THE ATTALID

KINGDOM
A Constitutional Historv

R. E. ALLEN

C L A R E N D O N P R E S S. O X F O R D
 THE ATTALID
KINGDOM
A Constitutional Historv

R. E. ALLEN

C L A R E N D O N P R E S S. O X F O R D
 Oxford University Press,Walton Street' Oxford OX2 6DP
London Glasgow New York Toronto
Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo
P R EF A C E
Dares,i:,
Nairobi *' ^
;inf":r,, There hasbeen a long-feltneedfor a new constitutionalhistory of
and associsted comPanies in
Beirut Berlin lbadon Mexico City Nicosio
the Attalid Kingdom, that can embrace the extensiveresearch
done and reassessments made since Cardinali'sI/ Regno di per-
Published in the United States
by Oxford IJniversity Press, New York
gamo, still the basic work on the subject,was publishedin 1906.
The presentwork is an attempt to meet that need. I was further
O R. E. Allen 1983
aware in the courseof my researchthat a great deal of important
Atl rights reserved. No parr of this publication may be reproduced' specialist work, above all that of Ohlemutz (1940)and Kähler
m,eans'
-stored ia retrieval system, or tansmitted, in anyform or by any (1948),had not been adequatelyabsorbedinto the more recent
without
ilectronic, ' mechanical, photocopying, ryc9rding, or otherwise'
rhe prior peimission'of Oxford University Press works on the Attalids now available,and I hope that my debt to
BritishLibrary Cataloguingin PublicationData theseand to otherswho have studiedthe Attalid Kingdom will be
Allen' R.E. obvious..
TheAttalid Kingdom.
I. Pergamon- History This book beganits life as a doctoral thesisof the University of
L Title London, presentedin 1972.Since then I have benefitedgreatly
939'.21 DSt56.P4
ISBN 0-t9a14845-3 from the advice of teachersand examiners,as well as from work
publishedin the meantime.I owe a great debt of gratitudeto Mr
Typesetby Fotron SA., Athens, Greece
Printed in Hong Kong P. M. Fraser,who first suggesteda study of the Attalids to me and
has advisedand helpedme most generouslyin achievingit. I am
glad to have this opportunity at last of thanking him. I am also
indebted to ProfessorA. D. Momigliano, without whose initial
support my researchcould not have been contemplated,and to
ProfessorH. Bengtson,under whosedirectionI studiedfor a year
as a guestof the Seminar(now Institut) für Alte Geschichteof the
University of Munich in 1972-3;I greatly appreciatehis kindness
and hospitality, as also the stimulating discussionafforded by
membersof the Seminar,especiallyDr WolfgangOrth.
Finally I must thank the managingcommittee of the British
Schoolat Athens for admittingme as a Studentof the Schoolfrom
1968to 1970;the British Institute of Archaeologyat Ankara for
facilitatingmy researchin Turkey, especiallyat Pergamonitself;
Mme D. PeppaDelmousoufor enablingme to study the epigraphi-
cal materialrelatingto the Attalids in the EpigraphicalMuseumin
Athens; and Miss E. Rohdefor admittingme to the archivesof the
PergamonMuseum in Berlin in 1969.To all these I am most
grateful.
Oxford, 1979 R. E. ALLEN
 C O N T EN T S

ABBREVIATIONS vlll

M APS
l. Western Asia Minor x
2. Lycia and Pamphylia xi

I. THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE I

2. PERGAMON UNDER PHILETAIROS 9

AND EUMENES I

3. THE REIGN OF ATTALOS I 27

(i) Attalos and Asia Minor, 241-216 28
(ii) Attalos and the Aegean, 215-197 65

4. THE ATTALID KINGDOM AFTER THE

TREATY OF APAMEIA 76
(i) The New Provinces 85
(ü) The Greek Cities 98
(iii) Festivalsof Athena l2l
(iv) Officials of the Royal Administration t29

5. THE GALATIANS 136

6. ROYAL CULTS 145

7. THE CITY OF PERGAMON 159

APPENDICES
I.THE GENEALOGY OF THE ATTALIDS l8l

II, THE GALATIAN WARS OF ATTALOS I AND

HIS ASSUMPTION OF THE ROYAL TITLE 195
I I I .Q U E E N S T R A T O N I K E 2N
IV.SELECTED INSCRIPTIONS 207

S E L E C TB I B L I O G R A P H Y 228
INDEXOF INSCRIPTIONS 233
G E N E R A LI N D E X 240
 Abbreviations lx

OGIS W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graect Inscriptiones Se-

lectae (Leipzig, 1903)
A B B R EV I A T I O N S Ohlemttz, Kulte E. Ohlemutz,Die Kulte und Heiligtümerder Götter in
Pergamon (194O)
ötn Jahresheftedes Österreichischenarchäologische
n In-
stituts
The following abbreviationsand short titles are used of works cited
frequently.Others generallyfollow those listed in The Oxford Classical RE Real-Encyclopädieder klassischenAltertumswissen-
Dictionary (ed. 2, 1970).In somecasesfurther informationis given in the schaft,ed. A. Pauly,G. Wissowa,W. Kroll (1893-)
bibliography. REA Rövue des ötudesanciennes
Abh. Berlin Abhandlungender PreussischenAkademie der Wis- REG Rövuedes ötudesgrecques
senschaften,Phil.-Hist. Kl.
Robert,Et. anat. L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes(1937)
Abh Münche' mieder wis'
hen Akade Robert, Yil/es L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure (ed.2, 1962)
!:::,"r':i;f: ?f;: t!#.' ;li.c
Rostovtzeff,
AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen archöologischen Instit'
SEHHW M. Rostovtzeff,TheSocial and EconomicHistory of
uts : Athenische Abteilung
the Hellenistic World (Oxford, l94l)
AvP Altertümer von Pergamon
SB München Sitzungsberichteder BayerischenAkademieder Wis-
Bengtson, Strar. H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, senschaften,Phil.-Hist. Kl.
l-lll
SB Wien Sitzungsberichteder Österueichischen Akademie in
Bull. J. and L. Robert, Bulletin öpigraphique(annuallyin Wien, Phil.-Hist. Kl.
REG) Schmitt, Unter-
Cardinali,AP G. Cardinali,Il Regno di Pergamo (1906) suchungen H. H. Schmitt, Untersuchungenzur GeschichteAn-
tiochos'desGrossenund SeinerZeit
CRAI Comptesrendues de l'Acadömie des inscriptionset
belles-lettres StV Die Staatsvertrögedes Altertums (ed. H. Bengtson):
äi. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischenWelt von
F. Delphes Fouilles de Delphes
338bis200vor Chr. (ed.H. H. Schmitt,Munich, 1969)
FGrHist F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischenHistoriker
Sy//.3 W. Dittenberger,Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum
(t923-)
(ed. 3, Leipzig, 19l5)
Hansen, Attalids E. V. Hansen,TheAttalids of Pergamon(ed'2, 1972)
Walbank,Comm. F. W. Walbank,AHistorical Commentaryon Polybius
Holleaux, Etudes M. Holleaux,Etudes d'öpigraphieet d'histoire grec- (3 vols., Oxford, 1957,1967,and 1979)
ques, i-vi
Welles.RC C. B. Welles,Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic
ISE L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (2 vols., Period (New Haven. 1934)
Florence. 1965and 1976)
IvM O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesiaam Meander
(Berlin, 1900)
IvP Inschriften von Pergamon
IvPr F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene
(Berlin, 1906)
Kähler, Gr. Fries H. Kähler, Der grosseFries von Pergamon-
(Berlin, 1948)
Magie,
Roman Rule D. Magie,Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950\
MvP F. von Fritze, Die Münzen von Pergamon(1910)
 2. Lycia and Pamphylia

l WesternAsia Minor
 1
THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE

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

I See now C. Pr6aux, Monde hell. i. 88-9.

2 See the recent discussionofJ. Hopp, Untersuchungen, 107-20.
2 The Nature of the Evidence
completely preserved and it becomes increasingly fragmentary
and episodicin the courseof the later of thesereigns.The early
booksof Polybios'Histories dealwith eventsthat occurredbefore
his own lifetime and fall from our point of view in the reign of
Attalos | (241-197 nc); becausethis part of his work is more
completelypreservedthan the later parts we obtain a rblatively
fuller narrative for these years than we would expect from the
generallycontemporarytheme of Polybios' work as a whole. In
providingsuchgood evidencefor theseimportantearly years,and
despitethe shortcomingsof incompleteness,Polybios' Histories
constitutean importantelementin the studyof Attalid Asia Minor.
Comparablein importanceto the narrative evidenceof Polybios
is that of a differentkind to be derivedfrom Strabo'sGeographia.
Writing in the age of Augustus, Strabo refers to the Attalids at
severalpoints in the part of his work that dealswith westernAsia
Minor, and shows a precise knowledge and authority that are all
the more impressivefor the support they often receive from inde-
pendentevidence,chiefly epigraphical;a greatdealof importance
will be attachedthroughoutthis book to the testimonyhe provides.
It is evident that Strabo had a sound and detailed knowledge both
of the history of Asia Minor in generaland of the Attalid dynasty in
particular. Of specialimportance for our purposesis the summary
account which Strabo inserts by way of historical background in
his treatment of the city of Pergamon and its environs (xiii. 4.
6234); this account explores family relationships and indi-
vidual dynasticachievements,as well as someof the more impor-
tant eventsof eachreign: as will be seenin the next chapter,our
knowledgeand understandingof the reignsof the dynasts Philetai-
ros and EumenesI owes much to thesebrief but astuteremarks.
and the value ofthe epigraphicalevidenceis greatly enhancedby
the possibilityof interpretingit in the contextsthat they provide.
The nature and scope of Strabo's remarks about the Attalids
indicate that the sources at his disposal were sound, and it is
probablethat they were in many casescontemporary to the events
described. The account is based largely on biographical informa-
tion: lengths of rule and other chronological details are given with
great precision and accuracy; there is much personal detail and
anecdotal material concerning individual dynasts, especially
The Nature of the Evidence 3
Philetairos,and their individual plansand achievementsare stres-
sed.It is very likely that the authority for all this informationrests
at least partly with the biographies of the Attalids that were com-
piled during the course of the dynasty, works' such as those of
Lysimachos, a contemporary and admirer of a King Attalos;
Neanthesof Kyzikos, a city with which the Attalids established
early connections;and Leschides,a contemporaryof Eumenes
II.3 We may alsoadducethe many scholarswho were attractedto
Pergamon during its royal prosperity under Attalos I and more
particularly at the invitation of EumenesII, whose enlightened
aspirationsenvisagedPergamonas a famous centre of culture and
learningin the Greekworld.a Someof thesescholarsare known to
have researchedand written about local history and antiquities,
notably Polemonof llion, ö xAry9eiE nepqyqrriE,whoseactivity is
dated firmly to the reign of EumenesII, and who is known to have
been concerned in his travels with antiquities and monuments
rather than with considerations of geography in the usual sense.
Demetriosof Skepsis,a contemporaryof Polemonwho explored
and wrote at length on the antiquities of the Troad, is named by
Straboas his sourceon a numberof occasions.sThesetwo names
adequately represent the antiquarian research that was encour-
aged at Pergamonunder Attalid rule and which constitutesthe
sound authority with which much of the evidence transmitted by
Strabo may be associated.
Before passing to consider the secondary literary evidence we
should pauseto reflect on a danger that is inherent in the tradition
so far discussed. and which arises from the fact that all the ele-
ments of this tradition are favourable to the Attalids and sym-
pathetic to their aims and achievements.Polybioswas generally
very well disposedto the dynasty and to the order it represented
and was invariably hostile to its enemies,especially PrusiasI and
II of Bithynia and Pharnakesof Pontos, these being also the
3FGrHist IIB, 170-2. h6aux, Monde hell. i. 86, laments the loss of these
biographiesbut does not consider their status as sourcesof Strabo's information.
a On what follows see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford,
t%8),zß-sr.
5 See for example the referencesin book xiii (which will mainly concern us) at
1.27,594; 1.43,602: 1.44,603(where an unnamedwork by Attalos I of Pergamonis
cited, probably a geographicaltreatise).
4 The Nature of the Evidence
enemiesof Rome as long as the SenatesupportedAttalid interests
in Asia Minor.6 Even when the Senatebecamesuspicious,some-
times with apparent justification, of Eumenes II's ambitions,
Polybioscontinuedto defendhim.7Thus the picture of Attalid rule
we derive from Polybios is an entirely favourable one, and very
little hostile opinion of the kind that we have, for example, per-
taining to Rhodian rule in the subject Peraia has reached our
literary sources.sWe must discountfrom this context the so-called
RhodianpropagandadirectedagainstEumenesII at the time of the
Roman settlement of 188Bc as urmountingto nothing more than a
disagreementwith Eumenesover the future of the Greek cities of
Asia Minor in that year.eOf greatersubstanceis the propaganda
recordedby Polybios (especiallyat xxxii.lT) as beingdirected at
EumenesII personally by a large part of the Roman Senatein the
l60s with the intention of encouraginghis brother Attalos (later
Attalos II) to usurp power in his place. Then there is the largely
successfulattemptof Perseusof Macedonto discreditEumenesat
Rome,evidenceof which can be discernedin survivingextractsof
Appian's Makedonika (notably xviii.l). None of this however,
interestingthough it is, has influencedthe literary tradition as we
know it or constitutedany part of it; it is largely confinedto the
reignof EumenesII and is simply the reportingof elementshostile
to him, and as suchit comesfrom predictablequartersand causes
no surprise. Of reasonedopposition to Attalid rule we find no
traces in the literary sourceseven when opportunities may be
thought to arise for its inclusion. This tendencyis sharedby the
epigraphicalevidence,to be reviewedbelow, sincethis also ema-
6 Seethe comment on Pharnakesof Pontos(xxvii. 17, on which seealso Wal-
bank, Comm. iii. 318), and, above all, the hostile assessmentof husias II of
Bithynia (xxxvi. 15;Walbank,Comm. äi. 46).
; Polyb.xxxi. 6. 6; Holleaux,Etudes,ü. 170.
EP. M. Fraserand G. E. Bean,TheRhodianPeraeaand Islands(Oxford, 1954),
n8-22.
eC. G. Starr, C. Phil. xxxiii (1938),63-8, arguesthat mutual hostility is a
continuous factor in Rhodian-Pergamenerelations from early in the reign of At-
talos I; but it was the issue of the Greek cities in 189 that first divided them,
accordingto Polyb. xxi. 22.6. We shallseein chapter3 that Rhodesand pergamon
were brought together during the reign of Attalos I by the common needto defend
the south-eastAegeanagainstPhilip V of Macedon.
The Nature of the Evidence 5
natesfrom pro-Attalid sources,either pergamonitself or cities and
regionsthat were well disposedto the kings.
A second caveat needs to be entered with regard to the kind of
evidenceso far discussed.We have already seenthat much of it
lacks context and substance,especiallywhere eventsofthe later
years ofthe dynasty are concerned.Thus, apart from the sketch of
Attalid history that hasbeenmentioned,much of Strabo'sinform-
ation is given in passing and with no attempt to offer a full
backgroundto the statementsmade.StrabointheGeographiawas
not writing history and cannot be expectedto answerthe kinds of
historical questionsthat we are inclined to pose. In the caseof
Polybiosthe trouble lies with the transmissionof the text. which is
increasingly fragmentary from book vii onwards. There is also in
this connectiona qualitativepoint to be made, that theseliterary
sourcesdo not alwaysadequatelymeetour demandfor knowledge
of constitutionalmachineryand procedure,which are a primary
concern of this study. Polybios is notoriously confusingon the
occasionswhen he pausesto describeadministrativeor consti-
tutional organization,even when he is thoroughly familiar with
them: we can thereforehardly expect him to transmit a clear and
consistentpictureofthe institutionsof Attalid rule, which he knew
less well and about which he was probably less concernedto
inform his readers.Thesereaderscould be expectedfurthermore
to be mostly Greeks, and therefore sufücientlyfamiliar with the
connotationsof his terminologyas not to requirecarefulprecision
or elaboration.r0These factors increaseour diffrcultiesin inter-
pretingthe significanceof official titles and regionaldesignations,
and (evenmore noticeably)of institutionsof taxationand financial
administration.
Despite these reservationsPolybios and Strabo stand as the
most importantliterary sourcesat our disposal,and they arejoined
by Livy when he is following lost or fragmentary sections of
Polybios' account. When Livy is not following polybios we are
faced with the usual problem of decidingwhat his sourceis at a
particular point in the narrativeand what its worth is; we will be
r0 F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Sather ClassicalLectures, 42, 197D. l-6. The
institutions that Polybios explains are generally those that would be unfamiliar to
Creek readers:see Walbank,loc. cit.. 4. n.19.
6 The Nature of the Evidence
particularly aware of this problem for instance when we come to
consider Livy's evidence for the institution of the cistophoric
coinage in the Attalid Kingdom. Also to be gonsideredas an
element of the extant literary tradition is the anecdotal material
about the Attatid kings, usually fanciful stories that represent a
kind of elaboration or variation of known historical circumstances
and must be regardedas sensationaland untrustworthy. These
have survivedin the accountsof later historians(includingJustin)
and in works such as the Deipnosophistai of Athenaios and the
Moralia of Plutarch, whose nature and purpose provided suitable
contextsfor the retailingand preservationof suchmaterial.tn this
categorybelongsmuch ofthe evidenceon the parentageand reign
of Attalos [II:11 since in a number of significant instancesthis
evidencewill be seento be contradictedby sounderelementsin the
tradition its value is correspondinglydiminished;it needsto be
carefully distinguished from the more reliable biographical mat-
erial preservedin Strabo's writing and certainly to be treated with
a greater degree of caution than is often the case in modern ac-
counts.
Enough hasbeen saidto familiarize the readerwith the problems
to be expectedof the literary evidencethat will be adducedin this
study. We turn now to considerbriefly the natureof the evidence
provided by inscriptions. What we know of the institutions of
Attalid rule, as distinct from the historical background of their
implementation, is derived very largely from epigraphical evi-
dence, both the copious body of texts from Pergamonitself,
augmented over the years since the original publications of In-
schriften von Pergamon, and that from other parts of the Greek
world in Asia Minor and on the Greek mainland. Of great impor-
tance is the material, consistingchiefly of honorary decreesin
favour of membersof the royal family or their ofücials, from cities
that were in some way subject or tributary to the Attalids, since
these frequently record the names and titles of offrcials and at
times attest,explicitly or otherwise,proceduresand evenpolicies
of the royal administration; in this category should be mentioneda
decree from Bursa honouring the Attalid strategos Korrhagos,
rr SeeAppendix i; Hopp, IJntersuchungen,16-26' esp' lE-19'
The Nature of the Evidence 7
which is probably the most important and certainly the most dis-
cussed single item of evidence relating to Attalid procedures of
regionaladministrationafter 188nc. Another significantgenreof
documentsthat may be mentioned here is that of the royal letters
written to cities of varying status;theseare particularly valuablein
that they are more usually datedthan are other kinds of inscription,
and by their nature frequently include referencesto and explana-
tions of royal policy such as we would not expectto find in other
sources.
Of equal importance in other ways are the texts from cities and
regionsnot subjectto the Attalids but enjoyingfriendly relations
with them. Most notableare the recordsof Attalid benefactions,
beginningat an early stagein the history of the dynasty,at Athens,
at Delphi, and in Boiotia. Suchevidencedocumentsthe history of
the Attalids' external relations and in somecasesfurther illustrates
constitutional procedures and institutions, since ambassadors,
members of the royal family, and other officials and representa-
tives are occasionallydesignatedand described.Even more im-
portant is the evidencerelating to the institution of royal cults in
citieswhich were the objectofthe Attalids'beneficence;worthy of
special mention in this regard is the material now accumulated
from Teos and Miletos.
Numismatic evidence is of less importance to constitutional
mattersin the caseof the Attalids, but it contributessignificantlyto
our knowledgeof the dynasty's standing,both before 188nc (the
dynasticcoinage)r2and after that date,when (aswill be argued)the
cistophoriccoinagebecamean institution of Attalid fiscal control
throughout the newly acquiredkingdom.
Finally we must considerwhat may be termed the monumental
evidence.Of all the Hellenisticroyal capitalsPergamonhas pro-
vided the richest yield of monumentaland architecturalremains,
enablingus to reconstructwith a high degreeof precisionnot only
the growth and developmentof the city in materialterms, but also
the nature and purpose of many royal and religious buildings, and
the relative importance of the institutions and cults (whether royal
12See in general the remarks of Rostovtzefr, SEHHW ii. 1288-96; h,6aux,
Monde hell. i. 106-10,and the referencesgiven below, 24n. 51.
8 The Nature of the Evidence
or divine) that they represent.Although it will not be a part of our
purpose to consider the material and artistic developmentof Per-
gamon, certain features of it will be noticed as they attest or
contribute to our knowledgeof the Attalids' power and standingin
the Greek world. Thus the early years of the reign of Attalos I, and
in particular the significance of his numerous military victories
over Galatiansand other enemiesin westernAsia Minor, can only
be fully comprehendedin relation to the seriesof monumentsthat
he dedicatedto Athena on the citadel of Pergamon;and the value
of theseas historical evidenceis in many casesfurther enhanced
by the presenceof dedicatory inscriptions which attest both the
purposefor which they were erectedand the eventswhich they
were intendedto celebrate.This kind of evidenceis lessprominent
for the early years of the dynasty, but is of great importance to an
assessment of the reignsand achievementsof Attalos' successors,
especiallyEumenesII, for whom the Pergamenemonumentsare a
true mirror of the expansionand strengtheningof royal authority in
Asia Minor after the Roman settlementof 188sc.r3
13An excellent historical account of the monumentsof Pergamonis given by
Kähler, Gr. Fries, 131-49(with detailednotes)'
2
P E R G A M O NU N D E R
P H I L E T A I R O SA N D E U M E N E S I
Under Philetairos and Eumenes I the Attalids achieved the
statusof a dynasty; it is the purposeof this chapterto examinethe
process.lPhiletairos'position at Pergamondatesfrom about 302,
or shortly before the battle at Ipsos,2but for the twenty years'
period of his allegianceto Lysimachos we have only a few literary
notices, usually in late writers, and no certainly pertinent
documentaryevidence.3We do not even know the exact title or
nature of the office entrusted to Philetairosby Lysimachos, al-
thoughit was almost certainlya purely financialone.aThe offrcial
foundationof the Attalid dynasty, however,was put sometwenty
yearslater in 283,when Philetairosplacedhimself,and the wealth
he administered,at the disposalof Seleukos,whom he correctly
assessedas the more likely winner in the imminent conflict with
Lysimachos.This date, 283,can be reachedwith someprecision
from the chronologyof the reignsof the Attalids given by Strabo
I For the early growth of Pergamon,see Cardinali, Rp 4-16;
Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW i. 553-66;Bengtson,Srrar. ii. 195-8;Magie,RomanRale i. l-33, with the
well-documented notes,ii. 725-81.The secondeditionof Hansen'sÄtra/idsshows
only superficialrevisionand is as uncriticalasthe first, which waswell reviewedby
A. Aymard,REÄ xlix (1947),33945. The thesisof R.B. Mcshane,Foreignpolicy
(Illinois, 1964),that the Attalids worked from a panhellenicideal and on a legalistic
federalbasisin their relationswith Greekcities,doesonly occasionaljusticito the
evidence,and is hardly realistic.
2 According to Diodoros xx. 107. .t-5, Dokimos,
strategos of Antigonos at
synnada,took up the causeof Lysimachosin 302,and philetairoswas frobably
given the chargeof the strongholdat pergamonat the sametime. cf. cardinali, Ri
6-7; Bengtson,Stat. i.199-201.
I For the relevance to this period of the pergamene
treaty of ioono).neia with
Temnos(Sry iii. 555),seebelow, l6-17.
a He wasprobably simplyTc(o gülal, thatis,keeper
ofthe treasuryat pergamon
(cf. Bengtson,Strat. ä. 195),but there is no direct evidenceto this effec1.His
positionwas certainly not a military one; cf. Cardinali,Rp 7, n. 2.

l0 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
(xiii. 4. l-2, 6234), supplementedby other information. Strabo
gives the length of each reign in yearsas follows: Philetairos,20;
EumenesI,22; Attzlos I, 43; Eumenesll, 49:.Attalos II, 2l; and
Attalos III, 5. This chronologyis mistakenat two points, but each
mistake is fortunately easy to account for. Firstly, the 49 years
assignedto EumenesII is evidently a slip for 39; this lower figure
then fits with the rest of Strabo's dates,and an error of l0 is not
difficult to explain in simple arithmeticalterms.s Strabo meant,
then, to say 39, but eventhis figure is not quite accurate:the death
of Attalos I can be placedfrom the narrative of Livy (xxxiii. 2. l-3:.
2l.l) in the late summer or autumn of 197,6and we know from
Delphian documents recording Pergamenedonations of the year
160/59,that EumenesII died in the autumnof 159.7Thus Eume-
nes II ruled for a little over 38 years,which were evidentlyround-
ed upwards in Strabo's source to 39. Now Polybios, followed
by Livy, assigns44yearsto Attalos I, and not 43;8it is therefore
clear what happened to the chronology followed by Strabo:
Attalos I ruled for 43llzyears(: 43 in Strabo,44in Polybios),and
5 K. Meischke,Symbolae,l2-13; Magie,RomanRule, ü.771-2, n.75.
5The account of Attalos' death is missingfrom the fragmentsof Polyb. xviii. All
we have is Polybios'own eulogy(xviii. 4l). Livy's narrative,at this point drawn
from Polybios, enables us to date the event to late summer or autumn 191; cf .
Holleaux,Etudes, v. I 14,n. l . An inscriptionfrom Delphi (Appendixiv, no. 4),
records the presenceat Delphi, in connection with a manumission,of Dameas,d
napä toü 6aoü,6aE'Atrdlou ö Eni töv Epyav rritv 6aotlmöv, in August-Sep
tember 197.On this evidenceMeischke concluded(Symäolae, 2l)that Attaloswas
still alive in September 197,but since Dameas' titulature will probably not have
changedimmediately after Attalos' death, such an exact chronologicalinferenceis
hardly valid.
?The chronology of the death of EumenesII was establishedby G. Daux, BCH
lix (1935),220-30;seealso hisDe/phes, 502-9,on the basisofDelphian documents
(Syll.3671,now to be consultedin the edition inF. Delphes,iii. 3. 238-9,with the
additional corrections and suggestions of Ad. Wilhelm, Griech. Inschriften
rechtlichenInhalts, 5l-5; Sy/t.3672, : Daux, Delphes,ß2-98, C), which record
donationsof EumenesII in the ninth month of the archonshipof Amphistratos (160
/ 59),andof AttalosII, calledKing, in the sixth monthof the sameyear.Thesetexts
show, as Daux demonstrated,that Eumeneswas alive in March-April 159,and that
Attalos lI was associatedin the kingship some months before Eumenes' death,
which must be placed towards the end of the year 159. The establishingof the
co-regencyis probably referred to in an Athenian decree,also of 160/59(Appendix
iv. no.lE).
8 Polyb.xviii. 41. 8; Livy xxxiii. 21. l.
Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 11
EumenesII ruled for 38t/z years (: 39 in Strabo).eIn absolute
terms,then, the accessionof Attalos I shouldbe dated241,and not
240,which means,in turn, that the official beginningof Philetairos'
rule was in 283,and not 282,althoughit remainsa possibility,but
an unlikely one, that the 20 yearsassignedto Philetairosby Strabo
was a round figure, and that the beginningof Philetairos'rule was
not exactly dated.ro It seems safer, however, to leave the
chronology of the reignsof the Attalids as follows:
PHILETAIROS 283_263 EUMENESII 197_159
EUMENESI 263_24I ATTALOSII I59_I38
ATTALOSI 241_197 ATTALOSIII I38_I33.
This chronology leavesus with the year 283 as most probably
that of the foundation of the Attalid dynasty. Unfortunately no
chronologicalprecision,corroborativeor otherwise,canbe gained
from the available accounts of the events leading to the battle
fought between the armies of Lysimachos and Seleukos at
Corupedion,sincetheseaccountsappearin the highly dramatized
narrativesof later writers, but they do havesomevaluein throwing
light on the position taken by Philetairos.The two principal ac-
counts,those of Justin and Pausanias,deal with the eventswhich
made up the final downfall of the houseof Lysimachos:the con-
spiracy against,and murder of, his son Agathokles,widespread
revolt from Lysimachos (including Philetairos' change of al-
legiance),and the battle at Corupedion.t t [n the narrativeof Justin
(xvii. l) thesedisastersare relatedto the portent ofan earthquake
which hit Lysimacheiain 28716;rzthus chronologicalprecisionis
sacrificed to the making of a dramatic point:
Per idem fermetempusHellespontiet Chersonesi regionibus terrae
motusfuit, maximetamenLysimachiaurbs,anteduoset XX annosa
Lysimachoregecondita,eversaest. Quodportentumdira Lysimacho
stirpiqueeiusac regniruinamcum cladevexatarumregionumportend-
eCf. Cardinali,RP 8, n. 3.
rolt was K. J. Beloch's view (Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2.207) that the twenty years
assignedto Philetairosis a round number, but the exact figuresgiven for the other
reigns count against it.
ftFor these events, see B. Niese, Geschichteder griechischenund Makedo-
nischenStaaten, i. 4024; Beloch,Gr. Gesch. iv.2 l. 242-5.
t2 Beloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.2 l. 243,n. l.
12 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 13
ebat. Nec ostentisfides defuit, nam brevi post temporeAgathoclem, cess. They owed their positions later to the partially tentative
filium suum,quemin successionem regniordinaverat,per quemmulta
bella prosperegesserat,non solum ultra patrium, verum etiam ultra natureof Seleukidrule in Asia Minor,ra and soughtindependence
humanummoremperosusministraArsinoönovercavenenointerfecit. and an increase of authority when this power began its slow but
Haec illi prima mali labes,hoc initium inpendentisruinaefuit. Nam continuousdeclineafter the deathof SeleukosI. An exampleis the
parricidiumprincipumsecutae caedessuntluentiumsupplicia,quodoc- dynasty of Lysias and Philomelos, whose position we will be
cisumiuvenemdolebant.Itaqueet ii, qui caedibus et ii, qui
superfuerant,
exercitibuspraeerant,certatimad Seleucumdeficiunteumquepronum examining later in this chapter.r5 Similarly, it is likely that
iam ex aemulatione gloriaebellumLysimachoinferreconpellunt. Philetairos' own brother Eumenes was dynast for a time at the
The chronology is also certainly compressedpost eventum by Paphlagoniancity of Amastris, although his tenure was evidently
Pausanias,who errs further in making Lysimachosthe aggressor brief, and he did not establisha dynasty there.l6It is likely that
againstSeleukos(i. 10. 3-5): xai @ü'&aqoE äpa, fi d Tpqpara theseother dynasts played an important part in the issuebetween
'Aya0oil.6oug Seleukosand Lysimachos,whereasPhiletairosheld an especially
öneürpanro Auoqtäyou, rfi re rc).ewr1yaAendtg
cptpanxai rd. nagä tfiE'Apowöqg ünonra fyyoüpevoE xara).ap- important position in view of the great wealth he controlled at
66ver. Il1pyalrov rfiv önbp Katxou, nöptpaE öi xrjpuxa rd re Pergamon.
yprjpara xai aöröv ööiöouZü"eüxE. The battleat Corupedionwas How Philetairos' position was changedby his transferenceof
fought early in 281,most probablyin February,r3but the deathof allegianceto Seleukosin 283 is not cleat, since the nature of his
Agathoklescannot be dated exactly betweenthe years 28716and rule in the service of Lysimachosis, as we have seen,so poorly
283,andthe implicationin the highly dramatizedlatetradition,that attested.We may safely reckon, however, that he becamesome-
Lysimachos and Seleukoscame to blows immediatelyafter the thing more than the simple treasurer or finance-officer he had
desertionsfrom Lysimachos,is not a cogentobjectionto the (at the been.It is almostcertain,moreover,that he gaineda goodmeasure
most) two years interval requiredby the chronologyarguedhere. of freedom, althoughnot completeindependence.Strabo,whose
ThesepassagesofJustin and Pausanias,iftheir relation ofcauses ta On theöuvdorcr as an elementin the SeleukidKingdom, in Asia Minor as well
and effects can be trusted, imply that Philetairos distrusted as in the East, see,in additionto the studiesof Wilhelmand Holleaux,citedbelow,
Lysimachosand took the first opportunity to betray him. This is n. 39, Bengtson,Stat. ii. 3-8; A. H, M. Jones,Cities of the Eastern Roman
Provinces(ed.2, Oxford, l97l),4f-9. yote especiallythe decreeofSmyrna (treaty
probably again a highly dramatizedand personalizedaccount of of oupnd'neta with Magnesia ad Sipylum), passed probably in 243 or shortly
more soberrealities;namely,that Philetairossaw Seleukosas the thereafter (OGIS 229, = SrV iii. 492: on the date, W. Otto, Beitr. z
strongerman in the coming struggle.According to Justin, Phil- Seleukidengesch. des3. Jahrhundertsv. Chr. (Abh. München, !4, l92B),70;Chr.
Habicht,Gottmenschentum, 100:'wohlvom Frühjahr242'),lines l0-ll: ö6e6aio-
etairos was not alone in this opinion: ii, qui exercitibusprae- oty titt öriptttt d1v aöltovopi,au xai ö1poxpatlav, öyparpu öö xai npöE rcüg
erant is doubtlessterminologicallyinexactor may be an interpre- 6aoü"cig xai rcüg öuvdotaE xai rdg nüteq xai td. E0v4d.fulboaEd.noötfao\ar ü
tation of the term strategoi; it was probably intendedto include re iegöv rfiE ZtgatovrxtöoE,'Aqpoöit4Edoulov elvar xü,.
tr Cf. below, n. 39.
Philetairos,who is not specificallymentionedin the narrative. t6 We know from a passageof Memnon (FGrHist 434,ch.9) that a dynast named
It is then importantto rememberthat Philetairoswasnot alonein Eumenes held Amastris in 279 (roü xaüTovrog aötlv Eöp6voug), and that he
desertingLysimachos, and that the dynasty he founded was in surrenderedthe city to the rulers of Pontos in this year. The identification of this
Eumenes with the brother of Philetairos (on whom see below, Appendix i), first
origin only one of a number of such dynastiesin Asia Minor, proposedby Droysen (Geich. des Hellenismus(ed. 2, 1877)iii. 255),but with a
althoughnone of the others sharedthe Attalids' spectacularsuc- preferencefor an identificationwith the son ofthis Eumenes,i.e. the futuredynast
(cf. Niese, ii. 75, n. 7; Cardinali,RP 10, n. 4), is strengthenedby the fact that
Philetairos'native city of Tios took part in the synoikismof Amastrisin c.300sc
1 3B e n g t s o n ,/ / l s t o r i a , i v ( 1 9 5 3 ) , I l 3 ; H . H e i n e n , I J n t e r s u c h .z u r h e l l e n i s t i s c h e n
althoughit later withdrew (Straboxii. 3.10, 544; cf. Ernst Meyer, Die Grenzen
Geschichte des 3. Jhdt. v. Chr. (Historia, Einzelschr. 20, 1972),2O4. 109-10;L. Robert,Et. anat.262-3\.
 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 15
14 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
NikomedesI of Bithynia and the so-calledNorthern League,dur-
source was in all probability ultimately a biography of Philetairos,
ing the Galatiancrisis which followed this war, and later.2oIn the
whetheror not usedat first hand,rTrefersto his positionand to his
decreeof Kyzikos from which this informationcomes,Philetairos
policy;hecallshim (xii. 3. 8,543)ddqyrly&1Etoütöv'Arra)'möv
is honoured as an independentbenefactor.2tSimilarly indepen-
6aoü.6av y|vouE, and of his administrationsays (xiii 4- 1,623)
dent were his benefactionsat Delphi, where Philetairosand his
örcr|Leoe yoüv örq e\xoot xtigtoE öv roü Epoupiou xai röv
family were honouredasnpol6vor.;22and at Thespiaiinscriptions
4pr1pätotv.Thus he was not simply an ofücial in the service of the attest his dedicationof land to the Helikonian Muses.23
Seleukids,as he had been in the serviceof Lysimachos: he was
Of equal interest is Philetairos'activity in areascloseto Perga-
xüpnE of Pergamonand of its wealth, althoughevidently of no
mon which remainedunder Seleukidauthority. Again Philetairos
more.rEThe measureof his independenceis shownalsoby the fact
usedhis wealth to befriend,and perhapsinfluence,his neighbours,
that his coinagebore his own name,but continuedto bearthe head
but here it emergesmore clearly that, in spite of his considerable
of Seleukosevenafter the accessionof AntiochosI, indicatingthat
financial independence,he was concedednothing in terms of di-
he owed a nominal allegianceto Seleukospersonally,and not a
rect authority, beyond his position at Pergamon,by his Seleukid
continuingone to the Seleukiddynastyasa whole. His returningto
suzerain, Antiochos L There are, however, two aspectsto be
Antiochosof the ashesof Seleukos,attestedby Appian, is a further
consideredin relation to Philetairos'policy in this area. One, as
indicationin this direction; it need not signify, as is usually infer-
alreadysuggested,is his relationshipto Seleukidcitiesarisingfrom
red, a recognitionin turn of the overlordshipof Antiochos.le
his own relationshipto the Seleukids,that is, at the time, An-
In saying that Philetairoswas xüpng of Pergamonand of its
tiochos I; to this aspectwe will return later. A secondconsidera-
wealth, Strabo clearly implies a good measureof financial inde-
tion, however, stemsfrom the fact that Philetairos'activity can
pendence,and this positionis confirmedby other evidence. Strabo
alsobe relatedto an alreadyexistingesteemenjoyedby the city of
himselfadds (xiii. 4. l, 623):örcy|veroptvotv Enircü öpiparcg ö
Pergamon. Although the history of the city before the Attalid
eövoüyoE xai noAneuöpwog ör"önooyQoeovxai u75 üJ'r1E
period is, in terms of literary evidence,almost unknown,2aarch-
IepaneiaE d.ü npög röv iogüovra xai ByyüEnapövra. This be-
aeologicaland other evidencemakesit clearthat the city was then
friending of neighbourson the part of Philetairos most often took
far from insignificant. One item of evidence is especially
the form of financial generosity, as is amply attestedby epigraphi-
noteworthy. The temple erected for the worship of Meter at
cal evidence. Kyzikos, a city whose friendship the Attalids re-
tainedandtreasuredthroughouttheir history, receivedthis kind of 20OGIS 748.The recordeddonationsdatefrom 280/79to27615, accordingto the
chronology convincingly establishedby Dittenberger(ad loc., n. 7), and confirmed
assistance from Philetairosduringthe troubledyearsof the 270s'to
by M. Launey,REÄ xlvi (1944),217-36;seefurther below, ch. 5. The fact that in
alleviate the difficulties it faced during the war of Antiochos I with 27918Philetairosconcededto Kyzikos (lines 8-12) dt4Tenv tiE l"cias lxai töv
l"omöv 6w d.neoxujaoav lxai6oot 6t äyopdoavteElix qE aittoü Ey4ytiyovto isa
r?Seeabove, 2-3.
furtherindicationof his financialindependence.The.b*etalqeamentionedin a list
tt Cardinali.RP 10.n. 5.
of names from the gymnasium at Kyzikos (ClG 3660)are most probably to be
I q F. Imhoof-Blumer,Die M ünzen ; cf . U. Westermark,Das Bildnis 20-1' For the
associatedwith Philetairos'donations:cf. L. Robert,Et. anat. 199-201.
return of Seleukos'ashes,see Appian, Syr. 63. I cannot agree with the view, 2r Lines l-2: niöe töanev <bühaqog
l:4""61o, öapedv tör öfipat
expressedfor example by Cardinali, RP 9-10, and P. Zancan,Il Monarcato 22M. Holleaux,Et udes, ii. 9-16 : f'. Delphes, äi. 1. 432:@eoi. / e),goiööoxal
l
ellenisticonei suoi elementifederalivi(Padua,l9t4),95, that this act was n€cess- 'Attd).at
fQtluaipotr, xai röt ui1öt I xai töt döü,göt lEöptvet lleqyalteüoot
arily meant as a token of recognition of Antiochos' suzerainty; it was surely in rpo[,eviav, lzqopavntau, tploeöq[av, npoö)rxiav, [dloü"iav, llxai 1rätfi,a öoa
essencea gestureof respectto Philetairos'deceasedpatron. Thus the positionis xa[i rcIE älJ.otSl npo$etotE xai cöl]tpy)tflal6.
perhapsbetter expressedby Meyer, Die Grenzen,97: 'wie Philetairosim Anfang 23P. M. Fraser,REÄ liv (1952),23345: Appendix iv, no. l.
sich den Seleukiden gegenüber sehr loyal verhielt.' McShane wites (Foreign 2aSee the summary given by Cardinali, RP l-4.
Policy, 3!) 'Philetaerusc{rried favour with Antiochus', which is fantasy.
16 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
Mamurt-Kaleh, thirty kilometresfrom Pergamon,which is men-
tioned as an important cult-centreby Strabo,2swas, accordingto
its excavators, a refoundation, and not an original foundation, of
Philetairos,and the altar built by him was, like the structureas a
whole, an enlargementof an existingfoundation.26 A bronzecoin-
age associatedwith this cult, with examples from Adramyttion,
Gambreion,Pitane,Aigai, Elaia, Sardis,Thyateira,and Kyzikos,
nearlyall of which are known to havehad strongconnectionswith
Pergamonin the Attalid period, extendsfrom the fourth century Bc
to the fifth centuryafterChrist.27[t wasin this area,aswill be seen,
that Philetairos exercised a strong influence as dynast of Perga-
mon; striking too is the appearancein thö list of Kyzikos, a firm
friend of the Attalids during the entire period of their rule at
Pergamon.We seethat the areain which Pergamonwas influential
early in the Attalid period already had contactswith this city, as
subscribersto the cult of Meter, in an earlier period of its history.
This fact underlinesthe importance of Philetairos' work in re-
buildingthe cult centre,now in his control, on a largerscale;andto
this work he could add his personaldedicationto the goddess:
@A&aqog'Arrä).ou trtr1rpi1erbv.2E This was clearly one aspectof
Strabo'sdescription of Philetairos:xüprcg roü cppoupiouxai rCov
ypr1pätav.
It has already been indicated, however, that this influence,
considerablethough it may have been, did not extend to direct
authority. On the contrary, his influence seems to have owed
somethingto the at leastnominalsuzeraintyof Antiochoswhich he
had to acknowledge; this is indicated by the appearahceof
Seleukid cities among those which Philetairosbefriended.The
area in which the cities of Aigai and Temnos were situatedpro-
vides the most striking evidence of this situation. A treaty of
ioono)'rcetaconcludedbetween Pergamonand Temnos is to be
dated,accordingto the letters,to the beginningof the third century
sc, and it is unlikely that the stone was inscribed later than the
'Aonoqvvfi5.
2s xäi. 2.6, 619: rö iepöv rö twaü9a tqE,pqQöq, töv 9eöv
26A. Conze and P. Schazmann,Mamurt-Kaleh,43; Ohlemutz, Kulte, l74ff
21Mamurt-Kaleh, 42-3.
2 8M a m u r t - K a l e h , 1 0 .
I
Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 17
period in which Philetairos paid allegiance to Lysimachos, al-
thoughit may have beenearlier.2eIn any event, it points to early,
and possibly pre-Attalid contacts betweenthe two cities. In the
samearea, two dedications of land to Apollo made by Philetairos
further attest these early contacts; both are from the temple of
Apollo situated between Kyme and Myrina, and belonging to
ü'& a q oE'Au d)"ou ;t o
Aigai. Onereads'A n iluAavt X pqoq p iott | <D
the other l@Ä&aqosll'AudJou I'AnüJ'avt lXprloqqiE llüv
76qav dv60qxe | öE ai oü.)"p"at öp[oloot.3t We can be sure,
however, that Aigai and Temnos, and therefore the territory em-
braced by these cities, as well as Myrina (see below, n. 43),
remainedunder Seleukidcontrol as late as the reign of Antiochos
II. The treaty of ioono).wtia doesnot in itself imply the subjection
of Temnosto Pergamon,but rather suggestsan equalstatus,that
is, Temnos' independenceof Pergamon,and this is confirmedby a
decreefound on the site of the acropolisof Temnosand datedto
the third century nc, which showsthis city actingindependentlyof
2eI havebeenunableto locatethe stoneIvP 5 (OGIS 265,StV iii. 555)either in
Bergamaor in the PergamonMuseum in Berlin, and have thereforeto base my
conclusionson Fränkel's facsimiles,which throughout IvP are invariably accu-
rate. I and 4 aredecisiveletters,whereas€ , which is foundaslateasthe reignof
Attalos III QvP 248,: OGIS 331, Welles,RC 65-:7),is clearly not. Sigma,like
alpha,is an unreliableletter for dating Pergameneinscriptions,'early' forms oc-
curnnglate,and 'late'forms appearingalreadyin the time of EumenesI (e.9.inIvP
13,:OGIS 266,Styiii.48l;cf.below,n.47).1r isfoundregularlyfromthereignof
AttalosI (IvP 47, 51,52,53,58),although/vP40,which I havestudiedin Berlin,has
the much laterform F (this text is ascribedto Attalos I by Welles,RC 24:lam
inclinedto preferEumenesII: seebelow, 173-4).The alphawith a distinctlybroken
cross-barin IvP 5 constitutesa major diffrculty to an early third century date. I
know ofno other Pergamene examplebeforethe reignofAttalos I, andeventhen it
is not common,the earlierforms being still much in evidence:compareIvP 43-5
Attalos' victory dedicationshave A almostexclusively(1vP21-9; notehowever A
inf'Enly6vou öpya inIvP 29).Alpha with a curvedcross-baroccursrarely under
EumenesI (IvP l3) andoccasionallyasa monogramon coinsof his reign(MvP ä.2,
3, 7), but this is an artistic device and has no bearingon the letter-formsof
inscriptions. In inscriptions A is not found at Pergamonbefore the reign of
EumenesL Seethe remarksof C. Paepcke,de Pergamenorumlitteratura (1906\,
9 - 1 0 ;H o l l e a u x , E t u d e s , i i . 7 6 , n . 3 ; a n d o n t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s a t t a c h e d t o t h i s l e t t e r i n
the Hellenistic period, P. M. Fraser and T. Rönne, Boeotian and West Greek
Tombstones(Lund, 1957),82-4. SeealsoBonn and Schuchhardt,Altertümervon
Aigai, JDAI Ergönzungsheft,ii (1889),64.
30oGIS 312.
31G. E. Bean,Belleten,xxx ( 1966),525-8;J. and L. Robert,Bull. 1968,no. 446.
18 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
Pergamon.32 The text is a reply to a decree of Smyrna which
honouredthree Temnitansfor rescuingsomecitizens of Smyrna
from brigands. The decreereflects a more than casualconnection
betweenthe two cities, a fact of significancein that Smyrna was at
that time a Seleukidcity .33The evidencefor Aigai is morepositive,
andwe seethat this city remainedSeleukidat leastuntil the time of
EumenesI of Pergamon,and probablylater. This is clearly shown
by its coinage, which was Seleukid under Antiochos II (i.e.
261-246),34and by a group of stonesfixing the boundary between
Aigai and Myrina; two from the mountain country north-west of
Manisa, inscribed öpot Aiya6an,3s and a third, more recently
discovered, recording the actual settlement:36ouwd$avltog
'Ane)'-
6aoü.60ryI'Avröpu öqor.lrrlEAiyatöoE loi re06vregü[nö
)"6ouElrcü Mryqoööllpoul. The lettering indicatesa date in the
middle of the third century nc, and the king is therefore most
probably Antiochos [I; and sincethe formula used in the inscrip-
tion denotesa settlementimposed by a suzerainrather than an
arbitration,3TSeleukidauthority over this city is clearly indicated.
It is possiblethat EumenesI acquiredsuzeraintyover Aigai and
Temnos later in his reign, as he did earlier over Pitane (to be
discussedbelow),but the first tangibleevidenceof a morepositive
Pergamenecontrol in this areadatesfrom the reignof Attalos I, as
we will see in the next chapter. In any event, when Philetairos
dedicated land to Apollo, the city of Aigai was firmly under
Seleukidcontrol, and Philetairos'contact in this areais thus seen
32L. Robert,Et. anat. XJ-6.
33L. Robert,REÄ xxxviii ( I 936), 2!-E; Et. anat. 92.On the Antiocheiain honour
ofAntiochos II, and other Seleukidcults at Smyrna,seeHabicht,Gottmenschen-
tum, 99-102: W. Orth, Königlicher Machtanspruch und städtischeFreiheit (Mün-
chenerBeiträgezur Papyrusforschung undantikenRechtsgeschichte, Tl, Munich,
1977),163-4.StV äi. 492(cf. above,n. 14)recordsthe confirmationby SeleukosII
of the city's adrcvopia xo,iöqpoxpatia, which were therefore alreadyguaranteed
by AntiochosII. We alsoknow that the city's coinagewasindependentin the third
century:J. G. Milne, Num. Chron. iii (1923),I ff.; A. Heuss,^Sradt und Herrscher
des Hellenismus(KIio, Beiheft xxxix (1937)),t97.
3aE. T. Newell, TheCoinageof the WesternSeleucidMints (AmericanNumis-
matic Society,Numismatic Studies,iv, l94l), 306 ff.
35J. Keil and A. von Premerstein, BerichtübereineReisein Lydien, nos.204-5.
16P. Herrmann,Denkschr.Wien.Akad. lxxvii I (1959;,4-6, no. 2.
37As noted by J. and L. Robert,Bull. 1960,no. 340.
Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 19
to exlude any kind of direct authority. The same is true of his
relationswith Pitane,a city on the coast of the Elaitic Gulf to the
south-westof Pergamon,as is shownby a Pergamene documentof
a laterdate,which recordsthe settlementof a land disputebetween
Pitane and Mytilene.3s This document refers to donations of
Philetairos to Pitane, which enabled the city to purchase an
amount of land (the land later in dispute)from Antiochos I; the
amount of the donationhas not survivedin the text (lines 135-6):
ööwoE [eiElaüra llrcavaioegxai QÄeraipou r[d).avra - - - - - ]l
xovra. It is clear, once more, that Antiochos was the city's
suzerain,and Philetairosits benefactor.We have then another
exampleof Philetairosextendinghis influence, by financialmeans,
in the directionof citieswhich remainedunder Seleukidauthority,
and this evidencefits well with Strabo'sdescriptionof Philetairos'
authority and its implied limits: öLer6).eoe . . . xüprcE öv to6
gqouqiou xs.i rritv yqrlpdtatv.
Philetairos,then, basedhis influenceon threefactors:the influ-
ence alreadyenjoyedby the city of Pergamonin connectionwith
the nearbycult of Meter; his Seleukidpatronage,wherebyhe was
ableto enjoy closercontactswith Seleukidcities; and his financial
independence , which enabledhim to exploit theseadvantages.It is
worth noting that in respectof Philetairos'generosityto indepen-
dentcities and cult centres,the samepolicy can be ascribed,as far
asthe limited evidenceallows, to the PhrygianPhilomeliddynasty
mentioned earlier. This dynasty, which evidently retained the
semi-independentand undefined position in relation to the
Seleukidsthat we can reasonablyattributeto Philetairos,without,
however, achieving the status of a kingdom, is known to have
developedthe friendship of important religiouscentres,such as
Delphi and Didyma. The Philomeliddynastycan,like the Attalid,
be traced back to the early third century sc, although we have no
3E/GxiiSuppl.p.48,no.l42(IvP245,OGIS335)incorporatingsuggestionsofL'
Rob€rt,tCH xlix (1925),219-21;BCH l(1926),469,n. | (SEGiv. 680);REÄxxxvi
(1934),58; Et. anat. ll4, n. l. A new editionof this text is promisedby Robertin
Villes, 413, n. l. On the topographyinvolved in the dispute, see Meyer, Die
Grenzen, lO6-7.
20 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
direct record of its foundation.3e If we knew more about such
dynasties in Asia Minor, we would probably find other features
reminiscentof the policies of the early Attalids.
Philetairos was, as Strabo says, master of Pergamonand its
wealth, but he acquiredno further measureof direct authority from
his Seleukid suzerains.We therefore cannot expect to define an
area of Pergameneauthority under his rule, since such a concept
would be meaningless.The position changesentirely in this re-
spect,however,under his successor,EumenesI. Eumenes,as we
know from Strabo(xiii. 4. 2,624), met and defeatedAntiochosI in
a battle near Sardis:aoöoneq xai örcö4f,arcrö ll6pyapov, xo.i fiv
ijö4 öuvdorrlg röv xüxLE yogiav, öme xo.inegi 2dpöe6 övixqoe
pdyrl oup6a)'öv 'Avrioyov röv Ze)'eüxou.Several points emerge
clearly from this statement:firstly, Eumenesis called'dynast of
the surrounding country' whereas Philetairos had been simply
'masterof Pergamonand its wealth'; secondly,this position
was
achievedbefore the battle, since Strabo statesclearly that it was a
factor which led to the battle: rt, iiöq öuväoqE. . . ritorc. . . . On
the other hand, Strabo does not allude to or imply an increasein
territory achievedby Eumenes;this is consistentwith the picture
we have drawn of the nature of Philetairos' position at Pergamon.
It is not to the extent of Eumenes' authority, as comparedwith
Philetairos',that Straborefersin this passage,but to the natureof
this authority. Where Philetairos had exercised an influence,
Eumenesclaimeda definitedynasteia.Sincethe battlewas fought
between263,the year of Eumenes'accession,and 261,theyear of
3eThe chronologyandgenealogyofthe Philomeliddynastywereclarifiedby Ad.
Wilhelm,NeaeBeiträgezurgriech. Inschriftenkunde(SBWien
clxvi(l9ll), I. ll,
48-63). See also the important additionalconclusionsof Holleaux, Etudes, üi,
357-63(fromREA l9l5\; Robert,Villes, 156,n. 2; Bengtson,Strat. ä.5-6, and his
remarksinDie Inschr. von Labranda (SBMünchen, 1971,3),14-16.Donationsat
Delphi:SGD.I2716(242sc);at Didyma:A. Rehm,Didyma,ä.272,no.458(second
centuryrc). At Ddyma, a Philomelosgavetenpairsof mulesandfive driversto the
temple.This remindsus of a gift of Attalos (probablyII) to the templeof Athenain
Ilion (L. Robert,BCH liv (1930),348-51;Welles,RC 62).
aoIvP 15is possiblyan epigramcelebratingthis victory: Beloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.2
l . 5 9 3 ,n . 4 ; M a g i e R
, o m a nR u l e ,ü . 7 3 3 , n . 1 6 .
Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 2l
the death of his opponent,4rthis claim must have been madeat the
very beginning of Eumenes' reign, which is also the natural place
to put it. Some indications of the significanceand implications of
this changeofauthority can be deducedfrom other evidence.
Of first importance in this regard is the inscription already men-
tioned, relating to the land dispute between Pitane and Mytilene
Here, as we have seen,Philetairos is shown to be an independent
benefactor to Pitane, while the city remained under Seleukid au-
thority; under Eumenes,however,this authorityin itself passedto
the dynast, as is clear from the statementin the text (lines l4l-21:az
fx]ai ög Eöp4vryEnapd"a6dv rd nqäy[pata napäEefi,eüxou löy-
Qdqev ölnntollv ntpöS I lltlta.vaiouE xrA. This assumption of
direct authority by Eumenesis to be dated most plausibly early in
his reign,beforethe accessionof AntiochosII, to whom thereis no
referencein the documentamongthe line of successivesuzerains
at Pitane; the suzerainty therefore passed directly to Eumenes.
This evidence adds meaning to the statement of Strabo, that
Eumeneswas 'dynast of the surroundingcountry'; he was in this
respect suzerainof Pitane. In view of the chronological indications
already argued, it is most probable that Eumenesacquired, or
more probably usurped authority over Pitane before the battle at
Sardis,as one aspectof his aspirationtodynasteia. Anacquisition
of new territory would perhaps be more understandableafter the
defeat of Antiochos, but such acquisition does not come into
question here;a3a declaration of independentauthority, with
at The deathof AntiochosI is datedin the BabylonianKingJist publishedby A. J.
Sachsand D. J. Wiseman,Iraq, xvi (1954),206,to year 5l (Seleukidera),(month)
II, (day) f 6, namelyJune lst or 2nd,26l nc. Cf. R. A. Parkerand W. H. Dubber-
stein,BabylonianChronology626B. C. - A. D.75, Brown UniversityStudies,vol.
xix (hovidence,R.I., 1956),21.
a2I give the restorationsofL. Robert,as followedin/G xii Suppl.p. 48,no. 142
(seeabove, n. 38).
a3The attempt has too often beenmadeto seean increasein Pergameneterritory,
implying an existing Pergameneauthority under Philetairos,as a result ofthe battle
at Sardis;e.g. Meyer, Die Grenzen,98,speaksof 'diesergrossel-andgewinn'.It
wasa'Landgewinn',in my view, only in the sensethat Philetairoshadhadno direct
authorityin the area.It was,as I havestressed,the natureandnot the extentofthe
authoritythat changedwith EumenesI. This doesnot meanthat Eumenes'claim
was necessarily implemented fully and immediately: we see Myrina, which lay
within the area embracedby Philetaireia and Attaleia and the öpot [Iepyap4vöv,
remainingunder Seleukidauthority until later. On Gryneion,seebelow, n: 52.
22 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
which we are concerned, is a tangible motive for the battle.
A few words need to be said at this point on the position of
Eumenes in relation to Antiochos' opponents, especially Pto-
lemy II of Egypt, in the so-calledSecondSyrian War.aaIt is not
known whether Eumenes had any contact with these other
enemiesof Antiochos. It has been supposed(one can hardly say
argued) that in opposing Antiochos Eumeneswas acting in collu-
sion with, or even in alliance with Ptolemy, enabling the latter to
pursuemoreeasilythe warat sea,and to makea numberof specific
gains, including Ephesos,which was evidently under Ptolemaic
For this suppositionthereis not a
control for a while in the 250s.as
shred of evidence. direct or otherwise. The fact that Eumenes
establishedcontactswith Delos doesnot meanthat he was bound
to follow Ptolemaicpolicy, and still less that he was Rolemy's
formal ally.a6It is possiblethat Eumeneswas shrewd enoughto
take accountof the threat to Antiochos in Koile Syria in making his
own attack,andthat his successat Sardisin turn providedRolemy
with an opportunity for more vigorous action against Antiochos'
successor,Antiochos II, but more specific co-operationis not
attested.
It is more likely, as we have seen, that Eumenes took the
opportunity affordedby his own accession,that is, the changeof
rule he represented at Pergamon, to press more strongly than
Philetairoshad done a claim to an independentdynasteia-This
aaSee,in general,Will, Ilisl. pol. i. 208-ll.
a5Beloch,Gr. Gesch. iv.2 l. 593,n. 4; Cardinali,RP I 3-14; Crampa,Labraunda,
iii. l. l13-20; Magie,Roman Rule, ü.733, n. 16, rightly points out the lack of
conclusiveevidence.
45It is most likely, and significant, that EumenesI was responsiblefor the first
official contact of the dynasty with Delos. The first vase for a Philetaireiafestival
wasdedicatedin262(Ziebarth,Hermes,lii (1917),427,n.4;IG xi.2.224A,4),and
Eumenes'statue (1G xi. 4. ll07, = Durrbach, Cftoir, 33)is the earliest known ofan
Attalid on the island; the base celebrating a victory of Philetairos was almost
certainly inscribed during the reign of Attalos I, as I suggestbelow, 3l n. 8. The
developmentofthese contacts, which naturally had a considerableprestigevalue,
was probably first and foremost an expressionof Eumenes'inderyndentdynasteia,
and though doubtlesscarried through with Egypt's approval, does not imply that
Eumeneswas that country's vassal.
For the view that the battle at Sardis was decisive to the outbreak ofthe Syrian
War, see,besidesBeloch(citedin n. 45),W. W. Tarn,ÄzrrgonosGonatas(Oxford,
l9l3), 314.The accessionto the Seleukidthrone ofthe young Antiochos II was
perhapsa strongerreasonforftolemy's advance;cf. Will, Hist. pol. i.208.
Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 23
attitude is probably reflected also in a Pergameneinscription re-
cordinga settlementbetweenEumenesand groupsof mercenaries
settled at Philetaireia and Attaleia, who had recently been in re-
volt.47Attaleia was situatedin Lydia, north-eastof Thyateiraand
some35 kilometreseastof Pergamon;aE the positionof Philetaireia
hasnot beenexactly located,but itsdesignationin the documentin
question as being önö rlv "Iöryv placesit somewhat north of the
AdramytteneGulf, in the south-eastof the Troad.aeIn this treaty,
a7IvP 13,with addenda,IvP i. p. xix, ii. p. 507,= OGIS 266;StV iii. 4El, with
bibliography, p. 149.
48G. Radet,BCH xi (1887),168;Cardinali,RP 14,n. 6; L. Robert, Rev.
Arch.
1934,9O-2: Villes, l0l-2.
aeThe namePhiletaireiais to be found in two other Pergameneinscriptions.
One,
a dedication, refers to a Eumeneion (/vP 24(),with addenda,/vp ii. p. 509, = OG/S
336):lrcynqg 'Entx),6ou9,,
lxaraota9eiE npög qt tnrpü,eiar xailgü,axqr uiv iv
<btletatpeiarrcqdw xai nü.6l lxai ün nepiö Eöpfuenv tep6v, ttu örjpox. This
Philetaireiahas been identified with the oneönö d1v'Iöqv mentionedin the treaty
with Eumenes,with the conclusion that Eumeneswas recognizedasxrimqg there
(cf. Cardinali,RP 14, n. 8; Meyer, Die Grenzen,gg). The secondinscriptionis a
decreehonouring the gymnasiarchDiodoros Pasparos,passedin the period ofthe
Mithridaticwars (ÄM xxxii (1907),24t,no.4;IGR iv. 292;Robert,Et. anat.45-50;
on the chronology, C. P. Jones, Chiron, iv (1974), l9l ff.); this included the
provision (lines ,l(}-3): dyeivat öö laircü xai üpevoE iu <Drl,etaqeiar,övopd.oav-
rtg ltoödt<öa>eenv, tv tltt xataoxeuao|[fival I vaöv ),flilou] ).euxoö, eiE6v
dvarc9fivat rö äyd"pa. tv fi ö' äv tlp6par. yivqtar rl xa0r,6plao6l I airyü
o[taLfitlar nopdlv tx rcü nputavciou eigtö üpevoE aöto6 xil". The provision for
the procession presupposesthat the temenos, and therefore the place called
Philetaireia,where it was to be dedicated,were in Pergamonitself or nearby.As the
first editor ofthe inscription observed, this Philetaireiacan hardly have been the
one designatedönö d1t'Iö4v, sincethe latter was a good two days from Pergamon
(H. Hepding,ÄM xxxii (1907),254-5;cf. L. Roberr,REÄxxxvi (1934),524;Avpix.
89-90). The procedurelaid down in the decreefor Diodoros makesit clear that the
Philetaireiaconcernedwas closeto Pergamon,althoughthe conclusionthat it was a
part of the city, designatingthe old city of Philetairosas distinct from the city built
by Eumenesll (cf . AvP ix. 90), is unlikely, since the use of a dynastic namein this
form of a part of a city is extremely rare, though not entirely unparalleled(cf. the
quarter namedAl4drianosaddedto the city ofAlexandriaby Hadrian: p. M. Fraser,
./EÄ xxxvii (1951),105;PtolemaicAlexandria, (Oxford, 1972),35).Itseemsmore
likely that this Philetaireia was situated in the immediate vicinity of pergamon.
From this probability we may draw two conclusions:(l) that the philetaireiaof the
treaty with the mercenarieswas called rizö d1t'Iö4v to distinguishit from the one
closer to Pergamon (and possibly others of the name); (2) that the Eumeneion
attestedis to be located in the latter place.Thus the conclusionthat EumenesI was
recognizedasztior1g ofPhiletureiaünö d1v'Iö7r cannotbe maintained,and there
is no reason, on this evidence, to assign the completion of the building at
Philetaireiaand Attaleia to the rule of EumenesI rather than to that of philetairos.
24 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
referenceis made to a grant of immunity dated by a Seleukidyear
(linesl0-l l):fi &r6).en. . . ft örrötrcrdpruxxaircooapalcooröt
ötet, i.e.269l8.soSuch an exact designationby a Seleukidyear'
even as a matter of convenience, is hardly accountable after the
break with the Seleukidsat Sardis. This indication is confirmed by
Eumenes'coinage,on which the head of Seleukosis replacedby
that of Philetairos, and the legend<DIAETAIPOY, achangewhich
points to the recognition of a new era, most probably as a result of
the issue at Sardis.st If, as is most likely, the construction of
Philetaireiaand Attaleia was completedbefore the battle at Sardis,
namely before 261 at the latest, their inauguration must be ac-
countedthe work of Philetairos,not of Eumenes.Whether,in this
case,the work was begunwith Seleukidapproval,and whether it
was completedalreadyunder Philetairos,cannot be determined.
In any event, argumentsput forward for a later date for the revolt
of the mercenaries,includingthe late 250s,are not convincing.52It
should be mentioned that the positions at Philetaireiaand Attaleia
soThat this was the seleukid era was rightly argued by Dittenberger, ad loc.
5l F. Imhoof-Blumer, Die Münzen. The attempt of H. Gäbler, Erythrai (Ber|in,
lgg2), 5 l-3, to date the beginningof this coinage to the reign of Attalos I, though
followedamongothersby u. wilcken,RE, s.v. Attalos(9),2159,wasrefutedby A.
J.B.Wace.JI/Sxxv(1905),99-100,andbyH.vonFritze'DieMünzenvon
Pergamon;cf. U. Westermark,Das Bildnis, 12-13'
5j For a later date seeMeyer, D ie Grenzen,gT-9. It is argued,firstly, that sincea
copy of the treaty was to be setup in the templeof Apollo in Gryneion, this city must
haui beenin Eumenes'possession. This conclusionis unacceptable,however,in
view of the fact that the treaty of oupnolne ia between Smyrna and Magnesiaad
Sipylum, from 243 or 242(StV äi. 492;cf. above' n. 14), was also to be set up in
Giyneion (line 85),as rightly noted by Schmitt (StV üi,p. 149).Furthermore, copies
of Eumenes'treaty were alsoto be erectedon Delosand in the temple of Asklepios
at Mytilene, neithär of which belongedto him. It is surely clear that the three places
desiinated were sanctuariesofinternatiQnal status,which would give the treaties
erecied there additional force. The second argument for a later date is that the
treaty, which attestsEumenes'possessionof territory extendingto Philetaireiaand
Attaieia, must be dated later than Eumenes' acquisition of Myrina, which lay
betweenthem and Pergamon,and Myrina, as we have seen, remaineda Seleukid
city under Antiochos II. This argumentignoresthe more likely possibility, already
argued(cf. n. 43), that Eumenes'claim to direct authority within the areaenclosed
by the military settlementsat Philetaireiaand Attaleia, was not immediately and
wholly realized. In view of the Seleukids' opposition to Eumenes' independent
authoiity, as expressedat Sardis, and later, it is not surprising that some cities
remainei under Seleukidauthority, despiteEumenes'claim, until a later date' This
obviously doesnot meanthat Eumenes'acquisitionofdirect authority in the areaas
a whole, as reflected in the trgaty with the mercenaries,should be dated later.
Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI 25
cannot necessarily be regarded as definite frontier fortifications,
since the location of Attaleia, at least, did not lend itself to this
function.s3The treaty with the mercenariesdoes,however, add a
further indication of the status of Eumenes'dynasteia;it shows
that he had large groups of mercenariesin his own pay, and that he
personally,not the Seleukids,administeredthe territory in which
they were settled.
The geographicallimits of the independentrule establishedby
Eumenescan only be approximatelyestablished.sa The literary
evidence,that of Polybios and Strabo, refers to the kingdom of
Pergamon before the Peace of Apameia as being confined to a
smallareain Mysia around Pergamon.Polybios,in his admiration
of the achievementof Eumenes[I, makeswhat is clearly a simple
contrast between the size of the kingdom after Apameia, and that
immediately before, that is, during the final years of the reign of
Attalos t and the early yearsof his successor's(xxxii.8. 3): öEyt
npörov pöv napa)'a6öv napd. rcü narqög i1v 6aoü"eiay ouveo-
ra).pivr1v u).6a9 üE ü"iya xai )"nd. no)rnpdtn raiE peytmatE
töv xa9' aöröv öuvamuöv ögd.pt)J"ovönotqot rlv iöiau dpXür.
The samedistinctionis valid at xxiii. ll.7: naqa).a6övteE o6rct
(EumenesIl and Attalos Il) ptmpdvapXüv.This evidencethere-
fore cannot be applied to the situation prior to the reign of Attalos
L The distinction made by Strabo, however, in referring to the
Roman settl:ment, seemsto be of a wider application(xäi. 4. 2,
624):npörcpn ö'i1v ü. nepi ll4pyapov oö nd.).d.yapfu ptyq qE
'E).afur1v 'Aöqapun1vöv.
9aAd.nr1Erfi; xard röv xö).nortxai töv
This designation is more arguably relevant also to the rule of
EumenesI and Attalos I. In the caseof Eumenes.confirmationof
the validity of this inferencecan be adduced.A boundaryinscrip-
tion (ögor Ilqyaprlvör,) from Ketschi-Agyl, 2 kilometressouth-
eastof Cape Hydra at the southernextremity of the Elaitic Gulf,
must be dated, according to the highly characteristic letter-forms,
to the middle of the third century Bc, and it is therefore attributable
to the reignof EumenesI.s5The military settlementsat Philetaireia
53L. Robert, Rev.Arch. l%4, 9o-2.
saCf. Meyer, Die Grenzen,9'7-102,with the reservationsexpressedabove,nn.
43 and 52.
ssD. Baltazzi,BC.FIv (1881),283;more fully publishedinAvP l. l. 95-6.
26 Pergamon under Philetairos and EumenesI
and Attaleia were also within Eumenes' teritory, although, as has
been said, they probably did not mark its boundaries.It is unlikely,
however, that Eumenes'territory extendedeastwardmuch further
than Attaleia, since Thyateira and Nakrasa remained Seleukid
until a later date.s6To the south, the area of Aigai and Temnos is
not specifically attested as being under Attalid control until the
reign of Attalos I, although it is just possiblethat Attalos acquired
it from Eumenes. In general,however, Strabo's description of the
size of the kingdom before the Peaceof Apameia can be said to
apply to the rule of Eumenes I.
It is probable, therefore, as Strabo indicates, that the Elaitic
Gulf, and with it the port of Elaia itself, belongedto the Pergamene
sphere of influence from an early date. During the reign of An-
tiochos I, however, Elaia seemsto have beeneither independent
or at leastnot Attalid, as is shown by the evidenceof a land dispute
involving the city;s7 it must therefore have been acquired for the
first time by EumenesI, and we may reasonablyconclude that he
did so at about the sametime as his acquisition of nearby Pitane,
andin the samecircumstances,that is, aspart of the positivepolicy
undertaken early in his reign.
We will seein the next chapter that a Pergamenefleet is attested
for the first time during the First MacedonianWar, but we have no
direct evidenceas to its origins.5E A questionwe would very much
like to answer, but at present cannot, is the extent to which this
fleet was alreadydevelopedunder EumenesI. There can be little
doubt that with the acquisitionof Elaia Eumeneswill have taken
the opportunitythus providedofstrengtheningby seathe contacts
with Kyzikos and the Black Seaareawhich had beenformed by his
predecessor.It is highly likely, then, that the fleet was built up
from this date, and was developed over the years to the point
where, at the end of the third century, it played a role in Aegean
warfare and is first noticed by ourliterary sources.The importance
of Eumenes'acquisitionof Elaia can hardly be overstressedas an
important factor in the developmentof the Attalid Kingdom. It
remainedthe chief port of the Attalids at leastuntil Ephesoswas
given to them in 188.
56Seebelow. 43-4. 106.
s7OGIS 335,: IG xii Suppl. l42t 144.Cf. Magie,Äoman Rule, ii. 734,n. 18.
58Seebelow. 68-9.
3
THE REIGN OF ATTALOS I
EumenesI died in 241, and was succeededby his cousin (once
removed) and adoptedson, Attalos I.t During Attalos' reign we
see a development of Pergamene authority in three important
respects:Attalos' assumptionof the royal title; the emergenceof
the military and diplomatic power of the king; and a corresponding
attempt to expand the area of Attalid influence. We seeoverall the
foundation of more concentrated administrative institutions.
which remainedthe guiding principles of Attalid rule even after the
transformationof the kingdom in 188.From the literary sources,
and of these especiallyPolybios,2Attalos I emergesas the most
able of the Attalids in nearly every respect: militarily he was the
most energetic,and he was clearly responsiblefor the foundation
of the military power of Pergamon,both on land and sea,a power
which remaineda factor of importanceto the Attalids in addition to
the support which they later hoped, not always with success,to
receive from Rome; in the field of diplomacy he had not perhaps
the sharpcunningand subtleduplicity to be displayedlater by his
son, EumenesII, but his greatestachievementmust be reckoned
to be his serviceto the alliancewith Rome, and the greatadvance
of the international renown enjoyed by Pergamonas a result of this
alliance.That Attalos failedultimatelyto establisha lastinghold on
the greatly increasedkingdom that seemedwithin his grasp is a
measurepartly of his own evidently limited intentions,and partly
of the ability of his rivals to power in Asia Minor, especiallythe
SeleukidAntiochos III. In contrast with the achievementof his
successor,one important point needs finally to be made: that
whereasEumenesacquired an empire determinedby and at the
disposalof the Roman Senate,Attalos' achievementwas entirely
t On thedate,seeabove,l0-l l. On the adoption,Ä M xxxv ( I 9 l0), 463-5,no. 45:
Eipfv4E <Dü,eraipottl"AttaTov töv uiöv. See Appendix i.
2Seeespeciallyxviii. 41.

28 The Reign of Attalos I
his own, and in his dealingswith Romehe consistentlymaintained
the right to an independentpolicy.
The reign of Attalos I is best discussedin two parts: firstly the
yearsof almostcontinuouswarfarein Asia Minor, endingwith the
agreementwith Antiochos III; and secondlythe final yearsof the
reign when Attalos was the ally of Rome.
(i) Attalos and Asia Minor, 241-216
In assessing the first part of the reignof Attalos I, we arefacedwith
a numberof difficulties.The most basicof theseis the fact that our
knowledge of the details, in terms of topography and chronology,
of the military campaignsof the years24l-216, on which Attalos'
extendedauthority was ultimatelybased,is for the most part, with
a significant exception (the campaignof 218, discussedbelow)
extremely sketchy, consistingof facts without the meansfully to
evaluatetheir significance.This is true of the eventsof the 230sand
220s,whose chronologyis obscurein the extreme, while for the
years218-202we sufferan almosttotal lack of evidencerelatingto
Attalos' position in Asia Minor, in particular in relation to the
Seleukid position. Secondly, the evidence that we do have is
almost exclusively concernedwith the military facts, and the in-
sight that we are afforded into the nature of Attalos' attempts at
consolidation,in terms of administrativeinstitutions, is corres-
pondinglylimited. The relevantepigraphicalevidence,consisting
mainly of the inscriptions to the victory monuments set up by
Attalos in the sanctuaryof Athena in Pergamon,similarly dwells
on the military aspectof the situation,recordingvictories,or what
Attalos regardedas victories,3and no more. This is not however
I One of the small bases dating from the restoration of the precinct of Athena
under EumenesII commemoratesa victory in the naval battle off Chios fought in
201 QvP 52, as restored by Holleaux, Etudes, ü. 43-9, : OGIS 2E3):lBao.leüEl
"Ar[tü,oE 'A9qvdl Ntxfryqöptu dlnö tl1E npöE @Amnov| xai
| /ü] xali | |
Maxelöivag nepi Xtovllvaup[a1iaEl. (On the date of the inscription, see Kähler,
Gr. Fries, 187,n. 43.)Polybios'accountof the battle,however,showsthat Attalos'
part in it was hardly distinguished (xvi. 2-E, especially 6, Attalos' escape to
Erythrai). We therefore have to reckon with a certain propa.gandaelement in at
least some of the monuments erected to commemoratevictories claimed by At-
talos, a considerationof importance,as we will see,in assessingthe role played by
the Galatians as Attalos' opponents. The Eumenid restoration of the precinct of
Athena is more fully discussedin c!. 4 (iii).
Attalos and Asia Minor 29
the place to enter into a discussion,which must necessarilybe
lengthy, of the relationshipbetweenthe literary and epigraphical
evidencefor the involved and much disputed chronologyof the
230sand 220s:this is done in Appendix ii; here I state only the
conclusionsreached,in order to procöeddirectly to an evaluation
of their significance.
The successiveopponentsof Attalos I in the years24l-216were
the Galatians,Antiochos Hierax (in whose army Galatiansapp-
earedasafliesor, moreprobably,asmercenaries),4 thestrategoiof
SeleukosIII Soter, and Achaios. Naturally the motives of these
enemiesin opposingAttalos were various. To the GalatiansAt-
talosstoodin the way of their obtainingplunderfrom the rich lands
in the neighbourhoodof Pergamon;he had, furthermore,refused
to pay the tribute periodicallypaid to the Galatiansby the dynasts
of Asia Minor to securefreedomfrom attack (seebelow), and he
had perhaps encouragedthe Greek cities to do the same.sThe
a It is not always clear from the evidence whether the Galatianswere fighting as
allies or as mercenaries of the kings, but their appearancealongside different
enemiesof Attalos suggeststhe latter. Launey's argument@,echerches, i. 505-6;
cf. Cardinali. RP 32i that since Attalos names the Galatians before Antiochos
Hierax in his victory monuments,they were his principal opponents,and not
simplythe mercenariesof Hierax, is not convincing;thisprecedencewas probably
due as much to the propagandavalue to Attalos of emphasizingthis aspectof his
victories (on which his claim to the royal title was based)as to the relative strength
and importance of his opponents, and this consideration applies equally to the
monument set up after the death ofHierax by the soldiers who had served under
EpigenesQvP 29, = OGIS 280; cf. Kähler, Gr. Fries, lE5, n. 18, and below,
Appendixii).
5 A decree of Erythrai honouring its board of strategoi, probably passedin the
early 270s,before the Galatian victory of Antiochos l, shows that the cities as well
asthe dynastspaid tribute.directly to the Galatians(Sy//.r 410, = H. Engelmannanc
R. Merkelbach,DieInschr.von Erythrai u. KlazomenaiQnschr.giech. Städteaus
Kleinasien, l, 1972),no. 24. 10-15):nolT).6n öt Eöll6at xai xwöüvav ncpu
ovdytav xai öanyiv4E oöo4Eapögl I eiqiqv oöx ü.iyqE iv änaor,vörcflfipqocv
ü1v nö1\/w xai rlv göpav dxöpatov, tnrycl19tvlrtg pöv tfi; t6,rvgp4llyätav
wvayayfig rc xai dnootlolfig rctg nepi Aeovllvögrcv 6ap66potg ö.ouveü.farc f1
nfür6l xilt. This payment seemsto have been made on a direct basis, as distinct
from the l-a,lazmd attestedin the context of a remission by a Seleukid king, most
probablyAntiochosI (cf. Habicht,Gottmenschentum,96-9; M. Wönle,Chiron, v
(1975),70: W. Orth, Königlicher Machtanspruch,76 fr.) in a letter to Erythrai
(Welles,RC 15(datedto AntiochosII by Welles): Inschr. von Erythrai etc., no.
3I ), 26-8: xai dqopolf,oylritoug civat ouyTapoüpevtöy re äAAay ändwov xai I
[röv cigl td fal.atmd ovvayoptvov. It is in any event quite clear that a city's
financial obligations in this respect could be extremely severe.
30 The Reign of Axalos I
Seleukid kings, SeleukosII, SeleukosIII, and for a time also
Antiochos [II, were naturally opposedto Attalos' increasinghis
dynasteia in Asia Minor at their expense, as were Antiochos
Hierax and Achaios, nominally as officials in the service of the
Seleukids,but each acting eventually in his own interest with a
view to establishinga kingdom in Asia Minor independentof
Pergamonand of the Seleukid king he originally served. As far as
Attalos was concerned,however, all these opponentssharedan
interestin limiting his authority, and we will seethat this part of his
reign was entirely committed to defending this authority. His
victoriesover his opponentsled, in the caseof the Galatiansto his
assumptionof the royal title, and in the case of the Seleukids
(including Antiochos Hierax and Achaios) to a temporary military
predominancein parts of Asia Minor, especiallyin Hellespontine
Phrygia,Lydia, and Caria.The most importantpoint of discussion
in this connection,to be taken up in this chapter,is the extent to
which, and manner in which, Attalos was able to exploit this
military predominancein terms of the possibleextensionof his
authority in the areasconcerned.6
A distinctionmust first be madebetweenthe independentaction
of the Galatians in their plundering activities in western Asia
Minor, which threatenedthe Greek cities over which Attalos
claimedauthority, or to whom he offered protection,and the part
they played in opposition to Attalos as mercenariesin the service
of Antiochos Hierax.? We know from Polybios, through Livy
(xxxviii. 16.14),that Attalos refusedto pay the Galatiansthe usual
5 Important contributions to an understandingof the chronology of the 230sand
220s are those of Beloch, Hist. Zeitschr. lx (1E88), 499-_512:.
Berytus, vni (944),76-8. For a good discussionfrom the Pergamenepoint of view,
s e e K ä h l e r , G r . F r i e sl 8, l , n . l l ; c f . m o r e r e c e n t l y , I . C r a m p a , L a b r a u n d a , ä i . 1 .
123-31. Of great importance is the evidence of friendship between Antiochos
Hierax and SeleukosKallinikos in the spring of 236,when the two brothers madea
joint dedication of land to the city of Babylon (see Bickermann' loc. cit.); thus
Beloch seemsto me to have beencorrect in dating the outbreak ofthe war and the
battle at Ankyra not earlier than 236 (cf. also his Gr. Gesc&. iv.2 2- 543).
? Cf. A. Ferrabino,ÄttiAccad. Torino, xlviii (1912-13),233-44;Magie,Roman
Rule,ä. 7 34,n. 20.The view of Beloch(Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2. 546)andCardinali(RP
23-34) that the great Galatian victory was simply a part of Attalos' war with the
Galatiansand Hierax, does not not seemto me to fit with the evidence,as I explain
below, 33.
Attalos and Asia Minor 3l
tribute, and that he was the first of the dynaststo do so;Ewe know
from Polybios directly, as well as from later sources,that he
defeatedthe Galatiansin a greatbattle in Mysia, and that as a result
of his victory he took the royal title.eThesetwo events,the refusal
to pay tribute and the battle in Mysia, must clearly be associated
. with one another, and the two together must further be associated
with the independentmaraudingactivities of the Galatians,and not
with their role as mercenariesof Hierax, since,in this latter role,
payment of tribute to secure freedom of attack would not come
into question.Thus Attalos' Galatianvictory is not to be regarded
as simply a part of his war with Hierax, a view against which the
literary tradition is also to my mind decisive (see below). This
conclusion is confirmed by Attalos' dedicationto Athena for a
victory won over the TolistoagianGalatiansat the sourcesof the
river Kaikos. The victory was commemoratedtogetherwith At-
talos' later victoriesin the seriesof dedicationswhich makeup the
so-called 'longbathron' (IvP 2l-8; OGIS 273-9), and also in an
entirely separatemonument, unique among the victory monu-
ments of Attalos I and surely designedfor erection in a prominent
position in the precinctof Athena in Pergamon,inscribed(vP 20,
: OGIS 269)fBaoütüg"Awa)og vmfioagpdlgqt Td.rctfoayioug
fdd.ralg n[egi nqydd Katx[ou nora.poü, yalp{oflrilpr,ov
'A|l4tva]
This victory was the most lavishly celebratedof the
successesof Attalos I, and was evidently regardedby him as the
most important; it is for this reason the one most probably to be
identifiedwith the victory 'in Mysia' (seen. 9) which led to Attalos'
EPimus Asiam incolentium abnuit Attalus, pater regis Eumenis. An epigram
inscribed on a base at Delos (IG xi. 4. I 105, = Durrbach, Choix, 3l) celebratesa
E. Bickermann'
victory won by a Philetairosover Galatians.Sincethe letters are clearly ofthe late
third century sc (seeDurrbach, ad loc.), we may discountthe son ofAttalos I asthe
victor, and are left with Philetairos the Founder. Since the inscription was almost
certainly made, on this criterion, duringthe reigrrof Attalos I, it is very likely, in my
view, that the base was erected on Delos by Attalos at the time of his similar
resistanceto th€ Galatians.Philetairos,despitehis victory, seems,like Antiochos I,
to have continued the payment oftribute, a policy which is in accordancewith the
ad hoc natu'reof the tribute as argued in the text.
ePolyb. xviii.4l.7-8; Straboxäi. 4.2,624. Pausanias i.25.2, referringto
monuments set up by Attalos on the Athenian Acropolis, refers to one com-
memorating a battle 'in Mysia': xai laldrav tlv tv Muoiq g0opdv d.v604xev
"Ana).og
öoov rc öüo ntyöv Examov. See further, Appendix ii.
32 The Reign of Attalos I Attalos and Asia Minor 33

assumptionof the royal title (Polyb. xviii. 41.7):vmfioaEyäppdyrl therefore to pay the occasionaltribute. A more developedPer-
fal&ag. . . raüu1v dgXit, Snonioaro xo.i röre nqbrov sötöv gamenearmy is attestedfor the first time duringthe First Macedo-
ööe$t 6aoü.6a.toThe dateof this victory is clearly of greatimpor- nian War by the inscriptionsfrom Delphi recordingthe honours
tance to the chronology of Attalos' titulature, but it cannot be which the Phociantown of Lilaia bestowedon the membersof its
preciselydetermined.It has been thought that Attalos' refusalto Pergamenegarrison;raespecially noteworthyis the appearancefor
pay the Galatianstheir usualtribute is best understoodas a rever- the first time of PergamenecitizensandMuooL t5We will seelater
sal of policy to be associatedwith his accession,lrbut this argu- that influencein Mysia formed an important part of the authority
ment misunderstandsthe nature of the tribute in question. It is conceivedof by Attalos for his kingdom.The developmentof this
unlikely that it was paid by the kings and dynastson a regular,or arrny probably extendedover a numberof years,as did the build-
annual,basis;it is more likely that the sumsinvolved were offered ing of a fleet, which also appearsfor the first time during the First
'protection money' as we MacedonianWar (see below, 68-9), but its origins may well be
by them as bribes as the need arose,
would call it, when the dangerfrom the Galatiansappearedto be located in the 230s and 220s, years during which Attalos faced
particularlyoppressive,and could not otherwisebe averted.r2The almost continuoushostilities from his neighbours.
obvious attraction of this expedientwas that it avoidedthe effort We seein any event that Attalos' attitudeto the Galatiansis not
and probablyeven greaterexpenseinvolved in carrying out milit- necessarilyto be regardedas a reversalof policy implementedat
ary resistance,and it is not surprising that the Galatianscame his accession,and on this criterion the time of the Galatians'attack
eventuallyto expect it as a matter of course.In refusingto pay the cannot be preciselylocated. It seemsmost likely, however,for a
tribute Attalos was open to attack, and was patently preparedto number of reasons,that it took place before the Galatiansjoined
meetthis attackby meansof direct military action.This decision forces with Antiochos Hierax. In the first place,the literary tradi-
may plausiblybe associatedwith a developmentof the Pergamene tion does not connect Attalos' victory in any way with the war
armyat Attalos'disposal.r3EumenesI seemsto havereliedlargely againstHierax.16Secondly,the victory at the sourcesof the
on the employmentof mercenaries, as we haveseenin the caseof Kaikos was won over the TolistoagianGalatiansalone,whereasin
Philetaireiaand Attaleia; it was probably moreeconomicalfor him the battle fought at the AphrodisionAttalos facedthe Tektosagan
Galatiansas well as the Tolistoagiansand AntiochosHierax. Thus
t0On these monuments see Kähler, Gr. Fries, I82, who also shows, from Livy the Tektosagansmost probablyjoined the struggleat a laterdate.17
x x x v i i i . 1 6 .l l , t h a t t h e m o v e m e n t s o f t h e T o l i s t o a g i a n s d o w n t h e w e s t c o a s t o f A s i a Also to be consideredis the fact that the victory at the Aphrodision
Minor make them the most likely of the groups of Galatians to have made contact
with Attalos and thus to have demanded tribute from him.
was evidently a decisiveone (seefurther, below), and a major
r f S e e , f r o m e x a m p l e , E . T h r a e m e r , P e r g a m o s ( L e i p z i g , 1 8 8 8 ) , 2 5 8 .W i l c k e n ,
RE, s.v. Analos (9), 2159-60, rightly discounted this argument, but retained an t aF . D e l p h e s , i i i . 4 . 1 3 2 - 5 .
early date for Attalos' assumption of the royal title on the basis of Polybios' tsF. Delphes, äi.4. 132,2: M1vööapog NtawoE MuoöE xai oi öq' aödv
statement (xviii. 4l . 8\ 6aoü,eüoaE rerrapäxovra xai ttttaga (i.e. 'ruled as king' Mulooli. The 25 names listed in the third column of this decree have no ethnics and
f r o m 2 4 1 t o 1 9 7 ) .I t i s c l e a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t P o l y b i o s ' t e r m i n o l o g y i n s u c h a s u m m a r y may reasonably be identified as Muooi (Launey, Recherches, i. 439).
c o n t e x t c a n n o t b e p r e s s e d ,a s n o t e d b y B e l o c h , G r . G e s c h . i v . 2 2 . 5 4 6 : ' e r k o n n t e t6 Beloch (Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2. 544) has said the opposite: 'dass der benihmte Sieg
sich auch ohne arge Pedanterie gar nicht anders ausdrücken'; cf. Kähler, Gr. Frles, des Attalos über die Galater aufs engste mit seinen Kämpfen gegen Antiochos
l8l, n. ll. Wilcken also supposed that the head of Philetairosreplaced that of zusammenhängt, war schon aus unserer literarischen Überlieferung klar . . . So
Seleukos on Pergamene tetradrachms as a result ofAttalos' assumption ofthe royal heisst es bei Justin von Attalos (er nennt ihn rex Bithyniae Eumenes) victorem
title, but this coinage must be accounted an innovation ofhis predecessor Eumenes Antiochum Gallosque adgreditur.' This reasoning is absurd in assuming that the
(see above, 24). battle mentioned by Justin is the only one to be taken into account in this context:
t2 Cf. F. Stähelin,Gercft.derkleinasiatischenGalater(ed.2,Leipzig, 1907),and see further, Appendix ii.
below, ch. 5. rTOn the movements of the Tolistoagians see M. Launey, REA xlvi (1944),
r 3 S e e , i n g e n e r a l , M . L a u n e y , R e c ' h e r c h e s ,i . 4 3 8 - 4 1 . 217-36t Kähler, Gr. Fries, 182.
34 The Reign of Attalos I
Galatianattack in the immediatelyfollowing yearsis hardly credi-
ble. In the chronologyarguedherethe battle at the Aphrodisionis
datedto the late 230s,and we can accordinglymost plausiblydate
the battle at the sourcesof the Kaikos to the early 230s,probably,
but not necessarily,before the beginning of the war between
AntiochosHierax and SeleukosII. Within this decadea preference
for an earlierrather than a later date is suggestedby the decisive-
nessof Attalos' victory, of which there can be no doubt; a longer
ratherthan a shorterintervalis to be expectedbeforethe reappear-
ance of the TolistoagianGalatiansas Attalos' opponentsin the
battle at the Aphrodision.rsTheseconsiderationssuggesta date
for Attalos' Gallic victory within the period 23V235, and it is
probablethat he bore the royal title for all but the initial yearsof his
rule at Pergamon.re
The battle fought at the Aphrodision, which must denote the
PergameneAphrodision outside the city,20in which Attalos de-
featedthe Tolistoagianand TektosaganGalatiansand Antiochos
Hierax, is almostcetainlythe one mentionedby Trogus,Prologue
xxvii, in the words Galli Pergamo victi ab Attalo, sinceTrogus'
descriptioncorrespondsmorecloselywith this than with any other
battle attestedfor these years. It is hardly identifiablewith the
battle fought at the sourcesof the Kaikos, which was in no way
located'at Pergamon'.The context of the battle in Trogus'narra-
tive is the aftermathof the battle at Ankyra, in which Antiochos
Hierax defeatedhis brother SeleukosII.21 The battle at Ankyra
should most probably be dated to the year 235 (althoughothers
have dated it earlier: see Appendix ii), and the battle at the
Aphrodisionto the last yearsof the decade,that is, shortly before
r8 An interval of some years between Attalos' Galatian victory at the sources of
the Kaikos and the reappearance of the Galatians as mercenaries of Hierax was
regarded by Kähler (Gr. Fries,83) as a'schwer vorstellbare Situation', but we
would expect a period of inactivity on the part of the Tolistoagians if Attalos'
victory was as resounding as our sources would have us believe.
te For the epigraphical evidence relating to Attalos' titulature, see Appendix ii; it
does not enable a closer dating than that already argued.
20The designationü 'Agpoöiorcv in a royal dedication at Pergamon must refer
to the precinct outside the city; cf. Beloch, Gr. Gesch. iv.2 2.546.
2t Seleuci bellum in Syria adve rsus Ptolomaeum Tryphonem: item in Asia adve r-
sus fratrem suum Antiochum Hieracem, quo bello Ancurae victus est a Gallis'
utque Galli Pergamo victi ab Attalo,Zielan Bithunum occiderint.
Attalos and Asia Minor 35
the battles in Lydia, Caria, and HellespontinePhrygia,of which
the first two (/vP 27 and 28, from the bathron) are mentionedby
Eusebios and dated respectively to 22918and 22817.22 In 227,
accordingto the chronologytransmittedby Eusebios,Hierax fled
to Thrace, there to meet his death, and to this year and in this
context shouldmost probablybe datedthe battle in Hellespontine
Phrygia which Attalos claimed as a victory (IvP 2l).zt
ln 22615SeleukosII was succeededby his son SeleukosIII
Soter, zawho undertookwithout successto recoverthe seriously
weakenedSeleukid position in western Asia Minor. Among the
dedicationswhich make up the largebathron is one for a victory
over 'Lysias and the strategoi of Seleukos'(IvP 25+26, : OGIS
277): d.nö rfiE nagfd ne)öSA[u]olav I xai rcüs Zü.1eüxou
mpatl4yolülE päXrt;. Another victory over a Seleukid army is
celebratedin the seriesof smallerbaseswhose inscription is dat-
able to the time of the Eumenid restoration of the precinct of
Athena (on which seeAppendix ii), and which we shouldrestore
(IvP 36): fBaoü.eüg"Arta).oE | /ri xai 'A}r1vaLl| älnö rrts-l I
'E[nry6vr1v'!
npöE röv]|Zd,u3xou oftparryyövpdxnEl.rt This bat-
tle is too often overlooked, and is of particular importance in
pointing to a probably continuous Seleukidmilitary undertaking
against Attalos during the short reign of SeleukosIII. Attalos'
opponent Lysias is almost certainly the AuofuE @LAoprfl,ou
Maxeötitv honoured by a Delphian proxeny decree dated to 242
sc.26This allianceof the Seleukidking with adynastof Asia Minor
22Eusebiosi. 253 Sch. The chronologicaltradition derives from Porphyrius,
Eusebios'sourcefor the chronologyofthe Hellenisticmonarchies.On the tradi-
tion, seeE. Schwartz,RE, s.v. Eusebios,1378-80(: Griech.Geschichtschreiber,
507-10)iR.Helm, Eranos,xxii (1924),l*40.
zr Polyb. v.74.4: peral).d.fawoEtöv 6iov ini @p(x4q; Eusebiosi. 253 Sch.
Eusebios'chronologyplacesHierax's flight to Thraceimmediatelyafterthe battle
with Attalos in Caria, omitting the abortive attack on Seleukosin Mesopotamia
which mustcomebetweenthesetwo events;that is, Hieraxfled from Seleukos,not
f r o m A t t a l o sc; f . M . L a u n e yR
, e c h e r c h e is. ,5 0 5 , n . 3 , a n d , o n t h e d e a t h o
Hfi e r a x ,
Walbank.Comm. i.600.
2aBeloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.2 l. 686,2. 196.
25For the restoration'Efnry6v4tl, which is extremelylikely, seeCardinali,RP
44,n. | (a SeleukidEpigenes, rival of Hermeias,is knownfromPolyb.v.41.4:cf .
Schmitt, Untersuchungen,15l-3). The restorationgiven in the text is more prob-
able than that usually written, following unnecessarilythe dedicationfor the battle
'Efnryöv4u
with Lysias: npög xai roüg ilJougl lZü.eüxou ofrpaqyoüE pdTqgl
26SGDI 2736;cf. above, 20 n. 39.
36 The Reign of Attalos I Attalos and Asia Minor 37

againstthe King of Pergamonfurther indicatesthe intensityof the trace in contemporarydocuments.We can more positively con-
campaign, but whether this was a voluntary undertaking on clude that by the year 220 Attalos and Achaios had come to an
Lysias' part or a requirementarisingfrom a subordinateposition understanding. In this year Achaios was proclaimed king in
cannot be determined.This evidencealfords no more than a dim Laodikeia,3t and by this act he took for himselfmostof thoseparts
and fleeting glimpse of the fortunes of a small dynasty whose of Asia Minor over which the Seleukidking still claimedauthority.
originswere similar to thoseof the Attalids, but which, unlike the Such an act of open rebellion is hardly credible if Achaios re-
Attalids, did not achievethe statusof a kingdom. mainedformally at war with Attalos, no matter how successfulhe
Thesetwo battles fought againstSeleukidarmies should prob- had previously been. Furthermore,when war broke out between
ably be dated to the years 226-223,that is before Seleukos'ad- Rhodesand Byzantion in this sameyear, 220,Byzantionappealed
vancein person,recordedby Polybios(iv. 48.7-8),which led to his to both Attalos and Achaios for assistance.32 Polybios, who re-
death,most probablyin 223(seebelow, n.27):261euxoEyäp ö cords the event, makes it clear that Attalos was in no position,
v6oEöE 0drrov napü.a6e rlu 6aot).eiav,rruvilavöpevoS"ArraTov beingstill confinedto Pergamon,to take an active part in the war,
ndoav ijör1 fiv öni räöe roü Taügou övvqoreiav öcp' aüröu but it is hard to imaginethat Byzantionwould have madesuchan
nenotfio1at, nae@epü?q 6or10tiv roiE, ocper6poLE npdypaow. appealto both Attalos and Achaiosif the two were still in a stateof
ön q6 a),öv öö pey ä7rl öuväpet r öv Taü g o v, x ai öo).ocpov4 0 ei; ünö openwarfarewith one another.Thus we may concludethat by 220
'Anaroupbu peqL|a[e üv 6tov. some kind of agreementhad been reached;whatever the exact
r' toü laAärou xai NLxdvopoE,
Although Seleukosfailed entirely to check Attalos' military terms, it is clear from Polybios' narrative that for the time being
predominancein western Asia Minor, his oppositionwas main- Achaios maintainedhis military advantage.
tained,with more positiveresults,by his brother,AntiochosIII, This initial advantage,however,was not maintained.In 218,
who succeeded him in the autumnof 223.21 Antiochos'cousin,or while Achaios was occupied with the siegeof Selgein Pisidia,33
uncle, Achaios,2swho had alreadyheld the position of oqarryyöE Attalos undertooka military expeditionwhich wasclearlyaimedat
under Seleukos Kallinikos,2ewas now appointedBni täöe toü re-establishing his authorityas it wasthenconstituted.Of particu-
Ta(,tpou,that is to the overall commandof SeleukidAsia Minor, a lar interest is the fact that Achaios' suddendepartureleft Attalos
post usurped previously by Antiochos Hierax.3oIt is diffrcult to free to leave his capitalwith a largearmy; we see, that is, that
assessthe implicationsfor Attalos of Achaios' success,althoughit Achaios had done little to consolidatehis position, and Attalos
is clear that for a time Achaioswas masterof the whole of Attalos' quickly regainedhis 'lost' territory. A full accountof the expedi-
kingdomexceptthe capital(Polyb.iv. 48. ll):röv piv"AwaTov ei5 tion is given by Polybios(v.77-8\, and this accountremainsthe
aürö rö Il1pyapou ouv6.x),erce, riav öö )"omöv nävrcttv i, öy- basisfor an assessment of the natureand extent of Attalos' rule in
xpau1E.It is likely, however,that Achaios'militarypredominance theseyears.
wasephemeraland without lastingconsequences, and it hasleft no This seriesof eventsends with the agreementreachedin 216
betweenAttalosand AntiochosIII, which probablydeterminedto
2 7O n t h e c h r o n o l o g y o f S e l e u k o s ' d e a t h a n d t h e a c c e s s i o no f A n t i o c h o s I l I , s e e
a largeextent the final outcomein termsof Attalos' positionin the
S c h m i t t , U n t e r su c h u n g en , 2 - 3 .
2 8F o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i pb e t w e e n A c h a i o s a n d A n t i o c h o s , s e e B e l o c h , G r . G e s c h .
3t Cf. Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 164-5.
iv.2 2. 204-6: P. Meloni, Rendiconti dell'Accad. naz. dei Lincei, vüi (1949\, 543l. 3 2P o l y b . i v . 4 8 . l - 3 . I t i s t o b e n o t e d t h a t A t t a l o s e x p r e s s e dh i s s u p p o r t ' b u t c o u l d
S c h m i t t , U n t e r s u ch u n g e n , 3 0 - 1 . "AnaAog
2ePolyainos iv. l7 (campaign against Hierax): orpat4yoi Zeleüxou'AyaöE xai not implement it (48. 2): ö piv oöv fiv npö0u1to5, tip öi 6ga74tiav üre
'AlaLoü äqX1r''
'AvöpöpaXoE Qonlv öE äv ün' ouwT4Taptvog eiE t)1v taq(tav
pttä nüJ.fig öuvdpta4 Eöionov. Cf. Beloch, Gr. Gesch. iv .2 2. 205. rrPofyb. v.7'7.2: xard öi töv xaqöv xa|' öv'Ayaög itvottlto rfiv öni toüE
r0 On this office see Bengtson, Strat. ü. 90-l l5l Schmitt, Untersuchungen,
2tlytiE orpattiav.
I 58-60.
38 The Reign of Attalos I Attalos and Asia Minor 39

following years, and was perhaps confirmed by a more formaL political one. During the years in question,the political vacuum
treaty a few years later. First, however, we must review the createdin westernAsia Minor by the defeatof Antiochos Hierax
developmentof Attalos' position prior to this agreement. was not left to Attalos alone to fill. In Caria, the interventionof
It is not surprisingthat during theseyearsof almostcontinuous AntigonosDoson in227, which we may now fortunatelyregardas
military and political instability in the west of Asia Minor we see a fact, effectively precludedAttalos' continuedmilitary predomi-
very little trace in any of our sourcesof an attempton Attalos' part nance, and it is significant that the correspondencefrom Lab-
to consolidatehis successesin terms of an expansionof direct raunda,which providesa very full picture of foreign rule in Caria,
royal authority; it seemsrather to have been a caseof his main- makes no allusion to any period of Attalid administration.3T In
taining a hold on the little that he initially gained.Before 230 his other areasAttalos continuedto face Seleukidmilitary opposition,
military activity was entirely defensive,in the sensethat his vic- and at leasttwo majorbattleswith Seleukidarmiesare, aswe have
toriesover the TolistoagianGalatiansat the sourcesof the Kaikos, seen,recordedamongthe inscriptionsfrom the largebathron and
and over the combinedGalatiansand Hierax at the Aphrodision, elsewhere.The lack of positiveevidencemust precludecertainty,
clearly arosefrom action taken in defenceofthe kingdom he had but it is extremely unlikely that Attalos found any opportunity
inherited at his accession.34 Thus there was little opportunity during the 220sto establisha political hegemonyin the areas in
during the 230sfor Attalos to increasethe area of his direct au- which he was militarily successful.
thority. During the yearsfrom 230to 223his military activity was This negativeaspectof Attalos' ambition is complemented,on
extendedfurther afield, in areasover which he and his predeces- the other hand, by his developmentof relationswith Greek cities
sorshad not previouslyexercisedany kind of authority, namelyin closerto Pergamon,where the evidenceshowsa distinct advance
Lydia, Caria,and HellespontinePhrygia.and for a time Attalos from the strictly limited position held by EumenesL38Herein, to
was militarily predominantin all of them, although- a point which my mind, and not in the field of military expansion, lies the
needsto be stressed- not in all of them at one time; they were, achievementof Attalos I. The most important evidence is, as
that is, simply successivetheatresof warfare.35Polybiossaysthat alreadynoted, Polybios'accountof the military expeditioncarried
in 223 Seleukos III crossed the Tauros to attack Attalos, out by Attalos in 218,to which we now turn. Polybios'narrative(v.
"Arra)"ov
nuu9anöpevoE nAoav fiört riv öni räöe roü Taüpou 3?Crampa, Labraunda, äi. l. 124. We also owe to Crampa (:Opusc.Athen. väi
öuvqore(av öq' aüröv nenoLfio9at(see above, 36). This state- ( l%S), l7l-8) the elimination from the body of evidence relating to this question of
ment, however,representsthe attitudeof Seleukos(asinterpreted a document (Welles, RC 29) once thought to have been ofthe Pergamene chancery
and to relate to a supposed period of Attalid rule in Caria following the defeat there
by Polybios!), and not that of Attalos; it is chronologicallyin- of Antiochos Hierax. Its connection with the Attalids has never been a convincing
exact36and certainly exaggeratedwith respect to the extent to p r o p o s i t i o n ( c f . t h e d o u b t s a l r e a d y e x p r e s s e db y B e n g t s o n ,S t a t . ä . 1 0 0 ,n . 4 ) , a n d
which Attalos was able to translatehis military supremacyinto a it can no longer be adduced in support ofthe conclusion, for which there is no other
evidence, that Attalos treated Caria for a time as a Pergamene province.
3aThe defensive nature ofthese battles is shown by their respective positions: the 38The best treatments of Attalos' relations with the Greek cities are still those ol
'sources
of the Kaikos' were, as Kähler has indicated (Gr. Fries, 182), a natural P . G h i o n e , M e m . A c c a d . T o r i n o , l v ( 1 9 0 5 ) ,6 7 - 1 4 9 , a n d G . C a r d i n a l i , R P 8 l - 1 0 2 ;
point of entry for the Galatians into Attalos' kingdom; and at the Aphrodision for further discussion see Magie, Roman Rule, ä.939, n. 36. The subject has been
Attalos was fighting under the walls of his capital. taken up more recently by R. B. McShane, Foreign Policy,58_9l, who sees the
3s For the view, which I regard as incorrect, that Attalos claimed a cumulative
development of Attalos' relations with the cities as amounting to the foundation of a
h e g e m o n y i n w e s t e r n A s i a M i n o r , s e e ,e . 9 . , C r a m p a , L a b r a u n d a , i i i . l . 1 2 4 ,w h o league modelled consciously on that of Doson's mainland league of states and
also sees Attalos' position as a motive for Doson's Carian expedition (following cities. This view seems to me in itselfto go far beyond the scope ofthe evidence; it is
McShane, Foreign Policy, 97-100); this is extremely unlikely. presented by McShane by means of comparative arguments that are at best jar'
36Polybios compresses the chronology by saying that Seleukos crossed the
gonistic and superficial, at worst absurd (e.g. the argument from Polyb. v.77.5-6
Tauros röE 0dttov nap67a6e d1v 6aoÄeian, whereas he did so in 223, three years that Attalos held league meetingsl!), and inevitably leads to a distorted view of
after his accession (see above, 36). Attalos' activity and intentions in these years.
40 The Reign of Attalos I Attalos and Asia Minor 4l

77-8) is well detailedin terms of topography,and Attalos' move- The most important information suppliedby Polybios' account
ments can be retraced with some precision.3eThe aim of the concernsthe extentof Attalos'ambition in 218,which corresponds
expeditionwas clearly to recover authority over cities and com- with the conclusionswe have drawn on the basisof his activity in
munities in Aeolis and Mysia, that is, close to Pergarnon,which the 230sand 220s.Military activity was confinedto Aeolis and the
had previously fallen to Achaios;aothus Attalos went first to the Mysian communities;dealingswith the Greekcities southof Aigai
"Amü"og and Temnosand in the Troad were, on the contrary, conductedon
Aeolian cities (v. 77. 2): öytv roüEAiyooäyaE faAdtag
önenoqeüuo rdE xarä d1v Aiü,öa nö1e6 xai rdg'ouveTeiE a diplomatic level. This fact is of considerableimportancein that
'Ayat(t the absenceof Achaios in Pisidia left Attalos with a free hand in
tdürdeE,öoat npörcpov xteooexex@Qrixenav öü. röv Eö-
6ov. After receivingenvoys from certain lonian cities, he turned areas further afield, and the limited nature of his activity may
northward; crossingthe AüxoE norapöE by Thyateira he visited thereforebe regardedas representativeof his intentions.Attalos
thexaromiat t6y Muodur,the inhabitantsof Mysia,arreceivedthe was clearly as little concerned in 218 with securinga political
surrenderof Karseai and Didyma Teiche (fortified positions in hegemonyin Lydia, Caria, and HellespontinePhrygiaas he seems
Mysia left by Achaios in chargeof a otpa.rqydg,Themistokles), to have been in earlier years.
crossedthe'AniaE neöfov (to be identifiedmost probablywith the It is clear.then. that Attalos treatedthe Greekcitiesfurtherfrom
valley of Balikesir)and Mount Pelekas(part of the Temnosrange), Pergamonrather differently from those in Aeolis and Mysia. In
andreachedthe river Makestos(v.77.3-91.t2 At thispointAttalos' thesetwo areas,as we seefrom Polybios' narrative, Attalos im'
Galatianmercenaries,wearied by the long march, took the op- posedhis authority by force of arms. In Aeolis he aimedat recov-
'A6aLQ ötd
portunity affordedby the omenof an eclipseof the moon to refuse ering those citiesöoat npörtpov Tueooex€X@Qrixercav
to go any further, and they were settledby Attalos on suitableland töv qö6ov. fav al piv nLeiougö1ü.ovti1vaötQ npoo60evroxai
by the Hellespont(v. 78. l-5;.+r After friendly dealingswith ltetd ydqrcoE,ö\iyat ö6 rLveErqg 6taEnpoo$eqilr1oav.fioav ö' a[
Qp4parioaE Eü.av)qtitnutE)three cities in the Troad which had t6re pera|4trnvarnpög aöröv npörov piv Küp1 xai MüqLvaxai
remainedloyal to him, Lampsakos,AlexandriaTroas, and llion, <Dtbxan' perd öi taüraE AiyarciE xai Tepvkat ngooe16'6gr7oav,
Attalos returnedperä rfig öuvdtrteoqto Pergamon(v. 78. 6).aa xaratrLay|vteE rilv öcpoöov.That is, the three cities Kyme,
3eHolleaux's study inErades, ii. l7-42 (which first appeared in 1897)established Myrina, as and Phokaiareturned to Attalos of their own accord,
the basis of our understanding of this campaign; for further topographical dis- while Aigai and Temnos submitted only to a show of force, rfiE
cussion (relative to Mysia), cf. L. Robert, Et. anat. 185-98. See also Schmitt,
U ntersuchunge n, 262-4.
6iaE nqooeöefi9qoav.The expressionsused by Polybios of the
4 0 T h e a t t e m p t o f G . R a d e t , R e v u e d e s U n i v e r s i t ö sd u M i d i , 1 8 9 6 ,l - 1 8 , t o s h o w attitudestaken by theseAeolian cities,pera94trtevat ngöEaüröv,
that Attalos' campaign involved a pursuit of Achaios as far as Pisidia, was refuted in ngootybgr1oav,xaranlay|vreE rfiv öcpoöov,suggestthat Attalos
detail by Holleaux, art. cit. (previous note), and was later renounced by the author
i n t h e s a m ej o u r n a l ( 1 8 9 7 , p . 5 2 3 ) .
claimed a considerabledegreeof control over them, at the very
ar Pliny, Nat. Hist. v.ll5: intus et Thyatira adluitur Lyco. Onthexatomiar rdtv least to the extent of demandingtheir loyalty lo him. We may
Muoöv see Robert, Et. anat. l9l-4. comparethis relationshipwith that pertainingto EumenesI and
a2The river is called Megistos by Polybios (v. 77.9,nepi dv M|yrotov norapöv),
but its identification with the Makestos (Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 142) or, more accu-
Pitane,where,as we haveseenin the previouschapter,the city's
rately, M6.xtoroE (Strabo xii. 8. l I, 576) is assured: Cf. W. Ruge, RE, s.v. Makes- 45The text reads Küpq xai 2püpva xai Qöxam, but Wilcken's emendation to
tos, 773; Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 38; L. Robert, Et. anat. 187.
MhpLva (RE, s.v. Attalos (9), 2162) is followed here, as is usually done (cf'
a 3 O n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c eo f t h i s s e t t l e m e n ts e e c h . 5 . T h e e c l i p s e ( l S e p t . 2 l 8 )
Holteaux. Etudes, ii. 19, n. 2) to reconcile this sentence with the later reference to
provides one ofthe very few chronological certainties ofthe reign ofAttalos I prior
S m y r n a a t v . 7 7 . 6 . T h e r e i s n o s e r i o u sa l t e r n a t i v e t o M y r i n a , a n d t h e t h r e e c i t i e s ,
to his alliance with Rome. Kyme, Myrina, and Phokaia, are known to have had close relations in the third
aaIt is important to note from these words,perd tfiE öuvapettE, that the Galatians
century, including a common coinage (cf. McDonald, JIIS xxvii (1907)' 159; Wal-
evidently constituted only a part, and probably a less significant part, ofthe forces
bank, Comrn. i. 603).
which accompaniedAttalos in 218; see further below, ch. 5.
42 The Reign of Attalos I
affairs were in somemeasuresubjectto the dynast's supervision.
We shouldevidentlyenvisage,that is, an areaof territory closeto
Pergamonin which the Greek cities lost a large measureof their
independenceto the dynasts.The natureof Attalos'authority over
these cities cannot easily be defined, becausewe lack further
evidenceof a positive kind. A clearerindicationof statusmay be
seenhowever in the caseof Phokaia.During the Antiochic War
this city was betrayedto Antiochos and receiveda Seleukidgarri-
son;a6then in 188,by the termsof the Romansettlementof Asia, it
receivedback its 'ancestralconstitutionand the territory which it
had before' (i.e. before the war).47Thus Phokaia, one of the
Aeolian cities which returned willingly to Attalos' allegiancein
218, evidently retained its constitution and the right to the civic
ownership of land in the years 218 to 195,during the years of
Attalid rule. This does not necessarilymean, however, that At-
talos exercisedno constitutionalcontrol over the city. In Perga-
mon, and (aswe will see)in other cities at a later date, the Attalids
preservedthe constitutionalforms of the independentcity, the
nd.rgrcvnü'fueupa, and controlledthe administrationby claiming
for themselvesthe right to appoint certain officials within the
administration,abovealltheorparqyoi.4sAt Pergamonthis meas-
ure is seento be in force alreadyduringthe rule of EumenesI,aebut
the procedure is not certainly attested for cities of the Attalid
Kingdom before the Peaceof Apameia, when the status of the
Attalids' authority in Asia Minor was radically altered.It will be
argued later that the office of inrctdrqg, comparablewith that
attestedfor the other Hellenistic kingdomsin the context of the
administrationof the Greek cities, was introduced to the Per-
gameneKingdom by Attalos I, probablywhen he acquiredAigina
in 209.s0Aigina was however a unique case; it was the personal
possessionof the king, and at the time of its acquisitionit consti-
tuted his only territory outsideAsia Minor. Attalos' rule in Aigina
a6Livy xxxvii. 9. l-4; I l. 5; cf. Appian, Syr. 25: önrixooE'Avrö7ou.
+zPolyb. xxi. 46. 7: dn|öaxav öi xai <Danarcüot
tö natqrcv to).fteupa xai tilv
yöpav, fir, xai npörepov e1yov.
a8Seebelow,ch. 4 (ii).
aeIvP 18,= OGIS 267,lines2l-2 (appointmentof theozgarqyo[at Pergamonby
EumenesI). This kind of royal appointmentis discussedbelow in ch. 7.
50Seebelow, 74-5.
Attalos and Asia Minor 43
may not necessarilybe taken as a reflection of his rule in cities
closer to Pergamonand acquired at an earlier date. In the caseof
Phokaia,moreover,the institution of an önrcrdrqg is not compati-
ble with the fact that the city evidently retained its ancestral
constitution after 2 18.
It is probable then that Attalos demandedthe loyalty of the
Greek cities and communitiesin Aeolis and Mysia, and supported
this demandby force of arms in 218,but that he did not interfere,
beyond this requirement, in their internal administration.This
conclusionwill be seento correspondwith the natureof Attalos'
activity in the first twenty yearsof his reign, which was defensive
and not expansive; in maintaining his authority in Aeolis and
Mysia againstthe interferenceof his successiveenemies,and of
these especiallyAchaios, who for a short time most effectively
deprived him of his authority, it was support for his military
undertakingsthat Attalos most requiredfrom the cities and com-
munitiesconcerned.Further evidencein supportof this indication
may be cited for Thyateira.This city is not mentionedin Polybios'
accountof the campaignof 218,perhapsbecauseit had not allied
itself with Achaios, but in crossing the ArjxoE notap6g Attalos
passedthrough its territory,sr and he probably took the oppor-
tunity of confirrning its loyalty; it is unlikely, at least, that he
ignoredit altogether.That Thyateiralost a measureof its indepen-
dence after 218 is shown by a dedicatory inscription of Roman
imperial date emanating from this city, and set up by oi d.nö
'AndTou
6aot76atv xai EüptvouE xarolxoüvteg Mepvo{tgwa
'HpaxArloaorai.s2A
cistophorosof Thyateira,formerly dated to
year 2 of the reign of EumenesII (BA EY B), indicatedon that
chronologythat Thyateirawas Attalid in 196/5,and it was argued
that the katoikoi of the dedicationwere originally settled in the
territory of Thyateira, as the joint namessuggest,at the end of
Attalos' reign and the beginningof Eumenes',that is, in 197.53
Now that this cistophoros,togetherwith othersof the sameseries
(datedBA EY B and A), has been convincinglyredatedto a later
period,s4there is no evidencethat Thyateira remainedunder At-
5r See above, 40.
52Keil and von Premerstein, Bericht über eine Reise in Lydien, 27, no. 51.
sr Robert, Villes, 3940.
5 4E . S . G . R o b i n s o n , N u m . C h r o n . x i v ( 1 9 5 4 ) , l - 7 1 L . R o b e r t , V i l l e s , 2 5 2 - 6 0 .
44 The Reign of Attalos I
talid control continuously from 218 to the outbreak of the An-
tiochicWar, and the literaryevidencesuggests otherwise.In 201,
when Philip V of MacedoninvadedPergamene territory, Thyateira
seemsstill to havebeenunderAttalos' control,ssbut it is probable
that this control was lost to AntiochosIII in 198,when he in turn
invadedAttalos' kingdom;there is positiveevidencein the narra-
tive of Livy to the effect that EumenesII no longercontrolledthe
city in 190and hadprobablynot doneso for sometime (xxxvii. 8.
7): is (sc. Eumenes)cum magnampraedam agi possedixissetex
hostium agro, qui circa Thyatiram esset, hortando perpulit
Livium, ut quinquemillia militum secummitteret. missi ingentem
praedam intra paucos dies averterunt.s6In the light of this in-
terpretationof the evidence,we must concludethat the settlement
was originally establishedby Attalos I before 198,and probably
beforePhilip's invasionof 201,when Attalos becameinvolved for
the secondtime in an Aegeanwar, and that it was refoundedby
EumenesII after 188.The statusof Thyateirais thereforecertainly
relevantto Attalos'positionafter218,andshowsthatin additionto
expectingthe loyalty of the Greek cities he regardedhimself as
entitled to establishcoloniesin their territory.
Further evidence of the implications for the cities and com-
munitiesof Aeolis and Mysia of their enforcedloyalty to Attalos
can be inferredonly indirectly from our sources.In particular,we
have no direct evidenceas to whether they were requiredto pay
tribute, but the fact that the Ionian city of Teos, which was bound
to Attalos by ouv9fixan,hadto pay a largeamountof tribute, as we
will see,rendersit extremely likely that the sameobligationwas
demandedat least in Aeolis, where Attalos' control was, as we
haveseen,much tighter. It was naturallyan importantincentiveto
ss Polyb. xvi. l. 7: Philip, after destroying the Pergamene Nikephorion, äppqoe
tdE trrövdpTdq öni @uarcipow. It has rightly been inferred from this passage that
Thyateira was at this time in Attalos' possession; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iv.247-55:
Robert, Villes, 38. It should be noted that Philip did not necessarily attack
Thyateira, or even reach it; the words iz i @oariptlv indicate the direction of his
march (Holleatx, Etudes, iv. 249, n. l).
56Cf. Livy xxxvii. 37, attesting further Antiochos' occupation of the city before
the battle at Magnesia: regia castra circa Thyatiram erant. Schmitt (Unrer-
suchungen, 273, n. 3) has pointed to the unlikelihood of Eumenes' taking part in a
raid on a recent possession; it is therefore more reasonable to regard Thyateira as a
loss of 198, eight years earlier.
Attalos and Asia Minor 45
a Hellenistic monarch in ensuringthe loyalty of the Greek cities
that he gained thereby more substantialsupport in his military
undertakings.It seemsmost likely, then, that Attalos envisageda
supply of money and men in the cities whoseloyalty he enforced.
In Mysia, the situationwas rather different.Muooi, as hasalready
been mentioned, constituted a part of the Pergamenegarrison
which occupied the city of Lilaia during the First Macedonian
War, a fact which indicatesthat the communitiesof Mysia supplied
men rather than money;5?this is an understandableprocedurein
the caseof a country which was madeup almostentirelyof village
communities(xaromtat röv Muoöv).s8
We shouldtake account,finally, of a letter written by Attalos in
205to Magnesiaon the Maeanderin reply to that city's requestfor
recognitionof its newly inauguratedfestival for Artemis Leuko-
phryene.seIn agreeingto the requestAttalos speaksnot only for
himself,but alsofor'the citiesunderme' (12-13:riliouv ööxaiü.E
ön' öpänü.epEllänoö6[ao0aL öpoitoE;19-20:.xsi ai nö).etEöi ai
fneßöpe]lvaripoi notrtoouowöpoiaE). The cities concernedcan
only be thoseof Aeolis,andthe terminologyusedby Attalos shows
that they remainedfirmly under his control, in a mannerand to a
degreecomparablewith the control exercisedby EumenesI over
Pitane.In sum, the evidencefor the years218to 201suggests the
following conclusionsas to the nature of Attalos' authority in
Aeolis and Mysia: it is clear that he claimed the right to their
loyalty (this right extendingto substantialsupportin time of war)
and. furthermore. to their subordinationto his will in matters of
foreign policy, as well as the right to use their land for the settle-
ment of military colonists;it is probable,on the other hand,that he
did not appoint residentofficials in thesecitiesor interferein their
constitutionalprocedure.They were, in other words, administra-
tively independent,but in terms of external policy they were
subjectto the directionsof the King of Pergamon.
Turning to the citiesfurther from Pergamon,to the southin lonia
and to the north in HellespontinePhrygia, we see, as already
5 7S e e a b o v e , 3 3 .
ssOn the Mysian communities, see L. Robert, Et. anat. 194: Launey. Re-
cherches, i.4f6-'1.
seIvM 22. = OGIS 282; Welles, IRC 34.
 46 The Reign of Attalos I
noted,a differentrelationshipbetweenking andcity . The evidence
for theseareasis fuller, althoughin somerespectsequallyconfus-
ing. In particular, the ouv9qxanmentionedby Polybiosdo not tell
us very much about the obligationsthey incurred,beyondthe fact
that they were entered into voluntarily by the cities concerned:
rjxov öö xai naqd Tqbv xai KoAocpavtavnp6odt6 |yyepi(ovreE
oqdE aüroüE xai tdE n6)"e6.npooöe$ö.peuoE öi xai rcüroug öni
raig ouv0rjxa6 atE xai rö nqörcgov, xai ).a6öv öpripouE,öy
pqtrtdrrcerciE napd röv Zltupvafav npeodeuraiEqü.av9qdno4
öÄ rö pä)"rcra roütouErcrqqrlxtvacrlv nqöEaütöv niorw (v .77 .
5-6). The useof the wordöyyeqi(ew,'to entrust',is of significance
in that Polybiosused it on severaloccasionsto denotea relation-
ship between king and city, or betweenone city and another, in
which the weakervoluntarily seeksthe protectionof the stronger,
and three examplesare especiallynoteworthy as the phraseology
is identicalwith that pertainingto Teos.60Kalynda, seekinginde-
pendencefrom Kaunos in 163,turned to Rhodes (xxxi. 5. 3):
äyavtövttg öö rö pil.)"ov nqeodeüetvpöv .. . (lac.) iyyeLp((ovreg
ogd.gaitroüg xai rlv nöLw.6t ln 219,during the war of the allies,
the city of Phialeia,threatenedby an Aitolian attack (iv. 79. 8),
önnpeodeuodpevotngöEröv @il,mnovöveytipcoavocpd.g aüroüE
xai tilv nö)"w.62The expressionis used,finally,of a city's seeking
the protectionof Rome(xviii. 49.l): ödv,rö öl ).ey6pevov, rptTant
i1v öoydrr1u,öni roüg'Papaioug xatacpeüfovraLxai roüroLEEy-
yetqrc0ot ocpd.E aörcüE xai rlv nö)"w. These parallels serve to
clarify the position taken by Teos in 218,as Polybiosdescribesit.
As in the other casescited, the idea impliedis not one of conquest
or subjection,but ofprotection soughtby the city againsta danger,
60For other uses of tyyetpiltw by Polybios, see A. Mauersberger,Polybios-
Lexikon (Berlin 1956-),s.v. (65examples).The word is also usedin public docu-
ments of the 'entrusting' of civic ofTicesto a person, e.g. in /G ä.2 1O28,72:
napala6öv tilv ilyllprgto9eioat äaurlritr,
nilotLv önö rcü öfipou;cf.lG ix. 2. I103,
l3-14; Holleaux,Etudes,ii. 186.In itself it in no way impliessurrenderor lossof
independence.
6rOn thiseventseeMagie,Roman Rule, i. I l0; ii. 957,n. 7t; l39l n. 59.Rhodes
subsequentlyoccupiedthe city and its possessionwas confirmedby the Senate
(xxxi. 5. 5: ouv66q öö xai d1t oüyil.1rov aötoiE fedauloat rilv röv KaJ,uvölav
xtfiow). This doesnot, however,affectour interpretationofthe originalintention
as expressedin the word iyptpiltr.v.
62Cf. F. W. Walbank,Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge,1940),46.
\i
Attalos and Asia Minor 47
the dangerin this caseclearly beingthe return of Achaios.A single
term will not adequatelydefinethis relationship,but the nearestto
hand is 'protectorate' rather than 'overlordship'; words such as
'subjection',and 'dependence',which are more usuallyappliedin
this context,63are inappropriateto the positionof the cities which
soughtAttalos' protection.
This interpretationof Polybios' evidenceis of considerableim-
portancein clarifying the statusof Teos in the last decadeof the
third century. In the middle of this decade,most probably in204,
following the exampleof a numberof citiesof westernAsia Minor,
Teos instituted a festival to honour its god, Dionysos, and dis-
patchedthe usual envoys throughoutthe Greek world to request
the doü'ia of its territory.6aAmong extant repliesto this request
are those of the Aitolians, the Amphiktyons, Delphi, and a large
numberof Cretancommunities.6s The decreesof Delphi and of the
Amphiktyons are datableto one of the years 20413-20312; that of
the Aitolians more preciselyto the Panaitolikaof February-March
203.66The replies of some of the Cretan communities,which
should also be dated to one of these years,67refer to assistance
affordedto the envoysof Teos by representativesof Philip V and
63Cf. Cardinali,RP l0l (Teoslisted as'Attalid' as distinctfrom 'free'); Meyer'
Die Grenzen,105.Seealsobelow,n. 76.
6aSeeP. Herrmann.Anadolu, ix (1965),29-159(citedin the followingnotesby
the author'snamealone).
6sTwo copieshavebeenfound ofthe Aitolian and Delphiandecrees.AlroLlANS:
(a) copy from Teos: SGDI l4ll, : Syl/.3 563,IG ix.2 l. 192;(b) from Delphi:F
Delphes,üi.2. 134a.DELpHI: (a) from Teos: Ad. Wilhelm,GGA clx (1898)'218' :
SGDI 2675;(b) from Delphi: Syl/.r 565, = F. Delphes,iii. 2. 134c.AMPHIKTYoNS:
Sy//.I 564, : F. Delphes,iii. 2. I 34b. Letter of the ATHAMANIAN rtNcs, Theodoros
and Amynandros:Wilhelm, GGA clx (1898),217, = Welles'RC 35. cnrreN cotr't-
MUNTTTES: SGDI 5165-80,: Inscr. Creticae,I, p. 4, no. I (Apollonia);p. 25, no. 52
(Arkades);p. 30, no. I (Biannos);p. 62, no. 8 (Knossos);p. l0l, no. I (Istron);
p. ll l, no. 2 (Lato);p.292, no. I (Rhaukos);ll,p.2' no. I (Allaria);p. 63' no. l7
(Axos)p ; . l 1 8 , n o . 2 ( K y d o n i a )p; . 1 6 l , n o . 2 l ( E l e u t h e r n a ) ; p . 2 4n3o' . 3 ( P o l v r -
rhenia);p. 291,no. I (Sybritos);III, p. 31, no. 2 (Hierapytna).
66Thechronologicalbasisofthese decrees,includingthe fact that the repliesof
the Greek communitiesshouldbe datedto the years205-201,was establishedby
Ad. Wilhelm,GGAclx (1898),216-20. Cf. G. Klaffenbach,IGix.2 1.,p.5l (onno.
95): Herrmann,94.
67Cf.G.Colin,F.Delphes,iii.2.p.l36;Holleaux'Etudes, iv. 178-203;W.Ruge'
RE, s.v. Teos, 541-50.The datingofthe Cretandecreesto 193,the yearofthe reply
of the Roman praetor (seebelow, n. 73), though followed in spiteof Wilhelm by
Blass(onSGD/5165-80)andCardinali(Riv. difil.xxxv(lX)7), l3)isunsupportable.
48 The Reign of Attalos I
Antiochos III, and it is clear from thesecircumstancesthat Teos
was acting in the matter without referenceto its relationshipwith
the King of Pergamon.On the contrary, it has long been recog-
nized that the intervention of Philip was due to his status as
npoord.rqgof the Cretan communities,while the part played by
Antiochos showed a direct relationship between Teos and the
Seleukidking.68An inscriptiondiscoveredmore recently at Teos
(Sivrihissar)has confirmed and clarified this position.6eThis in-
scriptionrecordsa decreeof Teos honouringAntiochosIII and his
queen,Laodike, aswell aspart of a letter written by the king to the
city acknowledgingthe honourspaid to him. The decreerefers in
detail to Antiochos' part in the negotiations,and to his own recent
recognitionof the äoü"1o.of the city, and was thereforeprobably
passedin 203.70Of particularinterestis the fact, now attestedfor
the first time, that Antiochos appearedin person in the city,
strengtheningthe impressionof a firm relationshipbetween the
two (I. 17-18):napü")öv eiErilv öxü,ryotavaödE ld.vqxeri1[v]
nöLry xq) rily yrbgav rjpöv ieqd.vxoi äoü.ov zrl.. Antiochos'
presenceat Teos may be dated to 204,when he is known to have
been in Asia Minor following the return from his easterncam-
paigns,Tra datewhich fits well with a declarationof äoü.fu inthe
Greek mainlandin the following spring.
It is clear from this evidence that by 2M Teos no longer de-
pendedon its former relationshipwith Attalos I of Pergamon.As
long as Teos is regardedas an Attalid subject, or as part of the
Attalid Kingdom, in the years from 218 to 204,this sequenceof
events presentsa major difficulty in that Attalos must, in these
circumstances, have sufferedthe'loss'of Teos as a kind of fait
accompli,T2 in spiteof the goodrelationswhich,as we will see,are
6EMagie, Roman Rule, ii.942-3, n.391'Buckler Studies, 168, n. 3; Ruge, RE s.v.
Teos, 550; Walbank, Philip V, l2l, n.3. The view of Holleaux (art. cit. n. 67), that
Philip was at the time master of Teos, having captured the city in 201, was extreme
and failed to explain the position taken by Antiochos: it also led to chronological
difficulties.
6eHerrmann, art. cit. (n. 64).
7 0S e e H e r r m a n n ' s c o m m e n t a r y , 9 3 - 7 .
ItPolyb. xv. 25. 13, in an account of events in Egypt following the death of
Phifopator, says that Agathokles If6lona piv äftneprpe röv I76lorog tiEtilv'Aotav
npög'Avrioyov röv 6aoL\öa. On the date of this event, see Wilhelm, Wien. Anz.lvü
( 1 9 2 0 ) ,5 7 ; S c h m i t t , U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , 2 3 3 , n . 2 ; H e r r m a n n , 9 6 .
72So Herrmann, 106-18, esp. l12: 'es sieht eher danach aus, dass Attalos in
diesem Falle ein fait accompli in Kauf nehmen musste' etc.
Attalos and Asia Minor 49
evident between Attalos and Antiochos for at least a part of the
time before the outbreakof the SecondMacedonianWar. What is
more. the action of the Roman Senatein 193,in addingits nameto
the list of stateswhich recognizedthe inviolability of Teos,thereby
endorsing the part played by Antiochos, would be difücult to
understand if Antiochos had acquired the city forcibly from
Rome'sfriend and ally.73This legalisticview of Teos' statusdoes
not, however,adequatelyaccountfor its relationshipwith Attalos,
and later with Antiochos; in fact such a view never coresponds
with the largelyindefiniterelationsbetweena Hellenisticmonarch
and a Greek city.74Polybios says that Teos placed itself under
Attalos' influenceby looking to him for protection; this is not to
saythat the city was thencefortha subjectcity or a part of Attalos'
kingdom.It is more likely that Attalos simply retainedhis statusof
defender,or protector, of Teos, Kolophon, and the other Ionian
cities, up to 205,the year of the Peaceof Phoinikewhich endedthe
First MacedonianWar. Attalos had played little part in this war,
having had to return to defend his kingdom in 208 when it was
invadedby PrusiasI of Bithynia. Of the war with Prusiaswe know
little more than the fact, but it is probablethat it wasendedin 205at
the sametime as the Peaceof Phoinike,bringinga short periodof
tranquillity to westernAsia Minor beforethe invasionof Philip in
201.7s lt is not surprisingthat Teos,in this shortperiodof peace, no
73A letterof M. ValeriusMessalla,the praetorof 193(Sy//.3601),confirmedthe
status of Teos as fcqär xa0dtg xai vüv totw xai äou).ovxai dqopd.öyqrov dnö
ro6 örjpouröv
'Ptopaior.
For the circumstances,which includedagainthe media-
tionofenvoysofAntiochos,seeHolleaux, Etudes,iv.200-203,whoexplainedthe
latedateof Teosl requestto Romein termsof his beliefthat the city remainedunder
the control of Philip, Rome'senemy,until 196,when Afrtiochosgainedcontroland
could act as mediator.Now that we know that Antiochos'influenceat Teosis to be
dated much earlier than previouslysupposed,this explanationcannot stand; cf.
Herrmann 14l-2. In the presentstate of our evidencethe questionmust remain
open.
7aCf. the remarksof A. H. M. Jones,Tfte GreekCityfrom Alexanderto Justinian
(Oxford, 1940),95.
TsOn the war betweenPrusiasand Attalos see Habicht, RE, s.v. Prusias(l).
1092-3iHermes, lxxxiv (1956),94. Habicht rightly envisagesa separatetreaty
concludedbetweenthem at aboutthe time of the Peaceof Phoinike.I seeno good
reason, however, to discount the authenticity of their appearanceamong the
adscriptito thePeaceof Phoinike(Livy xxix. 12.l4), sincetheirhostilitieshadhada
bearingon the MacedonianWar. Most suspectamongthe namesof lhe adscripti are
Athensand Ilion, but all the otherscan be defended.Forthe greatlyvariedmodern
opinion on this question, ranging from complete acceptance(e.g. J. P. V. D.
Balsdon,JR^l xliv (1954),32-5) to total rejection(Habicht,RE, s.v. Prusias(l),
1093),seethe bibliographyto Sty iii. 543 (Peaceof Phoinike).
50 The Reign of Attalos I
longer sought Attalos' protection, and the fact that itsouvilfixat
with Attalos were renewedin 218 indicatesthat the relationship
was largefyof anqd hoc nature,that is, it wasrelatedto the stateof
military activity in westernAsia Minor. [n passingunder the more
direct influenceof AntiochosIII on his return from the East in 204,
Teos did not ceaseto be an Attalid city (which it had never been)
and henceforthbecomea Seleukidcity,76terms which so far from
defining statusavoid the problemsinvolved; rather, in a time of
comparativepeace,it felt free to look to a new protector. This,
then, is the natureof the changein Teos' status;the reasonsfor it
aremoreclearly apparentfrom the decreehonouringAntiochos,to
which we now return.
The decreeattestsclearly for the first time the natureand extent
of the obligationswhich in generalwe would expectTeos to have
incurred in looking to Attalos for protection. It has long been
thought, although mostly for the wrong reasons,that Teos paid
someform of tribute to Attalos in 218,77and this conclusionhas
been establishedas a fact by the decree,where we find specific
.referencesto such payments:
I. l0-20 (Antiochos)
naqayevöpevog
öni rcüExa?' rjpaErönouEäno-
xat6ornoe d ngäypara eiE oupE{povoav xard.otaow xo,i i-
nöqp1oaE iv rfi nö).et fipdv xai 1erttpöv ilqo1uryxhaE
flpag xafi] öv rciE xowoiE xai öu rcig iöiory öü rc toöE ouveXetE
noT|poulgl xai ü piyüog dtv öcptpopev ouurdfeav xai 6ou7öpevoE
ui rc npöE üv )eöv eüoeddtEötaxüo7at fot xa|ßpaotv flpritutilv nöAw
xai d1vXtbpav(xo'i) 067ovyap(lw9at röt te örjpaLxai uitt xowöt tört
nepi röu 4gövuoovrtyvtröv napeT9dsveiEd1v öxxlqoi.av aötöE
ävqxe fi[v] nö),tuxai rily ybpav f1priviepäv xai äoütou xai dgopoTö-
y1rov xlailröv ä)J.ay fov icp4poptvouurd$eav6aoÄei'Auä-
\at üneö{fato &.nü.u0fioao0atfipag öt' aürcü xrL.
L32-4 (Teian envoys had been sent to Antiochos, and he) BveEävoe
[ört natpaAöiuxed1p nöltv eiEd.eixa\ött önqyilarc ,;t, orrrr*fflo"
fueucppptov6aoÄei'And).a L.
The terminology here is imprecise; we read first äy öcp6popev
ouwä$tav (19), and later fov ouverd$apu cphpow (33-4), although
76SoRuge,RE, s.v.Teos,547-50:
cf. Herrmann108:,tatsächlich
istTeosin den
Jahren205/3seleukidisch gewesen bzw.,wiewirjetzt sagenkönnen,geworden.'
tt e.g.by Ghione,art.cit. (n. 38),94;Cardinali,
RP 934;Meyer,DieGrenzen,
105,wholistsTeoswith'tributpflichtige Städte'as
distinctfrom.freieverbündete'.
Attalos and Asia Minor 51
it is to be noted that in the secondcontext the decreerecordsthe
reply of Antiochos. A distinction between the terms cpögoEand
oüvtalry is clearly evident in the fourth century, including
Alexander'sadministrationof the Greekcitiesof Asia Minor, but it
cannot be taken for granted that the distinction was maintainedat
the end of the third century.t8 In the Attalid Kingdom as it was
constitutedafter the Peaceof Apameia,we meeta variety of terms
to denote the payment of money by a city to a king: qöQoE,
ü,)'eopa,np6ooöor,,but the exact differencesin their connotations
remainobscure.TeWe cannot even be certainthat the tetmqöpoE
always denotesa regular,i.e. annualtribute, althoughthis seems
to be the usagein a documentdating from the reign of Attalos II
and concerning a city under Pergamenecontrol.soOverall the
evidence seemsto show that, as distinct from the term EöpoE,
which acquired the role of a generaldesignation(asis apparent,for
example,in the concept of d.qopd"oyqoia),the terms oüvta[6,
rt),eopa, and so on, were used impreciselyand even indiscrimi-
nately. [t is thereforenot necessarilyvalid to arguefrom the text
under discussionthat Teos paid Attalos I specificallycategorized
cpdpogand oüvra$rE, since this too would presupposethat the
terms are used precisely, whereasthey clearly are not. Further-
78For a statementof the casefor maintaininga strongdistinctionbetweenthe
termsoüvta{ry and cpöpoE,see H. Francotte,Les Financesdes citös grecques
(Paris,1909),77-86;on the Attalids,81, where the positionis summedup as
follows:'substituerle phorosä la syntaxis,c'est substituerun 16gimede contrainte
sansrdservesä un r6gimede libertd.' This conclusionis in my view too rigid for the
natureof relationsbetweencity and suzerainin the Hellenisticperiod,which I have
touchedon in thetext.On theotherhand,A. Heuss.StadtundHerrscher,l0ü-lll.
argued too dogmaticallyagainstthe distinction at this date. There seems,for
example,tobeadistinctionintheletterofAlexandertoPriene,OG/S 1.9-15:rödä
- - xci Mupol- - - xai - - - - | xlai n[d.oav rilu nfu $1 Xtbpalv ylwtboxa ipilv tiva4
I
rcüq,öi xaltomoövtag öv taiE xdpatg taültaq cpipttv rcüE cpöpoug.trlE | öi
ouwdf,taE äqiqpt t)1pLlqqlvöap nötrn,22,1. Herrmann'spoint in this connection
(seebelow),that referenceis in onecaseto a city, andin theotherto villages,seems
to me to strenglhenrather than weakenthe casefor a distinction.Naturally one
cannotassumethat the distinctionwas maintainedabsolutelyover a hundredyears
later, but it seemslikely that chancerieswere awareof somedifferencein concept
betweenthe two terms.Forfurtherdiscussion of this question,cf.Magie,Roman
Rule, li.829, n.14;Herrmann,l0l-5.
7eSeebelow. ch. 4 (ii).
t0 Amfada: Swoboda, Keil, and Knoll, Denkmäleraus Lykaonien, no. 74 ll:
Appendix iv, no. 23; this documentis discussedbelow, 102.
52 The Reign of Attalos I
more, the fact that AntiochosdeclaredTeos feqä xo,iäou).ogxai
äcpopo)r6yqtog does not mean that the city had formerly paid
regularcpöeogin addition to oüwaSLq since the formula was an
abstractone, usedto denotethe future statusof a city's inviola-
bility.tt It is more likely that Teos hadpreviouslybeenrequiredto
pay occasionalcontributionsto Attalos, which were sometimes
calledouvrd(eq and at other times, more generally,cpdpoqthan
that thesepaymentswere regularand specific.It is not until a later
date in the developmentof the PergameneKingdom that we find
the paymentof regulatedtribute to the sovereign.
Further evidenceof theseobligationsis to be found in the terms,
asreportedby Polybios,of the Romansettlementof Asia Minor in
188sc. Here we read amongthe requirementslaid down for the
Greek cities (xxi. 46. 2): öoat (sc. titv aörovöpav n6).eav)ö'
'Arrd.|qt
oüvra$w irt).ouv, raüra6 öntta$av röv aüröv Eöpövet
öLöövatqöqov.E2This is translatable in two ways:either,'they (the
Romancommissioners)requiredthosecities which hadpaidoüv-
ra$ry to Attalos to pay the same(amountof ) tribute to Eumenes',
or, 'they requiredthosecities which had paid oüvraf r.Eto Attalos
to pay the sameasEöpogto Eumenes'.Of thesetwo alternatives,
the first seemsto me in itself the more likely; this involvesregard-
ingoüvralg andcpöqoE as beinginterchangeable, in the sensethat
qöpoE could denote any kind of tribute payment, which, as we
have seen,seemsto be the casein the third and secondcenturies
sc. This preferencewith respectto Polybios'meaningis supported
by his terminologyin describing,at an earlier point in the narra-
8t It is the conclusion of Herrmann, l0l-5, that in addition ro a regular
EöeoE,
Teos paid Attalos ouuttiferg, but this assumes that the declaration of dEoqoToy4-
oia (L l8) means that Teos had necessarily paid a regulargdgo6 up to that point, an
assumption which is not justified by the confused terminology used in the decree. A
declaration of äpopd.oyr1oia meant only that the city would not be required in the
future to pay tribute, regardless ofprevious requirements. The term is included in
the letter of Messalla (Sy//.3 601 ; see above n. 73), 19-21:.xpivoptv tlvat i1v nö7Lv
xai d1v Xtblpav iqä.v xa0öE xai vüv öorp xai äoü"ov xai d.cpogol).öyqtov d.nö rcü
'Parya{aw,
örjpou toü and in the letter of the Athamanian kings (see n. 65), 7-8:
olulyXtttpoüptv eivat xo) i1v I nöLa, öpöv xai tily X<bpav tcpäv xai äoü,ov xoJ
agopoTöy4rov. None of these had a personal interest in payment of EöpoE; the
declaration was simply part of the usual form of recognition (cf. Herrmann, 140-l ),
and was not meant to refer to the ending of taxation at that moment in force.
8, Cf. Livy xxxviii. 39. 8: quae partium Antiochi
fuerant aut stipendiariae Attali
regis, eas omnes vectigal pendere Eumeni iusserunt.
Attalos and Asiq Minor 53
tive, the generalprovisionsenvisagedby the Senatefor the settle-
ment of Asia Minor (xxi. 24. 8): r6v (öö)nütav iav 'E),),7viöav
'Auä)"q
öoat pöv cp6qovöner|)rouv, caütaE röy aötöv Eöp|vet
'AvuöyE,
rü'eiv, öoat ö' pövov ra6ra6 d.cpeio9atröv cp6gov.The
constructionof this sentencearound the antithesisöoat pöv 'Ar-
tdAE - öoat ö' 'AvröXE, requires that the term cpöqoEbe
usedofformer paymentsboth to Attalos andto Antiochos,and this
usage therefore confirms the general connotation of the term
cpöeog.In the case of Teos, then, the city certainly paid Attalos
orjvra$tE and Eöpog, but it is most probablethat the two terms
refer to the same thing, and the fact that these paymentswere
evidently severeconstitutesthe most likely motive for the city's
turning to Antiochos in 204.
Another inscription requires mention in the context of tribute
payment,althoughits relevanceis doubtful.s3This documentis a
decreeof Teos recording its decisionto buy land for the Ionian
Guild of Dionysian relvitar, whose seat was then at Teos (5-9):
dyoqäoat öö aötoiE xai xftqllual öyyeoviv u1Lnö),eri) rfiLyritpat
änö öqa (ytöv ) F X I lxail np ooayoqt6 eo1a Lr ö &yoqao?iv xrfi pa
iepöv ö ävt604lxl ö öqpoE röt xow(aLuitv nepi röy lr,öttuooy
r[ely]vtröv, öv d.re],iEtiv f1 nö76 änßä)").etrc).öv. Of the six
thousanddrachmai required for the purchaseof the land, three
thousand were to be provided iy 6aoü"moü, that is, from royal
funds (15-18): rö öö ön[ollL]nöEöpafupäE)XXX öötaoav oi
eioLövreErapiat ix t[öv I np]ötav öo0qoop6vatvaöroiE öy
6ao ü.moü eiEr [fiv I t rllEndAea Eörcixrlow. Thesetwo procedures,
the paymentof r67q ('duties'),and the receiptof moneyfrom royal
funds,have hitherto suggesteda relationshipwith an Attalid rather
than a Seleukid king,8aalthough this criterion alone does not
decidethe matter; all we can say is that thesepracticesare better
attestedfor the Attalids. A more substantialargumentis the fact
ar R. Demangel
and A. Laumonier,SCH xlvi(1922),312-lg, no. 2 (SEGii. 580).
Cf. L. Robert,Et. anat. 3944 (supplements2-5; commentary16-23).The text is
reproducedin A. W. Pickard-Cambridge,The DramaticFestivalsof Athens(ed.2,
rev. Gould and Lewis, Oxford, 1968),314, no. 9.
saCf. Holleaux, Etudes,ii. 95-6 (chronology:96. n. 2); Ruge,RE, s.v. Teos,562
(datesthe inscriptionbefore225);E. Bickermann,Hermes,lxvii (1932),68; W.
Hahland,Ö"/lr xxxviii (1950\,924: Herrmann. 102.n. 105.
54 The Reign of Attalos I
that the Attalids are known to have taken a great interest in the
welfareand prosperityof the reyvfuatwhen Teosbecamea tribut-
ary city in 188.8s The Ionian Guild is attestedfor the first time by an
Aitolian decreeof 235,and it is unlikely that it was foundedmuch
beforethis date;s6in this casethe only alternativeroyal funds are
those of the Seleukid Antiochos III, who can reasonably be
excluded on the ground of his recognition of the city as
dcpopoAöyrltoE in 204;87 nor is it likely that the city had paid taxes
to Antiochos at an earlier date, since the decree honouringhim
complainsso bitterly of the demandsmadeby Attalos. For these
reasonsa connectionwith the Attalids is a sounderproposition'
The documenthas commonlybeendatedto the reign of Attalos I,
but a dateafter the Peaceof Apameiaseemsfar more likely.88The
criterion of the letter forms is not by itself decisive,sincethey are
compatible with a date in any of the three periods, 22V223'
2l&l20l, and that immediatelyfollowing the Roman settlement.8e
On historical groundsthe first of theseperiodsappearsto be the
least likely, while Holleauxls argumentthat the decreegives the
impressionof relationsrecently establishedbetweenthe city and
the Guild of rsxvirGLis not convincing;eo sincetheserelationswere
never very stable, it is not necessarilyto be concludedthat the
buyingof land and votingof honoursby the city impliesthe Artists'
recentarrival. Furthermore,the only other evidencefor payment
85Seebelow,ch. 4 (ii).
E6F. Delphes,iii. 3. 218B,6-7: ööofelroiE AiraToIE dn]?ööpevtoiE rqgvfuatE
'I[aviag
tdlv lrt doEdAem)vxc'irdv äoü'tav totg ön' xai'ELLqonölvtou xr]'' On
the origins of the Ionian koinon, see G. Klaffenbach,Symbolaead historiam
collegiorum Artificum Bacchiorum (Berlin, l9l4), 17-21; Pickard-Cambridge'
Dram. Festivals,2914.
s7Holfeaux,Etudes, li. 96, n. 2.
8sCf. Bengtson ,Strat.ä.220.Fortheearlierdate: Holleaux,Ruge,Hahland(see
n. 84).
EeCf. Holleaux,loc. cit. (n. 8?).The lettersbearsomeresemblance to thoseof the
Korrhagosdecree,but this point cannotbe pressed.In this caseI do not think that
the letters can determinea dating one way or the other.
e0Holleaux,Ioc. cit.;cf. Hahland,ÖJh xxxväi (1950)'92. Equallyflimsy seems
to me an argumentintroducedby Herrmann( 102,n. 105)that subventionsfrom the
royal treasuryare not likely to havebeenmadeat a time recentto the passingofthe
decreefor Antiochos,which attestsheavyouwö.felE;this is to assumean under-
standingof royalfinancialpolicythatwe simplydo not have,andit is worth pointing
out that the city which honouredKorrhagosreceivedroyal subventionsalthoughit
had previouslybeen payingsubstantialnpooööot to the king.
rromthe.",",,."",":;':::::::'",:'::chpassed,n"o.".::
honouring Korrhagos,oqar4yöE of EumenesII in Hellespontine
Phrygia,after the Romansettlementhad put Pergameneauthority
over Greek cities on a much surer footing (9-12):sr(Korrhagos)
fi$tatoevröv 6aoü"6aänoöo?fivat . . . rö üE ü. iepd.xai nöAeoE
öLoixr1owäpyüqrcv xt)'. This parallel,and the implication,men-
tioned above, of the changein Teos' status in 188,when the
Attalids first took a seriousinterestin the welfareof the reXvirar,
strongly suggestthat the inscription in question,and the financiai
procedureattestedby it, shouldbe datednot to the reign of Atta-
los I, but to that of EumenesII, and more exactly,to the years
immediatelyfollowing the Romansettlement,namelyto the same
time as the decree honouring Korrhagos. Its relevance to the
periodof Attalos' relationswith Teos in 218shouldthereforein all
probability be discounted.
At this point we may usefully summarize the conclusions
reachedfrom this evidenceasto the implicationsofTeos'relations
with Attalos. In 218the city entrusteditselfto him on the basisof
ouv9fixat which had been arrangedat an earlier date. From this
date, and possiblyearlier, the city was requiredto pay a vaguely
definedform of tribute, sometimesof a considerableamount.The
position of Teos can thus be said to lie somewherebetweenfree-
dom and dependence;an exact definition is unattainableand was
probably not meant to be attainable.It seemscertain. however,
that Teos enjoyed a greater measureof freedom by virtue of its
ouv9fixat than did the communitiesof Aeolis and Mysia, whose
statuswas closerto full subjectionto Attalos.When hostilitiesin
Asia Minor involving Attalos came to a temporary halt in 205,
probably'at the time of the Peaceof Phoinike which ended the
Aegean War, Teos felt free to turn to Antiochos III, who had
recently returned from the East and now supportedthe causeof
Teos in its requestfor the generalrecognitionof its riou,tic. This
recognitionwas duly accordedin204/3by the Greekcommunities,
and in 193by the RomanSenate.Teos'relationswith Attaloshad
been basedentirely on military considerations,and it is not sur-
prising that after long years of war it should turn to a different
protector in a peacefulcause.
er Holleaux,Etudes,ü.71-125. Seebelow,ch. 4 (i).
56 The Reign of Attalos I
This evidence leaves a clear impression that Teos became
eventuallydissatisfiedwith the terms of its relationshipwith At'
talos. In the case of the neighbouringcity of Kolophon, the evi-
denceusuallycited for its relationswith the PergameneKing must
now be redated, partly on the basis of the conclusionsreached
above.[n the closingyearsof the third century, Old Kolophon,the
city visited by Attalos I, establisheda settlementat Notion (Colo-
phon Nova);e2althoughindependentof the old city, the new set-
tlement was attachedto it by oupno)"weta,e3 and its inhabitants
were called, accordingto a decreeof Magnesiaon the Maeander,
KolocpüvrcLd.nö 7aldoor1E.e4 A decreeof the new city records
the decision to institute a festival of the v6oLandiqri6oL to celeb-
rate the yuöLAnE üpieo of Athenaios, the youngestof the sonsof
Attalos I.esHolleaux has shownfurther that other membersof the
Attalid royal family were honouredwith Athenaiosin havingtheir
eixöveg,erectedby the city in the sanctuaryof Apollo Klarios.e6
Holleaux argued, from the absenceof any specific referenceto
EumenesII, that the decreewas passedbefore his accessionin
197,and thereforenecessarilyshortly before 197,sinceAthenaios
cannot have been born earlier than220.e7More recently, a later
date hasbeen urgedon the basisof the letter forms of the inscrip-
tion,e8to which an importanthistoricalconsiderationmust now be
e2Cf. Cardinali,RP 94,n. 4l Holleaux,hudes' ü. 53.
er L. Robert,Ret,.Phil. x (1936),158,n. 6, 1654:Villes,62.
salvM 53,75-9:Kü'orptivtol of fivllapXaiav nölltv oilxloüvregdistinguish-
ed from KoTocprivtoL Qtnö\ l9ü'äoottE.
ssTh. Macriiy ,fun' iäiitsosl, lot-r, no. l, asinterpretedby loll9aux, Erades,-
ii-ll=60(and simultaneously.but in lessdetail, by A. Brueckner'OJh ix(lW),
Beibl. 58-9);Appendixiv, no. 20.
e6Holleaux.Etudes,ü. 58.
e?Ibid.59: on the birthof AthenaiosseealsoMeischke,Symbolae,26'
esHabicht, 1vP iii., p. 28, n. 5. Much dependson the restorationof lines 2-5;
Holleauxrestored: foraqfivatöildlvcixdvallivr,tuinn4hrcrötaxr6zatL(?)roü
'A?1vallou xo'i trlg p4rpöE
iltpol nlqoiov | 1röv tix|vuv röv &.öelqtbv | [aürd)v
6aoü,ioonE,'AroiTavlöo1E Cf. A. Brueckner,ÖJhix(1906), Beibl.58-9:nlqoiovl
'An91'
'Attü']ou xai rr1gpqqöE
ftoü narpöE \eoü 6aoü.6aE | 10nE 6aodtooqE2
Neither restorationis completelysatisfactory,but the constructionim-
T0/viöolE.
posed 6y Brueckner (m|oat öö rlv eixöva - ' - tT4otov roü natpög xtl') is
particularlyunfortunate.It is diflicult to seein thesecircumstanceshow Attalos'
ii.58,n.3): it isnot
namecanhavebeenincludedatthispoint(cf. Holleaux,Erades,
then so surprisingthat Eumenes'nameis alsolacking,and it shouldbe notedthat
the omission of a royal name in a civic decree is often misleadingand rarely
decisive,a point which will be discussed furtherin Appendixiii (203'n.l4)'
4ttalos and Asia Minor 57
added:that after 205Attalos' influencein Ionia was weakenedby
the end of the military undertakingson which the ouv|fixar with
Teos and Kolophon, and other cities, were based.The honours
voted to Athenaioscannotbe datedbefore205,when he will have
been too young, and a date betweenthe years205and 197seems
extremely unlikely. Although the period from 197to 188,that is,
duringthe first ten yearsof Eumenes'reign,remaina possibility,a
date after the Roman settlementis by far the most convincing,
since we have other evidenceof cities instituting similar cults to
honour the Attalids at this time.eeIt needsto be addedthat sucha
cult does not necessarilyimply a subjectstatuson the part of the
city concerned (Colophon Nova was declaredfree of tribute in
l881,toosince the practiceis known to have been followed by
independentcities,for exampleKos and Miletos.rorThis impor-
tant point will be taken up in a later chapter; at this point the
redating of this decree leaves us with no additional evidenceto
clarify the statusof Kolophonin the years218to 201.
It remainsto considerAttalos'dealingswith the citiesin Helles-
pontinePhrygia.The statusof thesecitiesis evenmore clearlyone
of friendship rather than of allegiance.It appearsfrom polybios'
narrative that Attalos visited them becausehis settlementof the
Galatiansby the Hellespontbrought him into the area, rather by
chancethan by design(v. 78. 6):'Awa)"oEpöv olv, d.noxarao-
rqoag roüE AiyooäyaE eig röv 'E)"l4onovrov xo,i yprlltatbaE
cpüav0p6naEAaprpaxrlvöig,'Ak$avöpt6otv,'il"rcüot, öÄ. ü
rerrlpr1x|vaLroürouErilv npög aüröv niorrv, äveyrbgryoe pud tfig
öuvdpea4 eiE [I|pyapoy. On the other hand, the words z€r-
qgryxövatrqv ngöEaüröv niorw suggestthe existenceofa previ-
ous relationshipduring the war with Achaios, one perhapsbased
on ouvQfixan,as is the case with the Ionian cities. This does not
necessarilymean, however, that their terms were the same as
thoseof the Ioniancities;it is extremelyunlikely,for example,that
they paid Attalos tribute, sincethey were free citiesafter 188.r02
cities'entrust'themselves
Nor did the Hellespontine to Attalosin
e eS e e b e l o w , c h . 6 .
r o oP o l y b . x x i . 4 6 . 4 ; s e e b e l o w , c h . 4 ( i i ) .
roI See below, I 55. Kolophon was regarded
as a subject city by Cardinali, Rp g6,
and, on the basis ofthe cult, by Holleaux, Etudes, ä.60.
r02On the status of these cities after 188,
see Schmitt, (Jntersuchunpen, 2g4.
58 The Reign of Attalos I Attalos and Asia Minor 59

the manner of Teos and Kolophon. On the contrary, Polybios' peyd.Tqnapaoxufi yprlodpevoE öv r(t ptpdtvt, petd. taüra tfiE
narrative shows that Attalos' dealingswere on the basisof a free |epetaE önryevop|vqg önep66a)"eröu Taüpov, xai ouv)öpevoE
"Auü"ov
alliance,spontaneoussupportrather than contrivedco-operation. npöE röv 6oot),6a xowonpaytav öviorato üv npöE
'AyaÄv
Thus Attalos' relationshipwith Lampsakos,Ilion, and Alexandria nö),epov.This agreement(xotvonpayia) was one of mili-
Troas may be comparedwith that pertainingto Kyzikos; in the tary co-operationdesignedto achievea specificpurpose,and not a
caseof Ilion, evidencecited in the next chapterrevealsa further formal treaty,106but there is further evidencethat the good rela-
parallel in the form of the kind of Attalid benefactions already tions between Attalos and Antiochos were maintainedafter the
known for Kyzikos in the caseof Philetairos.They were all im- capture and death of Achaios in 213 had put an end to the im-
portant free cities whose friendship was especiallyvaluable to mediateground of co-operationbetweenthe two kings. A treaty
Attalos because,like Kyzikos, they facilitatedthe important Per- betweenthem is recorded,this time with the title ouv9fixal, in the
gamenetrade with the Black Seaarea.1o3 They sympathizedwith literary evidence relating to the Roman negotiationswith An-
Attalos, but owed him no allegiance. tiochos after his defeatat Magnesiain 189:
* Appian,Syr. xxxviii: Scipioaddresses an embassy from Antiochosand
afludes to thecompensation thatwouldberequired of him:d.noöoüvat (sc.
Antiochos). . . Eüptvetöoa Tomd rqE npöE "Ana)"ov
The conclusionof the precedingdiscussionhasbeenthat Attalos' üu Eöptvoug
naripa ouv9qxrlg äpt.
main contributionto the growth of his kingdomin the years241to
218layin his developmentof firmerdiplomaticcontactwith Greek Polybiosxxi. 17.6 expresses the samenegotiations as follows:clzo-
öor.ivatöi xai EipivtL rerpaxöorcrd).avra(rd)npoooEuAöpeva xai töv
cities further from Pergamon,enablinghim to find strongerand i),7efuovraofuouxard rd.EnpöEröv naröpaouv9fixaE.
more substantialsupport in his wars againstsuccessivelocal op- It is extremely unlikely that the agreementreachedin 216consti-
ponents.In examiningthe extent to which Attalos subsequently
tuted the kind offormal treaty attestedby thesepassages, although
maintainedthe positionhe gainedin 218two importanteventshave we need not necessarilyconclude that the ouv9fixal had been
to be taken into account: the counter-attackmade by Achaios in concludedonly shortly before the year 189in which referenceis
the years 218 to 216, and the agreementreachedin 216between madeto them.r07If, as seemscorrect, we regardtheouv?fixat as a
Attalos and Antiochos to co-operatein eliminatingAchaios. Of treaty of later dateand closerdefinitionthan thezolvonpayia, the
neither event do we possesssignificant details. The first is re- most likely date for its conclusionis immediatelyor shortly after
'Ayaö;
corded by Polybios as follows (v. 77. l):toa öä
the deathof Achaios,namely in 213or 212.In the years212to
nou1odpevogöE' 6auröv d1v Mü'u6.öa xai rd. il'etota ptgq riE 205/4Antiochoswas in the eastof his kingdom,andon his returnin
IlatrrcpultaEäv6leufe, xai napcyevöpevoEeiE2d.pöeq önü"Ltrtet 204 his activity in western Asia Minor was hardly conduciveto
ltbv'AnalE ouveXCoE, äveteiveroöö l1gouoiq',xrdoLö' fiv cpo6eqöE
friendly relations with the King of Pergamon.It is also possible
xai 6apüg roig öni rdöe roü Taüqou xaromoüot. Although the that in the years before the outbreak of the SecondMacedonian
extentof Achaios' successin theseyearsis unknown,it is probable
that Attalos found himself again in difficulties, for such cir- 1 0 6S c h m i t t , U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , 2 6 4 , n . l .
ro?I find unconvincing Schmitt's argument (Untersuchungen, 265),'doch ist
cumstancesbest explain his willingnessto come to terms with
'AvrioyoE kaum anzunehmen. dass der Seleukide noch nach fast drei Jahrzehnten die verglei-
Antiochosin the late springof 216 (v. 107.!):ros öi chsweise niedrige Summe schuldig geblieben wäre.' On the contrary, payments of
r 0 3O n t h i s a s p e c to f t h e A t t a l i d s ' e c o n o m i c p o l i c y c f . M . I . R o s t o v t z e f f , R a m s a y such obligations in instalments, overa period oftime, is a well-attested procedure at
Studies,365-6. this time; the treaty which ended the war between Attalos II and Prusias II, for
f 04 Schmitt, Untersut'hungen, 263. example, was drawn up on this basis. Prusias being obliged to pay Attalos 500
r05On the xowonpayia see Schmitt, Untersuchungen, 264-7; on the date, tafents over a period of twenty years (Polyb. xxxiii. 13. 6: nutaxöota öi rd),avra
264. n. l. xartvtyxtiv iv örtow tixoot).
60 The Reign of Attalos I
War, Attalos was largelyresponsiblefor propagatingthe belief in,
and danger of, an alliance between Antiochos and Philip V of
Macedon.This would havebeenan unconvincingattitudeto adopt
if he himself had also concludeda formal alliancewith Antiochos
within the last few years. Since relationsbetweenthe two kings
were strongestin the years 216to 212,it is to this period, shortly
after the informal xoLvonpay[a had lapsed with the defeat of
Achaios,that the ouv9fixat most naturallybelong.t08
The terms of the xoLvonpayiaand the ouv|fixat are unknown,
but it has usually been concluded that Attalos gained from his
co-operationwith Antiochos,at leastto tfreextentthat he was able
to recoverthe positionhe had achievedin 2 18.roeAs far as it goes
this view is probablycorrect, sinceAntiochos cannothave hoped
to gain Attalos'co-operationin 216without makingsomeform of
concession;on the other hand Achaios was at the time of the
10EAntiochosandPhilip:SIV iii. 547.It seemsmostlikelythatthe'pact'between
Antiochosand Philip V wasan informalagreementto co-operate,oreven simplyan
understandingnot to interferewith one another's interests.Such an agreement
could very easilyhavebeenunderstoodlater to haveamountedto a partitionofthe
EgyptianEmpire, and it is highly probablethat Attalos and the Rhodiansusedthe
rumour (which is all it can have been) in order to convince the Senateof the
existenceof a danger(cf. Appian,M aked. 4. 2: xai rrivb rilv öölav, €xtapdooou-
oav änavtaE'Pöörctpöv'PapaioLgöpfiwoav; cf. D. Magie,JRS xxix (1939)'
32-44:Roman Rule, ü.'750,n.42); whetherthe Senatetook the threatseriouslyis
anothermatter(seebelow, n. l5 | ). Magiehas perhapsgonetoo far in denyingthe
existenceof any kind of agreement(althoughhe was quite right in stressingthe
importanceof the rumour of its existence,which is what really matters),but
Schmitt'sattempteddefenceofthe tradition (Untersuchungen'237-61)does not
establishthe authenticityof a formal treaty, whoseexistenceis most unlikely. See
afsoE. Badian,Gnomon,xxxviii (1966),7 15-16.
Two dedicationsfrom Pergamonshouldbe mentionedin the contextof relations
betweenAttalos and Antiochos.One (/vP 189,= OG/S 236)is a statuebaseof
Zeuxis, oqat4yöE and ini ttiv npaypdrav of Antiochos lll (cf. Ad. Wilhelm'
Wien.Stud. 1907.I l-13: L. Robert,Noavelles Inscr.de Sardis,l.9-14);thebaseis
inscribedZaifo Kuvayou lö önpoE.The other (IvP 182,: OGIS 2zt0)is a baseof
'AvtioTlot
the king himself:Baot).tla pdyav lfilaotltaE Z1eLe{xouKaTfulvtxouI
lllpaltaE Mtvfintyou vop)ocp6,tc{.The official natureof thesededicationsimplies
at leastthat Antiochoswas at the lime personagrata in Pergamon,and sincethe
statueofAntiochos, wherethe restorationofthe titlepfTa6:seemsassured,cannot
be datedbefore205(Holleaux,Iitudes üi. I 59-63),it appearsthat we mustenvisage
a short period of good relationsbetweenAttalos and Antiochosafter Antiochos'
return from the East in 204.That thesegood relationslastedfor more than a few
monthsis, however, most unlikely.
loeSeethe referencesgiven by Schmitt, Untersuchungen,266, n.2.
Attalos and Asia Minor 6l
conclusionof the agreementat leastas much a threat to Attalos as
he was to Antiochos, perhaps more so, and it is arguablethat
Attalos stood to gain more from the xowonpayfu in immediate
termsthan Antiochos. It is thereforeunlikely that Attalos was able
to achieve more than a return to the statusquo of 218.
More important, however, is the considerationthat this is the
first recordedtreaty betweenAttalid and Seleukidkings; it there-
fore marks a decisive point in the developmentof relations be-
tween the two dynasties.Previously, as we have seen, the
Seleukidswere alwaysconcernedwith limiting the Attalid dynas-
teia, andit is unlikely that they evenacknowledgedits independent
status. Now, however, the formal constitutionalcommitmentto
ouv9fixat implies a direct recognitionby Antiochos of this inde-
pendentstatus,and of Attalos as an equalking.r r0We may there-
fore reckonas the most importantconcessionthat Antiochosmade
to Attalos the first Seleukidrecognitionof the Attalid Kingdom as
a separateand sovereigndynasteia.
Further specificconclusionsremaintentative.In 218the Hell-
espontinecities of Lampsakos, Alexandria Troas, and Ilion af-
firmed the loyalty to Attalos which they had shownduringthe war
with Achaios. In vieryof this attitudetakenby the leadingcitiesof
the area,it is unlikely that Antiochoswas ableto reassertSeleukid
influencein the Troad before the two invasionsof Asia Minor in
198and 197.Pergameneinfluence in the Troad may thereforebe
accounteda specificgain of the wars endingwith the agreementof
216and theouv9fixauttl
The subjectstatusafter 216of the Aeoliancitiescloseto Perga-
mon is confirmed in the case of Thyateira by the inscription at-
rroAgreementsbetween kings in the Hellenistic period were obviously not
always called ouv9ixatt much clearly dependedon the circumstancesof the
agreement.Thus an agreementto end hostilitieswas often called, as we would
expect,öLalüoeLE (e.9.StV iii. 428(Peaceof 3l I ), 448 (ephemeralpeacebetween
Demetrios Poliorketesand Kassandrosin 302)).Of the terms used, however,
ouv9fixat is constitutionallythe most formal, and necessarilyinvolves a mutual
recognitionof status.
rrr Schmitt (Untersuchungen,165)points to the possibilitythat the cities of the
Troad had eventuallyfallento Achaios,and that Polybiosv. 78. 6 merelysaysthat
they remainedloyal to Attalos, i.e. they resistedas long as they could. This view
cannotbe discounted,but it seemsto me not lo be what Polybiosmeans,in the
context of the sectionas a whole.
62 The Reignof Attalos I Attalos and Asia Minor 63

testingAttalos' settlingof xcnoixot in its territory, and in general ever, the status of Mysia remained vague, in the sensethat no
terms, as we have seen, by the reference in Attalos' reply to singleruler exercisedauthority over the wholecountry; it hasbeen
Magnesiaon the Maeanderto ai ön' öpön6)"e6,g[g.rt2The fact shown, for instance, that although Attalos continued to recruit
that referencewas madein the Roman settlementto taxespaid to soldiersfrom the country he was by no meansthe only ruler at the
Attalos further suggeststhat the situationapparentin 218was also end of the third century to do so.r 18Mysia may thereforebe seen
in force in the following years. In these respectsthen, Attalos rather as a natural recruitinggroundfor Hellenisticarmiesthan as
seemsto haverecoveredthe positionhe held in 218.On the other a country of sustainedpolitical importance.
'possedesse This conclusion concerningthe statusof Mysia may serve to
hand, Pedroli's extreme view that after 216 Attalos
dell' Asia Minore i territori al nord di una linea idealeche dal mare clarify a vexed problem arising from a referenceto Mysia in the
ed immediatamentea messogiornodi Colofonesi estendefino all' terms of the Romansettlementof Asia Minor in 188sc. According
alta valle del Sangario,e di qui fino all' Ellesponto; e perö all' to Polybios (xxi. 46.10) the territories awarded to Eumenes II
incircatutta I'anticasatrapiadi Frigiaall' Ellesponto',r13is neither includedMuooriE,oüEnqöreqov aütöE napeoxeud.oaeo; accord-
basedon specificevidencenor relatedto the realitiesof Attalos' ingto Livy (xxxviii. 39.15),Mysiam, quamPrusiarexademerat.lt
position in earlier years, in which such aggrandizementof the has been generallyrecognizedthat Polybios' text as we have it is
kingdom does not come into question, and it was rightly dis- corrupt, and that Livy transmits the correct original.rreThe
countedby Cardinali.Cardinali'sown view, however,r14 which identificationof Mysia, however, remainsproblematical.It is un-
was endorsedby Ernst Meyer,rt5by M. Holleaux,rro and by L. likely to have beenthe whole of the areaadjoiningPergamon,that
Robert,rlTthat Attalos retainedin216 all his conquestsof two is, Mysia proper, since the area is more closely defined:quam
yearsearlier, needsmodificationin accordancewith the differing Prusia rex ademerat. It is also most unlikely that Prusiasever
statusof the subjectcommunitiesin Aeolis and Mysia, and the penetratedso closeto Pergamon.On the other hand, the idea that
allied cities in Ionia and HellespontinePhrygia,where statusvar- Attalos gained an even temporary control over an entire area
ied from city to city. Attalos most probably recovered the au- further from Pergamon,such as Mysia Olympeneand the later
thority he had exercisedin 218,but the extent of direct authority, Phrygia Epiktetos, both of which have been suggestedin this
which was confined to Aeolis and Mysia, remainedunchanged. context, seemsto be ruled out by the literary evidence,which
The situationin Mysia, however, was.certainlyless stableafter unanimouslystressesthe smallnessof the Attalid Kingdombefore
216.As alreadynoted, the natureof the country permittedonly a I 88.r20Furthermore,Polybios' referenceto Muoo I suggestsa part
tentativeand partial kind of authority, and no treaty could by itself and not the wholeof a country. In thesecircumstances we should
guaranteeAttalos' position there. In the yearsfollowing Attalos' think rather of territory on the bordersof Mysia, and most prob-
expeditionof 218 its position is unclear, but the fact that Muoo( ably that betweenMysia and PhrygiaEpiktetos,whoseboundaries
appearin Attalos' army during the First MacedonianWar shows
that his control was at least partially maintained in the years I r8On the recruitmentof Mysiansin the Hellenisticarmies,cf. Launey,Recher-
following the agreementwith Antiochos. In all probability' how- ches,i.436-9.
treCf. Cardinali,RP82, n.2; Meyer,Die Grenzen,150,n.2; Magie,Roman
r 1 2S e e a b o v e , 4 5 . , e r m e s , l x x x i v( 1 9 5 6 )9, 1 . M o m m s e nR, ö m i s c h e
R u l e , ä . 7 5 8 , n . 5 6 ; H a b i c h tH
t t r U . P e d r o l i , l l R e g n o d i P e r g a m o ( T u r i n , 1 8 9 6 ) ,3 O - 1 . C f . C a r d i n a l i , R P 8 l - 3 . Forschungen,ii. 538,aloneattemptedto emendthe text of Livy (Prusialopridem).
r14RP86. r2oMysia Olympene: Cardinali,RP 82, n. 2. Phrygia Epiktetos: Meyer, Die
tts Die Grenzen, 103-4. Grenlen, I l5; Magie,RomanRule, ii. 759(with reservations); Habicht,art. cit. (n.
t t 6E t u d e s , ü . 6 0 . I l9), 92t Schmitt,Untersuchungen,266,276-8. On the evidenceforthe sizeofthe
tt7 villes. 40. n. 3. kingdombefore 188,seeabove, 25.
64 The Reign of Aualos I
were neverclearly definedin antiquity.r2rWe know, in particular,
that certain communities in this border area were sometimesas-
signedto Mysia,122and we may reckon that Attalos' control in
Mysia spilled for a time into the area known later as Phrygia
Epiktetos,but this doesnot meanthat the country as a whole may
be accounteda part of his kingdom.l23We are dealing,in other
words, with the border territory between the kingdoms of Perga-
mon and Bithynia, and, given the unstablesituationin Mysia, it is
not surprisingthat this territory remaineddisputeduntil the time of
the Roman settlement.Prusiasis known to have been actively
hostileto Attalos on at leasttwo occasions,in 208and in the years
precedingthe Antiochic War.r24On the first occasion Prusias
invadedAttalos' kingdom,an action which must havebroughthim
into the interveningterritory in Mysia;12sas we have seen,it is by
no meanscertain that Attalos was able to maintainthe hegemony
in this areaas a whole to which he aspiredin 218.It is admittedly
plausiblethat the loss to Prusiasat this dateof a part of Mysia will
havebeenrectifiedby the peacewhich we may dateto 205,r26 but it
is hardly likely that this was the only occasionon which Prusias
invadedMysia. As a border land betweenthe two kingdomsthe
country was naturally liable to frequent attemptson the part of
each king to maintain a strongerand more widespreadinfluence
there than his rival. For this same reason it would constitute
territory which requiredsettlementin 188,whateverthe situation
at that moment. It is not necessarilyto be concludedthat at the
time of the Roman settlementthe territory concernedwas still in
Prusias'possession;only that it had beendisputed,and remained
in dispute.It is probablethat Prusiastook the opportunityafforded
r2rCf. Habicht,art. cit., 92, with particularreferenceto Straboxü.4.4' 564:
yrttpigtä Muoriv xai <Dpuyövöpiopara' örcpioat öb laknöv.
r22Straboxii. 8. 12, 576:t4E ö' öntxujrou ibpuytag'A(avoi rf tiot xai Naxd"ta
xai Kortdetov xai Mtöd.etovxo,ilopü)"atov nö)'e6 xai Kööot' rcüE öi Käöous
övrcttfiEMuoiaEEaotv.Cf .OGIS 446(Kadoi):<5drlpogö Muoöv'A66aenöv. This
evidenceshowsonly that the boundarieswere unclear;the areasas a whole were
usuallycarefullydistinguished, e.g. in Straboxii.4.l,563'
123Attalid rule at Aizanoi is attestedby an inscriptionof Hadrianic date: see
below, 97 n. 84.
r24Cf. Habicht, RE, s.v. Prusias(l), 1092-3;1097-8.
r2rLivy xxviii. 7. 10.
r26Seeabove,n. 75.
Attalos and the Aegean 65
by Antiochos' invasion of Attalos' kingdom in 198to strengthen
his position in the disputedarea, but that his position was main-
tained there for the following ten years is doubtful.t27
These considerationslead to the conclusionthat the Mysians
concerned lay on the border of Mysia proper and were later in-
cluded in Phrygia Epiktetos; that owing to the nature of the coun-
try neither Attalos nor Prusias was able to maintain a more than
ephemeralhold there, although both made the attempt on various
occasions;and that the disputed area was settled in Eumenes'
favour in 188. In this respect, then, Attalid influence in Mysia
under Attalos I may be compared with that pertaining at a later
date in Galatia, to the extent that similar conditions rendered
impossiblea settledandlastingcontrol over the wholecountry.r2s
(ii) Attalos and the Aegean, 215-197
We have seen Attalos, during the first twenty-five years of his
reign, in the role not of an ambitiouswould-beempirebuilder, but
of a cautiousand defensiveruler, concernedwith strengtheninghis
kingdomrather than with expandingit, and indeedfor most of the
time preoccupied with defending its very existence from the
threats presentedby successiveenemies.To strengthenhis mili-
tary position Attalos formed closer relationswith Greek cities in
Ionia and the Troad. but we have seenthat in terms of direct rule
the situation hardly changedfrom the time of his predecessor.
Finally, in the years precedingAntiochos' departurefor the east-
ern campaigns,the Seleukidand Attalid kings cameto an agree-
ment, eventually constituted under the formal title ouvQfixaq
which at the very least confirmed Attalos' sovereigntyin Aeolis
and Mysia. Attalos' achievementin the years precedinghis al-
liance with Rome can be summarizedas the consolidation of
authority within the kingdom left to him by EumenesI, and the
foundation of strongerdiplomatic relationsoutside it. One could
r2?Schmitt, Untersuchungen,276-8,arguedthat Prusiasinvadedthe areacon-
cernedin 198,necessarilybeforeEumenes'accession(cf. Polyb.xxxii. 8. 3); asI do
not believethat either Attalos or Prusiasexercisedsuch a definitecontrol in this
areaasto constituteincorporationin their respectivekingdoms,I do not think that
this point can be pressed.
rusOn Galatia, see further below, ch. 5.
66 The Reign of Aualos I
not do better than recall the words of M. Holleaux, written with
referenceto Attalos' campaignof 218,but applicableto the reignas
a whole: 'circonspectet avis€,calculantjustesesint6röts,limitant
sesentreprisesä sesmoyens d'action, et se hätant d'accomplir,
sitöt que s'en offre I'occasion, des besognesimm6diatement
utiles.'12e
A few years after the agreementwith the Seleukid king, Attalos
took part in the so-calledFirst MacedonianWar as Rome's ally
againstPhilip V of Macedon.The natureof Attalos' involvement,
and above all the motives for his enmity to Macedon in the light of
his cautious policy of earlier years, must form an important part of
our discussion.Scholarshave suggestedvarious reasonsfor At-
talos' alliancewith Rome. The most extreme view has been ex-
pressed,surprisingly,by the same scholarwhose more apposite
words have been quoted above; written twenty-four years later,
this view seesAttalos, in the secondhalf of his reign, attemptingto
found an empire in the Aegean after his failure to increase his
kingdomin Asia Minor; to 'escapeto the west', evento re-formthe
old kingdom of Lysimachos.r30In such a scheme,Philip would
appearas Attalos' naturalenemy, and in Holleaux's brilliant pic-
ture of Romanrelationswith the East,Attalos appearsasthe ready
ally of Rome, concernedto persuadethe Senateof the usefulness
of its intervention, but equally anxious to securesuch powerful
support for the grandioseintentions he now allegedly entertained
for the expansionof his kingdom. This view, needlessto say,
presentsa pictureof Attalos' intentionsvery differentfrom the one
argued in the preceding pages, and we would have to supposea
dramaticchangeof policy; it is, however, untenableand must be
refuted.
Other views see Philip as the natural enemy of Attalos in the
ns Etudes,ä. 42.
t3oRome, la Gröceet les monarchieshellänistiquesau IIIe siöcleav. J .-C. (Paris,
l92l),2M-5, especially205: 'dominer I'Aig6e, y prendre la place quitt6e par
I'Egypte,y pr6venirla Mac6doineet lui enleverce qu'elley tient ddjä,occuperles
Cycladeset möme l'Eubde, p€n6trerau Sudjusqu'au coeur des mers grecques,
pousserauNordjusq'aux iles et aux rivagesde Thrace,puis s'dtendre,s'il sepeut,
vers la Chersonöse,se saisirdes d6troits,et, chevauchantsur I'Europe et I'Asie,
restaurerl'6ph6möreempirede Lysimaque.'In this list of imputedintentions,only
the words 'y pr6venir la Macddoine'seemto me to be realistic.
Attalos and the Aegean 67
latter's opposition to the Seleukidsand to PrusiasI of Bithynia,
Philip's ally;trt and Attalos as the natural enemy of Philip in his
defence of his kingdom in Asia Minor.r32Neither of these two
pointsof view is realistic;the first overlooksthe importantfact that
Attalos and Antiochos were formal allies during the years preced-
ing the outbreakof the MacedonianWar, as well as the considera-
tion that Prusias'interventionon Philip's behalftook place some
yearsafter the outbreak ofthe war, and cannot therefore havebeen
a factor determiningAttalos' policy beforeit; the secondargument
is equally untenable in view of the fact that Philip was at this date
not a direct threat to Attalos' position in Asia Minor, even as
suzerainof Caria, where Attalos did not have lastinginterestsat
this date; this threat was, once again, a later developmentin
Aegeanpolitics.r33
More important, however, is the considerationthat all these
approachesto the problem presupposea total commitment on
Attalos' part from the very beginningof the war with Philip. A
closer examinationof the facts showsthat this assumptionis not
justified; on the contrary, it will be seen that Attalos had little
enthusiasmfor the war andtook part only when persuadedto do so
by his allies and only to such an extent as would satisfy them.
We must consider,firstly, the circumstancesin which Attalos
became Rome's ally, and the implications of this alliance. Al-
though these circumstancesare not entirely clear, it is certain at
leastthat the initiative lay not with Attalos, but with his prospec-
tive allies,and of thesewith Aitolia more than Rome. In interpret-
ing the literary tradition, representedin full at this point only by
Livy, we have to be careful in distinguishingthe evidencederived
from Polybiosfrom that which can be ascribedto one or anotherof
the Roman annalists, and in assessingtheir respectivevalues.
Livy's accountof the Romantreaty with Aitolia, which we should
probablydate to the year 212,althoughcompressedand evidently
r3rG. ne Sanctis,Storia dei Romani (Turin, 1907-64),äi.2. 416.
t32U. Wilcken,Ä8, s.v. Attalos(9),2163.
r33Prusias'seeHolleaux,Rome,la Gröce, 2O6,n. l. Philip and Caria: Crampa
Labraunda, äi. l. 127-31. ?*
;i
/
68 The Reign of Attalos I
selective,wasalmostcertainlyderivedfrom Polybios;r3athe terms
show that Attalos' co-operationwas envisagedbut not presup-
posed(Livy xxvi. 24.8-9): igitur conscriptaecondiciones,quibus
in amicitiam societatemquepopuli Romani venirent (sc. Aetoli),
(9) additumque ut, si placeret vellentque,eodem iure amicitiae
Elei Lacedaemoniiqueet Attalus et Pleuratus et Scerdilaedus
essent,Asiae Attalus, hi Thracum et Illyriorum reges. As is well
known, Rome avoidedtotal involvementin the war even after this
treaty with Aitolia, and it is probablethat Attalos' participation
was suggestedin the hope that the availability of the Attalid fleet
would complement the power of Aitolia by land, and thereby
further reduceRome'sdirect obligations.The fleet appearsfor the
first time, and then only briefly (see below) during this war, at
which point it was evidentlya force of somestrength,but we have
no direct evidenceas to the circumstancesof its construction.The
fact that a fleet is not attestedby Polybiosin the campaignof 218
hardly providesaterminuspost quem for its construction,as has
beenthought,trs rin"" Attalos' strictly military activity in that year
wasconfinedto areasof Aeolis and Mysia in which navalactivity is
hardly to be expected;in other areashis dealingswere political,
and in one case (the Troad), not originally envisaged.So the
argumentthat Attalos beganthe constructionof a fleet sometime
after 218as a part of his plan to tum to the west, doesnot haveany
firm basisin the evidence.It is more probablethat the fleet was
built up graduallyover a number of years, and in particular after
the acquisitionof the important harbour position of Elaia, prob-
ably in the reign of EumenesI, as a meansof improvedcommuni-
cationsand especiallyof closercontact with the Greek mainland,
which was always an important factor in Attalid foreign policy.
There is no evidence to show that the fleet was developedin
pursuit of an expansiveor aggressivepolicy.
114The most thoroughanalysisof the literary traditionis that of K.-E. Petzold,
Die Eröffnung des zweiten römisch-makedonischenKrieges (Berlin, 1940),but it
suffersfrom a dogn,atic attitude taken towards the value of the various elementsof
the tradition. For the treaty with Aitolia, see Schmitt'scommentary,Sty iii. 536.
On the date, seeespeciallyG. Klaffenbach, Der römisch-ötolischeBündnisvertrag
vom Jahre 212 v. Chr. (SB Berlin, 1954);G. A. Lehmann, Untersuchungenz.
historischen Glaubwürdigkeit des Polybios (Münster, 1967), 10-134.
r35As argued,for example,by Holleaux,Rome, la Grice, 205-4, n.2.
Attalos and the Aegean 69
Although the availability of the fleet was an attraction to his
allies, we seeclearly that Attalos' own part in the war was from the
beginningof a vagueand undefinednature,and it is unlikely that a
formal alliancewith Rome was concludedbefore the time of the
Peaceof Phoinike which ended the war; it is more probablethat
Attalos' position remainedone of informal amicitia. r36This con-
clusion is indicatedin particular by Polybios' referencein a later
context (200 nc) to Attalos' activity as basedon a xolvontpay[a
(xvi. 25. 4):|eopdtv (Attalos)ö' aörcüg (the Romancommission-
ers) xai üS npoyeyevqptvqg xowonqayiaE pvqpoveöov-
raE . . . nepqppilE riz. This term was used, as we have seen,of
Attalos' co-operationwith Antiochosin the war with Achaios,and
denotesa commitment to military assistancefor the time being
rather than the conclusionof a formal treaty. Such military assis-
tance seemsto have been the nature of Attalos' involvement,to
which we now turn.
Attalos' short and casualinvolvement hardly supportsthe no-
tion of a schemeon his part of expansionin the Aegean. The
invitation to Attalos to take part in the war was probably made in
'escapeto the
212.So far from seizingthis goldenopportunityof an
West', Attalos did not appearin Aegeanwatersuntil the year 209,
and then only when the Aitolians, still left to bear the brunt of the
fighting and evidently desperateto secureAttalos' active partici-
pation, offered him the honorary title of Leaguefiyepbv together
with the prestigiousislandof Aigina, recentlyacquiredby them, at
the nominal price of thirty talents, as a base for the Pergamene
flss{.t32 The following year Attalos returned to his capital on
receipt of news of Prusias' invasion of his kingdom, a diversion
probably engineeredby Philip, and he took no further active part in
the war. Apart from Aigina, which constitutes a special case,
Attalos achievedno territorial gainsasa resultof his participation.
This activity, viewed objectively, suggestsinformal co-opera-
tion rather than a formal alliance, and correspondswith the con-
clusion reached above as to Attalos' initial relationship with
Rome. It also correspondswith our view of Attalos' policy with
regard to his kingdom; we see him still, that is, cautious and
116K.-E. Petzold,Die Eröffnung, l,+-18.
r37Polyb. xxii. 8. l0; cf. BSA lxvi (1971)'l-2.
70 The Reign of Attalos I
reserved,hesitant to commit himself to ambitious schemes,and
more concernedwith the preservationof his small kingdom, and
the authority it represented,than with its aggrandizement.We
have seenthat the initiative in securingAttalos'albeit ephemeral
co-operationlay in a largemeasurewith the Aitolians. This fact is
of importance in that it was with Aitolia that Attalos' relations
were, at that time, in the,context of the Roman alliance, the
strongest.It is well known that, at a date before 219,Attalos had
financedthe building of the fortifications of the Aitolian stronghold
of Elaos;138less frequently noticed is the equally significantap-
'Awü.eüE
pearanceof the ethnic in Aitolian manumissionsfrom
the end of the third century, pointing to the existencein Aitolia at
'Arrü,eia
that date of a city named whose foundation,or, more
probably, refoundation, may be dated to the time of the First
MacedonianWar, or earlier.r3eWe arebound,then, to reckonwith
a closer Pergamenerelationshipwith Aitolia than that suggested
by the singlefortification of Elaos.This impressionis strengthened
by evidence relating to Attalos' activity at Delphi, then under
Aitolian control. Attalos' predecessorshad establishedcordial
relationswith Delphi, but their generositywas probablylimited to
direct financial support. This policy was taken a step further by
Attalos, as elsewhere,by the more direct expedientof addingto
the buildingsofthe sacredprecinct.This took the form ofa terrace
built to the north-eastof the Temple of Apollo and including a small
stoa;the scaleof the buildingwas compact,and the most interest-
ing featureof the constructionis the choice of its site, as close as
possibleto the templeand therebyin an areaso constrictedthat to
allow room for the new terrace a breach had to be made in the
sacredperiboloswall, for the first time sincethe reconstructionof
the area in the sixth century.l4o The size and position of the
buildingindicatea cult purpose- the stoawas not simply a shelter
from the rain - as does the dedicationof the whole complex to
tra p6fyf. iv. 65. 6-7: 'ArrdTou dp, nepi aötö xataoxtulv dvaöelap{voo toig
Airaioig.
trcCf. Klaffenbach on IG ix.2 1.95 (2M/3; cf. 107):'nimirum hoc oppidum
'Attü.ela
denominatum est a rege Attalo I de Aetolis bene merito.' On the origins
of Attalos' relations with Aitolia (which are very obscure) see also McShane,
Foreign Policy, l0l, n.29.
rao For a description of the site see G. Roux, BCH lxxvi (1952), 14l-96.
Attalos and the Aegean 7l
"Arr
Apollo : IBa]o t],elüg al)"oE I'A n P A0)orr p l. An Amphiktyonic
decreedated most probablyto 2231236tat lsgslds regulationsfor
the useof the portico, and leavesthe impressionthat abusesof the
precinct had arisen since its construction (lines 7-11): iv rdv
'Ar-
naordlöa rdv dvarc|eioav röt. 1töl I itnö rcü 6aoü.61o1g
täAou pq|evi üpfev ö$ouofuvn).fiv 6aoü"6ory1läva)eivalpq9öv,
p4öö oxavoüv pqöb nlüp dvdmer.vBwögfi |xröEllrdE naoü.öog
xü'.lt is likely then, from this evidence,that the constructionof
the terrace should be dated to the earlier years of Attalos' reign,
most probably the 230s,althoughthere is no reasonto associate
the construction with anv of Attalos' militarv successes,as has
beendone.!42
It is to be noted,finally, that it wasAttalos'policy, in Delphi and
elsewhere,not simply to finance building operationsof this kind,
as his predecessorsseem to have done, but to provide skilled
workers to carry out the actualoperation;we hearat Delphi in 197
'And)"ou
of one Dameas,ö napä rcü 6aoü'öaE ö öni röv öpyau
röv 6aoü.möv.143The implementingof this moreambitiouspolicy
at Delphi may be accountedone of the factors leadingto Attalos'
friendly relations with Aitolia.
It can hardly be coincidence,then, that it was the Aitolians with
whom Attalos had the strongestrelationsat the time of the out-
break of the First MacedonianWar; they whosetreaty with Rome
envisagedAttalos' co-operation;and they at whose call Attalos
finally appearedwith afleet in the Aegeanin supportof the Roman
alliance.In this connectionlie the origin and motive of Attalos' at
first reluctant appearancein the allianceformed againstPhilip, and
any notion of personalambition on Attalos' part at this time must
be discounted.
It is probablethat Attalos, togetherwith PrusiasI of Bithynia,
was enteredas one of theadscripti to the Peaceof Phoinikewhich
endedthe First MacedonianWar in 205.144 [t is at any rate certain
that Attalos' position in relation to the Roman allianceremained
r4rsy//.3 523(Pomtow).Cf. Wilhelm, Öth vüi (1905),l2-13; R. Flaceliöre,zes
Aitoliens d Delphes (Paris, 1937),407,no. 38b.
to, e.g. by McShane,Foreign Policy, l0l:.'Attalus I built a portico at Delphi to
celebratehis Gallic victories.'
t4tSGDI 2001;Appendixiv, no.4; cf. Daux,Delphes,499.
f44On the authenticityof the adscripti, see above,n. 75.
72 The Reign of Attalos I
informal. In the yearsfrom 205to 200,however, the situation in the
Aegean changed dramatically with the emergence of Philip of
Macedon as a threat to the islands and to Attalos' position in
westernAsia Minor. The piratical expeditionof Dikaiarchos,the
worshipper of Lawlessnessand Impiety, which we should prob-
ably date to the year after the Peaceof Phoinike,r4smust havebeen
the first clear indication of the reality of this new threat. Attalos
and Rhodesstood to suffer most: Attalos from Philip's now clear
designson the cities of the Hellespont,!46and Rhodesfrom his
support of the cretan pirates. with their commerceand prosperity
equally threatened,it is not surprisingto find Attalos and Rhodes
co-operatingin the following years, as the threat merged into
reality, in resisting Philip's advance. So far from being an un-
naturalalliance,as hasusuallybeenassumed,it was the inevitable
reaction to a common danger. Of particular importanceis their
commonpolicy, now well attestedby epigraphicalevidence,r4T of
challengingPhilip's position in Crete (a position of great impor-
tanceto his ambitionsin the Aegean)by concludingallianceswith
groupsof Cretan cities, thereby controlling the supply of Cretan
mercenaries.
It seemsmost likely, however,from the limited evidence,that of
thesetwo powers Rhodeswas the more belligerentat the time of
the outbreakof the SecondMacedonianWar, owing largelyto the
vigorous policy of her admiral Theophiliskos. Polybios states
explicitly that Theophiliskos was the driving force behind the
alliance,being mainly responsiblefor securingAttalos' participa-
tion in the naval battle off Chios, in which the combinedAttalid
and Rhodianfleetsproved to be a good matchfor Philip, although
r45Polyb. xviii. 54. 8; Diodorosxxviii. L Holleaux,Etudes,iv. 12445, establi-
shedthe dateofthe expeditionas either205or 204;ofthesethe later yearseemsby
far the more likely.
ra6Polybiosdesignatesas Dikaiarchos'objectivesin204,tdg KuxldöaE vfioouE
'Eil,4onöwou
xai rd.göE' nö),eq (54. 8). This policy of aggressionagainstthe
Hellespontine cities,'which was carried further in 202, and which directly threat-
ened both Attalos' interests there and his contacts with the Black Seaarea, must
have been a decisive factor in determiningAttalos' more positive policy as devel-
oped after 202.
t47For Attalid treaties with Cretan communitiessee P. Ducrey and H. van
Effenterre,Kret.Chron.xxi(1969),277-300;P.Ducrey,BCIIxciv(1970),637-59:
Appendixiv, no. 3;for the Rhodiantreaties,Sty iii. 551(Hierapytna),552(Olus).
Note that Hierapytna was the common ally of Rhodes and Attalos.
Attalos and the Aegean 73
both sides claimed the victory.raEIn these events we see again
Attalos' reluctance to become involved in an Aegeanwar, shown
also by the fact that he had not taken part in the earlier engagement
betweenthe Rhodianand Macedonianfleetsat Lade.laeThe death
of Theophiliskosat Chiosdoubtlessalsogoesa longway to explain
the marked hiatus in the activity of Rhodes and Attalos prior to
their appeal to Rome. This appeal took place in 200, after Philip's
escapefrom his enemies'siegein Bargylia;for its motive we need
surely look no further than the consideration that Attalos and
Rhodes had after three major attempts (Lade, Chios, Bargylia)
failed to contain Philip, and to keep him from plunderingAttalos'
own territory,lso and the probable feeling after the death of
Theophiliskosthat the alliancewas by itself not powerful enough.
For the first time we see Attalos taking an energeticinitiative in
Aegeanaffairs,indeedthe main advocate-or so it seems-of the
renewalof the war with Macedon.This policy, so far from beinga
reversalof his earlier policy, shouldbe seenas a logical develop-
ment of it; no longer able to defend his kingdom by his own
resources,he soughtthe helpof the powerwhich seemedmost able
to supporthim.r5r
r48For the narrativeofthe battle,Polyb.xvi. 2-8; Philip'sclaim to victory is at 8.
2. For Attalos' victory dedication,seeabove,n. 3. The initiativeofTheophiliskos,
"AuaTov
9. 4: fivdyxaot öi töv fi1 piL).ew xr7.
r4ePolyb. xvi. 10. l: röv ö' "AttaAov p4ö6natouppepryh,or.AlthoughHolleaux
put forward positive argumentsfor dating the battle offChios before that ofLade
(Etudes,iv.218-22), I regardas more convincingthe chronologyproposedby De
Sanctis,Stor. Rom. iv. l. 10,n.27, in which the battleof Lade is followedby
Philip'sinvasionof Pergamonand the battleoff Chios,in that order. Cf. Walbank,
Philip v, 301-8.
r50Pofyb. xvi. I , discussedby Holleaux,Etudes,iv . 247-551withthe chronologi-
cal reservationexpressedin the previousnote; cf. Walbank,Philip V,308).
t5rI cannot discuss fully here the political and diplomatic circumstancesof
Romaninterventionin the SecondMacedonianWar; nor the variousattitudesat
Rome at the time. As I have said(above,n. 108),the existenceof a formal treaty
betweenAntiochosand Philip seemsextremelyunlikely,but an informal working
agreementcannotbe ruled out. What matteredwas the reportingof the rumour at
Rome,althoughit is not likely that sucha report playeda decisivepart in determi-
ning Romanpolicy in 200;no one in Romecan havebelievedin the possibilityof a
direct threat from the East (seeH. Bengtson,Die Welt als Geschichte,v (1939),
176-7, = Kleine Schriften zur alten Geschichte(Munich, 1974),251-2).More
important considerationsto the Senateat this time surely were that Philip was
supportinglawlessnessin the easternAegean,and that Roman interventionto
restore order there had becomefeasible with the ending of the war with Carthage
(on this secondpoint, seeNiese ii. 590; Petzold24-5).
74 The Reign of Attalos I
This appraisal of Attalos' policy in relation to the Roman al-
liance leadsto the conclusion that the main motive continued to be
the defence,and not the extension,of his kingdom.[n fact, Attalos
achievedtwo territorial gainsas a result of the alliance with Rome,
namely the islandsof Aigina and Andros.l52Aigina remainedan
island of someconsiderableprestige in the Hellenistic period, and
must have appearedto Attalos as an assetof value, particularly as
its possessionprovided him with a baseclose to the Greek main-
land, with whosecitiesit remainedhis concernto promotefriendly
relations,but its acquisitionwas not due to any substantialinitia-
tive on Attalos' part. Andros was acquired in 199, during the
SecondMacedonianWar, but the circumstances,beyondthe fact
that Attalos had taken part in its capture from Philip, are unclear.
We have only Livy's statement,ea ab Romanis regi Attalo con-
cessa(xxxi. 45.7);we cannotbe surethat it had the samestatus,in
the senseof being a possessionof the king, as Aigina.
We see,then, that Attalos never envisagedthe Roman alliance
as a meansof territorial expansion.Such ideas of Attalos as an
empire-builderare the fantasiesof modern historians.With our
sightsthusnarrowedwe are ableto assessmorefairly Attalos' own
achievement.He did not createa new kingdom;rather he devoted
his resourcesto strengtheningthe existingkingdom- modestasit
was in size - and to establishinga diplomatic standingin the
Greek world which it never lost.
We may howeverreasonablyattributeto Attalos, in the context
of his rule over Aigina, the applicationof an institutionwhich was
later extendedto other cities of the enlargedkingdom.Aigina and
Andros are of particularimportancein assessingthe development
of institutionsof Attalid rule in that they were subjectpossessions
whoseacquisitioncan be datedfirmly to the reignof Attalos [, and
whoseinstitutionscan thereforebe assignedwith a high degreeof
probability to him. In particular, the presenceof an Bnrcrdr1Eat
Aigina, attestedby a decreeof the city dating from the reign of
Attalos II, indicatesthat this was an Attalid institution beforethe
r52Attalid interestsin Euboia,includingAttalos' temporarypossession of Oreos
(Livy xxxi. zt6. 16: cf. 1vP 50, : OGIS 288)were shortlived;in 196Flamininus
preventedthe Romancommissioners from finally cedingEretriaand Karystos'and
evenOreos,toEumenesIl(Polyb. xväi.47. l0-lI;Holleaux,Etudes,v.40'n. |).
Attalos and the Aegean 75
extension of the kingdom in 188.t53It is more likely that the
Enrcrätqg had existed in Aigina from the time of its acquisition,
than that the offrce was introduced suddenly in 188, since the
status of Aigina was not changed in that year. It is unlikely,
however, as has already been pointed out (above, 42), that the
offrce was introduced by Attalos into any of the cities of Asia
Minor, whosestatuswas much lesscloselydefined;but we can be
reasonablysurethat Attalid rule in Aigina provided a precedentfor
similar institutions that were implementedthroughout the king-
dom after 188.It will be shown in a later chapterthat the develop-
ment of royal cults of the Attalids also owes its origins in some
measureto Attalos' rule in Aigina and Andros.
Of equal importancein this connectionis the indication that a
garrison was imposed in Aigina after Attalos acquiredit in 209.
That this was the case is shown by a dedicationof the garrison
members,which is datable to the reign of Attalos \:lsa ALi xai
'Alfivat
l6nöp6aoü"6aEI'Arril"ou lZarupivog, Kal)"tpayoElxai
oi ön' aötoüg flyep6veElxai oqattbrar. As I have attemptedto
show elsewhere,this body was not an army in the field during the
First MacedonianWar, as no Pergamenearmy was engagedin
Aiginaat this time; it wasthereforea garrisonput in later.rssIn fact
the presenceof a garrison is attestedby Livy during the Second
MacedonianWar,tso but we have no evidence as to its perma-
nence.It seemslikely, however,that the statusof Aigina asa naval
baserenderedthe islandliable to almostcontinuousmilitary occu-
pation by Attalos. Although this policy may be seenas an impor-
tant precedentfor Attalid practice elswhere at a later date, for
exampleon the frontier with Galatia,rsTit seemsto havebeen the
exceptionratherthan the rule. The Attalid garrisonin a Greekcity
remained,as we will see, a rarity.
' s r l G i v . l , = O G I S 3 2 9 . S e e B S A l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,4 .
ts4EA l9l). L92: lSE i. 36.
r 5 5 B S A l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 ) ,l - 6 .
156xxxi. 25. I (200): quia praesidium Attali ab Aegina Romanique ob Piraeo
intraverant urbem.
r 5 7S e e b e l o w . c h . 5 .

4 195and 192,5andthe allianceis further attestedin actionduringthe
THE ATTALID KINGDOM AFTER
THE TREATY OF APAMEIA
The Attalids were the greatopportunistsof the Hellenisticworld,
and none more so than Eumenes II, who succeededhis father
Attalos towards the end of 197.1His reign marked the height of
Pergamenepower and splendour,as characterizedby the exten-
sive rebuildingof the citadelof Pergamon,2 and it hasleft us in the
Great Altar and its sculpturesone of the finest monuments of
antiquity.3Eumeneswas rewardedfor his loyalty to Rome in the
war with Antiochos III of Syria with an extendedkingdom which
far surpassedthe previous Attalid Kingdom in terms of size and
extent of authority, althoughit was, as we shall see,basedon it.
The new kingdom made proportionately greater demandson the
Attalid systemof administration,and at the sametime the incorpo-
ration of Teos, the seatof the Ionian Guild of Dionysiantechnitai,
allowed Eumenesand his successorsnew scope in the develop-
ment of royal cults. Theseaspectsof Attalid rule will demandmost
of our attention in this and the following chapters.
The eventsof the reign of EumenesII are well documentedby
the narratives of Polybios and Livy, and a fairly dependable
chronologicalframework can be established.Eumenesextended
his father's policy of forming friendshipswith the statesof the
Greek mainland by concluding an alliance with the Achaian
Leaguewhich Polybioscalls (in 185)'theancestralalliance'.aThe
t On the date, see above, l0 n. 6.
2 Strabo xäi. 4. 2, 624; the chronology and details of the building programme
underEumenesllarediscussed by A. Schober,OJlr xxxii (1940),15l ff.,andmore
fully by Kähler, Gr. Fries, 136ff.
3 See,in addition toAvP III, Kähler, Gr. Fries, part I. The best readily available
photographsof the friezes known to me are those in E. Schmidt, TheGreat Altar of
Pergamon (London, 1965),but the text is not ofthe samestandard.Carl Humann's
drawings of the figures of the friezes are beautifully reproduced inDer Pergamon
Altar (hrlmund, 1960).
a Polyb. xxii. 7. 8.
Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia 77
Attalid fleet againservedthe purposeof the alliance,assumingan
active role in two expeditionsdirected againstNabis of Spartain
war with Antiochos by a dedicationof the Leaguemadeafter the
battle of Magnesiain honour of Eumenes' brother, the future
Attalos II.6 It is clear that Eumenes,like his father, enjoyedclose
and lasting relations with the states of central and southern
Greece,Tand these relations are also illustratedby an important
but not often cited passageof Polybios,which refersto widespread
honourspaid to Eumenesin the Peloponnese.s By meansof large
donationsat Delphi, Attalos I and EumenesII also strengthened
their friendshipwith the Aitolians, their allies in the Macedonian
wars, and this friendihip is reflectedin the many honourspaid to
the Attalids at Delphi, more than to any other dynasty.eThese
relationswere all inspiredby the now establishedAttalid policy of
winning friendsby actsof generosity,a policy notedamongothers
by Livy (xlii. 5.3):cum Eumenisbeneficiisnumeribusqueomnes
Graeciae civitates et plerique principum obligati essent. The
lavish use of their wealth remainedas much a corner-stoneof the
Attalids' foreign policy after 188as it had been before.
ln 216Antiochos III seemsto have recognizedAttalos I as an
equalking and his kingdomas a sovereignstate,and he is the first
of the Seleukids for whom such action is attested. We know
nothing further of the relationsbetween the two kings until 198,
when Antiochos, after returning from successful operations
elsewherein his kingdom,turned his attentionagainto Asia Minor
and took the opportunity of attackingthe kingdomof Attalos at a
5 Livy xxxiv. 29. 4; IvP 6O-63,= Sy//.3595, 605.
6IvP 64,: Sy/I.r 606.
? The evidence of Attalos I's interest in central Greece and the Peloponnese
consistsofchancereferences,e.g. Polyb.iv. 65.6, wherewe learnthat Attaloshad
financed the building of the walls of the Aitolian stronghold of Elaos. He was
honouredby the Sikyoniansafter redeemingsacredland of Apollo for them; later he
receivedan annualsacrificethere (Polyb.xviii. l6; seebelow, 147).For Eumenes
seealso Appendix iv, no. l9 (Thebes).
8 xxvii. 18:in 170/69.when the whole of Greecewas concernedwith the immi-
nent war with Perseus,the Achaians consideredrevoking all their honours, but a
more moderate proposal, supported by Polybios himself, was adopted (xxvii. 7.
8-14). The affair characterizes dramatically the Attalids' high regard in the
Peloponneseand their concern to maintain it.
e Daux,Delphes.502-l l.
78 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
time when the latter was particularly unable to defend it.10An-
tiochos' behaviour is diffrcult to understand,for no sooner was
Attalos dead than he offered a marriage-allianceto Eumenes,
whose refusalEumenesclaimedto his credit in his speechto the
RomanSenatein l89.tt The importanceof Antiochos'actionslay
in the consequencethat the Roman alliancereplacedthe needfor
at least nominal co-operationwith the Seleukidsas a major re-
quirementof Attalid foreign policy. This freedom from Seleukid
influenceis reflectedin a numberof institutionsof Attalid rule after
the Treaty of Apameiahad confirmedthe position: in the regional
administration,which departedfrom the Seleukidsatrapalsystem;
in the titles and functionsof oflicials; and in the new royal coinage,
the cistophoros,first minted on a generalbasisafter the Treaty of
Apameia (see part ii below). [n terms of practical politics this
situation formed for a time a far more decisive and substantial
support to Attalid independence.After the Roman settlementof
188sc the King of Pergamoncould dealwith the Seleukidproblem
from a position of strength,and the results are startling.
In Asia Minor the new kingdomawardedto EumenesII created
its own problems,and Eumeneswas facedfor the rest of his reign
with the enmity of Bithynia and Pontos, as well as the danger
presentedby the apparentreadinessof the Galatiansto ally them-
selves with any enemy of Pergamon,as they had done in the
previousreign. One of the most important aspectsof the external
policy of the Attalids in the yearsafter Apameiawas thereforethe
need to keep control over Galatia, which they did not annex
formally as a provincealthoughperhapsthey could havedone (see
chapter 5), and Cappadocia,which they achievedby a dynastic
marriage(seeAppendix iii) and, when necessary,by direct inter-
ference.
r0Livy xxxii. 8. 9-10. The authenticityofthis invasionin 198,asdistinctfrom the
one in the following year, is convincingly defended by E. Badian, CI. Phil. liv
(1959),82-3 (: Studiesin Roman History (Oxford, 1964),l14) and by Schmitt,
Untersuchungen, 269 tr.
t I Polyb. xxi. 20. E-9; Appian, Syr. 5. The most convincing date for this offer is
195,after the marriageof Antiochos'children Antiochos and Laodike at Seleukeia
in 196/5 (Schmitt, Untersuchungen, lTl4), and the meeting of Antiochos and
Hannibalat Ephesosin the autumnof 195(Holleaux,Etudes,v. 180-3),where it
occursin Appian's narrative;see also below, Appendix iii, n.7.
Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia 79
The immediatecausesof the war which Eumenesfought with
PrusiasI of Bithynia are unknown, and we have no continuous
narrative of its course, the literary evidence being confined to
occasionalreferences.r2A decreeofTelmessos,datedto 184and
thereforeduring Attalid rule, honoursEumenesfor a greatvictory
over'Prusias, Ortiagon, and the Galatiansand their allies', and
acclaimsEumenesas Soter, saviour.l3The content of the decree
suggeststhe context of a war in progress, and establishesa
chronology whereby the peaceis to be dated a little after 184/3.
Eumenes'victory provided a suitableoccasionfor the first celeb-
ration of the reorganizedPergameneNikephoria, which we must
date to l8l; it probably also earnedEumenesthe title So/er, first
attestedby the decreeof Telmessosjust mentioned,and referring
more probably to this war than to the earlier, Antiochic, war.r4
No sooner was peace concluded with Prusiasthan Eumenes
faced another enemy, Pharnakesof Pontos. This new war was
under way in 18312,when envoys of Eumenesand of Pharnakes
appearedin Rome and the Senateagreedto send out legati. The
most substantialpieceof evidenceon the courseand natureof this
war is Polybios'accountof the treaty concludingit in 180/79.t5 The
principal action evidently took place in Galatiaand Cappadocia,
and this fact illustratesthe rivalry of the kingdomsof Asia Minor
for control of theseimportant areas.In the settlementPharnakes
was required to evacuatethe Galatians'territory and to revoke
ouvilfixat previously concluded with them; Attalid interests in
both Galatia and Cappadociawere firmly reasserted.
As a result of the enormousincreaseof their kingdomin 188the
Attalids were for the rest of their history far more concernedwith
Asian affairs, and far less than before with the events of the
Aegean.It was a signof the timeswhen in 17514EumenesII placed
on the Seleukidthrone the new king, Antiochos IV Epiphanes,
whose elevation is describedby Appian (Syr. 45), and equally
12For an account of this waf,seeNiese iii. 70ff.; Habicht, Hermes, lxxxiv (1956),
9l fr.; RE, s.v. husias (l), 1086-1107.
t3 Appendix iv, no. 7; see also no. 8 (Panion,Thrace).
14Onthe chronology,see Habicht, Hermes,lxxxiv (1956),99;on the title, L.
Robert, Rev. Phil. lx (1934),284-5tEt. anat. 73, n. l.
ti xxiii. 9. 3; the treaty is at xxv. 2; cf. xxiv. 14.
80 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
remarkablethat Eumenes and his brothers, and the deceased
Attalos Soter, shouldbe lavishly honouredin an Atheniandecree
relatingto theseevents.r6Furthermore,we know from afragment
of Diodoros (xxxi. 32a) that when Epiphanes died in 16413,
Eumenes went so far as to crown at Pergamona rival to the
successorDemetrios,and this pretenderwas later brought to the
throne by Attalos II, after the defeat and death of Demetrios
(Straboxiii. 4. 2,624). Suchinterferencein Seleukidhistory was a
by-product of Roman intervention. It is not surprising that
Eumenes was only vaguely interested in the Roman war with
Perseus,althoughthe extentof his commitmentis unclear;on the
other hand, Romecould not deal as finally with the King of Perga-
mon as she choseto do with Rhodes.rT
The Galatiansremaineda major problemin Asia Minor, for the
Greek cities as well as the monarchies.Attalid troops had taken
part in the campaignof Manlius in 189(Polyb. xxi. 33-40; Livy
xxxviii. 12-38),and its successfuloutcomehadbeen,accordingto
Polybios(xxi. 40. 2) a causeof greaterjoyto the inhabitantsof Asia
Minor than the prospectof freedom from Antiochos. Those in-
clined to dub Eumenesa lackey of Rome and a traitor to Hel-
lenismrs are reminded that he now assumedresponsibility for
GalatiadespiteevidentRomandisapproval,re and secureda vic-
tory comparablein its outcometo that of Manlius, and certainlyas
beneficialto the safetyof the Greek cities. (The detailsof this war
will be discussedin chapter5.) Polybiosis explicitthat Eumenes'
popularity among the Greek cities increasedas he took a more
independentline (xxxi. 6. 6): xa9' öoov öö6xouv oi 'Papaiot
t6IvP 160,= OGIS 248: Holleaux.Etudes. li. 12747.
r7 H. H. Schmitt,Ronr und Rhodos(MünchenerBeiträge7urPapyrusforschung
und antikenRechtsgeschichte,40, 1957),157tr.
r8There is no evidenceto support the generalization that Eumenes'was
everywheredislikedasbeingRome'sjackal, the traitor to Hellenism'(W. W. Tarn,
HellenisticCivilisation(ed. 3, London, 1952),29).It is preciselyevidenceof this
kind that we most lack for Eumenes'reign; what there is is confinedmainly to
scrapsofRhodianpropaganda, which naturallydepictEumenesin an unfavourable
light.
te Note the eventssurroundingAttalos' visit to Romein 168/7(Polyb.xxx. l-3;
Livy xlv. l9). The Senate'ssuspicionswere directedat Eumenespersonallybe-
causeof his behaviourduring the war with Perseus.Rome's contribution to a
solutionof the Galatianproblemin theseyears was preciselynil.
Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia 81
flapürcqov rQ Eüptvet ngooqtpn)aL xcrrd roooüro ouv66atve
"ElJ'qvaE
roög fiQoootxeroüoeaL 9(toet uitv dvqpdtnau äü tQt
0)"ßopövE tilv eövomv npoovepövron. We are surely entitled to
believethen that Eumenesdied in the favour of many of the Greek
cities of Asia Minor.20
Eumeneswas already ill during the war with Pharnakes,when
his brother Attalos assumedmuch of the burdenof the war, and by
168/7his death was expected.2lAccording to the chronological
indicationsafforded by Strabo, he died in 160/59,and documen-
tary evidencefrom Delphi allows a closer dating: Eumeneswas
certainly alive until the late autumn of 159,and furthermore his
brother Attalos had been co-regentduring the last months of his
life.22
The personalityof Attalos II is markedly different from that of
Eumenes,for althoughhe is in many ways the most likable of the
Attalids, he clearly did not have the forcefulnessand diplomatic
ability which his father and his brother had shown in turn. It had
been,for example,the recoveryof Eumenesthat had put an endto
the war with Pharnakes.Strabo informs us that Eumenesleft the
kingdomto Attalos asepitopos of the youngerAttalos (thefuture
Attalos III), Eumenes'son by Stratonike(xiii. 4. 2,624- seeAp-
pendix i). The fact that Attalos called himselfking and ruled until
his own death, which occurredcertainly well after the majority of
his nephew,23probably reveals the intention of protecting the
successionin much the sameway as Antigonos Doson had done
for Philip V of Macedon.2a
Under Attalos II, Attalid foreignpolicy continued,althoughon a
20Note especiallythe decreeofthe Ioniankoinonpassedin Eumenes'honourin
the winter of 16?/6,immediately after he was refusedentry into ltaly by the Roman
--
Senate;it is quotedextensivelyin Eumenes'reply to the koinon (OGIS ü.763'
Appendixiv,no.l3;cf.Holleaux,Etudes, ii.ch.xi,esp. 169-Tl,andbelow'partii).
Eumeneswas particularlycommendedfor bringingpeace(lines ll-13).
z t P o l y b .x x i v . 5 . 2 : x x x . 2 . 5 .
22Seeabove,l0 n. 7.
23On the chronology,seebelow, Appendix i.
2aAntigonos Doson was firsl epitropos and later basileas"seethe study of Dow
andEdson,flarv.Stud.xlviii(1937),esp. l63ff.Thedistinctionbetweenguardian-
shipand usurpationis examinedby A. Aymard,Etudesd'histoireancienne(Pans'
196D,230ff. The careful attention Attalos II paid to the guardianshipof his nephew
is now further demonstratedby a royal letter about the man who was appointedhis
mentor (Appendix iv, no. 24).
82 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
less independentbasis, to be concernedalmost exclusively with
Asian affairs.Accordingto Polybios(xxxii. I 2) Attalos' first act on
succeedingto the throne was the restorationof his personalfriend
Ariarathes(V) to the throne of Cappadocia,and polybios rightly
notes that this was an exampleof Attalos' generalpolicy.2sIt is
probable, then, that Attalos was anxious to make sure of his
friendsbeforedealingwith his enemies.26 Theseenemieswere for
the most part, as in the previousreign,Galatiaand Bithynia. Royal
correspondence with the friendly priest Attis at Pessinousmakesit
clear that Attalid control over Galatia, barely establishedunder
Eumenes II, was lost under Attalos II.27 Attalid hostility to
Bithynia reacheda final climax. We have a good if brief narrative
of Attalos'warwith PrusiasIlintheMithridateiosof Appian(3-7),
supplementedby substantial fragments of Polybios' history
(xxxii-xxxiii). Both theseaccountsare written in Attalos'favour.
and the only documentaryevidence,a dedicationof Attalos him-
self, naturally confirms the implications of the literary sources,
that Prusiaswas completely in the wrong.2E
Of Prusias'initial treacherythere can be little doubt; according
to Appian the SenateorderedPrusiasto make peacewith Attalos
on the frontier, taking with him only a thousandmen, insteadof
which he advancedwith his entire army and destroyedthe per-
gameneNikephorion.2eOn the other hand,Attalos resortedto the
now standardAttalid practice of dealing with potential and real
enemiesby removingthem from their thronesandinstallingfriends
in their places;by the time Attalos was dead,this policy had been
successfully applied to Syria and Cappadocia, as well as
Bithyni4.ro
zsxxxiii. 12. For Attalos' early friendshipwith Ariarathesat
Athens, seeSy/l.3
666, ajoint dedicationto their teacherCarneades.
26Note Appian's comment(Syr. 45) on the motivesof Eumenes
and Attalos in
supporting Antiochos IY: ötar.p$öpevot töv dvöpa.
27Seebelow,ch. 5.
2EIvP 225, = OGIS 327.
2eMithr.3; Polyb.xxxii. 15.Accordingto both accounts,prusias'
destructionof
the Nikephorionconstitutedhis secondattack on Attalos. Accordingto polybios,
Prusiaswent on to loot the rich country around Thyateira, as philip V of Macedon
had done in 201 (xvi. l. 6-7; Holleaux,Etudes, iv. 248-51;L. Robert,Et. anat.
I l2- 13; Magie,Roman Rule, ä. 1197 , n. 42).
30Appian,Mithr. 4-7; for Syria, see Hopp, L)ntersuchungen,
79-85.
Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia 83
Attalid forcesassistedRomein the final subjugationof Macedon
in 149,3rand in the sackof Corinth threeyearslater,32andwith the
latter event the narrativeof Polybios(or what is left of it) comesto
a close. For the rest of the reign of Attalos II, and for that of his
successor,we are left, apart from the comparativelymeagreepig-
raphical evidence, with literary referencesthat are either frag-
mentary or incidental, or both. For most events we badly miss
context and detail, and the loss of a good contemporarysourceis
irreparable. Little more than the fact is known of Attalos II's
probably important campaignagainstthe Thracianking Diegylis,
son-inlaw of Attalos' former enemy, PrusiasII of Bithynia (Ap-
pian, Mithr. 6), which is dated by a dedicationto the year 145,33
and the end of Attalos' reign is shroudedin darkness.
The preoccupationof Eumenes II and Attalos II with Asian
affairsis further exemplifiedby their activity on the southernshore
of Asia Minor, where the cities of Selgeand Amlada in Pisidia
evidently tried to resist Attalid influenceafter the Galatiantrou-
bles of the 160s.Both Eumenesand Attalos undertook military
campaignsin the area,but the shortliterary noticesrecordingthem
do not say much aboutthe backgroundand circumstancesofthese
events.34Also of great importanceis Attalos' foundation of At-
taleiain Pamphylia,3swhich, togetherwith his buildingactivity in
the harbourat Ephesos(seepart ii below), indicateshis concernto
promotetrade in the kingdom. Attaleia facedCyprus, the eastern
Mediterranean.and the realm of the Ptolemies.and the choice of
this positionconfirmsthe tendencyof the Attalids after the Treaty
of Apameia to turn away from co-operationand economicinter-
course with the Seleukids.
The anecdotalnatureof the literary evidencefor the reignof the
3r Strabo xäi. 4.2, 624; cf. Niese iii. 334.
3' Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxv. 24; cf. Niese iii. 352.
33OGIS 330; Hopp, Untersuchungen,96-8.
ra For Selgewe havethe noticeofTrogus,Prol. xxxiv; Straboxii.7. 3, 571says
that the SelgiansörepriTowo npöE rcüE 6aor)'öaEfui (by oi 6aoü'etg Strabo often
meansthe Attalids). Cf. Hopp, (Jntersuchungen,70. The situation of Amlada is
discussedmore fully below, 102.
35Straboxiv. 4. l, 667. Attaleia was founded more probably in the early yearsof
Attalos' reign, when he was campaigningin Pisidia, than in 189in connectionwith
Manlius Vulso's campaignin the area; Hopp, Untersuchungen,102-4considers
both datespossible.
84 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
last of the Attalids, Attalos III Philometor,has alreadybeen dis-
cussed;it tells us more about the man than aboutthe eventsof his
reign.36He figureshardly at all in the final fragmentsof Polybios'
history,3Tand we are left with a mainly hostiletradition about him
that has excessivelycoloured modern opinion. The epigraphical
material shows that Attalos III continued to defend Attalid in-
terestsin military terms,3Eand that he was responsiblefor a sig-
nificantand highly individualdevelopmentof the royal cults of the
kingdom (seechapter 6).
His decisionto bequeaththe kingdomto Rome3emustbe seenin
the context of his own personalityand rule, and not in terms of a
postulateddependenceon Romebeginningin the previousreignor
even earlier, for Attalos' predecessorswere well able to defend
their kingdomevenwhen the Senaterefusedordeclinedto support
them. Attalos' bequestis the first instanceof the will of a Hellenis-
tic monarchin favour of Rome being put into effect. There was a
theoreticalprecedent,known from an inscriptionfrom Cyrene,in
the decisionin 155of Ptolemy Physkon (the future EuergetesII,
then King of Cyrene)to leavehis kingdomto Romeasa last resort,
shouldhe die with no one of his choice to succeedhim; it is even
possiblethat Attalos knew of Physkon'sdecisionfrom hiscontacts
in Rome, althoughPhyskon'swill was not implementedand was
probablynot madepublic until a later date.aoAttalos' action later
36Seeabove,ch. l.
37The testimoniaare given in Appendix i below.
38IvP 246, : OGIS 332 honours Attalos on his return from a successfulmilitary
expedition,perhapsin Thrace; cf. Hopp, Untersuchungen,lll, n.25.
3eStill important is Cardinali's study 'Le morte di Attalo III e la rivolta di
Aristonico', in Saggi . . . offerti a G. Beloch (1910),269-320;for an excellent
moderndiscussionsee Hopp, Untersuchungen,12147.
a0SEG ix. 7, : Ann. öp. 1912,80.Accordingto this text a copy of the will was to
be sent to Rome. Wilcken, SB Berlin, 1932,tl7-36, arguedthat the will was not
publisheduntil 96 nc, when Romefinally acquiredCyrene, but the Senatemay have
known the terms in 155.and the information could therefore have reachedAttalos.
An earlier origin of this practice may be seen in the decision of Nikomedes I of
Bithynia(diedc.255:Beloch,Gr. Gesch.iv.22,p.213) to securethe succession for
the children ofhis secondmarriageby naming specific guardiansoutside his own
kingdom, namely Herakleia, Kios, Byzantion, and the Kings of Macedonia and
Egypt (Memnon22,= FGrHist 434, Fl4). In the event,despitetheseprecautions,
Ziaelas,half-brother ofthe designatedheirs, succeededin gaining the throne (see
Magie,RomanRuIe, ä. I195,n. 35).
The New, Provinces 85
constituteda precedentfor NikomedesIV of Bithynia.al
The transition to Romanrule was hinderedby the resistanceof
Aristonikos. Now that Aristonikos can be seen as a dynastic
aspirantto a paternum regnum, as his coinage,which calls him
King Eumenes,indicates,we are sparedfurther speculationaboul
social upheavalin the Attalid Kingdom and especiallyat perga-
mon.a2Aristonikos failed to win supportfrom the Greek cities of
the kingdom, probably becausethey had already been promised
their freedomin Attalos' will,a3and he resortedto the mobilization
of slavesas a desperatestrategicmeasure.He failednot as a social
revolutionary,but asthe lastclaimantto the throneof the Attalids.
(i) The New Provinces
We havenow tracedthe history of the Attalid Kingdomto the point
where under Attalos I it becamean independentand sovereign
kingdomableto maintainalliancesand exert influencesbeyondits
own frontiersas Attalos and his predecessors choseto placethem.
The origins of this expansivepolicy lay in a need to defend the
kingdom againstthe Galatians44 and other enemies;they did not
arise from and did not lead to thoughts of empire or even of
expandingthe areaof direct royal authority. Attalos' treatieswith
the important Greekcities, reviewedabove,a5servedthe interests
of both parties, city and king, and enabled Attalos to collect
ouvtä$e6 for the supportof his professionalizedarmies.There is
no evidencewhatever within the area of direct authority which
Attalos inheritedfrom EumenesI of a regionaladministrationor of
a systemof direct governmentover the Greekcitiesconcerned;the
coincidenceof certain institutions with those of the Pergamene
constitution,as indicatedby the prescriptsofextant decrees,is not
in itself necessarilyindicativeof a centralizedpolicy, sincethe city
of Pergamondid not havean untypicalconstitution,but one which
other cities might be expectedto sharein ordinary circumstances.
arMagie,RomanRule, ä. 1200,n. 49.
42E. S. G. Robinson,Num. Chron. xiv (1954),
l-7; Hopp, (Jntersuchungen,
t45-7.
o, Hopp, Untersuchungen,143.4.
44Seealso below, ch. 5.
ai Seeabove, 39-58.
86 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
We shall see later that the Attalids were able to exploit the con-
stitutionalarrangementsin somecitiesto their own advantage,but
there is no evidencethat they manipulatedor prescribedthe forms
of the constitutions themselves.46Attalos' administration was
noticeably gearedto the military requirementsof his reign, and
apart from their commitmentto support him in this area of royal
activity we have no indication in the availableevidencethat the
cities in the immediateterritory of Pergamonwere not allowed to
lead a full and independentcivic life.
Whatever the exact nature and extent of royal rule during the
reign of Attalos I, it is clear at leastthat at the end of his reign the
kingdom was hardly any biggerthan it had beenat the beginning.
Polybiosascribesto Philip V of Macedonthe following commen-
dationof EumenesII andAttalo sII:a1napa)"a66vreE oöroLpmqdv
dpXitu xai i1v ruyoöoav qü[rlxaot taÜrr1v,aorc pr1fupü4 elvat
xaraöeeottqal. The mostrecentlosseswerethoseof 198when, as
the evidencesuggests,Antiochos III seizedlarge areasof Attalid
territory, enablinghim to march throughthis territory againin the
spring of 196without any apparentoppositionfrom Eumenes.as
During the war in which Eumenesfought againstAntiochoson the
side of Rome, many Attalid cities close to Pergamon,including
PhokaiaandThyateira,aeremainedin Seleukidpossession,andthe
Attalid Kingdom for a while almost ceasedto exist, but at the end
of this war Eumeneswas rewardedfor his loyalty to Rome with a
kingdomwhich in terms of size and securityof tenure was some-
thing the Attalids had not known before. In this chapterwe shall
examinethe implicationsof this new situationin terms of the royal
administrationand the precedentson which it drew.
In 188 BCthe Roman settlementof Asia Minor imposed new
obligationson the King of Pergamonby altering totally the con-
stitutionalbasison which the kingdom was founded. EumenesII
had not merelyforeseenbut had welcomedtheseobligationsin his
speechdeliveredto the Roman Senatein 189,the year after the
a6Seefurther below. 104-9.
a7xxiii. I I . 7. Seealsoxxxii. E. 3: (Eumenes)ropü"a6öv napd rcö tarpög rilv
6aoütiav ouvtma).pöt4v rc).6a9eig ü.tya xai ).wä nd,rcpdtn.
48Schmitt, Untersuchungen,271-3,and especially273.
aeSeeabove.42.434.
The New Provinces 87
defeatof AntiochosIII at Magnesia:s0 oüöui cpap€v ömatdrtpov
üvaL naqayoptiv üpd.Etöv ix roü noltpou ytyovörav ä07av
flneprjpiv. It was not simplya matterof an increaseof territory that
was at issue,becausethe terms by which the increasewas made
representsomethingquite different from previousAttalid experi-
ence.We shallseein particularthat the basisof Attalos' expansion
of royal influence beyond his formal frontiers was swept aside
together with these frontiers by the terms imposedby Rome.st
Polybios' account of the settlement as it related to Eumenes
specifiesboth areasand individualcitiesthat were assignedto him
as gifts. These included,in Europe, Chersonesos, Lysimacheia
and 'the adjoining strongholdsand chora which Antiochos had
ruled', and in Asia, 'HellespontinePhrygia,GreaterPhrygia,the
Mysians whom Prusiashad previously taken, Lycaonia, Milyas,
Lydia, and the citiesof Tralles,Ephesos,and Telmessos'.s2 This
provision suggeststhat the administrationof the areasconcerned
was left in Eumenes' hands, and we look for confirmation and
clarification of this situationto a number of contemporarydocu-
ments relating to two of the areasspecifiedin the Roman settle-
ment, namelyChersonesos and HellespontinePhrygia.In addition
we now haveevidencefor a third region,centredon Ephesos.In all
cases the attested names and institutions.show a departure in
terminologyfrom the Seleukidsatrapalsystem,but it will be seen
that the new institutionsdo not indicate,asis often maintained,the
influenceof any other singleadministrativesystem.
An inscription of Roman date from Sestoshonouringa bene-
factor refersto Straton<iorparryyögrfig Xeqgov(oouxai röv xard
tilv @pdm1v rönav, evidently a royal appointeeof earlierdate. A
dedicationfrom a villagenearancientThyateiramentionsthe area
in the same words in connection with a campaignof Attalos II
undertakenthere in 145;it refersto 'the . . . soldierswho crossed
in year 15to thetopoi in ChersoneseandThrace'. It will be evident
s0Polyb. xxi. 19-21,especially21. 9.
5t See below, 98 ff.
52xxi. 46. Ll I (thecorrespondingpassageof Livy is xxxväi.39.7-q.l). For a
geographicalanalysis of these awarded territories see Magie, Roman Rule, ji.
758-4, n. 56; Walbank, Comm. iii. 163-75.The statusas gifts is at 46.10:raütag
piv oöv ööuxav Eöpövtr d.g öaped6. The phrase translatedhere as 'the Mysians
whom Prusiashad previouslytaken' is discussedabove,63-5.
88 Attatid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
that the name of the area as defined in theseinscriptionscorres-
pondsclosely with the designationgiven in the Roman settlement
'Chersonesosand Lysimacheiaand the adjoining
of 188,namely
strongholds and chora'. To this evidence we may now add a
recently published inscription from Ephesoswhich attests one
'keeper of the seal' andmqaqyög
Demetriosson of Apollonios,
'EE1oouxai rCovxar"'Ecpeoovrönon xai Kaüorpou neö[ou
än( re
xai rö Kü.6nvöv (sic).5r
The most substantialevidencefor the Attalids' institutionsof
provincial administrationis an inscription relating to Hellespon-
tine Phrygia.saThe stonewas found at Bursa (ancientPrusa)and
recordsa decreehonouringa man namedKorrhagosson of Aris-
tomachos,but it has been firmly establishedthat the honouring
city was not Prusaitself.ssHolleaux'sexhaustivestudy of the
letter-formsestablished termini of c. 225and 150BC;this means
that the decree must refer either to Seleukidor to Attalid rule,
since during these years the territories of HellespontinePhrygia
cameunder no other authority.56There is no specificreferencein
the decreeto either kingdom,and the only royal designationis the
anonymousö 6aot),eü;.
"Eöo(tv
rrlt 6ou74L xai tCot öripot M*6paXoE
'Appläou
einu' inti KöppayoE'Aprctoprilou
Maxeötbv, rtraypfvoE orparqyöE röv xa-
'EM"fionovrov
0' rönutv, önrtlet rilp naoav
s onouöi1v xcti tiivotav nQooqtgöprvoE tiE rö otv-
5rThrace:OGIS 339,: J. Krauss,Inst'hr. r'on Sestosund der Thrakischen
Chersones(lnsthr. griech. Städte aus Kleinasien' XIX, 1980)'no. I (with full
commentary);oGlS 330.Comparethe title of the third-centuryRolemaicofficial
'El)lqonövrou xoJröv itti @pamqEüttatv (lG Xll.
Hippomedon,or pa{qyöE iE
8. 156,= Sy'//.r502;Bengtson,Strat lii. 178).Ephesos:Appendixiv, no' 25'
5aHomolle, CRAI 1921,269ff. (editioprinceps),superseded by Holleaux,BCII
xlviii (f924), l-57 {Etudes,ä.73-125),the mostthoroughanalysisand necessarily
the startingpoint of any discussionof the text. On the date, which is discussed
below,andotheradditionalpoints,seethe importantremarksof G. De Sanctis,Riv.
(tifil. üi(1925),63-78.The text appearedassEG ii.663 (cf. iv. 716).see the useful
discussion in Bengtson,Strat. ii.2ll-26.
55Holleaux,Erudes.ü. I l4-15;De Sanctis,Riv. difil.lili (1925),7V1.Holleaux
arguedpersuasivelyin favour ofApollonia on the Rhyndakos,not far from ancient
Prusawherethe stonewas found. Magie'sargumentsfor Abydos (RomanRule, ü.
| 0l l-13) arenot acceptablein themselvessinceAbydoswasprobablynot Attalid at
the argueddate (seebelow, n. 140).
56Holleaux.Etudes,ii. 75-81,85-6.
The New Provinces 89
aü$rc9at üv ö1pov, xai xoLvfit xai iöfut rctE iu-
ruyXävouotv töv nd"rcitv tüXp4otov aöröv
napaoxtud\e, önö rt rlv napd).rtlplv rrtE nö7eaE
rj{iatoev röv 6aot7öa änoöo94vat toüg tt uö-
r0 ltouE xai tilv nätprcu noAne tav xai rd iepd rcp6-
vq xai tö eig d iepä xai nöLuog örcfuqow ägyüprcv xcti
tö rotE vöoLEöLatov xai rd. ä77a änep if dpXAg ünqp-
Xev töt örjpa4 ivöeöE rt änal).aooöv-
rav triu noAnav öÄ röv nölepov napd
l5 tt aöto6 öyapioarc eiE räg ö4pore-
kIE ?t,o[ag 6oüE xai iepeia, xo'i töt 6aoÄeli)
pv49tiE i$enoploaro oftov tig onöppa
xai önrgoEqv, xai td.E iö[aE txäorutt röv
noludty xrrjoery ouv{oneuotv önpeiv[at]
20 roiE re pl öyouotv öo94vaL ix roü 6aotttxoü,
xai drelthg inmeXapqptv4E naoöv
rav nqooööav tinö roü 6aoÄ{oE iröu
tgtöv öoneuotv xai ä77a öüo kq önöo9q-
vaq 6ouT6ptvog tig tüöa4toviav xai intöo-
25 ow xatamfioat roüE no),i,taE, dxö[ou9a npdooov tfit
rc6 6aoÄtaE npoaqöoeL' ivct öi xai ö öqpoE Eai-
v1ra(t) änoööoüg ydprcag ä{fuE rcig aiüv
eütpyttoüotv, öeööy9at töt öfipat' finaLvfoat rl
Köppayov röv orpat4yöv xali otecpavöoat aütövl
30 Xpuoöt ottrpftivat. xtA.l
'A decree of the boule and the people, on the motion of Menemachos
son
of Archelaos. Considering that Korrhagos the Macedonian, son of Aris-
tomachos, after being appointed strategos of the regions around the
Hellespont, constantly shows every enthusiasm and good will for the
advancement of the people and publicly and individually puts himself at
the service ofthe citizens; that after the acquisitionofthe city he asked the
king to restore the city's laws and ancestral constitution and its sacred
precincts, as well as providing funds for the sacred and civil administra-
tion and oil for the use of the neoi and everything elseformerly availableto
the people; that when the citizens were in severehardship as a result of the
war he provided at his own expense oxen and other animals for the public
sacrifices, and having notified the king he provided corn for sowing and for
sustenance,urged that each individual should keep his own possessions
and that those with nothing should be provided for out of royal funds, and
also urged that immunity from all taxes granted by the king for three years
should be extended for another two years, wishing to endow the citizens
with prosperity and generosity in accordance with the king's policy. So
that the people may be seen to show suitable gratitude to its benefactors,
the people have decided as follows: to commend Korrhagos thestrategos,
to crown him with a gold crown, [etc.].'
The decisive argument in favour of associating the decree
90 Attalid Kingdom after the Treoty of Apameia
with Attalid rule arises from the name given to the region: of
'Ellfionovrov
xa9' rönol. Under Seleukid rule the area was
'Eil,r1on6urou
called, more typically, fi öcp' oareaireia, and the
'ilJrqonövrou.s1
correspondingofficial was calledorqarrlyöEBcp'
When Attalos I defeatedAntiochosHierax in HellespontinePhry-
gia, he named the area similarly in his dedication to Athena,ss
<Dpuyfufi öcp''il'Lr1on1vrou, andthe provinceretainedthis Seleu-
kid name in the Roman settlementas recorded by Polybios.se
Sincethe year 188Bc is thus establishedastheterminuspost quem
of the designationfound in the decree from Bursa, this decree
cannotbe associatedeither with Seleukidrule or with a supposed
period of Attalid rule under Attalos I (alreadydiscountedin the
previouschapterfor other reasons),60 and so Attalid rule after the
Roman settlementalone remainsin question.
This view receivessupport from literary evidence,which also
enablesus to date the decreemore exactly. According to Livy, a
man namedCorragus mqcedo took part with Eumenes'brother
Athenaiosin the Galatiancampaignof Cn. ManliusVulsoin 189,6r
and again,as Eumenispraefectus,in an invasionof the Thracian
kingdomof Kotys in 171.62 The implicationis that Corragus,whom
we may reasonably identify with the Korrhagos of the Bursa
decree, was appointedpraefectus (i.e. strategos) between the
years189and 171,clearlysuggesting a connectionwith the found-
ation of the new Attalid province of HellespontinePhrygiain 188
ec. The expressionünö re rfiv napd)ryEw rfiE nö).ea6,'after the
acquisition of the city', is the regular one used in such cir-
cumstancesto denotethe assumptionof authorityby a new power.
It doesnot refer to Korrhagos'appointment,sincethen we would
expect the addition napä rcö 6aoü.6a9,'by the king'; it refers
57Ibid. 85; seeOGIS 221.lll (Welles,RC I l, 3-4); Bengtson,Strat. ü. 12-13.
S\OGIS 274. Dittenberger restored öq' 'DJ"lrfolln6wofi, but OGIS 221 and
'E).I1onövrou
Polyb. xxii. 46, where is found, provide closer parallelsof adminis-
trative usagethan the other literary referenceshe gives (note 5 to OGLS274).The
genitiveis tacitly preferredby Holleaux,Etudes, ii. 85, n. 4 (cf. 84, n. 2).
5exxi. 46. 10.
60Seeabove,57-8.
6t xxxviii. 13.3.
62xlli. 67. 4.
The New, Provinces 9l
ratherto a completechangeof authority.63In this casethe causeof
the changecan only havebeenthe termsof the Romansettlement,
and the war referredto in the decreein connectionwith the city's
hardshipsis the Antiochic War, in which Antiochos III invaded
Asia Minor and no doubt brought the city concernedunder his
control, as he did with Phokaia.6a
We may conclude,then, that the areasassignedto Eumenesin
the Roman settlementwere, in the casesfor which we have evi-
dence,renamedand placedunder the authority ofroyal strategoi.
We turn now to consider another phenomenonattestedby the
texts so far cited, the designationtopoi.The term is a familiar one
in other Hellenistickingdoms,especiallyin the SeleukidKingdom
63See De Sanctis,loc. cit. (n. 54) 7l ff.; Rostovtzelf, SEHHW üi. 1472,n. 44.
Holleaux,Etudes, ii. I 18ff., observedthat the expressionnapd,a6öv d npäy-
para and its variants refer to acquisition of authority rather than to military
conquest,but did not makethe distinctionbetweentransferof commandwithin one
authority and the transfer of that authority itself. ln caseswhere an existing
authority passesto a new official or to a succeedingking, the predecessoror the
personby whom the authority is delegatedis named;for the PtolemiesseeOGIS 55
(a decreeof Telmessos),7-9: IltolepatoE ö Auoryälgolu, napü"a6öa rlv nü,Lv
napd 6aoÄöl@E llrld"epatou roü llto)"epaiou xr),., and Sy//.3 463 (a decree of
Itanos), : I. Cret. iii. p. 83, no.7: Baoüeüg llrd.epaioE lnapü.a6öv td.v rtity
'ltaviov
nöLo xo'i nd.haE I napä rcü natpög 6aoü.6o4 llro).tpaiou, xai röv I
npoyövotv, xtL. OGIS 90 (the Rosetta Stone) refers to the date of Ptolemy
Epiphanes'accession (line 47) as the yeariy fir napil,aflevtilv 6aoü.eiavnap(d)
toü narpö;. For the Attalids seePolybios'referenceto the succession ofEumenes
II at xxxii. 8. 3, quoted above, n. 47.
Another instanceof the simpler formula usedof Korrhagos' appointmentin the
decreefromBursaisprovidedbyPolyb.xxvii. l3(anexcerptofunknowncontext)
with reference to Rolemy Makron, strategos of Cyprus under Rolemy VI:
rapü.a6öt tilv vfioovörr,vqtiou rcü 6aot)"6agöttog. SeeBengtson,Strat. ä.216,
n. 4; Walbank,Comm. äi. 3l l . We havealreadymet anotherrelevantexamplein
theacquisitionof Pitaneby EumenesI asattestedby OG^|S335,line l4l (seeabove,
19,21):Eüpövqgnapd.a6öv tä npd.yfuatalxr,l. The inscriptionsfrom Labraunda
supply a further examplecomparableto the position of Korrhagos in Olympichos'
acquisition of authority over Mylasa (Labraunda, iii. 1., no. 8, line 13):
napa).a6övt4 ydp fiv [üpetöqav nü"w) xil'. (on the liberation of Mylasa by
SeleukosII see Crampa,op. cit., ch. 3).
6aSeeabove,42 andn.46 rhereiCf. Rostovtzeff.SEHHW ii. 635.On the dateof
the decreefrom BursaseeDe Sanctis,loc. cit. (n. 54);Bengtson,Strat. ä. 213-17.
Holleaux associatedthe decreewith later events, but eventually subscribedto De
Sanctis'date(BCHliv (1930),248,n.2:cf.Etudes,ü. l16, n. 2).It shouldbenoted
that l8E is the date of the nagä),ryE6 qg nü,euE, and not necessarilythat of the
decree,which can be datedto any of the yearsimmediatelyfollowingthis event.
92 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
and in Egypt, but its rangeof meaningsand applicationsis wide.6s
For the Attalid Kingdomit hasto be determinedwhetherit hasany
consistentsignificationrelativeto the regionaladministrationas a
whole, suchasthat of a collectionof smallareasor communitiesas
distinct from cities, as in the SeleukidKingdom and in Egypt. It is
found with an apparently similar connotationin lists of epheboi
from Pergamon,in the heading 'from the places' (dnö ünov)
which introducesgroupsof nameseachconsistingof the personal
namefollowed by the patronymicand the formula tdtv änö or ix,
'of thosefrom' a namedplace.A full designationof this type would
read, for example:'Apollonides,son of Athenaios,of those from
DaskYlion.'oo
An interestingfeature of these formulae is that they stand in
placeof the more usualethnic. Thosewho are designatedforeign-
ers($6rtoL) in other lists are namedwith the conventionaladjectival
ethnic, so that thosedzö rönov must be regardedas belongingto
a different category.6TNor are the designationsin the lists of
those riaö r6nav those of placesattachedby sympoliteia to an-
other city, since we know that such placeswere designatedby a
6r SeeRostovtzeff, SEHHW i.561-2, iii. 1450,n. 327.On Seleukidusageseealso
Bickermann,ln stitutionsdesSöleucides (Paris,1938),198,302;Bengtson, Strar. ii.
10-12,211.Rostovtzeffs and Bengtson'sview ofthe termtopoi as exactusagein
the Attalid as well as the Seleukidkingdomsis disputedhere.
oeThe headingdnörönon ispreservedonly in onelist, that publishedinÄM xxxv
(1910),434,no. 19:dnö törav I'Aqö1tuv'Aoil,4ntdöou ütv änö - - - I'Aoil.d.now
Me)"avinnouröv i[ - - - lMryvoytvqE'Aoil.4nnöouröv ix - - -. Regrettablyin this
instancethe right-handedgeofthe stoneis not preserved.There are other lists of
epheboiin which the namesare compiledin the sameway, and the headingdaö
rönav may be restoredto them;ÄM xxxv (1910),426,no. 12,col. ii includesthe
following completenames
'Aoil.d.navoE "A66ou
MlqtplööopoE röv öE xöpqlEl
'Avöp
LxöE'Aox).4nü.öou töv i[,' A nLaolovog dypoü
'AnoAlaviöqE'A9rlvaiou
röv öy laoxuAtou
'ArdJ"6vLoE
Mrlqoöbpou röv dnö Maoöü4[Sl
'Aro7\aviöqE
lrcvuoocpd.voutöv öx T[pvov
'Aox71nLd.ö49
Mqvorpdvroutöv dtö Maoöü4[El
OthersuchlistsareÄM xxxii (1907),440ff., nos.309-14,322,324,326-7,329,331?;
AM xxxv (1910),422 ff., no. l l, col. i, lines l-9.
67For a list of f ivot seeAM xxxv (1910),422,no. I l.The headingalsooccursin a
fragmentof anotherlist, AM xxxii (1907),435,no.297.
The New Provinces 93
formula including the name of the city concerned'68The topoi
referred to in the ephebiclists formed a separatecategoryrepre-
sentingcommunitiesthat were outsidecivic life, for exampleröz
"A66ou
3S x6prtE.
For a number of reasons,however, it seemsunlikely that the
rcpoi mentionedin the ephebiclists have anythingdirectly to do
with the terms usedin the Attalid namesfor Chersoneseand Hel-
lespontinePhrygia. In the first place, the lists are certainly con-
fined in scopeof referenceto ephebesfrom the immediateareaof
the city of Pergamonthat can be related to the direct authority
exercisedby EumenesI. Furthermore,among the provisions of
the Pergamenedecree passed after the death of Attalos III,6e
people called Maoöurlvoi are included among the soldiers who
were to receivethe citizenshipof Pergamon,and their home may
be identified with the name Maoö{tq or Malt3q, which appears
frequentlyin the ephebiclists in the formulaof thosednö rönov.7o
Clearly then, the Maoöur1vo(constituteda military settlementin
the immediatearea of the city, and they did not have Pergamene
citizenshipin the royal period. They were in fact, as I haveargued
generally, outside civic life in administrativeand constitutional
terms.
A further argumentmay be added. If the topoi of the ephebic
lists are to be relatedto the regionaltopoi,we must expecta closer
definition in the former than the simpled.nörönat, such as rizö
röv rönotv röv iv Xepqovrjoor,or whateverthe casemay be. The
fact that the designationis simply änö rönav reinforcesthe con-
clusion that it refers to a singlearea, which in the circumstances
68Thus in the list cited in the previous note a man named Epikrates son of
'Ivötmtöiou. This designationhas
Diodorosis designated.IrqatoumeöE töv dnö
nothingto do with the formulaof thoseriaö törav, who haveno ethnicat all in the
lists.Stratonikeiais soqualifiedto distinguishit from othercitiesof the samename,
as L. Roberthasshown(Villes, 43-82),and so Epikratesappearsin the list of{ivor
with what is an ordinarydesignationoforigin, as is clearfrom the form ofthe other
'Aqipov
namesin his list (e.g. Tqlicpou Tmp4vöE).
6eOGIS 338, = tGR iv.269.
70Not with the Paphlagonian town of Mastya, as the similarity of namesonce
wrongly suggested;see Magie,Roman Rule, ii. 1036,n. 8.
94 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
must be that of the city of Pergamon.zlThe placesso designated
included military settlementsof the kind specified above, and
these are probably comparable to the katoikoi attested for
PtolemaicEgypt,' and the'Macedonianfoundations'mentioned
by Strabo,73but in generalterms we may envisagevillage com-
munitiesoutsidecity life suchas that at Abboukomementionedin
the lists.
It may now be askedwhetherthis conclusionhelpsus to under-
stand the nature of the designationtopoi in the Attalid regional
administration.The first thing one noticesis that in this contextthe
application is inconsistentand less exact, referring in the Kor-
rhagosdecreeto a whole region and in the dedicationfollowing
Attalos II's Thracian campaign to certain parts of a region.74
Indeed in the seconddocumentit is most unlikely that the term
topoi implies any constitutional significance whatever, being
rathera genericdesignation meaning'places', sinceAttalos' cam-
paign took him, according to the literary evidence,to parts of
Thrace,includingthe territory of King Diegylis,that were beyond
the frontiersof his kingdom.TsIn the decreefrom Sestos,however,
the term /opoi seems to have more exact connotations,being
within the Attalid Kingdom and probably denotingknown rather
than unknown areas.?6
This varyinguseof the term is consistentneitherwith Ptolemaic
practice (the most likely parallel) nor with usageat the Attalid
capital as arguedfrom the evidenceof the ephebiclists. When the
term is used so inconsistently, we are bound to question the
validity of the claim that in the Attalid provinces the topoi as
attestedin the texts cited were an extensionof the local Pergamene
usage.[t seemsunlikely, in the circumstances,that the wordtopoi
as appliedto the provinceshad any preciseor consistentconstitu-
7t The implicationsof this conclusionfor the civil administrationwill be noticed
below in chapter7.
72Bengtson,Strat. üi.73-5.
73SeeL. Robert,Et. anat. 193,n.2.
7aKorrhagos is called simply (lines 34) oqatryög töv xa9' 'E)Jrionovrov
rönov. Attalos' dedication (OGIS 330)refers to oi xard. Xeqpövqoov xai @pdtx4v
tönou
rs For a review of the evidenceseeHopp, Untersuchungen,96-8.
76Seeabove,87.
The New, Provinces 95
tional significance,and it is more likely that it was a convenient
genericformula for describingdifferent regionalphenomenanot
preciselyexpressiblein other terms. It cannot be comparedwith
the Seleukidtoparchiai in Syria, for which a specific official is
attested.TT In the Attalid Kingdom the only offtce associatedwith
thetopoi for which we have evidenceis that of thestrategor of the
whole province.
In 188BCEumenesII receiveda number of formerly Seleukid
military settlements,katoikiai in another special sense of the
word.78Although evidenceof the Attalid administrationof these
communitiesis in generalterms extremelythin, a good exampleis
to be found in the settlementof the territory of Telmessos,which
passedinto Eumenes'handsalong with that city. A stonenow in
the museumat Izmir preservesa letter written by EumenesII to his
official Artemidoros, whose title is unfortunatelynot given. He
was responsiblefor the katoikoi of the village of the Kardakesin
the territory of Telmessos,who had petitionedhim on the grounds
of a numberof severehardships,in particularthe inability to pay a
oüvra$6, here a poll-tax of four Rhodian drachmasand one obol
per head. In his letter Eumenespromisesconsiderableassistance
to the community, includingthe sendingof an architectto advise
on the reconstruction of dilapidated fortifications and - most
important - a reductionof the poll-tax to one Rhodiandrachma
and one obol. We seeEumeneshere as in the Korrhagosdecree
concernedto safeguardthe welfare of the community which had
appealedto him, and to ensureits prosperityby meansof positive
measureswhich are probablytypical of Attalid policy as appliedto
the inherited Seleukidkatoikiai.Te
It is unlikely that thesecommunitieshaveany exactcorrelation
with the topoi of the Attalid provincesdiscussedabove; for one
thing we have seen that the term is used without any evident
77OGIS 752;Bengtson,Strat. ä.22-3.
78On the Seleukidxanomiat see Rostovtzeff,SEHHW i. 499-501; Bengtson,
Strat.ä.68-9,bothofwhomcontesttheviewofBickermann,lzsr. Sö1.12tr.(cf.L.
Robert,E?. anat. 19l-3) that the colonies were not military in character.Seenow
G. M. Cohen, The Seleucid Colonies (Historia Einzelschr. 30, 1978).
7eThe text wasmentionedby L. Robert,Et. anat. 375, n. l, andwaspublishedby
M. SegreinCl. Rhodos ix (1938),190ff. An improved text will be found in Maier,
Mauerbauinschriften,i. 76 (: 566 xix. 867).
96 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
consistency, and for another the former Seleukid katoikiai or
military settlements were of a nature very different from the
Mysian katoikiai, villages not specifically military in character,
which we havefound reasonto relateto the local Pergamenetopoi
mentionedin the ephebiclists. For this reasonand otherswe must
not regardthe organizationofthe enlargedkingdomcreatedin 188
Bc as an extensionof the organizationof the Mysian communities
formerly administeredby the dynastsand kings at Pergamon.On
the contrary, it is probablethat the Attalids maintainedwithout
changethe Seleukidsystemof administeringthe military katoikiai
by meansof stategoi; such at least is the implicationof a dedica-
tion made by the membersof a colony near Lydian Apollonis in
15413:8o
BalolüeülovrolE'AnäLou I houE E' W)qvlölE Eavötxolu)loli ix .)eo-
roüpatuMaxeö6lveE önöprcü leplxfuAilöourcü aöiov oqalr[4yo]u
dperr1E tvexevxatil I eööt6Q1ou fiE| äytatlvönteQ.leieTg
[rirö]q1a]ya?iaE
rc | 1röu6aor.Al6[axai] ölaluroüfs).
It seemsprobable that the Attalids were anxious to promote
the prosperity of these newly acquired communitiesby easing
their financial burdens and by maintainingexisting administra-
tive institutions, thereby disturbing as little as possible the
relations of the colonists with their suzerain.In this respect the
Attalids evidently did not depart from the methodsused by the
Seleukids.The same seemsto be true, accordingto the limited
evidence,of the Attalid administrationof the templesof the king-
dom, whose rich lands rendered them an important source of
revenue,as they had beenunderthe Seleukids.8lThe little that we
know of the Attalids' treatmentof templelandsindicatesthat they
subscribedto the methods used in other Hellenistic kingdoms.
Their maintenanceof control over the administration,and in par-
ticular the financialadministration,of the templesis shownby the
royal appointment of a neokoros to the temple of Artemis at
Sardis,E2 and a tax-exemptionis attestedby an inscription from
soAM xxiv (1E99),230,no.68; fuller textap. Keil and von Premerstein,Reise,
4 7 , n o . 9 5 .C f . B e n g t s o nS, t r a t .ü . 2 0 7 .
srFor the continuity of temple administrationsee Jones,Greek City, 42 ff;
Rostovtzeff, SEHHW ii. 648-9 (with the reservation expressedbelow, n. 84).
82Appendixiv, no. 5, lines7-1 l: ö 6aoü"eüE . . . xaröm4o* vetoxöpovtfiE0eo6.
The New Provinces 97
Soma in the upper Kaikos valley recording a letter written by
Attalos II during Eumenes'reign to the katoikoi of Apollo Tarse-
nos.E3Most important, the Attalids maintainedthe policy known
for other Hellenisticmonarchiesof assigninglandto templesin the
kingdom, as I believeis shownby an inscriptionof Hadrianicdate
from Aizanoi in Phrygia.Ea
It may be useful at this point to summarizewhat has been said'
We have evidently to assignthe institutions and proceduresof
Attalid rule after 188 sc to various precedents.It seemslikely,
from the disappearancein Attalid recordsof the designationsat-
rapeia, previouslyappliedby the Seleukidsin Asia Minor, that the
Seleukid satrapal system was replaced by a different and less
closely defined system. Within this framework, however, a
number of detailed administrative institutions were retained from
the Seleukidorganization,particularlyin areassuchasthe military
settlementswhose tradition of allegianceto the Seleukidscould
not be ignored,andthe temple-landswhich hadalwayspreserveda
semblanceof independence,where it will have been in the At-
talids'interest to renderthe changeofsuzeraintyas inconsequen-
tial as possible.Finally, it needsto be emphasizedthat the Attalid
administrationafter 188 sc was not simply an extensionof the
administrationappliedhitherto in the smallareaof directauthority
aboutPergamon,and thereis no evidencefor supposingthat it was
basedon or evengreatlyinfluencedby Rolemaic practice.Thereis
no significancein the designationtopoi since this was in Attalid
usagea vague and inconsistentterm appliedto provincesand to
areas byond them, and it does not seem to have had for the
83Welles,RC 47. Boehringer'sattempt(AvP ix.92) to ascribethe authorshipof
this letter to Attalos I before his assumptionofthe royal title has beenconvincingly
refuted by Kähler, Gr. Fries lE2. On tax-exemption in the Hellenistic period see
Holleaux.Etudes. ü. ll2-13.
aaThe inscription(Bull.Mus. Imp. Rom. lxvi (193E),44-8,= E. M. Smallwood,
Doc. Ill. Principates ofNerva, Trajan and Hadrian, 165,no.454) referstofines lovi
cfrea?ftoriet civitati Aezanitarumdatos lalb Attalo et Prusia regibus.The kings
are most probably Attalos I and husias l: seeT.R.S. Broughtonin Studies.. in
honor of A.C. Johnson,236-5O;Habicht,Hermes, lxxxiv (1956),93 ff. Compare
the Seleukid donation of land attested,by OGIS 262.
This evidence cannotjustify the view of Rostovtzeff, SEHHW ii. 6,f8, that the
king could seize temple land or income, or his statement,'at Aezani in Phrygia the
kings, both Seleucidand Attalid, exercisedthe rightofpartial confiscation.' Seethe
importantremarksof Jones,Greek City, 309-10, n. 58; Broughton,loc. cit.
98 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
Attalids the specificconnotationswhich it had for the Ptolemies
and the Seleukids.The positiveconclusionto be drawn is that the
Attalids' methodsof rule as implementedafter 188Bc drew on a
wide rangeof Hellenisticinstitutionsandweredetermined,aswith
the Attalids generally,by expedienceand opportunism,not being
basedexclusively or even predominantlyon any one system of
administration.
(ii) The Greek Cities
Accordingto the literary evidence,the statusof eachGreekcity in
188depended,at least as far as the paymentof tribute was con-
cerned, on its record during the war with Antiochos, and this
principlecan usuallybe seento haveappliedin individualcases.ss
Miletos co-operatedwith a Romanfleet operatingin the areaof the
city in 190;in 188its sovereigntywas respectedto the extent that
its sacredlands, evacuatedduring the war, were restoredin full,
and later Miletos concluded a private treaty with Herakleia.s6
Thus in theory Miletos, pro-Romanduring the war, was left inde-
pendentafterwards.Ephesos,on the other hand,surrenderedonly
after the defeatof Antiochosat Magnesia,andwasone of the'gifts'
grantedto EumenesII by the Romansettlement.sT Tralles surren-
dered at the sametime and sufferedthe samefate.88For Telmes-
sos, another 'gift' city, the evidence is less clear, but Seleukid
sympathiesare suggested by its coinageandits useof the Seleukid
era at a later date, and it seemslikely that it too assistedAntiochos
in the war with Rome.Ee
There is evidencemoreoverthat subjectcities of the old king-
dom of EumenesI and Attalos I becameindependentif they had
earnedthe right. Aigai is a casein point: this city's record during
85Polyb.xxi.46. 2-3; Livy xxxviii. 39.7-8; xxxvii. 53.2E.Seethe valuablestudy
of Bickermann,REG i (1937),217-39;Schmitt, ()ntersuchungez,278-85; Wal-
barrk,Comm. iii ad loc; Pr€aux,Monde hell. i. 16l-3.
s6Livyxxxvii. 16.2;17.3;Polyb.xxi.46.5.ThetreatywithHerakleia:Sy//.3633.
Miletos and Herakleia evidently passedunder Rhodian influence for a time; the
treaty they concluded establishedthe principle that neither should do anything
ünevavrloy tfit npöE'Poöioug ouppayiat (line)S).ThisouppaTla is not otherwise
attested (see Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 109).
s.TEphesos' surrender:Livy xxxvii.45. l.
t6 Ephesosand Trallesas gift cities: Polyb. xxi. 46. 10.
8eSeeMagie,RomanRule, ä.762.
The Greek Cities D
the war is unknown, but its nameappears,not aspart of the Attalid
Kingdom, but as a fully sovereigncity and entitled to compensa-
tion from Prusias,in the ouv9fizd, concludedbetweenAttalos II
and Prusias II of Bithynia in 154, together with Methymna,
Herakleia, and Kyme, cities certainly independentat the time.eo
Other cities, subjectto the King of Pergamonand known to have
been attackedby Prusias,such as Elaia, Thyateira,and Temnos,
do not appear separatelyin the freaty; so we may infer that Aigai,
once an Attalid subject, had its independencerestored in 188,
presumably on the basis of its behaviour during the war with
Antiochos.er
This principlewas evidently subjectto exceptions.Magnesiaon
the Maeandersurrenderedto Rome at the sametime as Ephesos
and Tralles, but unlike thesetwo it was privilegedby the Scipios
and remained an independentcity outside Attalid jurisdiction,
evidently maintainingon its own account friendly relationswith
Teos, a tributary city after 188,as we shall see.e2This caseis not
likely, however, to have been an exceptionin principle, because
the treatment afforded to Magnesiadependedon the personal
authority of the Scipiosand not on senatorialpolicy generally.
The treaty also stipulated,as we saw in the previouschapter,
that cities which had paid o6vraf6 to Attalos I shouldhencefor-
ward pay cp6eoEto Eumenes. It is clear then that the Roman
settlementwas more careful in its treatmentof the Greek cities
than in its apparently wholesale allocation of entire provinces.
Although the Chersonesewas assignedto Eumenesand became
part of an Attalid province, someof its cities remainedindepen-
soPolyb. xxxiii. | 3. 8. Methymnalater enteredinto privatediplomaticrelations
with Rome(Syt/.r693).Kyme wasfreedof tributeobligationsin 188(Polyb.xxi. 46.
4). We have good evidencefor the autonomyof Herakleiaafter 188:Sy//.3618
recordsa letter of Cn. Manlius Vulso (on the identificationseen. I in Syllogead
loc.) to the city in 188confirmingits autonomy.As we haveseen(n. 86above),the
city concluded a treaty with Miletos which attests its membershipof a Rhodian
ouppayia.
er For the evidenceof Aigai's coinage,seebelow, I I l.
e2Tacitus,Änn. äi.62:proximi hosMagnetesL. Scipioniset L. Sullaeconstitutis
nitebantur: quorum ille Antiocho hic Mithridate pulsisfidem atque virtutem Mag-
netum decoravere, uti Dianae Leucophrynae perfugiam inviolabile foret. The
sovereigrrtyof Magnesiais reflected in documentsrelatingto the city's disputewith
hiene, in which Mylasa was the arbitrator (IvM 93, = Syl/.3 679). Relationswith
'leos'.
IvM 97.
100 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
dent and were listed as aörovoltoup|uot in the peaceconcluded
between Eumenes II and Pharnakes of Pontos in 179.e3
Lysimacheia,however,was specificallygiven to Eumenesin 188,
alongwith the Chersoneseand tä. npooopoüvratoüroLgBqüpara
xai yitpav, and Diodoros refers to the city as being subject to
Attalos II.ea
We havenow seenthat four cities were assignedto Eumenesas
gifts in 188:Ephesos,Tralles,Telmessos,and Lysimacheia.To
these we should perhaps add Magnesia ad Sipylum, which is
similarlydesignatedby Livy.e5It shouldbe admittedimmediately
that if we did not havethis specificevidenceaboutthe gift citieswe
would not easily discernfrom other sourcesany major diffefence
in status from other cities which passedin varying degreesof
subjectionunder Attalid control, and it is unlikely that the desig-
nation as 'gifts' which Polybiosrecordshad any preciseconstitu-
tional implications.There is no literary record of oppressionas
there is in the caseof the Rhodiantreatmentof the Lycian cities,
also categorizedas gifts in 188;e6even Rhodianpropagandadir-
ected againstEumenesdid not touch on this subject.
It is unlikely, then, that the Senateintendedany particularstatus
by the title 'gifts', andit would be unprofitableto look for one in the
epigraphicalevidence.We now know that after 188nc Ephesos
wasthe centreof an administrativeregionandthe seatof a regional
strqtegos.A gymnasialdedicationattestsEumenes'interestin the
gymnasium,a policy applied by the Attalids to Greek cities of
whateverstatus,notably Miletos.eTEumeneswas a benefactorat
Ephesosand at Miletos, and we shallconsiderlater the possibility
that, despiteor perhapsbecauseof their differentstatus,thesetwo
sr Polyb.xxv. 2. 13.
grPolyb.xxi.46.9; Diod. xxxiii. 14.2.
ei Livy xxxvii. 56.3: et nominatimMagnesiamad Sipylum.
e6Theambiguity of Rome's definition of the statusof Lyciaand the subsequent
dispute with Rhodes on this question of course obscure the issue (seeFraser and
Bean, Rhodian Peraea, lll fr.), but I am concernedhere with Polybios'ter-
'PoötotEyaprlöpevot
minology as applied to the original ruling (xxii. 5. 4): totg öö
npootwrpav tv öapeQ.rcüE Auxbug
e7Appendixiv, no. 25;J. Keil,Wien. Anz. xxii (1951),331-6,no. I, = SEG xvii.
510:f'Egpeil'Hgail,ei xai flaohei Eöp4ver.For the restoration l'Eppei] seeJ. and
L. Robert, BulI. lxvi (1953), 169, no. 178. See in general Pr€aux, Monde hell. i.
265-4.
The Greek Cities 101
cities competedfor royal favour. It is enoughhere to confirm that
there is no evidencethat Ephesoswas treatedspeciallyin internal
constitutionalterms after 188sc.
Telmessosis the first city known to havecalledEumenesSoter;
this was done in a decree of 184 nc passed in gratitude for
Eumenes' defenceof Asia Minor againstPrusias,the Galatians,
and other enemies.esClearly, however, this kind of spontaneous
honouring of the saviour king is a feature of Greek civic life
irrespectiveofconstitutional status,and thereforehas no special
sigrrificancein the case of Telmessos.ee
We pass to Tralles. There is evidence, lacking for the other
cities, that Tralles was a royal residenceof the Attalids: both
Vitruvius and Pliny refer to a royal palacein the city.t00A decree
of Tralles honouring a judge from Phokaia refers to ltouotxoi
&yöueEcelebratedat Tralles in honour of EumenesII, but such
activity again is not necessarilyto be associatedwith subject
StatUS.l0l
In the caseof Lysimacheiaevidenceis lacking,but that already
adducedis enoughto demonstratethat an enquiry which setsout
'free'
merely to determinewhich cities were 'subject' and which
after 188sc will be misleadingin the way that definingstatusfor
the cities under Attalos I was seento be misleading.tozThere is
also the difüculty that the literary accountsof the Roman settle-
ment, and very probably the Roman settlementitself, did not set
out to explore the connotationsof a city's status.The accountsin
Polybios' and Livy's narrativesare (at times on their own admis-
sion)selective,and dwell in particularon the issueof tribute.103 [n
e8Appendix iv, no. 7.
eeSeebelow, ch. 6.
rooVitruvius ä. 8. 9: Trallibusdomus regibusAttalicisfacta; Pliny, Nat. ÄIisl.
xxxv. 49: domum Trallibus regiam Attali.
ror Seebelow,ch. 6, and Appendixiv, no. 6, lines lG-l 1. Othercities,apartfrom
those discussedin this and the previous chapter, known to have been subject at
sometime to the Attalids are Priapos(Straboxiii. l. 14,58E),Skepsis(Straboxiii. l.
54, ffi), Nakrasa (if OGIS 268 emanatesfrom there: see Robert, Villes, 36, n. 6),
and Phrygian Apameia, where an ephebic cult of Eumenes II and Attalos II is
attested (MAMAvi. 173:.J. and L. Robert, Bull. 1939,no. ulü)); the evidence of
Apameia's coinage is discussedlater in this chapter.
ro2Seeabove, ch. 3 (i).
r03Seee.g. Livy xxxviii. 39.7: civitatium autem cognitiscausisdecemlegati
aliam aliarumfecerunt condicionem. On tribute as a mark of subjectionseeJones,
Greek City, 102-12; Pr€aux, Monde hell. ü. 438.
r02 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
consideringall the evidence,literary, epigraphical,and numisma-
tic, our analysismust seekto determinehow statusaffectedcivic
life and prosperity, how it restrictedindependenceand freedom,
and how it was regardedby the Attalids, in whose hands it was
placedby the will of the Roman Senate.
A high degreeof subjectionto the Attalids entailedby tributary
status after 188 has been allegedon the premiss that the kings
could, and did, demandadditionalpaymentswhen they required
them, apart from the regular q6eoE, but on closer analysisthis
premissdissolvesinto nothing.t04The Pisidiancity of Amladawas
required to pay a #).eopa as well as gdqog during the major
Galatianwar of EumenesII in the 160s,accordingto a letter of his
brother Attalos to the city on the subject.r05The statusof Amlada
in relation to the Attalids is quite unclear,but this letter seemsto
dealwith conditionsimposedby the circumstancesof war (suchas
the takingof hostages)ratherthan with an episodein the contextof
continuousAttalid rule.r06
r04SeeRostovtzetr,SEHHW iii. 1475,n. 55.
roi Appendix iv, no. 23. On telesma,see Welles, RC' p. 369.
106Information on the status of Amlada is derived from a group of documents
dealing with wartime conditions (Swoboda, Keil, and Kroll, Denkmöler aus
Lykaonien,nos. 74-5; Appendixiv, nos. 22-3);see now in generalHopp,Unter-
suchungen,70-4, and on the chronology,7 l, n.80. The documentsare: I. The enc
of a letter whose authorshipis unclear; II. A letter (OGIS 751; Welles,RC 54)
headed'Aud'oE'Ap].aö6ov rfir nö),et xai rctg ytparctE; III. A badly preservec
"Attalog 'Ap).aö6av rlfit nü,et xai rfolg yepanlEl. Of
letter, headed f6aoü"eüg
these three letters, only the last can be dated firmly to a specific reign, from a
referencein it to Eumenes'sonAttalos, the future Attalos III (lines'+-5)' The writer
of this letter is therefore Attalos II; letter II, the most important, was written by
Attalos before his accession,and the events referred to in the letter, including the
remissionof Amlada's paymentsto the king, may be associatedwith the waxof this
king involving the Pisidiancity of Selge,attestedby thePrologue to Trogus xxxiv:
ut mortuo regeAsiae EumenesuffectusAttalus bellum cum Selegensibushabuit et
cumregePrusia.The recentdeathof EumenesII, andtheproximity ofthe warwith
Prusias,which broke out about 154,place the war with Selgein the l50s' not long
after the accessionofAttalos ll. It is thereforeclear that Amlada was heavily taxed
during this war, but it cannot be assumed that these circumstancesapplied in
peacetime conditions (contra Hopp, 70). The fact that, according to letter II'
Amlada paid yearly tribute, establishesthe city's subjectstatusat thattime, but this
statusmay have arisenfrom the city'sbehaviourin the waras well as fromany other
definite cause;there is, furthermore, no specificevidencethat the Attalids received
Amlada in lE8 sc. Whatever the case, it is clear that the conditions attested for
Amlada, a frontier-city necessarily involved in the continual bouts of warfare
undertakenby the Attalid kings in the area (cf. Meyer, Die Grenzen, 154;Welles'
RC 54 ad loc.), cannot be regardedas typical of the Attalids' treatment of other
tributary cities, whose circumstanceswere different.
The Greek Cities r03
An inscription from Sardis to be dated to the early second
century Bc records remissionsof tribute and other concessions
allowed to a city of whose name only the initial T has been pre-
served on the stone;tozit includes the provision (lines 16-19):
ld lzö öä roü öyööou hou Eöö övar rqe[iE ävacpopd.g) | lix] nao 6u
röv ytvoptvav npooööav na[p' Examov] | ivmuröv dpyufp]iou
pvdg eixoog xo,i ä)J.lary pl övlloy).eio0at.eivfatl öä aörcüE
älqpouqrjclouElxü... . . The toneand language of this document
are somewhat reminiscentof the Attalid chancery,but no proof
whatever is attainablein the present state of the text. The city
concernedmay havebeenTemnos,asthe editorsofthe inscription
suggested,and the circumstancesthe sameas thoseof the decree
for Korrhagos, namely the aftermath of the Antiochic War, but
many such contexts may be adducedwith no lessplausibility. In
short, none of the evidenceusually cited indicatesAttalid policy
with regard to taxation in general terms and in normal cir-
cumstances.
The city for which we have the clearestevidenceas regards
statusas a tribute-payingcity after 188sc is Teos. We know that
Teos paid a considerableoüwa$6 to Attalos I, as we saw in the
previouschapter,and accordingto the termsof the Romansettle-
ment it should have paid qöeoE thereafter.10E A letter written by
EumenesII to the Ionian Guild of Dionysiantöchnitci,whoseseat
was then at Teos, tells us a good deal about the relationship
betweenthe king and the city.toeFragmentarythoughthe letter is,
it is very probable that Teos, like the Guild, could be bound by
royal prostagmata and that by this meansa settlementcould be
imposed on the city concerningits dispute with the Dionysian
to?Sardis vii. l, no. 2.
rosBefore the discovery ofthe decreehonouringAntiochos III and Laodike (see
above,ch. 3, n. 64),there was no specificevidencethat Teoswas a tributary Attalid
city after 188.Its subject statuswas inferred by Cardinali (RP 94)from (i) the city's
allegianceto Antiochos during the war with Rome (cf. Livy xxxvii. 27-8), and (ii)
the direct treatment afrorded to Teos by Eumenes II in its dispute with the
Dionysian technitai (see below). The fact that Teos interceded at Rome for its
daughter-cityAbderain 167(Syl/.r656)is regardedby Magie,RomanRule, ä.959,
and Walbank, Comm. äi.167-8, as evidencethat Teos was then independent,but
this approach is too dogmatic; it is quite feasible that a Greek city could send an
embassyto Rome while being tributary to a king, especially in the special cir-
cumstancesrelating to the question of Abdera.
toelvp 163,: Welles,RC 53.
104 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia The Greek Cities 105

technitai.tr0 The samemachineryis known to have been used in PhrygianHierapolis,Sardis,Tralles,Magnesiaad Sipylum,and an

the context of Attalid rule in Aigina, a possessionof the King of unnamed city replying to a communicationof Magnesiaon the
Pergamon,rll and a decisionof Attalos III concerningthe impor- Maeander.rlTThis constitutionalmachineryis lessfrequently at-
tant priesthoodof Dionysos Kathegemonat Pergamonwas also testedoutsidethe Attalid Kingdom;1tEmore significantly,it forms
communicatedas a prostagma, as recorded in Attalos' letter to a part of the constitutionof the city of Pergamonfrom the begin-
Kyzikoson the subject,dated13596. 112 The word wasused,as is ning of the Attalid dynasty, as Pergamenedecreesfrom the early
well known, of royal decisions,and sometimesof the decisionsof third century onwards attest.rle We are therefore led to ask
subordinateofficials, in other Hellenistickingdoms.r!3It is clear whetherthis stateof affairs entitlesus to believethat the kings of
from the constitutionalterms employed in the surviving corres- Pergamondeterminedor interferedin any way with the constitu-
pondencethat Eumeneswas more than just an arbitrator in the tionsoftributary and subjectcities.The frequentoccurrenceofthe
dispute betweenthe city and the Guild of lechnitai, becausethe constitutionalmachinery whereby the strategoi introducedmat-
embassyof the Guild, to which referenceis made, envisageda ters for considerationto the popular assembly,notably at Teos
settlementimposedby the king if it provedto be necessary:rraei öi which we know was a tributary city after 188,is the soleindication
pi1öö6lvar oürag \trtaurövönaryeiEöfuövonlv änoxaralor4oag, that it reflects Attalid policy in general terms. The only other
6$atlöE üpiv eiEröv ).omlöy yqövov lltd eTiEeifqqvilvxai eüvo' evidencethat canbe adducedrelatesto a singlecity. A decreefrom
ptav ouvre[vovra- - - -]. The expressions usedofroyal decisions, Bakir (ancientNakrasa),but not necessarilyof that preciseprove-
'Artd.),ou,
all introduced by either xpiva or ünd,ap6dva, determine the nance, dated6aoü'eüowoE ngcbroulöroug, and there-
extentof royal authorityimpliedin the settlement.rr5 fore issued by a city of the Attalid Kingdom, honours a certain
'AnüJ,cbvrcE
According to a decreeof Teos honouringa citizen of Magnesia MeAeälypouönrcrdrqg.r20The term Enrcrö.rqEis
on the Maeander,the strategoiof Teos had a constitutionalfunc- well attestedin the Hellenisticperiodasa governingmagistratein a
tion similar to their counterparts at Pergamon; the prescript subjectcity, tzt and in the Attalid Kingdomit was usedof Kleon's
readsrr6 tqtptl16atv xai orpatqydtu yvtit1t4.We have already office at Aigina;122in the presentcasethere can be no doubt that
noticed a similar procedureat Pitane and Phokaia,and to these rr7 Hierapolis:OGIS 308;Sardis:Appendixiv, no. 5, lines 1-2; Tralles:B.SAxxix
(1927-8),68-71;Magnesia: AM xxiv (1899),411;the unnamedcity: IvM 87,:
instanceswe may add from the Attalid Kingdom the cities of
ocrs 319.
tt8Notably at Priene under Lysimachos (OGIS ll), and at Smyrna under
rroFränkel restored IvP 163. C,7-8 x[aü. tä ööypallta töp 6aoÄ6tov, but
Seleukos ll @GIS 229\.
Holleaux's restoration lEtudes, iii. 205) xlard. rä. npootdypa)lta was adopted by ile See below, 165n. 23.
Welles, and is followed here. t2oOGIS 268; cf. Robert,Villes, 36, n. 6. The decree is dated by Robert, followed
ttt OGIS 329, 14_15.
by Bengtson, Strat. ä.248, to the reign ofAttalos II or III, on the premiss (as yet not
tt2IvP 248, : OGIS 331. III, 4l-3, = Welles, RC 66, 16-18'
argued in full) thatthe basileia mentioned in line 6 honoured Zeus Basileios and not
r f 3 S e e t h e v a l u a b l e a n a l y s i so f H o l l e a u x . E t u d e s , i i i . 2 0 5 - l l . F o r t h e R o l e m i e s
the kingship of Attalos I, as Wilcken, RE, s.v. Attalos (9), 2159, and Meyer, Die
see also M. - Th. Lenger,Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolömles (Brussels' 1964)' Grenzen, 98, thought. The issue in my view remains open: Attalos I did not fall short
and in general, Pr6aux, Monde hell. i.272-3, ii. 599-601. ofdivine honours elsewhere (see ch. 6), and we find a parallel to the royal basileia in
rra Welles. RC 53 I.A. lines 6-9.
the Baoilcn at Alexandria (P. M. Fraser, Ptol. Alexandria, ü. 382, n. 341).
r 1 5S e e , i n t h e t e x t , I L C , l i n e 1 5 ; I I I . B , l i n e 8 , C , l i n e 9 ; I V . C , l i n e 1 2 . C o m p a r e f2r See Holleaux, Etudes, äi. 217-19, and his list, 253-4, supplemented by
the case of Hierocaesar€a and Thyateira, whose dispute was settled regis [con]- Robert, Hellenica, vü, p.22; Bengtson, Strat. passim. On the Seleukid epistates
stitutionibus (Keil-von Premerstein, Zweite Reise, 13, no. l8). A letter written to s e e a l s o W e l l e s , R C ,p . 1 8 7 , n . 3 , l 8 S , n . 4 , a n d o n t h e P t o l e m a i c e p i s t a t e s P
, r6aux,
Priene concerning a settlement between that city and Miletos UvPr 27, : Welles, Monde hell. ü. 419-20. One example of the office is knowlr from Bithynia: L.
RC 46) is,I believe, a document of Roman rule and not the letterof an Attalid, and in Robert, Et. anat.228-35; cf. Bengtson, Strat. ü.245; Rostovtzeff,SEHHW üi.
any event the text is too fragmentary to allow conclusions concerning constitutional 1 4 8 1 .n . 7 5 . F o r t h e R h o d i a n e p i s t a t a i o f t h e P e r a e a . s e e H o l l e a u x , E r u d e s , i .
prodecure. 409-17; Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea, 86-94.
tt6IvM 97.3047. t22OGIS 329,34-5, with Dittenberger's n. 19.
106 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
Apollonios*as"pistotrs of the city which passedthe decreein his
honour. If, as seems likely, the stone came from a city near
Nakrasa,suchas Akrasosor Stratonikeia,the city concernedwas
situatedin the area of direct authority establishedby EumenesI
and exploitedby his successor,and we know that the areaaround
Thyateira,includingNakrasaand the upper Kaikos valley, was in
Attalid hands some years before the Roman settlement,in fact
alreadyduringthe reignof Attalos I.123Aigina alsowas an acquisi-
tion of Attalos I, and it is therefore very likely that the office of
epistateswas introducedinto subjectcitiesby this king ratherthan
EumenesIL
The decree also refers to another office previously held by
Apollonios: x ai ng & elqot öö orp arqyöEq Enö7ea4x ar aor a0 ei E.
This constitutesthe only indicationof the methodof appointment
of the civicstrategoi in the Attalid Kingdom outsidethe capital;as
such it is tantalizingly vague, but two parallelscan be cited in
determiningthe significanceof the verb xaraora9eig used of the
appointment.The sameword is usedof EumenesI's appointment
of the Pergamenestrategoi,r24and in a Megarian decree of the
appointmentof Hikesiosof Ephesosat Aiginaby EumenesII. t25It
seemslikely, then, that Apollonios' office was a royal appoint-
ment, althoughthis is not specificallystated,aswas his later offrce
of epistates.126
In the light of this evidence we have reasonablegrounds for
believing that the King of Pergamonappointed epistatai and
strategoiin the subjectcities; that, in other words, he interferedin
and perhapsrestrictedthe constitutionalfunctionsof thesecities.
This doesnot necessarilymeanhoweverthat the constitutionsasa
whole were similarly determined,sincethe king could have made
use of existinginstitutions, as he did perhapsat Pergamonitself,
but it is possiblethat he favouredthe type of constitutionfound at
Pergamon and encouragedcities within his kingdom to adopt it
At this point then, we may usefullyconsidertheexactnatureofthe
r23Robert, Villes, 3140.
t24OGIS 267. lI, l-2: oi xataota0öweg ün' Eitptvoug oqatqyoi.
t2sSyll.t 642:'ö xataota9eiE En' AiytvaE önlö rci 6aop).6o9Eipiuoug. Seemy
remarksin.BSl{ lxvi (1971),34.
r26SeeBengtson,Strat. ü.248-9.
The Greek Cities 10?
office of strategos in Greek cities that were subject to Attalid
authority.
In Attalid usagethe term strategos connotesone of two civil
offices: either a regionalgovernor, suchas Korrhagosand Deme-
trios, or a member of a collegiateboard, as at Pergamonand the
other cities already mentioned. It is never clearly attestedin a
military sense.The copious body of inscriptionswhich provide
informationconcerningthe organizationof the Attalid army attests
no military offrcehigherthan that of f7yep6v,whetherreferringto a
garrison or to an army in the field. In the decreesfrom Delphi
honouringthe membersof a garrisonput into the town of Lilaiaby
Attalos I, their ranks are designated as oi otqartörat xai
fiyep6veg,t27 and the sameformula is used with referenceto the
armiesat Philetaireiaand Attaleia under EumenesI,124and with
referenceto an Attalid force at Aigina in the time of Attalos I. t zs
All this is in strikingcontrastto Seleukidand Ptolemaictitulatures,
in which the military strqtegos is separatelydesignated.l30
We may concludethen that in the Attalid Kingdom the ofüce of
strqtegoswas civil (in two senses)and not military.13rIt may be
thought significant that Livy's Corragus,praefectus Eumenis,
whom we have identified with the strategos Korrhagos,fought
with Manlius againstthe Galatiansin 189,but even he was subor-
dinatein the commandof the Attalid contingentto a memberof the
royal family, Athenaios,r32and the fact that Corragus(Korrhagos)
r21F. Delphes, äi. 4. 132-5:part of 133 is now convenientlyreproducedin
Moretti, lSE ii, no. 8l ; note there the typical formulasof orp att'tinat xai äyepöveg
oi perd @paolupdToul andröv t @qaoüpalov xai tolülE perd aütoö otpatubtag
xai fiyepöveg.
t2EIvp 13, : OGIS 266, 19-20:IlapäpovoE xai oi f1yepövegxai oi ü9' aötoüg
mparuittau
t2eEph. Arch. l9l!, 90*2, = Moretti, ISE i, no. 36. I have reproduced and
discussedthe text of this small round red-painted altar in B.lA l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 4 - 5
(photoSraph,pl. 2). See also fvP 29, : OGIS 280.
rro SeeOGIS 217, = Welles,RC 39 (cf. Wilhelm, Wien.Anz. lvii (1920)'40-2).
13tThe application ofthe terrr,;,strategia to the mercenarybody in Philetaireiain
the documentrecordingthe settlementwith EurnenesI (ch. 2, n. 47)doesnot in my
view necessarilymeanthat their commander,Paramonos,wps calledsrrategos,as
Bengtson,Strat. ü. 198 ff., argues.The significanceof the titulature of Philo-
poimen,oqat4yög xai öni qE ogpaytöoEunder Attalos II (see below, 132)is
unclear(Bengtson,loc. cit.).
r32Livy xlii. 67. 4.
108 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
was a regional strategos does not have a direct bearing on his
military office in the field. In fact this instanceis typical of Attalid
practice: the largely mercenary armies were invariably com-
manded,at least in the more important campaignsfor which we
haveevidence,by the king or a near relativeof the king, and in the
caseof EumenesII, very often by one of his brothers.
This analysisdeterminesthe nature of the office held by Apol-
lonios, as attested by the decree from Bakir, orparrlyöE rqE
nöAeog.The possibilitythat he wasa military governorin chargeof
a garrisoncan be discounted.Sincehe is calledstrategos'of the
city', the collegiatecivic magistracycommonin citiesof the Attalid
Kingdom alone remains in question. We have found reason to
believethat he was appointedto this office by the king, a practice
likely to be repeated in other cities of the kingdom, for which
evidenceis lacking. On the other hand we have found no cogent
evidenceto suggestthat the office itself, let alonethe constitution
as a whole, was of the king's designor imposition;sincethe office
was,aswe haveseen,a civic oneanda typicalGreekoneat that,it
seemsreasonableto think that the king made use of an existing
institution in order to establisha personalcontrol over the con-
stitutional features of the cities concerned,as he did at Perga-
mon. 133
The widespreadappointmentof royal officials in cities is at-
tested by an excerpt from Diodoros' history which refers to the
hostileattitudeof Attalos III to officialsof his father'sreign:134
uitv
öö ä)")"arycpü"tttvröv ön' Efouoiq. orparruttCoufi nöTetttvr€ray-
ptuav oüE trtiv ööd"oqövr1otv,oüE öi ouAAadöu navorubuE
dveü,e.The construction of the sentencesuggestsa generalde-
scriptionof oflicials ratherthanthe designationof a specificoffice,
ö öni nöLeutE,sincein fact Diodoros' expressionis oi ön' ö(ouoig.
. . . n6).eav,anda comparisonwith the offrcecalledti öni nd)"eogat
Pergamoncan carry little weight.r3sIt seemsmore plausibleto
regardDiodoros' descriptionas embracingthe titles strategosand
r33Seebelow, ch- 7.
ß4 xxxiv. 3.
t35Seebelow,l7l-2.
The Greek Cities 109
epistatesattestedby the epigraphicalevidencewe have beencon-
sidering.
We may conclude,then, that tributary citiesof the Attalid King-
dom enjoyedfreedomin the matter of constitutionalform, but that
it was a freedomlimited by the king's appointmentof strategoi and
epistatai. The evidenceof the king's power to issueprostagmatq
in the caseof Teos further indicatesthe statusof a tributary city,
sincethe king could certainlytreat one suchcity on the sameterms
as another.Theselimitationsapart, all our evidencesuggeststhat
the tributary cities continuedto leadan independentcivic life, and
no evidenceof the impositionof garrisonsor military governorsin
normal circumstanceshas come down to us.
We have seenthat the main burden imposedon thesecities was
the obligationto pay tribute, and it is in theseterms that they are
designatedin the accountswe haveof the Romansettlementof 188
Bc. It was doubtless this obligation more than any other that
determineda city's relationshipto the king at Pergamon.With this
considerationwe may associatein part the Attalids' concern to
influence probouleutic functions by virtue of their personalap-
pointment of strategoi, becauseone important aspect of these
functions was the administrationof finances, at Pergamonand
elsewhere.r36A further line of enquiry in this regardmay be found
in the cities' coinage,which hasundergonea thoroughre-exami-
nation in recentyears.l37
It has now been establishedthat cities independentof the At-
talids after 188began or continued to issue gold coins or tetra-
t 3 6S e e b e l o w , 1 6 7 _ 8 .
rr7 The groundwork on these coins was done by F. Imhoof-Blumer,Die Münzen,
28-35. and H. von Fritze,Die Münzen von Pergamon; these studies established a
stylistic sequence for the coins. Important among recent works are: E. S. G'
Robinson, Nunr . Chron. xiv (1954), 1-7; U. Westermark,Das Bildnis, who argued
that the old dynastic coinage bearing the head of Philetairos ended in 190; D'
Kienast, Jahrb. für Numismatik und Geldgesch. xi (1961)' 159 ff.' with bibliog-
r a p h y , 1 6 3 - 8 6 ; R o b e r t , V i l l e s , 2 5 2 f f . ; H . S e y r i g ' R e v . N u m . v ( 1 9 6 3 ) ' 1 9f f . F o r a
summary of discussion on this question see now F. S. Kleiner and S. P. Noe, T/re
Early Cistophoric Coinage (American Numismatic Society, Numismatic Studies
xiv. 1977); A. Giovannini, Rome et Ia circulation monetaire en Grice au IIe siöcle
av. Jösus-Christ (Schv'eiz. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. l5' 1978).
110 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia The Greek Cities IlI

drachmsin their own right,138whereasno independentcoinageis Miletos independent independent

Myndos independent independent
attestedfor cities known to have been tributary to the Attalids. Mytilene independent independent
Many of thesetributary cities issueda new coin, the cistophoros, Priapos tributary no independent
which was mintedinitially at Pergamon,Ephesos,andTralles,on a coinage
different standardfrom that of the Attic tetradrachm,and which, Rhodes independent independent
Sardis tributary cistophoric
as we shall see, was most probably introducedas the exclusive Skepsis tributary no indePendent
coinageof the kingdom in 188 Bc. This cistophoric coinagewas coinage
limited to cities known to havebeen tributary to the Attalids after Smyrna independent independent
Telmessos gift city no independent
188sc, andrecentnumismaticresearchhasindicatedits statusasa
coinage
royal coinage minted at Attalid cities, the chief mint being at Temnos tributary no independent
Pergamon,which providedalso for the issuesof Synnada,Sardis, coinage
and Apameia.r3e Tenedos independent independent
Teos tributary no independent
The consistentpatternof the coinagesof the Greekcitiesof Asia
coinage
Minor after the Romansettlementis clearfrom the followingtable, Thyateira tributary cistophoric
which lists the issuesof twenty-sevencitieswhosestatusin known Tralles gift city cistophoric
from literary or epigraphicalevidence: It seemsfrom this evidencethat a city's coinageafter 188was
City Status Coinage directly related to its statusas fixed by the Roman settlementof
Alabanda independent independent that year: independentcities were free to issuetheir own coinage,
AlexandriaTroas independent independent
whereascitiesmadetributary to the Attalids lost this right. If this is
Colophon Nova independent independent
Ephesos gift city cistophoric so, then cities which continuedafter 188to issuetheir own coins
Herakleia were evidently not Attalid subjects; the independentstatus of
by Latmos independent independent Aigai, arguedaboveon othergrounds,would thusbe confirmed,as
would that of Parion,Abydos, Myrina, Lebedos, and Phaselis. 1a0
Ilion independent independent
Kibyra independent independent
Kos independent independent
Kyme independent independent raoSeyrig,20. The caseofAbydos is particularlyinteresting,in that Abydoshas
Kyzikos independent independent beenthoughtto be an Attalid subjectfrom 188,and even,by Magie(seebelow),as
Lampsakos independent independent possiblythe city which issuedthe decreehonouringKorrhagosdiscussedabovein
Magnesiaon part i. The statusofAbydos is howeverunclear;in 196it was declaredfree (Polyb.
theMaeander independent independenl xviii.44.4; Holleaux,Etudes,iv. 317-18,n.4; Schmitt,(Jntersuchungen, 284),but
Magnesiaad gift city no independent Antiochos'garrisonstill held the city in 190(Livy xxxvii. 9. I 1-12; xxxiii. 38.4).
Sipylum (Livy; coinage We do not know how the city wastreatedby Romein 188,but Magie'sview (Rornan
lrt Seyrig,l9; seealsothe tablebelow. Someofthesecitiesareofspecialinterest Rule, ü. l0l2-13) that 'for its surrenderto Antiochusit would naturallyhavebeen
in view of their previousrelationswith Pergamon,notably Kyzikos, l-ampsakos, awardedto Eumenes'is untenable,in view of explicit evidence,in the caseof
Ilion, the Kolophoniansof Notion, Alexandria Troas, and Smyrna (see ch. 3 Phokaia(Polyb. xxi. 46. 7; see above,42 n. 46), that a city betrayedto Antio-
above).Note that Kyme and the Kolophoniansof Notion were specificallyfreed of chos, and then held by a garrisonand not by loyalty, was not treatedin 188as if
the obligationto pay tribute in 188(Polyb. xxi. 46. 4). For relationsbetweenIlion it hadjoined the cause voluntarily. Abydos' independentcoinageprobably dates
and the Attalids, see Welles,RC 62 (as interpretedby Robert, BC^taliv (1930), from shortlyafter the third Macedonianwar (Seyrig,20,n.2), and may havebegun
348-51; Op. Minora Selectai. 167-70),a royal letter written probablyby Attalos with a commemorativeissue;thus a short period of Attalid rule after 188is not
II; it refersto a purchaseof landby the king from the templeofAthena at llion, and precluded on this criterion, and is perhapssupportedby an inscription from Ilion
'A66öou: it would be difücult to
to previous benefactionsof oxen and drivers (compare the sending of artists to mentioning a certain Chaireas,ö tetayptvog en'
Delphi by Attalos II (Syll.3 682; Datx, Delphes, 509) and of an architect to the assignthis clearly royal appointmentto anyone but an Attalid king (cf. Bengtson,
katoikoi in the territory ofTelmessosby EumenesII (above,95). Strat. ä.24D. An we can say with certaintyis that Abydos was independentfrom
r3eSeyrig,27-2. As Seyrigshows,the singlecistopftorosof Smyrnais of a later about 170;if it was subjectto Eumenesbetween188and that date,the reasonfor
date, and was clearly a specialissue. such a statusis not clear.
 The Greek Cities I 13
112 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia

The oldest coins of the cistophoriccoinage,judged on stylistic Antiochos III, ever circulated the coin, cannot stand, because
grounds, are issuesof Pergamon,Ephesos,Tralles, Sardis, and Antiochos at least could easily have acquired quantities of the
Apameia;althoughat one time dated,as individual issuesof each coins when his son seleukosraidedAttalid territory and besieged
city, to the end of the third century Bc andevenearlier,rarit is clear Pergamonip f !Q.ra I regardit as probable,then, thatcistophoroi
from the history of these cities, from the dominanceof the Per- were minted at Pergamonbefore,althoughnot longbefore, 188nc,
gamenemint in the coinage,and above all from the fact that the as well as tetradrachmsbearingthe portrait of Philetairos,and that
coins werg issuedby all of them, and minted in the three major the cistophoric coinage was imposed on tributary cities in or
Attalid cities, in the sameperiod, that is, as a-common coinage, shortly after 188as the soleculrency of Eumenes'newly acquired
that the originsof the coinagemust be datedto the yearsafter 188 kingdom, with Pergamonas the chief mint and othersat Ephesos
Bc, when the citiesconcernedwere assignedto EumenesII by the and Tralles. This fact attests clearly Eumenes'intention of ren-
terms of the Roman settlementof Asia Minor. It is only in this deringhis subjectsfinancially dependenton their suzerain,and is
period of the secondcentury that the necessarycommonpolitical consistent with the Attalids' persistent concern to control the
circumstancescan be adducedfor all the cities in explanationof financesof their kingdom personally,another consequenceof
sucha coinage.t42 which we sawearlierin their direct appointmentof civic strategoi'
In the case of Pergamonit is probable that the coinagewas The fact that the cistophoriccoinagewas not circulatedoutside
issuedbefore 188sc, in addition to the dynastic coinagebearing the kingdom throws light on Eumenes'economicpolicy in more
the head of Philetairos,which, it now seems,continued to be generalterms.r4sSo far from co-operatingeconomicallywith the
mintedafter 188BC.Livy mentionscistophoriamongthe booty of Seleukidsafter 188,as Rostovtzeffthought,ra6Bumsngswas evi-
three Roman triumphs of the Antiochic War in 190and 189,and raaSeyrig, 24,n. l; seleukos'invasionof 190:Livy xxxvii' l8; Appian' Syt' 26'
these referencescannot be dismissedas anachronisticdesigna- The invasionsof 198and 197also come into consideration:seeabove,77-8'
r4sOn this question,seeSeyrig,25-6; Kleinerand Noe, 124-5'
tions of a number of different coinages,as is usually done.tar | 46Anat. s t id. B uckter 277ff . ; s EH Hly ii. 654ff. Rostovtzeffargued,from the
Livy's evidence does not necessarilyemanate from badly in- abundanceof autonomoustetradrachmsfrom westernAsia Minor found in Syrian
formed annalisticsources,sincethe exact detailshe gives suggest hoardsofthe secondcenturyBc.that EumenesII inheriteda surplusofmetal in 188'
andthereforeco-operatedwith the Greekcitiesandwith the Seleukidsby supplying
archivalmaterialof the kind gatheredfor the Augustanpublication them with this meial. This view has beendecisivelycriticizedby Seyrig,26-8; in
of the fasti triumphales; and the objection that Glabrio, who fact, circulationofthesetetradrachmsin the SeleukidKingdomis asnotablebefore
triumphed in 190, could not have had cistophoroi in his booty lg8 as after, and remainedalways a free circulation,as distinct from the royal
seleukidcurrency. Furthermore,thepolicyoffinancialmonopoly,introducedinto
becauseneither of his defeated opponents, the Aitolians and his kingdomin theform of thecistophorosin l88 gc,testifiesagainstthe notionof an
'ententecordiale' with the Seleukidsafter that date.
rar Kleiner and Noe, l0-18.
ra2Seyrig, 22 ff.; Giovannini 15. Cistophoroi from Thyateira, Apollonis, and O.MÖrkholm,AntiochuslVofSyria(Copenhagen,1966),51-63,believesina
Stratonikeia, bearing the letters BA EY followed by B or /, have been shown by
politicaland economicco-operationbetweenthe Attalidsand the seleukidswhen
Robinson (cited above, n. 137) to be issues of Aristonikos, who called himself intiochos IV came to the throne. Apart from the circumstancesof Antiochos'
Eumenes III; cf. L. Robert, Villes2, 252ff . Kleiner and Noe date the introduction of elevation.which seemto me to amount to little more than a typical exampleof
the common coinage to about 166sc. after Eumenes' successful Galatian warofthe Attalid opportunism,there is little evidenceto supportthis view, and still lessto
early 160s.They argue, on the basis of a coin hoard from Mektepini in Phrygia (N. support ihat of a'triple allianceof Pergamon,Cappadocia,and Syria' after 175
Olgay and H. Seyrig, Le Trösor de Mektepini en Phrygie, Paris, 1965) that the
(Iridrkhotm,55).The-factthat Antiochos sharedthe samecontactsin the Greek
dynastic coinage bearing the head of Philetairos continued after 188 Bc. and post- world as Eumenesproves nothing, since many of them, especiallyDelphi and
ulate a short overlap with the new cistophoric coinage, but a longer one is possible; Delos, receivedthe attentionof most powerful statesand kingdomsat this time.
moreover the historical circumstances they adduce as contextual evidence are not Again,Antiochos'policy of friendshipwith Miletos,a city accordingto Mdrkholm
.w-ithinthe Pergaminesphereofinfluence', simply reflectsanotheraspectofthat
especially convincing. For the dominance ofthe Pergamene mint in the coinage, see
Kleiner and Noe. 120-4. city's determinationto advanceits own position by courting the favour of any
r a 3x x x v i i . 4 6 . 2 ( M ' . A c i l i u s G l a b r i o i n 1 9 0 ) ;x x x v i i . 5 8 . 4 ( L . A e m i l i u s R e g i l l u si n benefactorwilling to assistit (on this policy seefurther below);it saysnothingfor
1 8 9 ) ;x x x v i i . 5 9 . I ( L . C o r n e l i u s S c i p i o A s i a t i c u s i n 1 8 9 ) .C f . S e y r i g , 2 4 , n . l ; K l e i n e r the relationsbetweenthe benefactors.Finally, as Mdrkholm admits (57-8), An-
and Noe, I 8, n. 58. For the chronology of the late dynastic coinage, see Kleiner and tiochoswaswilling to helprivals of Pergamonaswell as friends;Rhodesis a casetn
Noe. l4-16. point (Livy xli.20. 7; Syll.1644-5)-
n4 Attalid Kingdom aftei the Treaty of Apameia
dently concernedto establisha rival economy,whosecoinagewas
on a standard different from that of the Attic tetradrachm circu-
lated in the Seleukid Kingdom, and whose status therefore
suggestscircumstancesother than co-operationin trade with the
Seleukids.Although he was no doubt awareof the exampleof this
policy shownby the Ptolemies,it is hardly valid in the presentstate
of the evidenceto regard Eumenes' implementingof a currency
monopolyas a signof direct Rolemaic influence;ratherit suggests
that samepolicy, argued above, whereby the Attalids after 188
adopted institutions of different origins as they suited the cir-
cumstancesof the new kingdom. We have seenthat the Attalids
were always concernedto control personallythe institutions of
financialadministrationin the various parts of their kingdom:the
Greek cities, the katoikiai, the temples, and, as Cardinali has
shown, the capital, where this policy was probably implemented
early in the dynasty's history.trT This policy did not, however,
reachthe proportionsof the highly centralizedeconomicand fiscal
system developed by the Ptolemies, of which the currency
monopoly was only one aspect;it would be wrong, therefore,to
supposethat Eumeneswas directly influencedto any greatextent
by Rolemaic practice in making provision for the financial ad-
ministrationof his kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia.
The status of a 'free' or non-tributary city in relation to the
Attalid Kingdomis moredifficult to determine.The difficultiescan
bestbe consideredby comparingthe fortunesof the two cities for
which the evidenceis most informative: the gift city of Ephesos
and the free city of Miletos. In the caseof Miletos the materialto
hand allows us to draw a very distinct picture of the relations
betweenthe city and the king. Perhapsthe most significantconclu-
sion to be drawn from it is that at Miletos EumenesII was almost
certainly called a god in his lifetime.
The entire body of evidencewith which we are concerneddates
from thereignof EumenesII; someof it hasbeenfamiliarforalong
time, while someis more recent.r4sAs we have seen,Miletos was
ra7G. Cardinali,Mem.Accad.Bologna,x (1915-16),181-93;seebelow,ch. 7.
The responsibilityfor financesofthe provincialstrategos
is shownby acrstophoros
bearing the letters KOPPATOZ) AP(I2TOMAXOY-); Seyrig, 29-3t.
ra8The texts are given in Appendix iv, nos. l3-17.
The Greek Cities il5
given its freedom in 188as a reward for co-operationin the An-
tiochic War. The statusof the city beforethe war is unclear;there
is certainlyno evidencethat it wasa Ptolemaiccity at the endof the
third century and in all probability it was completely indepen-
dlent.r4e There is no ground in the Romansettlement,as recorded
by Polybios, on which Miletos could have been expectedto pay
tribute to Eumenes,and its independencewas in all ways assured.
The city's territory almostcertainlyincludedthat of Myus, a small
town whose sacredlandswere a constantcauseof disputewith its
more powerful neighbours.This was undoubtedlyso at the end of
the third century, when Miletos billeted someCretanmercenaries
in the territory of Myus.t50As aresult of the expeditionof Philip V
in Asia Minor in 201, Miletos temporarily lost its independence,
and Myus was given by the invader to Magnesiaon the Maean-
der,tsr but the former situation was restoredwhen Miletos con-
cluded a separatetreaty with Magnesiain 196, which set the
boundary between the two cities at the River Hybandos.ts2The
territory of Myus was presumablyincluded in the sacredlands
which were specificallyrestoredto Miletos in 188.
The most importantof the documentswe areto consideris a long
letter of Eumenes[I addressedto the Ioniankoinon (Appendixiv,
no. 13),which quotes extensively(lines 5-37) the lonian decree
passedin his honour to which his own letter is a reply. It is the key
to the chronologicalproblems involved in attemptingto form a
securesequenceofdocuments,and therebya sequenceofevents.
Holleaux's thorough analysisof the contentsof the letter and its
historical contentls3establishedthat the winter of 16716,when
Eumenesis likely to havebeenat Delos(lines1-5)andhis Galatian
war was still in progress, is the date which best suits all the
implicationsof the letter, and this date has rightly been accepted
since.The decree,as passedon to us by Eumenes'letter, attests
honoursvoted to him both by thekoinon and by Miletosalone.The
honours of the koinon are conventional:the donation of a gold
raeHolleaux, Etudes, iii. 135-6; Rehm, Das Delphinion in Milet (Milet i.3,
Berlin, l9l4), 267, 321.
t s oM i l e t i . 3 . 3 3 8 ; M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , ü . 8 8 3 , n . 8 1 .
r5f Polyb. xvi.24.9; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 230 ff'
r52Sll/.3 588, line 30.
r53Holleaux. Etudes, ii. 153-78.
116 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia The Greek Cities ll7

crown, the erectionof a gilded statueanywherein the territory of two documents.Although there is no indicationthat Eumenesis
thekoinon, honoursto be announcedat the festivalsof thekoinon, dead,157 his brotherandeventualsuccessor, AttalosII, is calledin
"Arra).oE
Eumenesto be met and congratulatedby representativesof the this decree 6aotAeüE flines 39-40). We have already
koinon. The more significantpart is containedin Eumenes'reply: seen that Delphian decreesdated in the year of Amphistratos
he offers to provide an income for the celebration of his riptqa (160/59)establishthe fact that Attalos II was given the royal title
önrbvupoEat the festival of the Panionion,ls4and to pay for the beforethe deathof EumenesII late in l59.rs8An Atheniandecree
statue, which he chooses to be put up (lines 59-60) fiv rrit in honour of an unknownoikeios of EumenesII, passedearlier in
örpr1llErcp|vatfipiv önö Müqo[tun re]p6velt\' the sameyear, 160/59,tse g3nn6[thereforerefer in its lastsurviving
Oneof the Ionianenvoyswho met Eumenesat Delos(line 3)was line to Eumenes'death,but must refer to the act of establishingthe
Eirenias son of Eirenias, a prominent citizen of Miletos about co-regency.When I examinedthe stone,now in the Epigraphical
whom a good deal is now known. He is also mentioned in the Museumin Athens(inv. 7526),I obtaineda numberof new read-
surviving portion of the city's decreein honour of Eumenes(Ap- ings, notably these in the important final line: ---- KAINYN-
pendix iv, no. 14),in the capacityof envoy of the city to the king; EYMENO. . THNAPX- - - -. FollowingDaux's suggestions, we may
Eumenesin reply (lines l6-18)ygäpara (sic)&.n6ora)"xev -öl fov restore this line as follows: xai uüv EöptvoluEl rrlv ügyfilv
'Anä)"atl.
td re önö Eiqtnllvbu öpqavrc06vra aüt6t öX06pevoE xtL. Hol- napaööwoE (or innq&pawoE) rCotäöeAEdtL
leaux's identificationof the date of this mission on behalf of the The importance of this text lies in the fact that it provides a
city with that of the missionon behalfof thekoinon is the weakest terminuspost quem, or evenad quem, for Attalos' assumptionof
part of an otherwise dependablechronologicalframework, al- the royal title, whereasDelphian chronologypresentsus with a
though it has been accepted,for example,by Welles.lssThis fait accompli. For our presentpurpose,it provesthat the decreeof
identity ofoccasions, basedsolely on the fact that on each occa- theboule of Miletos cannotbe much earlierthan 160/59.It may be
sionthe Milesianenvoy was Eirenias,is certainlysuspect.Thereis later, becausethe possibility remainsthat Eumeneswas already
no other reasonto datethe decreeof Miletos to the year 16716,and deadand Attalos had succeeded him'r6oif so it will not be much
r57On this point, and others concerning the chronology under discussion, see G
a later date is also arguable.
Daux, BCH lix (1935\,226-9.
We passto the third document,a decreeof the Milesianboule r 5 8S e e a b o v e . l 0 n . 7 .
which honoursEumenes'brothersAttalosand Athenaiosin addi- t s eI G ä . 2 9 5 3 ; A p p e n d i x i v , n o . l 8 ; W . B . D i n s m o o r , T h e A t h e n i a n A r c h o n L i s t i n
tion to the king himself (Appendixiv, no. l5).tsoThe principal the Light of Recent Discoveries (New York, 1939), 190, with references.
r60This possibility depends on the interpretation drawn from the words (önaE)
ü
honoursof coursego to Eumenes,and include the celebrationof dE üp 6aoü.6o lvüpq öncpuL([oorlrlar (lines 37-8), which do not necessarily
hisyevi0ArcE iptSa.As Holleauxargued,this celebrationimplies mean that Eumenes was no longer alive. An Athenian decree in honour of Phar-
'voted' (itprlqrcpivov) in
that the temenos, still referred to as nakes I ofPontos and his recently acquired queen, Nysa, passed in the archonship
of Tychandros, that is in the same year as IG ii.2 953 discussed above, 160/59,
Eumenes'letter (lines59-60), had beencompleted,and we may included the provision ävayy677ew öi töt 6aoüü töv xfeX]ttporovqpövov, örr ö
thereforeconcludethat the decree ofthe boule is the later ofthe öfipolE nleqäo€ra. . . . näwa rä neöE ööEav xai pvrjpr1v laöröL dvrjxolvta ouy:
xataoxtuäoat xr7. (lnscr. Dölos, 149'7bis, lines 50 ff.). Pharnakes was most
r5aThis celebration is not proposed in the extant part ofthe decree, and may have certainly alive at the time; see also Mdrkholm, Antiochus |V,54.
been Eumenes' own idea. In his letter to the Ioniankoinr.rn, Eumenes makes the offer already referred to in
r s s l l s l l s a u l , E t u d e s , ü . 1 7 4 - 5 ; W e l l e s , R C , p . 2 1 4' i:t a p p e a r s . . . t h a t l r e n i a s , the words (lines 54-6) npooööoug öpiv täg ixcwdg äval1|fiolq 4q' dtv Efere d1v
the Milesian member of the League embassy, had carried a special message to the xa|fixouoav flpiv lävatß)ivat pvtjp4u. The expression can then refer to a living
king.' This identification is not accepted however by Daux, BCH lix (1935),227. king. If Eumenes had died between the time the temenos at Miletos was voted and
rs6The omission from these honours of Philetairos, the youngest ofthe sons of the time of the passing of the decree of theäoale of Miletos, we would expect a more
Attalos I, may be explained by an early death. The last record ofhim relates to the explicit reference to his death in the later document, and I am more inclined to
year l7l (Livy xlii. 55. 7); cf. Hoffmann, RE s.v. Philetairos (3)' 2162; Hopp, believe that Eumenes was still alive when the temenos had been completed and the
Untersuchunpen,3l-2. statue had been erected.
I l8 Attalid Kingdomafter the Treatyof Apameia
later.l6rThe most important implicationof this chronologyso far
as the present argumentis concernedis that the building of the
temenosvoted to EumenesII in the decreequoted in the king's
letter, and the erection of the statuetherein as requestedby the
king in the sameletter, were almostcertainly achievedduring his
lifetime.t 62
The last two documentswith which we areconcernedhavebeen
publishedmore recently than the others; one was found in 1960,
the other known, but not published,before' One is a decreeof
Miletos honouringits prominentcitizen Eirenias(Appendixiv, no'
l6). and it establishesas a fact what had previouslybeen conjec-
tured, that Eumenesof Pergamonprovided the capital for the
gymnasiumat Miletos, this being in the case of the Attalids a
well-attestedpractice.163 Previouslyit had been known only that
the sameEireniashad beenappointedoverseerin the construction
of the gymnasium.r64It may have been at this juncture that
Eumenes sent a letter to the city, and that the city passedthe
decreein his honourof which the text is our no. 14.Or it may have
been later still.
Thelastdecreeto be considered here(Appendixiv, no. l7) is the
final link in justifying the assertionexpressedabove,that Miletos
called Eumenesa god in his lifetime' Found rebuilt into a wall in
1903,it was referredto by Ruge,r6sbut remainedunavailableuntil
publishedby P. Herrmannalongwith the new decreeconcerning
Eirenias.r66For the precisechronologicalrelationshipof this to
the other Milesian documents,the reader is referredto the com-
mentaryattachedto that publication.For our purposethe impor-
tant point is that the text is certainly a Milesiandecreeratified by
16rThis point depends on Rehm's revised dating of'the second god after Menek-
rates' (lines 27-8); see Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 177-8. Although this chronological
point is not by any means precise to the year, itjustifies the statement I have made
in the text.
r62See the previous two notes. Holleaux's point (Etudes, ii. 173),
croyable que la mise en 6tat dut6lttvo6 consacr6 par les
longs d6lais', should also be taken into account.
1 6 3L . R o b e r t , E t . a n a t . 8 5 , n . 3 . E p h e s o s :S E G x v i i ' 5 1 0 '
164Th. Wiegand, Siebenter vorlöufiger Bericht über die von den Königlichen
Museen in Milet und Didyma unternommenen Ausgrabungen @bh' Berlin'
Anhang, l9ll),29.
r 6 5 R E ,s . v . M y u s . 1 4 3 6 .
1 6 6I s t . M i t t . x v ( 1 9 6 5 ) ,7 l - 1 1 7 .
The Greek Cities il9
the peopleof Myus, at the time insympoliteiawith Miletos;167 it is
to be dated before the erection of the statueof EumenesII in his
temenosat Miletos,sincethedecreewasto be inscribedon its base
(lines7-8): d.vaypacprl öi xai rööe ö rprlErcpaeig rc ü 6rlfua BE'
o61l oru9fioetaL fi rcü 6aoü6ag eixtitv. According to the
chronology argued above, this placesthe decree,with near cer-
tainty, in Eumenes'lifetime, and the propositionis confirmedby
the evidenceofthe decreeitself. Throughout,thereis referenceto
oneking,ö 6aoÄeü8,who mustof coursebe Eumenes;in particu-
lar, the king whoseeikon wasto be setup in Miletos(line 8) mustbe
the sameas the king, in no way distinguished, to whom envoysof
the city were to be sent(lines l0ff.). If Eumeneswere no longer
alive,and Attaloshad succeeded him, we would expecta distinc-
tion to be madebetweenthe deadking and the living, for example
in line 12:nagaxaAetvtöu 6aoü"6s"ArraAov. The decreeincludes
a provision for the sale of a priesthoodof Eumenes(lines 4-5):
önaE ieqaofvr1nqa9lrl fi 6aoü,toEl Eüptvoug 9eoü.168 Thus, ac-
cording to our chronology,which is confirmedat every point, the
priesthood and the divine title were associatedwith Eumenes
during his lifetime.
There was nothing new in the city of Miletos calling a royal
benefactora god; it haddonethis for AntiochosII after the murder
'Avrio4oE
of Timarchos,as Appianinformsus:r6eöedregoE öi ...
1eöEönövutrtovönö MAr1otav yiyverat ng6rov. The worship of
Antiochos and that of Eumenesconstitutethe type of cult insti-
tuted spontaneouslyby a gratefulbut not necessarilysubjectcity,
as distinct from the dynastic cult establishedas a result of royal
wish.r7oIts place in the context of Attalid royal cults as a whole
will be examinedin a later chapter, but at this point the political
implicationsof Miletos' extravagantattitude to honouringEum-
enes,an attitude not paralleledto our knowledgeelsewherein the
'il n'est pas
Attalid Kingdom, require some consideration.
Mil6siens ait exig6 de bien At both Ephesosand Miletos, one the possession of Eumenes
accordingto the terms of the Roman settlement,the other a free
16?Herrmann, 90 ff.
r6t I see no objection to the restoration of 6aoü.6utE at the end of line 4. The
absence of the royal title would call for some explanation.
r6eSyr. 65. See W. Orth, Königlicher Machtanspruch, 153-6.
t70 Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 160 tr.
120 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia Festivals of Athena 121

non-tributary city by the same terms, the institution of the gym- advantageafforded by Lysimachos early in the third century nc of
nasium became, by his will, the responsibility of the king. At a new and better site for its harbour.rTsIt was doubtlessfor this
Ephesoshe received a normal gymnasialdedicationassociating reason that the Milesians worked so hard to attract the king's
him with Hermes and Herakles, as was uSUal;tzrat Miletos the attentionand seizedevery opportunity to honour him. No wonder
honours were extendedto amount to a regular cult of the living they were so gratefulto Eirenias,who had the king's ear.176 As a
king. Thus Miletos, and not Eumenes'own city of Ephesos,may centre of Eumenes'worship the city would attain two important
be regardedas a centre of his cult, in addition to the capital aspirations:the guaranteedgoodwill of the king whose cult was
Pergamonand Teos. This condition would be more readily at- celebrated,and the commercialprosperitythat any importantcult
tributable to a subjectcity. brought to a Greek city.rtz It is clear that in both theserespects
It is arguable,however,that of thesetwo cities, Ephesoswas in Ephesosheld an advantageby virtue of its status,and if Miletos
a better position after the Romansettlementhad placedthe city in was to remaincompetitiveit had to adopta positivepolicy to gain
Eumenes'hands.WhereasMiletos dependedon royal favour for and keep the king's favour. This evidently is what it did, and with
any benefitsshe might receive,Ephesos,as a part of the kingdom great success.
and probably its largestport, was automaticallydestinedto pros- Evidently,then,the terms'free'and'subject'do not adequately
perity, and it doubtlessemergedfrom the Roman settlementas a definethe statusof cities which enjoyedcontactswith the Attalid
city enjoying advancedroyal patronage.In fact we know that Kingdom. The evidencewe have discusseddoes not allow us to
Ephesosranked high in the Attalids' regard,and we have specific draw sharp distinctionsbetweena free and a tributary or subject
evidenceof building activity, always a sure sign of prosperity, city, apart from the issueof tribute obligation.The informationit
under Attalos II.r72The city was the centreof an Attalid adminis- doesconvey concernsthe king's readinessto be as well-disposed
trative region; at least two Ephesians, Hikesios and Megon, to the latter asto the former, and showsthat a city in the possession
reachedhigh rank in the royal administration,and a third, whose of the king in all probabilityled as independenta civic life asa free
name is not known in full, was chosen to be the mentor of the city, such as Miletos. It also enjoyedthe advantageof royal pat-
young Attalos IlI.r73 ronage,a privilege which the free city soughtby other means.
Miletos, on the other hand, was in a different position, having (iii) Festivals of Athena
rather to fend for itself for its economic prosperity. There are
indicationsthat its harbour was beginningto silt up, and that its So far in this chapterwe havebeenconsideringthe implicationsof
tradeby seawas in decline,rTa whereasEphesosstill enjoyedthe the Roman settlementin mainly political terms, and we may now
usefully turn to examineanother facet: the processby which the
t 1 1C f . O G I S 2 3 0 ( H e r m e s , H e r a k l e s , a n d A n t i o c h o s M e g a s a t S o l i ) ; A M x x v i i i
cult and festivals of Athena, the most important of Pergamon's
( 1 9 0 3 ) ,3 5 8 f f . ( f t o l e m y , H e r m e s , a n d H e r a k l e s a t S a m o s ) .
r 7 2S t r a b o x i v . 1 . 2 4 , 6 4 1 , m e n t i o n s A t t a l o s I I ' s p r o j e c t o f b u i l d i n g a m o l e a t t h e gods, were enhancedand transformed as a means of religious
mouth of the harbour with the idea of deepening the entrance to accommodate propagandain line with the new standingof the King of Pergamon
larger ships; although unsuccessful, it is an indication ofthe growing volume of in the Greekworld. We shallalso seein a later chapterhow cults of
trade passing through the harbour. Strabo says of the city in his own day , aüf*at
xa7' öxdotrlv fi1tfqarr, ipnöprcv oöoa p|ytorov töv xatd tilv
'Aoiav
d1v övtö; roü Dionysos were used to advancethe statusof the royal cult.
Taüpou. Ephesos also enjoyed a fuller trade by land with the East. Strabo traces, on f 7 5l b i d . x i v . l . 2 l ; c f . M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , i i . 9 2 1 , n . 1 3 .
the evidence of Artemidoros, the important route from Ephesos which reached as | ?6See the city's decree in his honour (Appendix iv, no. l6). These close relations
far as the Euphrates (xiv. 2. 29, 66J). between Miletos and the Attalids were maintained in the reign of Attalos II, when
r73For Hikesios and Megon, see below, 133-5. The mentor of Attalos III: statues of the king and his brother Athenaios were erected in Miletos (OGI.S
Appendix iv, no. 24. 320-l ).
r 7 4S t r a b o x v i . 6 3 5 . r77Habicht, Gottmenschentum, 165 ff.
t22 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameiu
Athenawas a goddesswith many aspects,and waswell suitedto
the role of a city's presidingdeity: shewas a protector,a bringerof
victory, a patronof learningand art, and shehad associationswith
the oldest cities of the Greek mainlandand Asia Minor. All these
attributeswere exploitedby the Attalids, asthey were b1'othersin
the Hellenisticperiod. A templeof Athena was built at Pergamon
probablyat the beginningof the third century sc, when Philetairos
still acknowledgedthe suzeraintyof Lysimachos,and it was suffi-
ciently importantby the time of EumenesI to be the depositoryof
the Pergamenecopy of his treaty with the mercenaries at
Philetaireiaand Attaleia.rTsA festival called Panathenaiais at-
testedat aboutthe sametime by the decreeof Pergamonhonouring
the city's strategoi,but nothingfurther is known of it'r7e
In the reign of Attalos I the evidence for the cult of Athena
becomesmore copious and more significant' correspondingto
Attalos' seriesof military victories and his proclaimedkingship'
An enlargementof the temple and precinct of Athena in the city
predatingthe great Eumenid restorationis probably to be consi-
dered the work of Attalos I early in his reign, as a means of
accommodatingthe massivemonumentshe dedicatedto Athe-
nn.raofhs figure of Athena on the dynastic coinageundergoes
somechangein Attalos' reign, greateremphasisbeinglaid on the
spearshe is holdingand lesson the shield'developments which
may plausiblybe relatedto Attalos' military activity, in particular
his victory over the Galatiansat the river Kaikos.r8r
Oneof the few piecesof literary evidencefor the cults of Athena
at Pergamonrecordsthe occurrenceof äy6uegfor Athena in220'
Polybioswrites (iv. 49. 3), with referenceto the outbreakof com-
mercial war between Rhodes and Byzantion in this year' that
PrusiasI of Bithynia could be expected to take the side of the
Rhodians:ig60ße ö' aüröv xq.i tö öoxelv BulawiouE npöEpiv
"Ana).ov
tiErcüErfiE'A04vaEdyrbvaEroüEovv|üoovraEö$aneo-
t18OGIS 266,: StV iii. 481 (discussedabove' 22-5)' Ohlemutz,Kulte, 16-23,
dates the foundation of the temple to the first decade of the third century BC.
On the temple of Athena as a statearchive, seeibid. 23' 55-7.
t1eIvP 18, : OGIS 267 (discussedbelow, ch' 7).
r80AvPii. 55-6; Ohlemutz,Kulte,28-9; Kähler,Gr' Fries, 135;themonuments
are listed and consideredin Appendix ii.
tlt Mvp ll. 7,9, 12, l5; III. 4; Ohlemutz,Kulte, 34-5.
Festivals of Athena 123
ralxfvaL, npöEaöröv ö' eiEräZarfign pr1ö6vanenopEtvar.This
evidencehasbeeninterpretedto suggestthat Attalos' festivalwas
a recent foundation in 220,182 but the emphasisof novelty lies
surelyon Prusias'Soteria(aboutwhich nothingfurther is known),
and the passagecannot in my view be expectedto afford precise
chronologicalcluesaboutAttalos' festival.All we can sayis that in
220 Attalos was celebratingimportant gamesfor Athena, whose
descriptionby Polybios suggestssomethingother than the older
Panathenaia, and which may plausiblybe associated,likethe other
more definite cult phenomena,with Attalos' victories and as-
sumption of the royal title.
At sometime towards the end of Attalos' reign, or more prob-
ably at the beginningof the reign of EumenesII, Athenawas given
the cult name Nikephoros, 'bestower of victory'. With this
phenomenonwe havealsoto associatetwo other nameswhich are
known chiefly from epigraphical sources, the festival of the
Nikephoria, and the site outsidethe city calledNikephorion. It is
possiblethat this titulaturewas not all introducedat the sametime;
that is to say,that AthenawascalledNikephorosbeforethe ideaof
a Nikephorionor of Nikephoriawas conceived,but this is most
unlikely, and the evidenceis best understoodas reflectinga single
concept, as is usually done. Of the three names,only that of the
Nikephorionoccursin literary sources,in Polybios,Strabo,and
Appian, in all casesfortunately in securelydated contexts. First
Polybios:his narrativeof the year 201,when Philip V of Macedon
was raiding Attalid territory, refersinter alia to Philip's destruc-
tion of the Nikephorion (xvi. l. 6): inei öi rö Nmqcpöqrcv
öAuprjvaro,rö trtiv ä)"oogixrtpti.tv, röv öö negi6oTovönqgtEaE,
roüE re vaoüE öx 9epeltov dv9oxatpe,noM"oüExai nü.urcAeiE
öndpxovtaq xrL. After his defeatin 197, Philipwas requiredto put
the damageright, and he agreedto do so (xviii. 2. 2), but we do not
know whether he kept his promise. Straboattributesa renovation
of the site to Eumenes II, as we shall see, but this does not
necessarilymean that Philip had not kept his word, since the
Eumenidrestorationtook place in the 180s,by which time Perga-
mon had sufferedanotherinvasion,that of Seleukosin 190(Livy
r82For example by Ohlemutz, Kulte, 34.
124 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia Festivals of Athena 125

xxxvii. 18;Appian, Syr. 26).Appian also refersto a later destruc- tions to Athena Nikephoros were placedin the Nikephorion out-
tion of the site, that by PrusiasII of Bithynia in 155(Mithr' 3; cf . side the city rather than in the city temple from which the known
Polyb. xxxii. 27). monumentscome,1E6 becauseAttalos, aswe haveseen,envisaged
Now this evidenceneedscarefulconsideration,becauseat first the precinct in the city as the context of his grandestmonuments,
sight Polybios seemsto suggestthat the PergameneNikephorion and it would be diffrcultto imaginethe evengrandermonumentsto
was in existence already in the reign of Attalos [, and this is be expected of a postulated new Nikephorion. Furthermore,
frequentlytaken to be the case,leadingnecessarilyto the conclu- Eumenes placed his dedications to Athena Nikephoros in the
sion that Attalos was also responsiblefor designatingAthena as city's temple even after the known rebuildingof the Nikephorion
Nikephorosand forthe foundationofthe Nikephoria,which are on outside the city.
this view to be identifiedwith the äy6veEfor Athena recordedfor There remains the question of the two small baseswhich are
220.183But Polybios, in saying that Philip destroyed the certainly dedications in the name of King Attalos to Athena
Nikephorion in 201, may well be referringto the name current in Nikephoros. Although usually dated to the last years of Attalos'
'many
his own duy,tto and it is to be notedthat Polybiosspeaksof reign, the lessregularletter-formsare markedlydifferentfrom the
temples'on the site, which suggestsan extendedapplicationof the materialassociatedwith the 230sand 220s,and alsofrom Attalos'
name beyond that of the original cult centre. The place may not dedicationof booty from Aigina in2l0 (IvP 47, : OGIS 281),and
formerly have had a name,and Philip's promiseto restorethe site are closer to the inscriptionsfrom the l90s and later. Kähler has
related,of course,to the renovationwhich eventuallybecamethe plausiblysuggestedthat thesebasesareto be datedto the Eumenid
famous Nikephorion. rebuildingof the precinctof Athenain the city, when,ashe shows,
The evidenceof Attalos' monumentsthrows further doubt on old blocks and bases were reused in addition to new material
the acceptedview, becauseall the extant dedicationsare madeto brought in.rE7Athena's cult nameNikephoros is at this dateto be
Athenawithout the cult epithetNikephoros,with the exceptionof regardedas Eumenes'addition,and in supportof this chronology
a smallgroup which we may now consider.This group (IvP 5l-6, is the appearanceof what must be Eumenes'name in one of the
58)comprisesa numberof not very substantialfragmentsof small fragmentsof the group under consideration(IvP 56 B).
round bases commemoratingindividual victories; in two cases On this chronological view, the first appearanceof Athena
they are dedicatedto Athena Nikephoros.one celebratingthe Nikephoros in the Pergameneinscriptions is the dedication of
victory over the Tolistoagians,the other the victory over Philip V Eumenes II commemorating his victory in alliance with the
at Chios in 202J'8sAnother piece (IvP 55 A) has the first three It6 As does Ohlemutz, Kulte, i4.
letters of the nameNikephoros, but the royal name has not been 181Gr. Fries, 135-6, with n. 46. An examination of the stones in the Pergamon
preserved.This meagre.evidencefor the cult name is in striking Museum in Berlin undertaken by the author in 1969confirmed this chronology. The
rather crude letters of the small bases under discussion differ markedly from the
contrast to the seriesof large monuments,none of which calls more precise work of Attalos'larger monuments, and are directly comparable with
AthenaNikephoros.We cannotsimply assumethat all the dedica- some of Eumenes'own dedications, especially/vP 63 (see Kähler, Gr. Fries, l9O,
n . 5 6 ) . E u m e n e s ' r e c o n s t r u c t i o no f t h e p r e c i n c t o f A t h e n a i n v o l v e d t h e u s e o f o l d
r s 3H o l f e a u x , E t u d e s , ü . 6 l - 2 : O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , 3 3 4 ; K l a f f e n b a c h , M D A I i l i
material for new inscriptions and the reinscription of a number of bases dating from
(1950), 99 ff. The site ofthe Nikephorion has not been identified; for a discussion of Attalos' reign. The first dated example of this use of old material is the base
the probabilities, see Ohlemutz, Kulte,36-7. celebrating victory in the second war against Nabis of Sparta and the ensuing
r 8 4K ä h l e r , G r . F r i e s , 1 8 7 , n . 4 3 .
campaign against Antiochos III in Greece (lvP 62, : Syll.3 605 A), and since its
r s 5 / v P 5 1 . : K ä h l e r . G r . F r i e s , 1 9 0 ,n . 5 6 ; I v P 5 2 , : O G I S 2 8 3 : s e e b e l o w ,
erection must be dated after 189, the beginning ofthe project culminating in an
196 n. 5. Segre, in his important study cited below' n' 192' thought that the enlarged precinct dedicated to Athena Nikephoros most plausibly belongs to this
Nikephoria were founded by Attalos after the battle off Chios, but this is not a good period, along with the rebuilding of the Nikephorion outside the city, which pre-
context even regardless of other considerations (see above, 28 n. 3). ceded the first celebration ofthe panhellenic festival.
126 Attalid Kingdom after the Treutlt of Apomeia Festivals of Athena 127

Achaian Leagueover Nabis of Spartain 195.188 This local affair new festival and the d.ouAiaof the Nikephorion,to which we must
cannothoweverbe the reasonfor the designationNikephoros and now turn.
the cult activity associatedwith it; we must go back a few more The documentsare decreesof the Aitolians and the Delphic
yearsto the Attalid victory in the alliancewith Romeover Philip V Amphiktyons recordingacceptanceof Eumenes'invitation to the
'crowned'
of Macedonin 197,on which accountPolybios,doubtlessreflect- festival,which consistedaccordingto this evidenceof
ing Greek sentimentgenerally,praisedAttalos I (xviii.41. 9) as games, the musical part ioonü?roE and the athletic and equine
'E)"Lrivatv partsiooTüpnrcg(the Amphiktyonic decreeis datedto 182/l and
äyavt(öpevog önöp rfiE töv il'eu9egfuE.
It may be regardedas an understandabletribute on Eumenes' provides the chronological key to these events); a letter of
part that shortly after his accessionin 197he institutedthe cult of Eumenesto a Cariancity, mostprobablyIasos;anda letterto Kos,
AthenaNikephorosandthe festival of the Nikephoriato celebrate of which a secondsubstantialfragmentproviding important new
this victory for freedomwon by his father. We know that Eumenes information was publishedby Segrein 1948.te2A great deal of
was concernedto advancethe status of Athena at Pergamonin difficulty has been removed, and argumenteliminated,from our
other ways, by propagatinga spuriouslegendaryorigin of the cult, understanding of thesetexts now that it has been convincingly
for instance.rseThe first coinage bearing the legend AoHNAz shown that the reorganizedcelebrationsattestedby them took
NIKHaoPoY should also be dated to his reign,reoand we may placeregularlyevery five years,and at no time every three years,
reasonablypostulatethat festivalscalled Nikephoria were celeb- as was formerly taken for granted on the basis of a decree of
rated in the 190s. PergamonhonouringMetris, the priestessof the ninth Nikephoria:
A further opportunity to promote the cult of Athena camewith the trieteric festival mentionedthere is not the Nikephoria,but the
the victory over AntiochosIII in 189and the Romansettlementof Dionysia.re3 This conclusionconfirmsSegre'srestorationof line
the following year. During the years immediatelyfollowing the l6 of Eumenes' letter to Kos, already supportedby comparison
settlementEumenesimplementedthat grand designof rebuilding with the texts dealingwith the foundationof the Leukophryenaat
and extendingPergamonwhich occupiedthe rest of his reign and Magnesiaon the Maeander,and all the ingeniousproposalsfor
requirednew circuit walls to encompassthe much enlargedcity. explainingor avoidingthe allegedinconsistencymay be dispensed
Athena received much of the attention; a magnificent two- with.leaEumenes'invitation is, as Segrerecognized,to a pen-
storeyed temple, whose propylon bore a dedication to Athena tetericfestival(Appendixiv, no. 12,lines15-17):örcyvfax6rcE öi
Nikephoros, the adjoining library housing Eumenes' precious ouvreLeiv aöu1t nalvlqyuqiv re ötä nevltaetrlqlöoExai pouo.-
collectionof books, and a new statueof Athena Parthenosmodel- lxolügxai yultumoüE[xai innmoüg d.yCovaE].
led on the Athenian original betokened her continued impor- In this letter Eumenestakes a personalcredit for the establish-
tance. I eI Of equalimportanceto all this activity, and arisingin part r e 2A i t o l i a n d e c r e e : S y l l . 3 6 2 9 , : D a u x , D e l p h e s , 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 , : F ' D e l p h e s ' i l i . 3 -
'crowned'
out of it, was the reinstitutionof the Nikephoriaas a 2 4 0 . A m p h i k t y o n i c d e c r e e :S y / / . r 6 3 0 , : D a u x , D e l p h e s , 2 9 3 - 5 , : F . D e l p h e s , ü i .
panhellenicfestival, first celebratedon this basis in 181' and at- l . 2 6 1 : c f . D a u x , E C I I l x x v i i i ( 1 9 5 4 ) ,3 7 0 - 1 . E u m e n e s ' l e t t e r s : t o a C a r i a n c i t y ,
probably Iasos: Welles,R C 49;cf . Segre (cited below); to Kos: Welles,^RC50; (with
testedby a seriesof documentsconcerningthe recognitionof the
new fragment found in 1938)M. Segre ap. Robert, Hellenica, v (1948), 102-28; see
A p p e n d i x i v , n o s . 9 - 1 2 . O n t h e c h r o n o l o g y , s e e L . R o b e r t , E C I I l i v ( 1 9 3 0 ) ,3 3 2 - 8 ;
rsE/vP 60, : Sy//.3 595 A; cf' Kähler, Gr. Fries, 187' n.43. G . K l a f f e n b a c h , M D A I i i i ( 1 9 5 0 ) ,9 9 - 1 0 6 .
18e/vP 156' cf. Ohlemutz, Kulte, 16. r e r C . P . J o n e s ,C h i r o n , i v ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 8 3 - 9 .
t e oM v P L 1 9 , 2 0 : O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , 3 9 . reaSegre envisaged two phases in the reorganization, but Klaffenbach showed
r e r S t r a b o x i i i . 4 . 2 , 6 2 4 , q u o t e d b e l o w ; s e e a l s o t h e s t u d i e s c i t e d a b o v e ' n2 ' F o r conclusively that all the documents under consideration refer to the same proce-
the temple of Athena Nikephoros, see lvP 149; E. Rohde, Griech. und röm. Kunst dure of 182/ I . Klaffenbach's restoration in line 16, öd ntv[O' i1pöpav], taken to
in den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (1968), 49 and pl' 36' mean'lastingforfivedays'isnotpossible:seeJ.andL.Robert,Bal/. 1952,no.127.
128 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia
ment of the cult, the designationNikephoros (lines 5-7, with
Segre's restoration: IN txrlq öpov ] | rc np ooqyoq e6xapev, lxüJ" io-
u1v voltilovllreE eivat. xai oixercrfurllv tilv npooullvupiav
raüqu), and two previous celebrations(lines 9-10: öigydp iiöry
napaxlq9|lvteg öcp' ittöv ü.E rcl I navryyüpecgdE ürfe
xarrlyye(|atrttvänoö6$ao0el I qt)"oEpövag). Even allowing for
royal exaggeration,this evidenceseemsto confirm the conclusion
we have already reached,that the festival of the Nikephoria so-
called was an institution of EumenesII in the first years of his
reign, and not of his predecessorAttalos I. We saw reasonearlier
to associatethe cult epithet Nikephoros with the victory over
Philip V of Macedonin 197, and we may reasonablydate the two
'earlier'celebrationsof Nikephoria referredto in Eumenes'letter
to the 190s,before the outbreakof war with Antiochos III inter-
vened.A date in the yearsafter the Antiochic War is not convinc-
ing, becauseEumeneswas then occupiedwith the restorationof
the PergameneNikephorion, which Strabo describesin the con-
text of the building programmedatableto the l80s (xiii. 4. 2,624):
xareoxeüaoe ö' o6roE d1v nö)"w xai rö Nmqgdqrcv it)oet
xcrecpüreuoe xai dva?fipata xai 6ß),rc)qxag xai tilv ini rooövöe
xarorxiav toü Itepyd.pou rilv vüv oöoav öxelvoE xreoo-
ecpü,oxäLqoe. The completionof the Nikephorion, and Eumenes'
defeatof the Galatiansand PrusiasI of Bithynia celebratedin the
decreeof Telmessoswhich hailed Eumenesas Soter in 184/3,
(Appendixiv, no. 7) doubtlessprovided the occasionfor refound-
ing the Nikephoria as orecpaviratayöveE,as the decreesof the
Aitoliansandthe Amphiktyonscall them, but the inspirationof the
new Nikephoriamust be locatedin the defeatof Antiochosand the
greatly increasedauthority attainedby Eumenesin the resulting
Romansettlement, just astheolderNikephoriahadbeentheresult
on a more modest scaleof the defeat of Philip V of Macedon.
The Nikephoria remainedthe most important Pergamenefesti-
val until after the formationof the Romanprovince,and the pries-
tessesof Athena Nikephoros held an important position in the
city's life, as inscribedbaseshonouringthreeof themattest:these
are Metris, priestess of the ninth Nikephoria roü orecpavtrou
dyövoE, 149reckoningon a pentetericbasis,the year of Attalos
II's victory over PrusiasII of Bithynia; Biton, priestessof the
Officials of the Royal Administration 129
fourteenth Nikephoria in 129; and Asklepias, priestessof the
eighteenthNikephoriain I 13.resIt was probablya regularpractice
for the city to honour its priestessin a year in which Nikephoria
were held; this is a further indication of the importanceof the
festival both to Pergamonand to the king, as an outward signto the
Greek world of his authority and influence after the Treaty of
Apameia.
(iv) Officials of the Royal Administration
Like other Hellenistic monarchies,the Attalids evolved an ad-
ministrative bureaucracy that was separatefrom the civil ad-
ministrationof the capital (to be discussedin chapter7); most of
our informationcomesas usualfrom epigraphicalsourcesrelating
to the positions and activities of high-rankingofücials.1e6
Around the king stooda group of closeadvisers,of whom some,
but not all, were his relatives.At their headwas the office of 6 öni
röv npaypärav, one holder of which, Menogenes son of
Menophantes,has recorded his title in a seriesof dedicatoryin-
scriptionsfrom Pergamonhonouringmembersof the royal fami-
ly.ßz 16" peak of his careeris to be datedto the reignof Eumenes
II, accordingto a decreefrom Nakrasa in which he is the hon-
orand.les
lot nqi NdlxpaoovMaxeööv4
lMqvoyl6vr1vM qvocp
dvrou,
louyyevqI 6aoÄ6a4 Eüptvou,
[xai vo]pocp67axa, dpetfig övtxev
fxai dvöqa]ya?iaE xai eüvofuE
[npöE te dyt 6aoÄ6a xai öauroüE.
This dedicationshowsthat Menogeneswas concernedwith the
re5Metris: /vP 167,: OGIS 299;Biron: IvP 223,: OGIS 322; Asklepias: IvP 226,
: OGIS 324. For the chronology, see Jones 188-9, correcting the 'traditional'
trieteric dates given by Ohlemutz, Kulte, 49-5O, and elsewhere.
re6There is a valuable synthesis ofthe evolution ofthe Hellenistic bureaucracies
by Rostovtzeff , SEHHW ii. 1079ff. For the Attalids, see Cardinali, RP 205 ff.; G.
Conadi,Studi Hellenistici (Turin, 1929)347ff.; Hopp, Untersuchungen, 98-101.
t e 7J v P 1 7 l - 6 , : O G I S 2 9 1 - 6 . T h e t i t l e s u r v i v e s i n f u l l o n l y i n l v P 1 7 4 T O G I S
294). but it can be restored in all the others.
tet IvP, ä. p. 504, no. 176a, = OGIS 290, with the revisions of L. Robert, Vil/es,
75-6. Robert's restoration l"Alxpaoov is not followed, however, since the singular
form NdxpaooE @r Ndxqaoou), which he rejected, is now attested: see P.
H e r r m a n n , S B W i e n c l x v . l ( 1 9 6 9 ) ,7 - 3 6 : J . a n d L . R o b e r t , B u l l . 1 9 ' 1 0 ,n o . 5 1 2 .

130 Attqlid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apanteia
affairs of an old subjectcity of the Attalids, and it is possiblethat
the office he held gave him responsibilityfor the area of direct
authorityinheritedfrom the rule of EumenesI, the natureof which
was discussedin chapter 2. No regionalstrategosis attestedfor
this area,and it is very likely that, like other partsof the kingdom'
it was administeredby the officials of the royal administration.
Menogeneswas most probably appointedto the office of ö ini
rav npaypärav in the later part of Eumenes'long reign, sincehis
nameappearsagaintogetherwith those of Athenaiosand Sosan-
dros, relativesof Attalos II, in a letter written by Attalos to the
priestAttis at Pessinous, whoseactivitieswill be reviewedin the
nextchapter(Welles,RC6l). This chronologyis supportedby the
evidenceof a dedicationmade by Menogenesto Attalos II (IvP
174.: OGIS 294),in which Attalos is namedwithout the royal title
and was therefore not yet king:
" of course a special matter in that Sabazioswas particularly as-
An a )"ov 6 ao Ät ö IE' An d.\ou]
M1u oy 6v4E M 11 voE ävft ou,l
ö öni röv npaypdrov, dpletrlE övexevf
xai tüvoictE rrlE eiE ö[auröv].
The king drew heavily for membersof the royal administration
on a close circle of friends and relatives, as is shown by the
frequentappearancein both literary and epigraphicalrecordsre-
lating to Pergamonof the king's oüwqocpot (companions)and
ouyyevelE(relatives).Their service to the king assumedmany
forms, and the family about which we know most' that of Sosan-
dros and Athenaios,providesthe clearestexamples'ree The evi-
denceis derived mainly from three royal letters concerningtheir
priesthoodsof Sabaziosand DionysosKathegemon,of which the
first (Welles, RC 65) is addressedby Attalos II to his cousin
Athenaios.He calls Sosandros,the son-in-lawof Athenaios,his
oüvrpoEoE,and saysthat he hadbeenappointedpriestofDionysos
Kathegemonby his brother Eumenes.He was thereforepriest at
the beginningof Attalos' reign,and accordingto the sameletter he
continued to hold the office until ill health preventedhim' This
chronologicalpoint is of importance,becauseit showsthat he was
still priest of Dionysos Kathegemonwhen he servedas military
teeOGIS 331, : Welles, RC 65-7; cf. Ohlemutz' Kulte,90 ff. See also the
dedication IvP 221, as interpreted by H. von Prort, AM xxvii (1902)' 161 ff'
OfJicialsof the Royal Administration l3l
commanderof a Pergameneforce which defendedElaia against
PrusiasII of Bithynia in 15716,an event recordedby Polybios
(xxxii. 25.10): (Prusias)oüööv öb npanew öuvätrtevoE öt'd.rö
26oavöpov röv roü 6aoÄtaE oüvrpocpov eioü"r1)"u9öratrterd
otgattartbv eipyeLvaüroü täE inßd"dE, änfipevöni @uareipatv.
We alsolearnfrom Attalos' letter to Athenaios,andfrom a letter of
AttalosIII to Kyzikos,datedto 135sc, that Sosandros' son-in-law
Athenaioswas appointedto the important priesthoodof Sabazios
during Sosandros' lifetime, and that when Sosandros died,
Athenaios succeededhim, combiningthe two priesthoods,of
Dionysos Kathegemonand Sabazios,in one person.200
It is clear then from this evidencethat the king was servedin his
royal administrationby familiesratherthan individuals,the son(or
son-in-law)succeedingto the positionheld by his fatherevenwhen
he held anotherposition already.The priesthoodof Sabazioswas
sociatedwith QueenStratonike,who brought the cult from Cap-
padocia,and it was naturalthat the priesthoodwould be preserved
in the family of Sosandrosand Athenaios,who were relatedto the
royal family: we cannotthereforereasonablyinfer a generalpolicy
from this instance alone. There is however further evidence
pointing to the sameconclusion.
First to be consideredare two inscriptionsattestingoitvrgoEot
of Attalos II. One, from Pergamon,20r is a populardedicationfor
one Apollonidesson of Theophilos:
ö örtpo[s]
'A no77avö v @eocp[).[ou
ry ],
töu oüvrpocpov toü 6aotAltaE,l
äpnqE tvtxtv xai eüvotaE lr4gl
s npöE rt töu 6aoÄ6a xai 6aluröv).
The other is a dedication of Attalos II from the Athenian agora in
honour of another Theophilos, undoubtedlythe brother of the
Apollonides attestedat Pergamon:202
2o0See, in addition to the references given in the previous note, my remarks on
the cult of Sabazios at Pergamon and its political implications, inBSA lxvi (1971)'
8-9.
zot IvP l7g, : oGIS 334.
2o2Hesperia, xxiii ( 1954), 252, no. f3, -- SEG xiv. 127;cf , Hesperia, xxvi (1957)'
8 6 : H a b i c h t . G n o m o n , x x x ( 1 9 5 8 ) ,3 1 7 .
132 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia Officials of the Royal Administration 133

"An The part played by these oüvrgoqoq collectively also called

16aoltA,eüE oJog Qg[oÄ6o s' Art dlou]
x ai 6 ao t).[oo [rlE "! ln ü"7av IöoE] ävayxaioq was an activeand importantone, both in implementing
v e . .. . . . . . . l / e a
l @ l e ö c p Ä o@ royal policy, as did Menogenesat Nakrasa,and in helpingto form
ltlöv öawoö oöwpocpoltd'pet4lElEvex[a] 'A?1vatatv. it, as we seemost clearly in the letter written by Attalos II to Attis
IrqlE eiEöawöv xai töv öfipov üv
already mentioned.Attalos had evidently met Attis at Apameia,
We turn now to another relationship. A certain Andronikos is
and the two had discussedthe possibilityof military actionagainst
mentioned by Polybios (xxxii. 16) as leader of a Pergamene em-
a bandof Galatians(seebelow, chapter5); returningto Pergamon,
bassy to Rome during the reign of Attalos II which pleaded the case
Attalos consultedthe d.vayxaiot:il")övrav ftpö, I eiEll4pyapov
against Prusias II of Bithynia, and in the Mithridateios of Appian 'A|qvarcv
xai ouvayayövtoEltou oö pövov lxai 26oavögov xai
(Mithr.4-5) he figures prominently in a subsequent plot to over-
Mr1voy6vr1v, d77ä xai htgouE il.etolvaE töv ävayxaiav xü.. It
throw Prusias. He was evidently an important figure about whom
was one of these,Chloros,who urgeda policy of conciliationwith
we know all too little, and we may, with Fränkel, identify him as
Rome, and the king himself finally subscribedto it, althoughthe
the honorand of a fragmentary decree which deals inter alia with
decisionremainedhis.20sNo other documentof the Attalid chan-
the proceedings of an embassy, and calls the honorand a oüv-
cery illustrates so well the factors which determinedroyal deci-
rQoqoE of Attalos II:2o3
sions and the meansby which they were reached.
.loötbpou'
lini nputd.ve@E yvbprl olrparrlyCov' öyva öfipoE' Bnei_ Apart from the office ofö öni töv npaypärav and the general
rot 6aoL7öaEäv re rct[E ävayxctrcrdtorgro.räois;]. designationsoüwpocpotand,ouyyeveig we do not know what titles,
[. . . oüvtgo]cpoE
lonouölaiaE yqe/agnapeioyqrat rd.ttte 6aoLAletxo,iratLöfipttt xt7.1 if any, thesecloseadvisersheld. Thereare other termsattestedby
A dedication of the same reign from the Samian Heraion hon- epigraphicalevidencewhich connotethoseespeciallyfavouredby
ours a man whom we may identi$ as Andronikos' brother: the king, but theseterms are of ageneric nature, and conform to
'keeper of the the patternestablishedin other Hellenistickingdoms,where vari-
Philopoimen son of Andronikos, strateSos and
ggnl''20a ous gradesof cptTotare attested.206 [t may be convenientto list the
"AuaToE evidencerelating to the Attalids at this point.
6aoü'eüg
'AudTou
6aoL).6aE (I ) qil.oE
Q.tl o n o tPev a.' Av ö v
99 lxo1t
rov orQdr1yov xcrl tltl rIE
IG ä.2 l+S 1Sy//.t651), lines 8-9. Decree honouringDiodoros
s oqpaytöog dgtr4; Evexa (EumenesIl): Aööopog q{IloEl lünäpyav r6t 6aor).eiEöp6uet.
This is the only Attalid exampleof the unqualifiedtitle Ei),og,and
:;L:':",3i":;i:ä:"4' examplesof highergradesof Eü"ot are likewise rare: one such is
Hpat.
Megon of Ephesos,who is mentionedby EumenesII in letters
This Philopoimenwas commanderof the Pergameneforces pre- written to Iasos and Kos concerningthe reorganizationof the
sent at Corinth in 146(Paus.vii. 16. 1 and 8), and accordingto an
2osAttalos uses the wordxpivttt of this final decision: txptvov oöu eiE ltiv t1i11v
anecdoterecorded by Plutarch (Mor. 792)was the favourite ad- 'Ptitpqv
dei ripner,v xr7. Cf. Cardinali, RP 205-6, and on the significance of the
viser of Attalos Philadelphostowards the end of his life. wordxpiva in connoting a royal decision, Welles, RC, p. 83.
2o3IvP 224, = OGIS 323. The phi of oüvrpogog is discernible from a squeeze I 206On these titles, see G. Corradi, Studi Hell.3l8 ff.; A. D. Momigliano,

made of the stone in Berlin in 1969. A t h e n a e u m , x i ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 1 3 6 4 1 ; H o l t e a u x , E t u d e s , i i i . 2 2 0 f f . ( f r o m B C H 1 9 3 3 ) .O n

2 o 4A M x l i v ( l 9 l 9 ) , 3 0 , n o . t 6 , : S E G i . 1 7 4 , : / G R i v . l 7 l 2 ; a p h o t o g r a p hw i l l b e the Seleukid 9i,1or see also Bickermann, In st. Sö1.4l ff. It is important to note that
found ap. Tölle, Die Antike Stadt Samos (Mainz, 1969),26. Another holder of the the graded status of the g/tror (four grades according to Momigliano) were evidently
office of izi rtlE ocpqayi\oE was the slralegos Demetrios at Ephesos (Appendix iv, common to all the Hellenistic monarchies. and the Analids were therefore follow-
no. 25; see above, 88); see on this title Bengtson.Strot. ü.209- ing normal practice.
134 Attalid Kingdom after the Treaty of Apameia Officials of the Royal Administration 135

PergameneNikephoria (seeabove, iii): becausethey had specifictitles in additionto the apparentlyhon-

Kos: Appendix iv, no. l2:2o1Mfyowa I'Eq6oLov, tav E(7av töv npo-?ll orary ones. We may conclude,then, that a numberof the royal
tqtaptvov nap' riplrt. advisersdid not have official titles designatingparticularspheres
t (or
Iasos: Appendix iv, no. 11: M l6yon d.r e rtttv E iTav iv r tpfi t [rr1t npar 11 of authorityor activity,but wereemployedin diversecapacities as
peytot4L) nap' fipiv övra (or övta naq' ipiv) ). the king chose.
Another is attested by a dedication from Attondae (MAMA vi.68):2ö7av It is importantto point hereto the fact that at leastthreecitizens
'Arrä[ou, of Ephesosservedimportant roles in the royal administration.
cptAoEnpöroE.
These titles are more common in the Seleukid, Pontic, and, One,Megon,hasbeenmentionedabove,as acpü"oE of the highest
and it is perhapsnot
above all, the Ptolemaicadministrations,20s category. A second, Hikesios, was ri xuraora9eiE in' Aiytvqg
surprisingthat they shouldappearlessfrequentlyin our evidence (Sy/l.3642),anda third, whosenameis not known, was appointed
for the more closely centralizedAttalid administration' by Attalos II to be the mentor of his nephew,the future Attalos III
(Appendix iv, no. 24). lt is probable then that when Ephesos
(2) napd. töL 6aoü.ei önrpi6av, xrA. becameAttalid in 188,it providedthe royal administrationwith a
IG ä.2 947, lines 15-17.DecreehonouringTheophilos(?166/5): numberof officials who were able to reachhigh rank, and it is not
inuöi1 @eölEÄloEllegylalprlvöEeüvo)uEönäpyav üt [öq]pl@)t surprisingthat the king drew on the considerableadministrative
npötegövre önrg[6utv [napd.rai fiaoLfteiEüp|vel xai öv rrye[I experienceof this city. This policy correspondsto the high regard
övl naq' aüröt xtA. for Ephesoswhich we have elsewhereattributed to the Attalid
This is surely the man we have already met as oüvrpocpoE of
kings in other contexts,but the extent to which this policy was
EumenesII; the presenttitles may then be considered as honorary
applied, and whether it was applied to other cities besides
rather than constitutionallyspecific. Ephesos,cannotin the presentstateofthe evidencebe adequately
'EnQovoE/apoxqd.teug
Appendixiv, no. 26 (decreeof Kyme): determined.It is significantin this regard,however,that Ephesos
'Attd)-E.
TapavrtvoE| öntgßav napä Qt 6aoüel and Tralles, as we saw earlier, played an important part as royal
(3) oixeiog mints after the Treaty of Apameiain additionto the principalmint
IG ä.2953,lines6-7. Decreehonouringa manwhosenamehasnot at Pergamon.
survived on the stone (160/59): loixleioE öv rcü 6aoÄ6o4
EüptvouExrL.
(4) t6v nportpa4t|van
of Ad. Wilhelm'Wien'
IG ä.2946(Syll.3655,with the supplements
Anz. 1921,81),line 8: MövavöqoEIleqyapryvö;tlöv pd'AtoranLo'
reuoptvav xai cLpalttvavl naqd rfot 6aoAel EÜptveLxrL'
Although the evidenceis not copious, it seemslikely from the
casesreviewedthat thesewere in the main honorarytitles with no
particularconstitutionalor administrativesignificance;the caseof
Theophilos bears this out, as do Menogenesand Philopoimen'
20?The restoration is that of H olleaux,Etudes. ili.222, which is preferable to that
of Momigliano, art. cit. 140: 1töv nptbtav (sc' qiTav) xai npolttpupivwv
208See the studies cited above, n' 206.

5 by Appian but undated;athe two battlesmay havebeenconnectei
THE GALATIAN S
throughout
An eventwhich was to havethe greatestrepercussions
history of Asia Minor was the entry of the Gala-
the subsequent
very time when was
Philetairos consolidating
tiansin 27817 ,t at the
his position at Pergamon.Records of their activity and of their
relations with the dynasts at Pergamonare naturally more com-
plete for the reignsof Attalos I and his successors,while for the
first thirty years or so of their occupationwe rely on the chance
evidenceof contemporarydocumentsand traditionspreservedin
the works of local historiansand transmittedto us by later writers.
It is only by thesemeansthat we can examinetheir methodsand
aims,as well as the reactionsof the Greekcitiesand other inhabit-
ants of Asia Minor. The only useful referenceto the Galatians'
activitiesas a whole is a curious one in Strabo (xii' 5' 1,566):
xar1oyov öä rilv ybgav raürryv (i'e' Galatia) o[ fa)"drat
nLavrl7|uteEnoAüvypövov xo,ixaraöqaltdweErilv ünö roig'Ar-
ra).m'oiE6aot)"eüotybpav xai roiE BßuvoiE, Eaq nag' öx6vttov
il.a1ov rilv vüv faAatiav xai fa)J.oypalxtrv )'eyop6v4v'2This is
the only evidenceof a generalnature to suggestthat the Attalid
rulers were concernedwith the settlementof Galatians,although
clearly it cannot be acceptedas it stands.There is specific evi-
denceof this policy in the case of Attalos I, as we shall see,but
none refersto settlementof Galatianswithin Pergameneterritory.
That Philetairoswon a victory over a bandof Galatiansseemsto be
shownby a metrical dedicationinscribedon a baseat Delos; the
Philetairosis not specified,but the letter-formspoint almost cer-
I Pausaniasx.73. l4datesthe entry of the Galatiansinto Asia Minor to the year
See,in general,F. Stähe|in,Gesch.der
of the Athenianarchon Demok|es,2781.7,
Galater,T ff.; M. Launey,Recherches,
kleinasiatischen i. 490 ff.; M. wörrle,
'AntiochosI, Achaiosder Altere und die Galater" inChiron' v (1975)'59-87' On
below' n' 6'
the chronology,seeM' Launey,REA xlvi (1944)'218' n' 2' and
r Referenceito particularmethodsused by the Galatiansin their raids can be
in the text
foundin Livy xxxviii. |6. |2_|3,and in the decreeofPriene mentioned
It'Pr 17, = OGIS 765).
The Galatians r37
tainly to Philetairosthe Founder.rIf authentic,this victory occur-
red at about the sametime as the victory of Antiochos I, attested
with the samesubsidiarymovementof the Galatiansbut thereis no
reasonto believe that the celebrationof Philetairos'successwas
due to participationin Antiochos' victory ratherthan to a separate
victory.
In addition to his own direct action against the Galatians
Philetairosis known to have offered substantialassistanceto at
least one independent city, Kyzikos.5 The chronology of
Philetairos' donations is fairly well established;they include
money, supplies, and contributions to the Eü"axfi rfig ytbpaE,
notably in 21817,when a band of Galatianspassedclose to the
territory of Kyzikos on its route to the interior of Asia Minor.6 In
3IG xi.4. l 105,: Durrbach,Choix, 31.This inscriptionis discussedaboveand
datedto the reignof AttalosI, 3 | n. 8.
a Syr. 65. Cf. Stähelin,12-14;the colourful accountin Lucian, Zeuxis 8-ll, is
defendedby B. Bar-Kochva,Proc.Camb. Phil..Soc.cxcix (1973),l-8, who dares
the battle to 'shortly after April 272'. Segre'sdate,278/7(Athenaeum,viii (1930),
53-6) seemsto me to be too early in view ofthe restofthe chronology;c.272,after
the end of the first Syrian war, is preferable,althougha date shortly beforethe
outbreakofthiswar,t.2T6/5,isalsopossible(soLauney,REA xlvi(1944),234,n.1;
Magie,RomanRule li.7ll,n. 12).Seenow M. Wörrle,Chiron,v (1975'1,65-72.
s OGIS 748:.see above. 15n. 20.
6 The inscriptionrecordsthe donationsof Philetairoslistedaccordingto the years
of the Kyzikene eponymousmagistrates,as follows:
Gorgippides money for äyaveE andcpuAaxiltqE XöpctE.
Bouphantides ärü.en tfiE 7eiaE.
Phoinix cpulaxl t4q X6qag
Poseidon money eig ö)"arcv xai ouvayayilv töv ytav.
Diomedon supplies iv töL toLöpat tdtt tpög rcüE fald.rag yevop{uau
The first editors dated Diomedon lo 278t7 from the reference under his name to a
Galatian war; this chronology however raises a difficulty in dating Gorgippides as
early as 282l l. Dittenberger (OG1S ad loc. , n. 7) argued an alternative chronology,
associatingthereferencedriBoucpavtiöou,nokp40t[or1grfigXöeaEwiththewars
involving Antiochos I, Nikomedes of Bithynia, and Antigonos Gonatas, thus mak-
ing Phoinix the magistrate of 27817, the year of the Galatians' arrival in Asia Minor.
This chronology has been convincingly endorsed by Launey, inREA xlvi (1944),
2 l7 ff. , where a relief from Kyzikos showing Herakles fighting an opponent (which
Launey showed to be a Galatian), and also dated 3zi (Dolvuog innapyou (cf . BCH
lvi (1932), pl. xxv), was shown to have represented an appeal from the city to the
god when threatened by an attack from the Galatians under Loutarios; these,
according to Livy's account of their entry into Asia Minor (xxxviii. l6), had to pass
near Kyzikos to rejoin the Galatians under Leonnorios. M. Segre adopted a
chronology earlier than this by two years @thenaeum, väi (1930), 488 ff.), and
s u b s e q u e n t l yo n e e a r l i e r b y o n e y e a r ( l t h e n a e u m , x i i ( t 9 3 4 ) , 4 3 1 , n . 2 ) .
 The Galatians
The Galatians r39
138
Galatianswere dealt with by meansof settlement.roFor this
gratitude, the city instituted a festival named Philetaireiain his
reasonit seemslikely that during the years when Philetairosand
honour (seebelow, chaPter6).
EumenesI successively ruled at Pergamon,someGalatians,who
The aimsof the Galatiansseemfrom the beginningto havebeen
(aswe know) plunderedwesternAsia Minor and were defeatedby
settlementand security.Their attackon Ilion, accordingto Strabo
Philetairos,were settledin the small area of Pergameneterritory
a 'kind of village-town' (xwp6nd'tg rtE i1v), and according to
thenestablishedandformedan importantpart of its consolidation.
Demetriosof Skepsisas recordedby Straboin the samepassage
For the reignof Attalos I the evidencebecomesclearerandmore
(xiii. I .27,594), very much in declinebeforethe AntiochicWar,
"'Hyqoüvan substantial.We have alreadyfound reasonto relate the activities
was evidentlyinspiredby their needfor a stronghold
of the Galatiansin the early years of his reign to the individual
öä roüEfaldrag, ntqata\|vtaE ix r4EEüprbnrlEdvaflrlvatpiv tiE
allianceshe concludedwith numerousGreekcities and confirmed
rilv nö)'w öeotrttvougtghparoE, napaygfipa ö' ixlmeiv öLd'rö
in 2 l8 (seeabove,chapter3), andthis pointcannow beelaborated.
äre(yrcrov. When defeatedby the dynasts of Asia Minor, they
There is a body of local evidenceconcerningGalatianattackson
were dealt with by the assignationof settlements;after Attalos'
Greekcities;in additionto theevidencefor Ilion, alreadycited,we
greatvictory they were settledin the part of GreaterPhrygiawhich
have a number of honorary decrees voted by Greek cities in
becameGalatia,in all probabilityby MithridatesII of Pontos,who
recognitionof the braveryof individualsduringGalatianattacks.A
had received this territory on the occasionof his marriagewith
decreeof Prienehonoursa certain Sotasfor bravery and initiative
Laodike, the sisterof SeleukosKallinikos.?It was probablyfor
in defendingthe city againsta Galatianattack,and a similardecree
similarreasonsthat the Galatiansenteredthe serviceof kings as
of Erythrai honoursthe entire board ofstrategoi for the part they
mercenariesor as allies:8Attalos of Pergamonafter their defeat
played in defendingtheir city against an attack from Galatians
(seebelow),AntiochosHierax, the kingsof Bithyniaand, above
underLeonnorios.Among Philetairos'donationsto Kyzikos,ac-
all, the kings of Pontos.The Kaqtxd' of Apollonios,accordingto
"Ayxupa,referredto the settlement cording to the decreeof that city already discussed(OGIS 748),
Stephanosof Byzantion,s.v'
werequantitiesof corn contributedövtöt nol{pat lrfu npögroüg
by Mithridates I (died 266)and Ariobarzanes(266-256)of Gala-
laAd.raEyltvoptvol (linesl8-19). A privatededicationof a man
tiansin alliancewith them againstEgypt; this is goodevidencethat
from ThyateirathankingApollo for rescuingthe man's sonri,troüE
the Galatiansattachedthemselvesfrom the beginningto the kings
ünö röv fa).ätav may alsobe connectedwith theseactivities.rrIn
of pontos,by whom they were given landsin exchangefor military
the case of Miletos, as of Ilion, a Galatian raid was recorded
service, rather than to the kings of Bithynia, from one of whom (according to Parthenius)by a local historian, Aristodemos of
they had receivedthe initial invitation to crossinto Asia.ewe have
Nysa, and the city's resistanceis celebratedin an epigramattri-
recordsof three significantGalatianrevolts in theseyears:the first
buted to Anyte (AP vii. 4921.r2 Finally, an inscriptionfrom Denizli
in Pontos in the reign of Ariobarzanesin which the king himself ro Revolt and settlement under Antiochos Hierax: Justin xxvii. 2l under Attalos I:
perished,the secondduring the war of the Seleukidbrothers,and P o l y b .v . 7 8 . 1 - 5 .
the third during the expeditionundertakenby Attalos I of Perga- rrPriene: IvPr 17,: OGIS 765. Erythrai: see above, 29 n. 5. Thyateira:
mon in 218sc. In the lasttwo cases,wherewe haveevidence,the K e i f - v o n P r e m e r s t e i n ,Z v ' e i t e R e i s e , n o . l 9 ; M a g i e , R o m a n ' R u l e , i i . 7 3 0 - 1 , n . I l .
See in general on this evidence M. Wörrle, Chiron, v (1975),614.
r2 Parthenius viii. I ff. This evidence may however relate to later events: see
Rehm, Milet, i. 245; Parthenius' story of a man of Miletos who travelled to Gaul in
7 Straboxii. 5. l, 566,quotedabove;Pausaniasi. 4' 5, 8. 2. Justinxxxviii. 5. 3
search of his captured wife implies a Greek awareness of the Gauls and their
(marriage-alliance betweenMithridatesII and SeleukosKallinikos,c.245).I follow geography that is not easily attributable to the early third centrury, before the
(l'eipzig,
herethJconclusionsof Ed. Meyer,Geschichtedes KoenigreichsPontos Romans appeared on the scene: see A. D. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (Cambridge,
1879),43-51, as offering the best explanation of the Strabo passage' For other
1975), 57-60: A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology, Hellenistic
views,see Mzgie,RomanRule, ä' 731' n. 13. Epigrams, Anyte xxiii (commentary, ii. 89 ff., 103 f.), : Page, Epigr. Graeca,
e on the statusofthe Galatiansservingin the kings' armiesseeabove,29 n. 4.
Anyte xxii: the epigram relates the suicide of Milesian women captured by the
9 FGrHist740,F14.The deathof MithridatesI: Diod. xxiii. SeeEd. Meyer,op'
Galatians.
cit. (n. 7), 43 ff.
 The Galatians l4l
140 The Galatians

of the dynasts,from the invitation of Nikomedesto their partial

near Izmir publishedin 1975recordsa decreeof the settlementsof
settlementby Mithridates of Pontos. As far as the Attalids are
Neonteichosand Kiddioukome,datedto the month Peritiosof the
concerned,however,they no longerservedin any significantway
forty-fifth year of the joint rule of Kings Antiochos and Seleukos
as mercenariesafter the reign of Attalos I; from that time they
(:Jan. 267), honouring two offrcials of the elder Achaios'
appear in our sourcesrather as their enemies.In fact, relations
Banabelosand Lachares,for redeemingprisonerscapturedby the
between the Galatiansand Attalos I also are not straightforward;
Galatiansin the niAepog falatrnöE.l3
we have seen that he took a band of Galatianswith him on his
Evidently then traditionsdevelopedon the themeof resistance
expeditionof 218,but his intentionmay havebeenas much to find
to the Galatiansin the first half of the third century, a resistancein
a locationfor their settlementasto usethem asa contributionto his
which the Greek cities concernedtook considerablepride. with
military power, a considerationthat is indicatedby their attitude
the Greek cities Attalos I of Pergamonwas equallya victim of the
when they revolted,and by Attalos' readinessto complywith their
Galatians;he too choseto defy them by refusingthe usual tribute
demandsfor settlement.l5
they exacted,laandit is in this contextthat the alliancesconcluded
Attalos' great victory at the river Kaikos should be regarded,
by Attalos should be placed, although,as we have seen(above,
accordingto the evidenceof his monuments,as a victory over the
chapter3), they subsequentlyservedother purposes'We now see
Galatiansfighting for their own ends,and not as a part of his later
more clearly the significanceof Attalos' great victory at the river
war with Antiochos Hierax, with whom Galatiansservedas mer-
Kaikos andhis assumptionof the royal title; assuccessfuldefender
cenaries,16 but there is no indication in the admittedly scant evi-
of the Greek cities of western Asia Minor he could justly call
dence of a major Galatian war fought in its own right until the
himself king.
hostilitiesof the l60s which we shall considervery shortly. We
According to the literary sources the Galatiansnow moved
have in this connectionto recognizetwo aspectsof the Galatians'
eastwardsand were settledin territory belongingto MithridatesII
activities: their raids on Greek cities and on the territories of
of Pontos.Some,however,evidentlyremainedin Attalid territory
Bithynia and Pergamon,in which context shouldbe placedAt-
to servein Attalos' armies,including,accordingto Polybios(v '77 '
talos' victory at the river Kaikos; and their co-operationas mer-
2), the army which accompaniedhim on his military expeditionof
cenarieswith the enemiesof Pergamon,namelyAntiochosHierax,
218.We have found reasonto believethat this policy was a com-
PrusiasI of Bithynia, andPharnakesI of Pontos,which becamethe
mon one perhapsalready exercisedby his two predecessorsas principalfeatureof Galatianhostility to Pergamonin the reignsof
well as by other rulers in Asia Minor. The implicationof Polybios'
Attalos' successors.rT We have seen that during the war with
statementis that theseGalatianshad beensettledin Attalid territ-
Pharnakesin particular, Pergameneinterestsin Galatiawere di-
ory, and we may infer from what we have seenof their intentions
rectly threatened,and there is someevidencethat in the years
that this settlementwas a major incentive for enlistingwith At-
following this war Eumenesundertookto consolidatehis authority
talos,just as the Galatianswho servedwith the kings of Pontos
in the area,an essentialstepaslong asthe Galatianswereprepared
were rewarded with lands in their kingdom.
to fight alongsidehis enemies.We may now turn to considerthe
We may conclude then that the Galatianswho swarmedinto
chronology and significanceof this activity.
Asia Minor in 27817 resortedto two chief meansof survival:their 15Polyb. v. 78. Note especially 78. 3: (Attalos)
4ptlav ptv aöröv oüöepiav
periodic demandsfrom dynastsand cities alike for tribute in ex- ö\ooppr1 xoptl6pevoE. Up to this time the Galatians had shown themselves to be
changefor freedomfrom attack, andtheir enlistmentin the service precarious allies, often proving to be as much a liability as an asset to the kings they
served; see the cases cited by Launey, Recherches, i. 492 ff.
1 3M . W ö r r l e , C h i r o n , v ( 1 9 7 5 ) ,5 9 - 8 7 . 1 6M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , ü . 7 3 4 , n . 2 0 ; s e e a b o v e , c h . 3 , a n d b e l o w , A p p e n d i x
raLivy xxxviii. l6; on the nature ofthis tribute, seeabove, ch. 3. The Galatians ii.
17Antiochos Hierax: see above, ch. 3.
of Prusias I: 79. pharnakes: 79: cf. polvb
evidently demanded tribute from the cities as well as the dynasts, as the decree xxv.2.4.
Ervthrai mentioned a b o v e s h o w s . C f . M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e ' i i ' 7 3 2 ' n ' l 5 '
 The Galatians 143
142 The Gtlatians

Perseus' centredon Pessinous, andthe secondofthe lettersshowsthatthey

After the defeatof Perseusof Macedon,the Galatians' personallysupportedAttis' positionat Pessinousin the face of
A Per-
former allies, launched a surprise attack on Eumenes' rivalry from his own family, doubtlessas a quid pro quo for his
gameneembassywassentto Rome in 168'and P' Licinius Crassus'
to patch co-operation(Welles,RC 56,lines3-7):öxoprcdpqvi1v nagd.oou
ih. Rornunconsulof 171,arrivedin Asia in 167ostensibly inrcroAfiv, I iv tlL öLeorcacprjx€q pou negi tdtu ltle xalrd üv
however' and
up a peace at Smyrna.l8The initiative failed' äöeAEdvoou AioL6pryayeypaplpivou.ög1öE oöv xa?' öneq-
Galatia' We
Eumenesresorted to direct military intervention in 6ü"lv ötlfura xü.. The positionof Attis at Pessinousis in some
interven-
have only fragmentaryand incidentalreferencesto this ways comparableto that of the priest Korris at Labraundain the
important of these is a fragment of
tion in the literary sources:most third century;both seemto haveheld their positionsas of family
lacks context but which in-
Diodoros' history (xxxi.l4), which right, and both dependedlargelyon the favour of the dynasts.2l
inot1-
forms us that Eumenesnctvrö fa)'ärory E|vog önoyeiqnv The letters are mainly concernedwith the need for periodic
control in
oclro.te This strongly implies an intention to retain military activity in Galatia,and there are severalreferencesto
Galatiabeyondthe immediateconsequences of military conquest'
in Attalid policy with Pergamene armiesstationedthere.The permanence of this situa-
and accordingly indicates a new feature
tion is furtherindicatedby the complaintsof PrusiasII of Bithynia
regard to the Galatians. to the Roman Senatein 16514that Galatiaremainedunder the
Eumenes'
Further evidence in this regard may be found in occupationof Pergamenetroops,as thoughthe needfor them, that
with Attis' the priestof Kybeleat Pessinous' one
correspondence is, thedurationof Eumenes'war, wasalreadyover.22 This is not to
to this
of the principal religious centres of Galatia'2oAccording say, however,that Galatiawas treatedas an Attalid provinceon
correspondenceitwasthroughAttis'collaborationthattheAt- the linesof the territoriesacquiredin 188nc. The evidencepoints
part of it
talidsmaintaineda control over the country' or ratherthe ratherto a seriesof major campaignsundertakenin the early 160s,
rs Polyb. xxix. 22.4; cf. xxv. 6.3; xxix. 9' l3; Livy xlv' 34' l0 Cf Niese' iii' 200'
Mogistrates of the Romon which strengthened Attalid influencein the areabut requiredcon-
For p. Licinius Crassus, see T. R. S. Broughton,
Republit'(New Y o r k , l 9 5 l ) , i . 4 1 6 ( c o s ' 1 7 l ) ' 4 3 5 (envoy in 167)' tinued military occupationand secretcollaborationwith Attis at
Eumenes' brother Attalos
ih. P.rgurn"ne embassy to Rome in 168 included Pessinous.It was important,as the Galatians'activitiesin recent
foremost Stoic in
(Polyb. xix. l-3; Livy xiv. l9), and Krates of Mallos' the yearshad shown, that Attalid influencein Galatiashouldbe main-
leading figure in Pergamene scholarship (Suetonius, de gram'
ir";;;." and a
m a t i c i s2 : C r a t e s ' . . r , i s s u s a t l s e n a l u m a b A t t a l o
rege " ' sub ipsam Ennii tained,but it is extremelyunlikelythat the Attalidseverregarded
name of the king must be a mistake-for
mortem (: 169) ). In view of the date, the Galatiaas part of their kingdom, or controlled more than certain
(History of Classical Scholarship' 2!5'n'
But.n.. II, as R. Pfeiffer has indicated parts of the country at any one time.
forcb Ä ttalo we should read
2); the suggestion of Hansen,A ttatids, l2l,n' 166'that
,;^ ,qttiti, does not explain rege, since Attalos II
did not share the royal title this UnderAttalosII thisalreadylimitedcontrolin Galatiaevidently
upp.o".h is therefore the correct one' On Krates at Pergamon' see weakened.The last substantialitem in the correspondencewith
"-ivtpf.iff"t't
Pfeiffer, 21546. Attis is a letter in which Attalos refers to the need for military
ItisclearfromPo|ybios'accountofAttalos'missionthattheSenate'smain
concernatthistrmewaswithlimitingEumenes'power'ratherthanwithsolvingthe
action, but admitsthat this coursecould not be adoptedfor fear of
l' 6: röv ydp nltiotav'Papatav
Galatian problem; note especially Polyb' xxx' Rome'sdisapproval.23 Thereis evidencenonethe lessthatAttalos
dnrl)J"otptovp|vav rfiE rcü 6aoülo4 EiptvouE eövoiag' maintainedmilitary activity in the areaon a limited scale.Accord-
re A probable vrctory monument of this war is /vP 165 (with an additional
f.agment published in ÄM xxvii (1902)' 90' no' 74)'
A Delphian decree accepting a ing to Trogus (Prol. xxxiv), mortuo regeAsiae Eumenesuffectus
refers to Eumenes' war as [röv
festival of Sardis for Athena und King Eumenes Attalus bellumcum Selegensibus habuit et cum regePrusia.As we
note l2). I have
iirr"rl
'uii"uav xivöuvoy (OGIS 305, lines il-12, with Diuenberser's
of Eumenes' Galatian victory to his standing rn 2rSee,on Korris,J. Crampa,Labraunda,iii. l. 75 ff.
"rnpt "sized the importance
gb); this importance was first realized by cardinali, RP z: Polyb. xxx. 20. 2-3:' cf. Niese ii' 200ff.
the Greek world (above,
103 ff. 2rOGIS 315 VI. : Welles,RC 60.
2 0O G I S 3 1 5 , = W e l l e s , R C 5 5 - 6 1 .
r44 The Galatians
have seen,this war is to be dated to the 150s,in the first yearsof
Attalos' reign. It was clearly not a major war of the kind fought by
Eumenesin the l60s; its main objectivewas evidentlyto maintain
authority in the area of Galatia adjoining Selgeand Amlada, and to
securethe allegianceof frontier positions such as these.2aThis
evidencesupportsthe implicationsof Attalos' letter to Attis, that
he wishedto avoid total commitmentin Galatia,and had no inten-
tion of attemptingto control the entire country'
It is possible,furthermore,that Galatiansservedas alliesor as
mercenariesin the pay of PrusiasII duringthe war with Attalos, as
can be inferredfrom the words of Trogusjust quoted:bellum cum
selegensibus . . . et cum regePrusia.Althoughthe evidenceis too
limited to allow certainty on this point, it is clear that Attalos'
control over Galatiacontinuedto be piecemealand tentative;that
his wars were of a local nature not designedto support a direct
administrationin the country as a whole; and that vigorousmeas-
ures were taken to establishthe co-operationof the important
strategic positions at Selge and Amlada' This evidence, then,
confirms the conclusionsreachedfor Eumenes' reign as to the
statusof Galatia in relation to the Attalid Kingdom as a whole.
Galatia could never be regardedas a singleentity, let alone be
controlledas such, but it compriseddistinct groupsof occupation
suchas that centredon Pessinous.It was with one or anotherbut
not with all of thesegroups that the dynastsof Asia Minor con-
cludedalliancesand from one or anotherthat they recruitedmer-
cenariesfrom time to time asthe needarosein the third and second
centuries BC. Eumenes II and Attalos II of Pergamondid not
undertakemilitary interventionin Galatiain order to increasetheir
kingdom but in order to counter the influence of their enemies,
who rightly saw the Galatiansas a meansof containingAttalid
powerand authoritY.
2 aS e e a b o v e , 1 0 2 .
6
ROYAL CULTS
Like their contemporariesin other dynasties,the Attalidsreceived
a wide range of secularand religioushonours from the cities of
Asia Minor and the Greek mainland,and the nature and scaleof
thesehonoursis a reflection of their authority and renown in the
eyesof thosewho honouredthem: againthe reignof Attalos I and
the creationof the new kingdom in 188appearto mark the impor-
tant stagesin their development.
Certain distinctionshave to be borne in mind in any considera-
tion of Hellenisticroyal cults, and theseareespeciallyimportantin
the case of the Attalids. The first, and most important, is the
difference between worship and deification.r From the reign of
Attalos I onwardsAttalid kingswerethe objectsof wide andvaried
cult practice,both within and beyond the limits of their kingdom,
but it was not until after 188Bc that any of them was calleda god in
narne,and then it was usually done after death, with the single
known exceptionof Miletos, whosecircumstanceswere reviewed
in a previous chapter.2A seconddistinction concernsmotive. It
was one thing for the king to enforcea centralizedimperialcult of
himselfor membersof his family, of the kind now well attestedfor
the Seleukidsunder Antiochos III, and quite anotherfor a city to
institute an individual cult on its own initiative and in cir-
cumstancesarising from its relationswith a particular king.3We
t Habicht, Gottmenschentum,206 ff.; see also the remarksof köaux, Monde
hell. i. 238 ff.
2 Seeabove, ll4-19.
rFor the centralizedSeleukidcults, see Holleaux,Etudes,iii. 165-81 (from
BCH 1930);Welles,RC 36-7; Wilcken, SB Berlin. 1938,298-321;Robert,Ilel-
lenica,vä (1949),l-29 andCRAI 1967,281-94. For the Attalid cults, seein general
Cardinali,RP139-7Z;Daux,BCII lix (1935),210-3O;AvPix. 84ff.; Habicht,Gott-
menschentum,124-6; and,for cults associatedwith Dionysos,H. von Prott,AM
x x v i i ( l $ 2 ) , 1 6 1 - 8 8 ( w i t h R o b e rEt ,t . a n a t . 2 5 - 6 ) l O h l e m u t z , K u l tge0, f f . ; P . M .
Fraser,REÄ liv (1952),242tr.; A. W. Pickard-Canbndge,Dram.Festivals,279ff.
Hansen,Attalids,453 ff. adds nothingofimportance to the discussion.
146 Royal Cults
need, finally, to rememberthat it was not the lot or prerogative
only of subjectcitiesto worshipor otherwisehonourthe kingswho
were their suzerains;free cities could and frequently did honour
with equalor greaterextravagancethosewho were their benefac-
tors. As a corollary to this, the presenceof a royal cult in a city is
not necessarilya mark or indicationof its status,aswe shallshortly
seeat Miletos, Kos, and elsewhere.
We may further divide the honourspaid to the Attalids broadty
into the secularand religiouskind (althoughthe distinction is not
alwaysa real one),the first consistingmainly of eponymousfesti-
vals called Attaleia, Eumeneia,or whatever name was approp-
riate, and the secondof worship and deificationas differentiated
above. The earliest known eponymousfestivals are the Phile-
taireia and Eumeneia on Delos, which, unlike those to be
consideredshortly, were initiated and financed by the dynasts
themselvesand are an indicationof their claimsto dynasticstand-
ing in the Greek world rather than of its recognition.a
At Kyzikos we hear of a festival named Philetaireia,which is
probablyto be associatedwith the supportthat Philetairosgaveto
the city when it was under threat from the Galatiansin the 270s;it
was the city's methodof expressinggratitudeto its benefactorand
conforms with practicesthroughoutthe Hellenistic world in the
third and second centuries.sComparableare the Eumeneia at
Pergamonitself, which are mentionedin the city's decreehonour-
ing its board of strategoiand are not to be associatedsimply with
Eumenes' position as dynast: he is called Euergetes,and the
honoursare such that any Greek city might bestowon a benefac-
tor.o
Honoursof this kind continuein the reign of Attalos I, and their
extent and location are predictably more widespreadin accor-
dancewith the extendedrange of contactshe established,espe-
cially through his alliancewith Rome' in the Aegeanand on the
Greekmainland.In this contextwe may put the Attaleiaassociated
with the gymnasiumat Kos; these were probably instituted on
a IG xi.2. 224A.line 4; seefurtherabove,22 n. 46.
s CIG 3660,linel5; seeRobert,Er' anat. 199-201;Habicht' Gottmenschentum'
124.Seealsoabove,15n' 20.
6OGIS 267,discussedbelow, 166-8.
Royal Cults 147
behalf of Attalos I and are a further sign of that king's concernto
cultivate allies in the south-westAegeanas a supportagainstthe
threat of Philip V of Macedon in the early years of the third
century.TThe newly attestedAttaleiaat Aiolian Kyme may alsobe
connected with the first Attalos, and specificallywith the dip-
lomatic activity of 218 in which Kyme played an important part
(seeabove, chapter 3 (i)), but the city's decreein which they are
mentionedis probablyto be datedto the reignof Attalos II, and so
this later bearerofthe namemay be the honorandof the Attaleia.8
Attalos I was the first of his dynasty to receivecult honoursin
the full sense.At Sikyon, accordingto a passageof Polybioswhich
has survivedout ofcontext, he receivedan annualsacrifice,and a
colossal statue of him was placed beside that of Apollo in the
agora,an act renderinghim effectivelyoüvvaoEwith Apollo.r An
inscriptionin Athenswhich in my view recordsa decreeof Aigina,
refers to Attalos as being madeoüvvaoEwith the island's hero
Aiakos and also mentions the setting aside of temene (plural),
althoughthe context and detailsofthe honoursare not preserved
on the stone.r0This text is to be datedto the lastyearsof the third
century, after Attalos had acquiredthe islandin 210,and it is also
to this time that we may date the establishmentat Athens of a
priesthoodof Attalos and a tribe namedafter him.rr These cult
activities constitute a major advancein honours paid to the At-
talids, and were later to provide precedentsfor the honours en-
joyed by thelastofthe dynasty,AttalosIII Philometor.They areto
be regardedas a direct resultof the greatrenownwon by Attalos in
the Greek world by his defenceof Greekfreedomboth againstthe
Galatiansin Asia Minor, and as Rome's ally againstPhilip V of
Macedonin Asia Minor and the Aegean.r2
Thesecults institutedfor Attalos I were nonethe lessoccasional
7 Sy//.3 1028, : F. Sokolowski,Lois sacröes des citös grecques (Paris, l%9), 165,
A. 8. See now S. M. Sherwin-White,Ancient Cos (Hy pomnemata,li,1978), 132-1.
8G. Petzl and H. W. Pleket,Chiron, ix (1979),73-81; Appendix iv, no.26.
e xviii. 16.
t o I G ä . 2 8 8 5 ; A p p e n d i x i v , n o . 2 ; I d i s c u s s e dt h i s t e x t i n 8 S Ä l x v i ( 1 9 7 l ) , l - 1 2 .
tt IG li.2 5080; the priesthood is probably to be associated with the creation ofthe
tribe Attalis in 200 sc (Polyb. xvi. 25. 9; Cardinali, AP 145-6).
t2 See Polyb. xviii. 4l . 9, which refers to Attalos ayavrlöpevoE önip rqg röv
'
E ).lfi v tttv il.t u 0 q iaE.
148 Royal Cults
andadhoc, anddespitethe greatadvancein his authorityachieved
when he took the royal title, there is no evidenceof a systematic
ruler-cult at Pergamonor elsewherein the kingdom during his
reign.r3The evidenceusually adducedin supportof the view that
Attalos was deifiedwhen he died haslittle substanceand virtually
no chronologicalforce. The baseIvP 59 is dedicatedto 6aoAia
- - - | \eöv Za\rr1pal, and even if Attalos' name is restoredhere,
the dateof the inscriptionmay well be muchlater than his death,as
the letter-formsindicate.In anotherbase(/vP l7l,: OGIS 291)'
"Afrra).ov
usually restored 6aoÄ6o 0eöv1| xai Eöeqy6v7v,the
supplementcalledfor is surely[Zarqga] | xai Eüeqytrnv.t4
It was not until after 188 that the further step was taken of
instituting regular priesthoodsof the Attalids and of calling the
king0eöE;this chronologymay be further establishedby a review
of the known instances.The principal cults were establishedat
PergamonandTeos;when the latter becamea tributary city in 188,
EumenesII was quick to exploit its position as seatof the Ionian
Guild of Dionysiantechnitai.rsThe full name of this Guild, rö
'IoviaE '87-
xowöv r6v nepi At6vuoov rcyvrcöv röv ön' xai
Tqonöwou, is first attestedby an Aitolian decreeof about235,and
it correspondsclosely to the nameof the regionwhich becamean
Attalid provincein 188.t6The unificationof the cults of Dionysos
was effectedby associatingthe activity of this Guild with that of
the cult body of Dionysos Kathegemonwhich had beeninstituted
at Pergamonprobably by Attalos I; the associatedGuilds were
'Iav('aE
calledrö xowöv röv nepi/övuoov reXvr,xrövröv ön' xai
ti The Basileiaattestedby OGIS 268are ofdoubtful relevancehere:seeabove,
1l05n. 120(contra Cardinali,RP 153,n. 3).
raBoehringer,AvP ix.86, regardedthe developmentof the ruler-cultas dating
from the reignof Attalos I, but the evidencehe cites relateswith the exceptionof
Aigina to placesoutside the kingdom and does not attest a ruler-cult in the form in
which it developed later at Pergamon and elsewhere. The altars dedicated to
Attalos at Pergamon(IvP 43-5) are ofa private nature, and their date is uncertain.
ri See in general Pickard-Cambridge,Dram. Festivals, 2914.
t6F. Delphes,iii. 3. 2188, lines 6-7. It hasbeenthoughtthat this full title dates
from IEE and relates to the Attalid acquisition of Hellespontine Phrygia (so von
Prott, AM xxvii (1902),l6l ff. ; Ohlemutz,Kulte, 98-9), but the evidenceof the
Aitolian decree discountsthis view. It seemslikely, on the contrary, that the
Attalids' regionalnamecorrespondedto a namealready in use by the Guild. Seein
generalabove, 53-4, 103-4.
Royal Cults 149
'E),Ar1onövrou,
xai töv neqi vöv Ka0rlyep6vaAr,övuoorr.r7 This
amalgamationof the worship of Dionysos at Pergamonand at
Teos, which was to outlast the Attalid dynasty,r8provided a suit-
able context in which the cults of membersof the Attalid royal
family could be placed,and is a further attestationof the Attalid
policy of associatingtheir own honours with those of a deity or
hero, of the kind which we seein practiceat Sikyon (AttalosI and
Apollo), Aigina (Attalos I and Aiakos), and at Pergamonitself
(EumenesI[ and the twelve gods, Attalos III and Asklepios).re
The creation of the enlargedkingdom in 188 occasionedthe
institution of a direct form of ruler-cult, againcentredchiefly on
Pergamonand Teos. This cult arosefrom a new practiceof recog-
nizing membersof the royal family as becominggods when they
died. In a decreeof HierapolishonouringApollonis, the queenof
Attalos I, it is saidthat shep€06,orr7xev
eiE0eoüg.20The dateof this
decreecannot be exactly determined,but we may be sure that it
was passedafter 188for reasonsthat will be mentionedshortly. At
a later date, the death of Attalos III was expressedin a decreeof
Pergamon in the words fue|tolrd.pevogö$ ävl0g6nav.21 This
practice of deifying a royal person on death plays an important
part in Attalid ruler-cults, and we will do well to establishits
chronologybefore exploring its significance.
Although Attalos I is posthumouslycalled)eöE,the designation
and its associatedpriesthoodare not attesteduntil after 188,and
we have no evidenceof a cult before this date. The first priest-
t7 For thejoint name,seeRobert,Er. a nat. 445-50(Michel,Äec. l0l4): /G xi. 4.
ll36 + 1061,: Durrbach,Choix, 75 (Pickard-Cambridge, Dram. Festivals,314,
no. l0(a)). SeealsoG. Klaffenbach,Symbolae,l7ff.;Datx,BCH lix(1935),226ff.
I8 It is attestedin the sameform in a letter of Sullato Kos confirming privilegesof
the lonian Guild (81-79sc): M. Segre,.Riv. di fi|. lxvi ( 1938),253ff. (Pickard-Cam-
bridge,Dram. Festivals,3 18,no. l3). This evidencewasoverlookedby Ohlemutz,
Kulte, 98; 'nach dem Erlöschender Pergamenischen Dynastieschwindetaus dem
Titel der Hauptverbandes der Techniten in Teos der Zrusatzxai töv nepi töv
Ka92yepövalrövuoov.' Ohlemutz's view, following von Prott, that Dionysos
Kathegemon was being worshipped as the dpX1yftqg toö yövouEof the Attalid
dynasty,was basedon evidencewhoserelevancewas discountedby Robert,Et.
anat.254.
teOGIS 332(discussedbelow);notelines26-7:lorcllqavqEopfioatmiwa Exao-
tov meqavqEöpov töv l6öexa 9eöv xai 6alor7öagEöptuou.
20OGIS 308, line 4.
2t OGIS 338, lines zt_5.
150 Royal Cults
hoods we hear of are those of the living Stratonike and the de-
ceasedApollonis at Teos, and of EumenesII during and after his
lifetime at Pergamonand Teos; all thesecult phenomenalikewise
fall in the period after 188,and it is a plausiblecontentionthat this
year, in view of its importanceto the Attalids, marksthe beginning
of royal cult activity. In the case of Eumenes, von Prott de-
monstratedmany yearsagothat the cults to which the priesthoods
belongedwere introducedat Pergamonand Teosby Kraton sonof
Zotichos, auletes and priest of the lonian Guild of Dionysian
technitai.22The evidencefor this eventis providedby two decrees
of the Guild honouring Kraton: the first is undated,23but the
second is dated by a priesthood of Eumenes,evidently newly
introduced:2 a ini iq6o4 Zarögou, xo,i&yovo1örou xlail I ieptaE
6aot).6a4Eöptvou NtxortAoufEl. Since the first decreerefers to
the combinedGuild of DionysiantechnitaiatTeosandof Dionysos
Kathegemonat Pergamonin the form mentionedearlier,it follows
that both decrees,and accordinglythe introduction of Eumenes'
priesthoodat Teos,mustbe datedafter 188,when this combination
occurred.
At about the sametime, or at any rate after 188,when shewas
betrothed to Eumenes,Stratonike also received a priesthoodat
Teos, according to an honorary decreeof that city.zsAlthough
neither Eumenesnor Stratonikewas called a god, the deceased
Attalos I and his queenApollonis were so called, and Apollonis
furthermore was to be worshipped as oüwaoE with Aphrodite
(lines 4-5): röv öi |uoütv önryü'ry|fivattöv ieq6a llrts I'Aq-
qQöftqE xo,i1ed.E'AnüJ.aviöogEöoe6oüE.At Hierapolis,as we
have seen,it was saidof Apollonis that shepe06oqxev eiE0eoü9,
and the chronology of this terminology may also be dated fairly
securelywithin a rangeof a few years.In the decreeof Hierapolis
Apollonis is calledyuvil pöv Ieoü 6aoü"6ag'Atrd)"ou,luiqlqllöö
6aoü,6aEEüptvou Zarfiqog, and since Eumenes' epithet Sorer
22AM xxvä (1902),16l-88 (seeabove, n. 3).
2r Durrbach, Choix, 75; improved text ap. Datx, BCH lix (1935)' 210 tr'
2aMichel, Äec. l016 A (O. Lüders, Die DionysischenKunstler (Berlin, 1873)'
179-80).
zsRobert,Et. anat.9-20. On the betrothalof Stratonike,see Appendix iii.
Royal Cults l5l
was bestowedin the 180sduring his war with PrusiasI of Bithynia
and the Galatians,26Apollonis' death is placed in the years after
about 184.In fact it was probably later still, sincePolybiosstates
that she long outlived her husband,who died in 197.27
Towards the end of his life Kraton moved from Teos to Perga-
25Seeabove, 79 and n. 13. Eumenesis also calledtheos and Soler in a dedi-
cation from Pergamonof an altar by the membersof a Dionysiac cult (AM xxvii
OnD, 94, no. 86):6ao ü.ei Eöpiv er.0e[ö t ] | 2at74 xai Eü egytft q| | oi 6dxyot ro ü
eüamo6 O[soü]. This honour has generally been regarded as posthumous
(Boehringer,AvPix. 90; Ohlemutz,Kulre, 93; Hansen,Attalids,465),althoughthis
is difücult to establishon historical groundswithout producinga circularargument.
The lettersofthe inscription,however,clearlyindicatea datein the secondhalfof
the secondcentury, and therefore after Eumenes' death: all have well-developed
apices,and omicron and (dotted)thetaare large,occupyingthe whole depthofthe
line, suggestinga date not much later than 150(cf. Paepcke,de Pergamenorum
litteratura, 16,on theta;Holleaux,Etudes.ii. 78).Sigmais a well-developedform
with parallel arms, and in generalthe letters suggestadate more advancedthan that
of the Korrhagosdecree(the l80s: seeabove, l0Gl0),where many of the letters
appearin moretransitionalforms(cf. Holleaux, Etudes,ii. 76-81),andof Eumenes'
dedications,inscribedduring the l80s (especiallyIvP 62and 64; cf. Kähler, Gr.
Fries, 187,n.43).AdateafterEumenes'deathin l59isprobableonthesecriteria.
27Attalos II died in 138an old man, accordingto Strabo xüi. 4.2,624. Sincehe
had ruled for twenty-one years after the death of his brother, we may estimatehis
ageat over eighty when he died, and according to a referencein Lucian (lulacrob.
| 2) he died at the ageof eighty-two. He wasthereforeborn in about 220.Attalos was
the secondson ofAttalos I and Apollonis,and Apolloniscan thereforehardlyhave
beenborn laterthan 238(cf. Fränkel,luP i, p. 88).On the otherhand,sinceAttalosI
died in 197in old age(Strabo,loc. cit.), and Apollonislongoutlivedhim, shemust
have been young at the time ofher marriage to Attalos; we can accordingly place
her birth with somehopeofaccuracy in the years2zt0-238. In 188shewould then
havebeenaboutfifty, and Polybios,in a shortencomiumon Apollonis(xxii. 20. 3)
says that she long outlived her husband (xahor gqövov oöx ö).iyov ünepfuboaoa
dvöpö), implying that she died in old age; this passageincludesa referenceto a
visit made by Apollonis with her sons Eumenesand Attalos to Kyzikos, and
concludes,rar)ta ö' hd"io0q iu Kulixq petd dy öüluow d1vnpöEllqouoiav töv
6aoü,ia, but it is clear that the referenceto Apollonis formed a digresslonprompted
by an accountofevents relatingto Kyzikos now lost, and it is to theseevents,and
not to Apollonis' visit, that the chronological point refers (see Habicht, Hermes,
lxxxiv (1956),98).
Apollonis is mentionedin the Athenian decree(IvP 160,= OGIS 24E;Holleaux,
Etudes,ii. 126-47)passedinlT5/4aft.ertheaccessionofAntiochoslVandhonour-
ing Eumenes II and his brothers, but we need not assume(contra Hopp, Unter-
suchungen,33)that Apolloniswas necessarilyaliveat the time, sincesheis named
alongsidethe certainly deceasedAttalos I (lines 43-5): inaw6oar öö xai nöE yov-
etg I aütov, röv rc 6aoü.6a "Atta)"oy xai rlp daoil'noav I'Anoil"aviöa.
152 Royal Cults
mon.28and he founded there a Guild attested under the name
Attalistai but probably foundedin the lifetime of EumenesII and
originally calledEumenistai;this Guild is referredto as his crea-
tion in a letter written to it by Kraton after Eumenes'death and
dated to 15312(OGIS 325).Only the prescript survives:
[6aoÄ elrjowog' Aw d.7ou <Dü.aö6Aqou,ötouEö6ööp[ou),
WryvöS llüovpou, ini öö ieq6o4röv teyvwövKqattvloul,
'Aprcraiou,Kpdtalv Zot-l
[xai dyov]o06.rou xai ieq{aE9eoüEöp|vou
'AnaTrcraigtoIEöE öauro6ouu4yp6.1votE
[riyolu roig - - - -].
The absencehere of a priesthoodof the living king, Attalos II,
suggeststhat this was a lifetime office and not, like that of the
deceasedking, an eponymousone. It does not necessarilymean
that the Attalistai were concernedonly with the cult of the dead
king, if von Prott is correct in arguingthat the organizationwas
founded under Eumenes II and originally called Eumenistai;2e
there is furthermore no evidencehere of a priesthoodof the de-
ceasedAttalos I. We may reasonablysupposethat the Guild was
establishedin order to honour Eumenesin his lifetime, and the
honourscorrespondto thoseawardedto Eumenesand Stratonike
at Teos.
It may be usefulat this point to summarizewhat hasbeensaidso
far. The institution of royal priesthoodsand the practiceof post-
humous deification and worship of the Attalids took place in or
shortly after 188,as a further result of the increasein the king's
power and authority in that year.The centresof thesecults were at
Pergamonand Teos, although decreesof other places, such as
Hierapolis, attest a more extensiveparticipation.Pergamonand
Teos were united in the worship of Dionysos,and in both cities a
priesthoodof the living Eumeneswas established. At Teos, and
perhapsat Pergamon,Eumenes'queen,Stratonike,also received
a priesthood,togetherwith the deceasedApollonis, who was to be
oüvvaoEwith Aphrodite.
28In an honorarydecreeof the IsthmianGuild (Michel,Rec. l0l6 C), Kraton is
calledlTepyapqvöE,the only recorded instance. There is no meansofdating this
decreeprecisely,but it belongslogicallyto Kraton's later activity, and we know
from a decree of the Attalistai passedafter his death that he died at Pergamon
(OGIS 326,lines 15-16:peta)).äoouv töv 6iov iv lleleydpott; cf. Daux, BCH lix
(te3s),2t9).
2 e A M x x v ü ( l 9 0 D , 1 7 4 ,n . 2 ; O h l e m u t zK, u l t e , l 0 l , n . 3 0 .
Royal Cults 153
Two relatedproblemsneedto be consideredin connectionwith
thesecults. [n the decree of theAttalistai alreadymentionedthere
is a referenceto an Attaleion (OGIS 326,lines 20-l): ü öi 'Ar-
rä)'ercv ü npög röt 9eätgaq ö xai löv xa?rcptbzsr.There is no
indication,however,asto whetherthis Attaleion was in Pergamon
or in Teos. The fact that the decree comes from Teos perhaps
suggeststhe latter,3obut a further referenceto the house of the
Attalistai, which is said to have been 'near the palace', points
ratherto Pergamon,althoughthe two buildingsmay not havebeen
in the samecity, and thereis no particularreasonwhy thereshould
not have been a royal palaceat Teos as well as at Pergamon,as
there was at Tralles. We havealreadynotedthat Kraton spentthe
later part of his life at Pergamon,and founded the Attalistai (or
Eumenistai) in this period. It is more likely, then, that both the
Attalistai and the Attaleion were located in the capital, and were
associatedfeaturesof Kraton's work.3r
There is, secondly,the questionof wherethe cult was locatedin
Pergamon.A group of buildingssituatedto the north of the Altar
peribolos has been given the name'temenosof the ruler-cult' by
the excavators:it is argued that since the site was occupied by
housesinto the Hellenistic period, the cult later practisedthere
must have been introducedby the Attalids, but all known cults of
gods introduced by them were located outside the city.32 It is
probablethat the area was rebuilt and augmentedin the time of
EumenesI[,33and this activity may be associatedwith the institu-
tion of the centralizedcult in 188,but the circumstantialnatureof
the evidenceprecludescertainty. It is also possiblethat this com-
plex of buildingsincludedthe Attaleion as well as the Eumeneion
mentioned in the probably post-Attalid dedication (OGIS 336)
discussedin a previouschapter, but it is more likely that this
Eumeneionwas situatedoutside Pergamon.3a
After 188priesthoodsof deceasedkingswere a regularfeatureof
royal cult practice in the Attalid Kingdom; since they are men-
tioned in a Pergamenedecree passedafter the formation of the
3 0S o D i t t e n b e r g e r a d l o c . , n . 1 3 ; K e r n , R E , s . v . A t t a l e i o n , 2 1 5 6 .
3 t C a r d i n a l i , R P l 5 l , n . l ; O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , l 0 { | , - l ,w i t h
r e f e r e n c e s :l 0 l . n . 2 9 .
32Är'P ix. 85 ff.
3 3K ä h l e r , G r . F r i e s , l 5 f , n . 2 2 .
3 aS e e a b o v e . 2 3 n . 4 9 .
154 Royal Cults Royal Cults 155

Roman province, they must have outlasted the Attalid dynasty Parian marble and the performance of sacrifices on the king's
itself.3sSuch royal cults are also attestedat the Pergamenegym- yuöil'rcE ipöea;oo and at Pergamon, whose gymnasiarch Agias
nasiumunderAttalos III. A decreeof Pergamonpassedin his reign was honoured, probably in the final years of the reign of Attalos
probably in honour of a gymnasiarch seemsto associateAttalos III, by a civic decreewhich refers to the celebrationof the kings'
with the Founder Philetairos,and possibly with EumenesII, as önovüpot fiptgat.al The king alsoenjoyedgymnasialcults in cities
'the altar dedicated by the outside, or probably outside, the Attalid Kingdom, usually in
recipients of an annual sacrifice on
neoi':36 associationwith the celebrationof the king's yev|il"rcgfipi,pa, and
9uofuEög xail.tmagröt re Qt)'eraigtttr, xai'AtrdAat röt the phenomenonas a whole showsthat the existenceof sucha cult
lnallqaorrioaE
@ü'opriropt 1aoüuet xo,iröt tofuroünarpi |eöt'Eüptvetöv{ot6opöLtöt doesnot necessarilyindicatethe statusin relationto the Attalids of
xa?öpup{llvaf| önö röv v6otvönrce76oar rd xa9fxowa ouweceT6o0at the city concerned.It is unlikely, for instance,that ColophonNova
öv tör öndvotp1vi rfir löyöirlt - - -1. was ever a subjectof the Attalids, yet thereathenaios,the brother
There is also reference to the dedication of cult statues,riTrii- of EumenbsI[, was honoured by the veof and öcpfifiotwith the
para, andspecificallyone of Philetairos;in Schröder'srestoration celebrationof hisyev60fuoE flpipa, as providedby a decreewhich
we read (lines lL20): rofü öö 1eoü 6aot).6a9Eüp{vou xai ro6 is probably to be dated to the middle of the secondcentury; it is
'Amd).ou 'Ar-
|eoü xai roü iDt).erai)pouro6 Eueqy{rouxai ro6 alsolikely that other membersof the royal family had alreadybeen
rdlou roü Qt)"opfircqoE6aoü"6aEdyäl)'pata ävart9öval. Al- honouredin havingtheir eixövegset up by the city in the sanctuary
though retained with reservationsby Dittenberger,this supple- of Apollo Klarios.a2On Kos, the yu60).rcEftptgq of EumenesIl
ment is clearly unsatisfactory;in particular,the referenceto 9eöE wascelebratedon the 6th Artemisioneachyear, andhis priesthood
"Arra)"og (without royal title) is unlikely in the context of the
is also attested there: these phenomenaare further signs of an
honoursas a whole. so far as we can determinethem. The nameof Attalid influence at Kos which began to be felt in the second
Philetairos seems assured, despite the otherwise unattested century when Ptolemaicpower was waning.a3Also noteworthyin
epithetEuergetes,becauseit occurs elsewherein the text,37and the contextof gymnasialhonoursis a priesthoodof Attalos II or III
the following is thereforea more consistentsupplement:rclü öi at Sestos,which is brought to our notice by a decreeof Roman
0nü 6aoLA6ory Eöpövouroü ZaniqoE xai rcü Qt)"etalllpouroü date.aaWe examinedthe case of Miletos in detail in chapter 4;
'ArröJou
Eöepy&ou xai roü toü Qü.oprpopog 6aoü'6ag there, Eumeneswas voted in his lifetimeatemenos,celebrationof
dyäf]"parc ävari\eval. The gymnasial cult of the king was an his yev60)'nE flpöea, and divine status, and the link with the
importantfeatureof the Attalid ruler-cult after 188.We find it also gymnasium is especially significant in that Eumenes provided
at PhrygianApameia,where a decree(probablyof the l60s) hon- funds to finance its building, in line with Attalid policy else-
ours the gymnasiarch Kephisodorosi yupva.onpy1oaE.. . xai where.as
rryq|eiE önö rritv v6on äv604xeväyä)"parfa 6aoü"6<oE Eüp|voug
xail'Arrd)"ou roü döe)"cpoü 6aot76ary;38 at Ephesos, as we have a0Appendix iv, no. 2l; seealso Robert,Hellenica, xi-xii (1960),116-25.
seenelsewhere;3e on Andros, where anotherdecreehonouringa at AM xxxäi ( 1908),379-81,no. 2, line 22.
a2Appendix iv, no. 20; seealso Appendix iii, 205.
gymnasiarchrefers to the dedicationof dydlpara of the king in
4 3 S y l / . 13 0 2 8 , e t c . ( s e e a b o v e , n . 7 ) . F o r t h e p r i e s t h o o d , s e e G . P a t r i a r c h a ' B u l l .
35ÄM xxxiii (1908),375,no. l. Mus. Imp. Rom. äi (1932),28,no. 25; Habicht, Gottmenschentum,125-ß(with
36Schröder,AM xxix (1904),152ff., : OGIS 764, lines 38 ff. further unpublishedevidencementioned,125,n. 3); Sherwin-White,AncientCos,
r7 At line 39quotedabove,andat line 36:iv 14rölööpativ fir rö rcü Qt)'etaipo[u 132-3.
dyalpa xa1Löqüratl. 44OGIS 339, lines 26-7. A closer identificationof the king is not possible:see
38MAMA vi. 173,with the revisionsof J. and L. Robert,Bull. 1939,no. 400. Hopp, Untersuchungen,I 15, n. 50.
3eSeeabove.100and n. 97. 4sRobert.Et. anat.85, n. 3: seeabove,| 18.
156 Royal Cults
Among the priesthoodsused in the dating formula of the Per-
gamenedecreeof Romandatementionedearlieris that of thetheoi
philadelphoi:xai ieg6o49eöv Eü.aöü.q@[v- - -]. Jacobsthal,the
original editor ofthe text, conjecturedthat the theoi philadelphoi
were Philetairos and Athenaios,a6the younger brothers of
EumenesII and Attalos II, but this identificationseemsunlikely
sinceneither of them becameking or sharedthe diadem,and it is
most improbablethat they receivedepithetsof the kind invariably
associatedwith kingship.SinceEumenesII and Attalos II areboth
known to have been calledPhiladelphos,the former admittedly
only once and in strangecircumstances,it is a strongerpossibility
that they are to be identified as the theoi philadelphoi, and this
identificationis strengthenedby the appearanceofa priesthoodof
Attalos Philadelphosprecedingthe one under considerationin the
prescriptof the decree.47 The title and priesthoodmust havebeen
bestowedon the royal brotherson or after the deathof Attalos II
by his successor,Attalos III, who accordinglymay be judged to
haveconsiderablyadvancedthe statusand scopeofthe cults ofhis
deceasedpredecessors first envisagedafter the Romansettlement
in 188.
Despitethis advancementof the royal cult, however,Attalos III
seemsnot to have taken the further step of allowing himselfto be
calleda god in his lifetime. One of the most important documents
of his reign is an inscription found at Elaia and recordinga civic
decree of (most probably) Pergamon;a8in the decree the city
celebratesthe return of Attalos to his capital after a victorious
military expeditionby awardinghim a gold crown, settingup his
a6Seeabove.n. 35.
a7The testimoniafor Attalos' title aregivenby Cardinali,RP l7l ; to theseshould
be addedÄM xxxii (1907),42'l,no.272;AM xxxäi(1908),375,no. l;BCH lü(1928),
2140,n. 8. On Eumenes' title Philadelphos, which occurs once (OGIS 302) see
below, Appendix i, n. 23. Whateverthe true explanation,the title is undeniably
attestedfor Eumenes,and its singleoccurrenceis paralleledby that ofAttalos II's
title Soter @CH hi (1928),,140n. 8).
48oGIS 332,on which seeA. D. Nock,ilarv. Stud. xli (1930),l-62, esp.22-5(=
Essayson Religion and the Ancient World, i.218-22); Wilhelm, Neue Beiträge
Y (SB Wien,ccxiv, 4, 1932),38-9(= Akademieschriften,i.280-l); Hopp, Unter-
suchungen,I I l-l 3. On the origin of the decreeseealsoRobert,Et. anat. 17, n. li
Ohlemutz,Kulte, 89 (againstthe view held here);I. and L. Robert,Bal/. l!)68,no-
44r.
Royal Cults 157
'iva
cult statue, äyü"pa, in the temple of Asklepios Soter, fi11]1
oüvvaogröt 9eör.,and the erectionof an equestrianstatue,eixtbv,
next to the altar of Zeus Soter in the agora, with the further
provision (lines ll ff.) of a daily sacrifice 'to (or for) the king':
txdorryErc iptqoE ö orclcpavqcpöpog xai ö [epeüEroö 6aoLl6agxai
[d.lyauo06tr7E Enßu&onqv Tt6avoröv lini rcü 6apoü r[oü)löE
roü ZarfipoE röL 6aoÄei. As Nock haspointedout, the daliveröt
daodei'is at leastambiguous'and could mean'to the king' rather
than 'for the king', the secondsenseusuallybeingexpressedin the
form rizlp roü 6qotl6aE;aesimilarly the Attaleia establishedat
Delphi in 160/59 'for' Attalos II, are explained in the words
"Anaiov.so
fxa)löE önrhaxltaq | önög röv 6aoü"6a It seems
probable,then, that Attalos III was to be the recipientof the daily
sacrificein the agora. Provision is also made in the decreefor an
elaborateprocessionon the eighthof the month, the day on which
Attalos'came to Pergamon',to take place every year from the
prytaneionto 'the temenosof Asklepios and the king' (compara-
ble therefore to the temene voted to Attalos I on Aigina); and
further offerings and festivities are devisedfor the occasionson
which 'he visits the city' (line 26, öuw öö napayivqtat eiE rilv
nü"w fi1tdtv).These honours at Pergamonclearly approachthe
concept of deificationin the king's lifetime as closely as possible
short of actuallycallinghim a god, and they may be regardedin the
presentstate of the evidenceas the furthest point reachedin the
elaborationof royal cult-practicein the Attalid Kingdom. Outside
the kingdom it seemsto have been surpassedonly by the excep-
tional case of Miletos.
Festivalsinstitutedin the nameof an Attalid king, or associating
the king with a god, continued after 188to be celebratedin the
Greek world both within and beyond the scope of Attalid au-
thority; we know of pouotxoi dyütveEdaoLAeiEöpivet.Zarfiqt. at
Tralles,5I' Att d),em x ai Eüp6veta xai N txr1cpöp n at Aigina,52and
aeNock, Essays,i.220.
50Sy//.3672,: Daux, Delphes, p. 686 C, = Pouilloux, Choix d'inscriptions
grecques(Paris, 1960),58, no. 13.
stAppendixiv, no. 6.
SzOGIS329.lines40-1.
r58 Royal Cults
'A9avaia
xai Eöufvetc celebratedat Sardisafter Eumenes'Gala-
tian victory.s3 Comparablehonours are also recorded for cities
that were, unlike those just mentioned, independent,notably
Eumeneiaand Attaleia at Delphi and at Athens,s4where the mo-
tive for the foundationwas either gratitudefor somebenefaction
(invariablyfinancial, as at Delphi), or a wish to participatein the
honours voted generallyto the king after some important event,
such as Eumenes' Galatian war. They do not have any great
significancein termsof the royal cult, sincethey were institutedin
the king'sname(dzäprcü 6aoü,6a9)ratherthan'for' or'to' him.
s 3F . D e l p h e sl ü . 3 . 2 4 1 .
5aSeethe textscited above,l0 n. 7.
7
THE CITY OF PERGAMON
The city of Pergamonholdsa uniquepositionamongthe capitalsof
the Hellenisticmonarchies.Like all of them. it was the residence
of the dynastand the administrativecentreof the kingdom.It also
functionedas an independentGreek city, at leastin constitutional
terms. But, unlike any of them, it existed as a royal residence
beforethe evolution of the kingdom,even taking into accountthe
ephemeraland insubstantialexpansionunder Attalos [. Put sim-
ply, whereasPella,Antioch, and Alexandriawere the chief cities
of kingdomsalready in existence,the Attalid Kingdom was built
around Pergamonand after its acquisition,as a featureadditional
to the existing civic community, whose separatepolitical and
constitutionalidentity was maintained.In this regard, then, the
distinctionbetweenroyal and civil institutionsbecomesespecially
meaningful,and the relationshipbetweencity and sovereignas-
sumesa dualaspect,asthe characterof the city changes,in that we
have to envisagea relationshipbetweendynastand city develop-
ing into one betweena king and his capital.
Our first concern is with the position of the dynasts- that is,
Philetairos,EumenesI, and, for a few yearsof his reign, Attalos I
- in relation to the city of Pergamon.From this will arise the
questionof the extent to which and mannerin which (sofar asthey
can be determined)this relationshipchangedwith the assumption
of the royal title by Attalos I in the early 230s.
A question we cannot fully answer in the presentstate of our
evidenceis the degreeofchange introducedto the constitutionof
Pergamonby the first two dynasts.In the first placewe have very
few indicationsin our sourcesrelating to the constitutionbefore
the arrival of the dynasts,l a deficiencywhich obviously makesit
I For the pre-Attalid city seeCardinali, RP l-4, to whoseaccountthere is little to
add by way of fact. Seealso the referencesgiven by Magie,Roman Rule, ü. 725,
n.2. The constitutionalaspectsof the following surveyowe much to the work of
Cardinali.RP 244-302, as well as to that of Swoboda,Rh. Mus. xlvi (1891),
497-510, and of G. Corradi, Studi Ellenistici, 347 tr. For the evolution of the
Hellenisticbureaucracies in general,seealsothe valuablesynthesisofRostovtzeff,
9EHHW ii. 1078-81.
160 The City of Pergamon
difficult to locateand assesschangesmadeby them. There is also
the problem, discussedalreadyin anothercontext, of their status
vis ä vis the Seleukids,and the measureof their freedomto inter-
fere in and determine civic policy. We have concluded that
Philetairosowed much, in his relations with Greek cities, to his
Seleukidpatronage,2and it seemsvery likely, with this considera-
tion in mind, that Philetairoseffectedlittle changein the civic order
of Pergamon,which remainednominallya Seleukidcity. We canin
fact hardlyexpectsignificantdevelopmentsto the advantageof the
dynast before the battle at Sardisin262, which elevatedhim, as
we have found reasonto believe, to a much higher level of self-
determination.It is, significantly, to Eumenes I that we must
ascribethe first major constitutionaldevelopmentin the city under
the Attalids. As hasalreadybeennoted,Eumenescertainlyplayed
a part in the developmentof the dynast'sauthority, in and around
Pergamon, considerably more significant than is customarily
accreditedto him, and with more evidencedatableto his reignit is
highly probablethat this picturewould emergeeven more clearly.
There is clear evidenceat least that Eumenesmanipulatedthe
existing democraticform of political institutionsin Pergamonto
his own advantage;this procedurewas to become, as we have
seen,the basis of the Attalids' relations with dependentGreek
cities. It was always their policy to take advantageof existing
institutions,rather than create new ones, and for the creation of
this ideaEumenesmust take most of the credit. It is clearfrom the
Pergamenerecord of the treaty of isopoliteia with Temnos, al-
readydiscussedin a previouschapter,3that the legislativeprocess
at Pergamonin the fourth century was normally directedthrough
the usualchannelsof probouleumaanddiscussioninthe ekklesia.a
Althoughthe treaty with Temnosmay datefrom the early yearsof
Philetairos'rule, it cannotbe later, and this shows thatthe boule
and ekklesiaexisted and were of political importancebefore the
2 See above. 16-19.
t IvP 5:OGIS 265, = StV iii. 555. See above, 16-17.
a 8IvP ä. 613;OGIS 2U. Cf . Ad. Wilhelm, AM xxxix (1914),156-60.
[äyvrtt 6o]uli1 xai öqpoE yvritp4 mpat4ycöv. See Swoboda, art. cit. (n. l), 497.
The City of Pergamon 16l
arrival of Philetairos.5The samemay be saidof thestrategoi,who
proposedthe motion concerningthe treaty with Temnos;although
we have no certainevidenceto the effect, it seemsmost likely that
this was the normal procedure carried over from the pre-Attalid
city. It is not likely that Philetairoscan have beenresponsiblefor
an innovationof suchfundamentalimportance;nor crediblethat, if
this were the case, he would not have been rememberedin the
city's history in more explicit terms than the formal designation
neosktistes, which we encounterby chanceat a much later date.6
lt seemsclear,then, that the threeprincipalorgansof legislative
procedureunder the dynasts,boule, ekklesia,andstrategoi,were
simply a continuation of an existing state of affairs. A further
indicationin this direction is to be found in the evidenceconcem-
ing the eponymousoffice ofprytanis.TThis evidence,which comes
from the so-called 'PergameneChronicle', a tantalizingly frag-
mentary remnant of the city's history, inscribed in the second
century ADon a now very worn block in the PergamonMuseumin
Berlin, constitutes our only direct information concerning the
political life of the pre-Attalid city.EThe extant portion of the text
'A]pyiaE
begins as follows: [- önenev [nqurdvle6 aifpeio9at
u1g I nü'eaE xar'l öroE Exaofr)ov, xai nqörcE Enqur[d.lveuu
'ApyfiaE,
xai iE öxefuou p6XpL vüv ngutafueuölluevotl
önrtloüotv. This event, the introduction at Pergamonof the
s I am inclined, despitethe ambiguousletter-forms(see above, l7 n. 29), to
prefer a date before the rule of Philetairos, as the treaty seemsto be an entirely
independentenactment,and althoughPhiletairoshad lesscontrol over the city than
EumenesI, the omissionof a referenceto the dynastseemsto me to be strikingin a
document concernedwith the city's external relations.Naturally this point is
tentative; it may be that the city was allowed a greater measureof freedom under
Philetairosthan is usuallyadmitted.It is also possiblethat the decreewas passed
on the motion of the stategoi implementingthe dynast'swishes(as Schmitthas
pointed out, Sty iii ad loc., p.332), but in such casesit was still usual to refer
personallyto the dynast.
6ÄM xxxiii (1908),407, no. 36; cf. BSA lxvi (1971),10.
7 On Iheprytarusat Pergamon,seeG. Corradi,Studi Ellenistici,349ff.; Magie,
RomanRule, ü. 1005,n. 45.
162 The City of Pergamon
eponymousoffrce ofprytanis, well known in other cities of west-
ern Asia Minor and elsewherein the fourth and third centuries,and
later,e can be dated from the Chronicle itself and from other
evidence.The reform is listed in the inscription immediatelybe-
fore a referenceto the revolt of Orontes againstArtaxerxes II and
his death, eventswhich took place in the 350s;we may therefore
date the reform at Pergamonto the early fourth century, most
probably the 370sor 360s.10
The nameArchias is traditionallyassociatedwith anotherevent
at Pergamon: the introduction of the cult of Asklepios from
Epidauros.The circumstancesare narratedin a well known pas-
sageofPausanias,r1and are corroboratedby referencesin inscrip-
tions. One of theseis from the Asklepieionat Epidauros,is dated
to 191nc, and recordsa grant of proxenia and enktesisto a man
whosenamemay safelybe restored,forreasonswhich will shortly
be apparent,as Archias:t2 I'Apyiav'Aoil"anfild.öou IIepyapr1v6v,
'Aox).antoü)
iegfareüovra | Ilepyapot, npf6$)evov t[ipev röv
'Enöauqfuvl 'Anlü").avoE
I xai 1eapoööxov toü xai roü
'Aoil"anlloü
öÄräv d.cp[i]öguotv ltoü 9eoü,äv önoir1oavaöllrou
oi nqöyovot änö rQlE nö)"eagäptbv xil,.1. A law of Pergamon
passedshortly afterthe endof the monarchyconfirmedthe right of
the family of ArchiasandAsklepiadesto hold the priesthood:t 3rfl,
piv iegaoüvr1vlrcü 'AoxAr1nnüxai röv äA)"av1eöv röv öv rtu |
'
Ao x)"r1
n Leio t [ öqupiv av elva t' Aoü.ryn t döou | rcü' A tpyi)ou xcti
'Aox),qnü.öou
töv änoyövov röy I eig äna[vr]a lrlöv yq6vov.
e On the eponymousoffice of prytanis in the Greek cities, see H. Swoboda,
Griechische Volksbeschlüsse(Leipzig, l89O), 88, n. l; Busolt, Griechische
Staatskunde(Handbuchder klass.Altertumswissenschaft,
IV. r., ed. 3, Munich,
1 9 2 0 ) , 5 0 4 - 5w, i t h h i s l i s t , 5 0 5 ,n . 2 ; M a g i e R
, o m a nR u l e , ü . 8 3 5 - 6 , n . 2 t . T h e
followinginstancesshouldbe addedto Magie'slist: Nasos,.fGxii. 2, 646(accounts
ofthe templeofAsklepiosdatedby successiveprytaneis);xol-opHoN
IvPr 57, tine 4; psoxere.OG/S ii.489, line l2 (imperial).A good exampleof the
administrativeconvenienceof such an institutionis providedby /G xii. 2, 74, =
Sy//.i 968 (Mytilene, third century),which recordsa list of agriculturalproduce,
divided year by year accordingto theprytanis in office.
to Cf. Beloch,Gr. Gesch.äi.22,240.
tt ii. 26. 8: 'AgXtaEö 'ApwraiXpou rö oup6d.vondopa |qpeüovt[ oi neqi röv
Ilivöaooy ia9tiE iv tr1 'Enöauptg. röv 9eöv önqydyeroig ll4pyapov. /vP 190is a
statue-base honouringa later memberof the samefamily. Seein generalOhlemutz,
Kulte. 123-5.
t2IG iv. |.2 60.
13IvP li.251. : Sv//.31007.
The City of Pergamon 163
This evidenceleavesthe supplementin the text from Epidauros
beyond doubt, and it emerges that the family of Archias and
Asklepiadesretained the priesthood from the fourth century to the
reignof Eumenes[I, in which the decreeof Epidauroswas passed,
on to the end of the dynasty,when the city of Pergamonconfirmed
once more the family's hereditaryrights.
That the Archias mentionedby Pausaniasis the sameman asthe
constitutional innovator at Pergamon seems beyond reasonable
doubt, althoughsomescholarshaveexpressedreservationsin this
regard.t4It will be seen,in particular, that there is a connection
between the introduction of a cult and the innovation of an
eponymousmagistracy.Theprytanis, at Pergamonaselsewherein
the fourth century and later, was an office of prestige but little
executivepower.rslts introductionmay be seenas an administra-
tive reform, enablingthe more accurateand convenientrecording
and dating of public documents.It was also an offrce of religious
significance,as is clear from evidencefrom Teos dating from the
secondcentury, when the city was tributary to the Attalids. Here
theprytanis is listed in a sacralinscription,after the priest of the
joint cult of Aphrodite and Apollonis and the priesthood of
Eumenes'queenStratonike,as takingpart in sacrifices.r6At Mag-
nesiaand Prienein the third century it appearsat first sightthat the
principal eponymous magistrate was called prytanis and later
stephanephoros;in fact, it is probable that the new name was
simply a title addedto the privilegesand functionsof theprytanis,
thus supplantingthe old name, which does however recur, at
Priene at least.rT At Chios, we find the title np0ravt'g ö
oreqavqcpdpogspecificallyattested,rEand it is clear from all this
f a Ohlemutz,for example(Kulte, 125),seemsto me too sceptical.
asattestedby r5As shown by Corradi, Studi Ellenistici, 349fr.
t6OGIS 309 as revisedby L. Robert. Et. anat.9-20; see above, 150.
I 7 Cf. Busolt,Gr. St aatskunde,499. IvM 5, adecreeofc. 250for the Macedonian
Archelaos,is datedby theprytanis; a stephanephoros first appearsin IvM 7D. At
Priene,where datingbyaprytanrswasusualin the fourth century(cf.IvPr 139),the
changecan be dated to about 334: the well-known decreehonouringAntigonos
Monophthalmos(IvPr 2,: Sy//.3278)refersto aprytanis, whereaslvPr3, a decree
for Megabyzosof Ephesospassedshortly afterwards,hasstephanephoros.It is
noteworthy,however,that the litleprytanis probablyreappearsin a laterdecreeof
hiene: lvPr 73 (secondcentury; dating-formulapartly restoredbut probable)'
I t J. Vanseveren,Rev.Phil. xi ( 1937),337,no. 10.Cf. Magie,Roman Rule, li.
8 t 7 ,n . 2 3 .
t64 The City of Pergamon
evidencethat during the fourth and third centuriesthe office ac-
quired a greatly increasedimportance,not least in religiouslife.
At Pergamon,the sacralsignificanceof the office ofprytanis is
againclear from prescriptsof decreesof the late Attalid and early
Roman periods, which are sometimesdated ini nquraveag xal
feptaE [name]. 1eThere is then good reasonto associatethe intro-
ductionof the office of prytanis, and the introductionof the cult of
Asklepios, both implementedearly in the fourth century by Ar-
chias, with each other. It is the first evidencewe have of the
advancementof civic and religiouslife at Pergamon;this, and the
importance of the city in the cult of Meter at Mamurt-Kaleh,
referredto in a previouschapter(above, 15-16),show clearly that
Pergamonwas already a city of cultural and political maturity
before the arrival of the dynasts.
Significantly,the position and prestigeof the prytanis, as we
haveso far definedthem, do not seemto havebeenchangedunder
the Attalids. Few documentsof the royal periodrefer to this office,
but there are enoughto show that it survived in much the same
form. The treaty with Temnoshasalreadybeenmentioned.To this
we may add a letter written by EumenesII to the samecity, extant
only in small and insubstantialfragments,but whose headingis
almost completely preserved:2oEni npurd.vtog'Hpaü'eiöou rcü
'Eptrtay6gou,
pltIvöE- - ll6aot),tüg EöptvrtET4pvtrtir tfit floulfit
xai [röL öfipat yaipew]. At a later date, as we have noticed, the
style became,at leastin civic decrees,ini npwäveory xai iep6aE.
It is noteworthy that a royal letter should be dated by a civic
magistracy,a point which will be taken up later in this chapter.2t
Here it is enoughto demonstratethe survival of the offrce in the old
form.
The evidence concerning the prytanis shows, then, that this
office continuedto function largelyunchangedunderthe Attalids,
reAM xxxüi (1908),375,no. I (Attaloslll);AM xxv (1910),401, no. I (early
Roman).An interestingparallelto this identificationof priest andpryranlsis to be
found in a late second-centurydecree of Bargylia, which provides that the
stephanephorosappointedshallbethepriestofApollo(Holleaux,Etudes, ii. lB0A,
linesT-8,önaE xa|' Exaotovtwautöv xa1ior1ltar meEav4q6poEö iepaoiptvoE
'An6).J.avog:
toü cf. Holleaux, ad loc., l8l-2).
20IvP 157,: Welles,RC 48.
" Seebelow, 175-6.
The City of Pergamon 165
and affordsa clearindicationthat the civil processesof law-making
were, at least as regards form, unaltered. Turning to the Per-
gamenestrategoi, we see the same phenomenon,but with an
important difference,which characterizesmore sharply dynastic
policy in regard to the city's administration.
ThestrategoJwas, ofcourse, an office ofgreater substanceand
power.22We havealreadyfound reasonto believethat it existedas
such before the Attalid period, when its most important function
was the submissionof motions for discussionto the ekklesia and
boule. Throughout the Attalid pe.riodthis remained its cardinal
power; all the extant decreesof the Attalid city are, with a single
exception, introduced with the formula yv(bpqorparrlyöv, or an
equivalent,and the body of survivingmaterialis sufücientlycopi-
ous and chronologicallyrepresentativeto renderthis fact ofgrea-
ter significancethan the mere chance of survival.23The view,
expressedwith reservationsby Cardinali, that individualscould
put motions to the ekklesiathrough the formal mediationof the
strategoi, was basedon a doubtful restorationof a fragmentary
decreewhich has since proved to be wrong.24It emergesclearly
that the strategoi, as a body, alone had the right to introduce
22On the powers of the stategoi at Pergamon,see Cardinali,RP 244-45; G.
Conadi, StudiEllenistici,34Tff.; Bengtson,Strat. ä.23240.Magie,Roman Rule,
ii. 1006-7,n. 47 givesa list of other cities with the sameofüce, to which shouldbe
addedSmyrna (OGIS 229,line l) and Priene(OGIS ll, = IvPr 14,line 2).
23A list of the extant decreesof Pergamondatableto the Attalid periodmay be
useful at this point (texts which are too fragmentary to be fully ofuse are marked
with asterisks):IvP 5 (OGIS 265:StV iii. 555,early third century); l8 (OGIS 267,
II); 156;l6lx; l62a;166';167 (OGIS299,Eumenesll);224(OGIS323,AttalosII);
249(OGIS 338,shortly after the deathofAttaloslll):AM xxxiii (1908),375,no. I
and 379,no. 2 (Attalos III). In the fragmentarydecreesit is not alwayspossibleto
identify the prescripts,despitethe misfoundedoptimismof Hansen,Attalids,188,
n. 143:'althoughthe formulayv6pq otpaqyay is not extantin 1IvP1nos. 156,162,
and 166,it can be restoredwith certaintyin thesedecrees.'For the classificationof
Pergamenedecrees,seeH. Swoboda,Rh. Mus. xlvi (1891),497-510t Cardinali,
RP 244-58. OnIvP 18, which does not have the formulaTvöp4 orpat1yöv, see
below,n. 25.
2aIvP ü.260, ofthe early Romanperiod,wasrestoredby Cardinali,RP256-8, to
read:eioavyttTönafv uitv öüvay. yvtiprl oqaqyör,. ööo{e löt öfipot xü. ltis
more likely, however, that the supplementrequired in this inscription is that
suggested by Fränkel,attestedby a decreepublishedshortlyafter Cardinaliwrote,
AM xxä (1907),257 ,no.8 (a),col. ä,line 44:eioayyeüdvtav töy otpatqyöv eigrlv
6outrli1v)xai töv ötipov, xr),. See on this point G. Corradi, Studi Ellenistici,
364,n. 4.
166 The City of Pergamon
businessto the boule andekklesiq,a fact of specialsignificancein
that the dynast, at leastfrom the time of EumenesI, assumedthe
right of appointing the strategoi, as we learn from a much dis-
cussedinscription recording a letter of Eumenes to the people
of Pergamonand the city's answeringdecree. In the letter the
diplomaticforms of respectare maintained,but the dynast'seffec-
tive control of the constitution is clear:2s
[Eumenes sonof Philetairos] sendsgreetings [to the peopleof Perga-
monl.Thestrategoi[appointed in theyearof N.'s priesthood, Palaman-
dros,Skymnos, Metrodoros, Theotimos, Philliskos,haveclearlylfulfilled
andtheiradministra-
ofj theirofTice[with distinction],
all theobligations
tion26has beenajust one. For their own partz7they haveattendedto the
entire civil and sacredfunds in a way beneficialto the people and the
gods.28They have even looked into deficienciesleft by their predeces-
sors,2esparednone of thoseguilty of misappropriation,and restoredthe
money due to the city. They have also been responsiblefor the mainte-
nanceofthe sacredofferings.Their organizationhasbeenso efficientthat
their successorswill be able to take over affairswithout difficulty if they
follow their example.
We think it right, then, that due recognitionshould be given to such
distinguishedservice,30 in the hope that thosenext appointed3twill try to
give fitting leadershipto the people in their turn. We have already ar-
rangedthat they receivecrownsat the Panathenaia, andhavenow decided
2sIvP 18,: OGIS267;Welles, RC 23 (Eumenes' letteronly).Thecity'sanswer-
ingdecreeis theonly extantexampleintroduced by a privateindividual,
but the
explanationof Cardinali(RP 252-3; cf. Bengtson,Strat. ä.233), that the special
circumstancesarisingfrom honouringthe strategoi necessitatedan exceptional
procedure,is usually followed and seemsto me satisfactory.I cannot accept
Swoboda'sview(Rft. Mus.xlvi(1891),498-9)thatdirectrecoursetotheekklesia
was possible as a regular procedure alternative to proposals of the strategoi,
becausethis view is basedon lvP 18alone, which for reasonsconsideredabove
hardly constitutessubstantialevidence.
26This translatestöv rc yälpl . . . fulöv ncnoAheuwar ömaiag. The supplement
requiredat the beginningof line 5 is not immediatelyclear.Fränkel'ssuggestionof a
partitivegenitive,e.g.röv rc yd.[pI iepav xai t(ovnohrwöu ntiwa pliv xzl., is, as
Dittenbergernoted, hardly a satisfactorycomplementto the verb nolnetia.
27
[ölq' aötöv.
28I follow here the supplements of Ad. Wilhelm , Neue Beitr. v ( 1932),5: lxai oü
pövov nd.oaE dE t1qE,nöLeo4 xai täg iepäg nqooööouE | 1räE oöoaE E1q' aÜtöu
aixovoprixaor oupgepöwag xbr öripaL xai | [to]tE 9eoiE xü".
zr (sontinuing from previous note) dA,lä xo'i tä napa).eleryptva önö töv rqörc-
pov d.q76iav &val1trioavteE. For d.pTtiov in this sense, see Dttenberger, ad loc.,
n. 5.
30p)1 ö).ryapciv röv oüntg önrcratoüwatv.
3toi petd taüta öemvüpavor: a tactful way ofreferring to a further dynastic
appointment. See Cardinali, cited above, n. 25.
The City of Pergamon t67
to write to you on the matter,with the intentionthat you discussit and
bestowthe honoursyou think appropriate.
This letter points directly to the key positionheld by the strategoi
in the relationsbetweenthe dynastsandthe city at an early stageof
their association. As important, surely, as the fact that the
strqtegoi were appointedby the dynast, on which all commen-
tators have dwelt,rzis the placeof the dynastin relationto the city
as reflectedin the servicesof the strategoicited in the letter; most
important is the considerationthat Eumenestook a personalin-
itiative, through his appointmentof the rtra tegoi, in implementing
the necessaryreformsand correctionof abusesin the administra-
tion, and at the sametime, that he was able to manipulateexisting
constitutionalforms, without changingthem, to his own advan-
tage. This is surely a measureof the independenceachievedby
Eumenesafter the battle at Sardis.
We see also that the dynasts (the sameis true of Philetairos)
stood outsideand apart from the constitution.The full headingof
Eumenes' letter is not preserved,but its restorationis certain:
Eumeneswas writing as any Hellenisticmonarchwould write to a
Greek city. The demos replies with a decree of its own duly
commendingthe board of strategoi. Thus the distinctionbetween
royal and civil decisionsis clear, and the machineryis evidently
allowedto operateas in any similarly constitutedGreekcity, once
activated by the dynast's request.
We have seen that a corner-stoneof the Attalids' policy in
relation to their kingdom was their concern to keep a personal
control, in one form or another, over finance, an issue that was
alwaysdearto theirhearts.33 At Pergamon, an importantconsequ-
ence of the situation just described was that the dynast, who
appointed the tamiai and the strategoi, was able to maintain a very
much firmer control over the financial administrationof the city
than would otherwisehave beenpossible,given the separatecon-
stitutionalstatusof the city's administration.3a The importanceof
32SeeWelles,RC 23, ad loc.; Bengtson,Stat. ä. 232-3.
33Seeabove, l(D.
3aThis importantpoint was first emphasizedby Cardinali,'L' amministrazione
finanziariadel comunedi Pergamo',Mem. Accad. Bologna, x (1915-16)181-93;
cf. Bengtson,Strat. ä. 234-6.The tamiai werealsoroyal appointments(OGIS 267,
lines 33-4): oi tapiat oi xaltwtöpevor, lsiclxal Evtautöv.
168 The City of Pergamon
the strategoi in this aspect of the administration at Pergamonis
well attestedthroughoutthe Attalid period.Eumenes'letter to the
city refers,aswe have seen,to specificfinancialresponsibilities:35
fxai oö trtövovnäoaE rd.grl1E n6)"eaExai rdg iegd.EnpooööougI
epövr a Et ö t öripo t xai
[r d Eoüoa Eö]cp'aür ö v ö m ovopfixa o t outrtcp
I ltoliE \eoig, ä)J.d xai rd naqalü"etp1t4va önö röv npörepov I
&.q11etotv dvalrpjoaweg xo,i oö|evöE röv xarcoyr1xörav I tt
Eercd.pevot dnoxaüor4oav tfiL nö)'et.The fact that the strategoi
were also presidents of the Pergamerreboule and ekklesia (nQot-
orao\aL roü örjtrtou)thereforecorresponds,in this respect,with
practice in other Greek cities, where financewas largely the re-
sponsibilityof the boule.36The separationof secularand sacred
funds is not an unusualfeature of financial administrationin the
Hellenisticperiod,37and we will seelater that a measureof reform
was introducedat Pergamonin this regard,probably in or shortly
after 188,whereby the increasedburden carried by the strateSot
was alleviated by the institution of new and important offrcials
appointedby the king.
The decree answeringEumenes' letter provides evidence of
anotherdevelopmentin relationsbetweenthe dynastand the city.
Here, a city festival honouringthe dynast, and a sacrificeon his
behalf, are attested;amongthe honours voted to the strategoi is
the provision:öööraoav öi aörcig äeio[ tapiat oi xalrLord'pevot
xar' övtauröv iv tolg Eöpeueiorynq66atov, oi öä | )'apddvovreE
7utronav Eüpivu eöepy&r1uEumenesis accordinglyhonoured
by the city asa benefactor,perhapsin part on accountofhis reform
of the administration.No direct cult is implied, but the provisions
indicate a firm and well-based relationship between city and
dynast.
It is evident,then, that althoughno constitutionaltitle is attested
for either of the first two dynasts, Eumenesexerciseda much
tighter control over the Pergameneconstitution than Philetairos
had done, while allowing it, at least to outward appearances,to
functionasbefore.We can say,in fact, that the positionevolvedby
3sOGIS 267, lines 6-10, as restoredby Wilhelm (seeabove, n. 28).
36H. Francotte,Les Financesdes citösgrecques(1909), l3l ff., esp. 137-9;
Jones,Greek City, 241.
3?Cf. Cardinali,art. cit. (n. 34), 182,n. 4; G. Corradi,Studi Ellenisticr'383-4.
The City of Pergamon r69
Eumenesremained the basis of dynastic relations with the city
until the end of Attalid rule. There is little sign of any significant
changein the positionunder Attalos I in constitutionalterms,even
after his assumptionof the royal title, althoughthe lack of any
extant correspondencebetween Attalos and the city precludes
certainty on the point.
Thereare however signs that after his assumptionof the royal
title, Attalos' relationswith Pergamondevelopedin the contextof
the city's religious life. Significantin this respectis the form of
Attalos' reply in c.20615to Magnesiaacceptingthe city's request
for recognitionof its festivalfor Artemis Leukophryene,which we
havediscussedin a previouschapter.3E Attalos repliesfor himself,
as king, and, indirectly, for the cities under him (ön' öpbnökry).
This kind of directive to subjector dependentGreek cities in the
matter of recognitionof asylia is attestedalso for the Antigonids
(Antigonos Gonatas, Philip V), and the Seleukids (Antiochos
III;.rr 1n Attalos' letter, however, the city of Pergamonseemsto
be distinguished,in the last surviving line of the text, from the
subjectcities:za[) Ilqyapq?llvoiE ööxa9' öoov ö örtpoEfahetrar.I
ouvaluSrloatröv äydtva- - -. This restoration,althoughquestioned
by Welles,seemsto me very plausible.ao If it is correct,it indicates
that the kingdom continued to consist of the three elements
evolvedunderEumenesI: the dynast,now king, the city of Perga-
mon, and the subject cities.arThe allied cities such as Teos and
Kolophon, and, in the Troad, Alexandria Troas. Ilion. and
t8 IvM 22, : OGIS 282; Welles, RC 34; see above, 45.
3eHerzog and Klaffenbach, Asylieurkunden aus Kos (Abh. Berlin, 1952), no. 6
(Amphipolis replying to Kos, 242), 13-14: eivar öi xai ü telpöv äou\ov, xct9tiztp
'AvtiyovoE
xai ö 6aotleüE npoatpehaL. IvM 47,: Sy/l.3 561 (Chalkis replying to
Magnesia, 206/5 ), l-3: lnepi ötv ö 61aoLküE <bil,tlnwoElöyqatrl)elv tfi t 6ou).qLxlai
töLl örjpltotl nepi lMlaywilrov rritv ini MaLävöpat. IvM 18, : OGIS 231 (An-
tiochos III replying to Magnesia, 20615),25-8: yeypd.gapev öi xai I toiE itti töv
npaypdtau rctayp6vo6, | önog xai ai n6le4 ä.xoAoü0oryd.rolö6$otrar.
a 0W e l l e s , R C a d l o c . . I 5 0 - l . A d . W i l h e l m . O J h i v ( l 9 0 l ) . B e i b l a t t , 2 7 , n . 6 , r e a d
a lambda at the beginning of line 22 and restored xali iv toiE ä7llro6.
ar On the question of the 'subject' cities, so-called, I ask the reader to bear in mind
the qualifications expressed above in chapters 2 and 3, eslecially in relation to the
reference in OG.IS 266 (Sty iii. 481), line 37: iriv tt. napa)"d.6otnap' aürcü, fi ü),w fi
qpoül[pLovl zr1. Ghione's attempt (Mem. Accad. Torino, lv (1905), 67-149) to
show that Pergamon shared the subject status of other cities is not indicated or
borne out by the evidence, when examined thoroughly.
170 The City of Pergamon
Lampsakos,lay outsidethe scopeof Attalos' letter.
The advanced status of Pergamonunder Attalos I is reflected
also in the importance attachedto the city's god, Athena, who was
alsoAttalos' own patrongoddess.The PergamenePanathenaia are
attestedalreadyunder EumenesI,42but it wasunderAttalos I that
Athena was elevatedto the sublimeposition which found its final
fulfilment after the Treaty of Apameia.The templeof Athenain the
city was enlargedand partly rebuilt to contain the spoils dedicated
to the goddessafter Attalos' successionof military victories.a3On
Attalos' coins Athena appearsas the bringer of victory,aaand an
important festival, probably the forerunner of the later Nikephoria
althoughnot yet calledby that name,was foundedduringthe 220s
as a further recognition of the special devotion of Attalos to
Athena, his god, and the goddessof Pergamon.a5 In this evidence
we havea clearsignof the developmentof a relationshipbetweena
king and his capital.
As a resultof the Treaty of Apameia,which createdthe first true
Attalid Kingdom, Pergamonbecamea royal residenceof greatly
enhancedfame and prestige,and it is interestingto examinefirstly
what changes,in practicalterms, were madein the city's administ-
ration,which mustobviouslyhavehadmuchmorework to do after
188,and, secondly,the ways in which the relationsbetweenking
and city were developed,and in which directions.
It causesno surprisethat after 188the evidencerelatingto civic
institutionsand administrationbecomesmuch more copious,and
our conclusionsbecome in many important respectsmore sub-
stantial. We find, in the first place, a range of new officrals not
encounteredbefore 188,and thesecollectivelypoint to a reform in
the administrationwhich we may reasonablyrelate to develop-
ments after the Treaty of Apameia. They also indicate a further
measureof royal control over the city's affairs.
Of prime importance as evidence in this respect is the As-
tynomic Law, an inscriptionfrom Pergamonfirst publishedby W.
a2 In Eumenes' letter, and in the city's answering decree (OGIS 267, see above) it
is provided (lines 17, 3l-2) that the five stategoi receive their crowns il rci6
II ava04vaio6. See further above, 122.
a 3S e e a b o v e , c h . 4 ( i i i ) .
a aM v P ä . 6 : O h l e m u t z , K u l t e , 3 4 - 5 a sS e e a b o v e , c h . 4 ( i i i )
The City of Pergamon l7l
Kolbe in 1902,and re-editedby G. Klaffenbachin 1954.a6 This law,
as we have it, is almost certainly a copy of the time of Trajan or
Hadrian of an Attalid law concernedwith the upkeepon the part of
the relativelyinsignificantastynomoiofthe streetsandbuildingsof
the city.47Its reinscriptionis typical of the Romanimperialmethod
of addingweight to its laws by invoking precedentsfrom the past,
in this casea royal law, a6aoü'r,xögvöpoE.a8 The originallaw dates
from a time when the city was fully developed,that is, during the
reign of EumenesII or possibly Attalos II or III - in any event
after the Treaty of Apameia- and providesthe best evidencewe
have of the institutions and workings of the civil administration
after 188.
The office which emergesfrom this text as having the greatest
authority is, as we would expect,that of the strategoi,but someof
the powersthat at an earlierdatethey enjoyedalonenow appearto
be shared.For example,responsibilityforenforcingthe astynomic
law as a whole is sharedwith the vopocpü).axeg and the äoruvöpo4
and the ultimate responsibilityin this carefully structuredhierar-
chy restswith the strategoiand an ofücial attestedspecificallyfor
Pergamononly by this inscription,<i3a) rfiEnü"eag [n a passage
dealingwith certain duties of the d.trtcpoöö.ppt, officials responsi-
ble for sectionsof the city, it is providedthat theseofficialsshould
be frned by the astynomoi for any failure in their duties, and the
money be depositedmonthly in a separateaccountsupervisedby
the tamiai. The text then continues:'if they (theastynomoi)fail to
implement any of these provisions, they shall be fined fifty
drachmaifor each infringementby the strategoi and the öni qE
nötrea4.'aeThe expressionused here puts the two offices on an
evidently equal footing: lq1trctlo9aoav önö röv orpaullybv xai
c e W . K o l b e , A M x x v ä ( 1 9 0 2 ) ,4 7 , n o . 7 1 , = O G I S ü . 4 8 3 , w i t h a d d e n d a , p p .
55 l-2; G. Klaffenbach, Die Astynomeninschrift von Pergamon. All three editions
have extensive commentaries. The lineation given in the following notes follows
Klaffenbach's edition; I use the prefix 'Kla.'.
a? For the oftice ofastynomos see Busolt, Gr. Staatskunde, 492-3.
at On the date of the extant text of the astynomic law, and its relevance to Roman
rule, see the full treatment of Klaffenbach, l9-25; J. H. Oliver, AJPlr lxxii ( 195I ),
200 and Hesperia, xxiv (1955), 88-92; P. M. Fraser, JIIS lxxvi (1956), 138-9.
ae Kla.67-7O:
lidlv 66 tr, pi1 noLfioaow oörot röv yeypaplpör,ot, lrlproto9aoav
önö töv mqatqlyöu xai toü ini tfiE nö7eag xa9' Exaorov I dtäxt1pa öpaXpaIE
ntvt4xovttt.
l'72 The CitY of Pergamon
rcü öni rfiE n67eaE;the term ö Bni rr15n6)"eagis, furthermore,
attestedelsewherein the Hellenisticworld, especiallyin Egypt,of
civic officials appointedby a king and, as the name suggests,it
representsa senioroffice, often the most seniorin the administra-
tion.s0Evidently then, at sometime during the reign of Eumenes
II, and most probably after the Treaty of Apameia, the stategoi
were madeto sharesomeof their powersin the civil administration
with a royally appointed öwiu1En6),eo4,who was at least their
equal.
The tamiai mentionedin the Astynomic Law call for no com-
ment, being the usualfinancialofficials; they are attestedearly in
the Attalid periodas appointeesof EumenesI.sr More noteworthy
is the appearanceof anotherroyal appointment,ö äni röv [epöv
nqooöörov,againon termsof evidentequalitywith thestrategoi.A
sectionof the law dealingwith the city's springslays down that
'in
their upkeepshallbe the responsibilityof the astynomoi,but the
event of any necessaryrepairs, they shall report to the strategoi
and the ini töv iep6v npooööav, who will make the necessary
arrangements.'s2 The involvementof sacredfunds in the mainte-
nanceof springsmay be explainedby their religioussignificance,
as they were often dedicatedto specificdeities.s3Of interesthere
is the fact that the authority of the stategoi againappearsto be
sharedby an official holdinga specificroyal appointment,the ini
50Most notableis the office of 6 öniqE nö7eo4at Ptolemaisand Alexandria(cf.
Bengtson,Srral. iii. I 28-33 ; P. M. Fraser,Ptol. AIex. 106,with furtherdiscussion,
ii. 194,n. 99) and in cyprus (srrar. iii. 148)and the cities of cyrenaica (,strar.iii.
164).The evidenceis exhaustivelytreatedby Bengtson,and I neednot cite it all in
detailhere.Theofficeis not foundin a technicalsensein the SeleukidandAntigonid
kingdoms,but it appearsin a decreeofthe cappadociancity ofAnisa: Michel 546,
re-editedby F. Cumont,REÄ xxxiv (1932),135ff'; cf. Rostovtzeff,SEHHW üi'
1533,n. 120;Bengtson,Strat.ä.253-4; althoughits date is uncertain'it seems
likely that the constitutionimpliedin this decree,includingroyal appointment,is
essentiallyHellenistic.
st Seeabove, 167and n. 34.
52Kta. 176-180: 6är | öi rw<t>E önnx[e]u4E npooö6owa6 npooaylyel'
),6taoav rctE otparqyotE xai töt ini I röv iepöv npoo6öav, önag ötd totitav
yeilvottrat ai öxööoetE.
5r The separationof civic and sacredfundsin Hellenisticcitiesis not uncommon;
we have met it in the decreefrom Bursa (post-Apameia)honouringKorrhagos
(above,8&-9; cf. Holleaux,Etudes,ii. 94), and we have seenthat expensesfor a
sacrifice to Attalos III were to be met 1tl iepöv xali noAumöv nQooööotv(oGIS
332,line 41, a soundsuPPlement).
The City of Pergamon 173
röv [epdtv npooööotv correspondingto the Bni rrlg n6).ea4. It
seemsclear that, in this respect too, work'once done by the
strategoi alone was later made a joint responsibilitywith another
royal nominee.s4In Eumenes' letter to Pergamonthe strategoi
appearto have completeauthority in respectof sacredfinances;
the omission of a referenceto another office would be under-
standableif it were a subordinateone, sincethe letter is concerned
with praisingthestrategoiand naturallydwellson their achieve-
ments;since,however,this considerationwould not apply to an
office entitledö ini röv fegöv npooööav, we must concludethat
during the rule of EumenesI it did not exist.
I may adduce also in this connection a rarely discussedPer-
gameneinscriptionrecordinga royal letter aboutthe establishment
ofa priesthood,probablyofZeus.ssThe sacredfundsare, accord-
ing to this letter, in the hands of the temple's priests, and no
mention is made of an ia) rrlrt [tpdtv nqooööav. Admittedly the
text dealswith a specificpriesthood,and not the sacredfinancesas
a whole, but the omissionof an ofüce of suchimportanceis surely
significant.The dating of this inscription is problematical.The
text, which is now in the PergamonMuseumin Berlin (vidi August
1969),is invariablyassigned,on the basisof the letter-forms,to the
reignof Attalos I;s6this is very probablyincorrect. Many of these
forms indicatethe first half of the secondcentury rather than the
third century. Alpha appears,as often at Pergamon,in a numberof
forms and is thereforenot a reliableguide.The omicron and theta
are fairly large,occupyingmost of the line, and all the other letters
are well developed, especiallysigma and omega. Pi, with well
pronouncedapices,is a clear second-centuryform; it is not found
againin this form in any Pergameneinscriptionattributableto the
reign of Attalos I. There seemsto me, on this evidence,to be a
strongprobability that the author of this letter is EumenesII, and
that it was written in the early part of his reign. This dating
indicatesthat the reform of the sacredfinances,and with it the
5 aS e e C a r d i n a l i , a r t . c i t . ( n . 3 4 ) , 1 9 0 - 1 .
ssIvP 40, : .Sy/l.r l0l8 (Hiller); Welles, RC 24;
Sokolowski, Zors sauöes de
I'Asie Mineure, ll.
56 So Fränkel, followed by Hiller and Welles; Paepcke,
de perg. /ir. l3; Ohle-
mutz, Kulte, 65 ('aus dem Anfang der Regierungszeit Attalos I').
174 The City of Pergamon
establishmentof the offrce of d öni tdtrt iepöv npooööarr,as well
perhaps as other new royal appointments, were implemented
shortly after the Treaty of Apameiain 188.Therecanbe little doubt
that the strategoi remainedofficials of importancein all branches
of the civil administration,but it is not surprisingthat with the
dramaticadvancementof the statusof Pergamonin 188,additional
appointmentswere required to carry the burden of increased
business.
As is well known, Pergamon*uJ,run.ro.med duringthe l80s to a
city of monumentalgreatness,whosewealth, beauty, and culture
might, it was hoped,recall the days of classicalAthens, and rival
the claimsof contemporaryAlexandria.It can be saidof Eumenes
that he was a builder of great buildings,while Attalos had beena
builder of greatmonuments.5? His aspirationsfor the city are best
characterizedby the introductionof Athena Parthenosto standin
the Library at Pergamon,and by his dedication of the rebuilt
'A?7vd.t
precinct of Athena:sEBaot)cüE Eöptvrlg Ntxryqöpau
The specialstatusof the city of Pergamonin the kings' regardis
reflectedin a numberof documentsdatingfrom the fifty yearsor so
from the Treaty of Apameiato the deathof Attalos III. Pergamon
was, as we haveseen,with Teos one of the two centresof the royal
cult, and the worship at Pergamonof Dionysos Kathegemonwas
formally linked with the activities of the Dionysian technitqi at
Teos. This has alreadybeen discussed,and I need not repeatthe
evidencehere.seIt is enoughto draw attentionagainto the fact that
the strongestbond betweendynast and city, especiallyafter 188,
was formed by thesecult activities.Also important in this respect
is a letter of Attalos III to the demosof Pergamon,informingit of
his decisionto appoint his cousin Athenaiosto the priesthoodof
Sabazios.6o The letter is dated 5 October 135'and was evidently
written shortly after the death of Attalos' mother, Queen
Stratonike, who had brought the cult of Sabaziosto Pergamon
57Cf. Kähler, Gr. Fries, 142.
s8Ivp 149:cf . Avp ii. 52; Kähler, Gr. Fries, 137_8.
5eSee above, 14E-52.
6 0 O G I S3 3 1 ,I V , = W e l l e sR
, C 67.
The City of Pergamon 175
from Cappadocia.6tAs a result of an epiphanyof the god, as we
learnfrom Attalos' letter, it was decidedto enshrineSabazioswith
Athena Nikephoros, and the requestwas formally made that the
city'register theprostagmqtain its sacredlaws':62xptvopevöÄ.
taülta, önaE äv eiE röv änavra yp6vov dxivqta xai äperd.1era
p6vqt,tä rc npöE | üv )eöv ripm xai rä npöE üv 'A9rivarcp
qü.dv9gona, td. ypacp|vra öq' üpöt, I npooräypata Evroig itgoiE
vöporyq6peo0atnap' öpiv. At the top of the stelerecordingthis
and other royal letterson the subjectofAthenaios' priesthoods,is
preservedthe end of a decreeof the city, which enactsthis enrol-
ment in the sacredlaws:63liyypällrlat (sic:vidi)öb xai eiEfro)üfE
ilepoüg v6povE [roöE rq)g nö)"eaE [r]6ö[t rö11rp(cprcpaxai
ypqo9ar aör6r vöpot xuqiox eiEänawa röy ypövov. This legisla-
tive process,by which a royal wish becamecivic law (in this case
sacredlaw), appearsthen to have consistedof threeelements:the
royalprostagma, the city's decreeembodyingtheprostagma,and
the enrolment in the city's laws. The last two elementsare, of
course,thoseof a nominallyand apparentlyindependentcity, and
we find them implementedat Pergamonalsoin respectof the city's
own legislation. The decree referred to earlier in this chapter,
concerningthe priesthoodof Asklepios,and passedshortly after
the death of Attalos III, concludeswith a correspondingprovi-
sion:64öyygdEat öi xai tiE rcüg vöpouE| 1roüErlrlg nü,eory rö
tprjqtoparööe,xai lggpfio)aloav aür6t vöpar xupiax eiEänavra
röv ypövov.
Theseexamplessuggestthat, with or without the initiative of a
royal prostagma, the legislativeprocessremainedthe same,and
that the independentconstitutionalfunctionsof the city continued
to be respected.The distinctionbetweenthe city's laws,vöpottfig
nö),oaE,and royal law,6aot),txöguö1toE, is further emphasizedby
the evidenceof the Astynomic Law, which is a clear exampleof
the latter. Of interestalso is the letter of Eumenes[I to the city of
Temnos(noticedbriefly above),which is prefaced,unusuallyfor a
royaf letter, with the date of the eponymousprytanis.6sOther
6I8SA lxvi (1971),9; cf. above, ch. 6, and below, Appendix iii.
62OGIS 331 IV, lines 57-60.
630G1S 331 I.
64Sy/l.r 1007; see above, 162.
6sIvP 157,: Welles, RC 48, quoted above, 164.
r76 The City of Pergamon The City of Pergamon 177

Attalid letters are dated, when they are dated at all, by the month MulooiEllxai totE ävaEegotrttvoLE öurdtt cpgougiarxai ftfiLn6AeL
and year of the king's reign, differing in this respect from the ullld.pyaiat xaroixorg xai Maoöur1voigxrA. Thesekatoikoi were
Seleukid practice of dating by a Seleukidera. There is a good surely not, as has been suggested,royal mercenariesin the usual
explanationthat suggestsitself of a copy of a royal letter bearinga sense,70but rather membersof the village communitiesaround
civic date: that this copy is of the civic, and not the royal, archive. Pergamonwho served,as well as Pergamenecitizens,in the army
In fact anarcheionis attestedat Pergamonby the Astynomic Law, as reorganizedby Attalos I. The distinction is clear, as we have
and it is most likely that it housed copies of royal letters and seen,in the lists of namesappendedto the honorary decreesof
prostagmata as well as copies of its own civil legislation'66This Lilaia dating from the time of the First MacedonianWar.71It is
fact is further evidenceof a strongly maintaineddistinction be- apparentfrom all this evidencethat citizenshipof Pergamonwas
tween the royal and civil bureaucracies. closely confined, and that many communitieswere kept outside
It remains,finally, to considerthe territorial extent of thejuris- full civic life until the drasticreorganizationof theserightsafterthe
diction exercisedby the civil administration.After the Treaty of deathof Attalos III.
Apameiathe administrationof the kingdomwas, as we have seen, The Attalids, then, wereconcernedto promotethe esteemof the
exclusively the concern of the royal administration,which was city of Pergamonin the Greek world. Its political freedom was
significantly developödto meet these new requirements.6T The clearly limited, especiallyafter 188,by the kings'powersof ap-
civil administration at Pergamon, which remained, according to pointing important officials, especiallythe strategoi and later the
the conclusionsreachedabove,entirely separate from the concept Eniu1En4AeaEandthe ini töv tep6v nqoo6öav, andby their issue
of the kingdom,was confinedto the city itself and the surrounding of royal prostagmata; but the fact that it retainedits own legisla-
country. We have seenfrom the evidenceof the ephebiclists that, tive and executive functions, its own body of laws and its own
apart from the citizens of Pergamonlisted with patronymic and archive, quite distinct from the royal chancery, shows, despite
tribe, and the l6voL listed with patronymic and ethnic, there are theserestrictions,that it wasregardedasa politicalentityin a class
thosedesignatedas beingänö r1ncov,which we haveconcludedto by itself, separatein concept from the Attalid Kingdom, and in
be villagesin the territory of the city, and thereforepresumably practicalterms from the royal administration,andconstitutionally
subjectto the city's authority.oaThe fact that they are listed self-dependent.Of greaterimportancethan theseoutward forms,
without tribal designationindicatesthat in the regal period they however,is the undeniablespecialfavour shownto the city by the
were not citizensof Pergamon;significantly,a group of katoikoi, kings,and rrowheremoreclearlythan in religiouslife: its godswere
villagers of the Pergamenechora, received citizenshipafter the ever more closelyidentifiedwith theirs, and royal and divine cults
death of Attalos III, accordingto the decreeconcernedwith the were subtly blended,the physicalglorificationof the city beingthe
extensionof theserights:6eröv orearw)töv roiS xa[roltxoüotu clearest outward expressionof this unique processof spiritual
Iri11tnö117ryxai rly Ttbqav, öpobE öi xai Maxeö6[olv xai union.
?oSo Dittenberger ad loc., n. 12l.milites mercennarii regis. ln n. 13 they are
66 Kla. 22'1-32: öoot ö' äv röv äoruvöpuv pi1 | 9övrat rilv ö9: fautbv yQoqiv
expläined as quos maxime ex ptrte Graetos fuisse probabile est, and are distin-
tritv cpptldrow tiE rö dpytlov ft pi1 nonioaoLv, xa9' I | ö vöpoq npomöoott,
guished from the Macedonians , coloni qui iam antiquitus in illis regionibus consed-
npalanaoav aütoüg of lvopoqü),axeE öpaXpiiE öxaröv xai xmalra$ätooav tiE
erant. I see no reason to regard the former category as mercenaries.
d . E a i r d . E n p o o ö ö o u E . O n t h i s a r c h e i o n c f . B e n g t s o n ,S t a t ' ü . 2 3 8 ; c o m p a r e t h e 7tCf. above, 33.
o r r h " i o n o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e sa t S e l e u k e i ai n P i e r e i a( H o l l e a u x , E r z d e s , i i i . 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 .
: Welles. RC 45 A, lines 22-5, with Holleaux's commentary ad loc., p.246).
67On the royal administration see above, ch. 4 (i) and (iv).
6 8S e e a b o v e , c h . 4 ( i ) .
tg IvP 249. : OGIS 338; /GR iv. 289, lines l3-16'
A P P E N D I CE S

,,.''"4\

o'* $"t- )
i *,rs"]{*y)
",-"/
4!€
 I
THE GENEALOGY OF THE ATTALIDS

The genealogyof the Attalids adoptedin this study, and arguedbelow, is

as follows:

ATTALOS m. Boa

PHILETAIROS EUMENES ATTALOS

EUMENES I PHILETAIROS ATTALOS

1263-2411
m. Antiochis
II
I
ATTALOSI
1241-'t971
m.Apollonis

Stratonikem. E U M E N E S
II ATTALOS II P H I L E T A I R O SA T H E N A I O S
(197-159) (159-138)
m.
Straton i ke
(159)

ATTALOS III
(born168) ,
(138-133)

The basisof our knowledgeof the Attalids' relationshipsto oneanother

is the narrative of Strabo, which also provides us with a framework of
Attalid chronology(seeabove,9-ll), xiii. 4. 1-2,6234.Here we are
given the following information (T[estimonia]l-6):
|. fioav ö' aörit (Philetairosthe Founder)öüo döt\cpoi,nprc1furyoEpiv
"Aua7oE.
EöptvqE, vec|rcpoEö'
2. ix pöv oöv Eüptvoug tytveto öpbvupoE rQ narpi Eöp6,uqE, öonep xai
örcö61arcü ll{pyapov xt7. 1: EumenesI).
'Auä7ou 'AvttoylöoE, 'Ayatoü, yeyovöE "AuaToE
3. Ex öö xai rnE
182 Appendix I Appendix 1 183

örcöllaro rfiv &pp1v,xai ävr1yope60r1 6aot)"eügnpörog xil. 1: 611u- Pausanias i.8.1: löxryoE. . . tDtTöratpov
llaqAayövatlXevtüvoiyov.
losl). 'AnoA)'avtöoEKuQxqv4E Athenaeus xiii. 5778(fromKarystiosof Pergamon); Qü&apot öi dv Iltpyti-
4. (Attalos l) xatfAmt öö ürrapaE uioüq iE pou xai tfig xar,vfiEraörqEleyopövqE6aoü.eüoavtayitpaE B6aEaü4qiöaE
" ilaipaq ü yöuoEdnö llag\ayoviaE uiöv q4ot yev6o0atKapümrcgöuioroprxoiE
y uvamöE,Eöptu4, Art aAov,1D tA&a pov,' A0 fiva t'ov.o I piv oöv vedttqo t
uJropvnpao.v.
örcrtAeoau iötötaq {ov ö' ä77av ö nprc6ütepog EüptvqE ß6aol,Leuot
(: EumenesII). IvP ii. 613 (OGIS 264,'ChronicaPergami').The text is too fragmentary to
'AnäLq, ytyovört restorein full, butthePaphlagonian sideofPhiletairos'parentage
isclearfromIines
5. (Eumenes ll) änöLmev uirit tilv äpyi1v öx
ZtparcvtxqE qE
'Aqnpd1ou
?uyaqöE roö Kannaööxon 6aoAtaE- 14-15:laör1 öi ouvorx1oaoa- - - - lv., Ilaq)'ayövt [rö y|vo5,ttexe - - - - ].
önftponov öö xar4orrloexai toü naööE v6outeAöaEöwoE xai tqE dpXis The main problemsconcerningAttalid genealogycan be groupedto-
"Ana7ov (:
öv d.öe).Eöv Attalos II). getherundertwo headings:I. the relationshipsof the early Attalids,down
'AndAtlt ( :
6. (Attalos Il) xar|Atrc öö d1v dpyilv rQ inrcgonn?|vrt to Attalos I; and II. the parentageof Attalos III. I list herethe remaining
Attalos III). testimonia(T7-36) relating to each heading,with a discussionof each
A genealogicaltree basedon this evidenceappearsas follows: group.
N. I. The Early Attalids.
7. P. M. Fraser,REAliv (1952),23345, nos. l(a), lO), 2, 3; Appendix
PHILETAIROS EUMENES ATTALOSm- Antiochis iv, no. l. Boiotian dedicationsof Philetairos:<DÄ6qpoE'And)"at[Iep-
I yapeüE.
8. Mamurt-Kaleh, p.10. Dedicationof Philetairosat the templeof Meter:
I
EUMENES ATTALOS I <DÄ&apoE'ArxiTou p1tpi ?eritrt.
m.Apollonis
9. Dedicationsof Philetairosat the temple of Apollo Chresteriosnear
'An6),7au 'Arrä7ou.
ll
m. EUMENES
Stratonike ATTALOS
ll PHILETAIROSATHENAIOS Aigai: (a) OGIS 312:. Xpr1m1giE | <Dü.&aqog
(b) G. E. Bean,Belleter?, xxx (1966),525-8,: J. and L. Robert,
'And)o 'AnöLLotvt
III
ATTALOS Bull. 1968, no. 446: [<Dü&aLQoEl | | I
Xprywrypftp| ü.v 2gtitpav| | d.v60rtxe| öE ai ordTlTat öpiolonr.
It has alwaysbeen assumedin studiesof Attalid genealogythat, when 10.OGIS 748.Recordof Philetairos'donationsto Kyzikos, headed:zdäe
'Attalos, the son of Attalos and Antiochis' (: T3 above)'
Strabospeaksof ööaxev <bd&aqoE I'Anä),ou tör örjpot.
he meansus to understandthe elder Attalos, the father of Attalos I, as ll. AM xxxv (1910),nos. 22-3. Dedicationof the templeof Demeterat
being the same man as.the brother of Philetairosmentionedearlier (: Pergamon:<DÄ6taqoExai Eöpiv1E önög qE WlrQöEBöag Afipqet.
Tl).4 Th's evidently was the inferencemade by Pausanias(i. 8. l): ri öä (Comparethe beginningof a similar dedicationof an altar, AM xxxvä
"AnaAoE'Auäüou piv naig öv, döelcpÄoügöö <Dt).etaiqov, tilv äpf1v (1912),282, no. 5; <DtT|rfaqos- - - -1. See Ohlemutz, Kulte, 204-5).
EitptvouEnapaööwoEöoytv ävaprcü. I havereproducedthis assumption 12.Petrakos,Arch. Ephem. Chronika, 1967,ll, no.ll, : J. and L.
herefor convinience,but it shouldbe realizedthat Strabois not specific Robert,Bull. 1968,no.282,: SEG xxiv. 356. Dedicationfrom the Am-
on the point, and that Pausanias'inferencehasno more validity than our phiareionat Oropos: iDütir a qo v I' Ar ü.7ou I Eüp 6vrlE | äöe7Eög I'A ptpLa-
own. '
sd.[al.
Strabo (xiii. 4. l) has nothing to say of Philetairos'parentagebeyond 13.IG xi.4. l106 (on the restoration, see below): Eöp{vqE lEöptvoul
calling him är,r)g TnvöE, 07L6iaEix naööE, but his Paphlagonianorigin <DÄ& aqov {ö.u d.öeAEövl.
on his mother's side is attestedelsewhere: I 4. Holleaux,Etudes, ii. 9- I 6 (fromREÄ 19l8), : p. p, Ip hes, äi. l. 432:
I The followingabbreviations 'Attä).ur,,
are usedof frequentlycited studiesof Attalid ld,qoi ööoxav fiDü.etalpar xai tdtr uiltitt
genealogy: xai röt aöclrgör lEöpiver llepyalpeöoot npof,eviav, xil,.
Dörpfeld : W. Dörpfeld,AM xxxv (1910),525-6. 15.Mamurt-Kaleh, p.38. Dedicationfrom the templeof Meter: Artü'oE
Cardinali, Mem. = G. Cardinali, Mem. della R. Accademia dell' Ist. di <DLLetaipoul'Avr tofiöa tlv yuvatxa.
Bologna, 1912-11, 177tr. 16.IG. xi. 4. 1108,: Choix, 52. Dedicationof Attalos I from Delos:
"Aaa)"og 'Avrt)oyöoE.
Cardinali, Rendiconto = G. Cardinali, Rendiconto dell' Accad. delle scienze di fBaoü'eügl | 1'AndJ,ou t]oü <DLLeratpou
I lxai
Bologna, l9l3-14, 37-41. l7 . AM xxxiii ( I 908),405,no. 34.Dedicationfrom Pergamon:(Dtl{raqoE
Preuner= E. Preuner,Hermes, lv (1920),3% ff. 'Aw67ou
I Eüp{vry röv uiÄv.
Meyer = Ernst Meyer, Klio, xix (1925\,46.2-71.
184 Appendix I Appendix I r85

18.AM xxxv (1910),463-5, no. 45:Eöpövqg(Dtletaipou l"Aud,ov töv
ui6v.
19.IG xi. 4. 1107,: Choix,33:.Eöptvqg Eöpövoulrcü <DÄeraigou
döü"Eoü | xai Zatügag tfiE llooeöotviou.
20. Diog. I-aert. iv. 6. 38:.Eöp{vqg ö rcü (Dt7*algou.
2L.IvP 13,: OGIS 266,: Styiii.48l. Treaty of EumenesI with the
mercenariesat Philetaireiaand Attaleia, lines l, 26,27,32,36,39, 434,
49: EüptvryE(Düuatqou. (Restoredin/vP 18, : OGIS 267,: RC 23,
line l.).
22. IvP 13 etc., lines 46-7: EöF6v4g'Arrd).ou.
23. P. M. Fraser,REA liv (l 952),235,no. 4 (a), : OGI S ti. 750;Appendix
iv, no. l(e): <DÄ&atpoEEöpivou.
From this evidence, the information derived from Strabo can be
supplementedas follows:
(i) The FounderPhiletairos wasthe sonof an Attalos.Holleauxreasoned conclu-
sively(Etudes,ii. l-16, two articlesfrom .REG 1902and REÄ l9l8) that the
Philetairos ofTT-I0 is theFounderandnottheyoungerbrotherofEumenesII; this
conclusionhasbeenconfirmedby furtherepigraphical evidence,especiallyT9 O)
andTl2.
(ii) Philetairosat one time adoptedAttalos, the father of the future Attalos I
(T14-16)andlateradoptedhis nephewEumenes (Tl7-lE, 20-l). In T20Meyer
amendedthe text to readEüptvqgö rcü <büeralpoudöilpöoüE; the text was
shownto beright,however, (cf. CardinaliRP13,
by theevidence ofthe adoption
n.3).
(iii) Themotherof Eumenes I wasSatyra,andherfatherwasPoseidonios (Tl9).
(iv)Twonames, otherwiseunattested in theirrespective forms(seebelowonT l3),
are suppliedby T22 and 23: Eumenesson of Attalos,and Philetairosson of
Eumenes. In thecaseofT23theabsence oftheroyaltitle, andtheletter-forms ofthe
inscription, discountan association with the laterking,Eumenes II.
(v) Eumenes I alsoadoptedhis successor, AttalosI Ol8).
The first difficulty concernsthe father of Attalos I. In their studiesof
Attalid genealogy(seen.1, above),Dörpfeld and Cardinali,followingthe
assumptionthat in Strabo's passagethe Attalos who is the father of
Attalos I (:T3) is the same as the brother of Philetairosthe Founder
(:Tl), posed the problem that accordingto the epigraphicalevidence
Philetairosadoptedthis Attalos (t15-16); Strabowas thereforein error
unlesswe are to believethat Philetairosadoptedhis own brother.2Ernst
Meyer advancedstrongchronologicalargumentsagainstthis possibility.3
Finally, the publication of T16, and then of Tl4, in which Attalos is
designatedthe son and Eumenesthe brother of Philetairos,confirmed,if
confirmationwere needed.that this Attalos could not be the brotherof the
Founder.a
2Cardinali,
Mem. l8l, n. 5; Holleaux,Etudes, ii. ll, n. 3;Meyer467.
3 Meyer466.If Philetairoswasbornabout343,hewillhavebeena littleoversixty
in 280,andnot'über70Jahre'as statedby Meyer.
aThe möst plausiblerestorationin line 3 of the inscriptionis rör döe),qöt
lEüpivttlxrl. (Holleaux, Etudes, ii. l3-14).OnTl6 (adedication of AttalosI on
Delos),whichsupportsCardinali's originalline of enquiry,seeCardinali, Ren-
diconto, 37 ff.
Cardinali's solution of the problem, later supported by T14, and fol-
lowed by Ernst Meyer, was to distinguish the father of Attalos I from the
brother of Philetairos, thus:
PHILETAIROS ATTALOS
ATTALOS
m. Antiochis
ATTALOSI
Straboand Pausaniashavetherefore, accordingto Cardinali, confusedthe
first two of the name Attalos as being one person.
Dtirpfeld suggested,on the other hand, that the Attalos of T15-16 was
not the adopted son of Philetairosthe Founder, but the sonzcrä qtiow of
another Philetairos,brother of the Attalos who was the father of Phil-
etairosthe Founder:
N.
ATTALOS PHILETAIROS
I
PHILETAIROS
I
ATTALOSm. Antiochis
(Founder)
ATTALOS I
This systemmakesAttalos, the father of Attalos I, a cousinof Philetairos
the Founder and not, as Strabo implies, a brother; thus, accordingto
Dörpfeld, Strabo(xiii. 4. 2) mistookrideAqögfor ifäöeLcpoE. Needlessto
say,the postulationofa secondPhiletairosis quite arbitraryandcannotbe
takenasa soundbasisfor understandingStrabo'serror, ifthere is an error.
Cardinali's systemhas the virtue of doing the least possibleviolenceto
Strabo'sevidencewhile explainingits evident ambiguity;nor does it at
any point contradict Strabo'sevidencesince,as has been noted, Strabo
only implieethat Attalos the brother of Philetairosis the sameas Attalos
the father of Attalos I. What is more, in Dörpfeld's systemAttalos I is a
cousinof EumenesI, a relationshipthat posesconsiderablechronological
difüculties.5Cardinali'ssystemalso fits well with Tl4, while Dörpfeld's
doesnot.6
From this beginning,the systemcan be built up to includeother attested
relationsof Philetairosthe Founder:
A. Eumenes,brotherofPhiletairosandfatherofthedynastEumenesl.According
to Strabo(Tl), EumeneswastheelderandAttalostheyoungerof thetwo youngei
andyet it wasAttalos'sonwhowasädoptedby philetaiios
brothersof Philetairos,
in thefirstinstance,
andEumenes' sononlylater.A furtherdifficultyarises'from
thefact thatthededicationof thetempleof Demeterat pergamon (I I I ) bearsonly
5 Cardinali, Mem. 179 ff.; Meyer 466 (with the proviso stated above, n. 3).
6 Holleaux, Erudes, ii. ll ff.
186 Appendix I Appendix I 187

the namesof Philetairosand Eumenes,not Attalos. Cardinali and Meyer, following

a suggestionof Hepding,Tconcluded that the elder Attalos, Philetairos' brother, above represent one and the same person. This view was rejected by Reinach,
had died by the time of the dedicationto Demeter,and that the youngerAttalos, the although he dated the revolt ofthe mercenariesto the late 260s,shortly after the
fatherof Attalos I, who had beenadoptedby Philetairosand marriedto the Seleukid accessionof EumenesI. His objection was mainly chronological:if Philetairoswas
princessAntiochis, daughterofthe elder Achaios, also died, sometime before 263, agedeighty when he died in 263,14we cannot expectto find his brother at the centre
gecessitatingPhiletairos' adoption ofEumenes, son ofhis otherbrother Eumenes.s ofa conspiracy that took placea year or two later.rs This argumentclearly depends
Meyer dated the marriage of Attalos to Antiochis to c. 280,eand concluded that on the age-difrerencebetween the two brothers, a point on which we have no
information, and it presents itself with no real cogency. Attalos II was young
sinceAttalos was adoptedfirst, he had a prior claim, namely that his father Attalos
was the elder of Philetairos' two brothers, while his uncle, Eumenes, was the enough to succeed his brother in 159 and rule for twenty-one years, while the
younger: 'mit anderenWorten, sein Vater (= Attalos) war der ältere, Eumenes,der successionoffour Hekatomnids ofone generationin a previous century provides
's'il 6tait encoreen
an even more forceful precedent.16Reinach'ssecondobjection,
Vater Eumenes' I, der jüngere Bruder des Philetairos, ganz wie Cardinali wollte.'
äge de jouer un röle, pourquoi n'avait-il succ€döä son fröre comme Attalos II
There are two major objections to this view:
dewait succ6der ä Eumöne II?', takes for granted the application ofthe stable
l) the samepresumptionofdeath, for which there is no evidencein either case,has
dynastic successionof the later Attalids to the earlier period, an assumptionwhich
convenientlyto caterfor two membersof the family; and 2) Strabo namesEumenes
the treaty with the mercenariesdisproves in itself; furthermore, it overlooks the
the elder, and Attalos the younger, of the brothers of Philetairos, as we have seen principle, examined below, whereby Philetairos deliberately avoided the designa-
(Tl). I reject it becausean alternativeexplanationis apparentwhich conforms with
tion of his brothers as heirs.
Strabo'sevidence. We know from an extract of Memnon (16 = FGrHist 434\thata
Studies ofAttalid genealogyhave tended to rely on a schematizedview ofthe
Eumenes,very probably Philetairos' brother, held a position at Amastris similar to
successionin the early yearsofthe dynasty, whereasit is all too clearthat the issue
Philetairos' own at Pergamon,and that he came to Pergamonsome time after the was op€n and unsettled. It is evident that Philetairos' policy was to designate
battle of Corupedion, having handedover Amastris in 279to the rulers of Pontos,
successors amonghis nephews,therebypassingover hisownbrothers.Sincethis is
Mithridates II and Ariobarzanes.toIt is likely from thesefacts that at the time when
the only discernible principle involved, it shouldbe the basis ofour understanding
Philetairoswished to designatean heir (c.280),Eumeneswas still at Amastris and
ofthe eventsreflectedin T2l-2, the treaty with the mercenaries,and in particularof
not yet at Pergamon,while the younger brother, Attalos, was presumablyresident
our identification of the rebelliousEdpiv4E'Att.ä),ou.It is possiblethat the right of
at Pergamon.It was more reasonable,therefore, to adopt the son ofAttalos than the
EumenesI to succeedPhiletairoswas contestedby a cousin (Cardinali's view), but
sonofEumenes, and the choicesignifiesavailability ratherthan seniority. The later
it is much more likely that the rival claimant was Eumenes'own father, the ex-ruler
adoption of EumenesI may havebeenfor any ofa number ofreasonsbesidesdeath
(such as ill health or fall from favour), and the sameis true of the omission of the of Amastris who returned to Pergamonand was passedover in favour of the son.
C.Qr),traqog Eöpivou (I23). Cardinali suggestedthat he might be the son of B
elder Attalos' name from the dedication to Demeter at Pergamon.
above, where B is, according to Cardinali, the elder son of Philetairos' brother
B. Eöptv1E,'Aud.ilou(T22).InCardinali'sviewhewastheeldersonofPhiletairos'
Attalos; thus C becomesa cousin ofAttalos I. Cardinali's systemcan be presented
brother Attalos. This view was followed by Reinach (seebelow), but rejected by
as follows (1, 2, and 3 representthe order of successionof the dynasts):
Ernst Meyerr I for reasonswhich dependedon dating the revolt at Philetaireiaand
Attaleia later than the end of the secondSyrian War in 252,a chronologywhich I do
not find acceptable(see224, above).Meyer's own view, dependingagainon this
chronology,wasthatEöp4vqg'Arrd).ouwas a youngerbrotherofAttalos I. SinceI
believe that the revolt ofthe mercenariesoccurred in the years 261261, I cannot
subscribeto this view: Attalos I was only about six years old at this time,I2 and a ATTALOS E U M E N E S( A ) m . S a t y r a
younger brother could not therefore have been involved in events of this kind.
It is for positive reasons, however, that I return to the view of Smith and de
'Auä).ou
Rustafaell,t3 that this Eöptqq was the brother of Philetairos the
Founder, and the son ofAttalos ofTiosl that is, that the names headedA and B E U M E N E SI ( 2 )
7AM xxxv (1910),437-8.
EMeyer 465 ff.
e Meyer466. According to Seleukidchronology, Antiochos I was born about 323, EUMENES(B) ATTALOSm. Antiochis
his youngerbrother Achaios about 322,and his (Achaios') daughterabout 3(X);she l l
was therefore married to Attalos about 280. It should be noted that 280 marks the
year of Antiochis' eligibility; she may have married Attalos somewhat later, al- (C}
PHTLETATROS ATTATOSI (3}
though this is unlikely.
to Ed. Meyer, Gesch.des KoenigreichsPontos,4l; cf. Rostovtzetr,SEHHW i.
ra Macrobius 12; cf. Meyer 466,n.2.
577-8, and above, 14. 15A. J. Reinach,Rev.Arch. xii (1908),185n. 3. This point naturallyhasgreater
tt Meyer 469 ff.
12Attalos I died in the autumnof 197at the ageof72 (seeabove, l0 and n. 6); he force in the context of Ernst Meyer's chronology,in which the revolt of the
mercenariesis dated later than 252.
was therefore born in 269and was six years old at the time of Eumenes'accession t6Judeich, Kleinas. Studien (Marburg, 1892),226 ff.; Grampa, 'Nine Greek
in 263.
rr"/I/S xxii (19{2'),197; Inscriptions', in A. Westholm, Labraunda, i.2. l2l-13; G. Bockisch, Klio, li
cf. Holleaux,Etudes,ii. 6, n.l.
0969), l 17ff.
188 Appendix I
If however, as I believe, A and B are the same person, the genealogy can be
presentedas follows (I invert the order ofPhiletairos' brothers in accordancewith
Strabo, for reasons already given):
ATTALOSm. Boa
P H T L E T A | R O( 1S) E U M E N E S( A : B ) m . S a t y r a ATTALOS
(Founder)
EUMENES| (2) pHtLETA|ROS(C)
I This much is establishedfrom the evidenceof Attalid genealogy.On
ATTALOSm. Antiochis
I Attalid contactswith Delosdatefrom the endof the rule of Philetairosand.
ATTALOS| (3)
Ernst Meyer also made<Dt7&aqoEEöptvou a brotherof EumenesI, but for
reasonsotherthantheequation of Eumenes A andEumenes B proposedhere.rT
I shouldlike now to draw attentionto a basefrom Delos (Il3), which
bearsthe following inscription:
Eüpiv4E
QÄitaqovtlöv-------
This text has been overlooked or discountedby all who have studied
Attalid genealogy,including Ernst Meyer, who describedit as .zu ver-
stümmelt'.r8I believe that it has more to offer than has been realized.
The lettersare of the mid-third century; we can thereforediscountany
associationwith the sonsof Attalos I.re In identifyingthis Eumeneswe are
thereforeleft with three possibilities:(l) he is an unknown Eumenes,yet
another mysterious member of the royal family; (2) he is the dynast
Eumenes I; (3) he is the elder Eumenes, brother of philetairos the
F1rnd".. The first may be put asideas longasothersremainto be argued.
In the secondcase, it remainsto identify the philetairoswho is the
object of the dedication. Clearly he could be the Founder, Eumenes'
father by adoption.2oWe then have Eöp6v4E- - - - tDLL&aqov rföv
| dissuadehis brother Attalos (II) from rebellingagainsthim; he would
r.a#pal, with the option of restoringEip|vou or <Dü.eraigou inthe first
line. Either form would be extremely bizane; we would expect surely
ti Meyer470,followingPreuner400ff. preunerrejectedCardinali'sview
on the
grounds that the son of a rebel would hardly have been allowed to call himself
Ileqyape6Ebeside Philetairos,the founder of the dynasty; this is not a valic
objection, however, since the rebellion took place at a later date. There is greater
cogencyin Preuner's argumentthat, since the dedication T23 belongsto the same
time as Philetairos' own, it can hardly have been the r,vorkof a son of his nephew,
separatedfrom him by two generations.
r BM e y e r 4 6 3 ,n . 2 .
rerhe absenceof the royal title in the caseof Eumenes
is not in itself decisive,
since the dedicationcould have been made, on this criterion alone, by EumenesIl
before he became king.
20As Magieevidentlybelieved:Roman Ru!e,ü.7j2,
n.14.
Appendix 1 189
(Dü&aqov 'Anä7ou Eitpiv4E ö uiöE. So this possibility can be dis-
counted with confidence. There remains Eumenes I's own brother
Philetairos.The restorationthen suggested is far more plausible:Eüptv4E
[Eüpivou] | <DLLhaqovrlöu äöeLcpöv).
If, however, the third possibility is considered,the Philetairoscon-
cerned will be either the brother of Eumenes, that is Philetairosthe
Founder, or the son, that is the brother of EumenesI, thus:
eitherEöpivqE['Aud).ouJI ibü"itapov 4öv ö.&)"qövl
or Eipöv4Ef'Auä).oulI Qü.&aqovt[öv uiöu].
other historicalevidencewe can perhapshope to reachnearerthe truth.
more firmly, from the reign of EumenesI; as we would expectof Delos,
this contactis representedpersonallyandexclusivelyby the dynasts.The
DelianPhiletaireiawere evidentlyfoundedby EumenesI shortly after his
accession(seeabove,22andn.46),and Eumenes'statuewasprobablythe
first of an Attalid to be erectedon the island.2rI havesuggested elsewhere
that the base bearingan inscribedepigramcelebratingthe Galatianvic-
tories of Philetairoswas erectedon Delos by Attalos I at the time of his
Galatianwars (see above,3l n.8), and in any event the letter-forms
indica'tea date after Philetairos'death.In view of the evidentlack of firm
contactwith Delosunder Philetairos,and sincethis contact,when estab-
lished, was apparently made by the dynasts alone, it is unlikely that
Philetairos'youngerbrother will have had the opportunity of making so
monumentalan offering. It appearssurely to be the work of a dynast of
Pergamon,namely EumenesI. I believethen that the inscriptionunder
discussionshould be completedas follows:
Eöpiv4g[Eöptvou]
. OrL&aqot tlöv äöü.E6v).
II. The Chronologyand Parentageof Attalos IIL
24. Polyb. xxx. 2 (16817):Stratios is sent to Rome by EumenesII to
shortfy be king in any case(5-6), äre toi 6aotA6oEöÄ piv rilv oaryarmilv
äo06vercu aiei npooöoxövroE rlv ix toü 6tou petäoraow, öla.öi d1v
dnaöiav oöö' ei 6ou7ry0ei4öuvapövou rlv dpXilv äJ").qtxaraknetv.
oöö6no ydp ävaöeöeryptvoE irüyyavtv xard q6ow uiöEöv aöQt ö ped.
raüta ölaöe$äpevoErlv d.pyfiv.
25. Polyb.xxxiii. I 8. l-4 (embassies in Romein | 52):fi oüyxArytoE
ngdrov
2r In theinscription
onthebase(:T l9),Eumenes iscalledEip{uqgEip4vou,nol
Eöpiv4E<bÄctaipou. I considerthatthisis because theAttalids'dedicationsand
foundations at Deloswereof a personal nature,andnot because thebaseneces-
sarilydatesfrombeforePhiletairos' adoption of Eumenes. Eumenes is onlycalled
Eöpöv1EQü,eraipouin documentsof an olficial natureandin dedications from
withinthe AttalidKingdom.
190 Appendix I
pöv eioexaAtoano tör, Eüp|vouE rcü 6aoü.6otEuiöv "Awalol)' nae(t-
yeyö'vetydg ht naiE öv xard töv xapöv roürott eig'Ptitpr\vXd.gwroü rfi
u ouyxT1rE ouora9fivar xai rd.EnarpmdE dvavetitoao1atcpÄiagxai
$eviaE.o6rog pöv oiv. . . 7a6riv. . . tryd.EäppoloioaE tfi xa?' aöröv
rjAr.x(q.
xrL.
26. Plutarch, Moralia l84B: EüpivrlE ßnt6ouleu?eiEönö llepoioE äöo[,e
re9vdvat' tr1göö qipqs eis ll4pyapov xoltn9eto1g,"ArraTogö d.öeAqöE
aöroü neqr.06pevog rö öüöqpa xai d1v yuvaixa yrjpaE iflaoileuoe
nu9öpevoEöö npooüwa lövra röv äöe\cpövdnrjwryoev öonep eit60et
perd.röv oaparcqu).äxotv öopd.rrcväyon. ö öä Eüptv1E qü.oqpövaE
äonaodpevog aöröv xai npöE rö olE eintbv, <pi1 oneüöe yqpat npiv
reAeutrioaw' TöqE>,oööiv ä)Jo napä ndwa röv 6[ov oül einev ünonroy
oüre önotqoev,ä)"Adxai tü.euritv ixefuE ü1v yuvaixa xai ü1v 6aot).ei,au
dnöAr.nev.äv0' dtv Exeivog oüööv öl 6awo6 ttxvov ä1perpe,nü)öv
yevopivau, cilLd. rtit Eöpfvoug uiE rilv daotletav ht ldtv övfl,ixrp
yevop€vEnap6öaxe.Ibid. 489F:"Aua)'og oöv ö nprc6ütarcg aöro6 töv
äöe)'cpöu,ävlp önrcLx)1E xai negi üv Eöpfv1 nävuttrt äqrmoE, oö pövov
daoÄeüg äv4yope604 önöqo6.pevoE,aL).d xo,i d1v yuvaixa ü.öeAqoü
Zrgarcv[x4v äyqpexai ouvfiL9ev. (The samestory then follows.)zf orlu
ixtr,vog (Attalos); äno9avöwog aüroü (EumenesII) naLö[ou oüöö Ev
rj067r1ouix rfiE yuvaLxöEdve76o0at,texoüoqE noL[dxLE, äAAd röv
öxe(vounaröa 1qdEaExai ävöqcitoaEht löv ön6.0qxeü öü.ör1paxo,i
6aoü"6a ngooqyöpeuoev. Cf. Livy, Epit. lviri: Attalos, rex Pergami,
Eumenisfilius,' Florus i.35.2: Attalus rex Pergamenorum,regisEumenis
filius.
27.IvP 246, : OGIS 332. Decree, probably of Pergamon,honouring
Attalos III, who is called (lines 2l-2, 24-5, 44-5) 6aoÄeüE"Ana7og
<Düoprjrap xai EüepytrqE 9eoü 6aoÄ6ttE Eöptvou Zottfipog.
28. IvP 248, : OGIS 331,: RC 65-7. Letters concerningthe priesthood
of DionysosKathegemon,line l8 Qetterof Attalos II): xexptxapeyxäyt)t
xai 1"Atra),1oE ö üöilcpoü ufrig; lines 32, 39 (letter of Attalos lll): "At-
taToEö 9etogtrtou;lines 45-6 (the same):6ao[7Looa2rpatovix1 ü pürrtp
ltou.
29. Swoboda,Keil, and Kroll, Denkmöleraus Lykaonien, 33, no.75.
Letter of Attalos II to Amlada,lines4-5: ['Anäf.ot röLräöelEoü luiötl.
30.AM xxix (1904),170ff., no. 14. Decree of the Pergameneepheboi
honouring Attalos (lll), 14716,line 9: 'Aud.).aL 6aot76oE Eöpövou.
3I.OGIS _329(decree of Aigina, Attalos II), line 40:."Arra)'lov üv1
6a[oÄ6aEl Elüp]6vou.
32. Appendix iv, no. 15. Decree of Miletos honouringEumenesII, his
brothers,zaiö uiög"ArraToE(line40).On the date,seeabove,I 16-118.
33.IvM 87, : OGIS 319(honorarydecreeof Magnesia),linel6: 'Attä).ou
toö uioü rcü 6aoÄl6olg Eüptvou.
34. IvP ii. 613, : OGIS 264 ('ChronicaPergami'),lines 16ff.:
Elölpötvqs,öd 6iou üört,ttSdpXfr1s
xowa-l
vrjoag ['Ar)rä$.at tdn döe\gdn, d.n60ave xata-]
leinou tilv fuöv 6aot).etav töt öautoü uidttl
Appendix I l9l
'Attä).oL
xat' ölnnponilv öä öxeivar. oötog öö1
'ArtdAarl
20 dnööaxcv tiliv daoÄeiau dzo9vy'loxut
ttirtoüEöpiv[ouE----
35. Appendixiv,no.24,lines2-3: äSrcE. . . qE'AwdTou üöeL1cpoü lpou
naöe(laE. e
'Auü,o[u---l
36. Börker and Merkelbach,Inschr. von Ephesos,no. 200: I
1eoü Ei;p6lvou(d Zannlpolg.öoü.
Apart from T24, which revealsthe young Attalos as the still unrecog-
nizedheir of EumenesII in 168/7,all the evidence,literary and epigraphi-
cal, emanatingfrom Pergamonand elsewhere,indicatesthat Attalos III
was the sonxatd qüow of EumenesII andhis queen,Stratonike.T24,the
statementof Eumenes'physicianStratios,quotedby Polybios,certainly
throws an isolated but effective doubt on this conclusion, and since
Köpp's argument,basedon this passage,that Attalos III was the son of
Stratonikeand Attalos II, a considerablebibliographyhas grown up on
this subject.22Köpp's argumentwas devisedfrom the tradition found in
Plutarch(:T26) that Attalos II took the throneand marriedStratonikefor
a short time in l7l after EumenesII had been attackednear Delphi anc
was for a while thoughtto be dead. Fergusonand others,following Köpp
and noting the passageof Polybios(:T20 which showsAttalos III to be
unrecognizedby EumenesII five years later, believedthat he was the
outcome of this temporary union of Attalos II and Stratonike.2l
The objectionusuallyadducedagainstthis view is that if Attalos III was
born in l7l or 170he could hardly be describedas ört naiE öv in 152
(Polybiosin T25), for he would then havebeeneighteen,and maturity at
Pergamonwasreckonedfrom the ageof fifteen,2abut this reasoningseems
" F. Köpp,jDe gigantomachiae in poeseos artisquemonumentis usu' (Diss.
Bonn,1883); Rh. Mus.xlviii (1893),l5zt-5.To thebibliography givenby Hansen,
Analids,4Tl-4 should beaddedtheworkscitedby Magie,Roman Rule,ä.772,n.
76.For the viewthatAttalosIII wasthe sonof Eumenes II by a concubine,see
Nieseiii. 20/',n. 4: Magie,loc. cit. Thisis clearlyan arbitraryviewdesigned to
explainT24 in the simplestway; thereis no evidenceto supportit, and it is
discounted by the arguments presented here.
23OnthisincidentseeLivy xlii. l5-16,theonlyreliableaccount (seebelow).W.
S. Ferguson, inC. Phil. i (1906),231-4, explained in termsof theseeventsan
admittedlyunusualdedicationfrom ThracehonouringEumenesII (OG1J302)in
the form dzäp 6corltöag Eöpivou <Dü.aö61.9ou xai Eöepyötou.Two dedicationsto
Attalos II were found with this one (OGI,S 303-4). According to Ferguson,
Eumeneswas prematurelydeified in l7l; Attalos II married Stratonike,and Attalos
III was born of this marriage. Eumenes returned and forgave Attalos, who duly
abdicated,and the dedication OGIS 302was erected in gratitude for the clemency
and brotherly love of the restored king. This reasoningwould be attractive if it did
not rely on a late and clearly distorted tradition which Ferguson accepts at face
value and does not examine (see below), and if there wer€ not other historical
contexts for the epithetsusedin the Thracian dedications:in chapter6 it was shown
that Eumenes II and Attalos II were called 0coi qdaöil.Eor at least after their
deaths.
2aAM xxix (19ü), 170ff, no. 4, line 7.
192 Appendix I
to me to have little force, sincethe evidencecomesnot from Pergamonbut
from Polybios, who uses the sameterm elsewhereof the seventeen-year-
old Philip V of Macedon (see below, n. 30). On the other hand, the
evidenceon which Köpp's view rests is hardly reliable. Livy, who in
following Polybios provides us with the nearest to a contemporary ac-
count, merely narrates that Attalos II took the opportunity provided by
news of Eumenes'presumeddeath to court Stratonike(xlii. 16. 7-97:.zs
Attalusquoqueceleriusquamdignumconcordiafraternaeratcredidit;namet cum
uxorefratriset praefectoarcistamquamiam hauddubiusregniheresestlocutus.
QuaeposteanonfefellereEumenen;et quamquam dissimulareet tacitehabereet
pati statuerat,tamenin primo congtessunon temperavit,quin uxorispetendae
immaturamfestinationem fratri obiceret.
It is the later and thereforelessreliabletradition,representedby Plutarch
(:T26), that elaboratesthe story into one of marriagewith Stratonike and
assumptionof the kingship.Furthermore,eventhis later traditionfails to
meet the demandsof Köpp and Ferguson.According to Plutarch,'many
children' were born of Attalos II and Stratonike,but none was raisedby
Attalos, and the crown was allowedto passto Eumenes'son. Apart from
the obviousobjectiontliat even in this tradition, on which Köpp and his
followers,includingFerguson,rely, AttalosIII is nameda sonof Eumenes
II as distinct from the children of the alleged marriage of Attalos II and
Stratonike,it is clear also that in this tradition the children of Attalos II
werethoughtto havebeenborn ofthe marriageeventuallyconcludedafter
the deathof Eumenesin 159.Finally, this later versioncan be discredited
on another count. In Mor. 389F Attalos II is said to have 'shared the
diadem(with Attalos III) and calledhim king'. This statementis true only
to the extent that Attalos III appearsto have sharedin some decisions
beforehis formal accession(seebelow); beyondthat it is contradictedby
contemporaryrecords,and in particularby the letter written by Attalos II
to his cousin Athenaiosabout the priesthoodof Dionysos Kathegemon
(:T28), in which Attalos III appearswithout the royal title, in the simple
form'Ana),oE ö r&öü.cpoüuroE.This documentis datedto 142nc, a year
in which Attalos III was,on any chronologicalview, well beyondmaturity
and old enoughto succeedin his own right; indeed,Köpp's view leadsto
the conclusionthat he was nearly thirty yearsold in this year! It is clear,
then, that the tradition on which Köpp and Fergusonhave relied not
merely fails to support their conclusion, but even contradicts it on a
number of points, and is itself discreditedon another.
Attemptshavebeenmadein this connectionto estimatethe year of the
birth of Attalos III. Those who follow Köpp and the corrupt tradition of
coursedate this to 17l or 170;the problemsraisedtherebyhave already
been indicated.Eumeneswas betrothedto Stratonike,the daughterof
AriarathesIV of Cappadocia,in 188sc, and the marriageprobably took
place shortly thereafter,althoughthe exact date is not known.26On the
2sThis point was rightly emphasized by Nissen, Kritische (Jntersuchungen (Ber-
lin, 1863),246.
2 6L i v y x x x v i i i . 3 9 . 6 ; s e e b e l o w , A p p e n d i x i i i .
Appendix I r93
evidenceof T25, Attalos III cannot have beenmuch more than eighteenin
152,the year ofthe embassiesin Rome, and thereforecannot havebeen
born much earlier than 169: hence the objection raised by Magie and
others, that 'even granting that Stratonike and Eumeneswere not married
for several years after their betrothal in 188,it is difücult to believe that
their son was not born until after 167' (167 being Magie's terminus post
quem, interpreting hr naig öv in T25 as implying an upper age limit of
hfteen in 152,but seeabove).This absurdgeneralizationis admittedly less
fanciful than the implied notion of Ferguson: 'Stratonike had been child-
lessfor over sixteenyears; she now (l7l) becamepregnant,and, in due
course,bore a son . . .'; but it shouldhardly be necessaryto point out the
irrelevanceand historicalworthlessnessof this kind of argument,or to
state the requirement of more cogent argumentsin support of so loose a
hypothesis.2T
We remain, then, for the time being,with an estimateof c.167 for the
yearof the birth of Attalos III. Furtherattemptshavebeenmadeto reacha
moreexactdate. In a decreedated147I 6 (:T30), Attaloswas honouredby
the newly promotedephebesofthat year, but thereis no soundreasonfor
supposingthat he was one of their generation,that is, that he wasfifteenin
147I 6 andthereforeborn in 16211,28and I do not believethat this pieceof
evidencecan be expectedto make any precisecontributionto the prob-
lems of Attalos' chronology.There is, however,a line of enquiry which
hasnot beenattemptedin studiesof this problem,but is more securethan
many others more usuallyfollowed. Attalos II continuedto rule until his
death in 138 although Attalos III, over whom he had been appointed
epitropos (T5;,'6u6 reachedan ageof majority well before then, and was
associatedwith a decisionof Attalos II in a documentdated l42ll (T28'
'lhe younger
x*qixapey xdyis xai ["Atra7]og,ö üöelqoü uiöS). Attalos
was also involved in dealingswith the Pisidiancity of Amlada,according
to one ofthe lettersofAttalos II to the city (I29); thesedealingsshouldbe
datedto the late l50sor the early l40s ratherthanlater, sincethey resulted
from the Galatian war of Eumenes II, to which referenceis made in
anotherletter ofthe correspondence.2e This evidenceshowsthat Attalos
III was participatingfully in the administrationof the kingdomat aboutthe
time of his visit to Romein 152;clearly, then, we must interpretPolybios'
designationär t naiE öv with referenceto this year(T25)asimplyingan age
more advancedthan that of childhood,and 167becomesaterminusante
quem of Attalos' birth.ro
All the considerationsso far discussedsuggestthe year 168as the most
likely dateof the birth of Attalos III. He will then havebeensixteenin 152,
a conclusion consistent with Polybios' evidence, as we have seen.
Stratios'words, as reportedby PolybiosinT24, now requiresomeexpla-
2 7M a g i e , R o m a n R u l e , ü . 7 7 3 ; F e r g u s o n , l o c . c i t . ( n . 2 3 ) , 2 3 1 4 .
28In Hansen's view , Attalids, 474, this 'seems probable'. I do not think so.
2e Appendix iv, no. 23; see above, 143-4.
30Note that Polybios at iv. 2. 5 uses the same expressionör r naiE öv of Philip V of
Macedon at the age of seventeen.
t94 Appendix I

nation, and this will hinge ultimately on the interpretation drawn from the
words orlöizar yd.gävaöeöeryp4vog BnSyTaveu xatd. q6ow aiögöv aöup ö
perd. raüta önöeläpevoE tilv opyrjv. If my chronological conclusion is il
correct, Attalos was born at about the time of Stratios' visit to Rome in
168/7:so, while Cardinali's interpretation of the worddvcöederyptvoE as
'born' is clearly wrong,3r it may THE GALATIAN WARS OF
be understoodto mean 'recognized' in the
sense'made public knowledge', if the child was either born or expected ATTALOS I AND HIS ASSUMPTION OF
shortly before Stratios' departure for Rome. Polybios' use of the word
dnaöla of Eumenespoints to the secondof thesepossibilities.
r H E R O Y A I -T I T L E
We may now usefully summarizethe conclusionsreachedas follows:
l6El7 Stratios'embassyto Rome(:T24) As we saw in chapter three, the chronology of Attalos' Galatian wars
168 Birth of AttalosIII depends to a large extent on the dating ofthe dedicatory inscriptions and
Late l50s AttalosIII takingpart in the royal administration,
but not giventhe monuments celebrating his victories, and I have postponed to this point
royal title beforel3E the detailed arguments whose conclusions are followed in the main body
152 Attalos,agedsixteen,visitsRome(:T25) of the book. The monuments with which we are concerned may con-
147/6 Attalos,agedtwenty-one,is honouredby the ephebesofthe year
(:T30) veniently be divided into three groups:r
(l) The round base of a large monument which waS evidently intended to be a
The earliest dated document referring to Attalos III as Eumenes' son is
show-piece in the precinct of Athena at Pergamon.The base bears the following
T32, a decreeof Miletos passedabout 159.:2This meansthat recognition inscription QvP 20, = OGIS 269):
of Attalos was grantedbetween 168and 159,but no further precisionof "Arra)"oE,
fBaotleüg ttxrjoaE pdjg4r Td.rctfoaylouE fa7fua)s n[epi nqydE]
this point is possible,and it contributeslittle to a solutionof the problems Kaixfou notapoü, 1ap {mlfi fprcv' A0]rl [r,at'i.
concerningAttalos' parentage. (2) A large bathron which probably originally carried reconstructions in bronze
figures of battle scenes;the inscriptions are /vP 2l-8, : OGIS 273-9. The first of
rt Cardinali,
RP 137;cf. Magie,RomanRule,ä.772-3. thlse inscriptions (1vP21, = OGIS 273) is the dedication to Athena of the whole
32This decreehasbeendatedin the pastto between163and 160,and has monument, pmbracing all Attalos' recent victories: 'A9qvat.
-ÄwaloE
Baoü.eög röv xatd nö)'epov I dydtvav Tapntrtpn
thereforebeenusedasaterminusantequemof therecognition
of AttalosIII thatis The other inscriptions associatedwith this monument refer to individual victories:
conveniently close to the supposedterminus post quem of 168/7 (see MaFie,Roman IvP 24, : OGIS n6 (victory over the TolistoagianGalatiansat the sourcesof the
Rule, 1i.773): for the date adopted here, see above, I l6-18. River Kaikos):
'Anö
üE nepi n4yfdgl Kaixou notapoi I npög Tld"t'o)toayioug fd'ätaE pdyne.
(CompareIvP 20 above,and IvP 51, discussedbelow.)
IvP 21, = OGIS 275 (victory over the Tolistoagian and TektosaganGalatiansand
Antiochos Hierax at the Aphrodision):2
'Agpoöiorcv
l'Arö qg nepi tö| npöE TofumoayiouE I lxai Texrooä1(y)aE
ld'<),>&tag xai'Avt ioXovpd74E.
IvP 22, = OGIS 274 (victory over Hierax in Phrygia):
'üJ'14]ol1n6wou
['Anö qE ip <Dpluytarntt Ecp' npö;'Alw[oyov pdxqE.
IvP 27, : OGIS 278 (victory over Hierax at Koloe in Lydia):
'AvrfoXov pl6yq5.
I'Anö qE nqi Kd'löqv I lnpöE
IvP 28, = OGIS 279 (victory over Hierax in Caria): 'AvttoTov
"Apnaoov
I'Anö qg napä töv iv Klapiar I lnpög ttl4&1e. __.
We shoüld ahb associatä with this victory the fragment publishedby Th. Wiegand'
=
Berl.Abh.l92S(iii),18,no. l, SEGiv.688: - - - - xai'A?qvtulänlötfiEnaqd- - .
The preposition za4rciinvariably introduces the name of a river, as Holleaux has
'Apna'
shown; in other casäswe frnd nepi.3 We are therefore left with za4rd 1töv
oovl, and we can restore the text with some confidence as follows: [BaoÄeüE
I See in general on these monuments, Kähler, Gr. Fries, l3l ff.
2 [d.nöt4E napA] Fränkel, Dittenberger, followed by Hansen,Ailalids,34;länö
qEnepilHolleatx,Etudes, iii.60,n.l. Cf. Kähler,Gr.Fries,l85,n.ll,andfurther,
below.
I Holleaux,Erades,äi.60, n.l. Note alsothe battle attestedby IvP 64, = Sy//.3
ffi6: fi öv Auöiar rapd töv <Dpuyiolnötauov pdxn.
t96 Appendix II
"Aua).os) 'A9quar
xai | 1än\ö4E napd. ftövl I l"Apnaoov öy Koptat I ngöE
'AvrioXov | @i]
pdpnE|
The victories over the Galatiansand Antiochos Hierax were further celebrated
by a dedicationto Z€usand Athena madeby the soldierswho had taken part in them
(IvP 29, = OGIS 280, of c.227):a
"Aua).ov 'Enry6v4E
Baoü.6a | xai oi riyepöveg xai ovpafldtlrat I o[
ouvayoturcäpetot ritE npöE rcüg ltü]d.rag lxai 'Avtloyov pdyaE yapnlrlfpn I the other hand, we have to allow enoughtime for Attalos to have achieved
/Li,'A9r1var.
The largebathron also includedthe victorieswon by Attalos over Lysias and the
strategoi of Seleukoslll, and was therefore erectedat a later date thanlvP 29 (IvP
25 + 26, = OGIS 277):'Anö qE napld - - - - rualöE Aluloiav lxai rcüE2ü.1e6xoa
oqarlqyolü)g ptiyqg.
(3) A number of small basesinscribed with individual dedicationsfor these same
victoriesQvP 33,34,35(= OGIS 27.2),16,37,5l,s53,58(= OGIS 271)).Insomeof
thesededicationsAthena has the cult epithetNikephoros, and the style and letter-
ing ofthe inscriptions, quite different from those ofthe round base and the large
bathron,showthat they wererededicationsofthe reignofEumenesII, as we have
seenin our discussionof Eumenes'developmentof the PergameneNikephoria.6
Of these inscriptions, it is those under headings (l) and (2) that contri-
bute significantly towards a clarification of the chronology and implica-
tions of the wars of Attalos L The victory over the Tolistoagian Galatians
was clearly held to be of particular importance, since it was further
commemorated by an exceptionally splendid and prominent monument,
thelarge bathron, to be set up in the temple of Athena.? It can therefore be
identified with a high degree of probability with the victory which, ac-
cording to the literary sources, led to Attalos' assumption ofthe royal title:
Polyb. xviii. 41.7-8: vmfioaEydp pdyl fa).dtag . . . raüqv öp7i1vtnotfioarc xo,i
rött npdrtov aöüv ööegt 6aoü"ia. dlyau öö qE tryfiE raürqE xai duitoaEöq öüo
npöE rctg ö6öoprixovta, toüray öö 6aoü,eüoagrenapdxowa xai üttapa.
"Awü.og
Strabo xiii. 4. 2, 624: örcöt[arc d1v dpXfiv, xai äv4yoptü1q daorleüg
npöroE, vmrjoaElü.dtaE paTp peyd)"r1.
Pausaniasi. 25. 2: xai fü.äiav tilv öuMuoiq. cp9opdvdv604xev"AttaToE öoov rt
öüo n476tv txaorov.
Pausanias is the only one of these writers to name the area in which the
battle took place, iv Muoig, a description which fits well with the designa-
tion of the dedicatory inscriptions, 'at the sources of the Kaikos'. We
know from Livy that Attalos refused to pay the Galatians tribute, and it
a On the date see Kähler, Gr. Fries, lE5, n. 18.
sIvP 5l has been convincinglyrestoredby Kähler, Gr. Fries, l9l, n.56, as
follows (I give my readingstaken from a study of the stone in Berlin ): BaoÄtüg
"Aftfld"oE 'A9qu&
I Aü xai N[r,xr:'9]öpox"I dnö qE nepi npyyd4 Kaixoul I
fnorapolü nlgög Tü.nroayiougl I tlaTdrcg pämd.
6 Seeabove,ch. 4 (iii).
7 The possibility that these monuments refer to two separate attacks of the
Tolistoagianson Pergameneterritory, the 'sources of the Kaikos' being a natural
point of entry for such attacks, may be discounted. The large bathron includes a
dedicatory inscription referring to the war with the strategoi of Seleukosand is
thereforeto be dated to the end ofthis seriesofwars: it would surely have referred
to two victories over the Tolistoagiansif there had beentwo. SeeKähler, Gr. Fries,
182.
Appendix II t97
was doubtlessthis refusalthat led to the battle, Attalos' victory, and his
assumptionof the royal title.s
It remainsto determinedatesfor theseevents.The literary sourcesgive
little indicationof date, but they do imply that the victory, and Attalos'
consequentassumptionof the royal title, occurredearly in his reign. On
the reorganizationof his army which, as we saw in chapter 3, in all
probability inspiredAttalos' decisionto resistthe Galatians.eIt hasbeen
arguedfrom Polybios' words 6aorAeüoaErenaqdxowa xai ünaga that
Attalos took the royal title in the first year of his rule, thus 'reigningas
king' for the specifiedforty-four years (241-197).It is clear, however, that
Polybios'statementis compressed,and that an exact distinctionbetween
dynasteiaand,basileia would be out ofplacein sucha summarycontext.l0
The only other literary source that gives an indicationof date is the
prologueto Book xxvii of Trogus, which placesa Gallic victory won by
Attalos after Antiochos Hierax's defeatof SeleukosII at Ankyra:
Seleuci bellumin Syriaadversus Rolemaeum Tryphonem. itemin Asiaadversus
fratremsuumAntiochumHieracem,quo belloAncuraevictusesta Gallis.utque
Galli Pergamovicti ab Attalo ZaelamBithunumocciderint.
I do not believe,however,that the battlementionedhereis to be identified
with the one in which Attalos defeatedthe Tolistoagian Galatiansat the
sourcesof the Kaikos.I I lt is true that Trogusdoesnot refer to Antiochos
Hierax in corlnectionwith this victory, andthat this omissionfits well with
the rest of the tradition, in which Attalos' great Gallic victory is said to
havebeenover Galatiansand no one else,but the point hasno force when
account is taken of the natural brevity and summary nature of the pro-
logues,in which points of detail (or lack of them) are neither here nor
there.In my view Trogus' locationof the battle'at Pergamon'is decisive:
the battle is not the one at the sourcesof the Kaikos, but the one which,
according to our epigraphicalevidence, took place at the Pergamene
Aphrodision, the only one to fit with Trogus' description.
This conclusionreceivessomesupport,for what it is worth, from what
little sensecan be made of the correspondingpassagein Justin's ac-
count:I 2
interearex BithyniaeEumenessparsisconsumptisque fratribusbello intestinae
discordiaequasivacanlemAsiae possessionem invasurusvictoremAntiochum
Gallosqueadgreditur.
This passagemakessenseonly if Justin is referringto Attalos I of Perga-
mon, and not to the bogusEumenesof Bithynia, and an importantvictory
over AntiochosHierax andthe GalatianssuchasJustindescribescan only
be identified with the one that is prominently commemoratedon the great
bathron:again,that is, the victory at the Aphrodision.I do not think, then,
8 xxxviii.16.14;seeabove,30-1.
e Seeabove,32-3.
t0Wilcken,RE, s.v.Attalos(9),2160;'cf. Kähler,Gr. Fries,l8l, n. ll.
rr For this identification,seeKähler,Gr. Fries, 182-3.
r2xxvii.3.
198 Appendix II
that Trogus and Justin between them are referring to two battles, the one
with the Galatiansat the sourcesof the Kaikos and the one with the
Galatians and Antiochos Hierax at the Aphrodision, both of which are
consequentlyto be dated after the battle at Ankyra; I think that they are
referring in corresponding contexts to the same battle, the one at the
Aphrodision. Thus the battle at the Aphrodision is to be dated to the years
after the battle at Ankyra, but Attalos' great Galatian victory is not
necessarilyto be dated to this period on the basisof the argumentsso far
presented.
Thesechronologicalproblemsare further aggravatedby the fact that the
battle fought betweenAntiochos Hierax and SeleukosII at Ankyra is itself
of uncertaindate. In Bickermann'schronology,which hasfound general
acceptance,the battle is dated to 239, three years before the peace be-
tween the two brothers attestedfor 236,the one fixed chronologicalpoint
of theseyears.r3This chronologyassumesa resumptionof Hierax's war
with Seleukos,and that with Attalos, after 236, and is largely dependent
on the premissesthat Attalos took the royal title before 236 and that his
Galatian victory was part of the war with Hierax: the f,rrstpremisscorres-
ponds with the view adoptedhere, but the seconddoes not. It is more
likely that the entire seriesof battlesinvolvingAttalos,AntiochosHierax,
and SeleukosII, shouldbe datedafterthe yearofpeaceattestedfor 236.In
this caseAttalos'victory at the Aphrodisionis alsoto be datedafter 236.
We still have, then, to determinethe date of Attalos'victory overthe
Galatiansat the sourcesof the Kaikosand his assumptionofthe royal title.
Those who regard this victory as connected with the status of the Gala-
tians as mercenariesof Hierax naturally date this to the years of Hierax's
war with Attalos, after 236on the argumentsdiscussedabove. There are,
however,two points to be emphasized.Firstly, Attalos' dedicationsfor
this victory make it quite clear that his opponentswere the Galatians
fightingalone;when Hierax is involvedhe too is mentionedin the relevant
dedications.Secondly,the Galatians'attackon Attalos is not connectedin
any part of our tradition with the war with Hierax; it is far more plausibly
to be associatedwith the maraudingactivities which enabledthe Gala-
tians to demand tribute from those who wanted to be safe from them.
Theseconsiderationssuggestthat we shoulddate Attalos' victory to the
years before 236, and more precisely to 238 or 237, years which take
account of the time required for Attalos to assume power in 241 and
complete the reorganization of the army at his disposal. The defeated
Tolistoagians,joined by the Tektosagans,later enteredHierax's service
and reappearedas Attalos' enemies at the Aphrodision.
The chronology of the epigraphicalevidence relevant to Attalos' titu-
lature is also obscure.OG/S 268,a decreefrorn Bakir, dated,daoü,eüowog
'AtrdLou,
npbtou houg, is more probably to be dated to the reign of
Attalos II or III, than to that of Attalos Lta Equally suspectin this context
is a letter from Somain the upper Kaikos valley concerning the remission
13SeeE. Bickermann, Berytus,vüi.2 (1944),76 ff.; Kähler,Gr. Fries, 183.
ta See above, 105.
Appendix II 199
of taxespaid by thekatoikoi of Apollo Tarsenos,which is headedwithout
"ArraToE - - -l
the royal title: l- ya(gew, and is dated to a twelfth regnal
year:IB l6oqou l[- - - - llMl6ltavöqoE ix Ileqydpo[u].This document
has now been shown to be a letter of Attalos II written during the reign of
his brother, EumenesII.t5 Finally, stampedtiles from Pergamonbearing
the monogramBA and numbers from five to forty, have been adducedas
evidence that Attalos assumed the royal title and antedated his regnal
yearsin or beforethe fifth year ofhis accession,but the identity ofthese
numbersas regnalyears is extremely tenuous.l6
More important is an Athenian decree of 22918,which contains an
obscurereferenceto a king whoseinitial letter is A: [izredi - - . .]vroExai
ngörepouiv nawix[apöt
lrcü 6aoÄ6atE'Al-- lrcüE Alipa\7oüg
- - - - -1. The two possibilitiesfor restoration are, clearly, 6ctot76ag
'Afvrtyövou] 'A[ud).ou].
and6aor76ary If it refersto Attalos, this decree
constitutesthe earliestdocumentaryevidenceof his useof the royal title.
It would thus establish229 as a terminus ante quem of Attalos' Gallic
victory. It has beenarguedthat the king referredto in this decreecannot
be Attalos, onthe groundsthat Attalos'Gallic victory, afterwhich he took
the royal title, was the final event in his campaignsagainstAntiochos
Hierax and necessärilylaterthan the archonshipof Heliodorosat Athens,
the year in which the decreewas passed.rTThis chronologyis not sup-
ported by the evidence, however, and this objection therefore cannot
stand.
tsAM xxiv (189\,212tr. Cf. L. Robert,BCÄlliii (1929), 15lf., Welles,RC 47.
Boehringer's attempt(ÄvPix. 92)to ascribethisletterto AttalosI, andto arguethat
the absenceof the royal title thereforeestablishes a terminuspost quemfor its
assumption in 230/29 (:year I l), although followedby Schober (Wien.Anz.lxxväi
(1941),9-12),wasconvincinglyrefutedby Kähler,Gr: Fries, 182.
f6 Boehringer,AvP ix. 136.The monograms wereidentifiedas B(AEIAEAE)
A(TTAAOY)by Bickermann, loc. cit. (n.13),77-8.
t7IG ä} 833;A. C. Johnson,AJPlr xxxiv(1913), 3E&-9,followedby A. Wilhelm,
Att. Urkunden, iii (1925),58.
 Appendix III 20r

as distinct from a queen,is otherwiseunknown.sIn the caseof an Athe-

nian dedication,two explanationsare apparent:either (l), the Athenians
m retained Stratonike's patronymic as a special mark of friendship to
Ariarathes V, a benefactorat Athens6(in this casethe baseshouldperhaps
be datedafter 163,when this Ariarathescameto the throne),or (2), they
QUEEN STRATONIKE designatedStratonike 6aoA.ooa as the bride betrothed to Eumenes,the
queenvery shortlyto be (in this casethe baseis datedexactlyto 188nc). It
The publication in Altertümer von Pergamon viii. 3 of a statue-baseof was perhapsenvisagedthat by the time the basewas completedand the
QueenStratonike from the temple of Demeter in Pergamon,may serve to statue ready for erection, Stratonike would have become, officially,
clarify a number of problems concerning her chronology and titulature. t queen.
The base is inscribed with the dedication, ö ö/lpoq | 6ao[7noav An important point needsto be consideredbefore we proceed. Al-
Drgarcvfuqv l6aoü,6ary'Aqngä1ou läpetrlgilvexevxai eövofuglulE eig though Stratonike was betrothedto Eumenesimmediatelyafterthe Treaty
öauröv.2This invites comparisonwith an Atheniandedication,now long of Apameia, we have no evidenceas to the date of the actual marriage.In
known, of a statueon Delos:ö ör1poE 'A9qva[futvl the circumstances,however,we may concludethat the intervalwill have
ö | daoiTLooav2rqa-
'Aqnpdl?oul been minimal. Prior to the Treaty of Apameia Ariarathes IV had been
rcvfixr1v]| 6aoÄ6ory | äqenlE tvexev xai d,votaE I n1Eeig
'Aqf Eumenes' enemy in the Antiochic War, having married Antiochos'
öauröv, | pöt' fiqfloi,'A(n)ölLLavLl. r The problem posedby this
Delian dedicationhas been, that although Stratonike is given the title daughterAntiochis shortly before the war, probably in 195.7Ariarathes
6ao(Anoa, she is also called daughter of Ariarathes (IV of Cappadocia), supportedhis father-in-lawin the war with Rome, and gave help to the
thereby suggestingthat the dedication was made before her marriage to Galatiansduring the'campaignsof Cn. Manlius Vulso.8Thus the Cap-
EumenesII of Pergamon,to whom she was betrothedin 188sc.a Now, s As pointedoutby Durrbach,
Choix,p. 150,against whodatedthe
Dittenberger,
outsidethe PtolemaicKingdomthe useof the titledaolTrcoaof a princess, dedicationante hiemen 18918a. Chr. n. (ad loc., n.l). For the designationof a
Ptolemaic princess as flaoil,rcoa, see especially IG ix.2 l. 56 (Thermos); cf. U.
I Seenow Hopp,(Jntersuchungen,2T-9, whoseconclusion differsfrom that Wilcken.ArclrivfürPapyrusforschung, vi (1920),453; W.Otto,ZurGesch.derZeit
reached here.Verylittlehasbeenwrittenon Stratonike. Geyer'sarticle,RE, s.v. des 6. Ptolemöers(Abh. München, l9l4), 14, 120,n. 9. The suggestionof Th.
(l I ), IV. A.l ( l93l), 321-2,is inadequate, anddwellstoomuchon thequestion of Reinach,Trois royaumesde I'Asie Mineure (Paris,1889),15(cf. W. S. Ferguson,
the parentageof Attalos III, at the expenseof more importantconsiderations. HellenisticAthens (London, l9l l), 301),that the statueof Stratonikewas erected
Niese'sarticle,R.E,s.v.Ariarathes (4),II. I (1895),
8 l7-l 8,doesnotdealat length on Delosafter the deathof Attalos II, whom the widowed Stratonikemarried in 159,
with the problemsconcerningStratonike'smarriage.For the importanceof is implausible; she would not at this late date be called 6aoü.noa Ztparcvtxq
'Apnpä9oo,
Stratoniketo thecult of Sabazios at Pergamon, touchedon below,seeOhlemutz, 6aoü.iaE on Delos or anywhere else. The basefrom Pergamon,as
Kulte,269-72. interpretedbelow, alsorulesout this theory. Durrbach'sown suggestion, that the
2 Habicht,ÄvP viii.3,'DieInschriftendes pl.2(mentioned
Asklepieions'(1969), Delianbasewas originallyone of a pair with a baseof EumenesII (or Attalos II), is
on p. 28,anddatedas'gesetzt nach188').Thetextis noticedby J. andL. Robert, ingenious,but again renderedunlikely by the fact of a parallel dedication at
Bull. 1971,no. 538.It is strangethat this importantinscriptionhashithertore- Pergamon.
mainedin thedark;aslongagoas1940,Ohlem\tz(Kulte,222,n. 56)referred 6 For the benefactionsof AriarathesV at Athens,seeW. S. Ferguson,AIellenistic
to it as
'nochunveröfrentlicht'. Athens,300-1. This explanationis, however,unlikely.The patronymicdesignates
3CIG 2280:OG/S 350;Durrbach,Choix, 89:Inscr. de Dölos, 1575. AriarathesIV; it is diffrcult to believethat he, as distinct from his son, will have
a Livy (from Polybios) xxxviii. 39. 6: et Ariarathes rex parte beenso specifically honouredeven at a later date. It is surely more probablethat the
dimidia pecuniae
imperatae beneficio Eumenis, cui desponderat per eos dies filiam, remissa in patronymicwas includedas a matterof form, and we shouldwork on this basis.
amicitiam est acceptus. Cf. Polyb. xxi. 41. 7: roiE öi nepi 'Aptopd.|qv 7 Appian,Syr. 5. Cf. Nieseii. 674;Seibert,Beitröge, 64-5. The dateis impliedby
ünu (Cn.
Manlius Yulso) ö[axöon tä),avta ööwaE i1v eipriv4v ö1ew, and xxi. 45:Md),tog 6 the context ofAppian's narrative,where Antiochosmakesa numberofbetrothal
'Apnpö.ilou offers. The immediately preceding events in the narrative are the marriage of
av9ünarcg tptaxöon td)"awa npaS,ö.pevog ncp' qi),ou aitöt
önonjoarc'Poryalav. See also J. Seibert, Hist. Beiträge zu den dynastischen Antiochos' children Antiochosand Laodike at Seleukeia(winter 196/5:Schmitt,
Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit (Historia, Einzelschriften, 10, 1967), I l3-14. Untersuchungen, 13-14), and the meeting of Antiochos and Hannibal at Ephesos
The initiative for this marriage alliance lay certainly with Ariarathes, as rightly in autumn 195(Holleaux,Etudes, v. 180-3). A later date (e.g. l92ll, O. Leuze,
noted by Seibert (l l4), and not with Eumenes (which would be incomprehensible), Hermes,lviii (1923),2ll-I2) would clearly strengthenthe argumentput below as
as wrongly deduced by McShane, Foreign Policy, 173, and Will, Hist. pol. ü. 193:. to Stratonike'sparentage,but is unlikely.
'Eumöne 8 Nieseii. 759;RE loc. cit. (n.I ), 817.
lui demanda la main de sa fille.'

202 Appendix III
padocianking remainedEumenes'opponentto the last moment,and his
changeof alliance was a political volte-face,designed,as the literary
evidenceexplicitly states,to securemorefavourabletermsfrom Rome.In
these circumstanceswe must surely reckon with the intention of an
immediatemarriagewith Eumeneswhen Stratonikewas betrothedin 188,
as is clearfrom anotherinstanceofthis kind ofgestureat the end ofa war.
When the EgyptianprincessBerenikewas betrothedto Antiochos II by
her father, Rolemy II, in 253Bc,the motive was the same;Philadelphos
wantedto end hostility and begin a period of friendship,as we seemost
clearly from the evidenceof Hieronymos (in Danielem ü. ll. 6): volens
itaque PtolemaeusPhiladelphuspost multos annosmolestumfinire cer-
tamen,filiamsuam,nomineBernicem,Antiocho uxoremdedit.eWeknow
from two importantpapyri of the ZenonArchive (PCZ 59242,59251),that
this marriagewas negotiatedin 253and took placein spring252sc, after
the shortestpossibledelay, and that for this purposeBerenikewas es-
corted by Philadelphos'ministerApollonios to the Syrian border.r0The
prime concernseemsto havebeenspeedin completingthe arrangements.
It was obviously important in such circumstancesthat the marriage be
completedwithout delay, and the same is true, we may believe,of the
parallelsituationin Asia Minor in 188.Two further points may be added:
firstly, if a delaywas envisagedbetweenthe betrothaland the marriageof
Stratonike,the dedicationof her statuein Pergamon,which must neces-
sarily be dated before the marriagetook place (seebelow), will have read
'Agnpd1ou
Ztparovtx1v 6. and not, as it does,6aoi7@oavZrparovtx4v
6.'Aqnpd0ou. Secondly,it is hardly crediblethat Eumenes,by accepting
a child-bride(as has been suggested)in 188,will have been preparedso
drasticallyto postponehis chancesof obtaininga legitimatemale heir to
the royal house.This conclusion,that Stratonikewas ready for marriage
in 188,and that the marriagewas expectedto take placeimmediately,has
an important bearingon our discussion.
In the first place, Stratonikecannot have been the daughterof An-
tiochis, as is often supposed.rrAriarathesmarried this daughterof An-
tiochos III in c.195, as we have seen, and an interestingpassageof
Diodoros (xxxi. 19. 7) suggeststhat for some years the marriagewas
childless:r2taür4v dö (= 6n1;o"his)pi ywoptvav r4xvatvöno6ü"6o0at
'ApLagd?7v
ö6o naiöag dyvooüvtogrcü ävöqög, xai'OAoEtqvrlv. perd
ö6 rn a ypövov rfiE cpöoeaginöefaptvqE äveln[ouoE r*eiv aür]v öüo
eNieseii. 139.
toP. Cairo Zeno 59251(: Hunt and Edgar,SelectPapyri (Loeb Classical
Library,1930),i. no.93):a letter,datedc. 15April 252,toTpnonfromArtemidoros
thephysician,who accompanied Apollonioson the mission,lines2-3: 6u ö6oot
Eypagov, napeywöpe1a eig Eötova, oupntropeuptvor tfit 6aoü.ioo4t I EtoEttitl
öplcov.
tt e.g.by Welles,RC, p. 270,whosechronologyis at fault (cf. Ohlemutz,Kulte,
270,n.44).Antiochisis known only from this event:cf. Holleaux,Etudes,iii. 187,
n. 3; Schmitt, Untersuchungen,24-5.
t2 Cf. Niese,RE loc. cit.; Schmitt, Untersuchungen,24-5.
Appendix III 203
trtiv |uya#pag, uiöv öö Eva röv övopao?övtaMßptödtqv. This Mithri-
dates,as the only legitimateson of AriarathesIV, was to succeedhim in
163as AriarathesV.t3 Neither of the legitimatedaughters,however,can
be identifiedas Stratonike.since,for reasonsdiscussedabove,we must
discount the possibility that Eumeneswas betrothedto a child in 188.
We may conclude,then, that Ariarathes'marriageto Antiochiswas his
second,the first queenremainingunknown, and that Stratonikewas the
daughterof the former marriage.raOn the evidencepresentedabove,she
must havebeenat leastsixteenyearsold in 188,and was thereforeborn in
2(X at the latest.On the other hand, a passageofJustin (xxxvi. 4. 5), ifits
chronologycan be pressed,suggestsa datefor Stratonike'sdeathshortly
before that of her son, Attalos III, who was preparingher mausoleum
when he died:matri deindesepulcrumfacere instituit, cui operi intentus
morbumex solisfervore contraxitet septimadie decessit.This conclusion
is supportedby epigraphicalevidencethat is often overlooked.In a letter
written by Attalos III to the city of Pergamon,dated5 October 135,1s the
king refers to his mother's devotion to the gods, and to her goodwill
towards his father and himself, in the past tense (l-4): önei daotfuooa
Zrparovix1 ft pirrte pou - npög änawaE pöv rcüE 1eoügeüoe6öE
npoo4viyüq, xrA. The omissionof the word 06a in this context, where
Attalos writes of his mother in a very personalway, is no objectionto the
natural conclusionthat Stratonike was then already dead. In fact it is
probablethat shewas recentlydead,and that the enshriningofSabazios,
whose cult Stratonike had brought to Pergamonin 188, with Athena
Nikephoros,as explainedin the letter, was done in honour of her mem-
tr Diod.xxxi. 17.8. Cf. Niese,RE, s.v. Ariarathes (5),818;Schmitt,loc. cit.
taThisis mentioned asa possibilityby Magie,RomanRule,i|.770-1,n.72(cf.
Seibert,Beiträge, ll3-14),butwithapreferencefortheviewthatthemarriagedid
not takeplaceuntil a laterdate,becauseStratonikewasnot readyfor marriagein
188.He citesin supportof thisviewthreedocuments honouring members of the
Attalidroyalfamilybetween188and 175I 4, in whichthe nameof Stratonikedoes
notappear(seealsoHopp,(Jntersuchungen,2S-9): thedecree ofTelmessos dated
184sc (Appendix iv, no.7);theAitoliandecreeof 182rc accepting thePergamene
Nikephoria (Appendix iv, no.9);andtheAthenian decreeof 175/4 passed afterthe
accession of AntiochosIV (Holleaux, Etudes,ä. 12747;OGIS248).Of these,the
first is not relevant,becauseit praisesEumenesspecificallyfor his success in the
warwith PrusiasI of BithyniaandtheGalatians in thelate l80s(onthechronology
andcircumstances seeHabicht,Hermes,lxxxiv(1956), 9) andthe sameconsid-
erationappliesto themusicald7ör,e6honouringEumenes (calledSoter)mentioned
in a decreeof Tralles,whichHoppadduces (Appendixiv, no. 6; Hopp,Unter-
suchungen, 28, n. 68);nor do I thinkthatthe othertwo documents constitutea
seriousobjectionto the chronologyarguedhere;documents of thistimecouldbe
strangelyselectivein the matterofpersonshonoured,andtherewasno hardand
fast rule. Thus the Amphiktyonicdecreeacceptingthe Pergamene Nikephoria,
passedat the sametimeastheAitolianmentioned above,unlikethelatterhonours
Eumenesalone,apart from a formal referenceto Attalos I in the secondline
(Appendixiv, no. l0).
tsOGIS331.IV; Welles, RC 67.
 204 Appendix III
ory.16I proposethen to dateStratonike'sdeathto the year 135sc, and the
family tree of her parentagemust be drawn as follows:
ANTIOCHOS III
ARIARATHES IV,m. (l) ?
I
(2) Antiochis
Stratonike(c.204-135)
m. EUMENES II (188/7)
To return to the base from the temple of Demeter in Pergamon:of the
explanations suggested above for the wording of the Athenian base
erectedon Delos, only the secondwill fit the Pergamenededication,and
becauseit is Pergamene,that is, a dedicationof Eumenes'capital,which
was to receivethe new bride, further considerationis required.Clearly,
the dedicationmust be datedafter the betrothal.sincebeforethat time. as
we haveseen,the two royal houseshad beenenemies.After the marriage
of Stratonike had taken place, however, the addition 6aoAfa4
'Apnpd9ov
would disappearin a Pergamenededication;the royal title
alonewould suffice,as in the dedicationsmadeby Stratonike'spriestess
Eurydike,rT Baoü,noafv] Z[tpatovfuqv) | Eüpuöfu4 lr1fpläpftou,
[6qen]|öLd 6iou, &.lppqlEtvexevlIxo,ieüvoiaEq[Eeigöautfiv],andby
the royal official Menogenes,I8 IBao [).woavl 2r q ar lov [x4v I M qvoy6v4E]
MryvfoEd.vtou,
lö iri röv ngaypärov, dqerfiEEvexevlxai eövoiaErfigeiE
öaurövl.It follows, then, that the statueof Stratonikewas erectedin the
templeof Demeterleafter her betrothalto Eumenesin 188,but beforethe
marriage,andthis proceduremakessense,at Pergamonat least,only if the
marriagewas expectedto take placeaftera shortinterval,thusconfirming
the conclusionreachedearlier.
This conclusion,reachedfrom historicalconsiderations,is more posi-
tive than that to be deducedfrom the indicationsof the letter-formsof the
inscription. The photographwas publishedby Habicht for purposesof
comparisonwith a basefrom the Pergamene
Asklepieion,inscribedwith a
dedicationof theör1pogof Pergamonfor Athenaios,brotherof EumenesII
and recentlyäyavo9&qE of the festival calledZanlpLa xo,i 'Hpd.xleLa.
This baseis datedby Habichtto the l80sor evenlater,a chronologywhich
is historically implausiblein the case of the dedicationof the statueof
Stratonike.Nor do the lettersof the baseof Stratonikeseemto me to point
'6Cf. my remarkson this subjectin BSA lxvi (1971), 9.
t7IvP 178,: OGIS 313.The priesthoodwas rightly identified
as that of
Stratonikeby Dittenberger(n.2, adloc.).Stratonike priesthood
' duringherlifetime: also had a atTeos
L. Robert. Er.anat.9-20;seeabove,150.
tBIvP 773,: OGIS293.
rerhe choiceof Demeteris interesting. Apollonistoo hadassociated herself
closelywiththecultof Demeter thetempleareain pergamon,
by greatlyextending
asattestedby herdedicationto thegoddess fromthepropylon(ÄMxxxv(1910), no.
'AnoTTaviE
24): Baoü.Looa /r11tr1rptxfa]i Köq1L @eopocpöpogXapnrfiprcv täE
otod.E xai toüE oixouE. See the useful account ofOhlemutz, Kulte, 2O7-12.
Appendix III 205
to a date later, rather than earlier, in the reign of Eumenes II. Other
documentsrelevant to Athenaios are cited by Habicht as having distinctly
earlierletter forms @vP väi. 3, p.27, n.l; p. 28): 'mit Ausnahmedes
Dekrets von Kolophon scheiden sich an dieser Formfrage die jüngeren
Steinevon den älterensehrklar. Tatsächlichistjedoch auchderText aus
Kolophon keine Ausnahme, sondern von Holleaux zu hoch datiert.' The
reference here is to the decree of Colophon Nova honouring Athenaios,
dated by Holleaux (Etudes,ii. 5 1-60) before 197, becauseEumenesis not
specifically mentioned; a later date is probable,and the omissionof a royal
namein a civic decreeis not necessarilyofchronological significance(see
above,n.l4), but the lettersare not directly comparablewith thoseof the
base from the Asklepieion, which are surely of an earlier date.20Of the
other texts cited,lvP 219,a dedicationmadeby Athenaiosfor his brother
Attalos, is the most relevant,as a Pergamenededication;it is to be dated
very probably after 159,when Attalos was king, but the lettersare more
distinctly those of the secondhalf of the secondcentury than either the
basefrom the Asklepieion'irrthe basefor Stratonike.The letterson the
base for Stratonike are recognizableas the elegant type oflettering that
recursat Pergamonin the reignsof Attalos I, EumenesII, and Attalos II
alike; for a specificexampleit is enoughto indicateIvP 62, of c.192 sc,
whoselettersare very closein styleto thoseof the baseof Stratonike.But
sincetheselettersareto be found over a largepart ofthe secondcentury,a
close dating on this criterion alone is not possible.
All thingsconsidered,then, we shouldretainthe datearguedabovefor
the erectionof statuesof Stratonikeon Delosandin Pergamon,i.e. I 88sc,
as a resultof the betrothalof Stratoniketo Eumenesearlierin the year. It
must be remembered,as was pointedout above,that a periodof time will
have been envisagedfor the completion of the work of sculpting and
inscribing,and it is almostcertainlyfor this reasonthat we readthe royal
title on the bases:the decisionto erect each statuewas taken after the
betrothal, but in anticipationof the marriagehaving taken place by the
time the work was completed- a further reason for minimizing the
interval in our chronology.
One can imaginethat Stratonike had a difücult task aheadof her in
succeedingto the positionof Apollonis,the queenof Eumenes'fatherand
predecessor,Attalos I. Apollonis,not herselfof royal blood, becameone
of the very few ladiesof the Hellenisticcourts about whom our literary
20Seeabove, 56. The basefor Athenaiosreads:<jö4poE
'Awä).ou I'A?rjuar.ov6aoü6ag
'Hpdxltn
I dy(tlvo9trrjoawa td öeütepa l2ltoyripta xoi lxd.öE xai
övö6laE. The first celebrationof the festival of Zonrjpta xai'Hpd.x).eta is dated by
Habicht,following H. Hepding@M xxxv (1910),412),to the reignof EumenesII,
to be associatedwith one ofhis local wars. Could it not havebeenfoundedearlier,
e.g. after the Antiochic War? The letter-formsof this base,especially I (cf. C.
Paepcke,de Perg. litt.8,29), seemto me to have earliercharacteristics, and are
generallysimilarto thoseof lvP 47, which was probablyreinscribedat the time of
Eumenes'restorationof the precinctof Athena in the l80s;cf. Kähler,Gr. Fries,
1 8 5 n. . 2 2 .
206 Appendix III

sourceshave nothing but good to say.2rStratonikewas to join a family

which had alwaysbeenproud of its closerelationships.Shewas, further-
more, the centre of attraction in an alliancebetweentwo royal houses
whoserelationshadup to the lastmomentbeenhostile.Shehadto provide
an heir. Much clearlydependedon her. In the event,as is well known, the
alliance proved fruitful, and remained an important factor in the foreign
policies of the two dynasties.Stratonike was highly honoured by the
Attalids, who gave her, at Teos and at Pergamon,a specialplace in the
royal cults of the newly enlarged PergameneKingdom.22In 188 the
importanceof the marriagewasevidentlywell recognized,and Stratonike
was not surprisinglyhailed as queen at the earliestpossiblemoment.
2rSeeespecially
thewarmencomium of Polybios(xxii. 20).
22Seeabove,n.17,and,on the cultsof Stratonike,
ch. 6.
IV
SELECTED INSCRIPTIONS
An edition of all the non-Pergamenetexts relating to the Attalids is a
desideratum.This selectionof the most important,which is additionalto
the textsgiven in the body ofthe book, includesthoserecentlypublished,
someof those not availablein the standardepigraphicalcollections(such
as1SE,OG1S,andSy//.3), andotherswhich havebeenreproducedin these
collectionsbut have sincereceivedsignificantrevision.Inscriptionsfrom
Pergamonitself, being regularly availablein the reports of Athenische
Mitteilungen, are not included.
The text followed is that of the most recentedition, exceptas noted in
the apparatus.Variants supersededby the edition followed are not nor-
mally repeated.

1(a) Foucart,BCH vüi(I884),I58;SGD/i, Addenda,p. 402,no. 805a;1G

vii. I 788; OGIS 3 I 0; Fraser,REA liv (1952),233-45,no. I (a) (Karata,
near Thespiai).Philetairos.
<DÄ6qpoE'At-
rdTot lTepya-
peüE.d.vö0er
xt Ta.vyav
s tiS Molofig
qE'Eluor
vtdöeoot,iapd-
v elpeyTov rav-
ra Xpövov
lb0o)BCH viii (1884),158;1Gvii. 1789;REAliv (1952),23345,no. l(ä)
(Karata). Philetairos.
tDÄ{qpoE'Ar-
ü7a Ilqyla-l
peüEäv60em[el
rdv yd.v rfiE Ma-
'E),wco-
s orts tfiE
vtäöeoot iapdv
elpeväv röv
ndwa ypövov

1(c) Foucart,BCH ix(1885),405.no. 16;IG vü. l7X);OGIS 3l l;AEÄ liv

(1952),23345, no. 2 (Karata). Philetairos.
----A-----42-
ftd]y lylav ävö9eftxel
208 Appendix IV Appendix IV 209

'4r.t,i4g - - - - npörcpov rßöpevog xnE{ -

l<DtlA&1PoE
lll$qya.peüs ntE M[@-] zo - -- - elövoiaEil6ouA40qsu- - -
s IolqE xl dE ouvhhqg roi(E) - - - - äv0lqd)now änewfaA
(Dü,"etqpe[eoot[apäv ----naleo.yefvöpevoE
{elipev töp näwa yqö-
vov. Length of line and line divisions conjectural 22 ?nalgaye[vöpevoE eig d1v
vfioov
l(d) Jamot, BCH xxvi (1902), 156, no. 6; OGIS 749; REA liv (1952),
23T45, no. 3 (Karata). Philetairos. 3 Ducrey and van Effenterre, Kret. Chron. ii (1969),277 tr.; Ducrey,
<Dü'hrypog'At- BCH xciv (lfo), 637-59(Malla, Crete). Attalos I.
ü.7a llegya- A
peüEdv60er
- - - - c . 2 6 - - - -----lAZAT.A.
xe rdv yd.v roi t----
'Eppr1 - - - - c . 2 3 - - - --12eivatAfQ
iv ü ö- t----
)qoypfotrcv t---- - - - - c.20 - - - - - -IIEAEZEINTAK
iagäv eipev t---- - - - - c . 1 7- - - ü 1 v ü n o y e y p a v p { v o v
Bv röv näwa s föpxov - - - - ildu ö6.tL röv yeygavptv-
1Pövov [<ov- - - - 8v) rfir öpd.oyiar Md"Tatot pfi n-
louioalvrt ävoXoräoraoav uot napqon-
l(e'l BCH xxvi (1902),155,no. 5; OGIS 750;REA liv (1952),23345, lo)vöqxivat xai AeAüxevraouv0rixaE. <xa>
no. 4 (a) (fhespiai). Philetairos. xatd taird. öi xai \dv Ma)'Aaior 1pefuv öi61
l0 oweE ouvpd)((aEn€vnont ngöE 6aoÄ-
fib]t7&apoE Eöpivou 6a
"Ana)"ov,
änone776ta 6aoÄeüE
"At[r-l
IIryyalteüEMoüoaq
aToEävöpag rpnxooiouE xai fiyepövalgl
fK]acprciaE
EJtOL4Oe IiW' aöIr6lv, idv öä pl öxnoQr ö nLfiqoEtoüt-
lol örd ttväE xatpoüE,öoouEäv ivö6y4ra4 ö-
'IepanuwiouE 'Apxd-
15 ldlv prt in' fi llgnvoiouE i)
2 IG ü.2 885;Allen, BSÄ lxvi (1971),l-12 (Athens).AttalosL öag napxaTöow' oirot öi önef,aqrjo9av ö-
nö 6aor)"6oE'Aud.)"ou.roig öö nevnopfvotg
ö 6aloÄtüE "AuaAoE
nogeta pöv napey{rut 6aoÄeüE x-
tpö; tou
----vpivnapal---- ai rd ötlttitvtaxai tä ö6owa iv rö(t) n[ööt. <ora>
----vrdgöneZANz 20 ötav öö napayfvovtat npöE Mü'Laioug, rfp-l
5 - - - o ü ö i l v ö n o o r c t 7 ä p e v l -o E
- --- - - {El&aoav rilv ouvpaytav aöroi, nag{llo-l
- - - - röv'il'Arivcou xct - - - oweg rfiE it epas öxäorar &vögi öpaTpdv
----xatddä0vr7rryol- aiywaiav, ubv ö' flyepövatvöxdotat öQoxlt-
- - rl(pev4 ävil9q vac. äner äs ööo xai xatd oCopayofuma furlLxlfiv, ßdvp-
- - - 6aol)töaE'AwdAou tv aiE oi xar - - 2s i1 Bv no)'epfut öow, oö öotat oirov 1ap6ä-
velv. fiae(rpevtrooav öö oi änoout76v-
l0 - - - ov xai toüE xatfyovrag 9eolüE
- - - noujoouoLvöö xai oüwaov xai 1oüp6opovttp AiaxQt?l teE örbgäv MaTTaior Xpetav öXotot.fuav öi
"A-
yeyevqpfvaEön' aütott npälp6 npöE rilv oar4pfav?l dnotrtjaoLv rououvpäyoEnpög 6aoL7öa
[drä zä]E 2YNA
'ElLLrjvav.
vac. 6ou7öpevoE öö xai eiE ftfta).ov rä nopeta öötaoav aüroi
Iröv
- - - - oldqeor4pav rrjv re eöo66env xa[i - - - - - -
B
15 - - - natlqlou aütd.nöndqyovroErö trydv - 30 td-l
- - - - ov önäpXovra vac. xai uüv öö napaLa[6öv rilv vfioov (or rilv lpol).6y4p[ev- - - ei p] napa6-l
Qjptttpav) n67n)l lalivowaE öpoToyifau, iiuo ö16)'4Ete xail
'Hpax]16ouE
[öÄ tfiv npöEAiaxöv ouyyfvenv navdtlqE xai aü1rö1Efxai yuvrj xai #xv-l
- - - - oLEi[xp1aqptvov röv rilv dpXit, a xai narpig xai of 6aotl76o4 cpiTouöd-l
210 Appendix IV Appendix IV 2ll

35 v öi xai övp|vovrt iv rfo)ig [ritpoAoy4p*vorl nag' öautoü xai tiE rd. rrlt 1eat 4q4orya' iva oöv xai ö öqpoE
[g], elvat xai 6by eiöatpova laörtu xail cpatvqratrtpöv roüE dya9oügxai noLLoi lqAatai
yuvami xai r|xvotE xai natqiör xai roiE lE-l yivavtar üw 6po[av, öeö6y0at.n1r douAfit xai rör öripoL
"'Olpxjos 'Aträ7ou.
il'oQ)E. 6aoü.6ag öpvüa lital , 20 inaw6oat Tipapyov in( re tfit npöE ü 1ciov u)otdefat
.HAr,ov, 'A04v-
f4v, Ilooetöö, Afipqqa, Apq, xai rfit npöE qv nöAw aiq|oeu xai orecpavdtoataöröv
"Aper,av
40 dv xai ü1v Taupond).ov xai rcü(E) ä- Bu ufu 9eätqatt 0a17oü ortcpdvan iv toIE dy?rlooptuory
ATouE9eoüEndwaE xai näoaE' ivp6v- /rcvuobq ngovoq94vtav rfig dvayyeTlaEroü te
ew Ev tfiL cpLltatxai rfit. ouvpaylat xai r äyavo9&ou xai roü ypappat6o4 rcü öripou,dvaypätpat
foi)g 6pü,oy4pivo6 npög Mü,Latoug e- 2s öä xai ü rprjcpLopaeig otrjTrlv xai dva9eivat
iE röv nd.wa yq6vov xai npög aörcüE xai r 8v töt ieqö4 ömtE o6töE rc noATöt pdLLov öxxa7firat
4s oüg öyyövougxai oö9öv napadrjoeo0at npög eöepyeoiavqE nö7eag xai o[ ä).Lot 676nov-
röv öpoToyqp|votv. eüopxoüvrt pfv teE d1v d.navraptvqu rotE äfto6 röv d.vöpöv
pot eö e'i1,Eqrcupxoüuttöä rävaw[a. eöEqpiav nü'ö ngo?upöupov önrßtovtat rfit
30 npöE rä xowä cpÄaya9iat.
6-7pfi tllonjoalvnDaux,Rev.hist.dedroitfrangais
et ötranger,xlix (1971),374
( N l- - - N I 1 e d s . )
6 PapadopoulosKerameus,'E77. <017. 2u77. (1884), 58-60; Robert,
4 Wescher and Foucart, Inscr. de Delphes, 336; Sy//. 447; SGDI Rev.Phil. viii (1934),279 ff. (Tralles).EumenesII.
2ffi1; Syll.2846 (not reproducedin Sy//.3)(Delphi). Attalos I. . . . . . -t' dyqr äya9lqr' öeööy9at' Bnawöoal
ZtgarayfovtoE <DatvtaprlvöE Ilavd.pou, öv lelEoiE öö äpyovroE lpöv üp Qaxariav öiplqv ini qr eövotat 4caliqr ngoar-l
'Eppevöa [q6oerffa äyerngöE ü]v ö4pov üv flpedlpovl xai E[ni rör]
p4vög Bouxaüou, ini toioöe dn&öoto laptaE
ö napd rcü 6aoü"604'AttdTou ö \ni uitv öpyotvtöv 1aohrxöv f. .. . . |nryil'qQqvalroü AfanooraTfivaLävöpaEd[ya0oüE]
' 5 fxai ömaioug ngög flpaE]xai orccpauöoataöröv ypuoöt orccpfd-]
A q ep ö tbqantr d.v6ao t).mäv n a tö [ oxav r ö t' A nd A).auLr ö t II u0[ox,
s d.gyupiouotarfipotv rcooapd.xovta rpttitv, xa1öE Eniozeuoe fvat' inaw{oat öt xai ü1y ömaodlv xai röv ygappatta ryIdl|o-
'AqepLötitqa lxaya9iaE Evexevxai ömlatoo6v4gfiE öoyooavnegi rd.Eöixag'
rör, 9eöt räv öväv, Eq' fot aöräv Bleu06qavelpev,
_
JTOLEIY
lwtcpavöoar öi üv pä1vömaodlv yquodu orerpdva; röv d1ä]
ö xa 06Aryt,elpev ef,xa 06)"qu6e6arctti1pxatöv vöpov. 'ErupbvöaE [yqappat{a 0ü"7oü otlecpävat' iva öi xai f1dvayyeAia röv
lilcpöE. päprvpeg. rci iegeigxai iöufuat N{xölöapog,'Oq\aioE, l0 lottqävav yiv1rat. nalp' fiptv öv rcig pouotxoiE &yöotv toig
II ü,üil'e t t og, @e6rryog'Apq woeüE. fouwil'ouptvoq önö rclu öfipou 6aoüei Eüp{vet Zcotfiq öny
fuiLenv noqoäo9a ö ylqappateüE rcü örjpou petd oteepa-
5 SEG iv.632; Sardis vä. l. 4 (Sardis).EumenesII. lvqcpdgov . . ip <D)oxaiatöö noqoäo9aoav d1v dvayyü"ffi
"Eöoftv fav iv röL iyopövtttthlet'
rfir 6oü.fir xai röt öfipox oqar4yöv
yvdpq' änei TtpapyoEMeveöripou,rcrayptvog nqö- Linesl-14 only reproduced
here
regov ünö rcü 0eoü 6aoü.604 QwxoqüAa[ öv llegyäpat
xai nimeaE oü pmpdg fifuapivog, äv rc rciE xatd. d1v
s ygefuv örcyevri?ry d.xü"oü9aEtfit roü Eyyeqioawog 7 Jacopi, Cl. Rhodos ii (1932),172-4, no.3; improved text by Segre,
npoatpioet xai 8v rciE ä).)'o6 &veoqdq4 d.ptpmotE, Riv. di fi|. lx (1932),46-52 (Telmessos).184/3.
ötöneg ö 6aoüeüg önryvoüEd1v negi aitöv öndqyouoav fBaorleüowoEl Eöpivou ZottqpoEl^ ö',
xa9apeütqra xai d1v xatd töy 6iov eöta$iav rc [öq icq6o4 . . . ltbgou, pryvöEAüövaiou 6', i1x-1
xai peryütqta, xai vopi(av eö1ercv elvat npög d1v lxlqoiag xupfiaE yevoptv4E,ööofev Te7-
l0 9eganetav xai eöxoopfuv röv xatd. ü tegöv qg fueoo|ovl rfir. nö7et xai roiE ägyouot
nap' fipiv 'Aq6pöog xat1otqoev veatxöqovrfig 1eoü, 5 [. . . . .lritgar /anäpar'EppoEävrar Bner
ywöpevög rc npög rcig SyxeyeLgtoptvoLE xai äptp- [ö]16aoq),eügEöptvrlE ö oatdlp xai eiegy6-
ntaE ävaotqeqöpevog ouvulpei d1v öndpryouoav IrqE fiplöv, d.vaöeldpevogröv nöLepov oö pö-
aörör napd nd.otv tügqpiav, eöoe6öEöö örcxetpevoE lvov önlöp röv ücp'aöröv taoooptvcov ä77d xai
15 xai tqög tö 0eiov xai qt),ayd1<oEnetqdrat xatd. i1v öawoü töntp ä111a;vtöv xaromo$vtotv rilv'Aofuv, ö-
öüvapw xai 8v rcörc6 p4öevöE)cfueo1at pepilav t0 fnöw]q töv xivöuvor', xai napaxaT{oaE rcüE
2r2 Appendix IV Appendix IV 213
[9eo]üE xai önyavrcdpevoE npög tt llpouoiav
'Oqü.yovta
xo,i rcüg fa\d.tac xäi rcöc
[xatä rcüg nlolöpouE tnaul1xöE rdp 6aoÄefuv xai öv rdv xa77[-
[xa]i otav ötä0eotv äyvqxöE xöxpme
folupptiyoug aüröv, vac. Ävix7oev övööfag iai 'A0dvat
fouvrü.eivl äydvaE xai 9uoiag rtu üt Nmacpögatpuä töv
Ilalgs xaj öE rjpciEeöyöpeila rcts eei7: äya- döe\göv xai toö öäpou tCou
15 0r1tüy14 öeööy1at tfit trö),et xo,i iok äoyou_
otv' ö.niroiE yryevqp6vo6äya1oiE,i1gri_" llleqyapqvblv, neqi nAeiotou norcüpevoEtäu nori rcöE 9eoüEeöo6-
6env, naqaxü,ü lölä xai rc[üEl
9at piv roüg [epüE xai d4 iqeiaE aiiotw_
ptvav röv ieqöv ndwaw xaiiiE rö lomöv ö[r_1 IA fuo7oü E iJfanfe]w aAxöE 0eopoüg II 69oav, @eö]'.urov, Srrj orn-
nou &noö6fao0at rcüg dyövag
ö6vat 6aoÄei Eöp{vet vtxyv xai xgdtoE xai
z0 xatd yfiv xai xarä 1dlaooav, xaiint inrci frritv Nmag]opiatv oteqavfuaE, röp pöv pouomöv ioonti9rcv, üv öt
yupvtxöv xai innmöv ioolipnrnv,
6a.oüiooq r'AtoA)"av (öt. xai rcis aiiÄ6"\ig 'A9dvag
lxai boaöflatE äoü"ov tö #pevoE-tag rdE Ntxagöpou'
aöroü. orcqav1cpoqfioatöi rcöE ntol).üai-
öeö6y0ar rciE Airoiloig lönlaw4oat
xai roüE ä).).ougänavraE, xai 06oavra< "Awa7ov, (DrAfuat-
1päv6aoA6la Eöpfv4 xai rcüE äöeLEoögaittoö
Xaptmriqn rotg 1eoiEeüapio1at iv rr17 pov,'A?rjvatov xai 6aoü.woav
zs löxxlqo.ilgq(?)-
.eig tö ).omöv öä xa|,'Examov pfi_
' ['Anoil'oviöal rdp par4pa aöröv xai röv.ödpov rtisv[IepyapquCov
fva 9uöwo]^oi äpyovreErfir npo#qat, iv fit ve_ Enr rul nor. rouE [0eoü1geöo$e[lat]
[vtxrlxevö 6aoÄ1eüg/ü levü)"icor.xai'Abryvat Nlt_] eix6vt ypuoöat, üp pöv 6aoÄ6a
fxai orccpawTloatExaorov aörisv 'innou,
[xqqdpcot,- - - -l 9>AN^.>YN . . yI öcp' rcüg öö älTAougnelmdtl,
l5 läpemg Evexelvxai eüvofugrcs 8!v ü ä0vo),_&noö$t7Par öi xai
8 Kalinka, öJh xxüi (1926),l5l-2, no. 87 (panion,Thrace).Eumenes roüE dyövaE iolv NmaEopfuv oügl
II, ?180s. louvreAet6aolrküg Eüptv4E [olrecpavfuaE, üp pöv pouomöv ioonü-
9rcv, röv öö yufuvmöv (xai innmöv) ioo)'üpnrclv,
öntq 6aoü.tag
le1pu öi1xafi] roiE vtxtdvtotE röv AiraTöv rd.Enpd.Exai ü. Tomd
Eöp{vou orotfiqoE nd.wa rd öv rfotg vöpo6 ntq( re tav]
xai eöe[qy]{rcuxa[i] 'OTopnkov
[Ilu?futv x]ai <td.> z.araxEx@Qloptvaxai xa9d.neg ö
xrtotou.rfiE nü"e- 6aoÄeüEEitp6v4Eävaföemvöetlü ripfevoEl
s oE xai töv ä6il-
qdtv aüroü xai 6a_ IraE'A9äjvaE tdE Nmacpöpoutö nori llepyd.pat äou7ov,xa9öE xa
öp[fq, ouvanoöeööy9arrcüE A fua[7oüE1
oÄtoor1E Ztparcvt_
läouAovlelpevaöü ü. d.n'AiraTöv xai iov övAhaT(at xaromeöv-
,tqE /ööogo[E] xov xai p406va äyew p4öi Quo[t-l
'Agptöatou
/ti [Za_] 1älew ilvröE tav öpiav' ei ö6 rft xa äyX fi |uoüfr1 ft äno6üfano i)
'A94v[dtl
ro rfipt xai öLryyud.or1, önöörxov eipev Bv rcilEl
Nuqgöpat x[ai] ttitt döm40övrtxai äALotuir 067owt.övraiE öx norrcrä-
'An67Aavt [ouv6öplotE
II[u0kol. orcg ötxaq' änoo#LLew ö1i1
'A9dvat
[9ttoploöEöv ilöpyapov, ßneftl xa ä ?uoia xa9rixqr tat. rdl
Haussoullier,
BCH v (t88D, 372,nos. 2_3; Sytt.t629;IG ix.2l. 179; Nmacpöpat' raE öi ixnovnd.Eint-
Daux, Delphes, 299-301;F. Delphes, üi. 3.'240(Delphi). 182/1. fuelkto1at röv otgatayöv ä.eiröv ävapyov' totg öö 9eaqoiEtoiE
inayy eALöwoq toü E ayfövag]
I9_" el ö s.^ ül
tT N d Iröv Nlmacpoptav xaraordoat rdE nöLetEöxdoraE 9eapoööxoug
["Eöole rciE] A ir ü,oiE. [äz]ri 6ao ü.t i EEüp iv 4s 3ndppi röv iöiav nolndv xai ävtvty-
9 ilo Exä
ouftiax,oEön nqoyövav rdu o$oa[v ix na_] lxetlv rcög äpTovtaErcüE änö rdv no)'tou röt orparay[ö]r npo[i-
11_.._.. ,,
l ar@vNeöv@vtlüvomv Epnavti xatpöt cpavegöE ylverat iuvatjfav', vat tv tä. IIü9m. öööuev öö
fixtXelpov xai ftvr,a öoa xai rctE rd'O)"tipnn inayyilTöwoq
rnenorqratttaEivröur,.r,ul"7l{i#i:;rhf"y,!m::i:tä:::: 9ttopoigötöovrL' öntttEöö xai i1v|
ftoöEvlöpougxatayaprc9fi ä tt änoöoXdiov äytbvovxai roü ftpoü
[onouöd.sxailcpÄotrytaEoö*övur^1:l:::;:;:r2:n':t:W:':] ä d.ou7[axai ä röv Oftlapoööxav
Äöv xai peyälav eüapep1pä[rov] lxarämlaory xai tä ä,7a ü. iv röt tpaEiopart xard)t€X@qoptva,
214 Appendix IV Appendix IV 215

önryi7env nodloao9at töv mparayöv lxai rryCovteEflöv 6aoÄ6av öoot öLarqgoüweE ritv nQöE
'Pap[ai]ouE
30 lllq6levovl xai rcöE ä)"LouEägyovrag önawöoatöi xai roüE9eo- roüExowoüE
poüg lTtpoav Aftolvuoiou Zupaxöorcv, feüepy&aE cptlialv äei twog dya1oü napairrct ylvovrat {otg]"f1-
[@eöLuro v ]' A g ior av oE A iy Lvdt av, K t rjo m n"ou A ap at p i o u il-, pyo- Aqolv' ruxqt
pryvovxd.Ltlpev duroDEfiQoetvouE [dya04r' öeööy)al rciE' Apcptxt [ootv önawöoat 6aoÄ6a \Eü)4|vA
lxai eöepytrlaE röv AfuaTtitv' äyyuoEtav npofevn[v ö y]plap- oaom€(DE
parleiE' d.vaypd.Eatöä xai d rpäqwfula zo ['Att]ä).ou xai ofre]cpavöoat.öd.cpvqE oretpävat röt fqöt rfoü
'AlnöL\tnoE rcü
lrööe tv oldAaq )'ßiva6 öüo xai dva06pevrdv ptav Bv @6qpo[vl,
rdv öö iv AelcpoüE zö dä yevöpev[o]v [Ilu]1iou tfu nfuq{öv) Sotw oreEavoüv rcüE öautöv, eöegy6'p1aE,
fdvd\aryal ööpev öv rapiav ruE KQAI. . .1K1.]A:..VI.IPII.)E dQerqE€v€x€v
"EAlqvaE,
t. . . .]'t . . .lAf,..)IAI dv ypapparqröv xo^ieüvotaEqlEl eiE rcüg otqoat öi aüoü xcti,sixtlö)va.
35 _ - c.t3 IAN vac. xdLx1u t(p mfiou
'A91vag
iv l/lü,E[o]ig, ävaöeöuy9at öö xai rö teqöv tqE tqE
Npxlrlcpöpouü npöE
l0 Holleaux.MölangesHavet (1909),187-96(Etudes,ü.63-721:Syll.3
Ilepydpftolt äou]'lo1vtiE änavta röv ypövov xa?' ä äv dEoptolqtl
630;Daux, Delphes,293-5;F. Delphes,iii.3.26l (Delphi).182/1. 6aoÄeüEEüptvryE
p oo 0övo u, ööypa' A p q m[r tövotv. i n eÄ i1
l"Aqyo vr oE öv A e7Eoi)EZ 11 zs xai pq0l6lva äylttlv i1x1 toü neptaprcpivou rönou trtfire,noA4ploul
6aor)tüEl pqre eLQqvqE
[Eüpfvqgnaqeü,r1cpldg naqd rcü narqöE6aoÄ6ory'Anä[o[u rfiu rc nqöE [pq1ölv [äyxLrypa]' dnoöeö6g0ldt ö] [z]d[)] rcöE dyitfvalE
npöE rcüE 9eoüEl froü]E oreqavfuag
eöol66etavxai i11v npög rcüg'ApqmriovaE eüvonv xai önr4lptitv Itav NtxryEop[av oüg ouvreAei 6aoÄeüE Eöpivqg, xai tivalt
rilv npöE'Papabugl
cpÄtav det ftLvoEäyla9oü nagatrLoEyudpevog örctelel rctE "E7- lromoiE naot toiE öv rctE vöpoLsrqn"r;i;t';":tu;'t:;tri::;,:r':)
),4olw xai ptreoX4xd.tEl iolonü9rcv, rör, öä1
s töv aöxiv x[tvö6]vou önöp tfiE xowfiE d.ogaAetagnüJ.atg töfv lyupvmölv xai in(n)möv ioloAüpnrcv' ävaypi.EaL ööü EricplLopa öv
'E774viöavl lleAEotE eiE rilvl
nö[Leavl 'AwdAo]u
öapedg ö6ö[ox]eutvex* roü öLarqpeio1atd1v ürdpyouo[av aü- 30 l6äow rclu ävögüvrog t[oü naqöE 6aoL).6ag xai 3p
rcv)optav öi ffu Il[epyäpat öv röt]
'
ahtay xai'Pa[pailot 9eogoüutegaürcü d1vnpoaipeow ineu$1fixa- litgöt r4lg'A?qvag tqg Ntx1lcpöqou xqpü(aLöö üv m{lcpauovtofü
ow lrllp 6aoLAetav 6aorAtag x)ai tilv
vopt(ovteg föei]rt xai röp 6aoÄ6otv öoot pöv inLdouAeüouowfrotE [äoulilav rcü iegoü iv toiE dylöot röv llu9fuv xai Zat1gi]av.

q g xa04xoü[oqsl önmAqQe
a s, öoot uu u, ;:fr]\:,::.#f":::"':] 26init. npögfiöiolu [oüp6d"ov]F. Delphes:npö5t|yylqya p4Qivl w!t!9!n_t,C1,
lnapafurcl rcürouE t[49] InschriftenrechtlichenInhalts, 48-51:,
npöE[p40ö]vföyil.qpalDaux,BCÄllxxvir
l0 pey[i)otqE [dfuo]üo9at nap' öaurotEnfureary' d.nöoraJ.xev öö x[ai (1954), 370-1,who reportsN certain.
9elapoüE rcüE
'ApcptxriovaE, 'A9qvaE
naqaxal4olovrlaE rcüE önoE rö rqg t4E 11 Lambrino, Rev.Arch. xxix (1929),107-20:'Welles,RC 49;cf. Segre
Nlmqcpölpou#pevoE ap. Robert, Hellenica, v (1948),102-28(origin unknown: probably
ouvavaö{tfaotlv äawöt äouAov,xai rcüg äydtvagoüg ößylvaxel I a s o s ) .1 8 2 / 1 .
ouvrcTew
orecpav[ra[Erö\v re pouomöv ioonü9rcv xai töv yupvmör,xa[i in- lBouAöpevoröi xai öpaE ple{6l1trewröv ?uotöv xqi 1töv dy<6vav
nlxöv iod,üpnrcv nt7topcpa-l
'Ecp{orcv,
dnoö{lawfrar dlneAoytoawo öö xai of Qeatpoirilv roü 6aoA6otg fuev 9tapoüE Ml(yawd re töv cpA'av 6v upfir ftqt nptittqt
nap' ripiv övta, ö-1
[eülvonv ffv öyov
"E))1vaE
t5 öftalrelet xlowfit r]t nqöE änawaE rcüE xai xa0' tötav fpoto4 ö1i 1rc) Kd.\av llegyap4vöv, xqw6pevov xai öq' fllpöp piv
nlpölSds nö7e6' äfLov, ög öi noAi-l
[öno4 oöv xai oi'Ap]qtxrtoveE qaivavrat Enaxd'ouiloült€Er?tiEl Ir4vl rereuyöta xard tfiv f17m[avtöv ngoorlxörnalv, xai fiQoxe6el-
qrcpö-1
dercupevoLE
216 Appendix IV Appendix IV 217

s lvovl önö qE nd)cary ötd rö xatayy6)')'ew pe1' ripöv {aöru. xa76E qÄoqp|vaE, xo,i nfptltfavteE 1eotpoüEöxowa-f
oüvl fv]rioate röv ieqöv öloitttg xai eöoe6öE' xai vüvl
[no]rfioercnpöro1t piv öd ü1v 1eöv, änena öä xai öt' fifuaE uitv 1ö1naölewöi flouAdplevottdg updE aüutgl
dvöpöv rc qL-l lxlai petlot yapwrrilgn tCovxatd. nö)'epov &ydtvavl
[Loq)pövaryönxoüoavteg xai änoö$,äpeuottä rc Nftx4qögta xai 15 ldlnoööövat, öqyv[axörcg öi ouvtü,eiv aötfit na-]
d1v d,ouAtav'l [ulriyupw re ötd nevlraeqqiöog xai pouot-l
tr)gQm ydp nqd[avreg rä pöv ixriv4E,r(pn Eaveto[0eouvaüfovreg, lxolüE xai yupvmoüE lxai innwoög äyövag, dva-l
ü öö 7omövl 1öeöleryörcExai ü nlqög llepyd.pott'#pevoE äouTovl
fipad olf ivötyerar pä7ora npo?üpouEöferc xard. {ö öwaröv eiE txa0'1 ritr ?rioopevaö1toü tä öqn, xalöE öö öyov xe-l
ndv-l 20 fxptxöreE raüta] önö 10eaq6v xarcrw{l eoeaLl
l0 ra td oupqäpowa rfitt,öqpat. td. öö n)'ebva negi roürav dxolöoerc [öort loüE dyövalE rc'üiouE ouvtüt elo1at .oüvl
'El)"fivav,
nap'aötöv.l iänaloi rots ixreveoftdroq riptu röv int-l
äppao1e. dn4öaxev M 6yatv'Av9 eotqptövoE txr1 t. [r eluypät av p eyd]"alv lap rcui q n r fit' A 04vd r',1
' uivloE nenöpEapev ?eotpfoöEngöE öpaE - - - -1
Eni orcqav1Eöqou' Anü,kov lou toü / rcytvou,,,'Av9eorryp
ezcT4LLürdpevou') 2s p6a, tuyyävovra naQ' lilpiv t4tqE rc rfiE nptbtqE xai npo-l
'
IölqgFeyrfit 6ou7fitxai röt öfipat' npuräveavyvtitpy SneL[ü1 6aot- eögiaEöt(d) üv xa)o4laya?iav, xai - - - l
).eöEEüptv4E1 ' Mipwaiov xo,iMiyavfa'Ecptoov, rdv Et]"av rav ngo(?)-1
'Auätrfou] t4tatpivav nag' fipiv lxai - - - - xai Kdl'av Ileqya-l
16aotA1ö,aE xai 6aotlboryg'AnoA).avtöoEEiTogx[ai ü-
pqvoüE, xai öq' ripöv pilv xqwopävoug dEtous, ösl
t5 öndpxrov
töd.npoly.öu'tv yöypaqev
rcüöripou ;;::t;i":::f{rii:i 30 öö no7fuaErcteu6föragxatä rlv fiLmfuv röv npoo1-l
röv öfipov örtl xövrrttv, npoxeytqolp{vouE öö xo'i önö qE nöLearyl
Irryar piv tilvl'A|r1vav pdlLora töv äLkn ?eöv öÄ ü noA)'d.Exlai rö xatayyil.Tefw pe9' ripöv rä NwqEöpro' xaAöEl
ödl;o.
peyäLagEv nav-l oiv noLfioetenpförov pöv öÄ ?eöv,önena öE]
[roöanaiE neqrcräoefow xap6v eörltrteptaEaürdtlt] nqtftle.- xai öL'fipag nbv dvö1pövu cpLToEpövag örcxotjoav-l
9emftvaqNtxqcpögov rc] 35 rcE xai änoöefäptvlot tä re NmqEöpr'axai riltt äoü"fuv öo-)
[npooqyöpeuxe]vxatrAlor4v vopilav tlvat xai oixetotd.r7v r[i1v nq öptv äppöEet' raürla ydp npd[avreg ü' pöv Exetuqgti-\
npooavup[avl pm cpaveto\touvatj{1ovreE, fipAEöö d'xo\oüQaErfitl
[raürqv, vüv ö1eaülen rc 6ou7öpevogräE rrydE aürr1Exai p[eiEot nag' flpr;t, ünaqgoöo4lLnpöE töv ö1pov öpdtveövo[at)
Xaprcrrlpml 6E övö4prar pä7rclra npo|üpouE Eferc d lomöv xatd]
fröv xatd nöLepov ä1y6vav dnolöö\ö1val xai ,örcyvaxöE 40 ndwa xaqöv npög{ä oupcp1govra öptv' rä öö nleioval
-
oluluftltTfelv----1 nepi rritv xatä pipog fd.xoüoere nap' aüröv töv 9ea-l
p6v. ögqoo1e.[äöoEerdt douldl xai röt ödpar" ] .- -
l5-20 Segre,aftertext l2 )v<bpa-iqoorard v' fine öl 6aoü'eüE EüpövqE dnoodA).aul
?eopoüElnap' aöroü re xai naqd nö)'rc; tag llepyapryvbvl
önayfyil'Let -l
4s
t2 Herzog,Hermes,lxv (1930),455-43;Welles,RC 50; (with new frag-
ment) Segreap. Robert,Hellenica, v (1948),102-28(Kos). 182/1.
[B)aoÄeüEEöpfvqE KlbLotv qr 6ou74t xai]
'A[94vav päv 8- 12 x a0än ep lxai ö aatl p f7pöv. | | öi g y dp fl64 n apail'4 06lvr eg I n' aöt oü r-dEt t l
uitLörjpoxyaipew' tilv rrybpevl
navnvüotrc,-d<törlt xairiwtLlt, änoö(Eao9tl I Eü'oEpövo'tE
I'0tupö'üE'ärouutlvlfioarc xai ntpylawtE
pd.Aota röv äLkn ?elöv öd Ä noAAdExail
töv'itpöv ö1oiaE xai {to96ös na.vtttv ; Klaffenbach'
pryd)"aEfipiv nepne9ePx|vateör1pqiag ävl MDAI äi (1950);99-106 16-19 örd n'vlq' ripöp<ov xai orccpavkasPouotl
navtoöanaiE neprctdoleow xaLqöv, N mqE6povl xloüq xai yvtruoüE lxci intmoüg dyövag, dvalöeö1qLjftrtg xai ö nlpöEIItpyd'
r t tyeoorlyoe töxapev, [xaAAloqv voltilov - I t b, iepöväüqE,dou\'ov\, öt ?rioolttvaülroi td öprcl Klaffenbach'.
'oiöoc'xai ötd nev.lrattq-.
rcg elvat xai oixercrd.rqlvd1v npooa-l uorä,Wolic, xäi vuuvtxoÜs ldyritvaE,xäi iö ieqöv avapeö\eLl6rtg xai
vuptav raür1v xa9d.negfxai ngörepov iypdtpaltev'l ia nitoi ahö rtiteioi äoü'a, l xa0'1 titt |rioopev aü1röv rd öqral Segre ü
öis yd.q iiö4 napaxLq9{lweE öq' ftpöv rtiE rcl npöi iltpytitttttt töpcuogcf. text 9. lines l8-19.
l0 navrly6pe6 äg rörle xarqyyeÄapw äneö6[ao0e)
2r8 Appendix IV
13 Wiegand, Abh. Berlin, 1904, 86; OGIS 763; Rehm, Milet, i. 9 ,
no. 306; Welles,RC 52 (Miletos). EumenesII.
pgorleüEFiW|rqS 'I6vav tör xowöL Xatgetv')
töv nap' öp6v npeodewöu MevexlrlEWölv
oü ouv|pe$6 poq Eipqvtug öö xai'Apy4AagE
d.nawfioavrcg iv lrfi,ox änööaxav
tltrjErcpa xü.öv xai cpAdv9panov, iv fot
xatap$d.pevot ööu rdE xaTTiwaE änö q1g
d.qy4Eil,öpevognqd.$eqxai xotvört d.vaöeffaE
ipaurör' eüepy6r4vrdv'E)Jrjuav ndJ.oüEpiv
xai peyd.AouE äyövaE ün6orr7vrpög roü191
6ap6d.pouE, änaoav onouölv xai npövoLavnorcüfue-y
voEönaE oi üE
'ilJ'qv(öaE
xatomoüvrcEnütgUe)
ötd nawöE öv eipfiv1t xai tfiL dehiorrlt xaraoräofel
ün d.pytoow, äw t x ar a A)"ao (o) öpevöE [t e npög) ü [v]
öqlalryloTou?lqyvraxlvöuvov xai 1növovrlv eüxltr,av, Bppe-l
lvttv öä öllöptyloEiv tlois [npöEi xlgwöv äxo\oü-
9aE u1 roü narqög npofa]ip4ott iv noAAoiEcpavepäE
neno(qpat üE önöp roömry änoöü$6 xotvfi te
xai xat' iöfav npöE öxdot1v röv nö).eon u;1y6ilxöe
önxetpevoExai noAAd.ütv npöE intqdve nv
xai öölav dvryx6vrauouvxataoxeudlav
txdoryl, änep ör.duitv öpyov fiv iprju re rprToöo-
Ffuy
'öünry.1.1.. tv xai rlv eüyaqtm[avroü xorvoü.
ö[öo)ftv üp<t>iv, önoE dei tpaiv1o|e tdE
xata{iag rrydg roig eüepy6ra6änov6-
povreE,otecpavöoatpöv rjpdEXQUotporecpd-
uax äptmetcoq orfioar öi eixöva Xeuonv Ev for äp
'Iotvtag,
6oü7apat tönat rfiE ävayyeiTaf te räE rryäg
öv te roiE ö(p' Iölpöv ouvteTouptvoq dyöow
xai xard ü.E nöLer6iv roiE rt0ep6vo6 iv öxäm41,
fxai d.ond.oao1atö6 pp nagd. rc6 xowoü [xai ouvrlo1fival
[Bni flöL yQpö rylai rlgüE äaayxabuE SggE[o1atelva[ tl
rd. npäypara xatd ).öyov, naqaxa).elv y[ö pe 9eotpoövta]
d1v eöyaptoriav roü n).fi9ouEi1v xfa9rjxouoavnpö-l
votav norcio9at öt' {ov rö xor,vövritv 'IltitvcovEnaufq|fi-l
ouat re xai ör,änavrög iv qr dqilm4t xaraotd.oet önlQp-
fet' oürcoydp xai petd ra6tä pe ndvftav rcüleo)at tltitv
eiEu,pi1vxai ööfav dvqxöwav. dlxoToü1aEöä ndor]
roig xaraxeyaptop{voq xai oi npleodewai petd nlTei-
ovoE onouö fi E ö te)'€7p4oav i fq yo [üpevo t oüpnal v -
roE toü nArj0ougnSöSüpASixtevefotdtqv rc xail
eiTmgwfi rilv eövotav.rd re ttpLa güo[cpgövrttE d.noö6-1
ppar. x(a)i oöö6not' öM"ü.omöExat( 1yefiv Bpfiv)
öüvapw eig rö nepmorciv d.ei tt xai xfor,vfit nd.otvl
xai xatd nd)lv öxäoto6 röv npöE [try)v xai öö[av)
d1v\1xöwav nepdoopar xai vöv rfiE
Appendix IV 219
ron6t4E npo06otaEpi1 dEfurao9au
yfvorco öö qr 6ou7fiotl pou xai Ä. npdypara
ouw$axo).ou0eiv.oüto ydp öpoloyoup|-
vqv Trjrpeofupd.LLovöi aöubv röv öpyau
50 ris ip1E npoary*oeaEd1v änööer$w.
önag öi xai eig rö )"omöv Bv tfit navqyüpet
rCovl1avLovittv flptpav öntbvupoaäyovreg
flpiv Snrcpavtcrteovtlv ö74v öoqd1vouv-
rc)"firc,npooiöoug öpiv üg txavdE dva-
55 l?üolE 4q' ,it, tlerc d1v xa?fixouoav flpiv
fävatß](vat pvqpqv.töv öö yquooüvduöqt-
[dvra noniloot päv iyö npoaqoüpevoEdöd'
lnavov navllEE lrilvl X(pLv tlvat ütt xoftvtitt.l
ävatt1fivat ö' aüQlv 6oü7opativ ttu örpr1-l
60 cpLoptuatt. flpiv ünö Mü.qoffav rclptvep' ö-l
rc ydp iv taütqt. tfit nöLet ouweToüvrefEl
ü1v navrjyuqw iErjErc0e d1v rrylv fipia,
qE n67eo4 pöv4g röv
'Id.öav p67gL
ro6
napöwoE t 4pevoE&vaöeöeqgo[aE i1piv
65 xai ouyyevoüExpwopivqE öÄ Kulm4voüE,
övöola öi noLAdxai äln pvitrttE ünöp rCov
'
I titvav n mp aXutaE, o ixercr dr qv iToy $6 pr1lvl
d1v dvd?eow öoeo9aLtv raür41. rd öi xard
pipog önip tiE ipiE eüvoiagxowfit rt
70 npög ndvraE öpdE xai xa9' txd.orqu nöLw
dx4xoörq of npwdutai öqlboouotv
üpiv. öppao9e.
l3-16 foflowWilhelm,K/io, Beiheftxlviii (1943),434: dwmatüJ'ao<o>öpe-
voElöä npöElQtvl I iqfalrlld,ou71qpwaxlvöuvovxai lixtevilExai cpt),ööolloE
dvai npotlr1piylos iv iolg lneös tö xfowöv d.xd'oül9agrfi rcü naqö;
npolalpöot t zzi. Welles
1 4 W i e g a n d ,A b h . B e r l i n , l 9 l l , 2 6 - 7 ; R e h m , M i l e t , i . 9 . n o . 3 0 ? '
Herrmann,Ist. Mitt. xv (1965),104.II (Miletos).EumenesII (160s).
"Eöof,e
ufu öfipox of npurdvetExai oi tipqp4vot öni r1[t Eulaxqtl
lelTnav' öneöl 6aoü"eüEEipiv4E ouyyevlExlai cpLl
7oE xai eüvouExai eüepy{qg öndpytovqg nöl)"-l "EA)r1-
eaE öÄ npoyövav xai npöE änavrag piv roöE
s vdE cptToööEa(ildnö qE dpTqgötaxeipevoExai
täE nepi roitav änoöt[fuE gavepdEöü. (ndv-)
rav nenoqpivoE töv äqyotvxa9' örr, ai rc xa-
0' |xäorcuE röv xaqriv o(uv)rcrc).eopivat<E> xai
ai napd. rö(v) üe(p)yerqptvatv dnrlw(q)xuiat tL-
l0 pai töt. 6aoüei d1v negi röv nqotq4p6vov 6e6'
atoüot niortv, 6ou7öpevoEöi xai ü. npoündgy-
owa örd npoyövav aütör npöEd1v fiperöpavnö7-
220 Appendix IV Appendix IV 221

It)v oixeia xai gt7äv1qrttna inaulfioar xai rfiE öa[u-] []tlöyov.v. v. öna[E öö trtg äqfuoloöo1Eqgfioeafgl
ruyyävqr d Q[E4qwpöva x]ai ft ei; üp 6aoÄ6a
rcü npöE ü nArl0oEaig4oeaE xü'öv ünöplvr1-l
pvfipq örccpü.([ooqflar eig öv äei 4pövov, inp-)
15 pa<L> äfuov u1Eiö(.aEäpeqg xai roiE Bnrywopf|-l
yvritot öö xai oi äföfl),qoi aörc6 6aorAe6Erc "At-
vo6 üno).m6o0aq yqd.p(p)ata än4oraLxev ngög fr-l 'A9rjvatog "Aua).oE
taToE xai xai ö uiög tilv roü
e i1v 6oü.fiv xai röv ör1pov,öt' fov ü te önö EtSt l-l
xai u1v q. . . örjpoa xai tv roüto6 ngoatpeor,v,vac. pl eivat p4-
vbu tpcpavto9öwaaürör E1p4pevoE
n p ö Er ö v ö f i p o va l p e o r .övr d i o v x a r d p 6 q o [ E . .. . ' . . ] . 9evi pfirc tinetv prjrc äuayvövar prjrc npo9ei-
vat prite npoyqdtpat prfueinnpqEioa4 ög öei pe-
rare9fivar tä ypfipata eiEä77o n xai P1 öndpye{vl
15 Wiegand, Abh. Berlin, l9ll,27-9; Laum, Stiftungen,ii', p. 159,no. eiE td tv töt tpqqiopfarl xanaxeyognp{ua. ödu Q761
l29b; Rehm,Milet, i.9. 15l; Didyma, ii. 488(Didyma,originallyof tq nagä taöta n[pä$41tgönott (ötar,)oöv,ü rc yp[a-]
Miletos).EumenesII (160s). cpäväxugoa öglto4 ö öö nlqäQaEtt triv änetg4-
- - I s - 2 0- - a f r ) i 1xv. . . . . . . r o - - 6 - 9- - pdvav [dnorcwäta otatfigaj Qoyü,iouE iepoüE
l- - e-10- ArylrlguitvoE rfit. Exrrl dnö VtlEnplooö[öou] rc[6'Anil,7ovoE roü /Äupl6o4' öpoioE öö
[rrlEix röv tipl4ptvov ypqpdrotv.vac. öeööy9alt] t- - - - - - - nplöorqtov xai toü
- - - - (ootv, rä ör/cpopa
trql 1lqlullfu ö7öo0atöv rfiL 4xü.r1oiatävöpaE - - - - p6va. v. v. rö öi rpri-
s [ööo,l rcüE öö aipe06wagnpovofioa6 önaE xara-
üöe ävaypdtpareig orrjTlqv fu?tv4v xai o{r1-l
[yolpao?1t oiroE ö ixavöE fi prcQo9qt fi napoXil lcptopcr 'AnöLLovoE
pQQ [xavoü nAfi1ouEtiE d1u öm1t&gqow, iva [oat äv iot ieqör rcü to]ü löuptag n[qö]
froü vaoü - -lptvoug' zoüg [ö]l
1ö1öotvöxdorar röp no7rcöv fiprcxrfi 8[ Ev töl\
pqvi rör Aqvauivt qt txtq(t), öv fit öyiveto ö 6ao1t-1 t- - - - - - xa)raoxeu4[SulEj
l0 AeügEöpövqE,xai fi ?uola xai fi öotiaory ouvreAe[o?1tl lotrjLqE vac.? 1
fö]rcuxfpltvoup|vavröv rc xatd. rdE nopndE 1lai]
rdE ?uo[ag xai töv xailon7rcpöv röv tcpfi6au. t6 Herrmann,Ist. Milt. xv (1965),7l-l17, no. lA (Miletos).Eumenes
[x]ai röv ä77otvtöv önreraypövov xard II (160s).
frle röv ore(pdvryqoetxöv vdpov xai r]v neqi "Eöoft
15 lrlqg iepeaotivqg ömypaEilv. afgeio9ar di za[i] rtu öfipox.' of nqutd.vetExai oi eipqptvot tni u1EcpuAaxfiE
tiE röv öEiEXpövovroü pqvög roü TaupedvolEl ELJTuV. EftEL-

rfiL öaöexdrrlt roüE xarayopd.oowagoirolvl öi Eiq1viaq Eipqviou rilv xail'iorryv ötd nawöE ünöp tdtv oultgt_-
i) ltr.o1titoottraEd1v napoflv rcü ixavoü n7fi- Qovr@v rnl
)ouE. vac. iva öi niyqL ü. nqoeqqpiva rfiE npool1-) nöLeL norcüpevoE ixrivenv xai äei rt röv npöE önrpdvenv xai
öölav ävqxöv-
zo lxloöo1Eoixovoptag,rcüg eipqptvougävöpaE
lilni qE xaraoxeufiE roü yupvaoiou Eiprlviav Eipyl- rau ouyxa.raoxeud(otu tit nar(e)töt, Swuyt)v öi xai 6aoÄtt Eöpi-
[v][ou, Z titnupov' Aox74n rcö 6qou änoouor 4 - uet xatä ript öo-
'Aqeptotdtvr. 1eioav önö rcü nLfi0ouE aöröt ouvytitq1otv xai öÄ.tqE iöiaE ouoü.-
lolat ip pqvi röt iv rdt öveorörft]
öpnopmav oe@E
lilvnuröt d.nöröv öEetAotrtöv<ov
25 öavttau r6.)"awa rprÄxowa rciE aipe04oop6- nporpepdptvoE aötöv öoüvat rfit nö7et öapeäv nuqtitv peöfuvav
vo6 ini rfiE öqpooiaEqan6(qE eig töv övmu- puQLa-
üv üp perd.röv öulrqov 1eöv üp perd Meve- öag öexr;,öfeiE xaraoxeulv yupuaoiou xai [ü7aoLv eiE td öeöqAa-
xpärr1v,rcüg öö ppryyeiv roig afqoup|voLEdvöpä- u€vd
lolw änö u1Enpooööoueig töv xatayopaopöv roü tlv fxavrjv, rcü öö örjpou tpqqoapövou täg äppoloüoaE ini rctE
30 oitou, ölövraE öö naplaö)ö6var rciE pt- rrQo€LQI-
0' öauroüEqane(ffuary - - c. l0 - -] aup-) ptvo6 tryäE uit 6aotltl xai npeo6tutilv ilanooretAawoE Eigrlu^[av
6ö7arceüapx[etä --di-] öta-
rfioar rcüE a[ipouptvouE?- - - - - - -] l0 LryeiEpetd. nd.o4EEr).orryiag xai napaor1od-ltevoEaü'röv npooenau-
v. v. r'. v. qlorcliv [ö] - c. t - tö9üE rövl xarayolpaopöv) ffioai te tä xatd. d1v inayyeAlav xai rdE öandvag riLEeiE tilv ouv-
35 li) zlrtvplo)afow roü oftou xali öyypä@)eo9artiE {öv] rtLemv uitv rtltdtv dvaööQao1aL nap' aörcu öort tlv pöv rcü nlij-
222 Appendix IV Appendix IV 223

1ouEtigrcüg eiepyirag eüyaptotlavEavepdvnaow xatamfioaq rdE CIA ä. 436;IG ii.2 953 (Athens).lffit59.
öi elEzä öüfl.aptva Xop4yiaEix töv roü 6aoÄ6og ön4p*q04-
15 uat, xaTlv xai ouvE1pouoavoö pövou öni roü xa?qxovroE,d77d |Elni Tuyi.vöpouägTovrog ini qg'Axap[awöog ExtrTE npu-]
--c.7lines-- ft laveI a g, fi t 2 utory l6]v4E M evexp dr ou M ap [a06v rcg iy p appdi eu- 1
Itv'l llooöeövog öewtpat per' eixdöag,ö\värqt rfig nqutawi-l
[aE' ä1xü,qoiaxupfu iv rCot?tdtpat. töu npfo4ögotvönetpficpt(ev - -,
1? Herrmann,Ist.Mitt. xv ( 1965),7 l-l l7,no. 2 (b) (Miletos,originallyof
-J
Myus). EumenesII (160s). - - - - Atolötou OivaioExai oupttpo4öpo[t.äöo{u üt 6ou7ü xai)
ptu \rjlpox' Nmöorpatog <Drlbxou @oqa{eügüntv. ineöi1 - - - j
t . . .l zHMo ts-61 Ez.l.l AE. lc. 6l ONEX . . 2A t
[- - oixleiog öv rcü 6aoü.to4 Eöpdvoug [iv rrist äpnqoo1evyqö-1
cpAoöo$iav' ü öö ouvay1ö1,nlllieoE iyöavebouow, önaE fi nL [vott eöuo]ugönqgfeu xai naptThpevofEyptfug xowfit te üt öfip-]
nrouofa dn' aüroül fat xai xa]O' iö[av rciE d.quvoup{votEtlöv no)"rcrfivtig ll$pyapov]
nqöooöogönäpyq eiErd. ör.ärcü tp4cpioparog&rorcrayp*i ,:: lörct67coe1xaivüv Eöptvolugltiv ägiliv napaöövtoE (or önnqt-
!U- rltäwoE)ttu äöe[qtu 'Attd.Laq mA.l
Äv ypappa#a ngovoLfioat.Eväpyaqeoiaq ömttEiepaoüvq nea_7jni
l0 from squeeze
Eitlt|vouE \eoü, aige1öor öö xai ävöpego'ftweEönypaqfiv re eioo[-
ooufow nepi rqEl t9 Keramopoullos,
Arch. Delt. 1ä(1917),366;
Robert,6t. anat. 84,n. 4;
iepaoüvqE xai ü. itprlpnp|ua eiEroüg vipouE xanatd$ouow roüE Fraser,REÄ liv (1952),233-45,no. 5 (Thebes).EumenesIL
t------
öö xai üöe ü tptiqnpa ei5 rc ry iepd f7ytl lrovüoou
ünäpyovraEMuqob6, &vaypacprl
6rtWa öq' oül Auoeiou, dE' fov äv604-
ma?fioerat fi roö 6aotA6oEeixöv xai eiEü1v napaoräöa roü vaoü xe 6aotAeöEEipövqg
[rcü'Anil'7a-]
voE rolö Tleppw06ag' ö öi ßoöpevoveig raüta dvfiTapa ön- 20 Macridy, Ötn vär (1905),16l-3, no. l; Holleaux,BCH xxx (1906),
qpetfiolat röv ra-l 349-58(with revisions,Etudes,ii. 5l-60) (ColophonNova). Eumenes
ptav &1nöä1näo4gtfig npooööou xai ßyypäEao0ateiEöv )'öy9y' II or Attalos II.
öLtlo9ar öö örio)
nqeo6ln4dE, rcüEöö aipe06vtagäcpwoptvouE ngöEüvl6aoü'6aü I'An6))avosl (?) K,apL
r€ lptiq.o-) lou... . . o r a 9 q v a t ö ä l f i ve i x d u a
löv töt EnLtq\ercri.ron tönat (?) rcü ipqoü nLqotov
[pald.noöoüvatxai napaxü'eiv röv 6aoA6a önaE nqovfot1o_dpevoE.
T(DV eA.U-l [töv eixövaw röv äöü.7titv'A?qvailou xai qg WlrQöE
ftoültrpöv xai töv rcü öfpou Bvö6$avdei rwoE äya9oü !naea(1t-_ faücöv 6aoü.iooqg'AnoTTcoviöo\g'xai örcöl oi pt-
oE yevqral 4- J t- - - - - - - röv re viav) xai uitv Bqrjdatvrlicpto-
'A|rfvarcv
--- llta npoygdtpaweE dlrcüol rryfioat öwa
lpiv'l npovotfioaLöö xai öno;gävaota?fi ön' aörcü ö ntpi t[- xc,i
t5-18 - - - lelegy4qv uitu xdJ,liortov öpey6pevovrai4
lä),),a6 rryaig, äno\tölövreE intcpavr1xai pvrjp4E
fxa|l&r xc,i ötd rcü npitegov tlqqfuparcg ö ö14ogrip nl- - - ]at yägw. öeööy\at.nepi ro6-
i. .to xai Eipqviag öi rcüE xa2fixowaE AöyouEnpäooe{v ön6- läfiav
oytto, xai noLeivl [rav t1t 6ou7fit xai röt] öfipat. töu yupvaofuqyov
- fröv öxdorcrc yw6pelvov,iv fit flptqat'A|fivarcE i-
[fut äv] &ya)öv ötivavrat r6tt 6fipox.' I,Ig60ryoavEip4viag Ei[prt
viou.---10- lytveto, ?uoiav ouw)ü"etv
'Ailq)vaiaq
xai önögopilv töv v6av
lxai rdv öqfidon ouwe),üv öö iv qt aü-
1...'...1iöou. l5 [try fip4pa xai llöv ratöovöpov äyöva na(öon, öiöoo-
[0ar öö aürci]g önö rcü oixovöpou tig te i1v ?uoiav
xai rqv önöpoplv xai röv äytiva ö äv ö öqpogügqt
iy Kgovtövt pqvt. röv öö iepeiav töv te06vron, d.-
cpatqe06waveiE ü. &.07aroiE re v6oq xo,i rciE öcpri-
224 Appendix IV Appendix IV 225

6oq xai roiE naoiv, tdp pri rt xai äA1o doülotwat - - eöepyetfipana nLe[ova td pöv tön Auorcü'fi
rr06vat toig vtxöot, td. Totnä öt'avep&a ö yupva-
foliapyog rotE d)'e{tp]ap6votExai rfit 6oü.fit xai ___.ouv_ :::y:l::'..:.-_--
Irollg ä11o6 äpyortot xai rctE ieqtüot' xai npotd-
lvet.xa)i nqogfiq (sic) xo,iiegöt<t'> ouveöpiat xai toiE 22 Swoboda,Keil, and Kroll, Denkmöleraus Lykaonien (1935),33, no.
lvtxfioalot rcüg orcqavirag äyövaE xai iepox1lgu-l 74 I (Amlada). EumenesII.
lfu xai ygalppateüow. rilv öä önögopilv ouvreTleio-l
10arönö toi ylupvaotäpyouöv töt'Opqqeian t[oüEl
löö vrxrjoavraE dlvayy{il,eo1at önö röv dp7öwav o - - - - - L e - - - - - - -
laü7fipepov (?). üv öäl natöovöpov töv äy{ova ouv'rt- [eiEüv öncn]a 7q6v[ov] tlv eüvonv, oriö[e-]
'Ollt4lEle[t]ox.,p6yq n[apötxi1
30 lAeiv röv naiöav öv röt [vöEöofltgrjoerc ubv nap' fipöu qÄavilpdtmt[v'l
ftoüror4 oixoöopr1?fit.dvayogle0eoilatöö fiv !p6- [zegil dö töv aüubv xai rfig eövofuEfiv äp[pev1
lpav, iv fu ii rc ?uofu xo,ifi önögoplil xai ö dyöv ouvre- 1nqö1Eöpag d.xoöoeo?enapd. töv npeodeuröv.
fleo7rjoetat önö röv itgoxrlpfxotv. t$letvat öä xai liylgdEq öp Mnt[a6 öte ö 6aor)"eüExarctXtv
--alötfitxai.. 'OdlQlalöla.
t---- öppao1e.

5-6 oi lftlellpitö yupvaonvröv re vlotf Holleauxin BCH: OIME Robert,

h. "nit.'t'il, n. O O-l or ViELolWanpoqqdrpawonepi rcül Holleaux, 23 Jüthner et al., Vorlöufiger Bericht über eine archöologischeExpedi-
REG xxv (1923),194,n.3 (Etudes,ii. 56' n. l) tion nach Kleinasien(19O3),
22;OGIS751;Welles,,RC54; Swobodaet
al., Denkmöler aus Lykaonien, 33, no. 74 II (Amlada).EumenesII.
2l Saucruc,Andros,133-7,no.4;IG xii Suppl.p.124, no' 250.Seealso "AttaToE 'Aplaö(av
Robert,BCH xl (1926),493,n.8; Hellenica, xi-xii (1960)'llG25 rit nö7et xai rotE yegarcigyaiqr[v-]
'OnqaodrqE
(Andros). EumenesII or Attalos II. oi nag' öpaw npeodeurai KLAap[iciu,'Bo . . . . I
vou NaAayAöaEKtLaptou MevviaE wvpeifaweE fipiv
xai örcAeytvtg nepi 6w överct6.)"0er.re aüroig i1[,iouoav
- - - - - dnoöei$eqnenotryrattis - - -
öpqgd rc öpdv änd'u9fivat [xlai iv töL faAatmöt noT4pat
- - - ptyaTopepitE
4gxi, xaLöE xai ivö6$aE xai äE npooacpe iLerc öpaypdEöuaxnyütiaEinnxeul4lg ltve-l
dv6[mqama, (?) - - - yupvaotaqyogöi ai-l
'Aqepötbgou lxle xai änö röv öüo taLävtav & tü.efuexar' |vnuröv fxou-l
[peleliE tiE üv ön' äqlovroE ßvLautöväv re roig xard qioat öpd.E,inei il'ß|weE ip n)sioow äoQevdtEfoyri-l
- - - - - rrlvl
f i v d P Y r j vA l l A . l l l f i t - oete' 1eaqöv oiv öpaEperawvoqxdraE rc öni rcilEl
[äluaorpoqfiv nenoiqrat [np]6vo{alv norcüptvoE ndvtav r6v eiErö npoqpagrqp{voq xai td önrcrü"Löpeva öcp'fipöv
yupväorcv napaywop{vav MAIIY l- - - npo-l nqo9üpoE inneAoiwaE npövonv öpöv ä1o7ovxail
loralrCovrrlg töv vtan eüxoopfuEfiQooxaQr.tQöv öh nawög xai iv 'Ongaodt7t
Xaprcd.ptvogröt rc xai rfit nö[Let inr]
rciE xarä d1v yopqyiav peyaTlopegög- - - -l rtraXa äqü'eiv dnö roü cpöpouxai rcl7|lofuarloE
l- - -ralErö yupvdorcv xexöoprlxeu xataoxeüaoaE, nuLdtva 7f0ou [öpaXlpd.ErptoyrTlaE xai ä).]'aEögapdE tvaxrcyLAiaE lägl
leuxoü xai il{öpav &va9eiExai roü 6ao\A6-l t) fnpoolaqeiTue fipiv' änüloa öö xai öpfrtlpa öpöv.
(oE äyafi.pa )"i\ou Tuyv6oE' öv rc qt' yue9Tfox rcü 6aoü'6o4 -vac.? --öppalol9e.]
Iiypäqqlöv[--
flpdpg ouwü.oupövqg nopnfiE xai |uoiag önö rcö öripfoil
- - - - - IIAYAH .. H .. EI. ünöproü 6aoÄ6atEouvenöpneuoev äyav
iö öu' tiobi xai' Iö7uibu nägaXlqlrtpa r d nolpneu06vra ie geial A Knibbe, Ölh xlvä (19@_5),Beiblatt, l-5, no. l; Börker and Merkel-
t- - - - - - napleXöpev[oE per' öxrev)fuglrdg ygleiagrbt 6aoÄet xai bach,Die Inschr. von Ephesos(Inschr.griech.Stödteaus Kleinasien,
röt narpi aörcü öon ngldrttttvl )flI. 2, 1979),no. 202.(Ephesos).AttalosII.
l0 - - - aü{ov i1x1 röv v6pav, öpoitog öi xai raiE
6aoÄtooa6'06oagöixaircIlE -----l "ArtaToE 'Elcpeoiau
lBaoÄeüg tfit douAqtxai röt öfipat yafpew
- - - - - - - ' A o x A q n f i t u x a i ' Y y r c i a t x a i ' E q p ü x a i ' H g a x leixai 'Apnro
t- f- - -
xü.ArcqfioaEündp rc rqErcü 6aot)"ttttgöyrc(aE xai oar1p[ag [ngoo-] - - - -l noL[r1g 0' üpdv xpL9eigäELoEöV' fipöv eivat qE 'Arrd).ou
fqv|yxaro Exrelviav (?) onouöiS xai qÄorLpiaE oöQiv il')'einau üöü.fcpoül
änööetEwnonüpevoErqE npöE röv 6aoÄta [eövoiag- - - - - ]
226 Appendix IV Appendix IV 227

fuioü önrye]lelaEpenn6.pq04,xai ouorafueiE aütöt tfiE xa04t1oü- 26 PetzlandPleket,Chiron,ix (1979),73-81

(Kyme).AttalosI or II.
o4EnaöetaE
[npoevöq)qe'noAüööpail,ov ücp'rjpdv &.neö6y0r1 öÄ.ü p4 pövov iv '
lvtit pa orpanayöv' öneöfi EniyovoE / apoxpdr euETagawivoE
rfir röv )tdyov EvneL- öLarpi6ovnapdtE 6aoÄet'AträLE nepi re röv xoLvQoupqtpöwav
lplat xai nfapaööott npofyew no776tv, ä77' &r xai 16,r ij9et roü t8 nö).eLräp naioav onouödv xai npövonv notfitat xai eig rd. iön
navröE Scpafuet' äfrcg öxäoup röp noLnd.v yprjorya nqö0upov öawöv naptXnat
. . ou xai Ennqöeürarog vtat ouvcwdore6qeo9at'o,t, V|p äxöLou1a npd.oocovrQ üt 6aoü.6o9aip4ott xai 9ü.ov dn6öe$w
t4Louol raE ayaydE noulo)ar ü.E npög röv ödpov cpÄtaE' vac. öeööy9at@t öäpE
[röu ä]nLoraröv oi öx cpüoeoExatroxaya9moi r(ov vtatv nawi np6- inawioat te tni toütoLot'En(yovov xai orecpantöoat TguotE
ö41övöouv' öt' 6 mxpävE, üu öt d.va4,eltav nonioao9at töv &yavo9&av
'AtuiTou
föll o6roE oü p6vov öE rjpdu, ü,Ad xai ön' aircü rcö öv rctE np6ro6 /Lovuo[qrcLxai'Amü.eiont' öeööo0aröö xai
ocpööqanpooqvfog l0 npolevtav aöup xai roiE ixyövorcr xai änoöeilat ävöpa
fä]noöey9eiEömaiaE nag' f1pivxai napä roötrtn öniyyavevönrc4- dv önryelqoöp*ov, iva toürö rc ü tpd.Eopa xai ü ünöp ü4
paoiaE ngoluiaE ööypa xara2gaprc06vraeig otdALav xa9' öy xe
'A9dvag
0ü,r1töp nwäxon röy 3v u{t iptFttd.g dvarc1r1eig rö
2-3fig'Auä).ou täöe7[9oüluioötn4refi.efaE (fromnewsqueeze) Herrmann, 'A9ävag'
igöv ü.E ü öö tig taüta Eooöpevovdvd.Tapanpoyprloat
Zeitschr.Pap.Epigr.xxii (1976),2334: rfi1g'Auö.Aou<u> äöd.1qrlöoö pou
naöei1aEKnibbe 4 init. fnpoev64]oe Herrmann:fnpotmql J. andL. l5 toig orpatayolE, xoptooao1at öi ix n6qa, 6 xe ö öapoE tpaEiooq-
Robert: [tvexa,] Knibbe. 4-5 ivnellpiaL xai nlopaö6oetJ. and L. Tdt"
Robert, BulI. 1968,no. 464:'övzttllptagzla4rcödoer
'Artd),1ou Knibbe 6 init. lroö äv eveyx d.ta o av ö i ü E dcpn pa t o ü r o x ai npö E' E n Q o v o v o i ng öy fo tl
Knibbe,questioned by J. andL. Robert(anattributeisrequiredafter dnoota).qoöpevot nptodntai npög röp 6aoLAia xai napaxaTfi{o>
äfuog):[tnaiv]ouEngelmann, Zeitschr. Pap.Epigr.xix (197 5), 224 oavJ
aötöv xa9ört xai uüu xai tiE ü. pud raüta öncpu).dooqv rdv elü--
voLdvl
25 Knibbe, Öln l Ogl0), Beiblatt, 12-14,no 4; Börker and Merkelbach, npöE dp nöLry. &neöe[y97 NmtaE'EppoyivtoE' rQ öx4[Aqoiql
Inschr. von Ephesos,no. 201.?AttalosII. orparayöE Enrjoraxe Eev6rtpoE Auoavia, pq[1röE. . . . . . . . .]
'AnoAAaviE
öxxaöuätq, ini nputävLog [tö (name) l.
@qp)fiq nr" Ano TTavliolu
[tövl yev6pevovini rfiE
loEpalyiöoErc6 6aoü.6aE0nü
lEöpölvou ZarfipoE
'EE6oou
xai orpatq-
"E-
s [yöv 61nirc xai töv xar'
lcpeoolvrönav xci Kaömqou ne-
löioul xai ü Kr).6tavöv /4p4-
...5
2-3 J. and L. Robert,Bal/.1972,no 388. 7 tö Kü,6nyöv: cf. Pliny,Nat. Ilisr.
v. 120Cilbiani inferioreset superiores.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, R. E., 'Attalos I and Aigina',8SÄ lxvi (1971),l-12.
Altertümer von Pergamon (Berlin, 1885- ). The followingvolumesareof
particular importance to the subjects treated in this study:
ll. Das HeiligtumderAthenaPoliasNikephoros(R. Bohn, 1885).
III. l. Der grosseAltar, der ObereMarkt (J. Schrammen, 1906).
2. Die Friese des grossenAltars (H. Winnefeld, l9l0).
YIll. Die Inschriften von Pergamon
i.Bis zum Ende der Königszeit.
ii. RömischeZeit. Inschriftenauf Thon (ed.M. Fränkel,with E. Fabri-
cius and C. Schuchhardt,1890and 1895).
iii.Die Inschriftendes Asklepieions(ed. Chr. Habicht, 1969).
IX. Das Temenosfür den Herrscherkult (E. Boehringer, F. Krauss, 1937).
Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte, iv. I and 2 (ed.2, Berlin and
l*ipzig. 1925-7).
Bengtson, H., Die Stategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, | -lll(Münchener
Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 26,32,
and 36), Munich, 1937-52, reprinted with corrections and additions,
1964-7.
- Die Inschriften von Labranda und die Politik des Antigonos Doson,
SB München 1971,3.
Bickermann (or Bi(c)kerman), E.,
'Bellum
Antiochicum', Hermes, lxvü
(t932),47-76.
- 'La citö grecque dans les monarchies helldnistiques', Rev. Phil. lxv
(1939),33s49.
-'\etss on Seleucidand ParthianChronology',Berytus,viii (1944),
73-83.
-'Notes sur Polybe. L Le Statut des villes d'Asie aprös la paix
d'Apam6e', REG | (1937),217-39.
(Bickermann'snameis variouslyspeltin differentpublications.For con-
sistencyin this book the form Bickermannis always used.)
Broughton,T.R.S., 'New Evidenceon Temple-Estates in Asia Minor',
Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in honor of Allan
ChesterJohnson(1951),236-50.
Cardinali, G., 'L'amministrazionefinanziariadel comune di Pergamo',
M e m . A c c a d .B o l o g n a ,x ( 1 9 1 5 - 1 6 )l ,8 l - 9 3 .
- '{ng61n sull' albero genealogicodegli Attalidi', Rend. Accad.
B o l o s n a ,v i i ( 1 9 1 3 - 1 4 )3,7 4 1 .
'La Genealogia
- degliAttalidi', Mem. Accad.Bologna,vii (1912-13),
177-85.
-'La
morte di Attalo III e la rivolta di Aristonico', Saggi di storia
antica e di archeologiaofferti a G. Beloch (1910),269-320.
- Il regno di Pergamo (Rome, 1906).
Select Bibliography 229
Conze, A., and P. Schazmann,Mamurt-Kaleh: Ein Tempelder Götter-
mutter unweit Pergamon QDAI Ergönzungsheft,ix, l9ll).
Crampa,J., 'Some Remarkson Welles,Royal Correspondence29', Op.
Athen. viii (1968),17l-8.
Daux, G., 'Craton, EumöneII et Attale ll', BCH lix (1935),210-30.
- Delphes au deuxiömeet au premier siäcle, (Paris, 1936).
- '$rr1une clausedu Trait6 conclu entre le roi Attale I"" de Pergameet
la cit6 de Malla (Cröte)' , Rev. hist. de droit frangais et ötranger, xlix
(r97t),373-85.
De Sanctis,G.. 'EumeneII e le cittä greched'Asia',Riv. diJil.läi(1925),
68-78.
Droysen,J. G.,GeschichtedesHellenismus,üi.Geschichteder Epigonen
(ed. 2, Gotha,1877-8).
Ducrey, P., 'Nouvellesremarquessur deuxtrait6sAttalidesavecdescit6s
cr6toises',BCH xciv (1970),637-59.
- snd H. van Effenterre,'Trait6s Attalides avec des cit6s cr6toises',
Kretika Chronika, xxi (1969),277-300.
Ferguson,W. S., 'The PrematureDeificationof Eumenesll',C. Phil. L
(r9M),2314.
Fraser,P. M.,'DddicacesAttalidesen B6otie',REAliv (1952),23345.
von Fritze, H., 'Zur ChronologiederautonomenPrägungvon Pergamon',
Corolla Numismatica, (1906),47-62.
- Die Münzen von Pergamon (Abh. Berlin, l9l0).
Ghione, P., 'I comuni del regno di Pergamo',Mem. Accad. Torino, lv
(r905),67-149.
Giovannini.A.. Rome et la circulation monetaireen Gräceau IIe siöcle
av. Jösus-Christ (Schweiz.Beitr. zur Altertumswissenschaft,xv,
Basel, 1978).
Habicht, Chr., Go t t menschentu m und g riec hische St ödte (Zet emata, xiv,
reviseded., Munich, 1970).
_ .Prusias(l)" RE 1086_1107.
- 'Prusiss (2)' RE ll07-27.
,
-'IJ661 die Kriege zwischen Pergamonund Bithynien', Hermes,
lxxxiv (1956),90-l 10.
Hansen, E. Y., The Attalids of Pergamon (ed. 2, Cornell, 1972).
Herrmann,P., 'Antiochosder Grosseund Teos', Anadolu, ix (1965),
29-t59.
-'\srrs
Urkunden zur Geschichtevon Milet im 2. Jahrhundertv.
Chr.', Isl. Mitt. xv (1965),7l-117.
Holleaux,M., 'Le D6cretde Bargyliaen I' honneurdePoseidonios',REA
xxi (1919),l-19; Etudes,ii. 179-98.
- 'pf,s1s{desAmphictionsde Delphesrelatifä la fötedesNik6phoria',
Mö.langesHavet (1909),lE7-96; Etudes, ü. 63J2.
- tr1a6lssd'öpigraphieet d'histoire grecques(ed. L. Robert, 6 vols.
with index and bibliography,Paris, 1938-68).
- 'L'expedition d'Attale Iu" en 218',Revue des univ. du Midi, 1897,
4E-34; Etudes,ä. 1742.
- 'L'expeditionde PhilippeV en Asie(201av. J. C.)',REÄ xxii (1920),
230 SelectBibliography
237-8;xxiii (1921),181-212; xxv (1923),330-46;Etudes, iv. 2l l-335.
- 'fnssdption de Pergame',REG xi (1898),251-8;Etudes, ii. 43-9.
-'Inscription trouv6e ä Brousse', BCH xlviii (1924), l-37; Etudes,
It. 73-125.
-'}{sfs sur une inscription de Kolophon Nova', BCH xxx (1906),
349-58;Etudes, ii. 5l-60.
- OIAETAIPO> ATTAAOY, REG xv ( I 902),302-10;Etud es,ii. | -8.
- '$u1la date de fondationdes Nik6phoria' REA xviii (1916),170-l;
,
E t u d e sü, . 6 1 - 2 .
- 'Sur la lettred'Attale anx'Ay).aöetg, REA xx (1918),17-19;Etudes,
ii. 149-51.
-'Un nouveau document relatif aux premiers Attalides', REA xx
(1918),9-16;Etudes,ii. 9-16.
-'Un pr6tendud6cret d'Antioche sur l'Oronte', REG xiii (1900),
258-80;Etudes,ä. 12747.
Hopp, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichteder letztenAttaliden (Vestigia,
xxv, Munich, 1977).
Imhoof-Blumer,F.,DieMünzender DynastievonPergamon(Abh.Ber-
lin, 1884\.
Inschriften von Pergamon, seeAltertümer von Pergamon.
Jones, C. P., 'Diodoros Pasparosand the Nikephoria of Pergamon',
Chiron, iv (1974), 183-205.
Kähler, H., Der grosse Fries von Pergamon. Untersuchungenzur
Kunstgeschichteund GeschichtePergamons(Berlin, 1948).
Keil, J., and A. von Premerstein,Bericht über eineReise in Lydien und
der südlichen Aeolis ausgeführt 1906 (Denkschr. Wien. Akad. lüi
(1e08)).
- Bericht übereineTv,eiteReisein Lydien ausgeführt1908(Denkschr.
Wien.Akad. liv (19l l)).
Kienast, D., 'Cistophoren', Jahrb.für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte,
x i ( 1 9 6 1 )1, 5 9 - 8 8 .
Klaffenbach,G., Die Astynomeninschriftvon Pergamon Q4bh.Berlin,
1953,6).
- 'Die Nikephorien von Pergamon',MDAI iii (1950),99-106.
Kleiner, F. S.,'The DatedCistophoroiof Ephesos',AmericanNumisma-
tic SocietyMuseum Notes, xväi (1972),17-32.
- 31d S. P. Noe, The Early CistophoricCoinage (AmericanNumis-
matic Society,Numismatic Studies, xiv, New York, 1977).
Köpp, F., 'Ueber die Galaterkriegeder Attaliden', Rh. Mus. xl (1885),
rt4-32.
Launey, M., 'Un episodeoubliö de I'invasion Galate en Asie Mineure
(27817av. J. C.)',rREÄxlvi (1944),217-36.
- Recherchessur les armöeshellönistiques(2 vols., Paris, 1949-50).
Leuze, R., 'Die FeldzügeAntiochos' des Grossennach Kleinasienund
Thrakien', Hermes, lviii (1923),187-287.
McShane,R.B.,The ForeignPolicy of the Attalids of Pergamon(Illinois
Studiesin the Social Sciences,liii, Urbana, l!)64).
Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (2 vols., hinceton, 1950).
Select Bibliography 231
-'Nsmg and the City-Statesof Asia Minor from 200 to 133B. C.',
Anatolian Studiespresentedto W.H. Buckler, (1939),l6l-85.
Meischke, K., Symbolaead EumenisII Pergamenorumregis historiam
(Leipzig, 1892).
Meyer, Eduard, Geschichte des Koenigreichs Pontos (Leipzig, 1879).
Meyer, Ernst, Dre Grenzender hellenistischenStaaten in Kleinasien
(Zürich and Leipzig, 1925).
-'ltrn' Stammbaumder Attaliden', Klio, xix (1925),462-71.
Niese, 8., Geschichteder griechischenund makedonischenStaatenseit
der Schlacht bei Chaeronea(3 vols., Gotha, 1903).
Nock, A. D., >YNNAOX @EOx,IIarv. Stud.xli (1930),l-62:.Essays on
Religion and the Ancient World lgaSsrd, 1972),i.202-51.
Noe, S. P., 'Beginningsof the CistophoricCoinage',American Numis-
matic SocietyMuseumNotes, iv (1950),29-41.Seealso Kleiner, F. S.
Ohlemutz, E., Die Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon
(Würzburg, 1940).
Oliver, J. H., 'The Date of the PergameneAstynomic Law', Hesperia,
xxiv (1955),88-92.
Paepcke,C., de Pergamenorumlitteratura (Rostock, 1906).
Petzl,G., and H. W. Pleket,'Ein hellenistisches Ehrendekretaus Kyme',
Chiron, ix (1979),73-81.
Picard, C., 'Un oracle d'Apollon Clarios ä Pergame',BCH lxvi (1922),
190-7.
Pr6aux, C., Le Monde hellönistique(NouvelleClio, vi,2 vols., Paris,
1978).
von Prott, H., 'DionysosKathegemon', AM xxvii (1902),l6l-88.
Radet, G., 'Eumeneia',Anatolian Studiespresentedto W. M. Ramsay
(1923),3ts-21.
Reinach,A. J.,'Les mercenaires et les coloniesmilitairesde Pergame',
Rev.Arch. xii (1908),174-218,364-89;xiii (1909),102-19,363-77.
Robert, L., Etudes anatoliennes(Paris, 1937).
- Hellenica, Recueil d'öpigraphie,de numismatique,et d'antiquitös
grecques, i-xiii (Paris, 1940-65).
-Opera Minora Selecta. Epigraphie et antiquitös grecques, i-iv
(Amsterdam, 1969-74).
-Villes d'Asie Mineure (ed.2, Paris, 1962).
Robinson,E. S. G., 'Cistophori in the Name of King Eumenes',Narn.
Chron. xiv (1954),l-7.
Rostovtzeff,M., 'Notes on the EconomicPolicyof the Pergamene Kings',
Anatolian Studiespresentedto W. M. Ramsay (1923),359-90.
-'pe1g36um', in CambridgeAncient History, viii (1930),590-618.
-'$qrns Remarks on the Monetary and CommercialPolicy of the
Seleucidsand the Attalids', Anatolian Studiespresented'to W. H.
Buckler (1939),277-98.
Schmitt, H. H., Untersuchungen zur GeschichteAntiochos'des Grossen
und seinerZeit (Historia, Einzelschriften,vi, Wiesbaden,1964).
Schober, A.,'Zur Datierung EumenischerBauten', ÖJh xxxä (1940),
l5 l-68.
232 Select Bibliography

Segre,M., 'Due nuovi testi storici', Riv. di fi\. lx (1932),46-53.

-'L'Institution des Nik6phoriade Pergame',in Robert,Hellenica, v
(1948),t02-28. INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONS
Seyrig,H., 'Le Traitö d'Apam6eet le monnayagedesvilles d'Asie',Rev'
Num. v (1963),19-22;'QuestionsCistophoriques',Ibid.22-31.
Starr, C. G., 'Rhodes and Pergamum,201-200B.C.', C. Phil. xxxü Readers are referred in this index to the most recent reliable edition of eachtext, but
(r938),63-8. a @rpus reference (".g. F. Delphes, Sylt.3) is generally preferred to a ioumal
reference. The index is not intended to scrve as a concordance of references,but to
Swoboda,H.,'Zu den Urkunden von Pergamon',Rft' Mus. xlvi (1891)'
assistreaders who may be expccted to approach a text from any of severaleditions : a
497-510. text cited from OGIS may be known also from is inclusion in /vP' and so on'
- Keil, J., and F. Kroll, Denkmäleraus Lykaonien,Pamphylienund
The edition referred to in the index is not necessarilythat cited on every occasionin
Isaurien (Prague,1935). the text, as th€re may be particular reasons for citing a different edition. Cross-
Tscherikower, Y ., Die hellenistischenStädtegründungen von Alexander
reference by bold number (e.g. see2il) is to the list of inscriptions given in Appendix
dem Grossen bis auf die Römerzeit (Philologus,Suppl. xix, Heft I' iv, which is put frrst in this index.
Leipzie,1927\.
Westermark.lJ., Das Bildnis desPhiletairosvon Pergamon(Stockholm, Appendix iv, no. I : 15, lE3 Abh. Berlin 1911.27-9:seel5
r960). 2: 147 1928,18,no. l: seeSEG iv. 688
Wilhelm, Ad., Akademi eschrift en zur g riechischen I nschrift enkunde (ed. 3 :72n. 1953,no. 6 (: Klaffenbach,Die
W. Peek, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1974). 4: l(h., 7l Astynomeninschrift vo n
- QTisshischeInschriften rechtlichenInhalts (Athens' l95l). 5 : 96, 1045 Pergamon):170-6
-'f(fsinasiatische Dynasten', Neue Beitröge zur griechischenIn- 6: l0l,157,2O3n.
(SB Wien, clxvi (l9ll), i. ll, 48-63). Flaceliöre,Les Aitoliens d Delphes,
schriftenkunde 7 : 79, l0l, 128,
(323-30av. J.-C.) (Z 407,no. 38b: 7l
Will, E; Histoire politique du monde hei:llönistique 203n.
vols., Nancy, 1966-7:ed.2, 1979-8.1). 8 : 79n. AM xxiv (1899), 212, no. 36 : see
Wörrle, M., 'Antiochos I, Achaiosder Altere und die Galater',Chiron' v 9 : 127-8,2O3n.
RC 47
097s), 59-87. l0 : 127-8,203n. 230,no. 68 : see Reise47, no.95
ll : 127-8,1334 4ll, no. 12:105
12: 127-8,133-4 xxvii (1902),90, no.74: seelvP 165
13-17: ll4-21 94. no. 86 : l5ln.
1 3 : 8 1 n .l,1 5 - 1 6 164 : seeIvP 221
14: l16,ll8 xxviii (1903),357tr. : 120n.
15 : llci8, r90, 194 xxix (1904) 170,no. 14 : 190, 191n.,
1 6 : l 1 8 ,1 2 l 193
1 7: l l & 1 9 243, no. 4 : *,e IGR iv. 292
18 : 10n.,ll7, 134 xxxii ( 1907),257, no. 8(a) : 165n.
19 : Tln. 427. no.272 : 156n.
20 : 56,155,205 435,no. 297 :92n.
2l : 154-5 440ff., nos 309-14,322, 324, 326-7,
22: 102 129,131 : 92n.
23:51,102,193 xxxiii (1908),375,no. I : 153-4,
2 4 : 8 I n . , 1 2 0 ,1 3 5 , 156n..164.165n.
l9l
379,no. 2 : 155,165n.
25 : 88, 100, 132n. 405,no. 34 : 183
26: 134,147 407.no. 36 : 16l
234 Index of Inscriptions
AM (continued)
xxxv (1910),ttOl,no. I : 164
4 2 2 ,n o . l l : 9 2
425,no. 12 : 92
432,no. 19 :92
4 3 7 ,n o s .2 2 - 3 : 1 8 3
439.no. 24 :2Mn.
463,no. 45 :27, l&4
xxxvii (1912),282,no. 5 : 183
xliv (1919),30, no. 16 : seeIGR iv.
r7l2
Anadolu ix (1965),29-159: 48-53
Sauciuc,Andros, 133,no. 4 : see2l
Ann. Epigr. 1932,no.80 : seeSEG
ix. 7
Klaffenbach,Die Astynomeninschrift
von Pergamon:seeunderÄDft.
Berlin 1953
Herzog-Klaffenbach, A syli eur kun
den aus Kos 6: 169
A v P i . 9 5 - 6: 2 5
BCH xlvi (1922),312: seeSEG ii. 580
l (1926),493n. 8 : see21
lii (1928),440 n. 8 : 156n.
liv (1930),348-51: seeRC 62
lix (1935),210-30: 149n.,150
xciv (1970),637-59: see3
Belletenxxx (1966),525-8 : 17, 183
BSA xxix (1927-8),68-71:104-5
l x v i ( 1 9 7 1 )l,- 1 2 : s e e2
Bull. Mus. Imp. Rom. 1932,28,no.
25 : 155
1938,44-8 : see Smallwood,Docu-
ments 454
Chiron ix (1979),73-81: see26
Durrbach, Choix d' inscriptions de
Dölos: 3Ln., 136-7
3 3 : 2 2 n . , 1 8 4 ,1 8 9
52 : 183
75 : seeBCH ltx (1935), 210-30
89: seelzscr. Dölos 1575
Pouilloux, Choix d' inscriptions grec
ques ll-12: seeF. Delphes üi.3.
238-9
13 : seeF. Delphes iii. 3. l2l
CIG 36ffi: see Robert, Et. anat. 199-
201
Cl. Rhodos n O%2'), 172, no.3 : see 7
ix (1938),190: seeSEG xix. 867
CRAI l9l7,2930 : seeBCH lä (1928),
zl40n. I
1921,269tr.: seeSEG ii. 663
1967,281-94: 145n.
Datx, Delphes 293-5: see l0
299-301 : see9
682-98: seeF. Delphesiii. 3. 238-9
686, C : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. l2l .
Swobodaet al., Denkmöler aus Lyka-
onien, no.74 | ; see22
no. 74 II: see23
no. 75 : 190
Denkschr.Wien.Akad. lxxvii I (1959),
4 - 6 ,n o . 2 : l 8
Didyma ii. 458 : 19-20
i i . 4 8 8 : s e e1 5
Smallwood, Documents lll. reigns of
Nerva etc.,454:.64,97
Eph. Arch. 1913,9o 2: seelSE i. 36
ll)67, ll. no. ll : seeSEG xxiv. 356
Holleaur, Etudes i. 1, n. 4 : see I (c)
ii. 9-16 : seeF. Delphes iL. 1.432
ü. 51-60 : see2lf
n . $ - 7 2 : s e e1 0
n.73-125 : seeJEG ü. 663
ü. 180: 164n.
Robert,Et. anat. 9-20: 150. 163.2O4n.
45-50: see IGR iv. 292
E4n.4:see19
9G6 : 17-18
199-2Ol : 146
Index of Inscriptions 235
F. Delphes.iii. l. 432: 15, 183 4 . l 1 0 6 : 1 8 3 ,1 8 8 - 9
üi.2. ll4a: 47n. 4. ll07 : see Durrbach,Choix 31
iii. 2. l34b: 47n. 4. I108 : see Durrbach,Choix 52
iii. 2. l34c: 47n. 4 . 1 1 3 6+ 1 0 6 l : s e e B C H 1 9 3 5 ,
i i i . 3 . l 2 l : 1 0 n . ,1 5 7 2 I 0-30
iii.3. 218B : 54, 148 xä.2. 646 : 162n.
i i i . 3 . 2 3 8 - 9 :l 0 n . xü. 8. 156 : seeSy//.3502
i i i . 3 . 2 4 0 : s e e9 xii. Suppl.p.48, no.l42 : 19,2L,
iii. 3. 241 : 142n.,157-8 26,91n.
iii. 3. 261 : see10 p . 1 2 4 ,n o . 2 5 0 : s e e2 l
i i i . 4 . 1 3 2 :3 3 , 1 0 7
i i i . 4 . 1 3 3 :3 3 , 1 0 7 IGR iv. 284 : seeSyl/.3 5954
äi. 4. 134: 33, 107
285 : seeSy//.s6058
iii. 4. 135: 33, 107 289 : seeOC/S 338
292 : 2ln.
Herzog,Heilige Gesetzevon Kos 9 : l7l2 : 132
see Sokolowski,Lois sacröesdes
citös grecques,287, no. 165,A8
Inschriftenvon Ephesos 200 : 191
Hellenica v (19a8), 103-28:seell, 12 201 : see 25
202 : see 24
vii (1949),l-29: t45n.
x i - x i i ( t 9 6 0 ) ,l 1 6 - 2 5 :s e e2 l
Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazo-
Hesperia xxüi (1954), 252' no.33 : menai 24 :29n., 139
see SEG xiv. 127 tl: 29n.
IG ii.z 833 : l9 Inschriften von Sestosund der Thrak-
885 : see 2 ischenChersones(Inschr.griech.
945 : seeSy//.a651 Städte aus Kleinasienxix) I : 87-
946 : see Sy1/.s 655 8, 155
941 : lf4
953 : see lE
Inscriptiones Creticaei. p.4, no.l;p.
1028: zl6n.
25, no.52;p.30,no.l; p.62,no.8;
5080 : 147
p . l 0 l , n o . l ; p . l l l , n o . 2 :p . 2 9 2 ,
iv.z 1.60 : 162
v. l. 36 : see.ly//.0595A n o . 1: 4 7 n .
i i . p . 2 ,n o . l : 4 7 n .
47 : seeSy//.s 5958
i i . p . 6 3 ,n o . l 7 ; p . 1 1 8 n , o . 2 ;p . l 6 l ,
92 : seeSy//.o605A-8
no.2l; p.243,no.3; p.291,no.I :
vii. 15 : seeSyl/.a642
47n.
1 7 8 8 :s e eI ( a )
i i i . p . 3 l , n o . 2: 4 7 n .
1789:seeI (b)
p . 8 3 ,n o . 7 : 9 l n .
1790:see I (c)
ix.2l. 56: 201n.
l. 95:7(h. Inscriptions de Dölos 1497bis : ll7n.
l. 179: see9 1575: 200
l. 192: 47n.
ix. 2. ll02 :46n. Iraq xvi ( 1954),206 : 2ln.
x i . 2 . 2 2 4 A : 2 2 n . ,1 4 6
xi. 4. ll05 : see Durrbach,Choix ll Moretti,/SE i. 36 :75, 107
236 Index of Inscriptions Index of Inscriptions 237

Ist. Mitt. xv (1965),7l no.1 : see 16 163 : seeRC 53 Conze and Schazmann,Mamurt- 294 :130
no.2b : see 17 165 G AM lX)2 no.74) : 142n. Kaleh,' lO : 16, 183 299 :128-9,165n.
166: 165n. 38: lE3 302 : 156n.,l9ln.
IvM 5 :163n. 167 : see OGIS 299 303 : l9ln.
7D:163n. l7l : see OGIS 291-6 Maier, Mauerbauinschrifteni. 76: see 3(X : l9ln.
18 : see OGIS 23L 174 : see OGIS 294 SEG xix. 867 305 : seeF. Delphes äi.3.241
47 : seeSyI/.s651 f 78 : see OGIS 113 308 : 10,t5, 149
M i l e t i . 3 n o . 3 3 E: l 1 5 309 : see Robert, Et. anat.9-20
53:56 179: seeOGIS 334
i . 9 n o . l 5 l : s e e1 5 310:seel(a)
87 : see OGIS 319 182: see OGIS 240
189 : see OGIS 236 no.307 : see 1{ | I 3ll:seel(c)
93 : see Syll.s 679
97 :99n., lM 190:162n. 3 1 2: 1 7 , 1 8 3
OGIS 1 : 51n.
219: 205 313:2M
ll : seeIvPr 14
221: 130n. 315 : seeRC 55-6t
IvP i. 5 : seeSrV üi. 555 5 5: 9 1 n .
223: seeOGIS 322 319 : lO4-5,190
13 : seeStY iii. 481 90 : 9ln.
224: seeOGIS 323 32Gl : l2ln.
15 : 20n. 217 : seeRC 39
225 : seeOGIS f27 322 :128-9
18 : see OGIS 267 221 lll : seeRC ll
323 :132,165n.
226: seeOGIS 324
20: seeOGIS 269 229 : see StV üi. 492
240 (+ ii. p.509): see OGIS 336 324 : l2E-9
2l-8: seeOGIS 273-9 230:120n.
245(+ ä. p.510):seeIG xii SuPPl. 325:152
29: see OGIS 280 23lr: 169n. 326:152n.,153
p.48,no.l42
33: 196 2 3 6: 6 0 n . 327:E2
34: 196 246(+ ä. p.510): seeOGIS 332 2,10: 6On.
248 : seeOGIS 331.RC 65-7 329 :74-5, 104,157,190
35 : see OGIS 272 248 :79-80, 15ln., 203n.
249 : see OGIS 338 330: E3,87-8
36: 35,196 2 6 2: 9 7 n .
ii.l76a: see OGIS 290 3 3 1I : 1 7 5
37 : 196 2 6 4 : 1 6 1 , 1 8 3 l,9 ( ) - l
251 : see Syll.o 1007 331 II-IV : seeRC 65-7
40: seeRC 24 265 : seeStY iii. 555
260: 165n. 332 : 84n., 149, 156, 172n.,l94J
4 3 : 1 7 n . ,1 4 8 n . 266 : seeSrY iii. 481
613: seeOGIS 2U 134 : lll
44:17n., 148n. 267 : 42, 122, 146, 165n.,166-8,170,
iii. p.28: 200 335 : see/G xii Suppl. p.48, no.142
4 5 : 1 7 n . ,1 4 8 n . t84
p.28, no.4 : 244-5 336 : 153
47 : see OGIS 281 2 6 8 : l 0 l n . , 1 0 5 ,1 4 8 n . 1, 98338 : 93, 149,165n.,176
50 : see OGIS 288 269:31,195 339 : seeInschr. von Sestosetc. I
5l : 17n.,124-5,196 IvPr 2 : see Syll.t 278 271 : 17n., 124, 196 350 : seeInscr. Dölos 1575
52-6:124 3 : 163n. 272: 196 446 :64n.
52 : see OGIS 283 14 : 105n.,l65n 2'13-91 : 7 n . , 3 1 ,1 9 5 483 : seeAbh. Berlin 1953no.6
53 : 17n., 196 27 : seeRC 46 273 : 195 4E9:162n.
554:.124 57 :162n. 274: X), 195 748 : 14-15,137,183
568: 125 73 : 163n. 275 : 195 749:seel(d)
58 : see OGIS 271 139 : 163n. 276 : 195 750:seel(e)
59: 148 2 7 7: 3 5 , 1 9 6 751 : see a3
60: seeSy/l.s5954 Kre tika Chronika xxi (1969),277fr. : 278 : 195 7 5 2: 9 5
6l : seeSy//.r 5958 see3 279 : 195 763 : see 13
62 : seeSy//.s 605.{ 280: 17n.,29n., 107n.,t96 764 : 154
63 : see Sy//.0 6058 Labraundaiii. I, no.8 : 9ln. 281: 17n.,125,2O5n. 765 : 136n.,139
64 : seeSy//.s 606 282 : seeRC 34
149: 126, 174 Sokolowski, Lois sacrdes des citös 283 : 17n.,2En., 124 OJh xxäi (1926), l5l-2, no.87 : see 8
1 5 6 : 1 2 6 ,1 6 5 n . grecques,287, no.l65, AB : l4G7, 288:74n.
157: seeRC 48 xlvü (1964-5),Beiblatt, l-5, no.l :
155 2X): 129
1608 : see OGIS 248 see A
291-6: 129
16l : 165n. | (1976),Beiblatt, 12-14,no.4 : see
MAMA vi. 68 ; 134 291 : 148
162:165n. 25
v i . 1 7 3: l 0 l n . . 1 5 4 29t :204
238 Index of Inscriptions Index of Inscriptions 239

Welles,RC ll:90 Riv. di fi|. lx (1932),446-52: see7 Sy/1.3(continued) 679 :99n.

15 : seeInschr. von Erythrai 3l lxvi (1938),253ff.: 149n. 5954 :77, 125-6 682 : l l0n.
23 : see OGIS 267 5958 :77 693 : 99n.
24 : 17n., 173-4 Sardisvii. l. 2 : 103 6 0 1: 4 9 n . , 5 2 n . 968 : 162n.
29 :39n. v i i . l . 4 : s e e5 ffi54 :77, 125n.1 , 5 l n . ,2 0 5 lü7 : 162-3,175
34 : 45, 169 ffi58 :77 l0l8 : seeRC 24
35 :47n. SEG. i. 374 : seeIGR iv. l7l2 fi6 : 77, 15ln., 195n. 1028: see Sokolowski,Lois sacries
36-7 : 145n. i i . 5 8 0: 5 3 - 5 6 1 8: 9 9 n . des citös grecques287, no.l65,
39 : 107 i i . 6 6 3 :6 , 5 4 - 5 , 8 8 - 9 1 629 : see 9 A8
46 : 104n. iv. 632 : see5 630 : see l0
47 :96-7, 198-9 iv. 688 : 195 6 3 3: 9 8 Robert, Villes d' Asie Mineure 76-8:
48 : 164, 175 ix.7 :84 &2: 106,135 seeOGIS 330
49 : see11 xiv. 127 : I3l-2 644-5: ll3n.
50 : see12 xvi. 524 : see3 6 5 1: 1 3 3 W i e n .A n z . x x i i ( 1 9 5 1 )3, 3 1 - 6n, o . l :
52 : see 13 x v i i . 5 1 0 : 1 0 0 ,l 1 8 655 : 134 seeSEG xvii. 510
53 : 103-4 x i x . 8 6 7: 9 5 656 : 103n.
55-61: 142-4 xxiv. 356 : 183 666 : 82n. Keil-von Premerstein,(Bericht iiber
56 : 143 670 : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. l2l e i n e )Z u ' e i t eR e i s e1 3 ,n o . l 8 : l M n .
60 : 143 S G D I2 6 7 5 : 4 7 n . ' 671 : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. 238-9 1 3 ,n o . 1 9: 1 3 9
6 l : 1 3 0 ,1 3 3 2 7 3 6: 2 U r . , 3 5 672 ; seeF. Delphes iii. 3. l2l
6 2 : 2 0 n . ,l l O n .
65-7: 17n.,130-1,190 La:u,m, Stiftungenä.28; seeF.
65 : 130,193 Delphesüi. 3. 121
66 : l(X ii. 29 : seeF. Delphesiii. 3. 238-9
67 : 174-5,20t ii. 69 : seeRC 24
ü . l 2 9 a : s e e1 3
l?EÄ xxxiv (1932), 135ff.: 172n. i i . l 2 9 b : s e e1 5
liv (1952),233ff.no. I (a) : see I (a)
I (b) : see I (b) S t Y i i i . 4 2 8: 6 l n .
2: seel(c) iii. 481 : 17n.,22-5,122,169n.,184,
3: seel(d) 1867
4 (a) : see I (e) ü i . 4 9 2 : 1. 3 n . 1, 8 n . ,2 4 n . ,1 0 5 n . , 1 6 5 n .
5:see19 iii. 536: 67-8
iii. 551: 72
Michel, Recueil 546 : see REA 1932, 1ü.552: 72
135ff. i i i . 5 5 5: 9 n . , 1 6 - 1 7l,6 G l , 1 6 5 n .
1 0 1 6 A: 1 5 0
1016C: 152n. Sy//.s 278 : 163n.
REG Bull. lxxxi (1968),469, no.282: 410 : seeInschr. von Erythrai 24
seeSEG xxiv. 356 463 : seeInscr. Creticaeiii. p.83,
506,no.446:seeBelleten 1966,525-8 no.7
5 0 2: 8 8 n .
Keil-von Premerstein,(Bericht über 523 : see Flaceliöre,Aitoliens d
eine) Reise27, no.Sl : 43 Delphes,407, no.38b.
47, no.95 : 96 561: 169n.
nos.2M-5 : l8 563 : seeIG ix2 i. 192
564 : seeF. Delphes üi.2. l34b
Rev.Phil. viii (1934),279ff.: see6 565 : seeF. Delphes üi.2. 13&
x i ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 3 3 7n,o . l 0 : 1 6 3 5 8 8 :l l 5
 General Index 24r

Antiochos lll (conti nued\ Asklepios, temple of, at Mytilene, 24n.

campaign against, in Greece, 125n. at Pergamon, 162,175
defeated in 189, 126(seealso and cult of Attalos III, l5G7
GENERAL INDEX Magnesia) Astynomic Law, 170-4
and royal cults, 145 Athena, cult annd festivals of at
I. NAMES AND SUBJECTS AntiochosIV, 79, ll3n. Pergamon, l2l-9, 170
Antiochos Hierax, 2935, 38, 138, given cult nzme Nikephoros, 123,
Abbou Kome,93. L Amlada,51,E3, 102,144,l9lJ,193 l4l, 195,196,197 196
Abdera, 103n. Amphiktyons (at Delphi), 47,127, Apameia(Phrygia), ll0, l12, 133,154 Parthenos.126.174
A b y d o s , 8 E n .l,l l 128 Peaceof, 25, 42, 51, 54,78,83 (see Athenaios (son of Attalos I), takes
Achaian League, 76, 125-6 Amphipolis, 169n. also Roman settlement) part in Manlius' Galatian
Achaios (the elder), 1,10,186 Amphistratos (Athenian archon, Aphrodision (at Pergamon),battle at, campaignof 189,90, 107
Achaios (the younger),29,3G41, 43, 160/59),l(h. 33-4.3E.197-8 honoured at Colophon Nova, 56,
57, 5&61,69 Andronikos. 132 Apollo, Philetairos dedicatesland to, 155
Acilius Glabrio, Manius. l12 Andros. 7+5. 154-5 l7 at Miletos, l16
Adramyttene Gulf, 23 Anisa, 172n. Attalos I oünaoE, with at Sikyon, dedication for at Pergamene
Adramyttion, 16 Ankyra, battle at, 30n., 34, 197-8 147 Asklepieion,2(X
adscripti (to Peaceof Phoinike), 7l AntigonosGonatas,137n.,169 Klarios (at Colophon Nova), 56 and Philetairos wrongly identified
Aegean,4n.,79,146 Antioch. 159 Tarsenos.97.198-9 as |eoi qt),aö679or.,156
Aemilius Regillus, Lucius (triumphed AntiochicWar, 42, U, &,76,77,79, Apollonia (Crete), 47n. Athenaios (cousin of Attalos Il),
in 189),122n. 86, 91, 9E Apollonia (Rhyndakos), 88n. t}ul, l7+5, 192
Aeolis, 39-45,55, 65, 68 Antiochis (m. father of Attalos I), Apollonides (otiwpoqoE of Attalos Athens,7, 10n.,31n.,49n.,E0,82n.,
Agathokles (son of Lysimachos), I I lEl, lE6 II), l3l l l 7 , l 3 l , 1 4 7 , 1 5 l n . ,1 5 8 ,1 7 4 ,
Agias (Pergamenegymnasiarch), 155 Antiochis (daughter of Antiochos III, Apollonios (minister of Ptolemy II), 199.20G1.2(X
Aiakos (at Aigina), 147 m. AriarathesIV), 201-4 202 Attaleia (Aitolia), 70
A i g a i ,l G l 8 , 2 6 , 4 1 , 9 8 - 9 , l l l , 1 8 3 AntiochosI, l+16, 19,26,29n., Apollonios (epistates), 105-6, 108 Attaleia (Lydia), 2l-6,32, 107,122,
Aigina,42-3,69,7+5,104, 105,106, 3In..186n. Apollonis,l8l,205 184,186
107,125,135,147,148n.,149, accession,14 honoured at Hierapolis, 149 Attaleia (Pamphylia), 83
157,190 and Philetairos,15-16 at Teos, 150'1,152 Attaleia, 146
Aitolia, 46,47,54,67-71,77,rr2, and Pitane. 19 death,15l at Delphi, 157
t27-8, 148 Galatian victory, 137 Apollonis (Lydia), 96, ll2n. at Kos, 146
treaty with Rome, 67-8 death, 2l archeion, at Pergamon, 176 at Kyme, 147
Aizanoi (Phrygia), 64n., 97 Antiochos II, 18, 29n., 202 Archias {prytanis at Pergamon), 16l-4 Attaleion, at Pergamon, 153
Akrasos, 106,129n. accession,2l, 22n. Ariarathes IV, 182, 192,20/!4 Attalid dynasty, foundation of, 9-ll
Alabanda, l l0 theos at Miletos, l19 Ariarathes V, E2, 2Ol, 203 Attalistai. 152-3
Alexander the Great. 5l Antiochos lll, 27, 30, 42, 44, 169 Ariobarzanes,138, 186 Attalos of Tios (father of Philtairos),
Alexandria(Egypt), 105n.,159, accession,36 Aristonikos. 35. ll2n. l8l. 186
172n., 174 and Attalos l, 28, 37, 58-61,67, 69, Arkades (Crete), 47n. Attalos (brother of Philetairos), 18l,
AlexandriaTroas, 40, 58, 61, ll0, 77_E Artaxerxes II, 162 1846
169 and Teos, 47-55 Artemidoros (official of EumenesII), Attalos (fatherof Attalos I), lEl, 182,
Allaria (Crete), 47n. alliance with rPhilip v, 60, 73n. 95 184-6
Altar (at Pergamon),76 statue at Pergamon,60n. Artemis, temple of (at Sardis), 96 Attalos \ n-75
Amastris, 13, 186, 187 and Eumenes11,76,77-B Leukophryene (at Magnesia),45 literary tradition on, l-2
amicitia (between Attalos I and and Asia Minor, 9l Artists of Dionysos, re€ Dionysian scholars at Pergamonunder, 3
Rome),69 andcistophorot, ll3 technitai treatise by, 3n.
Asklepiades,162 adopted by Eumenes I, 184
Asklepias (priestessof lEth accession,27
Nikephoria), 129 length of reign, l0-1 I
Asklepieion, at Pergamon,204 control of area around Aigai and
at Epidauros,162 Temnos,18,26,4l
242 General Index
Attafos | (continued)
takes royal title, 29n., 31, 140,159,
196, 198
military expeditionof 218,37,
39-58.62
receivesoüwa[,6 and 96pog, 5G5,
99
death,10,186n.
extent ofkingdom on death, 25, 86
and youngerAchaios, 29,30,36-7,
40.43
and Aigina, 42-3
and Aitolia, 77
and AntiochosIII, 28, 37,58-61,
67, 69,77
and Antiochos Hierax, 29,10,31,
38. 90
and the army,32-3, 198
and Athena, 31, 122-3, 124, 170
and Athens. 80, 147
and basileia. 105n.
and coinage, 170
and epistates, 42-3, 74-5, 106
and Galatians, 8, 2En., 29-35, 122,
t36-41, 195-9
and Greek cities, 39-58
and Lilaia, 33,45, 107, 177
and monu ments,8, 28, 195-6
and Nakrasa, 106
and Philip Y, 4n., 44,60, 66-9,
72-4, 147
and Rome,27-8,65-75,16
and royal cults, 145, 146-8
and Teos, U, 47-55,103, 169
and Thyateira,40, 43-4,61, 1()6
Attalos II. El-3
literary tradition on, I
assumesresponsibility during war
with Pharnakes,El
on embassyto Rome in 168, 142n.
encouragedby Senatein l60s to
usurp throne, 4
co-regencywith Eumenes II in
160/59,10n.,8l
accession.10. lE7
length of reign, lGl I
war with PrusiasII. 82. 132
campaignin Thrace, E3,E7,94
and Achaian League,77
and Aigina, 74, lM, 105, 135, 190
and Amlada,5l, 102,144,190,193
and Cappadocia,82
and Ephesos,120, 135
and foreign policy, 8l-2
and Galatians, 82, 133, l4}'4
and katoikoi at Soma, 9G7, 198-9
? and Kyme, 147
and Miletos, llGl7, l2ln.
and priesthoods of Sabaziosand
Donysos Kathegemon,130,
190
? and Sestos,155
and Syria, 79-E0,82
Attalos III, 83-5
literary tradition on, l,6, 83-4
birth and parentage,6, 189-94
has mentor from Ephesos,120, 135
honouredby ephebes,193,194
length of reign, l0-l I
hostile to officials offather's reign,
108
bequeathskingdom to Rome, 84
death of. 149
preparing mausoleumof Stratonike
when he died, 203
Pergamenedecree passedafter his
death,93,149,176
and Kyzikos, 104, l3l
and priesthood of Dionysos
Kathegemon,l(X, l3l, 190
and royal cults, 147, 149, 154-7,
172n.
? and Sestos,155
Attis (priest of Kybele at Pessinous),
82, 130,133,142-4
Attondae, 134
Augustus, 2
Axos (Crete),47n.
Babylon, 3(h.
Bakir (: Nakrasa), 105, 108, 198
Balikesir, valley of, 4{)
Banabelos(offrcial of elder Achaios),
l,{)
Bargylia,73, 164n.
basileia, 105n.,197
bathron (monument of Attalos I), 31,
3 5 , 3 9 ,1 9 5
benefactions,Attalid, 7, 14-15,7O-1,
77, ll9-20, tsE
General Index 243
Berenike(queenof Antiochos1l),2O2 cults, royal, 7, 145-58
Biannos (Crete), 47n. at Miletos, l14-19
biographies,Attalid, 3, 14 at Pergamon,151-7
B i t h y n i a 3. , 6 4 . 7 8 , 8 2 . 1 0 5 n . at Teos. 148-50.152
Biton (priestessof l4th Nikephoria), C y p r u s ,8 3 , 9 1 n . ,1 7 2 n .
t28 Cyrenaica,172n.
Black Sea,26,58,72n. Cyrene, 84
Boa (motherof Philetairos),181, 183,
187,188 D a m e a s1, 0 n . , 7 1
Boiotia, T Daskylion,92
boule, at Pergamon,16O1, 165-6,168 Delos,22, 24n.,31n.,113n.,l15,
building, at Pergamonunder 136,146,183,184n.,188-9,
Eumenes11,76,126 200.204.205
Bursa (find-place of Korrhagos Delphi,7, 10, 15, 19,20n.,33,35,47,
decree),6, 88, 9(),9lnn., 172n. 7 U 1 ,7 7 , 8 1 , 1 0 7 ,l l 3 n . , l 1 7 ,
Byzantion, 37, 84n., 122 142n..157.158
Demeter, temple of at Pergamon,
78, 79, 82, l l3n., l3l,
Cappadocia, 183,200
r7+5 Demetrios (Attalid strategos at
Caria. 38-9.4l E p h e s o s ) , 8 81. 3 2 n .
Attalos I defeats Galatians in, 35 Demetrios (successorof Antiochos
Carneades.E2n. rv),80
'A&jöou), DemetriosPoliorketes,6ln.
Chaireas(ö ntayp{vog tn'
llln. Demetrios of Skepsis, 3
Chalkis, 169n. Demokles (Athenian archon, 278/7),
Chersonesos,87-8,93, 99-100 136n.
Chios, 163 Denizli, 139
naval battle off,28n., 72-1,124 Didyma, 19, 20n.
Chloros (dvayxaloEof Attalos II),133 Didyma Teiche, 40
chora, 87 Diegylis,83, 94
Chronica Pergami @ergamene Dodoros (EiAoEof EumenesII), 133
Chronicle),l6l, 183 Diodoros Pasparos(Pergamene
coinage, 7 gymnasiarch),23n.
bronze coinage associatedwith cult Dionysia, at Pergamon,127
of Meter, 16 Dionysian technitai, Ionian Guild of,
cistophoric,7, 78, lt.r:-*l4 53,76, 103-4,148-50
at Thyateira, 43 Dionysos,cult of at Pergamon,121,
dynastic,7,32n., ll3, 122, 170 148-9.152
of Greek cities. 109-14 at Teos, 47, 148-9,152
ColophonNova, 56, ll0, 155,205 Dionysos Kathegemon,104, 13G1,
co-regency (of Eumenes II and l4E. 174. 190
Attalos II), Iftt., 8l dynasteia,20,21,22,30, 61, 197
Corinth, sack of,83, 132
CorneliusScipio Asiaticus,L., Egypt,9l-2
triumphedin 189, ll2n. Eirenias.1lG2l
and P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, ekklesia,at Pergamon,161, 165-6,
in Asia Minor, 59, 99 l6E
Corragus (in Livy), see Korrhagos Elaia, 16,26,68,99, 131,156
Corupedion,battle at, ll, 186 Elaitic Gulf, 19, 25
Crete.{l-8.72 Elaos (Aitolia), 10, 77n.
24 General Index General Index 245

Eleutherna (Crete), 47n. speechto Senatein 189, 78 Galatians (continued) Kaikos, River, 31, 34,3E,122, l4O,
ephebic lists, at Pergamon,92-5, 96, marries Stratonike, 192, 20/.J.6 defeatedby Attalos l,2En.,29-35, l4l, 195,1969
r76 building programme of lE0s, 76, 122, l3G4t,195-9 IGlynda, 46
Ephesos,22,26,8h.,83, 87, 98, t26 as mercenariesof Attalos l, q, 57, Kardakes, 95
l 0 G ' 1 ,1 0 6 ,l l 0 , l 1 2 , l 1 4 , rebuilds precinct of Athena in 1 3 8 .1 4 l Karseai, 40
l l 8 n . , l l 9 - 2 1 , 1 3 3 ,1 3 5 ,1 5 4 , Pergamon,28n., 35, 122, campaign asainst by Cn. Manlius Karystios (of Pergamon), lE3
163n. t25 V u l s o , 8 0 , 9 0 ,1 0 7 , 2 0 1 Karystos (Euboia), 74n.
Epidauros,162 establishesNikephoria, 79, l2G9 and EumenesII, 78, 79, 80, $, Kassandros.6ln.
Epigenes,29n.,196 war with Prusias I and Galatians, l0l, 107,128,15l katoikoi. 9+8. I 14
Epikrates (of Indeipedion), 93n. 79, l0l, 128 and Attalos 11,82, 133, l4r4 Kaunos, 46
epistates,42-3,7+5, 105-6,108-9 calleÄSoter,79, l0l, 128,l5Gl Gambreion, 16 Kephisodoros (gymnasiarchat
epitropos,Sl,193 war with Pharnakes,79, 8l garrisons, 109 Apameia), 154
era, Seleukid,24,98 Galatianwar of 160s,80, 102, ll5, on Aigina, 75 Ketschi-Agyl, 25
Eretria, 74n. t42-3 genealogy,Attalid, l8 l-94 Kibyra, ll0
Erythrai, 28n., 29n., 139, l,t0n. co-regency with Attalos II in Greek cities, of Asia Minor, 4, 39-58, Kiddioukome. 140
Euboia,74n. 1 6 0 / 5 9l.0 n . . 8 l 8 0 - 1 , 8 5l,1 4 Kios,84n.
Euergetes,title of Philetairos, 154 d e a t h .l 0 n . . 8 l Gryneion, 21n.,24n. Kleon (epistatesat Aigina), 105
title of Eumenes I at Pergamon, and Achaian League,76,125-6 gymnasium,Attalid interestin, ll8, Knossos(Crete),47n.
t6 and Athena 28n., 35, 123,125-9 120.155 Koile Syria, 22
Eumeneia.146 a n d E p h e s o s , 8 7 , 9 81, 0 0 - 1l,l l , Koloe. battle at. 195
at Delos. 146 l14, ll8n., ll9-21,r35 Hadrian. l7l Kolophon,49, 56,57-8,ll0n., 162n.,
at Pergamon, 146 and Greek cities, 4, 8Gl Hekatomnids,187 169
Eumeneion, at Pergamon, 153 and Miletos, 98, 100, ll,l-21 Helikonian muses (at Thespiai), 15 see also Colophon Nova
at Philetaireia, 23n. and Peloponnese,T6-7 Hellespont,72 Korrhagos (Attalid strate gos), 6, 55,
Eumenes (of Amastris, father of and Rome, 4, 76, 80, 86-7 Galatians settled there by Attalos I E8-91,94, 95, 107,llln.
EumenesD, 13, 184,185-7 and royal cults, 148-56 in 218. 40. 57 Korris (priest at l-abraunda), 143
EumenesI, 2G6 and Teos, 76, 99, 103-5,109, I I I, Hellespontine Phrygia, 30, 38, 41, Kos, 57, ll0, 127, 133-4,146, 149n.,
literary tradition on, 2 148-53 45-6,55, 57-8,62, 148n. 155.169n.
lengthof reign, lGl I and Thyateira, 434,86,99, lll Attalos I defeats Galatians in, 35 Krates (of Mallos), 142n.
defeatsAntiochos I at Sardis,20-1, and Zeus, 173 awarded to Eumenes lI in 188, 87 Kraton. 150-2.153
24, t60 EumenesIII (: a.;.1onikos), 85, administration of, E7-91,93 Kybele, 142
position after Sardis, 20-6 ll2n. Herakleia (by Latmos), 98, 99, I l0 Kydonia (Crete),47n.
'Eumenesof Bithynia', 197 Herakleia (Pontic), 84n.
areaofdirect authority, 20-6,85, K y m e , 1 7 , 4 1 , 9 9 ,l l 0 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 7
93, C7, 106,t30 Eumenistai, 152, 153 Herakles, 137n. K y z i k o s , 3 ,1 4 - 1 51, 6 , 2 6 ,5 8 , 1 0 4 ,
adopts Attalos I, 184 Eurydike (priestessof Stratonike), Hierapytna(Crete),47n., 72n. ilo, l3l, 137-8,r39, 146,
death,27 204 Hierapolis, 105, 149, 150, 152 l5ln.,183
and Aigai, 1618, 26 Hierocaesarea,l(Xn.
and coinage, 24 finance, Attalid control of, 5, 109, Hikesios(of Ephesos),106, 120, 135 Labraunda,39, 91n., 143
and Delos, 22,24n., 189 I 14, 167-8.See also tribute, Hydra, Cape, 25 Lachares (official of elder Achaios),
and Elaia. 26. 68 oüwaf6, qöpoE 140
and mercenaries,23,f2 fleet, Attalid, 26, 33, 68,-9,77 Iasos. 127.133-4 Lade. battle at. 73
and Pergamon, 42, 159, 165-9 Ilion, 3, 20n.,40, 49n.,58, 61, ll0, Lampsakos,40, 58, 61, ll0, 170
and Pitane,21,26, 4l-2,45, 9ln. Galatia,75,78,79,80, 82, 138,1,10, l l l n . , 1 3 8 ,1 3 9 ,1 6 9 Laodike (queenof MithridatesII),
EumenesII,7G8l 142-4 Ionia,40, 45-6,57,62,65 138
literary tradition on, l-2 Galatians, 85, 13644 Ionian koinon, 115-16 Laodike (queenof Antiochos III), 48
accession.76 and cities of Asia Minor, 30, 136, Ipsos,battleat,9 Laodikeia, 37
lengthof reign, lGll l 39-40 Istron (Crete),47n. Lato (Crete),47n.
scholarsat Pergamonunder, 3 and Kyzikos, 14-15,137-8,146 Itanos (Crete),9ln. Lebedos,lll
on side of Rome in war with as mercenariesof Antiochos Izmir. 95, l,t0 Leonnarios.137n..139
Antiochos III, 77-8,86 Hierax, 29, 30,33 Leschides (biographerof Attalids), 3
246 General Index General Index 247

Leukophryena (at Magnesia), 127 Milyas,87 Panionion, Eumenes II honoured at, two of same name distinguished,
Licinius Crassus,P. (cos. 17l),142 mints, royal, 109-14,135 l16 23n.
Lilaia, 33, 45, 107,177 MithridatesI. 138 Paramonos, 107n. Philetaireia, at Delos, 22n., lt+6, 189
Loutarios, 137n. MithridatesII, 138, 140-1,186 Parion, I I I at Kyzikos, 15n.,138,146
Lycaonia, 87 Mithridates (= Ariarathes V), 202-3 Pelekas.Mount.40 Philetairos, 9-20
Lycia, 100 Mylasa, 91n., 99n. Pella, 159 literary tradition on, 2-3
Lydia, 38, 4l Myndos, I I I Peloponnese,Eumenes II honoured parentage, 182-3
Attalos I defeats Galatians in, 35 Myrina, 17, 21n., 24n., 41, lll in,7G7 allegianceto Lysimachos,ll-14,
awardedto EumenesII in 188,87 Mysia, 25, 39-45,55, 62-5, 68,96 Pergamon,159-77 122
Lykos, River, 40, 43 Attalos I defeatsGalatiansin, 3l Strabo on, 2 allegianceto Seleukids,9, 12,
'Mysiam, quam Prusiarex monumental and architectural 13-19,160
Lysias(dynast),13,35-6,196
L y s i m a c h e i al l,, 8 7 , 8 8 , 1 0 0 ,l 0 l ademerat'.63-5.87 remains. 7-8 beginningofrule,9
Lysimachos,9-14, l2l, 122 Olympene,63 wedth at. 13-14.77 length ofreign, l0-ll
Lysimachos (biographer of Attalids), 3 Mytilene, 19, 21, 24n., lll source of Attalid inscriptions, 4, 6 financial independence,14
Myus,l15, l18-19 ephebic lists from, 9l-6, 176 befriends neighbours, l4- l5
Macedon,66.73 pre-Attalid status, 15-16,159-64 nature of authority, 14, 20
Macedonian foundations, 94 Nabis (of Sparta), 77, 125n., 126 participatesin cult of Meter, 16, 19 head on later dynastic coinage,24,
Macedonianwar, first, 26,33, 45, 49, Nakrasa,26,101n.,106,129,133 treaty of isopoliteia with Temmos, 32n.,ll2n., ll3
62.ffi-1r.75 Nasos.162n. l6-17, 160 and coinage, 14
second,49, 59,72-5 Neanthes of Kyzikos (biographer of Philetairos at, from 302, 9 and Delphi, 15
Magnesiaad Maeandrum,45, 56,62, Attalids), 3 constitutionat,85, 108, 159-69, and Galatians.31n., l3G9
9 9 , l M , 1 0 5 ,l l 0 , r r 5 , 1 2 7 , neokoros,96 170-6 and Kyzikos, 14-15,58,137,146
163, 169, 190 Neonteichos,140 ö öni tng nö)"eagat, 108, l7l-3, 177 and Meter, 15-16
Magnesiaad Sipylum, 13n.,24n., neos ktistes (designationof ö tni rtitv iepöv npooööav at, and Pergamon,14, 154, 159-60
100.105.110 Philetairos),16l 172-4.r77 and Pitane, 19
battle at, Mn., 59,77, 87, 98 Nikephoria, 79, 123-9, l3t-4, 170 strategoi at, seestrategos and succession,187
Makestos, River, 40 Nikephorion, at Pergamon,44n., financeof, 109, l14, 167-8 and Thespiai, 15
Mallos, 142n. 12f-5 mint at, ll0 Philetairos son of Eumenes (=
Mamurt-Kaleh, 16, 164, 183 destroyed by Prusias II, 82 building programme in l80s at, 76, brother of EumenesI), 184,
Manisa, 18 Nikephoros, see Athena 126 187-8
Manlius Vulso, Cn., 80, 83n., 90, NikomedesI, 15, E4n., 137n.,l4l gymnasialcult at, 154-5 Philetairos(son of Attalos I), ll6n.,
r07, 201 Nikomedes IV. 8,f5 Asklepieion at, 204 1 5 6 ,l 8 l
Masdue,93 'Northern League', 15 walls at, 126 PhilipV, 4n., 44,6-9,72-4,86, 147,
Mastya, 73n. Notion, 56 and Apollonis, 205-6 169.192,193n.
Megara, 106 Nysa (queenof Phqnakes I), l l7n. and Aristonikos, 85 defeatedat Chios in 2O2,28n.,
Megon (of Ephesos),120, 133, 135 and Athena, 122,126,170(seealso 72-3, 124
Mektepini (Phrygia),I l2n. Olus (Crete),72n. Nikephoria) invasionof Asia Minor in 201, 49,
Menogenes(ö tni riv npaypdtow), Oreos (Euboia),74n. and Dionysos Kathegemon, l(X ll5, 123
129-30,133,134 Orontes (satrap of Artaxerxes II), and royal cults, 120, 15l-7 defeated by Roman alliance in 197,
mercenaries,23,29,30, 63, ll5 162 and Stratonike, 20G6 126,rzE
revolt of, at Philetaireia and Oropos, lE3 and topoi 93-4 and AntiochosIII, 60, 73n.
Aualeia, 23-5, 187 Ortiagon, 79 and Zeus, 173 and Cretan communities, 47-8
Meter, 15, 19, 164,lE3 Perseus(of Macedon),4,80, 142 and Teos, 47-E
Methymna,9 palace,royal, at Teos, 153 Philiskos (strategos at Pergamon),
Pessinous,82, l3O, 142-4
Metris (priestessof 9th Nikephoria), at Tralles, 153 Pharnakesof Pontos,3, 4n., 79, 81, l6
127, t28 1 0 0 ,l l 7 n . , l 4 l Philomelids.13. 19-20
Mötrodoros (strategos at Pergamon), Palamandros(strategos at Phaselis,lll Philomelos.13. 20n.
166 Pergamon), 166 Phialeia, ,16 Philopoimen (ö tni t4g ogpayiöoE),
Miletos, 7 , 57, 9E,9n. 100, 104n., Pamphylia, 83 Philetaireia (Lydia), 23-6, 12, 107, 107n.,132,134
ll 1, ll3n., ll+21, 139,145, Panathenaia,at Pergamon, 122, 123, r22. 1E4.186 Phoinike, Peaceof, 49, 55, 69, 7 |
155,157,190,194 166. 170

248
Phokaia,4l-2,86,91, l0l, 104,
llln.,162n.
Phrygia, Greater, E7
Epiktetos,63-5
pirates, Cretan,72
Pisidia,37, 4l, 83
Pitane,16, 19,21,26,4l-2, 45,91n.,
104
Pleuratus.68
Polemon (of Ilion), 3
Polyrrhenia (Crete), 47n.
P o n t o s , 3 , 7 8 ,1 3 8 ,1 4 1 ,1 8 6
Porphyrius, 35n.
Poseidonios(grandfatherof Eume-
nes I), 184
Praefectus (: strotegos), 9O
Priapos,l0ln., lll
Priene,Dn., 104n.,105n.,136n.,
139,163,165n.
prostagma, lM, 109, 175, 176, 177
Prusa, 8E
PrusiasI, 3, 49,63-4,67, 69,71,79,
t o r , t 2 2 - 3 , 1 2 81, 4 l , 1 5 l
PrusiasII, 3-4, 82, 83, 99, 124, 128,
l3t, 132, 143, lu
prytanis, l6l, 163-5
Ptolemais(Egypt), 172n.
Rolemies, 83, 114
Ptolemy11,22,202
PtolemyMakron, 9ln.
Ptolemy Physkon, 84
Rhaukos(Crete),47n.
R h o d e s4, , 3 7 , 4 6 , 6 0 n . ,7 2 - 3 ,8 0 ,
98n.,99n., 100,105n.,lll,
ll3n., 122
Romansettlementof 188BC, 4, 8,
25, 52-3,54, 55, 57, 62, 63,
78, 86-7,88, 90, 91, 98, 126,
128.See also Apameia
Rome, Attalos I's alliancewith, 27-8,
65-75.146
treaty wirh Aitolia, 67-8
EumenesII and, 4, 76, 80, EG7
alliance after death of Attalos I,
78, 86
envoys of Eumenes II and
Pharnakesat(08312),79
war with Perseus,E0
Attalos II and. 143
General Index 249
General Index
strategos,and finance, ll4n. temples,administrationof ,9G7, ll4
assistedby Attalid forces in 149
at military katoikiai, 96 Tenedos,lll
and 146,83
offrce held by Achaios, 36 Teos,7, 44,47-55,76,99, 103-5,109,
Attalid dependenceon, E4
Ptolemaic,at CYPrus,9ln. lll, 120,148-53,163,174,206
Attalos III bequeathskingdom to,
strutegoi in subjectcities, 1049 Themistokles (stat egos of Achaios),
u at Pergamon,42', 146, 16l, 165-8' 40
royal title, taken by Attalos l,291.,
l7r-2, r77 Theophiliskos,72, 73
31, 140,159,169,198-9
of SeleukosIII, 29, 35 Theophifos (oüwpoqog), l3l-2, 134
Theotimos (strategos at Pergamon),
Sabazios,l3l*-l, 174-5,20t Stratios (physician of Eumenes II)'
166
Samos, 120n.. 132 l9l, 194
Thespiai, 15
Sardis1 , 6 , 9 6 ,1 0 3 ,1 0 5 ,l l 0 , l l l , Straton (Attalid strate gos), 87
Thyateira, 16, 23, 26, 40, 43-4, 61,
ll2. 142n.. 158 Stratonike,Sl, 13l, l8l, l9l' 192'
8 2 n . , 8 6 , 8 7 I, , l 0 4 n . , 1 0 6 ,
battleat (c.262\,20-1,24,lffi 200-6
lll, ll2n., 139
satrapalsystem,Seleukid,78,87, n and parentage,202-3
Tios, 13n.,182,186
Satyra(motherof EumenesI), l8l, bethrothal and marriage to
TolistoagianGalatians,31, 33, 38,
184 EumenesIl, 200-6
124.196.198
Scerdilaidas,68 and Sabazios, 174-5
toparchiai, Seleukid, 95
Scipio,see Cornelius and Teos, 150, 152, 163
topoi, 87, 90, 9l-8
Seleukeia,78n. death, 203
Trajan, 171
Seleukeiain Piereia, 176n. Stratonikeia,106, I l2n.
Stratonikeia (töv &.nö'Ivöemeötou)' T r a l l e s , 8 7 , 9 81, 0 0 ,l 0 l , 1 0 5 ,l l 0 ,
Seleukosl, 9, ll-14, 241
93n. llt, ll2, 135, 157
SeleukosII, 30,34, 105n.,138,197
succession, 10n.,81, 187 tribute, Attalos I refuses to pay it to
SeleukosIII, 29, 30,35-6
Sybritos (Crete), 47n. Galatians,29-31
Seleukos(son of Antiochos III), I 13,
Synnada,9n.,ll0 paid to Attalos I, ,14-58
r23
Syria, Attalid policy in, after lE8' 82 after 188BC,98, 102,109
Selge,37, 83, 102n.,l,l4
Syrian war, second,22 See also oitwaf6, pöpog
Senate(at Rome),4, n,49, 53, 55,
Troad2 , 3,41,61,65,68
7 8 , 7 9 , 8 2 , 8 4 ,r 4 3
tamias, at Pergamon,167-8,l7l' 172 Tychandros (Athenian archon,
Sestos,87,94, 155
taxation,see tribute, oöwafry, pöPog 160/59),ll7n.'
settlements,military, 93-4, 95-7
Sikyon, 77n., 147, 149 technitai, see Dionysiantechnitai
Zus, priesthood of, at Pergamon,
S k e p s i s , 3l,0 l n . , l l l , 1 3 8 TektosaganGalatians,33, 198
Telmessos, 79, 87, 95, 98, 100' l0l' r73
Skymnos (strategos at Pergamon),
l l 0 n . ,l l l , 1 2 8 basileios,105n.
t66
temenos,voted to EumenesII at Zeuxis,60n.
slaves,85
Miletos, llG19 Zaelas (of Bithynia), 84n.
Smyma, 13n.,18,24n.,41n',46,
ll0nn., lll,142,165n. Temnos,9n., lGl8, 26,4l' 9, l0l,
Soli,120n. lll, l6G.l,164,175
soma. !)6-7, 198-9
Sosandros,l3Gl
Sotas, 139
Soteria(ofPrusias I), 123 II. NOTABLE GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES
sources,l-8 (oi) dnö tönav (in ephebic lists)'
äyaLua, 154, 157
Sparta, 125n.,126 92-3, 176
dyotvtE (for Athena at Pergamonin
Strabo,sourcesof,2-3, 13-14 d.pTttyitttE,14
220), t22-3, t24
strategia, 107n. d.owvöpo4 l7l-2
strategos,kinds ofoffice ofthis dyavo06r4g, 2O4
äoulia, 47,55, 127
name in the kingdom, 107-8 dpgoödpya6 l7l 'And.töE (ethnic), 70
Attalid regional official, 6, 55, d.vayxaIoE,133
aörovoltoupövo4 lN
87-91 ävaöeötrypövoE,194
250 General Index General Index 25r

dgoqoloyqota, 5l xowonpayia, 59-61,69 üLeopa,5l, 102

(oi) daoüelE (in Strabo, usually
meansAttalids). 83n.
6aodmög vdpoE, 17l,175
6aoülooa (as title of princess), 2üll
ya(oEü\a|,,9
falanxd,29n.
yev60lroEflptga, 56, ll6, 155
yvdtpq ovpat1yöv, lM-5, 165
Ko).ogtbvor änö 0d.doo4g, 56 ü).4,53 Eü,oc,, lf3-4, 135
xpivew, 133n. (ö) rcraypövog ön' 'A6ööou, llln. q6poE, 5G3,99, 102, 103
'D,)'qonövtou (under
xüpng 14, 16, 19 rcyvitat, see Dionysian technitai @puyfu f1 tq'
xap6nol6 Glion), 138 Attalos I), 90
(ai) ön' tpb nö).t6, 45,62, 169 gü.axi1 r4E yöpas (at Kyzikos), 137
Maoöu4vot,93
pe9rctdpevogt$ äv0pdtnav, 149
povotxoi dydveg (at Tralles), l0l,
r57
Mrioor, 45,62-3

ötü"üoetE,6ln. viot, 56,155

(ö) (napd uitr 6aorlet) ötatqifiav,
134
öuväov4g, 20
iyyeqilew, 46
dxtbv, 56, 155, 157
tn ntdrq g, see ep istate s
(ö) tni üöe rcü TarSpou,36
(ö) öni ttts nö).eaE, 108, l7l-t, 177
(ö) öni t1E oqpayiöog, 132
tnftponog, seeepitropos
(ö) (napd rcü 6aorl6ag'Attdü.ou)
(ö) tni töv äpyotvtöv
6aor).mdtv, 10n., 7l
(ö) Eni uitv iepdv npooöötov, 172-4,
177
(ö) tni xnv npayltdtotv, 129-30,133
(under AntiochosIII), 60n.
ört naig öv, l9l, 193
(fi) tq' 'DJ'aon6vtou oatpanela
(Seleukid),90
Eqfidor,56,155
fTyeptita,69, 101
i1p6paön6vupog, 116, 155
9coi güaötAgo4 156
9eös, l4E, 149, 154
iod.tiprnrcE,, 127
ioono).neia,9n., 1617, 160
iooni9ng, 127
(oi) xa9' 'E1),y'7onovrov
t6noq X
(ö) xataora9eiE ön' Aiylvag, 135
xarow(at tdtv Muoöv. 40. 45
xdromou 43.62
vöpot rfig röleaE, 175
vopoqü,axeE, l7l
f,6vor(in ephebiclists), 92, 176
oixetog, ll7, 134
napü.a6öv (rd npäypam), 21,25,
9ln.
(fi) tapä14p6 tfiE nöLeoE, Wl
ndrprcv noltrcupa, 42
nü,epog fd.anxöE, 140
teö€evos, 15
npöooöot,5l, 54n.
npoozäqg, 48
(ö üv) nqonpapevov, 134
or egavhat aybveE (refounded
Nikephoria), 128
mgaqy6E, mparqyot, seestrategos
'EEöoou
oqaqyöE ön' xrL., E8
g
or paury ö tg" E)J.qonöw ou
(Seleukid), 90
oqaqyög rfiE Xeggovfioou xai röv
xard d1t 6pdtx4v
t6nov,87
'Ivöemeö[ou,
Ztparovueüg töv d.nö
93n.
ouyywfi;,,130,133
ouppaTia (Rhodian), 99n.
ouunolneia, 13n.,56,92, ll9
ouv9fixat,4, ß,50,55, 57, 59-61,
65, 79
oüwaog (0eö4, 147,150,157
oüvtal6, 50-3,85, 95, 99, 103
o$wpoqog,130,13l-3, 134
Zottfi p n xai' Hpdxlen, 204