' Achaemenid' and 'Hellenistic' Strands of Representation in the Minor Kingdoms of Asia Minor

‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation in the Minor Kingdoms of Asia Minor* Christoph Michels ‘East’ and ‘West’ in an Interconnected World It is a long-established tradition to regard Hellenistic Commagene as essentially situated between and influenced by two worlds and cultural spheres: the West, i e the Hellenistic world and Rome, on the one hand, and the Orient or the East, i e Persia respectively the contemporaneous kingdoms of Parthia (and Armenia), on the other hand 1 This focus comes as no surprise, since these two strands feature prominently in the monuments of Antiochos I of Commagene, and the “ancient manners of Persians and Greeks” are explicitly identified as the “most fortunate roots” of his ancestry in the famous Nomos inscription from Nemrud Dağ 2 Antiochos’ much-debated project of religious syncretism and the anchoring of his monarchy in the Macedonian and Achaemenid tradition have therefore been central to studies on Hellenistic Commagene, in general and especially to studies on his monuments 3 Closely connected to this is the relationship between the Eastern and Western influences on the inhabitants of Commagene, on the one hand, and on its monarchs, on the other hand 4 These questions, of course, do not only concern Commagene, but on a more general level the “Brückenland Anatolien” as a whole 5 Until recently, it was widely accepted that these * 1 2 3 4 5 I thank the editors for the possibility to contribute to this volume and Stefan Riedel for valuable comments on the manuscript On this cf e g the chapter of Facella 2006, 299–358: “i successori di Antioco fra Rom e l’Oriente” or Jacobs 2012, 108: “im Schnittpunkt der Interessen einer östlichen und einer westlichen Großmacht, Parthiens und Roms” Against this model Versluys 2017; Riedel 2018, 87–89 OGIS 383 (= Burstein 1991, no 48), ll 29–31; Facella 2006, 291–294 The aims of Antiochos I are of course heavily debated, cf only recently Facella 2006, 294–297; Jacobs 2012, 108, and Versluys 2017, esp 108–184 Cf the contribution by Jacobs in this volume Cf e g Blum et al 2002 For Schwertheim 2005, 77 Commagene is characteristic for Asia Minor’s role as “Vermittlerin zwischen Orient und Okzident” Critical now Versluys 2017, esp 249–254 476 Christoph Michels two cultural influences were opposing, if not even mutually exclusive forces To illustrate this view, I quote one excerpt from the conclusion of a short comparative study by Stephen Mitchell on the Attalids of Pergamon and the Mithradatids of Pontos: “In Classical antiquity Asia Minor was ruled from Persia between the sixth and fourth centuries B C , and by Rome from the second century B C until late antiquity The history of the Attalids and the Mithridatids during the hellenistic age, when the region was not dominated by external rulers, illustrates the same tensions from a different perspective The choice between East and West still had to be made The Attalids identified themselves with Hellenic European civilisation, based on co-operative rule with Greek city states such as Athens The Mithridatids turned to Persia and developed a form of oriental monarchy derived from the Achaemenid tradition, and their partners were not Greek cities but eastern temple-states ”6 Going ‘beyond’ this largely constructed dichotomy has shown to be a very fruitful approach over the past years Many studies on the major dynasties (especially concerning the Seleucids and Parthia) as well as on several small Hellenistic realms (Commagene being only one of them) have emphasized that ‘East’ and ‘West’ were in fact neither opposing nor mutually exclusive forces 7 Rather than interpreting the spread of ‘Greek’ culture in the Hellenistic period as the result of a guided civilising process, recent studies have instead asked for the motives of non-Greeks to adopt and adapt certain aspects of Greek (respectively Hellenistic) culture dominating the main states of the Eastern Mediterranean; likewise, it has been pointed out that Greek culture changed along the way 8 The reception and the instrumentalization of the cultural memory of Persian and Achaemenid culture and ideology (recently termed ‘Persianism’) have also been 6 7 8 Mitchell 2005, 529–530 On the Seleucids see, among many other recent publications, Sherwin-White – Kuhrt 1993; Mehl 1999; Plischke 2014, esp 327–328; Strootman 2017 On the Parthians, cf Wiesehöfer 2000, 720: “Ein kulturelles und kulturpolitisches Entweder-Oder war ihnen, wie allen Herrschern der hellenistischen Welt des Ostens, fremd ” Fowler 2005, 129 advocates to see the Parthians neither exclusively as eastern (Achaemenid) nor as western (Greek) but to apply a “more nuanced view”; cf also Shayegan 2016; Shayegan 2017; Olbrycht 2019 Concerning Pontos, see McGing 2014, 21; Gatzke 2019, 64 Versluys 2017, 210: “it was not a matter of a superior culture bringing civilisation to a barbarian periphery” One central aspect for the success of Greek culture (perhaps best illustrated by the spread of Greek language) certainly was, however, that it was the culture favoured by the GrecoMacedonian masters of this world Power relations and usefulness considerations certainly play an important role in culture contact, cf Ulf 2009; Ulf 2014 It was the Greco-Macedonian imprint of the Hellenistic world which meant that to participate in the dominant discourse required the acquisition of Greek education; cf Bringmann 2004, 326–327 It is certainly important to be aware that there existed no pure forms of culture (cf Versluys 2017, 207) On ‘Greekness’ in the Hellenistic period cf Stavrianopoulou 2013; Freitag – Michels 2014 Although I agree with Versluys 2017, 212 that Hellenism meant for the indigenous kings to associate with “civilisation and modernity” (cf Michels 2009, 288, 321), this was apparently not an all-encompassing drive as is shown by the rock-cut tombs of the Pontic kings; cf Fleischer 2017 ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 477 contextualized in the contemporary Hellenistic world and critiqued concerning their ‘authenticity’ and informative value in respect to their cultural background 9 In this complex, ‘globalized’ world, it is certainly problematic to identify clear-cut, ‘pure’ cultural strands 10 There has, however, recently been a tendency to dissolve this dichotomy completely in a type of Hellenism influenced by various sources, and this, in my mind, has sometimes been taken too far 11 An example is the recently published paper by Charlotte Lerouge-Cohen on the self-representation of the Mithradatids While discussing ‘Persianism’ in the Pontic kingdom in the form of reference to the ‘Seven Persians’ – an aspect to which I will return below – she arrives at the following conclusion: “The claim to Persian or Achaemenid roots was not targeted to an Iranian audience: it was a deliberate way to gain prestige and legitimacy, which could be combined with Macedonian claims, in a world that was not ‘Greek’ or ‘Iranian’, but simply ‘Hellenistic’”12 To label the multiform Hellenistic world of states as “simply Hellenistic” is also an oversimplification, of course It is too sweeping an assertion with regard to its many cultures, and despite several characteristic similarities of the Hellenistic monarchies, the label ‘Hellenistic’ also only partially accounts for the specific royal images of the different Macedonian dynasties, let alone those of the diverse small kingdoms – among them Commagene 13 9 10 11 12 13 Strootman – Versluys 2017 on the concept of ‘Persianism’ (“ideas and associations revolving around Persia and appropriated in specific contexts for specific (socio-cultural or socio-political) reasons”; cf Versluys 2017, 215) Strootman 2017, n 90 defines cultural memory as “a partially constructed, top-downwardly imposed view of the past to serve the political aims of the present” But that hardly does justice to the concept, as it rather means a long-term collective memory that is institutionalized and possesses specialized carriers of memory (in opposition to the fluid shortterm communicative memory) Political aims are not necessarily attached to it; cf Assmann 2008 Versluys 2017, 20; Strootman – Versluys 2017; Gatzke 2019, 74: “cosmopolitan world that rejected the Greek-Persian binary” The latter is rather problematic as it implies a conscious choice D’Agostini 2016 for example stresses the “multicultural ties of the Mithridatids” Gatzke 2019, 74, regarding the representation of the greatest king of Pontos, Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysos, sums up: “Influenced by the culture of the Hellenistic period in general, and the Seleucid kingdom in particular, which had adopted many elements of Persian culture into their Greco-Macedonian worldview, Mithridates took off the blinders and revealed Hellenistic royal culture for what it was – hybrid of imperial Persian, Hellenic, and local traditions ” On the terms Hellenism and Hellenization cf Michels 2009, 19–29; Strootman 2017, 177 n 1 Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 233 For an overview of recent research on Hellenistic kingship see Wiemer 2017; see already Gruen 1996: “No single model accounts for Hellenistic kingship” 478 Christoph Michels Looking at Commagene from the North-West When an autonomous kingdom of Commagene came into being in the middle of the 2nd century BCE14, it bordered to several other minor kingdoms in the North-West, which had come into being in the course of the 3rd c BCE, its immediate neighbour being (Greater) Cappadocia, followed by the adjoining Cappadocia Pontica (Pontos)15, Bithynia, and Pergamon 16 As mentioned above, among these kingdoms of Central, Northern and Western Asia Minor, the Attalids have traditionally been grouped (despite their obscure beginnings) as part of the Macedonian dynasties, while the Ariarathids of Cappadocia, the Mithradatids of ‘Pontos’, and the kings of Bithynia are counted as indigenous (respectively ‘semi-barbarian’) dynasties – ruled by Thracian (Bithynia) and Iranian (Cappadocia and Pontos) kings 17 Furthermore, Bithynia and Pontos differed from inner-Anatolian Cappadocia by their proximity to the Black Sea coast (where Greek colonies had already existed for centuries), which meant indirect connection to the Mediterranean 18 It is indeed of little help to presuppose monolithic cultural blocks as framework when studying the multi-faceted image of these non-Greek kings – being influenced by local as well as ‘global’ traditions 19 A view on Commagene from ‘the West’ or ‘the East’ therefore bears methodological problems 20 A comparison with potential parallels to other emerging minor kingdoms in Anatolia may offer a substantial contribution to compensate the extreme scarcity of sources for early Commagene 21 Concerning Commagene’s capital, Samosata, for example, it seems plausible that the Armenian ruler Samos I documented his claim to rule over this area by the re-foundation of 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sullivan 1978, 743–748; but cf Jakobsson 2013 The name Pontos as designation is late, cf McGing 2014, 21–22 On the geographic extension of Commagene see Facella 2006, 51–71 There is no commonly accepted name for the Bithynian dynasty Scholten 2007 calls them “Boteirids” which seems arbitrary since a predecessor of the name-giving Boteiras with the name Doidalses is mentioned by Memnon BNJ 434 12,3 Wiemer 2017, 308 n 7 surprisingly calls them “Prusiaden” (probably after Prusias I) Historically correct would be Zipoitids after Zipoites (I) Gabelko 2017 rightly stresses the peculiarities of these kingdoms A good example for this connectivity is that the Bithynian king Ziaelas was asked by Cos to grant asylia to its sanctuary of Asclepius while also receiving security for their traders in the region; cf TAM IV,1 1 (= RC 25; Burstein 1991, no 26; HGIÜ III 409; Austin 2006, no 66 ) McGing 2014; Riedel 2018, 86–92 Cf e g Metzler 2012, 115: “durch den Osten geprägt” On details of the alleged Achaemenid iconography see, however, Jacobs 2017 Versluys 2017 stresses the lack of sources on the first rulers of Commagene Although he is certainly right that this must be a warning against too extensive historical reconstructions, a lack of sources is not a specific feature of Commagene, but also of Pontos and especially of Cappadocia; cf McGing 2014, 22 Therefore, one should not take it as indication that the later sources for the first kings are fabrications ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 479 the city 22 There are numerous examples of this behaviour as typical for Hellenistic kings, and similar behaviour was also observed in Iranian kingdoms, e g early Cappadocia (Ariaramneia, Ariaratheia), Pontos (e g Pharnakeia, but apparently not the first kings), Parthia (Arsakia), and Armenia (Tigranes II founded several settlements called Tigrankert/Tigranocerta) 23 Likewise, the risky incursion of the first independent Commagenian ruler Ptolemaios into Melitene might best be understood as an attempt to gain military prestige, as the victorious king is a central theme of Hellenistic monarchy also adopted by the non-Greek kings 24 However, in order to retrace the specific ideological foundations of monarchical rule in the different ‘minor’ monarchies of Asia Minor, it seems equally important to point not only to similarities as part of the Hellenistic world but also to profound differences between these Hellenistic kingdoms of Asia Minor 25 A view from North-West on Commagene, so to speak, is all the more necessary, because the representation of the Orontids has sometimes been regarded as illustrative and characteristic for the way these minor monarchies of Hellenistic Asia Minor instrumentalized the Achaemenid and Hellenistic strands of representation This view results from a deficit: no archaeological or epigraphical monuments comparable to those of Commagene (with exception to coinage) have survived from these monarchies that would allow comparable insights into the royal self-representation (if not self-perception) that occurred in their own realms 26 In the following, I would like to outline the possibilities of this comparative approach with reflections on some examples from both ideological strands without any claim to completeness The cultural 22 23 24 25 26 Winter 2008, 41 But cf Sullivan 1978, 751–752 who prefers a (re)foundation of Samosata by Samos II Cf also the contribution by Canepa in this volume On Hellenistic city foundations as phenomenon cf Cohen 1995, 15–74 Arsakia: Plischke 2014, 240; Ariaratheia: Michels 2009, 311–313; Tigrankert: Canepa 2017, 221; Cohen 2013, 50–51 Cf , however, Versluys 2017, 172–173 Diod Sic 31,19a; Facella 2006, 199–205 On the ideal of the victorious king (H -J Gehrke) see Wiemer 2017 It is important to recognize that military themes were also not alien to Achaemenid royal ideology, cf Brosius 2005; but see Tuplin 2014, 264: “The conquest imperative may have been stronger in Hellenistic kings than in at least the Achaemenids who immediately preceded them ” Cf Versluys 2017, 250: “Of course, those options were determined by his geographical and chronological context to a certain degree – and certainly by his position in society A Hellenistic king ruling a small kingdom in North Africa, for instance, would have had different cultural scenarios at his disposal; but only partly so ” My aim in this paper is to show that we do not have to go to North Africa to illustrate the differences between the non-Greek kingdoms but can show them already in Asia Minor Cf e g Schwertheim 2005, 77–81 Instead, we are often dependent on literary sources alone On the famous speech of Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysos (Iust 38,4–7) in which he claims dual descent, now see Ballesteros Pastor 2013a, 272–285 One should not deduce from the lack of surviving material that there originally were no monuments like those of Commagene in Pontos and Cappadocia as Gatzke 2019, 65 seems to think 480 Christoph Michels development of these regions lies beyond the scope of this paper and can only be touched upon 27 The limits of generalization concerning the usage of the Achaemenid and Macedonian heritage by Hellenistic monarchies of Asia Minor can already be quite clearly illustrated by means of a view on the representation of the Bithynian kings in this respect Regarding typical royal euergetism in the Greek world, Hellenistic Bithynia certainly is ‘remarkably similar’ to Commagene, Pontos, and Cappadocia (and to a certain degree also to Pergamon) 28 This is, however, not at all the case with the construction of links to the Persians/Achaemenids and the Macedonians Although Bithynian royal coins were at times and to a different degree influenced by the Seleucids (and Antigonids?)29, there are no sources that present these kings as descendants of Alexander or one of the Macedonian dynasties On the contrary, it seems that Bithynia’s first Hellenistic monarch, Zipoites, used a decisive victory over Lysimachos to proclaim himself king 30 It is even clearer that these Thracian monarchs did not claim any connection to the Achaemenids, although they had once been a (comparably autonomous) part of the Persian Empire 31 It is also worth pointing out the nuances in areas where the kingdoms of Asia Minor look very similar, at a first glance The Title philhellen and the Hellenistic Example Fraser has pointed out that the Orontids were active as benefactors of Greek cities, like the other Hellenistic kings (although on a smaller scale),32 and he evaluated their activities on this field as part of the “strivings of these kings for hellenic culture, for the hellenic imprint bestowed by the patronage of Greek cities” 33 While it is problematic to draw a direct line between international euergetism and an internal policy of Hellenization, the Orontids certainly styled themselves as philhellenes 34 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Cf recently McGing 2014; Ballesteros Pastor 2006 (Pontos); Fernoux 2004; Corsten 2007; Michels 2013a (Bithynia); Michels 2013b; Michels 2017; Panichi 2018 (Cappadocia) Versluys 2017, 165 On the euergetism of the Bithynian kings see Hannestad 1996; Michels 2009, 54–87 Cf Schönert-Geiss 1978; Michels 2009, 153–182 247–250 Memnon (BNJ 434) 12,4–5 On Zipoites see Habicht 1972, Kobes 1996, 83–84; Scholten 2007; Michels 2009, 12–13 65 264–266 284–285 On pre- and early-Hellenistic Bithynia, see Hannestad 1996, 69–70; Briant 2002, 699; Scholten 2007; Michels 2009; Michels 2013 On the Thracian imprint of Bithynia and its kings, see only Corsten 2007 Fraser 1978, 359–371 Fraser 1978, 374 Facella 2005, 87–94: “philhellenic dynasty” ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 481 But what does that mean? Like the great Macedonian dynasties (and among the smaller ones especially Pergamon), the kings of the minor monarchies of Asia Minor were active in a field that can be described with the modern term ‘philhellenism’ 35 Philhellenism possessed both a political and a cultural dimension 36 Royal benefactions – euergetism and sometimes military support – to Greek cities and sanctuaries were an important aspect that touched both dimensions They served both as a diplomatic tool and as a source of royal prestige 37 In a broader sense, it was an ideal for every Hellenistic king to be regarded as a common benefactor (κοινὸς εὐεργέτης) of the Greeks 38 Their ‘cultural competence’ was also demonstrated by the fact that the courts of the non-Greek kings were increasingly influenced by Greek ‘art and culture’ 39 However, not all aspects of the indigenous kings’ integration into the Hellenistic world should be seen as expressions of their philhellenism or as instruments of staging this image Dynastic marriages to Macedonian dynasties, for example, were rather a way to forge alliances and to find recognition of royal status 40 Another question is whether the presence of Macedonian royal women at the court of non-Greek monarchies could entail a certain amount of ‘Hellenization’ 41 Furthermore, it is well attested that there was a close connection between the concepts of paideia and philhellen 42 The ideal king was not only supposed to be a superior statesman and warrior but also an educated man and a patron of the arts 43 On the one hand, the minor dynasties emulated the major dynasties in this field in an effort to show themselves as their peers, and on the other hand, they were pulled into the ‘self-perpetuating spiral’ of euergetical exchange by poleis asking for benefactions 44 In this, the Commagenian kings resemble their western neighbours While “styling yourself as philhellen” – that is: to act as a philhel- 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Cf only Kobes 1996; Gruen 2000; Bringmann 2000; de Callataÿ 2003; Fernoux 2004; Panichi 2005; Michels 2009; Michels 2010a Ferrary 2014, 497–526 Bringmann 2000; Kropp 2013, 253–254 Generally, Ballesteros Pastor 2006, 383–384; Michels 2009; Michels 2010a; Michels 2010b Cf Antiochos III in I Teos 30 (= Burstein 1991, no 33), ll 6–8 A particularly prominent example is the Attalid Eumenes II in OGIS 763 (= Welles RC 52; Austin 2006), no 239, l 6–13; cf Syll 3 630 (= Austin 2006, no 237), ll 1–10 On the development of the term ‘common benefactor’ cf Erskine 1994 The same notion can be found in a letter by Ziaelas of Bithynia; TAM IV,1 1 (= RC 25; Burstein 1991, no 26; HGIÜ III 409; Austin 2006, no 66 ), ll 11–17; cf Hannestad 1996; Michels 2009, 56–65 Versluys 2017, 211 Cf Michels 2009, 29–31; Gabelko 2017; Michels 2020 McGing 2014, 30 Olshausen 1974, 158 The reverse case, a certain amount of ‘Asianisation’ of Pergamon by the introduction of Zeus Sabazios from Cappadocia by queen Stratonike, daughter of Ariarathes IV, is documented by IvP 1,248 (= OGIS 331 = RC 67), ll 45–61 Ferrary 2014, 505–511 Gruen 2000; Alonso Troncoso 2005 For the education of the Pontic princes see Ballesteros Pastor 2005; for Cappadocia see Panichi 2005; cf Michels 2009; Michels 2020 For the mechanisms of this reciprocal exchange see Bringmann 2000; Ma 2002, esp 185; cf on the first Pontic ‘philhellene’ Pharnaces I also Michels 2010b 482 Christoph Michels lene – “served to claim membership of the (wider) Hellenistic world and the circle of Hellenistic kings”,45 to assume the title φιλέλλην, however, as Antiochos I of Commagene did, was something quite different 46 The term, rarely used in ancient literature,47 expressed a willingness to promote Greeks or to open up to Greek culture 48 Although it could also be used for Greeks who acted selflessly for the benefit of all Hellenes, the term was applied much more often to non-Greeks 49 It is first used by Herodotus to describe the policies of the Egyptian pharaoh Amasis 50 On a cultural level, even an entire people could be characterized as philhellen 51 Since the term was thus mainly applied to outsiders, it had an ambivalent quality According to the literary tradition, Alexander I of Macedon was the first monarch to officially carry the title φιλέλλην , but it seems that the epithet was not contemporary, as it was not used by any source from the 5th c BCE 52 The title is not attested as a self-description of any monarch in the Classical period and was not held by any member of the great Hellenistic dynasties 53 For our purposes, it is essential to point out that the kings of Bithynia, the Mithradatids, and the Ariarathids also never assumed this title 54 Although one can only speculate why this was the case, it is plausible that these non-Greek kings did not assume it because they felt (or wanted to create the impression) that they belonged to the Greco-Macedonian world 55 Basically, it were “rois barbares”, as Ferrary put it, who took the title from the middle of the 2nd c BCE onwards 56 For the kings of Commagene, the Parthian kings probably were the example They were the first to assume philhellen as official (and also first) 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Versluys 2017, 230 See, however, Versluys 2017, 166 Ferrary 2014, 498 n 9 with a survey of usage in ancient literature and Parsons 1996 Errington 1999, 150 In light of the cultural dimension of the term (in contrast to philoromaios), it is problematic to classify the title philhellen as purely political, as de Callataÿ – Lorber 2011, 454 do Parsons 1996, 111 Hdt 2,178,1 Parsons 1996, 110: “In outline, the word is applied (1) to non-Greeks either (a) by Greeks, as an interested compliment, or (b) by the non-Greeks themselves, as a gesture; (2) much more rarely, by Greeks to Greeks ” Muccioli 2013, 28–29; Ferrary 2014, 499, n 11; Müller 2016, 129 with n 196 Fowler 2005, 152 assumes that the large dynasties “avoided” to take this epithet Perhaps they did not even think about using it as it would have been absurd for them as they naturally saw themselves as part of the Greek oikumene Muccioli 2013, 259 This also applies to a ruler like Ariarathes V whom we might – in modern terminology – term a philhellene; cf Panichi 2005 with Michels 2009, 41–42 133–139 Ferrary 2014, 497: “La même observation vaut pour les Antigonides, les Lagides, les Attalides, et même pour des dynasties comme celles de Cappadoce, de Bithynie et du Pont, plus profondément hellénisées ou du moins en rapports plus étroits avec les cités du monde égéen que les Arsacides ou les Artaxiades ” Ferrary 2014, 499–501 ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 483 epithet 57 Mithradates I took the title in reaction to the capture of Seleucia on the Tigris in 141 BCE and minted tetradrachms with the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΕΝΟΣ 58 Fowler interpreted this innovation as an “opening gambit for friendly dialogue with the Greek communities” 59 Among the following kings (up to Vologaises V), it became a frequently used component of their title 60 Recent research has pointed out that Parthian philhellenism towards their Greek subjects was not unconditional but rather part of their ‘Realpolitik’ 61 While in principle the same applies to the Greco-Macedonian rulers, it is important to stress this point with regard to the Parthians because Greek titles and court system apparently did not change the “territorial and ethnic foundations of kingship” 62 Although it signified the appreciation of everything Greek, there certainly was no cultural subordination implied by it 63 Thus, by describing himself as philhellen, Antiochos basically signalled – despite the use of Greek and the genealogical constructions – that he was not a Greco-Macedonian king, as Peter F Mittag has rightly stressed 64 This aspect of the multi-layered picture of his representation65 is particularly significant because it suggests gradual differences between the royal image in Commagene, Pontos and Cappadocia Looking to the East, however, we see kings of Armenia also assuming the title philhellen 66 This is insofar possibly relevant for Commagene as the Armenian kings were an important reference point for the kings of Commagene – initially as their suzerains from whom they claimed descent This changed after Tigranes the Great had been subjugated by Pompey Antiochos now apparently tried to fill the power vacuum left by the Armenian king and propagated his enhanced status, for example, by the adoption of the Armenian tiara As the attribution of the relevant coins from Nisibis with the title philhellen to Tigranes the Great is, however, far from sure it remains unclear if Antiochos 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Jacobs 2017, 247 stresses the influence of Parthian self-presentation on Commagene and points to the close connections between the two dynasties – manifested e g in the marriage of Laodike, daughter of Antiochos I, with Orodes II; cf Sullivan 1978, 756 766; Wagner 1983, 209–212 (Karakuş [Kb]); Facella 2006, 237–238 Fowler 2005, 152 Fowler 2005, 152 Canepa 2017, 211 sees them rather as a political challenge to the Seleucids de Callataÿ – Lorber 2011, 425 451 455; Muccioli 2013, 287 Wiesehöfer 1996b, 62 emphasizes that Parthian philhellenism was “strongly determined by questions of loyalty and disloyalty”; cf Ferrary 2014, 499–500 n 12 Wiesehöfer 1996b, 60 Muccioli 2013, 257–258 Mittag 2004, 12: “Auch das Epitheton Philhellen (SO 3) ist ein deutlicher Beleg dafür, daß sich Antiochos I nicht im üblichen Rahmen griechisch-hellenistischer Herrscher bewegte ” It is therefore problematic when Petzl 2012 writes regarding Antiochos’ title philhellen: “Sein Philhellenentum erklärt sich schon dadurch, dass er seine familiäre Abkunft auf Perser und Griechen zurückführte ” This is rather a contradiction Mittag 2004, 12: “mehrschichtiges Bild” Ferrary 2014, 500 On the numbering of the Armenian kings see Bendschus 2018, 14 n 20 484 Christoph Michels also imitated Tigranes by assuming this epithet 67 At any rate, these members of the “wider Western Iranian world”68 apparently saw themselves quite differently with respect to the Greek oikumene Concerning the cultural imprint of Anatolia in Achaemenid (and Hellenistic) times, much must remain unclear due to a lack of sources69, but it seems probable that traditions played an important role here However, that does not mean that Pontos and Cappadocia were already largely Hellenized at the time of the rise of the post-satrapal dynasts, as has been frequently presupposed, also in recent studies 70 That we hear next to nothing about culture conflicts in Hellenistic Pontos or Cappadocia is no argument for a homogenous Hellenistic culture among the populace 71 The impact of Achaemenid rule on these landscapes and the consequences of Iranian colonization have been controversially discussed, and it is certainly necessary to differentiate 72 While Pontos had a very heterogenous population in the Hellenistic period73, especially Greater Cappadocia underwent a profound Iranization during the time of Achaemenid occupation 74 The Iranian Kingdoms and the Achaemenid Tradition This cultural imprint is of course equally, if not more important for the evaluation of the other strand, that is, the reception of Persian/Achaemenid ideology, and it is 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 The close connections of Commagene to Armenia are stressed by Sullivan 1973, 33 On Antiochos and Rome see only Sullivan 1978, 764–766; cf Sullivan 1973, 20–24; Wagner 1983, 201; Riedel 2018, 119–120 on the assumption of the Armenian tiara On the attribution of the coins from Nisibis which differ from the other coins of Tigranes (II) cf Sullivan 1977, 25–27; Foss 1986, 48–50 A later unique drachm of Tigranes II/III (20–8 BCE) also lists the epithet philhellen, cf Foss 1986, 49 Canepa 2017, 301 Cf McGing 2014, 24; Messerschmidt 2014, 324 As e g Gatzke 2019, 63 seems to think: “the family’s Iranian heritage did little to gain the early Pontic kings power in a region where Hellenism reigned supreme” Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 226 That we hear nothing of conflicts does not surprise, however The inner workings of these kingdoms were of no interest to the Greek authors and such troubles would not have been documented in ‘official’ inscriptions Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 226 stresses that the Pontic kings “seem to have met no opposition to their Hellenizing policies from these families” It is central to point out in this context that there were no royal Hellenizing policies in these kingdoms if one understands these as the intentional support and the spread of Greek culture among the originally non-Greek population Argued in detail in Michels 2009; cf Michels 2010a On the different positions, cf Briant 2009; Jacobs 2014; Klingenberg 2014; Briant 2015; Michels 2017 with literature McGing 2014 differentiates between Greek, Anatolian and Persian Pontos Again, it is important not to reduce the problem to a question of either Persian or Greek/Hellenistic; cf McGing 2014, 22: “there is a danger of replacing one solitary identity with another” Mitchell 2007; Michels 2017 Andreas Klingenberg kindly informs me (written communication) that in his soon to be published Habilitationsschrift on the presence of Iranians in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor he argues that there is considerable continuity – of course in some areas more and in others (drastically) less, but significantly so in Cappadocia and Pontos ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 485 likewise possible to differentiate between the dynasties, in this case Without going into too much detail, as ‘Persianism’ as a royal culture has been the topic of several recent studies75, I would like to point out certain nuances that appear to be significant and connected to the relevance of claims to Achaemenid ancestry and territory of the post-satrapal dynasts in Pontos and Cappadocia While the kings of Pontos, Cappadocia, Commagene and Armenia all used elements of the Achaemenid royal legacy, there are apparent differences between them These are especially visible on coins 76 Whereas the coin portraits of the kings of Cappadocia, Armenia, and Commagene show them wearing different forms (at different times) of the kyrbasia and the tiara orthé, none of the Pontic kings, not even Mithradates VI, to whom often the clearest references to Achaemenid kingship are ascribed, wears a ‘Persian’ headdress on coins The different tiara-types are not ‘authentic’ representations of the Achaemenid headdress, but their message clearly places these Hellenistic kings in the same tradition as the kings of Persia 77 The adoption of the Armenian tiara by Antiochos I of Commagene (and by Artavasdes II of Atropatene) illustrates that this iconography also has to be seen against the background of contemporary power struggles between the different Iranian dynasties – in this time of course heavily influenced by Roman presence 78 The Cappadocian coins are insofar especially illustrative of the change of coin design during the entry into the Hellenistic world, as the first coins carry an Aramaic legend that soon changes to Greek, and at the same time the iconography becomes more ‘Hellenistic’ by the introduction of the diademed portrait of the king on the averse and Athena Nikephoros on the reverse 79 The first Parthian coins seem comparable in terms of this basic constellation of Hellenistic and decidedly non-Greek elements 80 In their effort to document their sovereign status, the Parthians borrowed elements of Hellenistic or – more specifically – Seleucid royal ideology 81 However, they also emphasized their cultural distinction 82 The first known Pontic royal coins are copies of the gold staters of Alexander 83 When individualized Pontic kings appear from Mithradates III onwards, the kings’ diademed portraits look decid- 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Cf on this e g Eckhardt 2015; Canepa 2017, 203: “royal culture” See now Bendschus 2017 (Pontos, Cappadocia and Commagene); on the coins of Pontos and Cappadocia, cf also Michels 2009, 183–246 On the coins of Commagene see the contribution by Facella in this volume On the different types see von Gall 1990; on the iconography cf also Jacobs 2017 Sullivan 1973, esp 32–33 On the coins of the early Ariarathids see Alram 1986; Michels 2009, 220–224; Bendschus 2017, 41–44; cf Panichi 2018, 7–14 Dąbrowa 2014, 304 On the aspect of sovereignty cf Keller 2010, 614–615 The Greco-Hellenistic example is stressed by Plischke 2014, 240–242 Dąbrowa 2014, 311; Canepa 2017, 210–214 de Callataÿ 2009; Michels 2009, 183–185; Bendschus 2017, 93–95 486 Christoph Michels edly non-Greek, but there is nothing specifically Iranian about them, either 84 While the high quality of the tetradrachms issued by Mithradates III, Pharnaces I, Mithradates IV and V is remarkable, François de Callataÿ has stressed that the kings prior to Mithradates VI never struck vast amounts of coins and has pointed out the low monetization of Pontos in the Hellenistic period in comparison to Bithynia, which should warn against concluding from the Hellenistic royal coin iconography the presence of Greek culture 85 From the time of Ariarathes IV onwards, the Ariarathids appear in the guise of Hellenistic kings with diadem and stylistically similar to the Seleucids 86 A decidedly Persian ruler iconography remained an option, however On some coins, Ariarathes VI is again shown with a tiara of a type that is a development of the tiara of the Great Kings 87 This was most likely not arbitrary but a reaction to a specific historical situation that necessitated this political message, which was possibly aimed at other Iranian dynasts rather than at the own population 88 In Pontos, Mithradates VI – like his forebears, but modified and intensified in a time of imperial expansion – famously combined both strands in his fight against Rome 89 Whether Mithradates thereby introduced a “new model of kingship”, as has recently been put forward, seems doubtful to me 90 Concerning the representation of Antiochos I, Peter F Mittag has argued for a “gradual shift in emphasis as a reaction to the changes in the political situation of Commagene between Rome on the one hand and Parthia on the other” 91 Target audience and authenticity of the claims are central criteria for the final point I would like to make On the stelae of the gallery of ancestors and in the Nomos inscription at Nemrud Dağ, Antiochos I famously traced his royal descent on his father’s side back to Dareios I via the Orontids and the Persian Great Kings, and on his mother’s side to Alexander via the Seleucids This is often contextualized with similar claims from the rulers of Pontos (especially from Mithradates VI), Cappadocia, Atropatene, and Armenia 92 I focus on the claims of the Ariarathids and Mithradatids as their (ad- 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 This has been much debated; cf Michels 2009, 190–193 de Callataÿ 2009, de Callataÿ 2011 D’Agostini 2016, 95–96 now wants to interpret the first Pontic coins as dowry for Laodike, daughter of Mithradates II, who married the Seleucid Antiochos III Michels 2009, 231–233 Arslan 2003; on the form von Gall 1990, 322; cf Facella 1999, 154 Michels 229–233; Canepa 2017, 216 This should, however, not be seen as decidedly new, as Gatzke 2019, 62 does: “Eupator saw particular promise in adopting Persian styles of administration and ideology that had been dismissed as politically poisonous in the post-Alexander world of Hellenism ” On the shift in emphasis see Ballesteros Pastor 1996, 430–436; McGing 2014; Ballesteros Pastor 2015; cf also Shayegan 2016, 9 on the change from Dareios to Kyros Gatzke 2019, 73 Gatzke 2019, 61: “Through the Persianizing of the Pontic royal house, Mithridates’ reign thus marked a significant shift in the conception and execution of kingship in the late Hellenistic period, a new approach ” Mittag 2004, 1 Cf e g Facella 2009, 383–384; Strootman – Versluys 2017, 17, and the contribution of Strootman in this volume ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 487 mittedly questionable) authenticity and, more importantly, their motivation for and aims of these references have been questioned in recent research, on the basis of the Hellenistic context that I mentioned in the beginning of this paper 93 The claims of these dynasties have traditionally been interpreted as directed either at the own, non-Greek populace and aristocracy (especially in Cappadocia) or, as Panitschek has convincingly argued, as an element of competition towards the other Iranian dynasties (or possibly towards both) 94 Against this, Lerouge-Cohen and Gatzke now not only suppose Greek sources as basis for the knowledge of the story of the six Persians who helped Dareios I against the usurper, but also a Greek audience for these claims 95 This causes several problems It is of course true that the different traditions were “reassembled, retooled or reinvented” in the post-Achaemenid dynasties 96 But there are certainly indications – against the claims of Lerouge-Cohen – that the theme of the Seven Persians, famously mentioned in the Behistun inscription, and descent from them were already significant in the Persian Empire 97 The sources for the knowledge about the Achaemenids in the Hellenistic period are not documented It is possible that oral traditions played an important role 98 Additionally, there are indications that the Parthians made (sporadic) use of them 99 However, the important difference between them and the Anatolian kings is the fact that for the latter much of the evidence indicates a more or less direct continuity from the satrapal families to the post-satrapal dynasties and the royal houses Although again many details remain unclear, it now seems probable that both the Ariarathids100 93 94 95 Lerouge-Cohen 2013; Lerouge-Cohen 2017; Gatzke 2019 Panitschek 1987–1988 Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 227: “The Mithridatids (like the Ariarathids) had probably learnt the story of the Seven from Greek sources; their connections to these glorious characters put them in a favorable light in the Hellenistic world – but not in an allegedly ‘Persian’ or ‘Iranian’ context ” Gatzke 2019, 62: “For the Anatolian kingdoms such as Pontus, as well as Commagene and Cappadocia, who also claimed ties to the Achaemenids, everything they knew about their supposed Achaemenid ancestors had been filtered through a Greek interpretation and modified to fit a Greek perspective of the Persian past ” 96 Canepa 2017, 222 97 DB § 68 Klinkott 2005, 49–53; Shayegan 2017; cf however Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 224: “nothing indicates that it became customary in the Achaemenid world to distinguish dignitaries by recalling their descent from one of the seven conspirators ” 98 Canepa 2017, 203; Shayegan 2016; Shayegan 2017; cf Lerouge-Cohen 2013, 113 99 Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 226 stresses that “there is no indication that the Seven were even remembered in the Iranian world: the Arsakids never referred to them, and neither did the Sasanids that succeeded them” Earlier Lerouge-Cohen postulated also for the Parthians Greek origins of the tradition; Lerouge 2007, 189–192, esp 191: “a été produit au sein de l’Empire parthe pour un public grec, soit par des Gréco-Parthes, soit par des Parthes connaissant bien la culture grecque” Lerouge-Cohen 2013, 113 n 35: “semble avoir été élaboré dans un milieu grec” But see Wiesehöfer 1996a, 133; Shayegan 2016; Shayegan 2017; Olbrycht 2019 This does not stand in opposite to the warnings of Fowler 2005 not to exaggerate the importance of the Achaemenid image 100 The continuity is especially obvious in the case of the Ariarathids whose dynasty founder survived the Alexander campaign (if only for a short time) The genealogy given by Diod Sic 31,19 certainly 488 Christoph Michels and the Mithradatids descended from Iranian nobility, and in the case of the Mithradatids, Bosworth and Wheatley have convincingly argued that – although the Pontic claims were exaggerated – the dynasty was indeed an offshoot of the Achaemenid royal family 101 This is important If the minor kingdoms of Anatolia have been called newcomers, with relation to the Macedonian dynasties, then this term applies even more to Commagene By the time it became independent, in the middle of the 2nd century BCE, Cappadocia and Pontos had already existed for over 100 years The doubts about a possible Achaemenid origin of the kings of Commagene should therefore not be transferred to the other two kingdoms 102 Although we first hear of the Pontic claims of their descent from one of the Seven Persians, and having been granted rule over their territories by Dareios in the time of Mithradates II (circa 255–220 BCE), this does not at all mean that this claim was only fabricated during this time and is as such ‘late’ 103 Polybios reports this claim in the context of the marriage of Mithradates’ daughter Laodike to the Seleucid Antiochos III Lerouge-Cohen puts forward that if “it was prestigious for a Seleukid to marry a descendant of one of the Seven, we can deduce that the references to these historical figures were not confined to an Iranian audience” 104 However, this cannot necessarily be deduced from this, because it would imply that only Greeks were important for the legitimization of the Seleucids On the contrary, Sherwin-White and Kuhrt theorized that the Seleucids wanted to evoke a continuation of the Achaemenid tradition by marrying into the Pontic royal house 105 For the marriage, several factors certainly come into play However, when we consider Greeks as the main audience of these claims, I think it is fundamentally problematic, in any case, to assume that the Achaemenid kings were suitable as identification figures in the Greek world 106 The fact that is a construct (Panitschek 1987–1988), but that does not fundamentally contradict continuity; cf Michels 2009, 17; Panichi 2018, 4–8 101 Bosworth – Wheatley 1998; accepted e g by Ballesteros Pastor 2013b; McGing 2014, 29; Michels 2017 Lerouge-Cohen has repeatedly (Lerouge 2007, 207; Lerouge-Cohen 2013, 109, n 11; LerougeCohen 2017, 228 n 26) disagreed with this reconstruction without presenting any arguments to the contrary 102 On the early history of the Orontids see Facella 2006, 95–198 103 As D’Agostini 2016, 93 suspects; cf Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 227: “This late use and recreation of the Iranian past seem to present a clear example of Persianism” Pol 5,43,1–2 Andreas Klingenberg points out to me that while the truth of the claims cannot be proven, there is much to be said in favour of a usage of the claim during the time of the establishment of the founder of the dynasty Mithradates I in Pontos, himself probably belonging to the house of the satraps of Hellespontine Phrygia The story (App Mith 9 [28]) of his flight and eventual victory certainly has an Achaemenid ring to it as he is supported by six knights; cf Panitschek 1987–1988, 86 104 Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 226 105 Sherwin-White – Kuhrt 1993, 38 106 Lerouge-Cohen 2017, 233: “The Kings selected Persian events and individuals (the Seven, Cyrus and Darius) that were well-known across the Greek world and enjoyed a very good reputation ” Gatzke 2019, 62: “These genealogical claims created continuity between Mithridates and the ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 489 Kyros was later perceived as a righteous ruler and, for example, that Alexander is called Philokyros by Strabo, do not stand in opposition to this 107 A Hellenistic audience is especially unlikely in the case of the kings of Armenia, which had no significant ‘Greek’ population element 108 Lastly, a major argument against the Greek/Hellenistic world as main target of this representation, to me, seems to be the fact that there is no indication that any themes from these (constructed?) genealogies were used in honorific inscriptions in Greek cities and sanctuaries, where they could have been presented to a wide audience Conclusion As the last example illustrates, it is problematic to focus on only one aspect amid the whole range of interconnected motifs that the non-Greco-Macedonian rulers of Hellenistic Anatolia used to style themselves as kings both in their own realms and before an international audience of cities, leagues and other monarchs The royal ideologies of these monarchies resulted from a mixture of Hellenistic and Iranian traditions and this should not surprise us, as the identities of their ‘ancestors’, the late-Achaemenid satraps can already be described as ‘glocal’ – comprising both imperial Achaemenid and local/regional (Karian, Lycian, and so forth) themes 109 Despite the global interconnectedness of the Hellenistic world, however, it is worthwhile to point out the significant differences between the diverse dynasties of Hellenistic Asia Minor in detail, as I hope to have shown Acknowledging these differences helps us to reconstruct both the specific profile of the individual monarchy and the multifaceted nature of Hellenistic kingship Bibliography Alonso Troncoso 2005: V Alonso Troncoso, La paideia del principe y la ideología helenística de la realeza, Gerión 23/9, 2005, 185–204 Alram 1986: M Alram, Nomina Propria Iranica in Nummis, Iranisches Personennamenbuch 4 (Vienna 1986) Arslan 2003: M Arslan, The Cappadocian King Ariarathes VI and the Star on the Tiara An Unique Drachm of the Cappadocian King Ariarathes VI, The Celator 17, 2003, 24–28 Achaemenid forebears, and tied him to a royal past that had come to be revered, if not also critiqued, in the Greek world ” 107 Str 11,11,4 108 Str 11,14,15 (531C) I thank Andreas Klingenberg for pointing that out to me 109 Strootman 2017, 198; cf on the term also Riedel 2018, 90–91 490 Christoph Michels Assmann 2008: J Assmann, Communicative and Cultural Memory, in: A Erll – A Nünning (eds ), Cultural Memory Studies An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (Berlin 2008) 109–118 Austin 2006: M M Austin, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation 2(Cambridge 2006) Ballesteros Pastor 1996: L Ballesteros Pastor, Mitrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto (Granada 1996) Ballesteros Pastor 2005: L Ballesteros Pastor, El reino del Ponto, in: V Alonso Troncoso (ed ), ΔΙΑΔΟΧΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ La figura del sucesor en la realeza helenística, Gerión-Anejos 9 (Madrid 2005) 127–137 Ballesteros Pastor 2006: L Ballesteros Pastor, Influencia helénica y vida ciudadana en el reino del Ponto: la difícil búsqueda de una identidad, in: D Plácido – M Valdés – F Echeverría – M Y Montes (eds ), La construcción ideológica de la ciudadanía Identidades culturales y sociedad en el mundo griego antiguo (Madrid 2006) 381–394 Ballesteros Pastor 2013a: L Ballesteros Pastor, Pompeyo Trogo, Justino y Mitrídates Comentario al Epítome de las Histrias Filípicas (37,1,6–38,8,1), Spudasmata 154 (Hildesheim 2013) Ballesteros Pastor 2013b: L Ballesteros Pastor, Nullis umquam nisi domesticis regibus Cappadocia, Pontus and the resistance to the Diadochi in Asia Minor, in: V Alonso Troncoso – E Anson (eds ), After Alexander The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC) (Oxford 2013) 183–198 Ballesteros Pastor 2015: L Ballesteros Pastor, Los príncipes del Ponto La política onomástica de Mitrídates Eupátor como factor de propaganda dinástica, REA 117,2, 2015, 425–445 Bendschus 2017: T Bendschus, Münzen als Medium der Herrschaftskommunikation von Kleinkönigen im hellenistischen Osten Die Königreiche von Kappadokien, Pontos, dem Regnum Bosporanum, Armenien und Kommagene im Hellenismus und in der frühen Kaiserzeit (Ph D diss Universität Rostock 2017) <http://rosdok uni-rostock de/resolve/id/rosdok_ disshab_0000001672> (04 03 2020) Bendschus 2018: T Bendschus, Tigranes V und seine Münzen Armenische Herrscherlegitimation des frühen 1 Jhs n Chr im Spiegel der numismatischen Zeugnisse, NumZ 124, 2018, 9–56 Blum et al 2002: H Blum – B Faist – P Pfälzner (eds ), Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturaustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn (Tübingen 2002) Bosworth – Wheatley 1998: A B Bosworth – P V Wheatley, The Origins of the Pontic House, JHS 118, 1998, 155–164 Briant 2002: P Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake 2002) Briant 2009: P Briant, Le passé réutilisé dans les cours Hellénistiques, in: H M Barstad – P Briant (eds ), The Past in the Past Concepts of Past Reality in Ancient Near Eastern and Early Greek Thought (Oslo 2009) 21–36 Briant 2015: P Briant, À propos de l’ “impreinte Achéménide” en Anatolie (Notes de lectures), in: E Winter – K Zimmermann (eds ), Zwischen Satrapen und Dynasten Kleinasien im 4 Jahrhundert v Chr , AMS 76 (Bonn 2015) 177–193 Bringmann 2000: K Bringmann, Geben und Nehmen Monarchische Wohltätigkeit und Selbstdarstellung im Zeitalter des Hellenismus Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer 2,1 (Berlin 2000) Bringmann 2004: K Bringmann, Gymnasion und griechische Bildung im Nahen Osten, in: D Kah – P Scholz (eds ), Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel 8, (Berlin 2004) 323–333 ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 491 Brosius 2015: M Brosius, Pax persica Königliche Ideologie und Kriegführung im Achämenidenreich, in: B Meißner – O Schmitt – M Sommer (Hrsg ), Krieg – Gesellschaft – Institutionen Beiträge zu einer vergleichenden Kriegsgeschichte (Berlin 2005) 135–161 Burstein 1991: S Burstein, The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII, Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 3 (repr Cambridge 1991) de Callataÿ 2003: F de Callataÿ, Les Mithridate du Pont Un exemple périphérique de rapport entre cités et rois hellénistiques, in: O Picard (ed ), Royaumes et cités hellénistiques des années 323–55 av J -C (Paris 2003) 218–234 de Callataÿ 2009: F de Callataÿ, The First Royal Coinages of Pontos (from Mithridates III to Mithridates V), in: J M Højte (ed ), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Aarhus 2009) 63–94 de Callataÿ 2011: F de Callataÿ, Productions et circulations monétaires dans le Pont, la Paphlagonie et la Bithynie deux horizons différents (Ve-Ier s av J -C ), in: T Faucher (ed ), Nomisma La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique Actes du colloque international Athènes, 14–17 avril 2010 (Athens 2011) 455–482 de Callataÿ – Lorber 2011: F de Callataÿ – C C Lorber, The Pattern of Royal Epithets on Hellenistic Coinages, in: P P Iossif – A S Chankowski – C C Lorber (eds ), More than Men, Less than Gods Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Belgian School at Athens (November 1–2, 2007) (Leuven 2011) 417–455 Canepa 2017: M P Canepa, Rival Images of Iranian Kingship and Persian Identity in Post-Achaemenid Western Asia, in: R Strootman – M J Versluys (eds ), Persianism in Antiquity, Oriens et Occidens 25 (Stuttgart 2017) 201–222 Cohen 1995: G M Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, Hellenistic Culture and Society 17 (Berkeley 1995) Cohen 2006: G M Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, Hellenistic Culture and Society 46 (Berkeley 2006) Cohen 2013: G M Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India, Hellenistic Culture and Society 54 (Berkeley 2013) Corsten 2007: T Corsten, Thracian Personal Names and Military Settlements in Hellenistic Bithynia, in: E Matthews (ed ), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics, Proceedings of the British Academy 148 (Oxford 2007) 121–133 Dąbrowa 1998: E Dąbrowa, Philhellên Mithridate Ier et les Grecs, Electrum 2, 1998, 35–44 Dąbrowa 2014: E Dąbrowa, The Parthians and the Seleucid Legacy, in: R Rollinger – K Schnegg (eds ), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten Vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel, Colloquia Antiqua 10 (Leuven 2014) D’Agostini 2016: M D’Agostini, The Multicultural Ties of the Mithridatids Sources, Tradition and Promotional Image of the Dynasty of Pontus in 4th–3rd Centuries B C , Aevum 90, 2016, 83–96 Eckhardt 2015: B Eckhardt, Achaemenid Religious Policy after the Seleucid Decline Case Studies in Political Memory and Near Eastern Dynastic Representation, in: J M Silverman – C Waerzeggers (eds ), Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire, Ancient Near East Monographs 13 (Atlanta 2015) 269–298 Errington 1999: R M Errington, Philhellenismus und praktische Politik, in: G Vogt-Spira – B Rommel (eds ), Rezeption und Identität Die kulturelle Auseinandersetzung Roms mit Griechenland als europäisches Paradigma (Stuttgart 1999) 149–154 Erskine 1994: A Erskine, The Romans as Common Benefactors, Historia 43, 1994, 70–87 492 Christoph Michels Facella 1999: M Facella, Basileus Arsames Sulla storia dinastica di Commagene, Studi Ellenistici 12, 1999, 127–158 Facella 2005: M Facella, Φιλορώμαιος καὶ Φιλέλλην Roman Perception of Commagenian Royalty, in: O Hekster – R Fowler (eds ), Imaginary Kings Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, Oriens et Occidens 11 (Stuttgart 2005) 87–103 Facella 2006: M Facella, La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana, Studi Ellenistici 17 (Pisa 2006) Facella 2009: M Facella, Darius and the Achaemenids in Commagene, in: P Briant – M Chauveau (eds ), Organisation des pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans les pays de l’empire achéménide (Paris 2009) 379–414 Fernoux 2004: H -L Fernoux, Notables et élites des cités de Bithynie aux époques hellénistique et romaine (IIIe siècle av J -C – IIIe siècle ap J -C ) Essai d’histoire sociale, Collection de la maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 31 (Lyon 2004) Ferrary 2014: J -L Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate 2(Paris 2014) Fleischer 2017: R Fleischer, Die Felsgräber der Könige von Pontos in Amasya, IstForsch 56 (Tübingen 2017) Foss 1986: C Foss, The Coinage of Tigranes the Great Problems, Suggestions and New Finds, NumChron 146, 1986, 19–66 Fraser 1978: P M Fraser, The Kings of Commagene and the Greek World, in: S Şahin – E Schwertheim – J Wagner (eds ), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65 Geburtstag am 28 Februar 1976 1 (Leiden 1978) 359–374 Freitag – Michels 2014: K Freitag – C Michels (eds ), Athen und/oder Alexandreia? Aspekte von Identität und Ethnizität im hellenistischen Griechenland (Cologne 2014) Gabelko 2017: O Gabelko, Bithynia and Cappadocia Royal Courts and Ruling Society in the Minor Hellenistic Monarchies, in: A Erskine – L Llewellyn-Jones – S Wallace (eds ), The Hellenistic Court Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra (London 2017) 319–342 von Gall 1990: H von Gall, Die Kopfbedeckungen des medischen Ornats in achämenidischer Zeit und hellenistischer Zeit, in: Akten des XIII internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie Berlin 1988 (Mainz 1990) 320–323 Gatzke 2019: A F Gatzke, Mithridates VI Eupator and Persian Kingship, AncHistB 33, 2019, 60–80 Gruen 1996: E S Gruen, Hellenistic Kingship Puzzles, Problems, and Possibilities, in: P Bilde – T Engberg-Pedersen – L Hannestad – J Zahle (eds ), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 7 (Aarhus 1996) 116–125 Gruen 2000: E S Gruen, Culture as Policy The Attalids of Pergamon, in: N T de Grummond – B S Ridgway (eds ), From Pergamon to Sperlonga Sculpture and Context (Berkeley 2000) 17–31 Habicht 1972: RE 10 A (1972) 448–455 s v Zipoites (C Habicht) Hannestad 1996: L Hannestad, ‘This Contributes in no Small Way to One’s Reputation’ The Bithynian Kings and Greek Culture, in: P Bilde – T Engberg-Pedersen – L Hannestad – J Zahle (eds ), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 7 (Aarhus 1996) 67–98 Jacobs 2012: B Jacobs, Die Religionspolitik des Antiochos I von Kommagene, in: J Wagner (ed ), Gottkönige am Euphrat Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene 2(Mainz 2012) 99–108 ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 493 Jacobs 2014: B Jacobs, Bildkunst als Zeugnis für Orientierung und Konsens innerhalb der Eliten des westlichen Achämenidenreichs, in: R Rollinger – K Schnegg (eds ), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten Vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel, Colloquia Antiqua 10 (Leuven 2014) 343–368 Jacobs 2017: B Jacobs, Tradition oder Fiktion? Die “persischen” Elemente in den Ausstattungsprogrammen Antiochos’ I von Kommagene, in: R Strootman – M J Versluys (eds ), Persianism in Antiquity, Oriens et Occidens 25 (Stuttgart 2017) 235–248 Jakobsson 2013: J Jakobsson, Numismatic Evidence for Dating the Independence of Commagene to 150 BC?, Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society 215, 2013, 2–4 Keller 2010: D Keller, Die arsakidischen Münzen, in: U Hackl – B Jacobs – D Weber (eds ), Quellen zur Geschichte des Partherreiches Textsammlung mit Übersetzungen und Kommentaren 2 Griechische und lateinische Texte, parthische Texte, numismatische Evidenz (Göttingen 2010) 613–632 Klingenberg 2014: A Klingenberg, Die ‘Iranische Diaspora’ Kontext, Charakter und Auswirkung persischer Einwanderung nach Kleinasien, in: E Olshausen – V Sauer (eds ), Mobilität in den Kulturen der antiken Mittelmeerwelt (Stuttgart 2014) 309–324 Klinkott 2005: H Klinkott, Der Satrap Ein achaimenidischer Amtsträger und seine Handlungsspielräume, Oikumene 1 (Frankfurt 2005) Kobes 1996: J Kobes, “Kleine Könige” Untersuchungen zu den Lokaldynasten im hellenistischen Kleinasien (323–188 v Chr ), Pharos 8 (St Katharinen 1996) Kropp 2013: A J M Kropp, Images and Monuments of Near Eastern Dynasts, 100 BC – AD 100 (Oxford 2013) Lerouge 2007: C Lerouge, L’image des Parthes (Stuttgart 2007) Lerouge-Cohen 2013: C Lerouge-Cohen, La référence aux ‘Sept’ dans les royaumes gréco-iraniens de l’époque hellénistique La survivance d’un usage achéménide?, Ktèma 38, 2013, 107–114 Lerouge-Cohen 2017: C Lerouge-Cohen, Persianism in the Kingdom of Pontic Kappadokia The Genealogical Claims of the Mithridatids, in: R Strootman – M J Versluys (eds ), Persianism in Antiquity, Oriens et Occidens 25 (Stuttgart 2017) 223–234 Marek 2003: C Marek, Pontus et Bithynia Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens, AW Sonderband 34 (Mainz 2003) McGing 2014: B McGing, Iranian Kings in Greek Dress? Cultural Identity in the Mithradatid Kingdom of Pontus, in: T Bekker-Nielsen (ed ), Space, Place and Identity in Northern Anatolia (Stuttgart 2014) 21–37 Mehl 1999: A Mehl, Zwischen West und Ost/Jenseits von West und Ost Das Reich der Seleukiden, in: K Brodersen (ed ), Zwischen West und Ost Studien zur Geschichte des Seleukidenreiches, Studien zur Geschichtsforschung des Altertums 5 (Hamburg 1999) 9–43 Messerschmidt 2014: W Messerschmidt, Die politische Stellung Kommagenes in achaemenidischer Zeit, in: E Winter (ed ), Kult und Herrschaft am Euphrat, AMS 73 = Dolichener und Kommagenische Forschung 6 (Bonn 2014) 323–341 Metzler 2012: D Metzler, Kommagene vom Osten her gesehen, in: J Wagner (ed ), Gottkönige am Euphrat Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene 2(Mainz 2012) 109–115 Michels 2009: C Michels, Kulturtransfer und monarchischer “Philhellenismus” Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in hellenistischer Zeit, Schriften zur politischen Kommunikation 4 (Göttingen 2009) Michels 2010a: C Michels, Zum ‘Philhellenismus’ der Könige von Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien, in: R Rollinger – B Gufler – M Lang – I Madreiter (eds ), Interkulturalität in der Al- 494 Christoph Michels ten Welt Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts (Wiesbaden 2010) 561–582 Michels 2010b: C Michels, Begrenzte Integration Der Euergetismus der Könige von Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in der griechischen Welt, in: C Antenhofer – L Regazzoni – A von Schlachta (eds ), Werkstatt Politische Kommunikation, Schriften zur politischen Kommunikation 6 (Göttingen 2010) 189–204 Michels 2013a: C Michels, Expansion und Transformation? Zur Einordnung der Stadtgründungen der Könige Bithyniens, in: E Winter – K Zimmermann (eds ), Neue Funde und Forschungen in Bithynien Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 100 Geburtstag gewidmet, AMS 69 (Bonn 2013) 5–31 Michels 2013b: C Michels, The Spread of Polis Institutions in Hellenistic Cappadocia and the Peer Polity Interaction Model, in: E Stavrianopoulou (ed ), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period Narrations, Practices and Images (Leiden 2013) 283–307 Michels 2017: C Michels, The Persian Impact on Bithynia, Commagene, Pontus, and Cappadocia, in: S Müller – T Howe – H Bowden – R Rollinger (eds ), The History of the Argeads New Perspectives, Classica et Orientalia 19 (Wiesbaden 2017) 41–56 Michels 2020: C Michels, Pepaideumenoi and Paideia at the Court of Hellenistic Cappadocia and the Impact on Cultural Change, in: M -P de Hoz – J L Garcia Alonso – L A Guichard Romero (eds ), Greek Paideia and Local Traditions in the Graeco-Roman East, Colloquia Antiqua 29 (Leuven 2020) 19–38 Mitchell 2005: S Mitchell, Anatolia between East and West The Parallel Lives of the Attalids and Mithridatid Kingdom in the Hellenistic Age, Studi Ellenistici 16, 2005, 521–530 Mitchell 2007: S Mitchell, Iranian Names and the Presence of Persians in the Religious Sanctuaries of Asia Minor, in: E Matthews (ed ), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics (Oxford 2007) 151–171 Mittag 2004: P F Mittag, Zur Selbststilisierung Antiochos’ I von Kommagene, Gephyra 1, 2004, 1–26 Mittag 2011: P F Mittag, Zur Entwicklung des “Herrscher-” und “Dynastiekultes” in Kommagene, in: L -M Günther – S Plischke (eds ), Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscherkult (Berlin 2011) 141–160 Muccioli 2013: F Muccioli, Gli epiteti ufficiali dei re ellenistici, Historia Einzelschriften 224 (Stuttgart 2013) Müller 2016: S Müller, Die Argeaden Geschichte Makedoniens bis zum Zeitalter Alexanders des Großen (Paderborn 2016) Olbrycht 2019: M J Olbrycht, The Memory of the Past The Achaemenid Legacy in the Arsakid Period, Studia Litteraria Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 14, 2019, 175–186 Olshausen 1974: E Olshausen, Zum Hellenisierungsprozeß am pontischen Königshof, AncSoc 5, 1974, 153–170 Panichi 2005: S Panichi, Sul ‘filellenismo’ di Ariarate V, Studi Ellenistici 16, 2005, 241–259 Panichi 2018: S Panichi, La Cappadocia ellenistica sotto gli Ariaratidi ca 250–100 a C , Biblioteca di Geographia Antiqua 5 (Florence 2018) Panitschek 1987–1988: P Panitschek, Zu den genealogischen Konstruktionen der Dynastien von Pontos und Kappadokien, RStorAnt 17–18, 1987–1988, 73–95 Parsons 1996: P Parsons, ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝ, MusHelv 53, 1996, 106–115 Petzl 2012: G Petzl, Die Königsinschriften von Kommagene, in: J Wagner (ed ), Gottkönige am Euphrat Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene 2(Mainz 2012) 61–69 ‘Achaemenid’ and ‘Hellenistic’ Strands of Representation 495 Plischke 2014: S Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran Die seleukidische Herrschaftspolitik in den östlichen Satrapien, Classica et Orientalia 9 (Wiesbaden 2014) Riedel 2018: S Riedel, Commagenian Glocalization and the Matter of Perception An Innovative Royal Portrait from Samosata, IstMitt 68, 2018, 87–142 Schönert-Geiss 1978: E Schönert-Geiss, Bithynien, Chiron 8, 1978, 607–654 Scholten 2007: J Scholten, Building Hellenistic Bithynia, in: H Elton – G Reger (eds ), Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor Acts of the Conference Hartford, Connecticut (USA) August 22–24 August 1997 (Bordeaux 2007) 17–24 Schwertheim 2005: E Schwertheim, Kleinasien in der Antike (Munich 2005) Shayegan 2016: M R Shayegan, The Arsacids and the Commagene, in: V S Curtis – E Pendleton – M Alram – T Daryaee (eds ), The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires Adaptation and Expansion Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 14–15 June 2012, BIPS Archaeological Monograph Series 5 (Oxford 2016) 8–22 Shayegan 2017: M R Shayegan, Persianism: Or Achaemenid Reminiscences in the Iranian and Iranicate World(s) of Antiquity, in: R Strootman – M J Versluys (eds ), Persianism in Antiquity, Oriens et Occidens 25 (Stuttgart 2017) 401–455 Sherwin-White – Kuhrt 1993: S Sherwin-White – A Kuhrt, From Samarkand to Sardis A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire (London 1993) Stavrianopoulou 2013: E Stavrianopoulou, Hellenistic World(s) and the Elusive Concept of ‘Greekness’, in: E Stavrianopoulou (ed ), Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period Narrations, Practices and Images, Mnemosyne Suppl 363 (Leiden 2013) 177–205 Strootman 2017: R Strootman, Imperial Persianism Seleukids, Arsakids, Fratarakā, in: R Strootman – M J Versluys (eds ), Persianism in Antiquity, Oriens et Occidens 25 (Stuttgart 2017) 169–192 Strootman – Versluys 2017: R Strootman – M J Versluys, From Culture to Concept The Reception and Appropriation of Persia in Antiquity, in: R Strootman – M J Versluys (eds ), Persianism in Antiquity, Oriens et Occidens 25 (Stuttgart 2017) 9–32 Sullivan 1973: R A Sullivan, Diadochic Coinage in Commagene after Tigranes the Great, NumChron 13, 1973, 18–39 Sullivan 1978: R A Sullivan, The Dynasty of Commagene, ANRW 2,8, 1978, 732–798 Tuplin 2014: C Tuplin, The Military Dimension of Hellenistic Kingship: an Achaemenid Heritage?, in: F Hoffman – K S Schmidt (eds ), Orient und Okzident: Antagonismus oder Konstrukt? Machtstrukturen, Ideologien und Kulturtransfer in hellenistischer Zeit (Vaterstetten 2014) 245–276 Ulf 2009: C Ulf, Rethinking Cultural Contacts, AncWestEast 8, 2009, 81–132 Ulf 2014: C Ulf, Eine Typologie von kulturellen Kontaktzonen (“Fernverhältnisse” – middle grounds – dichte Kontaktzonen), oder: Rethinking Cultural Contacts auf dem Prüfstand, in: R Rollinger – K Schnegg (eds ), Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten Vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel, Colloquia Antiqua 10 (Leuven 2014) 469–504 Versluys 2017: M J Versluys, Visual Style and Constructing Identity in the Hellenistic World Nemrud Dağ and Commagene under Antiochos I (Cambridge 2017) Wagner 1983: J Wagner, Dynastie und Herrscherkult in Kommagene Forschungsgeschichte und neuere Funde, IstMitt 33, 1983, 177–224 Wiemer 2017: H -U Wiemer, Siegen oder untergehen? Die hellenistische Monarchie in der neueren Forschung, in: S Rebenich (ed ), Monarchische Herrschaft im Altertum, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, Kolloquien 94 (Munich 2017) 305–339 Wiesehöfer 1996a: J Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia From 550 BC to 650 AD (London 1996) 496 Christoph Michels Wiesehöfer 1996b: J Wiesehöfer, ‘King of Kings’ and ‘Philhellên’ Kingship in Arsacid Iran, in: P Bilde – T Engberg-Pedersen – L Hannestad – J Zahle (eds ), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 7 (Aarhus 1996) 55–66 Wiesehöfer 2000: J Wiesehöfer, “Denn Orodes war der griechischen Sprache und Literatur nicht unkundig …” Parther, Griechen und griechische Kultur, in: R Dittmann – B Hrouda – U Löw – P Matthiae – R Mayer-Opificius – S Thürwächter (eds ), Variatio delectat Iran und der Westen, Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer (Münster 2000) 703–721 Winter 2008: E Winter, Herrschaft und Territorium in der Kommagene Siedlungs- und Polisstrukturen in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, in: E Winter (ed ), ΠΑΤΡΙΣ ΠΑΝΤΡΟΦΟΣ ΚΟΜΜΑΓΗΝΗ Neue Funde und Forschungen zwischen Taurus und Euphrat, AMS 60 (Bonn 2008) 37–52 Christoph Michels Heisenberg fellow at the Department of Ancient History Westfälische Wilhelms-University Münster christoph michels@uni-muenster de