The Attalid Kingdom: A Constitutional History

THE ATTALID KINGDOM A Constitutional Historv

R. E. ALLEN

C L A R E N D O N P R E S S. O X F O R D

THE ATTALID KINGDOM A Constitutional Historv

R. E. ALLEN

C L A R E N D O N P R E S S. O X F O R D

Oxford University Press,Walton Street' Oxford OX2 6DP London Glasgow New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo

*' ^ Dares,i:, Nairobi ;inf":r,,

and associsted comPanies in Beirut Berlin lbadon Mexico City Nicosio Published in the United States by Oxford IJniversity Press, New York O R. E. Allen 1983 Atl rights reserved. No parr of this publication may be reproduced' m,eans' -stored ia retrieval system, or tansmitted, in anyform or by any without ilectronic, ' mechanical, photocopying, ryc9rding, or otherwise' rhe prior peimission'of Oxford University Press

BritishLibrary Cataloguingin PublicationData Allen' R.E. TheAttalid Kingdom. I. Pergamon- History L Title 939'.21 DSt56.P4 ISBN 0-t9a14845-3 Typesetby Fotron SA., Athens, Greece Printed in Hong Kong

P R EF A C E There hasbeen a long-feltneedfor a new constitutionalhistory of the Attalid Kingdom, that can embrace the extensiveresearch done and reassessments made since Cardinali'sI/ Regno di pergamo, still the basic work on the subject,was publishedin 1906. The presentwork is an attempt to meet that need. I was further aware in the courseof my researchthat a great deal of important specialist work, above all that of Ohlemutz (1940)and Kähler (1948),had not been adequatelyabsorbedinto the more recent works on the Attalids now available,and I hope that my debt to theseand to otherswho have studiedthe Attalid Kingdom will be obvious.. This book beganits life as a doctoral thesisof the University of London, presentedin 1972.Since then I have benefitedgreatly from the advice of teachersand examiners,as well as from work publishedin the meantime.I owe a great debt of gratitudeto Mr P. M. Fraser,who first suggesteda study of the Attalids to me and has advisedand helpedme most generouslyin achievingit. I am glad to have this opportunity at last of thanking him. I am also indebted to ProfessorA. D. Momigliano, without whose initial support my researchcould not have been contemplated,and to ProfessorH. Bengtson,under whosedirectionI studiedfor a year as a guestof the Seminar(now Institut) für Alte Geschichteof the University of Munich in 1972-3;I greatly appreciatehis kindness and hospitality, as also the stimulating discussionafforded by membersof the Seminar,especiallyDr WolfgangOrth. Finally I must thank the managingcommittee of the British Schoolat Athens for admittingme as a Studentof the Schoolfrom 1968to 1970;the British Institute of Archaeologyat Ankara for facilitatingmy researchin Turkey, especiallyat Pergamonitself; Mme D. PeppaDelmousoufor enablingme to study the epigraphical materialrelatingto the Attalids in the EpigraphicalMuseumin Athens; and Miss E. Rohdefor admittingme to the archivesof the PergamonMuseum in Berlin in 1969.To all these I am most grateful. Oxford, 1979

R. E. ALLEN

C O N T EN T S ABBREVIATIONS

vlll

M APS

l. Western Asia Minor 2. Lycia and Pamphylia

x xi

I. THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE

I

2. PERGAMON UNDER PHILETAIROS AND EUMENES I

9

3. THE REIGN OF ATTALOS I (i) Attalos and Asia Minor, 241-216 (ii) Attalos and the Aegean, 215-197

27 28 65

4. THE ATTALID KINGDOM AFTER THE TREATY OF APAMEIA (i) The New Provinces (ü) The Greek Cities (iii) Festivalsof Athena (iv) Officials of the Royal Administration

85 98 l2l t29

5. THE GALATIANS

136

6. ROYAL CULTS

145

7. THE CITY OF PERGAMON

159

76

APPENDICES I.THE GENEALOGY OF THE ATTALIDS

l8l

II, THE GALATIAN WARS OF ATTALOS I AND HIS ASSUMPTION OF THE ROYAL TITLE

195

I I I .Q U E E N S T R A T O N I K E

2N

IV.SELECTED INSCRIPTIONS

207

S E L E C TB I B L I O G R A P H Y

228

INDEXOF INSCRIPTIONS

233

G E N E R A LI N D E X

240

Abbreviations

lx

OGIS

A B B R EV I A T I O N S

W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graect Inscriptiones Selectae (Leipzig, 1903) Ohlemttz, Kulte E. Ohlemutz,Die Kulte und Heiligtümerder Götter in Pergamon (194O)

ötn The following abbreviationsand short titles are used of works cited frequently.Others generallyfollow those listed in The Oxford Classical Dictionary (ed. 2, 1970).In somecasesfurther informationis given in the bibliography. Abhandlungender PreussischenAkademie der WisAbh. Berlin senschaften,Phil.-Hist. Kl.

Abh Münche'

mieder wis' hen Akade !:::,"r':i;f: ?f;: t!#.' ;li.c

AM

Mitteilungen des Deutschen archöologischen Instit' uts : Athenische Abteilung

AvP

Altertümer von Pergamon

Bengtson, Strar.

H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, l-lll

J. and L. Robert, Bulletin öpigraphique(annuallyin REG) G. Cardinali,Il Regno di Pergamo (1906) Cardinali,AP Comptesrendues de l'Acadömie des inscriptionset CRAI belles-lettres Fouilles de Delphes F. Delphes F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischenHistoriker FGrHist (t923-) E. V. Hansen,TheAttalids of Pergamon(ed'2, 1972) Attalids Hansen, Holleaux, Etudes M. Holleaux,Etudes d'öpigraphieet d'histoire grecques, i-vi L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (2 vols., ISE Florence. 1965and 1976) O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesiaam Meander IvM (Berlin, 1900) Inschriften von Pergamon IvP F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene IvPr (Berlin, 1906) Kähler, Gr. Fries H. Kähler, Der grosseFries von Pergamon(Berlin, 1948) Magie, D. Magie,Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950\ Roman Rule F. von Fritze, Die Münzen von Pergamon(1910) MvP

RE REA REG Robert,Et. anat. Robert, Yil/es Rostovtzeff, SEHHW SB München SB Wien

Bull.

Schmitt, Untersuchungen

Jahresheftedes Österreichischenarchäologische n Instituts Real-Encyclopädieder klassischenAltertumswissenschaft,ed. A. Pauly,G. Wissowa,W. Kroll (1893-) Rövue des ötudesanciennes Rövuedes ötudesgrecques L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes(1937) L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure (ed.2, 1962) M. Rostovtzeff,TheSocial and EconomicHistory of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, l94l) Sitzungsberichteder BayerischenAkademieder Wissenschaften,Phil.-Hist. Kl. Akademie in Sitzungsberichteder Österueichischen Wien, Phil.-Hist. Kl.

H. H. Schmitt, Untersuchungenzur GeschichteAntiochos'desGrossenund SeinerZeit StV Die Staatsvertrögedes Altertums (ed. H. Bengtson): äi. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischenWelt von 338bis200vor Chr. (ed.H. H. Schmitt,Munich, 1969) W. Dittenberger,Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum Sy//.3 (ed. 3, Leipzig, 19l5) Walbank,Comm. F. W. Walbank,AHistorical Commentaryon Polybius (3 vols., Oxford, 1957,1967, and 1979) Welles.RC in the Hellenistic C. B. Welles,Royal Correspondence Period (New Haven. 1934)

2. Lycia and Pamphylia

l WesternAsia Minor

1 THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE The history of the Attalid dynasty falls in the third and second centuriesBC,the periodof Hellenistichistoryfor which the paucity of good literary source-materialis most acutelyfelt, and the modern historian's complaint with regard to evidenceabout the Attalids coincidesto someextent with that which may be expressed of the eventsand institutionsof the Hellenistickingdomsgenerally in theseyears.l There are, however, specialproblemsarisingin a study of the Attalids, as we shall see,and the inadequaciesof the literary sources in providing information that will contribute to their solution is only partly redeemedby the admittedly copious epigraphicalevidencethat is now at the disposalof the historianof the Attalids. When the literary tradition is fullest and most reliable - for the reignsof Attalos I and EumenesII - our understanding of the men and their reignsis correspondinglypenetrating;when it fails they become obscure and ambiguous.This state of affairs is strikingly illustrated by the contrast between our knowledgeof Attalos I and EumenesI[, who are figuresof substanceand true historical significance,and our knowledge of Attalos III, who continuesto elude a historicalperspectiveand understandingappropriate to his importance, althougha growing body of epigraphical and other evidence has thrown valuable new light on his character and achievementsas a corrective to the largely anecdotal literary tradition.2 We may begin by reviewing the literary evidenceon which we may hope to rely in this study of the Attalid dynasty. The only extant historical narrative written at a time more or less contemporary to the events is that provided by Polybios for the reigns of Eumenesll (197-159BC) and Attalos II (159-138Bc); it is not I See now C. Pr6aux, Monde hell. i. 88-9. 2 See the recent discussionofJ. Hopp, Untersuchungen, 107-20.

3

The Nature of the Evidence

The Nature of the Evidence

completely preserved and it becomes increasingly fragmentary and episodicin the courseof the later of thesereigns.The early booksof Polybios'Histories dealwith eventsthat occurredbefore his own lifetime and fall from our point of view in the reign of Attalos | (241-197 nc); becausethis part of his work is more completelypreservedthan the later parts we obtain a rblatively fuller narrative for these years than we would expect from the generallycontemporarytheme of Polybios' work as a whole. In providingsuchgood evidencefor theseimportantearly years,and despitethe shortcomingsof incompleteness,Polybios' Histories constitutean importantelementin the studyof Attalid Asia Minor. Comparablein importanceto the narrative evidenceof Polybios is that of a differentkind to be derivedfrom Strabo'sGeographia. Writing in the age of Augustus, Strabo refers to the Attalids at severalpoints in the part of his work that dealswith westernAsia Minor, and shows a precise knowledge and authority that are all the more impressivefor the support they often receive from independentevidence,chiefly epigraphical;a greatdealof importance will be attachedthroughoutthis book to the testimonyhe provides. It is evident that Strabo had a sound and detailed knowledge both of the history of Asia Minor in generaland of the Attalid dynasty in particular. Of specialimportance for our purposesis the summary account which Strabo inserts by way of historical background in his treatment of the city of Pergamon and its environs (xiii. 4. 6234); this account explores family relationships and individual dynasticachievements,as well as someof the more important eventsof eachreign: as will be seenin the next chapter,our knowledgeand understandingof the reignsof the dynasts Philetairos and EumenesI owes much to thesebrief but astuteremarks. and the value ofthe epigraphicalevidenceis greatly enhancedby the possibilityof interpretingit in the contextsthat they provide. The nature and scope of Strabo's remarks about the Attalids indicate that the sources at his disposal were sound, and it is probablethat they were in many casescontemporary to the events described. The account is based largely on biographical information: lengths of rule and other chronological details are given with great precision and accuracy; there is much personal detail and anecdotal material concerning individual dynasts, especially

Philetairos,and their individual plansand achievementsare stressed.It is very likely that the authority for all this informationrests at least partly with the biographies of the Attalids that were compiled during the course of the dynasty, works' such as those of Lysimachos, a contemporary and admirer of a King Attalos; Neanthesof Kyzikos, a city with which the Attalids established early connections;and Leschides,a contemporaryof Eumenes II.3 We may alsoadducethe many scholarswho were attractedto Pergamon during its royal prosperity under Attalos I and more particularly at the invitation of EumenesII, whose enlightened aspirationsenvisagedPergamonas a famous centre of culture and learningin the Greekworld.a Someof thesescholarsare known to have researchedand written about local history and antiquities, nepqyqrriE,whoseactivity is notably Polemonof llion, ö xAry9eiE dated firmly to the reign of EumenesII, and who is known to have been concerned in his travels with antiquities and monuments rather than with considerations of geography in the usual sense. Demetriosof Skepsis,a contemporaryof Polemonwho explored and wrote at length on the antiquities of the Troad, is named by Straboas his sourceon a numberof occasions.sThesetwo names adequately represent the antiquarian research that was encouraged at Pergamonunder Attalid rule and which constitutesthe sound authority with which much of the evidence transmitted by Strabo may be associated. Before passing to consider the secondary literary evidence we should pauseto reflect on a danger that is inherent in the tradition so far discussed. and which arises from the fact that all the elements of this tradition are favourable to the Attalids and sympathetic to their aims and achievements.Polybioswas generally very well disposedto the dynasty and to the order it represented and was invariably hostile to its enemies,especially PrusiasI and II of Bithynia and Pharnakesof Pontos, these being also the

2

3FGrHist IIB, 170-2. h6aux, Monde hell. i. 86, laments the loss of these biographiesbut does not consider their status as sourcesof Strabo's information. a On what follows see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford,

t%8),zß-sr.

5 See for example the referencesin book xiii (which will mainly concern us) at 1.27,594; 1.43,602: 1.44,603(where an unnamedwork by Attalos I of Pergamonis cited, probably a geographicaltreatise).

4

The Nature of the Evidence

The Nature of the Evidence

enemiesof Rome as long as the SenatesupportedAttalid interests in Asia Minor.6 Even when the Senatebecamesuspicious,sometimes with apparent justification, of Eumenes II's ambitions, Polybioscontinuedto defendhim.7Thus the picture of Attalid rule we derive from Polybios is an entirely favourable one, and very little hostile opinion of the kind that we have, for example, pertaining to Rhodian rule in the subject Peraia has reached our literary sources.sWe must discountfrom this context the so-called RhodianpropagandadirectedagainstEumenesII at the time of the Roman settlement of 188Bc as urmountingto nothing more than a disagreementwith Eumenesover the future of the Greek cities of Asia Minor in that year.eOf greatersubstanceis the propaganda recordedby Polybios (especiallyat xxxii.lT) as beingdirected at EumenesII personally by a large part of the Roman Senatein the l60s with the intention of encouraginghis brother Attalos (later Attalos II) to usurp power in his place. Then there is the largely successfulattemptof Perseusof Macedonto discreditEumenesat Rome,evidenceof which can be discernedin survivingextractsof Appian's Makedonika (notably xviii.l). None of this however, interestingthough it is, has influencedthe literary tradition as we know it or constitutedany part of it; it is largely confinedto the reignof EumenesII and is simply the reportingof elementshostile to him, and as suchit comesfrom predictablequartersand causes no surprise. Of reasonedopposition to Attalid rule we find no traces in the literary sourceseven when opportunities may be thought to arise for its inclusion. This tendencyis sharedby the epigraphicalevidence,to be reviewedbelow, sincethis also ema-

natesfrom pro-Attalid sources,either pergamonitself or cities and regionsthat were well disposedto the kings. A second caveat needs to be entered with regard to the kind of evidenceso far discussed.We have already seenthat much of it lacks context and substance,especiallywhere eventsofthe later years ofthe dynasty are concerned.Thus, apart from the sketch of Attalid history that hasbeenmentioned,much of Strabo'sinformation is given in passing and with no attempt to offer a full backgroundto the statementsmade.StrabointheGeographiawas not writing history and cannot be expectedto answerthe kinds of historical questionsthat we are inclined to pose. In the caseof Polybiosthe trouble lies with the transmissionof the text. which is increasingly fragmentary from book vii onwards. There is also in this connectiona qualitativepoint to be made, that theseliterary sourcesdo not alwaysadequatelymeetour demandfor knowledge of constitutionalmachineryand procedure,which are a primary concern of this study. Polybios is notoriously confusingon the occasionswhen he pausesto describeadministrativeor constitutional organization,even when he is thoroughly familiar with them: we can thereforehardly expect him to transmit a clear and consistentpictureofthe institutionsof Attalid rule, which he knew less well and about which he was probably less concernedto inform his readers.Thesereaderscould be expectedfurthermore to be mostly Greeks, and therefore sufücientlyfamiliar with the connotationsof his terminologyas not to requirecarefulprecision or elaboration.r0These factors increaseour diffrcultiesin interpretingthe significanceof official titles and regionaldesignations, and (evenmore noticeably)of institutionsof taxationand financial administration. Despite these reservationsPolybios and Strabo stand as the most importantliterary sourcesat our disposal,and they arejoined by Livy when he is following lost or fragmentary sections of Polybios' account. When Livy is not following polybios we are faced with the usual problem of decidingwhat his sourceis at a particular point in the narrativeand what its worth is; we will be

6 Seethe comment on Pharnakesof Pontos(xxvii. 17, on which seealso Walbank, Comm. iii. 318), and, above all, the hostile assessmentof husias II of Bithynia (xxxvi. 15;Walbank,Comm. äi. 46). ; Polyb.xxxi. 6. 6; Holleaux,Etudes,ü. 170. EP. M. Fraserand G. E. Bean,TheRhodianPeraeaand Islands(Oxford, 1954), n8-22. eC. G. Starr, C. Phil. xxxiii (1938),63-8, arguesthat mutual hostility is a continuous factor in Rhodian-Pergamenerelations from early in the reign of Attalos I; but it was the issue of the Greek cities in 189 that first divided them, accordingto Polyb. xxi. 22.6. We shallseein chapter3 that Rhodesand pergamon were brought together during the reign of Attalos I by the common needto defend the south-eastAegeanagainstPhilip V of Macedon.

5

r0 F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Sather ClassicalLectures, 42, 197D. l-6. The institutions that Polybios explains are generally those that would be unfamiliar to Creek readers:see Walbank,loc. cit.. 4. n.19.

The Nature of the Evidence

The Nature of the Evidence

particularly aware of this problem for instance when we come to consider Livy's evidence for the institution of the cistophoric coinage in the Attalid Kingdom. Also to be gonsideredas an element of the extant literary tradition is the anecdotal material about the Attatid kings, usually fanciful stories that represent a kind of elaboration or variation of known historical circumstances and must be regardedas sensationaland untrustworthy. These have survivedin the accountsof later historians(includingJustin) and in works such as the Deipnosophistai of Athenaios and the Moralia of Plutarch, whose nature and purpose provided suitable contextsfor the retailingand preservationof suchmaterial.tn this categorybelongsmuch ofthe evidenceon the parentageand reign of Attalos [II:11 since in a number of significant instancesthis evidencewill be seento be contradictedby sounderelementsin the tradition its value is correspondinglydiminished;it needsto be carefully distinguished from the more reliable biographical material preservedin Strabo's writing and certainly to be treated with a greater degree of caution than is often the case in modern ac-

which is probably the most important and certainly the most discussed single item of evidence relating to Attalid procedures of regionaladministrationafter 188nc. Another significantgenreof documentsthat may be mentioned here is that of the royal letters written to cities of varying status;theseare particularly valuablein that they are more usually datedthan are other kinds of inscription, and by their nature frequently include referencesto and explanations of royal policy such as we would not expectto find in other sources. Of equal importance in other ways are the texts from cities and regionsnot subjectto the Attalids but enjoyingfriendly relations with them. Most notableare the recordsof Attalid benefactions, beginningat an early stagein the history of the dynasty,at Athens, at Delphi, and in Boiotia. Suchevidencedocumentsthe history of the Attalids' external relations and in somecasesfurther illustrates constitutional procedures and institutions, since ambassadors, members of the royal family, and other officials and representatives are occasionallydesignatedand described.Even more important is the evidencerelating to the institution of royal cults in citieswhich were the objectofthe Attalids'beneficence;worthy of special mention in this regard is the material now accumulated from Teos and Miletos. Numismatic evidence is of less importance to constitutional mattersin the caseof the Attalids, but it contributessignificantlyto our knowledgeof the dynasty's standing,both before 188nc (the dynasticcoinage)r2and after that date,when (aswill be argued)the cistophoriccoinagebecamean institution of Attalid fiscal control throughout the newly acquiredkingdom. Finally we must considerwhat may be termed the monumental evidence.Of all the Hellenisticroyal capitalsPergamonhas provided the richest yield of monumentaland architecturalremains, enablingus to reconstructwith a high degreeof precisionnot only the growth and developmentof the city in materialterms, but also the nature and purpose of many royal and religious buildings, and the relative importance of the institutions and cults (whether royal

6

counts. Enough hasbeen saidto familiarize the readerwith the problems to be expectedof the literary evidencethat will be adducedin this study. We turn now to considerbriefly the natureof the evidence provided by inscriptions. What we know of the institutions of Attalid rule, as distinct from the historical background of their implementation, is derived very largely from epigraphical evidence, both the copious body of texts from Pergamonitself, augmented over the years since the original publications of Inschriften von Pergamon, and that from other parts of the Greek world in Asia Minor and on the Greek mainland. Of great importance is the material, consistingchiefly of honorary decreesin favour of membersof the royal family or their ofücials, from cities that were in some way subject or tributary to the Attalids, since these frequently record the names and titles of offrcials and at times attest,explicitly or otherwise,proceduresand evenpolicies of the royal administration; in this category should be mentioneda decree from Bursa honouring the Attalid strategos Korrhagos, rr SeeAppendix i; Hopp, IJntersuchungen,16-26' esp' lE-19'

7

12See in general the remarks of Rostovtzefr, SEHHW ii. 1288-96; h,6aux, Monde hell. i. 106-10,and the referencesgiven below, 24n. 51.

8

The Nature of the Evidence

or divine) that they represent.Although it will not be a part of our purpose to consider the material and artistic developmentof Pergamon, certain features of it will be noticed as they attest or contribute to our knowledgeof the Attalids' power and standingin the Greek world. Thus the early years of the reign of Attalos I, and in particular the significance of his numerous military victories over Galatiansand other enemiesin westernAsia Minor, can only be fully comprehendedin relation to the seriesof monumentsthat he dedicatedto Athena on the citadel of Pergamon;and the value of theseas historical evidenceis in many casesfurther enhanced by the presenceof dedicatory inscriptions which attest both the purposefor which they were erectedand the eventswhich they were intendedto celebrate.This kind of evidenceis lessprominent for the early years of the dynasty, but is of great importance to an of the reignsand achievementsof Attalos' successors, assessment especiallyEumenesII, for whom the Pergamenemonumentsare a true mirror of the expansionand strengtheningof royal authority in Asia Minor after the Roman settlementof 188sc.r3 13An excellent historical account of the monumentsof Pergamonis given by Kähler, Gr. Fries, 131-49(with detailednotes)'

2 P E R G A M O NU N D E R P H I L E T A I R O SA N D E U M E N E S I Under Philetairos and Eumenes I the Attalids achieved the statusof a dynasty; it is the purposeof this chapterto examinethe process.lPhiletairos'position at Pergamondatesfrom about 302, or shortly before the battle at Ipsos,2but for the twenty years' period of his allegianceto Lysimachos we have only a few literary notices, usually in late writers, and no certainly pertinent documentaryevidence.3We do not even know the exact title or nature of the office entrusted to Philetairosby Lysimachos, althoughit was almost certainlya purely financialone.aThe offrcial foundationof the Attalid dynasty, however,was put sometwenty yearslater in 283,when Philetairosplacedhimself,and the wealth he administered,at the disposalof Seleukos,whom he correctly assessedas the more likely winner in the imminent conflict with Lysimachos.This date, 283,can be reachedwith someprecision from the chronologyof the reignsof the Attalids given by Strabo I For the early growth of Pergamon,see Cardinali, Rp 4-16; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW i. 553-66;Bengtson,Srrar. ii. 195-8;Magie,RomanRale i. l-33, with the well-documented notes,ii. 725-81.The secondeditionof Hansen'sÄtra/idsshows only superficialrevisionand is as uncriticalasthe first, which waswell reviewedby A. Aymard,REÄ xlix (1947),33945. The thesisof R.B. Mcshane,Foreignpolicy (Illinois, 1964),that the Attalids worked from a panhellenicideal and on a legalistic federalbasisin their relationswith Greekcities,doesonly occasionaljusticito the evidence,and is hardly realistic. 2 According to Diodoros xx. 107. .t-5, Dokimos, strategos of Antigonos at synnada,took up the causeof Lysimachosin 302,and philetairoswas frobably given the chargeof the strongholdat pergamonat the sametime. cf. cardinali, Ri 6-7; Bengtson,Stat. i.199-201. I For the relevance to this period of the pergamene treaty of ioono).neia with Temnos(Sry iii. 555),seebelow, l6-17. a He wasprobably simplyTc(o gülal, thatis,keeper ofthe treasuryat pergamon (cf. Bengtson,Strat. ä. 195),but there is no direct evidenceto this effec1.His positionwas certainly not a military one; cf. Cardinali,Rp 7, n. 2.

l0

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

(xiii. 4. l-2, 6234), supplementedby other information. Strabo gives the length of each reign in yearsas follows: Philetairos,20; EumenesI,22; Attzlos I, 43; Eumenesll, 49:.Attalos II, 2l; and Attalos III, 5. This chronologyis mistakenat two points, but each mistake is fortunately easy to account for. Firstly, the 49 years assignedto EumenesII is evidently a slip for 39; this lower figure then fits with the rest of Strabo's dates,and an error of l0 is not difficult to explain in simple arithmeticalterms.s Strabo meant, then, to say 39, but eventhis figure is not quite accurate:the death of Attalos I can be placedfrom the narrative of Livy (xxxiii. 2. l-3:. 2l.l) in the late summer or autumn of 197,6and we know from Delphian documents recording Pergamenedonations of the year 160/59,that EumenesII died in the autumnof 159.7Thus Eumenes II ruled for a little over 38 years,which were evidentlyrounded upwards in Strabo's source to 39. Now Polybios, followed by Livy, assigns44yearsto Attalos I, and not 43;8it is therefore clear what happened to the chronology followed by Strabo: Attalos I ruled for 43llzyears(: 43 in Strabo,44in Polybios),and 5 K. Meischke,Symbolae,l2-13; Magie,RomanRule, ü.771-2, n.75. 5The account of Attalos' death is missingfrom the fragmentsof Polyb. xviii. All we have is Polybios'own eulogy(xviii. 4l). Livy's narrative,at this point drawn from Polybios, enables us to date the event to late summer or autumn 191; cf . Holleaux,Etudes, v. I 14,n. l . An inscriptionfrom Delphi (Appendixiv, no. 4), records the presenceat Delphi, in connection with a manumission,of Dameas,d napä toü 6aoü,6aE'Atrdlou ö Eni töv Epyav rritv 6aotlmöv, in August-Sep tember 197.On this evidenceMeischke concluded(Symäolae, 2l)that Attaloswas still alive in September 197,but since Dameas' titulature will probably not have changedimmediately after Attalos' death, such an exact chronologicalinferenceis hardly valid. ?The chronology of the death of EumenesII was establishedby G. Daux, BCH lix (1935),220-30;seealso hisDe/phes, 502-9,on the basisofDelphian documents (Syll.3671,now to be consultedin the edition inF. Delphes,iii. 3. 238-9,with the additional corrections and suggestions of Ad. Wilhelm, Griech. Inschriften rechtlichenInhalts, 5l-5; Sy/t.3672, : Daux, Delphes,ß2-98, C), which record donationsof EumenesII in the ninth month of the archonshipof Amphistratos (160 / 59),andof AttalosII, calledKing, in the sixth monthof the sameyear.Thesetexts show, as Daux demonstrated,that Eumeneswas alive in March-April 159,and that Attalos lI was associatedin the kingship some months before Eumenes' death, which must be placed towards the end of the year 159. The establishingof the co-regencyis probably referred to in an Athenian decree,also of 160/59(Appendix iv. no.lE). 8 Polyb.xviii. 41. 8; Livy xxxiii. 21. l.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

11

EumenesII ruled for 38t/z years (: 39 in Strabo).eIn absolute terms,then, the accessionof Attalos I shouldbe dated241,and not 240,which means,in turn, that the official beginningof Philetairos' rule was in 283,and not 282,althoughit remainsa possibility,but an unlikely one, that the 20 yearsassignedto Philetairosby Strabo was a round figure, and that the beginningof Philetairos'rule was not exactly dated.ro It seems safer, however, to leave the chronology of the reignsof the Attalids as follows: PHILETAIROS 283_263 EUMENESII EUMENESI 263_24I ATTALOSII ATTALOSI 241_197 ATTALOSIII

197_159 I59_I38 I38_I33.

This chronology leavesus with the year 283 as most probably that of the foundation of the Attalid dynasty. Unfortunately no chronologicalprecision,corroborativeor otherwise,canbe gained from the available accounts of the events leading to the battle fought between the armies of Lysimachos and Seleukos at Corupedion,sincetheseaccountsappearin the highly dramatized narrativesof later writers, but they do havesomevaluein throwing light on the position taken by Philetairos.The two principal accounts,those of Justin and Pausanias,deal with the eventswhich made up the final downfall of the houseof Lysimachos:the conspiracy against,and murder of, his son Agathokles,widespread revolt from Lysimachos (including Philetairos' change of allegiance),and the battle at Corupedion.t t [n the narrativeof Justin (xvii. l) thesedisastersare relatedto the portent ofan earthquake which hit Lysimacheiain 28716;rzthus chronologicalprecisionis sacrificed to the making of a dramatic point: Per idem fermetempusHellespontiet Chersonesi regionibus terrae motusfuit, maximetamenLysimachiaurbs,anteduoset XX annosa Lysimachoregecondita,eversaest. Quodportentumdira Lysimacho stirpiqueeiusac regniruinamcum cladevexatarumregionumportendeCf. Cardinali,RP 8, n. 3. rolt was K. J. Beloch's view (Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2.207) that the twenty years assignedto Philetairosis a round number, but the exact figuresgiven for the other reigns count against it. ftFor these events, see B. Niese, Geschichteder griechischenund MakedonischenStaaten, i. 4024; Beloch,Gr. Gesch. iv.2 l. 242-5. t2 Beloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.2 l. 243,n. l.

12

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

ebat. Nec ostentisfides defuit, nam brevi post temporeAgathoclem, per quemmulta regniordinaverat, filium suum,quemin successionem bella prosperegesserat,non solum ultra patrium, verum etiam ultra humanummoremperosusministraArsinoönovercavenenointerfecit. ruinaefuit. Nam Haec illi prima mali labes,hoc initium inpendentis parricidiumprincipumsecutae caedessuntluentiumsupplicia,quodocet ii, qui superfuerant, cisumiuvenemdolebant.Itaqueet ii, qui caedibus exercitibuspraeerant,certatimad Seleucumdeficiunteumquepronum gloriaebellumLysimachoinferreconpellunt. iam ex aemulatione The chronology is also certainly compressedpost eventum by Pausanias,who errs further in making Lysimachosthe aggressor againstSeleukos(i. 10. 3-5): xai @ü'&aqoE äpa, fi d Tpqpara 'Aya0oil.6oug rc).ewr1yaAendtg öneürpanro Auoqtäyou, rfi re xara).apcptpanxai rd. nagä tfiE'Apowöqg ünonra fyyoüpevoE 66ver. Il1pyalrov rfiv önbp Katxou, nöptpaE öi xrjpuxa rd re yprjpara xai aöröv ööiöouZü"eüxE. The battleat Corupedionwas fought early in 281,most probablyin February,r3but the deathof Agathoklescannot be dated exactly betweenthe years 28716and 283,andthe implicationin the highly dramatizedlatetradition,that Lysimachos and Seleukoscame to blows immediatelyafter the desertionsfrom Lysimachos,is not a cogentobjectionto the (at the most) two years interval requiredby the chronologyarguedhere. ThesepassagesofJustin and Pausanias,iftheir relation ofcauses and effects can be trusted, imply that Philetairos distrusted Lysimachosand took the first opportunity to betray him. This is probably again a highly dramatizedand personalizedaccount of more soberrealities;namely,that Philetairossaw Seleukosas the strongerman in the coming struggle.According to Justin, Philetairos was not alone in this opinion: ii, qui exercitibuspraeerant is doubtlessterminologicallyinexactor may be an interpretation of the term strategoi; it was probably intendedto include Philetairos,who is not specificallymentionedin the narrative. It is then importantto rememberthat Philetairoswasnot alonein desertingLysimachos, and that the dynasty he founded was in origin only one of a number of such dynastiesin Asia Minor, althoughnone of the others sharedthe Attalids' spectacularsuc1 3B e n g t s o n ,/ / l s t o r i a , i v ( 1 9 5 3 ) , I l 3 ; H . H e i n e n , I J n t e r s u c h .z u r h e l l e n i s t i s c h e n Geschichte des 3. Jhdt. v. Chr. (Historia, Einzelschr. 20, 1972),2O4.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

13

cess. They owed their positions later to the partially tentative natureof Seleukidrule in Asia Minor,ra and soughtindependence and an increase of authority when this power began its slow but continuousdeclineafter the deathof SeleukosI. An exampleis the dynasty of Lysias and Philomelos, whose position we will be examining later in this chapter.r5 Similarly, it is likely that Philetairos' own brother Eumenes was dynast for a time at the Paphlagoniancity of Amastris, although his tenure was evidently brief, and he did not establisha dynasty there.l6It is likely that theseother dynasts played an important part in the issuebetween Seleukosand Lysimachos,whereasPhiletairosheld an especially important position in view of the great wealth he controlled at Pergamon. How Philetairos' position was changedby his transferenceof allegianceto Seleukosin 283 is not cleat, since the nature of his rule in the service of Lysimachosis, as we have seen,so poorly attested.We may safely reckon, however, that he becamesomething more than the simple treasurer or finance-officer he had been.It is almostcertain,moreover,that he gaineda goodmeasure of freedom, althoughnot completeindependence.Strabo,whose ta On theöuvdorcr as an elementin the SeleukidKingdom, in Asia Minor as well as in the East, see,in additionto the studiesof Wilhelmand Holleaux,citedbelow, n. 39, Bengtson,Stat. ii. 3-8; A. H, M. Jones,Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces(ed.2, Oxford, l97l),4f-9. yote especiallythe decreeofSmyrna (treaty of oupnd'neta with Magnesia ad Sipylum), passed probably in 243 or shortly thereafter (OGIS 229, = SrV iii. 492: on the date, W. Otto, Beitr. z Seleukidengesch. des3. Jahrhundertsv. Chr. (Abh. München, !4, l92B),70;Chr. Habicht,Gottmenschentum, 100:'wohlvom Frühjahr242'),lines l0-ll: ö6e6aiooty titt öriptttt d1v aöltovopi,au xai ö1poxpatlav, öyparpu öö xai npöE rcüg 6aoü"cig xai rcüg öuvdotaE xai rdg nüteq xai td. E0v4d.fulboaEd.noötfao\ar ü re iegöv rfiE ZtgatovrxtöoE,'Aqpoöit4Edoulov elvar xü,. tr Cf. below, n. 39. t6 We know from a passageof Memnon (FGrHist 434,ch.9) that a dynast named Eumenes held Amastris in 279 (roü xaüTovrog aötlv Eöp6voug), and that he surrenderedthe city to the rulers of Pontos in this year. The identification of this Eumenes with the brother of Philetairos (on whom see below, Appendix i), first proposedby Droysen (Geich. des Hellenismus(ed. 2, 1877)iii. 255),but with a preferencefor an identificationwith the son ofthis Eumenes,i.e. the futuredynast (cf. Niese, ii. 75, n. 7; Cardinali,RP 10, n. 4), is strengthenedby the fact that Philetairos'native city of Tios took part in the synoikismof Amastrisin c.300sc althoughit later withdrew (Straboxii. 3.10, 544; cf. Ernst Meyer, Die Grenzen 109-10;L. Robert,Et. anat.262-3\.

14

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

source was in all probability ultimately a biography of Philetairos, whetheror not usedat first hand,rTrefersto his positionand to his policy;hecallshim (xii. 3. 8,543)ddqyrly&1Etoütöv'Arra)'möv 6aoü.6av y|vouE, and of his administrationsays (xiii 4- 1,623) örcr|Leoe yoüv örq e\xoot xtigtoE öv roü Epoupiou xai röv 4pr1pätotv.Thus he was not simply an ofücial in the service of the Seleukids,as he had been in the serviceof Lysimachos: he was xüpnE of Pergamonand of its wealth, althoughevidently of no more.rEThe measureof his independenceis shownalsoby the fact that his coinagebore his own name,but continuedto bearthe head of Seleukosevenafter the accessionof AntiochosI, indicatingthat he owed a nominal allegianceto Seleukospersonally,and not a continuingone to the Seleukiddynastyasa whole. His returningto Antiochosof the ashesof Seleukos,attestedby Appian, is a further indicationin this direction; it need not signify, as is usually inferred, a recognitionin turn of the overlordshipof Antiochos.le In saying that Philetairoswas xüpng of Pergamonand of its wealth, Strabo clearly implies a good measureof financial independence,and this positionis confirmedby other evidence. Strabo himselfadds (xiii. 4. l, 623):örcy|veroptvotv Enircü öpiparcg ö eövoüyoE xai noAneuöpwog ör"önooyQoeovxai u75 üJ'r1E IepaneiaE d.ü npög röv iogüovra xai ByyüEnapövra. This befriending of neighbourson the part of Philetairos most often took the form of financial generosity, as is amply attestedby epigraphical evidence. Kyzikos, a city whose friendship the Attalids retainedandtreasuredthroughouttheir history, receivedthis kind of from Philetairosduringthe troubledyearsof the 270s'to assistance alleviate the difficulties it faced during the war of Antiochos I with r?Seeabove, 2-3. tt Cardinali.RP 10.n. 5. I q F. Imhoof-Blumer,Die M ünzen ; cf . U. Westermark,Das Bildnis 20-1' For the return of Seleukos'ashes,see Appian, Syr. 63. I cannot agree with the view, expressedfor example by Cardinali, RP 9-10, and P. Zancan,Il Monarcato ellenisticonei suoi elementifederalivi(Padua,l9t4),95, that this act was n€cessarily meant as a token of recognition of Antiochos' suzerainty; it was surely in essencea gestureof respectto Philetairos'deceasedpatron. Thus the positionis perhapsbetter expressedby Meyer, Die Grenzen,97: 'wie Philetairosim Anfang sich den Seleukiden gegenüber sehr loyal verhielt.' McShane wites (Foreign Policy, 3!) 'Philetaerusc{rried favour with Antiochus', which is fantasy.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

15

NikomedesI of Bithynia and the so-calledNorthern League,during the Galatiancrisis which followed this war, and later.2oIn the decreeof Kyzikos from which this informationcomes,Philetairos is honoured as an independentbenefactor.2tSimilarly independent were his benefactionsat Delphi, where Philetairosand his family were honouredasnpol6vor.;22and at Thespiaiinscriptions attest his dedicationof land to the Helikonian Muses.23 Of equal interest is Philetairos'activity in areascloseto Pergamon which remainedunder Seleukidauthority. Again Philetairos usedhis wealth to befriend,and perhapsinfluence,his neighbours, but here it emergesmore clearly that, in spite of his considerable financial independence,he was concedednothing in terms of direct authority, beyond his position at Pergamon,by his Seleukid suzerain, Antiochos L There are, however, two aspectsto be consideredin relation to Philetairos'policy in this area. One, as alreadysuggested,is his relationshipto Seleukidcitiesarisingfrom his own relationshipto the Seleukids,that is, at the time, Antiochos I; to this aspectwe will return later. A secondconsideration, however, stemsfrom the fact that Philetairos'activity can alsobe relatedto an alreadyexistingesteemenjoyedby the city of Pergamon. Although the history of the city before the Attalid period is, in terms of literary evidence,almost unknown,2aarchaeologicaland other evidencemakesit clearthat the city was then far from insignificant. One item of evidence is especially noteworthy. The temple erected for the worship of Meter at 20OGIS 748.The recordeddonationsdatefrom 280/79to27615, accordingto the chronology convincingly establishedby Dittenberger(ad loc., n. 7), and confirmed by M. Launey,REÄ xlvi (1944),217-36;seefurther below, ch. 5. The fact that in 27918Philetairosconcededto Kyzikos (lines 8-12) dt4Tenv tiE l"cias lxai töv l"omöv 6w d.neoxujaoav lxai6oot 6t äyopdoavteElix qE aittoü Ey4ytiyovto isa furtherindicationof his financialindependence.The.b*etalqeamentionedin a list of names from the gymnasium at Kyzikos (ClG 3660)are most probably to be associatedwith Philetairos'donations:cf. L. Robert,Et. anat. 199-201. 2r Lines l-2: niöe töanev
16

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

Mamurt-Kaleh, thirty kilometresfrom Pergamon,which is mentioned as an important cult-centreby Strabo,2swas, accordingto its excavators, a refoundation, and not an original foundation, of Philetairos,and the altar built by him was, like the structureas a A bronzecoinwhole, an enlargementof an existingfoundation.26 from Adramyttion, with examples age associatedwith this cult, Gambreion,Pitane,Aigai, Elaia, Sardis,Thyateira,and Kyzikos, nearlyall of which are known to havehad strongconnectionswith Pergamonin the Attalid period, extendsfrom the fourth century Bc to the fifth centuryafterChrist.27[t wasin this area,aswill be seen, that Philetairos exercised a strong influence as dynast of Pergamon; striking too is the appearancein thö list of Kyzikos, a firm friend of the Attalids during the entire period of their rule at Pergamon.We seethat the areain which Pergamonwas influential early in the Attalid period already had contactswith this city, as subscribersto the cult of Meter, in an earlier period of its history. This fact underlinesthe importance of Philetairos' work in rebuildingthe cult centre,now in his control, on a largerscale;andto this work he could add his personaldedicationto the goddess: This was clearly one aspectof @A&aqog'Arrä).ou trtr1rpi1erbv.2E xüprcg roü cppoupiouxai rCov of Philetairos: Strabo'sdescription ypr1pätav. It has already been indicated, however, that this influence, considerablethough it may have been, did not extend to direct authority. On the contrary, his influence seems to have owed somethingto the at leastnominalsuzeraintyof Antiochoswhich he had to acknowledge; this is indicated by the appearahceof Seleukid cities among those which Philetairosbefriended.The area in which the cities of Aigai and Temnos were situatedprovides the most striking evidence of this situation. A treaty of ioono)'rcetaconcludedbetween Pergamonand Temnos is to be dated,accordingto the letters,to the beginningof the third century sc, and it is unlikely that the stone was inscribed later than the 'Aonoqvvfi5. 2s xäi. 2.6, 619: rö iepöv rö twaü9a tqE,pqQöq, töv 9eöv 26A. Conze and P. Schazmann,Mamurt-Kaleh,43; Ohlemutz, Kulte, l74ff 21Mamurt-Kaleh, 42-3. 2 8M a m u r t - K a l e h , 1 0 . I

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

17

period in which Philetairos paid allegiance to Lysimachos, althoughit may have beenearlier.2eIn any event, it points to early, and possibly pre-Attalid contacts betweenthe two cities. In the samearea, two dedications of land to Apollo made by Philetairos further attest these early contacts; both are from the temple of Apollo situated between Kyme and Myrina, and belonging to Aigai. Onereads'A n iluAavt X pqoq p iott |
18

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

The text is a reply to a decree of Smyrna which Pergamon.32 honouredthree Temnitansfor rescuingsomecitizens of Smyrna from brigands. The decreereflects a more than casualconnection betweenthe two cities, a fact of significancein that Smyrna was at that time a Seleukidcity .33The evidencefor Aigai is morepositive, andwe seethat this city remainedSeleukidat leastuntil the time of EumenesI of Pergamon,and probablylater. This is clearly shown by its coinage, which was Seleukid under Antiochos II (i.e. 261-246),34and by a group of stonesfixing the boundary between Aigai and Myrina; two from the mountain country north-west of Manisa, inscribed öpot Aiya6an,3s and a third, more recently discovered, recording the actual settlement:36ouwd$avltog 'Ane)'6aoü.60ryI'Avröpu öqor.lrrlEAiyatöoE loi re06vregü[nö )"6ouElrcü Mryqoööllpoul. The lettering indicatesa date in the middle of the third century nc, and the king is therefore most probably Antiochos [I; and sincethe formula used in the inscription denotesa settlementimposed by a suzerainrather than an arbitration,3T Seleukidauthority over this city is clearly indicated. It is possiblethat EumenesI acquiredsuzeraintyover Aigai and Temnos later in his reign, as he did earlier over Pitane (to be discussedbelow),but the first tangibleevidenceof a morepositive Pergamenecontrol in this areadatesfrom the reignof Attalos I, as we will see in the next chapter. In any event, when Philetairos dedicated land to Apollo, the city of Aigai was firmly under Seleukidcontrol, and Philetairos'contact in this areais thus seen 32L. Robert,Et. anat. XJ-6. 33L. Robert,REÄ xxxviii ( I 936), 2!-E; Et. anat. 92.On the Antiocheiain honour ofAntiochos II, and other Seleukidcults at Smyrna,seeHabicht,Gottmenschentum, 99-102: W. Orth, Königlicher Machtanspruch und städtischeFreiheit (MünchenerBeiträgezur Papyrusforschung undantikenRechtsgeschichte, Tl, Munich, 1977),163-4.StV äi. 492(cf. above,n. 14)recordsthe confirmationby SeleukosII of the city's adrcvopia xo,iöqpoxpatia, which were therefore alreadyguaranteed by AntiochosII. We alsoknow that the city's coinagewasindependentin the third century:J. G. Milne, Num. Chron. iii (1923),I ff.; A. Heuss,^Sradt und Herrscher des Hellenismus(KIio, Beiheft xxxix (1937)),t97. 3aE. T. Newell, TheCoinageof the WesternSeleucidMints (AmericanNumismatic Society,Numismatic Studies,iv, l94l), 306 ff. 35J. Keil and A. von Premerstein, BerichtübereineReisein Lydien, nos.204-5. 16P. Herrmann,Denkschr.Wien.Akad. lxxvii I (1959;,4-6, no. 2. 37As noted by J. and L. Robert,Bull. 1960,no. 340.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

19

to exlude any kind of direct authority. The same is true of his relationswith Pitane,a city on the coast of the Elaitic Gulf to the documentof south-westof Pergamon,as is shownby a Pergamene a laterdate,which recordsthe settlementof a land disputebetween Pitane and Mytilene.3s This document refers to donations of Philetairos to Pitane, which enabled the city to purchase an amount of land (the land later in dispute)from Antiochos I; the amount of the donationhas not survivedin the text (lines 135-6): ööwoE [eiElaüra llrcavaioegxai QÄeraipou r[d).avra - - - - - ]l xovra. It is clear, once more, that Antiochos was the city's suzerain,and Philetairosits benefactor.We have then another exampleof Philetairosextendinghis influence, by financialmeans, in the directionof citieswhich remainedunder Seleukidauthority, and this evidencefits well with Strabo'sdescriptionof Philetairos' . . . xüprcE öv to6 authority and its implied limits: öLer6).eoe yqrlpdtatv. gqouqiou xs.i rritv Philetairos,then, basedhis influenceon threefactors:the influence alreadyenjoyedby the city of Pergamonin connectionwith the nearbycult of Meter; his Seleukidpatronage,wherebyhe was ableto enjoy closercontactswith Seleukidcities; and his financial independence , which enabledhim to exploit theseadvantages.It is worth noting that in respectof Philetairos'generosityto independentcities and cult centres,the samepolicy can be ascribed,as far asthe limited evidenceallows, to the PhrygianPhilomeliddynasty mentioned earlier. This dynasty, which evidently retained the semi-independentand undefined position in relation to the Seleukidsthat we can reasonablyattributeto Philetairos,without, however, achieving the status of a kingdom, is known to have developedthe friendship of important religiouscentres,such as Delphi and Didyma. The Philomeliddynastycan,like the Attalid, be traced back to the early third century sc, although we have no

3E/GxiiSuppl.p.48,no.l42(IvP245,OGIS335)incorporatingsuggestionsofL' Rob€rt,tCH xlix (1925),219-21;BCH l(1926),469,n. | (SEGiv. 680);REÄxxxvi (1934),58; Et. anat. ll4, n. l. A new editionof this text is promisedby Robertin Villes, 413, n. l. On the topographyinvolved in the dispute, see Meyer, Die Grenzen, lO6-7.

20

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

direct record of its foundation.3e If we knew more about such dynasties in Asia Minor, we would probably find other features reminiscentof the policies of the early Attalids. Philetairos was, as Strabo says, master of Pergamonand its wealth, but he acquiredno further measureof direct authority from his Seleukid suzerains.We therefore cannot expect to define an area of Pergameneauthority under his rule, since such a concept would be meaningless.The position changesentirely in this respect,however,under his successor,EumenesI. Eumenes,as we know from Strabo(xiii. 4. 2,624), met and defeatedAntiochosI in a battle near Sardis:aoöoneq xai örcö4f,arcrö ll6pyapov, xo.i fiv ijö4 öuvdorrlg röv xüxLE yogiav, öme xo.inegi 2dpöe6 övixqoe pdyrl oup6a)'öv 'Avrioyov röv Ze)'eüxou.Several points emerge clearly from this statement:firstly, Eumenesis called'dynast of the surrounding country' whereas Philetairos had been simply 'masterof Pergamonand its wealth'; secondly,this position was achievedbefore the battle, since Strabo statesclearly that it was a factor which led to the battle: rt, iiöq öuväoqE. . . ritorc. . . . On the other hand, Strabo does not allude to or imply an increasein territory achievedby Eumenes;this is consistentwith the picture we have drawn of the nature of Philetairos' position at Pergamon. It is not to the extent of Eumenes' authority, as comparedwith Philetairos',that Straborefersin this passage,but to the natureof this authority. Where Philetairos had exercised an influence, Eumenesclaimeda definitedynasteia.Sincethe battlewas fought between263,the year of Eumenes'accession,and 261,theyear of

the death of his opponent,4rthis claim must have been madeat the very beginning of Eumenes' reign, which is also the natural place to put it. Some indications of the significanceand implications of this changeofauthority can be deducedfrom other evidence. Of first importance in this regard is the inscription already mentioned, relating to the land dispute between Pitane and Mytilene Here, as we have seen,Philetairos is shown to be an independent benefactor to Pitane, while the city remained under Seleukid authority; under Eumenes,however,this authorityin itself passedto the dynast, as is clear from the statementin the text (lines l4l-21:az fx]ai ög Eöp4vryEnapd"a6dv rd nqäy[pata napäEefi,eüxou löyntpöS I lltlta.vaiouE xrA. This assumption of Qdqev ölnntollv direct authority by Eumenesis to be dated most plausibly early in his reign,beforethe accessionof AntiochosII, to whom thereis no referencein the documentamongthe line of successivesuzerains at Pitane; the suzerainty therefore passed directly to Eumenes. This evidence adds meaning to the statement of Strabo, that Eumeneswas 'dynast of the surroundingcountry'; he was in this respect suzerainof Pitane. In view of the chronological indications already argued, it is most probable that Eumenesacquired, or more probably usurped authority over Pitane before the battle at Sardis,as one aspectof his aspirationtodynasteia. Anacquisition of new territory would perhaps be more understandableafter the defeat of Antiochos, but such acquisition does not come into question here;a3a declaration of independentauthority, with

3eThe chronologyandgenealogyofthe Philomeliddynastywereclarifiedby Ad. Wilhelm,NeaeBeiträgezurgriech. Inschriftenkunde(SBWien clxvi(l9ll), I. ll, 48-63). See also the important additionalconclusionsof Holleaux, Etudes, üi, 357-63(fromREA l9l5\; Robert,Villes, 156,n. 2; Bengtson,Strat. ä.5-6, and his remarksinDie Inschr. von Labranda (SBMünchen, 1971,3),14-16.Donationsat Didyma:A. Rehm,Didyma,ä.272,no.458(second Delphi:SGD.I2716(242sc);at centuryrc). At Ddyma, a Philomelosgavetenpairsof mulesandfive driversto the temple.This remindsus of a gift of Attalos (probablyII) to the templeof Athenain Ilion (L. Robert,BCH liv (1930),348-51;Welles,RC 62). aoIvP 15is possiblyan epigramcelebratingthis victory: Beloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.2 l . 5 9 3 ,n . 4 ; M a g i e R , o m a nR u l e ,ü . 7 3 3 , n . 1 6 .

2l

at The deathof AntiochosI is datedin the BabylonianKingJist publishedby A. J. Sachsand D. J. Wiseman,Iraq, xvi (1954),206,to year 5l (Seleukidera),(month) II, (day) f 6, namelyJune lst or 2nd,26l nc. Cf. R. A. Parkerand W. H. Dubberstein,BabylonianChronology626B. C. - A. D.75, Brown UniversityStudies,vol. xix (hovidence,R.I., 1956),21. a2I give the restorationsofL. Robert,as followedin/G xii Suppl.p. 48,no. 142 (seeabove, n. 38). a3The attempt has too often beenmadeto seean increasein Pergameneterritory, implying an existing Pergameneauthority under Philetairos,as a result ofthe battle at Sardis;e.g. Meyer, Die Grenzen,98,speaksof 'diesergrossel-andgewinn'.It wasa'Landgewinn',in my view, only in the sensethat Philetairoshadhadno direct authorityin the area.It was,as I havestressed,the natureandnot the extentofthe authoritythat changedwith EumenesI. This doesnot meanthat Eumenes'claim was necessarily implemented fully and immediately: we see Myrina, which lay within the area embracedby Philetaireia and Attaleia and the öpot [Iepyap4vöv, remainingunder Seleukidauthority until later. On Gryneion,seebelow, n: 52.

22

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

which we are concerned, is a tangible motive for the battle. A few words need to be said at this point on the position of Eumenes in relation to Antiochos' opponents, especially Ptolemy II of Egypt, in the so-calledSecondSyrian War.aaIt is not known whether Eumenes had any contact with these other enemiesof Antiochos. It has been supposed(one can hardly say argued) that in opposing Antiochos Eumeneswas acting in collusion with, or even in alliance with Ptolemy, enabling the latter to pursuemoreeasilythe warat sea,and to makea numberof specific gains, including Ephesos,which was evidently under Ptolemaic For this suppositionthereis not a control for a while in the 250s.as shred of evidence. direct or otherwise. The fact that Eumenes establishedcontactswith Delos doesnot meanthat he was bound to follow Ptolemaicpolicy, and still less that he was Rolemy's formal ally.a6It is possiblethat Eumeneswas shrewd enoughto take accountof the threat to Antiochos in Koile Syria in making his own attack,andthat his successat Sardisin turn providedRolemy with an opportunity for more vigorous action against Antiochos' successor,Antiochos II, but more specific co-operationis not attested. It is more likely, as we have seen, that Eumenes took the opportunity affordedby his own accession,that is, the changeof rule he represented at Pergamon, to press more strongly than Philetairoshad done a claim to an independentdynasteia-This aaSee,in general,Will, Ilisl. pol. i. 208-ll. a5Beloch,Gr. Gesch. iv.2 l. 593,n. 4; Cardinali,RP I 3-14; Crampa,Labraunda, iii. l. l13-20; Magie,Roman Rule, ü.733, n. 16, rightly points out the lack of conclusiveevidence. 45It is most likely, and significant, that EumenesI was responsiblefor the first official contact of the dynasty with Delos. The first vase for a Philetaireiafestival (1917),427,n.4;IG xi.2.224A,4),and wasdedicatedin262(Ziebarth,Hermes,lii Eumenes'statue (1G xi. 4. ll07, = Durrbach, Cftoir, 33)is the earliest known ofan Attalid on the island; the base celebrating a victory of Philetairos was almost certainly inscribed during the reign of Attalos I, as I suggestbelow, 3l n. 8. The developmentofthese contacts, which naturally had a considerableprestigevalue, was probably first and foremost an expressionof Eumenes'inderyndentdynasteia, and though doubtlesscarried through with Egypt's approval, does not imply that Eumeneswas that country's vassal. For the view that the battle at Sardis was decisive to the outbreak ofthe Syrian War, see,besidesBeloch(citedin n. 45),W. W. Tarn,ÄzrrgonosGonatas(Oxford, l9l3), 314.The accessionto the Seleukidthrone ofthe young Antiochos II was perhapsa strongerreasonforftolemy's advance;cf. Will, Hist. pol. i.208.

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

23

attitude is probably reflected also in a Pergameneinscription recordinga settlementbetweenEumenesand groupsof mercenaries settled at Philetaireia and Attaleia, who had recently been in revolt.47Attaleia was situatedin Lydia, north-eastof Thyateiraand some35 kilometreseastof Pergamon;aE the positionof Philetaireia hasnot beenexactly located,but itsdesignationin the documentin question as being önö rlv "Iöryv placesit somewhat north of the AdramytteneGulf, in the south-eastof the Troad.aeIn this treaty, a7IvP 13,with addenda,IvP i. p. xix, ii. p. 507,= OGIS 266;StV iii. 4El, with bibliography, p. 149. 48G. Radet,BCH xi (1887),168;Cardinali,RP 14,n. 6; L. Robert, Rev. Arch. 1934,9O-2: Villes, l0l-2. aeThe namePhiletaireiais to be found in two other Pergameneinscriptions. One, a dedication, refers to a Eumeneion (/vP 24(),with addenda,/vp ii. p. 509, = OG/S 'Entx),6ou9,, 336):lrcynqg lxaraota9eiE npög qt tnrpü,eiar xailgü,axqr uiv iv eenv, tv tltt xataoxeuao|[fival I vaöv ),flilou] ).euxoö, eiE6v dvarc9fivat rö äyd"pa. tv fi ö' äv tlp6par. yivqtar rl xa0r,6plao6l I airyü o[taLfitlar nopdlv tx rcü nputavciou eigtö üpevoE aöto6 xil". The provision for the procession presupposesthat the temenos, and therefore the place called Philetaireia,where it was to be dedicated,were in Pergamonitself or nearby.As the first editor ofthe inscription observed, this Philetaireiacan hardly have been the one designatedönö d1t'Iö4v, sincethe latter was a good two days from Pergamon (H. Hepding,ÄM xxxii (1907),254-5;cf. L. Roberr,REÄxxxvi (1934),524;Avpix. 89-90). The procedurelaid down in the decreefor Diodoros makesit clear that the Philetaireiaconcernedwas closeto Pergamon,althoughthe conclusionthat it was a part of the city, designatingthe old city of Philetairosas distinct from the city built by Eumenesll (cf . AvP ix. 90), is unlikely, since the use of a dynastic namein this form of a part of a city is extremely rare, though not entirely unparalleled(cf. the quarter namedAl4drianosaddedto the city ofAlexandriaby Hadrian: p. M. Fraser, ./EÄ xxxvii (1951),105;PtolemaicAlexandria, (Oxford, 1972),35).Itseemsmore likely that this Philetaireia was situated in the immediate vicinity of pergamon. From this probability we may draw two conclusions:(l) that the philetaireiaof the treaty with the mercenarieswas called rizö d1t'Iö4v to distinguishit from the one closer to Pergamon (and possibly others of the name); (2) that the Eumeneion attestedis to be located in the latter place.Thus the conclusionthat EumenesI was recognizedasztior1g ofPhiletureiaünö d1v'Iö7r cannotbe maintained,and there is no reason, on this evidence, to assign the completion of the building at Philetaireiaand Attaleia to the rule of EumenesI rather than to that of philetairos.

24

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

referenceis made to a grant of immunity dated by a Seleukidyear (linesl0-l l):fi &r6).en. . . ft örrötrcrdpruxxaircooapalcooröt ötet, i.e.269l8.soSuch an exact designationby a Seleukidyear' even as a matter of convenience, is hardly accountable after the break with the Seleukidsat Sardis. This indication is confirmed by Eumenes'coinage,on which the head of Seleukosis replacedby that of Philetairos, and the legend
Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

25

cannot necessarily be regarded as definite frontier fortifications, since the location of Attaleia, at least, did not lend itself to this function.s3The treaty with the mercenariesdoes,however, add a further indication of the status of Eumenes'dynasteia;it shows that he had large groups of mercenariesin his own pay, and that he personally,not the Seleukids,administeredthe territory in which they were settled. The geographicallimits of the independentrule establishedby Eumenescan only be approximatelyestablished.sa The literary evidence,that of Polybios and Strabo, refers to the kingdom of Pergamon before the Peace of Apameia as being confined to a smallareain Mysia around Pergamon.Polybios,in his admiration of the achievementof Eumenes[I, makeswhat is clearly a simple contrast between the size of the kingdom after Apameia, and that immediately before, that is, during the final years of the reign of Attalos t and the early yearsof his successor's(xxxii.8. 3): öEyt npörov pöv napa)'a6öv napd. rcü narqög i1v 6aoü"eiay ouveora).pivr1v u).6a9 üE ü"iya xai )"nd. no)rnpdtn raiE peytmatE töv xa9' aöröv öuvamuöv ögd.pt)J"ovönotqot rlv iöiau dpXür. The samedistinctionis valid at xxiii. ll.7: naqa).a6övteE o6rct (EumenesIl and Attalos Il) ptmpdvapXüv.This evidencetherefore cannot be applied to the situation prior to the reign of Attalos L The distinction made by Strabo, however, in referring to the Roman settl:ment, seemsto be of a wider application(xäi. 4. 2, 624):npörcpn ö'i1v ü. nepi ll4pyapov oö nd.).d.yapfu ptyq qE 'E).afur1v 'Aöqapun1vöv. 9aAd.nr1Erfi; xard röv xö).nortxai töv This designation is more arguably relevant also to the rule of EumenesI and Attalos I. In the caseof Eumenes.confirmationof the validity of this inferencecan be adduced.A boundaryinscription (ögor Ilqyaprlvör,) from Ketschi-Agyl, 2 kilometressoutheastof Cape Hydra at the southernextremity of the Elaitic Gulf, must be dated, according to the highly characteristic letter-forms, to the middle of the third century Bc, and it is therefore attributable to the reignof EumenesI.s5The military settlementsat Philetaireia 53L. Robert, Rev.Arch. l%4, 9o-2. saCf. Meyer, Die Grenzen,9'7-102,with the reservationsexpressedabove,nn. 43 and 52. ssD. Baltazzi,BC.FIv (1881),283;more fully publishedinAvP l. l. 95-6.

26

Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI

and Attaleia were also within Eumenes' teritory, although, as has been said, they probably did not mark its boundaries.It is unlikely, however, that Eumenes'territory extendedeastwardmuch further than Attaleia, since Thyateira and Nakrasa remained Seleukid until a later date.s6To the south, the area of Aigai and Temnos is not specifically attested as being under Attalid control until the reign of Attalos I, although it is just possiblethat Attalos acquired it from Eumenes. In general,however, Strabo's description of the size of the kingdom before the Peaceof Apameia can be said to apply to the rule of Eumenes I. It is probable, therefore, as Strabo indicates, that the Elaitic Gulf, and with it the port of Elaia itself, belongedto the Pergamene sphere of influence from an early date. During the reign of Antiochos I, however, Elaia seemsto have beeneither independent or at leastnot Attalid, as is shown by the evidenceof a land dispute involving the city;s7 it must therefore have been acquired for the first time by EumenesI, and we may reasonablyconclude that he did so at about the sametime as his acquisition of nearby Pitane, andin the samecircumstances,that is, aspart of the positivepolicy undertaken early in his reign. We will seein the next chapter that a Pergamenefleet is attested for the first time during the First MacedonianWar, but we have no A questionwe would very much direct evidenceas to its origins.5E like to answer, but at present cannot, is the extent to which this fleet was alreadydevelopedunder EumenesI. There can be little doubt that with the acquisitionof Elaia Eumeneswill have taken the opportunitythus providedofstrengtheningby seathe contacts with Kyzikos and the Black Seaareawhich had beenformed by his predecessor.It is highly likely, then, that the fleet was built up from this date, and was developed over the years to the point where, at the end of the third century, it played a role in Aegean warfare and is first noticed by ourliterary sources.The importance of Eumenes'acquisitionof Elaia can hardly be overstressedas an important factor in the developmentof the Attalid Kingdom. It remainedthe chief port of the Attalids at leastuntil Ephesoswas given to them in 188. 56Seebelow. 43-4. 106. s7OGIS 335,: IG xii Suppl. l42t 144.Cf. Magie,Äoman Rule, ii. 734,n. 18. 58Seebelow. 68-9.

3 THE REIGN OF ATTALOS I EumenesI died in 241, and was succeededby his cousin (once removed) and adoptedson, Attalos I.t During Attalos' reign we see a development of Pergamene authority in three important respects:Attalos' assumptionof the royal title; the emergenceof the military and diplomatic power of the king; and a corresponding attempt to expand the area of Attalid influence. We seeoverall the foundation of more concentrated administrative institutions. which remainedthe guiding principles of Attalid rule even after the transformationof the kingdom in 188.From the literary sources, and of these especiallyPolybios,2Attalos I emergesas the most able of the Attalids in nearly every respect: militarily he was the most energetic,and he was clearly responsiblefor the foundation of the military power of Pergamon,both on land and sea,a power which remaineda factor of importanceto the Attalids in addition to the support which they later hoped, not always with success,to receive from Rome; in the field of diplomacy he had not perhaps the sharpcunningand subtleduplicity to be displayedlater by his son, EumenesII, but his greatestachievementmust be reckoned to be his serviceto the alliancewith Rome, and the greatadvance of the international renown enjoyed by Pergamonas a result of this alliance.That Attalos failedultimatelyto establisha lastinghold on the greatly increasedkingdom that seemedwithin his grasp is a measurepartly of his own evidently limited intentions,and partly of the ability of his rivals to power in Asia Minor, especiallythe SeleukidAntiochos III. In contrast with the achievementof his successor,one important point needs finally to be made: that whereasEumenesacquired an empire determinedby and at the disposalof the Roman Senate,Attalos' achievementwas entirely t On thedate,seeabove,l0-l l. On the adoption,Ä M xxxv ( I 9 l0), 463-5,no. 45: Eipfv4E
28

The Reign of Attalos I

his own, and in his dealingswith Romehe consistentlymaintained the right to an independentpolicy. The reign of Attalos I is best discussedin two parts: firstly the yearsof almostcontinuouswarfarein Asia Minor, endingwith the agreementwith Antiochos III; and secondlythe final yearsof the reign when Attalos was the ally of Rome. (i) Attalos and Asia Minor, 241-216 the first part of the reignof Attalos I, we arefacedwith In assessing a numberof difficulties.The most basicof theseis the fact that our knowledge of the details, in terms of topography and chronology, of the military campaignsof the years24l-216, on which Attalos' extendedauthority was ultimatelybased,is for the most part, with a significant exception (the campaignof 218, discussedbelow) extremely sketchy, consistingof facts without the meansfully to evaluatetheir significance.This is true of the eventsof the 230sand 220s,whose chronologyis obscurein the extreme, while for the years218-202we sufferan almosttotal lack of evidencerelatingto Attalos' position in Asia Minor, in particular in relation to the Seleukid position. Secondly, the evidence that we do have is almost exclusively concernedwith the military facts, and the insight that we are afforded into the nature of Attalos' attempts at consolidation,in terms of administrativeinstitutions, is correspondinglylimited. The relevantepigraphicalevidence,consisting mainly of the inscriptions to the victory monuments set up by Attalos in the sanctuaryof Athena in Pergamon,similarly dwells on the military aspectof the situation,recordingvictories,or what Attalos regardedas victories,3and no more. This is not however I One of the small bases dating from the restoration of the precinct of Athena under EumenesII commemoratesa victory in the naval battle off Chios fought in 201 QvP 52, as restored by Holleaux, Etudes, ü. 43-9, : OGIS 2E3):lBao.leüEl 'A9qvdl Ntxfryqöptu dlnö tl1E npöE @Amnov| xai "Ar[tü,oE | | | /ü] xali Maxelöivag nepi Xtovllvaup[a1iaEl. (On the date of the inscription, see Kähler, Gr. Fries, 187,n. 43.)Polybios'accountof the battle,however,showsthat Attalos' part in it was hardly distinguished (xvi. 2-E, especially 6, Attalos' escape to Erythrai). We therefore have to reckon with a certain propa.gandaelement in at least some of the monuments erected to commemoratevictories claimed by Attalos, a considerationof importance,as we will see,in assessingthe role played by the Galatians as Attalos' opponents. The Eumenid restoration of the precinct of Athena is more fully discussedin c!. 4 (iii).

Attalos and Asia Minor

29

the place to enter into a discussion,which must necessarilybe lengthy, of the relationshipbetweenthe literary and epigraphical evidencefor the involved and much disputed chronologyof the 230sand 220s:this is done in Appendix ii; here I state only the conclusionsreached,in order to procöeddirectly to an evaluation of their significance. The successiveopponentsof Attalos I in the years24l-216were the Galatians,Antiochos Hierax (in whose army Galatiansappthestrategoiof earedasafliesor, moreprobably,asmercenaries),4 SeleukosIII Soter, and Achaios. Naturally the motives of these enemiesin opposingAttalos were various. To the GalatiansAttalosstoodin the way of their obtainingplunderfrom the rich lands in the neighbourhoodof Pergamon;he had, furthermore,refused to pay the tribute periodicallypaid to the Galatiansby the dynasts of Asia Minor to securefreedomfrom attack (seebelow), and he had perhaps encouragedthe Greek cities to do the same.sThe a It is not always clear from the evidence whether the Galatianswere fighting as allies or as mercenaries of the kings, but their appearancealongside different enemiesof Attalos suggeststhe latter. Launey's argument@,echerches, i. 505-6; cf. Cardinali. RP 32i that since Attalos names the Galatians before Antiochos Hierax in his victory monuments,they were his principal opponents,and not simplythe mercenariesof Hierax, is not convincing;thisprecedencewas probably due as much to the propagandavalue to Attalos of emphasizingthis aspectof his victories (on which his claim to the royal title was based)as to the relative strength and importance of his opponents, and this consideration applies equally to the monument set up after the death ofHierax by the soldiers who had served under EpigenesQvP 29, = OGIS 280; cf. Kähler, Gr. Fries, lE5, n. 18, and below, Appendixii). 5 A decree of Erythrai honouring its board of strategoi, probably passedin the early 270s,before the Galatian victory of Antiochos l, shows that the cities as well asthe dynastspaid tribute.directly to the Galatians(Sy//.r 410, = H. Engelmannanc R. Merkelbach,DieInschr.von Erythrai u. KlazomenaiQnschr.giech. Städteaus Kleinasien, l, 1972),no. 24. 10-15):nolT).6n öt Eöll6at xai xwöüvav ncpu ovdytav xai öanyiv4E oöo4Eapögl I eiqiqv oöx ü.iyqE iv änaor,vörcflfipqocv ü1v nö1\/w xai rlv göpav dxöpatov, tnrycl19tvlrtg pöv tfi; t6,rvgp4llyätav wvayayfig rc xai dnootlolfig rctg nepi Aeovllvögrcv 6ap66potg ö.ouveü.farc f1 nfür6l xilt. This payment seemsto have been made on a direct basis, as distinct from the l-a,lazmd attestedin the context of a remission by a Seleukid king, most probablyAntiochosI (cf. Habicht,Gottmenschentum,96-9; M. Wönle,Chiron, v (1975),70: W. Orth, Königlicher Machtanspruch,76 fr.) in a letter to Erythrai (Welles,RC 15(datedto AntiochosII by Welles): Inschr. von Erythrai etc., no. 3I ), 26-8: xai dqopolf,oylritoug civat ouyTapoüpevtöy re äAAay ändwov xai I [röv cigl td fal.atmd ovvayoptvov. It is in any event quite clear that a city's financial obligations in this respect could be extremely severe.

30

The Reign of Axalos I

Seleukid kings, SeleukosII, SeleukosIII, and for a time also Antiochos [II, were naturally opposedto Attalos' increasinghis dynasteia in Asia Minor at their expense, as were Antiochos Hierax and Achaios, nominally as officials in the service of the Seleukids,but each acting eventually in his own interest with a view to establishinga kingdom in Asia Minor independentof Pergamonand of the Seleukid king he originally served. As far as Attalos was concerned,however, all these opponentssharedan interestin limiting his authority, and we will seethat this part of his reign was entirely committed to defending this authority. His victoriesover his opponentsled, in the caseof the Galatiansto his assumptionof the royal title, and in the case of the Seleukids (including Antiochos Hierax and Achaios) to a temporary military predominancein parts of Asia Minor, especiallyin Hellespontine Phrygia,Lydia, and Caria.The most importantpoint of discussion in this connection,to be taken up in this chapter,is the extent to which, and manner in which, Attalos was able to exploit this military predominancein terms of the possibleextensionof his authority in the areasconcerned.6 A distinctionmust first be madebetweenthe independentaction of the Galatians in their plundering activities in western Asia Minor, which threatenedthe Greek cities over which Attalos claimedauthority, or to whom he offered protection,and the part they played in opposition to Attalos as mercenariesin the service of Antiochos Hierax.? We know from Polybios, through Livy (xxxviii. 16.14),that Attalos refusedto pay the Galatiansthe usual 5 Important contributions to an understandingof the chronology of the 230sand E. Bickermann' 220s are those of Beloch, Hist. Zeitschr. lx (1E88), 499-_512:. Berytus, vni (944),76-8. For a good discussionfrom the Pergamenepoint of view, s e e K ä h l e r , G r . F r i e sl 8, l , n . l l ; c f . m o r e r e c e n t l y , I . C r a m p a , L a b r a u n d a , ä i . 1 . 123-31. Of great importance is the evidence of friendship between Antiochos Hierax and SeleukosKallinikos in the spring of 236,when the two brothers madea joint dedication of land to the city of Babylon (see Bickermann' loc. cit.); thus Beloch seemsto me to have beencorrect in dating the outbreak ofthe war and the battle at Ankyra not earlier than 236 (cf. also his Gr. Gesc&. iv.2 2- 543). ? Cf. A. Ferrabino,ÄttiAccad. Torino, xlviii (1912-13),233-44;Magie,Roman Rule,ä. 7 34,n. 20.The view of Beloch(Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2. 546)andCardinali(RP 23-34) that the great Galatian victory was simply a part of Attalos' war with the Galatiansand Hierax, does not not seemto me to fit with the evidence,as I explain below, 33.

Attalos and Asia Minor

3l

tribute, and that he was the first of the dynaststo do so;Ewe know from Polybios directly, as well as from later sources,that he defeatedthe Galatiansin a greatbattle in Mysia, and that as a result of his victory he took the royal title.eThesetwo events,the refusal to pay tribute and the battle in Mysia, must clearly be associated . with one another, and the two together must further be associated with the independentmaraudingactivities of the Galatians,and not with their role as mercenariesof Hierax, since,in this latter role, payment of tribute to secure freedom of attack would not come into question.Thus Attalos' Galatianvictory is not to be regarded as simply a part of his war with Hierax, a view against which the literary tradition is also to my mind decisive (see below). This conclusion is confirmed by Attalos' dedicationto Athena for a victory won over the TolistoagianGalatiansat the sourcesof the river Kaikos. The victory was commemoratedtogetherwith Attalos' later victoriesin the seriesof dedicationswhich makeup the so-called 'longbathron' (IvP 2l-8; OGIS 273-9), and also in an entirely separatemonument, unique among the victory monuments of Attalos I and surely designedfor erection in a prominent position in the precinctof Athena in Pergamon,inscribed(vP 20, : OGIS 269)fBaoütüg"Awa)og vmfioagpdlgqt Td.rctfoayioug fdd.ralg n[egi nqydd Katx[ou nora.poü, yalp{oflrilpr,ov 'A|l4tva] This victory was the most lavishly celebratedof the successesof Attalos I, and was evidently regardedby him as the most important; it is for this reason the one most probably to be identifiedwith the victory 'in Mysia' (seen. 9) which led to Attalos' EPimus Asiam incolentium abnuit Attalus, pater regis Eumenis. An epigram inscribed on a base at Delos (IG xi. 4. I 105, = Durrbach, Choix, 3l) celebratesa victory won by a Philetairosover Galatians.Sincethe letters are clearly ofthe late third century sc (seeDurrbach, ad loc.), we may discountthe son ofAttalos I asthe victor, and are left with Philetairos the Founder. Since the inscription was almost certainly made, on this criterion, duringthe reigrrof Attalos I, it is very likely, in my view, that the base was erected on Delos by Attalos at the time of his similar resistanceto th€ Galatians.Philetairos,despitehis victory, seems,like Antiochos I, to have continued the payment oftribute, a policy which is in accordancewith the ad hoc natu'reof the tribute as argued in the text. ePolyb. xviii.4l.7-8; Straboxäi. 4.2,624. Pausanias i.25.2, referringto monuments set up by Attalos on the Athenian Acropolis, refers to one commemorating a battle 'in Mysia': xai laldrav tlv tv Muoiq g0opdv d.v604xev "Ana).og öoov rc öüo ntyöv Examov. See further, Appendix ii.

32

The Reign of Attalos I

assumptionof the royal title (Polyb. xviii. 41.7):vmfioaEyäppdyrl fal&ag. . . raüu1v dgXit, Snonioaro xo.i röre nqbrov sötöv ööe$t 6aoü.6a.toThe dateof this victory is clearly of greatimportance to the chronology of Attalos' titulature, but it cannot be preciselydetermined.It has been thought that Attalos' refusalto pay the Galatianstheir usualtribute is best understoodas a reversal of policy to be associatedwith his accession,lrbut this argument misunderstandsthe nature of the tribute in question. It is unlikely that it was paid by the kings and dynastson a regular,or annual,basis;it is more likely that the sumsinvolved were offered 'protection money' as we by them as bribes as the need arose, would call it, when the dangerfrom the Galatiansappearedto be particularlyoppressive,and could not otherwisebe averted.r2The obvious attraction of this expedientwas that it avoidedthe effort and probablyeven greaterexpenseinvolved in carrying out military resistance,and it is not surprising that the Galatianscame eventuallyto expect it as a matter of course.In refusingto pay the tribute Attalos was open to attack, and was patently preparedto meetthis attackby meansof direct military action.This decision may plausiblybe associatedwith a developmentof the Pergamene armyat Attalos'disposal.r3EumenesI seemsto havereliedlargely as we haveseenin the caseof on the employmentof mercenaries, probably was moreeconomicalfor him it and Attaleia; Philetaireia t0On these monuments see Kähler, Gr. Fries, I82, who also shows, from Livy x x x v i i i . 1 6 .l l , t h a t t h e m o v e m e n t s o f t h e T o l i s t o a g i a n s d o w n t h e w e s t c o a s t o f A s i a Minor make them the most likely of the groups of Galatians to have made contact with Attalos and thus to have demanded tribute from him. r f S e e , f r o m e x a m p l e , E . T h r a e m e r , P e r g a m o s ( L e i p z i g , 1 8 8 8 ) , 2 5 8 .W i l c k e n , RE, s.v. Analos (9), 2159-60, rightly discounted this argument, but retained an early date for Attalos' assumption of the royal title on the basis of Polybios' statement (xviii. 4l . 8\ 6aoü,eüoaE rerrapäxovra xai ttttaga (i.e. 'ruled as king' f r o m 2 4 1 t o 1 9 7 ) .I t i s c l e a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t P o l y b i o s ' t e r m i n o l o g y i n s u c h a s u m m a r y c o n t e x t c a n n o t b e p r e s s e d ,a s n o t e d b y B e l o c h , G r . G e s c h . i v . 2 2 . 5 4 6 : ' e r k o n n t e sich auch ohne arge Pedanterie gar nicht anders ausdrücken'; cf. Kähler, Gr. Frles, l8l, n. ll. Wilcken also supposed that the head of Philetairosreplaced that of Seleukos on Pergamene tetradrachms as a result ofAttalos' assumption ofthe royal title, but this coinage must be accounted an innovation ofhis predecessor Eumenes (see above, 24). t2 Cf. F. Stähelin,Gercft.derkleinasiatischenGalater(ed.2,Leipzig, 1907),and below, ch. 5. r 3 S e e , i n g e n e r a l , M . L a u n e y , R e c ' h e r c h e s ,i . 4 3 8 - 4 1 .

Attalos and Asia Minor

33

therefore to pay the occasionaltribute. A more developedPergamenearmy is attestedfor the first time duringthe First Macedonian War by the inscriptionsfrom Delphi recordingthe honours which the Phociantown of Lilaia bestowedon the membersof its noteworthyis the appearancefor Pergamenegarrison;raespecially the first time of PergamenecitizensandMuooL t5We will seelater that influencein Mysia formed an important part of the authority conceivedof by Attalos for his kingdom.The developmentof this arrny probably extendedover a numberof years,as did the building of a fleet, which also appearsfor the first time during the First MacedonianWar (see below, 68-9), but its origins may well be located in the 230s and 220s, years during which Attalos faced almost continuoushostilities from his neighbours. We seein any event that Attalos' attitudeto the Galatiansis not necessarilyto be regardedas a reversalof policy implementedat his accession,and on this criterion the time of the Galatians'attack cannot be preciselylocated. It seemsmost likely, however,for a number of reasons,that it took place before the Galatiansjoined forces with Antiochos Hierax. In the first place,the literary tradition does not connect Attalos' victory in any way with the war againstHierax.16Secondly,the victory at the sourcesof the Kaikos was won over the TolistoagianGalatiansalone,whereasin the battle fought at the AphrodisionAttalos facedthe Tektosagan Galatiansas well as the Tolistoagiansand AntiochosHierax. Thus the Tektosagansmost probablyjoined the struggleat a laterdate.17 Also to be consideredis the fact that the victory at the Aphrodision was evidently a decisiveone (seefurther, below), and a major t aF . D e l p h e s , i i i . 4 . 1 3 2 - 5 . tsF. Delphes, äi.4. 132,2: M1vööapog NtawoE MuoöE xai oi öq' aödv Mulooli. The 25 names listed in the third column of this decree have no ethnics and may reasonably be identified as Muooi (Launey, Recherches, i. 439). t6 Beloch (Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2. 544) has said the opposite: 'dass der benihmte Sieg des Attalos über die Galater aufs engste mit seinen Kämpfen gegen Antiochos zusammenhängt, war schon aus unserer literarischen Überlieferung klar . . . So heisst es bei Justin von Attalos (er nennt ihn rex Bithyniae Eumenes) victorem Antiochum Gallosque adgreditur.' This reasoning is absurd in assuming that the battle mentioned by Justin is the only one to be taken into account in this context: see further, Appendix ii. rTOn the movements of the Tolistoagians see M. Launey, REA xlvi (1944), 217-36t Kähler, Gr. Fries, 182.

34

The Reign of Attalos I

Galatianattack in the immediatelyfollowing yearsis hardly credible. In the chronologyarguedherethe battle at the Aphrodisionis datedto the late 230s,and we can accordinglymost plausiblydate the battle at the sourcesof the Kaikos to the early 230s,probably, but not necessarily,before the beginning of the war between AntiochosHierax and SeleukosII. Within this decadea preference for an earlierrather than a later date is suggestedby the decisivenessof Attalos' victory, of which there can be no doubt; a longer ratherthan a shorterintervalis to be expectedbeforethe reappearance of the TolistoagianGalatiansas Attalos' opponentsin the battle at the Aphrodision.rsTheseconsiderationssuggesta date for Attalos' Gallic victory within the period 23V235, and it is probablethat he bore the royal title for all but the initial yearsof his rule at Pergamon.re The battle fought at the Aphrodision, which must denote the PergameneAphrodision outside the city,20in which Attalos defeatedthe Tolistoagianand TektosaganGalatiansand Antiochos Hierax, is almostcetainlythe one mentionedby Trogus,Prologue xxvii, in the words Galli Pergamo victi ab Attalo, sinceTrogus' descriptioncorrespondsmorecloselywith this than with any other battle attestedfor these years. It is hardly identifiablewith the battle fought at the sourcesof the Kaikos, which was in no way located'at Pergamon'.The context of the battle in Trogus'narrative is the aftermathof the battle at Ankyra, in which Antiochos Hierax defeatedhis brother SeleukosII.21 The battle at Ankyra should most probably be dated to the year 235 (althoughothers have dated it earlier: see Appendix ii), and the battle at the Aphrodisionto the last yearsof the decade,that is, shortly before r8 An interval of some years between Attalos' Galatian victory at the sources of the Kaikos and the reappearance of the Galatians as mercenaries of Hierax was regarded by Kähler (Gr. Fries,83) as a'schwer vorstellbare Situation', but we would expect a period of inactivity on the part of the Tolistoagians if Attalos' victory was as resounding as our sources would have us believe. te For the epigraphical evidence relating to Attalos' titulature, see Appendix ii; it does not enable a closer dating than that already argued. 20The designationü 'Agpoöiorcv in a royal dedication at Pergamon must refer to the precinct outside the city; cf. Beloch, Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2.546. 2t Seleuci bellum in Syria adve rsus Ptolomaeum Tryphonem: item in Asia adve rsus fratrem suum Antiochum Hieracem, quo bello Ancurae victus est a Gallis' utque Galli Pergamo victi ab Attalo,Zielan Bithunum occiderint.

Attalos and Asia Minor

35

the battles in Lydia, Caria, and HellespontinePhrygia,of which the first two (/vP 27 and 28, from the bathron) are mentionedby Eusebios and dated respectively to 22918and 22817.22 In 227, accordingto the chronologytransmittedby Eusebios,Hierax fled to Thrace, there to meet his death, and to this year and in this context shouldmost probablybe datedthe battle in Hellespontine Phrygia which Attalos claimed as a victory (IvP 2l).zt ln 22615SeleukosII was succeededby his son SeleukosIII Soter, zawho undertookwithout successto recoverthe seriously weakenedSeleukid position in western Asia Minor. Among the dedicationswhich make up the largebathron is one for a victory over 'Lysias and the strategoi of Seleukos'(IvP 25+26, : OGIS 277): d.nö rfiE nagfd ne)öSA[u]olav I xai rcüs Zü.1eüxou mpatl4yolülE päXrt;. Another victory over a Seleukid army is celebratedin the seriesof smallerbaseswhose inscription is datable to the time of the Eumenid restoration of the precinct of Athena (on which seeAppendix ii), and which we shouldrestore (IvP 36): fBaoü.eüg"Arta).oE | /ri xai 'A}r1vaLl| älnö rrts-l I 'E[nry6vr1v'! npöE röv]|Zd,u3xou oftparryyövpdxnEl.rt This battle is too often overlooked, and is of particular importance in pointing to a probably continuous Seleukidmilitary undertaking against Attalos during the short reign of SeleukosIII. Attalos' opponent Lysias is almost certainly the AuofuE @LAoprfl,ou Maxeötitv honoured by a Delphian proxeny decree dated to 242 sc.26This allianceof the Seleukidking with adynastof Asia Minor 22Eusebiosi. 253 Sch. The chronologicaltradition derives from Porphyrius, Eusebios'sourcefor the chronologyofthe Hellenisticmonarchies.On the tradition, seeE. Schwartz,RE, s.v. Eusebios,1378-80(: Griech.Geschichtschreiber, 507-10)iR.Helm, Eranos,xxii (1924),l*40. zr Polyb. v.74.4: peral).d.fawoEtöv 6iov ini @p(x4q; Eusebiosi. 253 Sch. Eusebios'chronologyplacesHierax's flight to Thraceimmediatelyafterthe battle with Attalos in Caria, omitting the abortive attack on Seleukosin Mesopotamia which mustcomebetweenthesetwo events;that is, Hieraxfled from Seleukos,not f r o m A t t a l o sc; f . M . L a u n e yR , e c h e r c h e is. ,5 0 5 , n . 3 , a n d , o n t h e d e a t h o Hfi e r a x , Walbank.Comm. i.600. 2aBeloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.2 l. 686,2. 196. 25For the restoration'Efnry6v4tl, which is extremelylikely, seeCardinali,RP 44,n. | (a SeleukidEpigenes, rival of Hermeias,is knownfromPolyb.v.41.4:cf . Schmitt, Untersuchungen,15l-3). The restorationgiven in the text is more probable than that usually written, following unnecessarilythe dedicationfor the battle 'Efnryöv4u with Lysias: npög xai roüg ilJougl lZü.eüxou ofrpaqyoüE pdTqgl 26SGDI 2736;cf. above, 20 n. 39.

36

Attalos and Asia Minor

The Reign of Attalos I

againstthe King of Pergamonfurther indicatesthe intensityof the campaign, but whether this was a voluntary undertaking on Lysias' part or a requirementarisingfrom a subordinateposition cannot be determined.This evidencealfords no more than a dim and fleeting glimpse of the fortunes of a small dynasty whose originswere similar to thoseof the Attalids, but which, unlike the Attalids, did not achievethe statusof a kingdom. Thesetwo battles fought againstSeleukidarmies should probably be dated to the years 226-223,that is before Seleukos'advancein person,recordedby Polybios(iv. 48.7-8),which led to his death,most probablyin 223(seebelow, n.27):261euxoEyäp ö v6oEöE 0drrov napü.a6e rlu 6aot).eiav,rruvilavöpevoS"ArraTov ndoav ijör1 fiv öni räöe roü Taügou övvqoreiav öcp' aüröu npdypaow. nenotfio1at, nae@epü?q 6or10tiv roiE, ocper6poLE cp g ).o ov4 0 ei; ünö v, x ai ö o T aü o pey äpe t r öv q6 ä7rl öuv a),öv öö ön 'Anaroupbu peqL|a[e üv 6tov. toü laAärou xai NLxdvopoE, r' Although Seleukosfailed entirely to check Attalos' military predominancein western Asia Minor, his oppositionwas maintained,with more positiveresults,by his brother,AntiochosIII, Antiochos'cousin,or him in the autumnof 223.21 who succeeded position of oqarryyöE the uncle, Achaios,2swho had alreadyheld under Seleukos Kallinikos,2ewas now appointedBni täöe toü Ta(,tpou,that is to the overall commandof SeleukidAsia Minor, a post usurped previously by Antiochos Hierax.3oIt is diffrcult to assessthe implicationsfor Attalos of Achaios' success,althoughit is clear that for a time Achaioswas masterof the whole of Attalos' kingdomexceptthe capital(Polyb.iv. 48. ll):röv piv"AwaTov ei5 riav öö )"omöv nävrcttv i, öyaürö rö Il1pyapou ouv6.x),erce, xpau1E.It is likely, however,that Achaios'militarypredominance and it hasleft no wasephemeraland without lastingconsequences, 2 7O n t h e c h r o n o l o g y o f S e l e u k o s ' d e a t h a n d t h e a c c e s s i o no f A n t i o c h o s I l I , s e e S c h m i t t , U n t e r su c h u n g en , 2 - 3 . 2 8F o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i pb e t w e e n A c h a i o s a n d A n t i o c h o s , s e e B e l o c h , G r . G e s c h . iv.2 2. 204-6: P. Meloni, Rendiconti dell'Accad. naz. dei Lincei, vüi (1949\, 543l. S c h m i t t , U n t e r s u ch u n g e n , 3 0 - 1 . 2ePolyainos iv. l7 (campaign against Hierax): orpat4yoi Zeleüxou'AyaöE xai 'AvöpöpaXoE pttä nüJ.fig öuvdpta4 Eöionov. Cf. Beloch, Gr. Gesch. iv .2 2. 205. r0 On this office see Bengtson, Strat. ü. 90-l l5l Schmitt, Untersuchungen, I 58-60.

37

trace in contemporarydocuments.We can more positively conclude that by the year 220 Attalos and Achaios had come to an understanding. In this year Achaios was proclaimed king in Laodikeia,3t and by this act he took for himselfmostof thoseparts of Asia Minor over which the Seleukidking still claimedauthority. Such an act of open rebellion is hardly credible if Achaios remainedformally at war with Attalos, no matter how successfulhe had previously been. Furthermore,when war broke out between Rhodesand Byzantion in this sameyear, 220,Byzantionappealed Polybios, who reto both Attalos and Achaios for assistance.32 cords the event, makes it clear that Attalos was in no position, beingstill confinedto Pergamon,to take an active part in the war, but it is hard to imaginethat Byzantionwould have madesuchan appealto both Attalos and Achaiosif the two were still in a stateof openwarfarewith one another.Thus we may concludethat by 220 some kind of agreementhad been reached;whatever the exact terms, it is clear from Polybios' narrative that for the time being Achaios maintainedhis military advantage. This initial advantage,however,was not maintained.In 218, while Achaios was occupied with the siegeof Selgein Pisidia,33 Attalos undertooka military expeditionwhich wasclearlyaimedat his authorityas it wasthenconstituted.Of particure-establishing lar interest is the fact that Achaios' suddendepartureleft Attalos free to leave his capitalwith a largearmy; we see, that is, that Achaios had done little to consolidatehis position, and Attalos quickly regainedhis 'lost' territory. A full accountof the expedition is given by Polybios(v.77-8\, and this accountremainsthe of the natureand extent of Attalos' rule in basisfor an assessment theseyears. This seriesof eventsends with the agreementreachedin 216 betweenAttalosand AntiochosIII, which probablydeterminedto a largeextent the final outcomein termsof Attalos' positionin the 3t Cf. Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 164-5. 3 2P o l y b . i v . 4 8 . l - 3 . I t i s t o b e n o t e d t h a t A t t a l o s e x p r e s s e dh i s s u p p o r t ' b u t c o u l d "AnaAog not implement it (48. 2): ö piv oöv fiv npö0u1to5, tip öi 6ga74tiav üre 'AlaLoü äqX1r'' ouwT4Taptvog eiE t)1v taq(tav Qonlv öE äv ün' rrPofyb. v.7'7.2: xard öi töv xaqöv xa|' öv'Ayaög itvottlto rfiv öni toüE 2tlytiE

orpattiav.

38

The Reign of Attalos I

following years, and was perhaps confirmed by a more formaL treaty a few years later. First, however, we must review the developmentof Attalos' position prior to this agreement. It is not surprisingthat during theseyearsof almostcontinuous military and political instability in the west of Asia Minor we see very little trace in any of our sourcesof an attempton Attalos' part to consolidatehis successesin terms of an expansionof direct royal authority; it seemsrather to have been a caseof his maintaining a hold on the little that he initially gained.Before 230 his military activity was entirely defensive,in the sensethat his victoriesover the TolistoagianGalatiansat the sourcesof the Kaikos, and over the combinedGalatiansand Hierax at the Aphrodision, clearly arosefrom action taken in defenceofthe kingdom he had Thus there was little opportunity inherited at his accession.34 Attalos to increasethe area of his direct auduring the 230sfor thority. During the yearsfrom 230to 223his military activity was extendedfurther afield, in areasover which he and his predecessorshad not previouslyexercisedany kind of authority, namelyin Lydia, Caria,and HellespontinePhrygia.and for a time Attalos was militarily predominantin all of them, although- a point which needsto be stressed- not in all of them at one time; they were, that is, simply successivetheatresof warfare.35Polybiossaysthat in 223 Seleukos III crossed the Tauros to attack Attalos, "Arra)"ov nAoav fiört riv öni räöe roü Taüpou nuu9anöpevoE öuvqore(av öq' aüröv nenoLfio9at(see above, 36). This statement, however,representsthe attitudeof Seleukos(asinterpreted by Polybios!), and not that of Attalos; it is chronologicallyinexact36and certainly exaggeratedwith respect to the extent to which Attalos was able to translatehis military supremacyinto a 3aThe defensive nature ofthese battles is shown by their respective positions: the 'sources of the Kaikos' were, as Kähler has indicated (Gr. Fries, 182), a natural point of entry for the Galatians into Attalos' kingdom; and at the Aphrodision Attalos was fighting under the walls of his capital. 3s For the view, which I regard as incorrect, that Attalos claimed a cumulative h e g e m o n y i n w e s t e r n A s i a M i n o r , s e e ,e . 9 . , C r a m p a , L a b r a u n d a , i i i . l . 1 2 4 ,w h o also sees Attalos' position as a motive for Doson's Carian expedition (following McShane, Foreign Policy, 97-100); this is extremely unlikely. 36Polybios compresses the chronology by saying that Seleukos crossed the Tauros röE 0dttov nap67a6e d1v 6aoÄeian, whereas he did so in 223, three years after his accession (see above, 36).

Attalos and Asia Minor

39

political one. During the years in question,the political vacuum createdin westernAsia Minor by the defeatof Antiochos Hierax was not left to Attalos alone to fill. In Caria, the interventionof AntigonosDoson in227, which we may now fortunatelyregardas a fact, effectively precludedAttalos' continuedmilitary predominance, and it is significant that the correspondencefrom Labraunda,which providesa very full picture of foreign rule in Caria, In makes no allusion to any period of Attalid administration.3T other areasAttalos continuedto face Seleukidmilitary opposition, and at leasttwo majorbattleswith Seleukidarmiesare, aswe have seen,recordedamongthe inscriptionsfrom the largebathron and elsewhere.The lack of positiveevidencemust precludecertainty, but it is extremely unlikely that Attalos found any opportunity during the 220sto establisha political hegemonyin the areas in which he was militarily successful. This negativeaspectof Attalos' ambition is complemented,on the other hand, by his developmentof relationswith Greek cities closerto Pergamon,where the evidenceshowsa distinct advance from the strictly limited position held by EumenesL38Herein, to my mind, and not in the field of military expansion, lies the achievementof Attalos I. The most important evidence is, as alreadynoted, Polybios'accountof the military expeditioncarried out by Attalos in 218,to which we now turn. Polybios'narrative(v. 3?Crampa, Labraunda, äi. l. 124. We also owe to Crampa (:Opusc.Athen. väi ( l%S), l7l-8) the elimination from the body of evidence relating to this question of a document (Welles, RC 29) once thought to have been ofthe Pergamene chancery and to relate to a supposed period of Attalid rule in Caria following the defeat there of Antiochos Hierax. Its connection with the Attalids has never been a convincing p r o p o s i t i o n ( c f . t h e d o u b t s a l r e a d y e x p r e s s e db y B e n g t s o n ,S t a t . ä . 1 0 0 ,n . 4 ) , a n d it can no longer be adduced in support ofthe conclusion, for which there is no other evidence, that Attalos treated Caria for a time as a Pergamene province. 38The best treatments of Attalos' relations with the Greek cities are still those ol P . G h i o n e , M e m . A c c a d . T o r i n o , l v ( 1 9 0 5 ) ,6 7 - 1 4 9 , a n d G . C a r d i n a l i , R P 8 l - 1 0 2 ; for further discussion see Magie, Roman Rule, ä.939, n. 36. The subject has been taken up more recently by R. B. McShane, Foreign Policy,58_9l, who sees the development of Attalos' relations with the cities as amounting to the foundation of a league modelled consciously on that of Doson's mainland league of states and cities. This view seems to me in itselfto go far beyond the scope ofthe evidence; it is presented by McShane by means of comparative arguments that are at best jar' gonistic and superficial, at worst absurd (e.g. the argument from Polyb. v.77.5-6 that Attalos held league meetingsl!), and inevitably leads to a distorted view of Attalos' activity and intentions in these years.

40

Attalos and Asia Minor

The Reign of Attalos I

77-8) is well detailedin terms of topography,and Attalos' movements can be retraced with some precision.3eThe aim of the expeditionwas clearly to recover authority over cities and communities in Aeolis and Mysia, that is, close to Pergarnon,which had previously fallen to Achaios;aothus Attalos went first to the "Amü"og Aeolian cities (v. 77. 2): öytv roüEAiyooäyaE faAdtag önenoqeüuo rdE xarä d1v Aiü,öa nö1e6 xai rdg'ouveTeiE 'Ayat(t xteooexex@Qrixenav öü. röv EötdürdeE,öoat npörcpov 6ov. After receivingenvoys from certain lonian cities, he turned northward; crossingthe AüxoE norapöE by Thyateira he visited thexaromiat t6y Muodur,the inhabitantsof Mysia,arreceivedthe surrenderof Karseai and Didyma Teiche (fortified positions in Mysia left by Achaios in chargeof a otpa.rqydg,Themistokles), crossedthe'AniaE neöfov (to be identifiedmost probablywith the valley of Balikesir)and Mount Pelekas(part of the Temnosrange), At thispointAttalos' andreachedthe river Makestos(v.77.3-91.t2 Galatianmercenaries,wearied by the long march, took the opportunity affordedby the omenof an eclipseof the moon to refuse to go any further, and they were settledby Attalos on suitableland by the Hellespont(v. 78. l-5;.+r After friendly dealingswith Qp4parioaE Eü.av)qtitnutE)three cities in the Troad which had remainedloyal to him, Lampsakos,AlexandriaTroas, and llion, Attalos returnedperä rfig öuvdtrteoqto Pergamon(v. 78. 6).aa 3eHolleaux's study inErades, ii. l7-42 (which first appeared in 1897)established the basis of our understanding of this campaign; for further topographical discussion (relative to Mysia), cf. L. Robert, Et. anat. 185-98. See also Schmitt, U ntersuchunge n, 262-4. 4 0 T h e a t t e m p t o f G . R a d e t , R e v u e d e s U n i v e r s i t ö sd u M i d i , 1 8 9 6 ,l - 1 8 , t o s h o w that Attalos' campaign involved a pursuit of Achaios as far as Pisidia, was refuted in detail by Holleaux, art. cit. (previous note), and was later renounced by the author i n t h e s a m ej o u r n a l ( 1 8 9 7 , p . 5 2 3 ) . ar Pliny, Nat. Hist. v.ll5: intus et Thyatira adluitur Lyco. Onthexatomiar rdtv Muoöv see Robert, Et. anat. l9l-4. a2The river is called Megistos by Polybios (v. 77.9,nepi dv M|yrotov norapöv), but its identification with the Makestos (Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 142) or, more accurately, M6.xtoroE (Strabo xii. 8. l I, 576) is assured: Cf. W. Ruge, RE, s.v. Makestos, 773; Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 38; L. Robert, Et. anat. 187. a 3 O n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c eo f t h i s s e t t l e m e n ts e e c h . 5 . T h e e c l i p s e ( l S e p t . 2 l 8 ) provides one ofthe very few chronological certainties ofthe reign ofAttalos I prior to his alliance with Rome. aaIt is important to note from these words,perd tfiE öuvapettE, that the Galatians evidently constituted only a part, and probably a less significant part, ofthe forces which accompaniedAttalos in 218; see further below, ch. 5.

4l

The most important information suppliedby Polybios' account concernsthe extentof Attalos'ambition in 218,which corresponds with the conclusionswe have drawn on the basisof his activity in the 230sand 220s.Military activity was confinedto Aeolis and the Mysian communities;dealingswith the Greekcities southof Aigai and Temnosand in the Troad were, on the contrary, conductedon a diplomatic level. This fact is of considerableimportancein that the absenceof Achaios in Pisidia left Attalos with a free hand in areas further afield, and the limited nature of his activity may thereforebe regardedas representativeof his intentions.Attalos was clearly as little concerned in 218 with securinga political hegemonyin Lydia, Caria, and HellespontinePhrygiaas he seems to have been in earlier years. It is clear.then. that Attalos treatedthe Greekcitiesfurtherfrom Pergamonrather differently from those in Aeolis and Mysia. In thesetwo areas,as we seefrom Polybios' narrative, Attalos im' posedhis authority by force of arms. In Aeolis he aimedat recov'A6aLQ ötd Tueooex€X@Qrixercav ering those citiesöoat npörtpov töv qö6ov. fav al piv nLeiougö1ü.ovti1vaötQ npoo60evroxai ltetd ydqrcoE,ö\iyat ö6 rLveErqg 6taEnpoo$eqilr1oav.fioav ö' a[ t6re pera|4trnvarnpög aöröv npörov piv Küp1 xai MüqLvaxai
42

The Reign of Attalos I

affairs were in somemeasuresubjectto the dynast's supervision. We shouldevidentlyenvisage,that is, an areaof territory closeto Pergamonin which the Greek cities lost a large measureof their independenceto the dynasts.The natureof Attalos'authority over these cities cannot easily be defined, becausewe lack further evidenceof a positive kind. A clearerindicationof statusmay be seenhowever in the caseof Phokaia.During the Antiochic War this city was betrayedto Antiochos and receiveda Seleukidgarrison;a6then in 188,by the termsof the Romansettlementof Asia, it receivedback its 'ancestralconstitutionand the territory which it had before' (i.e. before the war).47Thus Phokaia, one of the Aeolian cities which returned willingly to Attalos' allegiancein 218, evidently retained its constitution and the right to the civic ownership of land in the years 218 to 195,during the years of Attalid rule. This does not necessarilymean, however, that Attalos exercisedno constitutionalcontrol over the city. In Pergamon, and (aswe will see)in other cities at a later date, the Attalids preservedthe constitutionalforms of the independentcity, the nd.rgrcvnü'fueupa, and controlledthe administrationby claiming for themselvesthe right to appoint certain officials within the administration,abovealltheorparqyoi.4sAt Pergamonthis measure is seento be in force alreadyduringthe rule of EumenesI,aebut the procedure is not certainly attested for cities of the Attalid Kingdom before the Peaceof Apameia, when the status of the Attalids' authority in Asia Minor was radically altered.It will be argued later that the office of inrctdrqg, comparablewith that attestedfor the other Hellenistic kingdomsin the context of the administrationof the Greek cities, was introduced to the PergameneKingdom by Attalos I, probablywhen he acquiredAigina in 209.s0Aigina was however a unique case; it was the personal possessionof the king, and at the time of its acquisitionit constituted his only territory outsideAsia Minor. Attalos' rule in Aigina a6Livy xxxvii. 9. l-4; I l. 5; cf. Appian, Syr. 25: önrixooE'Avrö7ou. +zPolyb. xxi. 46. 7: dn|öaxav öi xai
Attalos and Asia Minor

43

may not necessarilybe taken as a reflection of his rule in cities closer to Pergamonand acquired at an earlier date. In the caseof Phokaia,moreover,the institution of an önrcrdrqg is not compatible with the fact that the city evidently retained its ancestral constitution after 2 18. It is probable then that Attalos demandedthe loyalty of the Greek cities and communitiesin Aeolis and Mysia, and supported this demandby force of arms in 218,but that he did not interfere, beyond this requirement, in their internal administration.This conclusionwill be seento correspondwith the natureof Attalos' activity in the first twenty yearsof his reign, which was defensive and not expansive; in maintaining his authority in Aeolis and Mysia againstthe interferenceof his successiveenemies,and of these especiallyAchaios, who for a short time most effectively deprived him of his authority, it was support for his military undertakingsthat Attalos most requiredfrom the cities and communitiesconcerned.Further evidencein supportof this indication may be cited for Thyateira.This city is not mentionedin Polybios' accountof the campaignof 218,perhapsbecauseit had not allied itself with Achaios, but in crossing the ArjxoE notap6g Attalos passedthrough its territory,sr and he probably took the opportunity of confirrning its loyalty; it is unlikely, at least, that he ignoredit altogether.That Thyateiralost a measureof its independence after 218 is shown by a dedicatory inscription of Roman imperial date emanating from this city, and set up by oi d.nö 'AndTou xai EüptvouE xarolxoüvteg Mepvo{tgwa 6aot76atv 'HpaxArloaorai.s2A cistophorosof Thyateira,formerly dated to year 2 of the reign of EumenesII (BA EY B), indicatedon that chronologythat Thyateirawas Attalid in 196/5,and it was argued that the katoikoi of the dedicationwere originally settled in the territory of Thyateira, as the joint namessuggest,at the end of Attalos' reign and the beginningof Eumenes',that is, in 197.53 Now that this cistophoros,togetherwith othersof the sameseries (datedBA EY B and A), has been convincinglyredatedto a later period,s4there is no evidencethat Thyateira remainedunder At5r See above, 40. 52Keil and von Premerstein, Bericht über eine Reise in Lydien, 27, no. 51. sr Robert, Villes, 3940. 5 4E . S . G . R o b i n s o n , N u m . C h r o n . x i v ( 1 9 5 4 ) , l - 7 1 L . R o b e r t , V i l l e s , 2 5 2 - 6 0 .

44

The Reign of Attalos I

Attalos and Asia Minor

talid control continuously from 218 to the outbreak of the AntiochicWar, and the literaryevidencesuggests otherwise.In 201, when Philip V of MacedoninvadedPergamene territory, Thyateira seemsstill to havebeenunderAttalos' control,ssbut it is probable that this control was lost to AntiochosIII in 198,when he in turn invadedAttalos' kingdom;there is positiveevidencein the narrative of Livy to the effect that EumenesII no longercontrolledthe city in 190and hadprobablynot doneso for sometime (xxxvii. 8. 7): is (sc. Eumenes)cum magnampraedam agi possedixissetex hostium agro, qui circa Thyatiram esset, hortando perpulit Livium, ut quinquemillia militum secummitteret. missi ingentem praedam intra paucos dies averterunt.s6In the light of this interpretationof the evidence,we must concludethat the settlement was originally establishedby Attalos I before 198,and probably beforePhilip's invasionof 201,when Attalos becameinvolved for the secondtime in an Aegeanwar, and that it was refoundedby EumenesII after 188.The statusof Thyateirais thereforecertainly relevantto Attalos'positionafter218,andshowsthatin additionto expectingthe loyalty of the Greek cities he regardedhimself as entitled to establishcoloniesin their territory. Further evidence of the implications for the cities and communitiesof Aeolis and Mysia of their enforcedloyalty to Attalos can be inferredonly indirectly from our sources.In particular,we have no direct evidenceas to whether they were requiredto pay tribute, but the fact that the Ionian city of Teos, which was bound to Attalos by ouv9fixan,hadto pay a largeamountof tribute, as we will see,rendersit extremely likely that the sameobligationwas demandedat least in Aeolis, where Attalos' control was, as we haveseen,much tighter. It was naturallyan importantincentiveto

a Hellenistic monarch in ensuringthe loyalty of the Greek cities that he gained thereby more substantialsupport in his military undertakings.It seemsmost likely, then, that Attalos envisageda supply of money and men in the cities whoseloyalty he enforced. In Mysia, the situationwas rather different.Muooi, as hasalready been mentioned, constituted a part of the Pergamenegarrison which occupied the city of Lilaia during the First Macedonian War, a fact which indicatesthat the communitiesof Mysia supplied men rather than money;5?this is an understandableprocedurein the caseof a country which was madeup almostentirelyof village communities(xaromtat röv Muoöv).s8 We shouldtake account,finally, of a letter written by Attalos in 205to Magnesiaon the Maeanderin reply to that city's requestfor recognitionof its newly inauguratedfestival for Artemis Leukophryene.seIn agreeingto the requestAttalos speaksnot only for himself,but alsofor'the citiesunderme' (12-13:riliouv ööxaiü.E ön' öpänü.epEllänoö6[ao0aL öpoitoE;19-20:.xsi ai nö).etEöi ai fneßöpe]lvaripoi notrtoouowöpoiaE). The cities concernedcan only be thoseof Aeolis,andthe terminologyusedby Attalos shows that they remainedfirmly under his control, in a mannerand to a degreecomparablewith the control exercisedby EumenesI over the Pitane.In sum, the evidencefor the years218to 201suggests following conclusionsas to the nature of Attalos' authority in Aeolis and Mysia: it is clear that he claimed the right to their loyalty (this right extendingto substantialsupportin time of war) and. furthermore. to their subordinationto his will in matters of foreign policy, as well as the right to use their land for the settlement of military colonists;it is probable,on the other hand,that he did not appoint residentofficials in thesecitiesor interferein their constitutionalprocedure.They were, in other words, administratively independent,but in terms of external policy they were subjectto the directionsof the King of Pergamon. Turning to the citiesfurther from Pergamon,to the southin lonia and to the north in HellespontinePhrygia, we see, as already

ss Polyb. xvi. l. 7: Philip, after destroying the Pergamene Nikephorion, äppqoe tdE trrövdpTdq öni @uarcipow. It has rightly been inferred from this passage that Thyateira was at this time in Attalos' possession; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iv.247-55: Robert, Villes, 38. It should be noted that Philip did not necessarily attack Thyateira, or even reach it; the words iz i @oariptlv indicate the direction of his march (Holleatx, Etudes, iv. 249, n. l). 56Cf. Livy xxxvii. 37, attesting further Antiochos' occupation of the city before the battle at Magnesia: regia castra circa Thyatiram erant. Schmitt (Unrersuchungen, 273, n. 3) has pointed to the unlikelihood of Eumenes' taking part in a raid on a recent possession; it is therefore more reasonable to regard Thyateira as a loss of 198, eight years earlier.

45

5 7S e e a b o v e , 3 3 . ssOn the Mysian communities, see L. Robert, Et. anat. 194: Launey. Recherches, i.4f6-'1. seIvM 22. = OGIS 282; Welles, IRC 34.

46

The Reign of Attalos I

noted,a differentrelationshipbetweenking andcity . The evidence for theseareasis fuller, althoughin somerespectsequallyconfusing. In particular, the ouv9qxanmentionedby Polybiosdo not tell us very much about the obligationsthey incurred,beyondthe fact that they were entered into voluntarily by the cities concerned: rjxov öö xai naqd Tqbv xai KoAocpavtavnp6odt6 |yyepi(ovreE öi xai rcüroug öni oqdE aüroüE xai tdE n6)"e6.npooöe$ö.peuoE raig ouv0rjxa6 atE xai rö nqörcgov, xai ).a6öv öpripouE,öy pqtrtdrrcerciE napd röv Zltupvafav npeodeuraiEqü.av9qdno4 öÄ rö pä)"rcra roütouErcrqqrlxtvacrlv nqöEaütöv niorw (v .77 . 5-6). The useof the wordöyyeqi(ew,'to entrust',is of significance in that Polybiosused it on severaloccasionsto denotea relationship between king and city, or betweenone city and another, in which the weakervoluntarily seeksthe protectionof the stronger, and three examplesare especiallynoteworthy as the phraseology is identicalwith that pertainingto Teos.60Kalynda, seekingindependencefrom Kaunos in 163,turned to Rhodes (xxxi. 5. 3): äyavtövttg öö rö pil.)"ov nqeodeüetvpöv .. . (lac.) iyyeLp((ovreg ogd.gaitroüg xai rlv nöLw.6t ln 219,during the war of the allies, the city of Phialeia,threatenedby an Aitolian attack (iv. 79. 8), aüroüE önnpeodeuodpevotngöEröv @il,mnovöveytipcoavocpd.g The expressionis used,finally,of a city's seeking xai tilv nö)"w.62 rptTant the protectionof Rome(xviii. 49.l): ödv,rö öl ).ey6pevov, i1v öoydrr1u,öni roüg'Papaioug xatacpeüfovraLxai roüroLEEyyetqrc0ot ocpd.E aörcüE xai rlv nö)"w. These parallels serve to clarify the position taken by Teos in 218,as Polybiosdescribesit. As in the other casescited, the idea impliedis not one of conquest or subjection,but ofprotection soughtby the city againsta danger, 60For other uses of tyyetpiltw by Polybios, see A. Mauersberger,PolybiosLexikon (Berlin 1956-),s.v. (65examples).The word is also usedin public documents of the 'entrusting' of civic ofTicesto a person, e.g. in /G ä.2 1O28,72: napala6öv tilv ilyllprgto9eioat äaurlritr, nilotLv önö rcü öfipou;cf.lG ix. 2. I103, l3-14; Holleaux,Etudes,ii. 186.In itself it in no way impliessurrenderor lossof independence. 6rOn thiseventseeMagie,Roman Rule, i. I l0; ii. 957,n. 7t; l39l n. 59.Rhodes subsequentlyoccupiedthe city and its possessionwas confirmedby the Senate (xxxi. 5. 5: ouv66q öö xai d1t oüyil.1rov aötoiE fedauloat rilv röv KaJ,uvölav xtfiow). This doesnot, however,affectour interpretationofthe originalintention as expressedin the word iyptpiltr.v. 62Cf. F. W. Walbank,Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge,1940),46.

\i

Attalos and Asia Minor

47

the dangerin this caseclearly beingthe return of Achaios.A single term will not adequatelydefinethis relationship,but the nearestto hand is 'protectorate' rather than 'overlordship'; words such as 'subjection',and 'dependence',which are more usuallyappliedin this context,63are inappropriateto the positionof the cities which soughtAttalos' protection. This interpretationof Polybios' evidenceis of considerableimportancein clarifying the statusof Teos in the last decadeof the third century. In the middle of this decade,most probably in204, following the exampleof a numberof citiesof westernAsia Minor, Teos instituted a festival to honour its god, Dionysos, and dispatchedthe usual envoys throughoutthe Greek world to request the doü'ia of its territory.6aAmong extant repliesto this request are those of the Aitolians, the Amphiktyons, Delphi, and a large The decreesof Delphi and of the numberof Cretancommunities.6s that of Amphiktyons are datableto one of the years 20413-20312; the Aitolians more preciselyto the Panaitolikaof February-March 203.66The replies of some of the Cretan communities,which should also be dated to one of these years,67refer to assistance affordedto the envoysof Teos by representativesof Philip V and 63Cf. Cardinali,RP l0l (Teoslisted as'Attalid' as distinctfrom 'free'); Meyer' Die Grenzen,105.Seealsobelow,n. 76. 6aSeeP. Herrmann.Anadolu, ix (1965),29-159(citedin the followingnotesby the author'snamealone). 6sTwo copieshavebeenfound ofthe Aitolian and Delphiandecrees.AlroLlANS: (a) copy from Teos: SGDI l4ll, : Syl/.3 563,IG ix.2 l. 192;(b) from Delphi:F (a) from Teos: Ad. Wilhelm,GGA clx (1898)'218' : Delphes,üi.2. 134a.DELpHI: SGDI 2675;(b) from Delphi: Syl/.r 565, = F. Delphes,iii. 2. 134c.AMPHIKTYoNS: rtNcs, Theodoros Sy//.I 564, : F. Delphes,iii. 2. I 34b. Letter of the ATHAMANIAN and Amynandros:Wilhelm, GGA clx (1898),217, = Welles'RC 35. cnrreN cotr'tSGDI 5165-80,: Inscr. Creticae,I, p. 4, no. I (Apollonia);p. 25, no. 52 MUNTTTES: (Arkades);p. 30, no. I (Biannos);p. 62, no. 8 (Knossos);p. l0l, no. I (Istron); p. ll l, no. 2 (Lato);p.292, no. I (Rhaukos);ll,p.2' no. I (Allaria);p. 63' no. l7 (Axos)p ; . l 1 8 , n o . 2 ( K y d o n i a )p; . 1 6 l , n o . 2 l ( E l e u t h e r n a ) ; p . 2 4n3o' . 3 ( P o l v r rhenia);p. 291,no. I (Sybritos);III, p. 31, no. 2 (Hierapytna). 66Thechronologicalbasisofthese decrees,includingthe fact that the repliesof the Greek communitiesshouldbe datedto the years205-201,was establishedby Cf. G. Klaffenbach,IGix.2 1.,p.5l (onno. Ad. Wilhelm,GGAclx (1898),216-20. 95): Herrmann,94. 67Cf.G.Colin,F.Delphes,iii.2.p.l36;Holleaux'Etudes, iv. 178-203;W.Ruge' RE, s.v. Teos, 541-50.The datingofthe Cretandecreesto 193,the yearofthe reply of the Roman praetor (seebelow, n. 73), though followed in spiteof Wilhelm by difil.xxxv(lX)7), l3)isunsupportable. Blass(onSGD/5165-80)andCardinali(Riv.

48

The Reign of Attalos I

Antiochos III, and it is clear from thesecircumstancesthat Teos was acting in the matter without referenceto its relationshipwith the King of Pergamon.On the contrary, it has long been recognized that the intervention of Philip was due to his status as npoord.rqgof the Cretan communities,while the part played by Antiochos showed a direct relationship between Teos and the Seleukidking.68An inscriptiondiscoveredmore recently at Teos (Sivrihissar)has confirmed and clarified this position.6eThis inscriptionrecordsa decreeof Teos honouringAntiochosIII and his queen,Laodike, aswell aspart of a letter written by the king to the city acknowledgingthe honourspaid to him. The decreerefers in detail to Antiochos' part in the negotiations,and to his own recent recognitionof the äoü"1o.of the city, and was thereforeprobably passedin 203.70Of particularinterestis the fact, now attestedfor the first time, that Antiochos appearedin person in the city, strengtheningthe impressionof a firm relationshipbetween the two (I. 17-18):napü")öv eiErilv öxü,ryotavaödE ld.vqxeri1[v] nöLry xq) rily yrbgav rjpöv ieqd.vxoi äoü.ov zrl.. Antiochos' presenceat Teos may be dated to 204,when he is known to have been in Asia Minor following the return from his easterncampaigns,Tra datewhich fits well with a declarationof äoü.fu inthe Greek mainlandin the following spring. It is clear from this evidence that by 2M Teos no longer dependedon its former relationshipwith Attalos I of Pergamon.As long as Teos is regardedas an Attalid subject, or as part of the Attalid Kingdom, in the years from 218 to 204,this sequenceof events presentsa major difficulty in that Attalos must, in these have sufferedthe'loss'of Teos as a kind of fait circumstances, accompli,T2 in spiteof the goodrelationswhich,as we will see,are 6EMagie, Roman Rule, ii.942-3, n.391'Buckler Studies, 168, n. 3; Ruge, RE s.v. Teos, 550; Walbank, Philip V, l2l, n.3. The view of Holleaux (art. cit. n. 67), that Philip was at the time master of Teos, having captured the city in 201, was extreme and failed to explain the position taken by Antiochos: it also led to chronological difficulties. 6eHerrmann, art. cit. (n. 64). 7 0S e e H e r r m a n n ' s c o m m e n t a r y , 9 3 - 7 . ItPolyb. xv. 25. 13, in an account of events in Egypt following the death of Phifopator, says that Agathokles If6lona piv äftneprpe röv I76lorog tiEtilv'Aotav npög'Avrioyov röv 6aoL\öa. On the date of this event, see Wilhelm, Wien. Anz.lvü ( 1 9 2 0 ) ,5 7 ; S c h m i t t , U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , 2 3 3 , n . 2 ; H e r r m a n n , 9 6 . 72So Herrmann, 106-18, esp. l12: 'es sieht eher danach aus, dass Attalos in diesem Falle ein fait accompli in Kauf nehmen musste' etc.

Attalos and Asia Minor

49

evident between Attalos and Antiochos for at least a part of the time before the outbreakof the SecondMacedonianWar. What is more. the action of the Roman Senatein 193,in addingits nameto the list of stateswhich recognizedthe inviolability of Teos,thereby endorsing the part played by Antiochos, would be difücult to understand if Antiochos had acquired the city forcibly from Rome'sfriend and ally.73This legalisticview of Teos' statusdoes not, however,adequatelyaccountfor its relationshipwith Attalos, and later with Antiochos; in fact such a view never coresponds with the largelyindefiniterelationsbetweena Hellenisticmonarch and a Greek city.74Polybios says that Teos placed itself under Attalos' influenceby looking to him for protection; this is not to saythat the city was thencefortha subjectcity or a part of Attalos' kingdom.It is more likely that Attalos simply retainedhis statusof defender,or protector, of Teos, Kolophon, and the other Ionian cities, up to 205,the year of the Peaceof Phoinikewhich endedthe First MacedonianWar. Attalos had played little part in this war, having had to return to defend his kingdom in 208 when it was invadedby PrusiasI of Bithynia. Of the war with Prusiaswe know little more than the fact, but it is probablethat it wasendedin 205at the sametime as the Peaceof Phoinike,bringinga short periodof tranquillity to westernAsia Minor beforethe invasionof Philip in 201.7s lt is not surprisingthat Teos,in this shortperiodof peace, no 73A letterof M. ValeriusMessalla,the praetorof 193(Sy//.3601),confirmedthe status of Teos as fcqär xa0dtg xai vüv totw xai äou).ovxai dqopd.öyqrov dnö 'Ptopaior. For the circumstances,which includedagainthe mediaro6 örjpouröv Etudes,iv.200-203,whoexplainedthe tionofenvoysofAntiochos,seeHolleaux, latedateof Teosl requestto Romein termsof his beliefthat the city remainedunder the control of Philip, Rome'senemy,until 196,when Afrtiochosgainedcontroland could act as mediator.Now that we know that Antiochos'influenceat Teosis to be dated much earlier than previouslysupposed,this explanationcannot stand; cf. Herrmann 14l-2. In the presentstate of our evidencethe questionmust remain open. 7aCf. the remarksof A. H. M. Jones,Tfte GreekCityfrom Alexanderto Justinian (Oxford, 1940),95. TsOn the war betweenPrusiasand Attalos see Habicht, RE, s.v. Prusias(l). 1092-3iHermes, lxxxiv (1956),94. Habicht rightly envisagesa separatetreaty concludedbetweenthem at aboutthe time of the Peaceof Phoinike.I seeno good reason, however, to discount the authenticity of their appearanceamong the adscriptito thePeaceof Phoinike(Livy xxix. 12.l4), sincetheirhostilitieshadhada bearingon the MacedonianWar. Most suspectamongthe namesof lhe adscripti are Athensand Ilion, but all the otherscan be defended.Forthe greatlyvariedmodern opinion on this question, ranging from complete acceptance(e.g. J. P. V. D. Balsdon,JR^l xliv (1954),32-5) to total rejection(Habicht,RE, s.v. Prusias(l), 1093),seethe bibliographyto Sty iii. 543 (Peaceof Phoinike).

50

The Reign of Attalos I

longer sought Attalos' protection, and the fact that itsouvilfixat with Attalos were renewedin 218 indicatesthat the relationship was largefyof anqd hoc nature,that is, it wasrelatedto the stateof military activity in westernAsia Minor. [n passingunder the more direct influenceof AntiochosIII on his return from the East in 204, Teos did not ceaseto be an Attalid city (which it had never been) and henceforthbecomea Seleukidcity,76terms which so far from defining statusavoid the problemsinvolved; rather, in a time of comparativepeace,it felt free to look to a new protector. This, then, is the natureof the changein Teos' status;the reasonsfor it aremoreclearly apparentfrom the decreehonouringAntiochos,to which we now return. The decreeattestsclearly for the first time the natureand extent of the obligationswhich in generalwe would expectTeos to have incurred in looking to Attalos for protection. It has long been thought, although mostly for the wrong reasons,that Teos paid someform of tribute to Attalos in 218,77and this conclusionhas been establishedas a fact by the decree,where we find specific .referencesto such payments: I. l0-20 (Antiochos) naqayevöpevog öni rcüExa?' rjpaErönouEänoxat6ornoe d ngäypara eiE oupE{povoav xard.otaow xo,i inöqp1oaE iv rfi nö).et fipdv xai 1erttpöv ilqo1uryxhaE flpag xafi] öv rciE xowoiE xai öu rcig iöiory öü rc toöE ouveXetE noT|poulgl xai ü piyüog dtv öcptpopev ouurdfeav xai 6ou7öpevoE ui rc npöE üv )eöv eüoeddtEötaxüo7at fot xa|ßpaotv flpritutilv nöAw xai d1vXtbpav(xo'i) 067ovyap(lw9at röt te örjpaLxai uitt xowöt tört nepi röu 4gövuoovrtyvtröv napeT9dsveiEd1v öxxlqoi.av aötöE ävqxe fi[v] nö),tuxai rily ybpav f1priviepäv xai äoütou xai dgopoTöy1rov xlailröv ä)J.ay fov icp4poptvouurd$eav6aoÄei'Auä\at üneö{fato &.nü.u0fioao0atfipag öt' aürcü xrL. L32-4 (Teian envoys had been sent to Antiochos, and he) BveEävoe [ört natpaAöiuxed1p nöltv eiEd.eixa\ött önqyilarc ,;t, orrrr*fflo" fueucppptov6aoÄei'And).a L. The terminology here is imprecise; we read first äy öcp6popev ouwä$tav (19), and later fov ouverd$apu cphpow (33-4), although 76SoRuge,RE, s.v.Teos,547-50: cf. Herrmann108:,tatsächlich istTeosin den Jahren205/3seleukidisch gewesen bzw.,wiewirjetzt sagenkönnen,geworden.' tt e.g.by Ghione,art.cit. (n. 38),94;Cardinali, RP 934;Meyer,DieGrenzen, 105,wholistsTeoswith'tributpflichtige Städte'as distinctfrom.freieverbündete'.

Attalos and Asia Minor

51

it is to be noted that in the secondcontext the decreerecordsthe reply of Antiochos. A distinction between the terms cpögoEand oüvtalry is clearly evident in the fourth century, including Alexander'sadministrationof the Greekcitiesof Asia Minor, but it cannot be taken for granted that the distinction was maintainedat the end of the third century.t8 In the Attalid Kingdom as it was constitutedafter the Peaceof Apameia,we meeta variety of terms to denote the payment of money by a city to a king: qöQoE, ü,)'eopa,np6ooöor,,but the exact differencesin their connotations remainobscure.TeWe cannot even be certainthat the tetmqöpoE always denotesa regular,i.e. annualtribute, althoughthis seems to be the usagein a documentdating from the reign of Attalos II and concerning a city under Pergamenecontrol.soOverall the evidence seemsto show that, as distinct from the term EöpoE, which acquired the role of a generaldesignation(asis apparent,for example,in the concept of d.qopd"oyqoia),the terms oüvta[6, rt),eopa, and so on, were used impreciselyand even indiscriminately. [t is thereforenot necessarilyvalid to arguefrom the text under discussionthat Teos paid Attalos I specificallycategorized cpdpogand oüvra$rE, since this too would presupposethat the terms are used precisely, whereasthey clearly are not. Further78For a statementof the casefor maintaininga strongdistinctionbetweenthe termsoüvta{ry and cpöpoE,see H. Francotte,Les Financesdes citös grecques (Paris,1909),77-86;on the Attalids,81, where the positionis summedup as follows:'substituerle phorosä la syntaxis,c'est substituerun 16gimede contrainte sansrdservesä un r6gimede libertd.' This conclusionis in my view too rigid for the natureof relationsbetweencity and suzerainin the Hellenisticperiod,which I have touchedon in thetext.On theotherhand,A. Heuss.StadtundHerrscher,l0ü-lll. argued too dogmaticallyagainstthe distinction at this date. There seems,for example,tobeadistinctionintheletterofAlexandertoPriene,OG/S 1.9-15:rödä - - xci Mupol- - - xai - - - - | xlai n[d.oav rilu nfu $1 Xtbpalv ylwtboxa ipilv tiva4 I rcüq,öi xaltomoövtag öv taiE xdpatg taültaq cpipttv rcüE cpöpoug.trlE | öi ouwdf,taE äqiqpt t)1pLlqqlvöap nötrn,22,1. Herrmann'spoint in this connection (seebelow),that referenceis in onecaseto a city, andin theotherto villages,seems to me to strenglhenrather than weakenthe casefor a distinction.Naturally one cannotassumethat the distinctionwas maintainedabsolutelyover a hundredyears later, but it seemslikely that chancerieswere awareof somedifferencein concept betweenthe two terms.Forfurtherdiscussion of this question,cf.Magie,Roman Rule, li.829, n.14;Herrmann,l0l-5. 7eSeebelow. ch. 4 (ii). t0 Amfada: Swoboda, Keil, and Knoll, Denkmäleraus Lykaonien, no. 74 ll: Appendix iv, no. 23; this documentis discussedbelow, 102.

52

The Reign of Attalos I

more, the fact that AntiochosdeclaredTeos feqä xo,iäou).ogxai äcpopo)r6yqtog does not mean that the city had formerly paid regularcpöeogin addition to oüwaSLq since the formula was an abstractone, usedto denotethe future statusof a city's inviolability.tt It is more likely that Teos hadpreviouslybeenrequiredto pay occasionalcontributionsto Attalos, which were sometimes calledouvrd(eq and at other times, more generally,cpdpoqthan that thesepaymentswere regularand specific.It is not until a later date in the developmentof the PergameneKingdom that we find the paymentof regulatedtribute to the sovereign. Further evidenceof theseobligationsis to be found in the terms, asreportedby Polybios,of the Romansettlementof Asia Minor in 188sc. Here we read amongthe requirementslaid down for the Greek cities (xxi. 46. 2): öoat (sc. titv aörovöpav n6).eav)ö' 'Arrd.|qt oüvra$w irt).ouv, raüra6 öntta$av röv aüröv Eöpövet öLöövatqöqov.E2This is translatable in two ways:either,'they (the Romancommissioners)requiredthosecities which hadpaidoüvra$ry to Attalos to pay the same(amountof ) tribute to Eumenes', or, 'they requiredthosecities which had paid oüvraf r.Eto Attalos to pay the sameasEöpogto Eumenes'.Of thesetwo alternatives, the first seemsto me in itself the more likely; this involvesregardingoüvralg andcpöqoE as beinginterchangeable, in the sensethat qöpoE could denote any kind of tribute payment, which, as we have seen,seemsto be the casein the third and secondcenturies sc. This preferencewith respectto Polybios'meaningis supported by his terminologyin describing,at an earlier point in the narra8t It is the conclusion of Herrmann, l0l-5, that in addition ro a regular EöeoE, Teos paid Attalos ouuttiferg, but this assumes that the declaration of dEoqoToy4oia (L l8) means that Teos had necessarily paid a regulargdgo6 up to that point, an assumption which is not justified by the confused terminology used in the decree. A declaration of äpopd.oyr1oia meant only that the city would not be required in the future to pay tribute, regardless ofprevious requirements. The term is included in the letter of Messalla (Sy//.3 601 ; see above n. 73), 19-21:.xpivoptv tlvat i1v nö7Lv xai d1v Xtblpav iqä.v xa0öE xai vüv öorp xai äoü"ov xai d.cpogol).öyqtov d.nö rcü 'Parya{aw, örjpou toü and in the letter of the Athamanian kings (see n. 65), 7-8: olulyXtttpoüptv eivat xo) i1v I nöLa, öpöv xai tily X
Attalos and Asiq Minor

53

tive, the generalprovisionsenvisagedby the Senatefor the settlement of Asia Minor (xxi. 24. 8): r6v (öö)nütav iav 'E),),7viöav 'Auä)"q öoat pöv cp6qovöner|)rouv, caütaE röy aötöv Eöp|vet 'AvuöyE, rü'eiv, öoat ö' pövov ra6ra6 d.cpeio9at röv cp6gov.The constructionof this sentencearound the antithesisöoat pöv 'ArtdAE - öoat ö' 'AvröXE, requires that the term cpöqoEbe usedofformer paymentsboth to Attalos andto Antiochos,and this usage therefore confirms the general connotation of the term cpöeog.In the case of Teos, then, the city certainly paid Attalos orjvra$tE and Eöpog, but it is most probablethat the two terms refer to the same thing, and the fact that these paymentswere evidently severeconstitutesthe most likely motive for the city's turning to Antiochos in 204. Another inscription requires mention in the context of tribute payment,althoughits relevanceis doubtful.s3This documentis a decreeof Teos recording its decisionto buy land for the Ionian Guild of Dionysian relvitar, whose seat was then at Teos (5-9): dyoqäoat öö aötoiE xai xftqllual öyyeoviv u1Lnö),eri) rfiLyritpat änö öqa (ytöv ) F X I lxail np ooayoqt6 eo1a Lr ö &yoqao?iv xrfi pa iepöv ö ävt604lxl ö öqpoE röt xow(aLuitv nepi röy lr,öttuooy r[ely]vtröv, öv d.re],iEtiv f1 nö76 änßä)").etrc).öv. Of the six thousanddrachmai required for the purchaseof the land, three thousand were to be provided iy 6aoü"moü, that is, from royal funds (15-18): rö öö ön[ollL]nöEöpafupäE)XXX öötaoav oi eioLövreErapiat ix t[öv I np]ötav öo0qoop6vatvaöroiE öy 6ao ü.moü eiEr [fiv I t rllEndAea Eörcixrlow. Thesetwo procedures, the paymentof r67q ('duties'),and the receiptof moneyfrom royal funds,have hitherto suggesteda relationshipwith an Attalid rather than a Seleukid king,8aalthough this criterion alone does not decidethe matter; all we can say is that thesepracticesare better attestedfor the Attalids. A more substantialargumentis the fact ar R. Demangel and A. Laumonier,SCH xlvi(1922),312-lg, no. 2 (SEGii. 580). Cf. L. Robert,Et. anat. 3944 (supplements2-5; commentary16-23).The text is reproducedin A. W. Pickard-Cambridge,The DramaticFestivalsof Athens(ed.2, rev. Gould and Lewis, Oxford, 1968),314, no. 9. saCf. Holleaux, Etudes,ii. 95-6 (chronology:96. n. 2); Ruge,RE, s.v. Teos,562 (datesthe inscriptionbefore225);E. Bickermann,Hermes,lxvii (1932),68; W. Hahland,Ö"/lr xxxviii (1950\,924: Herrmann. 102.n. 105.

54

The Reign of Attalos I

that the Attalids are known to have taken a great interest in the welfareand prosperityof the reyvfuatwhen Teosbecamea tributThe Ionian Guild is attestedfor the first time by an ary city in 188.8s Aitolian decreeof 235,and it is unlikely that it was foundedmuch beforethis date;s6in this casethe only alternativeroyal funds are those of the Seleukid Antiochos III, who can reasonably be excluded on the ground of his recognition of the city as nor is it likely that the city had paid taxes in 204;87 dcpopoAöyrltoE to Antiochos at an earlier date, since the decree honouringhim complainsso bitterly of the demandsmadeby Attalos. For these reasonsa connectionwith the Attalids is a sounderproposition' The documenthas commonlybeendatedto the reign of Attalos I, but a dateafter the Peaceof Apameiaseemsfar more likely.88The criterion of the letter forms is not by itself decisive,sincethey are compatible with a date in any of the three periods, 22V223' 2l&l20l, and that immediatelyfollowing the Roman settlement.8e On historical groundsthe first of theseperiodsappearsto be the least likely, while Holleauxls argumentthat the decreegives the impressionof relationsrecently establishedbetweenthe city and sincetheserelationswere the Guild of rsxvirGLis not convincing;eo never very stable, it is not necessarilyto be concludedthat the buyingof land and votingof honoursby the city impliesthe Artists' recentarrival. Furthermore,the only other evidencefor payment 85Seebelow,ch. 4 (ii). E6F. Delphes,iii. 3. 218B,6-7: ööofelroiE AiraToIE dn]?ööpevtoiE rqgvfuatE 'I[aviag xai'ELLqonölvtou xr]'' On tdlv lrt doEdAem)vxc'irdv äoü'tav totg ön' the origins of the Ionian koinon, see G. Klaffenbach,Symbolaead historiam collegiorum Artificum Bacchiorum (Berlin, l9l4), 17-21; Pickard-Cambridge' Dram. Festivals,2914. s7Holfeaux,Etudes, li. 96, n. 2. 8sCf. Bengtson Holleaux,Ruge,Hahland(see ,Strat.ä.220.Fortheearlierdate: n. 84). EeCf. Holleaux,loc. cit. (n. 8?).The lettersbearsomeresemblance to thoseof the Korrhagosdecree,but this point cannotbe pressed.In this caseI do not think that the letters can determinea dating one way or the other. e0Holleaux,Ioc. cit.;cf. Hahland,ÖJh xxxväi (1950)'92. Equallyflimsy seems to me an argumentintroducedby Herrmann( 102,n. 105)that subventionsfrom the royal treasuryare not likely to havebeenmadeat a time recentto the passingofthe decreefor Antiochos,which attestsheavyouwö.felE;this is to assumean understandingof royalfinancialpolicythatwe simplydo not have,andit is worth pointing out that the city which honouredKorrhagosreceivedroyal subventionsalthoughit had previouslybeen payingsubstantialnpooööot to the king.

rromthe.",",,."",":;':::::::'",:'::chpassed,n"o.".:: honouring Korrhagos,oqar4yöE of EumenesII in Hellespontine Phrygia,after the Romansettlementhad put Pergameneauthority over Greek cities on a much surer footing (9-12):sr(Korrhagos) fi$tatoevröv 6aoü"6aänoöo?fivat . . . rö üE ü. iepd.xai nöAeoE öLoixr1owäpyüqrcv xt)'. This parallel,and the implication,mentioned above, of the changein Teos' status in 188,when the Attalids first took a seriousinterestin the welfareof the reXvirar, strongly suggestthat the inscription in question,and the financiai procedureattestedby it, shouldbe datednot to the reign of Attalos I, but to that of EumenesII, and more exactly,to the years immediatelyfollowing the Romansettlement,namelyto the same time as the decree honouring Korrhagos. Its relevance to the periodof Attalos' relationswith Teos in 218shouldthereforein all probability be discounted. At this point we may usefully summarize the conclusions reachedfrom this evidenceasto the implicationsofTeos'relations with Attalos. In 218the city entrusteditselfto him on the basisof ouv9fixat which had been arrangedat an earlier date. From this date, and possiblyearlier, the city was requiredto pay a vaguely definedform of tribute, sometimesof a considerableamount.The position of Teos can thus be said to lie somewherebetweenfreedom and dependence;an exact definition is unattainableand was probably not meant to be attainable.It seemscertain. however, that Teos enjoyed a greater measureof freedom by virtue of its ouv9fixat than did the communitiesof Aeolis and Mysia, whose statuswas closerto full subjectionto Attalos.When hostilitiesin Asia Minor involving Attalos came to a temporary halt in 205, probably'at the time of the Peaceof Phoinike which ended the Aegean War, Teos felt free to turn to Antiochos III, who had recently returned from the East and now supportedthe causeof Teos in its requestfor the generalrecognitionof its riou,tic. This recognitionwas duly accordedin204/3by the Greekcommunities, and in 193by the RomanSenate.Teos'relationswith Attaloshad been basedentirely on military considerations,and it is not surprising that after long years of war it should turn to a different protector in a peacefulcause. er Holleaux,Etudes,ü.71-125. Seebelow,ch. 4 (i).

56

The Reign of Attalos I

This evidence leaves a clear impression that Teos became eventuallydissatisfiedwith the terms of its relationshipwith At' talos. In the case of the neighbouringcity of Kolophon, the evidenceusuallycited for its relationswith the PergameneKing must now be redated, partly on the basis of the conclusionsreached above.[n the closingyearsof the third century, Old Kolophon,the city visited by Attalos I, establisheda settlementat Notion (Colophon Nova);e2althoughindependentof the old city, the new setand its inhabitants tlement was attachedto it by oupno)"weta,e3 were called, accordingto a decreeof Magnesiaon the Maeander, A decreeof the new city records KolocpüvrcLd.nö 7aldoor1E.e4 of the v6oLandiqri6oL to celebfestival a to institute the decision the youngestof the sonsof Athenaios, rate the yuöLAnE üpieo of Attalos I.esHolleaux has shownfurther that other membersof the Attalid royal family were honouredwith Athenaiosin havingtheir eixöveg,erectedby the city in the sanctuaryof Apollo Klarios.e6 Holleaux argued, from the absenceof any specific referenceto EumenesII, that the decreewas passedbefore his accessionin 197,and thereforenecessarilyshortly before 197,sinceAthenaios cannot have been born earlier than220.e7More recently, a later date hasbeen urgedon the basisof the letter forms of the inscription,e8to which an importanthistoricalconsiderationmust now be e2Cf. Cardinali,RP 94,n. 4l Holleaux,hudes' ü. 53. er L. Robert,Ret,.Phil. x (1936),158,n. 6, 1654:Villes,62. salvM 53,75-9:Kü'orptivtol of fivllapXaiav nölltv oilxloüvregdistinguished from KoTocprivtoL Qtnö\ l9ü'äoottE. ssTh. Macriiy ,fun' iäiitsosl, lot-r, no. l, asinterpretedby loll9aux, Erades,ii-ll=60(and simultaneously.but in lessdetail, by A. Brueckner'OJh ix(lW), Beibl. 58-9);Appendixiv, no. 20. e6Holleaux.Etudes,ü. 58. e?Ibid.59: on the birthof AthenaiosseealsoMeischke,Symbolae,26' esHabicht, 1vP iii., p. 28, n. 5. Much dependson the restorationof lines 2-5; Holleauxrestored: foraqfivatöildlvcixdvallivr,tuinn4hrcrötaxr6zatL(?)roü 'A?1vallou xo'i trlg p4rpöE | [aürd)v iltpol nlqoiov | 1röv tix|vuv röv &.öelqtbv Beibl.58-9:nlqoiovl Cf. A. Brueckner,ÖJhix(1906), 6aoü,ioonE,'AroiTavlöo1E 'An91' 'Attü']ou xai rr1gpqqöE | 10nE 6aodtooqE2 ftoü narpöE \eoü 6aoü.6aE Neither restorationis completelysatisfactory,but the constructionimT0/viöolE. posed 6y Brueckner (m|oat öö rlv eixöva - ' - tT4otov roü natpög xtl') is particularlyunfortunate.It is diflicult to seein thesecircumstanceshow Attalos' ii.58,n.3): it isnot namecanhavebeenincludedatthispoint(cf. Holleaux,Erades, then so surprisingthat Eumenes'nameis alsolacking,and it shouldbe notedthat the omission of a royal name in a civic decree is often misleadingand rarely furtherin Appendixiii (203'n.l4)' decisive,a point which will be discussed

4ttalos and Asia Minor

57

added:that after 205Attalos' influencein Ionia was weakenedby the end of the military undertakingson which the ouv|fixar with Teos and Kolophon, and other cities, were based.The honours voted to Athenaioscannotbe datedbefore205,when he will have been too young, and a date betweenthe years205and 197seems extremely unlikely. Although the period from 197to 188,that is, duringthe first ten yearsof Eumenes'reign,remaina possibility,a date after the Roman settlementis by far the most convincing, since we have other evidenceof cities instituting similar cults to honour the Attalids at this time.eeIt needsto be addedthat sucha cult does not necessarilyimply a subjectstatuson the part of the city concerned (Colophon Nova was declaredfree of tribute in l881,toosince the practiceis known to have been followed by independentcities,for exampleKos and Miletos.rorThis important point will be taken up in a later chapter; at this point the redating of this decree leaves us with no additional evidenceto clarify the statusof Kolophonin the years218to 201. It remainsto considerAttalos'dealingswith the citiesin HellespontinePhrygia.The statusof thesecitiesis evenmore clearlyone of friendship rather than of allegiance.It appearsfrom polybios' narrative that Attalos visited them becausehis settlementof the Galatiansby the Hellespontbrought him into the area, rather by chancethan by design(v. 78. 6):'Awa)"oEpöv olv, d.noxaraorqoag roüE AiyooäyaE eig röv 'E)"l4onovrov xo,i yprlltatbaE cpüav0p6naEAaprpaxrlvöig,'Ak$avöpt6otv,'il"rcüot, öÄ. ü rerrlpr1x|vaLroürouErilv npög aüröv niorrv, äveyrbgryoe pud tfig öuvdpea4 eiE [I|pyapoy. On the other hand, the words z€rqgryxövatrqv ngöEaüröv niorw suggestthe existenceofa previous relationshipduring the war with Achaios, one perhapsbased on ouvQfixan,as is the case with the Ionian cities. This does not necessarilymean, however, that their terms were the same as thoseof the Ioniancities;it is extremelyunlikely,for example,that they paid Attalos tribute, sincethey were free citiesafter 188.r02 Nor did the Hellespontine cities'entrust'themselves to Attalosin e eS e e b e l o w , c h . 6 . r o oP o l y b . x x i . 4 6 . 4 ; s e e b e l o w , c h . 4 ( i i ) . roI See below, I 55. Kolophon was regarded

as a subject city by Cardinali, Rp g6, and, on the basis ofthe cult, by Holleaux, Etudes, ä.60. r02On the status of these cities after 188, see Schmitt, (Jntersuchunpen, 2g4.

58

The Reign of Attalos I

the manner of Teos and Kolophon. On the contrary, Polybios' narrative shows that Attalos' dealingswere on the basisof a free alliance,spontaneoussupportrather than contrivedco-operation. Thus Attalos' relationshipwith Lampsakos,Ilion, and Alexandria Troas may be comparedwith that pertainingto Kyzikos; in the caseof Ilion, evidencecited in the next chapterrevealsa further parallel in the form of the kind of Attalid benefactions already known for Kyzikos in the caseof Philetairos.They were all important free cities whose friendship was especiallyvaluable to Attalos because,like Kyzikos, they facilitatedthe important PerThey sympathizedwith gamenetrade with the Black Seaarea.1o3 Attalos, but owed him no allegiance. * The conclusionof the precedingdiscussionhasbeenthat Attalos' main contributionto the growth of his kingdomin the years241to 218layin his developmentof firmerdiplomaticcontactwith Greek cities further from Pergamon,enablinghim to find strongerand more substantialsupport in his wars againstsuccessivelocal opponents.In examiningthe extent to which Attalos subsequently maintainedthe positionhe gainedin 218two importanteventshave to be taken into account: the counter-attackmade by Achaios in the years 218 to 216, and the agreementreachedin 216between Attalos and Antiochos to co-operatein eliminatingAchaios. Of neither event do we possesssignificant details. The first is re'Ayaö; öä corded by Polybios as follows (v. 77. l):toa nou1odpevogöE' 6auröv d1v Mü'u6.öa xai rd. il'etota ptgq riE IlatrrcpultaEäv6leufe, xai napcyevöpevoEeiE2d.pöeq önü"Ltrtet äveteiveroöö l1gouoiq',xrdoLö' fiv cpo6eqöE ltbv'AnalE ouveXCoE, xai 6apüg roig öni rdöe roü Taüqou xaromoüot. Although the extentof Achaios' successin theseyearsis unknown,it is probable that Attalos found himself again in difficulties, for such circumstancesbest explain his willingnessto come to terms with 'AvrioyoE öi Antiochosin the late springof 216 (v. 107.!):ros r 0 3O n t h i s a s p e c to f t h e A t t a l i d s ' e c o n o m i c p o l i c y c f . M . I . R o s t o v t z e f f , R a m s a y Studies,365-6. f 04 Schmitt, Untersut'hungen, 263. r05On the xowonpayia see Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 264-7; on the date, 264. n. l.

Attalos and Asia Minor

59

peyd.Tqnapaoxufi yprlodpevoE öv r(t ptpdtvt, petd. taüra tfiE |epetaE önryevop|vqg önep66a)"eröu Taüpov, xai ouv)öpevoE "Auü"ov röv 6oot),6a xowonpaytav öviorato üv npöE npöE 'AyaÄv nö),epov.This agreement(xotvonpayia) was one of military co-operationdesignedto achievea specificpurpose,and not a formal treaty,106but there is further evidencethat the good relations between Attalos and Antiochos were maintainedafter the capture and death of Achaios in 213 had put an end to the immediateground of co-operationbetweenthe two kings. A treaty betweenthem is recorded,this time with the title ouv9fixal, in the literary evidence relating to the Roman negotiationswith Antiochos after his defeatat Magnesiain 189: Appian,Syr. xxxviii: Scipioaddresses an embassy from Antiochosand (sc. afludes to thecompensation thatwouldberequired of him:d.noöoüvat "Ana)"ov Antiochos). . . Eüptvetöoa Tomd rqE npöE üu Eöptvoug äpt. naripa ouv9qxrlg the samenegotiations as follows:clzoPolybiosxxi. 17.6 expresses xai töv öor.ivat öi xai EipivtL rerpaxöorcrd).avra(rd)npoooEuAöpeva i),7efuovraofuouxard rd.EnpöEröv naröpaouv9fixaE. It is extremely unlikely that the agreementreachedin 216constialthough tuted the kind offormal treaty attestedby thesepassages, we need not necessarilyconclude that the ouv9fixal had been concludedonly shortly before the year 189in which referenceis madeto them.r07If, as seemscorrect, we regardtheouv?fixat as a treaty of later dateand closerdefinitionthan thezolvonpayia, the most likely date for its conclusionis immediatelyor shortly after the deathof Achaios,namely in 213or 212.In the years212to 205/4Antiochoswas in the eastof his kingdom,andon his returnin 204 his activity in western Asia Minor was hardly conduciveto friendly relations with the King of Pergamon.It is also possible that in the years before the outbreak of the SecondMacedonian 1 0 6S c h m i t t , U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , 2 6 4 , n . l . ro?I find unconvincing Schmitt's argument (Untersuchungen, 265),'doch ist kaum anzunehmen. dass der Seleukide noch nach fast drei Jahrzehnten die vergleichsweise niedrige Summe schuldig geblieben wäre.' On the contrary, payments of such obligations in instalments, overa period oftime, is a well-attested procedure at this time; the treaty which ended the war between Attalos II and Prusias II, for example, was drawn up on this basis. Prusias being obliged to pay Attalos 500 tafents over a period of twenty years (Polyb. xxxiii. 13. 6: nutaxöota öi rd),avra xartvtyxtiv iv örtow tixoot).

60

The Reign of Attalos I

War, Attalos was largelyresponsiblefor propagatingthe belief in, and danger of, an alliance between Antiochos and Philip V of Macedon.This would havebeenan unconvincingattitudeto adopt if he himself had also concludeda formal alliancewith Antiochos within the last few years. Since relationsbetweenthe two kings were strongestin the years 216to 212,it is to this period, shortly after the informal xoLvonpay[a had lapsed with the defeat of Achaios,that the ouv9fixat most naturallybelong.t08 The terms of the xoLvonpayiaand the ouv|fixat are unknown, but it has usually been concluded that Attalos gained from his co-operationwith Antiochos,at leastto tfreextentthat he was able to recoverthe positionhe had achievedin 2 18.roeAs far as it goes this view is probablycorrect, sinceAntiochos cannothave hoped to gain Attalos'co-operationin 216without makingsomeform of concession;on the other hand Achaios was at the time of the 10E AntiochosandPhilip:SIV iii. 547.It seemsmostlikelythatthe'pact'between Antiochosand Philip V wasan informalagreementto co-operate,oreven simplyan understandingnot to interferewith one another's interests.Such an agreement could very easilyhavebeenunderstoodlater to haveamountedto a partitionofthe EgyptianEmpire, and it is highly probablethat Attalos and the Rhodiansusedthe rumour (which is all it can have been) in order to convince the Senateof the existenceof a danger(cf. Appian,M aked. 4. 2: xai rrivb rilv öölav, €xtapdooouoav änavtaE'Pöörctpöv'PapaioLgöpfiwoav; cf. D. Magie,JRS xxix (1939)' Rule, ü.'750,n.42); whetherthe Senatetook the threatseriouslyis 32-44:Roman anothermatter(seebelow, n. l5 | ). Magiehas perhapsgonetoo far in denyingthe existenceof any kind of agreement(althoughhe was quite right in stressingthe importanceof the rumour of its existence,which is what really matters),but Schmitt'sattempteddefenceofthe tradition (Untersuchungen'237-61)does not establishthe authenticityof a formal treaty, whoseexistenceis most unlikely. See afsoE. Badian,Gnomon,xxxviii (1966),7 15-16. Two dedicationsfrom Pergamonshouldbe mentionedin the contextof relations betweenAttalos and Antiochos.One (/vP 189,= OG/S 236)is a statuebaseof Zeuxis, oqat4yöE and ini ttiv npaypdrav of Antiochos lll (cf. Ad. Wilhelm' Inscr.de Sardis,l.9-14);thebaseis Wien.Stud. 1907.I l-13: L. Robert,Noavelles inscribedZaifo Kuvayou lö önpoE.The other (IvP 182,: OGIS 2zt0)is a baseof 'AvtioTlot the king himself:Baot).tla pdyav lfilaotltaE Z1eLe{xouKaTfulvtxouI The official natureof thesededicationsimplies vop)ocp6,tc{. lllpaltaE Mtvfintyou at leastthat Antiochoswas at the lime personagrata in Pergamon,and sincethe statueofAntiochos, wherethe restorationofthe titlepfTa6:seemsassured,cannot be datedbefore205(Holleaux,Iitudes üi. I 59-63),it appearsthat we mustenvisage a short period of good relationsbetweenAttalos and Antiochosafter Antiochos' return from the East in 204.That thesegood relationslastedfor more than a few monthsis, however, most unlikely. loeSeethe referencesgiven by Schmitt, Untersuchungen,266, n.2.

Attalos and Asia Minor

6l

conclusionof the agreementat leastas much a threat to Attalos as he was to Antiochos, perhaps more so, and it is arguablethat Attalos stood to gain more from the xowonpayfu in immediate termsthan Antiochos. It is thereforeunlikely that Attalos was able to achieve more than a return to the statusquo of 218. More important, however, is the considerationthat this is the first recordedtreaty betweenAttalid and Seleukidkings; it therefore marks a decisive point in the developmentof relations between the two dynasties.Previously, as we have seen, the Seleukidswere alwaysconcernedwith limiting the Attalid dynasteia, andit is unlikely that they evenacknowledgedits independent status. Now, however, the formal constitutionalcommitmentto ouv9fixat implies a direct recognitionby Antiochos of this independentstatus,and of Attalos as an equalking.r r0We may therefore reckonas the most importantconcessionthat Antiochosmade to Attalos the first Seleukidrecognitionof the Attalid Kingdom as a separateand sovereigndynasteia. Further specificconclusionsremaintentative.In 218the Hellespontinecities of Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion affirmed the loyalty to Attalos which they had shownduringthe war with Achaios. In vieryof this attitudetakenby the leadingcitiesof the area,it is unlikely that Antiochoswas ableto reassertSeleukid influencein the Troad before the two invasionsof Asia Minor in 198and 197.Pergameneinfluence in the Troad may thereforebe accounteda specificgain of the wars endingwith the agreementof 216and theouv9fixauttl The subjectstatusafter 216of the Aeoliancitiescloseto Pergamon is confirmed in the case of Thyateira by the inscription atrroAgreementsbetween kings in the Hellenistic period were obviously not always called ouv9ixatt much clearly dependedon the circumstancesof the agreement.Thus an agreementto end hostilitieswas often called, as we would (e.9.StV iii. 428(Peaceof 3l I ), 448 (ephemeralpeacebetween expect,öLalüoeLE Demetrios Poliorketesand Kassandrosin 302)).Of the terms used, however, ouv9fixat is constitutionallythe most formal, and necessarilyinvolves a mutual recognitionof status. rrr Schmitt (Untersuchungen,165)points to the possibilitythat the cities of the Troad had eventuallyfallento Achaios,and that Polybiosv. 78. 6 merelysaysthat they remainedloyal to Attalos, i.e. they resistedas long as they could. This view cannotbe discounted,but it seemsto me not lo be what Polybiosmeans,in the context of the sectionas a whole.

62

The Reignof Attalos I

testingAttalos' settlingof xcnoixot in its territory, and in general terms, as we have seen, by the reference in Attalos' reply to Magnesiaon the Maeanderto ai ön' öpön6)"e6,g[g.rt2The fact that referencewas madein the Roman settlementto taxespaid to Attalos further suggeststhat the situationapparentin 218was also in force in the following years. In these respectsthen, Attalos seemsto haverecoveredthe positionhe held in 218.On the other 'possedesse hand, Pedroli's extreme view that after 216 Attalos dell' Asia Minore i territori al nord di una linea idealeche dal mare ed immediatamentea messogiornodi Colofonesi estendefino all' alta valle del Sangario,e di qui fino all' Ellesponto; e perö all' incircatutta I'anticasatrapiadi Frigiaall' Ellesponto',r13is neither basedon specificevidencenor relatedto the realitiesof Attalos' position in earlier years, in which such aggrandizementof the kingdom does not come into question, and it was rightly diswhich countedby Cardinali.Cardinali'sown view, however,r14 by L. and was endorsedby Ernst Meyer,rt5by M. Holleaux,rro Robert,rlTthat Attalos retainedin216 all his conquestsof two yearsearlier, needsmodificationin accordancewith the differing statusof the subjectcommunitiesin Aeolis and Mysia, and the allied cities in Ionia and HellespontinePhrygia,where statusvaried from city to city. Attalos most probably recovered the authority he had exercisedin 218,but the extent of direct authority, which was confined to Aeolis and Mysia, remainedunchanged. The situationin Mysia, however, was.certainlyless stableafter 216.As alreadynoted, the natureof the country permittedonly a tentativeand partial kind of authority, and no treaty could by itself guaranteeAttalos' position there. In the yearsfollowing Attalos' expeditionof 218 its position is unclear, but the fact that Muoo( appearin Attalos' army during the First MacedonianWar shows that his control was at least partially maintained in the years following the agreementwith Antiochos. In all probability' howr 1 2S e e a b o v e , 4 5 . t t r U . P e d r o l i , l l R e g n o d i P e r g a m o ( T u r i n , 1 8 9 6 ) ,3 O - 1 . C f . C a r d i n a l i , R P 8 l - 3 . r14RP86. tts Die Grenzen, 103-4. t t 6E t u d e s , ü . 6 0 . tt7 villes. 40. n. 3.

Attalos and Asia Minor

63

ever, the status of Mysia remained vague, in the sensethat no singleruler exercisedauthority over the wholecountry; it hasbeen shown, for instance, that although Attalos continued to recruit soldiersfrom the country he was by no meansthe only ruler at the end of the third century to do so.r 18Mysia may thereforebe seen rather as a natural recruitinggroundfor Hellenisticarmiesthan as a country of sustainedpolitical importance. This conclusion concerningthe statusof Mysia may serve to clarify a vexed problem arising from a referenceto Mysia in the terms of the Romansettlementof Asia Minor in 188sc. According to Polybios (xxi. 46.10) the territories awarded to Eumenes II includedMuooriE,oüEnqöreqov aütöE napeoxeud.oaeo; accordingto Livy (xxxviii. 39.15),Mysiam, quamPrusiarexademerat.lt has been generallyrecognizedthat Polybios' text as we have it is corrupt, and that Livy transmits the correct original.rreThe identificationof Mysia, however, remainsproblematical.It is unlikely to have beenthe whole of the areaadjoiningPergamon,that is, Mysia proper, since the area is more closely defined:quam Prusia rex ademerat. It is also most unlikely that Prusiasever penetratedso closeto Pergamon.On the other hand, the idea that Attalos gained an even temporary control over an entire area further from Pergamon,such as Mysia Olympeneand the later Phrygia Epiktetos, both of which have been suggestedin this context, seemsto be ruled out by the literary evidence,which unanimouslystressesthe smallnessof the Attalid Kingdombefore I 88.r20Furthermore,Polybios' referenceto Muoo I suggestsa part and not the wholeof a country. In thesecircumstances we should think rather of territory on the bordersof Mysia, and most probably that betweenMysia and PhrygiaEpiktetos,whoseboundaries I r8On the recruitmentof Mysiansin the Hellenisticarmies,cf. Launey,Recherches,i.436-9. treCf. Cardinali,RP82, n.2; Meyer,Die Grenzen,150,n.2; Magie,Roman R u l e , ä . 7 5 8 , n . 5 6 ; H a b i c h tH , e r m e s , l x x x i v( 1 9 5 6 )9, 1 . M o m m s e nR, ö m i s c h e Forschungen,ii. 538,aloneattemptedto emendthe text of Livy (Prusialopridem). r2oMysia Olympene: Cardinali,RP 82, n. 2. Phrygia Epiktetos: Meyer, Die Grenlen, I l5; Magie,RomanRule, ii. 759(with reservations); Habicht,art. cit. (n. I l9), 92t Schmitt,Untersuchungen,266,276-8. On the evidenceforthe sizeofthe kingdombefore 188,seeabove, 25.

64

The Reign of Aualos I

were neverclearly definedin antiquity.r2rWe know, in particular, that certain communities in this border area were sometimesassignedto Mysia,122and we may reckon that Attalos' control in Mysia spilled for a time into the area known later as Phrygia Epiktetos,but this doesnot meanthat the country as a whole may be accounteda part of his kingdom.l23We are dealing,in other words, with the border territory between the kingdoms of Pergamon and Bithynia, and, given the unstablesituationin Mysia, it is not surprisingthat this territory remaineddisputeduntil the time of the Roman settlement.Prusiasis known to have been actively hostileto Attalos on at leasttwo occasions,in 208and in the years precedingthe Antiochic War.r24On the first occasion Prusias invadedAttalos' kingdom,an action which must havebroughthim into the interveningterritory in Mysia;12sas we have seen,it is by no meanscertain that Attalos was able to maintainthe hegemony in this areaas a whole to which he aspiredin 218.It is admittedly plausiblethat the loss to Prusiasat this dateof a part of Mysia will but it havebeenrectifiedby the peacewhich we may dateto 205,r26 is hardly likely that this was the only occasionon which Prusias invadedMysia. As a border land betweenthe two kingdomsthe country was naturally liable to frequent attemptson the part of each king to maintain a strongerand more widespreadinfluence there than his rival. For this same reason it would constitute territory which requiredsettlementin 188,whateverthe situation at that moment. It is not necessarilyto be concludedthat at the time of the Roman settlementthe territory concernedwas still in Prusias'possession;only that it had beendisputed,and remained in dispute.It is probablethat Prusiastook the opportunityafforded r2rCf. Habicht,art. cit., 92, with particularreferenceto Straboxü.4.4' 564: yrttpigtä Muoriv xai
Attalos and the Aegean

65

by Antiochos' invasion of Attalos' kingdom in 198to strengthen his position in the disputedarea, but that his position was maintained there for the following ten years is doubtful.t27 These considerationslead to the conclusionthat the Mysians concerned lay on the border of Mysia proper and were later included in Phrygia Epiktetos; that owing to the nature of the country neither Attalos nor Prusias was able to maintain a more than ephemeralhold there, although both made the attempt on various occasions;and that the disputed area was settled in Eumenes' favour in 188. In this respect, then, Attalid influence in Mysia under Attalos I may be compared with that pertaining at a later date in Galatia, to the extent that similar conditions rendered impossiblea settledandlastingcontrol over the wholecountry.r2s (ii) Attalos and the Aegean, 215-197 We have seen Attalos, during the first twenty-five years of his reign, in the role not of an ambitiouswould-beempirebuilder, but of a cautiousand defensiveruler, concernedwith strengtheninghis kingdomrather than with expandingit, and indeedfor most of the time preoccupied with defending its very existence from the threats presentedby successiveenemies.To strengthenhis military position Attalos formed closer relationswith Greek cities in Ionia and the Troad. but we have seenthat in terms of direct rule the situation hardly changedfrom the time of his predecessor. Finally, in the years precedingAntiochos' departurefor the eastern campaigns,the Seleukidand Attalid kings cameto an agreement, eventually constituted under the formal title ouvQfixaq which at the very least confirmed Attalos' sovereigntyin Aeolis and Mysia. Attalos' achievementin the years precedinghis alliance with Rome can be summarizedas the consolidation of authority within the kingdom left to him by EumenesI, and the foundation of strongerdiplomatic relationsoutside it. One could r2?Schmitt, Untersuchungen,276-8,arguedthat Prusiasinvadedthe areaconcernedin 198,necessarilybeforeEumenes'accession(cf. Polyb.xxxii. 8. 3); asI do not believethat either Attalos or Prusiasexercisedsuch a definitecontrol in this areaasto constituteincorporationin their respectivekingdoms,I do not think that this point can be pressed. rusOn Galatia, see further below, ch. 5.

66

The Reign of Aualos I

not do better than recall the words of M. Holleaux, written with referenceto Attalos' campaignof 218,but applicableto the reignas a whole: 'circonspectet avis€,calculantjustesesint6röts,limitant sesentreprisesä sesmoyens d'action, et se hätant d'accomplir, sitöt que s'en offre I'occasion, des besognesimm6diatement utiles.'12e A few years after the agreementwith the Seleukid king, Attalos took part in the so-calledFirst MacedonianWar as Rome's ally againstPhilip V of Macedon.The natureof Attalos' involvement, and above all the motives for his enmity to Macedon in the light of his cautious policy of earlier years, must form an important part of our discussion.Scholarshave suggestedvarious reasonsfor Attalos' alliancewith Rome. The most extreme view has been expressed,surprisingly,by the same scholarwhose more apposite words have been quoted above; written twenty-four years later, this view seesAttalos, in the secondhalf of his reign, attemptingto found an empire in the Aegean after his failure to increase his kingdomin Asia Minor; to 'escapeto the west', evento re-formthe old kingdom of Lysimachos.r30In such a scheme,Philip would appearas Attalos' naturalenemy, and in Holleaux's brilliant picture of Romanrelationswith the East,Attalos appearsasthe ready ally of Rome, concernedto persuadethe Senateof the usefulness of its intervention, but equally anxious to securesuch powerful support for the grandioseintentions he now allegedly entertained for the expansionof his kingdom. This view, needlessto say, presentsa pictureof Attalos' intentionsvery differentfrom the one argued in the preceding pages, and we would have to supposea dramaticchangeof policy; it is, however, untenableand must be refuted. Other views see Philip as the natural enemy of Attalos in the ns Etudes,ä. 42. t3oRome, la Gröceet les monarchieshellänistiquesau IIIe siöcleav. J .-C. (Paris, l92l),2M-5, especially205: 'dominer I'Aig6e, y prendre la place quitt6e par I'Egypte,y pr6venirla Mac6doineet lui enleverce qu'elley tient ddjä,occuperles Cycladeset möme l'Eubde, p€n6trerau Sudjusqu'au coeur des mers grecques, pousserauNordjusq'aux iles et aux rivagesde Thrace,puis s'dtendre,s'il sepeut, vers la Chersonöse,se saisirdes d6troits,et, chevauchantsur I'Europe et I'Asie, restaurerl'6ph6möreempirede Lysimaque.'In this list of imputedintentions,only the words 'y pr6venir la Macddoine'seemto me to be realistic.

Attalos and the Aegean

67

latter's opposition to the Seleukidsand to PrusiasI of Bithynia, Philip's ally;trt and Attalos as the natural enemy of Philip in his defence of his kingdom in Asia Minor.r32Neither of these two pointsof view is realistic;the first overlooksthe importantfact that Attalos and Antiochos were formal allies during the years preceding the outbreakof the MacedonianWar, as well as the consideration that Prusias'interventionon Philip's behalftook place some yearsafter the outbreak ofthe war, and cannot therefore havebeen a factor determiningAttalos' policy beforeit; the secondargument is equally untenable in view of the fact that Philip was at this date not a direct threat to Attalos' position in Asia Minor, even as suzerainof Caria, where Attalos did not have lastinginterestsat this date; this threat was, once again, a later developmentin Aegeanpolitics.r33 More important, however, is the considerationthat all these approachesto the problem presupposea total commitment on Attalos' part from the very beginningof the war with Philip. A closer examinationof the facts showsthat this assumptionis not justified; on the contrary, it will be seen that Attalos had little enthusiasmfor the war andtook part only when persuadedto do so by his allies and only to such an extent as would satisfy them. We must consider,firstly, the circumstancesin which Attalos became Rome's ally, and the implications of this alliance. Although these circumstancesare not entirely clear, it is certain at leastthat the initiative lay not with Attalos, but with his prospective allies,and of thesewith Aitolia more than Rome. In interpreting the literary tradition, representedin full at this point only by Livy, we have to be careful in distinguishingthe evidencederived from Polybiosfrom that which can be ascribedto one or anotherof the Roman annalists, and in assessingtheir respectivevalues. Livy's accountof the Romantreaty with Aitolia, which we should probablydate to the year 212,althoughcompressedand evidently r3rG. ne Sanctis,Storia dei Romani (Turin, 1907-64),äi.2. 416. t32U. Wilcken,Ä8, s.v. Attalos(9),2163. r33Prusias'seeHolleaux,Rome,la Gröce, 2O6,n. l. Philip and Caria: Crampa Labraunda, äi. l. 127-31. ?*

/

;i

68

The Reign of Attalos I

selective,wasalmostcertainlyderivedfrom Polybios;r3athe terms show that Attalos' co-operationwas envisagedbut not presupposed(Livy xxvi. 24.8-9): igitur conscriptaecondiciones,quibus in amicitiam societatemquepopuli Romani venirent (sc. Aetoli), (9) additumque ut, si placeret vellentque,eodem iure amicitiae Elei Lacedaemoniiqueet Attalus et Pleuratus et Scerdilaedus essent,Asiae Attalus, hi Thracum et Illyriorum reges. As is well known, Rome avoidedtotal involvementin the war even after this treaty with Aitolia, and it is probablethat Attalos' participation was suggestedin the hope that the availability of the Attalid fleet would complement the power of Aitolia by land, and thereby further reduceRome'sdirect obligations.The fleet appearsfor the first time, and then only briefly (see below) during this war, at which point it was evidentlya force of somestrength,but we have no direct evidenceas to the circumstancesof its construction.The fact that a fleet is not attestedby Polybiosin the campaignof 218 hardly providesaterminuspost quem for its construction,as has beenthought,trs rin"" Attalos' strictly military activity in that year wasconfinedto areasof Aeolis and Mysia in which navalactivity is hardly to be expected;in other areashis dealingswere political, and in one case (the Troad), not originally envisaged.So the argumentthat Attalos beganthe constructionof a fleet sometime after 218as a part of his plan to tum to the west, doesnot haveany firm basisin the evidence.It is more probablethat the fleet was built up graduallyover a number of years, and in particular after the acquisitionof the important harbour position of Elaia, probably in the reign of EumenesI, as a meansof improvedcommunicationsand especiallyof closercontact with the Greek mainland, which was always an important factor in Attalid foreign policy. There is no evidence to show that the fleet was developedin pursuit of an expansiveor aggressivepolicy. 114The most thoroughanalysisof the literary traditionis that of K.-E. Petzold, Die Eröffnung des zweiten römisch-makedonischenKrieges (Berlin, 1940),but it suffersfrom a dogn,atic attitude taken towards the value of the various elementsof the tradition. For the treaty with Aitolia, see Schmitt'scommentary,Sty iii. 536. On the date, seeespeciallyG. Klaffenbach, Der römisch-ötolischeBündnisvertrag vom Jahre 212 v. Chr. (SB Berlin, 1954);G. A. Lehmann, Untersuchungenz. historischen Glaubwürdigkeit des Polybios (Münster, 1967), 10-134. r35As argued,for example,by Holleaux,Rome, la Grice, 205-4, n.2.

Attalos and the Aegean

69

Although the availability of the fleet was an attraction to his allies, we seeclearly that Attalos' own part in the war was from the beginningof a vagueand undefinednature,and it is unlikely that a formal alliancewith Rome was concludedbefore the time of the Peaceof Phoinike which ended the war; it is more probablethat Attalos' position remainedone of informal amicitia. r36This conclusion is indicatedin particular by Polybios' referencein a later context (200 nc) to Attalos' activity as basedon a xolvontpay[a (xvi. 25. 4):|eopdtv (Attalos)ö' aörcüg (the Romancommissioners) xai üS npoyeyevqptvqg xowonqayiaE pvqpoveöovraE . . . nepqppilE riz. This term was used, as we have seen,of Attalos' co-operationwith Antiochosin the war with Achaios,and denotesa commitment to military assistancefor the time being rather than the conclusionof a formal treaty. Such military assistance seemsto have been the nature of Attalos' involvement,to which we now turn. Attalos' short and casualinvolvement hardly supportsthe notion of a schemeon his part of expansionin the Aegean. The invitation to Attalos to take part in the war was probably made in 'escapeto the 212.So far from seizingthis goldenopportunityof an West', Attalos did not appearin Aegeanwatersuntil the year 209, and then only when the Aitolians, still left to bear the brunt of the fighting and evidently desperateto secureAttalos' active participation, offered him the honorary title of Leaguefiyepbv together with the prestigiousislandof Aigina, recentlyacquiredby them, at the nominal price of thirty talents, as a base for the Pergamene flss{.t32 The following year Attalos returned to his capital on receipt of news of Prusias' invasion of his kingdom, a diversion probably engineeredby Philip, and he took no further active part in the war. Apart from Aigina, which constitutes a special case, Attalos achievedno territorial gainsasa resultof his participation. This activity, viewed objectively, suggestsinformal co-operation rather than a formal alliance, and correspondswith the conclusion reached above as to Attalos' initial relationship with Rome. It also correspondswith our view of Attalos' policy with regard to his kingdom; we see him still, that is, cautious and 116K.-E. Petzold,Die Eröffnung, l,+-18. r37Polyb. xxii. 8. l0; cf. BSA lxvi (1971)'l-2.

70

The Reign of Attalos I

reserved,hesitant to commit himself to ambitious schemes,and more concernedwith the preservationof his small kingdom, and the authority it represented,than with its aggrandizement.We have seenthat the initiative in securingAttalos'albeit ephemeral co-operationlay in a largemeasurewith the Aitolians. This fact is of importance in that it was with Aitolia that Attalos' relations were, at that time, in the,context of the Roman alliance, the strongest.It is well known that, at a date before 219,Attalos had financedthe building of the fortifications of the Aitolian stronghold of Elaos;138less frequently noticed is the equally significantap'Awü.eüE pearanceof the ethnic in Aitolian manumissionsfrom pointing to the existencein Aitolia at the end of the third century, 'Arrü,eia whose foundation,or, more that date of a city named probably, refoundation, may be dated to the time of the First MacedonianWar, or earlier.r3eWe arebound,then, to reckonwith a closer Pergamenerelationshipwith Aitolia than that suggested by the singlefortification of Elaos.This impressionis strengthened by evidence relating to Attalos' activity at Delphi, then under Aitolian control. Attalos' predecessorshad establishedcordial relationswith Delphi, but their generositywas probablylimited to direct financial support. This policy was taken a step further by Attalos, as elsewhere,by the more direct expedientof addingto the buildingsofthe sacredprecinct.This took the form ofa terrace built to the north-eastof the Temple of Apollo and including a small stoa;the scaleof the buildingwas compact,and the most interesting featureof the constructionis the choice of its site, as close as possibleto the templeand therebyin an areaso constrictedthat to allow room for the new terrace a breach had to be made in the sacredperiboloswall, for the first time sincethe reconstructionof the area in the sixth century.l4o The size and position of the buildingindicatea cult purpose- the stoawas not simply a shelter from the rain - as does the dedicationof the whole complex to tra p6fyf. iv. 65. 6-7: 'ArrdTou dp, nepi aötö xataoxtulv dvaöelap{voo toig Airaioig. trcCf. Klaffenbach on IG ix.2 1.95 (2M/3; cf. 107):'nimirum hoc oppidum 'Attü.ela denominatum est a rege Attalo I de Aetolis bene merito.' On the origins of Attalos' relations with Aitolia (which are very obscure) see also McShane, Foreign Policy, l0l, n.29. rao For a description of the site see G. Roux, BCH lxxvi (1952), 14l-96.

Attalos and the Aegean

7l

"Arr Apollo : IBa]o t],elüg al)"oE I'A n P A0)orr p l. An Amphiktyonic decreedated most probablyto 2231236tat lsgslds regulationsfor the useof the portico, and leavesthe impressionthat abusesof the precinct had arisen since its construction (lines 7-11): iv rdv 'Arnaordlöa rdv dvarc|eioav röt. 1töl I itnö rcü 6aoü.61o1g täAou pq|evi üpfev ö$ouofuvn).fiv 6aoü"6ory1läva)eivalpq9öv, p4öö oxavoüv pqöb nlüp dvdmer.vBwögfi |xröEllrdE naoü.öog xü'.lt is likely then, from this evidence,that the constructionof the terrace should be dated to the earlier years of Attalos' reign, most probably the 230s,althoughthere is no reasonto associate the construction with anv of Attalos' militarv successes,as has beendone.!42 It is to be noted,finally, that it wasAttalos'policy, in Delphi and elsewhere,not simply to finance building operationsof this kind, as his predecessorsseem to have done, but to provide skilled workers to carry out the actualoperation;we hearat Delphi in 197 'And)"ou ö öni röv öpyau of one Dameas,ö napä rcü 6aoü'öaE röv 6aoü.möv.143The implementingof this moreambitiouspolicy at Delphi may be accountedone of the factors leadingto Attalos' friendly relations with Aitolia. It can hardly be coincidence,then, that it was the Aitolians with whom Attalos had the strongestrelationsat the time of the outbreak of the First MacedonianWar; they whosetreaty with Rome envisagedAttalos' co-operation;and they at whose call Attalos finally appearedwith afleet in the Aegeanin supportof the Roman alliance.In this connectionlie the origin and motive of Attalos' at first reluctant appearancein the allianceformed againstPhilip, and any notion of personalambition on Attalos' part at this time must be discounted. It is probablethat Attalos, togetherwith PrusiasI of Bithynia, was enteredas one of theadscripti to the Peaceof Phoinikewhich [t is at any rate certain endedthe First MacedonianWar in 205.144 that Attalos' position in relation to the Roman allianceremained r4rsy//.3 523(Pomtow).Cf. Wilhelm, Öth vüi (1905),l2-13; R. Flaceliöre,zes Aitoliens d Delphes (Paris, 1937),407,no. 38b. to, e.g. by McShane,Foreign Policy, l0l:.'Attalus I built a portico at Delphi to celebratehis Gallic victories.' t4tSGDI 2001;Appendixiv, no.4; cf. Daux,Delphes,499. f44On the authenticityof the adscripti, see above,n. 75.

72

The Reign of Attalos I

informal. In the yearsfrom 205to 200,however, the situation in the Aegean changed dramatically with the emergence of Philip of Macedon as a threat to the islands and to Attalos' position in westernAsia Minor. The piratical expeditionof Dikaiarchos,the worshipper of Lawlessnessand Impiety, which we should probably date to the year after the Peaceof Phoinike,r4smust havebeen the first clear indication of the reality of this new threat. Attalos and Rhodesstood to suffer most: Attalos from Philip's now clear designson the cities of the Hellespont,!46and Rhodesfrom his support of the cretan pirates. with their commerceand prosperity equally threatened,it is not surprisingto find Attalos and Rhodes co-operatingin the following years, as the threat merged into reality, in resisting Philip's advance. So far from being an unnaturalalliance,as hasusuallybeenassumed,it was the inevitable reaction to a common danger. Of particular importanceis their of commonpolicy, now well attestedby epigraphicalevidence,r4T challengingPhilip's position in Crete (a position of great importanceto his ambitionsin the Aegean)by concludingallianceswith groupsof Cretan cities, thereby controlling the supply of Cretan mercenaries. It seemsmost likely, however,from the limited evidence,that of thesetwo powers Rhodeswas the more belligerentat the time of the outbreakof the SecondMacedonianWar, owing largelyto the vigorous policy of her admiral Theophiliskos. Polybios states explicitly that Theophiliskos was the driving force behind the alliance,being mainly responsiblefor securingAttalos' participation in the naval battle off Chios, in which the combinedAttalid and Rhodianfleetsproved to be a good matchfor Philip, although r45Polyb. xviii. 54. 8; Diodorosxxviii. L Holleaux,Etudes,iv. 12445, establishedthe dateofthe expeditionas either205or 204;ofthesethe later yearseemsby far the more likely. ra6Polybiosdesignatesas Dikaiarchos'objectivesin204,tdg KuxldöaE vfioouE 'Eil,4onöwou xai rd.göE' nö),eq (54. 8). This policy of aggressionagainstthe Hellespontine cities,'which was carried further in 202, and which directly threatened both Attalos' interests there and his contacts with the Black Seaarea, must have been a decisive factor in determiningAttalos' more positive policy as developed after 202. t47For Attalid treaties with Cretan communitiessee P. Ducrey and H. van Effenterre,Kret.Chron.xxi(1969),277-300;P.Ducrey,BCIIxciv(1970),637-59: Appendixiv, no. 3;for the Rhodiantreaties,Sty iii. 551(Hierapytna),552(Olus). Note that Hierapytna was the common ally of Rhodes and Attalos.

Attalos and the Aegean

73

both sides claimed the victory.raEIn these events we see again Attalos' reluctance to become involved in an Aegeanwar, shown also by the fact that he had not taken part in the earlier engagement betweenthe Rhodianand Macedonianfleetsat Lade.laeThe death of Theophiliskosat Chiosdoubtlessalsogoesa longway to explain the marked hiatus in the activity of Rhodes and Attalos prior to their appeal to Rome. This appeal took place in 200, after Philip's escapefrom his enemies'siegein Bargylia;for its motive we need surely look no further than the consideration that Attalos and Rhodes had after three major attempts (Lade, Chios, Bargylia) failed to contain Philip, and to keep him from plunderingAttalos' own territory,lso and the probable feeling after the death of Theophiliskosthat the alliancewas by itself not powerful enough. For the first time we see Attalos taking an energeticinitiative in Aegeanaffairs,indeedthe main advocate-or so it seems-of the renewalof the war with Macedon.This policy, so far from beinga reversalof his earlier policy, shouldbe seenas a logical development of it; no longer able to defend his kingdom by his own resources,he soughtthe helpof the powerwhich seemedmost able to supporthim.r5r r48For the narrativeofthe battle,Polyb.xvi. 2-8; Philip'sclaim to victory is at 8. 2. For Attalos' victory dedication,seeabove,n. 3. The initiativeofTheophiliskos, "AuaTov 9. 4: fivdyxaot öi töv fi1 piL).ew xr7. r4ePolyb. xvi. 10. l: röv ö' "AttaAov p4ö6natouppepryh,or.AlthoughHolleaux put forward positive argumentsfor dating the battle offChios before that ofLade (Etudes,iv.218-22), I regardas more convincingthe chronologyproposedby De Sanctis,Stor. Rom. iv. l. 10,n.27, in which the battleof Lade is followedby Philip'sinvasionof Pergamonand the battleoff Chios,in that order. Cf. Walbank, Philip v, 301-8. r50Pofyb. xvi. I , discussedby Holleaux,Etudes,iv . 247-551withthe chronological reservationexpressedin the previousnote; cf. Walbank,Philip V,308). t5rI cannot discuss fully here the political and diplomatic circumstancesof Romaninterventionin the SecondMacedonianWar; nor the variousattitudesat Rome at the time. As I have said(above,n. 108),the existenceof a formal treaty betweenAntiochosand Philip seemsextremelyunlikely,but an informal working agreementcannotbe ruled out. What matteredwas the reportingof the rumour at Rome,althoughit is not likely that sucha report playeda decisivepart in determining Romanpolicy in 200;no one in Romecan havebelievedin the possibilityof a direct threat from the East (seeH. Bengtson,Die Welt als Geschichte,v (1939), 176-7, = Kleine Schriften zur alten Geschichte(Munich, 1974),251-2).More important considerationsto the Senateat this time surely were that Philip was supportinglawlessnessin the easternAegean,and that Roman interventionto restore order there had becomefeasible with the ending of the war with Carthage (on this secondpoint, seeNiese ii. 590; Petzold24-5).

74

Attalos and the Aegean

The Reign of Attalos I

This appraisal of Attalos' policy in relation to the Roman alliance leadsto the conclusion that the main motive continued to be the defence,and not the extension,of his kingdom.[n fact, Attalos achievedtwo territorial gainsas a result of the alliance with Rome, namely the islandsof Aigina and Andros.l52Aigina remainedan island of someconsiderableprestige in the Hellenistic period, and must have appearedto Attalos as an assetof value, particularly as its possessionprovided him with a baseclose to the Greek mainland, with whosecitiesit remainedhis concernto promotefriendly relations,but its acquisitionwas not due to any substantialinitiative on Attalos' part. Andros was acquired in 199, during the SecondMacedonianWar, but the circumstances,beyondthe fact that Attalos had taken part in its capture from Philip, are unclear. We have only Livy's statement,ea ab Romanis regi Attalo concessa(xxxi. 45.7);we cannotbe surethat it had the samestatus,in the senseof being a possessionof the king, as Aigina. We see,then, that Attalos never envisagedthe Roman alliance as a meansof territorial expansion.Such ideas of Attalos as an empire-builderare the fantasiesof modern historians.With our sightsthusnarrowedwe are ableto assessmorefairly Attalos' own achievement.He did not createa new kingdom;rather he devoted his resourcesto strengtheningthe existingkingdom- modestasit was in size - and to establishinga diplomatic standingin the Greek world which it never lost. We may howeverreasonablyattributeto Attalos, in the context of his rule over Aigina, the applicationof an institutionwhich was later extendedto other cities of the enlargedkingdom.Aigina and Andros are of particularimportancein assessingthe development of institutionsof Attalid rule in that they were subjectpossessions whoseacquisitioncan be datedfirmly to the reignof Attalos [, and whoseinstitutionscan thereforebe assignedwith a high degreeof probability to him. In particular, the presenceof an Bnrcrdr1Eat Aigina, attestedby a decreeof the city dating from the reign of Attalos II, indicatesthat this was an Attalid institution beforethe r52Attalid interestsin Euboia,includingAttalos' temporarypossession of Oreos (Livy xxxi. zt6. 16: cf. 1vP 50, : OGIS 288)were shortlived;in 196Flamininus preventedthe Romancommissioners from finally cedingEretriaand Karystos'and xväi.47. l0-lI;Holleaux,Etudes,v.40'n. |). evenOreos,toEumenesIl(Polyb.

75

extension of the kingdom in 188.t53It is more likely that the Enrcrätqg had existed in Aigina from the time of its acquisition, than that the offrce was introduced suddenly in 188, since the status of Aigina was not changed in that year. It is unlikely, however, as has already been pointed out (above, 42), that the offrce was introduced by Attalos into any of the cities of Asia Minor, whosestatuswas much lesscloselydefined;but we can be reasonablysurethat Attalid rule in Aigina provided a precedentfor similar institutions that were implementedthroughout the kingdom after 188.It will be shown in a later chapterthat the development of royal cults of the Attalids also owes its origins in some measureto Attalos' rule in Aigina and Andros. Of equal importancein this connectionis the indication that a garrison was imposed in Aigina after Attalos acquiredit in 209. That this was the case is shown by a dedicationof the garrison members,which is datable to the reign of Attalos \:lsa ALi xai 'Alfivat l6nöp6aoü"6aEI'Arril"ou lZarupivog, Kal)"tpayoElxai oi ön' aötoüg flyep6veElxai oqattbrar. As I have attemptedto show elsewhere,this body was not an army in the field during the First MacedonianWar, as no Pergamenearmy was engagedin Aiginaat this time; it wasthereforea garrisonput in later.rssIn fact the presenceof a garrison is attestedby Livy during the Second MacedonianWar,tso but we have no evidence as to its permanence.It seemslikely, however,that the statusof Aigina asa naval baserenderedthe islandliable to almostcontinuousmilitary occupation by Attalos. Although this policy may be seenas an important precedentfor Attalid practice elswhere at a later date, for exampleon the frontier with Galatia,rsTit seemsto havebeen the exceptionratherthan the rule. The Attalid garrisonin a Greekcity remained,as we will see, a rarity. ' s r l G i v . l , = O G I S 3 2 9 . S e e B S A l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,4 . ts4EA l9l). L92: lSE i. 36. r 5 5 B S A l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,l - 6 . 156xxxi. 25. I (200): quia praesidium Attali ab Aegina Romanique ob Piraeo intraverant urbem. r 5 7S e e b e l o w . c h . 5 .

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

4 THE ATTALID KINGDOM AFTER THE TREATY OF APAMEIA The Attalids were the greatopportunistsof the Hellenisticworld, and none more so than Eumenes II, who succeededhis father Attalos towards the end of 197.1His reign marked the height of Pergamenepower and splendour,as characterizedby the extensive rebuildingof the citadelof Pergamon,2 and it hasleft us in the Great Altar and its sculpturesone of the finest monuments of antiquity.3Eumeneswas rewardedfor his loyalty to Rome in the war with Antiochos III of Syria with an extendedkingdom which far surpassedthe previous Attalid Kingdom in terms of size and extent of authority, althoughit was, as we shall see,basedon it. The new kingdom made proportionately greater demandson the Attalid systemof administration,and at the sametime the incorporation of Teos, the seatof the Ionian Guild of Dionysiantechnitai, allowed Eumenesand his successorsnew scope in the development of royal cults. Theseaspectsof Attalid rule will demandmost of our attention in this and the following chapters. The eventsof the reign of EumenesII are well documentedby the narratives of Polybios and Livy, and a fairly dependable chronologicalframework can be established.Eumenesextended his father's policy of forming friendshipswith the statesof the Greek mainland by concluding an alliance with the Achaian Leaguewhich Polybioscalls (in 185)'theancestralalliance'.aThe t On the date, see above, l0 n. 6. 2 Strabo xäi. 4. 2, 624; the chronology and details of the building programme underEumenesllarediscussed by A. Schober,OJlr xxxii (1940),15l ff.,andmore fully by Kähler, Gr. Fries, 136ff. 3 See,in addition toAvP III, Kähler, Gr. Fries, part I. The best readily available photographsof the friezes known to me are those in E. Schmidt, TheGreat Altar of Pergamon (London, 1965),but the text is not ofthe samestandard.Carl Humann's drawings of the figures of the friezes are beautifully reproduced inDer Pergamon Altar (hrlmund, 1960). a Polyb. xxii. 7. 8.

77

Attalid fleet againservedthe purposeof the alliance,assumingan active role in two expeditionsdirected againstNabis of Spartain 195and 192,5andthe allianceis further attestedin actionduringthe war with Antiochos by a dedicationof the Leaguemadeafter the battle of Magnesiain honour of Eumenes' brother, the future Attalos II.6 It is clear that Eumenes,like his father, enjoyedclose and lasting relations with the states of central and southern Greece,Tand these relations are also illustratedby an important but not often cited passageof Polybios,which refersto widespread honourspaid to Eumenesin the Peloponnese.s By meansof large donationsat Delphi, Attalos I and EumenesII also strengthened their friendshipwith the Aitolians, their allies in the Macedonian wars, and this friendihip is reflectedin the many honourspaid to the Attalids at Delphi, more than to any other dynasty.eThese relationswere all inspiredby the now establishedAttalid policy of winning friendsby actsof generosity,a policy notedamongothers by Livy (xlii. 5.3):cum Eumenisbeneficiisnumeribusqueomnes Graeciae civitates et plerique principum obligati essent. The lavish use of their wealth remainedas much a corner-stoneof the Attalids' foreign policy after 188as it had been before. ln 216Antiochos III seemsto have recognizedAttalos I as an equalking and his kingdomas a sovereignstate,and he is the first of the Seleukids for whom such action is attested. We know nothing further of the relationsbetween the two kings until 198, when Antiochos, after returning from successful operations elsewherein his kingdom,turned his attentionagainto Asia Minor and took the opportunity of attackingthe kingdomof Attalos at a 5 Livy xxxiv. 29. 4; IvP 6O-63,= Sy//.3595, 605. 6IvP 64,: Sy/I.r 606. ? The evidence of Attalos I's interest in central Greece and the Peloponnese consistsofchancereferences,e.g. Polyb.iv. 65.6, wherewe learnthat Attaloshad financed the building of the walls of the Aitolian stronghold of Elaos. He was honouredby the Sikyoniansafter redeemingsacredland of Apollo for them; later he receivedan annualsacrificethere (Polyb.xviii. l6; seebelow, 147).For Eumenes seealso Appendix iv, no. l9 (Thebes). 8 xxvii. 18:in 170/69.when the whole of Greecewas concernedwith the imminent war with Perseus,the Achaians consideredrevoking all their honours, but a more moderate proposal, supported by Polybios himself, was adopted (xxvii. 7. 8-14). The affair characterizes dramatically the Attalids' high regard in the Peloponneseand their concern to maintain it. e Daux,Delphes.502-l l.

78

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

time when the latter was particularly unable to defend it.10Antiochos' behaviour is diffrcult to understand,for no sooner was Attalos dead than he offered a marriage-allianceto Eumenes, whose refusalEumenesclaimedto his credit in his speechto the RomanSenatein l89.tt The importanceof Antiochos'actionslay in the consequencethat the Roman alliancereplacedthe needfor at least nominal co-operationwith the Seleukidsas a major requirementof Attalid foreign policy. This freedom from Seleukid influenceis reflectedin a numberof institutionsof Attalid rule after the Treaty of Apameiahad confirmedthe position: in the regional administration,which departedfrom the Seleukidsatrapalsystem; in the titles and functionsof oflicials; and in the new royal coinage, the cistophoros,first minted on a generalbasisafter the Treaty of Apameia (see part ii below). [n terms of practical politics this situation formed for a time a far more decisive and substantial support to Attalid independence.After the Roman settlementof 188sc the King of Pergamoncould dealwith the Seleukidproblem from a position of strength,and the results are startling. In Asia Minor the new kingdomawardedto EumenesII created its own problems,and Eumeneswas facedfor the rest of his reign with the enmity of Bithynia and Pontos, as well as the danger presentedby the apparentreadinessof the Galatiansto ally themselves with any enemy of Pergamon,as they had done in the previousreign. One of the most important aspectsof the external policy of the Attalids in the yearsafter Apameiawas thereforethe need to keep control over Galatia, which they did not annex formally as a provincealthoughperhapsthey could havedone (see chapter 5), and Cappadocia,which they achievedby a dynastic marriage(seeAppendix iii) and, when necessary,by direct interference. r0Livy xxxii. 8. 9-10. The authenticityofthis invasionin 198,asdistinctfrom the one in the following year, is convincingly defended by E. Badian, CI. Phil. liv (1959),82-3 (: Studiesin Roman History (Oxford, 1964),l14) and by Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 269 tr. t I Polyb. xxi. 20. E-9; Appian, Syr. 5. The most convincing date for this offer is 195,after the marriageof Antiochos'children Antiochos and Laodike at Seleukeia in 196/5 (Schmitt, Untersuchungen, lTl4), and the meeting of Antiochos and Hannibalat Ephesosin the autumnof 195(Holleaux,Etudes,v. 180-3),where it occursin Appian's narrative;see also below, Appendix iii, n.7.

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

79

The immediatecausesof the war which Eumenesfought with PrusiasI of Bithynia are unknown, and we have no continuous narrative of its course, the literary evidence being confined to occasionalreferences.r2A decreeofTelmessos,datedto 184and thereforeduring Attalid rule, honoursEumenesfor a greatvictory over'Prusias, Ortiagon, and the Galatiansand their allies', and acclaimsEumenesas Soter, saviour.l3The content of the decree suggeststhe context of a war in progress, and establishesa chronology whereby the peaceis to be dated a little after 184/3. Eumenes'victory provided a suitableoccasionfor the first celebration of the reorganizedPergameneNikephoria, which we must date to l8l; it probably also earnedEumenesthe title So/er, first attestedby the decreeof Telmessosjust mentioned,and referring more probably to this war than to the earlier, Antiochic, war.r4 No sooner was peace concluded with Prusiasthan Eumenes faced another enemy, Pharnakesof Pontos. This new war was under way in 18312,when envoys of Eumenesand of Pharnakes appearedin Rome and the Senateagreedto send out legati. The most substantialpieceof evidenceon the courseand natureof this The war is Polybios'accountof the treaty concludingit in 180/79.t5 principal action evidently took place in Galatiaand Cappadocia, and this fact illustratesthe rivalry of the kingdomsof Asia Minor for control of theseimportant areas.In the settlementPharnakes was required to evacuatethe Galatians'territory and to revoke ouvilfixat previously concluded with them; Attalid interests in both Galatia and Cappadociawere firmly reasserted. As a result of the enormousincreaseof their kingdomin 188the Attalids were for the rest of their history far more concernedwith Asian affairs, and far less than before with the events of the Aegean.It was a signof the timeswhen in 17514EumenesII placed on the Seleukidthrone the new king, Antiochos IV Epiphanes, whose elevation is describedby Appian (Syr. 45), and equally 12For an account of this waf,seeNiese iii. 70ff.; Habicht, Hermes, lxxxiv (1956), 9l fr.; RE, s.v. husias (l), 1086-1107. t3 Appendix iv, no. 7; see also no. 8 (Panion,Thrace). 14Onthe chronology,see Habicht, Hermes,lxxxiv (1956),99;on the title, L. Robert, Rev. Phil. lx (1934),284-5tEt. anat. 73, n. l. ti xxiii. 9. 3; the treaty is at xxv. 2; cf. xxiv. 14.

80

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

81

remarkablethat Eumenes and his brothers, and the deceased Attalos Soter, shouldbe lavishly honouredin an Atheniandecree relatingto theseevents.r6Furthermore,we know from afragment of Diodoros (xxxi. 32a) that when Epiphanes died in 16413, Eumenes went so far as to crown at Pergamona rival to the successorDemetrios,and this pretenderwas later brought to the throne by Attalos II, after the defeat and death of Demetrios (Straboxiii. 4. 2,624). Suchinterferencein Seleukidhistory was a by-product of Roman intervention. It is not surprising that Eumenes was only vaguely interested in the Roman war with Perseus,althoughthe extentof his commitmentis unclear;on the other hand, Romecould not deal as finally with the King of Pergamon as she choseto do with Rhodes.rT The Galatiansremaineda major problemin Asia Minor, for the Greek cities as well as the monarchies.Attalid troops had taken part in the campaignof Manlius in 189(Polyb. xxi. 33-40; Livy xxxviii. 12-38),and its successfuloutcomehadbeen,accordingto Polybios(xxi. 40. 2) a causeof greaterjoyto the inhabitantsof Asia Minor than the prospectof freedom from Antiochos. Those inclined to dub Eumenesa lackey of Rome and a traitor to Hellenismrs are reminded that he now assumedresponsibility for GalatiadespiteevidentRomandisapproval,re and secureda victory comparablein its outcometo that of Manlius, and certainlyas beneficialto the safetyof the Greek cities. (The detailsof this war will be discussedin chapter5.) Polybiosis explicitthat Eumenes' popularity among the Greek cities increasedas he took a more independentline (xxxi. 6. 6): xa9' öoov öö6xouv oi 'Papaiot

flapürcqov rQ Eüptvet ngooqtpn)aL xcrrd roooüro ouv66atve "ElJ'qvaE fiQoootxeroüoeaL 9(toet uitv dvqpdtnau äü tQt roög 0)"ßopövE tilv eövomv npoovepövron. We are surely entitled to believethen that Eumenesdied in the favour of many of the Greek cities of Asia Minor.20 Eumeneswas already ill during the war with Pharnakes,when his brother Attalos assumedmuch of the burdenof the war, and by 168/7his death was expected.2lAccording to the chronological indicationsafforded by Strabo, he died in 160/59,and documentary evidencefrom Delphi allows a closer dating: Eumeneswas certainly alive until the late autumn of 159,and furthermore his brother Attalos had been co-regentduring the last months of his life.22 The personalityof Attalos II is markedly different from that of Eumenes,for althoughhe is in many ways the most likable of the Attalids, he clearly did not have the forcefulnessand diplomatic ability which his father and his brother had shown in turn. It had been,for example,the recoveryof Eumenesthat had put an endto the war with Pharnakes.Strabo informs us that Eumenesleft the kingdomto Attalos asepitopos of the youngerAttalos (thefuture Attalos III), Eumenes'son by Stratonike(xiii. 4. 2,624- seeAppendix i). The fact that Attalos called himselfking and ruled until his own death, which occurredcertainly well after the majority of his nephew,23probably reveals the intention of protecting the successionin much the sameway as Antigonos Doson had done for Philip V of Macedon.2a Under Attalos II, Attalid foreignpolicy continued,althoughon a

t6IvP 160,= OGIS 248: Holleaux.Etudes. li. 12747. r7 H. H. Schmitt,Ronr und Rhodos(MünchenerBeiträge7urPapyrusforschung und antikenRechtsgeschichte,40, 1957),157tr. r8There is no evidenceto support the generalization that Eumenes'was everywheredislikedasbeingRome'sjackal, the traitor to Hellenism'(W. W. Tarn, HellenisticCivilisation(ed. 3, London, 1952),29).It is preciselyevidenceof this kind that we most lack for Eumenes'reign; what there is is confinedmainly to which naturallydepictEumenesin an unfavourable scrapsofRhodianpropaganda, light. te Note the eventssurroundingAttalos' visit to Romein 168/7(Polyb.xxx. l-3; Livy xlv. l9). The Senate'ssuspicionswere directedat Eumenespersonallybecauseof his behaviourduring the war with Perseus.Rome's contribution to a solutionof the Galatianproblemin theseyears was preciselynil.

20Note especiallythe decreeofthe Ioniankoinonpassedin Eumenes'honourin the winter of 16?/6,immediately after he was refusedentry into ltaly by the Roman -Senate;it is quotedextensivelyin Eumenes'reply to the koinon (OGIS ü.763' 169-Tl,andbelow'partii). ii.ch.xi,esp. Appendixiv,no.l3;cf.Holleaux,Etudes, Eumeneswas particularlycommendedfor bringingpeace(lines ll-13). z t P o l y b .x x i v . 5 . 2 : x x x . 2 . 5 . 22Seeabove,l0 n. 7. 23On the chronology,seebelow, Appendix i. 2aAntigonos Doson was firsl epitropos and later basileas"seethe study of Dow l63ff.ThedistinctionbetweenguardianandEdson,flarv.Stud.xlviii(1937),esp. shipand usurpationis examinedby A. Aymard,Etudesd'histoireancienne(Pans' 196D,230ff. The careful attention Attalos II paid to the guardianshipof his nephew is now further demonstratedby a royal letter about the man who was appointedhis mentor (Appendix iv, no. 24).

82

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

less independentbasis, to be concernedalmost exclusively with Asian affairs.Accordingto Polybios(xxxii. I 2) Attalos' first act on succeedingto the throne was the restorationof his personalfriend Ariarathes(V) to the throne of Cappadocia,and polybios rightly notes that this was an exampleof Attalos' generalpolicy.2sIt is probable, then, that Attalos was anxious to make sure of his friendsbeforedealingwith his enemies.26 Theseenemieswere for the most part, as in the previousreign,Galatiaand Bithynia. Royal correspondence with the friendly priest Attis at Pessinousmakesit clear that Attalid control over Galatia, barely establishedunder Eumenes II, was lost under Attalos II.27 Attalid hostility to Bithynia reacheda final climax. We have a good if brief narrative of Attalos'warwith PrusiasIlintheMithridateiosof Appian(3-7), supplementedby substantial fragments of Polybios' history (xxxii-xxxiii). Both theseaccountsare written in Attalos'favour. and the only documentaryevidence,a dedicationof Attalos himself, naturally confirms the implications of the literary sources, that Prusiaswas completely in the wrong.2E Of Prusias'initial treacherythere can be little doubt; according to Appian the SenateorderedPrusiasto make peacewith Attalos on the frontier, taking with him only a thousandmen, insteadof which he advancedwith his entire army and destroyedthe pergameneNikephorion.2eOn the other hand,Attalos resortedto the now standardAttalid practice of dealing with potential and real enemiesby removingthem from their thronesandinstallingfriends in their places;by the time Attalos was dead,this policy had been successfully applied to Syria and Cappadocia, as well as Bithyni4.ro zsxxxiii. 12. For Attalos' early friendshipwith Ariarathesat Athens, seeSy/l.3 666, ajoint dedicationto their teacherCarneades. 26Note Appian's comment(Syr. 45) on the motivesof Eumenes and Attalos in supporting Antiochos IY: ötar.p$öpevot töv dvöpa. 27Seebelow,ch. 5. 2EIvP 225, = OGIS 327. 2eMithr.3; Polyb.xxxii. 15.Accordingto both accounts,prusias' destructionof the Nikephorionconstitutedhis secondattack on Attalos. Accordingto polybios, Prusiaswent on to loot the rich country around Thyateira, as philip V of Macedon had done in 201 (xvi. l. 6-7; Holleaux,Etudes, iv. 248-51;L. Robert,Et. anat. I l2- 13; Magie,Roman Rule, ä. 1197 , n. 42). 30Appian,Mithr. 4-7; for Syria, see Hopp, L)ntersuchungen, 79-85.

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

83

Attalid forcesassistedRomein the final subjugationof Macedon in 149,3rand in the sackof Corinth threeyearslater,32andwith the latter event the narrativeof Polybios(or what is left of it) comesto a close. For the rest of the reign of Attalos II, and for that of his successor,we are left, apart from the comparativelymeagreepigraphical evidence, with literary referencesthat are either fragmentary or incidental, or both. For most events we badly miss context and detail, and the loss of a good contemporarysourceis irreparable. Little more than the fact is known of Attalos II's probably important campaignagainstthe Thracianking Diegylis, son-inlaw of Attalos' former enemy, PrusiasII of Bithynia (Appian, Mithr. 6), which is dated by a dedicationto the year 145,33 and the end of Attalos' reign is shroudedin darkness. The preoccupationof Eumenes II and Attalos II with Asian affairsis further exemplifiedby their activity on the southernshore of Asia Minor, where the cities of Selgeand Amlada in Pisidia evidently tried to resist Attalid influenceafter the Galatiantroubles of the 160s.Both Eumenesand Attalos undertook military campaignsin the area,but the shortliterary noticesrecordingthem do not say much aboutthe backgroundand circumstancesofthese events.34Also of great importanceis Attalos' foundation of Attaleiain Pamphylia,3swhich, togetherwith his buildingactivity in the harbourat Ephesos(seepart ii below), indicateshis concernto promotetrade in the kingdom. Attaleia facedCyprus, the eastern Mediterranean.and the realm of the Ptolemies.and the choice of this positionconfirmsthe tendencyof the Attalids after the Treaty of Apameia to turn away from co-operationand economicintercourse with the Seleukids. The anecdotalnatureof the literary evidencefor the reignof the 3r Strabo xäi. 4.2, 624; cf. Niese iii. 334. 3' Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxv. 24; cf. Niese iii. 352. 33OGIS 330; Hopp, Untersuchungen,96-8. ra For Selgewe havethe noticeofTrogus,Prol. xxxiv; Straboxii.7. 3, 571says that the SelgiansörepriTowo npöE rcüE 6aor)'öaEfui (by oi 6aoü'etg Strabo often meansthe Attalids). Cf. Hopp, (Jntersuchungen,70. The situation of Amlada is discussedmore fully below, 102. 35Straboxiv. 4. l, 667. Attaleia was founded more probably in the early yearsof Attalos' reign, when he was campaigningin Pisidia, than in 189in connectionwith Manlius Vulso's campaignin the area; Hopp, Untersuchungen,102-4considers both datespossible.

84

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

last of the Attalids, Attalos III Philometor,has alreadybeen discussed;it tells us more about the man than aboutthe eventsof his reign.36He figureshardly at all in the final fragmentsof Polybios' history,3Tand we are left with a mainly hostiletradition about him that has excessivelycoloured modern opinion. The epigraphical material shows that Attalos III continued to defend Attalid interestsin military terms,3Eand that he was responsiblefor a significantand highly individualdevelopmentof the royal cults of the kingdom (seechapter 6). His decisionto bequeaththe kingdomto Rome3emustbe seenin the context of his own personalityand rule, and not in terms of a postulateddependenceon Romebeginningin the previousreignor even earlier, for Attalos' predecessorswere well able to defend their kingdomevenwhen the Senaterefusedordeclinedto support them. Attalos' bequestis the first instanceof the will of a Hellenistic monarchin favour of Rome being put into effect. There was a theoreticalprecedent,known from an inscriptionfrom Cyrene,in the decisionin 155of Ptolemy Physkon (the future EuergetesII, then King of Cyrene)to leavehis kingdomto Romeasa last resort, shouldhe die with no one of his choice to succeedhim; it is even possiblethat Attalos knew of Physkon'sdecisionfrom hiscontacts in Rome, althoughPhyskon'swill was not implementedand was probablynot madepublic until a later date.aoAttalos' action later 36Seeabove,ch. l. 37The testimoniaare given in Appendix i below. 38IvP 246, : OGIS 332 honours Attalos on his return from a successfulmilitary expedition,perhapsin Thrace; cf. Hopp, Untersuchungen,lll, n.25. 3eStill important is Cardinali's study 'Le morte di Attalo III e la rivolta di Aristonico', in Saggi . . . offerti a G. Beloch (1910),269-320;for an excellent moderndiscussionsee Hopp, Untersuchungen,12147. a0SEG ix. 7, : Ann. öp. 1912,80.Accordingto this text a copy of the will was to be sent to Rome. Wilcken, SB Berlin, 1932,tl7-36, arguedthat the will was not publisheduntil 96 nc, when Romefinally acquiredCyrene, but the Senatemay have known the terms in 155.and the information could therefore have reachedAttalos. An earlier origin of this practice may be seen in the decision of Nikomedes I of Bithynia(diedc.255:Beloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.22,p.213) to securethe succession for the children ofhis secondmarriageby naming specific guardiansoutside his own kingdom, namely Herakleia, Kios, Byzantion, and the Kings of Macedonia and Egypt (Memnon22,= FGrHist 434, Fl4). In the event,despitetheseprecautions, Ziaelas,half-brother ofthe designatedheirs, succeededin gaining the throne (see Magie,RomanRuIe, ä. I195,n. 35).

The New, Provinces

85

constituteda precedentfor NikomedesIV of Bithynia.al The transition to Romanrule was hinderedby the resistanceof Aristonikos. Now that Aristonikos can be seen as a dynastic aspirantto a paternum regnum, as his coinage,which calls him King Eumenes,indicates,we are sparedfurther speculationaboul social upheavalin the Attalid Kingdom and especiallyat pergamon.a2Aristonikos failed to win supportfrom the Greek cities of the kingdom, probably becausethey had already been promised their freedomin Attalos' will,a3and he resortedto the mobilization of slavesas a desperatestrategicmeasure.He failednot as a social revolutionary,but asthe lastclaimantto the throneof the Attalids. (i) The New Provinces We havenow tracedthe history of the Attalid Kingdomto the point where under Attalos I it becamean independentand sovereign kingdomableto maintainalliancesand exert influencesbeyondits own frontiersas Attalos and his predecessors choseto placethem. The origins of this expansivepolicy lay in a need to defend the kingdom againstthe Galatians44 and other enemies;they did not arise from and did not lead to thoughts of empire or even of expandingthe areaof direct royal authority. Attalos' treatieswith the important Greekcities, reviewedabove,a5servedthe interests of both parties, city and king, and enabled Attalos to collect ouvtä$e6 for the supportof his professionalizedarmies.There is no evidencewhatever within the area of direct authority which Attalos inheritedfrom EumenesI of a regionaladministrationor of a systemof direct governmentover the Greekcitiesconcerned;the coincidenceof certain institutions with those of the Pergamene constitution,as indicatedby the prescriptsofextant decrees,is not in itself necessarilyindicativeof a centralizedpolicy, sincethe city of Pergamondid not havean untypicalconstitution,but one which other cities might be expectedto sharein ordinary circumstances. arMagie,RomanRule, ä. 1200,n. 49. 42E. S. G. Robinson,Num. Chron. xiv (1954), l-7; Hopp, (Jntersuchungen, t45-7. o, Hopp, Untersuchungen,143.4. 44Seealso below, ch. 5. ai Seeabove, 39-58.

86

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

We shall see later that the Attalids were able to exploit the constitutionalarrangementsin somecitiesto their own advantage,but there is no evidencethat they manipulatedor prescribedthe forms of the constitutions themselves.46Attalos' administration was noticeably gearedto the military requirementsof his reign, and apart from their commitmentto support him in this area of royal activity we have no indication in the availableevidencethat the cities in the immediateterritory of Pergamonwere not allowed to lead a full and independentcivic life. Whatever the exact nature and extent of royal rule during the reign of Attalos I, it is clear at leastthat at the end of his reign the kingdom was hardly any biggerthan it had beenat the beginning. Polybiosascribesto Philip V of Macedonthe following commenoöroLpmqdv dationof EumenesII andAttalo sII:a1napa)"a66vreE dpXitu xai i1v ruyoöoav qü[rlxaot taÜrr1v,aorc pr1fupü4 elvat xaraöeeottqal. The mostrecentlosseswerethoseof 198when, as the evidencesuggests,Antiochos III seizedlarge areasof Attalid territory, enablinghim to march throughthis territory againin the spring of 196without any apparentoppositionfrom Eumenes.as During the war in which Eumenesfought againstAntiochoson the side of Rome, many Attalid cities close to Pergamon,including PhokaiaandThyateira,aeremainedin Seleukidpossession,andthe Attalid Kingdom for a while almost ceasedto exist, but at the end of this war Eumeneswas rewardedfor his loyalty to Rome with a kingdomwhich in terms of size and securityof tenure was something the Attalids had not known before. In this chapterwe shall examinethe implicationsof this new situationin terms of the royal administrationand the precedentson which it drew. In 188 BCthe Roman settlementof Asia Minor imposed new obligationson the King of Pergamonby altering totally the constitutionalbasison which the kingdom was founded. EumenesII had not merelyforeseenbut had welcomedtheseobligationsin his speechdeliveredto the Roman Senatein 189,the year after the a6Seefurther below. 104-9. a7xxiii. I I . 7. Seealsoxxxii. E. 3: (Eumenes)ropü"a6öv napd rcö tarpög rilv 6aoütiav ouvtma).pöt4v rc).6a9eig ü.tya xai ).wä nd,rcpdtn. 48Schmitt, Untersuchungen,271-3,and especially273. aeSeeabove.42.434.

The New Provinces

87

defeatof AntiochosIII at Magnesia:s0 oüöui cpap€v ömatdrtpov üvaL naqayoptiv üpd.Etöv ix roü noltpou ytyovörav ä07av flneprjpiv. It was not simplya matterof an increaseof territory that was at issue,becausethe terms by which the increasewas made representsomethingquite different from previousAttalid experience.We shallseein particularthat the basisof Attalos' expansion of royal influence beyond his formal frontiers was swept aside together with these frontiers by the terms imposedby Rome.st Polybios' account of the settlement as it related to Eumenes specifiesboth areasand individualcitiesthat were assignedto him as gifts. These included,in Europe, Chersonesos, Lysimacheia and 'the adjoining strongholdsand chora which Antiochos had ruled', and in Asia, 'HellespontinePhrygia,GreaterPhrygia,the Mysians whom Prusiashad previously taken, Lycaonia, Milyas, Lydia, and the citiesof Tralles,Ephesos,and Telmessos'.s2 This provision suggeststhat the administrationof the areasconcerned was left in Eumenes' hands, and we look for confirmation and clarification of this situationto a number of contemporarydocuments relating to two of the areasspecifiedin the Roman settlement, namelyChersonesos and HellespontinePhrygia.In addition we now haveevidencefor a third region,centredon Ephesos.In all cases the attested names and institutions.show a departure in terminologyfrom the Seleukidsatrapalsystem,but it will be seen that the new institutionsdo not indicate,asis often maintained,the influenceof any other singleadministrativesystem. An inscription of Roman date from Sestoshonouringa benefactor refersto Straton
88

Attatid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

that the name of the area as defined in theseinscriptionscorrespondsclosely with the designationgiven in the Roman settlement 'Chersonesosand Lysimacheiaand the adjoining of 188,namely strongholds and chora'. To this evidence we may now add a recently published inscription from Ephesoswhich attests one 'keeper of the seal' andmqaqyög Demetriosson of Apollonios, 'EE1oouxai rCovxar"'Ecpeoovrönon xai Kaüorpou neö[ou än( re xai rö Kü.6nvöv (sic).5r The most substantialevidencefor the Attalids' institutionsof provincial administrationis an inscription relating to Hellespontine Phrygia.saThe stonewas found at Bursa (ancientPrusa)and recordsa decreehonouringa man namedKorrhagosson of Aristomachos,but it has been firmly establishedthat the honouring city was not Prusaitself.ssHolleaux'sexhaustivestudy of the termini of c. 225and 150BC;this means letter-formsestablished that the decree must refer either to Seleukidor to Attalid rule, since during these years the territories of HellespontinePhrygia cameunder no other authority.56There is no specificreferencein the decreeto either kingdom,and the only royal designationis the anonymousö 6aot),eü;.

s

"Eöo(tv rrlt 6ou74L xai tCot öripot M*6paXoE 'Appläou einu' inti KöppayoE'Aprctoprilou Maxeötbv, rtraypfvoE orparqyöE röv xa'EM"fionovrov rönutv, önrtlet rilp naoav 0' onouöi1v xcti tiivotav nQooqtgöprvoE tiE rö otv-

5rThrace:OGIS 339,: J. Krauss,Inst'hr. r'on Sestosund der Thrakischen Chersones(lnsthr. griech. Städte aus Kleinasien' XIX, 1980)'no. I (with full commentary);oGlS 330.Comparethe title of the third-centuryRolemaicofficial 'El)lqonövrou xoJröv itti @pamqEüttatv (lG Xll. Hippomedon,or pa{qyöE iE 8. 156,= Sy'//.r502;Bengtson,Strat lii. 178).Ephesos:Appendixiv, no' 25' 5aHomolle, CRAI 1921,269ff. (editioprinceps),superseded by Holleaux,BCII xlviii (f924), l-57 {Etudes,ä.73-125),the mostthoroughanalysisand necessarily the startingpoint of any discussionof the text. On the date, which is discussed below,andotheradditionalpoints,seethe importantremarksof G. De Sanctis,Riv. (tifil. üi(1925),63-78.The text appearedassEG ii.663 (cf. iv. 716).see the useful in Bengtson,Strat. ii.2ll-26. discussion 55Holleaux,Erudes.ü. I l4-15;De Sanctis,Riv. difil.lili (1925),7V1.Holleaux arguedpersuasivelyin favour ofApollonia on the Rhyndakos,not far from ancient Prusawherethe stonewas found. Magie'sargumentsfor Abydos (RomanRule, ü. | 0l l-13) arenot acceptablein themselvessinceAbydoswasprobablynot Attalid at the argueddate (seebelow, n. 140). 56Holleaux.Etudes,ii. 75-81,85-6.

The New Provinces

r0

l5

20

25

89

aü$rc9at üv ö1pov, xai xoLvfit xai iöfut rctE iuruyXävouotv töv nd"rcitv tüXp4otov aöröv napaoxtud\e, önö rt rlv napd).rtlplv rrtE nö7eaE rj{iatoev röv 6aot7öa änoöo94vat toüg tt uöltouE xai tilv nätprcu noAne tav xai rd iepd rcp6vq xai tö eig d iepä xai nöLuog örcfuqow ägyüprcv xcti tö rotE vöoLEöLatov xai rd. ä77a änep if dpXAg ünqpXev töt örjpa4 ivöeöE rt änal).aooövrav triu noAnav öÄ röv nölepov napd tt aöto6 öyapioarc eiE räg ö4porekIE ?t,o[ag 6oüE xai iepeia, xo'i töt 6aoÄeli) pv49tiE i$enoploaro oftov tig onöppa xai önrgoEqv, xai td.E iö[aE txäorutt röv noludty xrrjoery ouv{oneuotv önpeiv[at] roiE re pl öyouotv öo94vaL ix roü 6aotttxoü, xai drelthg inmeXapqptv4E naoöv rav nqooööav tinö roü 6aoÄ{oE iröu tgtöv öoneuotv xai ä77a öüo kq önöo9qvaq 6ouT6ptvog tig tüöa4toviav xai intöoow xatamfioat roüE no),i,taE, dxö[ou9a npdooov tfit rc6 6aoÄtaE npoaqöoeL' ivct öi xai ö öqpoE Eaiv1ra(t) änoööoüg ydprcag ä{fuE rcig aiüv eütpyttoüotv, öeööy9at töt öfipat' finaLvfoat rl Köppayov röv orpat4yöv xali otecpavöoat aütövl Xpuoöt ottrpftivat. xtA.l

30 'A decree of the boule and the people, on the motion of Menemachos son of Archelaos. Considering that Korrhagos the Macedonian, son of Aristomachos, after being appointed strategos of the regions around the Hellespont, constantly shows every enthusiasm and good will for the advancement of the people and publicly and individually puts himself at the service ofthe citizens; that after the acquisitionofthe city he asked the king to restore the city's laws and ancestral constitution and its sacred precincts, as well as providing funds for the sacred and civil administration and oil for the use of the neoi and everything elseformerly availableto the people; that when the citizens were in severehardship as a result of the war he provided at his own expense oxen and other animals for the public sacrifices, and having notified the king he provided corn for sowing and for sustenance,urged that each individual should keep his own possessions and that those with nothing should be provided for out of royal funds, and also urged that immunity from all taxes granted by the king for three years should be extended for another two years, wishing to endow the citizens with prosperity and generosity in accordance with the king's policy. So that the people may be seen to show suitable gratitude to its benefactors, the people have decided as follows: to commend Korrhagos thestrategos, to crown him with a gold crown, [etc.].' The decisive

argument

in favour

of associating the decree

90

Attalid Kingdom after the Treoty of Apameia

with Attalid rule arises from the name given to the region: of 'Ellfionovrov rönol. Under Seleukid rule the area was xa9' 'Eil,r1on6urou oareaireia, and the called, more typically, fi öcp' 'ilJrqonövrou.s1 correspondingofficial was calledorqarrlyöEBcp' When Attalos I defeatedAntiochosHierax in HellespontinePhrygia, he named the area similarly in his dedication to Athena,ss
The New, Provinces

9l

ratherto a completechangeof authority.63In this casethe causeof the changecan only havebeenthe termsof the Romansettlement, and the war referredto in the decreein connectionwith the city's hardshipsis the Antiochic War, in which Antiochos III invaded Asia Minor and no doubt brought the city concernedunder his control, as he did with Phokaia.6a We may conclude,then, that the areasassignedto Eumenesin the Roman settlementwere, in the casesfor which we have evidence,renamedand placedunder the authority ofroyal strategoi. We turn now to consider another phenomenonattestedby the texts so far cited, the designationtopoi.The term is a familiar one in other Hellenistickingdoms,especiallyin the SeleukidKingdom 63See De Sanctis,loc. cit. (n. 54) 7l ff.; Rostovtzelf, SEHHW üi. 1472,n. 44. Holleaux,Etudes, ii. I 18ff., observedthat the expressionnapd,a6öv d npäypara and its variants refer to acquisition of authority rather than to military conquest,but did not makethe distinctionbetweentransferof commandwithin one authority and the transfer of that authority itself. ln caseswhere an existing authority passesto a new official or to a succeedingking, the predecessoror the personby whom the authority is delegatedis named;for the PtolemiesseeOGIS 55 (a decreeof Telmessos),7-9: IltolepatoE ö Auoryälgolu, napü"a6öa rlv nü,Lv napd 6aoÄöl@E llrld"epatou roü llto)"epaiou xr),., and Sy//.3 463 (a decree of Itanos), : I. Cret. iii. p. 83, no.7: Baoüeüg llrd.epaioE lnapü.a6öv td.v rtity 'ltaviov nöLo xo'i nd.haE I napä rcü natpög 6aoü.6o4 llro).tpaiou, xai röv I npoyövotv, xtL. OGIS 90 (the Rosetta Stone) refers to the date of Ptolemy (line 47) as the yeariy fir napil,aflevtilv 6aoü.eiavnap(d) Epiphanes'accession toü narpö;. For the Attalids seePolybios'referenceto the succession ofEumenes II at xxxii. 8. 3, quoted above, n. 47. Another instanceof the simpler formula usedof Korrhagos' appointmentin the decreefromBursaisprovidedbyPolyb.xxvii. l3(anexcerptofunknowncontext) with reference to Rolemy Makron, strategos of Cyprus under Rolemy VI: rapü.a6öt tilv vfioovörr,vqtiou rcü 6aot)"6agöttog. SeeBengtson,Strat. ä.216, n. 4; Walbank,Comm. äi. 3l l . We havealreadymet anotherrelevantexamplein theacquisitionof Pitaneby EumenesI asattestedby OG^|S335,line l4l (seeabove, 19,21):Eüpövqgnapd.a6öv tä npd.yfuatalxr,l. The inscriptionsfrom Labraunda supply a further examplecomparableto the position of Korrhagos in Olympichos' acquisition of authority over Mylasa (Labraunda, iii. 1., no. 8, line 13): napa).a6övt4 ydp fiv [üpetöqav nü"w) xil'. (on the liberation of Mylasa by SeleukosII see Crampa,op. cit., ch. 3). 6aSeeabove,42 andn.46 rhereiCf. Rostovtzeff.SEHHW ii. 635.On the dateof the decreefrom BursaseeDe Sanctis,loc. cit. (n. 54);Bengtson,Strat. ä. 213-17. Holleaux associatedthe decreewith later events, but eventually subscribedto De Sanctis'date(BCHliv (1930),248,n.2:cf.Etudes,ü. l16, n. 2).It shouldbenoted that l8E is the date of the nagä),ryE6 qg nü,euE, and not necessarilythat of the decree,which can be datedto any of the yearsimmediatelyfollowingthis event.

93

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

The New Provinces

and in Egypt, but its rangeof meaningsand applicationsis wide.6s For the Attalid Kingdomit hasto be determinedwhetherit hasany consistentsignificationrelativeto the regionaladministrationas a whole, suchasthat of a collectionof smallareasor communitiesas distinct from cities, as in the SeleukidKingdom and in Egypt. It is found with an apparently similar connotationin lists of epheboi from Pergamon,in the heading 'from the places' (dnö ünov) which introducesgroupsof nameseachconsistingof the personal namefollowed by the patronymicand the formula tdtv änö or ix, 'of thosefrom' a namedplace.A full designationof this type would read, for example:'Apollonides,son of Athenaios,of those from DaskYlion.'oo An interestingfeature of these formulae is that they stand in placeof the more usualethnic. Thosewho are designatedforeignin other lists are namedwith the conventionaladjectival ers($6rtoL) ethnic, so that thosedzö rönov must be regardedas belongingto a different category.6TNor are the designationsin the lists of those riaö r6nav those of placesattachedby sympoliteia to another city, since we know that such placeswere designatedby a

formula including the name of the city concerned'68The topoi referred to in the ephebiclists formed a separatecategoryrepresentingcommunitiesthat were outsidecivic life, for exampleröz "A66ou 3S x6prtE. a number of reasons,however, it seemsunlikely that the For rcpoi mentionedin the ephebiclists have anythingdirectly to do with the terms usedin the Attalid namesfor Chersoneseand HellespontinePhrygia. In the first place, the lists are certainly confined in scopeof referenceto ephebesfrom the immediateareaof the city of Pergamonthat can be related to the direct authority exercisedby EumenesI. Furthermore,among the provisions of the Pergamenedecree passed after the death of Attalos III,6e people called Maoöurlvoi are included among the soldiers who were to receivethe citizenshipof Pergamon,and their home may be identified with the name Maoö{tq or Malt3q, which appears frequentlyin the ephebiclists in the formulaof thosednö rönov.7o Clearly then, the Maoöur1vo(constituteda military settlementin the immediatearea of the city, and they did not have Pergamene citizenshipin the royal period. They were in fact, as I haveargued generally, outside civic life in administrativeand constitutional terms. A further argumentmay be added. If the topoi of the ephebic lists are to be relatedto the regionaltopoi,we must expecta closer definition in the former than the simpled.nörönat, such as rizö röv rönotv röv iv Xepqovrjoor,or whateverthe casemay be. The fact that the designationis simply änö rönav reinforcesthe conclusion that it refers to a singlearea, which in the circumstances

92

6r SeeRostovtzeff, SEHHW i.561-2, iii. 1450,n. 327.On Seleukidusageseealso Bickermann,ln stitutionsdesSöleucides (Paris,1938),198,302;Bengtson, Strar. ii. 10-12,211.Rostovtzeffs and Bengtson'sview ofthe termtopoi as exactusagein the Attalid as well as the Seleukidkingdomsis disputedhere. oeThe headingdnörönon ispreservedonly in onelist, that publishedinÄM xxxv (1910),434,no. 19:dnö törav I'Aqö1tuv'Aoil,4ntdöou ütv änö - - - I'Aoil.d.now Me)"avinnouröv i[ - - - lMryvoytvqE'Aoil.4nnöouröv ix - - -. Regrettablyin this instancethe right-handedgeofthe stoneis not preserved.There are other lists of epheboiin which the namesare compiledin the sameway, and the headingdaö rönav may be restoredto them;ÄM xxxv (1910),426,no. 12,col. ii includesthe following completenames "A66ou 'Aoil.d.navoE xöpqlEl röv öE MlqtplööopoE 'Avöp LxöE'Aox).4nü.öou töv i[,' A nLaolovog dypoü 'AnoAlaviöqE'A9rlvaiou röv öy laoxuAtou 'ArdJ"6vLoE Mrlqoöbpou röv dnö Maoöü4[Sl 'Aro7\aviöqE lrcvuoocpd.voutöv öx T[pvov 'Aox71nLd.ö49 Mqvorpdvroutöv dtö Maoöü4[El nos.309-14,322,324,326-7,329,331?; OthersuchlistsareÄM xxxii (1907),440ff., AM xxxv (1910),422 ff., no. l l, col. i, lines l-9. 67For a list of f ivot seeAM xxxv (1910),422,no. I l.The headingalsooccursin a fragmentof anotherlist, AM xxxii (1907),435,no.297.

68Thus in the list cited in the previous note a man named Epikrates son of 'Ivötmtöiou. This designationhas Diodorosis designated.IrqatoumeöE töv dnö nothingto do with the formulaof thoseriaö törav, who haveno ethnicat all in the lists.Stratonikeiais soqualifiedto distinguishit from othercitiesof the samename, as L. Roberthasshown(Villes, 43-82),and so Epikratesappearsin the list of{ivor with what is an ordinarydesignationoforigin, as is clearfrom the form ofthe other 'Aqipov namesin his list (e.g. Tqlicpou Tmp4vöE). 6eOGIS 338, = tGR iv.269. 70Not with the Paphlagonian town of Mastya, as the similarity of namesonce wrongly suggested;see Magie,Roman Rule, ii. 1036,n. 8.

94

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

must be that of the city of Pergamon.zlThe placesso designated included military settlementsof the kind specified above, and these are probably comparable to the katoikoi attested for PtolemaicEgypt,' and the'Macedonianfoundations'mentioned by Strabo,73but in generalterms we may envisagevillage communitiesoutsidecity life suchas that at Abboukomementionedin the lists. It may now be askedwhetherthis conclusionhelpsus to understand the nature of the designationtopoi in the Attalid regional administration.The first thing one noticesis that in this contextthe application is inconsistentand less exact, referring in the Korrhagosdecreeto a whole region and in the dedicationfollowing Attalos II's Thracian campaign to certain parts of a region.74 Indeed in the seconddocumentit is most unlikely that the term topoi implies any constitutional significance whatever, being sinceAttalos' camrathera genericdesignation meaning'places', paign took him, according to the literary evidence,to parts of Thrace,includingthe territory of King Diegylis,that were beyond the frontiersof his kingdom.TsIn the decreefrom Sestos,however, the term /opoi seems to have more exact connotations,being within the Attalid Kingdom and probably denotingknown rather than unknown areas.?6 This varyinguseof the term is consistentneitherwith Ptolemaic practice (the most likely parallel) nor with usageat the Attalid capital as arguedfrom the evidenceof the ephebiclists. When the term is used so inconsistently, we are bound to question the validity of the claim that in the Attalid provinces the topoi as attestedin the texts cited were an extensionof the local Pergamene usage.[t seemsunlikely, in the circumstances,that the wordtopoi as appliedto the provinceshad any preciseor consistentconstitu7t The implicationsof this conclusionfor the civil administrationwill be noticed below in chapter7. 72Bengtson,Strat. üi.73-5. 73SeeL. Robert,Et. anat. 193,n.2. 7aKorrhagos is called simply (lines 34) oqatryög töv xa9' 'E)Jrionovrov rönov. Attalos' dedication (OGIS 330)refers to oi xard. Xeqpövqoov xai @pdtx4v tönou rs For a review of the evidenceseeHopp, Untersuchungen,96-8. 76Seeabove,87.

The New, Provinces

95

tional significance,and it is more likely that it was a convenient genericformula for describingdifferent regionalphenomenanot preciselyexpressiblein other terms. It cannot be comparedwith the Seleukidtoparchiai in Syria, for which a specific official is In the Attalid Kingdom the only offtce associatedwith attested.TT thetopoi for which we have evidenceis that of thestrategor of the whole province. In 188BCEumenesII receiveda number of formerly Seleukid military settlements,katoikiai in another special sense of the word.78Although evidenceof the Attalid administrationof these communitiesis in generalterms extremelythin, a good exampleis to be found in the settlementof the territory of Telmessos,which passedinto Eumenes'handsalong with that city. A stonenow in the museumat Izmir preservesa letter written by EumenesII to his official Artemidoros, whose title is unfortunatelynot given. He was responsiblefor the katoikoi of the village of the Kardakesin the territory of Telmessos,who had petitionedhim on the grounds of a numberof severehardships,in particularthe inability to pay a oüvra$6, here a poll-tax of four Rhodian drachmasand one obol per head. In his letter Eumenespromisesconsiderableassistance to the community, includingthe sendingof an architectto advise on the reconstruction of dilapidated fortifications and - most important - a reductionof the poll-tax to one Rhodiandrachma and one obol. We seeEumeneshere as in the Korrhagosdecree concernedto safeguardthe welfare of the community which had appealedto him, and to ensureits prosperityby meansof positive measureswhich are probablytypical of Attalid policy as appliedto the inherited Seleukidkatoikiai.Te It is unlikely that thesecommunitieshaveany exactcorrelation with the topoi of the Attalid provincesdiscussedabove; for one thing we have seen that the term is used without any evident 77OGIS 752;Bengtson,Strat. ä.22-3. 78On the Seleukidxanomiat see Rostovtzeff,SEHHW i. 499-501; Bengtson, Strat.ä.68-9,bothofwhomcontesttheviewofBickermann,lzsr. Sö1.12tr.(cf.L. Robert,E?. anat. 19l-3) that the colonies were not military in character.Seenow G. M. Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies (Historia Einzelschr. 30, 1978). 7eThe text wasmentionedby L. Robert,Et. anat. 375, n. l, andwaspublishedby M. SegreinCl. Rhodos ix (1938),190ff. An improved text will be found in Maier, Mauerbauinschriften,i. 76 (: 566 xix. 867).

96

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

consistency, and for another the former Seleukid katoikiai or military settlements were of a nature very different from the Mysian katoikiai, villages not specifically military in character, which we havefound reasonto relateto the local Pergamenetopoi mentionedin the ephebiclists. For this reasonand otherswe must not regardthe organizationofthe enlargedkingdomcreatedin 188 Bc as an extensionof the organizationof the Mysian communities formerly administeredby the dynastsand kings at Pergamon.On the contrary, it is probablethat the Attalids maintainedwithout changethe Seleukidsystemof administeringthe military katoikiai by meansof stategoi; such at least is the implicationof a dedication made by the membersof a colony near Lydian Apollonis in 15413:8o BalolüeülovrolE'AnäLou I houE E' W)qvlölE Eavötxolu)loli ix .)eoönöprcü leplxfuAilöourcü aöiov oqalr[4yo]u roüpatuMaxeö6lveE dperr1E tvexevxatil I eööt6Q1ou [rirö]q1a]ya?iaE fiE| äytatlvönteQ.leieTg rc | 1röu6aor.Al6[a xai] ölaluroüfs). It seemsprobable that the Attalids were anxious to promote the prosperity of these newly acquired communitiesby easing their financial burdens and by maintainingexisting administrative institutions, thereby disturbing as little as possible the relations of the colonists with their suzerain.In this respect the Attalids evidently did not depart from the methodsused by the Seleukids.The same seemsto be true, accordingto the limited evidence,of the Attalid administrationof the templesof the kingdom, whose rich lands rendered them an important source of revenue,as they had beenunderthe Seleukids.8lThe little that we know of the Attalids' treatmentof templelandsindicatesthat they subscribedto the methods used in other Hellenistic kingdoms. Their maintenanceof control over the administration,and in particular the financialadministration,of the templesis shownby the royal appointment of a neokoros to the temple of Artemis at Sardis,E2 and a tax-exemptionis attestedby an inscription from soAM xxiv (1E99),230,no.68; fuller textap. Keil and von Premerstein,Reise, 4 7 , n o . 9 5 .C f . B e n g t s o nS, t r a t .ü . 2 0 7 . srFor the continuity of temple administrationsee Jones,Greek City, 42 ff; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW ii. 648-9 (with the reservation expressedbelow, n. 84). 82Appendixiv, no. 5, lines7-1 l: ö 6aoü"eüE . . . xaröm4o* vetoxöpovtfiE0eo6.

The New Provinces

97

Soma in the upper Kaikos valley recording a letter written by Attalos II during Eumenes'reign to the katoikoi of Apollo Tarsenos.E3Most important, the Attalids maintainedthe policy known for other Hellenisticmonarchiesof assigninglandto templesin the kingdom, as I believeis shownby an inscriptionof Hadrianicdate from Aizanoi in Phrygia.Ea It may be useful at this point to summarizewhat has been said' We have evidently to assignthe institutions and proceduresof Attalid rule after 188 sc to various precedents.It seemslikely, from the disappearancein Attalid recordsof the designationsatrapeia, previouslyappliedby the Seleukidsin Asia Minor, that the Seleukid satrapal system was replaced by a different and less closely defined system. Within this framework, however, a number of detailed administrative institutions were retained from the Seleukidorganization,particularlyin areassuchasthe military settlementswhose tradition of allegianceto the Seleukidscould not be ignored,andthe temple-landswhich hadalwayspreserveda semblanceof independence,where it will have been in the Attalids'interest to renderthe changeofsuzeraintyas inconsequential as possible.Finally, it needsto be emphasizedthat the Attalid administrationafter 188 sc was not simply an extensionof the administrationappliedhitherto in the smallareaof directauthority aboutPergamon,and thereis no evidencefor supposingthat it was basedon or evengreatlyinfluencedby Rolemaic practice.Thereis no significancein the designationtopoi since this was in Attalid usagea vague and inconsistentterm appliedto provincesand to areas byond them, and it does not seem to have had for the 83Welles,RC 47. Boehringer'sattempt(AvP ix.92) to ascribethe authorshipof this letter to Attalos I before his assumptionofthe royal title has beenconvincingly refuted by Kähler, Gr. Fries lE2. On tax-exemption in the Hellenistic period see Holleaux.Etudes. ü. ll2-13. aaThe inscription(Bull.Mus. Imp. Rom. lxvi (193E),44-8,= E. M. Smallwood, Doc. Ill. Principates ofNerva, Trajan and Hadrian, 165,no.454) referstofines lovi cfrea?ftoriet civitati Aezanitarumdatos lalb Attalo et Prusia regibus.The kings are most probably Attalos I and husias l: seeT.R.S. Broughtonin Studies.. in honor of A.C. Johnson,236-5O;Habicht,Hermes, lxxxiv (1956),93 ff. Compare the Seleukid donation of land attested,by OGIS 262. This evidence cannotjustify the view of Rostovtzeff, SEHHW ii. 6,f8, that the king could seize temple land or income, or his statement,'at Aezani in Phrygia the kings, both Seleucidand Attalid, exercisedthe rightofpartial confiscation.' Seethe importantremarksof Jones,Greek City, 309-10, n. 58; Broughton,loc. cit.

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

The Greek Cities

Attalids the specificconnotationswhich it had for the Ptolemies and the Seleukids.The positiveconclusionto be drawn is that the Attalids' methodsof rule as implementedafter 188Bc drew on a wide rangeof Hellenisticinstitutionsandweredetermined,aswith the Attalids generally,by expedienceand opportunism,not being basedexclusively or even predominantlyon any one system of administration.

the war is unknown, but its nameappears,not aspart of the Attalid Kingdom, but as a fully sovereigncity and entitled to compensation from Prusias,in the ouv9fizd, concludedbetweenAttalos II and Prusias II of Bithynia in 154, together with Methymna, Herakleia, and Kyme, cities certainly independentat the time.eo Other cities, subjectto the King of Pergamonand known to have been attackedby Prusias,such as Elaia, Thyateira,and Temnos, do not appear separatelyin the freaty; so we may infer that Aigai, once an Attalid subject, had its independencerestored in 188, presumably on the basis of its behaviour during the war with Antiochos.er This principlewas evidently subjectto exceptions.Magnesiaon the Maeandersurrenderedto Rome at the sametime as Ephesos and Tralles, but unlike thesetwo it was privilegedby the Scipios and remained an independentcity outside Attalid jurisdiction, evidently maintainingon its own account friendly relationswith Teos, a tributary city after 188,as we shall see.e2This caseis not likely, however, to have been an exceptionin principle, because the treatment afforded to Magnesiadependedon the personal authority of the Scipiosand not on senatorialpolicy generally. The treaty also stipulated,as we saw in the previouschapter, that cities which had paid o6vraf6 to Attalos I shouldhenceforward pay cp6eoEto Eumenes. It is clear then that the Roman settlementwas more careful in its treatmentof the Greek cities than in its apparently wholesale allocation of entire provinces. Although the Chersonesewas assignedto Eumenesand became part of an Attalid province, someof its cities remainedindepen-

98

(ii) The Greek Cities Accordingto the literary evidence,the statusof eachGreekcity in 188depended,at least as far as the paymentof tribute was concerned, on its record during the war with Antiochos, and this principlecan usuallybe seento haveappliedin individualcases.ss Miletos co-operatedwith a Romanfleet operatingin the areaof the city in 190;in 188its sovereigntywas respectedto the extent that its sacredlands, evacuatedduring the war, were restoredin full, and later Miletos concluded a private treaty with Herakleia.s6 Thus in theory Miletos, pro-Romanduring the war, was left independentafterwards.Ephesos,on the other hand,surrenderedonly after the defeatof Antiochosat Magnesia,andwasone of the'gifts' grantedto EumenesII by the Romansettlement.sT Tralles surrendered at the sametime and sufferedthe samefate.88For Telmessos, another 'gift' city, the evidence is less clear, but Seleukid sympathiesare suggested by its coinageandits useof the Seleukid era at a later date, and it seemslikely that it too assistedAntiochos in the war with Rome.Ee There is evidencemoreoverthat subjectcities of the old kingdom of EumenesI and Attalos I becameindependentif they had earnedthe right. Aigai is a casein point: this city's record during 85Polyb.xxi.46. 2-3; Livy xxxviii. 39.7-8; xxxvii. 53.2E.Seethe valuablestudy of Bickermann,REG i (1937),217-39;Schmitt, ()ntersuchungez,278-85; Walbarrk,Comm. iii ad loc; Pr€aux,Monde hell. i. 16l-3. s6Livyxxxvii. 16.2;17.3;Polyb.xxi.46.5.ThetreatywithHerakleia:Sy//.3633. Miletos and Herakleia evidently passedunder Rhodian influence for a time; the treaty they concluded establishedthe principle that neither should do anything ünevavrloy tfit npöE'Poöioug ouppayiat (line)S).ThisouppaTla is not otherwise attested (see Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 109). s.TEphesos' surrender:Livy xxxvii.45. l. t6 Ephesosand Trallesas gift cities: Polyb. xxi. 46. 10. 8eSeeMagie,RomanRule, ä.762.

D

soPolyb. xxxiii. | 3. 8. Methymnalater enteredinto privatediplomaticrelations with Rome(Syt/.r693).Kyme wasfreedof tributeobligationsin 188(Polyb.xxi. 46. 4). We have good evidencefor the autonomyof Herakleiaafter 188:Sy//.3618 recordsa letter of Cn. Manlius Vulso (on the identificationseen. I in Syllogead loc.) to the city in 188confirmingits autonomy.As we haveseen(n. 86above),the city concluded a treaty with Miletos which attests its membershipof a Rhodian ouppayia. er For the evidenceof Aigai's coinage,seebelow, I I l. e2Tacitus,Änn. äi.62:proximi hosMagnetesL. Scipioniset L. Sullaeconstitutis nitebantur: quorum ille Antiocho hic Mithridate pulsisfidem atque virtutem Magnetum decoravere, uti Dianae Leucophrynae perfugiam inviolabile foret. The sovereigrrtyof Magnesiais reflected in documentsrelatingto the city's disputewith hiene, in which Mylasa was the arbitrator (IvM 93, = Syl/.3 679). Relationswith 'leos'. IvM 97.

100

The Greek Cities

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

dent and were listed as aörovoltoup|uot in the peaceconcluded between Eumenes II and Pharnakes of Pontos in 179.e3 Lysimacheia,however,was specificallygiven to Eumenesin 188, alongwith the Chersoneseand tä. npooopoüvratoüroLgBqüpara xai yitpav, and Diodoros refers to the city as being subject to Attalos II.ea We havenow seenthat four cities were assignedto Eumenesas gifts in 188:Ephesos,Tralles,Telmessos,and Lysimacheia.To these we should perhaps add Magnesia ad Sipylum, which is similarlydesignatedby Livy.e5It shouldbe admittedimmediately that if we did not havethis specificevidenceaboutthe gift citieswe would not easily discernfrom other sourcesany major diffefence in status from other cities which passedin varying degreesof subjectionunder Attalid control, and it is unlikely that the designation as 'gifts' which Polybiosrecordshad any preciseconstitutional implications.There is no literary record of oppressionas there is in the caseof the Rhodiantreatmentof the Lycian cities, also categorizedas gifts in 188;e6even Rhodianpropagandadirected againstEumenesdid not touch on this subject. It is unlikely, then, that the Senateintendedany particularstatus by the title 'gifts', andit would be unprofitableto look for one in the epigraphicalevidence.We now know that after 188nc Ephesos wasthe centreof an administrativeregionandthe seatof a regional strqtegos.A gymnasialdedicationattestsEumenes'interestin the gymnasium,a policy applied by the Attalids to Greek cities of whateverstatus,notably Miletos.eTEumeneswas a benefactorat Ephesosand at Miletos, and we shallconsiderlater the possibility that, despiteor perhapsbecauseof their differentstatus,thesetwo sr Polyb.xxv. 2. 13. grPolyb.xxi.46.9; Diod. xxxiii. 14.2. ei Livy xxxvii. 56.3: et nominatimMagnesiamad Sipylum. e6Theambiguity of Rome's definition of the statusof Lyciaand the subsequent dispute with Rhodes on this question of course obscure the issue (seeFraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, lll fr.), but I am concernedhere with Polybios'ter'PoötotEyaprlöpevot minology as applied to the original ruling (xxii. 5. 4): totg öö npootwrpav tv öapeQ.rcüE Auxbug e7Appendixiv, no. 25;J. Keil,Wien. Anz. xxii (1951),331-6,no. I, = SEG xvii. 510:f'Egpeil'Hgail,ei xai flaohei Eöp4ver.For the restoration l'Eppei] seeJ. and L. Robert, BulI. lxvi (1953), 169, no. 178. See in general Pr€aux, Monde hell. i. 265-4.

101

cities competedfor royal favour. It is enoughhere to confirm that there is no evidencethat Ephesoswas treatedspeciallyin internal constitutionalterms after 188sc. Telmessosis the first city known to havecalledEumenesSoter; this was done in a decree of 184 nc passed in gratitude for Eumenes' defenceof Asia Minor againstPrusias,the Galatians, and other enemies.esClearly, however, this kind of spontaneous honouring of the saviour king is a feature of Greek civic life irrespectiveofconstitutional status,and thereforehas no special sigrrificancein the case of Telmessos.ee We pass to Tralles. There is evidence, lacking for the other cities, that Tralles was a royal residenceof the Attalids: both Vitruvius and Pliny refer to a royal palacein the city.t00A decree of Tralles honouring a judge from Phokaia refers to ltouotxoi &yöueEcelebratedat Tralles in honour of EumenesII, but such activity again is not necessarilyto be associatedwith subject StatUS.l0l

In the caseof Lysimacheiaevidenceis lacking,but that already adducedis enoughto demonstratethat an enquiry which setsout 'free' merely to determinewhich cities were 'subject' and which after 188sc will be misleadingin the way that definingstatusfor the cities under Attalos I was seento be misleading.tozThere is also the difüculty that the literary accountsof the Roman settlement, and very probably the Roman settlementitself, did not set out to explore the connotationsof a city's status.The accountsin Polybios' and Livy's narrativesare (at times on their own admis[n sion)selective,and dwell in particularon the issueof tribute.103 e8Appendix iv, no. 7. eeSeebelow, ch. 6. rooVitruvius ä. 8. 9: Trallibusdomus regibusAttalicisfacta; Pliny, Nat. ÄIisl. xxxv. 49: domum Trallibus regiam Attali. ror Seebelow,ch. 6, and Appendixiv, no. 6, lines lG-l 1. Othercities,apartfrom those discussedin this and the previous chapter, known to have been subject at sometime to the Attalids are Priapos(Straboxiii. l. 14,58E),Skepsis(Straboxiii. l. 54, ffi), Nakrasa (if OGIS 268 emanatesfrom there: see Robert, Villes, 36, n. 6), and Phrygian Apameia, where an ephebic cult of Eumenes II and Attalos II is attested (MAMAvi. 173:.J. and L. Robert, Bull. 1939,no. ulü)); the evidence of Apameia's coinage is discussedlater in this chapter. ro2Seeabove, ch. 3 (i). r03Seee.g. Livy xxxviii. 39.7: civitatium autem cognitiscausisdecemlegati aliam aliarumfecerunt condicionem. On tribute as a mark of subjectionseeJones, Greek City, 102-12; Pr€aux, Monde hell. ü. 438.

r02

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

consideringall the evidence,literary, epigraphical,and numismatic, our analysismust seekto determinehow statusaffectedcivic life and prosperity, how it restrictedindependenceand freedom, and how it was regardedby the Attalids, in whose hands it was placedby the will of the Roman Senate. A high degreeof subjectionto the Attalids entailedby tributary status after 188 has been allegedon the premiss that the kings could, and did, demandadditionalpaymentswhen they required them, apart from the regular q6eoE, but on closer analysisthis premissdissolvesinto nothing.t04The Pisidiancity of Amladawas required to pay a #).eopa as well as gdqog during the major Galatianwar of EumenesII in the 160s,accordingto a letter of his brother Attalos to the city on the subject.r05The statusof Amlada in relation to the Attalids is quite unclear,but this letter seemsto dealwith conditionsimposedby the circumstancesof war (suchas the takingof hostages)ratherthan with an episodein the contextof continuousAttalid rule.r06 r04SeeRostovtzetr,SEHHW iii. 1475,n. 55. roi Appendix iv, no. 23. On telesma,see Welles, RC' p. 369. 106Information on the status of Amlada is derived from a group of documents dealing with wartime conditions (Swoboda, Keil, and Kroll, Denkmöler aus Lykaonien,nos. 74-5; Appendixiv, nos. 22-3);see now in generalHopp,Untersuchungen,70-4, and on the chronology,7 l, n.80. The documentsare: I. The enc of a letter whose authorshipis unclear; II. A letter (OGIS 751; Welles,RC 54) headed'Aud'oE'Ap].aö6ov rfir nö),et xai rctg ytparctE; III. A badly preservec "Attalog 'Ap).aö6av rlfit nü,et xai rfolg yepanlEl. Of letter, headed f6aoü"eüg these three letters, only the last can be dated firmly to a specific reign, from a referencein it to Eumenes'sonAttalos, the future Attalos III (lines'+-5)' The writer of this letter is therefore Attalos II; letter II, the most important, was written by Attalos before his accession,and the events referred to in the letter, including the remissionof Amlada's paymentsto the king, may be associatedwith the waxof this king involving the Pisidiancity of Selge,attestedby thePrologue to Trogus xxxiv: ut mortuo regeAsiae EumenesuffectusAttalus bellum cum Selegensibushabuit et cumregePrusia.The recentdeathof EumenesII, andtheproximity ofthe warwith Prusias,which broke out about 154,place the war with Selgein the l50s' not long after the accessionofAttalos ll. It is thereforeclear that Amlada was heavily taxed during this war, but it cannot be assumed that these circumstancesapplied in peacetime conditions (contra Hopp, 70). The fact that, according to letter II' Amlada paid yearly tribute, establishesthe city's subjectstatusat thattime, but this statusmay have arisenfrom the city'sbehaviourin the waras well as fromany other definite cause;there is, furthermore, no specificevidencethat the Attalids received Amlada in lE8 sc. Whatever the case, it is clear that the conditions attested for Amlada, a frontier-city necessarily involved in the continual bouts of warfare undertakenby the Attalid kings in the area (cf. Meyer, Die Grenzen, 154;Welles' RC 54 ad loc.), cannot be regardedas typical of the Attalids' treatment of other tributary cities, whose circumstanceswere different.

The Greek Cities

r03

An inscription from Sardis to be dated to the early second century Bc records remissionsof tribute and other concessions allowed to a city of whose name only the initial T has been preserved on the stone;tozit includes the provision (lines 16-19): ld lzö öä roü öyööou hou Eöö övar rqe[iE ävacpopd.g) | lix] nao 6u röv ytvoptvav npooööav na[p' Examov] | ivmuröv dpyufp]iou pvdg eixoog xo,i ä)J.lary pl övlloy).eio0at.eivfatl öä aörcüE of this document älqpouqrjclouElxü... . . The toneand language somewhat reminiscent the Attalid are of chancery,but no proof whatever is attainablein the present state of the text. The city concernedmay havebeenTemnos,asthe editorsofthe inscription suggested,and the circumstancesthe sameas thoseof the decree for Korrhagos, namely the aftermath of the Antiochic War, but many such contexts may be adducedwith no lessplausibility. In short, none of the evidenceusually cited indicatesAttalid policy with regard to taxation in general terms and in normal circumstances. The city for which we have the clearestevidenceas regards statusas a tribute-payingcity after 188sc is Teos. We know that Teos paid a considerableoüwa$6 to Attalos I, as we saw in the previouschapter,and accordingto the termsof the RomansettleA letter written by ment it should have paid qöeoE thereafter.10E EumenesII to the Ionian Guild of Dionysiantöchnitci,whoseseat was then at Teos, tells us a good deal about the relationship betweenthe king and the city.toeFragmentarythoughthe letter is, it is very probable that Teos, like the Guild, could be bound by royal prostagmata and that by this meansa settlementcould be imposed on the city concerningits dispute with the Dionysian to?Sardis vii. l, no. 2. rosBefore the discovery ofthe decreehonouringAntiochos III and Laodike (see above,ch. 3, n. 64),there was no specificevidencethat Teoswas a tributary Attalid city after 188.Its subject statuswas inferred by Cardinali (RP 94)from (i) the city's allegianceto Antiochos during the war with Rome (cf. Livy xxxvii. 27-8), and (ii) the direct treatment afrorded to Teos by Eumenes II in its dispute with the Dionysian technitai (see below). The fact that Teos interceded at Rome for its daughter-cityAbderain 167(Syl/.r656)is regardedby Magie,RomanRule, ä.959, and Walbank, Comm. äi.167-8, as evidencethat Teos was then independent,but this approach is too dogmatic; it is quite feasible that a Greek city could send an embassyto Rome while being tributary to a king, especially in the special circumstancesrelating to the question of Abdera. toelvp 163,: Welles,RC 53.

104

The Greek Cities

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

technitai.tr0 The samemachineryis known to have been used in the context of Attalid rule in Aigina, a possessionof the King of Pergamon,rll and a decisionof Attalos III concerningthe important priesthoodof Dionysos Kathegemonat Pergamonwas also communicatedas a prostagma, as recorded in Attalos' letter to The word wasused,as is Kyzikoson the subject,dated13596. 112 well known, of royal decisions,and sometimesof the decisionsof subordinateofficials, in other Hellenistickingdoms.r!3It is clear from the constitutionalterms employed in the surviving correspondencethat Eumeneswas more than just an arbitrator in the dispute betweenthe city and the Guild of lechnitai, becausethe embassyof the Guild, to which referenceis made, envisageda settlementimposedby the king if it provedto be necessary:rraei öi pi1öö6lvar oürag \trtaurövönaryeiEöfuövonlv änoxaralor4oag, 6$atlöE üpiv eiEröv ).omlöy yqövov lltd eTiEeifqqvilvxai eüvo' usedofroyal decisions, ptav ouvre[vovra- - - -]. The expressions all introduced by either xpiva or ünd,ap6dva, determine the extentof royal authorityimpliedin the settlement.rr5 According to a decreeof Teos honouringa citizen of Magnesia on the Maeander,the strategoiof Teos had a constitutionalfunction similar to their counterparts at Pergamon; the prescript readsrr6 tqtptl16atv xai orpatqydtu yvtit1t4.We have already noticed a similar procedureat Pitane and Phokaia,and to these instanceswe may add from the Attalid Kingdom the cities of rroFränkel restored IvP 163. C,7-8 x[aü. tä ööypallta töp 6aoÄ6tov, but Holleaux's restoration lEtudes, iii. 205) xlard. rä. npootdypa)lta was adopted by Welles, and is followed here. ttt OGIS 329, 14_15. tt2IvP 248, : OGIS 331. III, 4l-3, = Welles, RC 66, 16-18' r f 3 S e e t h e v a l u a b l e a n a l y s i so f H o l l e a u x . E t u d e s , i i i . 2 0 5 - l l . F o r t h e R o l e m i e s see also M. - Th. Lenger,Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolömles (Brussels' 1964)' and in general, Pr6aux, Monde hell. i.272-3, ii. 599-601. rra Welles. RC 53 I.A. lines 6-9. r 1 5S e e , i n t h e t e x t , I L C , l i n e 1 5 ; I I I . B , l i n e 8 , C , l i n e 9 ; I V . C , l i n e 1 2 . C o m p a r e the case of Hierocaesar€a and Thyateira, whose dispute was settled regis [con]stitutionibus (Keil-von Premerstein, Zweite Reise, 13, no. l8). A letter written to Priene concerning a settlement between that city and Miletos UvPr 27, : Welles, RC 46) is,I believe, a document of Roman rule and not the letterof an Attalid, and in any event the text is too fragmentary to allow conclusions concerning constitutional prodecure. tt6IvM 97.3047.

105

PhrygianHierapolis,Sardis,Tralles,Magnesiaad Sipylum,and an unnamed city replying to a communicationof Magnesiaon the Maeander.rlTThis constitutionalmachineryis lessfrequently attestedoutsidethe Attalid Kingdom;1tEmore significantly,it forms a part of the constitutionof the city of Pergamonfrom the beginning of the Attalid dynasty, as Pergamenedecreesfrom the early third century onwards attest.rle We are therefore led to ask whetherthis stateof affairs entitlesus to believethat the kings of Pergamondeterminedor interferedin any way with the constitutionsoftributary and subjectcities.The frequentoccurrenceofthe constitutionalmachinery whereby the strategoi introducedmatters for considerationto the popular assembly,notably at Teos which we know was a tributary city after 188,is the soleindication that it reflects Attalid policy in general terms. The only other evidencethat canbe adducedrelatesto a singlecity. A decreefrom Bakir (ancientNakrasa),but not necessarilyof that preciseprove'Artd.),ou, nance, dated6aoü'eüowoE ngcbroulöroug, and therefore issued by a city of the Attalid Kingdom, honours a certain 'AnüJ,cbvrcE MeAeälypouönrcrdrqg.r20The term Enrcrö.rqEis well attestedin the Hellenisticperiodasa governingmagistratein a subjectcity, tzt and in the Attalid Kingdomit was usedof Kleon's office at Aigina;122in the presentcasethere can be no doubt that rr7 Hierapolis:OGIS 308;Sardis:Appendixiv, no. 5, lines 1-2; Tralles:B.SAxxix (1927-8),68-71;Magnesia: AM xxiv (1899),411;the unnamedcity: IvM 87,:

ocrs 319. tt8Notably at Priene under Lysimachos (OGIS ll), and at Smyrna under Seleukos ll @GIS 229\. ile See below, 165n. 23. t2oOGIS 268; cf. Robert,Villes, 36, n. 6. The decree is dated by Robert, followed by Bengtson, Strat. ä.248, to the reign ofAttalos II or III, on the premiss (as yet not argued in full) thatthe basileia mentioned in line 6 honoured Zeus Basileios and not the kingship of Attalos I, as Wilcken, RE, s.v. Attalos (9), 2159, and Meyer, Die Grenzen, 98, thought. The issue in my view remains open: Attalos I did not fall short ofdivine honours elsewhere (see ch. 6), and we find a parallel to the royal basileia in the Baoilcn at Alexandria (P. M. Fraser, Ptol. Alexandria, ü. 382, n. 341). f2r See Holleaux, Etudes, äi. 217-19, and his list, 253-4, supplemented by Robert, Hellenica, vü, p.22; Bengtson, Strat. passim. On the Seleukid epistates , r6aux, s e e a l s o W e l l e s , R C ,p . 1 8 7 , n . 3 , l 8 S , n . 4 , a n d o n t h e P t o l e m a i c e p i s t a t e s P Monde hell. ü. 419-20. One example of the office is knowlr from Bithynia: L. Robert, Et. anat.228-35; cf. Bengtson, Strat. ü.245; Rostovtzeff,SEHHW üi. 1 4 8 1 .n . 7 5 . F o r t h e R h o d i a n e p i s t a t a i o f t h e P e r a e a . s e e H o l l e a u x , E r u d e s , i . 409-17; Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 86-94. t22OGIS 329,34-5, with Dittenberger's n. 19.

106

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

Apollonios*as"pistotrs of the city which passedthe decreein his honour. If, as seems likely, the stone came from a city near Nakrasa,suchas Akrasosor Stratonikeia,the city concernedwas situatedin the area of direct authority establishedby EumenesI and exploitedby his successor,and we know that the areaaround Thyateira,includingNakrasaand the upper Kaikos valley, was in Attalid hands some years before the Roman settlement,in fact alreadyduringthe reignof Attalos I.123Aigina alsowas an acquisition of Attalos I, and it is therefore very likely that the office of epistateswas introducedinto subjectcitiesby this king ratherthan EumenesIL The decree also refers to another office previously held by Apollonios: x ai ng & elqot öö orp arqyöEq Enö7ea4x ar aor a0 ei E. This constitutesthe only indicationof the methodof appointment of the civicstrategoi in the Attalid Kingdom outsidethe capital;as such it is tantalizingly vague, but two parallelscan be cited in determiningthe significanceof the verb xaraora9eig used of the appointment.The sameword is usedof EumenesI's appointment of the Pergamenestrategoi,r24and in a Megarian decree of the appointmentof Hikesiosof Ephesosat Aiginaby EumenesII. t25It seemslikely, then, that Apollonios' office was a royal appointment, althoughthis is not specificallystated,aswas his later offrce of epistates.126 In the light of this evidence we have reasonablegrounds for believing that the King of Pergamonappointed epistatai and strategoiin the subjectcities; that, in other words, he interferedin and perhapsrestrictedthe constitutionalfunctionsof thesecities. This doesnot necessarilymeanhoweverthat the constitutionsasa whole were similarly determined,sincethe king could have made use of existinginstitutions, as he did perhapsat Pergamonitself, but it is possiblethat he favouredthe type of constitutionfound at Pergamon and encouragedcities within his kingdom to adopt it At this point then, we may usefullyconsidertheexactnatureofthe r23Robert, Villes, 3140. t24OGIS 267. lI, l-2: oi xataota0öweg ün' Eitptvoug oqatqyoi. t2sSyll.t 642:'ö xataota9eiE En' AiytvaE önlö rci 6aop).6o9Eipiuoug. Seemy remarksin.BSl{ lxvi (1971),34. r26SeeBengtson,Strat. ü.248-9.

The Greek Cities

10?

office of strategos in Greek cities that were subject to Attalid authority. In Attalid usagethe term strategos connotesone of two civil offices: either a regionalgovernor, suchas Korrhagosand Demetrios, or a member of a collegiateboard, as at Pergamonand the other cities already mentioned. It is never clearly attestedin a military sense.The copious body of inscriptionswhich provide informationconcerningthe organizationof the Attalid army attests no military offrcehigherthan that of f7yep6v,whetherreferringto a garrison or to an army in the field. In the decreesfrom Delphi honouringthe membersof a garrisonput into the town of Lilaiaby Attalos I, their ranks are designated as oi otqartörat xai and the sameformula is used with referenceto the fiyep6veg,t27 armiesat Philetaireiaand Attaleia under EumenesI,124and with referenceto an Attalid force at Aigina in the time of Attalos I. t zs All this is in strikingcontrastto Seleukidand Ptolemaictitulatures, in which the military strqtegos is separatelydesignated.l30 We may concludethen that in the Attalid Kingdom the ofüce of strqtegoswas civil (in two senses)and not military.13rIt may be thought significant that Livy's Corragus,praefectus Eumenis, whom we have identified with the strategos Korrhagos,fought with Manlius againstthe Galatiansin 189,but even he was subordinatein the commandof the Attalid contingentto a memberof the royal family, Athenaios,r32and the fact that Corragus(Korrhagos) r21F. Delphes, äi. 4. 132-5:part of 133 is now convenientlyreproducedin Moretti, lSE ii, no. 8l ; note there the typical formulasof orp att'tinat xai äyepöveg oi perd @paolupdToul andröv t @qaoüpalov xai tolülE perd aütoö otpatubtag xai fiyepöveg. t2EIvp 13, : OGIS 266, 19-20:IlapäpovoE xai oi f1yepövegxai oi ü9' aötoüg mparuittau t2eEph. Arch. l9l!, 90*2, = Moretti, ISE i, no. 36. I have reproduced and discussedthe text of this small round red-painted altar in B.lA l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 4 - 5 (photoSraph,pl. 2). See also fvP 29, : OGIS 280. rro SeeOGIS 217, = Welles,RC 39 (cf. Wilhelm, Wien.Anz. lvii (1920)'40-2). 13tThe application ofthe terrr,;, strategia to the mercenarybody in Philetaireiain the documentrecordingthe settlementwith EurnenesI (ch. 2, n. 47)doesnot in my view necessarilymeanthat their commander,Paramonos,wps calledsrrategos,as Bengtson,Strat. ü. 198 ff., argues.The significanceof the titulature of Philopoimen,oqat4yög xai öni qE ogpaytöoEunder Attalos II (see below, 132)is unclear(Bengtson,loc. cit.). r32Livy xlii. 67. 4.

108

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

was a regional strategos does not have a direct bearing on his military office in the field. In fact this instanceis typical of Attalid practice: the largely mercenary armies were invariably commanded,at least in the more important campaignsfor which we haveevidence,by the king or a near relativeof the king, and in the caseof EumenesII, very often by one of his brothers. This analysisdeterminesthe nature of the office held by Apollonios, as attested by the decree from Bakir, orparrlyöE rqE nöAeog.The possibilitythat he wasa military governorin chargeof a garrisoncan be discounted.Sincehe is calledstrategos'of the city', the collegiatecivic magistracycommonin citiesof the Attalid Kingdom alone remains in question. We have found reason to believethat he was appointedto this office by the king, a practice likely to be repeated in other cities of the kingdom, for which evidenceis lacking. On the other hand we have found no cogent evidenceto suggestthat the office itself, let alonethe constitution as a whole, was of the king's designor imposition;sincethe office was,aswe haveseen,a civic oneanda typicalGreekoneat that,it seemsreasonableto think that the king made use of an existing institution in order to establisha personalcontrol over the constitutional features of the cities concerned,as he did at Pergamon. 133

The widespreadappointmentof royal officials in cities is attested by an excerpt from Diodoros' history which refers to the hostileattitudeof Attalos III to officialsof his father'sreign:134 uitv öö ä)")"arycpü"tttvröv ön' Efouoiq. orparruttCoufi nöTetttvr€rayptuav oüE trtiv ööd"oqövr1otv,oüE öi ouAAadöu navorubuE dveü,e.The construction of the sentencesuggestsa generaldescriptionof oflicials ratherthanthe designationof a specificoffice, ö öni nöLeutE,sincein fact Diodoros' expressionis oi ön' ö(ouoig. . . . n6).eav,anda comparisonwith the offrcecalledti öni nd)"eogat Pergamoncan carry little weight.r3sIt seemsmore plausibleto regardDiodoros' descriptionas embracingthe titles strategosand r33Seebelow, ch- 7. ß4 xxxiv. 3. t35Seebelow,l7l-2.

The Greek Cities

109

epistatesattestedby the epigraphicalevidencewe have beenconsidering. We may conclude,then, that tributary citiesof the Attalid Kingdom enjoyedfreedomin the matter of constitutionalform, but that it was a freedomlimited by the king's appointmentof strategoi and epistatai. The evidenceof the king's power to issueprostagmatq in the caseof Teos further indicatesthe statusof a tributary city, sincethe king could certainlytreat one suchcity on the sameterms as another.Theselimitationsapart, all our evidencesuggeststhat the tributary cities continuedto leadan independentcivic life, and no evidenceof the impositionof garrisonsor military governorsin normal circumstanceshas come down to us. We have seenthat the main burden imposedon thesecities was the obligationto pay tribute, and it is in theseterms that they are designatedin the accountswe haveof the Romansettlementof 188 Bc. It was doubtless this obligation more than any other that determineda city's relationshipto the king at Pergamon.With this considerationwe may associatein part the Attalids' concern to influence probouleutic functions by virtue of their personalappointment of strategoi, becauseone important aspect of these functions was the administrationof finances, at Pergamonand elsewhere.r36A further line of enquiry in this regardmay be found in the cities' coinage,which hasundergonea thoroughre-examination in recentyears.l37 It has now been establishedthat cities independentof the Attalids after 188began or continued to issue gold coins or tetrat 3 6S e e b e l o w , 1 6 7 _ 8 . rr7 The groundwork on these coins was done by F. Imhoof-Blumer,Die Münzen, 28-35. and H. von Fritze,Die Münzen von Pergamon; these studies established a stylistic sequence for the coins. Important among recent works are: E. S. G' Robinson, Nunr . Chron. xiv (1954), 1-7; U. Westermark,Das Bildnis, who argued that the old dynastic coinage bearing the head of Philetairos ended in 190; D' Kienast, Jahrb. für Numismatik und Geldgesch. xi (1961)' 159 ff.' with bibliogr a p h y , 1 6 3 - 8 6 ; R o b e r t , V i l l e s , 2 5 2 f f . ; H . S e y r i g ' R e v . N u m . v ( 1 9 6 3 ) ' 1 9f f . F o r a summary of discussion on this question see now F. S. Kleiner and S. P. Noe, T/re Early Cistophoric Coinage (American Numismatic Society, Numismatic Studies xiv. 1977); A. Giovannini, Rome et Ia circulation monetaire en Grice au IIe siöcle av. Jösus-Christ (Schv'eiz. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. l5' 1978).

110

The Greek Cities

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

drachmsin their own right,138whereasno independentcoinageis attestedfor cities known to have been tributary to the Attalids. Many of thesetributary cities issueda new coin, the cistophoros, which was mintedinitially at Pergamon,Ephesos,andTralles,on a different standardfrom that of the Attic tetradrachm,and which, as we shall see, was most probably introducedas the exclusive coinageof the kingdom in 188 Bc. This cistophoric coinagewas limited to cities known to havebeen tributary to the Attalids after 188sc, andrecentnumismaticresearchhasindicatedits statusasa royal coinage minted at Attalid cities, the chief mint being at Pergamon,which providedalso for the issuesof Synnada,Sardis, and Apameia.r3e The consistentpatternof the coinagesof the Greekcitiesof Asia Minor after the Romansettlementis clearfrom the followingtable, which lists the issuesof twenty-sevencitieswhosestatusin known from literary or epigraphicalevidence: City Alabanda AlexandriaTroas Colophon Nova Ephesos Herakleia by Latmos Ilion Kibyra Kos Kyme Kyzikos Lampsakos Magnesiaon theMaeander Magnesiaad Sipylum

Status independent independent independent gift city

Coinage independent independent independent cistophoric

independent independent independent independent independent independent independent

independent independent independent independent independent independent independent

independent independenl gift city no independent (Livy; coinage

lrt Seyrig,l9; seealsothe tablebelow. Someofthesecitiesareofspecialinterest in view of their previousrelationswith Pergamon,notably Kyzikos, l-ampsakos, Ilion, the Kolophoniansof Notion, Alexandria Troas, and Smyrna (see ch. 3 above).Note that Kyme and the Kolophoniansof Notion were specificallyfreed of the obligationto pay tribute in 188(Polyb. xxi. 46. 4). For relationsbetweenIlion and the Attalids, see Welles,RC 62 (as interpretedby Robert, BC^taliv (1930), 348-51; Op. Minora Selectai. 167-70),a royal letter written probablyby Attalos II; it refersto a purchaseof landby the king from the templeofAthena at llion, and to previous benefactionsof oxen and drivers (compare the sending of artists to Delphi by Attalos II (Syll.3 682; Datx, Delphes, 509) and of an architect to the katoikoi in the territory ofTelmessosby EumenesII (above,95). r3eSeyrig,27-2. As Seyrigshows,the singlecistopftorosof Smyrnais of a later date, and was clearly a specialissue.

Miletos Myndos Mytilene Priapos Rhodes Sardis Skepsis Smyrna Telmessos Temnos Tenedos Teos Thyateira Tralles

IlI

independent independent independent no independent coinage independent independent cistophoric tributary no indePendent tributary coinage independent independent gift city no independent coinage no independent tributary coinage independent independent no independent tributary coinage cistophoric tributary gift city cistophoric

independent independent independent tributary

It seemsfrom this evidencethat a city's coinageafter 188was directly related to its statusas fixed by the Roman settlementof that year: independentcities were free to issuetheir own coinage, whereascitiesmadetributary to the Attalids lost this right. If this is so, then cities which continuedafter 188to issuetheir own coins were evidently not Attalid subjects; the independentstatus of Aigai, arguedaboveon othergrounds,would thusbe confirmed,as would that of Parion,Abydos, Myrina, Lebedos, and Phaselis. 1a0 raoSeyrig,20. The caseofAbydos is particularlyinteresting,in that Abydoshas beenthoughtto be an Attalid subjectfrom 188,and even,by Magie(seebelow),as possiblythe city which issuedthe decreehonouringKorrhagosdiscussedabovein part i. The statusofAbydos is howeverunclear;in 196it was declaredfree (Polyb. 284),but xviii.44.4; Holleaux,Etudes,iv. 317-18,n.4; Schmitt,(Jntersuchungen, Antiochos'garrisonstill held the city in 190(Livy xxxvii. 9. I 1-12; xxxiii. 38.4). We do not know how the city wastreatedby Romein 188,but Magie'sview (Rornan Rule, ü. l0l2-13) that 'for its surrenderto Antiochusit would naturallyhavebeen awardedto Eumenes'is untenable,in view of explicit evidence,in the caseof Phokaia(Polyb. xxi. 46. 7; see above,42 n. 46), that a city betrayedto Antiochos, and then held by a garrisonand not by loyalty, was not treatedin 188as if it hadjoined the cause voluntarily. Abydos' independentcoinageprobably dates from shortlyafter the third Macedonianwar (Seyrig,20,n.2), and may havebegun with a commemorativeissue;thus a short period of Attalid rule after 188is not precluded on this criterion, and is perhapssupportedby an inscription from Ilion 'A66öou: it would be difücult to mentioning a certain Chaireas,ö tetayptvog en' assignthis clearly royal appointmentto anyone but an Attalid king (cf. Bengtson, Strat. ä.24D. An we can say with certaintyis that Abydos was independentfrom about 170;if it was subjectto Eumenesbetween188and that date,the reasonfor such a statusis not clear.

112

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

The oldest coins of the cistophoriccoinage,judged on stylistic grounds, are issuesof Pergamon,Ephesos,Tralles, Sardis, and Apameia;althoughat one time dated,as individual issuesof each city, to the end of the third century Bc andevenearlier,rarit is clear from the history of these cities, from the dominanceof the Pergamenemint in the coinage,and above all from the fact that the coins werg issuedby all of them, and minted in the three major Attalid cities, in the sameperiod, that is, as a-common coinage, that the originsof the coinagemust be datedto the yearsafter 188 Bc, when the citiesconcernedwere assignedto EumenesII by the terms of the Roman settlementof Asia Minor. It is only in this period of the secondcentury that the necessarycommonpolitical circumstancescan be adducedfor all the cities in explanationof sucha coinage.t42 In the case of Pergamonit is probable that the coinagewas issuedbefore 188sc, in addition to the dynastic coinagebearing the head of Philetairos,which, it now seems,continued to be mintedafter 188BC.Livy mentionscistophoriamongthe booty of three Roman triumphs of the Antiochic War in 190and 189,and these referencescannot be dismissedas anachronisticdesignations of a number of different coinages,as is usually done.tar Livy's evidence does not necessarilyemanate from badly informed annalisticsources,sincethe exact detailshe gives suggest archivalmaterialof the kind gatheredfor the Augustanpublication of the fasti triumphales; and the objection that Glabrio, who triumphed in 190, could not have had cistophoroi in his booty becauseneither of his defeated opponents, the Aitolians and rar Kleiner and Noe, l0-18. ra2Seyrig, 22 ff.; Giovannini 15. Cistophoroi from Thyateira, Apollonis, and Stratonikeia, bearing the letters BA EY followed by B or /, have been shown by Robinson (cited above, n. 137) to be issues of Aristonikos, who called himself Eumenes III; cf. L. Robert, Villes2, 252ff . Kleiner and Noe date the introduction of the common coinage to about 166sc. after Eumenes' successful Galatian warofthe early 160s.They argue, on the basis of a coin hoard from Mektepini in Phrygia (N. Olgay and H. Seyrig, Le Trösor de Mektepini en Phrygie, Paris, 1965) that the dynastic coinage bearing the head of Philetairos continued after 188 Bc. and postulate a short overlap with the new cistophoric coinage, but a longer one is possible; moreover the historical circumstances they adduce as contextual evidence are not especially convincing. For the dominance ofthe Pergamene mint in the coinage, see Kleiner and Noe. 120-4. r a 3x x x v i i . 4 6 . 2 ( M ' . A c i l i u s G l a b r i o i n 1 9 0 ) ;x x x v i i . 5 8 . 4 ( L . A e m i l i u s R e g i l l u si n 1 8 9 ) ;x x x v i i . 5 9 . I ( L . C o r n e l i u s S c i p i o A s i a t i c u s i n 1 8 9 ) .C f . S e y r i g , 2 4 , n . l ; K l e i n e r and Noe, I 8, n. 58. For the chronology of the late dynastic coinage, see Kleiner and Noe. l4-16.

The Greek Cities

I 13

Antiochos III, ever circulated the coin, cannot stand, because Antiochos at least could easily have acquired quantities of the coins when his son seleukosraidedAttalid territory and besieged Pergamonip f !Q.ra I regardit as probable,then, thatcistophoroi were minted at Pergamonbefore,althoughnot longbefore, 188nc, as well as tetradrachmsbearingthe portrait of Philetairos,and that the cistophoric coinage was imposed on tributary cities in or shortly after 188as the soleculrency of Eumenes'newly acquired kingdom, with Pergamonas the chief mint and othersat Ephesos and Tralles. This fact attests clearly Eumenes'intention of renderinghis subjectsfinancially dependenton their suzerain,and is consistent with the Attalids' persistent concern to control the financesof their kingdom personally,another consequenceof which we sawearlierin their direct appointmentof civic strategoi' The fact that the cistophoriccoinagewas not circulatedoutside the kingdom throws light on Eumenes'economicpolicy in more generalterms.r4sSo far from co-operatingeconomicallywith the Seleukidsafter 188,as Rostovtzeffthought,ra6Bumsngswas eviraaSeyrig, 24,n. l; seleukos'invasionof 190:Livy xxxvii' l8; Appian' Syt' 26' The invasionsof 198and 197also come into consideration:seeabove,77-8' r4sOn this question,seeSeyrig,25-6; Kleinerand Noe, 124-5' | 46Anat. s t id. B uckter 277ff . ; s EH Hly ii. 654ff. Rostovtzeffargued,from the abundanceof autonomoustetradrachmsfrom westernAsia Minor found in Syrian hoardsofthe secondcenturyBc.that EumenesII inheriteda surplusofmetal in 188' andthereforeco-operatedwith the Greekcitiesandwith the Seleukidsby supplying them with this meial. This view has beendecisivelycriticizedby Seyrig,26-8; in fact, circulationofthesetetradrachmsin the SeleukidKingdomis asnotablebefore lg8 as after, and remainedalways a free circulation,as distinct from the royal Furthermore,thepolicyoffinancialmonopoly,introducedinto seleukidcurrency. his kingdomin theform of thecistophorosin l88 gc,testifiesagainstthe notionof an 'ententecordiale' with the Seleukidsafter that date. O.MÖrkholm,AntiochuslVofSyria(Copenhagen,1966),51-63,believesina politicaland economicco-operationbetweenthe Attalidsand the seleukidswhen intiochos IV came to the throne. Apart from the circumstancesof Antiochos' elevation.which seemto me to amount to little more than a typical exampleof Attalid opportunism,there is little evidenceto supportthis view, and still lessto support ihat of a'triple allianceof Pergamon,Cappadocia,and Syria' after 175 (Iridrkhotm,55).The-factthat Antiochos sharedthe samecontactsin the Greek world as Eumenesproves nothing, since many of them, especiallyDelphi and Delos, receivedthe attentionof most powerful statesand kingdomsat this time. Again,Antiochos'policy of friendshipwith Miletos,a city accordingto Mdrkholm .w-ithinthe Pergaminesphereofinfluence', simply reflectsanotheraspectofthat city's determinationto advanceits own position by courting the favour of any benefactorwilling to assistit (on this policy seefurther below);it saysnothingfor the relationsbetweenthe benefactors.Finally, as Mdrkholm admits (57-8), Antiochoswaswilling to helprivals of Pergamonaswell as friends;Rhodesis a casetn point (Livy xli.20. 7; Syll.1644-5)-

n4

Attalid Kingdom aftei the Treaty of Apameia

dently concernedto establisha rival economy,whosecoinagewas on a standard different from that of the Attic tetradrachm circulated in the Seleukid Kingdom, and whose status therefore suggestscircumstancesother than co-operationin trade with the Seleukids.Although he was no doubt awareof the exampleof this policy shownby the Ptolemies,it is hardly valid in the presentstate of the evidenceto regard Eumenes' implementingof a currency monopolyas a signof direct Rolemaic influence;ratherit suggests that samepolicy, argued above, whereby the Attalids after 188 adopted institutions of different origins as they suited the circumstancesof the new kingdom. We have seenthat the Attalids were always concernedto control personallythe institutions of financialadministrationin the various parts of their kingdom:the Greek cities, the katoikiai, the temples, and, as Cardinali has shown, the capital, where this policy was probably implemented early in the dynasty's history.trT This policy did not, however, reachthe proportionsof the highly centralizedeconomicand fiscal system developed by the Ptolemies, of which the currency monopoly was only one aspect;it would be wrong, therefore,to supposethat Eumeneswas directly influencedto any greatextent by Rolemaic practice in making provision for the financial administrationof his kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia. The status of a 'free' or non-tributary city in relation to the Attalid Kingdomis moredifficult to determine.The difficultiescan bestbe consideredby comparingthe fortunesof the two cities for which the evidenceis most informative: the gift city of Ephesos and the free city of Miletos. In the caseof Miletos the materialto hand allows us to draw a very distinct picture of the relations betweenthe city and the king. Perhapsthe most significantconclusion to be drawn from it is that at Miletos EumenesII was almost certainly called a god in his lifetime. The entire body of evidencewith which we are concerneddates from thereignof EumenesII; someof it hasbeenfamiliarforalong time, while someis more recent.r4sAs we have seen,Miletos was ra7G. Cardinali,Mem.Accad.Bologna,x (1915-16),181-93;seebelow,ch. 7. The responsibilityfor financesofthe provincialstrategos is shownby acrstophoros bearing the letters KOPPATOZ) AP(I2TOMAXOY-); Seyrig, 29-3t. ra8The texts are given in Appendix iv, nos. l3-17.

The Greek Cities

il5

given its freedom in 188as a reward for co-operationin the Antiochic War. The statusof the city beforethe war is unclear;there is certainlyno evidencethat it wasa Ptolemaiccity at the endof the third century and in all probability it was completely indepenThere is no ground in the Romansettlement,as recorded dlent.r4e by Polybios, on which Miletos could have been expectedto pay tribute to Eumenes,and its independencewas in all ways assured. The city's territory almostcertainlyincludedthat of Myus, a small town whose sacredlandswere a constantcauseof disputewith its more powerful neighbours.This was undoubtedlyso at the end of the third century, when Miletos billeted someCretanmercenaries in the territory of Myus.t50As aresult of the expeditionof Philip V in Asia Minor in 201, Miletos temporarily lost its independence, and Myus was given by the invader to Magnesiaon the Maeander,tsr but the former situation was restoredwhen Miletos concluded a separatetreaty with Magnesiain 196, which set the boundary between the two cities at the River Hybandos.ts2The territory of Myus was presumablyincluded in the sacredlands which were specificallyrestoredto Miletos in 188. The most importantof the documentswe areto consideris a long letter of Eumenes[I addressedto the Ioniankoinon (Appendixiv, no. 13),which quotes extensively(lines 5-37) the lonian decree passedin his honour to which his own letter is a reply. It is the key to the chronologicalproblems involved in attemptingto form a securesequenceofdocuments,and therebya sequenceofevents. Holleaux's thorough analysisof the contentsof the letter and its historical contentls3establishedthat the winter of 16716,when Eumenesis likely to havebeenat Delos(lines1-5)andhis Galatian war was still in progress, is the date which best suits all the implicationsof the letter, and this date has rightly been accepted since.The decree,as passedon to us by Eumenes'letter, attests honoursvoted to him both by thekoinon and by Miletosalone.The honours of the koinon are conventional:the donation of a gold raeHolleaux, Etudes, iii. 135-6; Rehm, Das Delphinion in Milet (Milet i.3, Berlin, l9l4), 267, 321. t s oM i l e t i . 3 . 3 3 8 ; M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , ü . 8 8 3 , n . 8 1 . r5f Polyb. xvi.24.9; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 230 ff' r52Sll/.3 588, line 30. r53Holleaux. Etudes, ii. 153-78.

116

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

crown, the erectionof a gilded statueanywherein the territory of thekoinon, honoursto be announcedat the festivalsof thekoinon, Eumenesto be met and congratulatedby representativesof the koinon. The more significantpart is containedin Eumenes'reply: he offers to provide an income for the celebration of his riptqa önrbvupoEat the festival of the Panionion,ls4and to pay for the statue, which he chooses to be put up (lines 59-60) fiv rrit örpr1llErcp|vatfipiv önö Müqo[tun re]p6velt\' Oneof the Ionianenvoyswho met Eumenesat Delos(line 3)was Eirenias son of Eirenias, a prominent citizen of Miletos about whom a good deal is now known. He is also mentioned in the surviving portion of the city's decreein honour of Eumenes(Appendix iv, no. 14),in the capacityof envoy of the city to the king; -öl fov Eumenesin reply (lines l6-18)ygäpara (sic)&.n6ora)"xev HolxtL. td re önö Eiqtnllvbu öpqavrc06vra aüt6t öX06pevoE leaux's identificationof the date of this mission on behalf of the city with that of the missionon behalfof thekoinon is the weakest part of an otherwise dependablechronologicalframework, although it has been accepted,for example,by Welles.lssThis identity ofoccasions, basedsolely on the fact that on each occasionthe Milesianenvoy was Eirenias,is certainlysuspect.Thereis no other reasonto datethe decreeof Miletos to the year 16716,and a later date is also arguable. We passto the third document,a decreeof the Milesianboule which honoursEumenes'brothersAttalosand Athenaiosin addition to the king himself (Appendixiv, no. l5).tsoThe principal honoursof coursego to Eumenes,and include the celebrationof hisyevi0ArcE iptSa.As Holleauxargued,this celebrationimplies 'voted' (itprlqrcpivov) in that the temenos, still referred to as Eumenes'letter (lines59-60), had beencompleted,and we may thereforeconcludethat the decree ofthe boule is the later ofthe r5aThis celebration is not proposed in the extant part ofthe decree, and may have been Eumenes' own idea. r s s l l s l l s a u l , E t u d e s , ü . 1 7 4 - 5 ; W e l l e s , R C , p . 2 1 4' i:t a p p e a r s . . . t h a t l r e n i a s , the Milesian member of the League embassy, had carried a special message to the king.' This identification is not accepted however by Daux, BCH lix (1935),227. rs6The omission from these honours of Philetairos, the youngest ofthe sons of Attalos I, may be explained by an early death. The last record ofhim relates to the year l7l (Livy xlii. 55. 7); cf. Hoffmann, RE s.v. Philetairos (3)' 2162; Hopp, Untersuchunpen,3l-2.

The Greek Cities

ll7

two documents.Although there is no indicationthat Eumenesis AttalosII, is calledin his brotherandeventualsuccessor, dead,157 "Arra).oE this decree 6aotAeüE flines 39-40). We have already seen that Delphian decreesdated in the year of Amphistratos (160/59)establishthe fact that Attalos II was given the royal title beforethe deathof EumenesII late in l59.rs8An Atheniandecree in honour of an unknownoikeios of EumenesII, passedearlier in g3nn6[thereforerefer in its lastsurviving the sameyear, 160/59,tse line to Eumenes'death,but must refer to the act of establishingthe co-regency.When I examinedthe stone,now in the Epigraphical Museumin Athens(inv. 7526),I obtaineda numberof new readings, notably these in the important final line: ---- KAINYNwe may EYMENO. . THNAPX- - - -. FollowingDaux's suggestions, restore this line as follows: xai uüv EöptvoluEl rrlv ügyfilv 'Anä)"atl. napaööwoE (or innq&pawoE) rCotäöeAEdtL The importance of this text lies in the fact that it provides a terminuspost quem, or evenad quem, for Attalos' assumptionof the royal title, whereasDelphian chronologypresentsus with a fait accompli. For our presentpurpose,it provesthat the decreeof theboule of Miletos cannotbe much earlierthan 160/59.It may be later, becausethe possibility remainsthat Eumeneswas already him'r6oif so it will not be much deadand Attalos had succeeded r57On this point, and others concerning the chronology under discussion, see G Daux, BCH lix (1935\,226-9. r 5 8S e e a b o v e . l 0 n . 7 . t s eI G ä . 2 9 5 3 ; A p p e n d i x i v , n o . l 8 ; W . B . D i n s m o o r , T h e A t h e n i a n A r c h o n L i s t i n the Light of Recent Discoveries (New York, 1939), 190, with references. r60This possibility depends on the interpretation drawn from the words (önaE) ü dE üp 6aoü.6o lvüpq öncpuL([oorlrlar (lines 37-8), which do not necessarily mean that Eumenes was no longer alive. An Athenian decree in honour of Pharnakes I ofPontos and his recently acquired queen, Nysa, passed in the archonship of Tychandros, that is in the same year as IG ii.2 953 discussed above, 160/59, included the provision ävayy677ew öi töt 6aoüü töv xfeX]ttporovqpövov, örr ö öfipolE nleqäo€ra. . . . näwa rä neöE ööEav xai pvrjpr1v laöröL dvrjxolvta ouy: xataoxtuäoat xr7. (lnscr. Dölos, 149'7bis, lines 50 ff.). Pharnakes was most certainly alive at the time; see also Mdrkholm, Antiochus |V,54. In his letter to the Ioniankoinr.rn, Eumenes makes the offer already referred to in the words (lines 54-6) npooööoug öpiv täg ixcwdg äval1|fiolq 4q' dtv Efere d1v xa|fixouoav flpiv lävatß)ivat pvtjp4u. The expression can then refer to a living king. If Eumenes had died between the time the temenos at Miletos was voted and the time of the passing of the decree of theäoale of Miletos, we would expect a more explicit reference to his death in the later document, and I am more inclined to believe that Eumenes was still alive when the temenos had been completed and the statue had been erected.

I l8

Attalid Kingdomafter the Treatyof Apameia

later.l6rThe most important implicationof this chronologyso far as the present argumentis concernedis that the building of the temenosvoted to EumenesII in the decreequoted in the king's letter, and the erection of the statuetherein as requestedby the king in the sameletter, were almostcertainly achievedduring his lifetime.t 62 The last two documentswith which we areconcernedhavebeen publishedmore recently than the others; one was found in 1960, the other known, but not published,before' One is a decreeof Miletos honouringits prominentcitizen Eirenias(Appendixiv, no' l6). and it establishesas a fact what had previouslybeen conjectured, that Eumenesof Pergamonprovided the capital for the gymnasiumat Miletos, this being in the case of the Attalids a Previouslyit had been known only that well-attestedpractice.163 the sameEireniashad beenappointedoverseerin the construction of the gymnasium.r64It may have been at this juncture that Eumenes sent a letter to the city, and that the city passedthe decreein his honourof which the text is our no. 14.Or it may have been later still. here(Appendixiv, no. l7) is the Thelastdecreeto be considered final link in justifying the assertionexpressedabove,that Miletos called Eumenesa god in his lifetime' Found rebuilt into a wall in 1903,it was referredto by Ruge,r6sbut remainedunavailableuntil publishedby P. Herrmannalongwith the new decreeconcerning Eirenias.r66For the precisechronologicalrelationshipof this to the other Milesian documents,the reader is referredto the commentaryattachedto that publication.For our purposethe important point is that the text is certainly a Milesiandecreeratified by 16rThis point depends on Rehm's revised dating of'the second god after Menekrates' (lines 27-8); see Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 177-8. Although this chronological point is not by any means precise to the year, itjustifies the statement I have made in the text. 'il n'est pas r62See the previous two notes. Holleaux's point (Etudes, ii. 173), de bien exig6 ait par les Mil6siens croyable que la mise en 6tat dut6lttvo6 consacr6 longs d6lais', should also be taken into account. 1 6 3L . R o b e r t , E t . a n a t . 8 5 , n . 3 . E p h e s o s :S E G x v i i ' 5 1 0 ' 164Th. Wiegand, Siebenter vorlöufiger Bericht über die von den Königlichen Museen in Milet und Didyma unternommenen Ausgrabungen @bh' Berlin' Anhang, l9ll),29. r 6 5 R E ,s . v . M y u s . 1 4 3 6 . 1 6 6I s t . M i t t . x v ( 1 9 6 5 ) ,7 l - 1 1 7 .

The Greek Cities

il9

it is the peopleof Myus, at the time insympoliteiawith Miletos;167 to be dated before the erection of the statueof EumenesII in his temenosat Miletos,sincethedecreewasto be inscribedon its base (lines7-8): d.vaypacprl öi xai rööe ö rprlErcpaeig rc ü 6rlfua BE' rcü 6aoü6ag eixtitv. According to the o61l oru9fioetaL fi chronology argued above, this placesthe decree,with near certainty, in Eumenes'lifetime, and the propositionis confirmedby the evidenceofthe decreeitself. Throughout,thereis referenceto oneking,ö 6aoÄeü8,who mustof coursebe Eumenes;in particular, the king whoseeikon wasto be setup in Miletos(line 8) mustbe to whom envoysof the sameas the king, in no way distinguished, the city were to be sent(lines l0ff.). If Eumeneswere no longer him, we would expecta distincalive,and Attaloshad succeeded tion to be madebetweenthe deadking and the living, for example The decreeincludes in line 12:nagaxaAetvtöu 6aoü"6s"ArraAov. priesthood provision of Eumenes(lines 4-5): a for the sale of a Thus, acönaE ieqaofvr1nqa9lrl fi 6aoü,toEl Eüptvoug 9eoü.168 cording to our chronology,which is confirmedat every point, the priesthood and the divine title were associatedwith Eumenes during his lifetime. There was nothing new in the city of Miletos calling a royal benefactora god; it haddonethis for AntiochosII after the murder 'Avrio4oE ... öi of Timarchos,as Appianinformsus:r6eöedregoE 1eöEönövutrtovönö MAr1otav yiyverat ng6rov. The worship of Antiochos and that of Eumenesconstitutethe type of cult instituted spontaneouslyby a gratefulbut not necessarilysubjectcity, as distinct from the dynastic cult establishedas a result of royal wish.r7oIts place in the context of Attalid royal cults as a whole will be examinedin a later chapter, but at this point the political implicationsof Miletos' extravagantattitude to honouringEumenes,an attitude not paralleledto our knowledgeelsewherein the Attalid Kingdom, require some consideration. of Eumenes At both Ephesosand Miletos, one the possession accordingto the terms of the Roman settlement,the other a free 16?Herrmann, 90 ff. r6t I see no objection to the restoration of 6aoü.6utE at the end of line 4. The absence of the royal title would call for some explanation. r6eSyr. 65. See W. Orth, Königlicher Machtanspruch, 153-6. t70 Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 160 tr.

120

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

non-tributary city by the same terms, the institution of the gymnasium became, by his will, the responsibility of the king. At Ephesoshe received a normal gymnasialdedicationassociating him with Hermes and Herakles, as was uSUal;tzrat Miletos the honours were extendedto amount to a regular cult of the living king. Thus Miletos, and not Eumenes'own city of Ephesos,may be regardedas a centre of his cult, in addition to the capital Pergamonand Teos. This condition would be more readily attributable to a subjectcity. It is arguable,however,that of thesetwo cities, Ephesoswas in a better position after the Romansettlementhad placedthe city in Eumenes'hands.WhereasMiletos dependedon royal favour for any benefitsshe might receive,Ephesos,as a part of the kingdom and probably its largestport, was automaticallydestinedto prosperity, and it doubtlessemergedfrom the Roman settlementas a city enjoying advancedroyal patronage.In fact we know that Ephesosranked high in the Attalids' regard,and we have specific evidenceof building activity, always a sure sign of prosperity, under Attalos II.r72The city was the centreof an Attalid administrative region; at least two Ephesians, Hikesios and Megon, reachedhigh rank in the royal administration,and a third, whose name is not known in full, was chosen to be the mentor of the young Attalos IlI.r73 Miletos, on the other hand, was in a different position, having rather to fend for itself for its economic prosperity. There are indicationsthat its harbour was beginningto silt up, and that its whereasEphesosstill enjoyedthe tradeby seawas in decline,rTa t 1 1C f . O G I S 2 3 0 ( H e r m e s , H e r a k l e s , a n d A n t i o c h o s M e g a s a t S o l i ) ; A M x x v i i i ( 1 9 0 3 ) ,3 5 8 f f . ( f t o l e m y , H e r m e s , a n d H e r a k l e s a t S a m o s ) . r 7 2S t r a b o x i v . 1 . 2 4 , 6 4 1 , m e n t i o n s A t t a l o s I I ' s p r o j e c t o f b u i l d i n g a m o l e a t t h e mouth of the harbour with the idea of deepening the entrance to accommodate larger ships; although unsuccessful, it is an indication ofthe growing volume of trade passing through the harbour. Strabo says of the city in his own day , aüf*at 'Aoiav d1v övtö; roü xa7' öxdotrlv fi1tfqarr, ipnöprcv oöoa p|ytorov töv xatd tilv Taüpou. Ephesos also enjoyed a fuller trade by land with the East. Strabo traces, on the evidence of Artemidoros, the important route from Ephesos which reached as far as the Euphrates (xiv. 2. 29, 66J). r73For Hikesios and Megon, see below, 133-5. The mentor of Attalos III: Appendix iv, no. 24. r 7 4S t r a b o x v i . 6 3 5 .

Festivals of Athena

121

advantageafforded by Lysimachos early in the third century nc of a new and better site for its harbour.rTsIt was doubtlessfor this reason that the Milesians worked so hard to attract the king's attentionand seizedevery opportunity to honour him. No wonder they were so gratefulto Eirenias,who had the king's ear.176 As a centre of Eumenes'worship the city would attain two important aspirations:the guaranteedgoodwill of the king whose cult was celebrated,and the commercialprosperitythat any importantcult brought to a Greek city.rtz It is clear that in both theserespects Ephesosheld an advantageby virtue of its status,and if Miletos was to remaincompetitiveit had to adopta positivepolicy to gain and keep the king's favour. This evidently is what it did, and with great success. Evidently,then,the terms'free'and'subject'do not adequately definethe statusof cities which enjoyedcontactswith the Attalid Kingdom. The evidencewe have discusseddoes not allow us to draw sharp distinctionsbetweena free and a tributary or subject city, apart from the issueof tribute obligation.The informationit doesconvey concernsthe king's readinessto be as well-disposed to the latter asto the former, and showsthat a city in the possession of the king in all probabilityled as independenta civic life asa free city, such as Miletos. It also enjoyedthe advantageof royal patronage,a privilege which the free city soughtby other means. (iii) Festivals of Athena So far in this chapterwe havebeenconsideringthe implicationsof the Roman settlementin mainly political terms, and we may now usefully turn to examineanother facet: the processby which the cult and festivals of Athena, the most important of Pergamon's gods, were enhancedand transformed as a means of religious propagandain line with the new standingof the King of Pergamon in the Greekworld. We shallalso seein a later chapterhow cults of Dionysos were used to advancethe statusof the royal cult. f 7 5l b i d . x i v . l . 2 l ; c f . M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , i i . 9 2 1 , n . 1 3 . | ?6See the city's decree in his honour (Appendix iv, no. l6). These close relations between Miletos and the Attalids were maintained in the reign of Attalos II, when statues of the king and his brother Athenaios were erected in Miletos (OGI.S 320-l ). r77Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 165 ff.

t22

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameiu

Athenawas a goddesswith many aspects,and waswell suitedto the role of a city's presidingdeity: shewas a protector,a bringerof victory, a patronof learningand art, and shehad associationswith the oldest cities of the Greek mainlandand Asia Minor. All these attributeswere exploitedby the Attalids, asthey were b1'othersin the Hellenisticperiod. A templeof Athena was built at Pergamon probablyat the beginningof the third century sc, when Philetairos still acknowledgedthe suzeraintyof Lysimachos,and it was sufficiently importantby the time of EumenesI to be the depositoryof the Pergamenecopy of his treaty with the mercenaries at Philetaireiaand Attaleia.rTsA festival called Panathenaiais attestedat aboutthe sametime by the decreeof Pergamonhonouring the city's strategoi,but nothingfurther is known of it'r7e In the reign of Attalos I the evidence for the cult of Athena becomesmore copious and more significant' correspondingto Attalos' seriesof military victories and his proclaimedkingship' An enlargementof the temple and precinct of Athena in the city predatingthe great Eumenid restorationis probably to be considered the work of Attalos I early in his reign, as a means of accommodatingthe massivemonumentshe dedicatedto Athenn.raofhs figure of Athena on the dynastic coinageundergoes somechangein Attalos' reign, greateremphasisbeinglaid on the which spearshe is holdingand lesson the shield'developments particular in activity, may plausiblybe relatedto Attalos' military his victory over the Galatiansat the river Kaikos.r8r Oneof the few piecesof literary evidencefor the cults of Athena at Pergamonrecordsthe occurrenceof äy6uegfor Athena in220' Polybioswrites (iv. 49. 3), with referenceto the outbreakof commercial war between Rhodes and Byzantion in this year' that PrusiasI of Bithynia could be expected to take the side of the Rhodians:ig60ße ö' aüröv xq.i tö öoxelv BulawiouE npöEpiv "Ana).ov tiErcüErfiE'A04vaEdyrbvaEroüEovv|üoovraEö$aneot18OGIS 266,: StV iii. 481 (discussedabove' 22-5)' Ohlemutz,Kulte, 16-23, dates the foundation of the temple to the first decade of the third century BC. On the temple of Athena as a statearchive, seeibid. 23' 55-7. t1eIvP 18, : OGIS 267 (discussedbelow, ch' 7). r80AvPii. 55-6; Ohlemutz,Kulte,28-9; Kähler,Gr' Fries, 135;themonuments are listed and consideredin Appendix ii. tlt Mvp ll. 7,9, 12, l5; III. 4; Ohlemutz,Kulte, 34-5.

Festivals of Athena

123

ralxfvaL, npöEaöröv ö' eiEräZarfign pr1ö6vanenopEtvar.This evidencehasbeeninterpretedto suggestthat Attalos' festivalwas but the emphasisof novelty lies a recent foundation in 220,182 surelyon Prusias'Soteria(aboutwhich nothingfurther is known), and the passagecannot in my view be expectedto afford precise chronologicalcluesaboutAttalos' festival.All we can sayis that in 220 Attalos was celebratingimportant gamesfor Athena, whose descriptionby Polybios suggestssomethingother than the older and which may plausiblybe associated,likethe other Panathenaia, more definite cult phenomena,with Attalos' victories and assumption of the royal title. At sometime towards the end of Attalos' reign, or more probably at the beginningof the reign of EumenesII, Athenawas given the cult name Nikephoros, 'bestower of victory'. With this phenomenonwe havealsoto associatetwo other nameswhich are known chiefly from epigraphical sources, the festival of the Nikephoria, and the site outsidethe city calledNikephorion. It is possiblethat this titulaturewas not all introducedat the sametime; that is to say,that AthenawascalledNikephorosbeforethe ideaof a Nikephorionor of Nikephoriawas conceived,but this is most unlikely, and the evidenceis best understoodas reflectinga single concept, as is usually done. Of the three names,only that of the Nikephorionoccursin literary sources,in Polybios,Strabo,and Appian, in all casesfortunately in securelydated contexts. First Polybios:his narrativeof the year 201,when Philip V of Macedon was raiding Attalid territory, refersinter alia to Philip's destruction of the Nikephorion (xvi. l. 6): inei öi rö Nmqcpöqrcv öAuprjvaro,rö trtiv ä)"oogixrtpti.tv, röv öö negi6oTovönqgtEaE, roüE re vaoüE öx 9epeltov dv9oxatpe,noM"oüExai nü.urcAeiE öndpxovtaq xrL. After his defeatin 197, Philipwas requiredto put the damageright, and he agreedto do so (xviii. 2. 2), but we do not know whether he kept his promise. Straboattributesa renovation of the site to Eumenes II, as we shall see, but this does not necessarilymean that Philip had not kept his word, since the Eumenidrestorationtook place in the 180s,by which time Pergamon had sufferedanotherinvasion,that of Seleukosin 190(Livy r82For example by Ohlemutz, Kulte, 34.

124

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

xxxvii. 18;Appian, Syr. 26).Appian also refersto a later destruction of the site, that by PrusiasII of Bithynia in 155(Mithr' 3; cf . Polyb. xxxii. 27). Now this evidenceneedscarefulconsideration,becauseat first sight Polybios seemsto suggestthat the PergameneNikephorion was in existence already in the reign of Attalos [, and this is frequentlytaken to be the case,leadingnecessarilyto the conclusion that Attalos was also responsiblefor designatingAthena as Nikephorosand forthe foundationofthe Nikephoria,which are on this view to be identifiedwith the äy6veEfor Athena recordedfor 220.183But Polybios, in saying that Philip destroyed the Nikephorion in 201, may well be referringto the name current in 'many his own duy,tto and it is to be notedthat Polybiosspeaksof temples'on the site, which suggestsan extendedapplicationof the name beyond that of the original cult centre. The place may not formerly have had a name,and Philip's promiseto restorethe site related,of course,to the renovationwhich eventuallybecamethe famous Nikephorion. The evidenceof Attalos' monumentsthrows further doubt on the acceptedview, becauseall the extant dedicationsare madeto Athenawithout the cult epithetNikephoros,with the exceptionof a smallgroup which we may now consider.This group (IvP 5l-6, 58)comprisesa numberof not very substantialfragmentsof small round bases commemoratingindividual victories; in two cases they are dedicatedto Athena Nikephoros.one celebratingthe victory over the Tolistoagians,the other the victory over Philip V at Chios in 202J'8sAnother piece (IvP 55 A) has the first three letters of the nameNikephoros, but the royal name has not been preserved.This meagre.evidencefor the cult name is in striking contrast to the seriesof large monuments,none of which calls AthenaNikephoros.We cannotsimply assumethat all the dedicar s 3H o l f e a u x , E t u d e s , ü . 6 l - 2 : O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , 3 3 4 ; K l a f f e n b a c h , M D A I i l i (1950), 99 ff. The site ofthe Nikephorion has not been identified; for a discussion of the probabilities, see Ohlemutz, Kulte,36-7. r 8 4K ä h l e r , G r . F r i e s , 1 8 7 , n . 4 3 . r s 5 / v P 5 1 . : K ä h l e r . G r . F r i e s , 1 9 0 ,n . 5 6 ; I v P 5 2 , : O G I S 2 8 3 : s e e b e l o w , 196 n. 5. Segre, in his important study cited below' n' 192' thought that the Nikephoria were founded by Attalos after the battle off Chios, but this is not a good context even regardless of other considerations (see above, 28 n. 3).

Festivals of Athena

125

tions to Athena Nikephoros were placedin the Nikephorion outside the city rather than in the city temple from which the known becauseAttalos, aswe haveseen,envisaged monumentscome,1E6 the precinct in the city as the context of his grandestmonuments, and it would be diffrcultto imaginethe evengrandermonumentsto be expected of a postulated new Nikephorion. Furthermore, Eumenes placed his dedications to Athena Nikephoros in the city's temple even after the known rebuildingof the Nikephorion outside the city. There remains the question of the two small baseswhich are certainly dedications in the name of King Attalos to Athena Nikephoros. Although usually dated to the last years of Attalos' reign, the lessregularletter-formsare markedlydifferentfrom the materialassociatedwith the 230sand 220s,and alsofrom Attalos' dedicationof booty from Aigina in2l0 (IvP 47, : OGIS 281),and are closer to the inscriptionsfrom the l90s and later. Kähler has plausiblysuggestedthat thesebasesareto be datedto the Eumenid rebuildingof the precinctof Athenain the city, when,ashe shows, old blocks and bases were reused in addition to new material brought in.rE7Athena's cult nameNikephoros is at this dateto be regardedas Eumenes'addition,and in supportof this chronology is the appearanceof what must be Eumenes'name in one of the fragmentsof the group under consideration(IvP 56 B). On this chronological view, the first appearanceof Athena Nikephoros in the Pergameneinscriptions is the dedication of Eumenes II commemorating his victory in alliance with the It6 As does Ohlemutz, Kulte, i4. 181Gr. Fries, 135-6, with n. 46. An examination of the stones in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin undertaken by the author in 1969confirmed this chronology. The rather crude letters of the small bases under discussion differ markedly from the more precise work of Attalos'larger monuments, and are directly comparable with some of Eumenes'own dedications, especially/vP 63 (see Kähler, Gr. Fries, l9O, n . 5 6 ) . E u m e n e s ' r e c o n s t r u c t i o no f t h e p r e c i n c t o f A t h e n a i n v o l v e d t h e u s e o f o l d material for new inscriptions and the reinscription of a number of bases dating from Attalos' reign. The first dated example of this use of old material is the base celebrating victory in the second war against Nabis of Sparta and the ensuing campaign against Antiochos III in Greece (lvP 62, : Syll.3 605 A), and since its erection must be dated after 189, the beginning ofthe project culminating in an enlarged precinct dedicated to Athena Nikephoros most plausibly belongs to this period, along with the rebuilding of the Nikephorion outside the city, which preceded the first celebration ofthe panhellenic festival.

126

Attalid Kingdom after the Treutlt of Apomeia

This local affair Achaian Leagueover Nabis of Spartain 195.188 cannothoweverbe the reasonfor the designationNikephoros and the cult activity associatedwith it; we must go back a few more yearsto the Attalid victory in the alliancewith Romeover Philip V of Macedonin 197,on which accountPolybios,doubtlessreflecting Greek sentimentgenerally,praisedAttalos I (xviii.41. 9) as 'E)"Lrivatv il'eu9egfuE. äyavt(öpevog önöp rfiE töv It may be regardedas an understandabletribute on Eumenes' part that shortly after his accessionin 197he institutedthe cult of AthenaNikephorosandthe festival of the Nikephoriato celebrate this victory for freedomwon by his father. We know that Eumenes was concernedto advancethe status of Athena at Pergamonin other ways, by propagatinga spuriouslegendaryorigin of the cult, for instance.rseThe first coinage bearing the legend AoHNAz NIKHaoPoY should also be dated to his reign,reoand we may reasonablypostulatethat festivalscalled Nikephoria were celebrated in the 190s. A further opportunity to promote the cult of Athena camewith the victory over AntiochosIII in 189and the Romansettlementof the following year. During the years immediatelyfollowing the settlementEumenesimplementedthat grand designof rebuilding and extendingPergamonwhich occupiedthe rest of his reign and requirednew circuit walls to encompassthe much enlargedcity. Athena received much of the attention; a magnificent twostoreyed temple, whose propylon bore a dedication to Athena Nikephoros, the adjoining library housing Eumenes' precious collectionof books, and a new statueof Athena Parthenosmodelled on the Athenian original betokened her continued importance. I eI Of equalimportanceto all this activity, and arisingin part 'crowned' out of it, was the reinstitutionof the Nikephoriaas a panhellenicfestival, first celebratedon this basis in 181' and attestedby a seriesof documentsconcerningthe recognitionof the rsE/vP 60, : Sy//.3 595 A; cf' Kähler, Gr. Fries, 187' n.43. 18e/vP 156' cf. Ohlemutz, Kulte, 16. t e oM v P L 1 9 , 2 0 : O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , 3 9 . r e r S t r a b o x i i i . 4 . 2 , 6 2 4 , q u o t e d b e l o w ; s e e a l s o t h e s t u d i e s c i t e d a b o v e ' n2 ' F o r the temple of Athena Nikephoros, see lvP 149; E. Rohde, Griech. und röm. Kunst in den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (1968), 49 and pl' 36'

Festivals of Athena

127

new festival and the d.ouAiaof the Nikephorion,to which we must now turn. The documentsare decreesof the Aitolians and the Delphic Amphiktyons recordingacceptanceof Eumenes'invitation to the 'crowned' festival,which consistedaccordingto this evidenceof games, the musical part ioonü?roE and the athletic and equine partsiooTüpnrcg(the Amphiktyonic decreeis datedto 182/l and provides the chronological key to these events); a letter of Eumenesto a Cariancity, mostprobablyIasos;anda letterto Kos, of which a secondsubstantialfragmentproviding important new information was publishedby Segrein 1948.te2A great deal of difficulty has been removed, and argumenteliminated,from our of thesetexts now that it has been convincingly understanding shown that the reorganizedcelebrationsattestedby them took placeregularlyevery five years,and at no time every three years, as was formerly taken for granted on the basis of a decree of PergamonhonouringMetris, the priestessof the ninth Nikephoria: the trieteric festival mentionedthere is not the Nikephoria,but the This conclusionconfirmsSegre'srestorationof line Dionysia.re3 l6 of Eumenes' letter to Kos, already supportedby comparison with the texts dealingwith the foundationof the Leukophryenaat Magnesiaon the Maeander,and all the ingeniousproposalsfor explainingor avoidingthe allegedinconsistencymay be dispensed with.leaEumenes'invitation is, as Segrerecognized,to a penöi tetericfestival(Appendixiv, no. 12,lines15-17):örcyvfax6rcE ouvreLeiv aöu1t nalvlqyuqiv re ötä nevltaetrlqlöoExai pouo.lxolügxai yultumoüE[xai innmoüg d.yCovaE]. In this letter Eumenestakes a personalcredit for the establishr e 2A i t o l i a n d e c r e e : S y l l . 3 6 2 9 , : D a u x , D e l p h e s , 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 , : F ' D e l p h e s ' i l i . 3 2 4 0 . A m p h i k t y o n i c d e c r e e :S y / / . r 6 3 0 , : D a u x , D e l p h e s , 2 9 3 - 5 , : F . D e l p h e s , ü i . l . 2 6 1 : c f . D a u x , E C I I l x x v i i i ( 1 9 5 4 ) ,3 7 0 - 1 . E u m e n e s ' l e t t e r s : t o a C a r i a n c i t y , probably Iasos: Welles,R C 49;cf . Segre (cited below); to Kos: Welles,^RC50; (with new fragment found in 1938)M. Segre ap. Robert, Hellenica, v (1948), 102-28; see A p p e n d i x i v , n o s . 9 - 1 2 . O n t h e c h r o n o l o g y , s e e L . R o b e r t , E C I I l i v ( 1 9 3 0 ) ,3 3 2 - 8 ; G . K l a f f e n b a c h , M D A I i i i ( 1 9 5 0 ) ,9 9 - 1 0 6 . r e r C . P . J o n e s ,C h i r o n , i v ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 8 3 - 9 . reaSegre envisaged two phases in the reorganization, but Klaffenbach showed conclusively that all the documents under consideration refer to the same procedure of 182/ I . Klaffenbach's restoration in line 16, öd ntv[O' i1pöpav], taken to mean'lastingforfivedays'isnotpossible:seeJ.andL.Robert,Bal/. 1952,no.127.

128

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

ment of the cult, the designationNikephoros (lines 5-7, with Segre's restoration: IN txrlq öpov ] | rc np ooqyoq e6xapev, lxüJ" iou1v voltilovllreE eivat. xai oixercrfurllv tilv npooullvupiav raüqu), and two previous celebrations(lines 9-10: öigydp iiöry napaxlq9|lvteg öcp' ittöv ü.E rcl I navryyüpecgdE ürfe xarrlyye(|atrttvänoö6$ao0el I qt)"oEpövag). Even allowing for royal exaggeration,this evidenceseemsto confirm the conclusion we have already reached,that the festival of the Nikephoria socalled was an institution of EumenesII in the first years of his reign, and not of his predecessorAttalos I. We saw reasonearlier to associatethe cult epithet Nikephoros with the victory over Philip V of Macedonin 197, and we may reasonablydate the two 'earlier'celebrationsof Nikephoria referredto in Eumenes'letter to the 190s,before the outbreakof war with Antiochos III intervened.A date in the yearsafter the Antiochic War is not convincing, becauseEumeneswas then occupiedwith the restorationof the PergameneNikephorion, which Strabo describesin the context of the building programmedatableto the l80s (xiii. 4. 2,624): xareoxeüaoe ö' o6roE d1v nö)"w xai rö Nmqgdqrcv it)oet xai dva?fipata xai 6ß),rc)qxag xai tilv ini rooövöe xcrecpüreuoe xarorxiav toü Itepyd.pou rilv vüv oöoav öxelvoE xreooThe completionof the Nikephorion, and Eumenes' ecpü,oxäLqoe. defeatof the Galatiansand PrusiasI of Bithynia celebratedin the decreeof Telmessoswhich hailed Eumenesas Soter in 184/3, (Appendixiv, no. 7) doubtlessprovided the occasionfor refounding the Nikephoria as orecpaviratayöveE,as the decreesof the Aitoliansandthe Amphiktyonscall them, but the inspirationof the new Nikephoriamust be locatedin the defeatof Antiochosand the greatly increasedauthority attainedby Eumenesin the resulting just astheolderNikephoriahadbeentheresult Romansettlement, on a more modest scaleof the defeat of Philip V of Macedon. The Nikephoria remainedthe most important Pergamenefestival until after the formationof the Romanprovince,and the priestessesof Athena Nikephoros held an important position in the city's life, as inscribedbaseshonouringthreeof themattest:these are Metris, priestess of the ninth Nikephoria roü orecpavtrou dyövoE, 149reckoningon a pentetericbasis,the year of Attalos II's victory over PrusiasII of Bithynia; Biton, priestessof the

Officials of the Royal Administration

129

fourteenth Nikephoria in 129; and Asklepias, priestessof the eighteenthNikephoriain I 13.resIt was probablya regularpractice for the city to honour its priestessin a year in which Nikephoria were held; this is a further indication of the importanceof the festival both to Pergamonand to the king, as an outward signto the Greek world of his authority and influence after the Treaty of Apameia. (iv) Officials of the Royal Administration Like other Hellenistic monarchies,the Attalids evolved an administrative bureaucracy that was separatefrom the civil administrationof the capital (to be discussedin chapter7); most of our informationcomesas usualfrom epigraphicalsourcesrelating to the positions and activities of high-rankingofücials.1e6 Around the king stooda group of closeadvisers,of whom some, but not all, were his relatives.At their headwas the office of 6 öni röv npaypärav, one holder of which, Menogenes son of Menophantes,has recorded his title in a seriesof dedicatoryinscriptionsfrom Pergamonhonouringmembersof the royal family.ßz 16" peak of his careeris to be datedto the reignof Eumenes II, accordingto a decreefrom Nakrasa in which he is the honorand.les lot nqi NdlxpaoovMaxeööv4 dvrou, lMqvoyl6vr1vM qvocp louyyevqI 6aoÄ6a4 Eüptvou, [xai vo]pocp67axa, dpetfig övtxev fxai dvöqa]ya?iaE xai eüvofuE [npöE te dyt 6aoÄ6a xai öauroüE.

This dedicationshowsthat Menogeneswas concernedwith the re5Metris: /vP 167,: OGIS 299;Biron: IvP 223,: OGIS 322; Asklepias: IvP 226, : OGIS 324. For the chronology, see Jones 188-9, correcting the 'traditional' trieteric dates given by Ohlemutz, Kulte, 49-5O, and elsewhere. re6There is a valuable synthesis ofthe evolution ofthe Hellenistic bureaucracies by Rostovtzeff , SEHHW ii. 1079ff. For the Attalids, see Cardinali, RP 205 ff.; G. Conadi,Studi Hellenistici (Turin, 1929)347ff.; Hopp, Untersuchungen, 98-101. t e 7J v P 1 7 l - 6 , : O G I S 2 9 1 - 6 . T h e t i t l e s u r v i v e s i n f u l l o n l y i n l v P 1 7 4 T O G I S 294). but it can be restored in all the others. tet IvP, ä. p. 504, no. 176a, = OGIS 290, with the revisions of L. Robert, Vil/es, 75-6. Robert's restoration l"Alxpaoov is not followed, however, since the singular form NdxpaooE @r Ndxqaoou), which he rejected, is now attested: see P. H e r r m a n n , S B W i e n c l x v . l ( 1 9 6 9 ) ,7 - 3 6 : J . a n d L . R o b e r t , B u l l . 1 9 ' 1 0 ,n o . 5 1 2 .

l3l

Attqlid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apanteia

OfJicialsof the Royal Administration

affairs of an old subjectcity of the Attalids, and it is possiblethat the office he held gave him responsibilityfor the area of direct authorityinheritedfrom the rule of EumenesI, the natureof which was discussedin chapter 2. No regionalstrategosis attestedfor this area,and it is very likely that, like other partsof the kingdom' it was administeredby the officials of the royal administration. Menogeneswas most probably appointedto the office of ö ini rav npaypärav in the later part of Eumenes'long reign, sincehis nameappearsagaintogetherwith those of Athenaiosand Sosandros, relativesof Attalos II, in a letter written by Attalos to the whoseactivitieswill be reviewedin the priestAttis at Pessinous, nextchapter(Welles,RC6l). This chronologyis supportedby the evidenceof a dedicationmade by Menogenesto Attalos II (IvP 174.: OGIS 294),in which Attalos is namedwithout the royal title and was therefore not yet king:

commanderof a Pergameneforce which defendedElaia against PrusiasII of Bithynia in 15716,an event recordedby Polybios (xxxii. 25.10): (Prusias)oüööv öb npanew öuvätrtevoE öt'd.rö eioü"r1)"u9öra oüvrpocpov 26oavöpov röv roü 6aoÄtaE trterd otgattartbv eipyeLvaüroü täE inßd"dE, änfipevöni @uareipatv. We alsolearnfrom Attalos' letter to Athenaios,andfrom a letter of son-in-law AttalosIII to Kyzikos,datedto 135sc, that Sosandros' Athenaioswas appointedto the important priesthoodof Sabazios during Sosandros' lifetime, and that when Sosandros died, Athenaios succeededhim, combiningthe two priesthoods,of Dionysos Kathegemonand Sabazios,in one person.200 It is clear then from this evidencethat the king was servedin his royal administrationby familiesratherthan individuals,the son(or son-in-law)succeedingto the positionheld by his fatherevenwhen he held anotherposition already.The priesthoodof Sabazioswas of course a special matter in that Sabazioswas particularly associatedwith QueenStratonike,who brought the cult from Cappadocia,and it was naturalthat the priesthoodwould be preserved in the family of Sosandrosand Athenaios,who were relatedto the royal family: we cannotthereforereasonablyinfer a generalpolicy from this instance alone. There is however further evidence pointing to the sameconclusion. First to be consideredare two inscriptionsattestingoitvrgoEot is a populardedicationfor of Attalos II. One, from Pergamon,20r one Apollonidesson of Theophilos:

130

" An a )"ov 6 ao Ät ö IE' An d.\ou] voE ävft ou,l M1u oy 6v4E M 11 ö öni röv npaypdrov, dpletrlE övexevf xai tüvoictE rrlE eiE ö[auröv].

The king drew heavily for membersof the royal administration on a close circle of friends and relatives, as is shown by the frequentappearancein both literary and epigraphicalrecordsrelating to Pergamonof the king's oüwqocpot (companions)and ouyyevelE(relatives).Their service to the king assumedmany forms, and the family about which we know most' that of SosanThe evidros and Athenaios,providesthe clearestexamples'ree denceis derived mainly from three royal letters concerningtheir priesthoodsof Sabaziosand DionysosKathegemon,of which the first (Welles, RC 65) is addressedby Attalos II to his cousin Athenaios.He calls Sosandros,the son-in-lawof Athenaios,his oüvrpoEoE,and saysthat he hadbeenappointedpriestofDionysos Kathegemonby his brother Eumenes.He was thereforepriest at the beginningof Attalos' reign,and accordingto the sameletter he continued to hold the office until ill health preventedhim' This chronologicalpoint is of importance,becauseit showsthat he was still priest of Dionysos Kathegemonwhen he servedas military teeOGIS 331, : Welles, RC 65-7; cf. Ohlemutz' Kulte,90 ff. See also the dedication IvP 221, as interpreted by H. von Prort, AM xxvii (1902)' 161 ff'

ö örtpo[s] 'A no77avö v @eocp[).[ou ry ], s

töu oüvrpocpov toü 6aotAltaE,l äpnqE tvtxtv xai eüvotaE lr4gl npöE rt töu 6aoÄ6a xai 6aluröv).

The other is a dedication of Attalos II from the Athenian agora in

honour of another Theophilos, undoubtedlythe brother of the Apollonides attestedat Pergamon:202 2o0See, in addition to the references given in the previous note, my remarks on the cult of Sabazios at Pergamon and its political implications, inBSA lxvi (1971)' 8-9. zot IvP l7g, : oGIS 334. 2o2Hesperia, xxiii ( 1954), 252, no. f3, -- SEG xiv. 127;cf , Hesperia, xxvi (1957)' 8 6 : H a b i c h t . G n o m o n , x x x ( 1 9 5 8 ) ,3 1 7 .

132

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia "An oJog Qg[oÄ6o s' Art dlou] 16aoltA,eüE x ai 6 ao t).[oo [rlE "! ln ü"7av IöoE] l @ l e ö c p Ä o@ v e . .. . . . . . . l / e a ltlöv öawoö oöwpocpoltd'pet4lElEvex[a] 'A?1vatatv. IrqlE eiEöawöv xai töv öfipov üv

We turn now to another relationship. A certain Andronikos is mentioned by Polybios (xxxii. 16) as leader of a Pergamene embassy to Rome during the reign of Attalos II which pleaded the case against Prusias II of Bithynia, and in the Mithridateios of Appian (Mithr.4-5) he figures prominently in a subsequent plot to overthrow Prusias. He was evidently an important figure about whom we know all too little, and we may, with Fränkel, identify him as the honorand of a fragmentary decree which deals inter alia with the proceedings of an embassy, and calls the honorand a oüvrQoqoE of Attalos II:2o3 .loötbpou' lini nputd.ve@E

yvbprl olrparrlyCov' öyva öfipoE' Bnei_

rot 6aoL7öaEäv re rct[E ävayxctrcrdtorgro.räois;]. [. . . oüvtgo]cpoE lonouölaiaE yqe/agnapeioyqrat rd.ttte 6aoLAletxo,iratLöfipttt xt7.1 A dedication of the same reign from the Samian Heraion honours a man whom we may identi$ as Andronikos' brother: 'keeper of the Philopoimen son of Andronikos, strateSos and ggnl''20a

s

"AuaToE 6aoü'eüg 'AudTou 6aoL).6aE Q.tl o n o tPev a.' Av ö v 99 lxo1t rov orQdr1yov xcrl tltl rIE oqpaytöog dgtr4; Evexa

:;L:':",3i":;i:ä:"4' Hpat.

This Philopoimenwas commanderof the Pergameneforces present at Corinth in 146(Paus.vii. 16. 1 and 8), and accordingto an anecdoterecorded by Plutarch (Mor. 792)was the favourite adviser of Attalos Philadelphostowards the end of his life. 2o3IvP 224, = OGIS 323. The phi of oüvrpogog is discernible from a squeeze I made of the stone in Berlin in 1969. 2 o 4A M x l i v ( l 9 l 9 ) , 3 0 , n o . t 6 , : S E G i . 1 7 4 , : / G R i v . l 7 l 2 ; a p h o t o g r a p hw i l l b e found ap. Tölle, Die Antike Stadt Samos (Mainz, 1969),26. Another holder of the office of izi rtlE ocpqayi\oE was the slralegos Demetrios at Ephesos (Appendix iv, no. 25; see above, 88); see on this title Bengtson.Strot. ü.209-

Officials of the Royal Administration

133

The part played by these oüvrgoqoq collectively also called ävayxaioq was an activeand importantone, both in implementing royal policy, as did Menogenesat Nakrasa,and in helpingto form it, as we seemost clearly in the letter written by Attalos II to Attis already mentioned.Attalos had evidently met Attis at Apameia, and the two had discussedthe possibilityof military actionagainst a bandof Galatians(seebelow, chapter5); returningto Pergamon, Attalos consultedthe d.vayxaiot:il")övrav ftpö, I eiEll4pyapov 'A|qvarcv xai ouvayayövtoEltou oö pövov lxai 26oavögov xai Mr1voy6vr1v, d77ä xai htgouE il.etolvaE töv ävayxaiav xü.. It was one of these,Chloros,who urgeda policy of conciliationwith Rome, and the king himself finally subscribedto it, althoughthe decisionremainedhis.20sNo other documentof the Attalid chancery illustrates so well the factors which determinedroyal decisions and the meansby which they were reached. Apart from the office ofö öni töv npaypärav and the general designationsoüwpocpotand,ouyyeveig we do not know what titles, if any, thesecloseadvisersheld. Thereare other termsattestedby epigraphicalevidencewhich connotethoseespeciallyfavouredby the king, but theseterms are of ageneric nature, and conform to the patternestablishedin other Hellenistickingdoms,where various gradesof cptTotare attested.206 [t may be convenientto list the evidencerelating to the Attalids at this point. (I ) qil.oE IG ä.2 l+S 1Sy//.t651), lines 8-9. Decree honouringDiodoros (EumenesIl): Aööopog q{IloEl lünäpyav r6t 6aor).eiEöp6uet. This is the only Attalid exampleof the unqualifiedtitle Ei),og,and examplesof highergradesof Eü"ot are likewise rare: one such is Megon of Ephesos,who is mentionedby EumenesII in letters written to Iasos and Kos concerningthe reorganizationof the 2osAttalos uses the wordxpivttt of this final decision: txptvov oöu eiE ltiv t1i11v 'Ptitpqv dei ripner,v xr7. Cf. Cardinali, RP 205-6, and on the significance of the wordxpiva in connoting a royal decision, Welles, RC, p. 83. 206On these titles, see G. Corradi, Studi Hell.3l8 ff.; A. D. Momigliano, A t h e n a e u m , x i ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 1 3 6 4 1 ; H o l t e a u x , E t u d e s , i i i . 2 2 0 f f . ( f r o m B C H 1 9 3 3 ) .O n the Seleukid 9i,1or see also Bickermann, In st. Sö1.4l ff. It is important to note that the graded status of the g/tror (four grades according to Momigliano) were evidently common to all the Hellenistic monarchies. and the Analids were therefore following normal practice.

134

Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

PergameneNikephoria (seeabove, iii): Kos: Appendix iv, no. l2:2o1Mfyowa I'Eq6oLov, tav E(7av töv npo-?ll tqtaptvov nap' riplrt. t (or Iasos: Appendix iv, no. 11: M l6yon d.r e rtttv E iTav iv r tpfi t [rr1t npar 11 peytot4L) nap' fipiv övra (or övta naq' ipiv) ). Another is attested by a dedication from Attondae (MAMA vi.68):2ö7av 'Arrä[ou, cptAoEnpöroE.

These titles are more common in the Seleukid, Pontic, and, and it is perhapsnot above all, the Ptolemaicadministrations,20s surprisingthat they shouldappearlessfrequentlyin our evidence for the more closely centralizedAttalid administration' (2) napd. töL 6aoü.ei önrpi6av, xrA. IG ä.2 947, lines 15-17.DecreehonouringTheophilos(?166/5): inuöi1 @eölEÄloEllegylalprlvöEeüvo)uEönäpyav üt [öq]pl@)t npötegövre önrg[6utv [napd.rai fiaoLfteiEüp|vel xai öv rrye[I övl naq' aüröt xtA. of This is surely the man we have already met as oüvrpocpoE as honorary EumenesII; the presenttitles may then be considered rather than constitutionallyspecific. 'EnQovoE/apoxqd.teug Appendixiv, no. 26 (decreeof Kyme): 'Attd)-E. TapavrtvoE| öntgßav napä Qt 6aoüel (3) oixeiog IG ä.2953,lines6-7. Decreehonouringa manwhosenamehasnot survived on the stone (160/59): loixleioE öv rcü 6aoÄ6o4 EüptvouExrL. (4) t6v nportpa4t|van of Ad. Wilhelm'Wien' IG ä.2946(Syll.3655,with the supplements Anz. 1921,81),line 8: MövavöqoEIleqyapryvö;tlöv pd'AtoranLo' reuoptvav xai cLpalttvavl naqd rfot 6aoAel EÜptveLxrL' Although the evidenceis not copious, it seemslikely from the casesreviewedthat thesewere in the main honorarytitles with no particularconstitutionalor administrativesignificance;the caseof Theophilos bears this out, as do Menogenesand Philopoimen' 20?The restoration is that of H olleaux,Etudes. ili.222, which is preferable to that of Momigliano, art. cit. 140: 1töv nptbtav (sc' qiTav) xai npolttpupivwv 208See the studies cited above, n' 206.

Officials of the Royal Administration

135

becausethey had specifictitles in additionto the apparentlyhonorary ones. We may conclude,then, that a numberof the royal advisersdid not have official titles designatingparticularspheres of authorityor activity,but wereemployedin diversecapacities as the king chose. It is importantto point hereto the fact that at leastthreecitizens of Ephesosservedimportant roles in the royal administration. One,Megon,hasbeenmentionedabove,as acpü"oE of the highest category. A second, Hikesios, was ri xuraora9eiE in' Aiytvqg (Sy/l.3642),anda third, whosenameis not known, was appointed by Attalos II to be the mentor of his nephew,the future Attalos III (Appendix iv, no. 24). lt is probable then that when Ephesos becameAttalid in 188,it providedthe royal administrationwith a numberof officials who were able to reachhigh rank, and it is not surprisingthat the king drew on the considerableadministrative experienceof this city. This policy correspondsto the high regard for Ephesoswhich we have elsewhereattributed to the Attalid kings in other contexts,but the extent to which this policy was applied, and whether it was applied to other cities besides Ephesos,cannotin the presentstateofthe evidencebe adequately determined.It is significantin this regard,however,that Ephesos and Tralles, as we saw earlier, played an important part as royal mints after the Treaty of Apameiain additionto the principalmint at Pergamon.

The Galatians

5 THE GALATIAN S throughout An eventwhich was to havethe greatestrepercussions the Galaof the entry was Minor Asia of history the subsequent was consolidating Philetairos when time very tiansin 27817 ,t at the his position at Pergamon.Records of their activity and of their relations with the dynasts at Pergamonare naturally more complete for the reignsof Attalos I and his successors,while for the first thirty years or so of their occupationwe rely on the chance evidenceof contemporarydocumentsand traditionspreservedin the works of local historiansand transmittedto us by later writers. It is only by thesemeansthat we can examinetheir methodsand aims,as well as the reactionsof the Greekcitiesand other inhabitants of Asia Minor. The only useful referenceto the Galatians' activitiesas a whole is a curious one in Strabo (xii' 5' 1,566): xar1oyov öä rilv ybgav raürryv (i'e' Galatia) o[ fa)"drat nLavrl7|uteEnoAüvypövov xo,ixaraöqaltdweErilv ünö roig'Arra).m'oiE6aot)"eüotybpav xai roiE BßuvoiE, Eaq nag' öx6vttov il.a1ov rilv vüv faAatiav xai fa)J.oypalxtrv )'eyop6v4v'2This is the only evidenceof a generalnature to suggestthat the Attalid rulers were concernedwith the settlementof Galatians,although clearly it cannot be acceptedas it stands.There is specific evidenceof this policy in the case of Attalos I, as we shall see,but none refersto settlementof Galatianswithin Pergameneterritory. That Philetairoswon a victory over a bandof Galatiansseemsto be shownby a metrical dedicationinscribedon a baseat Delos; the Philetairosis not specified,but the letter-formspoint almost cerI Pausaniasx.73. l4datesthe entry of the Galatiansinto Asia Minor to the year See,in general,F. Stähe|in,Gesch.der of the Athenianarchon Demok|es,2781.7, i. 490 ff.; M. wörrle, Galater,T ff.; M. Launey,Recherches, kleinasiatischen 'AntiochosI, Achaiosder Altere und die Galater" inChiron' v (1975)'59-87' On below' n' 6' the chronology,seeM' Launey,REA xlvi (1944)'218' n' 2' and r Referenceito particularmethodsused by the Galatiansin their raids can be in the text foundin Livy xxxviii. |6. |2_|3,and in the decreeofPriene mentioned It'Pr 17, = OGIS 765).

r37

tainly to Philetairosthe Founder.rIf authentic,this victory occurred at about the sametime as the victory of Antiochos I, attested by Appian but undated;athe two battlesmay havebeenconnectei with the samesubsidiarymovementof the Galatiansbut thereis no reasonto believe that the celebrationof Philetairos'successwas due to participationin Antiochos' victory ratherthan to a separate victory. In addition to his own direct action against the Galatians Philetairosis known to have offered substantialassistanceto at least one independent city, Kyzikos.5 The chronology of Philetairos' donations is fairly well established;they include money, supplies, and contributions to the Eü"axfi rfig ytbpaE, notably in 21817,when a band of Galatianspassedclose to the territory of Kyzikos on its route to the interior of Asia Minor.6 In 3IG xi.4. l 105,: Durrbach,Choix, 31.This inscriptionis discussedaboveand datedto the reignof AttalosI, 3 | n. 8. a Syr. 65. Cf. Stähelin,12-14;the colourful accountin Lucian, Zeuxis 8-ll, is defendedby B. Bar-Kochva,Proc.Camb. Phil..Soc.cxcix (1973),l-8, who dares the battle to 'shortly after April 272'. Segre'sdate,278/7(Athenaeum,viii (1930), 53-6) seemsto me to be too early in view ofthe restofthe chronology;c.272,after the end of the first Syrian war, is preferable,althougha date shortly beforethe outbreakofthiswar,t.2T6/5,isalsopossible(soLauney,REA xlvi(1944),234,n.1; Magie,RomanRule li.7ll,n. 12).Seenow M. Wörrle,Chiron,v (1975'1,65-72. s OGIS 748:.see above. 15n. 20. 6 The inscriptionrecordsthe donationsof Philetairoslistedaccordingto the years of the Kyzikene eponymousmagistrates,as follows: Gorgippides money for äyaveE andcpuAaxiltqE XöpctE. Bouphantides ärü.en tfiE 7eiaE. Phoinix cpulaxl t4q X6qag Poseidon Diomedon

money eig ö)"arcv xai ouvayayilv töv ytav. supplies iv töL toLöpat tdtt tpög rcüE fald.rag yevop{uau

The first editors dated Diomedon lo 278t7 from the reference under his name to a Galatian war; this chronology however raises a difficulty in dating Gorgippides as early as 282l l. Dittenberger (OG1S ad loc. , n. 7) argued an alternative chronology, associatingthereferencedriBoucpavtiöou,nokp40t[or1grfigXöeaEwiththewars involving Antiochos I, Nikomedes of Bithynia, and Antigonos Gonatas, thus making Phoinix the magistrate of 27817, the year of the Galatians' arrival in Asia Minor. This chronology has been convincingly endorsed by Launey, inREA xlvi (1944), 2 l7 ff. , where a relief from Kyzikos showing Herakles fighting an opponent (which Launey showed to be a Galatian), and also dated 3zi (Dolvuog innapyou (cf . BCH lvi (1932), pl. xxv), was shown to have represented an appeal from the city to the god when threatened by an attack from the Galatians under Loutarios; these, according to Livy's account of their entry into Asia Minor (xxxviii. l6), had to pass near Kyzikos to rejoin the Galatians under Leonnorios. M. Segre adopted a chronology earlier than this by two years @thenaeum, väi (1930), 488 ff.), and s u b s e q u e n t l yo n e e a r l i e r b y o n e y e a r ( l t h e n a e u m , x i i ( t 9 3 4 ) , 4 3 1 , n . 2 ) .

138

The Galatians

gratitude, the city instituted a festival named Philetaireiain his honour (seebelow, chaPter6). The aimsof the Galatiansseemfrom the beginningto havebeen settlementand security.Their attackon Ilion, accordingto Strabo a 'kind of village-town' (xwp6nd'tg rtE i1v), and according to Demetriosof Skepsisas recordedby Straboin the samepassage (xiii. I .27,594), very much in declinebeforethe AntiochicWar, "'Hyqoüvan was evidentlyinspiredby their needfor a stronghold öä roüEfaldrag, ntqata\|vtaE ix r4EEüprbnrlEdvaflrlvatpiv tiE rilv nö)'w öeotrttvougtghparoE, napaygfipa ö' ixlmeiv öLd'rö äre(yrcrov. When defeatedby the dynasts of Asia Minor, they were dealt with by the assignationof settlements;after Attalos' greatvictory they were settledin the part of GreaterPhrygiawhich becameGalatia,in all probabilityby MithridatesII of Pontos,who had received this territory on the occasionof his marriagewith Laodike, the sisterof SeleukosKallinikos.?It was probablyfor similarreasonsthat the Galatiansenteredthe serviceof kings as mercenariesor as allies:8Attalos of Pergamonafter their defeat (seebelow),AntiochosHierax, the kingsof Bithyniaand, above all, the kings of Pontos.The Kaqtxd' of Apollonios,accordingto "Ayxupa,referredto the settlement Stephanosof Byzantion,s.v' by Mithridates I (died 266)and Ariobarzanes(266-256)of Galatiansin alliancewith them againstEgypt; this is goodevidencethat the Galatiansattachedthemselvesfrom the beginningto the kings of pontos,by whom they were given landsin exchangefor military service, rather than to the kings of Bithynia, from one of whom they had receivedthe initial invitation to crossinto Asia.ewe have recordsof three significantGalatianrevolts in theseyears:the first in Pontos in the reign of Ariobarzanesin which the king himself perished,the secondduring the war of the Seleukidbrothers,and the third during the expeditionundertakenby Attalos I of Pergamon in 218sc. In the lasttwo cases,wherewe haveevidence,the 7 Straboxii. 5. l, 566,quotedabove;Pausaniasi. 4' 5, 8. 2. Justinxxxviii. 5. 3 (marriage-alliance betweenMithridatesII and SeleukosKallinikos,c.245).I follow (l'eipzig, herethJconclusionsof Ed. Meyer,Geschichtedes KoenigreichsPontos other For passage' Strabo of the 1879),43-51, as offering the best explanation views,see Mzgie,RomanRule, ä' 731' n. 13. e on the statusofthe Galatiansservingin the kings' armiesseeabove,29 n. 4. 9 FGrHist740,F14.The deathof MithridatesI: Diod. xxiii. SeeEd. Meyer,op' cit. (n. 7), 43 ff.

The Galatians

r39

Galatianswere dealt with by meansof settlement.roFor this reasonit seemslikely that during the years when Philetairosand ruled at Pergamon,someGalatians,who EumenesI successively (aswe know) plunderedwesternAsia Minor and were defeatedby Philetairos,were settledin the small area of Pergameneterritory thenestablishedandformedan importantpart of its consolidation. For the reignof Attalos I the evidencebecomesclearerandmore substantial.We have alreadyfound reasonto relate the activities of the Galatiansin the early years of his reign to the individual allianceshe concludedwith numerousGreekcities and confirmed in 2 l8 (seeabove,chapter3), andthis pointcannow beelaborated. There is a body of local evidenceconcerningGalatianattackson Greekcities;in additionto theevidencefor Ilion, alreadycited,we have a number of honorary decrees voted by Greek cities in recognitionof the braveryof individualsduringGalatianattacks.A decreeof Prienehonoursa certain Sotasfor bravery and initiative in defendingthe city againsta Galatianattack,and a similardecree of Erythrai honoursthe entire board ofstrategoi for the part they played in defendingtheir city against an attack from Galatians underLeonnorios.Among Philetairos'donationsto Kyzikos,according to the decreeof that city already discussed(OGIS 748), werequantitiesof corn contributedövtöt nol{pat lrfu npögroüg laAd.raEyltvoptvol (linesl8-19). A privatededicationof a man from ThyateirathankingApollo for rescuingthe man's sonri,troüE ünö röv fa).ätav may alsobe connectedwith theseactivities.rrIn the case of Miletos, as of Ilion, a Galatian raid was recorded (according to Parthenius)by a local historian, Aristodemos of Nysa, and the city's resistanceis celebratedin an epigramattriFinally, an inscriptionfrom Denizli buted to Anyte (AP vii. 4921.r2 ro Revolt and settlement under Antiochos Hierax: Justin xxvii. 2l under Attalos I: P o l y b .v . 7 8 . 1 - 5 . rrPriene: IvPr 17,: OGIS 765. Erythrai: see above, 29 n. 5. Thyateira: K e i f - v o n P r e m e r s t e i n ,Z v ' e i t e R e i s e , n o . l 9 ; M a g i e , R o m a n ' R u l e , i i . 7 3 0 - 1 , n . I l . See in general on this evidence M. Wörrle, Chiron, v (1975),614. r2 Parthenius viii. I ff. This evidence may however relate to later events: see Rehm, Milet, i. 245; Parthenius' story of a man of Miletos who travelled to Gaul in search of his captured wife implies a Greek awareness of the Gauls and their geography that is not easily attributable to the early third centrury, before the Romans appeared on the scene: see A. D. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (Cambridge, 1975), 57-60: A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology, Hellenistic Epigrams, Anyte xxiii (commentary, ii. 89 ff., 103 f.), : Page, Epigr. Graeca, Anyte xxii: the epigram relates the suicide of Milesian women captured by the Galatians.

140

The Galatians

near Izmir publishedin 1975recordsa decreeof the settlementsof Neonteichosand Kiddioukome,datedto the month Peritiosof the forty-fifth year of the joint rule of Kings Antiochos and Seleukos (:Jan. 267), honouring two offrcials of the elder Achaios' Banabelosand Lachares,for redeemingprisonerscapturedby the Galatiansin the niAepog falatrnöE.l3 Evidently then traditionsdevelopedon the themeof resistance to the Galatiansin the first half of the third century, a resistancein which the Greek cities concernedtook considerablepride. with the Greek cities Attalos I of Pergamonwas equallya victim of the Galatians;he too choseto defy them by refusingthe usual tribute they exacted,laandit is in this contextthat the alliancesconcluded by Attalos should be placed, although,as we have seen(above, chapter3), they subsequentlyservedother purposes'We now see more clearly the significanceof Attalos' great victory at the river Kaikos andhis assumptionof the royal title; assuccessfuldefender of the Greek cities of western Asia Minor he could justly call himself king. According to the literary sources the Galatiansnow moved eastwardsand were settledin territory belongingto MithridatesII of Pontos.Some,however,evidentlyremainedin Attalid territory to servein Attalos' armies,including,accordingto Polybios(v '77 ' 2), the army which accompaniedhim on his military expeditionof 218.We have found reasonto believethat this policy was a common one perhapsalready exercisedby his two predecessorsas well as by other rulers in Asia Minor. The implicationof Polybios' statementis that theseGalatianshad beensettledin Attalid territory, and we may infer from what we have seenof their intentions that this settlementwas a major incentive for enlistingwith Attalos,just as the Galatianswho servedwith the kings of Pontos were rewarded with lands in their kingdom. We may conclude then that the Galatianswho swarmedinto resortedto two chief meansof survival:their Asia Minor in 27817 periodic demandsfrom dynastsand cities alike for tribute in exchangefor freedomfrom attack, andtheir enlistmentin the service 1 3M . W ö r r l e , C h i r o n , v ( 1 9 7 5 ) ,5 9 - 8 7 . raLivy xxxviii. l6; on the nature ofthis tribute, seeabove, ch. 3. The Galatians of evidently demanded tribute from the cities as well as the dynasts, as the decree l 5 ' n ' 7 3 2 ' i i ' R u l e ' R o m a n M a g i e , C f . s h o w s . a b o v e Ervthrai mentioned

The Galatians

l4l

of the dynasts,from the invitation of Nikomedesto their partial settlementby Mithridates of Pontos. As far as the Attalids are concerned,however,they no longerservedin any significantway as mercenariesafter the reign of Attalos I; from that time they appear in our sourcesrather as their enemies.In fact, relations between the Galatiansand Attalos I also are not straightforward; we have seen that he took a band of Galatianswith him on his expeditionof 218,but his intentionmay havebeenas much to find a locationfor their settlementasto usethem asa contributionto his military power, a considerationthat is indicatedby their attitude when they revolted,and by Attalos' readinessto complywith their demandsfor settlement.l5 Attalos' great victory at the river Kaikos should be regarded, accordingto the evidenceof his monuments,as a victory over the Galatiansfighting for their own ends,and not as a part of his later war with Antiochos Hierax, with whom Galatiansservedas mercenaries,16 but there is no indication in the admittedly scant evidence of a major Galatian war fought in its own right until the hostilitiesof the l60s which we shall considervery shortly. We have in this connectionto recognizetwo aspectsof the Galatians' activities: their raids on Greek cities and on the territories of Bithynia and Pergamon,in which context shouldbe placedAttalos' victory at the river Kaikos; and their co-operationas mercenarieswith the enemiesof Pergamon,namelyAntiochosHierax, PrusiasI of Bithynia, andPharnakesI of Pontos,which becamethe principalfeatureof Galatianhostility to Pergamonin the reignsof Attalos' successors.rT We have seen that during the war with Pharnakesin particular, Pergameneinterestsin Galatiawere directly threatened,and there is someevidencethat in the years following this war Eumenesundertookto consolidatehis authority in the area,an essentialstepaslong asthe Galatianswereprepared to fight alongsidehis enemies.We may now turn to considerthe chronology and significanceof this activity. 15Polyb. v. 78. Note especially 78. 3: (Attalos) 4ptlav ptv aöröv oüöepiav ö\ooppr1 xoptl6pevoE. Up to this time the Galatians had shown themselves to be precarious allies, often proving to be as much a liability as an asset to the kings they served; see the cases cited by Launey, Recherches, i. 492 ff. 1 6M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , ü . 7 3 4 , n . 2 0 ; s e e a b o v e , c h . 3 , a n d b e l o w , A p p e n d i x ii. 17Antiochos Hierax: see above, ch. 3. Prusias I: 79. pharnakes: 79: cf. polvb xxv.2.4.

142

The Gtlatians

Perseus' After the defeatof Perseusof Macedon,the Galatians' A Performer allies, launched a surprise attack on Eumenes' Crassus' Licinius P' and 168' in gameneembassywassentto Rome to patch ih. Rornunconsulof 171,arrivedin Asia in 167ostensibly and however' up a peace at Smyrna.l8The initiative failed' Galatia' We Eumenesresorted to direct military intervention in intervenhave only fragmentaryand incidentalreferencesto this of fragment is a these of important tion in the literary sources:most inwhich but context lacks Diodoros' history (xxxi.l4), which inot1forms us that Eumenesnctvrö fa)'ärory E|vog önoyeiqnv control in oclro.te This strongly implies an intention to retain of military conquest' Galatiabeyondthe immediateconsequences Attalid policy with in feature new and accordingly indicates a regard to the Galatians. Eumenes' Further evidence in this regard may be found in one with Attis' the priestof Kybeleat Pessinous' correspondence to this of the principal religious centres of Galatia'2oAccording correspondenceitwasthroughAttis'collaborationthattheAtpart of it talidsmaintaineda control over the country' or ratherthe rs Polyb. xxix. 22.4; cf. xxv. 6.3; xxix. 9' l3; Livy xlv' 34' l0 Cf Niese' iii' 200' Mogistrates of the Romon For p. Licinius Crassus, see T. R. S. Broughton, (envoy in 167)' ( c o s ' 4 3 5 1 7 l ) ' 4 1 6 i . l 9 5 l ) , Y o r k , Republit'(New Eumenes' brother Attalos ih. P.rgurn"ne embassy to Rome in 168 included foremost Stoic in (Polyb. xix. l-3; Livy xiv. l9), and Krates of Mallos' the (Suetonius, de gram' scholarship Pergamene in figure leading and a ir";;;." rege " ' sub ipsam Ennii m a t i c i s2 : C r a t e s ' . . r , i s s u s a t l s e n a l u m a b A t t a l o king must be a mistake-for the of name the date, the of view In (: 169) mortem ). Scholarship' 2!5'n' (History of Classical II, as R. Pfeiffer has indicated But.n.. forcb Ä ttalo we should read 2); the suggestion of Hansen,A ttatids, l2l,n' 166'that did not share the royal title this ,;^ ,qttiti, does not explain rege, since Attalos II On Krates at Pergamon' see one' correct upp.o".h is therefore the "-ivtpf.iff"t't Pfeiffer, 21546. ItisclearfromPo|ybios'accountofAttalos'missionthattheSenate'smain concernatthistrmewaswithlimitingEumenes'power'ratherthanwithsolvingthe l' 6: röv ydp nltiotav'Papatav Galatian problem; note especially Polyb' xxx' dnrl)J"otptovp|vav rfiE rcü 6aoülo4 EiptvouE eövoiag' re A probable vrctory monument of this war is /vP 165 (with an additional A Delphian decree accepting a f.agment published in ÄM xxvii (1902)' 90' no' 74)' refers to Eumenes' war as [röv festival of Sardis for Athena und King Eumenes note l2). I have xivöuvoy (OGIS 305, lines il-12, with Diuenberser's iirr"rl 'uii"uav his standing rn to victory Galatian of Eumenes' "rnpt "sized the importance gb); this importance was first realized by cardinali, RP the Greek world (above, 103 ff. 2 0O G I S 3 1 5 , = W e l l e s , R C 5 5 - 6 1 .

The Galatians

143

centredon Pessinous, andthe secondofthe lettersshowsthatthey personallysupportedAttis' positionat Pessinousin the face of rivalry from his own family, doubtlessas a quid pro quo for his co-operation(Welles,RC 56,lines3-7):öxoprcdpqvi1v nagd.oou pou negi tdtu ltle xalrd üv inrcroAfiv, I iv tlL öLeorcacprjx€q äöeAEdvoou AioL6pryayeypaplpivou.ög1öE oöv xa?' öneq6ü"lv ötlfura xü.. The positionof Attis at Pessinousis in some ways comparableto that of the priest Korris at Labraundain the third century;both seemto haveheld their positionsas of family right, and both dependedlargelyon the favour of the dynasts.2l The letters are mainly concernedwith the need for periodic military activity in Galatia,and there are severalreferencesto Pergamene armiesstationedthere.The permanence of this situation is furtherindicatedby the complaintsof PrusiasII of Bithynia to the Roman Senatein 16514that Galatiaremainedunder the occupationof Pergamenetroops,as thoughthe needfor them, that is, thedurationof Eumenes'war, wasalreadyover.22 This is not to say, however,that Galatiawas treatedas an Attalid provinceon the linesof the territoriesacquiredin 188nc. The evidencepoints ratherto a seriesof major campaignsundertakenin the early 160s, which strengthened Attalid influencein the areabut requiredcontinued military occupationand secretcollaborationwith Attis at Pessinous.It was important,as the Galatians'activitiesin recent yearshad shown, that Attalid influencein Galatiashouldbe maintained,but it is extremelyunlikelythat the Attalidseverregarded Galatiaas part of their kingdom, or controlled more than certain parts of the country at any one time. UnderAttalosII thisalreadylimitedcontrolin Galatiaevidently weakened.The last substantialitem in the correspondencewith Attis is a letter in which Attalos refers to the need for military action, but admitsthat this coursecould not be adoptedfor fear of Rome'sdisapproval.23 Thereis evidencenonethe lessthatAttalos maintainedmilitary activity in the areaon a limited scale.According to Trogus (Prol. xxxiv), mortuo regeAsiae Eumenesuffectus Attalus bellumcum Selegensibus habuit et cum regePrusia.As we 2rSee,on Korris,J. Crampa,Labraunda,iii. l. 75 ff. z: Polyb. xxx. 20. 2-3:' cf. Niese ii' 200ff. 2rOGIS 315 VI. : Welles,RC 60.

r44

The Galatians

have seen,this war is to be dated to the 150s,in the first yearsof Attalos' reign. It was clearly not a major war of the kind fought by Eumenesin the l60s; its main objectivewas evidentlyto maintain authority in the area of Galatia adjoining Selgeand Amlada, and to securethe allegianceof frontier positions such as these.2aThis evidencesupportsthe implicationsof Attalos' letter to Attis, that he wishedto avoid total commitmentin Galatia,and had no intention of attemptingto control the entire country' It is possible,furthermore,that Galatiansservedas alliesor as mercenariesin the pay of PrusiasII duringthe war with Attalos, as can be inferredfrom the words of Trogusjust quoted:bellum cum . . . et cum regePrusia.Althoughthe evidenceis too selegensibus limited to allow certainty on this point, it is clear that Attalos' control over Galatiacontinuedto be piecemealand tentative;that his wars were of a local nature not designedto support a direct administrationin the country as a whole; and that vigorousmeasures were taken to establishthe co-operationof the important strategic positions at Selge and Amlada' This evidence, then, confirms the conclusionsreachedfor Eumenes' reign as to the statusof Galatia in relation to the Attalid Kingdom as a whole. Galatia could never be regardedas a singleentity, let alone be controlledas such, but it compriseddistinct groupsof occupation suchas that centredon Pessinous.It was with one or anotherbut not with all of thesegroups that the dynastsof Asia Minor concludedalliancesand from one or anotherthat they recruitedmercenariesfrom time to time asthe needarosein the third and second centuries BC. Eumenes II and Attalos II of Pergamondid not undertakemilitary interventionin Galatiain order to increasetheir kingdom but in order to counter the influence of their enemies, who rightly saw the Galatiansas a meansof containingAttalid powerand authoritY. 2 aS e e a b o v e , 1 0 2 .

6 ROYAL CULTS Like their contemporariesin other dynasties,the Attalidsreceived a wide range of secularand religioushonours from the cities of Asia Minor and the Greek mainland,and the nature and scaleof thesehonoursis a reflection of their authority and renown in the eyesof thosewho honouredthem: againthe reignof Attalos I and the creationof the new kingdom in 188appearto mark the important stagesin their development. Certain distinctionshave to be borne in mind in any consideration of Hellenisticroyal cults, and theseareespeciallyimportantin the case of the Attalids. The first, and most important, is the difference between worship and deification.r From the reign of Attalos I onwardsAttalid kingswerethe objectsof wide andvaried cult practice,both within and beyond the limits of their kingdom, but it was not until after 188Bc that any of them was calleda god in narne,and then it was usually done after death, with the single known exceptionof Miletos, whosecircumstanceswere reviewed in a previous chapter.2A seconddistinction concernsmotive. It was one thing for the king to enforcea centralizedimperialcult of himselfor membersof his family, of the kind now well attestedfor the Seleukidsunder Antiochos III, and quite anotherfor a city to institute an individual cult on its own initiative and in circumstancesarising from its relationswith a particular king.3We t Habicht, Gottmenschentum,206 ff.; see also the remarksof köaux, Monde hell. i. 238 ff. 2 Seeabove, ll4-19. rFor the centralizedSeleukidcults, see Holleaux,Etudes,iii. 165-81 (from BCH 1930);Welles,RC 36-7; Wilcken, SB Berlin. 1938,298-321;Robert,Ilellenica,vä (1949),l-29 andCRAI 1967,281-94. For the Attalid cults, seein general Cardinali,RP139-7Z;Daux,BCII lix (1935),210-3O;AvPix. 84ff.; Habicht,Gottmenschentum,124-6; and,for cults associatedwith Dionysos,H. von Prott,AM x x v i i ( l $ 2 ) , 1 6 1 - 8 8 ( w i t h R o b e rEt ,t . a n a t . 2 5 - 6 ) l O h l e m u t z , K u l tge0, f f . ; P . M . Fraser,REÄ liv (1952),242tr.; A. W. Pickard-Canbndge,Dram.Festivals,279ff. Hansen,Attalids,453 ff. adds nothingofimportance to the discussion.

146

Royal Cults

need, finally, to rememberthat it was not the lot or prerogative only of subjectcitiesto worshipor otherwisehonourthe kingswho were their suzerains;free cities could and frequently did honour with equalor greaterextravagancethosewho were their benefactors. As a corollary to this, the presenceof a royal cult in a city is not necessarilya mark or indicationof its status,aswe shallshortly seeat Miletos, Kos, and elsewhere. We may further divide the honourspaid to the Attalids broadty into the secularand religiouskind (althoughthe distinction is not alwaysa real one),the first consistingmainly of eponymousfestivals called Attaleia, Eumeneia,or whatever name was appropriate, and the secondof worship and deificationas differentiated above. The earliest known eponymousfestivals are the Philetaireia and Eumeneia on Delos, which, unlike those to be consideredshortly, were initiated and financed by the dynasts themselvesand are an indicationof their claimsto dynasticstanding in the Greek world rather than of its recognition.a At Kyzikos we hear of a festival named Philetaireia,which is probablyto be associatedwith the supportthat Philetairosgaveto the city when it was under threat from the Galatiansin the 270s;it was the city's methodof expressinggratitudeto its benefactorand conforms with practicesthroughoutthe Hellenistic world in the third and second centuries.sComparableare the Eumeneia at Pergamonitself, which are mentionedin the city's decreehonouring its board of strategoiand are not to be associatedsimply with Eumenes' position as dynast: he is called Euergetes,and the honoursare such that any Greek city might bestowon a benefactor.o Honoursof this kind continuein the reign of Attalos I, and their extent and location are predictably more widespreadin accordancewith the extendedrange of contactshe established,especially through his alliancewith Rome' in the Aegeanand on the Greekmainland.In this contextwe may put the Attaleiaassociated with the gymnasiumat Kos; these were probably instituted on a IG xi.2. 224A.line 4; seefurtherabove,22 n. 46. s CIG 3660,linel5; seeRobert,Er' anat. 199-201;Habicht' Gottmenschentum' 124.Seealsoabove,15n' 20. 6OGIS 267,discussedbelow, 166-8.

Royal Cults

147

behalf of Attalos I and are a further sign of that king's concernto cultivate allies in the south-westAegeanas a supportagainstthe threat of Philip V of Macedon in the early years of the third century.TThe newly attestedAttaleiaat Aiolian Kyme may alsobe connected with the first Attalos, and specificallywith the diplomatic activity of 218 in which Kyme played an important part (seeabove, chapter 3 (i)), but the city's decreein which they are mentionedis probablyto be datedto the reignof Attalos II, and so this later bearerofthe namemay be the honorandof the Attaleia.8 Attalos I was the first of his dynasty to receivecult honoursin the full sense.At Sikyon, accordingto a passageof Polybioswhich has survivedout ofcontext, he receivedan annualsacrifice,and a colossal statue of him was placed beside that of Apollo in the agora,an act renderinghim effectivelyoüvvaoEwith Apollo.r An inscriptionin Athenswhich in my view recordsa decreeof Aigina, refers to Attalos as being madeoüvvaoEwith the island's hero Aiakos and also mentions the setting aside of temene (plural), althoughthe context and detailsofthe honoursare not preserved on the stone.r0This text is to be datedto the lastyearsof the third century, after Attalos had acquiredthe islandin 210,and it is also to this time that we may date the establishmentat Athens of a priesthoodof Attalos and a tribe namedafter him.rr These cult activities constitute a major advancein honours paid to the Attalids, and were later to provide precedentsfor the honours enjoyed by thelastofthe dynasty,AttalosIII Philometor.They areto be regardedas a direct resultof the greatrenownwon by Attalos in the Greek world by his defenceof Greekfreedomboth againstthe Galatiansin Asia Minor, and as Rome's ally againstPhilip V of Macedonin Asia Minor and the Aegean.r2 Thesecults institutedfor Attalos I were nonethe lessoccasional 7 Sy//.3 1028, : F. Sokolowski,Lois sacröes des citös grecques (Paris, l%9), 165, A. 8. See now S. M. Sherwin-White,Ancient Cos (Hy pomnemata,li,1978), 132-1. 8G. Petzl and H. W. Pleket,Chiron, ix (1979),73-81; Appendix iv, no.26. e xviii. 16. t o I G ä . 2 8 8 5 ; A p p e n d i x i v , n o . 2 ; I d i s c u s s e dt h i s t e x t i n 8 S Ä l x v i ( 1 9 7 l ) , l - 1 2 . tt IG li.2 5080; the priesthood is probably to be associated with the creation ofthe tribe Attalis in 200 sc (Polyb. xvi. 25. 9; Cardinali, AP 145-6). t2 See Polyb. xviii. 4l . 9, which refers to Attalos ayavrlöpevoE önip rqg röv ' E ).lfi v tttv il.t u 0 q iaE.

148

Royal Cults

andadhoc, anddespitethe greatadvancein his authorityachieved when he took the royal title, there is no evidenceof a systematic ruler-cult at Pergamonor elsewherein the kingdom during his reign.r3The evidenceusually adducedin supportof the view that Attalos was deifiedwhen he died haslittle substanceand virtually no chronologicalforce. The baseIvP 59 is dedicatedto 6aoAia - - - | \eöv Za\rr1pal, and even if Attalos' name is restoredhere, the dateof the inscriptionmay well be muchlater than his death,as the letter-formsindicate.In anotherbase(/vP l7l,: OGIS 291)' "Afrra).ov 0eöv1| xai Eöeqy6v7v,the usually restored 6aoÄ6o supplementcalledfor is surely[Zarqga] | xai Eüeqytrnv.t4 It was not until after 188 that the further step was taken of instituting regular priesthoodsof the Attalids and of calling the king0eöE;this chronologymay be further establishedby a review of the known instances.The principal cults were establishedat PergamonandTeos;when the latter becamea tributary city in 188, EumenesII was quick to exploit its position as seatof the Ionian Guild of Dionysiantechnitai.rsThe full name of this Guild, rö '87'IoviaE xai xowöv r6v nepi At6vuoov rcyvrcöv röv ön' Tqonöwou, is first attestedby an Aitolian decreeof about235,and it correspondsclosely to the nameof the regionwhich becamean Attalid provincein 188.t6The unificationof the cults of Dionysos was effectedby associatingthe activity of this Guild with that of the cult body of Dionysos Kathegemonwhich had beeninstituted at Pergamonprobably by Attalos I; the associatedGuilds were 'Iav('aE xai calledrö xowöv röv nepi/övuoov reXvr,xrövröv ön' ti The Basileiaattestedby OGIS 268are ofdoubtful relevancehere:seeabove, 1l05n. 120(contra Cardinali,RP 153,n. 3). raBoehringer,AvP ix.86, regardedthe developmentof the ruler-cultas dating from the reignof Attalos I, but the evidencehe cites relateswith the exceptionof Aigina to placesoutside the kingdom and does not attest a ruler-cult in the form in which it developed later at Pergamon and elsewhere. The altars dedicated to Attalos at Pergamon(IvP 43-5) are ofa private nature, and their date is uncertain. ri See in general Pickard-Cambridge,Dram. Festivals, 2914. t6F. Delphes,iii. 3. 2188, lines 6-7. It hasbeenthoughtthat this full title dates from IEE and relates to the Attalid acquisition of Hellespontine Phrygia (so von Prott, AM xxvii (1902),l6l ff. ; Ohlemutz,Kulte, 98-9), but the evidenceof the Aitolian decree discountsthis view. It seemslikely, on the contrary, that the Attalids' regionalnamecorrespondedto a namealready in use by the Guild. Seein generalabove, 53-4, 103-4.

Royal Cults

149

'E),Ar1onövrou, xai töv neqi vöv Ka0rlyep6vaAr,övuoorr.r7 This amalgamationof the worship of Dionysos at Pergamonand at Teos, which was to outlast the Attalid dynasty,r8provided a suitable context in which the cults of membersof the Attalid royal family could be placed,and is a further attestationof the Attalid policy of associatingtheir own honours with those of a deity or hero, of the kind which we seein practiceat Sikyon (AttalosI and Apollo), Aigina (Attalos I and Aiakos), and at Pergamonitself (EumenesI[ and the twelve gods, Attalos III and Asklepios).re The creation of the enlargedkingdom in 188 occasionedthe institution of a direct form of ruler-cult, againcentredchiefly on Pergamonand Teos. This cult arosefrom a new practiceof recognizing membersof the royal family as becominggods when they died. In a decreeof HierapolishonouringApollonis, the queenof Attalos I, it is saidthat shep€06,orr7xev The dateof this eiE0eoüg.20 decreecannot be exactly determined,but we may be sure that it was passedafter 188for reasonsthat will be mentionedshortly. At a later date, the death of Attalos III was expressedin a decreeof Pergamon in the words fue|tolrd.pevogö$ ävl0g6nav.21 This practice of deifying a royal person on death plays an important part in Attalid ruler-cults, and we will do well to establishits chronologybefore exploring its significance. Although Attalos I is posthumouslycalled)eöE,the designation and its associatedpriesthoodare not attesteduntil after 188,and we have no evidenceof a cult before this date. The first priestt7 For thejoint name,seeRobert,Er. a nat. 445-50(Michel,Äec. l0l4): /G xi. 4. ll36 + 1061,: Durrbach,Choix, 75 (Pickard-Cambridge, Dram. Festivals,314, no. l0(a)). SeealsoG. Klaffenbach,Symbolae,l7ff.;Datx,BCH lix(1935),226ff. I8 It is attestedin the sameform in a letter of Sullato Kos confirming privilegesof the lonian Guild (81-79sc): M. Segre,.Riv. di fi|. lxvi ( 1938),253ff. (Pickard-Cambridge,Dram. Festivals,3 18,no. l3). This evidencewasoverlookedby Ohlemutz, Kulte, 98; 'nach dem Erlöschender Pergamenischen Dynastieschwindetaus dem Titel der Hauptverbandes der Techniten in Teos der Zrusatzxai töv nepi töv Ka92yepövalrövuoov.' Ohlemutz's view, following von Prott, that Dionysos Kathegemon was being worshipped as the dpX1yftqg toö yövouEof the Attalid dynasty,was basedon evidencewhoserelevancewas discountedby Robert,Et. anat.254. teOGIS 332(discussedbelow);notelines26-7:lorcllqavqEopfioatmiwa Exaotov meqavqEöpov töv l6öexa 9eöv xai 6alor7öagEöptuou. 20OGIS 308, line 4. 2t OGIS 338, lines zt_5.

Royal Cults

Royal Cults

hoods we hear of are those of the living Stratonike and the deceasedApollonis at Teos, and of EumenesII during and after his lifetime at Pergamonand Teos; all thesecult phenomenalikewise fall in the period after 188,and it is a plausiblecontentionthat this year, in view of its importanceto the Attalids, marksthe beginning of royal cult activity. In the case of Eumenes, von Prott demonstratedmany yearsagothat the cults to which the priesthoods belongedwere introducedat Pergamonand Teosby Kraton sonof Zotichos, auletes and priest of the lonian Guild of Dionysian technitai.22The evidencefor this eventis providedby two decrees of the Guild honouring Kraton: the first is undated,23but the second is dated by a priesthood of Eumenes,evidently newly a ini iq6o4 Zarögou, xo,i&yovo1örou xlail I ieptaE introduced:2 6aot).6a4Eöptvou NtxortAoufEl. Since the first decreerefers to the combinedGuild of DionysiantechnitaiatTeosandof Dionysos Kathegemonat Pergamonin the form mentionedearlier,it follows that both decrees,and accordinglythe introduction of Eumenes' priesthoodat Teos,mustbe datedafter 188,when this combination occurred. At about the sametime, or at any rate after 188,when shewas betrothed to Eumenes,Stratonike also received a priesthoodat Teos, according to an honorary decreeof that city.zsAlthough neither Eumenesnor Stratonikewas called a god, the deceased Attalos I and his queenApollonis were so called, and Apollonis furthermore was to be worshipped as oüwaoE with Aphrodite (lines 4-5): röv öi |uoütv önryü'ry|fivattöv ieq6a llrts I'AqqQöftqE xo,i1ed.E'AnüJ.aviöogEöoe6oüE.At Hierapolis,as we have seen,it was saidof Apollonis that shepe06oqxev eiE0eoü9, and the chronology of this terminology may also be dated fairly securelywithin a rangeof a few years.In the decreeof Hierapolis Apollonis is calledyuvil pöv Ieoü 6aoü"6ag'Atrd)"ou,luiqlqllöö 6aoü,6aEEüptvou Zarfiqog, and since Eumenes' epithet Sorer

was bestowedin the 180sduring his war with PrusiasI of Bithynia and the Galatians,26Apollonis' death is placed in the years after about 184.In fact it was probably later still, sincePolybiosstates that she long outlived her husband,who died in 197.27 Towards the end of his life Kraton moved from Teos to Perga-

150

22AM xxvä (1902),16l-88 (seeabove, n. 3). 2r Durrbach, Choix, 75; improved text ap. Datx, BCH lix (1935)' 210 tr' 2aMichel, Äec. l016 A (O. Lüders, Die DionysischenKunstler (Berlin, 1873)' 179-80). zsRobert,Et. anat.9-20. On the betrothalof Stratonike,see Appendix iii.

l5l

25Seeabove, 79 and n. 13. Eumenesis also calledtheos and Soler in a dedication from Pergamonof an altar by the membersof a Dionysiac cult (AM xxvii OnD, 94, no. 86):6ao ü.ei Eöpiv er.0e[ö t ] | 2at74 xai Eü egytft q| | oi 6dxyot ro ü eüamo6 O[soü]. This honour has generally been regarded as posthumous (Boehringer,AvPix. 90; Ohlemutz,Kulre, 93; Hansen,Attalids,465),althoughthis is difücult to establishon historical groundswithout producinga circularargument. The lettersofthe inscription,however,clearlyindicatea datein the secondhalfof the secondcentury, and therefore after Eumenes' death: all have well-developed apices,and omicron and (dotted)thetaare large,occupyingthe whole depthofthe line, suggestinga date not much later than 150(cf. Paepcke,de Pergamenorum litteratura, 16,on theta;Holleaux,Etudes.ii. 78).Sigmais a well-developedform with parallel arms, and in generalthe letters suggestadate more advancedthan that of the Korrhagosdecree(the l80s: seeabove, l0Gl0),where many of the letters appearin moretransitionalforms(cf. Holleaux, Etudes,ii. 76-81),andof Eumenes' dedications,inscribedduring the l80s (especiallyIvP 62and 64; cf. Kähler, Gr. Fries, 187,n.43).AdateafterEumenes'deathin l59isprobableonthesecriteria. 27Attalos II died in 138an old man, accordingto Strabo xüi. 4.2,624. Sincehe had ruled for twenty-one years after the death of his brother, we may estimatehis ageat over eighty when he died, and according to a referencein Lucian (lulacrob. | 2) he died at the ageof eighty-two. He wasthereforeborn in about 220.Attalos was the secondson ofAttalos I and Apollonis,and Apolloniscan thereforehardlyhave beenborn laterthan 238(cf. Fränkel,luP i, p. 88).On the otherhand,sinceAttalosI died in 197in old age(Strabo,loc. cit.), and Apollonislongoutlivedhim, shemust have been young at the time ofher marriage to Attalos; we can accordingly place her birth with somehopeofaccuracy in the years2zt0-238. In 188shewould then havebeenaboutfifty, and Polybios,in a shortencomiumon Apollonis(xxii. 20. 3) says that she long outlived her husband (xahor gqövov oöx ö).iyov ünepfuboaoa dvöpö), implying that she died in old age; this passageincludesa referenceto a visit made by Apollonis with her sons Eumenesand Attalos to Kyzikos, and concludes,rar)ta ö' hd"io0q iu Kulixq petd dy öüluow d1vnpöEllqouoiav töv 6aoü,ia, but it is clear that the referenceto Apollonis formed a digresslonprompted by an accountofevents relatingto Kyzikos now lost, and it is to theseevents,and not to Apollonis' visit, that the chronological point refers (see Habicht, Hermes, lxxxiv (1956),98). Apollonis is mentionedin the Athenian decree(IvP 160,= OGIS 24E;Holleaux, Etudes,ii. 126-47)passedinlT5/4aft.ertheaccessionofAntiochoslVandhonouring Eumenes II and his brothers, but we need not assume(contra Hopp, Untersuchungen,33)that Apolloniswas necessarilyaliveat the time, sincesheis named alongsidethe certainly deceasedAttalos I (lines 43-5): inaw6oar öö xai nöE yovetg I aütov, röv rc 6aoü.6a "Atta)"oy xai rlp daoil'noav I'Anoil"aviöa.

152

Royal Cults

mon.28and he founded there a Guild attested under the name Attalistai but probably foundedin the lifetime of EumenesII and originally calledEumenistai;this Guild is referredto as his creation in a letter written to it by Kraton after Eumenes'death and dated to 15312(OGIS 325).Only the prescript survives: ü.aö6Aqou,ötouEö6ööp[ou), [6aoÄ elrjowog' Aw d.7ou
Royal Cults

153

Two relatedproblemsneedto be consideredin connectionwith thesecults. [n the decree of theAttalistai alreadymentionedthere is a referenceto an Attaleion (OGIS 326,lines 20-l): ü öi 'Arrä)'ercv ü npög röt 9eätgaq ö xai löv xa?rcptbzsr.There is no indication,however,asto whetherthis Attaleion was in Pergamon or in Teos. The fact that the decree comes from Teos perhaps suggeststhe latter,3obut a further referenceto the house of the Attalistai, which is said to have been 'near the palace', points ratherto Pergamon,althoughthe two buildingsmay not havebeen in the samecity, and thereis no particularreasonwhy thereshould not have been a royal palaceat Teos as well as at Pergamon,as there was at Tralles. We havealreadynotedthat Kraton spentthe later part of his life at Pergamon,and founded the Attalistai (or Eumenistai) in this period. It is more likely, then, that both the Attalistai and the Attaleion were located in the capital, and were associatedfeaturesof Kraton's work.3r There is, secondly,the questionof wherethe cult was locatedin Pergamon.A group of buildingssituatedto the north of the Altar peribolos has been given the name'temenosof the ruler-cult' by the excavators:it is argued that since the site was occupied by housesinto the Hellenistic period, the cult later practisedthere must have been introducedby the Attalids, but all known cults of gods introduced by them were located outside the city.32 It is probablethat the area was rebuilt and augmentedin the time of EumenesI[,33and this activity may be associatedwith the institution of the centralizedcult in 188,but the circumstantialnatureof the evidenceprecludescertainty. It is also possiblethat this complex of buildingsincludedthe Attaleion as well as the Eumeneion mentioned in the probably post-Attalid dedication (OGIS 336) discussedin a previouschapter, but it is more likely that this Eumeneionwas situatedoutside Pergamon.3a After 188priesthoodsof deceasedkingswere a regularfeatureof royal cult practice in the Attalid Kingdom; since they are mentioned in a Pergamenedecree passedafter the formation of the 3 0S o D i t t e n b e r g e r a d l o c . , n . 1 3 ; K e r n , R E , s . v . A t t a l e i o n , 2 1 5 6 . 3 t C a r d i n a l i , R P l 5 l , n . l ; O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , l 0 { | , - l ,w i t h r e f e r e n c e s :l 0 l . n . 2 9 . 32Är'P ix. 85 ff. 3 3K ä h l e r , G r . F r i e s , l 5 f , n . 2 2 . 3 aS e e a b o v e . 2 3 n . 4 9 .

154

Royal Cults

Roman province, they must have outlasted the Attalid dynasty itself.3sSuch royal cults are also attestedat the PergamenegymnasiumunderAttalos III. A decreeof Pergamonpassedin his reign probably in honour of a gymnasiarch seemsto associateAttalos with the Founder Philetairos,and possibly with EumenesII, as 'the altar dedicated by the recipients of an annual sacrifice on neoi':36 xai'AtrdAat röt 9uofuEög xail.tmagröt re Qt)'eraigtttr, lnallqaorrioaE xo,iröt tofuroünarpi |eöt'Eüptvetöv{ot6opöLtöt 1aoüuet @ü'opriropt rd xa9fxowa ouweceT6o0at xa?öpup{llvaf| önö röv v6otvönrce76oar öv tör öndvotp1vi rfir löyöirlt - - -1. There is also reference to the dedication of cult statues,riTriipara, andspecificallyone of Philetairos;in Schröder'srestoration we read (lines lL20): rofü öö 1eoü 6aot).6a9Eüp{vou xai ro6 'Ar'Amd).ou xai roü iDt).erai)pouro6 Eueqy{rouxai ro6 |eoü rdlou roü Qt)"opfircqoE6aoü"6aEdyäl)'pata ävart9öval. Although retained with reservationsby Dittenberger,this supplement is clearly unsatisfactory;in particular,the referenceto 9eöE "Arra)"og (without royal title) is unlikely in the context of the honoursas a whole. so far as we can determinethem. The nameof Philetairos seems assured, despite the otherwise unattested epithetEuergetes,becauseit occurs elsewherein the text,37and the following is thereforea more consistentsupplement:rclü öi Eöpövouroü ZaniqoE xai rcü Qt)"etalllpouroü 0nü 6aoLA6ory 'ArröJou toü Qü.oprpopog 6aoü'6ag xai roü Eöepy&ou gymnasial cult of the king was an dyäf]"parc ävari\eval. The importantfeatureof the Attalid ruler-cult after 188.We find it also at PhrygianApameia,where a decree(probablyof the l60s) honours the gymnasiarch Kephisodorosi yupva.onpy1oaE.. . xai Eüp|voug rryq|eiE önö rritv v6on äv604xeväyä)"parfa 6aoü"6
Royal Cults

155

Parian marble and the performance of sacrifices on the king's yuöil'rcE ipöea;oo and at Pergamon, whose gymnasiarch Agias was honoured, probably in the final years of the reign of Attalos III, by a civic decreewhich refers to the celebrationof the kings' önovüpot fiptgat.al The king alsoenjoyedgymnasialcults in cities outside, or probably outside, the Attalid Kingdom, usually in associationwith the celebrationof the king's yev|il"rcgfipi,pa, and the phenomenonas a whole showsthat the existenceof sucha cult doesnot necessarilyindicatethe statusin relationto the Attalids of the city concerned.It is unlikely, for instance,that ColophonNova was ever a subjectof the Attalids, yet thereathenaios,the brother of EumenbsI[, was honoured by the veof and öcpfifiotwith the celebrationof hisyev60fuoE flpipa, as providedby a decreewhich is probably to be dated to the middle of the secondcentury; it is alsolikely that other membersof the royal family had alreadybeen honouredin havingtheir eixövegset up by the city in the sanctuary of Apollo Klarios.a2On Kos, the yu60).rcEftptgq of EumenesIl wascelebratedon the 6th Artemisioneachyear, andhis priesthood is also attested there: these phenomenaare further signs of an Attalid influence at Kos which began to be felt in the second century when Ptolemaicpower was waning.a3Also noteworthyin the contextof gymnasialhonoursis a priesthoodof Attalos II or III at Sestos,which is brought to our notice by a decreeof Roman date.aaWe examinedthe case of Miletos in detail in chapter 4; there, Eumeneswas voted in his lifetimeatemenos,celebrationof his yev60)'nE flpöea, and divine status, and the link with the gymnasium is especially significant in that Eumenes provided funds to finance its building, in line with Attalid policy elsewhere.as a0Appendix iv, no. 2l; seealso Robert,Hellenica, xi-xii (1960),116-25. at AM xxxäi ( 1908),379-81,no. 2, line 22. a2Appendix iv, no. 20; seealso Appendix iii, 205. 4 3 S y l / . 13 0 2 8 , e t c . ( s e e a b o v e , n . 7 ) . F o r t h e p r i e s t h o o d , s e e G . P a t r i a r c h a ' B u l l . Mus. Imp. Rom. äi (1932),28,no. 25; Habicht, Gottmenschentum,125-ß(with further unpublishedevidencementioned,125,n. 3); Sherwin-White,AncientCos, 132-3. 44OGIS 339, lines 26-7. A closer identificationof the king is not possible:see Hopp, Untersuchungen,I 15, n. 50. 4sRobert.Et. anat.85, n. 3: seeabove,| 18.

156

Royal Cults

Among the priesthoodsused in the dating formula of the Pergamenedecreeof Romandatementionedearlieris that of thetheoi philadelphoi:xai ieg6o49eöv Eü.aöü.q@[v- - -]. Jacobsthal,the original editor ofthe text, conjecturedthat the theoi philadelphoi were Philetairos and Athenaios,a6the younger brothers of EumenesII and Attalos II, but this identificationseemsunlikely sinceneither of them becameking or sharedthe diadem,and it is most improbablethat they receivedepithetsof the kind invariably associatedwith kingship.SinceEumenesII and Attalos II areboth known to have been calledPhiladelphos,the former admittedly only once and in strangecircumstances,it is a strongerpossibility that they are to be identified as the theoi philadelphoi, and this identificationis strengthenedby the appearanceofa priesthoodof Attalos Philadelphosprecedingthe one under considerationin the prescriptof the decree.47 The title and priesthoodmust havebeen bestowedon the royal brotherson or after the deathof Attalos II by his successor,Attalos III, who accordinglymay be judged to haveconsiderablyadvancedthe statusand scopeofthe cults ofhis deceasedpredecessors first envisagedafter the Romansettlement in 188. Despitethis advancementof the royal cult, however,Attalos III seemsnot to have taken the further step of allowing himselfto be calleda god in his lifetime. One of the most important documents of his reign is an inscription found at Elaia and recordinga civic decree of (most probably) Pergamon;a8in the decree the city celebratesthe return of Attalos to his capital after a victorious military expeditionby awardinghim a gold crown, settingup his a6Seeabove.n. 35. a7The testimoniafor Attalos' title aregivenby Cardinali,RP l7l ; to theseshould be addedÄM xxxii (1907),42'l,no.272;AM xxxäi(1908),375,no. l;BCH lü(1928), 2140,n. 8. On Eumenes' title Philadelphos, which occurs once (OGIS 302) see below, Appendix i, n. 23. Whateverthe true explanation,the title is undeniably attestedfor Eumenes,and its singleoccurrenceis paralleledby that ofAttalos II's title Soter @CH hi (1928),,140n. 8). 48oGIS 332,on which seeA. D. Nock,ilarv. Stud. xli (1930),l-62, esp.22-5(= Essayson Religion and the Ancient World, i.218-22); Wilhelm, Neue Beiträge Y (SB Wien,ccxiv, 4, 1932),38-9(= Akademieschriften,i.280-l); Hopp, Untersuchungen,I I l-l 3. On the origin of the decreeseealsoRobert,Et. anat. 17, n. li Ohlemutz,Kulte, 89 (againstthe view held here);I. and L. Robert,Bal/. l!)68,no44r.

Royal Cults

157

'iva cult statue, äyü"pa, in the temple of Asklepios Soter, fi11]1 oüvvaogröt 9eör.,and the erectionof an equestrianstatue,eixtbv, next to the altar of Zeus Soter in the agora, with the further provision (lines ll ff.) of a daily sacrifice 'to (or for) the king': xai ö [epeüEroö 6aoLl6agxai txdorryErc iptqoE ö orclcpavqcpöpog Enßu&onqv Tt6avoröv [d.lyauo06tr7E lini rcü 6apoü r[oü)löE roü ZarfipoE röL 6aoÄei. As Nock haspointedout, the daliveröt daodei'is at leastambiguous'and could mean'to the king' rather than 'for the king', the secondsenseusuallybeingexpressedin the form rizlp roü 6qotl6aE;aesimilarly the Attaleia establishedat Delphi in 160/59 'for' Attalos II, are explained in the words "Anaiov.so It seems fxa)löE önrhaxltaq | önög röv 6aoü"6a probable,then, that Attalos III was to be the recipientof the daily sacrificein the agora. Provision is also made in the decreefor an elaborateprocessionon the eighthof the month, the day on which Attalos'came to Pergamon',to take place every year from the prytaneionto 'the temenosof Asklepios and the king' (comparable therefore to the temene voted to Attalos I on Aigina); and further offerings and festivities are devisedfor the occasionson which 'he visits the city' (line 26, öuw öö napayivqtat eiE rilv nü"w fi1tdtv).These honours at Pergamonclearly approachthe concept of deificationin the king's lifetime as closely as possible short of actuallycallinghim a god, and they may be regardedin the presentstate of the evidenceas the furthest point reachedin the elaborationof royal cult-practicein the Attalid Kingdom. Outside the kingdom it seemsto have been surpassedonly by the exceptional case of Miletos. Festivalsinstitutedin the nameof an Attalid king, or associating the king with a god, continued after 188to be celebratedin the Greek world both within and beyond the scope of Attalid authority; we know of pouotxoi dyütveEdaoLAeiEöpivet.Zarfiqt. at p n at Aigina,52and Tralles,5I' Att d),em x ai Eüp6veta xai N txr1cpö aeNock, Essays,i.220. 50Sy//.3672,: Daux, Delphes, p. 686 C, = Pouilloux, Choix d'inscriptions grecques(Paris, 1960),58, no. 13. stAppendixiv, no. 6. SzOGIS329.lines40-1.

r58

Royal Cults

'A9avaia

xai Eöufvetc celebratedat Sardisafter Eumenes'Galatian victory.s3 Comparablehonours are also recorded for cities that were, unlike those just mentioned, independent,notably Eumeneiaand Attaleia at Delphi and at Athens,s4where the motive for the foundationwas either gratitudefor somebenefaction (invariablyfinancial, as at Delphi), or a wish to participatein the honours voted generallyto the king after some important event, such as Eumenes' Galatian war. They do not have any great significancein termsof the royal cult, sincethey were institutedin the king'sname(dzäprcü 6aoü,6a9)ratherthan'for' or'to' him. s 3F . D e l p h e sl ü . 3 . 2 4 1 . 5aSeethe textscited above,l0 n. 7.

7 THE CITY OF PERGAMON The city of Pergamonholdsa uniquepositionamongthe capitalsof the Hellenisticmonarchies.Like all of them. it was the residence of the dynastand the administrativecentreof the kingdom.It also functionedas an independentGreek city, at leastin constitutional terms. But, unlike any of them, it existed as a royal residence beforethe evolution of the kingdom,even taking into accountthe ephemeraland insubstantialexpansionunder Attalos [. Put simply, whereasPella,Antioch, and Alexandriawere the chief cities of kingdomsalready in existence,the Attalid Kingdom was built around Pergamonand after its acquisition,as a featureadditional to the existing civic community, whose separatepolitical and constitutionalidentity was maintained.In this regard, then, the distinctionbetweenroyal and civil institutionsbecomesespecially meaningful,and the relationshipbetweencity and sovereignassumesa dualaspect,asthe characterof the city changes,in that we have to envisagea relationshipbetweendynastand city developing into one betweena king and his capital. Our first concern is with the position of the dynasts- that is, Philetairos,EumenesI, and, for a few yearsof his reign, Attalos I - in relation to the city of Pergamon.From this will arise the questionof the extent to which and mannerin which (sofar asthey can be determined)this relationshipchangedwith the assumption of the royal title by Attalos I in the early 230s. A question we cannot fully answer in the presentstate of our evidenceis the degreeofchange introducedto the constitutionof Pergamonby the first two dynasts.In the first placewe have very few indicationsin our sourcesrelating to the constitutionbefore the arrival of the dynasts,l a deficiencywhich obviously makesit I For the pre-Attalid city seeCardinali, RP l-4, to whoseaccountthere is little to add by way of fact. Seealso the referencesgiven by Magie,Roman Rule, ü. 725, n.2. The constitutionalaspectsof the following surveyowe much to the work of Cardinali.RP 244-302, as well as to that of Swoboda,Rh. Mus. xlvi (1891), 497-510, and of G. Corradi, Studi Ellenistici, 347 tr. For the evolution of the in general,seealsothe valuablesynthesisofRostovtzeff, Hellenisticbureaucracies 9EHHW ii. 1078-81.

16l

The City of Pergamon

The City of Pergamon

difficult to locateand assesschangesmadeby them. There is also the problem, discussedalreadyin anothercontext, of their status vis ä vis the Seleukids,and the measureof their freedomto interfere in and determine civic policy. We have concluded that Philetairosowed much, in his relations with Greek cities, to his Seleukidpatronage,2and it seemsvery likely, with this consideration in mind, that Philetairoseffectedlittle changein the civic order of Pergamon,which remainednominallya Seleukidcity. We canin fact hardlyexpectsignificantdevelopmentsto the advantageof the dynast before the battle at Sardisin262, which elevatedhim, as we have found reasonto believe, to a much higher level of selfdetermination.It is, significantly, to Eumenes I that we must ascribethe first major constitutionaldevelopmentin the city under the Attalids. As hasalreadybeennoted,Eumenescertainlyplayed a part in the developmentof the dynast'sauthority, in and around Pergamon, considerably more significant than is customarily accreditedto him, and with more evidencedatableto his reignit is highly probablethat this picturewould emergeeven more clearly. There is clear evidenceat least that Eumenesmanipulatedthe existing democraticform of political institutionsin Pergamonto his own advantage;this procedurewas to become, as we have seen,the basis of the Attalids' relations with dependentGreek cities. It was always their policy to take advantageof existing institutions,rather than create new ones, and for the creation of this ideaEumenesmust take most of the credit. It is clearfrom the Pergamenerecord of the treaty of isopoliteia with Temnos, alreadydiscussedin a previouschapter,3that the legislativeprocess at Pergamonin the fourth century was normally directedthrough the usualchannelsof probouleumaanddiscussioninthe ekklesia.a Althoughthe treaty with Temnosmay datefrom the early yearsof Philetairos'rule, it cannotbe later, and this shows thatthe boule and ekklesiaexisted and were of political importancebefore the

arrival of Philetairos.5The samemay be saidof thestrategoi,who proposedthe motion concerningthe treaty with Temnos;although we have no certainevidenceto the effect, it seemsmost likely that this was the normal procedure carried over from the pre-Attalid city. It is not likely that Philetairoscan have beenresponsiblefor an innovationof suchfundamentalimportance;nor crediblethat, if this were the case, he would not have been rememberedin the city's history in more explicit terms than the formal designation neosktistes, which we encounterby chanceat a much later date.6 lt seemsclear,then, that the threeprincipalorgansof legislative procedureunder the dynasts,boule, ekklesia,andstrategoi,were simply a continuation of an existing state of affairs. A further indicationin this direction is to be found in the evidenceconceming the eponymousoffice ofprytanis.TThis evidence,which comes from the so-called 'PergameneChronicle', a tantalizingly fragmentary remnant of the city's history, inscribed in the second century ADon a now very worn block in the PergamonMuseumin Berlin, constitutes our only direct information concerning the political life of the pre-Attalid city.EThe extant portion of the text 'A]pyiaE begins as follows: [- önenev [nqurdvle6 aifpeio9at u1g I nü'eaE xar'l öroE Exaofr)ov, xai nqörcE Enqur[d.lveuu 'ApyfiaE, xai iE öxefuou p6XpL vüv ngutafueuölluevotl önrtloüotv. This event, the introduction at Pergamonof the

160

2 See above. 16-19. t IvP 5:OGIS 265, = StV iii. 555. See above, 16-17. a [äyvrtt 6o]uli1 xai öqpoE yvritp4 mpat4ycöv. See Swoboda, art. cit. (n. l), 497.

s I am inclined, despitethe ambiguousletter-forms(see above, l7 n. 29), to prefer a date before the rule of Philetairos, as the treaty seemsto be an entirely independentenactment,and althoughPhiletairoshad lesscontrol over the city than EumenesI, the omissionof a referenceto the dynastseemsto me to be strikingin a document concernedwith the city's external relations.Naturally this point is tentative; it may be that the city was allowed a greater measureof freedom under Philetairosthan is usuallyadmitted.It is also possiblethat the decreewas passed on the motion of the stategoi implementingthe dynast'swishes(as Schmitthas pointed out, Sty iii ad loc., p.332), but in such casesit was still usual to refer personallyto the dynast. 6ÄM xxxiii (1908),407, no. 36; cf. BSA lxvi (1971),10. 7 On Iheprytarusat Pergamon,seeG. Corradi,Studi Ellenistici,349ff.; Magie, RomanRule, ü. 1005,n. 45. 8IvP ä. 613;OGIS 2U. Cf . Ad. Wilhelm, AM xxxix (1914),156-60.

162

163

The City of Pergamon

The City of Pergamon

eponymousoffrce ofprytanis, well known in other cities of western Asia Minor and elsewherein the fourth and third centuries,and later,e can be dated from the Chronicle itself and from other evidence.The reform is listed in the inscription immediatelybefore a referenceto the revolt of Orontes againstArtaxerxes II and his death, eventswhich took place in the 350s;we may therefore date the reform at Pergamonto the early fourth century, most probably the 370sor 360s.10 The nameArchias is traditionallyassociatedwith anotherevent at Pergamon: the introduction of the cult of Asklepios from Epidauros.The circumstancesare narratedin a well known passageofPausanias,r1and are corroboratedby referencesin inscriptions. One of theseis from the Asklepieionat Epidauros,is dated to 191nc, and recordsa grant of proxenia and enktesisto a man whosenamemay safelybe restored,forreasonswhich will shortly be apparent,as Archias:t2 I'Apyiav'Aoil"anfild.öou IIepyapr1v6v, 'Aox).antoü) iegfareüovra | Ilepyapot, npf6$)evov t[ipev röv 'Enöauqfuvl 'Anlü").avoE xai 1eapoööxov toü xai roü I 'Aoil"anlloü öÄräv d.cp[i]öguotv ltoü 9eoü,äv önoir1oavaöllrou oi nqöyovot änö rQlE nö)"eagäptbv xil,.1. A law of Pergamon passedshortly afterthe endof the monarchyconfirmedthe right of the family of ArchiasandAsklepiadesto hold the priesthood:t 3rfl, piv iegaoüvr1vlrcü 'AoxAr1nnüxai röv äA)"av1eöv röv öv rtu | ' Ao x)"r1 n Leio t [ öqupiv av elva t' Aoü.ryn t döou | rcü' A tpyi)ou xcti 'Aox),qnü.öou töv änoyövov röy I eig äna[vr]a lrlöv yq6vov.

This evidenceleavesthe supplementin the text from Epidauros beyond doubt, and it emerges that the family of Archias and Asklepiadesretained the priesthood from the fourth century to the reignof Eumenes[I, in which the decreeof Epidauroswas passed, on to the end of the dynasty,when the city of Pergamonconfirmed once more the family's hereditaryrights. That the Archias mentionedby Pausaniasis the sameman asthe constitutional innovator at Pergamon seems beyond reasonable doubt, althoughsomescholarshaveexpressedreservationsin this regard.t4It will be seen,in particular, that there is a connection between the introduction of a cult and the innovation of an eponymousmagistracy.Theprytanis, at Pergamonaselsewherein the fourth century and later, was an office of prestige but little executivepower.rslts introductionmay be seenas an administrative reform, enablingthe more accurateand convenientrecording and dating of public documents.It was also an offrce of religious significance,as is clear from evidencefrom Teos dating from the secondcentury, when the city was tributary to the Attalids. Here theprytanis is listed in a sacralinscription,after the priest of the joint cult of Aphrodite and Apollonis and the priesthood of Eumenes'queenStratonike,as takingpart in sacrifices.r6At Magnesiaand Prienein the third century it appearsat first sightthat the principal eponymous magistrate was called prytanis and later stephanephoros;in fact, it is probable that the new name was simply a title addedto the privilegesand functionsof theprytanis, thus supplantingthe old name, which does however recur, at Priene at least.rT At Chios, we find the title np0ravt'g ö oreqavqcpdpogspecificallyattested,rEand it is clear from all this

e On the eponymousoffice of prytanis in the Greek cities, see H. Swoboda, Griechische Volksbeschlüsse(Leipzig, l89O), 88, n. l; Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde(Handbuchder klass.Altertumswissenschaft, IV. r., ed. 3, Munich, 1 9 2 0 ) , 5 0 4 - 5w, i t h h i s l i s t , 5 0 5 ,n . 2 ; M a g i e R , o m a nR u l e , ü . 8 3 5 - 6 , n . 2 t . T h e followinginstancesshouldbe addedto Magie'slist: Nasos,.fGxii. 2, 646(accounts ofthe templeofAsklepiosdatedby successiveprytaneis);xol-opHoN asattestedby IvPr 57, tine 4; psoxere.OG/S ii.489, line l2 (imperial).A good exampleof the administrativeconvenienceof such an institutionis providedby /G xii. 2, 74, = Sy//.i 968 (Mytilene, third century),which recordsa list of agriculturalproduce, divided year by year accordingto theprytanis in office. to Cf. Beloch,Gr. Gesch.äi.22,240. tt ii. 26. 8: 'AgXtaEö 'ApwraiXpou rö oup6d.vondopa |qpeüovt[ oi neqi röv Ilivöaooy ia9tiE iv tr1 'Enöauptg. röv 9eöv önqydyeroig ll4pyapov. /vP 190is a statue-base honouringa later memberof the samefamily. Seein generalOhlemutz, Kulte. 123-5. t2IG iv. |.2 60. 13IvP li.251. : Sv//.31007.

f a Ohlemutz,for example(Kulte, 125),seemsto me too sceptical. r5As shown by Corradi, Studi Ellenistici, 349fr. t6OGIS 309 as revisedby L. Robert. Et. anat.9-20; see above, 150. I 7 Cf. Busolt,Gr. St aatskunde,499. IvM 5, adecreeofc. 250for the Macedonian first appearsin IvM 7D. At Archelaos,is datedby theprytanis; a stephanephoros Priene,where datingbyaprytanrswasusualin the fourth century(cf.IvPr 139),the changecan be dated to about 334: the well-known decreehonouringAntigonos Monophthalmos(IvPr 2,: Sy//.3278)refersto aprytanis, whereaslvPr3, a decree for Megabyzosof Ephesospassedshortly afterwards,hasstephanephoros.It is noteworthy,however,that the litleprytanis probablyreappearsin a laterdecreeof hiene: lvPr 73 (secondcentury; dating-formulapartly restoredbut probable)' I t J. Vanseveren,Rev.Phil. xi ( 1937),337,no. 10.Cf. Magie,Roman Rule, li. 8 t 7 ,n . 2 3 .

t64

The City of Pergamon

evidencethat during the fourth and third centuriesthe office acquired a greatly increasedimportance,not least in religiouslife. At Pergamon,the sacralsignificanceof the office ofprytanis is againclear from prescriptsof decreesof the late Attalid and early Roman periods, which are sometimesdated ini nquraveag xal feptaE [name]. 1eThere is then good reasonto associatethe introductionof the office of prytanis, and the introductionof the cult of Asklepios, both implementedearly in the fourth century by Archias, with each other. It is the first evidencewe have of the advancementof civic and religiouslife at Pergamon;this, and the importance of the city in the cult of Meter at Mamurt-Kaleh, referredto in a previouschapter(above, 15-16),show clearly that Pergamonwas already a city of cultural and political maturity before the arrival of the dynasts. Significantly,the position and prestigeof the prytanis, as we haveso far definedthem, do not seemto havebeenchangedunder the Attalids. Few documentsof the royal periodrefer to this office, but there are enoughto show that it survived in much the same form. The treaty with Temnoshasalreadybeenmentioned.To this we may add a letter written by EumenesII to the samecity, extant only in small and insubstantialfragments,but whose headingis almost completely preserved:2oEni npurd.vtog'Hpaü'eiöou rcü 'Eptrtay6gou, pltIvöE- - ll6aot),tüg EöptvrtET4pvtrtir tfit floulfit xai [röL öfipat yaipew]. At a later date, as we have noticed, the style became,at leastin civic decrees,ini npwäveory xai iep6aE. It is noteworthy that a royal letter should be dated by a civic magistracy,a point which will be taken up later in this chapter.2t Here it is enoughto demonstratethe survival of the offrce in the old form. The evidence concerning the prytanis shows, then, that this office continuedto function largelyunchangedunderthe Attalids, reAM xxxüi (1908),375,no. I (Attaloslll);AM xxv (1910),401, no. I (early Roman).An interestingparallelto this identificationof priest andpryranlsis to be found in a late second-centurydecree of Bargylia, which provides that the stephanephorosappointedshallbethepriestofApollo(Holleaux,Etudes, ii. lB0A, linesT-8,önaE xa|' Exaotovtwautöv xa1ior1ltar meEav4q6poEö iepaoiptvoE 'An6).J.avog: toü cf. Holleaux, ad loc., l8l-2). 20IvP 157,: Welles,RC 48. " Seebelow, 175-6.

The City of Pergamon

165

and affordsa clearindicationthat the civil processesof law-making were, at least as regards form, unaltered. Turning to the Pergamenestrategoi, we see the same phenomenon,but with an important difference,which characterizesmore sharply dynastic policy in regard to the city's administration. ThestrategoJwas, ofcourse, an office ofgreater substanceand power.22We havealreadyfound reasonto believethat it existedas such before the Attalid period, when its most important function was the submissionof motions for discussionto the ekklesia and boule. Throughout the Attalid pe.riodthis remained its cardinal power; all the extant decreesof the Attalid city are, with a single exception, introduced with the formula yv(bpqorparrlyöv, or an equivalent,and the body of survivingmaterialis sufücientlycopious and chronologicallyrepresentativeto renderthis fact ofgreater significancethan the mere chance of survival.23The view, expressedwith reservationsby Cardinali, that individualscould put motions to the ekklesiathrough the formal mediationof the strategoi, was basedon a doubtful restorationof a fragmentary decreewhich has since proved to be wrong.24It emergesclearly that the strategoi, as a body, alone had the right to introduce 22On the powers of the stategoi at Pergamon,see Cardinali,RP 244-45; G. Conadi, StudiEllenistici,34Tff.; Bengtson,Strat. ä.23240.Magie,Roman Rule, ii. 1006-7,n. 47 givesa list of other cities with the sameofüce, to which shouldbe addedSmyrna (OGIS 229,line l) and Priene(OGIS ll, = IvPr 14,line 2). 23A list of the extant decreesof Pergamondatableto the Attalid periodmay be useful at this point (texts which are too fragmentary to be fully ofuse are marked with asterisks):IvP 5 (OGIS 265:StV iii. 555,early third century); l8 (OGIS 267, II); 156;l6lx; l62a;166';167 (OGIS299,Eumenesll);224(OGIS323,AttalosII); 249(OGIS 338,shortly after the deathofAttaloslll):AM xxxiii (1908),375,no. I and 379,no. 2 (Attalos III). In the fragmentarydecreesit is not alwayspossibleto identify the prescripts,despitethe misfoundedoptimismof Hansen,Attalids,188, n. 143:'althoughthe formulayv6pq otpaqyay is not extantin 1IvP1nos. 156,162, and 166,it can be restoredwith certaintyin thesedecrees.'For the classificationof Pergamenedecrees,seeH. Swoboda,Rh. Mus. xlvi (1891),497-510t Cardinali, RP 244-58. OnIvP 18, which does not have the formulaTvöp4 orpat1yöv, see below,n. 25. 2aIvP ü.260, ofthe early Romanperiod,wasrestoredby Cardinali,RP256-8, to read:eioavyttTönafv uitv öüvay. yvtiprl oqaqyör,. ööo{e löt öfipot xü. ltis more likely, however, that the supplementrequired in this inscription is that suggested by Fränkel,attestedby a decreepublishedshortlyafter Cardinaliwrote, AM xxä (1907),257 ,no.8 (a),col. ä,line 44:eioayyeüdvtav töy otpatqyöv eigrlv 6outrli1v)xai töv ötipov, xr),. See on this point G. Corradi, Studi Ellenistici, 364,n. 4.

166

The City of Pergamon

businessto the boule andekklesiq,a fact of specialsignificancein that the dynast, at leastfrom the time of EumenesI, assumedthe right of appointing the strategoi, as we learn from a much discussedinscription recording a letter of Eumenes to the people of Pergamonand the city's answeringdecree. In the letter the diplomaticforms of respectare maintained,but the dynast'seffective control of the constitution is clear:2s sonof Philetairos] sendsgreetings [Eumenes [to the peopleof PergaPalamanin theyearof N.'s priesthood, monl.Thestrategoi[appointed haveclearlylfulfilled Metrodoros, Theotimos, Philliskos, dros,Skymnos, andtheiradministraall theobligations ofj theirofTice[with distinction], tion26has beenajust one. For their own partz7they haveattendedto the entire civil and sacredfunds in a way beneficialto the people and the gods.28They have even looked into deficienciesleft by their predecessors,2esparednone of thoseguilty of misappropriation,and restoredthe money due to the city. They have also been responsiblefor the maintenanceofthe sacredofferings.Their organizationhasbeenso efficientthat their successorswill be able to take over affairswithout difficulty if they follow their example. We think it right, then, that due recognitionshould be given to such in the hope that thosenext appointed3twill try to distinguishedservice,30 give fitting leadershipto the people in their turn. We have already arandhavenow decided rangedthat they receivecrownsat the Panathenaia, 2sIvP 18,: OGIS267;Welles, (Eumenes' letteronly).Thecity'sanswerRC 23 but the ingdecreeis theonly extantexampleintroduced by a privateindividual,

explanationof Cardinali(RP 252-3; cf. Bengtson,Strat. ä.233), that the special circumstancesarisingfrom honouringthe strategoi necessitatedan exceptional procedure,is usually followed and seemsto me satisfactory.I cannot accept Mus.xlvi(1891),498-9)thatdirectrecoursetotheekklesia Swoboda'sview(Rft. was possible as a regular procedure alternative to proposals of the strategoi, becausethis view is basedon lvP 18alone, which for reasonsconsideredabove hardly constitutessubstantialevidence. 26This translatestöv rc yälpl . . . fulöv ncnoAheuwar ömaiag. The supplement of a requiredat the beginningof line 5 is not immediatelyclear.Fränkel'ssuggestion partitivegenitive,e.g.röv rc yd.[pI iepav xai t(ovnohrwöu ntiwa pliv xzl., is, as Dittenbergernoted, hardly a satisfactorycomplementto the verb nolnetia. 27 [ölq' aötöv. 28I follow here the supplements of Ad. Wilhelm , Neue Beitr. v ( 1932),5: lxai oü pövov nd.oaE dE t1qE,nöLeo4 xai täg iepäg nqooööouE | 1räE oöoaE E1q' aÜtöu aixovoprixaor oupgepöwag xbr öripaL xai | [to]tE 9eoiE xü". zr (sontinuing from previous note) dA,lä xo'i tä napa).eleryptva önö töv rqörcpov d.q76iav &val1trioavteE. For d.pTtiov in this sense, see Dttenberger, ad loc., n. 5. 30p)1 ö).ryapciv röv oüntg önrcratoüwatv. 3toi petd taüta öemvüpavor: a tactful way ofreferring to a further dynastic appointment. See Cardinali, cited above, n. 25.

The City of Pergamon

t67

to write to you on the matter,with the intentionthat you discussit and bestowthe honoursyou think appropriate. This letter points directly to the key positionheld by the strategoi in the relationsbetweenthe dynastsandthe city at an early stageof their association. As important, surely, as the fact that the strqtegoi were appointedby the dynast, on which all commentators have dwelt,rzis the placeof the dynastin relationto the city as reflectedin the servicesof the strategoicited in the letter; most important is the considerationthat Eumenestook a personalinitiative, through his appointmentof the rtra tegoi, in implementing the necessaryreformsand correctionof abusesin the administration, and at the sametime, that he was able to manipulateexisting constitutionalforms, without changingthem, to his own advantage. This is surely a measureof the independenceachievedby Eumenesafter the battle at Sardis. We see also that the dynasts (the sameis true of Philetairos) stood outsideand apart from the constitution.The full headingof Eumenes' letter is not preserved,but its restorationis certain: Eumeneswas writing as any Hellenisticmonarchwould write to a Greek city. The demos replies with a decree of its own duly commendingthe board of strategoi. Thus the distinctionbetween royal and civil decisionsis clear, and the machineryis evidently allowedto operateas in any similarly constitutedGreekcity, once activated by the dynast's request. We have seen that a corner-stoneof the Attalids' policy in relation to their kingdom was their concern to keep a personal control, in one form or another, over finance, an issue that was alwaysdearto theirhearts.33 At Pergamon, an importantconsequjust ence of the situation described was that the dynast, who appointed the tamiai and the strategoi, was able to maintain a very much firmer control over the financial administrationof the city than would otherwisehave beenpossible,given the separateconstitutionalstatusof the city's administration.3a The importanceof 32SeeWelles,RC 23, ad loc.; Bengtson,Stat. ä. 232-3. 33Seeabove, l(D. 3aThis importantpoint was first emphasizedby Cardinali,'L' amministrazione finanziariadel comunedi Pergamo',Mem. Accad. Bologna, x (1915-16)181-93; cf. Bengtson,Strat. ä. 234-6.The tamiai werealsoroyal appointments(OGIS 267, lines 33-4): oi tapiat oi xaltwtöpevor, lsiclxal Evtautöv.

168

The City of Pergamon

the strategoi in this aspect of the administration at Pergamonis well attestedthroughoutthe Attalid period.Eumenes'letter to the city refers,aswe have seen,to specificfinancialresponsibilities:35 fxai oö trtövovnäoaE rd.grl1E n6)"eaExai rdg iegd.EnpooööougI epövr a Et ö t öripo t xai [r d Eoüoa Eö]cp'aür ö v ö m ovopfixa o t outrtcp önö röv npörepov I rd naqalü"etp1t4va xai ä)J.d \eoig, I ltoliE xarcoyr1xörav I tt röv xo,i oö|evöE dvalrpjoaweg &.q11etotv fact that the strategoi dnoxaüor4oav tfiL nö)'et.The Eercd.pevot were also presidents of the Pergamerreboule and ekklesia (nQotorao\aL roü örjtrtou)thereforecorresponds,in this respect,with practice in other Greek cities, where financewas largely the responsibilityof the boule.36The separationof secularand sacred funds is not an unusualfeature of financial administrationin the Hellenisticperiod,37and we will seelater that a measureof reform was introducedat Pergamonin this regard,probably in or shortly after 188,whereby the increasedburden carried by the strateSot was alleviated by the institution of new and important offrcials appointedby the king. The decree answeringEumenes' letter provides evidence of anotherdevelopmentin relationsbetweenthe dynastand the city. Here, a city festival honouringthe dynast, and a sacrificeon his behalf, are attested;amongthe honours voted to the strategoi is the provision:öööraoav öi aörcig äeio[ tapiat oi xalrLord'pevot xar' övtauröv iv tolg Eöpeueiorynq66atov, oi öä | )'apddvovreE 7utronav Eüpivu eöepy&r1uEumenesis accordinglyhonoured by the city asa benefactor,perhapsin part on accountofhis reform of the administration.No direct cult is implied, but the provisions indicate a firm and well-based relationship between city and dynast. It is evident,then, that althoughno constitutionaltitle is attested for either of the first two dynasts, Eumenesexerciseda much tighter control over the Pergameneconstitution than Philetairos had done, while allowing it, at least to outward appearances,to functionasbefore.We can say,in fact, that the positionevolvedby 3sOGIS 267, lines 6-10, as restoredby Wilhelm (seeabove, n. 28). 36H. Francotte,Les Financesdes citösgrecques(1909), l3l ff., esp. 137-9; Jones,Greek City, 241. 3?Cf. Cardinali,art. cit. (n. 34), 182,n. 4; G. Corradi,Studi Ellenisticr'383-4.

The City of Pergamon

r69

Eumenesremained the basis of dynastic relations with the city until the end of Attalid rule. There is little sign of any significant changein the positionunder Attalos I in constitutionalterms,even after his assumptionof the royal title, althoughthe lack of any extant correspondencebetween Attalos and the city precludes certainty on the point. Thereare however signs that after his assumptionof the royal title, Attalos' relationswith Pergamondevelopedin the contextof the city's religious life. Significantin this respectis the form of Attalos' reply in c.20615to Magnesiaacceptingthe city's request for recognitionof its festivalfor Artemis Leukophryene,which we havediscussedin a previouschapter.3E Attalos repliesfor himself, as king, and, indirectly, for the cities under him (ön' öpbnökry). This kind of directive to subjector dependentGreek cities in the matter of recognitionof asylia is attestedalso for the Antigonids (Antigonos Gonatas, Philip V), and the Seleukids (Antiochos III;.rr 1n Attalos' letter, however, the city of Pergamonseemsto be distinguished,in the last surviving line of the text, from the subjectcities:za[) Ilqyapq?llvoiE ööxa9' öoov ö örtpoEfahetrar.I ouvaluSrloatröv äydtva- - -. This restoration,althoughquestioned by Welles,seemsto me very plausible.ao If it is correct,it indicates that the kingdom continued to consist of the three elements evolvedunderEumenesI: the dynast,now king, the city of Pergamon, and the subject cities.arThe allied cities such as Teos and Kolophon, and, in the Troad, Alexandria Troas. Ilion. and t8 IvM 22, : OGIS 282; Welles, RC 34; see above, 45. 3eHerzog and Klaffenbach, Asylieurkunden aus Kos (Abh. Berlin, 1952), no. 6 (Amphipolis replying to Kos, 242), 13-14: eivar öi xai ü telpöv äou\ov, xct9tiztp 'AvtiyovoE xai ö 6aotleüE npoatpehaL. IvM 47,: Sy/l.3 561 (Chalkis replying to Magnesia, 206/5 ), l-3: lnepi ötv ö 61aoLküE
170

The City of Pergamon

Lampsakos,lay outsidethe scopeof Attalos' letter. The advanced status of Pergamonunder Attalos I is reflected also in the importance attachedto the city's god, Athena, who was are alsoAttalos' own patrongoddess.The PergamenePanathenaia attestedalreadyunder EumenesI,42but it wasunderAttalos I that Athena was elevatedto the sublimeposition which found its final fulfilment after the Treaty of Apameia.The templeof Athenain the city was enlargedand partly rebuilt to contain the spoils dedicated to the goddessafter Attalos' successionof military victories.a3On Attalos' coins Athena appearsas the bringer of victory,aaand an important festival, probably the forerunner of the later Nikephoria althoughnot yet calledby that name,was foundedduringthe 220s as a further recognition of the special devotion of Attalos to In this evidence Athena, his god, and the goddessof Pergamon.a5 we havea clearsignof the developmentof a relationshipbetweena king and his capital. As a resultof the Treaty of Apameia,which createdthe first true Attalid Kingdom, Pergamonbecamea royal residenceof greatly enhancedfame and prestige,and it is interestingto examinefirstly what changes,in practicalterms, were madein the city's administration,which mustobviouslyhavehadmuchmorework to do after 188,and, secondly,the ways in which the relationsbetweenking and city were developed,and in which directions. It causesno surprisethat after 188the evidencerelatingto civic institutionsand administrationbecomesmuch more copious,and our conclusionsbecome in many important respectsmore substantial. We find, in the first place, a range of new officrals not encounteredbefore 188,and thesecollectivelypoint to a reform in the administrationwhich we may reasonablyrelate to developments after the Treaty of Apameia. They also indicate a further measureof royal control over the city's affairs. Of prime importance as evidence in this respect is the Astynomic Law, an inscriptionfrom Pergamonfirst publishedby W. a2 In Eumenes' letter, and in the city's answering decree (OGIS 267, see above) it is provided (lines 17, 3l-2) that the five stategoi receive their crowns il rci6 II ava04vaio6. See further above, 122. a 3S e e a b o v e , c h . 4 ( i i i ) . a sS e e a b o v e , c h . 4 ( i i i ) a aM v P ä . 6 : O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , 3 4 - 5

The City of Pergamon

l7l

Kolbe in 1902,and re-editedby G. Klaffenbachin 1954.a6 This law, as we have it, is almost certainly a copy of the time of Trajan or Hadrian of an Attalid law concernedwith the upkeepon the part of the relativelyinsignificantastynomoiofthe streetsandbuildingsof the city.47Its reinscriptionis typical of the Romanimperialmethod of addingweight to its laws by invoking precedentsfrom the past, in this casea royal law, a6aoü'r,xögvöpoE.a8 The originallaw dates from a time when the city was fully developed,that is, during the reign of EumenesII or possibly Attalos II or III - in any event after the Treaty of Apameia- and providesthe best evidencewe have of the institutions and workings of the civil administration after 188. The office which emergesfrom this text as having the greatest authority is, as we would expect,that of the strategoi,but someof the powersthat at an earlierdatethey enjoyedalonenow appearto be shared.For example,responsibilityforenforcingthe astynomic law as a whole is sharedwith the vopocpü).axeg and the äoruvöpo4 and the ultimate responsibilityin this carefully structuredhierarchy restswith the strategoiand an ofücial attestedspecificallyfor Pergamononly by this inscription,
l'72

The CitY of Pergamon

rcü öni rfiE n67eaE;the term ö Bni rr15n6)"eagis, furthermore, attestedelsewherein the Hellenisticworld, especiallyin Egypt,of civic officials appointedby a king and, as the name suggests,it representsa senioroffice, often the most seniorin the administration.s0Evidently then, at sometime during the reign of Eumenes II, and most probably after the Treaty of Apameia, the stategoi were madeto sharesomeof their powersin the civil administration with a royally appointed öwiu1En6),eo4,who was at least their equal. The tamiai mentionedin the Astynomic Law call for no comment, being the usualfinancialofficials; they are attestedearly in the Attalid periodas appointeesof EumenesI.sr More noteworthy is the appearanceof anotherroyal appointment,ö äni röv [epöv nqooöörov,againon termsof evidentequalitywith thestrategoi.A sectionof the law dealingwith the city's springslays down that 'in their upkeepshallbe the responsibilityof the astynomoi,but the event of any necessaryrepairs, they shall report to the strategoi and the ini töv iep6v npooööav, who will make the necessary The involvementof sacredfunds in the maintearrangements.'s2 nanceof springsmay be explainedby their religioussignificance, as they were often dedicatedto specificdeities.s3Of interesthere is the fact that the authority of the stategoi againappearsto be sharedby an official holdinga specificroyal appointment,the ini 50Most notableis the office of 6 öniqE nö7eo4at Ptolemaisand Alexandria(cf. Bengtson,Srral. iii. I 28-33 ; P. M. Fraser,Ptol. AIex. 106,with furtherdiscussion, ii. 194,n. 99) and in cyprus (srrar. iii. 148)and the cities of cyrenaica (,strar.iii. 164).The evidenceis exhaustivelytreatedby Bengtson,and I neednot cite it all in detailhere.Theofficeis not foundin a technicalsensein the SeleukidandAntigonid kingdoms,but it appearsin a decreeofthe cappadociancity ofAnisa: Michel 546, re-editedby F. Cumont,REÄ xxxiv (1932),135ff'; cf. Rostovtzeff,SEHHW üi' 1533,n. 120;Bengtson,Strat.ä.253-4; althoughits date is uncertain'it seems likely that the constitutionimpliedin this decree,includingroyal appointment,is essentiallyHellenistic. st Seeabove, 167and n. 34. 52Kta. 176-180: 6är | öi rwE önnx[e]u4E npooö6owa6 npooaylyel' ),6taoav rctE otparqyotE xai töt ini I röv iepöv npoo6öav, önag ötd totitav yeilvottrat ai öxööoetE. 5r The separationof civic and sacredfundsin Hellenisticcitiesis not uncommon; we have met it in the decreefrom Bursa (post-Apameia)honouringKorrhagos (above,8&-9; cf. Holleaux,Etudes,ii. 94), and we have seenthat expensesfor a sacrifice to Attalos III were to be met 1tl iepöv xali noAumöv nQooööotv(oGIS 332,line 41, a soundsuPPlement).

The City of Pergamon

173

röv [epdtv npooööotv correspondingto the Bni rrlg n6).ea4. It seemsclear that, in this respect too, work'once done by the strategoi alone was later made a joint responsibilitywith another royal nominee.s4In Eumenes' letter to Pergamonthe strategoi appearto have completeauthority in respectof sacredfinances; the omission of a referenceto another office would be understandableif it were a subordinateone, sincethe letter is concerned with praisingthestrategoiand naturallydwellson their achievements;since,however,this considerationwould not apply to an office entitledö ini röv fegöv npooööav, we must concludethat during the rule of EumenesI it did not exist. I may adduce also in this connection a rarely discussedPergameneinscriptionrecordinga royal letter aboutthe establishment ofa priesthood,probablyofZeus.ssThe sacredfundsare, according to this letter, in the hands of the temple's priests, and no mention is made of an ia) rrlrt [tpdtv nqooööav. Admittedly the text dealswith a specificpriesthood,and not the sacredfinancesas a whole, but the omissionof an ofüce of suchimportanceis surely significant.The dating of this inscription is problematical.The text, which is now in the PergamonMuseumin Berlin (vidi August 1969),is invariablyassigned,on the basisof the letter-forms,to the reignof Attalos I;s6this is very probablyincorrect. Many of these forms indicatethe first half of the secondcentury rather than the third century. Alpha appears,as often at Pergamon,in a numberof forms and is thereforenot a reliableguide.The omicron and theta are fairly large,occupyingmost of the line, and all the other letters are well developed, especiallysigma and omega. Pi, with well pronouncedapices,is a clear second-centuryform; it is not found againin this form in any Pergameneinscriptionattributableto the reign of Attalos I. There seemsto me, on this evidence,to be a strongprobability that the author of this letter is EumenesII, and that it was written in the early part of his reign. This dating indicatesthat the reform of the sacredfinances,and with it the 5 aS e e C a r d i n a l i , a r t . c i t . ( n . 3 4 ) , 1 9 0 - 1 . ssIvP 40, : .Sy/l.r l0l8 (Hiller); Welles, RC 24; Sokolowski, Zors sauöes de I'Asie Mineure, ll. 56 So Fränkel, followed by Hiller and Welles; Paepcke, de perg. /ir. l3; Ohlemutz, Kulte, 65 ('aus dem Anfang der Regierungszeit Attalos I').

175

The City of Pergamon

The City of Pergamon

establishmentof the offrce of d öni tdtrt iepöv npooööarr,as well perhaps as other new royal appointments, were implemented shortly after the Treaty of Apameiain 188.Therecanbe little doubt that the strategoi remainedofficials of importancein all branches of the civil administration,but it is not surprisingthat with the dramaticadvancementof the statusof Pergamonin 188,additional appointmentswere required to carry the burden of increased business.

from Cappadocia.6tAs a result of an epiphanyof the god, as we learnfrom Attalos' letter, it was decidedto enshrineSabazioswith Athena Nikephoros, and the requestwas formally made that the city'register theprostagmqtain its sacredlaws':62xptvopevöÄ. taülta, önaE äv eiE röv änavra yp6vov dxivqta xai äperd.1era p6vqt,tä rc npöE | üv )eöv ripm xai rä npöE üv 'A9rivarcp qü.dv9gona, td. ypacp|vra öq' üpöt, I npooräypata Evroig itgoiE vöporyq6peo0atnap' öpiv. At the top of the stelerecordingthis and other royal letterson the subjectofAthenaios' priesthoods,is preservedthe end of a decreeof the city, which enactsthis enrolment in the sacredlaws:63liyypällrlat (sic:vidi)öb xai eiEfro)üfE ilepoüg v6povE [roöE rq)g nö)"eaE [r]6ö[t rö11rp(cprcpaxai ypqo9ar aör6r vöpot xuqiox eiEänawa röy ypövov. This legislative process,by which a royal wish becamecivic law (in this case sacredlaw), appearsthen to have consistedof threeelements:the royalprostagma, the city's decreeembodyingtheprostagma,and the enrolment in the city's laws. The last two elementsare, of course,thoseof a nominallyand apparentlyindependentcity, and we find them implementedat Pergamonalsoin respectof the city's own legislation. The decree referred to earlier in this chapter, concerningthe priesthoodof Asklepios,and passedshortly after the death of Attalos III, concludeswith a correspondingprovision:64öyygdEat öi xai tiE rcüg vöpouE| 1roüErlrlg nü,eory rö tprjqtoparööe,xai lggpfio)aloav aür6t vöpar xupiax eiEänavra röv ypövov. Theseexamplessuggestthat, with or without the initiative of a royal prostagma, the legislativeprocessremainedthe same,and that the independentconstitutionalfunctionsof the city continued to be respected.The distinctionbetweenthe city's laws,vöpottfig nö),oaE,and royal law,6aot),txöguö1toE, is further emphasizedby the evidenceof the Astynomic Law, which is a clear exampleof the latter. Of interestalso is the letter of Eumenes[I to the city of Temnos(noticedbriefly above),which is prefaced,unusuallyfor a royaf letter, with the date of the eponymousprytanis.6sOther

174

As is well known, Pergamon*uJ,run.ro.med duringthe l80s to a city of monumentalgreatness,whosewealth, beauty, and culture might, it was hoped,recall the days of classicalAthens, and rival the claimsof contemporaryAlexandria.It can be saidof Eumenes that he was a builder of great buildings,while Attalos had beena His aspirationsfor the city are best builder of greatmonuments.5? characterizedby the introductionof Athena Parthenosto standin the Library at Pergamon,and by his dedication of the rebuilt 'A?7vd.t Ntxryqöpau precinct of Athena:sEBaot)cüE Eöptvrlg The specialstatusof the city of Pergamonin the kings' regardis reflectedin a numberof documentsdatingfrom the fifty yearsor so from the Treaty of Apameiato the deathof Attalos III. Pergamon was, as we haveseen,with Teos one of the two centresof the royal cult, and the worship at Pergamonof Dionysos Kathegemonwas formally linked with the activities of the Dionysian technitqi at Teos. This has alreadybeen discussed,and I need not repeatthe evidencehere.seIt is enoughto draw attentionagainto the fact that the strongestbond betweendynast and city, especiallyafter 188, was formed by thesecult activities.Also important in this respect is a letter of Attalos III to the demosof Pergamon,informingit of his decisionto appoint his cousin Athenaiosto the priesthoodof The letter is dated 5 October 135'and was evidently Sabazios.6o written shortly after the death of Attalos' mother, Queen Stratonike, who had brought the cult of Sabaziosto Pergamon 57Cf. Kähler, Gr. Fries, 142. s8Ivp 149:cf . Avp ii. 52; Kähler, Gr. Fries, 137_8. 5eSee above, 14E-52. 6 0 O G I S3 3 1 ,I V , = W e l l e sR , C 67.

6I8SA lxvi (1971),9; cf. above, ch. 6, and below, Appendix iii. 62OGIS 331 IV, lines 57-60. 630G1S 331 I. 64Sy/l.r 1007; see above, 162. 6sIvP 157,: Welles, RC 48, quoted above, 164.

177

The City of Pergamon

The City of Pergamon

Attalid letters are dated, when they are dated at all, by the month and year of the king's reign, differing in this respect from the Seleukid practice of dating by a Seleukidera. There is a good explanationthat suggestsitself of a copy of a royal letter bearinga civic date: that this copy is of the civic, and not the royal, archive. In fact anarcheionis attestedat Pergamonby the Astynomic Law, and it is most likely that it housed copies of royal letters and prostagmata as well as copies of its own civil legislation'66This fact is further evidenceof a strongly maintaineddistinction between the royal and civil bureaucracies. It remains,finally, to considerthe territorial extent of thejurisdiction exercisedby the civil administration.After the Treaty of Apameiathe administrationof the kingdomwas, as we have seen, exclusively the concern of the royal administration,which was The significantly developödto meet these new requirements.6T to according remained, which Pergamon, at administration civil from the concept separate the conclusionsreachedabove,entirely of the kingdom,was confinedto the city itself and the surrounding country. We have seenfrom the evidenceof the ephebiclists that, apart from the citizens of Pergamonlisted with patronymic and tribe, and the l6voL listed with patronymic and ethnic, there are thosedesignatedas beingänö r1ncov,which we haveconcludedto be villagesin the territory of the city, and thereforepresumably subjectto the city's authority.oaThe fact that they are listed without tribal designationindicatesthat in the regal period they were not citizensof Pergamon;significantly,a group of katoikoi, villagers of the Pergamenechora, received citizenshipafter the death of Attalos III, accordingto the decreeconcernedwith the extensionof theserights:6eröv orearw)töv roiS xa[roltxoüotu Iri11tnö117ryxai rly Ttbqav, öpobE öi xai Maxeö6[olv xai

öurdtt cpgougiarxai ftfiLn6AeL MulooiEllxai totE ävaEegotrttvoLE ullld.pyaiat xaroixorg xai Maoöur1voigxrA. Thesekatoikoi were surely not, as has been suggested,royal mercenariesin the usual sense,70but rather membersof the village communitiesaround Pergamonwho served,as well as Pergamenecitizens,in the army as reorganizedby Attalos I. The distinction is clear, as we have seen,in the lists of namesappendedto the honorary decreesof Lilaia dating from the time of the First MacedonianWar.71It is apparentfrom all this evidencethat citizenshipof Pergamonwas closely confined, and that many communitieswere kept outside full civic life until the drasticreorganizationof theserightsafterthe deathof Attalos III. The Attalids, then, wereconcernedto promotethe esteemof the city of Pergamonin the Greek world. Its political freedom was clearly limited, especiallyafter 188,by the kings'powersof appointing important officials, especiallythe strategoi and later the Eniu1En4AeaEandthe ini töv tep6v nqoo6öav, andby their issue of royal prostagmata; but the fact that it retainedits own legislative and executive functions, its own body of laws and its own archive, quite distinct from the royal chancery, shows, despite theserestrictions,that it wasregardedasa politicalentityin a class by itself, separatein concept from the Attalid Kingdom, and in practicalterms from the royal administration,andconstitutionally self-dependent.Of greaterimportancethan theseoutward forms, however,is the undeniablespecialfavour shownto the city by the kings,and rrowheremoreclearlythan in religiouslife: its godswere ever more closelyidentifiedwith theirs, and royal and divine cults were subtly blended,the physicalglorificationof the city beingthe clearest outward expressionof this unique processof spiritual union.

r76

66 Kla. 22'1-32: öoot ö' äv röv äoruvöpuv pi1 | 9övrat rilv ö9: fautbv yQoqiv tritv cpptldrow tiE rö dpytlov ft pi1 nonioaoLv, xa9' I | ö vöpoq npomöoott, npalanaoav aütoüg of lvopoqü),axeE öpaXpiiE öxaröv xai xmalra$ätooav tiE d . E a i r d . E n p o o ö ö o u E . O n t h i s a r c h e i o n c f . B e n g t s o n ,S t a t ' ü . 2 3 8 ; c o m p a r e t h e o r r h " i o n o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e sa t S e l e u k e i ai n P i e r e i a( H o l l e a u x , E r z d e s , i i i . 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 . : Welles. RC 45 A, lines 22-5, with Holleaux's commentary ad loc., p.246). 67On the royal administration see above, ch. 4 (i) and (iv). 6 8S e e a b o v e , c h . 4 ( i ) . tg IvP 249. : OGIS 338; /GR iv. 289, lines l3-16'

?oSo Dittenberger ad loc., n. 12l.milites mercennarii regis. ln n. 13 they are expläined as quos maxime ex ptrte Graetos fuisse probabile est, and are distinguished from the Macedonians , coloni qui iam antiquitus in illis regionibus consederant. I see no reason to regard the former category as mercenaries. 7tCf. above, 33.

A P P E N D I CE S

,,.''"4\

o'* $"t- )

i *,rs"]{*y) ",-"/ 4!€

I THE GENEALOGY OF THE ATTALIDS The genealogyof the Attalids adoptedin this study, and arguedbelow, is as follows: ATTALOS m. Boa

PHILETAIROS

EUMENES

EUMENES I 1263-2411

ATTALOS

PHILETAIROS

ATTALOS m. Antiochis

II

I ATTALOSI 1241-'t971 m.Apollonis Stratonikem. E U M E N E S II (197-159)

ATTALOS II (159-138)

P H I L E T A I R O SA T H E N A I O S

m. Straton i ke (159)

ATTALOS III (born168) , (138-133) The basisof our knowledgeof the Attalids' relationshipsto oneanother is the narrative of Strabo, which also provides us with a framework of Attalid chronology(seeabove,9-ll), xiii. 4. 1-2,6234.Here we are given the following information (T[estimonia]l-6): |. fioav ö' aörit (Philetairosthe Founder)öüo döt\cpoi,nprc1furyoEpiv "Aua7oE. EöptvqE, vec|rcpoEö' öonep xai 2. ix pöv oöv Eüptvoug tytveto öpbvupoE rQ narpi Eöp6,uqE, örcö61arcü ll{pyapov xt7. 1: EumenesI). 'Ayatoü, yeyovöE "AuaToE 'Auä7ou 'AvttoylöoE, rnE 3. Ex öö xai

Appendix 1

Appendix I

182

6aot)"eügnpörog xil. 1: 611uörcöllaro rfiv &pp1v,xai ävr1yope60r1 losl). 'AnoA)'avtöoEKuQxqv4E 4. (Attalos l) xatfAmt öö ürrapaE uioüq iE " tA&a pov,' A0 fiva t'ov.o I piv oöv vedttqo t y uvamöE,Eöptu4, Art aAov,1D örcrtAeoau iötötaq {ov ö' ä77av ö nprc6ütepog EüptvqE ß6aol,Leuot (: EumenesII). 'AnäLq, ytyovört öx 5. (Eumenes ll) änöLmev uirit tilv äpyi1v 'Aqnpd1ou ?uyaqöE roö Kannaööxon 6aoAtaEZtparcvtxqE qE önftponov öö xar4orrloexai toü naööE v6outeAöaEöwoE xai tqE dpXis "Ana7ov (: Attalos II). öv d.öe).Eöv 'AndAtlt ( : 6. (Attalos Il) xar|Atrc öö d1v dpyilv rQ inrcgonn?|vrt Attalos III). A genealogicaltree basedon this evidenceappearsas follows: N.

PHILETAIROS

EUMENES

ll m. EUMENES Stratonike

ATTALOS ll

i.8.1: löxryoE. . . tDtTöratpov Pausanias llaqAayövatlXevtüvoiyov. Athenaeus xiii. 5778(fromKarystiosof Pergamon); Qü&apot öi dv Iltpytipou xai tfig xar,vfiEraörqEleyopövqE6aoü.eüoavtayitpaE B6aEaü4qiöaE ilaipaq ü yöuoEdnö llag\ayoviaE uiöv q4ot yev6o0atKapümrcgöuioroprxoiE uJropvnpao.v. to IvP ii. 613 (OGIS 264,'ChronicaPergami').The text is too fragmentary isclearfromIines restorein full, butthePaphlagonian sideofPhiletairos'parentage 14-15:laör1 öi ouvorx1oaoa- - - - lv., Ilaq)'ayövt [rö y|vo5,ttexe - - - - ]. The main problemsconcerningAttalid genealogycan be groupedtogetherundertwo headings:I. the relationshipsof the early Attalids,down to Attalos I; and II. the parentageof Attalos III. I list herethe remaining testimonia(T7-36) relating to each heading,with a discussionof each group. I. The Early Attalids.

ATTALOSm- Antiochis

I

I EUMENES

183

ATTALOS I m.Apollonis PHILETAIROSATHENAIOS

III ATTALOS It has alwaysbeen assumedin studiesof Attalid genealogythat, when 'Attalos, the son of Attalos and Antiochis' (: T3 above)' Strabospeaksof he meansus to understandthe elder Attalos, the father of Attalos I, as being the same man as.the brother of Philetairosmentionedearlier (: Tl).4 Th's evidently was the inferencemade by Pausanias(i. 8. l): ri öä "AnaAoE'Auäüou piv naig öv, döelcpÄoügöö
7. P. M. Fraser,REAliv (1952),23345, nos. l(a), lO), 2, 3; Appendix iv, no. l. Boiotian dedicationsof Philetairos:
15.Mamurt-Kaleh, p.38. Dedicationfrom the templeof Meter: Artü'oE
184

Appendix I

18.AM xxxv (1910),463-5, no. 45:Eöpövqg(Dtletaipou l"Aud,ov töv ui6v. 19.IG xi. 4. 1107,: Choix,33:.Eöptvqg Eöpövoulrcü
r85

Appendix I

Cardinali's solution of the problem, later supported by T14, and followed by Ernst Meyer, was to distinguish the father of Attalos I from the brother of Philetairos, thus: PHILETAIROS

ATTALOS

ATTALOS m. Antiochis ATTALOSI Straboand Pausaniashavetherefore, accordingto Cardinali, confusedthe first two of the name Attalos as being one person. Dtirpfeld suggested,on the other hand, that the Attalos of T15-16 was not the adopted son of Philetairosthe Founder, but the sonzcrä qtiow of another Philetairos,brother of the Attalos who was the father of Philetairosthe Founder: N.

ATTALOS

I PHILETAIROS (Founder)

PHILETAIROS

I

ATTALOSm. Antiochis ATTALOS I

This systemmakesAttalos, the father of Attalos I, a cousinof Philetairos the Founder and not, as Strabo implies, a brother; thus, accordingto Dörpfeld, Strabo(xiii. 4. 2) mistookrideAqögfor ifäöeLcpoE. Needlessto say,the postulationofa secondPhiletairosis quite arbitraryandcannotbe takenasa soundbasisfor understandingStrabo'serror, ifthere is an error. Cardinali's systemhas the virtue of doing the least possibleviolenceto Strabo'sevidencewhile explainingits evident ambiguity;nor does it at any point contradict Strabo'sevidencesince,as has been noted, Strabo only implieethat Attalos the brother of Philetairosis the sameas Attalos the father of Attalos I. What is more, in Dörpfeld's systemAttalos I is a cousinof EumenesI, a relationshipthat posesconsiderablechronological difüculties.5Cardinali'ssystemalso fits well with Tl4, while Dörpfeld's doesnot.6 From this beginning,the systemcan be built up to includeother attested relationsof Philetairosthe Founder: A. Eumenes,brotherofPhiletairosandfatherofthedynastEumenesl.According to Strabo(Tl), EumeneswastheelderandAttalostheyoungerof thetwo youngei brothersof Philetairos, andyet it wasAttalos'sonwhowasädoptedby philetaiios in thefirstinstance, andEumenes' sononlylater.A furtherdifficultyarises'from thefact thatthededicationof thetempleof Demeterat pergamon (I I I ) bearsonly 5 Cardinali, Mem. 179 ff.; Meyer 466 (with the proviso stated above, n. 3). 6 Holleaux, Erudes, ii. ll ff.

186

Appendix I

the namesof Philetairosand Eumenes,not Attalos. Cardinali and Meyer, following a suggestionof Hepding,Tconcluded that the elder Attalos, Philetairos' brother, had died by the time of the dedicationto Demeter,and that the youngerAttalos, the fatherof Attalos I, who had beenadoptedby Philetairosand marriedto the Seleukid princessAntiochis, daughterofthe elder Achaios, also died, sometime before 263, gecessitatingPhiletairos' adoption ofEumenes, son ofhis otherbrother Eumenes.s Meyer dated the marriage of Attalos to Antiochis to c. 280,eand concluded that sinceAttalos was adoptedfirst, he had a prior claim, namely that his father Attalos was the elder of Philetairos' two brothers, while his uncle, Eumenes, was the younger: 'mit anderenWorten, sein Vater (= Attalos) war der ältere, Eumenes,der Vater Eumenes' I, der jüngere Bruder des Philetairos, ganz wie Cardinali wollte.' There are two major objections to this view: l) the samepresumptionofdeath, for which there is no evidencein either case,has convenientlyto caterfor two membersof the family; and 2) Strabo namesEumenes the elder, and Attalos the younger, of the brothers of Philetairos, as we have seen (Tl). I reject it becausean alternativeexplanationis apparentwhich conforms with Strabo'sevidence. We know from an extract of Memnon (16 = FGrHist 434\thata Eumenes,very probably Philetairos' brother, held a position at Amastris similar to Philetairos' own at Pergamon,and that he came to Pergamonsome time after the battle of Corupedion, having handedover Amastris in 279to the rulers of Pontos, Mithridates II and Ariobarzanes.toIt is likely from thesefacts that at the time when Philetairoswished to designatean heir (c.280),Eumeneswas still at Amastris and not yet at Pergamon,while the younger brother, Attalos, was presumablyresident at Pergamon.It was more reasonable,therefore, to adopt the son ofAttalos than the sonofEumenes, and the choicesignifiesavailability ratherthan seniority. The later adoption of EumenesI may havebeenfor any ofa number ofreasonsbesidesdeath (such as ill health or fall from favour), and the sameis true of the omission of the elder Attalos' name from the dedication to Demeter at Pergamon. B. Eöptv1E,'Aud.ilou(T22).InCardinali'sviewhewastheeldersonofPhiletairos' brother Attalos. This view was followed by Reinach (seebelow), but rejected by Ernst Meyerr I for reasonswhich dependedon dating the revolt at Philetaireiaand Attaleia later than the end of the secondSyrian War in 252,a chronologywhich I do not find acceptable(see224, above).Meyer's own view, dependingagainon this chronology,wasthatEöp4vqg'Arrd).ouwas a youngerbrotherofAttalos I. SinceI believe that the revolt ofthe mercenariesoccurred in the years 261261, I cannot subscribeto this view: Attalos I was only about six years old at this time,I2 and a younger brother could not therefore have been involved in events of this kind. It is for positive reasons, however, that I return to the view of Smith and de 'Auä).ou Rustafaell,t3 that this Eöptqq was the brother of Philetairos the Founder, and the son ofAttalos ofTiosl that is, that the names headedA and B 7AM xxxv (1910),437-8. EMeyer 465 ff. e Meyer466. According to Seleukidchronology, Antiochos I was born about 323, his youngerbrother Achaios about 322,and his (Achaios') daughterabout 3(X);she was therefore married to Attalos about 280. It should be noted that 280 marks the year of Antiochis' eligibility; she may have married Attalos somewhat later, although this is unlikely. to Ed. Meyer, Gesch.des KoenigreichsPontos,4l; cf. Rostovtzetr,SEHHW i. 577-8, and above, 14. tt Meyer 469 ff. 12Attalos I died in the autumnof 197at the ageof72 (seeabove, l0 and n. 6); he was therefore born in 269and was six years old at the time of Eumenes'accession in 263. rr"/I/S xxii (19{2'),197; cf. Holleaux,Etudes,ii. 6, n.l.

187

Appendix I

above represent one and the same person. This view was rejected by Reinach, although he dated the revolt ofthe mercenariesto the late 260s,shortly after the accessionof EumenesI. His objection was mainly chronological:if Philetairoswas agedeighty when he died in 263,14we cannot expectto find his brother at the centre ofa conspiracy that took placea year or two later.rs This argumentclearly depends on the age-difrerencebetween the two brothers, a point on which we have no information, and it presents itself with no real cogency. Attalos II was young enough to succeed his brother in 159 and rule for twenty-one years, while the successionoffour Hekatomnids ofone generationin a previous century provides 's'il 6tait encoreen an even more forceful precedent.16Reinach'ssecondobjection, äge de jouer un röle, pourquoi n'avait-il succ€döä son fröre comme Attalos II dewait succ6der ä Eumöne II?', takes for granted the application ofthe stable dynastic successionof the later Attalids to the earlier period, an assumptionwhich the treaty with the mercenariesdisproves in itself; furthermore, it overlooks the principle, examined below, whereby Philetairos deliberately avoided the designation of his brothers as heirs. Studies ofAttalid genealogyhave tended to rely on a schematizedview ofthe successionin the early yearsofthe dynasty, whereasit is all too clearthat the issue was op€n and unsettled. It is evident that Philetairos' policy was to designate amonghis nephews,therebypassingover hisownbrothers.Sincethis is successors the only discernible principle involved, it shouldbe the basis ofour understanding ofthe eventsreflectedin T2l-2, the treaty with the mercenaries,and in particularof our identification of the rebelliousEdpiv4E'Att.ä),ou.It is possiblethat the right of EumenesI to succeedPhiletairoswas contestedby a cousin (Cardinali's view), but it is much more likely that the rival claimant was Eumenes'own father, the ex-ruler of Amastris who returned to Pergamonand was passedover in favour of the son. C.Qr),traqog Eöpivou (I23). Cardinali suggestedthat he might be the son of B above, where B is, according to Cardinali, the elder son of Philetairos' brother Attalos; thus C becomesa cousin ofAttalos I. Cardinali's systemcan be presented as follows (1, 2, and 3 representthe order of successionof the dynasts):

ATTALOS

E U M E N E S( A ) m . S a t y r a

E U M E N E SI ( 2 )

EUMENES(B) l (C} PHTLETATROS

ATTALOSm. Antiochis l ATTATOSI (3}

ra Macrobius 12; cf. Meyer 466,n.2. 15A. J. Reinach,Rev.Arch. xii (1908),185n. 3. This point naturallyhasgreater force in the context of Ernst Meyer's chronology,in which the revolt of the mercenariesis dated later than 252. t6Judeich, Kleinas. Studien (Marburg, 1892),226 ff.; Grampa, 'Nine Greek Inscriptions', in A. Westholm, Labraunda, i.2. l2l-13; G. Bockisch, Klio, li 0969), l 17ff.

188

Appendix 1

Appendix I

If however, as I believe, A and B are the same person, the genealogy can be presentedas follows (I invert the order ofPhiletairos' brothers in accordancewith Strabo, for reasons already given): ATTALOSm. Boa

P H T L E T A | R O( 1S) E U M E N E S( A : B ) m . S a t y r a (Founder) EUMENES| (2)

pHtLETA|ROS(C)

ATTALOS

I

ATTALOSm. Antiochis

I ATTALOS| (3) Ernst Meyer also made
grounds that the son of a rebel would hardly have been allowed to call himself Ileqyape6Ebeside Philetairos,the founder of the dynasty; this is not a valic objection, however, since the rebellion took place at a later date. There is greater cogencyin Preuner's argumentthat, since the dedication T23 belongsto the same time as Philetairos' own, it can hardly have been the r,vorkof a son of his nephew, separatedfrom him by two generations. r BM e y e r 4 6 3 ,n . 2 . rerhe absenceof the royal title in the caseof Eumenes is not in itself decisive, since the dedicationcould have been made, on this criterion alone, by EumenesIl before he became king. 20As Magieevidentlybelieved:Roman Ru!e,ü.7j2, n.14.

189

(Dü&aqov 'Anä7ou Eitpiv4E ö uiöE. So this possibility can be discounted with confidence. There remains Eumenes I's own brother is far more plausible:Eüptv4E Philetairos.The restorationthen suggested [Eüpivou] |
190

Appendix I

pöv eioexaAtoano tör, Eüp|vouE rcü 6aoü.6otEuiöv "Awalol)' nae(tyeyö'vetydg ht naiE öv xard töv xapöv roürott eig'Ptitpr\vXd.gwroü rfi u ouyxT1rE ouora9fivar xai rd.EnarpmdE dvavetitoao1atcpÄiagxai $eviaE.o6rog pöv oiv. . . 7a6riv. . . tryd.EäppoloioaE tfi xa?' aöröv rjAr.x(q. xrL. 26. Plutarch, Moralia l84B: EüpivrlE ßnt6ouleu?eiEönö llepoioE äöo[,e re9vdvat' tr1göö qipqs eis ll4pyapov xoltn9eto1g,"ArraTogö d.öeAqöE aöroü neqr.06pevog rö öüöqpa xai d1v yuvaixa yrjpaE iflaoileuoe nu9öpevoEöö npooüwa lövra röv äöe\cpövdnrjwryoev öonep eit60et perd.röv oaparcqu).äxotv öopd.rrcväyon. ö öä Eüptv1E qü.oqpövaE äonaodpevog aöröv xai npöE rö olE eintbv, ,oööiv ä)Jo napä ndwa röv 6[ov oül einev ünonroy oüre önotqoev,ä)"Adxai tü.euritv ixefuE ü1v yuvaixa xai ü1v 6aot).ei,au dnöAr.nev.äv0' dtv Exeivog oüööv öl 6awo6 ttxvov ä1perpe,nü)öv yevopivau, cilLd. rtit Eöpfvoug uiE rilv daotletav ht ldtv övfl,ixrp yevop€vEnap6öaxe.Ibid. 489F:"Aua)'og oöv ö nprc6ütarcg aöro6 töv äöe)'cpöu,ävlp önrcLx)1E xai negi üv Eöpfv1 nävuttrt äqrmoE, oö pövov daoÄeüg äv4yope604 önöqo6.pevoE,aL).d xo,i d1v yuvaixa ü.öeAqoü Zrgarcv[x4v äyqpexai ouvfiL9ev. (The samestory then follows.)zf orlu ixtr,vog (Attalos); äno9avöwog aüroü (EumenesII) naLö[ou oüöö Ev rj067r1ouix rfiE yuvaLxöEdve76o0at,texoüoqE noL[dxLE, äAAd röv öxe(vounaröa 1qdEaExai ävöqcitoaEht löv ön6.0qxeü öü.ör1paxo,i 6aoü"6a ngooqyöpeuoev. Cf. Livy, Epit. lviri: Attalos, rex Pergami, Eumenisfilius,' Florus i.35.2: Attalus rex Pergamenorum,regisEumenis filius. 27.IvP 246, : OGIS 332. Decree, probably of Pergamon,honouring Attalos III, who is called (lines 2l-2, 24-5, 44-5) 6aoÄeüE"Ana7og
Appendix I 20

l9l

'Attä).oL xat' ölnnponilv öä öxeivar. oötog öö1 'ArtdAarl dnööaxcv tiliv daoÄeiau dzo9vy'loxut ttirtoüEöpiv[ouE----

35. Appendixiv,no.24,lines2-3: äSrcE. . . qE'AwdTou üöeL1cpoü lpou naöe(laE. e 'Auü,o[u---l 36. Börker and Merkelbach,Inschr. von Ephesos,no. 200: I öoü. 1eoü Ei;p6lvou(d Zannlpolg. Apart from T24, which revealsthe young Attalos as the still unrecognizedheir of EumenesII in 168/7,all the evidence,literary and epigraphical, emanatingfrom Pergamonand elsewhere,indicatesthat Attalos III was the sonxatd qüow of EumenesII andhis queen,Stratonike.T24,the statementof Eumenes'physicianStratios,quotedby Polybios,certainly throws an isolated but effective doubt on this conclusion, and since Köpp's argument,basedon this passage,that Attalos III was the son of Stratonikeand Attalos II, a considerablebibliographyhas grown up on this subject.22Köpp's argumentwas devisedfrom the tradition found in Plutarch(:T26) that Attalos II took the throneand marriedStratonikefor a short time in l7l after EumenesII had been attackednear Delphi anc was for a while thoughtto be dead. Fergusonand others,following Köpp and noting the passageof Polybios(:T20 which showsAttalos III to be unrecognizedby EumenesII five years later, believedthat he was the outcome of this temporary union of Attalos II and Stratonike.2l The objectionusuallyadducedagainstthis view is that if Attalos III was born in l7l or 170he could hardly be describedas ört naiE öv in 152 (Polybiosin T25), for he would then havebeeneighteen,and maturity at Pergamonwasreckonedfrom the ageof fifteen,2abut this reasoningseems " F. Köpp,jDe gigantomachiae usu' (Diss. in poeseos artisquemonumentis givenby Hansen, Bonn,1883); Rh. Mus.xlviii (1893),l5zt-5.To thebibliography Rule,ä.772,n. should beaddedtheworkscitedby Magie,Roman Analids,4Tl-4 see II by a concubine, 76.For the viewthatAttalosIII wasthe sonof Eumenes to Nieseiii. 20/',n. 4: Magie,loc. cit. Thisis clearlyan arbitraryviewdesigned explainT24 in the simplestway; thereis no evidenceto supportit, and it is presented here. by the arguments discounted 23OnthisincidentseeLivy xlii. l5-16,theonlyreliableaccount (seebelow).W. explained in termsof theseeventsan inC. Phil. i (1906),231-4, S. Ferguson, admittedlyunusualdedicationfrom ThracehonouringEumenesII (OG1J302)in xai Eöepyötou.Two dedicationsto the form dzäp 6corltöag Eöpivou
192

Appendix I

to me to have little force, sincethe evidencecomesnot from Pergamonbut from Polybios, who uses the sameterm elsewhereof the seventeen-yearold Philip V of Macedon (see below, n. 30). On the other hand, the evidenceon which Köpp's view rests is hardly reliable. Livy, who in following Polybios provides us with the nearest to a contemporary account, merely narrates that Attalos II took the opportunity provided by news of Eumenes'presumeddeath to court Stratonike(xlii. 16. 7-97:.zs Attalusquoqueceleriusquamdignumconcordiafraternaeratcredidit;namet cum uxorefratriset praefectoarcistamquamiam hauddubiusregniheresestlocutus. dissimulare QuaeposteanonfefellereEumenen;et quamquam et tacitehabereet pati statuerat,tamenin primo congtessunon temperavit,quin uxorispetendae immaturamfestinationem fratri obiceret. It is the later and thereforelessreliabletradition,representedby Plutarch (:T26), that elaboratesthe story into one of marriagewith Stratonike and assumptionof the kingship.Furthermore,eventhis later traditionfails to meet the demandsof Köpp and Ferguson.According to Plutarch,'many children' were born of Attalos II and Stratonike,but none was raisedby Attalos, and the crown was allowedto passto Eumenes'son. Apart from the obviousobjectiontliat even in this tradition, on which Köpp and his followers,includingFerguson,rely, AttalosIII is nameda sonof Eumenes II as distinct from the children of the alleged marriage of Attalos II and Stratonike,it is clear also that in this tradition the children of Attalos II werethoughtto havebeenborn ofthe marriageeventuallyconcludedafter the deathof Eumenesin 159.Finally, this later versioncan be discredited on another count. In Mor. 389F Attalos II is said to have 'shared the diadem(with Attalos III) and calledhim king'. This statementis true only to the extent that Attalos III appearsto have sharedin some decisions beforehis formal accession(seebelow); beyondthat it is contradictedby contemporaryrecords,and in particularby the letter written by Attalos II to his cousin Athenaiosabout the priesthoodof Dionysos Kathegemon (:T28), in which Attalos III appearswithout the royal title, in the simple form'Ana),oE ö r&öü.cpoüuroE.This documentis datedto 142nc, a year in which Attalos III was,on any chronologicalview, well beyondmaturity and old enoughto succeedin his own right; indeed,Köpp's view leadsto the conclusionthat he was nearly thirty yearsold in this year! It is clear, then, that the tradition on which Köpp and Fergusonhave relied not merely fails to support their conclusion, but even contradicts it on a number of points, and is itself discreditedon another. Attemptshavebeenmadein this connectionto estimatethe year of the birth of Attalos III. Those who follow Köpp and the corrupt tradition of coursedate this to 17l or 170;the problemsraisedtherebyhave already been indicated.Eumeneswas betrothedto Stratonike,the daughterof AriarathesIV of Cappadocia,in 188sc, and the marriageprobably took place shortly thereafter,althoughthe exact date is not known.26On the 2sThis point was rightly emphasized by Nissen, Kritische (Jntersuchungen (Berlin, 1863),246. 2 6L i v y x x x v i i i . 3 9 . 6 ; s e e b e l o w , A p p e n d i x i i i .

Appendix I

r93

evidenceof T25, Attalos III cannot have beenmuch more than eighteenin 152,the year ofthe embassiesin Rome, and thereforecannot havebeen born much earlier than 169: hence the objection raised by Magie and others, that 'even granting that Stratonike and Eumeneswere not married for several years after their betrothal in 188,it is difücult to believe that their son was not born until after 167' (167 being Magie's terminus post quem, interpreting hr naig öv in T25 as implying an upper age limit of hfteen in 152,but seeabove).This absurdgeneralizationis admittedly less fanciful than the implied notion of Ferguson: 'Stratonike had been childlessfor over sixteenyears; she now (l7l) becamepregnant,and, in due course,bore a son . . .'; but it shouldhardly be necessaryto point out the irrelevanceand historicalworthlessnessof this kind of argument,or to state the requirement of more cogent argumentsin support of so loose a hypothesis.2T We remain, then, for the time being,with an estimateof c.167 for the yearof the birth of Attalos III. Furtherattemptshavebeenmadeto reacha moreexactdate. In a decreedated147I 6 (:T30), Attaloswas honouredby the newly promotedephebesofthat year, but thereis no soundreasonfor supposingthat he was one of their generation,that is, that he wasfifteenin 147I 6 andthereforeborn in 16211,28and I do not believethat this pieceof evidencecan be expectedto make any precisecontributionto the problems of Attalos' chronology.There is, however,a line of enquiry which hasnot beenattemptedin studiesof this problem,but is more securethan many others more usuallyfollowed. Attalos II continuedto rule until his death in 138 although Attalos III, over whom he had been appointed epitropos (T5;,'6u6 reachedan ageof majority well before then, and was associatedwith a decisionof Attalos II in a documentdated l42ll (T28' 'lhe younger Attalos x*qixapey xdyis xai ["Atra7]og,ö üöelqoü uiöS). was also involved in dealingswith the Pisidiancity of Amlada,according to one ofthe lettersofAttalos II to the city (I29); thesedealingsshouldbe datedto the late l50sor the early l40s ratherthanlater, sincethey resulted from the Galatian war of Eumenes II, to which referenceis made in This evidenceshowsthat Attalos anotherletter ofthe correspondence.2e III was participatingfully in the administrationof the kingdomat aboutthe time of his visit to Romein 152;clearly, then, we must interpretPolybios' designationär t naiE öv with referenceto this year(T25)asimplyingan age more advancedthan that of childhood,and 167becomesaterminusante quem of Attalos' birth.ro All the considerationsso far discussedsuggestthe year 168as the most likely dateof the birth of Attalos III. He will then havebeensixteenin 152, a conclusion consistent with Polybios' evidence, as we have seen. Stratios'words, as reportedby PolybiosinT24, now requiresomeexpla2 7M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , ü . 7 7 3 ; F e r g u s o n , l o c . c i t . ( n . 2 3 ) , 2 3 1 4 . 28In Hansen's view , Attalids, 474, this 'seems probable'. I do not think so. 2e Appendix iv, no. 23; see above, 143-4. 30Note that Polybios at iv. 2. 5 uses the same expressionör r naiE öv of Philip V of Macedon at the age of seventeen.

t94

Appendix I

nation, and this will hinge ultimately on the interpretation drawn from the words orlöizar yd.gävaöeöeryp4vog BnSyTaveu xatd. q6ow aiögöv aöup ö perd. raüta önöeläpevoE tilv opyrjv. If my chronological conclusion is correct, Attalos was born at about the time of Stratios' visit to Rome in 168/7:so, while Cardinali's interpretation of the worddvcöederyptvoE as 'born' is clearly wrong,3r it may be understoodto mean 'recognized' in the sense'made public knowledge', if the child was either born or expected shortly before Stratios' departure for Rome. Polybios' use of the word dnaöla of Eumenespoints to the secondof thesepossibilities. We may now usefully summarizethe conclusionsreachedas follows: l6El7 Stratios'embassyto Rome(:T24) 168 Birth of AttalosIII Late l50s AttalosIII takingpart in the royal administration, but not giventhe royal title beforel3E 152 Attalos,agedsixteen,visitsRome(:T25) 147/6 Attalos,agedtwenty-one,is honouredby the ephebesofthe year (:T30) The earliest dated document referring to Attalos III as Eumenes' son is T32, a decreeof Miletos passedabout 159.:2This meansthat recognition of Attalos was grantedbetween 168and 159,but no further precisionof this point is possible,and it contributeslittle to a solutionof the problems concerningAttalos' parentage. rt Cardinali, RP 137;cf. Magie,RomanRule,ä.772-3. 32This decreehasbeendatedin the pastto between163and 160,and has thereforebeenusedasaterminusantequemof therecognition of AttalosIII thatis conveniently close to the supposedterminus post quem of 168/7 (see MaFie,Roman Rule, 1i.773): for the date adopted here, see above, I l6-18.

il THE GALATIAN WARS OF ATTALOS I AND HIS ASSUMPTION OF

r H E R O Y A I -T I T L E As we saw in chapter three, the chronology of Attalos' Galatian wars depends to a large extent on the dating ofthe dedicatory inscriptions and monuments celebrating his victories, and I have postponed to this point the detailed arguments whose conclusions are followed in the main body of the book. The monuments with which we are concerned may conveniently be divided into three groups:r (l) The round base of a large monument which waS evidently intended to be a show-piece in the precinct of Athena at Pergamon.The base bears the following inscription QvP 20, = OGIS 269): "Arra)"oE, ttxrjoaE pdjg4r Td.rctfoaylouE fa7fua)s n[epi nqydE] fBaotleüg Kaixfou notapoü, 1ap {mlfi fprcv' A0]rl [r,at'i. (2) A large bathron which probably originally carried reconstructions in bronze figures of battle scenes;the inscriptions are /vP 2l-8, : OGIS 273-9. The first of thlse inscriptions (1vP21, = OGIS 273) is the dedication to Athena of the whole monument, pmbracing all Attalos' recent victories: 'A9qvat. -ÄwaloE röv xatd nö)'epov I dydtvav Tapntrtpn Baoü.eög victories: refer to individual The other inscriptions associatedwith this monument IvP 24, : OGIS n6 (victory over the TolistoagianGalatiansat the sourcesof the River Kaikos): 'Anö üE nepi n4yfdgl Kaixou notapoi I npög Tld"t'o)toayioug fd'ätaE pdyne. (CompareIvP 20 above,and IvP 51, discussedbelow.) IvP 21, = OGIS 275 (victory over the Tolistoagian and TektosaganGalatiansand Aphrodision):2 Antiochos Hierax at the 'Agpoöiorcv npöE TofumoayiouE I lxai Texrooä1(y)aE l'Arö qg nepi tö| ld'<),>&tag xai'Avt ioXovpd74E. Hierax in Phrygia): IvP 22, = OGIS 274 (victory over 'üJ'14]ol1n6wou npö;'Alw[oyov pdxqE. ['Anö qE ip
t96

Appendix II

"Aua).os) 'A9quar xai | 1än\ö4E napd. ftövl I l"Apnaoov öy Koptat I ngöE 'AvrioXov | @i] pdpnE| The victories over the Galatiansand Antiochos Hierax were further celebrated by a dedicationto Z€usand Athena madeby the soldierswho had taken part in them (IvP 29, = OGIS 280, of c.227):a "Aua).ov 'Enry6v4E Baoü.6a xai oi riyepöveg xai ovpafldtlrat I o[ | ouvayoturcäpetot ritE npöE rcüg ltü]d.rag lxai 'Avtloyov pdyaE yapnlrlfpn I /Li,'A9r1var. The largebathron also includedthe victorieswon by Attalos over Lysias and the strategoi of Seleukoslll, and was therefore erectedat a later date thanlvP 29 (IvP 25 + 26, = OGIS 277):'Anö qE napld - - - - rualöE Aluloiav lxai rcüE2ü.1e6xoa oqarlqyolü)g ptiyqg. (3) A number of small basesinscribed with individual dedicationsfor these same victoriesQvP 33,34,35(= OGIS 27.2),16,37,5l,s53,58(= OGIS 271)).Insomeof thesededicationsAthena has the cult epithetNikephoros, and the style and lettering ofthe inscriptions, quite different from those ofthe round base and the large bathron,showthat they wererededicationsofthe reignofEumenesII, as we have seenin our discussionof Eumenes'developmentof the PergameneNikephoria.6 Of these inscriptions, it is those under headings (l) and (2) that contribute significantly towards a clarification of the chronology and implications of the wars of Attalos L The victory over the Tolistoagian Galatians was clearly held to be of particular importance, since it was further commemorated by an exceptionally splendid and prominent monument, thelarge bathron, to be set up in the temple of Athena.? It can therefore be identified with a high degree of probability with the victory which, according to the literary sources, led to Attalos' assumption ofthe royal title: Polyb. xviii. 41.7-8: vmfioaEydp pdyl fa).dtag . . . raüqv öp7i1vtnotfioarc xo,i rött npdrtov aöüv ööegt 6aoü"ia. dlyau öö qE tryfiE raürqE xai duitoaEöq öüo npöE rctg ö6öoprixovta, toüray öö 6aoü,eüoagrenapdxowa xai üttapa. "Awü.og Strabo xiii. 4. 2, 624: örcöt[arc d1v dpXfiv, xai äv4yoptü1q daorleüg npöroE, vmrjoaElü.dtaE paTp peyd)"r1. Pausaniasi. 25. 2: xai fü.äiav tilv öuMuoiq. cp9opdvdv604xev"AttaToE öoov rt öüo n476tv txaorov. Pausanias is the only one of these writers to name the area in which the battle took place, iv Muoig, a description which fits well with the designation of the dedicatory inscriptions, 'at the sources of the Kaikos'. We know from Livy that Attalos refused to pay the Galatians tribute, and it a On the date see Kähler, Gr. Fries, lE5, n. 18. sIvP 5l has been convincinglyrestoredby Kähler, Gr. Fries, l9l, n.56, as follows (I give my readingstaken from a study of the stone in Berlin ): BaoÄtüg "Aftfld"oE 'A9qu& N[r,xr:'9]öpox"I dnö qE nepi npyyd4 Kaixoul I I Aü xai nlgög Tü.nroayiougl fnorapolü I tlaTdrcg pämd. 6 Seeabove,ch. 4 (iii). 7 The possibility that these monuments refer to two separate attacks of the Tolistoagianson Pergameneterritory, the 'sources of the Kaikos' being a natural point of entry for such attacks, may be discounted. The large bathron includes a dedicatory inscription referring to the war with the strategoi of Seleukosand is thereforeto be dated to the end ofthis seriesofwars: it would surely have referred to two victories over the Tolistoagiansif there had beentwo. SeeKähler, Gr. Fries, 182.

Appendix II

t97

was doubtlessthis refusalthat led to the battle, Attalos' victory, and his assumptionof the royal title.s It remainsto determinedatesfor theseevents.The literary sourcesgive little indicationof date, but they do imply that the victory, and Attalos' consequentassumptionof the royal title, occurredearly in his reign. On the other hand, we have to allow enoughtime for Attalos to have achieved the reorganizationof his army which, as we saw in chapter 3, in all probability inspiredAttalos' decisionto resistthe Galatians.eIt hasbeen arguedfrom Polybios' words 6aorAeüoaErenaqdxowa xai ünaga that Attalos took the royal title in the first year of his rule, thus 'reigningas king' for the specifiedforty-four years (241-197).It is clear, however, that Polybios'statementis compressed,and that an exact distinctionbetween dynasteiaand,basileia would be out ofplacein sucha summarycontext.l0 The only other literary source that gives an indicationof date is the prologueto Book xxvii of Trogus, which placesa Gallic victory won by Attalos after Antiochos Hierax's defeatof SeleukosII at Ankyra: Tryphonem. itemin Asiaadversus Seleuci bellumin Syriaadversus Rolemaeum fratremsuumAntiochumHieracem,quo belloAncuraevictusesta Gallis.utque Galli Pergamovicti ab Attalo ZaelamBithunumocciderint. I do not believe,however,that the battlementionedhereis to be identified with the one in which Attalos defeatedthe Tolistoagian Galatiansat the sourcesof the Kaikos.I I lt is true that Trogusdoesnot refer to Antiochos Hierax in corlnectionwith this victory, andthat this omissionfits well with the rest of the tradition, in which Attalos' great Gallic victory is said to havebeenover Galatiansand no one else,but the point hasno force when account is taken of the natural brevity and summary nature of the prologues,in which points of detail (or lack of them) are neither here nor there.In my view Trogus' locationof the battle'at Pergamon'is decisive: the battle is not the one at the sourcesof the Kaikos, but the one which, according to our epigraphicalevidence, took place at the Pergamene Aphrodision, the only one to fit with Trogus' description. This conclusionreceivessomesupport,for what it is worth, from what little sensecan be made of the correspondingpassagein Justin's account:I 2 interearex BithyniaeEumenessparsisconsumptisque fratribusbello intestinae invasurusvictoremAntiochum discordiaequasivacanlemAsiae possessionem Gallosqueadgreditur. This passagemakessenseonly if Justin is referringto Attalos I of Pergamon, and not to the bogusEumenesof Bithynia, and an importantvictory over AntiochosHierax andthe GalatianssuchasJustindescribescan only be identified with the one that is prominently commemoratedon the great bathron:again,that is, the victory at the Aphrodision.I do not think, then, 8 xxxviii.16.14;seeabove,30-1. e Seeabove,32-3. t0Wilcken,RE, s.v.Attalos(9),2160;'cf. Kähler,Gr. Fries,l8l, n. ll. rr For this identification,seeKähler,Gr. Fries, 182-3. r2xxvii.3.

198

Appendix II

that Trogus and Justin between them are referring to two battles, the one with the Galatiansat the sourcesof the Kaikos and the one with the Galatians and Antiochos Hierax at the Aphrodision, both of which are consequentlyto be dated after the battle at Ankyra; I think that they are referring in corresponding contexts to the same battle, the one at the Aphrodision. Thus the battle at the Aphrodision is to be dated to the years after the battle at Ankyra, but Attalos' great Galatian victory is not necessarilyto be dated to this period on the basisof the argumentsso far presented. Thesechronologicalproblemsare further aggravatedby the fact that the battle fought betweenAntiochos Hierax and SeleukosII at Ankyra is itself of uncertaindate. In Bickermann'schronology,which hasfound general acceptance,the battle is dated to 239, three years before the peace between the two brothers attestedfor 236,the one fixed chronologicalpoint of theseyears.r3This chronologyassumesa resumptionof Hierax's war with Seleukos,and that with Attalos, after 236, and is largely dependent on the premissesthat Attalos took the royal title before 236 and that his Galatian victory was part of the war with Hierax: the f,rrstpremisscorresponds with the view adoptedhere, but the seconddoes not. It is more likely that the entire seriesof battlesinvolvingAttalos,AntiochosHierax, and SeleukosII, shouldbe datedafterthe yearofpeaceattestedfor 236.In this caseAttalos'victory at the Aphrodisionis alsoto be datedafter 236. We still have, then, to determinethe date of Attalos'victory overthe Galatiansat the sourcesof the Kaikosand his assumptionofthe royal title. Those who regard this victory as connected with the status of the Galatians as mercenariesof Hierax naturally date this to the years of Hierax's war with Attalos, after 236on the argumentsdiscussedabove. There are, however,two points to be emphasized.Firstly, Attalos' dedicationsfor this victory make it quite clear that his opponentswere the Galatians fightingalone;when Hierax is involvedhe too is mentionedin the relevant dedications.Secondly,the Galatians'attackon Attalos is not connectedin any part of our tradition with the war with Hierax; it is far more plausibly to be associatedwith the maraudingactivities which enabledthe Galatians to demand tribute from those who wanted to be safe from them. Theseconsiderationssuggestthat we shoulddate Attalos' victory to the years before 236, and more precisely to 238 or 237, years which take account of the time required for Attalos to assume power in 241 and complete the reorganization of the army at his disposal. The defeated Tolistoagians,joined by the Tektosagans,later enteredHierax's service and reappearedas Attalos' enemies at the Aphrodision. The chronology of the epigraphicalevidence relevant to Attalos' titulature is also obscure.OG/S 268,a decreefrorn Bakir, dated,daoü,eüowog 'AtrdLou, npbtou houg, is more probably to be dated to the reign of Attalos II or III, than to that of Attalos Lta Equally suspectin this context is a letter from Somain the upper Kaikos valley concerning the remission 13SeeE. Bickermann, Berytus,vüi.2 (1944),76 ff.; Kähler,Gr. Fries, 183. ta See above, 105.

Appendix II

199

of taxespaid by thekatoikoi of Apollo Tarsenos,which is headedwithout "ArraToE - - -l the royal title: ya(gew, and is dated to a twelfth regnal lyear:IB l6oqou l[- - - - llMl6ltavöqoE ix Ileqydpo[u].This document has now been shown to be a letter of Attalos II written during the reign of his brother, EumenesII.t5 Finally, stampedtiles from Pergamonbearing the monogramBA and numbers from five to forty, have been adducedas evidence that Attalos assumed the royal title and antedated his regnal yearsin or beforethe fifth year ofhis accession,but the identity ofthese numbersas regnalyears is extremely tenuous.l6 More important is an Athenian decree of 22918,which contains an obscurereferenceto a king whoseinitial letter is A: [izredi - - . .]vroExai ngörepouiv nawix[apöt lrcü 6aoÄ6atE'Al-lrcüE Alipa\7oüg - - - - -1. The two possibilitiesfor restoration are, clearly, 6ctot76ag 'Afvrtyövou] 'A[ud).ou]. and6aor76ary If it refersto Attalos, this decree constitutesthe earliestdocumentaryevidenceof his useof the royal title. It would thus establish229 as a terminus ante quem of Attalos' Gallic victory. It has beenarguedthat the king referredto in this decreecannot be Attalos, onthe groundsthat Attalos'Gallic victory, afterwhich he took the royal title, was the final event in his campaignsagainstAntiochos Hierax and necessärilylaterthan the archonshipof Heliodorosat Athens, the year in which the decreewas passed.rTThis chronologyis not supported by the evidence, however, and this objection therefore cannot stand. tsAM xxiv (189\,212tr. Cf. L. Robert,BCÄlliii (1929), 15lf., Welles,RC 47. Boehringer's attempt(ÄvPix. 92)to ascribethisletterto AttalosI, andto arguethat a terminuspost quemfor its the absenceof the royal title thereforeestablishes (Wien.Anz.lxxväi (:year I l), although in 230/29 followedby Schober assumption (1941),9-12),wasconvincinglyrefutedby Kähler,Gr: Fries, 182. f6 Boehringer,AvP ix. 136.The monograms wereidentifiedas B(AEIAEAE) loc. cit. (n.13),77-8. A(TTAAOY)by Bickermann, t7IG ä} 833;A. C. Johnson,AJPlr followedby A. Wilhelm, xxxiv(1913), 3E&-9, iii (1925),58. Att. Urkunden,

Appendix III

m QUEEN STRATONIKE The publication in Altertümer von Pergamon viii. 3 of a statue-baseof QueenStratonike from the temple of Demeter in Pergamon,may serve to clarify a number of problems concerning her chronology and titulature. t The base is inscribed with the dedication, ö ö/lpoq | 6ao[7noav Drgarcvfuqv l6aoü,6ary'Aqngä1ou läpetrlgilvexevxai eövofuglulE eig öauröv.2This invites comparisonwith an Atheniandedication,now long 'A9qva[futvl known, of a statueon Delos:ö ör1poE ö | daoiTLooav2rqa'Aqnpdl?oul rcvfixr1v]| 6aoÄ6ory äqenlE tvexev xai d,votaE I n1Eeig | 'Aqf pöt' fiqfloi,'A(n)ölLLavLl. r The problem posedby this öauröv, | Delian dedicationhas been, that although Stratonike is given the title 6ao(Anoa, she is also called daughter of Ariarathes (IV of Cappadocia), thereby suggestingthat the dedication was made before her marriage to EumenesII of Pergamon,to whom she was betrothedin 188sc.a Now, outsidethe PtolemaicKingdomthe useof the titledaolTrcoaof a princess, I Seenow Hopp,(Jntersuchungen,2T-9, whoseconclusion differsfrom that reached here.Verylittlehasbeenwrittenon Stratonike. Geyer'sarticle,RE, s.v. (l I ), IV. A.l ( l93l), 321-2,is inadequate, anddwellstoomuchon thequestion of the parentageof Attalos III, at the expenseof more importantconsiderations. Niese'sarticle,R.E,s.v.Ariarathes (4),II. I (1895), 8 l7-l 8,doesnotdealat length with the problemsconcerningStratonike'smarriage.For the importanceof Stratoniketo thecult of Sabazios at Pergamon, touchedon below,seeOhlemutz, Kulte,269-72. 2 Habicht,ÄvP viii.3,'DieInschriftendes Asklepieions'(1969), pl.2(mentioned on p. 28,anddatedas'gesetzt nach188').Thetextis noticedby J. andL. Robert, Bull. 1971,no. 538.It is strangethat this importantinscriptionhashithertoremainedin thedark;aslongagoas1940,Ohlem\tz(Kulte,222,n. 56)referred to it as 'nochunveröfrentlicht'. 3CIG 2280:OG/S 350;Durrbach,Choix, 89:Inscr. de Dölos, 1575.

a Livy (from Polybios) xxxviii. 39. 6: et Ariarathes rex parte dimidia pecuniae imperatae beneficio Eumenis, cui desponderat per eos dies filiam, remissa in 'Aptopd.|qv amicitiam est acceptus. Cf. Polyb. xxi. 41. 7: roiE öi nepi ünu (Cn. Manlius Yulso) ö[axöon tä),avta ööwaE i1v eipriv4v ö1ew, and xxi. 45:Md),tog 6 'Apnpö.ilou av9ünarcg tptaxöon td)"awa npaS,ö.pevog ncp' qi),ou aitöt önonjoarc'Poryalav. See also J. Seibert, Hist. Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit (Historia, Einzelschriften, 10, 1967), I l3-14. The initiative for this marriage alliance lay certainly with Ariarathes, as rightly noted by Seibert (l l4), and not with Eumenes (which would be incomprehensible), as wrongly deduced by McShane, Foreign Policy, 173, and Will, Hist. pol. ü. 193:. 'Eumöne lui demanda la main de sa fille.'

20r

as distinct from a queen,is otherwiseunknown.sIn the caseof an Athenian dedication,two explanationsare apparent:either (l), the Athenians retained Stratonike's patronymic as a special mark of friendship to Ariarathes V, a benefactorat Athens6(in this casethe baseshouldperhaps be datedafter 163,when this Ariarathescameto the throne),or (2), they designatedStratonike 6aoA.ooa as the bride betrothed to Eumenes,the queenvery shortlyto be (in this casethe baseis datedexactlyto 188nc). It was perhapsenvisagedthat by the time the basewas completedand the statue ready for erection, Stratonike would have become, officially, queen. An important point needsto be consideredbefore we proceed. Although Stratonike was betrothedto Eumenesimmediatelyafterthe Treaty of Apameia, we have no evidenceas to the date of the actual marriage.In the circumstances,however,we may concludethat the intervalwill have been minimal. Prior to the Treaty of Apameia Ariarathes IV had been Eumenes' enemy in the Antiochic War, having married Antiochos' daughterAntiochis shortly before the war, probably in 195.7Ariarathes supportedhis father-in-lawin the war with Rome, and gave help to the Galatiansduring the'campaignsof Cn. Manlius Vulso.8Thus the Caps As pointedoutby Durrbach, whodatedthe Dittenberger, Choix,p. 150,against dedicationante hiemen 18918a. Chr. n. (ad loc., n.l). For the designationof a Ptolemaic princess as flaoil,rcoa, see especially IG ix.2 l. 56 (Thermos); cf. U. Wilcken.ArclrivfürPapyrusforschung, vi (1920),453; W.Otto,ZurGesch.derZeit des 6. Ptolemöers(Abh. München, l9l4), 14, 120,n. 9. The suggestionof Th. Reinach,Trois royaumesde I'Asie Mineure (Paris,1889),15(cf. W. S. Ferguson, HellenisticAthens (London, l9l l), 301),that the statueof Stratonikewas erected on Delosafter the deathof Attalos II, whom the widowed Stratonikemarried in 159, is implausible; she would not at this late date be called 6aoü.noa Ztparcvtxq 'Apnpä9oo, 6aoü.iaE on Delos or anywhere else. The basefrom Pergamon,as that the interpretedbelow, alsorulesout this theory. Durrbach'sown suggestion, Delianbasewas originallyone of a pair with a baseof EumenesII (or Attalos II), is ingenious,but again renderedunlikely by the fact of a parallel dedication at Pergamon. 6 For the benefactionsof AriarathesV at Athens,seeW. S. Ferguson,AIellenistic Athens,300-1. This explanationis, however,unlikely.The patronymicdesignates AriarathesIV; it is diffrcult to believethat he, as distinct from his son, will have beenso specifically honouredeven at a later date. It is surely more probablethat the patronymicwas includedas a matterof form, and we shouldwork on this basis. 7 Appian,Syr. 5. Cf. Nieseii. 674;Seibert,Beitröge, 64-5. The dateis impliedby the context ofAppian's narrative,where Antiochosmakesa numberofbetrothal offers. The immediately preceding events in the narrative are the marriage of Antiochos' children Antiochosand Laodike at Seleukeia(winter 196/5:Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 13-14), and the meeting of Antiochos and Hannibal at Ephesos in autumn 195(Holleaux,Etudes, v. 180-3). A later date (e.g. l92ll, O. Leuze, Hermes,lviii (1923),2ll-I2) would clearly strengthenthe argumentput below as to Stratonike'sparentage,but is unlikely. 8 Nieseii. 759;RE loc. cit. (n.I ), 817.

202

Appendix III

padocianking remainedEumenes'opponentto the last moment,and his changeof alliance was a political volte-face,designed,as the literary evidenceexplicitly states,to securemorefavourabletermsfrom Rome.In these circumstanceswe must surely reckon with the intention of an immediatemarriagewith Eumeneswhen Stratonikewas betrothedin 188, as is clearfrom anotherinstanceofthis kind ofgestureat the end ofa war. When the EgyptianprincessBerenikewas betrothedto Antiochos II by her father, Rolemy II, in 253Bc,the motive was the same;Philadelphos wantedto end hostility and begin a period of friendship,as we seemost clearly from the evidenceof Hieronymos (in Danielem ü. ll. 6): volens itaque PtolemaeusPhiladelphuspost multos annosmolestumfinire certamen,filiamsuam,nomineBernicem,Antiocho uxoremdedit.eWeknow from two importantpapyri of the ZenonArchive (PCZ 59242,59251),that this marriagewas negotiatedin 253and took placein spring252sc, after the shortestpossibledelay, and that for this purposeBerenikewas escorted by Philadelphos'ministerApollonios to the Syrian border.r0The prime concernseemsto havebeenspeedin completingthe arrangements. It was obviously important in such circumstancesthat the marriage be completedwithout delay, and the same is true, we may believe,of the parallelsituationin Asia Minor in 188.Two further points may be added: firstly, if a delaywas envisagedbetweenthe betrothaland the marriageof Stratonike,the dedicationof her statuein Pergamon,which must necessarily be dated before the marriagetook place (seebelow), will have read 'Agnpd1ou Ztparovtx1v 6. and not, as it does,6aoi7@oavZrparovtx4v 6.'Aqnpd0ou. Secondly,it is hardly crediblethat Eumenes,by accepting a child-bride(as has been suggested)in 188,will have been preparedso drasticallyto postponehis chancesof obtaininga legitimatemale heir to the royal house.This conclusion,that Stratonikewas ready for marriage in 188,and that the marriagewas expectedto take placeimmediately,has an important bearingon our discussion. In the first place, Stratonikecannot have been the daughterof Antiochis, as is often supposed.rrAriarathesmarried this daughterof Antiochos III in c.195, as we have seen, and an interestingpassageof Diodoros (xxxi. 19. 7) suggeststhat for some years the marriagewas childless:r2taür4v dö (= 6n1;o"his)pi ywoptvav r4xvatvöno6ü"6o0at 'ApLagd?7v ö6o naiöag dyvooüvtogrcü ävöqög, xai'OAoEtqvrlv. perd ö6 rn a ypövov rfiE cpöoeaginöefaptvqE äveln[ouoE r*eiv aür]v öüo eNieseii. 139. toP. Cairo Zeno 59251(: Hunt and Edgar,SelectPapyri (Loeb Classical Library,1930),i. no.93):a letter,datedc. 15April 252,toTpnonfromArtemidoros Apollonioson the mission,lines2-3: 6u ö6oot thephysician,who accompanied Eypagov, napeywöpe1a eig Eötova, oupntropeuptvor tfit 6aoü.ioo4t I EtoEttitl öplcov. tt e.g.by Welles,RC, p. 270,whosechronologyis at fault (cf. Ohlemutz,Kulte, 270,n.44).Antiochisis known only from this event:cf. Holleaux,Etudes,iii. 187, n. 3; Schmitt, Untersuchungen,24-5. t2 Cf. Niese,RE loc. cit.; Schmitt, Untersuchungen,24-5.

Appendix III

203

trtiv |uya#pag, uiöv öö Eva röv övopao?övtaMßptödtqv. This Mithridates,as the only legitimateson of AriarathesIV, was to succeedhim in 163as AriarathesV.t3 Neither of the legitimatedaughters,however,can be identifiedas Stratonike.since,for reasonsdiscussedabove,we must discount the possibility that Eumeneswas betrothedto a child in 188. We may conclude,then, that Ariarathes'marriageto Antiochiswas his second,the first queenremainingunknown, and that Stratonikewas the daughterof the former marriage.raOn the evidencepresentedabove,she must havebeenat leastsixteenyearsold in 188,and was thereforeborn in 2(X at the latest.On the other hand, a passageofJustin (xxxvi. 4. 5), ifits chronologycan be pressed,suggestsa datefor Stratonike'sdeathshortly before that of her son, Attalos III, who was preparingher mausoleum when he died:matri deindesepulcrumfacere instituit, cui operi intentus morbumex solisfervore contraxitet septimadie decessit.This conclusion is supportedby epigraphicalevidencethat is often overlooked.In a letter the written by Attalos III to the city of Pergamon,dated5 October 135,1s king refers to his mother's devotion to the gods, and to her goodwill towards his father and himself, in the past tense (l-4): önei daotfuooa Zrparovix1 ft pirrte pou npög änawaE pöv rcüE 1eoügeüoe6öE npoo4viyüq, xrA. The omissionof the word 06a in this context, where Attalos writes of his mother in a very personalway, is no objectionto the natural conclusionthat Stratonike was then already dead. In fact it is probablethat shewas recentlydead,and that the enshriningofSabazios, whose cult Stratonike had brought to Pergamonin 188, with Athena Nikephoros,as explainedin the letter, was done in honour of her memtr Diod.xxxi. 17.8. Cf. Niese,RE, s.v. Ariarathes (5),818;Schmitt,loc. cit. taThisis mentioned asa possibility by Magie,RomanRule,i|.770-1,n.72(cf. ll3-14),butwithapreferencefortheviewthatthemarriagedid Seibert,Beiträge, not takeplaceuntil a laterdate,becauseStratonikewasnot readyfor marriagein members of the honouring 188.He citesin supportof thisviewthreedocuments Attalidroyalfamilybetween188and 175I 4, in whichthe nameof Stratonikedoes ofTelmessos dated thedecree notappear(seealsoHopp,(Jntersuchungen,2S-9): thePergamene 184sc (Appendix iv, no.7);theAitoliandecreeof 182rc accepting (Appendix passed afterthe decreeof 175/4 iv, no.9);andtheAthenian Nikephoria Etudes,ä. 12747;OGIS248).Of these,the accession of AntiochosIV (Holleaux, in the first is not relevant,becauseit praisesEumenesspecificallyfor his success in thelate l80s(onthechronology warwith PrusiasI of BithyniaandtheGalatians 9) andthe sameconsidseeHabicht,Hermes,lxxxiv(1956), andcircumstances (calledSoter)mentioned erationappliesto themusicald7ör,e6honouringEumenes (Appendixiv, no. 6; Hopp,Unterin a decreeof Tralles,whichHoppadduces constitute a suchungen, 28, n. 68);nor do I thinkthatthe othertwo documents of thistimecouldbe seriousobjectionto the chronologyarguedhere;documents strangelyselectivein the matterofpersonshonoured,andtherewasno hardand Nikephoria, fast rule. Thus the Amphiktyonicdecreeacceptingthe Pergamene passedat the sametimeastheAitolianmentioned above,unlikethelatterhonours Eumenesalone,apart from a formal referenceto Attalos I in the secondline (Appendixiv, no. l0). tsOGIS331.IV; Welles, RC 67.

204

Appendix III

Appendix III

ory.16I proposethen to dateStratonike'sdeathto the year 135sc, and the family tree of her parentagemust be drawn as follows: ANTIOCHOS III ARIARATHES IV,m. (l) ?

I

(2) Antiochis

Stratonike(c.204-135) m. EUMENES II (188/7) To return to the base from the temple of Demeter in Pergamon:of the explanations suggested above for the wording of the Athenian base erectedon Delos, only the secondwill fit the Pergamenededication,and becauseit is Pergamene,that is, a dedicationof Eumenes'capital,which was to receivethe new bride, further considerationis required.Clearly, the dedicationmust be datedafter the betrothal.sincebeforethat time. as we haveseen,the two royal houseshad beenenemies.After the marriage of Stratonike had taken place, however, the addition 6aoAfa4 'Apnpd9ov would disappearin a Pergamenededication;the royal title alonewould suffice,as in the dedicationsmadeby Stratonike'spriestess Eurydike,rT Baoü,noafv] Z[tpatovfuqv) | Eüpuöfu4 lr1fpläpftou, [6qen]|öLd 6iou, &.lppqlEtvexevlIxo,ieüvoiaEq[Eeigöautfiv],andby the royal official Menogenes,I8 IBao [).woavl 2r q ar lov [x4v I M qvoy6v4E] MryvfoEd.vtou, lö iri röv ngaypärov, dqerfiEEvexevlxai eövoiaErfigeiE öaurövl.It follows, then, that the statueof Stratonikewas erectedin the templeof Demeterleafter her betrothalto Eumenesin 188,but beforethe marriage,andthis proceduremakessense,at Pergamonat least,only if the marriagewas expectedto take placeaftera shortinterval,thusconfirming the conclusionreachedearlier. This conclusion,reachedfrom historicalconsiderations,is more positive than that to be deducedfrom the indicationsof the letter-formsof the inscription. The photographwas publishedby Habicht for purposesof comparisonwith a basefrom the Pergamene Asklepieion,inscribedwith a dedicationof theör1pogof Pergamonfor Athenaios,brotherof EumenesII and recentlyäyavo9&qE of the festival calledZanlpLa xo,i 'Hpd.xleLa. This baseis datedby Habichtto the l80sor evenlater,a chronologywhich is historically implausiblein the case of the dedicationof the statueof Stratonike.Nor do the lettersof the baseof Stratonikeseemto me to point '6Cf. my remarkson this subjectin BSA lxvi (1971), 9. t7IvP 178,: OGIS 313.The priesthoodwas rightly identified as that of Stratonike (n.2, adloc.).Stratonike by Dittenberger priesthood also had a atTeos ' duringherlifetime: L. Robert. Er.anat.9-20;seeabove,150. tBIvP 773,: OGIS293. rerhe choiceof Demeteris interesting. Apollonistoo hadassociated herself closelywiththecultof Demeter by greatlyextending thetempleareain pergamon, asattested by herdedication to thegoddess fromthepropylon(ÄMxxxv(1910), no. 'AnoTTaviE 24): Baoü.Looa /r11tr1rptxfa]i Köq1L @eopocpöpogXapnrfiprcv täE otod.E xai toüE oixouE. See the useful account ofOhlemutz, Kulte, 2O7-12.

205

to a date later, rather than earlier, in the reign of Eumenes II. Other documentsrelevant to Athenaios are cited by Habicht as having distinctly earlierletter forms @vP väi. 3, p.27, n.l; p. 28): 'mit Ausnahmedes Dekrets von Kolophon scheiden sich an dieser Formfrage die jüngeren Steinevon den älterensehrklar. Tatsächlichistjedoch auchderText aus Kolophon keine Ausnahme, sondern von Holleaux zu hoch datiert.' The reference here is to the decree of Colophon Nova honouring Athenaios, dated by Holleaux (Etudes,ii. 5 1-60) before 197, becauseEumenesis not specifically mentioned; a later date is probable,and the omissionof a royal namein a civic decreeis not necessarilyofchronological significance(see above,n.l4), but the lettersare not directly comparablewith thoseof the base from the Asklepieion, which are surely of an earlier date.20Of the other texts cited,lvP 219,a dedicationmadeby Athenaiosfor his brother Attalos, is the most relevant,as a Pergamenededication;it is to be dated very probably after 159,when Attalos was king, but the lettersare more distinctly those of the secondhalf of the secondcentury than either the basefrom the Asklepieion'irrthe basefor Stratonike.The letterson the base for Stratonike are recognizableas the elegant type oflettering that recursat Pergamonin the reignsof Attalos I, EumenesII, and Attalos II alike; for a specificexampleit is enoughto indicateIvP 62, of c.192 sc, whoselettersare very closein styleto thoseof the baseof Stratonike.But sincetheselettersareto be found over a largepart ofthe secondcentury,a close dating on this criterion alone is not possible. All thingsconsidered,then, we shouldretainthe datearguedabovefor the erectionof statuesof Stratonikeon Delosandin Pergamon,i.e. I 88sc, as a resultof the betrothalof Stratoniketo Eumenesearlierin the year. It must be remembered,as was pointedout above,that a periodof time will have been envisagedfor the completion of the work of sculpting and inscribing,and it is almostcertainlyfor this reasonthat we readthe royal title on the bases:the decisionto erect each statuewas taken after the betrothal, but in anticipationof the marriagehaving taken place by the time the work was completed- a further reason for minimizing the interval in our chronology. One can imaginethat Stratonike had a difücult task aheadof her in succeedingto the positionof Apollonis,the queenof Eumenes'fatherand predecessor,Attalos I. Apollonis,not herselfof royal blood, becameone of the very few ladiesof the Hellenisticcourts about whom our literary 20Seeabove, 56. The basefor Athenaiosreads:<jö4poE I'A?rjuar.ov6aoü6ag 'Awä).ou 'Hpdxltn I dy(tlvo9trrjoawa td öeütepa l2ltoyripta xoi lxd.öE xai övö6laE. The first celebrationof the festival of Zonrjpta xai'Hpd.x).eta is dated by Habicht,following H. Hepding@M xxxv (1910),412),to the reignof EumenesII, to be associatedwith one ofhis local wars. Could it not havebeenfoundedearlier, e.g. after the Antiochic War? The letter-formsof this base,especially I (cf. C. Paepcke,de Perg. litt.8,29), seemto me to have earliercharacteristics, and are generallysimilarto thoseof lvP 47, which was probablyreinscribedat the time of Eumenes'restorationof the precinctof Athena in the l80s;cf. Kähler,Gr. Fries, 1 8 5 n. . 2 2 .

206

Appendix III

sourceshave nothing but good to say.2rStratonikewas to join a family which had alwaysbeenproud of its closerelationships.Shewas, furthermore, the centre of attraction in an alliancebetweentwo royal houses whoserelationshadup to the lastmomentbeenhostile.Shehadto provide an heir. Much clearlydependedon her. In the event,as is well known, the alliance proved fruitful, and remained an important factor in the foreign policies of the two dynasties.Stratonike was highly honoured by the Attalids, who gave her, at Teos and at Pergamon,a specialplace in the royal cults of the newly enlarged PergameneKingdom.22In 188 the importanceof the marriagewasevidentlywell recognized,and Stratonike was not surprisinglyhailed as queen at the earliestpossiblemoment. 2rSeeespecially thewarmencomium of Polybios(xxii. 20). 22Seeabove,n.17,and,on the cultsof Stratonike, ch. 6.

IV SELECTED INSCRIPTIONS An edition of all the non-Pergamenetexts relating to the Attalids is a desideratum.This selectionof the most important,which is additionalto the textsgiven in the body ofthe book, includesthoserecentlypublished, someof those not availablein the standardepigraphicalcollections(such as1SE,OG1S,andSy//.3), andotherswhich havebeenreproducedin these collectionsbut have sincereceivedsignificantrevision.Inscriptionsfrom Pergamonitself, being regularly availablein the reports of Athenische Mitteilungen, are not included. The text followed is that of the most recentedition, exceptas noted in the apparatus.Variants supersededby the edition followed are not normally repeated. 1(a) Foucart,BCH vüi(I884),I58;SGD/i, Addenda,p. 402,no. 805a;1G vii. I 788; OGIS 3 I 0; Fraser,REA liv (1952),233-45,no. I (a) (Karata, near Thespiai).Philetairos.
208

'4r.t,i4g l
- - - - npörcpov rßöpevog xnE{ zo - -- - elövoiaEil6ouA40qsu- - - - - - äv0lqd)now änewfaA ----naleo.yefvöpevoE Length of line and line divisions conjectural vfioov

s

l0

EJtOL4Oe

15 2 IG ü.2 885;Allen, BSÄ lxvi (1971),l-12 (Athens).AttalosL ö 6aloÄtüE tpö; tou ----vpivnapal-------vrdgöneZANz - --- - 5 - - - o ü ö i l v ö n o o r c t 7 ä p e v l -o E - - - - röv'il'Arivcou xct - - ----xatddä0vr7rryol- - rl(pev4 ävil9q vac. äner - - - 6aol)töaE'AwdAou tv aiE oi xar - l0 - - - ov xai toüE xatfyovrag 9eolüE - - - noujoouoLvöö xai oüwaov xai 1oüp6opovttp AiaxQt?l yeyevqpfvaEön' aütott npälp6 npöE rilv oar4pfav?l [drä zä]E 'ElLLrjvav. vac. 6ou7öpevoE öö xai eiE Iröv - - - - oldqeor4pav rrjv re eöo66env xa[i - - - - - 15 - - - natlqlou aütd.nöndqyovroErö trydv - - - - ov önäpXovra vac. xai uüv öö napaLa[6öv rilv vfioov (or rilv Qjptttpav) n67n)l 'Hpax]16ouE npöEAiaxöv ouyyfvenv [öÄ tfiv - - - - oLEi[xp1aqptvov röv rilv dpXit,

22 ?nalgaye[vöpevoE eig d1v

3 Ducrey and van Effenterre, Kret. Chron. ii (1969),277 tr.; Ducrey, BCH xciv (lfo), 637-59(Malla, Crete). Attalos I.

l(e'l BCH xxvi (1902),155,no. 5; OGIS 750;REA liv (1952),23345, no. 4 (a) (fhespiai). Philetairos. fib]t7&apoE Eöpivou IIryyalteüEMoüoaq fK]acprciaE

209

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

20

2s

30

A -----lAZAT.A. c . 2 6 t-----12eivatAfQ c . 2 3 t---- - - - c.20 - - - - - -IIEAEZEINTAK t---- - - - c . 1 7- - - ü 1 v ü n o y e y p a v p { v o v t---föpxov - - - - ildu ö6.tL röv yeygavptv[ xatd taird. öi xai \dv Ma)'Aaior 1pefuv öi61 oweE ouvpd)((aEn€vnont ngöE 6aoÄ"At[r-l "Ana)"ov, änone776ta 6aoÄeüE 6a xai aToEävöpag rpnxooiouE fiyepövalgl IiW' aöIr6lv, idv öä pl öxnoQr ö nLfiqoEtoütxatpoüE,öoouEäv ivö6y4ra4 ölol örd ttväE 'Apxd'IepanuwiouE fi llgnvoiouE i) ldlv prt in' öag napxaTöow' oirot öi önef,aqrjo9av önö 6aor)"6oE'Aud.)"ou.roig öö nevnopfvotg "AuaAoE xnogeta pöv napey{rut 6aoÄeüE ai rd ötlttitvtaxai tä ö6owa iv rö(t) n[ööt. ötav öö napayfvovtat npöE Mü'Laioug, rfp-l {El&aoav rilv ouvpaytav aöroi, nag{llo-l oweg rfiE it epas öxäorar &vögi öpaTpdv aiywaiav, ubv ö' flyepövatvöxdotat öQoxltäs ööo xai xatd oCopayofuma furlLxlfiv, ßdvpi1 Bv no)'epfut öow, oö öotat oirov 1ap6ävelv. fiae(rpevtrooav öö oi änoout76vteE örbgäv MaTTaior Xpetav öXotot.fuav öi "AdnotrtjaoLv rououvpäyoEnpög 6aoL7öa 2YNA ftfta).ov rä nopeta öötaoav aüroi B td-l p] ei napa6-l lpol).6y4p[ev lalivowaE öpoToyifau, iiuo ö16)'4Ete xail navdtlqE xai aü1rö1Efxai yuvrj xai #xv-l a xai narpig xai of 6aotl76o4 cpiTouöd-l

210

Appendix IV

35 v öi xai övp|vovrt iv rfo)ig [ritpoAoy4p*vorl [g], elvat xai 6by eiöatpova laörtu xail yuvami xai r|xvotE xai natqiör xai roiE lE-l "'Olpxjos 'Aträ7ou. il'oQ)E. 6aoü.6ag öpvüa lital .HAr,ov, 'A04vf4v, Ilooetöö, Afipqqa, Apq, "Aper,av 40 dv xai ü1v Taupond).ov xai rcü(E) äATouE9eoüEndwaE xai näoaE' ivp6vew Ev tfiL cpLltatxai rfit. ouvpaylat xai r foi)g 6pü,oy4pivo6 npög Mü,Latoug eiE röv nd.wa yq6vov xai npög aörcüE xai r 4s oüg öyyövougxai oö9öv napadrjoeo0at röv öpoToyqp|votv. eüopxoüvrt pfv pot eö e'i1,Eqrcupxoüuttöä rävaw[a.

Appendix IV

,

6-7pfi tllonjoalvnDaux,Rev.hist.dedroitfrangais et ötranger,xlix (1971),374 ( N l- - - N I 1 e d s . ) 4 Wescher and Foucart, Inscr. de Delphes, 336; Sy//. 447; SGDI 2ffi1; Syll.2846 (not reproducedin Sy//.3)(Delphi). Attalos I. ZtgarayfovtoE
2ll

nag' öautoü xai tiE rd. rrlt 1eat 4q4orya' iva oöv xai ö öqpoE cpatvqratrtpöv roüE dya9oügxai noLLoi lqAatai yivavtar üw 6po[av, öeö6y0at.n1r douAfit xai rör öripoL 20 inaw6oat Tipapyov in( re tfit npöE ü 1ciov u)otdefat xai rfit npöE qv nöAw aiq|oeu xai orecpavdtoataöröv Bu ufu 9eätqatt 0a17oü ortcpdvan iv toIE dy?rlooptuory /rcvuobq ngovoq94vtav rfig dvayyeTlaEroü te äyavo9&ou xai roü ypappat6o4 rcü öripou,dvaypätpat 2s öä xai ü rprjcpLopa eig otrjTrlv xai dva9eivat 8v töt ieqö4 ömtE o6töE rc noATöt pdLLov öxxa7firat npög eöepyeoiavqE nö7eag xai o[ ä).Lot 676novteE d1v d.navraptvqu rotE äfto6 röv d.vöpöv eöEqpiav nü'ö ngo?upöupov önrßtovtat rfit 30 npöE rä xowä cpÄaya9iat. 6 PapadopoulosKerameus,'E77. <017. 2u77. (1884), 58-60; Robert, Rev.Phil. viii (1934),279 ff. (Tralles).EumenesII. . . . . . -t' dyqr äya9lqr' öeööy9at' Bnawöoal lpöv üp Qaxariav öiplqv ini qr eövotat 4caliqr ngoar-l [q6oerffa äyerngöE ü]v ö4pov üv flpedlpovl xai E[ni rör] f. .. . . |nryil'qQqvalroü AfanooraTfivaLävöpaEd[ya0oüE] 5 fxai ömaioug ngög flpaE]xai orccpauöoataöröv ypuoöt orccpfd-] fvat' inaw{oat öt xai ü1y ömaodlv xai röv ygappatta ryIdl|olxaya9iaE Evexevxai ömlatoo6v4gfiE öoyooavnegi rd.Eöixag' lwtcpavöoar öi üv pä1vömaodlv yquodu orerpdva; röv d1ä] [yqappat{a 0ü"7oü otlecpävat' iva öi xai f1dvayyeAia röv l0 lottqävav yiv1rat. nalp' fiptv öv rcig pouotxoiE &yöotv toig fouwil'ouptvoq önö rclu öfipou 6aoüei Eüp{vet Zcotfiq öny fuiLenv noqoäo9a ö ylqappateüE rcü örjpou petd oteepa. . ip
2r2

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

[9eo]üE xai önyavrcdpevoE npög tt llpouoiav 'Oqü.yovta xo,i rcüg fa\d.tac xäi rcöc [xa]i folupptiyoug aüröv, vac. Ävix7oev övööfag iai

Ilalgs xaj öE rjpciEeöyöpeila rcts eei7: äya15 0r1tüy14 öeööy1at tfit trö),et xo,i iok äoyou_ otv' ö.niroiE yryevqp6vo6äya1oiE,i1gri_" 9at piv roüg [epüE xai d4 iqeiaE aiiotw_ ptvav röv ieqöv ndwaw xaiiiE rö lomöv ö[r_1 ö6vat 6aoÄei Eöp{vet vtxyv xai xgdtoE xai z0 xatd yfiv xai xarä 1dlaooav, xaiint inrci 6a.oüiooq r'AtoA)"av (öt. xai rcis aiiÄ6"\ig aöroü. orcqav1cpoqfioatöi rcöE ntol).üaixai roüE ä).).ougänavraE, xai 06oavra< Xaptmriqn rotg 1eoiEeüapio1at iv rr17 zs löxxlqo.ilgq(?).eig tö ).omöv öä xa|,'Examov pfi_ ' fva 9uöwo]^oi äpyovreErfir npo#qat, iv fit ve_ [vtxrlxevö 6aoÄ1eüg/ü levü)"icor.xai'Abryvat Nlt_] [xqqdpcot,- - - -l 9>AN^.>YN . . yI l5

8 Kalinka, öJh xxüi (1926),l5l-2, no. 87 (panion,Thrace).Eumenes II, ?180s. öntq 6aoü.tag Eöp{vou orotfiqoE xai eöe[qy]{rcuxa[i] xrtotou.rfiE nü"es oE xai töv ä6ilqdtv aüroü xai 6a_ oÄtoor1E Ztparcvt_ ,tqE /ööogo[E] 'Agptöatou /ti [Za_] 'A94v[dtl ro rfipt xai Nuqgöpat x[ai] 'An67Aavt II[u0kol. Haussoullier, BCH v (t88D, 372,nos. 2_3; Sytt.t629;IG ix.2l. 179; Daux, Delphes, 299-301;F. Delphes, üi. 3.'240(Delphi). 182/1. el ö I9_" ül s.^ tT d N ["Eöole rciE] A ir ü,oiE. [äz]ri 6ao ü.t i EEüp iv 4s 3ndppi 9 ilo Exä ouftiax,oEön nqoyövav rdu o$oa[v ix na_] 11_.._.. ,, l ar@vNeöv@vtlüvomv Epnavti xatpöt cpavegöE ylverat iuvatjfav',

rnenorqratttaEivröur,.r,ul"7l{i#i:;rhf"y,!m::i:tä:::: [onouöd.sxailcpÄotrytaEoö*övur^1:l:::;:;:r2:n':t:W:':] Äöv xai peyälav eüapep1pä[rov]

213

[xatä rcüg nlolöpouE tnaul1xöE rdp 6aoÄefuv xai öv rdv xa77[otav ötä0eotv äyvqxöE xöxpme 'A0dvat üt Nmacpögatpuä töv fouvrü.eivl äydvaE xai 9uoiag rtu döe\göv xai toö öäpou tCou llleqyapqvblv, neqi nAeiotou norcüpevoEtäu nori rcöE 9eoüEeöo66env, naqaxü,ü lölä xai rc[üEl IA fuo7oü E iJfanfe]w aAxöE 0eopoüg II 69oav, @eö]'.urov, Srrj ornnou &noö6fao0at rcüg dyövag frritv Nmag]opiatv oteqavfuaE, röp pöv pouomöv ioonti9rcv, üv öt yupvtxöv xai innmöv ioolipnrnv, 'A9dvag rdE Ntxagöpou' lxai boaöflatE äoü"ov tö #pevoE-tag öeö6y0ar rciE Airoiloig lönlaw4oat "Awa7ov, (DrAfuat1päv6aoA6la Eöpfv4 xai rcüE äöeLEoögaittoö pov,'A?rjvatov xai 6aoü.woav ['Anoil'oviöal rdp par4pa aöröv xai röv.ödpov rtisv[IepyapquCov Enr rul nor. rouE [0eoü1geöo$e[lat] eix6vt ypuoöat, üp pöv 6aoÄ6a fxai orccpawTloatExaorov aörisv 'innou, öcp' rcüg öö älTAougnelmdtl, läpemg Evexelvxai eüvofugrcs 8!v ü ä0vo),_&noö$t7Par öi xai roüE dyövaE iolv NmaEopfuv oügl üp pöv pouomöv ioonülouvreAet6aolrküg Eüptv4E [olrecpavfuaE, 9rcv, röv öö yufuvmöv (xai innmöv) ioo)'üpnrclv, le1pu öi1xafi] roiE vtxtdvtotE röv AiraTöv rd.Enpd.Exai ü. Tomd nd.wa rd öv rfotg vöpo6 ntq( re tav] 'OTopnkov z.araxEx@Qloptvaxai xa9d.neg ö [Ilu?futv x]ai 6aoÄeüEEitp6v4Eävaföemvöetlü ripfevoEl IraE'A9äjvaE tdE Nmacpöpoutö nori llepyd.pat äou7ov,xa9öE xa öp[fq, ouvanoöeööy9arrcüE A fua[7oüE1 läouAovlelpevaöü ü. d.n'AiraTöv xai iov övAhaT(at xaromeövxov xai p406va äyew p4öi Quo[t-l 1älew ilvröE tav öpiav' ei ö6 rft xa äyX fi |uoüfr1 ft äno6üfano i) öLryyud.or1, önöörxov eipev Bv rcilEl ttitt döm40övrtxai äALotuir 067owt.övraiE öx norrcrä[ouv6öplotE orcg ötxaq' änoo#LLew ö1i1 'A9dvat rdl [9ttoploöEöv ilöpyapov, ßneftl xa ä ?uoia xa9rixqr tat. Nmacpöpat' raE öi ixnovnd.Eintfuelkto1at röv otgatayöv ä.eiröv ävapyov' totg öö 9eaqoiEtoiE inayy eALöwoq toü E ayfövag] Iröv Nlmacpoptav xaraordoat rdE nöLetEöxdoraE 9eapoööxoug röv iöiav nolndv xai ävtvtylxetlv rcög äpTovtaErcüE änö rdv no)'tou röt orparay[ö]r npo[ivat tv tä. IIü9m. öööuev öö fixtXelpov xai ftvr,a öoa xai rctE rd'O)"tipnn inayyilTöwoq 9ttopoigötöovrL' öntttEöö xai i1v| ftoöEvlöpougxatayaprc9fi ä tt änoöoXdiov äytbvovxai roü ftpoü ä d.ou7[axai ä röv Oftlapoööxav lxarämlaory xai tä ä,7a ü. iv röt tpaEiopart xard)t€X@qoptva,

214

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

önryi7env nodloao9at töv mparayöv 30 lllq6levovl xai rcöE ä)"LouEägyovrag önawöoatöi xai roüE9eopoüg lTtpoav Aftolvuoiou Zupaxöorcv, [@eöLuro v ]' A g ior av oE A iy Lvdt av, K t rjo m n"ou A ap at p i o u il-, pyopryvovxd.Ltlpev duroDEfiQoetvouE lxai eöepytrlaE röv AfuaTtitv' äyyuoEtav npofevn[v ö y]plapparleiE' d.vaypd.Eatöä xai d rpäqwfula lrööe tv oldAaq )'ßiva6 öüo xai dva06pevrdv ptav Bv @6qpo[vl, rdv öö iv AelcpoüE zö dä yevöpev[o]v fdvd\aryal ööpev öv rapiav ruE KQAI. . .1K1.]A:..VI.IPII.)E t. . . .]'t . . .lAf,..)IAI dv ypapparqröv _ - c.t3 IAN vac. 35 Holleaux.MölangesHavet (1909),187-96(Etudes,ü.63-721:Syll.3 630;Daux, Delphes,293-5;F. Delphes,iii.3.26l (Delphi).182/1. p oo 0övo u, ööypa' A p q m[r tövotv. i n eÄ i1 l"Aqyo vr oE öv A e7Eoi)EZ 11 6aor)tüEl naqd rcü narqöE6aoÄ6ory'Anä[o[u rfiu rc [Eüpfvqgnaqeü,r1cpldg npöE rcüE 9eoüEl eöol66etavxai i11v npög rcüg'ApqmriovaE eüvonv xai önr4lptitv rilv npöE'Papabugl cpÄtav det ftLvoEäyla9oü nagatrLoEyudpevog örctelel rctE "E7),4olw xai ptreoX4xd.tEl s töv aöxiv x[tvö6]vou önöp tfiE xowfiE d.ogaAetagnüJ.atg töfv 'E774viöavl nö[Leavl öapedg ö6ö[ox]eutvex* roü öLarqpeio1atd1v ürdpyouo[av aürcv)optav öi ffu ahtay xai'Pa[pailot 9eogoüutegaürcü d1vnpoaipeow ineu$1fixaow lrllp 6aoLAetav vopt(ovteg föei]rt xai röp 6aoÄ6otv öoot pöv inLdouAeüouowfrotE

l0

q g xa04xoü[oqsl önmAqQe a s, öoot uu u, ;:fr]\:,::.#f":::"':]

lnapafurcl rcürouE t[49] l0 pey[i)otqE [dfuo]üo9at nap' öaurotEnfureary' d.nöoraJ.xev öö x[ai 9elapoüE rcüE 'ApcptxriovaE, 'A9qvaE naqaxal4olovrlaE rcüE önoE rö rqg t4E Nlmqcpölpou#pevoE ouvavaö{tfaotlv äawöt äouAov,xai rcüg äydtvagoüg ößylvaxel ouvrcTew orecpav[ra[Erö\v re pouomöv ioonü9rcv xai töv yupvmör,xa[i innlxöv iod,üpnrcv dnoö{lawfrar dlneAoytoawo öö xai of Qeatpoirilv roü 6aoA6otg [eülvonv ffv öyov "E))1vaE t5 öftalrelet xlowfit r]t nqöE änawaE rcüE xai xa0' tötav nlpölSds nö7e6' [öno4 oöv xai oi'Ap]qtxrtoveE qaivavrat Enaxd'ouiloült€Er?tiEl dercupevoLE

215

6aoÄ6av öoot öLarqgoüweE ritv nQöE 'Pap[ai]ouE roüExowoüE ylvovrat napairrct äei twog dya1oü cptlialv {otg]"f1feüepy&aE Aqolv' ruxqt [dya04r' öeööy)al rciE' Apcptxt [ootv önawöoat 6aoÄ6a \Eü)4|vA oaom€(DE oretpävat röt fqöt rfoü zo ['Att]ä).ou xai ofre]cpavöoat.öd.cpvqE 'AlnöL\tnoE rcü eöegy6'p1aE, rcüE öautöv, [Ilu]1iou tfu nfuq{öv) Sotw oreEavoüv dQerqE€v€x€v "EAlqvaE, otqoat öi aüoü xcti,sixtlö)va. xo^ieüvotaEqlEl eiE rcüg t(p mfiou xdLx1u 'A91vag tqE iv l/lü,E[o]ig, ävaöeöuy9at öö xai rö teqöv tqE Npxlrlcpöpouü npöE Ilepydpftolt äou]'lo1vtiE änavta röv ypövov xa?' ä äv dEoptolqtl 6aoÄeüEEüptvryE zs xai pq0l6lva äylttlv i1x1 toü neptaprcpivou rönou trtfire,noA4ploul pqre eLQqvqE nqöE [pq1ölv [äyxLrypa]' dnoöeö6g0ldt ö] [z]d[)] rcöE dyitfvalE froü]E oreqavfuag Itav NtxryEop[av oüg ouvreAei 6aoÄeüE Eöpivqg, xai tivalt lxai

rryCovteEflöv

lromoiE naot toiE öv rctE vöpoLsrqn"r;i;t';":tu;'t:;tri::;,:r':) iolonü9rcv, rör, öä1 öv ööü EricplLopa ävaypi.EaL xai in(n)möv ioloAüpnrcv' lyupvmölv lleAEotE eiE rilvl 'AwdAo]u xai 3p 30 l6äow rclu ävögüvrog t[oü naqöE 6aoL).6ag Il[epyäpat öv röt] ' litgöt r4lg'A?qvag tqg Ntx1lcpöqou xqpü(aLöö üv m{lcpauovtofü 6aorAtag x)ai tilv [äoulilav rcü iegoü iv toiE dylöot röv llu9fuv xai Zat1gi]av. 26init. npögfiöiolu [oüp6d"ov]F. Delphes:npö5t|yylqya p4Qivl w!t!9!n_t,C1, npöE[p40ö]vföyil.qpalDaux,BCÄllxxvir InschriftenrechtlichenInhalts, 48-51:, (1954), 370-1,who reportsN certain. 11 Lambrino, Rev.Arch. xxix (1929),107-20:'Welles,RC 49;cf. Segre ap. Robert, Hellenica, v (1948),102-28(origin unknown: probably I a s o s ) .1 8 2 / 1 . lBouAöpevoröi xai öpaE ple{6l1trewröv ?uotöv xqi 1töv dy<6vav nt7topcpa-l 'Ecp{orcv, 6v upfir ftqt nptittqt fuev 9tapoüE Ml(yawd re töv cpA'av nap' ripiv övta, ö-1 fpoto4 ö1i 1rc) Kd.\av llegyap4vöv, xqw6pevov xai öq' fllpöp piv äfLov, ög öi noAi-l Ir4vl rereuyöta xard tfiv f17m[avtöv ngoorlxörnalv, xai fiQoxe6elqrcpö-1

s lvovl önö qE nd)cary ötd rö xatayy6)')'ew pe1' ripöv {aöru. xa76E oüvl [no]rfioercnpöro1t piv öd ü1v 1eöv, änena öä xai öt' fifuaE uitv dvöpöv rc qL-l [Loq)pövaryönxoüoavteg xai änoö$,äpeuottä rc Nftx4qögta xai d1v d,ouAtav'l tr)gQm ydp nqd[avreg rä pöv ixriv4E,r(pn Eaveto[0eouvaüfovreg, ü öö 7omövl fipad olf ivötyerar pä7ora npo?üpouEöferc xard. {ö öwaröv eiE ndv-l l0 ra td oupqäpowa rfitt,öqpat. td. öö n)'ebva negi roürav dxolöoerc nap'aötöv.l äppao1e. dn4öaxev M 6yatv'Av9 eotqptövoE txr1 t. ' uivloE Eni orcqav1Eöqou' Anü,kov lou toü / rcytvou,,,'Av9eorryp Lürdpevou') ezcT4L ' 6aotIölqgFeyrfit 6ou7fitxai röt öfipat' npuräveavyvtitpy SneL[ü1 ).eöEEüptv4E1 'Auätrfou] xai 6aotlboryg'AnoA).avtöoEEiTogx[ai ü16aotA1ö,aE t5

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

216

yöypaqev ;;::t;i":::f{rii:i öndpxrov rcüöripou töd.npoly.öu'tv

röv öfipov örtl xlai Irryar piv tilvl'A|r1vav pdlLora töv äLkn ?eöv öÄ ü noA)'d.E peyäLagEv nav-l [roöanaiE neqrcräoefow xap6v eörltrteptaEaürdtlt] nqtftle.rc] 9emftvaqNtxqcpögov [npooqyöpeuxe]vxatrAlor4v vopilav tlvat xai oixetotd.r7v r[i1v npooavup[avl [raürqv, vüv ö1eaülen rc 6ou7öpevogräE rrydE aürr1Exai p[eiEot Xaprcrrlpml xai ,örcyvaxöE fröv xatd nöLepov ä1y6vav dnolöö\ö1val oluluftltTfelv----1

15

20

2s ' 30

35

40

l5-20 Segre,aftertext l2

t2 Herzog,Hermes,lxv (1930),455-43;Welles,RC 50; (with new frag-

4s

217

qÄoqp|vaE, xo,i nfptltfavteE 1eotpoüEöxowa-f fv]rioate röv ieqöv öloitttg xai eöoe6öE' xai vüvl 1ö1naölewöi flouAdplevottdg updE aüutgl lxlai petlot yapwrrilgn tCovxatd. nö)'epov &ydtvavl ldlnoööövat, öqyv[axörcg öi ouvtü,eiv aötfit na-] [ulriyupw re ötd nevlraeqqiöog xai pouot-l lxolüE xai yupvmoüE lxai innwoög äyövag, dva-l 1öeöleryörcExai ü nlqög llepyd.pott'#pevoE äouTovl txa0'1 ritr ?rioopevaö1toü tä öqn, xalöE öö öyov xe-l fxptxöreE raüta] önö 10eaq6v xarcrw{l eoeaLl [öort loüE dyövalE rc'üiouE ouvtüt elo1at .oüvl 'El)"fivav, int-l iänaloi rots ixreveoftdroq riptu röv [r eluypät av p eyd]"alv lap rcui q n r fit' A 04vd r',1 nenöpEapev ?eotpfoöEngöE öpaE - - - -1 p6a, tuyyävovra naQ' lilpiv t4tqE rc rfiE nptbtqE xai npo-l eögiaEöt(d) üv xa)o4laya?iav, xai - - - l Mipwaiov xo,iMiyavfa'Ecptoov, rdv Et]"av rav ngo(?)-1 t4tatpivav nag' fipiv lxai - - - - xai Kdl'av Ileqya-l pqvoüE, xai öq' ripöv pilv xqwopävoug dEtous, ösl öö no7fuaErcteu6föragxatä rlv fiLmfuv röv npoo1-l xövrrttv, npoxeytqolp{vouE öö xo'i önö qE nöLearyl ödl;o. rö xatayyil.Tefw pe9' ripöv rä NwqEöpro' xaAöEl oiv noLfioetenpförov pöv öÄ ?eöv,önena öE] örcxotjoav-l xai öL'fipag nbv dvö1pövu cpLToEpövag rcE xai änoöefäptvlot tä re NmqEöpr'axai riltt äoü"fuv öo-) nq öptv äppöEet' raürla ydp npd[avreg ü' pöv Exetuqgti-\ pm cpaveto\touvatj{1ovreE, fipAEöö d'xo\oüQaErfitl nag' flpr;t, ünaqgoöo4lLnpöE töv ö1pov öpdtveövo[at) 6E övö4prar pä7rclra npo|üpouE Eferc d lomöv xatd] öptv' rä öö nleioval ndwa xaqöv npög{ä oupcp1govra nap' aüröv töv 9ea-l nepi rritv xatä pipog fd.xoüoere p6v. ögqoo1e.[äöoEerdt douldl xai röt ödpar" ] .- )v
ment) Segreap. Robert,Hellenica, v (1948),102-28(Kos). 182/1.

l0

qr 6ou74t xai] [B)aoÄeüEEöpfvqE KlbLotv 'A[94vav päv rrybpevl uitLörjpoxyaipew' tilv pd.Aota röv äLkn ?elöv öd Ä noAAdExail pryd)"aEfipiv nepne9ePx|vateör1pqiag ävl navtoöanaiE neprctdoleow xaLqöv, N mqE6povl r t tyeoorlyoe töxapev, [xaAAloqv voltilov - I rcg elvat xai oixercrd.rqlvd1v npooa-l vuptav raür1v xa9d.negfxai ngörepov iypdtpaltev'l öis yd.q iiö4 napaxLq9{lweE öq' ftpöv rtiE rcl navrly6pe6 äg rörle xarqyyeÄapw äneö6[ao0e)

8- 12 x a0än ep lxai ö aatl p f7pöv. | | öi g y dp fl64 n apail'4 06lvr eg I n' aöt oü r-dEt t l xai ntpylawtE I'0tupö'üE'ärouutlvlfioarc navnvüotrc,-d
2r8

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

13 Wiegand, Abh. Berlin, 1904, 86; OGIS 763; Rehm, Milet, i. 9 , no. 306; Welles,RC 52 (Miletos). EumenesII. pgorleüEFiW|rqS 'I6vav tör xowöL Xatgetv') töv nap' öp6v npeodewöu MevexlrlEWölv oü ouv|pe$6 poq Eipqvtug öö xai'Apy4AagE d.nawfioavrcg iv lrfi,ox änööaxav tltrjErcpa xü.öv xai cpAdv9panov, iv fot xatap$d.pevot ööu rdE xaTTiwaE änö q1g d.qy4Eil,öpevognqd.$eqxai xotvört d.vaöeffaE ipaurör' eüepy6r4vrdv'E)Jrjuav ndJ.oüEpiv xai peyd.AouE äyövaE ün6orr7vrpög roü191 6ap6d.pouE, änaoav onouölv xai npövoLavnorcüfue-y 'ilJ'qv(öaE voEönaE oi üE xatomoüvrcEnütgUe) ötd nawöE öv eipfiv1t xai tfiL dehiorrlt xaraoräofel ün d.pytoow, äw t x ar a A)"ao (o) öpevöE [t e npög) ü [v] öqlalryloTou?lqyvraxlvöuvov xai 1növovrlv eüxltr,av, Bppe-l lvttv öä öllöptyloEiv tlois [npöEi xlgwöv äxo\oü9aE u1 roü narqög npofa]ip4ott iv noAAoiEcpavepäE neno(qpat üE önöp roömry änoöü$6 xotvfi te xai xat' iöfav npöE öxdot1v röv nö).eon u;1y6ilxöe önxetpevoExai noAAd.ütv npöE intqdve nv xai öölav dvryx6vrauouvxataoxeudlav txdoryl, änep ör.duitv öpyov fiv iprju re rprToöo.1.1.. tv xai rlv eüyaqtm[avroü xorvoü. Ffuy 'öünry ö[öo)ftv üpiv, önoE dei tpaiv1o|e tdE xata{iag rrydg roig eüepy6ra6änov6povreE,otecpavöoatpöv rjpdEXQUotporecpduax äptmetcoq orfioar öi eixöva Xeuonv Ev for äp 'Iotvtag, 6oü7apat tönat rfiE ävayyeiTaf te räE rryäg öv te roiE ö(p' Iölpöv ouvteTouptvoq dyöow xai xard ü.E nöLer6iv roiE rt0ep6vo6 iv öxäm41, fxai d.ond.oao1atö6 pp nagd. rc6 xowoü [xai ouvrlo1fival [Bni flöL yQpö rylai rlgüE äaayxabuE SggE[o1atelva[ tl rd. npäypara xatd ).öyov, naqaxa).elv y[ö pe 9eotpoövta] d1v eöyaptoriav roü n).fi9ouEi1v xfa9rjxouoavnpö-l votav norcio9at öt' {ov rö xor,vövritv 'IltitvcovEnaufq|fi-l ouat re xai ör,änavrög iv qr dqilm4t xaraotd.oet önlQpfet' oürcoydp xai petd ra6tä pe ndvftav rcüleo)at tltitv eiEu,pi1vxai ööfav dvqxöwav. dlxoToü1aEöä ndor] roig xaraxeyaptop{voq xai oi npleodewai petd nlTeiovoE onouö fi E ö te)'€7p4oav i fq yo [üpevo t oüpnal v roE toü nArj0ougnSöSüpASixtevefotdtqv rc xail eiTmgwfi rilv eövotav.rd re ttpLa güo[cpgövrttE d.noö6-1 ppar. x(a)i oöö6not' öM"ü.omöExat( 1yefiv Bpfiv) öüvapw eig rö nepmorciv d.ei tt xai xfor,vfit nd.otvl xai xatd nd)lv öxäoto6 röv npöE [try)v xai öö[av) d1v\1xöwav nepdoopar xai vöv rfiE

50

55

60

65

70

219

ron6t4E npo06otaEpi1 dEfurao9au yfvorco öö qr 6ou7fiotl pou xai Ä. npdypara ouw$axo).ou0eiv.oüto ydp öpoloyoup|vqv Trjrpeofupd.LLovöi aöubv röv öpyau ris ip1E npoary*oeaEd1v änööer$w. önag öi xai eig rö )"omöv Bv tfit navqyüpet rCovl1avLovittv flptpav öntbvupoaäyovreg flpiv Snrcpavtcrteovtlv ö74v öoqd1vouvrc)"firc,npooiöoug öpiv üg txavdE dval?üolE 4q' ,it, tlerc d1v xa?fixouoav flpiv fävatß](vat pvqpqv.töv öö yquooüvduöqt[dvra noniloot päv iyö npoaqoüpevoEdöd' lnavov navllEE lrilvl X(pLv tlvat ütt xoftvtitt.l ävatt1fivat ö' aüQlv 6oü7opativ ttu örpr1-l cpLoptuatt. flpiv ünö Mü.qoffav rclptvep' ö-l rc ydp iv taütqt. tfit nöLet ouweToüvrefEl ü1v navrjyuqw iErjErc0e d1v rrylv fipia, 'Id.öav p67gL ro6 qE n67eo4 pöv4g röv napöwoE t 4pevoE&vaöeöeqgo[aE i1piv xai ouyyevoüExpwopivqE öÄ Kulm4voüE, övöola öi noLAdxai äln pvitrttE ünöp rCov ' I titvav n mp aXutaE, o ixercr dr qv iToy $6 pr1lvl d1v dvd?eow öoeo9aLtv raür41. rd öi xard pipog önip tiE ipiE eüvoiagxowfit rt npög ndvraE öpdE xai xa9' txd.orqu nöLw dx4xoörq of npwdutai öqlboouotv üpiv. öppao9e.

l3-16 foflowWilhelm,K/io, Beiheftxlviii (1943),434: dwmatüJ'aoöpevoElöä npöElQtvl I iqfalrlld,ou71qpwaxlvöuvovxai lixtevilExai cpt),ööolloE dvai npotlr1piylos iv iolg lneös tö xfowöv d.xd'oül9agrfi rcü naqö; npolalpöot t zzi. Welles

1 4 W i e g a n d ,A b h . B e r l i n , l 9 l l , 2 6 - 7 ; R e h m , M i l e t , i . 9 . n o . 3 0 ? ' Herrmann,Ist. Mitt. xv (1965),104.II (Miletos).EumenesII (160s). "Eöof,e ufu öfipox of npurdvetExai oi tipqp4vot öni r1[t Eulaxqtl lelTnav' öneöl 6aoü"eüEEipiv4E ouyyevlExlai cpLl 7oE xai eüvouExai eüepy{qg öndpytovqg nöl)"-l "EA)r1eaE öÄ npoyövav xai npöE änavrag piv roöE s vdE cptToööEa(ildnö qE dpTqgötaxeipevoExai täE nepi roitav änoöt[fuE gavepdEöü. (ndv-) rav nenoqpivoE töv äqyotvxa9' örr, ai rc xaxai 0' |xäorcuE röv xaqriv o(uv)rcrc).eopivat<E> ai napd. rö(v) üe(p)yerqptvatv dnrlw(q)xuiat tLl0 pai töt. 6aoüei d1v negi röv nqotq4p6vov 6e6' atoüot niortv, 6ou7öpevoEöi xai ü. npoündgyowa örd npoyövav aütör npöEd1v fiperöpavnö7-

220

[]tlöyov.v. v. öna[E öö trtg äqfuoloöo1Eqgfioeafgl ruyyävqr d Q[E4qwpöva x]ai ft ei; üp 6aoÄ6a pvfipq örccpü.([ooqflar eig öv äei 4pövov, inp-) yvritot öö xai oi äföfl),qoi aörc6 6aorAe6Erc "At'A9rjvatog "Aua).oE taToE xai xai ö uiög tilv roü örjpoa xai tv roüto6 ngoatpeor,v,vac. pl eivat p49evi pfirc tinetv prjrc äuayvövar prjrc npo9eivat prite npoyqdtpat prfueinnpqEioa4 ög öei perare9fivar tä ypfipata eiEä77o n xai P1 öndpye{vl eiE td tv töt tpqqiopfarl xanaxeyognp{ua. ödu Q761 tq nagä taöta n[pä$41tgönott (ötar,)oöv,ü rc yp[a-] cpäväxugoa öglto4 ö öö nlqäQaEtt triv änetg4pdvav [dnorcwäta otatfigaj Qoyü,iouE iepoüE rc[6'Anil,7ovoE roü /Äupl6o4' öpoioE öö t- - - - - - - nplöorqtov xai toü - - - - (ootv, rä ör/cpopa - - - - p6va. v. v. rö öi rpriüöe ävaypdtpareig orrjTlqv fu?tv4v xai o{r1-l lcptopcr 'AnöLLovoE to]ü löuptag n[qö] [oat äv iot ieqör rcü -lptvoug' zoüg [ö]l froü vaoü - - xa)raoxeu4[SulEj t- - - vac.? lotrjLqE 1

It)v oixeia xai gt7äv1qrttna inaulfioar xai rfiE öa[u-] rcü npöE ü nArl0oEaig4oeaE xü'öv ünöplvr1-l 15 pa äfuov u1Eiö(.aEäpeqg xai roiE Bnrywopf|-l vo6 üno).m6o0aq yqd.p(p)ata än4oraLxev ngög fr-l e i1v 6oü.fiv xai röv ör1pov,öt' fov ü te önö EtSt l-l xai u1v q. . . vbu tpcpavto9öwaaürör E1p4pevoE n p ö Er ö v ö f i p o va l p e o r .övr d i o v x a r d p 6 q o [ E . .. . ' . . ] . 15 Wiegand, Abh. Berlin, l9ll,27-9; Laum, Stiftungen,ii', p. 159,no. l29b; Rehm,Milet, i.9. 15l; Didyma, ii. 488(Didyma,originallyof Miletos).EumenesII (160s).

s

l0

15

zo

25

30

35

- - I s - 2 0- - a f r ) i 1xv. . . . . . . r o - - 6 - 9- rfit. Exrrl dnö VtlEnplooö[öou] l- - e-10- ArylrlguitvoE [rrlEix röv tipl4ptvov ypqpdrotv.vac. öeööy9alt] trql 1lqlullfu ö7öo0atöv rfiL 4xü.r1oiatävöpaE [ööo,l rcüE öö aipe06wagnpovofioa6 önaE xara[yolpao?1t oiroE ö ixavöE fi prcQo9qt fi napoXil pQQ [xavoü nAfi1ouEtiE d1u öm1t&gqow, iva 1ö1öotvöxdorar röp no7rcöv fiprcxrfi 8[ Ev töl\ pqvi rör Aqvauivt qt txtq(t), öv fit öyiveto ö 6ao1t-1 AeügEöpövqE,xai fi ?uola xai fi öotiaory ouvreAe[o?1tl fö]rcuxfpltvoup|vavröv rc xatd. rdE nopndE 1lai] rdE ?uo[ag xai töv xailon7rcpöv röv tcpfi6au. [x]ai röv ä77otvtöv önreraypövov xard vdpov xai r]v neqi frle röv ore(pdvryqoetxöv afgeio9ar di za[i] iepeaotivqg ömypaEilv. lrlqg tiE röv öEiEXpövovroü pqvög roü TaupedvolEl rfiL öaöexdrrlt roüE xarayopd.oowagoirolvl i) ltr.o1titoottraEd1v napoflv rcü ixavoü n7fi)ouE. vac. iva öi niyqL ü. nqoeqqpiva rfiE npool1-) lxloöo1Eoixovoptag,rcüg eipqptvougävöpaE lilni qE xaraoxeufiE roü yupvaoiou Eiprlviav EipylAox74n rcö 6qou änoouor 4 [v][ou, Z titnupov' 'Aqeptotdtvr. röt iv rdt öveorörft] pqvi ip lolat öpnopmav lilvnuröt d.nöröv öEetAotrtöv
221

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

t6 Herrmann,Ist. Milt. xv (1965),7l-l17, no. lA (Miletos).Eumenes II (160s). "Eöoft rtu öfipox.' of nqutd.vetExai oi eipqptvot tni u1EcpuAaxfiE ELJTuV. EftEL-

ötd nawöE ünöp tdtv oultgt_Qovr@v rnl xai äei rt röv npöE önrpdvenv xai nöLeL norcüpevoE ixrivenv öölav ävqxövrau ouyxa.raoxeud(otu tit nar(e)töt, Swuyt)v öi xai 6aoÄtt Eöpiuet xatä ript öo1eioav önö rcü nLfi0ouE aöröt ouvytitq1otv xai öÄ.tqE iöiaE ouoü.oe@E nporpepdptvoE aötöv öoüvat rfit nö7et öapeäv nuqtitv peöfuvav puQLaöag öexr;,öfeiE xaraoxeulv yupuaoiou xai [ü7aoLv eiE td öeöqAau€vd tlv fxavrjv, rcü öö örjpou tpqqoapövou täg äppoloüoaE ini rctE rrQo€LQIptvo6 tryäE uit 6aotltl xai npeo6tutilv ilanooretAawoE Eigrlu^[av ötaLryeiEpetd. nd.o4EEr).orryiag xai napaor1od-ltevoEaü'röv npooenauffioai te tä xatd. d1v inayyeAlav xai rdE öandvag riLEeiE tilv ouvrtLemv uitv rtltdtv dvaööQao1aL nap' aörcu öort tlv pöv rcü nlijöi Eiq1viaq Eipqviou rilv xail'iorryv

l0

Appendix IV

222

Appendix IV

1ouEtigrcüg eiepyirag eüyaptotlavEavepdvnaow xatamfioaq rdE öi elEzä öüfl.aptva Xop4yiaEix töv roü 6aoÄ6og ön4p*q0415 uat, xaTlv xai ouvE1pouoavoö pövou öni roü xa?qxovroE,d77d --c.7lines--

CIA ä. 436;IG ii.2 953 (Athens).lffit59. npu-] |Elni Tuyi.vöpouägTovrog ini qg'Axap[awöog ExtrTE ft laveI a g, fi t 2 utory l6]v4E M evexp dr ou M ap [a06v rcg iy p appdi eu- 1 Itv'l llooöeövog öewtpat per' eixdöag,ö\värqt rfig nqutawi-l - -, [aE' ä1xü,qoiaxupfu iv rCot?tdtpat. töu npfo4ögotvönetpficpt(ev

1? Herrmann,Ist.Mitt. xv ( 1965),7 l-l l7,no. 2 (b) (Miletos,originallyof Myus). EumenesII (160s). t . . .l zHMo

-J

- - - - Atolötou OivaioExai oupttpo4öpo[t.äöo{u üt 6ou7ü xai) ptu \rjlpox' Nmöorpatog
ts-61 Ez.l.l AE. lc. 6l ONEX . . 2A t

cpAoöo$iav' ü öö ouvay1ö1,nlllieoE iyöavebouow, önaE fi nL nrouofa dn' aüroül ,:: nqöooöogönäpyq eiErd. ör.ärcü tp4cpioparog&rorcrayp*i !UÄv ypappa#a ngovoLfioat.Eväpyaqeoiaq ömttEiepaoüvq nea_7jni Eitlt|vouE \eoü, aige1öor öö xai ävöpego'ftweEönypaqfiv re eioo[ooufow nepi rqEl iepaoüvqE xai ü. itprlpnp|ua eiEroüg vipouE xanatd$ouow roüE

l0 from squeeze

t9 Keramopoullos, Arch. Delt. 1ä(1917),366; Robert,6t. anat. 84,n. 4; Fraser,REÄ liv (1952),233-45,no. 5 (Thebes).EumenesIL

t------

öö xai üöe ü tptiqnpa ei5 rc ry ünäpyovraEMuqob6, &vaypacprl 6rtWa öq' oül roü vaoü eiE ü1v napaoräöa xai eixöv 6aotA6oE roö ma?fioerat fi [rcü'Anil'7a-] voE rolö Tleppw06ag' ö öi ßoöpevoveig raüta dvfiTapa önqpetfiolat röv ra-l ptav &1nöä1näo4gtfig npooööou xai ßyypäEao0ateiEöv )'öy9y' öLtlo9ar öö örio) ngöEüvl6aoü'6aü nqeo6ln4dE, rcüEöö aipe06vtagäcpwoptvouE r€ lptiq.o-) [pald.noöoüvatxai napaxü'eiv röv 6aoA6a önaE nqovfot1o_dpevoE.

iepd f7ytl lrovüoou Auoeiou, dE' fov äv604xe 6aotAeöEEipövqg

20 Macridy, Ötn vär (1905),16l-3, no. l; Holleaux,BCH xxx (1906), 349-58(with revisions,Etudes,ii. 5l-60) (ColophonNova). Eumenes II or Attalos II.

T(DV eA.U-l

ftoültrpöv xai töv rcü öfpou Bvö6$avdei rwoE äya9oü !naea(1t-_ oE yevqral 4- J --lpiv'l npovotfioaLöö xai öno;gävaota?fi ön' aörcü ö ntpi t[t5-18 - - fxa|l&r xc,i ötd rcü npitegov tlqqfuparcg ö ö14ogrip nli. .to xai Eipqviag öi rcüE xa2fixowaE AöyouEnpäooe{v ön6oytto, xai noLeivl [fut äv] &ya)öv ötivavrat r6tt 6fipox.' I,Ig60ryoavEip4viag Ei[prt viou.---101...'...1iöou.

223

l5

I'An6))avosl (?) K,apL . . o r a 9 q v a t ö ä l f i ve i x d u a lou... löv töt EnLtq\ercri.ron tönat (?) rcü ipqoü nLqotov [töv eixövaw röv äöü.7titv'A?qvailou xai qg WlrQöE faücöv 6aoü.iooqg'AnoTTcoviöo\g'xai örcöl oi pt- - röv re viav) xai uitv Bqrjdatvrlicptot- - - - 'A|rfvarcv llta npoygdtpaweE dlrcüol rryfioat öwa xc,i uitu xdJ,liortov öpey6pevovrai4 lelegy4qv lä),),a6 rryaig, äno\tölövreE intcpavr1xai pvrjp4E - - ]at yägw. öeööy\at.nepi ro6läfiav [rav t1t 6ou7fit xai röt] öfipat. töu yupvaofuqyov fröv öxdorcrc yw6pelvov,iv fit flptqat'A|fivarcE ixai önögopilv töv v6av lytveto, ?uoiav ouw)ü"etv 'Ailq)vaiaq ouwe),üv öö iv qt aülxai rdv öqfidon [try fip4pa xai llöv ratöovöpov äyöva na(öon, öiöoo[0ar öö aürci]g önö rcü oixovöpou tig te i1v ?uoiav xai rqv önöpoplv xai röv äytiva ö äv ö öqpogügqt iy Kgovtövt pqvt. röv öö iepeiav töv te06vron, d.cpatqe06waveiE ü. &.07aroiE re v6oq xo,i rciE öcpri-

224

6oq xai roiE naoiv, tdp pri rt xai äA1o doülotwat rr06vat toig vtxöot, td. Totnä öt'avep&a ö yupvafoliapyog rotE d)'e{tp]ap6votExai rfit 6oü.fit xai Irollg ä11o6 äpyortot xai rctE ieqtüot' xai npotdlvet.xa)i nqogfiq (sic) xo,iiegöt ouveöpiat xai toiE lvtxfioalot rcüg orcqavirag äyövaE xai iepox1lgu-l lfu xai ygalppateüow. rilv öä önögopilv ouvreTleio-l 10arönö toi ylupvaotäpyouöv töt'Opqqeian t[oüEl löö vrxrjoavraE dlvayy{il,eo1at önö röv dp7öwav töv äy{ova ouv'rtlaü7fipepov (?). üv öäl natöovöpov 'Ollt4lEle[t]ox.,p6yq n[apötxi1 30 lAeiv röv naiöav öv röt ftoüror4 oixoöopr1?fit.dvayogle0eoilatöö fiv !p6lpav, iv fu ii rc ?uofu xo,ifi önögoplil xai ö dyöv ouvrefleo7rjoetat önö röv itgoxrlpfxotv. t$letvat öä xai --alötfitxai.. t---5-6 oi lftlellpitö yupvaonvröv re vlotf Holleauxin BCH: OIME Robert, h. "nit.'t'il, n. O O-l or ViELolWanpoqqdrpawonepi rcül Holleaux, REG xxv (1923),194,n.3 (Etudes,ii. 56' n. l)

- - eöepyetfipana nLe[ova td pöv tön Auorcü'fi

___.ouv_

l0

:::y:l::'..:.-_--

22 Swoboda,Keil, and Kroll, Denkmöleraus Lykaonien (1935),33, no. 74 I (Amlada). EumenesII. o - - - - - L e - - - - - - -

[eiEüv öncn]a 7q6v[ov] tlv eüvonv, oriö[e-] [vöEöofltgrjoerc ubv nap' fipöu qÄavilpdtmt[v'l [zegil dö töv aüubv xai rfig eövofuEfiv äp[pev1 1nqö1Eöpag d.xoöoeo?enapd. töv npeodeuröv. öp Mnt[a6 öte ö 6aor)"eüExarctXtv liylgdEq 'OdlQlalöla. öppao1e.

23 Jüthner et al., Vorlöufiger Bericht über eine archöologischeExpedi22;OGIS751;Welles,,RC54; Swobodaet tion nach Kleinasien(19O3), al., Denkmöler aus Lykaonien, 33, no. 74 II (Amlada).EumenesII.

2l Saucruc,Andros,133-7,no.4;IG xii Suppl.p.124, no' 250.Seealso Robert,BCH xl (1926),493,n.8; Hellenica, xi-xii (1960)'llG25 (Andros). EumenesII or Attalos II. - - - - - dnoöei$eqnenotryrattis - - - - ptyaTopepitE 4gxi, xaLöE xai ivö6$aE xai dv6[mqama, (?) - - - yupvaotaqyogöi ai-l 'Aqepötbgou äqlovroE ßvLautöväv re roig xard [peleliE tiE üv ön' - - - - - rrlvl f i v d P Y r j vA l l A . l l l f i t r6v eiErö ndvtav norcüptvoE nenoiqrat [np]6vo{alv [äluaorpoqfiv yupväorcv napaywop{vav MAIIY l- - - npo-l öh nawög xai iv loralrCovrrlg töv vtan eüxoopfuEfiQooxaQr.tQöv rciE xarä d1v yopqyiav peyaTlopegög- - - -l l- - -ralErö yupvdorcv xexöoprlxeu xataoxeüaoaE, nuLdtva 7f0ou leuxoü xai il{öpav &va9eiExai roü 6ao\A6-l (oE äyafi.pa )"i\ou Tuyv6oE' öv rc qt' yue9Tfox rcü 6aoü'6o4 flpdpg ouwü.oupövqg nopnfiE xai |uoiag önö rcö öripfoil - - - - - IIAYAH .. H .. EI. ünöproü 6aoÄ6atEouvenöpneuoev äyav iö öu' tiobi xai' Iö7uibu nägaXlqlrtpa r d nolpneu06vra ie geial per' öxrev)fuglrdg ygleiagrbt 6aoÄet xai t- - - - - - napleXöpev[oE röt narpi aörcü öon ngldrttttvl - - - aü{ov i1x1 röv v6pav, öpoitog öi xai raiE -----l 6aoÄtooa6'06oagöixaircIlE ' A o x A q n f i t u x a i ' Y y r c i a t x a i ' E q p ü x a i ' H g a x leixai txai oar1p[ag [ngoo-] rc rqErcü 6aot)"ttttgöyrc(aE xü.ArcqfioaEündp fqv|yxaro Exrelviav (?) onouöiS xai qÄorLpiaE oöQiv il')'einau änööetEwnonüpevoErqE npöE röv 6aoÄta [eövoiag- - - - - ]

225

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

"AttaToE 'Aplaö(av

t)

rit nö7et xai rotE yegarcigyaiqr[v-] 'OnqaodrqE KLAap[iciu,'Bo . . . . I oi nag' öpaw npeodeurai vou NaAayAöaEKtLaptou MevviaE wvpeifaweE fipiv aüroig i1[,iouoav xai örcAeytvtg nepi 6w överct6.)"0er.re öpqgd rc öpdv änd'u9fivat [xlai iv töL faAatmöt noT4pat iLerc öpaypdEöuaxnyütiaEinnxeul4lg ltve-l äE npooacpe lxle xai änö röv öüo taLävtav & tü.efuexar' |vnuröv fxou-l qioat öpd.E,inei il'ß|weE ip n)sioow äoQevdtEfoyri-l oete' 1eaqöv oiv öpaEperawvoqxdraE rc öni rcilEl npoqpagrqp{voq xai td önrcrü"Löpeva öcp'fipöv nqo9üpoE inneAoiwaE npövonv öpöv ä1o7ovxail 'Ongaodt7t xai rfit nö[Let inr] Xaprcd.ptvogröt rc rtraXa äqü'eiv dnö roü cpöpouxai rcl7|lofuarloE [öpaXlpd.ErptoyrTlaE xai ä).]'aEögapdE tvaxrcyLAiaE lägl fnpoolaqeiTue fipiv' änüloa öö xai öpfrtlpa öpöv. -vac.? --öppalol9e.] Iiypäqqlöv[--

A Knibbe, Ölh xlvä (19@_5),Beiblatt, l-5, no. l; Börker and Merkelbach,Die Inschr. von Ephesos(Inschr.griech.Stödteaus Kleinasien, )flI. 2, 1979),no. 202.(Ephesos).AttalosII. "ArtaToE 'Elcpeoiau tfit douAqtxai röt öfipat yafpew 'Apnro f- - - - - -l noL[r1g 0' üpdv xpL9eigäELoEöV' fipöv eivat qE 'Arrd).ou üöü.fcpoül lBaoÄeüg

226

Appendix IV

Appendix IV aütöt tfiE xa04t1oüfuioü önrye]lelaEpenn6.pq04,xai ouorafueiE o4EnaöetaE öÄ.ü p4 pövov iv [npoevöq)qe'noAüööpail,ov ücp'rjpdv &.neö6y0r1 rfir röv )tdyov EvneLlplat xai nfapaööott npofyew no776tv, ä77' &r xai 16,r ij9et roü navröE Scpafuet' äfrcg . . ou xai Ennqöeürarog vtat ouvcwdore6qeo9at'o,t, V|p t4Louol raE ayaydE [röu ä]nLoraröv oi öx cpüoeoExatroxaya9moi r(ov vtatv nawi np6ö41övöouv' öt' 6 'AtuiTou föll o6roE oü p6vov öE rjpdu, ü,Ad xai ön' aircü rcö ocpööqanpooqvfog fä]noöey9eiEömaiaE nag' f1pivxai napä roötrtn öniyyavevönrc4paoiaE

(fromnewsqueeze) Herrmann, 2-3fig'Auä).ou täöe7[9oüluioötn4refi.efaE pou äöd.1qrlöoö Zeitschr.Pap.Epigr.xxii (1976),2334: rfi1g'Auö.Aou naöei1aEKnibbe 4 init. fnpoev64]oe Herrmann:fnpotmql J. andL. Robert: [tvexa,] Knibbe. 4-5 ivnellpiaL xai nlopaö6oetJ. and L. Robert, Knibbe BulI. 1968,no. 464:'övzttllptagzla4rcödoer 6 init. lroö 'Artd),1ou Knibbe,questioned by J. andL. Robert(anattributeisrequiredafter 5), 224 Zeitschr. Pap.Epigr.xix (197 äfuog):[tnaiv]ouEngelmann,

25 Knibbe, Öln l Ogl0), Beiblatt, 12-14,no 4; Börker and Merkelbach, Inschr. von Ephesos,no. 201.?AttalosII.

s

@qp)fiq nr" Ano TTavliolu [tövl yev6pevovini rfiE loEpalyiöoErc6 6aoü.6aE0nü xai orpatqlEöpölvou ZarfipoE "E'EE6oou xai töv xar' [yöv 61nirc lcpeoolvrönav xci Kaömqou nelöioul xai ü Kr).6tavöv /4p4-

...5

2-3 J. and L. Robert,Bal/.1972,no 388. 7 tö Kü,6nyöv: cf. Pliny,Nat. Ilisr. v. 120Cilbiani inferioreset superiores.

227

(Kyme).AttalosI or II. 26 PetzlandPleket,Chiron,ix (1979),73-81

l0

l5

' lvtit pa orpanayöv' öneöfi EniyovoE / apoxpdr euETagawivoE öLarpi6ovnapdtE 6aoÄet'AträLE nepi re röv xoLvQoupqtpöwav t8 nö).eLräp naioav onouödv xai npövonv notfitat xai eig rd. iön öxäoup röp noLnd.v yprjorya nqö0upov öawöv naptXnat äxöLou1a npd.oocovrQ üt 6aoü.6o9aip4ott xai 9ü.ov dn6öe$w noulo)ar ü.E npög röv ödpov cpÄtaE' vac. öeööy9at@t öäpE inawioat te tni toütoLot'En(yovov xai orecpantöoat TguotE mxpävE, üu öt d.va4,eltav nonioao9at töv &yavo9&av öv rctE np6ro6 /Lovuo[qrcLxai'Amü.eiont' öeööo0aröö xai npolevtav aöup xai roiE ixyövorcr xai änoöeilat ävöpa dv önryelqoöp*ov, iva toürö rc ü tpd.Eopa xai ü ünöp ü4 ngoluiaE ööypa xara2gaprc06vraeig otdALav xa9' öy xe 'A9dvag 0ü,r1töp nwäxon röy 3v u{t iptFttd.g dvarc1r1eig rö 'A9ävag' ü öö tig taüta Eooöpevovdvd.Tapanpoyprloat igöv ü.E toig orpatayolE, xoptooao1at öi ix n6qa, 6 xe ö öapoE tpaEiooqTdt"

äv eveyx d.ta o av ö i ü E dcpn pa t o ü r o x ai npö E' E n Q o v o v o i ng öy fo tl dnoota).qoöpevot nptodntai npög röp 6aoLAia xai napaxaTfi{o> oavJ aötöv xa9ört xai uüu xai tiE ü. pud raüta öncpu).dooqv rdv elü-voLdvl npöE dp nöLry. &neöe[y97 NmtaE'EppoyivtoE' rQ öx4[Aqoiql orparayöE Enrjoraxe Eev6rtpoE Auoavia, pq[1röE. . . . . . . . .] 'AnoAAaviE öxxaöuätq, ini nputävLog [tö (name) l.

Select Bibliography

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, R. E., 'Attalos I and Aigina',8SÄ lxvi (1971),l-12. Altertümer von Pergamon (Berlin, 1885- ). The followingvolumesareof particular importance to the subjects treated in this study: ll. Das HeiligtumderAthenaPoliasNikephoros(R. Bohn, 1885). III. l. Der grosseAltar, der ObereMarkt (J. Schrammen, 1906). 2. Die Friese des grossenAltars (H. Winnefeld, l9l0). Die Inschriften von Pergamon i.Bis zum Ende der Königszeit. ii. RömischeZeit. Inschriftenauf Thon (ed.M. Fränkel,with E. Fabricius and C. Schuchhardt,1890and 1895). iii.Die Inschriftendes Asklepieions(ed. Chr. Habicht, 1969). IX. Das Temenosfür den Herrscherkult (E. Boehringer, F. Krauss, 1937). Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte, iv. I and 2 (ed.2, Berlin and l*ipzig. 1925-7). Bengtson, H., Die Stategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, | -lll(Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 26,32, and 36), Munich, 1937-52, reprinted with corrections and additions, 1964-7. Die Inschriften von Labranda und die Politik des Antigonos Doson, SB München 1971,3. 'Bellum Bickermann (or Bi(c)kerman), E., Antiochicum', Hermes, lxvü (t932),47-76. 'La citö grecque dans les monarchies helldnistiques', Rev. Phil. lxv YIll.

(1939),33s49. -'\etss on Seleucidand ParthianChronology',Berytus,viii (1944), 73-83. -'Notes sur Polybe. L Le Statut des villes d'Asie aprös la paix d'Apam6e', REG | (1937),217-39. (Bickermann'snameis variouslyspeltin differentpublications.For consistencyin this book the form Bickermannis always used.) in Asia Minor', Broughton,T.R.S., 'New Evidenceon Temple-Estates Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in honor of Allan ChesterJohnson(1951),236-50. Cardinali, G., 'L'amministrazionefinanziariadel comune di Pergamo', M e m . A c c a d .B o l o g n a ,x ( 1 9 1 5 - 1 6 )l ,8 l - 9 3 . '{ng61n sull' albero genealogicodegli Attalidi', Rend. Accad. B o l o s n a ,v i i ( 1 9 1 3 - 1 4 )3,7 4 1 . 'La Genealogia degliAttalidi', Mem. Accad.Bologna,vii (1912-13), 177-85. -'La morte di Attalo III e la rivolta di Aristonico', Saggi di storia antica e di archeologiaofferti a G. Beloch (1910),269-320. Il regno di Pergamo (Rome, 1906).

229

Conze, A., and P. Schazmann,Mamurt-Kaleh: Ein Tempelder Göttermutter unweit Pergamon QDAI Ergönzungsheft,ix, l9ll). Crampa,J., 'Some Remarkson Welles,Royal Correspondence29', Op. Athen. viii (1968),17l-8. Daux, G., 'Craton, EumöneII et Attale ll', BCH lix (1935),210-30. Delphes au deuxiömeet au premier siäcle, (Paris, 1936). '$rr1une clausedu Trait6 conclu entre le roi Attale I"" de Pergameet la cit6 de Malla (Cröte)' , Rev. hist. de droit frangais et ötranger, xlix (r97t),373-85. De Sanctis,G.. 'EumeneII e le cittä greched'Asia',Riv. diJil.läi(1925), 68-78. Droysen,J. G.,GeschichtedesHellenismus,üi.Geschichteder Epigonen (ed. 2, Gotha,1877-8). Ducrey, P., 'Nouvellesremarquessur deuxtrait6sAttalidesavecdescit6s cr6toises',BCH xciv (1970),637-59. snd H. van Effenterre,'Trait6s Attalides avec des cit6s cr6toises', Kretika Chronika, xxi (1969),277-300. Ferguson,W. S., 'The PrematureDeificationof Eumenesll',C. Phil. L (r9M),2314. Fraser,P. M.,'DddicacesAttalidesen B6otie',REAliv (1952),23345. von Fritze, H., 'Zur ChronologiederautonomenPrägungvon Pergamon', Corolla Numismatica, (1906),47-62. Die Münzen von Pergamon (Abh. Berlin, l9l0). Ghione, P., 'I comuni del regno di Pergamo',Mem. Accad. Torino, lv (r905),67-149. Giovannini.A.. Rome et la circulation monetaireen Gräceau IIe siöcle av. Jösus-Christ (Schweiz.Beitr. zur Altertumswissenschaft,xv, Basel, 1978). Habicht, Chr., Go t t menschentu m und g riec hische St ödte (Zet emata, xiv, reviseded., Munich, 1970). .Prusias(l)" RE 1086_1107. _ 'Prusiss (2)' RE ll07-27. , -'IJ661 die Kriege zwischen Pergamonund Bithynien', Hermes, lxxxiv (1956),90-l 10. Hansen, E. Y., The Attalids of Pergamon (ed. 2, Cornell, 1972). Herrmann,P., 'Antiochosder Grosseund Teos', Anadolu, ix (1965), 29-t59. -'\srrs Urkunden zur Geschichtevon Milet im 2. Jahrhundertv. Chr.', Isl. Mitt. xv (1965),7l-117. Holleaux,M., 'Le D6cretde Bargyliaen I' honneurdePoseidonios',REA xxi (1919),l-19; Etudes,ii. 179-98. 'pf,s1s{desAmphictionsde Delphesrelatifä la fötedesNik6phoria', Mö.langesHavet (1909),lE7-96; Etudes, ü. 63J2. tr1a6lssd'öpigraphieet d'histoire grecques(ed. L. Robert, 6 vols. with index and bibliography,Paris, 1938-68). 'L'expedition d'Attale Iu" en 218',Revue des univ. du Midi, 1897, 4E-34; Etudes,ä. 1742. 'L'expeditionde PhilippeV en Asie(201av. J. C.)',REÄ xxii (1920), -

230

SelectBibliography

iv. 2l l-335. xxv (1923),330-46;Etudes, 237-8;xxiii (1921),181-212; 'fnssdption de Pergame',REG xi (1898),251-8;Etudes, ii. 43-9. -'Inscription trouv6e ä Brousse', BCH xlviii (1924), l-37; Etudes, It. 73-125. -'}{sfs sur une inscription de Kolophon Nova', BCH xxx (1906), 349-58;Etudes, ii. 5l-60. OIAETAIPO> ATTAAOY, REG xv ( I 902),302-10;Etud es,ii. | -8. '$u1la date de fondationdes Nik6phoria' REA xviii (1916),170-l; , E t u d e sü, . 6 1 - 2 . 'Sur la lettred'Attale anx'Ay).aöetg, REA xx (1918),17-19;Etudes, ii. 149-51. -'Un nouveau document relatif aux premiers Attalides', REA xx (1918),9-16;Etudes,ii. 9-16. -'Un pr6tendud6cret d'Antioche sur l'Oronte', REG xiii (1900), 258-80;Etudes,ä. 12747. Hopp, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichteder letztenAttaliden (Vestigia, xxv, Munich, 1977). Imhoof-Blumer,F.,DieMünzender DynastievonPergamon(Abh.Berlin, 1884\. Inschriften von Pergamon, seeAltertümer von Pergamon. Jones, C. P., 'Diodoros Pasparosand the Nikephoria of Pergamon', Chiron, iv (1974), 183-205. Kähler, H., Der grosse Fries von Pergamon. Untersuchungenzur Kunstgeschichteund GeschichtePergamons(Berlin, 1948). Keil, J., and A. von Premerstein,Bericht über eineReise in Lydien und der südlichen Aeolis ausgeführt 1906 (Denkschr. Wien. Akad. lüi (1e08)). Bericht übereineTv,eiteReisein Lydien ausgeführt1908(Denkschr. Wien.Akad. liv (19l l)). Kienast, D., 'Cistophoren', Jahrb.für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, x i ( 1 9 6 1 )1, 5 9 - 8 8 . Klaffenbach,G., Die Astynomeninschriftvon Pergamon Q4bh.Berlin, 1953,6). 'Die Nikephorien von Pergamon',MDAI iii (1950),99-106. Kleiner, F. S.,'The DatedCistophoroiof Ephesos',AmericanNumismatic SocietyMuseum Notes, xväi (1972),17-32. 31d S. P. Noe, The Early CistophoricCoinage (AmericanNumismatic Society,Numismatic Studies, xiv, New York, 1977). Köpp, F., 'Ueber die Galaterkriegeder Attaliden', Rh. Mus. xl (1885), rt4-32. Launey, M., 'Un episodeoubliö de I'invasion Galate en Asie Mineure (27817av. J. C.)',rREÄxlvi (1944),217-36. Recherchessur les armöeshellönistiques(2 vols., Paris, 1949-50). Leuze, R., 'Die FeldzügeAntiochos' des Grossennach Kleinasienund Thrakien', Hermes, lviii (1923),187-287. McShane,R.B.,The ForeignPolicy of the Attalids of Pergamon(Illinois Studiesin the Social Sciences,liii, Urbana, l!)64). Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (2 vols., hinceton, 1950).

Select Bibliography

231

-'Nsmg and the City-Statesof Asia Minor from 200 to 133B. C.', Anatolian Studiespresentedto W.H. Buckler, (1939),l6l-85. Meischke, K., Symbolaead EumenisII Pergamenorumregis historiam (Leipzig, 1892). Meyer, Eduard, Geschichte des Koenigreichs Pontos (Leipzig, 1879). Meyer, Ernst, Dre Grenzender hellenistischenStaaten in Kleinasien (Zürich and Leipzig, 1925). -'ltrn' Stammbaumder Attaliden', Klio, xix (1925),462-71. Niese, 8., Geschichteder griechischenund makedonischenStaatenseit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea(3 vols., Gotha, 1903). on Nock, A. D., >YNNAOX @EOx,IIarv. Stud.xli (1930),l-62:.Essays Religion and the Ancient World lgaSsrd, 1972),i.202-51. Noe, S. P., 'Beginningsof the CistophoricCoinage',American Numismatic SocietyMuseumNotes, iv (1950),29-41.Seealso Kleiner, F. S. Ohlemutz, E., Die Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon (Würzburg, 1940). Oliver, J. H., 'The Date of the PergameneAstynomic Law', Hesperia, xxiv (1955),88-92. Paepcke,C., de Pergamenorumlitteratura (Rostock, 1906). Ehrendekretaus Kyme', Petzl,G., and H. W. Pleket,'Ein hellenistisches Chiron, ix (1979),73-81. Picard, C., 'Un oracle d'Apollon Clarios ä Pergame',BCH lxvi (1922), 190-7. Pr6aux, C., Le Monde hellönistique(NouvelleClio, vi,2 vols., Paris, 1978). von Prott, H., 'DionysosKathegemon', AM xxvii (1902),l6l-88. Radet, G., 'Eumeneia',Anatolian Studiespresentedto W. M. Ramsay (1923),3ts-21. et les coloniesmilitairesde Pergame', Reinach,A. J.,'Les mercenaires Rev.Arch. xii (1908),174-218,364-89;xiii (1909),102-19,363-77. Robert, L., Etudes anatoliennes(Paris, 1937). Hellenica, Recueil d'öpigraphie,de numismatique,et d'antiquitös grecques, i-xiii (Paris, 1940-65). -Opera Minora Selecta. Epigraphie et antiquitös grecques, i-iv (Amsterdam, 1969-74). -Villes d'Asie Mineure (ed.2, Paris, 1962). Robinson,E. S. G., 'Cistophori in the Name of King Eumenes',Narn. Chron. xiv (1954),l-7. Kings', Rostovtzeff,M., 'Notes on the EconomicPolicyof the Pergamene Anatolian Studiespresentedto W. M. Ramsay (1923),359-90. -'pe1g36um', in CambridgeAncient History, viii (1930),590-618. -'$qrns Remarks on the Monetary and CommercialPolicy of the Seleucidsand the Attalids', Anatolian Studiespresented'to W. H. Buckler (1939),277-98. Schmitt, H. H., Untersuchungen zur GeschichteAntiochos'des Grossen und seinerZeit (Historia, Einzelschriften,vi, Wiesbaden,1964). Schober, A.,'Zur Datierung EumenischerBauten', ÖJh xxxä (1940), l5 l-68.

232

Select Bibliography

Segre,M., 'Due nuovi testi storici', Riv. di fi\. lx (1932),46-53. -'L'Institution des Nik6phoriade Pergame',in Robert,Hellenica, v (1948),t02-28. Seyrig,H., 'Le Traitö d'Apam6eet le monnayagedesvilles d'Asie',Rev' Num. v (1963),19-22;'QuestionsCistophoriques',Ibid.22-31. Starr, C. G., 'Rhodes and Pergamum,201-200B.C.', C. Phil. xxxü (r938),63-8. Swoboda,H.,'Zu den Urkunden von Pergamon',Rft' Mus. xlvi (1891)' 497-510. Keil, J., and F. Kroll, Denkmäleraus Lykaonien,Pamphylienund Isaurien (Prague,1935). von Alexander Tscherikower, Y ., Die hellenistischenStädtegründungen dem Grossen bis auf die Römerzeit (Philologus,Suppl. xix, Heft I' Leipzie,1927\. Westermark.lJ., Das Bildnis desPhiletairosvon Pergamon(Stockholm,

r960).

Wilhelm, Ad., Akademi eschrift en zur g riechischen I nschrift enkunde (ed. W. Peek, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1974). QTisshischeInschriften rechtlichenInhalts (Athens' l95l). -'f(fsinasiatische Dynasten', Neue Beitröge zur griechischenIn(SB Wien, clxvi (l9ll), i. ll, 48-63). schriftenkunde (323-30av. J.-C.) (Z Will, E; Histoire politique du monde hei:llönistique 1979-8.1). vols., Nancy, 1966-7:ed.2, Wörrle, M., 'Antiochos I, Achaiosder Altere und die Galater',Chiron' v 097s), 59-87.

INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONS Readers are referred in this index to the most recent reliable edition of eachtext, but a @rpus reference (".g. F. Delphes, Sylt.3) is generally preferred to a ioumal reference. The index is not intended to scrve as a concordance of references,but to assistreaders who may be expccted to approach a text from any of severaleditions : a text cited from OGIS may be known also from is inclusion in /vP' and so on' The edition referred to in the index is not necessarilythat cited on every occasionin the text, as th€re may be particular reasons for citing a different edition. Crossreference by bold number (e.g. see2il) is to the list of inscriptions given in Appendix iv, which is put frrst in this index. Appendix iv, no. I : 15, lE3 2: 147 3 :72n. 4: l(h., 7l 5 : 96, 1045 6: l0l,157,2O3n. 7 : 79, l0l, 128, 203n. 8 : 79n. 9 : 127-8,2O3n. l0 : 127-8,203n. ll : 127-8,1334 12: 127-8,133-4 13-17: ll4-21 1 3 : 8 1 n .l,1 5 - 1 6 14: l16,ll8 15 : llci8, r90, 194 1 6 : l 1 8 ,1 2 l 1 7: l l & 1 9 18 : 10n.,ll7, 134 19 : Tln. 20 : 56,155,205 2l : 154-5 22: 102 23:51,102,193 2 4 : 8 I n . , 1 2 0 ,1 3 5 , l9l 25 : 88, 100, 132n. 26: 134,147

Abh. Berlin 1911.27-9:seel5 1928,18,no. l: seeSEG iv. 688 1953,no. 6 (: Klaffenbach,Die Astynomeninschrift vo n Pergamon):170-6 Flaceliöre,Les Aitoliens d Delphes, 407,no. 38b: 7l AM xxiv (1899), 212, no. 36 : see RC 47 230,no. 68 : see Reise47, no.95 4ll, no. 12:105 xxvii (1902),90, no.74: seelvP 165 94. no. 86 : l5ln. 164 : seeIvP 221 xxviii (1903),357tr. : 120n. xxix (1904) 170,no. 14 : 190, 191n., 193 243, no. 4 : *,e IGR iv. 292 xxxii ( 1907),257, no. 8(a) : 165n. 427. no.272 : 156n. 435,no. 297 :92n. 440ff., nos 309-14,322, 324, 326-7, 129,131 : 92n. xxxiii (1908),375,no. I : 153-4, 156n..164.165n. 379,no. 2 : 155,165n. 405,no. 34 : 183 407.no. 36 : 16l

234

Index of Inscriptions

AM (continued) xxxv (1910),ttOl,no. I : 164 4 2 2 ,n o . l l : 9 2 425,no. 12 : 92 432,no. 19 :92 4 3 7 ,n o s .2 2 - 3 : 1 8 3 439.no. 24 :2Mn. 463,no. 45 :27, l&4 xxxvii (1912),282,no. 5 : 183 xliv (1919),30, no. 16 : seeIGR iv. r7l2 Anadolu ix (1965),29-159: 48-53 Sauciuc,Andros, 133,no. 4 : see2l Ann. Epigr. 1932,no.80 : seeSEG ix. 7 Klaffenbach,Die Astynomeninschrift von Pergamon:seeunderÄDft. Berlin 1953 Herzog-Klaffenbach, A syli eur kun den aus Kos 6: 169

Pouilloux, Choix d' inscriptions grec ques ll-12: seeF. Delphes üi.3. 238-9 13 : seeF. Delphes iii. 3. l2l CIG 36ffi: see Robert, Et. anat. 199201 Cl. Rhodos n O%2'), 172, no.3 : see 7 ix (1938),190: seeSEG xix. 867 CRAI l9l7,2930 : seeBCH lä (1928), zl40n. I 1921,269tr.: seeSEG ii. 663 1967,281-94: 145n. Datx, Delphes 293-5: see l0 299-301 : see9 682-98: seeF. Delphesiii. 3. 238-9 686, C : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. l2l . Swobodaet al., Denkmöler aus Lykaonien, no.74 | ; see22 no. 74 II: see23 no. 75 : 190

A v P i . 9 5 - 6: 2 5 BCH xlvi (1922),312: seeSEG ii. 580 l (1926),493n. 8 : see21 lii (1928),440 n. 8 : 156n. liv (1930),348-51: seeRC 62 lix (1935),210-30: 149n.,150 xciv (1970),637-59: see3

Denkschr.Wien.Akad. lxxvii I (1959), 4 - 6 ,n o . 2 : l 8 Didyma ii. 458 : 19-20 i i . 4 8 8 : s e e1 5

Belletenxxx (1966),525-8 : 17, 183

Smallwood, Documents lll. reigns of Nerva etc.,454:.64,97

BSA xxix (1927-8),68-71:104-5 l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 )l,- 1 2 : s e e2

Eph. Arch. 1913,9o 2: seelSE i. 36 ll)67, ll. no. ll : seeSEG xxiv. 356

Bull. Mus. Imp. Rom. 1932,28,no. 25 : 155 1938,44-8 : see Smallwood,Documents 454

Holleaur, Etudes i. 1, n. 4 : see I (c) ii. 9-16 : seeF. Delphes iL. 1.432 ü. 51-60 : see2lf n . $ - 7 2 : s e e1 0 n.73-125 : seeJEG ü. 663 ü. 180: 164n.

Chiron ix (1979),73-81: see26 Durrbach, Choix d' inscriptions de Dölos: 3Ln., 136-7 3 3 : 2 2 n . , 1 8 4 ,1 8 9 52 : 183 75 : seeBCH ltx (1935), 210-30 89: seelzscr. Dölos 1575

Robert,Et. anat. 9-20: 150. 163.2O4n. 45-50: see IGR iv. 292 E4n.4:see19 9G6 : 17-18 199-2Ol : 146

Index of Inscriptions F. Delphes.iii. l. 432: 15, 183 üi.2. ll4a: 47n. iii. 2. l34b: 47n. iii. 2. l34c: 47n. i i i . 3 . l 2 l : 1 0 n . ,1 5 7 iii.3. 218B : 54, 148 i i i . 3 . 2 3 8 - 9 :l 0 n . i i i . 3 . 2 4 0 : s e e9 iii. 3. 241 : 142n.,157-8 iii. 3. 261 : see10 i i i . 4 . 1 3 2 :3 3 , 1 0 7 i i i . 4 . 1 3 3 :3 3 , 1 0 7 äi. 4. 134: 33, 107 iii. 4. 135: 33, 107 Herzog,Heilige Gesetzevon Kos 9 : see Sokolowski,Lois sacröesdes citös grecques,287, no. 165,A8 Hellenica v (19a8), 103-28:seell, 12 vii (1949),l-29: t45n. x i - x i i ( t 9 6 0 ) ,l 1 6 - 2 5 :s e e2 l Hesperia xxüi (1954), 252' no.33 : see SEG xiv. 127 IG ii.z 833 : l9 885 : see 2 945 : seeSy//.a651 946 : see Sy1/.s 655 941 : lf4 953 : see lE 1028: zl6n. 5080 : 147 iv.z 1.60 : 162 v. l. 36 : see.ly//.0595A 47 : seeSy//.s 5958 92 : seeSy//.o605A-8 vii. 15 : seeSyl/.a642 1 7 8 8 :s e eI ( a ) 1789:seeI (b) 1790:see I (c) ix.2l. 56: 201n. l. 95:7(h. l. 179: see9 l. 192: 47n. ix. 2. ll02 :46n. x i . 2 . 2 2 4 A : 2 2 n . ,1 4 6 xi. 4. ll05 : see Durrbach,Choix ll

235

4 . l 1 0 6 : 1 8 3 ,1 8 8 - 9 4. ll07 : see Durrbach,Choix 31 4. I108 : see Durrbach,Choix 52 4 . 1 1 3 6+ 1 0 6 l : s e e B C H 1 9 3 5 , 2 I 0-30 xä.2. 646 : 162n. xü. 8. 156 : seeSy//.3502 xii. Suppl.p.48, no.l42 : 19,2L, 26,91n. p . 1 2 4 ,n o . 2 5 0 : s e e2 l IGR iv. 284 : seeSyl/.3 5954 285 : seeSy//.s6058 289 : seeOC/S 338 292 : 2ln. l7l2 : 132 Inschriftenvon Ephesos 200 : 191 201 : see 25 202 : see 24 Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai 24 :29n., 139 tl: 29n. Inschriften von Sestosund der ThrakischenChersones(Inschr.griech. Städte aus Kleinasienxix) I : 878, 155 Inscriptiones Creticaei. p.4, no.l;p. 25, no.52;p.30,no.l; p.62,no.8; p . l 0 l , n o . l ; p . l l l , n o . 2 :p . 2 9 2 , n o . 1: 4 7 n . i i . p . 2 ,n o . l : 4 7 n . , o . 2 ;p . l 6 l , i i . p . 6 3 ,n o . l 7 ; p . 1 1 8 n no.2l; p.243,no.3; p.291,no.I : 47n. i i i . p . 3 l , n o . 2: 4 7 n . p . 8 3 ,n o . 7 : 9 l n . Inscriptions de Dölos 1497bis : ll7n. 1575: 200 Iraq xvi ( 1954),206 : 2ln. Moretti,/SE i. 36 :75, 107

236

Index of Inscriptions

Ist. Mitt. xv (1965),7l no.1 : see 16 no.2b : see 17 IvM 5 :163n. 7D:163n. 18 : see OGIS 23L 47 : seeSyI/.s651 53:56 87 : see OGIS 319 93 : see Syll.s 679 97 :99n., lM IvP i. 5 : seeSrV üi. 555 13 : seeStY iii. 481 15 : 20n. 18 : see OGIS 267 20: seeOGIS 269 2l-8: seeOGIS 273-9 29: see OGIS 280 33: 196 34: 196 35 : see OGIS 272 36: 35,196 37 : 196 40: seeRC 24 4 3 : 1 7 n . ,1 4 8 n . 44:17n., 148n. 4 5 : 1 7 n . ,1 4 8 n . 47 : see OGIS 281 50 : see OGIS 288 5l : 17n.,124-5,196 52-6:124 52 : see OGIS 283 53 : 17n., 196 554:.124 568: 125 58 : see OGIS 271 59: 148 60: seeSy/l.s5954 6l : seeSy//.r 5958 62 : seeSy//.s 605.{ 63 : see Sy//.0 6058 64 : seeSy//.s 606 149: 126, 174 1 5 6 : 1 2 6 ,1 6 5 n . 157: seeRC 48 1608 : see OGIS 248 16l : 165n. 162:165n.

163 : seeRC 53 165 G AM lX)2 no.74) : 142n. 166: 165n. 167 : see OGIS 299 l7l : see OGIS 291-6 174 : see OGIS 294 f 78 : see OGIS 113 179: seeOGIS 334 182: see OGIS 240 189 : see OGIS 236 190:162n. 219: 205 221: 130n. 223: seeOGIS 322 224: seeOGIS 323 225 : seeOGIS f27 226: seeOGIS 324 240 (+ ii. p.509): see OGIS 336 245(+ ä. p.510):seeIG xii SuPPl. p.48,no.l42 246(+ ä. p.510): seeOGIS 332 248 : seeOGIS 331.RC 65-7 249 : see OGIS 338 ii.l76a: see OGIS 290 251 : see Syll.o 1007 260: 165n. 613: seeOGIS 2U iii. p.28: 200 p.28, no.4 : 244-5 IvPr 2 : see Syll.t 278 3 : 163n. 14 : 105n.,l65n 27 : seeRC 46 57 :162n. 73 : 163n. 139 : 163n. Kre tika Chronika xxi (1969),277fr. : see3 Labraundaiii. I, no.8 : 9ln. Sokolowski, Lois sacrdes des citös grecques,287, no.l65, AB : l4G7, 155 MAMA vi. 68 ; 134 v i . 1 7 3: l 0 l n . . 1 5 4

Index of Inscriptions Conze and Schazmann,MamurtKaleh,' lO : 16, 183 38: lE3 Maier, Mauerbauinschrifteni. 76: see SEG xix. 867

237

294 :130 299 :128-9,165n. 302 : 156n.,l9ln. 303 : l9ln. 3(X : l9ln. 305 : seeF. Delphes äi.3.241 308 : 10,t5, 149 309 : see Robert, Et. anat.9-20 310:seel(a) 3ll:seel(c) 3 1 2: 1 7 , 1 8 3 313:2M 315 : seeRC 55-6t 319 : lO4-5,190 32Gl : l2ln. 322 :128-9 323 :132,165n. 324 : l2E-9 325:152 326:152n.,153 327:E2 329 :74-5, 104,157,190 330: E3,87-8 3 3 1I : 1 7 5 331 II-IV : seeRC 65-7 332 : 84n., 149, 156, 172n.,l94J 134 : lll 335 : see/G xii Suppl. p.48, no.142 336 : 153 338 : 93, 149,165n.,176 339 : seeInschr. von Sestosetc. I 350 : seeInscr. Dölos 1575 446 :64n. 483 : seeAbh. Berlin 1953no.6 4E9:162n. 748 : 14-15,137,183 749:seel(d) 750:seel(e) 751 : see a3 7 5 2: 9 5 763 : see 13 764 : 154 765 : 136n.,139

M i l e t i . 3 n o . 3 3 E: l 1 5 i . 9 n o . l 5 l : s e e1 5 no.307 : see 1{ | I OGIS 1 : 51n. ll : seeIvPr 14 5 5: 9 1 n . 90 : 9ln. 217 : seeRC 39 221 lll : seeRC ll 229 : see StV üi. 492 230:120n. 23lr: 169n. 2 3 6: 6 0 n . 2,10: 6On. 248 :79-80, 15ln., 203n. 2 6 2: 9 7 n . 2 6 4 : 1 6 1 , 1 8 3 l,9 ( ) - l 265 : seeStY iii. 555 266 : seeSrY iii. 481 267 : 42, 122, 146, 165n.,166-8,170, t84 2 6 8 : l 0 l n . , 1 0 5 ,1 4 8 n . 1 , 98 269:31,195 271 : 17n., 124, 196 272: 196 2'13-91 : 7 n . , 3 1 ,1 9 5 273 : 195 274: X), 195 275 : 195 276 : 195 2 7 7: 3 5 , 1 9 6 278 : 195 279 : 195 280: 17n.,29n., 107n.,t96 281: 17n.,125,2O5n. 282 : seeRC 34 283 : 17n.,2En., 124 OJh xxäi (1926), l5l-2, no.87 : see 8 288:74n. xlvü (1964-5),Beiblatt, l-5, no.l : 2X): 129 see A 291-6: 129 | (1976),Beiblatt, 12-14,no.4 : see 291 : 148 25 29t :204

238

Index of Inscriptions

Index of Inscriptions

Welles,RC ll:90 15 : seeInschr. von Erythrai 3l 23 : see OGIS 267 24 : 17n., 173-4 29 :39n. 34 : 45, 169 35 :47n. 36-7 : 145n. 39 : 107 46 : 104n. 47 :96-7, 198-9 48 : 164, 175 49 : see11 50 : see12 52 : see 13 53 : 103-4 55-61: 142-4 56 : 143 60 : 143 6 l : 1 3 0 ,1 3 3 6 2 : 2 0 n . ,l l O n . 65-7: 17n.,130-1,190 65 : 130,193 66 : l(X 67 : 174-5,20t l?EÄ xxxiv (1932), 135ff.: 172n. liv (1952),233ff.no. I (a) : see I (a) I (b) : see I (b) 2: seel(c) 3: seel(d) 4 (a) : see I (e) 5:see19 Michel, Recueil 546 : see REA 1932, 135ff. 1 0 1 6 A: 1 5 0 1016C: 152n. REG Bull. lxxxi (1968),469, no.282: seeSEG xxiv. 356 506,no.446:seeBelleten 1966,525-8 Keil-von Premerstein,(Bericht über eine) Reise27, no.Sl : 43 47, no.95 : 96 nos.2M-5 : l8 Rev.Phil. viii (1934),279ff.: see6 x i ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 3 3 7n,o . l 0 : 1 6 3

Riv. di fi|. lx (1932),446-52: see7 lxvi (1938),253ff.: 149n. Sardisvii. l. 2 : 103 v i i . l . 4 : s e e5 SEG. i. 374 : seeIGR iv. l7l2 i i . 5 8 0: 5 3 - 5 i i . 6 6 3 :6 , 5 4 - 5 , 8 8 - 9 1 iv. 632 : see5 iv. 688 : 195 ix.7 :84 xiv. 127 : I3l-2 xvi. 524 : see3 x v i i . 5 1 0 : 1 0 0 ,l 1 8 x i x . 8 6 7: 9 5 xxiv. 356 : 183 S G D I2 6 7 5 : 4 7 n . 2 7 3 6: 2 U r . , 3 5

'

La:u,m, Stiftungenä.28; seeF. Delphesüi. 3. 121 ii. 29 : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. 238-9 ii. 69 : seeRC 24 ü . l 2 9 a : s e e1 3 i i . l 2 9 b : s e e1 5 S t Y i i i . 4 2 8: 6 l n . iii. 481 : 17n.,22-5,122,169n.,184, 1867 ü i . 4 9 2 : 1. 3 n . 1 , 8 n . ,2 4 n . ,1 0 5 n . , 1 6 5 n . iii. 536: 67-8 iii. 551: 72 1ü.552: 72 i i i . 5 5 5: 9 n . , 1 6 - 1 7l,6 G l , 1 6 5 n . Sy//.s 278 : 163n. 410 : seeInschr. von Erythrai 24 463 : seeInscr. Creticaeiii. p.83, no.7 5 0 2: 8 8 n . 523 : see Flaceliöre,Aitoliens d Delphes,407, no.38b. 561: 169n. 563 : seeIG ix2 i. 192 564 : seeF. Delphes üi.2. l34b 565 : seeF. Delphes üi.2. 13& 5 8 8 :l l 5

Sy/1.3(continued) 5954 :77, 125-6 5958 :77 6 0 1: 4 9 n . , 5 2 n . ffi54 :77, 125n.1 , 5 l n . ,2 0 5 ffi58 :77 fi6 : 77, 15ln., 195n. 6 1 8: 9 9 n . 629 : see 9 630 : see l0 6 3 3: 9 8 &2: 106,135 644-5: ll3n. 6 5 1: 1 3 3 655 : 134 656 : 103n. 666 : 82n. 670 : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. l2l 671 : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. 238-9 672 ; seeF. Delphes iii. 3. l2l

239

679 :99n. 682 : l l0n. 693 : 99n. 968 : 162n. lü7 : 162-3,175 l0l8 : seeRC 24 1028: see Sokolowski,Lois sacries des citös grecques287, no.l65, A8 Robert, Villes d' Asie Mineure 76-8: seeOGIS 330 W i e n .A n z . x x i i ( 1 9 5 1 )3, 3 1 - 6n, o . l : seeSEG xvii. 510 Keil-von Premerstein,(Bericht iiber e i n e )Z u ' e i t eR e i s e1 3 ,n o . l 8 : l M n . 1 3 ,n o . 1 9: 1 3 9

General Index

GENERAL INDEX I. NAMES AND SUBJECTS Abbou Kome,93. L Abdera, 103n. A b y d o s , 8 E n .l,l l Achaian League, 76, 125-6 Achaios (the elder), 1,10,186 Achaios (the younger),29,3G41, 43, 57, 5&61,69 Acilius Glabrio, Manius. l12 Adramyttene Gulf, 23 Adramyttion, 16 adscripti (to Peaceof Phoinike), 7l Aegean,4n.,79,146 Aemilius Regillus, Lucius (triumphed in 189),122n. Aeolis, 39-45,55, 65, 68 Agathokles (son of Lysimachos), I I Agias (Pergamenegymnasiarch), 155 Aiakos (at Aigina), 147 A i g a i ,l G l 8 , 2 6 , 4 1 , 9 8 - 9 , l l l , 1 8 3 Aigina,42-3,69,7+5,104, 105,106, 107,125,135,147,148n.,149, 157,190 Aitolia, 46,47,54,67-71,77,rr2, t27-8, 148 treaty with Rome, 67-8 Aizanoi (Phrygia), 64n., 97 Akrasos, 106,129n. Alabanda, l l0 Alexander the Great. 5l Alexandria(Egypt), 105n.,159, 172n., 174 AlexandriaTroas, 40, 58, 61, ll0, 169 Allaria (Crete), 47n. Altar (at Pergamon),76 Amastris, 13, 186, 187 amicitia (between Attalos I and Rome),69

Amlada,51,E3, 102,144,l9lJ,193 Amphiktyons (at Delphi), 47,127, 128 Amphipolis, 169n. Amphistratos (Athenian archon, 160/59),l(h. Andronikos. 132 Andros. 7+5. 154-5 Anisa, 172n. Ankyra, battle at, 30n., 34, 197-8 AntigonosGonatas,137n.,169 Antioch. 159 AntiochicWar, 42, U, &,76,77,79, 86, 91, 9E Antiochis (m. father of Attalos I), lEl, lE6 Antiochis (daughter of Antiochos III, m. AriarathesIV), 201-4 AntiochosI, l+16, 19,26,29n., 3In..186n. accession,14 and Philetairos,15-16 and Pitane. 19 Galatian victory, 137 death, 2l Antiochos II, 18, 29n., 202 accession,2l, 22n. theos at Miletos, l19 Antiochos lll, 27, 30, 42, 44, 169 accession,36 and Attalos l, 28, 37, 58-61,67, 69, 77_E and Teos, 47-55 alliance with rPhilip v, 60, 73n. statue at Pergamon,60n. and Eumenes11,76,77-B and Asia Minor, 9l andcistophorot, ll3

Antiochos lll (conti nued\ campaign against, in Greece, 125n. defeated in 189, 126(seealso Magnesia) and royal cults, 145 AntiochosIV, 79, ll3n. Antiochos Hierax, 2935, 38, 138, l4l, 195,196,197 ll0, l12, 133,154 Apameia(Phrygia), Peaceof, 25, 42, 51, 54,78,83 (see also Roman settlement) Aphrodision (at Pergamon),battle at, 33-4.3E.197-8 Apollo, Philetairos dedicatesland to, l7 Attalos I oünaoE, with at Sikyon, 147 Klarios (at Colophon Nova), 56 Tarsenos.97.198-9 Apollonia (Crete), 47n. Apollonia (Rhyndakos), 88n. Apollonides (otiwpoqoE of Attalos II), l3l Apollonios (minister of Ptolemy II), 202 Apollonios (epistates), 105-6, 108 Apollonis,l8l,205 honoured at Hierapolis, 149 at Teos, 150'1,152 death,15l Apollonis (Lydia), 96, ll2n. archeion, at Pergamon, 176 Archias {prytanis at Pergamon), 16l-4 Ariarathes IV, 182, 192,20/!4 Ariarathes V, E2, 2Ol, 203 Ariobarzanes,138, 186 Aristonikos. 35. ll2n. Arkades (Crete), 47n. Artaxerxes II, 162 Artemidoros (official of EumenesII), 95 Artemis, temple of (at Sardis), 96 Leukophryene (at Magnesia),45 Artists of Dionysos, re€ Dionysian technitai Asklepiades,162 Asklepias (priestessof lEth Nikephoria), 129 Asklepieion, at Pergamon,204 at Epidauros,162

24r

Asklepios, temple of, at Mytilene, 24n. at Pergamon, 162,175 and cult of Attalos III, l5G7 Astynomic Law, 170-4 Athena, cult annd festivals of at Pergamon, l2l-9, 170 given cult nzme Nikephoros, 123, 196 Parthenos.126.174 Athenaios (son of Attalos I), takes part in Manlius' Galatian campaignof 189,90, 107 honoured at Colophon Nova, 56, 155 at Miletos, l16 dedication for at Pergamene Asklepieion,2(X and Philetairos wrongly identified as |eoi qt),aö679or.,156 Athenaios (cousin of Attalos Il), t}ul, l7+5, 192 Athens,7, 10n.,31n.,49n.,E0,82n., l l 7 , l 3 l , 1 4 7 , 1 5 l n . ,1 5 8 ,1 7 4 , 199.20G1.2(X Attaleia (Aitolia), 70 Attaleia (Lydia), 2l-6,32, 107,122, 184,186 Attaleia (Pamphylia), 83 Attaleia, 146 at Delphi, 157 at Kos, 146 at Kyme, 147 Attaleion, at Pergamon, 153 Attalid dynasty, foundation of, 9-ll Attalistai. 152-3 Attalos of Tios (father of Philtairos), l8l. 186 Attalos (brother of Philetairos), 18l, 1846 Attalos (fatherof Attalos I), lEl, 182, 184-6 Attalos \ n-75 literary tradition on, l-2 scholars at Pergamonunder, 3 treatise by, 3n. adopted by Eumenes I, 184 accession,27 length of reign, l0-1 I control of area around Aigai and Temnos,18,26,4l

242

General Index

General Index

Attafos | (continued) takes royal title, 29n., 31, 140,159, 196, 198 military expeditionof 218,37, 39-58.62 receivesoüwa[,6 and 96pog, 5G5, 99 death,10,186n. extent ofkingdom on death, 25, 86 and youngerAchaios, 29,30,36-7, 40.43 and Aigina, 42-3 and Aitolia, 77 and AntiochosIII, 28, 37,58-61, 67, 69,77 and Antiochos Hierax, 29,10,31, 38. 90 and the army,32-3, 198 and Athena, 31, 122-3, 124, 170 and Athens. 80, 147 and basileia. 105n. and coinage, 170 and epistates, 42-3, 74-5, 106 and Galatians, 8, 2En., 29-35, 122, t36-41, 195-9 and Greek cities, 39-58 and Lilaia, 33,45, 107, 177 and monu ments,8, 28, 195-6 and Nakrasa, 106 and Philip Y, 4n., 44,60, 66-9, 72-4, 147 and Rome,27-8,65-75,16 and royal cults, 145, 146-8 and Teos, U, 47-55,103, 169 and Thyateira,40, 43-4,61, 1()6 Attalos II. El-3 literary tradition on, I assumesresponsibility during war with Pharnakes,El on embassyto Rome in 168, 142n. encouragedby Senatein l60s to usurp throne, 4 co-regencywith Eumenes II in 160/59,10n.,8l accession.10. lE7 length of reign, lGl I war with PrusiasII. 82. 132 campaignin Thrace, E3,E7,94 and Achaian League,77 and Aigina, 74, lM, 105, 135, 190

and Amlada,5l, 102,144,190,193 and Cappadocia,82 and Ephesos,120, 135 and foreign policy, 8l-2 and Galatians, 82, 133, l4}'4 and katoikoi at Soma, 9G7, 198-9 ? and Kyme, 147 and Miletos, llGl7, l2ln. and priesthoods of Sabaziosand Donysos Kathegemon,130, 190 ? and Sestos,155 and Syria, 79-E0,82 Attalos III, 83-5 literary tradition on, l,6, 83-4 birth and parentage,6, 189-94 has mentor from Ephesos,120, 135 honouredby ephebes,193,194 length of reign, l0-l I hostile to officials offather's reign, 108 bequeathskingdom to Rome, 84 death of. 149 preparing mausoleumof Stratonike when he died, 203 Pergamenedecree passedafter his death,93,149,176 and Kyzikos, 104, l3l and priesthood of Dionysos Kathegemon,l(X, l3l, 190 and royal cults, 147, 149, 154-7, 172n. ? and Sestos,155 Attis (priest of Kybele at Pessinous), 82, 130,133,142-4 Attondae, 134 Augustus, 2 Axos (Crete),47n. Babylon, 3(h. Bakir (: Nakrasa), 105, 108, 198 Balikesir, valley of, 4{) Banabelos(offrcial of elder Achaios), l,{) Bargylia,73, 164n. basileia, 105n.,197 bathron (monument of Attalos I), 31, 3 5 , 3 9 ,1 9 5 benefactions,Attalid, 7, 14-15,7O-1, 77, ll9-20, tsE

Berenike(queenof Antiochos1l),2O2 Biannos (Crete), 47n. biographies,Attalid, 3, 14 B i t h y n i a 3. , 6 4 . 7 8 , 8 2 . 1 0 5 n . Biton (priestessof l4th Nikephoria), t28 Black Sea,26,58,72n. Boa (motherof Philetairos),181, 183, 187,188 Boiotia, T boule, at Pergamon,16O1, 165-6,168 building, at Pergamonunder Eumenes11,76,126 Bursa (find-place of Korrhagos decree),6, 88, 9(),9lnn., 172n. Byzantion, 37, 84n., 122 Cappadocia, 78, 79, 82, l l3n., l3l,

r7+5 Caria. 38-9.4l Attalos I defeats Galatians in, 35 Carneades.E2n. 'A&jöou), Chaireas(ö ntayp{vog tn' llln. Chalkis, 169n. Chersonesos,87-8,93, 99-100 Chios, 163 naval battle off,28n., 72-1,124 Chloros (dvayxaloEof Attalos II),133 chora, 87 Chronica Pergami @ergamene Chronicle),l6l, 183 coinage, 7 bronze coinage associatedwith cult of Meter, 16 cistophoric,7, 78, lt.r:-*l4 at Thyateira, 43 dynastic,7,32n., ll3, 122, 170 of Greek cities. 109-14 ColophonNova, 56, ll0, 155,205 co-regency (of Eumenes II and Attalos II), Iftt., 8l Corinth, sack of,83, 132 CorneliusScipio Asiaticus,L., triumphedin 189, ll2n. and P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, in Asia Minor, 59, 99 Corragus (in Livy), see Korrhagos Corupedion,battle at, ll, 186 Crete.{l-8.72

243

cults, royal, 7, 145-58 at Miletos, l14-19 at Pergamon,151-7 at Teos. 148-50.152 C y p r u s ,8 3 , 9 1 n . ,1 7 2 n . Cyrenaica,172n. Cyrene, 84 D a m e a s1, 0 n . , 7 1 Daskylion,92 Delos,22, 24n.,31n.,113n.,l15, 136,146,183,184n.,188-9, 200.204.205 Delphi,7, 10, 15, 19,20n.,33,35,47, 7 U 1 ,7 7 , 8 1 , 1 0 7 ,l l 3 n . , l 1 7 , 142n..157.158 Demeter, temple of at Pergamon, 183,200 Demetrios (Attalid strategos at E p h e s o s ) , 8 81. 3 2 n . Demetrios (successorof Antiochos

rv),80 DemetriosPoliorketes,6ln. Demetrios of Skepsis, 3 Demokles (Athenian archon, 278/7), 136n. Denizli, 139 Didyma, 19, 20n. Didyma Teiche, 40 Diegylis,83, 94 Dodoros (EiAoEof EumenesII), 133 Diodoros Pasparos(Pergamene gymnasiarch),23n. Dionysia, at Pergamon,127 Dionysian technitai, Ionian Guild of, 53,76, 103-4,148-50 Dionysos,cult of at Pergamon,121, 148-9.152 at Teos, 47, 148-9,152 Dionysos Kathegemon,104, 13G1, l4E. 174. 190 dynasteia,20,21,22,30, 61, 197 Egypt,9l-2 Eirenias.1lG2l ekklesia,at Pergamon,161, 165-6, l6E Elaia, 16,26,68,99, 131,156 Elaitic Gulf, 19, 25 Elaos (Aitolia), 10, 77n.

24

General Index

General Index

Eleutherna (Crete), 47n. ephebic lists, at Pergamon,92-5, 96,

r76 Ephesos,22,26,8h.,83, 87, 98, l 0 G ' 1 ,1 0 6 ,l l 0 , l 1 2 , l 1 4 , l l 8 n . , l l 9 - 2 1 , 1 3 3 ,1 3 5 ,1 5 4 , 163n. Epidauros,162 Epigenes,29n.,196 Epikrates (of Indeipedion), 93n. epistates,42-3,7+5, 105-6,108-9 epitropos,Sl,193 era, Seleukid,24,98 Eretria, 74n. Erythrai, 28n., 29n., 139, l,t0n. Euboia,74n. Euergetes,title of Philetairos, 154 title of Eumenes I at Pergamon, t6 Eumeneia.146 at Delos. 146 at Pergamon, 146 Eumeneion, at Pergamon, 153 at Philetaireia, 23n. Eumenes (of Amastris, father of EumenesD, 13, 184,185-7 EumenesI, 2G6 literary tradition on, 2 lengthof reign, lGl I defeatsAntiochos I at Sardis,20-1, 24, t60 position after Sardis, 20-6 areaofdirect authority, 20-6,85, 93, C7, 106,t30 adopts Attalos I, 184 death,27 and Aigai, 1618, 26 and coinage, 24 and Delos, 22,24n., 189 and Elaia. 26. 68 and mercenaries,23,f2 and Pergamon, 42, 159, 165-9 and Pitane,21,26, 4l-2,45, 9ln. EumenesII,7G8l literary tradition on, l-2 accession.76 lengthof reign, lGll scholarsat Pergamonunder, 3 on side of Rome in war with Antiochos III, 77-8,86

speechto Senatein 189, 78 marries Stratonike, 192, 20/.J.6 building programme of lE0s, 76, t26 rebuilds precinct of Athena in Pergamon,28n., 35, 122, t25 establishesNikephoria, 79, l2G9 war with Prusias I and Galatians, 79, l0l, 128 calleÄSoter,79, l0l, 128,l5Gl war with Pharnakes,79, 8l Galatianwar of 160s,80, 102, ll5, t42-3 co-regency with Attalos II in 1 6 0 / 5 9l.0 n . . 8 l d e a t h .l 0 n . . 8 l and Achaian League,76,125-6 and Athena 28n., 35, 123,125-9 a n d E p h e s o s , 8 7 , 9 81, 0 0 - 1l,l l , l14, ll8n., ll9-21,r35 and Greek cities, 4, 8Gl and Miletos, 98, 100, ll,l-21 and Peloponnese,T6-7 and Rome, 4, 76, 80, 86-7 and royal cults, 148-56 and Teos, 76, 99, 103-5,109, I I I, 148-53 and Thyateira, 434,86,99, lll and Zeus, 173 EumenesIII (: a.;.1onikos), 85, ll2n. 'Eumenesof Bithynia', 197 Eumenistai, 152, 153 Eurydike (priestessof Stratonike), 204 finance, Attalid control of, 5, 109, I 14, 167-8.See also tribute, oüwaf6, qöpoE fleet, Attalid, 26, 33, 68,-9,77 Galatia,75,78,79,80, 82, 138,1,10, 142-4 Galatians, 85, 13644 and cities of Asia Minor, 30, 136, l 39-40 and Kyzikos, 14-15,137-8,146 as mercenariesof Antiochos Hierax, 29, 30,33

Galatians (continued) defeatedby Attalos l,2En.,29-35, 122, l3G4t,195-9 as mercenariesof Attalos l, q, 57, 1 3 8 .1 4 l campaign asainst by Cn. Manlius V u l s o , 8 0 , 9 0 ,1 0 7 , 2 0 1 and EumenesII, 78, 79, 80, $, l0l, 107,128,15l and Attalos 11,82, 133, l4r4 Gambreion, 16 garrisons, 109 on Aigina, 75 genealogy,Attalid, l8 l-94 Greek cities, of Asia Minor, 4, 39-58, 8 0 - 1 , 8 5l,1 4 Gryneion, 21n.,24n. gymnasium,Attalid interestin, ll8, 120.155 Hadrian. l7l Hekatomnids,187 Helikonian muses (at Thespiai), 15 Hellespont,72 Galatians settled there by Attalos I in 218. 40. 57 Hellespontine Phrygia, 30, 38, 41, 45-6,55, 57-8,62, 148n. Attalos I defeats Galatians in, 35 awarded to Eumenes lI in 188, 87 administration of, E7-91,93 Herakleia (by Latmos), 98, 99, I l0 Herakleia (Pontic), 84n. Herakles, 137n. Hierapytna(Crete),47n., 72n. Hierapolis, 105, 149, 150, 152 Hierocaesarea,l(Xn. Hikesios(of Ephesos),106, 120, 135 Hydra, Cape, 25 Iasos. 127.133-4 Ilion, 3, 20n.,40, 49n.,58, 61, ll0, l l l n . , 1 3 8 ,1 3 9 ,1 6 9 Ionia,40, 45-6,57,62,65 Ionian koinon, 115-16 Ipsos,battleat,9 Istron (Crete),47n. Itanos (Crete),9ln. Izmir. 95, l,t0

245

Kaikos, River, 31, 34,3E,122, l4O, l4l, 195,1969 IGlynda, 46 Kardakes, 95 Karseai, 40 Karystios (of Pergamon), lE3 Karystos (Euboia), 74n. Kassandros.6ln. katoikoi. 9+8. I 14 Kaunos, 46 Kephisodoros (gymnasiarchat Apameia), 154 Ketschi-Agyl, 25 Kibyra, ll0 Kiddioukome. 140 Kios,84n. Kleon (epistatesat Aigina), 105 Knossos(Crete),47n. Koile Syria, 22 Koloe. battle at. 195 Kolophon,49, 56,57-8,ll0n., 162n., 169 see also Colophon Nova Korrhagos (Attalid strate gos), 6, 55, E8-91,94, 95, 107,llln. Korris (priest at l-abraunda), 143 Kos, 57, ll0, 127, 133-4,146, 149n., 155.169n. Krates (of Mallos), 142n. Kraton. 150-2.153 Kybele, 142 Kydonia (Crete),47n. K y m e , 1 7 , 4 1 , 9 9 ,l l 0 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 7 K y z i k o s , 3 ,1 4 - 1 51, 6 , 2 6 ,5 8 , 1 0 4 , ilo, l3l, 137-8,r39, 146, l5ln.,183 Labraunda,39, 91n., 143 Lachares (official of elder Achaios), 140 Lade. battle at. 73 Lampsakos,40, 58, 61, ll0, 170 Laodike (queenof MithridatesII), 138 Laodike (queenof Antiochos III), 48 Laodikeia, 37 Lato (Crete),47n. Lebedos,lll Leonnarios.137n..139 Leschides (biographerof Attalids), 3

246

General Index

Leukophryena (at Magnesia), 127 Licinius Crassus,P. (cos. 17l),142 Lilaia, 33, 45, 107,177 Loutarios, 137n. Lycaonia, 87 Lycia, 100 Lydia, 38, 4l Attalos I defeats Galatians in, 35 awardedto EumenesII in 188,87 Lykos, River, 40, 43 Lysias(dynast),13,35-6,196 L y s i m a c h e i al l,, 8 7 , 8 8 , 1 0 0 ,l 0 l Lysimachos,9-14, l2l, 122 Lysimachos (biographer of Attalids), 3 Macedon,66.73 Macedonian foundations, 94 Macedonianwar, first, 26,33, 45, 49, 62.ffi-1r.75 second,49, 59,72-5 Magnesiaad Maeandrum,45, 56,62, 9 9 , l M , 1 0 5 ,l l 0 , r r 5 , 1 2 7 , 163, 169, 190 Magnesiaad Sipylum, 13n.,24n., 100.105.110 battle at, Mn., 59,77, 87, 98 Makestos, River, 40 Mallos, 142n. Mamurt-Kaleh, 16, 164, 183 Manisa, 18 Manlius Vulso, Cn., 80, 83n., 90, r07, 201 Masdue,93 Mastya, 73n. Megara, 106 Megon (of Ephesos),120, 133, 135 Mektepini (Phrygia),I l2n. Menogenes(ö tni riv npaypdtow), 129-30,133,134 mercenaries,23,29,30, 63, ll5 revolt of, at Philetaireia and Aualeia, 23-5, 187 Meter, 15, 19, 164,lE3 Methymna,9 Metris (priestessof 9th Nikephoria), 127, t28 Mötrodoros (strategos at Pergamon), 166 Miletos, 7 , 57, 9E,9n. 100, 104n., ll 1, ll3n., ll+21, 139,145, 155,157,190,194

Milyas,87 mints, royal, 109-14,135 MithridatesI. 138 MithridatesII, 138, 140-1,186 Mithridates (= Ariarathes V), 202-3 Mylasa, 91n., 99n. Myndos, I I I Myrina, 17, 21n., 24n., 41, lll Mysia, 25, 39-45,55, 62-5, 68,96 Attalos I defeatsGalatiansin, 3l 'Mysiam, quam Prusiarex ademerat'.63-5.87 Olympene,63 Mytilene, 19, 21, 24n., lll Myus,l15, l18-19 Nabis (of Sparta), 77, 125n., 126 Nakrasa,26,101n.,106,129,133 Nasos.162n. Neanthes of Kyzikos (biographer of Attalids), 3 neokoros,96 Neonteichos,140 neos ktistes (designationof Philetairos),16l Nikephoria, 79, 123-9, l3t-4, 170 Nikephorion, at Pergamon,44n., 12f-5 destroyed by Prusias II, 82 Nikephoros, see Athena NikomedesI, 15, E4n., 137n.,l4l Nikomedes IV. 8,f5 'Northern League', 15 Notion, 56 Nysa (queenof Phqnakes I), l l7n. Olus (Crete),72n. Oreos (Euboia),74n. Orontes (satrap of Artaxerxes II), 162 Oropos, lE3 Ortiagon, 79 palace,royal, at Teos, 153 at Tralles, 153 Palamandros(strategos at Pergamon), 166 Pamphylia, 83 Panathenaia,at Pergamon, 122, 123, 166. 170

General Index

247

two of same name distinguished, Panionion, Eumenes II honoured at, 23n. l16 Philetaireia, at Delos, 22n., lt+6, 189 Paramonos, 107n. at Kyzikos, 15n.,138,146 Parion, I I I Philetairos, 9-20 Pelekas.Mount.40 literary tradition on, 2-3 Pella, 159 parentage, 182-3 Peloponnese,Eumenes II honoured allegianceto Lysimachos,ll-14, in,7G7 122 Pergamon,159-77 allegianceto Seleukids,9, 12, Strabo on, 2 13-19,160 monumental and architectural beginningofrule,9 remains. 7-8 length ofreign, l0-ll wedth at. 13-14.77 financial independence,14 source of Attalid inscriptions, 4, 6 befriends neighbours, l4- l5 ephebic lists from, 9l-6, 176 nature of authority, 14, 20 pre-Attalid status, 15-16,159-64 head on later dynastic coinage,24, participatesin cult of Meter, 16, 19 32n.,ll2n., ll3 treaty of isopoliteia with Temmos, and coinage, 14 l6-17, 160 and Delphi, 15 Philetairos at, from 302, 9 and Galatians.31n., l3G9 constitutionat,85, 108, 159-69, and Kyzikos, 14-15,58,137,146 170-6 and Meter, 15-16 ö öni tng nö)"eagat, 108, l7l-3, 177 and Pergamon,14, 154, 159-60 ö tni rtitv iepöv npooööav at, and Pitane, 19 172-4.r77 and succession,187 strategoi at, seestrategos and Thespiai, 15 financeof, 109, l14, 167-8 Philetairos son of Eumenes (= mint at, ll0 brother of EumenesI), 184, building programme in l80s at, 76, 187-8 126 Philetairos(son of Attalos I), ll6n., gymnasialcult at, 154-5 1 5 6 ,l 8 l Asklepieion at, 204 PhilipV, 4n., 44,6-9,72-4,86, 147, walls at, 126 169.192,193n. and Apollonis, 205-6 defeatedat Chios in 2O2,28n., and Aristonikos, 85 72-3, 124 and Athena, 122,126,170(seealso invasionof Asia Minor in 201, 49, Nikephoria) ll5, 123 and Dionysos Kathegemon, l(X defeated by Roman alliance in 197, and royal cults, 120, 15l-7 126,rzE and Stratonike, 20G6 and AntiochosIII, 60, 73n. and topoi 93-4 and Cretan communities, 47-8 and Zeus, 173 and Teos, 47-E Perseus(of Macedon),4,80, 142 Philiskos (strategos at Pergamon), Pessinous,82, l3O, 142-4 l6 Pharnakesof Pontos,3, 4n., 79, 81, Philomelids.13. 19-20 1 0 0 ,l l 7 n . , l 4 l Philomelos.13. 20n. Phaselis,lll Philopoimen (ö tni t4g ogpayiöoE), Phialeia, ,16 107n.,132,134 Philetaireia (Lydia), 23-6, 12, 107, Phoinike, Peaceof, 49, 55, 69, 7 | r22. 1E4.186

248

General Index

General Index

Phokaia,4l-2,86,91, l0l, 104, llln.,162n. Phrygia, Greater, E7 Epiktetos,63-5 pirates, Cretan,72 Pisidia,37, 4l, 83 Pitane,16, 19,21,26,4l-2, 45,91n., 104 Pleuratus.68 Polemon (of Ilion), 3 Polyrrhenia (Crete), 47n. P o n t o s , 3 , 7 8 ,1 3 8 ,1 4 1 ,1 8 6 Porphyrius, 35n. Poseidonios(grandfatherof Eumenes I), 184 Praefectus (: strotegos), 9O Priapos,l0ln., lll Priene,Dn., 104n.,105n.,136n., 139,163,165n. prostagma, lM, 109, 175, 176, 177 Prusa, 8E PrusiasI, 3, 49,63-4,67, 69,71,79, t o r , t 2 2 - 3 , 1 2 81, 4 l , 1 5 l PrusiasII, 3-4, 82, 83, 99, 124, 128, l3t, 132, 143, lu prytanis, l6l, 163-5 Ptolemais(Egypt), 172n. Rolemies, 83, 114 Ptolemy11,22,202 PtolemyMakron, 9ln. Ptolemy Physkon, 84 Rhaukos(Crete),47n. R h o d e s4, , 3 7 , 4 6 , 6 0 n . ,7 2 - 3 ,8 0 , 98n.,99n., 100,105n.,lll, ll3n., 122 Romansettlementof 188BC, 4, 8, 25, 52-3,54, 55, 57, 62, 63, 78, 86-7,88, 90, 91, 98, 126, 128.See also Apameia Rome, Attalos I's alliancewith, 27-8, 65-75.146 treaty wirh Aitolia, 67-8 EumenesII and, 4, 76, 80, EG7 alliance after death of Attalos I, 78, 86 envoys of Eumenes II and Pharnakesat(08312),79 war with Perseus,E0 Attalos II and. 143

assistedby Attalid forces in 149 and 146,83 Attalid dependenceon, E4 Attalos III bequeathskingdom to,

u

royal title, taken by Attalos l,291., 31, 140,159,169,198-9 Sabazios,l3l*-l, 174-5,20t Samos, 120n.. 132 Sardis1 , 6 , 9 6 ,1 0 3 ,1 0 5 ,l l 0 , l l l , ll2. 142n.. 158 battleat (c.262\,20-1,24,lffi satrapalsystem,Seleukid,78,87, n Satyra(motherof EumenesI), l8l, 184 Scerdilaidas,68 Scipio,see Cornelius Seleukeia,78n. Seleukeiain Piereia, 176n. Seleukosl, 9, ll-14, 241 SeleukosII, 30,34, 105n.,138,197 SeleukosIII, 29, 30,35-6 Seleukos(son of Antiochos III), I 13,

r23 Selge,37, 83, 102n.,l,l4 Senate(at Rome),4, n,49, 53, 55, 7 8 , 7 9 , 8 2 , 8 4 ,r 4 3 Sestos,87,94, 155 settlements,military, 93-4, 95-7 Sikyon, 77n., 147, 149 S k e p s i s , 3l,0 l n . , l l l , 1 3 8 Skymnos (strategos at Pergamon), t66 slaves,85 Smyma, 13n.,18,24n.,41n',46, ll0nn., lll,142,165n. Soli,120n. soma. !)6-7, 198-9 Sosandros,l3Gl Sotas, 139 Soteria(ofPrusias I), 123 sources,l-8 Sparta, 125n.,126 Strabo,sourcesof,2-3, 13-14 strategia, 107n. strategos,kinds ofoffice ofthis name in the kingdom, 107-8 Attalid regional official, 6, 55, 87-91

strategos,and finance, ll4n. at military katoikiai, 96 offrce held by Achaios, 36 Ptolemaic,at CYPrus,9ln. strutegoi in subjectcities, 1049 at Pergamon,42', 146, 16l, 165-8' l7r-2, r77 of SeleukosIII, 29, 35 Stratios (physician of Eumenes II)' l9l, 194 Straton (Attalid strate gos), 87 Stratonike,Sl, 13l, l8l, l9l' 192' 200-6 and parentage,202-3 bethrothal and marriage to EumenesIl, 200-6 and Sabazios, 174-5 and Teos, 150, 152, 163 death, 203 Stratonikeia,106, I l2n. Stratonikeia (töv &.nö'Ivöemeötou)' 93n. 10n.,81, 187 succession, Sybritos (Crete), 47n. Synnada,9n.,ll0 Syria, Attalid policy in, after lE8' 82 Syrian war, second,22 tamias, at Pergamon,167-8,l7l' 172 taxation,see tribute, oöwafry, pöPog technitai, see Dionysiantechnitai TektosaganGalatians,33, 198 79, 87, 95, 98, 100' l0l' Telmessos, l l 0 n . ,l l l , 1 2 8 temenos,voted to EumenesII at Miletos, llG19 Temnos,9n., lGl8, 26,4l' 9, l0l, lll, l6G.l,164,175

temples,administrationof ,9G7, ll4 Tenedos,lll Teos,7, 44,47-55,76,99, 103-5,109, lll, 120,148-53,163,174,206 Themistokles (stat egos of Achaios), 40 Theophiliskos,72, 73 Theophifos (oüwpoqog), l3l-2, 134 Theotimos (strategos at Pergamon), 166 Thespiai, 15 Thyateira, 16, 23, 26, 40, 43-4, 61, 8 2 n . , 8 6 , 8 7 I, , l 0 4 n . , 1 0 6 , lll, ll2n., 139 Tios, 13n.,182,186 TolistoagianGalatians,31, 33, 38, 124.196.198 toparchiai, Seleukid, 95 topoi, 87, 90, 9l-8 Trajan, 171 T r a l l e s , 8 7 , 9 81, 0 0 ,l 0 l , 1 0 5 ,l l 0 , llt, ll2, 135, 157 tribute, Attalos I refuses to pay it to Galatians,29-31 paid to Attalos I, ,14-58 after 188BC,98, 102,109 See also oitwaf6, pöpog Troad2 , 3,41,61,65,68 Tychandros (Athenian archon, 160/59),ll7n.' Zus, priesthood of, at Pergamon,

r73 basileios,105n. Zeuxis,60n. Zaelas (of Bithynia), 84n.

II. NOTABLE GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES äyaLua, 154, 157 dyotvtE (for Athena at Pergamonin 220), t22-3, t24 dyavo06r4g, 2O4 dpgoödpya6 l7l d.vayxaIoE,133 ävaöeötrypövoE,194

249

(oi) dnö tönav (in ephebic lists)' 92-3, 176 d.pTttyitttE,14 d.owvöpo4 l7l-2 äoulia, 47,55, 127 'And.töE (ethnic), 70 aörovoltoupövo4 lN

250

General Index

General Index

dgoqoloyqota, 5l (oi) daoüelE (in Strabo, usually meansAttalids). 83n. 6aodmög vdpoE, 17l,175 6aoülooa (as title of princess), 2üll ya(oEü\a|,,9 falanxd,29n. yev60lroEflptga, 56, ll6, 155 yvdtpq ovpat1yöv, lM-5, 165 ötü"üoetE,6ln. (ö) (napd uitr 6aorlet) ötatqifiav, 134 öuväov4g, 20

xowonpayia, 59-61,69 Ko).ogtbvor änö 0d.doo4g, 56 xpivew, 133n. xüpng 14, 16, 19 xap6nol6 Glion), 138 Maoöu4vot,93 pe9rctdpevogt$ äv0pdtnav, 149 povotxoi dydveg (at Tralles), l0l,

r57 Mrioor, 45,62-3 viot, 56,155 vöpot rfig röleaE, 175 vopoqü,axeE, l7l f,6vor(in ephebiclists), 92, 176

iyyeqilew, 46 dxtbv, 56, 155, 157 tn ntdrq g, see ep istate s (ö) tni üöe rcü TarSpou,36 (ö) öni ttts nö).eaE, 108, l7l-t, 177 (ö) öni t1E oqpayiöog, 132 tnftponog, seeepitropos (ö) (napd rcü 6aorl6ag'Attdü.ou) (ö) tni töv äpyotvtöv 6aor).mdtv, 10n., 7l (ö) Eni uitv iepdv npooöötov, 172-4, 177 (ö) tni xnv npayltdtotv, 129-30,133 (under AntiochosIII), 60n. ört naig öv, l9l, 193 (fi) tq' 'DJ'aon6vtou oatpanela (Seleukid),90 Eqfidor,56,155 fTyeptita,69, 101 i1p6paön6vupog, 116, 155 9coi güaötAgo4 156 9eös, l4E, 149, 154 iod.tiprnrcE,, 127 ioono).neia,9n., 1617, 160 iooni9ng, 127 (oi) xa9' 'E1),y'7onovrov t6noq X (ö) xataora9eiE ön' Aiylvag, 135 xarow(at tdtv Muoöv. 40. 45 xdromou 43.62

oixetog, ll7, 134 napü.a6öv (rd npäypam), 21,25, 9ln. (fi) tapä14p6 tfiE nöLeoE, Wl ndrprcv noltrcupa, 42 nü,epog fd.anxöE, 140 teö€evos, 15 npöooöot,5l, 54n. npoozäqg, 48 (ö üv) nqonpapevov, 134 or egavhat aybveE (refounded Nikephoria), 128 mgaqy6E, mparqyot, seestrategos 'EEöoou oqaqyöE ön' xrL., E8 g or paury ö tg" E)J.qonöw ou (Seleukid), 90 oqaqyög rfiE Xeggovfioou xai röv xard d1t 6pdtx4v t6nov,87 'Ivöemeö[ou, Ztparovueüg töv d.nö 93n. ouyywfi;,,130,133 ouppaTia (Rhodian), 99n. ouunolneia, 13n.,56,92, ll9 ouv9fixat,4, ß,50,55, 57, 59-61, 65, 79 oüwaog (0eö4, 147,150,157 oüvtal6, 50-3,85, 95, 99, 103 o$wpoqog,130,13l-3, 134 Zottfi p n xai' Hpdxlen, 204

üLeopa,5l, 102 ü).4,53 (ö) rcraypövog ön' 'A6ööou, llln. rcyvitat, see Dionysian technitai (ai) ön' tpb nö).t6, 45,62, 169

25r

Eü,oc,, lf3-4, 135 q6poE, 5G3,99, 102, 103 'D,)'qonövtou (under @puyfu f1 tq' Attalos I), 90 gü.axi1 r4E yöpas (at Kyzikos), 137