Settlements and Necropoleis of
the Black Sea and its Hinterland
in Antiquity
Select papers from the third international conference
‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient
Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’, 27-29
October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun
edited by
Gocha R. Tsetskhladze and Sümer Atasoy
with the collaboration of
Akın Temür and Davut Yiğitpaşa
Archaeopress Archaeology
Archaeopress Publishing Ltd
Summertown Pavilion
18-24 Middle Way
Summertown
Oxford OX2 7LG
www.archaeopress.com
ISBN 978-1-78969-206-8
ISBN 978-1-78969-207-5 (e-Pdf)
© Authors and Archaeopress 2019
Cover: Sebastopolis, Roman baths.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.
Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford
This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com
Contents
Preface ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ iii
List of Figures and Tables ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iv
Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies around the Black Sea ������������������������������������1
Gocha R� Tsetskhladze
The Black Sea on the Tabula Peutingeriana�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42
A�V� Podossinov
Archaic East Greek Transport Amphorae: Secure Advances and Muddles. An Assessment �������������������������������52
Pierre Dupont
Western Black Sea
Tekkeköy: Land of Legends from Past to the Future ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69
Sümer Atasoy
An Epigram for a Sinopean from Tomis �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������77
Alexandru Avram
Late Classical-Hellenistic Imports at Açic Suat (Caraburun) (4th-3rd Century BC)�����������������������������������������������82
Vasilica Lungu
Northern Black Sea
The Chronology of Arrowhead and Dolphin-Shaped Monetary Signs from Berezan ��������������������������������������������99
Dmitry Chistov
Essay on the Economy of Myrmekion in Pre-Roman Times ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������108
Alexander Butyagin and Alexei Kasparov
The Necropolis of Porthmion (from the Excavations of 2004-2013) ������������������������������������������������������������������������113
M�Y� Vakhtina and P�G� Stolyarenko
Artyushchenko-1 Settlement on the Taman Peninsula (6th Century BC-4th Century AD) �������������������������������126
Yurii A� Vinogradov
Eastern Black Sea
The Southern Pontic Import Discovered at Classical Period Sites in Ajara �����������������������������������������������������������139
Amiran Kakhidze and Emzar Kakhidze
A Brief Report on the Archaeological Excavations in Gonio-Apsarus, 2014-2017 ������������������������������������������������145
Shota Mamuladze and Kakhaber Kamadadze
Southern Black Sea
The Traces of the Chalcolithic Culture of Alaca Höyük in the Coastal Settlements of
the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������157
Hulya Çalışkan Akgül
i
The Baruthane Tumuli at Amisos/Samsun����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������167
Sümer Atasoy
Evaluations of Iron Finds from the Fatsa Cıngırt Kayası Excavations ���������������������������������������������������������������������177
Ayşe Fatma Erol and Ertaç Yıldırım
New Archaeological Expeditions in the Ancient City of Amastris ����������������������������������������������������������������������������190
Fatma Bağdatlı Çam, Ali Bora and Handan Bilici Altunkayalıer
The Ancient City of Sebastopolis in the Light of Archaeological Data and Inscriptions ������������������������������������208
Şengül Dilek Ful
Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������214
Manolis Manoledakis
A Great Tumulus from Paphlagonia ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������226
Şahin Yıldırım
The Land of Sacred Fire: Amasya – Oluz Höyük �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������244
Şevket Dönmez
An Overview of Iron Age Sites of Zile District ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������258
Mehmet Özsait and Nesrin Özsait
Evaluation of the Recent Finds at Komana from the Early and Middle Byzantine Period ��������������������������������272
Mustafa N� Tatbul and D� Burcu Erciyas
A Group of Glass Bracelets from Samsun Museum��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������281
Akın Temür and Özkan Özbilgin
Some Observations on the Dating of the Kavak Bekdemir Mosque in Samsun�����������������������������������������������������289
E� Emine Naza Dönmez
List of Contributors�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������299
ii
Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
Manolis Manoledakis
Abstract
Among the several nations that inhabited the southern Black Sea littoral in the historical times, the Paphlagonians stand out
as one that managed to establish a significant position in the region. One of the aspects of the Paphlagonians’ civilisation, on
which the sources provide some interesting data, is politics. It is these data that we attempt to approach in this paper, focusing
on the political and diplomatic flexibility and adaptability that the Paphlagonians or specific Paphlagonian individuals displayed
in several periods of their history. From this data we may conclude that political manoeuvring and effective diplomacy have
characterised the Paphlagonians more than any other people of the southern Black Sea littoral. With more than 25 known
individuals, three of whom even managed to climb to the highest office of their time in the eastern world, Paphlagonia was
distinguished as a place that ‘produced’ intelligent and sly political personalities, from the age of the Persian empire until the
Sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders.
Among the several nations that inhabited the
southern Black Sea littoral in the historical times,
the Paphlagonians stand out as one that managed
to establish a significant position in the region, as
compared with most of both their western (e.g.
Mariandynoi, Caucones) and eastern (e.g. Leucosyroi,
Chalybes, Tiberenoi, Mossynoikoi) neighbours. Of
course, this distinction may not be visible through the
archaeological data, which are silent about almost all the
peoples of the southern Black Sea littoral, but it clearly
results from the references of the literary sources,
which not only are far more on the Paphlagonians than
on the other peoples, but also imply a cultural influence,
if not a cultural dominance, of the Paphlagonians over
most of their neighbours.1
be stressed that are all Greek – in the 5th century BC,
namely in a period when Paphlagonia had already been
subjected to the Persian empire.
The first concrete references that we have pertain to
officials in the region. However, sometimes only the
title is mentioned and not the name of the official,
while in cases where we have a name, it is not always
accompanied by the same title, nor does it always bear
the same form. Let us consider these references in
detail. The passage referring to the earliest period is not
written by the earliest author. It is Plutarch (Pericles 20.
1) who, talking about the expedition of Pericles to the
southern Black Sea, and specifically to Sinope, mentions
kings and dynasts2 of the barbarian populations around
the city in the 430s BC or a bit earlier.3 However, it is
not clear whether he means only the Paphlagonians,
since the specific region was inhabited in antiquity
by other local peoples as well, many of whom appear
nevertheless in the literature to have kinship with the
Paphlagonians.4
One of the aspects of the Paphlagonians’ civilisation,
on which the sources provide some data, is politics.
These data may be insufficient to lead to specific and
safe conclusions concerning the precise political
structures of the Paphlagonians in antiquity. However,
in some cases they indicate that the Paphlagonians not
only had such structures, compared with most of their
neighbours, but they also proved to have used them
effectively under various political circumstances. It is
these data that we will be attempting to approach in
this paper, focusing on the political and diplomatic
flexibility and adaptability that the Paphlagonians or
specific Paphlagonian individuals displayed in several
periods of their history.
Plutarch’s narration of Pericles’ expedition to the Black
Sea (in general) has been considered by some scholars
as unreliable, or even as an Athenian invention of
the 4th century BC.5 However, we cannot prove that
the reference to his visit to Sinope (specifically) is a
product of fiction,6 and besides what interests us here is
that Plutarch speaks about kings and dynasts of the local
peoples in the southern Black Sea littoral. Indeed, the
same author mentions elsewhere (Agesilaus 11. 1) Kotys
as king of the Paphlagonians (see below).
Under the Persians and the Macedonians: The
Classical Period
2
Wherever the term king appears here in italics, it is a translation of
the original word βασιλεύς. Similarly, dynast is used for δυνάστης,
satrap for σατράπης, archon for ἄρχων, and eparchos for ἔπαρχος.
3
The two main theories proposed talk about ca. 450 BC and 438-436
BC. See the bibliography in Tsetskhladze 1997 and de Boer 2005: 168.
4
For this issue, see Manoledakis forthcoming b.
5
Ferrarese 1974; Tsetskhladze 1997, with bibliography. De Boer
(2005: 167) seems to consider this view exaggerated.
6
Cf. de Boer 2005: 167.
Official Titles in Paphlagonia
Information of a political nature concerning the
Paphlagonians appears in the written sources – it must
1
For this issue, see Manoledakis forthcoming b.
214
M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
The next source of information is about the time of
Alcibiades’ death (404 BC) and comes from Diodorus,
who, citing Ephorus, mentions (14. 11. 3) a satrap
in Paphlagonia, without naming him. Alcibiades is
reported to have asked this satrap’s assistance, after
the refusal of Pharnabazus, but nowhere else is such a
satrap mentioned in the literature.
then we have also a fourth variant of the name. A.
Avram considers most probable that the initial form
of the name was Otys and the series of the consecutive
corruptions as follows: 1) Ὄτυς → Κότυς, 2) Ὄτυς →
Τυς, 3a) Τυς → Θῦς or 3b) Τυς → Τυης → Γύης.10
Another ‘king of the Paphlagonians’, Cotykas, is
mentioned by Aelius Herodianus (De pros. cath. 3. 1.
54), but without any further data, so we cannot decide
whether Herodianus means Corylas or Cotys (only the
latter is called king by some authors), or even whether
he used this type trying to combine both, having been
confused himself.
However, for the period around the end of the 5th
century BC, Xenophon states that the archontes
of all the king’s territories that he and the Ten
Thousand traversed were as follows: Artimas of Lydia,
Artacamas of Phrygia, Mithradates of Lycaonia and
Cappadocia, Syennesis of Cilicia, Dernes of Phoenicia
and Arabia, Belesys of Syria and Assyria, Rhoparas of
Babylon, Arbacas of Media, Tiribazus of the Phasians
and Hesperites; then the Carduchians, Chalybians,
Chaldaeans, Macronians, Colchians, Mossynoecians,
Coetians, and Tibarenians, who were independent; and
then Corylas archon of Paphlagonia, Pharnabazus of
the Bithynians, and Seuthes of the Thracians in Europe
(Anabasis 7. 8. 25). More about the Paphlagonian archon
Corylas is narrated by Xenophon in his Anabasis,
referring to 400 BC (see below).
However, what is more interesting here is not the
confusion concerning the name variants but the one
concerning the titles. Judging from all the abovementioned references of the ancient texts, it becomes
obvious that there was a problem in the use of the
official titles.
The term satrap appears in the ancient Greek literature
in the late 5th-early 4th century BC (Xenophon,
Ctesias). A bit earlier, just after the mid-5th century
BC, Herodotus clearly indicates that only the Persians
used the term satrapies for the provinces that he
calls archai,11 however, curiously enough, we never
encounter such a term (or any corresponding one for
the territory) in the Achaemenid sources, only the
title (satrap) in connection to a person.12 Moreover,
in the Greek sources certain lists of satrapies appear
only for the period of Alexander the Great and his
successors.13 But even from Xenophon’s period
onwards, it is far from clear in the sources which exact
duties the satrap had,14 thus the same is the case with
the satrap of Paphlagonia mentioned by Diodorus (14.
11. 3). Judging from Herodotus’ ‘translation’, we could
suspect that the satrap may more or less have been
something like the archon, but nothing can prove such
a conclusion. It appears that the term satrap refers to
an official of the Persian empire, while the term archon
to local rulers.
Only a few years later, another Paphlagonian official
appears in the sources and this is Otys (Ὄτυς).
Xenophon again is the first who mentions him as king
of the Paphlagonians, while narrating the expedition of
king Agesilaus of Sparta against the Persians (Hellenica
4. 1. 1-19). The events narrated took place in 395 BC
and refer to the alliance contracted between Otys and
Agesilaus, encouraged by the Persian Spithridates. The
same ‘king of the Paphlagonians’ is mentioned also
by Plutarch (Agesilaus 11. 1), but this time as Kotys, a
name that, curiously enough, is given by Xenophon
himself in another work of his (Agesilaus 3. 4), where
he calls him archon of the Paphlagonians and not king,
as in the Hellenica.7 A third variant of the name (Gyes)
is encountered in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (22. 1). If Thys,
dynastes of Paphlagonia according to Nepos (Datames 2.
2) or king of the Paphlagonians (Athenaeus Deipn. 4. 25,
invoking Theopompus), who was also a great eater (cf.
Aelian VH 1. 27),8 is the same person, which is possible
judging by the date of the events connected to him,9
10
I am most grateful to Alexandru Avram, who kindly entrusted me
with the draft of his unpublished paper on Paphlagonian personal
names, where he cites also epigraphic testimonies of these variants.
Cf. also Meyer 1909: 26; Bruce 1967: 143. Diodorus (2. 26. 8. Cf. Ctesias
FGH 3c, 688, F.1b) mentions a Kottas, eparchos of Paphlagonia (another
title again), who was the most loyal subject of the Assyrian king
Sardanapalus (7th century BC). Although the person is fictitious,
and Paphlagonia was not part of the Assyrian empire (Murphy 1989:
34, n. 73), his name might not be invented accidentally, but in order
to remind of the 4th century historical person. It would be worth
noticing here that two of the three Hecatoncheires were called Gyes
and Kottos (Hesiod Theogony 734).
11
‘ἀρχὰς [...], τὰς αὐτοὶ καλέουσι σατραπηίας (Herodotus 3. 89).
Herodotus himself later calls the provinces nomoi (3. 90-94), indicating
that even to him the whole issue was not absolutely clear.
12
Klinkott 2005: 31.
13
Klinkott 2000: 16.
14
For the term ‘satrap’ in the written sources and the difficulty to
clearly define it, see Klinkott 2005: 32-37, and 387-94 for a definition
attempt.
7
Paradoxically, while Plutarch follows the name that Xenophon
gives in the Agesilaus he follows the title given in the Hellenica. For the
political events, see Occhipinti 2016: 52-55.
8
Athenaeus Deipn. 4. 25; cf. 10. 8. 15; Eustathius Comm. ad Hom. Od. 1.
13. Theopompus (4th century BC), in Book 35 of his Histories, says that
‘whenever the Paphlagonian king Thys dined, he had a hundred do
everything prepared for the table, beginning with oxen; and even
when he was carried away a captive to the Persian king’s court and
kept under guard, he again had the same number serve him, and lived
on a splendid scale. Wherefore, when Artaxerxes heard of it, he said
that it was plain to him that Thys was living as though he had made
up his mind to die soon’.
9
Thys had revolted from king Artaxerxes but was reduced to
subjection by the Cappadocian satrap Datames (Nepos Datames 2. 2)
in the early 370s BC: Judeich 1892: 191-92; Lenschau 1942: 1889; Kuhrt
2007: 376.
215
Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity
In any case, C. Tuplin questioned the accuracy of
Diodorus’ words by saying that Paphlagonia is absent
from the list of Asia’s regions where Cyrus appointed
friends of his as satraps, according to Xenophon’s
Cyropaedia, Cyrus sent out no Persians as satraps
over Cilicia or Cyprus or Paphlagonia, unlike many
neighbouring regions, because he believed that those
areas joined his expedition against Babylon voluntarily;
he did, however, require even these nations to pay
tribute (Cyropaedia 8. 6. 7-8).15 But Xenophon refers here,
of course, to the much earlier period of Cyrus the Great,
so the absence of Paphlagonia from this list cannot be
used as an argument for what was valid about one and
a half century later. Besides, the historical credibility
of Cyropaedia has been disputed.16 However, we could
note that Paphlagonia appears neither in the closer in
time Achaemenid royal inscriptions nor in the list of
Herodotus as a separate province,17 and this would be a
strong argument against Diodorus’ words.
when the term is used for both the Paphlagonian and
the Persian king in the same sentence of Xenophon’s
Hellenica (4. 1. 2).19 Why shouldn’t there be a distinction
here as well?
It seems that the Greek authors used the titles almost
indiscriminately or at least not consciously, according
to their era or the earlier texts they were influenced
by. Nevertheless, we can assume that Paphlagonia
could not have been a separate administrative province
from the beginning until the end of the Persian empire,
neither under the Macedonians, and that, apart from
the Persian king via his satrap, it must have been ruled
also by local rulers, like Corylas and Otys, which makes
even more sense if we consider Paphlagonia belonging
to the same administrative province with several other
peoples.20
The geographical territory of the Paphlagonian rulers
The question is how local these local rulers were. The
dominant view is that the authority of those rulers was
regional rather than national, and thus none of them
(e.g. Corylas, Otys) ruled over all Paphlagonians.21
Within this frame, it has been claimed that ‘Paphlagonia
must have been split among several rival chieftains’22
or that ‘the Paphlagonians were rather acting as a loose
federation of tribal groups’.23 Moreover geographical
differentiations have been traced. For example, Tuplin
stated that ‘Corylas was encountered around the
eastern borders of Paphlagonia, whereas Otys was
much further west’. On the contrary, other scholars
have considered Otys as successor of Corylas.24
Let us examine the other titles, which are attributed
to local rulers of Paphlagonia. Otys/Kotys/Thys
is mentioned as king by Xenophon, Plutarch and
Theopompus (Athenaeus), as archon by Xenophon,
and as dynastes by Nepos. Aelian does not give a title.
The discrepancy could be explained by the fact that
all these three titles may have had a similar broad
meaning (king, chief, ruler, etc.).18 In this case, the
different terms used by Xenophon could be due to
purely different language choices, which is possible but
still a bit doubtful. We should also note that Xenophon
sometimes avoids giving the title of Corylas himself
(e.g. Anabasis 5. 5. 12, 22; 5. 6. 3, 11), while he clearly
presents him as archon in the same work (Anabasis 6.
1. 2; 7. 8. 25). A clue may be given in the last passage
(7. 8. 25), where Xenophon calls archontes all the rulers
of the king’s territories that he and the Ten Thousand
traversed, since in the same sentence he uses the term
king for the Persian king (ἄρχοντες δὲ οἵδε τῆς βασιλέως
χώρας ὅσην ἐπήλθομεν...). Thus here, on the one hand
we might have a confirmation of the above-mentioned
thought on the general meaning of the term archon,
especially since it is used for all these territories of Asia,
which could not easily have the same political structure,
and on the other an indication that these archontes had
a more confined (both geographically and politically)
authority as related to the ‘king’, who is always the
Persian king. This means that whenever the term king
is used for the Paphlagonian rulers, it also has this
confined meaning. But then we fall into doubt again,
But most of the above is hypothetical, since the only
evidence about political organisation in the relevant
areas does not positively confirm such conclusions.
Furthermore, the texts mentioning names of
Paphlagonian rulers that we have examined25 do
not help gain an understanding as regards the exact
administration system in the area. Corylas is mentioned
only by the protagonists of the Anabasis and the relevant
discussion about him may take place in Cotyora (5.
5. 22), but it is clearly stated that Corylas entertains
19
Λέγοντος δὲ τοῦ Σπιθριδάτου ὡς εἰ ἔλθοι πρὸς τὴν Παφλαγονίαν
σὺν αὐτῷ, τὸν τῶν Παφλαγόνων βασιλέα καὶ εἰς λόγους ἄξοι καὶ
σύμμαχον ποιήσοι, προθύμως ἐπορεύετο, πάλαι τούτου ἐπιθυμῶν, τοῦ
ἀφιστάναι τι ἔθνος ἀπὸ βασιλέως.
20
In Herodotus (3. 89) Paphlagonia belonged to the same province
together with Hellespontine Phrygia, Phrygia, Bithynia, Mariandynia
and Syria (the land of the Leucosyroi), while in the Achaemenid royal
inscriptions it seems (according to the geographical distinctions
made) that it belonged to Cappadocia. For the Achaemenid royal
inscriptions, see Lecoq 1997.
21
Ruge 1949: 2521-22; Briant 2002: 642; Tuplin 2004: 178; Kuhrt 2007:
376; Summerer and von Kienlin 2010: 195-96, 216.
22
Briant 2002: 642. Cf. Summerer and von Kienlin 2010: 195. Not
much different is the view of Tuplin 2004: 177-78.
23
Matthews 2009: 156.
24
Meyer 1909: 26, n. 2; Lenschau 1942: 1889; Ruge 1949: 2521.
25
See also Debord 1999: 110-15.
15
Cf. Tuplin 1987: 114, n. 25; 2007: 10.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1993: 512-14, with bibliography.
17
See n. 20. On the much discussed question of whether both
Herodotus and the Achaemenid royal inscriptions mention real
satrapies of the Persian empire or not, see indicatively Klinkott
2000: 11-16; 2005: 67-109; Dan 2013: 87-88, 106, all with previous
bibliography.
18
See the entries in the Greek and Latin dictionaries by Liddell and
Scott, and Lewis and Short.
16
216
M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
expansionist views over the territory of Sinope, while
later (6. 1. 2) he is said to have sent ambassadors to the
Greeks in Cotyora, so he is located more to the west
than the eastern borders of Paphlagonia, but without
more specific details.
were subjected to the Persian empire) and what
freedom they had to act autonomously.
A first hint is provided in Xenophon’s Anabasis (5. 6. 8),
by the Sinopean envoy Hecatonymus who claims that
‘very recently’, i.e. before 400 BC, some Paphlagonians
refused to present themselves when the Persian king
summoned them, as their archon – who must have
been Corylas – was too proud to obey, and because they
regarded their cavalry as superior to the whole of the
king’s cavalry. Tuplin interpreted this27 as a subjection
to Persia.28 But what kind of subjection would this
refusal indicate? There are no consequences mentioned
for this refusal, neither are there any for the similar
refusal of Otys, some years later, to go up to the Persian
king when he was summoned by him (Xenophon
Hellenica 4. 1. 3).
The placement of Otys ‘much further west’ of Cotyora
and Sinope has not been proved as well. Nothing
indicates that the narrations mentioning him could
refer only to western Paphlagonia and not to a larger
area. On the contrary, in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (21. 6-22.
1-2), it is mentioned that after Gordium, ‘Agesilaus led
the Peloponnesians and their allies to the borders of
Phrygia and Paphlagonia and there he encamped his
army, and sent Spithradates to Gyes (Otys). He made a
truce with the Paphlagonians and quickly led his army
towards the sea, since he feared that they would be
short of supplies for the winter’. Thus Otys must have
ruled over the southern part of Paphlagonia, including
the borders with Phrygia, so that Agesilaus was able
to make a truce with him, but also over the whole
territory as far as the sea, namely the northern part,
towards which Agesilaus was able to lead his army after
the truce.
Besides, the fact that the Paphlagonians had sent
soldiers to Cyrus in Cunaxa (Anabasis 1. 8. 5) does not
necessarily mean a general Paphlagonian ‘obligation to
serve in satrapal forces’;29 after all exactly the same did
also the Greek mercenaries. The king at that time was
Artaxerxes, Cyrus’ enemy, and the peoples subjected to
him would be expected to send soldiers to Artaxerxes.
So, the Paphlagonians serving with Cyrus should not
be considered as the official Paphlagonian forces in the
war. They were just 1000 horsemen, who might be the
only ‘barbarians’ mentioned by their ethnic name by
Xenophon, but still very few in comparison to the ‘more
than 120,000 Paphlagonian infantry’ (Anabasis 5. 6. 9),
or to the 100,000 barbarians serving Cyrus (Anabasis 1.
7. 10), and even fewer in comparison to the 1,200,000
(Anabasis 1. 7. 11) or 400,000 (Plutarch Artaxerxes 13. 3,
citing Ctesias) soldiers and 6000 horsemen (Anabasis 1.
7. 11) serving with Artaxerxes, whose nationalities are
not recorded but Paphlagonians were certainly among
them.
This means that theoretically both Corylas and Otys
might (or might not) have ruled over the same part
of Paphlagonia, which could (or could not) be actually
the whole Paphlagonia. Such a conclusion would
be reinforced by the fact that no other ruler of the
Paphlagonians is mentioned in the sources for the
same periods, except for Corylas in the late 5th century
and Otys in the first decades of the 4th century BC.
When Xenophon says that ‘when Spithridates said
that if he (Agesilaus) would come to Paphlagonia with
him, he would bring the king of the Paphlagonians to
a conference and make him an ally, Agesilaus eagerly
undertook the journey’ (Hellenica 4. 1. 2), and that ‘upon
his (Agesilaus’) arriving in Paphlagonia, Otys came and
concluded an alliance’ (Hellenica 4. 1. 3), the impression
given about Otys is not that of a geographically
restricted local ruler. After all, why should he (or
Corylas) be called king or archon or dynastes ‘of the
Paphlagonians’ or ‘of Paphlagonia’ indiscriminately?
In this case, Otys could indeed have been successor of
Corylas, but as mentioned, this is just an assumption.
What is not positively confirmed by the sources in
any way is that ‘there were several rival chieftains in
Paphlagonia’.26
Therefore, on the one hand the Paphlagonians
serving with Cyrus do not seem to ‘represent’ the
whole Paphlagonia. But on the other hand they
rather strengthen the impression created by the two
above-mentioned refusals by the Paphlagonians to
present themselves to the king than indicate a strict
Paphlagonian subjection to the Persian king. The
impression of a very ‘elusive’,30 if not permissive Persian
presence in Paphlagonia.
We are able to confirm this kind of presence
throughout most of Xenophon’s narration of the Ten
Thousands’ passage through our area of interest in
the fifth book of the Anabasis. Xenophon talks about
several fights between his army and the locals, not
The Paphlagonian rulers’ attitude towards the Persians
Whether of more or less local authority, it would be
interesting to examine what kind of relations these
rulers of Paphlagonia had with the Persian king and
officials (it is considered certain that the Paphlagonians
27
28
29
26
30
Briant 2002: 642.
217
I suppose the fact that the king summoned the Paphlagonians.
Tuplin 2004: 177 and n. 74.
Tuplin 2004: 177 and n. 74.
As Tuplin (2004: 177) himself calls it.
Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity
only the Paphlagonians (Anabasis 6. 1-2), but also the
Colchians, the Drilae, and the Mossynoikoi, usually
because the Greeks ravaged their villages in order
to obtain food. Not even once is any kind of Persian
intervention mentioned, as if the Persians were
completely indifferent of what was happening in their
administrative territory. And towards the plans of the
newly arrived Greeks of Xenophon to establish a colony
in the vicinity of Cotyora it is only the aggressive
attitude of merchants from Heraclea and Sinope that
is mentioned and none from the Persian side (Anabasis
5. 6. 15-21). Thus, a dominant Persian presence on the
Paphlagonian Black Sea littoral is far from indicated in
ca. 400 BC.31 Some decades later, when Alexander the
Great invades Asia Minor, the Paphlagonians do not
even pay tribute to the Persians, as Curtius (3. 1. 23)
states.32
was a Persian nobleman and official in the court of
Pharnabazus II, satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, against
whom he revolted and joined forces with Agesilaus in
his war against Persia in 396 BC. Spithridates went with
Agesilaus in Paphlagonia, where Otys provided him
with 3000 men and married his daughter (Xenophpn
Hellenica 4. 1. 1-14; Agesilaus 3. 4; Hellenica Oxyrhynchia
21. 6-22. 2; Plutarch Agesilaus 11. 2). This was a hostile
act of Otys towards Persia, though not the only one.
We have already mentioned his refusal to go up to
the Persian king when he was summoned by him
(Xenophon Hellenica. 4. 1. 3). Otys seems to have had the
habit to ignore the king’s commands. An explanation
for this could be the fact that he was a near relative
of Datames (they were sons of a brother and a sister),
who was the satrap of Cappadocia (Nepos Datames 2).
As we have seen, Paphlagonia must have belonged to
the satrapy of Cappadocia,34 so Otys might feel that
he had the luxury to be a bit more relaxed toward the
commands of the Persian king. However, the latter
did not forgive this attitude and made war upon Otys,
giving the command of the enterprise to Datames
himself, who tried to bring back his kinsman to his duty
without having recourse to arms. Yet the remorseless
Otys planned to kill Datames, but thanks to his mother’s
warnings the satrap escaped the danger, declared war
against Otys, captured him and brought him to the king
in a pompous way (Nepos Datames 2-3; Theopompus
115 F 179). This happened in ca. 380 BC,35 while later
Datames managed to take possession of Paphlagonia,
and probably even of the powerful city of Sinope, as
certain coins of the 4th century BC may indicate.36 In
any case, after Otys, the Paphlagonians seem to have
returned to a more loyal attitude towards the Persians,
since in ca. 361-360 BC Artabazus tried to draw supplies
from the ‘friendly lands of Upper Phrygia, Lydia and
Paphlagonia’ (Demosthenes Aristocrates 155) for his war
against Charidemus in Hellespontine Phrygia.37
How then did the Paphlagonians manage to keep such
a favourable treatment within the Persian empire?
Were they so good diplomats? Was it their relation
to the Greek colonies of the coast, which especially
in the late Classical period had begun to develop
themselves in important economic centres, something
that the Persians seem to have realised, as the order
of Artaxerxes to Datames to stop his invasion to
Sinope (Polyaenus 7. 21. 2-5; Aeneas Tacticus 40. 4)
might indicate?33 Did they provide the Persians with
something else, for example, related to their natural
resources, unlike other peoples of the empire? The
question is very difficult and without any safe answer
resulting from the ancient literature, but to my mind
the Paphlagonians were indeed very skilled in keeping
balance with everyone who was acting in their region,
including both the Persians and the Greek colonists.
In 400 BC, Hecatonymus, the Sinopean envoy to
Xenophon’s army, threatens the latter in Cotyora that
he will join forces with the Paphlagonians of Corylas
to drive them out of his city’s colony (Anabasis 5. 5.
12). Corylas appears to have expansionist views over
Sinope (5. 5. 22-23), but at the same time to be a friend
of the Sinopean Hecatonymus, who is his official
representative at Sinope (5. 6. 11). This unclear relation
between the Sinopean envoy Hecatonymus and the
Paphlagonian ruler Corylas may indicate that the
Paphlagonians tried to have diplomatic relations with
the (constantly economically growing) Greek colonists,
without at the same time abandoning their desire for
the latter’s territories.
Otys, who according to Nepos (Datames 3. 1) was ‘a
man of huge stature, and frightful aspect, being of
a black complexion, with long hair and long beard’,
is presented by the same Latin author (Datames 2.
2) as ‘a man of ancient family, descended from that
Pylaemenes whom Homer states to have been killed
by Patroclus’. What we may have here is a well-known
practice of rulers to present themselves to their people
as descendants of great mythical figures of their past
for reasons of propaganda. Here, we meet the leader
34
See n. 20.
For the date, see Judeich 1892: 191-92; Meyer 1909: 26; Lenschau
1942: 1889.
36
For these coins, on which, although the 4th-century type of the
city is followed, the typical legend ΣΙΝΩ is replaced by the names
of Datames and other Persian officials, see Robinson 1920: 10-16;
Harrison 1982, with bibliography; Price 1993, pl. LIII; Avram et al.
2004: 961.
37
For the dating and location of these events, see Heskel 1997: 119.
More about this period with regards to the Paphlagonians in
Xenophon Hellenica 4. 1.
As for the other Paphlagonian ruler, Otys, he made
an alliance with Spithridates (see above). The latter
35
31
See also Lane Fox 2004: 30-31; Tuplin 2004: 176-78; 2007: 13, 25-28.
Cf. Briant 2002: 498.
This is not confirmed by any other author. For the doubts about
Curtius’ historical accuracy, see indicatively Baynham 1998: 1-2, 5767.
33
For this, see Manoledakis forthcoming c.
32
218
M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
of the Paphlagonians in the Trojan War, Pylaemenes,
who was admired by Homer as ‘stout-hearted’
(Homer Iliad 2. 851),38 and it might be a unique case
of such exploitation by a southern Black Sea ruler.39
So maybe, after all, Aristophanes had not chosen the
name Paphlagon accidentally for the protagonist of the
Knights (424 BC), the politician Cleon, whom he detested
and wished to defame, contrary to the view dominant
already from antiquity.40
think that any ruler took advantage from it at that time;
not to mention that the whole area had already been
conquered by the Persians well before Otys’ time. On
the other hand, why would Otys erect the gravestone
for him and his wife at a site to the east of the central
part of the Halys, about 25 km north-northeast of the
Phrygian settlement that succeeded Hattusa, in an area
that is rather outside the Paphlagonian territory?47
The era of the Macedonian expansion
Before leaving Otys, it would be worth mentioning that
O. Haas, in his monograph on the Phrygian language,41
went as far as considering this Paphlagonian ruler the
beneficiary who may have taken advantage from the
collapse of the Phrygian kingdom. Haas dealt with
Otys on the occasion of an Old Phrygian inscription
from Alacahöyük42 that mentions in the first verse
Otys and his wife and assumed that the former must be
the Paphlagonian king and the latter the daughter of
Spithridates (he thus dated the monument to 395-380
BC). The explanation for such a rather unexpected view
seems to lie in Haas’ conviction that the population
of Paphlagonia must have belonged to the same ‘folk’
(Volkstum) as the elder group of the Phrygians, and
that ‘die Sprache von Paphlagonien ist gleich der
großphrygischen’,43 a theory that cannot be proven in
any way.44
The next information concerning our topic comes
from the time of Alexander’s invasion to Asia Minor
and is again noteworthy: in 334 BC, after the victory at
the Granicus, Alexander appointed Kalas satrap of the
Hellespontine Phrygia, the first satrapy that fell into
his hands, and ordered the inhabitants of the region
to pay to him the same tribute that they gave also to
Darius (Arrian 1. 17). Next, he moved southwards to the
Greek cities of the Aegean coast, before turning north
to Gordion in 333 BC. After having cut the Gordian
knot, he reached Ankara. There, he had his only, as it
seems, meeting with envoys of a local southern Black
Sea nation, the Paphlagonians (Plutarch Alexander 18. 5;
Arrian 2. 4; Curtius Rufus 3. 1. 22-24), who offered him
their land, asking him not to invade it, and also not to
pay tribute to him. Alexander accepted their requests
and just commanded them to obey Kalas.48
But there are several other problems with this theory:
First of all, the dating of the inscription is rejected by
most scholars, who date it much earlier, to the 6th
or the 7th century BC.45 Secondly, there have been
different readings of the first verse of the inscription
proposed than the ‘Otys himself and the wife’ of Haas.46
But even if Haas’ identification is correct, other issues
appear. The early 4th century BC seems too far from the
collapse of the Phrygian kingdom in order to make us
Here we may have one of the smartest diplomatic
movements in the Paphlagonian history: it seems that
the Paphlagonians, seeing the impetuous advance
of Alexander towards Asia and realising that he was
aiming to move towards the heart of Persia and not
the southern Black Sea littoral, they went to meet him
themselves before his passing from their land and
achieved an enviable result: they persuaded Alexander
not to invade Paphlagonia and also not even to demand
tax tribute from them, by telling a king conqueror
exactly what he would like to hear: a people declaring
allegiance to him. But this declaration meant practically
nothing. As was the case with Alexander’s command
to them to obey Kalas. For as soon as Alexander would
move away from the region, the Paphlagonians not
only could continue their normal life and activity in
their land, but also make it a scene of Persian efforts to
recover areas of the empire that had been conquered by
the Macedonians.49 And so it happened, almost at once:
in less than a year from this meeting vigorous young
soldiers from Paphlagonia (and Cappadocia) helped
some generals of Darius who had survived the battle of
38
Unlike the verses 853-855 of Book 2 of the Iliad, which mention
specific Paphlagonian towns and seem to have been interpolated in
the 3rd century BC, the verses mentioning Pylaemenes (Iliad 2. 851852, cf. 5. 576-579 and 13. 643-659) must have belonged to the original
form of the epic. See Manoledakis 2013: 30-34, with bibliography.
39
See also below for the Paphlagonian rulers with this name.
40
According to which, the choice of the name was made because of
the meaning of παφλάζω as splutter. More on this issue in Manoledakis
forthcoming b, with the relevant bibliography.
41
Haas 1966: 18 with n. 1, 179-82.
42
Friedrich 1932: 127, no. 15. Images in Haas 1966: 180; Brixhe and
Lejeune 1984 II, pls. CXIX-CXX. The inscription was found in 1893.
The whole bibliography on it (from 1898 on) in Brixhe and Lejeune
(1984: 235).
43
Haas 1966: 9, 11, 14-17, 181, 231, 235, 242. Haas invokes also the
view of Akurgal (1955: 93, 126) that Paphlagonia belonged to the
Phrygian cultural sphere in the 6th-4th century BC.
44
On this issue, see more in Manoledakis forthcoming b, with more
bibliography.
45
Young (1969: 271, n. 42) argues that the boustrophedon writing of
the inscription, similar to the inscriptions of the Midas Monument,
surely belongs to the 6th century BC, or even earlier. Brixhe
and Lejeune (1984: 227, 235, 237) seem to date the inscription to the
7th century BC, but don’t deny the possibility that there is another,
earlier Otys mentioned on it.
46
All of them in Brixhe and Lejeune 1984: 237.
47
Strabo (12. 3. 9) mentions the Halys as the eastern border of
Paphlagonia with the land of the Leucosyroi. So, even if Otys was
indeed mentioned in the Paphlagonian borders with Phrygia (see
above), the site of the inscription is still beyond these borders.
48
For the southern Black Sea regions in the time of Alexander, see
Manoledakis forthcoming c.
49
In the worst case, that of Alexander entering Paphlagonia, they
would be left unhurt and free from tribute obligations.
219
Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity
to the latter (Livy 38. 26. 4). His royal residence was
Gangra (Strabo 12. 3. 41), not very far to the south from
Kimiata. In 179 BC Pharnaces of Pontus had to pay him
compensation according to the treaty with Eumenes II
of Pergamon, because he had plundered his territory,
as he should also ‘evacuate Paphlagonia, after restoring
the inhabitants whom he had previously expelled, with
their shields, javelins, and other equipment’ (Polybius
25. 2. 5, 9). All this reminds us of the situation we have
met in the Classical period, when local rulers had to deal
with the powerful kingdom of that era. The difference is
that for the Hellenistic period it is not clear how much
of Paphlagonia was subject to the Pontic kingdom. It
seems that the southern part was not in the time of
Pharnaces. What is also unclear is whether Morzios
ruled over the whole (southern) Paphlagonia or just a
part of it.
Issus to recover Lydia (Curtius 4. 1. 34), while Kalas was
forced to invade Paphlagonia (Curtius 4. 5. 13), which
was supposed to obey him.
Hellenistic period
It was only in 322 BC that Perdiccas defeated the Persian
Ariarathes, who was satrap and later king of Cappadocia
(350-322 BC), conquered Paphlagonia and gave it to
Eumenes (Diodorus 18. 16. 1, 18. 22. 1; Plutarch Eumenes
3. 2; Arrian Events after Alex. 10; Justin 13. 6). What is not
clear in the sources is whom was Paphlagonia ruled by
after Datames’ death in ca. 362 and until 322 BC, or at
least until 333 BC, if we suppose that Kalas kept at least
a typical arche over the Paphlagonians.
In the Treaty of Triparadeisos in 321 BC, Paphlagonia
is again not mentioned as a separate satrapy, but
judging from Diodorus’ (18. 39. 6) and Arrian’s (Photius
Bibliotheca 92. 71b) formulations, it seems more possible
that it belonged to the satrapy of Cappadocia, among
those that ‘faced the north’. In that case, Paphlagonia
was ruled by Nikanor (cf. Appian Mithridates 8). After
the death of this not clearly identified person,50 maybe
in 311 BC (Appian Syr. 55; contra Diodorus 19. 92. 5; 19.
100. 3), Paphlagonia seems to have been under the
control of Antigonus and, after the Battle of Ipsus (301
BC), of Lysimachus, until 281 BC, when both of them died
and the Pontic kingdom was born under Mithridates I,
who used the Paphlagonian fortress Kimiata as a base
of his operations. In this period nothing of interest
concerning our topic is mentioned.
It is also interesting that in this time (first half of the 2nd
century BC) we find a Galatian ruler as well: Gaizatorix,
who approached Eumenes II for help against Pharnaces,
although he had earlier allied with the latter (Polybius
24. 14; 25. 2). The place-name ‘land of Gezatorix’
mentioned by Strabo (12. 3. 41) as an area of Paphlagonia
in its western part, near Bithynia, could refer to him and
thus indicate possession of a Paphlagonia’s part also by
the Galatians, maybe at the same time as Morzios ruled
over another part of the region.
Some decades later, Mithridates VI allied with
Nicomedes III of Bithynia and invaded and conquered
Paphlagonia (and Cappadocia) before starting his wars
with Rome (Justin 37. 4; 38. 4-5). When the Romans
required both kings to quit Paphlagonia, Mithridates
VI replied that this ‘kingdom’ had fallen to his father,
Mithridates V, ‘not by conquest or force of arms, but by
adoption in a will, and as an inheritance on the death
of its own sovereigns’ (Justin 37. 4. 5; 38. 5. 4, 8. 10).
Mithridates V was indeed ruling over the coastal part,
as an inscription form Abonuteichos indicates,52 but
we don’t have any evidence that the same was the case
with the hinterland. Otherwise, why had his son needed
to conquer it? Most probably, we face here another of
those propagandistic traditions that Mithridates VI had
created to base his (in this case expansionistic) policy
on.53
During the period of the Pontic kingdom, although
generally it was the Mithridatids that controlled
Paphlagonia or at least its northern part, we read in
Memnon’s history (11. 2) that when the Gauls crossed
over to Asia, in ca. 277 BC, Nicomedes of Bithynia made
a pact with them, according to which ‘they should
always support Nicomedes and should be allies of the
Byzantines, if necessary, and of the inhabitants of Tius
and Heraclea and Chalcedon and Cierus, and of some
other nations’ rulers’. It is not explained who these latter
rulers were, but according to the wider geographical
area mentioned, it seems very possible that again we
have to do with some Paphlagonian rulers.
As for Nicomedes III, he altered his son’s name to
Pylaemenes, ‘the common name of the Paphlagonian
kings; and thus, as if he had restored the throne to the
royal line, he continued to occupy the country on this
frivolous pretext’ (Justin 37. 4. 8). However, it seems
that both Mithridates and Nicomedes soon quit their
occupation of the areas, since we read that the Roman
Senate ‘took away Cappadocia from Mithridates, and, to
Strabo (12. 3. 41) confirms that not much before his
time Paphlagonia was governed by many rulers, whose
family had by the Roman period died out, although
he does not clearly mention their Paphlagonian
nationality. The first of them known by name is
Morzios or Morzeos,51 who during Cn. Manlius Vulso’s
war against the Galatians in 189 BC sent assistance
50
More than one persons with that name are mentioned in the same
period.
51
We meet only the genitive form, as Μορζίου (Polybius. 25. 2. 5, 9)
or Μορζέου (Strabo 12. 3. 41). Morzi in Livy 38. 26. 4.
52
Reinach 1905; Marek 1993, Kat. Abonuteichos 1.
Cf. Magie 1950: 196-97, 1093, n. 56, who attributes this
propagandistic effort also to Morzios; Braund 2014: 148-49.
53
220
M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
console him, Paphlagonia from Nicomedes’ and offered
to both Cappadocians and Paphlagonians their liberty
(Justin 38. 2. 6-7). Apparently, in the sources it is not
clear how exactly Paphlagonia and Cappadocia were
divided between Mithridates and Nicomedes.
the Provincia Bithynia et Pontus, where he also established
several new cities. Mithridates’ son, Pharnaces II,
managed later to get possession of some of those cities,
including Amisos, at the time of the quarrel between
Caesar and Pompey (Cassius Dio 42. 45-46).
But what is most interesting here is the reappearance of
the name Pylaemenes, the leader of the Paphlagonians
in the Trojan War (Homer Iliad 2. 851). We tried to show
a connection to the mythical Paphlagonian hero in Otys’
policy in the 4th century BC (see above), and Nicomedes
seems to have followed a similar propagandistic trick,
as a typical Hellenistic ruler would do.
From Strabo (12. 3. 1) we learn what happened to
the hinterland of Paphlagonia, where Pompey gave
over to the descendants of Pylaemenes (τοῖς ἀπὸ
Πυλαιμένους) the office of king over certain of the
Paphlagonians situated in the hinterland between
Pontus and Bithynia. One of them was himself called
Pylaemenes (Eutropius 6. 14; Suda s.v. Πομπήιος).58
So we have evidence about a whole family of
Pylaemenides (cf. Strabo 12. 3. 41), and it may be due
to this family that Paphlagonia was in Pliny’s time also
known as Pylaemenia (ΝΗ 6. 5). Another ruler, whom
together with Pylaemenes Paphlagonia was restored
to by Pompey, was Attalus (Appian Mithridates 114;
Eutropius 6. 14). Strabo’s statement (12. 3. 41) that
although the Paphlagonian hinterland was small, it
was governed by several rulers is also noteworthy.
From his words (12. 3. 1) it seems that Pompey
also gave over the Galatians of Paphlagonia to the
hereditary tetrarchs.
However, there was indeed a Paphlagonian ruler
named Pylaemenes mentioned in 131 BC, who helped
the Romans in the battle against Aristonicus, son of
Eumenes II (Eutropius 4. 20; Orosius 5. 10. 2). This
must be the one to whom the coins bearing the legend
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΥΛΑΙΜΕΝΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ belong,54 and he
could also be the person who ‘bequeathed’ Paphlagonia
to Mithridates V.
On the other hand, Orosius (6. 2. 2) and Eutropius (5. 5)
mention also that much later (during the Mithridatic
wars) Mithridates VI invaded Paphlagonia and drove
out its ruler, who was Pylaemenes. For this Pylaemenes
some believe that he is just imaginary,55 while others
identify him with the above-mentioned son of
Nicomedes.56 Thus, it is not clear whether Mithridates
finally possessed Paphlagonia before the Mithridatic
wars or not and which part. According to Strabo, he
possessed the whole coastal part from its eastern
border, the Halys, as far to the west as Heraclea (12. 3.
1, 9), including the inland area around Mount Olgassys
(12. 3. 40), but not the more western inland part that
bordered Bithynia (12. 3. 9, 41).
These Paphlagonian rulers must have been loyal to
Pompey, since they had sent aid to him in Pharsalus in
48 BC (Appian Bella civlia 2. 71). Besides, Festus (Brev.
11) mentions that king Pylaemenes, who controlled
Paphlagonia, was a friend of the Romans. ‘Having
often been driven thence from his kingdom, he was
restored by the Romans and, with his death, the legal
status of a province was imposed on Paphlagonia’.
Festus seems to refer to the last king of Paphlagonia,
but this is supposed to have been Deiotarus (Strabo 12.
3. 41), ‘the son of Castor II,59 surnamed Philadelphus,
who possessed Gangra, the royal residence of
Morzios, which was at the same time a small town
and a fortress’. In the naval battle of Actium (31 BC),
although Deiotarus initially joint Marc Antony as a
subject king, he defected to Octavian when he noticed
that the latter was going to win (Plutarch Antonius 61,
63; Cassius Dio 50. 13), and therefore he kept his rule
over Paphlagonia:60 another indication of the ability
of the Paphlagonians to quickly adapt to changing
situations. It seems that for a period of time he ruled
together with Deiotarus Philopator61 and then alone,
until his death in 7-5 BC.
In any case, it is noteworthy that we meet the name of
Pylaemenes again, this time as a name of a historical
person, especially since no other historical ruler of a
people from those mentioned by Homer as allies of the
Trojans in the Trojan Catalogue (Iliad 2. 840-877) appears
in the literature to bear the name of his mythical
ancestor and predecessor. Besides, it is worth stressing
that in the 1st century AD we meet also some Galatians
called Pylaemenes, one of which was the son of king
Amyntas.57
Roman period
Gangra may have remained the capital or at least a very
important town of the inland Paphlagonian territory
After the Mithridatic wars and the defeat of Mithridates,
Pompey incorporated the coastal part of Paphlagonia in
He is also considered by Waddington et al. (1925: 162.9) imaginary.
Who was son of Castor I and had succeeded Attalus (Cassius Dio 38.
33. 5). Cf. Magie 1950: 434.
60
Exactly the same did the above-mentioned Amyntas, king of
Galatia, whose son was called Pylaemenes.
61
Since their names appeared together on coins: SNGvA 509;
Waddington et al. 1925: 164.6. Cf. Magie 1950: 1283, n. 20.
58
54
59
SNGvA 509; Waddington et al. 1925: 163.1-3.
55
Waddington et al. 1925: 162.8.
56
Ruge 1949: 2525.
57
Bosch 1967: 35. 51. For this Pylaemenes, see Braund 2014: 162, nn.
74 and 77. For other Galatians with this name, see Bosch 1967: 225.
174; Strubbe 2005: 12.
221
Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity
Late Antiquity and Byzantine period
(of the province of Galatia), since the oath of loyalty
to Augustus by the Paphlagonians was written down
there in 4/3 BC.62 Much later, in 340, the Synod held in
‘Gangra of the Paphlagonians’ indicates the importance
of the town. The fact that at the same time, and already
from the late 1st century, Pompeiopolis appears as the
metropolis or the most glorious city of Paphlagonia in
inscriptions and on coins does not necessarily mean a
‘replacement’ of Gangra, but could also indicate that
the Paphlagonians continued to consider Gangra their
own capital in the new Roman reality.
This survival of Paphlagonia as a political and
ethnographic entity, which results from the literature
not only for the Roman but also for the Byzantine
period,68 should not be considered irrelevant to its
peoples’ skills. Thus the image of the Paphlagonians
as simpletons, wretched, mostly superstitious,
and peoples ‘who had only their outward shape to
distinguish them from sheep’ as presented by Lucian
(Alexander, passim) in the 2nd century, does not seem to
reflect reality, but rather to suit the needs of the author
to present the ideal audience of the fraud (Alexander
of Abonuteichos), whom he wished to disgrace. On the
contrary, the Scholiast of Lucian, like several other
authors of the Byzantine period,69 may be closer to
reality, when he says that the Paphlagonians are not
quiet people, but rather are capable of inventing any
kind of evil and using it in shameless ways (42. 9), and
that they can turn good into rubbish (56. 27). Indeed,
another Scholiast says that even in Lucian’s time not
all the Paphlagonians could have been stupid, since
Alexander of Abonuteichos was himself a Paphlagonian
(42. 22)!70
Very soon after Paphlagonia’s annexation to the
Roman empire we meet a Koinon of Paphlagonia on a
coin dating from the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96),63
while there could be a [paphlagonia]rches mentioned in
an inscription of the late Imperial period,64 but this is
extremely hypothetical,65 since the ending –rches could
belong to many other titles.
After the death of Deiotarus the inland Paphlagonia
was annexed to the Roman province of Galatia, while
the coastal one remained to the province of Bithynia
and Pontus. But it seems that Paphlagonia never
disappeared as a political entity. Indeed it appears even
as a coastal province in the works of several geographers,
like the Periploi of Menippus/Marcian, Arrian, and
the Anonymous, while others, like Strabo and Pliny
mention Paphlagonians on the coast. In the 2nd century,
Ptolemy (5. 4. 5-7) divides the southern Black Sea coast
into Pontus and Bithynia, Galatia, and Cappadocia up
to Greater Armenia. From the few words inserted in
his catalogue it seems that he may have considered
Paphlagonia a sub-region between Pontus-Bithynia and
Galatia, mainly within the latter’s borders.66 Moreover,
when Lucian wrote his Alexander in the late 2nd century,
he mentioned crowds of Paphlagonians that inhabited
the coastal city of Abonuteichos (Alexander 9, 15). And
as a separate coastal province we find Paphlagonia
from the 3rd-4th centuries, probably after Diocletian’s
restructuring of the provinces,67 until the 7th century,
when it became part of the Theme of Opsikion, and
later (8th century) of the Bucellarian Theme. In ca. 820
Paphlagonia re-emerged as a separate province (Theme
of Paphlagonia).
This image of the Paphlagonians, as convincing as it
may have been to the Byzantine audience, is, of course,
still clearly subjective, even spiteful. It was peaked
in the 10th-12th centuries, and expressed among
others by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (De them.
Asia 7), who called the Paphlagonians blameworthy,
shameless, rude, and ‘the derision, the shame, and
the contempt of the human race’, Georgius Cedrenus,
who wrote about the detestable Paphlagonians that
‘emasculated their children and sold them during
a famine’ (Comp. hist. 1. 566, 590), or Eustathius of
Thessalonica (De capta Thess. 32-34), who called them
presumptuous.
How this detestation of the Paphlagonians emerged
might be understood through Constantine the Rhodian’s
(In Theod. Paphlag.) vilification of the eunuch Theodore
of Paphlagonia, and via him the Paphlagonians, as porkbutchers and bacon-curers. A vilification suggesting
that there must have been a political motivation behind
this hate, something that is reinforced by a Scholiast’s
comment (Schol. in Luc. 42. 22) that if Lucian had lived
in his days he would have seen ‘all nations vanquished
and the whole world most intelligently governed by the
mind of the Paphlagonians’.
62
Anderson 1910: 66.
Waddington et al. 1925: 165. Ruge (1949: 2532) thinks that the
Koinon was established for sure by some of the eleven cities founded
by Pompey (see above).
64
Marek 1993, Kat. Pompeiopolis 2; Marek and Frei 2016: 417.
65
As Ruge (1949: 2532) correctly points out.
66
For the southern Black Sea littoral in the works of the Roman
geographers, see Manoledakis forthcoming a.
67
See, for example, the mention of some coastal cities as Paphlagonian
bishops in the acts of the First Council of Nicaea (325), the Council
of Ephesus (431), and the Council of Constantinople (553). Also,
Hierocles Synecdemus 695. 4-696. 3; Constantine Porphyrogenitus De
them. Asia 7. Cf. Jones 1971: 162-73; Belke 1996: 64-65. For the Roman
provinces in Asia Minor, see also Sartre 1991: 257-308 and, most
recently, Marek 2010.
63
68
By the 6th century most of the peoples that inhabited the southern
Black Sea littoral in antiquity seem to have disappeared, as implied
by Anonymous’s use of the word πρώην (former) in the five cases of
local peoples that he mentions (Chalybes, Tibarenoi, Mossynoikoi,
Makrones/Makrokephaloi, Becheires) in his Periplus (32-38). The
Paphlagonians, however, still existed for many centuries more.
69
For the dating of the works of the Scholiasts to Lucian, see Dickey
2007: 69.
70
For these Scholiasts’ texts, see Rabe 1906: 180-85.
222
M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
It was P. Magdalino71 who convincingly indicated that
this attitude towards the Paphlagonians had political
origins, mainly having to do with their highly visible
role in Byzantine society and their great influence
on politics in the 10th and 11th centuries. Indeed we
know of many important political personalities of
Paphlagonian origin, including the emperor Michael
the Paphlagonian, with whom the empress Zoe fell in
love, the emperor Constantine X Doukas, and other
individuals from the 9th to the 11th centuries, among
them members of the Macedonians, the Doukai and the
Komnenoi. Already from the 9th century Paphlagonia
was well known as the homeland of the famous empress
Theodora, Theophilos’ wife, remembered especially for
the restoration of the veneration of icons. But among
them all, Magdalino lays stress on seven Paphlagonian
eunuchs of the imperial household, who had a great
influence on political life and are, according to the
author, to be blamed for the bad reputation of the
Paphlagonians in this period.72
well as others of the same character, so readily assented
to the letters then written by Novatus.75 Fornication
and adultery are regarded among them as the grossest
enormities: and it is well known that there is no race of
men on the face of the earth who more rigidly govern
their passions in this respect than the Phrygians and
Paphlagonians’.
Later, we find positive comments also on very powerful
political figures from Paphlagonia, like the empress
Theodora (Ephr. Chron. 2327-2332), the emperor
Michael (e.g. Ephr. Chron. 3003-3014; John Skylitzes
Synopsis, Mich. 4 and other Byzantine sources), and
John Doukas, the brother of the emperor Constantine
Doukas (Mich. Psellos Chron. 7. Mich. VI26, Mich. VII1617), but also even on some Paphlagonian eunuchs, like
Constantine Phagitzes (John Skylitzes Synopsis, Mich. 4),
and John Orphanotrophus (Mich. Psellos Chron. 4. 12-13,
who includes the negative aspects of his character).
Conclusion
Magdalino’s research led him to distinguish a
Paphlagonian faction at the imperial court in the 10th
and 11th centuries, as well as point out the fact that
‘Paphlagonian eunuchs tended to rise and fall together
when regimes changed’, and that ‘some regimes
were more Paphlagonian-friendly than others’.73 He
also cited some reasons to believe that the whole
connection that led to the choice of Theodora by the
emperor Theophilos as his wife began with a eunuch
from Paphlagonia in the 8th century, since the relevant
bride show was arranged by Theophilos’ stepmother
Euphrosyne, whose mother was Paphlagonian.
As indicated in the previous pages, the Paphlagonians
were present in the literature for at least seventeen
centuries, for several reasons and in very diverging
ways. This long lasting and at the same time noteworthy
presence may most probably be due to Paphlagonia’s
very strong and influential culture, which was pointed
out in the beginning of this paper. But it seems that
a strong element of this culture must, in turn, have
been politics, or, more specifically, the ability of the
Paphlagonians, or at least of those who ruled them, to
adapt to the changing political circumstances, and to
manoeuvre between the powers that influenced their
destiny, trying always to maintain the best possible
state for them.
So, what is interesting in the Roman and the Byzantine
periods is that we now meet references and comments
not only on specific Paphlagonian individuals, which
continues to be the case,74 but also on the Paphlagonians
in general. However, these comments are surprisingly
controversial. Until now, we presented only the
negative ones. But at the same time other authors gave
completely different verdicts of the Paphlagonians.
With more than 25 known individuals, three of whom
even managed to climb to the highest office of their
time in the eastern world (Byzantine emperors),
Paphlagonia was distinguished as a place that ‘produced’
intelligent and sly political personalities, from the age
of the Persian empire until the Sack of Constantinople
by the Crusaders. Among them we find Paphlagonian
politicians or Paphlagonian representatives who dared
to resist the king or the forces that had occupied them
(e.g. Corylas, Morzios), or even turn against them (e.g.
Otys), others who on the contrary were proven friendly
and loyal to them, in order to keep their local offices
(e.g. several Pylaemeneses); people who managed
to leave their nation unhurt from powerful invaders
(the envoys to Alexander the Great), others who,
For example, in the 5th century the church historian
Socrates of Constantinople, known as Socrates
Scholasticus (Hist. Eccl. 4. 28), praised the Paphlagonians,
saying that, ‘while the inhabitants of the East are
addicted to sensual pleasures, the Paphlagonians and
Phrygians are prone to neither of these vices; nor are
the sports of the circus and theatrical exhibitions in
much estimation among them even to the present day.
And for this reason, it seems to me, these people, as
71
75
Socrates mentions that there were a great number of the Novatian
sect in Paphlagonia in the mid-4th century, and that with the
emperor’s permission Bishop Macedonius of Constantinople
therefore sent soldiers to the city of Mantinium and slew many
Paphlagonians (Hist. Eccl. 2. 38; see also Photius Bibliotheca 257. 476b;
Suda s.v. Μακεδόνιος).
Magdalino 1998.
Magdalino 1998: 143-50.
73
Magdalino 1998: 145-46.
74
In the 6th century we meet the Paphlagonian Priscus involved
with politics. He is mentioned by Procopius (Anecd. 16. 7) as an
‘extremely wicked’ secretary of Justinian.
72
223
Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity
Dickey, E. 2007. Ancient Greek Scholarship (Oxford).
Ferrarese, P. 1974. ‘La spedizione di Pericle nel Ponto
Eusino’. Contributi dell’ Istituto di storia antica 2
(Propagandi e persuasione occulta nell’ antichità)
(Milan): 7-19.
Friedrich, J. 1932. Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler
(Berlin).
Haas, O. 1966. Die Phrygischen Sprachdenkmäler (Sofia).
Harrison, C.M. 1982. ‘Persian Names on Coins of
Northern Anatolia’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
41.3: 181-94.
Heskel, J. 1997. The North Aegean Wars, 371-360 BC
(Stuttgart).
Jones, A.H.M. 1971. The Cities of the Eastern Roman
Provinces (Oxford).
Judeich, W. 1892. Kleinasiatische Studien (Marburg).
Klinkott, H. 2000. Die Satrapieregister der Alexander- und
Diadochenzeit (Stuttgart).
Klinkott, H. 2005. Der Satrap: ein achaimenidischer
Amtsträger und seine Handlungsspielräume (Frankfurt).
Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources
from the Achaemenid Period (London/New York).
Lane Fox, R. 2004. ‘Introduction’. In Lane Fox, R. (ed.)
The Long March. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New
Haven/London): 1-46.
Lecoq, P. 1997. Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide
(Paris).
Lenschau, T. 1942. ‘Otys’. RE XVIII.2, 1889.
Magdalino, P. 1998. ‘Paphlagonians in Byzantine
Society’. Byzantine Asia Minor (6th-12th cent.) (Athens):
141-50.
Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, vol. 1
(Princeton).
Manoledakis, M. 2013. ‘The Southern Black Sea in the
Homeric Iliad: Some Geographical, Philological
and Historical Remarks’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.)
Exploring the Hospitable Sea (Oxford): 19-37.
Manoledakis, M. forthcoming a. ‘The southern Black
Sea in the Roman geographic texts’. In Braund, D.,
Chaniotis, A. and Petropoulos, E. (eds) Proceedings of
the Conference ‘The Black Sea Region in the Context of the
Roman Empire’ held in Athens in May 2015 (Athens).
Manoledakis, M. forthcoming b. ‘The Paphlagonians and
the Greeks’ perception of them’. In Tsetskhladze,
G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds) The Greeks and
Romans in the Black Sea and the Importance of the Pontic
Region for the Graeco-Roman World (7th century BC-5th
century AD) (Oxford).
Manoledakis, M. forthcoming c. ‘The districts of the
southern Black Sea littoral in the era of Alexander
the Great’. In Akamatis, I, Manoledakis, M., Nigdelis,
P. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds) Ancient Macedonia 8:
Ancient Macedonia from the Death of Philip II until
August’s Rise to Power (Thessaloniki).
Marek, C. 1993. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in PontusBithynien und Nord-Galatien (Tübingen).
Marek, C. 2010. Geschichte Kleinasiens in der Antike
(Munich).
according to their interests, easily shifted from allies
of a powerful world leader to allies of his enemies,
especially when they noticed that the latter were going
to prevail (e.g. Gaizatorix, Deiotarus), and others who
secretly influenced the policy of a whole empire (in the
Byzantine period). For no other nation that inhabited
the Anatolian coast of Pontus do we know of so many
political personalities’ names for such a long period of
time.
Therefore, we could claim that political manoeuvring
and effective diplomacy may have characterised the
Paphlagonians more than any other people of the
southern Black Sea littoral.
Bibliography
Abbreviation
SNGvA Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland,
Sammlung Hans von Aulock 1: Pontus, Paphlagonia,
Bithynia, Mysia, Troas, Aiolis, Lesbos, Ionia (Berlin
1957).
Akurgal, E. 1955. Phrygische Kunst (Ankara).
Anderson, J.G.C. 1910. Studia Pontica: Recueil des
inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie,
vol. 3 (Brussels).
Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004. ‘The Black
Sea Area’. In Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds) An
Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation
Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish
National Research Foundation (Oxford): 924-74.
Baynham, E. 1998. Alexander the Great: The Unique History
of Quintus Curtius (Ann Arbor).
Belke, K. 1996. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 9: Paphlagonien
und Honōrias (Vienna).
Bosch, E. 1967. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im
Altertum (Ankara).
Braund, D.C. 2014. Rome and the Friendly King. The
Character of Client Kingship (Oxford).
Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander (Winona Lake,
IN).
Brixhe, C. and Lejeune, M. 1984. Corpus des inscriptions
paléo-phrygiennes (Paris).
Bruce, I.A.F. 1967. An Historical Commentary on the
‘Hellenica Oxyrhynchia’ (Cambridge).
Dan, A. 2013. ‘Achaemenid World Representations in
Herodotus’ Histories: some geographic examples of
cultural translation’. In Geus, K., Irwin, E. and Poiss,
T. (eds) Herodots Wege des Erzählens. Logos und Topos in
den Historien (Frankfurt): 83-121.
de Boer, J.G. 2005. ‘The foundation of Agathopolis/
Alaeouteichos and the Athenian Black Sea policy in
the 5th century BC’. In Kacharava, D., Faudot, M. and
Geny, É. (eds) Pont-Euxin et Polis. Polis Hellenis et Polis
Barbaron (Besançon): 167-80.
Debord, P. 1999. L’Asie mineure au IVe siècle (412-323 a.C.):
Pouvoirs et jeux politiques (Bordeaux).
224
M. Manoledakis: Politics and Diplomacy in Paphlagonia
Marek, C. and Frei, P. 2016. In the Land of a Thousand Gods:
A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World (Princeton).
Matthews, R. 2009. ‘A Dark Age, grey ware and elusive
empires: Paphlagonia through the Iron Age, 1200330 BC’. In Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds) At
Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia. Regional Survey in
North-Central Turkey (London): 149-72.
Meyer, E. 1909. Theopomps Hellenika (Halle).
Murphy, E. 1989. The Antiquities of Asia. A Translation with
Notes of Book II of The Library of History of Diodorus
Siculus (New Brunswick, NJ/Oxford).
Occhipinti, E. 2016. The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia and
Historiography: New Research Perspectives (Leiden/
Boston).
Price, M. 1993. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum 9: The British
Museum 1. The Black Sea (London).
Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum (Leipzig).
Reinach, T.A. 1905. ‘Stele from Abonuteichos’. The
Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal
Numismatic Society 5: 113-19.
Robinson, E.S.G. 1920. ‘A Find of Coins of Sinope’.
The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal
Numismatic Society 20: 1-16.
Ruge, W. 1949. ‘Paphlagonia’. RE XVIII.4: 2486-2537.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg,
H.
1993.
‘Cyropaedia’.
Encyclopaedia Iranica 6.5: 512-14.
Sartre, M. 1991. L’Orient romain. Provinces et sociétés
provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux
Sévères (31 avant J.-C.–235 après J.-C.) (Paris).
Strubbe, J. 2005. The Inscriptions of Pessinous (Bonn).
Summerer, L. and von Kienlin, A. 2010. ‘Achaemenid
Impact in Paphlagonia: Rupestral Tombs in the
Amnias Valley’. In Nieling, J. and Rehm, E. (eds)
Achaemenid Impact in the Black Sea. Communication of
Powers (Aarhus): 195-221.
Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1997. ‘Plutarch, Pericles and Pontus:
Some Thoughts’. In Schrader, C., Ramón, V. and Vela,
J. (eds) Plutarco y la Historia (Zaragoza): 461-66.
Tuplin, C. 1987. ‘The Administration of the
Achaemenid Empire’. In Carradice, I. (ed.) Coinage
and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires
(Oxford): 109-66.
Tuplin, C. 2004. ‘The Persian Empire’. In Lane Fox, R.
(ed.) The Long March. Xenophon and the Ten Thousand
(New Haven/London): 154-83.
Tuplin, C. 2007. ‘A Foreigner’s Perspective: Xenophon
in Anatolia’. In Delemen, I., Casabonne, O., Karagoz,
S. and Tekin, O. (eds) The Achaemenid Impact on Local
Populations and Culture in Anatolia (Istanbul): 7-32.
Waddington, W.H, Babelon, E. and Reinach, T. 1925.
Récuéil General des Monnaies Grecques d’ Asie Mineure 1:
Pont et Paphlagonie (Paris).
Young, R.S. 1969. ‘Old Phrygian Inscriptions from
Gordion: Toward a History the Phrygian Alphabet’.
Hesperia 38.2: 252-96.
225
Manolis Manoledakis