Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:46:54.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ANOTHER CENTURY OF GODS? A RE-EVALUATION OF SELEUCID RULER CULT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2018

Kyle Erickson
Kyle Erickson*
Affiliation:
University of Wales Trinity Saint David
*
k.erickson@uwtsd.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper proposes that living Seleucid kings were recognized as divine by the royal court before the reign of Antiochus III despite lacking an established centralized ruler cult like their fellow kings, the Ptolemies. Owing to the nature of the surviving evidence, we are forced to rely heavily on numismatics to construct a view of Seleucid royal ideology. Regrettably, it seems that up until now much of the numismatic evidence for the divinity of living Seleucid rulers has not been fully considered. I argue that the evidence from silver coinage produced in the name of the Seleucid kings presents a version of the official image of the reigning king and that images which portray the king as divine reflect central acceptance of the king's divinity. This is clear from the epithets on the coinage of Antiochus IV and his successors, but I will argue that the same principle holds for all earlier Seleucid kings. Thus coinage with divine images of Seleucid kings provided one of the mechanisms through which the royal court transmitted the divine nature of the kings to the population. As we will see, in the case of Antiochus Hierax, local considerations also influenced the numismatic representation of the king. This blurring of boundaries between the local veneration of the king, which has long been accepted as normal civic practice in the Greek city-states and in non-Greek temples, and the royal images of the divine king calls into question the strict division between civic and centralized ruler cults. The reflection of local cults within royal ideology can be seen as a manifestation of a negotiating model of Seleucid power that relied heavily on a dialogue with a wide range of interested groups. This article argues that the inconsistencies in the development of an iconography of divine kingship before the reign of Antiochus IV is a manifestation of the same phenomenon.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , May 2018 , pp. 97 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Professors Coşkun, Edwards and Ogden, Dr Hanesworth, Dr McAuley, Catherine Lorber, my father, the reviewers and the editors for CQ for their help and corrections, as well as the audiences in Lampeter, Durham and Exeter who heard early versions of this paper and made many useful suggestions. Special thanks to Catherine Lorber for the provision of the images. All remaining inaccuracies, inconsistencies and errors are, of course, my own.

References

2 For the Ptolemaic system, see Pfeiffer, S., Herrscher- und Dynastiekulte im Ptolemäerreich: Systematik und Einordnung der Kultformen (Munich, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See, for example, Mørkholm, O., Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et Mediaevalia Dissertationes VIII) (Copenhagen, 1966)Google Scholar; Iossif, P.P., ‘Les monnaies de Suse frappées par Séleucos Ier: une nouvelle approche’, Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 33 (2004), 249–71Google Scholar; Hoover, O.D., ‘Never mind the bullocks: taurine imagery as a multicultural expression of royal and divine power under Seleukos I Nikator’, in Iossif, P.P., Chankowski, A.S. and Lorber, C. (edd.), 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, 2011), 197–228Google Scholar; Erickson, K., ‘Seleucus I, Zeus and Alexander’, in Mitchell, L. and Melville, C. (edd.), Every Inch a King: Comparative Studies in Kings and Kingship in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Leiden, 2012), 109–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 The evidence for cults of the Ptolemaic kings is so extensive that investigations into the links between the numismatic representations and the cults are often ignored in favour of the more documentary evidence; see, for example, Caneva, S.G., ‘Queens and ruler cults in early Hellenism’, Kernos 25 (2012), 75–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who does not discuss the numismatic portraits of Arsinoë II. van Nuffelen, P., ‘Le culte royal de l'empire des Séleucides: une réinterprétation’, Historia 53 (2004), 278–301Google Scholar goes the furthest in combining the epigraphic and the numismatic materials for the Seleucid royal cult, but maintains that Antiochus III was responsible for the organization of the Seleucid dynastic cult. The colloquium which was entitled ‘More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship’, and was organized by the Belgian School at Athens, and its subsequent proceedings (see Iossif, Chanowksi and Lorber [n. 3]) have further continued the combination of epigraphic and literary materials without challenging the prevailing views.

5 The clearest proponent of this view is Habicht, C., Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte (Munich, 1970 2)Google Scholar.

6 See Ma, J., Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar; Capdetrey, L., Le pouvoir séleucide: territoire, administration, finances d'un royaume hellénistique, 312–129 avant J.-C. (Rennes, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engels, D., ‘Middle Eastern “feudalism” and Seleucid dissolution’, in Erickson, K. and Ramsey, G. (edd.), Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor (Wiesbaden, 2011)Google Scholar; Strootman, R., ‘Hellenistic court society: the Seleucid Imperial court under Antiochus the Great, 223–187 b.c.e.’, in Duindam, J., Artan, T. and Kunt, M. (edd.), Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires: A Global Perspective (Leiden, 2011), 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 For some tempering of this view, see van Nuffelen, P., ‘Le culte des souverains Hellénistiques’, Ancient Society 29 (1999), 298–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Debord, P., ‘Le culte royal chez les Séleucides’, in Prost, F. (ed.), L'Orient méditerranéen de la mort d'Alexandre aux campagnes de Pompée (Toulouse, 2003), 281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dreyer, B., Die römische Nobilitätsherrschaft und Antiochus III. (205 bis 188 v.Chr.) (Hennef, 2007), 315–17Google Scholar.

8 See Habicht (n. 5); Ma (n. 6), 374; Chaniotis, A., ‘The divinity of Hellenistic rulers’, in Erskine, A. (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 2003), 431–45, at 435–8Google Scholar; Chaniotis, A., ‘La divinité mortelle d'Antiochus III à Téos’, Kernos 20 (2007), 153–71, at 157Google Scholar.

9 Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A., From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire (London, 1993), 203Google Scholar; Ma (n. 6), 64; Chaniotis (n. 8 [2003]), 436–7; Debord (n. 7); Virgilio, B., ‘Epigrafia e culti dei re Seleucidi’, in Xella, P. and Zamora, J.A. (edd.), Atti dell'Incontro di studio sul tema: epigrafia e storia delle religioni: dal documento epigrafico al problema storico-religioso: Roma, Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma, 28 Maggio 2002 (Verona, 2003), 39–50Google Scholar; van Nuffelen (n. 4), 278–9. For Seleucid ruler cult in general, see the following studies, all of which prefer a late date for the creation of the royal cult: Bevan, E.R., ‘The deification of kings in the Greek cities’, The English Historical Review 16 (1901), 625–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lattey, C., ‘The diadochi and the rise of king-worship’, The English Historical Review 32 (1917), 321–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nock, A.D., ‘Notes on ruler-cult, I–IV’, JHS 48 (1928), 21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, K., ‘The deification of Demetrius Poliorcetes: Part II’, AJPh 49 (1928), 217–39Google Scholar; Nock, A.D., ‘SUNNAOS THEOS’, HSPh 41 (1930), 1–62Google Scholar; Bikerman, E., Institutions des Séleucides (Paris, 1938)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Habicht (n. 5); S.Price, R.F., ‘Between man and god’, JRS 70 (1980), 28–43Google Scholar; Price, S.R.F., Ritual and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984[a])Google Scholar; Price, S.R.F., ‘Gods and emperors: the Greek language of the Roman Imperial cult’, JHS 104 (1984[b]), 79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bosworth, B., ‘Augustus, the Res Gestae and Hellenistic theories of apotheosis’, JRS 89 (1999), 1–18Google Scholar; van Nuffelen (n. 7); Carney, E., ‘The initiation of cult for royal Macedonian women’, CPh 95 (2000), 21–43Google Scholar; Hazzard, R.A., Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda (Toronto, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ma (n. 6); Le Bohec-Bouhet, S., ‘The kings of Macedon and the cult of Zeus in the Hellenistic period’, in Ogden, D. (ed.), The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives (London, 2002), 41–57Google Scholar; van Nuffelen (n. 4).

10 Chaniotis (n. 8 [2003]), 436–7. For the Ptolemies, see Hazzard (n. 9), 3–17; Pfeiffer (n. 2). For the Antigonids, the cult remained polis-oriented; see Habicht, C., ‘Divine honours for King Antigonus Gonatas in Athens’, SCI 15 (1996), 131–4Google Scholar; Mari, M.M., ‘The ruler cult in Macedonia’, in Virgilio, B. (ed.), Studi ellenistici XX (Pisa and Rome, 2008), 219–68Google Scholar.

11 Gruen, E., ‘Seleucid royal ideology’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 38 (1999), 24–53, at 33Google Scholar: ‘there is no reason to believe that this [ruler cult] first saw the light of day in the time of Antiochus III. It seems unlikely that the Seleucids would have lacked a centrally organized cult when the Ptolemies had long had one. The origins may go back to Antiochus I who erected a temple at Seleukeia to honour his deceased father.’ For the importance of the dynastic cult at Seleucia-in-Pieria, see now Wright, N.L., ‘Seleukos, Zeus and the dynastic cult at Seleukeia in Pieria’, in Erickson, K. (ed.), War within the Family: The Seleukid Empire, 281–222 BC (Swansea, forthcoming in 2018)Google Scholar.

12 Mørkholm (n. 3). See Iossif, P.P. and Lorber, C., ‘Celestial imagery on the eastern coinage of Antiochus IV’, Mesopotamia 44 (2009), 129–46Google Scholar for the development of celestial imagery and its connection to Antiochus IV's divinity.

13 See already Scott (n. 9), who comments on the interpretations of Newell and Eckhel on whether the reference is to Poseidon or to Dionysus; more recently, see Ehling, K., ‘Stierdionysos oder Sohn des Poseidon: zu den Hörnern des Demetrios Poliorketes’, GFA 3 (2000), 153–60Google Scholar. I follow Scott in his suggestion that the precise deity is unknowable but that the divine attribute is significant; see below for a discussion on the nature of horned portraits, and see also Erickson (n. 3).

14 Scott (n. 9); Ehling (n. 13); Chaniotis (n. 8 [2003]); Holton, J.R., ‘Demetrios Poliorketes, son of Poseidon and Aphrodite. Cosmic and memorial significance in the Athenian Ithyphallic hymn’, Mnemosyne 67 (2014), 370–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Dahmen, K., The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins (London, 2007), 42–4Google Scholar.

16 The bibliography on the Theoi Adelphoi and on the establishment of the cult for Arsinoë is extensive. See Caneva (n. 3), 82 n. 11.

17 von Reden, S., Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: From the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC (Cambridge, 2007), 51Google Scholar.

18 von Reden (n. 17), 15 connects the coinage with the cult but only in a broad and implicit way, as she refers to the notions of potential rejection of the cult of the living king and of the separation of the title theoi from the title adelphoi.

19 See now van Oppen de Ruiter, B.F., ‘The death of Arsinoë II Philadelphus: the evidence reconsidered’, ZPE 174 (2010), 139–50Google Scholar.

20 See Cheshire, W., ‘Zur Deutung eines Szepters der Arsinoë II. Philadelphos’, ZPE 48 (1982), 105–11Google Scholar for the sceptre.

21 Johnson, C.G., ‘The divinization of the Ptolemies and the gold octadrachms honoring Ptolemy III’, Phoenix 53 (1999), 50–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 The one notable exception is the fire-altar coinage from Persis: see Haerinck, E. and Overlaet, B., ‘Altar shrines and fire altars? Architectural representations on Frataraka coinage’, Iranica Antiqua 43 (2008), 207–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Consult also Shayegan, M.R., Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia (Cambridge, 2011)Google Scholar. However, this coinage is produced by a particular group (the fratarakā) for their own purposes and—it seems—without following the normal Seleucid conventions. There is considerable debate concerning the independence of the issuers of the fratarakā coinage from Seleucid rule, and there is an increasing trend towards seeing the fratarakā as subsidiary rulers under Seleucid overlords, or as even having been given the title by the Seleucids. See now Engels, D., ‘A new fratarakā chronology’, Latomus 72 (2013), 28–80Google Scholar; cf. Wiesehöfer, J., Die “dunklen Jahrhunderte” der Persis. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Kultur des Färs in frühhellenistischer Zeit (339–140 v.Chr.) (Munich, 1994), 101–38Google Scholar; Wiesehöfer, J., Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD (London, 1996), 110Google Scholar; Tuplin, C., ‘The Seleucids and their Achaemenid predecessors: a Persian inheritance?’, in Darbandi, S.M.R. and Zournatizi, A. (edd.), Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural Encounters. First International Conference (Athens 11–13 November 2006), (Athens, 2008), 109–36, at 114Google Scholar. There is also a separate debate on the date of the fratarakā; both Wiesehöfer, J., ‘Fars under Seleucid and Parthian rule’, in Curtis, V.S. and Stewart, S. (edd.), The Age of the Parthians (London, 2007), 37–49Google Scholar and Wiesehöfer, J., ‘Fratarakā rule in early Seleucid Persis: a new appraisal’, in Erskine, A. and Llewellyn-Jones, L. (edd.), Creating a Hellenistic World (Swansea, 2011), 107–21Google Scholar follow Alram, M., Nomina Propria Iranica in Nummis. 4. Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Band IV. (Wien, 1986), 163Google Scholar and prefer a date after the revolt of Molon. In contrast, Klose, D.O.A. and Müseler, W., Statthalter, Rebellen, Könige. Die Münzen aus Persepolis von Alexander dem Grossen zu den Sasaniden (Munich, 2008), 15–21 and 33–4Google Scholar argue convincingly for a date either in the reign of Seleucus I or shortly after his death.

23 See Price (n. 9 [1980(a)]), 180, Plates 2–3; Coşkun, A., ‘Der ankyraner Kaiserkult und die Transformation galatischer und phrygisch-galatischer Identitäten in Zentralanatolien im Spiegel der Münzquellen’, in Heinen, H. and Pfeiffer, S. (edd.), Repräsentation von Identität und Zugehörigkeit im Osten der griechisch-römischen Welt (Frankfurt, 2009), 173–211Google Scholar.

24 See Johnson (n. 21) for a summary of Ptolemaic practice.

25 Smith, R.R.R., Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford, 1988), 41–2Google Scholar.

26 Erickson, K., ‘Apollo-Nabû: the Babylonian policy of Antiochus I’, in Erickson, K. and Ramsey, G. (edd.), Seleucid Dissolution: The Sinking of the Anchor (Wiesbaden, 2011), 51–66Google Scholar.

27 Le Rider, G., Antioche de Syrie sous les Séleucides. Corpus des monnaies d'or et d'argent, I: de Séleucos I à Antiochus V, c.300–161 (Paris, 1999), 74–96Google Scholar.

28 Johnson (n. 21), 54.

29 For example, Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy III, who receives a cult at Canopus but never appears on coinage. For the cult, see OGIS 56 lines 47 and 57, and von Reden (n. 17), 53.

30 See Iossif (n. 3); and Erickson (n. 3) for the argument that Seleucus I's portrait occurs on coinage from Susa during his lifetime.

31 Kroll, J.H., ‘The emergence of ruler portraiture on early Hellenistic coins: the importance of being divine’, in Schultz, P. (ed.), Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context (Cambridge, 2007), 113–22Google Scholar. The Hellenistic successors who place their own portrait on coinage do so with some other attribute of divinity, for example the bull horns on the coinage of Demetrius and Seleucus I.

32 See, for example, the hymn from Erythrai: I.Erythrai 205 lines 74–5: ὑμνεῖτε ἐπὶ σπονδαῖς Ἀπόλλωνος κυανοπλοκάμου | παῖδα Σέλευκον. ὃν αὐτὸς γείνατο χρυ[σ]ολύρας …; see Klinghardt, M., ‘Prayer formularies for public recitation. Their use and function in ancient religion’, Numen 46 (1999), 1–52, at 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Habicht (n. 5), 85 dates the decree to 274, although a date closer to Seleucus’ death is suggested by the recent discovery of the decree from Aegae in Aiolis (Malay, H. and Ricl, M., ‘Two new Hellenistic decrees from Aigai in Aiolis’, Epigraphica Anatolica 42 [2009], 39–47Google Scholar). P.P. Iossif, ‘Apollo Toxotes and the Seleucids: comme un air de famille’, in Iossif, Chanowksi and Lorber (n. 3), 229–91, at 246–7 follows Goukowsky, P., ‘Sur une épigramme de Thespies’, in Dion, J. (ed.), L’épigramme d'antiquité au XVIIe siècle ou du ciseau à la pointe (Paris, 2002), 218–19Google Scholar in translating παῖδα as ‘servant’ rather than ‘son’, and suggests Seleucus II rather than Seleucus I. Both of these scholars seemingly ignore the statement that the god bore Seleucus in the following line. See also OGIS 212 = I.Ilion 31; compare also Habicht (n. 5), 82–3 for the cult in Ilion. See Habicht (n. 5), 90 for the possibly later cult of Seleucus and Antiochus at Lemnos as preserved in Phylarchus.

33 Smith (n. 25), 39 rightly points out that we should not assume that these similarities were necessarily deliberate, nor should we interpret them in the same clearly deifying manner as specific divine attributes. Furthermore, in most cases these portraits for the most part simply represent gods.

34 The use of horns as divine motif seems apparent not only in Greek but also in Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources. Divine figures in Mesopotamian art are often horned and the bull holds specific divine and royal connotations in Egypt: cf. Rice, M., The Power of the Bull (London, 1998), 116Google Scholar. For Seleucus I, in particular, see Hoover (n. 3). In the Greek world horns appear on a limited number of deities, who are mostly associated with water: E.M.M. Aston, ‘Mixanthropoi: animal/human composite deities in Greek religion’ (Diss., University of Exeter, 2007), 347–8; Smith, M.S., ‘Ugaritic studies and Israelite religion: a retrospective view’, Near Eastern Archaeology 65 (2002), 17–29, at 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a more extensive regional view encompassing the ancient (through the medieval) world, see Mellinkoff, R., The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought (Berkeley, 1970), 37–57Google Scholar; Svenson, D., Darstellungen hellenistischer Könige mit Götterattributen (Archäologische Studien 10) (Bern, 1995), 58Google Scholar; Thomas, R., Eine posthume Statuette Ptolemaios’ IV. und ihr historischer Kontext. Zur Götterangleichung hellenistischer Herrscher (Trierer Winckelmannsprogramme 18) (Mainz am Rhein, 2002)Google Scholar. This view goes beyond that of Stewart, A., Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics (Berkeley, 1993), 197Google Scholar: ‘To some Greeks and Romans, paraphernalia of this kind was indeed a visible sign of apotheosis and signified that the ruler was literally a god on earth: theos epiphanēs or deus praesens. To others, it remained on the level of metaphor, continuing to signal that the ruler's power was like that of the divinity whose attribute he wore, but not that he was himself a god, and still less that he merited a formal cult. Yet, when all was said and done, attributes of this kind were special: they were the specific symbols of the Olympians, who were divine. These images oscillate between two worlds, partaking fully of neither, and for the fastidious and the critical their iconic and symbolic aspects continued to contradict each other, defying reconciliation.’

35 Smith (n. 25), 40; J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge, 1986), 32.

36 van Oppen, B.F., Berenice II Euergetis: Essays in Early Hellenistic Queenship (London, 2015), 49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the complex associations with the crowns associated with Arsinoë II, see now M. Nilsson, ‘The crown of Arsinoë II: the creation and development of an imagery of authority’ (Diss., Gothenburg, 2010).

37 Ehling (n. 13).

38 Erickson (n. 3); Iossif (n. 3); R.A. Hadley, ‘Seleucus, Dionysus, or Alexander?’, The Numismatic Chronicle 14 (1974), 9–13.

39 Houghton, A. and Lorber, C.C., Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I, Seleucus I through Antiochus III (New York, Lancaster, PA and London, 2002), 123–4Google Scholar.

40 App. Syr. 63. καὶ Σέλευκον μὲν ἔκαιε Φιλέταιρος ὁ Περγάμου δυναστεύσας, πολλῶν χρημάτων τὸ σῶμα τὸν κεραυνὸν αἰτήσας, καὶ τὰ λείψανα ἔπεμπεν Ἀντιόχῳ τῷ παιδὶ αὐτοῦ. ὁ δ᾽ ἐν Σελευκείᾳ τῇ πρὸς θαλάσσῃ ἀπέθετο, καὶ νεὼν αὐτῷ ἐπέστησε καὶ τέμενος περιέθηκε· καὶ τὸ τέμενος Νικατόρειον ἐπικλῄζεται. The English translation cited above is by White, H., Appian. The Foreign Wars (New York, 1899)Google Scholar.

41 See Erickson (n. 3) for discussion of the divine myths surrounding Seleucus. See Hannestad, L. and Potts, D., ‘Temple architecture in the Seleucid kingdom’, in Bilde, P. et al. (edd.), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Aarhus, 1990), 91–124Google Scholar for the identification of the temple.

42 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 363.

43 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 364.

44 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 469–72.

45 Lib. Or. 11.92; App. Syr. 57; there is also the strange mention of Seleucus’ statues bearing horns on the walls of Alexandria [sic] in the γ recension of the Alexander Romance (Historia Alexandri Magni 2.28), which must derive from a similar tradition. See Fleischer, R., Studien zur Seleukidischen Kunst I: Herrscherbildnisse (Mainz am Rhein, 1991), 91–6Google Scholar; Hoover (n. 3).

46 Houghton, A., ‘A colossal head in Antakya and the portraits of Seleucus I’, Antike Kunst 29 (1986), 52–62Google Scholar.

47 It may be possible to connect the divine images of Seleucus II to the cult for the Seleucid kings at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. This cult, identified by van Nuffelen, P., ‘Un culte royal municipal de Séleucie du Tigre à l’époque Séleucide’, Epigraphica Anatolica 33 (2001), 85–7Google Scholar as a municipal cult, is fragmentary and has been dated to the reigns of various kings. He argues for a date after Antiochus III, but, if this paper's view of the nature of Seleucid ruler cult is correct, the dating of cult documents need not be restricted to this period. In this case, the proposition either of Rostovzeff, M., ‘ΠΡΟΓΟΝΟΙ’, JHS 55 (1935), 56–66, at 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar as dating to Antiochus II or of MacDowell, R.H., Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia on the Tigris (Ann Arbor, 1935), 258–9Google Scholar as dating to Seleucus II would be possible.

48 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 767–8.

49 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 800–1.

50 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 710, 716, 767, 768, 800, 801.

51 For a comparison with the creation of the cult for Alexander and other early Hellenistic monarchs, see Chaniotis (n. 8 [2003]), 431–7.

52 McEwan, G.J.P., Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 4) (Wiesbaden, 1981), 125Google Scholar; cf. Doty, L.T., ‘Nikarchos and Kephalon’, in Leichty, E., Ellis, M.D. and Gerardi, P. (edd.), A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs (Philadelphia, 1988), 95–6Google Scholar.

53 See Chrubasik, B., Kings and Usurpers in the Seleucid Empire: The Men Who Would Be King (Oxford, 2016), 72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar for the representation of Hierax's self-representation as a legitimate Seleucid ruler in the context of his usurpation.

54 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 866–7.

55 Chaniotis (n. 8 [2003]), 433.

56 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 925.

57 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 942.

58 Houghton, A., Lorber, C.C. and Hoover, O.D., Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part 2, Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII (New York, 2008), 4Google Scholar: e.g. Antioch: no. 1313; Tarsus: no. 1306, 1308; Cilician mint: no. 1311; ‘Wreath mint’: no. 1328; Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: no. 1334; Ecbatana: no. 1352.

59 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 491.

60 Babelon, E., Les rois de Syrie d'Armenie et de Commagene (Paris, 1890), lv–lviGoogle Scholar.

61 Perseus is an intriguing figure for the Seleucids, as he would have conjured connections to the Persian kings for many of the Greeks (Hdt. 7.150, 7.61.2–3, 7.61.150, 7.61.220; Aesch. Pers. 79–80; Hellanicus, FGrHist 4 F 59; Hes. F 35 M.–W. There are also connections between Perseus and the foundation of Antioch: Malalas, Chronicle 198–200 Dindorf; Pausanias of Antioch, FHG 4.467–8, F 3 = John Malalas, Chronicle 37–8 Dindorf; cf. Ogden, D., Perseus (London, 2008), 116–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ogden, D., Alexander the Great: Myth, Genesis and Sexuality (Exeter, 2011), 95–6Google Scholar. However, the Seleucids make much less use of the potentially potent dual connection of Macedonian and Persian descent than would otherwise be expected.

62 MacDonald, G., ‘Early Seleucid portraits’, JHS 23 (1903), 92–116, at 101–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As Kaptan, D., ‘Perseus, Ketos, Andromeda and the Persians’, in Işık, C. (ed.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens und des ägäischen Bereiches. Festschrift für Baki Ögün zum 75. Geburtstag (Bonn, 2000), 135–44Google Scholar has shown, Perseus became significant in the process of identity creation for many Antalonian poleis in the Hellenistic period; therefore, the local signifance of the wings may in fact still refer to Perseus.

63 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 490–2.

64 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 293–4.

65 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 850.

66 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), nos. 871–2.

67 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 874–86.

68 Houghton and Lorber (n. 39), no. 843.

69 Mørkholm, O., Early Hellenistic Coinage: From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336–188 B.C.) (Cambridge, 1991), 124Google Scholar.

70 See Martinez-Sève, L., ‘Laodice, femme d'Antiochus II: du roman à la reconstruction historique’, REG 106 (2004), 690–706Google Scholar for Seleucus II as the designated heir of Antiochus II. See also Coşkun, A., ‘The war of the brothers, the Third Syrian War, and the battle of Ancyra: a reappraisal’, in Erickson, K. (ed.), War within the Family: The Seleukid Empire, 281–222 BC (Swansea, forthcoming in 2018)Google Scholar for a new chronology of the Third Syrian War.

71 Le Rider, G., Antioche de Syrie sous les Séleucides. Corpus des monnaies d'or et d'argent, I: de Séleucos I à Antiochus V, c.300–161 (Paris, 2001), 74–96Google Scholar.

72 Mittag, P.F., Antiochos IV. Epiphanes: eine politische Biographie (Berlin, 2006), 118–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Iossif and Lorber (n. 12).

74 Houghton, Lorber and Hoover (n. 58): Antioch: nos. 1396–7, 1403–6, 1408–15; Syria: nos. 1435–9; Dura Europos: no. 1434; Seleucia: nos. 1513–15; Ecbatana: no. 1549; Theos: Ecbatana: nos. 1539–42, 1547; Theos Epiphanēs Nikēphoros: Antioch: nos. 1400–1; Ptolemaïs: nos. 1474–6.

75 Muccioli, F., Gli epiteti ufficiali dei re ellenistici (Stuttgart, 2013)Google Scholar now provides the standard analysis of royal epithets. It should be noted that not only epithets that are clearly divine (e.g. Theos) now appear on Seleucid coinage, but also Antiochus V uses the epithet Eupator (Houghton, Lorber and Hoover [n. 58], 128–9) on his coinage. For a contextualization of this phenomenon across the Hellenistic world, see F. de Callataÿ and C. Lorber, ‘The pattern of royal epithets on Hellenistic coinages’, in Iossif, Chanowksi and Lorber (n. 3), 417–56.

76 Habicht (n. 5).