Anazarbos and the Tarkondimotid kings of Kilikia. more

Anatolian Studies 58 (2008): 115-125 Anazarbos and the Tarkondimotid kings of Kilikia Nicholas L. Wright Macquarie University Abstract In the first century BC, the Tarkondimotidai, an indigenous dynasty ruling over Mount Amanos and the Pyramos basin, were officially recognised as kings by the Roman triumvir Mark Antony. The dynasty weathered the transformation from the Roman Republic to Principate and continued to rule until AD 17. Since the days of Barclay Head, it has been accepted that only two members of the dynasty issued coinage and that the royal mint was located at the kingdom's supposed capital Hieropolis-Kastabala. This paper attempts to fix the identity of the Tarkondimotid monarch who issued a series of regal bronzes in the name of 'King Philopator'. In the process, it is shown that the location of the royal mint should be moved to the city of Anazarbos, away from Hieropolis which may never have been incorporated directly within the kingdom. Ozet MO 1. yiizyilda Amanos Daglan ve Pyramos Havzasim yoneten yerli Tarkondimotos siilalesi, Romah triumvir Mark Antonius tarafindan resmen kral siilalesi olarak taninmi§tir. Siilale, Roma Cumhuriyet doneminden Principatus done- mine gegigi sorunsuz yasami§ ve MS 17 yihna kadar tahta kalmigtir. Barclay Head'in galismalanndan bu yana siilale- den sadece iki kisinin para bastirdigi, kraliyet darphanesinin de kralhgin olasi ba§kenti olan Hieropolis-Kastabala'da oldugu kabul edilmistir. Bu makalede Tarkondimotos siilalesinden 'Kral Philopator' adiyla bir dizi resmi bronz sikke bastiran kralin kimligi arastinlmaktadir. Bunu yaparken kraliyet darphanesinin de, belki de hicbir zaman dogrudan kraliyet sinirlan icinde yer almamig olan Hieropolis'ten uzakta, Anazarbos kentinde olmasi gerektigi gosterilmektedir. In the uncertain years that led up to and followed the collapse of the Seleukid Kingdom, a number of small principalities emerged to fill the void created by the withdrawal of royal force and influence. Several of the new successor states survived the fall of the Seleukids and came to play an integral role in defining early Romano-Parthian relations. Among these states was Tarkondimotid Upper (eastern) Kilikia based around Mount Amanos and the Pyramos basin (fig. 1). Strabo {Geography. 14.5.18) states: '...in my time a notable man established himself as lord of all, and was named king by the Romans because of his manly virtues -1 refer to Tarcondimotus, who bequeathed the succession to his posterity' (Loeb translation 1929). Upper Kilikia formed a 'toparchy' in Pompey's newly settled East and within 15 years would be viewed by Cicero as Rome's most important friend east of the Taurus. Mark Antony formally recognised Tarkondimotos as an allied king and the kingdom was to weather the changes in Roman leadership until the reign of Tiberius. For the general historical context of the Tarkondimotidai see W.M. Calder's review of the known relevant inscriptions in his 1912 article 'Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia', A.H.M. Jones' Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (1937: 203-07, the relevant material unchanged in his second edition of 1971: 202-05) and G. Dagron and D. Feissel's Inscriptions de Cilicie (1987: 69-71). Wherever Tarkondimotid coinage has been investi- gated, it has always been treated in the most cursory manner. It is generally accepted that only two members of the dynasty (Tarkondimotos I and Philopator) produced coinage and that the probable mint was 115 Anatolian Studies 2008 Fig. 1. Map ofKilikia Pedias in the first century BC Hieropolis-Kastabala (the example often cited being Head 1887: 618; see also Lange 1988). This paper follows two related lines of investigation to attempt to further our understanding of an illusive dynasty. The main thrust of the present investigation is to identify which of the two kings known as 'Philopator' produced an issue of regal bronze coinage (fig. 2). I also follow a suggestion posited by Burnett, Amandry and Ripolles (RPC: 575) and consider the possibility that the mint of the Tarkondimotidai be relocated to Anazarbos. Although the details are vague, an attempt to recon- struct the stemma of the Tarkondimotidai can be made based on the sporadic references in the literary and epigraphic record. A more complete Tarkondimotid prosopography is currently in preparation for future publication although the key points may be made below (see also fig. 2). Alternative genealogies have been suggested by Stein (1932: 2,297-98), Jones (1937: 437), Dagron and Feissel (1987: 70) and Lange (1988: 336). The first recorded dynast, Tarkondimotos I is called the son of Strato in an inscription from Hieropolis- Kastabala (IGR 3: 901.63). A second inscription from the same city records the names of the children of Tarkondimotos I as Laios, Philopator and Julia (IGR 3: 901.65). Cassius Dio names Philopator son of Tarkondi- motos {Roman History: 51.2) and a third son not included in the inscription, Tarkondimotos son of Tarkondimotos, (Roman History: 54.9) respectively as the successors of Tarkondimotos I. Jones (1937: 437) considers Philopator and the second Tarkondimotos to be synonymous, Tarkondimotos II Philopator (see also Magie 1950: 1338-39, n. 22; Dagron, Feissel 1987: 69). However, Laios is believed to have predeceased his father and Cassius Dio clearly states that the sons of Tarkondimotos I fought against Antonian gladiators in the year after their father's death (Roman History. 51.7.4). It must be presumed that there were at least two living sons of Tarkondimotos I in 30 BC. That IGR 3: 901.65 names only Philopator and not Tarkondimotos II, can perhaps be explained by the suggestion that at the date of the inscription - sometime before the assumption of the royal title in 39 BC - Tarkondimotos II had not reached maturity. As it is highly likely that the name of Tarkondi- motos' daughter, Julia, referred to a grant of the tria nomina by Caesar as part of the reconciliation after Pharsalos, she must not have been born until after 48 BC. 116 Wright The inscription can therefore be dated between 48 and 39. Had the inscription been erected during the earlier part of this period, it is possible to suppose Tarkondi- motos II may not even have been born. Further, as discussed below, both Philopator and Tarkondimotos II are independently represented by monograms on the coinage of Anazarbos. There is no real reason to oppose the evidence from our sources: Tarkondimotos I had four children - Laios, Philopator, Julia and Tarkondimotos II. Laios died prematurely and Tarkondimotos I was succeeded in turn by his sons Philopator and Tarkondi- motos II. A certain Styrax is known from an honorary inscription at Hieropolis to have been Trarepa xcbv (3o:giAecov, the father of the monarchs (IGR 3: 901.64). If Styrax married Julia then their offspring would be the natural heirs if Tarkondimotos II had died without children (Jones 1937: 437). However, 'father of the king' has been shown to have been employed as an honorific title in the same vein as 'friend of the king' under the Seleukids. The Styrax inscription should perhaps be viewed as an example of a titular convention for an esteemed member of the royal circle rather than a literal expression of paternity (Dagron, Feissel 1987: 69- 70; Savalli-Lestrade 1998: 203). The next generation of Tarkondimotidai is represented by Philopator II, presumably the son of Tarkondimotos II although his exact relationship to the preceding kings can not be confirmed with the evidence currently available. Philopator II is known from an inscription from Anazarbos (IGR 3: 895) and is the king mentioned by Tacitus (Annals of Imperial Rome: 2.42). A last Tarkondimotid prince is recorded in an inscription found at Antiocheia-by-Pisidia (Calder 1912: 80). The individual in question, C. Julius Strato, is honoured as one of the duumvirs of the city (Calder 1912: 108-09). Julius Strato is called the son of King Tarkondimotos Philopator, ancient proof to support Jones' view that one of the monarchs bore this name (1937: 437). In light of the existence of both Philopator I and Tarkondimotos II, it is perhaps safe to consider Philopator II as the best candidate for the father of Julius Strato, thus Tarkondimotos [III] Philopator II. Tacitus states that the populace was divided between a monar- chist and a Romanist faction following the death of Philopator II which would seem to imply that the dynasty was in a position to continue (Annals of Imperial Rome: 2.42). It was perhaps in the person of Julius Strato that the hopes of the monarchist lay. Calder views Julius Strata's tenure as duumvir as a stage in the Romanisation of the dynasty shortly before its incorporation into the Empire. Alternatively, one might see the duumvirate as representing imperial honours (a poor consolation prize?) granted to an heir on the relinquishment of his kingdom. Strato = ? Tarkondimotos I Philantonios = ? 39-31 BC I-1 ^ I Laios Philopator I Julia I ? = Tarkondimotos II 31-30 BC | 20BC-? ? = Tarkondimotos [III] Philopator I 7-AD17 C. Julius Strato of Pisidian Antioch Julia II the Younger Fig. 2. Dynastic stemma of the Tarkondimotidai giving years of reign as king One further shadowy member of the dynasty remains. A second Julia ('the Younger') is known from a first century AD statue base from Tarsos (Dagron, Feissel 1987: 69) and from a tomb at Anazarbos-Caesarea belonging to one of her eunuchs (Calder 1912: 107-08; Keil, Wilhelm 1915: 57). The Tarsos statue was erected by a native Tarsiote, in honour of his benefactor, Julia, PaoiXecos TapxovBinoTou OiAoTrccTopos 6uya- repa Tf|v vecoTEpav. Here we have further proof of Tarkondimotos Philopator as the full name of the dynasty's last king (Dagron, Feissel 1987: 71). The relevant secure dates for a numismatic study of the Tarkondimotidai are as follows. 39 BC: Recognition of Tarkondimotos I as king by Antony (Plutarch, Life of Antony. 36.2; Strabo, Geography: 14.5.18). 31 BC: Death of Tarkondimotos I off Actium (Cassius Dio, Roman History: 50.14; Plutarch, Life of Antony: 61.1). Succession of Philopator I. 30 BC: Removal of Philopator I by Octavian (Cassius Dio, Roman History: 51.2; Res Gestae diviAugusti: 27.3). Campaign of the 'sons of Tarkondimotos' (Philopator [I] and Tarkondimotos [II]), against the Antonian gladiators (Cassius Dio, Roman History: 51.7; Plutarch, Life of Antony: 71.1). 20 BC: Recognition of Tarkondimotos II as king by Octavian/Augustus (Cassius Dio, Roman History: 54.9). 19 BC: Change of name of Anazarbos to Caesarea (Suetonius, Life of Augustus: 60). AD 17: Death of (Tarkondimotos III) Philopator II and Roman annexation of the kingdom (Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome: 2.42). Several bronze regal issues struck in the name of the kings Tarkondimotos Philantonios and Philopator currently float within the above framework. 117 Anatolian Studies 2008 Tarkondimotos type I: chalkos? (fig. 3) JE 20-23mm; axis: | Obv. diademed head of Tarkondimotos I right. Rev. BAIIAEQI TAPKONAIMO-TON; in exergue OIAANTQNIOY; Zeus Nikephoros seated left on throne, holding Nike in right hand, resting left hand on sceptre. Tarkondimotos type II: chalkos? (fig. 4) JE 20-23mm; axis: f Obv. diademed head of Tarkondimotos I right. Rev. BAIIAEQI °K NAIMO-TON; in exergue OIAANTQNIOY; Zeus Nikephoros seated left on throne, holding Nike in right hand, resting left hand on sceptre. The monogram in place of the usual TAPK of the legend is a horizontal application of a\ To my knowledge, this type is known only from a unique example in the collection of Wayne G. Sayles. Philopator type I: chalkos? (fig. 11) JE 20-25mm; axis: f Obv. veiled, turreted head of Tyche right; dotted border. Rev. BACIAEQC OIAOT7AT-OPOC; Athena Nikephoros standing left, holding Nike in right hand, spear in left arm, shield resting on left leg; a in inner right field; probable date A A (year 34) in the outer left field. Philopator type II: chalkos? (fig. 12) JE 20-25mm; axis: f Obv: veiled, turreted head of Tyche right; dotted border. Rev. BACIAEQC <DIAOT7AT-OPOC; Athena Nikephoros standing left, holding Nike in right hand, spear in left arm, shield resting on left leg; a* in inner right field; no date. Philopator type III: chalkos? (fig. 13) JE 20-25mm; axis: f Obv. veiled, turreted head of Tyche right; dotted border. Rev. BACIAEQC OIAOIIAT-OPOC; Athena Nikephoros standing left, holding Nike in right hand, spear in left arm, shield resting on left leg; no monogram or date. The Tarkondimotos issues can be firmly dated to between the grant of the title BaoiAeus by Mark Antony to Tarkondimotos I in 39 BC and the latter's death in support of his Roman patron during the Actium campaign in 31 BC. Although the overall type is typically Hellenistic, the obverse imagery conforms wholly to the school of 'philorhomaios' portraiture. Far from the youthful, idealised representations of earlier eastern kings, many of whom had flouted Rome's will, philorhomaios portraits espoused the traditions of late Republican Roman sculpture, stressing gravitas, disci- pline and maturity (Smith 1988: 130-32; Fleischer 1996: 37). The exergue of the reverse of Tarkondimotos' coins present testimonial evidence for the personal relationship between the king of Upper Kilikia and the Roman triumvir Antony. It is as yet unclear whether the Philopator type belongs to Philopator I or his nephew Philopator II. Philopator I inherited a kingdom that already utilised regal coinage but ruled for less than a full year (31/30 BC). The even more enigmatic Philopator II ruled an uncertain number of years - we can only assume his reign was longer than his namesake - before his death in AD 17 (Cassius Dio, Roman History: 51.2; Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome: 2.42). Head is no help on the matter giving the simple attribution 'Philopator son of Tarcondimotus, succeeded his father' (1887: 618) without acknowledging the wider dynastic context. The probable date AA or year 34, lends no assistance without a known Era to which it relates. A possible solution would be to attempt a die analysis on the coinage in the name of Philopator and compare the number of distinguishable dies with the output of another known mint (for example, Antioch) to determine the relative production numbers. Die analysis can be used to calculate the estimated volume of ancient coinage from any one mint based on the number of identifiable dies used to strike the coins of the sample group. Obviously, the larger the sample, the more reliable the data produced. When dealing with mints that struck occasional dated issues, this process can be used effec- tively to quantify the coin output of any reign and decide whether the production rate and the historically derived regnal length can be reconciled. This approach has been carried out with some success for the late Seleukid sequence of Antioch (Hoover 2007). If there were more dies identified to create the Philopator coinage (produced at a small royal mint) than were used at a large mint such as Antioch in a single year, then it would be possible to rule out Philopator I - who ruled less than a year - as the likely candidate. Unfortunately, such a suggestion meets two great hurdles related to the very nature of bronze coinage. The first problem encountered is that bronze coins tend to exhibit wear and suffer more from corrosive environmental factors than their silver or gold counter- parts. The positive identification of die links (whilst still possible) is therefore made more difficult. The second hurdle encountered is that of die wear. Hardened bronze dies striking bronze flans would inevitably wear out faster than the same die striking softer silver or gold flans. Most die analyses have been carried out on silver coinage and therefore the annual number of dies used 118 Wright would be meaningless for comparative purposes with the Tarkondimotid bronzes. Alternatively, a comparative die study could be made against Tarkondimotos I's regal coinage. However, here we again encounter hurdle number one, the difficulty in proving positive die links between worn bronze coins. A very rough comparison of relative outputs is possible based on the representation of the two regal types in major European and American collections. The von Aulock collection contains one specimen in the name of each king (SNG von Aulock: 5413-14); the Pfalzer private collection holds seven of each king (SNG Pfalzer: 2-15) and the Levante collection maintains the same ratio with each name represented twice (SNG Levante: 1257-60). The Cabinet des Medailles in Paris holds four coins in the name of Tarkondimotos and only two in the name of Philopator (SNG France: 2.1913-18) whilst Ziegler lists seven Tarkondimotos and five Philopator issues in the smaller German collections (Ziegler 1989: 876-87). The British Museum collection lists four examples for Tarkondimotos (BMC: 21.1-4) and one example for Philopator (BMC: 21.1), whilst the American Numismatic Society holds two examples for each king, all of which remain unpublished (ANS inventory numbers 1944.100.55093-96). Arguably the largest collection of Tarkondimotid coins has been pieced together in the private (American) collection of Wayne G. Sayles. It includes 36 coins in the name of Tarkondimotos and 13 in the name of Philopator. The examples cited indicate on the basis of pure numbers that the Philopator coinage was slightly less extensive than the earlier Tarkondimotos issues. A further consideration to bear in mind is that although we have a pretty good idea of the years of Tarkondimotos I's reign as king, we have no indication of whether he produced coinage annually or only on a specific occasion or occasions. The same could be said with even more emphasis for any hypothetical coin output of the short reign of Philopator I or the reign of uncertain length of Philopator II whose rule appears - albeit from the silence of our sources - to have been relatively peaceful. A third angle of investigation can perhaps be taken by an examination of the monogram ^ that sometimes appears in the inner right field of the Philopator coinage. The monogram is one of several that occur on Kilikian coinage in the first century BC which can be disarticu- lated to read TAP or TAPK, the Hellenised rendering of Tarhufnt], the Luwian sky god. Houwink Ten Cate has more than adequately shown that theophoric names derived from Tarhufnt] were not uncommon amongst the Kilikians and other Taurus highlanders during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Among such names can be found Trokondas, Tarkionis, Tarkondemos and, of course, Tarkondimotos (Houwink Ten Cate 1965: 126- 28). At this juncture it might be appropriate to remember that Tarkondimotos type II utilised a horizontal variant of this monogram, °K in place of the TAPK of the kings name. However, it is still possible that a magistrate officiating over the production of part of the Philopator issues bore a theophoric name derived from the indigenous Luwian god. The presence of the monogram on approximately half of the Philopator issues (Philopator types I and II) suggests that there were at least two (probably three) successive issues produced in the name of Philopator or else numerous workshops active concurrently. The addition of the date AA on some of the monogrammed issues (type I) makes successive issues more likely than multiple workshops. Beyond this, the intermittent presence of the monogram on the regal issues tells us very little. Looking at the civic bronze issues of Anazarbos however, places the monogram of the Philopator regal issue in a very different context. Anazarbos produced three different civic coin types (all in bronze) in the first century BC, before its refoundation as Caesarea in a sycophantic notion by the newly restored Tarkondimotos II (Suetonius, Life of Augustus: 60; Jones 1937: 204-05). Following its refoundation, Caesarea-Anazarbos did not mint civic coins until the reign of Claudius (RPC: 4259- 61). Each civic type carried one of five monograms. The three types together with their monogram variants are as follows. Anazarbos type I: chalkos? (fig. 5) JE 20-23mm; axis: f Obv. laureate head of Zeus right; dotted border. Rev. ANAZAPBEQN; Tyche standing left, holding ears of grain in right hand, cornucopia in left arm; wreath border; f. in left field (Zeigler 1993: nos 2-4a). Anazarbos type Ha: chalkos? (fig. 6) JE 20-23mm; axis: f Obv. laureate head of Zeus right; dotted border. Rev. ANAZAPBEQN; Zeus Nikephoros seated left on throne, holding Nike in right hand, resting left hand on sceptre; % in left field (Zeigler 1993: nos. 17-20). Anazarbos type lib: chalkos? (fig. 7) JE 20-23mm; axis: f Obv. as above. Rev. as above; 4 in left field (Zeigler 1993: nos. 6-16). Anazarbos type He: chalkos? (fig. 8) JE 20-23mm; axis: f Obv. as above. Rev. as above; PP in left field (Zeigler 1993: nos. 21-28). 119 Anatolian Studies 2008 Anazarbos type Ilia: hemi-chalkos? (fig. 9) M 17-19mm; axis: f Obv: helmeted bust of Athena right. Rev: ANAZAPBEQN; plough; i in left field (Zeigler 1993: no. 1). Anazarbos type Illb: hemi-chalkos? (fig. 10) /E 17-19mm; axis: f Obv: as above. Rev: as above; $ in upper left field; probable date AN (year 51) in lower left field (Zeigler 1993: no. 5). Zeigler (1993: 217-20) attempted a die study of the Anazarbos types which indicated that all were relatively small emissions. Although up to 11 reverse dies were identified for Anazarbos type lib and eight for lie, no other type utilised more than four reverse dies. No type used more than a single obverse die. As can be seen by a quick examination of the list of types, Anazarbos types I and II are distinguished by both reverse type and mutually exclusive monograms. Anazarbos type III bore monograms that link it to both types I and II independently and the smaller diameter might suggest that it served as a bronze fraction for the other two types. Based on the late Seleukid standard, Anazarbos I and II equate to chalkoi, whilst Anazarbos III is closer to a hemi-chalkos. On this matter though, it must be noted that Zeigler (1993: 217-20) employs the denominations tetrachalkoi and dichalkoi respectively. Monogram a (read as OlAOr), present on Anazarbos types I and Ilia, bears no similarity to the other series of monograms. The reverse type of Anazarbos II replicates exactly that used on the royal coinage of Tarkondimotos I - the monograms can all be made out of TAP or TAPK. Monogram present on Anazarbos type Ha, is identical to that on the dated Philopator regal coinage and the unique Tarkondimotos I regal issue (type II) where it replaces the letters TAPK in the legend. The chance that every magistrate whose monogram appears on Anazarbos' civic coinage bore either a Tarhu(nt) or (DIAOT- derived name - names very similar to their dynasts - is almost beyond belief, especially as we have seen the °K monogram being used by Tarkondimotos I. I would propose that following Octavian's removal of Philopator I's royal title in 30 BC, the latter continued to rule Upper Kilikia as dynast. Cassius Dio's account of the campaign of the sons of Tarkondimotos I against the Antonian gladiators would seem to support this view (Roman History: 51.7). It follows then that the monograms of the Anazarbos civic coinage relate directly to the Tarkondimotid dynasts who continued to rule over their hereditary territory minus the royal title. Indeed, Wayne Sayles has suggested quite plausibly that the reverse type of Anazarbos I, showing Tyche standing holding ears of grain and a cornucopia within a (victory) wreath may be a commemorative issue produced following victories over the gladiators (personal communication). Anazarbos did not issue any civic coins without the above monograms. These appear to link firmly the civic issues to the dynasty and the coins should perhaps be termed quasi-autonomous rather than civic. We know that both the dethroned Philopator I and the future Tarkondimotos II were active in the period between 30 and 20 BC (the removal and restoration of the royal title respectively). At some point in the decade, Philopator I appears to have died and was succeeded by his brother as dynast and later as king. Therefore, chronologically, f - the OIAOT monogram of Philopator I - should date Anazarbos type I and the associated type Ilia earlier than types II or Illb. The three variant monograms (A, W) employed on Anazarbos type II, whilst all representing Tarkondimotos II, perhaps point towards three different issues, one of which (lib) was produced contemporane- ously with Anazarbos type Illb. Following the grant of royal title to Tarkondimotos II and the refoundation of Anazarbos as Caesarea, the city failed to produce any further civic coinage until after its incorporation into Roman Syria. Dividing the four quasi-municipal coin issues of Anazarbos (type I and three separate issues of type II as suggested by the monograms) between the years 30-20 BC roughly equates to a single issue every two and a half years. Beyond the dated issue of Anazarbos type Illb, there is no evidence to distinguish an internal chronology for the separate issues of type II. A broad chronology of the Anazarbos civic issues should therefore run as follows. 30-ca 28/27 BC: Anazarbos types I and Ilia (monogram *) ca 28/27-20 BC: Anazarbos types II and Illb (monograms W) I do not believe that a city which did not come to any prominence until the rule of the Tarkondimotidai (Gough 1952: 85; Sayles 2000: 124) would suddenly begin to mint coinage bearing monograms of the ruling dynasts during an official interregnum and cease minting upon the re-establishment of the monarchy. Especially not when Anazarbos had been singled out for refoundation - presumably involving major building works - as a symbol of the prominence of the city within the kingdom and the friendship held between the king and the Roman princeps. It is no stretch of the imagination to suggest that when Tarkondimotos I was recognised as king by Mark Antony, he established his royal mint at Anazarbos. 120 Wright The city was not only situated close by the Roman provincial capital of Adana and therefore suitable for administration, but also gifted with strong natural defences - defences that may have been the origin of the city's name and almost certainly the reason for the city's existence (Gough 1952: 88,92). Of course, if the city was the Tarkondimotid royal mint under Tarkondimotos I and a quasi-municipal mint under Philopator I and Tarkondi- motos II, it follows that it would also be the likely royal mint for Philopator II. Philopator II ruled after the refoundation and we have already seen that no civic issues were produced by the city between 19 BC and the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54; see Zeigler 1993: 221). Although 20 BC marked the stabilisation of Romano- Parthian relations and likely reduced the need for military pay it seems unreasonable to assume no coin issues were required by the Tarkondimotidai between then and the dissolution of the monarchy 37 years later (AD 17). The most reasonable explanation would be to assign the Philopator regal coinage to Philopator II, struck at Anazarbos. The marked stylistic changes of the imagery and legend between the Tarkondimotos and Philopator regal issues are therefore given at least 12 years to develop, probably more. Beyond speculation, monogram ^ which was employed on Anazarbos coin type II is replicated on Tarkondimotos type II and both the dated and one of the undated Philopator regal issues (types I and II). This would seem to link the issue with the mint but also goes further to confirm the identity of King Philopator. Although the king mentioned by Tacitus is merely called Philopator (Annals of Imperial Rome: 2.42), the epigraphic evidence summarised above suggests that his full name may have been Tarkondi- motos Philopator. On the regal coin issues, the 'Tarkondimotos' part of his name may be alluded to by the monogram, which is situated in the inner right field, between the BAC IAEQC and the OIAOTTAT- OPOC, and aligned along the same axis. The dated issues of Philopator type I and Anazarbos type Illb (monogram 4) could be used to provide a more structured internal chronology if only the question of Era could be resolved. There was no fixed dating convention for coinage in the Hellenistic world; where dates were used, they were expressed using a combination of Greek letter characters in the left or right field or below the ground line on the reverse of the coin. The Seleukids dated their issues according to an Era initiated in 312 BC with Seleukos I's return to Babylon; the Ptolemies dated their coinage according to the regnal year of the current monarch. While some cities and dynasts continued to use the Seleukid Era following the breakup of the kingdom, others used local Eras based upon the year they achieved autonomy. Many cities in the Levant changed to a 'Pompeian Era' following the imperator's eastern settlement. The four plausible Eras for the coinage of the Tarkondimotid state are as follows. 1) An Era based on Tarkondimotos I's accession as toparch dated around 70 BC: this would date the Philopator issues to 36 BC and Anazarbos Illb to 19 BC. This Era is favoured by Sayles who views the plough reverse of Anazarbos III as a reference to the refoun- dation of Anazarbos as Caesarea in 19 BC (personal communication). However, the system possesses historic and stylistic problems in dating the Philopator bronzes to 36 BC, five years before the death of Tarkondimotos I. 2) The Pompeian Era of 64/63 BC: this Era would date the Philopator bronzes to 30/29 BC, at the end of the brief reign of Philopator I and make the Anazarbos Illb issues fall within the reign of his brother Tarkondimotos II in 13/12 BC. However, as Tarkondimotos II was officially recognised as king in 20 BC and Anazarbos was renamed Caesarea in 19 BC, an issue omitting the king's title and employing the city's old name so soon after the restoration and refoundation raises its own significant problems. 3) An Era dated from Mark Antony's initial grant of royal title to Tarkondimotos I in 39 BC: this would date the Philopator issues to 5 BC and Anazarbos Illb to AD 13. Whilst helpfully dating the Philopator issues to Philopator II, this system has the same problem regarding the legend on Anazarbos type Illb and carries the added problem of placing a reigning Tarkondimotos after Tarkondimotos III Philopator II. 4) An Era based on Octavian's restoration of the kingdom in 20 BC: this would date the Philopator issues to AD 14 and Anazarbos type Illb to AD 31. As with the last Era, this is suitable for the Philopator bronzes but dates type Illb 14 years after the fall of the dynasty. If one felt compelled to choose a single Era system, the answer must be one that is not immediately apparent. However, there is no over-riding reason that both dated issues need relate to the same system. Gaza continued to employ the Seleukid Era during the early years of its autonomy in the second century BC, only switching to a local Era following its liberation from the Hasmonaeans in 61/60 BC (SNG ANS 6: 905-08). The contemporary Ituraean tetrarchs of Chalkis in the Massyas valley are known to have employed the Seleukid Era on their earliest bronze coinage, switching to the Pompeian Era shortly after Pompey's eastern settlement. They later reverted back to the Seleukid system in the following generation (Herman 2006: 54). At the risk of being accused of fitting a square peg in a round hole, if such a scenario could be transferred from the Massyas valley to the basin of the Pyramos, it is conceivable that the Tarkondimotidai may have also changed their dating system at some point. 121 Anatolian Studies 2008 By initially utilising a Tarkondimotid Era (year 1 = 70 BC), Anazarbos Illb could be dated to 19 BC, immedi- ately before the refoundation of Anazarbos as Caesarea. Any new construction work involved in the refoundation of the city would require state-paid labour. There may even have been a donative intention for the issue in celebration of the refoundation, although the uniformity of the type and lack of direct reference to the public works would argue against the suggestion. Such a date might also explain why the contemporary lib issue had such a dramatically increased production compared to the other quasi-municipal types (Zeigler 1993: 217-20). Working with the two-Era system, we may then conjecture that the Philopator bronzes might utilise a Restoration Era (year 1 = 20 BC) dating them to AD 14, during the reign of Philopator II. It is speculative but certainly historically sound to suggest that the dated Philopator bronzes preceded their undated counterparts. It often seems to have been the case in the ancient world that the initial emission of a ruler carried a date which may or may not have appeared on subsequent issues. Using a Restoration Era for the dated Philopator type I issue coincides with the accession of Tiberius in Rome and might commemorate the recognition of Philopator H's right to produce regal coinage, the first regal coinage for the dynasty since the death of Tarkondimotos I. The long break between 19 BC and AD 14 would also explain the stylistic change that occurred between the regal Tarkondimotos and quasi-municipal issues on the one hand and the stylistically unique Philopator regal issues on the other. The tentative chronology may therefore run as follows. 39-31 BC: Tarkondimotos I regal coinage. 30-ca 28/27 BC: Anazarbos types I and Ilia produced by Philopator I as dynast, ca 28/27-20 BC: Anazarbos types Ha and lie produced by Tarkondimotos II as dynast. 19 BC: Anazarbos types lib and Illb produced by Tarkondimotos II as king but without the right to strike regal coinage. AD 14-17: Philopator II regal coinage. What then of Hieropolis-Kastabala, the erstwhile mint of the Tarkondimotidai? Several inscriptions at Hieropolis honour members of the Tarkondimotid dynasty and one even suggests that there was a royal governor in the city (IGR 3: 901.66). Although this last inscription calls Isidoros the king's friend and the phylarch of Kastabalis, it nevertheless states that he was elected to his position as strategos of the city and calls the city holy, inviolable and autonomous. In the scant historical and epigraphic sources, Hieropolis is nowhere referred to as the kingdom's capital and it is quite possible that it was considered an entity that was closely related to the kingdom and the dynasty whilst technically maintaining its independence. Even if Isidoros was to be considered a royal governor of the city, his position would seem relatively superfluous if the city were the capital and presumably royal residence. There is also the conflicting historical evidence to consider. Appian (Mithridatic Wars: 105) explicitly states that Kastabala was granted to Ariobarzanes I of Kappadokia (64 BC) and Strabo (Geography: 12.1.4.C535) confirms that the city was also incorporated within Kappadokia under Archelaos (36 BC-AD 17). Could Isidoros' tenure at Hieropolis perhaps represent a short interlude of Tarkondimotid sovereignty between periods of Kappadokian control? It has been noted by coin dealers that Tarkondimotid regal bronzes have occurred in reasonable numbers as surface finds from Hierapolis and only rarely at Anazarbos. Aside from the unquantifiable nature of the evidence, two further points must be remembered. Hieropolis-Kastabala has been partially excavated (thereby drawing more local and tourist attention) where as Anazarbos has not. Hieropolis was also a neigh- bouring centre with major cultic significance ('cite du hieron'; see Debord 1997: 416, 420) which shared similar sized bronze denominations. Royal wages might reasonably be expected to gravitate towards such a centre of regional importance. Hieropolis' importance as a cultic centre is undisputed (Strabo, Geography: 12.2.6). However, Upper Kilikia was not a large territory and if Hieropolis-Kastabala was incorporated directly within the kingdom, we might reasonably expect to see the Tarkondimotids acting as both dynast and high-priest. Unlike their contemporaries in Kilikian Olba (RPC: 3724-29, 3731-32, 3735-39), Ituraean Massyas (Herman 2006: explicitly on types 4, 7, 10, 12, 16) and Hasmonaean Judaea (Meshorer 2001: groups A-J, K17, P-V, coins 43-46) - all of whom advertised their joint secular and religious authority numismatically - the title APXIEPEQ2 is distinctly absent on Tarkondimotid issues. Are we to understand that there was a royal governor, a high-priest and a king all governing within the same city? Seven civic coin types are known to have been produced at Hieropolis sometime between the death of Antiochos Epiphanes (164 BC) and the reign of Nerva (for examples see SNG Levante: 1566-77). Although a number of monograms are used, only one is related to those known from Anazarbos under the Tarkondimotidai (fig. 14; see also SNG France: 2215; SNG von Aulock: 5568 for possible examples employing monogram W), no issues appear to bear dates. Lange (1988: 339-40) 122 Wright suggests that the youthful diademed bust that occurs on autonomous coins of uncertain date at Hieropolis could represent a member of the Tarkondimotidai. In light of the stylistic difference in portraiture, the presence of an Alexander-like anastole and the scarce monogram evidence, I prefer to follow Burnett, Amandry and Ripolles (RPC: 4064-65) and Dahmen (2007: 21-24) in suggesting that the portrait likely represents Alexander the Great and should date to the AD 40s as do similar issues from Alexandreia-Issos and Aigeai. Elsewhere in Kilikia, Tarkondimotid monograms appear, never exclusively as in the case of Anazarbos, but as alternatives to non-Tarkondimotid (civic) monograms on identical types. The most notable occurrence of this is at Aigeai, where three different types include both possible Tarkondimotid and civic monograms (for example, fig. 15; see also SNG Levante: 1635, 1637, 1640, 1642-43, 1645, 1647-48, 1649 employing either monogram 7R or ^). Jones' suggestion that Tarkondi- motos I ruled Aigeai until 47 BC (1937: 203-04) is thus supported by later numismatic evidence. OIAO[r] and TAP[K] monograms among those of other magistrates may indicate that Tarkondimotids held honorary magis- tracies at the port city. Tarkondimotos I did after all require a port to enable him access to his powerful naval fleet to get to Actium (Cassius Dio, Roman History: 50.14; Plutarch, Life of Antony: 61.1). The relationship between the Tarkondimotidai and Aigeai after 47 BC may have reflected that between the dynasty and Hieropolis- Kastabala - an autonomous city closely integrated within the larger state, controlled indirectly through personal influence and benefaction, reciprocated through magis- tracies granted to the dynasts and the royal circle. The choice of monograms on Kilikian civic coinage provides useful evidence for the reattribution of the royal mint of the Tarkondimotidai to Anazarbos rather than Hieropolis-Kastabala and casts a shadow of doubt over the latter city's claim as the principal seat of power in the kingdom. The cities that surrounded the kingdom (particularly Hieropolis and Aigeai) may be shown to have maintained strong links with the Tarkondimotidai even after they had slipped beyond the dynasts' direct control. The reattribution of the royal mint to Anazarbos and that city's use of dynastic monograms on its civic or quasi-autonomous (inter-regnum) issues also allows for the very strong suggestion that the Philopator regal coin issues belong to Tarkondimotos III Philopator II, probably the son of Tarkondimotos II, certainly a grandson of Tarkondimotos I Philantonios. Philopator II died in AD 17 and was the last of the Tarkondimotidai to rule as king over Upper Kilikia. It seems somehow fitting that the tenure of rule by this enigmatic Kilikian dynasty, which began so promisingly with Tarkondi- motos I's regal coinage, should once again produce regal coinage in its final years. With the demise of the dynasty, Anazarbos lost its significance as royal mint and admin- istrative centre. The city was not considered important enough to receive minting rights for another four decades. References for monograms M - Tarkondimotos I regal coinage: a unique example is in the collection of Wayne G. Sayles. Philopator coinage: SNG Levante: 1260; SNG France: 1918; SNG von Aulock: 5414; SNG Pfalzer: 9-15; Ziegler 1989: 883-85, 887; BMC: 21.1. Anazarbos: SNG Levante: 1364; Ziegler 1989: 945-47; 1993: 17-20. ^ - Anazarbos: SNG Levante: 1363,1365; SNG France: 2002-06; SNG von Aulock: 5469; SNG Pfalzer: 88-91; Ziegler 1993: 5-16. In some listed examples (particu- larly SNG France and Ziegler 1993) a broken bared Alpha appears to be used which raises the question of an additional Y within the monogram. Whilst this can not be ruled out, I am not convinced that it was necessarily the intention, nor does Zeigler appear to suggest it. ^ - Anazarbos: SNG France: 2000-01; SNG Pfalzer: 92-94; Ziegler 1989: 948; 1993: 21-28. Hieropolis- Kastabala: SNG France: 2215; SNG von Aulock: 5568. 7R - Aigeai: SNG Levante: 1635, 1642, 1647-48; SNG France: 2284; SNG Pfalzer: 32-33; BMC: 21.1. % - Anazarbos: SNG France: 2007; SNG von Aulock: 5470; SNG Pfalzer: 84-87; Ziegler 1989: 943-94; 1993: 1; BMC: 21.1. * - Aigeai: SNG Levante: 1637, 1640, 1643, 1645, 1649; SNG Pfalzer: 36. Tarsos: BMC: 21.107. Acknowledgements The final form of this paper would not have been possible without the help and knowledge of Wayne G. Sayles. Although our interpretation of the data has not always resulted in agreement, he nevertheless provided his expert view and generously provided the images used as plates. All coins unless otherwise specified are from his private collection. I would also like to thank the Australian Centre of Ancient Numismatic Studies (ACANS) in Sydney, Australia and the North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB) in Portstewart, Northern Ireland for their provision of resources. Finally, my thanks again to Wayne Sayles, to Ted Nixon, Walter Holt and Laura Wright for reading draft versions of this paper. All errors remain my own. 123 Anatolian Studies 2008 Fig. 5. Anazarbos quasi-municipal type I Fig. 10. Anazarbos quasi-municipal type Hlb Fig. 6. Anazarbos quasi-municipal type Ha Fig. 11. Philopator type I (© Copyright Classical Numismatic Group) 124 Wright Fig. 13. Philopator type III Fig. 14. Hieropolis-Kastabala civic issue with Tarkondimotid monogram Fig. 15.Aigeai civic issue with Tarkondimotid monogram Bibliography A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Greek Coins of Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia (= BMC 21). London 1900 Burnett, A., Amandry, M., Ripolles, P.P. 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage Volume 1: From the Death of Caesar to the Death ofVitellius (44 BC-AD 69) (= RPC). London Calder, W.M. 1912: 'Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia' Journal of Roman Studies 2: 78-109 Dagron, G., Feissel, D. 1987: Inscriptions de Cilicie (Travaux et Memoires du Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance). Paris Dahmen, K. 2007: The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins. London Debord, P. 1997: 'Hierapolis: du sanctuaire-etat a la cite' Revue des etudes anciennes 99: 415-26 Fleischer, R. 1996: 'Hellenistic royal iconography on coins' in P. Bilde et al. (eds), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship. Aarhus: 28-40 Gough, M. 1952: Anazarbus' Anatolian Studies 2: 85- 150 Head, B.V. 1887: Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics. Oxford Herman, D. 2006: 'Coins of the Itureans' Israel Numis- matic Research 1: 51-72 Hoover, O. 2007: A revised chronology for the late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0-64 BC)' Historia 56: 280-301 HouwinkTen Cate, P.H.J. 1965: The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Asperia During the Hellenistic Period. Leiden Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, III(= IGR 3). Ed. R. Cagnat. Paris 1906 Jones, A.H.M. 1937: The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford Keil, J., Wilhelm, A. 1915: 'Vorlaufiger Bericht iiber eine Reise in Kilikien' Jahreshefte der Osterre- ichischen archaologischen Instituts in Wien, Beiblatt 18: 1-60 Lange, O. 1988: 'Tarkondimotos, Konig von Kilikien, und seine dynastie' Berichte der munzen- und medaillensammler 159: 336-43 Magie, D. 1950: Roman Rule in Asia Minor: to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Princeton Meshorer, Y. 2001: A Treasury of Jewish Coins: from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem Savalli-Lestrade, I. 1998: Les philoi royaux dans VAsie Hellenistique. Geneve Sayles, W.G. 2000: 'Zarbos and the cult of Zeus' Nomis- matika Chronika 19: 123-30 Smith, R.R.R. 1988: Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford Stein, A. 1932: 'Tarcondimotus' in G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, K. Mittelhaus (eds), Paulys Real- Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswis- senschaft. Stuttgart: 2,297-98 Strabo, Geography (= Loeb translation). Tr. H.L. Jones. Harvard 1929 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Collection of the American Numismatic Society 6: Palestine-South Arabia (= SNG ANS 6). New York 1981 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum France 2: Cabinet des Medailles Cilicie (= SNG France). Paris 1993 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Deutschland: Pfalzer privatsammlungen Isaurien und Kilikien (= SNG Pfalzer). Munich 2001 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Deutschland: Sammlung vonAulockKilikien (= SNG von Aulock). Berlin 1966 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Switzerland 1: Levante- Cilicia (= SNG Levante). Berne 1986 Ziegler, R. 1989: Munzen Kilikiens aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen. Munich — 1993: Kaiser, Heer und Stadtisches Geld: Unter- suchungen zur miinzpragung von Anazarbos und anderer Ostkilikischer Stadte. Vienna 125