DOCSLIB.ORG

Ea R Ly Ex Cavat I O N S at P E Rgamo N an D Th E Ch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

H E S PE RIA 7I (2002) EA R LY EX CAVAT I O N S Pages295-324 AT P E RGAMO N AN D TH E CH RONOLOGY OF RHODIAN AMPHORA STAt/\PS AB STRACT The chronologyof Rhodianamphora stamps depends heavily on a collection of roughly900 stampsfound at Pergamonin 1886,known as the Pergamon Deposit.Most of the Rhodianeponyms in this groupare dated to ca. 21F 175B.C. Twopoints of historicalinterpretation are fisndamental to thesedates: good relationsbetween Rhodes and Pergamonat that time, and Rhodian garrisoningof Knidosbetween 188 and 167. Neitherinterpretation, how- ever,withstands scrutiny.The archaeological and topographic contexts ofthe PergamonDeposit, hitherto ignored, are used here to arguefor a closingdate in the late 160sor early150s, and the widerimplications for Hellenisticce- ramicchronologies are explored. The recent,revised publication of theso-called Pergamon Deposit, an in- fluentialcollection of Hellenisticstamped amphora handles, prompted the presentreconsideration of the deposit'srole in the studyof amphora stamps,their chronology, and the study of ancienttrade. Christoph Borker andJohannes Burow's Die hellenistischenAmphorenstempel aus Pergamon (PF 11)included, as Borker'shalf of thevolume, a newpublication of the collection,which was first published by CarlSchuchhardt in 1895.1Soon afterSchuchhardt's publication, the depositproved to be of considerable importancefor developingthe chronology,first, for Rhodianstamped 1. Borker1998; Schuchhardt 1895. drafts,and I hopethis finalproduct the PergamonDeposit is basedon a The presentarticle expands on an idea repaysher efforts. I alsothank Gerald reviewof publishedreports and on firstarticulated in myreview of PF 11 Finkielsztejnfor allowing me use of his personalobservation of the topography forBonnerJahrbucher (Lawall 2002). unpublisheddissertation for the in July2000. I thankmy traveling An importantsource of researchhas preparationof this articlewhile his companions,William Aylward and beenthe unpublishednotes of Virginia 2001 bookwas in preparation.I am AndreaBerlin, who enduredthe entire Grace.These files are currently stored particularlygrateful to KathleenSlane argumentwhile we hikedup the at the Agoraexcavation offices in the andHesperia's anonymous reviewers for Pergamonacropolis. All referencesto Stoaof Attalos.I thankCarolyn savingthis work from many errors. The stampshere indicate stamps on the Koehlerfor permitting unlimited access Facultyof Artsat the Universityof handlesof amphorasrather than tiles, to thesefiles and for fruitful discussions Manitobaprovided generous research loomweights,black-glaze finewares, or abouttheir contents. Susan Rotroff support. othercoarsewares. graciouslyread and critiqued earlier The followingreconsideration of American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org 296 MARKL. LAWALL amphorahandles and, later, for Knidianstamped handles. These stamp chronologieshave become fundamental building blocks for most other Hellenisticpottery chronologies.2 Furthermore,historians of ancientpolitics and trade often cite this depositas partof a largerdiscussion. For example, M. I. Rostovtzeffin 1941wrote: The [PergamonDeposit] testifies in allprobability to closecom- mercialrelations between Pergamon and Rhodes in theyears between220 and180 B.C. (approximately)....After 180 B.C. Pergamonprobably emancipated itself from Rhodes and may have organizedits commerceon differentlines.3 Rostovtzeff'sinfluence is clearin R. M. Berthold'smore recent use of the deposit: It alsoappears that trade between the twocountries broke off at this time,as Rhodianhandles from the period 220-180 are found in overwhelmingnumbers in Pergamon[i.e., the Pergamon Deposit], whilethose dated after about 180 arecompletely absent from the deposits.The reasonsbehind this break were undoubtedly basically economicand probably represent an emancipationof Pergamene commercefrom Rhodian domination, but the deteriorationof economicand political relations between the twostates is clearly morethan coincidental.4 2. See,for example, Sgora EII, WhileBerthold's reference to anabsence of Rhodianstamps dating after pp.96-110,and Sgora XXlX, pp. 431- 180 is incorrect,5his commentsmake clear that the implicationsof this 473,where the datesof the deposits the narrowerfield of Hellenisticamphora underlyingthe AthenianAgora depositgo farbeyond either largepart on perse. chronologyare based in chronologiesor the archaeologyof Pergamon thestamped handles. Similarly, see Borker'snew publicationreviews the stampsthemselves in the de- CorinthVII.3, pp.206,225,230,234. positin considerabledetail.6 Far less attention is paidto thedeposit's find- Schafer(PF2, p. 26) alsonotes the spot(Fig. 1), its rolein Hellenisticeconomic history, or to the waysin importanceof stampedhandles for whichthe deposithas figuredin archaeologicaldiscourse over the past Hellenisticpottery chronologies. verybrief de- 3. Rostovtzeff1941, p. 1479,n. 68. century.Borker begins by largelyrepeating Schuchhardt's 173-174,and discus- 4. Berthold1984, pp. scriptionof wherethe stamped handles were found.7 After further morerecently, Gabrielsen 1997, p. 67. sionof thecomposition of thedeposit (giving ranges of datesfor different 5. See Burow1998, nos.43,44,46, types,noting unusually early or late pieces, and assessing the preservation 47,57-59,9s92, 101, 108, 115, 116, of thefragments), Borker makes a very important and tantalizing observa- etc. the depositmight have resulted from the clearing 6. Borker(1998, pp. 8-9,13-14) tion.He proposesthat traditionalRhodian thedebris was then dumped largelyupholds the of a storeroom.After some unknown period, chronology.He does(p. 14, n.39) rec- intothe areawhere it wasexcavated in 1886.8Exploration of thisscenario ognizethe problemof periodIV being leads,here, to a completereconsideration of the scholarlyhistory of the 10-12 yearstoo longbut doesnot con- deposit,the historical context of Pergamonin thelate 3rd and 2nd centu- siderthe possibilitythat period III ries,and the archaeological context of thedeposit itself. Detailed attention stopstoo early(see below). onthe Pergamene 7. Borker1998, p. 5. to onegroup of amphorahandles and their small findspot too, he depos- 8. Borker1998, p. 9. Here, acropolisisjustified by the immense analytical weight placed on this notesthat Rhodian imports to Perga- it by scholarsof Hellenisticpottery, architecture, and economic history. mondid not simplycease at the close My reconsiderationof this deposit has three parts. First, scholars' use of the PergamonDeposit (cf. Berthold of the depositover the lastcentury helps explain the currentstatus of the 1984,pp. 173-174). EARLY EXCAVATIONS AT PERGAMON 297 Figure1. Findspotofthe Pergamon Deposit, with Turkishworkman holdingamphora handle. After AvP V.1, text pl. 20 depositin amphorastudies (see "History of Research,"below). Since 1907 the consensusfor the rangeof datesfor the Rhodianeponyms in the de- posithas been ca. 220-180 or 210-175 B.C. This consensushas recently beenchallenged in a seriesof worksby GeraldFinkielsztejn, who pro- posesa reviseddate of 193/>163/1 B.C.9 Thesecompeting theories can be evaluatedby closelyconsidering the two historicalpoints on whichthe traditionalchronology depended: 1) the existenceof closeand friendly Rhodianrelations with Pergamonbetween ca. 220 and180 B.C.; and2) Rhodiancontrol of Knidosbetween 188 and 167 B.C. Closerexamination of the historicalevidence (see "Rhodes,Pergamon, Knidos," below) re- vealsserious weaknesses in thesetwo long-acceptedinterpretations of thehistorical sources. Therefore, in thefinal stage of thisreconsideration, I returnto the archaeologicaland topographic setting of thedeposit itself (see "ArchaeologicalContext," below), and proposea closingdate in 9. Finkielsztejn1995, pp. 281-282; the 160sor 150sB.C., withoutdependence on theseproblematic historical 2001, p. 175. conclusions. 298 MARK L. LAWALL Figure2. Planof thecitadel at Pergamon,showing the location of thedeposit terrace. After Dreyfus andSchraudolph 1997, foldout plate HISTORY OF RESEARCH ThePergamon Deposit was excavatedin September1886 (Fig.1), and Schuchhardtpublished the stampedhandles in 1895.1°No otherartifacts fromthe areahave ever been mentioned or published.llSchuchhardt de- scribedthe findspot, marked by a redcross on theplan in hispublication, aslying between an earlier and later course of thecity wall in thesoutheast cornerof the acropolis(Figs. 2-3). The handlesthemselves were found as fill withinthe foundationsof a stonebuilding (referred to hereafteras . 10. Schuchhardtreceived a stipend tw1ce. 1n an ear..y pre. .1m1nary report fromthe GermanArchaeological In- fromthe Pergamoncampaign (Hu- stitutein 1886(Grunert 1987, p. 104). mann,Bohn, and Frankel 1888), once In Februaryof thatyear, he arrivedat by CarlHumann (p. 57: "an einer Pergamon,where he seemsto havemet andererStelle fanden sich bis zu universalapproval (Schulte 1963; Karl tausendabgebrochener Amphoren- andDorner 1989, pp. 91-97), distin- henkelmit Stempeln.Schuchhardt guishinghimself with his studyof the kopiertesie samtlich";also quoted by watersystem of the cityand the re- Karland Dorner 1989, p. 92), andin a gionaltopography; he alsoworked at moreextended description by Richard the nearbysite of Aegae.After working Bohn(p. 67, see below).The findis with Dorpfeldin Athensin 1887,he not mentionedin the laterpreliminary wenton to a distinguishedcareer more reportpublished in 1899,also covering focusedon Europeanprehistory (see
Recommended publications
  • Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S

    Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S

    Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece David S. Levene To cite this version: David S. Levene. Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece. KTÈMA Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques, Université de Strasbourg, 2017, 42, pp.73-84. halshs-01669255 HAL Id: halshs-01669255 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01669255 Submitted on 21 Dec 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Les interprétations de la défaite de 404 Edith Foster Interpretations of Athen’s defeat in the Peloponnesian war ............................................................. 7 Edmond LÉVY Thucydide, le premier interprète d’une défaite anormale ................................................................. 9 Tim Rood Thucydides, Sicily, and the Defeat of Athens ...................................................................................... 19 Cinzia Bearzot La συμφορά de la cité La défaite d’Athènes (405-404 av. J.-C.) chez les orateurs attiques .................................................
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks

    The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
  • Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League

    Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Hellenic League

    DEMETRIUSPOLIORCETES AND THE HELLENIC LEAGUE (PLATE 33) 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND D JURING the six years, 307/6-302/1 B.C., issues were raised and settled which shaped the course of western history for a long time to come. The epoch was alike critical for Athens, Hellas, and the Macedonians. The Macedonians faced squarely during this period the decision whether their world was to be one world or an aggregate of separate kingdoms with conflicting interests, and ill-defined boundaries, preserved by a precarious balance of power and incapable of common action against uprisings of Greek and oriental subjects and the plundering appetites of surrounding barbarians. The champion of unity was King Antigonus the One- Eyed, and his chief lieutenant his brilliant but unstatesmanlike son, King Demetrius the Taker of Cities, a master of siege operations and of naval construction and tactics, more skilled in organizing the land-instruments of warfare than in using them on the battle field. The final campaign between the champions of Macedonian unity and disunity opened in 307 with the liberation of Athens by Demetrius and ended in 301 B.C. with the Battle of the Kings, when Antigonus died in a hail of javelins and Demetrius' cavalry failed to penetrate a corps of 500 Indian elephants in a vain effort to rescue hinm. Of his four adversaries King Lysimachus and King Kassander left no successors; the other two, Kings Ptolemy of Egypt and Seleucus of Syria, were more fortunate, and they and Demetrius' able son, Antigonus Gonatas, planted the three dynasties with whom the Romans dealt and whom they successively destroyed in wars spread over 44 years.
  • Bauforschung

    Bauforschung

    BAUFORSCHUNG Gottfried Gruben: Klassische Bauforschung Das Forschungsgebiet Die „Bauforschung“ behandelt alles, was mit dem Bauen zu tun hat. Die technische Bauforschung, eine junge, erst nach 1945 gegründete Disziplin, untersucht heutige Baumethoden und -materialien. Die histo- rische Bauforschung versucht das ganze Spektrum des menschlichen Bauens, von der prähistorischen Hütte bis zum gegenwärtigen Hochhaus, vom Lehmziegel bis zur Stadtanlage, zu erforschen.1 Das weite Feld der historischen Bauforschung umfaßt die Entdeckung (zum Beispiel durch Ausgrabung), die Dokumentation (zeichnerische Aufnahme, Foto, Modell, Beschreibung), die zeichnerische Rekon- struktion, die Konservierung und Restaurierung (Denkmalpflege), die Wiederaufrichtung (Anastilosis), die materielle Rekonstruktion sowie die Einordnung und das Verständnis im kulturellen Kontext (tech- nisch, funktional, ästhetisch, historisch, religiös). Die Klassische oder Archäologische Bauforschung be- schränkt sich zwar (gemeinsam mit der Klassischen Archäologie) auf ein Teilgebiet der Geschichte, die griechisch-römische Antike, ist aber historisch und methodologisch die „Mutter“ der Bauforschung seit dem 15. Jahrhundert. Der hier umrissene Katalog von praktischen und theoretischen Aufgaben bildet das Arbeitsgebiet von Ar- chitekten, die Vermessung und Darstellung räumlicher Gebilde ebenso wie Konstruktion und Entwerfen beherrschen, die solide praktische Erfahrungen und, nicht zuletzt, eine breite historische Bildung besitzen. Fügen wir die conditio sine qua non hinzu: zeichnerisches
  • Spring 2019 Letter from the Chair by Andrew Feldherr

    Spring 2019 Letter from the Chair by Andrew Feldherr

    Spring 2019 Letter from the Chair by Andrew Feldherr ny of you dropping by East Pyne (and I hope you all will next time you are engulfed by the orange bubble) A will find a very different department. While we will never stop missing our recent retirees, Ted, Brent, Bob, and Christian (not to speak of Nino Luraghi, who left us to become Wykeham Professor at Oxford), the many wonderful new colleagues we have brought to Princeton during the same time period are making their presence felt all the more. This year it has been a special pleasure to welcome three new members of the faculty. Barbara Graziosi and Johannes Haubold have at last settled in East Pyne after their tremendous successes as professors of Greek at Durham, and Caroline Cheung, a scholar of Roman history and material culture, joins us from Berkeley by way of the American Academy in Rome. Each has brought exciting ideas for courses and new intellectual opportunities for us all. More reason for celebration comes from the exceptional honors won this year by our colleague Harriet Flower, who has also ended her time as Head of Mathey College. Last his term as chair of the department. It will be a fantastic spring, Harriet received the university’s highest honor for opportunity for him, and for all of us, as it has been a great achievements in the humanities, the Howard T. Behrman privilege for me to serve in that role. That privilege has been Award, and in case those laurels provided insufficient material a pleasure as well thanks to the wonderful support I received for resting, her most recent book, The Dancing Lares and from all my colleagues in the department and, in particular, the Serpent in the Garden (which really should have been the the incomparable contributions of Nancy Blaustein, our title of a mystery novel!) has just won a Goodwin Award department manager and everyone who works or has worked for Outstanding Publications from the Society for Classical in our office, Jill Arbeiter, Kai Laidlaw, Brittany Masterson, Studies.
  • PHILOPOEMEN IMMODICUS and SUPERBUS and SPARTA the Decision Taken by the Achaean League in the Autumn of 192 B.G at Aegium To

    PHILOPOEMEN IMMODICUS and SUPERBUS and SPARTA the Decision Taken by the Achaean League in the Autumn of 192 B.G at Aegium To

    PHILOPOEMEN IMMODICUS AND SUPERBUS AND SPARTA The decision taken by the Achaean League in the autumn of 192 B.G at Aegium to wage war against the Aetolians and their allies was crucial to the Greeks and their future. Greece proper had been divided for generations among several political bodies — and, in fact, had never been united into one state. Yet all those known as Έλληνες felt the natural human desire to avoid the unnecessary violence, bloodshed, and self-destruction engendered by ceaseless competition for preeminence and hegemomy in the domestic arena. The so-called “Tragic Historians” adopted these emotions as the leitmotif of their principal efforts to delineate the deeds and omissions of the Greek leadership and populace.1 Rome’s powerful political-strategical penetration east of the Adriatic sea, into Mainland Greece, particularly during the later decades of the third century B.C, undermined the precarious balance of internal Greek politics. The embarrassment which had seized most of Greece is easily understandable. Yet the Achaeans at Aegium do not appear to have been inspired by the memory of their ancestors’ resistance to the Persians. The Achaean leaders, Philopoemen not excluded, rejected Aetolian pleas for help or, at least, non-intervention in the struggle that they had started in the name of Έλληνες for the whole of Greece. Somewhat surprisingly, the Achaean leaders hastened to declare war on the Aetolians, anticipating even the Roman crossing to Greece2. These are the bare facts available to us (Livy 35.50.2-6). However, the conventional interpretation of these occurrences derived from Polybius 3 tends to be pathetic more than historical, and consti­ tute an embellished portrait of Achaean policy and politicians of those days rather than an honest guide to the political realities of the Έλληνες and Greece proper.
  • Interventions by the Roman Republic in Illyria 230 – 167 BC

    Interventions by the Roman Republic in Illyria 230 – 167 BC

    Interventions by the Roman Republic in Illyria 230 – 167 BC Submitted by Jack James Willoughby, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classics, September 2018. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… Page 1 of 181 Abstract This thesis aims to determine how and why Rome undertook a series of interventions in Illyria during the period of 230 – 167 BC. The thesis is based on a detailed examination and consideration of the ancient written sources and the subsequent historiography on the subject. The Roman interventions in Illyria during this period have traditionally been treated as a component of wider studies of Roman expansion, although Rome’s involvement in Illyria has recently been examined by Dzino in his 2010 work Illyricum in Roman Politics 229BC-AD68. This work examined the development and integration of Illyricum in Roman political discourse, in which the Roman interventions were a smaller component in the broader study. A study of the Roman interventions in Illyria during the period of 230 – 167 BC has never previously been treated on this scale, nor effectively with a synthesis of the various approaches and pieces of evidence that are now available.
  • The Fiscal Politics of Pergamon, 188-133 B.C.E

    The Fiscal Politics of Pergamon, 188-133 B.C.E

    “The Skeleton of the State:” The Fiscal Politics of Pergamon, 188-133 B.C.E. By Noah Kaye A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology University of California-Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Emily Mackil Professor Erich Gruen Professor Nikolaos Papazarkadas Professor Andrew Stewart Professor Dylan Sailor Fall 2012 Abstract “The Skeleton of the State:” the Fiscal Politics of Pergamon, 188-133, B.C.E. by Noah Kaye Doctor of Philosophy in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology University of California, Berkeley Professor Emily Mackil, Chair In 188 B.C.E., a Roman commission awarded most of Anatolia (Asia Minor) to the Attalid dynasty, a modest fiefdom based in the city of Pergamon. Immediately, the Roman commissioners evacuated along with their force of arms. Enforcement of the settlement, known as the Treaty of Apameia, was left to local beneficiaries, chiefly the Attalids, but also the island republic of Rhodes. The extraction of revenues and the judicious redistribution of resources were both key to the extension of Attalid control over the new territory and the maintenance of the empire. This dissertation is a study of the forms of taxation and public benefaction that characterized the late Attalid kingdom, a multiscalar state comprised of many small communities, most prominent among them, ancient cities on the Greek model of the polis. It argues that the dynasty’s idiosyncratic choices about taxation and euergetism help explain the success of the Attalid imperial project. They aligned interests and created new collectivities.
  • The Series of 4'S (Fours)

    The Series of 4'S (Fours)

    #1593 The Yom Kippur War and the Abomination of Desolation – The series of 4’s (fours) from Alexander the Great to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, part 5q, Antiochus IV: Antiochus IV is held hostage by Rome Key Understanding #1: Antiochus IV as a hostage in Rome. Following the defeat of Antiochus III the Great by Rome and the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C., Antiochus IV was sent to Rome as a hostage for his father for 13 years (some sources say 14 years) until 175 B.C. He was exchanged for Demetrius I Soter, the son and rightful heir of Seleucus IV (the elder brother of Antiochus IV), who ruled the Seleucid Empire after the death of Antiochus III the Great. Key Understanding #2: There is a close historical relationship between Antiochus IV and Rome, for he was held hostage by Rome for 13 years (some sources state 14 years) after Rome’s defeat of his father, Antiochus III the Great. The close historical relationship between Antiochus IV and Rome points to a close prophetic relationship between Antiochus IV and Rome (which is discussed in the next Unsealing). Roman territory: c. 500 B.C. (victory over Latium) 264 B.C. (start of the First Punic War) 241 B.C. (end of the First Punic War) 146 B.C. (end of the Third Punic War) 133 B.C. (territory in Asia Minor given to Rome) 44 B.C. (death of Julius Caesar) Battle Daniel 8:9 (KJV) And OUT OF ONE OF THEM [the Syrian kingdom of Seleucus, or the Seleucid Empire] CAME FORTH A LITTLE HORN, which waxed EXCEEDING GREAT, toward THE SOUTH, and toward THE EAST, and toward THE PLEASANT LAND #1593 The Yom Kippur War and the Abomination of Desolation – The series of 4’s (fours) from Alexander Page 1 of 2 the Great to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, part 5q, Antiochus IV: Antiochus IV is held hostage by Rome [Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but the verse should be viewed prophetically with his father, Antiochus III the Great, prominently and powerfully in the foreground, with the name Antiochus III the Great even reflecting the words “waxed exceeding great”].
  • Daniel 11:16-18

    Daniel 11:16-18

    Daniel 11:16-18 Bible Prophecy and Secular History 16 But he who comes against him will do as he pleases, and no one will be able to withstand him; he will also stay for a time in the Beautiful Land, with pdestruction in his hand. 17 He will set his face to come with the power of his whole kingdom, bringing with him a proposal of peace which he will put into effect; he will also give him the daughter of women to ruin it. But she will not take a stand for him or be on his side. 18 Then he will turn his face to the coastlands and capture many. But a commander will put a stop to his scorn against him; moreover, he will repay him for his scorn. Outline of Daniel 11 Daniel 11 has basically two parts: A. 11:1-35 B. 11:36-12:2 2014-05-11 Sunday Service Spring Valley Bible Church, Pastor Herman H. Mattox, Th.M. [Type text] Page 1 1. The First part; 1-35 covers the time from Darius The Mede (whom we were introduced to in chapter 6) to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 bc); Remember that Daniel wrote this in the 5th century, 534 bc). 2. The second part (Daniel 11:36-12:2) covers the last Gentile ruler, who is in power at the time of the coming of the Messiah, that is in the last 7 years of history promised to Israel or The Tribulation. Seleucid Kings Seleucus I Nicator (312-281 bc) Antiochus I Soter (his son 280-261 bc) Antiochus II (his son 261-246 bc) Seleucus II Callincus (his son 312-281 bc) won control of Syria after Ptolemy III returned to Egypt (Daniel 11:9) A treaty between the two in 241 bc established peace for 20 years.

  • © in This Web Service Cambridge University

    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-19000-8 - Friendship and Empire: Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle Republic (353–146 BC) Paul J. Burton Index More information Index Abydus (Greek city), 104, 242 Adranodorus (Syracusan politician), 336, Acarnania (region in western Greece), 92, 93 337 Achaean League Aemilius Lepidus, M. (pr. 218 bc), 192, 193 amicitia with Rome, 2, 102–05, 174, 181–86, Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos. I 187 bc), 210, 231, 206–07, 209–16 242 beneficia to Rome, 174, 181–83 Aemilius Regillus, L. (pr. 190 bc), 196 breakdown and dissolution of amicitia with Aenus and Maronea (Greek cities) Rome, 345–51 taken by Antiochus III, 193 bc, 342 expansionism of, 209–13, 226, 232 liberated from Pergamene control, 168 bc, and embassies from L. Flamininus, 296–99 Pergamum, Rhodes, and Athens, 198 bc, Aetolian League 102 alleged perfidiousness of, 269–78 attempts to broker peace between Rome and amicitia with Rome, 90–94 Boeotians, 196 bc, 202 breakdown and dissolution of amicitia with joins Rome’s war on Nabis of Sparta, 195 bc, Rome, 269–78 206, 209 involvement in murder of Bracchyles of embassy to Rome, 193 bc, 209–10 Boeotia, 206, 233, 239 absorbs Sparta, 192 bc, 209–10 performance at the battle of Cynoscephelae, absorbs Messene, 191 bc, 210 271 absorbs Elis, 190 bc, 210 refuses to join Rome’s war on Nabis of Sparta, treaty of alliance with Rome, 190sor180s bc, 206 81, 181–86, 206 treaty of alliance with Rome, 211 bc, 80, 81, and embassy from Q. Caecilius Metellus, 84, 90–94, 185, 269–78 185 bc, 211, 226 treaty of peace with Philip V, 206 bc, 91, 202, and embassy from Ap.
  • Studies in the Archaeology of Hellenistic Pontus: the Settlements, Monuments, and Coinage of Mithradates Vi and His Predecessors

    Studies in the Archaeology of Hellenistic Pontus: the Settlements, Monuments, and Coinage of Mithradates Vi and His Predecessors

    STUDIES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HELLENISTIC PONTUS: THE SETTLEMENTS, MONUMENTS, AND COINAGE OF MITHRADATES VI AND HIS PREDECESSORS A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) In the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences 2001 by D. Burcu Arıkan Erciyas B.A. Bilkent University, 1994 M.A. University of Cincinnati, 1997 Committee Chair: Prof. Brian Rose ABSTRACT This dissertation is the first comprehensive study of the central Black Sea region in Turkey (ancient Pontus) during the Hellenistic period. It examines the environmental, archaeological, literary, and numismatic data in individual chapters. The focus of this examination is the central area of Pontus, with the goal of clarifying the Hellenistic kingdom's relationship to other parts of Asia Minor and to the east. I have concentrated on the reign of Mithradates VI (120-63 B.C.), but the archaeological and literary evidence for his royal predecessors, beginning in the third century B.C., has also been included. Pontic settlement patterns from the Chalcolithic through the Roman period have also been investigated in order to place Hellenistic occupation here in the broadest possible diachronic perspective. The examination of the coinage, in particular, has revealed a significant amount about royal propaganda during the reign of Mithradates, especially his claims to both eastern and western ancestry. One chapter deals with a newly discovered tomb at Amisos that was indicative of the aristocratic attitudes toward death. The tomb finds indicate a high level of commercial activity in the region as early as the late fourth/early third century B.C., as well as the significant role of Amisos in connecting the interior with the coast.