Ištar of Babylon in ‘Day-One Temple’

Ceremonies, Feasts and Festivities in Ancient Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean World (Melammu 7; Da Riva, Arroyo & Debourse; Zaphon), 2023

It has repeatedly been claimed that the kings of the Seleucid dynasty actively supported the Babylonian cult by participating in the New Year Festival. Through this, it is said, they aimed to subscribe to Babylonian notions of kingship, thus gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the Babylonian population. This paper argues that a more critical approach is needed. Although the Seleucid rulers occasionally took part in Babylonian rituals, this should be seen in the context of their give-and-take politics rather than as a straightforward means to establish legitimacy in Babylonian eyes. Moreover, their involvement in the Babylonian cult did not meet the expectations that the Babylonians held of their king. The grand akītu festival, with its glamourous procession, was by then a thing of the past. This also shows from the fact that the festival became a common topic in the historiographical literature of the time, amongst which the ritual texts should be counted, too. Only in these texts did rulers act according to the rules of Babylonian kingship.

Incidenza dell'Antico, 2021

According to Strabo and Pliny the Elder, the decision to found Seleucia on the Tigris by Seleucos Nikanor was the cause behind the decadence of Babylon, once the main centre of Mesopotamia. The present analysis addresses how Seleucia was founded and administrated, and to what extent it altered the existing equilibrium of power between the priesthood and the local population in Babylonia. Thanks to the interpretation of different types of evidence and the assessment of the modern scholarship, it is concluded that the relationship between Seleucia on the Tigris and Babylon gave birth to a continuous political negotiation between Greek, Macedonian and Babylonian elites. There was not a strong interference of the Seleucid royal power that might have caused drastic changes in the status quo. Seleucia became a paragon for the Babylonian elite at least since the reign of Antiochos IV, when Greek civic institutions were introduced in Babylon.

Rolf Strootman, ‘Orontid kingship in its Hellenistic context: The Seleucid connections of Antiochos I of Commagene’, in: M. Blömer, S. Riedel, M. J. Versluys, and E. Winter eds., Common Dwelling Place of all the Gods: Commagene in its Local, Regional and Global Hellenistic Context. Oriens et Occidens 34 (Stuttgart : Franz Steiner Verlag, 2021) 295–317. The dynastic representation created by Antiochos I of Kommagene continues to puzzle historians and archaeologist. Its meaning usually is considered either in the light of the Achaemenid past that Antiochos so emphatically refers to on Nemrut Dağı, or from the perspective of Roman history. In the first case, Antiochos is seen as an "eastern" monarch and his royal and religious imagery is accordingly decoded as ancient Persian traditions in Greek disguise. In the second case, Antiochos is seen as a client king whose main political aim was to position his small kingdom in a world dominated by Rome. But for an alleged client king, Antiochos referred remarkably little to Rome in his self-presentation. Moreover, in the mid-1st century BCE, Roman dominance in the Near East was not a foregone conclusion: when Antiochos succeeded to the throne of Commagene the greatest power in the Near East was the Armenian Empire of Tigranes the Great; after Tigranes’ fall, the Parthian Empire successfully challenged Roman supremacy in the region. Moreover, for a local ruler, Antiochos made remarkably grand political statements: he adopted the imperial title of Great King, claimed to be a descendant of Alexander the Great and a successor to both the Seleucid and the Achaemenid empires. This contribution aims to understand Antiochos’ kingship from neither the Persian past nor the Roman future. Instead, it considers Antiochos' monarchy in its contemporary late-Hellenistic context. It shows that Antiochus' royal representation overwhelmingly refers to the Seleucids (and only rarely to the Achaemenids). It argues that the alleged idiosyncratic imagery and rhetoric found on Nemrud Dağ and elsewhere in Commagene can be understood as part of a wider movement among local rulers in the Near East in response to Seleucid collapse.

American Journal of Numismatics Second Series 34, 2022

AJN Second Series 34 (2022) pp. 1–37 , plates 1-10. Coinage bearing an anchor symbol and the name of Alexander was struck at the Babylon II mint under Seleukos in the period 309/8–304/3 BC. An estimated 93 tetradrachm obverse dies were commissioned for this coinage, which can be divided into three groups of issues. Die links, stylistic affinities, and a rapid succession of changes in mint conventions establish a robust relative chronology within and between the three groups. In this we can discern five stages of mint operation from recommissioning through to decline and closure. The latter is characterized by recutting of reverse dies from which the anchor symbol was erased following Seleukos’s assumption of the royal title. In the course of the mint’s development, a senior official designated by the Pi mint mark played an important role that appears to have continued with his transfer via Uncertain Mint 6A (Opis) to Seleukeia on the Tigris. Tentatively, this official is identified as Polyarchos, a hyparch in Babylonia who, accompanied by 1,000 troops, joined Seleukos when the latter returned to Babylonia in 312/11 BC.

Introduction 1he landscape of ancient Mesopotamia did not favour permanence. 'The meandering courses of the Tigris and Euphrates constantly reshaped the plain, carving out new channels over time and leaving old ones dry.' Without access to water, cities along the old channels suffered losses of population or even abandonment; temples, palaces, and city walls, built as they were of mud brick, quickly deteriorated into earthen mounds if not properly maintained and repaired. 2 The lack of natural borders facilitated movements between populations on the margins of the alluvium and those residing in the heartland, periodically bringing new ethnic groups to prominence. Yet in spite of these destabilizing forces, Babylonian civilization displayed a remarkable degree of continuity over the centuries due in large part to the ideological importance attached to the cities that dotted the Mesopotamian plain. Even after Hammurabi removed royal power to Babylon in the second quarter of the second millennium ac,' many cities retained economic and administrative importance and their temples continued to be centres of veneration where priests and scribes served the local gods and perpetuated scholarly traditions. The ideal Babylonian monarch organized the digging of canals to supply cities no longer served by the rivers and saw to it that temples were rebuilt following the outlines of their original foundations. 4 Kings took great pride in the palaces they inhabited, and the city wails that they maintained not only

Strootman, R., ‘A kingship ritual in Baktria: Antiochos III and the reorganization of Seleukid Central Asia’, in: G. Lindström ed., Ritual Matters: Archaeology and Religion in Hellenistic Central Asia. Studia Hercynia 12 (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 2023) 88–97. The article contextualizes Polybios' account of the ritual reception of Demetrios, the son of Euthydemos of Baktria, at the court of the Seleukid emperor, Antiochos III, outside of Baktra. In 206 BCE, after a long and inconclusive war, Antiochos III gave the title of king to the rebellious ruler Euthydemos. Euthydemos thereby gained legitimacy through imperial recognition of his royal status in return for his acceptance of Seleukid suzerainty and incidental military support. Creating a friendly satellite kingdom in Central Asia was more useful for the empire than reestablishing direct control. The alliance was sealed with a dynastic marriage. Baktria and Sogdia were thus reintegrated into the Seleukid imperial networks of connectivity and exchange, especially after Antiochos III reopened the ancient sea routes between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia.

For the past couple of decades scholarship on Hellenistic Babylonia has emphasized the vitality, deep-rootedness, and permanence of local cultural traditions and economic structures. 1 Excavations and the ongoing publication of cuneiform archives are bringing to light the flourishing of Babylonian science and historiography, the daily practices of cult, household, and trade, and the uninterrupted endurance of ancient kinship groups. 2 With this has developed a counterimage of the limited impact and influence of the Graeco-Macedonian kings ruling over Babylonians and the colonists living among them. It has been argued that, religiously, 'the Babylonians held on to their old Babylonian traditions' , 3 and that, politically, there was even a form of apartheid. 4 Seleucid kingship, in turn, has been held to have managed the empire's extraordinary size and diversity through limited ambitions for cultural transformation and the role-playing of indigenous, pre-Hellenistic monarchic identities.

in: B. Jacobs & R. Rollinger (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof. Akten des 2. internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema ‘Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen,’ Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.-25. Mai 2007 (Classica et Orientalia 2), Wiesbaden 2010: 667-775

The Date of the Accession to Nabonidus to the Throne of Babylon: A Reappraisal of the Evidence, edited by C.J. Crisosomo et al, 2018

Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte Bd. 56, H. 3 (2007), pp. 280-301.