Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Secession of Commagene - 163/2 or 150 BC?

Expand Messages
  • Jens
    Dear group, another observation based on Seleucid Coins II, which I am studying thoroughly. The book is a cornucopia for further Seleucid studies, especially
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 13, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear group,

      another observation based on Seleucid Coins II, which I am studying
      thoroughly. The book is a cornucopia for further Seleucid studies,
      especially as the text seldom strays from its subject, the coins. If
      there is another conference on Seleucid history, I'd like to suggest
      that its theme would be new political etc. advances based on the
      findings in SC.

      The secession of Commagene is treated on p.207 in SC II:vol 1, based on
      one of Oliver D. Hoover's articles. An 'unofficial' Commagenean mint
      started issuing drachms of Demetrius I, with dies imitating those from
      Antioch and monograms based on, but sligthly different from, that mint.
      These coins are attributed to Ptolemy, the first governor of Commagene.

      Ptolemy is known from an fragment by Diodorus Siculus, 31.19a.

      "Ptolemaeus, the governor of Commagenê, who even before had shown
      little respect for the Syrian kings, now asserted his independence, and
      because they were busy with their own affairs, established himself
      without interference in control of the country, being chiefly emboldened
      by its natural advantages for defence."

      This fragment appears before an account (31.19) of the Cappadocian
      dynasty; I suppose the Syrian kings who were busy with their own affairs
      would be either Antiochus V & Demetrius I or Demetrius I and Alexander
      Balas.

      Ptolemy is also known from the Nemrud Dag inscription of the ancestors
      of Antiochus I of Commagene; he is listed on the left pedestal among the
      Persians-Armenians rather than the right with Greeks-Macedonians. Nemrud
      Dag ancestor inscription <http://www.nemrud.nl/en/tr_tekst5.php> But
      possibly this is because the right pedestal is in fact devoted to the
      Seleucid dynasty (and Alexander the Great).

      SC II takes the view that Ptolemy broke away from the Seleucid Empire in
      163/2 BCE, i.e. the first of the two periods mentioned above. To some
      extent I can agree with this; the coins are imitations rather than
      issues of an official Seleucid administration. But my view is that if
      Ptolemy imitated the coins of Demetrius I, while the latter was king, he
      had not seceded completely. I see these coins as semi-official, so that
      Ptolemy and Demetrius I had some sort of agreement. Apparently, if
      Ptolemy had made himself independent, he would have been concerned with
      an attack from Demetrius. The loyalty of Ptolemy's troops during such an
      attack would hardly have improved if they were paid with coins naming
      Demetrius as their legitimate king. (A similar reason is one of many
      arguments why Diodotus I of Bactria did not issue his first coins in the
      name of the Seleucid king Antiochus II. See my article "Antiochus
      Nicator, a third Bactrian king?", NC 2010. Though in Diodotus' case,
      numismatic evidence supports the view that the 'Antiochus coins' are
      later.)

      The first Commagenean imitations, in good style, use Demetrius' regnal
      years: one example is given for SE (160 - 153/2 BC). But when Balas came
      to power in 150 BC, the Commagenean mint continued for some years to
      strike Demetrius coins, for instance in SE 164 (149/8 BC). So Ptolemy
      did not support Balas. In my view, he could have declared himself
      completely independent because the Seleucid dynasty had expired, the
      full independence of Commagene then beginning in 150 BC.

      Jens Jakobsson

      www.alexandersarvtagare.se
      <http://www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html>



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jens
      Dear group, I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial copies of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck coins
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear group,

        I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial copies
        of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck coins
        with charicatures portraits and illegible Greek letters. This is in fact
        reminiscent of the Saka/Yuezhi coinage in Bactria and eastern Iran, and
        shows that knowledge of Greek language was rare in Commagene in the 2nd
        century BC.

        However, in Commagene, the imitations do not come after a proper Greek
        coinage, but before it. In the late 2nd or and 1st century BC, the kings
        Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochos I (the grandson of Antiochos VIII
        Grypos) started to strike a regular Greek coinage. This was followed by
        provincial Commagenean coins during the reign of Augustus, and finally a
        renewed, still Greek, coinage under Antiochos IV, whose favour with the
        Roman emperors was such that he was allowed to issue personal coins in
        his client-kingdom.

        My point here is that Greek language was established more properly in
        Commagene around c. 100 BC. The reason for this may have been the
        migration of Greek-speaking Seleucid subjects from Cilicia, which was at
        this time overrun by pirates, following the collapse of Seleucid power.
        This connection is further strengthened by the activities of Antiochos
        IV of Commagene; in the mid-1st century AD, he was made king of Cilicia
        by Caligula. Antiochos IV campaigned successfully against Galatian
        tribes who had invaded the province (Tacitus, Annals XII:55) and even
        founded the port of Iotape (Aytap) on the western fringes of Cilicia.
        Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further
        indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the
        Commagenean royal house.

        Such a migration may explain why Commagene at a rather late time became
        a Hellenistic kingdom, which emphasised its connection with the
        Macedonian/Seleucid period. According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews
        V.11.3 - as related in message 2115 <../../../../message/2115> ), there
        were even a "Macedonian" regiment in the Commagenean army.

        Jens Jakobsson
        www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html
        <Dear%20group,%20%20I%20recently%20posted%20about%20the%20early%20coins%\
        20of%20Commagene:%20inofficial%20copies%20of%20coins%20of%20Demetrius%20\
        I,%20which%20soon%20deteriorated%20into%20badly%20struck%20coins%20with%\
        20charicatures%20for%20legends%20and%20illegible%20Greek%20letters.%20Th\
        is%20is%20in%20fact%20reminiscent%20of%20the%20Saka/Yuezhi%20coinage%20i\
        n%20Bactria%20and%20eastern%20Iran,%20and%20shows%20that%20knowledge%20o\
        f%20Greek%20language%20was%20rare%20in%20Commagene%20in%20the%202nd%20ce\
        ntury%20BC.%20%20However,%20in%20Commagene,%20the%20imitations%20do%20no\
        t%20come%20after%20a%20proper%20Greek%20coinage,%20but%20before%20it.%20\
        In%20the%201st%20century%20BC,%20king%20Mithradates%20I%20and%20his%20so\
        n%20Antiochos%20I%20%28the%20grandson%20of%20Antiochos%20VIII%20Grypos%2\
        9%20started%20to%20strike%20proper%20Greek%20coins,%20which%20were%20fol\
        lowed%20by%20provincial%20Commagenean%20coins%20during%20the%20reign%20o\
        f%20Augustus,%20and%20finally%20a%20renewed,%20still%20Greek,%20coinage%\
        20under%20Antiochos%20IV,%20whose%20favour%20with%20the%20Roman%20empero\
        rs%20was%20such%20that%20he%20was%20allowed%20to%20issue%20personal%20co\
        ins%20in%20his%20client-kingdom.%20%20My%20point%20here%20is%20that%20Gr\
        eek%20language%20was%20established%20more%20properly%20in%20Commagene%20\
        around%20c.%20100%20BC.%20The%20reason%20for%20this%20may%20well%20have%\
        20been%20the%20migration%20of%20Greek-speaking%20Seleucid%20subjects%20f\
        rom%20Cilicia,%20which%20was%20at%20this%20time%20overrun%20by%20pirates\
        ,%20following%20the%20collapse%20of%20Seleucid%20power.%20This%20connect\
        ion%20is%20further%20strengthened%20by%20the%20activities%20of%20Antioch\
        os%20IV%20of%20Commagene;%20in%20the%20mid-1st%20century%20AD,%20he%20wa\
        s%20made%20king%20of%20Cilicia,%20where%20he%20campaigned%20against%20Ga\
        latian%20tribes%20and%20founded%20the%20port%20of%20Iotape%20%28Aytap%29\
        .%20%20Such%20a%20migration%20may%20explain%20why%20Commagene%20at%20a%2\
        0rather%20late%20time%20became%20a%20Hellenistic%20kingdom,%20which%20em\
        phasised%20its%20connection%20with%20the%20Macedonian/Seleucid%20era.%20\
        According%20to%20Josephus%20%28Wars%20of%20the%20Jews%20V.11.3%20-%20as%\
        20related%20in%20message%202115%20%28http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleu\
        kids/message/2115%29,%20there%20were%20even%20a%20>




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Cristian Emilian Ghita
        Dear Jens, Given that striking coins is not a popular pastime, but rather strictly connected with the central authority and involves a surprisingly low number
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Jens,


          Given that striking coins is not a popular pastime, but rather strictly connected with the central authority and involves a surprisingly low number of people, I am wondering why is it necessary to postulate wide-scale migration, when the arrival in Commagene of one or two properly trained engravers (from any part of the Greek-speaking world, really) would solve the issue. 

          I'm not saying that there were no Cilician immigrants into Commagene, I am just concerned that you seem to mention no other corroborating piece of evidence. Could you also clarify the "invasion of Cilicia by pirates"? From what I seem to remember, it was more a matter of locals turning to piracy, rather than pirates finding shelter there and pushing the population aside. 

          Kindest regards,
          Cristian



          ________________________________
          From: Jens <jens.jakobsson@...>
          To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2011, 16:45
          Subject: [seleukids] Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?


           
          Dear group,

          I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial copies
          of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck coins
          with charicatures portraits and illegible Greek letters. This is in fact
          reminiscent of the Saka/Yuezhi coinage in Bactria and eastern Iran, and
          shows that knowledge of Greek language was rare in Commagene in the 2nd
          century BC.

          However, in Commagene, the imitations do not come after a proper Greek
          coinage, but before it. In the late 2nd or and 1st century BC, the kings
          Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochos I (the grandson of Antiochos VIII
          Grypos) started to strike a regular Greek coinage. This was followed by
          provincial Commagenean coins during the reign of Augustus, and finally a
          renewed, still Greek, coinage under Antiochos IV, whose favour with the
          Roman emperors was such that he was allowed to issue personal coins in
          his client-kingdom.

          My point here is that Greek language was established more properly in
          Commagene around c. 100 BC. The reason for this may have been the
          migration of Greek-speaking Seleucid subjects from Cilicia, which was at
          this time overrun by pirates, following the collapse of Seleucid power.
          This connection is further strengthened by the activities of Antiochos
          IV of Commagene; in the mid-1st century AD, he was made king of Cilicia
          by Caligula. Antiochos IV campaigned successfully against Galatian
          tribes who had invaded the province (Tacitus, Annals XII:55) and even
          founded the port of Iotape (Aytap) on the western fringes of Cilicia.
          Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further
          indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the
          Commagenean royal house.

          Such a migration may explain why Commagene at a rather late time became
          a Hellenistic kingdom, which emphasised its connection with the
          Macedonian/Seleucid period. According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews
          V.11.3 - as related in message 2115 <../../../../message/2115> ), there
          were even a "Macedonian" regiment in the Commagenean army.

          Jens Jakobsson
          www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html
          <Dear%20group,%20%20I%20recently%20posted%20about%20the%20early%20coins%\
          20of%20Commagene:%20inofficial%20copies%20of%20coins%20of%20Demetrius%20\
          I,%20which%20soon%20deteriorated%20into%20badly%20struck%20coins%20with%\
          20charicatures%20for%20legends%20and%20illegible%20Greek%20letters.%20Th\
          is%20is%20in%20fact%20reminiscent%20of%20the%20Saka/Yuezhi%20coinage%20i\
          n%20Bactria%20and%20eastern%20Iran,%20and%20shows%20that%20knowledge%20o\
          f%20Greek%20language%20was%20rare%20in%20Commagene%20in%20the%202nd%20ce\
          ntury%20BC.%20%20However,%20in%20Commagene,%20the%20imitations%20do%20no\
          t%20come%20after%20a%20proper%20Greek%20coinage,%20but%20before%20it.%20\
          In%20the%201st%20century%20BC,%20king%20Mithradates%20I%20and%20his%20so\
          n%20Antiochos%20I%20%28the%20grandson%20of%20Antiochos%20VIII%20Grypos%2\
          9%20started%20to%20strike%20proper%20Greek%20coins,%20which%20were%20fol\
          lowed%20by%20provincial%20Commagenean%20coins%20during%20the%20reign%20o\
          f%20Augustus,%20and%20finally%20a%20renewed,%20still%20Greek,%20coinage%\
          20under%20Antiochos%20IV,%20whose%20favour%20with%20the%20Roman%20empero\
          rs%20was%20such%20that%20he%20was%20allowed%20to%20issue%20personal%20co\
          ins%20in%20his%20client-kingdom.%20%20My%20point%20here%20is%20that%20Gr\
          eek%20language%20was%20established%20more%20properly%20in%20Commagene%20\
          around%20c.%20100%20BC.%20The%20reason%20for%20this%20may%20well%20have%\
          20been%20the%20migration%20of%20Greek-speaking%20Seleucid%20subjects%20f\
          rom%20Cilicia,%20which%20was%20at%20this%20time%20overrun%20by%20pirates\
          ,%20following%20the%20collapse%20of%20Seleucid%20power.%20This%20connect\
          ion%20is%20further%20strengthened%20by%20the%20activities%20of%20Antioch\
          os%20IV%20of%20Commagene;%20in%20the%20mid-1st%20century%20AD,%20he%20wa\
          s%20made%20king%20of%20Cilicia,%20where%20he%20campaigned%20against%20Ga\
          latian%20tribes%20and%20founded%20the%20port%20of%20Iotape%20%28Aytap%29\
          .%20%20Such%20a%20migration%20may%20explain%20why%20Commagene%20at%20a%2\
          0rather%20late%20time%20became%20a%20Hellenistic%20kingdom,%20which%20em\
          phasised%20its%20connection%20with%20the%20Macedonian/Seleucid%20era.%20\
          According%20to%20Josephus%20%28Wars%20of%20the%20Jews%20V.11.3%20-%20as%\
          20related%20in%20message%202115%20%28http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleu\
          kids/message/2115%29,%20there%20were%20even%20a%20>

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jens
          Dear Cristian, you are of course correct that the Cilician pirates were largely of local origin. Nevertheless, the piracy and the wars with the Romans that
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 3, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Cristian,

            you are of course correct that the Cilician pirates were largely of
            local origin. Nevertheless, the piracy and the wars with the Romans that
            followed, should have affected life in the province negatively.

            As for the numismatic evidence, coins served as important propaganda in
            most Hellenistic states. However, this required that there were
            recipients who could read Greek or at least understood the significance
            of the symbols displayed on the coins. And apparently, in the 2nd
            century BC there were not enough such people in Commagene, as the
            accepted currency was ill-struck coins with nonsense legends, issued by
            no apparent authority. (Most of them weigh only a few grams, which could
            indicate that the monetary economy was not very developed.) If there had
            been Hellenised people, but no central authority in Commagene at this
            time, the region would probably have produced coins resembling the civic
            issues of the Greek cities in Asia Minor.

            Then, after 100 BC, there appears a centralised state, which produces
            not only a regular Hellenistic coinage but also the sanctuary of Nemrud
            Dag, an enormous Hellenistic shrine, built on a mountain top at great
            expense. The Nemrud Dag inscriptions and statues strongly emphasises the
            Commagenean connection to the Seleucids as well as to the Persians.
            Where did these resources come from, in such a remote area? There are
            few connection with any foreign powers, except possibly the Parthians.
            Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman sphere of interest.

            I certainly admit I have no direct evidence, but a migration from less
            stable areas, such as the northern parts of the disintegrating Seleucid
            realms, seems plausible. And there are later connections between
            Commagene and even western Cilicia. It is quite unusual that a Roman
            client-king such as Antiochos IV of Commagene would found a military
            port (Aytap), hundreds of kilometers west of his homeland.

            Jens Jakobsson

            --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, Cristian Emilian Ghita
            <ghitacristianemilian@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear Jens,
            >
            >
            > Given that striking coins is not a popular pastime, but rather
            strictly connected with the central authority and involves a
            surprisingly low number of people, I am wondering why is it necessary to
            postulate wide-scale migration, when the arrival in Commagene of one or
            two properly trained engravers (from any part of the Greek-speaking
            world, really) would solve the issue.Â
            >
            > I'm not saying that there were no Cilician immigrants into Commagene,
            I am just concerned that you seem to mention no other corroborating
            piece of evidence. Could you also clarify the "invasion of Cilicia by
            pirates"? From what I seem to remember, it was more a matter of locals
            turning to piracy, rather than pirates finding shelter there and pushing
            the population aside.Â
            >
            > Kindest regards,
            > Cristian
            >
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@...
            > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2011, 16:45
            > Subject: [seleukids] Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
            >
            >
            > Â
            > Dear group,
            >
            > I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial
            copies
            > of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck
            coins
            > with charicatures portraits and illegible Greek letters. This is in
            fact
            > reminiscent of the Saka/Yuezhi coinage in Bactria and eastern Iran,
            and
            > shows that knowledge of Greek language was rare in Commagene in the
            2nd
            > century BC.
            >
            > However, in Commagene, the imitations do not come after a proper Greek
            > coinage, but before it. In the late 2nd or and 1st century BC, the
            kings
            > Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochos I (the grandson of Antiochos VIII
            > Grypos) started to strike a regular Greek coinage. This was followed
            by
            > provincial Commagenean coins during the reign of Augustus, and finally
            a
            > renewed, still Greek, coinage under Antiochos IV, whose favour with
            the
            > Roman emperors was such that he was allowed to issue personal coins in
            > his client-kingdom.
            >
            > My point here is that Greek language was established more properly in
            > Commagene around c. 100 BC. The reason for this may have been the
            > migration of Greek-speaking Seleucid subjects from Cilicia, which was
            at
            > this time overrun by pirates, following the collapse of Seleucid
            power.
            > This connection is further strengthened by the activities of Antiochos
            > IV of Commagene; in the mid-1st century AD, he was made king of
            Cilicia
            > by Caligula. Antiochos IV campaigned successfully against Galatian
            > tribes who had invaded the province (Tacitus, Annals XII:55) and even
            > founded the port of Iotape (Aytap) on the western fringes of Cilicia.
            > Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further
            > indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the
            > Commagenean royal house.
            >
            > Such a migration may explain why Commagene at a rather late time
            became
            > a Hellenistic kingdom, which emphasised its connection with the
            > Macedonian/Seleucid period. According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews
            > V.11.3 - as related in message 2115 <../../../../message/2115> ),
            there
            > were even a "Macedonian" regiment in the Commagenean army.
            >
            > Jens Jakobsson
            > www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html
            >
            <Dear%20group,%20%20I%20recently%20posted%20about%20the%20early%20coins%\
            \
            >
            20of%20Commagene:%20inofficial%20copies%20of%20coins%20of%20Demetrius%20\
            \
            >
            I,%20which%20soon%20deteriorated%20into%20badly%20struck%20coins%20with%\
            \
            >
            20charicatures%20for%20legends%20and%20illegible%20Greek%20letters.%20Th\
            \
            >
            is%20is%20in%20fact%20reminiscent%20of%20the%20Saka/Yuezhi%20coinage%20i\
            \
            >
            n%20Bactria%20and%20eastern%20Iran,%20and%20shows%20that%20knowledge%20o\
            \
            >
            f%20Greek%20language%20was%20rare%20in%20Commagene%20in%20the%202nd%20ce\
            \
            >
            ntury%20BC.%20%20However,%20in%20Commagene,%20the%20imitations%20do%20no\
            \
            >
            t%20come%20after%20a%20proper%20Greek%20coinage,%20but%20before%20it.%20\
            \
            >
            In%20the%201st%20century%20BC,%20king%20Mithradates%20I%20and%20his%20so\
            \
            >
            n%20Antiochos%20I%20%28the%20grandson%20of%20Antiochos%20VIII%20Grypos%2\
            \
            >
            9%20started%20to%20strike%20proper%20Greek%20coins,%20which%20were%20fol\
            \
            >
            lowed%20by%20provincial%20Commagenean%20coins%20during%20the%20reign%20o\
            \
            >
            f%20Augustus,%20and%20finally%20a%20renewed,%20still%20Greek,%20coinage%\
            \
            >
            20under%20Antiochos%20IV,%20whose%20favour%20with%20the%20Roman%20empero\
            \
            >
            rs%20was%20such%20that%20he%20was%20allowed%20to%20issue%20personal%20co\
            \
            >
            ins%20in%20his%20client-kingdom.%20%20My%20point%20here%20is%20that%20Gr\
            \
            >
            eek%20language%20was%20established%20more%20properly%20in%20Commagene%20\
            \
            >
            around%20c.%20100%20BC.%20The%20reason%20for%20this%20may%20well%20have%\
            \
            >
            20been%20the%20migration%20of%20Greek-speaking%20Seleucid%20subjects%20f\
            \
            >
            rom%20Cilicia,%20which%20was%20at%20this%20time%20overrun%20by%20pirates\
            \
            >
            ,%20following%20the%20collapse%20of%20Seleucid%20power.%20This%20connect\
            \
            >
            ion%20is%20further%20strengthened%20by%20the%20activities%20of%20Antioch\
            \
            >
            os%20IV%20of%20Commagene;%20in%20the%20mid-1st%20century%20AD,%20he%20wa\
            \
            >
            s%20made%20king%20of%20Cilicia,%20where%20he%20campaigned%20against%20Ga\
            \
            >
            latian%20tribes%20and%20founded%20the%20port%20of%20Iotape%20%28Aytap%29\
            \
            >
            .%20%20Such%20a%20migration%20may%20explain%20why%20Commagene%20at%20a%2\
            \
            >
            0rather%20late%20time%20became%20a%20Hellenistic%20kingdom,%20which%20em\
            \
            >
            phasised%20its%20connection%20with%20the%20Macedonian/Seleucid%20era.%20\
            \
            >
            According%20to%20Josephus%20%28Wars%20of%20the%20Jews%20V.11.3%20-%20as%\
            \
            >
            20related%20in%20message%202115%20%28http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleu\
            \
            > kids/message/2115%29,%20there%20were%20even%20a%20>
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • dumitru adrian
            Dear Jens,   there are four coins I would like to throw in the pot.   1. I am not a numismatist - but it seems to me a matter of common sense to think that
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Jens,
               
              there are four coins I would like to throw in the pot.
               
              1. I am not a numismatist - but it seems to me a matter of common sense to think that the presence of small coins weighing a few grams should rather indicate quite the contrary of what you say: " that the monetary economy was not very developed". One could not hope to do a succesfull small business (e.g. - buying a piece of meat in the market) with only tetradrachmns. Small coins available for giving the change must be available precisely in a reasonnably well developped monetary economy, while larger denominations (especially in silver, not to mention gold) invite hoarders, and not... how should I put it... consumers.
               
              2. You say that "Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman sphere of interest.". Well, that is a more complicated matter. Pompey granted the town of Seleucia-Zeugma to Commagene in return for the support that was given against Tigranes (or so it seems). Cicero, as a governor of Cilicia, relies heavily on the Commagenian king in his attempt to resisst the Parthians. And the king informs him about what the parthians are doing.Then, Marc-Anthony besieged Samosata and, not hoping to achieve a success, he stroke some kind of bargain with the king (again, a rather problematic issue, since Josephus, appian and Plutarch go on contradicting each other on this respect). Then, Augustus comes and and takes back Seleucia-Zeugma (which is one of the few cities in the area using an Actian era late in the imperial times) and Tiberius turns the kingdm into a Roman province.
              since of all the roman rulers, only Caesar seems to neglect Commagene in his affairs of state (but one should bear in mind the awful state of preservation of our sources, the histories of Strabo, Nicolaus and Posidoinus being lost) I would rather say that Commagene was an object of concern for the Roman politicians.Its importance was perhaps minor compared to that of Judaea (but let's not forget that there is a Josephus to inform us about Judaea...), but still, it does look like it gave some headaches to the Romans.
               
              3. I am not a specialist in the Roman period, but could you tell me more about the founding of Iotape/Aytap? Anyway, Antiochus IV is a contemporary of Vespasian, so at this time, I don't think there were many Cilician pirates left.
               
              4. As for "Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the Commagenean royal house.", I would rather blame it on a (temporary) Roman grant that should account for Antiochus IV' expansion to the sea. It is quite common for the Roman politics towards the client-kings (and I loved Robert Sullivan's book "Near Eastern Royalty and Rome" analyzing this kind of relations) to grant (or confiscate) lands or to move them from one kingdom to another. or even to create new kingdoms.
               
              Best regards,
               
              Adrian Dumitru


              ________________________________
              From: Jens <jens.jakobsson@...>
              To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 11:39 AM
              Subject: [seleukids] Re: Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?


               

              Dear Cristian,

              you are of course correct that the Cilician pirates were largely of
              local origin. Nevertheless, the piracy and the wars with the Romans that
              followed, should have affected life in the province negatively.

              As for the numismatic evidence, coins served as important propaganda in
              most Hellenistic states. However, this required that there were
              recipients who could read Greek or at least understood the significance
              of the symbols displayed on the coins. And apparently, in the 2nd
              century BC there were not enough such people in Commagene, as the
              accepted currency was ill-struck coins with nonsense legends, issued by
              no apparent authority. (Most of them weigh only a few grams, which could
              indicate that the monetary economy was not very developed.) If there had
              been Hellenised people, but no central authority in Commagene at this
              time, the region would probably have produced coins resembling the civic
              issues of the Greek cities in Asia Minor.

              Then, after 100 BC, there appears a centralised state, which produces
              not only a regular Hellenistic coinage but also the sanctuary of Nemrud
              Dag, an enormous Hellenistic shrine, built on a mountain top at great
              expense. The Nemrud Dag inscriptions and statues strongly emphasises the
              Commagenean connection to the Seleucids as well as to the Persians.
              Where did these resources come from, in such a remote area? There are
              few connection with any foreign powers, except possibly the Parthians.
              Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman sphere of interest.

              I certainly admit I have no direct evidence, but a migration from less
              stable areas, such as the northern parts of the disintegrating Seleucid
              realms, seems plausible. And there are later connections between
              Commagene and even western Cilicia. It is quite unusual that a Roman
              client-king such as Antiochos IV of Commagene would found a military
              port (Aytap), hundreds of kilometers west of his homeland.

              Jens Jakobsson

              --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, Cristian Emilian Ghita
              <ghitacristianemilian@...> wrote:
              >
              > Dear Jens,
              >
              >
              > Given that striking coins is not a popular pastime, but rather
              strictly connected with the central authority and involves a
              surprisingly low number of people, I am wondering why is it necessary to
              postulate wide-scale migration, when the arrival in Commagene of one or
              two properly trained engravers (from any part of the Greek-speaking
              world, really) would solve the issue.Â
              >
              > I'm not saying that there were no Cilician immigrants into Commagene,
              I am just concerned that you seem to mention no other corroborating
              piece of evidence. Could you also clarify the "invasion of Cilicia by
              pirates"? From what I seem to remember, it was more a matter of locals
              turning to piracy, rather than pirates finding shelter there and pushing
              the population aside.Â
              >
              > Kindest regards,
              > Cristian
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@...
              > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2011, 16:45
              > Subject: [seleukids] Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
              >
              >
              > Â
              > Dear group,
              >
              > I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial
              copies
              > of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck
              coins
              > with charicatures portraits and illegible Greek letters. This is in
              fact
              > reminiscent of the Saka/Yuezhi coinage in Bactria and eastern Iran,
              and
              > shows that knowledge of Greek language was rare in Commagene in the
              2nd
              > century BC.
              >
              > However, in Commagene, the imitations do not come after a proper Greek
              > coinage, but before it. In the late 2nd or and 1st century BC, the
              kings
              > Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochos I (the grandson of Antiochos VIII
              > Grypos) started to strike a regular Greek coinage. This was followed
              by
              > provincial Commagenean coins during the reign of Augustus, and finally
              a
              > renewed, still Greek, coinage under Antiochos IV, whose favour with
              the
              > Roman emperors was such that he was allowed to issue personal coins in
              > his client-kingdom.
              >
              > My point here is that Greek language was established more properly in
              > Commagene around c. 100 BC. The reason for this may have been the
              > migration of Greek-speaking Seleucid subjects from Cilicia, which was
              at
              > this time overrun by pirates, following the collapse of Seleucid
              power.
              > This connection is further strengthened by the activities of Antiochos
              > IV of Commagene; in the mid-1st century AD, he was made king of
              Cilicia
              > by Caligula. Antiochos IV campaigned successfully against Galatian
              > tribes who had invaded the province (Tacitus, Annals XII:55) and even
              > founded the port of Iotape (Aytap) on the western fringes of Cilicia.
              > Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further
              > indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the
              > Commagenean royal house.
              >
              > Such a migration may explain why Commagene at a rather late time
              became
              > a Hellenistic kingdom, which emphasised its connection with the
              > Macedonian/Seleucid period. According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews
              > V.11.3 - as related in message 2115 <../../../../message/2115> ),
              there
              > were even a "Macedonian" regiment in the Commagenean army.
              >
              > Jens Jakobsson
              > www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html
              >
              <Dear%20group,%20%20I%20recently%20posted%20about%20the%20early%20coins%\
              \
              >
              20of%20Commagene:%20inofficial%20copies%20of%20coins%20of%20Demetrius%20\
              \
              >
              I,%20which%20soon%20deteriorated%20into%20badly%20struck%20coins%20with%\
              \
              >
              20charicatures%20for%20legends%20and%20illegible%20Greek%20letters.%20Th\
              \
              >
              is%20is%20in%20fact%20reminiscent%20of%20the%20Saka/Yuezhi%20coinage%20i\
              \
              >
              n%20Bactria%20and%20eastern%20Iran,%20and%20shows%20that%20knowledge%20o\
              \
              >
              f%20Greek%20language%20was%20rare%20in%20Commagene%20in%20the%202nd%20ce\
              \
              >
              ntury%20BC.%20%20However,%20in%20Commagene,%20the%20imitations%20do%20no\
              \
              >
              t%20come%20after%20a%20proper%20Greek%20coinage,%20but%20before%20it.%20\
              \
              >
              In%20the%201st%20century%20BC,%20king%20Mithradates%20I%20and%20his%20so\
              \
              >
              n%20Antiochos%20I%20%28the%20grandson%20of%20Antiochos%20VIII%20Grypos%2\
              \
              >
              9%20started%20to%20strike%20proper%20Greek%20coins,%20which%20were%20fol\
              \
              >
              lowed%20by%20provincial%20Commagenean%20coins%20during%20the%20reign%20o\
              \
              >
              f%20Augustus,%20and%20finally%20a%20renewed,%20still%20Greek,%20coinage%\
              \
              >
              20under%20Antiochos%20IV,%20whose%20favour%20with%20the%20Roman%20empero\
              \
              >
              rs%20was%20such%20that%20he%20was%20allowed%20to%20issue%20personal%20co\
              \
              >
              ins%20in%20his%20client-kingdom.%20%20My%20point%20here%20is%20that%20Gr\
              \
              >
              eek%20language%20was%20established%20more%20properly%20in%20Commagene%20\
              \
              >
              around%20c.%20100%20BC.%20The%20reason%20for%20this%20may%20well%20have%\
              \
              >
              20been%20the%20migration%20of%20Greek-speaking%20Seleucid%20subjects%20f\
              \
              >
              rom%20Cilicia,%20which%20was%20at%20this%20time%20overrun%20by%20pirates\
              \
              >
              ,%20following%20the%20collapse%20of%20Seleucid%20power.%20This%20connect\
              \
              >
              ion%20is%20further%20strengthened%20by%20the%20activities%20of%20Antioch\
              \
              >
              os%20IV%20of%20Commagene;%20in%20the%20mid-1st%20century%20AD,%20he%20wa\
              \
              >
              s%20made%20king%20of%20Cilicia,%20where%20he%20campaigned%20against%20Ga\
              \
              >
              latian%20tribes%20and%20founded%20the%20port%20of%20Iotape%20%28Aytap%29\
              \
              >
              .%20%20Such%20a%20migration%20may%20explain%20why%20Commagene%20at%20a%2\
              \
              >
              0rather%20late%20time%20became%20a%20Hellenistic%20kingdom,%20which%20em\
              \
              >
              phasised%20its%20connection%20with%20the%20Macedonian/Seleucid%20era.%20\
              \
              >
              According%20to%20Josephus%20%28Wars%20of%20the%20Jews%20V.11.3%20-%20as%\
              \
              >
              20related%20in%20message%202115%20%28http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleu\
              \
              > kids/message/2115%29,%20there%20were%20even%20a%20>
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jens
              Dear Adrian, 1. Actually, most of the coins of the earliest kings: Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochus I, seems to have been bronzes. But perhaps the small
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 4, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Adrian,

                1. Actually, most of the coins of the earliest kings: Samos, Mithradates
                I and Antiochus I, seems to have been bronzes. But perhaps the small
                denominations of the imitation coinage is not enough to say much about
                the economy of Commagene. Apparently, however, there was no leadership
                that used coinage for its own purposes, and there is really very little
                known about the country's early period.

                2. Nemrud Dag was being built from c.62 BC, and the Roman influence
                seems over Commagene seems to have grown mainly after the complex was
                finished. It's of course true that Commagene may have become a
                client-state as early as Marcus Antonius' siege, and soon after the
                province was as you say under Roman dominion, but there are no
                indications that the Romans contributed to the creation of Nemrud Dag.

                3. There are no sources mentioning the foundation of Iotape, but
                Antiochus IV ruled the territory at the time that matches the oldest
                archaelogical findings, and the name Iotape apparently refers to a queen
                of that dynasty. Here is a Roman Provincial Coin
                <http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4978/?search&stype=advanced&od=&od_b=o\
                r&rd=&rd_b=or&ri=&m=&d=&i=&l_type=l_type_city&p=&r=&y_type=y_type_all&yf\
                =&yt=&mn=&mt=&oi=&pa=&a=&w=&t=&s=&c_id-0=iota&oi_ns=&ri_ns=&c=&od_ft=&rd\
                _ft=&yx=&rno=1> of Lucius Verus, with the city name (Iota-Omega) as a
                monogram.

                4. It is true that the emperors moved their client-kings between new
                territories, and altered their realms at will - at this time, the
                client-kings were just officials, subject to Roman authority. But the
                client-kingdoms were usually founded along the frontiers of the empire.
                Antiochus IV was not only granted new lands in Armenia, but also all of
                Cilicia as well as Lycaonia to the west of Commagene; much of this
                territory consisted of former Roman provinces well inside the empire.
                The strategic reasons for uniting such territories into a quite major
                kingdom (with at least ten mints) seem unclear.

                Best regards,
                Jens Jakobsson

                --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, dumitru adrian <ariobarzanesro@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Dear Jens,
                > Â
                > there are four coins I would like to throw in the pot.
                > Â
                > 1. I am not a numismatist - but it seems to me a matter of common
                sense to think that the presence of small coins weighing a few grams
                should rather indicate quite the contrary of what you say: " that the
                monetary economy was not very developed". One could not hope to do a
                succesfull small business (e.g. - buying a piece of meat in the market)
                with only tetradrachmns. Small coins available for giving the change
                must be available precisely in a reasonnably well developped monetary
                economy, while larger denominations (especially in silver, not to
                mention gold) invite hoarders, and not... how should I put it...
                consumers.
                > Â
                > 2. You say that "Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman
                sphere of interest.". Well, that is a more complicated matter. Pompey
                granted the town of Seleucia-Zeugma to Commagene in return for the
                support that was given against Tigranes (or so it seems). Cicero, as a
                governor of Cilicia, relies heavily on the Commagenian king in his
                attempt to resisst the Parthians. And the king informs him about what
                the parthians are doing.Then, Marc-Anthony besieged Samosata and, not
                hoping to achieve a success, he stroke some kind of bargain with the
                king (again, a rather problematic issue, since Josephus, appian and
                Plutarch go on contradicting each other on this respect). Then, Augustus
                comes and and takes back Seleucia-Zeugma (which is one of the few cities
                in the area using an Actian era late in the imperial times) and Tiberius
                turns the kingdm into a Roman province.
                > since of all the roman rulers, only Caesar seems to neglect
                Commagene in his affairs of state (but one should bear in mind the awful
                state of preservation of our sources, the histories of Strabo, Nicolaus
                and Posidoinus being lost)Â I would rather say that Commagene was an
                object of concern for the Roman politicians.Its importance was perhaps
                minor compared to that of Judaea (but let's not forget that there is a
                Josephus to inform us about Judaea...), but still, it does look like it
                gave some headaches to the Romans.
                > Â
                > 3. I am not a specialist in the Roman period, but could you tell me
                more about the founding of Iotape/Aytap? Anyway, Antiochus IV is a
                contemporary of Vespasian, so at this time, I don't think there were
                many Cilician pirates left.
                > Â
                > 4. As for "Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which
                further indicates that there was a strong bond between the region
                and the Commagenean royal house.", I would rather blame it on a
                (temporary) Roman grant that should account for Antiochus IV' expansion
                to the sea. It is quite common for the Roman politics towards the
                client-kings (and I loved Robert Sullivan's book "Near Eastern
                Royalty and Rome"Â analyzing this kind of relations) to grant (or
                confiscate) lands or to move them from one kingdom to another. or
                even to create new kingdoms.
                > Â
                > Best regards,
                > Â
                > Adrian Dumitru
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@...
                > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 11:39 AM
                > Subject: [seleukids] Re: Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
                >
                >
                > Â
                >
                > Dear Cristian,
                >
                > you are of course correct that the Cilician pirates were largely of
                > local origin. Nevertheless, the piracy and the wars with the Romans
                that
                > followed, should have affected life in the province negatively.
                >
                > As for the numismatic evidence, coins served as important propaganda
                in
                > most Hellenistic states. However, this required that there were
                > recipients who could read Greek or at least understood the
                significance
                > of the symbols displayed on the coins. And apparently, in the 2nd
                > century BC there were not enough such people in Commagene, as the
                > accepted currency was ill-struck coins with nonsense legends, issued
                by
                > no apparent authority. (Most of them weigh only a few grams, which
                could
                > indicate that the monetary economy was not very developed.) If there
                had
                > been Hellenised people, but no central authority in Commagene at this
                > time, the region would probably have produced coins resembling the
                civic
                > issues of the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
                >
                > Then, after 100 BC, there appears a centralised state, which produces
                > not only a regular Hellenistic coinage but also the sanctuary of
                Nemrud
                > Dag, an enormous Hellenistic shrine, built on a mountain top at great
                > expense. The Nemrud Dag inscriptions and statues strongly emphasises
                the
                > Commagenean connection to the Seleucids as well as to the Persians.
                > Where did these resources come from, in such a remote area? There are
                > few connection with any foreign powers, except possibly the Parthians.
                > Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman sphere of
                interest.
                >
                > I certainly admit I have no direct evidence, but a migration from less
                > stable areas, such as the northern parts of the disintegrating
                Seleucid
                > realms, seems plausible. And there are later connections between
                > Commagene and even western Cilicia. It is quite unusual that a Roman
                > client-king such as Antiochos IV of Commagene would found a military
                > port (Aytap), hundreds of kilometers west of his homeland.
                >
                > Jens Jakobsson
                >
                > --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, Cristian Emilian Ghita
                > ghitacristianemilian@ wrote:
                > >
                > > Dear Jens,
                > >
                > >
                > > Given that striking coins is not a popular pastime, but rather
                > strictly connected with the central authority and involves a
                > surprisingly low number of people, I am wondering why is it necessary
                to
                > postulate wide-scale migration, when the arrival in Commagene of one
                or
                > two properly trained engravers (from any part of the Greek-speaking
                > world, really) would solve the issue.Â
                > >
                > > I'm not saying that there were no Cilician immigrants into
                Commagene,
                > I am just concerned that you seem to mention no other corroborating
                > piece of evidence. Could you also clarify the "invasion of Cilicia by
                > pirates"? From what I seem to remember, it was more a matter of locals
                > turning to piracy, rather than pirates finding shelter there and
                pushing
                > the population aside.Â
                > >
                > > Kindest regards,
                > > Cristian
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ________________________________
                > > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@
                > > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2011, 16:45
                > > Subject: [seleukids] Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
                > >
                > >
                > > Â
                > > Dear group,
                > >
                > > I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial
                > copies
                > > of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck
                > coins
                > > with charicatures portraits and illegible Greek letters. This is in
                > fact
                > > reminiscent of the Saka/Yuezhi coinage in Bactria and eastern Iran,
                > and
                > > shows that knowledge of Greek language was rare in Commagene in the
                > 2nd
                > > century BC.
                > >
                > > However, in Commagene, the imitations do not come after a proper
                Greek
                > > coinage, but before it. In the late 2nd or and 1st century BC, the
                > kings
                > > Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochos I (the grandson of Antiochos VIII
                > > Grypos) started to strike a regular Greek coinage. This was followed
                > by
                > > provincial Commagenean coins during the reign of Augustus, and
                finally
                > a
                > > renewed, still Greek, coinage under Antiochos IV, whose favour with
                > the
                > > Roman emperors was such that he was allowed to issue personal coins
                in
                > > his client-kingdom.
                > >
                > > My point here is that Greek language was established more properly
                in
                > > Commagene around c. 100 BC. The reason for this may have been the
                > > migration of Greek-speaking Seleucid subjects from Cilicia, which
                was
                > at
                > > this time overrun by pirates, following the collapse of Seleucid
                > power.
                > > This connection is further strengthened by the activities of
                Antiochos
                > > IV of Commagene; in the mid-1st century AD, he was made king of
                > Cilicia
                > > by Caligula. Antiochos IV campaigned successfully against Galatian
                > > tribes who had invaded the province (Tacitus, Annals XII:55) and
                even
                > > founded the port of Iotape (Aytap) on the western fringes of
                Cilicia.
                > > Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further
                > > indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the
                > > Commagenean royal house.
                > >
                > > Such a migration may explain why Commagene at a rather late time
                > became
                > > a Hellenistic kingdom, which emphasised its connection with the
                > > Macedonian/Seleucid period. According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews
                > > V.11.3 - as related in message 2115 <../../../../message/2115> ),
                > there
                > > were even a "Macedonian" regiment in the Commagenean army.
                > >
                > > Jens Jakobsson
                > > www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html
                > >
                >
                <Dear%20group,%20%20I%20recently%20posted%20about%20the%20early%20coins%\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                20of%20Commagene:%20inofficial%20copies%20of%20coins%20of%20Demetrius%20\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                I,%20which%20soon%20deteriorated%20into%20badly%20struck%20coins%20with%\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                20charicatures%20for%20legends%20and%20illegible%20Greek%20letters.%20Th\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                is%20is%20in%20fact%20reminiscent%20of%20the%20Saka/Yuezhi%20coinage%20i\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                n%20Bactria%20and%20eastern%20Iran,%20and%20shows%20that%20knowledge%20o\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                f%20Greek%20language%20was%20rare%20in%20Commagene%20in%20the%202nd%20ce\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                ntury%20BC.%20%20However,%20in%20Commagene,%20the%20imitations%20do%20no\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                t%20come%20after%20a%20proper%20Greek%20coinage,%20but%20before%20it.%20\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                In%20the%201st%20century%20BC,%20king%20Mithradates%20I%20and%20his%20so\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                n%20Antiochos%20I%20%28the%20grandson%20of%20Antiochos%20VIII%20Grypos%2\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                9%20started%20to%20strike%20proper%20Greek%20coins,%20which%20were%20fol\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                lowed%20by%20provincial%20Commagenean%20coins%20during%20the%20reign%20o\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                f%20Augustus,%20and%20finally%20a%20renewed,%20still%20Greek,%20coinage%\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                20under%20Antiochos%20IV,%20whose%20favour%20with%20the%20Roman%20empero\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                rs%20was%20such%20that%20he%20was%20allowed%20to%20issue%20personal%20co\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                ins%20in%20his%20client-kingdom.%20%20My%20point%20here%20is%20that%20Gr\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                eek%20language%20was%20established%20more%20properly%20in%20Commagene%20\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                around%20c.%20100%20BC.%20The%20reason%20for%20this%20may%20well%20have%\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                20been%20the%20migration%20of%20Greek-speaking%20Seleucid%20subjects%20f\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                rom%20Cilicia,%20which%20was%20at%20this%20time%20overrun%20by%20pirates\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                ,%20following%20the%20collapse%20of%20Seleucid%20power.%20This%20connect\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                ion%20is%20further%20strengthened%20by%20the%20activities%20of%20Antioch\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                os%20IV%20of%20Commagene;%20in%20the%20mid-1st%20century%20AD,%20he%20wa\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                s%20made%20king%20of%20Cilicia,%20where%20he%20campaigned%20against%20Ga\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                latian%20tribes%20and%20founded%20the%20port%20of%20Iotape%20%28Aytap%29\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                .%20%20Such%20a%20migration%20may%20explain%20why%20Commagene%20at%20a%2\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                0rather%20late%20time%20became%20a%20Hellenistic%20kingdom,%20which%20em\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                phasised%20its%20connection%20with%20the%20Macedonian/Seleucid%20era.%20\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                According%20to%20Josephus%20%28Wars%20of%20the%20Jews%20V.11.3%20-%20as%\
                \
                > \
                > >
                >
                20related%20in%20message%202115%20%28http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleu\
                \
                > \
                > > kids/message/2115%29,%20there%20were%20even%20a%20>
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jim Webster
                Just a couple of thoughts. Coin seems to have been minted for various reasons, but making it easier for governments to pay troops and bureaucrats was one of
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 4, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Just a couple of thoughts.
                  Coin seems to have been minted for various reasons, but making it easier for
                  governments to pay troops and bureaucrats was one of the main ones, and
                  propaganda was another.
                  More and 'better' coin could mean that government was moving from a system
                  where obligations to serve based on and economically supported by land
                  holding were being augmented by cash payments, so was the army and
                  bureaucracy becoming more professional?
                  Smaller denominations might mean that the economy was becoming more
                  dependent on the circulation of money. Given the positon between Roman and
                  Parthia on one of the major bridges this isn't too unexpected.

                  As for the territories granted to Antiochus IV, could it be that given the
                  nature of Cilicia, it was cheaper from the Roman point of view to have him
                  pay the costs of controlling the area, but the other lands were given to
                  provide the necessary income

                  Jim


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Jens" <jens.jakobsson@...>
                  To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:46 PM
                  Subject: [seleukids] Re: Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?



                  Dear Adrian,

                  1. Actually, most of the coins of the earliest kings: Samos, Mithradates
                  I and Antiochus I, seems to have been bronzes. But perhaps the small
                  denominations of the imitation coinage is not enough to say much about
                  the economy of Commagene. Apparently, however, there was no leadership
                  that used coinage for its own purposes, and there is really very little
                  known about the country's early period.

                  2. Nemrud Dag was being built from c.62 BC, and the Roman influence
                  seems over Commagene seems to have grown mainly after the complex was
                  finished. It's of course true that Commagene may have become a
                  client-state as early as Marcus Antonius' siege, and soon after the
                  province was as you say under Roman dominion, but there are no
                  indications that the Romans contributed to the creation of Nemrud Dag.

                  3. There are no sources mentioning the foundation of Iotape, but
                  Antiochus IV ruled the territory at the time that matches the oldest
                  archaelogical findings, and the name Iotape apparently refers to a queen
                  of that dynasty. Here is a Roman Provincial Coin
                  <http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4978/?search&stype=advanced&od=&od_b=o\
                  r&rd=&rd_b=or&ri=&m=&d=&i=&l_type=l_type_city&p=&r=&y_type=y_type_all&yf\
                  =&yt=&mn=&mt=&oi=&pa=&a=&w=&t=&s=&c_id-0=iota&oi_ns=&ri_ns=&c=&od_ft=&rd\
                  _ft=&yx=&rno=1> of Lucius Verus, with the city name (Iota-Omega) as a
                  monogram.

                  4. It is true that the emperors moved their client-kings between new
                  territories, and altered their realms at will - at this time, the
                  client-kings were just officials, subject to Roman authority. But the
                  client-kingdoms were usually founded along the frontiers of the empire.
                  Antiochus IV was not only granted new lands in Armenia, but also all of
                  Cilicia as well as Lycaonia to the west of Commagene; much of this
                  territory consisted of former Roman provinces well inside the empire.
                  The strategic reasons for uniting such territories into a quite major
                  kingdom (with at least ten mints) seem unclear.

                  Best regards,
                  Jens Jakobsson

                  --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, dumitru adrian <ariobarzanesro@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear Jens,
                  > Â
                  > there are four coins I would like to throw in the pot.
                  > Â
                  > 1. I am not a numismatist - but it seems to me a matter of common
                  sense to think that the presence of small coins weighing a few grams
                  should rather indicate quite the contrary of what you say: " that the
                  monetary economy was not very developed". One could not hope to do a
                  succesfull small business (e.g. - buying a piece of meat in the market)
                  with only tetradrachmns. Small coins available for giving the change
                  must be available precisely in a reasonnably well developped monetary
                  economy, while larger denominations (especially in silver, not to
                  mention gold) invite hoarders, and not... how should I put it...
                  consumers.
                  > Â
                  > 2. You say that "Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman
                  sphere of interest.". Well, that is a more complicated matter. Pompey
                  granted the town of Seleucia-Zeugma to Commagene in return for the
                  support that was given against Tigranes (or so it seems). Cicero, as a
                  governor of Cilicia, relies heavily on the Commagenian king in his
                  attempt to resisst the Parthians. And the king informs him about what
                  the parthians are doing.Then, Marc-Anthony besieged Samosata and, not
                  hoping to achieve a success, he stroke some kind of bargain with the
                  king (again, a rather problematic issue, since Josephus, appian and
                  Plutarch go on contradicting each other on this respect). Then, Augustus
                  comes and and takes back Seleucia-Zeugma (which is one of the few cities
                  in the area using an Actian era late in the imperial times) and Tiberius
                  turns the kingdm into a Roman province.
                  > since of all the roman rulers, only Caesar seems to neglect
                  Commagene in his affairs of state (but one should bear in mind the awful
                  state of preservation of our sources, the histories of Strabo, Nicolaus
                  and Posidoinus being lost)Â I would rather say that Commagene was an
                  object of concern for the Roman politicians.Its importance was perhaps
                  minor compared to that of Judaea (but let's not forget that there is a
                  Josephus to inform us about Judaea...), but still, it does look like it
                  gave some headaches to the Romans.
                  > Â
                  > 3. I am not a specialist in the Roman period, but could you tell me
                  more about the founding of Iotape/Aytap? Anyway, Antiochus IV is a
                  contemporary of Vespasian, so at this time, I don't think there were
                  many Cilician pirates left.
                  > Â
                  > 4. As for "Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which
                  further indicates that there was a strong bond between the region
                  and the Commagenean royal house.", I would rather blame it on a
                  (temporary) Roman grant that should account for Antiochus IV' expansion
                  to the sea. It is quite common for the Roman politics towards the
                  client-kings (and I loved Robert Sullivan's book "Near Eastern
                  Royalty and Rome"Â analyzing this kind of relations) to grant (or
                  confiscate) lands or to move them from one kingdom to another. or
                  even to create new kingdoms.
                  > Â
                  > Best regards,
                  > Â
                  > Adrian Dumitru
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@...
                  > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 11:39 AM
                  > Subject: [seleukids] Re: Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
                  >
                  >
                  > Â
                  >
                  > Dear Cristian,
                  >
                  > you are of course correct that the Cilician pirates were largely of
                  > local origin. Nevertheless, the piracy and the wars with the Romans
                  that
                  > followed, should have affected life in the province negatively.
                  >
                  > As for the numismatic evidence, coins served as important propaganda
                  in
                  > most Hellenistic states. However, this required that there were
                  > recipients who could read Greek or at least understood the
                  significance
                  > of the symbols displayed on the coins. And apparently, in the 2nd
                  > century BC there were not enough such people in Commagene, as the
                  > accepted currency was ill-struck coins with nonsense legends, issued
                  by
                  > no apparent authority. (Most of them weigh only a few grams, which
                  could
                  > indicate that the monetary economy was not very developed.) If there
                  had
                  > been Hellenised people, but no central authority in Commagene at this
                  > time, the region would probably have produced coins resembling the
                  civic
                  > issues of the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
                  >
                  > Then, after 100 BC, there appears a centralised state, which produces
                  > not only a regular Hellenistic coinage but also the sanctuary of
                  Nemrud
                  > Dag, an enormous Hellenistic shrine, built on a mountain top at great
                  > expense. The Nemrud Dag inscriptions and statues strongly emphasises
                  the
                  > Commagenean connection to the Seleucids as well as to the Persians.
                  > Where did these resources come from, in such a remote area? There are
                  > few connection with any foreign powers, except possibly the Parthians.
                  > Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman sphere of
                  interest.
                  >
                  > I certainly admit I have no direct evidence, but a migration from less
                  > stable areas, such as the northern parts of the disintegrating
                  Seleucid
                  > realms, seems plausible. And there are later connections between
                  > Commagene and even western Cilicia. It is quite unusual that a Roman
                  > client-king such as Antiochos IV of Commagene would found a military
                  > port (Aytap), hundreds of kilometers west of his homeland.
                  >
                  > Jens Jakobsson
                  >
                  > --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, Cristian Emilian Ghita
                  > ghitacristianemilian@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Dear Jens,
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Given that striking coins is not a popular pastime, but rather
                  > strictly connected with the central authority and involves a
                  > surprisingly low number of people, I am wondering why is it necessary
                  to
                  > postulate wide-scale migration, when the arrival in Commagene of one
                  or
                  > two properly trained engravers (from any part of the Greek-speaking
                  > world, really) would solve the issue.Ã,
                  > >
                  > > I'm not saying that there were no Cilician immigrants into
                  Commagene,
                  > I am just concerned that you seem to mention no other corroborating
                  > piece of evidence. Could you also clarify the "invasion of Cilicia by
                  > pirates"? From what I seem to remember, it was more a matter of locals
                  > turning to piracy, rather than pirates finding shelter there and
                  pushing
                  > the population aside.Ã,
                  > >
                  > > Kindest regards,
                  > > Cristian
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@
                  > > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2011, 16:45
                  > > Subject: [seleukids] Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Ã,
                  > > Dear group,
                  > >
                  > > I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial
                  > copies
                  > > of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck
                  > coins
                  > > with charicatures portraits and illegible Greek letters. This is in
                  > fact
                  > > reminiscent of the Saka/Yuezhi coinage in Bactria and eastern Iran,
                  > and
                  > > shows that knowledge of Greek language was rare in Commagene in the
                  > 2nd
                  > > century BC.
                  > >
                  > > However, in Commagene, the imitations do not come after a proper
                  Greek
                  > > coinage, but before it. In the late 2nd or and 1st century BC, the
                  > kings
                  > > Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochos I (the grandson of Antiochos VIII
                  > > Grypos) started to strike a regular Greek coinage. This was followed
                  > by
                  > > provincial Commagenean coins during the reign of Augustus, and
                  finally
                  > a
                  > > renewed, still Greek, coinage under Antiochos IV, whose favour with
                  > the
                  > > Roman emperors was such that he was allowed to issue personal coins
                  in
                  > > his client-kingdom.
                  > >
                  > > My point here is that Greek language was established more properly
                  in
                  > > Commagene around c. 100 BC. The reason for this may have been the
                  > > migration of Greek-speaking Seleucid subjects from Cilicia, which
                  was
                  > at
                  > > this time overrun by pirates, following the collapse of Seleucid
                  > power.
                  > > This connection is further strengthened by the activities of
                  Antiochos
                  > > IV of Commagene; in the mid-1st century AD, he was made king of
                  > Cilicia
                  > > by Caligula. Antiochos IV campaigned successfully against Galatian
                  > > tribes who had invaded the province (Tacitus, Annals XII:55) and
                  even
                  > > founded the port of Iotape (Aytap) on the western fringes of
                  Cilicia.
                  > > Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further
                  > > indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the
                  > > Commagenean royal house.
                  > >
                  > > Such a migration may explain why Commagene at a rather late time
                  > became
                  > > a Hellenistic kingdom, which emphasised its connection with the
                  > > Macedonian/Seleucid period. According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews
                  > > V.11.3 - as related in message 2115 <../../../../message/2115> ),
                  > there
                  > > were even a "Macedonian" regiment in the Commagenean army.
                  > >
                  > > Jens Jakobsson
                  > > www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html
                  > >
                  >
                  <Dear%20group,%20%20I%20recently%20posted%20about%20the%20early%20coins%\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  20of%20Commagene:%20inofficial%20copies%20of%20coins%20of%20Demetrius%20\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  I,%20which%20soon%20deteriorated%20into%20badly%20struck%20coins%20with%\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  20charicatures%20for%20legends%20and%20illegible%20Greek%20letters.%20Th\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  is%20is%20in%20fact%20reminiscent%20of%20the%20Saka/Yuezhi%20coinage%20i\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  n%20Bactria%20and%20eastern%20Iran,%20and%20shows%20that%20knowledge%20o\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  f%20Greek%20language%20was%20rare%20in%20Commagene%20in%20the%202nd%20ce\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  ntury%20BC.%20%20However,%20in%20Commagene,%20the%20imitations%20do%20no\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  t%20come%20after%20a%20proper%20Greek%20coinage,%20but%20before%20it.%20\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  In%20the%201st%20century%20BC,%20king%20Mithradates%20I%20and%20his%20so\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  n%20Antiochos%20I%20%28the%20grandson%20of%20Antiochos%20VIII%20Grypos%2\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  9%20started%20to%20strike%20proper%20Greek%20coins,%20which%20were%20fol\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  lowed%20by%20provincial%20Commagenean%20coins%20during%20the%20reign%20o\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  f%20Augustus,%20and%20finally%20a%20renewed,%20still%20Greek,%20coinage%\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  20under%20Antiochos%20IV,%20whose%20favour%20with%20the%20Roman%20empero\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  rs%20was%20such%20that%20he%20was%20allowed%20to%20issue%20personal%20co\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  ins%20in%20his%20client-kingdom.%20%20My%20point%20here%20is%20that%20Gr\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  eek%20language%20was%20established%20more%20properly%20in%20Commagene%20\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  around%20c.%20100%20BC.%20The%20reason%20for%20this%20may%20well%20have%\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  20been%20the%20migration%20of%20Greek-speaking%20Seleucid%20subjects%20f\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  rom%20Cilicia,%20which%20was%20at%20this%20time%20overrun%20by%20pirates\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  ,%20following%20the%20collapse%20of%20Seleucid%20power.%20This%20connect\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  ion%20is%20further%20strengthened%20by%20the%20activities%20of%20Antioch\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  os%20IV%20of%20Commagene;%20in%20the%20mid-1st%20century%20AD,%20he%20wa\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  s%20made%20king%20of%20Cilicia,%20where%20he%20campaigned%20against%20Ga\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  latian%20tribes%20and%20founded%20the%20port%20of%20Iotape%20%28Aytap%29\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  .%20%20Such%20a%20migration%20may%20explain%20why%20Commagene%20at%20a%2\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  0rather%20late%20time%20became%20a%20Hellenistic%20kingdom,%20which%20em\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  phasised%20its%20connection%20with%20the%20Macedonian/Seleucid%20era.%20\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  According%20to%20Josephus%20%28Wars%20of%20the%20Jews%20V.11.3%20-%20as%\
                  \
                  > \
                  > >
                  >
                  20related%20in%20message%202115%20%28http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleu\
                  \
                  > \
                  > > kids/message/2115%29,%20there%20were%20even%20a%20>
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  ------------------------------------

                  Community email addresses:
                  Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                  Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com

                  Shortcut URL to this page:
                  http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukidsYahoo! Groups Links
                • dumitru adrian
                  Dear Jens,   thank you for the information provided.   2. I have never said that the Roman might have contributed one way or another to the building of
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 5, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Jens,
                     
                    thank you for the information provided.
                     
                    2. I have never said that the Roman might have contributed one way or another to the building of Nemrud Dagh. It is interting to speculate in that direction, but unfortunately tthere is absolutely no evidence to support it, whatsoever.
                    All that I said was that the Roman (political) influence on Commagene was more than marginal. But I can not say more about how the Roman political influence could have helped spreading hellenization in that area. And anyway, at least culturally, and at least in as much as the elites are involved, hellenization was a phenomen that could have come from Parthiaas well, at that time. At Doura Europos, some documents from the Parthian age are in greek, too.
                     
                    4. I totally agree with Jim Webster's point of view: "As for the territories granted to Antiochus IV, could it be that given the nature of Cilicia, it was cheaper from the Roman point of view to have him pay the costs of controlling the area, but the other lands were given to provide the necessary income".
                    It would be difficult, however, to reconstruct the logic of a Roman decision concerning a client-king. In the herodians' case, Josephus gives us plenty of examples that it did not always follow the path of a logic of a common-sense (the one which we rely on, today, when trying to reconstruct the sequence of events in ancient times), but it was highly circumstantial (-and that was an euphemism :) meant to cover up bribing and intrigues etc).
                     
                    Best regards,
                     
                    Adrian


                    ________________________________
                    From: Jens <jens.jakobsson@...>
                    To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 5:46 PM
                    Subject: [seleukids] Re: Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?


                     

                    Dear Adrian,

                    1. Actually, most of the coins of the earliest kings: Samos, Mithradates
                    I and Antiochus I, seems to have been bronzes. But perhaps the small
                    denominations of the imitation coinage is not enough to say much about
                    the economy of Commagene. Apparently, however, there was no leadership
                    that used coinage for its own purposes, and there is really very little
                    known about the country's early period.

                    2. Nemrud Dag was being built from c.62 BC, and the Roman influence
                    seems over Commagene seems to have grown mainly after the complex was
                    finished. It's of course true that Commagene may have become a
                    client-state as early as Marcus Antonius' siege, and soon after the
                    province was as you say under Roman dominion, but there are no
                    indications that the Romans contributed to the creation of Nemrud Dag.

                    3. There are no sources mentioning the foundation of Iotape, but
                    Antiochus IV ruled the territory at the time that matches the oldest
                    archaelogical findings, and the name Iotape apparently refers to a queen
                    of that dynasty. Here is a Roman Provincial Coin
                    <http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/4978/?search&stype=advanced&od=&od_b=o\
                    r&rd=&rd_b=or&ri=&m=&d=&i=&l_type=l_type_city&p=&r=&y_type=y_type_all&yf\
                    =&yt=&mn=&mt=&oi=&pa=&a=&w=&t=&s=&c_id-0=iota&oi_ns=&ri_ns=&c=&od_ft=&rd\
                    _ft=&yx=&rno=1> of Lucius Verus, with the city name (Iota-Omega) as a
                    monogram.

                    4. It is true that the emperors moved their client-kings between new
                    territories, and altered their realms at will - at this time, the
                    client-kings were just officials, subject to Roman authority. But the
                    client-kingdoms were usually founded along the frontiers of the empire.
                    Antiochus IV was not only granted new lands in Armenia, but also all of
                    Cilicia as well as Lycaonia to the west of Commagene; much of this
                    territory consisted of former Roman provinces well inside the empire.
                    The strategic reasons for uniting such territories into a quite major
                    kingdom (with at least ten mints) seem unclear.

                    Best regards,
                    Jens Jakobsson

                    --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, dumitru adrian <ariobarzanesro@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Dear Jens,
                    > Â
                    > there are four coins I would like to throw in the pot.
                    > Â
                    > 1. I am not a numismatist - but it seems to me a matter of common
                    sense to think that the presence of small coins weighing a few grams
                    should rather indicate quite the contrary of what you say: " that the
                    monetary economy was not very developed". One could not hope to do a
                    succesfull small business (e.g. - buying a piece of meat in the market)
                    with only tetradrachmns. Small coins available for giving the change
                    must be available precisely in a reasonnably well developped monetary
                    economy, while larger denominations (especially in silver, not to
                    mention gold) invite hoarders, and not... how should I put it...
                    consumers.
                    > Â
                    > 2. You say that "Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman
                    sphere of interest.". Well, that is a more complicated matter. Pompey
                    granted the town of Seleucia-Zeugma to Commagene in return for the
                    support that was given against Tigranes (or so it seems). Cicero, as a
                    governor of Cilicia, relies heavily on the Commagenian king in his
                    attempt to resisst the Parthians. And the king informs him about what
                    the parthians are doing.Then, Marc-Anthony besieged Samosata and, not
                    hoping to achieve a success, he stroke some kind of bargain with the
                    king (again, a rather problematic issue, since Josephus, appian and
                    Plutarch go on contradicting each other on this respect). Then, Augustus
                    comes and and takes back Seleucia-Zeugma (which is one of the few cities
                    in the area using an Actian era late in the imperial times) and Tiberius
                    turns the kingdm into a Roman province.
                    > since of all the roman rulers, only Caesar seems to neglect
                    Commagene in his affairs of state (but one should bear in mind the awful
                    state of preservation of our sources, the histories of Strabo, Nicolaus
                    and Posidoinus being lost)Â I would rather say that Commagene was an
                    object of concern for the Roman politicians.Its importance was perhaps
                    minor compared to that of Judaea (but let's not forget that there is a
                    Josephus to inform us about Judaea...), but still, it does look like it
                    gave some headaches to the Romans.
                    > Â
                    > 3. I am not a specialist in the Roman period, but could you tell me
                    more about the founding of Iotape/Aytap? Anyway, Antiochus IV is a
                    contemporary of Vespasian, so at this time, I don't think there were
                    many Cilician pirates left.
                    > Â
                    > 4. As for "Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which
                    further indicates that there was a strong bond between the region
                    and the Commagenean royal house.", I would rather blame it on a
                    (temporary) Roman grant that should account for Antiochus IV' expansion
                    to the sea. It is quite common for the Roman politics towards the
                    client-kings (and I loved Robert Sullivan's book "Near Eastern
                    Royalty and Rome"Â analyzing this kind of relations) to grant (or
                    confiscate) lands or to move them from one kingdom to another. or
                    even to create new kingdoms.
                    > Â
                    > Best regards,
                    > Â
                    > Adrian Dumitru
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@...
                    > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Monday, October 3, 2011 11:39 AM
                    > Subject: [seleukids] Re: Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
                    >
                    >
                    > Â
                    >
                    > Dear Cristian,
                    >
                    > you are of course correct that the Cilician pirates were largely of
                    > local origin. Nevertheless, the piracy and the wars with the Romans
                    that
                    > followed, should have affected life in the province negatively.
                    >
                    > As for the numismatic evidence, coins served as important propaganda
                    in
                    > most Hellenistic states. However, this required that there were
                    > recipients who could read Greek or at least understood the
                    significance
                    > of the symbols displayed on the coins. And apparently, in the 2nd
                    > century BC there were not enough such people in Commagene, as the
                    > accepted currency was ill-struck coins with nonsense legends, issued
                    by
                    > no apparent authority. (Most of them weigh only a few grams, which
                    could
                    > indicate that the monetary economy was not very developed.) If there
                    had
                    > been Hellenised people, but no central authority in Commagene at this
                    > time, the region would probably have produced coins resembling the
                    civic
                    > issues of the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
                    >
                    > Then, after 100 BC, there appears a centralised state, which produces
                    > not only a regular Hellenistic coinage but also the sanctuary of
                    Nemrud
                    > Dag, an enormous Hellenistic shrine, built on a mountain top at great
                    > expense. The Nemrud Dag inscriptions and statues strongly emphasises
                    the
                    > Commagenean connection to the Seleucids as well as to the Persians.
                    > Where did these resources come from, in such a remote area? There are
                    > few connection with any foreign powers, except possibly the Parthians.
                    > Commagene was only on the outer verges of the Roman sphere of
                    interest.
                    >
                    > I certainly admit I have no direct evidence, but a migration from less
                    > stable areas, such as the northern parts of the disintegrating
                    Seleucid
                    > realms, seems plausible. And there are later connections between
                    > Commagene and even western Cilicia. It is quite unusual that a Roman
                    > client-king such as Antiochos IV of Commagene would found a military
                    > port (Aytap), hundreds of kilometers west of his homeland.
                    >
                    > Jens Jakobsson
                    >
                    > --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, Cristian Emilian Ghita
                    > ghitacristianemilian@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Dear Jens,
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Given that striking coins is not a popular pastime, but rather
                    > strictly connected with the central authority and involves a
                    > surprisingly low number of people, I am wondering why is it necessary
                    to
                    > postulate wide-scale migration, when the arrival in Commagene of one
                    or
                    > two properly trained engravers (from any part of the Greek-speaking
                    > world, really) would solve the issue.Â
                    > >
                    > > I'm not saying that there were no Cilician immigrants into
                    Commagene,
                    > I am just concerned that you seem to mention no other corroborating
                    > piece of evidence. Could you also clarify the "invasion of Cilicia by
                    > pirates"? From what I seem to remember, it was more a matter of locals
                    > turning to piracy, rather than pirates finding shelter there and
                    pushing
                    > the population aside.Â
                    > >
                    > > Kindest regards,
                    > > Cristian
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ________________________________
                    > > From: Jens jens.jakobsson@
                    > > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2011, 16:45
                    > > Subject: [seleukids] Migration from Cilicia to Commagene?
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Â
                    > > Dear group,
                    > >
                    > > I recently posted about the early coins of Commagene: inofficial
                    > copies
                    > > of coins of Demetrius I, which soon deteriorated into badly struck
                    > coins
                    > > with charicatures portraits and illegible Greek letters. This is in
                    > fact
                    > > reminiscent of the Saka/Yuezhi coinage in Bactria and eastern Iran,
                    > and
                    > > shows that knowledge of Greek language was rare in Commagene in the
                    > 2nd
                    > > century BC.
                    > >
                    > > However, in Commagene, the imitations do not come after a proper
                    Greek
                    > > coinage, but before it. In the late 2nd or and 1st century BC, the
                    > kings
                    > > Samos, Mithradates I and Antiochos I (the grandson of Antiochos VIII
                    > > Grypos) started to strike a regular Greek coinage. This was followed
                    > by
                    > > provincial Commagenean coins during the reign of Augustus, and
                    finally
                    > a
                    > > renewed, still Greek, coinage under Antiochos IV, whose favour with
                    > the
                    > > Roman emperors was such that he was allowed to issue personal coins
                    in
                    > > his client-kingdom.
                    > >
                    > > My point here is that Greek language was established more properly
                    in
                    > > Commagene around c. 100 BC. The reason for this may have been the
                    > > migration of Greek-speaking Seleucid subjects from Cilicia, which
                    was
                    > at
                    > > this time overrun by pirates, following the collapse of Seleucid
                    > power.
                    > > This connection is further strengthened by the activities of
                    Antiochos
                    > > IV of Commagene; in the mid-1st century AD, he was made king of
                    > Cilicia
                    > > by Caligula. Antiochos IV campaigned successfully against Galatian
                    > > tribes who had invaded the province (Tacitus, Annals XII:55) and
                    even
                    > > founded the port of Iotape (Aytap) on the western fringes of
                    Cilicia.
                    > > Several Cilician cities coined for Antiochos IV, which further
                    > > indicates that there was a strong bond between the region and the
                    > > Commagenean royal house.
                    > >
                    > > Such a migration may explain why Commagene at a rather late time
                    > became
                    > > a Hellenistic kingdom, which emphasised its connection with the
                    > > Macedonian/Seleucid period. According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews
                    > > V.11.3 - as related in message 2115 <../../../../message/2115> ),
                    > there
                    > > were even a "Macedonian" regiment in the Commagenean army.
                    > >
                    > > Jens Jakobsson
                    > > www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html
                    > >
                    >
                    <Dear%20group,%20%20I%20recently%20posted%20about%20the%20early%20coins%\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    20of%20Commagene:%20inofficial%20copies%20of%20coins%20of%20Demetrius%20\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    I,%20which%20soon%20deteriorated%20into%20badly%20struck%20coins%20with%\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    20charicatures%20for%20legends%20and%20illegible%20Greek%20letters.%20Th\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    is%20is%20in%20fact%20reminiscent%20of%20the%20Saka/Yuezhi%20coinage%20i\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    n%20Bactria%20and%20eastern%20Iran,%20and%20shows%20that%20knowledge%20o\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    f%20Greek%20language%20was%20rare%20in%20Commagene%20in%20the%202nd%20ce\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    ntury%20BC.%20%20However,%20in%20Commagene,%20the%20imitations%20do%20no\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    t%20come%20after%20a%20proper%20Greek%20coinage,%20but%20before%20it.%20\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    In%20the%201st%20century%20BC,%20king%20Mithradates%20I%20and%20his%20so\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    n%20Antiochos%20I%20%28the%20grandson%20of%20Antiochos%20VIII%20Grypos%2\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    9%20started%20to%20strike%20proper%20Greek%20coins,%20which%20were%20fol\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    lowed%20by%20provincial%20Commagenean%20coins%20during%20the%20reign%20o\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    f%20Augustus,%20and%20finally%20a%20renewed,%20still%20Greek,%20coinage%\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    20under%20Antiochos%20IV,%20whose%20favour%20with%20the%20Roman%20empero\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    rs%20was%20such%20that%20he%20was%20allowed%20to%20issue%20personal%20co\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    ins%20in%20his%20client-kingdom.%20%20My%20point%20here%20is%20that%20Gr\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    eek%20language%20was%20established%20more%20properly%20in%20Commagene%20\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    around%20c.%20100%20BC.%20The%20reason%20for%20this%20may%20well%20have%\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    20been%20the%20migration%20of%20Greek-speaking%20Seleucid%20subjects%20f\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    rom%20Cilicia,%20which%20was%20at%20this%20time%20overrun%20by%20pirates\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    ,%20following%20the%20collapse%20of%20Seleucid%20power.%20This%20connect\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    ion%20is%20further%20strengthened%20by%20the%20activities%20of%20Antioch\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    os%20IV%20of%20Commagene;%20in%20the%20mid-1st%20century%20AD,%20he%20wa\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    s%20made%20king%20of%20Cilicia,%20where%20he%20campaigned%20against%20Ga\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    latian%20tribes%20and%20founded%20the%20port%20of%20Iotape%20%28Aytap%29\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    .%20%20Such%20a%20migration%20may%20explain%20why%20Commagene%20at%20a%2\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    0rather%20late%20time%20became%20a%20Hellenistic%20kingdom,%20which%20em\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    phasised%20its%20connection%20with%20the%20Macedonian/Seleucid%20era.%20\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    According%20to%20Josephus%20%28Wars%20of%20the%20Jews%20V.11.3%20-%20as%\
                    \
                    > \
                    > >
                    >
                    20related%20in%20message%202115%20%28http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seleu\
                    \
                    > \
                    > > kids/message/2115%29,%20there%20were%20even%20a%20>
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • egil4870
                    Looking through the archive on this group, I realised that this post about the independence of Commagene resulted in an article in the Journal of the Oriental
                    Message 9 of 9 , Nov 23, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Looking through the archive on this group, I realised that this post about the independence of Commagene resulted in an article in the Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society, issue 215 this spring. It was called

                      Numismatic evidence for dating the independence of Commagene to 150 BC?

                       

                      This dating is based on a reinterpretation of the numismatic evidence: The first Demetrius imitations were struck at the same time as Alexander Balas invaded the neighbouring province of Cilicia, and so were probably issued in support of Demetrius I in a makeshift mint. After Demetrius died, the coins were still struck in 149/8 BC, which suggests that Ptolemy of Commagene was a supporter of Demetrius, but did not recognise Balas. The original study of these Demetrius imitations was Oliver Hoover's

                      'Notes on Some Imitation Drachms of Demetrius I Soter from Commagene', American Journal of Numismatics 1998, pp.71-94

                       



                      ---In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, <jens.jakobsson@...> wrote:

                      Dear group,

                      another observation based on Seleucid Coins II, which I am studying
                      thoroughly. The book is a cornucopia for further Seleucid studies,
                      especially as the text seldom strays from its subject, the coins. If
                      there is another conference on Seleucid history, I'd like to suggest
                      that its theme would be new political etc. advances based on the
                      findings in SC.

                      The secession of Commagene is treated on p.207 in SC II:vol 1, based on
                      one of Oliver D. Hoover's articles. An 'unofficial' Commagenean mint
                      started issuing drachms of Demetrius I, with dies imitating those from
                      Antioch and monograms based on, but sligthly different from, that mint.
                      These coins are attributed to Ptolemy, the first governor of Commagene.

                      Ptolemy is known from an fragment by Diodorus Siculus, 31.19a.

                      "Ptolemaeus, the governor of Commagenê, who even before had shown
                      little respect for the Syrian kings, now asserted his independence, and
                      because they were busy with their own affairs, established himself
                      without interference in control of the country, being chiefly emboldened
                      by its natural advantages for defence."

                      This fragment appears before an account (31.19) of the Cappadocian
                      dynasty; I suppose the Syrian kings who were busy with their own affairs
                      would be either Antiochus V & Demetrius I or Demetrius I and Alexander
                      Balas.

                      Ptolemy is also known from the Nemrud Dag inscription of the ancestors
                      of Antiochus I of Commagene; he is listed on the left pedestal among the
                      Persians-Armenians rather than the right with Greeks-Macedonians. Nemrud
                      Dag ancestor inscription <http://www.nemrud.nl/en/tr_tekst5.php> But
                      possibly this is because the right pedestal is in fact devoted to the
                      Seleucid dynasty (and Alexander the Great).

                      SC II takes the view that Ptolemy broke away from the Seleucid Empire in
                      163/2 BCE, i.e. the first of the two periods mentioned above. To some
                      extent I can agree with this; the coins are imitations rather than
                      issues of an official Seleucid administration. But my view is that if
                      Ptolemy imitated the coins of Demetrius I, while the latter was king, he
                      had not seceded completely. I see these coins as semi-official, so that
                      Ptolemy and Demetrius I had some sort of agreement. Apparently, if
                      Ptolemy had made himself independent, he would have been concerned with
                      an attack from Demetrius. The loyalty of Ptolemy's troops during such an
                      attack would hardly have improved if they were paid with coins naming
                      Demetrius as their legitimate king. (A similar reason is one of many
                      arguments why Diodotus I of Bactria did not issue his first coins in the
                      name of the Seleucid king Antiochus II. See my article "Antiochus
                      Nicator, a third Bactrian king?", NC 2010. Though in Diodotus' case,
                      numismatic evidence supports the view that the 'Antiochus coins' are
                      later.)

                      The first Commagenean imitations, in good style, use Demetrius' regnal
                      years: one example is given for SE (160 - 153/2 BC). But when Balas came
                      to power in 150 BC, the Commagenean mint continued for some years to
                      strike Demetrius coins, for instance in SE 164 (149/8 BC). So Ptolemy
                      did not support Balas. In my view, he could have declared himself
                      completely independent because the Seleucid dynasty had expired, the
                      full independence of Commagene then beginning in 150 BC.

                      Jens Jakobsson

                      www.alexandersarvtagare.se
                      <http://www.alexandersarvtagare.se/English1.html>



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.