Seleucid chronology

After the death of Alexander III of Macedon, the Seleucid Empire emerged as one of the most powerful Hellenistic kingdoms of Asia. His huge territorial extension and the various peoples who came under their control necessitated the creation of a mighty army that would ensure their control and help protectit from its enemies.

Throughout history, the Seleucid military might demonstrated
many times its importance for the maintenance, expansion and defense of the Empire. Rarely the Seleucid army was defeated in a campaign and it happened in front of the almighty Rome. After the defeat at Thermopylae and Magnesia, and following the imminent withdrawal must conquer the Ptolemaic Empire, the new king Antiochus IV Epiphanes held a military parade as never been done before, its real purpose is unknown, but the Seleucids showed the world the power that still had the Empire. Through the stories of several classic sources, we can come closer to this event and what
it could entail.

"Abstract: In the Diadochoi Chronicle from Babylon it is stated that when in spring 311 B.C. Seleukos recovered Babylon, he took the title of “general of Asia” (strategos tes Asias) from Antigonos. This decision was not accepted by his allies Ptolemy, Kassandros and Lysimachos and evidently not by Antigonos, with whom the allies made peace in the same year. This is an extra argument that Seleukos was not a partner in the peace treaty. Seleukos himself was probably officially satrap of Babylonia, but appointed Patrokles as strategos of Babylonia to defend the satrapy while he was absent. In the ensuing Babylonian war Antigonos’ son Demetrios tried to reconquer Babylonia from August 310 to March 309 B.C. In March 309 Demetrios left Babylon for Asia Minor leaving behind Archelaos as rival satrap (or strategos?) of Babylonia to carry on the war. Probably some time after 305 B.C. (when Seleukos became king) a new satrap of Babylonia was appointed. The first possible attestation is in chronicle BCHP 7 (301 B.C.?); the first certain attestation is in an astronomical diary concerning 274 B.C., acting side by side with a strategos."

The Seleucid Antiochus IV profoundly intervened in the cult of Jerusalem in 168 BC. Under the leadership of the Hasmoneans, an uprising developed against these interventions, which led to the restoration of the cult, the establishment of the Hasmoneans as high priests and the independence of Judea. Against the background of widely differing research positions, this study undertakes an integrative interpretation of the causes, development and consequences of the Hasmonaean uprising, interprets it as a historical process in the field of tension between religion and politics, and explores its significance for the discursive formation of Judaism.

Encyclopedic article on the history of Alexander the Great and the Seleucids until 129 BC with focus on Babylonia and the cuneiform sources. The article is in English.
CORRIGENDA:
p. 374:  The so-called Lehmann text has now been published by Ronald Wallenfels and myself in CTMMA IV, no. 148.
p. 377: BM 45661 a goal year text mentioning Antiochus III is published as H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. VI (2006), no. 41.
p. 381: The publication of Berossus' Babyloniaka did not occur in 278, the third year of Antiochus I. The sources are ambivalent. It is said that the Babyloniaka was dedicated to the third king after Alexander (so not third year!) or, in a variant, the third after Seleukos. See Johannes Bach, 'Berossos, Antiochos und die Babyloniaka,' Ancient West & East 12 (2013) 157-180, esp. p. 161. He argues (but not quite convincingly) that Antiochus II was intended. The matter is complicated and is for me unresolved.

Review of: A.J. Sachs, H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Volume I. Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. Vienna 1988. Volume II. Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165 B.C. Vienna 1989.

Review concerning the historical sections, esp. Achaemenid throne names, the debris of Esagila, the first Syrian War, Antiochus IV and the festivals in Babylon and Daphne, the ruler cult, and the kinishtu (temple board) of Esagila.

Historians and Bible scholars often state that Antiochus IV, a famousfigure in Hellenistic history, became the king of the Seleucid kingdom immediately after the assassination of his brother Seleucus IV in September 175 BCE.They base this idea on a reconstruction of Seleucid coinage and on three texts: an Athenian inscription, a Babylonian King List and a passage in the historian Appian. Thus a Biblical passage, Dan. 11:21–24 is considered inaccurate in por-traying Antiochus IV’s accession as a gradual one that required extended political strategy. A new study of the coins of Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV, and Antiochus IV and of all these texts, however, will suggest that Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV, was king by himself for at least a couple of years if not from 175 until170 when he was executed, and that Dan. 11:21–24, while clearly polemical, and numismatics, while complicated, should be reconsidered as evidence in thereconstruction of an important sequence in the history of this period.

Beyond the devastation and tragedy of human lives precipitated by the conflict in Syria, priceless representations of ancient culture and history have likewise fallen victim to a seemingly never-ending maelstrom of destruction. Ancient monuments and art have either been destroyed, damaged, or lost as chaos persists in a region that has for thousands of years seen the footprint of a parade of civilizations. (...)
The scenes tell the story of the founding of Pella/Apamea and further development of this city on the Orontes river. Three main groups of scenes can be distinguished: (1) the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes by the legendary Archippos, (2) the (re)foundation of the city as Apamea-on-the-Orontes (earlier Pella-on-the-Orontes) by Seleucus I Nikator and the simultaneous financial generosity of his wife, Apama, for the development of the new Seleucid colony in 300 BC, and (3) the raising of the town fortifications around monumental public buildings and an illustration of the daily life of a joyous people living in the rich Apamean agglomeration and hinterland. Features of style date the panels to the 4th century AD.

The scenes tell the story of the founding of Pella/Apamea and further development of this city on the Orontes river. Three main groups of scenes can be distinguished: (1) the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes by the legendary Archippos, (2) the (re)foundation of the city as Apamea-on-the-Orontes (earlier Pella-on-the-Orontes) by Seleucus I Nikator and the simultaneous financial generosity of his wife, Apama, for the development of the new Seleucid colony in 300 BC, and (3) the raising of the town fortifications around monumental public buildings and an illustration of the daily life of a joyous people living in the rich Apamean agglomeration and hinterland. Features of style date the panels to the 4th century AD.

The Seleucid Era remains problematic because there were apparently two different starting points in two different calendar years. This has always implied the existence of two separate systems of year reckonings within the Seleucid empire but scholarly opinion has remained divided. This brief note attempts to elucidate the two eras and offer a new interpretation as to how and why they arose.

""""The attached file contains additions and corrections to Studia Hellenistica 52 and responses to some published comments. Most notably it corrects a significant error in the calendrical analysis of two letters of Antiochus III in Appendix C.2.

Updates will be issued from time to time as necessary and as my health permits.""""

During the second century BC, the Sidonian mint produced an undated civic coinage with no reference to the Seleucid authority. The following study attempts to establish, through a corpus of 113 coins, a refined dating of its production. Four various groups are identified based on stylistic and technical criteria as well as comparison with both municipal and dated civic coinage: group I (169/8–146/5 bc), group II (ca. 144/3–134/3 bc), group III (ca. 126/5–122/1 bc) and group IV (ca. 114/3–111/0 bc). The nature of relationship between the Sidonian authority and Seleucid administration is then revisited in the light of this particular coinage.

Introduction
1. A Slice of Material History
1.1. The religious act of the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes
1.2. The (re)foundation of Apamea – the royal generosity of Seleucus and Apama
1.3. Apamea: prosperity and joy of suburban life
2. The mosaic as a new historical source for the history of Apamea
Conclusions
Beyond the devastation and tragedy of human lives precipitated by the conflict in Syria, priceless representations of ancient culture and history have likewise fallen victim to a seemingly never-ending maelstrom of destruction. Ancient monuments and art have either been destroyed, damaged, or lost as chaos persists in a region that has for thousands of years seen the footprint of a parade of civilizations. (...)
The scenes tell the story of the founding of Pella/Apamea and further development of this city on the Orontes river. Three main groups of scenes can be distinguished: (1) the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes by the legendary Archippos, (2) the (re)foundation of the city as Apamea-on-the-Orontes (earlier Pella-on-the-Orontes) by Seleucus I Nikator and the simultaneous financial generosity of his wife, Apama, for the development of the new Seleucid colony in 300 BC, and (3) the raising of the town fortifications around monumental public buildings and an illustration of the daily life of a joyous people living in the rich Apamean agglomeration and hinterland. Features of style date the panels to the 4th century AD.

As a result of this die study the coinage in the name of Alexander and Seleukos formerly assigned to Uncertain Mint 1 in Cappadocia, Eastern Syria, or Northern Mesopotamia is conjoined with that of Uncertain Mint 6A in Babylonia.  The latter mint operated intermittently in the period 318-301 BC, serving the military needs of Seleukos, eventually becoming a mobile facility in support of the campaign of his army to Ipsos. It issued the  first coinage to bear the name of Seleukos within a framework of the army’s acclamation of his kingship.

A tetradrachm die study of the Susa wreath group (Susa Group 5) of Alexanders (Price 3853-60) attributed to the satrapy of Aspeisas in the period 316/5-312/1 BC,  indicates that the coinage should be downdated to the period 311/0-309/8 BC, the earliest coinage of Seleukos from the mint. A newly identified component of the coinage, die linked to the wreath group while bearing an anchor recut over the wreath, represents the first appearance on coinage of what was to become the primary Seleukid dynastic emblem. It sheds light on the origin and timing of placement of Seleukos's personal insignia, or seal, on his coinage, and its subsequent development into a dynastic emblem.

The Susa Wreath Group Alexanders:
The First Step in the Transformation of an Anchor Seal to a Dynastic Emblem. Koinon II (2019): 63-82

This article presents a hitherto unpublished cuneiform document from the Liagre Böhl Collection (Leiden) that sheds new light on the length of the coregency of Seleucos I Nicator and his son Antiochos (I Soter). Judging by the date mentioned in this document (LB 863), it is plausible to suppose that Antiochos was made coregent at least two years earlier than generally assumed. Furthermore, this discovery accords well with the peculiar date of another cuneiform document (D.T. 189) that has so far defied explanation.

The paper is concerned with the chronology and crucial events of the war between Demetrios I Soter and the usurper Alexander Balas. The literary evidence (Flavius Josephus, Trogus/Justin and others) will be confronted with the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries (AD – 149 A rev. 3ʹ–14ʹ). This will allow for a more precise reconstruction of the events. It will become clear that, in 161 SE B = 151/150 BC = by April 150 BC, Demetrios lost his authority not only in Syrian cities, but also in some of Eastern provinces, such as in Mesopotamia. This is evidenced by another cuneiform text containing in the dating formula the name of king Alexander (BiMes 24. 12. rev. 15). Of particular importance for the course of events was a strong famine in Antioch at the beginning of the 150 BC. Probably, this was one of the reasons that prompted Balas to oppose openly Demetrios. Although this put Demetrios under heavy pressure, Alexander was still defeated in the first major battle. The second battle took place soon afterwards, probably in May–June of 150 BC. Both sides suffered tangible losses, and Demetrios was killed either in or soon after this clash. It is noteworthy that the last Seleucid war elephants were involved in the hostilities and may have died in these battles. Thus, along with the refinement of the chronology, it was proved that the war was not limited to just one battle and the usurper’s victory was not so easy for him, as was previously thought. And additional circumstances known from cuneiform sources make it possible to understand better the nature of this military conflict.

<b>Abstract/Intro:</b>  The observance of Sabbatical years in the Second Temple period is attested by a wide range of historical sources--in particular, the OT, the books of Maccabees, the text of Josephus, Rabbinic literature, and ancient inscriptions.  The record of Sabbatical year observances generated by these sources is not entirely unproblematic, but is substantially coherent.  Give or take a year, every observed Sabbatical year in the Second Temple era can be accommodated within the constraints of a fixed seven-year cycle.  Or, to put the point negatively, we have not found any documented observances of Sabbatical years which (give or take a year) do <i>not</i> occur a multiple of seven years away from one another.  That such a wide range of sources exhibits such a consistent pattern is noteworthy;  it suggests the observance of Sabbatical years is a genuine feature of Jewish history, which can be reconstructed with relative confidence.

Of course, mine is not the first attempt to reconstruct Israel’s Sabbatical cycle.  Zuckermann<fn>Zuckermann 1857:43-45.</fn> has proposed a Sabbatical cycle coincident with the year 458t/457t, which has been seconded by Blosser<fn>Blosser 1979:113.</fn> and Finegan.<fn>FHBC 116-126.</fn>  Meanwhile, Wacholder<fn>Wacholder 1973:153-196.</fn> has proposed a cycle a year removed from Zuckermann’s (i.e., a cycle coincident with 457t/456t), which has been seconded by Steinmann and Young.<fn>SFATP 188-191.</fn>  In the present paper, I critically assess the data cited by Wacholder, and ultimately side with Zuckermann’s cycle.  In the process, I propose a schema for the determination of the Seleucid Era (SE) conventions employed in 1 and 2 Maccabees.  If I am right in my acceptance of Zuckermann’s 458t-based Sabbatical cycle--and if that cycle was in existence prior to Ezra’s arrival in 458t--, then 534t/533t would have been the first observed Sabbatical year after Israel’s return from exile, and the 520t/519t Sabbatical year would have coincided with Haggai’s prophecy, where Haggai says Israel’s “seed” is “still in [its] barn” (Hagg. 2.19).  Furthermore, every public assembly in the 7th month in Ezra and Nehemiah coincides with a Sabbatical year (when the law is to be recited before the people: Deut. 31.10-13<fn>Graves 2007:467-487.</fn>), as does the covenant made in Nehemiah’s day when Israel promise to give the land its Sabbath rest (Neh. 10.31),<fn>See my <i>Post-Exilic History</i> (2015).</fn> which I take to be a further point in favour of Zuckermann’s cycle.

<b>Key Words:</b>  <i>Sabbatical years, Sabbatical cycle, Shmitah, dates, week, chronology, extra-Biblical, week, seventh year, Zuckermann, Wacholder, Ezra, Nehemiah, post-exilic, Second Temple</i>