sign in sign up
<<
Home , 215 BC, 223 BC, Achaeus (general), Aeolis, Attalus I, Attalus III

International Quarterly of Sport Science 2010/1

THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AND (SPORT AND POLITICS IN THE )

István Kertész Eszterházy Károly College, Eger [email protected]

Abstract

In 182 B.C. II, the king of Pergamon, renewed the games and sacrifices in honour of Nicephorus and requested that the states of the Hellenistic world recognize the games of the Nicephoria. The organization and rules of the Nicephoria were equal in the music contests of the Pythian Games and in gymnastics and equestrian events of the Olympic Games. Beside the answer of a Carian town we have only the texts of decisions made by the Delphic Amphictyons and the Aetolean League and both of these decisions contain affirmative answers to the request of the Pergamene king. Why we have no other inscriptions on this subject although in that period the political- economical connections between Pergamon and the cities of Minor were very friendly, and we have found a lot of written material? I think so that the fact that just these organizations gave fast and affirmative answers to Eumenes is ascribed to the very close political connections between them and Pergamon, which had already been established in the years of late 280s B.C. The facts of these connections are the followings: from this time forward, Pergamon strove for a close friendship with the sanctuary of in Delphi and later, from the years of 220 B.C., established a political alliance with the Aetolean League, the main protector of this sanctuary. Through the mediation of the latter, Pergamon became a strong ally of Rome during the Hannibalic War. After this and other minor wars, the victorious Rome made Pergamon the leading political power of Asia Minor. Eumenes II also wanted to show the power of his state with the renewal of the Nicephoria as an isolympios agon, and he had the support of Delphi in his ambition.

*

“Sport is just as much a legitimate area for historical study as war, religion, social conditions, politics, and any other subject traditionally taught in history departments. History is just as much a legitimate area for sports studies as physiology, psychology, pedagogy, sociology, management, and any other subject traditionally taught in sport departments.” M. Polley, Sports History. A Practical Guide, New York 2007, XIV-XV.

*

In 182/181 B.C. Eumenes II, Pergamene king, a member of the Attalid dynasty,1 renewed the games and sacrifices in honour of Athena Nicephorus (“Bestower of victory”) called Nicephoria after his numerous military victories2 and requested that the states and main institutions of the Hellenic-Hellenistic world recognize the new form of these games.3 The new form of the games meant that the organization and rules of the Nicephoria have been equal in the music contests of the Pythian Games and in gymnastics and equestrian events of the Olympic Games. This way the Nicephoria became isolympios and isopythios agon that is equal to the Olympic and Pythian Games. Beside the positive answer of an anonymous Carian town we have only the texts of decisions made by the Delphic Amphictyons4 and the Aetolean I. Kertész: The Connections between Pergamon … 18

League5 and both of these decisions contain affirmative answers to the request of the Pergamene king. Why we have no other written documents on this subject although in that period the political-economical connections between Pergamon and the cities of Asia Minor were very active, and this fact is strengthened by a very rich epigraphic material?6 But the reaction of Asia Minor to the request of Eumenes II we are not able to find in the inscriptions. It is remarkable, although, that the Delphic Amphictyons and the Aetolean League declared very well documented and in detail reasoned affirmative answers in their reaction to the Pergamene request. The reaction of these institutions can be explained by their political relations to Pergamon. If we discover the essence of these relations, we would find a newer evidence of the integrating role of sport in connection with the Nicephoria which was a typical phenomenon of cultural politics in the Hellenistic period.7

In the first place we cite the prefatory part of the request of Eumenes II to the Hellenistic world:

“[------καØ νìν διεγνωκàτες στεφαν×-] [τας τ]οëς ¡γ÷ν∙[σ τ÷ν Νικηφορ×ων συντελεÙν σëν] [¦πα]σι τοÙς —κτενες[τ©τοις ¼μÙν τ÷ν ƒΕλλÀνων, —πι-] [τευ]γμ©των μεγ©λω[ν κατª τοëς πολŸμους γεγονàτων], πεπàμφαμεν θεωρ[οëς πρáς æμ«ς τáν δεÙνα Μ©γνη-] τα τυγχ©νοντα πα_ [¼μÙν τιμÂς τε τÂς πρõτης καØ προ-] εδρ×ας δι<ª> τÁν καλοκ[αγαθ×αν καØ τáν δεÙνα ] ΜυριναÙον καØ ΜŸγωνα [*ΕφŸσιον τ÷ν φ×λων τ÷ν προ-] τιμωμŸνων πα_ ¼μÙν [καØ τáν δεÙνα καØ Κ©λαν Περγα-]  ¢ æ μυνοëς κα× æφ* ¼μ÷μ μ[ν κρινομŸνους ξ×ους, ς]  Ò ¦ ¾ δ πολ×τας τετευχ[ τας κατ τ ν ¼λικ×αν τ÷ν προση-] Ò  Ø Ò κ ντων, προκεχειρις[μŸνους δ καØ πá τÂς π λεως] ¦ Ò j διª τá καταγγŸλε [ιν μεθ* ¼μ÷ν τ Νικηφ ρια. καλ÷ ]  ¦ ¾ Ò  οåν ποιÀσετε πρŒ [τομ μν δι τ ν θε ν, ˜πειτα δ] Ò καØ δι* ¼μ«ς τ÷ν ¡νδ[ρ÷ν τε φιλοφρ νως διακοêσαν-] Ò ¾ τες καØ ¡ποδεξ©μεν[οι τ© τε Νικηφ ρια καØ τ ν ¡συλ×αν, òς-] Ò περ æμÙν ¥ρμ ζει:…”

[“… and now, having determined to celebrate as crowned the games of the Nicephoria with all our most devoted friends among the , great victories having come to us in war, we have sent you as sacred envoys… of , a man who enjoys at our court, because of his valour, honour of the first rank and a prominent seat in the theatre,… of and Megon of who are of our highest honoured friends, and … and of Pergamum, men by us considered excellent and who as citizens have attained everything suitable to their age, and who have been selected by their city because it joins with us in proclamation of the Nicephoria. You will do well, then, first because of the goddess and then because of us, to hear these men kindly and to recognize the Nicephoria and the inviolability of the sanctuary, as it is convenient for you…”] (Translated by C. Bradford Welles, RC. no. 50.)

From the text of the inscription more conclusions can be drawn. The first one is that the sacred envoys of the Pergamene king were chosen from the citizens of the capital, Pergamon, and the cities of Asia Minor being under Pergamene hegemony. International Quarterly of Sport Science 2010/1 19

This fact is in accordance with my earlier result in research that the Pergamene monarchy was the only among the important Hellenistic monarchies which regarded as its main political goal to realize the welfare of the Hellenic citizens.8 The civil character is well documented in the politics and family life of Pergamene kings; I married a daughter of a citizen from .9 And this civil character is found in the practice of the architecture of the Pergamene palaces too.10 All these can be attributed to the history of Pergamon. Namely this empire developed from a city constructed after Hellenic model into a state whose territory was enmeshed through old Hellenic poleis. The second conclusion refers to the cultural politics of Pergamon. As I have analyzed in my lecture given in the 6th Congress of ISHPES at Budapest,11 Pergamon had been the nucleus of the Hellenistic sport and physical education. The royal family itself had been in close touch with the sport life and the ancient Olympic movement as I demonstrated in my lecture given at Kanazawa in the 6th Seminar of ISHPES.12 After this is no wonder that the suitable celebration of the political-military successes of Pergamon was performed in the frame of a sport competition organized after the Olympic rules. The third important conclusion regards the religious policy of Attalids.13 They aspired to inform the Hellenic-Hellenistic public opinion of their political ambitions in the form which met the old Hellenic religious traditions. With the Altar of they honoured Zeus that is the Saviour God,14 and with the Nicephoria they honoured the goddess who was the divine protector of , the old centre of Greek civilization, and who was celebrated there through sport competitions of Panathenaea. What is more, in the arrangements of Eumenes II renewing the Nicephoria can be observed an old Pergamene ambition: to develop Pergamon, the capital of the Attalid kingdom, into a second Athens.15 This ambition can be discovered in the architectural picture of the Pergamene just as in the Attalid patronage of science and art. Consequently from the cited text of this inscription more conclusions can be drawn and these conclusions help us to understand the evolution of the close connections between Pergamon and Delphi and Pergamon and the Aetolean League which took the guard of the sanctuary upon itself. The founder of the independent Pergamon and the Attalid dynasty was the mercenary leader, .16 In 283 B.C. he rose against , the earlier general of the Great, one of the Diadochi of great power, who possessed greater territories in the north-western part of Asia Minor. After his successful revolt Philetaerus expropriated the treasures of nine thousand talentum collected there by Lysimachus.17 This time Pergamon was in existence of a status developing into a of Hellenic model. Later during the rule of Philetaerus and his successors, and , around Pergamon was constructed a smaller monarchy from the settlements of , and .18 In the beginning of the 2nd century B.C., during the rule of Eumenes II the state grew up empire and achieved its prime. This time through the close friendship and comrade-in-arms connection constructed between Rome and Pergamon the of Minor became Attalid possessions.19 The reforming of Nicephoria took place in this period. But after the completed by victory of Rome in 167 B.C. the Italian great power did not need for powerful eastern allies more. Therefore, it loosened its connection with Pergamon and finally the weakened state was bequeathed to Rome by will of its last king, Attalus III in 133 B.C.20 Already at the beginning of the one and half century history of Pergamon the leaders of the state strove to establish a friendly relation to the religious institutions which influenced the Hellenic public opinion. This way they wanted to counterbalance the illegitimate circumstances of their taking of power. This is the reason that for them it was of importance that the nephew of Philetaerus, named Attalus won in the four-colt chariot racing in the games organized in honour of Zeus at Olympia I. Kertész: The Connections between Pergamon … 20 probably in 276 B.C. The sport success was commemorated through an inscription which was written in the metric system and situated in Pergamon.21 Similarly they took care of winning the goodwill of the Apollo sanctuary in and that of the Muses in Thespiae.22 But they especially strove to gain the goodwill of the Delphic Apollo sanctuary. For this reason they gave it a very generous financial aid.23 To return the presents of Philetaerus the Delphic Amphictyons brought the following decision:

“ΔελφοØ ˜δωκαν [Φιλετα×ρωι καØ τ÷ι υÓ]÷ι *Αττ©λωι καØ τ÷ι ¡δελφ÷ι [ΕâμŸνει Περγα]μεìσσι προξεν×αν, προμαντε×αν, πρ[οεδρ×αν, προδ]×κιαν, [¡]συλ×αν καØ [τ¤]λλα ßσα κα[Ø τοÙς ¢λλοις] προξŸνοις καØ εâ- [εργ]Ÿτ[α]ις. „Αρχο[ντος ...... ]α, βουλευàντων ΑÏνÎσ×λα, Μεν©[νδρου, Τιμο ?]γŸνεους, Ζακυνθ×ου, Νικοδ©μου.”

[“The Delphians decided to give to Philetaerus and to his son Attalus and to his brother Eumenes, Pergamenians, public friendship (proxenia), priority in consulting the oracle (promanteia), the privilege of front seats at public functions (proedria), the right of speaking first at trials (prodikia), inviolability (asylia) and all such other privileges as are granted to other public friends and benefactors…”]24

The Attalus mentioned in the above inscription was the nephew of Philetaerus whom he adopted as son and heir. He gained the victory in Olympia. The prerogatives granted by the inhabitants of Delphi cannot be considered exceptional as it is proved by the last words of inscription. Quite a number of inscriptions prove that they were usually granted to all benefactors and allies of the sanctuary.25 But the aim of the Pergamene leaders was just to belong to this circle, and this way to gain the international appreciation. It can be stated that the entering of Pergamon into relations with Delphi took place with considering the mutual interests. Delphi needed money and Pergamon needed international acceptance. Both of them gained that they wanted to have. The friendly relations of Pergamon to Delphi retained their importance after the Pergamene state has become a member of equal rank in the community of the Hellenistic states. By the 230-ies the Pergamene monarchy could integrate the territories of North-western Asia Minor settled by Greeks under its hegemony and became a dynamic economic power.26 But just because of its successes, the neighbours who had different problems, acted to it with hostility. Rhodos suffered through earthquake was anxious about its mercantile privileges. In the extended from Asia Minor to India a civil war broke out and who had rebelled against the king, Antiochus III, devastated Pergamene territories. being earlier in friendly connection with Pergamon helped the rebel. To north of Pergamon existed which feared the conquering policy of the Attalids and entered into an alliance with .27 This way Pergamon fell into political isolation and it became its basic political interest to lighten this situation. This is the reason that Attalus I, the third ruler of the dynasty, entitled with the royal title, started a grandiose building programme in Delphi in 223 B.C.28 Very probably this time he began to propagate that the royal family had been originated from Telephus, the son of Heracles,29 and he had the temple of Sphaleotas (the god who causes falling) built in the holy precinct of Delphi.30 This god played a harmful role in the Pergamene myth of genesis31 and through the building of the temple the Attalid king wanted to conciliate him. Moreover International Quarterly of Sport Science 2010/1 21

Attalus had a decorative portico built there. After that this generousness also comprised the Aetolean League which protected the sanctuary. The coalition of the Aetolean settlements situated on the northern of the Corinthian Bay fought consistently against Macedonia which wanted to force the Greek motherland under its own rule. The political conflicts developed into war between 220 and 217. In this situation Attalus I gave financial aid to the Aetolians in the building of a stronghold called Elaus.32 The assistance to the Aetoleans which was openly aided by Delphi, determined the whole future fortune of Pergamon. Since in 215 B.C. V, king of Macedonia allied fought against Rome and this way began the first war between Rome and Macedonia, too. Rome wanted to avoid the war on two fronts and in 212/211 formed an anti-Macedonian alliance with the Aetoleans. The clause of the agreement of Rome and the Aetoleans declared that the friends of Aetolea could join it.33 Now the king of Pergamon made use of the occasion to loosen the above mentioned isolation of his state. He entered the war on the side of Rome and the Aetoleans.34 The finished in 205 on the basis of status quo. Macedonia contained by the Hellenistic allies of Rome was not able to give a suitable support to Hannibal and Rome was occupied with the fight against Carthago. In return of its military support to Rome Pergamon obtained the island of .35 The Attalid state earlier pressed by its enemies succeeded to loosen its isolation, what is more could increase its territory. The political success due to directly the Aetoleans and indirectly Delphi was strengthened through an action of religious politics. Here the initiator was again Delphi obliged to Pergamon. In 205, when the First Macedonian War came to an end, but the was still going on, the Roman senate decided to turn to oracles for advice on how to win the war. They instructed the decemvirs (decemviri sacris faciundis) to consult the and sent a deputation to Delphi to ask for the oracle of the sanctuary of Apollo. In both cases, the Romans were promised success if they would introduce the cult of the Magna Mater or .36 But the centre of the cult of Cybele was the settlement of in Asia Minor. After the historiographer Livius the priests of Delphi advised the Romans to ask for the support of Attalus I. After that the Romans “went to Pergamon. The king bade the envoys welcome and accompanied them in the Phrygian Pessinus. There he gave the sacred stone called the >Mother of Gods< to them and conceded to transport it to Rome.” (Livius XXIX. 11,5-7.) Considering the fact that the Pergamene kings, firstly Attalus I then Eumenes II established a friendly connection with Eposognatus, the chief of the tribe of tolistoagioi, a Gallic people living in the vicinity of Pessinus,37 indeed Attalus was the most suitable person to support the Romans. The introducing of the cult of Cybele in Rome gave an opportunity to Pergamon to bind a more close connection to Rome. After that of course the graceful Rome was not allowed to be neutral to the fortune of Pergamon. For meantime slowly the Second Punic War had finished and Hannibal was defeated in the battle of Zama in 202, Philip V attacked the Hellenic-Hellenistic states supported Rome against him in the First Macedonian War. In the dangerous situation Pergamon asked for help of Rome. In 200 Rome declared war on Macedonia and in 197 finished with success the . Pergamon remained faithful to Rome in this military conflict and in the other newer wars. Accordingly, the Apollo sanctuary of Delphi at first helped his Attalid benefactors to establish a good relation to the Aetolean League and after to Rome and later supported the Attalids to come in a closer connection to Rome. So we are able to state that every single talentum which was invested in Delphi by the leaders of Pergamon was refunded to them.38 I. Kertész: The Connections between Pergamon … 22

After this kind of antecedents broke out the war of Rome against the Seleucid Empire, the biggest Hellenistic state, between 192 and 188. This so-called Syrian War was finished through the entire victory of Rome. In the fight Eumenes II proved to be the most effective comrade-in-arms of Rome and played a decisive role in the victory of the definitive battle at Magnesia.39 Pergamon carried off the prize. Through the -treaty of contracted with the Seleucids Rome made Pergamon the most powerful state of Asia Minor.40 But Pergamon had to fight against Bithynia, and the of Asia Minor for its new territories because they set up a claim to these possessions too. Eumenes II completed these wars with success.41 Delphi was satisfied with the successes of Pergamon. In 182 B.C. the equestrian bronze statue of Eumenes II was erected in the holy precinct according to the decision of the Delphic Amphictyons.42 In the same year also the Aetolean League honoured the Pergamene royal family with gilded bronze statues. The text of decision of the League was located also in the holy precinct of Apollo.43 It seems that Delphi was the centre of the propaganda glorifying the Pergamene military victories. But of course the spectacular Pergamene successes were celebrated in other places too. Similarly in 182 were established sport and artistic competitions in honour of Eumenes II’s victories over the Gauls in the cities of Tralleis and Sardeis in Asia Minor.44 Perhaps this was the reason that Eumenes II renewed the Nicephoria competitions founded during the rule of Attalos I. This way these Pergamene organizations could surpass the similar local games in their splendour and sport value. With full knowledge of these facts it is not accidental that the request of the Pergamene king according to the new shape of the Nicephoria games was answered through the Delphic Amphictyons and the Aetolean League fast and positive. The decisions of both institutions were engraved in the basis of the statue of Eumenes II situated in Delphi.45 The Delphic Amphictyons giving a favourable answer to the letter of Eumenes emphasized the importance of the friendship between Pergamon and Rome and perhaps it pointed intentionally to its own role in the establishing of this friendship:

“When the king Eumenes … is living so that he always causes a kind of good for the Hellenes while retaining the friendship with the Romans … consequently also the Romans realizing his goodwill to them enlarged the monarchy in the firm belief that the kings intriguing toward the Hellenes must be punished but who had not been producing any trouble must get the greatest confidence from the Romans…”46

It was not by chance that the officials of Delphi esteemed their masterwork, the establishing a friendship between Rome and Pergamon as an act which influenced the fortune of the . Among the hostile Hellenistic powers took shape a balance controlled by Rome whose main beneficiary was Pergamon, one of the most magnanimous benefactor of Delphi. In this situation the king of Pergamon expressed his satisfaction through a sport organization equal to the Olympic Games. Namely he was aware of the fact that the sporting would have expressed the happiness of the body and a sport competition organized by the state would have embodied the satisfaction of the whole society.

NOTES

1)On the history of Pergamon and the excavations see Die Altertümer von Pergamon, hrsg. vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut, Bde. I-VI, Berlin 1968-1988/1989; W.RADT, Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten, Funde und Erforschung einer antiken Metropole, Köln 1988; E. ROHDE, Pergamon. Burgberg und Altar, Berlin 1982; M. ROSTOVTZEFF, The Social and Economic History of the HellenisticWorld (SEHHW), Oxford 1941, 551 ff, 634 International Quarterly of Sport Science 2010/1 23 ff, 1053 ff, 1134 ff, from the same author Pergamum, in: CAH1, 1978, VII. 590-618; R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum (Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences 53), Urbana 1964; D. MAGIE, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Princeton-New Yersey 1950; E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of 2 Pergamon, Ithaca-London 1971 ; R. E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom. A Constitutional History, Oxford 1983; H. HEINEN, The Syrian-Egyptian Wars and the new kingdoms of 2 Asia Minor, in: CAH , 1989, VII/1. 412-445; J. HOPP, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden (Vestigia 25), München 1977; I. KERTÉSZ, Hellénisztikus történelem (A Hellenistic History), Budapest 2000, 151-195, 220-232. On Eumenes II see E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon 70-129; R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy 131-186; J. HOPP, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte 3-15; H. BENGTSON, Herrschergestalten des Hellenismus, München 1975. „Eumenes II., König von Pergamon“, 235-250. 2) E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 448 ff; I. KERTÉSZ, Some Notes on Inscription IvP. no. 10-12, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38, 1998, 191-194. 3) C. B. WELLES, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (RC), New Haven 1934, no. 50. (See the cited part of the inscription in the article.) 4) 3 Syll. (Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum a G. DITTENBERGO condita et aucta), Lipsiae 1917, no. 630. 5)At the same place no. 629. 6) Conf. R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy (vd. n. 1) 148 ff; E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 166 ff; R. E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom (vd. n. 1) 78 ff. 7) I. KERTÉSZ, The Integrating Role of Sport in the Hellenistic World, in: M. LÄMMER, E. th MERTIN, TH. TERRET (eds.), New Aspects of Sport History. Proceedings of the 9 ISHPES Congress Cologne, Germany 2005, 446-449. (Belated Papers from the ISHPES Congress in Urbino.) 8) See I. KERTÉSZ, Zur Sozialpolitik der Attaliden, in: Tyche. Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik, B. 7, 1992, 133-141; from the same author Die Provinz Asia im römischen Reich, in: Krise-Krisenbewußtsein-Krisenbewältigung. Ideologie und geistige Kultur im Imperium Romanum während des 3. Jahrhunderts, Konferenzvorträge, Halle-Wittenberg 1988, 48-52. 9) XXII, 20,2; XIII, 4,2 (C 625); Plutarchus, Moralia 480C. Conf. VAN H. LOOY, reine de Pergame, in: Ancient Society VII (1976), 151 ff. 10) G. KAWERAU-TH. WIEGAND, Die Paläste der Hochburg. Die Altertümer von Pergamon V/1. Berlin 1930. Conf. I. KERTÉSZ, Neueste Ergebnisse in der Forschung des hellenistischen Pergamons, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38, 1998, 333-340. 11) I. KERTÉSZ, Pergamon: Center of Hellenistic Sport and Physical Education, in: K. SZIKORA, P. NAGY, SUSAN J. BANDY, G. PFISTER, Th. TERRET (eds.), Sport and Politics. Proceedings of the 6th Congress of the International Society for the History of Physical Education and Sport (ISHPES) July 14-19, 1999 Budapest, 25-28. 12) I. KERTÉSZ, Rulers and Horses in the Hellenistic Pergamon, in: HIDEAKI OKUBO (ed.), Local Identity and Sport. Historical Study of Integration and Differentiation. Proceedings of the 6th ISHPES Seminar, Kanazawa, Japan 2002, Sankt Augustin 2004, 165-169. 13) See E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 434 ff.; E. OHLEMUTZ, Die Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon, Würzburg 1940; I. KERTÉSZ, Sabazios-Kult in Pergamon. In: I. DIÓSZEGI (ed), Annales Universitatis Sc. Budapestiensis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae. Sectio Historica Tomus XXII. (1982), 251-259. 14) On the Altar of Zeus see E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 495 ff.; H. HERES-von LITTROW, Untersuchungen zur Reliefgestaltung des Telephosfrieses, FuB 12 (1970), 103 ff.; CHR. BAUCHHENS-THÜRIEDL, Der Mythos von Telephos in der antiken Bildkunst (Beiträge zur Archäologie 3), Würzburg 1971; E. BOEHRINGER (Hrsg.), Pergamon. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Pergamenische Forschungen 1), Berlin-New York 1972; W. MÜLLER, Der Pergamon-Altar, Leipzig 1973; E. SCHMIDT, Der grosse Altar zu Pergamon, Leipzig 1961; E. ROHDE, Pergamon. Burgberg und Altar (vd. n. 1); E. SIMON, Pergamon und (Schriften zur antiken Mythologie), Mainz am Rhein 1975; A. DAUESNE, Remarques sur la grande frise de l’autel de Pergame, REA 77 (1975), 74-79; I. KERTÉSZ, Der Telephos-Mythos und der Telephos-Fries, in: I. HAHN, L. KÁKOSY, G. KOMORÓCZY, E. I. Kertész: The Connections between Pergamon … 24

MARÓTI, J. SARKADY (eds.), Oikumene (Studia ad historiam antiquam classicam et orientalem spectantia) 3 (1982), 203-215; H.-J. SCHALLES, Der Pergamonaltar. Zwischen Bewertung und Verwertbarkeit, Frankfurt am Main 1986; B. ANDREAE, Laokoon und die Kunst von Pergamon. Die Hybris der Giganten, Frankfurt am Main 1991. 15) I. KERTÉSZ, Neueste Ergebnisse (vd. n. 10); H.-J. SCHALLES, Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der pergamenischen Herrscher im dritten Jhrh. v. Chr. (Istanbuler Forschungen 36), Tübingen 1985, 20 ff., from the same author Der Pergamonaltar (vd. n. 14) 28 ff. 16) On Philetaerus see M. ROSTOVTZEFF, SEHHW (vd. n. 1) 553 ff.; D. MAGIE, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (vd. n. 1) 4 ff., p. 728 n. 7; E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 14 ff.; R. E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom (vd. n. 1) 9 ff. 17)Strabo XIII, 4,1 (C 623). 18) R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy (vd. n. 1) 58 ff.; D. MAGIE, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (vd. n. 1) p. 939 n. 36; M. ROSTOVTZEFF, SEHHW (vd. n. 1) 553 ff.; I. KERTÉSZ, Hellénisztikus történelem (vd. n. 1) 165 ff. 19) R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy (vd. n. 1) 150 ff.; E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 92 ff.; R. E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom (vd. n. 1) 76 ff. 20) See D. MAGIE, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (vd. n. 1) 30 ff., 778-781; J. HOPP, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden (vd. n. 1) 121-147. 21) J. EBERT, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen, Berlin 1972, no. 59; I. KERTÉSZ, Some Notes on Inscription IvP. No. 10-12 (vd. n. 2). 22) Conf. E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 14 ff.; H.-J. SCHALLES, Untersuchungen zur Kulturpolitik der pergamenischer Herrscher (vd. n. 15) 37 ff. 23) See E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 19, 119 ff., 127 ff., 212, 292 ff., 368, 395, 460. 24) M. HOLLEAUX, Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques II, Paris 1938, 9-15, the text of the inscription on p. 9. 25) 3 Syll . (vd. n. 4) no. 7, 189, 423, 548, 549, 734; W. DITTENBERGER (ed.), OGIS (Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae), Leipzig 1903, no. 66, 150, 241, 305. 26) See F. M. HEICHELHEIM, An Ancient Economic History III, Leiden 1970, 32 ff., 63. 27) R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy (vd. n. 1) 58 ff; E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 38 ff; R. E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom (vd. n. 1) 27 ff; I. KERTÉSZ, The Attalids of Pergamon and Macedonia, in: Ancient Macedonia. Fifth International I, 1993, 669-677. 28) E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 292 ff. with special literature. 29) See I. KERTÉSZ, Der Telephos-Mythos (vd. n. 14). 30) G. DAUX-J. BOSQUET, Agamemnon, Telephe, Dionysos Sphaleotas et les Attalides, RA XIX (1942-43) 113 ff. and XX (1942-43) 19 ff ; W. PEEK, Delphische Gedichte, AM LXVII (1944) Nr. 1: Agamemnon und Telephos, 232-239. Conf. I. KERTÉSZ, Sabazios-Kult in Pergamon (vd. n. 13). 31)Lycophron : Alexandra 207 (ed. Mascialino). 32)Polybios IV, 65,6. On the connections between Pergamon and the Aetolians see R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy (vd. n. 1) 100 ff. 33)Livius XXVI, 24,8-15. 34) See I. KERTÉSZ, The Attalids of Pergamon and Macedonia (vd. n. 27) with the special literature. 35) E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 46 ff; R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy (vd. n. 1) 105 ff; R. E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom (vd. n. 1) 65 ff. M. P. NILSSON, Cults, Myths, Oracles, and Politics in Ancient , Lund 1951, 95: “When the Pergamene king Attalos I in 209 B.C. had acquired the island of Aegina in a not quite honest manner, the Athenians discovered suddenly that through Herakles he was related to the hero of the island, Aias”, conf. IG II2 (Inscriptiones Graecae) no. 885. 36) Livius XXIX, 10-11, 14,5-14; Ovidius: Fasti IV. 247-372; conf. E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 50-51. 37) E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 52. 38) See at the same place 57 ff; R. B. MCSHANE, The Foreign Policy (vd. n. 1) 116 ff. International Quarterly of Sport Science 2010/1 25

39) I. KERTÉSZ, Rulers and Horses (vd. n. 12), W. W. TARN, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments, Cambridge 1930, 62. On the war see Livius XXXV, 43,2-37, 45,21; Polybios XX, 1-21. Conf. B. BAR-KOCHVA, The . Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns, Cambridge 1976, 163 ff. 40)See the text of the peace-treaty at Polybios XXI, 42,1-27; Livius XXXVIII, 38,1-18. 41) See I. KERTÉSZ, Von Apameia bis Brundisium (Kapitel aus der Geschichte der Beziehungen von Rom und Pergamon), in: E. GAÁL (ed.), Annales Univ. Sc. Budapestiensis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae. Sectio Classica T. IX-X, Budapest 1982- 1985, 79-93. 42) 3 Syll . (vd. n. 4) no. 630, lines 29-30. Conf. E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) p. 293 n. 166. 43) 3 Syll . (vd. n. 4) no 629, lines 10-13. Conf. E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) p. 294 n 168. 44) See E. V. HANSEN, The Attalids of Pergamon (vd. n. 1) 458-459; R. E. ALLEN, The Attalid Kingdom (vd. n. 1) 157-158. Conf. OGIS (vd. n. 25) no. 305; L. ROBERT, Décret de Tralles, RPh VIII (1934), 279-291. 45)Syll3. (vd. n. 4) no. 629-630. 46)At the same place no. 630, lines 2-10.