Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor

 | 
Hugh Elton
, 
Gary Reger

Building Hellenistic Bithynia

Joseph Scholten

Texte intégral

  • 1 From Boteiras, the earliest certain member of the line offered by Memnon, FGrH 434 F 12.4. For the (...)

1Hellenistic Bithynia in northwest Asia Minor offers interesting comparisons and contrasts with the experiences of central and southern Anatolia that dominate this collection. As in Karia and Lykia, so too in Bithynia shifting political realities in the Hellenistic era redefined traditional physical boundaries. Unlike Lykia and Karia (or Phrygia and Lydia, for that matter), but similar to Pisidia, Bithynia as a region seems largely to have been a product of Hellenistic developments, most notably the state-building activities of a dynasty I shall refer to as the Boteirids1.

  • 2 See Renfrew 1986.

2Their state-building, which led to the emergence of Hellenistic Bithynia as a region, can be interpreted with the help of a recent theoretical model called Peer Polity Interaction. In a peer polity regional matrix no population is dominant or subordinate; each has agency and develops an idiosyncratic variant on a generic, regional cultural model. Interactions that create discreet identities among regional peer populations are varied and complex, but the most important thing that passes between peer polities in this model is information, information that is processed and manipulated by the few who invariably wield power in any complex human society2.

  • 3 Hannestad 1996, esp. 67-68. T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und Pylai (Bonn 19 (...)
  • 4 Meyer, 1899, 507-524; Burstein 1976, 1-4.
  • 5 See Potter (this volume).
  • 6 Xen., Anab., 6.4.1-2; Hoddinott 1981, 119-126; Meyer 1899, 510-516 for Greek sources.
  • 7 Sekunda 1988, 175-196; Weiskopf 1989, 14-25, 45-64.
  • 8 E. g, Xen., An., 6.4.24, Hell., 3.2.2-6. In general see Weiskopf 1989, 32, 51-53; Sekunda 1988, Bu (...)
  • 9 An aristocratic burial unearthed near Düzce included a Persian silver drinking set (Sekunda 1988, (...)

3Any reconstruction of Bithynia’s historical development faces a dearth of data. Other regions of Anatolia excel its miserly archaeological record, only partly relieved by recent epigraphic and topographic studies3. But in Bithynia we also face the loss of much of a once rich historiographic tradition, which, however, was particularly unsympathetic to the object of our enquiry: the writers were Greeks, but the majority of the population of this region was not4. Ethnic “otherness” (in Greek eyes) was problematical: unlike the communities of Lykia5, Bithynians were not receptive to the establishment of Hellenic colonies along the shores of northwest Anatolia in the Archaic and Classical eras. Binary opposition may be an inappropriate generic characterization for ethnic interactions in Anatolia, but in the case of Bithynian-Greek relations it has at least some initial validity. This unusually strong ethnic antagonism underlying our ancient literary tradition on the Bithynians was an equally troubling obstacle to the Boteirids’ attempts to create a cohesive state in northwest Asia Minor. Xenophon describes Bithynia’s social structure and settlement patterns as village-oriented, dominated by a warrior aristocracy. Some archaeological evidence suggests interaction with the Thrakians, whom the Greeks identified as the origins of the Bithynians6. The eastern subsection (centered around Kios) of the third Achaemenid satrapy likewise consisted of villages dominated by a warrior aristocracy beholden to a dominant family (the Ariobarzanids7). Bithynians certainly engaged with Persian authorities in the hostile mode of competitive peer interaction8, and probably in non-competitive interaction, as well9.

  • 10 So Hannestad 1996, 72; Vitucci 1953, 12-15: “staterello.”
  • 11 Under Bas the Bithynians defeated Alexander’s general Kalas (Memnon FGrH 434 F 12.4), while Zipoit (...)

4These interactions helped spark movement toward a more complex political organization. Memnon (FGrH 434 F 12.4) places Boteiros, founder of the Hellenistic Boteirid dynasty, in the final third of the fifth century with Boteiras (born c. 454, reigned 435-378 BC), if not earlier. While his simple statement does not prove the existence of a Bithynian state, other aspects of the region’s history and development at this time suggest that one may have been present or nascent10. The long record of successful resistance to further territorial expansion by coastal poleis, the Achaemenid satrapy of Daskyleion and, finally, its Makedonian successors, suggests an effective system for the mobilization of Bithynia’s native manpower. The Boteirid family somehow came to dominate that system, especially in the later fourth century (under Bas and Zipoites), and used it as one of the building blocks of their regime11.

  • 12 In general, see Hoddinott 1981, 104-130.
  • 13 Seuthes III (and his creation of Seuthopolis): Burstein 1986, 133-138, esp. 134 and n. 8; Lund 199 (...)
  • 14 Memnon, FGrH 434 F 12.5; Steph. Byz. s. v. “Zipoition.”
  • 15 E. g., Hannestad 1996, 74 and n. 40. Cf., however, Vitucci 1953, 20 and n. 3; Habicht 1972b, 454; (...)

5Of the regional interactions across the Propontis in many of the categories of the spurs to early Boteirid state building, the most significant was surely the Odrysian “state” that emerged intermittently during this very period, particularly under Seuthes III12. Seuthes’ career was contemporaneous with the first half of that of Zipoites, and their situations and actions strikingly similar13. From a peer polity perspective, such homologies are to be expected, and included, perhaps, a connection between Seuthes’ most famous legacy-his administrative center, “Seuthopolis” – and the foundation of a “Zipoition” by Zipoites14. The latter site has, unfortunately, never been identified (and some have doubted its very existence15), but even if we turn to the next, and unquestionable Boteirid foundation, Nikomedeia, it is still useful to consider its creation in light not just of the behavior of contemporary Hellenistic dynasts but also of the Thrakian Seuthes’ slightly earlier action.

  • 16 Marek 1993, 21 and n. 184.
  • 17 Burstein 1986, 23-89.
  • 18 Athenaios (6.271b) says that the Byzantines reduced the Thrakian population of their hinterland to (...)
  • 19 This is not to imply any sense of ethnic solidarity with non-Hellenic populations. Recall the lead (...)
  • 20 A Chalkedonian appeal to their Bithynian neighbors in the face of attack by Alkibiades in 412 BC ( (...)

6Any such movements toward a more complex political structure among the Bithynian population of the fifth and fourth centuries were certainly connected to the generally hostile relationship they had with Greeks, and especially neighboring coastal poleis. Bithynia – that is, the land controlled by the Bithynians – of this early time was a much smaller physical entity than its later Hellenistic progeny, comprising probably only the hills and mountains around the mid-Sangarios River bend16. The aggrandizements of the Greek settlements at Astakos, Chalkedon, and especially Herakleia Pontika placed increasing pressure on the Bithynian heartland from several directions17. It is all the more reasonable to see the state-building activities of the Boteirids as a response to this pressure, given the harsh treatment these Greek communities accorded local peoples they conquered18. In light of all the evidence for Bithynian interaction with neighboring populations, they must have been aware of this Greek behavior and concerned by it, to say the least19. Xenophon (An., 6.4.1-2) certainly has little good to say about Bithynian attitudes towards things Greek in light of his brief experience. Significantly, he attributes Bithynian antipathy to the fear that the Ten Thousand were about to found a polis at Kalpes Limne on the Euxine coast midway between Byzantion and Herakleia (An., 6.2.1-6.38). The Bithynians treated the Ten Thousand to such an ordeal that the Greeks pointedly did not do so, despite Kalpes Limne’s inviting geographical characteristics20.

7External pressure, especially from Hellenic (and later Makedonian) polities, certainly contributed to the formation of regional identities elsewhere in Asia Minor in our period. What is unusual in the case of Hellenistic Bithynia is that this self-identification was coupled with another, somewhat contrary phenomenon: the redefinition of old physical and human geographical boundaries and distinctions. The expansion of Bithynia in the Hellenistic era obviously is tied to the competitive state-building of the Boteirid dynasty. And certainly we should view the policies of that dynasty in the context of those of its Hellenistic peers, both great and small. But, as elsewhere in Anatolia, the process of regional formation in Hellenistic Bithynia was complex.

  • 21 These issues offer near textbook examples of peer polity competitive emulation and symbolic entrai (...)
  • 22 Hannestad 1996, 75, 89.
  • 23 Nikomedes’will: Memnon, FGrH 434 F 22.1. Nikomedes allied with Herakleia, Byzantion, and other pol (...)
  • 24 For the possibility that these urban foundations of Hellenistic Bithynia formed an association see (...)
  • 25 E. g., the tetradrachm of Nikomedes II illustrated in Davis and Kraay 1973, 195 and 197; BMC Pontu (...)
  • 26 For Kos, see the renewal by Nikomedes’son (Welles 1934, 25), subsequently documented in the existe (...)

8The career of Zipoites’ son, Nikomedes I (r. c. 280-c. 255), offers an acute example. Nikomedes introduced the first Bithynian precious metal coinage, issues that confirm his assumption of the title basileus21. We see him playing that role in his foundation of Nikomedeia22. His notorious decision to facilitate the introduction of the Galatians into Anatolia was probably prompted, at least in part, by a desire to help the hard-pressed Byzantines, and his will included Herakleia and Kios among the guardians of his chosen heir23. Nikomedes’ successors emulated many of his actions: Nikomedeia was joined by Bithynion, Prousias ad Mare, Prousias ad Hypium, Prousa ad Olympum, and Apameia24; the Bithynian royal mint subsequently produced the exquisite issues of the later Nikomedeses25; and the later Boteirids both patronized and were honored by a network of Hellenic poleis and hiera spanning the Aegean region from Kos, to Krete, to Delos, to Delphi, to Didyma26.

  • 27 E. g, Magie 1950, 315, with regard to Prousias I; Vitucci 1953, 20-21; and Hannestad 1996, 82.
  • 28 Hannestad 1996, 74.

9Traditionally these Boteirid activities have been ascribed to a simple policy of philhellenism27. Yet even for the reign of Nikomedes I there are signs of much more complex cultural calculus at work. We have already seen that the creation of Nikomedeia should also be seen in the context of regional Thrakian peer polities. Onomastics point in this same direction. Recently it has been suggested that Nikomedes I took that name upon his ascension to the throne28. A brief look at the other names in the Boteirid family tree makes this idea all the more attractive. Not only is there is no such Hellenic (or Hellenizing) name before him in the dynasty, there is none such after him for almost a century. Nikomedes I’s son and successor was named Ziaelas; the eldest son of Nikomedes’ second marriage, whom Nikomedes actually preferred for the succession and commended to the tutelage of a long list of Hellenic guardians, was named Zipoites.

  • 29 As Renfrew 1986, 9, points out.

10This persistence of Thrakian names among the Boteirid dynasty itself is only the most obvious warning sign that philhellenism was at most just one facet of that regime’s state building activities. Here it is important to bear in mind a key connection between them and the actual consolidation of Boteirid Bithynia in the Hellenistic era. Peer polity analysis sees the adoption or rejection of particular aspects of regional pattern as contingent upon local considerations and conditions. The Boteirids, therefore, adopted their various behaviors and state structures because these choices increased their power. But power can only be wielded by the few if its exercise is accepted by the many, whose acceptance itself implies acquiescence in some accompanying belief structure or political philosophy29. Boteirid philhellenism would clearly appeal to the residents of the Greek colonies of the area, but these were far from being a majority of the population. Moreover, as we have seen, there seems to have been a long history of antipathy between the majority Thrakian population of old Bithynia and the residents of the Greek apoikiai. There must, then, have been aspects of the Boteirid policy that ensured the acquiescence of this larger substratum of its subjects.

  • 30 As a peer polity comparandum note the remarks of Marek 1993, 20-21, and Lund 1992, 105, on Lysimac (...)

11Seuthes’ and the European Thrakians’ experience of the fourth century can in fact place Nikomedes’ decision to refound the Greek polis Astakos as a capital for his realm, and under his name, and indeed his entire philhellenic turn, in a much more complex and pragmatic matrix. Here the operative term is “turn”, for Nikomedes I’s regime was a marked departure from that of his father Zipoites and Zipoites’ predecessors. Zipoites had repeatedly attacked (and perhaps conquered) Astakos, before Lysimachos destroyed it. Nikomedes’ very different approach to both this and other Hellenic communities may have been conditioned by Bithynia’s Thrakian interconnections. If the Odrysian kingdom was renowned for anything, it was its fragility. Any would-be central authority had to do constant battle with a contentious middle management, the local Thrakian nobility (Thuc. 2.97; Pol. 4.45), and the death of a successful state builder inevitably led to a challenge to his successor. The Boteirid dynasty was equally unstable and internally challenged: Nikomedes I, Ziaelas, and Prousias I all had to fight to assert control at the beginning of their reigns, and Prousias II lost such a struggle at the end of his rule. These challenges may have been driven by the continued operation of Bithynia’s native aristocracy within a regional Thrakian matrix. Seemingly philhellenic or antihellenic moves by any of the Boteirid monarchs may have been linked to keeping this native Bithynian aristocracy (and the dependent rural population) in line30.

  • 31 E. g., Geyer 1936, 493-494, esp. 493; Vitucci 1953, 22-23.
  • 32 Most scholars read Memnon’s report (FGrH 434 F 12.5) that Zipoites defeated Lysimachos himself as (...)

12Beyond mindless philhellenism, the explanation most often adduced for Nikomedes’ violent turn away from the policies of his father and ancestors with regard to relations with the Greek poleis on the Bithynian coast (including his decision to bring the Galatians into Anatolia) is the threat posed to his position by Antiochos I31. Yet Antiochos’ hostility was prompted by Nikomedes’ decision to break the friendship between their families that had ranged their fathers alongside each other and against Lysimachos at Kouroupedion32. Moreover, Antiochos responded to Nikomedes’ provocation with both an army and an alliance – with Nikomedes’ brother, who controlled the region of Thynis, west of Herakleia (Memnon, FGrH 434 F 10.1, 9.5; Livy 38.16).

  • 33 Habicht 1972, 455-459.
  • 34 Trogus, Prol., 25; Justinus, Epit., 25.2.11; Liv. 38.16.7-9.
  • 35 Note again the reverse program of his coinage, apparently depicting the Thrakian goddess Bendis: H (...)

13A regional peer polity perspective suggests that perhaps the situation was the other way around: that a struggle for power between the brothers led them to seek outside alliances. The Bithynian aristocracy lined up behind Nikomedes’ brother (whose name, significantly, was Zipoites33), causing Nikomedes to turn to the coastal Greeks and, eventually, the Galatians, for support. His ancestors, and in particular his father, had done quite well relying on Bithynia’s native manpower, and his brother pressed the Herakleiotes hard. Clearly Nikomedes did not have the support of Bithynia’s Thrakian aristocracy, and had to compensate by appealing to Greeks and Gauls both to establish his regime and then to maintain it.34 His choice of Thrakian names for his sons (and the fact that his second wife was Thrakian [Memnon, FGrH 434 F 14.1 n.]) could well represent fence-mending gestures35.

  • 36 E. g., two aspects of Ziaelas’subsequent letter to the Koans (Welles 1934, 25) that have made it t (...)
  • 37 Habicht 1972b, 452-453, contra Mehl 1986, 294-296.
  • 38 Menas was the son of Bioeris (IK, 10.1-İznik (Nikaia), 751, l. 7, 15), and is referred to as a Bit (...)
  • 39 Dintiporis the son of Skiprazis (OGI, 341 = IC, II, 18, 4A, l. 12-13), and Dintiporis the son of [ (...)
  • 40 A recently completed survey of Bithynia’s Roman through Ottoman era sites may well yield important (...)
  • 41 Robert 1937, 244; Vitucci 1953, 121-122; Briant 1982, 137-160.
  • 42 A need emphasized by Hannestad 1996, 88.

14While there are hints of similar balancing acts in the policies of several of Nikomedes’ successors36, it is important also to note signs that the seeming binary opposition of things Thrakian and Greek in Bithynia was transitory. If the famous funerary stele of Menas does indeed belong in the context of the battle of Kouroupedion37, then Nikomedes was not the only Bithynian of his day willing to adopt a Hellenic or Hellenizing name38. Certainly by the early second century a much more fluid situation had emerged, typical of those found elsewhere in Asia Minor of the time. If we return to the Kretan honorary decree (OGI, 341) mentioned earlier, it is noteworthy that two of the three ambassadors dispatched there bear Thrakian names. The third ambassador, however, is Dionysios son of Apatouris, a Nikomedeian, while one of our Dintipores is identified as a resident of one of the Prousiases39. It nevertheless remains difficult to say whether Boteirid policies had completed the integration of the various ethnic identities of their realm by the end of their dynasty. The fact that the most famous intellectual produced by the area had a Greek name and a Thrakian ethnic (Demosthenes the Bithynian) certainly points in the direction of multiple identities. Until such time as further archaeological evidence is at our disposal40 and the prosopographic data now available from sites covered in the IK series has been subjected to sensitive onomastic analysis the conventional assessment that Roman-era Bithynia was a region where Thrakian and Greek identities had not yet merged remains viable41. In any case, peer polity analysis underscores the importance of bearing in mind non-hellenic and pre-Hellenistic factors as we try to discern just how it was that the Boteirids developed the peculiar version of a state, and the expanded regional identity, that we know as Hellenistic Bithynia42.

Notes

1 From Boteiras, the earliest certain member of the line offered by Memnon, FGrH 434 F 12.4. For the other regions mentioned, see Bresson, Potter, Reger, Levick, Gregory, and Waelkens and Vandeput (all this volume).

2 See Renfrew 1986.

3 Hannestad 1996, esp. 67-68. T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Apameia (Bithynien) und Pylai (Bonn 1987); Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum (Bonn 1991-1993); W. Ameling, Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium (Bonn 1985); and S. Sahin, Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia) (Bonn 1981-1987).

4 Meyer, 1899, 507-524; Burstein 1976, 1-4.

5 See Potter (this volume).

6 Xen., Anab., 6.4.1-2; Hoddinott 1981, 119-126; Meyer 1899, 510-516 for Greek sources.

7 Sekunda 1988, 175-196; Weiskopf 1989, 14-25, 45-64.

8 E. g, Xen., An., 6.4.24, Hell., 3.2.2-6. In general see Weiskopf 1989, 32, 51-53; Sekunda 1988, Burstein 1976, 16, 26-27, 39 and n. 6.

9 An aristocratic burial unearthed near Düzce included a Persian silver drinking set (Sekunda 1988, 190 n. 8; Hannestad 1996, 71 n. 25-26); ritual gift exchange between the region’s aristocracies is well attested (e. g, Xen., An., 7.3, 18, 27). Competitive emulation and symbolic entrainment may appear in the form of the well-known anthemion stelai found scattered across northwest Anatolia (see Sekunda 1988, 191-193). See also Xen., An., 6.5.24, 7.8.25.

10 So Hannestad 1996, 72; Vitucci 1953, 12-15: “staterello.”

11 Under Bas the Bithynians defeated Alexander’s general Kalas (Memnon FGrH 434 F 12.4), while Zipoites led a successful resistance to Lysimachos (12.5). In general see Vitucci 1953, 12-17. Hannestad 1996, 71 and n. 29 argues against Billows 1990, 308 that Bithynia was a subject region during Antigonid control of Anatolia. Memnon uses variants of the root arche to describe their position.

12 In general, see Hoddinott 1981, 104-130.

13 Seuthes III (and his creation of Seuthopolis): Burstein 1986, 133-138, esp. 134 and n. 8; Lund 1992, 22-33.

14 Memnon, FGrH 434 F 12.5; Steph. Byz. s. v. “Zipoition.”

15 E. g., Hannestad 1996, 74 and n. 40. Cf., however, Vitucci 1953, 20 and n. 3; Habicht 1972b, 454; Marek 1993, 21 and n. 188.

16 Marek 1993, 21 and n. 184.

17 Burstein 1986, 23-89.

18 Athenaios (6.271b) says that the Byzantines reduced the Thrakian population of their hinterland to helotry; cf. Burstein 1986, 28-30, for the similar treatment of the Maryandynoi around Herakleia.

19 This is not to imply any sense of ethnic solidarity with non-Hellenic populations. Recall the leading role taken by the Bithynians’Odrysian cousins in the plundering of Bithynia in 399/398: Xen., Hell., 3.2.2-3.

20 A Chalkedonian appeal to their Bithynian neighbors in the face of attack by Alkibiades in 412 BC (Xen., Hell., 1.3.2, emphasized by Hannestad 1996, 69) does not offer a counterbalancing example of good Bithynian-Greek relations: when Alkibiades immediately turned his attention to the Bithynians, they showed no hesitation in betraying the Chalkedonians’trust and making a separate arrangement with him. In general see also Vitucci 1953, 11-17; Burstein 1976, 28, 30-33, 39-41. The equally unpleasant experience of Derkylidas’army may have caused Agesilaos to steer clear of their lands as he traversed the area in 396/395 (see Bruce 1967, 144).

21 These issues offer near textbook examples of peer polity competitive emulation and symbolic entrainment. They are conspicuously modeled after those of the Seleukids–including an obverse portrait of Nikomedes I that bears significant resemblance to that of Seleukos I Nikator (compare Hannestad 1996, 74 fig. 3 to Davis and Kraay 1973, pl. 53) – yet their reverse program uses Greek symbols to represent the Thrakian goddess Bendis: Hannestad 1996, 74 fig. 3, 75 and n. 46.

22 Hannestad 1996, 75, 89.

23 Nikomedes’will: Memnon, FGrH 434 F 22.1. Nikomedes allied with Herakleia, Byzantion, and other poleis in opposition to Antiochos I (see Memnon, FGrH 434 F 9-11), a move that Marek 1993, 23 considers of epochal importance in the subsequent development of northern Anatolia.

24 For the possibility that these urban foundations of Hellenistic Bithynia formed an association see Marek 1993, 21-23.

25 E. g., the tetradrachm of Nikomedes II illustrated in Davis and Kraay 1973, 195 and 197; BMC Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia and the Kingdoms of Bosporus pls. 38-39. In general see Davis and Kraay 1973, 257-264 and pls. 186-197; Hannestad 1996, 82-83, 87; Mørkholm 1991, 130, 174 (signaling a new corpus by D. Glew).

26 For Kos, see the renewal by Nikomedes’son (Welles 1934, 25), subsequently documented in the existence of a festival on that island dedicated to one of the later Nikomedes (Hannestad 1996, 84 and n. 82); Aptera on Krete: OGI, 341; for Delos, Delphi, and Didymos, see Hannestad 1996, 84-87.

27 E. g, Magie 1950, 315, with regard to Prousias I; Vitucci 1953, 20-21; and Hannestad 1996, 82.

28 Hannestad 1996, 74.

29 As Renfrew 1986, 9, points out.

30 As a peer polity comparandum note the remarks of Marek 1993, 20-21, and Lund 1992, 105, on Lysimachos’use of Greek apoikiai in his attempts to control Bithynia (accepted by Hannestad 1996, 71 and n. 29).

31 E. g., Geyer 1936, 493-494, esp. 493; Vitucci 1953, 22-23.

32 Most scholars read Memnon’s report (FGrH 434 F 12.5) that Zipoites defeated Lysimachos himself as a reference to Zipoites’participating in the Seleukid coalition at Kouroupedion, another sign of which would be the well-known funerary stele for the Bithynian Menas, who fell in battle there (Peek 1955, n ° 1965 = IK, 10.1-Museum von İznik (Nikaia), 751); Habicht 1972b, 452-53. Cf., however, Mehl 1986, 294-296. I would see Nikomedes’hand behind the “Bithynian” ambush of Antiochos’envoy that Memnon indicates (FGrHist 434 F 9.2-3) led Antiochos to ally with Zipoites the younger.

33 Habicht 1972, 455-459.

34 Trogus, Prol., 25; Justinus, Epit., 25.2.11; Liv. 38.16.7-9.

35 Note again the reverse program of his coinage, apparently depicting the Thrakian goddess Bendis: Hannestad 1996, 74 fig. 3, 75, and n. 46.

36 E. g., two aspects of Ziaelas’subsequent letter to the Koans (Welles 1934, 25) that have made it the focus of scholarly interest–his styling of himself King of the Bithynians, and his almost pathetically sincere assurances of his own personal concern for the safety of all Greeks who come to Bithynia–make sense in this more complex calculus. Habicht 1972a, 392, also raises a possible Thrakian context for the letter to Kos, noting the parallel to a treaty between the Greek polis Mesembria and the Thrakian dynast Sadalas. Cf., however, the more conventional view of Vitucci 1953, 31-32.

37 Habicht 1972b, 452-453, contra Mehl 1986, 294-296.

38 Menas was the son of Bioeris (IK, 10.1-İznik (Nikaia), 751, l. 7, 15), and is referred to as a Bithynian.

39 Dintiporis the son of Skiprazis (OGI, 341 = IC, II, 18, 4A, l. 12-13), and Dintiporis the son of [D] i (l) iporis (ll. 15-16). On these ethnics, see Robert 1937, 233; Habicht 1957, 1109; cf. Hannestad 1996, 86-87 and n. 107; Dimysos, 11.14-15; 1.13.

40 A recently completed survey of Bithynia’s Roman through Ottoman era sites may well yield important insights into earlier phases of the region’s settlement history: Gates 1996, 277-360, esp. 331.

41 Robert 1937, 244; Vitucci 1953, 121-122; Briant 1982, 137-160.

42 A need emphasized by Hannestad 1996, 88.

Auteur

Department of History, Michigan State University; Department of Classics, University of Maryland

© Ausonius Éditions, 2007

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540