ANS – Northcoast Antiquarian

Aristonicus of Pergamum: Rise And Fall

The content details the historical events surrounding the rise and fall of Eumenes III, also known as Aristonicus, in the kingdom of Pergamum. It explores the political turmoil and power struggles involving Rome, rebellions, and military confrontations. The narrative also touches upon the potential for a compelling play or opera based on these events, with a focus on the character development of key figures. The text is supplemented with an excerpt from a possible libretto, where Aristonicus reflects on his fate. Overall, it provides rich material for dramatic storytelling, combining historical significance with personal introspection.

A snippet of Aristonicus’ story as “opera.”

The Roman Prequel: Tiberius Gracchus and the Bequest of Attalus III

In the late 130s BC, Tiberius Gracchus, serving as a tribune in Rome, emerged as a polarizing figure through his vigorous advocacy for the passage of the lex agraria. This legislation aimed to redistribute land from the affluent elite to the impoverished masses, engendering substantial animosity among the propertied interests. Reflecting the entrenched hostility of these interests, the Roman Senate obstructed the law’s implementation by withholding the requisite funding, thus stymying Gracchus’ reformist agenda.

In 133 BC, the political tensions reached a crescendo when Tiberius Gracchus “accepted” the bequest of Attalus III of Pergamum. Upon his death, Attalus III bequeathed his kingdom, personal treasure, and royal estates to the Roman people. This testament explicitly excluded the city of Pergamum, other Greek cities with their respective territories, and temple lands from the bequest. Gracchus sought to employ this newfound wealth to finance his agrarian reforms, viewing it as an opportunity to alleviate social inequalities. However, his opponents perceived this maneuver as an audacious encroachment upon the Senate’s prerogatives and an exacerbation of the threat to property rights and societal propriety.

**Kingdom of Pergamum circa 188 B.C. under the Attalid Dynasty**
The Kingdom of Pergamum, located in Asia Minor, was ruled by the Hellenistic Attalid Dynasty. This dynasty was founded by Philetairos, who ruled from approximately 282 to 263 B.C. In 188 B.C., the kingdom greatly benefited from the Treaty of Apamea, whereby the Roman Senate granted Pergamum extensive territories formerly held by the defeated Seleucid Empire.

In the wake of these escalating tensions, Gracchus’ adversaries felt justified in resorting to extralegal measures. In a purported “defense” of property and societal order, they orchestrated the murder of Tiberius Gracchus and unceremoniously disposed of his body in the Tiber River. A subsequent purge of his followers from the political sphere ensued, marking a dark chapter in Rome’s history. This brutal response underscored the lengths to which the conservative elite were willing to go to preserve their privileges and stifle reformist efforts.

The Challenge to Attalus III’s Bequest in Pergamum: Rise of Aristonicus

The statue of Aristonicus, known as Eumenes III, King of Pergamum between 133-129 BC, which stands in the city of Pergamum, now known as the city of Bergama, Turkey.

Meanwhile, in Pergamum, Aristonicus, the half-brother of Attalus III and son of Eumenes II and a harpist or lyre-player from Ephesus, declared his intention to seize the throne of Pergamum by right of his lineage, irrespective of the intentions of Attalus III and the Romans. Adopting the regnal name Eumenes III, Aristonicus garnered significant support, amassing both troops and ships, and commenced his campaign to conquer the kingdom of Pergamum. Initially, he achieved notable successes both on land and at sea. He raised the standard of uprising at Leucase, Phocaea joined him, and he conquered Colophon, Notium, Samos, and Myndus. His efforts were further bolstered by his ability to secure sufficient precious metals and strike them into coinage, as evidenced by the cistophorus illustrated below. The coinage series, and its significance, is discussed in an interesting 2021 article written by Lucia Carbone, “A New-ish Cistophorus for the Rebel Aristonicus.”

**Reverse of AR cistophorus of Eumenes III of Pergamun featuring two coiled serpents between bow-case and bow. BA EY, a winged thunderbolt above the bow-case and a beardless male head in field right.** ANS 1944.100.37579 American Numismatic Society

Roots and Support of Aristonicus’ Uprising

Aristonicus’ uprising was fundamentally rooted in the succession crisis following the death of Attalus III. As an illegitimate son of Eumenes II, Aristonicus claimed the throne of Pergamon under the name Eumenes III, challenging the Roman claim based on Attalus III’s testament. His campaign can be viewed through several lenses:

Dynastic Claim: Aristonicus presented himself as the rightful heir to the Pergamene throne, contesting the Roman-imposed transition. This dynastic legitimacy resonated with certain segments of the population who were loyal to the Attalid lineage.
Social and Economic Grievances: The uprising tapped into widespread discontent among various social groups, including disenfranchised citizens, slaves, and other marginalized populations. Aristonicus’ promise of social reform and liberation found a receptive audience among those dissatisfied with the existing social and economic order.
Anti-Roman Sentiment: There was considerable resentment towards Roman interference and the impending direct control over Pergamon. Aristonicus’ resistance symbolized a broader opposition to the expansionist policies of Rome and its impact on local autonomy.

Support Base

Aristonicus’ supporters came from diverse backgrounds, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the uprising:

Disenfranchised Individuals and Slaves: A significant portion of Aristonicus’ forces consisted of slaves and lower-class citizens. The promise of freedom and a more equitable society motivated these groups to join the uprising. Aristonicus’ vision of a utopian society, often referred to as “Citizens of the Sun” (Heliopolitae), aimed to create an egalitarian state that resonated with these marginalized groups [Recent scholarship provides ample grounds to re-evaluate the significance and meaning of the Heliopolitae titulature and the role of slaves/disenfranchised individuals. (see Daubner in sources below)].
Local Greek Cities: While some Greek cities in Asia Minor supported Rome, others were sympathetic to Aristonicus, driven by a desire to preserve their autonomy and resist Roman dominance. These cities provided crucial support in terms of resources and manpower.
Mercenaries and Soldiers: Aristonicus also attracted professional soldiers and mercenaries who saw an opportunity in the conflict. Their military expertise was vital in the early successes of the uprising.

Eumenes III (Aristonicus): The Struggle for Support and Survival

Eumenes III (Aristonicus) faced significant challenges in his bid to consolidate power. Despite his initial successes, he failed to win over many citizens of the city of Pergamum itself and was unable to conquer the city. It is plausible that the citizens believed they would be better off freed from royal governance and trusted that the Romans would honor Attalus III’s will by not incorporating them directly under Roman rule. Furthermore, Eumenes III did not gain the support of the kings of neighboring Hellenistic kingdoms, all of whom marched against him at Rome’s behest. These neighboring monarchs, wary of Aristonicus’ revolutionary ideals and eager to maintain favorable relations with Rome, aligned themselves against him.

Despite this formidable opposition, Rome’s local allies initially struggled to subdue Eumenes III. His forces proved resilient and capable, inflicting notable casualties on their adversaries. A significant moment in the conflict was the death of Ariarathes V of Cappadocia, who perished in battle against Aristonicus’ forces, underscoring the intensity and ferocity of the resistance. The support Aristonicus garnered from disenfranchised groups, including slaves and lower-class citizens, played a crucial role in sustaining his campaign against the combined might of Rome and its allies.

By 131 BC, the Romans were compelled to dispatch an army under the command of the consul Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus to confront the challenge posed by Eumenes III and secure the legacy bequeathed to them by Attalus III. However, Crassus Mucianus was captured by Eumenes’ forces and, after striking one of his captors, was killed. His decapitated head was sent to Eumenes III, marking a grim turn in the conflict. This event underscored the determination and ferocity of Aristonicus’ resistance, significantly alarming Rome and its allies.

The Beginning of the End for Aristonicus

Although the defeat of a Roman army could have signaled the beginning of success for Eumenes III, it was, in fact, the onset of his decline. This turn of fortune came not at the hands of the Romans, but from Ephesus. Unsettled by the new king’s numerous naval victories and conquests, Ephesus armed a fleet and engaged Eumenes III in battle off the coast of Cyme in Aeolis. The outcome was decisive, forcing Eumenes to abandon the coast and withdraw into the interior.

This defeat also marked a transformation in the character of Eumenes III’s reign. In an effort to broaden his appeal and replenish his forces, he called upon peasants from royal domains, slaves, and others whom historians characterize as underprivileged. To the slaves, he promised freedom; to the others, economic relief. His appeal was successful, and multitudes responded to his call. He named his new followers Heliopolitae [Ἡλιοπολῖται], Citizens of the Sun.[1] This utopian vision of a society based on equality and justice resonated deeply with those disenfranchised by the existing order.

Ideological Influences: Blossius of Cumae and the Heliopolitae

One must wonder if Eumenes was motivated in the “social program” of his recruitment campaign (e.g., emancipation and economic relief) by his reported association at this point with the Stoic philosopher Blossius of Cumae, a devoted ally of Tiberius Gracchus. Blossius had fled Rome after Tiberius’ murder and attached himself to Eumenes. Some historians perceive Blossius’ ideological influence in the Heliopolitae movement. Blossius, having been a proponent of the Gracchan reforms, likely brought with him a philosophical foundation that emphasized social justice and the alleviation of inequality. His presence in Eumenes III’s court suggests a continuity of the radical ideas that had stirred Rome, now transplanted to Asia Minor and adapted to the local context.

The Final Defeat and Capture of Eumenes III

In the wake of Crassus’ defeat in 130 B.C., the Roman Senate dispatched the consul Marcus Perperna to subdue Eumenes III and secure the Kingdom of Pergamum for Rome. Perperna promptly arrived, assembled his troops, and marched into the interior, where he decisively defeated Eumenes. Aristonicus had expanded his campaign inland, focusing on regions such as Lydia and Mysia, including the strategic city of Kyzikos. His efforts in these areas were marked by a combination of military engagements and political maneuvering to gain the support of local populations. Despite these efforts, Eumenes was ultimately outmatched by the superior Roman forces. Following his defeat, he fled to the city of Stratonicea, where the Romans besieged him. The siege was marked by a protracted struggle, as the Romans systematically cut off supplies, starving the city and its defenders into submission. Ultimately, Eumenes was captured and sent to Rome in chains. In 129 B.C., the Senate decreed his execution by strangulation, thus extinguishing his challenge to Roman authority.

Consolidation of Roman Rule and the Fate of the Heliopolitae

Following the capture of Eumenes III, the Romans proceeded to organize the new province of Asia, despite ongoing resistance from the remnants of the Heliopolitae. These remnants, inspired by the egalitarian ideals of Aristonicus, continued to resist Roman domination. However, their defiance was brutally quashed by the Romans, who resorted to poisoning the water supplies of their impregnable strongholds—a tactic even they considered disgraceful. By 129 B.C., or 127 B.C. at the latest, the Romans had likely secured their Attalid inheritance, fully integrating the territory into the Roman Republic.

Is there a libretto or play in the story above?

This exposition is recited with confidence that it provides rich source material for a compelling play or opera. Indeed, I have begun work on such a project, sketching the broad outlines of a libretto—acts and scenes—and have already written substantial portions. Recognizing my weaknesses in character development, I am focusing on refining this aspect. However, I am pleased with one section I have written. After Aristonicus has been captured and is in chains, he contemplates his situation. Below is a scene I have written, set to music so I have a sense of the possibilities:

Audio Music file of Aristonicus in Chains (Lyrics by D.S. Yarab, Music created using Udio.com)

Aristonicus in Chains

Setting: A dark Roman dungeon. Aristonicus, bound in chains, reflects on his fate and the enduring spirit of his cause.

Aristonicus (Recitative):

Oh fate, thou art a cruel mistress,
To wrest my dreams and cast them low.
Yet here I stand, though bound in chains,
My spirit soars, untouched by woe.

Aristonicus (Aria):

In chains, my spirit stands free,
No Roman yoke shall master me.
For in my heart, a kingdom lives,
A beacon bright, the Sun still gives.

Oh, Citizens of the Sun,
Your hope was mine, our battle won,
Not in the fields where we did fall,
But in the hearts that heeded our call.

From Pergamum’s hills to the wide sea,
Our dream of freedom shall always be.
Though walls of stone around me rise,
The Sun shall never set on skies.

Oh, Perpernas, behold my fate,
A king unbowed by Roman hate.
For even in this darkest hour,
My will remains, my soul has power.

(Bridge):

To the poor and enslaved, my voice shall reach,
In every heart, our cause I’ll teach.
No chains can hold what is divine,
Our struggle, our dream, forever shine.

(Aria da capo):

In chains, my spirit stands free,
No Roman yoke shall master me.
For in my heart, a kingdom lives,
A beacon bright, the Sun still gives.

Oh, Citizens of the Sun,
Your hope was mine, our battle won,
Not in the fields where we did fall,
But in the hearts that heeded our call.

(Recitative):

So take me now, to Rome’s great halls,
But know this truth, as empire falls:
A dream once born, can never die,
In chains, my spirit soars the sky.

SOURCES:

Africa, T. W. (1961). Aristonicus, Blossius, and the City of the Sun. International Review of Social History, 6(1), 110-124.

Daubner, F. (2006). Bellum Asiaticum: Der Krieg der Römer gegen Aristonikos von Pergamon und die Einrichtung der Provinz Asia (2nd ed., Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 41). München: Herbert Utz Verlag. [*Daubner’s work is the current definitive study on the Aristonicus uprising and the establishment of the Roman province of Asia. It challenges many of the outlines of the traditional scholarship over the past century (including much presented in my post above) and concludes that there is extraordinarily little evidence to suggest that he was the utopian social reformer that earlier scholars feared or lionized in their writings. In a sense, his scholarship is sober prose based on all the current and continuously emerging evidence whereas what came before (and what I write above) is akin to romantic poetry based on the then sparse antiquarian fragments. Yet, some scholars still adhere to the older interpretations of Aristonicus as a social reformer. See the work by Mesihović , below, as an example.]

Hochard, P.O. (2021). Quand Aristonicos s’écrit avec un E. Bulletin De La Société Française De Numismatique, 76(02), 47–54.

Magie, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press, 147-158.

Mesihović, S. (2017). Aristonik i država Sunca (Drugi dio: Aristonicus Solis Reform). Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu, Knjiga XX, 2017.[Mesihović, without taking note of – let alone attempting to address – Daubner’s scholarship, reiterates the argument that Aristonicus’s movement was fundamentally reform-oriented and revolutionary. He iterates that the movement aimed to challenge the existing social and political structures by advocating for social and democratic reforms, thereby attracting support from the lower classes and slaves. He stresses that Aristonicus’ movement was not merely a struggle for control of the Attalid kingdom but had a significant ideological dimension, seeking to establish an egalitarian and communal society, which posed a substantial threat to the established order of both local elites and the Roman authorities. The views encompassed in this work serve as the basis for an operatic libretto, as it is poetic, but may have been superseded as scholarship.]

Thonemann, P. (2013). Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations and the State. Cambridge University Press. [Of particular note is how Thonemann’s first chapter characterizes the Attalid state as an innovative and unique monarchy that emerged in the second century BC. The Attalids transformed their kingdom from a small city-state into a major territorial power, characterized by a non-charismatic and decentralized style of rule. They implemented a federative model, portraying their state as a coalition of free cities rather than a centralized monarchy, and emphasized civic participation and local governance. This approach was reflected in their economic policies, such as the introduction of the cistophoric coinage, which supported the kingdom’s administrative and fiscal autonomy. The expansion of the state was largely a result of the Treaty of Apameia in 188 BC, which redistributed Seleukid territories to the Attalids, significantly enlarging their realm and elevating their political status.]

[1] The Heliopolitae (Citizens of the Sun)

The concept of the Heliopolitae, or “Citizens of the Sun,” is a central theme in understanding Aristonicus’ revolt. This term embodies the utopian and revolutionary ideals that Aristonicus promoted to garner support from various disenfranchised groups.

Symbolism and Ideals: The name “Heliopolitae” is symbolic of Aristonicus’ vision for a new society based on equality and justice. It represents a community united under the metaphor of the Sun, which signifies enlightenment and purity. This ideological framework was used to attract slaves, the poor, and other marginalized groups by promising them freedom and a better social order.
Historical Accounts: Strabo and Diodorus provide key historical accounts that describe how Aristonicus retreated into the interior regions of Lydia after a naval defeat and rallied the oppressed classes, including slaves, around his cause. Strabo mentions that Aristonicus promised freedom to these groups, who then became known as the Heliopolitae.
Scholarly Debate: The article highlights the debate among scholars regarding the nature and significance of the Heliopolitae. Some view it as evidence of a broader social revolution, akin to other slave revolts in antiquity, while others argue it was a strategic move by Aristonicus to consolidate his power. The text suggests that while there is evidence to support both views, the primary aim was likely to use ideological rhetoric to strengthen Aristonicus’ claim and unify his diverse followers.
Religious and Utopian Context: The term “Heliopolitae” also carries religious connotations, linking the movement to solar worship and the Hellenistic tradition of divine kingship. This religious aspect provided additional legitimacy to Aristonicus’ rule and helped create a cohesive identity among his supporters. The use of the term is compared to other utopian experiments, but the article emphasizes that Aristonicus’ movement was distinct in its context and execution.

For St. Valentine’s Day: A denarius of the Roman Republic from 75 BC with an obverse featuring “Cupid with quiver and bow over shoulder”.

ROME. 75 B.C. AR Denarius. MAXSVMVS - Bust of Cupid right, with bow and quiver over shoulder; before, countermark. Border of dots — ROME. 75 B.C. AR Denarius. MAXSVMVS – Bust of Cupid right, with bow and quiver over shoulder; before, countermark. Border of dots // C·EGNATIVS·CN·F CN·N III – Distyle temple; within, statues of Libertas and Jupiter (Jupiter holds staff in right hand); above Jupiter on left, thunderbolt; above Libertas on right, pileus ; on left, control mark. Border of dots. ANS 1944.100.1970

ROME. 75 B.C. AR Denarius. C EGNATIVS·CN·F CN·N III - Distyle temple; within, statues of Libertas and Jupiter (Jupiter holds staff in right hand); above Jupiter on left, thunderbolt; above Libertas on right, pileus ; on left, control mark. Border of dots. — ROME. 75 B.C. AR Denarius. MAXSVMVS – Bust of Cupid right, with bow and quiver over shoulder; before, countermark. Border of dots // C·EGNATIVS·CN·F CN·N III – Distyle temple; within, statues of Libertas and Jupiter (Jupiter holds staff in right hand); above Jupiter on left, thunderbolt; above Libertas on right, pileus ; on left, control mark. Border of dots. ANS 1944.100.1970

In Greek mythology, Cupid is known as Eros and is amongst the first gods. Hesiod records the following:

The First Gods
In the beginning there was only Chaos, the Abyss,
But then Gaia, the Earth came into being,
Her broad bosom the ever-firm foundation of all,
And Tartaros, dim in the underground depths
And Eros, loveliest of all the Immortals, who
Makes their bodies (and men’s bodies) go limp,
Mastering their minds and subduing their wills.
Hesiod, Theogony, 116-122

Of course, in contemporary culture, Eros, or Cupid, has become associated with Romantic love, and thus, the modern contrivance of Valentine’s Day.

Image of modern cupid with bow and arrow

An Attractive Silver Didrachm of the Greek Colony of Selinus in Sicily with a Crane on the Reverse

AR Didrachm from Greek colony of Selinus in Sicily (c. 450BC). Obv: Inscription, Hercules about to club the Cretan bull. Rev: Inscription above, River-god Hypsas sacrifices at altar with serpent coiled around it; at right selinon (celery) leaf above crane. ANS 1957.172.629. American Numismatic Society.

Yarab is an Anglicized spelling of the Slovak surname Jaráb. It is a zoonym, which is a name of an animal. That animal is a crane, for in 19^th century Slovak Jaráb is akin to the Czech word jeřáb, which means crane. Accordingly, when I happened across the the above coin from Selinus, depicting a crane on its reverse, I had to learn a little bit more about the history of Selinus and the imagery appearing on this stunning coin.

Selinus is located on the south-west coast of Sicily and, according to Thucydides, was founded in 628BC by Greek colonists from Megara Hyblaea, a Greek colony on the eastern side of Sicily. It was the most western Greek colony on Sicily and one of the first Greek colonies in Sicily to issue coins.

Temple of Hera in Selinus – Photograph by Mark Cartwright

The colony covered a large and well-planned urban and sacred area. The sacred area is reputed to have had ten separate temples dating from the 6th to 5th century BC. The Temple of Hera is amongst the city’s most famous ruins.

The World History Encyclopedia article on Selinus records that the city was completely redesigned between 580-570BC and that the city is one of the best examples of ancient town planning. It also notes that indicators of the city’s wealth were the presence of a theatre, its prolific mint, and its satellite colonies (such as Eraclea Minoa, established in 570 BC).

Selinus, 5th to 3rd Century BC Wall Fortification – Photograph by Mark Cartwright

Selinus allied itself with Carthage in 480BC and was often at war with rival city Segesta on the northern coast of the island. Although initially ruled by an oligarchy, Selinus was governed by tyrants throughout the 5th century BC. Selinus was sacked by Carthage in 409BC after Hannibal besieged the city for nine days; some 16,000 of the city’s inhabitants were slain after the city fell. The city was rebuilt by the Syracusan exile Hermocrates, but was under Carthaginian control in the 4th century BC. During the first Punic War (264-241BC), the city was abandoned.

Selinus AR Didrachm of the general type struck between c.570-470BC. Selinus (celery) leaf/incuse square divided. ANS 1987.76.32 American Numismatic Society

As mentioned above, Selinus was among the the first cities to strike coins in Sicily. In Greek Coinages of Southern Italy and Sicily, N.K. Rutter records that “the obverse of the first coins had a canting type represent the name of the city in a visual form: a leaf of the celery plant, selinon in Greek, mostly presented in a stylized way with three parts, a central frond supported by a frond on either side. Later versions of the leaf are more complex. The reverse bears an incuse square, on the earlier issues divided into triangles, usually with raised and depressed sections” (p. 102). These types may have been struck from c. 530 -470BC.

The coin which is of especial interest to this post, however, was struck c.450BC and was of a very different type. Of this type, Rutter says the following (pp. 138-139):

Reverse of Selinus AR didrachm (c. 450BC). Reverse: Hypsas, river-god, standing, sacrificing over altar with entwined serpent, to right selinon (celery) leaf over crane. ANS 1957.172.629 American Numismatic Society

“A little later, perhaps around 450, Selinus revived the minting activity that it seems to have abandoned around the time of the Carthaginian attack in 480 (or perhaps a decade later) with a series of coins rich in religious imagery and references to local cults. … On earlier coins of Selinus a leaf of the celery plant had been the main type, now it is merely a small symbol in the field. The didrachms repeat the theme of sacrifice on the reverse – performed now by Hypsas the other river-god of Selinus – while the obverse shows Heracles fighting the Cretan bull: the hero brandishes his club in his right hand, while with his left he seizes one of the bull’s horns. The cult of Heracles is well-attested at Selinus and had a special interest for its citizens: it linked them to Argos, home of the dynasty that gave birth to Heracles, and also to Cnossos in Crete, where the hero had performed one of his celebrated labors.”

For those unfamiliar, Eurystheus’s demand that Heracles capture and bring the Cretan bull to him alive was the Seventh Labor of Heracles. It was a labor easily accomplished. See Apollodorus. The Library, Volume I: Books 1-3.9. Translated by James G. Frazer. Loeb Classical Library 121. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921. pp. 198-201 or, perhaps more readily available, see The Labors of Hercules.

Regarding the bird appearing on the reverse of this type and identified as a crane (which it is currently identified as in most references and databases (such as the American Numismatic Society’s database) and most trade offerings (see various offerings as recorded in coinarchives.com and acsearch.info), it was first identified as a crane as early as 1876 in the British Museum catalogue. But this identification was not unchallenged, apparently. For a period, numismatists, being uncertain, identified the bird simply as a marsh bird, and then were prone to identify it as a heron or egret. See pp. 90-91 of the following article for a discussion of this issue: Lloyd, A. H. “THE COIN TYPES OF SELINUS AND THE LEGEND OF EMPEDOCLES.” The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, vol. 15, no. 58, 1935, pp. 73–93. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42664348. Accessed 14 Aug. 2021.

However, cranes have been present in western Sicily recently (e.g. most recently in the Trapani salt marshes, an area not too distant from ancient Selinus), and have been present in western Sicily historically, and there should be no reason to doubt the initial identification of the “marsh bird” on the coin’s reverse as a crane. See Masseti, Marco. “The lost cranes of the island of Lampedusa (Italy).” Rivista Italiana di Ornitologia, vol. 86 (I), 2016, pp. 49-54.

Eumenes III and Citizens of the Sun Rise Against Rome

Today, I received and started reading another new book, which I am very much enjoying even if it does not have any notes and the photographs are deficient:

When I finish this work (which is one in a series, of which I obtained three volumes today), I will write a hopefully helpful review. In the meantime, I have been inspired to prepare a quick post about one of the coins referenced in the work on pp. 81-82.

And now, a few words about the Kingdom of Pergamum, Eumenes III, the Citizens of the Sun, their revolt against Rome, and the coin, which inspired this post.

The Kingdom of Pergamum (or Pergamon), in Asia Minor, was ruled by the Hellenistic Attalid Dynasty. The Attalid Dynasty was founded by Philitaerus, who ruled from c. 282-263 B.C. The Kingdom benefitted significantly in 188 B.C. under the treaty of Apamea, when the Roman Senate granted the Kingdom great expanses of territories from the just defeated Seleucid Empire.

**Kingdom of Pergamum c. 188 B.C. under the Attalid Dynasty**

In 133 B.C., King Attalus III bequeathed the Kingdom of Pergamum to the Roman people. What happened next is most extraordinary. Rome was in turmoil at the time the bequest was received in Rome, as it is believed to have been delivered while rioting and killings associated with the slaying of the tribune Tiberius Gracchus were occurring. It is likely that the Roman Senate did not turn its attention to addressing the bequest, and formally annexing the Kingdom, until 131 B.C. While the Senate in Rome dithered, however, in the Kingdom of Pergamum, a man named Aristonicus, who claimed to be of royal lineage (the son of Eumenes II), almost immediately proclaimed himself king as Eumenes III.

Although Eumenes III found no support in the major urban centers of Pergamum or Ephesus, he apparently found more than adequate support in many other cities and much of the periphery of the kingdom. Additionally, and most interestingly, he made a bold appeal to the poor and enslaved, which was well-received, as reported by Strabo:

“After Smyrna, one comes to Leucae , a small town, which after the death of Attalus Philometor was caused to revolt by Aristonicus, who was reputed to belong to the royal family and intended to usurp the kingdom. Now he was banished from Smyrna, after being defeated in a naval battle near the Cymaean territory by the Ephesians, but he went up into the interior and quickly assembled a large number of resourceless people, and also of slaves, invited with a promise of freedom, whom he called Heliopolitae [Citizens of the Sun]. Now he first fell upon Thyeira unexpectedly and then got possession of Appolonis, and then set his efforts against other fortresses. But he did not last long; the cities immediately sent a large number of troops against him, and they were assisted by Nicomedes the Bithynian and by the kings of the Cappadocians. Then came five Roman ambassadors, and after that an army under Publius Crassus the consul, and after that Marcus Perpernas, who brought the war to an end, having captured Aristonicus alive and sent him to Rome. Aristonicus ended his life in prison.” Strabo. Geography, Volume VI: Books 13-14. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Loeb Classical Library 223. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929, pp. 247-249.

The sources suggest that the attempt by Eumenes III and his Citizens of the Sun to remain independent of Rome required extraordinary efforts by Rome to suppress. Some scholars suggest Eumenes’ primary support may have come from areas with many former mercenaries, which may also explain why he was able to prevail for so long. Additionally, at least one reading of the sources suggest it took upwards of six to seven years for the Romans to quell the “revolt” and fully annex the kingdom as a province.

AR Cistorphorus of Eumenes III. Thyateira mint. Cista mystica from which serpent emerges within ivy wreath/two coiled serpents between bow-case and bow. BA EY, a winged thunderbolt above the bow-case and a beardless male head in field right. ANS 1944.100.37579 American Numismatic Society

Regardless, what attracted my interest to this historical incident are the beautiful coins which were issued during Eumenes’ attempt to remain independent of Rome. The coins, called kistophoroi (latinized to cistorphorus) or basket-bearers comes from the obverse type, which features a snake crawling out of a wicker basket (a cista) encircled by an ivy wreath. These unusual coins were the main silver coins of many cities in Asia minor from c. 167 BC through the reign of Augustus. What is unusual about the cistorphori of Eumenes III is that usually the Attalid kings did not mark their issues to indicate that they were royal issues or which king issued them whereas Eumenes III marked his issues on the reverse to indicate that they were issued by him. Additionally, he marked his issues as to the mint location.

The full historical backstory of Eumenes III of Pergamum may be found on pages 47-53 in A History of Pergamum: Beyond Hellenistic Kingship by Richard Evans.

Silk Roads, Rabbit Holes, and Delphic Maxims

One of the books I am currently reading is Peter Frankopan’s The Silk Roads: A New History of the World. I have just begun the work and find it both interesting and irritating. Interesting in that it has much to impart to me and irritating in that too much of the information imparted is highly superficial. Fortunately, there are notes but, alas, they are endnotes rather than footnotes.

Additionally, the information contained in the notes is sparse. The upshot of the foregoing is that when I come across a provocative morsel of information, which occurs with frequency, I am compelled to leap headlong down the proverbial rabbit hole in search of enlightenment. For instance, the following tantalizing appetizer appeared on pages 8-9 of Mr. Frankopan’s tome:

**A Roman copy of a Greek statue of Seleucus I Nicator found in Herculaneum. Naples National Archaeological Museum.**

“At Ai Khanoum in northern Afghanistan – a new city founded by Seleucus – maxims from Delphi were carved onto a monument, including:

As a child, be well behaved.

As a youth, be self-controlled.

As an adult, be just.

As an elder, be wise.

As one dying, be without pain.”

Being reasonably educated, I may claim general familiarity with Afghanistan, Seleucus, one of the Diadochi who fought for control of Alexander the Great’s empire after his death, and things Delphic; however, I may not claim any familiarity with Ai Khanoum or the particular Delphic maxim cited. Therefore, I immediately looked to the referenced endnote in hopes of being further educated about each of the foregoing as the main text provided only the tease outlined above and nothing more. Alas, a review of the endnote (number 24 in chapter 1) revealed that it only cited two works, one in French which suggested that it was apparently the repository of the original Greek inscription and the other apparently the repository of the English translation of the Greek inscription by F. Holt. The endnote provided no commentary to sate my appetite for context or illumination regarding the city, its founding, or the Delphic maxim.

Immediately putting the book aside, I fired up the mystical engine that facilitates my instantaneous access to sources of knowledge once unfathomable to my imagination, and within minutes I am able to begin to sketch out the missing context for the above tease from Mr. Frankopan.

Let’s begin our tumble down the rabbit hole with an anecdote recorded in an article appearing on the Biblical Archeological Society Website entitled Alexander in the East, which was written by Frank Holt, the translator of the Greek inscription cited in the note above:

**King Muhammad Zahir Shah of Afghanistan in 1963**

“On a royal hunt in a remote corner of his realm [in 1961], King Muhammad Zahir Shah of Afghanistan spotted a strange outline in the dry soil between two rivers. Looking down from a hillside at this confluence of the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus) and Kochba rivers, the king could see traces of a well-planned ancient city: A wall and defensive ditch stretched from the hill to the Oxus, broken only by a gateway leading to the main street inside the settlement. The shapes of many large buildings bulged underneath the thin carpet of dirt, and at least one Corinthian column rose up like a signpost of Hellenistic civilization. Here, at last, was Alexander’s elusive legacy in the East.”

And what was this elusive legacy of Alexander’s in the East? Well, to answer this, here we do well to lift generously from another scholar, Jeffrey Lerner, and his article entitled Alexander’s Settlement of the Upper Satrapies in Policy and Practice, which provides ample context for the significance of King Muhammad Zahir Shah’s find:

“Alexander’s plans for maintaining his authority over the region involved the stationing of troops in a system of strategically placed cities and fortifications. A manifestation of Alexander’s authority that was particularly directed at the Upper Satrapies was the founding of settlements denoted by Greek authors as πόλις and by Roman authors as urbs. Justin, for example, notes that Alexander established seven cities in Baktria and Sogdiana. The problem with identifying Alexander foundations is not knowing the number of cities that he or his successors founded. To date no site in Central Asia dating to the Hellenistic period has yielded an inscription bearing its name, whether in Greek or in any other language. For example, there are a number of cities whose foundations are attributed to Alexander, but apart from their names, there is precious little else known about them.”

Lerner goes on in his article to discuss Aï Khanoum, which had been the object of archaeological survey under the direction of French archaeologist Paul Bernard from 1965 until the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:

“One particularly illusive foundation that has attracted a great deal of attention is that of Alexandreia on the Oxos, which Ptolemy places in Sogdiana, but whose whereabouts remain highly controversial due to Ptolemy’s placement of the city in relation to the rivers Oxos and Iaxartes, μεταξὺ δὲ καὶ ἀνωτέρω τῶν ποταμῶν. This prompted Bernard to remark that the difficulty of reconciling the whereabouts of the city with its name is that it supposedly existed along the river Oxos, because as a general rule cities named after rivers are located directly on their banks. Apparently, Ptolemy erred in combining data on two different cities in the same description. Nonetheless, several suggestions have been made as to its location. One holds that Alexander had founded the city at Termez on the north bank of the Oxos and, following its destruction by nomads, was refounded by Antiochos I as Antioch-Tarmita, but was subsequently refounded by the Greek-Baktrian king Demetrios I as Demetrias in the second century BCE. The discovery of the site of Aï Khanoum in northeastern Afghanistan south of the river Oxos in Baktria led Bernard to conjecture that this region of Baktria was actually part of Sogdiana. To make this reconstruction work, he further speculated that upon the conquest of Marakanda by nomads, Aï Khanoum became the country’s capital with the Kokcha acting as the border between Baktria and Sogdiana. Rtveladze has argued that Kampyrtepa was Alexandreia Oxiana. Finally, the fortress of Takhti Sangin in modern Tajikistan on the north bank of the Oxos situated between Ai Khanoum and Termez has also been proposed as the ancient city. The site contains the so-called Oxos Temple in which an altar dedicated to the river god Oxos by a certain Atrosokes was recovered.”

A few lengthy paragraphs from Lerner are in order as to why Alexander would have settled some of his men on the farthest fringes of his conquests and how those men were selected and reacted to their selection:

“As a rule, Alexander employed a settlement policy in the regions of the far eastern corridor of the empire as one method of controlling these subjugated states. This practice, like many others that Alexander followed, was initiated by his father, although of course in Alexander’s case on a much larger scale. The role that cities played in achieving this goal was two-fold. First, many were so hastily constructed – literally in the matter of days – that they appear to have been little more than military colonies with names given them to connote a sense of grandeur, like ‘Alexandreia.’ Such was the case of Alexandreia Eskhate that served as no more than a frontier post. On the other hand, Alexander’s propensity for renaming existing cities, usually after himself, seems to have enjoyed longer lasting success, like Alexandreia Arachosia/Alexandropolis, and Alexandreia Areia among others. The key to understanding Alexander’s achievement with this policy was the practice of creating colonies of heterogeneous populations, consisting in the vast majority of cases of indigenous peoples and Greek mercenaries, and only rarely Makedonians. Aside from serving as the king’s direct agents in the satrapies, these settlements also had the benefit of allowing Alexander to rid himself of dissatisfied elements in the army by stationing them in remote places as punishment for their insubordination. Indeed prior to the rebellion of 325 BCE, Koenos states emphatically that Alexander had left behind in Baktria Greeks and Makedonians who had no wish to remain. As a matter of course retired soldiers received land and quite likely economic support to set up a farm. The local population, however, by all appearances did not fare as well as their Greek and Makedonian counterparts. This is especially true in the case of a captured population, such as those who were taken prisoner at the Rock of Ariamazes. The majority of those who had surrendered were given to the newly arrived settlers as slaves of the six towns situated near Alexandreia Margiana. No matter how imperfect this policy of colonizing the conquered regions in the Upper Satrapies may have been in hindsight, it did provide some measure of control, while also safeguarding communication routes, and the king’s borders. The method of founding new cities, deploying garrisons in large old cities, coupled with the creation of military colonies was to a degree based on Alexander’s policy of integration, even if it was compulsory. Yet the garrisons appear to have been generally small, ranging from a few dozen to several hundreds. The overall effect of this policy was that it served as the basis of contact between peoples and the resulting cultural interaction that might otherwise have not occurred.

Throughout his campaign in the further east Alexander established military settlements that later became cities and renamed cities after himself, though the locations of each remains controversial. Yet the veterans he left behind were hostile to his intentions and revolted in 325 and 323 BCE. For those who rebelled wanted no part in living on the fringes of the known world. Rather they passionately desired to return to a polis lifestyle replete with Greek institutions and a citizenry who shared similar values as opposed to the drab settlements in which they found themselves as just one constituent body in an otherwise mixed population. The so-called cities that Alexander constructed in less than three weeks could in no way resemble cities like Aï Khanoum of the future, for they were the products of the next period. Certainly, the numbers of these veterans had seriously declined especially after the revolt of 323 BCE, in which they found themselves a dwindling minority. They were aliens in an alien world. While they helped conquer this part of Alexander’s kingdom, they had no desire to rule it. Nonetheless, the arrangement that Alexander had established by the time of his death generally held firm as Makedonian supremacy throughout the empire existed without any serious challenges, save among the Makedonian generals themselves. The wars of the Diodochi had little effect on the indigenous populations of the empire as this was left to those charged with administering it, particularly the satrapies in the further east.”

All the foregoing suggests, therefore, that Aï Khanoum, attested in the archaeological survey as a splendid Hellenistic city in its heyday (more on this below), was likely “founded” by Alexander in a perfunctory manner with, at best, slightly disaffected veterans from his campaigns. Whether it was founded from scratch or on a pre-existing village that was simply renamed is unclear to me at this stage of my reading. However, it is clear, that after Seleucus acquired his mastery of much of Alexander’s empire, including the Upper Satrapies which included Aï Khanoum, the city acquired a mint (always of interest to this numismatist) and he invested in the city’s development.

**Hemidrachm (c. 285-281 BC) from Ai Khanoum of Seleucus. Zeus/Athena in Elephant biga. 1954.203.299 American Numismatic Association**

At this point, we may return to the ever so brief snippet from Mr. Frankopan which began this entire journey, as the larger context is now set, for the more specific illumination which is now to be provided by an extract from the earlier article cited by Mr. Frank Holt:

**Funerary monument in the tomb of Kineas in northern Afghanistan at Ai Khanoum upon which the Delphic Maxim Cited in this Post is Inscribed.**

“The Greek founder of this colony [Ai-Khanoum], which may have been called Alexandria Oxiana, was a man named Kineas, whose fourth-century B.C. shrine and tomb stood in the heart of the city. Kineas may have been one of Alexander’s soldiers, sent to settle this strategic fortress on the frontiers of Bactria. There are indications of an attack on the site soon after Alexander’s demise, perhaps part of the disturbances that took place when Greek settlers attempted to abandon Bactria. Fifty years later, under the aegis of the Seleucid dynasty, a major building phase began. True to Greek cultural traditions, the later citizens of the city enjoyed a large theater, a gymnasium with a pool, and quantities of olive oil and wine. Papyrus for writing was transported from Egypt.

These ancient Greeks built large, luxurious private homes and a great sprawling palace. Their Greek names and political titles appear on tombstones and government records. To preserve Greek values in this alien land, an Aristotelian philosopher copied the Delphic Maxims in Greece and carried them all the way to Bactria. An inscription found at Ai Khanoum explained to the colonists that these maxims were the wise counsel of earlier Greeks as codified by priests at the sacred site of Delphi. Their closing lines convey the idea of this Hellenic creed ‘blazing from afar’:

As a youth, be self-controlled.
As an adult, be just.
As an elder, be wise,
As one dying, be without regrets.”

Mr. Holt makes passing reference above to how the Delphic maxims inscribed on the funerary monument, illustrated above, found there way to the city and the shrine dedicated to Kineas. I note that the funerary monument includes the following inscription on it, explicitly explaining how the Delphic maxims came to be there:

“These wise commandments of men of old- Words of well-known thinkers – stand dedicated in the most holy Pythian shrine. From there Klearchos, having copied them carefully, set them up, shining from afar, in the sanctuary of Kineas.”

Thus, a gentleman name Klearchos traveled from the holy Phythian shrine, the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where he copied the maxims, to Ai Khanoum, to have the maxims engraved on a funerary stone. As to the Delphic maxims, the words of well-known thinkers, that would be another entire post!

Finally, if you have the time and access to the Scientific American, I recommend the following article for more background on this city and its archaeological survey:

Bernard, Paul. “An Ancient Greek City in Central Asia.” Scientific American, vol. 246, no. 1, 1982, pp. 148–159. Another recommended article is linked in the button below and explores, in depth, the literature through 2015.

I also recommend the following American Numismatic Society lecture by Michael Alram (“Money and Power in Ancient Bactria”) which surveys the numismatic history of Bactria, and in a number of places, discusses the coinage found at Ai Khanoum: