Open this text page in a new tab Open earthquake page in a new tab

First Mithridates Comet and the Date of the Earthquake

Triantafyllou et al. (2022:8) suggest that the comet mentioned by John of Antioch as occurring more or less coincident with the earthquake and tsunami was the first "Mithridates Comet".
a great earthquake happened in the East and a countless number of Syrians perished; the city of Tyre on the coast was submerged into the sea and a comet shone for several days, announcing to him [Antiochus [IX] surnamed Kyzikenos [r. 129 or 116 to 96 BCE] his death.
Dates for this comet by various catalogers are listed below:
Yoke (1962) and Seargent (2008:69-71) suggest that the Chinese catalogs which list comets in ~September 135 BCE and ~September 134 BCE are a repeat of the same event and that the correct date should be ~September 135 BCE. If we consider all possibilities, it may be best to date the comet to the Late Summer/Early Fall of 134 or 135 BCE. Triantafyllou et al. (2022:8) suggest that the appearance of the comet provides a terminus ante quem for the earthquake and tsunami.

Triantafyllou et al. (2022:8) further suggest that a battle at Dor between and Diodotus Tryphon and Sarpedon (Demetrius's general) provides a terminus post quem - since the earthquake and tsunami described in Strabo and Athenaeus of Naucratis' accounts occurs soon after the battle. Although Triantafyllou et al. (2022:8) date the battle at Dor to 138 BCE (based on a webpage at Livius.org), to my knowledge the date of this battle is not so well established and 138 BCE should be considered approximate. Karcz (2004) suggest the battle occurred between 145/144 and 138/137 BCE.

Unfortunately, John of Antioch's account is riddled with chronological inconsistencies which makes it hard to establish that the comet mentioned as occurring more or less at the same time as the earthquake and tsunami provides a reliable terminus ante quem. One glaring problem is that John of Antioch states that the comet was a portent of Antiochus [IX] surnamed Kyzikenos' death which is dated to 96 BCE - roughly 40 years after the appearance of the first Mithridates Comet. Triantafyllou et al. (2022:8) suggest that John of Antioch, writing 700+ years after this event, named the wrong Seleucid Emperor and should have named Antiochus VII Euergetes, nicknamed Sidetes [r. 138-129 BCE] instead. If this is the case, the The First Mithridates Comet (135/134 BCE) would have appeared about half a decade before Antiochus VII Euergetes, nicknamed Sidetes' death (129 BCE). This seems a reasonable supposition as the histories of this time period appear to be riddled with mistakes in assigning the correct Seleucid Emperor to the events various ancient historians are writing about (e.g. Malalas).

However, the possibility that John of Antioch named the wrong Seleucid Emperor is not the only chronological inconsistency in his account. John goes on to state that the next Seleucid Emperor was Philip. In this case, John of Antioch is clearly referring to Philip II Philoromaeus [r. 65-64 BCE] as John names him as the last Seleucid King after which Syria was declared a Roman Province in 63 BCE - 70+ years after the appearance First Mithridates Comet.

In fact, John of Antioch's account contains so many chronological inconsistencies that it is best characterized as being consistently inconsistent. Given that, the most likely historiographic date for the Dead Fish and Soldiers Quake has to be derived from the date of the battle at Dor which may have occurred between 145 and 137 BCE.
Comet Catalogues

Kronk (1999)



-137 The Chinese text Han shu (100) is the oldest record of this object. It says a "sparkling star" was seen at Chang [κ, λ, μ, ν1, and ν2 Hydrae] sometime during the month of —137 April 9 to May 7. The object was then said to pass the T'ai-wei Enclosure [Coma Berenices, Leo, and Virgo], trespass against the Tzu-Wei Enclosure [Draco, Ursa Minor, Cepheus, and Camelopardalis], and reach the Milky Way. Both A. G. Pingre (1783) and J. Williams (1871) erroneously dated this as March.

Although apparently situated toward the evening sky when first seen, the comet's movement into the Thai-Wei Enclosure would have made it visible almost all night long. It would have remained visible throughout the night when it became circumpolar by moving into the Tzu-Wei Enclosure.

FULL MOON: April 23
SOURCES: Han shu (100), p. (144); A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 577; J. Williams (1871), p. 5; G. F. Chambers (1889), pp. 554-5; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 144.



X/-137 K1 On the Babylonian cuneiform tablet designated BMA 45709, Hermann Hunger identified two fragments referring to a comet seen during the 174th year of the Seleucid era. Fragment one was from a section for the second month and and Hunger (1995) said it states, "[ . . . ] when the comet became stationary between the star( . . . 1." Hunger (1995) said fragment two states, "That month, a comet which had set in Libra, . . I on the night of the 20th in the west (?) in the area of the pa[th of . . . ]." The indicated date is —137 May 28.

The Han shu (100) was the only ancient Chinese text reporting this object. It says a "sparkling star" was seen sometime during the month of —137 May 8 to June 6. It "appeared at T'ien-Chi [ε, ζ, and θ Herculis, and ν and ξ Coronae Borealis], and went as far as Chih-Nu [α, ε, and ζ Lyrae]." The object was probably visible throughout the night.

FULL MOON: May 22
SOURCES: Han shu (100), p. (144); A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 577; J. Williams (1871), p. 5; G. E Chambers (1889), p. 555; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 144; personal correspondence from Herman Hunger (1995).



—137 The only ancient text to report this object is the Han shu (100). It says a "sparkling star" was seen by the Chinese in the northwest during the month of —137 August 5 to September 3. The northwestern location may indicate an evening sky observation. This object was listed by A. G. Pingre (1783) as appearing in -138, while J. Williams (1871) said the comet appeared in the northeast.

FULL MOON: August 18
SOURCES: Han shu (100), 6:3a; A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 269, 577; J. Williams (1871), p. 5; G. E Chambers (1889), p. 555; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 145.



—136 The only ancient text to report this comet is the Han shu (100). It says a "broom star appeared in the northeast" sometime during the month of -136 September 21 to October 20.

FULL MOON: October 4
SOURCES: Han shu (100), 6:3b; A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 269-70; J. Williams (1871), p. 5; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 145; A. A. Barrett (1978), p. 91.



X/-134 N1 This comet may have been one of the most spectacular of ancient times, with an extremely long tail and a brilliant maximum brightness. I t was observed from China and Rome, and was apparently considered a portent of two events reported by writers in the latter country.

The Chinese text Han shu (100) is our primary source of dating for this "long-tailed star". It says the comet was seen "in the east" sometime during the month of —134 August 31 to September 29, with a tail "stretching across the heavens." It remained visible for 30 days. A more contemporary source, the Shih chi (-90) did not give details of the comet, but did note the reign-period changed in —133 because of the appearance of a comet. A more recent Chinese text, the T'ung chien kang mu (1189), incorrectly claims the "long-tailed star" was seen in —133. It is possible that the "sparkling star" reported in the Han shu as seen in the north sometime during the month of -134 July 3 to August 1 might have been an earlier observation of this comet.

The Roman historians Lucius Annaeus Seneca and Marcus Junianus Justi-nus independently noted the appearance of a great comet as a portent to events discussed in their books. Seneca finished Quaestiones Naturales around 63 and at one point noted that during the reign of Attalus III, king of Pergamum, "a comet appeared, of moderate size at first. Then it rose up and spread out and went all the way to the equator, so that its vast extent equaled the region of the sky which is called the Milky Way." Justinus wrote his abridgment of the earlier written Historiae Philippicae during the 3rd century. He said that when Mithradates VI Eupator was born "a comet burned so brightly for 70 days that the entire sky seemed to be on fire. In its greatness it filled a quarter of the heavens, and with its brilliance it outshone the sun, while its rising and setting each took a period of four hours."

Previous treatments of the Roman comets were never truly decisive on the dates, mainly as a result of Seneca and Justinus not providing a definitive dating of the events described in their books. Historians have established the reign of Attalus III as extending from —137 to —132, while the probable date of the birth of Mithradates VI Eupator has been given as between —133 and —131. Although previous astronomers have listed the Roman comets separately from the Chinese comets, the Author believes that the descriptions are too similar to be ignored.

FULL MOON: July 17, August 15, September 14
SOURCES: Quaestiones Naturales (63), book 7, pp. 258-61; Natural History (77), book 2, paragraph 95; Han shu (100), 6:4a, 27:22b; Epitome, an abridgment of the Historiae Philippicae et totius mundi origines et terrae situs by Pompeius Trogus (3rd century), book 37, section 2; A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 270-1; J. Williams (1871), p. 6; G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 555; K. Lundmark (1921), pp. 233 & 235; Hsi Tse—Tsung (1958), p. 114; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 145; A. A. Barrett (1978), p. 91; I. Hasegawa (1980), p. 64; M. R. Molnar, The Celator, 11 (1997 Jun.), pp. 6—8; ICQ, 19 (1997), pp. 3-7.



X/-119 K1 On the Babylonian cuneiform tablet designated BMA 41131, Hermann Hunger identified references to a comet seen during the year —119. An observation dated May 18 says, ". . . a comet in the path of (the stars of) [ . . ]." An observation on May 20 says, ". . . when the comet became stationary to the east. . . ." A June 16th observation says the comet's tail was directed southward. Finally, an observation dated July 13 says, ". . . beginning of the night, the comet which had [appeared(?)] in the east(?) on the 29th day of month I(?) in Aries in the path of (the stars of) Anu [ . . ]. " This last state-ment indicates the comet was apparently in Aries when seen on May 18, indicating the comet was originally in the morning sky.

The annals of the text Han shu (100) is the oldest Chinese document to have reported this object. It notes that in -119, "in the spring, there was a sparkling star in the eastern quarter of the sky." An eastern location could imply a morning sky observation.

The Roman historian Marcus Junianus Justinus wrote Epitome, an abridg-ment of the Historiae Philippicae et totius mundi origines et terrae situs by Porn-peius Trogus during the 3rd century (the work of Trogus no longer exists). In one part Justinus states that at the time Mithradates VI Eupator began his reign as king of Pontus in northern Anatolia "a comet burned so brightly for 70 days that the entire sky seemed to be on fire. In its greatness it filled a quarter of the heavens, and with its brilliance it outshone the sun, while its rising and setting each took a period of four hours." The same description is also applied to a comet that appeared in the year of the birth of Mithradates VI Eupator, which was noted earlier under the comet X/-134 Nl.

The dates of this comet's appearance are firmly established by the Babylonians as May 18 to July 13. The Chinese certainly add support by noting the comet appeared during the Spring. The Roman account of Justinus is admittedly not precisely dated, but its statement of a visibility of 70 days at least indicates a long-duration comet. Typically, it is rare for a comet to attain naked-eye visibility for such a long period of time, so the Author believes the Roman account agrees well enough with the Babylonian dura-tion of 56 days to assume they are probably describing the same comet.

A. G. Pingre (1783) only knew of the Chinese comet and listed it as appearing in -120, but noted the year could have been -119.

FULL MOON: May 3, June 1, July 1
SOURCES: Han shu (100), 6:15a; A. G. Pingre (1783), p. 271; J. Williams (1871), p. 6; G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 555; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 145; Epitome, an abridgment of the Historiae Philippicae et totius mundi origines et terrae situs by Pompeius Trogus (3rd century), book 37, section 2; personal correspondence from Herman Hunger (1995); The Celator,11 (1997 Jun.), pp. 6—8.



-118 The Han shu (100) is the oldest text reporting this object. It says the Chinese saw a "sparkling star" in the northeast during the spring of -118. It continues that a "long-tailed star came out again" in the northwest during summer in the month of May 8 to June 6.

FULL MOON: April 23, May 22, June 20
SOURCES: Han shu (100), 6:16a; J. Williams (1871), p. 6; G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 555; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 145.



-109 The annals of the Shih chi (-90) date this comet's appearance as "in the autumn of the first year of the Yuan—Feng reign-period," which translates to autumn of —109. This "sparkling star was seen at Tung—Ching [γ, ε, ζ, λ, μ, ν, ξ, and 36 Geminorum] and some ten or twelve days later it appeared in San—Thai [ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, ξ Ursae Majoris]." The text continues, "Wang So, a man versed in the observation of the skies, reported that he had seen the star swell forth until it was as large as a melon, and after a while disappear again." This comet was referred to as the "Star of Virtue," and officials assured the emperor that it was sent by heaven to show favor in his insti¬tuting the "Feng and Shan sacrifices for the house of Han."

Although this remains the most complete account of this comet, the Han shu (100) also gave some interesting details. The annals and the astronomical chapters essentially reflect what was said in the Shih chi, but the Treatise of the Five Elements claims the comet was seen during the month of -109 May 29 to June 26. A. G. Pingre (1783) considered that the Chinese accounts referred to two different comets and dated them as —110 or -109.

On the Babylonian cuneiform tablet designated BMA 35086, Hermann Hunger identified two fragments referring to a comet seen at the beginning of the ninth month in the 202nd year of the Seleucid era. Fragment one states, "E. . . east, and its tail to the west, in the path of (the stars of) [En . . 1." Fragment two states, "1 . . . the comet which had appeared on the 1st in the path of (the stars of) Enlil, . to the north . . 1." The indicated date is -109 November 23.

The Babylonian record reports that the comet was apparently in the east with a tail pointing westward when first detected on November 23, which implies a morning sky observation. An additional, undated, statement is only partial, but seems to have something to do with the comet either having moved into the northern sky, or having moved to the north of some object or constellation.

FULL MOON: June 11, November 5, December 5
SOURCES: Shih chi (-90), SC1961, pp. 60-1; Han shu (100), 6:26b, 2.5:38a, 27:22b-23a; A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 273 & 578; J. Williams (1871), p. 6; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 145; personal correspondence from Herman Hunger (1995).



1P/-86 Q1 (Halley) Discovered: —86 July
Last seen: —86 August 24.7 (Δ=1.36 AU, r=0.71 AU, Elong.=30°)
Closest to the Earth: —86 July 27 (0.4380 AU)
-86 Calculated path: AUR (Disc), LYN (Jul. 21), LMi (Jul. 25), UMa-LEO (Jul. 29), COM (Aug. 1), VIR (Aug. 4)

Various orbital investigations have shown that 1P/Halley passed perihelion during the first days of August in —86. S uch widespread agreement indicates the orbit is well determined and, when this is combined with the scant observations from China and Babylon, a good picture of this apparition is derived.

The oldest source of information for this comet is the Babylonian cuneiform tablet designated BM 41018. During the early 1980s, Hermann Hunger identified a fragment of text that referred to a comet, and, in 1985, E R. Stephenson, K. K. C. Yau, and • were able to use additional astronomical references on the same Babylonian tablet to establish the year as -86. They were also able to establish that the comet was seen "day beyond day" during the lunar month of July 14 to August 11, and that another observation on August 24 reveals the comet had a tail 10° long.

The Chinese text Han shu (100) contains another observation of this comet. It says a "sparkling star" was seen "in the eastern quarter" during autumn, sometime within the month of August 10 to September 8.

The orbit below was computed by Donald K. Yeomans and Tao Kiang (1981) and indicates the comet reached a maximum solar elongation of 51° on July 8, and its most northerly declination of +43° (apparent) on the 25th. The comet moved to within 21° of the sun on the 28th. It is very likely that the comet was found prior to this conjunction with the sun, as Yeomans, Jurgen Rahe, and Ruth S. Freitag (1986) indicated the comet was probably brighter than magnitude 3 after mid-July and probably close to magnitude 1.4 at the time of the conjunction. But a problem also surfaces as there is a contradiction in the Chinese observation: the comet was in the morning sky in the east prior to this conjunction with the sun, not after. Kiang (1972) commented that "either the month or the direction . . . is wrong." Following up on this, Stephenson and Yau noted that if the Chinese month was changed from the 7th (August 10 to September 8) to the 6th (July 9 to August 9) the direction would fit. But they then noted that the characters for the 6th and 7th months were dissimilar, so that the direction adjustment suggested by Kiang might be the more likely alternative.

After the conjunction, the comet would have entered the western sky and the solar elongation would have increased to 36° by August 12. Thereafter, the comet would have again dived into twilight, passing only 0.5° from the sun on September 28. Because of the declining elongation, Stephenson et al. have suggested the August 24 date probably marked the final observation of this comet. Because of the evening sky l ocation, the probable UT was August 24.7.

P. H. Cowell and A. C. D. Crommelin (1908) were the first to link the comet of -86 to 1P/Halley. Their computations revealed a probable perihelion date of -86 August 15. Later investigations were conducted by Kiang (1972), Yu-Che Chang (1979), Yeomans and Kiang (1981), J. L. Brady (1982), Werner Landgraf (1986), and G. Sitarski (1988).

T -86 Aug. 6.462 (UT)
ω 90.778
Ω (2000.0) 34.018
i 163.340
q 0.58560
e 0.96768

ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE: H10=5.0 (Kronk)
FULL MOON: July 25, August 24
SOURCES: Han shu (100), 7:1b; A. G. Pingre (1783), pp. 274-5; J. Williams (1871), p. 7; G. F. Chambers (1889), p. 555; MNRAS, 68 (Supp. 1908), pp. 665-70; Ho Peng Yoke (1962), p. 145; MRAS, 76 (1972), pp. 35, 56; CAA, 3 (1979), pp. 124, 127; D. K. Yeomans and T. Kiang (1981), p. 643; J. L. Brady (1982), p. 210; IBIS, 38 (1985), p. 201; Nature, 314 (1985 Apr. 18), pp. 587-92; W. Landgraf (1986), p. 258; JRASC, 80 (1986 Apr.), p. 72; G. Sitarski (1988), p. 263; VA, 34 (1991), pp. 180, 183.

Yoke (1962)

(33) October, 147 B.C. "In the ninth month (of the third year of the Chung-Yuan reign-period) [12th October to 10th November] there was a comet in the NW." (TCKM 4/28b; W24.)



(34) April, 138 B.C. "During the third month of the third year of the Chien-Yuan reign-period of I-Isiao-Wu(-Ti) [9th April to 7th May] a (po) comet appeared at the Chang (26th lunar mansion). It passed the Thai-Wei (Enclosure), trespassed against the Tzu-Wei (Enclosure) and reached the Milky Way (Thien-Han)." (CHS 26/27b; WHTK 286/4a; HHHY 28/2b; W25.) The WHTK gives the second month of the third year.



(35) May, 138 B.C. "During the fourth month of the third year (of the Chien-Yuan reign-yeriod) [8th May to 6th June] a (po) comet appeared at Thien-Chi (in Hercules) and went as far as Chih-Nit (Vega)." (CHS 26/27b; WHTK 286/4b; HHHY 28/2b; W26.)



(36) August, 138 B.C. "In autumn, during the seventh month of the third year of the Chien-Yuan reign-period [5th August to 3rd September] there was a (po) comet in the NW." (TCKM 4/54b; W27.)



(37) October, 137 B.C. "In autumn, during the ninth month of the 4th year of the Chien-Yuan reign-period [21st September to 20th October] there was a comet in the NE." (TCKM 4/60a; W28.)



(38) July, 135 B.C. "During the sixth month of the sixth year of the Chien-Yuan reign-period of Wu-Ti [July 3rd to August 1st] a (po) comet was seen in the N." (CHS 27/3. 3/27a; WHTK 286/4b; HHHY 29/9b; W29.)



(39) September, 135 B.C. "During the eighth month of the sixth year of the Chien-Yuan reign-period [August 31st to September 29th] a (chhang-hsing) comet appeared in the E, stretching across the heavens. It lasted 30 days before leaving." (CHS 27/3. 3/27b; TCKM 4/61b; WHTK 286/4b; HHHY 29/9b; W30.)



(40) July, 134 B.C. "During the sixth month of the first year of the Yuan-Kuang reign-period [22nd June to 21st July] a "guest star" appeared at the Fang (fourth lunar mansion)." (CHS 26/28a; HHHY 28/3a; B(1); W31; L; Hsi.) Biot and Hsi regard it as a nova.



(41) September, 134 B.C. "During the eighth month of the first year of the Yuan-Kuang reign-period [21st August to 18th September] a (chhang-hsing) comet stretched across the heavens. Hence the reign-period was changed." (TCKM com.4/116a; SC 12/7b.) The SC merely says, "The second reign-period was called Yuan-Kuang because of the appearance of a (chhang-hsing) comet." There is some likelihood that the commentator of TCKM has confused this with the September 135 B.C. comet in No. 39.



(42) Spring, 120 B.C. "In spring, during the third year of the Yuan-Shou reign-period a (po) comet was seen in the E." (TCKM 4/126a; W32.)



(43) May, 119 B.C. "During the fourth month of the fourth year of the Yuan-Shou reign-period [8th May to 6th June] a (chhang-hsing) comet was again seen in the NW." (CHS 27/3, 3/27b; TCKM 4/133b; WHTK 286/4b; HHHY 29/10a; W33.) TCKM says, "In the spring of the fourth year a (po) comet appeared in the NE, and in summer a (chhang-hsing) comet was seen in the NW."



(44) June, 110 B.C. "During the fifth month of the first year of the Yuan-Feng reign-period [29th May to 26th June] a (po) comet appeared at the Tung-Ching (22nd lunar mansion). The comet was also seen at San-Thai." (CHS 27/3, 3/27b; SC 12/20a; TCKM 5/6a; WHTK 286/5a; HHHY 29/10a; W34.) The SC says, "During the first year of the Yuan-Fong reign-period a (po) comet was seen at the Tung-Ching (22nd lunar mansion). After more than ten days the comet appeared at San-Neng [= San-Thai]."



(45) Between 108 B.C. and 107 B.C. "In the middle of the Yuan-Fong reign-period a (po) comet was seen at Ho-Shu." (CHS 26/28b; WHTK 286/5a; HHHY 28/3a; W35.) Williams gives between 109 B.C. and 108 B.C.



(46) Around 102 B.C. "In the middle of the Thai-Chhu reign-period a (po) comet was seen among the stars of Chao-Yao." (CHS 26/28b; WHTK 286/5a; HttHY 28/3a.)



(47) August, 87 B.C. "In autumn, during the seventh month of the second year of the Hou- Yuan reign-period [10th August to 8th September] a (po) comet appeared in the E." (TCKM 5/69a; W36.)
This was probably Halley's Comet. Cf. SCHOVE (1955).



(48) March, 84 B.C. "In spring, during the second month of the third year of the Chih-Yuan reign-period of the Emperor Chao-Ti [12th March to 10th April] a (po) comet was seen at the NW." (TCKM 5/74a; W37.)

Ramsey (2007)

Table 1

Tabular summary of comets and other celestial objects from 500 B.C. to A.D. 400 attested by Greco-Roman sources. An icon having the shape of an eyeball indicates that one or more sources were written by a possible eyewitness. Bracketed dates signify listings in previous catalogues that are rejected. A comet icon in column two indicates by the presence or absence of a question mark the degree of certainty with which an object can be classified as a comet. A check in column three signifies the existence of possible corroborating evidence from Asia. Column four gives the record number for comets and possible comets listed in the main body of the catalogue (nos. 1–51) and in the appendix of non-comets (nos. 1a–22a), while column five identifies the object by name (e.g. Halley) or by the historical context in which it is reported. An event enclosed within brackets is not explicitly associated in the sources with the comet. The reference number in column six is linked to the ancient sources for each object, parentheses enclosing sources that are unquestionably derived from the source preceding. The last column signifies divergences from previous catalogues:
  • B = Barrett (ref. 12)
  • G = Gundel (ref. 17)
  • K = Kronk (ref. 2)
  • K unc. = “Appendix I, Uncertain Objects” in Kronk (ref. 2)
  • P = Pingré (ref. 2)
  • Y = Yeomans (ref. 43)
Bolding singles out “Major Comets”, those of great magnitude, duration, or length.

Ramsey (2007)


Seargent (2008)

Seargent (2008:68-69)



Seargent (2008:70-71)



Diodotus Tryphon at Livius.org



A comet and the dating issue - Triantafyllou et al. (2022:8)

3.2 A comet and the dating issue

The issue of dating the earthquake and tsunami event is puzzling. Strabo narrates that the event happened just after the battle of Ptolemeans under Diodotus Tryphon against general Sarpedon. From historiographic analysis it has been suggested that the battle may have taken place between 138 and 125 BC (Ambraseys 2009), although another analysis puts the battle in July/August 138 BC (see about Diodotus Tryphon at Livius.org). On the other hand, the comet’s apparition reported by Historia chronike constitutes a terminus ante quem for the earthquake and tsunami event. The so-called Mithridates’ comet, observed in the SE Asia as well as in the Mediterranean region during September 135 BC (Yoke 1962; Seargent 2008), is possibly the comet reported in Historia chronike since it has been the closest in time. The so-called 2nd Mithridates’ comet, recorded in Greco-Roman sources (Ramsey 2007) appeared in 119 BC but it is not close in time.

An issue that needs further examination is that in Historia chronike it is reported that the earthquake event occurred during the reign (129–96 BC) of Antiochus Cyzicenus. If it is true then the terminus ante quem is shifted much later, thus contradicting the dating implied by the account of Strabo. The contradiction is resolved if John of Antioch, when writing Historia chronike had in mind Antiochus VII Euergetes, nicknamed Sidetes, who was father of Antiochus Cyzicenus. Antiochus VII Sidetes was ruler of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire and reigned from July/August 138 to 129 BC. Under these circumstances we arrive at the conclusion that the earthquake and tsunami event likely occurred between the Ptolemais battle in the summer of 138 BC and the comet’s apparition in September 135 BC.

New Numismatic Evidence about the Comets of Mithradates the Great of Pontus (134 and 119 BC) - Molnar (1997)

Abstract

The historian, Justinus, tells us that the life of Mithradates the Great of Pontus (ca. 134 - 63 BC) was marked by two unusually large comets: one at his birth in ca. 134 BC and another at his coronation ca. 119 BC. Often these comets are cited as proof that sometimes comets heralded great, good events (such as the Star of Bethlehem.) We now have evidence that counters that notion. Mithradates struck some bronze coins that depict a foreboding hippeus (horse) comet. Pliny, the Roman naturalist, tells us that this kind of comet had plumes much like horses manes in very rapid motion and moving in a circle. The evidence is that the horses mains are synchronic bands. The visibility of these bands indicates that the hippeus comet is a class of comets that had a close encounter with the earth, perhaps on the order of a million kilometers. Hephaistion of Thebes tells us that the hippeus comet foretold the quick fall of kings and tyrants and rapid changes in the affairs of these countries. It is likely that the comet was interpreted as an omen of violent revolution, but Mithradates apparently altered the focus of the portent, namely that the comet signified his struggle to evict the Romans from Asia Minor.

Reference

Molnar, M.R. (1997) New Numismatic Evidence about the Comets of Mithradates the Great of Pontus (134 and 119 BC) American Astronomical Society, 191st AAS Meeting, id.35.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 29, p.1262

Seleucid Emperors

Seleucid Kings of Antioch in Malalas

Table Explanation

In the following table Malalas' information concerning the succession of the Seleucid kings is outlined at the left, with the accepted sequence at the right.2 His account of the Seleucids is preserved in the Church Slavonic version as well as in the Greek text of the Codex Baroccianus at Oxford: the two texts agree save in a few instances, so that the Greek text (Ox.) is used, and the Slavonic version (Slav.) is cited only when it is evident that it is more complete or correct.3
Footnotes

2 The lengths of some of the reigns are still not certain, but since it is not the purpose of this study to evaluate Malalas' information in this respect, the chronology of Bouche-Leclercq is followed, unless otherwise stated (see his table, op. cit., pp. 640-641). Reference may also be made to Wilcken, "Antiochos," R.E. I, 2450-2487, and "Alexandros," nos. 22-23, ibid., 1437-1439; Stahelin, "Seleukos," R.E. II A, 1210-1246; and Willrich, "Demetrios," nos. 40-42, R.E. IV, 2795-2802.

3 See the Church Slavonic text cited above, p. 108, n. 1.

Tables

Seleucid Period
King Notes Years of Reign
(Malalas)		 Accepted Sequence2 References
Seleucus Nicator died aged 72 not given Seleucus I Nicator, died 280/14 Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Antiochus Soter married his step- 20 Antiochus I Soter, 281-261 mother Stratonice and had 2 sons, Seleucus (died as a child), and Antiochus Theoeides 20 Antiochus I Soter, 281-261 Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Antiochus Theoeides 15 Antiochus II Theos, 261-246 Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Seleucus Callinicus son of Antiochus Theoeides and Berenice 24 Seleucus II Callinicus, 246-226; son of Antiochus II and Laodice, Berenice being the second wife of Antiochus II Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Alexander Nicator1a 4 Seleucus III Soter, 226-223; originally named Alexander, took the name Seleucus at accession Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Antiochus Grypus 36 Antiochus III, the Great, 223-187 Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Seleucus Philopator 10 Seleucus IV Philopator, 187/6-176/52a Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Antiochus Epiphanes3a 12 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 175-164 Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Antiochus Glaucus Hierax son of Antiochus Epiphanes 2 Error for Antiochus V Eupator (son of Epiphanes), 164-162; the only Antiochus called Hierax was the younger son of Seleucus Callinicus, who never ruled, and died 227.4a "Glaucus" is not attested for any Seleucid Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Demetrianus son of Seleucus5a 8 Demetrius I Soter, 162-150 - up to Demetrius I Soter, we have 131 years (281-150 BCE) Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Antiochus ekgonos of Grypus son of Laodice, daughter of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia. The earthquake occurred in the 8th year of his reign 9 Alexander Balas, 150-145 (usurper)
Demetrius II Nicator, 146-125
Antiochus VI Dionysus, 145-142
Tryphon Diodotus, 140-137 (usurper)		 Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
Antiochus Euergetes6a his son Antiochus Cyzicenus married Brittane, daughter of Arsaces Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes, 138-129; Antiochus IX Cyzicenus was his son, but he married Cleopatra IV and Cleopatra Selene Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
After Antiochus Euergetes there reigned 9 of his descendants until the reign of Antiochus Dionysus the Leper, father of Cleopatra and Antiochis.7a Alexander II Zabinas, 128-123
Antiochus VIII Grypus, 125-96
Seleucus V, 125
Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, 116-95
Antiochus X Eusebes, 94—83
Antiochus XI Epiphanes Philadelphus, 92
Philip I, 92-83
Demetrius III, 95-88
Antiochus XII Dionysus, 89-84 		Malalas (204, 17-208, 21)
In the 15th year of Antiochus Dionysus, Tigranes made war on Antiochus and took Antioch, which was later occupied by Pompey [Tigranes, 86 or 84-69]
Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, 68 and 65 or 65/48a
Philip II Barypous, 67/6
 Malalas (211, 4)
Pompey restored the kingdom to Dionysus, who left it to the Romans at his death; the Seleucid kings had ruled 263 years The reckoning (312/1-263=49/8 B.C.) refers to the introduction of the era of Caesar at Antioch, not to the Roman occupation of Syria1b Malalas (212, 9)
Roman Period
King Notes Years of Reign
(Malalas)		 Accepted Sequence2 References
Philip Barypous Philip II, 67/6 Malalas (225, 9)
Antiochus Philadelphus Antiochus XI Epiphanes Philadelphus, 92 Malalas (234, 1)
Antiochus Philopator Antiochus IX or XII (?) Malalas (235, 18)
Footnotes

2 The lengths of some of the reigns are still not certain, but since it is not the purpose of this study to evaluate Malalas' information in this respect, the chronology of Bouche-Leclercq is followed, unless otherwise stated (see his table, op. cit., pp. 640-641). Reference may also be made to Wilcken, "Antiochos," R.E. I, 2450-2487, and "Alexandros," nos. 22-23, ibid., 1437-1439; Stahelin, "Seleukos," R.E. II A, 1210-1246; and Willrich, "Demetrios," nos. 40-42, R.E. IV, 2795-2802.

4 Stahelin assigns the death of Seleucus to the end of 281 or the beginning of 280, R.E. II A, 1225-1226; W. Kolbe limits it to Dec. 281 or Jan. 280, "Beitrage zur syr. u. jud. Gesch.," Beitrage zur Wiss. vom Alt. Test., N.F. Heft 10, Stuttgart, 1926, pp. 14-15.

1a Ox. has "Alexander Nicator, 36 years" (205, 5), while Slav. has "Alexander Nicator, 4 years; and Antiochus Grypus, 36 years" (6, 3).

2a This is Stahelin's chronology (R.E. II A, 1242 ff.), which is more instructive for comparison with Malalas' evidence than the years 187-175 given by Bouche-Leclercq.

3a In 234, 1 Malalas calls Antiochus 'Αντιοχου του επιφανεστατςυ βασιλεωσ..

4a Wilcken, R.E. I, 2457 ff.

5a With "Demetrianos" for "Demetrios," compare "Markianos" for "Markios" in 225, 8. Further examples of Malalas' distortion of names are listed in my article cited above (p. 107, n. 3), p. 144, n. 5.

6a Slav.: "Antiochus Euprepes" (7, 22).

7a Ox.: "Antiochus Dionicus" (208, 13, 15; 211, 5; 212, 9, 17, 20); Slav.: "Antiochus Dionysus" (7, 28, 31; 10, 11, 13).

8a On the chronology of Antiochus XIII and Philip II, see my article cited above, p. 107, n. 3.

1b On the date of the introduction of the era of Caesar at Antioch, see Stauffenberg, op. cit., pp. 108-117.

Other References

Mithridates VI of Pontus Comet Coin - Coin Talk