Pontus was subdivided into districts or provinces called eparchies as in Parthia, probably with strategoi as governors^. As in Cappadocia, fortified strongholds both of the kings and of the nobles were scattered all over the country. Strabo mentions the Kainon Chorion^ Ikizari (or Kizari), Sagylion, Kamisa, Pimolisa and Kimiata. The owners of these castles, then feudal barons, were most of them of Iranian origin ; one of them known from a Greek inscription is called Pharnabazus, while his vassal bears a Greek or hellenized name—Meriones^. No cities existed in Pontus except the Greek cities of the coast. Those which are mentioned in our sources as Greek cities, not as native quasicities, were created by the Mithridatid dynasty and will be dealt with later. The typical form of settlement was the village. Therich plain near Amasia had the name of Chiliokomon (thousand villages) and we are told that Murena overran in one raid four hundred villages (p. 353). Temples of exactly the same character as those of Cappadocia play a great part in the life of the country. It is interesting to note that though these were dedicated to gods of various origin (the Cappadocian Ma, the Anatolian Men Pharnaku, the Iranian Anaitis with her two acolytes, and the hellenized Zeus Stratios), they all were organized in the Oriental fashion with a chief priest, with a large number of sacred slaves or serfs of both sexes, some of the women slaves being temple-prostitutes, and with vast stretches of land from which the income went into the treasury of the temple or the chief priest. Near the large komopolis of Ameria was situated the temple of Men, a god important enough to play the leading role alongside the Tyche of the king in his royal oath. The temple at the large village of Comana in Pontus was the counterpart of that in Cappadocia. Comana itself was the chief emporium for commerce with Armenia, and the temple, with its 6000 sacred serfs, and the town were noted for their luxury and dissipated life, a paradise for soldiers and for merchants. No less famous was the temple of Anaitis near Zela. The excavation of one or more of the Pontic or Cappadocian temples, which has hitherto not been attempted, would throw a much needed light on the organization and culture of these great centres of Anatolian life. Of the variety of races which lived together, the various cults which met in the Pontus are eloquent and our sources speak of twenty-two languages spoken in the region, a fact which indeed is not surprising in view of the many languages which were in use during the Hittite period. Such in short was the land which was organized into a solid state by the efforts of the dynasty of the Mithridatidae of which the greatest representative was Mithridates VI Eupator, who at last, in 89 B.C., ventured to challenge the power of Rome.
^
II. THE MITHRIDATID DYNASTY
It is beyond doubt that the dynasty of the Mithridatidae, which ruled in Pontus from at least 302 B.C. until the last offspring of it, Darius, son of Pharnaces II, was removed from the throne, belonged to the highest Persian nobility (their claim to be descendants of the Persian king has, of course, no foundation), to a family which was connected with Asia Minor for many generations. The identity of the earliest two representatives of the family, Mithridates and Ariobarzanes, is still a matter of controversy. It seems, however, more or less certain that the Mithridates whose end was reported by the historian Hieronymus^ was one of the lesser city-dynasts of Asia Minor of the late Persian and early Hellenistic period. His city was Cius on the Propontis. Whatever his early history may have been, in the closing years of the fourth century, when he was more than eighty years of age, he supported Antigonus and planned to betray him. Whether he was at that time with Antigonus or in his own city of Cius while his son, also named Mithridates, was with Antigonus, or whether both of them were in Antigonus^ camp we do not know. So much is certain, that the king became suspicious and decided to get rid of his former allies, both father and son. Warning was given of it to the younger Mithridates by his friend, the prince Demetrius, who was almost of the same age, and Mithridates fled, perhaps together with his father, who was soon killed either on his flight in Paphlagonia, or near his own city.
In the turmoil of the events after Ipsus Mithridates the younger, who established his residence in Paphlagonian Kimiata, one of the Pontic strongholds, gradually succeeded in building up for himself a kingdom which he successfully defended against Seleucus I. Whether, however, he or his father is to be regarded as the founder (Jktistes) of the kingdom and dynasty is a matter of controversy. Almost all modern scholars are inclined to give the credit to the younger Mithridates, but this opinion must be revised in the light of an inscription which, though several times published, has not been taken into account by recent historians of the Pontic kingdom^. The problem is closely connected with the question of the Pontic Era. It is known that Mithridates the Great used an era which started with the year 297 b.c, the first year of the Bithynian Era^. This era was still in use in the Bosporan kingdom in imperial times, and we have a synchronism which admits of no doubt as regards its starting-point. The same era was apparently used by Eupator's predecessor and father Mithridates Euergetes, as is shown by an inscription found at Ineboli (Abonuteichos) and dated by the king Euergetes and the year 161 of an unknown era^. If this era be the Bithynian and Pontic Era, the inscription belongs to the year 137/6 b.c. If we assume the Seleucid Era, the adoption of which by the Mithridatidae is perhaps less difficult to explain than the adoption of the Bithynian Era, then the date corresponds to 1 5 1 e.g., a; date which fits equally well, since Euergetes was no doubt ruling as early as 149. The era of Euergetes may then be either the Bithynian or the Seleucid. But, twenty years ago, the important inscription mentioned above was found in the ruins of Chersonesus in the Crimea (see further below, p. 221). It contains the oaths taken by the city of Chersonesus and a king Pharnaces of Pontus and is dated as in the year 1 57 of the era of Pharnaces, This era cannot be the same as that used by Eupator, for if it is the Bithynian, it gives the date 140 B.C., when Pharnaces I was long dead and buried, and Pharnaces II was not yet born; and if it is the Seleucid, it gives the date 155, which is also too late for Pharnaces I, since his brother and successor Mithridates Philopator Philadelphus was ruling in 156^. The era of Pharnaces must then have some other starting-point, which may be discovered. A treaty between Chersonesus and Pharnaces is most intelligible if it followed closely upon the war which raged from f. 1 83 to 179 B.C. between Pharnaces and a coalition of Anatolian states. In the peace which ended the war Chersonesus was included, and it seems logical to connect the treaty of the inscription with the peace-treaty, and to place it about the year 179. If that is so, then the era used by Pharnaces will begin in 336 B.C., which is precisely the year in which, according to Diodorus, the elder Mithridates began to rule in Cius. From this it follows that Pharnaces used an era which went back to the rule of the elder Mithridates and thus treated him as the founder of the dynasty^. Why Mithridates Euergetes changed to the Seleucid or the Bithynian Era and why Eupator used only the Bithynian we cannot tell. If then we place the ruler of Cius at the head of the dynasty as Mithridates I, it becomes possible to avoid the expedient of inserting a hypothetical Mithridates into the list of the kings in order to make Eupator what our sources declare him to have been, the sixth Mithridates and the eighth king of Pontus^. It also becomes possible to explain the number of royal graves at Amasia, the capital of the early kings. There are four of these and a fifth still unfinished. It was Pharnaces I who moved to Sinope and probably was buried there so that the unfinished fifth tomb may well be his ; and if so the other four just suffice for the elder and younger Mithridates, Ariobarzanes and Mithridates the father of Pharnaces*. We may then assign to the younger Mithridates the credit, not of founding the dynasty, but of building up the power of Pontus. His endeavours, as those of his immediate successors, were directed towards the same goal as those of his neighbours of Bithynia, Pergamum and Cappadocia. Amid the political chaos of the times they sought to extend their borders and, above all, to include within them as many Greek cities as possible. From time to time in the course of these endeavours the Pontic kings emerge for a moment into the light of history, and it is possible to detect some of the stages in the growth of the monarchy from its beginning to the accession of Mithridates VI . It is not known when they succeeded in adding to their kingdom the city of Amisus and its rich territory inhabited by people who in Roman times were reputed excellent agriculturists^. In about 255 B.C.2 Amisus was certainly dependent on Mithridates III, since the city supplied the king and his army with grain sent through Heraclea at the time of a Gallic invasion. Since, however, the Pontic kings never thought of making the city their capital, it seems that Amisus retained a good deal of its autonomy and probably was, at least in theory, an allied not a subject city. It is equally unknown when the Pontic kings, while leaving alone for the moment the territory of Sinope, first reached the coast to the west of that city. Since Amastris was given to Ariobarzanes^ the son and co-ruler of Mithridates II, by Eumenes its dynast as early as 279^, the cities to the east of Amastris were no doubt reduced to obedience still earlier (we know that Abonuteichos was Pontic in 137/6 or 151/0 e.g.). Thus from 279 onwards the river Parthenius marked the frontier of Pontus to the west. How far the first four Mithridatid kings extended their power to the east and south we do not know. Armenia Minor was probably a vassal state, and Pontus had control of the rich mining districts of the Chalybes, perhaps even before the conquest of Pharnaces I. It was under the first four kings that a close connection was established between their dynasty and the Seleucids, when Mithridates III married Laodice, sister of Seleucus II and daughter of AntiochusII,andgave his own daughter Laodice toAntiochus III.
Scanty as is the information which we possess on the first Mithridatidae we can recognize the general lines of their policy. Their chief aim was to consolidate and to increase their kingdom, and to this end they used all the available means, no more disturbed about their moral or immoral character than all their crowned and uncrowned contemporaries. One of these means was the use of the resources which Greek civilization offered them. This, along with the increased income which could be derived from the Greek cities, made them strive first and foremost to incorporate their Greek neighbours in their kingdom. What they needed from them was their help in organizing an efficient army and navy, in improving the organization of their revenues and in assisting them to acquire a good reputation in the eyes of the Greek world, for which they cared very much indeed. How far they intended to hellenize the non-Greek parts of their kingdom it is very difficult to say. No doubt they had not the slightest desire to force urban life upon Pontus as a whole. Only one city designated by a dynastic name and at all comparable with those which were created in scores by the Seleucids was created by the predecessors of Eupator. It was Laodicea, known to us only from coins and from the survival of the name (modern Ladik)^. The synoecism of Cerasus and Cotyora and the creation of Pharnaceia by Pharnaces I have nothing to do either with urbanization or with hellenization. So long as no one of these Greek cities has been excavated, we have no means of knowing how the Pontic kings treated the few cities which they incorporated in their realm. A priori it is probable that Amisus, Amastris and the other cities which were annexed before Pharnaces I enjoyed a larger amount of autonomy than Sinope, the capital of the later Mithridatidae, and the new creations Pharnaceia and Laodicea. On the other hand Pharnaceia as well as Amastris was allowed to mint copper earlier than the reign of Eupator^.
Thus from the Greek point of view, Pontus after two centuries of the rule of the Mithridatid dynasty remained a country of villages and temples not of cities. This does not mean, however, that more or less hellenized urban centres did not develop there. The capital of Pontus before Pharnaces I and the home of Strabo, Amasia, had no doubt a large Greek population. The same is probably true of so important a market and caravan city as Comana. By intermarriage and social intercourse the Greeks must have done much to hellenize the native aristocracy. The best instance of it are the kings themselves, who were proud of their close family connection with the Seleucids and who, all of them, spoke and wrote Greek and showed a great appreciation of Greek literature and art. The same is true of the nobles with native names who were sent out as ambassadors, for example, to Rome. And yet the kingdom never became really hellenized. Until the end of its independent existence it remained as it used to be before the founding of the dynasty. Proud as they were of their Greek training, the Mithridatid kings, especially Pharnaces I and his successors, were still more proud of their Iranian connections. They claimed to be descendants of the Persian kings, and they remained devoted to their native gods, especially to those who, like themselves, were of Iranian origin. If we look at the coins of the Mithridatid kings we notice one interesting phenomenon. The rare coins of the predecessors of Pharnaces I are almost exact reproductions of the coins of Alexander and of those of the early Seleucids, Greek through and through^. With Pharnaces, however, the reverse types of the coins become more individual and Iranian. Pharnaces I indulges in a certain mystic syncretism, which was in the air in this period. His god, the mysterious youthful god of hiscoins^, was a beautiful youth wearing a bashlyk^ holding the attributes of Hermes and those of Tyche and feeding a little stag with a branch of ivy or vine. This young god is no doubt related to Zeus : over his head there appears the thunderbolt. At the same time he belongs to the gods of the astral religion as shown by the crescent and star which from this time on become the main symbol or coat of arms of the dynasty. The god has been explained recently^ as the Graeco-Oriental Aion, the divine son of Zeus who symbolizes the Saeculum frugiferum^ the same mystic being, perhaps, as the similar figure on Roman coins and the divine child of the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil. However this may be, the god of Pharnaces is more Iranian than Greek (in this like the god of the kings of Commagene—Apollo-Helios-Hermes- Mithras), though it was a Greek artist who fashioned the cult statue figured on the coins. Zeus, his father, is no doubt Ahuramazda rather than Zeus, and his essence is nearer to the essence of Mithras and Hvareno (the kingly glory) than to that of Hermes and Tyche. We find the same Greek travesties of Iranian political and religious ideas on the coins of Pharnaces' successors: Perseus, the mythical ancestor of the Persians, appears on the coins of Philopator, and his horse Pegasus on those of Eupator^. No doubt we must regard the Dionysus of Eupator as an Anatolian not as a Greek god, a symbol, like the Ephesian stag, of his Anatolian empire. It is worthy of note that nothing in the coins reveals any influence of Iranian art; they were made by Greeks in the purest Greek style. The portraits of the kings before Eupator are wonderful in their brutal realism^. We see before us the astute and cruel rulers of Pontus in all their original ugliness. Eupator dropped this style and preferred to appear as a new Alexander the Great with his hair floating romantically around his head^. While the portraits of the coins are real productions of a great art, Greek in their very essence, most of the reverse types of the coins, equally Greek, are trivial and of no artistic importance. It seems that the Hellenistic period interrupted an evolution which started in North Asia Minor in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. This period produced interesting monuments in a peculiar style which we call Graeco-Persian. To this style belong many objects found in the Bosporan kingdom^, the front of the rock-grave of Kalekapu in Paphlagonia^, the beautiful Persolonian silver vases, one said to have been found in Armenia (one part is now in the Louvre, the other in the Berlin Museum)^, another found in a fifth-century grave at Duvanli in Bulgaria*, and, finally, the interesting Graeco-Persian gems ^. On the other hand the Hellenistic period has not yielded anything similar to it, any object of art which would be an attempt at a synthesis of the Greek and Iranian artistic creative power. The attempt to create a new version of Graeco-Persian art came later, simultaneously in India, Parthia, Mesopotamia and even Commagene, at a time when Pontus had played its part in world history to a close ^. Thus the Iranian and the Greek elements in Pontus were never fused in Hellenistic times into one unit: they lived on quietly side by side. Each had its special part in the policy of the Pontic kings. The same phenomenon may be noticed in the life of the Parthian Empire in the Hellenistic period (p. 595). The leading political idea of Eupator, the creation of a Pontic Graeco-native empire including large parts of Asia Minor, was not first devised by Eupator. No doubt Pharnaces I had the same ideals, which he transmitted to his brother, his son and his grandson. This Pontic empire was not a national State like the Parthian empire : it was an unification of all the Pontic Greeks around one dynasty which was supported by the strength and cohesion of their Oriental subjects. It was an empire with a Greek sea-front and an Oriental hinterland.
Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography
- my first balloon, from Mouzafphaerre
Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography
2nd century BC to the fall of Constantinope in the east in the fifteenth c. The hole thing... quite old but still ( 1st publish between 1776-1788).
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
A red 'bloon for a red sig from Aemilius Paulus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks