Iran and the Transformation of Ancient Near Eastern History: The Seleucids (ca. 312-150 BCE) 3447120568, 9783447120562

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Pages
Contents
Preface
Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger: Introduction: Seleucid and Iranian History in Dialogue
Rolf Strootman: How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?
Stanley M. Burstein: The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade
Sara E. Cole: Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE): The Role of Dynastic Women
Krzysztof Nawotka: Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology: The Alexander Factor
Vito Messina: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: Embedding Capitals in the Hellenizing Near East
Julian Degen: Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: The Empire Becoming Visible in Seleucid ktíseis
Johannes Haubold: Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon
Rocco Palermo: From Sennacherib to the Seleucids: The Settled Landscape of the Assyrian Heartland during the Hellenistic Period
Omar Coloru: Seen from Ecbatana: Aspects of Seleucid Policy in Media
Laurianne Martinez-Sève: Seleucid Religious Architecture in Ai Khanum: A Case Study
Kai Ruffing: The Economy (-ies) of the Seleucid Empire
Christoph Schäfer: The Seleucids and the Seas
Sören Stark: Some Observations on the Early Seleucid Northeastern Frontier
Matthew P. Canepa: The Seleucid Empire and the Creation of a New Iranian World
Index

Citation preview

Classica et Orientalia 31

CLeO

Touraj Daryaee, Robert Rollinger and Matthew P. Canepa (Eds.)

Iran and the Transformation of Ancient Near Eastern History: the Seleucids (ca. 312–150 BCE) Proceedings of the Third Payravi Conference on Ancient Iranian History, UC Irvine, February 24th–25th, 2020

Harrassowitz

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Classica et Orientalia Herausgegeben von Ann C. Gunter, Wouter F. M. Henkelman, Bruno Jacobs, Robert Rollinger, Kai Ruffing und Josef Wiesehöfer Band 31

2023 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran and the Transformation of Ancient Near Eastern History: the Seleucids (ca. 312–150 BCE) Proceedings of the Third Payravi Conference on Ancient Iranian History, UC Irvine, February 24th–25th, 2020 Edited by Touraj Daryaee, Robert Rollinger and Matthew P. Canepa

2023 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Cover: Jean Grandjean (1752–1781), Seleucus waives Stratonice in favor of his son Antiochus. Oil paint on canvas, 1775. Inv.no. 1001175. Collectie Bonnefanten, langdurig bruikleen LGOG. © collection Bonnefanten Maastricht, photography Peter Cox, licensed under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de/abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at https://dnb.de/.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/ © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2023 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany ISSN 2190-3638 eISSN 2748-517X ISBN 978-3-447-12056-2 eISBN 978-3-447-39422-2

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Contents Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger Introduction: Seleucid and Iranian History in Dialogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Rolf Strootman How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Stanley M. Burstein The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Sara E. Cole Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE): The Role of Dynastic Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Krzysztof Nawotka Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology: The Alexander Factor. . . . . . . . . .

87

Vito Messina Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: Embedding Capitals in the Hellenizing Near East . . . . . .

101

Julian Degen Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: The Empire Becoming Visible in Seleucid ktíseis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125

Johannes Haubold Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon. . . . . . .

167

Rocco Palermo From Sennacherib to the Seleucids: The Settled Landscape of the Assyrian Heartland during the Hellenistic Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183

Omar Coloru Seen from Ecbatana: Aspects of Seleucid Policy in Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

201

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

VI

Contents

Laurianne Martinez-Sève Seleucid Religious Architecture in Ai Khanum: A Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

217

Kai Ruffing The Economy (-ies) of the Seleucid Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

253

Christoph Schäfer The Seleucids and the Seas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

273

Sören Stark Some Observations on the Early Seleucid Northeastern Frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

285

Matthew P. Canepa The Seleucid Empire and the Creation of a New Iranian World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

305

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

325

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Ali-Asghar Payravi

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Preface This volume brings together the contributions of the third of the Payravi Conferences on Ancient Iranian History, held at the University of California Irvine (Dr. Samuel M. Jordan Center for Iranian Studies), and organized by the editors of this volume. The conference “Iran and the Transformation of ancient Near Eastern History: The Seleucids (ca. 312–150 BCE),” took place on February 24th–25th 2020. The proceedings of the first two conferences have already been published in a single volume. 1 The idea of the Payravi Conferences was born thanks to a generous donation by the Payravi family in memory of the late Ali-Asghar Payravi who had been an avid reader and enthusiast of the world of ancient Iran. The aim of the conferences and the subsequent proceedings was to present a learned and critical inquiry into the history of the Iranian Plateau from its pre-dynastic period in the second millennium BCE up to the end of the Sasanian Empire in the 7th century CE. This undertaking will be implemented through five conferences and the publication of the respective proceedings, organized by Touraj Daryaee, Robert Rollinger, and Matthew P. Canepa. We are grateful to the Payravi family for their support in bringing together an international group of scholars from different parts of the world to present, discuss and publish papers about the ancient Iranian World. Our sincere thanks go to a group of persons who were crucial for the implementation of the conference. Without their assistance its success would not have been possible. First, to Mrs. Parichehr Farhad (Payravi), who accepted our proposal and, along with her sister, Mrs. Parvaneh Payravi, generously supported our idea all through the years. We also wish to thank Mr. Saeid Jalalipour, the Program Manager at the Center for Persian Studies at UC Irvine, for his logistical organization of the first three conferences. Irvine and Innsbruck, November 2022 Touraj Daryaee, Robert Rollinger, and Matthew P. Canepa

1 Daryaee/Rollinger 2021.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Introduction: Seleucid and Iranian History in Dialogue Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger*

The study of the Seleucid Empire has a nebulous history in the context of ancient history and Iranian Studies. 1 Alexander III of Macedon’s conquest of the Achaemenid Empire did not end up with the establishment of a completely new empire. 2 Instead, it was followed by the division of the spoils among his generals and decades of continuous warfare for more territory and power. 3 After an interval of roughly one decade Seleucus I – Nikator – founded an empire that encompassed vast parts of the Middle East and ‘Greater Iran’ (fig. 1). 4 In 312 BCE he married Apamā, an Iranian princess whose origins was from the Satrapy of Bactria/Balkh, thus establishing his dynastic line. 5 At the beginning, this new state was a story of success and a true successor of its ancient Near Eastern predecessors. 6 The continuity of Seleucid imperial power is clear under Antiochus I – Soter, 281– 261 BCE – and Antiochus II – Theos, 261–246 BCE). However, crisis already emerged in the second half of the 3rd century BCE 7 that accelerated when the state definitely lost its ability to act as an independent actor and competitor in political and ideological affairs due to the rise of Rome. Most recent discussion revolves around whether the state ceased to be an empire in the late reign of Antiochus III with the Peace of Apamea in 188 BCE or only with the death of Antiochus IV in 164 BCE. 8 In any case, with the defeat of Antiochus VII by Phraates II at the Battle of Ecbatana in 129 BCE, all attempts at regaining * Robert Rollinger’s research was supported by a grant PPN/PRO/2020/1/00009/U/00001of the NAWA Chair 2020 Programme “From the Achaemenids to the Romans: Contextualizing empire and its longue-durée developments” (Wrocław, Poland) and by a grant from the National Science Centre (Poland) 2021/01/1/HS3/00006. 1 See most recently Canepa 2018. 2 Degen/Rollinger 2022. 3 Romm 2011. Troncoso/Anson 2013. Chaniotis 2018. 4 Ogden 2017. Van der Spek 2014. For the term ‘greater Iran’ see Sinisi 2018. 5 Kosmin 2011. 6 Kosmin 2014. Anagnostou-Laoutides/Pfeiffer 2022. 7 Chrubasik 2016. 8 The first option represents the communis opinion of modern scholarships. With good arguments for the second option see Strootman 2019. Cf. also Ma 2000. Gabrielsen 2008. Feyel/Graslin-Thomé 2014. Feyel/Graslin-Thomé 2017. Compare also recently Hoffmann-Salz 2022, 21–47.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

2

Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger

Fig. 1: Tetradrachm of Seleucus I with images of anchors as symbols of the Seleucids. © Hartmann Linge, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA 3.0.

power over the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia came to an end and a completely new power constellation emerged in the Middle East. 9 From then on the Arsacid Empire with its westernmost residence, Ctesiphon began to replace the Seleucid predecessors as an imperial formation in the Middle East and ‘Greater Iran’ and a new chapter started in the history of the Iranian World (fig. 1). 10 This volume attempts to evaluate the effect of Seleucid rule over the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia, not in the context of Seleucid imperial history, but rather primarily in the context of ancient Iranian history. When it comes to the Seleucid Empire, there are competing narratives, views and vantage points in regard to this Greco-Macedonian and ancient Near Eastern Empire. Within traditional Iranian historiography, which reflects and grew from the late antique worldview of Sasanian Erānšahr  –  ‘Empire of the  Iranians’ – Alexander and his crew of conquerors from the West were seen as a movement of evil forces which threw the Zoroastrian religion into chaos and disrupted Iran’s royal traditions. (fig. 2). 11 Within the context of this vague, nativist memory as preserved in later Zoroastrian literature, this period of Iranian history is seen as an era of destruction and division. Those who took on this view based on the ancient Near Eastern literary tradition, specifically Zoroastrianism, suggested that the Iranians stood in opposition to “Hellenic imperialism” as the basic institution of kingship and worldview. 12 However, we do have another 9 Clancier 2021. See also Monerie 2019. 10 For the adaption of ancient Near Eastern royal titulature and the various ways in expressing imperial claims in this period see Shayegan 2011. 11 Daryaee 2007. Wiesehofer 2011. 12 Eddy 1961.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Introduction: Seleucid and Iranian History in Dialogue

3

Fig. 2: Kingdoms of the Diadochi after the Battle of Ipsus, c. 301 BCE. © Captain_Blood, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA 3.0.

view of Alexander and the Seleucid Empire within the Iranian literary and semi-historical tradition. Here in the Persian epic and semi-historical literature Alexander turns out to be the half-brother of Darius III and who takes the Iranian throne on behest of his dying brother. Alexander further legitimizes Greco-Macedonian rule by marrying himself and his generals to Iranian noblewomen, whose Greco-Macedonian-Iranian children will rule on the Iranian Plateau as their fathers’ successors. 13 Nevertheless, the view of the Seleucids as foreign invaders, conquerors, and the destroyers of Iran pervades modern Iranian historiography. 14 For this very reason the study of Seleucid history within Iran and in its Persian contexts have received very little attention, as it is seen as a period of foreign domination. 15 Hence what there is of studies in Persian historiography, it is meager and tinged with disdain, in comparison with the Achaemenids. 16 At best the Seleucids in  Iran and the ancient Near East have been perceived as colonizers on the Iranian Plateau, with the establishments of Seleucias, Apameas, Ai Khanum and other places, with their Greco-Macedonian inhabitants. The Western perspective of the Seleucid Empire vis-à-vis ‘Greater Iran’ created another specific approach. In the field of ancient history, until the 1980s, the Seleucid Empire had been rather neglected. One reason for this attitude is the fact that, compared with other successor states of the ‘western world,’ like those around the Aegean and the Levant, the Seleucids were supposed to represent the ‘Oriental World’ of the East, they were thought

13 14 15 16

Briant 2015. Daryaee 2018. Cf. also Olbrycht 2021. Zarrinkub 2015. Khodadadian 1998. For a reactionary stance against Hellenism see Hami 1983.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

4

Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger

to not be Greek enough, and at best to be barbarized Hellenes in distant Asia. 17 It was the landmark study of S. Sherwin-White and E. Kuhrt that attempted to place the Seleucids in their proper place as an ancient Near Eastern empire with a character of its own, separate from Alexander. 18 This study not only paved the way for a new understanding of the empire but also triggered the discussion on ‘how’ it has to be understood. Thus, in the last decades scholarly interest in the Seleucids exploded with studies on their outreach into Central Asia and the steppes, 19 their campaigns into the Arabian Peninsula, 20 their literary and intellectual history, 21 their conception of time and space, 22 their building activities, 23 their international networks, 24 their specific iconographic language, 25 their decline and post-imperial period, 26 the local and imperial elites, 27 the imperial turn, 28 archaeology and numismatics, 29 reception history, 30 and a whole series of general surveys. 31 A ‘problem’ related to the study of this empire is that it is neither ‘Western’ nor ‘Eastern,’ at least according to the definitions of previous scholarship, but Seleucid. It is an heir to the empires of the ancient Near East in general, but more directly to the Achaemenid Empire. When we look at the peak moments of this empire it becomes evident that its imperial power was rooted in the control of two key regions. With the alluvial plain of Babylonia the empire possessed the most fertile region of the Middle East. Additionally, with the Iranian highlands it held the conduit of crossroads that connected east and west, and north and south. The control of these regions was of utmost importance since with the emergence of empires at the beginning of the first millennium BCE, proto-globalization and transregional entanglement received completely new dynamics. 32 Of course, Syria and Anatolia were also important areas, but without Mesopotamia and the Iranian highlands the Seleucid state was only a minor kingdom to which it was finally reduced at the end of the second century BCE. With the control of these two key areas the empire was at the center of a more interconnected and entangled Afro-Eurasian world that was about to take shape. 33 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Strootman 2020. Sherwin-White/A. Kuhrt 1993. Sinisi 2018. Canepa 2020. Stark 2021. Sørensen/Geus 2020. Stevens 2019. Visscher 2020. Kosmin 2018. Bichler/Rollinger 2017. Canepa 2014; 2018. Canepa 2017. Posch 1997. Ehling 2008. Feyel/Graslin-Thomé 2021. See also Chrubasik 2016. Strootman 2011. Strootman 2014. Haubold 2016. Chrubasik/King 2017. Engels 2017. Strootman/ Williams 2020. Fischer-Bovet/von Reden 2021. Schäfer. Oetjen 2019. Basello 2004. Shayegan 2011. Shayegan 2012. Strootman 2020b. Canepa 2021. The latest: Strootman 2021. Gehler/Rollinger 2022. von Reden 2020; von Reden 2021.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Introduction: Seleucid and Iranian History in Dialogue

5

Since the Seleucid Empire at its apex was neither ‘Eastern’ nor ‘Western,’ it was also neither ‘Babylonian’ nor ‘Iranian,’ but again Seleucid in its foundation, ideology, and identity. By controlling these areas in the first 150 years of its existence the Seleucid Empire had become part of Iranian history and had to deal with in Fig. 3: Vādfradād I/Autophradates I/Istakhr/ these very contexts. 34 These dynamics inPersepolis mint. © Classical Numismatic Group, creased when the Seleucids engaged with Inc, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA 3.0. the growing diversity of ‘Greater Iran’ in the middle of the 3rd century BCE, where a series of local states/kingdoms emerged whose rulers were initially vassals for the Seleucids, but soon struggled for greater independence. These developments mark a significant difference as compared to what we face in the preceding epoch of the Achaemenid-Persian Empire. Whether or not this is already a sign of an emerging weakness in Seleucid institutions is a matter of debate and needs further study. Moreover, we have to be mindful that not all regions and satrapies of the Iranian Plateau under the Seleucids shared a similar encounter with and reaction to the imperial administration and its diverse cultural traditions. For example, the province of Persis had its own sovereigns under Seleucid rule. 35 They minted their own coinage with Aramaic letters, sometimes from overstrikes of coinage of Alexander and the Seleucids, which not tacitly, but ideologically signaled their relative independent stance against their overlords. The image of the Fratarakas’ veneration of the cultic banner, the symbol of Ahura Mazda, and their appreciation of the site of Persepolis, all in all suggested an intrinsic connection to their Persian past during the Seleucid rule (fig. 3). It thus may not be farfetched to suggest that while “Hellenic” traditions are apparent from Seleucia on the Tigris to Ai Khanum, 36 in Persis, there are signs of an intact and growing “Persianism” or “Iranism,” such as, perhaps, the Kayanian banner, architectural features similar to those on Achaemenid seals, and royal portraiture that paralleled the satrapal regalia of the old empire. 37 The single coinage of Wahbarz/Oborzos with anti-Macedonian iconography may also suggest this antipathy towards the Seleucids. Other regions such as the Elamayis and Charax show a more nuanced and mixed  Irano-Hellenistic tradition which lived on until the conquest of the Sasanians. 38 In the northeast, the Bactrian kingdom with its pockets of Graeco-Macedonian settlers also had different

34 35 36 37 38

Plischke 2014. Strootman 2020a. Wiesehöfer 1994. For these ‘localisms’ see now Hoo 2022. See Strootmann/Versluys 2017. Canepa 2018, 252–254. For the various problems related to the term ‘Hellenism’ and the actual pre-Alexander and thus Achaemenid origin of the phenomenon in the Aegean see Strootman/Williamson 2020.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

6

Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger

responses to the culture and traditions of the Seleucids. 39 Thus, we have to be aware of the diversity and ranges of responses to the Seleucid rulers as well as their position within their empire and that of the Iranian World. All in all though, it seems that any reaction to the Seleucid rule was not fierce. 40 What we encounter in the worlds of ‘Greater Iran’ is special, and for the ancient Near East in general is a transitional and transformative period that was as well rooted in the past as it opened the gates for developments with new agendas and political constellations. This volume presents a very specific perspective on this period which has, so far, not occupied the center of scholarly research. It combines two different approaches. On the one hand its focus is on long term developments and thus deals with the relationship between the past, present and future. On the other hand it concentrates on the Seleucids’ relationship to and control of ‘Greater Iran’ and thus is engaged with a transregional and transnational perspective. It intends to demonstrate the necessity to study and perceive the history of the Iranian Plateau and ‘Greater Iran’ for more than a century of Seleucid rule. Such an approach moves beyond the alleged divide of world history in ‘East’ and ‘West,’ ‘Orient’ and ‘Occident.’ It attracts attention for the various interactions between the Seleucids with both the local elites, and the highlights of the development of what could be called “Irano-Hellenica.” 41 It also transgresses the boundaries of modern states and their ideologies; rather, it intends to engage with a ‘local’ but also transregional and entangled world that must be described and understood in its own terms. Thus, for the period under review, Seleucid and Iranian history become intrinsically intertwined and whose engagement with each other became crucial for any future development in the vast regions involved in this era of transition and transformation. 42 References Anagnostou-Laoutides/Pfeiffer 2022 = E. Anagnostou-Laoutides/S. Pfeiffer (eds.), Culture and Ideology Under the Seleukids: Unframing a Dynasty, Berlin/Boston. Basello 2004 = G. P. Basello, Un riflesso del Re Dario in Alto Adige, in: R. Favaro/S. Cristoforetti/M. Compareti (eds.), L’onagro maestro. Miscellanea di fuochi accesi per Gianroberto Scarcia in occasione del suo LXX sadè, Venezia, 411–434. Bichler/Rollinger 2017 = R. Bichler/R. Rollinger, Universale Weltherrschaft und die Monumente an ihren Grenzen. Die  Idee unbegrenzter Herrschaft und deren Brechung im diskursiven Wechselspiel (Vom Alten Orient bis zum  Imperium Romanum), in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Die Sicht auf die Welt zwischen Ost und West (750 v. Chr.-

39 40 41 42

Posch 1995. Plischke 2014. Sinisi 2018. See Zournatzi 2016. For an overview on the structure of the volume and its various contributions see Canepa at the end of this publication.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Introduction: Seleucid and Iranian History in Dialogue

7

550 n. Chr.) = Looking at the World, from the East and the West (750 BCE–550 CE), Wiesbaden, 1–30. Briant 2015 = P. Briant, Darius in the Shadow of Alexander, Harvard University Press. Canepa 2015 = M. P. Canepa, Seleukid Sacred Architecture, Royal Cult and the Transformation of Iranian Culture in the Middle Iranian Period, Iranian Studies 48.1, 1–27. — 2017 = Cross-Cultural Communication in the Hellenistic Mediterranean and Western and South Asia, in: F. S. Naiden/R. J. A. Talbert (eds.), Mercury’s Wings. Exploring Modes of Communication in the Ancient World, Oxford, 249–272. — 2018 = The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE–642 CE, Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oakland. — 2020 = ‘Afghanistan’ as a Cradle and Pivot of Empires: Reshaping Eastern  Iran’s Topography of Power under the Achaemenids, Seleucids, Greco-Bactrians and Kushans, in: R.E. Payne/R. King (eds.), The Limits of Empire in Ancient Afghanistan: Rule and Resistance in the Hindu Kush, circa 600 BCE–600 CE (Classica et Orientalia 24), Wiesbaden, 45–79. — 2021, Sculpting in Time: Rock Reliefs, Inscriptions and the Transformation of Iranian Memory and Identity, in: J. Ben-Dov/F. Rojas (eds.), Afterlives of Ancient Rock-Cut Monuments in the Near East. Carvings In and Out Of Time (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, Band 123), Leiden, 221–271. Chaniotis 2018 = A. Chaniotis, Age of Conquests. The Greek World from Alexander to Hadrian 336 BC – AD 138, London. Chrubasik 2016 = B. Chrubasik, Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire. The Men who Would be King, Oxford. Chrubasik/King 2017 = B. Chrubasik/D. King (eds.), Hellenism and the Local Communities of the East: 400 BCE-250 CE, Oxford. Clancier 2021 = P. Clancier, Les derniers Séleucides en Babylone et l’instauration de la domination Parthe, in: C. Feyel/L. Graslin-Thomé (eds.), Les derniers Séleucides et leur territoire, Paris, 419–441. Daryaee/Rollinger 2021 = T. Daryaee/R. Rollinger (eds.),  Iran and  Its Histories. From the Beginnings to the Achaemenid Empire (Proceedings of the First and Second Payravi Lectures on Ancient Iranian History), Wiesbaden. Daryaee 2007 = T. Daryaee, Imitatio Alexandri and its impact on late Arsacid, early Sasanian and Middle Persian Literature, in: Electrum 12, 89–98. — 2018 = T. Daryaee, Alexander the Great and the Succession of Persian Empires, in: De imperiis. L’idea di impero universale e la successione degli imperi nell’antichità (Universal- und kulturhistorische Studien/Studies in Universal and Cultural History), 205–216. Degen/Rollinger 2022 = J. Degen/R. Rollinger, The “End” of the Achaemenid-Persian Empire: Caesura and Transformation in Dialogue, in: M. Gehler/R. Rollinger/P. Strobl (eds.), Decline, Erosion and Implosion of Empires, Wiesbaden. Eddy 1961 = S. K. Eddy, The King Is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, University of Nebraska Press.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

8

Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger

Ehling 2008 = K. Ehling, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.). Vom Tode des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius, Historia Einzelschriften 196, Stuttgart. Engels 2017 = D. Engels, Benefactors, Kings, Rulers. Studies on the Seleukid Empire between East and West, Studia Hellenistica 57, Leuven/Paris/Bristol. Feyel/Graslin-Thomé 2014 = C. Feyel/L. Graslin-Thomé (eds.), Le projet politique d’Antiochos IV, Études Anciennes 56, Paris. — 2017 = Antiochos III, Études Anciennes 67, Paris. — 2021 = Les derniers Séleucides et leur territoire, Études Anciennes 78, Paris. Fischer-Bovet/von Reden 2021 = C. Fischer-Bovet/S. von Reden (eds.), Comparing the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires:  Integration, Communication, and Resistance, Cambridge. Gabrielsen 2008 = V. Gabrielsen, Provincial Challenges to the Imperial Centre in Achaemenid and Seleucid Asia Minor, in: B. Forsén/G. Salmeri (eds.), Imperial Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean, Helsinki, 15–44. Gehler/Rollinger 2022 = M. Gehler/R. Rollinger, Imperial Turn: Challenges, Problems and Questions, in: M. Gehler/R. Rollinger (eds.), Empires to be Remembered. Ancient Worlds through Modern Times (Universal- und kulturhistorische Studien/Studies in Universal and Cultural History), Wiesbaden, 3–39. Hackl 2020 = J. Hackl, Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der Seleukidenzeit: Die Koregentschaft von Seleukos I. Nikator und Antiochos (I. Soter), Klio 102(2), 560–578. Hami 1983 = A. Hami, Hellenism, Tehran. Haubold 2016 = J. Haubold, Hellenism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Role of Babylonian Elites in the Seleucid Empire, in: M. Lavan/R. E. Payne/J. Weisweiler (eds.), Cosmopolitanism and Empire, Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, Oxford, 89–101. Hoffmann-Salz 2022 = J. Hoffmann-Salz, Im Land der räuberischen Nomaden? Die Eigenherrschaften der Ituraier und Emesener zwischen Seleukiden und Römern, Studien zur Alten Geschichte 31, Göttingen. Hoo 2022 = M. Hoo, Eurasian Localisms. Towards a translocal approach to Hellenism and inbetweenness in central Eurasia, third to first centuries BCE, Oriens et Occidens 41, Stuttgart. Khodadadian 1998 = A. Khodadadian, Collection of History of Ancient Seleucid  Iran, Tehran. Kosmin 2014 = P. J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings. Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge/London. — 2018 = Time and its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge/London. Ma 2000 = J. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford. Monerie 2019 = J. Monerie, Invading Mesopotamia, from Alexander the Great to Antiochus VII, in: R. D. Riva/M. Lang/S. Fink (eds.), Literary Change in Mesopotamia and Beyond and Routes and Travellers between East and West (MWM 2), Münster, 155–185.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Introduction: Seleucid and Iranian History in Dialogue

9

Oetjen 2019 = R. Oetjen, New perspectives in Seleucid history, archaeology and numismatics. Studies in honor of Getzel M. Cohen, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 355, Berlin/Boston. Ogden 2017 = D. Ogden, The Legend of Seleucus. Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World, Cambridge. Olbrycht 2021 = M. J. Olbrycht, Seleukid Women, in: E. D. Carney/S. Müller (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Women and Monarchy in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxon/New York, 173–185. Plischke 2014 = S. Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran, Classica et Orientalia 9, Wiesbaden. Posch 1995 = W. Posch, Baktrien Zwischen Griechen Und Kushan: Untersuchungen Zu Kulturellen Und Historischen Problemen Einer Ubergangsphase, Harrassowitz. Romm 2011 = J. Romm, Ghost on the Throne. The death of Alexander the Great and the bloody fight for his empire, New York. Shayegan 2011 = M. R. Shayegan, Arsacids and Sasanians. Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia, Cambridge. — 2012 = Aspects of History and Epic in Ancient  Iran. From Gaumāta to Wahnām, Hellenic Studies 52, Cambridge/London. Sherwin-White/A. Kuhrt 1993 = S. Sherwin-White/A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, UC Press. Sinisi 2018 = F. Sinisi, Exchanges in Royal Imagery across the Iranian World, 3rd Century BC–3rd Century AD: Chorasmia between Arsacid Parthia and Kushan Bactria, in: M. Minardi/A. Ivantchik (eds.), Ancient Chorasmia, Central Asia and the Steppes. Cultural Relations and Exchanges from the Achaemenids to the Arabs (Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24), Leiden/Boston, 155–196. Sørensen/Geus 2020 = S. L. Sørensen/K. Geus, A Macedonian King in Arabia. Seleukos IV in two Old South Arabian Inscriptions. A corrected synchronism and its consequences, Tyche 35, 175–180. Stark 2021 = S. Stark, Central Asia and the Steppe, in: R. Mairs (ed.), The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World, Landon/New York, 78–105. Stevens 2019 = K. Stevens, Between Greece and Babylonia. Hellenistic Intellectual History in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Cambrdige. Strootman 2011 = R. Strootman, Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age, in: O. M. van Nijf/R. Alston (eds.), Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age, Leuven/Paris/Walpole, 141–153. — 2011–2012 = The Seleukid Empire between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism: Writing the History of Iran in the Third and Second Centuries BCE, International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 11.1–2, 17–35. — 2014 = Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires. The Near East After the Achaemenids c. 330 to 30 BCE, Edinburgh. — 2019 = The Great Kings of Asia:  Imperial titles in the Seleukid and post-Seleukid Middle East, in: R. Oetjen (ed.), New Perspectives in Seleucid History, Archaeology and Numismatics. Studies in Honor of Getzel M. Cohen (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 355), Berlin, 123–157.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

10

Touraj Daryaee and Robert Rollinger

— 2020a = Hellenism and Persianism in Iran: Culture and Empire after Alexander the Great, Dabir 7, 201–227. — 2020b = The Seleukid Empire, in: R. Mairs (ed.), The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World, London/New York, 11–37. — 2021 = Orontid kingship in its Hellenistic context: The Seleucid connections of Antiochos  I of Commagene, in: M. Blömer/S. Riedel/M. J.  Versluys/E. Winter eds., Common Dwelling Place of all the Gods: Commagene in its Local, Regional and Global Hellenistic Context (Oriens et Occidens 34), Stuttgart, 295–317. — 2022 = Alexander the Great and the Seleucids: Iran in the Hellenistic Period (ca. 330– 150 BC), in: J. Spier/T. Potts/S. E. Cole (eds.), Persia. Ancient Iran and the Classical World, Los Angeles, 149–155. Strootman/Versluys 2017 = R. Strootman/M. John Versluys (eds.), Persianism in Antiquity, Oriens et Occidens 25, Stuttgart. Strootman/Williamson 2020 = R. Strootman/C. Williamson, Creating a royal landscape: Hekatomnid use of urban and rural sacred sites in fourth-century Karia, in: S. Caneva (ed.), The Materiality of Hellenistic Ruler Cults (Kernos Supplément 34), Liège, 105–124. Troncoso/Anson 2013 = V. A. Troncoso/E. M. Anson, After Alexander. The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC), Oxford/Oakville. Van der Spek 2014 = R. J. Van der Spek, Seleukos, self-appointed general (strategos) of Asia (311 – 305 B.C.), and the satrapy of Babylonia, in: H. Hauben/A. Meeus (eds.), The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 B.C.) (Studia Hellenistica 53), Leuven, 323–342. Visscher 2020 = M. S. Visscher, Beyond Alexandria: Literature and Empire in the Seleucid World, Oxford. von Reden 2020 = S. von Reden, Handbook of Ancient Afro-Eurasian Economies, Volume 1: Contexts, Berlin/New York. — 2021 = Handbook of Ancient Afro-Eurasian Economies,  Volume 2: Local, Regional, and Imperial Economies, Berlin/New York. Wiesehöfer 1994 = J. Wiesehöfer, Die “Dunklen Jahrhunderte” der Persis. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur von Fārs in frühhellenistischer Zeit (330–140 v. Chr.), Munich. — 2011 = The ‘Accursed’ And The ‘Adventurer’: Alexander The Great In Iranian Tradition,” in: D. Zuwiyya (ed.), A Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages, 113–132. Zarrinkub 2015 = A. H. Zarrinkub, History of the People of Iran: Before Islam, Tehran. Zournatzi 2016 = A. Zournatzi, Overview, in Mapping Ancient Cultural Encounters: Greeks in Iran ca 500 BC–ca. AD 650. Greeks in Iran ca 500 BC–ca. AD 650.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?* Rolf Strootman

How  Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?  In this contribution  I argue that the Seleucid Empire can be understood as partly Iranian, for two reasons. First, because the Seleucid Empire was in essence a military organization and the empire’s Iranian territories – above all Media, Bactria, and Sogdiana – were major sources for manpower, war horses, and elephants. Second, because  Iranian elites, including those in Anatolia, were co-opted by the empire as local (vassal) rulers and allies. Beginning with the marriage of Seleucus and Apama in 324 BCE, Iranian dynasties were entangled with the imperial family in an increasingly complex web of kinship relationships. Some Iranian powerholders became stakeholders in the Seleucid imperial project, enabling a more gradual transition from Seleucid to Arsacid rule in Iranian lands. Part of my argument is the new awareness that Seleucid involvement in Iran lasted longer than was assumed in past scholarship. It extended chronologically from the conquests of Alexander in the late fourth century to the conquests of Mithradates I in the mid-second century BCE – for those who prefer precise, symbolic dates: from the burning of Persepolis in 330 until the Parthian conquest of Ecbatana in 147. 1 This contribution first reviews modern historiographical approaches to the place of Iran in the Seleucid world, and the concept of “Hellenism” in the Iranian east. It will then discuss the two main interrelated elements of the argument as summarized above: Seleucid reliance on Iranian troops for their warmaking, and the increasingly complex web of dynastic alliances that tied the Seleucids to local dynasties in the Iranian east and north.  In discussing the former point, in addition to narrative sources, archaeological data for the Seleucid military presence in eastern Iran will also be taken into account (on which see also Stark, this volume). * I would like to express my gratitude to Touraj Daryaee, Matthew Canepa, and Robert Rollinger for kindly inviting me to speak at the Third Payravi Conference on Ancient Iranian History, and the Jordan Center for Persian Studies for its excellent hospitality. 1 I take the meaning of ‘Iranian’ in the Hellenistic Age broadly. As there are also Aramaic and Greek-speaking Iranians in this period – and because material culture is no longer widely seen as an expression of ethnic identity, Albert de Jong (2017) argued that the only definition of Iranian identity that makes sense in the Hellenistic and later periods, is one that is based on religious practices. That may be formally correct, but I think it is also perhaps too exclusive; I therefore will speak also of Iranian elites when I mean the families in charge of the regions of the Iranian world, including Armenia and northern Anatolia (and whose dynastic names are often Iranian).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

12

Rolf Strootman

It is not my intention to argue that the Seleucid Empire was an “Iranian” empire in absolute terms. Neither do I argue that the Seleucid Empire was an ‘eastern’ empire because the juxtaposition of East and West in Ancient History is unhelpful to say the least. The dynasty was also Macedonian, and the important Greek and Babylonian aspects of Seleucid imperial practices and ideologies have recurrently been studied by this author. However, I do believe that the empire’s equally important Iranian aspects are still poorly understood, and in contrast to the Seleucid center – Mesopotamia and Syria – and the Seleucid west – Asia Minor – the Seleucid east is a relatively understudied field. The Seleucid Empire sits uneasily in the longue durée of Iranian history. 2 While historiography has been able to fit in the Argead empire of Alexander and his immediate successors – either by framing Alexander’s Macedonians as aggressors and destroyers, or by emphasizing the persistence of elements of Achaemenid rule and ideology in the Argead Empire – the Seleucid period in Iran is still seen as an anomalous interlude of ‘foreign’ rule in Iran. The Hellenistic period famously was known as the ‘post-Achaemenid’ period in modern Iranian historiography and archaeology. This was the leading view in western scholarship from the 1960s, partly as an effect of Samuel Eddy’s influential The King is Dead (1961), a study of indigenous resistance to ‘Hellenism’. Eddy not only assembled evidence for resistance in the form of violent uprisings, but also included intellectual opposition in the form of apocalyptic literature. He argued that within Iran, resistance to the Seleucids and to Hellenism was especially strong on the plateau of Persis, the former Achaemenid heartland, but less so in Media and Bactria. 3 Another major influence upon current views of Seleucid rule was the experience of decolonization, prompting European scholars, especially in France, in the 1970s and 1980s to equate alleged ‘Greek’ imperialism in the East with modern European colonialism. 4 As Édouard Will explained, “le choc de la décolonisation nous a fait prendre conscience de ce qu’étaient les réalités coloniales […] il peut nous aider aussi à réviser certaines de nos perspectives sur le passé hellénistique.” 5 Statements like these at that time were a much-needed corrective of the views held by such scholars as Sir Edwyn Bevan and William Woodthorpe Tarn in the first half of the twentieth century. When the European colonial empires were still in existence, some scholars from colonizing countries, especially Britain, were keen to ascribe to Alexander and the Seleucids a policy of spreading Greek moral values, cultural style and above all progress in the supposedly indolent Orient. They explicitly compared this to the ‘civiliz2 On this issue see Strootman 2011a. A successful recent integration of the Seleuc ids into a long-term history of ancient Iranian monarchy is Canepa 2018, who also discusses the Iranian aspects of the Seleuc id monarchy; an insightful earlier one is Frye 1984, 137–175; also see Engels 2011. Wiesehöfer 1993/1996 and Brosius 2006 both show an open mind as regards possible Seleuc id influence upon Iranian history but treat the Hellenistic period only briefly (Brosius 2006 is important for her suggestion, building upon Wiesehöfer 1994, that the well-known Parthian system of indirect rule through vassal dynasties was a Seleukid heritage; see esp. p. 115; on Parthian ‘indirect rule’, see Fowler 2010). 3 Eddy 1961, 75–100. 4 Cf. e.g. Briant 1978; Will 1985. On this issue see Mairs 2009 and 2010. 5 Will 1985, 281.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

13

ing mission’ of modern imperial powers, above all the British Empire. Bevan boldly stated that: we may say with perfect truth that the work being done by European nations, and especially by England, in the East is the same work which was begun by Macedonia [and] a peculiar interest must be felt by Englishmen in those Western kings who ruled in Asia twenty centuries ago. 6 To be fair, Tarn did not think that the Seleucids deliberately aimed at Hellenizing Asia: “their aim was not to spread Greek culture or turn Asiatics into Greeks” but rather “to make of their unwieldy empire a strong state”; the Seleucids encouraged the migration of Greeks – “their own people” – to give the empire “substance and strength.” 7 Hellenization, then, was a by-product of Seleucid imperialism in Tarn’s view. Tarn believed that the Greek settlement of Asia “was one of the most amazing works which the ancient world ever saw.” 8 He moreover argued that the kingdom established by Euthydemus I in the Seleucid satrapy of Bactria and Sogdiana around 200 BCE should be seen as a fifth Hellenistic monarchy, alongside those of the Seleucids, Ptolemies, Antigonids and Attalids. 9 His Western bias is clear from the fact that he denied the Mauryan Empire of Chandragupta and Aśoka a place as the sixth great monarchy of the Hellenistic World. ‘Hellenism’ in Iran: A Short History of the Historiography In Tarn’s time, ‘Hellenistic’ still meant ‘Greek’; and Greece was at that time indisputably associated with the ‘West’. But the postcolonial critics of the idea of Hellenism, too, endorsed the modernist  –  and orientalist  –  dichotomy between Greece and the Near East. Thus, Tarn’s image of a Hellenistic ‘Far East’ was opposed by A. K. Narain in his book The Indo-Greeks (1957). While Tarn aimed at reclaiming Hellenistic-period Central Asia and northern India for Hellenistic history, Narain’s project was to claim it for Indian history. He defiantly stated that the Greeks “came, […] saw, but India conquered.” 10 We already mentioned Samuel Eddy’s book The King is Dead, which highlighted Near Eastern resistance to Hellenism, but thereby indirectly supported the view that a process of ‘Hellenization’ took place in the so-called ‘East.’ Another groundbreaking book, Arnaldo Momigliano’s Alien Wisdom, subverted the idea of Hellenization by outlining how during the Hellenistic period Greek culture absorbed the influences of surrounding cultures. 11 Momigliano’s collection of essays foreshadowed the two works that togeth 6 7 8 9 10 11

Bevan 1902, I, 19; cf. id. p. 290. Tarn 1951 [1938], 5. Tarn 1951 [1938], 5. Tarn 1951 [1938], xx. Narain 1957, 18. Momigliano 1975.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

14

Rolf Strootman

er would conclusively establish the awareness of a profound ‘Near Eastern’ influence on Greece even before the Hellenistic period: Walter Burkert’s Orientalisierende Epoche (1984) and Martin West’s East Face of Helicon (1997). The intellectual influence of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) meanwhile helped to recognize the colonialist undercurrents below some established narratives of the Hellenistic East, such as the assumption that Buddhist art first sprang up in Gandhāra when, or rather, because Greek civilization was injected into that region. 12 For the Seleucid Empire, these developments culminated in two highly influential books, respectively edited and authored by Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White. 13 The first of these, Hellenism in the East (1987) argued, among other things, that the Hellenization of the ‘East’ was at best a thin cultural veneer. It also stressed the importance of Babylonia for the Seleucid Empire. The second book, From Samarkhand to Sardis (1993), maintained that the Seleucid Empire was “an eastern empire”, 14 and shifted attention to the Seleucid Empire’s Iranian territories, including Armenia, Bactria and Sogdiana. From Samarkhand to Sardis showed how the Upper Satrapies were not a neglected backyard but during the third century formed an integral part of the Seleucid imperial project. In the 1990s it was also often claimed that the empires of Alexander and the Seleucids were to a significant degree continuations of the Achaemenid Empire rather than entirely new creations. 15 Since Hellenism in the East and especially From Samarkhand to Sardis, this has become the leading paradigm in the study of Macedonian imperialism in the Middle East, compelling scholars to study issues of continuity and change. 16 The drawback of this more ‘eastern’ view, however, was that it corroborated the artificial opposition between ‘West’ and ‘East’, the very scheme that had earlier led to the colonialist view of Alexander and the Seleucids as proto-European civilizers. In a similar vein, the emphasis on continuity from the Achaemenids to the Seleucids that came to dominate scholarship from the late twentieth century seemed to present the ‘Orient’ as traditional and static. By contrast, Josef Wiesehöfer’s book-length study of Hellenistic-period Pārsa (Persis, mod. Fārs) Die “Dunklen Jahrhunderte” der Persis (1994), 17 presented the Fratarakā of Pārsa as autonomous vassals of the Seleucids rather than as rebels against them. Wiesehöfer thus highlighted the agency of local Iranian rulers, and challenged the colonialist interpretation that juxtaposed Greek foreign rule and indigenous ‘subaltern’ 12 A nuanced discussion of the complexity of Gandhāran archaeology and art is offered by Van Aerde 2018. On the intricacies of cultural (ex)change in the Hellenistic world and the question of ‘Hellenism’, see now the thoughtful discussions by Hoo 2021; see also Versluys 2017, focusing on the uses of Greek and Iranian identities by Antiochu s I of Commagene in the first century BCE. Versluys understands ‘Hellenistic’ as the appropriation of Greek (‘Hellenic’) culture by non-Greeks for their own specific purposes. 13 Kuhrt/Sherwin-White 1987; Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993. 14 Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993, 1. 15 See e.g. Briant 1990; Kuhrt/Sherwin-White 1994; cf. Aperghis 2008. 16 E.g. Sancisi-Weerdenburg/Kuhrt/Root 1994; Briant/Joannès 2009; Blömer/Lichtenberger/Raja 2015; Held 2020. 17 Cf earlier Wiesehöfer 1988 and 1991.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

15

resistance, offering a new model for understanding the essential place of Iranian dynasties within the Seleucid fabric of empire. It has since become clear that a more entangled model of cultural interactions in the Hellenistic World is more profitable than the traditional top-down and bottom-up approaches. Not many scholars today would still maintain that the Hellenistic dynasties actively aimed at spreading “Hellenism in the East”, or that they attempted to impose their own religious beliefs and practices on subject populations.  Indeed, already in 1954 Roman Ghirshman asserted that “Seleucid policy provided a basis for the unification of the country (sc. Iran) but did not aim at Hellenizing the Iranians or at forcing them to adopt any particular culture or way or life. Emphasis has rightly been laid on the fact that Hellenization is a modern term and conception, and was unknown to the Greeks.” 18 As Daniel Potts stated correctly, not only did the Seleucids make no attempt to impose Greek culture, “the idea that they could have tried and succeeded is hardly credible.” 19 Tarn’s controversial view of Hellenistic Central Asia as an integral part of Hellenistic history moreover has recently acquired a new appeal to historians. Eastern Iran is more often seen as not the remote space at the periphery of the ancient world of conventional ancient history – which prefers to see the Mediterranean as the center of the world – but, on the contrary, as a central and well-connected region. Several recent publications have argued in favor of its inclusion into standard narratives of ancient history. 20 The adjective ‘Hellenistic’ meanwhile has all but lost its connotation of ‘Greek’, and instead is increasingly seen as referring to an historical period, specifically one characterized by a high level of connectivity within western Afro-Eurasia  –  a ‘globalizing’ koinē such as previously existed in the Achaemenid period, but on a larger scale. Rachel Mairs once stated in the context of Central Asia that “the word ‘Hellenistic’ should not be seen as an imperialist, Eurocentric label: a proper awareness of modern interpretations of the Hellenistic world should mean that there is no need for the aversion still displayed by some to applying the word ‘Hellenistic’ to the Greek states in India.” 21 This could apply as well to Hellenistic-period Iran. The adjective ‘Hellenistic’ admittedly is an imperfect designation, as it could be said that it still “misrepresents the process of acculturation which took place in Asia by placing too great an emphasis on the active role of the Greek element in that process.” 22 But it is the established term and we probably will have to deal with it, at least for the time being.

18 Ghirshman 1954, 228–229. 19 Potts 1993, 348. 20 See e.g. Minardi 2015; Rezakhani 2017; Canepa 2020; Strootman 2021. The colonialist background to the conceptualization of Central Asia as ‘remote’ and inaccessible is discussed by Mairs 2018; see also Howe 2015. On Central Asia during the Hellenistic period, see Coloru 2009; Mairs 2014 and 2021. Earlier, Briant 1984 made a similar argument with regard to Central Asia’s pivotal significance for the Achaemenid Empire. 21 Mairs 2006, 24. 22 Potts 1993, 347–348.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

16

Rolf Strootman

A new scholarly interest in Seleucid Iran is now emerging, with the Upper Satrapies more firmly integrated into several recent publications about the Seleucid Empire: 23 a book-length study devoted entirely to the history of Seleucid Iran until the reign of Antiochus IV, 24 and one to the archaeology of Hellenistic Fārs; 25 a growing number of articles aiming to revise out-of-date historical narratives of Argead and Seleucid Iran; 26 and of course the present volume. In what follows, I will discuss the question why Iranian territories and populations were important for the Seleucids from the perspective of political and military history. The following is a preliminary survey. It considers a number of aspects of empire – dynastic marriage, elite integration, resource extraction, military recruitment – that each deserves lengthier treatment than can be given here. Neither will it be possible to fully appreciate the wide-ranging linguistic, religious, and political diversity that characterized the huge land mass that for convenience we identify as Greater Iran, the ancient ‘Upper Satrapies’.  It may be maintained however that despite cultural and linguistic diversity, some cohesion existed in these lands due to shared religious practices and beliefs, as well as shared ideas about monarchy to which a succession of imperial dynasties, the Seleucids included, contributed. 27 Macedonian Iran: From Alexander to the Parthian conquest (c. 300–150 BCE) Seleucid history conventionally starts with Seleucus I Nicator, who bore the title of king from 306/5 to 281. But although Seleucus indeed was the founder of the Seleucid dynasty, Alexander III of Macedon (reigned 336–323) to my mind should be regarded as the founder of the empire – in much the same way as Cyrus the Great is seen as the founder of the Persian Empire: for just as the Persian Empire was successively under the rule of two distinct but related dynasties, the Teispids and the Achaemenids, so too was the Macedonian Empire in Iran and the Near East ruled successively by the Argeads and the Seleucids. Seleucus in any case was a contemporary of Alexander who partook in the Macedonian campaigns in Iran and Central Asia of 330–225 BCE. A decade after Alexander’s death in 323, Seleucus gained the satrapy of Babylonia and went east to capture the Upper Satrapies, i.e. the Iranian highlands east and north of the Zagros Mountains. 28 He then went 23 24 25 26

Capdetrey 2007; Kosmin 2014; Engels 2017. Plischke 2014. Callieri 2007; cf. Boucharlat 2014. See e.g. Olbrycht 2004; Strootman 2011a and 2017; Kosmin 2013; Engels 2014; Canepa 2015; Coloru 2017 . 27 Canepa 2018. 28 Known as οἱ ἂνω τόποι in narrative sources (e.g. Diod. 19.14.1; App., Syr. 61; Plut., Demetr. 38.10). Two ‘official’ epigraphical texts from Nehāvand (later reign of Antiochos  III, c. 193–187?) and Bīsotūn (148 BCE), mention a ‘viceroy’ of what is here called αἱ ἂνω σατραπείαι (Robert 1950 and 1963 = Merkelbach/Stauber 2005, nos. 307 and 308 on pp. 58–60); the location of these texts suggests that in the second century the satrap of Media doubled as ‘viceroy’ of all Iranian provinces, cf.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

17

west and brought territories in Syria and Anatolia under his control. In Appian’s words, reflecting Seleucid propaganda, [Seleucus] conquered Mesopotamia, Armenia, Anatolia, the Persians, the Parthians, the Bactrians, the Arabs, the Tapyri, the Sogdians, the Arachosians, the Hyrcanians, and all the other peoples that had before been conquered by Alexander, as far as the river Indus. 29 This inventory of subject peoples and countries continues the Achaemenid practice of specifying the constituent parts of an empire that in fact claims world dominion (“and all the other peoples”) e.g. in the Bīsotūn Inscription of Darius I. 30 Important for the present argument, is the prominence of the Upper Satrapies in this list: no less than eight out of a total of eleven items. 31 Though little is known about Seleucus’ eastern campaigns, the relative speed by which he succeeded in pacifying the Upper Satrapies, as well as the subsequent stability of Seleucid rule there for more than half a century, implies that the majority of the indigenous and Greco-Macedonian leaders accepted Seleucus, and could be co-opted in the implementation of Seleucid rule. 32 The military forces that thereby became available to Seleucus enabled him to gain the upper hand over his enemies in the west. The ancient sources stress the role of Seleucus’ Indian elephants and the huge number of horsemen he brought from Iran and Central Asia in achieving a decisive victory, in alliance with Lysimachos, against his main rival Antigonos Monophthalmos at Ipsos in 301 BCE. 33 About a century later, Antiochus  III would combine cataphracts and mounted archers against the Romans and their allies in the Battle of Magnesia in 217 BCE. 34 Iranian cavalry was still part of the procession staged by Antiochos IV at Daphne, Syria, in c. 165 BCE. 35 At the Susa wedding ceremony in 324, Seleucus had married the Iranian princess, Apama, the daughter of Spitamenes. The marriage is crucial because Apama is the link between the early Seleucid dynasty and the Iranian nobility, particularly in Central Asia. 36 She was the mother of Seleucus’ co-ruler and successor, Antiochus I, and played an active

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Bengtson 1964, 78–89. On the extent of the region, see now Engels 2017, 119–122; the lowlands of Mesopotamia and Babylonia did not belong to the Upper Satrapies . App., Syr. 55. The Tapyri were a people living in the northern Zagros. Strootman 2014b, 42–43. Compare Alexander’s speech at the Hyphasis (Beas) in 326 BCE in Arr., Anab. 5.25.4–5. Note that Margiana and Aria, which Seleucu s also brought under his control, are absent; Arachosia on the other hand in fact was ceded to Chandragupta in 303 BCE. See Strootman 2021, 13–15, for the sources and further literature. App., Syr. 55; Plut., Demetr. 28–29. On Seleucu s’ cavalry forces, in particular horse archers, at Ipsos, see Olbrycht 2004, 232–233. According to Liv. 37.40.1–14, Antiochu s was able to field no less than 6,000 cataphracts and 1,200 ‘Dahae’ mounted archers; cf. Bar-Kochva 1989. Polyb. 30.25.1–11. Strootman 2021, 15–17.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

18

Rolf Strootman

diplomatic and political role herself. We will return to Apama and her leading role in the creation of the Seleucid dynasty below. Seleucid rule in the Upper Satrapies was consolidated first by the Milesian stratēgos Demodamas, perhaps seconded by Apama, and later by Seleucus’ and Apama’s eldest son, Antiochus (I), who acted as his father’s co-ruler from 294/3 to 281 and reigned as sole king from 281 to 261 BCE. 37 Antiochus and his entourage were involved in constructing fortresses, fortifying cities and founding new fortified settlements, most of all in eastern Iran and including e.g. Merv (renamed Antiocheia-in-Margiana after the king) Ai Khanum, Kurganzol, Uzundara, Bukhara, and Samarkand  (ancient Marakanda). 38 Royal mints were established at Susa, Ecbatana, and Bactra; and probably also at Ai Khanum and Samarkand. 39 It is conventionally thought that no Seleucid emperor was present in eastern Iran between the departure of Antiochus I in c. 281 and Antiochus III’s anabasis of 211–205 BCE; but this period coincides with the so-called Third Century Gap, a hiatus in the surviving narrative sources. It is in any case clear that Seleucid networks of communication run by imperial and local agents continued to function. Even if the king himself was not personally present with his court and his army, his representatives were. It is true that Bactria and Sogdiana became independent in the second half of the third century, but the region did not thereby ‘break away’ from the Seleucid Empire. Before he became king in c. 246/5, Diodotus I was the Seleucid satrap of Bactria; he and his successors remained integrated into a wider imperial world, perhaps through kinship ties. 40 The Diodotids were overthrown by Euthydemus, a Magnesian by birth who may have been the Seleucid satrap of Sogdiana. Euthydemos was first considered a rebel and then made king by the emperor Antiochus III in 206; the alliance was sealed by a marriage between Euthydemus’ son and later successor, Demetrius, and a daughter of Antiochus. 41 Direct lines of communication between the Seleucid court and Bactria were still operational in 140 BCE. 42 The Seleucid Impact on Ancient Iran As we have seen, the Seleucid impact on  Iranian history is often minimalized because the empire has been conceptualized as ‘Greek’ in modern scholarship, and because of the concomitant idea that the Seleucids were more interested in the Mediterranean than in the Iranian east. Thus, Elias Bickerman’s contribution on the Seleucids in the second volume of the Cambridge History of Iran, while groundbreaking for its appreciation of the importance that Iran had for Seleucus I Nicator, also argued that soon after Seleucus’ 37 On Antiochos’ reign as ‘viceroy’ of the Upper Satrapies, see now Plischke 2014, 195–201; on Demodamas’ activities in the Seleukid east, see Kosmin 2014, 61–67. 38 For an overview of (the archaeology of) Seleucid building activities in eastern Iran and Central Asia, see Strootman 2021, 19–20, with further bibliography; see also Stark, this volume. 39 On the latter see respectively Kritt 1996 and Naymark 2014 40 Houle/Wenghofer 2016; see also Dumke 2012; Wenghofer 2018; and Jakobsson 2021. 41 Polyb. 11.39.9. 42 Just. 38.9.4.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

19

death the empire’s center of gravity was transferred to the west – a grave mistake according to Bickerman, one that fatally weakened the empire because it neglected the huge military potential of the  Iranian east, which soon broke away from Seleucid control. 43 Bickerman and many with him believed that the ‘capital’ of the Seleucid Empire shifted from Seleucia in Babylonia to Antioch in Syria. 44 However the notion of a ‘capital’ – a fixed site where the government of a state is located – is a modernism. 45 It is now almost universally accepted that if the early Seleucid Empire had a center, it must have been Mesopotamia and northern Syria; but as we will see, Iran too remained of pivotal importance for the Seleucids until the second century. Though the ‘Fertile Crescent’ of Mesopotamia and Syria constituted a kind of imperial core, I argue that the Seleucid Empire in the third century was in essence a multipolar network polity: it had an itinerant court and a variety of imperial centers, including Bactra, Ecbatana, Susa, Seleucia on the Tigris, Babylon, Seleucia in Pieria, and Sardis. 46 While the military settlers that formed the Seleucid phalanxes were located largely in Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia, 47 the cities of the Aegean, too, were important as sources of manpower and capital. Whereas Iran was an important recruiting ground for Seleucid armies, in particular cavalry and light infantry. Part of the view that the Seleucids were Greeks is the assumption that their rule in Iran came to an end because of ‘national’ uprisings, after which Iranian history resumed its proper course. For this reason, the year 247 BCE is often used to mark the alleged transition from foreign to indigenous rule. Such clear cuts between periods disregard the complexity of history, particularly imperial history. Although it is true that around 247 BCE, a people, or more probably a warband, 48 known as the Parni first appeared in the Seleucid province Hyrcania and around 238 also in Parthia (whence they derived their Greek name ‘Parthians’) it would take a century before the Parthians would oust the Seleucids from Iran. In the meantime, the Arsacid dynasts of Parthia were local rulers who remained 43 Bickerman 1983. 44 Compare Invernizzi 1998, 236: “Founded only a few years later, Antioch [...] replaced Seleucia on the Tigris as the royal seat and became the actual capital of the Seleucids”. There is in fact no evidence that Antioch was a royal seat before the second century. Seleucia-on-the-Tigris remained a larger and far more important city than Antioch until the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164). On Seleucia as a royal city, see Degen and Messina in this volume. 45 On the Seleucid ‘capital’ as a modern mirage, see now Strootman/Von Reden 2021, 34–37; cf. Strootman 2014a, 54–57, emphasizing the mobility of the Seleucid court, and Messina, this volume. 46 On the several residential cities of the Seleucid empire, see Held 2002 and Strootman 2014a, 66–74; cf. Capdetrey 2007, 374–383; Kosmin 2014, 142–180. 47 On these katoikoi, the in-depth discussion by Bar-Kochva 1976, 20–48, is still valuable, albeit flawed by the author’s conviction that these must have been “European” migrants because “arming the orientals with heavy weapons would have laid the Seleucids open to the constant danger of native uprisings” (pp. 20–21). For the in fact multi-ethnic origins of the Seleucid infantry, see Houle 2015; Engels 2019. 48 As argued by Murray Eiland, ‘Parthians in Nineveh: Identifying a nomadic administration’ (2003), available online at parthia.com/Nineveh (last accessed November 2020); cf. Strootman 2018, n. 29 at pp. 146–147.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

20

Rolf Strootman

loosely integrated into a wider imperial koine. 49 Moreover, in the context of cultural developments, what we see in Iran is most of all regional diversity, especially in the case of pottery, 50 and not a wholesale transition to a recognizable ‘Parthian’ monoculture. 51 The assumption that the Seleucids retreated from the Upper Satrapies some years after the settlement of the Parni/Parthians in Parthia in 247/6 is contradicted by the fact that a Seleucid ‘viceroy’ of the Upper Satrapies is still attested a century later on an inscription from Bīsotūn dated to Panemos 164 SE = May/June 148 BCE, shortly before the Arsacid conquest of Media. 52 But by this time, the ‘Upper Satrapies’ may have consisted only of Media, Persis, Susiana and Carmania. 53 The first Arsacid monarch to assume imperial pretensions on his coinage was Mithradates I, c. 171–138, who conquered western Iran and Mesopotamia, 54 and appropriated the Seleucid imperial title Great King  (Basileus Megas). 55 It is therefore likely that in the decades preceding Mithradates’ conquest of Babylonia, Arsacids and Seleucids competed for hegemony in Iran: because premodern Eurasian empires usually are not bounded territorial ‘states,’ but dynamic network polities aimed at accessing manpower and resources, it is perfectly possible that two, or more, empires simultaneously maintain networks of allegiance within the same region, in this case Iran. History rarely follows a clear-cut, unidirectional trajectory, and imperial histories in particular can be quite disorderly. Indeed, even after the Arsacids had occupied Media and Mesopotamia, Seleucid kings did not give up their claims to Iran. In 140 and in 130, Demetrios II and Antiochus VII, respectively, assembled large armies to regain the lost territories, both meeting with initial success in Mesopotamia before being defeated. 56 It was only after Antiochus VII’s death in battle and the destruction of his army in 129 that the Seleucids became too weakened to make any further attempts at recovering Mesopotamia and the Upper Satrapies. The Importance of Iran for the Seleucid Empire Why was Iran important to the Seleucids? Given the martial nature of the Seleucid Empire, I believe that Iran first and foremost was a source of manpower and other military resources for the Seleucids. It could be argued that in many respects the Upper Satrapies

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Strootman 2017. Boucharlat 2014, 137; cf. Haerinck 1983, 238–257. On the problem of ‘Parthian art’, see the papers gathered in Jacobs 2014. Robert 1963, 76. Coloru, this volume. Justin 41; cf. Dąbrowa 2005. As ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ (Sellwood Types 10–13); on the use the title Great King by the Seleuc ids and their successors, see Strootman 2020a. 56 On the Seleuc id-Arsac id struggle in the second century, see the detailed study of the cuneiform and other sources by Shayegan 2011, 60–150; for the Greek and Roman sources, consult Lerouge-Cohen 2005.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

21

formed the military backbone of the empire. Media in particular was a source for war horses and their riders. Polybius, writing about the reign of Antiochus III, says that Media is the most notable principality in Asia, both in the extent of its territory and the number and excellence of the men and also of the horses it produces. It supplies nearly the whole of Asia with these animals, the Royal Horse Farms (τα βασιλικα υστήμαα των ‘ιπποτρφιων) being entrusted to the Medes owing to the excellence of the pastures. 57 Cavalry was recruited also from Sogdiana, while war elephants were obtained via Bactria from Gandhāra and beyond. I have argued elsewhere that the Seleucids had access to these eastern resources for a longer time than is assumed in older scholarship, probably until the mid-second century BCE. 58 In western Iran, Pārsa and Elam provided infantry for the Seleucid armies. 59 Interimperial rivalries led to the involvement of Iranian lands and peoples in a ‘globalization’ of warfare: while the Seleucids brought manpower, horses, and elephants from the east to the west, their principal enemies, the Ptolemies, exploited African manpower and resources, including Ethiopian elephants and Libyan horsemen, for their wars with the Seleucids. This led to a new, or renewed, significance of the local power holders through whom the Seleucids accessed these resources. From the mid-third century we also see in the peripheries of the empire a growing impact of warrior bands, fighting for the empire as allies or mercenaries, but also raiding against it. They were sometimes recognized by the imperial court as vassal rulers, for instance Arsaces I in northern Iran and Euthydemus I in eastern Iran. The image that arises from the written sources, namely that the early Seleucids (Seleucus I and Antiochus I) invested heavily in eastern Iran, is confirmed by new archaeological field work. The Seleucids were most of all concerned with guarding the main routes that connected the Near East to Central Asia. As we have seen, Antiochus I oversaw an extensive project of building fortifications in the Merv Oasis in Margiana, 60 at the mountain passes connecting Bactria and Sogdiana, 61 perhaps in the Bukhara Oasis in western

57 Polyb. 10.27.1–2; cf. 5.44.1. On Iranian, viz., Median cavalry forces in Seleucid armies, see Bar-Kochva 1976, 32–33. It is perhaps telling that Media never became an independent client state, but remained under the authority of a governor until the 140s. note that Polybios, who emphasizes the vastness of “Media”, may also be referring here to the Upper Satrapies, viz., Iran in its entirety; cf. Strabo 11.9.2, who refers to the Seleuc ids as “the kings of Syria and Media”, i.e. the lower and Upper Satrapies. On the importance of Media for the Seleucids, also see Coloru in this volume. 58 See Strootman 2011a and 2018, cf. id. 2021. On the Seleuc ids’ continued access to war elephants from Bac tria in the second century, see now Sekunda 2019, 168–170; Strootman 2019, 183–184. 59 Livy 37.40.1–14; cf. Justin 36.1.4. 60 Zavyalov 2007; Stark 2016, 138. 61 See Sverchkov 2008 (Kurganzol fortress in Uzbekistan) and Dvurechenskaya 2015 (Uzundara fortress near Kampyrtepa).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

22

Rolf Strootman

Sogdiana, 62 and at Samarkand. 63 I suggest not to understand these as mere ‘border’ defenses, let alone border defenses against an alleged nomadic threat. To my mind these fortifications were above all instruments of imperialist expansion, meant to pacify the region and control the roads. The Seleucids’ interest in the military potential of  Iranian lands is also apparent from their coinage. Divine images on coins were meant to express certain divine qualities associated with kingship and to suggest divine favor and protection. 64 But more than simply conveying royal ideology in a general sense, coin images spoke to specific intended audiences. 65 Following Fig. 1: Tetradrachm of Antiochos I Soter from the example of the late Argead court, the Ekbatana, c. 278–261 BCE. Seleucids did so through the development © American Numismatic Association. of divine images possessing a varied cultural translatability. 66 This began with the depiction, first by Alexander and then by Seleucus, of the enthroned Zeus-Baal on tetradrachms – an image that spoke most of all to Levantine and Aegean audiences. From the reign of Antiochus I to the reign Antiochus IV, however, the standard reverse type on Seleucid tetradrachms was the image of the archer god Apollo inspecting his arrows. For instance on the reverse of a coin from Ecbatana, struck c. 278–261, we see a naked Apollo – ancestor and tutelary deity of the Seleucid dynasty – seated on an omphalos, inspecting the three arrows he holds in his right hand while resting his left hand on a grounded bow; a grazing horse at the god’s feet symbolizes Media, famous for its horses and cavalry (fig. 1). 67 When Antiochus IV reintroduced the more Levantine image of ZeusBaal, 68 Archer Apollo was nonetheless retained as the main reverse image on coins struck at mints in the Upper Satrapies, including Ecbatana. Kyle Erickson and Nicholas Wright have shown that this image was designed to be understood as both Apollo and the Iranian archer god Mithra while being reminiscent, too, of the Persian image of the Royal Archer. 69 Thus an audience of Iranians was also addressed, while through the image of the 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

Stark 2016. Rapin/Isamiddinov 1994; Baratin/Martinez-Sève 2013. Iossif 2018, 272–273. De Callataÿ 2014; cf. Aperghis 2020. Wright 2005, 2009/2010; Günther 2011; Olbrycht 2011; Erickson 2013. Houghton and Lorber 2002, I 409.2. On this transition as a western Seleuc id phenomenon, see Wright 2007/2008. Erickson/Wright 2011; the authors point out the striking similarity with the coinage of the satrap Datames (OP *Dāta-m-a- or *Dātamiθra), who ruled C appado cia and C ilic ia from c. 385 to 362:

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

23

bow the Seleucids placed themselves in a centuries-old Near Eastern and Iranian tradition of victorious kingship. 70 The important thing here is, that in the Hellenistic monarchies coins were struck primarily for military purposes, especially to pay for troops. 71 Iranian Dynasties and Seleucid Marriage Strategies Perhaps the single most striking aspect of the Iranian nature of the early Seleucid Empire, is the fact that its founder, Seleucus I, made his Iranian consort Apama his first queen and promoted their son, Antiochus, to the position of basileus (‘king’, i.e. Seleucus’ co-ruler) and designated successor. Apama was the daughter of one of Alexander’s most formidable enemies, Spitamenes, the leading nobleman in Central Asia after the death of Artaxerxes V (Bessos) in 329. Seleukos had married her at the Susa Weddings in 324. 72 As the Macedonian nobility practiced polygyny, Seleucus could have relegated her to second rank in favor of a Macedonian consort, as the other Successors did with their Iranian wives. 73 Instead he bestowed upon her the title of basilissa as an indication of her superior rank. Indeed, Apama was the second royal woman to receive that title. She also bore the honorific title ‘Sister’ of Selecus to express her closeness to the king. Apama played a pivotal role in the pacification of Central Asia after the Seleucid conquest; she also was a central figure in the creation of a dynastic image and had an important role to play in representing the Seleukid monarchy vis-à-vis the Greek cities in western Asia Minor. 74 With Apama’s prominent role as queen-mother we see for the first time the appearance at the heart of Seleucid imperial propaganda of what has been called the ‘Seleucid triad’ of king, queen and successor. 75 The fact that the name ‘Apama’ (in its Hellenized form ‘Apamē’) reappears three times in the dynasty attests to the importance of the Seleucids’ Iranian affiliation. 76

70 71 72 73

74 75 76

these coins show on the obverse the well-known image of an enthroned Baal (the model for the ‘multicultural’ Zeus-Baal type on tetradrachms of Alexander and Seleucus ) and on the reverse a seated figure in satrapal or royal attire inspecting an arrow in the same way that the Seleuc id Apollo inspects his arrow(s). Strootman 2020b, 206–208. De Callataÿ 2000. Arr., Anab. 7.4.6. Most Hellenistic historians no longer believe the Diadochs divorced or repudiated their  Iranian wives, see now Van Oppen 2014, cf. Müller 2013. Most of the Iranian wives however were relegated to positions of secondary status, as their sons did not become their fathers’ successors – with the conspicuous exception of the Seleuc id Antiochus I (and of course Alexander IV, the son of Roxane and Alexander). Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 26–27. A good account of Apama’s career is provided by Ramsey 2016, 86–93; also see Müller 2013, 206–209; Widmer 2015; Engels and Erickson 2016; and Harders 2016, 17–21. Tarn 1929 believed she belonged to the Achaemenid house. McAuley 2017, 190. The name *Apamā- is Persian, and a ‘Lady of the Palace’ called Ap-pa-mu-ú, wife of Darius I, appears in two texts from Borsippa (Zadok 2002; cf. Brosius 1996, 47–49); a later Greek source, Plut., Artax. 27.4, mentions a daughter of Artaxerxes II named Apamē. The Seleuc id Apamas are daughters of

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

24

Rolf Strootman

Because of this first marriage, and their later intermarriages with Iranian dynasties, the Seleucids are often described as ‘half-Iranian’. But for the same reason the various Iranian vassal dynasties that received Seleucid princesses could be described as ‘half-Macedonian’, which no one ever does. I do not think that such labeling is useful. What matters is the fact that the Seleucids used dynastic marriage as an instrument of empire. Seleucid kings gave not only their daughters but sometimes also their sisters in marriage to local dynastic houses. From the mid-third century they did so repeatedly and structurally, creating a tight web of kinship relations that bound vassal dynasties to their house. Dynastic marriage thus was one of the instruments that facilitated the partial transformation of the empire from a system of direct rule through appointed governors – who often self-identified as Macedonians – to a system of ‘indirect rule’ through vassal kings and dynasts – who were often of Iranian descent. Dynastic marriage moreover created communication lines between the imperial court and local courts, as Seleucid princesses acted as the representatives of their house in these local courts. 77 It is important to also note in this context that two sons of Antiochus III were given Iranian (?) names, Ardys and Mithridates – the latter, named after his maternal grandfather, the king of Pontus, is better known under his later throne name and epithet, Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes. 78 Iranian Officials in the Seleucid Empire Intermarriage with local dynasties, particularly in Anatolia and Armenia, means that a substantial number of  Iranians must have been present within the social circles surrounding the royal family, viz., at court. 79 Alexander had already promoted high-ranking Persians to senior positions at his court, most famously Darius’s brother Huxšathres (Oxyathres) and the former Achaemenid grandee Mazday (Mazaeus), who became satrap of Babylonia. This is not the place to discuss again the much-debated Iranian politics at Alexander’s court, but it is important to note that we also find high-ranking Iranians – though not necessarily Persians  –  at the Seleucid imperial court and in the Seleucid army.  In fact, men with Iranian identities are the only group apart from Greeks and Macedonians that consistently turn up in the narrative sources as generals, governors and local dynasts. 80 Thus, Andragoras, the rebellious governor of Parthia and Hyrkania around 246, likely was an Iranian and perhaps the last member of an indigenous dynasty that had ruled in

77 78 79 80

Antiochu s I (Paus. 1.7.3; Porph., FGrH 32.5; Euseb., Chron. 1.40.5 = 1.249 Schoene) and Antiochus II (BCHP 11), and a consort of Demetriu s II (John of Antioch, FHG IV 561). McAuley 2017. Livy 33.19.9; on these sons, see Coşkun 2016. An inscription from Herac le a on the Latm us from c. 198/7 mentions three sons of Antiochu s III Antiochu s (d. 193 BCE), Seleuc uos (IV) and Mithra dates; see SEG 37 (1987) 859, and the discussion by Mittag 2006, 34–37. Strootman 2011b. On the Iranian nobility after Alexander, see Shayegan 2007; Olbrycht 2013; Plischke 2014, 49–50; Engels 2017, 136–147.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

25

northern Iran from Alexander onward. 81 Strabo mentions two stratēgoi of Antiochus III, Zariadres and Artaxias, who later became kings in Sophene. 82 Another example is Aribazes, an officer of Achaios, the Seleucid ‘viceroy’ of Asia Minor, who was commander of the garrison at Sardis in 215–213 BCE. 83 Likely an Iranian, too, was a general named Ardys – not to be confused with the king’s son of that name, who commanded Antiochus III’s ‘mounted lancers’ (τους ξυστοφόρους ‘ιππεις, possibly, Iranian, cataphracts) in a battle in 221 BCE. 84 Of course, Iranians in Seleucid service may be invisible to us because they used Greek names Known examples of Iranians with Greek names in Seleucid service, include the donor of the Heracles-Bahrām monument at Bīsotūn, Hyacinthus, and his father, Pantauchus; 85 and a man called Dionysius the Mede, who was governor of Mesopotamia in the first reign of Demetrius II (146–140). 86 To access the military resources of their vast realm, Seleucid rulers and their agents tried to co-opt local elites as stakeholders in their imperial project, and various networks connected Iranians to the imperial court – and to each other. Local elites as a matter of course played pivotal roles in the recruitment of troops, as is reflected in their relatively conspicuous presence among the imperial elite, as argued above. Moreover, by the second century the northern rim of the empire had become lined with subsidiary and allied kingdoms ruled by families that upheld (partial) Iranian dynastic identities, including Pontos, Cappadocia, Sophene, Commagene, Atropatene, and Parthia. The emergence of  Iranicate dynasties in the later Hellenistic period  –  traditionally seen as expressions of national resistance to foreign, ‘Greek’ rule – therefore can be better explained as resulting from a process of ‘Iranization’ of the Seleucid Empire. 87 This in part was the result of the increasing autonomy and unruliness of the old Macedonian nobility, who staged some massive revolts against the dynasty at the end of the third century. The Seleucid kings, most of all Antiochos III, in response began to increase Seleucid cooperation with Iranian local dynasties as a counterweight to the power of the established imperial elite. These local rulers in turn expressed their growing self-confidence and independence by refashioning Iranian-style dynastic identities in opposition to the old elites, who had cultivated Greco-Macedonian identities. 88 A drachm of Ardaxšīr I, 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Engels 2017, 138–140. Strabo 11.14.15 (528). Polyb. 7.17.9. Polyb. 5.53.2. On the question whether or not ‘Ardys’ is an Iranian name, see Coşkun 2016, 858– 859 (who is not convinced). Strootman 2020b, 211–214. Diod. 33.28. Canepa 2017; Strootman 2017. Also see Canepa 2010, who explores to what extent Seleuc id and Middle Iranian kings engaged the Achaemenid legacy, and to what extent new royal practices were created and ‘Persianized’; on this topic also Shayegan 2017. On the place of vassal kingdoms in the Seleucid Empire, see Strootman 2010 and 2011b; Engels 2011; Dumke 2012; McAuley 2017. Chrubasik 2016 sees the increasing independence of local powerholder in the Seleucid west as a threat to Seleukid suzerainty while Strootman 2017 understands Seleucid acceptance of local self-rule as evidence of the empire’s resilience. For a complete overview of (semi)independent principalities in the Seleucid world, consult Capdetrey 2007.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

26

Rolf Strootman

Fig. 2: Drachm of Ardaxšīr I of Pārsa, c. 200 BCE.

© Classical Numismatic Group, www.cngcoins.com.

fratarakā (‘governor’) of Pārsa from the late third/early second century, 89 shows one of the several forms that Persianistic dynastic style could take (fig. 2). The obverse of the coin shows the bearded head of the ruler adorned with a governor’s kyrbasia, and either a royal diadem or the traditional Achaemenid ribbon, formerly an emblem of belonging to the imperial nobility. 90 The reverse shows the king in front of a temple and standard, with Aramaic legend rtḥštry prtrkʾ ZY ʾLHYʾ: “Ardaxšīr fratarakā of the baγān” = ‘godlike [kings],’ i.e. the Seleucids? (or “of the yazdān”) ‘deities.’ 91 Conclusion As Daniel Ogden recently showed, the enduring Seleucid impact on Iran is perhaps most noticeable in the survival of legendary tales about Seleucid kings, above all Seleucus I and Antiochus I, in the legends of Sasanian Iran. 92 Many have noticed the relative lack of Greek-style remains in Iran. Most Hellenic-looking material culture seems to date to the Parthian period (147 BCE–224 CE) though the archaeology from the period is often difficult to date. 93 As Rémy Boucharlat rightly remarked, “la difficulté à dater certains objets est symptomatique de la complexité des in-

89 Fratarakā chronology is controversial; I follow the dating established by Shayegan 2011, 168–178 with Table 3; an alternative chronology, pushing back the beginning of Fratarakā rule in Persis to the early third century, has recently been proposed by Engels 2013. 90 See Wiesehöfer 2012. 91 Panaino 2003. 92 See Ogden 2017. 93 For an overview of the archaeology of Hellenistic  Iran, see Boucharlat 2014, and specifically on Pārsa in the Hellenistic period, Callieri 2007.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

27

teractions culturelles dans la durée.” 94 It is precisely this relative lack of material culture, not only in Iran but also in Syria and Babylonia, in a style that today we consider ‘Greek’, which compels us to reconsider what we mean by ‘Seleucid’. Things do not have to be Greek to be Hellenistic. Indeed, chances are that Hellenistic Iran had a much more Iranian outlook than previously thought, for the simple reason that the Seleucid Empire in terms of personnel had a stronger Iranian aspect than previously thought. For far too long have art historians assigned Greek-looking architecture and material culture from the Parthian Period to Seleucid times, and  Iranian-looking things from Seleucid times to the Parthian Period. 95 The Seleucid Empire was not a Greek ‘state’ – an anomalous interlude of ‘foreign rule’ – and neither was it a continuation of the Achaemenid Empire. It deserves a place of its own in the longue durée of Eurasian , viz., Iranian history. The Seleucids were not the most effective imperialists in the history of premodern Afro-Eurasia, but they nevertheless managed to control and exploit, for better or worse, a huge empire in the Near East and Iran for about 150 years. They never would have been able to do so had they not succeeded in co-opting local elites, and it seems that apart from ethnic Macedonians and members of elite families from the Aegean cities, the people that most of all became stakeholders in the Seleucid imperial project, were power-holders in Iranian lands. References Aperghis 2008 = G.G. Aperghis, Managing an Empire – Teacher and Pupil, in: S.M.R. Darbandi/A. Zournatzi (eds.), Ancient Greece and Ancient  Iran: Cross-cultural Encounters. 1st International Conference (Athens, 11–13 November 2006), Athens, 137–148. — 2020 = The Armed Forces of Seleukos I, With Help From Coins, in: Oetjen 2020, 3–30. Azarnoush 2009 = M. Azarnoush, New Evidence on the Chronology of the “Anahita Temple”, Iranica Antiqua 44: 393–402. Baratin/Martinez-Sève 2013 = C. Baratin/L. Martinez-Sève, Le grenier grec de Samarkand, in: J. Bendezu-Sarmiento (ed.), L’Archéologie Française en Asie Centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels (Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 21/22), Paris, 373–388. Bar-Kochva 1976 = B. Bar-Kochva, The Seleucid Army: Organisation and Tactics in the Great Campaigns, Cambridge. 94 Boucharlat 2014, 124. In his overview of the archaeology of Hellenistic Iran, Boucharlat not only emphasizes the complexity of cultural interactions but also regional variety; on cultural complexity and regional variation in the Hellenistic world, see now also Hoo 2021. 95 A notorious case in point is the so-called Anāhitā Temple at Kangāvar: originally believed to be a Seleucid-era temple because of its Doric columns, it has recently been argued that the building more likely dates to the late Parthian or even early Sasanian period (in fact, it probably is not a temple at all); see Azarnoush 2009; Kleiss, 2010. On the difficulties of dating monuments and objects by their ‘Greek’ features, see Genito 2012.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

28

Rolf Strootman

— 1989 = The Deployment of the Armies at Magnesia, 190 BCE, in: id., Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids, Cambridge, 567–568. Bengtson 1964 = H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht II, München. Bevan 1902 = E.R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 2 vols, London. Bickerman 1983 = E.J. Bickerman, The Seleucid Period, in: E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3: The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasasian Periods, Cambridge, 3–20. Blömer/Lichtenberger/Raja 2015 = M. Blömer/A. Lichtenberger/R. Raja (eds.),  Religious Identities in the Levant From Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change (Contextualizing the Sacred 4), Turnhout. Boucharlat 2014 = R. Boucharlat, L’Iran à l’époque hellénistique et parthe : un état des donnés archéologiques’, in: P. Leriche (ed.), Art et civilisations de l’Orient Hellénisé. Rencontres et échanges culturels d’Alexandre aux Sassanides. Hommage à Daniel Schlumberger, Paris, 123–138. Briant 1978 = P. Briant, Colonisation hellénistique et populations indigènes. La phase d’installation, Klio 60: 57–92. — 1984 = L’Asie centrale et les royaumes proche-orientaux du premier millénaire (c.  VIIIe-Ive siècles avant notre ère) (Recherches sur les civilisations 42), Paris. — 1990 = The Seleucid Kingdom, the Achaemenid Empire and the History of the Near East in the First Millennium BC, in: P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, Aarhus, 40–65. Briant/Joannès 2009 = P. Briant/F. Joannès eds., La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, (vers 350–300 av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque international, Paris, Collège de France, (22–23 novembre 2004) (Persika 9), Paris. Brosius 1996 = M. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia (559–331 BC), Oxford/New York. — 2006 = The Persians: An Introduction (Peoples of the Ancient World 5), London/New York. Burkert 1984 = W. Burkert, Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur, Heidelberg. Callieri 2007 = P. Callieri, L’archéologie du Fārs à l’ époque hellénistique. Quatre leçons au Collège de France 8, 15, 22 et 29 Mars 2007 (Persika 11), Paris. Canepa 2010 = M.P. Canepa, Achaemenid and Seleukid Royal Funerary Practices in Middle Iranian Kingship, in: H. Börm/J. Wiesehöfer (eds.), Commutatio et Contentio: Studies in the Late Roman, Sasanian, and Early Islamic Near East in Memory of Zeev Rubin, Düsseldorf, 1–21. — 2015 = Seleukid Sacred Architecture, Royal Cult and the Transformation of Iranian Culture in the Middle Iranian Period, Iranian Studies 48.1: 71–97. — 2017 = Rival Images of Iranian Kingship and Persian Identity in Post-Achaemenid Western Asia, in: Strootman/Versluys 2017, 201–222. — 2018 = The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE–642 CE, Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oakland.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

29

— 2020 = ‘Afghanistan’ as a Cradle and Pivot of Empires: Reshaping Eastern  Iran’s Topography of Power under the Achaemenids, Seleucids, Greco-Bactrians and Kushans, in: R.E. Payne/R. King (eds.), The Limits of Empire in Ancient Afghanistan: Rule and Resistance in the Hindu Kush, circa 600 BCE–600 CE (Classica et Orientalia 24), Wiesbaden, 45–80. Capdetrey 2007 = L. Capdetrey, Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administration, finances d’un royaume hellénistique (312–129 avant J.C.), Rennes. Chrubasik 2016 = B. Chrubasik, Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire: The Men Who Would Be King, Oxford. Coloru 2009 = O. Coloru, Da Alessandro a Menandro: il regno greco di Battriana (Studi Ellenistici 21), Pisa/Rome. — 2017 = Seleucid  Iran, in: T. Daryaee ed., King of the Seven Climes: A History of the Ancient Iran World (3000 BC–651 CE), Irvine, 105–124. Coşkun 2016 = A. Coşkun, Philologische, genealogische und politische Überlegungen zu Ardys und Mithradates, zwei Söhnen des Antiochos Megas (Liv. 33,19,9), Latomus 75.4: 849–861. Coşkun/McAuley 2016 = A. Coşkun/A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire. Papers Chosen from Seleukid Study Day IV (McGill University, Montreal, 20–23 February 2013) (Historia Einzelschriften 240), Stuttgart. Coşkun/Engels 2019 = A. Coşkun/D. Engels (eds.), Rome and the Seleukid East: Select Papers From Seleukid Study Day V, Brussels, 21–23 August 2015 (Collection Latomus 360), Brussels. Dąbrowa 2005 = E. Dąbrowa, Les aspects politiques et militaire de la conquête parthe de la Mésopotamie, Electrum 10: 73–88. De Callataÿ 2000 = F. de Callataÿ, Guerres et monnayages à l’époque hellénistique. Essai de mise en perspective suivi d’une annexe sur le monnayage de Mithridate VI Eupator, in: Economie antique. La guerre dans les économies antiques (Entretiens d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 5), Saint-Bertrand-de-Cornminges, 337–364. — 2014 = For Whom Were Royal Hellenistic Coins Struck? The Choice of Metals and Denominations’, in: K. Martin/A. Lichtenberger/H.-H. Nieswandt (eds.), BildWert. Nominalspezifische Kommunikationsstrategien in der Münzprägung hellenistischer Herrscher. Kolloquium vom 17. – 18. Juni 2010 in Münster, Bonn, 59‒77. Dumke 2012 = G.R. Dumke, Diadem = Königsherrschaft? Der Fall des Diodotos I. von Baktrien, in: A. Lichtenberger/K., Martin/H.-H. Nieswandt/D. Salzmann (eds.), Das Diadem der hellenistischen Herrscher. Übernahme, Transformation oder Neuschöpfung eines Herrschaftszeichens?, Bonn, 5–393. De Jong 2017 = A. de Jong, Being Iranian in Antiquity (at Home and Abroad), in: Strootman/Versluys 2017, 35–47. Dvurechenskaya 2015 = N.D. Dvurechenskaya, Предварительные материалы археологических работ 2014 г на крепости Узундара, Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры/Journal of Historical, Philological and Cultural Studies 47.1: 124–133.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

30

Rolf Strootman

Eddy 1961 = S.K. Eddy, The King is Dead: Studies in Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334–31 B.C., Lincoln. Engels 2011 = D. Engels, Middle Eastern ‘Feudalism’ and Seleukid Dissolution, in: K. Erickson/G. Ramsey (eds.), Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor (Philippika 50), Wiesbaden, 19–36. — 2013 = A New Frataraka Chronology, Latomus 72: 28–80; reprinted in Engels 2017, 247–306. — 2014 = Antiochos III. der Große und sein Reich. Überlegungen zur ‘Feudalisierung’ der seleukidischen Peripherie, in: F. Hoffmann/K.S. Schmidt (eds.), Orient und Okzident in hellenistischer Zeit. Beiträge zur Tagung “Orient und Okzident – Antagonismus oder Konstrukt? Machtstrukturen, Ideologien und Kulturtransfer in hellenistischer Zeit”, Würzburg 10.–13. April 2008, Vaterstetten, 31–76. — 2017 = Benefactors, Kings, Rulers: Studies on the Seleukid Empire between East and West (Studia Hellenistica 57), Leuven. — 2018 = Iranian Identity and Seleukid Allegiance: Vahbarz, the Frataraka and Early Arsakid Coinage, in: Erickson 2018, 173–198. — 2019 = Mais où sont donc passés les soldats babyloniens? La place des contingents “indigènes” dans l’armée séleucide, in: Coşkun/Engels 2019, 403–434. Engels/Erickson 2016 = D. Engels/K. Erickson, Apama and Stratonike: Marriage and Legitimacy, in: Coşkun/McAuley 2016, 67–86. Erickson/Wright 2011 = K. Erickson/N.L. Wright, The ‘Royal Archer’ and Apollo in the East: Greco-Persian  Iconography in the Seleukid Empire, in: N. Holmes (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow, August 30–September 3, Glasgow, 163–168. Erickson 2013 = K. Erickson, Seleucus I, Zeus and Alexander, in: L. Mitchell/C. Melville (eds.), Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Rulers & Elites 5), Leiden/Boston, 109–128. — 2018 = K. Erickson (ed.), The Seleucid Empire, 281–222 BC: War within the Family, Swansea. Fowler 2010 = R. Fowler, King, Bigger King, King of Kings: Structuring Power in the Parthian World, in: M. Facella/T. Kaizer (eds.), Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East (Occidens et Oriens 19), Stuttgart, 57–79. Frye 1984 = R.N. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran, München. Genito 2012 = B. Genito, Archaeological History of Iran: The Post-Achaemenid and Hellenistic Time (Archaeological Horizon in Fārs in Late Iron Age, or Iron Age III–IV). A Review-Article, Annali: Sezione Orientale 72: 177–209. Ghirshman 1954 [1951] = R. Ghirshman, Iran: From the Earliest Times to the Islamic Conquest, 2nd edn, Harmondsworth. Günther 2011 = L.-M. Günther, Herrscher als Götter – Götter als Herrscher? Zur Ambivalenz hellenistischer Münzbilder, in: L.-M. Günther/S. Plischke (eds.), Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscherkult: Verdichtung und Erweiterung von Traditionsgeflechten. Oikumene (Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 9), Berlin, 89– 113.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

31

Haerinck 1983 = E. Haerinck, La céramique en Iran pendant la période parthe (ca. 250 av. J.C. à ca. 225 après J.C.): Typologie, chronologie et distribution (Iranica Antiqua Supplement 2), Ghent. Harders 2016 = A.-C. Harders, The Making of a Queen: Seleukos Nikator and his Wives, in: Coşkun/McAuley 2016, 25–38. Held 2002 = W. Held, Die Residenzstädte der Seleukiden: Babylon, Seleukeia am Tigris, Ai Khanum, Seleukeia in Pieria, Antiocheia am Orontes, Jahrbücher des deutschen archäologischen Instituts 117: 217–249. — 2020 = W. Held (ed.), The Transition from the Achaemenid to the Hellenistic Period in the Levant, Cyprus, and Cilicia: Cultural Interruption or Continuity? (Marburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 6), Marburg. Hoo 2021 = M. Hoo, Globalization and  Interpreting  Visual Culture, in: Mairs 2021, 553–569. Houghton/Lorber 2002 = A. Houghton/C.C. Lorber, Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part 1: Seleucus I through Antiochus III, New York. Houle 2015 = D.J. Houle, Ethnic Constructions in the Seleucid Military, MA Thesis, Waterloo University. Houle/Wenghofer 2016 = D.J. Houle/R. Wenghofer, Marriage Diplomacy and the Political Role of Royal Women in the Seleukid Far East, in: Coşkun/McAuley 2016, 191–208. Howe 2015 = T. Howe, Alexander and ‘Afghan  Insurgency’: A Reassessment, in: T. Howe/L. Brice (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Insurgency and Terrorism in the Ancient Mediterranean, Leiden and Boston, 151–182. Invernizzi 1998 = A. Invernizzi, Seleucia on the Tigris: Centre and Periphery in Seleucid Asia, in: P. Bilde (ed.), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World, Aarhus, 230–250. Iossif 2018 = P.P. Iossif, Divine Attributes on Hellenistic Coinages: From Noble to Humble and Back, in: P.P.  Iossif/F. de Callataÿ/R.  Veymiers (eds.), TYPOI. Greek and Roman Coins Seen through their Images: Noble Issuers, Humble Users? (Série Histoire 3), Liège, 269–295. Jacobs 2014 = B. Jacobs (ed.), “Parthische Kunst”: Kunst im Partherreich. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Basel, 9. Oktober 2010, Duisburg. Jakobsson 2021 = J. Jakobsson, Dating Bactria’s Independence to 246/5 BC? ’, in: Mairs 2021, 499–509. Kleiss 2010 = W. Kleiss, Kangavar, Encyclopædia Iranica 15: 496–497. Kosmin 2013 = P.J. Kosmin, Alexander the Great and the Seleucids in Iran, in: D.T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford and New York, 671–689. — 2014 = The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge, MA. Kritt 1996 = B. Kritt, Seleucid Coins of Bactria (Classical Numismatic Studies 1). Kuhrt/Sherwin-White 1987= A. Kuhrt/S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of Greek and non-Greek Civilizations From Syria to Central Asia After Alexander, Berkeley/Los Angeles.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

32

Rolf Strootman

Kuhrt/Sherwin-White 1994 = A. Kuhrt/S. Sherwin-White, The Transition from Achaemenid to Seleucid Rule in Babylonia: Revolution or Evolution, in: A. Kuhrt/M.C. Root/H.W.A.M. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Achaemenid History 8: Continuity and Change, Leiden, 311–327. Lerouge-Cohen 2005 = C. Lerouge-Cohen, Les guerres parthiques de Démétrios  II et Antiochos VII dans les sources gréco-romaines, de Posidonios à Trogue/Justin, Journal des Savants 103.2: 217–252. Mairs 2009 = R.R. Mairs, Hellenistic India, New Voices in Classical Reception Studies 1: 19–30. — 2010 = An ‘Identity Crisis’? Identity and its Discontents in Hellenistic Studies, in: M. Dalla Riva (ed.), Meetings between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Rome 22–26 sept. 2008 (Bollettino di Archeologia Online), Rome. — 2014 The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. — 2018 = The Men Who Would Be Alexander: Alexander the Great and His Graeco-Bactrian Successors in the Raj, in: K.R. Moore (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great, Leiden and Boston, 576–595. — 2021 = R.R. Mairs (ed.), The Graeco-Bactrian and  Indo-Greek Worlds (Routledge Worlds), London/New York. McAuley 2017 = A. McAuley, Once a Seleucid, Always a Seleucid: Seleucid Princesses and Their Nuptial Courts, in: A. Erskine/L. Llewellyn-Jones/S. Wallace (eds.), The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society From Alexander to Cleopatra, Swansea, 2017, 189–212. Merkelbach/Stauber 2005 = R. Merkelbach/J. Stauber, Jenseits des Euphrats: Griechische Inschriften, München/Leipzig. Minardi 2015 = M. Minardi, Ancient Chorasmia: A Polity Between the Semi-Nomadic and Sedentary Cultural Areas of Central Asia. Cultural  Interactions and Local Developments From the Sixth Century BC to the First Century AD (Acta Iranica 56), Leuven. Mittag 2006 = P.F. Mittag, Antiochos IV. Epiphanes. Eine politische Biographie (Klio Beihefte 11), Berlin. Momigliano 1975 = A.D. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization, Cambridge. Müller 2013 = S. Müller, The Female Element of the Political Self-Fashioning of the Diadochi: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Their Iranian Wives, in: Troncoso/Anson 2013, 199–214. Narain 1957 = A.K. Narain, The Indo-Greeks, Oxford. Naymark 2014 = A. Naymark, Seleucid Coinage of Samarqand?, Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society 221: 15–19. Oetjen 2020 = R. Oetjen (ed.), New Perspectives in Seleucid History, Archaeology and Numismatics: Studies in Seleucid History, Archaeology and Numismatics in Honor of Getzel M. Cohen, Berlin.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

33

Ogden 2017 = D. Ogden, The Legend of Seleucus: Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World, Cambridge/New York. Olbrycht 2004 = M.J. Olbrycht, Creating an Empire: Iran and Middle Asia in the Policy of Seleukos  I, in:  V.P. Nikonorov (ed.), Центральная Азия от Ахеменидов до Тимуридов: археология, история, этнология, kкультура. Материалы международной научной конференции, посвященной 100–летию со дня рождения Александра Марковича Беленицкого, Санкт-Петербург 2–5.11.2004, St. Petersburg, 231–235. — 2011 = On Coin Portraits of Alexander the Great and his Iranian Regalia: Some Remarks Occasioned by the Book by F. Smith: L’immagine di Alessandro il Grande sulle monete del regno (336–323), Notae Numismaticae 6: 13–27. — 2013 = Iranians in the Diadochi Period, in: Troncoso/Anson 2013, 159–182. Panaino 2003 = A., Panaino, The Baγān of the Fratarakas: Gods or ‘Divine’ Kings?, in: C.G. Cereti/M. Maggi/E. Provasi (eds.), Religious Themes and Texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia: Studies in Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday on 6th December 2002 (Beiträge zur Iranistik 24), Wiesbaden, 265–288. Plischke 2014 = S. Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran. Die seleukidische Herrschaftspolitik in den östlichen Satrapien (Classica et Orientalia 9), Wiesbaden. Potts 1993 = D. T. Potts, Occidental and Oriental Elements in the Religions of Babylonia and Iran During the Third and Second Centuries, Topoi. Orient-Occident 3.1: 345–354. Ramsey 2016 = G. Ramsey, The Diplomacy of Seleukid Women: Apama and Stratonike, in: Coşkun/McAuley 2016, 87–104. Rapin/Isamiddinov 1994 = C. Rapin/M.  Isamiddinov, Fortifications hellénistiques de Samarcande (Samarkand-Afrasiab), Topoi 4.2: 547–565. Rezakhani 2017 = Kh. Rezakhani, Re-Orienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity (Edinburgh Studies in Ancient Persia 3), Edinburgh. Robert 1950 = Inscription honorifique à Laodicée d’Iran (Nehavend), Hellenica 8: 73–75. — 1963 = Review of P.M. Fraser/K. Lehmann, Samothrace. Volume 2 Part 1: The Inscriptions on Stone (1959), Gnomon 35.1: 50–79. Sancisi-Weerdenburg/Kuhrt/Root 1994 = H.W.A.M. Sancisi-Weerdenburg/A. Kuhrt/ M.C. Root (eds.), Achaemenid History 8: Continuity and Change. Proceedings of the Last Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6–8, 1990, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Leiden, 311–327. Sekunda 2019 = N.V. Sekunda, The Seleukid Elephant Corps After Apameia, in: Coşkun/ Engels 2019, 159–172. Shayegan 2007 = M.R. Shayegan, Prosopographical Notes: The Iranian Nobility During and After the Macedonian Conquest, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 21: 97–126. — 2011 = Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia, Cambridge. — 2017 = Persianism: Or Achaemenid Reminiscences in the  Iranian and  Iranicate World(s) of Antiquity, in: Strootman/Versluys 2017, 401–455. Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993 = S. Sherwin-White/A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, London.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

34

Rolf Strootman

Stark 2016 = S. Stark, ‘Hellenism’ at the Fringes: On the Relationship Between Bactria and Western Sogdiana (Bukhara Oasis), in: A.E. Berdimuradov (ed.), История и Aрхеология Турана 3: Посвяьенный юбилею Джамалиддина Камаловича Мирзаахмедова, Samarkand, 134–150. Strootman 2010 = R. Strootman, Queen of Kings: Cleopatra VII and the Donations of Alexandria, in: M. Facella/T. Kaizer (eds.), Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East (Occidens et Oriens 19), Stuttgart, 139–158. — 2011a = The Seleukid Empire Between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism: Writing the History of Iran in the Third and Second Centuries BCE, Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān: The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 11: 17–35. — 2011b = Hellenistic Court Society: The Seleukid Imperial Court under Antiochos the Great, 223–187 BCE, in: J. Duindam/M. Kunt/T. Artan (eds.), Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires: A Global Perspective (Rulers and Elites 1), Leiden/Boston, 63–89. — 2014a = Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires: The Near East after the Achaemenids, 330–30 BCE (Edinburgh Studies in Ancient Persia 1), Edinburgh. — 2014b = Hellenistic Imperialism and the Idea of World Unity’, in: C. Rapp/H. Drake (eds.), The City in the Classical and Post-Classical World: Changing Contexts of Power and Identity, Cambridge, 38–61. — 2017 =  Imperial Persianism: Seleukids, Arsakids, Fratarakā, in: R. Strootman/M.J. Versluys (eds.), Persianism in Antiquity (Oriens et Occidens 25), Stuttgart, 169–192. — 2018 = The Coming of the Parthians: Crisis and Resilience in Seleukid Iran in the Reign of Seleukos II, in: Erickson 2018, 129–150. — 2019 = Antiochos  IV and Rome: The Festival at Daphne (Syria), the Treaty of Apameia and the Revival of Seleukid Expansionism in the West, in: Coşkun/Engels 2019, 173–216. — 2020a = The Great Kings of Asia: Imperial Titles in the Seleukid and Post-Seleukid Middle East’, in Oetjen 2020, 123–157. — 2020b = Hellenism and Persianism in Iran: Culture and Empire after Alexander the Great, Dabir 7: 201–227. — 2021 = The Seleukid Empire and Central Asia, in: Mairs 2021, 11–37. Strootman/Versluys 2017 = R. Strootman/M.J. Versluys (eds.), Persianism in Antiquity (Oriens et Occidens 25), Stuttgart. Strootman/Von Reden 2021 = R. Strootman/S. von Reden,  Imperial Metropoleis and Foundation Myths: Ptolemaic and Seleucid Capitals Compared, in: C. Fischer-Bovet/S. von Reden (eds., Comparing the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires: Integration, Communication, and Resistance, Cambridge/New York, 17–47. Sverchkov 2008 = L.M. Sverchkov, The Kurganzol Fortress, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14: 123–191. Tarn 1929 = W.W. Tarn, Queen Ptolemais and Apama, Classical Quarterly 23.3/4: 138–141. — 1951 [1938] = The Greeks in Bactria and India, 2nd edn, Cambridge.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

How Iranian was the Seleucid Empire?

35

Troncoso/Anson 2013 = V.A. Troncoso/E.M. Anson (eds.), After Alexander: The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC), Oxford/Oakville. Van Aerde 2018 = M.E.J.J. Van Aerde, Rethinking Taxila: A New Approach to the Graeco-Buddhist Archaeological Record, Ancient West & East 17: 203–229. Van Oppen 2014 = B.F. van Oppen de Ruiter, The Susa Marriages: A Historiographical Note, Ancient Society 44: 25–41. Versluys 2017 = M.J.  Versluys,  Visual Style and Constructing  Identity in the Hellenistic World: Nemrud Dağ and Commagene under Antiochos I, Cambridge. Wenghofer 2018 = R. Wenghofer, New Interpretations of the Evidence for the Diodotid Revolt and the Secession of Bactria from the Seleucid Empire, in: Erickson 2018, 151–172. West 1997 = M.L. West, The East face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford. Widengren 1967 = G. Widengren, Der Feudalismus im alten Iran, Köln. Widmer 2015 = M. Widmer, Apamè. Une reine au cœur de la construction d’un royaume’, in: A. Bielman-Sánchez/I. Cogitore/A. Kolb (eds.), Femmes influentes dans le monde hellénistique et à Rome, IIIe s. av. J.-C. – Ier s. ap. J.-C., Grenoble, 17–34. Wiesehöfer 1988 = J. Wiesehöfer, Die Persis nach Alexander, in: T. Yuge/M. Doi (eds.), Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity, Tokyo, 488–491. — 1991 = Beobachtungen zu den religiösen Verhältnissen in der Persis in frühhellenistischer Zeit’, in: J. Kellens (ed.), La religion iranienne à l’ époque achéménide, Ghent, 129–135. — 1993 = Das antike Persien, Zürich. — 1994 = Die “Dunklen Jahrhunderte” der Persis: Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Kultur von Fars in frühhellenistischer Zeit (330–140 v. Chr.) (Zetemata 90), München. — 1996 = Ancient Persia. From 550 BC to 650 AD, translated by A. Azadi, London. — 2012 = Das Diadem bei den Achaimeniden: Die schriftliche Überlieferung, in: A. Lichtenberger/K. Martin/H.-H., Nieswandt/D. Salzmann (eds.), Das Diadem der hellenistischen Herrscher. Übernahme, Transformation oder Neuschöpfung eines Herrschaftszeichens?, Bonn, 55–62. Will 1985 = É. Will, Pour une ‘anthropologie coloniale’ du monde hellénistique, in : W.J. Eadie/J. Ober (eds.), The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr, Lanham, 273–301. Wright 2005 = N.L. Wright, Seleucid Royal Cult, Indigenous Religious Traditions and Radiate Crowns: The Numismatic Evidence, Mediterranean Archaeology 18: 67–82. — 2007/2008 = From Zeus to Apollo and Back Again: A Note on the Changing Face of Western Seleukid Coinage, Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia 39/40: 527–539. — 2009/2010 = Non-Greek Religious Imagery on the Coinage of Seleucid Syria, Mediterranean Archaeology 22/23: 193–206. Zadok 2002 = R. Zadok, An Achaemenid Queen, N.A.B.U. 3: 63–66. Zavyalov 2007 = V.A. Zavyalov, The Fortifications of the City of Gyaur Kala, Merv, in: J. Cribb/G. Herrmann (eds.), After Alexander: Central Asia Before  Islam, Oxford, 313–329.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade Stanley M. Burstein

For some countries and regions geography truly is destiny. Strategic or economic considerations or a combination of the two make them areas of contention between stronger neighbors. A prime example is Koile Syria, or Coele Syria: ancient Palestine, Phoenicia north as far as the Eleutheros River, the Beka Valley, and the region of Damascus, roughly present-day Israel, Lebanon, and southwestern Syria. 1 In addition to the region’s natural resources, mainly timber consisting of the famous cedars of Lebanon, its ports, particularly Gaza, were the termini of caravan routes that connected the Mediterranean basin to the Indian Ocean. 2 But it was Koile Syria’s strategic significance that was its special curse and made control of it of such importance to Egypt and the various empires of southwest Asia throughout antiquity and beyond. Control of Koile Syria was particularly important to the security of Egypt, since it was the glacis that protected the country for millennia from invasion from the northeast. At the same time, Egyptian control of the region exposed its Asian rivals to the constant threat of interference with their plans in Syria-Palestine. This happened in the late eighth century BCE, when the kings of the twenty-fifth Egyptian dynasty intervened to frustrate Sennacherib’s attempt to expand Assyrian power to the Mediterranean 3 and again occurred in the late seventh century BCE, when the twenty-sixth dynasty king Necho II tried to do the same to the Neo-Babylonian kings Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar II. 4 The situation recurred in the Hellenistic Period with the division of Alexander’s Asian empire between the Seleucids and Ptolemies. It is not surprising, therefore, that the struggle over control of Koile Syria between the Ptolemies and Seleucids dominated the politics of western Asia in the third century BCE. This is not the place to discuss the details of the Syrian Wars, especially since the basic facts are conveniently available in John Grainger’s useful monograph, The Syrian Wars. 5 1 2 3 4

Grainger 2010, 20. Cf. Strabo 16.2.30, 16.4.4; cf. Roller 2018, note ad Strabo 16.2.30. Cf. Garelli/Nikiprowetzky 1974, 2.120; Aubin 2002; Redford 2004, 89–92. Cf. Drioton/Vandier 1962, 592–594, and 678 with discussion of sources; Garelli/Nikiprowetzky 1974, 2.148–152. 5 Grainger 2010.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

38

Stanley M. Burstein

Three considerations, however, are relevant. First, whether or not we believe the story that Seleucus I promised not to contest Ptolemy I’s occupation of Koile Syria because of his friendship with Ptolemy, 6 Seleucus I and his successors claimed the region as spear won land as a result of Seleucus’ role in the defeat of Antigonus the One Eyed and Demetrius at Ipsus in 301 BCE. The attempt to realize that claim dominated the dynasty’s foreign policy in the west for a century. Second, the results of the four Syrian Wars in the third century BCE were primarily favorable to the Ptolemies with the First and Second Syrian Wars ending with the reaffirmation of the status quo in the region and the Third and Fourth resulting in humiliating losses for the Seleucids. Third, and most important, the situation in Koile Syria changed abruptly and permanently with the outbreak of the Fifth Syrian War between Ptolemy V and Antiochus III in 202 BCE. The sources for the Syrian Wars as a whole are poor and that is particularly true of the Fifth Syrian War and the Battle of Panion that ended it. 7 The details have to be teased out of a handful of comments in the twelfth book of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 8 and the fragments of Polybius’ critique of Zeno of Rhodes’ account of the battle. 9 The significance of the Fifth Syrian War, however, is not in doubt; more than a century of Ptolemaic rule in Koile Syria had ended, a situation that was ratified in 194/3 BCE by the marriage of the child king Ptolemy V to Antiochus III’s daughter, Cleopatra I. Understandably, therefore, in view of the decisiveness of Antiochus  III’s victory, emphasis has likewise been placed on the political significance of the Ptolemaic defeat in the Fifth Syrian War. Typical is John Grainger’s 10 assessment that “the Fifth Syrian War was decisive for the foreign empire of the Ptolemaic dynasty, for afterwards the kings retained only Cyrenaica and Cyprus, along with three posts in the Aegean, at Itanos, Thera, and Methana.” Equally important, but less well studied than the political and military history of the Fifth Syrian War, however, are the economic implications of the Seleucid victory. What little research there has been, moreover, has focused on the economic condition of Koile Syria after the Seleucid conquest. The conclusions have been surprisingly positive, with the region enjoying, according to Lise Hannestad, 11 “a marked growth in wealth and possibly in population during the Seleucid reign compared with the period before 200 BC.” But that is not the whole story. As already mentioned, several important caravan routes linking the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean ended in Koile Syria. Additionally, the type of low volume, high value goods transported along those routes were largely perishable and would not, therefore, be identifiable in the finds discovered in archaeological surveys and excavations, such as those on which Hannestad’s study was based, so that little attention has been paid to the effect of the Seleucid victory on this trade.

6 7 8 9 10 11

Diodorus 21.1.5. Cf. Will 1979, 1.80; and Grainger 2010, 35. Cf. Will 1982, 2.118–119; and Grainger 2010, 245–271. Josephus AJ 12.129–154. Polybius 16.18–19. Grainger 2010, 271. Hannestad 2011, 251.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade

39

In the Hellenistic Period the  Indian Ocean trade mainly involved two groups of goods. The most important were aromatic substances, primarily myrrh originating in the territory of the kingdom of Qataban and frankincense from Hadramawt, the hinterlands of the southern coast of the Arabian peninsula. 12 Thanks to the heavy transaction costs involved in transporting these goods to the Mediterranean, they were extremely costly at the same time that they were essential to life in the region, especially because of their use in religion, perfumes, and medicine, a combination that made them highly desired. Arabian incense was supplemented by a variety of so-called spices originating in South and Southeast Asia – even western China – and transported westward along the north coast of the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf. By the second century BCE it was also transported further west along the coast of Southern Arabia to the island of Socotra, 13 and from there to Arabia Felix, modern Aden, and then north to the Mediterranean. In actuality, incense and spices reached the Mediterranean from southern Arabia via two caravan routes, western and eastern. The western route is better known, since its organization was described by explorers dispatched by Alexander, 14 the substance of whose reports are preserved in the ninth book of Theophrastus’ History of Plants. 15 Further information is provided by Hieronymus of Cardia’s account of the Nabataeans, 16 and the fragments of Juba II’s On Arabia. 17 These sources make it clear that the route ran along the back side of the mountains that fringed the Red Sea coast of the Arabian peninsula through the country of the Minaeans and Nabataeans, finally reaching the Mediterranean at Gaza. The evidence for the eastern route is poorer, but the fact that Seleucus I’s dedication to Apollo of Didyma in 288/7 BCE included not only frankincense and myrrh but also Asian spices, 18 namely, cassia, cinnamon, and costum, indicates that it was already in operation in the early third century BCE. 19 According to the surviving evidence, the route started at Gerrha, a still unlocated port on the west coast of the Persian Gulf. 20 It then bifurcated, one branch leading northwest across Arabia to the Mediterranean, ending also at Gaza. The other branch went directly north through Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean via the Euphrates River and Damascus, reaching the Mediterranean in Phoenicia. On reaching Koile Syria the incense and spices fell under royal control and were transported to Egypt for storage and eventually distribution. The details of the Ptolemaic control system do not concern us here; the evidence was analyzed by Claire Preaux in L’Economie Royale des Lagides in 1939, and her conclusion that the Ptolemies managed the sale of incense and spices in Egypt in the same way that they did those of oils and perfumes is still

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Miller 1969, 101–105; Groom 1981, 96–120. Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 105 a-b (Burstein) Cf. Höemann 1985; and Amigues 2005, 189–195. Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. 9.4. As preserved in Diodorus 19.94.4; cf. Hornblower 1981, 144–148. Juba, FGrHist 275 Ff 1–3; cf. Roller 2004, 107–166. Cassia and cinnamon: Miller 1969, 42–47. Costum: Miller, 1969, 84–86. Welles, RC 5. Rostovtzeff 1941, 1.457–458; Groom 1981, 194–197.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

40

Stanley M. Burstein

valid.  21 What does concern us, however, is the significance of the incense and spice trade for the economy of Koile Syria under the Ptolemies, which was succinctly summarized by the second century BCE historian Agatharchides of Cnidus in his On the Erythraean Sea: “No nation seems to be more prosperous than the Sabaeans and Gerrhaeans since they are the ones who distribute everything from Asia and Europe that is considered valuable. They have made the Ptolemaic portion of Syria rich in gold.” 22 The phrase “Ptolemaic portion of Syria” indicates that Agatharchides was referring to conditions before the Fifth Syrian War. 23 Thereafter, while the Ptolemies continued to need incense and spices, the revenues generated in Koile Syria by the trade went to the Seleucids, 24 who now controlled both the terminus of the western route and the whole eastern route, having already reduced Gerrha to tributary status and established a naval presence in the Persian Gulf before the outbreak of the Fifth Syrian War. 25 So even if the Ptolemies nourished revanchist dreams of regaining Koile Syria, they did little to try to alter this situation. 26 With the collapse of those dreams as a result of the Ptolemies’ disastrous defeat in the Sixth Syrian War, 170–168  BCE, and the death of Ptolemy  VI Philometor while campaigning in Koile Syria in 145 BCE, however, the evidence suggests that his successor Ptolemy VIII finally faced the new reality and tried to deal with it. While incense and spices remained essential to life in Egypt and elsewhere in the Mediterranean, Ptolemy VIII sought options to deal with the revenues lost due to Seleucid control of the trade. About the Asian spice trade, nothing could be done at first, but there was a possible strategy for dealing with the incense trade: bypass Koile Syria and the South Arabian kingdoms, which were the principal sources of incense, by establishing direct contact with an alternative source of frankincense and myrrh in Northeast Africa. 27  It was not a new strategy. As early as the third millennium BCE Egyptians had dispatched expeditions to a country called Punt to obtain incense. Scholarship on the location of Punt is immense, but the consensus is that it lay somewhere on the southern African coast of the Red Sea and its hinterlands, most likely in eastern Sudan, Northeast Ethiopia, and Eritrea. Such expeditions, of which the best known is that sent by the eighteenth dynasty female pharaoh Hatshepsut in year 9 of her reign, ca. 1463 BCE, were expensive and difficult undertakings, and, therefore, occurred rarely, being attested only 21 Preaux 1939, 366–371; cf. also Rostovtzeff 1941, 386–392; and Skeat 1966, 179–180. 22 Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 104a (Burstein). 23 For Koile Syria under the Ptolemies see Commer 1928, 1–35; Tscherikover 1966, 39–116; Bagnall 1976, 11–24; and Durand, 1997. 24 For the importance of this revenue to the Seleucids, see Aperghis 2004, 76–78. 25 Polybius 13.9 with the comments of Walbank 1967, 421–422; and Rouché/Sherwin-White 1985, 29–39. 26 The revenue loss may also have been softened if, as seems likely, Josephus (AJ 12.154–155), was correct in claiming that Antiochus III agreed as part of the dowry of Kleopatra I to share with Ptolemy V the tax revenue of Koile Syria (cf. Schwartz 1998, 47–61; Kaye/Amitay 2015, 131–155). 27 That the Ptolemies turned to the Red Sea in the second century BCE to acquire incense was suggested by Preaux 1939, 364; and Fraser 1972, 1.176–177, but their suggestion was not followed up by scholars.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade

41

during the height of the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, and the New Kingdom, and for good reason. 28 The Red Sea was a hostile environment for sailing. 29 Resources needed for shipping were not available in the Red Sea, so ships had to be assembled at settlements such as the Middle Kingdom port at Wadi Gawasis from materials and supplies transported from the Nile Valley. 30 Attempts to avoid this problem by making it possible for ships to sail directly from the Nile to the Red Sea by excavating a canal through the Wadi Tumilat and Bitter Lakes, as was done by the 26th dynasty king Necho II, the Persian king Darius I, and Ptolemy II, enjoyed limited success. 31 More importantly, sailing conditions in the Red Sea were difficult for ancient ships. Wind conditions were adverse, particularly in the northern Red Sea where steady north winds hindered sailing above 20 degrees latitude. Harbors also were scarce, and numerous reefs, whose dangers are vividly described by Agatharchides, 32 fringed the African coast of the Red Sea. Not all the dangers were natural, however. Proskynema dedicated to Pan at the desert shrine of Pan at El Kaneis by grateful travelers “saved from the Trogodytes” testify to the risks to travelers along the African coast of the Red Sea from hostile local populations. 33 Consequently, when the Ptolemies first entered the Red Sea, they could have found little information in Egypt about sailing conditions in the Red Sea, 34 a fact that is confirmed by Agatharchides’ citation of the reports of Ptolemaic explorers such as Simmias, 35 a friend of Ptolemy III, who explored the west coast of the Red Sea during his reign, and Ariston, who did the same for the Arabian Coast. 36 The most important result of these explorations was that Ptolemaic explorers rediscovered the African source of incense, ancient Punt. Initially, however, the discovery aroused little interest, understandably so, since prior to the Fifth Syrian War control of Koile Syria assured the Ptolemies of both access to Arabian incense and the revenues generated by it. So, after noting the presence of myrrh and frankincense in the area, Eratosthenes merely remarked in his Geography, 37 which was written sometime after the mid-third century  BCE, 38 that “until now no one has gone beyond this region. There are not many 28 On Punt and Egyptian contact with it, see now Bradbury 1988, 127–156; and Kitchen 1993, 587– 608. For the current state of scholarship, see Meeks 2003, 53–80. Egyptian representations of Punt are reviewed in Harvey 2003, 81–91. 29 Phillips 1980, 15–24; Bradbury 1988, 128–130; Meeks 2003, 74–76. 30 Bard/Fattovich 2006, 7–30. 31 Uphill 1988, 163–170; Redmount 1995, 127–135. For the limited usefulness of such a canal under ancient maritime conditions see Aubert 2015, 40–42. 32 Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 85a-b (Burstein); cf. Bernand 1972, No. 42, a dedication by a Jew named Theodotos, who had been “saved from the sea.” 33 Bernand 1962, Nos. 3, 8, 13, 18, 43, 47, 60, 61, 62, 82, 90. 34 The development of Greek geographical knowledge about the Red Sea is outlined by Manzo 1996, 5–26. 35 Simmias: Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 41b (Burstein). 36 Ariston: Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 87a (Burstein). 37 Eratosthenes, 2010 F 96 (Roller). 38 Roller (2010, 13–14) suggests that it was composed between ca. 246 BCE and 218 BCE.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

42

Stanley M. Burstein

cities on the coast, but many beautiful settlements in the interior.” Moreover, reflecting the dangerous sailing conditions along its African coast, which tended to push shipping toward the center, east coast of the Red Sea, any maritime commerce in the Red Sea in the third century BCE focused on the Gulf of Aqaba and the west coast of Arabia, particularly the gold mining region of Yemen. 39 By contrast, activity along the African coast was limited to royal projects. Natural resources such as the Topaz-Peridot deposits of St. Johns Island were treated as royal monopolies, 40 while elephant hunting bases were strung out along the coast south from Berenike at Ras Banas to Somalia to support the Ptolemies’ project of capturing African elephants and accumulating ivory to offset the Seleucid advantage with Indian elephants. 41 Although the sources are limited, the outlines of the new strategy developed by Ptolemy VIII are clear. First came exploration. Agatharchides, most likely after the mid-second century BCE, concluded his On the Erythraean Sea with the observation that he had “entirely given up the idea of writing an account of the islands in the area which were discovered later, the peoples beyond these and the aromatic substances which grow in Trogodytice,” 42 and he hoped that someone else would take up the task. The late second century BCE geographer Artemidorus of Ephesus took up Agatharchides’ challenge. Artemidorus’ geography is lost, but his account is preserved by Strabo, 43 and reveals that Ptolemaic agents had thoroughly explored what the late second century BCE Ptolemaic government officially called the “Incense-bearing country:” 44 identifying the aromatic and spice plants that grew there,where they grew, the locations of local ports, and both natural and artificial water sources. For the subsequent royal role in the trade, the evidence provided by two inscriptions is critical. The first was set up in 130 BCE by Soterichos, a subordinate of the strategos of the Thebaid, 45 and the other, which is now preserved in Warsaw, by two prominent court officials, Ptolemaios and Tryphon. 46 Unfortunately, the locations where these inscriptions were established are unknown, but both record the transport of xenia, official gifts, 47 from peoples of the incense bearing country to Ptolemy  VIII and his queens. 39 Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 97a-c--98a-c (Burstein). The reference to jewelry made from Arabian gold in poem 7 in the “Stones” section of the Milan Papyrus of Posidippus indicates that this trade was already active during the reign of Ptolemy II. 40 Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 84a-c (Burstein); Pliny, HN 37.108. For Ptolemaic control of other Red Sea islands see Pliny, HN 6.169. 41 Burstein 1996, 799–807; 2008, 135–147. The evidence for Ptolemaic settlements in the Red Sea is collected in Cohen 2006, 2.307–343. 42 Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 112 (Burstein) with 173 n. 3. 43 Strabo 16.4.14. Strabo (16.4.5) indicates that Artemidorus was his main source for his description of the Red Sea. 44 Cf. Łajtar 1999, 56–57. 45 OGIS 132. 46 The inscription was published by A. Łajtar (1999, 51–66). Its location prior to its arrival in Warsaw is unknown. 47 For the “official gift” in Egyptian diplomacy see Bleiberg 1996.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade

43

Soterichos, moreover, also notes that he was responsible for supervision of shipping and assuring the safety of those transporting cargoes of frankincense to the Thebaid from the mountains “opposite Coptus,” the place where the road network built to support the third century BCE Ptolemies’ elephant hunting project joined the Nile. The final piece of evidence is a papyrus preserved in Berlin that was published and brilliantly elucidated by Ulrich Wilcken in 1925. 48 It contains a contract providing for a loan made in Egypt to five merchants for a year-long voyage to the Incense bearing country. Taken together, the inscriptions and the papyrus contract indicate that the royal role in the new maritime incense trade was limited to establishing good relations with the peoples of the region and providing security for shipping. 49 Whereas the actual conduct of the trade itself was left to private merchants, who had to raise their own capital, obtain, and transport their cargoes to Egypt. When they reached Egypt, they would transport them to the Nile by using the existing infrastructure of ports and roads that Ptolemy II and his successors had constructed for their elephant hunting project and then sell their cargoes at a price fixed by the government, as was the case with goods covered by other monopolies, to Ptolemaic officials. Finally, a passage in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History 50 suggests that Ptolemy VIII or his successors went further and attempted to reduce or even eliminate Egypt’s dependence on imported incense by naturalizing the trees in Egypt as Hatshepsut had done a millennium earlier. But this is not the end of the story. Late in his reign, Ptolemy VIII also attempted to employ the same strategy in India, presumably in the hope of avoiding the taxes and tolls levied on caravans employing the eastern route by the Parthians – the Seleucids’ successors as rulers of Mesopotamia – thereby, reducing the cost of Asian spices. The story is preserved in one of the most remarkable documents in the history of ancient exploration, Posidonius’ account of the voyages of Eudoxus of Cyzicus in the  Indian and Atlantic Oceans. 51 According to Posidonius, Eudoxus sailed to India twice, making his first voyage on orders from Ptolemy VIII with “gifts,” and his second with greater equipment on orders from Ptolemy’s successor, Cleopatra III. Both voyages supposedly ended badly, Eudoxus returning with unspecified aromatic substances and precious stones, only to have his goods confiscated by the kings, first by Ptolemy VIII, and again when he returned during the reign of Cleopatra III’s successor, Ptolemy IX Soter II. Although scholarship on Eudoxus’ voyages is extensive, its focus is narrow, primarily focusing on their possible connection to the discovery of how to exploit the monsoon to sail directly from Egypt to western India. 52 Likewise, Posidonius’ depiction of Eudoxus as an honest merchant wronged by greedy kings has not been questioned. What has been 48 Wilcken 1925, 86–102. 49 Providing security for shipping included posting guards (Strabo 2.3.4) and stationing naval forces in the Red Sea to guard against piracy (Agatharchides, On the Erythraean Sea F 90a-b [Burstein]; cf. Thiel 1966, 32–33). 50 Pliny, HN 12.56. Cf. Kitchen 1993, 595–597, for the shipment of myrrh trees to Egypt under Hatshepsut. 51 Preserved in Strabo 2.3.4. The standard edition with commentary is Thiel 1966. 52 Examples are Mazzarino 1982–1987, VII-XII; Desanges 1996, 665–670; and Habicht 2013, 197–206.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

44

Stanley M. Burstein

virtually ignored, however, has been his reference to Eudoxus sailing with “gifts” on his first voyage, which indicates that the purpose of the voyage was primarily diplomatic instead of commercial and that Eudoxus was actually Ptolemy VIII’s emissary to an unfortunately now unidentifiable Indian ruler. 53 The return cargo of aromatic substances and precious stones would then have been the Indian king’s counter-gifts to Ptolemy VIII, similar to the xenia mentioned in the inscriptions of Soterichos and Ptolemaios and Tryphon, marking, therefore, the success of Ptolemy’s diplomacy, not Eudoxus’ purchases in India of which he was unjustly deprived. This was not, of course, the first time a Ptolemaic king tried to establish direct relations with India. A century earlier, Ptolemy II had dispatched an ambassador to one of the Maurya kings, probably Bindusara or Ashoka, but with little result. 54 The results of Ptolemy VIII’s effort to extend his Red Sea initiative to India, however, were different. Two inscriptions, one from 73  BCE, 55 and one from 62  BCE, 56 reveal that the responsibilities of the strategos of the Koptite nome and then of the epistrategos of the Thebaid not only included supervision and protection of shipping in the Red Sea like Soterichos under Ptolemy VIII, but also in the Indian Ocean, suggesting the existence of regular and significant maritime commerce between Egypt and India by that time. 57 The scale of that commerce, of course, now cannot be determined, nor can the extent to which it offset the revenues lost by the loss of Koile Syria to the Seleucids. Strabo’s dismissive comment, however, that only twenty ships exited the Red Sea under the Ptolemies in contrast to the much larger number that did so after the Roman conquest of Egypt is misleading. 58 Twenty ships per year, each with a cargo capacity of 100 or more tons, actually represents a sizable trade. Likewise, the caravan trade in Arabian incense continued to grow during the early centuries CE; Mohammed still led such caravans in the seventh century CE. 59 This does not mean, however, that Ptolemy VIII’s, admittedly belated, response to the new economic conditions in Koile Syria created by the Battle of Panion was a failure. On the contrary, its ramifications were felt throughout the rest of antiquity, since it opened up trade with Egypt and the Mediterranean as a whole, and important segments of the African coasts of the Red Sea. It also made possible the flourishing and well documented maritime trade with those regions and beyond in the early centuries CE. 60 By so doing, it also would ultimately enable the rise of a powerful new state on the Ethiopian plateau, the kingdom of Aksum – which the third century CE religious teacher Mani would include 53 That Eudoxus’ voyages were royal missions and that the cargoes, therefore, belonged to the king was pointed out by Habicht 2013, 199. 54 Dionysios, FGrHist 717 T 1; cf. Thapar 1997, 17–18. 55 SB V 8036; cf. Mooren 1972, 127–133; and Ricketts 1982–1983, 161–165. 56 OGIS 186 with the comments of Burstein 1985, 144. 57 In connection with the Indian Ocean trade the Ptolemies may have encouraged Greek settlement on Socotra, which is attested in the sixth century CE by Cosmas Indicopleustes (3, 169B with the comments of Bengtson 1955, 332) and by Arab sources (Ubaydli 1989, 139–143). 58 Strabo 2.5.12; 17.1.13. 59 Cf. Crone 1987, 12–83. 60 Casson 1984, 39–47.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade

45

among the five most important kingdoms of his world and which would play an important role in the political, religious, and economic history of the Indian Ocean world in late antiquity.  61 References Agatharchides 1989 = Agatharchides of Cnidus, On the Erythraean Sea, S. M. Bustein (ed. and trans.), The Hakluyt Society, Second Series 172, London. Amigues 2005 = S. Amigues, Anaxikrates’ Expedition in Western Arabia. In: M. Boussac/J. Salles (eds.), A Gateway from the Eastern Mediterranean to India: The Red Sea in Antiquity, New Delhi, 189–195. Aperghis 2004 = G. G. Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire, Cambridge. Aubert 2015 = J.-J. Aubert, Trajan’s Canal: River Navigation from the Nile to the Red Sea?, in: F. De Romanis/M. Maiuro (eds.), Across the Ocean: Nine Essays on Indo-Mediterranean Trade, Leiden. Aubin 2002 = H. T. Aubin, The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance Between Hebrews and Africans in 701 BC, New York,. Bagnall 1976 = R. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possession Outside Egypt, New York. Bengtson 1955 = H. Bengtson, Kosmas  Indikopleustes und die Ptolemäer, Historia 4, 326–333. Bernand 1972 = A. Bernand, Le Paneion d’el-Kanaïs: Les  Inscriptions Grecques, Leiden. Bard/Fattovich 2006 = K. Bard/R. Fattovich, “À la Recherche de Pount: Mersa Gaouasis et la Navigation Égyptienne dans la Mer Rounge.” Égypte, Afrique et Orient 41, 2006, 7–30. Bleiberg 1996 = E. Bleiberg, The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt, Norman. Bradbury 1988 = L. Bradbury, Traveling to ‘God’s Land’ and Punt in the Middle Kingdom. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 25, 127–156. Burstein 1985 = S. Burstein, The Hellenistic Age from the battle of Ipsos to the death of Kleopatra VII, Cambridge. — 1996 = Ivory and Ptolemaic Exploration of the Red Sea: The Missing Factor, Topoi 6, 799–807. — 2008 = Elephants for Ptolemy II: Ptolemaic Policy in Nubia in the Third Century BC, in: P. McKechnie/P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, Leiden, 135–147. Casson 1984 = L. Casson, Egypt, Africa, and India: Patterns of Seaborne Trade in the First Century A.D. Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 21, 39–47.

61 Mani, Kephalaia 189.1.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

46

Stanley M. Burstein

Cohen 2006 = G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa.,Berkeley and Los Angeles. Crone 1987 = P. Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton. Desanges 1996 = J. Desanges, Sur le mer hippale, au souffle du vent hippale, Topoi 6, 665–670. Drioton/Vandier 1962 = P. Drioton/J. Vandier, L’Égypte, 4th edition, Paris. Fraser 1972 = P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford. Garelli/Nikiprowetzky 1974 = P. Garelli/V. Nikiprowetzky,  V., Le Proche-Orient Asiatique: Les Empires Mésopotamiens Israël, Paris. Grainger 2010 = J. D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars, Leiden, 2010. Groom 1981 = N. Groom, Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade, London. Habicht 2013 = C. Habicht, Eudoxus of Cyzicus and Ptolemaic exploration of the sea route to  India, in: Kostas Burasellis/Mary Stefanou/Dorothy J. Thompson (eds.), The Ptolemies and the Nile: Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge, 197–206. Hannestad 2011 = L. Hannestad, The Economy of Koile-Syria after the Seleukid Conquest: An Archaeological Contribution, in: Z. Archibald/J. K. Davies/V. Gabrielson (eds.), The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC, Oxford, 251–279. Harvey 2003 = S. P. Harvey,  Interpreting Punt: Geographic, Cultural and Artistic Landscapes, in: D. O’Connor/S. Quirke (eds.), Mysterious Lands, London, 81–91. Högemann 1985 = P. Högemann . Alexander der Grosse und Arabien, Zetemata 82. Munich. Hornblower 1981 = J. Hornblower, Hieronymus of Cardia. Oxford. Kaye/Amitay 2015 = Noah Kaye/Ory Amitay, “KLEOPATRA’S DOWRY: Taxation and Sovereignty in Hellenistic Kingdoms,” Historia 64: 131–155. Łajtar 1999 = A. Łajtar, Die Kontakte zwischen Ägypten und dem Horn von Afrika Im 2. Jh. v. Chr.: Eine unveröffentlichte griechische Inschrift im National-Museum Warschau, The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 29: 51–66. Kitchen 1993 = K. A. Kitchen, The Land of Punt, in: T. Shaw/P. Sinclair/B. Andah/A. Okpoko (eds.), The Archaeology of Africa: Food, metals and towns, London, 587–608. Manzo 1996 = A. Manzo, Culture ed Ambiente: L’Africa nord-orientale nei dati archeologiei e nella letteratura geografica ellenistica Mazzarino 1982–87 = S. Mazzarino, Sul nome del vento hipalus (‘ippalo’) in Plinio, Helikon 22–27: VII–XIV. Meeks 2003 = D. Meeks, Locating Punt. In: D. O’Connor/S. Quirke (eds.), Mysterious Lands, London, 63–80. Miller 1969 = J. I. Miller, The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire: 29 B.C. to A.D. 641, Oxford. Mooren 1972 = L. Mooren, The Date of SB V 8036 and the Development of the Ptolemaic Maritime Trade with India, Ancient Society 3: 127–133. Phillips 1980= J. Phillips, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Pilot, Taunton. Préaux 1939 = C. Préaux,, L’Économie royale des Lagides. Brussels.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

The Seleucid Conquest of Koile Syria and the Incense Trade

47

Redford 2004 = D. B. Redford, From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt. Baltimore. Redmount 1995 = C. A. Redmount, The Wadi Tumilat and the ‘Canal of the Pharaohs’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54: 127–135. Ricketts 1982–1983 = L. M. Ricketts, The Epistrategos Kallimachos and a Koptite  Inscription: SB V 8036 Reconsidered, Ancient Society 13/14: 161–165. Roller 2004 = D.W. Roller,(ed. and trans.), Scholarly Kings: The Writings of Juba  II of Mauretania, Archelaos of Kappadocia, Herod the Great and The Emperor Claudius, Chicago. — (ed. and trans.) 2010 = Eratosthenes’ Geography. Princeton. — 2018 = A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo, Cambridge. Rostovzeff 1941 = M. I. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford. Rouche/Sherwin-White 1985 = C. Rouche/S. Sherwin-White, Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire: The Greek Inscriptions from Failaka in the Arabian Gulf, Chiron 15: 1–39. Schwartz 1998 = D. R. Schwartz 1998. Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century? In: M. Goodman (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. Oxford, 47–61. Skeat 1966 = T. C. Skeat, A Fragment on the Ptolemaic Perfume Monopoly (P. Lond. Inv. 2859A). Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 52: 179–180. Thiel 1966 = J. H. Thiel, Eudoxus of Cyzicus: A Chapter in the History of the Sea-Route to  India and the Route Around the Cape in Ancient Times, Historische Studien 23, Groningen. Ubaydli 1989 = A. Ubaydli, The population of Suqutra in the Early Arabic Sources, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabic Studies 19: 137–154. Uphill 1988 = E. P. Uphill, An Ancient Egyptian Maritime Link with Arabia, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabic Studies 18: 163–170. Walbank 1957 = F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume II, Commentary on Books VII-XVII, Oxford. Welles 1934 = C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. New Haven. Wilcken 1925 = U. Wilcken, Punt-Fahrten in der Ptolemaerzeit, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 60: 86–102. Will 1979–1982 = É. Will, Histoire Politique du Monde Hellénistique (323–30 av. J.-C.), 2 vols, Nancy.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE): The Role of Dynastic Women Sara E. Cole

Introduction In a series of six military clashes between 274 and 168 BCE, known as the Syrian Wars, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties vied for control of the region of Coele Syria. This was the geographical territory where their empires converged and which occupied a strategic location near the Mediterranean coast that controlled access to Egypt from the north. 1 Over time, these conflicts came to also involve the growing powers of the Parthian Empire and the Roman Republic. During this approximately 100-year period, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids strategically employed imperial iconography in representing themselves and one another. This paper examines the role iconography played in how both dynasties crafted their self-presentation in relation to these conflicts, looking specifically at the employment of royal women paired with military themes in dynastically-generated images  –  i.e. images over which the court must have had a high degree of control and which thus represent how the Ptolemies and Seleucids wished to be viewed. 2 While the Ptolemies engaged royal women in iconographic messages of imperial power from early in their dynasty’s history, 3 Seleucid women remain largely invisible in the art historical record until the appearance of Laodice III in the Seleucid ruler cult in the late third century BCE and portraits of Laodice IV on Seleucid coins in the early second century BCE. 4 The Seleucids may have been appropriating Ptolemaic strategies in an attempt to find new ways to assert dynastic strength as they faced the growing powers of Parthia and Rome. After the Second War of the Diadochoi, 319–315  BCE, Coele Syria was under the control of Antigonus Monophthalmos. But following the Battle of  Ipsus in 301  BCE, 1 See Stanley Burstein’s chapter in this volume on the importance of this region for trade. 2 I employ the term “dynastically-generated” after Ager/Hardiman 2016. 3 On the portraiture of Ptolemaic queens and its ideological significance, see e.g. Thompson 1973; Albersmseier 2002; Stanwick 2002; Clayman 2014. 4 In Ager/Hardiman 2016, the authors discuss the lack of female Seleucid portraits until the second half of the dynasty, posing questions and possibilities that they hope others will pursue further, including Ptolemaic influences. The present paper is an attempt to continue this conversation, with a particular emphasis on royal women and military iconography.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

50

Sara E. Cole

in which the combined forces of Lysimachus of Thrace and Seleucus I Nicator defeated Antigonus and his son Demetrius, the region belonged to the Seleucids. Ptolemy  I Soter, however, took control of Syria up to Byblos and Seleucus chose not to challenge him. These events set the stage for the battles that the two kings’ respective successors would fight over this territory. The Syrian Wars were of course about much more than the control of Coele Syria alone – significantly for this discussion, the wars also included struggle for control of important port cities and islands throughout the eastern Mediterranean – and their history has been covered in detail elsewhere. 5 For the purposes of the present essay it is sufficient to list the six wars and their major players – relevant details are discussed below: First Syrian War (274–271 BCE): Antiochus I vs. Ptolemy II Second Syrian War (260–253 BCE): Antiochus II vs. Ptolemy II Third Syrian War/Laodicean War (246–241 BCE): Seleucus II vs. Ptolemy III Fourth Syrian War (219–217 BCE): Antiochus III vs. Ptolemy IV Fifth Syrian War (202–195 BCE): Antiochus III vs. Ptolemy V Sixth Syrian War (170–168 BCE): Antiochus IV vs. Ptolemy VI and VIII The overall pattern of the wars sees the Ptolemies at the height of their power until the reign of Ptolemy  IV, when things begin to shift in the late third century  BCE.  In the Fourth Syrian War, Ptolemy  IV managed to defeat Antiochus  III in a major battle at Raphia in 217 BCE, but that was the last significant victory the Ptolemies enjoyed over the Seleucids. With the accession of the child-king Ptolemy V, their empire began to weaken and they lost control of Coele Syria and faced a major rebellion in Upper Egypt centered around Thebes. Meanwhile, after the expansions of Antiochus III the Seleucids were facing their own growing internal weaknesses and loss of territory to the Parthians. From that point onward, Rome increasingly interfered in the affairs of both empires, until, in the Sixth Syrian War, Gaius Popilius Laenas drew his line in the sand to force Antiochus IV out of Egypt. Rome helped preserve Egypt, upon whom it was dependent for grain imports, but the Ptolemies suffered territorial losses nonetheless. The Syrian Wars also resulted in two significant dynastic marriages. Following the Second Syrian War, Antiochus II married the Ptolemaic princess Berenice Syra, whose later assassination would serve as – possibly fictional – justification for the Third Syrian War. 6 And the Fifth Syrian War ended with Ptolemy V marrying the Seleucid princess Cleopatra I. Ptolemaic-Seleucid marriages continued into the late Seleucid period, and the Ptolemaic princesses who wed Seleucid rulers appeared alone on coins and in jugate busts with their husbands or sons. The increase in female images on Seleucid coins in the later phase of the dynasty can probably be attributed to Ptolemaic influence. In two mosaics from Thmuis – Tell Timai – Egypt and two Egyptian stelai related to the Battle of Raphia, early Ptolemaic royal women appear front and center within the 5 E.g. Grainger 2010. 6 Coşkun 2016.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

51

dynasty’s iconographic self-presentation as it related to military conflict and imperial expansion. These images particularly reference the Ptolemies’ rivalry with the Seleucids. Ptolemaic queens were promoted not only as loyal wives and mothers who continued the bloodline and maintained dynastic stability, but also as divine recipients of cult who protected the empire. The Ptolemies, as was characteristic of their reign, chose media, styles, and iconography that appealed to both the Greek – mosaic – and Egyptian – stelai – artistic traditions. The Seleucids began to adopt the Ptolemies’ practice of making use of images of queens and queens-as-goddesses in their self-presentation during the reign of Antiochus III, in line with his expansionist ambitions but perhaps also in response to the curtailing of those ambitions by Parthia and Rome. This trend is particularly visible on Seleucid coinage from the reigns of Antiochus III and his children – Seleucus IV, Antiochus IV, and Laodice IV – where the specifics of the historical circumstances prompted a new, but temporary, Seleucid iconographic strategy. The Thmuis Mosaics The art of mosaics was a Greek introduction to Egypt. Mosaics of the Ptolemaic period are mostly found in Lower Egypt in Alexandria and other Delta cities. 7 A papyrus from the 3rd century BCE Zenon Archive records instructions for the creation of mosaics for the tholoi of men’s and women’s baths in a building – perhaps a wealthy villa – 8 in Philadelphia in the Fayyum. 9 In the papyrus, detailed specifications are given for the measurements and design of the mosaics, each of which is to have a single flower at its center surrounded by borders of different kinds. A contractor is charged with ensuring that the mosaics adhere to these blueprints. A model for one of the mosaics is to be sent from Alexandria by royal courier, indicating the degrees to which this industry was controlled by the court and to which artistic and manufacturing trends in Alexandria impacted the chora. 10 Ptolemaic mosaics tend to keep pace with the styles seen elsewhere in the contemporaneous Hellenistic world. A black and white pebble mosaic featuring a central rosette was excavated in the andron – formal dining room – of a peristyle home in the Brucheion quarter in Alexandra, in the southwest area of the Ptolemaic palace district. 11 Such pebble mosaics have their origins in Greece and many 4th century BCE examples from the Mac 7 On the mosaics of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, see most recently Guimier-Sorbets 2021. See also Cole 2022. 8 Préaux (1947, 42) suggested that the baths belonged to a royal villa. Świderek (1959, 42) suggested that the structure was a rest house for members of the court visiting Philadelphia. 9 P. Cairo Zenon 59665. Edgar 1931a, 102–104; Koenen 1971; Bruneau 1978; Daszewski 1978, 123– 125; Daszewski 1985, 6–14 and refs. Cf. Dunbabin 1999, 23. 10 On the issue of mosaic workshops and their possible centralization in a royal atelier in early Ptolemaic Alexandria, see Daszewski 1985, 87–90. 11 Empereur 1998a, 60–61; Empereur 1998b, 29, 33; Grimal 1998, 545–546; McKenzie 2007, 67 fig. 97, 69; Guimier-Sorbets 2020a; Guimier-Sorbets 2021, 20–21, fig. 3, 24–25, figs. 4–7; 215 cat. 1; Cole 2022, 7–9, fig. 3.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

52

Sara E. Cole

edonian capital of Pella are well known. Other pebble mosaics decorated buildings in the Ptolemaic palace area in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE, including a mosaic showing a nude warrior with a shield and spear surrounded by a border of winged griffins, 12 and another from the Shatby district showing three winged Erotes hunting a stag. 13 Mosaic fragments that included the figures of a centaur and a stag came from rooms near the Erotes stag hunt mosaic. 14 An evolution in technique is visible across these examples, starting with the basic form of the rosette pebble mosaic from the Brucheion quarter, and then transitioning from pebbled to polychromatic, tessellated Fig. 1: Mosaic signed by Sophilos (detail). mosaics. 15 This transition was also occur- Ptolemaic, late 3rd century BC. From Thmuis. 2.8 × 2.6 m. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman ring elsewhere in the Hellenistic world in rd  16 Museum, no. 21739. Photo by A. Pelle, the 3 century  BCE, and its later stages © Archives CEAlex. are seen in the stag hunt mosaic, which is made up mostly of shaded and contoured tesserae that produce a range of colors and shading effects; the fragmentary centaur scene reflects an even more sophisticated stage of this technique. 17 12 Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, no. 1125. 2.2 × 1.6 m. Adriani 1934, 69 no. 30 (location marked on the enclosed plan); Brown 1957, 68–69 cat. no. 51, pl. XLIV no. 2; Daszewski 1978, 134–135, fig. 128; Daszewski 1985, 101–103, cat. no. 1, pl. 1–3; Tkaczow 1993, 156, site 116, map A; Salzmann 1982, 115, no. 133; Guimier-Sorbets 1998, 227–228, fig. 2; Dunbabin 1999, 23–24; McKenzie 2007, 67, fig. 96; Guimier-Sorbets 2021, 21, 26–27, figs. 8–12, 215 cat. 2; Cole 2022, 9–10, fig. 5. 13 Alexandria,Graeco-Roman Museum, no. 21643. 5.3 × 4.0 m. Breccia 1923a, 3–10, pl. I; Adriani 1934, 93–94 no. 116 (location marked on the enclosed plan); Brown 1957, 68 cat. no. 50, pl. XLIV no. 1; Daszewski 1978, 128–135, fig. 116–122; Daszewski 1985, 103–111, cat. no. 2, pl. 4–7a, 10–11, 12bc; Salzmann 1982, 68–70, 116 no. 134; Tkaczow 1993, 162–163, site 128; Grimm 1998, fig. 38a-c; Guimier-Sorbets 1998, 227, 229 fig. 6; Dunbabin 1999, 23–24, fig. 22–24; Andreae 2003, 31–32; McKenzie 2007, 68, fig. 98; Guimier-Sorbets 2021, 29–36, figs. 15–22,216 cat. 6; Cole 2022, 9, 11, fig. 6. 14 Centaur: Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, no. 25659; 0.4 × 0.1 m. Stag: Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, no. 25660; 0.7 × 0.5 m. The mosaics were found in excavations by A. Adriani at Chantier Finney. Adriani 1940, 32, 43–44, fig. 13, pl. 13–14; Brown 1957, 69 cat no. 52, pl. XLV no. 2–3; Daszewski 1978, 134–135; Daszewski 1985, 111–114, nos. 5–6, pl. 13–15; Tkaczow 1993, 138, site 95, map A; Grimm 1998, fig. 41a-b; McKenzie 2007, 69, fig. 99; Guimier-Sorbets 2021, 37–38, figs. 23–25, 216 cat. 7; Cole 2022, 9, 11–12, figs. 7–8. Daszewski 1985, 111 notes that these fragments were not found in situ and may have belonged to an upper story. 15 Daszewski 1985, 102; McKenzie 2007, 69. 16 For a discussion of the development of tessellated mosaics in the Hellenistic east, see Daszewski 1985, 73–86; Dunbabin 1999, 18–37. 17 McKenzie 2007, 69.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

53

Fig. 2: Mosaic. Ptolemaic, late 3rd–early 2nd century BC. From Thmuis. 1.4 × 1.4 m. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, no. 21736. Photo by A. Pelle, © Archives CEAlex.

Two examples of tessellated mosaics that pertain to the role of dynastic women in Ptolemaic imperial iconography come from the eastern Delta city of Thmuis – Tell Timai – which replaced the Egyptian city of Mendes as the nome capital. Their enigmatic subject matter is not paralleled elsewhere in Ptolemaic art. They present two versions of the same image in their emblemata, one earlier version signed by the artist Sophilos, an otherwise unattested mosaicist (fig. 1), 18 and a later version that is likely a copy of the first

18 Breccia 1932, 65, pl. A, 53, 54; Brown 1957, 67–68 cat. no. 48, 70–74, pl. XXXVIII, XL; Daszewski 1978, 133, fig. 129; Daszewski 1985, cat. no. 38, 142–158, pls. A, 32, 42a, fig. 8; Guimier-Sorbets and M.D. Nenna 1995, 534–538; Guimier-Sorbets 1998, 227–231, esp. 227–228, fig. 3; Dunbabin 1999,

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

54

Sara E. Cole

(fig. 2). 19 The signed mosaic – an early example of opus vermiculatum technique 20 – is a square composition that depicts a wide-eyed woman with a fleshy face who wears a headdress in the form of a ship’s prow. She is dressed in military garb and holds a ship’s mast in the manner of a royal staff. Her cloak is pinned at her right shoulder with a golden anchor. Behind her left shoulder, the round edge of a shield is visible. Her unusually large eyes suggest a superhuman status, much like the depictions of kings and queens on Ptolemaic coinage in which they have large, protruding eyes. In the upper left corner of the emblema is the signature “ΣΟΦΙΛΟΣ ΕΠΟΙΕΙ” – “Sophilos made it.” The scene is surrounded by multiple square border layers containing geometric patterns: crenellations, maeander, and guilloche. The second version is rather similar in its depiction of the woman and her costume, but it is a round mosaic surrounded by one large crenelated border, and it lacks any signature. 21 It is also executed less skillfully than the signed version and so appears to be a later copy by a different mosaicist. The mosaics were discovered at Thmuis in the early 20th century as chance finds, and their precise find-spots are unknown. 22 Although their original contexts remain a mystery, they could very well have decorated the floor of a wealthy home or public building in the city. It has been suggested that the mosaics were based on a wall painting from the Ptolemaic court  –  similar suggestions have been made about other famous mosaics of the Hellenistic world. 23 Based on the evidence of the Zenon Archive, it is reasonable to assume that the mosaics derive from an image that originated in Alexandria.  Multiple identities have been suggested for the mosaics’ main subject.  It was first thought to be a personification of Alexandria, 24 but W. Daszewski later argued for it as a portrait of queen Berenice II in the guise of Agatha Tyche, 25 in which case her costume symbolized the naval prowess of the Ptolemies during the 3rd century BCE. A. Kuttner proposes that the two mosaics depict two different queens, Berenice II and Arsinoe II, with the mosaics commissioned after Ptolemy III and Berenice II’s marriage, thus celebrating the addition of Cyrene’s fleet to the Ptolemaic navy and the beginning of the

19 20

21 22 23 24 25

24–26, fig. 25, pl. 4; Andreae 2003, 26, 28–29, 33–38; Guimier-Sorbets 2021, 42–45, figs. 26–30, 217 cat. 8; Cole 2022, 19–23, figs. 18–19 and 21. Brown 1957, 68 cat. no. 49, 74–75, pl. XLI no. 1, XLII no. 1; Daszewski 1985, cat. no. 39, 158–160, bibliography on 160, pls. B, 33; Guimier-Sorbets 1998, 228 fig. 4, 229; Guimier-Sorbets 2020b; Guimier-Sorbets 2021, 45–51, figs. 31–34, 217 cat. 9; Cole 2022, 19–23, fig. 20. Dunbabin 1999, 25 describes opus vermiculatum: “miniscule fragments of stone, so small that the eye hardly distinguishes them as separate entities. Their use permits the artist genuinely to rival the effects of painting, assembling his colors as if they were strokes of the brush, and drawing on as wide a palette as that available to the painter.” Guimier-Sorbets (2021, 46–7) argues that this emblema was likely originally square but was remounted as a circular composition when it entered the Graeco-Roman Museum in 1924. Dee Daszewski 1985, 146. Daszewski 1985, 88–89, 155; Dunbabin 1999, 25; Guimier-Sorbets 2021, 43. First suggested by Breccia 1932, 65 and followed by many subsequent authors. See e.g., Daszewski 1985, 146. Daszewski 1985, 146–158.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

55

Third Syrian War. 26 But because the mosaics clearly derive from the same original image, it seems unlikely that they would represent two different subjects; or, if they do, one might expect inscriptions to identify the two very similarly represented women as a means of clarification. A more recent interpretation by K. Blouin identifies the figures as Arsinoe II. 27 Both queens are viable possibilities and, in either case, the woman pictured serves as a protective icon for the Ptolemaic dynasty and especially its naval interests, raising the woman’s image above that of human queen to the realm of the divine. A precise identification as one or the other queen would have somewhat different allusions with regard to the Ptolemaic ruler cult. Arsinoe II (ca. 316–ca. 270 BCE) looms large as one of the most influential Ptolemaic queens; in many ways she set the standard for the role of dynastic women and later queens looked back to her as an ancestor and patroness. After marriages to Lysimachus of Thrace and Ptolemy Ceraunus she married her full brother Ptolemy  II Philadelphus (r.  282– 246 BCE). She established a precedent – that later Ptolemaic queens would follow – of assuming a prominent and very public place at court, participating in events with her husband, holding royal titles, and having the first queen’s cult dedicated to her. Arsinoe’s role in foreign policy influenced the Second Syrian War, and according to the inscription on the Pithom Stele (II. 15–16) she went with her brother-husband to the eastern Delta in 274/3 BCE to organize the troops there and to discuss how best to protect Egypt. 28 It was during the reign of Ptolemy II that the Ptolemaic ruler cult was inaugurated and tied to the cult of Alexander the Great as founder of the dynasty. 29 Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II promoted their deceased parents to the status of gods, worshiping them as the Theoi Soteres – savior gods – and issuing coins with jugate busts of Ptolemy I and Berenice I on the reverse, and the ruling couple on the obverse (fig. 3). Together, the living rulers were worshiped as the Theoi Philadelphoi, the sibling-loving gods. After her death in ca. 270 BCE, Arsinoe became the first Ptolemaic queen to receive a dedicated state cult. Cult statues to the new goddess were set up in temples throughout Egypt. Temple reliefs and a series of Egyptian stelai show the living Ptolemy II, as pharaoh, worshiping his deceased wife as a goddess. 30 With the cult of Arsinoe II, the Ptolemies thus began strategically integrating deceased members of the dynasty into the Egyptian religious landscape by incorporating the ruler cult into existing Egyptian temples. 31 Their rule was further le-

26 27 28 29

Kuttner 1999, 111–13. Blouin 2015. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 22183. See, e.g., Thiers 2007b. On the Ptolemaic ruler cult, see Koenen 1993; Pfeiffer 2008a; Caneva 2018. On the relationship between the early Ptolemaic promotion of worship of the god Serapis and the development of the ruler cult, see Pfeiffer 2008b. See also Caneva 2016 for the establishment of a Ptolemaic dynastic image and ideology through the reign of Ptolemy II. 30 On Ptolemy’s worship of Arsinoe, see Quaegebeur 1970; Quaegebeur 1971b. For a catalog of the stelai, see Caneva 2014a, chapter 4. 31 See, e.g. Quaegebeur 1970; Quaegebeur 1971a; Quaegebeur 1971b; Quaegebeur 1978; Winter 1978; Quaegebeur 1985; Quaegebeur 1998; Minas-Nerpel 2019. Arsinoe was not only worshipped at an

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

56

Sara E. Cole

Fig. 3: Octadrachm of Ptolemy II. Ptolemaic, minted in Alexandria. Gold, diam. 2.9 cm. Obverse: jugate busts of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II ΑΔΕΛΦΩΝ; reverse: jugate busts of Ptolemy I and Berenice I ΘΕΩΝ. New York, The American Numismatic Society, 1977.158.112. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

gitimized by the support of Egyptian priests, 32 who gathered periodically in synods and issued trilingual decrees in which they bestowed certain honors on Ptolemaic rulers, including cult statues. 33 The deified Arsinoe was given a strong naval aspect in her role as protector of the empire and through her assimilation with the goddess Aphrodite. 34 Hellenistic poetry glorified the queen-as-goddess 35 and shrines and images of Arsinoe continued to be produced for her cult long after her death. In a hieroglyphic stele erected at Mendes – known as the Mendes Stele – in 264 BCE, Ptolemy II established the cult of the deceased queen in temples throughout Egypt but also specifically in conjunction with the titular god of the Mendesian nome, the ram god Banebdjedet – Banebdjed – creating a localized version of Arsinoe’s cult. 36 Further strengthening this connection, the inscription bestows upon

32 33 34 35 36

official level, her cult spread throughout all levels of society; on the worship of Arsinoe among smaller groups and individuals, see Caneva 2014b. On the kanephoros of Arsinoe, see Minas 1998. See, e.g., Quaegebeur 1989. Simpson 1996. On the role of queens in Hellenistic ruler cult, and their assimilation with Aphrodite, see Kunst 2007. In addition to the epigrams of Posidippus discussed below, see Foster 2006 on Arsinoe as an “epic queen” in Theocritus’ Idyll 15; see Reed 2000 on the interwoven Greek and Egyptian traditions in the text. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 22181 = JdE 37089. See Brugsch 1875; Kamal 1966; De Meulenaere 1976; Thiers 2007a; Blouin 2015, 1957–58.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

57

Arsinoe the epithet “beloved by the ram.” 37 The stele also records that Ptolemy suspended taxes on the boats in the nome in honor of the occasion; Arsinoe’s worship at Mendes/ Thmuis therefore took on an explicitly naval connotation. New temples were built for the worship of Arsinoe near Alexandria, including at Cape Zephyrium, where she was merged with Aphrodite Euploia – Aphrodite of the good-sailing – in a temple established by the Ptolemaic naval admiral Callicrates, 38 as recorded in an epigram by Posidippus: 39 Both on land and on sea keep in your prayers this shrine of Aphrodite Arsinoe Philadelphus. She it was, ruling over the Zephyrian promontory, whom Callicrates, the admiral, was the first to consecrate. 40 Here Callicrates set me up and called me the shrine of Queen Arsinoe Aphrodite. So then, to her who shall be named Zephyritis Aphrodite, … 41 Sanctuaries to Arsinoe were also set up at port cities throughout the Ptolemaic Empire, on Cyprus, Delos, and Thera. A 2nd century CE copy of a Hellenistic poem links Arsinoe with Aphrodite as a patroness of the sea and the Ptolemaic navy. 42 Another epigram by Posidippus invokes her as a protector of sailors: Whether you are about the cross the sea in a ship or to fasten the cable from the shore, say “Greetings” to Arsinoe of Fair Sailing, invoking the lady from her temple, the goddess whom the Samian admiral Callicrates son of Boiscus consecrated. 43 Arsinoe was also associated with military imagery in Ptolemaic court poetry. In Posidippus’ epigram 36 AB, she appears to a young girl in a dream dressed as a warrior goddess and carrying a scarf from Naucratis, a significant port city founded by Greeks in the western Delta: To you, Arsinoe, to provide a cool breeze through its folds, is dedicated this scarf of fine linen from Naucratis. With it, beloved one, you wished in a dream to wipe the pleasant perspiration after a pause from busy toils. Thus you appeared, Brother-loving one, holding in your hand the point of a spear and on your arm, Lady, a 37 On the significance of this epithet, see Minas-Nerpel 2019, 151–57. 38 On Callicrates, see Hauben 1970; Bing 2002/3. Bricault (2006, 18, 26–29, 33, 101–103, 177–178) suggests that the epithet Euploia was given from Aphrodite to Arsinoe, and from there to Isis, who took on nautical aspects during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. 39 On Posidippus and the Ptolemaic court, see e.g. Gutzwiller 1998, 156; Stephens 2004b; Thompson 2005; Ambühl 2007. 40 Posidippus 119.1–4 AB, Translation by Ambühl 2007, 280–1. 41 Posidippus 116.5–7 AB, Translation by Ambühl 2007, 281. 42 Barbatini 2005. 43 Posidippus 39.1–4 AB, Translation by Ambühl 2007, 280.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

58

Sara E. Cole

hollow shield. And at your request the strip of white material was dedicated by the maid Hegeso of Macedonian stock. 44 Posidippus presents Arsinoe as a goddess of seafaring and as a warrior defending her husband’s domain, 45 both of which serve to reinforce Ptolemaic imperial ideology. 46 Because Arsinoe II continued to be represented posthumously in Ptolemaic art associated with her cult, the identification of the figure in the Thmuis mosaics as Arsinoe does not negate the generally agreed upon date of the late 3rd century BCE for its creation. Berenice II (ca. 270–221 BCE) continued the public-facing role and cult practices established by her predecessor. She was the daughter of Magas – the ruler of Cyrene and step-son of Ptolemy  I  –  and his Seleucid wife Apama. The union of her parents had been intended to form an alliance between the Seleucids and Cyrenaica. Writing some two-hundred years after her lifetime, C. Julius Hyginus records that Berenice once accompanied her father on the battlefield. 47 Berenice briefly ruled Cyrenaica after her father’s death in ca. 250 BCE, and her marriage to Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–221 BCE) a few years later brought Cyrenaica back under Ptolemaic control in a major blow to the Seleucids. Cyrenaica would be the Ptolemies’ single greatest holding outside of Egypt. Though they were in fact cousins, Berenice was presented as Ptolemy’s sister, mirroring their predecessors in order to establish dynastic continuity while also allowing Berenice to adopt the deceased Arsinoe II as her mother, just as Ptolemy himself did – his biological mother was Ptolemy II’s first wife Arsinoe I. Following initial successes in the Third Syrian War, Ptolemy and Berenice were worshiped as the Theoi Euergetai, the Benefactor Gods, and Berenice enjoyed a cult of her own as the Thea Euergetis – Benefactor Goddess. As became standard in the Ptolemaic ruler cult, Berenice made a public display of worshiping her dynastic predecessors, particularly Arsinoe II, after whom her own cult was modeled. 48 The Ptolemaic court poet Callimachus recorded a story in which Berenice cut off a lock of her hair and left it as an offering at the temple at Cape Zephyrium in Alexandria, where Arsinoe II was worshiped, as an appeal for her husband to return safely from the Third Syrian War. 49 According to the story, she left her hair at the temple and it was gone the next morning, having been transformed into a constellation in the sky, 44 Posidippus 36 A-B, On this epigram’s implied equation of Arsinoe with armed Aphrodite, see Fulińska 2012. On the connections the epigram draws between Arsinoe and Alexander the Great, see Stephens 2005, 236–243. 45 Stephens 2005, 245: “In Posidippus’ epigrams Arsinoe becomes or is promoted as a marine goddess, and her sphere of influence is said to have encompassed not only seafarers but ‘daughters of the Greeks’ as well.” 46 For commentary on these epigrams, see Baumbach and Trampedach 2004, 158–159; Stephens 2004a; Thompson 2005, 269–283. 47 Hyginus, Astronomica 2.24.11–18. See Marinone 1997, 23, note 28; Stephens 2005, 241–42. 48 Minas-Nerpel 2019, 166–172. 49 Callimachus, Aitia: Harder 2012, Frr. 100–110f. On Berenice’s Lock, see Pfeiffer 1975; Gutzwiller 1992; Hollis 1992; Bing 1997; Marinone 1997; Rossi 2000; Carrez-Maratray 2008; Clayman 2011; Llewellyn-Jones/Winder 2011; Prioux 2011; Llewellyn-Jones/Winder 2016.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

59

which is still known as Coma Berenices – Berenice’s Lock. The story established Berenice in a significant role protecting her husband and his empire in the Third Syrian War and it closely tied her to both Arsinoe II and the Egyptian goddess Isis, who cut off her hair in mourning upon the death of her brother-husband Osiris, before resurrecting him. 50 After the success of the Third Syrian War, Berenice appears on a series of seal impressions as Isis-Demeter. 51 In her posthumous cult, Berenice became assimilated with Isis as a savior of those in peril at sea, but this began during the reign of Ptolemy IV, and was therefore too late a development to be related to the Thmuis mosaics. 52 Surviving portraits identified as Berenice II have been used to support an identification with the woman in the Thmuis mosaics. Numismatic evidence is frequently employed in the identification of Ptolemaic portraiture for both kings and queens. While by no means exact, the inscribed profile portraits on coins provide the most consistent opportunities to hypothesize the subjects of images found in sculpture, gems, and other media. 53 The woman on the Thmuis mosaics, with her full lips, fleshy cheeks, and wide eyes does not bear a close resemblance to the usually sharp features of Arsinoe II (fig. 4), but does appear closer to the coin portraits of Berenice II (fig. 5). Arsinoe’s coins were minted after her death in ca. 270 BCE – it is unclear how reliably they convey her likeness. Numismatic evidence alone does seem to lean in favor of Berenice. But in this instance, attempted comparisons with portraits of the two queens may not be a fruitful avenue to pursue, in part because both women’s images on coins can be somewhat inconsistent and because Arsinoe’s were posthumously created. The mosaics’ iconography and context may point more clearly to an identification. On both mosaics, the prow of the woman’s warship headdress is decorated with various icons, including the caduceus, intertwined dolphins, other marine creatures, and a victory wreath. 54 Daszewski describes the lower left border (viewer’s right) next to the point of the ship’s prow as being decorated with a single cornucopia, though this is difficult to see in photographs given the mosaics’ damaged condition. 55 D. Clayman repeats this identification, calling it “Berenice’s canonical single cornucopia.” 56 Two fringed, striped tassels – taniae – flow from the mast the woman holds in her left hand. The cornucopia and the taniae are attributes associated with Ptolemaic queens and help confirm that the woman represented is a queen or queen-as-goddess and not a Greek goddess or personifi50 51 52 53

On the Ptolemaic queens’ assimilation with Isis, see e.g. Plantzos 2011. Pantos 1987. Hölbl 2001, 105, 170. For overviews of Ptolemaic coin portraits, see e.g. Casagrande-Kim 2014; Kavakas 2016, 73–4; J. Spier in Spier/Potts/Cole 2018, 188–90, cat. nos. 119–126. 54 Carrez-Maratray (2008, 103) implausibly suggests that an element depicted beneath the caduceus on either side of the prow – “un motif en forme de disques concentriques précédant trois traits horixontaux” – could be the lock of Berenice. This seems to refer to the image that Daszewski (1985, 145) describes as the large eye of a dolphin. 55 Daszewski 1985, 145, 147, 153. Koenen (1973, 27) repeats this but with some qualification, saying “probably a single cornucopia”. 56 Clayman 2014, 50.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

60

Sara E. Cole

Fig. 4: Mnaieon of Ptolemy II, ca. 252–249 BC. Gold, diam. 2.8 cm. Minted at Alexandria. Obverse: veiled head of Arsinoe II with ram’s horn, diademed stephane, and lotus scepter over far shoulder, dotted border; reverse: ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ l., ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ r., double cornucopiae tied with royal diadem/tania, dotted border. New York, The American Numismatic Society, 1935.117.1085. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society

Fig. 5: Decadrachm of Ptolemy III, 246–222 BC. Gold, diam. 3.3 cm. Obverse: bust of Berenice II; reverse: ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗΣ l., ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ r., cornucopia bound with royal diadem/tania, dotted border. New York, The American Numismatic Society, 1967.152.562. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

Fig. 6. Fragmentary Oinochoe with Berenice II. Ptolemaic, 243-222 BC. Faience, 22.2 × 14 cm. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, 96.AI.58. Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content program.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

61

62

Sara E. Cole

cation. 57 On her coinage, Arsinoe appears with a double cornucopia on the reverse, from which hang two fringed tassels. Berenice’s coin reverses instead feature a single cornucopia with tassels. Arsinoe also carries a double cornucopia on faience oinochoe that were likely used to pour libations in rituals honoring the ruler cult, 58 while Berenice holds a single cornucopia (fig. 6). 59 Though the cornucopia on the mosaic was originally described as single, on the Sophilos mosaic – the position occupied by the cornucopia on the later mosaic is damaged – and in digital reconstructions of the mosaics published by M. Pfrommer and B. Andreae, the cornucopia appears to be double, with one cornucopia shown in full, bearing a red horizontal stripe down its center and a tania flowing out to the right, and the second cornucopia visible partially behind it with a blue stripe, as it appears on coins and oinochoe of Arsinoe. 60 Pfrommer confirms this and even calls it the “Doppelfüllhorn Arsinoes II,” but does not question the identification of the subject as Berenice. 61 The double cornucopia suggests strongly, however, that she is Arsinoe. Furthermore, as Blouin notes, the Mendes Stele is significant in connecting the cult of Arsinoe to the site of Mendes/Thmuis. 62 And while there are no known images of Berenice II in military attire, the dress of the woman on the mosaics is consistent with Posidippus’ epigram 36 AB, in which she carries a spear and round shield. On balance, the subject is perhaps likeliest to be Arsinoe, represented posthumously in connection with her cult at Mendes/Thmuis. There is one key detail of both mosaics that indicates that they not only proclaim the power of the Ptolemaic navy but that they directly reference Ptolemaic victories over the Seleucids: the anchor pin that holds the woman’s cloak at her right shoulder. The anchor, with flukes upward, was a dynastic emblem of the Seleucids beginning with Seleucus I Nicator, who used it on his personal seal ring and coinage (fig. 7). 63 The image evoked Seleucus’ mythical fathering by the god Apollo, who left Seleucus’ mother a ring bearing an anchor symbol. 64 The anchor, sometimes accompanied by a dolphin, appears on other Seleucid – and later, Parthian – objects as well, including luxury silver vessels and weights from Seleucia Pieria (fig. 8). 65 The presence of the anchor pin on the mosaics may in fact be 57 Clayman 2014, 50. See Albersmeier 2002, 34–38, on the cornucopia and Ptolemaic queens. 58 See, e.g., London, The British Museum, 1873,0820.389 (Thompson 1973, 125–26, cat. 1, plates I, II, LX, and LXII. 59 See, e.g., Antalya, Archaeological Museum, 571 (Thompson 1973, 149–50, cat. 75, plates B, XXV-XXVII); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, F 9083 (Thompson 1973, 134–35, cat. 29, plates C, XI); Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum at the Villa, 96.AI.58 (S.E. Cole in Spier/Potts/Cole 2018, 182, cat. 114. 60 Pfrommer 2002, 89, fig. 78b; Andreae 2003, 34–35, fig. 34–35. 61 Pfrommer 2002, 89–90. 62 Blouin 2015, 1956–58. 63 Pfrommer 1993, 23–26; Ogden 2017, 23–33, 48–50, 270–275. Pfrommer (2002, 90) notes the significance of its presence on the mosaics as a symbol of Ptolemaic dominance over the Seleucids. 64 Justin, Epitome 15.4.3–9 65 See, e.g. three silver bowls in the collection of the J. Paul Getty Museum (81.AM.84.1-.3): Pfrommer 1993, 110–115, nos. 1–3; and for the weights see, e.g. L. Mildenberg in True and Hamma 1994, 203–204, no. 97.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

63

Fig. 7. Coin of Seleucus I, 300–298 BC. Minted at Susa. Bronze, diam. 1.5 cm. Obverse: Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress; reverse: ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ – Anchor, flukes upward. New York, The American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.72225. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

a direct reference to the Ptolemaic capture of Seleucia Pieria – which had been established as a Seleucid capital by Seleucus I and was the location of his tomb – in the Third Syrian War. The use of a Seleucid emblem as a cloak pin signals Ptolemaic domination over the Seleucid dynasty and its territory and could be read as a symbolic war trophy, seizing the very image of the dynasty itself. The Sophilos mosaic likely dates to the period in the second half of the third century BCE during which the Ptolemaic Empire was at its greatest territorial extent and enjoyed tremendous naval power, and the second mosaic is perhaps slightly later in date. Ptolemy  III regained significant holdings throughout the Mediterranean in the Third Syrian War, adding Ephesus, cities on the Anatolian coast and in Thrace, and the important Seleucid harbor city of Seleucia Pieria  –  the port of Antioch  –  to the existing Ptolemaic possessions of Cyprus, Coele Syria, and Cyrenaica. The Sophilos mosaic may have been commissioned to commemorate Ptolemaic domination of the eastern Mediterranean after the end of the war in 241 BCE, but that does not necessarily mean that it depicts the living queen at that time, Berenice II. It would have been appropriate for a dynastic image celebrating the Ptolemaic thalassocracy at Mendes/Thmuis to honor the deified Arsinoe, whose cult was already established in the city and had a history of naval associations, as a way to give thanks to her for continuing to advance the dynasty’s interests in her role as goddess. The surviving mentions of mosaics and painters in the Zenon papyri confirm that artists and models were sent from Alexandria into the chora to work for culturally Greek men who held high office in the Ptolemaic administration, and they suggest that these industries were tied to the court. It is likely that the mosaics found outside the capital, including

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

64

Sara E. Cole

Fig. 8. Bowl with Anchor and Dolphin Medallion. Parthian, 2nd century BC. Silver, 4.3 × 18.5 cm. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, 81.AM.84.1. Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content program.

in cities like Thmuis, were made after models that originated in Alexandrian workshops and were executed by artists trained in the capital. 66 Assuming that the imagery of these Thmuis mosaics did have its origins in the capital, perhaps in a painting at the Ptolemaic court, they represent the transport of royal ideology via visual culture into areas of Egypt outside Alexandria. The mosaics can thus be interpreted as a sort of royal propaganda, but they also serve to demonstrate the loyalties of their patrons living in cities in the Delta and Fayyum, where soldiers and men associated with the Ptolemaic court were concentrated. Thmuis’ river access to the Mediterranean via the Mendesian branch of the Nile made the mosaics’ theme all the more relevant to their context. The image is emblematic

66 Dascewski 1985, 11–12. But see Blouin 2015, 1953–54, who argues that the mosaics may have been made by artists living in Mendes/Thmouis.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

65

of the significance of Ptolemaic queens as militarily active members of the dynasty – even if that military role was largely mythologized or symbolic – and as protective deities. The Raphia Stelai While the Thmuis mosaics demonstrate the incorporation of a traditionally Mediterranean medium in Hellenistic style into the landscape of Egypt to promote dynastic cult and an ideology of empire, the Ptolemies also utilized Egyptian media and styles to send dynastic messages to multiple audiences. As mentioned above, priests regularly issued decrees that expressed support for the Ptolemaic ruler cult. 67 Unlike the mosaics, which would have been restricted to an audience of elite circles who had access to them in private homes, baths, or other buildings, stelai bearing these decrees were set up before Egyptian temples and thus presented a public-facing message to local priesthoods and communities. The last great phase of Ptolemaic domination on an international scale took place during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (r. 221–205 BCE). During the Fourth Syrian War, Ptolemy IV had a series of silver tetradrachms issued in multiple locations – perhaps used to pay his troops, which included indigenous Egyptian soldiers  –  showing jugate busts of Serapis – wearing an Egyptian atef crown rather than his usual modius – and Isis on the obverse, thus equating himself and his wife with these deities in an iconographic message of dynastic power that would have appealed to both Greek and Egyptian audiences. 68 Three fragmentary stelai bear a trilingual inscription in Greek, hieroglyphs, and Demotic Egyptian are known as the Raphia Decree, which commemorates a priestly synod held after Ptolemy IV’s defeat of Antiochus the Great in 217 BCE at the Battle of Raphia, ending the Fourth Syrian War. 69 In response to his victory, Ptolemy and his sister-wife Arsinoe III (ca. 246/5–204 BCE) became known as the Theoi Philopatores, the father-loving gods. Two of these stelai preserve relief images of Ptolemy and Arsinoe. On the first stele, the royal couple appear in the lunette beneath a winged sun disc (fig. 9a–b). 70 Ptolemy sits astride a rearing horse, shown engaged in combat with an enemy whose image is now lost. He aims his sarissa – a long spear – forward and wears the Egyptian double crown and a kilt, presenting himself in a way that combines attributes of an Egyptian pharaoh and a Macedonian cavalryman. 71 Unfortunately, we don’t know how his opponent was represented, as this portion of the lunette is missing. If we follow the aim of Ptolemy’s spear it appears as if his defeated enemy was shown in a cowering position on the ground. Arsinoe III stands behind Ptolemy in the manner and dress of an Egyptian queen. She 67 See Simpson 1996. 68 Landvatter 2012. Esp. 88: “This coin issue seems to be one of the first materializations of an ideological shift in the Ptolemaic court which emphasized more and more the connections between the king and the Egyptian gods.” 69 For a description of the three fragments, one of which is now lost, see Simpson 1996, 3–4, 0.1.2. For a transliteration and translation of the Demotic inscription, see Simpson 1996, 242–257. 70 Simpson 1996, 4; Hölbl 2000, 163, fig. 6.1; Fischer-Bovet 2014, 129, fig. 4.3. 71 Caneva 2018, 137; Cole 2019, 16.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

66

Sara E. Cole

Fig. 9a–b: Raphia Decree Stele. Ptolemaic, 217 BC. From Kom el-Qala’a, Mit Rahina. Basalt, 32 ×43 x 35 cm. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 31088 = JdE 35635. Photos courtesy of Gunther Hölbl.

wears a sheath dress and holds an ankh symbol in her right hand while supporting a staff with her left. Her headdress is made up of double plumes and a solar disc framed by cow horns; this is the crown worn by the goddess Hathor and appears worn by living Egyptian queens from the New Kingdom onward. 72 A cobra uraeus, signifying royal status, protrudes from her headdress. A similar scene beneath a winged sun disc is depicted on the second stele, though in this case Ptolemy is wearing Macedonian dress – a cuirass with a skirt made of three layers of leather thongs, and boots – while Arsinoe again stands behind him in the same dress as the previous example (fig. 10). 73 Ptolemy’s opponent in this scene is a generic representation of a bound captive, as is often seen in earlier pharaonic depictions of victory over foreigners – often called smiting scenes. On both stelai Ptolemy IV combines aspects of Pharaonic and Macedonian dress in an Egyptian-style representation that follows the traditional pharaonic manner of visually communicating a king’s military victory. Ptolemy adds to the Egyptian imagery the Macedonian motif of a warrior on horseback as a means to appeal to a Graeco-Egyptian audience, merging two separate cultural ideals of kingship into a single image. Though Ptolemy deploys a certain flexibility in his self-presentation on the stelai, the image of Arsinoe does not combine Greek and Egyptian dress or modes of representation – she is shown in a traditional Egyptian manner, in a pose of protection over the king and his endeavors. According to Polybius, Arsinoe had joined her husband on the battlefield at Raphia, and his description puts her at the heart of the action, listing her with Ptolemy’s and Antiochus’ generals: 72 Plantzos 2011, 396–7, 401, 403; Minas-Nerpel 2019, 162. 73 Gauthier and Sottas 1925; Simpson 1996, 3; Caneva 2018, 137, fig. 46.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

67

Fig. 10: Raphia Decree Stele. Ptolemaic, 217 BC. From Tell el-Maskhuta. Limestone, 63 × 61.5 × 16 cm. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 50048 = JdE 47806. Gauthier and Sottas 1925.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

68

Sara E. Cole

The armies having been drawn up in this fashion, both the kings rode along the line accompanied by their officers and friends, and addressed their soldiers. As they relied chiefly on the phalanx, it was to these troops that they made the most earnest appeal, Ptolemy being supported by Andromachus, Sosibius and his sister Arsinoe and Antiochus by Theodotus and Niarchus, these being the commanders of the phalanx on either side. 74 When Ptolemy and his sister after their progress had reached the extremity of his left wing and Antiochus with his horse guards had reached his extreme right, they gave the signal for battle and brought the elephants first into action. 75 It is noteworthy that in this description Ptolemy and Arsinoe give the signal for battle together, taking equal action. S. Stephens notes of Hyginus’ claims that Berenice II participated in battle, “though undoubtedly exaggerated, they dovetail with subsequent claims made for Arsinoe III, her daughter.” 76 Arsinoe’s presence at this major Seleucid defeat is also documented – in a way that would be accessible to Egyptian audiences – by her image on the stelai commemorating the event. She is not shown there as a warrior, which would go against the rules of decorum that governed depictions of Egyptian queens, but she is shown overseeing the action and protecting her husband from nearby. Both the literary description of the battle and the images on the stelai emphasize the significance of Ptolemaic queens within imperial self-presentation, even in the traditionally male context of battle. Female members of the dynasty were key to the visual and textual expressions of Ptolemaic military power, particularly during its early phase. Laodice III, Laodice IV, and Seleucid Coinage In contrast to the Ptolemies, the Seleucids have left behind a much thinner artistic record, making it rather difficult to determine any overarching patterns in their dynastically-generated self-presentation. 77 Whereas the Ptolemies went to great lengths to have themselves artistically depicted as both Egyptian pharaohs and Hellenistic kings, the Seleucids incorporated themselves into local traditions in various ways and promoted themselves as heirs to the Achaemenids in texts and inscriptions but do not appear to have done so

74 75 76 77

Polybius 5.83.1–3, Translation by Patton et al. 2011, 221. Polybius 5.84.1, Translation by Patton et al. 2011, 223. Stephens 2005, 242. On Seleucid royal portraiture, see e.g. Fleischer 1991. In several instances, portrait busts identified as Seleucid kings survive only in later Roman copies, including a marble portrait believed to represent Antiochus III (Paris, Musée du Louvre, Ma 1204; L. Laugier in Picón and Hemingway 2016, 215–16, cat. 143; S.E. Cole in Spier/Potts/Cole 2022, 205-6, cat. 83) and a bronze bust of Seleucus I from the Villa dei Papiri in Herculaneum (Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, 5590; R. Allen in Lapatin 2019, 192–95, cat. 31).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

69

through a program of portraiture. 78 The Seleucid kings did not represent themselves in anything like the grand Achaemenid relief carvings at Persepolis, Persian rock carvings like those at Naqsh-e Rostam or Bisotun, or depictions of royal hunting and court life on Achaemenid gems and seals, and so did not map onto existing royal iconographic traditions in the systematic way the Ptolemies did in Egypt. Coinage, where the Seleucids appear as Hellenistic kings, supplies the largest surviving body of evidence for dynastically-generated images. 79 Unlike the Ptolemies, the early Seleucids did not depict female members of the dynasty on their coins or promote these women to highly visible roles within the empire through a program of images. For about the first century and a half of Seleucid rule, we see almost nothing of the Seleucid queens – at least, as far as we can tell from what survives in the material record. 80 This is not to say that Seleucid queens were not prominent figures at court. The first Seleucid queens, Apama and Stratonice, for example, appear to have played an important part in foundational dynastic mythology. Seleucid queens with Iranian ancestry, like Apama, also lent legitimacy to Seleucid rule over former Persian territory, and several queens appear in the epigraphic and literary records. 81 Seleucid queens also received cult worship in various communities throughout the empire, particularly in the west, where, like the Ptolemaic queens, they could be associated with Aphrodite. 82 Though epigraphic evidence attests to the creation of honorific and cult portraits of Seleucid queens in various cities throughout the empire, these images were commissioned and created by local communities and were therefore not dynastically-generated. 83 In the second half of the Seleucid dynasty, portraits of queens appear on coins; as with the Seleucid kings, this is essentially the only surviving evidence for dynastically-generated images of royal women. 84 78 See, e.g., the Borsippa cylinder of Antiochus I for the king’s efforts to integrate himself into traditional Babylonian religious practices and ideals of kingship; Kosmin 2014; Stevens 2014; J. Spier in Spier/Potts/Cole 2022, 204, cat. 82. 79 Kavakas 2016, 75. For a discussion of Seleucid royal images on coins, see Dodd 2009. See also Wright 2005, 67: “If we can assume that the Seleucids did not stray from standard minting practice, then it must be understood that the iconography emblazoned upon the royal coinage was directly linked to the heart of the dynasty’s power and prestige.” 80 It is worth mentioning that Pliny discusses two paintings of queen Stratonice, the first by Artemon (35.139), and the second by Ktesikles (35.140). According to Pliny, the painting by Ktesikles was an insulting depiction of the queen frolicking with a fisherman, but it has been argued that Pliny may have misunderstood the subject matter and the painting may in fact have shown the queen as Aphrodite in an expression of Seleucid naval power (not unlike the Thmuis mosaics discussed above); see Kosmin 2014, 186; Engels/Erickson 2016, 62–3. In any case, Pliny’s account confirms that paintings of at least one Seleucid queen were created, but these were not dynastically-generated images. 81 See, e.g., Ager/Hardiman 2016, 149–50; Engels/Erickson 2016; Ramsey 2016. 82 See, e.g., Kosmin 2014, 186–88 on the worship of Stratonice and her associations with Aphrodite and Astarte; and Kunst 2007, on Hellenistic queens as Aphrodite. 83 For a catalogue and discussion of this epigraphic evidence and its relationship to possible portrait sculpture, see Ager/Hardiman 2016, 150–59, Tables 1 and 2. On Seleucid queen’s cults and statues, see also Bielman-Sánchez 2003, 52–55. 84 For an overview of Seleucid queens on coins, see Dodd 2009, 199–211.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

70

Sara E. Cole

With the reign of Antiochus III (r. 223/2–187 BCE), however, an attitudinal shift toward royal women emerges, perhaps in response to the success with which queens had been employed in the dynastic image in Ptolemaic Egypt. Interestingly, this shift coincides approximately with the decreasing power of the Ptolemies, the rise of Parthia, and the increasing interference of Rome in Ptolemaic and Seleucid affairs, including the Fifth and Sixth Syrian Wars. Perhaps Antiochus decided to employ a new strategy in an attempt to strengthen the Seleucid image amidst these threatening developments and to cement some of his military achievements, including his retaking Seleucia in Pieria from Ptolemy IV in the Fourth Syrian War. Seleucia in Pieria proved to be the only territory seized by Antiochus in the Fourth Syrian War that he was able to retain after his defeat at the Battle of Raphia in 217 BCE. In the Fifth Syrian War, Antiochus made significant gains against the Ptolemies, including Coele Syria and several cities in Asia Minor. No doubt he anticipated that his reign would mark a turning point in Seleucid favor and wished to proclaim a new era for the dynasty. Antiochus III’s wife Laodice III, daughter of Mithridates of Pontus, rose to a greater prominence in the dynasty than preceding Seleucid queens. In 193 BCE, Antiochus dedicated a cult to Laodice with appointed priestesses in the first instance of a Seleucid king ordering a state cult for a queen – as opposed to local, civic cults, found mostly in the Greek cities of Asia Minor and the Aegean. Antiochus evidently made an attempt to institute the cult widely throughout the empire, as the three surviving copies of his edict establishing the cult have been found in Media, near Kermanshah, and in Phyriga. 85 We learn from the edict that Antiochus also established a state cult for himself and his successors. 86 The worship of Laodice also involved cult images. In his edict, Antiochus orders that the queen’s priestesses are to wear crowns bearing her portrait: King Antiochus to Anaximbrotos, greeting. As we desire to increase still further the honours of our sister Queen Laodice, and as we think this most important for ourselves because she not only lives with us lovingly and considerately but is also reverently disposed towards the divine, we continue to do lovingly the things which it is fitting and right for her to receive from us and we have decided that just as there are appointed throughout the kingdom chief priests of us, (so) there are to be established [in] the same districts chief priestesses of her also, who shall wear golden crowns bearing her [images] and who shall be mentioned in [the] contracts after the chief priests of our [ancestors] and of us. Since, therefore, in the districts under your administration Berenice, the daughter of our relative Ptolemy (son) of Lysimachus, has been appointed, carry everything out according to what has been written above and have copies of the letters, inscribed on stelai, set up in the most

85 For translations and discussion of the three copies, see Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993, 203–206. 86 On royal state cults during the reign of Antiochus III, see Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993, 202–210; Ma 1999, 219–226; Van Nuffelen 2004. But see Erickson 2018, who argues that the Seleucid kings were recognized as divine at court prior to the reign of Antiochus III.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

71

Fig. 11: Coin of Antiochus IV, 173–164 BC. Bronze, diam. 1.9 cm. Minted at Seleucia on the Tigris. Obverse: Radiate, diademed head of Antiochus IV right. Reverse: BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXΟΥ – Goddess with polos seated on high-backed throne left, holding Nike, bird standing left at feet. New York, American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.71923.

conspicuous places, so that both now and in the future there may be evident to all in these matters also our policy toward our sister. 87 Though we cannot be certain what the portraits on these golden crowns looked like – perhaps inlaid carved gemstones or cameos, images in repousse, or miniature busts hammered from sheets of gold or silver – this text does provide clear and unusual evidence for the creation of dynastically-generated portraits of a Seleucid queen. 88 It is also possible that other cult images whose specific appearance was overseen by the court were created, none of which survive. Bronze coins issued in Coele Syria, Seleucia on the Tigris, and another eastern mint starting in the late 170s BCE, during the reign of Laodice’s son Antiochus IV, show the king on the obverse wearing a radiate crown, with a seated goddess on the reverse holding a small figure of Nike in her hand (fig. 11). 89 P. Iossif and C. Lorber argue convincingly that this may be the deceased, deified Laodice III assimilated with the goddess Aphrodite Nicephorus. 90 For the Nicephorus coinage on which Antiochus appears radiate, the 87 This is the copy of the edict from Eriza, Phrygia; translation by Bagnall/Derow 2004, 259–60 (RC 36 = OGIS 224). 88 Smith (1988, 12) suggests that these were cameo portraits, but Plantzos (1996, 118; 1999, 55) questions this assumption. 89 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. I: 95–96, no. 1489, 104–105, nos. 1508–1511, 105–107, nos. 1513–1515. 90 Iossif/Lorber 2007, 71–84.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

72

Sara E. Cole

Fig. 12. Coin of Antiochus III, 209–204 BC. Bronze. Minted at Susa. Obverse: female head r. wearing an elephant scalp; reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY. Artemis standing, dressed in a short tunic, holding a torch in her right hand a bow in her left. Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Monnaies, médailles et antiques, Fouilles de Suse 42.8 (29-1-56).

reverses bear the standard inscription “Basileus Antiochus.” On some of the Nicephorus coins, Antiochus appears only diademed, but is given divine epithets on the reverse: “Basileus Antiochus Theos Epiphanes.” Depictions of Seleucid kings wearing divine attributes on coin obverses, and the inscription of divine epithets on the reverses, began during the reign of Antiochus IV. 91  If the goddess on the reverse is to be understood as Laodice III, the pairing of this goddess with the radiate king in some instances or divine epithets for the king in others emphasizes the king’s divine status by virtue of his mother’s own divinity. Dynastic continuity and divinity go hand in hand as a result of the mother passing the bloodline and her divinity on to the son, much as in Ptolemaic royal ideology. Antiochus III’s elevation of Laodice to the position of goddess with her own cult and associated portraits, his order that the edict establishing this cult be publicly displayed on stelai in prominent places – akin to the trilingual Ptolemaic decrees – and his reference to Laodice as his “sister” all follow previously established Ptolemaic conventions for promulgation of their dynastic ruler cult. And, just as the Ptolemies had used queen’s cults to generate a sense of dynastic loyalty within local communities, Antiochus’ choice to make Berenice – daughter of Ptolemy son of Lysimachus, who ruled in Telmessos – priestess of Laodice’s cult in Caria is notable, as the satrapy had been added to Seleucid territory in military campaigns in 203–201 and 197 BCE. 92 Not only would this endear the local ruling elite to the Seleucids, but potentially create a sense of community devotion to the 91 Wright 2005, 72–74. Antiochus employed both on a series of Egyptianizing coins he issued in conjunction with his Egyptian campaigns: see Mørkholm 1963, 36–7; Le Rider 1994; Wright 2005, 74; Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. 1: 68–69, nos. 1412–1415. 92 Iossif/Lorber 2007, 64.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

73

Fig. 13: Coin of Antiochus III, 209–204 BC. Bronze. Minted at Susa. Obverse: female head r. wearing an elephant scalp; reverse: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY. Artemis standing, dressed in a short tunic, holding a torch in her right hand a bow in her left. Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Monnaies, médailles et antiques, Fouilles de Suse 42.9 (29-1-57).

dynasty and confirm Caria’s place as a Seleucid satrapy. Additionally, Laodice IV, daughter of Antiochus III and Laodice III, was made priestess of her mother’s cult in Media, 93 which mirrors the Ptolemaic pattern of the living queen worshiping her deified predecessor, as in the example of Berenice II and Arsinoe II. Laodice’s image may have been more widely disseminated during her husband’s reign than had occurred for any preceding Seleucid queen, and in some cases she may have been given a role as protector of Seleucid military interests. During Antiochus III’s reign a series of bronze coins was produced at Susa, showing on the obverse a young woman wearing an elephant headdress, with the goddess Artemis on the reverse holding a torch and bow (fig. 12, 13). 94 This is an unprecedented foregrounding of female strength in Seleucid iconography. Artemis appears on earlier Seleucid coinage, but this is the first time she is paired with a female portrait on the obverse. The role of Artemis as a goddess of the hunt has clear parallels with martial activity, and the woman’s elephant headdress both refers to the use of elephants in the Seleucid army and to images of Alexander the Great wearing the same headdress (as in fig. 7), thus reinforcing the dynasty’s descent from him. Antiochus’ coins in particular often feature elephants on the reverse – during his reign the elephant became an iconographic symbol of “general military significance.” 95 93 As recorded in the copy of the edict from Kermanshah; see Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993, 204; Kunst 2007, 35. 94 Houghton/Lorber 2002, Vol. I: 454, nos. 1224–1225; Vol. II: plate 94 (1224, 1225). Note that the authors identify the item in Artemis' right hand as a torch, but on these coins it very much looks like a spear. 95 Houghton/Lorber 2002, Vol. I: 361.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

74

Sara E. Cole

The Artemis coins may have been minted in reference to Antiochus’s eastern campaign in Greco-Bactria and India in ca. 209–204, during which he acquired war elephants. 96 Two series of elephant bronzes were also issued in Coele Syria starting in 202 BCE to commemorate the Fifth Syrian War, several of which feature the dynasty’s anchor emblem. 97 Artemis was the sister of Apollo – the father of Seleucus I in dynastic mythology and a frequent figure on the coins of Antiochus III – so perhaps the implication here is that Artemis serves as the matriarch of the dynasty’s female line as an equivalent to her brother at the head of the male line. 98 Given the frequency with which Apollo appears on the coins of Antiochus III, his queen seems the most appropriate candidate to be depicted alongside Artemis. Could the woman on the obverse be Laodice III, shown here in a manner emphasizing her husband’s accomplishments in war and foreshadowing the divine status that he would officially grant to her in 193? Jugate busts that might depict Laodice III with her son, the future Antiochus IV, appear on a clay seal impression from Seleucia on the Tigris (215/4 BCE), 99 and a later impression from Orchoi has been tentatively identified as the queen. 100 Both show her with a prominent, aquiline nose, but neither is inscribed, and Iossif and Lorber’s identification of the Orchoi impression as Laodice III is based on a comparison with the impression from Seleucia on the Tigris, meaning that if the earlier identification is erroneous, the following one is as well. Without a broader corpus of portraits with which to compare the coins it is not possible to posit any firm hypothesis for the identity of the woman in the elephant headdress. Antiochus may have established the state cults to himself and Laodice in anticipation of future military campaigns aimed at expanding the Seleucid Empire. In a particularly bold move, he invaded Greece in 192 BCE – having already captured Thrace in 196 – and Rome was quick to come to its defense. Together, Roman and Pergamene forces defeated Antiochus and pushed him back to Asia Minor. According to the Treaty of Apamea, signed in 188 BCE, Seleucid naval presence in the Aegean was curtailed, Antiochus lost his holdings in Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains, and the king was forced to give up his war elephants – though this last restriction was not enforced. Antiochus’ descendants continued to employ the elephant as an icon of the Seleucid military, perhaps in symbolic defiance of this order. 101 Antiochus III and Laodice fathered Antiochus the Son, who married his full sister Laodice  IV. Antiochus the Son predeceased his father, and Laodice was subsequently wed to her brother Seleucus IV (r. 187–175 BCE). During the reign of Seleucus IV, Laodice IV became the first Seleucid queen to appear on coinage – or at least the first that has been fairly securely identified, considering the unclear identity of the woman in elephant 96 Polybius, 11.34.11–12; Houghton/Lorber 2002, Vol. I: 454. 97 Houghton/Lorber 2002, Vol. I: 411–414, nos. 1084–1090; Vol. II: plate 89–90. 98 Similarly, it has been suggested that the figure of Artemis on an elephant biga on the reverses of coins of Seleucus I stood as a symbol for his second wife, Stratonice, while the profile of Apollo on the obverse stood for the king; see Engels/Erickson 2016, 48–50, figs. 1 and 2. 99 Iossif/Lorber 2007, 65–66, fig. 1. 100 Iossif/Lorber 2007, 76, fig. 10. 101 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. 1, 13.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

75

Fig. 14: Coin of Seleucus IV, 187–175 BC. Bronze, diam. 1.5 cm. Minted at Antioch on the Orontes. Observe: veiled, diademed bust of Laodice IV right. Reverse: BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ – Elephant head left. New York, American Numismatic Society, 1944.100.75237.

Fig. 15: Coin of Seleucus IV, 187–175 BC. Bronze, diam. 1.5 cm. Minted at Antioch on the Orontes. Obverse: Veiled, diademed bust of Laodice IV right. Reverse: BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ – Elephant head left. New York, American Numismatic Society, 1954.203.306.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

76

Sara E. Cole

headdress on coins of Antiochus III – in a series minted at Antioch on the Orontes and Ptolemaïs that was probably intended for use as military payment (fig. 14, 15). 102 These coins show a profile image of the veiled queen on the obverse, with the head of an elephant on the reverse. These unions between Laodice and her brothers were the first time that full brother-sister marriage took place in the Seleucid dynasty. When Seleucus IV was assassinated in 175 BCE, coins were produced during the brief reign of his son with Laodice, Antiochus, perhaps including the veiled Laodice/elephant head series – though these might date to the beginning of the reign of Antiochus  IV. 103 Antiochus, like his father, was assassinated and Laodice then married her third brother, Antiochus  IV (r. 175–164 BCE). 104 The same series of coins continued to be minted throughout this period (fig. 16). 105 These coins are inscribed for the reigning king but do not name the woman pictured. The portrait was identified as Laodice IV by O.D. Hoover, who also argues that a Ptolemaic influence in the depiction of the queen is evident. 106 This series represents the only time in which the Seleucid dynasty disseminated a clear, explicit pairing of an image of a queen with military iconography, and this decision was probably related to the very specific historical moment in which the coins were minted. The children of Antiochus the Great inherited his victories and his losses. The last of the Syrian Wars, between Antiochus IV and the brothers Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII, ended in 168 BCE with Coele Syria in Seleucid hands, but also with Antiochus having suffered public embarrassment in his attempt to invade Egypt when Gaius Popilius Laenas famously drew his line in the sand and forced Antiochus to retreat. At the same time, the Parthians had increasingly gained what had been Seleucid territory in the eastern part of their empire.  It was increasingly clear that the Seleucids were no longer a great power in the east. Laodice IV, as sister-wife of both Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, stood as a figure of dynastic continuity and this role may have prompted the choice to feature her on coinage. 107 It is noteworthy, however, that instead of pairing the queen with jugate busts of her husbands – which might seem the logical approach if the primary goal was to emphasize dynastic stability and the queen as sister-wife – she appears alone. Later Seleucid coinage also depicts queens, but emphasizes their family relationships and role as progenitors of the dynastic line, including a series of gold octadrachms from

102 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. 1: 17–18, no. 1318, and 24, no. 1332. 103 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. I: 38–39, no. 1371; Vol. II: plate 61. 104 It is disputed whether the woman who married Antiochus the Son, Seleucus IV, and Antiochus IV was the same Laodice, or whether it may have been two different women taking the same name. For the purposes of this discussion, I accept that Laodice IV, daughter of Antiochus III, was married to all three of her brothers. On this issue, see e.g. Ager/Hardiman 2016, 145–6 and note 10 (for further literature). 105 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. 1: 66–67, no. 1407, 71–72, nos. 1421–1422, and 90–91, no. 1477; Vol. II: plate 62 (no. 1407i), plate 66 (no. 1477.2c) 106 Hoover 2002. 107 Ager/Hardiman 2016, 167.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

77

Fig. 16: Coin of Antiochus IV, 175–172 BC. Bronze, diam. 1.4 cm. Minted at Antioch on the Orontes. Obverse: Veiled, diademed bust of Laodice IV right. Reverse: BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXΟΥ - Elephant head left. New York, American Numismatic Society, 1967.152.608.

Antioch showing jugate heads of Laodice IV and her son Antiochus – by Seleucus IV – 108 and a bronze issue of Tripolis from 166/5 BCE that shows jugate heads of Laodice IV with her husband Antiochus IV. 109 Another series of coins from Seleucia on the Tigris shows Demetrios I and probably Laodice V, but possibly another brother-sister union. 110 Later Ptolemaic women who married into the Seleucid dynasty, like Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra Selene, also sometimes appeared solo on coins – but in other instances jugate with their husbands or sons – where the presence of inscriptions leaves no question of their identities. 111 None of these later coins, however, pair an image of a Seleucid royal woman alone with militarily-themed iconography – they are instead focused on the role of Seleucid queens as wives and mothers. In the generation of Antiochus III and his children, the Seleucids suddenly adopted several practices promoting images of royal women, specifically practices in which the Ptolemies had already been engaged for many generations. These were the royal establishment of a state cult for a living female member of the dynasty, two full sibling mar108 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. 1: 38, no. 1368; Vol. 2: plate 4 (mistakenly labeled 1638). See also Le Rider 1986. 109 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. 1: 79, no. 1441; Vol. II: plate 64. 110 Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008,  Vol. 1: 183–5, nos. 1684, 1686–1689, 1691;  Vol. 2: plate 72 (1691). 111 Cleopatra Thea: Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008, Vol. 1: 473–481, nos. 2259–2277; Vol. 2: plate 88 (2263.5b, 2264, 2265, 2266.1a, 2274.3, 2275); and for an overview of coins showing jugate busts of Cleopatra Thea and Alexander Balas, see Houghton 1988. Cleopatra Selene: Houghton/Lorber/Hoover, 2008, Vol. 1: 613–616, nos. 2484–2486; Vol. 2: plate 94.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

78

Sara E. Cole

riages, and pairing an image of a queen with overtly military iconography. It may be that this set of practices was fairly isolated because it occurred at a time when the Seleucids were trying to hold onto power and felt the need to employ new strategies – ones that the Ptolemies had used very successfully – for incorporating royal women into the dynastic image as a way to garner support and present a picture of a unified, enduring empire. But these strategies saw little immediate success and were quickly discarded. The cult of Laodice III failed to endure beyond her children’s lifetimes. This might be attributed to multiple factors: the geographic extent and cultural diversity of the Seleucid Empire, which would have made it challenging to systematically implement a ruler cult from the top down, as opposed to cultic honors issued to kings and queens in individual cities of their own volition; the loss of the Greek cities of Asia Minor under Antiochus  III, meaning that a Hellenistic ruler cult had fewer locations in which to take hold; and with a declining interest in attempting to perpetuate such a cult and elevate royal women to a superhuman status, martial images of these women would have seemed less appropriate. The emphasis instead shifted to showing queens in their roles as wives and as regents for their young sons. The historical circumstances at this moment were unprecedented, and the end of the Sixth Syria War marked a turning point as the Seleucids saw the Ptolemaic dynasty weakening, but they were at the same time being threatened by Rome to the west and Parthia to the east. As the Arsacid kings gained power and seized Seleucid territory, centralized Seleucid authority became destabilized. Perhaps, in an effort to reinvigorate their dynastic image, the Seleucids under Antiochus III and his sons began to promote royal women as bellicose protector goddesses. After the conclusion of the Sixth Syrian War the appropriation of Ptolemaic strategies for promoting royal women in this way may have no longer seemed relevant and the Seleucids abandoned this approach in favor of images that showed queens – many of whom came from the Ptolemaic royal house – in a more domestic aspect. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Touraj Daryaee, Robert Rollinger, and Matthew Canepa for inviting me to present an early version of this paper at the Payravi Conference on Ancient Iranian History III at the University of California, Irvine in February 2020. I would also like to thank those in attendance for their helpful suggestions and comments. Much of the final version of this paper was written during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, during which time  I was working from home with limited library access.  I have therefore undoubtedly overlooked or was unable to incorporate relevant sources, but I hope that I have nonetheless achieved a coherent presentation.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

79

References Ager/Hardiman 2016 = S. Ager/C. Hardiman, Female Seleukid Portraits: Where are They?, in A. Coşkun/A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire, Stuttgart, 143–72. Albersmeier 2002 = S. Albersmeier, Untersuchungen zu den Frauenstatuen des ptolemäischen Ägypten (Mainz). Adriani 1934 = A. Adriani, Annuario del Museo Greco-Romano, Vol. I (1932–3), Alexandria. — 1940 = Annuaire du Musée greco-romain II (1935–39), Alexandria. Ambühl 2007 = A. Ambühl, Tell, All Ye Singers, My Fame: Kings, Queens and Nobility in Epigram, in P. Bing/J. Bruss (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram Down to Philip, Leiden, 275–94. Andreae 2003 = B. Andreae, Antike Bildmosaiken (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern). Bagnall/Derow 2004 = R.S. Bagnall/P. Derow, Historical Sources in Translation: The Hellenistic Period, Oxford/Malden. Barbatani 2005 = S. Barbantani, Goddess of Love and Mistress of the Sea. Notes on a Hellenistic Hymn to Arsinoe-Aphrodite (P. Lit.Goodsp. 2, I-IV), Ancient Society 35: 135–165. Baumbach/Trampedach 2004 = M. Baumbach/K. Trampedach, ‘Winged Words’: Poetry and Divination in Posidippus’ Oiônoskopika, in B. Acosta-Hughes/E. Kosmetatou/M. Baumbach (eds.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves. Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), Washington, 123–159. Bielman-Sánchez 2003 = A. Bielman-Sánchez, Régner au féminin. Réflexions sur les reines attalides et séleucides, in F. Prost (ed.), L’Orient Méditerranéen de la mort d’Alexandre aux campagnes de Pompée. Cités et royaumes à l’ époque hellénistique, Rennes, 41–61. Bing 1997 = P. Bing, Reconstructing Berenice’s Lock, in G. Most (ed.), Collecting Fragments-Fragmente sammeln, Göttingen, 78–93. — 2002/3 = Posidippus and the Admiral; Kallikrates of Samos in the Milan Epigrams, GRBS 43: 243–66. Blouin 2015 = K. Blouin, Mendès et les reines: reconsidération historique des mosaïques navales de Thmouis (Alexandrie 21739 et 21736), in P. Kousoulis/N. Lazaridis (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes 22–29 May 2008, Vol. II (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 241), Leuven/ Paris/Bristol, 1951–1959. Breccia 1923 = E. Breccia, Rapport sur la marche du service du musée pendant l’exercice 1921–1922, Alexandria. — 1932 = Le Musée Gréco-Romain au cours des années 1925–31, Bergamo. Bricault 2006 = L. Bricault, Isis, dame des flots. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 7, Liége. Brown 1957 = B.R. Brown, Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics and The Alexandrian Style, Cambridge.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

80

Sara E. Cole

Brugsch 1875 = H. Brugsch, Die grosse Mendes-Stele aus der Zeit des zweiten Ptolemäers, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 13: 33–40. Bruneau 1978 = Ph. Bruneau, Un devis de pose de mosaïques: le papyrus Cairo Zen. 59665, in Στηλη. Τομος εις μνημην Ν. Κοντολεοντος, Athens, 134–143. Caneva 2014a = S. Caneva, From Alexander to the Theoi Adelphoi: Foundation and Legitimation of a Dynasty (Studia Hellenistica), Leuven. — 2014b = Ruler Cults in Practice: Sacrifices and Libations for Arsinoe Philadelphos, from Alexandria and Beyond, in T. Gnoli/F. Muccioli (eds.), Divinizzazione, culto del sovrano e apoteosi. Tra Antichità e Medioevo, Bologna, 85–115. — 2016 = From Alexander to the Theoi Adelphoi: Foundation and Legitimation of a Dynasty, Leuven. — 2018 = King and Pharaoh: Religious Encounters and the Ruler Cult in Ptolemaic Egypt, in J. Spier/T. Potts/S.E. Cole (eds.), Beyond the Nile: Egypt and the Classical World, Los Angeles, 135–140. Carrez-Maratray 2008 = J.–Y. Carrez-Maratray, A propos de la boucle de Bérénice. La publicité des reines lagides, in F. Bertholet/A. Bielman Sánchez/R. Frei-Stolba R. (eds.), Egypte, Grèce, Rome: les différents visages des femmes antiques: travaux et colloques du séminaire d’ épigraphie grecque et latine de l’IASA 2002–2006. Echo (Université de Lausanne. Institut d’archéologie et des sciences de l’antiquité) 7, Bern/New York: 93–116. Casagrande-Kim 2014 = R. Casagrande-Kim, The Way They Looked: Dynastic Portraiture on Ptolemaic Coins, in R. Casagrande-Kim (ed.), When the Greeks Ruled Egypt: From Alexander the Great to Cleopatra, New York/Princeton: 58–71. Clayman 2011 = D.L. Clayman, Berenice and her Lock, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974–2014)141, no. 2 (Autumn 2011): 229–246. — 2014 = Portraits of the Queens as Ptolemaic Self-Fashioning, in R. Casagrande-Kim (ed.), When the Greeks Ruled Egypt: From Alexander the Great to Cleopatra,New York/Princeton 44–57. Cole 2019 = S.E. Cole, Ptolemaic Cavalrymen on Painted Alexandrian Funerary Monuments, Arts 8(58): 1–23. — 2022 = S. E. Cole, Negotiating Identity through the Architecture and Interior Decoration of Elite Households in Ptolemaic Egypt, Arts 11: 1–35. Coşkun 2016 = A. Coşkun, Laodike I, Berenike Phernophoros, Dynastic Murders, and the Outbreak of the Third Syrian War (253–246 BC), in A. Coşkun/A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire, Stuttgart, 107–134. Daszewski 1978 = W.A. Daszewski, Some Problems of Early Mosaics from Egypt, in H. Maehler/V.M. Strocka (eds.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.-29. September 1976 in Berlin, Mainz, 121–136. — 1985 = Corpus of Mosaics from Egypt,  Vol. 1 Hellenistic and Early Roman Period , Mainz. Dodd 2009 = R. Dodd, Coinage and Conflict: the Manipulation of Seleucid Political Imagery, PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

81

Dunbabin 1999 = K.M.D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge. Edgar 1931 = C.C. Edgar, Zenon Papyri, Vol. IV, No. 59532–59800, Cairo. Empereur 1998a = J.-Y. Empereur, Alexandria Rediscovered, New York. — 1998b = Sous le sol d’Alexandrie, Archéologia 345: 28–37. Engels/Erickson 2016 = D. Engels/K. Erickson, Apama and Stratonike – Marriage and Legitimacy, in in A. Coşkun/A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire, Stuttgart, 39–65. Erickson 2018 = K. Erickson, Another Century of Gods? A Re-evaluation of Seleucid Ruler Cult, The Classical Quarterly 68(1): 97–111. Fleischer 1991 = R. Fleischer, Studien zur seleukidischen Kunst. Band I: Herrscherbildnisse, Mainz/Rhein. Foster 2006 = J.A. Foster, Arsinoe II as Epic Queen: Encomiastic Allusion in Theocritus, Idyll 15, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974–2014) 136, no. 1: 133–148. Fulińska 2012 = A. Fulińska, Arsinoe Hoplismene. Poseidippos 36, Arsinoe Philadelphos and the Cypriot Cult of Aphrodite, in E. Papuci-Wladyka (ed.), De antiquorum artibus et civilisatione. Studia Varia XVI, Krakow, 141–55. Grainger 2010 = J.D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars, Leiden/Boston. Grimal 1998 = N. Grimal, Les travaux de l’Institut français dl’archéologie orientale en 1997–1998, BIFAO 98: 497–608. Grimm 1998 = G. Grimm, Alexandria, Die erste Königsstadt der hellenistischen Welt, Mainz. Guimier-Sorbets 1998 = A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, Les Mosaïques, in Le gloire d’Alexandrie: 7 mai – 26 juilliet 1998, Paris, 227–231. — 2020a = A-M. Guimier-Sorbets, Chantier de l’ancien consulat brittanique. Un andrôn alexandrine: Architecture, mosaïque et peinture, in M.-D. Nenna (ed.), Alexandrina 5, Alexandria, 173–207. — 2020b = A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, Un portrait de reine sur l’emblema circulaire de Thmouis, in M.-D. Nenna (ed.), Alexandrina 5, Alexandria, 55–65. — 2021 = A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, The Mosaics of Alexandria: Pavements of Greek and Roman Egypt, Cairo/New York. Guimier-Sorbets/Nenna 1995 = A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets/M.D. Nenna, Réflexions sur la couleur dans les mosaïques hellénistiques: Délos et Alexandrie, BCH 119: 529–563. Gutzwiller 1992 = K.J. Gutzwiller, Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice. Fantasy, Romance, and Propaganda, American Journal of Philology 113: 359–85. — 1998 = Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London. Harder 2012 = A. Harder, Callimachus Aetia: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary, 2 vols., Oxford. Hauben 1970 = H. Hauben, Callicrates of Samos: A Contribution to the Study of the Ptolemaic Admiralty. With a Samian Inscription published in appendix by Günter Dunst. Studia Hellenistica 18, Leuven.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

82

Sara E. Cole

Hollis 1992 = A.S. Hollis, The Nuptial Rite in Catullus 66 and Callimachus’ Poetry for Berenice, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 91: 21–8. Hoover 2002 = O.D. Hoover, “Laodike IV on the Bronze Coinages of Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, AJN 14: 81–87. Houghton 1988 = A. Houghton, The Double Portrait Coins of Alexander I Balas and Cleopatra Thea, Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau 67: 85–93. Houghton/Lorber 2002 = A. Houghton/C. Lorber, Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I: Seleucus I through Antiocus III, 2 vols., Lancaster/London. Houghton/Lorber/Hoover 2008 = A. Houghton/C. Lorber/O. Hoover, Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part  II: Seleucus  IV through Antiochus XIII, 2 vols., Lancaster/London. Iossif/Lorber 2007 = P. Iossif/C. Lorber, Laodikai and the Goddess Nikephoros, L’Antiquité Classique, T. 76: 63–88. Kamal 1966 = I. Kamal, A Stela from Mendes, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 59: 27–31. Kavakas 2016 = G. Kavakas, Hellenistic Royal Portraiture on Coins, in C.A. Picón/S. Hemingway, Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World, New York/New Haven, 70–76. Koenen 1971 = L. Koenen, Bemerkungen zu P. Cairo Zenon 59 665; Verlegen eines Mosaikfussbodens, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 8: 276–277. Koenen 1993 = L. Koenen, The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure, in A. Bulloch/E.S. Gruen/A.A. Long/A. Stewart (eds.), Images and Ideologies. Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley, 25–115. Kosmin 2014 = P. Kosmin, Seeing Double in Seleucid Babylonia: Rereading the Borsippa Cylinder of Antiochus I, in A. Moreno/R. Thomas (eds), Patterns of the Past. Epitedeumata in the Greek Tradition, Oxford, 173–98. Kunst 2007 = C. Kunst, Frauen im hellenistischen Herrscherkult, Klio 89: 24–38. Kuttner 1999 = A. Kuttner, Hellenistic Images of Spectacle from Alexander to Augustus, in B. Bergmann/C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle, Studies in the History of Art 56, Washington, 97–123. Landvatter 2012 = T. Landvatter, The Serapis and Isis Coinage of Ptolemy IV, American Journal of Numismatics (1989–), 24: 61–90. Lapatin 2019 = K. Lapatin (ed.), Buried by Vesuvius: The Villa dei Papiri at Herculaneum, Los Angeles. Le Rider 1986 = G. Le Rider, L’enfant-roi Antiochos et la reine Laodice, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 110: 409–417. — 1994 = Antiochos IV (175–164) et le monnayage de bronze Séleudice, BCH 188: 17–34. Llewellyn-Jones/Winder 2011 = L. Llewellyn Jones/S. Winder, A key to Berenike’s Lock? The Hathoric model of queenship in early Ptolemaic Egypt, in A. Erskine/L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds.), Creating a Hellenistic World, Swansea, 247–69. — 2016 = The Hathoric Model of Queenship in Early Ptolemaic Egypt. The Case of Berenike’s Lock, in I. Rutherford (ed.), Greco-Egyptian Interactions: Literature, Translation, and Culture 500 BCE–300 CE, Oxford, 139–62.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

83

Ma 1999 = J. Ma. Antiochos III and the Citites of Western Asia Minor, Oxford. Marinone 1997 = N. Marinone, Berenice da Callimaco a Catullo. Testo critic, traduzione e commento. Nuova edizione ristrutturata, ampliata e aggiornata (Testi e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino 49), Bologna. McKenzie 2007 = J. McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, New Haven/ London. De Meulenaere 1976 = H. De Meulenaere, History of the Town (Pharaonic Sources), in H. De Meulenaere/P. Mackay (eds.), Mendes II, Warminster, 173–77. Minas 1998 = M. Minas, Die Kanephoros. Aspekte des Ptolemäischen Dynastiekults, in H. Melaerts (ed.), Le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque au IIIe siècle avant notre ère. Actes du colloque international, Bruxelles 10 mai 1995, Studia Hellenistica 34, Leuven, 43–60. Minas-Nerpel 2019 = M. Minas-Nerpel, Ptolemaic Queens as Ritualists and Recipients of Cults: The Cases of Arsinoe II and Berenike II, Ancient Society 49: 141–83. Mørkholm 1963 = O. Mørkholm, Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus  IV of Syria, Munksgaard. Ogden 2017 = D. Ogden, The Legend of Seleucus. Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World, Cambridge. Pantos 1987 = P.A. Pantos, Bérénice II Démèter, BCH 111: 343–52. Patton et al. 2011 = W.R. Patton, revised by F.W. Walbank/C. Habicht, Polybius. The Histories: Volume III, Books 5–8. Loeb Classical Library 138, Cambridge. Pfeiffer 1975 = R. Pfeiffer, Berenikes plokamos, in A.D. Skiadas (ed.), Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296), Darmstadt, 100–52. — 2008a =Herrscher- und Dynastiekulte im Ptolemäerreich, Munich. — 2008b = The God Serapis, His Cult and the Beginnings of the Ruler Cult in Ptolemaic Egypt, in P. McKechnie/P. Guillaume (eds.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, Leiden/Boston, 387–408. Pfrommer 2002 = M. Pfrommer, Königinnen vom Nil, Mainz am Rhein. Picón/Hemingway 2016 = C.A. Picón/S. Hemingway (eds.), Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World, New York/New Haven. Plantzos 1996 = D. Plantzos, Hellenistic Cameos: Problems of Classification and Chronology, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 41: 115–31. — 1999 = Hellenistic Engraved Gems, Oxford. — 2011 = The  Iconography of Assimilation:  Isis and Royal  Imagery on Ptolemaic Seal Impressions, in P.P. Iossif/A.S. Chankowski/C.C. Lorber (eds)., More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Belgian School at Athens (November 1–2, 2007), Leuven/Paris/Walpole, 389–415. Préaux 1947 = C. Préaux, Les Grecs en Égypte d’après les archives de Zénon, Brussels. Prioux 2011 = E. Prioux, Callimachus’ queens, in B. Acosta-Hughes/L. Lehnus,/S. Stephens (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus, Leiden, 202–24. Quaegebeur 1970 = J. Quaegebeur, Ptolémée II en adoration devant Arsinoé II divinisée, BIFAO 69: 191–217.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

84

Sara E. Cole

— 1971a = Documents Concerning a Cult of Arsinoe Philadelphos at Memphis, JNES 3: 239–70. — 1971b = Ptolemée II devant Arsinoé divinisée, BIFAO 69: 191–217. — 1978 = Reines Ptolémaïques et Traditions Égyptiennes, in H. von Maehler/V.M. Strocks (eds.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des Internationalen Symposions, 27.29. September 1976 in Berlin/Mainz, 245–62. — 1985 = Arsinoé Philadelphe, reine, “roi” et déesse, à Hildesheim, GM 87: 73–78. — 1989 = The Egyptian Clergy and the Cult of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, AncSoc 20: 93–116. — 1998 = Documents égyptiens anciens et nouveaux relatifs à Arsinoé Philadelphe, in H. Melaerts (ed.), Le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque au IIIe siècle avant notre ère, Leuven, 73–108. Ramsey 2016 = G. Ramsey, The Diplomacy of Seleukid Women: Apama and Stratonike, in A. Coşkun/A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire, Stuttgart, 87–104. Reed 2000 = J.D. Reed, Arsinoe’s Adonis and the Poetics of Ptolemaic  Imperialism, Transactions of the American Philological Association 130: 319–351. Rossi 2000 = L. Rossi, La Chioma di Berenice. Catullo 66,79–88, Callimaco e la propaganda di corte, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 128 (3): 299–312. Salzmann 1982 = D. Salzmann, Untersuchungen zu den antiken Kieselmosaiken , Berlin. Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993 = S. Sherwin-White/A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis: a New Approach to the Seleukid Empire, Berkeley/Los Angeles. Simpson 1996 = R.S. Simpson, Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees, Oxford. Spier/Potts/Cole 2018 = J. Spier/T. Potts/S.E. Cole (eds.), Beyond the Nile: Egypt and the Classical World, Los Angeles. Spier/Potts/Cole 2022 = J. Spier/T. Potts/S.E. Cole (eds.), Persia: Ancient Iran and the Classical World, Los Angeles. Stanwick 2002 = P.E. Stanwick, Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs, Austin. Stephens 2004a = S. Stephens, For You, Arsinoe…, in B. Acosta-Hughes/E. Kosmetatou/M. Baumbach (eds.), Labored in Papyrus Leaves. Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P.Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), Washington, 161–176. — 2004b = Posidippus’s Poetry Book: Where Macedon Meets Egypt, in W.V. Harris/G. Ruffini (eds.), Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece, Leiden/Boston, 63–86. — 2005 = Battle of the Books, in K. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book, Oxford, 229–248. Stevens 2014 = K. Stevens, The Antiochos Cylinder, Babylonian Scholarship and Seleucid Imperial Ideology, Journal of Hellenic Studies 134: 66–88. Świderek 1959 = A. Świderek, W “państwie” Apolloniosa; – społeczeństwo wczesnoptolemejskie Fajum w świetle Archiwum Zenona, Naukowe/Warszawa. Thiers 2007a = C. Thiers, Le marriage divin des dieux Adelphes dans la stele de Mendès (Caire CG 22181), ZÄS 134: 64–65.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucid and Ptolemaic Imperial Iconography in the Syrian Wars (274–168 BCE)

85

— 2007b = Ptolémée Philadelphe et les prêtres d’Atoum de Tjékou. Nouvelle édition commentée de la stele de Pithom (CGC 22183), Montpellier. Thompson 1973 = D.B. Thompson, Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience: Aspects of the Ruler Cult, Oxford. — 2005 = Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies, in K. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book, Oxford, 269–283. Tkaczow 1993 = B. Tkaczow, The topography of ancient Alexandria  –  an archaeological map, Warsaw. True/Hamma 1994 = M. True/K. Hamma, A Passion for Antiquities: Ancient Art from the Collection of Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman, Malibu. Van Nuffelen 2004 = P. Van Nuffelen, Le culte royal de l’empire des Séleucides: une réinterprétation, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 53, no. 3: 278–301. Winter 1978 = E. Winter, Der Herrscherkult in den ägyptischen Ptolemäertempeln, in H. Maehler/V.M. Strocka (eds.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten, Mainx, Berlin, 147–160.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology: The Alexander Factor* Krzysztof Nawotka

Josephus thus begins his account of the death of the sacrilegious king Antiochus IV: About this time it was that king Antiochus, as he was going over the upper countries, heard that there was a very rich city in Persia, called Elymais; and therein a very rich temple of Diana, and that it was full of all sorts of donations dedicated to it; as also weapons and breastplates, which, upon inquiry, he found had been left there by Alexander, the son of Philip, king of Macedonia. And being incited by these motives, he went in haste to Elymais, and assaulted it, and besieged it. 1 The motif of weapons of Alexander the Great kept in deposit in the temple of Artemis – Nanaia – in Elymais, although absent from Polybius, is known also from a near contemporary account of The First Book of Maccabees and may well be historical, at least in this sense that local priests claimed that some military equipment displayed in their temple once belonged to Alexander. 2 The purported desire of Antiochus to appropriate Alexander’s weapons seems to point at his willingness to associate himself with Alexander. A question might be asked if it was only a colorful episode at the end of the life of a king who “had a highly individualistic character, verging on eccentricity, and that he was extremely fond of flamboyant displays”, to put it in Briscoe’s words, or a constituent part of Seleucid image-making. 3 Perhaps the most recognizable features of Seleucid dynastic imagery and ideology are representation of Apollo seated on the omphalos placed on innumerable coins from An* This research was funded in whole by National Science Centre (Poland) UMO-2021/42/A/ HS3/00421 “Epigraphic culture in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East in antiquity: status, display, democracy, identity”. 1 J. AJ XI 9.1 (354–355), transl. by W. Whiston. 2 1 Macc. 6.1–4. The motif of the weapons of Alexander is absent from other accounts of the death of Antiochus IV: 2 Macc. (1.13–17); Plb. XXXI 9.1–4; App. Syr. 352; Georg. Sync. p. 339; Sulpicius Severus Hist. Sacra II 22; Hieronymus In Danielem, vers. 14. On Artemis-Nanaia and Artemis-Aphrodite-Nanaia in the Seleucid context see Panagiotis/Lorber 2007, 85–87. Weapons of Alexander allegedly kept in various places: Wallace 2018, 170–172. 3 J. Briscoe, review of O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, Copenhagen 1966, CR 18 (1968): 82–85, at 83.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

88

Krzysztof Nawotka

tiochus I until Antiochus IV, 4 and the Seleucid era. The longest-lasting and certainly the most innovative was the Seleucid era, introduced by Antiochus  I, the first example of counting years from a fixed moment in the past, and on some accounts the longest-used era in the world. 5 It was the era in the East in antiquity and the early-Middle Ages. 6 In earlier papers I tried to show that the idea of the particular protection afforded to Seleucus by Apollo, his divine father, was born under Seleucus I, even if fully developed under Antiochus I. 7 It was introduced in the later part of Seleucus I’s reign, and not by his design but through the influence of his general and friend Demodamas of Miletus. The role of Alexander in Seleucid image-making has attracted less scholarly interest than other aspects. This paper attempts to investigate the role that the memory and image of Alexander played in the Seleucid ideology, seeking to find out whether it was only a leftover from early years of Seleucus I, which resurfaced later under Antiochus IV, or if it played an important role through the reign of Seleucus I and was recognized by later Seleucids too. No literary account related to Seleucus originating more or less in his age has survived and the account younger by a few hundred years – Diodorus, Appian, Justin, Libanius, Malalas – inevitably contain stories about Seleucus much transformed from the age in which they originated. Therefore I will apply extreme caution in taking them as evidence in this paper, always giving preference to documentary evidence from the age of Seleucus or slightly later and to fragments of early authors. Of course there is nothing surprising in any of Alexander’s companions who vied for power after his death stressing their ties to Alexander, the most charismatic figure and the most distinguished conqueror in Greek history. 8 This is best attested in the case of Ptolemy who may have belonged to a collateral branch of the Argead family, since he was referred in ancient sources of his age or only slightly later as a scion of Heracles, just as the Argeads were. 9 There was as well a rumor that Ptolemy was Alexander’s half-brother through an illegitimate union of his mother with Philip II. 10 The majority view is that this story was invented/circulated in the first half of the age of the Successors when the blood ties to Alexander were of great value as a means to underscore a Successor’s legitimacy. 11

4 Apollo on omphalos, i.e. with its most recognizable Delphic attribute of universal appeal, on Seleucid coins from 279 until 172 BCE: Le Rider/de Callataÿ 2006, 46–47. The first example is a coin from the mint in Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: Erickson 2019, 63. 5 Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993, 27; Kosmin 2014, 101; Erickson 2019, 63. 6 Shahbazi 1977, 28–29. 7 Nawotka 2017b; Nawotka 2019. 8 Waterfield 2011, 50–51. See Meeus 2009 for the popularity of the Argeads, the dynasty of Philip II and Alexander, in the age of the Successors. 9 Satyr. fr. 21; Theoc. 17.26; OGIS  I 54, ll. 4–6 (Ptolemy  III about his lineage: τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ πατρὸς Ἡρακλέος τοῦ Διός); unpublished inscription in which Ptolemy refers to his ancestors as: Ἡρακλείδας Ἀργεάδας (Errington 1990, 265 n. 6); with Aelian and Pseidippos alluding to it (Ael. fr. 285 = Suda, s.v. Λάγος; Posidippus 31 Austin-Bastianini (v. 20–5)). Heckel 2006, 235; Ogden 2017, 347–348. 10 Curt. IX 8.22; Paus. I 6.2; Ps.-Callisth. III 32.9; tr. by E.H. Haight. 11 E.g. Berve 1926, vol. I, 330; Rostovtzeff 1935, 62, 65; Errington 1976, 155–156; Rice 1983, 85; Hammond 1989, 281; Green 1990, 404; Heckel 1992, 222; Lund 1992, 159; Lianou 2010, 128–130.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology

89

Some modern scholars deny this, claiming instead that the story of Philip II fathering Ptolemy was born in Macedonia in the 280s BCE and inspired by Ptolemy Ceraunus, son of Ptolemy I, whose claim on the throne of Macedonia might have been enhanced by his Argead ancestor. 12 There is, however, a source, rarely if ever used in this discussion which seems to provide testimony supporting the majority view. The Alexander Romance in the section on Alexander’s terminal illness says: ὁ δὲ Περδίκκας ὑπονοήσας τὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον καταλελοιπέναι τὰ πράγματα Πτολεμαίῳ διὰ τὸ πολλάκις πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι ὑπὲρ τῆς Πτολεμαίου γενέσεως, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν ᾿Ολυμπιάδα πεποιηκέναι φανερόν, ὡς ἦν ἐκ Φιλίππου – “And Perdikkas suspected that Alexander had left his power to Ptolemy because he had often spoken to him about the lineage of Ptolemy, and Olympias had made it clear that he was Philip’s son.” 13 If this passage repeats, as most of the section on Alexander’s death and Testament does, the words of the Hellenistic pamphlet of the beginning of the age of the Successors – below - 14 this is the earliest, ca. late-fourth BCE testimony of the story of Philip II fathering Ptolemy. This does not mean of course that in reality Ptolemy was the son of Philip II but only that such rumors were circulating in the early years of the age of the Successors. If it is so, this must have been Ptolemy’s or his courtiers’ idea to use the Argead connection to bolster his credentials as a Macedonian king. 15 To the best of my knowledge nothing of this kind is directly attested for Seleucus, the one Successor who inherited or conquered most of Alexander’s empire and who followed in Alexander’s footsteps on more than one occasion. 16 Indirect evidence of Seleucus alleged blood ties to Alexander’s dynasty is in Libanius who attributes Seleucus kinship with Temenos, the founder of the Temenid/Argead clan, hence some form of kinship with Alexander too. 17 Although Libanios reflects the tradition of blood ties between the Seleucids and the Argeads, we cannot use this evidence to reconstruct the image-making of Seleucus I since nothing is known about Libanius source or its date. It seems, however, that the value of blood ties to Alexander was not lost on later Seleucids. The evidence, although circumstantial, comes from two independent, as it seems, sources. One is Livy’s and Appian’s testimony of a bizarre character, a certain Alexander of Megalopolis, perhaps of noble Macedonian origin, who claimed Alexander the Great as his ancestor as he gave to his children names Philippos, Alexander and Apama. 18 In the Hellenistic age this was not the only attested claim of having Alexander the Great as an ancestor but surely the most successful, among one who was commoners not a king, at least. 19 The evidence of Livy and Appian is indirectly corroborated by an ca. early-second BCE Delian 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Collins 1997. Ps.-Callisth. III 32.9 (ms. A). Nawotka 2017, 242–243, 252–253. Errington 1976, 155–156; Heckel 2006, 235; Lianou 2010, 128–130; Waterfield 2011, 50; Nawotka 2017, 242–243. Goukowsky 1978, 125–131; Marasco 1982, 113 n. 137. Lib. Or. 11.91: συγγένεια Σελεύκῳ κατὰ τὸν παλαιὸν Τήμενον. Erickson 2013, 114. App. Syr. 51; Liv. XXXV 47. On the Macedonian origin of Alexander of Megalopolis see: Bohm 1989, 14. Wallace 2018, 173–175.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

90

Krzysztof Nawotka

honorific decree for Alexander, son of Alexander of Megalopolis, which says: Ἀλέξανδρος Φιλίππου, ἀπόγο/νος ὢν βασιλέως Ἀλεξάνδρου; “Alexander son of Philippos, descendent of king Alexander.” 20 Hence we have a contemporary testimony of the success of Alexander of Megalopolis in gaining international recognition of his claim that Alexander the Great was his ancestor. In naming his sons Philippos and Alexander he followed in the footsteps of early Hellenistic kings Cassander and Lysimachus, treading the path taken later by Perseus too. 21 More significant from the point of view of this paper is Alexander’s of Megalopolis decision to give to his daughter the name Apama. Since his motive was promoting his Argead credentials, he surely selected for his daughter a name generally recognized as associated with his purported ancestor Alexander the Great. Thus Alexander of Megalopolis was indirectly stating that Apama, wife of Seleucus, was a descendent of an Argead king, almost certainly of Alexander – and Roxane. 22 Notwithstanding the historicity of his claims, they enjoyed some following in the late-third century BCE as Alexander of Megalopolis succeeded in marrying his daughter Apama to a real king, Amynander of Athamania. 23 His son Philippos was promoted by Antiochus III against Philip V of Macedonia. 24 Of course the motivation of Antiochus III was political but he either indirectly recognized the claims of Alexander of Megalopolis of his blood ties to Alexander the Great and to the Seleucids or, at the very least, decided not to reject them. The second piece of evidence comes from the monument of Antiochus I of Commagene at Nemrud Dağı. The gallery of his maternal ancestors begins with a stele of Alexander the Great followed by that of Seleucus I and other Seleucid ancestors of Antiochus of Commagene. Despite the problems in reading the gallery of the maternal ancestors, there is no doubt that it begins with Alexander, whose stele is one of only four in which the name of an ancestor of Antiochus is still legible. 25 All Seleucid kings and Alexander are represented by the same male type, derived from life-time representations of Alexander, to us known from the Alexander Mosaic and an equestrian statuette from Herculaneum. 26 The inscription on the back of the stele contains a titulus honorarius inscribed in the name of Antiochus for Alexander: [βα]σιλέ[α] μέγ[αν Ἀλέ]/ξανδρον τὸν ἐ[κ βασιλέ]/ ως Φιλίππου; “To Great King Alexander son of king Philip.” 27 Antiochus of Commagene was related to the Seleucids through his mother Laodice (VII) daughter of Antiochus  VIII Grypus and in his Nimrud Dağı monument he likely followed the official Seleucid court version of the royal family history. 28 Since he places Alexander at the beIG XI.4 750, ll. 3–4. Wallace 2018, 172–173. Ogden 1999, 54–62, 187–189. Bohm 1989, 17. Bohm 1989, 15. On Amynander see Wilcken 1894; Oost 1957. App. Syr. 52. Bohm 1989, 17–25; Wallace 2018, 17–23. See the summary of the complex issue of maternal ancestry of Antiochus in the rendition of the Nemrud Dağı monument: Facella 2006, 270–275. 26 Brijder 2014, 336–339. 27 Dörner/Young 1996, 323. IGLSyr 1 24 has it in much damaged state without new fragments used by Dörner and Young. 28 Dörner/Young 1996, 325.

20 21 22 23 24 25

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology

91

ginning of the line of his Seleucid ancestors, the purported link to Alexander must have been through his Seleucid ancestors and hence, most likely, through Apama the purported daughter of Roxane. Perhaps the same line of reasoning shows in the famous speech of Mithridates VI delivered on the eve of his war with Rome, in which he extols his family, on the maternal side stemming from the founders of the Macedonian empire: “paternos maiores suos a Cyro Darioque, conditoribus Persici regni, maternos a magno Alexandro ac Nicatore Seleuco, conditoribus imperii Macedonici”. 29 The legend of Alexander as father of Apama, and thus the ancestor of the Seleucids, was surely invented long after all eye-witnesses of the age of the Successors had died, most likely in the second half of the third century BCE but at that time it was believed by many to be true. 30 In the long run, making Alexander the real founder of the Seleucid dynasty may have resulted in naming the Seleucid era the era of Alexander, well attested in the East, albeit at a later date, from the mid-fourth century CE on. 31 From the late-third century BCE at the latest the ancestry of Heracles was attributed to the Seleucids, as we learn, among other from an inscription from Xanthos which reads: τοὺς βασιλεῖς τοὺς ἀπὸ Ἡρακλέος Πτολεμαῖον καὶ Ἀντίοχον; “to the kings Ptolemy (IV) and Antiochus (III) descendents of Herakles.” 32 This may belong to the strain of Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynastic ideologies of claiming blood ties to the most famous scion of Heracles, Alexander the Great. 33 Alexander features prominently in stories predicting Seleucus’ greatness. One records Alexander taking a boat trip in a lake near Babylon during which a gust of wind suddenly blew away his diadem and carried it off into the rushes growing on the tomb of an Assyrian king. The diadem was saved by Seleucus for whom wearing Alexander’s crown was to predict his eventual assumption of Alexander’s empire. 34 The story as we know it is late, surviving in ca. second-century CE authors Appian and Arrian who refer to Aristobulus as the original source. The original version of the story had an anonymous Phoenician sailor saving Alexander’s diadem, not Seleucus. 35 This was probably the original version of the story, appearing in Alexander historians in the context of omens predicting Alexander’s imminent death and the extinction of his line. 36 The version which has Seleucus save Alexander’s diadem may have originated in a pro-Seleukid account, unknown to us but accessed by Arrian and Appian. 37 It belongs to the topos of the diadem of Alexander as the source of future power transferred to one of his Successors like Lysimachos in

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Just. XXXVIII 7.1. Tarn 1929; O’Neil 2002, 164; Strootman 2016, 222. The first evidence is Aphraates writing in 337–343 CE: Shahbazi 1977, 27–30. SEG 38.1476, ll. 75–76 (of 206/5  BCE). Later: Lib. 11.91: καὶ τῶν ἀφ’ ῾Ηρακλέους, οἷς ἦν, οἶμαι, συγγένεια Σελεύκῳ κατὰ τὸν παλαιὸν Τήμενον. Errington 1976, 156–157; Marasco 1982, 113 n. 137; Ogden 2017, 50–51; Erickson 2019, 36. Arr. An. VII 22; App. Syr. 288–291. As in D.S. XVII 116.5–7. Appian and Arrian know the version of the sailor too. See F. Pownall’s commentary on Aristobulus in BNJ 139 F55. Nawotka 2017a, 159–160 with reference; Erickson 2019, 48–49. Marasco 1982, 79–84.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

92

Krzysztof Nawotka

Justin or Ptolemy in an anecdote transmitted by the Suda. 38 The story of Seleucus and the diadem of Alexander, although topical, is the most elaborate and the only one whose evolution from the story of an omen predicting the demise of the family of Alexander to the one of an omen of the ascending of Seleucus can be traced. A few years later Alexander appears again, this time “standing beside him in a dream,” which, according to the tale, gave Seleucus “a clear sign of the future leadership that was destined to fall to him in the course of time.” 39 This story is not only late but it is presented by Diodorus this way as if it was simply made up by Seleucus to cheer up his soldiers on a dangerous march from Egypt to Babylonia through Syria rife with Antigonid troops. 40 Then Plutarch has Alexander, in Demetrius’ dream, abandon Antigonus and Demetrius before Ipsos to join with Seleucus and Lysimachus. 41 The narrative motif of Alexander- or the ghost of Alexander- appearing in a dream to generals of the age of the Successors and taking sides in battles is quite common in Plutarch, and is part of the lives of Demetrius, Eumenes and Pyrrhus. 42 Since all or almost all of the protagonists of that age were associated with Alexander, his appearance in a dream clearly marks the one who was most deserving of Alexander’s support. 43 Plutarch does not name his source for this motif and we cannot be sure if he followed any Hellenistic source at all and not invented the motif for narrative reasons, bearing in mind that Demetrius and Pyrrhus are portrayed by Plutarch as failed Alexander-imitators. 44 Hence we are not sure whether Alexander distinguishing Seleucus and Lysimachus reflects stories told about the time of the battle of Ipsos or if it belongs to the literary discourse of the age of Trajan. There is, however, a trace of the original tradition of Seleucus becoming king according to the last will of Alexander, and thus a legitimate monarch by virtue of inheriting the kingship from the defunct Argead dynasty. 45 Among the earliest witnesses to this tradition is Berossos, as Tatian attests: Βηρωσὸς ἀνὴρ Βαβυλώνιος, ἱερεὺς τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς Βήλου, κατ᾽ ᾽Αλέξανδρον γεγονώς, ᾽Αντιόχωι τῶι μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τρίτωι τὴν Χαλδαίων ἱστορίαν ἐν τρισὶ βιβλίοις κατατάξας καὶ τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἐκθέμενος, ἀφηγεῖται; “Berosus, a Babylonian, a priest of their god Belus, born in the time of Alexander, composed for Antiochus, the third after him, the history of the Chaldeans in three books; and, narrating

38 Just. XV 3.13–16; Suda s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος. Ogden 2017, 40. 39 D.S. XIX 90.4: τὸν δὲ ᾿Αλέξανδρον καθ’ ὕπνον ἐπιστάντα φανερῶς διασημᾶναι περὶ τῆς ἐσομένης ἡγεμονίας, ἧς δεῖ τυχεῖν αὐτὸν προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου; transl. by R.M. Geer. 40 D.S. XIX 90. 2–3: τοιαύτης δ’ οὔσης τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν ὁρμῆς οἱ συνόντες φίλοι θεωροῦντες ὅτι μετ’ αὐτῶν μέν εἰσι παντελῶς ὀλίγοι συστρατεύοντες, τοῖς δὲ πολεμίοις ἐφ’ οὓς προάγουσι καὶ δυνάμεις ὑπάρχουσιν ἕτοιμοι μεγάλαι καὶ χορηγίαι λαμπραὶ καὶ συμμάχων πλῆθος, οὐ μετρίως ἠθύμουν. οὓς ὁρῶν καταπεπληγμένους ὁ Σέλευκος παρεκάλει, διδάσκων .... Nawotka 2019, 268. 41 Plu. Dem. 29.1–2. 42 Plu. Dem. 29.1–2, Eum. 6.5–6, Pyrrh. 11.2–5. 43 Meeus 2009, 244; Romero-González 2019, 159. 44 Mossman 1992. 45 I deal in greater detail on Seleucus in the Testament of Alexander in my earlier papers: Nawotka 2017b and Nawotka 2018.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology

93

the acts of the kings, he mentions one of them.” 46  In this account, Antiochus  I is the third king after Alexander, surely with his father Seleucus counted among the legitimate kings who preceded him. Although some assume that the successor of Alexander in the account of Berossos must be Alexander IV, son of Alexander the Great and Roxane, there is nothing in our sources to substantiate this claim. 47 It is much more likely that in Berossos’ account Alexander’s brother Arrhidaeus was the first king after Alexander as he is the king – the only one in Babylonian dating formulae and in Aramaic ostraca from 323 until 317/6 BCE. We may suppose that Berossos skips Alexander IV who is not attested in Babylonian dating formulae until the death of Philip III Arrhidaeus, and then only for a very short time since Antigonus takes his place, not as king but strategos (rab uquli). 48 There are a number of later pieces of evidence that the idea of the succession from Alexander to the Seleucid kings was present in literary sources from the Hellenistic age to late antiquity and later. It appears in Ammianus Marcellinus: “Qui post multa gloriose et fortiter gesta, superato Nicatore Seleuco, eiusdem Alexandri successore …” or “cum post Alexandri Macedonis obitum successorio iure teneret regna Persidis” and perhaps also “ut bella praetereamus Alexandri ac testamento nationem omnem in successoris unius iura translatam”. 49 The idea of Alexander ordering on his deathbed the division of his empire, with Seleucus being one of the appointed successors, is known to us from The First Book of Maccabees. 50 The notion of Alexander dividing his empire among his companions and the succession going to Seleucus resurfaces in Moses Khorenats’i, who consulted The First Book of Maccabees, among other sources: After ruling over the whole world, Alexander of Macedon, the son of Philip and Olympias, who was twenty-fourth from Achilles and after bequeathing his empire to many with the stipulation that the empire of them all would be called that of the Macedonians, he himself died. After him Seleucus reigned in Babylon, having seized the states of all the others. 51 The idea of succession from Alexander to Seleucus is known also to numerous late-antique and early-medieval evidence, mostly from the East, e.g.: Excerpta Latina Barbari which conveys a summary of the fifth-c. Alexandrian World Chronicle, 52 John Malalas, 53

BNJ 680 T2, ap. Tatianus, Oratio ad Graecos 36; transl. by B.P. Pratten. Marasco 1982, 112 n. 135. Boiy 2007, 200–201, 205–207; Nawotka 2018, 174–175. Amm. XXIII 6.3, XIV 18.5, XXIII 6.8 respectively. Marasco 1982, 111–112; Ogden 2017, 63–64. 1 Macc. 1.1–9, with Goldstein’s restoration of the missing first part of 1.1: “[This is a history of events which began in the era of the Hellenistic dynasty. The dynasty had its origins] 1 in the time of Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian”. 51 Moses Khorenats’i, History of the Armenians, Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources by Robert W. Thomson, Cambridge Mass./London 1978, II 1 (p. 129). 52 ELB I 8.5–6, II 6.1. 53 Malalas VIII 3–10. 46 47 48 49 50

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

94

Krzysztof Nawotka

Georgios Monachos, 54 Maronite Chronicle (after 664), 55 Apocalypse of Ps.-Methodius (perhaps 685–692). 56 The division of Alexander’s empire allegedly resulted from his last will or “Testament.” This document is spurious but it circulated widely in antiquity: among Alexander historians it is known to Diodorus and Flavius Josephus, although it was rejected by Curtius Rufus. 57 To us it is known from the Alexander Romance and the Liber de Morte Testamentoque Alexandri (LDM) attached to the Metz Epitome. 58 The earliest directly attested fragment of it survives in a papyrus, now in Vienna, of the first c. BCE–first c. CE which repeats almost verbatim a passage from the Alexander Romance and the LDM. 59 The  Vienna papyrus thus proves that these two late texts (ca. third–fourth CE) drew, each independently of the other, on a much earlier source, almost universally identified as a political pamphlet of the beginning of the age of the Successors. 60 The Testament repeats the decisions of the council of Babylon, giving them, however, the ultimate sanction of Alexander’s will. Since the empire was his by virtue of conquest (doriktetos chora), his was also the right to dispose of his property as he saw fit and, in an ideological sense, his alleged decision was meant to be permanent. A notable difference from the decisions of the council of Babylon is the position of Seleucus: he became satrap of Babylon in the Testament while in fact he became one by the decision of the generals gathered in Triparadisus in the late summer of 320 BC. 61 Keeping in mind that retaining Babylonia was the cornerstone of Seleucus’ policy from 320 BCE on, this proviso in the Testament must reflect Seleucus’ desire to show that his rule in Babylon was anchored in the ultimate authority of Alexander. This shows that a pro-Seleucid strain was a component in this complex source.  If the universally accepted dating of the Testament of Alexander to the beginning of the age of the Successors is correct, it dates the beginning of Seleucus’ claim of his legitimacy anchored in Alexander’s decision to ca. 320–310 BCE, distinctly earlier than after the battle of Ipsos as postulated by Erickson on the basis of an analysis of dream stories and select series of Seleucus’ coins. 62 As I argued elsewhere, the 54 Commentarium in Danielem IV 3.8. 55 Text: J.-B. Chabot, Chronica Minora,  vol. II, Louvain 1955, 37: “Hi sunt qui regnaverunt post Alexandrum: in Maceonia regnavit Philippus qui et Arridaeus, frater ipsius Alexandri; et in Asia, Antigonus; et in Macedonia, Cassander; et in Syria, Seleucus”. Date: Palmer/Hoyland/Brock 1993, 29. 56 Ps.-Methodius 9.1, in Greek rendition: τελευτήσαντος τοιγαροῦν Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ βασιλέως ἐβασίλευσαν ἀντ᾽αὐτοῦ οἱ τέσσαρες παῖδες αὐτοῦ· οὐ γὰρ ἔγημε ποτέ (quoting after the edition of W.J. Aerts and G.A.A. Kortekaas, Die Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius. Die ältesten griechischen und lateinischen Übersetzungen, Leuven 1998). The date: Brock 1976, 34; Reinink 1992, 178, 186. 57 D.S. XX 81.3; J. AJ XI 346; Curt. X 10.5. 58 Ps.-Callisth. III 30–33; ME 115–122. 59 Segre 1933. 60 For a summary of the discussion on its date see Nawotka 2018. A milestone prosopographical study is Heckel 1988; see also Bosworth 2000. The sole detractor is Seibert (1984). 61 Heckel 1988, 60 n. 5. I accept Boiy’s (2007) date of Triparadeisos. 62 Erickson 2013, 111–112.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology

95

years after Ipsos mark the beginning of an entirely new trend in the Seleucid image-making: towards recognizing Apollo of Didyma as the divine founder of the Seleucid dynasty and its principal protector. 63 The Testament of Alexander is the first step on the path to the legend of the Seleucid legitimacy anchored in the legacy of Alexander. Here he becomes satrap of Babylonia by Alexander’s last will and testament. In Berossos’ account Antiochus son of Seleucus is the third in line after Alexander, which most probably was meant to mark Seleucus’ legitimate succession from Alexander. The evidence of Berossos shows that the story of Seleucus being appointed by Alexander satrap of Babylon and/or his successor was very much alive in pro-Seleucid historiography in the early Hellenistic period. The next item is Seleucus’ coinage. Seleucus, not unlike other kings, selected the iconographic motifs of his coins carefully, inter alia, advertising the particular divine protection he enjoyed, or at least that which he wanted other people to think he did. 64 Counting both reverse and obverse images on ca. 300 series of Seleucus’ coins, there are 40 representations of Nike, 61 of Athena, 144 of Heracles and 165 of Zeus. 65 If coins are representative of the message of personal devotion of Seleucus or of the divine protection he enjoyed, his god of choice was Zeus, as it was of Alexander. 66 In fact Seleucus’ coinage for the most part continued that of Alexander, 67 with some series struck in Susa, Ecbatana and probably Babylon carrying an image of Alexander. 68 The most common motifs of Zeus and Heracles are obviously Argead, of great prominence in coinage of Alexander. 69 The case of Zeus is particularly telling. The impressive numbers of Zeus’ representations on Seleucus’ coins do not tell the whole story. One of the most common coin motifs is Zeus seated on the throne bearing an eagle in his hand, to numismatists “Zeus Aëtophoros.” Coins carrying this motif were issued throughout the whole reign of Seleucus, beginning in 315  BCE. 70 Coins with Zeus Aëtophoros are a direct continuation of the coinage of Alexander who, as Wójcikowski convincingly shows, borrowed the motif of a seated male deity bearing an eagle from the Achaemenid imagery, among others known from satrapal issues of Tarsos in which the god is commonly interpreted as Baaltars. 71 Zeus and eagle imagery is not limited to Seleucus’ coins. Strikingly, whenever Seleucus establishes a city in Syria, in Malalas’ accounts the ceremony begins with a solemn sacrifice to Zeus. 72 Malalas most likely drew upon a second-century BCE author, Pausanias of Damascus, probably relating to a genuine local tradition. 73 In the case of Antioch, Se63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Nawotka 2019. Zahle 1990. The ccounting of coin images is after: Houghton/Lorber/Kritt 2002. Erickson 2013, 113. Hadley 1974; Goukowsky 1978, 125–128; Bearzot 1984, 65; Meeus 2009, 248; Erickson 2019, 29–32. Houghton 1986, 57–58; Erickson 2013, 110–112. Wójcikowski 2017, 54; Ogden 2017, 273–274; Erickson 2019, 36. Attestation of this motif in Seleucus’ coins: Wójcikowski 2017 and Ogden 2017, 111 n. 57. Wójcikowski 2017. Malalas VIII 12–19. Chuvin 1988.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

96

Krzysztof Nawotka

leucus’ sacrifice repeats the ceremony allegedly performed in the same place by Alexander. 74 The memory of sacrificing to Zeus by Seleucus on this occasion was very much alive in 4th c. CE as recently uncovered mosaics from Apamea testify. The better preserved one shows a sacrifice performed by Seleucus and Antiochus accompanied by mythological figures of Heracles, Calliope, and Ktisis, the personification of the foundation of a city. The eagle in the middle leaves no doubt that Seleucus and Antiochus sacrificed to Zeus. 75 The iconographic details indicate that this mosaic, however late its date, conveys the genuine foundation tradition of Apamea. 76 Hence it lends additional support to the source tradition of Seleucus’ preference for Zeus in the acts of founding cities in Syria which may indicate his original perception of Zeus as the patron of his dynasty, similar to the role Zeus played for the dynasty of Alexander. Corroborating evidence comes from inscriptions and a relief, all later than Seleucus’ lifetime, but pointing to close ties between Seleucus and Zeus, his patron god. There are two dedications from Seleucid colonies in Lydia which read: [Δ]ιὶ Σε̣ λε̣ υκίῳ καὶ Νύμφαις/ Καρποδοτείραις, “To Zeus Seleukeios and to Nymphs Karpodoteirai”; 77 and: Μητρὶ Θεοῦ/ καὶ Διὶ Σελευκέῳ, “To Mother of God and Zeus Seleukeios.” 78 In a scene surviving in the temple of Gadde in Dura-Europos, Seleucus Nikator crowns the deity Gadde enthroned between two eagles, thus iconographically at least assimilated with Zeus. 79 The relief dates to 159 CE but if it follows a Hellenistic model, it may reflect ideology professed by the founder of Dura, Seleucus I. 80 Chronologically closest to the lifetime of Seleucus I is an inscription from Seleucia Pieria of 193–175  BCE with a list of priests of the principal gods of the city which reads: Σελεύκου Διὸς/Νικάτορος καὶ Ἀντιόχου/Ἀπολλῶνος Σωτῆρο[ς]. Although this is a municipal cult, it surely reflects arrangements of the reign of Seleucus who wanted himself to be associated with Zeus and his son with Apollo. 81 The most honorific deme of Seleucia was called Olympieus and its name and primacy most probably was established by the founder of the city, furnishing additional evidence for Seleucus’ particular attachment to Zeus. 82 Two strains prevailing in Seleucus’ image-making are identifiable throughout his reign: grounding legitimacy of his rule in Babylonia and, later, in the area roughly corresponding to the empire of late Achaemenids in the Testament of Alexander and promoting traditional Argead cults, in that claiming Zeus as patron of the king. The additional feature, discernible after  Ipsos, was the rise of Apollo as the divine father of Seleucus 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Lib. 11.86–88. Olszewski/Saad 2017. Olszewski/Saad 2018, 387–388. TAM V.1 426 of 228/9 CE. Nock 1928; Bikerman 1938, 242–245; Tondriau 1948, 173–174; Debord 2003, 282–283. TAM V.2 1306. Rostovtzeff 1939, 283–284; Elsner 2001, 277, 288. Rostovtzeff 1939; Debord 2003, 183–184; Kosmin 2014, 216. OGIS 245=IGLS  III 1184, A10–12. The date is after  IGLS. Debord 2003, 303–304; Anagnostou-Laoutides 2013, 66–67. IGLS III 1183. Rigsby 1980, 236–237.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology

97

and patron-god of his dynasty. But even with the eventual dominance of Apollo in the Seleucid pantheon, the association of Seleucus with Zeus, the god of the Argeads, is well attested in Seleucid colonies throughout the Hellenistic age. Seleucus surely wanted other people to see in him the successor to Alexander and his ultimate desire was to come back to his native Macedonia, uniting it with his empire, as it was the core of Alexander’s empire. 83 In the next generations after the age of Successors, the idea of blood ties of Antiochus I son of Seleucus to Alexander was born, to live until later antiquity creating an ideological bond between the two greatest Macedonian dynasties. References Anagnostou-Laoutides 2013 = E. Anagnostou-Laoutides, “ Destined to rule. The Near Eastern origins of Hellenistic ruler cult”, in: R. Alston/O.M. van Nijf/C.G. Williamson, Cults, Creeds and Identities in the Greek City after the Classical Age, Leuven/Paris. Walpole Ma., 49–84. Bearzot 1984 = C. Bearzot, “Il santuario di Apollo Didimeo e la spedizione de Seleuco I a Babilonia (312 a.C.)”, Contributi dell’Istituto di storia antica 10: 51–81. Berve 1926 = H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf Prosoprographischer Grundlage, vol. I–II, Munich. Bikerman 1938 = E. Bikerman, Institutions des Séleucides, Paris. Bohm 1989 = C. Bohm,  Imitatio Alexandri im Hellenismus.  Untersuchungen zum politischen Nachwirken Alexanders des Grossen in hoch- und späthellenistischen Monarchien, Munich. Boiy 2007 = T. Boiy, “Cuneiform Tablets & Aramaic Ostraca: Between the Low and High Chronologies for the Early Diadochi Period”, in: W. Heckel/L. Trittle/P. Wheatley (eds.), Alexander’s Empire: Formulation to Decay, Claremont, 199–207. Bosworth 2000 = A.B. Bosworth, “Ptolemy and the Will of Alexander”, in: A.B. Bosworth/E.J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford, 207–241. Brijder 2014 = H.A.G. Brijder. Nemrud Dağı: Recent Archaeological Research and Conservation Activities in the Tomb Sanctuary on Mount Nemrud, Boston/Berlin. Brock 1976 = S.P. Brock, “Syriac sources for seventh-century history”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2: 17–36. Chuvin 1988 = P. Chuvin, “Les fondations syriennes de Séleucos Nicator dans la Chronique de Jean Malalas”, in: P.-L. Gatier/B. Helly/J.-P. Rey-Coquis (eds.), Géographie historique au Proche-Orient (Syrie, Phénicie, Arabie, grecques, romaines, byzantines). Actes de la Table Ronde de Valbonne 16–18 septembre 1985, Paris, 99–110. Collins 1997 = N.L. Collins, “The Various Fathers of Ptolemy I”, Mnemosyne 50: 436–476. Debord 2003: P. Debord, “Le culte royal chez les Séleucides”, Pallas 62: 281–308. 83 Kosmin 2014, 80–85; Nawotka 2017b, 58.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

98

Krzysztof Nawotka

Dörner/Young 1996 = F.K. Dörner/J.H. Young, “Sculpture and Inscription Catalogue”, in: D.H. Sanders, Nemrud Dagi: The ‘Hierothesion’ of Antiochus I of Commagene, vol. I, Winona Lake, 175–360. Elsner 2001 = J. Elsner, “Cultural Resistance and the Visual Image: The Case of Dura Europos”, CPh 96: 269–304. Erickson 2013 = K. Erickson, “Seleucus I, Zeus and Alexander”, in: L. Mitchell/C. Melville (eds.), Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies on Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, Leiden, 109–127. — 2019 = The Early Seleukids, their Gods and their Coins, London/New York. Errington 1976 = M.R. Errington, “Alexander in the Hellenistic World”, in: O. Reverdin (ed.), Alexandre le Grand. Image et réalité, Geneva, 137–179. — 1990 = A History of Macedonia, Berkeley. Facella 2006 = M. Facella, La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana, Pisa. Goukowsky 1978 = P. Goukowsky, Essai sur les origines du mythe d’Alexandre (336–270 av. J. C.), vol. I: Les origines politiques, Nancy. Green 1990 = P. Green, Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, Berkeley. Hadley 1974 = R.A. Hadley, “Royal Propaganda of Seleucus I and Lysimachus”, JHS 94: 50–65. Hammond 1989 = N.G.L. Hammond, The Macedonian State: Origins, Institutions and History, Oxford. Heckel 1988 = W. Heckel, The Last Days and Testament of Alexander the Great, Wiesbaden. — 1992 = W. Heckel, The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire, London. — 2006 = Who’ Who in the Age of Alexander the Great, Malden/Oxford. Houghton 1986 = A. Houghton, “A colossal head in Antakya and the portraits of Seleucus I”, AK 29: 52–61. Houghton/Lorber/Kritt 2002 = A. Houghton/C. Lorber/B. Kritt, Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue, Part I, vol. I–II: Seleucus I through Antiochus III, Lancaster PA/London. Kosmin 2014 = P.J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge, Mass./London. Le Rider/de Callataÿ 2006 = G. Le Rider/F. de Callataÿ, Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées. L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le Grand, Monaco. Lianou 2010 = M. Lianou, “The Role of the Argeadai in the Legitimation of the Ptolemaic Dynasty: Rhetoric and Practice”, in: E.D. Carney/D. Ogden (eds.), Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives, Oxford/New York, 123–133. Lund 1992 = H.S. Lund, Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship, London. Marasco 1982 = G. Marasco, Appiano e la storia dei Seleucidi fino all’acesa al trono di Antioco III, Florence. Meeus 2009 = A. Meeus, “Alexander’s Image in the Age of the Successors”, in: W. Heckel/L.A. Tritle (eds.), Alexander the Great: A New History, Chichester, 235–250.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I and the Seleucid Dynastic Ideology

99

Mossman 1992 = J. Mossman, “Plutarch, Pyrrhus, and Alexander”, in: P. Stadter (ed.),Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, London, 90–108. Nawotka 2017 = K. Nawotka, The Alexander Romance by Ps.-Callisthenes: A Historical Commentary, Leiden/Boston. — 2017a = “The omina in Babylon and the death of Alexander the Great”, AMIT 47 (2015 [2017]): 159–170. — 2017b = “Seleukos I and the Origin of the Seleukid Dynastic Ideology”, SCI 36: 31–43. — 2018 = I Maccabees and the Alexander Romance”, in: K. Nawotka/R. Rollinger/J. Wiesehöfer/A. Wojciechowska (eds.), Historiography of Alexander the Great, Wiesbaden: 157–175. — 2019 = ”Apollo, the tutelary god of the Seleucids, and Demodamas of Miletus”, in: Z. Archibald and J. Haywood (eds.), The Power of Individual and Community in Ancient Athens and Beyond: Essays in Honour of John K. Davies, Swansea, 261–284. Nock 1928 = A.D. Nock, “Notes on Ruler-Cult. 4: Zeus Seleukios”, JHS 48: 41–42. Ogden 1999 = D. Ogden, Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties, Swansea. — 2017 =The Legend of Seleucus: Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World, Cambridge. Olszewski/Saad 2017 = M.T. Olszewski/H. Saad, “Interpol à la recherche d’une mosaïque volée à Apamée en Syrie: ‘La fondation d’Antioche’”, Archéologia 551: 4–5. — 2018 = “Pella-Apamée sur l’Oronte et ses héros fondateurs à la lumière d’une source historique inconnue: une mosaïque d’Apamée”, in: M.P. Castiglioni et al. (eds.), Héros fondateurs et identités communautaires dans l’Antiquité entre mythe, rite et politique, Perugia, 365–408. O’Neil 2002 = J.L. O’Neil, “Iranian Wives and their Roles in Macedonian Royal Courts”, Prudentia 34: 159–77. Oost 1957 = S.I. Oost, “Amynander, Athamania, and Rome”, CPh 52:1–15. Palmer/Hoyland/Brock 1993 = A. Palmer/R.G. Hoyland/S.P. Brock, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, Liverpool. Panagiotis/Lorber 2007 = I. Panagiotis/C. Lorber, “Laodikai and the Goddess Nikephoros”, AC 76: 63–88. Reinink 1992 = G.J. Reinink, “Ps.-Methodius: A Concept of History in Response to the Rise of Islam”, in: A. Cameron/L.I. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East, I: Problems in the Literary Source Material, Princeton, 149–187. Rice 1983 = E.E. Rice, The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Oxford. Rigsby 1980 = K.J. Rigsby, “Seleucid Notes”, TAPhA1980: 233–254. Romero-González 2019 = D. Romero-González, “As Alexander says. The Alexander-dream motif in Plutarch’s Successors’ Lives”, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 29: 155–163. Rostovtzeff 1935 = M.I. Rostovtzeff, “Πρόγονοι”, JHS 55: 56–66. — 1939 = “Le Gad de Doure et Seleucus Nicator”, in: Mélanges syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, par ses amis et ses élèves, vol. I, 281–295, Paris.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

100

Krzysztof Nawotka

Segre 1933 = M. Segre, “Pap. Gr. Vindob.”, RFIC 11: 225–226. Seibert 1984 = J. Seibert, “Das Testament Alexanders, ein Pamphlet aus der Frühzeit der Diadochenkämpfe?”, in: A. Kraus (ed.), Land und Reich, Stamm und Nation: Festgabe für Max Spindler, I, Munich, 247–260. Shahbazi 1977 = A.S. Shahbazi, “The ‘Traditional Date of Zoroaster’ Explained”, BSOAS 40: 25–35. Sherwin-White/Kuhrt 1993 = S. Sherwin-White/A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire, London. Strootman 2016 = R. Strootman, “The Heroic Company of My Forebears’: The Seleukid and Achaemenid Ancestor Galleries of Antiochos I of Kommagene at Nemrut Dağı and the Role of Royal Women in the Transmission of Hellenistic Kingship”, in: A. Coşkun/A. McAuley (eds.), Seleukid Royal Women: Creation, Representation and Distortion of Hellenistic Queenship in the Seleukid Empire, Stuttgart, 209–233. Tarn 1929 = W.W. Tarn, “Queen Ptolemais and Apama”, CQ 23: 138–141. Tondriau 1948 = J. Tondriau, “Souverains et souveraines séleucides en divinités”, Muséon 61: 171–182. Wallace 2018 = S. Wallace, “Metalexandron: Receptions of Alexander in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds”, in: K.R. Moore (ed.) Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great, Leiden/Boston, 162–196. Waterfield 2011 = R. Waterfield, Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great’s Empire, Oxford. Wilcken 1894 = U. Wilcken, “Amynandros”, in: RE I, 2004–2005. Wójcikowski 2017 = R.S. Wójcikowski, “Zeus Aëtophoros in the Coinage of Seleucus I Nicator”, Notae Numismaticae 12: 51–70. Zahle 1990 = J. Zahle, “Religious Motifs on Seleucid Coins”, in: P. Bilde (ed.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, Aarhus, 125–139.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: Embedding Capitals in the Hellenizing Near East Vito Messina

Introduction In recent literature, the Hellenistic, or perhaps better, the “Hellenizing” world has been often defined as a large connective network. 1 Connectivity stimulated cultural interplay and the interrelation of societies. Such an interplay is witnessed by documents of more ancient date, but it is generally shared that it never reached the expansion, complexity, and social diffusion that both sources and materiality show for the Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic periods. New cities were founded, and pre-existing road systems were greatly enhanced to foster and speed-up connections at a global scale. This was crucial for trades, but it also led to new challenges in the administration of entangled political and social entities. The cities founded then are not completely understood as interrelated phenomena due to the complexity of the world system in which they were established and the incomplete information to process. In this paper the case of one of the most important cities of the Hellenizing world, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, is addressed based on cross analysis of different types of data, with the purpose of verifying the effectiveness of interpretive models created for describing such a reality. Seleucia was claimed in antiquity – and is still considered in contemporaneity  –  as one of the largest urban contexts of the ancient world.  It was founded in Babylonia in the decades that followed the death of Alexander and its foundation deeply impacted on pre-existing contexts. Literary, epigraphic and, especially, archaeological records will be overviewed also considering that our understanding of this phenomenon has been greatly influenced by a retrospective perception of ancient Near Eastern cities that changed over time.

1 See for all Appadurai 1986; LaBianca/Scham 2006; Erskine/Llewellyn-Jones 2011; Versluys 2014; Pitts/Versluys 2015, and previous bibliography there cited.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

102

Vito Messina

The Foundation of New Capitals in the Hellenizing World One of the most striking features of the Hellenizing world was the foundation ex-novo of cities that, because of their unprecedented size, ideological importance, and political significance, impacted social and environmental contexts deeply, often modifying pre-existing backgrounds. These cities are frequently defined as ‘capitals’ in literature because of their preeminence; it is, however, also well known that in most cases there is no evidence that they really kept the status of capitals. Because of their size, these new foundations are often defined as ‘mega-sites’ in modern terms: indeed, they were key nodes of a global network, points at which social, economic, political, and cultural edges intersected in a growing loop. Their gravitational attraction and propensity to connectedness allowed new concepts and forms of expression to spread everywhere and become global. Capitals were founded in different regions of what was called the oikoumene and the echoes in known sources allow one to think that the impact they had on pre-existing backgrounds was likewise perceived as a huge phenomenon in antiquity. The ancient Near East took an active part in this process. However, the cities founded there are still largely undervalued by a rooted tradition of classical studies, and the same underestimation can be seen in studies conducted by scholars of the ancient Near East. The main reason for this disregard is that such foundations are perceived neither as typical Greek nor as typical Near Eastern cities. Indeed, they embodied characteristics originated in different cultural milieus, and were places of interaction processes that allow us to recognize them as global phenomena. It has been stressed that these foundations are hardly understandable out of the context in which they were located, and that they must be thus considered as Near Eastern cities, but they bore novelties that are the outcome, among others, of a so definable Greek matrix. Unquestionably, the way we look at these cities is also the result of a changing perception. The Changing Perception of Ancient Near Eastern Cities Our perception of ancient Near Eastern cities has continuously changed over time and has had a tremendous influence on the evaluation of complex phenomena related to our understanding of the past. 2 An overview of research so far conducted, though extremely short, clearly illustrates how much our perception changed in consequence of evolving trends, often originating in the cultural and scholarly mainstream, rather than of factual evidence exclusively. The rediscovery of ancient civilizations of Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, Central Asia, and the Indian Subcontinent satisfied interests initially developed in an erudite milieu. However, the first archaeological explorations conducted between 2 What is probably the most important and exhaustive overview of the matter has been recently published by Mario Liverani (Liverani 2013).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

103

the second half of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century allowed an unprecedented awareness to grow among the brand-new community of scholars devoted to the ancient Near East. Such awareness was based on astonishing evidence that was progressively brought to light and examined – at first, especially of architectural type: buildings and complexes of buildings of great dimension were discovered in places formerly seen as legendary, like Babylon and Nineveh, but also in lesser known or unknown sites that became crucial to our knowledge. Excavations that are inconceivable today for their extension and the number of workers involved allowed the identification of structures largely made of mudbrick and once kept under continuous maintenance to endure: clay was indeed the most common building material that could be found in alluvial plains, and its stratification after decay is the reason why archaeological sites are there so clearly recognizable. The first generation of archaeologists dealing with architectural stratigraphy was thus able to identify the traces of cities inhabited for millennia, literally founded “in the dust”. 3 Despite the first impression of ephemerality made by ruins of mud brick structures on the culture of the 20th century – especially when compared to the evocative ruins of classical antiquity – the perceivable former grandness of temples and palaces progressively unearthed, dating from the fourth millennium BCE to the Islamic period, greatly impacted European society. Thus, it is not surprising to see that drawings made by Walter Andrae to recreate the wonder of Assyrian façades, or watercolors made by Maurice Pillet to show the grandeur of Achaemenid royal halls, are sometimes recalled in digressions on important cultural and artistic trends of the time, such as the Bauhaus and Art Nouveau. 4 The diffusion of disciplines emphasizing the complex structure of modern societies as the result of evolutionary processes – first of all, sociology – affected the study of the ancient ones and led to perceive the presence of great religious complexes in ancient Near Eastern cities as evidence of societies depending on temple institutions – especially those dated to far older periods Such a perception evolved in the definition of the ‘Sumerian Temple City,’ while the need for understanding ancient societies as complex structures probably encouraged the formulation of the concept of ‘Urban Revolution.’ 5 Based on pivotal studies conducted by Vere Gordon Childe, Urban Revolution gave a justification for the appearance of cities in the Near East far before other areas of civilization, and it also inaugurated the great season of theoretical models: these allowed processual approaches to be developed for addressing cultural adaptation to systemic changes. Near Eastern cities – consequently redefined as cities-states – were thus seen as the outcome of a primary and secondary urbanization, in the context of models that assumed the existence of urbanization cycles. 6 Economic theory also influenced our perception of ancient Near Eastern cities: indeed, urbanization cycles could be seen, in a marked environment, as the result of expan3 An iconic book by Seton Lloyd on the story of archaeological exploration of Mesopotamia is indeed so titled (Lloid 1947). 4 See for all Liverani 2013, 77–84. 5 Falkenstein 1974. 6 For an overview of processual approaches to ancient Near Eastern cities see Trigger 2008.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

104

Vito Messina

sionism made possible by trade routes. Human geography and cultural ecology allowed the adaptation of the concept of ‘Centre and Periphery’ to the context of the ancient Near East, especially thanks to the first settlement models proposed by Robert McCormick Adams. 7 These models moved processual approaches forward and led scholars to deal for the first time with diachronic systems at a regional scale. Complex systems were thus envisioned as post-processual approaches to the study of ancient cities, which took environmental cycles, crises, collapses, societal challenges, and resilience into new consideration: drastic changes in human settlements and social structures over considerable areas for extended periods of time became the main focuses of such an approach, with the purpose of recognizing society’s response to challenges and adaptation. 8 In studies on ancient Near Eastern cities, foundations dated to the Hellenistic period have been –  and still are  – largely neglected. As a phenomenon originated in a global context of considerable complexity, these foundations are left behind by classical scholars, because of their remote location from the Mediterranean and because they hardly fit the ideal model of the ‘polis’ completely; they are likewise left behind by scholars of the ancient Near East, because of their late chronology and because they seem to break the local tradition and, thus, bring a millenary experience to an end. Indeed, they appear too complex to approach and, as a result, their importance is generally underestimated, if not ignored. As a matter of fact, they show peculiarities that appear as a novelty in the ancient Near East: it has been many times stressed for instance that, as a rule, the urban layout of these new foundations was envisioned to embody public spaces, such as agorai and theaters, that were unattested in the local milieu; however, they also reveal features that rather seem originated, and understandable, precisely in that milieu. This apparent dichotomy was analyzed from a ‘Continuity and Change’ perspective that also took the Achaemenid experience into account, 9 but it appears that the aspect of change is still predominant in literature: this perception is arguably made stronger by the fact that these cities were foundations ex novo. Indeed, processual and post-processual approaches share the general view that the establishment of a new foundation marks de facto a caesura, a change with pre-existing contexts, and this appears true not only for the ancient Near East – think to Alexandria, for instance. To which degree such caesurae can be deemed as real phenomena or as the outcome of our changing perception of ancient Near Eastern cities is a matter of discussion. Be that as it may, the caesurae perceived by modern observers between new foundations and pre-existing contexts led to speculation of whether changes were intentional or not. A model that makes a synthesis of our changing perceptions of ancient Near Eastern cities and new foundations, also addressing the possibility of intentionality behind changes, is that of “disembedded capitals”.

7 See Adams 1981 in particular. 8 For post-processual, environmental, and socio-natural approaches see Fisher/Brett Hill/Feinman 2009. 9 See for instance Sancisi-Weerdenburg/Kuhrt/Cool Root 2004.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

105

The Model of “Disembedded Capitals” In two seminal articles on settlement models derived from processual approaches, Robert Stanley (initially) and Alexander Joffe (later) devised and discussed the model of disembedded capitals to explain the caesurae between new foundations and pre-existing contexts 10. According to them – Joffe in particular – disembedded capitals were urban sites founded ex novo and designed to supplant existing patterns of authority and administration, a frequently used strategy in developed state systems, especially in Western Asia and Egypt. In this view, which still echoes models developed by social ecology, foundations ex novo were emanations of new elites to create new patterns of allegiance and authority and found a new power base. Based on examples from Egypt and Mesopotamia, especially of ethnohistoric type, Stanley and Joffe emphasized general, common, organizational, ideological, and ecological features to build their model; however, they were not able to explain all the complex phenomena that had origins with new foundations. Indeed, Joffe argued that, while intended to break away from pre-existing contexts, disembedded capitals, which would have been in this way disconnected from the local matrix from a cultural, social, and economic point of view, must have been necessarily re-embedded into pre-existing structures to function. In brief, disembedded capitals were short-lived phenomena which tended to create long-term societal challenges. Common features of disembedded capitals were, according to the latest version by Joffe: 11 (1) the fact that a site was newly founded, or greatly expanded, in a particular period; (2) the fact that a site was founded or expanded by new socio-political or ethnic groups; 12 (3) a visible shift in regional settlement patterns; (4) centralized administrative activities; (5) the sudden appearance or an increase in flows of specialized materials; (6) the presence of military equipment and personnel within the new site; (7) shifts in the evidence for political legitimation; 13 (8) the association of religious and palatial institutions; (9) and an urban pattern in which residential, administrative, and royal elements are rigidly planned. In his analysis, Joffe acknowledges that it is not always easy to recognize beyond any doubt a disembedded capital through intensive or extensive surveys, for surface data collected at a site reveal distinctive peculiarities and variabilities that are different from one site to another, so that – once processed – they allow, as a rule, to find matches with some model criteria but not with all. 14 Documentary sources and data sampled through excavation are as well critically considered, for they are unlikely to provide overt indications of a political nature. However, this criticism is directed to the effectiveness of analyses based on incomplete data of various nature, rather than to the effectiveness of the model 10 11 12 13

Santley 1980; Joffe 1998. Joffe 1998, 551. Shown by changes in material culture, architecture, and administrative practices. Shown by new iconographies, production techniques, a new symbolic vocabulary, or the distinctive combination of new and old elements. 14 Joffe 1998, 571–572.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

106

Vito Messina

itself: if affordable data on administrative, ideological and spatial characteristics of new foundations are available to be examined, the model is supposed to describe effectively whether they break existing matrices of power or not, and thus how much they fit into the definition of disembedded capital. According to this model, it appears that new foundations were envisioned by new elites as means through which power could be disembedded, and were built with the purpose of creating a shift, a change of the status quo, no matter the costs this change would have been in terms of economic, cultural and social challenges. The model also predicts, as a rule, that a disembedded foundation should have been re-embedded into the pre-existing background to function, even if the model itself does not investigate how: this appears as a logical consideration for it is hard to conceive a city completely and continuously disconnected – or disembedded – from the context in which it is located. Thus, whether one acknowledges that a foundation was envisioned to be disembedded or not, there can be little doubt that, for the model, at the end of its life every city was (re)embedded in its context, regardless of what elites proposed at its foundation. Along with the common features identified by Joffe, what is crucial for the model validation is hence to establish, as far as possible, if a new foundation was conceived and built to be disembedded. This said, probably to mitigate the incoherence existing between disembedding and re-embedding processes, Joffe admits that it is hard to imagine a capital wholly disembedded: political entities and their centers of power have complex networks of institutions, procedures, and traditions that cannot be completely disconnected from pre-existing backgrounds. 15 Although new elites may have been inclined to mark a rupture with the past, they also used existing traditions and institutions to provide legitimation.  Is this always true? Is this intentional rupture a peculiarity of all new elites? Is this model applicable to every regional and chronological context of the ancient Near East? As it is well known, models are useful to some extent when they describe very general trends. Exceptions often occur because of the complexity of the reality that models try to describe. If we look at some examples of the Near East in given periods it seems that every effort was made by new elites to embed new foundations in local contexts rather than disembedding. Seleucia-on-the-Tigris is one of these examples. Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: An Embedded Capital? Seleucia-on-the-Tigris was understood to be one of the largest urban contexts of the ancient world by several ancient authors. 16 It was founded by Seleucus I in Babylonia at the very end of the 4th century BCE. 17 The new foundation was envisioned as the main center 15 Ibid., 573 16 According to some scholars (see for all Invernizzi 1994, 2), Seleucia was envisioned to rival other major centers of the Hellenizing world, like Alexandria, and this is the reason why it was claimed by authors such as Pliny and Strabo as the third great capital of their times. 17 On the date of the city foundation, see Hadley 1978.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

107

Fig. 1: Area of Al-Mada’in. Map. Elaborated by C. Bonfanti, F. Chiabrando, and the author.

of the so-called Upper Satrapies of the Seleucid kingdom. Its position, size, and ideological meaning allow us to define it as one of the major centers of the Hellenizing world; however, the centrality of Seleucia is also revealed by its political importance and social complexity. The ruins of Seleucia are still well visible on the west bank of the Tigris, about 30 km south of present-day Baghdad. 18 The area is known in Arabic as ‘Al-Mada’in’, ‘the cities’ 18 Along with the majestic remains of monuments famous in the area, like the Taq-e Kisra, the site of Seleucia attracted the attention of modern travellers and archaeologists since the beginnings of the European re-discovery of the ancient Near East (see Messina 2017, 55–57 and the bibliography there cited). Not to mention 16th or 17th century travellers, like Pietro della Valle, we can at least

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

108

Vito Messina

Fig. 2: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. Italian excavations in the North agora, 1964. Remains of the theatre at tell ‘Umar. © archive of the CRAST.

(fig. 1). The site, extending for hundreds of hectares, is unencumbered by modern occupation, though some areas have become fields for agricultural activities and have been progressively enlarged down to present day. Excavations were conducted at the site by two expeditions: the American joint expedition of the University of Michigan and the Museums of Toledo and Cleveland, 19 which worked continuously from 1927 to 1936, and the Italian expedition of the Centro Ricerche Archeologiche e Scavi di Torino per il Medio Oriente e l’Asia (CRAST), which worked from 1963 to 1976 and resumed field activity from 1985 to 1989 (fig. 2). 20 Materials of various types were recovered in large quantities, and different buildings were brought to light by both expeditions: public buildings like the theater, the stoa, and the city archive were unearthed in the so-called north agora by the Italian team (fig. 4). A dwelling block – the so-called block G6 – was excavated by the American made reference to Claudius James Rich, who described the area and proposed for the first time the identification of the ruins of Seleucia during its famous travel to Babylon (one of the experiences leading to the establishment of the British residency in Baghdad), to Ernst Herzfeld, who did travel there before turning to Iran, and to Gertrude Bell, who visited the area repeatedly, sometimes even accompanying king Faisal. 19 Waterman 1931; Waterman 1933; Hopkins 1972. 20 Preliminary reports on the Italian excavations at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris were published from 1966 to 1990 in the Journal Mesopotamia. Final reports on some operations were published by Messina 2006 and Messina 2010.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

109

team. Workshops were identified by both teams, not to mention the remains of what was recognized as a bouleuterion and of a small temple of Mesopotamian type. Architectural remains span from the Seleucid to the Parthian periods and the materials found at the site provide information on the city life, society, and artistic production. These materials reveal in their making different backgrounds and trends, which not only coexisted but rather converged and interacted. The quality of information they embody is characterized by a high degree of complexity, because their features, occurrence, and Fig. 3: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. City contexts of finding allow the observation archive. Stamp of the salt-tax department on of dynamics across society. a clay sealing. © archive of the CRAST. Many official seal impressions of the Seleucid administration found at the site seem to demonstrate that the city flourished in the Seleucid period especially thanks to the salt trade: indeed thousands of such impressions belonged to the stamp of a Seleucid department in charge for the payment of, or exemption from, a tax on salt (fig. 3). 21 The city kept its importance, and the status of a polis, 22 even after the Parthian conquest of Mesopotamia in 141/140 BCE, as it seems shown by the presence of coin dies bearing the symbol of the city boulè. 23 Seleucia faced a period of crisis only in the 1st–2nd century CE when revolts against the Parthian crown led to the decision of transferring the seat of power to the nearby village of Ctesiphon. The latter was thus transformed into the new regional leading center. 24 The Seleucid foundation was then progressively abandoned as it seems shown by the increasing presence of unbuilt, ruralized, areas within the city. 25 As we will see, the foundation of Seleucia had a significant impact on Babylonia, especially on settlement patterns, and what can be inferred from known documents allow the observation of monumental programs for dynastic display and political legitimation – both of architectural and sculptural type: several Seleucid rulers appear to have been involved in these programs. One can mention, for instance, the celebrative program carried out by Antiochus I to glorify Seleucus I, the city and dynasty founder, displayed 21 Mollo 1996. 22 The city was governed by a complex of councils, some of which of Greek origin and characteristic of a polis. According to Plutarch and Tacitus, Seleucia had a gerousia of 300 members (Plu., Crass., 32; Tac., Ann., 6,42). The presence of a boulè is postulated based on coin dies that bear the legend of this assembly (Le Rider 1998, 24, 58); but see also Polyb., 5,54,10. for other civic councils. 23 Le Rider 1998, 82–85. 24 On the city history see the very recent and succinct overview by Hauser 2020. 25 This is particularly evident in archaeological layers close to the surface (Messina 2006, 124).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

110

Vito Messina

Fig. 4: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. City layout further to recent observations. Elaborated by E. Foietta and the author.

as a divine being. 26 The city layout and buildings also testify to the existence of complexes in which different functions converged. Seleucia is a mega-site: observations recently made on still unpublished declassified aerial imagery allow us to say that the city extended at least for 700 hectares (fig. 4). 27 26 A celebrative sculptural programme was carried out at Seleucia to present Seleucus I as a superhuman being by using the local divine attribute of forehead horns, as evidence of iconographic type and some passages in Greek sources lead one to think (Messina 2004). This also implies the appropriation of a concept that had already been developed in the Achaeemenid milieu: that of the royal hero. This could have led to the invention of a tradition that justified the divine and heroic celebration of Seleucus for redefining dynastic identity: this tradition was based on the figure of the hero defeating wild animals or monsters –which symbolized chaos in Babylonia and Iran–, and this figure survived in later sources (Messina 2011). 27 These observations have been made in the frame of a study, still ongoing and only partially published, on the topography and settlement of the area of Al-Mada’in, in which Seleucia is located.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

111

There is no known comparable site in the Hellenizing Near East. Alexandria and Antioch lay under modern cities and their extension is a matter of speculation; Babylon and Nineveh, which have comparable extensions, can be hardly defined as entirely built sites. The preliminary examination of the city’s main features allows an observer to see how much the case of Seleucia seems to match with that of a disembedded capital as it is defined by the model outlined by Stanley and Joffe. In particular: (1) Seleucia was founded ex novo in the Seleucid period; (2) it was founded by a new ruling dynasty; (3) it produced a visible shift in regional settlement patterns; (4) it was a place of centralized administrative activities; (5) it shows the appearance of specialized activities, as for instance that of the salt trade; (6) it shows the presence of various types of specialized groups, particularly those of professional traders and administration officers; (7) it testifies to the existence of programs for political legitimation; (8) it shows the association of religious and city institutions; (9) and it was built basing on a urban scheme in which residential, religious and administrative buildings have been rigidly planned.However, when documents of various types from the site are taken into consideration, the overall situation of Seleucia appears far more complex than that of a disembedded capital, and the latter model does not seem to describe the city’s reality effectively, or in its entirety. The way the new city impacted Babylonia appears to fit quite well with the concept of a disembedded foundation, that is, because it changed the setting of a quite wide area in the region; however, other indicators demand more careful considerations, especially when attempting to investigate the purpose of elites who envisioned and implemented this foundation. The intentional creation of a disembedded city by new elites of power is indeed hard to recognize, but, it nonetheless seems possible to see the intentional creation of an embedded foundation. Seleucia was founded at the center of a system of land and water routes that fostered connections among the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian plateau. The place for the city’s foundation was chosen very carefully: this was the point where the Nahr Malkha – the royal canal known from Babylonian records — joined the river Tigris to the Euphrates. The area changed radically after the foundation of Seleucia. A multi-temporal approach to the study of the paleo-canals and paleo-riverbeds including a basis in ground surveys and archaeological evidence, allows us to verify that a branch of the Nahar Malkha was diverted for digging a canal that flowed longitudinally into the city to reach the Tigris. 28 Such a diversion caused the displacement of an existing waterway 800 meters to the north and allowed the city builders to lay foundations of Seleucia in the

This is conducted by a research group of the University of Torino in the frame of the projects ALAI ‘Archaeological Landscapes of Ancient Iraq between Prehistory and the Islamic period: Formation, Transformation, Protection and Management’ (PRIN 2015 20154X49JT – SH6), directed by D. Morandi Bonacossi, and ‘La città ellenistica. Nuovi approcci all’urbanistica dell’Oriente seleucide: il caso di Seleucia al Tigri’ (The Hellenistic city. New approaches to the cities of the Near East in the Seleucid period. The case of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris), directed by the present author. 28 Bonfanti et al. 2014, 258–261; Chiabrando et al. 2017, 167–169.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

112

Vito Messina

Fig. 5: Area of Al-Mada’in. Multi-temporal approach to the paleo-canals and paleo-riverbeds based on a 1966 Corona satellite image. Elaborated by the author.

only point of the area that rises for meters above the Tigris’ west bank in order to prevent flooding as well as they could (fig. 5). 29 The foundation of the city had a huge impact on the hydrogeological setting of the area and modified the regional landscape. Canals were diverted and new waterways excavated, but it is also possible to discern the reclamation of land after the river’s floods. Studies on this topic were conducted with ground surveys, remote sensing observations, and textual evidence from Babylonia. The latter evidence, namely cuneiform texts on clay tablets coming from known Seleucid archival contexts or dispersed in collections, allowed scholars to propose the reconstruction of the regional setting, exploitation, and economy. 30 The cross-examination of various documents allowed some questions to be thoroughly addressed, particularly about the possibility that cities like Seleucia could be fed by their own hinterlands or rather thanks to imports at a large scale. Studies on the price of grain in Hellenizing Babylonia based on known texts and the review of known surveys led some scholars to argue that central Mesopotamia experienced a period of in29 Other solutions were experimented to prevent public buildings from flooding and water table humidity: for instance, inner floors were raised-up in some public buildings, like the archive (Messina 2006, 57). 30 See for all Monerie 2018 and the corpora of texts and bibliography there cited.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

113

tensification of settlement and of agricultural production. 31 This seems corroborated by landscape studies based on multi-temporal approach and on the analysis of different data coming from historical cartography, remote sensing, excavations, and ground surveys. Such studies postulate that the establishment of a site like Seleucia in central Babylonia generated a process of land-catching leading to the evaporation of middle-size settlements over an area of considerable extension – likely more than 40,000 hectares. 32 This evaporation fits well with the agricultural intensive growth postulated based on texts: there was only one mega-site in the area, Seleucia, and a constellation of small settlements that gravitated around it, probably for the management and cultivation of extensive fields. Along with radical landscape changes, there is another impact we may see through the examination of known records: the impact such a new foundation had on the economy of the region. 33 Cuneiform sources and numismatic evidence allowed scholars to define patterns of rupture, transformation, and continuity in several aspects of the regional economy. Three aspects appear particularly interrelated: (1) royal economy, (2) exchange economy, and (3) sanctuary economy. As for the royal economy, sources show elements of continuity with previous periods – in particular, the period of the Achaemenid rule – but it seems that these mainly concern agricultural structures and facilities in some areas. 34 Other aspects appear to distinguish the royal Seleucid economy from the pre-existing situation: first, the introduction of cash currency, and second, the close relationship between royal power and local communities, as evinced by land donations to old towns. 35 The exchange economy experienced a radical change with the introduction of a mixed monetary system combining Attic and local standards with currency equivalences: the mint of Seleucia is supposed to have played a pivotal role in this process. 36 The sanctuary economy testifies to the integration of prebendaries into the so-called kurummātu system, resulting in the great decrease of direct payments and to the transformation of previous management methods. The link between royal power and sanctuaries is also attested during the first period of the Seleucid domination and it appears that priests and temple notables largely benefited from the euergetism of early Seleucid sovereigns. 37 From this point of view, donations to temples were part of a political strategy for the administration of traditional towns in the region. 31 This could have allowed cities like Seleucia and Babylon to be fed by their own hinterlands (see for all van der Spek 2008, 40–42). 32 See Chiabrando et al. 2017, 169 on this aspect. 33 For a general overview, see Monerie 2018, 436–441 and the references there made. 34 On the other hand, it must be said that it is hard to think that such facilities and structures could have been radically upset in such a short time. This could have happened only in areas when mega-sites’ foundations impacted on the previous setting, like the area where Seleucia was founded. 35 This must have been a clear choice made by the crown, for these donations seem to have reduced the size of the royal domain substantially. 36 It appears that a fixed equivalence rate of two drachmas for one shekel was in use, and that currencies were almost immediately counted also by non-Greek users. 37 Particularly the first Seleucid sovereigns appear to have favored the great temples of the region, taking care of restorations, and maintaining their economic situation.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

114

Vito Messina

The foundation of Seleucia does not seem to have had direct influence on latter dynamics, however, centralized activities that took place in the city archive testify to the close relation between the former and decentralized temple administrations. More visible changes can be dated from the 2nd century BCE onwards, when the transformation of centers like Babylon and Uruk into poleis could have allowed a transfer of political importance from sanctuaries to city institutions. As a matter of fact, temples seem to have lost their influence considerably at the turn of the Christian era. The overall impression from these considerations might, at first glance, suggest that Seleucia corresponds to the definition of a disembedded capital. Such an impression is given by the clearly perceivable impact the foundation of Seleucia had in terms of land use, changes in the hydrogeological setting of the area, and, consequently, on the economy of the region. Is the impact we perceive a consequence of an intentional choice, made by the new ruling dynasty, of founding a disembedded capital, a city disconnected from the local matrix, which marked the discontinuity with the past? The latter is indeed the only question to answer when trying to validate the model by Stanley and Joffe. If one looks at available information comprehensively, the more probable answer is no. When the known documents are examined, it seems that the city planners and builders tried to foster connectedness and to find a more affordable way for feeding such a big city. The efforts made to establish a mega-site like Seleucia in the place where it was located were huge: new waterways were excavated, new solutions were trialed for preventing the flooding of city blocks, public buildings, temples, dwelling-blocks, and a number of other structures were built on a scale of unprecedented size. The reward for these efforts was to command a pivotal network node between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, bridging the Levant to the Iranian Plateau and Central Asia. The extent to which this intuition was successful is revealed by the fact that, after Seleucia, also other major capitals  –  Ctesiphon, Weh-Ardaxshir, Weh-Andiog-Husraw, and later Baghdad  –  were founded in the same area. 38 Thus, the foundation of Seleucia appears to have been a model that was followed for centuries, far after the Seleucid period, and by other ruling dynasties including the Arsacids, Sasanians and Abbasids. Based on these considerations, it is hard to define Seleucia as a disembedded capital, namely a city intentionally founded to mark a discontinuity with the past. On the contrary, is it possible to recognize instead the intention of embedding the new foundation in the local matrix? Seleucia became the main Seleucid center of inner Asia and the residence of Seleucus’ son and co-regent, Antiochus – later, Antiochus I. The fact that such an important political and ideological center was founded in Babylonia is, among other reasons, the consequence of a clear choice made by the Seleucid court. This choice was probably one of the outcomes of a favorable policy toward Babylonia and Babylonian institutions. It is generally accepted that Seleucus I ascended the throne of Asia thanks to the support of Babylonian elites and priests, for his political career began when he was the satrap of Bab38 The region where Seleucia was founded became one of the larger urban contexts in antiquity (Messina 2017).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

115

ylon. 39 Indeed, the foundation of Seleucia did not bring about the end of pre-existing cities: Babylon, Nippur and Uruk, among others, continued to exist as important religious and administrative centers. 40 From this point of view, both historical and archaeological evidence seem to suggest that, along with the propensity of the region to connectedness, the foundation of Seleucia was primarily an ideological act of Seleucus I for emphasizing a conceptual link between its new foundation, Babylon and Babylonia. This link, which one is induced to gauge as an intentional strategy, did stimulate, and was stimulated by, the influence of the local background, to the extent that it is hard to interpret Seleucus I’s foundation exclusively as a Greek city – notwithstanding that Seleucia had the status of a polis. Antiochus I arguably carried out a celebrative architectural and sculptural program that aimed at celebrating the founder of the city and of the Seleucid dynasty as a deity by using local divine attributes. 41 Indeed, the monumentalization of the city is to a large extent the consequence of a royal dynastic project that, after Antiochus, lasted for generations. The trends that can be identified in monumental architecture allow the reconstruction of a set of symbols that were purposely used for propaganda: Greek and Babylonian elements were combined for the Seleucid dynastic display. 42 As ground surveys conducted at the site clearly show, the layout of Seleucia is of the so-called Hippodamian type, with a rational space-distribution of public spaces and dwelling-blocks: a large canal, flowing east-westwards, divided the city grid into two halves. 43 The city plan also reveals intentional recalls to the Babylonian milieu in its project and monumental setting, however, as some buildings reveal. 44 Excavations in the so-called north agora allowed archaeologists to unearth buildings that reproduced models almost everywhere attested in the Hellenizing world, like the stoa and theater, but also the presence of types that are rather local (fig. 6). The theater was constructed in the same complex that also incorporated a small Mesopotamian temple. The stoa was built so as to face the city archive: this is a building with a modular layout based on the typology of the so-called 39 Greek Authors, such as Diodorus (Diod., 19:91) and Plutarch (Demetr., 18, 2), emphasized the importance of the local support against Antigonus for the succession of Seleucus in Babylonia during the wars of the Diadochi. A reconstruction of the events leading to the accession of Seleucus in 312–305 BCE has been outlined by Mehl 1986, 29–103. 40 At Uruk, local elites of power continued to keep their privileged role in the city administration and traditional temple practices were supported by the new rulers, as is well known (see for all Funck 1984). 41 As already said, Antiochus was resident in Seleucia during the co-regency and this program coherently appears to have been started there (see footnote 26 for further details and bibliography). 42 It is hazardous to consider these sets of symbols as evidence for the construction of a multiple identity; however, it seems at least probable that they could have been part of a strategy aiming at accommodating the multifarious identities of the city and, in so doing, trying to gain the consensus of these identities. 43 Topographic surveys conducted by Giorgio Gullini in 1967 and Clark Hopkins in 1972 revealed that the city was planned on a regular grid of streets and rectangular dwelling-blocks of about 144 × 72 m (Gullini 1967, 140–142, fig. 285; Hopkins 1972, 1–7): these correspond to 550 × 250 Attic-Ionic feet. 44 Messina 2011, 164–165.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

116

Vito Messina

Fig. 6: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. DEM of the North agora on a 2012 WW2 satellite image. Elaborated by the author.

Zingel, precincts of Babylonian sanctuaries (fig. 7). 45 All these buildings were made following the local mud brick technique, using both Greek and Babylonian standards of measure. 46 The space allotment in regular blocks was ruled by the Attic-Ionic feet system, but Babylonian measures could be used in the distribution of spaces within the blocks. Thus, it appears that Greek and Babylonian elements were incorporated in the city layout since it was conceived by its founder and planners, and, in the end, that Seleucia was envisioned to embody diverse building traditions. The coexistence of buildings of different backgrounds in the north agora, the most important public space of the city, seems to be the consequence of a deliberate choice made by the Seleucid apparatus for conveying messages in a frame of propagandistic legitimation. The display of power is here conveyed by the coexistence and interaction of Hellenizing and Babylonian matrices as expressed by building traditions. Such an interaction seems also verifiable from ideological and institutional points of view. Greek institutions, like the boule, were involved in the government of the city. The new foundation was also labeled in a local ideological frame, however; in cuneiform sources Seleucia is indeed designated as ‘āl-Šarrūti,’ 47 the 45 Messina 2006, 57–66. 46 Observations on the size of bricks used in different buildings unearthed at Seleucia allowed the reconstruction of standards of measure in architecture (Messina 2010, 148–152). 47 Smith 1924, 155,

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

117

Fig. 7: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. City archive. Axonometric rendering of the building interior. Elaborated by the author.

city of kingship, and it is openly assimilated with Babylon by Greek authors. 48 This Akkadian designation, conforming with traditional local practices, conferred royal dignity to the city and has led to see Seleucus I acting as a Babylonian king, not only as a successor of Alexander, by founding his own capital. 49 Greek sources seem to show that the conceptual link between Babylon and Seleucia was established by Seleucus I himself, who transferred the basileion from the former to the latter, as if Seleucia was indeed created to be perceived as a new Babylon. 50 On these premises, a link with the local matrix seems to have been clearly established by the Seleucid court. Different types of documents lead us to suppose that Seleucia was intentionally embedded in the local matrix, especially for political reasons – i.e., propagandistic legitimation. The intention of the city founder and planners, in the case of Seleucia, was to mark a continuity – not a discontinuity – with the glorious past of Babylonia. The ‘New Babylon’ was conceptually linked with the old one, even if it bore the name of its founder, and was founded in a position considered far more convenient for long-distance connectedness. The link and assimilation of Seleucia with Babylon were also perceived as such in antiquity by some observers, as several passages in literary and epigraphic sources

48 Plin. Nat. Hist. 6,122; Strab. 16,744. According to Pliny, the city “(…) tamen Babylonia cognominatur”; according to Strabo, the inhabitants of Seleucia called themselves Babylonians. For cuneiform sources, see Sherwin-White 1983, 269–370, with selected bibliography. 49 Invernizzi 1993, 235. 50 Strab. 16,738.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

118

Vito Messina

seem to show. 51 That said, it must be also stressed that it is extremely hard to verify whether the intentions of the new ruling elites had an effect in terms of propagandistic legitimation or not. In other words, if the attempt to found a new capital embedded in the Babylonian matrix was positively perceived by those who settled in the city and in the region. There are no historical records that allow us to measure in some way the effectiveness of such a policy. Some passages in cuneiform clay tablets of the Hellenistic period from Babylonia  –  especially Babylon  –  and South Mesopotamia  –  almost exclusively Uruk – refer to offerings brought before the statues of Seleucid rulers and we do know on the basis of iconographic evidence, that sometimes these rulers were displayed as superhuman beings in a local manner: this has led us to suppose that the possibility of a local ruler cult for Seleucid kings must be seriously taken into account. 52 However, the occurrence of these passages in known documents is low, and not enough to measure the success of a policy of embedding. The only indication on this matter, and not a conclusive one, is given by materiality. Archaeological materials show that processes of interaction between different cultural backgrounds affected the city society at all levels at Seleucia. The products of visual arts in particular reveal that diverse trends spread in the city and that external inputs coexisted with local productions. The most diffused class of figurative materials found at the site, namely clay sealings – bearing figurative seal impressions – and terracotta figurines, reveal that Greek, Babylonian, and Iranian visual lexica were combined in the making of new subjects. In some cases, it is debatable whether such processes of interaction were fostered by the Seleucid court, but instead were spontaneous phenomena. Be that as it may, it seems that sets of symbols derived from different matrices accommodated the different cultural backgrounds of the city inhabitants. To what extent was the city society receptive to these sets of combined symbols? Figurative seals on clay sealings – all dated to the Seleucid period – show a plethora of different subjects mainly derived from the Greek visual lexicon; however, several subjects can be also seen that rather derive from Babylonian and Iranian lexica (fig. 8). 53 Seals were used by contracting parties, private individuals, or professional witnesses. The users of these seals are thus representative only of a part of the city society: notables, officers, or specialized circles of users – like those of traders and witnesses. Thus, figurative seals do provide insights into the choices of restricted groups within the city elite, or at least a part of it. On the seals used by these groups, subjects derived from the Greek visual lexicon are widely attested: Greek gods, heroes, or mythological scenes seem to reveal the full adoption of 51 See footnote 48. 52 Linssen 2004, 124–128. 53 Clay sealings are uneven lumps of clay that were applied to the strings tightening folded documents (parchments and, in far smaller numbers, papyri): on their surface stamps or seals were impressed to avoid access to the tightened documents. Thousands of sealings were found at Seleucia: a few hundred in two small private archives unearthed by the American team (McDowell 1935), more than 25,000 in the city archive discovered by the Italian team (Bollati/Messina/Mollo 2004). Many seal impressions belong to stamps of a Seleucid salt-tax department (see footnote 21), the others were left by figurative seals.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

119

Fig. 8: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. City archive. Seal impressions on clay sealings: on the l., standing Dionysus holding thyrsus, in the c., suḫurmašû (goat-fish of the water god Ea), on the r. Persian hunt. © archive of the CRAST.

global themes by officers and traders. Types looking rather local, thus Babylonian, seem to reveal instead the preferences of other professionals: monsters, priests and worshippers frequently occurred on the seals used by witnesses. Among local types there are also subjects derived from the Iranian visual lexicon, like winged griffins and hunts. The appropriation and combination of motives derived from different backgrounds is well attested; however, if this combination seems to result from a choice deliberately made by the Seleucid court in sculptural and architectural programs, it is more difficult to recognize beyond all doubt a similar intentionality in figurative seals. 54 A positive answer would imply the successful ideological indoctrination of plutocracies and elites; a negative answer would rather lead to consider shared visual lexica as a spontaneous phenomenon, maybe unconsciously fostered by the need for, or propensity to, complex forms of accommodation and negotiation. Spontaneous phenomena of coexistence and appropriation of different visual lexica also originated in a larger part of the city society: they can be recognized in mass-produced objects like terracotta figurines. 55 Terracottas are usually seen as things through which societies or social identities can be accessed to a greater degree than through other classes of materials because of their wide diffusion. It appears that the adoption of a Greek visual lexicon was followed, to a certain extent, by its combination with local productions. Encouraged by the fact that they were cheap and easy-to-make, mass-produced terracotta figurines reached an audience wider than that reached by other forms, and, especially in sites like Seleucia, the plethora of different types attested indicates the acceptance of the

54 One can see Greek subjects executed in local style  –  like many figures of Eros or Apollo, for instance – and subject combining elements of different lexica, sometimes leading to religious syncretism – such is the case of the seals reproducing Graeco-Babylonian gods, like Athena-Nanaia and Apollo-Nabu – . 55 On terracotta figurines from Seleucia, see Van Ingen 1939; Invernizzi 1968/1969; Menegazzi 2014.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

120

Vito Messina

complex interplay of their artistic forms by a composite society. 56 This interplay is primarily based on the supposed mutual acceptability of the many cultural features these objects can bear by those who made and used them. The impact of a Greek lexicon is attested by the growth of the repertoire in comparison to the subjects represented in pre-Hellenizing Babylonia: Greek gods and heroes, women in Greek dress, grotesque figures, and theater masks, which are well attested in the Mediterranean, were introduced as new types and did become very popular. Subjects that did pre-exist the introduction of these novelties continued to be produced, especially nude standing women, sometimes supporting their breasts – of Babylonian tradition  –  and riders  –  rather diffused in Achaemenid Iran before their introduction also in Babylonia. These subjects were renewed by new tendencies: for instance, nude standing women wear Mediterranean headdresses or accessories – like the stephane – and reveal a new sensibility for the anatomical description of the human body, having been double molded (fig. 9). The corpus of terracotta figurines from Seleucia  –  in large part dating to the Parthian period – includes a variety of types: the latter were probably created as solutions to specific needs and their variety seems to point to the existence of social negotiation processes or forms aiming at accommodating and/ or redefining identity norms. In this context, visual lexica were combined to create objects that could be accessible to members of different groups or communities. Given that terracottas continued to be

Fig. 9: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. North agora. Terracotta figurine of nude standing woman wearing a stephane. © archive of the CRAST.

56 On terracottas as indicators of societal tendencies vs. ethnicity, see Langin-Hooper 2014; Langin-Hooper 2015.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

121

produced from the Hellenistic to the Parthian age, these processes appear to have lasted for a long period, probably during the entire lifetime of the city. In the end, the analysis of archaeological figurative materials is not conclusive, even if the processes of negotiation appear well attested. All that can be said is that there were groups in the city society – likely an emanation of the city plutocracy – that appear more receptive than others to inputs apparently coming from the Seleucid court. Spontaneous phenomena of appropriation and interaction seem rather to have affected the mass production of things that were more widely diffused across the city society, and for longer times. It is hard to say if the supposed intention of new elites to found a city ex novo embedded in the local matrix was indeed successful. What emerges in societal trends clearly reveal negotiation processes, but it is impossible to say with certainty if the latter were always the positive outcome of an embedded strategy rather than spontaneous phenomena. However, such a strategy appears corroborated by evidence more than a disembedded one. Conclusion Along with the analysis of factual evidence, scholarship’s perception of ancient Near Eastern cities has often been influenced by modern views and concepts retrospectively adapted to antique contexts. As such, this perception changes over time, and in recent decades it has been also based on the use of interpretive models that, although of crucial importance for understanding the past, describe its reality only in very general terms. One of the more influential models applied to ancient Near Eastern cities has emphasized elements of rupture and discontinuity in their foundation as emanation of new elites aiming to create new patterns of authority. Rupture and discontinuity were central to the concept of disembedded capitals and offer a good opportunity to verify the effectiveness of interpretive models applied to specific cases rather than general trends. When applied to the specific case of Seleucia, however, contradictions to this neat paradigm clearly emerge. Though it might at first glance appear as a typical disembedded capital, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris is an example of such a model’s contradictions.  Its foundation had a deep impact on Babylonia, but the latter appear to have been the outcome of a policy oriented to the opening of new trades and markets via an extensive network of overland and water routes rather than the consequence of disrupting previous elite networks. The examination of materiality and textual sources allow an observer to recognize the intention of embedding the new foundation in the local matrix, within the frame of a favorable policy of the Seleucid apparatus toward Babylonia and Babylonian institutions. The use of Greek and Babylonian lexica in the city layout and monuments lead to think that Seleucia was indeed envisioned to embody different building traditions and convey propagandistic legitimation. The link with the local background was intentionally established to mark a continuity with Babylonia and Babylon. Inputs by apparatuses, such as the creation of a set of symbols taken by different shared lexica for propaganda, can be deemed as a clear indication of embedding processes that are indeed referable to the period of the city foundation.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

122

Vito Messina

The effectiveness of such a policy cannot be measured based on historical records. The analysis of materiality is likewise not conclusive, even if the processes of negotiation appear well attested across the city’s society: it can be observed that some groups appear more receptive than others to influences arguably coming from the court. This is particularly interesting when referring to what is known of the city population in available sources: the latter was composed by people of various origins, and the different traditions of its inhabitants – Greeks, Babylonians, Jews – originated processes of interaction that are reflected in the art and handicrafts of the city. 57 The use of different lexica is revealed by archaeological records, and spontaneous phenomena of interaction across society are witnessed by mass produced objects dated to a large timespan: these phenomena are thus definable as long-term processes underway during the entire city lifetime, even if it can be hazardous to see them as the direct result of an embedding policy. In the end, if it is hard to measure the effectiveness of a policy supposedly aiming at embedding the new foundation in the Babylonian background, it can be argued on sound arguments that such a policy was pursued. References Adams 1981 = R. McC Adams ., Heartland of cities. Surveys of ancient settlement and land use on the central floodplain of the Euphrates, Chicago. Appadurai 1986 = A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge. Bollati/Messina/Mollo 2004 = A. Bollati/V. Messina/P. Mollo, Seleucia al Tigri. Le impronte di sigillo dagli Archivi, i-III (Mnème 3), Alessandria. Bonfanti et al. 2014 = C. Bonfanti/F. Chiabrando/C. Lippolis/V. Messina, Mega-Sites’ Impact on Central Mesopotamia. Archaeological and Multi-Temporal Cartographic Study of the Al-Mada’in Area in: R. A. Stucky/O. Kaelin/H.-P. Mathys (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th  International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (9–13 June 2014), Vol. 2, Basel: 251–263. Chiabrando et al. 2017 = F. Chiabrando/C. Lippolis/V. Messina/S. Sciacca, Topography and Settlement of Al-Mada’in. New Observations, Mesopotamia 52: 151–171. Erskine/Llewellyn-Jones 2011 =A. Erskine/L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds), Creating a Hellenising World, Swansea. Falkenstein 1974 = A. Falkenstein, The Sumerian Temple City (Monographs in History: ancient Near East 1:1), Los Angeles. Fisher/Brett Hill/Feinman 2009 = C.T. Fisher/J. Brett Hill/G.M. Feinman (eds), The Archaeology of Environmental Change. Socionatural Legacies of Degradation and Resilience, Tucson.

57 According to Flavius Josephus in the first century CE the city’s population was so composed (Jos. AJ 18, 371–372).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

123

Funck 1984 = B. Funck, Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit. Eine Untersuchung zu den spatbabylonischen Pfrundentexten als Quelle fur die Erforschung der sozialokonomischen Entwicklung der hellenistischen Stadt (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 16), Berlin. Gullini 1967 = G. Gullini, Un contributo alla storia dell’urbanistica: Seleucia sul Tigri, Mesopotamia 2: 135–163. Hadley 1978 = R. A. Hadley, The Foundation Date of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 27/1: 228–230. Hauser 2020 = S. Hauser, Seleukeia-Ktesiphon, in: RLAC 30: 234–251. Hopkins 1972 = C. Hopkins (ed.), Topography and Architecture of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Ann Arbor. Invernizzi 1968/1969 = A.  Invernizzi, Problemi di Coroplastica tardo-mesopotamica, Mesopotamia 3/4: 227–292. — 1993 = A. Invernizzi, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. Centre and Periphery in Seleucid Asia, in: P. Bilde/T. Engberg-Pedersen/L. Hannestad/J. Zahle/K. Randsborg (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 4), Aarhus: 230–250. — 1994 = A. Invernizzi, Hellenism in Mesopotamia. A View from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, al-Rafidan 15: 1–24. Joffe 1998 = A. H. Joffe, Disembedded Capitals in Western Asian Perspective, Comparative Studies in Society and History 40/3: 549–580. LaBianca/Scham 2006 = Ø. LaBianca/S.A. Scham (eds), Connectivity in Antiquity. Globalisation as Long-term Historical Process, London. Langin-Hooper 2014 = S.M. Langin-Hooper, Terracotta Figurines and Social Identities in Hellenistic Babylonia, in: B.A. Brown/M.H. Feldman (eds), Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art, Boston: 451–479. — 2015 = S.M. Langin-Hooper, Fascination with the tiny: social negotiation through miniatures in Hellenistic Babylonia, World Archaeology 47/1 (Jan): 60–79. Le Rider 1998 = G. Le Rider, Séleucie du Tigre. Les monnaies séleucides et parthes (Monografie di Mesopotamia 6), Firenze. Linssen 2004 = M. J.H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practices (Cuneiform Monograph 25), Leiden/Boston. Liverani 2013 = M. Liverani, Immaginare Babele. Due secoli di studi sulla città orientale antica (Storia e società), Roma/Bari. Lloyd 1947 = S. Lloyd, Foundations in the dust. A story of Mesopotamian exploration, Oxford. McDowell 1935 = R. H. McDowell, Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 36), Ann Arbor. Mehl 1986 = A. Mehl, Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich, I. Seleukos’ Leben und die Entwicklung seiner Machtposition (Studia Hellenistica 28), Leuven. Menegazzi 2014 = R. Menegazzi, Seleucia al Tigri. Le terrecotte figurate dagli scavi italiani e americani (Monografie di Mesopotamia 16), Firenze.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

124

Vito Messina

Messina 2004 = V. Messina, Continuità politica e ideologica nella Babilonia di Seleuco I e Antioco I. Osservazioni sull’iconografia regale, Mesopotamia 39: 169–184. — 2006 = V. Messina, Seleucia al Tigri. L’edificio degli archivi. Lo scavo e le fasi architettoniche (Monografie di Mesopotamia 8), Firenze. — 2010 = V. Messina, Seleucia al Tigri. Il monumento di Tell ‘Umar. Lo scavo e le fasi architettoniche (Monografie di Mesopotamia 13), Firenze. — 2011 = V. Messina, Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. The Babylonian Polis of Antiochus I, Mesopotamia 46: 157–167. — 2017 = V. Messina, L’area di Al-Madā’in dal declino di Seleucia alla fondazione di Veh Ardashir, in: L. Caterina/B. Genito (eds.), Archeologia delle  Vie della Seta: Percorsi, Immagini e Cultura Materiale (Conferenze e Progetti CISA 3), Napoli: 87–110. Mollo 1996 = P. Mollo, Il problema dell’άλική seleucide alla luce dei materiali degli archivi di Seleucia sul Tigri, in: M. F. Boussac/A. Invernizzi (eds.), Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique. Archivi e sigilli del mondo ellenistico (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplement 29) Athens: 145–156. Monerie 2018 = J. Monerie, L’ économie de la Babylonie à l’ époque hellénistique (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 14), Berlin/Boston. Pitts/Versluys 2015 = M. Pitts/M.J. Versluys (eds), Globalisation and the Roman World. World History, Connectivity and Material Culture, New York. Sancisi-Weerdenburg/Kuhrt/Cool Root 2004 = H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg/A. Kuhrt/M. Cool Root (eds), Continuity and change. Proceedings of the last Achaemenid history workshop April 6–8, 1990 (Achaemenid History 8), Ann Arbor. Sherwin-White 1983 = S. Sherwin-White, Babylonian Chronicle Fragments as a Source for Seleucid History, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42: 265–270. Smith 1924 = S. Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon, London. Stanley 1980 = R. S. Stanley, Disembedded Capitals Reconsidered, American Antiquity 45/1: 132–145. Trigger 2008 = B. Trigger, Early Cities. Craft Workers, Kings, and Controlling the Supernatural, in J. Marcus/J.A. Sabloff (eds), The Ancient City. New Perspective on Urbanism in the Old and New World, Santa Fe: 53–66. van der Spek 2008 = R.J. van der Spek, Feeding Hellenistic Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, in: R. Alston/O.M. van Nijf (eds.), Feeding the ancient Greek city (Groningen-Royal Holloway studies on the greek city after the classical age 1), Leuven/Paris: 33–46. Van Ingen 1939 = W. Van Ingen, Figurines from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Ann Arbor. Versluys 2014 = M.J. Versluys, Understanding Objects in Motion. An Archaeological Dialogue on Romanization, Archaeological Dialogues 21/1: 1–20. Waterman 1931 = L. Waterman (ed.), Preliminary Report upon the Excavations at Tell Umar, Iraq, Ann Arbor. — 1933 = L. Waterman (ed.), Second Preliminary Report upon the Excavations at Tell Umar, Iraq, Ann Arbor.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: The Empire Becoming Visible in Seleucid ktíseis* Julian Degen

The turn from the Classical to the Hellenistic period is defined by the rise of many states ruled by Macedonian kings. All of them deserved to be called empires, although they were only fragments of what once was Alexander’s realm. This process was less than a mere fragmentation of a political entity than a transformation of an empire. The explosive rise of Philip II’s empire to a Macedonian World Empire in the reign of Alexander III resulted in it gaining its status as a ‘hyperpower.’ 1 In the short time of its existence, no other empire challenged its ubiquitous power. 2 Thus, this marks a new era for the Greek World. From the conquest of Asia Minor by Cyrus II onwards, the Aegean World laid on the fringes of empires, and its political landscape became heavily influenced by the Achaemenid Empire and from 338 BCE onwards of Argead Macedonia as well. After Darius III’s defeat at Gaugamela and Antipatros’ victory over Agis III, there was no alternative or challenger to Alexander’s empire. When the Successors divided the carcass of Alexander’s World Empire, the pack reshuffled. The transformation of the former ‘hyperpower’ into many imperial formations changed the dynamics of imperial rule as the Diadochi encountered many indigenous concepts of legitimate rulership of their realms in addition to the traditional Macedonian βασιλεία. 3 All the Successors emphasized new ideas of empire and developed various imperial identities, each of them differently responding to Alexander. The Seleucid Empire is the most enigmatic of all the Hellenistic kingdoms. The largest of all Hellenistic realms, it encompassed vast parts of Asia and incorporated many * I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Matthew Canepa (Irvine) and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and improvement of the language. Of course, all the remaining errors are mine. 1 For the use of the term ‘hyperpower’ in studies on empires see now Strootman 2020a, 132; Rollinger 2020a. 2 See the thorough discussion in Degen 2022a, 332–363; Bosworth 1983. Nawotka 2012 supports this view by highlighting that the crucial term Ἀσία in Alexander-historiography stands for the Achaemenid Empire. 3 Cf. Rollinger/Degen/Gehler 2020; Briant 2005. On defining characteristics, see Schäfer 2014; Schäfer 2012; Gehrke 2008, 1–3; 30–45 and Gehrke 1982, all arguing that Macedonian (leader-) rulership was ‘charismatic’ rulership. On the problematic term ‘Hellenism’ see Bichler 1983. Meeus 2020 provides an overview on continuities and differences of the Diadochi’s dealing with Alexander.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

126

Julian Degen

people with different cultural backgrounds who were nonetheless once subjects of the Achaemenids. The sheer number of diverse cultural spheres that the Seleucid Empire integrated make this state a true empire per definitionem. 4 This is even true in the case of the early Seleucid conception of rulership. Discarding the older approach of considering ‘Hellenism’ as a process of the Greeks ‘colonizing’ Asia, this epoch can be viewed as an intensive and complex encounter of Macedonian rulers with the heterogeneous cultural contexts of their realms. To what extent indigenous traditions gave shape to the different Diadochi’s conceptions of power, is just one of the many questions which challenge modern historians dealing with this epoch. These problems all apply to the Seleucid Empire in particular, especially with regard to the ways in which the dynasty manifested, or ‘staged’ power. 5 Awareness of the imperial contexts of the Seleucid rule is essential for interpreting the royal Hellenistic staging of power. The problem is that we can grasp Hellenistic rulers’ methods of staging power only through enigmatic episodes in our sources. The fact that those episodes are not easy to understand for the modern reader is likely due to the audiences originally being addressed. The performance of rulership needed to be understandable to the empire’s various groups of subjects forming an imperial audience, i.e. in their cultural and ethnic background harboring heterogeneous groups of people. Hence, rulers performed acts with a high degree of symbolism and drew on different concepts of legitimate rulership existing in the imperial sphere. 6 Their objective was to present themselves as legitimate to a heterogeneous audience. 7 Although such performances are typically used in imperial rulership, the modern historian, nonetheless, has to expend much effort to achieve understanding. 8 At first glance, these symbolic acts appear in our sources as highly complex and enigmatic episodes. However, reading them against the more ancient imperial traditions of the Near East provides the historian with a way to contextualize and decode them while the so-called ‘imperial turn’ with its structural approach helps to analyze the multifaceted character of ancient states defined as ‘empires.’ 9 A closer examination of the impact of empire on official discourse thus can help to create a deeper understanding of how indigenous concepts of rulership influenced the Hellenistic rulers and shaped their conception of empire. 10 Since each ruler had to pay attention to different audiences and

4 Gehler/Rollinger 2022; Gehler/Rollinger 2014. 5 Strootman 2020b; Strootman/Versluys 2017; Strootman 2013b. 6 See the theoretical outline with examples in Degen 2022a, 40–51; Degen 2021; Trampedach/Meeus 2020. Cf. the thoughtful discussion of Antiochus’ I reign in Haubold 2012, 133–134. 7 On the theoretical background Trampedach/Meeus 2020, 9–13; Gehrke 2020, both heavily drawing on the Weberian model. 8 One example is Alexander III’s alleged quest for the Dionysos, which can be explained as translation of his flirts with Achaemenid imperialistic aspirations into Graeco-Macedonian contexts. Cf. Degen 2021 on this issue. See also the thought-provoking analysis on how Alexander adapted his representation when addressing different audiences by Spawforth 2012. 9 Rollinger/Degen/Gehler 2020; Gehler/Rollinger 2014. 10 Gehler/Rollinger 2014, 27.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

127

indigenous concepts of legitimate rulership, the symbolic acts are telling sources for each of the Hellenistic empires’ self-definition, and perhaps their ‘imperial identity.’ Appian’s account of Seleucus I’s foundation of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris is one such textual attestation of a symbolically laden performance. Since nearly all the Seleucid voices are lost in Hellenistic historiography, Appian’s Syriake remains our most authoritative voice for the early phase of the Seleucid Empire. Without this source, many important details of Seleucus I’s rise to power, and his engagement with the indigenous traditions would be lost. While often quoted, past scholarship has not fully understood how this episode relates to Seleucus’ imperial project and how the king made it visible. Scholars have focused primarily on the stature of Seleucia as a new royal residence and its consequences for Babylon’s status as the former center of power in Mesopotamia, treating its enigmatic features as curiosities. Instead, this paper argues that its enigmatic character has much to tell us about the ideological background of Seleucus’ imperial project in it, and considers Seleucid official discourse to be base of the kernel of Appian’s account. It can be viewed as reflecting the official κτίσις legend propagated by Seleucus and derives from a coherent narrative that reflects his conception of empire. Thus, Appian’s account is a revealing source for Seleucus I’s strategies to balance different concepts of rulership and for performatively staging an event that communicates his understanding of his new empire’s identity. Reading App. Syr. 58 as a Seleucid κτίσις After having completed his account of how Seleucus rose from satrap of Babylon to king, Appian comes to speak about the establishment of Seleucid imperial power. 11 At this point of his narrative, the Roman author takes pains to present a series of good omens portending the future kingship of Seleucus that happened to occur when he was one of Alexander’s ἑταῖροι. 12 This list is linked to a lengthy digression on cities founded by Seleucus which continues the theme of divine favor and his special relationship to the gods. Appian explains the Seleucid policy of giving cities their names, however, the focus of his account is on divine portents which occurred in the course of founding Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and Seleucia-in-Pieria. The two tales, which appear to be coherent, are worth to be quoted in full:

11 App. Syr. 55. On the problems concerning the chronology of events of Seleucus’ rise to power see the new chronology brought forward by Boiy 2007. The dates can differ with every new contextualisation of cuneiform texts. Cf. Hackl 2020 providing a new dating for the begin of Seleucus’ and Antiochus’ coregency. A collection of past attempts and new suggestions is Bosworth 2002, 210–245; 279–284. On the different titles of Seleucus before appointing himself formerly a king, see van der Spek 2014a, esp. 336–339. See also Scharrer 1999, 97–100. 12 On Seleucus during the reign of Alexander see Berve 1926b no. 700. Cf. Strootman 2015; Bosworth 2002, 211; Grainger 1992, 1–23.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

.

128

Julian Degen

They say that when he (scil. Seleucus) was about to build the two Seleucias a portent of thunder preceded the foundation of the one by the sea, for which reason he consecrated thunder as a divinity of the place. Accordingly the inhabitants worship thunder and sing its praises to this day. They say, also, that when the Magi were ordered to indicate the propitious day and hour for beginning the foundations of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris they falsified as to the hour because they did not want to have such a stronghold built against themselves. While the king was waiting in his tent for the appointed hour, and the army, in readiness to begin the work, stood quietly till Seleucus should give the signal, suddenly, at the true hour of destiny, they seemed to hear a voice ordering them on. So they sprang to their work with such alacrity that the heralds who tried to stop them were not able to do so. When the work was brought to an end Seleucus, being troubled in his mind, again made inquiry of the Magi concerning his city, and they, having first secured a promise of impunity, replied, ‘That which is fated, O King, whether it be for better or worse, neither man nor city can change, for there is a fate for cities as well as for men. It pleases the gods that this city shall endure for ages, because it was begun on the hour on which it was begun. We feared lest it should be a stronghold against ourselves, and falsified the appointed time. Destiny is stronger than crafty Magi or an unsuspecting king. For that reason the deity announced the more propitious hour to the army. It is permitted you to know these things so surely that you need not suspect us of deception still, for you were presiding over the army yourself, as king, and you had yourself ordered them to wait; but the army, ever obedient to you in facing danger and toil, could not now be restrained, even when you gave them the order to stop, but sprang to their work, not a part of them merely, but all together, and their officers with them, thinking that the order had been given. In fact it had been given. 13

13 App. Syr. 58: φασὶ δὲ αὐτῷ τὰς Σελευκείας οἰκίζοντι, τὴν μὲν ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ, διοσημίαν ἡγήσασθαι κεραυνοῦ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θεὸν αὐτοῖς κεραυνὸν ἔθετο, καὶ θρησκεύουσι καὶ ὑμνοῦσι καὶ νῦν κεραυνόν: ἐς δὲ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ Τίγρητος ἡμέραν ἐπιλέξασθαι τοὺς μάγους κελευομένους, καὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ὥραν, ᾗ τῶν θεμελίων ἄρξασθαι τῆς ὀρυχῆς ἔδει, ψεύσασθαι τὴν ὥραν τοὺς μάγους, οὐκ ἐθέλοντας ἐπιτείχισμα τοιόνδε σφίσι γενέσθαι. καὶ Σέλευκος μὲν ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ τὴν δεδομένην ὥραν ἀνέμενεν, ὁ δὲ στρατὸς ἐς τὸ ἔργον ἕτοιμος, ἀτρεμῶν ἔστε σημήνειεν ὁ Σέλευκος, ἄφνω κατὰ τὴν αἰσιωτέραν ὥραν δόξαντές τινα κελεύειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἔργον ἀνεπήδησαν, ὡς μηδὲ τῶν κηρύκων ἐρυκόντων ἔτι ἀνασχέσθαι. τὸ μὲν δὴ ἔργον ἐξετετέλεστο, Σελεύκῳ δὲ ἀθύμως ἔχοντι, καὶ τοὺς μάγους αὖθις ἀνακρίνοντι περὶ τῆς πόλεως, ἄδειαν αἰτήσαντες ἔλεγον οἱ μάγοι: ‘τὴν πεπρωμένην ὦ βασιλεῦ μοῖραν, χείρονά τε καὶ κρείσσονα, οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε ἀνδρὸς οὔτε πόλεως ἐναλλάξαι. Μοῖρα δε τις καὶ πόλεών ἐστιν ὥσπερ ἀνδρῶν. καὶ τήνδε χρονιωτάτην μὲν ἐδόκει τοῖς θεοῖς γενέσθαι, ἀρχομένην ἐκ τῆσδε τῆς ὥρας ἧς ἐγένετο: δειμαίνοντες δ᾽ ἡμεῖς ὡς ἐπιτείχισμα ἡμῖν ἐσομένην, παρεφέρομεν τὸ πεπρωμένον. τὸ δὲ κρεῖσσον ἦν καὶ μάγων πανουργούντων καὶ βασιλέως ἀγνοοῦντος αὐτό. Τοιγάρτοι τὸ δαιμόνιον τὰ αἰσιώτερα τῷ στρατῷ προσέταξεν. καὶ τοῦτο ἔνι σοι καταμαθεῖν ὧδε, ἵνα μη τι καὶ νῦν ἡμᾶς ἔτι τεχνάζειν ὑπονοῇς. Αὐτός τε γὰρ ὁ βασιλεὺς σὺ τῷ στρατῷ παρεκάθησο, καὶ τὸ κέλευσμα αὐτὸς ἐδεδώκεις ἀναμένειν: καὶ ὁ εὐπειθέστατος ὤν σοι πρὸς κινδύνους καὶ πόνους οὐκ ἠνέσχετο νῦν οὐδὲ ἀναπαύσεως ἐπιτάγματος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνέθορεν, οὐδὲ ἀνὰ μέρος ἀλλ᾽ ἀθρόως, ἐπιστάταις αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐνόμιζε κεκελεῦσθαι. καὶ ἐκεκέλευστο δή. Translation by H. White.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

129

In this lengthy digression, Appian dedicates only a few words to the portents which occurred when Seleucus was looking for the right place to found Seleucia in Pieria. 14 Compared with other known Seleucid narratives concerning the foundation of cities, this is one of the most extensive of such tales known to us. 15 Although Appian’s account is full of details derived from his sources, he dedicates not a single word of his version to explaining Seleucus’ motives for founding the city, and scholars have put forward a variety of explanations, including the geo-strategic importance of its location and the intention of Seleucid ‘colonization’ to change his empire’s centers of gravity. While scholars have considered the ideological dimension of Appian’s account as well, this aspect requires further examination. 16 The intentional character of the foundation story becomes visible if it is seen in its original context. It is a well-known fact that foundation stories – κτίσεις – enjoyed great popularity in Greek and Macedonian cultural spheres and thus experts consider them as an ancient literary genre in their own right. 17 In the Hellenistic period, the emphatic character of these accounts highlighted the qualities of the king and fulfilled a variety of purposes for different audiences. If viewed from the perspective of the king, the main issues were legitimizing power in conquered territories as ‘spear-won’ and symbolically proclaiming kingship. 18 If viewed from the urban population’s point of view, the emphasis of the close bonds between ruler and the citizens was superficial, whereas its religious elements were important. 19 The modern historian thus faces a multifaceted account loaded with targeted meaning which can be revealed only when considered within a specific context. In this welter of confusion, P. Kosmin, in his analysis of Seleucid colonization as a historical phenomenon, proposes a welcome general characterization for foundation stories: From the general shipwreck of Hellenistic literature this flotsam teases with what might have been; foundation narratives may well have taken as central a place in Seleucid court literature as the colonizing act in Seleucid imperial practice. Needless to say, the extant accounts should be taken, not as an accurate or direct record of the

14 See also Malalas 8.199. Cf. Ogden 2017, 99–114; Ogden 2011. 15 See the collection of sources in Dumitru 2015–2016; Kosmin 2014a, 211–218. 16 An overview on the debate is Dumitru 2015–2106, 186–187, who argues for the ideological significance of foundation-acts. Arguments considering imperial space can be found in Kosmin 2014a, 186 defining the Seleucid program of city-foundation as “…a relocation of imperial gravity away from long-established cores to traditionally marginal zones.” 17 Buraselis 2010; Dougherty 1993, 3–10, at: “As a result, historical, literary, mythical, and legendary material are combined as needed to represent and legitimate action.” See also Kosmin 2014a, 211: “…a literary genre that recounted the creation and peopling of a new city.” On Macedonian (foundation-)myths as promoted by the Argead dynasty see Degen 2019a, 95–97; Marín 2016. 18 Kosmin 2014a, 218. On the implication and origin of the idea of the ‘spear-won-land’ as an important claim to legitimize power in the Hellenistic monarchies, see Degen 2019b; Mehl 1980–1981. 19 Leschhorn 1984, 229–246. On the relation between city and ruler see: Strootman 2018; Strootman 2011; Erskine 2014. See also the consideration of the role played by religion in the process of Greek city-foundation as discussed in Malkin 1987.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

130

Julian Degen

actual, mechanical, sweaty building work, but as literary, ideologically motivated meditations on the goals and expectations of colonization. 20 Following this definition, the foundation-tales are products of Seleucid official language and thus are court-propagated images reflecting the way Seleucus wanted to be seen. 21 Hence, viewed as based on a lost κτίσις, Appian’s account provides us an extraordinary source of information on imperial self-representation of the early Seleucid state. Appian does not deserve to be called a mere copyist of his sources, yet his account shares some patterns typical of Seleucid κτίσεις. A good argument for viewing the narrative as heavily influenced by Seleucid propaganda is its emphasis on divine involvement. Religion loomed large in Seleucus’ self-representation as a ruler, πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβῆ as characterized by Pausanias. 22 This becomes even more visible when we consider all the known foundation stories of Seleucid cities, which mostly concern the Syrian Tetrapolis. Divine involvement in the process of foundation presents itself as a general pattern of those narratives. Although the story of how Seleucia-on-the-Tigris was founded may be an exception to the rule, A.G. Dumitru developed a scheme for the role of divine interaction in the Seleucid κτίσεις: It should go without saying that in all these cases, Seleucia on the Tigris included, the myth refers to a God who made the foundation possible via an omen or a miracle, the king doing nothing more than seeking to obey the will of the god… In all these situations, the God makes his will manifest using an eagle and/or a thunderbolt, and in all these cases (including the one of Seleucia on the Tigris), the God involved appears to be the Greek Zeus in connotation of the local God, albeit Hadad, Baal or Marduk. 23 This care to translate imperial themes into accounts that were understandable for the audiences of the empire seems to have been the important feature of the Seleucid κτίσεις. 24 Since all these foundation-tales survive in the accounts of later authors, the modern historian faces multiple distortions of the original material. To read these tales in the original contexts in which they were developed provides a promising method to distill their original contents. Three main, interwoven themes inflect Appian’s text. These include: 20 Kosmin 2014a, 211–212. 21 Towards a definition of ‘official language’ in the case of Alexander III see Degen 2022b: “A reason that does not qualify for the well-established designation as ‘flattery’ is the ideological background of these statements. The surviving fragments of these accounts lack uniformity and thus the preference for defying their common context should go towards ‘official language’ rather than ‘propaganda’ or ‘court propaganda’. Propaganda itself was a different thing at Alexander’s court.” 22 Paus. 1.16.3. See Ogden 2017 and Engels 2010 highlighting the importance of prodigies in Seleucus’ royal representation. 23 Dumitru 2015–2016, 207. 24 Dumitru 2015–2016, 207: “The presence of Zeus… was the easiest ‘translation’ of the local Gods who had sanctuaries in the places affected by the future settlements.” Already Alexander included foreign gods into religious practices performed in front of his troops. On this topic see Bings 1991.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

131

resistance emerging from the local priesthood, divine intervention, and qualities of the king. Let us begin with the first theme. Seleucus and the Babylonian Priesthood Appian’s account focuses less on the treacherous character of the Magi than on Seleucus’ ability to carry out his imperial project despite their connivances. It is striking that Appian refers to the Mesopotamian diviners as μάγοι. This term stands for the Iranian priests serving the Achaemenid Great King, as we learn from classical Greek authors such as Herodotus, Xenophon and Ctesias. 25 However, the precise term for Babylonian priests used by Classical authors is χαλδαῖοι, although the classical sources show little knowledge of this group of persons. 26 There is a good reason to believe that the priests were deliberately called μάγοι to serve a specific purpose and derives from Appian’s sources. That term gives rise to doubts whether or not Magi were indeed involved when Seleucia was founded. Indeed, they often appear in Greek and Roman literature as treacherous Iranian diviners. Thus, it seems that the purpose of this detail is less to provide an accurate description of events than a leveraging of a contemporary stereotype of this group of people as treacherous. 27 The fact that the topos of the treacherous Magi is an essential part of this κτίσις might derive from Appian’s source. 28 A look at the way Appian quoted his source is revealing. Although he gives a compressed narrative, it seems that his account is based on a coherent tale deriving from φασὶ and ἐπυθόμην, which he found among his yet unknown sources which he drew from when penning the Syriake. 29 It seems, therefore, that Appian closely followed his sources. There are some hints in the text that correspond to the late 4th or early 3rd century BCE when scholars universally date the foundation of Seleucia. 30 Perhaps the most convincing argument in support of this view might be the Magi’s role in the event. Seleucus was waiting for the auspicious hour – αἰσιωτέραν ὥραν – which the Magi treacherously determined incorrectly. The diviners’ role is consistent with the role known of Babylonian 25 Degen 2020a (Xenophon); Wiesehöfer/Rollinger/Bichler 2011 (Ctesias); Schmitt 2006 (Ctesias); Rollinger/Truschnegg/Bichler 2011 (Herodotus); Rollinger 2018 (Herodotus). 26 Χαλδαῖοι as Babylonian priests in Hdt. 1.183; Strab. 16.1.6; Arr. An. 3.16.5. For Magi serving as narrative tools of Herodotus see Degen forthc. a. 27 Trampedach 2017. For doubts on the priests in Appian’s account being indeed Magi see Dumitru 2015–2016, 199; Kosmin 2014a, 213; Eddy 1961, 115 no. 30. According to Ogden 2017 Seleucus’ encounter with the priests is an invention. 28 On topoi as recurring literary motives in ancient literature see Zerjadtke 2020. On topoi in Greek historiography accounts on Persians see Degen 2020b. 29 App. Syr. 58; 59. On Appian’s sources, see Brodersen 1989, esp. at 165. P. Kosmin (2014, 212) clothes the uncertainness in words: “… Appian made use of an early Hellenistic tradition preserved in the libraries of Rome or Alexandria.” See also Ogden 2017, 165: “…then it would indicate that Appian’s foundation story was perhaps composed with a degree of hindsight, and therefore some considerable, though indeterminable, time after the foundation itself.” 30 Hadley 1978. Cf. Messina 2011, 157; Held 2002, 221; Scharrer 1999, 125–126.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

132

Julian Degen

priests according to a large archive of ancient texts. If seen against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern divination, the Babylonian kernel of the account becomes visible. Indeed, the determination of the right moment to begin with the work on the foundation of cities, or laying the first stone of a house, was considered to be of utmost importance for its future prosperity, according to Assyro-Babylonian divinatory texts. We know from royal inscriptions and letters that the Assyrian kings expended much effort in highlighting the accordance of the gods with their enterprises. 31 Regarding the role of divination in the process of building-activity, the Neo-Assyrian inscriptions are extraordinary sources of information. 32  In the Neo-Assyrian period divination was regarded to be of the utmost importance when it came to determining the right moment, to begin with, the construction of a building, especially for these being of imperial relevance. 33 An illustrative example is a cylinder of Sargon II (721–705) accounting for the preparations of building the new imperial residence Dur-Šarrukin: In the month of sunrise, the menta of the son of Daragal, who makes the decision, who reveals the signs, the light of heaven and earth, the hero of the gods: the Sîn, (the month), which is called the month of Kulla due to the determination of the Anu, the Enlil and the Ea Ninšiku, (because it is) for the making of the bricks, the building of the city and the house (which is the right one), ... 34 The text leaves its reader without doubt that the Assyrian king’s acts accord with divine will as an essential element of royal legitimation, which is manifest even in the divination of the time to begin the production of bricks. This idea, however, was not limited to the world of Assyrian royal inscriptions. The omen series called When a City is set on a Height – šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin – preserved on tablets from the early Hellenistic period, shows not only the deep roots in Mesopotamian religious thought of this concept but also its persistent impact in the longue durée. 35 The entire text concerns incidents that happened to appear in the process of building a city. Two omens in this series are dedicated to the high importance of determining the right moment for building the foundations of a house: When the foundation of a house is laid on the sixteenth day of the month, that house is destroyed, tribulation overcomes it, it is destroyed.

31 Novotny 2010. 32 For the character of this inscriptions being rather discursive than historical see Liverani 2019; Fales 1999–2001 and more generally Richardson 2020. 33 On imperial building-projects, considering the Neo-Assyrian time in particular see Rollinger 2008. 34 Cylinder of Sargon II (Dur-Šarrukin): ll. 57’–58’ according to Fuchs 1994, 41: i-na iti Ṣi-itaš araḫ biin d Dàra-gal pāris purussê mu-šak-lim ṣa-ad-di d Nanna šamê erṣetim qar-rad ilāni d Sîn ša i-na ši-mat d A-nim d En-líl ù d É-a d Nin-ši-kù a-na la-ba-an libnāti e-peš āli ù bīti araḫ d Kulla na-bu-ú šùm-šu. Translation by the author. 35 Freedman 1998.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

133

When the foundation of a house is laid in the month of darkness, the same thing happens. 36 The understanding that finding the right moment for building a city was essential to guarantee its future prosperity was not limited to the Assyrian king but was widely spread among the priesthood. The Babylonian priesthood as intellectual elites were not mere keepers of traditions but rather played important roles at the royal courts of ancient Near Eastern empires of the 1st Millennium BCE. The various methods of the king’s communication with divine spheres were finally regarded as Herrscherwissen. 37 It appears that the Babylonian priests acted less as decisive political powers under foreign rule than specialists whose expertise was regarded to be essential for exercising kingship. 38 Returning to the account of Appian and by considering the broader Mesopotamian context, a good argument can be made that the actions of the diviners in this account had a clear Babylonian connotation. All this suggests that this passage needs to be seen in its contemporary context and its plot hints at significant tensions between the Babylonian priesthood and Seleucus. It seems that the ruler attempted to strike a balance between maintaining the traditions of Babylonian kingship and innovating new Macedonian imperial traditions, which caused tensions between the ruler and the priesthood. 39 The reason for this discord will be approached now. Seleucus I and the Fragmentation of the Macedonian World Empire Appian explains the Magi’s attempts to frustrate Seleucia’s foundation with the city’s function as a fortress aimed against the priests – οὐκ ἐθέλοντας ἐπιτείχισμα τοιόνδε σφίσι γενέσθαι. 40 To understand the targeted meaning of ἐπιτείχισμα in this case, it seems rather appropriate to approach the term in its metaphorical sense, as an obstacle to the Magi’s interests, than to follow the term’s common interpretation as ‘stronghold.’ 41 A possible explanation for the priests’ unrest is that they were apprehensive of Babylon losing its age-old status as the center of the world. Furthermore, the way how Appian foretells the future replacement of Babylon by Seleucia by using Herodotean narrative elements an36 Freedman 1998, 88: DIŠ É APIN-šu DU.16.KÁM na-du-ú É BI ŠUB-di ni-ziq-tú sad-rat-su in-naqar DIŠ É APIN-šu ina ITI AN.GI6 na-du-ú ŠU-BI.DIL.ÀM. Translation by the author. 37 Pongratz-Leisten 1999. 38 Jursa 2013; Jursa 2007, 76–77 (with particular interest for the Neo-Babylonian and Teispid-Achaemenid period); Waerzeggers 2015; Waerzeggers 2011; Kuhrt 1990. 39 An overview on this topic is Boiy/Mittag 2011. The statement of Scharrer 1999, 126 speaking of “offenen Interpretationsmöglichkeiten” is exemplary for the scholarly discussion. 40 App. Syr. 58. 41 LJS 1996, s.v. ἐπιτείχισμα “2. metaph., τῆς αὑτῆς ἀρχῆς ἐ. πρὸς τὸ μηδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν παρακινεῖν a barrier or obstacle to.., Id.15.12.” However, see the objection brought forward by Kosmin 2014a, 213 (again at 215): “‘stronghold,’ used of a military presence in alien territory, closely identifying the new city with effective imperial control. To rule is to found colonies.”

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

134

Julian Degen

nounces the translatio imperii to come. 42 This interpretation finds support by two statements from the accounts of Strabo and Pausanias. 43 Although both authors create the image of Babylon in decline due to Seleucia’s foundation, the archaeological record does not suggest that this occurred immediately. 44 Seleucia took over Babylon’s former status as the royal residence. As an administrative text from Seleucia reveals, the inhabitants considered the city to be a royal city, i.e. residence – āl šarrūti. 45 Seleucia thus was founded as the new seat of Seleucid imperial power. The city clearly quoted elements known from Babylon’s urban landscape, although its basic design elements drew from the orthogonal shape of Greek city planning. 46 Or in other words, the new residence staged the imperial character of Seleucid rulership in its multicultural dimensions, without omitting to underline the cultural connotations of its location. Considering all this, the question arises on why Seleucus did not choose Babylon as his imperial residence. Past scholars made several attempts to answer this question by mainly focusing solely on geopolitical aspects though. Nevertheless, explaining the rise of the Seleucid Empire by considering imperial traditions of both the ancient Near Eastern predecessors and the Macedonian World Empire is a promising approach deserving further thought. It is beyond doubt that Seleucus’ imperial policy needs to be seen in its Macedonian and ancient Near Eastern contexts. Focusing on the Macedonian background of his rule, agonistic behavior was an essential element in the understanding of rulership of the Argead dynasty as well as the Diadochi. 47 In the process of the Macedonian World Empire’s fragmentation, the successors’ different strategies of legitimizing their rule were based more or less on competing against each other aiming for segregation. 48 By founding new residences named after themselves, for instance, Lysimachia, Cassandreia, and Antigonia, the successors deliberately staged the new imperial identity of their realms. 49 As we learn from Diodorus’ account of the aftermath of the Battle of Ipsus, the foundation of a new capital was an act of high symbolic significance. According to him, Seleucus deported the 42 Kosmin 2014a, 214: “The miracle at Seleucia both guarantees the city’s prosperity and celebrates a translatio imperii …the same destiny that led to Persia’s replacement of Lydia now demands Seleucia’s replacement of Babylon.” (Italics by Kosmin). On Herodotean elements in this account see Ogden 2017, 161; Brodersen 1989, 165–167. 43 Strab. 16.1.5; Paus. 16.1.3. 44 Held 2002, 218–221; Hauser 1999. Although the cuneiform evidence (BCHP 5, rev. 6’–9’) suggests that all Graeco-Macedonian inhabitants of Babylon were forced to abandon their homes and to settle in Seleuceia-on-the-Tigris, other evidence (see Mittag 2014, 208) does not support this view. 45 BM 92688, rv. ll. 11’–12’. Cf. Messina 2011, 158; Sherwin-White 1983, 269–270. Strabo’s wording, however, is not precise in this case, since he mentions the transfer of βασίλειον from Babylon to Seleuceia, what could be seen as relocation of the treasury. Cf. Ogden 2017, 165. 46 Kosmin 2014a, 203–204; Messina 2011; Held 2002, 221–236; Invernezzi 1994. See also the arguments of Strootman 2011, 143 aiming to raise awareness for the implication of the term πόλις when talking about the Hellenistic cities, since the rise of empires changed the political framework in which modern historians consider the Classical πόλις. 47 Mann 2020; Meeus 2020. 48 Schäfer 2014a; Schäfer 2012; Bosworth 2002, 246–267; Gehrke 1982. 49 Ogden 2017, 159; Kosmin 2014a, 218: “… a symbolic proclamation of legitime kingship”

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

135

inhabitants of Antigonus’ recently founded city Antigonia for populating his new capital on the river Tigris. 50 The historicity of Diodorus’ statement can be challenged since the extant sources agree on the fact that Seleucus only changed the name of the city. 51 Diodorus’ statement, however, finds its best explanation with Seleucus’ adaptation of Alexander’s imperial policy. We learn from Justin-Trogus that Alexander abandoned cities founded by Persian rulers with the purpose to put an ideological mark on his so-called ‘colonization’ of Eastern Iran, as we clearly see in his purposes to re-found the already existing Cyropolis as Alexandria-Eschate on the Tanaïs. 52 Seen from the perspective of defining imperial identity, the abandonment of former cities and the foundation of new ones can be seen as deliberate acts of Alexander breaking with the Achaemenid Empire. 53 The latter was merely a subject of Alexander’s conquest since he never thought of inheriting the Achaemenid Great Kings. 54 Be that as it may, Alexander did not destroy the imperial unity of the Achaemenid realm. What the Greeks called Ἀσία when talking about the Achaemenid Empire did not lose its political connotation after Darius’ III death. The term maintained its former meaning even after Alexander’s conquest and its semantics set the limits for the Diadochi’s universalistic claim to power. 55 The corpse of the Macedonian World Empire thus became the reference-point for claiming universal rulership in the Hellenistic Age. 56 How important was the choice of the royal residence, or seat of power, in this overall context? To find an answer to this question, a look at Egypt under Ptolemy I Soter is worth a digression. The role of the choice of residence for imperial identity can be grasped from the accounts on Alexander concerning the foundation of Alexandria in Egypt if seen from a broader context. According to Arrian, who drew on Ptolemy’s yet lost account when writing this part of his Anabasis, Alexander expanded much effort in founding this city. Without any doubt, this heralds its future role as capital of Ptolemaic Egypt. 57 However, if this account is seen in the wider context of Ptolemaic propaganda and Alexander’s exploitation therein aiming to legitimate the kingship of the former satrap Ptolemy, its value as a source for the time of Alexander can be questioned. Alexandria rather seemed to have played a minor role or had no significance in Alexander’s decision-making, than as it did for Ptolemy. 58 After Alexander’s death, the Ptolemy decided to abandon Memphis 50 D.S. 20.47.5–6. 51 Cf. Kosmin 2014a, 195. On the likely possibility that Greeks living there were gathered to found the city see Ogden 2017, 151–157. 52 Iust. 12.5.10–12. See Nawotka 2010, 275–276 for further context. 53 Although the literary sources highlight that Cyrus II served as role model for Alexander, it rather seemed that all flirts of Alexander with Achaemenid kingship were cloaked by his veneration for the Teispid ruler, cf. Müller 2011; Müller 2020. General on this topic see Degen 2021. 54 Degen 2022a, 302–408. 55 Rollinger 2020b; Degen 2019b, 53–58; Meeus 2014; Strootman 2014; Nawotka 2012. See also the results of the exhaustive treatment on Diodorus’ lists of satrapies by Klinkott 2000. 56 One should not forget that the Achaemenids’ universal claim to power included Macedonia and Hellas as well, and in theory had no limit, see Degen forth. b; Rollinger/Degen 2021; Haubold 2012. 57 BNJ 138 F 8 (=Arr. An. 3.3.5–6) and F 9 (=Arr. An. 3.4.5). Cf. the comments of Howe 2018a ad loc. 58 See in special Howe 2014. See further Pfeiffer 2014; Howe 2013.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

136

Julian Degen

as the traditional capital of Egypt and thus broke with the Pharaonic tradition by deciding to follow in the steps of Alexander instead. One may conclude that the need to stage a new imperial identity made breaking with well-established traditions necessary. Ptolemy, however, left the manifold dimensions of Alexander’s empire aside and focused on what was considered as Pharaonic and Argead dynastic elements as the dominant conceptions of rulership in his part of the former Macedonian World Empire. Ptolemy’s quest to seek legitimacy even went so far as associating the Seleucid enemy with the Persians in his epigraphical output. By doing so, he presented the Macedonians as liberators of Egypt from the yoke of Persian rule with an unmistakable hint to the contemporary geopolitical framework. 59 As we see, Ptolemy expended much effort in defining imperial identity in his part of Alexander’s former empire. He finally achieved this by changing his empire’s seat of power which proved to highlight the emancipation of his imperial enterprise from both the Pharaohs and Alexander. Returning to Seleucia, experts on the Seleucid Empire agree on the deep impact of Babylonian kingship on Seleucus’ conceptions of kingship. 60 However, the question of why Seleucus did break with Babylonian tradition when founding Seleucia as the residence for his emerging empire never received the attention it deserves. 61 To assess the role of Babylon in the time of Seleucus, it is necessary to have a close look at the various ways how foreign rulers in the First Millennium BCE responded to local conceptions of rulership. Foreign Rulers and Local Concepts of Kingship in the First Millennium Beginning with the Assyrian conquest of Babylon under the reign of Tiglath-Pilesar III (745–726), the role of the city underwent a change from being the former center of the ancient Near Eastern world to just one of many provinces of the empire. 62 Although the Assyrian Empire managed to consolidate its power in Babylonia, the Babylonians answered foreign rule with resistance and finally expelled the Assyrians for a short time. The Assyrian response followed quickly. According to the Assyrian royal inscriptions, Sennacherib (705–680) besieged Babylon and punished the inhabitants by destroying its temples. The Assyrian propaganda of his successors, Esarhaddon (680–669) and Ashurbanipal (669–627) developed a justification for the harsh treatment. To retrospectively 59 Briant 2017b; Klinkott 2007. 60 Literature on this topic is too rich to be quoted here exhaustively. Important works focused on the role of Babylonian kingship for the Seleucids’ conception of kingship of the last twenty years are Madreiter 2016; Rollinger 2016c; Kosmin 2014b; Mittag 2014; Stevens 2016; Stevens 2014; Strootman 2013b; Held 2002; Scharrer 1998; Sherwin-White 1987, 21–30. 61 Dumitru 2015–2016, 196–198, at 197–198 argues that Seleucus wanted to stage his exalted position among the Successors by building the new city “…and to make it known that his rule marked a fundamental change with ancient Mesopotamian traditions.” 62 Overviews on Assyro-Babylonian relations are Beaulieu 2018, 193–218;  Van de Mieroop 2003, 270–274.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

137

legitimate the harsh treatment of Sennacherib, the Assyrian propaganda presented the destruction as divinely ordered revenge for the Babylonians’ sacrilege to revolt against the god chosen ruler. 63 Although there is no modern consensus on how grave the damage the Assyrians did, the successors of Sennacherib portrayed themselves as the great rebuilders of the city. 64 Furthermore, the place of Babylon in the Assyrian Empire was reconsidered at this time. In the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal displayed in Babylon, the Babylonian royal title was integrated into the list of the Assyrian ruler’s imperial titles as the supreme Babylonian god, Marduk, was counted among the empire’s distinguished gods. 65 The inscriptions attest to the Assyrian kings’ efforts to take care of the Babylonian temples. The role of the caretaker of temples belonged to the catalog of royal virtues known from the so-called akītu-program. The Babylonian elites expected the king to repeat this guarantee of privileges during the new year’s festival, though that the Assyrian kings did so can be doubted. 66 However, the value of the akītu-program as a source is its function as a model for ideal Babylonian kingship until the Hellenistic period. At the end of the 7th century BCE, the Assyrian Empire ceased to exist and the rulers of the Neo-Babylonian Empire inherited vast parts of the territories once under Assyrian domination. 67 Babylon became the center of the short-termed empire which covered Mesopotamia, the Levant and parts of Arabia. 68 The city, thus, regained the status as a seat of empire, similar to that which Babylonian intellectuals esteemed centuries before the Assyrian invasion. Throughout the duration of the Neo-Babylonian empire, its rulers portrayed the city as the center of the world in a variety of media. 69 The focus of imperial policy was clearly on developing Babylon’s infrastructure at the cost of the subject lands. A good example of this policy is the so-called ‘Etemenanki-Cylinder’ written under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562): In order to build Etemenanki I burdened them (the peoples of the ‘world’) with a soil basket: Uruk, Larsa, Eridu, Kullab, Nēmed-Kaguda, Ugar-Sîn, the totality of the lands of the lower sea, from the top to the bottom, Nippur, Isin, Larak, Dilbat, Mara, the land Puqūdu, the land Bīt-Dak(k)ūri, the land of Bīt-Amūkani, the land of Bīt-Šilāni, the land of Bīrātu, Dēr, Agade, Dūr-Šarrukīn, the land of Arrapha, the land of Lahīru, the land of […], and the totality of the land of Akkad, and the 63 Weaver 2004; Streck 2002, 207. See Porter 1993, 109–115 on the purpose of Sennacherib’s royal texts to address various audiences. 64 Elayi 2018, 128–129. It, however, seems that not Esarhaddon but his successor Ashurbanipal spent much effort in rebuilding Babylon. See also Streck 2002, 207 (with evidence from the Assyrian royal correspondence). 65 Soares 2017. In special see RINAP 4: Esarhaddon 1, i 17’; i 31’; ii 12’; ii 30’; iv 78’; 2, i 1’; 5, i 10’; 33, ii 1’; 34, r 9’; 43, 1’; 44, 1’, r 8’; 48, 1’; 22’; 48, 47’; 61b; 91. See also Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 88. 66 Waerzeggers 2015, 189; Haubold 2013, 163–164; Pongratz-Leisten 1997. 67 Rollinger 2020b; Jursa 2014. 68 The Neo-Babylonian Empire fulfils all the criteria to be called a ‘short-term’ empire. Cf. Rollinger/ Degen/Gehler 2020; Jursa 2014. 69 Jursa 2014, 137–139; Da Riva 2008.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

138

Julian Degen

land of Aššur, the kings of Eber-nāri, the provincial governors of the land of Ḫattu from the [upper se]a, to the lower sea, the land of Su[mer and Akkad], the land of Surbartu, all of them, the kings of far-away districts in the midst of the upper sea, the kings of far-away districts in the midst of the lower sea, the governors of Ḫattu, of Nēbertu-Purattu, to the sunset, over whom I exercise my rule by the word of my lord Marduk […]. I brought mighty cedars from the land of Lebanon to my city, Babylon. The totality of the people of the widespread inhabited world, that my lord Marduk gave to me, in order to build the Etemenanki. I made them (the peoples of the world) undertake the work and burdened them with a soil-basket. 70 The text focuses on the Etemenanki which became a victim of Assyrian aggression under Sennacherib, who plays the role of the arch-enemy in the world of Neo-Babylonian inscriptions. The text excises the renovations carried out by Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, thus revealing its Sitz im Leben in the discourse on ideal Babylonian kingship. However, marking a significant change in the royal official language, in the Neo-Babylonian period the world’s ‘center’ shifted from Nineveh as in the Assyrian period to Babylon, thereby clearly underscoring the translatio imperii. Nonetheless, the vigilant reader of the cylinder’s text may also recognize the Assyrian roots of Nebuchadnezzar’s claim to world domination, which finds its expression in the claim to rule the lands reaching from ‘the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea’ and which is even extended into the midst of both seas and are the points of reference for claiming rule over the totality of the inhabited world. To exercise power even in the midst the sea became a standard for staging universal rulership in Neo-Assyrian time and maintained to be crucial for the idea of successful rulership in the Teispid-Persian Empire. 71 When the Babylonian scribes wrote the text of the famous Cyrus-Cylinder after Cyrus II seized Babylon in 539 BCE, they portrayed the Great King as the ideal Babylo-

70 Etemenanki-Cylinder ll. 85’–132’ according to Rollinger 2016c, 145: ⸢i⸣-⸢na⸣ e-pé-šu É.TEMEN. AN.KI e-mi-id-su-nu-ti tu-up-ši-ik-ku ÚRI KI UNUGKI UD.UNUGKI NUN KI KUL.AB[A 4KI] URU né-mé-ed- ⸢d⸣[la-gu-da] KURú-ga-ar- ⸢d⸣[ EN.ZU] na-ap-ḫa-a[r KUR ti-a-am-tim] ša-⸢ap-li-tim⸣ i-tu re-e-ši-ša a-di iš-di-ša EN.LÍLKI ì-si-inKI la-ar-al [KI dil-bat KI MAR.DA KI] KURpu-qu-du KURÉ-[da-kuru] KURÉ-a-mu-ka-a-nim] KURÉ-[si-la-a-nim] KURbi-ra-a-[tim] BÀD.AN KI a-ga-dè KI [URUBÀD-šar-ruki-in] KUR a-ra-ap-ḫa-ar KUR ak-[ka-di-im] ⸢ù⸣ ⸢KUR⸣⸢aš-šur⸣ [(x)] LUGAL.MEŠ ša e-[bi-ir ÍD] LÚpi-ḫa[ta-a-tim] ša MA.[DA ḫa-at-ti] iš-tu ti.[a-am-tim e-li-tim] a-di ti-a-am-tim ša-ap-li-tim MA.DA šu-[me-ri ù ak-ka-di-i] MA.DA SU-BIR4ki k[a-la-ši-na] LUGAL na-gi-i ne-su-tim ša qé-re-eb ti-a-am-tim e-li-tim LUGAL na-gi ne-su-tim ša-ap-li-tim GÌR.NÍTA GÌR.NÍTA MA.DA ḫa-at-tim né-bé-er-ti ÍDPURATTU KI a-na e-re-b dUTU-ši ša ina a-ma-at d AMAR.UTU be-lí-ia be-lu-ut-su-nu a-bé-lu-ma GIŠEREN. MEŠ da-nu4-tim ul-tu KUR la-ab-na-nim a-na URU-ia KÁ-DINGIR.RA KI i-ba-ab-ba-lu-nim na-apḫa-ar ni-ši da-ad-mi ra-ap-ša-a-tim ša d AMAR.UTU be-lí ia-ti iš-ru-kam i-na e-pé-šu É.TEMEN. AN.KI du-ul-lum ú-ša-aṣ-bi-it-su-nu-ti-ma e-mi-id-su-nu-ti tu-up-ši-ik-ku. Edition and translation by Da Riva 2008, 12 and Rollinger 2016c, 145. 71 Lang/Rollinger 2010. For the Teispid-Achaemenid period see Rollinger/Degen 2021; Degen 2019a, 61–67; Haubold 2012.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

139

nian ruler without omitting the well-established formulae of empire. 72 The text not only emphasizes local ideals of kingship but also highlights the age-old idea of Babylon as the center of the world: At (Marduk’s)] august [command] all  the kings of the entire world, those who are seated on thrones, living in [distant] coun[tries] from the Upper to the Lower Sea as well as the kings of Amurru (= Arabia), dwelling in tents, (all these kings) brought their heavy tribute and kissed my feet in Babylon. 73 The pivotal message of the text is that Babylon once again has become the center of an empire stretching all over the inhabited world and thus brought the Neo-Babylonian idea back into use. The city finally is the place where the kings of the entire world – kališ kibrāta – acted out proskynesis in front of Cyrus. 74 Additional evidence for this idea comes from the so-called Babylonian Mappa Mundi in which Babylon is portrayed as the center of the whole inhabited world. This map is believed to have been created sometime between late-Assyrian rule and the time of Persian domination and can be regarded as an outstanding example for the Babylonian priests’ mental geography. 75 Nevertheless, the Cyrus-Cylinder can be characterized as priestly wishful thinking, since reality differed much from the ideals of Persian imperial policy presented therein. Cyrus and his successor Cambyses II considered Pasargadae the center of the Teispid Empire and Babylonia was transformed peu à peu into one of many satrapies. 76 The main sources on Alexander’s conquest agree regarding his choice of Babylon as his royal residence; however, some past commentators have misunderstood that Alexander followed in the steps of the Achaemenid rulers by doing so. Although the Great Kings seasonally migrated between their residences Persepolis, Susa, Ecbatana, and Babylon, their inscriptions and administrative texts clearly present Persepolis as the symbolic center of an empire. 77 The Achaemenids’ choice of their seats of power reveals imperial 72 Pongratz-Leisten 2018; Schaudig 2018a; Waters 2018; Waerzeggers 2015, 187–202. See the deconstruction of the image of Cyrus that the Cyrus-Cylinder entertains by Van der Spek 2014b. 73 Cyrus-Cylinder ll. 28’–30’ according to Schaudig 2001, 556: i-na qí-bi-ti-šú] ṣir-ti nap-ḫar LUGAL a-ši-ib BÁRA MEŠ ša ka-li-iš kib-ra-a-ta iš-tu tam-tì e-li-tì a-di tam-tì šap-li-tì a-ši-ib n[a-gi-i(*) né-su-tì] LUGAL MEŠ KUR a-mur-ri-i a-ši-ib kuš-ta-ri ka-li-šú-un bi-lat-su-nu ka-bi-it-tì ú-bi-lu-nim-ma qé-erba ŠU.AN.NA KI ú-na-áš-ši-qu še-pu-ú-a. Translation by Schaudig 2018a. 74 On proskynesis as greeting gesture acted out during ceremonies at Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian royal courts see Rollinger 2011, 23–40. 75 Horowitz 1998, 20–25. Cf. Haubold 2013, 102–107. 76 Klinkott 2019 (Babylonia becoming a satrapy); Stronach 2018 (Pasargadae as centre of the Teispid Empire); Canepa 2018, 23–37 (archaeological and archival evidence of Babylon under the Achaemenids). For the discourse on Achaemenid rule among Babylonian and Greek intellectuals see Degen 2022a, 279–294; Wiesehöfer 2017a; Waerzeggers 2015; Kuhrt 2014; Rollinger 1999; Rollinger 1998a, 357; 368; Kuhrt 1988; Kuhrt 1987. 77 Hyland 2019 (administrative texts concerning the  Ionian Revolt); Dan 2013 (royal inscriptions). There is no hint in the sources suggesting that the Seleucid rulers regularly changed residences, cf. Tuplin 2008, 121.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

140

Julian Degen

identity in the same way the royal inscriptions in the imperial heartland do. Those texts were written in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian and portray the Great King as a universal ruler using the languages of its most important imperial possessions. 78 However, in this context, Alexander’s choice of Babylon needs further examination. In the eyes of Strabo, the status of Babylon as the capital of the Macedonian World Empire was beyond any doubt. 79 A fact widely neglected by scholars is that Babylon was the place where Alexander issued the so-called ‘Exiles-Decree’ and there he also received envoys of Greek poleis to renegotiate the decree which concerned not only the Western parts of his empire. 80 Perdiccas, too, as the last ruler of the only short-termed empire of Alexander, exercised power with Babylon as the center of his empire. 81 Considering all this, there is no reason to doubt Babylon’s status as the heart of the Macedonian World Empire. At this point, the question needs to be asked: why exactly did Alexander choose Babylon as his seat of power? Of course, considering his early death one can doubt if this decision was meant to be only temporary. 82 Although we will never know for certain, reading a passage from Diodorus’ account through its Babylonian contexts may shed light on Alexander’s response to local conceptions of rulership. The most striking example is how Alexander flirts with Babylonian traditions in the funeral celebrated for his dead friend Hephaestion in Babylon. For this purpose, he ordered the construction of a massive building known as ‘Hephaestion’s Pyre’. Diodorus gives a lengthy and colorful ἔκφρασις of this building in which he places special emphasis on τρυφἠ. 83 Although additional elements added to the description by the Hellenistic authors Diodorus drew on are still noticeable, the cultural background of the building’s most basic elements, nonetheless, deserve to be discussed in detail: a) The pyre surpassed all funerals celebrated previously, 84 b) All the cities of the region had to contribute to the pyre, 85 c) The pyre was constructed square in shape, 86 d) The pyre consisted of seven levels, 87 e) The construction was higher than 130 cubits. 88 78 Egyptian and Greek were also used in other objects. Bichler/Rollinger 2017, 3–7; Jacobs 2012; Wiesehöfer 2007, 32–34. 79 Strab. 15.3.10: τὴν γοῦν Βαβυλῶνα ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος προέκρινεν ὁρῶν καὶ τῷ μεγέθει πολὺ ὑπερβάλλουσαν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις. 80 Dmitriev 2004; Worthington 2015. On renegotiations of the ‘Exiles-Decree’ see Degen 2022a, 112– 129 on D.S. 17.113.3. 81 On Perdiccas as ruler of the Macedonian World Empire see Rathmann 2005. On the classification of Alexander’s realm as a ‘short-termed empire’ see Rollinger/Degen/Gehler 2020, 15–19. 82 See the most elaborate treatment of this topic by Schachermeyr 1970, 74–77. 83 McKenchie 1995, 432. 84 D.S. 17.114.1. 85 D.S. 17.114.4. 86 D.S. 17.115.1–2. 87 D.S. 17.115.3–4. 88 D.S. 17.115.5.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

141

This description reminds the reader of Herodotus’ digression on the tomb of Belus in Babylon, i.e., the Etemenanki. 89 Without any doubt, this building was meant to be a ziggurat in the world of Histories, although he describes the building rather as a tower. 90 The most eye-catching parallels, however, are the pyre’s square shape and its lavishly decorated seven levels. The decoration and the number of levels, in particular, conform to Babylonian texts describing the ideal appearance of a ziggurat and differs much in its form compared to modern archaeological attempts at reconstructions. 91 Taking all this into account, the building described by Diodorus seems less to have been an accurate description of a building than to fit an ideologically-correct Babylonian model. Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Macedonian elements alternate with one another in the decoration what highlight the imperial ideal of ὁμόνοια established in Alexander’s realm, a theme broadly similar to that reflected in the roughly co-temporal reliefs of the Alexander-sarcophagus, which was patronized by a client king espousing court propaganda for his own purposes. 92 Proclaiming peace is a doctrine of empire in general and thus shows that the symbolism found in ‘Hephaestion’s Pyre’ was addressed to an imperial audience. 93 A further argument in favor of this view is the way in which all lands of the new Macedonian World Empire contributed to the pyre’s construction. According to Diodorus: All of the generals and the soldiers and the envoys and even the natives rivaled one another in contributing to the magnificence of the funeral, so, it is said, that the total expense came to over twelve thousand talents. 94 By referencing the envoys, Diodorus refers to a long list of envoys who came to Babylon to be received therein audience by Alexander. 95 The different origins of the envoys cover all the oikoumene from its easternmost to its westernmost points and thus highlight Alexander’s universal claim to power. 96 Some statements found in other sources support this idea that Alexander saw himself as the master of the world. 97 The fact that all these envoys 89 Hdt. 1.181.2–4. 90 Cf. Degen 2022d. This might be due to the fact that Herodotus never visited Babylon in person and penned his account based on information available to him. See the thorough discussion on this topic in Rollinger 1993 and Rollinger 2001. 91 James/Van der Sluijs 2008: 67–68. Edition and Translation of K 2346 54 is Reiner/Pingree 1998: 248–249: MUL BABBAR MUL.SAG.ME.[G]AR MUL SA5 d Ṣal-bat-a-nu MUL SIG7 dDilbat | MUL MI dSAG.UŠ : dGUD.UD. For arguments based on archaeological data see Allinger-Csollich 1998. I hope to come back to this issue at another occasion. 92 On Eastern and Western elements of Hephaestion’s Pyre see Palagia 2000. On the so-called ‘Alexander-Sarcophagus’ bearing ancient Near Eastern elements and Macedonian elements see Heckel 2006 (who suggests that this was the grave of the former satrap Mazaeus). However, there is no scholarly consensus on the identification of the person being buried in the sarcophagus. 93 Gehler/Rollinger 2014, 10; 24. For the Achaemenid Empire in particular see Rollinger 2014, 157. 94 D.S. 17.115.5. 95 D.S. 17.113. 96 Degen 2022a, 294–301; Rollinger 2016c, 154. 97 Arr. An. 7.15.4–6: γῆς τε ἁπάσης καὶ θαλάσσης κύριον. Cf. Degen forthc. b; Degen 2022c.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

142

Julian Degen

competed to contribute to this building parallels the Etemenanki-Cylinder. If we leave the physical form of the building aside and focus on the persons involved in its construction and its significance for people outside Babylonia, striking parallels concerning the role of Babylon can be drawn between the Diodorus’ ἔκφρασις and the Etemenanki-Cylinder. In the world of the Neo-Babylonian royal text, all the cities set between the Upper and the Lower Sea participated in making the Etemenanki, the world’s most lavishly decorated building. Hence, Babylon becomes a task occupying the whole empire, which covers nearly the inhabited world. Moreover, the idea of outperforming the predecessor’s construction works is essential in the world of Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian inscriptions, and can still be found in the Cyrus-Cylinder. 98 Projects involving specialists from all edges of an empire are typical expressions of the multicultural character of an empire and the universal claim to power by its rulers, especially in the First Millennium BCE. 99 Thus it appears that Alexander engaged this Babylonian and broader ancient Near Eastern imperial trope, if not maintained the specifically Babylonian idea of Babylon as the center of the world. A few scholars have viewed the statement of Diodorus on Alexander tearing down the walls of Babylon as evidence for his lack of understanding of local traditions. 100 Nevertheless, this information does not fit in the overall context and may find its best explanation in an error on the part of Diodorus in handling the source material or in a misleading statement taken from his sources. Arrian mentions that Alexander ordered the tearing down of the sanctuary of Asclepius in Ecbatana, which is the place where Hephaestion passed away. 101 We do not hear about this in Diodorus, whose account is focused on the funeral’s splendor solely and thus seems to be based on sources from Hellenistic times. 102 Seen from this perspective, and considering the Babylonian context, ‘Hephaestion’s Pyre’ seems more to be the product of Alexander’s flirtation with well-established ideas of empire than a description of a building that once was built. Or, to put it differently, Diodorus’ description is not necessarily an accurate account of the structure but rather a rendition of a clearly recognizable ideological pattern. Why did Seleucus as satrap of Babylonia not follow in the steps of Alexander, who established Macedonian rule so successfully there, when he proclaimed himself a king? Strabo states that Esangila laid in ruins since the time of Xerxes, although he, too, remarks on Alexander’s renovation. Furthermore, he states that none of Alexander’s successors in Babylon expended effort in renovating Esangila and accuses the Macedonians of negligence – ἡ τῶν Μακεδόνων ὀλιγωρία. He also states that Seleucus became indifferent to Babylon when he built Seleucia. 103 This might be explained as being colored by Strabo’s 98 99 100 101

Schaudig 2010. Rollinger 2008. D.S. 17.115.1. Arr. An. 7.14.5. See also Palagia 2000, 167–168 with arguments to identify the lion-monument in Ecbatana as Alexander’s dedication to Hephaestion. 102 McKechnie 1995. On Diodorus’ blurring the information coming from his sources see the arguments of Wirth 1971, 623–625 regarding the sack of Persepolis. 103 Strab. 16.1.5.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

143

perspective explaining the decline of Babylon of his own days. 104 However, neither Strabo nor Pausanias state that Seleucus’ used its ancient monuments to gain material for building Seleucia. 105 As we learn from Pausanias, Seleucus spared the walls and Belus’ sanctuary where the Chaldeans were permitted to live – περὶ αὐτὸ τοὺς Χαλδαίους οἰκεῖν. 106 Thus it appears that the reason for the Magi’s discomfort in Appian’s account could be explained best with the loss of Babylon’s former status as the center of the world and not with its physical downgrading. This means that Seleucus broke with imperial identity as it was promoted by Alexander on purpose. A possible explanation for Seleucus’ policy can be achieved by comparing his position with the one Ptolemy obtained. Ptolemy finally was one of Alexander’s σωματοφύλακες and thus belonged to the ruler’s inner circle. 107 Seleucus never obtained this distinguished status. He may never have felt personally tied to Alexander since he did not belong to the ‘circle of power’ who divided the Macedonian World Empire as their spoils. However, this explanation alone is not a satisfying explanation to understand Seleucus’ imperial project. Seen from a Macedonian perspective, Seleucus had no reason to legitimize his rule in Babylonia as a successor of Alexander. By doing so, he highlighted his closeness to Alexander when it was useful for him. He did so in front of audiences of his empire who considered a link to Alexander as necessary for the legitimate ruler. Such instances are the Western parts of the Seleucid Empire, especially in the case of the oracle at Didyma, and also when addressing the Macedonian stratum of his imperial elite. 108 On the contrary, Ptolemy, as we already have seen, legitimized his status as king by emphasizing his closeness to Alexander in his royal representation and his account on the expedition. 109 Things, however, were different when Seleucus staged himself as ruler in front of non-Macedonian contexts of his empire. This applies in particular to Babylonia. The satrapy was his basis of power and thus served as the basis for his conquests making him the most powerful of all

104 Ogden 2017, 163: “From the perspective of his own day, he (scil. Strabo) notes that Babylon had been in continual decline even from the Persian period and that the greater part of it was now deserted, with Seleucia-on-the-Tigris being the far greater city.” 105 This concerned the so-called ‘Median Wall’ in particular, cf. Kosmin 2014a, 195. 106 Paus. 1.16.3: τοῦτο δὲ Σελεύκειαν οἰκίσας ἐπὶ Τίγρητι ποταμῷ καὶ Βαβυλωνίους οὗτος ἐπαγόμενος ἐς αὐτὴν 0υνοίκους ὑπελείπετο μὲν τὸ τεῖχος Βαβυλῶνος, ὑπελείπετο δὲ. τοῦ Βὴλ τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ περὶ αὐτὸ τοὺς Χαλδαίους οἰκεῖν. Translation by W.H.S. Jones. 107 On the social construction of Macedonian elites see Heckel 1986; Heckel 1978. 108 This applies to Alexander’s alleged restoration of the oracle Didyma in special. See Nudell 2018 and Nawotka 2017. 109 On Ptolemy using Alexander for legitimizing his power see Worthington 2016; Schäfer 2014; Schäfer 2012.On Ptolemy as author on a biased account on Alexander see Howe 2018a (commentary on the extant fragments); Howe 2018b and Howe 2015 (exaggeration of his role during Alexander’s campaign); Müller 2014 and Müller 2013 (staging his own role during Alexander’s campaign and supressing the later Diadochi); Roisman 1984 (defaming the Diadochi). Cf. Errington 1969. Arguments for viewing all the fragments of the yet lost accounts in an 4th century BCE context see Rosen 1979.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

144

Julian Degen

the Diadochi, just to quote Arrian’s famous passage. 110 The rise of his empire brought him in conflict with the still existent institutions of Alexander’s Macedonian World Empire. Hence, the decision to found Seleucia-on-the-Tigris as a new royal residence needs to be seen in the process of fragmentation of the Macedonian World Empire which led to different responses to Alexander. Founding Seleucia, however, did not cause Babylonian kingship’s loss of importance in Seleucus’ understanding as a ruler. This can be seen in the fact that the inhabitants of Seleucia, for instance, the Stoic philosopher Diogenes, were widely known as Babylonians. 111 This statement clearly shows that Seleucia was not founded with the purpose of ‘Hellenizing’ the indigenous people, as past scholars argued. 112 Seleucia was not founded as a ‘New Babylon’ to inherit the exact status of the city. It was intended to be the new seat of empire highlighting the two hearts of Seleucid rule in Mesopotamia: the Macedonian βασιλεία in its imperial orientation as well as the Babylonian royal tradition as the conception of kingship framing the legitimation of rule in Babylonia. By doing so Seleucus proclaimed a meaningful translatio imperii. Seen from the view of the empire, Seleucus had different residences spread all over in his vast realm and, therefore he did trade upon Achaemenid inheritance by choosing residences in all parts of the realm, which were considered to be important for imperial identity. 113 In this course of imperial aspiration, Babylonia remained to be an important satrapy though, where the new seat of power was founded, but its position was just of many satrapies in the Seleucid Empire. Seleucus followed in the steps of former empire-builders, such as the Assyrian kings and Cyrus, who defined the identity of their empire not only through Babylon. Does this mean that the Babylonian conception of legitimate rulership did not play a specific role in Seleucus’ imperial project? I would answer this question by pointing to the Babylonian strategies of legitimation in the κτίσις on Seleucia. Approaching the Babylonian Perspective: Royal Qualities and Legitimation of Seleucus In Appian’s account, Seleucus is portrayed as a king appointed by the gods. In the role of a Babylonian king, Seleucus finally overcomes the priests’ opposition with the help of divine favor and goodwill. This manifests through a spontaneous signal – ἄφνω κατὰ τὴν αἰσιωτέραν ὥραν δόξαντές τινα κελεύειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἔργον ἀνεπήδησαν – which gave an order to 110 Arr. An. 7.22.5: Σέλευκον γὰρ μέγιστον τῶν μετὰ Ἀλέξανδρον διαδεξαμένων τὴν ἀρχὴν βασιλέα γενέσθαι. On this statement of Arrian see Worthington 2022. See also App. Syr. 55: … ὡς ὡρίσθαι τῷδε μάλιστα μετ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον τῆς Ἀσίας τὸ πλέον. On Babylon as Seleucus’ basis of power, see Van der Spek 2014a, 325–335, esp. 328. 111 Strab. 16.1.16. 112 An overview on the scholarly debate is Held 2002, 217–218; 221–236; 245–247. 113 Canepa 2018, 42–67. Tuplin 2008, 121 is more cautious: “What happened in new capitals is unknown. That Dura or Ai Khanum (where elements of both Persepolitan and Babylonian palatial traditions can be spotted) is a fitting guide begs questions, particularly where Antioch is concerned.”

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

145

the waiting army to begin the construction work. This spontaneous impulse in Appian’s account neither can be understood from context nor by rationalization. 114 Since this unexpected order clearly comes from the divine sphere, it requires explanation. To be selected by a divine force and receiving its support was considered to be a royal quality in the ancient Near Eastern worlds and the rulers of the ancient Near Eastern empires legitimized their decision-making in their inscriptions by highlighting the gods’ accordance with their political agenda. 115 The Great Kings of the Teispid-Achaemenid dynasty are good examples of rulers who emphasized their qualities by their status of being selected by a divine force and achieving victories against evil enemies on the background of divine good-will. 116 In this regard, they followed the steps of rulers from the then Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. In their royal inscriptions, the Achaemenids legitimized their rule by highlighting their appointment by Auramazdā in formulaic phrases. The religious dimension of Achaemenid royal legitimation was disseminated throughout the whole empire and thus found its way to the Aegean world. 117 The Histories of Herodotus in particular reflect this aspect of Achaemenid propaganda and contain several anecdotes on how the Great Kings used divine favor for their purposes, even if the further the Teispid-Achaemenid rulers’ campaign towards the limits of the oikoumene violate divinely ordained law. 118 Xenophon, for instance, understood that the Great Kings were divinely ordained rulers and styled Cyrus in Cyropaedia according to this model. 119 In his fictive biography of the Persian empire-builder, a light from heaven happens to appear in the decisive moment of battle and ensures his ultimate victory. 120 The Athenian author, too, used the theme of divine legitimation to exaggerate the role of his character in the narrative of his famous Anabasis. 121 Divine favor became an essential element of the Argead house’s monarchical representation. The famous episode of Alexander loosening the Gordian Knot in Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandrou is partly based on the yet lost work of Aristobulus, but also in thunder, lightning bolts, and other signs that happened to occur before the Macedonian ruler solved the ancient riddle with his sword. 122 Divine intervention was important not only for the ancient authors recording Alexander’s deeds but, we may deduce, for the ruler himself when communicating with his troops. 123 The close parallel between the portents by thunder in the case of Seleucus, when he was looking for a place to found Seleucia-in-Pieria, or Xenophon when he became the leader of the Ten Thousands, shows 114 For an explanation based on rationality see Grainger 1990, 101. 115 Parker 2011, 365–367; Lang 2010, 19–20; Oded 1992, 145–162. 116 Rollinger 2017, 203–211; Schwinghammer 2011a; Schwinghammer 2011b; Ahn 1992; Briant 2002, 210–212. 117 Schwab 2017; Rollinger 2016a. 118 Bichler/Rollinger 2017, 7–10. 119 Degen 2020a, 199–202; Tuplin 2013; Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1985. 120 Degen 2020a, 203–217; Degen 2019a. 121 Degen 2019a, 83–86. 122 BNJ 139 F 7a (= Arr. An. 2.3.1–8). 123 Trampedach 2020; Ulanowski 2014.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

146

Julian Degen

that such portents were understood as signs highlighting divinely ordained leadership by a Graeco-Macedonian audience. 124 However, it is striking that the two portents accounted for by Appian have different cultural backgrounds. On the one hand, the portent of thunder, which happened to appear when Seleucia-in-Pieria was founded, belongs in the context of Graeco-Macedonian religion, and, with a degree of uncertainty, local myths. 125 On the other hand, the account on Seleucia-on-the-Tigris’ foundation reveals its expressiveness only if seen in ancient Near Eastern contexts. Seleucus finally overcame the treacherous Magi with the help of divine intervention, and this aspect is key to an interpretation of this episode. Seleucus I’s use of this trope follows in a long line of ancient Near Eastern precedents. The support of a god in any sort of conflict is an important feature of the strategies of ancient Near Eastern kings to legitimize their rule. This idea found its most significant expression in the Teispid-Achaemenid time. Darius I did legitimate his position as a usurper on the Persian throne by underlining the divine goodwill of Ahuramazdā. This becomes clearly visible in the Old Persian version of the Behistun inscription accounting for his accession to the throne: This that I did, by the favour of Auramazdā, in one and the same year I did. Auramazdā helped me (upstām abara), and the other gods who are. 126 Furthermore, the reader of the Achaemenid royal inscription knows the formulaic phrase “by the favour of Auramazdā” – op. vašnā Auramazdāha/bab. ina ṣilli dUramazda – as the most powerful of Darius’ arguments for claiming rule. 127 We find the same idea already in the so-called ‘Cyrus-Cylinder’ from Babylon, which allows insights into how the Babylonian priesthood staged Cyrus as ideal ruler in their cultural context: 128 Marduk, the great lord, who takes care of his people, saw with pleasure his (scil. Cyrus) good deeds and his righteous heart. He commanded to set out for Babylon, and, like a friend and companion, he walked at his side. (Cyrus’) vast troops, whose number like the water in a river, could not be counted, marched at his side, girt with their weapons. 129

124 Kitchell 1996; Braund 2001 esp. 20–26; Calhoun 1935. 125 Ogden 2017, 117–134. 126 DB (op. ) §62 B–C according to Schmitt 2009, 82: i-m: t-y : a-d-m : a-k-u-n-v-m : h-m-h-y-a-y-a : θ-r-d : [v-š]-n-a : a-u-r-m-z-d-a-h : a-k-u-n-v-m : Translation by Kuhrt 2007, 148. 127 Degen 2020a, 201–202; Ahn 1992, 196–199, at 197: “So lautet die Kernaussage, die das Königtum des Dareios von dem seiner Gegner grundlegend unterscheidet.” Cf. Schmitt 2014, 115 s.v. vašna-; CAD 16 s.v. ṣillu. 128 Pongratz-Leisten 2018; Schaudig 2018a; Ahn 1992, 20–53. 129 Cyrus-Cylinder ll. 14’–17’ according to Schaudig 2001, 552: DINGIR.AMAR.UTU EN GAL ta-ru-ú ÙG-MEŠ-šú epše-e-ti-ša dam-qa-a-ta ù šà-ba-šu i-ša-ra ḫa-di-iš ip-pa-li-i[s] a-na URU-šu KÁ.DINGIR.MEŠ KI a-la-ak-šu iq-bi ú-ša-aṣ-bi-it-su-ma ḫar-ra-nu TIN.TIR KI ki-ma ib-ri ù

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

147

In another section of the Cyrus-Cylinder, the right to be king is linked to the selection of the highest Babylonian deity Marduk: …looking for a righteous king, dear to his heart, and finally he took with his very hand Cyrus, king of the city of Anšan, and calling his name, he appointed him to be king of the entire world. 130 The main theme of the Cyrus-Cylinder is Cyrus’ appointment by Marduk. The text conveys this impression by the interaction between the Teispid ruler and the god. The god calls Cyrus to become Babylonian king, calls his name, and accompanies him into battle. In this context, the verbal expression of Marduk’s command by the god himself looms large. In the world of the Cyrus-Cylinder, Marduk is the only persona agens who gives a command – iqbi – to Cyrus who finally acts as a heeler – ina qibīti d AMAR.UTU. 131 The parallel to the unexpected order happening to occur in the story on the foundation of Seleucia thus can easily be drawn. The Achaemenid dynasty succeeding the Teispids proved their ability to translate their rule in different cultural contexts. 132 Darius I celebrated his victory against the Babylonian usurpers who engineered a revolt in the aftermath of his accession to the throne in the so-called ‘Victory Stele.’ 133 This is a fragmentary stele that is meant to be a translation of the Bisitun narrative from a Persian into a Babylonian context. The most striking in the lacunary text is Darius’ referring to the Babylonian god Bēl instead of Auramazdā. 134 The intense encounter with indigenous traditions, too, is a significant feature of early Hellenistic kings who were in power over the non-Graeco-Macedonian parts of Alexander’s former empire. This affected much of the staging of royal qualities in front of different audiences. Although the divine appointment of a ruler who, too, gets divine good-will already consisted of the idea of good leadership in the Homeric opera, the cultural backgrounds of the inhabitants of the Hellenistic empires caused an engagement of Aegean rulers with new ideas of royal qualities. The influence of Homeric elements and conceptions of ideal rulership on the royal representation of the Argead dynasty may be subject to debate, nevertheless, Alexander III dealt with ancient Near Eastern models of kingship in different ways. 135 Although Alexander’s flirts with the conceptions

130 131 132 133 134 135

tap-pe-e it-tal-la-ka i-da-a-šu um-ma-ni-šu rap-ša-a-tì ša ki-ma me-e ÍD la ú-ta-ad-du-ú ni-ba-šu-un GIŠ.TUKUL.MEŠ-šu nu ṣa-an-du-ma i-ša-ad-di-ḫa i-da-a-šu. Translation by Schaudig 2018b, 22. Cyrus-Cylinder ll. 11’–12’ according to Schaudig 2001, 555: iš-te-’e-e-ma ma-al-ki i-šá-ru bi-bil ŠÀbi-ša it-ta-ma-aḫ qa-tu-uššu  Iku-ra-áš LUGAL URU an-ša-an it-ta-bi ni-bi-it-su a-na ma-li-ku-tì kul-la-ta nap-ḫar iz- zak-ra šu-┌um-šú┐*. Translation by Schaudig 2018b, 22. Cyrus-Cylinder ll. 15’; 34’ according to Schaudig 2001. On the Persian imperial program see Rollinger 2014. On the differentiation between the Achaemenid and Teispid dynasty see Rollinger 1998b. Cf. also Jacobs 2011 and Henkelman 2011. Heller 2010, 268–269; Lorenz 2008; Wiesehöfer 1978. Seidel 1999, esp. 109 fragment 7 l. 5’: [dEN is-se-da]n-nu ina GIŠ.MI ša dEN. Different readings are provided by von Voigtlander 1978, 63–66. For arguments against the communis opinio that Alexander’s conception of rulership firmly rests in Homeric thought see Heckel 2015 (Heracles dominated in the representation of Argead dynasty);

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

148

Julian Degen

of Achaemenid rulership did not make the ‘last Achaemenid’ out of him, he, nonetheless, was intensively engaged with ancient Near Eastern elites. 136 This applies in particular to the Babylonian priesthood. Babylonian concepts gained importance for Alexander in the last year of his reign in particular. He turned to Babylonian priests and followed indigenous ritual traditions to maintain kingship. 137 It is, therefore not surprising, that the priests accepted Alexander as legitimate ruler, which they highlighted by using the traditional royal titles such as “king of the world” – LUGAL ÍÚ – “king of the totality” – A-lek-sa-an-darri-is LUGAL ŠÚ – and their accounts of the battle of Gaugamela reflect this. 138 Looking further in the late reign of Seleucus  I, Seleucid imperial policy integrated ancient Near Eastern traditions as well. Our information on the role of Babylonian conceptions of good rulership during the early Seleucid period rests on much firmer ground than for the short period of Alexander’s reign. Two texts from this period are evidence for the intensive encounter of the Macedonian dynasty with local traditions. As we learn from the Chronicle concerning the Crown Prince and the ‘Ruin of Esagila,’ 139 Antiochus staged his kingship in Babylonian and Macedonian ways. 140 Although the text offers a Babylonian perspective on the representation of Antiochus I as crown prince, the reader learns from a marginal note about the different cultural dimensions of Seleucid imperial rule; Greek sources mention that Antiochus was at this time co-regent. Indigenous texts put a finer point to the ideological meaning of this title when calling him “crown prince of the reigning house” – mār šarri ša bīt rēdūti. 141 The use of this title shows the Seleucids seeking a link to the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. This title, or even office, is well attested for members of the dynasty. 142 According to the chronicle, Antiochus sacrificed at the temple of Esagila, the Babylonian main sanctuary, in the fashion of Iamanu, i.e. Macedo-

136

137 138 139 140 141

142

Maitland 2015 (Homeric elements were added by later authors). A thorough treatment of Alexander’s conception of power and understanding of his different roles is Degen 2022a. On Alexander dealing with ancient Near Eastern models of kingship see Degen 2021; Rollinger/Degen 2021a; Degen 2019b; Olbrycht 2015. For Alexander’s encounter with Iranian elites see Degen 2022a, 322–332; Bosworth 1980. On the formule procovante ‘last Achaemenid’ see Briant 2002, 856, and with much more clarification Briant 2017a, 29. Contra Fox 2010; Fox 2007; Wiemer 2007, who view Alexander either as Macedonian ‘conqueror-king’ or ‘the first Hellenistic man’. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that already the Argead rulers preceding Philip II and Alexander III encountered intensively with the neighbouring Achaemenid Empire. See Wiesehöfer 2017b. Arr. An. 3.16.5. On the priests see Jursa 2020; Ross 2016 and Berve 1926a, 98–99. Cf. Heller 2010, 355–443 (overview on Alexander’s policy in Babylon); Huber 2005, 368–380 (on the ritual of the performance of the ritual of the substitute king. See also the objection of Fox 2016). Van der Spek 2003, 298. Cf. Rollinger 2016b; Rollinger/Ruffing 2012. BCHP 6. Edition: Van der Spek 2006, 294–295. For comments and contextualization see Haubold 2013, 133–134; Van der Spek 2006, 274–275; Sherwin-White 1983, 265–266. Van der Spek 2006, 271; Sherwin-White 1983, 265–266: “He is present, visits in person, and makes offerings in temples at Babylon, signalling royal concern for non-Greek, Babylonian religion.” Van der Spek 2006, 294–295: “Oxen [and] an offering in the Greek fashion (šá É.SAG.GÍL in-da-qut GU4./MEŠ\.H[I.A. ù ] PAD.dINNIN GIM GIŠ.HUR)”. Haubold 2013, 133. See also Hackl 2020. Van der Spek 2006, 271; Sherwin-White 1983, 265–266.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

149

nia – kīma uṣurāti māti Iamanu. 143 This means that Antiochus performed in Babylon at Esagila a sacrifice in Greco-Macedonian fashion before Babylonian priests and the Seleucid imperial army. This shows that Antiochus entered the dialogue with the Babylonian elites by acting out the ancient script as a Babylonian king was supposed to do, but without omitting his Macedonian background. 144 The so-called ‘Antiochus-Cylinder’ is a second instance for the engagement of the Seleucid ruler with Babylonian traditions: In the month of Addaru, on the twentieth day, in year 43 (= 27 March 268 BC), I laid the foundations of Ezida, the true house, the temple of Nabû which is in Borsippa. Nabû, supreme heir, wisest of the gods, the proud one, who is worthy of praise, firstborn son of Marduk, offspring of Erua the queen who forms living creatures, look favourably (upon me). 145 Antiochus, however, portrayed himself as a Babylonian king to highlight and speak to the multiple imperial constituencies of his rule. 146 In this case, a clear Babylonian connotation can be found. In the cylinder’s text, Nabu does look favorably – ḫadîš lippalisma  –  upon Antiochus, just in the way the goddess Ninmaḫ did when Ashurbanipal renovated the temple Emaḫ in Babylon, according to the Assyrian inscriptions addressed to a Babylonian audience. 147 This is one of many of the Seleucids’ intense encounter with the Mesopotamian contexts of their empire. Thus, it appears that the voice giving the order to begin the laying of the foundation of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris has a special semantic value that needs to be seen in the terms of the Babylonian idea of royal legitimation. It highlights that Seleucus received divine good-will and portrays him as the rightful king of Babylon to the eyes of his indigenous subjects. Taking all this into consideration, Appian’s account shows that Seleucus answered the local resistance of the priests in his court propaganda by highlighting his status as divinely chosen king.

143 On Iamanu as ethnic marker for all peoples leaving the area around Aegean Sea see Rollinger 2006; Klinkott 2001; Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2001. 144 Haubold 2013, 132–135. 145 Antiochus-Cylinder according to CAMS, ll. 13’–22’: ù É.ZI.DA ub-bi-il ina itiŠE U₄ 20-KAM MU 43-KAM uš-šu ša É.ZI.DA É ki-i-ni É dNÀ šá qé-reb BAR.SÌPki ad-de-e uš-ši-šu dNÀ IBILA ṣi-i-ri IGI.GÁL.LA DINGIR.MEŠ muš-tar-ḫu ša a-na ta-na-da-a-ti šit-ku-nu IBILA reš-tu-u₂ ša d AMAR.UTU i-lit-ti de₄-ru₆-ú-a šar-rat pa-ti-qát nab-ni-ti ḫa-diš nap-li-is-ma. Text and translation by K. Stevens. 146 Stevens 2014; Strootman 2013b. 147 RIMB 2, Ashurbanipal 4, l. 14’–16’: eš-šiš ú-še-piš a-na šat-ti dnin-maḫ GAŠAN ṣir-tu ep-še-te-ia MUNUS.SIG5.MEŠ ḫa-diš lip-pal-lis-ma u₄-me-šam-ma ma-ḫar dEN dGAŠAN-ía lit-tas-qar da-mì-iq-ti.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

150

Julian Degen

Conclusion If seen against the backdrop of Hellenistic and ancient Near Eastern conceptions of legitimate rulership, Appian’s account on the foundation of Seleucia is a revealing source for the objectives of Seleucus’ imperial project. Furthermore, its ideologically charged meaning becomes comprehensible when considering imperial traditions. Thus it appears that the kernel of the episode on the foundation of Seleucia is a court-propagated κτίσις by Seleucus, which tells us much about how he handled and balanced different conceptions of rulership when shaping the identity of his empire by emancipating from Alexander. The compounded narrative not only creates an atmosphere in which Seleucus appears to be the divinely chosen ruler but reveals his imperial plans. In Mesopotamia, the heart of his empire, he proclaimed the translatio imperii from Alexander’s Macedonian World Empire to his new empire. Although this significant change brought him in conflict with the Babylonian priests, the court-propaganda of Seleucus used indigenous elements to emphasize the legitimation of his rule. The κτίσις thus shows the objectives of Seleucus: in the course of shifting the reference point of imperial tradition and establishing a new imperial identity by founding a new residence, Seleucus did not neglect Babylonian conceptions of legitimate rulership. The fact that these objectives are interwoven is the reason for the enigmatic character of Appian’s account. Or in other words, in Appians’ narrative Seleucus defeated the Babylonian priests with Babylonian strategies of legitimate kingship making it a complex account that is full of symbolism meaningful to multiple cultures and political traditions. In this case, the imperial identity of his empire in Mesopotamia clearly comes to the fore: a body with two hearts. References Ahn 1992 = G. Ahn, Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation im achämenidischen  Iran: Die  Voraussetzungen und Struktur ihrer Argumentation (Acta  Iranica 31/Textes et Mémoires 17), Leiden. Allinger-Csollich 1998 = W. Allinger-Csollich, Birs Nimrud II: “Tieftempel” – “Hochtempel”.  Vergleichende Studien Babylon  –  Borsippa, in: Baghdader Mitteilungen 29, 95–330. Beaulieu 2018 = P.A. Beaulieu, A History of Babylon 2200 BC–AD 75 (Blackwell History of the Ancient World), Malden, MA/Oxford. Berve 1926a = H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage. Erster Band Darstellungen, München. — 1926b = Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage. Zweiter Band Prosoprographie, München. Bichler 1983 = Bichler, R., ‘Hellenismus’. Geschichte und Problematik eines Epochenbegriffs (Impulse der Forschung 41), Darmstadt. Bichler/Rollinger 2017 = R. Bichler/R. Rollinger, Universale Weltherrschaft und die Monumente an ihren Grenzen. Die  Idee unbegrenzter Herrschaft und deren Bre-

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

151

chung im diskursiven Wechselspiel (Vom Alten Orient bis zum  Imperium Romanum), in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Die Sicht auf die Welt zwischen Ost und West (750 v. Chr.-550 n. Chr.). Looking at the World, from the East and the West (750 BCE-550 CE) (Classica et Orientalia 12), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2017, Teil A, 1–30. Bings 1991 = J. Bings, Alexander’s Sacrifice dis praesidibus loci before the Battle of Issus, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111: 161–165. Boiy 2007 = T. Boiy, Between High and Low. A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period (Oikumene 5), Berlin. Boiy/Mittag 2011 = T. Boiy./F.P. Mittag,, Die lokalen Eliten in Babylonien, in: B. Dreyer/F.P. Mittag (eds.), Lokale Eliten unter den hellenistischen Königen. Zwischen Kooperation und Konfrontation, Berlin, 105–131. Bosworth 1980 = A.B. Bosworth, Alexander and the  Iranians, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 100: 1–21. — 1983 = The Indian Satrapies under Alexander the Great, Antichthon 17: 37–46. — 2002 = The Legacy of Alexander. Politics, Warfare, and Propaganda under the Successors, Oxford. Braund 2001 = D. Braund, Palace and polis: Dionysus, Scythia and Plutarch’s Alexander, in: I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC. Regional Development and Cultural  Interchange between East and West (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 4), Athens, 15–31. Briant 2002 = P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake, IN. — 2005 = Alexandre et l’hellénisation de l’Asie : l’histoire au passé et au présent, in: Studi Ellenistici 16: 9–69. — 2017a = Foreword, in: P. Briant (ed.), Kings, Countries, Peoples. Selected Studies on the Achaemenid Empire. Translated by Amélie Kuhrt (Oriens et Occidens 26), Stuttgart, 1–29. — 2017b = When Kings write History: the Persian period in Ptolemaic inscriptions, in: P. Briant (ed.), Kings, Countries, Peoples. Selected Studies on the Achaemenid Empire. Translated by Amélie Kuhrt (Oriens et Occidens 26), Stuttgart, 221–231. Brodersen 1989 = K. Brodersen, Appians Abriss der Seleukidengeschichte (Syriake 45,232 – 70,369) Text und Kommentar (Münchener Arbeiten zur Alten Geschichte 1), München. Brosius 2012 = M. Brosius, Diplomacy between “Pax Persica” and “Zero-Tolerance”, in: J. Wilker (ed.), Maintaining Peace and  Interstate Stability in Archaic and Classical Greece (Studien zur Alten Geschichte 16), Mainz am Rhein, 150–164. Bursaselis 2010 = K. Buraselis, God and King as Synoikists: Divine Disposition and Monarchic Wishes Combined in the Traditions of City Foundations in Alexander’s and Hellenistic Times, in: L. Foxhall/H.-J. Gehrke/N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greek, Stuttgart, 256–272. Canepa 2018 = M. Canepa, The  Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal  Identity through Architecture, Landscape and the Built Environment, Oakland.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

152

Julian Degen

Dan 2013 = A. Dan, Achaemenid World Representations in Herodotus’ Histories: Some Geographic Examples of Cultural Translation, in: K. Geus/E.  Irwin/Th. Poiss (eds.), Herodots Wege des Erzählens. Logos und Topos in den Historien, Frankfurt a. M., 83–121. Da Riva 2008 = R. Da Riva, The Neo-Babylonian Royal  Inscriptions. An  Introduction (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record Volume 4), Münster. Degen 2019a = J. Degen, Xenophon and the Light from Heaven, The Ancient History Bulletin 33, 3–4: 81–107. — 2019b = Alexander  III., Dareios  I. und das speererworbene Land (Diod. 17, 17, 2), Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 6: 53–95. — 2020a = Ancient Near Eastern Traditions in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Conceptions of Royal Qualities and Empire, in: B. Jacobs (ed.), Ancient  Information on Persia Re-assessed: Xenophon’s Cyropaedia FS Christopher Tuplin (Classica et Orientalia 22), Wiesbaden, 197–240. — 2020b = Herodot, Sisamnes und der Topos der grausamen persischen Monarchie, in: M. Zerjadtke (ed.) Der ethnographische Topos in der Alten Geschichte. Annäherungen an ein omnipräsentes Phänomen (Hamburger Studien zu Gesellschaften und Kulturen der Vormoderne 10), Stuttgart, 39–55. — 2021 = Alexander III, the Achaemenids and the Quest for Dionysos. Framing and Claiming Universal Rulership in the Macedonian World Empire, in: T. Daryaee/R. Rollinger (eds.), Iran and its Histories. From the Beginnings through the Achaemenid Empire (Classica et Orientalia 29), Wiesbaden, 239–287. — 2022a = Alexander III. zwischen Ost und West. Indigene Traditionen und Herrschaftsinszenierung im makedonischen Weltimperium (Oriens et Occidens 39), Stuttgart. — 2022b = Source and Criticism: Traces of Alexander’s “Official Language” in Anabasis, in: R. Rollinger/J. Degen (eds.), Arrian and the World of Alexander (Classica et Orientalia), Wiesbaden, 25–72. — 2022c = Alexander und die κήτεα des Okeanos, Klio 104, 2: 517–549. — 2022d = Planets, Palaces and Empire. Some Observations on ancient Near Eastern and Greek influences on Herodotus’ portrayal of Deioces’ palace (Hdt. 1.98–99), in: R. Mattila/S. Fink/S. Ito (eds.), Evidence Combined. Western and Eastern Sources in Dialogue (Melammu Symposia 11 – Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 920), Wien, 41–73. — forthc. a = Herodotus and the Persian Priests, in: M.R. Shayegan/M. Stevens (eds.), Contextualizing Iranian Religions in the Ancient World (Melammu Symposia), Wien, in press. — forthc. b = Alexander and Empire: A Commentary on a New Testimony to Onesicritus (Sen. Ben. 7.2.5), Journal of Hellenic Studies 144: in press. Dmitriev 2004 = S. Dmitriev, Alexander’s Exiles Decree, Klio 86: 348–381. Dougherty 1993 = C. Dougherty, The Poetics of Colonization. From City to Text in Archaic Greece, New York/Oxford.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

153

Dumitru 2015–2016 = A.G. Dumitru, “It was an act of God”: On the religious dimension of the City Foundation in the Seleucid Kingdom (IIIrd cent. B.C.), Archaeus 19–20: 183–208. Eddy 1961 = K.S. Eddy, The King is Dead! Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334–31, Lincoln. Elayi 2018 = J. Elayi, Sennacherib, King of Assyria (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 24), Atlanta. Engels 2010 = D. Engels, Prodigies and Religious Propaganda: Seleucus and Augustus, in: C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 15, Bruxelles, 153–177. Errington 1969 = M. Errington, Bias in Ptolemy’s History of Alexander, The Classical Quarterly 19, 2: 233–242. Erskine 2014 = A. Erskine, Ruler Cult and the Early Hellenistic City, in: H. Hauben/A. Meeus (eds.), The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 B.C.) (Studia Hellenistica 53), Leuven, 579–597. Fales 1999–2001 = F.M. Fales, Assyrian Royal  Inscriptions: Newer Horizons, in: State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 13: 115–144. Fox 2007 = R.L. Fox, Alexander the Great: ‘Last of the Achaemenids’?, in: Chr. Tuplin (ed.), Persian Responses: Political and Cultural  Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire, Swansea, 267–311. — 2010 = The first Hellenistic Man, in: A. Erskine/L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds.), Creating A Hellenistic World, Oxford, 1–29. — 2016 = Alexander and Babylon: A Substitute King? in: K. Nawotka/A. Wojciechowska (eds.), Alexander the Great and the East. History, Art, Tradition (Philippika 103), Wiesbaden, 103–115. Freedman 1998 = S. Freedman, If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series Shumma Alu ina Mele Shakin, vol. 1, Winona Lake, IN. Fuchs 1994 = A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen 1996. Gehler/Rollinger 2014 = M. Gehler/R. Rollinger, Imperien und Reiche in der Weltgeschichte  –  Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische  Vergleiche, in: M. Gehler/R. Rollinger (eds.),  Imperien in der Weltgeschichte. Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche, 2 Bände, Wiesbaden, 1–32. — 2022 = Imperial Turn: Challenges, Problems and Questions, in: M. Gehler/R. Rollinger (eds.), Empires to be remembered. Ancient Worlds through Modern Times (Universal- und kulturhistorische Studien. Studies in Universal and Cultural History), Wiesbaden, 3–39. Gehrke 1982 = H.-J. Gehrke, Der siegreiche König. Überlegungen zur Hellenistischen Monarchie, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 64: 247–277. — 20084 = Geschichte des Hellenismus (Oldenbourgs Grundriss der Geschichte 1A), München. — 2020 = Concluding Remarks, in: K. Trampedach/A. Meeus (eds.), The Legitimation of Conquest. Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great (Studies in Ancient Monarchies 7), Stuttgart, 319–323.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

154

Julian Degen

Grainger 1990 = J.D. Grainger, Seleukos Nikator. Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, London. Hackl 2020 = J. Hackl, Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der Seleukidenzeit: Die Koregentschaft von Seleukos I. Nikator und Antiochos (I. Soter), Klio 102, 2: 560–578. Hadley 1978 = H. Hadley, The foundation of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Historia 27: 228–230. Haubold 2012 = J. Haubold, The Achaemenid Empire and the Sea, Mediterranean Historical Review 27, 1: 4–23. — 2013 = Greece and Mesopotamia: Dialogues in Literature, Cambridge. Hauser 1999 = S. Hauser, Babylon in arsakidischer Zeit, in: J. Renger (eds.), Babylon. Focus Mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, Saarbrücken, 207–239. Heckel 1978 = W. Heckl, The “Somatophylakes” of Alexander the Great: Some Thoughts, Historia 27, 1: 224–228. — 1986 = “Somatophylakia”: A Macedonian “Cursus Honorum”, Phoenix 40, 3: 279–294. — 2006 = Mazaeus, Callisthenes and the Alexander Sarcophagus, Historia 55, 4: 385–396. — 2015 = Alexander, Achilles, and Heracles: Between Myth and History, in: E. Baynham/P. Wheatley (eds.), East and West in the World Empire of Alexander: Essays in Honour of Brian Bosworth, Oxford, 21–33. Held 2002 = W. Held, Die Residenzstädte der Seleukiden. Babylon, Seleukeia am Tigris, Ai Khanum, Seleukeia in Pieria, Antiocheia am Orontes, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 117: 217–249 Heller 2010 = A. Heller, Das Babylonien der Spätzeit (7.-4. Jh.) in den klassischen und keilschriftlichen Quellen (Oikumene 7), Berlin. Henkelman 2011 = W.F.M. Henkelman, Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Elamite: a Case of Mistaken Identity, in: R. Rollinger/B. Truschnegg/R. Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich – Herodotus and the Persian Empire (Classica et Orientalia 3), Wiesbaden, 577–634. Horowitz 1998 = W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Mesopotamian Civilizations 8), Winona Lake, IN. Howe 2013 = T. Howe, The Diadochi Invented Tradition, and Alexander’s Expedition to Siwah, in: V.A. Tronscoso/E.M. Anson (eds.), After Alexander. The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC), Oxford, 57–70. — 2014 = Founding Alexandria: Alexander the Great and the Politics of Memory, in: P. Bosman (ed.), Alexander in Africa (Acta Classica Supplementum 5), Pretoria, 72–91. — 2015 =  Introducing Ptolemy: Alexander and the Persian Gates, in: W. Heckel/S. Müller/G. Wrightson (eds.), The Many Faces of War in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 166–195. — 2018a = Ptolemy (138), in: I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby Online (http://dx. doi.org/10.1163/1873–5363_bnj_a138) — 2018b = Kings Don’t Lie: Truthtelling, Historiography and Ptolemy I Soter, in: T. Howe (ed.), Ptolemy I Soter: A Self-Made Man, Oxford, 155–184.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

155

Huber 2005 = I. Huber, Ersatzkönige in griechischem Gewand: Die Umformung der šar pūhi-Rituale bei Herodot, Berossos, Agathias und den Alexander-Historikern, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer, Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zur Vollendung des 60. Lebensjahres (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 325), Münster, 339–398. Hyland 2019 = J. Hyland, The Achaemenid Messenger System and the  Ionian Revolt: New Evidence from the Persepolis Fortification Archive, Historia 68, 2: 150–169. Invernezzi 1994 = A. Invernezzi, Hellenism in Mesopotamia. A View from Seleucia on the Tigris, Al-Rafidan 15: 1–24. Jacobs 2011 = B. Jacobs, “Kyros, der große König, der Achämenide”  –  Zum verwandtschaftlichen Verhältnis und zur politischen und kulturellen Kontinuität zwischen Kyros dem Großen und Dareios I., in: R. Rollinger/B. Truschnegg/R. Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich – Herodotus and the Persian Empire (Classica et Orientalia 3), Wiesbaden, 635–663. — 2012 = Sprachen, die der König spricht – Zum ideologischen Hintergrund der Mehrsprachigkeit der Achämenideninschriften, in: R. Rollinger et al. (eds.), Altertum und Gegenwart – 125 Jahre Alte Geschichte in Innsbruck, Vorträge der Ringvorlesung Innsbruck 2010 (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft – Neue Folge 4), Innsbruck, 95–130. James/Van der Sluijs 2008 = P. James/M.A. Van der Sluijs, Ziggurats, Colors, and Planets: Rawlinson Revisited, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 60: 57–79. Jursa 2007 = M. Jursa, The Transition of Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to Achaemenid Rule, in: H. Crawford (ed.), Regime change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt. From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein (Proceedings of the British Academy 136), Oxford, 73–94. — 2013 = Die babylonische Priesterschaft im ersten Jahrtausend v. Chr., in: K. Kaniuth et al. (eds.), Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.-13. Oktober 2009 (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Band 7), München, 151–165. — 2014 = The Neo-Babylonian Empire, in: M. Gehler/R. Rollinger (eds.), Imperien und Reiche in der Weltgeschichte: Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche, 2 Bände, Wiesbaden, 121–148. — 2020 = Wooing the Victor with Words: Babylonian Prietsly Literature as a Response to the Macedonian Conquest in: K. Trampedach/A. Meeus (eds.), The Legitimation of Conquest. Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great (Studies in Ancient Monarchies 7), Stuttgart, 165–177. Kitchell 1996 = K.F. Kitchell, Did Zeus Destroy the “House of Tiles”?, The Ancient World 27, 1: 77–80. Klinkott 2000 = Die Satrapienregister der Alexander- und Diadochenzeit (Historia Einzelschriften 145), Stuttgart. — 2001 = Yauna – Griechen in den Perserinschriften, in: H. Klinkott (ed.), Anatolien imLichte kultureller Wechselwirkungen: Akkulturationsphänomene in Kleinasien und seinen Nachbarregionen während des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Tübingen, 107–148.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

156

Julian Degen

— 2007 = Xerxes in Ägypten. Gedanken zum negativen Perserbild in der Satrapenstele, in: S. Pfeiffer (ed.), Ägypten unter fremden Herrschern zwischen persischer Satrapie und römischer Provinz (Oikumene 3), Frankfurt a.M., 34–53. — 2019 = Heiligtum und Herrschaft. Zum Verhältnis von Lokalheiligtümern und Reichsverwaltung am Beispiel der Satrapenteilung Babyloniens, in: R. Achenbach (ed.), Persische Reichspolitik und lokale Heiligtümer (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fürAltorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 25), Wiesbaden, 121–146. Kosmin 2014a = P.J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings. Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge, MASS. — 2014b = Seeing Double in Seleucid Babylonia: Re-reading the Borsippa Cylinder of Antiochus I., in: A. Moreno/R. Thomas (eds.), Patterns of the Past: Epitēdeumata in the Greek Tradition, Oxford, 173–198. Kuhrt 1987 = A. Kuhrt, Survey of Written Sources Available for the History of Babylonia under the Later Achaemenids (Concentrating on the Period From Artaxerxes II to Darius III), in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Structures and Sythesis (Achaemenid History 1), Leiden, 147–157. — 1988 = The Achaemenid Empire: A Babylonian Perspective, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society N.S. 34: 60–76. — 1990 = Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood, in: M. Beard/J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, Ithaca, 119–155. — 2007 = The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, 2 vols., London/New York. — 2014 = Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence, in: M. Kozuh/W.F.M. Henkelman/Ch.E. Jones/Chr. Woods (eds.), Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68), Chicago, 163–169. Lang 2010 = M. Lang, Erwählung, Akzession und  Inthronisation altorientalischer Herrscherzwischen Mythos, Ritual und formalem Rechtsakt, in: K. Huber Konrad/A. VonachAndreas (eds.), Ordination – mehr als eine Beauftragung? (Synagoge und Kirchen 3), Münster, 9–35. Lang/Rollinger 2010 = M. Lang/R. Rollinger, Im Herzen der Meere und in der Mitte des Meeres. Das Buch Ezechiel und die in assyrischer Zeit fassbaren Vorstellungen von den Grenzen der Welt, in: R. Rollinger/B. Gufler/M. Lang/I. Madreiter (eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts (Philippika 34), Wiesbaden, 207–264. Leschhorn 1984 = W. Leschhorn, Gründer der Stadt: Studien zu einem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischen Geschichte (Palingenesia 20), Stuttgart. Liverani 2019 = M. Liverani, The Role of the Royal Inscriptions in Reconstructing Assyrian History, in: G.B. Lanfranchi/R. Mattila/R. Rollinger (eds.), Writing Neo-Assyrian History. Sources, Problems, and Approaches (State Archives of Assyria Studies 29), Helsinki, 123–138. Lorenz 2008 = J. Lorenz, Nebuchadnezar III/IV. Die politischen Wirren nach dem Tod des Kambyses im Spiegel der Keilschrifttexte, Dresden.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

157

LJS 1996 = H.G. Liddell/R. Scott/H.S. Jones (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford. Madreiter 2016 = I. Madreiter, Antiochos the Great and the robe of Nebuchadnezzar: intercultural transfer between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism, in: S. Svärd/R. Rollinger (eds.), Crosscultural studies in Near Eastern history and literature (Intellectual Heritage of the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. 2), Münster, 111–136. Maitland 2015 = J. Maitland, ΜΗΝΙΝ ΑΕΙΔΕ ΘΕΑ: Alexander the Great and the Anger of Achilles, in: P. Wheatley/E. Baynham (eds.), East and West in the World Empire of Alexander. Essays in Honour of Brian Bosworth, Oxford, 1–20. Malkin 1987 = I. Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden. Mann 2020 = C. Mann, Alexander and athletics or how (not) to use a traditional field of monarchic legitimation. in: K. Trampedach/A. Meeus (eds.), The Legitimation of Conquest. Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great (Studies in Ancient Monarchies 7), Stuttgart, 61–75. Marín 2016 =A.I.M. Marín, The kings of Macedonia and the crossing of the Hellespont, in: F. J. Gómez Espelosín/B. Antela-Bernárdez (eds.), El imperio de Alejandro. Aspectos geográficos e historiográficos, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá (Monografías Humanidades 64), Alcalá de Henares, 51–74. McKechnie 1995 = P. McKechnie, Diodorus Siculus and Hephaestion’s Pyre, The Classical Quarterly 45, 2: 418–432. Messina 2011 = V. Messina, Seleucia on the Tigris. The Babylonian Polis of Antiochus I., Mesopotamia 46: 157–167. Meeus 2014 = A. Meeus, The territorial ambitions of Ptolemy I, in: H. Hauben/A. Meeus (eds.), The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323 – 276 B.C.) (Studia Hellenistica 53), Leuven/Paris/Bristol, 263–306. — 2020 = The Strategies of Legitimation of Alexander and the Diadochoi: Cotinuities and Discontinuities, in: K. Trampedach/A. Meeus (eds.), The Legitimation of Conquest. Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great (Studies in Ancient Monarchies 7), Stuttgart. Mehl 1980–1981 = A. Mehl, Doriktetos Chora: Kritische Bemerkungen zum “Speerer­ werb” in Politik und  Völkerrecht der hellenistischen Epoche, Ancient Society 11: 173–212. Mittag 2014 = P.F., Mittag, Die Seleukiden in Mesopotamien. Tradition und Neuerung in: F. Hoffmann/K.S. Schmidt (ds), Orient und Okzident in hellenistischer Zeit. Beiträge zur Tagung “Orient und Okzident – Antagonismus oder Konstrukt? Machtstrukturen,  Ideologien und Kulturtransfer in hellenistsicher Zeit”, Würzburg, 10.13.4.2008, Vaterstetten, 167–184. Müller 2011 = S. Müller, Die frühen Perserkönige im kulturellen Gedächtnis der Makedonen und in der Propaganda Alexanders d. Gr., Gymnasium 118: 105–133. — 2013 = Ptolemaios und die Erinnerung an Hephaistion, Anabasis 3: 75–92. — 2014 = Ptolemaios I. und das Ölwunder (Arr. an. 4,15,8), in: V. Lica et al. (eds.), Graecia, Roma, Barbaricum: In memoriam Vasile Lica, Galaţi, 175–97.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

158

Julian Degen

— 2020 = Xenophon’s Kyroupaideia and the Alexander Historiographers, in: B. Jacobs (ed.), Ancient Information on Persia Re-assessed: Xenophon’s Cyropaedia FS Christopher Tuplin (Classica et Orientalia 22), Wiesbaden, 261–282. Nawotka 2010 = K. Nawotka, Alexander the Great, Cambridge. — 2012 = Persia, Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia, Klio 94, 2: 348–356. — 2017 = Seleukos I and the Origin of the Seleukid Dynastic Ideology, Scripta Classica Israelica 36: 31–43. Novotny 2010 = J. Novotny, Temple Building in Assyria. Evidence from Royal Inscriptions, in: M.J. Boda/J. Novotny (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366), Münster, 109–140. Nudell 2018 = J.P. Nudell, Oracular Politics: Propaganda and Myth in the Restauration of Didyma, The Ancient History Bulletin 32, 1–2: 44–60. Oded 1992 = B. Oded, War, Peace and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, Wiesbaden. Ogden 2011 = D. Ogden, Seleucid dynastic foundation myths: Antioch and Seleucia-in-Pieria, in: K. Erickson/G. Ramsey (eds.), Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor (Philippika 50), Wiesbaden, 149–160. — 2017 = The Legend of Seleucus. Kingship, Narrative and Mythmaking in the Ancient World, Cambridge. Olbrycht 2015 = M. Olbrycht, An Admirer of Persian Ways: Alexander the Great’s Reforms in Parthia-Hyrcania and the Iranian Heritage, in: T. Darayee/A. Mousavi/K. Rhezakhani (eds.), Excavating an Empire. Achaemenid Persia in Longue Durée, Costa Mesa, CA, 37–62. Palagia 2000 = O. Palagia, Hephaestion’s Pyre and the Royal Hunt of Alexander, in: A.B. Bosworth/E.J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford, 167–206. Parker 2011 = B.J. Parker, The Construction and Performance of Kingship in the Neo-Assyrian empire, Journal of Anthropological Research 67/3: 357–386. Pfeiffer 2014 = S. Pfeiffer, Alexander der Große in Ägypten: Überlegungen zur Frage seiner pharaonischen Legitimation, in: K. Nawotka et al. (eds.), Alexander the Great and Egypt. History, Art, Tradition (Philippika 74), Wiesbaden, 89–106. Pongratz-Leisten 1997 = B. Pongratz-Leisten, Das “negative Sündenbekenntnis”  des Königs anlässlich des babylonischen Neujahrfestes und die Kidinnūtu von Babylon, in: J. Assmann/Th. Sundermeier (eds.), Schuld, Gewissen und Person (Studien zum Verstehen fremder Religionen 9), Gütersloh, 83–101. — 1999 = Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (State Archives of Assyria Studies 10), Helsinki. — 2018 = “Ich bin ein Babylonier”: The Political-Religious Message of the Cyrus Cylinder, in: M.R. Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great. Life and Lore (Ilex Foundation Series 21), Cambridge, MA/London, 92–105.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

159

Porter 1993 = B.N. Porter, Images, Power, and Politics. Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy, Philadelphia. Rathmann 2005 = M. Rathmann, Perdikkas zwischen 323 und 320. Nachlassverwalter des Alexanderreiches oder Autokrat? (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 724), Wien. Reiner/Pingree 1998 = E. Reiner/D. Pingree, Babylonian Planetory Omens 3 (Cuneiform Monographs 11), Groningen. Richardson 2020 = S. Richardson, Down with “Legitimacy”: On “Validity” and Narrative in Royal Tales, in: E. Wagner-Durand/J. Linke (eds.), Tales of Royalty. Notions of Kingship in Visual and Textual Narration in the Ancient Near East, Boston/Berlin, 243–260. Roisman 1984 = J. Roisman,Ptolemy and His Rivals in His History of Alexander, The Classical Quarterly 34, 2: 373–385. Rollinger 1993 = R. Rollinger, Herodots Babylonischer Logos. Eine kritische Untersuchung der Glaubwürdigkeitsdiskussion an Hand ausgewählter Beispiele: Historische Parallelüberlieferung – Argumentationen – Archäologischer Befund – Konsequenzen für eine Geschichte Babylons in persischer Zeit (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 84), Innsbruck. — 1998a = Überlegungen zu Herodot, Xerxes und dessen angeblicher Zerstörung Babylons, Altorientalische Forschungen 25: 339–373. — 1998b = Der Stammbaum des achaimenidischen Königshauses oder die Frage der Legitimität der Herrschaft des Dareios, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30: 155–209. — 1999 = Xerxes und Babylon, Notes Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1: 9–12. — 2001 = Zu Herodots Anwesenheit in Babylon und zu Xerxes’ angeblichen Strafmaßnahmen an der babylonischen Metropole, in: H. Taeuber (ed.): Akten des 7. Österreichischen Althistorikertages. Mit einem Anhang: Annona epigraphica Austriaca 1993–1998, Vienna, 43–47. — 2006 = Yaunā takabarā und maginnāta tragende ‘Ionier’. Zum Problem der ‘griechischen’ Thronträgerfiguren in Naqsch-i Rustam und Persepolis, in: R. Rollinger/B. Truschnegg (eds.), Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante. Festschrift für Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag, Stuttgart (Oriens et Occidens 12), Stuttgart, 365–400. — 2008 = Dareios, Sanherib, Nebukadnezar und Alexander der Große: die Organisation großköniglicher Projekte, deren Infrastruktur sowie der Einsatz fremder Arbeitskräfte, Iranistik. Deutschsprachige Zeitschrift für iranistische Studien 9–10, 1–2 (FS Kettenhofen): 147–169. — 2011 = Herrscherkult bei Teispiden und Achaimeniden. Realität oder Fiktion?, in: L.-M. Günther/S. Plischke (eds.), Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscherkult (Oikumene 9), Berlin, 11–54. — 2014 = Das teispidisch-achaimenidische Großreich. Ein ‘Imperium’ avant la lettere?, in: M. Gehler/R. Rollinger (eds.),  Imperien in der Weltgeschichte Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche 1, Wiesbaden, 149–192.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

160

Julian Degen

— 2016a = Royal Strategies of Representation and the Language(s) of Power: Some Considerations on the audience and the dissemination of the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions, in: S. Procházka/L. Reinfandt/S. Tost, (eds.), Official Epistolography and the Language(s) of Power (Papyrologica Vindobonensia 8), Vienna, 117–130. — 2016b = The battle of Arbela in 331 BCE, Disloyal “Orientals” and the Alleged “Panic” in the Persian Army: from Neo-Assyrian kings to Alexander III, in: S. Svärd/R. Rollinger (eds.), Cross-cultural Studies in Near Eastern History and Literature (The Intellectual Heritage of the Ancient and Medieval Near East 2), Münster, 213–242. — 2016c = Megasthenes, mental maps and Seleucid royal ideology: the western fringes of the world or how Ancient Near Eastern empires conceptualized world dominion, in: J. Wiesehöfer et al. (eds.), Megasthenes und seine Zeit – Megastehenes’ and His Time (Classica et Orientalia 13), Wiesbaden, 129–164. — 2017 = Monarchische Herrschaft am Beispiel des teispidisch-achaimenidischen Großreichs, in: S. Rebenich (ed.), Monarchische Herrschaft im Altertum, Berlin, 189–215. — 2018 = Herodotus and the Transformation of Ancient Near Eastern Motifs: Darius I, Oebares, and the Neighing Horse, in: Th. Harrison/E.  Irwin (eds.),  Interpreting Herodotus, Oxford, 125–148. — 2020a = Contextualizing the Achaemenid-Persian Empire: What does empire mean in the First Millennium BCE?, in: G.-P. Basello et al. (eds.), Achaemenid Studies Today. Proceedings of the SIE mid-term conference held in Naples, Naples, in press. — 2020b = Some Considerations on Empire and Mental Mapping: Conceptualizing the Ends of the World in the First Millennium BCE., in: M. Cammarosano et al. (eds.), talugaeš witteš. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Stefano de Martino on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Kasion 2), Münster, 383–398. Rollinger/Degen 2021a = R. Rollinger/J. Degen, Alexander the Great and the Borders of the World, in: D. Agut-Labordère/R. Boucharlat/F. Joannès/A. Kuhrt/M.W. Stolper (eds.), Achemenet. Vingt ans après. Hommage à Pierre Briant (Persika 21), Leuven, 321–342. — 2021b = Conceptualizing Universal Rulership: Considerations on the Persian Achaemenid Worldview and the Saka at the “End of the World”, in: H. Klinkott/A. Luther/J. Wiesehöfer (eds.), Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten  Iran und benachbarter Gebiete. Festschrift für Rüdiger Schmitt (Oriens et Occidens 36), Stuttgart, 187–224. Rollinger/Degen/Gehler 2020 = R. Rollinger/J. Degen/M. Gehler, Approaching shortterm empires in world history, a first attempt, in: R. Rollinger/J. Degen/M. Gehler (eds.), Short-term empires in World History (Universal- und kulturhistorische Studien. Studies in Universal and Cultural History), Wiesbaden, 1–21. Rollinger/Ruffing 2012 = R. Rollinger/K. Ruffing, “Panik” im Heer – Dareios III., die Schlacht von Gaugamela und die Mondfinsternis vom 20. September 331 v. Chr., Iranica Antiqua 47: 101–115.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

161

Rollinger/Truschnegg/Bichler 2011 = R. Rollinger/B. Truschnegg/R. Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich – Herodotus and the Persian Empire (Classica et Orientalia 3), Wiesbaden. Rosen 1979 = K. Rosen, Politische Ziele in der frühen Hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung, Hermes 107, 4: 460–477. Ross 2016 = M. T. Ross, Belephantes to Alexander: An Astrological Report to a Macedonian King?, in: K. Nawotka/A. Wojciechowska (eds.), Alexander the Great and the East. History, Art, Tradition (Philippika 103), Wiesbaden, 89–102. Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1985 = H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, The death of Cyrus: Xenophon’s Cyropaedia as a source for Iranian history, in: A.D.H. Bivar (eds.), Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, vol. II (Acta Iranica 25), Leiden, 459–472. — 2001 = Yauna by the Sea and Those across the Sea, in: I. Malkin (ed.), Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, Washington, DC, 323–346. Schachermeyr 1970 = F. Schachermeyr, Alexander in Babylon und die Reichsordnung nach seinem Tode (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 268), Böhlau/Wien. Scharrer 1999 = U. Scharrer, Seleukos I. und das babylonische Königtum, in: K. Brodersen (ed.), Zwischen West und Ost. Studien zur Geschichte des Seleukidenreichs, Hamburg, 95–128. Schaudig 2001 = H.-P. Schaudig, Die  Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 256), Münster. — 2010 = The Restoration of Temples in the Neo- and Late-Babylonian Periods: A Royal Prerogative as the Setting for Political Argument, in: M.J. Boda/J. Novotny (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366), Münster, 141–164. — 2018a = The Text of the Cyrus Cylinder in: M.R. Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great: Life and Lore (Ilex Series 21), Harvard, MA/London, 16–25. — 2018b = The Magnanimous Heart of Cyrus. The Cyrus Cylinder and its Literary Models, in: M.R. Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great: Life and Lore (Ilex Series 21), Harvard, MA/London, 67–91. Schäfer 2012 = Ch. Schäfer, Mut zum Risiko? – Überlegungen zur Herrschaftslegitimation in den Didadochenreichen, in: R. Rollinger/G. Schwinghammer/B. Truschnegg/ K. Schnegg (eds.), Altertum und Gegenwart. 125 Jahre Alte Geschichte in  Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, N.F. 4), Innsbruck, 305–331. — 2014 = Die Diadochenreiche: ‘Imperien’ oder konkurrierende Territorialstaaten?, in: M. Gehler/R. Rollinger (eds.), Imperien in der Weltgeschichte Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche 1, Wiesbaden, 387–400. Schmitt 2006 = R. Schmitt, Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’ Werk (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora. III), Wien. — 2009 = Die altpersischen  Inschriften der Achaimeniden. Editio minor mit deutscher Übersetzung, Wiesbaden.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

162

Julian Degen

— 2014 = Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften, Wiesbaden. Schwab 2017 = A. Schwab, Achaimenidische Königsideologie in Herodots Erzählung über Xerxes, Hdt. 7,8–11, in: H. Klinkott/N. Kramer (eds.), Zwischen Assur und Athen. Altorientalisches in den Historien Herodots (SpielRäume der Antike 4), Stuttgart, 163–195. Schwinghammer 2011a = G. Schwinghammer, Dareios, die Wahrheit und die Rolle der Gewalt, in: P. Muaritsch (ed.), Akten des 13. Österreichischen Althistorikerinnen- und Althistorikertages, Graz, 209–216. — 2011b = Die Smerdis Story – Der Usurpator, Dareios und die Bestrafung der „Lügenkönige, in: R. Rollinger/B. Truschnegg/R. Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das Persische Weltreich – Herodotus and the Persian Empire (Classica et Orientalia 3), Wiesbaden, 665–687. Seidel 1999 = U. Seidel, Ein Monument Darius’ I. aus Babylon, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 89: 101–114. Sherwin-White 1983 = S.M. Sherwin-White, Babylonian Chronicle Fragments as a Source for Seleucid History, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42, 4: 265–270. — 1987 = Seleucid Babylonia: A Case-Study for the  Installation and Development of Greek Rule, in: A. Kuhrt/S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction of Greek and non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia, Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1–30. Soares 2017 = F. Soares, ‘The titles ‘King of Sumer and Akkad’ and ‘King of Karduniaš’, and the Assyro-Babylonian relationship during the Sargonid Period’, Rosetta 19: 20–35. Spawforth 2012 = T. Spawforth, The Pamphleteer Ephippus, King Alexander and the Persian Royal Hunt, Histos 6: 169–213. Stevens 2014 = K. Stevens, ‘The Antiochus Cylinder, Babylonian scholarship and Seleucid cultural patronage’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 134: 66–88. — 2016 = Empire Begins at Home: Local Elites and Imperial Ideologies in Hellenistic Greece and Babylonia, in: M. Lavan/R.E. Payne/J. Weisweiler (eds.), Cosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean (Oxford Studies in Early Empires), New York, 65–88. Streck 2002 = M. P. Streck, Der Wiederaufbau Babylons unter Asarhaddon und Assurbanipal in Briefen aus Ninive, Altorientalische Forschungen 29, 2: 205–233. Stronach 2018 = D. Stronach, Cyrus, Anshan, and Assyria in: M.R. Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great. Life and Lore (Ilex Foundation Series 21), Cambridge, MA/London, 46–66. Strootman 2011 = R. Strootman, Kings and Cities in the Hellenistic Age, in: O.M. van Nijf/R. Alston (eds.), Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age, Leuven/ Paris/Walpole, MA, 141–153. — 2013a = The Seleukid Empire between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism: Writing the history of Iran in the Third and Second Centuries BCE, Iranian Studies 11, 1–2: 17–35. — 2013b = Babylonian, Macedonian, King of the World: The Antiochos Cylinder from Borsippa and Seleukid imperial integration, in: E. Stavrianopoulou (eds.), Shifting

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

163

Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images, Leuven, 67–97. — 2014 = ‘Men to Whose Rapacity neither Sea nor Mountain Sets a Limit’: The Aims of the Diadochs, in: H. Hauben/A. Meuss (eds.), The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 B.C.) (Studia Hellenistica 53), Leuven, 305–322. — 2015 = Seleucus, in: Encyclopaedia  Iranica Online (http://www.iranicaonline.org/ articles/seleucid-kings). — 2018 = The return of the king: Civic feasting and the entanglement of city and empire in Hellenistic Greece’, in: J. H. Blok/R. Strootman/F. van den Eijnde (eds.), Feasting and Polis Institutions (Mnemosyne Supplements 414), Leiden/Boston, 273–296. — 2020a = The Ptolemaic Sea Empire, in: R. Strootmann/F. van den Eijnde/R. van Wijk (eds.), Empires of the Sea: Maritime Power Networks in World History, Leiden/ Boston, 113–152. — 2020b = Hellenism and Persianism in Iran – Culture and empire after Alexander the Great, Dabir 7, 201–227. Strootman/Versluys 2017 = R. Strootman/M.J. Versluys, From Culture to Concept – The Reception and Appropriation of Persia in Antiquity, in: M. J. Versluys/R. Strootman (eds.), Persianism in Antiquity (Oriens et Occidens 25), Stuttgart 9–32. Trampedach 2017 = K. Trampedach, Die Priester der Despoten. Herodots persische Magoi, in: H. Klinkott/N. Kramer (eds.), Zwischen Assur und Athen. Altorientalisches in den Historien Herodots (SpielRäume der Antike 4), Stuttgart, 197–218. — 2020 = Staging Charisma: Alexander and Divination, in: K. Trampedach/A. Meeus (eds.), The Legitimation of Conquest. Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great (Studies in Ancient Monarchies 7), Stuttgart, 45–60. Trampedach/Meeus 2020 = K. Trampedach/A. Meeus,  Introduction: Understanding Alexander’s Relations with His Subjects, in: K. Trampedach/A. Meeus (eds.), The Legitimation of Conquest. Monarchical Representation and the Art of Government in the Empire of Alexander the Great (Studies in Ancient Monarchies 7), Stuttgart, 9–18. Tuplin 2008 = Chr. Tuplin, ‘The Seleucids and their Achaemenid predecessors: A Persian inheritance’, in: S.M.R. Darbandi/A. Zournatzi (eds.), Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross cultural Encounters. 1st International Conference (Athens, 11–13 November 2006), Athens, 109–136. — 2013 = Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: Fictive History, Political Analysis and Thinking withIranian Kings, in: L.G. Mitchell/C. Melville (eds.), Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies in Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Rulers and Elites: Comparative Studies in Governance 2), Leiden/Boston, 67–90. Ulanowski 2014 = K. Ulanowski, Divine Intervention during Esarhaddon and Alexander’s Campaigns in Egypt, in: V. Grieb/K. Nawotka/A. Wojciechowska (eds.), Alexander the Great and Egypt. History, Art, Tradition (Philippika 74), Wiesbaden, 29–48. Van de Mieroop 2003 = M. van de Mieroop, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000–323 BC. (Blackwell History of the Ancient World), Malden, MA/Oxford.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

164

Julian Degen

Van der Spek 2003 = R.J. Van der Spek, Darius III, Alexander the Great and Babylonian Scholarship, in: W.F.M. Henkelman/A. Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg (Achaemenid History Workshop 13), Leiden, 289–346. — 2006 = The Size and Significance of the Babylonian Temples under the Successors, in: P. Briant/F. Joannès (eds.), La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques (vers 350–300 av. J.-C.) (Persika 9), Paris, 261–307. — 2014a = Seleukos, self-appointed general (strategos) of Asia (311 – 305 B.C.), and the satrapy of Babylonia, in: H. Hauben/A. Meeus (eds.), The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 B.C.) (Studia Hellenistica 53), Leuven, 323–342. — 2014b = Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations, in: M. Kozuh et al. (eds.), Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68), Chicago, 233–264. Von Voigtlander 1978 = E. Von Voigtlander, The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great Babylonian Version (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum 1, 2), London. Waerzeggers 2011 = C. Waerzeggers, The Babylonian Priesthood in the Long Sixth Century BC, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54, 2: 59–70. — 2015 = Babylonian Kingship in the Persian Period: Performance and Reception, in: J.Stökl/C. Waerzeggers (eds.), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 478), Berlin, 181–222. Waters 2018 = M. Waters, Cyrus Rising: Reflections on Word Choice, Ancient and Modern, in: M.R. Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great. Life and Lore (Ilex Foundation Series 21), Cambridge, MA/London, 26–45. Weaver 2004 = A. Weaver, The “Sin of Sargon” and Esarhaddon’s Reconception of Sennacherib: A study in divine will, human politics and royal ideology, Iraq 66: 61–66. Wiemer 2007 = H.-U. Wiemer, Alexander – der letzte Achaimenide? Eroberungspolitik, lokale Eliten und altorientalische Traditionen im Jahr 323, Historische Zeitschrift 284: 283–309. Wiesehöfer 1978 = J. Wiesehöfer, Der Aufstand Gaumātas und die Anfänge Dareios’ I. (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Alte Geschichte 13), Bonn. — 2007 = Ein König erschließt und imaginiert sein  Imperium: Persische Reichsordnung und persische Reichsbilder zur Zeit Dareios’ I. (522–486 v.Chr.), in: M. Rathmann (ed.), Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer Räume in der Antike, Mainz a. R., 31–40. — 2017a = Herodotus and Xerxes’ hierosylia, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Die Sicht auf die Weltzwischen Ost und West (750 v. Chr. – 550 n. Chr.) – Looking at the World, from the East and the West (750 BCE – 550 CE) (Classica et Orientalia 12), Teil A, Wiesbaden, 211–220. — 2017b = The Persian Impact on Macedonia: Three Case Studies, in: S. Müller et al. (eds.), The History of the Argeads. New Perspectives (Classica et Orientalia 19), Wiesbaden, 57–64.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Seleucus I, Appian and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris

165

Wiesehöfer/Rollinger/Bichler 2011 = Wiesehöfer, J./Rollinger, R./Lanfranchi, G.B. (eds.), Ktesias’ Welt – Ctesias’ World (Classica et Orientalia 1), Wiesbaden 2011. Wirth 1971 = Wirth, G., Alexander zwischen Gaugamela und Persepolis, Historia 20, 5–6: 617–632. Worthington 2015 = I. Worthington, From East to West: Alexander and the Exiles Decree, in: P. Wheatley/E. Baynham (eds.), East and West in the World Empire of Alexander, Oxford, 93–106. — 2016 = Ptolemy I. King and Pharaoh of Egypt, New York/Oxford. — 2022 = Why Arrian Favoured Ptolemy in the Preface of his Anabasis: A Simple Solution, in: R. Rollinger/J. Degen (eds.), Arrian and the World of Alexander (Classica et Orientalia), Wiesbaden, 231–242. Zerjadtke 2020 = M. Zerjadtke, Thematische Einführung. Der Problemkomplex “Topos” und seine Facetten, in: M. Zerjadtke (ed.), Der ethnographische Topos in der Alten Geschichte. Annäherungen an ein omnipräsentes Phänomen (Hamburger Studien zu Gesellschaften und Kulturen der Vormoderne 10), Stuttgart, 11–26.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon Johannes Haubold

My aim in this chapter is to understand how the priesthood of Babylon viewed its eastern neighbors in the Seleucid and early Parthian period. I shall consider two bodies of text that I believe throw some light on the matter, one from the early decades of Seleucid rule in Mesopotamia, the other from its turbulent final years and immediate aftermath. The sources in question are Berossos’ Babyloniaca (ca. 280 BCE) and the Astronomical Diaries covering the years ca. 145–120 BCE. The value of considering these two texts together resides, in part, in the fact that they are quite different in nature. The Babyloniaca, a typical example of Hellenistic auto-ethnography, advertises Babylonian history and culture to a Greek readership. 1 Scholars may disagree about what exactly that entails, but can hardly doubt that it speaks to a specific set of political and historical circumstances. The opposite appears to be true of the Astronomical Diaries, a series of tablets in cuneiform Akkadian that chronicle celestial and terrestrial events in an esoteric format which remained largely unchanged over hundreds of years. 2 What picture of  Iran in the Seleucid and post-Seleucid period can we extract from these sources? Initial impressions suggest two separate scenarios. Berossos wrote at a time of relative stability, when hopes were high for a lasting settlement under the Seleucids. He suggests that Babylon and its eastern neighbors can coexist in mutual harmony. The Diaries of the late Seleucid and early Parthian period, by contrast, describe a world in turmoil. Accordingly, they are skeptical about finding a sustainable accommodation. If this suggests that Berossos and the diarists disagree on how to view Iran, we should however also note some similarities between the perspectives they express. Both sources ask how their neighbors fit into established patterns of Babylonian history and culture, and they both consider ways in which they challenge those patterns. For Berossos, solving what we might call ‘the Iranian question’ requires measures that are little short of miraculous. In the post-Seleucid Diaries, no miracles are possible: amid fleeting moments of hope, we see growing alarm at the fact that the Arsacid king, who ought to protect Babylon from its tormentors, is too remote and ultimately too distracted to do so effectively. 1 See variously De Breucker 2010 and 2012; Haubold/Lanfranchi/Rollinger/Steele 2013; Haubold 2013, ch. 3; Dillery 2015; Kosmin 2018, 109–118; Stevens 2019a, ch. 3; Visscher 2020, ch. 2. 2 Haubold/Steele/Stevens 2019.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

168

Johannes Haubold

The sources studied in this chapter thus stake out a range of attitudes toward  Iran in the Seleucid and early Parthian period that, while varying considerably across texts and genres, were not simply disconnected. The priests of Marduk who sponsored the Diaries – and whom Berossos claims to represent – shared a social and intellectual background which helps to explain how they came to regard their eastern neighbors in the way they did. 3 To be sure, they were not the only group that mattered in Hellenistic Babylon, and their influence was arguably on the wane. But they could still claim to represent the city. 4 By tracing their views we can,  I argue, gain new insights into how  Iran was perceived. The investigation provided here is limited in range – focusing as it does on Berossos and the Diaries only – but seems to me worthwhile in that it illuminates a period and a perspective for which evidence is scarce. Iran and Iranians in Berossos’ Babyloniaca It is uncertain when exactly the Babyloniaca was written, but a date early in the reign of Antiochus I still seems to me the most plausible interpretation of the admittedly difficult evidence. 5 This takes us to the early 3rd century  BCE, a period of consolidation in the Seleucid realm when the pace of history slowed and Seleucid thinkers set about giving the emerging commonwealth a lasting outward shape and inner structure. 6 Recent work has shown that Berossos was one such thinker: 7 as well as explaining Babylonian culture to a Greek audience, he suggested something like a founding charter for the budding state, with Greco-Macedonian and Babylonian – ‘Chaldaean’ – elites working together to protect the king and preserve the empire and its institutions. I do not wish to repeat here what I have said elsewhere about the role of the Chaldaeans in preserving kingship. 8 Rather, I start by looking at the role of Iranians, and specifically the Medes, in disrupting Babylonian traditions of legitimate rule. Kingship in Berossos, as in older Mesopotamian tradition, came down from heaven at the beginning of time. 9 In the Babyloniaca this process occurs in Babylon and among the Chaldaeans as the original rulers of the city.  10 The Chaldaeans thus come to own king 3 We shall see, for example, that Nebuchadnezzar II acts as an anchor point in both the Diaries and the Babyloniaca; and that his example structures what is said not just about Babylonian history but also about the role of Iranians in it. 4 Boiy/Mittag 2011. 5 See De Breucker 2010 ad Berossos T 2 BNJ; De Breucker 2013. Bach 2013 suggests dating down the Babyloniaca by identifying its dedicatee with Antiochus II; see also van der Spek 2018, 138–140. 6 Kosmin 2014, chs 1–2. 7 Kosmin 2013 and 2018, 109–118; Visscher 2020, 77–109. 8 Haubold 2016. 9 Abydenos F 2 BNJ; cf. SKL 1. 10 The first king Aloros, Berossos tells us explicitly, was a Chaldaean, as indeed were his successors down to the great flood and beyond; see Berossos FF 3–5 BNJ; in the Sumerian King List kingship comes down to Eridu (SKL 2–3).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon

169

ship as an institution, not just in the trivial sense that they had kings before anyone else but also in that they recovered the arts of civilisation, including kingship, when humanity temporarily lost them at the time of the great flood. As I have shown elsewhere, the story of the deluge as Berossos tells it implies a trade-off: the Chaldaeans lose their king, who goes to live with the gods, but retrieve the primordial archive of “writings” which the king had hidden from the waters. 11 They then resettle the Babylonian cities, and the succession of kings resumes. However, the line of dynastic succession is soon interrupted by another moment of crisis. In the fragments preserved in an Armenian translation of Eusebius of Caesarea, the Medes “suddenly”, Arm. յանկարծակի, gather an army and install themselves as “tyrants”, բռնաւորս, in Babylon. Unfortunately, the Armenian translation, which alone preserves this portion of the Babyloniaca, is highly compressed. It does, however, suggest that Berossos emphasized the disruptive and violent nature of the takeover, and that he did not grant the new rulers the status of ‘kings.’ 12 Berossos did not invent the Median interregnum: as Schnabel has pointed out, he follows a long-standing habit of equating the Medes with the savage Guti, who descended from the mountains east of Mesopotamia and destroyed the empire of Akkad. 13 Within the narrative economy of the Babyloniaca the episode acquires a specific significance, for it echoes the crisis brought on by the deluge with a disquieting twist: whereas a king went missing after the great flood, the invasion of the Medes raises the specter of a more radical breakdown. Moreover, it introduces a realm that lies permanently outside that of civilized human space, a realm that can suddenly and violently intrude on life in Babylon. 14 The Medes are not the only foreign rulers in Berossos’ Babylon. He later mentions an Arab dynasty (F 5a BNJ), then the Assyrians (FF 5–7 BNJ), and finally the Persians (FF 9–11 BNJ). There are problems with all of these, 15 but it is the Medes who first disrupt 11 Haubold 2013, 160–163. 12 As noted by De Breucker 2010, ad F 5a BNJ. The Armenian term բռնաւոր, which is used here, means something like ‘man of violence, despot’. Berossos perhaps used a derivative of the root τυρανν-. The word with which Armenian Eusebius renders Greek βασιλεύς (and which is not used here) is թագաւոր. 13 Schnabel 1923, 192–194; cf. De Breucker 2010 ad Berossos F 5a BNJ. 14 In Babylonian tradition, the Guti were thought of as mountain dwellers and thus to pertain to a realm that was felt to be inherently savage; see Wiggermann 1996; Feldt 2016. Armenian Eusebius does not say that the Medes descended from the mountains, but Berossos himself must have said or implied as much since we know from elsewhere in his work that he considered Media a mountainous country; cf. F 1 (2) and F 8a (141) BNJ. The flood narrative that had first brought into view mountains on the edge of the civilized world did not emphasize their threatening nature; see Berossos F 4c BNJ (ἐν τῆι ᾽Αρμενίαι πρὸς τῶι ὄρει τῶν Κορδυαίων). 15 Berossos does not seem to have cast the Arab rulers as illegitimate, but by the logic of his own account they can only be considered outsiders to Babylonian traditions of kingship. Arabia appears in Babyloniaca Book 1 as the barren counterpart of the fertile mountains which are home to the Medes; cf. F 1b (2) BNJ (εἶναι δὲ αὐτῆς τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὴν ᾽Αραβίαν μέρη ἄνυδρά τε καὶ ἄκαρπα, τὰ δὲ ἀντικείμενα τῆι ᾽Αραβίαι ὀρεινά τε καὶ εὔφορα, “The parts of Babylonia towards Arabia are dry and barren, those on the opposite side of Arabia mountainous and fertile.”) The Assyrians disrupt prop-

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

170

Johannes Haubold

the orderly succession of legitimate kings. Since then, the trauma of tyranny and foreign occupation hangs over the text like a ghost waiting to be exorcized. It is finally dispelled in Book Three of the Babyloniaca. Having been introduced as the original enemies of Babylonian kingship, the Medes are incorporated into the ideal monarchic order that Nebuchadnezzar II erects in Babylon. 16 As Amélie Kuhrt first pointed out, Nebuchadnezzar acts as the ultimate hero of Berossos’ account and as a model for the Seleucid rulers to emulate: he sets an example of military prowess and models what a good king must do to protect and enrich Babylon. 17 Nebuchadnezzar is exemplary also in his treatment of different groups within his empire, enlisting the support of his “friends” on campaign  –  Gk φίλοι, a term for Hellenistic courtiers and high-ranking officials –, and of the Chaldaeans who “preserve kingship” back in Babylon. To this blueprint of the Seleucid state, as we might call it, we can now add the Medes. The Medes enter the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in the person of Amyitis, daughter of the satrap Astyages. Two events define her life according to Berossos. The first is her marriage with Nebuchadnezzar, which cements Babylon’s alliance with Media and leads to the fall of the Assyrian Empire. 18 That Astyages appears in this context raises questions of historical accuracy that do not concern me here. 19 What matters for the present argument is that the Medes are needed to defeat the Assyrians. Although the extant fragments of Berossos do not say so explicitly, a parallel passage in Abydenos (F 5 BNJ), who depends on Berossos, makes it clear that the point of the marriage really was to secure the success of the rebellion. Already Ctesias, whose work Berossos almost certainly knew, considered the Medes to be crucial in ending the period of Assyrian domination, as did Akkadian texts like the Babylon Stele of Nabonidus, with which Berossos was also familiar. 20 In following these earlier treatments Berossos takes up a motif he had planted in his own text, when describing the invasion of Babylon by the Medes. That invasion had destroyed a seemingly unassailable regime, making the Medes an attractive ally against the all-powerful Assyrians. 21 However, the first Median conquest also led to tyr-

16 17 18 19 20 21

er Babylonian kingship in multiple ways; see Lanfranchi 2013. In particular, Berossos protests that the Assyrian queen Semiramis, a prominent figure in Greek accounts of imperial history, usurps the role of his own hero Nebuchadnezzar; see F 8a BNJ, with Haubold 2013, 167–168. The Persians, too, fall foul of the example set by Nebuchadnezzar: Berossos claims – historically incorrectly – that Cyrus took down the walls of Babylon with the aim of making the city easier to conquer. Haubold 2013, 163–165 discusses the long-standing debate over whether Cyrus did or did not follow the example of Nebuchadnezzar and restore the walls of Babylon. Berossos F 8 BNJ. Kuhrt 1987. See also Dillery 2013 and 2015, 274–293; Haubold 2013, 165–166; Kosmin 2013; Madreiter 2016; Visscher 2020, 94–99. Berossos F 7d BNJ. For discussion see De Breucker 2010, ad Berossos F 7d BNJ. For Ctesias see De Breucker 2010, ad Berossos F 8a (142) BNJ; for the Babylon Stele see Haubold 2013, 82. There has been disagreement over how to translate the noun հաստատութեան in Berossos F 5a BNJ. Karst in Jacoby 1958, 384 suggests “gewaltige dynastie”, while BNJ offers “period of stability”.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon

171

anny in Babylon, thus raising the question of how Nabopolassar would keep his allies in check. 22 Berossos’ answer is to motivate the alliance – uniquely, it seems – with a dynastic marriage. 23 As a result, he can include the Medes in the rebellion but nonetheless credit Nabopolassar and the Babylonians for bringing down Assyria: 24 if Babylon provided the spouse and Media the bride, there could be no doubt about who led the alliance. The process of domesticating Media, which begins with Nebuchadnezzar marrying Amyitis, reaches its climax in the most famous, and most intensely debated, episode in all of Berossos’ work. After Nebuchadnezzar has defeated Egypt, secured his throne, and strengthened and enriched Babylon, there remains another task for him to complete: his wife longs for the mountain scenery of her native Media, so the doting husband recreates it for her within the grounds of his palace in Babylon (Berossos F 8a (141) BNJ). I cannot here address the many problems the story of the Hanging Garden raises. 25 What exactly is meant by ‘hanging’? Was there ever a structure of this kind in Babylon? And if the story matters more than any actual building, does it reflect memories of Assyrian landscaping, perhaps refracted through Iranian romance tradition? 26 Rather than try to answer these questions, I note that, according to Berossos, the Hanging Garden owes its existence to an Iranian princess and calques a specifically Iranian landscape. At issue are the wild reaches of Media, which earlier in the Babyloniaca had occasioned the first break in the line of legitimate kings. 27 Of the three groups who sustain Nebuchadnezzar’s model empire – courtiers, Chaldaeans, and Medes – the Medes alone are represented by a woman. The significance of this will not have been lost on Greek readers familiar with Herodotus and Ctesias: those authors had taught them to regard the Median kings Cyaxares and Arbaces as heroic warrior figures, in contrast with the queens who were running the affairs of Babylon. 28 That Berossos reverses established Greek gender clichés is unsurprising, given his revisionist agenda. More remarkable are the romance-like elements with which he embellishes his account. We hear of a queen’s longings – ἐπιθυμεῖν – and her childhood memories of a familiar landscape  –  τεθραμμένην ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Μηδίαν τόποις. We also hear of the

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The latter is perhaps more accurate (cf. հաստատուն = ‘stable, constant’), but the Medes’ ability to overthrow an established imperial order remains unaffected; see De Breucker 2010, ad loc. This is a concern also in the Akkadian texts which Berossos had before him; see Haubold 2013, 83–84. Berossos appears to be alone in positing a marriage alliance between Babylon and Media prior to the fall of Nineveh. He may have taken the motif from Ctesias, who describes a similar alliance between Astyages and Cyrus; see Haubold 2013, 174–176. Other views were possible and had been discussed since the time of Nabonidus; see Haubold 2013, 78–95. For a thorough treatment see Rollinger/Bichler 2005; also Rollinger 2013. Dalley 2013 (Assyrian gardens); van der Spek 2008, 311 (Iranian story traditions). It is well to remember that mountains, and especially the Zagros range as the original haunt of the Guti/Medes, code a lack of civilisation in the Mesopotamian imagination; see above, n. 14. Cyaxares: Herodotus I.103; Arbaces: Ctesias F 1(24); for Babylonian queens see Herodotus I.184– 187 (Semiramis and Nitocris) and Ctesias F 1 (Semiramis). For gender inversion as a Babylonian trait cf. Ctesias F 6 (Nanarus).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

172

Johannes Haubold

“arrangement”, διάθεσις, that offers relief: a structure with an appearance “very similar to mountains”, τὴν ὄψιν … ὁμοιοτάτην τοῖς ὄρεσι, though of course no actual mountains. What all this amounts to is a symbolically complex and emotionally charged representation of Media and its relationship with Babylonian tradition. At the heart of that relationship stands the royal couple of Nebuchadnezzar and Amyitis. Royal couples were a popular means of articulating power relations in the Hellenistic world. 29 Antiochus’ mother, Apame, the daughter of Spitamenes, the Bactrian warlord and ally of Bessos, embodied the alliance between Macedonian and Iranian elites that Alexander had promoted at the mass wedding in Susa. 30 And Antiochus’ own marriage with his stepmother Stratonice, far from being a simple case of amour fou, covered up a major political embarrassment and advertised core values of the fledgling Seleucid dynasty. 31 Just so, the romantic story of Nebuchadnezzar indulging his Median wife illustrated the use of dynastic alliances in stabilizing a vast imperial structure, made eastern traditions of kingship palatable to a Greek audience that was naturally suspicious of them, and indicated how the Seleucids might deal with Media. In the story of Amyitis and her garden, the powerful neighbor was given a prominent place within the empire while at the same time remaining subordinate to Babylon and its traditions of kingship. Rounding off the first half of this chapter then, Berossos assigns a role to Media that is at once beset with anxiety and shrouded in mystery. The Medes first enter the narrative in traumatic circumstances, assembling an army and erecting a despotic regime in Babylon that disrupts its primordial traditions of kingship. Later in the Babyloniaca, however, their disruptive power turns into a force for good, as they help Nabopolassar shake off the Assyrian yoke. Eventually, they become a constitutive part of Nebuchadnezzar’s model empire. The Hanging Garden for Amyitis monumentalizes the arrangement in suitably gendered terms, signaling that Media is central to Babylonian kingship while remaining strictly subordinate to it. There is no question of the homesick queen Amyitis challenging her husband. Instead, she serves as a mascot of the imperial order with the purpose of excluding any future challenges from the east. This is not, of course, where Berossos’ narrative ends. Things can still go wrong and later in the Babyloniaca they do go wrong, as Nebuchadnezzar’s successors stray from the path of proper kingship and are punished by yet another Iranian invader, the Persian Cyrus. 32 The Seleucids could thus consider themselves warned. Iran and Iranians in the Astronomical Diaries I now turn to the Astronomical Diaries, and to a time roughly a century after Berossos’ Babyloniaca was written. At this point, Babylon has enjoyed a sustained period of peace 29 30 31 32

Visscher 2020, ch. 3, with further literature. Van Oppen 2014, with further literature. Van der Spek 2008, 312 sees Amyitis as a model for Apame. Politics: Grainger 2014, 98–100; values: Visscher 2020, 131–133. Berossos F 9 BNJ.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon

173

and stability under the Seleucids. We know this partly from the historical accounts of the Astronomical Diaries and partly from the market data they include in a separate section. 33 Iranian locations and populations do not feature prominently during this period. On one occasion we hear of war elephants being transferred from Bactria to Syria, but otherwise the diarists show no interest in Iran – until, that is, Iranians appear on their doorstep. 34 Elamites invaded the region in 145 BCE, and the Parthians followed in 141 BCE. These two events came to dominate the further course of history as the diarists saw it. The Elamites arrived in Babylon under dramatic circumstances. Demetrius II, the Diaries tell us, “was marching victoriously around the cities of Egypt” when suddenly Kammashkiri of Elam – or Elymais – invaded Babylonia and “marched victoriously among its cities and rivers.” 35 There is a deliberate and shocking echo between these two passages, as I have argued elsewhere: clearly, King Kammashkiri ought not to be rampaging through Babylonia while Demetrius is victorious in Egypt. 36 The phrasing is not just effective in its immediate context but activates a host of damaging associations: the actions of Demetrius II recall the victorious Egyptian campaign of Antiochus IV a generation earlier; 37 and the account of Antiochus’ campaign is in turn modeled on Nebuchadnezzar’s wars in Syria. 38 The Elamite king, it would seem, appropriates a longstanding tradition of successful Babylonian kingship. He is not just an invader but also a usurper of sorts. Readers familiar with the Astronomical Diaries will appreciate just how unusual this is. The Diaries generally affect a stance of disinterested objectivity. Historical entries open with the formula “I heard as follows,” alteme umma, casting the author as a conveyor of reported fact, not of historical commentary. 39 The entries themselves tend to be dry, not to say dull. But the tone changes after the Elamite invasions of Babylonia. Now the diarists introduce evaluative commentary, denouncing the invaders as “enemies,” nakrū, and detail the panic they spread in the land.  40 Thus, in ADART III No. -144 rev.’ 22 we hear, apropos of the first Elamite invasion, that “there was panic and fear in the land.” In -140D ‘obv. 11’ “panic of the – Elamite – foe prevailed in the land.” Three years later “panic of the Elamite foe was strong in the land, and panic of the enemy fell on the people.” 41 What was it that brought about such a noticeable change in the way the Babylonian priesthood recorded history? No doubt the Elamites caused real panic in Babylon, but 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Pirngruber 2017; also Aperghis 2004, 36–40. ADART I No. -273B obv. 29–32; discussion in Visscher 2019, 257–259. ADART III No. -144 obv. 35’–36’ (Demetrius) and rev. 20–21 (Kammashkiri). Haubold 2019, 274–275. ADART III No. -168A rev. 14–15. Chronicle 24 obv. 12–13, 16, 23(?), rev.’ 5 Glassner. Tuplin 2019 considers the thematic and stylistic repertoire of the Diaries. He discusses the formula alteme umma on pp. 102–102. 40 At least twelve passages in the Diaries of 145–125 BCE refer to the Elamites as ‘enemies’. Otherwise, this kind of language is rare; see ADART I No. -261C, rev. 12’ (broken context); ADART II No. -183A, rev. 12’ (broken context but Susa is mentioned, so perhaps the Elamites again?); ADART III No. -119, rev. 22.1–2 (Arabs; see below). 41 ADART III -137D ‘obv. 12’.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

174

Johannes Haubold

the significance of their actions cannot be put down to real-life brutality alone. Historical memory endowed them with significance, and dictated that the Elamites were not considered enemies like any other: they had haunted the Babylonian collective consciousness ever since they sacked Babylon in the dying days of the Kassite dynasty and abducted the statue of Marduk. 42 Nebuchadnezzar I was credited with recovering the statue in what was seen with hindsight as a defining moment of national rebirth. 43 As old stories kept being repeated about his reign and new ones told, distaste of the ‘Elamite foe’ became etched into the Babylonian psyche. In practice, of course, one could strike alliances with Elam: Realpolitik never completely bows to the demands of collective memory. But the trauma was real, and it could always emerge when patterns of historical action on the ground suggested it. Already under the Achaemenids, there are signs that those who resisted Persian rule in Babylon appealed to anti-Elamite resentment. 44 In the Hellenistic period, the Elamites were felt to be so pernicious that a Babylonian treatise of the 2nd century BCE associates them with the chaos monster Tiamat in Enuma elish. 45 It is against this backdrop of chaos unleashed that we must view the Diaries’ portrayal of the second Iranian invasion to hit Babylonia within only five years, that of the Parthians. To the modern observer, the Parthian conquest may seem more of a historical watershed than the Elamite incursions, and from the perspective of the imperial center that view is certainly justified. From a Babylonian perspective, however, things looked rather different. Here the most pressing question was not whether Seleucids or Parthians held overall sway but whether the king – whoever that was at any given time – was going to protect the city against the forces of chaos that were overwhelming the region. The Diaries acknowledge Mithridates – or rather ‘Arsaces’, as they call every Parthian ruler – as king as soon as he arrives in the region. 46 They do not call him ‘Parthian’ or cast him as foreign in any way, in contrast with the Elamite king Kammashkiri, to whose ethnicity they give much attention. 47 The point is not that they were ignorant of the Parthian king’s ethnic background. Rather, what mattered to them was that he was now their legitimate ruler. Here we see a major difference from Berossos, who, writing for a Greek audience, was systematic in reporting the ethnic background of Babylonian kings. This was partly a matter of historiographic convention and partly of what Berossos was trying to achieve: if he wanted to establish Babylon in the historical consciousness of his Greek readers, he had to engage with their conceptions of a succession of empires, and with the 42 For Babylonian historical memory as a carefully curated artefact see Nielsen 2015 and Silverman/ Waerzeggers 2015; also Waerzeggers 2015, Nielsen 2018. 43 Nielsen 2018, who shows that traditions about Nebuchadnezzar I continued developing long after his death. 44 Nielsen 2015. 45 Reynolds 1999, 369. 46 ADART III No. -140A obv. 1 47 Ethnic affiliation tends to place a group in some way outside the imperial order. The Gutians are mentioned in ADART III No. -118A rev. 18’–21’ as enemies of the (Parthian) king who killed his brother Artabana; see Overtoom 2020, 252–254. For Greeks (Iamnāya) see ADART I No. -330A rev 9’; for Arabs, see below, p. 178.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon

175

role that different peoples played in it. The diarists, by contrast, avoided dwelling on the king’s origins even when a new dynasty arrived on the scene. They introduce Alexander as ‘king of the world’ after the Battle of Gaugamela, and they simply call Mithridates/Arsaces “king”, šarru, without further qualifications. 48 If anyone had qualms about an Iranian on the throne of Babylon, the Diaries were not the place to say so. Their authors did, however, express misgivings about the new rulers – misgivings which I shall argue had to do with their Iranian connections. Arsaces was the acknowledged king of Babylon in 141 BCE. From then on, the Diaries track his movements rather than those of the Seleucid king. That is entirely within the conventions of a genre in which history revolves around the person of the king, whatever his personal background. 49 If the king has business in Syria, we follow him to Syria. If he has business in Media, then that is where we go. It is natural, therefore, that geographical horizons shift in the Parthian Diaries, as Kathryn Stevens has shown. 50 Instead of looking west, to Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt, as the Seleucid diarists had done, we now look east, to “the cities of Media.” 51 What exactly those cities are remains vague – so vague in fact that Bert van der Spek has suggested reading the logogram URU that describes them not as ‘city’ at all but rather as ‘province’ or ‘district.’ 52 The issue is still under debate. What matters here is that Media, which is now the main center of gravity in the empire, and hence the Diaries, feels remote – too remote for comfort when the king is needed so urgently to uphold order in Babylon. Some of these anxieties are put to the test immediately after the Parthian conquest of Mesopotamia. Later in 141 BCE, Arsaces and his troops set out from Arqania – perhaps classical Hyrcania. 53 Presumably he is heading to Babylonia or Elam, but Arqania is far, and the king is slow in coming. Meanwhile, the Elamites too set off and, unlike the king, quickly arrive in Mesopotamia. 54 It falls to the Parthian general Antiochus to face the invaders, but to the diarist’s evident dismay he makes common cause with them. 55 What exactly happened is unclear: Antiochus may have done no more than attempt to stabilize a volatile situation. 56 That, however, is not how the diarists see it: they report that the citizens of Seleucia curse Antiochus, then arrest him and finally plunder his possessions. 57

48 ADART I No. -330AB, rev. 11’. Only once in the Astronomical Diaries, and only in a colophon, is he called “the king who is from the land of Hana” (ADART I No. -324A, t.e. 1). The only ruler called ‘king of Babylon’ in the Astronomical Diaries is Nebuchadnezzar; see ADART I No. -567 obv. 1. 49 Visscher 2019. 50 Stevens 2019b. 51 ADART III No. -140A, rev. 4’, -137A, obv. 19’, rev. 9’ and 11’, -136C, obv. 3’, -132B, rev. 22, -124A, rev. 24’; see also the references to Media in ADART III No. -119A–C, obv. A 2 19’, etc. 52 Van der Spek 2015. 53 ADART III No. -140C ‘rev. 34; for Arqania see Olmstead 1937, 13; Tuplin 2019, 89 n. 37. 54 ADART III No. -140C ‘rev. 35–44. 55 ADART III No. -140C ‘rev. 31’. 56 Shayegan 2011, 78–79. 57 ADART III No. -140C ‘rev. 33’–34’.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

176

Johannes Haubold

The episode, with its heady mixture of fact and rumor, articulates a pressing question: will the new regime act in Babylon’s best interests? This is the Diaries’ version of the Iranian question, and it cuts two ways. On the one hand there is ‘the Elamite,’ an external enemy with a long pedigree in Babylonian thought. To the diarists it was clear what the new king needed to do about him, but whether the king himself understood this was another matter. Initial indications were unpromising. The Seleucids, too, had spent much of their time outside Mesopotamia, sometimes to the detriment of Babylon. We recall Demetrius II strutting victoriously around Egypt, allowing Kammashkiri to strut around Babylonia at the same time. 58 That was a shocking failure of governance, but the threat of the Seleucids abandoning Babylon to its fate was tempered by the closeness of Seleucia, the “city of kingship,” as the diarists call it until the Parthian conquest. 59 The cities of Media offer no such comfort. A Diary entry from 138  BCE illustrates the point.  It reports how the Parthian king wrests Babylon from his Seleucid rival Demetrius II. 60 Arsaces certainly asserts his authority in the region, but he does so to safeguard his own interests, not those of Babylon. After the victory, the king brags about “plenty, happiness and good peace in the cities of Media next to king Arsaces.” 61 The context is broken, so we cannot be certain what exactly this means. 62 What seems clear is that Media is where the king thinks he belongs. The Elamites, meanwhile, continue their incursions into Babylonia and even recruit allies to their nefarious cause. 63 The details of the fighting in shifting alliances need not concern us here. 64 Suffice it to say that the diarists offer no hope of a lasting solution until much later. That moment, it seems, has finally come in 125 BCE, when two letters arrive in Babylon. The first, from Hyspaosines of Mesene, announces the defeat of his former ally Elam: ina  ITU BI U4–15?-KÁM  Iar-šá-kam LUG[AL] u  Ipi-i[t-ti-i]t lúKUR NIM-MA ki ṣal-tu4 KI a-ḫa-meš DÙ-u’ LUGAL BAD5.BAD5 lúERÍN-ni KUR NIM-MA ki ina giš TUKUL GAR-˹an˺ Ipi-it-ti-it [...] iṣ-bat  65 In this month, on the 15th, King Arsaces and Pittit, the Elamite enemy, fought with each other. The king defeated the troops of Elam in battle. Pittit […] he seized.

58 Above, p. 174. 59 ADART I No. -273B rev. 31’ and 35’; ADART II No. -187A rev. 18’, No. -171B t.e. 1; ADART III No. -149A, rev. 13’. The final mention of Seleucia as the ‘city of kingship’ comes at ADART III No. -140A ‘rev.’ 9’, just after the first mention of ‘the cities of Media’. 60 ADART III No. -137A rev. 8’–11’. Arsaces and Demetrius II are both labelled ‘king’ in this passage: they are vying for the throne, not striving to protect Babylon. 61 ADART III No. -137A rev. 11’. 62 Del Monte 1997, 110–111 suggests that he is referring to his humane treatment of Demetrius II; for the classical sources that might support such a reading see Shayegan 2003, 83–84. 63 ADART III No. -132B rev. 18–20 (Hyspaosines, on whom see Schuol 2000, 291–300). 64 It is discussed in Boiy 2004, 166–180 and Shayegan 2011, 50–167; see also Overtoom 2020, chs 4–5. 65 ADART III No. -124B ‘rev.’ 13’–14’

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon

177

Hyspaosines conforms – or rather, is made to conform in the Akkadian translation of his letter – with the diarists’ language and point of view when calling Pittit “the Elamite enemy.” In all other respects he sticks to the basic facts: there was a battle, the king prevailed, Pittit was seized. To this bare-bones narrative, a second letter from Arsaces himself adds some remarkable flourishes: ṣal-tu4 [x x (x)  I]pi-it-ti-it lúKUR NIM-MA ki DÙ-ma 15 lim ERÍN-ni MÈ ina ŠÀ ERÍN-ni-šú ina gišTU[KUL x x]-qit ?ma ḫa x ru-ú ina lib-bi ERÍN-ni-iá NU GARan KUR NIM-MA ki pa-aṭ gim-ri-šú ina gišTUKUL SÌG-aṣ  Ipi-it-ti-it [...]˹x x x˺ aṣ-bat 66 I did battle [....(with)] Pittit, the Elamite foe. I [overth]rew in battle fifteen thousand battle troops among his army; among my own troops no ... took place. Elam in its entirety I smote with weapons. Pittit [...] ... I seized. Notice the sensational detail that Arsaces defeated 15,000 enemy troops. Moreover, the king inserts a gloss on events that, in the Akkadian translation of the diarist, recalls the language of Babylonian omens. 67 Arsaces “smote” Elam “in its entirety with weapons”. The tone could hardly be more strident. It is worth lingering over this flamboyant piece of Akkadian prose. The royal letter, we are told, was read in the theater, presumably in Greek or perhaps Aramaic. 68 We cannot tell how closely the Akkadian translation adheres to the original. 69 What we do know is that it goes beyond the normal stylistic range of the Diaries. Berossos had adopted a romance-like register when describing how Nebuchadnezzar resolved the long-running tension between Babylon and Media. The shift in register suggested some of the significance of that moment. The king’s letter in ADART III No. -124B is not as colorful, nor would we expect it to be – but it too marks a significant shift in tone. Quoting royal missives is not unusual in the Parthian Diaries. There are many examples, 70 and their effect is cumulative. 71 This letter, however, stands out, especially when read against that of Hyspaosines shortly before. The diarists did not have to quote either of these documents, and they certainly did not have to quote them both. 72 By choosing to do so in quick succession they highlight the words of the king and frame his actions as marking a turning point in the history of Babylon. Finally, it seems, Arsaces has come to the rescue. 66 ADART III No. -124B ‘rev.’ 17’–19’ 67 Cf. CAD s.v. maḫāṣu 1g 2’ nakru māt Akkadî SÌG-aṣ (“The enemy will smite the land of Akkad”). 68 ADART III No. -124B ‘rev.’ 17’. For some initial thoughts on what texts of these letters the diarists had at their disposal (written copies or oral reports?) see Haubold 2019, 277 n. 28. 69 The Akkadian of these letters would reward detailed investigation. 70 Visscher 2019, 249–242. 71 Haubold 2019, 276–277, who argues that royal letters in the Diaries substitute the king’s written word for his redemptive presence. 72 As far as I know, this is the only diary that quotes two letters with essentially the same content.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

178

Johannes Haubold

Unfortunately, the respite is brief. After the Elamite defeat, things continue to go badly in Babylon, as we learn from a terse note that the Arabs plunder “as before.” 73 The Arabs had first appeared in broken passages in ADART III -129A, rev. A₂19’ and -125A, obv. 21 and rev. 20’. Their activity intensified in 125 BCE, precisely when the king defeated the Elamites. We learn that they invaded Babylonia earlier that year. They cut communications with neighboring Borsippa and reduced the Babylonians to offering bribes. 74 They even breached the walls of Babylon – a truly shocking event to Babylonian observers. 75 A century and a half earlier Berossos had praised Nebuchadnezzar for strengthening the city’s defenses and chided Cyrus for taking them down. 76 The incumbent king is now allowing them to be breached, and no commentary is required to explain the gravity of the situation: while Arsaces is celebrating triumphs elsewhere in the empire, Babylon continues to decline. At this point, the Diaries pivot away from their previous focus on Elam and towards the rising Arab threat. Arab incursions intensify and index the authors’ anxiety about a king whose gaze is too often distracted from the danger at hand. Things come to a head in 120 BCE, when we hear that “that month, the Arabs became hostile, as before, and plundered”. 77 The Akkadian for ‘become hostile’ is nakāru, from the same root that was so often used to describe the Elamite “foe,” nakru. A new enemy is on hand and demands attention. Yet, the king goes off in the opposite direction. Here is how the text continues: “That month, king Arsaces [went] to the remote cities of the Gutian country to fight.” Notice the jarring disjunction – geographically, culturally, and politically: between Babylon’s needs and the king’s actions there are many, many miles. The Arabs are here, and Babylon is suffering, yet the king goes off to fight his wars among the “remote cities” – ālānī rūqūti – of Iran. Of course, fighting the Guti was a laudable cause ever since the dawn of Mesopotamian civilization.  In that sense, the king’s actions remain within the realm of the familiar and acceptable. But although fighting the Guti is good in principle, just now the Guti are not plundering Babylon, and by going after them the king ignores the devastation inflicted by the Arabs. Conclusion In this chapter,  I have studied two very different texts about Babylon and  Iran in the Hellenistic period. The first, Berossos’ Babyloniaca, was written in the early years of the Seleucid Empire. At that historical juncture, and addressing a Greek audience, Berossos depicts Iran as the home of potentially disruptive forces that can, however, be harnessed in the interests of Babylon and the empire at large. For illustration, Berossos tells the sto73 74 75 76 77

ADART III No. -124B ‘rev.’ 20’. ADART III No. -124A ‘obv.’ 8’–9’ and ‘rev. 7’; for discussion see Haubold 2019, 285–286. ADART III No. -124A ‘rev.’ 5’. Above, n. 15. ADART III No. -119, rev. 22.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon

179

ries of the Gutian interregnum in Book Two of the Babyloniaca and of Nebuchadnezzar and Queen Amyitis in Book Three. Amyitis first helps the Babylonians secure an alliance with the Medes and then gets her husband to build an imitation of her childhood landscape in his own palace. A dislocated, miniaturized, and romantically embellished Media thus becomes part of Berossos’ vision for the Seleucid commonwealth – ensuring that, for the time being, there are no further threats from the east. Berossos concedes that this arrangement will unravel the moment future kings fail to adhere to the example of Nebuchadnezzar: the conquest of Babylon by yet another Iranian invader, Cyrus, illustrates the point. The lesson is there, for those willing to heed it. If Antiochus does, he can hope to unite all the major constituencies of his empire: Iranians, Babylonians, and Greeks. The authors of the Astronomical Diaries do not offer such lofty or hopeful considerations. Chronicling events in real time, they note down what they hear, not what a commentator and cultural translator like Berossos might like to theorize. Still, they too find ways to reflect on the role of Iranians and Iran, especially during the turbulent latter half of the 2nd century BCE. Until that moment, the Diaries rarely looked east. And that was evidently possible, as long as the king maintained some control. The advent of ‘the Elamite foe,’ however, an event that sent shockwaves through the region, profoundly affected how the diarists recorded history. We now see them insert disparaging glosses and aim for new levels of dramatic effect. Compared to the impact of the Elamites, the Parthian takeover seems to leave less of a mark. The Diaries are quick to acknowledge Arsaces as king and never as much as mention his ethnicity. They do, however, betray anxiety about his commitments in far off Media, an anxiety which events on the ground in Babylon do little to allay. Already the Seleucids had failed to meet the Elamite threat in a timely fashion – not because they lacked the power to do so but because their efforts had been directed elsewhere. The Parthians too take far too long to defeat the Elamites in decisive fashion, and when they finally do, it is too late. Babylon is in danger again: now it is the Arabs who “become hostile and plunder.” References Aperghis 2004 = G. G. Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy. The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire, Cambridge. Bach 2013 = J. Bach, Berossos, Antiochos und die Babyloniaka, Ancient West & East 12: 157–180. Boiy 2004 = T. Boiy, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon, Leeuven. Boiy/Mittag 2011 = T. Boiy/P. F. Mittag, Die lokalen Eliten in Babylonien, in: B. Dreyer/P. F. Mittag (eds.), Lokale Eliten und hellenistische Könige: Zwischen Kooperation und Konfrontation, Berlin, 105–131. Dalley 2013 = S. Dalley, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced, Oxford. De Breucker 2010 = G. De Breucker, Berossos of Babylon (680), in: I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

180

Johannes Haubold

— 2012 = G. De Breucker, De Babyloniaca van Berossos van Babylon, Groningen PhD. — 2013 = G. De Breucker, Berossos: His Life and His Work, in: Haubold/Lanfranchi/ Rollinger/Steele 2013, 15–30. Del Monte 1997 = G. F. Del Monte, Testi dalla Babilonia ellenistica, Vol.1: Testi cronografici, Pisa/Rome.   Dillery 2013 = J. Dillery, Berossos’ Narrative of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar  II from Josephus, in: Haubold/Lanfranchi/Rollinger/Steele 2013, 75–96. — 2015 = Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho, with an Afterword on Demetrius, Ann Arbor. Feldt 2016 = L. Feldt, Religion, Nature, and Ambiguous Space in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mountain Wilderness in Old Babylonian Religious Narratives, Numen 63: 347–382. Grainger 2014 = J. D. Grainger, The Rise of the Seleukid Empire (323–223 BC): Seleukos I to Seleukos III, Barnsley. Hallo 1971 = W. W. Hallo, Gutium, in: Reallexikon der Assyriologie III, 708–720. Haubold 2013 = J. Haubold, Greece and Mesopotamia: Dialogues in Literature, Cambridge. — 2016 = Hellenism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Role of Babylonian Elites in the Seleucid Empire, in: M. Lavan/R. E. Payne/J. Weisweiler (eds.), Cosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, Oxford, 89–102. — 2019 = History and Historiography in the Early Parthian Diaries, in: Haubold/ Steele/Stevens 2019, 269–293. Haubold/Lanfranchi/Rollinger/Steele 2013 = J. Haubold/G. B. Lanfranchi/R. Rollinger/J. Steele (eds.), The World of Berossos, Wiesbaden. Haubold/Steele/Stevens 2019 = J. Haubold/J. Steele/K. Stevens (eds.), Keeping Watch in Babylon: The Astronomical Diaries in Context, Leiden. Jacoby 1958 = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Dritter Teil: Geschichte von Staedten und Voelkern (Historiographie und Ethnographie). C. Autoren ueber einzelne Laender Nr. 608a–856, Leiden. Kosmin 2013 = P. J. Kosmin, Seleucid Ethnography and Indigenous Kingship: The Babylonian Education of Antiochus I, in: Haubold/Lanfranchi/Rollinger/Steele 2013, 193–206. — 2014 = The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge/MA. — 2018 = Time and its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge/MA. Kuhrt 1987 = A. Kuhrt, Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia, in: A. Kuhrt/S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East, Berkeley/Los Angeles, 32–56. Lanfranchi 2013 = G. B. Lanfranchi, Babyloniaca, Book 3: Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians, in: Haubold/Lanfranchi/Rollinger/Steele 2013, 61–74. Madreiter 2016 = I. Madreiter, Antiochus the Great and the Robe of Nebuchadnezzar: Intercultural Transfer between Orientalism and Hellenocentrism, in: S. Svärd/R. Rollinger (eds.), Cross-Cultural Studies in Near Eastern History and Literature, Münster, 111–36.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

Iran in the Seleucid and Early Parthian Period: Two Views from Babylon

181

Nielsen 2015 = J. P. Nielsen, “I Overwhelmed the King of Elam”: Remembering Nebuchadnezzar I in Persian Babylonia, in: Silverman/Waerzeggers 2015, 53–74. — 2018 = The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory, London. Olmstead 1937 = A. T. Olmstead, Cuneiform Texts and Hellenistic Chronology, Classical Philology 32: 1–14. Overtoom 2020 = N. L. Overtoom, Reign of Arrows: The Rise of the Parthian Empire in the Hellenistic Middle East, Oxford. Pirngruber 2017 = R. Pirngruber, The Economy of Late Achaemenid and Seleucid Babylonia, Cambridge.  Reynolds 1999 = F. Reynolds, Stellar Representations of Tiamat and Qingu in a Learned Calendar Text, in: K. Van Lerberghe/G. Voet (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Context: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm, Leuven, 369–378. Rollinger 2013 = R. Rollinger, Berossos and the Monuments: City Walls, Sanctuaries, Palaces and Hanging Gardens, in: Haubold/Lanfranchi/Rollinger/Steele 2013, 137–162. Rollinger/Bichler 2005 = R. Rollinger/R. Bichler, Die Hängenden Gärten zu Ninive – Die Lösung eines Rätsels?, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift Manfred Schretter zu seinem 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004, Münster, 153–217. Schnabel 1923 = P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig. Schuol 2000 = M. Schuol, Die Charakene: ein mesopotamisches Königreich in hellenistisch-parthischer Zeit, Stuttgart. Shayegan 2003 = M. R. Shayegan, On Demetrius II Nicator’s Arsacid Captivity and Second Rule, Bulletin of the Asia Institute ns 17: 83–103. — 2011 = Arsacids and Sasanians. Political  Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia, Cambridge. Silverman/Waerzeggers 2015 = M. Silverman/C. Waerzeggers (eds.), Political Memory in and after the Persian Empire, Atlanta/GA. Stevens 2019a = K. Stevens, Between Greece and Babylonia: Hellenistic Intellectual History in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Cambridge.  — 2019b = The Geography of the Astronomical Diaries, in: Haubold/Steele/Stevens 2019, 198–236. Tuplin 2019 = C. Tuplin, Logging History in Achaemenid, Hellenistic and Parthian Babylonia: Historical Entries in Dated Astronomical Diaries, in: Haubold/Steele/ Stevens 2019, 79–119. van der Spek 2008 = R. J. van der Spek, Berossus as a Babylonian Chronicler and Greek Historian, in: R. J. van der Spek (with the assistance of G. Haayer, F. A. M. Wiggermann, M. Prins, and J. J. Bilbija) (ed.), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, 10 November 2005, and his Retirement from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Bethesda/MD, 277–318. — 2015 = Madinatu = URUmeš, “Satrapy, Province, District, Country” in Late Babylonian, Archiv für Orientforschung 53: 110–116.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

182

Johannes Haubold

— 2018 = Debates on the World of Berossus’, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte/Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law 24: 137–151. van Oppen 2014 = B. van Oppen, The Susa Marriages: A Historiographic Note, Ancient Society 44: 25–41. Visscher 2013 = M. Visscher, Royal Presence in the Astronomical Diaries, in: Haubold/ Steele/Stevens 2019, 237–268. — 2020 = Beyond Alexandria: Literature and Empire in the Seleucid World, Oxford. Waerzeggers 2015 = C. Waerzeggers, Babylonian Kingship in the Persian Period: Performance and Reception, in J. Stökl/C. Waerzeggers (eds.), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context, Berlin, 181–222. Wiggermann 1996 = F. A. M. Wiggermann, Scenes from the Shadow Side, in: M. E. Vogelzang/H. L. J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, Groningen, 207–230.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

From Sennacherib to the Seleucids: The Settled Landscape of the Assyrian Heartland during the Hellenistic Period* Rocco Palermo

Introduction The formation, development, and consolidation of the Seleucid Empire in Mesopotamia has been very rarely explored from an archaeological perspective, whereas historical analyses have adequately discussed various phenomena and dynamics related to, generally, the Hellenistic world. 1 Whereas these works added so much data to the historical narrative and reconstruction of the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE in the world of SouthWest Asia, the archaeological record is never fully integrated and occasionally put aside in favor of the richer textual and epigraphic evidence. 2 This is particularly true for Mesopotamia, with the result that the archaeological exploration of the Hellenistic period is still, alas, at a relatively early stage between the Tigris and the Euphrates. This gap in the research dataset is primarily attributable to two factors: the lack of interest on the part of traditional Near Eastern archaeologists in the periods that followed the collapse of the Assyrian Empire (post late 7th c. BCE), and the limited research carried out by archaeologists of the classical world in regions other than the core area of the Mediterranean. This neglected interest has thus generated a tremendous lack of terrain information, which is only partly compensated by some – but in a way isolated – survey and excavation projects. Evidence of architecture and material culture from the Seleucid period has been recovered in several sites of Northern Mesopotamia, the region spanning from north-east Syria to north-west Iraq. Evidence was gathered from Tell Halaf, 3 Tell * I would like to warmly thank Touraj Daryaee, Matthew Canepa and Robert Rollinger for the organization of the conference upon which this book is based. I also would like to offer my gratitude to them and their team for hosting me in Irvine and for providing critical and significant food for thoughts during those days in California. A heartfelt thank you goes to Prof. Jason Ur (Harvard) with whom I have – many times – discussed the topic of this chapter and how to frame it archaeologically. Geraint Thomas, as in many other times, reviewed the language of these pages. Errors and mistakes are my own. 1 Monson 2012; Kosmin 2014; Monerie 2017; Boehm 2018. 2 Kosmin (2014) is a notable exception among recent historical studies. 3 Katzy 2005

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

184

Rocco Palermo

Fig. 1: The Erbil Plain Archaeological Survey area in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Map courtesy of Jason Ur (© EPAS).

Beydar, 4 Tell Shaikh Hamad, 5 and Tell Arbid, 6 in Syria, and in the area of the Eski Mosul Lake in the Zammar region in Northern Iraq. 7 Data retrieved from these sites have, with various degrees of fortune and impact, provided interesting glimpses into the transformation of single settlements, whereas a broader and more extended overview of the landscape of settlements in Hellenistic greater Mesopotamia was produced thanks to the large-scale surface investigations carried out in  Iraq between the 1960s and the 1970s, 8 and – on a smaller scale – in the Upper Khabur basin, Syria, 9 and Northwestern Iraq. 10 These projects contributed enormously to our understanding of the spatial transformation and adaptation of the land between the rivers from Prehistory to the Islamic period. Considering the important role of central Mesopotamia during the Seleucid period, it is therefore not a surprise that the Seleucid-Parthian – that is the chronology adopted by Adams and Nissen – turned out to be a moment of intense occupation in this part of the 4 5 6 7

Selz/Gimbel 1999. See also Momot 2019 for ceramics data from Arbid. Novak 2005. Martin Galan 2003; 2005; Cabral et al. 2014. Salvage excavations carried out in the region have yielded a consistent amount of Hellenistic ceramics, unfortunately not always supported by significant architecture and, occasionally, with debated chronologies. Major excavations with Hellenistic period remains are: Khirbet Khatuniyeh (Curtis/ Green 1997), Tell Deir Situn (Curtis/Green/Knight 1987), Tell Fisna (Numoto 1986; 1988), Tell Mohammed Arab (Roaf 1984), Tell Abu Dhahir (Ball 1987). 8 Adams 1965; Adams/Nissen 1972; Adams 1981. 9 Dorna-Metzger 1995; De Aloe 2008. 10 Wilkinson/Tucker 1995.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

From Sennacherib to the Seleucids

185

region. This significant and almost unprecedented demographic increase was certainly fostered by the creation of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, capital of the Empire and a primate settlement, a term borrowed from the urban studies to indicate a center whose importance in the regional context outnumbers the constellation of small to medium size settlements orbiting around it. And yet, due to political turmoil in  Iraq in the last thirty years, a follow-up to these large-scale explorations is still missing and our understanding of the organization of the landscape of central Mesopotamia during the Hellenistic period has been seldom advanced recently. Unlike central Iraq, the political stability in the autonomous region of Kurdistan, in the North of the country, has enabled a considerable resurgence of archaeological projects in the last decade. 11 Archaeological surveys, in particular, are providing significant data for a fuller understanding of the development of settlement patterns in this region – almost a terra incognita in the archaeological literature  –  and are shedding new and extremely welcome light on the so-called “post-Assyrian” historical phase, roughly covering the timeframe between the 7th century BCE and the Islamic quest, 7th century CE. In this chapter I aim to discuss the spatial impact of the Seleucid period in Northern Iraq through the analysis of the landscape of settlements and its relation to the physical transformation from the late Iron Age until the Parthian conquest. I will primarily use data from the Erbil Plain Archaeological Survey (fig. 1), as well as legacy evidence and historical records. Through the analysis of the terrain data, I will try to determine whether or not the data in our hands might be used to discuss phenomena of colonization, migration, landscape exploitation and top-down, or bottom-up, imperial strategies. North Mesopotamia during the Seleucid Period Archaeology, to date, is the best tool to understand the Seleucid period in the rolling plains of North Mesopotamia. Textual sources related to the last centuries of the 1st millenium BCE are scarce, and mostly focused on the battle of Gaugamela, supposedly located in the plain between Erbil and Duhok. 12 Other scanty references to the few colonial foundations – Arbela, modern Erbil, Demetrias, Natounia, and Karka – are too limited and not certain to speculate further. 13 Prior to the resurgence of archaeological operations in the area, the archaeological landscape of the former Assyrian core did not offer a great amount of relevant data for the Seleucid period. David and Joan Oates performed some more or less systematic excavations in the Hellenistic layers of Nimrud, the former capital of Assyria, revealing an interesting material culture assemblage. However, there were very few substantial architectural remains, it was mostly small houses with courtyards containing ovens and storage silos. 14 Excavations carried out at Nineveh in between the 11 12 13 14

MacGinnis/Kopanias 2016; Ur 2017. Morandi Bonacossi et al. 2018. Cohen 2013, 93–104. Oates/Oates 1958.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

186

Rocco Palermo

1950s and the 1980s have also unearthed evidence of Seleucid period occupation. 15 Also, David Oates carried out test trenches at the sites of Balawat on the Greater Zab, Khidr Basatlyiah, North of the river and, most importantly, at Tell Abu Shita, a large site close to the Zab, which I will discuss further on in the text. 16 Unlike these centers, there seems to be no trace of a Hellenistic settlement at Assur, the first Assyrian capital. 17 Surveys carried out in North Mesopotamia, both in Northern Iraq and Northeastern Syria, have also revealed a dense landscape of settlements, which in a sense contrasts with the depopulation visible in the years that followed the collapse of the Assyrian Empire. 18 I have discussed elsewhere the difficulty in properly assessing the post-imperial phase in the former Assyrian heartland, and I will not include that transitional moment in this discussion. 19 Available data is still too incomplete and, for the large part, based on surface collections with the limited aid from very few small-scale excavations. Data Presentation To define the spatial organization of the settled communities of the Hellenistic period in North Mesopotamia, I will rely primarily on the interpretation of survey data collected in the past eight years by the Erbil Plain Archaeological Survey (EPAS), in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The EPAS project debuted in 2012 and it has been since then directed by Jason Ur from Harvard University. Petra Creamer 20 and myself act as Associate Directors of the project. 21  Between 2012 and 2019, the EPAS team systematically explored the plain of Erbil, recording and mapping hundreds of previously unknown archaeological sites. 22 The aim of the project is the reconstruction of the historical landscape of the region, from prehistory to the present, with particular attention to the understanding of the Uruk expansion in the Northern Mesopotamia, the formation and development of the Assyrian core region in the 1st millennium BCE, and the impact of the large territorial empires on the landscape – Seleucid-Hellenistic, Roman, Parthian, Sasanian. The second goal is related to the development and improvement of new techniques and methodologies for archaeological survey, including training of local archaeologists and the establishment of cloud-based GIS collaborative systems. 23 15 Reade 1998; Palermo 2017. 16 Oates 1968, 86. 17 On the contrary the Parthian phase is very well attested, see Hauser 1996 and Canepa 2018, 91–93 and 317–320. 18 Wilkinson/Tucker 1995; Eidem/Warburton 1996, Ur 2010, on a much smaller scale. 19 Palermo 2020; Palermo et al. forthcoming. 20 Emory University 21 Information on the EPAS project as well as recent publications and shared data can be found at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/jasonur/pages/erbil. 22 Ur et al. 2013; 2020; Palermo et al. 2022. 23 Ur et al. 2021

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

From Sennacherib to the Seleucids

187

The EPAS research area is defined by the Bastora river to the north, the Greater Zab to the north-west, the Lesser Zab to the south-east, and by the Awena Dagh low ridge to the south west. The project encompasses 3200 square kilometers area, with an alluvial zone of almost 2000 square kilometers, and a smaller piedmont area to the north and north-east. The identification of archaeological sites in the area is carried out through a two-step verification. Prior to the fieldwork, satellite and aerial imagery – both declassified and commercial – are explored in order to locate potential archaeological sites. The methodology, based on the recognition of certain ground features as they are reflected in the imagery, has been described elsewhere in detail. 24 Once in the field, the EPAS team proceeds to the ground-truthing of the potential sites. The identification ratio between satellite-based recognition and ground verification is quite high with more than 70% of potential sites that proved to be real sites. In these years, the EPAS team was able to locate and document almost 750 sites. Settlements are dated on the basis of the artifacts collected on the surface; these artifacts are mostly represented by broken potsherds.  The material identification is then conducted through the combination of stratigraphically reliable sets of data excavated in northeastern Syria and northern Iraq, and the frequency of diagnostic sherds collected during the surveys carried out in the region. 25 This method has proved to be particularly effective for the dating of the surface material of the Kurdistan region, allowing working teams a quicker and easier identification of the ceramic horizon of Mesopotamian history. In this chapter I will primarily use data for the period that goes from the late Iron Age to the early Parthian. As briefly stated above, the ceramic typology of this phase, from the very late 7th century BCE to the early 3rd century CE suffers from some research biases that need to be clarified prior to the discussion of the settlements pattern evolution.  Assyrian period pottery is very well codified in Northern Mesopotamia. 26 The abundance of excavated sites in the region, and the wealth of published reports have facilitated a thorough understanding of the pottery production from both the core and the periphery of the Assyrian dominion in Mesopotamia. 27 The period that followed the end of Assyria is, on the other hand, very poorly defined in terms of diagnostic ceramics and, specifically in Mesopotamia, material culture in general. Few excavations have focused on the phase between the late 6th and the late 4th century BCE in North Mesopotamia, and those who have explored it were primarily rescue excavations, due in limited time and with no substantial analysis of the archaeological remains. 28 Because of this great archaeological uncertainty, even the terminology of this phase is not properly defined. Terms like “post-Assyrian,” “late-Assyrian,” “Achaemenid,” or “Late Iron Age” have been all used to define the ceramic assemblages that extend from the Assyrian Empire to the Hellenistic 24 Ur et al. 2013; see also Ur/Hammer 2019; Ur/Blossom 2019. 25 Gavagnin/Iamoni/Palermo 2015; Ur 2010, all loosely based on the regional typology first developed by Wilkinson and Tucker for the North Jazira Survey in 1995. 26 Hausleiter/Reiche 1999; Anastasio 2010. 27 Kreppner 2006. 28 See Paragraph 1 in this chapter.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

188

Rocco Palermo

world. The uncodified pottery assemblage of the post-Iron Age period primarily derives from the clear difficulty in discerning a proper and unique ceramic identity between the Assyrian and the Hellenistic periods. Assyrian traditions were very much alive after the fall of Nineveh and the correlation between the political collapse and immediate changes in craft production and styles is not a valid hypothesis to follow. With increased mobility in the Hellenistic period and concomitant flow of ideas and fashions, the ceramic horizon of North Mesopotamia underwent a major change. The combination of western-inspired vessels, local imitations, and regional productions, are all factors that have enabled a better understanding of the material cultural horizon of the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE. These clearly identifiable markers continue also in the following phase, with the Parthian period being de facto equally recognizable through the ceramic material. It is this relatively clear recognizability of the pottery assemblages that has permitted the following consideration about demography, settlement patterns, and land use. Landscape of Settlements from Assyria to Parthia in the plain of Erbil In the 1st millennium BCE, the Erbil plain experienced different phases of expansion. The centrality of the plain in the Assyrian period has been extensively discussed elsewhere. 29 The whole region was located at the very heart of the Assyrian Empire, and physical modifications of the landscape are visible in the archaeological record. The construction of massive irrigation features, the increased urbanization – as testified by hundreds of smallsize sites in the plain  –  and the propaganda-related monumentality of Northern  Iraq speak for a structured and imperially designed territory, in which the top-down intervention of the ruling class is vividly noticeable, and specifically intended to display power and political centrality (fig. 2).  30 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the reshaping process of the rolling plains of North Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE onwards, but it is interesting to point out that this period of intervention to produce these very well designed and planned landscapes lasted only a few generations after having reached its extent. It is the afterlife of the Assyrian heartland that will be investigated in the following pages. The historical phase that followed the collapse of the Assyrian Empire in its very heartland – and sub-core areas – represents a still unresolved question mark. Depopulation most likely did occur, and the massive imperial infrastructure put in place in the previous became largely unused and obsolete. 31 Large capitals like Nineveh, Nimrud, and Khorsabad were probably not entirely vacated – at least not immediately – but they certainly lost their primary political, and economic role. 32 The uncertainty that surrounds the histori29 30 31 32

Ur et al. 2013; 2021; Ur/Osborne 2016. See Palermo et al. 2022. Morandi Bonacossi 2018; 2020. Ur/Osborne 2016. Dalley 1993; Reade 1998; Palermo 2017; Kolinski 2018.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

From Sennacherib to the Seleucids

189

Fig. 2: CORONA Image (Mission 1102 – February 1967) of the Zaga canal in the Erbil plain. Map by R. Palermo (© EPAS).

Fig. 3: The evolution of the settlement patterns in the Erbil Plain from the Neo-Assyrian to the Hellenistic period. Major Hellenistic period sites are also indicated. Map by J. Ur and R. Palermo (© EPAS).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

190

Rocco Palermo

Fig. 4: Drone view of the major site of Tell Abu Shita. Photo by R. Palermo.

cal dynamics in Northern Mesopotamia for the phase between the 6th and the 4th centuries BCE generally stems from the limited archaeological evidence available. Collected records in the past years have largely failed to properly determine a specific cultural horizon for the region and, despite some isolated cases  –  but limited to no more than two generations after 612 BCE, see the case of Tell Sheikh Hamad in the lower Khabur basin – a proper recognition of the ceramic horizon – the most common indicator for surface exploration and landscape evolution through time – is still missing. 33  As previously stated, our understanding of the archaeology of the Hellenistic period is, however, different. In eight years of exploration, the EPAS team identified 83 Hellenistic period sites. Out of these 83 sites, 38 produced evidence for occupation in the Neo-Assyrian/Iron Age period (fig. 3). 34 Occupation dynamics of the settled landscape of the Neo-Assyrian phase seem to be in place also during the Seleucid period. If Bronze Age settlements were mostly situated on high mounds – sometimes in association with a more or less extended lower town – the subsequent phase – from the early Iron Age to the Late Antiquity – witnessed a shift to low mounded sites or multi-mounded low sites. In the Seleucid period, 55% of occupation was on low mounds or complexes of multiple low mounds. Occupation on high mounds and flat, non-mounded sites was much more rare. The scale of Hellenistic-period occupation in the Erbil plain is considerably smaller if compared to the Iron and mostly Bronze Age urbanization patterns. Among the identi-

33 Kreppner 2006, also with extensive references. 34 Period 11.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

From Sennacherib to the Seleucids

191

Fig. 5: Drone-derived DTM (Digital Terrain Model) of the site of Girdi Matrab. Digital elaboration by R. Palermo (© GMAP).

fied sites, only three stand out as possible urban centers: Tell Abu Shita 35, Girdi Peshka 36 and Girdi Matrab. 37 Tell Abu Shita, located very close to the Upper Zab River was already known prior to the exploration of EPAS. While working at Nimrud, David Oates carried out small soundings there in the late 1950s unearthing large storage pits and good quantities of Hellenistic period ceramics. The site itself is formed by a large, rectangular mound and an extensive lower town for a total of almost 60 hectares (fig. 4). Ceramic collection on its surface indicated that the possible extension of the settlement during the Hellenistic period topped 20 hectares. This is quite an increase if compared to the Neo-Assyrian period (16 hectares). Also, the urbanization of the Hellenistic phase continued into the following centuries, and in fact Abu Shita grew to almost 50 hectares in the Parthian era. Girdi Peshka is the second largest Hellenistic site in the region. The occupation seems to be solely concentrated on the mound, for a total settled area of slightly more than 15 hectares. Interestingly, this is the most intense period of occupation on the site. It was indeed 35 EPAS Site 129. 36 EPAS Site 404. 37 EPAS Site 6.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12056-2 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39422-2

192

Rocco Palermo

Fig. 6: CORONA satellite image (Mission 1102, Feb 1967) of the site of Tell Abu Shita. Major archaeological features are indicated in the map. Map by R. Palermo.

only barely settled in the Middle Bronze Age (< 1 hectare), resulted to be abandoned in the following periods (Iron Age), and considerably contracted again in the Parthian period (