IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
Συγγραφή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα
Μετάφραση :
Χρυσανθόπουλος Δημήτριος
Για παραπομπή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα , "Pontus (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9476>
Περίληψη :
Historical region to the north-northeast of modern-day Turkey. The Greek colonization and the Persian stability brought about drastic changes to
the physical and human environment, whereas the Mithridatic and Roman rule propagated the Greek civilization.
Άλλες Ονομασίες
Cappadocia by the sea
Γεωγραφική Θέση
Northern Asia Minor
1. Human geography
1.1 Etymology
In ancient Greek mythology, the god Pontus was the son of Gaia and father of Nereus. The original meaning of the word “pontus”
was “sea”, thus the word “pontus” became a common name for all seas, e.g. the Pontus Euxinus, the Hellespont, the Pontus Aegaeus.
The historic region of Pontus was originally named “Καππαδοκία η προς τον πόντο”, which means “Cappadocia by the sea”.
1.2 Geographical location - Geomorphology
Pontus was located to the north-northeast of Asia Minor. It borders with the Black Sea to the north, Colchis (modern-day Georgia)
to the east, Paphlagonia to the west and Cappadocia to the south. During Antiquity, however, the lands of these two regions were
usually confused with the lands of Pontus and it is difficult to demarcate their exact borders.1 Pontus is divided into two parts, the
coastal and the inland, by Mt. Paryadres, a branch of the Caucasus mountain range. It is watered by a number of rivers, some of
which are navigable, such as the river Halys (modern-day Kizilirmak), the river Iris (modern-day Yesilirmak), the river Lycus
(modern-day Kelkit or Germeli Cay), the river Thermodon (modern-day Terme Cay) and others.2 The extremely fertile estuaries of
the rivers Iris and Lycus were placed under the administrative command of the inland cities of Amasea, Zela and Pontic Comana. The
coastal part of Pontus and the valleys of the rivers are rich in vegetation, thanks to the humid climate. The inland part has a continental
climate.
1.3 Demographic information
Pontus was originally inhabited by native tribes. It was colonized by Greeks, Persians and lastly Romans (end of the 1st cent. BC.).
The available information about the native tribes, which were distinct from each other, were limited to lists of their names (Chalybes,
Mossynoeci, Armenochalybes, Drilai, Tibareni and others) and the degree of their Hellenization during the following centuries.3 In
contrast to the Greek settlers, the various tribes did not possess a common cultural identity, despite their financial, commercial and
social relations. There are no historical references to the prehistoric dynasties of the coastal part of the region, although there are
archaeological finds linking the prehistoric tombs near the modern-day city of Tokat to the dynasties of Catal Hoyuk (2300-2100
BC).4 The demographics of the region suggest that the Greeks lived and founded a number of cities (e.g. Trapezus, Amisus, Sinope
and others) on the coast, whereas the native tribes lived on the mountains and plateaus of the region. However, there were several
native tribes living in coastal villages,5 whereas several Greeks chose to live among the native tribes.6
2. History
Pontus was inhabited long before its colonization by the Greeks. However, the circumstances of its colonization by pre-hellenic
civilizations are lost in a labyrinth of assumption, due to the lack of evidence. References to Greek names in the archives of the
Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16/6/2017
Σελίδα 1/7
IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
Συγγραφή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα
Μετάφραση :
Χρυσανθόπουλος Δημήτριος
Για παραπομπή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα , "Pontus (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9476>
Hittites7 suggest contacts between the Greeks and the inhabitants of the region as far back as the 14th cent. BC., before the
colonization of the Black Sea. The same fact is suggested by the Greek mythological tradition, which is full of references to the coast
of the Black Sea.8 According to Greek mythology, Pontus was the home of the Amazons and the Chalybes-Chaldoi. The history of
the Greeks in Pontus starts with the Argonautic campaign,9 which suggests the first Greek attempts to acquire control of the trade
routes of the Black Sea (circa 13th cent. BC). Before long, their mutual financial interests must have forced the Greek settlers and the
natives to establish friendly relations. However, the Greeks used the differences between the native tribes to their own advantage.10 In
Trapezus and Sinope, there were official emissaries of the Mossynoeci and the Paphlagonians, protecting the interests of the tribal
chiefs and facilitating trade.11
The annexation of part of Pontus to the Persian empire seems to have brought about political, as well as financial and social stability.
Amisus came under Persian rule in circa 368 BC. Before long, Sinope and several cities of western Pontus followed. However, a part
of Pontus remained free.12 Although the Persians influenced the Greeks and the native tribes politically and culturally, as suggested by
numismatic finds,13 the Persian rule was not particularly overt. The inhabitants of Pontus paid an annual tax, but Xenophon did not
encounter a strong Persian presence during the March of the Ten Thousand. It seems that there were several Persian military
garrisons in the cities, but the inhabitants of the region maintained their language, customs and traditions, as well as a relative degree of
autonomy and independence.14 The Persian army guarded the valley of the river Halys, which was the main route leading from the
coast to the inland of Pontus. The lack of a strong Persian presence is more obvious in the status of several native tribes that
maintained their independence, despite being influenced culturally.15 During the period of the Persian empire, Pontus was neither an
individual satrapy, nor an independent kingdom. It was rather a part of the satrapy of Cappadocia.16
A number of Persian administrative officials and priests, as well as veteran military officials and their families settled in the region. The
emergence of the Mithridatian dynasty in circa 281 BC was probably based on the support of the inhabitants of Persian descent. The
so-called “Kingdom of Pontus” included the regions of Pontus, Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Lesser Armenia and Colchis.
Following Mithridatic War III and Mithridates VI’s defeat, the kingdom collapsed and was partitioned by Pompey during the
reorganization of Asia Minor (66-62 BC). A part of Pontus constituted the Roman province of Pontus-Bithynia, whereas another
part, including Trapezus and Farnaceia, was given to Deiotarus, tetrarch of Galatia, and named “Πόντος Γαλατικός” (Pontus
Galaticus).
The region was originally part of the Roman province of Galatia and subsequently a part of the Roman province of Cappadocia.
Under its administrative command were placed the cities of Amasea, Sebastopolis and the autonomous city of Pontic Comana. In
circa 36 BC, the eastern part of Pontus was given to Polemon I, Mithridates VI’s grandson, by Mark Antony, and named Pontus
Polemoniacus. In 66 AD, The Pontus Galaticus and the Pontus Polemoniacus were united and constituted the Pontus Mediterraneus,
placed under the administrative command of the Roman province of Cappadocia.
The Pontus Mediterraneus covered a large part of the inland of Pontus and included the cities of Neocaesarea, Zela, Sebasteia,
Amasea, Sebastopolis and Pontic Comana. According to Diocletian’s administrative reformation, Pontus, having been named
“Diocesis Pontica", was divided into three provinces: Diospontus or Helenopontus, Pontus Polemoniacus and Armenia Minor or
Armenia I. Diospontus included the western part of Pontus, up to the river Thermodon, and the cities of Amasea, Ibora, Euchaita,
Zela, Andrapa, Zalicha, Sinope and Amisus. The Pontus Polemoniacus extended to the east of the river Thermodon and included the
cities of Neocaesarea, Pontic Comana, Polemonium, Cerasus and Trapezus, whereas Armenia Minor included the region of the
upper Euphrates, up to the city of Dioscurias in Colchis. The aforementioned division was kept until 535 AD.
3. Economy
The fertility of the soil and the rich subsoil constitutes the region of Pontus ideal for the foundation of colonies 17 and the expansion of
trade. The importance of Pontus as a source of raw materials and food for classical Athens can be deduced from the fact that Pericles
established friendly relations with the coastal cities, which became members of the Athenian League without being forced to change
their regime like other city-states.18 The local production included olives and olive oil, grapes and wine,19 as well as grain,20 fish,21 a
Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16/6/2017
Σελίδα 2/7
IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
Συγγραφή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα
Μετάφραση :
Χρυσανθόπουλος Δημήτριος
Για παραπομπή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα , "Pontus (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9476>
wide variety of fruit, including citrus fruits, dried fruits and honey. The region also produced excellent timber 22 for the construction of
boats, whereas its subsoil was rich in mineral deposits, such as coal, copper and silver. The region between Amisus and Colchis was
inhabited by a number of small tribes, such as the Chalybes, renowned throughout Greece for their skill in metallurgy.
The coastal cities of Pontus established commercial relations not only with other cities on the north and east coasts of the Black Sea,
but also with the cities of western Asia Minor, the Aegean islands and mainland Greece. The Greek coastal communities also
established relations with the native tribes living on the mountains and in the inland cities. Greek pottery found in the city of Ak Alan,
10 miles from Amisus, suggests good relations between the two cities. The pass between Amisus and Sebasteia was the shortest and
easiest route from the coast to mainland Asia Minor. It also seems that the citizens of Trapezus established commercial relations with
the kingdom of Ararat (Urartu). In addition, the navigable rivers facilitated trade and communication between the different cities of
Pontus and the neighbouring regions.
4. Institutions
Evidence of Greek, Hellenistic and Persian institutions, customs and traditions can be found in the financial and political life of Pontus.
The political institutions of the coastal cities stem from corresponding Greek institutions, whereas the large number of fortified mints of
Pontus during the Hellenistic period seems to be a remnant of the Persian rule.23 Pontus comprised of groups of villages (e.g.
Chiliokomon), the lands of the large religious centres (e.g. Pontic Comana, Zela), and the lands of the big landowners, many of who
were of Persian descent. There were also the coastal cities, which were Greek commercial posts and colonies originally. Their
organization was based on the institution of the city-state. During the Mithridatian period, they enjoyed special privileges with regard
to land distribution in their vicinity. However, the rules of land ownership were based on Persian customs and traditions. Therefore, all
the land belonged to the sovereign ruler.24
Even after the conquest of the region by the Romans, the administration was based on existing structures and did not impose radical
changes with regard to the legislature of the cities, trying to preserve, if possible, the local customs and traditions. 25 It seems that the
few Roman colonies of Pontus were identified with the Greek cities (e.g. Sinope), whereas Amisus was never a roman colony,
although it hosted roman settlers.26 Thanks to Roman technology, the defence of the region was improved through the construction of
roads and fortresses, which contributed to the development of trade and intercultural relations.27
5. Religion
5.1 Pagan cults
It seems that the various native tribes borrowed several cultural elements from the Neolithic civilization of Catal Hoyuk and the
Hittites, despite the difficulties in communication. Greek mythology links the region to the cult of Mother-Earth and its variations, such
as Medea and Juno – “μηδομένη θεά”.28 The geomorphology of Pontus during the time of its colonization was directly linked to the
religious sentiment of the settlers and influenced future generations. For example, the capes of the region were not only used by sailors
as a means of estimating distances, but also held religious significance. Cape Jason, east of Sinope, was an important religious centre
until the 14th cent. AD. During Antiquity, it was probably the site of a temple of Zeus.29
Although most of the cities worshipped Greek deities originally, it seems that the gradual infiltration of local and Persian deities
reflected the mixed, in terms of demography and culture, society of the region. The settlers shaped a number of local religious beliefs
according to their own beliefs. For example, the Greeks regarded a temple of the Moschi, where it was forbidden to sacrifice a ram,
as a temple of Leucothea, built by Phrixus.30 Zeus Stratius, to whom the “kings of Pontus” offered sacrifices, was probably a local
deity, whom the Greek settlers recognized as a warrior Zeus and the Mithridatian dynasty of Persian descent recognized as a form of
Ahura Mazda.31 The “kings of Pontus” swore in the name of Men, the god of the East, and the crescent moon, which was a constant
feature of the depictions of the god, as a royal emblem. Mithridates VI and the Romans tried to hellenize him and spread his cult,
linking him to Zeus and Attis.32 In addition, statues and clay figurines (1st cent BC-2nd cent. AD) found in the region indicate that the
Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16/6/2017
Σελίδα 3/7
IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
Συγγραφή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα
Μετάφραση :
Χρυσανθόπουλος Δημήτριος
Για παραπομπή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα , "Pontus (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9476>
cult of Cybele was widespread in the region. The aforementioned local deities were incorporated into the pantheon of the polytheistic
Roman Empire. The spread of the cult of non-Greek and Roman deities can be deduced from the imperial coinage issues of
Trapezus.33
5.2 Christianity
Similarly to the majority of the regions in Asia Minor, the message of Christ reached Pontus through the local Judean communities.34
The ecclesiastical tradition links Apostles Andrew and Paul to the preaching of the Holy Gospel in the region. Andrew is regarded as
the first bishop of Pontus. However, this belief spread during the 9th century.35 By the end of the 1st cent. AD, Christianity had
spread in the urban regions of Pontus, especially in the vicinity of Amisus. From there, it spread to the rural regions. 36 In circa 240
AD, Gregory the Miracle Worker became the bishop of Neocaesarea. By the end of the 4th century, Neocaesarea had become a
diocese, as well as Trapezus, Cerasus, Polemonium, Comana, Rizaion and Pityus.
6. Culture
Pontus was the home country of the cynic philosopher Diogenes, mathematician Dionysodorus, geographer Strabo, as well as
Alexander of Abonuteichos, who introduced a rather peculiar cult of Asclepius. It was also the home country of several dramatists,
such as Dionysius of Sinope (4th cent. BC), as well as Diodorus and his brother, Diphilus (middle of the 4th cent. BC). Although they
lived and worked in Athens, their origin suggests that Pontus had a theatrical tradition.37
From the beginning of the 3rd cent. BC, the Greek citizens of Pontus were ridiculed by the Athenians, due to their strange dialect and
lack of culture.38 From the 1st cent. AD onwards, the Latin language spread in the region, but it did not replace the significance of
Greek for the commercial and social life of the region.39 The Persian influence on the Pontic language and the similarities between the
traditional Pontic and Persian music probably stems from the cultural exchanges between the inhabitants of Pontus.
1. E.g. App., Mithrid. 9, 12, 61; Justin 38.5.6; Athen. 5.215b, 5.212a.
2. Aesch., Pers. 865; Arr., Peripl. M. Eux. 8-12; Hdt 1.72, 4.37; Plin., NH 6.6, 6.8, 6.10; Strab. 11.2.17, 12.3.12, 12.3.15, 12.3.30; Xen., Anab. 4.6.4, 4.8.1,
5.6.9
3. Tac., Ann. 13.39; Isaac, B., The Limits of the Empire – The Roman Army in the East (Oxford 1990), pp. 37-38; CIL III 6745 (Suppl.), 6747 (Suppl.); ILS
268.
4. Appol. Rh. 3.1-3, 3.247 onwards; Hesiod, Th. 1001.
5. Anonymi, Peripl. M. Eux. 3, 17, 19, 32; Arr., Peripl. M. Eux. 17; Xen., Anab. 6.2.1.; Bryer, A.A.M. – Winfield, D., Byzantine Monuments and
Topography of the Pontos 1 (Washington – Dumbarton 1985), pp. 119-120; Apoll. Rh. 2.378, 2.1009; SEG XXX 1452.
6. Strab. 11.2.17.
7. App., Mithrid. 66, 70; SEG XXX 1449A; Hdt. 1.171, 5.119; McGing, B.C., The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus (The
Netherlands – Leiden 1986), p. 10.
8. Strab. 12.3.31; Tac., Ann. 11.15; Vermaseren, M.J., Cybele and Attis. The Myth and the Cult (London 19770, p. 27.
9. Plut., Pomp. 24.5; Juv. 6.511-521; Dion. Hal., Rom. 2.19.3-5; Pliny, Ep. 10.49-50; Head, B.V. (1911), PP. 496-499; CCCA 202-205, 207-208, 210;
Rosenqvist, J.O., “The hagiographical evidence of Mithraism in Trebizond: local tradition or learned design?”, Eranos 89 (1991), pp. 109-111, 117;
Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16/6/2017
Σελίδα 4/7
IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
Συγγραφή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα
Μετάφραση :
Χρυσανθόπουλος Δημήτριος
Για παραπομπή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα , "Pontus (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9476>
Cumont, E. – Cumont, F., “Voyage d’exploration archeologique dans le Pont et la Petit Armenie”, Studia Pontica 2 (1906), pp. 367-369; Cumont, F., The
Mysteries of Mithra (New York 1956), pp. 17-18; Bryer, A.A.M. – Winfield, D., Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos 1 (Washington –
Dumbarton 1985), pp. 182, 198-199, 213.
10. Acts of the Apostl. 2:9, 18:2; CIJ II 802; Schurer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 3.1 (Edinburgh 1986), pp. 35-36.
11. Ευαγγελίδης, Τ., Ιστορία της Ποντικής Τραπεζούντας (756 π.Χ.-1897) (Thessaloniki 1994), p. 61; Χρύσανθος, επίσκοπος Τραπεζούντος, “Η εκκλησία της Τραπεζούντος”, Αρχείον Πόντου 4 & 5 (1933), pp. 96-205, ibid. pp. 112-114, 789; Bryer, A.A.M. – Winfield, D., Byzantine Monuments and
Topography of the Pontos 1 (Washington – Dumbarton 1985), p. 218; Eus. Eccl. Hist. 3.1.
12. Ramsay, W.M., The Church in the Roman Empire, Before AD 170 (London 1944), pp. 82-84, 224; First Peter 1:1; Kelly, J.N.D., A Commentary on
the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (London 1969), pp. 41-42; Eus., Eccl. Hist. 3.1; Pliny. Ep. 10.96.9; Luc., Alex. 25, 38.
13. IG II2 10321, 2319.61, 2319.63, 2325.163, 2363, XI 105.21, 107.20; Athen. 6.235f, 13.582e, 13.597e; Strab. 12.3.11; Webster, I., Studies in Later Greek
Comedy (Manchester 1953), pp. 152-183.
14. Athen. 13.580e-581a. See also FCG 2.162ff, 3.3ff, 3.537ff, 3.382ff.
15. CIL III1 6746-6748 (Suppl.); Bryer, A.A.M. – Winfield, D., Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos 1 (Washington – Dumbarton
1985), pp. 34, 113-114, 146, 181, 226, 229, 243; Kaimio, J., The Romans and the Greek language (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 64, Helsinki
1979), pp. 75-82, 109, 127-128, 82-84, 147-149, 153-162; Head, B.V., Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics (Oxford 1911), pp. 509, 496-499.
16. Hdt. 1.28, 1.72, 1.104, 2.104, 3.90-94, 7.61-95, 4.37; Pliny, NH 6.4; Strab. 7.5.12, 12.3.18-28; Xen., An. (summary) 7.8.25, 5.6.6-8; Aesch., Prom. 714-715;
Arr., Peripl. M. Eux. 15; Scyl. 70, 71, 81, 85-88, 91-92.
17. Lloyd, S., Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia (London 1967), pp. 18-20, 25-29.
18. Xen., An. 5.5.2-3; Anonymi, Peripl. M. Eux. See also Xen., An. 4.8.9, 4.8.24.
19. Hdt. 4.108-109; Strab. 14.5.23; Eur., Bacch. 15-22.
20. Diller, A., Race Mixture Among the Greeks Before Alexander (Westport – Connecticut 1971), p. 68. See also Graham, A.J., “Patterns in early Greek
colonisation”, JHS 91 (1971), pp. 35-47, ibid. p. 37.
21. See for example: Justin 42; Hom., Il. 2.851-857; Apoll. Rh. 1.1-4; Strab. 11.2.19; App., Mithrid. 103; Hesiod, Th. 337-345, 992-1002; Paus. 2.3.10.
22. Hom., Od. 12.70; Diod. S. 4.40 onwards; Hesiod, Th. 956 onwards. Pind. Pyth. 4.
23. Xen., An. 5.4.3-10, 4.8.24, 5.2.1-2.
24. Xen., An. 5.4.34, 6.6.4.
25. Ctesias FGrHist 13.20-22 F 688.
26. Morkholm, O. Early Hellenistic Coinage (Cambridge 1991), pp. 95-96. See also Xen., An. 4.5.24, 4.5.35.
27. Strab. 12.3.6, 12.3.11.
28. Xen., An. 4.5.10, 4.5.34, probably 7.8.25.
29. App., Mithrid. 8.
Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16/6/2017
Σελίδα 5/7
IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
Συγγραφή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα
Μετάφραση :
Χρυσανθόπουλος Δημήτριος
Για παραπομπή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα , "Pontus (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9476>
30. Xen., An. 5.6.15-16, 6.4.3-7.
31. Strab. 12.3.14; Head, B.V., Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics (Oxford 1911), p. 496; Pol. 4.38.3-10; Xen., Hell. 5.1.28.
32. Strab. 12.2.1, 12.3.30; Xen., An. 4.8.22-23.
33. Hdt. 7.147; Lys. 22.14; Xen., Hell. 5.1.28.
34. Strab. 7.6.2.
35. Strab. 11.2.17, 12.3.18-19.
36. Strab. 12.3.28, 11.14.16, 12.3.32, 12.3.37; Theophrastos, Historia Plantarum 8.11.5.
37. Saprykin, S.Y. – Maslennikov, A.A., “Bosporan Chora in the Reign of Mithridates VI Eupator and His Immediate Successors”, Ancient
Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia 3.1 (1996), pp. 1-14 (in russian); Saprykin, S.Y, “Eupator’s Law on Inheritance and Its Role in the History of the
Pontic Kingdom”, VDI 197 (1991), pp. 181-197 (in russian/english summary).
38. Pliny, Ep. 10.49-50, 10.68-69, 10.79-80, 10.84, 10.108-109, 10.113, 10.20.
39. Strab. 12.3.6, 12.3.11; Pliny, Ep. 10.90.91, 10.92-93; IGR IV 4.314.
Βιβλιογραφία :
Vermaseren M.J., Cybele and Attis, the Myth and the Cult, London 1977
Cumont F., Les Mystères de Mithras, Bruxelles 1902
McGing B.C., The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, Leiden 1986, Mnemosyne
Supplement 89
Bryer A.A.M., Winfield D., The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, 1 (With Maps
and Plans by R. Anderson and Drawings by J. Winfield), Washington D.C. 1985, Dumbarton Oaks Studies
20
Χρύσανθος Φιλιππίδης, μητροπολίτης Τραπεζούντος, "Η Εκκλησία Τραπεζούντος", Αρχείον Πόντου,
4/5, 1933, 1-1070
Saprykin S.Y., "Eupator’s Law on Inheritance and its role in the history of Pontus", VDI, 197, 1991, 181-197
Ευαγγελίδης Τ., Ιστορία της ποντιακής Τραπεζούντας από τα αρχαιότατα χρόνια μέχρι σήμερα (756 π.Χ.1897), Φωτιάδης, Κ. (επιμ.), Κεσόπουλος, Α. (μτφρ.), Θεσσαλονίκη 1994
Isaac B., The Limits of Empire The Roman Army in the East, Oxford 1990
Schürer E., The History of the Jewish people in the Age of Jesus Christ (175BC – AD 135). (English ed.
revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman vol. III.1), Edinburgh 1973-1987
Ramsay W.Μ., The Church in the Roman Empire before 170 A.D., 9, London 1907
Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16/6/2017
Σελίδα 6/7
IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
Συγγραφή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα
Μετάφραση :
Χρυσανθόπουλος Δημήτριος
Για παραπομπή :
Στεφανίδου Βέρα , "Pontus (Antiquity)", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9476>
Rosenqvist J.O., "The Hagiographical Evidence of Mithraism in Trebizond: Local Tradition or Learned
Design?", Eranos, 89, 1991, 107-120
Graham A.J., "Patterns in Early Greek Colonization", JHS, 91, 1971, 35-47
Cumont F., Cumont E., Voyage d´exploration archéologique dans le Pont et la Petite Arménie, Bruxelles
1906, Studia Pontica 2
Kelly J.N.D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude, London 1969
Kaimio J., The Romans and the Greek language, Helsinki 1979, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 64
Lloyd S., Early Highland Peoples of Anatolia, London 1967
Diller Α., Race Mixture Among the Greeks Before Alexander, Westport Connecticut 1971
Saprykin S.Y., Maslennikov A.A., "Bosporan Chora in the Reign of Mithridates VI Eupator and His
Immediate Successors", Ancient Civilisations from Scythia to Siberia, 3:1, 1996, 1-14
Δικτυογραφία :
Ammianus Marcellinus on the Geography of the Pontus Euxinus
http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/drijvers.html
Ancient coins of Pontus
http://www.snible.org/coins/hn/pontus.html
Γλωσσάριo :
satrapy, the
1. Administrative division of the ancient Persian state. 2. The office of a satrap and the period of his government.
Δημιουργήθηκε στις 16/6/2017
Σελίδα 7/7