER 1897, col. 516; RUGE 1921; GEYER 1936, col. 493; RUGE 1937, col. 858; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, p. 430; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 18-19, 22-23 and n. 4; HABICHT 1972, coll. 453; HABICHT 1972b, coll. 455456; StV III, pp. 100-101; MCGING 1986, pp. 16-17; MAREK 1993, p. 21; ORTH 1993, p. 32; STROBEL 1994, p. 35; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, pp. 212-213; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 151, 162; BITTNER 1998, pp. 64 and n. 396, 67, 84 and n. 512; SCHOTTKY 2000; STROBEL 2001; MAREK 2002, col. 609; SCHOTTKY 2002c; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30, 32; GABELKO 2005, p. 142; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222; MICHELS 2009, p. 275; GALLOTTA 2010, pp. 95-96; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 329-331, 339. About Zipoites’ campaign against Heraclea, see Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3; above pp. 36-37. 32 MEYER 1897, col. 516; RUGE 1921; GEYER 1936, col. 493; RUGE 1937, col. 858; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. II, p. 430; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 22-23 and n. 4; HABICHT 1972b, coll. 455-456; StV III, pp. 100-101; MCGING 1986, pp. 16-17; STROBEL 1994, p. 35; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, pp. 212-213; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 169, 172; BITTNER 1998, pp. 64 and n. 396, 67, 84 and n. 512; SCHOTTKY 2000; STROBEL 2001; MAREK 2002, col. 609; SCHOTTKY 2002c; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 30, 32; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222; MICHELS 2009, p. 275; GALLOTTA 2010, pp. 95-96; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 329-331, 339. 33 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 22-23 n. 4; HABICHT 1972b, coll. 455-456; StV III, pp. 100-101; DAVAZE 2013, p. 331; cf. SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 169 n. 15. 34 CORRADI 1929, pp. 112-114; StV III, p. 112; BURSTEIN 1976, p. 144 n. 58; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 332-333. However, GABELKO 2006, p. 221 n. 61 notes that no dynast is attested in the region. JONES 1971, p. 150 assumes that Nicomedes helped Heraclea to recover its territories not during the war against Zipoites but later, suggesting that these lands were not under Bithynian control. 35 Cf. SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 162.

52

ELOISA PAGANONI

sible that Heraclea lost and recovered Tios, Cierus and the thynis gē at different times. Considering what said above, it is possible to distinguish the case of Tios from those of Cierus and the thynis gē. Nothing can be said about the former. We cannot know who took this harbour on the Back Sea, or when it was taken. But we can wonder whether the Heracleans paid to have it returned to them. The traditional reconstruction, instead, remains the most likely, at least for sake of economy, for the thynis gē and maybe Cierus. Zipoites could have conquered these lands, and Nicomedes I could have promised them back to Heraclea. However, the promise of Nicomedes was not enough. According to what Photius’ Chapter 9 recounts immediately after Heraclea’s ‘recovery campaign’, the city undertook a war to recover these lands: At about the same time, a war between the Heracleans and Zipoites the Bithynian who ruled over Thynian Thrace occurred. In this war, many Heracleans, who fought bravely in a noble manner, fell. Zipoites was winning by force but when an allied army came in aid of the Heracleans, he covered with shame his victory by flight. Those who had been defeated took up and burnt their corpses without fear and then, after taking control of all for which the war took place, they brought back into the city the bones of the dead soldiers, burying them with splendour in the monument to the noblest men36.

Memnon introduces a certain Zipoites who ruled over the lands of the Thynians, i.e. the eastern Propontic peninsula, when Nicomedes I was king. His position is confirmed by the only other source about him, Livy, who says that he ‘controlled some part of Bithynia’37. To understand the role of Zipoites in the complex situation of 279 BC, it is essential to focus on his status and his relations with Nicomedes and Heraclea. He is supposed to have been Nicomedes I’s younger brother although sources do not record any blood tie between them38. Nothing suggests that he gained

36 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5: ὑπὸ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς χρόνους ἐκδέχεται τοὺς ῾Ηρακλεώτας ὁ πρὸς Ζιποίθην τὸν Βιθυνὸν πόλεμος, ὃς τῆς Θυνιακῆς ἐπῆρχε Θράικης, ἐν ὧι πολέμωι πολλοὶ τῶν ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν γενναίως ἀνδρισάμενοι κατεκόπησαν. καὶ νικᾶι μὲν κατὰ κράτος ὁ Ζιποίτης, συμμαχίδος δὲ δυνάμεως τοῖς ῾Ηρακλεώταις ἐπελθούσης, φυγῆι τὴν νίκην καταισχύνει. οἱ δὲ ἡττημένοι τοὺς σφετέρους νεκροὺς ἀδεῶς ἀναλαβόντες καὶ καύσαντες, εἶτα καὶ πάντων κύριοι περὶ ὧν ἦν ὁ πόλεμος καταστάντες, καὶ τὰ ὁστᾶ τῶν ἀνηιρημένων ἀνακομίσαντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἐπιφανῶς ἐν τῶι τῶν ἀριστέων ἔθαψαν μνήματι. 37 Liv. XXXVIII, 16, 8: Ziboetam, tenentem partem Bithyniae. 38 BEVAN 1902, p. 134; BELOCH 1927, p. 212; GEYER 1936, col. 493; VITUCCI 1953, p. 21; HABICHT 1972b, col. 455; NACHTERGAEL 1977, p. 166; WILL 1979, p. 142; STROBEL 1991, p. 115; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, p. 78; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 168; BITTNER 1998, p. 67; SCHOTTKY 2000;

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

53

his position by force39, and consequently his control over the lands of the Thynians could have been legitimate. It follows that he was involved in the management of the kingdom in a position subordinated to Nicomedes40. Anyway, the earliest information about him concerns a war with Heraclea, which was allied with Nicomedes at that time. This entails that the relations between Nicomedes and Zipoites changed in the short time span between Nicomedes’ accession and his alliance with Heraclea. Zipoites probably rebelled against his brother41. He could have exploited the war between Nicomedes and Antiochus I to oust his brother and become king of Bithynia. Memnon’s account, however, suggests a connection between Zipoites’ revolt, the alliance with Heraclea and Heraclea’s recovering of the thynis gē and Cierus. As the one controlling eastern Bithynia, Zipoites supposedly was directly administrating the land Heraclea claimed back42. So, when Nicomedes returned Heraclea these territories, he felt deprived of what he considered his own and opened a war against his brother and the city43. In support of this, we ought to note that the war between Zipoites and Heraclea broke out over territory44. The development of the conflict is not completely clear as Photius’ intervention affects the account. Apparently, Heraclea was about to be defeated when an allied force (probably from Nicomedes I45) compelled Zipoites to withdraw. The second part of the account is less clear. We read that ‘those who had been defeated’ (οἱ δὲ ἡττημένοι) buried the soldiers and returned to their city after recovering the lands that had been the point of contention. These were for certain the Heracleans in view to the reference to their return to the city. The allusion to their defeat could be a survival of Memnon’s narrative, which probably dealt with a defeat Zipoites inflicted over the Heracleans before their definitive victory. After the naval battle that never occurred between Nicomedes I and Antiochus I, Memnon records a new alliance of Nicomedes, this time with the Galatians:

SCHOTTKY 2002c; GABELKO 2005, p. 173; GABELKO 2006, p. 221; MAREK 2010, p. 264; WATERFIELD 2011, p. 209; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 331, 337; KLEU 2013a. 39 CORRADI 1929, p. 114; KOBES 1996, p. 117; DAVAZE 2013, p. 337. 40 SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 168; SCHOTTKY 2002c; KLEU 2013a; GABELKO 2017, p. 325. According to KOBES 1996, p. 117, Zipoites might have received these lands from his father Zipoites ‘als Besitz testamentarisch’. 41 CORRADI 929, p. 114; KOBES 1996, p. 117; SCHOTTKY 2000. 42 For bibliography, see above n. 40. 43 BEVAN 1902, p. 134; BITTNER 1998, p. 67; SCHOTTKY 2000; GABELKO 2006, pp. 226-227. 44 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 9, 5. 45 HABICHT 1972b, coll. 456-457.

54

ELOISA PAGANONI

Since the Galatians had come to Byzantium and laid waste to most of its territory, the Byzantians, weakened by the war, sent embassies to their allies needing aid. They all gave help according to their abilities. The Heracleans gave four thousand gold coins (the ambassadors indeed asked for such an amount). After a short lapse of time, Nicomedes arranged by a treaty that the Galatians, who had made the raids against the Byzantians, passed into Asia. They had often tried to do so but had always failed since the Byzantians had prevented them. The treaty: the barbarians shall always be friendly disposed towards Nicomedes and his descendants; and they shall ally with none of those who send them embassies without the approval of Nicomedes. Rather they shall be friends to his friends and enemies to those who are not his friends; they shall be allies of the Byzantians, by necessity, and of the Tians, the Heracleans, the Chalcedonians, the Cierians and of some other rulers of peoples46.

The Byzantians asked their allies (probably the members of the Northern League) for help against the Galatians that were besieging them. As far as we infer from what Heraclea did, they were required to contribute to the considerable tribute the Galatians claimed. This had some effect, but Byzantium was definitively free from the threat of the Galatians only when Nicomedes I signed an agreement and allowed them to cross into Asia in 278/7 BC47. Livy also relates these events in the digression on the Galatians in Book XXXVIII: 46 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 11, 1-2: Επεὶ δὲ Γαλάται πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον ἧκον καὶ τὴν πλείστην αὐτῆς ἐδήιωσαν, τῶι πολέμωι ταπεινωθέντες οἱ ἐν Βυζαντίωι πέμπουσι πρὸς τοὺς συμμάχους, δεόμενοι ὠφελείας. καὶ παρέσχον μὲν πάντες ὡς εἶχον ἰσχύος, παρέσχον δὲ καὶ οἱ τῆς ῾Ηρακλείας (τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἡ πρεσβεία ἤιτει) χρυσοῦς τετρακισχιλίους. μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ δὲ Νικομήδης τοὺς Γαλάτας, οἷς ἡ καταδρομὴ τῶν Βυζαντίων ἐγεγένητο, πολλάκις μὲν ἐπιχειρήσαντας τὴν ᾽Ασίαν περαιωθῆναι, τοσαυτάκις δὲ ἀποτυχόντας, οὐκ ἀνεχομένων τὴν πρᾶξιν Βυζαντίων, ἐπὶ συνθήκαις ὅμως παρασκευάζει περαιωθῆναι. αἱ δὲ συνθῆκαι· Νικομήδει μὲν καὶ τοῖς ἐκγόνοις ἀεὶ φίλα φρονεῖν τοὺς Βαρβάρους, καὶ τῆς γνώμης τοῦ Νικομήδους χωρὶς μηδενὶ συμμαχεῖν τῶν πρὸς αὐτοὺς διαπρεσβευομένων, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι φίλους μὲν τοῖς φίλοις, πολεμίους δὲ τοῖς οὐ φιλοῦσι· συμμαχεῖν δὲ καὶ Βυζαντίοις, εἴ που δεήσοι, καὶ Τιανοῖς δὲ καὶ ῾Ηρακλεώταις καὶ Καλχηδονίοις καὶ Κιερανοῖς καί τισιν ἑτέροις ἐθνῶν ἄρχουσιν. 47 On the arrival of the Galatians in Asia, see LAUNEY 1944, p. 232; StV III, p. 112; NACHTERGAEL 1977, pp. 164-167; MCGING 1986, p. 17; MITCHELL 1993, p. 15; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, p. 213; BITTNER 1998, p. 80; MITCHELL 2003, p. 283; SARTRE 2003, pp. 72-75; GABELKO 2006, pp. 215, 223; STROBEL 2006, pp. 95-96; COȘKUN 2011, p. 87; COȘKUN 2012, p. 57. The date is inferred from Pausanias (X, 23, 14), who places the passage of the Galatians into Asia under the archonship of Democles (278/7 BC; cf. DINSMOOR 1931, pp. 30, 45). The alliance of Nicomedes with the Galatians is usually interpreted as a consequence of the separate peace Antigonus Gonatas and Antiochus I signed in late 279 or 278 BC (Iust. XXV, 1, 1). Losing the support of Antigonus against Antiochus, Nicomedes would have looked for help from the Galatians (GEYER 1936, col. 493; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 25-26; HABICHT 1972b, col. 457; WILL 1979, pp. 142-143; BURASELIS 1982, p. 117; STROBEL 1991, p. 116; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16; STROBEL 1994, p. 36; KOBES 1996, p. 117; STROBEL 1996, p. 213; BITTNER 1998, p. 81; KLEU 2013a). For the date of the separated peace, cf. GEYER 1936, col. 493; LAUNEY 1944, p. 229; WELLES 1970, pp. 478-480; HABICHT 1970, p. 84 n. 3; IK Ilion, p. 89; WILL 1979, pp. 109, 142; BURASELIS 1982, pp. 116-117; STROBEL 1991, p. 115; STROBEL

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

55

There, when they had penetrated as far as Byzantium, fighting against those who resisted and imposing tribute upon those who sought peace, they occupied for a considerable time the coast of the Propontis, having the cities of the region as tributaries. Then the desire to cross into Asia seized them, hearing from their neighbours how great the richness of that land was, and after having taken Lysimachia by treachery and occupied the whole Chersonesus by force of arms, they came down to the Hellespont. There, as they saw Asia separated by a narrow strait, their souls were even more inflamed by the desire to cross; and they sent messengers to Antipater, the prefect of that coast, about the crossing. When this thing was dragging out longer than they had hoped, another new revolt broke out between their leaders. Lonorius with most of the men went back to Byzantium where he had come from; when Macedonians were sent under cover of being an embassy by Antipater to spy, Lotarius took from them two-decked ships and three cruisers. Thanks to these, day after day and night after night, within a few days he transported his whole force. Not long after Lonorius, with the help of Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, crossed from Byzantium. Then the Gauls were once again united and provided with a force Nicomedes who was moving a war against Ziboetas, who held some part of Bithynia. And, principally for their help, Ziboetas was defeated and all Bithynia passed under the power of Nicomedes48.

Livy and Memnon agree upon two points: the Galatians wished to cross into Asia and Nicomedes I signed a treaty with those who wasted the lands of Byzantium. In both accounts, Nicomedes I seems to have acted on his own, and not on behalf of the Northern League, as it is often stated49. The 1994, p. 36; SCHOTTKY 2000; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 341-342. The peace between Antigonus and Antiochus would also be mentioned in IK Ilion 32, ll. 13-16 (BENGSTON 1944, pp. 336-337 n. 1; WILL 1979, pp. 109, 143; HABICHT 1970, p. 84 n. 3; WELLES 1970, p. 479; IK Ilion, p. 89 ). It is supposed that this peace was sealed by the marriage of Antigonus with Antiochus’ sister Phila (Vita Arati I, p. 7; IV, p. 20; WELLES 1970, pp. 479-580; WILL 1979, p. 109; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 167), but see the doubts in BURASELIS 1982, p. 117. 48 Liv. XXXVIII, 16, 3-9: ubi cum resistentibus pugnando, pacem petentibus stipendium imponendo Byzantium cum pervenissent, aliquamdiu oram Propontidis, vectigalis habendo regionis eius urbes, obtinuerunt. Cupido inde eos in Asiam transeundi, audientis ex propinquo, quanta ubertas eius terrae esset, cepit; et Lysimachia fraude capta Chersonesoque omni armis possessa ad Hellespontum descenderunt. Ibi vero exiguo divisam freto cernentibus Asiam multo magis animi ad transeundum accensi; nuntiosque ad Antipatrum praefectum eius orae de transitu mittebant. Quae res cum lentius spe ipsorum traheretur, alia rursus nova inter regulos seditio orta est. Lonorius retro, unde venerat, cum maiore parte hominum repetit Byzantium; Lutarius Macedonibus per speciem legationis ab Antipatro ad speculandum missis duas tectas naves et tris lembos adimit. Iis alios atque alios dies noctesque travehendo intra paucos dies omnis copias traicit. Haud ita multo post Lonorius adiuvante Nicomede Bithyniae rege a Byzantio transmisit. Coeunt deinde in unum rursus Galli et auxilia Nicomedi dant adversus Ziboetam, tenentem partem Bithyniae, gerenti bellum. atque eorum maxime opera devictus Ziboeta est, Bithyniaque omnis in dicionem Nicomedis concessit. Cf. Iust. XXV, 2, 11. 49 DESIDERI 1967, pp. 409-410; WILL 1979, pp. 142-143; STROBEL 1996, pp. 213, 241; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 169-170: ‘It (i.e. the agreement with the Galatians) was organized by consent and under a direct participation of the Northern League in order to use these tribes against Antiochus I’; BITTNER 1998, pp. 80-82; GABELKO 2006, p. 223.

56

ELOISA PAGANONI

key role Nicomedes played clearly emerges from the treaty of alliance. Memnon probably quoted the treaty and Photius hands down a form close to the original document in style50. The first part of the agreement concerns the relations between Nicomedes I and the Galatians, and presents the former in a dominant position. The Galatians not only should have ‘the same friends and the same enemies’, according to the standard formula, but they also should ask Nicomedes for approval before allying with anyone else. The second part extends the alliance to Byzantium, Heraclea, Chalcedon, Cierus and Tios51, and other unmentioned dynasts52 if needed. The members of the Northern League were cited in the treaty, but no hints suggests that they promoted the agreement. They probably asked to be involved in it to guard against raids of the Galatians. In fact, they benefitted from Nicomedes I’s independent decision53. Nicomedes allied with the Galatians to face his brother Zipoites54. This is clear both in Livy and Memnon. They also record that the help of the Galatians was decisive to Nicomedes’ victory over his brother. In Photius’ Chapter 11, after the alliance treaty, we read: Having the Heracleans as allies first, after arming the barbarians against the Bithynians, Nicomedes took control over their lands and massacred the inhabitants. The Galatians split up the rest of the booty among themselves55.

50 About Nicomedes’ role, see VITUCCI 1953, p. 25; GABELKO 2005, p. 182. About the style of the agreement, cf. MITCHELL 1993, p. 16, who says that the passage has ‘a look of authenticity’; DUECK 2006, p. 49; TOMASCHITZ 2007, p. 568: ‘Paraphrase des Symmachie-Vertrages’; ARSLAN 2011, pp. 391-392; DAVAZE 2013, p. 353; PAGANONI 2015, p. 63. Contra GABELKO 2005, pp. 182-184 sees clear evidence of Memnon’s or Photius’ intervention on the text. The agreement between Nicomedes and the Galatians is generally considered an alliance (GEYER 1936, col. 493; StV III, pp. 111-112; JONES 1971, p. 150; HABICHT 1972b, coll. 458-459; NACHTERGAEL 1977, p. 166; KOBES 1996, p. 117; COȘKUN 2013, p. 84). But according to STROBEL 1996, pp. 213, 241, despite the style, it was a ‘Söldervertrag’. Through it Nicomedes hired the Galatians as mercenaries (cf. STROBEL 1991, p. 116; STROBEL 1994a, p. 73; STROBEL 2002, p. 5; STROBEL 2006, pp. 95-96; STROBEL 2007, p. 367; STROBEL 2009, p. 122). Contra COȘKUN 2013, p. 84. 51 At the time of the agreement, Heraclea had succeeded to recover Cierus and Tios, which are recorded as independent in the alliance treaty (BURSTEIN 1976, p. 144 n. 58; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 168-169; GABELKO 2006, pp. 221-222; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 335-336). 52 According to STROBEL 1996, pp. 213-214, 241, these rulers were Mithridates I and Ariobarzanes of Pontus and the dynasts of Paphlagonia. 53 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 25; DAVAZE 2013, p. 354 argue that ‘en effet, il paraît peu probable que le Bithynien ait agi sans l’accord des membres de la Ligue du Nord et encore moins sans celui de Byzance, quand bien-même ce fut lui qui mena les négociations’. 54 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 25-26; NACHTERGAEL 1977, p. 166; MCGING 1986, p. 17; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16; SCHOTTKY 2000; SCHOTTKY 2002C; COȘKUN 2013, p. 74; KLEU 2013a. 55 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 11, 5: Νικομήδης δὲ κατὰ Βιθυνῶν πρῶτον, συμμαχούντων αὐτῶι καὶ τῶν ἐξ ῾Ηρακλείας, τοὺς βαρβάρους ἐξοπλίσας, τῆς τε χώρας ἐκράτησε καὶ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας κατέκοψε, τὴν ἄλλην λείαν τῶν Γαλατῶν ἑαυτοῖς διανειμαμένων.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

57

Photius’ Chapter 12 reports an assessment on Nicomedes I which contains another allusion to the end of the war against Zipoites and the alliance with the Galatians: Nicomedes... who had become to his brothers not a brother but a public executioner. However, this man also strengthened the kingdom of the Bithynians most of all since he joined the Galatians crossing into Asia56.

Memnon focuses on the hard punishment of Zipoites and his supporters (the Bithynians mentioned in Photius’ Chapter 11)57. Zipoites had been considerably weakened by the defeat in the war against Heraclea. Nevertheless, Nicomedes I’s conduct towards the defeated enemies, and most of all his agreement with dangerous allies, such as the Galatians, suggest that in 278-277 BC he still was in a serious danger and he did not prevail easily58. After the success of Heraclea, Zipoites seems to have had a sudden and apparently inexplicable strengthening. This raises the hypothesis that he received an external support. The only one who had some interest in helping him was the other enemy of Nicomedes I, Antiochus I59. There are no hints at Antiochus’ operations in the Propontis after the aborted naval battle with Nicomedes I and his allies60. But, if Zipoites became his longa manus, this proves that he continued to hope of taking control

56 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6: ... Νικομήδης... τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς οὐκ ἀδελφὸς ἀλλὰ δήμιος γεγονώς. ἐκρατύνατο μέντοι καὶ οὗτος τὴν Βιθυνῶν ἀρχήν, μάλιστά γε τοὺς Γαλάτας ἐπὶ τὴν ᾽Ασίαν διαπεραιωθῆναι συναράμενος. 57 Cf. STÄHELIN 1907, p. 6; HABICHT 1972b, col. 458; STROBEL 1996, p. 117. GABELKO 2006 assumes that Nicomedes punished all Bithynians. Only Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6 refers to the involvement of Nicomedes’ other brothers in the war. They are supposed to have been put to death together with Zipoites (GEYER 1936, col. 494; SCHOTTKY 2000; SCHOTTKY 2002b; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94). Regardless of their fate, at least one of them survived, as he reappears in our sources after the death of Nicomedes I (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2; see below pp. 77-78; cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; DAVAZE 2013, p. 388). 58 Liv. XXXVIII, 16, 7-8; Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6. 59 NIESE 1899, p. 75; BERVE 1902, p. 137; CORRADI 1929, p. 114; STROBEL 1991, pp. 115-116; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16; STROBEL 1996, p. 205; GABELKO 2006, pp. 222-223 and n. 68; GRAINGER 2014, p. 137. According to HABICHT 1972b, col. 458, a passage from Trog. Prol. XXV proves that Zipoites was allied with Antiochus: ut Galli transierunt in Asiam bellumque cum rege Antiocho et Bithunia gesserunt: quas regiones Tyleni occuparunt (‘when the Galatians passed into Asia, they fought against King Antiochus and Bithynia, these areas the Tyleni inhabited’). Even if this passage may refer to the wars against Antiochus and Zipoites (Bithunia probably indicates Zipoites’ troops; cf. HABICHT 1972b, col. 458), it cannot be considered as reliable evidence for its own character of summary. About the probably wrong Tyleni in Trogus’ text, see EMILOV 2010, pp. 71-72. 60 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 10, 2; cf. BITTNER 1998, p. 80; COȘKUN 2012, p. 58: ‘With their arrival the Galatians once more upset Antiochus’ claim to supremacy over Asia Minor, for its northern territories became practically independent’.

58

ELOISA PAGANONI

of Bithynia61. The war of Zipoites intertwined with the one of Antiochus. The conflict that had broken out for the return of some land to Heraclea turned into a war for the kingdom. If Zipoites had won, he would have become the new king and a vassal of the Seleucids. Through clever moves, however, Nicomedes prevented this situation that would have changed the history of Bithynia. The contribution of the Galatian force was decisive for the successful outcome of the war against Zipoites (and his ally Antiochus possibly). In absence of other evidence, it is likely that the conflict lasted not for long after the Galatians crossed, and it was maybe resolved in the next war season in 277 BC62. 2. FRAGMENTS OF NICOMEDES I’S POLITICS Upon Nicomedes I ascended the throne, he had struggled against external and internal threats to preserve his power and to safeguard the independence of Bithynia. The victory over Antiochus I and Zipoites marked a new beginning. From that moment on, Nicomedes focused on strengthening and enlarging the kingdom. His policies brought to completion the transformation of Bithynia into a kingdom and fostered its institutional, political and economic development. Information in this regard is fragmentary and the earliest pieces ap61 WILL 1979, pp. 142-143, STROBEL 1994, p. 36, GABELKO 2006, p. 223, and COȘKUN 2011, p. 94 speak of a direct involvement of Antiochus in the Propontis. 62 HABICHT 1972b, col. 458; MITCHELL 1993, p. 16; STROBEL 1994, p. 36; STROBEL 1996, p. 78; SCHOTTKY 2000; GABELKO 2006, p. 224; COȘKUN 2011, p. 94. Zosimus (II, 37, 1, ll. 1-14) hands down the socalled Phaennis’ oracle: Ὦ βασιλεῦ Θρῃκῶν, λείψεις πόλιν· ἐν προβάτοισιν | αὐξήσεις δὲ λέοντα μέγαν, | γαμψώνυχα, δεινόν, | ὅς ποτε κινήσει πατρίας κειμήλια χώρας, | γαῖαν δ’ αἱρήσει μόχθων ἄτερ. Οὐδέ σέ φημι | σκηπτούχοις τιμαῖσιν ἀγάλλεσθαι μάλα δηρόν, | ἐκ δὲ θρόνων πεσέειν, οἷον κύνες ἀμφὶς ἔχουσι. | Κινήσεις δ’ εὕδοντα λύκον γαμψώνυχα, δεινόν·| οὐδ’ ἐθέλοντι γὰρ αἰνὸν ὑπὸ ζυγὸν αὐχένα θήσει. | Δὴ τότε Βιθυνῶν γαῖαν λύκοι οἰκήσουσι | Ζηνὸς ἐπιφροσύναισι. Τάχος δ’ ἐπιπέσσεται ἀρχὴ | ἀνδράσιν οἳ | Βύζαντος ἕδος καταναιετάουσι. | Τρὶς μάκαρ Ἑλλήσποντε, θεόκτιτα τείχεά τ’ ἀνδρῶν, | θείαισιν ἐφετμαῖς | ἣν λύκος αἰνόλυκος πτήξει κρατερῆς ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης (‘King of the Thracians, you will leave a city. In your cattle, you will grow a great lion, with crooked talons and terrible, which will destroy the treasures of your homeland and will take your land without toil. And I say to you that soon you will lose the royal honours, you will fall from the throne surrounded by dogs. You will disturb an asleep wolf, with crooked talons and terrible, which will put a beastly yoke on your unwilling neck. Then wolfs will inhabit the land of the Bithynians according to the will of Zeus. Soon the power will pass to the men who live on the Byzantian seat. Three times blessed Hellespont, walls created by the gods for the men… for the gods’ command, before which the horrible wolf will crouch down, compelled by necessity’). It is considered a post eventum prophecy about the crossing of the Galatians into Asia (PARKE 1982; MITCHELL 1993, p. 15; STROBEL 1996, pp. 240-241; PASCHOUD 2000, pp. 255-259 nn. 49-50; GABELKO 2006). It may allude to the struggle between Nicomedes and Zipoites, but in view of its nature it cannot serve to the historical analysis, as GABELKO 2006 claims.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

59

pear to allude to territory expansion. One of these, handed down by Justin, seems to be related to the alliance with the Galatians: So (the Galatians) were called by the king of Bithynia to help him. When the victory was won, they partitioned the kingdom with him and called that region Gallograecia63.

Justin says that Nicomedes assigned some lands to the Galatians immediately after the victory over Zipoites. The land assignment and the victory appear not only chronologically close but also interrelated. The land assignment seems to be the reward for the support against Zipoites64. The lands Nicomedes donated are identified with the portion of northern Phrygia from the Sangarius to southern Paphlagonia that was later included in Galatia65. If we take Justin at his word, the land donation occurred in c. 277 BC and Nicomedes was already in possession of these lands. Since no Bithynian presence is attested in that area, Nicomedes is supposed to have seized it before handing over it to the Galatians66. In lack of further evidence, the validity of such a reconstruction has been questioned67. The waekness of this proposal rests, in my opnion, in the chronological frame assumed for Nicomedes I’s conquest of Phrygia. Admitting that this conquest actually occurred, it could be hardly set in 279-277 BC, when Nicomedes was facing Antiochus I and Zipoites. On the other hand, Justin’s information cannot be rejected in toto. According to Arrian68, Nicomedes’ first wife was a Phrygian woman. Nearly nothing is known about her69, but 63 Iust. XXV, 2, 11: itaque in auxilium a Bithyniae rege invocati regnum cum eo parta victoria diviserunt eamque regionem Gallograeciam cognominaverunt. According to the Prologus of the book, the Galatians took control over regiones Tyleni. But about this, see above p. 57 n. 59.. 64 Cf. STROBEL 1996, p. 255. 65 GEYER 1936, col. 493; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 26-27; STROBEL 1991, pp. 119-120; SCHOTTKY 2000; STROBEL 2002, p. 6; STROBEL 2006, pp. 95-96; STROBEL 2007, p. 367; STROBEL 2009, pp. 122-123. On Galatia, see MITCHELL 1993, pp. 19-20, 42-58; STROBEL 1996, pp. 79-105 passim; STROBEL 1997b; DARBYSHIRE et al. 2000; STROBEL 2002; STROBEL 2009. 66 JONES 1971, p. 150; STROBEL 1991, pp. 119-120; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 73-74; STROBEL 2006, p. 96; STROBEL 2002, pp. 5-6; STROBEL 2007, p. 367; COȘKUN 2012, p. 69. 67 MEYER 1925, p. 111 n. 1; VITUCCI 1953, p. 27: ‘il testo allegato di Giustino... è formulato in maniera assai vaga e non contiene elementi che giustifichino una tale conclusione’; cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 187. 68 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29. 69 She is mentioned only by Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29; cf. Tzetzes Chil. III, 115, ll. 950987) and Pliny (NH VIII, 144). They both recount the tragic death of her, who was torn to pieces by the Nicomedes’ dog. According to Arrian, her name was Ditizele, while according to Pliny it was Consingi. In view of this difference, BELOCH 1927, p. 212 n. 1 argues that Arrian and Pliny recounts two different episodes. But this discrepancy could be just apparent, since consingi is likely a textual mistake for coniuge vel sim. (REINACH 1888, p. 100 n. 1; HABICHT 1972c, col. 388; CORSTEN 2006, pp. 121-124).

60

ELOISA PAGANONI

her ethnicity suggests a possible linkage between the marriage and the conquest of some part of Phrygia. In this case, Justin’s information would be trustworthy at least in one regard: Nicomedes seized a part of that region. From Nicomedes I’s reign, Nicaea and the area of Lake Askania seem to be included in the kingdom of Bithynia70. It is yet difficult to know when they were annexed. Lysimachus had used Nicaea as an outpost against the Bithynians71. It follows that the Bithynians probably seized it after his death72. Both Zipoites and Nicomedes could have conquered the city, but most scholars73 are inclined to the former. However, it is unlikely that Zipoites campaigned to the west against Nicaea in the short time between the Battle of Curupedium and his death. At that time he was fighting with Seleucus and Antiochus I. In those months he also carried out out a campaign against Heraclea74. This leads us to prefer Nicomedes, who also had some interest in the south, as his possible campaign in Phrygia testifies75. The expedition in the area of Lake Askania was not necessarily related to the one in Phrygia. But like this one, it probably occurred after the definitive victory over Zipoites. After 277 BC, Nicomedes expanded his realm. Some conquests were temporary as they were ceded to the Galatians. Others (Nicaea and the region of Lake Askania) remained part of the Bithynian kingdom as long as it existed. Nicaea and the region of Lake Askania were important acquisitions for their wide, fertile soil76 and their role in river trade with inland Asia Minor77. But the episode revealing the forward-looking and ambitious plans of Nicomedes I was the foundation of Nicomedia in the second half of the 260s BC78. The city raised on the coast opposite to Astacus, and it was peopled with the Astacenians who had survived the destruction

FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; MICHELS 2013, p. 12. See above p. 34. 72 Cf. RUGE 1936b, col. 229; JONES 1971, p. 150; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, p. 28. 73 KEIL 1902, p. 258; MEYER 1925, pp. 109-110; BELOCH 1927, p. 458-461; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 17-18; JONES 1971, p. 150; BURSTEIN 1976, pp. 84, 87, 144 n. 57; LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 195-196; MAREK 1993, p. 21; COHEN 1995, pp. 398-400, esp. n. 4; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 71-72, 89; STROBEL 2000; MICHELS 2009, p. 264; HOOVER 2012, p. 195; MICHELS 2013, p. 12. 74 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3; see above, pp. 36-37. 75 HARRIS 1980, p. 861; SARTRE 1995, p. 36: ‘Nicée est annexée (sans doute par Nicomedes Ier)’; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; MICHELS 2013, p. 12. 76 DEBORD 1998, pp. 144-145 n. 60 with literature. 77 GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, p. 157. 78 Chronicon Paschale, p. 328 dates it to Ol. 128.3 (= 266/5 BC), Hieronymus (Eus. II, 121 Schoene) to Ol. 129.4 (= 261/0 BC), and the Armenian version of Eusebius (Eus. II, 120 Schoene) to Ol. 129.1 (= 264/3 BC); cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271 n. 1; COHEN 1995, pp. 400-401. 70 71

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

61

of their city by Lysimachus79. Nicomedia was, in fact, a new foundation. It was a substitute and heir of Astacus. It preserved the city-state institutions of Astacus80 and hosted the cult of the ancient city81. In absence of archaeological excavations, the scanty information about the city plan and monuments mostly derives from Imperial literary sources. Hellenistic Nicomedia had city walls and an acropolis82. Within the walls, there were the royal palace83 and the temples of Zeus and Magna Mater Cybele84. Pliny records the existence of a forum, that probably corresponded to the Hellenistic agora85, and a canal to drain water, the excavation of which started in Hellenistic times but was never completed86. The foundation of Nicomedia boosted the economic development of the kingdom87. The territory of the city, probably corresponding to the chōra 79 Strabo ΧΙΙ, 4, 2; Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 1 and 6; Paus. V, 12, 7; Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 63; Steph. Byz. s.v. Νικομηδεία; Chronicon Paschale p. 328; Eus. II, 120-121 Schoene; Syncell. 523; RUGE 1936, coll. 490-491;VITUCCI 1953, pp. 27-29; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 269-276; COHEN 1995, pp. 400-402; DEBORD 1998, p. 144; STROBEL 2000a; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 36-37, 66; MICHELS 2009, p. 267; MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-11. The choice to abandon the site of Astacus was because of stagnant pools near the city that often caused plagues (Polyaen. II, 30, 3; SÖLCH 1925, p. 146; ROBERT 1939, pp. 167-169; FERNOUX 2004, p. 36). On the basis of Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Νικομηδεία), some scholars assume that Nicomedia was founded on ancient Olbia (MEYER 1897, col. 517; MACDONALD 1968; JONES 1971, pp. 150-151; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; FERNOUX 2004, p. 36; GABELKO 2005, p. 191; MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-10; contra HANNELL 1934, pp. 120-121; VITUCCI 1953, p. 27; ASHERI 1978, pp. 94-95; COHEN 1995, pp. 441442; DEBORD 1998, p. 144; AVRAM 2004, p. 990; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 267 n. 1357). Some Imperial coins may refer to the legend telling that a serpent and an eagle indicated to Nicomedes where to found the new city (Liban. Or. 61, 4; BMC Bithynia, pp. XX, 190 nr. 62, Pl. XXXIV, 16; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 272273; WEISS 1984, pp. 183-184; COHEN 1995, p. 402; CORSTEN 1996, p. 21 nr. 55 with photo). On miracles connected to foundations of Hellenistic kings, see BURASELIS 2010. A fragment of Arrian’s Bithyniaka (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 19), handed down by Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Νικομηδείον), mentions the otherwise unknown Bithynian emporion of Nicomedeion, that is speculatively considered a foundation of Nicomedes I (TSCHERIKOWER 1927, p. 46; RUGE 1936a; COHEN 1995, p. 402: ‘reasonable suggestion’; cf. MEYER 1897, col. 517). 80 VITUCCI 1953, p. 123; MICHELS 2009, p. 267. According to FERNOUX 2004, p. 66, Nicomedia also preserved the civic tribes of Astacus. About the institutions of Nicomedia, see RUGE 1936, coll. 479-480 (with a list of inscriptions). 81 ROBERT 1939, pp. 167-169; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 270; MICHELS 2009, p. 267; MICHELS 2013, pp. 9-10. 82 App. Mithr. 7; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 37. 83 Ammian. Marc. XXII, 9, 4; Liban. Or. 61, 10, 17; Eust. Hist. eccl. VIII, 6, 6. Cf. RUGE 1936, col. 491; FERNOUX 2004, p. 36; MICHELS 2009, p. 267. 84 App. Mithr.7; Plin. Ep.X, 49, 1; cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; FERNOUX 2004, p. 37; MICHELS 2009, p. 270. 85 Plin. Ep.X, 49, 1; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 37. 86 Plin. Ep. X, 41, 4: Ego per eadem loca invenio fossam a rege percussam, sed incertum utrum ad colligendum umorem circumiacentium agrorum an ad committendum flumini lacum; est enim imperfecta. Hoc quoque dubium, intercepto rege mortalitate an desperato operis effectu (‘In that place, I find a canal, which a king made dig. It is not clear whether it aimed to collect water from the surrounding fields or to connect the sea to the river. It was not completed. It is not clear whether because the king died or because the project failed’); cf. BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 275, nr. 241a [L]. 87 VITUCCI 1953, p. 28; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; MAGIE 1950, p. 305; MACDONALD 1968, p. 623;

62

ELOISA PAGANONI

of Astacus, was fertile and suitable for diversified cultivations88. For its position, Nicomedia was a crucial crossroads for communication and trade between Asia and Europe. The land route to Pontus and Armenia and the one leading to the Cilician Gates via Nicaea passed through it89. The river Sangarius that crossed the territory of the city was a water route from the southwest90. Again, Nicomedia was an almost fixed stopping point on the sea routes connecting the Aegean and the Black Sea91. The Bithynians had been hitherto confined to the hinterland and had had to struggle with the poleis for chōra. With the foundation of Nicomedia, they became involved in wide-range trade networks so far dominated by the Propontic Greek cities. Nicomedia was an important artistic atelier in the Hellenistic and Roman periods92. The Bithynian kings were notoriously interested in the arts93. They were patrons of artists and intellectuals. Several figures who were active at their court may include Menecrates, the author of the On Nicaea, Demosthenes of Bithynia, who wrote the On Foundations and the Bithyniaka, Nicander of Chalcedon, who composed the Misadventures of Prusias, Asclepiades of Myrlea, the author of the Bithyniaka and other works, and the anonymous poet commonly called Pseudo Scymnus, the author of a Periegesis to Nicomedes II or Nicomedes III94. They all were active in the 2nd-1st century BC, with the exception of Demosthenes, whose activity is broadly dated to Hellenistic times. Pliny records the great interest of a king Nicomedes in the Aphrodite by Praxiteles95. The most famous LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; GABELKO 2005, pp. 191-192; MICHELS 2009, p. 268; MICHELS 2013, p. 10. 88 Some Imperial inscriptions (e.g. SEG 4 [1929] 195) call the territory of Nicomedia ‘Astacenean’; cf. ROBERT 1939, pp. 167-168; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 270; COHEN 1995, p. 401 n. 2. About the resources of Nicomedia’s chōra, see GÜNEY 2012, pp. 105-230. 89 MAGIE 1950, pp. 305, 1185-1187 nn. 11, 14; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 161-163; GÜNEY 2014, p. 606. 90 Strabo XII, 3, 7; ROBERT 1978, pp. 415-418; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 163-168; ROELENS-FLOUNEAU 2018, pp. 297-301. 91 SÖLCH 1925, p. 170; MAGIE 1950, p. 305; ROBERT 1978, pp. 419-426; ROBERT 1980, p. 82; GÜNEY 2012, pp. 168-173. 92 CORSO 1990, passim; CREMER 1992, pp. 16, 20-21; TRAVERSARI 1993, pp. 22-25; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 93-111, esp. p. 104. 93 VITUCCI 1953, p. 128; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271. 94 About Menecrates, Demosthenes of Bithynia, Nicander of Chalcedon and Asclepiades of Myrlea, see the bibliographic references on pp. XIII-XIV nn. 17-20, 24. About Pseudo Scymnus, see BIANCHETTI 1990; MARCOTTE 2000, pp. 1-100; KORENJAK 2003; BOSHNAKOV 2004; BRAVO 2009. About the genre of periegesis in Hellenistic age, see ANGELUCCI 2014. About patronage of artists and court production in Hellenistic age, see STROOTMAN 2010; STROOTMAN 2017, pp. 33-37. 95 According to Pliny (NH VII, 127; XXXVI, 21) a king Nicomedes unsuccessfully tried to buy the famous Aphrodite by Praxiteles from the Cnidians in exchange for the payment of their debts. Unable to

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

63

piece of art attributed to the school of Nicomedia is a bronze statuette of a satyr dating back to the first half of the 2nd century BC96. According to Festus97, Pompeius brought to Rome a statue from the royal furnishings. The sculptor Doidalses, known to us only from literary sources, was active in Nicomedia. Arrian98 attributes to him the statue in the temple of Zeus Stratios in Nicomedia. According to Pliny99, he was the creator of the Aphrodite displayed in the porticus Octavia in Rome100. But no evidence attests when he lived101. According to Paolo Moreno102, a bronze statue from the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, now in the Archaeological Museum of Naples, depicts Nicomedes I and it is a copy from an original from the early Hellenistic period. This assumption is based on the comparison with Nicomedes I’s coin portrait, and stylistic and iconographic arguments support it. If this statue (or rather, its model) dated to the reign of Nicomedes I, it could be hypothesised that it was likely commissioned by Nicomedes I. However, the evidence in this respect remains scarce. Nicomedia became the institutional, economic and cultural centre of the kingdom. It also continued to play a relevant role in the economic and artistic landscape after the kingdom disappeared. But to what extent did this correspond to Nicomedes I’s intentions? Certainly Nicomedes conceived Nicomedia as the capital of the kingdom103. There is no reason identify the king, scholars instead focus on the king’s interest in arts and the difficult situation that Cnidus was living. CORSO 1988, pp. 78, 197 n. 296 proposes Nicomedes I ‘perché questi fu il re più importante così appellato’ (cf. CORSO 1990, p. 135; see also BELOCH 1925, p. 534; GABELKO 2005, p. 193-194). Some scholars prefer Nicomedes III, whose epithet notably was Euergetēs (WILHELM 1908, p. 77; GEYER 1936b, col. 496; MARCOTTE 2000, p. 12 n. 23; BOSHNAKOV 2004, p. 73). MIGEOTTE 1984, pp. 325-326 suggests Nicomedes IV because in the ‘80s Cnidus’ economy was in crisis for the payment of the indemnity for Sulla’s campaign. 96 PHILIPP 1987; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 102; MICHELS 2009, p. 270. 97 Fest. p. 320, s.v. rurtum tenentis iuvenis; cf. MORGAN 2010, p. 130 n. 11. 98 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 77a. 99 Plin. NH XXXVI, 35. 100 The Aphrodite Pliny records is identified with the model of the Crouching Venus type (LAURENZI 1946-1948; cf. GHISELLINI 2009) According to CORSO 1990, pp. 139-144, the staute was originallly displayed in the temple of Zeus in Nicomedia. 101 NEUDECKER 1997; MICHELS 2009, p. 270; STEWART 2014, p. 183 fig. 106 (caption). Many scholars speculatively date Doidalses’ activity to the mid-3rd century BC and infer that Nicomedes I was his patron (MAGIE 1950, pp. 1185-1186 n. 12; CORSO 1990; ANDREAE 2001, pp. 81-82; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 104-105; GABELKO 2005, p. 194; cf. REINACH 1902, pp. 189-191; LAURENZI 1946-1948, pp. 167, 177). According to REINACH 1902, pp. 191-192, Doidalses’ floruit was shortly before the accession of Prusias I, admitting that the tetradrachms of this king bear the Zeus Stratios of Nicomedia. PHILIPP 1987, esp. p. 143 assumes that Doidalses was the sculptor of the aforementioned second-century-BC statuette of a satyr. 102 MORENO 1994, pp. 218-221 and figg. 280, 282; cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 194. 103 ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568; MAGIE 1950, p. 305; MACDONALD 1968, p. 623; JONES 1971, pp. 150-151; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 271; COHEN 1995, p. 400; SARTRE 1995, p. 36; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 75, 89; DEBORD

64

ELOISA PAGANONI

to doubt that it was Nicomedes, and not one of his successors, who set there the royal palace. Furthermore, the choice of burying his first wife in the new foundation is revealing of the role Nicomedes attributed to the new city104. The creation of the capital marked the final establishment of Bithynia as a kingdom. After Zipoites and Nicomedes had struggled against repeated attacks, the foundation of a capital testified to the beginning of a new period. It was probably associated with the establishment of monarchic institutions105. The little evidence about them suggests that they were similar to the other main Hellenistic kingdoms106. When Nicomedes chose the location to found Nicomedia, he considered the economic implications. The fertile territory and the position of land and sea crossroads prefigured the rise of a flourishing city. He set the mint in the new city107. This confirms that he intended to turn it into the capital and economic centre of the kingdom. Nicomedia also had a role in Nicomedes I’s propaganda. By founding a city – most of all, a capital – named after himself, Nicomedes imitated the Diadochs and presented himself as a Hellenistic king108. The Graeco-Macedonian model of kingship included patronage of the arts among the acts worthy of a ‘good king’. Nicomedes I could have supported artists and scholars but, as we have seen, the evidence is scanty.

1998, p. 144; STROBEL 2000a; FERNOUX 2004, p. 36; MICHELS 2009, pp. 266-267, 271; KLEU 2013a. GUINEA DÍAZ 1997, pp. 30-32 assumes that Nicaea was a second residence of the kings of Bithynia (cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 264). Without convincing arguments, HOOVER 2012, p. 195 claims that the Bithynian capital was Nicaea. 104 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29 (cf. Tzetzes Chil. III, 115, ll. 950-987); cf. RUGE 1936, coll. 490-491; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; MICHELS 2009, p. 270. On the death of Nicomedes’ first wife, see above p. 59 n. 69. Dio Chrysostom (XLVII, 17) mentions the tomb of a king Prusias in the agora of a city, which seems to be Nicomedia from the context (JONES 1978, p. 112; FERNOUX 2004, p. 41 and n. 101; MICHELS 2009, p. 270; contra DESIDERI 1978, p. 390; cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 281 with further bibliography). The tumuli eight kilometres north of Nicomedia, not yet excavated, are supposed to be royal tombs (MACDONALD1968, pp. 623-624; cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 89; MICHELS 2009, p. 267 n. 1356). 105 Cf. MORGAN 2017, p. 31. 106 On the institutions of the kingdom of Bithynia, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 121-131; GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a, pp. 255-259; GABELKO 2017, p. 329. The evidence presented in the Appendix (nrr. 2-3) records the existence of philoi (TAM IV, 1, 2) and the office of epistatēs (IK Prusa ad Olympum 1). For the period after Prusias I’s reign, inscriptions attest to a grammateus of the dioikētēs (IK Nikaia 1588) along with other philoi (IC II, iii, 4 B; FD III, 4, 77). About the philoi of the Bithynian kings, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 126-127; SAVALLILESTRADE 1998, pp. 193-194; FERNOUX 2004, p. 64; GABELKO 2017, p. 329. In general about royal philoi, see KONSTAN 1997, pp. 93-108; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 1998; PASCHIDIS 2013. 107 HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; SARTRE 2003, p. 69 n. 122; MICHELS 2009, p. 161; HOOVER 2012, p. 198. According to MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130, Nicomedia was the only mint of the kingdom of Bithynia. SARTRE 2003, p. 69 n. 122 and HOOVER 2012, p. 195 think that there was a mint in Nicaea too. It is possible that other mints were established as Bithynia expanded (BMC Bithynia, p. XXXIX; GLEW 1987, esp. p. 35). 108 HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75-76; MICHELS 2009, pp. 271-272; MICHELS 2013, pp. 8-11.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

65

We are not allowed to assume a special intererest of Nicomedes in the arts. Nor does anything prove that Nicomedia was concied as a cultural centre in Nicomedes’ plans109. Coinage sheds further light on the orientation of Nicomedes I’s politics in matter of economy and propaganda. To our knowledge, the coinage of the kingdom of Bithynia began under him110. From the series struck throughout his reign, we have silver tetradrachms, silver and bronze drachms, as well as two other bronze series, each of which known to us from one specimen. These series, all of Attic weight standard, feature a strong influence of the Greek model in style, finish, and iconography. The portrait of Nicomedes bearing the diadem on the obverse of the tetradrachms and drachms is modelled on the coin portraits of the Diadochs. It shows close similarities to the ones of Ptolemy I and Antiochus I, and it is characterised by realistic features that exalt the military virtues111. The legends on the reverse too – ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΝΙΚΟΜΗΔΟΥ on the tetradrachms and drachms, and ΒΑΣΙ·ΝΙΚΟ· or ΒΑΣΙΛΕ·· ΝΙΚΟMΗ··· on the other bronze coins – are perfectly in line with the Greek standard. On the reverse of silver tetradrachms and drachms, there is a female figure, seated on a rock. She is commonly identified with the Thracian goddess Bendis that corresponded to Greek Artemis or Athena112. Due to the similarities with Athena Nikēphoros on the coins minted in Chalcedon under Lysimachus113, this figure is considered an ‘interpretatio graeca’ of the Thracian goddess114. The reference to the Thracian world persists in the bronze series. On the reverse, the drachmas bear a figure interpreted as the Thracian deity who corresponded to Ares115. The two other bronze series Cf. MICHELS 2009, pp. 269-271. On the coinage of Nicomedes I, see REINACH 1888, pp. 96-100; BMC Bithynia, pp. XXXVIII-XL; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 44-46; MICHELS 2009, pp. 158-162; HOOVER 2012, pp. 206-208; GÜNEY 2015, p. 357. About the absence of coinage under Zipoites, see MICHELS 2009, p. 158; GÜNEY 2015, p. 357. 111 REINACH 1888, p. 98; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75 (who remarks that the portraits ‘represent a type rather than carry the actual likeness of Nikomedes’, as usual in Hellenistic coin portraits); SARTRE 2003, p. 69; SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 20-21 n. 21; MICHELS 2009, pp. 158-159 (with literature). 112 REINACH 1888, pp. 98-99; MEYER 1897, col. 523; NEWELL 1937, p. 37; DAVIS – KRAAY 1973, nrr. 186-187, 190; MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; MICHELS 2009, pp. 159-161; HOOVER 2012, pp. 206-208; GÜNEY 2017, pp. 494-495. This figure also was identified with a personification of Bithynia (REINACH 1888, pp. 98-99; BMC Bithynia, p. XXXIX; contra MICHELS 2009, p. 160 n. 790). On the cult of Bendis, see SIEGERT 1983, pp. 156-158. 113 FERNOUX 2004, pp. 44-46 (with photos), who notices that the similarity is strengthened by the presence of a small Nike in both Lysimachus’ and Nicomedes I’s coins. 114 MICHELS 2009, p. 160. 115 REINACH 1888, pp. 97, 99; BMC Bithynia, p. XXXIX; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75; MICHELS 2009, p. 159. 109 110

66

ELOISA PAGANONI

have the head of a god (maybe Apollo)116 on the obverse. On the reverse, one bears a horse117, and the other a horseman. These two types recall the heros equitans attested in the Balkans118. Michels insightfully observes that coinage was a ‘Kommunikationsmedium, um seinen (i.e. Nicomedes’) Herrschaftsanspruch zu unterstreichen’119. No doubt, minting coins was a claim of independence. Moreover, Nicomedes broadcasted a representation of himself and his rule by it. The bronze coins were destined to a local circulation. Their main addressees were, thus, the Bithynians. Through iconography referring to the military sphere (as common in the bronze series of other Hellenistic kings120), they recalled the royal authority and military successes of Nicomedes I121. The silver coins reached an ‘international audience’ in view of their wide-ranging circulation122. The message they broadcased was sensibly different. Their iconography referred to the contemporary Hellenistic model of coin portraiture, and to one of the most representative goddesses of the Greek pantheon, Athena. Nicomedes took Lysimachus’ coinage as a model, and so he presented himself as one of the Diadochs. The adhesion to the Greek pattern did not prevent the recurring reference to the Thracian tradition. In its allusion to the ethnicity of the Bithynians, coinage reveals the marked national tendency of Nicomedes I’s propaganda123. Coinage was a necessary condition to involve Bithynia in international trade. The choice of the Attic weight standard – the most wide spread in the Greek world – is indicative in this sense124. It was part of Nicomedes I’s economic policies including the foundation of Nicomedia. This has suggested a possible connection between the foundation of the capital and REINACH 1888, p. 100 nr. 4; HOOVER 2012, p. 208 nr. 611; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 161. MICHELS 2009, p. 161; HOOVER 2012, pp. 207-208 nrr. 608, 610. 118 REINACH 1888, p. 100 nr. 4; MICHELS 2009, p. 161; HOOVER 2012, p. 208 nr. 611. 119 MICHELS 2009, p. 161; HOOVER 2012, p. 207: ‘In order to fund his wars and advertise his status as a legitimate Hellenistic king, Nikomedes I struck silver tetradrachms and drachms on the Attic standard’; GÜNEY 2017, p. 494: ‘Nicomedes, having just conquered his brother in a struggle for the throne and seeking to establish his authority as the second ruler of the kingdom, adopted her (i.e. Bendis/Artemis) as a coin type to reflect the unification of and integration of its people’. 120 Cf. DE CALLATAŸ 2014, p. 74. 121 MICHELS 2009, p. 161: ‘Beide Motive (i.e. those on the bronze coins) können als Ausdruck königlicher Herrschaft gedeutet werden’. 122 Cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 44; DE CALLATAŸ 2014, p. 65. 123 About the references to the Thracian tradition in Nicomedes’ coinage, see GLEW 2005, p. 131; MICHELS 2009, pp. 161-162. 124 VITUCCI 1953, p. 28 and n. 4; FERNOUX 2004, p. 44. Contra HANNESTAD 1996, p. 75, who says that Nicomedes I’s coinage was modelled after the Attic standard ‘i.e. coins of prestige, not for playing a significant role in the economic system’. 116 117

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

67

the beginning of the coinage125. Although the proposal found some consent126, it is possible that coinage was linked with the necessity of paying soldiers127. Accordingly its beginning could date back to the time of the campaigns in the south-west. As with the foundation of Nicomedia and coinage, donations to Greek sanctuaries had multiple implications. According to Pausanias128, in the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, there was an ivory statue of Nicomedes I129. It is unknown who erected it, when and why130, but it is supposed to date back to Nicomedes I’s reign131. If so, the statue reveals early contacts between the kingdom of Bithynia and the Panhellenic sanctuary. The letter of Ziaelas, successor of Nicomendes I, to Cos (242 BC) containis the first explicit mention of relations between Cos and the Bihynian dynasty, and it attests that these relations were already existing under Nicomedes I132. They could have been enstablished by him, maybe by an act of euergesia133. But it cannot be ruled out that contacts between Cos and Bithynia existed already under Zipoites, as recently suggested134. A fragment of inventory records that the Delians granted a priviledge, maybe a crown, to Nicomedes I135. This one too could have been the response to an act of euergesia. This evidence is fragmentary, but attests to contacts with the sanctuaries of Olympia, Cos and Delos. Nicomedes showed his inVITUCCI 1953, p. 28 and n. 4. MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; GÜNEY 2015, p. 357 n. 3; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 161. 127 FERNOUX 2004, p. 44; HOOVER 2012, p. 206; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 161. 128 Paus. V, 12, 7. 129 According to KOTSIDU 2000, p. 132, the statue was in the cella. HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 74-75 explains that such an unusual setting was justified by the precious material (contra MICHELS 2009, p. 55 n. 257). In view of the same reason, KRUMEICH 2007, p. 169 assumes that the statue was displayed in a ‘kind of treasury’. 130 KOTSIDU 2000, p. 132 argues that the statue was erected by the Bithynians on the basis of Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2, where the Bithynian people apparently act as a political entity, but against this see below p. 78 n. 202. According to MICHELS 2009, p. 56, the statue may have been sponsored by a Bithynian city, by Nicomedes I himself, or by one of his successors; however, in his opinion, a royal commission is preferable for the expensive material. 131 MEYER 1897, col. 517; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, pp. 568-569; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 28-29; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 75-76; SCHOTTKY 2000; FERNOUX 2004, p. 61; GABELKO 2005, p. 194. 132 RC 25, ll. 9-11; Appendix nr. 8. 133 GABELKO 2005, p. 194; MICHELS 2009, p. 54. A fragment testifies to a cult for a king Nicomedes in Cos (IG XII, 4, 1, 344), but no evidence allows us to establish whether this was Nicomedes I (HERZOG 1905, p. 180; RC 25, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, pp. 312, 1195 n. 34; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 28-29), Nicomedes II (MEYER 1897; col. 520; WILHELM 1908, p. 76; HÖGHAMMAR 1993, pp. 94-95; MARCOTTE 2000, pp. 14-15; FERNOUX 2004, p. 62), or Nicomedes III (GEYER 1936, col. 496; SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, p. 137 n. 291). Cf. GLEW 2005, p. 136 n. 33 and MICHELS 2009, p. 54 n. 254 in doubt between Nicomedes II and Nicomedes III. 134 See above pp. 27-28. 135 ID 460, Fr. u, l. 2; Appendix nr. 7. 125 126

68

ELOISA PAGANONI

ternational ambitions through donations136. As Vitucci claimed, donations also mirrored Nicomedes I’s international contact network that included Egypt and Macedonia137. Meanwhile, they contributed to the presentation of Nicomedes I as a Hellenistic king. 3. INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION Under Zipoites Bithynia had become an independent kingdom but had not been recognised as such. Those who had ruled Asia Minor in the late 4th-early 3rd century BC – with the only exception of Antigonus Monophthalmus – had tried to seize it repeatedly. At the same time, Zipoites had been constantly at war with the Propontic cities. The first years of Nicomedes I’s reign led to a change. When Heraclea and the Northern League allied with him, they de facto recognised Bithynia as an independent power. It was the end of centuries of conflicts between the Bithynians and the Propontic poleis. It is more difficult to establish when Bithynia was recognised by the Hellenistic kings. The end of Antiochus I’s operations against Bithynia is sometimes considered proof of an implicit acceptance by the Seleucids138. The absence of conflicts however does not necessarily entail that Bithynia was recognised as independent. In the 270s BC, the attacks of the Galatians over many cities of Asia Minor and the First Syrian War diverted Antiochus I’s attention from the Propontis139. 136 MICHELS 2009, pp. 54-56. About the political-propagandistic value of donations, see MICHELS 2009, pp. 42-50. 137 About Nicomedes I’s international contacts, see below in the text. VITUCCI 1953, p. 28 states: ‘Questi buoni rapporti (i.e. the relationships with Olympia and Cos) rientrano nel quadro più ampio di una politica di amicizia con l’Egitto e con la Macedonia’. We can add that the contacts with Delos too possibly echoed Nicomedes’ political relations. Aside from this clarification, it is worth checking the validity of Vitucci’s statement. As for Olympia, sources record relations with Macedonia in the Classic and very early Hellenistic ages (MARI 2002, pp. 36, 40-44, 249), but not throughout the Hellenistic period (cf. the catalogue of donations to Olympia by Hellenistic kings in BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, pp. 101-106). On the other hand, we are informed about contacts with the Ptolemaic Egypt in the 3rd century BC (BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, pp. 101-103 nrr. 57-59). As for Cos, it is known that the island was under Ptolemaic influence for most of the Hellenistic age (SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 90-131; HABICHT 2007, pp. 131-152). Epigraphic evidence shows constant relations between Delos and both Macedonia and Egypt (BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, pp. 187-221). In the light of these elements, Nicomedes I’s relations with Olympia, Cos and Delos may be connected with the alliance with Egypt, while only the contacts with Delos might aslo allude to the relation with Macedonia. 138 COȘKUN 2012, p. 58; KLEU 2013a: ‘It seems that there were no further armed conflicts with Antiochos I, and it might be that the Seleucids even acknowledged Nikomedes’ kingdom’. Cf. COȘKUN 2011, p. 95. 139 Cf. MEHL 1986, p. 322; GRAINGER 2007, pp. 178 (‘Perforce he accepted the independence of Bithynia and the Northern League’), 182, 190. On the Galatians’ attacks over poleis, see STROBEL 1996, pp. 257-264;

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

69

Traces of recognition of the Bithynian kingdom may be detected in Nicomedes I’s international contacts140. According to Memnon141, Nicomedes appointed Heraclea, Byzantium, Cius, Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II as guardians of his still infant heirs. The mention of Heraclea and Byzantium is not surprising142. They were members of the Northern League and Nicomedes’ allies. In light of Memnon’s words, scholars143 take note of the fact that Cius was included in Nicomedes’ network and in the Northern League. And yet, there is no evidence of contacts between Nicomedes I and the city. This keeps open the possibility that Memnon (or Photius) makes a wrong quotation of Cierus, which was for certain a member of the Northern League since the time of the war against Zipoites144. The mention of Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II show that Nicomedes was in friendly relations with Macedonia and Egypt. He was presumably allied with them, as he was with the Propontic cities. The first contacts with Antigonus Gonatas date back to the eary 270s. Nicomedes had hired him as a soldier of fortune in the war against Antiochus I145. As far as we see from Nicomedes’ will, the friendly relations earlier established turned into an alliance after Antigonus became king of Macedonia. The earliest explicit quotation of the alliance between Egypt and Bithynia is in Ziaelas’ letter to Cos (242 BC)146 but it is inferred from Memnon that this alliance already existed under Nicomedes I147. It is difficult to say when it was signed. The terminus post quem is derived from the beginning of Ptolemaic interest in the Black Sea area in the 270s BC148. Some scholars149 connect this alliance with the First Syrian War that Ptolemy II was fighting

COȘKUN 2011 p. 87; COȘKUN 2012, p. 58. About the First Syrian War, see HÖLB 2001, pp. 36-38; GRAINGER 2010, pp. 73-87. 140 DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 204; BRAUND 1984, p. 146; GABELKO 2005, p. 198. 141 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1. 142 GABELKO 2005, p. 199 notes the absence of Chalcedon, and argues that it testifies to the weakening of the city at the time of Nicomedes’ will. 143 NIESE 1899, p. 136; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 26; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 203; VITUCCI 1953, p. 30; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 787; HABICHT 1972c, col. 389; WILL 1979, p. 246; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 168-169; BITTNER 1998, p. 81; GABELKO 2005, pp. 198-199; CORSTEN 2013; DAVAZE 2013, p. 387. 144 Cf. MEYER 1897, col. 516; MCGING 1986, p. 21; contra SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 168-169. 145 See above pp. 46-47. 146 RC 25, ll. 22-24; see below Appendix nr. 8. 147 RC 25, p. 123; VÉLISSAROPOULOS 1980, p. 163; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 78. 148 RC 25, p. 123. On the Ptolemaic interest in the Black Sea area, see OTTO 1931, pp. 408-410; SHIPLEY 1987, p. 186; ARCHIBALD 2007; MARQUAILLE 2008, pp. 46-47; GALLOTTA 2010, pp. 97-99. About the socalled ‘Isis-fresco’ attesting to a Ptolemaic fleet in the Pontic area, see also BASCH 1985; VINOGRADOV 1999. 149 OTTO 1931, pp. 400-410; WILL 1979, pp. 246-247; AVRAM 2003, pp. 1186-1187; ARCHIBALD 2007, p. 258.

70

ELOISA PAGANONI

against Antiochus I in those years. Nicomedes I could have seemed a possible ally to Ptolemy II. Anyway, no source mentions the involvement of him in that war. And there is also no evidence of clashes in the Propontic area during that conflict. One can admit that the Ptolemaic-Bithynian alliance may have had an anti-Seleucid aim. But this was neither the only nor the main one. The alliance is probably to be framed within Ptolemaic policies to establish hegemony over the Aegean and trade routes to the Black Sea, which also included the control of the League of Islanders and the contacts with the cities of Asia Minor150. Under Nicomedes I, Bithynia became the pivot point of a complex network. Nicomedes I allied with Antigonus Gonatas, who was allied with Antiochus I151. The latter frowned upon the rise of Bithynia but was involved in other matters, including the war against Ptolemy II. This one was an ally of Nicomedes I and an enemy of Antigonus Gonatas in the Chremonidean War152. This delicate balance gives an indication of the diplomatic skills of Nicomedes I, and most of all, of the increasing importance the kingdom of Bithynia in the Hellenistic world. 4. THE TRADITIONAL PORTRAYAL POLITY INTERACTION

OF

NICOMEDES I, HELLENISATION

AND

PEER

It is difficult to define Hellenisation without providing an interpretation of this complex phenomenon at the same time. Rachel Mairs has recently made a good attempt in this sense. She states that ‘Hellenization refers to the spread of Greek culture and its adoption by non-Greek peoples’153. Traces of this phenomenon survive in many aspects, from language to arts, from religion to architecture154. For the nature of the evidence, the study of this phenomenon is limited nearly exclusively to highbrow culture. Hellenization is traditionally interpreted in terms of acculturation155. In the 150 Cf. ROSTOVZEFF 1941, p. 568; GABELKO 2005, p. 192, who insists on the impact of the alliance with Ptolemy II on political and economic development of Bithynia. About Ptolemaic ambitions, see WILL 1979, pp. 184-186 (with particular reference to the Ptolemaic-Rhodian relationships); BURASELIS 2013. About their economic aim, CRISCUOLO 2013, pp. 161-163. On the League of Islanders, see BURASELIS 1982, pp. 6087; CONSTANTAKOPOULOU 2012; KOEHN 2013; MEADOWS 2013; MARCHESINI 2017. On the relations between the Ptolemies and the poleis of Asia Minor, see GRABOWSKI 2013; TOMASZ 2014. 151 See above pp. 54-55 n. 47, 69-70. 152 On this war, see HEINEN 1972, pp. 95-213; HÖLB 2001, pp. 38-41; O’NEIL 2008. 153 MAIRS 2013. 154 BINDER 1998, coll. 301-314. 155 BINDER 1998, col. 301; cf. MAIRS 2013; MICHELS 2013a, pp. 283-284; FINN 2014.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

71

Hellenistic period, this approach produces the image of a GraecoMacedonian ruling class (mainly embodied by kings of the Macedonian dynasties) intent on spreading Greek culture among non-Greek peoples through a series of ‘Hellenising/philhellenic’ acts, such as foundations of cities, donations to Greek sanctuaries, euergetic acts towards poleis, use of Greek artistic and iconographic models. Through these practices, scholars try to measure the ‘level of Hellenisation’, or in other words, how far Greek culture spread. As for Bithynia, the first chapter of the monograph by Fernoux is illustrative of this approach. It is devoted to the Hellénisation de la Bithynie and includes the sub-chapter Le philhellénisme et l’évergétisme de rois de Bithynie, composed of three paragraphs: Fondations et rifondations des cités, Les émissions royales en argent et bronze and Les relations avec les autres monarchie hellénistiques et les cités de Grèce et de Ionie156. As for Nicomedes I, this approach produces the portrait of the philhellenic king par excellence. In her contribution with the meaningful subheading The Bithynian Kings and the Greek Culture, Hannestad157 gives the paragraph concerning Nicomedes I the title The First Philhellene. At the end of her analysis, she concludes: ‘In all three aspects, (1) the relations to Greek cities/sanctuaries, (2) the minting of coins, and (3) the foundation of cities, Nikomedes set a new standard for a Bithynian king’158. Similar assessments are sprinkled throughout the major essays on the kingdom of Bithynia159. They entail what Martin Schottky claims explicitly: Nicomedes I did so ‘um sein Land zu hellenisieren’160. Since Nicomedia became 156 FERNOUX 2004, pp. 34-64; cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 21: ‘Traditionally these Boteirid activities (i.e. the ‘Hellenising’ activities of the kings of Bithynia) have been ascribed to a simple policy of philhellenism’. 157 HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 74-76. 158 HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 75-76. 159 MEYER 1897, col. 517: ‘Nikomedes wie ein griechischer Fürst’, and ‘rasch wurde die Stadt (i.e. Nicomedia) eine der Hauptstädte des neuen Hellenismus’; NIESE 1899, p. 81: ‘(Nicomedes) gründete… eine neue hellenistische Stadt, Nikomedeia; denn auch er hatte das lebhafte Bestreben, sich der hellenistischen Welt einzufügen’; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568: ‘This (i.e. the foundation of Nicomedia) was a decisive act, designed to present Nicomedes to the the Greek world as one of the group of rulers who formed the Hellenistic balance of power, a Greek king, with a Greek name, and a Greek capital’; VITUCCI 1953, p. 28: ‘attraverso la nuova capitale si apriva una delle vie maestre per accogliere e diffondere nel paese la cultura e la civiltà ellenica’; WILSON 1960, p. 461; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 787: ‘Noch war er vor allem an der zivilisatorischen Seite des griechischen Lebens interessieret’; KOBES 1996, p. 84: ‘Im Gegensatz zu seinem Sohn und Nachfolger Nikomedes I., der durch seine philhellenische Ausrichtung Bithynien für die griechische Welt öffnete, sind soche Aktivitäten für Zipoites fast nicht belegt’; SCHOTTKY 2000; SARTRE 2003, p. 69: ‘Zipoitès restait largement un dynaste barbare, malgré son titre grec, et ce n’est qu’avec Nicomède Ier que la monarchie bithynienne s’affiche du côté des souverains grecs’; GABELKO 2005, p. 193; KLEU 2013a: ‘Nikomedes I is considered as the first philhellene on the Bithynian throne’. 160 SCHOTTKY 2000, col. 930.

72

ELOISA PAGANONI

the cultural centre of Bithynia, the communis opinio adds another feature to the portrayal of Nicomedes I: an interest in the arts161. In this way, an idealised image of him becomes established. Antonio Corso sums up it optimally: ‘Questi (i.e. Nicomedes I) fu il re più importante così appellato... in quanto fu un grande ellenizzatore della Bitinia e un amante delle arti’162. Aside from the doubts about a special interest of Nicomedes I in the arts163, it is worth noting that, Nicomedes I is considered the most important among the Bithynian kings in view of this fame as a philhelleneic sovereign164. In scholars’ eyes, Hellenising acts render Nicomedes I a ‘true’ king. The assessments, thus, split from the cultural to political-military level. Scholars propose evaluations about Nicomedes I’s policies and their impact on the history of Bithynia in the light of this ideal portrayal. Warwick Wroth defines him as ‘the true founder of the kingdom’165. William W. Tarn writes: ‘Bithynia was fighting for her separate existence as a nation; and while her people were still uncivilised enough to cling passionately to their national independence, their king was sufficiently inclined to the ideas of Greece to add to the national resistance such strength as the science of civilisation could give’166. Nicomedes I would have wished to support poleis since the beginning of his rule. The alliance with Heraclea would have been the first sign of this new approach167. In this line, Nicomedes I would have returned the thynis gē and Cierus to Heraclea168. He would have called the Galatians into Asia to relieve Byzantium from continuous attacks169. Nicomedes’ name too has called scholars’ attention for its ‘squisitamente greco’ nature170. Hannestad argues that it was part of Nicomedes’ philhellenic politics: ‘The name may be one chose when ascending the throne – in fact this is most probable, since Thracian names were still common in the family, also in the next generation. If so, it seems in itself to be a kind of manifesto’171. E.g. BELOCH 1925, p. 534. CORSO 1990, p. 78. 163 See above pp. 62-65. 164 FELLMANN 1965, col. 478: ‘Bedeutendste Herrschergestalt ist Nikomedes’; CORSO 1990, p. 78; SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 21 assumes that Nicomedes I became a model for his successors who just imitated him in their philhellenic policy. 165 BMC Bithynia, p. XXXVIII. 166 TARN 1913, p. 162. 167 MAGIE 1950, p. 310; SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 20-21. 168 GABELKO 2006, p. 222; SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 22-24. 169 MITCHELL 1993, pp. 15-16; SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 21. 170 VITUCCI 1953, p. 26, cf. p. 130: ‘una svolta piena di significato rappresenta sul principio del III secolo il comparire del nome di Nicomede’. Cf. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 568. 171 HANNESTAD 1996, p. 74; cf. SCHOLTEN 2007, pp. 21-22. Athenaeus deals with Traian’ cook, who served oysters to the emperor in a location far from the sea. At the end of the account he (Athen. I, 7d, 13) 161 162

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

73

These assessments show the effects of the misleading interpretation considering Hellenisation a phenomenon of acculturation. The enlighted non-Greek king Nicomedes recognised the superiority of Greek civilization over indigenous barbarism172. So, he did his best to present himself as a Hellenistic sovereign and to spread Greek culture among his subjects. These ones are depicted as passive part of this acculturation process. Such an approach has produced an ideal image of Nicomedes I, and this image has been used as ‘lens’ to interpret his deeds in a sort of ‘ring-interpretation’. All become an expression of Nicomedes’ admiration for the Greek world. This traditional assessment of Nicomedes I’s reign was already questioned several decades ago. It was highlighted that some acts, among which the alliance with the Galatians, looked all but ‘philhellene’. According to Vitucci, on that occasion, Nicomedes ‘era ben lontano dall’ispirare la sua politica ai sentimenti filellenici’173. David Magie characterised Nicomedes I as follows: ‘There was little of the Hellene in Nicomedes, apart from his Grecian name. His portrait, as it appears on his coins, shows a coarsefeatured man of a barbarian type... At the outset of his reign, indeed, he showed himself no friend of Hellenism; for by his invitation to the lawless Galatians... he introduced into Asia Minor a foe who for years to come terrorised the cities of the western seaboard. Nevertheless, Nicomedes played the part of a Greek king; for his coins show the likenesses of Greek gods, and his foundation of Nicomedia, although his primary purpose was doubtlessly to obtain a port on the Propontis, was... in conformity with the current Hellenistic practice. He also succeeded in obtaining recognition in the Greek world’174. adds: οὐχ ὡς Νικομήδει τῷ Βιθυνῶν βασιλεῖ ἐπιθυμήσαντι ἀφύης ῾μακρὰν δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἦν τῆς θαλάσσης᾿ μάγειρός τις μιμησάμενος τὸ ἰχθύδιον παρέθηκεν [ὡς ἀφύας] (‘not like the sham anchovies which the cook of Nicomedes, king of the Bithynians, made in imitation of the real fish, and set before the king, when he expressed a wish for anchovies, and he too at the time was a long way from the sea’). The same anecdote is told in the Suda s.v. Ἀφύα ἐς πῦρ, but the version of Athenaeus is more interesting to us because it records the source, the third-century-BC Athenian comic poet Euphro (Athen. I, 7d, 13 = Euphro F 10 Kassel – Austin, PCG). This proves that the protagonist of this curious episode could be no-one but Nicomedes I (cf. MEINEKE 1839, p. 478; Kock, CAF, vol. III, p. 324; Kassel – Austin, PCG, vol. V, p. 291; CANFORA 2001, p. 24 n. 2; GABELKO 2017, p. 327). The episode suggests that Nicomedes I appreciated the culinary arts, and according to SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 787, it also mirrors the influence of the Greek culture on Nicomedes I. 172 TARN 1913, p. 162; EDDY 1961, p. 169: ‘The kings of Kappadocia, Pontos and Bithynia were actual Hellenizers partly, perhaps, because they deemed it expedient, but partly, too, because Hellenism was fascinating’. 173 VITUCCI 1953, p. 26. 174 MAGIE 1950, pp. 311-312.

74

ELOISA PAGANONI

Recently scholars are distancing themselves from the concept of Hellenization as acculturation175. Some have proposed to definitively abandon the category of Hellenization176. The problem, however, is not the category of Hellenization in itself. It is a matter of fact that at some point nonGreek people acquired some uses typical of Greek culture. The point is the interpretation of this phenomenon. A framework which is gathering increasing attention from historians is the Peer Polity Interaction model. It explains cultural change as a consequence of the interaction between peer, i.e. independent and structurally analogous socio-political units, that coexist in a region without prevailing one on another177. Among the interactions significant to understand cultural changes, Peer Polity Interaction includes competitive emulation and symbolic entertainment178. Socio-political units of a region develop a shared ‘symbolic map’ made of values and symbols, through which they recognise each other as peers. This interpretative model has been adopted to read some aspects of Hellenistic culture. John Ma first used it to explain syngeneia and asylia politics among Greek cities179. Scholten has used it to interpret the rise of the Bithynian kingdom as the result of competitive relations between the Bithynians and bordering realms newly arisen180. Michels has proposed an insightful analysis of cultural politics of the kings of Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia according to this model181. This new approach may be the path to a better understanding of the phenomenon of Hellenization. It firstly highlights that it concerned ‘peers’. In regard to the present work, this allows us to focus on kings and élites and to set aside the thorny question of the effect of Hellenization over non-elite classes. Secondly, this framework turns Hellenization from an aim into a means182. Nicomedes I did not carry out a ‘mindless philhellenism’183. He was following the example of the other Hellenistic monarchs184. He was not aiming to ‘hellenize’ the Bithynians. He was presenting himself as a (Hellenistic) king. He was carrying out acts that were considered ‘worthy of a king’ to be recog-

On the use of the category of acculturation in the current debate, see GIANGIULIO 2010. MAIRS 2013. 177 RENFREW 1986. 178 RENFREW 1986, pp. 8-9. 179 MA 2003. 180 SCHOLTEN 2007. 181 MICHELS 2009; MICHELS 2013a. 182 SHERWIN-WHITE – KUHRT 1993: ‘‘hellenisation’ is an adjunct, not an aim of imperialism’. 183 SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 23. 184 Cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 76: ‘(Nicomedes I) adopted the image of a Graeco-Macedonian ruler’. 175 176

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

75

nised as such. It entailed following the Graeco-Macedonian model of basileia, which required philhellenic acts, as well as the patronage of arts, foundations of cities, use of iconographic patterns etc. Hellenization was the tool to obtain legitimatisation in front of the Greek world185. In this view – we can conclude – Nicomedes I was a capable strategist, an expert diplomat and a great ideologue186. He supported his military and political successes with a propaganda machine depicting him as a Hellenistic king. Scholars often contrast Nicomedes I with his father Zipoites187. The former is presented as the ‘champion of Greekness’, the latter as the emblem of the Thracian (i.e. barbarian) tradition. These assessments overlook the Thracian elements in Nicomedes I’s politics and the Greek ones in Zipoites’. Nicomedes’ coinage contains clear references to the Thracian tradition188. As for onomastics, Nicomedes’ daughter bore a Greek name, Lysandra, but two of his sons had Thracian names189. With regard to Zipoites, he first introduced a Greek name in the Bithynian dynasty, naming his first-born Nicomedes, founded a settlement with his own name, and most of all, took the title of basileus190. These acts got a start to the Hellenisation policies of the Bithynian kings. Michels thus rightly notes that Nicomedes I ‘nicht nur in die Tradition der Diadochen sonder auch die seines Vater stellte’191. The reference to the Thracian elements in Nicomedes’ propaganda invites us to make a final remark about his cultural policies. As already said, they allude to the ethnicity of the Bithynians. They may be considered the expression of a national tendency. In this view, we can say that the Hellenistic model provided the ‘language of propaganda’ – or the ‘grammar’ – but those who broadcasted the message (kings and dynasts) decided the tones and contours of the content. As far as we can see, Nicomedes proudly

185 HANNESTAD 1996, p. 67 claims that through Hellenising acts the Bithynian kings aimed ‘to become member of the exclusive club of the Hellenistic rulers’; GABELKO 2005, p. 197; MICHELS 2009, esp. pp. 343-350; MICHELS 2013. 186 Cf. GABELKO 2017, p. 327 who defines Nicomedes I as an ‘energetic ruler, talented general and diplomat’. 187 E.g. KOBES 1996, p. 84; SARTRE 2003, p. 68. 188 See above pp. 65-66. 189 According to Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29), Nicomedes had three sons from his first wife: Prusias, Ziaelas and Lysandra. Cf. GLEW 2005, pp. 134-135, who argues that Nicomedes called his daughter Lysandra in honour of Ptolemy I’s daughter. HABICHT 1972c, coll. 388-389 assumes that Arrian’s passage mixes up information about Nicomedes I’s, Ziaelas’ and Prusias I’s sons and daughters. In his opinion, Lysandra was Prusias I’s daughter. According to BELOCH 1927, pp. 212-213 and MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196 n. 36, Arrian means here Prusias Monodous (about him, see below p. 128 n. 194). 190 See above pp. 37-43 191 MICHELS 2009, p. 271.

76

ELOISA PAGANONI

claimed this national feature of his power also in front of the Greek world and the other Hellenistic kings. 5. FROM NICOMEDES I TO ZIAELAS After the death of his first wife, Nicomedes I married Etazeta, a woman of unknown origin192. According to Memnon, she was at the origin of the dynastic crisis that began at Nicomedes’ death: After a very short lapse of time, since Zeilas, the son born to him from an earlier marriage, had been victim of the plot of his stepmother Etazeta and had gone into exile to the king of the Armenians, the king of the Bithynians Nicomedes appointed as his heirs in his will the sons born to him from his second wife. Shortly before dying, because the heirs born to him from Etazeta were infants, he appointed as their guardians Ptolemy, Antigonus and the people of Byzantium, Heraclea and Cius193.

As far as we read in Memnon, Etazeta pressured Nicomedes I to expel from Bithynia Ziaelas194, the son born to him from his first wife, and to appoint her sons as heirs. It was necessary to appoint some guardians because Etazeta’s sons were still children. They were chosen among the allies of Nicomedes I: Byzantium, Heraclea, Cius (or maybe Cierus)195, Ptolemy II and Antigonus Gonatas. This impressive list of some of the most important powers in the time displayed Nicomedes’ contact network. By his will – it has been argued – Nicomedes I intended to renew the Northern League to strengthen the anti192 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1. Etazeta is the name’s form in Memnon. About the possible correction to Eptazeta, see CORSTEN 2006, p. 121; cf. LGPN V.A, p. 161. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 29-30 used the form Heptazeta (cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 389). About the death of Nicomedes’ first wife, see Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29; Plin. NH VIII, 144; above pp. 59-60 n. 69. 193 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1: Οὐ πολλοῦ δὲ πάνυ ῥυέντος χρόνου, ὁ τῶν Βιθυνῶν βασιλεὺς Νικομήδης, ἐπεὶ ὁ μὲν ἐκ προτέρων αὐτῶι γάμων γεγονὼς παῖς Ζηίλας φυγὰς ἦν πρὸς τὸν τῶν ᾽Αρμενίων βασιλέα, ταῖς τῆς μητρυιᾶς ᾽Εταζέτας μηχαναῖς ἐλαθείς, οἱ δὲ ἐκ ταύτης αὐτῶι γεγονότες ἐνηπίαζον, πρὸς τῶι τελευτᾶν γεγονώς, κληρονόμους μὲν τοὺς μὲν ἐκ τῆς δευτέρας γυναικὸς γράφει παῖδας, ἐπιτρόπους δὲ Πτολεμαῖον καὶ ᾽Αντίγονον καὶ τὸν δῆμον τῶν Βυζαντίων καὶ δὴ καὶ τῶν ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν καὶ τὸν τῶν Κιανῶν ἐφίστησιν. 194 The name’s form commonly used is attested in epigraphic and numismatic evidence (HABICHT 1972c, coll. 387-388; VITUCCI 1953, p. 29 n. 5; cf. LGPN V.A, p. 191; OnomThrac, pp. 393-394). Literary sources hand down several alternative forms: Ziaela (Trog. Prol. XXVII), Ζιήλα (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, FF 29, 89b; Steph. Byz s.v. Ζῆλα and Κρῆσσα; Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1), Ζιήλας (Tzetzes Chil. III, 968), Ζηίλας (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1-2; Steph. Byz s.v. Νικομήδεια and Προῦσα), Ζηλᾶς (Phylarchos BNJ 81, F 50). 195 See above p. 69.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

77

Seleucidic front196. If so, the inclusion of Antigonus Gonatas is puzzling: he was indeed Antiochus I’s brother-in-law197. Furthermore, appointing infant heirs weakened Bithynia, as it exposed the kingdom to possible attacks from the Seleucids, instead of preventing them198. Again, Memnon’s account relates a ‘domestic’, ‘dynastic’ situation. It connectes in no way with Nicomedes’ decision to the current situation in northern Anatolia. As far as we can read, Nicomedes I’s only purpose was to guarantee the succession to the sons of his second wife. It is possible that Etazeta had some role in the appointment of the guardians. She was probably aware of Ziaelas’ claim over the throne; and she did her best to safeguard the rights of her children, who were the legitimate heirs on paper. Memnon records that Ziaelas went into exile in Armenia. The Orontids, who ruled the region at that time, were trying to become independent from the Seleucids199. They were eager to support anyone who could cause instability on the borders of the Seleucid empire, and the help to Ziaelas was in alignment with their policies200. At the death of Nicomedes I, Ziaelas, as expected, marched on Bithynia. He intened to seize the throne that he considered his own as firstborn of the late king. The only information concerning the war of succession is in Memnon: Ziaelas, however, returned to the kingdom with a force, which the Tolistobogi among the Galatians had filled with courageous men for him. But the Bithynians, who were eager to preserve the power for the infants, gave their mother in marriage to the brother of Nicomedes while they themselves, receiving an army from the aforementioned guardians, awaited Ziaelas. Both sides, having suffered many battles and vicissitudes, finally reached an agreement. The Heracleans distinguished themselves in battle and achieved benefit from the arrangement. Wherefore the Galatians wasted the lands of

196 HUSS 1976, p. 98; WILL 1979, p. 246; DAVAZE 2013, p. 387; GABELKO 2005, p. 199; cf. BITTNER 1998, pp. 81-82. 197 DAVAZE 2013, p. 387. On Antigonus’ marriage with Antiochus’ sister, see above pp. 54-55 n. 47. 198 BITTNER 1998, p. 82; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 21. 199 On Armenia, see SCHOTTKY 1989; FACELLA 2006, pp. 84-86, 94-198, 217-220; KHATCHADOURIAN 2007; COLORU 2013; TRAINA 2017. According to the communis opinio (e.g. HABICHT 1972c, col. 389; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 37), the Orontid dynast who hosted Ziaelas was Adroates; according to SCHOTTKY 1989, pp. 99-100 and SCHOTTKY 2001 (cf. SCHOTTKY 2002d), it was Samos, Adroates’ successor. Cf. REDGATE 1998, p. 62. 200 SCHOTTKY 1989, pp. 104-105. These policies included hospitality and support to Ariarathes II of Cappadocia in the 280s BC (Diod. XXXI, 19, 4-5; for a status quaestionis on the date, see FACELLA 2006, pp. 164-165) and the alliance with Antiochus Hierax during the War of the Brothers (Polyaen. IV, 17; see below pp. 92-93).

78

ELOISA PAGANONI

Heraclea as far as the river Calles, as the city was an enemy, and, after taking possession of much booty they returned home201.

The short narrative records the background of the war. It deals with the moves of Ziaelas and of those who were loyal to Nicomedes I (and to Etazeta) – the ‘Bithynians’ in the text202. Then it goes on with the account of the war and the situation of Heraclea at the end of the conflict. When the news of the death of Nicomedes spread, Ziaelas hired a group of Galatians (as his father had done against his brother Zipoites203) and marched to Bithynia. Meanwhile, those loyal to the late king and to Etazeta tried to legitimate her position by marrying her off to one of Nicomedes I’s brothers204. The account of the war is lacking details, but the conflict was apparently long as Memnon records many victories and defeats on both sides205. Not one of these battles – it seems – marked the end of the war, though. The conflict finished with an agreement that recognised Ziaelas as king. Diplomatic negotiations guaranteed benefits for all those who had been involved judging from the benefits that Heraclea obtained, despite its support to Etazeta and her sons206. One of the guardians, Ptolemy II, may have been the instigator of the diplomatic solution of the war207. He and Antigonus Gonatas are supposed to have 201 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2-3: ὁ μέντοι Ζηίλας μετὰ δυνάμεως, ἣν αὐτῶι τῶν Γαλατῶν οἱ Τολοστοβόγιοι θάρσους ἐπλήρουν, ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν κατήιει, Βιθυνοὶ δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν σώιζειν τοῖς νηπίοις σπουδάζοντες τὴν μὲν τούτων μητέρα ἀδελφῶι συνοκίζουσι τῶι Νικομήδους, αὐτοὶ δὲ στράτευμα παρὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπιτρόπων λαβόντες ὑπέμενον τὸν Ζηίλαν. συχναῖς δὲ μάχαις καὶ μεταβολαῖς ἑκάτεροι ἀποχρησάμενοι, τὸ τελευταῖον κατέστησαν εἰς διαλύσεις, ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν ἐν ταῖς μάχαις ἀριστευόντων κἀν ταῖς συμβάσεσι τὸ συμφέρον καταπραττόντων. διὸ Γαλάται ὡς ἐχθρὰν τὴν ῾Ηράκλειαν κατέδραμον ἕως Κάλλητος ποταμοῦ, καὶ πολλῆς κύριοι γεγονότες λείας οἴκαδε ἀνεχώρησαν. 202 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 30; HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; DAVAZE 2013, p. 388. The ‘Bithynians’ are probably a consequence of Photius’ shortening (HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; MICHELS 2009, p. 56, n. 261). There is no reason to think that this expression points out the Bithynian people as a political player, as KOTSIDU 2000, p. 132 and AVRAM 2003, p. 1211 do. 203 See above pp.53-58; cf. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 77. 204 The previous information on Nicomedes’ brothers dates back to the beiginning of Nicomedes’ rule (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 6). HABICHT 1972c, col. 390 assumes that the one who married Etazeta was Zipoites, who had made war against Nicomedes in the 270s BC. 205 Cf. MCGING 1986, p. 21; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 99; BITTNER 1998, p. 82. Contra GRAINGER 2010 p. 131: ‘Ziaelas’ coup was quickly successful’. 206 According to GABELKO 2005, pp. 206-207, Heraclea had some advantages from the agreement because it had led the negotiations between Ziaelas and the party hostile to him. 207 The actual involvement of him and Antigonus Gonatas in the military operations is questioned (TARN 1913, pp. 326-327; RC, p. 123; MCGING 1986, p. 21; GABELKO 2005, p. 201; GRAINGER 2010, p. 131). But there is no decisive argument to rule out that they contributed to the guardians’ coalition in some measure (Cf. DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, pp. 204-205; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 219-221; GRAINGER 2010, p. 131; DAVAZE 2013, p. 389). VITUCCI 1953, p. 30 argues that the negotiation was promoted by Heraclea, but he adds in n. 5: ‘A meno che la parte di primo piano da essi (i.e. the Heracleans) avuta in queste vicende non sia da ascrivere in gran parte al particolare colorito della tradizione, rappresentata unicamente dall’eracleota Memnone’.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

79

disagreed about the succession to the throne of Bithynia. This is inferred from their differing attitudes toward Ziaelas after he became king208. When Ziaelas became king, the ousted heirs (and probably their mother) sought asylum in Macedonia; it is possible that they benefitted from Antigonus’ protection209. Throughout Ziaelas’ reign, then, there is no evidence of contacts between Bithynia and Macedonia. These circumstances are read as an echo of the hostility of Antigonus Gonatas to Ziaelas. Antigonus seems to have never recognised Ziaelas as the legitimate sovereign. On the other hand, the relationships of Bithynia and Egypt not only continued but also strengthened under Ziaelas210. Contrary to Antigonus, therefore, Ptolemy II accepted Ziaelas as king at some point. His change of mind was probably linked to his interests in the Hellespont. The war of succession had caused insecurity in the Propontic area and it had weakened Bithynia211. This situation may have turned in favour of Antiochus II, who again was showing some interest in the Propontis almost at the same time212. Ptolemy II could have preferred to default on his duties as guardian rather than to lose a strategic ally, such as Bithynia. The Propontic cities had been worn down by the long war of succession at their borders. They likely welcomed the proposal of Ptolemy II to solve the war with diplomatic negotiations. They accepted Ziaelas as king without objections, also for the advantages that the treaty probably granted them213. However, the agreement did not safeguard Heraclea against the raids of the Galatians. The mercenaries of Ziaelas plundered the chōra of the city as far as the river Cales, which Memnon called Calles214. The chronology of the Bithynian war of succession is debated. Terminus post quem is the latest episode of Nicomedes I’s reign dated with some certainty, Nicomedia’s foundation, that is placed between 266/5 and 261/0 BC215. The war occurred when both Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II 208 DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 204; SAPRYKIN 1997, pp. 219-221; GABELKO 2005, p. 201; GRAINGER 2010, p. 131; DAVAZE 2013, p. 389. 209 Polyb. IV, 50, 1 (see below p. 103); BERVE 1902, p. 173; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 204; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504; HABICHT 1972c, col. 390; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 219. 210 RC 25; see below p. 86 and Appendix nr. 8. 211 BITTNER 1998, p. 82. 212 Cf. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 15 records a siege to Byzantium by Antiochus II; see below pp. 80-81 n. 221. 213 DAVAZE 2013, p. 389: ‘Ces derniers (i.e. the Propontic cities) devaient juger préférable de mettre fin à une guerre qui, à la longue, aurait pu affaiblir la région et causer des dégâts à ses territoires qui se trouvaient à la frontière du royaume en guerre. Peut-être en retirèrent-ils des avantages d’ordre économique’. 214 HABICHT 1972c, col. 391 thinks that the booty from plundering could be the reward for support to Ziaelas. According to DAVAZE 2013, pp. 390-391, the raids of the Galatians occurred before the agreement, and so they were part of Ziaelas’ operations against Heraclea. For the identification of the river Calles in Memnon with the river Cales, cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 391; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 3, Commentary. 215 VITUCCI 1953, p. 29; HABICHT 1972c, col. 389. On the foundation of Nicomedia, see above pp. 60-61.

80

ELOISA PAGANONI

were still alive. So Ptolemy’s death in 246 BC is the terminus ante quem216. The war can be dated more closely on the basis of some clues. Nicomedes’ first wife was buried in Nicomedia217. Accordingly her death and Nicomedes’ marriage with Etazeta took place after the foundation of the city. In addition, Ziaelas was likely exiled shortly after the second marriage of his father. Some scholars think that Zialeas left Bithynia in about 260 BC218. In this case, these events (the foundation of the city, Nicomedes I’s second marriage and Ziaelas’ exile) should be placed within a timespan of six years at most. Although it is possible, this timespan was likely longer. Accordingly, the latest of these events (Ziaelas’ flight to Armenia) should be set in the early 250s BC219. Nicomedes’ marriage with Etazeta should have taken place shortly before or even almost at the same time. Nicomedes I’s death should have occurred some years later, after he had more than one child from Etazeta. Accordingly, he died as early as 255 BC, but more probably some time later220. The Bithynian war of succession lasted a few years and presumably ended by the 250s BC221. 216 HABICHT 1972c, coll. 389-390. For the date of Ptolemy II’s death, see e.g. NADIG 2013. Some scholars propose as terminus ante quem the letter of Ziaelas to Cos (RC 25; HERZOG 1905, pp. 178-179; VITUCCI 1953, p. 31; HABICHT 1972c, col. 389), but against this see below pp. 177-178 217 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29. 218 HABICHT 1972c, col. 389; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 37; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 100. 219 Cf. SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 255 and SCHOTTKY 2002d, dating the exile of Ziaelas to 255 BC. 220 MEYER 1897, col. 517 and GEYER 1936, col. 494 think that Nicomedes died in c. 260 BC. TARN 1913, p. 327 n. 38 and HABICHT 1972c, col. 390 assume that Nicomedes I’s will dated back to a period when Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II were on friendly terms. Thus they date it to 255-253 BC. At that time – they think – Antigonus Gonatas and Ptolemy II withdrew from the Second Syrian War and signed a separate peace (Cf. I.Callatis, p. 244. On the Second Syrian War, see WILL 1979, pp. 234-239; GRAINGER 2010, pp. 117-136). Accordingly, they date Nicomedes’ death to about the same period (cf. SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 100; MITCHELL 1993, p. 19; SCHOTTKY 2000; AVRAM 2003, p. 1184; GABELKO 2005, p. 198; HEINEMANN 2010, p. 230; COȘKUN 2011, p. 96; ROBU 2014b, p. 20). Against their argument, it is to be noted that Antigonus’ participation in this war is conjectural (WILL 1979, pp. 238-239; cf. GRAINGER 2010, pp. 117-136). Secondly, there is no proof that the alliance of Nicomedes I with Antigonus and Ptolemy was necessarily connected to the good relations between the two kings. BERVE 1902, p. 173 dates the death of Nicomedes to about 250 BC and VITUCCI 1953, p. 31 to the early 240s BC. 221 HERZOG 1905, pp. 178-179; VITUCCI 1953, p. 31; JONES 1971, p. 150; HARRIS 1980, p. 281; SCHOTTKY 2002d; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, Commentary. Memnon, our only source on the mid-thrid-century-BC situation in the Propontis, deals with four other events close to the Bithynian war of succession: 1) the war of Istros and Callatis against Byzantium over the emporion of Tomis (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 13, 1-3; VULIĆ 1916, col. 2269; VULIĆ 1919, col. 1611; DANOFF 1962, col. 1417; BITTNER 1998, p. 68; I.Callatis, pp. 26-32, 241-244; VON BREDOW 2002c, col. 672; AVRAM 2003, pp. 1211-1212; HEINEMANN 2010, pp. 228-229; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 379-384; TALMAŢCHI 2016, p. 444); 2) the siege of Byzantium by a king identified with Antiochus II (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 15, 1; for the identification, e.g. Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 15, Commentary; contra GRAINGER 1997, pp. 35-36 thinks of Antiochus Hierax; about the siege, see WILL 1979, pp. 247-248; I.Callatis, pp. 26-32; AVRAM 2003, p. 1212; HEINEMANN 2010, p. 232; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 391-395); 3) the aid of Heraclea to Mithridates II against the Galatians (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 16, 1-3; WILL 1979, p. 292; MCGING 1986, p. 21; SAPRYKIN 1997,

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

81

6. ZIAELAS IN HIS FATHER’S FOOTSTEPS The earliest attestation of Ziaelas as king is the letter to Cos that granted the asylia to the sanctuary of Asclepius on the occasion of the Asklepieia becoming a Panhellenic festival in 242 BC222. It is the only letter that can be for certain ascribed to a Bithynian king223. But this is not the main reason of its importance. This fifty-line document contains the key elements that trace Ziaelas’ policies regarding international relations and propaganda. In this regard, it preserves the famous statement that is considered the manifesto of the cultural policies of the whole Bithynian dynasty224: We exercise care of all Greeks, who come to us, because we are convinced that it contributes in no small way to one’s reputation225.

By these few words, Ziaelas revealed the reason behind philhellenic acts. They served to increase his reputation (and so his political posip. 232; BITTNER 1998, p. 86; HEINEMANN 2010, pp. 233-235; Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 16, Commentary; DAVAZE 2013, p. 395-396.); 4) a donation to Heraclea by a king (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 17, 1), who could be either Ptolemy II (MAGIE 1950, p. 310; HABICHT 1970, pp. 116-121; MCGING 1986, p. 19; I.Callatis, pp. 26-32; AVRAM 2003, p. 1212; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 398-402; cf. Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 17, Commentary) or Ptolemy III (Jacoby, FGrHist 434, F 1, 17, 1, Commentary, p. 278; HENRY 1965, p. 67 n. 3; HEINEMANN 2010, pp. 235-237; cf. Keaveney – Madden, Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 17, Commentary). Memnon provides a relative chronology of these episodes that are to be set between the mid-260s BC and 246 BC (if Memnon mentions Ptolemy II), or 222 BC (if Memnon mentions Ptolemy III). It is nearly impossible to date them more closely. Scholars yet look for any connection with the Bithynian war of succession that Memnon places shortly after the war over Tomis (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1-3). Antiochus II is supposed to have supported Ziaelas (SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 231; D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141 n. 406). In this way, scholars assume a situation similar to 279-277 BC, when Antiochus I aided Zipoites against Nicomedes I (see above pp. 57-58). Avram (I.Callatis, pp. 26-32, 241-244; AVRAM 2003, followed by DAVAZE 2013, pp. 379-402) goes further and depicts one coherent frame in which all the events recorded in Memnon are interrelated. In particular, he assumes a connection between the war over Tomis, Ptolemy II’s intervention in the Propontis and the Bithynian war of succession. Both these hypotheses are in fact speculative (cf. WILL 1979, pp. 246-247). Furthermore, Avram’s hypothesis is based on his new edition of I.Callatis 7, which is not convincing for many reasons. There is no room to fully discuss them here, but for some critical remarks, see ROBU 2014b, pp. 22-25 who follows and adjusts the edition in MANOV 2001. 222 RC 25; see below Appendix nr. 8. 223 A letter to Aphrodisias/Plarasa (I.Aph2007 8.24) has been attributed to Nicomedes IV since the first edition in Reynolds A&R, p. 21 nr. 4 (cf. McCabe, Aphrodisias 36; JONES 1985; SEG 35 [1985] 1083). This proposal is generally accepted, even if with some reservations (e.g. BE 1983, 365, p. 151; MILLAR 2002, p. 225 n. 41; CHANIOTIS 2004, p. 385). However, it is highly speculative: the only surviving letters of the sender’s name are δη̣ (l. 1) and the text contains no reference to Bithynia. On alternative proposals about the sender, see REYNOLDS 1973, pp. 115-113; JONES 1985, pp. 316-317. 224 RC 25, p. 122: ‘of the philhellenic policy of the Bithynian dynasty no better monument exists than this letter’; VITUCCI 1953, p. 31; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 77-78; MICHELS 2009, pp. 60-61. 225 RC 25, ll. 11-17: ἡμεῖς δὲ πάν|των μὲν τῶν ἀφικνουμένω[ν] | πρὸς ἡμᾶς Ἑλλήνων τυγχάνο|μεν τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμε|νοι, πεπεισμένοι πρὸς δόξαν οὐ | μικρὸν συμβάλλεσθαι τὸ μέρος | τοῦτο.

82

ELOISA PAGANONI

tion) in front of the Greek world. Scholars still refuse to acknowledge the importance of this insightful, disenchanted statement. Hannestad claims: ‘The passage in Ziaelas’ letter even more strongly and with strange naivety expresses the foreign, barbarian king’s motive for complying with the Coan request’226. Michels says: ‘Für die Deutung der Beweggründe des Ziaëlas ist außerdem von Interesse, daß Burstein227 πεπεισμένοι als »being persuaded« übersetzt. Die Wendung wäre so eher als Aufnahme der Argumentation der koishen Gesandten zu deuten den als Zeugnis einer generellen Gesinnung des bithynischen Königs’228. Ziaelas is portrayed as a little more than a barbarian ruler. His claim reflects a naïve behaviour (Hannestad), or someone else’s suggestion (Michels). The shadow of Nicomedes I – traditionally the champion of Hellenization – lingers over Ziaelas. This tendency also dominates the evaluations about other aspects of Ziaelas’ politics, starting from coinage. A few coins minted during his reign are known, and all of them are specimens of the same bronze series229. On the obverse they bear the king’s head with the diadem. On the reverse, they have the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ] [Ζ]ΙΑΗΛ[Α] and a trophy with shield, helmet and lance. The absence of silver coinage is considered indicative of Ziaelas’ attitude towards Hellenization. Maurice Sartre writes: ‘Ziaèlas revient à une politique moins philhellène, se contentant de poursuivre sans innover la politique de son père... Il se contente d’un monnayage de bronze’230. About Ziaelas’ cultural policies, Hannestad concludes: ‘this philhellenic attitude does not seem to be very active on the part of Ziaelas, but rather a passive continuation of a policy of his predecessor. Such a not very active policy may also be reflected in Ziaelas’ use of his Thracian name as king and by the fact that apparently minted only bronze coins, and that in very limited quantity’231. As with Zipoites, Ziaelas is considered a ‘barbarian’ (i.e. non-hellenised) king. Scholars are reluctant to admit that Ziaelas continued the politics of his father. Even with incontrovertible evidence in this sense, they hasten to specify that Ziaelas was ‘less hellenised’ than his father.

HANNESTAD 1996, p. 78. BURSTEIN 2003, p. 225. 228 MICHELS 2009, pp. 60-61. 229 For the list, see SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 33-34. On Ziaelas’ coinage, see REINACH 1888, pp. 101-102; BMC Bithynia, p. xl; SEVRUGIAN 1973; MICHELS 2009, pp. 162-163; HOOVER 2012, p. 209. 230 SARTRE 2003, p. 69. 231 HANNESTAD 1996, p. 78; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 162. 226 227

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

83

They look unsuccessfully for ‘barbarian’ traces. The absence of silver coinage, indeed, might be due to lack of evidence. Ziaelas’s Thracian name speaks more of Nicomedes’ politics than Ziaelas himself. It contributes to revealing the Thracian/national component in propaganda of Ziaelas’ predecessor. Instead, many elements prove that Ziaelas not only pursued politics in line with those of his father but was also ‘even more “Hellenistic”’ of him232. In reference to the numismatic evidence, the coin portrait recalls that of Nicomedes I233. Iconography presented Ziaelas to his people as a victorious leader according to a tendency we also find in the coinage of Nicomedes I and other Hellenistic kings234. Granting asylia was one of the acts Hellenistic kings used to express their patronage over Greek sanctuaries. Besides the political and diplomatic implications, it was a tool of prestige. The choice to write a letter to communicate with the Coans is meaningful. The letter was the most representative form of document used by Hellenistic kings; and remarkably Ziaelas’ one proposes the key features of the Hellenistic epistolography in form and style235. Ziaelas founded a settlement and named it after himself236. In fact, Ziaelas imitated the Hellenistic kings, like his grandfather and his father. Or better, like other Hellenistic sovereigns, he drew on the shared canons of Graeco-Macedonian basileia. Ziaelas went a step further. He disclosed the reason behind philhellenic acts. It was a matter of δόξα, ‘reputation’, or ‘prestige’. He proved (and even showed frankly) to be aware of the game of self-representation he was called to play to be recognised as king. After demonstrating that Ziaelas was a worthy successor of Zipoites and Nicomedes I in cultural policies, it remains to be seen if he followed his predecessors in other respects. The trophy on the reverse of his coins refers to a military success that Reinach and others after him identify with the victory of the war of succession237. The war, however, finished not with a triumph for Ziaelas, but with an agreement238. This consideration keeps open (and invites to prefer) another option. Coinage could allude to another success, maybe related to the campaigns of conquest of Ziaelas239. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569; cf. HARRIS 1980, p. 861; SCHOTTKY 2002d. REINACH 1888, p. 102; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 34; MICHELS 2009, p. 162. 234 See above p. 65. 235 See below pp. 174-175. 236 Steph. Byz. s.v. Ζῆλα; see below, p. 84. 237 REINACH 1888, p. 102; SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 34-37; MICHELS 2009, pp. 162-163; HOOVER 2012, p. 209. 238 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2. 239 HABICHT 1972c, col. 393; SCHOTTKY 2002d. 232 233

84

ELOISA PAGANONI

Hints at them come from Stephanus of Byzantium. In the entry Ζῆλα, he lists several cities and about one of them he says: There is also Zeila with three syllables, a city in Cappadocia, which Zeilas son of Nicomedes founded. The ethnic is Zelites240.

According to this passage, Ziaelas founded a settlement with his own name in Cappadocia241. No Bithynian presence is attested so far south-east, yet242. So, the foundation is supposed to have been farther west, but its exact location remains unknown243. Wherever it was, Zeila is supposed to be on the border of the kingdom, in a recently-conquered area. In this view, it probably was a military outpost, and not a polis as Stephanus says244. Another piece of information about the conquests of Ziaelas is in the entry Κρῆσσα. Here Stephanus quotes a passage from Demosthenes’ Bithyniaka: A city in Paphlagonia founded by Meriones after the Trojan War. Ziaelas, the son of Nicomedes, took it, as Demosthenes writes... The ethnic is Cressaius245.

The passage deals with the seizure of Cressa. This city is often identified with Crateia/Flaviopolis in Paphlagonia, corresponding to today’s Gerede246. The evidence is weak though247. Moreover, Crateia seems to lie too far east to be Stephanus’ Cressa248. Ziaelas should have seized the 240 Steph. Byz. s.v. Ζῆλα: ἔστι καὶ Ζήιλα τρισυλλάβως, πόλις Καππαδοκίας, ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ Νικομήδους υἱὸς Ζηίλας. ὁ πολίτης Ζηλίτης. 241 According to the right form of the king’s name, the settlements’ name should be corrected in Ziela (COHEN 1995, p. 408; MICHELS 2009, p. 272). 242 BELOCH 1925, p. 672 n. 2; MEYER 1925, p. 112; RC 25, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 32-33, who remarks that over Cappadocia ‘né ora né mai si estese il dominio bitinico, se si prescinde dal breve e assai mal riuscito tentativo che Nicomede III fece più di un secolo più tardi’; HABICHT 1972c, col. 393; SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 40-41; COHEN 1995, p. 408; MICHELS 2009, p. 272; Trachsel, Demosthenes BNJ 699, F 15, Commentary; cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 32 n. 48. 243 BELOCH 1925, p. 672 n. 2; MEYER 1925, p. 112; RC 25, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; HABICHT 1972c, col. 393; COHEN 1995, p. 408; MICHELS 2009, p. 272. 244 HARRIS 1980, p. 867; MICHELS 2009, p. 272. 245 Steph. Byz. s.v. Κρῆσσα = Demosthenes BNJ 699, F 15: πόλις Παφλαγονίας, ἣν Μηριόνης μετὰ Τροίαν ἔκτισε, Ζηίλας δὲ εἷλεν ὁ Νικομήδους υἱός. Δημοσθένης γράφει ** (?). τὸ ἐθνικὸν Κρησσαῖος. Stephanus probably found this information in Herodian (De pros. cath., p. 267), who preserves the same words but does not record the ethnic. 246 MEYER 1879, p. 50; MEYER 1897, col. 517; BELOCH 1925, p. 672 n. 2; MEYER 1925, pp. 111-112; JONES 1940, p. 17; JONES 1971, p. 151, 419 n. 9. For the location of Crateia, see ȘAHIN 1984; COHEN 1995, p. 386. 247 It is constituted by one inscription mentioning Thracian personal names (CIG 3808; JONES 1971, p. 419 n. 9; cf. COHEN 1995, p. 386; MICHELS 2009, p. 272). 248 RUGE 1922; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 33-34; Trachsel, Demosthenes BNJ 699, F 15, Commentary.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

85

areas of Cierus and Bithynium before taking Crateia, but this region was annexed to Bithynia by the successor of Zialeas, Prusias I249. In view of these remarks, some scholars250 assume that Cressa was in Paphlagonia, as Stephanus says, but somewhere farther south. Despite these attempts, as with Zeila, its location remains unknown. There is no other significant evidence about the campaigns of Ziae251 las . It is impossible to determine when they occurred or how large Ziaelas’ conquests were. At most, we can say that Ziaelas expanded Bithynia south-eastwards252. He probably annexed some part of Paphlagonia and/or Phrygia253. However, Ziaelas had gained great successes in battle and his military skills were celebrated in Bithynian propaganda254. In his commentary to the Iliad, Eustathius attributes to Arrian an example of the widespread theme of imitatio Heraclis: and, I read, the brave man does not wear, as it is suitable, the leontis, like Heracles in the ancient time, and Zielas afterwards, according to Arrian255.

For the occurrence of Ziaelas’ name, this passage is supposed to have been part of the Bithyniaka; Ziaelas here mentioned is identified with the Bithynian king256. Arrian seems to establish a parallel between him and Heracles. In particular, he refers to the representation of Ziaelas as Heracles. The ‘lokalpatriotische Tendenz’257 guarantees that this tradition was used at the Bithynian court. But the evidence is insufficient to claim that it dates back to Ziaelas’ reign. It is thus unwise to use it to enrich the already detailed picture of Ziaelas’ cultural policies, and to conclude that HABICHT 1972c, col. 394; see below pp. 139-140. MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 393-394; cf. COHEN 1995, p. 386. Pseudo Scylax (67) mentions Cressa, a city of Chersonesus, but it is very unlikely that this is the city quoted by Stephanus of Byzantium (Trachsel, Demosthenes BNJ 699, F 15, Commentary; cf. LOUKOPOULOU 2004, p. 907). 251 According to MEYER 1897, col. 517 and HABICHT 1972c, col. 394, Justin (XXVII, 3, 1-6) too would refer to Ziaelas’ conquests; on this passage, see below pp. 89-90. 252 VITUCCI 1953, p. 34; WILL 1979, p. 291; SCHOTTKY 2002d; FERNOUX 2004, p. 32 n. 48; GABELKO 2005, p. 219. 253 MEYER 1925, p. 122; MAGIE 1950, p. 1195 n. 35; SEVRUGIAN 1973, pp. 40-41; WILL 1979, p. 291; GABELKO 2005, pp. 219-221. Unconvincingly, GABELKO 2005, p. 246 (cf. GABELKO 2015, p. 87) argues that Ziaelas campaigned against Cius. 254 HABICHT 1972c, col. 393; GABELKO 2005, p. 219. 255 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 89b: οὐ μὴν καὶ λεοντῆν προσφυῶς πάνυ λεχθείη ἐνάπτεσθαι ὁ ἀνδρεῖος κατὰ τὸν πάλαι Ἡρακλῆν ἢ κατὰ τὸν ὕστερον Ζιήλαν τὸν παρὰ τῶι Ἀρριανῶι. 256 Cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 393. 257 Jacoby, FGrHist 156, FF 89b, 106, Commentary, pp. 584-585. 249 250

86

ELOISA PAGANONI

this king was also patron of scholars and artists. Anyway, this fragment proves that Bithynian propaganda drew from a shared cultural environment: the imitatio Heraclis was in vogue in Hellenistic courts since it referred to the propaganda of Alexander the Great, the true paradeigma of kingship258. There are further similiraies between Nicomedes I’s and Ziaelas’ reigns. Like his father, Ziaelas looked for the support of the Galatians to secure his power and enlarged the kingdom. He also continued the friendly relations his father had established with Egypt and Cos259. In the letter to the Coans, Ziaelas addressed them as follows: We go on taking care above all of the paternal friends and of you, because of the consideration our father nourished towards you and because King Ptolemy, who is our friend and ally, is well-disposed in matters concerning you260.

Ziaelas renewed the friendship with Cos in view of the good relations of the island with his father and the king of Egypt. In 242 BC, at the time of the letter, this was Ptolemy III who had ascended the throne in 246 BC. He is said to be Ziaelas’ ally. This is the demonstration that the alliance Nicomedes I had signed with Ptolemy II had overcome the hard proof of the war of succession. Ziaelas’ words establish the triangle Bithynia – Cos – Egypt261 that links Ziaelas’ friendly relationships with Cos to those between Egypt and Cos, at that time in the sphere of influence of the Ptolemies262. This invites to read the Bithynian-Coan relations in light of the alliance with Egypt: for Ziaelas, the grant of the asylia was the occasion to reinforce the friendship with the Ptolemies. The letter continues with some measures Ziaelas took on request of the Coan emissaries: We will take care of those of you, who, cutting through the sea, come to places we rule, in order to assure their safety. In the same way, we will offer help to

258 On Heracles in propaganda of Alexander and Hellenistic kings, see e.g. STEWART 1993, pp. 57-58, 78-69, 158-161, 235-236; CHANIOTIS 2003, pp. 434-435; SCHEER 2003, pp. 218, 223; TROFIMOVA 2012, pp. 59-80; GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 20. 259 Cf. above pp. 67-70. 260 RC 25, ll. 17-26: πολὺ δὴ μάλιστα τῶν | πατρικῶν φίλων διατελοῦ|μεν πολυωροῦντες καὶ ὑμῶν | διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸμ πατέρα μῶν | ὑπάρχουσαν πρὸς τὸν ὑμέτε|ρον δῆμον γνῶσιν, καὶ διὰ τὸ | τὸμ βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον | οἰκείως διακεῖσθαι τὰ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, | ὄντα ἡμέτερον φίλον καὶ σύμ|μαχον. 261 ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569; WILL 1979, p. 184 n. 3. 262 SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 90-131; HABICHT 2007, pp. 131-152.

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

87

those who arrive to us due to an accident during the voyage, in order that nobody behave unjustly towards them263.

The document does not record what the Coans asked. However, on the basis of the answer, it probably concerned the safety of trade through to the Black Sea264. Ziaelas guaranteed protection to Coan sailors who came to settlements under his control265. Through the asylia, the Coans were establishing an international network to benefit their trade266. Ziaelas’ safeguard would have been a good achievement: Bithynia had been increasing its role in Aegean-Black Sea trade since the foundation of Nicomedia. By protecting the Coan merchants, Ziaelas indirectly favoured the Ptolemies, who controlled Cos and were eager to take control of Black Sea trade267. Ziaelas too had concrete advantage. He presented himself as a trustworthy trade partner. This reinforced the role of Bithynia in long-range trade routes268. Zialeas also extended some protection to the castaways. This decision likely responded not to the Coans’ request, but to Ziaelas himself’s will. It could have a propoagandistic purpose. Ziaelas – argue some scholars – aimed to delate the reputation of Bithynians as inhospitable people269. It is difficult to demonstate, even if the theme may have had some appleal for the Bithynian kings270. Regardless of this, Zialeas may have referred to the ideal of the philhellene king. Safeguard of castaways fits with the

263 RC 25, ll. 33-44: καὶ τῶν | πλειόντων τὴν θάλασσαν | ὅσοι ἂν τυγχάνωσιν τῶν ὑμε|τέρων προσβάλλοντες τοῖς | τόποις ὧν ἡμεῖς κρατοῦμεν, | φροντίζειν ὅπως ἡ ἀσφάλει[α] | αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχῃ∙ κατὰ ταὐτὰ [δὲ] | καὶ οἷς ἂν συμβῇ πταίματός [τι]|νος γενομένου κατὰ πλοῦν | προσπεσεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέ[ραν], | πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι ἵν[α] | μηδ’ ὑφ’ ἑνὸς ἀδικῶνται. 264 RC 25, pp. 123-124; VÉLISSAROPOULOS 1980, pp. 164-165; RIGSBY 1996, p. 121; DE SOUZA 1999, pp. 55-56; MICHELS 2009, p. 61. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569 thinks that Ziaelas’ dispositions benefitted all the Greeks. According to MUIR 2009, p. 99, who agrees with RC 26, p. 123 and ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569, the request of asylia was just ‘window-dressing; the delegation’s real purpose is revealed in the second half of the king’s reply’. About Coan trade, see SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 224-255. About the protection of castaways, see VÉLISSAROPOULOS 1980, pp. 163-165. 265 RIGSBY 1996, p. 121 notices that τόποι usually means ‘settled places’. Accordingy, it also can been understood as villages and harbours (MICHELS 2009, p. 64). 266 BURASELIS 2004, pp. 16-18; MICHELS 2009, p. 62. 267 Cf. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569; see above pp. 69-70. 268 FERNOUX 2004, pp. 63-64; MICHELS 2009, pp. 63-64. 269 Xen. An. VI, 4, 2; HERZOG 1905, pp. 181-182; RC 25, pp. 123-124; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, pp. 569-570; MUIR 2009, p. 99; INTERDONATO 2013, p. 176. 270 About the difficutly to prove any reference to the old fame, see SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 243-244; HANNERSTAD 1996, p. 78; RIGSBY 1996, p. 121. On the other hand, one could quote Nicolaus of Damascus (Jacoby, FGrHist 90, F 113), who stressed the friendly attitude of the Bithynians to strangers in contrast with their reputation. If he echoes the Bithynian court literature, as ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 569 thought, one should conclude that the Bithynian kings were sensititve to this matter.

88

ELOISA PAGANONI

‘care of all Greeks’ that, in Ziaelas’ words, ‘cotribute[d] in no small way to one’s reputation’271. The letter to Cos reveals different interests. On the one hand, there were the Coans who looked to safeguard their trade. On the other hand, there was Ziaelas. While strengthening his image as a Hellenistic king, he was reinforcing his alliance with the Ptolemies and presenting himsef as a trustworthy trade partner. Then, there were the interests of Ptolemy III. The control of Cos and the alliance with Bithynia relapsed, indeed, into Ptolemaic politics to establish some influence over the Aegean Sea and Propontis. At the time of the asylia, Ptolemy III was fighting the Third Syrian War against Seleucus II272. The conflict ended the year after with victory for Ptolemy. He seized a part of the coast of Asia, Thrace and Hellespont273, and thus went a step further in his hegemonic ambitions. Although the northern Aegean was one of the zones of this war, no source records the involvement of Ziaelas and no hint allows us to speculate on such a possibility274. Ziaelas appears again in our sources in regard to another war, this time internal to the Seleucid dynasty. During the Third Syrian War, Seleucus II had been forced to recognise his brother Antiochus Hierax as co-regent and to assign to him Asia Minor. At the end of the war, this situation caused a conflict between Seleucus and Antiochus. It was the so-called the War of the Brothers, which broke out in 241 or 240 BC275. It is not clear whether Antiochus claimed the whole kingdom or Seleucus wanted to put an end to the coregency. Developments and chronology of this war are highly conjectural as well. It is known with good certainty that Antiochus hired the Galatians and defeated Seleucus at Ancyra probably in 238 BC276. The war finished at some point in the following years. Since 236 BC and till his death in 226 or 225 BC, indeed, Antiochus Hierax is attested as co-regent with Seleucus II277. RC 25, ll. 13-16. See MICHELS 2009, p. 64. On this war, see WILL 1979, pp. 248-261; GRAINGER 2010, pp. 153-170. 273 WILL 1979, pp. 259-261; HUSS 2011, 171. 274 HABICHT 1972c, col. 394; SCHOTTKY 2002d; cf. the dubious statement of CHRUBASIK 2016, p. 76: ‘the Bithynian king had been allied with Ptolemaios III during the Third Syrian War. In the aftermath of that war, however, we have no evidence regarding his involvement in the power plays of western Asia Minor’. 275 On the War of the Brothers and the usurpation of Antiochus Hierax, see WILL 1979, pp. 294-296; MAREK 2010, pp. 275-276; HELLER 2013; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 72-81, 90-101. 276 The Battle of Ancyra is traditionally dated to 240 BC (e.g. WILL 1979, pp. 295-296; PETKOVIĆ 2009, p. 383). About the change of date to 238 BC, see ALLEN 1983, p. 198; HELLER 2013. 277 Cf. HELLER 2013; CHRUBASIK 2016, p. 76. 271 272

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

89

This dynastic war weakened Seleucid power, in favour of Attalus I. He had succeeded his father in 241 BC. During the War of the Brothers he took the title of basileus after a victory over the Galatians who were attacking the poleis of Asia Minor278. From that point on, he defended his independence against Antiochus Hierax who repeatedly tried to recover Pergamum with the support of the Galatians279. Trogus/Justin’s Book XXVII is the key source for these events. The account opens with the establishment of Antiochus Hierax’ power in Asia Minor and the outbreak of his war with Seleucus II280. Then, Justin records a battle; we infer that it was the one at Ancyra as noted in the Prologus of Trogus’ Book XXVII281. The account continues as follows: Meanwhile, when the brothers were consumed and exhausted by the war caused by domestic contentions, Eumenes, the king of Bithynia, attacked the victorious Antiochus and the Galatians, wishing to take the almost vacant possession of Asia. With intact forces, he won without any difficulty those who were weak from the earlier clash. All wars which were undertaken in that stormy time aimed to destroy Asia: anyone who became more powerful (than others) took Asia as booty. The brothers Seleucus and Antiochus were at war. Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, yearned for Asia to avenge his sister. Thus, the Bithynian Eumenes and the Galatians – who had ever been the mercenary aid of those who were despicable – wasted Asia, when it was impossible to find anyone protecting Asia among all those bandits. After defeating Antiochus, Eumenes took most of Asia. Even in that moment, the brothers did not come to an agreement, although the prize for which they had undertaken the war had been lost. Neglecting the foreign enemy, they opened the hostilities again for the mutual destruction282.

278 ALLEN 1983, pp. 27-35; MITCHELL 1993, pp. 21-22; EVANS 2012, pp. 19-20; MAREK 2010, pp. 275278; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 32-33, 78-79. 279 On Attalus I’s victories over the Galatians and Antiochus Hierax, see MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; HANSEN 1971, pp 28-38; WILL 1979, pp. 294-300; ALLEN 1983, pp. 27-35, 195-199; MITCHELL 1993, pp. 21-22; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 86-87; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 78-79. 280 Iust. XXVII, 2, 6-10. 281 Iust. XXVII, 2, 11-12; Trog. Prol. XXVII; cf. Jacoby, FGrHist 260, F 32, 8, Commentary, p. 870; SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 424 n. 8. 282 Iust. XXVII, 3, 1-6: Interea rex Bithyniae Eumenes sparsis consumptisque fratribus bello intestinae discordiae quasi vacantem Asiae possessionem invasurus victorem Antiochum Gallosque adgreditur. Nec difficile saucios adhuc ex superiore congressione integer ipse viribus superat. Ea namque tempestate omnia bella in exitium Asiae gerebantur: uti quisque fortior fuisset Asiam velut praedam occupabat. Seleucus et Antiochus fratres bellum propter Asiam gerebant, Ptolomeus, rex Aegypti, sub specie sororiae ultionis Asiae inhiabat. Hinc Bithynus Eumenes, inde Galli, humiliorum semper mercennaria manus, Asiam depopulabantur, cum interea nemo defensor Asiae inter tot praedones inveniebatur. Victo Antiocho cum Eumenes maiorem partem Asiae occupasset, ne tunc quidem fratres perdito praemio propter quod bellum gerebant concordare potuerunt, sed omisso externo hoste in mutuum exitium bellum reparant.

90

ELOISA PAGANONI

This new war between the brothers ended with the defeat Antiochus Hierax. He fled earlier ‘to his father-in-law Ariamenes, king of Cappadocia’283, and then to Ptolemy III, who, however, ‘behaved as friendly as towards an enemy’284. The account of Justin comes to an end with the death of Antiochus, who after fleeing from Egypt ‘was killed by outlaws’285. In the narrative about the War of the Brothers and the war between the Seleucids and Pergamum, Justin mentions ‘Eumenes of Bithynia’. He won over the Galatians and Antiochus Hierax, who was weakened by an earlier clash probably to be identified with the Battle of Ancyra286. This puzzling figure mixes up information about Eumenes I (who was already dead in that time), Attalus I (who was ruling Pergamum), and the king of Bithynia Ziaelas287. This suggests that Trogus dealt with some events involving Ziaelas in Book XXVII. But as far as we read in Justin, it is impossible to say whether he described Ziaelas’ involvement in the wars between Pergamum, the Seleucids and the Galatians, or Ziaelas’ campaigns of conquest288. In any case, that Ziaelas was in contact with Antiochus Hierax is testified by Porphyry. His work is preserved in Eusebius’ Chronicon, which survives in the Armenian translation only. The short passage on the War of the Brothers finishes with the following words: After taking a few of them (i.e. the Galatians) with himself, (Antiochus Hierax) reached Magnesia, and the day after lined up (his soldiers); and including a force from Ptolemy among the other soldiers, he won; and married the daughter of Zielas289.

The Battle of Magnesia is the only clash Porphyry/Eusebius mentions in Iust. XXVII, 3, 7: ad socerum suum Ariamenem, regem Cappadociae. Iust. XXVII, 3, 10: non amicior dedito quam hosti. 285 Iust. XXVII, 3, 11: a latronibus interficitur. Antiochus Hierax is commonly supposed to have died in Thrace (e.g. CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 79-80); contra PRIMO 2009 argues that he died in the Ptolemaic territories of Syria. 286 SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 425 n. 2. 287 MEYER 1897, col. 517; HABICHT 1972c, col. 394; WILL 1979, p. 291; SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 425 n. 1; cf. DEVELIN – YARDLEY 1994, p. 199 n. 8; EVANS 2012, p. 170 n. 52. 288 For a possible reference to Ziaelas’ expansion campaings, see MEYER 1897, col. 517; HABICHT 1972c, col. 394. 289 Jacoby, FGrHist 260, F 32, 8: von welchen enkommend mit nur wenigen er nach Magnesia gelangte. Und am folgende Tage stellte er sich in Schlachtordung auf. Abermals bundesgenössische Hilfe von Ptolemeos erlangt habend, siegte er; und heiratete die Tochter des Zielas; Eus. I, 251-253 Shoene: ex quibus cum paucis se eripiens (s. servatus), Magnesia proficiscebatur, et sequenti die aciem instruebat, atque inter alios milites etiam auxiliares a Ptolemaeo accipiens, vicit (vincebat): et filiam Zielis (sc. Zieli) uxorem ducebat. 283 284

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

91

relation to the War of the Brothers. It is doubtful if this is a mistaken reference to the Battle of Ancyra290 or another battle291. Anyway, it is clear that Ptolemy III supported Antiochus Hierax. Interestingly, the passage also records an alliance between Ziaelas and the Seleucid usurper who married the daughter of the Bithynian king292. This marriage was in line with the marital practices of the Seleucids. They aimed to establish relations with the kings on the borders of their empire. Two sisters of Antiochus Hierax and Seleucus II had married Ariarathes III, the son of Ariamenes of Cappadocia, and Mithridates II of Pontus respectively293. These unions, and the marriage of Antiochus Hierax with Ziaelas’ daughter as well, prove that after the mid-3rd century BC the Seleucids had definitively set aside any hope to establish (or to re-establish) the direct control over Cappadocia, Pontus and Bithynia294. Since that time on, these kingdoms were included in the Seleucid alliance network through marriages. As far as we read in Eusebius295, the alliances with Cappadocia and Pontus were signed before the War of the Brothers. These alliances were fortunate for Antiochus Hierax throughout the conflict. When the war broke out, he sought (and found) help in Mithridates II and possibly Ariamenes of Cappadocia296. He also received aid from Ptolemy III and Arsames of Armenia297. These ones, like Mithridates and Ariamenes, would have benefitted from a weakening of Seleucus II298. With regard to Ziaelas, the point is to understand when the alliance was signed. Porphyry/Eusebius sets the marriage between Ziaelas’ daughter and Antiochus Hierax after the battle at Magnesia. It is at the end of the account of the War of the Brothers but it is not explicitly related to it. After the alliGABELKO 2009, pp. 50-51. NIESE 1899, p. 155; DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, p. 303; GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 19. 292 The name of Ziaelas’ daughter is unknown (HABICHT 1972c, coll. 388-390). Wrongly GRAINGER 1997, p. 50; DODD 2009, p. 50 and n. 156; HELLER 2013 say that she was named Laodice. 293 About Ariamenes, Eus. I, 251 Schoene; Iust. XXXVIII, 5, 3. About Mithridates II, Eus. I, 251 Schoene; Diod. XXXI, 19, 6. On these marital alliances, see SEIBERT 1967, pp. 57-60; WILL 1979, pp. 258259; GRAINGER 2017a, pp. 44-45; cf. D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141. 294 GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 19. 295 Eus. I, 251 Schoene. 296 About Mithridates II, Eus. I, 251 Schoene; MAGIE 1950, p. 1088, n. 38; WILL 1979, pp. 294-295; D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141; KUHN 2013 (contra PETKOVIĆ 2009 who assumes that Mithridates II joined with Antiochus in the following war against Attalus I). Ariamenes is supposed to support Antiochus Hierax on the basis of Antiochus’ later flight to Cappadocia (Iust. XXVII, 3, 7; WILL 1979, pp. 294-295). 297 About Ptolemy III, see the above-quoted passage from Eus. I, 251-253 Schoene. For the alliance between Arsames and Antiochus Hierax, see Polyaen. IV, 17 (below in the text). 298 HABICHT 1972c, coll. 394-395; MAGIE 1950, pp. 736-737 n. 23; WILL 1979, p. 295; D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141. On Antiochus Hierax’ plans, see HUSS 1976, p. 98; WILL 1979, pp. 294-295. 290 291

92

ELOISA PAGANONI

ance with Ziaelas the account moves on to Antiochus’ war against Attalus I. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the involvement of Ziaelas either in the war with Seleucus II or in the one with Attalus I. For these reasons, the marital alliance between the king of Bithynia and Antiochus Hierax remains difficult to date299. Although it is often connected with the war against Pergamum300, it more likely dates back – I think – to the years of the War of the Brothers301. Ziaelas had good reasons to join Antiochus Hierax, like the other kings and rulers who bordered on the Seleucid empire. Even if no attack is attested after the 270s BC, the Seleucids still were the most powerful neighbours of Bithynia. Secondly, it is worth noting that Ptolemy III, who was ally of Ziaelas, certainly took part in the conflict at Antiochus Hierax’ side302. He might have had some role in establishing contacts between Ziaelas and Antiochus; or perhaps he and Ziaelas jointly agreed to support the Seleucid usurper303. In this case, the Bithynian-Ptolemaic alliance went beyond the economic sphere and revealed political implications304. Antiochus Hierax was also in contact with Arsames of Armenia. In this regard, Polyaenus says: After rising up, Antiochus the brother of Seleucus fled to Mesopotamia; from there Arsames, who was his friend, hosted him, who had crossed the mountains of the Armenians305.

This passage contains the earliest attestation of friendly relationships between an Armenian ruler and a member of the Seleucid dynasty. According to Polyaenus, Arsames was an ally of Antiochus Hierax and hosted him during the War of the Brothers. These friendly relationships likely developed during this conflict. Antiochus Hierax could be almost sure to find an ally in Arsames. The Orontids indeed were eager to support any enemy of Seleucid power306. Adimtting that the alliance between Antiochus and Ziaelas dated to Cf. SEIBERT 1967, p. 59; GABELKO 2009, p. 50. DROYSEN 1952-1953, vol. III, pp. 306-307; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 101; BITTNER 1998, p. 68; GABELKO 2005, p. 222; PETKOVIĆ 2009, p. 380; GRAINGER 2010, p. 177; HELLER 2013. Against this possibility cf. below pp. 93-94. 301 So FERNOUX 2004, p. 57; FERNOUX 2008, p. 224; GABELKO 2009, p. 50; D’AGOSTINI 2013, p. 141 n. 406; GRAINGER 2017a, p. 44. Cf. WILL 1979, p. 295. 302 Cf. BEYER-ROTTHOFF 1993, p. 75. 303 SCHOTTKY 2002d. 304 Cf. HUSS 1976, p. 98; WILL 1979, p. 291; HEINEN 1984, p. 425; GRABOWSKI 2011, p. 119. 305 Polyaen. IV, 17: Ἀντίοχος Σελεύκου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἀποστὰς ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν Μέσην τῶν ποταμῶν, ὅθεν καὶ τοὺς μὲν Ἀρμενίων ὅρους διελθόντα φίλος ὢν Ἀρσάμης ὑπεδέξατο. 306 SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 104; cf. above p. 77. 299 300

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

93

these years, one could wonder if it was Arsames who promoted it; he probably kept alive the friendly relations his predecessor had established with Ziaelas at the time of his exile307. On the other hand, it is also possible that it was the Bithynian king who put Antiochus and Arsames in contact308. If, as seems, Ziaelas was a ‘node’ of Antiochus Hierax’ alliance network during the war against Seleucus II, he fostered the centrifugal forces which were changing the boundaries of the Seleucid empire. In that situation, he made the most of his international relations. The alliance with Ptolemy III and possibly the one with the Armenian ruler showed their effects. After the War of the Brothers, the next information on Ziaelas concerns the end of his reign. In the Prologus of Trogus’ Book XXVII we read: The Galatians, who had been defeated by Attalus at Pergamum, killed the Bithynian Zielan309.

According to this passage, Ziaelas died by the hand of the Galatians who had been defeated by Attalus I. The battle in question would be the one mentioned in an Attalid dedication that records a victory over Antiochus Hierax and the Galatians at the Aphrodision of Pergamum in c. 230 BC310. On this basis, some scholars311 assume a causal-temporal connection between this defeat of the Galatians and the death of Ziaelas. They conclude that Ziaelas was involved in the war of Antiochus Hierax against Attalus I on the side of Antiochus. Needless to say, the nature of the Prologi itself renders this information a weak support to any hypothesis. Moreover, the other version of Ziaelas’ death preserved by a fragment of Phylarchus invites to look carefully to the information from the Prologus: Phylarchus the Athenian (but maybe native of Naucratis), in the book in which he deals with the king of the Bithynians Zela, who invited to supper the leaders of the Galatians plotting against them, and was killed himself, says this, if I remember rightly: ‘A drink was brought round before supper, according to the ancient customs’312. About the exile of Ziaelas in Armenia, see Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 1; above pp. 76-77. SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 102-104; SCHOTTKY 2002d. 309 Trog. Prol. XXVII: Galli Pergamo victi ab Attalo Zielan Bithunum occiderint. 310 IvP I, 23 = OGIS 275; MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; HANSEN 1971, pp. 34-35; ALLEN 1983, pp. 197-198; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 86-88 nn. 111, 116. On the date see WILL 1979, p. 298. 311 MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; VITUCCI 1953, p. 35; SEIBERT 1967, p. 59; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 395-396; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 41; SCHOTTKY 1989, pp. 101-102; STROBEL 1994a, pp. 87-88 n. 116; SCHOTTKY 2002d; GABELKO 2009, p. 51; PETKOVIĆ 2009, p. 380; GRAINGER 2010, p. 177; HELLER 2013. 312 Phylarchos BNJ 80, F 50: Φύλαρχος ὁ ᾽Αθηναῖος ἢ Ναυκρατίτης ἐν οἷς ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν αὐτῶι περὶ Ζηλᾶ τοῦ Βιθυνῶν βασιλέως, ὃς ἐπὶ ξένια καλέσας τοὺς τῶν Γαλατῶν ἡγεμόνας ἐπιβουλεύσας αὐτοῖς καὶ 307 308

94

ELOISA PAGANONI

As with the Prologus, Phylarchus says that Ziaelas was killed by the Galatians, but he does not link the death of Ziaelas to any other episode. In his passage, the violent death of the Bithynian king seems the final outcome of his relationships with the Galatians. Ziaelas had hired Galatian mercenaries in the war of succession313. Then, he might have hired them at the time of the War of the Brothers, admitting that Trogus/Justin’s passage about ‘Eumenes of Bithynia’ has some value314. As far as we read in Phylarchus, the relationships with the Galatians deteriorated at some point and the king of Bithynia plotted against them. Ziaelas desperately attempted to free himself from his tie with the Galatians315. We do not know the reason why Ziaelas felt threatened316. Nothing however suggests that it was connected with the victory of Attalus I over Antiochus Hierax317. Furthermore, the supposed collaboration between Ziaelas and Antiochus Hierax in those years is unlikely. After the end of the War of the Brothers, Seleucus II recognised Antiochus as co-regent. In that situation, Antiochus Hierax was no more the emblem of the struggle against Seleucid power. The re-established good relations with Seleucus II broke Antiochus’ bonds with his former allies. Probably not by chance, when Seleucus II tried to eliminate him definitively, he found no refuge both with Araimenes and Ptolemy III, his (ex) allies318. There is no reason to assume that in that context Ziaelas established (or kept alive) friendly relationships with Antiochus Hierax. This one was now an enemy to Ziaelas. Coming back to the accounts on Ziaelas’ death, the Prologus and Phylarchus are not contradictory. The Prologus provides us with a chronological information. Phylarchus informs us about dynamics. Ziaelas was killed after a battle identified with the one at the Aphrodision (230 BC). Prophyrius/Eusebius more closely dates Ziaelas’ death to 229-228 BC319. Ziaelas conspired against the Galatians probably because the mercenaries who had

αὐτὸς διεφθάρη, φησὶν οὕτως, εἰ μνήμης εὐτυχῶ· ‛πρόπομά τι πρὸ τοῦ δείπνου περιεφέρετο, καθὼς εἰώθει τὸ πρῶτον’. 313 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 14, 2. 314 Iust. XXVII, 3, 1-6; see above pp. 89-90. 315 COȘKUN 2011, pp. 96-97; Landucci, Phylarchos BNJ 80, F 50, Commentary. 316 According to GABELKO 2005, p. 223, Ziaelas could not pay the Galatian mercenaries any more. 317 Cf. HEINEN 1984, p. 425. 318 Iust. XXVII, 3, 7-11. No evidence attests that Antiochus Hierax also sought a safe refuge in Bithynia, as assumed by MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24 and HANSEN 1971, p. 35. 319 Eus. I, 253 Schoene; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; ALLEN 1983, p. 35. In line with these pieces of information, the death of Ziaelas is generally dated to 230-229 BC (BELOCH 1925, p. 213; MAGIE 1950, pp. 737-738 n. 24; VITUCCI 1953, p. 35; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 387, 395-396; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 41; HEINEN 1984, p. 425; SCHOTTKY 1989, p. 102; STROBEL 1994a, p. 86 n. 111; Landucci, Phylarchos BNJ, 80 F 50, Commentary).

BUILDING THE HEGEMONY

95

contributed to his success had become a danger to him. The plot failed and the Galatians killed Ziaelas. 7. AN APPRAISAL OF THE REIGNS OF NICOMEDES I AND ZIAELAS The death of Ziaelas concluded the fifty years which led up to the establishment of Bithynia as the dominant kingdom of the Propontic area. This process had begun under Nicomedes I. He first built up an international contact network that mirrored the increasing importance of the kingdom in the political and economic situation of Asia Minor. Scholars, however, tend to diminish the relevance of this step in the history of Bithynia. Nicomedes I’s reign is considered just another phase of the struggle for independence against the only threat still existing to Bithynia, the Seleucids. Some of the most relevant decisions of Nicomedes, such as the alliance with Heraclea, the Northern League and Ptolemy II, the agreement with the Galatians and the appointment of the guardians for his minors, are interpreted as part of an anti-Seleucid policy. This is true only in part, though. Nicomedes looked for Heraclea’s support against Antiochus I, but afterwards he allowed the Galatians to cross into Asia to face his brother Zipoites. The alliance with Ptolemy II firstly met economic interests. The decision of leaving the kingdom to his still minor children imposed the appointment of guardians. It was a short-sighted choice: it weakened Bithynia and it could even be fatal to the kingdom. The interpretation of Nicomedes I’s foreign policy suffers the widespread approach that considers the Seleucids as the only power of Anatolia320. This produces a bi-dimensional historical frame in which each act of the political players is branded as pro- or anti-Seleucid. On the contrary, Anatolia did not coincide with the Seleucid empire. In the turn of the mid3rd century BC, some kingdoms, such as Bithynia and Pontus, were increasing their power; and others, such as Pergamum and Armenia, were rising. These ones were still fighting against the Seleucids for independence. So their policies can be overall defined as anti-Seleucid. The situation of Bithynia and Pontus was different. They had been independent for decades and they were increasing their position within the current political situation. It would be misleading to state that their policies were just 320 E.g. YAVUZ 2010: ‘The main policy of the Bithynian kings was to defend their kingdom against the Seleucids who claimed all Asia Minor as theirs’.

96

ELOISA PAGANONI

‘against something’. They instead were acting ‘for something’, that is, for strengthening their power. This perspective changes the perception of Bithynian politics in the 270s-230s BC, which aimed to strengthen the kingdom institutionally, politically and economically321. Nicomedes I’s provided the kingdom with the capital Nicomedia. Location of the court – and thus the administrative heart of the kingdom – it was also the centre of economic development. The newly acquired importance of Bithynia in Aegean-Black Sea trade explains the establishment of the alliance with the Ptolemies. Nicomedes’ network proves his great strategic ability and confirms the role of Bithynia in the Propontic area. Ziaelas continued this policy, but under him the Bithynian alliance network changed according to the circumstances. He broke the alliance with Macedonia, reinforced the one with Egypt and established the one with Armenia. The effects of his international contacts emerged in the War of the Brothers. In that context the interests of Ziaelas and his allies met those of Antiochus Hierax, the Seleucid usurper who wished to establish a personal domain in Asia Minor. Probably during this war, Antiochus Hierax married Ziaelas’ daughter and included the Bithynian king in the block hostile to Seleucus II. This was the first contact of Seleucids and Bithynia since the time of Antiochus I. It demonstrates once more the full establishment of the kingdom of Bithynia. After suffering repeated attacks from the Seleucids Bithynia now threatened the Seleucid empire.

321

Cf. GABELKO 2005, pp. 224-225.

CHAPTER FOUR BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST (229-182 BC)

1. THE EARLY YEARS OF PRUSIAS I The first mention of Prusias I is related to the situation of Rhodes after the devasting earthquake in c. 227 BC1. Kings, rulers and cities aided the island by donating money, grain, timber, stone and armaments. Polybius lists the donations of Hieron and Gelon of Syracuse, Ptolemy III, Antigonus Doson and his wife Chryseis, Seleucus II, and he adds: Prusias and Mithridates (made) donations nearly equal to these, and also the dynasts ruling in Asia at that time, Lysanias, Olympichus, and Lymnaeus. No one can easily enumerate the cities that contributed according to their means2. 1 On the earthquake, see Polyb. V, 88, 5-90, 2 (on the setting of the account in Polybius’ narrative, see HOLLEAUX 1923; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 616-617); Diod. XXVI, 8, 1; Strabo XIV, 2, 5. Chronicon Paschale, 432a and Hieronymus, following Eusebius (Eus. II, 123 Schoene), date the earthquake to Ol. 138.2 (= 227 BC; cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 616; KOBES 1993, p. 4). The Armenian version of Eusebius (Eus. II, 122 Schoene) dates the catastrophe to Ol. 139.1 (= 224 BC; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 877-878 n. 70). The list of the donors includes Seleucus II and so the earthquake is to be dated before his death in 226 BC (HOLLEAUX 1923, p. 489; MAGIE 1950, pp. 877-878 n. 70; HABICHT 1957, col. 1087; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 616; PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968, p. 451; BERTHOLD 1984, p. 92 n. 34; KOBES 1993, pp. 3-4). A letter of Laodice II to Iasos (PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968, pp. 445-448 nr. 2 = IK Iasos 4) refers to a ἀπροσδόκητα συμπτοώματα (ll. 7-8: ‘unexpected disaster’). According to the first editor, PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968, pp. 450-451, who dates the document to 228 BC, this disaster is to be identified with the earthquake devastating Rhodes in the early 220s BC (cf. BERTHOLD 1984, p. 92 n. 34). If so, it would be an earlier terminus ante quem. But Blümel in IK Iasos 4, p. 23 proposes an alternative dating after 195 BC for the letter. In his opinion, the calamity it mentions is the earthquake that devasted Rhodes in 198 BC (Iust. XXX, 4, 3). 2 Polyb. V, 90, 1-2: παραπλήσια δὲ τούτοις Προυσίας καὶ Μιθριδάτης, ἔτι δ᾽ οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ὄντες δυνάσται τότε, λέγω δὲ Λυσανίαν, Ὀλύμπιχον, Λιμναῖον. τάς γε μὴν πόλεις τὰς συνεπιλαμβανομένας αὐτοῖς κατὰ δύναμιν οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐξαριθμήσαιτο ῥᾳδίως οὐδείς. The list of donors probably depends on an archive document preserved in the Rhodian source Polybius follows (KOBES 1993, pp. 6-7; GABRIELSEN 1997, p. 76; ZECCHINI 2003, p. 129). As for the Anatolian dynasts, Olympichus was the ruler of Alinda (KOBES 1996, pp. 257-259, 262; CAPDETREY 2007, pp. 117, 119-120, 124), whereas Lysanias and Lymnaeus are otherwise unknown (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 621-622; KOBES 1996, pp. 260-262). The absence of a donation from Attalus I is surprising. It could be a hint at the unfriendly relations between the king of Pergamum and Rhodes that emerged in 220 BC (MCSHANE 1964, pp. 96-97; BERTHOLD 1984, pp. 92-93; KOBES 1993, pp. 9-10; ECKSTEIN 2008, p. 195; on the 220 BC situation see below in the text).

98

ELOISA PAGANONI

Polybius groups Prusias I together with other Hellenistic kings and stresses the size of his donation. Although we do not know what he gave3, he clearly shared concerns and intentions of the other donors. They wished to promote a quick return to normal so that Rhodes came back to play its role of trade partner and guardian against pirates4. A few years later, in 220 BC, the interests of Prusias I and Rhodes crossed again. Byzantium had imposed a duty on ships sailing through the Bosporus in order to pay the tribute to the Celts of the kingdom of Tylis, who threatened raids against the city5. The cities involved in Black Sea trades protested and required the intervention of Rhodes. After unsuccessful negotiations, in summer 220 BC Rhodes declared war on Byzantium and asked Prusias I for help6. With this decision, Rhodes began threatening the According to HANNESTAD 1996, p. 79 and MICHELS 2009, p. 303, Prusias’ donation could include timber. KOBES 1993, pp. 25-26; KOBES 1996, pp. 259-260; GABRIELSEN 1997, pp. 78-79; FERNOUX 2004, p. 64; MICHELS 2009, p. 65; GABRIELSEN 2013, p. 74. Although political and economic reasons prevailed, the donations also benefitted the prestige of the donors (VITUCCI 1953, pp. 37-38; FERNOUX 2004, p. 61; GABELKO 2005, p. 227; MICHELS 2009, p. 65). 5 Polyb. IV, 45, 9-46, 6: ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πόλεμον κατὰ τὴν συνήθειαν ἀναφέροντες ἔμενον ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς δικαίων πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας· προσεπιγενομένων δὲ Γαλατῶν αὐτοῖς τῶν περὶ Κομοντόριον εἰς πᾶν ἦλθον περιστάσεως. οὗτοι δ᾽ ἐκίνησαν μὲν ἅμα τοῖς περὶ Βρέννον ἐκ τῆς οἰκείας, διαφυγόντες δὲ τὸν περὶ Δελφοὺς κίνδυνον, καὶ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον, εἰς μὲν τὴν Ἀσίαν οὐκ ἐπεραιώθησαν, αὐτοῦ δὲ κατέμειναν διὰ τὸ φιλοχωρῆσαι τοῖς περὶ τὸ Βυζάντιον τόποις. οἳ καὶ κρατήσαντες τῶν Θρᾳκῶν, καὶ κατασκευασάμενοι βασίλειον τὴν Τύλιν, εἰς ὁλοσχερῆ κίνδυνον ἦγον τοὺς Βυζαντίους. κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐν ταῖς ἐφόδοις αὐτῶν ταῖς κατὰ Κομοντόριον τὸν πρῶτον βασιλεύσαντα δῶρα διετέλουν οἱ Βυζάντιοι διδόντες ἀνὰ τρισχιλίους καὶ πεντακισχιλίους, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ μυρίους χρυσοῦς, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ μὴ καταφθείρειν τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν. τέλος δ᾽ ἠναγκάσθησαν ὀγδοήκοντα τάλαντα συγχωρῆσαι φόρον τελεῖν κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕως εἰς Καύαρον, ἐφ᾽ οὗ κατελύθη μὲν ἡ βασιλεία, τὸ δὲ γένος αὐτῶν ἐξεφθάρη πᾶν, ὑπὸ Θρᾳκῶν ἐκ μεταβολῆς ἐπικρατηθέν. ἐν οἷς καιροῖς ὑπὸ τῶν φόρων πιεζούμενοι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐπρέσβευον πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, δεόμενοι σφίσι βοηθεῖν καὶ συγχορηγεῖν εἰς τοὺς περιεστῶτας καιρούς· τῶν δὲ πλείστων παρολιγωρούντων, ἐνεχείρησαν ἀπαναγκασθέντες παραγωγιάζειν τοὺς εἰς τὸν Πόντον πλέοντας (‘However, even bearing the war against the Thracian as usual, [the Byzantians] kept on respecting the original agreements with the Greeks, but when the Galatians under Comontorius arrived as well, they started being in danger. These Galatians moved from their homeland together with those under Brennus. After escaping the disaster in Delphi and coming to the Hellespont, they did not cross to Asia, but remained there to seize some lands near Byzantium. After subduing the Thracians and turning Tylis into the centre of their realm, they put the Byzantians in serious danger. At the beginning, at each attack by Comontorius, the first king, the Byzantians gave an offer paying three thousand, five thousand and sometimes ten thousand golden pieces to avoid their lands being plundered by them. Finally, they were compelled to pay an annual tribute of eighty thousand talents until Cavarus, under whom the kingdom ended and his people were conquered by the Thracians. In those times, as they were pressed by the tribute, they sent embassies to the Greeks needing help for themselves and contribution for the present situation. Since most of them neglected the request, [the Byzantians] were compelled to levy toll on the ships trading with Pontus’). On the kingdom of Tylis, see OBERHUMMER 1948; VAGALINSKY 2010. On Cavarus, see SCHOCH 1924 and below pp. 107-108. On the relations between Byzantium and the Thracians in the first half of the 3rd century BC, see VAGALINSKI 2010; DUMITRU 2013. 6 Polyb. IV, 47, 1-7. For the date, see StV III, p. 228. MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196 n. 36 and KOBES 1993, p. 25 (who claims that Prusias I was obliged to support Rhodes ‘wenn er seine Position und seine Kontakte zu Rhodos nicht belasten wollte’) assume any connection between the 227 BC donation and the alliance, 3 4

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

99

thalassocracy of the Ptolemies with the intention of taking their place in the Aegean Sea7. One could think that Prusias I understood the change in the balance of power in the Aegean. In this sense, it is to be noticed that he not only approached Rhodes, but also interrupted the so far intense contacts with the Ptolemies judging from the silence of sources in this regard8. In spite of these circumstances, yet, the account of Polybius makes clear that the choice to support Rhodes in 220 BC was not due to the foresight of Prusias I. It was mostly connected with Prusias’ tense relationships with Byzantium: Prusias charged the Byzantians first that, after voting certain statues for him, they did not erect them, but had neglected and forgotten this matter; he was displeased with them for having done all they could to solve the rivalry between Attalus and Achaeus, and to put an end to their war, considering a friendship between them unfavourable to his own interests in many ways. He was roused to anger for this too, that is, the Byzantians seemed to have sent to Attalus delegates to carry out sacrifices for the festival of Athena, while they had sent none to him for the Sotēria9.

The passage of Polybius alludes to former episodes, where the relationships between Prusias I and Byzantium deteriorated. The first one concerned some statues that the city had voted but never erected in honour of the Bithynian king. Most details of this matter remain unknown. However, the granting of some honours reveals that Byzantium had been in good relations with Prusias I at one time10. The adverb πρότερον has a temporal value here. It points out that the issue of the statue was the earliest reason for Prusias’ hostility to Byzantium. It seems to have taken place some but contra see the convincing arguments of VITUCCI 1953, pp. 37-38, HABICHT 1957, col. 1088, HANNESTAD 1996, p. 69, GABELKO 2005, p. 227 and MICHELS 2009, pp. 64-65. 7 MCSHANE 1964, p. 97. Already in c. 227 BC Ptolemaic thalassocracy was in crisis (CRISCUOLO 2013, pp. 161-162; BADOUD 2014, p. 115). The growing interest of Rhodes in the Hellepontic area made this crisis more and more evident in the following years. The establishing of Rhodian thalassocracy began with the war against Byzantium and the aid to Sinope against Mithridates II in the same year (Polyb. IV, 56, 2). It continued with the reinforcement of the influence over the Cyclades (WILL 1979, p. 241; WILL 1982, p. 80; GABRIELSEN 1997, pp. 64-66) and the refoundation of the League of the Islanders in 200 BC, which remained under control of Rhodes until 168 BC (ÉTIENNE 1990, pp. 114-117; BADOUD 2014, pp. 120-124). 8 Cf. HUSS 1976, pp. 96-97; on the relations with the Ptolemies, see above pp. 69-70, 86. 9 Polyb. IV, 49, 1-3: ὁ δὲ Προυσίας ἐνεκάλει μὲν πρότερον τοῖς Βυζαντίοις ὅτι ψηφισαμένων τινὰς εἰκόνας αὐτοῦ ταύτας οὐκ ἀνετίθεσαν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἐπισυρμὸν καὶ λήθην ἄγοιεν, δυσηρέστει δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ πᾶσαν προσενέγκασθαι φιλονεικίαν εἰς τὸ διαλῦσαι τὴν Ἀχαιοῦ πρὸς Ἄτταλον ἔχθραν καὶ τὸν πόλεμον, νομίζων κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους ἀλυσιτελῆ τοῖς αὑτοῦ πράγμασιν ὑπάρχειν τὴν ἐκείνων φιλίαν. ἠρέθιζε δ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ δοκεῖν Βυζαντίους πρὸς μὲν Ἄτταλον εἰς τοὺς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἀγῶνας τοὺς συνθύσοντας ἐξαπεσταλκέναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν δ᾽ εἰς τὰ Σωτήρια μηδένα πεπομφέναι. 10 Cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 229.

100

ELOISA PAGANONI

years before the outbreak of the war, maybe at the beginning of Prusias’ reign. The Byzantians indeed are said to have forgotten the matter. The second episode causing Prusias’ hostility to Byzantium sheds light on the current situation in Asia Minor. It concerned the intervention of Byzantium in the negotiations for a truce between Attalus I and Achaeus, the Seleucid usurper who was ruling an area between Pergamum and Bithynia11. The earliest information about him dates to the reign of Seleucus II when he had been involved in the war against Antiochus Hierax12. Later, he had taken part in the campaign of Seleucus III against Pergamum13. After the death of this one, probably in the early 222 BC14, Achaeus had favoured the accession of Antiochus III to the throne. The new king had appointed him as governor of Asia Minor15. In this position, Achaeus had engaged a new war with Attalus I. Shortly before the outbreak of the war between Byzantium and Rhodes, Achaeus took advantage of the absence of Antiochus III, who was putting down a revolt in Atropatene, and proclaimed himself king16. Almost at the same time – we are told by Polybius – Byzantium tried to arrange a truce between Achaeus and Attalus. Scholars discuss if they reached an agreement to stop the war or not17. Regardless from the outcome, it is understandable why Prusias I frowned on Byzantium’s initiative. He was reasonably concerned about Achaeus, a usurper on the borders of his kingdom. He had been rather safe until Achaeus had been fighting against Attalus I. But if they reached an agreement, Achaeus could become a concrete danger to Prusias I at any moment18. Achaeus was not the only cause for concern. Prusias I also regarded Attalus with suspicion. The earliest information about Prusias’ conflicts with Pergamum date to some years later19. The third episode concerning the origin of Prusias’ hostility to Byzantium, yet, shows that the relationships with the Attalids were already tense in the late 220s BC. Prusias was 11 On Achaeus, see MELONI 1949; MELONI 1950; SCHMITT 1964, pp. 158-175; WILL 1982, pp. 15-17, 23-26; VIRGILIO 1993, pp. 32-33, 53; CAPDETREY 2007, pp. 294-297; GRABOWSKY 2011; GRAINGER 2015, pp. 41-51; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 81-89, 101-112. 12 Polyaen. IV, 17. 13 Polyb. IV, 48, 7-8. About this campaign, see WILL 1979, pp. 313-314; CHRUBASIK 2016, pp. 81-82. 14 CHRUBASIK 2012, p. 66 and n. 5 with sources and literature. 15 Polyb. IV, 48, 9; V, 40, 7. For Achaeus’ appointment under Antiochus III, cf. WILL 1982, p. 16; CHRUBASIK 2016, p. 83. 16 Polyb. IV, 48 10; 51, 3; V, 57, 2. 17 A truce or a peace agreement is assumed by SCHMITT 1964, p. 262; HANSEN 1971, p. 40; ALLEN 1983, p. 37; HEINEN 1984, 431; GRAINGER 2010, pp. 183-184; GRAINGER 2015, p. 44. Against a break in the hostilities between Attalus and Achaeus, MELONI 1949, p. 552 n. 3; MCSHANE 1964, p. 65 n. 23; AGER 2012; GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 22. 18 Cf. AGER 2012, p. 427. 19 Liv. XXVIII, 7, 10; below pp. 111-112.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

101

irritated because Byzantium had dispatched theoroi to the Nikēphoria that Attalus I had announced in the late 220s BC20, but not to the Sotēria he had proclaimed. Byzantium had overlooked the invitation of Prusias, but it had accepted the one of Attalus. In this way, it had discredited the Bithynian king. This blow for Prusias I discloses for the first time the BithynianAttalid rivalry, which would become evident later21. This suggests that Pergamum had already become a competitor of Bithynia a few years after its rise; Prusias I was aware and concerned about this potential danger. The passage of Polybius contains the only evidence of a Bithynian Sotēria. This festival celebrated a military success judging from its name22. It is argued that it memorialized a victory over the Galatians in comparison with the Sotēria of the Aetolians in Delphi, but it is difficult to point out what victory was23. The earliest evidence of a clash between Prusias I and the Galatians dates back to 216 BC24; consequently, it is impossible that the Sotēria referred to this episode25. According to some scholars26, the Sotēria celebrated the victory over the Galatians who had murdered Ziaelas. Reasonably Prusias could have avenged his father immediately after ascending the throne. But the passage of Polybius suggests that the Sotēria and the Attalid Nikēphoria were announced in a short time one from the other. This places both these festivals shortly before the war with Byzantium27. It follows that either the Sotēria referred to a victory that had occurred some years before but was celebrated in the 220s BC, or Prusias I took another, later victory over the Galatians. Despite these speculations, however, the event the Sotēria celebrated remains ultimately unknown28.

20 On the Nikēphoria of Attalus I and their re-foundation by Eumenes II, see WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 502-503; ALLEN 1983, pp. 121-129; MUSTI 1998; MUSTI 2000. 21 MCSHANE 1964, p. 90; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; FERNOUX 2008, p. 226; MICHELS 2009, pp. 67-68; see below pp. 111-112, 129-138. 22 HABICHT 1957 col. 1087; MICHELS 2009, p. 69. 23 WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 503; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1087-1088; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 95 n. 65; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; FERNOUX 2008, p. 226; MICHELS 2009, pp. 69-70. On the Aetolian Sotēria, see NACHTERGAEL 1977; CHAMPION 1995. It is worth noting that the Sotēria festival did not necessarily allude to a victory over the Galatians. For instance, the episode celebrated by the Sotēria and Paneia founded by Antigonus Gonatas is still debated (CHAMPION 2004-2005), while the Sotēria of Priene (IK Priene 6) celebrated the end of the tyranny of Hiero. 24 Polyb. V, 111, 6-7; below, pp. 109-110. 25 This is supposed by REINACH 1902, p. 191 and n. 5, but contra HOLLEAUX 1938, p. 62 n. 4; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 503; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1087-1088; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 95 n. 65; MICHELS 2009, p. 69. 26 HABICHT 1957, coll. 1087-1088; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 95 n. 65; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; FERNOUX 2008, p. 226; MICHELS 2009, pp. 69-70. 27 VITUCCI 1953, p. 38 n. 4; ALLEN 1983, pp. 122-123. 28 MICHELS 2009, p. 69.

102

ELOISA PAGANONI

According to Polybius29, Prusias exploited the 220 BC war as a πρόφασις to engage in conflict with Byzantium. Scholarship is affected by this assessment. It judges the causes of Prusias I’s resentment little more than pretexts30; it argues that Prusias was waiting for the occasion to seize Byzantian lands on the Propontic shore31. Polybius apparently presents the causes of Prusias I’s hostility to Byzantium in chronological order. So he describes the degeneration of the relationships between the Bithynian king and the city. Since the reign of Nicomedes I, these relationships had been friendly. The city had been a member of the Northern League, like Nicomedes, and it had been one of the guardians of his sons32. There is no information for the years of Ziaelas, but we have no reason to think that the situation had changed. Indeed, in the earliest years of Prusias I Byzantium still was in good relationships with the Bithynian king in view of the honours the city had voted for him. Throughout the 220s BC yet, the city had interrupted these friendly contacts. It had not erected the already voted statues in honour of Prusias. Then, it had approached Attalus I and Achaeus, who were very dangerous threats to the Bithynian king. In light of the 220 BC war, Byzantium’s operations acquire the contours of a preparation for a military campaign. If the friendly relations of Byzantium, Attalus I and Achaeus had turned into an alliance, Prusias I would have been surrounded. Admitting that the declaration of war by Rhodes in 220 BC was a pretext for anyone, this one was Byzantium. It had been building up an anti-Bithynian coalition in the last years. Sources do not explain the reason why Byzantium turned against its ex-ally Prusias I. But it is possible that the city wanted to limit his growing power. If so, the change of Byzantium’s attitude, along with the Sotēria, testifies that Prusias was pursuing successful policies, which the surviving sources completely omit. In this light, the war of 220 BC was firstly a war between Byzantium and Prusias I, and then a war between Byzantium and Rhodes. When Rhodes looked for support from Prusias I, Byzantium asked Achaeus and Attalus I for help33. This move revealed the aim of Byzantium’s Polyb. IV, 49, 4. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 38 claims that Prusias I had ‘ragioni più o meno gravi’ to undertake the war. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 79, FERNOUX 2008, p. 226 and MICHELS 2009, p. 67 distinguish ideological reasons (the non erection of the statue to Prusias I and the absence at the Sotēria) and political ones (the peace between Achaeus and Attalus I). In doing so, they (maybe unintentionally) diminish the value of the former ones. 31 MCSHANE 1964, pp. 98-99; WILL 1982, pp. 45-46; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 223; BITTNER 1998, p. 83. 32 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 7, 2; 14, 1. 33 Polyb. IV, 48, 1-4: τὸ δὲ παραπλήσιον ἐποίουν καὶ Βυζάντιοι· πρός τε γὰρ Ἄτταλον καὶ πρὸς Ἀχαιὸν ἔπεμπον πρέσβεις, δεόμενοι σφίσι βοηθεῖν. ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἄτταλος ἦν πρόθυμος, εἶχε δὲ βραχεῖαν τότε ῥοπήν, 29 30

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

103

former diplomatic effort. The city also addressed another enemy of Prusias I, Zipoites34. Polybius, who calls him Tiboites, leaves no doubt about his identity: it was considered that Tiboites had as good a claim to the throne of Bithynia as Prusias since he was Prusias’ relative on his father’s side35.

Zipoites was one of the sons Nicomedes I had from his second wife. He was the step-brother of Ziaelas and the uncle of Prusias I36. After Ziaelas had taken the throne, he had fled to Macedonia, where he remained37. The Byzantians were certain of his support, as they were of Achaeus’ and Attalus’38. At the outbreak of the war, however, Byzantium could rely only on the promises of its allies. Rhodes and Prusias I, instead, went on the offensive. Rhodes undertook the operations by sea and Prusias those by land39. Some Rhodian ships blocked the Straits to convince Byzantium to desist40. Meanwhile, Prusias achieved many successes in Asia: (Prusias) seized the place on the strait called Hieron, which shortly before the Byzantians had acquired by paying a great amount of money for the favourable place, wishing to leave to no-one any basis to damage the trade with Pontus, the slave trade or the fishing; (Prusias) also took those lands of Asia, that were part of Mysia and that the Byzantians controlled for a long time41. ὡς ἂν ὑπ᾽ Ἀχαιοῦ συνεληλαμένος εἰς τὴν πατρῴαν ἀρχήν· ὁ δ᾽ Ἀχαιός, κρατῶν μὲν τῆς ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ταύρου, βασιλέα δὲ προσφάτως αὑτὸν ἀναδεδειχώς, ἐπηγγέλλετο βοηθήσειν. ὑπάρχων δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταύτης τῆς προαιρέσεως, τοῖς μὲν Βυζαντίοις μεγάλην ἐλπίδα παρεσκεύαζε, τοῖς δὲ Ῥοδίοις καὶ Προυσίᾳ τἀναντία κατάπληξιν (‘The Byzantians too did the same: they sent ambassadors requiring help from them. Attalus was ready; however, at that time his help was of little weight as it was confined in the original realm of Achaeus. Achaeus, who was ruling now this side of the Taurus and had recently taken the royal title, announced his help. Making this decision, he arose great hope in the Byzantians and, on the contrary, concern in the Rhodians and Prusias’). 34 Polyb. IV, 50, 1. 35 Polyb. IV, 50, 9-10: ἐδόκει γὰρ οὐχ ἧττον ἡ Βιθυνῶν ἀρχὴ Τιβοίτῃ καθήκειν ἢ Προυσίᾳ διὰ τὸ πατρὸς ἀδελφὸν αὐτὸν ὑπάρχειν τῷ Προυσίᾳ. 36 On Zipoites, see VITUCCI 1953, p. 39; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504; DE FOUCAULT 1972, p. 90 n. 1; HABICHT 1972d; SCHOTTKY 2002e. 37 Polyb. IV, 50, 1; 8. 38 Polyb. IV, 50, 1. Maybe the Byzantians were already in contact with Zipoites as with Achaeus and Attalus I. 39 Polyb. IV, 49, 4. In Polybius’ account, Rhodes was apparently supported by Prusias I only. However, the peace agreement quotes ‘the Rhodians and his allies’ (Polyb. IV, 52, 5: Ῥοδίους δὲ καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους), alluding to the involvement of other states (probably those that had asked for the intervention of Rhodes). 40 Polyb. IV, 50, 5-7. 41 Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4: παρείλετο μὲν αὐτῶν τὸ καλούμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ στόματος Ἱερόν, ὃ Βυζάντιοι μικροῖς ἀνώτερον χρόνοις μεγάλων ὠνησάμενοι χρημάτων ἐσφετερίσαντο διὰ τὴν εὐκαιρίαν τοῦ τόπου, βουλόμενοι μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν μηδενὶ καταλιπεῖν μήτε κατὰ τῶν εἰς τὸν Πόντον πλεόντων ἐμπόρων μήτε

104

ELOISA PAGANONI

Prusias I seized the Hieron, the ‘Holy Place’ literally, a strategic site on the Bosporus about twenty-five kilometres east of Chalcedon42. Originally part of the city’s chōra43, sources call it τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ Χαλκηδονίων44 to distinguish it from the homonymous ἱερὸν τὸ Βυζαντίων on the opposite coast45. Since 600-550 BC, the Hieron was used for religious practices46. Throughout the Archaic and Classical ages, the original worship of the Twelve Gods was gradually replaced by that of Zeus Ourios47. Later, maybe from the Hellenistic age, the strategic position of the Hieron was exploited to control trade to the Black Sea. This raised a contention over the site. In this regard the second-century-AD historian Dionysius of Byzantium writes: The control of the Holy Place was disputed, as many of those who were controlling the sea claimed it, but above all the Chalcedonians attempted to claim it as originally their own. Nevertheless, in ancient times, the Byzantians had always had the possession through their supremacy and their innate strength – they indeed controlled the sea with many ships – and furthermore for having bought it from Callimedes, the general of Seleucus48.

It is unclear when Byzantium began attempting to seize the Hieron, but the city controlled the site continuously after buying it49. Both Polybius and Dionysius mention the purchase. The latter also records who sold the site, a certain Callimedes otherwise unknown. The designation Seleuci exercitus dux points out that he was a Seleucid military official50. He sold the Hieron περὶ τοὺς δούλους καὶ τὰς ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς θαλάττης ἐργασίας, παρείλετο δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας χώραν, ἣν κατεῖχον Βυζάντιοι τῆς Μυσίας πολλοὺς ἤδη χρόνους. 42 The most recent and complete contribution about this site is MORENO 2008, collecting and discussing literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence from the Archaic era to the Late Antiquity. 43 Dion. Byz. 92. 44 E.g. Strabo VII, 6, 1; XII, 4, 2. 45 E.g. Strabo VII, 6, 1. 46 MORENO 2008, p. 660. 47 MORENO 2008, esp. p. 699 and n. 57. 48 Dion. Byz. 92: possessio autem Fani controversa fuit, multis ipsam sibi vindicantibus ad tempus mari imperantibus, sed maxime omnium Chalcedonii hunc locum sibi haereditarium asserere conabantur; verumtamen possessio semper remansit Byzantiis olim quidem ob principatum et domesticum robur – multis enim navibus mare possidebant – , rursus vero cum emissent a Callimede, Seleuci exercitus duce. 49 GABRIELSEN 2011, p. 223 speaks of ‘monopoly’ of Byzantium over the Hieron. 50 BENGTSON 1944, p. 118 (‘Statthalter’); WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504 (‘strategos’); GRAINGER 1997, p. 99; CAPDETREY 2007, p. 237 (‘strategos’); DUMITRU 2013, p. 90 (‘strategos’). According to BENGSTON 1944, p. 118 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504), Callimedes had the task of preventing enemies from taking the Hieron.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

105

to the Byzantians shortly before Prusias I took the site. It follows that he should be a lieutenant of either Seleucus II or Seleucus III51. While they Byzantians had recently bought the Hieron when Prusias I took it, they were controlling the part of Mysia that Prusias seized toghether with the ‘Holy Place’ since the Archaic age 52. This was the eastern part of the peraia of Byzantium that stretched from the Gulf of Nicomedia to Myrlea and bordered on Prusias’ domain53. Byzantium was concerned by the success of Prusias I in Asia and the embargo of Rhodes. At that time, it had not yet received help from its allies. The little force sent by Attalus had got lost in the territory of Achaeus54 and no aid from Achaeus and Zipoites had come. The city, however, still hoped for it. So, it asked again: The Byzantians sent some men to Achaeus asking for aid and some others to Tiboites to conduct him from Macedonia55.

The Rhodians realised that the resistance of the Byzantians rested on the hope for aid from Achaeus56. They thus prevented him from intervening with a clever diplomatic move. They convinced Ptolemy IV to hand over to them Achaeus’ father Andromachus, who was a captive in Egypt57. They also granted unspecified honours to Achaeus himself 58. Zipoites seemed not particularly interested in taking part in the war. Nevertheless, in a desperate attempt, the Byzantians sent a delegation to bring him to the war59. Prusias I destroyed all strategic sites in the Byzantian peraia and the Hieron to prevent his return60. It was, in fact, unneeded. Zipoites never crossed to Asia, as he died during the march61. After this stroke of luck, Prusias I became even 51 WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504; cf. GRAINGER 1997, p. 99. Seleucus II: Müller, GGM, vol. II, p. 76; BENGTSON 1944, p. 118; CAPDETREY 2007, p. 237; DUMITRU 2013, p. 90. Seleucus III: MORENO 2008, p. 669. 52 Polyb. IV, 50, 2-4. On the peraia of Byzantium, see above pp. 13-14. 53 MEYER 1925, p. 113; ROBERT 1949, p. 41 n. 2; cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 504-505; JEFREMOW 2005, p. 84 n. 136. 54 Polyb. IV, 48, 2. 55 Polyb. IV, 50, 8: οἱ δὲ Βυζάντιοι πρός τε τὸν Ἀχαιὸν ἔπεμπον, ἀξιοῦντες βοηθεῖν, ἐπί τε τὸν Τιβοίτην ἐξαπέστελλον τοὺς ἄξοντας αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Μακεδονίας. 56 Polyb. IV, 50, 10. 57 Polyb. IV, 51, 1-5. 58 Polyb. IV, 51, 6. 59 As far as we see, Zipoites was somehow subordinated to Byzantium. TREVES 1943, p. 111 n. 7 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 504) claims that Zipoites’ ‘attempt to return... was evidently approved, or permitted, by Philip V’. However, sources are not explicit in this respect. 60 Polyb. IV, 52, 7-8. 61 Polyb. IV, 51, 7.

106

ELOISA PAGANONI

more aggressive. He not only continued the operations in Asia but also hired some Thracians in Europe: (Prusias I) indeed fought in person and with great energy on the Asiatic side, hiring instead Thracians on the European side so that the Byzantians were prevented from leaving their gates62.

Byzantium was now isolated by land and sea and had lost half of its peraia. In this hopeless situation, the city was considering an agreement63. The ruler of the kingdom of Tylis, Cavarus, to whom Byzantium paid a tribute, offered to mediate between Prusias I and the city64. Prusias I accepted to open the negotiations65. Rhodes did the same and sent an embassy to Byzantium66. Rhodes and Prusias I signed separate treaties in fall-winter 220 BC67 – which confirms that this war was in fact a double conflict. Prusias I and Rhodes had the same enemy, Byzantium, but they undertook the war for different reasons: Prusias was moved by political reasons, Rhodes by economic interest. They fought by different means: Prusias carried out military operations, Rhodes acted diplomatically68. They also obtained different results. The expectations of Rhodes were fulfilled: Byzantium removed the toll69. On the contrary, Prusias was disappointed. The treaty Polybius hands down says: There shall be peace and friendship forever between Prusias and the Byzantians; in no way the Byzantians shall attack Prusias, nor Prusias the Byzantians. Prusias shall return lands, fortresses, people, and prisoners of war without ransom to the Byzantians; and besides these things, the ships taken in the early phase of the war, and the arms taken in the forts; and also

62 Polyb. IV, 51, 8: ἅμα μὲν αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῶν κατ᾽ Ἀσίαν μερῶν ἐπολέμει καὶ προσέκειτο τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐνεργῶς, ἅμα δὲ τοὺς Θρᾷκας μισθωσάμενος οὐκ εἴα τὰς πύλας ἐξιέναι τοὺς Βυζαντίους ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Εὐρώπην μερῶν. 63 Polyb. IV, 51, 9. 64 Polyb. IV, 52, 1: Καυάρου δὲ τοῦ τῶν Γαλατῶν βασιλέως παραγενομένου πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον, καὶ σπουδάζοντος διαλῦσαι τὸν πόλεμον καὶ διέχοντος τὰς χεῖρας φιλοτίμως, συνεχώρησαν τοῖς παρακαλουμένοις ὅ τε Προυσίας οἵ τε Βυζάντιοι (‘When the king of the Galatians Cavarus came to Byzantium and was eager to put an end to the war and offered his friendly help, both Prusias and the Byzantians agreed with his proposals’). On Cavarus and the kingdom of Tylis, cf. above p. 98 n. 5. 65 Polyb. IV, 52, 1. 66 Polyb. IV, 52, 2. 67 For the date, HABICHT 1957, col. 1090; StV III, pp. 229-230; BERTHOLD 1984, p. 96. 68 Cf. GRAINGER 2015, p. 45: ‘The only real fighting was between Byzantium and Prusias’. 69 Polyb. IV, 52, 5.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

107

timber, building stones and tiles from the Hieron – Prusias indeed, being afraid of the return of Tiboites, had destroyed all places which seemed to lie favourably for him – Prusias shall compel any Bithynians who are in possession of anything taken from the Mysian lands subject to the Byzantians to restore it to the farmers70.

The peace agreement imposed the return to the status quo ante. Prusias I was required to return lands, building material, slaves (laoi) and prisoners of war71. Moreover, he was prevented from asking for a ransom. For him, the victory on the battlefield turned into defeat at the negotiating table. Cavarus intervened to protect the interests of Byzantium72. The city was going to be defeated and the peace conditions would have damaged its finances. This would have had serious consequences on Cavarus himself because the polis would have no longer been able to pay the tribute. It was in Cavarus’ interest to defend Byzantium. It is instead difficult to understand the reason why Prusias I accepted such unfavourable conditions. In view of Cavarus’ role, the Galatians may have had some role73. As we have seen, Prusias seems to have strengthened his position 70 Polyb. IV, 52, 6-9: εἶναι Προυσίᾳ καὶ Βυζαντίοις εἰρήνην καὶ φιλίαν εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον, μὴ στρατεύειν δὲ μήτε Βυζαντίους ἐπὶ Προυσίαν τρόπῳ μηδενὶ μήτε Προυσίαν ἐπὶ Βυζαντίους· ἀποδοῦναι δὲ Προυσίαν Βυζαντίοις τάς τε χώρας καὶ τὰ φρούρια καὶ τοὺς λαοὺς καὶ τὰ πολεμικὰ σώματα χωρὶς λύτρων, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὰ πλοῖα τὰ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ληφθέντα τοῦ πολέμου καὶ τὰ βέλη τὰ καταληφθέντ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἐρύμασιν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ξύλα καὶ τὴν λιθίαν καὶ τὸν κέραμον τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Ἱεροῦ χωρίου —ὁ γὰρ Προυσίας, ἀγωνιῶν τὴν τοῦ Τιβοίτου κάθοδον, πάντα καθεῖλε τὰ δοκοῦντα τῶν φρουρίων εὐκαίρως πρός τι κεῖσθαι —ἐπαναγκάσαι δὲ Προυσίαν καὶ ὅσα τινὲς τῶν Βιθυνῶν εἶχον ἐκ τῆς Μυσίας χώρας τῆς ὑπὸ Βυζαντίους ταττομένης ἀποδοῦναι τοῖς γεωργοῖς. The passage probably depends on an official document (PAPAZOGLOU 1997, p. 51). For other examples of peaces in perpetuum, see WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 506-507; GRUEN 1984, p. 33 n. 106. 71 The agreement distinguishes laoi and prisoners of war. In the Hellenistic age, laoi were indigenous populations reduced to slavery or to a subdued condition (CORSARO 1983, pp. 525-536; PAPAZOGLOU 1997, pp. 75-140; SCHULER 1998, pp. 180-190; CORSARO 2001, passim; BUSSI 2006, pp. 10-13; THOMPSON 2011, pp. 196-200). In this case, probably they were the Bithynians who lived in the peraia of Byzantium (CORSARO 1983, pp. 529-530), whose condition is compared with the helots’ in Phylarchos BNJ 81, F 8 (see above pp. 13-14). The phrase τὰ πολεμικὰ σώματα pinpoints the prisoners of war. Independently from the possible emendation in τὰ πολιτικὰ σώματα (see the discussion in WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 507; cf. PAPAZOGLOU 1997, p. 51 n. 108), they are clearly in contrast with the laoi. They are probably to be identified with the Byzantian colonists (ROBERT 1958, p. 107 n. 12; PAPAZOGLOU 1997, pp. 50-52). The translation of the last clause in PATON 1922, p. 427 is imprecise: ‘Prusias is to compel any Bithynians occupying lands in that part of Mysia subject to Byzantium to give these up to the farmers’. The passage of Polybius means not the Bithynians inhabiting the peraia of Byzantium (i.e. the aforementioned laoi), but those subject to Prusias I. They could have pillaged the Byzantian lands. The farmers may be either the Byzantian colonists (HABICHT 1957 col. 1089; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 507) or, less likely, the laoi (PAPAZOGLOU 1997, pp. 51-52). 72 On Cavarus’ intervention in support of Byzantium, cf. Polyb. VIII, 22, 2. 73 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 40-41; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1090-1091; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 506; BERTHOLD 1984, p. 96 n. 45; JEFREMOW 2005, p. 92. WILL 1982, pp. 45-46 assumes that Cavarus threatened

108

ELOISA PAGANONI

in the early years of reign. He probably campaigned against the Galatians who killed Zialeas, but the only traces of his successes are the hostility of Byzantium and the Sotēria. A victory over Byzantium would have reinforced Prusias I further. The Galatians were concerned about this eventuality. It is possible that Cavarus, probably in contact with the Celts of Asia, exploited this situation and organised a joint action. He asked the Galatians to pressure Prusias under the threat of raids during the negotiations of the peace conditions74. The effort of Byzantium, Cavarus and possibly the Galatians in detriment of Prusias I indirectly confirms once more that in those years Bithynia was strengthening its position as the dominant power in the Propontic area. After the end of the war with Byzantium, Prusias I reappears in our sources in two episodes involving Achaeus, the Attalids and the Galatians again. Admitting that Anchaeus and Attalus I reached a truce in 220 BC, this was short-lived. In 218 BC, Attalus I profited from the absence of Achaeus, who was suppressing some revolts in the eastern part of his domain, to expand his realm. He hired the Aegosagi, a Celtic tribe from Europe, and marched through Ionia, Aeolis, Mysia and Troad as far as the river Mecestus75. The following year, Achaeus organised an expedition against Attalus: (Achaeus) fought against Attalus continually, threatened Prusias, and became the terror for all the inhabitants on this side of the Taurus76.

We are not informed about the cause of Achaeus’ hostility against Prusias I. It is possible that the Bithynian king, like Attalus, was going to attack Achaeus77; or Achaeus may have decided to reaffirm his power against any possible danger. In any case, the situation did not degenerate into open war. to invade Bithynia. MAGIE 1950, p. 313 thinks that Prusias I had to I had to accept the peace because he was isolated after Rhodes signed the peace agreement; contra HABICHT 1957, coll. 1090-1091; WILL 1982, p. 46. 74 HABICHT 1957, coll. 1090-1091. GABELKO 2005, pp. 234-236 argues that it was Rhodes who asked for harsh peace conditions for Prusias, because it was concerned about the reinforcement of Prusias after the victory. 75 Polyb. V, 77, 2-78, 6; MELONI 1950, pp.166-176; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, pp. 601-607; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 62-64; HANSEN 1971, pp. 41-42; WILL 1982, p. 47; DMITRIEV 1999, pp. 397-401. The Aegosagi likely came from the collapsing kingdom of Tylis (WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. I, p. 603). 76 Polyb. V, 77, 1: ἐπολέμει μὲν Ἀττάλῳ συνεχῶς, ἀνετείνετο δὲ Προυσίᾳ, πᾶσι δ᾽ ἦν φοβερὸς καὶ βαρὺς τοῖς ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ταύρου κατοικοῦσι. 77 HABICHT 1957, col. 1092.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

109

The 218 BC expedition of Attalus I was unsuccessful. The Aegosagi he had hired rebelled, and he was compelled to settle them in Troad78. They plundered the region until Alexandria Troad forced them to move to the area near Abydos79. They went on raiding this region until Prusias I intervened in 216 BC: Prusias marched against them with an army and put the men to death on the battlefield, slaughtered almost all their women and children in the camp, and allowed his soldiers to plunder the baggage. By carrying out this deed, (Prusias) freed the cities on the Hellespont from a great fear and danger, and he left a good lesson to future generations so that barbarians would not make a too easy passage from Europe to Asia80.

Prusias clashed with the Aegosagi probably near Abydos and achieved an overwhelming victory81. It is an ‘isolated’ and rather unexplainable episode. On this occasion, Prusias entered the lands Achaeus and Attalus I were disputing but did not conquer them. There is no evidence that Prusias I took control of Abydos or established any kind of relationship with the city either at that time or afterwards82. This episode, therefore, was in no way the prelude of the campaign to the south-west Prusias I undertook some years later83. The explanation of the intervention of Prusias could stem from the conclusive assessment of Polybius. It presents Prusias’ victory as a triumph over the ‘barbarians’84. In those years, the Aegosagi – a Celtic tribe who moved to Asia – embodied the prototype of the ‘barbarians’, the enemies of the Greeks par excellence. The victory over them gave Prusias access to the group of the ‘saviours of the Greeks’85, which included among Polyb. V, 78, 1-6. Polyb. V, 111, 2-5. 80 Polyb. V, 111, 6-7: ἐφ᾽ οὓς στρατεύσας μετὰ δυνάμεως Προυσίας καὶ παραταξάμενος τοὺς μὲν ἄνδρας κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν κίνδυνον ἐν χερῶν νόμῳ διέφθειρε, τὰ δὲ τέκνα σχεδὸν ἅπαντα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ κατέσφαξε, τὴν δ᾽ ἀποσκευὴν ἐφῆκε διαρπάσαι τοῖς ἠγωνισμένοις. πράξας δὲ ταῦτα μεγάλου μὲν ἀπέλυσε φόβου καὶ κινδύνου τὰς ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντου πόλεις, καλὸν δὲ παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις ἀπέλιπε τοῦ μὴ ῥᾳδίαν ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Εὐρώπης βαρβάρους τὴν εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν διάβασιν. 81 On the location of the clash, cf. MCSHANE 1964, pp. 63, 99; SCHMITT 1964, p. 263; STROBEL 1994, pp. 29-30. According to the editors, the reliefs on three tombstones from Northern Anatolia recently published (PESCHLOW et al. 2002, pp. 436-437 nrr. 102-105) refer to Prusias I’s expedition. Cf. CHANIOTIS 2005, p. 200). 82 HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228. 83 See below pp. 117, 122-124, 130-131. 84 According to MCSHANE 1964, p. 63 n. 17, the favourable attitude to Prusias derives from Polybius’ Rhodian source hostile to Pergamum. 85 Cf. STROBEL 1994, pp. 30-31; STROBEL 1994a, p. 69. 78 79

110

ELOISA PAGANONI

its members Attalus I, who had grounded his power on his image as victor over the Galatians86. In this light, Prusias’ 216 BC campaign ultimatley appears to be a propagandistic act and a challenge to the Attalids87. And in competition with the Attalids, no occasion could appeal to Prusias I more than to ‘save’ Greek cities from the Galatians that Attalus himself had settled. 2. GREAT EXPANSION IN A CHANGING WORLD. PRUSIAS I’S POLITICS TURN OF THE 2ND CENTURY BC

IN THE

The following reference to Prusias I dates to the years of the First Macedonian War. During the negotiations at Phalara in 208 BC, Philip V was informed that Attalus I had come to Greece to aid the Aetolians88. He stopped any attempt to reach an agreement and collected naval forces for a new battle: After receiving five ships (by the Achaeans), (Philip V) had resolved that, if he could have added them to the fleet the Carthaginians had lately sent to him and to the ships coming from Bithynia by King Prusias, he would have confronted in a naval battle the Romans, who had already held control of the sea in that region for a long time89.

On the propaganda of Attalus I, see e.g. SCHALLES 1985, pp. 51-53; HANNESTAD 1993, pp. 21-33; VIR1993, pp. 30-39; MITCHELL 2003, pp. 283-287. The Attalid propaganda also echoes in some modern assessments, such as GRANDJEAN et al. 2008, p. 203: ‘Rapellons surtout qu’à plusieurs reprises les Attalides, et particulièremet Eumène II, défendirent l’Asie Mineure occidentale, et en premier lieu les cités, contre les ambitions de rois de Bithynie Prusias I de Bithynie (en 186-183) et Prusias II (159-154) mais aussi contre le danger galate’. 87 About the meaning of the 216 BC expedition in Bithynian propaganda, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 4344:‘E Prusia dovè accogliere l’inivito perché gli porgeva occasione di atteggiarsi a «sotere», e forse anche per rafforzare quel prestigio che poco innanzi avevano scosso le condizioni di pace accettate alla fine della guerra con Bisanzio’; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 98-99 (esp. p. 98: ‘Prusias further competed with Attalus for the reputation as champion of the Greeks against barbarians’); WILL 1982, p. 48: ‘victoire qui fit plus pour la reputation philhellénique de la maison royale de Bithynie que toutes les donations et évergésies antérieures’; FERNOUX 2004, p. 48; GABELKO 2005, pp. 238-239; FERNOUX 2008, pp. 227-228 (esp. p. 227: ‘una revanche politique et idéologique sur son ennemi attalide’); KLEU 2013b. About the introduction of the theme of the struggle against the Galatians in Bithynian propaganda, cf. HANNESTAD 1993, pp. 21-33; STROOTMAN 2005, pp. 121-127; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228. There are no arguments in favour of a collaboration between Prusias I and Attalus I against the Aegosagi, as NIESE 1899, p. 393 and MELONI 1950, p. 176 n. 2 argue (cf. SCHMITT 1964, p. 263 n. 3). 88 Liv. XXVII, 30, 4-15. About the alliance of Attalus with the Aetolians and his intervention in the First Macedonian War, see MCSHANE 1964, pp. 100-102, 106-109; HANSEN 1971, pp. 47-49; WILL 1982, p. 87; EVANS 2012, p. 26. For a complete reassessment of the contacts between Attalus I and the Aetolians, see CAVALLI 2015, pp. 87-140. 89 Liv. XXVII, 30, 16: quinque longis navibus acceptis, quas si adiecisset missae nuper ad se classi 86

GILIO

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

111

The sending of some ships demonstrates that Prusias I supported Philip V in the war against the Aetolians. It is difficult yet to establish whether it was a collaboration or a formal alliance90 or whether Prusias I had played some role in the war before 208 BC. Likewise, it is difficult to prove that the aid to Philip and Prusias’ attack to Pergamum, probably in the same year, were connected in any way. With regard of this attack Livy says: From there (i.e. Oreum), since (Attalus) heard that the king of Bithynia Prusias had crossed over the boundaries of his kingdom, he neglected the Roman affairs and the war of the Aetolians and came back to Asia91.

The attack of Prusias caused the retirement of Attalus from Europe92. It put, in fact, an end to his participation in the First Macedonian War. It has been argued that Prusias attacked Pergamum mainly to benefit Philip V93. No element yet confirms this hypothesis that remains, in the words of Frank W. Walbank, a ‘matter of speculation’94. Independetly from the contacts with Philip V, Prusias I had is own reasons to attack Pergamum. The Attalids had become more and more dangerous to him. They had begun threatening the Bithynian kingdom with aggressive actions since they had become independent from the Seleucids. To our knowledge, the rivalry had manifested first in propaganda, in the barely

Carthaginiensium et ex Bithynia ab rege Prusia venientibus navibus, statuerat navali proelio lacessere Romanos iam diu in regione ea potentes maris. HABICHT 1957, col. 1092 argues that Prusias I could have no fleet in 208 BC, since a few years before, in the war against Byzantium, he had left the operations on the sea to the Rhodians. 90 Cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 45; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; MCSHANE 1964, p. 99; GEHRKE 1990, p. 111; KLEU 2013b. 91 Liv. XXVIII, 7, 10: inde, cum fama accidisset Prusian Bithyniae regem in fines regni sui transgressum, omissis Romanis rebus atque Aetolico bello in Asiam traiecit. Livy sets Prusias’ attack within the account of 207 BC, but it is accepted that most events in Book XXVIII, 5, 1-8, 14 occurred in 208 BC (JAL 1995, pp. XXIX-XXXI). As for the episode in question, among those following Livy’s chronology, VITUCCI 1953, p. 45; GRUEN 1984, p. 532; CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 98; among those who prefer the earlier date, WALBANK 1940, p. 93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; WILL 1982, p. 91; ALLEN 1983, pp. 49, 64; GABELKO 2005, p. 242; FERNOUX 2008, p. 229; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74; MA 2013, p. 53. 92 Cf. Dio Cass. (XVII, 57, 58) who hints at another other reason behind the retirement of Attalus from Greece: ὥστε τὸν Ἄτταλον διά τε τοῦτο καὶ διὰ Προυσίαν τὸν Βιθυνῶν βασιλέα, ἐσβαλόντα τε ἐς τὴν χώραν αὐτοῦ καὶ πορθοῦντα αὐτήν, ἀποπλεῦσαι κατὰ τάχος οἴκαδε (‘so that Attalus for this [i.e. the threat by Philip V] and for the king of the Bithynians Prusias, who had invaded his lands and was plundering them, sailed off home quickly’). 93 VITUCCI 1953, p. 45; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1092-1093; HANSEN 1971, p. 49; cf. CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 98 n. 60. 94 WALBANK 1940, p. 95.

112

ELOISA PAGANONI

known matter of the Sotēria and Nikēphoria95. But it had nearly switched to war shortly after during the conflict between Rhodes and Byzantium. The land force of Attalus had never reached the army of Byzantium. But if it had, it would have probably fought against Prusias who was carrying out the operations in Asia96. In 216 BC Attalus I had joined Antiochus III against Achaeus, who had been definitively defeated in 213 BC. In reward for his support, Antiochus probably had given Attalus some lands that had been Acheaus’97. The expansion of Pergamum and the disappearance of Achaeus, who had avoided contacts between Pergamum and Bithynia, had increased tensions. In 208 BC Prusias exploited the absence of Attalus I to attack Pergamum98. He likely intended to strike a severe blow to an enemy that had become a threat to him. The attack of Prusias I is supposed to have opened a conflict. Nothing is known with certainty about this99, but it is understood to have been hard since Attalus was prevented from supporting the Aetolians further. However to our knowledge, it brought lasting advantage neither to Prusias nor to Attalus100. The conflict probably finished by 205 BC101. In that year, Prusias and Attalus were mentioned as adscripti in the Peace of Phoenice that concluded the First Macedonian War102. Prusias I’s friendly relations with Philip V showed their effect again See above pp. 100-101. See above p. 105. 97 HABICHT 1956, p. 93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; HANSEN 1971, p. 97; LAFFI 1971, pp. 19-20; WILL 1982, p. 180; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 291; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74. 98 MAGIE 1950, p. 313. 99 HABICHT 1957, col. 1093. Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Βοὸς Κεφαλαί says: τόπος καθ’ ὃν ἐπολέμησε Προυσίας πρὸς Ἄτταλον, ὡς Ἐρατοσθένης ἐν ἑβδόμῃ Γαλατικῶν (‘place in which Prusias fought against Attalus, as Eratosthenes says in Book VII of the Galatika’). This battle at the unknown place Βοὸς Κεφαλαί is considered an episode of the Attalid-Bithynian war which opened in 208 BC by some scholars (e.g. IvP I, 56 E, p. 45; STÄHELIN 1907, p. 38 n. 7; MAGIE 1950, p. 1196 n. 37; HANSEN 1971, pp. 49-50). Others think that Attalus II and Prusias II are meant in Stephanus. Accordingly they set this episode during the Bithynian-Attalid war in the 150s BC (VITUCCI 1953, p. 46 n. 1; HABICHT 1957, col. 1093; HOPP 1977, pp. 77-78 n. 103; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 1196-1198 nn. 37, 42). The first proposal, however, is more convincing as the information was originally in Eratosthenes, who died in the early 2nd century BC. 100 Cf. MAGIE 1950, p. 313; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 45-46; HABICHT 1957, col. 1093; HANSEN 1971, pp. 49-50; ALLEN 1983, p. 49; GABELKO 2005, p. 245. 101 HABICHT 1957, col. 1093; HANSEN 1971, p. 50; ALLEN 1983, p. 49 and n. 75; STROBEL 1994, p. 31; GABELKO 2005, p. 244. 102 Liv. XXIX, 12, 14. HABICHT 1957, col. 1093 questions the inclusion of Prusias I, because he seems not to be allied with Rome after 205 BC. But, as ERRINGTON 1989, p. 105 notes, the Peace of Phoenice did not establish a formal alliance between Rome and the adscripti. On the juridical status of the adscripti, see MAGIE 1950, pp. 744-746 n. 36; PIRAINO 1955; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 111-116; StV III, pp. 282-284; WILL 1982, pp. 95-98; ALLEN 1983, p. 49 n. 75. 95 96

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

113

in 202 BC. After the end of the conflict with the Aetolians, Philip V had started threatening Rhodian supremacy over the Aegean. He had secretly supported Dicearcus against Rhodes in the Cretan War103. In 202 BC he undertook a campaign in the Hellespont. He entered in alliance with Lysimachia and Chalcedon and seized Perinthus and Thasos104. During this expedition, he also took Cius and handed it over to Prusias I105. According to Polybius, our main source for this episode, Philip intervened to help his σύμμαχος (‘ally’)106 and κηδεστής107 Prusias I, who was already besieging the city108. The passages concerning the issue of Cius contain the first explicit mention of the alliance of Philip V and Prusias. They also inform us that this alliance was sanctioned by a marriage: κηδεστής indeed can be translated as ‘brother-in-law’, ‘father-in-law’ or ‘son-in-law’109. The not univocal meaning of this word, however, prevents us from disclosing the exact kinship between Prusias I and Philip. Nor is it possible to determine whether this marriage was celebrated at the time of their first collaboration in 208 BC or afterwards. Polybius clarly states that Prusias was already laying siege to Cius when Philip approached. It is less clear under what circumstances the Bithynian king attacked the city. Immediately before the account of Philip’s seizure, Polybius110 deals with Molpagoras who was ruling Cius. He presents a harsh portrayal and attributes to him all the features typical of a demagogue. The blame for Molpagoras also emerges from the Suda, the other source about him. It significantly sets the information concerning him in the entry δημαγωγικός and records that he was murdered111. Focusing on the moral condemnation, these sources preserve no hints at how Molpagoras took power and what the situation of Cius was. On the basis of the reference to a demagogic regime, it is assumed that in the late 3rd century BC Cius

103 WALBANK 1940, pp. 108-113; WILL 1982, pp. 104-105; BRULÉ 1978, pp. 44-46; GRAINGER 1999, pp. 348-349; WIEMER 2002, pp. 41-42, 122-123. On the Cretan War, see BRULÉ 1978, pp. 29-56; WIEMER 2002, pp. 143-176; KLEU 2015, pp. 91-93. 104 See WALBANK 1940, pp. 114-137; WILL 1982, pp. 121-128; HAMMOND – WALBANK 1988, pp. 411416; ERRINGTON 1990, pp. 196-203; KLEU 2015, pp. 103-109. 105 Polyb. XV, 22, 1-5; 23, 9-10; XVIII, 3, 12; Strabo XII, 4, 3. Unconvincingly MEYER 1897, col. 518 and ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 662 argue that Philip also handed over Chalcedon to Prusias I (WALBANK 19571979, vol. II, p. 479). 106 Polyb. XVIII, 4, 7; cf. Liv. XXXII, 34, 5: socium et amicum. 107 Polyb. XV, 22, 1; 22, 3. 108 GABELKO 2015 argues that Prusias I was supported by Galatian mercenaries. 109 LSJ s.v. κηδεστής. About this marriage, see below pp. 124-125, 128. 110 Polyb. XV, 21, 1-8. 111 Suda s.v. δημαγωγικός.

114

ELOISA PAGANONI

went through internal strife, which caused the overturning of the existing government and the emergence of Molpagoras112. In view of the setting of the passage in Polybius, then, Molpagoras’ death is supposed to be connected with the intervention of Prusias I113. In regard to the contacts between the Bithynian king and Cius, Gabelko114 has drawn attention to another piece of information. It is preserved in the entry Κιανοί of the Suda and probably derives from Polybius: the inhabitants of Cius. Prusias wished to break the treaty with them for some reasons115.

Gabelko thinks that the passage refers to Prusias I and concerns the situation before 202 BC. If he is right, it informs us that a treaty between Prusias I and Cius existed. Accordingly, we are allowed to think about peaceful relations. At some time, for unknown reasons, Prusias broke the agreement and laid siege to the city. Whether and how Prusias profited from the internal strife remains unknown. Likewise, it is impossible to investigate his relations with Molpagoras. In any case, the situation of the city may have had some role in his change of mind. With the excuse of helping his ally and relative, Philip aimed to damage the Aetolians116, who had built a wide alliance network in the Hellespontic area, including Lysimachia, Chalcedon and Cius117. Before 112 On Molpagoras and the accounts about him, see GARSON 1975, p. 6; IK Kios, pp. 35-36; CHAMPION 2004, pp. 200, 204; GABELKO 2005, p. 246; THORNTON 2013, pp. 28-29, 34. 113 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 46-47; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p. 475, who doubts whether Prusias supported Molpagoras or the faction hostile to him; IK Kios, p. 37, assuming that Prusias and Philip supported the faction hostile to Molpagoras; GABELKO 2005, p. 247; GABELKO 2015, pp. 88-89. Cf. PATON 1926, p. 513, who translates the phrase καταπεπληγμένος δὲ πάντας τοὺς ἀλλοτριάζοντας (Polyb. XV, 22, 1) as ‘defeating the revolutionary party’, instead of ‘defeating all those who were hostile to him (i.e. Philip V)’. Contra HABICHT 1957, col. 1093. 114 GABELKO 2015, pp. 88-89. 115 Suda s.v. Κιανοί: οἱ τῆς Κίου· οὓς Προυσίας παρασπονδῆσαι ἠθέλησε διά τινας αἰτίας. A fragment of Polybius too (Fr. 127: οὕτω γὰρ διέξειν τὰς χεῖρας καὶ φροντιεῖν τοῦ μηδὲν ἀδίκημα ποιήσειν τὸν Προυσίαν εἰς αὐτούς [‘for in this way Prusias outspread his hand and intended to do no harm to them’]) might refer to Prusias’ attack to Cius (GABELKO 2015, p. 89). Cf. [WALBANK – HABICHT –] OLSON 2012, p. 563 n. 52, who, with reference to the phrase ‘outspread his hand’, explains: ‘sc. so as to hold two hostile parties aside’. 116 WALBANK 1940, pp. 114-118; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 46-47; HABICHT 1957, col. 1094; WILL 1982, p. 122; GRAINGER 1999, pp. 347-352. Philip’s operations also alarmed Rhodes (WILL 1982, p. 122, cf. p. 46; ERRINGTON 1990, p. 196; GRAINGER 1999, p. 350) and Attalus I (WILL 1982, p. 122; ERRINGTON 1990, p. 196; WIEMER 2002, p. 202). 117 It is debated whether the alliance between the Hellespontic cities and the Aetolians was established before the end of the First Macedonian War (e.g. WALBANK 1940, p. 306; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p. 478) or after (NIESE 1899, p. 581; GRAINGER 1999, pp. 349-351; cf. IK Kios, p. 36 and n. 26). About the kind of alliance, see WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, pp. 477-478. An Aetolian strategos is attested in Lysimachia

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

115

Philip intervened, the siege of Cius was a local event, which testifies to an attempt by Prusias I to expand into the west. The engagement of Philip V turned this siege into an international matter. Some states tried to negotiate with the Macedonian king118. Anyway, they did not manage to prevent him from taking the city, enslaving its inhabitants, and handing it over to Prusias I119. Prusias I obtained the city, but his expectations were not completely fulfilled: Prusias was exceedingly glad because his purpose was accomplished, but he was dissatisfied because another had taken the prize of the assault, while he received a desert site of a city. But he could do nothing120.

Maybe Polybius exaggerates the destruction of the city121 but he leaves no doubt that Philip and Prusias I had different purposes. One did the most to deprive the Aetolians of a base on the Straits; the other aimed just to include the city in his kingdom. The destruction caused by Philip forced Prusias to re-found Cius. In regard to this act, Strabo says: Philip, the son of Demetrius, the father of Perseus, destroyed Cius and gave it to Prusias, the son of Zela, who destroyed with him both this city and the neighbouring Myrlea, that was near Prusa. When this one restored to them from the ruins he named the city of Cius Prusias after himself and Myrlea Apamea after his wife122.

Strabo adds that Prusias I also conquered Myrlea123. The participle and Cius (Polyb. XV, 23, 8-9; XVIII, 3, 11-12) and there could have been one in Chalcedon too (WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p. 479; GRAINGER 1999, p. 350, who about the function of the Aetolian strategos clarifies: ‘Aitolians were posted as military commanders to these allies, presumably at the request of the citizens, and with the intention, unrealised, of deterring an attack by Philip, or perhaps for the Asian cities, by Antiochos’). 118 Polyb. XV, 22, 4. The full lists of these states is missing, but it included Rhodes (Polyb. XV, 23, 1-6), and possibly Athens and Chios, which had negotiated with Philip as neutral states in the First Macedonian War (WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, p. 476). 119 Polyb. XV, 22, 1-5; 23, 9-10; XVIII, 3, 12; Strabo XII, 4, 3. 120 Polyb. XV, 23, 10: Προυσίας δέ, καθὸ μὲν ἡ πρόθεσις αὐτοῦ συντελείας ἔτυχε, περιχαρὴς ἦν, καθὸ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἆθλα τῆς ἐπιβολῆς ἕτερος ἀπέφερεν, αὐτὸς δὲ πόλεως οἰκόπεδον ἔρημον ἐκληρονόμει, δυσχερῶς διέκειτο, ποιεῖν δ᾽ οὐδὲν οἷός τ᾽ ἦν… 121 HABICHT 1957, col. 1094. 122 Strabo XII, 4, 3: κατέσκαψε δὲ τὴν Κίον Φίλιππος, ὁ Δημητρίου μὲν υἱὸς Περσέως δὲ πατήρ, ἔδωκε δὲ Προυσίᾳ τῷ Ζήλα, συγκατασκάψαντι καὶ ταύτην καὶ Μύρλειαν ἀστυγείτονα πόλιν, πλησίον δὲ καὶ Προύσης οὖσαν. ἀναλαβὼν δ᾽ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ τῶν ἐρειπίων αὐτὰς ἐπωνόμασεν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ μὲν Προυσιάδα πόλιν τὴν Κίον, τὴν δὲ Μύρλειαν Ἀπάμειαν ἀπὸ τῆς γυναικός. 123 According to GABELKO 2015, pp. 89-90, in this case too Prusias exploited the city’s troubled situa-

116

ELOISA PAGANONI

συγκατασκάψαντι, going with Prusias (in dative case), means ‘who destroyed with him (i.e. Philip)’ [Cius and Myrlea]. This indicates that Philip played some role in the seizure of Myrlea too. In a fragment handed down by the Etymologicum genuinum, the 2nd-century-AD author Hermippus of Berytus says: Apamea: Bithynian city formerly called Myrlea, which (Prusias son of) Zielas renamed Apamea after his wife Apama, having received it as a gift by Philip son of Demetrius124.

In view of this passage and that of Strabo, scholars125 argue that Philip V also captured Myrlea and handed it over to Prusias. They, thus, replciate for Myrlea the situation of Cius. They mainly appeal to Hermippus and recall the auctoritas of Strabo. And yet, the passage of Hermippus raises some problems. Regarding the phrase ὁ Ζιήλας μετωνόμασεν κτλ. preserved in the manuscript tradition, Jan Radicke notices that the definite article ‘looks rather odd since Ziaelas has not been introduced hitherto and the lexicographer usually follows the general rule of not using the article in such cases’126. Consequently, he accepts Karl Müller’s restoration Προυσίας ὁ Ζηίλα127, which is based on Strabo. The corruption of Hermippus’ fragment does not afftect its reliability, but it warns against taking this fragment at its words. It invites us to rely on the information of Strabo mostly. This one deals with the involvement of Philip in the destruction of Myrlea, but suggests that the Antigonid had a minor role than in the case of Cius. This can appear a little achievement, a detail in the reconstruction of

tion, which in his opinion, Dionysius of Byzantium (82) alludes to: Myrlaeum, domicilium eorum qui ob seditionem a Myrlaea in exilium proiecti hunc solum verterunt (‘Myrlaeum, place of those who, expelled in exilium from Myrlea for a danger, came there’). However, it is to be noted, as Gabelko himself does, that there is no chronological reference in this passage. Moreover, according to GABELKO 2015, pp. 90-98, IK Kios 58 and CORSTEN 1991, pp. 98-99 nr. 11 suggest that Prusias I hired Galatian mercenaries for the operations against Cius and Myrlea. 124 Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1: Ἀπάμεια· πόλις Βιθυνίας, πρότερον Μυρλέα καλουμένη· ἣν λαβὼν δῶρα παρὰ Φιλίππου τοῦ Δημητρίου ὁ Ζιήλας μετωνόμασεν Ἀπάμειαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικὸς Ἀπάμας. 125 MAGIE 1950, p. 313; VITUCCI 1953, p. 48; JONES 1971, p. 151; BRISCOE 1973, p. 236; IK Apameia und Pylai, p. 10; HAMMOND – WALBANK 1988, p. 413; COHEN 1995, pp. 392-393; STROBEL 1997c; DEBORD 1998, p. 146; WIEMER 2002, p. 200; SARTRE 2003, p. 69; KLEU 2013b; MICHELS 2013, p. 13; KLEU 2015, pp. 105-106; GABELKO 2015, p. 88: ‘in contrast to the case of Cius, it was Philip who took the initiative’. SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 233 wrongly states that Philip V was involved in the seizure of Tios and Cierus. 126 Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1, Commentary. 127 Cf. Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1 and apparatus: ‘ὁ Ζηίλας vel Ζιήλας codd.: Προυσίας ὁ Ζηίλα Müller, FHG III, p. 51, sed incertum error librarii an auctoris sit’.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

117

the events. More important is instead the different relevance the conquests of Cius and Myrela had in the international scenario. The former was considered an episode of Philip V’s expedition in the Hellespont and thus, one of the causes of the Second Macedonian War. The Romans referred more than once to this issue when asking Philip to justify his conduct128. They, instead, never mentioned Myrlea, although Philip also took part in its destruction. The different role Philip V played in the conquest of these cities is not enough to justify this situation. The explanation, I think, rests on the international contacts of Cius and Myrlea. The Romans considered the case of Cius because the city was an ally of the Aetolians, who were their friends. It did not happen for Myrlea, because it was in the network neither of the Aetolians nor of Rome. The taking of Myrlea remained a local episode from a Roman perspective, regardless of the involvement of Philip V129. Scholarship focuses on the intervention of Philip V and overlooks the relevance of the seizures of Cius and Myrlea in understanding Prusias I’s policies in the late 3rd century BC130. These episodes were the final steps of a campaign that significantly expanded Bithynia to the west. The traces of a military operation compelled Prusias I to refound both Cius and Myrlea131. According to the above-quoted passage of Strabo132, they were contextually re-named after Prusias himself and his wife Apama. Stephanus of Byzantium repeats Strabo’s information about Cius133. With Polyb. XVI, 34, 5; XVIII, 3, 12; 5, 4; cf. XVIII, 44, 5. Cf. KLEU 2013b. 130 Cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 253. 131 Strabo XII, 4, 3; cf. Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1. 132 Strabo XII, 4, 3; cf. Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1. 133 Steph. Byz. s.v. Προῦσα: τῆς Προυσιάδος διαφέρει. ἡ μὲν γὰρ Προυσιάς Βιθυνίας, ἀπὸ Προυσίου τοῦ Ζηίλα τοῦ Βιθυνῶν βασιλέως, ἡ Κίος πρότερον ὀνομασθεῖσα (‘[Prusa] is different from Prusias. The Bithynian Prusias, (named) after the king of the Bithynians Prusias son of Zeila, was called Cius formerly’). Cf. Herod. De pros. cath., p. 59. According to MICHELS 2009, pp. 273-274, 276 (cf. MICHELS 2013, p. 13; GABELKO 2015, p. 97 n. 45), Prusias I settled in Cius/Prusias ad Mare the citizens enslaved by Philip V. A dedication to the founder of Cius was supposed to refer to a king Prusias for a long time. So it was considered another piece of evidence in support of literary sources (IK Kios 24; see below Appendix nr, 6; cf. WILL 1982, p. 124). But scholars now agree that it mentions the mythical founder Heracles Kallinikos. Coins (BMC Bithynia, p. 132 nrr. 27-32; SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1978, p. 633; COHEN 1995, p. 405 n. 3, with further bibliography) attest the new name of the city, Prusias, from the 1st century BC. This name is followed by the specification ἡ ἐπιθαλάσσιος, ἀπὸ θαλάσσης or πρὸς θαλάσσῃ to distinguish Cius/Prusias from Cierus/ Prusias ad Hypium (MAGIE 1950, p. 1189 n. 20; VITUCCI 1953, p. 48; COHEN 1995, p. 405; MICHELS 2009, p. 273 n. 1391; on Cierus/Prusias and Hypium, see below, pp. 139-141). A decree from Magnesia ad Sipylum, discovered in Cius/Prusias ad Mare and dating to about the mid-2nd century BC (KOERTE 1899, pp. 410-413 nr. 12 = IK Magnesia am Sipylos 7 = IK Kios 17; cf. SEG 4 [1929] 725, pointing to Prusias ad Hypium as the findspot), honours some men from Cius/Prusias ad Mare who acted as judges in an arbitration involving Magnesia ad Sipylum. It attests the diplomatic activity of the city in the years following the refoudation 128 129

118

ELOISA PAGANONI

regard to Myrlea, he claims that the city was re-founded by Nicomedes II, son of Prusias II and grandson of Prusias I. He adds that Nicomedes II re-named it after his mother Apama134. The information of Strabo had been preferred to that of Stephanus135 until the discovery of a dedication of Nicomedes II136. The inscription, found at the Piraeus, but probably coming from Bithynia, attests that the mother of Nicomedes II was named Apama. Combining the information from Strabo and from this inscription, it follows that both the wives of Prusias I and Prusias II were named Apama, which some consider unlikely137. On this basis, some scholars reject Strabo’s information and prefer Stephanus’ because it finds some confirmation in the epigraphic evidence. They argue that the change of name138 and maybe even the re-foundation of the city139 occurred under Nicomedes II, and not under Prusias I. The debate on Myrlea intersects here with the one on the Bithynian queens. In this regard, we should recognise that the pieces of information from Strabo and the Piraeus inscription do not differ from each other, and there is no grounded argument to consider any of them untrustworthy. The presence of two queens with the same name in two generations is not only possible, but also quite common. The use of ‘dynastic’ names repeated every generation is, indeed, widely attested in the Hellenistic (VITUCCI 1953, p. 125). But it does not prove the survival of the old city’s name, as MICHELS 2009, pp. 274275 argues. The place name at line 6 (ἄνδρα̣[ς ἐγ Κίου], ‘men of Cius’) is indeed completely restored. The city re-established the former name under Claudius (RUGE 1921a, col. 487; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 276; COHEN 1995, p. 405 n. 3 with further bibliography; MICHELS 2009, p. 274) or Hadrian (SOMMER 1996). Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 28, 7 (Προυσιάδα τὴν ἐπιθαλάσσιον... Κίερος τὸ παλαιὸν [‘Prusias ad Mare... formerly Cierus’]) confuses Cius/Prusias ad Mare and Prusias ad Hypium (cf. e.g. COHEN 1995, p. 405 n. 405 n. 2). A few inscriptions from Cius/Prusias ad Mare are dated before the Imperial era. Among them, there are two 4th-century-BC decrees (IK Kios 1-2) and a decree of the Hellenistic age (IK Kios 8, see below Appendix nr. 4), that alludes to a royal cult in the gymnasion. On the city-state institutions, see IK Kios, pp. 50-56. 134 Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀπάμεια: ἔστι καὶ Βιθυνίας, κτίσμα Νικομήδους τοῦ Ἐπιφανοῦς, ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ πρῶτον Μύρλεια (‘There is also [Apamea] of Bithynia, foundation of Nicomedes Epiphanēs, formerly called Myrlea’); s.v. Μύρλεια: πόλις Βιθυνίας, ἡ νῦν λεγομένη Ἀπάμεια. ἀπὸ Μύρλου τοῦ Κολοφωνίων ἡγεμόνος. Νικομήδης δὲ ὁ Ἐπιφανής, Προυσίου δὲ υἱός, ἀπὸ τῆς μητρὸς Ἀπάμας Ἀπάμειαν ὠνόμασεν (‘city in Bithynia, now named Apamea. From Myrlus leader of the Colophonians. Nicomedes Epiphanēs, son of Prusias, named it after his mother Apama’). 135 E.g. HIRSCHFELD 1894. 136 IG II-III2, 3, 1. 3172, see below Appendix nr. 12. 137 WILHELM 1908, pp. 78-80; MEYER 1925, p. 114; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1095-1096; JONES 1971, pp. 151, 419 n. 9; IK Apameia und Pylai, p. 10. Cf. OGDEN 1999, p. 179 who records one Apama (the mother of Nicomedes II) in his catalogue of the female exponents of the Hellenistic dynasties. 138 RUGE 1933; HABICHT 1957, col. 1095; cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278 139 STROBEL 1997c. According to HANNESTAD 1996, p. 98 n. 125 and FERNOUX 2004, p. 38, Myrlea was founded by Prusias II. This is considered possible by MICHELS 2009, pp. 276-277 (cf. MICHELS 2013, pp. 13-14), who takes no position in the debate.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

119

age140. We have to recognise that both Prusias I and Prusias II were married to a woman named Apama. In regard to the refoundation of Myrlea, the city had been damaged during the military operations. It is reasonable that Prusias I re-built the city after he seized it. It is equally reasonable, at least for sake of economy, that he contextually re-named it after his wife141. It remains possible to assume a re-foundation under Prusias I and a name change under Nicomedes II. But, in my opinion, this is a lectio difficilior of the evidence at our disposal142. Prusias I supported Philip V in the First Macedonian War and received aid from him in 202 BC. It is difficult to find the ‘deep root’ of this alliance, but Prusias I seems to have been unaware of its implications. He was focused on reinforcing the kingdom and his political horizon still was limited to the Propontic and Anatolic areas143. His enemies and friends were ‘around’ him or involved in the situation of northern Asia Minor: on the one hand, Pergamum, Byzantium and the Galatians, and on the other hand, Rhodes and Philip V. Prusias I did not understand that to become involved in Macedonian affairs entailed coming into contact with Rome, which was taking its first steps towards the conquest of the East. Prusias probably began to understand the implications of his alliance with Philip V at the end of the Second Macedonian War. In 197 BC the agreement of Tempe imposed on Philip V to free the territories he had seized144. These included Cius, which was under the control of Prusias I at that time. The Romans knew the situation and were not in a position to give orders to the RUGE 1933, col. 1105; GABELKO 2005, p. 245. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 48-49 and n. 4; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. II, pp. 475-476; WILSON 1960, pp. 6667; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278; MAREK 1993, p. 23. COHEN 1995, pp. 392-393. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278 stresses the relevance of Hermippus’ passage (Radicke, FGrHistCont 1061, F 1) as evidence for this, considering him contemporaneous. He however confuses the author dealing with Myrlea (Hermippus of Berytus, active in the 2nd century AD) with the Hellenistic Hermippus (COHEN 1995, p. 193 n. 1). Apamea’s name is attested by coins from the 1st century BC and by inscriptions, sometimes along with the former name Myrlea, from the 2nd century AD (e.g. IK Apameia und Pylai T 4; see COHEN 1995, p. 393 n. 2 for further references). Pliny (NH V, 143) writes: Apamea quae nunc Myrlea Colophoniorum (‘Apamea now [called] Myrlea of the Colophonians’). This passage raises the possibility that Myrlea, like Cius (see above pp. 117-118 n. 133), reintroduced the former name at some time (COHEN 1995, p. 392). On the foundation of Myrlea by the the Colophonians, see Steph. Byz. s.v. Μύρλεια; IK Apameia und Pylai, p. 7. 142 Cf. LESCHHORN 1984, p. 278. 143 With regard to the First Macedonian War, MAGIE 1950, p. 313 claims: ‘There were, however, indirect results of the war. It won Prusias the friendship of Philip and the enmity of the King of Pergamum and, with this enmity, disapproval on the part of the Romans. For the moment, however, Prusias’ alliance with Philip seemed to outweigh all considerations’. VITUCCI 1953, p. 50 says: ‘Nell’insieme mi sembra più verisimile il ritenere che l’orizzonte politico del re bitino non si spingesse in questo momento molto oltre i confini del suo dominio’. 144 Polyb. XVIII, 44, 1-7. 140 141

120

ELOISA PAGANONI

Bithynian king because he had not taken part in the war and had signed no pact with Rome145. However, the Romans tried to re-establish the status quo ante, and sent him an informal letter: With regard to the freedom of the Cians, Titus (Q. Flamininus) wrote to Prusias according to what the Senate had established146.

Surviving sources do not report Prusias’ reaction, but, to our knowledge, the situation remained unchanged: Cius continued to be part of the kingdom of Bithynia147. After this first contact with Rome, nothing is known about Prusias I until summer 190 BC, shortly before the beginning of Roman operations in Asia Minor against Antiochus III. The Seleucid king was seriously threatened by the Romans and their allies148. An Achaean contingent had forced the Seleucid troops to withdraw from Pergamum149. Meanwhile, the Rhodians had defeated the Seleucid fleet in the sea Battle of Side150. In that situation, Antiochus III asked Prusias I for help to prevent the Romans from crossing into Asia Minor: When returning to Sardis from the expedition I recorded, King Antiochus sent messengers to Prusias asking for his alliance. In former times, Prusias had been not unfavourably disposed towards the affairs concerning Antiochus: he indeed was very afraid that the Romans crossed to Asia for the removal of all the kings151.

The passage refers to previous relationships between Prusias I and Antiochus III. They possibly were in contact to discuss the emerging 145 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 49-50; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096; HOOVER 2012, p. 210; KLEU 2013b; contra JONES 1971, p. 151 without arguments. Cf. ECKSTEIN 2008, p. 293: ‘The senatus consultum of spring 196 even included an order to Prusias I of Bithynia to set free the city of Cius… The Roman attitude is thus of arrogance’. 146 Polyb. XVIII, 44, 5: περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν Κιανῶν ἐλευθερώσεως Τίτον γράψαι πρὸς Προυσίαν κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῆς συγκλήτου; Liv. XXXIII, 30, 1. There is no serious reason to doubt that Flamininus sent the missive (cf. GRAINGER 2002, p. 66). 147 Cf. GABELKO 2005, pp. 248-249. 148 WILL 1982, pp.177-179; GRAINGER 2002, pp. 288-306; GRAINGER 2015, pp. 169-177. 149 Liv. XXXVII, 20, 1-21, 9. 150 Liv. XXXVII, 22, 1-25, 3. 151 Polyb. XXI, 11, 1-2: ὅτι Ἀντίοχος ὁ βασιλεὺς παραγενόμενος εἰς τὰς Σάρδεις ἀπὸ τῆς προρρηθείσης στρατείας διεπέμπετο συνεχῶς πρὸς Προυσίαν, παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν σφετέραν συμμαχίαν. ὁ δὲ Προυσίας κατὰ μὲν τοὺς ἀνώτερον χρόνους οὐκ ἀλλότριος ἦν τοῦ κοινωνεῖν τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀντίοχον· πάνυ γὰρ ἐδεδίει τοὺς Ῥωμαίους, μὴ ποιῶνται τὴν εἰς Ἀσίαν διάβασιν ἐπὶ καταλύσει πάντων τῶν δυναστῶν. Cf. Liv. XXXVII, 25, 4-7.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

121

threat of Rome. In 190 BC, Prusias was tempted to turn these relations into an alliance and to support Antiochus. He changed his mind yet when he received a missive from the consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio and his brother Publius152. They stressed Rome’s benevolent attitude towards the kings. None of them – they wrote – had lost his kingdom even after being defeated by Rome. Shortly afterwards, G. Livius Salinator, praetor and commander of the fleet, paid a visit to Prusias153. He definitively convinced the Bithynian king to give up supporting Antiochus III by presenting the victory of Rome as nearly certain. Antiochus had warned Prusias about the danger Rome represented to kings. The Roman emissaries insisted on the fact that Rome had never deprived the kings of any territory. This argument was something more than an effective propagandistic topic154. It could allude to Prusias’ situation, and especially to the unsolved issue of Cius. The Romans could have promised that Prusias would have lost none of his territories (not even Cius) if he abandoned the idea of allying with Antiochus III155. According to Livy156, the Romans gained Prusias’ amicitia (‘friendship’). In fact, it probably was an ‘informal connection’, and not an alliance stricto sensu, since Prusias I remained neutral in the war against Antiochus III, which broke out shortly after157. The conduct of the Romans in that situation was impressive. Lucius and Publius Cornelius Scipio wrote a joint letter and Salinator went to talk to Prusias I in person, perhaps ready to put aside the issue of Cius. This reveals that Prusias’ support would have significativly strengthened the position of Antiochus. As John D. Grainger notes, Prusias’ ‘geographical position was more important than any other possible military contribution he might make. Bithynia controlled the eastern coast of the Propontis and the Bosporos, from the mouth of the Rhyndakos to Pontos. This included a whole string of useful ports… any or all of which could be used by the Polyb. XXI, 11, 3-11; Liv. XXXVII, 25, 8-12; App. Syr. 23. Polyb. XXI, 11, 12-13; Liv. XXXVII, 25, 13-14. 154 About the use of propagandistic themes by Antiochus III and the Romans in this situation, see GRUEN 1984, pp. 151 n. 117, 638. 155 HABICHT 1956, pp. 94-96, 100-101; HABICHT 1957, col. 1097; WILL 1982, p. 228. 156 Liv. XXXVII, 25, 8. 157 HABICHT 1956, pp. 90-91; HABICHT 1957, col. 1097; HARRIS 1980, p. 862; MCSHANE 1964, p. 145; GRUEN 1984, p. 550; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 44; HABICHT 1989, pp. 324-325; GRAINGER 2002, pp. 278-280, 290, 310; ERRINGTON 2008, p. 219. Contra HOPP 1977, p. 40 and WATERFIELD 2014, p. 137 argue for Prusias I’s involvement in this war. On the implications of the amicitia with Rome before the Peace of Apamea, see GRUEN 1984, pp. 76-86. The verb συμμαχεῖν (‘to ally’) in App. Syr. 23 with reference to Prusias I’s situation is misleading. 152 153

122

ELOISA PAGANONI

Romans as disembarkation ports in Asia if necessary’158. The concern of the Romans demonstrates that the formation of a Seleucid-Bithynian front was all but unlikely159. After Polybius, friendly contacts between Prusias I and Antiochus III before 190 BC were known. Nevertheless, scholarship has hitherto avoided investigating them. It is yet worth a try. A review of the historical information can point out circumstances in which contacts between Prusias I and the Seleucids developed. The earliest pieces of information dates back to the time of the usurpation of Achaeus. He had promised aid to Byzantium in the war against Rhodes and Prusias I and he had threatened the Bithynian king a few years later160. Since Achaeus was a usurper, he was an enemy of Antiochus III, as much as he was of Prusias. Anyway, no evidence suggests that the Bithynian and the Seleucid kings joined forces against him. Traces of collaboration can be instead detected some years later, when Prusias I may have seized Mysia Olympene, the region that surrounded Mt. Olympus and stretched from the Rhyndacus to the Sangarius161. The only certainty about this issue is that Prusias was controlling the region in 188 BC when the Peace of Apamea imposed on him to return it to Pergamum: In Asia (the ten Roman commissioners) gave back to (Eumenes II) both Phrygias – the Hellespontine one and the one which is called ‘the Greater’ – and Mysia, which King Prusias had taken off (him)162.

GRAINGER 2002, pp. 278-279. ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 285-286. 160 Polyb. IV, 48, 1-4; V, 77, 1. 161 ALLEN 1983, pp. 63-65; SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 65-67, 73-74. About the supposed identification of Mysia Olympene with Phrygia Epiktētos, see below p. 130 n. 201. 162 Liv. XXXVIII, 39, 15-16: in Asia Phrygiam utramque — alteram ad Hellespontum, maiorem alteram vocant — et Mysiam, quam Prusia rex ademerat, ei restituerunt. The translation follows the common interpretation of the passage (cf. e.g. HABICHT 1956, p. 91; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, pp. 171-172; ADAM 1982, p. 171 n. 26; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74). The noun Prusia is considered to be in the nominative case, even if the normal form would be Prusias. It is thus placed in agreement with rex and is the subject of ademerat, the verb of the relative clause introduced by quam. According to SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 70-71, followed by STROBEL 1994, pp. 29-30 and MA 1999, p. 60 and n. 30, Prusia is a dative and the rex here mentioned is Antiochus III. So, in his opinion, Eumenes II received from Antiochus III a part of Mysia, which the Seleucid king had taken off from Prusias I formerly (against this interpretation, see WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74). The passage of Polybius (XXI, 46, 10) corresponding to Liv. XXXVIII, 39, 15-16 is corrupted (HABICHT 1956, p. 91; HOPP 1977, p. 40 n. 30; ALLEN 1983, p. 63). Modern editions (e.g. WALBANK – HABICHT 2012 ad loc.) usually present a text restored on basis of Livy: τῆς δ᾽ Ἀσίας Φρυγίαν τὴν ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντου, Φρυγίαν τὴν μεγάλην, Μυσούς, οὓς ˂Προυσίας˃ πρότερον αὐτοῦ παρεσπάσατο, Λυκαονίαν, Μιλυάδα, Λυδίαν, Τράλλεις, Ἔφεσον, Τελμεσσόν. Only HABICHT 1956, p. 91 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. 158 159

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

123

From this passage we infer that Mysia Olympene was in the hands of the Attalids when Prusias I took it and they recovered it after 188 BC. Although Prusias I had been neutral in the Roman-Syrian War, the Peace of Apamea imposed on him to return some lands to Pergamum. In fact, Prusias was treated as the vanquished enemy Antiochus III. This recalls the situation after the defeat of Philip V in the Second Macedonian War. On that occasion, Prusias I was asked to free Cius that Philip V had seized for him, although he had been neutral in the conflict. This raises the hypothesis that Antiochus was involved in Prusias I’s expansion southwards, as Philip had been campaigning against Cius and Myrleia163. It means, in practice, to assume an alliance – or at least an agreement – between them. In the 190s BC Antiochus III campaigned against Pergamum (198 BC) and consolidated his position in Asia Minor through military operations (197 BC) and marital alliances164. The earliest for these moves were preparatory to his military campaign in Thrace (196 BC): Antiochus strengthened his power over Asia Minor before giving vent his ‘overseas ambitions’165. An alliance with Prusias I would have fitted with Antiochus’ plans. He needed someone to keep an eye on Pergamum and facilitate communication with Asia while he was in Thrace. Prusias I was the right ally. He controlled the main routes from Asia to Europe, and his hostility to Pergamum was well-known. In exchange of his friendship, Antiochus III could have endorsed Prusias I’s campaign in Mysia. This campaign could be placed in 197-196 BC: like Antiochus, Prusais I may have exploited the weakness of Pergamon after the death of Attalus I166. Regardless of III, p. 172) presents the manuscripts’ problematic reading (Μυσούς, οὓς πρότερον αὐτὸς παρεσκευάσατο), according to which, ‘he himself’ (αὐτός, i.e. Eumenes II) was awarded a region he had previously seized (cf. HABICHT 1956, p. 91). For other remarks about the settlement of Apamea in Livy, see DMITRIEV 2003. 163 NIESE 1903, p. 70 n. 3; WILL 1982, pp. 180-181; ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 270-271; EVANS 2012, pp. 35, 179 n. 35; cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 53-54. SCHMITT 1964 p. 40 does not admit a collaboration between Prusias I and Antiochus III explicitly, but says that they were ‘in den neuziger Jahren des II. Jh. in guten Beziehunngen’. 164 On the 198-197 BC operations in Asia Minor, see WILL 1982, pp. 179-185. As for the marital practices, Antiochus married his daughter Antiochis to Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia (Diod. XXXI, 19, 7; App. Syr. 5; SEIBERT 1967, pp. 64-65; GRAINGER 2002, p. 109, 116-117 n. 62; OGDEN 1999, p. 140; STASSER 2015, p. 195). Antiochus also tried to marry another daughter, whose name is lost, off to Eumenes II, but this one rejected the proposal (Polyb. XXI, 20, 8; App. Syr. 5; SCHMITT 1964, pp. 52-55; SEIBERT 1967, pp. 66-67; HANSEN 1971, pp. 76-77; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, p. 113; GRAINGER 2002, p. 109, dating the proposal to 195 BC; STASSER 2015, p. 195). For a full discussion about Antiochus III’s marital politics, see OGDEN 1999, pp. 133-140. 165 On the campaing in Thrace, see Polyb. XVIII, 49, 2-51, 8; Diod. XXVIII, 12, 1; Liv. XXXIII, 38, 8-41, 5; App. Syr. 1; WILL 1982, pp. 186-189; GRAINGER 1996; GRAINGER 2002, pp. 68-73, 79-84; GRAINGER 2015, pp. 130-146. 166 About the context of the seizure of Mysia, cf. HABICHT 1956, pp. 94-95; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096;

124

ELOISA PAGANONI

further speculations, what matters is that in the early 190s BC there where suitable circumstances for establishing friendly relations between Prusias I and Antiochus III, which possibly resulted in an alliance167. The stay of Hannibal in Bithynia might be another hint at contacts between Prusias and Antiochus III. After the defeat of Magnesia, Hannibal fled from the court of Antiochus III to the ruler of Armenia, then to Crete and finally to Bithynia as early as 188 BC168. It is unknown why Hannibal chose these places; however, it is possible that Antiochus helped him to find refuge with some of his friends. Since the dynasts of Armenia still were officially under the Seleucid rule, Antiochus could be able to guarantee their protection to Hannibal. If he was in contact with Prusias, he also could have asked Prusias I to host the Carthaginian general169. We have ascertained that Prusias I was in friendly relationships with the Seleucids and that this friendship turned into a collaboration on one occasion at least. The reassessment of the Bithynian marital policies in the late 3rd-early 2nd century BC is the next step of our investigation. As already emerged, Prusias I had a wife named Apama170 and was κηδεστής of Philip V (i.e. was related by marriage to him) at least since 202 BC171. Scholars172 SCHMITT 1964, p. 276; HANSEN 1971, p. 98 and n. 83; WILL 1982, p. 180; ALLEN 1983, pp. 64-65; GRUEN 1984, p. 550 n. 94; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 270-271; MAMA IX, p. xx; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 291; MICHELS 2009, pp. 71-72; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 357; CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 103; cf. WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74. 167 Antiochus may have helped Prusias to conquer the region or he may have seized and handed it over to Prusias. In any way – if this reconstruction is grounded – he in fact acknowledged Prusias I as ruler of a region, which was part of the Seleucid empire originally. Broadly speaking, it was a land ‘transfer’, a ‘tool’ Antiochus III often used to secure alliances. For example, he is supposed to have given some lands, probably including Mysia Olympene and Phrygia Epiktētos, to Attalus I for support against Achaeus (see below p. 130). In 203/2 BC, he signed a secret agreement with Philip V to share Ptolemaic lands in Asia (Polyb. XVI, 1, 8; Liv. XXXI, 14, 5; Trog. Prol. XXX; Iust. XXX, 2, 8; App. Maked. 4, 1; WALBANK 1940, p. 113; DESIDERI 1970-1971, p. 492 and n. 15; WILL 1982, pp. 105-108; ALLEN 1983, p. 66 and n. 108; GRAINGER 2002, pp. 21-22 and n. 51; GRAINGER 2015, pp. 104-106; KLEU 2015, pp. 94-103. For the date, see SCHMITT 1964, pp. 226-236; StV III, p. 288; KLEU 2015, pp. 100-101; cf. MA 1999, pp. 74-76, who admits concessions to Philip V in Caria, but does not refer to the agreement). The existence of this agreement was for long questioned, but it is now confirmed by a fragmentary inscription first published by BLÜMEL 2000 and re-interpreted by WIEMER 2001 (see also SEG 51 [2001] 1496 KLEU 2015, pp. 100-103). 168 Nep. Hannibal, 9; Iust. XXXII 4, 3-5; Malalas VIII, 28; SEIBERT 1993, pp. 522-524; SYME 1995, p. 349. Hannibal’s stay in Armenia is set after 190 BC (NIESE 1903, pp. 70-71 and DMITRIEV 2007, p. 136), but it may have occurred when he was Antiochus III’s guest (HABICHT 1957, col. 1104). About the date of the arrival of Hannibal in Bithynia, see FERNOUX 2004, p. 39. 169 In view of the good relations between Armenia and Bithynia (see above pp. 76-77, 92-93), it cannot be excluded that the ruler of Armenia invited Hannibal to move to Bithynia. Another ‘bridge’ between Hannibal and Prusias I could have been Philip V who was in contact with both of them. 170 Strabo XII, 4, 3; see above pp. 116-117. 171 Polyb. XV, 22, 1; 22, 3; see above p. 113. 172 NIEBUHR 1828, p. 257; BELOCH 1927, pp. 137, 213; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 662; MAGIE 1950, p. 1190

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

125

combine these pieces of information and argue that the wife of Prusias I Apama was the sister of Philip V. We have seen that Prusias II also married a woman named Apama, who was the mother of Nicomedes II173. We now add that, according to Trogus/Justin174, Prusias II had a second wife. She gave Prusias some sons and he wished to favour them in the succession in detriment of his first-born Nicomedes II. Livy175 and Appian176 say that Prusias II married the sister of Perseus, the daughter of Philip V, a few years after Perseus ascended the throne, probably in 179-177 BC177. The name of Perseus’ sister is unknown, and it is unclear whether she was the first wife of Prusias II, Apama, or the second one, whose name is lost. Scholars178 lean towards the first possibility. They thus argue that Apama, the first wife of Prusias II, was the daughter of Philip V and that she was married off the king of Bithynia in 179-177 BC. As a consequence, this date is a terminus post quem for the second marriage, which has never generated interest in scholars. So, it is unanimously accepted that Prusias I and Prusias II were married to two Antigonid princesses, both named Apama. In a recent article, Thierry Stasser179 puts into question this communis opinio; he argues that both the Bithynian queens named Apama belonged to the Seleucid dynasty. His assumption is based on a prosopographical observation: the Persian name Apama became a Seleucid dynastic name. Apama was the woman Seleucus I married in the Susa Weddings180. Then, the name was used in the next generations fairly regularly in memory of n. 20; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 44, 48-49 n. 4; SCHMITT 1964, p. 40; SEIBERT 1967, pp. 42-43 n. 61; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; GRAINGER 1997, Table 1; CARNEY 2000, p. 187; GABELKO 2005, p. 245; KUZMIN – GABELKO 2008, p. 157-161; MICHELS 2009, p. 33. 173 IG II-III2 3, 1, 3172; see above p. 118, 174 Iust. XXXIV, 4, 1: Eodem fere tempore Prusias, rex Bithyniae, consilium cepit interficiendi Nicomedis filii, quem a se ablegatum, studens minoribus filiis, quos ex noverca eius susceperat, Romae habebat (‘Almost at the same time the king of Bithynia Prusias decided to kill his son Nicomedes, who was in Rome as his own emissary, to favour the minor sons he had had by his second wife’). 175 Liv. XLII, 12, 3: sororem dedisse Prusiae (‘[Perseus] gave his sister to Prusias’). 176 App. Mithr. 2: Προυσίας ἦν ὁ κυνηγὸς ἐπίκλησιν, ᾧ Περσεὺς ὁ Μακεδόνων βασιλεὺς τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἠγγύησεν (‘Prusias, to whom Perseus, king of the Macedonians, married his sister, was surnamed ‘the Hunter’’). 177 For the date, see HABICHT 1957, col. 1110; WILL 1982, p. 261; STASSER 2015, pp. 193-194. Cf. OGDEN 1999, p. 187, who dates the marriage between 179 and 172 BC. 178 WILHELM 1908, pp. 75-78; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 48-49 n. 4; HABICHT 1957, col. 1110; SEIBERT 1967, p. 43; WILL 1982, p. 261; OGDEN 1999, pp. 183, 187; CARNEY 2000, p. 197; GABELKO 2005, p. 245; MICHELS 2009, p. 33; MCAULEY 2016. 179 STASSER 2015. 180 WILCKEN 1894, col. 2662; GRAINGER 1997, p. 38 (Apama [3]); STASSER 2015, p. 188. The most recent contributions about Apama wife of Seleucus I are ENGELS – ERICKSON 2016 and RAMSEY 2016.

126

ELOISA PAGANONI

the wife of the founder of the dynasty. One of Seleucus I’s daughters bore this name181. Seleucus I’s successor, Antiochus I, had a daughter Apama, namesake of her paternal grandmother182. A Babylonian document might mention another Apama, who would be the daughter of Antiochus II, sister of Seleucus II and Antiochus Hierax183. A wife (or concubine) of Demetrius II of Syria too was named Apama184. On the other hand, Stasser notices185, not one of the Antigonid princesses known by name was called Apama186. However, evidence about the female exponents of the Antigonid dynasty is too scanty to consider this sufficient. Stasser187 admits that dynastic names could ‘pass’ from one royal family to another. In theory, a marriage of a Seleucid woman with an Antigonid could have caused the introduction Apama’s name in the Macedonian dynasty, whilst no trace of it is surviving. And yet, the evidence of marital agreements between these royal families testifies only to the ‘passage’ of Stratonice’s name to the Seleucid house188. The absence of any trace of Apama in the Antigonid dynasty reveals that the traditional identification of Apama, wife of Prusias I, and Apama, wife of Prusias II, with members of this dynasty is highly speculative. Nevertheless, against it there is just an argumentum e silentio. No decisive evidence proves that these women belonged to the Seleucid dynasty. As things currently stand, one can just conclude that they were the first Bithynian queens clearly linked with one of the most relevant Hellenistic families, either the Antigonids or the Seleucids. This second eventuality, so far not considered, deserves some attention OGDEN 1999, p. 120 (with bibliography at p. 159 n. 14); STASSER 2015, p. 186. WILCKEN 1894, coll. 2662-2663; GRAINGER 1997, p. 38 (Apama [1]); CARNEY 2000, p. 171; STASSER 2015, pp. 188-189; MCAULEY 2016a. 183 GRAINGER 1997, p. 38 (Apama [2]) with reference to the source. 184 GRAINGER 1997, p. 39 (Apama [4]). 185 STASSER 2015, pp. 183-185. 186 The only Macedonian princesses known by name are Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes and wife of Seleucus I (GRAINGER 1997, pp. 67-68; CARNEY 2000, pp. 171-172; STASSER 2015, p. 183 with bibliography), and Stratonice, tentatively identified with one of the daugthers of Demetrius II (STASSER 2015, pp. 183-185 for a status quaestionis). Philip V had four daughters, all anonymous, including the one who became Prusias II’s wife (SEIBERT 1967, pp. 40-41, 44; OGDEN 1999, pp. 183-187; STASSER 2015, p. 185). Missing is also the name of Perseus’ daughter, who was brought to Rome after the defeat of her father (OGDEN 1999, p. 188; CARNEY 2000, p. 196; STASSER 2015, p. 185). 187 STASSER 2015, pp. 185-187, 193. 188 The only marital relation between these two families that may have caused a ‘transfer’ of dynastic names is the marriage of Demetrius Poliorcetes’ daughter Stratonice with Seleucus I. After it, Stratonice’s name was introduced into the Seleucid dynasty (see above n. 186). The other information about a marital connection between the Seleucids and the Antigonids dates to many years later, when Demetrius II, the father of Philip V, married Stratonice, daughter of Antiochus II (GRAINGER 1997, p. 67; STASSER 2015, p. 193 n. 82). 181 182

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

127

in light of the possible contacts between Prusias I and Antiochus III. In this regard, Strasser’s proposal is a good starting point again. He observes that Apama’s name is attested every generation down to Antiochus II and assumes that it also was used afterwards with some regularity. Especially, he supposes that an Apama existed in the two following generations. In his opinion, Apama could have been one of the daughters of Seleucus II189; she could have married Prusias I when he still was crown prince. By this marriage, Ziaelas, at that time on the throne of Bithynia, aimed to reapproach the Seleucids after he had supported Antiochus Hierax. Against this reconstruction it is worth noticing that Ziaelas seems have never established friendly relations with Seleucus II. As far as we see in sources, Ziaelas had ever perceived the Seleucids (or better, the king embodying the central power) as a threat. He, indeed, allied with Antiochus Hierax when he was attempting to build a personal power independent from Seleucus II, but he cut off contacts when Antiochus reconciled to his brother190. Prusias I instead seems to have established friendly relationships with the Seleucid king at least since the turn of the 2nd century BC. If a marriage occurred, it is preferably to be dated to his reign, as he was on friendly terms with Antiochus III. If Prusias I’s wife Apama was Seleucus II’s daughter and she was of marriageable age in the turn of the 220s BC, as Stasser assumes, the marriage is likely to be set in the early years of Prusias’ reign. In those years, a Seleucid official sold the Hieron to Byzantium191. Since the Hieron was very close to Bithynia, it is likely that Prusias I was in contact with the Seleucid official charged with the control of the site. His presence so close to Bithynia could cause tension. And yet, there is no clue in this regard. In absence of offsetting indications, the relations between the king of Bithynia and the Seleucids were supposedly peaceful. These circumstances – the development of possible contacts and friendly relations – render this context a suitable framework for the marriage of Prusias I and Apama. Our sources attest that Prusias was in contact with Antiochus III. But if this proposal has any merit, he approached the Seleucids when they were controlling the Hieron. Neither the sale of this strategic place to Byzantium contrasts with this reconstruction. At that time, indeed,

189 STASSER 2015, pp. 191-192, 195. This (supposed) Apama would have been sister or step-sister of the only other daughter of Seleucus II known to us, Antiochis. Cf. OGDEN 1999, p. 132. 190 See above pp. 91-94. 191 Dion. Byz. 92; see above pp. 103-105.

128

ELOISA PAGANONI

relations between Prusias I and the city were friendly, and the purchase of the site does not appear among the reasons for their deterioration192. A marriage between Prusias I and Apama in the 220s BC fits with Stasser’s hypothesis to explain the bond of Prusias with the Antigonids. The only son of Prusias I mentioned by sources is Prusias (who would become Prusias II). According to Stasser193 yet, Prusias I could have had a daughter too. Admittedly, she was marriageable at the end of the 3rd century BC and she married Philip V to secure a Bithynian-Macedonian alliance that manifested itself in 208 and 202 BC. As said earlier, in 179-177 BC Perseus married off his sister to the Bithynian crown prince Prusias (II). She cannot be identified with Apama, Nicomedes II’s mother and Prusias II’s first wife because, according to the hypothesis we are considering, Apama was a Seleucid princess. It follows that Philip V’s daughter was Prusias II’s second wife and 179-177 BC constitutes the terminus ante quem for Prusias II’s first marriage194. Prusias I and Antiochus III were on friendly terms in the 190s BC when Antiochus was strengthening his position in Asia Minor. He established a marital alliance with the king of Cappadocia and helped Prusias I to seize Mysia Olympene195. It is possible that these friendly relations were sanctioned by the marriage of the Bithynian crown prince with a daughter of Antiochus III. As a descendant of Seleucus I, she could have been named Apama. Every attestation to her existence could have been lost or, as Stasser assumes196, she could have been the unnamed daughter Antiochus had from Laodice and that he tried to marry off to Eumenes II in the 190s BC197. These hypotheses depict the same situation traditionally proposed in relation to the Antigonids: Prusias I and Prusias II would have married two relatives of the ruling king. They have two points of strength compared to the traditional reconstruction. Firstly, the princesses belonged to a family in which Apama was a dynastic name. Secondly, possible marital agreements Cf. above pp. 99-102. STASSER 2015, pp. 192-193. 194 STASSER 2015, pp. 193-194. The malformation of the odd personage Prusias Monodous, who is supposed to be one of the sons Prusias II had from his second wife (Liv. Per. 50; Plin. NH VII, 69; Val. Max. I, 8 ext. 12; Solin. 1, 70; Festus De verb. sign. p. 148, s.v. Monodus; HABICHT 1957b; STASSER 2015, pp. 194-195; cf. NIESE 1903, p. 330 n. 3; MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196 n. 36), might testify to his kinship with the Antigonids; and so it would support the identification of Prusias II’s second wife with an Antigonid princess. Philip V’s mother Phthia, indeed, was the daughter of Pyrrhus of Epirus, who had the same malformation (MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130; STASSER 2015, pp. 194-195). 195 See above pp. 122-124. 196 STASSER 2015, p. 195. 197 See above p. 123 n. 164. 192 193

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

129

fit with information about Bithynian-Seleucid relations at this time. Although speculative, this proposal raises fewer difficulties than the traditional one and also points out the context of both marriages of Prusias II. Again, it casts a new light on Prusias I’s activities. Scholars have hitherto insisted on the relationship with the Antigonids, and they have at most assumed some contacts with the Seleucids. Instead, Prusias I appears to have established and maintained friendly relations with the Seleucids since the beginning of his reign. This change in Bithynian policies was probably the response to the rise of the kingdom of the Attalids. Facing a new threat, Prusias I looked for aid. He secured assistance from the Seleucids, who were the other enemy of Pergamum. The emergence of Pergamum changed the political axes of Asia Minor. It provocked the approach of Bithynia and the Seleucids that constituted an anti-Attalid block. As with the alliance with Philip V, Prusias I overlooked the consequences. Lining up against Pergamum meant, in fact, lining up against Rome. He realised this too late as the issue of Mysia Olympene proves. 3. PRUSIAS I’S LAST YEARS. DEESCALATION TO WEST AND ESCALATION TO EAST After the seizure of Cius and Myrlea in 202 BC, Prusias I continued to expand southwards. In the early 190s BC, he exploited the temporary weakness of Pergamum to conquer Mysia Olympene probably with Antiochus III’s help. The achievement was short lived. At the end of the Roman-Syrian War the Peace of Apamea forced him to return the region to Eumenes II198. Even more complex is to retrace the development of another dispute between the Attalids and Prusias I that concerned a part of Phrygia. In this regard the key information comes from Strabo: Prusias... retired from Hellespontine Phrygia according to the agreement with the Attalids. They renamed Epiktētos this region, which they formerly called Lesser Phrygia199.

According to Strabo, Prusias I signed an agreement with Eumenes II, which stipulated that Prusias returned a part of Phrygia. The Attalids celebrated the success re-naming the region with the designation of Epiktētos, literally Liv. XXXVIII, 39, 15-16; cf. Polyb. XXI, 46, 10; see above pp. 122-123. Strabo XII, 4, 3: ὁ Προυσίας ὁ... τῆς ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντῳ Φρυγίας ἀναστὰς κατὰ συμβάσεις τοῖς Ἀτταλικοῖς, ἣν οἱ μὲν πρότερον ἐκάλουν μικρὰν Φρυγίαν, ἐκεῖνοι δ᾽ ἐπίκτητον ὠνόμασαν. 198 199

130

ELOISA PAGANONI

‘acquired in addition’200. In another passage, Strabo delineates this region by the list of its main settlements: The cities of Aizanoi, Nacolia, Cotiaeium, Midaeium, Dorylaeium, Cadi are part of Phrygia Epiktētos201.

It was an inland area between Pergamum and Bithynia, which bordered on Mysia Olympene on the north. It was part of the Seleucid empire originally. At some time, we infer from Strabo, it passed to the Attalids, who were controlling the area when Prusias I seized it. Strabo then informs us that the annexation of this part of Phrygia to Bithynia was temporary, as with the one of Mysia Olympene, because Prusias I ought to return it to Eumenes II. Three Imperial era boundary stones from the sanctuary of Aizanoi, the main religious centre of Phrygia Epiktētos, record that Attalus I and Prusias I donated some lands to the sanctuary202. They confirm the passage of the region earleir under Attalid control and later under Bithynian one. They attest that it was Attalus I who annexed the region to Pergamum; he probably obtained it from Antiochus III in return for support against Achaeus in the 220s BC203. He marked the possession by donating some

Cf. LSJ s.v. ἐπικτάομαι. Strabo XII, 8, 2: τῆς δ᾽ ἐπικτήτου Φρυγίας Ἀζανοί τέ εἰσι καὶ Νακολία καὶ Κοτιάειον καὶ Μιδάειον καὶ Δορυλάειον πόλεις καὶ Κάδοι. Cf. Strabo XII, 8, 1: ἡ δὲ μικρὰ ἡ ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντῳ καὶ ἡ περὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον ἡ καὶ Ἐπίκτητος λεγομένη (‘the Lesser [Phrygia], on the Hellespont and round Olympus, the one which is called Epiktētos’). Cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 53-54; HABICHT 1956, pp. 92-93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1102; HANSEN 1971, pp. 97-98 (but contra p. 100; see below in this note); ALLEN 1983, p. 63; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74. Unconvincingly, some scholars (MEYER 1925, pp. 148-149; HANSEN 1971, p. 100; ŞAHIN 1986, pp. 129-142) argue that the region disputed between Pergamum and Bithynia corresponded to the area that would have become the province of Phrygia Epiktētos in the Imperial era, extending from Mt. Olympus to Crateia and maybe the Black Sea coast. Most scholars think that Phrygia Epiktētos in Strabo (XII, 8, 2) and Mysia mentioned in the Peace of Apamea (Polyb. XXI, 46, 10; Liv. XXXVIII, 39, 15-16) were the same region (HABICHT 1956, pp. 91-93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1097; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 159-160; HANSEN 1971, pp. 97-98; HOPP 1977, p. 40; BURSTEIN 1980, p. 1; WILL 1982, pp. 180-181; ALLEN 1983, pp. 63-65; GRUEN 1984, p. 532; MA 1999, p. 60 n. 30; FERNOUX 2008, p. 231; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426427 n. 74; EVANS 2012, p. 35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 357; PSOMA 2013, p. 281; contra SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 68-69, followed by STROBEL 1994, pp. 31-35; GABELKO 2005, pp. 267-270; cf. the reconstruction in CANALI DE ROSSI 2017, p. 133). The main argument in support of this is in Strabo (XII, 8, 2), who claims that the boundaries between Mysia and Phrygia were already unclear in Antiquity, and proposes as evidence the case of Cadi. He says that this city, which, in his opinion, lies in Phrygia, belongs to Mysia according to other authors. As a consequence, the peace of Apamea is supposed to contain an imprecise reference to Phrygia Epiktētos. This is unlikely, though: the information of Polybius was for certain accurate about the disputed region, as it was based on official documents (cf. SCHWERTHEIM 1988, p. 69). 202 MAMA IX, 8-9 and P5; see below Appendix nr. 13. 203 HABICHT 1956, p. 93; HABICHT 1957, col. 1092; HANSEN 1971, p. 97; LAFFI 1971, pp. 19-20; WILL 200 201

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

131

lands to the sanctuary. Prusias I did the same when he took Phrygia Epiktētos. By carrying on the same act he competed with Attalus and provided his donation with a strong political and propagandistic meaning204. Prusias I seized Phrygia Epiktētos after Attalus I, who supposedly took the region in the 220s BC. In absence of further evidence yet, one can just speculate about when this happened. Among the proposals, the most convincing, I think, dates Prusias I’s conquest to the 190s BC205. In view of the geographical location of Phrygia Epiktētos, Prusias I may have taken the region in the same years he conquered Mysia Olympene. Accordingly, the seizure of Phrygia Epiktētos also occurred in about 197-196 BC. It was the final phase of Prusias I’s expansion to the south-west in the turn of the 2nd century BC. It began with the annexation of the coasts of Mysia between Askania Lake and Myrlea and continued to the south with the seizure of Mysia Olympene and bordering Phrygia Epiktētos206. The passage of Strabo about the return of this area to Eumenes II is connected with the end of the barely known war between Prusias I and Eumenes II in the late 180s BC207. The treaty Strabo mentions is supposed to be the peace agreement208; consequently Phrygia Epiktētos is considered the point of contention in this war. It is argued that Prusias controlled the region when the war broke out and that he returned it to Eumenes II in compliance with the treaty209. 1982, p. 180; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 72-73; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 291; FERNOUX 2008, p. 228; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74. According to BROUGHTON 1951, p. 248, Attalus I seized Phrygia Epiktētos during the wars against Achaeus in the early 220s BC. 204 BOFFO 1985, p. 107: ‘Il significato dell’atto di concessione reale – e la successione degli interventi da parte di due sovrani rivali ne sta a confermare il valore (se non altro politico) – va considerato alla luce della posizione del luogo sacro e dell’insediamento ad esso associato in rapporto alle potenze monarchiche di volta in volta interessate alla relazione con essi’; MICHELS 2009, p. 72 says that Prusias was moved by ‘machtpolitischen Motiven’. Contra DIGNAS 2002, p. 89 sees just a religious motivation behind the choice of Attalus I and Prusias I. 205 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 53-54; HABICHT 1956, pp. 94-95; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096; SCHMITT 1964, p. 276; HANSEN 1971, p. 98 n. 83; GRUEN 1984, p. 550 n. 94; BOFFO 1985, p. 106 n. 137; ERRINGTON 1989a, pp. 270271; MAMA IX, p. xx; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 291; MICHELS 2009, pp. 71-72; EVANS 2012, p. 35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 357; CHRUBASIK 2013, p. 103; cf. ALLEN 1983, pp. 64-65; WÖRRLE 2009, pp. 426-427 n. 74). Two alternative contexts are the 208 BC war against Pergamum (VITUCCI 1953, p. 46; GRUEN 1984, p. 532; FERNOUX 2008, p. 227 and n. 28) and the years after the Peace of Apamea (SCHWERTHEIM 1988, pp. 72-73; STROBEL 1994, p. 35 and MA 1999, p. 60 and n. 30). 206 Prusias I might have tried to extend his influence farther to south, if he was the unmentioned enemy Eumenes refers to in the dossier of Toriaion (IK Sultan Daği I, 393, ll. 22-24), as SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018 argues. 207 See below in the text. 208 RUGE 1941, col. 801; HABICHT 1957, col. 1103; GABELKO 2005, p. 289; RADT 2008, p. 353; cf. SCHWERTHEIM 1988, p. 72. 209 Those who assume that the Peace of Apamea refers to Phrygia Epiktētos (see above p. 130 n. 201)

132

ELOISA PAGANONI

This reconstruction does not take in due account the information about the outbreak of the war. In dealing with a Roman embassy related to the conflict, Livy hints that Prusias made war against Eumenes210. Justin is more detailed in this regard: Meanwhile, the war between King Prusias, to whom Hannibal had sought refuge after the peace granted by Romans to Antiochus, and Eumenes broke out. Prusias I first made war after breaking the agreement trusting Hannibal211.

According to Livy and Justin, it was Prusias I who declared war. This sounds strange if he was controlling the disputed region, as is commonly assumed. Moreover, like Strabo, Justin refers to an agreement between Eumenes II and Prusias I. This detail, usually overlooked, raises a doubt that Justin and Strabo mention the same treaty. In this case, both passages would concern the background of the war. This suggests that the issue of Phrygia Epiktētos could have developed differently from what is generally supposed. The different reading of the pieces of information may support the following recontruction. Prusias I was controlling the region, probably from 197-196 BC, when he should return it to Eumenes II per conditions of the agreement mentioned by Strabo and Justin. In that moment, Eumenes re-named the region Epiktētos. This designation, ‘acquired in addition’, seems to allude to another land recovery, that should have been, to make sense, nearly contemporary. Considering Bithynian-Attalid realtionships, one thinks of the dispute over Mysia Olympene that Prusias returned to Eumenes after the Peace of Apamea. For sake of argument, in the aftermath of Apamea settlement, counting on the Roman favour, Eumenes might have imposed on Prusias I an agreement to have back Phrygia Epiktētos together with Mysia Olympene. According to Justin, Prusias broke the agreement and caused the war. He presumably sought to recover the lands he had been compelled to retun to Pergamum. argue that Prusias I did not execute the 188-BC dispositions, raising the reaction of Eumenes II (for this reconstruction, see e.g. NIESE 1903, p. 70; WALBANK 1940, p. 215; RUGE 1941, col. 801; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 53-55; HABICHT 1956, pp. 90-96; HABICHT 1957, col. 1098; WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, pp. 171-172; SANTI AMANTINI 1981, p. 468 n. 2; RADT 2008. p. 353; EVANS 2012, p. 35; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018, p. 168). According to DMITRIEV 2007, the war was connected to Prusias’ campaign against Heraclea (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 19, 1-3; see below, pp. 139-140). MCSHANE 1964 p. 160 connects the war both with the attack on Heraclea and with the issue of Phrygia Epiktētos. 210 Liv. XXXIX, 51, 1. 211 Iust. XXXII, 4, 2: Interim inter Prusiam regem, ad quem Hannibal post pacem Antiocho a Romanis datam profugerat, et Eumenen bellum ortum est, quod Prusias Hannibalis fiducia rupto foedere prior intulit.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

133

As Justin states and other sources confirm212, Hannibal, who had come to the Bithynian court in c. 188 BC213, played a decisive role in escalating tensions that led to war. The earliest evidence of his activity in the service of Prusias I concerns his involvement in the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum that occurred in the short period between his arrival in Bithynia and the outbreak of the war with Pergamum214. The new city raised on the slopes of Mt. Olympus. It was in a strategic position: it was the southernmost Bithynian stronghold watching over the region which Bithynia and Pergamum were competing over215. In light of this evidence and the time in which it occurred, the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum ought to be considered a preamble for the forthcoming conflict216. The outbreak of this one can be roughly inferred from the few chronological pieces of data related to the war. The only episode dated with certainty is the land victory of Eumenes II in summer-fall 184 BC, recorded in an honorary decree from Telmessos for the Attalid king217. The fragmentary information 212 Iust. XXXII, 4, 2; Cic. De div. II, 52: Rex Prusias, cum Hannibali apud eum exsulanti depugnari placeret, negabat se audere, quod exta prohiberent (‘When Hannibal invited King Prusias to go to war, [the Bithynian king] did not dare because the entrails forbade it’); Val. Max. III, 2 ext. 2; HABICHT 1957, col. 1101. 213 See above p. 124. 214 Plin. NH V, 148: Prusa, ab Hannibale sub Olympo condita (‘Prusa founded by Hannibal on the slopes of Olympus’); VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1103-1104; WILSON 1960, p. 75; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 791; JONES 1971, p. 151; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 280; COHEN 1995, p. 403; HOYOS 2003, p. 203; FERNOUX 2004, p. 39; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2008, pp. 21-22; MICHELS 2009, pp. 277-278. MAGIE 1950, p. 1187 n. 16 ruled out any involvement of Hannibal. But in this rgard, it may be worth noting that other attstations of Hannibal as founder of cities survive. For instance, the foundation of Artaxata in Armenia on behalf of King Artaxias is attributed to him (Strabo XI, 14, 6; COHEN 2013, p. 46 with bibliography). With no argument, KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 4 thought that Hannibal founded not Prusa but Cius. Arrian (Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 29) preserves confused information about the founder of Prusa ad Olympum: οὗτος ὁ τοῦ μονώδοντος τούτου πατὴρ Προυσίου, τοῦ κτήτορος τῆς πόλεως Προύσης τῆς παρ᾽ ᾽Ολύμπωι (‘This one [i.e. Nicomedes I], the father of Prusias Monodous, who founded the city of Prusa ad Olympum’). The text clearly points out the founder of the city as the son of Nicomedes I, and not as the grandson of him, as MICHELS 2009, pp. 277-278 argues. Moreover, Prusias here mentioned is not Prusias I, but Prusias Monodous (MAGIE 1950, pp. 1195-1196 n. 36; HABICHT 1957, col. 1127; about Prusias Monodous, see above p. 128 n. 194). The inscription published by PAPADOUPULOS 1865, p. 374, nr. 11 and PREUNER 1921, p. 24 nr. 41, Προυσίαι τῶι σεβαστῶι | βασιλεῖ καὶ κτίστηι Προύσης | μνήμης χάριν ὁ δῆμος (‘the people [dedicated this] in memory of the august Prusias, king and founder of Prusa’), has proved to be a fake (MEYER 1925, p. 114; ROBERT 1934, p. 524; ROBERT 1939, p. 137; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, col. 1104; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 64; COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1). For the date of the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum, see ROBERT 1937, p. 231 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, col. 1104; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 791; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 7; COHEN 1995, p. 403; MICHELS 2009, p. 278 n. 1419; OnomThrac, p. 278. MAGIE 1950, p. 1187 n. 16 dates the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum to 202 BC. On the institutions of the city, see DÖRNER 1957, coll. 1081-1082; IK Prusa ad Olympum, vol. II, pp. 52-61. 215 VITUCCI 1953, p. 60. 216 FERNOUX 2004, p. 39; FERNOUX 2008, p. 234; MICHELS 2009, p. 279; SCHOLTEN 2013. 217 Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3; below Appendix nr. 9. For the date of the battle, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 5556 (summer); HABICHT 1956, p. 99 n. 4 (October).

134

ELOISA PAGANONI

in Polybius’ Book XXIII dates to the following year (183 BC)218. Given the lack of references prior to 184 BC, the war probably broke out not much time before. Scholars generally place the beginning of the conflict at some point in 186-184 BC219. Along with the victory mentioned in the decree of Telmessos, the Attalids are supposed to have gained at least another one220. It was recorded in a barely preserved dedication of Attalus (II), brother of Eumenes II, to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros: Attalus son of King Attalus (dedicated the statue) to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros for the victory over the Bithynians and the Galatians in battle near Lypedron221.

According to Polybius222, Apollonis paid a visit to Cyzicus together with her sons Eumenes II and Attalus after the end of the war with Prusias I223. In view of this information, Cyzicus was thought to have supported the Attalids who would have thanked the city with a visit224. The fact that Polyb. XXIII, 1, 4; XXIII, 3, 1-2; 5, 1. On the date see e.g. HABICHT 1956, p. 96. NIESE 1903, p. 70; WALBANK 1940, p. 240 n. 40; VITUCCI 1953, p 52; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096; MCSHANE 1964, p. 159; WILL 1982, p. 286; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 44; RADT 1999, p. 35; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; GABELKO 2005, p . 276; DMITRIEV 2007, pp. 135-136; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 358; PSOMA 2013, p. 281; KLEU 2013b; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018, p. 168. Contra BURSTEIN 1980, p. 1 and SCHOTTKY 2001a, who date the beginning of the war to 188 BC. 220 Justin (XXXII, 4, 6) mentions a land victory of Eumenes II, but it is unclear whether it refers to the same victory as the Telmessian decree. 221 OGIS 298: [Ἄτ]ταλος βασι[λέως Ἀττάλου] | [Δ]ιὶ καὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Νικ[ηφόρωι] | [ἀπ]ὸ [τῆς πρ]ὸ[ς Βιθ]υνοὺς κ[αὶ Γαλάτας] | [π]ερὶ τὸ Λύ[π]εδρον [μάχης]. See below Appendix nr. 10. As Attalus was the dedicator, he is supposed to have led the Attalid troops in this battle (IvP I 65, p. 52; OGIS 298, p. 467 n. 1; MCSHANE 1964, p. 160 n. 38). The identification of Lypedron with Mt. Lyperos where Zipoites founded Zipoition (Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5) is unfounded (see above pp. 41-42 n. 114). So there is no evidence that the Attalid troops went right across the Propontic peninsula, as assumed by MAGIE 1950, pp. 1196-1197 n. 39; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57; HABICHT 1957, col. 1100; FERNOUX 2004, p. 35; GABELKO 2005, p. 278. 222 Polyb. XXII, 20, 1-8. 223 The account of the visit is from the last fragment of Polybius’ Book XXII dealing with the events of 185/4 BC (cf. the edition of WALBANK – HABICHT 2012). As it refers to the peace between Eumenes II and Prusias I, it apparently contrasts with Polybius’ account of the war in Book XXIII. To explain this situation, HABICHT 1956, pp. 98-99 (cf. WALBANK 1957-1979, vol. III, p. 211) argues that the visit of Apollonis was a digression in Polybius’ account, and accordingly the reference to the peace was a ‘Vorgriff auf Späteres’. 224 NIESE 1903, p. 72; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 160-161; HANSEN 1971, p. 98; HOPP 1977, p. 41 n. 33; WILL 1982, p. 286. As for Eumenes II’s allies, some scholars think that they included the Achaeans, as the friendship between them and the Attalids had been renewed before the war (Polyb. XXII, 7, 3-4; HABICHT 1957, col. 1100; HANSEN 1971, pp. 98-99; cf. WILL 1982, p. 287; contra NIESE 1093, p. 70 n. 2; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57 n. 3). The involvement of Heraclea is assumed on the ground of Prusias I’s attack on the city (Memnon, BNJ 434, F 1, 19, 1-3; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 160-161; HANSEN 1971, p. 98; HOPP 1977, p. 41 n. 33; WILL 1982, p. 286; about the attack to Heraclea, see below pp. 139-140). However, there is no decisive evidence for this (VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57 n. 3). In view of the mention of Pontici among the Attalid troops (Iust. XXXII, 4, 7), BALLESTEROS PASTOR 2000-2001, pp. 61-62 argues that Pharnaces supported Eumenes II, but contra GABELKO 2005, pp. 273-274. 218 219

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

135

Apollonis was born in Cyzicus weakens the probability of this proposal: a visit to her hometown was not an extraordinary event. Moreover, Cyzicus had long-lasting contacts with the Attalids225. As an alternative, Peter Thonemann suggests that the war was fought near Cyzicus and that Apollonis’ visit was part of a propagandistic campaign carried out by Eumenes II after the end of the war226. Like the dedication of Attalus, the decree of Telmessos for Eumenes II records that the Galatians supported Prusias I: (Eumenes) who struggled against Prusias, Ortiagon, the Galatians and their allies227.

From the name of the Galatian chief Ortiagon, known to us by other sources, we infer that Prusias hired (or allied with?) the Galatian Tolistobogi228. The decree alludes to other allies; they might have been a force sent by Philip V, who had aligned with Prusias I229. Like in the preamble of the war, Hannibal played a decisive role during the conflict. He obtained a naval victory, which is the only Bithynian success recorded by sources230. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57 n. 3; THONEMANN 2013, pp. 41-42; SÈVE 2014. THONEMANN 2013, pp. 41-42: ‘We would, in this case, be dealing with a startlingly original way of representing Hellenistic military victory: not as something which flowed from the godlike power and charisma of the individual commander, but which derived from his status of a good family man’. About Apollonis in Attalid propaganda, see VIRGILIO 1993, pp. 44-52. 227 Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, ll. 12-14: διαγωνισάμενος πρός τε Προυσίαν̣ | [κα]ὶ̣ Ὀρτιάγοντα καὶ τοὺς Γαλάτας καὶ τοὺς | [συ]μμάχους αὐτῶν. 228 On Ortiagon, see Polyb. XXII, 21, 1-4; Liv. XXXVIII, 24, 11; LENSCHAU 1942; MAGIE 1950, pp. 764-765 n. 59; SPICKERMANN 2000. MITCHELL 1993, pp. 24-25 and FERNOUX 2008, p. 222 stress that the epigraphic evidence presents both Prusias I and the Galatians on an equal footing, i.e. as allies. Nevertheless, the Galatians were probably mercenaries. The choice of presenting them as Prusias I’s allies could have served to increase the propagandistic value of Prusias’ defeat (ERRINGTON 2008, pp. 226-227). 229 Polyb. XXIII, 1, 4; 3, 1. On the basis of the Prologus of Trogus’ Book XXXII (In Asia bellum ab rege Eumene gestum adversus Gallum Ortiagontem, Pharnacem Ponticum et Prusian, adiuvante Prusian Hannibale Poeno [‘in Asia the war of King Eumenes against the Galatian Ortiagon, Pharnaces of Pontus and Prusias, when the Carthaginian Hannibal helped Prusias’]), some scholars argue that Pharnaces I supported Prusias I (LENSCHAU 1942, col. 155; HOPP 1977, p. 41 and n. 37; GABELKO 2005, pp. 272-274; PETKOVIĆ 2012, pp. 359-360; FERRAIOLI 2019, p. 159). However, it is possible that the Prologus confuses the Bithynian-Attalid war with the one between Eumenes II and Pharnaces I, which broke out immediately after the war against Prusias (HABICHT 1957, col. 1099; cf. BALLESTEROS PASTOR 2000-2001, p. 62). 230 Iust. XXXII, 4, 6-7: Dein, cum Prusias terrestri bello ab Eumene victus esset et proelium in mare transtulisset, Hannibal novo commento auctor victoriae fuit; quippe omne serpentium genus in fictiles lagoenas coici iussit medioque proelio in naves hostium mittit. Id primum Ponticis ridiculum visum, fictilibus dimicare, qui ferro nequeant. Sed ubi serpentibus coepere naves repleri, ancipiti periculo circumventi hosti victoriam cesserunt (‘Then, after Prusias had been defeted by Eumenes in a land battle and he had moved the battle to the sea, Hannibal was author of a victory with a novel trick. He ordered to put all kinds of snakes in earthenware jugs and, during the battle, he sent them onto the enemy ships. 225 226

136

ELOISA PAGANONI

Not one of these clashes was a decisive battle leading to peace231. Instead, the end of the war might have been due to the intervention of Rome. In spring 183 BC, Eumenes II sent an embassy led by his brother Athenaeus to Rome: After these, the envoys of Eumenes entered and denounced the help which Philip had sent to Prusias and the situation of the positions in Thrace, saying that the garrisons had not yet been withdrawn from the cities. Philocles wished to speak in defence of these events, both because he had come to Prusias as an ambassador and because he had been sent to the Senate by Philip for these matters. After a short time, the Senate gave him this answer: if the ambassadors did not find the whole situation of the places of Thrace arranged according to the dispositions of the Senate and that all the cities were in the hands of Eumenes, disobedience about these matters would have been neither tolerated nor accepted232.

According to this passage of Polybius, the ambassadors of Eumenes complained about Philip V’s help to Prusias I and the situation of the Thracian cities of Maronea and Aenus, on which Philip V had made demands233. The core of their complaints concerned Philip V. They appealed against Philip’s behaviour hoping to obtain a Roman intervention in the war with Prusias I. Eumenes II was probably aware that his conflict with the Bithynain king was of no interest to Rome, as the Roman reply At first, it seemed ridiculous to the Pontics that those who were not able to fight with swords intended to do it with pots. But, when ships began being full of snakes, the enemies, as they were threatened on both sides, yielded the victory to the enemies’). For this episode, that has some anecdotal features (HABICHT 1957, col. 1101), cf. Nep. Hannibal 11, 1-7; Val. Max. III, 7 ext. 6; Front. Strat. IV, 7, 10-11. 231 Cf. HABICHT 1956, p. 99; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 57-58; ALLEN 1983, p. 79. SEGRE 1932, pp. 447-448 and MAGIE 1950, p. 1196 n. 39 argue that battle recorded by the decree of Telmessos (Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3) marked the end of the war. 232 Polyb. XXIII, 3, 1-3: μετὰ δὲ τούτους εἰσῆλθον οἱ παρ᾽ Εὐμένους πρέσβεις καὶ περί τε τῆς βοηθείας τῆς ἀποσταλείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλίππου τῷ Προυσίᾳ κατηγόρησαν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης τόπων, φάσκοντες οὐδ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν αὐτὸν ἐξαγηοχέναι τὰς φρουρὰς ἐκ τῶν πόλεων. τοῦ δὲ Φιλοκλέους ὑπὲρ τούτων βουληθέντος ἀπολογεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ καὶ πρὸς τὸν Προυσίαν πεπρεσβευκέναι καὶ τότε περὶ τούτων ἐξαπεστάλθαι πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλίππου, βραχύν τινα χρόνον ἡ σύγκλητος ἐπιδεξαμένη τοὺς λόγους ἔδωκεν ἀπόκρισιν διότι, τῶν ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης τόπων ἐὰν μὴ καταλάβωσιν οἱ πρεσβευταὶ πάντα διῳκημένα κατὰ τὴν τῆς συγκλήτου γνώμην καὶ πάσας τὰς πόλεις εἰς τὴν Εὐμένους πίστιν ἐγκεχειρισμένας, οὐκέτι δυνήσεται φέρειν οὐδὲ καρτερεῖν παρακουομένη περὶ τούτων. See also Polyb. XXIII, 1, 4; Liv. XXXIX, 46, 7-9. For the date, cf. e.g. HABICHT 1956, p. 95; HABICHT 1957, col. 1101; CANALI DE ROSSI 1997, pp. 464-469. On the basis of a dedication from Delos in honour of Philetaerus of Pergamum (Dürrbach, Choix 31), HABICHT 1957, col. 1100 argues that Philetaerus, the other brother of Eumenes II, also was involved in the war. But CHAMOUX 1988, pp. 498-499 (cf. SEG 38 [1988] 776) has demonstrated that the inscription dates to the 3rd century BC and consequently refers Philetaerus the founder of the Attalid dynasty. Cf. CAVALLI 2015, p. 92 n. 23. 233 About the matter of Maronea and Aenus, see WILL 1982, pp. 250-252; BURTON 2017, pp. 43-47.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

137

confirmed: it indeed dealt with Maronea and Aenus but contained no reference to the war with Bithynia. Polybius does not hand down the defence of Philocles, who spoke on behalf of Philip V and was updated on the Bithynian situation due to his visit to Prusias I. The surviving fragments of his Histories do not hint at the presence of an embassy from Prusias I. Yet, we know of this embassy through Nepos. The Bithynian delegation presumably had the task of justifying Prusias’ contacts with Philip. What is known about its mission concerns a dinner that constituted a turning point for the fate of Hannibal and possibly of the war: As for the events of Asia, it happened by chance that the ambassadors of Prusias in Rome had dinner in the house of the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus and that there, when Hannibal was mentioned, one of them said that he was in the kingdom of Prusias. The next day Flamininus reported the news to the Senate. The senators, who did not think themselves free from danger as long as Hannibal was alive, sent ambassadors, among whom Flamininus, to Bithynia to ask the king to deliver their enemy to them if he was hosting him234.

As far as we read in this passage, that might be in part anecdotal, Flamininus announced to the Senate that Hannibal was at the court of Prusias I; the Senate sent a delegation including Flamininus to Bithynia. The Roman initiative seems to be strictly related to the presence of Hannibal. According to Appian235 and Plutarch236, instead, Flamininus came to Bithynia to discuss some matters with Prusias I and there he tried to capture Hannibal without the Senate’s assent. The passages do not hint at the nature of these matters, but they may have been linked with the war with Eumenes II and the alliance with Philip, in light of the following piece of information from Livy: T. Quinctius Flamininus came as an ambassador to King Prusias, who was suspect to the Romans both because he had hosted Hannibal after his flight from Antiochus and because he had moved and was carrying on a war against Eumenes237. 234 Nep. Hannibal 12, 1-2: Quae dum in Asia geruntur, accidit casu ut legati Prusiae Romae apud T. Quinctium Flamininum consularem cenarent atque ibi de Hannibale mentione facta ex his unus diceret eum in Prusiae regno esse. Id postero die Flamininus senatui detulit. Patres conscripti, qui Hannibale vivo numquam se sine insidiis futuros existimarent, legatos in Bithyniam miserunt, in his Flamininum, qui ab rege peterent, ne inimicissimum suum secum haberet sibique dederet. 235 App. Syr. 11. 236 Plut. Flamininus 20, 3. 237 Liv. XXXIX, 51, 1: ad Prusiam regem legatus T. Quinctius Flamininus venit, quem suspectum

138

ELOISA PAGANONI

Justin too mentions the Roman embassy. Although he does not quote Flamininus, he says that the Roman mission had a twofold purpose: Ambassadors were sent by the Senate both to make peace between the kings and to demand Hannibal (in order to bring him to punishment)238.

These authors agree that Flamininus’ mission was somehow connected with the presence of Hannibal. As is well kown, Flamininus failed to capture the Carthaginian general, who committed suicide in Libyssa , a small town on the coast to the north of Nicomedia239. As far as we see in Livy and Justin, the embassy also dealt with the war between Prusias I and Eumenes II. On the basis of their testimony, the intervention of Flamininus is considered decisive for the end of the war240. He came to Bithynia in late summer 183 BC and the peace was likely signed in fall 183 BC, shortly before or after Hannibal’s death241. If, as it seems, there was any link between Flamininus’ mission and the conclusion of the war, Rome intervened in the Bithynian-Attalid matters once again. It presumably lined up with Eumenes II, but it is unclear how this affected the peace conditions. Admitting that the war broke out for the control of Phrygia Epiktētos, it marked the end of Prusias I’s claim over the region242. The Bithynian king revealed no further intention to expand into the south-west. Romanis et receptus post fugam Antiochi Hannibal et bellum adversus Eumenem motum faciebat. Cf. Liv. Per. 39, 7; De viris illust. 42, 6; 51, 5. 238 Iust. XXXII, 4, 8: missi a senatu legati sunt, qui utrumque regem in pacem cogerent Hannibalemque deposcerent; cf. De viris illust. 42, 6. 239 Liv. XXXIX, 51, 9-11; Liv. Per. 39, 7; Iust. XXXII, 4, 8; Plut. Flamininus, 20, 3-5, 10; App. Syr. 11; Nep. Hannibal, 12; Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 28; Val. Max. IX, 2 ext. 2; Cassiod. III, 47, 5; cf. the confused information of Malalas VIII, 28, 13. On the traditions about Hannibal’s death, see BRISCOE 1972, pp. 23-24; SEIBERT 1993, pp. 527-529; CAMPANILE 2000; RAGONE 2003, p. 113. 240 WALBANK 1940, p. 240 n. 2; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 57-58; HABICHT 1956, pp. 95, 100; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1099, 1101; HANSEN 1971, p. 100; BRISCOE 1972, p. 23; WILL 1982, p. 286; RADT 1999, p. 35; GABELKO 2005, p. 281; EVANS 2012, p. 35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 359; SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018, p. 168. Contra MCSHANE 1964, p. 160 and GRUEN 1984, pp. 551-553, who reject any connection between the peace and the mission of Flamininus. According to WILL 1982, p. 286 and EVANS 2012, p. 175 n. 26, the handing over of Hannibal was part of the peace agreement (contra MCSHANE 1964, p. 160; GRUEN 1984, p. 221). According to ECKSTEIN 2008, p. 354: ‘the results of the attempted mediation (of Flamininus) are unclear. In any case the outcome of the war itself was evidently determined by Pergamene military advantage’. 241 RUGE 1941, col. 801; HABICHT 1956, p. 95; HABICHT 1957, coll. 1096, 1101, 1103, 1105; MCSHANE 1964, p. 159; WILL 1982, p. 286; ALLEN 1983, p. 79; RADT 2008, p. 353; FERNOUX 2004, p. 60; EVANS 2012, p. 35; PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 359; PSOMA 2013, p. 281. ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 59 sets the peace in 179 BC, but cf. p. 636 where the traditional date of 183 BC is preferred. 242 It is argued that the peace agreement assigned to Eumenes II Bithynium (COHEN 1995, p. 395) and Tios (MEYER 1925, p. 149; RUGE 1937, col. 860; HANSEN 1971, p. 100; JONES 1971, p. 151; FERNOUX 2008,

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

139

In the last years of his reign Prusias I pointed his ambitions for expansion in another direction. Memnon relates a campaign against Heraclea that led Bithynia to expand considerably to the east: The king of the Bithynians Prusias, being a man of action and carrying out many deeds, seized in war, after others, Cierus, a city that was of the Heracleans. He called it Prusias instead of Cierus. He also conquered Tios that also was under their control. So he surrounded Heraclea from sea to sea. As well as these cities, he also besieged Heraclea and the city came close to be taken, if one of the defenders did not cast a stone against Prusias who was going up to a ladder and shattered his leg. The accident put an end to the siege. After the injured man was brought back on a stretcher not without a struggle by the Bithynians, he returned home. He lived there for not many years as a cripple in fact and in name and then he died243.

This was the first conflict between Heraclea and a Bithynian king since the time of Zipoites. Like this one, Prusias I tried to seized Heraclea244. He came close to succeeding, but he was compelled to withdraw due to personal injury. However, he managed to surround Heraclea by taking Cierus and Tios245. Memnon sets this episode a few years before Prusias I’s death, commonly placed in c. 182 BC246, and no other element allows us to date it more precisely247. According to Bruce F. Harris248, the campaign against Heraclea should be framed within Prusias I’s activities of 202 BC. p. 233) along with the disputed region (whatever it was). But there is no evidence of this (MAGIE 1950, pp. 758-764 n. 65, esp. p. 760; VITUCCI 1953, p. 59; HABICHT 1957, col. 1102). 243 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 19, 1-3: Προυσίας ὁ τῶν Βιθυνῶν βασιλεύς, δραστήριος ὢν καὶ πολλὰ πράξας, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ Κίερον πόλιν ῾Ηρακλεωτῶν οὖσαν ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἔθετο τῶι πολέμωι, ἀντὶ Κιέρου Προυσιάδα καλέσας· εἷλε δὲ καὶ τὴν Τῖον, καὶ αὐτὴν ὑπήκοον αὐτοῖς οὖσαν, ὥστε ἐκ θαλάσσης εἰς θάλασσαν τὴν ῾Ηράκλειαν περιγράψαι. ἐφ᾽ αἷς κἀκείνην κραταιῶς ἐπολιόρκει, καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν πολιορκουμένων ἀπέκτεινεν, ἐγγὺς δ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἡ πόλις τοῦ ἁλῶναι κατέστη, εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ τῆς κλίμακος ἀναβαίνων Προυσίας, λίθωι βαλόντος ἐνὸς τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπάλξεως, συνετρίβη τὸ σκέλος, καὶ τὴν πολιορκίαν τὸ πάθος διέλυσε. φοράδην γὰρ ὁ βληθείς, οὐκ ἄνευ ἀγῶνος, ὐπὸ τῶν Βιθυνῶν ἀνακομισθεὶς εἰς τὰ οἰκεῖα ἀνέστρεψε, κἀκεῖ βιοὺς ἔτη οὐ πολλά, καὶ χωλὸς καὶ ὢν καὶ καλούμενος, τὸν βίου κατέστρεψεν. 244 On Zipoites’ expedition against Heraclea, see Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3; above pp. 36-37. 245 Cf. HARRIS 1980, p. 861; BITTNER 1998, p. 88; GABELKO 2005, p. 257; DAVAZE 2013, p. 444. 246 Cf. NIESE 1903, p. 74 n. 1; BELOCH 1927, p. 213; VITUCCI 1953, p. 64; HABICHT 1957, col. 1105; HOPP 1977, p. 42; SCHOTTKY 2001a; GABELKO 2005, p. 291; DMITRIEV 2007, p. 134; MICHELS 2009, p. 433; HOOVER 2012, p. 210; KLEU 2013b. The dating of Prusias I’s death to 190-185 BC (MEYER 1879, pp. 51, 75 n. 2; MEISCHKE 1905, pp. 23, 27) is now rejected. 247 KLEU 2013b. Even the setting of the passage in Memnon’s account does not help as the narrative seems not to follow a chronological order in this point. The passage on Prusias I’s attack is after the narrative of the Roman-Syrian War and before the one of the Galatians’ attack to Heraclea, which is said to have occurred before the arrival of the Romans in Asia (cf. JANKE 1963, pp. 32-34; DMITRIEV 2007, p. 134). 248 HARRIS 1980, pp. 861-862.

140

ELOISA PAGANONI

According to others249, it occurred between 202 BC and the end of the Second Macedonian War in 197 BC. These dates seem too early to fit with Memnon’s information250. Furthermore, in the turn of the 2nd century BC Prusias was focusing on the west. After he had taken Cius and Myrlea, he had seized a part of Mysia and Phrygia Epiktētos. Similarly, it is unlikely that Prusias I was in the position to attack Heraclea while he was fighting against Eumenes II251. The best solution remains to place the campaign against Heraclea between the seizure of Mysia and Phrygia Epiktētos and the outbreak of the war with Pergamum in 186-184 BC252. There is no information about Prusias I’s activities in these years. We know only that he was not involved in the Roman-Syrian War. As for Heraclea, before the outbreak of this war, it unsuccessfully tried to lead the negotiation between Rome and Antiochus III253. It did not take part in the conflict, but it signed an alliance with Rome after the Battle of Magnesia254. The approach to Rome could be read as another hint at the increasing tension with Prusias I. However, if Heraclea hoped for Roman help against Prusias I, it was disappointed255. 4. PRUSIAS I’S POLITICS AND NATIONAL CLAIMS

BETWEEN

ECONOMY

AND

PROPAGANDA, HELLENISING

In his campaign to the east Prusias I did not take Heraclea. Nevertheless, he seized two important trade centres, Cierus, on the route connecting Nicomedia with Pontus, and Tios on the Black Sea256. The Bithynians had hitherto controlled harbours on the west shore of the Bosporus (Nicomedia, Cius/Prusias ad Mare, Myrlea/Apamea). With Tios, they became involved in Black Sea trade routes so far controlled by Heraclea MEYER 1925, p. 112; SAPRYKIN 1997, p. 233; BITTNER 1998, pp. 84, 93; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 443-444. Cf. DMITRIEV 2007, pp. 134-135. 251 This is assumed by FERNOUX 2004, p. 38, HOOVER 2012, p. 210 and PETKOVIĆ 2012, p. 358. 252 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 51-53; MCSHANE 1964, pp. 159-160 (after 188 BC); WILL 1982, p. 214; GRAINGER 2002, p. 310 (before 188 BC); GABELKO 2005, p. 256; DMITRIEV 2007, pp. 134-135 (after 188 BC). In the 190s: MEYER 1879, p. 51; HABICHT 1957, col. 1096; GRUEN 1984, p. 736; COHEN 1995, p. 406. 253 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 18, 6-8. 254 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 18, 10. 255 WILL 1982, p. 214; GABELKO 2005, pp. 261-262. 256 Cf. HABICHT 1957, col. 1097. About Cierus, cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 39: ‘poste de surveillance excellent... permettait de dominer depuis le nord la plaine de l’Hypios, qui remonte vers l’est en direction de la Paphlagonie et du Pont’. On the geography of the area, see DÖRNER 1957a, col. 1134; ROBERT 1980, pp. 62-65. 249 250

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

141

and Pontus257. In claiming possession of Cierus, Prusias I re-founded and named the city after himself258. The new city acquired the designation ‘ad Hypium’ to differentiate it from the homonymous Prusias ad Mare259. The city of Bithynium lay in the part of Heraclea’s chōra that Prusias conquered. This city is attested from the 1st century BC and it is known to have changed its name to Claudiopolis under Claudius260. For its former name, Bithynium is supposed to have been founded by a Bithynian king. The claimant is tentatively identified with Nicomedes I261, Ziaelas262, Prusias I263 or Prusias II264. An Imperial dedication suggests the existence of the worship for Prusias, who is likely to be identified as the founder265. So the choice should fall either on Prusias I or Prusias II; and the former is to be preferred, I think. Prusias I was the first to include permanently the area of Bithynium in the kingdom of Bithynia266. Bithynium lay about forty kilometres south-east of Cierus on the route to Pontus. It was in the heart of the lands Prusias I had seized, literally ‘between’ Cierus and Tios. In light of this, the foundation of Bithynium was probably part Prusias I’s interventions to establish control over the recently annexed region. It is unclear whether the area of Bithynium was already inhabited267, but the BITTNER 1998, p. 85. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 19, 1. There is no hint at the destruction of Cierus, and so it is possible that Prusias I just changed the name of the city (DÖRNER 1957a, col. 1134; ROBERT 1980, p. 62; IK Prusias ad Hypium, pp. 3-4; FERNOUX 2004, p. 39; MICHELS 2009, p. 275). The attestation of a tribe Prusias suggests the existence of a cult for Prusias I (LESCHHORN 1984, p. 279 n. 7; COHEN 1995, p. 406; MICHELS 2009, p. 276). On the institutions of the city, see IK Prusias ad Hypium, pp. 19-26. 259 Plin NH V, 148: Prusias... sub Hypio monte. The earliest numismatic evidence dating to the 1st century AD bears the ethnic ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕΩΝ, while the later one the ethnic ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΥΠΙΩΙ (COHEN 1995, p. 406). The designation ‘ad Hypium’ also appears, in more than one form, in Imperial inscriptions (for a list, DÖRNER 1957a, coll. 1133-1134). The name Prusias without designation is however widely attested in inscriptions and private documents (COHEN 1995, pp. 406 -407 and n. 1). 260 Strabo XII, 4, 7; Steph. Byz. s.v. Βιθύνιον; for the numismatic evidence, see OBERHUMMER 1897a; COHEN 1995, p. 395. Whether Bithy(n)opolis (Steph. Byz. s.v. βιθύοπολις [sic!]) was identical to Bithynium is debated (MEYER 1897, col. 517; Jacoby, FGrHist 156, F 17, Commentary, p. 565; VITUCCI 1953, p. 34 n. 2; WILSON 1960, p. 133; COHEN 1995, p. 396; MICHELS 2009, p. 282). 261 FOL 1970, p. 179; JONES 1971, p. 150; HARRIS 1980, p. 861; contra VITUCCI 1953, p. 34 n. 2. 262 MEYER 1897, col. 517; MEYER 1925, p. 112; contra MAGIE 1950, p. 1190 n. 21; HABICHT 1972c, col. 394. 263 MAGIE 1950, p. 1190 n. 21; ROBERT 1980, pp. 130-132; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 284, 334, 340; IK Klaudiu Polis, pp. 1-2, 57; DEBORD 1998, p. 146; FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; MICHELS 2009, p. 280; CHANKOWSKI 2010, p. 283; MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130. 264 STROBEL 1994, pp. 43-44. Cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 280, who claims that Prusias II ‘möglich bleibt’; MICHELS 2013, p. 20. 265 IK Klaudiu Polis 50; see below Appendix nr. 5. 266 Cf. HABICHT 1972c, col. 394. 267 On the basis of Pausanias (VIII, 9, 7-8), some scholars assume that Bithynium was a settlement of Mantinea originally and that Prusias I re-founded the village by turning it into a polis and changing its name (IK Klaudiu Polis, p. 1; CREMER 1992, p. 103; about the tradition in Pausanias, see SCHEER 2010, pp. 282257 258

142

ELOISA PAGANONI

polis was established only after the intervention of the Bithynian king268. As it was the easternmost foundation of the Bithynian kings, Bithynium is considered a military outpost269. It was for certain a frontier city; however, it was more than a stronghold. The Roman road network, which retraced the Hellenistic one, shows that Bithynium became an important crossroad. Not only was it on the route to Pontus, but it was a necessary stop-over for the routes to Heraclea and Tios270. With Cierus/Prusias ad Hypium, Tios and Bithynium, Prusias I gained the monopoly over trade towards the East and the Black Sea that had been so far held by Heraclea271. It was the last stage of a plan to develop the economy of Bithynia, which had begun with the first foundations in the turn of the 2nd century BC. Cius/Prusias ad Mare and Myrlea/Apamea were important harbours that reinforced the control over trade from the Aegean to the Black Seas272. Prusa ad Olympum became a crossroad for the land routes leading from Cius and Myrlea to the south273. For the number of foundations and the emergence of a consistent plan behind them, Prusias I deserves the title of ‘great founder’ of the Bithynian dynasty274. He overcame his predecessors, including Nicomedes I, and made the foundation of cities as the key tool to control and develop the territory. These foundations are considered a mark of Prusias I’s philhellenism and a tool to ‘hellenise’ the kingdom275. This is in part true if we mean that Prusias contributed to spreading the Greek city institutions in Bithynia276. He re-founded already existing poleis and preserved their institutions, as Nicomedes I had done; moreover, he founded two new cities, Prusa ad Olympum and Bithynium. However, it does not entail that Prusias I 285; cf. SCHEER 2011). The favourable condition of the place suggests the existence of a former settlement (DÖRNER 1952, p. 32; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 34 n. 2; MICHELS 2009, pp. 280-281 and n. 1434), but there is no evidence (LESCHHORN 1984, p. 284; MICHELS 2009, pp. 280-281 n. 1434). 268 IK Klaudiu Polis, p. 1: ‘In den Rang einer Polis wurde der Ort von dem bithynischen König Prusias I... erhoben’; CREMER 1992, p. 103. On the institutions of Bithynium, see IK Klaudiu Polis, pp. 19-20. On the tribe system of Bithynium, see MAREK 2002a. 269 JONES 1971, p. 150; HARRIS 1980, p. 867; MAREK 1993, p. 23 n. 205; SARTRE 2003, p. 93; FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 281. 270 IK Klaudiu Polis, pp. 12-18; TALBERT 2000, Map 86. 271 BITTNER 1998, pp. 84-85; cf. DAVAZE 2013, p. 443 n. 1231. According to SÖLCH 1925, pp. 158-159, Prusias I refounded Atussa, a city mentioned by Pliny (NH V, 143); contra VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3; COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1; SYME 1995, pp. 352-353; MICHELS 2009, p. 278 n. 1421. 272 Cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 253. 273 TALBERT 2000, Map 52. 274 Cf. HARRIS 1980, p. 862; GABELKO 2005, p. 294. 275 HARRIS 1980, p. 861; FERNOUX 2008, p. 234. 276 Cf. the remarks of ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 663.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

143

pursued a ‘blind’ philhellenism or that he aimed to the Hellenization of the Bithynian people277. City foundation was among the acts of the ‘good king’ according to the Graeco-Macedonian model of basileia. In founding and re-founding cities, Prusias I probably considered the prestige deriving from it278. Nevertheless, the settlements he founded and re-founded responded firstly to political and economic interests. That Hellenization was not the aim of Prusias I’s policies but a means to be recognised as a king should also be taken into account about Prusias I’s coinage. This kind of evidence confirms that the Greek model played a relevant role in the cultural and self-representation politics of this king. According to a trend attested in the main Hellenistic monarchies since the second half of the 3rd century BC, Prusias I’s coin portrait shows a ‘humanisation des effiges royales’279. It finds close comparisons in the coin portraits of Philip V and Seleucus II280. The bronze series of Prusias I bear,

277 As with Nicomedes I (see above pp. 70-76), the misleading interpretation of Hellenization affects the assessment of Prusias I’s cultural policies. See the assessments by MAGIE 1950, p. 315: ‘But with all his efforts to appear in the light of an Hellenic prince, he was no true friend of Hellenism, and in his readiness to profit at the expense of the independent cities whose territories he desired, he presented a marked contrast to his neighbours, the monarchs of Pergamum’; FERNOUX 2008, p. 236: ‘Les efforts de Prusias Ier dans le domaine de l’urbanisation et, plus généralement, de l’hellénisation recontrèrent un succès indéniable à l’intérieur du royaume. Mais, pour l’usage politique et idéologique que le roi voulait en faire à l’extérieur, les resultats s’avérèrent décevants… Le comportement du roi sur la scène extérieure ne fut pas exempt d’incohérence. Son alliance avec les Galates en 186 allait à l’encontre de ses initiatives philhellènes antérieures’. Like Ziaelas, Prusias I suffers the comparison with the ideal portrait of Nicomedes I. SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. II, p. 723 claims: ‘Auch den kleinen hellenistischen Königen gelang es, gute Stempelschneider an ihre Höfe zu ziehen. In Bithynien leiß Nikomedes I. seit der Mitte des dritten Jahrhunderts Porträtmünzen prägen, doch sind erst die des Prusias I. und II. von individueller Naturtreue und künstlerischer Ausdruckskraft; die Vulgarität dieser Könige wird dabei jedoch nicht verschwiegen’. 278 Cf. MICHELS 2009, pp. 281-282; MICHELS 2013, pp. 12-17. 279 FERNOUX 2004, p. 47; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 164. 280 FERNOUX 2004, p. 47; MICHELS 2009, pp. 164-165. Cf. SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. II, p. 32. Contra MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130. As FERNOUX 2004, p. 47 notes, Prusias I’s coin portait contrasts with the ones of the kings of Pontus and Cappadocia. At the end of the 3rd century BC these ones still were characterised by indigenous and Iranian features, the most evident of which was the kyrbasia. About the differences between Bithynia and the other indigenous Hellenistic kingdoms, see GABELKO 2005, pp. 195-196. Prusias I’s tetradrachms bear the image of Zeus on the reverse. It is usually identified with Zeus Stratios and is supposed to imitate the statue of Zeus Stratios in Nicomedia attributed to Doidalses (REINACH 1902, pp. 191-192; NEWELL 1937, pp. 37-38; BMC Bithynia, p. xl; MAGIE 1950, pp. 1185-1186 n. 12; SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1978, pp. 609-610, 643-647 nrr. 257, 265, 268, 292; LE RIDER 1984, pp. 169-170; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 80-81; FERNOUX 2004, p. 47; HOOVER 2012, pp. 210-211; on Doidalses, see above p. 63). On the grounds of the pose of Zeus and other details, scholars distinguish two (HOOVER 2012, pp. 210-211) or four series (FERNOUX 2004, pp. 46-49; cf. LE RIDER 1984). In the first one, Zeus bears a sceptre, while, in the other one(s), Zeus holds a crown above Prusias’ name. On looking for an explanation for this difference, LE RIDER 1984, pp. 169-170 argues that either iconography does not refer to the statue of Zeus in Nicomedia, or the statue was commissioned by Prusias I (cf. HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 80-81) and was not finished yet when the first series was minted. According to FERNOUX 2004, pp. 47-48, the first series reproduces the

144

ELOISA PAGANONI

on the obverse, the head of a deity, such as Heracles, Apollo, Athena, Dionysius and Hermes, and on the reverse, a full-length figure of a deity or a mythic creature281. Besides the Greek influence, Prusias I’s cultural politics reveal a Bithynian mark. Bithynium’s name refers to the eponymous hero Bithys/ Bithynus, who was the son of Zeus and the nymph Thracia according to the literary tradition282. For this reason, it is unanimously considered a claim of national identity283. A careful look at literary evidence might suggest that there also was a reference to the national identity in Prusa ad Olympum’s name. Like Bithynium, Prusa ad Olympum is generally considered a new foundation. This conclusion yet has been put in to question on the basis of a corrupted passage of Strabo: statue in Nicomedia, while the others propose a different image for propagandistic purposes. In fact, these are just guesses: we do not know how the statue in Nicomedia looked like. Zeus holding a crown above a king’s name is a peculiar iconographic model, which finds a few comparisons outside Bithynia (MICHELS 2009, p. 166). The closest ones are the series Attalus I and Eumenes II minted in c. 240s-early 190s BC. They bear on the reverse Athena holding a crown over Philetaerus’ name (WESTERMARK 1961, p. 23 and Tables 4-16; MARCELLESI 2012, pp. 181, 190, 261 figg. 29-31). This could be another piece of evidence of the propagandistic rivalry of Pergamum and Bithynia in the years of Prusias I. The crown is interpreted as a symbol of victory; in Prusias I’s coins it is supposed to refer to the 216 BC campaign against the Aegosagi (REINACH 1888, p. 105; REINACH 1902, p. 191 n. 5; HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 80-83, who argues that Zeus was not Stratios, but Nikēphoros; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 168). As Zeus was the father of Bithys/Bithynus, the eponymous hero (see below p. 144 n. 282), Le Rider (in footnote 11 of the second version of his paper [LE RIDER 1984] published in the collection of essays, G. Le Rider, Études d’histoire monétaire et financière du monde grec écrits 1958-1998, vol. II, Athèns 1999, pp. 691-696, followed by MICHELS 2009, p. 168) assumes that the iconography of Prusias’ tetradrachms alludes to the divine descent of the Bithynians. 281 It is difficult to distinguish the bronze coinage of Prusias I and Prusias II, that are often considered together. On these series, see REINACH 1888, pp. 109-117; BMC Bithynia, pp. xli-xlii; MØRKHOLM 1991, p. 130; FERNOUX 2004, pp. 50-59; HOOVER 2012, pp. 211-213; MICHELS 2014, pp. 232-240; GÜNEY 2015; GÜNEY 2017. According to FERNOUX 2004, pp. 50-59, Prusias I’s bronze coinage refers to the foundation myths of the Bithynian Greek cities. It would have had a double aim, to present Prusias I as a Hellenised king and to spread the Greek worships among the indigenous population. Against this conclusion, MICHELS 2009, p. 176 (cf. MICHELS 2014, pp. 232-240) observes that none of the deities on the coins is the protagonist of foundation myths related to any Bithynian city. He then concludes: ‘Sie (i.e. bronze coins) illustrieren zwar die Bedeutung der von griechischer Kultur geprägten Städte des bithynischen Königreichs, sage aber nur wenig über die Hellenisierung der ländlichen Bevölkerung aus’. 282 App. Mithr. 1; Steph. Byz. s.v. Βιθυνία. On the traditions concerning the eponymous hero of the Bithynians, see PAGANONI forth. According to MICHELS 2013, p. 21, the allusion to Bithynus/Bithys may be another expression of the propagandistic competition with the Attalids. They indeed celebrated their bond with Telephus, son of Heracles, founder of Pergamum. About the tradition on Telephus and its role in Attalid propaganda, see SCHEER 1993, pp. 71-152; ZAGDOUN 2008; GRABOWSKI 2018, p. 20. 283 ROBERT 1980, p. 131: ‘une manifestation de nationalisme bithynien’; IK Klaudiu Polis, p. 1 and n. 5: ‘Der Name der Stadt ist programmatisch: Es ist eine bithynische Stadt im Königreich Bithynien’; STROBEL 1994, p. 44: ‘programmatische Gründung’; FERNOUX 2004, p. 40; MICHELS 2009, p. 282: ‘Sie sollte jedoch angesichts dessen, daß Bithynos die bithynische Identität betont, nicht als Hinweis auf eine Hellenisierungspolitik überstrapaziert werden’; MICHELS 2013, p. 21; MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

145

Prusa ad Olympum... a foundation of Prusias... who fought against Croesus284.

Similar information is in Stephanus of Byzantium, who mentions Cyrus instead of Croesus285. In view of the reference to Croesus/Cyrus, Strabo and Stephanus seem to suggest that the city was founded in the 6th century BC. No person named Prusias is attested at that time yet. This has raised scepticism about the reliability of this information. Some scholars emend the passage of Strabo286; their proposals tend to identify the founder here mentioned with Prusias I287. Others288 argue that Prusias I refounded a pre-existing settlement dating back to the 6th century BC. Some of them go further in investigating the earliest foundation and draw attention to the city name289. On comparison with cities named after Prusias I, Prusias ad Mare and Prusias ad Hypium, Prusa ad Olympum’s name proves a different root, that lacks -i- in the second syllable. It is thus argued that the first founder was not a certain Prusias, a namesake of the king of Bithynia, but an unidentified *Prus-290. Prusias I would have refounded the settlement without changing its name because it was similar to his own291. This proposal combines literary sources with linguistic datum. Against it, however, there is a lack of archaeological evidence before the Hellenistic age292. 284 Strabo XII, 4, 3: Προῦσα δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ Ὀλύμπῳ... κτίσμα Προυσίου τοῦ πρὸς Κροῖσον πολεμήσαντος (edition by MEINEKE 1877). Cf. the edition of LASSERRE 1981 ad loc.: κτίσμα Προυσίου ˂...˃ τοῦ πρὸς Κροῖσον πολεμήσαντος. 285 Steph. Byz. s.v. Προῦσα: ἡ δὲ Προῦσα καὶ αὐτὴ μὲν πόλις μικρὰ Βιθυνίας, κτίσμα Προυσίου τοῦ πρὸς Κῦρον πολεμήσαντος (‘Prusa is also a small city of Bithynia, a foundation of Prusias who fought against Cyrus’). 286 Palmer, quoted by DÖRNER 1957, col. 1077, proposed the emendation κτίσμα Προυσίου τοῦ πρὸς Κ˂ίερ˃ον πολεμήσαντος (‘foundation of Prusias who fought against Cierus’). Grosskurd suggested the reading, quoted and accepted by RADET 1893, pp. 221-222 n. 4, κτίσμα Προυσίου ἢ ὡς ἔνοί φασι τοῦ Κροίσου τοῦ πρὸς Κῦρον πολεμήσαντος (‘foundation of Prusias or, as some say, of Croesus who fought against Cyrus’). SYME 1995, p. 349, proposeed another possible emendation: κτίσμα Προυσίου ˂πρότερον δὲ τοῦ Κύρου˃ τοῦ πρὸς Κροῖσον πολεμήσαντος (‘foundation of Prusias, formerly of Cyrus who fought against Croesus’); but he added that ‘this is the easiest remedy... not necessarily the best’. 287 cf. LASSERRE 1981, p. 169 n. 6. 288 RADET 1893, pp. 221-222 n. 4; KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; CORSTEN 1989. 289 KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; CORSTEN 1989; MICHELS 2009, p. 278 n. 1421. 290 KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; CORSTEN 1989. 291 CORSTEN 1989; cf. KOERTE 1899, p. 412 n. 1; contra MENDEL 1900, pp. 363-364 n. 2; HOLLEAUX 1938, p. 114 n. 2; ROBERT 1937, p. 232 n. 2; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 60-61 n. 3; HABICHT 1957, col. 1104; COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1. 292 AVRAM 2004, p. 975. The funerary inscriptions from Prusa ad Olympum, dating to the 3rd century BC (PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979 nrr. 947, 1278), prove the use of the area before Prusias I’s intervention (CORSTEN 1989, p. 34), but not the existence of any urban centre (MICHELS 2009, p. 279 and n. 1426). Cf. TSCHERIKOWER 1927, pp. 47-49; FERNOUX 2004, p. 39: ‘Antérieurement (i.e. before Prusias I’s foundation),

146

ELOISA PAGANONI

The issue is complex, but to point out the unquestionable pieces of evidence could contribute to its solution. Literary sources record two foundations of Prusa ad Olympum, one by a certain Prusias, hypothetically in the 6th century BC (Strabo and Stephanus), the other by Prusias I with Hannibal’s help in the early 180s BC (Pliny)293. Regardless the city’s name, the sources refers to two founders both named Prusias. The fact that they were namesake is for certain generally explained by assuming that the 6th-century-BC Prusias was no other than a mythic projection of Prusias I, who carried out the actual foundation294. If so, Strabo and Stephanus hand down a pseudo-historical tradition. In support of this, the setting of the information within Strabo’s account could be relevant. It is placed at the end of a long digression on the cities of Bithynia295. It opens with the re-foundation of Nicomedia by Nicomedes I and continues with those of Cius and Myrlea by a king Prusias. This one is for certain Prusias I, as he is said to be the son of Ziaelas, the ally of Philip V and the host of Hannibal. Then, the digression focuses on Cius. The city is said to have been founded by the eponymous hero Cius and to be independent in Roman times. Finally, Strabo presents the debated passage on the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum. No element points out that Strabo has come back to deal with the historical time; and no information identifies the founder Prusias either with Prusias I or with his namesake successor. Strabo refers to the above-quoted exponents of the Bithynian dynaty as kings and he clarifies their identity mentioning the most representative of their deeds. Here instead neither the founder Prusias is said to be a king nor any deed is attached to him. Strabo appears to continue referring to the mythical time, that is the chronological frame established with the account on Cius. The Prusias he mentions, thus, can be hardly identified with Prusias I, but he could be a mythic figure. Some Imperial coins of Prusa ad Olympum bear the legend ΠΡΟΥΣΑΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΤΙΣΤΕΝ ΠΡΟΥΣΙΑΝ and a standing male figure in arms on the reverse296. They confirm that the founder of the city was named Prusias. la zone et ses alentours n’avaient accueilli que des villages et des bourgs indigènes’. The earliest epigraphic evidence from Prusa ad Olympum is a fragmentary decree dated to the 180s-170s BC, i.e. immediately after Prusias I’s intervention (IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, see below Appendix nr. 2). 293 Plin. NH V, 148; see above p. 133. 294 MAGIE 1950, p. 1187 n. 16; HABICHT 1957, col. 1104; WILSON 1960, pp. 75-76; COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1; SYME 1995, p. 355; BEKKER-NIELSEN 2008, p. 22; MICHELS 2009, pp. 278-279 and n. 1421. 295 Strabo XII, 4, 2-3. 296 IMHOOF-BLUMER 1911, pp. 9-10 nr. 6; WADDINGTON et al.1912, p. 582 nr. 48.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

147

Iconography suggests that the one portrayed was not a Hellenistic king, but a hero297. These conis thus are another evidence of the mythical or pseudo-historical tradition we find in literary sources. It was likely created at the Bithynian court under Prusias I or one of his successors to legitimise the Bithynian claim over the area around Prusa ad Olympum. It presented this city as an ancestral foundation of the Bithynians, and thus part of their lands ab origine298. By pointing out a mythical founder namesake of the historical one, this proposal keeps open the issue of the city name. In this regard we can just propose speculations. For instance, it might derive from a Bithynian hero299. Prusias I might have chosen to refer to a mythic figure connected with the identity of the Bithynians as he did for Bithynium. If so, Prusa ad Olympum would recall and celebrate the Bithynian tradition by its own name. The parallel with Bithynium is striking, but we would go too far by assuming that Prusias I consistently referred to the Bithynian tradition in new foundations. It is enough here to note once again that scholars underestimate the references to ethnicity in Bithynian royal propaganda300. The kings of Bithynia were Thracian by ethnicity. The epigraphic evidence reveals the existence of a Thraco-Bithynian élite involved in the administration and defence of the kingdom301. We can say that this Bithynian component also found expression at official level. The Bithynian kings stressed the ethnicity of themselves and their people both in propaganda and in official documents. In this latter respect, it is meaningful that Zialeas presented himself as the ‘king of the Bithynians’ in his letter to the Coans302. As discussed elsewhere303, this title finds comparison with the royal title in use among the Macedonian kings. It suggests that, like Macedonia, Bithynia was a national monarchy based upon the union of king and people.

IMHOOF-BLUMER 1911, pp. 9-10 nr. 6; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 282. COHEN 1995, pp. 403-404 n. 1. A similar assumption is proposed for Astacus, see above pp. 32-33. 299 It is worth highlighting that in Bithynia the Thracian personal name Pruse is attested (LGPN V.A, p. 383; OnomTharc, p. 277), which has the same root of Prusa’s name. 300 See above p. 75. 301 CORSTEN 2007. 302 RC 25; below Appendix nr. 8. 303 See below pp. 175-176. 297 298

148

ELOISA PAGANONI

5. A FINAL ASSESSMENT OF PRUSIAS I Nicomedes I and Ziaelas had made Bithynia the dominant power in the Propontic area. They had built up a wide contact network with kingdoms and poleis; they also had developed institutions and economy. The only rivals that remained were the Seleucids, who, however, had not been a concrete threat in the central decades of the 3rd century BC. The political situation of Asia Minor changed with the rise of Pergamum in the 230s BC. The new-born kingdom immediately engaged in competition with Bithynia for hegemony in northern Anatolia. Pergamum was a dangerous enemy, closer and more aggressive than the Seleucids. The rivalry first emerged in propaganda with the introduction of the topic of the struggle against the Galatians in Bithynian ideology. But it quickly passed to the military level. The rise of this new neighbour caused a shift in Bithynian foreign policies. To address the new enemy, Prusias I approached the Seleucids in the early years of his reign and continued to cooperate with them for decades. Sources preserve just hints at this unprecedented friendship. But it could have been sanctioned by the marriages of Prusias I himself and his son with two Seleucid princesses. Throughout Prusias I’s reign another change in the situation of Asia Minor occurred, Rome entered the East. It found loyal allies in the Attalids, who exploited its favour to strengthen their position in detriment of the Seleucids and Bithynia. Prusias I instead remained neutral to Rome. His contribution to the First Macedonian War seems to be related more to his hostility to Pergamum than to the outcome of the conflict between Macedonia and the Aetolians. Then, Prusias I remained neutral both in the Second Macedonian War and in the Roman-Syrian War. Prusias I was absent from the main steps of the rise of Rome in the East. For this reason, he remains a background actor in the surviving accounts of those years (Polybius and the authors deriving from him especially) that focus on the coming of Rome in the East. Such a situation has contributed to the image of Prusias I as an opportunist king304. On the contrary, one could say that Prusias I was even too cautious. But probably, neither of these assessments illustrate Prusias I’s attitude effectively. Prusias’ political horizon was limited to 304 VITUCCI 1953, p. 64: ‘le direttive della sua (i.e. of Prusias I) politica furono in generale il risultato di un calcolo opportunistico non disgunto da un grande coraggio nell’impegnare nella lotta le sorti sue e del suo regno’; HARRIS 1980, p. 861: ‘(Prusias I)... displayed that intelligent opportunism which had come to be associated with these semi-hellenized monarchs’.

BITHYNIA AND THE RISE OF ROME IN THE EAST

149

the Greek world. Rome was not included. He did not understand the implications of his alliance with Philip V and Antiochus III, and he paid for this with the defeat in the political competition with Pergamum305. However, to evaluate Prusias I’s politics only according to his relationships with the Attalids and Rome does not do justice to his conduct. He had always acted to strengthen and expand the kingdom. Only the echo of his earliest successes survives, but since the late 3rd century BC sources hint at an ambitious campaign that led Prusias I to expand to the south-west. After seizing Cius ad Myrlea, Prusias gained two successes in the struggle against Pergamum: he took Mysia Olympene and Phrygia Epiktētos. At some time, Prusias I turned to the east and moved against Heraclea. Although he did not seize the city, he took possession of most of its chōra. Under Prusias I Bithynia enlarged as never before or after him. It was not only a matter of expansion. Prusias I supported the conquests with a coherent plan of foundations and re-foundations of cities. These cities reinforced the control of the newly annexed territories; at the same time they boosted the economy of the kingdom. They became strategic intersections of the north Anatolian road network. Bithynia became the master of land and sea trade between Asia and Europe, and the Aegean and Black Seas. Urbanisation activities and coinage as well were part of a consistent plan aiming to promote the economy and the international prestige of Bithynia. Prusias I perfectly integrated his kingdom into the Hellenistic milieu presenting Bithynia on a par with the GraecoMacedonian monarchies. Meanwhile, he exalted Thraco-Bithynian elements and manifested in propaganda the national character of the Bithynian monarchy. Ultimately, Prusias I was the most charismatic of the Bithynian kings. After his death, the Bithynian kingdom knew a drastic decline306: it definitively lost the competition with Pergamum, its power quickly decreased, and its postion towards Rome further weakened althought it entered in alliance with it. In the late 2nd century BC Bithynia fell in the sphere of interest of Pontus, and then, Mithridates VI tried to conquer it. In 74 BC Nicomedes IV bequeathed to Rome a kingdom in ruins. These 305 This affects the negative assessments about Prusias I’s reign, e.g. SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. I, p. 787: ‘Mit seinem (i.e. Ziaelas’) Sohn Prusias I. (229-182) began die allmähliche Degeneration der bithynischen Herrscherfamilie’. 306 See GEYER 1936a; GEYER 1936b; GEYER 1936c; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 67-119; HABICHT 1957a; HARRIS 1980, pp. 862-866; GABELKO 2005, pp. 297-414.

150

ELOISA PAGANONI

short notes highlight that the reign of Prusias I constituted the akmē of the Golden Age of Bithynia307. It marked the successful fulfilment of the emergence of Bithynia in the landscape of Hellenistic Asia Minor.

307 BMC Bithynia, p. xl: ‘the greatest of the Bithynian kings’; ROSTOVTZEFF 1941, p. 663: ‘He left to his successor a kingdom strong and outwardly hellenized’; HARRIS 1980, p. 858: ‘The peak had undoubtedly been reached with the rule of Prusias I’; SHERWIN-WHITE 1984, p. 43: ‘The energic Prusias I... had built up what was the smallest, but the most compact of the Anatolian kingdoms’; GABELKO 2005, pp. 295-296.

CONCLUSION

The Bithynians made their appearance in Asia at the beginning of the 1 millennium BC. They and the Thynians were the last Thracian tribes that left Europe to settle in the Propontic and Yalova peninsulas. The arrival of the Greeks on the Propontic shores from the late 8th century BC onwards contributed to define the ethno-political landscape of the region. This landscape was completed when earlier the Lydians and then the Persians included the area in their empires. The earliest information about the Bithynians after their migration dates to the late 5th century BC. At that time, they were officially under the rule of the satrap of Dascylium but they often rebelled against him and made war against the Greek cities. Their condition in itself was not exceptional. The existence of local autonomies was intrinsic to make up of the Persian empire and fights between indigenous people and Greeks are widely attested elsewhere. Unique was instead the historical juncture. The Bithynians exploited the lack of a firm power due to their distance from the centre of the satrapy and the instability caused by the Great Satraps’ Revolt to reinforce their power. When Alexander defeated the Great King and the Achaemenid empire fell, the Bithynians became in fact independent. The Bithynian ruler Bas defended this independence against Alexander’s general who was charged with taking control of the Propontis. In the years after Alexander’s death, his son and successor Zipoites entered the alliance network that granted Antigonus Monophthalmus a firm influence over the Propontis but preserved Bithynian independence. With the death of Antigonus, the delicate network he had built fell apart. Those who took Antigonus’ place in Asia Minor tried to include the Bithynians in their realms. They failed, though. Zipoites repulsed the attacks of Lysimachus, Seleucus and Antiochus I. Meanwhile he began a new series of campaigns against the Propontic cities. He expanded his estate and consolidated his power. The Bithynian royal era sets the beginning of the kingdom in 297 BC. Zipoites is supposed to have taken the royal title after an event in that year. If so, he turned the Bithynian chiefdom into a kingdom while the Diadochs were dividing Alexander’s empire. st

152

ELOISA PAGANONI

The earliest traces of a Bithynian contact network date back to the years of Zipoites. This one was in fact recognised as a political counterpart by Antigonus Monophthalmus. Moreover, Zipoites is supposed to be in contact with the island of Cos through Nicomedes son of Aristander. The definitive recognition of the self-proclaimed kingdom, however, came under Zipoites’ successor Nicomedes I. The diplomatic relations he established with cities and kings from the early 270s BC onwards demonstrate that his realm was accepted as an independent kingdom. In the first years of his reign, Nicomedes was involved in a war against Antiochus I, which triggered a domestic conflict with his brother Zipoites. In that context, he allied with Heraclea and the so-called Northern League. When the situation worsened, he called the Galatians who were threatening Byzantium into Asia. This move was crucial to Nicomedes’ victory but fatal to Asia Minor. It was the beginning of a troubled relationship between the regional kings and Galatians. It was a constant shifting between collaboration and conflict: the Galatians could be allies then enemies and vice versa, as some episodes of the history of the kingdom of Bithynia prove. Nicomedes looked for their support to defeat his brother, and his son and successor Ziaelas did the same. At the death of his father, he marched from his exile at the head of a Galatian mercenary force to conquest the kingdom his father had bequeathed to his second-born sons. After he took the Bithynian throne, Ziaelas probably continued to look for support from the Galatians. At some point yet, Ziaelas tried to free himself from this dangerous bond, but he was killed by the Galatians. We can only speculate about the earliest contacts between Prusias I and the Galatians. Prusias I could have avenged the murder of his father when ascending the throne, but he could not have endured the pressure of the Galatians during the negotiations after the war with Byzantium in 220 BC. A few years after, in 216 BC, Prusias I campaigned against the Aegosagi. For this ‘propagandistic expedition’ he gained access to the group of the saviours of the Greeks from ‘barbarian’ enemies. However, he had no qualms about hiring a force of Galatians against Eumenes II in the late 180s BC. The contact network Nicomedes I established included the Antigonids and the Ptolemies as well as the Propontic cities. Its changes over the years mirror the reaction of the Bithynian kings to shifts in the historical landscape. Friendly relations with the Ptolemies were established in the 270s BC and they lasted as long as Ziaelas ruled, that is, while Bithynia was a trade partner for them and an ally against the Seleucids. Ziaelas broke off

CONCLUSION

153

the relations with the Antigonids who seem to have never recognised his claim to the Bithynian crown. Prusias I managed to make amends with the Antigonids; the restored alliance was confirmed by a marriage, supposedly between a daughter of Prusias I and Philip V. Prusias I was also the instigator of the most significant change in the foreign policies since the kingdom of Bithynia had been founded. The Seleucids had ever been the bitter enemy of his predecessors, but he approached them in response to the rise of the kingdom of Pergamum. This new kingdom had started threatening Bithynia since the very beginning of its existence, eager to take the place of Bithynia in the balance of power of Asia Minor. Traces of collaboration between Prusias I and Antiochus III may be found in the issue of Mysia Olympene and in the accounts of the background of the Roman-Syrian War. This could not have been a collaboration but an official alliance if, as it has been argued, Prusias I and his son Prusias married the sister and the daughter of Antiochus III. These international relations were the product of the political and economic position which the Bithynian kings had earned throughout the decades. It was the outcome of successful policies that best exploited the position of Bithynia. As a crossroads between Asia and Europe, the Aegean and Black Sea, Bithynia was essential to communication and trade. Whereas at the beginning Bithynian economy relied on the exploitation of the rich soil of the Propontic peninsula, the kingdom became involved in wide-ranging trading since the foundation of Nicomedia in the 260s BC. Evidence of the importance of Bithynia shortly after the mid-3rd century BC is the letter of Ziaelas to Cos (c. 242 BC). It attests to the relevance of Bithynia in the contact network the Ptolemies and Cos, who were important players in Aegean-Black Sea trade. Prusias I further boosted Bithynian economy. The kingdom reached its greatest expansion under him. He consolidated his conquests by founding and re-founding several cities. He re-founded Cius in Prusias ad Mare, Myrlea in Apamea, Cierus in Prusias ad Hypium, and founded Prusa ad Olympum and Bithynium. These (re-)foundations were part of a consistent plan that guaranteed to Bithynia the monopoly of land and sea trade in northern Asia Minor. The rise of Bithynia as an independent state entailed the creation of monarchic institutions. The decisive step in this regard was the foundation of Nicomedia. The new city became the seat of the royal court, and so the political, administrative and cultural centre of the kingdom. Meanwhile, the system to administer the kingdom and to allow communication between

154

ELOISA PAGANONI

the capital, minor centres and periphery was established. The evidence pertinent to the years considered proves the existence of royal philoi who acted as emissaries of the king and the office of epistatēs. The scope of this study allows us to conclude that Bithynia had an organization similar to other Hellenistic kingdoms, that adopted Macedonian institutions. The cultural practices tell us much about propaganda of the first Bithynian kings. Since Zipoites, they preferred the Greco-Macedonian model of kingship. The kings of Bithynia were the first among the indigenous dynasties of Asia Minor to embrace this model that would have become the dominant one in the Hellenistic world. These propagandistic activities contributed to the emergence of the Bithynian sovereigns on the international stage. They promoted the inclusion of the kings of Bithynia among the Hellenistic monarchs. On the other hand, a constant reference to the Thracian/Bithynian traditions has emerged. Nicomedes I’s coinage bears Thracian gods, such as Bendis, ‘in Greek dress’ and refers to topoi of the Thracian tradition, such as the heros equitans. Prusias I may have referred to Bithynian heroes in naming Prusa ad Olympum and Bithynium. This latter name derives from the eponymous hero Bithynus, who was a son of Zeus and Thracia according to a tradition probably elaborated at the Bithynian court. These elements suggest that ethnicity had a key role in the definition of the Bithynian monarchy. This may find confirmation in the opening of Ziaelas’ letter to Cos, where he calls himself ‘king of the Bithynians’. This ethinc component contributes to configuring Bithynia as a national monarchy. The Bithynian kings eagerly claimed their ethnicity. They stressed the close bond between themselves and those whom they ruled. Historians, scholars, poet and artists active at the Bithynian court contributed to spreading the political message of the Bithynian kings. They recounted the history of those centuries from kings’ point of view. The loss of their works limits severely our overall view of the self-presentation of the Bithynian kings. This investigation has found however an echo of this literature in the extant evidence. As said above, the tradition about Bithynius’ divine descent was part of court production. The traditions referring to a Bithynian foundation of Astacus and Prusa ad Olympum in the Archaic age also seem to have been elaborated at court. They presented those areas, external to the original Bithynian chiefdom, as part of the Bithynian lands since the beginning of time. In this way, they served to legitimatize control of the Bithynians over them. The same legitimising aim should

CONCLUSION

155

be at the core of a pseudo-historical tradition recording a long series of Bithynian kings. It sets the origins of the Bithynian dynasty in a remote time, ideally at the time when the Bithynians settled in Asia Minor. Outlining the rise and consolidation of the kingdom of Bithynia has cast new light on the situation of northern Asia Minor between the late 4th and the early 2nd centuries BC. So far overlooked by scholars, the kingdom of Bithynia has turned out to be an essential player of the Hellenistic balance. The Bithynian kings promoted forward-looking politics, which quickly increased their role in the political and economic situation. The Bithynian kings emerged among the states of the Propontic area and tipped the scale in the region. This rise reached its akmē under Prusias I. Throughout his reign, the kingdom of Bithynia prospered as never before or after, and also in light of the following developments, it can be said that the reign of Prusias I marked the Golden Age of the kingdom of Bithynia.

APPENDIX EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

The appendix is primarily conceived as a support to the reader. It collects the inscriptions concerning the history of the kingdom of Bithynia from Zipoites to Prusias I, divided into inscriptions from Bithynia and inscriptions from abroad. It presents the documents mentioning one of the kings who ruled Bithynia until 182 BC. Beside them, it collects the inscriptions which have been hypothetically associated to one of these kings1 and those ones which have impacted on the studies in the kingdom of Bithynia, such as the famous epigram for Menas son of Bioeris and the dedication from Cius that turned out to be to Heracles. The appendix also includes a dedication of Nicomedes II for its relevance in relation to the Bithynian marital politics in the early 2nd century BC. NOTE The edition proposed here is marked with an asterisk. The apparatus is included only if required.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM BITHYNIA 1. Tombstone of Menas son of Bioeris White marble stele, broken on the upper edge; found in Cihanköi; now in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul (inv. 1176). Dim.: 60 x 50 x 7 cm. On the upper part of the stone, there is a scene of a battle, just partially preserved. Not ordered script. Two different hands. Height of letters: 1,1-1,5 cm. 1 I.Didyma 473 is not included because the king mentioned in this inscription is usually identified with Prusias II (I.Didyma, p. 277; McCabe, Didyma 75), although it cannot be definitively ruled out that he was Prusias I.

158

ELOISA PAGANONI

MENDEL 1900, nr. 27, pp. 380-381; KEIL 1902, pp. 257-258; HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN 1926, nr. 91; PEEK 1955, nr. 1965; PEEK 1960, nr. 457; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 15; PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, vol. II, p. 307 nr. 1269; IK Nikaia 751; IK Kios 98*; MERKELBACH – STAUBER 2001, pp. 170-171 nr. 09/05/16 3rd-2nd century BC 1

5

8a 10

15

εἰ καὶ μεῦ δολιχὸς περιαίνυται ὄστεα τύμβος, ξεῖνε, τὸ δυσμενέων γ’οὐχ ὑπέτρεσσα βάρος· πεζομάχος δ’ ἱππεῖας ἐνὶ προμάχοισιν ἔμεινα ὁππότε περ Κούρου μαρνάμεθ’ἐμ πεδίωι· [Θ]ρήϊκα δὲ προπάροιθε βαλὼν ἐνὶ τεύχεσιν ἄνδρα [κ]αὶ Μυσόν, μεγάλας κάτθανον ἀμφ’ ἀρετᾶς· τ̣ῶι ις ἐπαινήσειε θοὸν Βιοήριος υἷα Βιθυνὸν Μηνᾶν, ἔξοχον ἡγέμονα. ἄλλο· [δ]άκρυα μὲν δειλοῖς τις ἰὼν ἐπιτύμβια χύοι [ν]ώνυμον ἐγ νούσων δεξαμένοις θάνατον· αὐτὰρ ἐμὲ Φρυγίοιο πάρα ῥοόν, ἀμφί τε πάτρης, ἀμφί τε κυδαλίμων μαρνάμενον τοκέων εὐκλέα δέξατο γαῖα μετὰ προμάχοισι δαμέντα, δυσμενέων πολλοὺς πρόσθε δαϊξάμενον· Βιθυνὸν τῶι τις Βιοήριος υἱέα Μηνᾶν αἰνήσαι με, ἀρετᾶς φέγγος ἀμειψάμενον. Even if a long tomb encases my bones, foreigner, I did not dread its hostile weight. I was one of the soldiers who fought in front of the cavalry when we fought in the plain of Cyrus. After I had hit a Thracian soldier and a Mysian, I died carrying out glorious deeds. Someone shall praise the quick son of Bioeris, the Bithynian Menas, excellent chief. Another (epigram) Someone, going to the grave, shall shed tears for cowardly men, who show an inglorious death for illnesses. Instead, because I fought near the stream of the Phrygius for the native land and for the illustrious parents, I showed a glorious death together with those who fought, after I had killed many enemies. Let the man who praises me, the Bithynian Menas, son of Bioeris, gain in return the light of glory.

The tombstone of the Bithynian Menas was found in the modern village of Cihanköi, in an area between the chōrai of Cius and Nicaea in Antiquity. It is decorated with a scene of battle, of which only the inferior

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

159

part survives2. The relief probably refers to the deeds of the deceased that are recounted in the epigrams below. On the left side, there are two lying soldiers bearing a round crossed shield3, who were probably the enemies Menas killed in battle. To the right, there is another round shield and the inferior part of a standing figure turning leftwards, who is commonly identified with the deceased. Under the relief, there are two epigrams. The first one exalts the valiant behaviour of the deceased, who is pointed out with his ethnic, name and patronymic, the Bithynian Menas son of Bioeris4. The text specifies that he was chief of infantry. The composition mentions that the battle took place in the plain of Cyrus, and Menas’ enemies were a Mysian soldier and a Thracian one. The word ἄλλο (l. 8a) introduces the second composition, which is engraved by a different hand5. As with the former, it celebrates Menas’ deeds, but sets the battlefield near the river Phrygius and refers to Menas’ parents and his native land. No internal element allows us to date the inscription. The relief suggests a dating to the late Hellenistic age6. Palaeography points to c. 200 BC7, although ‘die flüchtige, ungleiche Schrift kann jünger erscheinen als sie mit höchster Wahrscheinlichkeit ist’8. But stylistic and palaeographical arguments have to be considered very carefully in the case of inscriptions from Bithynia. They are based on comparison with inscriptions from other areas of the Hellenistic world, such as Pergamum and Egypt, for which

2 For a commentary, see PFUHL 1933; PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, vol. II, p. 307; IK Kios 98, p. 149; MERKELBACH – STAUBER 2001, p. 170. 3 Someone argues that one of these is a Galatian shield, because it seems to have an oblong shape (BARKOCHVA 1974, pp. 18-20; cf. tentatively, PIRSON 2014, nr. H 15). Against this assumption it is worth noting that the epigrams contain no mention of Galatians. Moreover, the Galatian shields were generally crossed by a single vertical line (cf. e.g. PIRSON 2014, nr. H 17), while the one in question is characterized by two perpendicular lines. On representation of Galatians , see now BARAY 2017. 4 Menas’ Greek name is common in epigraphic evidence (cf. LGPN V.A, p. 301), whereas this is the only occurrence of Bioeris’s name (cf. MENDEL 1900, p. 381; LGPN V.A, p. 101), which is Thracian (ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010, p. 521; OnomThrac, p. 36; cf. WILHELM 1909, p. 219, who supposes that it has an Egyptian origin). Menas’ name is considered a mark of the early Hellenisation of Bithynia by scholars who accept the traditional date to the 3rd century BC (BELOCH 1925, p. 270 n. 1; SCHOLTEN 2007, p. 24; ÖZLEMAYTAÇLAR 2010, p. 511 n. 23; for the date of the inscription see below in the text). However, it is worth noting that Thracian names continued to be used throughout the Hellenistic age and afterwards in Bithynia (cf. FERNOUX 2004, pp. 73-93; CORSTEN 2006; CORSTEN 2007, pp. 123-133; ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR 2010; OnomThrac, pp. LXXIX-LXXXII). In this light, at most the tombstone proves that Menas’ family was undertaking a process of Hellenisation. 5 PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, vol. II, p. 308; IK Nikaia 751, p. 109 b. 6 PFUHL 1932; cf. BAR-KOCHVA 1974, pp. 18-20. 7 BELOCH 1927, p. 459; PEEK 1938, p. 35 n. 1; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, pp. 20-21; PFUHL – MÖBIUS 19771979, p. 308; IK Kios 98, p. 153. 8 PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, p. 308.

160

ELOISA PAGANONI

plenty of evidence allows scholars to outline the development of sculpture and script. This is unfortunately impossible in the case of Bithynia for the limited number of Hellenistic inscriptions so far discovered. In fact, stylistic features of the relief and palaeography are not decisive. Since scholars cannot rely on these criteria, they look for other clues to date the inscription, starting from the identification of the battlefield where Menas died. Combining the information in the epigrams, we infer that the battle took place in the ‘plain of Cyrus’ (l. 4: Κούρου... ἐμ πεδίωι) ‘near the stream of the Phrygius’ (l. 11: Φρυγίοιο πάρα ῥοόν). This plain is identified with the Hyrcanian plain near Sipylus on the basis of Strabo, who places it near Sardis9. The river is identified with the current Cum-Çay flowing near Magnesia10. The plain of Cyrus was the battlefield of the pitched clash of Lysimachus and Seleucus in 281 BC, which is known as the battle of Curupedium. According to Eusebius11, it occurred ἐν τῇ περὶ Κόρου πεδίον, and Polyaenus12 seems to suggest that the battlefield was close to Sardis. Literary sources concerning the 281 BC battle and Menas’ tombstone, thus, seem to refer to the same place. On these grounds, it is generally assumed that Menas died in the battle between Lysimachus and Seleucus13. In view of the reference to the parents and homeland in the second epigram, he is considered not a mercenary14, but a soldier of the force sent by Zipoites to help Seleucus against Lysimachus. In support of this, it is highlighted that the Bithynians were ever in conflict with Lysimachus15 and that the 9 Strabo XIII, 4, 13: εἶτα τὸ Ὑρκάνιον πεδίον, Περσῶν ἐπονομασάντων καὶ ἐποίκους ἀγαγόντων ἐκεῖθεν (ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ Κύρου πεδίον Πέρσαι κατωνόμασαν) (‘Then there is the Hyrcanian plain, to which the Persians gave name and settled colonists there [likewise the Persian also gave name to the Plain of Cyrus]’); Strabo XIII, 4, 5: ὑπόκειται δὲ τῇ πόλει τό τε Σαρδιανὸν πεδίον καὶ τὸ τοῦ Κύρου καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ἕρμου καὶ τὸ Καϋστριανόν, συνεχῆ τε ὄντα καὶ πάντων ἄριστα πεδίων (‘Below the city [i.e. Sardis] there are the plain of Sardis and that of Cyrus and that of the Hermus and that of the Caÿster, which are contiguous to one another and are the best plains of all’). Cf. HEINEN 1972, p. 28; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 16; IK Kios 98, pp. 151-152; GRAINGER 1990, pp. 182-183; LANDUCCI 1992, pp. 216-217; TALBERT 2000, Map 56, F4. 10 KROMAYER 1907, pp. 168-169; BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 16; IK Nikaia 751, p. 109 a-b. 11 Eus. I, 234 Schoene. 12 Polyaen. IV, 9, 4. Appian (Syr. 62) wrongly places the battlefield in Hellespontine Phrygia (BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p.71 n. 5, p. 323; IK Kios 98, p. 151; LANDUCCI 1992, pp. 216-217). 13 MENDEL 1900, p. 381; KEIL 1902; HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN 1926, p. 38; PFUHL 1932, col. 2; GLOTZ et. al. 1945, p. 372 n. 4; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 17-18; PEEK 1955, p. 613; PEEK 1960, p. 323; VERMULE 1970, p. 170; HABICHT 1972, coll. 452-453; HEINEN 1972, pp. 28, 38; PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979, vol. II, pp. 307308; IK Nikaia 751 p. 109 b; LAUNEY 1987, vol. I, pp. 434-435; BILLOWS 1990, p. 441; LANDUCCI 1992, p. 217; LUND 1992, p. 206; STROBEL 1996, p. 201; MERKELBACH – STAUBER 2001, p. 170; SCHOTTKY 2002b, col. 817; cf. IK Kios 98, p. 151. 14 Against this possibility, see BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 18; LAUNEY 1987, p. 434 n. 4. 15 Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5 says that Zipoites defeated two generals of Lysimachus and Lysi-

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

161

Mysians and Thracians (i.e. the enemies Menas killed) probably fought on Lysimachus’ side16. Since stylistic features and palaeography apparently suggest a later date, some scholars try to identify the battle in which Menas died with other clashes. Concerning the Battle of Magnesia between Antiochus III and Rome, Livy says: the consul... came... into the Hyrcanian plains. Then, having heard that the other had departed, having followed his track, he pitched his camp on the hither side of the river Phrygius, four miles far from the enemy (i.e. Antiochus III)17.

A dedication of Attalus II to Athena for the victory over Antiochus III in 190 BC also places the battlefield ‘near the river Phrygius’18. On these grounds, it is commonly accepted that the battlefield where Antiochus was defeated in 190 BC was the same where Lysimachus died in 281 BC19. This has raised the hypothesis that Menas died in 190 BC20. For the peculiar topographical situation, the plain of Cyrus might have been the battlefield of other clashes21. Edwyn R. Bevan22 suggests that Menas fell during one of the wars between Pergamum and Bithynia in the 180s and 150s BC respectively23. Reconsidering this proposal, Bezalel Bar-Kochva24 argues that the Bithynian soldier died in the later Attalid-Bithynian war. Gabelko25 assumes that Menas could have died in the 208 BC war of Prusias I against Pergamum26.

machus himself. This latter victory is identified with the battle of Curupedium, as the Bithynian army is supposed to not be able to win against Lysimachus without external help (HABICHT 1972, coll. 452-453; HEINEN 1972, p. 36; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 18: ‘Nell’insieme pare assai poco probabile che Lisimaco, condotta personalmente una spedizione contro la Bitinia, toccasse una sconfitta’). 16 Cf. IK Kios 98, pp. 151-153. 17 Liv. XXXVII, 38, 1-2: consul... ad Hyrcanum campum descendit. Inde cum profectum audisset, secutus vestigia citra Phrygium amnem, quattuor milia ab hoste posuit castra. 18 IvP I, 74, l. 8: παρὰ τὸν Φρύγιον ποταμóν. 19 KROMAYER 1907, pp. 169-174; HANSEN 1971, pp. 86-87; IK Kios 98, p. 151; DROGO MONTAGU 2006, p. 115. 20 MICHELS 2014a, p. 140, Abb. 2. This proposal is not ruled out by IK Kios 98, p. 153 and MERKELBACH – STAUBER 2001, p. 170. 21 BAR-KOCHVA 1974, p. 16. 22 BEVAN 1902, vol. I, p. 323; cf. IK Kios 98, p. 153. 23 About the first war, see above pp. 129-140. About the second one, see VITUCCI 1953, pp. 75-84; HABICHT 1956; HABICHT 1957a, coll. 1115-1119; GABELKO 2005, pp. 319-324. 24 BAR-KOCHVA 1974, pp. 21-23, who rules out that epigrams refer to a battle of the war between Prusias I and Eumenes II, since, in his opinion, the pitched battle of that conflict took place in Bithynia on the basis of OGIS 298 (contra see above p. 134 n. 221). 25 GABELKO 2005, pp. 145-161; cf. GABELKO 2001 (non vidi). 26 Liv. XXVIII, 7, 10; above pp. 111-112.

162

ELOISA PAGANONI

Scholarship connects IK Kios 98 with a clash mentioned by other sources and occurring Κούρου ἐμ πεδίωι, or makes it the only evidence of an otherwise unknown clash. For the latter proposal, there is no point in speculating further. As for the identification with battles known to us, the possibility that Menas died in the Battle of Magnesia is to be ruled out with confidence, if he was a soldier of a Bithynian force, as generally supposed. Prusias I, indeed, remained neutral in the Roman-Syrian War27. Admitting that Menas was a soldier under the orders of Zipoites, who sent a force to Seleucus, would reshape the relations between the Bithynian king and the Diadoch. It would be necessary to assume that they reached an agreement in detriment of Lysimachus. However, the only evidence of contacts between Zipoites and Seleucus probably dates after Curupedium and attests that they were not different from those between Zipoites and Lysimachus28. Ultimately, it is impossible to pinpoint with certainty in which battle Menas died and consequently to date the inscription. In this light, it not surprising that more and more scholars give up contextualising this document29. 2. Decree of Prusa ad Olympum in honour of Meniskos son of Ze(.)obrodis Marble block broken at the bottom; found in Bursa; now in the local museum (inv. 3324). Dim.: 36 x 23 x 46,7 cm. Text A is engraved on the front side, text B on the left side. Height of letters: 1,1 cm. ROBERT 1937, p. 229; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1* Early 2nd century BC A1

5

[ἔτους — — — κ]αὶ δεκάτου Ε . [ [—]αι ἑβδόμηι ἐπ’ εἰκάδ[ι]. vacat [— ἔδοξεν Π]ρουσα̣[έ]ων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τ[ῶι δήμωι] [ἐπειδὴ Μενί?]σκος Ζη[ . ]οβ̣ρωδιος ὁ ἐπιστά[της ἔν τε]

See above pp. 120-122. Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 6, 3. 29 HEINEN 1972, p. 36; MEHL 1986, pp. 295-296; KOBES 1996, pp. 84 and n. 43, 116 n. 20; DAVAZE 2013, pp. 373-374; above p. 40. 27 28

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

10

15 B1

5

10

163

[τοῖς πρότερ]ον χρόνοις τεταγμένος ἐπ[ὶ τῆς πόλε][ως ἡμῶν ? οὐ] μέρος μέν τι ὑπελίπετο τοῦ̣ [—] [— — — — ] εἰς τὰ ἐπιτασσόμενα αὐτῶ[ι ὑπὸ τοῦ βα][σιλέως ? ἐπι]στατείας ἕνεκα, τὸ δὲ πλεῖστ[ον [— — — — ]ΣΤΕ δανειζομένου αὐτῶι πε̣[—] [— — — — ]ν̣ τόκων δωρεὰν τοὺς τῶν π[ολιτῶν ?] [— — — — ]ου τακτοῦ τινος εἰς μισθοὺς Μ[—] [— — — — ]οις, καὶ τούτου τε ἕνεκα καὶ ἁ[πάντων τῶν] [— — — γιγνομ]ένων αὐτοῖς δι’ αὐτὸν εὐχ̣ρ̣ή̣[στων [— — — — —] καλ[αῖς] κ̣αὶ ἐνδόξοις [τι]μ[αῖς] [— — — — —]ΙΡΑ[—] [— ἀνὴρ ἀγ]αθὸς ὑ[πάρχων [— — πλεί]ονα λυσι[τελῆ [— — — ] τοῖς πολίτα[ις [— — —]ν̣αι ἑκάστωι Ι̣[—] [— — γ]νησίως καὶ ἐν[δόξως ? [— — ]ΕΙ ἐπορίσατο Τ[—] [— τ]ῆς κηρυκείας ΕΠ[—] [ἐξ οὗ ? σ]υμβαίνει ΚΑ[—] [— — — —]εσθαι δραχμὰ[ς] [— — — — ]του ἐκκειμ[ένου] [— — — — —]συγκεχω[ρη] [— — — — —]τῆς ἡμε[τέρας ?] A 1 [ἔτους ἑκατοστοῦ κ]αὶ δεκάτου Robert : [ἔτους ἑπτακ]αιδεκάτου ἑ[κατοστοῦ Vitucci In the year... and 10... on the 27th day of the month... It was resolved by the boulē and the people of Prusa. Because the epistatēs Meniskos son of Ze(.) obrodis, who commanded our city in the past... did not neglect even a part of... in the orders by the king to him for the supervision, most part borrowing money for him... of the interests as a free gift those among the citizens... of some interest in rewards... and because of this and of all... of what happened to them thanks to this of the profit... with beautiful and glorious honours... ... because he was a noble man... many advantages to the citizens... to each... honestly and gloriously... he has got... of the office of herald... from which (?) it happens... drachmas... of what is set up in public... allow... of our...

The marble block, discovered in Bursa, the ancient Prusa ad Olympum, and preserved in the local museum, is the earliest inscription from this site.

164

ELOISA PAGANONI

The lines engraved on two faces of this block seem to be what survives of two honorary decrees30. Text A is the beginning of a document. The first words are part of a dating formula, including year, month and day (ll. 1-2). After an uninscribed space, there is the enactment formula (l. 3), followed by the motivation clause. Editors tentatively restore the name of the honorand in line 4 with Μενί]σκος. His patronymic Ζη(.)οβ̣ρωδιος is incomplete, but it was certainly a Thracian name31. According to what we read, ‘in the past’ (ll. 5-6: ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερ]ον χρόνοις) he had been an epistatēs, a royal official who had carried out the king’s dispositions32. Consequently, he was involved in the affairs of the city at least twice, when he acted as epistatēs and when he received the honours recorded in this inscription. According to the text, on this latter occasion, he dealt with some financial matters. The lines engraved on the left-hand face of the block (Text B) are part of a decree for an unidentified honorand. The few surviving words concern the advantages he took for the city. The term κηρυκείας (l. 8) may refer to the payment for the office of herald, but it could also concern ‘un droit sur les ventes à l’encan’33. These documents are dated to the early 2nd century BC on the basis of lettering, that is, at a time close to the foundation of the city by Prusias I, in c. 188-184 BC34. Scholars propose more circumscribed hypotheses based on what survives of the dating formula in Text A. The issue is to establish which era it refers to. The little space before the first surviving words κ]αὶ δεκάτου (l. 1) does not allow us to restore the name of a Bithynian king with the royal title and so a dating according to the years of reign of a Bithynian king is to be ruled out. Two possibilities remain: either a dating according to the Bithynian royal era beginning in 297/6 BC, or a dating according to the local era beginning in the late 280s BC, that is attested in many Propontic cities35. Luis Robert36 supplies Line 1 with [ἔτους ἑκαστοῦ κ]αὶ δεκάτου (‘in the 110th year’), corresponding to 188/7 BC according to the royal era. This dating places the decree in the first possible year for the founding of the city. As 30 The possibility that the first document could be a letter from a Bithynian king is ruled out by ROBERT 1937, p. 229 n. 2. 31 ROBERT 1937, p. 233; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 9. 32 ROBERT 1937, pp. 233-234; MICHELS 2013, p. 18. 33 ROBERT 1937, p. 235 n. 1; cf. IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 10. 34 See above p. 133. 35 On these eras, see above pp. 38-41. MICHELS 2013, p. 19 argues that the decree also might be dated according to the Seleucid era beginning in 312 BC. But accepting any of the restorations hitherto proposed (see the commentary), a calculation according to this era would give as a result a date previous to the foundation of Prusa ad Olympum. On the Seleucid era, see LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 22-44; KOSMIN 2014, pp. 100-103; KOSMIN 2018, pp. 19-77. 36 ROBERT 1937, pp. 229-230.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

165

Robert admits, although theoretically possible, this raises the matter of when the honorand would have carried out the earliest office. Instead, a calculation according to the local era, in his opinion beginning in 281/0 BC, dates the inscription to 172/1 BC37. This sets the two offices of the honorand in a suitable time span between the foundation of the city and the honours. Vitucci38 highlights that the earliest attestation of the local era dates back to the 1st century BC and no evidence confirms that it was already in use when the decree was engraved. At that time, he thinks, the official era in Bithynia was the royal one beginning in 298/7 BC. Vitucci39 also rejects Robert’s restoration and supplies Line 1 with [ἔτους ἑπτακ]αιδεκάτου ἑ[κατοστοῦ). Accordingly, the decree would have passed in the 117th year of the Bithynian era, i.e. in 181/0 BC. Leschhorn40 rules out Vitucci’s proposal noting that the Bithynian royal era was introduced by Nicomedes II in the second half of the 2nd century BC41, and so it was not in use when the decree was supposedly voted. Leschhorn prefers Robert’s second hypothesis but argues that the local era began in 282/1 BC and consequently dates the inscription to 173/2 BC. There is no decisive proof42, but the arguments proposed by Robert and Leschhorn render their proposals more likely. 3. Decree (?) from Nicomedia Fragment found in Nicomedia, now lost. Height of letters: 1 cm. PERROT – GUILLAUME 1872, p. 8 nr. 4; ROBERT 1937, pp. 235-236; TAM IV, 1, 2* 229-149 BC 1

——— ΕΗΙΔΟΚΚΕ[— — — — — — — — — — ἀπ]έσταλκεν [— — — nomen — — —]ον, τῶμ φ[ίλ]ων, κ[αὶ {τὸν δεῖνα} — — —]

37 ROBERT 1937, pp. 231-232, followed by MAREK 1993, pp. 22-23; tentatively DEBORD 1998, p. 145; cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 61-62; SEG 16 (1959) 744; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 8; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 189. 38 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 62-63. 39 VITUCCI 1953, pp. 62-63; cf. BE 1955, 25; IK Prusa ad Olympum 1, p. 9; LESCHHORN 1993, p. 189. 40 LESCHHORN 1993, pp. 189-191, cf. p. 486, followed by MICHELS 2013, p. 19. 41 See above p. 38. 42 Cf. FERNOUX 2004, p. 70; MICHELS 2013, p. 19.

166

ELOISA PAGANONI

5

10

καὶ Ἀρίστωνα Εὐσ[— — — προνοήσοντας] [τ]ῆς [ἀν]ακομιδῆς [τῶν πρεσβευτῶν, ἵνα γένη]ται ἀσφαλής· ἐπ[ελθόντες δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ πρὸς] τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τ[ὸν δῆμον διεσάφησαν] [π]ερὶ ἑκάστων τὰ [κατὰ μέρος, σπουδῆς καὶ φι][λο]τιμίας οὐθὲν ἐ[λλείποντες, ἐποιήσαντο δὲ] [τὴ]ν ἀναστροφὴν ἀ[ξίαν τοῦ τε βασιλέως] [Π]ρουσίου καὶ τῆς ἡ[μετέρας πόλεως· ἐπὶ οὖν] [τ]ούτοις· τύχηι τῆι [ἀγαθῆι· δεδόχθαι — — —] ——— ... (he) had sent... of the friends ... and Ariston son of Eus(...) (those) who arranged for the return of the ambassadors, so that it was safe; when they came, they informed the boulē and the people about each matter in detail, since they were zealous and well-disposed, they behaved in a way worthy of King Prusias and of our city. For these reasons, with good fortune, it shall be resolved...

Only the first editors Georges Perrot and Edmond Guillaume saw this fragment, which is until now one of the few Hellenistic public inscriptions from Nicomedia. The text concerns the return of an embassy. The man quoted in Line 4, Ariston son of Eus(...), was either one of those who took care of the ambassadors’ return or (less probably) one of the ambassadors. Lines 6-11 record that when the envoys came back from their mission they informed the boulē and the people, probably about the answer of the addressee of the embassy. The last words were part of the goodwill and enactment formulas, assuring that the document is a decree. The mention of King Prusias (ll. 10-11) dates the inscription to 229149 BC, that is, to Prusias I’s and Prusias II’s reigns. The addressee, the sender, and the ambassadors are unknown, but these two latter presumably were Bithynian. The remark that they behaved in a way ‘worthy of King Prusias and of our city’ suggests that they acted on behalf of the king and were citizens of the city voting the decree43. The city could be Nicomedia, where the fragment was found, but the loss of the prescript prevents us from drawing a conclusion in this respect44.

43 Cf. ROBERT 1937, p. 236. PERROT – GUILLAUME 1872, pp. 8-9 suggest that the honours were for Roman ambassadors who paid a visit to Prusias II. Contra ROBERT 1937, p. 236: ‘je ne reproduirai pas le commentaire Perrot, qui n’a qu’un intérêt: celui de montrer à quel point était tombée l’épigraphie grecque en France après la mort de Letronne et avant l’influence de Foucart’. 44 ROBERT 1937, pp. 237-238; cf. VITUCCI 1953, p. 123 n. 5; FERNOUX 2004, p. 21; MICHELS 2009, pp. 267-269 and n. 1359. SAVALLI-LESTRADE 1998, p. 193 speaks of ‘ville inconnue’.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

167

4. Decree of Cius/Prusias ad Mare in honour of a citizen Fragment of stone broken on all edges; found in Cius/Prusias ad Mare LEGRAND 1893, pp. 541-542 nr. 21; IK Kios 8* Hellenistic age 1

5

10

15

20

25

[— — —]νει αὐτὴν ἀπο[— — —] [— — —]ΑΠΟΛΙΤΟΤΕΣ[ . . ]Ω[— — —] [— — —] ἐνιαυτὸν τοῖς τιμηθ[εῖσι — — —] [— — — δρ]αχμὰς χειλίας οὐκ ἐσ[— — —] [— — —]νις τοῦ βασιλέως [— — — —] [— — — ἐ]πάλιμμα ὥστε ι[—]λα[— — —] [— — —]ωι σὺν τῶι ἐπαχθέντι [— — —] [— — — — —]ολιον ὅσας καὶ π[ρὸς(?) — — —] [— — — τὴν τοῦ βα]σιλέως παρουσίαν [— — —] [— — — — —]εταις τῶν βασιλέ[ων — — —] [— — — —] ὡσαυτῶς ἀργυ[ρίου — — —] [— — — —] διαδόσεις ποιούμ[ενος — — —] [— — — ἐν(?) τῇ π]όλι αὐτοῦ τὴν [— — —] [— — — —]νον· πρὸς δὲ το[ῦτο(?) — — —] [— — — —]η[ . ]ας μετέδωκεν τε[— — —] [— — — — — — —]με[— — — — — — — —] [— — —]ενους δὲ ταῖς ὅτι κα[— — —] [— — —] αὐτοῖς ἐπ[ . . ]λατουστανο[— — —] [— — —] τὸν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα ε[— — —] [— — — —]ου μηνός, ἐν ἧι ἡμέραι μ[— — —] [— — — θυ]σ[ία]ς παρέστησεν κ[— — —] [— — —]ΟΣ . ΛΕ[— — — — — — — — — — —] [— — —]ΥΣ . Π[— — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — —]η τῆς ἑαυτοῦ μεγ[αλοψυχίας — — —] [— — — —] τῆι πόλι [—]ς δέκα πο[— — —] [— — — — —]ΣΙΝ[ . . ]ΙΑΚΛΥΗΥΤΟΥ[— — —] ... it... year to (those) who are esteemed... one thousand drachmas not... of King... oil so that with what happened... those that also... the presence of King... of Kings...in the same way of money... (he) who made distributions... in the city of it (him?)...towards this... he had made distributions to... to them... that toward the King... in the month of... on the day... to arrange for sacrifices... of his greatness of soul... to the city... ten...

The fragment preserves the central section of a decree probably voted

168

ELOISA PAGANONI

for a citizen of Cius/Prusias ad Mare. According to the few readable words, the honorand offered oil to the gymnasion (l. 6: ἐ]πάλιμμα) and carried out distributions and sacrifices. There are several mentions of a king, who seems to have paid a visit to the city (l. 9: τὴν τοῦ βα]σιλέως παρουσίαν) and who is usually identified with a king of Bithynia45. Accordingly, it is supposed that the honorand was an official (perhaps a gymnasiarchos) and that the city established a cult for the Bithynian sovereign46. The document contains no element to date it. Due to the loss of the prescript mentioning the city, it is impossible to establish whether the decree passed before or after Prusias I re-founded Cius as Prusias ad Mare47. Some scholars48 assume a connection between the cult and the re-foundation, but Michels49 notes that the cult could date back to the king’s visit. 5. Dedication of four individuals to Prusias (?) Reddish limestone base; found in the village of Kandamɪş, east of Bolu, the ancient Bithynium/Claudiopolis; in situ (?). Below the text, four crowns are sculptured and above each of them there are four flowers. Dim.: 100 x 72 x 64 cm. Height of letters: 2,5-3,5 cm. DÖRNER 1952, pp. 40-41 nr. 81; ROBERT 1980, p. 130 (SEG 30 [1980] 1420); IK Klaudiu Polis 50* Imperial age 1

5

Δημήτρι[ος] Δημύλου κὲ Ἀσκληπιά[δης] Ἀρχεστράτου̣ κὲ Λεύκιος Σε[ραπί]ωνος [κὲ] Σεκοῦνδος Ἀραμίω[νος] ἱερατεύσαντες καλῶς Π̣[ρο]υσίαι. 5 γ[ερο]υσίαι Dörner

45 Cf. the bibliographical references in the following note but LEGRAND 1893, p. 542 claims: ‘Mention répétée du βασιλεύς et βασιλεῖς, qui semblent être les souverains de Pergame’. ROBERT 1937, p. 239 n. 4 reported that according to some scholars the βασιλεύς here mentioned was a religious officer. 46 ROBERT 1937, p. 239; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 127-128; IK Kios 8, p. 84; FERNOUX 2004, p. 69; MICHELS 2009, p. 85. On the ruler cult in the gymnasion, see ANEZIRI – DAMASKOS 2004, pp. 262-268. On gymasiarchia in Hellenistic age, see CURTY 2015. 47 Cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 273 n. 1391. On the re-foundation, see above p. 117. 48 LESCHHORN 1984, p. 277 and n. 9; IK Prusias ad Hypium, p. 4 n. 22. 49 MICHELS 2009, p. 273 n. 1391.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

169

Demetrius son of Demylus, Asclepiades son of Archestratus, Leukius son of Serapion and Sekoundus son of Aramion (dedicated the statue) to Prusias, after they had been priests in a good manner.

In 1948, Friedrich K. Dörner found this rectangular base in the village of Kandamɪş, east of Bolu, in the territory of the ancient Bithynium/Claudiopolis. The stone was in front of the mosque and it was used in funerary ritual50. The base preserves a dedication dating back to the Imperial era, as the use of κέ instead of καί suggests51. It was made by four men, pointed out by their name and patronymic, at the end of their priesthood. Four crowns are engraved below the dedication and above each of them there are four flowers, that maybe allude to the religious office of the dedicators52. Since the front side of the stone is cut by a deep vertical groove, the text needs some restorations, mostly affecting the final part of the dedicators’ names, with the exception of the name of the third priest (l. 3) and the one of the dedicatee (l. 5), of which the central part is lacking. The former has been restored in Serapion due to the good distribution of this personal name in Asia Minor53. As for the latter, Dörner54 restored γ[ερο]υσίαι, assuming that the dedicators were priests of this institution. Robert55 observed that normally personifications of civic institutions were preceded by the definite article (e.g. τῶι Δήμωι, ‘to the People’). He suggested to restore the name of the dedicatee with Π̣[ρο]υσίαι, and to identify him with one of the Bithynian kings bearing this name. In his opinion, this king ‘était adoré comme le fondateur de la ville, son ktistès’56. This proposal has been considered a relevant argument in the debate on the foundation of Bithynium/Claudiopolis; if it is correct, this city was founded by either Prusias I or Prusias II57.

DÖRNER 1952, p. 41; ROBERT 1980, p. 129 n. 2. IK Klaudiu Polis 50, p. 57. 52 ROBERT 1980, p. 130. 53 LGPN V.A, p. 402. 54 DÖRNER 1952, pp. 40-41. 55 ROBERT 1980, p. 130. 56 ROBERT 1980, p. 130 followed by CHANKOWSKI 2010, p. 283-285; cf. MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130 n. 503. 57 On the foundation of Bithynium, see above pp. 141-142. COHEN 1995, pp. 395-396 n. 2 alluded to a possible identification of Prusias, the dedicatee of this inscription, with Prusias son of Archedemus, mentioned in a list of gymnasiarchoi and agonothetai (IK Klaudiu Polis 61, l. 9). If so, the document in question would be a dedication to or on behalf of a private citizen. Anyway, in both cases, one would expect that the individual is mentioned with the patronymic too. 50 51

170

ELOISA PAGANONI

6. Dedication to Heracles Kallinikos Stone found in the wall of a private house in Cius/Prusias ad Mare LECHAT – RADET 1888, p. 204; LEGRAND 1893, p. 542 nr. 22; DOMASZEWSKI 1912, p. 320; OGIS 340; ROBERT 1978, p. 39 n. 105 (SEG 28 [1978] 1023); IK Kios 24* Imperial age 1

Ἡρακλς καλλίνεικος κτίστης τῆς πόλεως. (0) [Προυσίας Dittenberger || 1 Ἡράκλιος Lechat – Radet : βασι]λ[εύ]ς Legrand, Dittenberger : Ἡρακλῆς Robert Heracles Kallinikos founder of the city

This Imperial inscription that was discovered in the wall of a house in Cius/Prusias ad Mare could be from a statue-base. The text refers to the founder of the city, whose identity has been debated for a long time. The first editors Henri Lechat and Georges A. Radet58 read Ἡράκλιος in Line 1. According to Alfred Domaszewski59, this adjective was a reference to Emperor Hadrian, who presented himself as a descendant of Heracles. Philippe-Ernest Legrand60 read just –]λ[–]ς and restored βασι]λ[εύ]ς. Wilhelm Dittenberger61 accepted this proposal and suggested to add a further line before the first one (Line 0 in apparatus), restoring [Προυσίας]. They thus argued for a reference to a Hellenistic king, and Dittenberger identified him with Prusias I who re-founded Cius in Prusias ad Mare in the turn of the 2nd century BC62. The identifications both with Hadrian and with Prusias I had some success among scholars, but they were put aside when Robert63 proposed to restore Line 1 with Ἡρακλῆς. He saw the addressee of the dedication in Heracles Kallinikos (in the variant Kαλλίνεικος in the LECHAT – RADET 1888, p. 204. DOMASZEWSKI 1912, p. 320. 60 LEGRAND 1893, p. 542 nr. 22. 61 OGIS 340. 62 Strabo XII, 4, 3; above p. 117. Cf. OGIS 340, pp. 544-545. 63 ROBERT 1978, p. 39 n. 105; cf. VITUCCI 1953, pp. 48-49 n. 4; SEG 27 (1978) 1023; LESCHHORN 1984, pp. 276-277; COHEN 1995, p. 405; MICHELS 2009, p. 273 n. 1391. 58

59

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

171

inscription). Robert’s proposal is supported by the many pieces of evidence, all numismatic, that attest to the worship of Heracles as the founder of Cius64. INSCRIPTIONS FROM ABROAD 7. Crown (?) by the Delians to Nicomedes I White marble fragment found inside a wall in Delos in 1912; now in the local museum (inv. Γ 470). Height of letters: 0,4 cm. ID 460, Fr u* 171 BC 1

[— — — —]σολ [—] [— — — — —β]ασιλεῖ Νι̣[κομήδει —] [—] ἐπὶ ὑποθήκει] τεῖ οἰκίαι τ[εῖ —] ... to King Nicomedes... upon the guarantee of the house...

This fragment, conventionally identified as u, is pertinent to an inventory of the sanctuary of Delos, that survives in 83 fragments and dates back to 171 BC65. After the restoration of the editor Félix Dürrbach66, it refers to king Nicomedes, who can be no one else other than Nicomedes I on the basis of the dating of the inscription. Since the document contains a list of goods donated to the sanctuary in its surviving part, Dürrbach67 assumed that Nicomedes was one of the donors. If so, his name should be in the genitive, as usual in this kind of documents. Instead, Nicomedes’ name is in the dative, that is, the case which commonly indicates a receiver. By means of an example, we can consider another Delian inventory, which records a crown the Delians granted to Prusias II68. In this case, the king’s About the worship of this hero in Cius, see IK Kios 24, pp. 106-107; LESCHHORN 1984, p. 368. For the year, which is based on name of the archon, see ID 460, p. 257. On the inventories of Delos, see HAMILTON 2000. 66 ID 460 Fr. u, l. 2. 67 Cf. ID IV, p. 258. 68 ID 449, Face A, ll. 23-24; 455, Face Aa, ll. 40-41; 460, d, ll. 15-16. 64 65

172

ELOISA PAGANONI

name is in the dative. On comparison of this, it is more likely, I think, that the 171 BC inventory mentioned a grant of the Delians to Nicomedes I. For sake of argument, this grant might have been a crown as with Prusias II. 8. Letter of Ziaelas to Cos Triangular prism of blue-white marble broken on the upper and lower edges; found in the stoa of the lowest terrace of the Asklepieion on Cos in 1903; in situ (inv. AS 3). Dim.: 115 x 31 cm. Regular script; letters evenly arranged with small serif. Height of letters: 0,8 cm. Letters are slightly larger from l. 10. HERZOG 1905, pp. 174-175; Syll.3 456; SCHROETER 1931, pp. 70-71 nr. 20; RC 25*; TAM IV, 1, 1; RIGSBY 1996, pp. 119-120 nr. 11; MICHELS 2009, pp. 57-58; IG XII, 4, 1, 209 c. 242 BC 1

5

10

15

20

βασιλεὺς Βιθυνῶν Ζιαήλας Κώιων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμ{μ}ωι χαίρειν· v Διόγειτος Ἀριστόλοχος Θεύδοτος οἱ παρ’ ὑμῶν παραγενόμενοι ἠξίουν τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ τὸ ἱδρυμένον παρ’ ὑμῖν ἀποδέξασθαι ἄσυλον καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ φιλανθρωπεῖν τῆι πόλει, καθόπερ καὶ Νικομήδης ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν εὐνόως διέκειτο τῶι δήμωι. v ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντων μὲν τῶν ἀφικνουμένω[ν] πρὸς ἡμᾶς Ἑλλήνων τυγχάνομεν τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμενοι, πεπεισμένοι πρὸς δόξαν οὐ μικρὸν συμβάλλεσθαι τὸ μέρος τοῦτο· v πολὺ δὴ μάλιστα τῶν πατρικῶν φίλων διατελοῦμεν πολυωροῦντες καὶ ὑμῶν διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸμ πατέρα μῶν ὑπάρχουσαν πρὸς τὸν ὑμέτερον δῆμον γνῶσιν, καὶ διὰ τὸ τὸμ βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

25

30

35

40

45

50

173

οἰκείως διακεῖσθαι τὰ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὄντα ἡμέτερον φίλον καὶ σύμμαχον· v ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς παρ’ ὑμῶν ἀπεσταλμένους φιλοτιμότερον ἀπολογίσασθαι τὴν εὔνοιαν ἣν ἔχετε εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἔν τε τοῖς λοιποῖς καθ’ ὃ ἂν ἡμᾶς ἀξιῶτε, πειρασόμεθα καὶ ἰδίαι ἑκάστωι καὶ κοινῆι πᾶσι φιλανθρωπεῖν καθ’ ὅσον ἡμεῖς δυνατοί ἐσμεν, v καὶ τῶν πλειόντων τὴν θάλασσαν ὅσοι ἂν τυγχάνωσιν τῶν ὑμετέρων προσβάλλοντες τοῖς τόποις ὧν ἡμεῖς κρατοῦμεν, φροντίζειν ὅπως ἡ ἀσφάλει[α] αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχῃ∙ κατὰ ταὐτα [δὲ] καὶ οἷς ἂν συμβῇ πταίματός [τι]νος γενομένου κατὰ πλοῦν προσπεσεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέ[ραν], πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι ἵν[α] μηδ’ ὑφ’ ἑνὸς ἀδικῶνται. ἀποδ[εχό]μεθα δὲ καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἄσυλον κ[αθό]περ ὤιεσθε δεῖν, καὶ Διογείτωι [καὶ] Ἀριστολόχωι καὶ Θευδότωι πε[ρὶ] τῶν τούτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλω[ν ὧν] ἠβουλόμεθα ἐντέταλμαι ἀν̣[αγ]γεῖλαι ὑμεῖν. ἔρρωσθε. Ziaelas king of the Bithynians to the boulē and the people of Cos, greetings. Diogeitus, Aristolochus and Theudotus, whom you have sent, asked us to declare inviolable the temple of Asclepius, which you have dedicated, and (they asked us) to be friends of the city for the other things in so far as also our father Nicomedes was well-disposed towards the people. We exercise care of all Greeks who come to us because we are convinced that it contributes in no small way to one’s reputation. We continue to take care above all of the paternal friends and of you, for the consideration our father nourished towards you and because King Ptolemy, who is our friend and ally, is well-disposed in matters concerning you. Those who were sent by you to us reported on the zealous favour you have for us. About the other matters you asked us for, we will prove to be friends to everyone privately and publicly, as much as possible for us. We will take care of those of you, who, cutting through the sea, come to places we rule, in order to assure their safety. In the same way, we will offer help to those who arrive at our country as a result of an accident during the voyage, so that none behaves

174

ELOISA PAGANONI

towards them unjustly. We declare your temple inviolable, as you consider suitable, and I ordered Diogeitus, Aristolochus and Theudotus to report to you about these matters and others we want. Farewell.

The letter of Ziaelas is a document from an epigraphic archive of the sanctuary of Asclepius on Cos. It collected the asylia granted by kings and poleis when the Askelpieia became a Panhellenic festival69. The text is engraved on a triangular prism (kyrbis) discovered by Rudolf Herzog in 1903. It preserves three other documents concerning the asylia. Above the letter of Ziaelas, there is the final part of another letter of which the sender’s name is lost, but it is to be from Ptolemy III or more likely Antigonus Gonatas70. The other side bears a letter commonly attributed to Seleucus II71. The text on the third side is illegible due to the bad preservation of the stone, which was reused as a threshold in the stoa of the lower terrace of the Asklepieion72. Some scholars have been ungenerous in evaluating the style of this document. In the commentary on the editio princeps Herzog pointed out many solecisms and two mistakes, δήμ{μ}ωι (ll. 2-3) and μῶν instead of ὑμῶν (l. 20)73. Kent J. Rigsby judged the letter ‘unusually discursive and shapeless’74. Anyway, the mistakes are to be attributed to the stone cutters who copied Ziaelas letter in Cos. As for solecisms, Bredford Welles claimed that those Herzog pointed out were in ‘current usage of the day’, except for τῶν τούτων (l. 48), that he also considered a solecism75. He stressed that several features were in line with Hellenistic epistolography, and concluded that the ‘infelicities of expression’ should be considered ‘not as «barbarian» Greek from the pen of a half-educated Bithynian, but as colloquialisms from a Greek secretary not well-read in the classical language’76. Then he concluded that the letter was ‘written in the best style

69 For a collection of these documents, see HERZOG – KLAFFENBACH 1952; RIGSBY 1996, pp. 106-153 nrr. 8-52; IG XII, 4, 1, 207-245. About the asylia to Cos, see now KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 87-104. On the cult of Asclepius and his sanctuary in Cos, see PAUL 2013, pp. 167-187; INTERDONATO 2013. On asylia, see RIGSBY 1996, pp. 1-40; BURASELIS 2003; KNÄPPER 2018. 70 For Ptolemy III, RC 27; contra RIGSBY 1996, pp. 117-118. SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 112 n. 153 is sceptical. Hallof in IG XII, 4, 1, 208 tentatively attributes the letter to Antigonus Gonatas; cf. KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 100, 277. 71 RC 26; IG XII, 4, 1, 210; sceptical SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 112 n. 153. 72 IG XII, 4, 1, 211. KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 100-102, 277-278 suggests to identify the sender with Alexander II of Epirus. 73 HERZOG 1905, pp. 176-178 with the list of solecisms. 74 RIGSBY 1996, p. 120. 75 RC 25, p. 124. 76 RC 25, p. 124; cf. GABELKO 2005, p. 212.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

175

the royal secretary could muster’77. In preferring the moderate assessment of Welles, one could wonder whether the common prejudice on Ziaelas, depicted as a barbarian king, weighed to some extent on the other strict evaluations78. Undeniably, the letter of Ziaelas presents formulas and a structure typical of Hellenistic epistolography, as Biagio Virgilio remarked noting that: ‘il formulario e lo stile dell’epistola non si discostano in modo evidente da quelli in uso nelle altre cancellerie reali ellenistiche’79. The only uncommon element deserving due consideration is in the prescript (ll. 1-3), where Ziaelas is described as βασιλεὺς Βιθυνῶν. The specification of the ethnic after the royal title has been considered as a solecism80 or an addition by the Coans to make clear the identity of the sender81. But this expression can be much more meaningful. It recalls the title ‘king of the Macedonians’, attested in some inscriptions related to Macedonian kings found outside Macedonia82. Although its value is not completely clear, it is supposed to be a claim of national identity. By this title, the Macedonian kings emphasised the ‘ethnic character’ and the geographic limits of their rule at the same time. In other words, they claimed to be kings of the lands of the Macedonians83. The title ‘king of the Bithynians’ can have a similar value, marking the ‘ethnic character’ of the Bithynian kingdom84. By it, Ziaelas claimed to be king of the Bithynians and of the lands they inhabited. The phrase opening the letter of Ziaelas finds two other comparisons in inscriptions from the borders of the Hellenistic world85. One is a Greek inscription from Armavir in Armenia dating back to the Hellenistic age and mentioning the otherwise unknown βασιλεὺς Ἀρμαδοερίων Μίθρα (‘Mithra king of the Armadoerioi’)86. The second one is a letter of Theodorus and Amynander, who ruled over the Athamanians, a people of eastern

RC 25, p. 122. Cf. above, pp. 81-83. 79 VIRGILIO 2003, p. 134. 80 AYMARD 1948, p. 242; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 125-126 n. 3; WALBANK 1984, p. 65 n. 10. 81 BICKERMAN 1955, pp. 23-24 n. 1; BICKERMAN 1976-1985, vol. II, pp. 34-35; MUCCIOLI 2004, p. 106; cf. RIGSBY 1996, p. 120; IG XII, 4, 1, p. 173. 82 E.g. Syll.3 332; 574. 83 AYMARD 1948; ERRINGTON 1974; MOOREN 1983, pp. 213-217; LANDUCCI 2003, pp. 206-224. 84 DOW – EDSON 1937, p. 139; TREVES 1940, pp. 150-151 and n. 2; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 391-392; SEVRUGIAN 1973, p. 40; SARTRE 1995, p. 36; SARTRE 2003, p. 69; VIRGILIO 2003, pp. 134-135; MICHELS 2009, pp. 58-59 n. 271. Contra AYMARD 1948, pp. 241-242. 85 VIRGILIO 2003, p. 134 n. 372. 86 BE 1950, 218, p. 211; BE 1952, 176, p. 183; SHERWIN-WHITE – KUHRT 1993, pp. 195-197; MAHE 1994, p. 582. 77 78

176

ELOISA PAGANONI

Epirus. This document, granting the asylia to Teos in 205-201 BC, opens as follows: Aθαμ[άν]ω[ν]· [Β]ασιλεὺ[ς Θ]εόδωρος [κα]ὶ ’Aμύνανδ[ρο]ς (‘Theodorus and Amynander kings of the Athamanians’)87. Although few in number, these documents suggest that the use of the ethnic after the royal title might have been more widespread than so far assumed. One could wonder whether these are to be considered exceptions or if they testify to a multifaceted conception of Hellenistic basileia. On the one hand, we see the idea of a universal basileia. This was the power that, for instance, the Ptolemies (cf. Ziaelas’ letter, l. 23), the Seleucids and the Attalids claimed by the use of the royal title basileus without any territorial demarcation. Their kingdoms ideally had no boundaries and potentially extended to the entire oikoumenē. On the other hand, there could have been an ethnic or national basileia. This kingship remarked and insisted on the tight connection between the king and his people, and thus their land. It was a kind of basileia suitable for national monarchies, such as Macedonia and Bithynia88. Lines 3-11 preserve the request of the Coans. The theoroi89 asked Ziaelas to acknowledge the sanctuary as inviolable and to preserve friendship with the Coans, recalling the friendly relations with Ziaelas’ father Nicomedes I (ll. 3-11). Ziaelas granted their requests and stated to continue to be friend of the Coans also because they were friends of the king of Egypt (ll. 12-26),

87 RC 35, l. 1. The title [Β]ασιλεύ[ς is supposed to refer to both the senders (cf. VIRGILIO 2003, p. 134 n. 372). On this inscription see also PIEJKO 1988; PIEJKO 1988a, p. 63; SEG 38 (1988) 1227; BRAUND 1982, pp. 350-351; CURTY 1995, p. 89. MUCCIOLI 2004, p. 106 n. 4 suggests two other comparisons. One is a dedication to [βασιλέα Καπ]παδοκί[ας καὶ τῆς | τραχεία]ς Κιλικίας Ἀ[ρχέλαον] (IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3430, ll. 2-3 = OGIS 357, ll. 2-3). The other is an inscription of Πάκορος βασι|λεὺς Μεγάλης Ἀρ|μενίας (OGIS 382, ll. 3-5 = IK estremo oriente 22, ll. 3-5) for the death of his brother. These documents are later than those we have presented above, as they date to the 1st century BC-1st century AD and the 2nd century AD respectively. More importantly, here the royal title precedes a geographical designation and not an ethnic. 88 On the national feature of the Bithynian kingdom, cf. above, pp. 66, 76-77, 144-147. 89 The theoroi named here are Diogeitus, Aristolochus and Theudotus. The first one also appears in the letter of the Seleucid king that is engraved on the other side of the prism (RC 26, ll. 16-17). It is unknown whether the two other theoroi coming to Ziaelas reached Syria with him, but it is worth highlighting that none of these three theoroi are mentioned in the decree of Cius granting the asylia to the sanctuary of Asclepius (IK Kios 18). RIGSBY 1996, p. 120 concludes that Ziaelas did not receive the Coan theoroi in Nicomedia, because in this case the dispatch of two delegations, one to the Bithynian capital and the other to Cius, would have been unnecessary for the proximity of these cities. Again, according to him, the theoroi visiting Ziaelas also came to the Spartocid king, who is supposed to be the sender of another letter recognising the asylia (RIGSBY 1996, nr. 12 = IG XII, 4, 1, 213; see below pp. 177-178 n. 97). It is unclear whether the Aristolochus sent to Ziaelas was Aristolochus son of Smenodron, who announced the Asklepieia in Macedonia, northern Greece and Peloponnese (IG XII, 4, 1, pp. 169-170; KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 89-90). About the Coan theoroi, see HERZOG – KLAFFENBACH 1952, pp. 28-30; RIGSBY 2004; IG XII, 4, 1, pp. 169-170; KNÄPPER 2018, 90-94. On the institution of theoroi, see PERLMAN 2000, esp. pp. 17-62; DIMITROVA 2008, pp. 9-16.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

177

who was Ptolemy III at the time of the letter90. Ziaelas, thus, showed to follow his father in his policies towards both the sanctuary and Egypt91. Lines 11-17 contain the famous expression summing up Ziaelas’ attitude towards Greeks: ‘We exercise care of all Greeks, who come to us because we are convinced that it contributes in no small way to one’s reputation’. This sentence is unique in Hellenistic epistolography in terms both of form and of content. According to Hannestad92, the only comparable statement is in the aforementioned letter of Theodorus and Amynander. At Lines 9-11 they claimed the reason why they granted asylia to Teos: This we do because of our being in fact related to all Greeks since we are related to the originator himself of the common name of the Greeks93.

This statement and the one by Ziaelas mirror in a different way the desire for legitimacy in front of the Greeks. Theodorus and Amynander recalled the descent from the eponymous progenitor of all Greeks. Ziaelas highlighted the meaning of philhellenic acts and made clear their political implications94. The phrase ‘about the other matters you asked us for’ (ll. 29-30) introduces Ziaelas’ dispositions on a second question posed by the theoroi95. It probably concerned the safety of Coan trade in the Pontic area judging from Ziaelas’ reply. Ziaelas undertook to guarantee the safety of Coan traders, who landed on the Bithynian coast. He also claimed to safeguard those who arrived on territories under his control after a shipwreck (ll. 38-44)96. The letter ends with a further reference to the asylia, the order to the theoroi to relate on the dispositions – in which Ziaelas used the first singular person instead of the plural (l. 48: ἐντέταλμαι) – and the common greetings formula. It is now agreed that this inscription dates back to c. 242 BC when the Asklepieia were turned into a Panhellenic festival97. It is the earliest eviCf. TAM IV, 1, p. 6; IG XII, 4, 1, 209, p. 173. HANNESTAD 1996, p. 78. On the alliance between Bithynia and Egypt, see above pp. 69-70, 86. 92 HANNESTAD 1996, pp. 77-78; cf. MICHELS 2009, p. 60. 93 RC 35, ll. 9-11: καὶ τοῦτο πράσσομεν καὶ διὰ τὸ πρὸς ἅπαντας μὲν τοὺς Ἕλληνας οἰκείως ἔχοντες τυγχάνειν, ὑπαρχούσας ἡμῖν συγγενείας πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς κοινῆς προσηγορίας τῶν Ἑλλήνων. 94 MICHELS 2009, p. 60. See also above, pp. 81-83. 95 It is common that the theoroi brought a second message concerning special matters, different from the main aim of their mission (RC 25, p. 123). 96 See above pp. 86-88. On the sentence ἵν[α] μηδ’ ὑφ’ ἑνὸς ἀδικῶνται (RC 25, ll. 43-44), see LAQUEUR 1936, pp. 470-471. 97 BENGTSON 1955; SHERWIN-WHITE 1978, pp. 96, 111-113 and notes; RIGSBY 1996, pp. 106-109, 120; 90 91

178

ELOISA PAGANONI

dence mentioning Ziaelas as the king of Bithynia. The explicit reference to Nicomedes I’s politics reveals the desire FOR legitimacy for Ziaelas. According to some scholars, this would invite us to set the letter in his early years of reign98. In this view, they argue that this letter could contribute to determining when Ziaelas took the power99. Against this, Rigsby correctly remarked that Ziaelas, in fact, usurped the Bithynian throne. He, therefore, ‘had an interest in stressing the legitimacy of his position and might have done so for many years. The government of Cos is not likely to have had frequent occasion to address the Bithynian monarchy. Thus the letter need not be near the start of his sole rule, whenever it was’100. 9. Decree of Telmessos in honour of Eumenes II of Pergamum Grey marble stele broken on the left side and on the lower edge; found in Rhodes. Dim.: 40 x 32 x 9 cm. Accurate script with serif. Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3*; SEGRE 1932, pp. 446-447; ALLEN 1983, pp. 211-212; KOTSIDU 2000 nr. 292 [E] December 184 BC 1

5

[βασιλεύοντος] Εὐμένου Σωτῆρος (ἔτους) ιδ̣ʹ [ἐφ’ ἱερέως — — —]ώρου μηνὸς Αὐδναίου βʹ, ἐ[κ][κλησίας κυρ]ί̣ας γενομένης, ἔδοξεν Τελ̣[μεσσέων] τῆι πόλει καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσι [— — — — —]ωρωι, Δαπάραι, Ἑρμοφάντωι· ἐπει[δὴ βασι]λεὺς Εὐμένης ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ εὐεργέ[της ἡμ]ῶ̣ν ἀναδεξάμενος τὸν πόλεμον οὐ μ̣[ό][νον ὑπ]ὲ̣ρ τῶν ὑφ’ αὑτὸν τασσομένων ἀλλὰ καὶ [τῶν ἄ]λλων τῶν κατοικούντων τὴν Ἀσίαν ὑ-

FERNOUX, pp. 63-64; MICHELS 2009, pp. 56-57; IG XII, 4, 1, p. 173; KNÄPPER 2018, pp. 87-90. The first editor Herzog dated Ziaelas’ letter to 250-246 BC (HERZOG 1905, pp. 178-179, followed by Syll.3 456, p. 696; SCHNEIDER 1967-1969, vol. II, p. 159; DEROW – FOREST 1982, p. 86; cf. RC, pp. 120-121). Afterwards, he changed the date to 246-242 BC (HERZOG 1930, pp 465-468, followed by RC 25, pp. 120-121; HERZOG – KLEFFENBACH 1952, pp. 27-28; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 30-31; HABICHT 1972c, col. 391). GABELKO 2005, pp. 212-218 dated Ziaelas’ letter to 246 BC and argued that the Bithynian king was also the sender of IG XII, 4, 1, 213 (= RIGSBY 1996, nr. 12), although his name is lost. Gabelko’s hypothesis is followed by BALAKHVANTSEV 2011, but rejected by KNÄPPER 2018, p. 103 n. 192 through convincing arguments. 98 BELOCH 1927, p. 213; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 30-31; HABICHT 1972c, coll. 391-392. 99 Cf. above pp. 79-80. 100 RIGSBY 1996, p. 120.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

10

15

20

25

30

179

[πέστ]η τὸν κίνδυνον καὶ παρακαλέσας τοὺς [θεο]ὺς καὶ διαγωνισάμενος πρός τε Προυσίαν̣ [κα]ὶ̣ Ὀρτιάγοντα καὶ τοὺς Γαλάτας καὶ τοὺς [συ]μμάχους αὐτῶν ἐνίκησεν ἐνδόξως καὶ [κ]αλῶς καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς εὐχόμεθα τοῖς θεοῖς, ἀγαθῆι τύχῆι, δεδόχθαι τῆι πόλει καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγενημένοις ἀγαθοῖς εὔχεσθαι μὲν τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ τὰς ἱερείας ἀν̣εωι̣γ̣μένων τῶν ἱερῶν πάντων καὶ ε̣ἰς τὸ̣ λοιπὸ̣ν̣ δ̣[ι]δόναι βασιλεῖ Εὐμένει νίκην καὶ κράτος καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν καὶ τῆι μητρὶ βασιλίσσηι Ἀπολλωνίδι καὶ τοῖς ἀδ̣ε̣λφ̣ο̣ῖς αὐτοῦ, στεφανηφορῆσαι δὲ τοὺς πο̣λ̣ί̣τας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας καὶ θύσαντας χαριστήρια τοῖς θεοῖς εὐωχεῖσθαι ἐν τῆι [ἐκκλησί]α̣ι̣(?), εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν δὲ καθ’ ἕκαστον μῆ̣[να θυόντω] οἱ ἄρχοντες τῆι προτέραι, ἐν ἧι νε[νίκηκεν ὁ βασιλ]ε̣ὺς, Διὶ Γενεθλίωι καὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Ν̣[ι][κηφόρωι, ἧι καὶ ἀνιέρ]ωσαν ἄλσο̣ς̣ κ̣α̣ὶ̣ [τέμενος] [ὅ τε βασιλεὺς Εὐμένης καὶ ὁ δῆμος τῶν Περγα][μηνῶν — — —] In the 14th year of the reign of Eumenes Sotēr, when... was priest... on the second day of Audnaios, in the regular assembly. It was resolved by the polis of the Telmessians and the archons... Dapara, Ermophantus. Since King Eumenes, our saviour and euergetēs, who warred not only for those he rules, but also for the other inhabitants of Asia, faced up the danger and (since) he, who prayed to the gods and struggled against Prusias, Ortiagon, the Galatians and their allies, won illustriously and gloriously, as we too prayed to the gods. To good fortune. It shall be resolved by the polis and the archons. After all temples have been opened, the priests and the priestesses shall pray for the positive events that occurred and for the future, that victory and power by land and sea shall be given to King Eumenes, to his mother Queen Apollonis and to his brothers. The citizens and all the others shall carry a crown and make sacrifices to thank the gods and celebrate in the assembly. In the future, every month on the day preceding that, in which the king won, the archons shall offer sacrifices to Zeus Genethlios and to Athena Nikēphoros, to whom King Eumenes and the people of the Pergamenes also dedicated a grove and a temenos...

The stone was found in Rhodes, where it was brought as ballast for ships probably101. It preserves the decree voted by Telmessos, in Caria, for Eumenes 101

Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 172 n. 1.

180

ELOISA PAGANONI

II. The text, lacking the final part, opens with the indication of the 14th year of Eumenes II’s reign, corresponding to 184 BC102. The dating formula could have continued with the name of a priest in comparison with another decree of Telmessos, voted in 240 BC103. Due to the scant number of Hellenistic inscriptions from this city, it is uncertain whether this was a priest of a local cult or of the Ptolemaic dynasty104. In light of Ptolemaic influence on the city at various times in the Hellenistic era105, the first editor of the 240 BC decree, Victor Bérard106, preferred the latter possibility. In support of this, it is worth noting that the decree for Eumenes II was voted immediately after the passage of Telemessos from the Ptolemies to the Attalids following the settlement of Apamea107, that is, in a time in which Ptolemaic influence still was strong. Another evidence of such an influence is in Line 3. Audonios was the third month of the Macedonian calendar (the equivalent of DecemberJanuary), which also was the official calendar in Ptolemaic Egypt108. The formula ἐ[κκλησίας κυρ]ί̣ας γενομένης (ll. 2-3: ‘in the regular assembly’), following the dating formula, is attested in several cities, nearly all from Asia Minor, in the 4th-3rd century BC, and supposedly indicated the regular assembly109. Mario Segre110 noted that also the 240 BC decree was passed on the second day of the month and argued that this was the fixed day for the regular assembly. The enactment formula at the end of the prescript (ll. 4-5) is similar to that of a decree from Araxa111, which mentions the people and the archons (three in number)112. Lines 5-14 recall that the honours were voted for Eumenes II’s victory over Prusias I and the Galatians of Ortiagon. As the decree passed on December-January 184 BC, this victory occurred in the previous war season, 102 Cf. Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 173; SEGRE 1932, p. 447; VITUCCI 1953, p. 57; HABICHT 1956, p. 99; ALLEN 1983, p. 79; RHODES – LEWIS 1997, p. 440; KOTSIDU 2000, p. 411; ARSLAN 2004, p. 99; THONEMANN 2013, p. 35. MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 107 dates it to 183 BC. 103 BÉRARD 1890, pp. 163-167 = OGIS 55. 104 Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174. 105 On Telmessos in the Hellenistic age and Ptolemaic influence over the city, see WÖRRLE 1980; KLOSE 1999, pp. 621-623; MEADOWS 2006. 106 BÉRARD 1890, p. 165. 107 Polyb. XXI, 45, 10. 108 BÉRARD 1890, p. 165; Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174; SEGRE 1932, p. 449. 109 According to ERRINGTON 1995, this kind of assembly required a quorum. Contra the remarks in BE 1996, 121. Cf. SEG 45 (1995) 2297. 110 SEGRE 1932, p. 449. 111 MAIURI 1925-1926, pp. 313-315 nr. 2 = Pouilloux, Choix 4. 112 While the decree from Araxa records the archons by name and patronymic, the drecee from Telmessos records them by name only. Jacopi in Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174 suggested to change the name of the second archon Δαπάραι (l. 5) to Λαπάραι. Contra SEGRE 1932, p. 449.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

181

in summer-autumn of the same year113. The war between Pergamum and Bithynia that had broken out in 186-184 was occurring at that time114. The conflict here mentioned is the only episode of this conflict to be dated ad annum. Eumenes II led his troops in battle115 and for this victory he took the epithet Sotēr, which is attested in this inscription for the first time (l. 1)116. The motion formula (ll. 14-16) introduces the dispositions in honour of Eumenes II, his mother Apollonis and his brothers117. Two of these latter played a role in the war against Prusias I. Attalus defeated the Bithynian king in the battle mentioned in a dedication to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros118 and Athenaeus was an ambassador in Rome119. The Telmessians instituted monthly celebrations on the day before the victory of Eumenes II (ll. 22-31)120. The sacrifices were for Athena, here with her traditional epithet Nikēphoros, and Zeus with the epithet Genethlios that appears in this document for the first time and refers to the divine descent of the Attalids121. 10. Dedication of Attalus (II) for the victory over the Bithynians and the Galatians White marble slab of a statue-base broken in several parts; found in the gymnasion of Pergamum (inv. P 8). Dim.: 50,7 x 17 cm. Height of letters: 1,4 cm. IvP I, 65; OGIS 298* Late 180s BC? 1

[Ἄτ]ταλος βασι[λέως Ἀττάλου] [Δ]ιὶ καὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Νικ[ηφόρωι]

See above p. 133. On this war, see above pp. 129-138. 115 HABICHT 1957, coll. 1099-1100; HANSEN 1971, p. 99; VIRGILIO 1993, p. 53. 116 ROBERT 1934a, pp. 283-284 and p. 284 n. 1; ROBERT 1937, p. 73 n. 1; MAGIE 1950, pp. 764-765 n. 59; HANSEN 1971, p. 99; ALLEN 1983, pp. 79, 101; ARSLAN 2004, p. 99; GABELKO 2005, p. 278; MUCCIOLI 2013, pp. 107-108; contra DMITRIEV 1999, p. 406. 117 It is one of the latest pieces of evidence about Apollonis, who is supposed to die a few years later (ALLEN 1983, pp. 150-151). 118 OGIS 298; see below Appendix nr. 10. 119 Polyb. XXIII, 3, 1-3. 120 In this sense, HABICHT 1956, p. 99; THONEMANN 2013, p. 36. Jacopi in Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3, p. 174 wrongly translates ‘il primo giorno di ogni mese, in cui il re aveva riportato la vittoria’. 121 SEGRE 1932, pp. 451-452; CHANIOTIS 2003, p. 436. 113 114

182

ELOISA PAGANONI

[ἀπ]ὸ [τῆς πρ]ὸ[ς Βιθ]υνοὺς κ[αὶ Γαλάτας] [π]ερὶ τὸ Λύ[π]εδρον [μάχης]. Attalus son of King Attalus (dedicated the statue) to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros for the victory over the Bithynians and the Galatians in battle near Lypedron.

The fragments composing this inscription were found in the gymnasion of Pergamum and were part of a statue base122. In spite of the bad preservation, the readable letters suggest that this document is a dedication of Attalus to Zeus and Athena Nikēphoros for a victory. Editors supply the names of the enemies of Pergamum on the basis of the decree of Telmessos for Eumenes II mentioning an Attalid victory over Prusias I and Ortiagon123. Accordingly, the dedication is connected with the 180s BC Bithynian-Attalid war124 and the dedicator is identified with Eumenes II’s brother Attalus, the future Attalus II. As being the dedicator, Attalus is supposed to have led the Attalid army in battle125. As restored, this document is peculiar. Differently from the decree of Telmessos, it does not mention Prusias I, but only the Bithynians, who are coupled with the Galatians. Michels notes that ‘hier wäre die Bithynier wiederum als spezifische Gruppe beurteilt’ and he interprets this as a possible hint at the ethnic/national character of the Bithynian monarchy126. As with the royal title in Ziaelas’ letter127, the first comparison is in the epigraphic evidence related to Macedonia, the Hellenistic national monarchy par excellance. In a few cases, it attests the Macedonians along with king128, a choice that makes explicit that ‘the Macedonian state was made up of king and people’129. But the situation in the Attalid dedication is not perfectly overlapping. The omission of Prusias’ name suggests that this document mirrors not the national charOn dedications in the gymnasion in Hellenistic age, see AMELING 2004. Clara Rhodos II, 172, 3; see above Appendix nr. 9; cf. MAGIE 1950, pp. 764-765 n. 59. Some scholars (IvP I 65, p. 52; VITUCCI 1953, pp. 56-57; MAGIE 1950, pp. 314, 1196-1197 n. 39; DMITRIEV 2007, p. 137) argue that the dedication and the Telmessian decree mention the same battle, but contra see the convincing remarks in HABICHT 1957, coll. 1099-1100; HANSEN 1971, p. 99; VIRGILIO 1993, p. 53. 124 See above pp. 129-138. Contra FERNOUX 2004, p. 35 claims that the victory recorded in the dedication was taken in the war between Attalus II and Prusias II. 125 IvP I 65, p. 52; OGIS 298, p. 467 n. 1; MCSHANE 1964, p. 160. About the supposed identification of Lypedron with the Mt. Lyperos in Memnon BNJ 434, F 1, 12, 5, see above pp. 41-42 n. 114. 126 MICHELS 2009, p. 59 n. 271. 127 See above, pp. 175-176. 128 E.g. Syll.3 518; cf. MOOREN 1983, pp. 217-218. 129 MOOREN 1983, p. 219. 122 123

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

183

acter of the Bithynian kingdom, but Attalid propaganda. The Bithynians are matched with the Galatians here. In this way, their defeat is treated with the same propagandistic value as the victories over the Galatians in Attalid propaganda130. Despite these suggestive remarks, the bad preservation of the inscription, most of all in Lines 3-4, invites caution. Βιθ]υνοὺς is partly restored and Γαλάτας is totally supplied. One cannot definitively rule out a different restoration. Anyway, before attempting a new reading of the document, an examination of the fragments is needed. It would allow to point out neglected traces of letters and to determine the right distance of surviving letters. 11. Fragment from Pergamum Marble fragment found in the theatre of Pergamum (inv. III 109). Not well-finished script. Height of letters: 3 cm. IvP I, 56 E* Hellenistic age 1

[βασιλεὺς — — — — — — — — —] [ἀπὸ τῆς π]ρὸς Πρ[ουσίαν — —] King... from the... against Prusias...

Under number 56, Max Fränkel, the editor of Die Inschriften von Pergamum, published ten fragments found in the area of the theatre between 1883 and 1884 and supposedly belonging to dedications. Fragment E preserves only five letters that the editor restored with π]ρὸς Πρ[ουσίαν. He supposed that this fragment was pertinent to a dedication of an Attalid king for a victory over either Prusias I or Prusias II; accordingly the dedication should be connected with one of the Attalid-Bithynian wars131.

Cf. above p. 135 n. 228. IvP I, 56 E, p. 45. On the 180s BC war, see above pp. 129-138; on the 150s BC one, see the references on p. 161 n. 23. 130 131

184

ELOISA PAGANONI

12. Dedication of Nicomedes II to Apama White marble stele with a tympanum in the upper edge; found in the Piraeus; now in the Museum of the Piraeus. Dim.: 72 x 34,3 x 9 cm. WILHELM 1908, p. 75; IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172*; IK Apameia und Pylai T 12, p. 89 (SEG 37 [1987] 136); RIGSBY 1996 nr. 230 149- BC 1

5

βασιλεὺς Ἐπιφανὴς Νικομήδης βασιλέως Προυσίου θεᾶι βασιλίσσηι Ἀπάμηι τῆι ἑαυτοῦ μητρὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἄσυλον. King Nicomedes Epiphanēs son of King Prusias (dedicates) the inviolable sanctuary to the divine queen Apama, his mother.

The stele was found in the Piraeus and is now in the local museum. It preserves Nicomedes II’s dedication of a sanctuary to his mother Apama. The mention of this king dates the document within the limits of his reign (149-127 BC), but no evidence allows us to establish a closer date132. The inscription is one of the two attestations of a holy place, which was declared asylon when it was created, along with a dedication of Cleopatra VII and Caesarion133. The dedication was probably set in Bithynia originally. The first editor Wilhelm noted that places of worship dedicated to female exponents of Hellenistic dynasties were usually dear to the dedicatees and concluded: ‘die Möglicheit, dass der Stein von einem Orte der Küste Bithyniens oder benachberten Gestaden nach dem Piräus verschleppt wurde, ist umsoweniger zu bestreiten’134.

132 WILHELM 1908, pp. 75-78; IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172, p. 73; IK Apameia und Pylai T 12, p. 89; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 84. WILHELM 1908, pp. 75-78 and Kirchner in IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172, p. 73 supposed that Nicomedes II ruled until 120 BC. 133 OGIS 129 = RIGSBY 1996, pp. 572-573 nr. 228. Cf. RIGSBY 1996, p. 588. 134 WILHELM 1908, pp. 81-82, followed by IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172, p. 73; HANNESTAD 1996, p. 84; RIGSBY 1996, p. 588; MUCCIOLI 2013, p. 130 n. 505.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

185

13. Boundary stones from Aizanoi Marble boundary stone found near the temple of Zeus in Aizanoi (today Çavdarhisar). Now lost? JACOPI 1938, p. 44; AnnÉp (1940) nr. 44; BROUGHTON 1951, p. 238 (ll. 1-6); LAFFI 1971, pp. 10-11, E nrr. 1-2; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, nr. 253 [E]; DIGNAS 2002, p. 85 (ll. 1-6); MAMA IX, pp. 5-6, P5*; KEARSLEY 2001, nr. 166 b 129 AD 1

5

10

15

Imp(erator) Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Aug(ustus) p(ater) p(atriae) co(n)s(ul) III trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIII ̣ ̣ [fines Iovi c[on][di]tori et civitati Aezanitorum datos [a]b Attalo et Prusia regibus restitu[it mensuris actis a] Septimio Saturnino primipilare, sicut Prusias rex egerat. Αὐτοκρ[άτωρ Καῖσαρ] Τραιανὸς Ἁδρ [ια]νὸς Σεβαστός [πάτηρ πατρ]ίδος [ὕ]πατος [τὸ γ̅, δημαρχι]κῆς ἐξ]ουσ[ίας τ]ὸ ιγ̅ [χώρας Διὶ κτίστῃ καὶ] πό[λει] Αἰζ[ανιτῶν δοθεί]σ̣ας ὑπὸ Ἀτ[τάλου καὶ Προυσίου] βασιλέων ἀ[ποκατέστησεν μετροῦ]ντος [Σεπτι][μίου Σατουρνείνου] πρειμιπιλαρίου καθὼς Πρου]σίς βασιλεὺς [ἤρξ]α̣το. 2-3 c[re|a?]tori Jacopi: (G)[e|ni]tori Laffi || 4-5 restitu|[e]bam cura agente Jacopi; Laffi || 11 […] πό- Jacopi : [χώρας Διὶ Γενέτορι καὶ] Broughton, Laffi || 13-14 ἀ|[ποκατέστησεν ἐπιμεληθή]ντος Jacopi : ἀ|[ποκατέστησα ἐπιμεληθέ] ντος Laffi || 17 βασιλεὺς [...]ιτο Jacopi: βασιλεὺς [κατεστήσ](α)το Laffi Emperor Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, father of the fatherland, in the third consulship, in the 13th tribunicia potestas, restored the boundaries (of the land) that was given by Kings Attalus and Prusias to Zeus Conditor and to the city of the Aizanites. Septimius Saturninus, primipilaris, carried out the measurement, as King Prusias had established.

***

186

ELOISA PAGANONI

Greyish marble boundary stone broken on the left side; found in a private house in the village of Sopu Köy; in situ. Dim.: 129 x 47 x 28,5 cm. Height of letters: 2,75 cm. MAMA IX, 8*; AnnÉp (1989) 202; BOWERSOCK 1991, p. 224 (ll. 4-5); BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, nr. 253 [E]; KEARSLEY 2001, nr. 166 a 129 AD 1

5

7 10

[Imp(erator) Caesar Traianus Hadrianus] Aug(ustus) p (ater ̣ [p(atriae), ̣ [co(n)s(ul) III, trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIII fines Iovi co]ndito[ri] [et civitati Aezanitorum dato]s aḅ Ạ[ttalo] [et Prusia regibus restituit] mens[uris] [actis a Septimio Saturni]no primipila[ri, sicut Prusias rex egerat]. [Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Τρ]α̣ι̣ανὸς Ἁδρια[νὸς Σεβαστός, πάτηρ] πατρίδος, ὕπα[τος τὸ γ̅, δημαρχικῆς ἐξ]ουσίας τὸ ιγ̅, [χώρας Διὶ κτίστῃ καὶ π]όλει Αἰζανι[τῶν δοθείσας ὑπὸ Ἀτ]τάλου καὶ Πρου[σίου βασιλέων ἀποκ]ατ̣έ̣σ̣τ̣ησεν με[τροῦντος Σεπτι]μίου Σατουρνεί[νου πρειμιπιλαρίου κ]α̣θ̣ὼ̣ς Πρ̣ο̣υ̣σ̣ί̣α̣ς̣ [βασιλεὺς ἤρξατο]. 4-5 mens[uris | agente] Bowersock, Kearsley Emperor Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, father of the fatherland, in the third consulship, in the 13th tribunicia potestas, restored the boundaries (of the land) that was given by Kings Attalus and Prusias to Zeus Conditor and to the city of the Aizanites. Septimius Saturninus, primipilaris, carried out the measurement, as King Prusias had established.

*** Bluish marble boundary stone broken on the upper edge; found in the wall of a cemetery near the village of Hacɪ Kebir; in situ. Evenly cut letters. Height of letters: 3,5 cm. MAMA IX, 9*; BRINGMANN – VON STEUBEN 1995, nr. 253 [E]

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

187

129 AD 1

5

[— — —] [ὑπὸ Ἀττάλου καὶ Προ]υ̣σίου [β]ασιλέων [ἀποκατέστησε] μ̣ετ̣ροῦντος Σ[επτιμί]ου Σατουρνείνου πρειμ̣[ι]πιλ̣α̣ρ̣[ί]ου καθὼ[ς] καὶ Προυσίας βασιλεὺς ἤρξατο. ...restored... by Kings Attalus and Prusias... Septimius Saturninus, primipilaris, carried out the measurement, as King Prusias had established.

These three boundary stones (cippi) were found in the area of Aizanoi (modern day Çavdarhisar) in Phrygia Epiktētos at different times. The best-preserved ones hand down a text in Latin and Greek, which dates to 129 AD according to the references to Hadrian’s offices. The third cippus likely reported the same text, but only the last lines of the Greek text still are readable. The first boundary stone (MAMA IX, P5) was discovered by Giulio Jacopi near the temple of Zeus in Aizanoi. It was re-edited by Umberto Laffi, who did not find the stone during his survey in the archeological area135. The two other boundary stones were found re-used as building material in villages near the ancient Aizanoi. They were first published in the Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua IX in 1988. The editors restored them on comparison of the stone published by Jacopi, and re-edited this one in light of the new documents. The boundary stones preserve Hadrian’s disposition in a controversy about the lands of the sanctuary of Zeus in Aizanoi (MAMA IX, 8, l. 2: fines, l. 10: χώρας) donated by Attalus and Prusias. The emperor restored the boundaries according to the decisions of the latter and the primipilaris Septimius Saturninus executed his orders. The dispute is known from an epigraphic dossier of four inscriptions, engraved on an anta of the temple of Zeus136. It began in 125 AD (the date of the earliest document in the wall archive) and concluded in 129 AD (date of the cippi, which prove the end of the controversy). The dispute was caused by a new tax (MAMA IX, p. xxxvii, B, l. 7: vectigal) on the land donated a regibus (MAMA IX, p. xxxvii, B, l. 4) to the sanctuary, because it was impossible to determine the extension of LAFFI 1971, p. 8. These inscriptions are collected in LAFFI 1971, pp. 9-11 A-D; MAMA IX, pp. xxxvi-xxxvii, A-D. About this controversy, as well as the commentary by the editors of the dossier, see JACOPI 1938, pp. 44-48; BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 239-247; BOFFO 1985, p. 105; DIGNAS 2002, pp. 84-85. 135 136

188

ELOISA PAGANONI

each plot of land (MAMA IX, p. xxxvii, A, l. 14: κλήρου, MAMA IX, p. xxxvii, B, l. 3: particulas), according to which the tax would have been fixed. The discovery of the boundary stones allowed to identify the reges who donated the land with a king of Pergamum and a king of Bithynia137. Since they could donate land to the temple, it follows that the land was under their control138. Phrygia Epiktētos, the region where the sanctuary lay, was in Bithynian hands only during the reign of Prusias I. Thus, he is the Bithynian king mentioned in the best-preserved cippi139. As for the king of Pergamum, he is supposed to have lived before Prusias I because in territorial disputes it was common usage to restore the later intervention. Attalus in these inscriptions was, therefore, Attalus I140. Aside from the contribution of these inscriptions to the understanding of the Bithynian-Attalid dispute over Phrygia Epiktētos141, other questions about the donations by Attalus I and Prusias I are worthy of consideration, such as the juridical status of lands and the character of the kings’ intervention in favour of the temple of Zeus. The investigation about them, however, needs to be careful. It is, in fact, to research about the Hellenistic situation on the ground of evidence from the Imperial age. Many scholars142 think that the kings not only gave the lands but also appointed them to military colonists (klērouchoi) since the documents speak of klēroi. The word klēros was rare in the Imperial age but common in the Hellenistic one. It pointed out a plot of land assigned to a colonist originally. In the inscriptions concerning the controversy yet, it corresponds to the Latin word particulas. It was used as a ‘unit of measure’ to point out the single plot143. This suggests that in Imperial age klēros had acquired a more general meaning. Regardless of this, one could wonder whether the settlement of a military klērouchia would have been possible in theory. The answer could be

137 JACOPI 1938, p. 48. But WEBER 1969, p. 186 still considered unknown the kings mentioned in the wall archive. For the contribution of these cippi to our understanding of the relationships between Hellenistic kings and sanctuaries, see BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 236-237; LAFFI 1971, pp. 20-21; BOFFO 1985, p. 105. 138 LAFFI 1971, p. 21; MAMA IX, p. xl; cf. MAGIE 1950, p. 1018 n. 64. 139 JACOPI 1938, p. 48; BROUGHTON 1951, p. 248; HABICHT 1956, p. 93 n. 2; LAFFI 1971, p. 19; MAMA IX, p. xli. 140 JACOPI 1938, p. 48; BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 240, 247-248; MAMA IX, p. xli. On the identity of the donors, cf. HABICHT 1956, pp. 92-93; BOFFO 1985, pp. 106-111 passim; DIGNAS 2002, p. 85. 141 See above, pp. 142 BROUGHTON 1951, esp. p. 241; LAFFI 1971, pp. 25, 27, 29; BOFFO 1985, pp. 106-107; MAMA IX, pp. xl-xli; BRINGMAN – VON STEUBEN 1995, p. 290. 143 BROUGHTON 1951, pp. 241-242; LAFFI 1971, pp. 37-40; LIEBESCHUETZ 1972, p. 149; DIGNAS 2002, p. 90 n. 211. DIGNAS 2002, pp. 91-92 notes that the settlements of military colonists by rival kings in the timespan of a few years would have caused trouble.

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

189

positive if the information on the cippi could be more certain, i.e., Attalus I and Prusias I donated the land to the temple and to the ‘city of Aizanoi’ (MAMA IX, 8, ll. 3, 10)144. Yet, no ‘city of Aizanites’ seems have existed at the time of the donations. From the 3rd millennium, the site was used for the worship of the indigenous goddess Meter Steunene. Afterwards, at an indeterminable moment, the cult of Zeus developed beside the local one145. In the second half of the 1st century BC, Aizanoi started minting its own coinage146. Under Domitian147 or Hadrian148, the temple of Zeus was (re)built in the form known to us from archaeological excavations149 and polis and temple constituted a single entity. It is impossible to determine when the city of Aizanoi was established, but no evidence suggests that a complete city was already existing at the time of Attalus I and Prusias I150. Again, it is unlikely that the sanctuary would have accepted the settlement of a military klērouchia on land de facto holy (as belonging to the god), even by the kings who donated it. On these grounds, we may affirm that Attalus I and Prusias I gave some land to the sanctuary of Zeus (the only existing institution at their time), but we can draw no conclusion on the partition and assignment of them or the status of the appointees151.

144 In this sense LAFFI 1971, p. 22 and BOFFO 1985, p. 110, who claims that ‘il riferimento nel cippo adrianeo… poteva definire in termini più pertinenti alla sitauzione dell’età romana una sitauzione ellenistica che vedeva associati, nella conduzione della vita locale, il centro di culto e l’insediamento, non ancora «città» collocto nei pressi’. 145 BOFFO 1985, pp. 107-109; MAMA IX, pp. xxxiii-xxxv. 146 BMC Phrygia, p. 23. Previously Aizanoi might have minted the coins with the legend EPIKTHTEΙΣ, that probably began being produced after the end of the kingdom of Pergamum (BMC Phrygia, p. 200; cf. MAMA IX, p. xxiii; DIGNAS 2002, p. 86). 147 POSAMENTIR – WÖRRLE 2006; cf. VON HESBERG 2009, p. 23. 148 NAUMANN 1979, p. 10; MAMA IX, p. xxiv; cf. BOFFO 1985, p. 109. 149 See WEBER 1969, pp. 193-202; NAUMANN 1979; KLOSE 1999, pp. 447-452; POSAMENTIR – WÖRRLE 2006; NIEWÖHNER 2007. 150 MAMA IX, p. xxiii, recogning that ‘the word polis may be anachronistic’; DIGNAS 2002, pp. 87-89. 151 Cf. DIGNAS 2002, pp. 90-91 and LEVICK 2007, p. 109.

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations of journals titles are those used in L’Année philologique

AnnÉp ANRW

Année épigraphique. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Berlin – New York 1972-1996. ATL B. D. Meritt – H. T. Wade-Gery – M. F. McGregor (eds.), The Athenian Tribute Lists, 4 vols., Cambridge (Mass.) 1939-1953. BE Bulletin épigraphique. Bekker Anecdota I. Bekker (ed.), Anecdota graeca, 3 vols., Graz 1814-1821. BMC Bithynia W. Wroth (ed.), A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Pontus, Paphlagonia Bithynia, and the Kingdom of Bosporus, London 1889. BMC Prhygia B. V. Head (ed.), A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Phrygia, London 1906. BNJ I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby. CAH Cambridge Ancient History. CIG A. Boeck et al. (edd.) Corpus inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols., Berolini 1877-1878. Clara Rhodos II A. Maiuri – G. Jacopi (a cura di), Clara Rhodos. Studi e materiali pubblicati a cura dell’Istituto storico-archeologico di Rodi, vol. II, Rodi 1932. DKP Der kleine Pauly, Stuttgart – München 1964-1975. DNP Der neue Pauly, Stuttgart – Weimar 1996-2002. Dürrbach, Choix F. Dürrbach, Choix d’inscriptions de Délos avec traduction et commentaire, Paris 1921. EAH R. S. Bagnall et al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, Malden 2013. FD III 4 G. Colin (éd.), Fouilles de Delphes. Tome III. Épigraphie. Fascicule IV. Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et de la région nord du sanctuaire. Nos 1 à 86. Monuments des Messéniens, de Paul-Émile et de Prusias, Paris 1930. FGrHist F. Jacoby (Hrsg.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden 1923-1972. FGrHistCont G. Schepens – J. Bollansée – J. Radicke (eds.), Die Fragmente

192

ELOISA PAGANONI

der Griechischen Historiker Continued, Leiden – Boston – Köln 1998-to the present day. Hellenica L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités classique, 13 vols., Limoges – Paris 1940-1965. I.Aph2007 J. Reynolds – C. Roueché – G. Bodard (eds.), Inscriptions of Aphrodisias, . I.Callatis A. Avram (éd.), Inscriptions greques et latines de Scythie Mineure. Deuxème série. Volume III. Callatis et son Territoire, Bucarest – Paris 1999. IC II M. Guarducci (ed.), Inscriptiones Creticae opera et consilio Friderici Halbherr collectae. II. Tituli Cretae occidentalis, Roma 1939. I.Didyma A. Rehm – R. Harder (Hrsgg.), Didyma. Zweiter Teil. Die Inschriften, Berlin 1958. ID P. Roussel et al. (édd.), Inscriptions de Délos, Paris 1926-1937. IG II-III2, 3 J. Kirchner (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae II et III. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Pars III. Dedicationes. Tituli honorarii. Tituli sacri. Tituli sepulcrales, Berlin 1934-1940. IG XII, 4 D. Bosnakis – K. Hallof – K. Rigsby (edd.), Inscriptiones Graecae, XII. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, Pars IV. Inscriptiones Coi, Calymnae, Insularum Milesiarum, Berlin – New York 2010-2012. IK Apameia T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und und Pylai Pylai (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 32), Bonn 1987. IK estremo oriente F. Canali de Rossi (ed.), Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco. Un repertorio (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 65), Bonn 2004. IK Iasos W. Blümel (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Iasos (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 28), Bonn 1985. IK Ilion P. Frisch (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Ilion (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 3), Bonn 1975 IK Kalchedon R. Merkelbach – F. K. Dörner – S. Şahin (Hrsgg.), Die Inschriften von Kalchedon (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 20), Bonn 1980. IK Kios T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Kios (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 29), Bonn 1985. IK Klaudiu Polis F. Becker-Bertau (Hrsg.), Inschriften von Klaudiu Polis (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 31), Bonn 1986. IK Magnesia T. Ihnken (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Magniesia am Sipylos am Sipylos (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 8), Bonn 1978. IK Nikaia S. Şahin (Hrsg.), Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums

ABBREVIATIONS

193

von Iznik (Nikaia) (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9-10), 2 vols., Bonn 1979-1987. IK Priene W. Blümel – R. Merkelbach (Hrsgg.) Die Inschriften von Priene (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 69), 2 vols., Bonn 2014. IK Prusa T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum, ad Olympum (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 39-40), 2 vols., Bonn 1991. IK Prusias W. Ameling (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium ad Hypium (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 27), Bonn 1985. IK Sultan Daği I L. Jonnes (Hrsg.), The Inscriptions of the Sultan Daği I (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 62), Bonn 2002. IvP I M. Fränkel (Hrsg.), Die Inschriften von Pergamon. I. Bis zum Ende der Königszeit (Altertümer von Pergamon VIII, 1), Berlin 1890. Kassel – Austin, C. Austin – R. Kassel (edd.), Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols., Berlin PCG – Boston 1983-1998. Kock, CAF T. Kock (ed.), Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, Leipzig 18801889. LGPN V.A T. Corsten (ed.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Volume V A. Costal Asia Minor: Pontus to Ionia, Oxford 2010. LSJ H. G. Liddlel – R. Scott – H. S. Jones (eds.), A Greek English Lexicon, Oxford 19969. MAMA IX B. Levick – S. Mitchell – J. Potter – M. Waelkens (eds.), Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. Vol. IX. Monuments from the Aezanitis, London 1988. McCabe, Didyma D. F. McCabe (ed.), Didyma Inscriptions. Texts and List, Princeton 1985 . McCabe, D. F. McCabe (ed.), Aphrodisias Inscriptions. Texts and List, Aphrodisias Princeton 1996 . Müller FGH K. Müller (ed.), Fragmenta historicorum graecorum, 4 vols., Paris 1841-1879. Müller, GGM K. Müller (ed.), Geographi graeci minores, 3 vols., Hildescheim 1965. OGIS W. Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae, 2 vols., Lipsiae 1903-1905. OnomThrac D. Dana, Onomasticon Thracicum. Répertoire des noms indigènes de Thrace, Macédoine orientale, Mésies. Dacie et Bithynie (Meletemata 70), Athènes 2014. Pouilloux, Choix J. Pouilloux (éd.), Choix d’inscriptions grecques. Textes, traductions et notes, Paris 1960.

194 RC RE Suppl. RE Reynolds, A&R SEG StV III Syll.3 TAM IV, 1

ELOISA PAGANONI

C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. A Study in Greek Epigraphy, New Haven 1934. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Supplement, Stuttgart 1903-1962. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart – Weimar 1893-1972. J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, London 1982. Supplementum Epigraficum Graecum. H. Schmitt (Hrsg.), Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Teil III. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr., München 1969. W. Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols., Lipsiae 1915-19243. F. K. Dörner (ed.), Tituli Asiae Minoris. Volumen IV. Tituli Bithyniae linguis graeca et latina conscripti. Fasciculus I. Paeninsula bithynica praeter Calchedonem. Nicomedia et ager nicomediensis cum septemtrionali meridianoque litore sinus astaceni et cum lacu sumonensi, Vindobonae 1978.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAM 1982 AGER 2012 ALLEN 1983 AMELING 2004

ANDREAE 2001 ANEZIRI – DAMASKOS 2004 ANGELUCCI 2014

ARCHIBALD 1998 ARCHIBALD 2007

ARCHIBALD 2015

ARSLAN 2004 ARSLAN 2011

ARSLAN 2011a

R. Adam (éd.), Tite-Live. Histoire Romaine. Tome XXVIII. Livre XXXVIII, Paris 1982. S. L. Ager, The Alleged Rapprochement between Achaios and Attalos I in 220 BC, «Historia» 61 (2012), pp. 421-429. R. E. Allen, The Attalid Kingdom. A Constitutional History, Oxford 1983. W. Ameling, Wohltäter im hellenistischen Gymnasion, in D. Kah – P. Scholz (Hrsgg.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin 2004, pp. 129-161. B. Andreae, Skulptur des Hellenismus, München 2001. S. Aneziri – D. Damaskos, Städtische Kulte im hellenistischen Gymnasion, in D. Kah – P. Scholz (Hrsgg.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin 2004, pp. 247-271. M. Angelucci, Reiseliteratur im Altertum: die Periegesis in hellenistischer Zeit, in E. Olshausen – V. Sauer (Hrsgg.), Mobilität in den Kulturen der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 11, 2011 (Geographica historica 31), Stuttgart 2014, pp. 11-23. Z. H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked, Oxford 1998. Z. H. Archibald, Contacts between the Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Black Sea in the Early Hellenistic Age, in V. Gabrielsen – J. Lund (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6), Aarhus 2007, pp. 253-272. Z. Archibald, Social Life of the Thracians, in J. Valeva – E. Nankov – D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Malden – Oxford 2015, pp. 385-398. M. Arslan, Galater. Die vergessen Kelten, Scheidegg 2004. M. Arslan, Küçük Asya Yerel Historiograflarına bir Örnek: Herakleia Pontike’li Memnon ve Eseri, «OLBA» 19 (2011), pp. 383-405. M. Arslan, Alkibiades’in Khalkedon ve Byzantion Kuşatması: Nedenleri ve Sonuçları, in H. Şahin – E. Konyar – G. Ergin (eds.), Özsait Armağanı. Mehmet ve Nesrin onuruna sunulan makaleler, Antalya 2011, pp. 9-22.

196 ASHERI 1978

ELOISA PAGANONI

D. Asheri, On the “Holy Family” of Astakos, in S. Șahin – E. Schwertheim – J. Wagner (Hrsgg.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag, am 28 Februar 1976, vol. I, Leiden 1978, pp. 93-98. D. Asheri, Fra ellenismo e Iranismo. Studi sulla società e la ASHERI 1983 cultura di Xanthos nella età achemenide, Bologna 1983. D. Asheri (a cura di), Erodoto. Le Storie. Volume III. Libro III. ASHERI 2005 La Persia, Milano 20054. J. R. Ashley, The Macedonian Empire. The Era of Warfare ASHLEY 1998 under Philip II and Alexander the Great 359-323 B.C., Jefferson – London 1998. S. Atasoy, New Exploration of the Southern Black Sea Coast: ATASOY 2012 Filyos – Tios, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Black Sea, Paphlagonia, Pontus and Phrygia in Antiquity. Aspects of Archaeology and Ancient History (BAR International Series 2432), Oxford 2012, pp. 29-33. S. Atasoy, New Exploration of the Turkish Black Sea Coast: ATASOY 2013 Filyos/Tios, in G. R. Tsetskhladze – S. Atasoy – A. Avram – Ș. Dönmez – J. Hargrave (eds.), The Bosporus: Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium BC-5th Century AD) (BAR International Series 2517), Oxford 2013, pp. 373-378. ATASOY – YILDIRM S. Atasoy – Ș. Yildirm (eds.), Zonguldak’ta Bir Antik Kent: Tios. 2015 2006–2012 Arkeolojik Çalışmaları ve Genel Değerlendirme, Ankara 2015. A. Avram, Antiochos II Théos, Ptolémée II Philadelphe et la AVRAM 2003 mer Noire, CRAI 147 (2003), pp. 1181-1213. AVRAM 2004 A. Avram, The Propontic Coast of Asia Minor, in M. H. Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 974-999. A. Avram, Les Bithyniens en Thrace, en Mésie inférieure et AVRAM 2013 dans le Pont Nord à l’Epoque impériale, in H. Bru – G. Labarre (édd.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), vol. I, Besançon 2013, pp. 111-132. AVRAM – HIND – A. Avram – J. Hind – G. Tsetskhladze, The Black Sea Area, in TSETSKHLADZE 2004 M. H. Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 924-973. S. Aydingün, Archaeological Findings of Thracian/Phrygian AYDINGÜN 2015 Tribes Crossing of Bosporus. ITA Istanbul Prehistoric Research Project, in S. Fazullin - M. M. Antika (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology (SOMA 2013), Oxford 2015, pp. 24-33.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AYMARD 1948 BADIAN 1961 BADOUD 2014

BALAKHVANTSEV 2011 BALLESTEROS PASTOR 1996 BALLESTEROS PASTOR 2000-2001 BARAT 2012

BARAT 2013

BARAY 2017 BAR-KOCHVA 1974 BASCH 1985 BATTISTINI 2004 BATTISTINI 2004a BEKKER-NIELSEN 2008 BEKKER-NIELSEN 2014

BELFIORE 2009

BELLONI 2000

197

A. Aymard, Le protocole royal grec et son évolution, REA 50 (1948), pp. 232-263. E. Badian, Harpalus, JHS 81 (1961), pp. 16-43. N. Badoud, Rhodes et les Cyclades à l’époque hellénistique, in G. Bonnin – E. Le Quéré (édd.), Pouvoirs, îles et mer. Formes et modalités de l’hégémonie dans les Cyclades antiques (VIIe s. a.C.IIIe s. p.C.) (Scripta Antiqua 64), Bordeaux 2014, pp. 115-129. A. S. Balakhvantsev, Новый‘ рескрипт Зиела Вифинского, VDI 276 (2011), pp.74-92. L. Ballesteros Pastor, Mitrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto, Granada 1996. L. Ballesteros Pastor, Pharnaces of Pontus and the Kingdom of Pergamum, «Talanta» 22-23 (2000-2001), pp. 61-66. C. Barat, Relations et solidarités entre les cités grecques de la côte sud de la mer Noire (VIIe-IIIe siècles av. J.-C.), in L. Martinez-Sève (éd.), Les diasporas grecques du VIIIe à la fin du IIIe siècle av. J-C., «Pallas» 89 (2012), pp. 217-244. C. Barat, La Paphlagonie: histoire et peuplement, in H. Bru – G. Labarre (éds), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), vol. I, Besançon 2013, pp. 151-166. L. Baray, Celtes, Galates et Gaulois, mercenaires de l’Antiquité. Représentation, recrutement, organisation, Paris 2017. B. Bar-Kochva, Menas’ Inscription and Curupedion, «Scripta Classica Israelica» 1 (1974), pp. 14-23. L. Basch, The Isis of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, «The Mariner’s Mirror» 71.2 (1985), pp. 129-151. O. Battistini, Calas, in O. Battistini – P Charvet (édd.), Alexandre le Grand. histoire et dictionnaire, Paris 2004, p. 608. O. Battistini, Demarchos, in O. Battistini – P. Charvet (édd.), Alexandre le Grand. histoire et dictionnaire, Paris 2004, p. 668. T. Bekker-Nielsen, Urban Life and Local Politics in Roman Bithynia. The Small World of Dion Chrysostomos (Black Sea Studies 7), Aarhus 2008. T. Bekker-Nielsen, To Be or not to Be Paphlagonian? A Question of Identity, in T. Bekker – Nielsen (ed.), Space, Place and Identity in Northern Anatolia (Geographica Historica 29), Stuttgart 2014, pp. 63-74. S. Belfiore, Il Periplo del Ponto Eusino di Arriano e altri testi sul Mar Nero e il Bosforo. Spazio geografico, mito e dominio ai confini dell’Impero Romano, Venezia 2009. L. Belloni (a cura di), Erodoto. Il regno di Creso, Venezia 2000.

198 BELOCH 1922

BELOCH 1925 BELOCH 1927 BELTRAME 2015 BENGTSON 1944

BENGTSON 1955 BENGTSON 1987 BENNET 1961 BÉRARD 1890 BERTHOLD 1984 BERVE 1924 BERVE 1926 BEVAN 1902 BEVEGNI 1996 BEYER-ROTTHOFF 1993 BIANCHETTI 1990 BICKERMAN 1955 BICKERMAN 1976-1985 BILLOWS 1990 BINDER 1998 BITTNER 1998

ELOISA PAGANONI

J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte. Dritter Band. Bis auf Aristoteles und die Eroberung Asiens. Erste Abteilung, Berlin – Leipzig 19222. K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte. Vierter Band. Die griechische Weltherrschaft. Erste Abteilung, Berlin – Leipzig 19252. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte. Vierter Band. Die griechische Weltherrschaft. Zweite Abteilung, Berlin – Leipzig 19272. F. Beltrame, La satrapia di Daskyleion: i Persiani e gli altri, «Simblos» 6 (2015), pp. 63-83. H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht. Zweiter Band (Münicher Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtgeschichte 32), Münich 1944. H. Bengtson, Randbemerkungen zu den koischen Asylieurkunden, «Historia» 3 (1955), pp. 456-463. H. Bengtson, Die Diadochen. Die Nachfolger Alexander des Grossen (323-281 v. Chr.), München 1987. W. H. Bennett, The Death of Sertorius and the Coin, «Historia» 10 (1961), pp. 459-472. V. Bérard, Inscriptions de Telmessos, BCH 14 (1890), pp. 162176. R. M. Berthold, Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age, Ithaca – London 1984. H. Berve, Kalas, RE Suppl. 4 (1924), col. 854. H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage. Zweiter Band. Prosopographie, München 1926. E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 2 vols., London 1902. C. Bevegni, La Biblioteca di Fozio e la sua orgine, «Humanitas» 51 (1996), pp. 326-347. B. Beyer-Rotthoff, Untersuchungen zur Aussenpolitik Ptolemaios’ III (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke. Reihe Alte Geschichte 37), Bonn 1993. S. Bianchetti, Πλωτὰ καὶ πορευτά. Sulle tracce di una periegesi anonima, Firenze 1990. E. J. Bickerman, Une question d’authenticité: les privileges juif, in Mélanges Isidore Lévy, Bruxelles 1955, pp. 11-34. E. J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 3 vols. Leiden 1976-1985. R. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1990. V. Binder, Hellenisierung, DNP 5 (1998), coll. 301-312. A. Bittner, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BLEGEN 1975 BLÜMEL 2000 BOADRAM 1980 BOFFO 1985 BOIY 2007 BORA 2017 BOSHNAKOV 2003 BOSHNAKOV 2004 BOSWORTH 1980 BOSWORTH 1992 BOSWORTH – WHEATLEY 1998 BOULOGNE 2002 BOWERSOCK 1991

BRAUND 1982 BRAUND 1984 BRAVO 2009

199

Eine Polis zwischen Tyrannis und Selbstverwaltung (Asia Minor Studien 30), Bonn 1998. W. Blegen, Troy VII, CAH3 II.2 (1975), pp. 161-164. W. Blümel, Rodisches Dekret in Bargylia, EA 32 (2000), pp. 9496. J. Boadram, The Greek Overseas. The Early Colonies and Trade, London 1980. L. Boffo, I re ellenistici e centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore, Firenze 1985. T. Boiy, Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period (Oikumene 5), Frankfurt am Main 2007. A. Bora, Maedi/Maidoi – Bithynioi: Makedonia, Roma, Thrak ve Pontos mücadelelerinde bithynlerin Thrakia ve anadolu’daki izleri, «Çeşm-i chian» 4.1, pp. 16-51. K. Boshnakov, Die Thraker südlich vom Balkan in den Geographika Strabos. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen (Palingenesia 81), Stuttgart 2003. K. Boshnakov, Pseudo-Skymnos (Semos von Delos?). Τὰ ἀριστερὰ τοῦ Πόντου. Zeugnisse griechischer Schriftsteller über den westlichen Pontosraum (Palingenesia 82), Stuttgart 2004. A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander. Volume I. Commentary on Books I-III, Oxford – New York 1980. A. B. Bosworth, Philip III Arrhidaeus and the Chronology of the Successors, «Chiron» 22 (1992), pp. 55-81. A. B. Bosworth – P. V. Wheatley, The Origins of the Pontic House, JHS 118 (1998), pp. 155-164. J. Boulogne (éd.), Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales. Tome IV. Conduites méritoires de femmes. Étiologies romaines. Étiologies greques. Parallèles mineures, Paris 2002. G. M. Bowersock, Review of: C. W. M. Cox, A. Cameron and J. Cullen, Monuments from the Aezanitis. Ed. B. Levick, S. Mitchell, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua IX (Journal of Roman Studies Monograph IV), London: Society for the promotion of Roman Studies, 1988, JRS 81 (1991), pp. 223-225. D.C. Braund, Three Hellenistic Personages: Amynander, Prusias II, Daphidas, CQ 32 (1982), pp. 350-357. D. C. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King. The Character of Client Kingship, London – New York 1984. B. Bravo, La chronique d’Apollodore et le Pseudo-Skymmnos. Érudition antiquaire et littérature géographique dans second moité du IIe siècle av. J.-C. (Studia Hellenistica 46), Peeters 2009.

200 BRIANT 2015

BRINGMANN – STEUBEN 1995

VON

BRISCOE 1972 BROUGHTON 1951

BROWNSON 1922 BROWNSON –DILLERY 1998 BRULÉ 1978 BRYCE 2006 BURASELIS 1982

BURASELIS 2003

BURASELIS 2004

BURASELIS 2010

BURASELIS 2013

BURFORD 1993

ELOISA PAGANONI

P. Briant, À propos de l’»empreinte achéménides« (Achaemenid Impact) en Anatolie, in E. Winter – K. Zimmermann (Hrsgg.), Zwischen Satrapen und Dynasten. Kleinasien im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Asia Minor Studien 76), Bonn 2015, pp. 175-193. K. Bringmann – H. von Steuben, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer. Teil I. Zeugnisse und Kommentare, Berlin 1995. J. Briscoe, Flamininus and the Roman Politics, «Latomus» 31 (1972), pp. 22-53. T. R. S. Broughton, New Evidence on Temple-Estates in Asia Minor, in P. R. Coleman-Norton (ed.), Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, Princeton 1951, pp. 236-250. C. L. Brownson (ed.), Xenophon. Anabasis, Books IV-VII. Symposium and Apology, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1922. C. L. Brownson – J. Dillery (eds.), Xenophon. Anabasis, London 1998. P. Brulé, La Piraterie crétoise hellénistique, Paris 1978. T. Bryce, The Trojans and Their Neighbours, London 2006. K. Buraselis, Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis. Forschungen zur Politik der Kassandros, und der drei ersten Antigoniden im Ägäischen Meer und Westkleinasien (Münicher Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtgeschichte 73), München 1982. K. Buraselis, Zur Asylia als außenpolitischem Instrument in der hellenistischen Welt, in M. Dreher (Hrsg.), Das antike Asyl. Kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion, Köln – Weimar – Wien 2003, pp. 143-159. K. Buraselis, Some Remarks on the Koan Asylia (242 B.C.) against Its International Background, in K. Höghammar (ed.), The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture (Boreas 28), Uppsala 2004, pp. 15-20. K. Buraselis, Gods and Kings as Synoikists: Divine Disposition and Monarchic Wishes Combined in the Taditions of City Foundations for Alexander’s and Hellenistic Times, in L. Foxhall – H.-J. Gehrke – N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 265-274. K. Buraslis, Ptolemaic Grain, Seaways and Power, in K. Buraselis – M. Stefanou – D. J. Thompson (eds.), The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile. Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge – New York 2013, pp. 97-107. A. Burford, Land and Labour in the Greek World, Baltimore – London 1993.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BURSTEIN 1976 BURSTEIN 1980 BURSTEIN 2003

BURSTEIN 2006 BURTON 2017 BUSSI 2006 CAMERON 1977 CAMPANILE 2000 CANALI DE ROSSI 1997 CANALI DE ROSSI 2017 CANFORA 2001 CAPDETREY 2007 CARNEY 2000 CARRINGTON 1977 CAVALLI 2015

CHAMOUX 1988 CHAMPION 1995 CHAMPION 2004

201

S. M. Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism. The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1976. S. M. Burstein, The Aftermath of the Peace of Apamea, AJAH 5 (1980), pp. 1-12. S. M. Burstein, The Legacy of Alexander: New Ways of Being Greeks in the Hellenistic Period, in W. Heckel – L. A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of History. The Age of Alexander, Claremont 2003, pp. 217-242. S. M. Burstein, The Greek Cities of the Black Sea, in K. H. Kinzl (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Greek World, Malden – Oxford 2006, pp. 137-152. P. J. Burton, Rome and the Third Macedonian War, Cambridge – New York, 2017. S. Bussi, Economia e demografia della schiavitù in Asia Minore ellenistico-romana, Milano 2001. G. C. Cameron, The Persian Satrapies and Related Matters, «Journal of Near Eastern Studies» 32 (1973), pp. 47-56. M. D. Campanile, Del bere sangue di toro e della morte di Annibale, «Chiron» 30 (2000), pp. 117-129. F. Canali de Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana, Roma 1997. F. Canali de Rossi, Le relazioni diplomatiche di Roma. Volume VI. Dalla spedizione degli Scipioni in Asia alla pace di Apamea (190-188 a.C.), Roma 2017. L. Canfora, Ateneo. I Deipnosofisti: i dotti a banchetto, 4 vols., Roma 2001. L. Capdetrey, Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administration, finances d’un royaume hellénistique, 312-129 avant J.-C., Rennes 2007. E. D. Carney, Women and Monarchy in Macedonia, Norman 2000. P. Carrington, The Heroic Age of Phrygia in Ancient Literature and Art, «Anatolian Studies» 27 (1977), pp. 117-126. E. Cavalli, Salpati dall’Ortigia titanide. L’espansionismo etolico di III sec. a.C.: mito politico e leggenda poetica al servizio del koinon, PhD Dissertation, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia – Université Paris-Sorbonne 2015. F. Chamoux, Pergame et les Galates, REG 101 (1988), pp. 490500. C. B. Champion, The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian Propaganda in the Epigraphical Record, AJPh 116 (1995), pp. 213-220. C. B. Champion, Polybian Demagogues in Political Context, HSPh 102 (2004), pp. 199-212.

202 CHAMPION 2004-2005 CHANIOTIS 2003 CHANIOTIS 2004 CHANIOTIS 2005 CHANKOWSKI 2010

CHIAI 2017

CHRUBASIK 2012

CHRUBASIK 2013 CHRUBASIK 2016 COHEN 1995 COHEN 2013 COLOROU 2009 COLOROU 2013 CONSTANTAKOPOULOU 2012 CORRADI 1929 CORSARO 1983

ELOISA PAGANONI

C. B. Champion, In Defence of Hellas. The Antigonid Soteria and Paneia at Delos and the Aetolian Soteria at Delphi, AJAH 3-4 (2004-2005) [2007], pp. 72-88. A. Chaniotis, The Divinity of the Hellenistic Rulers, in ERSKINE 2003, pp. 431-445. A. Chaniotis, New Inscriptions from Aphrodisias (1995-2001), AJA 108 (2004), pp. 377-416. A. Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World, Malden – Oxford 2005. A. S. Chankowski, Les cultes des souverains hellénistiques après la disparition des dynasties: formes de survie et d’extinction d’une institution dans un contexte civique, in I. SavalliLestrade – I. Cogitore (édd.), Des Rois au Prince. Pratiques du pouvoir monarchique dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain (IVe av. J-.C. — IIe ap. J.-C), Grenoble 2010, pp. 271-290. G. F. Chiai, Troia, la Troade e il nord Egeo nelle tradizioni mitiche greche. Contributo alla ricostruzione della geografia mitica di una regione nella memoria culturale greca (Mittelmeerstudien 16), Paderborn 2017. B. Chrubasik, Tyrants or Kings: The Communication between Usurpers and Cities in the Seleukid Empire, in C. Feyel – J. Fournier – L. Graslin-Thomé – F. Kirbihler (édd.), Communautés locales et pouvoir central dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain, Paris 2012, pp. 65–83. B. Chrubasik, The Attalids and the Seleukid Kings (281-175 BC), in P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations, and the State, Oxford 2013, pp. 83-119. B. Chrubasik, Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire. The Men Who Would Be King, Oxford 2016. G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands and Asia Minor, Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1995. G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 2013. O. Coloru, Da Alessandro a Menandro: il regno greco di Battriana (Studi Ellenistici 21), Pisa 2009. O. Coloru, Armenia, EAH (2013), pp. 722-725. C. Constantakopoulou, Identity and Resistance: the Islanders League, the Aegean Islands and the Hellenistic Kings, «Mediterranean Historical Review» 27 (2012), pp. 51-72. G. Corradi, Studi ellenistici, Torino 1929. M. Corsaro, Forme di dipendenza nella chora del re e in quella cittadina dell’Asia Minore ellenistica, in Modes de contacts et

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CORSARO 2001 CORSO 1988 CORSO 1990 CORSTEN 1988 CORSTEN 1989 CORSTEN 1991 CORSTEN 1996

CORSTEN 2006 CORSTEN 2007

CORSTEN 2013 COŞKUN 2011

COŞKUN 2012 COŞKUN 2013 CREMER 1992 CRISCUOLO 2013

203

processus de transformation dans les sociétés antiques (Collection de l’École française de Rome 67), Pise – Rome 1983, pp. 523-548. M. Corsaro, Sovrani, cittadini, servi: aspetti sociali dell’Asia Minore ellenistica, MediterrAnt 4 (2001), pp. 17-40. A. Corso, Prassitele: fonti epigrafiche e letterarie. Vita e opere (Xenia. Quaderni 10), vol. I, Roma 1988. A. Corso, Nicomede I, Dedalsa e le Afroditi nude al bagno, «Numismatica e Antichità Classiche» 19 (1990), pp. 135-160. T. Corsten, Daskyleion am Meer, EA 12 (1988), pp. 53-71. T. Corsten, Zur Gründung von Prusa ad Olympum, «Tyche» 4 (1989), pp. 33-34. T. Corsten, Neue Denkmäler aus Bithynien, EA 17 (1991), pp. 79-100. T. Corsten (Hrsg.), Katalog der Bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln. Band 2. Könige, Commune Bithyniae, Städte (außer Nikaia) (Papyrologica Coloniensia XI.2), Opladen 1996. T. Corsten, Prosopographische und onomastische Notizen II. Die Frauen des bithynischen Königs Nikomedes I, EA 39 (2006), pp. 121-132. T. Corsten, Thracian Personal Names and Military Settlements in Hellenistic Bithynia, in E. Matthews (ed.), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastic (Proceedings of the British Academy 148), Oxford 2007, pp. 121-133. T. Corsten, Kios/Prusias ad Mare, EAH (2013), pp. 3772-3773. A. Coșkun, Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation, in K. Erickson – G. Ramsey (eds.), Seleucid Dissolution. The Sinking of Anchor ( Philippika 50), Wiesbaden 2011, pp. 85-106. A. Coșkun, Deconstructing a Myth of Seleucid History: the SoCalled “Elephant Victory” Revisited, «Phoenix» 66 (2012), pp. 57-73. A. Cuşkun, The Galatians in the Graeco-Roman World, in S. Ager – R. A. Faber (eds.), Belonging and Isolation in the Hellenistic World, Toronto – Buffalo – London 2013, pp. 73-95. M.-L. Cremer, Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen in nordwestlichen Kleinasien. 2. Bithynien (Asia Minor Studien 4, 2), Bonn 1992. L. Criscuolo, Ptolemies and Piracy, in K. Buraselis – M. Stefanou – D. J. Thompson (eds.), The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile. Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge – New York 2013, pp. 160-171.

204 CURTY 1995

ELOISA PAGANONI

O. Curty, Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques, Genève 1995. CURTY 2015 O. Curty, Gymnasiarchika. Recueil et analyse des inscriptions de l’époque hellénistique en l’honneur des gymnasiarques, Paris 2015. CUYLER YOUNG 1988 T. Cuyler Young Jr., The Consolidation of the Empire and Its Limits of Growth under Darius and Xerxes, CAH2 IV (1988), pp. 53-138. D’AGOSTINI 2013 M. D’Agostini, Da Laodice I a Laodice III: l’orizzonte politico delle regine seleucidi, PhD Dissertation, Università di Bologna 2013. DAN 2012-2013 A. Dan, From Imagined Ethnographies to Invented Ethnicities: The Homeric Halizones, OTerr 11 (2012-2013), pp. 33-72. DANA 2016 M. Dana, Histoire et historiens de Propontide et de Bithynie: mythes, récits et identités, in M. Dana – F. Prêteux (édd.), Identité régionale, identités civiques autour des Détroits des Dardanelles et du Bosphore (Ve siècle av. J.-C. – IIe siècle apr. J.-C.) (Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne Supplément 15), Paris 2016, 171-240. DANA – DANA 2014 D. Dana – M. Dana, Arrien avant Arrien: une jeunesse entre Bithynie, Grèce et Rome, «Ktema» 39 (2014), pp. 19-35. DANA – M. Dana – I. Savalli-Lestrade, Introduction, in M. Dana – I. SaSAVALLI-LESTRADE valli-Lestrade (édd.), La cité interconnectée dans le monde gré2019 co-romain (IVe siècle a.C. - IVe siècle p.C.). Transferts et réseaux institutionnels, religieux et culturels aux époques hellénistique et impériale (Scripta Antiqua 118), Bordeaux 2019, pp. 9-21. DANOFF 1962 C. M. Danoff, Tomi, RE Suppl. 9 (1962), coll. 1397-1428. DANOV 1972 C. Danov, Altthrakien als politischer Faktor auf Balkanhalbinsel und im östlichen Mittelmeerraum während des I. Jahrtausends v. u. Z., «Thracia» 1 (1972), pp. 179-195. DARBYSHIRE G. Darbyshire – S. Mitchell – L. Vardar, The Galatian Settlement et al. 2000 in Asia Minor, «Anatolian Studies» 50 (2000), pp. 75-97. DAVAZE 2013 V. Davaze, Memnon, historien d’Héraclée du Pont. Commentaire historique, PhD Dissertation, Université du Maine 2013. DAVIS – KRAAY 1973 N. Davis – C. M. Kraay, The Hellenistic Kingdoms. Portrait Coins and History, London 1973. DE BOER 2007 J. de Boer, The Earliest Possible Date of the Greek Colonization along the Western Pontic Coast, «Acta Musei Varnaensis» 5 (2007), pp. 123-142. DE CALLATAŸ 1986 F. de Callataÿ, Les derniers rois de Bithynie. Problèmes de chronologie, RBN 132 (1986), pp. 5-30.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

F. de Callataÿ, For Whom Were Royal Hellenistic Coins Struck?, in A. Lichtenberger – K. Martin – H. H. Nieswandt – D. Salzmann (Hrsgg.), Bildwert. Nominalspezifische Kommunikationsstrategien in der Münzprägung hellenistischer Herrscher (Euros 2), Bonn 2014, pp. 59-77. DE FOUCAULT 1972 J. de Foucault (éd.), Polybe. Histoires. Livre IV, Paris 1972. DE SOUZA 1999 P. de Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge 1999. P. Debord, Comment devenir le siège d’une capitale impériale. DEBORD 1998 Le “parcours” de la Bithynie, REA 100 (1998), pp. 139-165. DEBORD 1999 P. Debord, L’Asie Mineure au IVe siècle (412-323 a.C.). Pouvoirs et jeux politiques, Bordeaux 1999. DEBORD 2001 P. Debord, Le Mysiens: du mythe a l’histoire, in V. Fromentin – S. Gotteland (édd.), Origines gentium, Bordeaux 2001, pp. 135146. J. Delorme, Gymnasion. Étude sur les monuments consacrés DELORME 1960 à l’éducation en Grèce des origines à l’empire romain (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 196), Paris 1960. P. S. Derow – W. G. Forest, An Inscription from Chios, ABSA 77 DEROW – FOREST 1982 (1982), pp. 79-92 = in P. Derow – A. Erskine – J. C. Quinn (eds.), Rome, Polybius and the East, Oxford 2015, pp. 243-264. P. Desideri, Studi di storiografia eracleota. I. Promathidas e DESIDERI 1967 Nymphis, SCO 16 (1967), pp. 366-416. DESIDERI 1970-1971 P. Desideri, Studi di storiografia eracleota. II. La guerra con Antioco il grande, SCO 19-20 (1970-1971), pp. 487-537. P. Desideri, Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale Greco nell’impero DESIDERI 1978 romano, Firenze 1978. DEVELIN – YARDLEY R. Develin – J. C. Yardley (eds.), Justin. Epitome of the Philippic 1994 History of Pompeius Trogus, Atlanta 1994. DIGNAS 2002 B. Dignas, Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford 2002. N. M. Dimitrova, Theoroi and Initiates in Samothrace. The DIMITROVA 2008 Epigraphical Evidence (Hesperia Supplement 37), Princeton 2008. W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age, DINSMOOR 1931 Cambridge (Mass.) 1931. DMITRIEV 1999 S. Dmitriev, Three Notes on Attalid History, «Klio» 81 (1999), pp. 397-411. DMITRIEV 2003 S. Dmitriev, Livy’s Evidence for the Apamean Settlement, AJAH 2 (2003), pp. 39-62. S. Dmitriev, Memnon on the Siege of Heraclea Pontica by DMITRIEV 2007 DE

CALLATAŸ 2014

205

206

ELOISA PAGANONI

Prusias I and the War between the Kingdoms of Bithynia and Pergamum, JHS 127 (2007), pp. 133-138. R. Dodd, Coinage and Conflict. The Manipulation of Seleucid DODD 2009 Political Imagery, PhD Dissertation, University of Glasgow 2009. DOMASZEWSKI 1912 A. v. Domaszewski, Inschriften aus Kleinasien, «Archaeologischepigraphische Mitteilungen aus Österreich» 7 (1883), pp. 168188. F. K. Dörner, Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien, Berlin DÖRNER 1941 1941. DÖRNER 1952 F. K. Dörner, Bericht über eine Reise in Bithynien, Wien 1952. F. K. Dörner, Prusa ad Olympum, RE 23 (1957), coll. 1071DÖRNER 1957 1086. DÖRNER 1957a F. K. Dörner, Prusias ad Hypium, RE 23 (1957), coll. 11281148. F. K. Dörner, Bithynia, DKP 1 (1964), coll. 908-911. DÖRNER 1964 DÖRNER – HOEPFNER F. K. Dörner – W. Hoepfner, Das Eiland Thynias-Apollonia, 1989 MDAI(I) 39 (1989), pp. 103-106. DOW – EDSON 1937 S. Dow – C. F. Edson, Chryseis: a Study of the Evidence in regard to the Mother of Philip V, HSPh 48 (1937), pp. 127-180. DREWS 1993 R. Drews, Myths of Midas and the Phrygian Migration from Europe, «Klio» 75 (1993), pp. 9-26. DROGO MONTAGU J. Drogo Montagu, Greek and Roman Warfare. Battles, Tactics 2006 and Trickery, London 2006. DROYSEN 1952-1953 J.-G. Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, 3 vols., Basel 195219532. D. Dueck, Memnon of Herakleia on Rome and the Romans, DUECK 2006 in T. Bekker-Nielsen (ed.), Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation, Resistance (Black Sea Studies 5), Aarhus 2006, pp. 43-61. A. G. Dumitru, Byzance, son territoire et les Barbares au début DUMITRU 2013 du IIIe siècle av. J.-C.: quelques notes sur un passage de Polybe, in H. Bru – G. Labarre (édd.), L’Anatolie des peuples, des cités et des cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C.-Ve siècle ap. J.-C.), vol. II, Besançon 2013, pp 81-96. DURIDANOV 1980 I. Duridanov, Die thrakischen Ortsnamen Bithyniens, «Pulpudeva» 3 (1980), pp. 220-223. DUSINBERRE 2013 E. R. M. Dusinberre, Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in Achaemenid Anatolia, Cambridge – New York 2013. A. M. Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East. From Anarchy ECKSTEIN 2008 to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 BC, Malden – Oxford 2008. A. M. Eckstein, Hellenistic Monarchy in Theory and Practice, ECKSTEIN 2009

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EDDY 1961 EMILOV 2010

ENGELS – ERICKSON 2016

ERRINGTON 1974 ERRINGTON 1989 ERRINGTON 1989a ERRINGTON 1990 ERRINGTON 1995 ERRINGTON 2008 ERSKINE 2003 ÉTIENNE 1990

EVANS 2012 FACELLA 2006 FELLMANN 1965

FERNOUX 1999

FERNOUX 2004

207

in R. K. Balot (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Malden – Oxford 2009, pp.247-265. S. K. Eddy, The King is Dead. Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism (334-31 B.C.), Lincoln 1961. J. Emilov, Ancient Texts on the Galatian Royal Residence of Tylis and the Context of La Tène Finds in Southern Thrace: a Reappraisal, in VAGALINSKI 2010, pp. 67-87. D. Engels – K. Erickson, Apama and Stratonike: Marriage and Legitimacy, in A. Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women. Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften 240), Stuttgart 2016, pp. 39-65. R. M. Errington, Macedonian ‘Royal Style’ and Its Historical Significance, JHS 94 (1974), pp. 20-37. R. M. Errington, Rome and the Greece to 205 B.C., in CAH2 VIII (1989), pp. 81-106. R. M. Errington, Rome against Philip and Antiochus, in CAH2 VIII (1989), pp. 244-289. R. M. Errington, A History of Macedonia, Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1990. R. M. Errington, Ἐκκλησίας κυρίας γενομένης, «Chiron» 25 (1995), pp. 19-42. R. M. Errington, A History of the Hellenistic World (323-30 BC), Malden – Oxford 2008. A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Malden – Oxford 2003. R. Étienne, Ténos II. Ténos et les Cyclades du milieu du IVe siècle av J.-C. au milieu du IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 263 bis), Athènes – Paris 1990. R. Evans, A History of Pergamum. Beyond the Hellenistic Kingship, London – New York 2012. M. Facella, La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana (Studi Ellenistici 17), Pisa 2006. R. Fellmann, Bithynien, in C. Andersen – H. Erbse – O. Gigon – K. Schefold – K. F. Stroheker – E. Zinn (Hrsgg.), Lexikon der Alten Welt, Zürich – Stuttgart 1965, col. 478. H.-L. Fernoux, Guerre, cités et monde indigènes du Pont-Euxin et de la Propontide aux Ve et IVe siècles av. J.-C., «Pallas» 51 (1999), pp. 173-204. H.-L. Fernoux, Notables et élites des cités de Bithynie aux

208

FERNOUX 2008

FERRAIOLI 2019 FERRARI 2011 FINN 2014

FOL – MARAZOV 1977 FORLANINI 2013

FORTINA 1965 FRANCO 1993 FRUIN 1934 GABELKO 1996 GABELKO 2001

GABELKO 2005 GABELKO 2006

GABELKO 2009

GABELKO 2015

ELOISA PAGANONI

époques hellénistique et romaine (IIIe siècle av. J.C. – IIIe ap. J.-C.). Essai d’histoire sociale, Lyon 2004. H.-L. Fernoux, Rivalité politique et culturelle entre les royaumes de Pergame et de Bithynie, in M. Kohl (éd.), Pergame. Histoire et archéologie d’un centre urbain depuis ses origines jusqu’à la fin de l’antiquité, Paris 2008, pp. 223-244. F. Ferraioli, Trattato tra Farnace I del Ponto e i Greci di Chersoneso, «Axon» 3.1 (2019), pp. 155-166. A. Ferrari, Il dizionario dei luoghi del mito, Milano 2011. J. Finn, Review of: Eftychia Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images (Mnemosyne Supplements 363), Leiden – Boston, Brill, 2013, pp. xxii, 436, BMCR 2014.03.63. A. Fol – I. Marazov, Thrace and the Thracians, New York 1977. M. Forlanini, Les routes du Palâ, in M. Mazoyer – S. Hervé Aufrère (édd.), De Hattu à Memphis. Jacques Freu in honorem, Paris 2013, pp. 43-58. M. Fortina, Cassandro, re di Macedonia, Torino – Genova – Milano 1965. C. Franco, Il regno di Lisimaco. Strutture amministrative e rapporti con le città (Studi Ellenistici 6), Pisa 1993. R. Fruin, Zwei chronographische Probleme, «Acta Orientalia» 12 (1934), pp. 25-36. O. Gabelko, Zur Lokalisierung und Chronologie der asiatischen Besitzungen von Byzanz, OTerr 2 (1996), pp. 121-128. O. Gabelko, Датировка и историческая интерпретация надгробного памятника вифинца Менаса, S.H. 1 (2001), pp. 45-61. O. Gabelko, Исґорпя Впфпнскоґо царсґва, Sankt-Peterburg 2005. O. Gabelko, “Phaennis’ Oracle” (Zosim. II. 36-37) and the Galatians’ Passage to Asia Minor, in E. Olshausen – H. Sonnabend (Hrsgg.), “Troianer sind wir gewesen” – Migration in der antiken Welt (Geographica Historica 21), Stuttgart 2006, pp. 211228. O. Gabelko, The Dynastic History of the Hellenistic Monarchies of Asia Minor According to the Chronography of George Synkellos, in J. M. Højte (ed.), Mithridates and the Pontic Kingdom (Black Sea Studies 9), Aarhus 2009, pp. 47-60. O. Gabelko, ‘A Tale of Two Cities’: Some Particulars of the Conquest of Cius and Myrlea by the Kingdom of Bithynia, in

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GABELKO 2017

GABRIELSEN 1997 GABRIELSEN 2011

GABRIELSEN 2013

GALLOTTA 2010

GALLOTTA 2014 GARCÍA-RAMÓN 1998 GARSON 1975 GEHRKE 1990 GEYER 1936 GEYER 1936a GEYER 1936b GEYER 1936c GIANGIULIO 2010

GHISELLINI 2009

209

V. Goušchin – P. J. Rhodes (eds.), Deformations and Crises of Ancient Civil Communities, Stuttgart 2015, pp. 87-100. O. Gabelko, Bithynia and Cappadocia. Royal Courts and Ruling Society in the Minor Hellenistic Monarchies, in A. Erskine – L. Llewellyn-Jones – S. Wallace (eds.), The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra, London 2017, pp. 319-342. V. Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 6), Aarhus 1997. V. Gabrielsen, Profitable Partnerships: Monopolies, Traders, Kings, and Cities, in Z. H. Archibald – J. Davies – V. Gabrielsen (eds.), The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Thrid to First Centuries BC, Oxford – New York 2011, pp. 216-250. V. Gabrielsen, Rhodes and the Ptolemaic Kingdom: the Commercial Infrastructure, in K. Buraselis – M. Stefanou – D. J. Thompson (eds), The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile. Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge – New York 2013, pp. 66-81. S. Gallotta, Appunti per una storia della Lega del Nord, in F. Gazzano – L. Santi Amantini (a cura di), Incontri e conflitti ripensando la colonizzazione greca, Roma 2010, pp. 91-98. S. Gallotta, Appunti su Memnone di Eraclea, «Erga - Logoi» 2 (2014), pp. 65-77. J. L. García-Ramón, Geographische Namen, DNP 4 (1998), coll. 930-934. R. W. Garson, The Minor Characters of Polybius, «Prudentia» 7 (1975), pp. 3-10. H.-J. Gehrke, Geschichte des Hellenismus, München 1990. F. Geyer, Nikomedes (3), RE 17 (1936), coll. 493-494. F. Geyer, Nikomedes (4), RE 17 (1936), coll. 494-496. F. Geyer, Nikomedes (5), RE 17 (1936), coll. 496-497. F. Geyer, Nikomedes (6), RE 17 (1936), coll. 497-499. M. Giangiulio, Al di là dell’acculturazione: nuove prospettive metodologiche. Alcune considerazioni, in E. Migliario – L. Troiani – G. Zecchini (a cura di), Società indigene e cultura grecoromana. Atti del convegno internazionale. Trento 7-8 giugno 2007, Roma 2010, pp. 261-269. E. Ghisellini, L’Afrodite accovacciata tipo Doidalses da San Casciano dei Bagni, in C. Braidotti – E. Dettori – E. Lanzillotta (a cura di), Ou pan ephémeron. Scritti in memoria di Roberto Pretagostini offerti da colleghi, dottori e dottorandi di ricerca della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, vol. I, Roma 2009, pp. 663685

210 GLEW 1987 GLEW 2005 GLOTZ et al. 1945 GOUKOWSKY 2001 GRABOWSKI 2011 GRABOWSKI 2013 GRABOWSKI 2018 GRAINGER 1990 GRAINGER 1997 GRAINGER 1999 GRAINGER 2002 GRAINGER 2007 GRAINGER 2010 GRAINGER 2014 GRAINGER 2015 GRAINGER 2017 GRAINGER 2017a GRANDJEAN – et al. 2008 GRUEN 1984 GRZYBEK 1992

ELOISA PAGANONI

D. G. Glew, The Cappadocian Expedition of Nicomedes III Euergetes, King of Bithynia, ANSMusN 32 (1987), pp. 23-55. D. G. Glew, Nicomedes’ Name, EA 38 (2005), pp. 131-139. G. Glotz – P. Roussel – R. Cohen, Histoire ancienne. Deuxième partie. Histoire grecque. Tome IV. Alexandre et l’hellénisation du monde antique. Première partie. Alexandre et le démembrement de son empire, Paris 19452. P. Goukowsky (éd.), Appien. Histoire romaine. Tome VII. Livre XII. La guerre de Mithridate, Paris 2001. T. Grabowski, Achaeus, the Ptolemies and the Fourth Syrian War, «Electrum» 18 (2011), pp. 115-124. T. Grabowski, Ptolemaic Foundations in Asia Minor and the Aegean as the Lagids’ Political Tool, «Electrum» 20 (2013), pp. 57-76. T. Grabowski, Diplomacy of Attalus I in Asia Minor, 241–216 BC, «Electrum» 25 (2018), pp. 13-26. J. D. Grainger, Seleukos Nikator. Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, London – New York 1990. J. D. Grainger, A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer (Mnemosyne Supplements 172), Leiden – New York – Köln 1997. J. D. Grainger, The League of Aitolians (Mnemosyne Supplements 200), Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999. J. D. Grainger, The Roman War of Antiochos the Great (Mnemosyne Supplements 239), Leiden – Boston 2002. J. D. Grainger, Alexander the Great Failure. The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire, Auckland 2007. J. D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars (Mnemosyne Supplements 320), Leiden – Boston 2010. J. D. Grainger, The Rise of the Seleukid Empire, 323-223 BC, Barnsley 2014. J. D. Grainger, The Seleukid Empire of Antiochus III (223-187 BC), Barnsley 2015. J. D. Grainger, Kings and Kingship in the Hellenistic World 350 - 30 BC, Havertown 2017. J. D. Grainger, Great Power Diplomacy in the Hellenistic World, London – New York 2017. C. Grandjean – G. Hoffmann – L. Capdetrey – J.-Y. CarrezMaratray, Le monde hellénistique, Paris 2008 (2nd ed. 2017). E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 vols., Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1984. E. Grzybek, Zu einer babylonischen Königsliste aus der hellenistischen Zeit (Keilschrifttafel BM 35603), «Historia» 41 (1992), pp. 190-204.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GUINEA DÍAZ 1989

211

P. Guinea Díaz, Las leyendas fundacionales de Nicea. Análisis functional, «Habis» 20 (1989), pp. 163-174. GUINEA DÍAZ 1992 P. Guinea Díaz, La mitalogía al servicio de la ciudad. La Ninfa Nicea, in J. Alvar – C. Blánquez Pérez – C. G. Wagner (eds.), Heroes, semidioses y daimones, Madrid 1992, pp. 223-230. GUINEA DÍAZ 1997 P. Guinea Díaz, Nicea. Ciudad y territorio en la Bitinia romana, Huelva 1997. GUINEA DÍAZ 1997a P. Guinea Díaz, Oriente y Occidente en la Bitinia helenística, in J. Alvar – D. P. Suárez – J. M. Casillas – C. F. Vaquero (ed.), Imágenes de la polis, Madrid 1997, pp. 249-260. H. Güney, The Resources and Economy of Roman Nicomedia, GÜNEY 2012 PhD Dissertation, University of Exeter 2012. GÜNEY 2014 H. GÜNEY, Hellenistik Dönem Öncesi Bithynia’da Hellen Kolonileri ve Bithynialılar Arasındaki İlişkiler, «Belleten» 78 (2014), pp. 407-435. H. Güney, Unpublished Coins of the Bithynian Kingdom, «NuGÜNEY 2015 mismatic Chronicle» 175 (2015), pp. 357-363. H. Güney, Unpublished Coins of the Bithynian Kingdom at BurGÜNEY 2017 sa Mueseum, «Numismatic Chronicle» 177 (2017), pp. 494-500. HABICHT 1956 C. Habicht, Über die Kriege zwischen Pergamon und Bithynien, «Hermes» 84 (1956), pp. 90-110 (tranlsation: On the Wars between Pergamon and Bithynia, in C. Habicht, Hellenistic Monarchies. Selected Papers, Ann Arbor 2006, pp. 1-21). C. Habicht, Prusias (1), RE 23 (1957), coll. 1086-1107. HABICHT 1957 HABICHT 1957a C. Habicht, Prusias (2), RE 23 (1957), coll. 1107-1127. C. Habicht, Prusias (3), RE 23 (1957), coll. 1127-1128. HABICHT 1957b C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und Griechische Städt (Zetemata HABICHT 1970 14), München 19702 (translation: Divine Honors for Mortal Men in Greek Cities. The Early Cases, Ann Arbor 2017). C. Habicht, Zipoites (1) RE 10 A (1972), coll. 448-455. HABICHT 1972 HABICHT 1972a C. Habicht, Zipoition, RE 10 A (1972), col. 460. C. Habicht, Zipoites (2) RE 10 A (1972), coll. 455-559. HABICHT 1972b C. Habicht, Ziaelas, RE 10 A (1972), coll. 387-397. HABICHT 1972c HABICHT 1972d C. Habicht, Zipoites (3) RE 10 A (1972), coll. 459-460. C. Habicht, The Seleucid and Their Rivals, in CAH2 VIII (1989), HABICHT 1989 pp. 324-387. HABICHT 2007 C. Habicht, Neues zur hellenistischen Geschichte von Kos, «Chiron» 37 (2007), pp. 123-152. T. Hägg, Photius at Work. Evidence from the Text of BiblioHÄGG 1973 theca, GRBS 14 (1973), pp. 213-222 = in L. B. Mortensen – T. Eide (eds.), Parthenope: Selected Studies in Ancient Greek Fiction [1969-2004], Copenhagen 2004, pp. 417-426.

212 HÄGG 1975

HAMILTON 2000 HAMMOND – WALBANK 1988 HANNELL 1934 HANNESTAD 1993

HANNESTAD 1996

HANNESTAD 2013 HANSEN 1971 HARRIS 1980 HECKEL 1994 HECKEL 2006 HECKEL 2016

HEINEMANN 2010

HEINEN 1972

HEINEN 1984 HELLER 2013 HENRY 1965

ELOISA PAGANONI

T. Hägg, Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur. Untersuchungen zur Technik des Referierens und Exzerpierens in der Bibliotheke, Uppsala 1975. R. Hamilton, Treasure Map. A Guide to the Delian Inventories, Ann Arbor 2000. N. G. L. Hammond – F. W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia. Volume III. 336-167 B.C., Oxford 1988. K. Hannell, Megarische Studien, Lund 1934. L. Hannestad, Greeks and Celts: the Creation of a Myth, in P. Bilde – T. Engberg-Pedersen – L. Hannestad – J. Zahle – K. Randsborg (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 4), Aarhus 1993, pp.15-38. L. Hannestad, “This Contributes in no Small Way to One’s Reputation”. The Bithynian Kings and the Greek Culture, in P. Bilde – T. Engberg-Pedersen – L. Hannestad – J. Zahle (eds.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 7), Aarhus 1996, pp. 67-98. L. Hannestad, Kingship, Hellenistic, EAH (2013), pp. 37613764. E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon, Ithaca – London 19712. B. F. Harris, Bithynia: Roman Sovereignty and the Survival of Hellenism, ANRW II 7.2 (1980), pp. 857-901. W. Heckel, Kalas Son of Harpalos and “Memnon’s Country”, «Mnemosyne» 47 (1994), pp. 93-95. W. Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great. Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire, Malden – Oxford 2006. W. Heckel, Alexander’s Marshals. A Study of the Makedonian Aristocracy and the Politics of Military Leadership, London – New York 20162. U. Heinemann, Stadtgeschichte im Hellenismus. Die lokalhistoriographischen Vorgänger und Vorlagen Memnons von Herakleia, München 2010. H. Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen Krieg (Historia Einzelschriften 20), Wiesbaden 1972. H. Heinen, The Syrian Egyptian Wars and the New Kingdoms of Asia Minor, CAH2 VII (1984), pp. 412-445. A. Heller, Antiochos Hierax, EAH (2013), pp. 482-483. R. Henry (ed.), Photius. Bibliothèque. Tome IV («codices» 223229), Paris 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HERZOG 1905

213

R. Herzog, Ein Brief des Königs Ziaelas von Bithynien an die Koer, MDAI(A) 30 (1905), pp. 173-182. HERZOG 1930 R. Herzog, Griechische Königsbriefe, «Hermes» 65 (1930), pp. 455-471. HERZOG – R. Herzog – G. Klaffenbach, Asylieurkunden aus Kos, Berlin KLAFFENBACH 1952 1952. F. F. Hiller von Gaertingen, Historische griechische EpigramHILLER VON GAERTINGER 1926 me, Bonn 1926. HIRSCHFELD 1894 G. Hirschfeld, Apamaia (5), RE 1 (1894), col. 2664. R. F. Hoddinott, The Thracians, London 1981. HODDINOTT 1981 HÖGHAMMAR 1993 K. Höghammar, Sculpture and Society. A Study of the Connection between the Free-Standing Sculpture and Society on Kos in the Hellenistic and Augustan Periods (Boreas 23), Uppsala 1993. J. M. Højte, The Cities that Never Were. Failed Attempts at ColHØJTE 2008 onization in the Black Sea, in P. G. Bilde – J. H. Petersen (eds.), Meetings of Cultures between Conflicts and Coexistence (Black Sea Studies 8), Aarhus 2008, pp. 149-162. HÖLB 2001 G. Hölb, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches. Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Dramstadt 2001. HOLLEAUX 1923 M. Holleaux, Polybe et le tremblement de terre de Rhodes, REG 36 (1923), pp. 480-498. HOLLEAUX 1938 M. Holleaux, Études d’epigraphie et d’histoire grecques. Tome II, Paris 1938. HOOVER 2012 O. D. Hoover, Handbook of Coins of Northern and Central Anatolia. Pontos, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Phrygia, Galatia, Lykaonia, and Kappadokia (with Kolchis and the Kimmerian Bosporos), Lancaster – London 2012. J. Hopp, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden HOPP 1977 (Vestigia 25), München 1977. HORNBLOWER 1994 S. Hornblower, Persia, CAH2 VI (1994), pp. 45-96. HOYOS 2003 D. Hoyos, Hannibal’s Dynasty. Power and Politics in the Western Mediterranean, 247-183 BC, London 2003. HUSS 1976 W. Huss, Untersuchungen zur Außenpolitik Ptolemaios’ IV (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrosforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 69), München 1976. HUSS 2011 W. Huss, Die Verwaltung des ptolemaiischen Reichs (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 104), München 2011. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Beiträge zur Erklärung griechischer MünzIMHOOF-BLUMER 1911 typen, in H. von Fritze – H. Gaebler (Hrsgg.), Nomisma. Unter-

214

INTERDONATO 2013 ISAAC 1986

IVANČIK 1997

IVANOVA 2013 JACOBS 1994 JACOPI 1938 JAKOBBSON 2009 JAL 1995 JANKE 1963 JEFREMOW 2005 JOHNSON 2010 JONES 1940 JONES 1971 JONES 1978 JONES 1985 JOUGUET 1932 KEARSLEY 2001

ELOISA PAGANONI

suchungen auf dem Gebiete der antiken Münzkunde. VI, Berlin 1911, pp. 1-23. E. Interdonato, L’Asklepieion di Kos: archeologia del culto, Roma 2013. B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 10), Leiden 1986. A. Ivančik, Les Thraces et les Mariandynes dans la tradition local d’Héraclée du Pont, in The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilisations. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Thracology, Constanţa, Mangalia, Tulcea, 20-26 May 1996, vol. I, Bucharest 1997, pp. 329-335. M. Ivanova, The Black Sea and the Early Civilizations of Europe, the Near East and Asia, Cambridge 2013. B. Jacobs, Die Satrapienverwaltung im Perserreich zur Zeit Darius’ III, Wiesbaden 1994. G. Jacopi, Note anatoliche, «Bullettino del Museo dell’Impero Romano» 9 (1938), pp. 39-53. J. Jakobbson, Who Founded the Indo-Greek Era of 186/5 B.C.E.?, CQ 59 (2008), pp. 505-510. P. Jal (ed.), Tite-Live. Historire Romaine. Tome XVIII. Livre XXVIII, Paris 1995. M. Janke, Historische Untersuchungen zu Memnon von Herakleia. Kap. 18-40, FgrHist Nr. 434, Würzburg 1963. N. Jefremow, Der rhodisch-byzantinische Krieg von 220 v. Chr. Ein Handelskrieg im Hellenismus?, «Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte» 24 (2005), pp. 51-98. P. Johnson, Landscapes of Achaemenid Paphlagonia, PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 2010. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford 1940. A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford 19712. C. P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1978. C. P. Jones, A Letter to Aphrodisias in Caria, EMC 29 (1985), pp. 309-317. P. Jouguet, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenisation of the East, New York 1932. R. A. Kearsley (ed.), Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia Minor. Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 59), Bonn 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KEIL 1902 KHATCHADOURIAN 2007

KIRCHNER 1897 KLEINER 1974 KLEU 2013 KLEU 2013a KLEU 2013b KLEU 2015 KLOSE 1999

KNÄPPER 2018

KOBES 1993

KOBES 1996

KOEHN 2013 KOERTE 1899 KONSTAN 1997 KORENJAK 2003

KOSMIN 2014

KOSMIN 2018 KOTSIDU 2000

215

B. Keil, Kurou pedion, RPh 26 (1902), pp. 257-262. L. Khatchadourian, Unforgettable Landscapes. Attachments to the Past in Hellenistic Armenia, in N. Yoffee (ed.), Negotiating the Past in the Past. Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research, Tucson 2007, pp. 43-75. J. Kirchner, Boteiras, RE 3 (1897), col. 792. F. S. Kleiner, The Giresun Hoard, ANSMusN 19 (1974), pp. 3-25. M. Kleu, Bithynia, EAH (2013), pp. 1137-1140. M. Kleu, Nikomedes I-IV, EAH (2013), pp. 4788-4790. M. Kleu, Prusias I of Bithynia, EAH (2013), pp. 5660-5661. M. Kleu, Die Seepolitik Philipps V. von Makedonien, Bochum 2015. D. O. A. Klose, Türkei, in K. Brodersen (Hrsgg.), Antike Stätten am Mittelmeer. Metzler Lexikon, Stuttgart – Weimar 1999, pp. 438-644. K. Knäpper, Hieros kai asylos. Territoriale Asylie im Hellenismus in ihrem historischen Kontext (Historia Einzelschriften 250), Stuttgart 2018. J. Kobes, Rhodos und das Erdbeben von 227 v. Chr., «Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte» 12.1 (1993), pp. 1-26. J. Kobes, Kleine Könige. Untersuchungen zu den Lokaldynasten im hellenistischen Kleinasien (323-188 v.Chr.) (Pharos 8), St. Katharinen 1996. C. Koehn, League of Islanders (Nesiotic League), EAH (2013), pp. 3983-3984. A. Koerte, Kleinasiatische Studien. V., MDAI(A) 24 (1899), pp. 398-450. D. Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World, Cambridge 1997. M. Korenjak, Die Welt-Rundreise eines anonymen griechischen Autors (“Pseudo-Skymnos”), Hildescheim – Zürich – New York 2003. P. J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings. Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2014. P. J. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2018. H. Kotsidu, ΤΙΜΉ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΞΑ. Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter

216

KROMAYER 1907

KRUMEICH 2007

KUHN 2013 KUZMIN – GABELKO 2008 LAFFI 1971 LANDUCCI 1992 LANDUCCI 2003

LANDUCCI 2011

LAQUEUR 1936 LASSERRE 1981 LAUNEY 1944 LAUNEY 1987 LAURENZI 1946-1948 LE RIDER 1984

ELOISA PAGANONI

besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler, Berlin 2000. J. Kromayer, Antike Schlachtfelder in Griechenland. Bausteine zu einer antiken Kriegsgeschichte. Zweiter Band. Die hellenistischrömische Periode: von Kynoskephalae bis Pharsalos, Berlin 1907. R. Krumeich, Human Achievement and Divine Favor. The Religious Context of Early Hellenistic Portraiture, in P. Schultz – R. von den Hoff (eds.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture. Image, Style, Context, Cambridge – New York 2007, pp. 161-180. C. Kuhn, Seleukos II Kallinikos, EAH (2013), p. 6129. Y. Kuzmin – O. Gabelko, Матримониальная политика Деметрия II Македонского: новые решения старых проблем, VDI 264 (2008), pp. 141-164. U. Laffi, I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi. Le iscrizioni sulla parete interna dell’anta destra del pronaos, «Athenaeum» 49 (1971), pp. 3-53. F. Landucci, Lisimaco di Tracia. Un sovrano nella prospettiva del primo ellenismo, Milano 1992. F. Landucci, Monarchia nazionale e monarchia militare: il caso della Macedonia, in C. Bearzot – F. Landucci – G. Zecchini (a cura di), Gli stati territoriali nel mondo antico (CSA 1), Milano 2003, pp. 199-224. F. Landucci, Diodoro e la cronologia dei Diadochi: una storia infinita, in M. Lombardo – M. Mari – C. Marangio (a cura di) Scritti di storia antica in onore Salvatore Alessandrì, Galatina 2011, pp. 167-178. R. Laqueur, ΣΥΜΒΟΛΑ ΠΕΡΙ TOY MH ΑΔΙΚΕΙΝ, «Hermes» 71 (1936), pp. 469-472. F. Lasserre (éd.), Strabon. Géographie. Tome IX. Livre XII, Paris 1981. M. Launey, Études d’histoire hellénistique. Un épisode oublié de l’invasion galate en Asie Mineure (278/7 av. J.-C.), REA (1944), pp. 217-236. M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellenistique, 2 vols., Paris 19872. L. Laurenzi, La personalità di Doidalses di Bitinia, ASAA 2426 (1946-1948), pp. 167-179. G. Le Rider, Un tétradrachme de Prusias I de Bithynie, in R. Donceel – R. Lebrum (éds.), Archéologie et religions de l’Anatolie ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Paul Naster (Homo religiosus 10), Louvain-la-Neuve 1984, pp. 167171 = in G. Le Rider, Études d’histoire monétaire et financière du monde grec écrits 1958-1998, vol. II, Athèns 1999, pp. 691-696.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LECHAT – RADET 1888 LEGRAND 1893

217

H. Lechat – G. A. Radet, Inscriptions d’Asie Mineure, BCH 12 (1888), pp. 187-204. P. E. Legrand, Inscriptions de Mysie et de Bithynie, BCH 17 (1893), pp. 534-556. G. A. Lehmann, Alexander der Große und die “Freiheit LEHMANN 2015 der Hellenen”. Studien zu der antike historiographischen Überlieferung und den Inschriften der Alexander-Ära, Berlin – München – Boston 2015. O. Lendle, Kommentar zu Xenophons Anabasis (Bücher 1-7), LENDLE 1995 Darmstadt 1995. B. Lenk, Maidoi, RE 16 (1928), col. 451. LENK 1928 B. Lenk, Thynoi, RE 6 A (1936), coll. 734-735. LENK 1936 T. Lenschau, Ortiagon, RE 18 (1942), coll. 1505-1506. LENSCHAU 1942 J. D. Lerner, The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern LERNER 1999 Iranian Plateau: the Fundations of Arsacid Parthia and GraecoBactria (Historia Einzelschriften 123), Stuttgart 1999. W. Leschhorn, “Gründer der Stadt”. Studien zu einem politischLESCHHORN 1984 religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte (Palingenesia 20), Stuttgart 1984. W. Leschhorn, Antike Ären. Zeitrechnung, Politik und LESCHHORN 1993 Geschichte im Schwarzmeerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich des Tauros (Historia Einzelschriften 81), Stuttgart 1993. B. Levick, Girdled by Hills: Culture and Religion in Phrygia LEVICK 2007 outside the Polis, in H. Elton – G. Reger (eds.), Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Bordeaux 2007, pp. 107116. LIEBESCHUETZ 1972 H. Lieberschuetz, City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford 1972. S. Lloyd, Early Anatolia. The Archaeology of Asia Minor before LLOYD 1956 the Greeks, London 1956. D. Lotze, ΜΕΤΑΞΥ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΥΛΩΝ. Studien LOTZE 1959 zur Rechtsstellung unfreier Landbevölkerungen in Griechenland bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Berlin 1959. LOUKOPOULOU 1989 L. D. Loukopoulou, Contribution à l’histoire de la Thrace propontique (Meletemata 9), Athenes 1989. LOUKOPOULOU 2004 L. D. Loukopoulou, Thracian Chersonesos, in M. H. Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 900-911. L. D. Loukopoulou – A. Łaitar, Propontic Thrace, in M. H. LOUKOPOULOU – Hansen – T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and ŁAITAR 2004 Classical Poleis, Oxford – New York 2004, pp. 912-923. H. S. Lund, Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship, LUND 1992 London – New York 1992.

218 MA 1999 MA 2003 MA 2013 MACDONALD 1968

MACAN 1908 MAFFRE 2007

MAGIE 1950 MAHE 1994 MAIRS 2013 MAIURI 1925-1926 MANFREDI 1986 MANSEL 1970 MANSEL 1974 MANOV 2001 MARCELLESI 2012 MARCHESINI 2017 MARCOTTE 2000 MAREK 1993 MAREK 1996 MAREK 2002 MAREK 2002a

ELOISA PAGANONI

J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford 1999. J. Ma, Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age, P&P 180 (2003), pp. 9-39. J. Ma, The Attalids: a Military History, in P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations, and the State, Oxford 2013, pp. 49-82. W. L. MacDonald, Nicomedia, in R. Stillwell (ed.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, Princeton 1968, pp. 623-624. R. W. Macan (ed.), Herodotus. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Book, vol. I 1, London 1908. F. Maffre, Indigenous Aristocracies in Hellespontine Phrygia, in C. Tuplin (ed.), Persian Responses. Political and Cultural Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire, Swansea 2007, pp. 117-141. D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Princeton 1950. J.-P. Mahe, Moïse de Khorène et les inscriptions grecques d’Armawir, «Topoi» 4 (1994), pp 567-586 R. Mairs, Hellenization, EAH (2013), pp. 3122-3125. A. Maiuri, Nuovi supplementi al corpus delle iscrizioni di Rodi, ASAA 8-9 (1925-1926), pp. 313-322. V. Manfredi, La strada dei Diecimila. Topografia e geografia dell’Oriente di Senofonte, Milano 1986. A. M. Mansel, in M. J. Mellink, Archaeology in Asia Minor, AJA 74 (1970), pp. 157-178, pp. 175-176. A. M. Mansel, Das Kuppelgrab von Kutluca (West-Bithynien), «Thracia» 3 (1974), pp. 207-220. M. Manov, Декреґ на Калаґпс (IG Bulg. II, 780, ter), «Archeologija» 42.3-4 (2001), pp. 63-68. M.-C. Marcellesi, Pergame de la fin du Ve au début du Ier siécle avant J.C. Pratiques monétaires et histoire (Studi Ellenistici 26), Pisa – Roma 2012. M. Marchesini, Il Koinon dei Nesioti, PhD Disseration, Università di Trento 2017. D. Marcotte (ed.), Les géographes grecs. Tome I. Introduction générale. Ps.-Scymnos: Circuit de la Terre, Paris 2000. C. Marek, Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia, Tübingen 1993 (Istanbuler Forschungen 39) C. Marek, Amastris (4), DNP 1 (1996), col. 574. C. Marek, Tios, DNP 12.2 (2002), coll. 609-610. C. Marek, Die Phylen von Klaudiupolis, die Geschichte der

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

Stadt und die Topographie Ostbithyniens, MH 59 (2002), pp. 31-50. C. Marek, Hellenisation and Romanisation in Pontos-Bithynia. MAREK 2009 An Overview, in J. M. Højte (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Black Sea Studies 9), Aarhus 2009, pp. 35-46. C. Marek, Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike, München 2010. MAREK 2010 MAREK – ADAK 2016 C. Marek – M. Adak, Epigraphische Forschungen in Bithynien, Paphlagonien, Galatien und Pontos (Philia Supplements 2), Isanbul 2016. M. Mari, Al di là dell’Olimpo. Macedoni e grandi santuari della MARI 2002 Grecia dall’età arcaica al primo ellenismo (Meletemata 34), Atene 2002. M. Mari, Quando il mondo parlava greco, in M. Mari (a cura MARI 2019 di), L’età ellenistica: società, politica, cultura, Roma 2019, pp. 15-45. MARQUAILLE 2008 C. Marquaille, The Foreign Policy of Ptolemy II, in P. McKechnie – P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World (Mnemosyne Supplements 300), Leiden – Boston 2008, pp. 3964. P. Masqueray (éd.), Xénophon. Anabase. Livres IV-VII, Paris MASQUERAY 2009 2009. R. W. Mathisen, The Activities of Antigonos Gonatas 280-277 MATHISEN 1978 B.C. and Memnon of Herakleia, Concerning Herakleia, «The Ancient World» 1 (1978), pp. 71-74. A. McAuley, Genealogical Tables. Stemma 4. The Antigonids, MCAULEY 2016 in A. Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women. Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften 240), Stuttgart 2016, p. 322. A. McAuley, Princess & Tigress: Apama of Kyrene, in A. MCAULEY 2016a Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women. Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften 240), Stuttgart 2016, pp. 175-190. B. C. McGing, The Date of the Outbreak of the Third Mithridatic MCGING 1984 War, «Phoenix» 38 (1984), pp. 12-18. B. C. McGing, The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator MCGING 1986 King of Pontus (Mnemosyne Supplements 89), Leiden 1986. R. B. McShane, The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum, MCSHANE 1964 Urbana 1964. A. Meadows, Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929, in MEADOWS 2006 K. Dörtlük – B. Varkıvanç – T. Kahya – J. des Courtils – M.

220

MEADOWS 2013

MEEUS 2012 MEHL 1986

MEHL 1998 MEINEKE 1839 MEINEKE 1877 MEISCHKE 1905 MELONI 1949

MELONI 1950

MENDEL 1900 MERKELBACH 1985

MERKELBACH 1987

MERKELBACH 1990 MERKELBACH – STAUBER 2001 MEYER 1879 MEYER 1897 MEYER 1897a

ELOISA PAGANONI

Doğan-Alpaslan – R. Boyraz (eds.), III. Uluslararası Likya Sempozyumu: Sempozyum Bildirileri, vol. 2, Suna 2006, pp. 459-470. A. Meadows, Polybius, Aratus, and the History of the 140th Olympiad, in B. Gibson – T. Harrison (eds.), Polybius and His World. Essays in Memory of F. W. Walbank, Oxford 2013, pp. 91-116. A. Meeus, Diodorus and the Chronology of the Third Diadoch War, «Phoenix» 66 (2012), pp. 74-96. A. Mehl, Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich. Seleukos’ Leben und die Entwicklung seiner Machtposition (Studia Hellenistica 28), Lovanii 1986. A. Mehl, Hermogenes aus Aspendos, DNP 5 (1998), col. 442. A. Meineke, Fragmenta comicorum graecorum. Vol. I. Historia critica comicorum graecorum, Berolini 1839. A. Meineke (ed.), Strabonis geographica, 3 vols., Leipzig 1877. K. Meischke, Zur Geschichte des Königs Eumenes II. von Pergamon, Pirna 1905. P. Meloni, L’usurpazione di Acheo sotto Antioco III di Siria, «Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei – Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche», ser. VIII.4 (1949), pp. 535-553. P. Meloni, L’usurpazione di Acheo sotto Antioco III di Siria, «Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei – Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche», ser. VIII.5 (1950), pp. 161-183. G. Mendel, Inscriptions de Bithynie, BCH 24 (1900), pp. 361426. R. Merkelbach, Nikaia die Rankenreiche (ΕΛΙΚΩΡΗ). Ein übersehenes Fragment aus Arrians Bithyniaka, EA 5 (1985), pp. 1-3. R. Merkelbach, Nikaia in der römischen Kaiserzeit (RheinishWestfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften Vorträge G 289), Opladen 1987. R. Merkelbach, Hat der bithynische Erbfolgekrieg im Jahr 74 oder 73 begonnen?, ZPE 81 (1990), pp. 197-100. R. Merkelbach – J. Stauber (Hrsgg.), Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. Band 2. Die Nordküste Kleinasiens (Marmarameer und Pontos), München – Leipzig 2001. E. Meyer, Geschichte des Königreiches Pontos, Leipzig 1879. E. Meyer, Bithynia, RE 3 (1897) coll. 508-524. E. Meyer, Bas, RE 3 (1897), col. 36.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MEYER 1905 MEYER 1925 MICHELS 2009

MICHELS 2013

MICHELS 2013a

MICHELS 2014

MICHELS 2014a

MIGEOTTE 1984 MIHAILOV 1991 MILLAR 2002

MITCHELL 1993

MITCHELL 2003 MOOREN 1983

MORENO 1994

221

E. Meyer, Doidalses, RE 5 (1905), col. 1266. E. Meyer, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien, Zürich – Leipzig 1925. C. Michels, Kulturtransfer und monarchischer “Philhellenismus”. Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in hellenistischer Zeit (Schriften zur politischen Kommunikation 4), Göttingen 2009. C. Michels, Expansion und Transformation? Zur Einordnung der Städtgründungen der Könige Bithyniens, in E. Winter – K. Zimmermann (Hrsgg.), Neue Funde und Forschungen in Bithynien (Asia Minor Studien 69), Bonn 2013, pp. 5-31. C. Michels, The Spread of Polis Institutions in Hellenistic Cappadocia and the Peer Polity Interaction Model, in E. Stavrianopoulou (ed.), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images (Mnemosyne Supplements 363), Leiden – Boston 2013, pp. 283-307. C. Michels, Überlegungen zur Ikonographie der Bronzemünzen Prusias’ I. und II. von Bithynien, in A. Lichtenberger – K. Martin – H.-H. Nieswandt – D. Salzmann (Hrsgg.), BildWert. Nominalspezifische Kommunikationsstrategien in der Münzprägung hellenistischer Herrscher, Bonn 2014 (Euros 2), pp. 225-246. C. Michels, Die Kleinkönigreiche Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien, in K. Ehling – G. Weber (Hrsgg.), Hellenistische Königreiche, Darmstadt 2014, pp. 135-140. L. Migeotte, L’emprunt dans les cites greques. Recuil del documents et analyse critique, Québec – Paris 1984. G. Mihailov, The Thrace before the Persian Entry into Europe, CAH2 III.2 (1991), pp. 591-618. F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World and the East. Volume I. The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution, Chapel Hill – London 2002. S. Mitchell, Anatolia. Land Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. Volume I. The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of the Roman Rule, Oxford 1993. S. Mitchell, The Galatians: Representation and Reality, in ERSKINE 2003, pp. 280-293. L. Mooren, The Nature of the Hellenistic Monarchy, in E. van’t Dack – P. van Dessel – W. van Gucht (eds.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World. Procidings of the International Colloquium, Luven 24-26 May 1982, Lovanii 1983, pp. 205-240. P. Moreno, Scultura ellenistica I, Roma 1994.

222 MORENO 2008

ELOISA PAGANONI

A. Moreno, Hieron: the Ancient Sanctuary at the Mouth of the Black Sea, «Hesperia» 77 (2008), pp. 655-709. L. Morgan, Bithynia: Poets, Provinces and Clients, in T. Kaizer MORGAN 2010 – M. Facella (eds.), Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East (Oriens et Occidens 19), Stuttgart 2010, pp. 125-135. J. Morgan, At Home with Royalty: Re-Viewing the Hellenistic MORGAN 2017 ‘Palace’, in A. Erskine – L. Llewellyn-Jones Lloyd – S. Wallace (eds.), The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra, London 2017, pp. 31-67. O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage. From the Accession MØRKHOLM 1991 of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea, 316-188 BC, Cambridge 1991. F. Muccioli, ‘Il re dell’Asia’: ideologia e propaganda da AlesMUCCIOLI 2004 sandro Magno a Mitridate VI, «Simblos» 4 (2004), pp. 105-158. F. Muccioli, Gli epiteti ufficiali in età ellenistica (Historia EinMUCCIOLI 2013 zelschriften 224), Stuttgart 2013. J. Muir, Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World, London – MUIR 2009 New York 2009. D. Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Historien MÜLLER 1997 Herodots. Kleinasien, Tübingen 1997. D. Musti, I Nikephoria e il ruolo panellenico di Pergamo, RIFC MUSTI 1998 126 (1998), pp. 5-40 in D. Musti, Nike. Ideologia, iconografia e feste della vittoria in età antica, Roma 2005, pp. 45-91. D. Musti, Un bilancio sulla questione dei Nikephoria di PergaMUSTI 2000 mo, RFIC 128 (2000), pp. 257-298. NACHTERGAEL 1977 G. Nachtergael, Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes. Recherches d’histoire et d’épigraphie hellenistique, Bruxelles 1977. P. Nadig, Ptolemy II Philadelphos, EAH (2013), pp. 5631-5634. NADIG 2013 R. Naumann, Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi, Berlin 1979. NAUMANN 1979 K. Nawotka, The Western Pontic Cities, Amstedam 1997. NAWOTKA 1997 R. Neudecker, Doidalses, DNP 3 (1997), col. 729. NEUDECKER 1997 E. T. Newell, Royal Greek Portrait Coins, New York 1937. NEWELL 1937 W. P. Newskaja, Byzanz in der klassischen und hellenistischen NEWSKAJA 1955 Epoche, Leipzig 1955. B. G. Niebuhr, Historischer Gewinn aus der armenischen ÜberNIEBUHR 1828 setzung der Chronik des Eusebius, in Kleine historische und philologische Schriften. Band 1, Bonn 1828, pp. 179-304. B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen StaaNIESE 1899 ten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea. 2. Teil. Vom Jahre 281 v. Chr. Bis zur Begründung der römischen Hegemonie im griechischen Osten 188 v. Chr., Gotha 1899. B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen StaaNIESE 1903

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

ten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea. 3. Teil. Von 188 bis 120 v. Chr., Gotha 1903. NIEWÖHNER 2007 P. Niewöhner, Aizanoi, Dokimion und Anatolien (Archäologische Forschungen 23), Wiesbaden 2007. NOLTE 1861 K. A. E. Nolte, De rebus gestis regum Bithynorum usque ad Prusiae I mortem, Dissertation, Halis Saxonum 1861. O’NEIL 2008 J. L. O’Neil, A Re-Examination of the Chremonidean War, in P. McKechnie – P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World (Mnemosyne Supplements 300), Leiden – Boston 2008 , pp. 65-89. OBERHUMMER 1897 E. Oberhummer, Bithyas¸ RE 3 (1897), col. 507. OBERHUMMER 1897a E. Oberhummer, Bithynion, RE 3 (1897), col. 452. OBERHUMMER 1936 E. Oberhummer, Thynias (1), RE 6 (1936), coll. 717-718. OBERHUMMER 1948 E. Oberhummer, Tyle, RE 7 A (1948), col. 1712. OGDEN 1999 D. Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death. The Hellenistic Dynasties, London 1999. OLSHAUSEN 1978 E. Olshausen, Pontos, RE Suppl. 15, 1978, coll. 396-442. OLSHAUSEN 2000 E. Olshausen, Phryges, Phrygia, DNP 9 (2000), coll. 965-967. ORTH 1993 W. Orth, Die Diadochenzeit im Spiegel der historischen Geographie. Kommentar zu TAVO-Karte B V 2 “Diadochenreiche (um 303 v. Chr.)”, Wiesbaden 1993. OTTO 1912 W. Otto, Hermogenes aus Aspendos, RE 8 (1912), coll 862-863. OTTO 1931 W. Otto, Zu den Syrischen Kriegen der Ptolemäer, «Philologus» 86 (1931), pp. 400-418. ÖZDOĞAN 2011 M. Özdoğan, Eastern Thrace: the Contact Zone between Anatolia and the Balkans, in S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10.000-323 B.C.E., Oxford – New York 2011, pp. 657-682. ÖZLEM-AYTAÇLAR P. Özlem-Aytaçlar, An Onomastic Survey of the Indigenous 2010 Population of North-Western Asia Minor, in R. W. V. Catling – F. Marchand (eds), Onomatologos. Studies in Greek Personal Names presented to Elaine Matthews, Oxford 2010, pp. 506529. ÖZTÜRK 2013 B. Öztürk, The History of Tieion/Tios (Eastern Bithynia) in the Light of Inscriptions, in M. Manoledakis (ed.), Exploring the Hospitable Sea (BAR International Series 2498), Oxford 2013, pp. 147-164. PAGANONI 2015 E. Paganoni, Bithynia in Memnon’s Perì Herakleias. A Case Study for the Reappraisal of Old and New Proposals, AHB 29 (2015) [2016], pp. 57-79. PAGANONI 2016 E. Paganoni, Bithyniaka. Lost Memories, «Politica Antica» 6 (2016), pp. 83-98.

224 PAGANONI 2019

ELOISA PAGANONI

E. Paganoni, Bitinia e Paflagonia tra Alessandro e i Diadochi (334-301), in L. Prandi (a cura di), EstOvest. Confini e conflitti fra Vicino Oriente e mondo Greco-romano (Monografie del Centro Ricerche di Documentazione sull’Antichità Classica 47), Roma 2019, pp. 137-167. PAGANONI forth. E. Paganoni, Finding a Place in the World. The Thracian Presence in the Propontic Peninsula through the Lens of the Myth, «Politica Antica» 9 (2019), forthcoming. PANICHI 2018 S. Panichi, La Cappadocia ellenistica sotto gli Ariaratidi ca. 250-100 a.C. (Biblioteca di Geographia Antiqua 5), Firenze 2018. PAPADOUPULOS 1865 C. Papadoupulos, Αρχαιολογικα, «Pandora» 16 (1865), pp. 372375. PAPAZOGLOU 1997 F. Papazoglou, Laoi et paroikoi. Recherches sur la structure de la société hellénistique, Beograd 1997. PARADISO 2007 A. Paradiso, Sur la servitude volontaire des Mariandyniens d’Héraclée du Pont, in A. Serdghidou (ed.), Fear of Slaves – Fear of Enslavement in the Ancient Mediterranean. Peur de l’esclave – peur de l’esclavage en Méditerranée ancienne. Discours, représentations, pratiques, Besançon 2007, pp. 23-33. PARKE 1982 H. W. Parke, The Attribution of the Oracle in Zosimus, New History 2.37, CQ 32 (1982), pp. 441-444. PASCHIDIS P. Paschidis, Φίλοι and φιλία between Poleis and Kings in the Hellenistic Period, in M. Mari – J. Thornton (a cura di), Parole in movimento. Linguaggio politico e lessico storiografico nel mondo ellenistico (Studi Ellenistici 27), Pisa – Roma 2013, pp. 283-298. PASCHOUD 2000 F. Paschoud (éd.), Zosime. Histoire Nouvelle. Tome I. Livres III. Nouvelle édition, Paris 2000. PATON 1922 W. R. Paton (ed.), Polybius. The Histories. Vol. II, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1922. PATON 1926 W. R. Paton (ed.), Polybius. The Histories. Vol. V, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 1926. PAUL 2013 S. Paul, Cultes and sanctuaries de l’île de Cos (Kernos Supplément 28), Liège 2013. PEEK 1938 W. Peek, Metrische Inschriften, in J. F. Crome (Hrsg.), Mnemosynon Theodor Wiegand, Münich 1938, pp. 14-42. PEEK 1955 W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften. Band I. Grab-Epigramme, Berlin 1955. PEEK 1960 W. Peek, Griechische Grabgedichte, Berlin 1960. PERL 1968 G. Perl, Zur Chronologie der Königreiche Bithynia, Pontos und

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PERLMAN 2000 PERÒ 2013

PERROT – GUILLAUME 1872 PESCHLOW – et al. 2002

PETKOVIĆ 2009 PETKOVIĆ 2012

PFUHL 1932 PFUHL 1933 PFUHL – MÖBIUS 1977-1979 PHILIPP 1987 PIEJKO 1988 PIEJKO 1988a

PIRAINO 1955 PIRSON 2014 POLLAK 1970 POSAMENTIR – WÖRRLE 2006 POTTER 2007

225

Bosporos, in H. Harmatta (Hrsg.), Studien zur Geschichte und Philosophie des Altertums, Amsterdam 1968, pp. 299-331 P. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece. The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese (Hypomnemata 121), Göttingen 2000. A. Però, Nikaia di Bitinia: tradizioni di fondazione nella documentazione letteraria, epigrafica e monetale, in L. Travaini – G. Arrigoni (a cura di), Polis, urbs, civitas. Moneta e identità. Atti del convegno di studio del Lexicon iconographicum numismaticae (Milano 25 ottobre 2012), Roma 2013, pp. 139-150. G. Perrot – E. Guillaume, Exploration archéologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie, d’une partie de la Mysie, de la Phrygie, de la Cappadoce et du Pont. Tome premier, Paris 1872. U. Peschlow – A. Peschlow-Bindokat – M. Wörrle, Die Sammlung Turan Beler in Kumbaba bei Şile (II). Antike und Byzantinische Denkmäler von der bithynischen Schwartzmeerküste, MDAI(I) 52 (2002), pp. 429-522. Ž. Petković, Mithridates II and Antiochos Hierax, «Klio» 91 (2009), pp. 378-383. Ž. Petković, The Aftermath of the Apamean Settlement. Early Challenges to the New Order in Asia Minor, «Klio» 94 (2012), pp. 357-365. E. Pfuhl, Zwei Kriegergrabmäler (zu Xenophons Hippischen Schriften), AA (1932), coll. 1-7. E. Pfuhl, Zur Grabstein des Bithynien Menas, AA (1933), coll. 751-754. E. Pfuhl – H. Möbius, Die Ostgriechischen Grabreliefs, Mainz am Rhein 1977-1979. H. Philipp, Eine hellenistische Satyrstatuette aus Izmit (Nikomedia), AA (1987), pp. 131-143. F. Piejko, The Athamanian Recognition of the Asylia of Teos, «Epigraphica» 50 (1988), pp. 41-46. F. Piejko, Letter of Eumenes II to Tralles concerning Inviolability and Tax Exemption for the Temple. After 188 B.C., «Chiron» 18 (1988), pp. 55-69. M.T. Piraino, La pace di Fenice, RFIC 32 (1955), pp. 57-73. F. Pirson, Ansichten des Krieges. Kampfreliefs klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit im Kulturvergleich, Wiesbaden 2014. P. Pollak, A Bithynian Hoard of the First Century B.C., ANSMusN 16 (1970), pp. 45-56. R. Posamentir – Wörrle, Der Zeustempel von Aizanoi. Ein Großbau flavischer Zeit, MDAI(I) 56 (2006), pp. 227-246. D. Potter, The Identities of Lykia, in H. Elton – G. Reger (eds),

226

POUILLOUX – JACQUEMIN 1999 POVALAHEV 2011

PRÊTEUX 2005 PREUNER 1921 PRIMO 2002 PRIMO 2004 PRIMO 2009 PSOMA 2013

PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968 RADET 1893 RADT 1999 RADT 2008 RAGONE 2003

RAMSEY 2016

REDGATE 1998 REGER 2007

ELOISA PAGANONI

Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Bordeaux 2007, pp. 81-88. J. Pouilloux – A. Jacquemin (édd.), Pausanias. Description de la Grèce. Tome V. Livre V. L’Élide, Paris 1999. N. Povalahev, Eine Bauinschrift aus Phanagoreia von 220/1 n. Chr. und ihr historischer Hintergrund: Text und Kommentar, ZPE 177 (2011), pp. 141-156. F. Prêteux, Priapos Bébrykès dans la Propontide et les Détroits: succès d’un mythe local, REG 118 (2005), pp. 246-265. E. Preuner, Aus alten Papieren, MDAI(A) 46 (1921), pp. 1-26. A. Primo, La satrapia di Dascilio tra Farnabazo e Ariobarzane, SCO 48 (2002), pp. 424-430. A. Primo, La dinastia dei Mitridatidi del Ponto dalle origini a Mitridate Eupatore, PhD Dissertation, Università di Pisa 2004. A. Primo, Antioco Ierace «ucciso dai Galli»? Nota su Trog. Prol. XXVII, RCCM 51 (2009), pp. 541-546. S. Psoma, War or Trade? Attic-Weight Tetradrachms from Second-Century BC Attalid Asia Minor in Seleucid Syria after the Peace of Apamea and Their Historical Context, in P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations, and the State, Oxford 2013, pp. 255-300. G. Pugliese Carratelli, Supplemento epigrafico di Iaso, ASAA 45-46 (1967-1968), pp. 437-486. G. A. Radet, La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades (687-546), Paris 1893. W. Radt, Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole, Darmstadt 1999. S. Radt, Strabon Geographika. Band 7. Buch IX-XIII: Kommentar, Göttingen 2008. G. Ragone, Aristonico tra Kyme e Cuma (Ps.-Symn. vv. 236253; Aug. De civ. Dei III 11), «Studi Ellenistici» 15 (2003), pp. 25-113. G. Ramsey, The Diplomacy of Seleukid Women: Apama and Stratonike, in A. Coșkun – A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women. Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire (Historia Einzelschriften 240), Stuttgart 2016, pp. 87-104. A. E. Redgate, The Armenians, Oxford 1998. G. Reger, Karia. A Case Study, in H. Elton – G. Reger (eds.), Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Bordeaux 2007, pp. 89-96.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

REINACH 1888 REINACH 1902 RENFREW 1986

REYNOLDS 1973

RHODES – LEWIS 1997 RIGSBY 1996 RIGSBY 2004

ROBERT 1934 ROBERT 1934a ROBERT 1937 ROBERT 1939 ROBERT 1949 ROBERT 1958

ROBERT 1978 ROBERT 1980

ROBU 2012

ROBU 2014 ROBU 2014a

227

T. Reinach, Trois royaumes de l’Asie Mineure. Cappadoce, Bithynie, Pont, Paris 1888. T. Reinach, L’histoire par les monnaies. Essais de numismatique ancienne, Paris 1902. C. Renfrew, Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and SocioPolitical Change, in C. Renfrew – J. F. Cherry (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, Cambridge 1986, pp. 1-18. J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias: A Free and Federate City, in Akten des VI Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (Vestigia 17), München 1973, pp. 115-122. P. J. Rhodes – M. Lewis, The Decrees of the Greek States, Oxford 1997. K. J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1996. K. J. Rigsby, Theoroi for the Koan Asklepeia, in K. Höghammar (ed.), The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture (Boreas 28), Uppsala 2004, pp. 9-14. L. Robert, Hellenistica, REA 36 (1934), pp. 521-526. L. Robert, Études d’épigraphie grecque, RPh 60 (1934), pp. 267-292. L. Robert, Études anatoliennes. Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure, Amsterdam 1937. L. Robert, Hellenica, RPh 65 (1939), pp. 97-217. L. Robert, Inscriptions de la region de Yalova en Bithynie, in Hellenica VII (1949), pp. 30-44. L. Robert, Reliefs votifs et cultes d’Anatolie, «Anatolia» 3 (1958), pp. 103-136 = in Robert, Opera Minora Selecta I, Amserdam 1969, pp. 402-435. L. Robert, Documents d’Asie Mineure, BCH 102 (1978), pp. 395-543. L. Robert, A travers l’Asie Mineure. Poètes et prosateures, monnaies grecques, voyageurs et géographie (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 239), Paris 1980. A. Robu, Les établissements mégariens de la Propontide et du Pont-Euxin: réseaux, solidarités et liens institutionnels, «Pallas» 89 (2012), pp. 181-195. A. Robu, Mégare et les établissement mégariens de Sicile, de la Propontide et du Pont Euxin. Histore et istitutions, Berne 2014. A. Robu, Byzance et Chalcédoine à l’époque hellénistique: entre alliance et rivalités, in V. Cojocaru – A. Coşcun – M. Dana (eds.), Interconnectivity in the Mediterranean and Pontic

228

ROBU 2014b

ROELENS-FLOUNEAU 2018 ROLLER 2011

ROSTOVTZEFF 1941 RUGE 1897 RUGE 1910 RUGE 1919 RUGE 1921 RUGE 1921a RUGE 1922 RUGE 1927 RUGE 1933 RUGE 1936 RUGE 1936a RUGE 1936b RUGE 1937 RUGE 1941 RUSSELL 2017 ȘAHIN 1984 ŞAHIN 1986 SAMS 2011

SANTI AMANTINI 1981

ELOISA PAGANONI

World during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Cluj-Napoca 2014, pp. 187-206. A. Robu, Les relations de Byzance avec les cités du Pont Gauche à l’époque hellénistique. La guerre pour l’emporion de Tomis, in V. Cojocaru – C. Schuler (Hrsgg.), Die Außenbeziehungen pontischer und kleinasiatischer Städte in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Stuttgart 2014, pp. 19-36. H. Roelens-Flouneau, Remarques sur la navigabilité des fleuves d’Asie Mineure dans l’Antiquité, in A. Dan – S. Lebreton (édd.), Études des fleuves d’Asie Mineure dans l’antiquité. Tome I, Arras 2018, pp. 251-317. L. E. Roller, Phrygian and the Phrygians, in S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, Oxford – New York 2011, pp. 560-578. M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols., Oxford 1941. W. Ruge, Bebrykes, RE 3 (1897), coll. 180-181. W. Ruge, Gallos (3), RE 7 (1910), col. 674. W. Ruge, Kalchedon, RE 10 (1919), coll. 1555-1559. W. Ruge, Kieros, RE 11 (1921), col. 380. W. Ruge, Kios, RE 11 (1921), coll. 486-488. W. Ruge, Krateia (2), RE 11 (1922), col. 1609. W. Ruge, Lypedros, RE 13 (1927), col. 2479. W. Ruge, Myrleia, RE 16 (1933), coll. 1104-1105. W. Ruge, Nikomedeia, RE 17 (1936), coll. 468-492. W. Ruge, Nikomedeion, RE 17 (1936), col. 492. W. Ruge, Nikaia (7), RE 17 (1936), coll. 226-243. W. Ruge, Tieion, RE 6 A (1937), coll. 856-862. W. Ruge, Phrygia, RE 20 (1941), coll. 781-868. T. Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus. A Historical Study from the Seventh Century BC until the Foundation of Constantinople, Oxford 2017. S. Șahin, Zwei Meilensteine aus der Gegend von Claudiopolis – Krateia, EA 3 (1984), pp. 101-104. S. Şahin, Strabon XII 3,7 p. 543. Der Fluss Gallos, die Stadt More in Phrygia und die Schiffbarkeit des Sangarios, EA 7 (1986), pp. 125-152. G. K. Sams, Anatolia: the First Millennium B.C.E. in Historical Context, in S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, Oxford – New York 2011, pp. 604-622. L. Santi Amantini (a cura di), Giustino. Storie filippiche. Epitome da Pompeo Trogo, Milano 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SAPRYKIN 1997 SARTRE 1995 SARTRE 2003 SAVALLI-LESTRADE 1998 SAVALLI-LESTRADE 2018 SCHALLES 1985

SCHAMP 1987 SCHEER 1993 SCHEER 2003 SCHEER 2010

SCHEER 2011

SCHMITT 1964 SCHNEIDER 1967-1969 SCHOCH 1924 SCHOLTEN 2007 SCHOLTEN 2013 SCHOLZ 2015 SCHÖNERT-GEISS 1978

229

S. J. Saprykin, Herakleia Pontica and Tauric Chersonesus before Roman Domination. VI-I centuries B.C., Amsterdam 1997. M. Sartre, L’Asie Mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Dioclétien (IVe s. av. J.-C. / IIIe s. ap. J.-C.), Paris 1995. M. Sartre, L’Anatolie hellénistique de l’Égée au Caucase, Paris 2003. I. Savalli-Lestrade, Les philoi royaux dans l’Asie Mineure, Genève 1998. I. Savalli-Lestrade, Nouvelles considérations sur le dossier épigraphique de Toriaion (SEG 47.1745; I. Sultan Dağı I, 393), ZPE 205 (2018), pp. 165-177. H.-J. Schalles, Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der pergamenischen Herrscher im dritten Jahrhundert vor Christus, Tübingen 1985. J. Schamp, Photios historien des lettres. La Bibliothèque et ses notices biographiques, Paris 1987. T. S. Scheer, Mythische Vorväter. Zur Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstverständnis kleinasiatischer Städte (Münchener Arbeiten zur alten Geschichte 7), München 1993. T. S. Scheer, The Past in a Hellenistic Present: Myth and Local Tradition, in ERSKINE 2003, pp. 216-231. T. S. Scheer, “They that Held Arkadia”. Arcadian Foundation Myths as Intentional History in Roman Imperial Times, in L. Foxhall – H.-J. Gehrke – N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 275-298. T. S. Scheer, Ways of Becoming Arcadian. Arcadian Foundation Myths in the Mediterranean, in E. S. Gruen (ed.), Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, Los Angeles 2011, pp. 11-25. O. Schmitt, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Grossen und seiner Zeit (Historia Einzelschriften 6), Wiesbaden 1964. C. Schneider, Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus, 2 vols., München 1967-1969. P. Schoch, Cauaros, RE Suppl. 4 (1924), coll. 881-882. J. B. Scholten, Building Hellenistic Bithynia, in H. Elton – G. Reger (eds.), Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Bordeaux 2007, pp. 17-24. J. Scholten, Prusa, EAH (2013), pp. 5609-5610. P. Scholz, Der Hellenismus. Der Hof und die Welt, München 2015. E. Schönert-Geiss, Bithynien, «Chiron» 8 (1978), pp. 607-654.

230 SCHOTTKY 1989

ELOISA PAGANONI

M. Schottky, Media Atropatene und Gross-Armenien in hellenistischer Zeit, Bonn 1989. M. Schottky, Nikomedes (2), DNP 8 (2000), col. 930. SCHOTTKY 2000 M. Schottky, Samos, DNP 11 (2001), coll. 16-17. SCHOTTKY 2001 M. Schottky, Prusias (1), DNP 10 (2001), col. 491 SCHOTTKY 2001a M. Schottky, Doidalses, DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 944. SCHOTTKY 2002 M. Schottky, Bas, DNP 12.2 (2002), coll. 912-913. SCHOTTKY 2002a M. Schottky, Zipoites (1), DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 817. SCHOTTKY 2002b M. Schottky, Zipoites (2), DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 817. SCHOTTKY 2002c M. Schottky, Ziaelas, DNP 12.2 (2002), col. 795. SCHOTTKY 2002d M. Schottky, Zipoites (3), DNP 12.2 (2002), coll. 817-818. SCHOTTKY 2002e F. Schroeter (ed.), De regum hellenisticorum epistulis in lapidiSCHROETER 1931 bus servatis quaestiones stilisticae, Lipsiae 1931. C. Schuler, Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistiSCHULER 1998 schen und römischen Kleinasien (Vestigia 50), München 1998. SCHWERTHEIM 1988 E. Schwertheim, Studien zur historischen Geographie Mysiens, EA 11 (1988), pp. 65-78. SCHWERTEIM 2000 E. Schwertheim, Mysia, DNP 8 (2000), coll. 608-610. M. Segre, Due nuovi testi storici, RFIC 60 (1932), pp. 446-461. SEGRE 1932 J. Seibert, Historische Beiträge zu dynastischen Verbindungen SEIBERT 1967 in hellenistischer Zeit (Historia Einzelschriften 10), Wiesbaden 1967. J. Seibert, Hannibal, Darmstadt 1993. SEIBERT 1993 N. V. Sekunda, Persian Settlement in Hellespontine Phrygia, in SEKUNDA 1988 A. Kuhrt – H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory, Leiden 1988, pp. 175-196. M. Sève, Cyzique et les Attalides, in M. Sève – P. Schlosser SÈVE 2014 (édd.), Cyzique, cité majeure et méconnue de la Propontide antique, Metz 2014, pp. 151-165. E. Sevrugian, ΒΑΣΥΛΕΥΣ ΒΙΘΥΝΩΝ ΖΙΑΗΛΑΣ. König der BiSEVRUGIAN 1973 thynien Ziaelas, GNS 90 (1973), pp. 33-41. S. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos. An Historical Study from DoSHERWIN-WHITE 1 978 rian Settlement to the Imperial Period (Hypomnemata 51), Göttingen 1978. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 168 SHERWIN-WHITE 1984 B.C. to A.D. 1, London 1984. S. Sherwin-White – A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis. A SHERWIN-WHITE – New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, London 1993. KUHRT 1993 G. Shipley, A History of Samos (800-188 BC), Oxford 1987. SHIPLEY 1987 G. Shipley, Pseudo-Skylax’s Periplous: the Circumnavigation of SHIPLEY 2011 the Inhabited World. Text, Translation and Commentary, Exeter 2011. H. Siegert, I Traci, Milano 1983. SIEGERT 1983

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SÖLCH 1925 SOMMER 1996 SPICKERMANN 2000 STADTER 1980 STÄHELIN 1907 STASSER 2015 STEWART 1993 STEWART 2014 STOYANOVA 2015 STROBEL 1991

STROBEL 1994

STROBEL 1994a

STROBEL 1996

STROBEL 1997 STROBEL 1997a STROBEL 1997b STROBEL 1997c STROBEL 1998 STROBEL 2000 STROBEL 2000a

231

J. Sölch, Bithynische Städte im Altertum, «Klio» 19 (1925), pp. 140-188. K. I. L. Sommer, Cius or Prusias?, «Numismatic Chronicle» 156 (1996), pp. 147-155. W. Spickermann, Ortiagon, DNP 9 (2000), col. 79. P. A. Stadter, Arrian of Nicomedia, Chapel Hill 1980. F. Stähelin, Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater, Leipzig 1907. T. Stasser, Apama III et IV reines de Bithynie et princesses de Syrie? Note de prosopographie séleucide, «Res Antiquae» 12 (2015), pp. 179-196. A. Stewart, Faces of Power. Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics, Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford 1993. A. Stewart, Art in the Hellenistic World. An Introduction, New York 2014. D. Stoyanova, Tomb Architecture, in J. Valeva – E. Nankov – D. Graninger (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Malden – Oxford 2015, pp. 158-179. K. Strobel, Die Galater im hellenistischen Kleinasien. Historische Aspekte einer keltischen Staatenbildung, in J. Seibert (Hrsg.), Hellenistische Studien. Gedenkschrift für Hermann Bengtson, München 1991, pp. 101-134. K. Strobel, Galatien und seine Grenzregionen. Zu Fragen der historische Geographie Galatiens, in E. Schwertheim (Hrsg.), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12), Bonn 1994, pp. 29-65. K. Strobel, Keltensieg und Galatersieger. Die Funktionalisierung eines historischen Phänomens als politischer Mythos der hellenistischen Welt, in E. Schwertheim (Hrsg.), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12), Bonn 1994, pp. 67-96. K. Strobel, Die Galater. Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien. Band 1. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Historischen Geographie des hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien I, Berlin 1996. K. Strobel, Bithynia, DNP 2 (1997), coll. 698-700. K. Strobel, Astakos (1), DNP 2 (1997), col. 116. K. Strobel, Galatica I. Beiträge zur historischen Geographie und Geschichte Ostgalatiens, OTerr 3 (1997), pp. 131-153. K. Strobel, Apameia (1), DNP 1 (1997), col. 824. K. Strobel, Gallos (1), DNP 4 (1998), col. 773. K. Strobel, Nikaia (5), DNP 8 (2000), coll. 895-896. K. Strobel, Nikomedeia, DNP 8 (2000), coll. 927-928.

232 STROBEL 2001 STROBEL 2002

STROBEL 2006

STROBEL 2007

STROBEL 2009

STROBEL – WIRBELAUER 1999 STRONK 1991 STRONK 1995 STROOTMAN 2005

STROOTMAN 2010 STROOTMAN 2013 STROOTMAN 2017

STYLIANOU 1994

ELOISA PAGANONI

K. Strobel, Prusias am Hypios, DNP 10 (2001), coll. 492-493. K. Strobel, State Formation by the Galatians of Asia Minor. Politico-Historical and Cultural Processes in Hellenistic Central Anatolia, «Anatolica» 28 (2002), pp. 1-46. K. Strobel, Galatien, die Galater und die Poleis der Galater: historische Identität und ethnische Tradition, «Eirene» 42 (2006), pp. 89-123 = in H. Birkhan (Hrsg.), Kelten-Einfälle an der Donau. Akten des Vierten Symposiums deutschsprachiger Keltologinnen und Keltologen. Philologische – Historische – Archäologische Evidenzen. Konrad Spindler (1939-2005) zum Gedenken. (Linz/Donau, 17.-21. Juli 2005), Wien 2007, pp. 529-548.. K. Strobel, Die Galater und die Galatien: historische Identität und ethnische Tradition im Imperium Romanum, «Klio» 89 (2007), pp. 356-402. K. Strobel, The Galatians in the Roman Empire: Historical Tradition and Ethnic Identity in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, in T. Derks – N. Roymans (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition (Archaeological Studies 13), Amsterdam 2009, pp. 117-144. K Strobel – E. Wirbelauer, Kalchedon, DNP 6 (1999), coll. 153155. J. P. Stronk, Conditions for Colonization: Calpe Limen and Salmydessos Recosidered, «Thracia Pontica» 4 (1991), pp. 97108. J. P. Stronk, The Ten Thousand in Thrace. An Archaeological and Historical Commentary on Xenophon’s Anabasis, Books VI.iii-iv – VII, Amsterdam 1995. R. Strootman, Kings against Celts. Deliverance from Barbarians as Theme in Hellenistic Propaganda, in K. A. E. Enenkel – I. L. Pfeijffer (eds.), The Manipulative Mode. Political Propaganda in Antiquity. A Collection of Case Studies (Mnemosyne Supplements 261), Leiden – Boston 2005, pp. 101-141. R. Strootman, Literature and the Kings, in J. J. Clauss – M. Cuypers (eds.), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, Malden (Mass.) 2010, pp. 30-45. R. Strootman, Antiochos I Soter, EAH (2013), pp. 473-475. R. Strootman, The Birdcage of the Muses. Patronage of the Arts and Sciences at the Ptolemaic Imeprial Court, 305-222 BCE (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 17), Peeters 2017. P. J. Stylianou, The Pax Macedonica and the Freedom of the Greeks of Asia (with an Appendix on the Chronology of the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SULLIVAN 1990 SYME 1995 TALBERT 2000 TALMAŢCHI 2016

TARN 1913 TARN 1953 THOMPSON 2011

THONEMANN 2013

THORNTON 2013

TOBER 2013

TOEPFFER 1896 TOMASCHITZ 2007

TOMASZ 2014 TRAINA 2017

TRAVERSARI 1993

233

Years 323-301), «Epetris tou Kentrou Epistemonikon Ereunon» 20 (1994), pp. 1-84. R. D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome. 100-30 B.C., Toronto 1990. R. Syme, Anatolica. Studies in Strabo, Oxford 1995. R. J. A. Talbert, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton 2000. G. Talmaţchi, The Coinage of Callatis in the Hellenistic Period Revisited, in A. Robu – I. Bîrzescu (édd.), Mégarika. Nouvelles recherches sur Mégare et les cités de la Propontide et du PontEuxin. Archéologie, épigraphie, histoire. Actes du colloque de Mangalia (8-12 juillet 2012), Paris 2016, pp. 439-449. W. W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, Oxford 1913. W. W. Tarn, The Heritage of Alexander, CAH1 VI (1953), pp. 461-504. D. J. Thompson, Slavery in the Hellenistic World, in K. Bradley – P. Cartledge (eds.), The Cambridge World History of Slavery. Volume 1. The Ancient Mediterranean World, Cambridge – New York 2011, pp. 194-213. P. Thonemann, The Attalid State, 188-133 BC, in P. Thonemann (ed.), Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations and State, Oxford 2013, pp. 1-47. J. Thornton, Oratory in Polybius’ Histories, in C. Kremmydas – K. Tempest (eds), Hellenistic Oratory. Continuity and Change, Oxford 2013, pp. 21-42. D. J. Tober, The Autobiographical Community: Local Historiography in Classical and Hellenistic Greece, PhD Dissertation, Princeton University 2013. J. Toepffer, Astakos, «Hermes» 31 (1896), pp. 124-136. K. Tomaschitz, Die Literarische Evidenz zu den Kelteneinfällen in frühhellenistischer Zeit, in H. Birkhan (Hrsg.), Kelten-Einfälle an der Donau. Akten des Vierten Symposiums deutschsprachiger Keltologinnen und Keltologen. Philologische – Historische – Archäologische Evidenzen. Konrad Spindler (1939-2005) zum Gedenken. (Linz/Donau, 17.-21. Juli 2005), Wien, pp. 559-571. G. Tomasz, The Cult of the Ptolemies in the Aegean in the 3rd Century BC, «Electrum» 21 (2014), pp. 21-41. G. Traina, Rois ou dynastes? Les territoires arméniens à l’époque d’Antiochos III, in C. Feyel – L. Graslin-Thomé (édd.), Antiochos III et l’Orient, Nancy 2017, pp. 373-384. G. Traversari, La Tyche di Prusias ad Hypium e la “scuola” microasiatica di Nicomedia, Roma 1993.

234 TREVES 1940 TREVES 1943 TROFIMOVA 2012 TSCHERIKOWER 1927 TSETSKHLADZE 1996

TSETSKHLADZE 1998 TSETSKHLADZE 1998a TSETSKHLADZE 2017

TSIAFAKI 2018

TUNA et al. 1998 ÜNVER 2016 VAGALINSKI 2010 VÉLISSAROPOULOS 1980 VERMULE 1970

ELOISA PAGANONI

P. Treves, Les documents apocryphes du Pro corona, LEC 9 (1940), pp. 138-174. P. Treves, Walbanks’ Philip V of Macedon, JHS 63 (1943), pp. 117-120. A. Trofimova, Imitatio Alexandri in the Hellenistic Art. Portraits of Alexander the Great and Mithyological Images (Studia Archeologica 187), Roma 2012. V. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Städtegründungen von Alexander dem Großen bis auf die Römerzeit (Philologus Supplementband 1), Leipzig 1927. G. R. Tsetskhladze, La colonizzazione greca nell’area del Ponto Eusino, in S. Settis (a cura di), I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, società. 2. Una storia greca. I. Formazione, Torino 1996, pp. 945-973. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Historia Einzelschriften 121), Stuttgart 1998. G. R. Tsetskhladze, Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models and Native Populations, in TSETSKHLADZE 1998, pp. 9-68. G. R. Tsetskhladze, Bridging East and West: Locals, Greeks and Achaemenids around the Black Sea, in L. Gallo – B. Genito (a cura di), «Grecità di frontiera». Frontiere geografiche e culturali nell’evidenza storica e archeologica (Studi di storia greca e romana 14), Alessandria 2017, pp. 27-44. D. Tsiafaki, Thracians and Greeks in North Aegean, in S. Gimatzidis Stefanos – M. Pieniazek Magda – S. Mangaloglu-Votruba Sila (eds.), Archaeology across Frontiers and Borderlands. Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Oriental and European Archaeology 9), Wien 2018, pp. 219-241. N. Tuna – Z. Aktüre – M. Lynch (eds.), Thracians and Phrygians. Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara 1998. G. Ünver, New Inscriptions from Ergili and Its Environs, «Cedrus» 4 (2016), pp. 299-302. L. Vagalinski (ed.), In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III C. BC), Sofia 2010. J. Vélissaropoulos, Les nauclères grecs. Recherches sur les institutions maritimes en Grèce et dans l’Orient hellenisé, Genève – Paris 1980. C. C. Vermule, Dated Monuments of Hellenistic and Graeco-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Roman Popular Art in Asia Minor: Pontus through Mysia, in G. G. Mitten – J. G. Pedley – J. A. Scott (eds.), Studies presented to George M. A. Hanfmann, Cambridge (Mass.) 1971, pp. 169176. P. Viereck – A. G. Roos (eds.), Appiani historia romana. Vol. VIERECK – ROOS 1962 I. Prooemium, Iberica, Annibaica, Lybica, Illyrica, Syriaca, Mithridatica, Fragmenta. Editio Stereotypa correctior addenda et corrigenda E. Gabba, Lipsiae 1962. VINOGRADOV 1999 J. Vinogradov, Der Staatsbesuch der ‘Isis’ im Bosporos, «Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia» 5 (1999), pp. 271302. B. Virgilio, Gli Attalidi di Pergamo. Fama, Eredità, Memoria VIRGILIO 1993 (Studi Ellenistici 5), Pisa 1993. B. Virgilio, Lancia, Diadema e Porpora. Il re e la regalità VIRGILIO 2003 ellenistica (Studi Ellenistici 14), Pisa 20032. G. Vitucci, Il regno di Bitinia, Roma 1953. VITUCCI 1953 H. Volkmann, Zipoites, DKP 5 (1979), coll. 1538-1539. VOLKMANN 1979 VON BREDOW 1999 I. von Bredow, Maidoi, DNP 7, 709-710. VON BREDOW 2002 I. von Bredow, Thynoi, DNP 12.1 (2002), coll. 524-525. VON BREDOW 2002a I. von Bredow, Thynia, DNP 12.1 (2002), col. 524. VON BREDOW 2002b I. von Bredow, Thynias, DNP 12.1 (2002), col. 524. VON BREDOW 2002c I. von Bredow, Tomi, DNP 12.1 (2002), coll. 672-673. VON HESBERG 2009 H. von Hesberg, Archäologische Charakteristika der Inschriftenträger staatlicher Urkunden. Einige Beispiele, in R. Haensch (Hrsg.), Selbstdarstellung und Kommunikation. Die Veröffentlichung staatlicher Urkunden auf Stein und Bronze in der römischen Welt (Vestigia 61), München 2009, pp. 19-56. N. Vulić, Istros, RE 9 (1916), coll. 2268-2269. VULIĆ 1916 N. Vulić, Kallatis, RE 10 (1919), coll. 1610-1612. VULIĆ 1919 W. H. Waddington – E. Babelon – T. Reinach, Recueil général WADDINGTON et al. 1908 des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Tome premier. Deuxième fascicule. Bithynie (jusqu’à Juliopolis), Paris 1908. W. H. Waddington – E. Babelon – T. Reinach, Recueil général WADDINGTON et al. 1912 des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Tome premier. Quatrième fascicule. Nicée et Nicomédie, Paris 1910. F. W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon, Cambridge 1940. WALBANK 1940 F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols., WALBANK 1957-1979 Oxford 1957-1979. F. W. Walbank, Sources for the Period, CAH2 VII.1 (1984), pp. WALBANK 1984 1-22. F. W. Walbank – C. Habicht (eds.), Polybius. The Histories. WALBANK – Books 16-27, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2012. HABICHT 2012 F. W. Walbank – C. Habicht – S. D. Olson (eds.), Polybius. The WALBANK –

236 HABICHT – OLSON 2012 WATERFIELD 2011 WATERFIELD 2014 WEBBER 2011 WEBER 1969 WEHRLY 1968 WEISKOPF 1989

WEISS 1984

WELLES 1970 WEST 2013 WESTERMARK 1961

WIEMER 2001

WIEMER 2002

WILCKEN 1894 WILHELM 1908 WILHELM 1909 WILL 1979 WILL 1982 WILL 1984 WILSON 1960

ELOISA PAGANONI

Histories. Books 28-39. Unattributed Fragments, Cambridge (Mass.) – London 2012. R. Waterfield, Dividing the Spoils. The War for Alexander the Great’s Empire, Oxford – New York 2011. R. Waterfield, Taken at the Flood. The Roman Conquest of the Greece, Oxford – New York 2014. C. Webber, The Gods of Battle. The Thracians at War. 1500 BCAD 150, Barnsley 2011. H. Weber, Der Zeus-Tempel von Aezani, ein Panhellenisches Heiligtum der Kaiserzeit, MDAI(A) 84 (1969), pp. 182-201. C. Wehrli, Antigone et Démétrios, Genève 1968. M. Weiskopf, The So-called “Great Satraps’ Revolt”, 366-360 B.C. Concerning Local Instability in the Achaemenid Far West (Historia Einzelschriften 63), Stuttgart 1989. P. Weiss, Lebendiger Mythos. Gründerheroen und städtische Gründungstraditionen im griechisch-römischen Osten, WJA 10 (1984), pp. 179-195. C. B. Welles, Gallic Mercenaries in the Chremonidean War, «Klio» 52 (1970), pp. 477-490. W. C. West, Mysia, EAH (2013), pp. 4664-4665. U. Westermark, Das Bildnis des Philetairos von Pergamon. Corpus der Münzprägung, Stockholm – Göteborg – Uppsala 1961. H.-U. Wiemer, Karien am vorabend des 2. machedonischen Krieges. Bemerkungen zu einer neuen Inschrift aus Bargylia, EA 33 (2001), pp. 1-14. H.-U. Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistischen Rhodos (Klio Beihefte 6), Berlin 2002. U. Wilcken, Apama, RE 1 (1894), coll. 2662-2663. A. Wilhelm, Eine Inschrift des Königs Epiphanes Nikomedes, JÖAI 11 (1908), pp. 75-82. A. Wilhelm, Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Wien 1909. E. Will, Histoire politique du monde Hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C.). Tome I. De la mort d’Alexandre aux avènements d’Antiochos III et de Philippe V, Nancy 19792. E. Will, Histoire politique du monde Hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C.). Tome II. Des avènements d’Antiochos III et Philippe V a la fin des Lagides, Nancy 19822. E. Will, The Formation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, CAH2 VII.1, pp. 101-117. D. R. Wilson, The Historical Geography of Bithynia, Paphlagonia

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WILSON 1992 WÖRRLE 1980 WÖRRLE 2009 YARROW 2006 YAVUZ 2010 ZAGDOUN 2008

ZAHARIADE 2013 ZECCHINI 2003

ZIEGLER 1936

237

and Pontus. A New Survey with Particular Reference to Surface Remains still Visible, PhD Dissertation, University of Oxford 1960. N. G. Wilson (a cura di), Fozio. Biblioteca, Milano 1992. M. Wörrle, Telmessos in Hellenistischer Zeit, in Actes du colloque sur la Lycie antique, Paris 1980, pp. 63-72. M. Wörrle, Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi V: Aizanoi und Rom I, «Chiron» 39 (2009), pp. 409-444. L. M. Yarrow, Historiography at the End of the Republic. Provincial Perspectives on Roman Rule, Oxford 2006. M. F. Yavuz, Bithynia, Kingdom of, in M. Gagarin (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, vol. 2, Oxford 2010, pp. 9-11. A.-M. Zagdoun, La version pergameniénne de la legend de Télèphe, in M. Kohl (éd.), Pergame. Histoire et archéologie d’un centre urbain depuis ses origines jusqu’à la fin de l’antiquité. Paris 2008, pp. 189-203. M. Zahariade, Thracia, EAH (2013), pp. 6729-6730. G. Zecchini, Polibio e la tradizione orale, in A. Casanova – P. Desideri (a cura di), Evento, racconto, scrittura nell’antichità classica, Firenze 2003, pp. 123-141 = in G. Zecchini, Polibio. La solitudine dello storico, Roma 2018, pp. 13-29. K. Ziegler, Thynias (2), RE 6 A (1936), coll. 718-720.

KINGS OF BITHYNIA

Zipoites (227-279 BC) Nicomedes I (279-c. 250 BC) Ziaelas (c. 250-229 BC) Prusias I (229-182 BC) Prusias II (182-149 BC) Nicomedes II (149-127 BC) Nicomedes III (127-94 BC) Nicomedes IV (94-74 BC)

TABLES

Table 1. Genealogy of the Bithynian dynasty down to Prusias I.

Table 2. The Propontic area in 500 BC.

Table 3. The expansion of Bithynia under Zipoites.

Table 4. The kingdom of Bithynia in 279-229 BC.

Table 5. The kingdom of Bithynia in 229-186 BC.

Table 6. The kingdom of Bithynia in 182 BC.

INDEX

PERSON NAMES

Achaeus: 99-100, 102-103, 105, 108109, 112, 122, 124, 130-131 Adroates: 77 Alcibiades: 15 Alexander II of Epirus: 174 Alexander Polyhistor: XIII Alexander the Great: X, 4, 8, 23-25, 37, 43-44, 86, 151 Alyattes: 6, 10 Amastris: 31, 49, Amynander: 175-177 Andormachus: 105 Antigonus I Monophthalmus: 25, 27-30, 32, 34, 42-43, 68, 151-152 Antigonus II Gonatas: 46-48, 54-55, 6970, 76-80, 101, 174 Antigonus III Doson: 97 Antiochis, daughter of Antiochus III: 123 Antiochis, daughter of Seleucus II: 127 Antiochus Hierax: 77, 80, 88-94, 96, 100, 126-127 Antiochus I: 35-36, 41, 43-49, 51, 5355, 57-60, 65, 68-70, 77, 95-96, 126, 151-152 Antiochus II: 79-81, 126-127 Antiochus III: IX, 100, 112, 120-124, 126?; 127-130, 132, 137, 140, 149, 153, 163 Antipater: 55 Apama, daughter of Antiochus I: 126 Apama, daughter of Antiochus II: 126 Apama, wife of Demetrius II: 126 Apama, wife of Prusias I: 116-119, 125128 Apama, wife of Prusias II: 118-119, 125126, 128, 183-184

Apama, wife of Seleucus I: 125 Aphrodite: 62-63 Apollo: 66, 144 Apollonis: 134-135, 179, 181 Appian: X, 1, 5-7, 20, 125, 137, 160 Ariamenes: 90-91 Ariarathes II: 77 Ariarathes III: 91 Ariarathes IV: 123 Ariobarzanes: 53, 56 Aristolochus son of Smenodron: 176 Aristolochus: 173-174, 176 Ariston son of Eus(…): 166 Arrian of Nicomedia: XIII, 3-6, 59, 75, 85, 133 Arsames: 91-93 Artemis: 65-66 Asclepiades of Myrlea: XIII, 62 Asclepiades son of Archestratus: 169 Asclepius: 81, 173-174, 176 Athena: 65-66, 99, 143-144, 161 – Nikēphoros: 65, 134, 179, 181-182 Athenaeus of Naucratis: 72-73 Athenaeus, brother of Eumenes II: 136, 181 Attalus I: 89-94, 97, 99-105, 108-112, 114, 123-124, 130-131, 144, 185-189 Attalus II: 112, 134-135, 161, 181-182 Bas: 15, 19-20, 23-25, 30, 38, 43 151 Bendis: 65-66, 154 Bithynia, personification of: 65 Bithynus/Bithys: 5-6, 144, 154 Boteiras: 15, 19-20, 23 Caesarion: 184 Calas: 23-25, 37

252

ELOISA PAGANONI

Callimedes: 104 Cassander: 27 Cavarus: 98, 106-108 Chryseis: 97 Claudius: 118 Clearchus: 12, 50 Cleopatra VII: X, 118 Comontorius: 98 Consingi: 59 Croesus: 2, 10, 145 Cybele: 61 Cyrus: 10, 145, 158-161 Dapara: 179 Darius I: 10 Demarchus: 24-25 Demetrius II of Macedonia: 115, 126 Demetrius II of Syria: 126 Demetrius Poliorcetes: 29, 46, 126 Demetrius son of Demylus: 169 Democles: 54 Demosthenes of Bithynia: XIII, 62, 84 Dercylidas: 16 Dicearchus: 113 Dio Chrysostom: 64 Diodorus of Sicily: X, 10, 12-13, 25-27, 29-30, 37 Diogeitus: 173-174, 176 Diomedes: 5 Dionysius of Byzantium: 104, 116 Dionysius Periegetes: 19-20 Dionysius: 144 Ditizele: 59 Doidalses, sculptur: 63, 143 Doidalses: 11-12, 15, 19-20, 39 Domitian: 189 Eratosthenes: 5-6, 112 Ermophantus: 179 Etazeta: 76-78, 80 Eumenes I: 90 Eumenes II: 101, 122-123, 128-138, 140, 144, 152, 161, 178-182 Eumenes, governor of Heralcea: 49

Euphro: 73 Eusebius: 6, 60, 90-91, 94, 97, 132, 160 Eustathius: 85 Festus: 63 Flamininus, Titus Quinctius: 120, 137-138 Gelon of Syracuse: 97 Hadrian: 118, 170, 185-187, 189 Hannibal: 124, 132-133, 135, 137-138, 146 Harpalus: 24 Heracles Kallinikos: 117, 170 Heracles: 85-86, 144, 157, 171 Hermes: 144 Hermippus of Berytus: 116 Hermogenes of Aspendus: 35-37, 42, 45, 47 Herodotus: 1-2, 5-7, 10-11 Hieron of Syracuse: 97 Hieronymus: 60, 97 Homer: 5 Justin: X-XI, 34, 59, 85, 89-90, 84, 125 132-133, 138 Korylas: 18 Lamachus: 7 Laodice II: 97 Laodice III: 128 Leukius son of Serapion: 169 Livy: X, 52, 54-56, 111, 122-123, 132, 137-138, 161 Lonorius: 55 Lotarius: 55 Lymnaeus: 97 Lysandra: 75 Lysanias: 97 Lysimachus: 29, 30-37, 39-43, 49, 60, 65-66, 151, 160-162 Memnon of Heraclea: XIII, 11-15, 19,

INDEX PERSON NAMES

23-24, 31-37, 41, 45, 47, 49-53, 5557, 60, 69, 76-79, 139-140 Memnon of Rhodes: 23-24 Menas son of Bioeris: 40, 157-162 Menecrates of Tralles: XIII Menecrates, author of the On Nicaea: XIII, 62 Meniskos son of Ze(.)obrodis: 162-164 Meriones: 84 Meter Steunene: 189 Mithra: 175 Mithridates I: 48-49, 56 Mithridates II: 80, 91, 97, 99 Mithridates VI: IX, 39, 149 Molpagoras: 113-114 Moucaporis: 20 Myrlus: 118 Nepos: 137 Nicander of Chalcedon: XIII, 62 Nicomedes I: XII, 32-33, 36, 40, 42-43, 45-84, 86, 95-96, 102-103, 133, 141143, 146, 148, 152, 154, 171-173, 176, 178 Nicomedes II: 38, 41, 67, 118-119, 125, 128, 157, 165, 184 Nicomedes III: 38, 67, Nicomedes IV: 38, 81, 149 Nicomedes son of Aristander: 27-28, 152 Nike: 65 Ninus: 10 Olympichus, ruler of Alinda: 97 Ortiagon: 135, 179-180 Otys: 18 Patrocles: 35 Pausanias Periegetes: 32-33, 42, 54, 141142 Perseus: IX, 115, 125-126, 128 Pharnabazus: 15-17 Phila: 55 Philetaerus, brother of Eumenes II: 136

253

Philetaerus, founder of the Attalids: 49, 136, 144 Philip V: IX, 105, 110-117, 119, 123126, 128-129, 135-137, 143, 146, 149, 153, Philocles: 136-137 Photius: XIII, 15, 23, 36, 45-49, 51-53, 56-57, 69, 78 Phthia: 128 Phylarchus: 13-14, 93-94 Pliny: 2, 4-5, 59, 61-63, 119, 142, 146 Plutarch: 15, 29-31, 37, 137 Polemaeus: 25, 27, 29, 32, 37 Polyaenus: 12, 92, 160 Polybius: X, 97-104, 106-107, 109, 113115, 122, 130, 134, 136-137, 148 Pompeius: 63 Porphyry: 90-91 Praxiteles: 62 Prusias I: XII, 33, 63-64, 75, 85, 97-150, 157, 161-162, 164, 166, 169, 179183, 185-189 Prusias II: XIII, 20, 110, 112, 118-119, 125-126, 128 -129, 141, 143-144, 157, 166, 169, 171-172, 182-183184 Prusias Monodous: 75, 128, 133 Prusias, son of Nicomedes I (?): 75 Prusias son of Archedemus: 169 Pseudo Scylax: 8, 85 Pseudo Scymnus: 62 Ptolemy I: 65, 75 Ptolemy II: 69-70, 76, 78-81, 86, 95 Ptolemy III: 81, 86, 88-94, 97, 173-174, 177 Ptolemy IV: 105 Pyrrhus of Epirus: 128 Rhesus: 5-6 Samos: 77 Scipio, Lucius Cornelius: 121 Scipio, Publius Cornelius: 121 Sekoundus son Aramion: 169

254

ELOISA PAGANONI

Seleucus I: 31, 34-37, 39-41, 43, 46, 60, 125-126, 128, 151, 160, 162 Seleucus II: 88-89, 91-94, 96-97, 105, 126-127, 143, 174 Seleucus III: 100, 105 Septimius Saturninus: 185-187 Seuthes: 42 Socrates: 38 Stephanus of Byzantium: 10, 28, 61, 8485, 112, 117-118, 145-146 Strabo: 2, 8-9, 12-13, 115-118, 129-132, 144-146, 160 Stratonice daughter of Antiochus II: 126 Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes: 126 Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius II (?): 126 Sulla: 63 Telephus: 144 Theodorus: 175-177 Theopompus: 14 Theudotus: 173-174, 176 Thracia, personification of: 5, 144, 154

Thucydides: 7-8 Traian: 72 Trogus: X-XI, 46, 57, 89-90, 93-94, 125, 135 Xenophon: 4, 8, 15-17 Xerxes: 11 Zeus: 5, 32, 58, 61, 67, 134, 143-144, 154, 182, 185-189 – Conditor: 185-186 – Genethlios: 179, 181 – Nikēphoros: 144 – Ourios: 104 – Stratios: 63, 143 Ziaelas: XII, 67, 69, 75-96, 101-103, 116, 127, 148-149, 152-154, 172178, 182 Zipoites (I): XII, 19, 24-45, 51-53, 60, 64-65, 67-68, 71, 75, 82-83, 134, 139, 151-152, 154, 157, 160, 162 Zipoites (II), son of Zipoites (I): 48, 50, 52-53, 57-60, 78, 81, 95 Zipoites (III), son of Nicomedes I: 103, 105

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES Bithynia and Bithynians are not included

Abydos: 109 Aegean Sea: 2, 27, 62, 70, 87-88, 96, 99, 113, 142, 149, 153 Aegosagi: 108-110, 144, 152 Aenus: 136-137 Aeolis, Aeolians: 10, 108 Aetolians: 101, 110-117, 148 Aigospotamoi: 12 Aizanoi, modern Çavdarhisar, Aizanites: 130, 185-187, 189 Alaplı Çayı: 3, see also Cales Alexandira Troad: 109 Alinda: 97 Alyatta: 10 Amastris: 49, 51 Amphipolis: 2 Anatolia: 3, 9, 11, 17, 18, 43, 77, 95, 109, 148 Ancyra: 88-91 Angkore: 28, see also Helikore, Antigonea (Bithynia), Nicaea Antigonea near Dascylium: 28 Antiogonea: 28, 34, 42 Apamea (Bithynia): XIV, 39, 115-116, 118-119, 140, 142, 153 see also Myrlea Apamea (Phrygia): 121-123, 129-132, 180 Araxa: 180 Armadoerioi: 175 Armavir: 175 Armenia, Armenians: XI, 62, 76-77, 80, 91-93, 95-96, 124, 133, 175 Asia Minor: XII, 5-7, 11, 14, 24-25, 27, 29-30, 34-35, 39, 41, 43, 47, 57, 68, 70, 73, 88-89, 95-96, 100, 119-120,

123, 128-129, 148, 150, 151-155, 169, 180 Asia: IX, 1-6, 10-11, 13, 31, 36, 41, 4647, 50, 54-55, 57-58, 60, 62-63, 72, 88-89, 95, 97-98, 103, 105-106, 108, 109, 111-112, 122-124, 135, 137, 139, 149, 151-153, 179 Askania Lake: 3, 9, 28, 60, 131 Aspendus: 35 Astacus, Astacenians: 7, 9, 11-12, 13, 15, 26-28, 30-33, 37, 39, 42-43, 60-61, 147, 154 Athamanians: 175-176 Athens, Athenians: 8, 11-12, 15, 112 Atropatene: 100 Atussa: 142 Bactria: XI Balkans: 66 Bebrycia, Bebrycians: 4-7 Beykoz limanı: 20, see also Moucaporis, Gulf of Bithy(n)opolis: 141 Bithya: 5, 7 Bithynium: XIV, 39, 85, 138, 141-144, 147, 153-154, 168-169, see also Bolu, Claudiopolis, Black Sea: 2, 4, 7, 12, 28, 49, 69-70, 87, 96, 98, 104, 130, 140, 142 153, see also Euxine, Pontus, Pontic Sea Bolu: 168-169, see also Bithynium, Claudiopolis Bosporus: 3, 5, 7, 13-14, 20, 98, 104, 140 Bursa: 163, see also Prusa ad Olympum Byzantium, Byzantians: 1, 5,7-8, 10-15, 29-31, 48, 54-56, 61, 69, 72, 76, 79-

256

ELOISA PAGANONI

80, 84-85, 98-108, 111-112, 116-117, 119, 122, 127, 152 Cadi: 130 Cales, modern Alaplı Çayı: 3, 7-9, 50, 78-79 Callatis: 80 Calpe Harbour, modern Kirpe: 8, 16 Cappadocia: XI, 25, 44, 74, 77, 84, 9091, 123, 128, 143 Caria, Carians: 10, 17, 124, 179 Carthageneans: 110 Çavdarhisar: 184, see also Aizanoi Caÿster: 160 Celts: 98, 108 Chalcedon, Chalcedonians: XIII, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 19, 26-31, 48, 54, 56, 62, 65, 69, 104, 113-115 Chalybes: 10 Chersonesus: 55, 85 Chios: 115 Cierus: XIV, 37, 49-53, 56, 69, 72, 76, 85, 116-118, 139-142, 145, 153, see also Prusias ad Hypium Cihanköi: 157-158 Cilician Gates: 62 Cilicians: 10 Cimmerians: 6 Cius, Cians: XIV,4, 7, 9, 69, 76, 85, 113121, 123, 129, 133, 140, 142, 146, 149, 153, 157, 158, 167-168, 170171, 176, see also Prusias ad Mare Claudiopolis: 141, 168-169, see also Bithynium, Bolu Cnidus, Cnidians: 62-63 Colophonians: 118-119 Commagene: XI Cos, Coans: 27-28, 67-69, 72, 80-81, 83, 86-88, 147, 152-154, 172-176, 178 Cotiaeium: 130 Crateia: 84, 85, 130, see also Flaviopolis Cressa: 84-85 Cronia: 2

Curupedium: 34-35, 39-41, 60, 160-162, see also Cyrus, Plain of Cyrus, Plain of: 158-161, see also Curupedium Cyzicus: 13-14, 134-135 Dascylitis Lake: 13, see also Manyas Lake Dascylium: 11, 15, 18, 25, 28, 43, 151 Delos, Delians: 67-68, 136, 171-172 Delphi: 98, 101 Dorylaeium: 130 Egypt: IX-X, 68-69, 79, 86, 89-90, 96, 105, 159, 176-177, 180 Epirus: 128, 174, 176 Europe: 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 27, 47, 62, 106, 108-109, 123, 149, 151, 153 Euxine: 8, see also Black Sea, Pontus, Pontic Sea Flaviopolis: 84, see also Crateia Galatia, Galatians: 53-60, 68, 72-73, 7780, 86, 88-90, 93-95, 98, 101, 106108, 110, 113, 116, 119, 134-135, 139, 148, 152, 159, 179-183, see also Tolistobogi Gallograecia: 59 Gallos, modern Mudurnu Suyu: 9 Gauls: 55, see also Celts, Galatians Gerede: 84, see also Crateia, Flaviopolis Gökçe Suyu: 3, see also Rhebas Gökçesu: 9 Granicus: 23 Greece, Greeks: X, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 26-27, 50, 81, 87-88, 72, 98, 109-111, 151-152, 173, 176-177 Hacɪ Kebir: 186 Halizones: 5 Halys: 9-10 Helicore: 28, see also Angkore, Antigonea in Bithynia, Nicaea

INDEX GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

Hellespont: 55, 58, 79, 98, 109, 113, 117, 130 Heraclea Pontica, Heracleans: XIII, 3, 7-9, 12, 14, 31-32, 34-37, 43, 45-54, 56-58, 68-69, 72, 76, 78-81, 95, 132, 134, 139-141, 149, 152 Herculaneum: 63 Hermus: 160 Hieron: 103-105, 107, 127 Hittites: 10 Hypios: 49 Iasos: 97 Ilion: 5, see also Troy Ionia, Ionians: 10, 26, 108 Ipsus: 32 Issus: 24 Istanbul: 157 Istros: 80 Kandamɪş: 168 Kaskas: 10 Kirpe: 8, see also Calpe Harbour Ku(r)tluca: 6 Libyssa: 138 Lycia: 10, 17 Lydia, Lydians: 10, 25-26, 151 Lypedron, Λύ[π]εδρον: 41, 134, 182 Lyperos Mount: 41, 134, 182 Lysimachia: 47, 55, 113-114 Macedonia, Macedonians: X-XI, 23-24, 27, 36, 41, 47, 55, 68-69, 71, 79, 96, 103, 105, 125, 147-148, 175-176, 180, 182 Magnesia ad Sipylum: 90-91, 117, 124, 160-162 Maidoi: 3 Maidoibithynoi: 3 Malianda: 2 Mantinea: 141 Manyas Lake: 14 see also Dascylitis Lake

257

Mariandynians: 8-9, 10, 14 Maronea: 136-137 Mecestus: 108 Mediterranean Sea: IX-X Megarians: 7-11, 33 Mesopotamia: 92 Midaeium: 130 Moucaporis, Gulf of, modern Beykoz limanı: 20 Mudurnu Suyu: 9, see also Gallos Myrlaeum: 116 Myrlea: XII-XIV, 13, 62, 105, 115-119, 129, 131, 140, 142, 146, 149, 153 Mysia Olympene: 122-124, 129, 149, 153 Mysia, Mysians: 2, 4-8, 10, 17-18, 103, 107, 130-132, 140, 158, 161 Nacolia: 130 Naples: 63 Naucratis: 93 Nicaea: XIII-XIV, 34, 39-40, 42, 60, 62, 64, 158 Nicomedeion: 61 Nicomedia: XIII-XIV, 6, 26, 32-33, 39, 42, 60-67, 71, 73, 79-80, 87, 96, 105, 138, 140, 143-144, 146, 153, 165166, 176 Odrysians: 13 Olbia: 7, 61 Olympia: 32, 67-68 Olympus, Mount: 9, 122, 130, 133 Oreum: 111 Paeonians: 6 Pamphylians: 10 Paphlagonia, Paphlagonians: 8-10, 1718, 24-25, 44, 56, 59, 84-85 Parthia: XI Peloponnese: 176 Pergamum: X, 89-90, 92-93, 95, 97, 101, 109, 111-112, 119-120, 122-123,

258

ELOISA PAGANONI

129-133, 136, 140, 143-144, 148149, 153, 159, 161, 178, 181-183 Perinthus: 113 Persians: 16,-17, 19, 24 151, 160 Phalara: 110 Phalion: 29-30 Phoenice: 112 Phrygia, Phrygians: 6, 10, 17-18, 35, 59, 60, 85, 122 – Epiktētos, Epicteti: 8-9, 122, 124, 129-132, 138, 140, 149, 187 – Hellspontine: 8-9, 11, 18, 23-25, 28, 122, 124, 160 Phrygius: 158-161 Piraeus: 118, 184 Pontus, Pontic Sea: 3, 5, 8, see also Euxine, Black Sea Pontus: XI, 7-8, 23, 39, 44, 48-49, 56, 62, 74, 91, 95, 98, 103, 135, 140-143, 149 Propontis, Propontic peninsula: XIIIXIV, 1, 3-7, 18-12, 15, 16, 18, 20-21, 24, 26-28, 34-35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 50, 52, 55, 57-58, 68, 70, 73,79-81, 95, 96, 102, 108, 119, 121, 134, 151, 153, 155 Prusa ad Olympum: XIV, 33, 39, 115, 117, 133, 142-143-147, 153-154, 162-164, see also Bursa Prusias ad Hypium: XIV, 117-118, 142, 145, 153, see also Cierus Prusias ad Mare: XIV, 117-118, 140-142, 145, 153, 167-168, 170, see also Cius Pylai: XIV Rhebas, modern Gökçe Suyu: 3 Rhebas, modern Riva Deresi: 3 Rhodes, Rhodians: 24, 97-100, 102-103, 105-106, 108, 111-115, 119, 120-122, 178-179 Rhyndacus: 120, 122, 160 Riva Deresi: 3, see also Rhebas Rome, Romans: IX-XI, 63, 110, 112, 117, 119-122, 125-126, 129, 136-140, 148-149, 161, 181

Salmydessus: 2 Sangarius: 3, 4, 8-10, 50, 59, 62, 122 Sardis: 160 Sipylus: 160 Sopu Köy: 185 Spartans: 15 Stryma: 2, see also Strymon Strymon, modern Stryma: 1-2 Strymonis: 2 Susa: 125 Syria, Syrians: X-XI, 10, 90, 126, 176 Taurus: 10, 108 Telmessos, Telmessians: 133-136, 178182 Teucrians: Thasos: 113 Thessalis: 2 Thrace, Thracians: 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-14, 2931, 34, 58, 88, 90, 98, 106, 123, 136, 161 Thynian Thrace, Thynians: 2-10, 48, 50, 52, 151 Thynias region (in Europe): 2 Thynias, island of: 4, 8, 50 thynis gē: 37, 49-50-53, 72 Tios: 39, 49-52, 56, 116, 138-143 Tolostobogi: 77, 135, see also Galatians Tomis: 80-81 Toriaion: 227 Tralles: XIII Troad: 6, 24, 108-109 Troy: 6, see also Ilion Tylis: 98, 106, 108 Tyrus: 25 Vitosha Mountains: 2 Yalova: 4, 14, 151 Zeila, Zelites: 84 Zipoition: 41-42, 134

INDEX LOCORUM

LITERARY SOURCES Aelianus, V.H. I, 27: 18 Alexander Polyhistor, BNJ 273 FF 12-13: XIII F 125: XIII Ammianus Marcellinus XXII, 9, 4: 61 Appianus Maked. 4, 1: 124 Mithr. 1: 1, 4-5, 144 2: 2, 125 7: 61 Syr. 1: 123 5: 123 11: 137-138 23: 121 62: 160 Arrianus An. I, 29, 5: 1, 4, 8 I, 17, 1: 23 I, 17, 8: 24 Jacoby, FGrHist 156 F 1, 6: 24 FF 14-29: XIII F 17: 141 F 19: 61

F 28: 138 F 29: 59, 64, 75-76, 80, 133 FF 57-109: F 60: 6 F 63: 61 F 77a: 2-3, 8, 63 F 89b: 76, 85 F 97: 5 F 106: 85 Athenaeus I, 7d, 13: 72-73 IV, 144d, 25: 18 X, 415d, 8: 18 Bekker Anecdota 1181: 23 Cassiodorus III, 47, 5: 138 Cicero De div. II, 52: 133 Chronicon Paschale p. 328: 60-61 p. 432a: 97 Demosthenes BNJ 699 F 15, see Steph. Byz. s.v. Κρῆσσα De viris illustr. 42, 6: 138

260 51, 5: 138 Dionysius Periegetes 96: 20 Dionysius Byzantius 92: 104, 127 Dio Cassius XVII, 57, 58: 111 Dio Chrysostomus XLVII, 17: 64 Diodorus II, 2, 3: 10 XI, 2, 1: 11 XII, 82, 2: 13, 30 XIV, 38, 3: 1 XVII, 17, 4: 23 XVIII, 50, 5-52, 2: 28 XIX, 60, 3: 26, 29, 37 XX, 109, 6-7: 31-32 XXVI, 8, 1: 97 XXVIII, 12, 1: 123 XXXI, 19, 4-5: 77 XXXI, 19, 6: 91 XXXI, 19, 7: 123 Eratosthenes Jacoby, FGrHist 241 F 1d: 6 Euphro (Kassel – Austin) F 10: see Athaen. I, 7d, 13 Eusebius (Schoene) I, 234: 160 I, 251: 91 I, 251-253: 90 I, 253: 94 II, 66-67: 2, 4, 6 II, 120: 20 II, 120-121: 61 II, 121: 60

ELOISA PAGANONI

II, 122: 97 II, 123: 9 Eustathius De capta Thess. p. 39 l. 26: 2 Hist. eccl. VIII, 6, 6: 61 Il. II, 863: 34 Festus p. 148, s.v.: Monodus: 128 p. 320, s.v. rurtum tenentis iuvenis: 63 Frontinus Strat. IV, 7, 10-11: 136 Hermippus FGrHistCont 1061 F 1: 76, 116-117, 119 Herodianus De pros. cath., p. 59: 117 p. 267: 84 Herodotus I, 28: 2, 10 III, 89-96: 11 III, 90: 10 V, 12: 6 VII, 73: 6 VII, 75: 1, 5, 7, 11 Hesychius Milesius, BNJ 390 F 7, 20-23: 13 Homerus Il. II, 856: 5 II, 858: 6 V, 39: 5 X, 430: 6 XIV, 512: 6 XXIV, 278: 6

INDEX LOCORUM

Iustinus XVI, 3, 3: 34 XXV, 1, 1: 54 XXV, 2, 11: 55, 59 XXVII, 2, 6-10: 89 XXVII, 2, 11-12: 89 XXVII, 3, 1-6: 85, 89, 94 XXVII, 3, 7: 90 XXVII, 3, 7-11: 94 XXVII, 3, 10: 90 XXVII, 3, 11: 90 XXX, 2, 8: 124 XXX, 4, 3: 97 XXXII, 4, 2: 132, 133 XXXII, 4, 3-5: 124 XXXII, 4, 6: 134 XXXII, 4, 6-7: 135 XXXII, 4, 7: 134 XXXII, 4, 8: 138 XXXIV, 4, 1: 125 XXXVIII, 5, 3: 91 Libanius Or. 61, 4: 61 61, 10: 62 Livius XXVII, 30,4-15: 110 XXVII, 30, 16: 110 XXVIII, 5, 1-8, 14: 111 XXVIII, 7, 10: 100, 111, 161 XXIX, 12, 4: 112 XXXI, 14, 5: 124 XXXII, 34, 5: 113 XXXIII, 30, 1: 120 XXXIII, 38, 8-41, 5: 123 XXXVII, 20, 1-21, 9: 120 XXXVII, 22, 1-25, 3: 120 XXXVII, 25, 4, 7: 120 XXXVII, 25, 8: 121 XXXVII, 25, 8-12: 121 XXXVII, 25, 13-14: 121 XXXVII, 38, 1-2: 161

261

XXXVIII, 16, 3-9: 55 XXXVIII, 16, 7-8: 57 XXXVIII, 16, 8: 52 XXXVIII, 24, 11: 135 XXXVIII, 39, 15-16: 122, 129-130 XXXIX, 46, 7-9: 136 XXXIX, 51, 1: 132, 137 XXXIX, 51, 9-11: 138 XLII, 12, 3: 125 Per. 39, 7: 138 50: 128 Malalas VIII, 28: 124 VIII, 28, 13: 138 Mela I, 14: 1 II, 98: 4 Memnon BNJ 434 F 1, 1, 2: 12 F 1, 4, 6: 28 F 1, 4, 9: 31, 49 F 1, 5, 1: 36 F 1, 5, 4: 49 F 1, 6, 3: 25, 31, 34, 36, 38, 51, 60, 139, 162 F 1, 7, 1-4: 35 F 1, 7, 2: 48, 102 F 1, 9, 1-2: 35, 47 F 1, 9, 2: 35 F 1, 9, 3: 36, 38, 45 F 1, 9, 4: 49 F 1, 9, 4-5: 46, 48 F 1, 9, 5: 4, 50, 52 F 1, 10, 1: 38 F 1, 10, 1-2: 46 F 1, 10, 2: 48, 57 F 1, 11, 1-2: 54 F 1, 11, 5: 56 F 1, 12, 1: 61 F 1, 12, 3: 11

262

ELOISA PAGANONI

F 1, 12, 3-5: 19 F 1, 12, 4: 15, 23, 38 F 1, 12, 5: 25, 30, 34, 36, 39-41, 45, 134, 160, 182 F 1, 12, 5-6: 45 F 1, 12, 6: 57, 61, 78 F 1, 13, 1: 80 F 1, 14, 1: 38, 69, 76, 93, 102 F 1, 14, 1-2: 76 F 1, 14, 1-3: 81 F 1, 14, 2: 57, 67, 83, 94 F 1, 14, 2-3: 78 F 1, 14, 3: 79 F 1, 15, 1: 79, 80 F 1, 16, 1-3: 80 F 1, 17, 1: 81 F 1, 18, 6-8: 140 F 1, 18, 10: 140 F 1, 19, 1: 38, 141 F 1, 19, 1-3: 132, 134, 139 F 1, 22, 5: 38 F 1, 28, 7: 118 Nepos Datames 2: 4 Hannibal 9: 124 11, 1-7: 136 12: 138 12, 1-2: 137 Nicolaus Damascenus Jacoby, FGrHist 90 F 71: 6 F 113: 87 Notitiae Episcopatuum 3 143: 28 Pausanias V, 12, 7: 32, 42, 61, 67 VIII, 9, 7-8: 141 X, 23, 14: 54

Phylarchus BNJ 81 F 8: 14, 107 F 50: 76 Plinius NH V, 127: 5 V, 142-143: 2 V, 143: 5, 119, 142 V, 145: 2 V, 148: 133, 141, 146 V, 150: 4 V, 151: 4 VII, 69: 128 VII, 127: 62 VIII, 144: 59, 76 XXXVI, 21: 62 XXXVI, 35: 63 Plinius Ep. X, 41, 4: 61 X, 49, 1: 61 Plutarchus Alcibiades 29: 14 29, 3: 14, 26 Flamininus 20, 3: 137 20, 3-5: 138 20, 10: 138 Mor. 302 e-f: 13, 29 302 e: 37 302 f: 31 Pollux III, 83: 14 Polyaenus II, 30, 3: 61 IV, 17: 77, 91-92, 100 IV, 9, 4: 160 Polybius

INDEX LOCORUM

IV, 45, 9- 46, 6: 98 IV, 47, 1-7: 98 IV, 48, 1-4: 102, 122 IV, 48, 2: 104 IV, 48, 7-8: 100 IV, 48, 9: 100 IV, 48, 10: 100 IV, 49, 1-3: 99 IV, 49, 4: 101, 103 IV, 50, 1: 79, 103 IV, 50, 2-4: 4, 13, 103, 105 IV, 50, 5-7: 103 IV, 50, 8: 105 IV, 50, 9-10: 103 IV, 50, 10: 105 IV, 51, 1-5: 105 IV, 51, 3: 100 IV, 51, 6: 105 IV, 51, 7: 106 IV, 51, 8: 106 IV, 51, 9: 106 IV, 52, 1: 106 IV, 52, 2: 106 IV, 52, 5: 103, 106 IV, 52, 6-9: 4, 107 IV, 52, 7-8: 105 IV, 52, 6-9: 107 IV, 56, 2: 99 V, 40, 7: 100 V, 57, 2: 100 V, 77, 1: 108, 122 V, 77, 2-78, 6: 108 V, 78, 1-6: 109 V, 88, 5-90, 2: 97 V, 90, 1-2: 97 V, 111, 2-5: 109 V, 111, 6-7: 101, 109 VIII, 22, 2: 107 XV, 21, 1-8: 113 XV, 22, 1: 113-114 XV, 22, 1-5: 113, 114 XV, 22, 3: 113 XV, 22, 4: 115 XV, 23, 1-6:

XV, 23, 8-9: 115 XV, 23, 9-10: 113, 115 XV, 23, 10: 115 XVI, 1, 8: 124 XVI, 34, 5: 117 XVIII, 3, 11-12: 113, 115 XVIII, 3, 12: 115, 117 XVIII, 4, 7: 113 XVIII, 5, 4: 117 XVIII, 44, 1-7: 119 XVIII, 44, 5: 117, 120 XVIII, 49, 2-51, 8: 123 XXI, 11, 1-2: 120 XXI, 11, 3-11: 121 XXI, 11, 12-13: 121 XXI, 20, 8: 123 XXI, 45, 10: 180 XXI, 46, 10: 122, 129-130 XXII, 7, 3-4: 134 XXII, 20, 8: 134 XXII, 21, 1-4: 135 XXIII, 1, 4: 134-136 XXIII, 3, 1: 135 XXIII, 3, 1-2: 134 XXIII, 3, 1-3: 136, 181 XXIII, 5, 1: 134 Fr. 127: 114 Porphyrius Quaest. homericarum ad Il. XIII, 3, 5: 2 Jacoby, FGrHist 260 F 32, 8: 89 Pseudo Scylax 67: 85 92: 1, 8 Pseudo Scymnus F 34: 50 Sallustius, Hist. III, 50: 1, 4, 6

263

264

ELOISA PAGANONI

Solinus 1, 70: 128

XIV, 2, 5: 97 XIV, 5, 23: 9

Stephanus Byzantinus s.v. Ἀλύαττα: 10 s.v. Ἀντιγόνεια: 28 s.v. Ἀπάμεια: 118 s.v. Ἀστακός: 14 s.v. Βιθυνία: 144 s.v. Βιθύνιον: 141 s.v. βιθύοπολις: 141 s.v. Βοὸς Κεφαλαί: 112 s.v. Ζῆλα: 76, 83-84 s.v. Ζιποίτιον: 10 s.v. Κρῆσσα: 84 s.v. Μύρλεια: 119 s.v. Νίκαια: 28, 34 s.v. Νικομηδεία: 61, 76 s.v. Νικομηδείον: 61 s.v. Προῦσα: 33, 76, 117, 145 s.v. Ψίλιον: 4

Suda s.v. Ἀφύα ἐς πῦρ: 73 s.v. δημαγωγικός: 113 s.v. Κιανοί: 114

Strabo VII, 3, 2: 2, 4, 9 VII, 6, 1: 104 XI, 14, 6: 133 XII, 3, 3: 2-3, 5 XII, 3, 4: 9 XII, 3, 7: 4, 9, 62 XII, 3, 10: 49 XII, 4, 1: 8 XII, 4, 2: 12, 26, 32, 61, 104 XII, 4, 2-3: 146 XII, 4, 3: 33, 113, 115, 117, 124, 129, 145, 170 XII, 4, 7: 28, 34, 141 XII, 4-8: 5 XII, 8, 1: 130 XII, 8, 2: 130 XII, 8, 11: 13 XIII: 1, 8: XIII, 4, 5: 160 XIII, 4, 13: 160

Tzetzes Chil. III, 115, ll. 950-987, see Arr., Jacoby FGrHist 156, F 29

Syncellus 523: 61 525: 39 593: 39 Thucydides IV, 75, 2: 1, 7 Trogus Prol. XXIV: 46 XXV: 57 XXVII: 76, 89, 93 XXX: 124 XXXII: 135

Valerius Maximus III, 2 ext. 2: 133 III, 7 ext. 6: 136 IX, 2 ext. 2: 138 Vita Arati I, p. 7: 55 IV, p. 20: 55 Xanthus Jacoby, FGrHist 765 FF 14-15: 6 Xenophon An. VI, 2, 17: 2, 16 VI, 3, 2-26: 16 VI, 4, 1: 1

INDEX LOCORUM

VI, 4, 1-2: 4, 8 VI, 4, 2: 1, 87 VI, 4, 23-27: 16 VI, 4, 24: 17 VI, 5, 7-31: 16 VI, 5, 31: 16

VI, 6, 1: 16 VII, 8, 25: 17-18 Hell. I, 3, 2-4: 15 III, 2, 1: 1 III, 2, 2: 16

EPIGRAPHIC SOURCES BE 1950, 218, p. 211: 175 BLÜMEL 2000, see SEG 51 (2001) 1496 CIG 3808: 84 Clara Rhodos II 172, 3: 133, 135-136, Appendix nr. 9, 182 CORSTEN 1991 nr. 1, pp. 81-87: 14 nr. 11, pp. 98-99: 116 Dürrbach, Choix 31: 136 FD III, 4 77: 64 I.Aph2007 8.24: 81 IC II iii, 4 B: 64 I.Callatis 7: 81

460, Fr. d: 171 460, Fr. u: 67, Appendix nr. 7 I.Didyma 473: 157 IG II-III2, 3, 1 3172: 118, 125, Appendix nr. 12 3430: 176 IG XII, 4, 1 344: 67 207-245: 174 208: see RC 27 209: see RC 25 210: see RC 26 213: 176, 178 IK Apameia un Pylai 114: 14 117: 14 121: 14 123: 14 125: 14 T 4: 119 T 12: see IG II-III2, 3, 1, 3172 IK estremo oriente 22: see OGIS 382 IK Iasos 4: 97

ID 449: 171 455: 171

IK Ilion 32: 55

265

266

ELOISA PAGANONI

IK Kios 1-2: 118 8: 118, Appendix nr. 4 17: 117 18: 176 24: 117, Appendix nr. 6 58: 116 98: 40, Appendix nr. 1

9: 130, Appendix 13 P5: 130, Appendix 13 OGIS 55: 180 129: 184 275: see IvP I, 23 298: 41, 134, 161, Appendix nr. 10 340: see IK Kios 24 357: 176 382: 176

IK Klaudiu Polis 50: 141, Appendix nr. 5 61: 169

PAPADOUPULOS 1865 nr. 11 pp. 374: 133

IK Magnesia am Sipylos 7: see IK Kios 17

PESCHLOW et al. 2002 nrr. 102-105, pp. 436-437: 109

IK Nikaia 551: see IK Kios 98 1588: 64

Pouilloux, Choix 4: 180

IK Priene 6: 101 IK Prusa ad Olympum 1: 64, 146, Appendix nr. 2 IK Sultan Daği I 393: 131 IvP I 23: 93 56 E: Appendix nr. 11 65: see OGIS 298 74: 161 MAIURI 1925-1926 nr. 2 p. 313-315: see Pouilloux, Choix 4 MAMA IX 8: 130, Appendix 13

PUGLIESE CARRATELLI 1967-1968 nr. 2, pp. 445-448, see IK Iasos 4 RC 25: 67, 69, 79, 81, 86-88, 147, Appendix nr. 8 27: 174 26: 174 35: 176-177 SEG 4 (1929) 195: 62 51 (2001) 1496: 126 Syll.3 456: see RC 25 332: 175 518: 182 574: 175 TAM IV, 1 1: see RC 25 2: 64, Appendix nr. 3