1. Foundation and bounds The Kingdom of Pontus or Pontic Kingdom was established in c. 281 BC by Mithridates I at Cimiata of Paphlagonia. Pharnaces I annexed the area of Sinope to the kingdom, while he expanded his diplomatic influence over the Greek cities of the Pontic Sea. By the time of death of Mithridates V the kingdom extended from the areas of Paphlagonia west of the Alys River to the city of Amastris. The Pontic Kingdom continued to flourish until 63 BC, when its last king,1 Mithridates VI, died; he had managed to annex the lands extending from Heraclea to Dioscurias, and as a result the kingdom included areas of Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Colchis and Armenia Minor. Amaseia was the capital of the kingdom until 183 BC, followed by Sinope until 63 BC. 2. Appellation The dominion of the Mithridatic dynasty, over the two centuries of its existence (281-63 BC), was never called Kingdom of Pontus. The titles of the Mithridatic rulers never contained territorial references.2 Coinage from the region refer to the king that minted them (‘of king Mithridates’, ‘of king Pharnaces’ etc.) and not to the ruler of a region.3 The term ‘Kingdom of Pontus’ is later and appears after the death of Mithridates VI in Roman texts. The establishment of the Roman Pontic legion (legio Pontica) and of the Roman Pontic fleet (classis Pontica) in 47 BC,4 as well as the use of the epithet ‘Ponticus’ in a ethnic sense analogous to that of the ‘Romanus’,5 facilitated the retroactive attribution of the adjective ‘Ponticus’ to everything related to the wider region of Pontus.6 Thus, since the mid-1st cent. BC until modern times, the Mithridatic dynasty is known as the kings of the Pontus and their realm is termed Kingdom of Pontus. 3. Historical context of the kingdom’s establishment It is possible that the establishment of the Pontic Kingdom was occasioned by a nationalist reaction. Mithridates I perhaps established his kingdom in an effort to gain his independence from Antigonus I (323 BC) of the Seleucid dynasty, in order to preserve his ethnic and cultural identity as a Persian nobleman. The fact, however, that he did not proclaim himself king immediately after defecting from Antigonus (302/301 BC) suggests that perhaps he simply aimed at creating a semi-autonomous realm under Seleucid suzerainty, modelled after the Persian . Having gained military power, however, he declared himself king and established a hereditary monarchy in the region under his control, the original Kingdom of Pontus.7 Both explanations reveal Persian influence over the semi-isolated area of northern Asia Minor. 4. Society-Culture The administrative and military organization of the realm, as well as the religious beliefs of its inhabitants (Greeks, Persians and indigenous population), indicate that the Pontic Kingdom received Greek/Hellenistic and Persian/eastern influences. The kingdom’s most significant cultural and commercial centres were the coastal Greek cities (Heraclea, Sinope, Amisus, etc), Amaseia and the city-shrines (Zela, Pontica Comana, and so forth). Although the Pontic Kingdom preserved the Persian social organization, the Mithridatic dynasty laid the foundations for the Hellenization of the hinterland. The Persian influences observable today in the Pontic language and similarities between the traditional Pontic music and traditional Persian music probably originate in the cultural exchanges between the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Pontus.8 The cultural fermentation that took place among the region’s populations between 281 and 63 BC laid the foundations of the Pontic-Pontiac identity. 5. Administration The Mithridatic rulers followed the principle that the king was the law, and therefore everyone was his subject and only he could bestow or cancel privileges to individuals or groups. The Mithridatic dynasty, as well as their contemporaries, were well aware of the fact that in order to acquire heightened status they had to be recognized by the Greek world, especially by Athens. To this effect they made efforts to appear as Philhellenes, persons imbued in Greek culture and of Greek ancestry.9 Although they had ceded special privileges to the Greek cities of their realm with respect to allocation of land, rules of land ownership were clearly based on Persian customs.10 Persian influence can also be seen in the financial administration of the kingdom which involved the existence of fortified royal treasuries (gazophylakia).11 The power of the Mithridatic dynasty had its roots in the ideas of absolute, divinely-sanctioned monarchy, and the expansionist policy of the Persian monarch and of the rulers of the Hellenistic states.12
6. Military Most of the generals of the Mithridatic army apparently were of the king and Greeks of the Pontic Kingdom, originating from Asia Minor and mainland Greece.13 The troops of the standing land army were drawn from the several barbarian tribes of the hinterland.14 The inhabitants of the Greek cities, without formally belonging to the standing Mithridatic army, fought to defend their settlements, which belonged or were immediately influenced by the fortunes of the Pontic Kingdom. They did not, however, fight as subjects of the kingdom but as citizens of their respective cities.15 The naval forces of the Mihtridatic kingdom were divided into two parts: a small number of ships was provided by the kingdom’s Greek cities, while the larger number of vessels were constructed with funds provided by the royal treasury.16 The naval forces were probably manned by people from the barbarian tribes the king trusted, while the auxiliary forces by experienced seamen, probably of Greek descent.17 Furthermore, the pirates of Cilicia apparently served as a kind of a land mercenary force. Despite of its varied ethnic composition, the Mithridatic army was loyal to the ruler.18
7. Religion The Greeks of the Pontic Kingdom usually supplemented the Greek pantheon with local deities, as in the case of Heraclea Pontica, where the locals worshipped fertility and nature divinities similar to Mother Earth and the Nymphs. Furthermore, Zeus Stratius, who was important in the Kingdom of Pontus, perhaps started off as a local deity, later recognized by the Greek colonists as Zeus and by the Mithridatic Persians as an avatar of Ahura-Mazda.19 The exchanges between the religions of the Greek colonists, the locals and the Persians inhabiting the region is evident in the worship of Greco-Persian divinities as well in the religious syncretism between Greek and Iranian deities. |
1. Rulers like Pharnaces II, Polemon I, and so forth were called kings of the Pontus. They did not, however, belong to the independent kingdom of Pontus as they were tributaries to Rome. 2. On the similarities between the Pontic rulers and the kings of the Hellenistic states see Bevan, E.R., The House of Seleucus 1 (London 1966), p. 57. On the contrary the kings of the Persians bore such titles as "king of Media", "king of Parthia", "king of Egypt" etc. On the relevant bibliography see Kent, P.G., Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, lexicon (New Haven - Connecticut 1953), pp. 137-138, 119-120; Malandra, W.W., An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings from the Avesta and the Achaemenid Inscriptions (Minneapolis 1983), pp. 48, 50; Dandamaev, M.A.-Lukovin, V.G., The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge 1989), pp. 90-91, 176. 3. The city coinage from this period bears the city’s name (e.g. Pharnacia) and not of the king, thus creating a sense of independence to the citizens. However, Persian symbols implied their relation with the Mithridatic dynasty. See Head, B.V. - Hill, G.F. - MacDonald, G. - Wroth, W., Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics2 (Oxford 1911), pp. 498-502. 4. Caes., Bell. Alex. 34, 40, 77; IGRR IV.150; CIL VI.31856; Starr, C.G., The Roman Imperial Navy (31 BC-AD 324) (Cambridge I960); French, D.H., "Classis Pontica", Epig. Anat. 4 (1984), pp. 53-60; Parker, H.M.D., The Roman Legions (Oxford 1928); Keppie, L., The Making of the Roman Army from Republic to Empire (London 1984); Isaac, B., The Limits of the Empire - The Roman Army in the East (Oxford 1990); Davies, R.W., Service in the Roman Army (Edinburgh 1989). 5. Caes., Bell. Alex. 41. 6. Plin., Ep. 10.112-113; Strabo 11.8.4,12.3.33; Linderski, J., "A Missing Ponticus", AJAH 12.2 (1987), p. 159; Marshall, A.J., "Pompey's Organisation of Bithynia-Pontus: Two Neglected Texts", JRS 58 (London 1968), pp. 107-109. 7. App., Mithr. 9; Apollod., FGrHist. 244 F82; Dionysius, FGrHist. 251 F5a. 8. Hemmerdinger, Β., "158 Noms Communs Grecs d' Origine Iranienne, d' Eschyle au Grec Moderne", Byzantinoslavica 30 (1969), pp. 18-41; Σαμουηλίδης, Χ., Ιστορία του Ποντιακού Ελληνισμού (Θεσσαλονίκη 1992), p. 292; Συμεωνίδης, Χ.Π., "Ποντιακά έθιμα με ανατολίτικη προέλευση", Αρχείον Πόντου 33 (1975-1976), pp. 248-252; A Musical Anthology of the Orient, collection of Collection by the International Music Council under the editorship of Alain Danielou; Παπαδόπουλος, Α.Α., Ιστορικόν Λεξικόν της Ποντιακής Διαλέκτου (Αθήνα 1961), see under entry «κεμεντζέ». 9. Plu., Alex. 60, Sull. 24.2, Luc. 32.5; Str. 12.3.11; App., Mithr. 71.1, Syr. 65; Plb. 5.88-90; Ael., VH, 5.11; Diod. Sic. 5.90.5. 10. Saprykin, S.Yu. - Maslennikov, A.A., "Bosporan Chora in the Reign of Mithridates VI Eupator and his Immediate Successors" (2), Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 3.1 (1996), pp. 1-14 (in Russian); Saprykin, S.Yu., "Eupator's Law on Inheritance and its Role in the History of the Pontic Kingdom", VDI 197 (1991), pp. 181-197 (in Russian with a summary in English). 11. Str. 12.3.28. According to Theophrastus (HN 8.11.5), the Iranian word gaza means treasure. For similar terms in the Kingdom of Bosporus see Saprykin, S.Yu. - Maslennikov, Α.A., "Bosporan Chora in the Reign of Mithridates VI Eupator and his Immediate Successors" (2), Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 3.1 (1996) pp. 6-7 (in Russian); Str. 11.2.8. 12. On the links of the Mithridatic with the Persian dynasty see De Vir. Illustr. 76.1; Diod. Sic. 19.40.2; Florus 1.40.1; Polyb. 5.43.2-3; App., Mithr. 12; Justin 38.7.1; Sallust., Hist. 2.85; Tac, Ann. 12.18.2; Bosworth, A.B. - Wheatley, P.V., "The Origins of the Pontic House", JHS 118 (1998), pp. 155-164; Head, B.V. - Hill, G.F. - MacDonald, G. - Wroth, W., Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics2 (Oxford 1911), p. 502; Seltman, C., Greek Coins (London 1933), p. 237. On Alexander the Great see Bosworth, A.B., "Alexander and the Iranians", JHS 100 (1980), pp. 14-20. On the Hellenistic kingdoms see Bevan, E.R., The House of Seleucus 1 (London 1966), pp. 31-32; McEwan, C.W., The Oriental Origin of Hellenistic Kingship (Chicago 1934), pp. 30-31. 13. App., Mithr. 70, 75, 87; Str. 10.4.10; Memnon, FGrHist IIΙ 434, F22.7; Plut., Luc. 17.1,19.2,26.3; Griffith, G.T., The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Chicago 1935), p. 188; Bagnall, R.S. - Derow, P., Greek Historical Documents: The Hellenistic Period (California 1981), pp. 87-88; Savalli-Lestrade, I., Les "Philoi" Royaux en Asie Hellenistique (Geneve 1998), pp. 173-186, 251-253, 307-321. 14. Galatians, Armenians, Bithynians, Cappadocians and Phrygians, Heniochoi, Leucosyrians and those close to the Thermodont River, Scythians, Tauri, Sarmatians, Iazyges, Koralloi, Vasternoi, Thracians, and those living by the rivers Tanais (Don) and Istros (Danube), the Maeotian Lake (Sea of Azov) and on the Rhodope mountains and Haimos (App., Mithr. 15, 19, 41, 46, 69, 71, 79, 109, 111; Justin 38.3.6-7, 38.4.9; D. C. 36.9.3-4; Memn., FGH 434 F 27.7; Plu., Luc. 16.1). 15. On the Mithridatic army see Reinach, T., Mithridate Eupator, Roi du Pont (Paris 1890), pp. 264-265; Griffith, G.T., The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World (Chicago 1935), pp. 183-186; Stefanidou, V., "The Identity of the Army of Mithridates VI", Tsetskhladze G. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Ankara, 2-9 September 2001, Oxford, (under publication). 16. App., Mithr. 10,13,15, 22, 25, 69; Florus 1.40 18. 17. For the similar practice of the kings of Persia see Hdt. 7.81, 7.95-96; D. S. 11.2.1,11.3.7-8. 18. For the similar methods of Alexander the Great see Bosworth, A.B., "Alexander and the Iranians", JHS 100 (1980), pp. 14,17-18,20; Badian, E., "Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind", Historia 7 (1958), p. 201. 19. App., Mithr. 66, 70; SEG 30,1449Α; Hdt. 1.171,5.119; Cumont, F. - Cumont, Ε., "Voyage d’ exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petit Arménie", Studia Pontica 2 (Brussels 1906), pp. 371-384; Farnell, L.R., The Cults of the Greek States 1 (Oxford 1896), p. 59. |