The reign of Pharnaces I
Persian tradition and Hellenic influence
p. 223-236
Texte intégral
1The reign of Pharnaces I has often been regarded as a turning point in the history of the Mithridatid dynasty. This king was, in fact, the first member of this royal house to establish relations with Rome and he embarked on a large-scale war against his Anatolic neighbours in Cappadocia, Bithynia and Paphlagonia1. The conquest of Sinope contributed to consolidate Pharnaces’ kingdom as a leading maritime power with an important projection towards other areas of the Black Sea, as it is also shown in the treaty settled with the Greek colony of Chersonesus2. Nonetheless, there are other unique aspects of Pharnaces’ rule that deserve a special attention: first, the king’s name, secondly, his relationship with the god Men, and finally, the design of his monumental tomb, which was not built upon Hellenistic models. The analysis of these and other factors will lead us to suggest the hypothesis that the Pontic monarch based his policy of expansion on an agreement with a sector of the Cappadocian nobility, hitherto under the rule of the Ariarathid dynasty. Pharnaces’ perspective, however, was not exclusively Iranian, because he set up for his reign a wide range of signs of identity that combined Persian features, autochthonous elements and Hellenic influences.
2Starting with royal onomastics, we must recognize that the name Pharnaces had not a special relevance in the tradition of the Pontic royal line. The predominant name was Mithridates, which was also common among the Iranian ancestors of the Pontic rulers who belonged to the so-called « Dynasty of Cius ». The sole exception was Ariobarzanes, a name borne only by the second king of Pontus and some of the dynasts of Cius3. Furthermore, since Pharnaces I, no other king of Pontus would bear this name up to the son of Mithridates VI who waged war against Julius Caesar. Pharnaces II, however, was not one of Eupator’s eldest sons because this prince was born towards 97 BC (Appian, Mith., 120). In fact, he was not designated successor until the death of other brothers who had been appointed by the king to offices of highest importance: on the one hand Mithridates, who would have very probably been the first-born and was associated to some tasks of government as the heir of the throne; on the other hand Machares, who was archon of Bosporus. Both princes were accused of treason and executed by Eupator, and it is just after Machares’ death in 65 BC when we hear first from Pharnaces4.
3Mithridates VI gave his grandfather’s name to a son who was not destined to assume the government of his Empire, and this confirms that Pharnaces was not a particularly important name in the dynastic conception of the great king of Pontus5. Why, then, the choice of this name by the son of Mithridates III at the beginning of the iind Century BC? Both the Ariarathids of Cappadocia and the Mithridatids of Pontus traced their genealogy back to one of the Seven Persians who conspired against the magus Gaumata6, but going further back in time we find a Persian nobleman named Pharnaces, who may have been a common ancestor to both dynastic lines. According to Diodorus, Pharnaces was the husband of Atossa, the sister of Cambyses I, father of Cyrus the Great. One of Pharnaces’ descendants, called Otanes, was among the Seven Persians and was granted with the land of Cappadocia as domain exempt from tribute, bequeathing this privilege to his heirs7. The Pontic dynasty also descended from a Persian noble called Pharnaces, who has been identified with an officer mentioned in the tablets of Persepolis. This Pharnaces was the father of Artabazus, who stood up in the battle of Plataea and was appointed by Xerxes to rule over the satrapy of Dascylium, in northwest Asia Minor.8 A son of Artabazus, likewise named Pharnaces, ruled in Dascylium between 430 and 413 BC9. A branch of this lineage formed in Mysia the abovementioned Dynasty of Cius, to which the founder of the Pontic Kingdom belonged.
4Reinach noted that there were in Diodorus’ report about the Ariarathid house some apocryphal aspects, taking into account that this passage is our only reference to this remote ancestor of this dynasty: Pharnaces is surprisingly described as « King of Cappadocia », and we could also suspect about his wife, who had the same name as the daughter of Cyrus the Great.10 Therefore, it is not daring to suppose that the noble mentioned by Diodorus could be the same Pharnaces attested in the Pontic lineage. The later Cappadocian tradition would have placed him in an earlier time, in order to increase the prestige of the Ariarathid house.11
5Leaving aside these legendary features, we should emphasize on how the name Pharnaces is present in the genealogy of both ruling houses. It should be noted likewise that Pharnaces I of Pontus did not bear any Greek royal epithet, unlike the case of his contemporary Ariarathes IV Eusebes of Cappadocia. The immediate successors of Pharnaces, however, adopted Greek surnames, starting with his brother Mithridates Philopator Philadelphus12. It is interesting to note that Pharnaces II, Eupator’s son, did not take any royal epithet after assuming the title “King of Kings”, thus confirming that this ruler pointed to an Iranian conception of kingship. The meaning of « Pharnaces » was connected to the Iranian divinity *Xhvarenah (« glory », « fortune »), related to the idea of royal legitimacy.13
6Regarding Pharnaces’ coins, the modern scholarship has highlighted the unique combination of an obverse bearing a Hellenized image of the king, shaved and wearing diadem, together with a reverse showing a non Greek god, in contrast with the Cappadocian or Bithynian coins issued in this same period, where Hellenic deities are represented. There is nevertheless no unanimous position about the identification of this god and the elements which appear around him: the rays on his head and an animal standing next to a vine branch. Among the proposed hypotheses, it is feasible that this figure could be a representation of Men, since it would mean an exaltation of this god as protector of the monarchy of the great kingdom which Pharnaces was trying to consolidate. As we know from Strabo (XII 3, 31), the Pontic rulers had to swear by « the Fortune of the King and the Men of Pharnaces » upon ascending the throne. The Amasyan writer does not specify whether the alluded Pharnaces would have been Artabazus’ ancestor or Eupator’s grandfather, although the surname Farnakou seems to allude to the founder of the cult: this could confirm us that the latter had established the oath to this god as part of the specific coronation ritual of his dynasty14. This special relationship with Men is also attested by the appearance of this deity on the coins of Pharnacia, the city founded by this monarch east of Amisus15.
7The choice of a non Greek god for the royal coinage should not be seen as the consequence of a « nationalist » position from Pharnaces’ side, as Rostovtzeff affirmed, but rather shows how this ruler was interested in providing specific signs of identity to his kingship, even more so when taking into account that the symbol of the star and crescent moon, associated with the Pontic dynasty, appears also on his coins. McGing proposed that Pharnaces’ royal issues aimed to be a link between East and West16. This may be valid not only for the Hellenized face of the sovereign, or the rays which could be attributed to Zeus, but also if we interpret the animal in the reverse as related to Telephus, the son of Heracles who was suckled by a hind. Telephus was the king of Mysia, the region in north-west Asia Minor where the Iranian ancestors of the Mithridatids had ruled. During the Trojan War the hero was entangled in a vine branch and wounded by Achilles. Therefore these symbols on the coins combined a Greek myth with the Persian heritage17.
8As a last point, we deal with Pharnaces’ tomb. Fleischer has highlighted the uniqueness of one of the graves in the royal necropolis of Amasya, which can be identified with Pharnaces’ burial place. This grave had a portico without columns with stone revetements, a design which departs from the model of other monumental tombs in Hellenistic Anatolia, perhaps reflecting « a local tradition, unknown to us18 ». This particular conception can be also detected in the graves of Hikesius and the high priest Tes, dated likewise in the reign of Pharnaces19.
9An inscription added to the rock of the king’s tomb at Amasya reveals some Iranian features both in the funerary rituals and the design of the grave: the phrourarchos Metrodorus dedicated an altar and a « flower garden » to the gods for Pharnaces. As Canepa has noted, the inscription is not for the ruler himself, but rather to the Gods for the benefit of the king. To place the corpse inside a garden evokes in some sense the tomb of Cyrus and makes the king rest in an anticipation of the new world which will come after the Apocalypse20. Like the other graves in this royal necropolis, the burial is placed inside the rock, in order to prevent the dead body from polluting, in accordance with the Iranian rules of purity21. This clearly Persian conception would come to confirm the original inspiration which the king wanted for his reign, binding nobles from his ancestral realm together with others who might be dissident of the policy carried out by the Cappadocian rulers22.
10The peculiar organization of the Ariarathid kingdom would have favoured the union of Cappadocian aristocrats around Pharnaces. We know from Strabo, Justin and some passages in Polybius, that the Ariarathids did not have an absolute authority over the Cappadocian country: they had to share power with the nobles, who had their own lands and troops, and should even sign the international treaties together with the king23. Thus, it is very likely that Pharnaces would have reached a deal with some of these Cappadocian barons, seeking shared ties, appearing as the heir of an ancestor common to both dynasties, and perhaps promising these powerful men some counterparties of which we have no evidence24.
11This orientation in the policy of the Mithridatid dynasty would have also been in line with a series of internal conflicts within this royal house, as well as with the political circumstances in Asia Minor at the beginning of the iind Century BC. The date of Pharnaces’ accession to the throne is disputed. Our literary sources do not tell anything about him before 183 BC. Stephen Tracy, basing on the form of the letters of a Delian inscription to the ruler and his wife Nysa (OGIS 771) tried to demonstrate that Pharnaces would have taken the throne shortly before 197 BC. Nevertheless, this date raises many problems: the main one is the lack of any mention of Pharnaces in the war of Antiochus III against Rome, all the more when Tracy supposed that Nysa should have been Antiochus’ daughter.25 Another problem not remarked yet is that the Seleucid king mentioned in the Delian decree to Pharnaces is not called Megas, a title that Antiochus III had borne officially since 201 BC26.
12Whatever be the case, one thing is clear: the situation of the Pontic royal house in the late iiird Century BC must have been difficult, and this may have been the reason why Pontus did not engage in Antiochus’ Roman war. We know next to nothing about the reign of Mithridates III, who can only be identified from the coins27. Apart from the possible rule of another successor of this king before Pharnaces28, an attested fact is the proliferation of princes bearing the name Mithridates in Asia Minor at this time: Antiochus’ nephew, to whom his uncle promised the government of Armenia (Polybius, VIII, 23, 3-4); the eldest son of Ariarathes IV Eusebes (Diod. Sic., XXXI, 19, 7); and also Antiochus’ own son, who would later rule as Antiochus IV. To all of them we can add the abovementioned Mithridates, Pharnaces’ brother, who would rule in Pontus with the surnames Philopator Philadelphus29.
13As it is well known, the name chosen for a king had an important meaning. Some Hellenistic princes changed their names when assuming the kingship, but there were other cases in which a claimant to the throne adopted the traditional name of the monarchs of a kingdom in order to legitimize his aims to be proclaimed ruler: thus, for example, we could recall the cases of Demetrius, the son of Ariarathes V (Polybius, XXXIII, 12, 1), Pylaemenes, the young placed by Nicomedes III to rule over western Paphlagonia (Justin, XXXVII, 4, 8), Andriscus, who was called Philippus (Zonaras, XXVIII, 2 ; Polybius, XXXVI, 10 ; Florus, Epit., I, 30, 3), or Ariarathes IX, the son of Mithridates Eupator who was appointed king of Cappadocia at the beginning of the irst Century BC (Justin, XXXVIII, 2, 5-6)30. Accordingly, it is quite plausible that Antiochus III and Ariarathes IV would have expected to place their respective sons in the government of the Pontic kingdom, taking advantage of a dynastic instability within its royal house. All these pretenders had some relationship with the Mithridatids: the Seleucid king was married to a Pontic princess, while Ariarathes IV was a grandson of Antiochos II Theos (Diod. Sic., XXXI, 19, 6), whose daughter had married with Mithridates II of Pontus. Furthermore, Ariarathes was also married with a daughter of Antiochus III31. In this chaotic situation, Pharnaces finally managed to consolidate his position, making agreements with a faction of the Cappadocian nobility who until then had been ruled by the Ariarathid house.
14Although we posses no concrete evidence to confirm this, it is very likely that Pharnaces’ enthronement was welcomed by Rome, who could have supported this prince against the aspirations of other pretenders to seize power in the Mithridatid kingdom. We believe that the Republic had much to gain holding in northern Asia Minor a sovereign who did not join forces with the Ariarathids. Besides this, if a part of the Cappadocian aristocrats was going to side with Pharnaces, Rome could achieve a weakening of Ariarathes IV, who had been an ally of Antiochus III32. Pharnaces’ favourable position in regard with Rome could have been the reason why the Republic closed its eyes after the capture of Sinope, despite it meant a transgression of the Treaty of Apamea, in which the Halys had been settled as the limit of the Roman interests in Asia. Despite the protest of the Rhodians, the Republic did not obligate the Pontic monarch to set free the important Greek colony in southern Euxinus33. After the end of Pharnaces’ war in 173 BC, the agreement of peace decreed that the Pontic king just had to cease hostilities and to pay a fine, but without giving any Pontic land to his former rivals. Pharnaces should leave Paphlagonia, but we hear nothing about Sinope, which remained under the king’s rule34. In this same sense, Heinen has remarked that the treaty between Pharnaces and Chersonesus records the clause salva Romanorum amicita, which also reflects to what extent this ruler was interested in showing that his relations with other areas of the Black Sea should not be regarded as an expansionist act against the Republic35.
15Pharnaces extended the realm inherited from his ancestors, but we do not know exactly where these new lands were located. It has been traditionally regarded that, apart from Sinope, the regions acquired by the Pontic king belonged to the coastal area east of Amisus, where this ruler founds the city of Pharnacia36. We think, however, that very probably Pharnaces also got territories in the inner land, around the valleys of the Iris and Lycus, which are attested as one of the main areas of the kingdom in the time of Mithridates Eupator (Strabo, XII, 3, 15). We should keep in mind that the original domains of the so-called kingdom of Pontus were placed in Paphlagonia, in the mount Olgassys, and that the first coastal conquest of the dynasty was Amastris, a city also placed west of the Halys37. It has been commonly thought that Mithridates I conquered Amasya, but this statement can not be confirmed with the scarce evidence we have, and it is very likely that the Pontic territories did not reach beyond the Halys in the time of the first kings of this dynasty: Ariobarzanes I, son of the Founder, died fighting against the Galatians (Memnon, FGrHist, 434, F1, 16.1). Likewise, we have no sure evidence about the identity of the first Pontic king who was buried in the royal necropolis at Amasya, all the more when the exact number of Mithridatid rulers before Pharnaces can not be determined38. It has also been supposed that Mithridates II already had Amisus under his rule, but this is just indirectly suggested from a strange passage of Memnon, which anyway does not allow us to be sure that this city belonged to the Mithridatid realm from that time on39. Memnon (FGrHist, 434, F1, 16) tells about a Galatian invasion of this kingdom which was resolved by the Heracleans’ aid to Amisus, but it is somehow hard to believe a Galatian raid so far from this people’s homeland: Photius’ manuscript may be mistaken, mentioning Amisus instead of Amastris. This idea is supported by the fact that the help of Heraclea makes more sense if alluding to Amastris, which had old ties with that Greek colony40.
16If we admit that Cappadocia was divided into some semi-independent principalities, it could be supposed that some of these lands fell into the Pontic sphere of influence in the reign of Pharnaces41. It is also probable that at this time Mazaca was refounded as Eusebeia near Argeus, where the court of the Ariarathids was settled. We do not know if this city had formerly been the capital of the Cappadocian kings, but we should bear in mind that, in Achaemenid times, the court of the Persian satraps had probably been in Gaziura, a place on the river Iris which quite probably was under Pontic rule in Pharnaces’ time42.
17This tendency to seize land from the Cappadocian kingdom continued in the reign of the subsequent kings of Pontus. Pelopidas, the Pontic envoy to the Roman legates in Bithynia before the first Mithridatic War (89 BC), demanded that Cappadocia had ever belonged to Eupator’s ancestors and it had been recovered by Mithridates Evergetes (App., Mith., 12). Another proof of this could be the fact that Lycomedes, a Cappadocian noble residing in Bithynia, claimed before Julius Caesar the ancestral rights of this family over the high priesthood of Pontic Comana. Therefore, this temple-state would have been conquered by the Mithridatids, who became the new masters of that region43. Regarding Mithridates Eupator, Justin’s Epitome (XXXVII, 3, 3) tells that this king occupied Cappadocia at the beginning of his reign, and implicitly considers that he had inherited this realm from his ancestors (XXXVIII, 7, 10). Strabo (XII, 3, 28) records likewise a notice about Eupator’s purchase of lands in Armenia Minor to a certain Antipater, son of Sisis. This enigmatic potentate might be a Cappadocian noble whose father would have actually been called Sisines, a name which appears among the Persian rulers of Cappadocia since the Achaemenid period44. Shortly before Mithridates’ death, Cicero (Agr., I, 2, 6 ; II 19, 51) tells us about the existence of some regii agri of this king in Cappadocian territory. These royal lands would have also been a part of the Pontic conquests in the ancient realm of the Ariarathids. As we have proposed, Laodice, Eupator’s mother, was a Cappadocian princess, and this would come to confirm the intense Pontic-Cappadocian relations since the time of Pharnaces I. Consequently, Mithridates VI could claim the old domains of the Ariarathids as a part of his rightful inheritance.45 According to Appian, the Cappadocian kings never renounced to claim those territories north of the Halys that had fallen into Pontic hands: this explains how Ariobarzanes I told the Romans that Eupator had under his rule « the most » of Cappadocia after the end of the first Mithridatic War46.
18Pharnaces sought to appear as a great Iranian sovereign, dividing his domains in satrapies. Mithridates, the satrap of Armenia mentioned in Polybius’ Histories, was none other than the king’s brother, the future Mithridates Philopator Philadelphus47. He would have been the governor of the eastern territories of Pharnaces’ realm, and he had a special relevance within the kingdom as we can deduce from an inscription from Delos honouring the Pontic ruler together with his brothers Mithridates and Laodice. This satrap also had a specific authority in terms of foreign policy, because he made an agreement with Eumenes II and signed the treaty with other kings at the end of Pharnaces’ war48. This special position of a brother of the prince designed as heir can be also found in the Achaemenid tradition, as seen for example in the well-known case of Cyrus the Younger.
19The existence of satraps in Pontus is a singular feature which will reach the time of Mithridates Eupator, whose governors and generals were sometimes called satraps, a term usually translated in the Latin sources as praefecti. This Persian office is recorded in two inscriptions where Pontic satraps are mentioned, and in some ancient texts, as may be the case with a passage of Plutarch’s Life of Marius (34, 4) whose source would have probably been Poseidonius (FGrHist, 87, F 37). Thus, the existence of this traditional Persian title constitutes another characteristic of the political trends in the Pontic kingdom, once more in contrast with Cappadocia, where there is no preserved mention of satraps, but just of strategoi49.
20We do not actually know where the court of Pharnaces was settled, but it could be admitted that, after increasing its territory, the kingdom of Pontus had several royal sites, as was the case with the Achaemenid Empire: the place where the Founder would have been proclaimed king for the first time (Cimiata), a city for the court (probably Sinope) and a royal necropolis (Amasya). Those places might have a similar meaning as Ecbatana, Susa and Pasargadae, respectively50.
21Despite having revived the Persian roots of his kingdom, Pharnaces could not ignore the world around him, and was affected by the concept of power and government which prevailed in other Hellenistic kingdoms, and in particular the one ruled by Antiochus III, who was his aunt’s husband. We have seen how Pharnaces appears with a hellenized image on the coins and makes dedications in Delos, being the first ruler of his dynasty mentioned in the inscriptions of this island. We have also seen that the king founded in the coast a city bearing his name, following the Hellenistic custom, and it may even be possible that Laodicea in Pontus were also a foundation of this ruler in honour of his sister51. Just as Antiochus, we presume that Pharnaces set up a dynastic cult related with the foundations and named a high priest (archiereus). Also imitating the Seleucid king, this high priesthood would have been destined to direct the cults to the royal house. The magnificent tomb of Pharnaces’ archiereus reveals the political and economical importance that this office had within the king’s realm52.
22The first Greek inscriptions related to the Mithridatid dominion in northern Anatolia belong to the reign of Pharnaces. An interesting epigraph which probably has to be dated in this time is the stele dedicated from Meriones, who may be a chief of garrison in Amasya, to his junior officer Pharnabazus. Therefore, a man with a clearly Persian name is honoured by a commander, who probably was of Greek origin. Meriones is called Kyrios, a term which has been understood as referred to a lord or baron of the Pontic country53.
23We can conclude that Pharnaces’ rule not only represents a consolidation of the kingdom founded a century before in northern Asia Minor, but also the search for signs of identity in which Iranian and Hellenic influences were combined, without neglecting autochthonous features which were incorporated to the realm. In this sense, the political importance of the god Men reflects the assumption of Anatolic elements which would probably help to give cohesion within a single kingdom to peoples with different origin and culture. We can presume that the sacrifices to Zeus Stratios, known in the reign of Mithridates Eupator, would have been already performed in Pharnaces’ time. These rituals reflected, as we have suggested in another paper, an assimilation of an ancestral Anatolic worship together with some features probably incorporated by the Persian rulers in the region54.
24What had begun as a little settlement in the slopes of the Olgassys became under Pharnaces into a great domain not only in inner Asia Minor but also in the Black Sea. This policy from Pharnaces’ side marked decisively the later reign of Mithridates Eupator, who likewise joined his Achaemenid roots to the Hellenic influence and the assumption of autochthonous Anatolic traditions. The existence of a Pontic identity has been discussed, and it is in fact a very problematic concept. Anatolic Pontus was inhabited by a population with different cultures, and perhaps Pharnaces aimed to join all of them, proposing a combination of factors in order to give his kingdom a specific character, different from other states in Hellenistic Asia Minor.
Notes de bas de page
1This paper has been drawn up within the Research Project FFI2015-63956-P: « Helenización en el Oriente grecorromano: procesos de asimilación y percepción en las culturas locales », sponsored by the Spanish Ministry of Education. I am grateful to Altay Coskun for his suggestions, although I am the only responsible for any mistake. On Pharnaces I, see in general Will Édouard, Histoire Politique du Monde Hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C.), Nancy, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines de l’université de Nancy, 1967, vol. II, p. 242-245 ; McGing Brian C., The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, Leyde, Brill, 1986, p. 24-34 ; Walbank Franck W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. III, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979, p. 226-7, 254-5, 267-69, 271-274. On this war (183/2-179 BC), see Polybius, XXIV, 1, 1-3, 5, 7-8, 14, 10-15, 13, XXV 2 ; Diod. Sic., XXIX, 22, 24 ; Burstein Stanley M., « The Aftermath of the Peace of Apamea. Rome and the Pontic War », AJAH, 5, 1980, p. 1-12 ; Eckstein Arthur M., Rome Enters the Greek East. From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 BC, Malden-Oxford-Victoria, Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 353-4, 379 ; Canali de Rossi Filippo, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana, Rome, Istituto italiano per la storia antica, 1997, p. 474 ; Primo Andrea, « Il ruolo di Roma nella guerra pontico-pergamena del 183-179: Giustino XXXVIII, 6, 1 », Virgilio Biagio (éd.): Studi Ellenistici 19, Pisa, Giardini, 2006, p. 617-628 ; Heinen Heinz, « Die Anfänge der Beziehungen Roms zum nördlichen Schwarzmeerraum. Die Romfreundschaft der Chersonesiten (IOSPE I2 402) », in Altay Coşkun (éd.), Roms auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat, Göttingen, Duehrkohp & Radicke, 2005, 31-54. This conflict is mentioned in Trogus Prol. 32 before Hannibal’s death, revealing that the author of the Prologues just recorded a list of Eumenes II’s wars without following a chronological order. On the chronological mistakes in the Prologues to the Historiae Philippicae, see Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Pompeyo Trogo, Justino y las críticas a Roma: a propósito del discurso etolio (Iust. XXVII 2) », MedAnt 12, 2009, p. 381-392, 384, n.9 (with further bibliography); Ballesteros Pastor Luis, Pompeyo Trogo, Justino y Mitrídates. Comentario al Epítome de las Historias Filípicas (37, 1, 6-38, 8, 1), Hildesheim/Zürich/New York, Olms Verlag, 2013, p. 47-48.
2On Sinope, see Polybius, XXIII, 9, 1-4 ; Livy, XL, 2, 6 ; Strabo XII, 3, 11 ; Barat Claire, « Sinope et ses relations avec la péninsule anatolienne : réseaux, échanges des biens et des hommes », in Hadrien Bru, François Kirbihler et Stéphane Lebreton (éd.), L’Asie Mineure dans l’Antiquité. Échanges, populations et territoires, Rennes, PUR, 2009, p. 351-75 ; Biffi Nicola, Scampoli di Mithridatika nella Geografia di Strabone, Bari, Edizioni dal Sud, 2010, p. 105-6. On the treaty with Chersonesus (IOSPE I2, 402), see McGing Brian C., op. cit., p. 30 ; Højte Jakob M., « The Date of the Alliance between Chersonesos and Pharnaces (IOSPE I2, 402) and its Implications », in Vladimir F. Stolba et Lise Hannestad (éd.), Chronologies of the Black Sea Area in the Period c.400-100 B. C., Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2005, p. 137-149 ; Heinz Heinen, art. cité ; Avram Alexandru, « Sur la date du traité entre Pharnace et Chersonèse Taurique », in Jean-Christophe Couvenhes (éd.), La symmachia comme pratique du droit international dans le monde grec. DHA Supplement 16, Besançon, Presses universitaires Franc-Comtoises, 2016, p. 213-237. Odessos had likewise relations with Pharnaces: IGB I2 40 ; McGing Brian C., op. cit., p. 32 ; Danov Christo M., « Philippopolis, Serdica, Odessos. Zur Geschichte und Kultur der bedeutendsten Städte Thrakiens von Alexander d. Gr. bis Justinian », ANRW II 7.1, 1979, p. 242-300, p. 281-283. Some undefined relationship between this king and other areas in the Black Sea is attested: the Sarmatians were mentioned in the inscription from Chersonesus, and they were included together with Mesembria in the treaty which ended Pharnaces’ war (Polybius XXV 2, 11).
3On Ariobarzanes I of Pontus, see Memnon, FGrHist, 434, F1, 9.4 ; Olshausen Eckart, RE s.15, 1978, cc.396-442, s. v. Pontos, 406. On Ariobarzanes of Cius (ruled ca.362-336), see Diod. Sic., XVI, 90, 2, XIX, 40, 2 ; 43, 2 ; McGing Brian C., « The Kings of Pontus. Some Problems of Identity and Date », RhMus 129, 1986, p. 248-259 ; Bosworth Albert B. and Wheatley Pat. V., « On the Origins of the Pontic House », JHS 118, 1998, p. 155-164 ; Debord Pierre, L’Asie Mineure au ive siècle. Pouvoirs et jeux politiques, Bordeaux, Éditions Ausonius, 1999, p. 100-104. On the so-called Dynasty of Cius, see further Meyer Eduard, Geschichte des Königreichs Pontos, Leipzig, W. Engelmann, 1879, p. 34-38 ; Reinach Théodore, Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont, Paris, Firmin-Didot, 1890, p. 1-8 ; McGing Brian C., op. cit., 1986, p. 14-15 ; Panitschek Peter, « Zu den genealogischen Konstruktionen der Dynastien von Pontos und Kappadokien », RSA 17-18, 1987, p. 73-95 ; Debord Pierre, op. cit., p. 91-104 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Los herederos de Artabazo. La satrapía de Dascilio en la tradición de la dinastía Mitridátida », Klio 94, 2012, p. 366-379 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Nullis umquam nisi domesticis regibus. Cappadocia, Pontus and the Resistance to the Diadochi in Asia Minor », in Victor Alonso Troncoso et Edward M. Anson (éd.), After Alexander: the Time of the Diadochi (323-281 BC), Oxford/Oakville, Oxbow Books, 2013, p. 183-198. We use here the term « Pontus » as referred to the Anatolic domains of the Mithridatids, although this meaning was not probably know by the Romans until Eupator’s time: see Polybius V, 43, 1 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Del Reino Mitridátida al Reino del Ponto: Orígenes de un Término Geográfico y un Concepto Político », OTerr, 9, 2002-2007, p. 3-10 ; cf. Mitchell Stephen, « In Search of the Pontic Community in Antiquity », PBA 114, p. 35-64.
4On Mithridates the Younger, see Appian, Mith., 64 ; Memnon, FGrHist, 434 F1, 34 ; Frontinus, Strat., III, 17, 5 ; Orosius, Hist., VI, 2, 10 ; Portanova Joseph J., The Associates of Mithridates VI of Pontus, Diss. Columbia University, Ann Arbor, 1988, p. 344-345 ; Dundua Tedo, « Mithridates the Junior. Was he Rome’s ally? », Phasis, 11, 2008, p. 41-43. On Machares, see above all Appian, Mith., 78, 102, 113 ; Cass. Dio, XXXVI, 50, 2, XXXVII, 7, 5 ; Orosius Hist., VI, 5, 4 ; Memnon FGrHist 434 F1, 37.4, 6 ; Plutarch Luc., 24, 1 ; Livy Per.98 ; Portanova Joseph J., op. cit., p. 316-319 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, Mitrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto, Grenade, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada, 1996, p. 350-1. We could also recall the case of Arcathias, the son of Mithridates who lead the Pontic army across Thracia and appointed satraps over this region (Appian, Mith., 35). On Eupator’s sons, see also Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Los príncipes del Ponto. La política onomástica de Mitrídates Eupátor como factor de propaganda dinástica », REA, 117, 2015, p. 425-445.
5On Pharnaces as Eupator’s grandfather, see IDélos 1557 ; Justin, XXXVIII, 6, 2.
6On the Pontics, see Florus, Epit., I, 40, 1 ; Sallust, Hist., fr.2.85M = Ampelius, XXX, 5 ; Appian, Mith., 9, 112, 115 ; Justin, XXXVIII, 7, 1 ; Vir. Ill., 76, 1. This genealogy had been already claimed by the Persian dynasts of Cius, ancestors of the Mithridatids: Diod. Sic., XIX, 40, 2. On the Cappadocians, see Diod. Sic., XXXI, 19. The pride of descending from one of the « Seven » is attested in several sources: see Curt., IV, 12 ; Strabo XI, 14, 15 ; Diod. Sic., XXXI, 19, 1 ; Osborne Michael J., « Orontes », Historia 22, 1973, p. 515-571 ; Klinkott Hilmar, Der Satrap. Ein achaimenidischer Amtsträger und seine Handlungsspielräume. Frankfurt am Main, Verlag Antike, 2005, p. 49-53, who is sceptical regarding this genealogy of the Pontic dynasty. On the privileges of the « Seven Persians » as a Hellenistic construction, see Lerouge-Cohen Charlotte, « La référence aux “Sept” dans les royaumes gréco-iraniens de l’époque hellénistique : la survivance d’un usage achéménide ? », Ktèma, 38, 2013, p. 107-114.
7Diod. Sic., XXXI, 19, 1. It has been considered that there is a confusion with Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the Great, and that Anaphas would have actually been called Otanes: Reinach Théodore, « Essai sur la numismatique des rois de Cappadoce », RN, s.3, 4, 1886, p. 301-335 and 452-483, 310 ; Breglia Pulci Doria Luisa, « Diodoro e Ariarate V. Conflitti dinastici, tradizione e propaganda politica nella Cappadocia del ii secolo a. C. », PP, 33, 1978, p. 104-129, 113-114 ; Panitschek Peter, art. cité, p. 74-75 ; Briant Pierre, Histoire de l’Empire Perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris, Fayard, 1996, p. 146 ; Debord Pierre, op. cit., p. 310. On the kinship between the Mithridatids and the Ariarathids, see Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « A Neglected Epithet of Mithridates Eupator (IDélos 1560) », Epigraphica, 76, 2014, p. 81-85 ; cf. Justin, XXXVIII, 2, 5 ; Appian, Mith., 10, 12.
8Thucydides. I, 129, 1. On this family, see Bosworth Albert B. and Wheatley Pat. V., art. cité, p. 159-160 ; Debord Pierre, op. cit., p. 93, n. 90. Diodorus (XXXI, 19, 1) surprisingly describes this Persian as « King of Cappadocia ». It is noteworthy that some Pontic tradition pointed out to Artabazus as the founder of the Mithridatic line, but without mentioning Pharnaces (Sallust, Hist., fr.2,85M = Ampelius, XXX, 5 ; Florus, Epit., I, 40, 1).Von Gutschmid Alfred, « Untersuchungen über die Geschichte des Pontischen Reichs », in Alfred Von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, Leipzig, Teubner, 1892, p. 480-561, p. 496-497, proposed that the Pharnaces qui primus regnavit in Ponto, whose statue was described by Pliny (NH, XXXIII, 151), may have been the remote ancestor of both Mithridatids and Ariarathids who would have been worshipped in Pontus. There are, however, many problems to admit such a hypothesis: it is true that the expression primus regnavit was applied to the founder of the Macedonian kingship by Livy (XLV, 9, 3 ; cf. Vulg., I Macch., 1, 1), but we have no references to the rule of any Pharnaces over the satrapy of Dascylium prior to Artabazus.
9Thucydides, II, 67 ; V, 1 ; VIII, 6 ; Weiskopf Michael, « Dascylium », in Ehsan Yarshater (éd.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. VII, Costa Mesa, Mazda Publishers, 1996, p. 85-90.
10See above, n.7 ; Reinach Théodore, art. cité, 1886, p. 311-312 ; Breglia Pulci Doria Luisa, art. cité, p. 107, 111-117 ; Debord Pierre, op. cit., p. 102-111. Other contradictions in this passage are related with the impossible number of rulers and the combination of the satraps’ lineage with Datames’ family. The confusion about the identity of the three sons of Ariarathes IV (Diod. Sic., XXXI, 19, 7 ; Appian, Syr., 47 ; Zonaras, XXIV, 8) may reflect the folk-tale motif of the youngest son (cf. Herodotus, IV, 5, 3-4). Saprykin Sergej Y., « Die Propaganda von Mithridates Eupator und die Grenzfrage im Pontischen Reich », in Eckart Olshausen et Holger Sonnabend (éd.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 4, 1990, Amsterdam, A. M. Hakkert, 1994, p. 83-94, 86, holds that the Mithridatids would have also claimed to descend from Otanes.
11Von Gutschmid Alfred, art. cité, p. 406-497. On the rivalry between Ariarathids and Pontics in order to claim an older lineage, see Breglia Pulci Doria Luisa, art. cité, p. 119-120 ; Panitschek Peter, art. cité, 76 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, art. cité, 2012, 187.
12On Mithridates Philopator, see Ballesteros Pastor Luis, op. cit., 1996, p. 30 ; Muccioli Federicomaria, « Considerazioni generali sull’epiteto ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΣ nelle dinastie ellenistiche e sulla sua applicazione nella titolatura degli ultimi Seleucidi », Historia, 43, 1994, p. 402-422, 407-409.
13de Jong Albert F., « Xhvarenah », in Karel van den toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (éd.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leyde, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999, p. 481-483 ; Gnoli Gherardo, « Farr(ah) », in Ehsan Yarshater (éd.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, IX, Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, Cal. 2009, p. 312-319. On the royal titulature of Pharnaces II, see Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Pharnaces II and his Title “King of Kings” », AWE, 16, 2017, p. 297-303.
14Boffo Laura, I re ellenistici e i centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1985, p. 33 ; Summerer Lâtife, « Das pontische Wappen. Zur Astralsymbolik auf den pontischen Münzen », Chiron, 1995, p. 305-314, 308-309 ; Michels Christoph, Kulturtransfer und monarchischer « Philhellenismus ». Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in hellenistischer Zeit, Göttingen, V&R Unipress, 2009, p. 194 (with further bibliography). Labarre Guy, « Les origines et la diffusion du culte de Men », in Hadrien Bru, François Kirbihler et Stéphane Lebreton (éd.), op. cit., 2009, p. 389-414, 397, seems not to choose a concrete option, although the sense of his paper suggests that the cult would have been named after the Pontic king. The oath established by Pharnaces was also linked to the Iranian *Xhvarenah, described by Strabo as Tyche: Gnoli Gherardo, art. cité ; cf. Saprykin Sergej Y., « The Religion and Cults of the Pontic Kingdom. Political Aspects », in Jakob M. Højte, op. cit., 2009, p. 249-275, 260.
15Olshausen Eckart, « Götter, Heroen und ihre Kulte in Pontos. Ein erster Bericht », ANRW, II, 18.3, 1990, p. 1865-1906, 1888 ; Michels Christoph, op. cit., 2009, p. 194. On this city, see Argoud Gilbert, des Courtils Jacques et Rémy Bernard, « Les sites côtiers du Pont-Euxin, de Thémiskyra à Trapézous, dans l’Antiquité. Textes littéraires grecs et latins », Anatolia Antiqua, I, 1987, p. 69-82, p. 75-76 ; Counillon Patrick, « Arrien et Kérasous : un cas de toponymie rétroactive », in Sağlam Mehmet, Kodaman Bayram, Ünal Mehmet Ali, Bacqué-Grammont Jean-Louis et Özbalcı Mustafa, Ikinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi Bildirileri (Uluslararasi I). Congrès international sur la mer Noire I. 1-3 Haziran 1988, Samsun, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Özel Sayısı, 1990, p. 493-500, 496 ; Cohen Getzel M., The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1995, p. 387-388 ; Wojan Franck, « Kérasonte du Pont sous l’Empire romain : étude historique et corpus monétaire », RN, 6e sér., 159, 2003, p. 257-290, 258-265 ; Manoledakis Manolis, « Choirades, Kerasous, Pharnakeia. Observations on Three Ancient Place-Names in the Southern Black Sea », AWE, 9, 2010, p. 135-153.
16McGing Brian C., op. cit., 1986, p. 33 ; cf. Summerer Lâtife, art. cité, p. 311-312, for discussion.
17This relation of the Pontic coins with Telephus was proposed by Kleiner Fred S., « Bildnis und Gestalt des Mithridates », MDAI(I), 68, 1953, p. 75-95, 90, although just regarding this hero as the son of Heracles and mythic founder of Pergamum, without any further connection to Pontic propaganda. On the relationship of the rays with a worship to Zeus and the link between Men and Zeus Uranios, see Olshausen Eckart, art. cité, 1990, p. 195 ; Summerer Lâtife, art. cité, p. 312, n. 62 ; Michels Christoph, op. cit., p. 195. On Telephus’ legend, see in general: Schwenn Friedrich, RE, 5, A1, 1934, cc. 362-369 s. v. Telephos 1 ; Gantz Timothy, Early Greek Myth. A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore/Londres, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, vol. I, p. 428-431, vol. II, p. 576-579. On Telephus and the Pontic dynasty, see in general Ballesteros Pastor Luis, art. cité, 2012.
18Fleischer Robert, « The Rock-tombs of the Pontic Kings in Amaseia », in Jakob M. Højte (éd.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2009, p. 109-130, 118.
19Ibid., p. 116-117 ; see also Fleischer Robert, « Zwei pontische Felsgräber des hohen Hellenismus mit monumentalen Inschriften », Chiron, 35, 2005, p. 273-284.
20Anderson John G. C., Cumont Franz et Grégoire Henri, Studia Pontica 3. Récueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie, Bruxelles, H. Lamertin, 1910, p. 114-115, no 94 ; Canepa Matthew P., « Achaemenid and Seleucid Funerary Practises and Middle Iranian Kingship », in Henning Börm and Joseph Wiesehöfer (éd.), Commutatio et Contentio: Studies in Late Roman, Sasanid and Early Islamic Near East. In Memory of Zeev Rubin, Düsseldorf, Wellem-Verl., 2010, p. 1-21, 11-13.
21Fleischer Robert, art. cité, 2009, p. 115 ; Canepa Matthew P., art. cité, p. 12.
22Ariarathes V had founded new cities following the Hellenistic model and made important approaches to the Hellenic community: Mattingly Harold B., « Athens between Rome and the Kings: 229/8 to 129 B. C. », in Paul Cartledge, Peter Garnsey and Erich S. Gruen (éd.), Hellenistic Constructs, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1997, p. 120-144, 139-140 ; Panichi Silvia, « Sul Filellenismo di Ariarate V », in Biagio Virgilio (dir.), Studi Ellenistici, 16, 2005, p. 241-260 ; Michels Christoph, op. cit., p. 311-325 ; Michels Christoph, « Begrenzte Integration. Der Euergetismus der Könige von Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in der griechischen Welt », in Christina Antenhofer, Lisa Regazzoni, Astrid von Schlachta (dir.), Werkstatt Politische Kommunikation. Schriften zur politischen Kommunikation Bd. 6, Göttingen, V& R Unipress, 2010, p. 189-204.
23Strabo, XII, 2, 11 ; Justin, XXXVII, 1, 5, XXXVIII, 5, 9 ; cf. XXXVIII, 2, 8 ; Polybius, XXIV, 14, 9, XXXI, 7, 1 ; cf. Cicero, Att., 6, 13 ; Breliga Pulci Doria Luisa, art, cité, p. 123-124 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Cappadocia and Pontus, Client Kingdoms of the Roman Republic. From the Peace of Apamea to the Beginning of the Mithridatic Wars (188-89 B. C.) », in Altay Coşkun (éd.) Freundschaft und Gefolgschaft in den auswärtigen Beziehungen der Römer (2. Jhr. v. Chr. – 1 Jhr. n. Chr.), Stuttgart, P. Lang, 2008, p. 45-63, 46. On this lack of political union, see further Robert Louis, Noms Indigènes de l’Asie Mineure, Paris, A. Maisonneuve, 1963, p. 484 ; Mitchell Stephen, Anatolia. Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor. Vol. I., The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of Roman Rule, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995, p. 83 ; Lebreton Stéphane, « Mazaca. Un site ‘à tous égards naturellement impropre à l’habitat’ », Res Antiquae, 8, 2011, p. 1-33, 32. In general, on the « feudal » tendencies in Hellenistic Asia, see Engels David, « Middle Eastern ‘Feudalism’ and Seleucid Dissolution », in Kyle Erickson, Gilian Ramsey (éd.), Seleucid Dissolution. The Sinking of the Anchor, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2011, p. 19-36.
24Saprykin Sergej Y., art. cité, p. 89.
25Tracy Stephen V., « Inscriptiones Delicae: IG XI 713 and IG XI 1056 », MDAI(A), 107, 1992, p. 303-314. About a date of the marriage ca. 160 BC, see recently Ghita Christian E., « Nysa – A Seleucid Princess in Anatolian Context », in Kyle Erickson and Gilian Ramsey (éd.), op. cit., 2011, p. 109-118.
26Ma John, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 272-276 ; Muccioli Federicomaria, Gli epiteti ufficiali dei re ellenistici, Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 2013, p. 397.
27There is no literary allusion to any king of Pontus between 220 and 193 BC: Højte Jakob M., « The Date of the Alliance between Chersonesos and Pharnakes », in Jakob M. Højte, op. cit., 2009, p. 141. Primo Andrea, « Mitridate III. Problemi di Cronologia e identità nella dinastia pontica », in Biagio Virgilio (dir.), Studi Ellenistici, 19, 2006, p. 307-331, has proposed that this king did not actually exist, although it is difficult to admit such a hypothesis.
28This would fit with the long reign of Mithridates III and the lack of news about him: see Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « El Reino del Ponto », in Victor Alonso Troncoso (éd.), ΔΙΑΔΟΧΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ. La figura del sucesor en la realeza helenística, Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2005, p. 127-138, p. 128, n. 11. If we admit that Eupator was the eighth descendant of Mithridates I Ctistes (Appian, Mith., 112), there may be room for another king of Pontus. Such is the translation of Paul Goukowsky, Appien, Histoire Romaine. Livre XII. La Guerre de Mithridate, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2001, p. 115. Nonetheless, this scholar (Ibid., p. 247 n.1048) tries to explain Appian’s phrase adding to the list the last ruler of Cius, according to the reconstruction proposed by Mihail I. Rostovtzeff and Henry A. Ormerod, « Pontus and its Neighbours. The First Mithridatic War », CAH, vol. IX. The Roman Republic, 133-144 B. C., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1930, p. 211-260, 218. Other scholars have interpreted that Appian’s phrase considers Eupator as the eighth king of the dynasty, in accordance with Plutarch, Demet., 4, 4: see for instance McGing Brian C., art. cité, 1986, p. 250. Valerius Maximus (IX, 11 ext.2) tells about a Mithridates son of Mithridates who murdered his father, but it may be a mistaken allusion to Pharnaces II, as suggested by the context of the phrase where Valerius evokes Eupator’s last words (cf. Orosius, Hist., VI, 5, 5).
29Polybius affirms that Antiochus’ nephew was the son of one of the king’s sisters, although the translation of the passage is confuse: see Walbank Franck W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967, vol. II, p. 99-100. This author identified this prince with the future Mithridates IV of Pontus, who was Pharnaces’ brother and successor. On Antiochus’ son: Livy, XXXIII, 19, 10 ; SEG 37, 859 ; Wörrle Michael, « Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos I: Antiochos III., Zeuxis und Herakleia », Chiron, 18, 1988, p. 421-476 ; Muccioli Federicomaria, « Antioco III e la politica onomastica dei Seleucidi », in Edward Dąbrowa (éd.), New Studies on the Seleucids., Electrum, 18, Kraków, Jagiellonian University Press, 2011, p. 81-96. This prince has been also identified with the Mithridates mentioned by Agatarchides of Cnidus FGrHist 86, F. 16: von Gutschmid Alfred, « Über Meyers Geschichte des Königreichs Pontos », Kleine Schriften III, op. cit., p. 562-567, p. 567. Livy mentions another son of Antiochus called Ardys: it could be a wrong transcription inspired in a homonymous king of Lydia (Herodotus I 15-16), or perhaps in ᾿Άρσης, which was the abbreviated form of Artaxerxes. On the abbreviation in Persian names, see Facella Margherita, La Dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene Ellenistico Romana, Pisa, Giardini, 2006, p. 99-104 ; cf. Muccioli Federicomaria, art. cité, p. 81-82. On these princes, see recently, Coskun Altay, « Philologische, genealogische und politische Überlegungen zu Ardys und Mithridates, zwei Söhnen des Antiochos Megas (Liv. 33, 19, 9) », Latomus 75, 2016, p. 849-860.
30On this practise in Hellenistic times, see further Muccioli Federicomaria, art. cité, p. 82 and passim ; cf. Linda-Marie Günther, « Kappadokien, die seleukidische Heiratspolitik und die Rolle der Antiochis, Tochter Antiochos’ I. », Studien zum antiken Kleinasien. Asia Minor Studien, 16, Bonn, Habelt, 1995, p. 47-61.
31On Mithridates II, see Porphyry, FGrHist, 260, F 32.6 ; Justin, XXXVIII, 5, 3 ; Seibert Jakob, Historische Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit, Wiesbaden, F. Steiner, 1967, p. 58 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, op. cit., 1996, p. 26 ; Petković Žarko, « Mithridates II and Antiochos Hierax »”, Klio 91, 2009, 378-383. On Antiochis, Ariarathes’ wife, see Diod. Sic., XXXI, 19, 7 ; Appian, Syr., 5 ; Pugliese Carratelli Giovanni, « La regina Antiochide di Cappadocia », PP, 27, 1972, p. 182-185.
32Livy, XXXVII, 31, 4 ; 40, 10 ; XXXVIII, 37, 5 ; Appian, Syr., 32 ; 42.
33On Pharnaces’ conquest of Sinope, see above n. 2. On the frontiers after the Peace of Apamea, see for instance Meyer Ernst, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien, Zürich-Leipzig, O. Füssli, 1925, p. 145-156 ; Will Édouard, op. cit., 1967, vol. II, p. 185-187 ; Dmitriev Sviatoslav, « Livy’s evidence for the Apamean Settlement (188 B. C.) », AJAH, n. s. 2, 2003, p. 39-62.
34On the peace after Pharnaces’ war, see Polybius, XXV, 2 ; Diod. Sic., XXIX, 24 ; see above n. 1.
35IOSPE I2 402 ; Heinen Heinz, art. cité.
36On Pharnacia, see above n. 13.
37Memnon, FGrHist, 434, F1, 9.4. On the Olgassys, see Strabo, XII, 3, 41.
38For discussion, see Burstein Stanley M., art. cité, p. 11, n. 35 ; Højte Jakob M., art. cité, p. 125-128 ; Fleischer Robert, art. cité, 2009 ; Barat Claire, « Répresentations de la dynastie du Pont. Images et discours », in Emmanuelle Santinelli-Foltz et Christian-Georges Schwentzel (dir.), La puissance royale. Image et pouvoir de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, Rennes, PUR, 2012, p. 45-61. The exact number of kings of the Pontic dynasty is not clear in the sources: see above n. 26. Synkellus records ten kings (FGrHist, 244, F82 ; 251, F5a). Appian’s statement might be suspect because it recalls the genealogy of Darius I, who was described as the ninth Achaemenid in the Behistun inscription (DB 4) and this reference could have been wrongly understood by Plutarch. Synkellus’ ten kings could mean an end of the dynasty after Eupator’s death, and the possible date has been discussed: Gabelko Oleg L., « The Dynastic History of the Hellenistic Monarchies of Asia Minor According to the Chronography of George Synkellos », in Jakob M. Højte, op. cit., 2009, p. 47-61.
39McGing Brian C., op. cit., p. 21 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, op. cit., p. 27 ; Saprykin Sergej Y., art. cité, p. 86-7. In any case, Polybius’ account (XXIV, 14, 8-10) suggests that Pharnaces actually ruled over lands beyond the Halys.
40On the problems of Memnon’s account, see Avram Alexandru, « Antiochos II Théos, Ptolemée II Philadelphe et la mer Noire », CRAI, 147, 2003, p. 1181-1213, 1884-1885.
41The border between Pontic and inner Cappadocia remains undefined in the extant sources, which describe a situation after Eupator’s death and provide an image of the Ariarathid country which may not have been real: see Jones Arnold Hugh Martin, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 19712, p. 153 ; Lebreton Stéphane, « Les mœurs des peuples, la géographie des régions, les opportunités des lieux. Comment les Anciens se représentaient-ils l’Asie Mineure du ve siècle avant notre ère au ive siècle de notre ère ? », in Hadrien Bru, François Kirbihler et Stéphane Lebreton (éd.), op. cit., p. 15-52, 35-36 ; Lebreton Stéphane, art. cité, 2011 ; cf. Meyer Ernst, op. cit., p. 118-119. The independence of some Cappadocian nobles in regard with the royal power would remain in later times, as seen in the case of Gordius, the leader of a dissident faction of the Cappadocian nobility who sided with Eupator: see Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « El Santuario de Comana Pontica (apuntes para su historia) », Arys 3, 2000, p. 143-150, 150.
42It seems probable that Gaziura was the city taken by Perdiccas: Hornblower Jane, Hieronymus of Cardia, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 242 ; Debord Pierre, op. cit., p. 108-09, and its later status until Eupator remains unknown in our sources. On Mazaca, see Cohen Getzel M., op. cit., p. 378-379 ; Lebreton Stéphane, art. cité, 2011, p. 32-33 (with further bibliography).
43Ballesteros Pastor Luis, art. cité, 2000, p. 147-150. On Lycomedes, see Bell.Alex., 66 ; Strabo, XII, 3, 35 ; Appian, Mith., 121 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « Comana Pontica in Hellenistic Times: a Cultural Crossroads », in María Paz de Hoz; Juan Pablo Sánchez Hernández et Carlos Molina Valero (éd.), Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus. Cultural Crossroads in the Temples and Cults of Graeco-Roman Anatolia, Leuven, Peeters, 2016, p. 47-73, p. 56.
44Ballesteros Pastor Luis, art. cité, 2002-2007, p. 7-8 ; cf. Syme Ronald, Anatolica. Studies in Strabo, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995, p. 148-150.
45On this marriage, see above, n.7. Maybe some of these territories claimed by Eupator had formed part of Laodice’s dowry. Appian (Mith., 9) states that Cappadocia and Pontus were for some periods a sole kingdom and in other times they were separated. This phrase is misleading: on the one side, Cappadocia is considered the region controlled by Mithridates Ctistes, who actually took refuge in Paphlagonia (Strabo, XII, 3, 41); on the other side, the link between both royal houses was a fact: to the case with Eupator’s mother, we should add that the king’s sister was married to Ariarathes VI (Justin, XXXVIII, 1, 1, 3, 5 ; Memnon, FGrHist 434, F1, 22.1). To this we could add the reference to common Seleucid and Persian lineages. Perhaps Appian was confused for the allusions to the Pontic domains as “Cappadocia”.
46Appian, Mith., 67, cf. 64, 66. Perhaps the territories controlled by Gordius and other Cappadocian nobles belonging to a more or less pro-Pontic faction could have been considered as part of these lands claimed by the Ariarathids. On Gordius’ perspective, see Ballesteros Pastor Luis, art. cité, 2008, p. 54-57.
47Polybius, XXV, 2, 3 ; Niese Benedictus, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea, vol. 3, Von 188 bis 120 v. Chr., Gotha, F. A. Perthes, 1903, p. 78, n. 2 ; Walbank Franck W., op. cit., p. 271 ; Heinen Heinz, art. cité, p. 47, n. 57 ; Coskun Altay, art. cité.
48Polybius, XXV, 2, 3, 11. From this last paragraph it could be deduced that Mithridates had made an agreement with Eumenes II.
49On these inscriptions, see IStraton. II, 2, 1333 ; Welles Charles B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1934, p. 297 commentary to no 73-74, cf. Portanova Joseph J., op. cit., p. 486, n. 545-547 (with further bibliography). Apart from the inscription of Chaeremon’s monument (Syll.3 741), no Greek epigraph related to the king records the term « satrap ». On the satraps in Eupator’s empire, see further Appian, Mith., 21, 22, 35, 46 ; cf. 117. The term praefectus appears in Frontinus, Str., I, 5, 18 ; 11.20 ; Florus, Epit., I, 40, 8 ; Justin, XXXVIII, 2, 1 ; Gellius, NA, XV, 1, 4 ; 6 ; Vir. Ill., 75 ; Orosius, Hist., VI, 2, 18 ; 5, 2 ; Licinianus XXXV, p. 24-25 Flemisch; cf. Velleius, II, 23, 3 ; Livy, Per., 78, 81 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, op. cit., 2013, p. 187-189. On this translation of this Greek term, see Yardley John C. and Develin Robert, Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1994, p. 58 ; Klinkott Hilmar, Die Satrapienregister der Alexander –und Diadochenzeit, Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 2000, passim. Appian, Mith., 41, uses the term autokrator, which was commonly translated into Latin as praefectus: see Portanova Joseph J., op. cit., p. 184. The only inscription probably related with Archelaus calls him στρατοπεδάρχης, which is usually translated as praefectus castrorum: see Empereur Jean-Yves, « Collection Paul Canellopoulos (XVII): Petits objets inscrits », BCH, 105, 1981, p. 537-568, 566-568.
50This diversity of royal sites was a Persian feature also adopted by the Seleucids: see Sherwin-White Susan and Kuhrt Amélie, From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993, p. 38.
51On Laodicea, see Cohen Getzel M., op. cit., p. 386-387.
52On the office of archiereus, see Müller Helmut, « Der hellenistische Archiereus », Chiron, 30, 2000, p. 519-542 ; Savalli-Lestrade Ivana, « Amici del Re, alti funzionari e gestione del potere principalmente nell’Asia Minore Ellenistica », Simblos, 3, 2001, p. 263-294, 287-290. On Antiochus III, see Van Nuffelen Peter, « Le culte royal des Séleucides. Une réinterpretation », Historia, 52, 2004, p. 278-301.
53Anderson John G. C., Cumont Franz et Grégoire Henri, op. cit., p. 116-7, no 95. The date of the inscription is uncertain, although it is commonly admitted that the epigraph would belong to a moment in the iind Century BC prior to Eupator’s rule: Portanova Joseph J., op. cit., p. 333 (with further bibliography). The title Kyrios may be of Persian origin according to Benveniste Emile, Titres et noms propres en Iranien Ancien, Paris, C. Klincksieck, 1966, p. 20.
54Appian, Mith., 66, 70 ; Ballesteros Pastor Luis, « El Culto de Mitrídates a Zeus Estratio », in Marguerite Garrido-Hory et Antonio Gonzalès (éd.), Histoire, Espaces et Marges de l’Antiquité. Hommages à Monique Clavel-Lévêque, vol. 2, Besançon, Presses universitaires Franc-Comtoises, 2003, p. 209-222. On the non-Iranian aspects in this ritual, see also Boyce Mary and Grenet Frantz, A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 3. Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, Leyde, Brill, 1991, p. 261 ; Jong Albert F. de, Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastriansim in Greek and Roman Literature, Leyde, Brill, 1997, p. 140.
Auteur
Université de Séville.
Luis Ballesteros Pastor est professeur des universités. Université de Séville (Espagne), Groupe de recherche HUM 441 : Campo y Ciudad. Estructuras Sociales, Económicas e Ideológicas en Andalucía y el Mundo Mediterráneo Durante la Antiguëdad. [lbpastor@us.es].

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Un constructeur de la France du xxe siècle
La Société Auxiliaire d'Entreprises (SAE) et la naissance de la grande entreprise française de bâtiment (1924-1974)
Pierre Jambard
2008
Ouvriers bretons
Conflits d'usines, conflits identitaires en Bretagne dans les années 1968
Vincent Porhel
2008
L'intrusion balnéaire
Les populations littorales bretonnes et vendéennes face au tourisme (1800-1945)
Johan Vincent
2008
L'individu dans la famille à Rome au ive siècle
D'après l'œuvre d'Ambroise de Milan
Dominique Lhuillier-Martinetti
2008
L'éveil politique de la Savoie
Conflits ordinaires et rivalités nouvelles (1848-1853)
Sylvain Milbach
2008
L'évangélisation des Indiens du Mexique
Impact et réalité de la conquête spirituelle (xvie siècle)
Éric Roulet
2008
Les miroirs du silence
L'éducation des jeunes sourds dans l'Ouest, 1800-1934
Patrick Bourgalais
2008