Well, gentlemen, there's a new coin on the proverbial block, an AE 20
of Cleopatra Selene and Antiochos XIII which I recently acquired from
the Middle East. It displays a much clearer image generally of both
obverse and reverse faces than the two extant examples of this Queen's
coinage. Antiochos is definitely shown here as a boy of perhaps 10-12
years in age. Assuming that he was born circa 94 BCE, which I believe
a reasonable inference under the circumstances, this would place the
issuance of this bronze and its two smaller companions at about 83-82,
or just at the instance of Philip I's death or disinheritance. Dear
Selene appears very deliberately to be claiming the same titles and
honors and ruling authority as those of her late aunt and first
cousin, Cleopatra Thea, of whom she was surely aware.

Given the contradictory nature of the extant historical sources, and
not to dispute tendentiously with our beloved Topoteretes
Aristopolitoutes, I think we have to be very careful indeed about
overextrapolating beyond whatever facts (and they are few) can be
gleaned from the detritus of history. It's clear to me, if to no one
else, that even the ancient writers became easily confused when
speaking of the last few droplets of Seleukid blood. They were all
writing for specific purposes that had nothing to do with the
delineation of the late history of Syria, which by this time was no
longer of significance to them.

I believe that, had Antiochos X survived past 92 BCE at some other
location outside of Antioch, he would have issued coins there--unless
he was held prisoner by some third party. But Occam's Razor tells us,
in the absence of any suggestion from the elders that this scenario
did in fact occur, that such an idea is unlikely at best, and should
perhaps be discarded. The utter failure of the Greek writers to tell
us the ultimate fate of Philip I suggests that he died a natural
death; the evidence of his coinage certainly shows a man aging with
remarkably rapidity. Whatever the span of his rule, whether six years
or twelve or something in between, we see a clear progression in the
images on his tetradrachms from a very young man to one whose face
appears dissipated and rather ill. Antiochos XII is demonstrated by
his coins to have ruled at least into the fighting season of 84/83
BCE, probably to the Spring of Summer of the latter year.

Cleopatra Selene, whatever part of Syria she ruled, and for however
long, left no mark whatever upon the imagination of the writers of her
day. That she existed, that she ruled, is demonstrated by the
physical evidence of her coinage, and the occasional mention of her
name by the ancient historians. The scarcity of her leavings in both
spheres, however, suggests very strongly a transient presence in the
region. Yes, she should definitely be labelled amongst the rulers of
Seleukid Syria, but she is scarcely an important monarch. She does
not appear even to have had the resources to issue silver pieces to
support the claims of herself and her two sons.

Tigranes II, whatever the circumstances of his rule over Syria and
Coele-Syria, seems to have moved exceedingly slowly to extend the
tentacles of his control over the traditional boundaries of the
Seleukid state(s), only reaching Damascus about the year 72/71 BCE,
and Ake-Ptolemais perhaps a year later. He may have called himself
"Basileus Basileon," but the pattern of his reign suggests not a
"great king," but a politician of an essentially cautious nature, so
cautious, in fact, that he perhaps missed the opportunity of
permanently enlarging his state beyond its traditional limits.

Perhaps additional coins will yet emerge from the Phoenician soil to
bolster our various prognostications. The three extant bronzes of
Queen Cleopatra II Selene are important in buttressing both the fact
of her existence and the fact of her self-proclaimed rule. By
inference, there should also exist a comparable AE20 displaying the
conjoined images of herself and her second son, Seleukos VII, on the
obverse, with another (but different from the rest) traditional
Seleukid theme on the reverse.

Michael Burgess



--- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "egil4870" <jens.jakobsson.187@s...>
wrote:
> Now, here is a theory which, albeit still speculative, makes sense!
>
> A question which arises is: if Mithradates III wanted to strenghten
> defences against Tigran, he should have known better than to support
> yet another a Seleucid pretender (and as a such Eusebes must be
> considered under the presumed circumstances). In all likelihood,
> Eusebes must have been at the throat of Philip I at first
> opportunity, especially since he arrived from the east, and whatever
> domains still loyal to him were in the other end of Syria. More
> reasonable for the Parthian king might have been to support Philip,
> who still exercised some power in Syria, and had recently (the
> campaign against Demetrios III in 87) summoned the Parthians to his
> aid. But then, Philip might have sided with Santruk, the other
> Parthian pretender, and the aim of Mithradates' presumed action
could
> have directed against him as well. Is it known which of the
Parthians
> fractions held Demetrios III prisoner?
>
> Here is what Chris Bennett writes on Kleopatra Selene's coins:
>
> "Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.13.4, states that Antiochus X
> died fighting with "Laodice, queen of the Gileadites" against the
> Parthians while Philip I and Demetrius III still ruled in Syria.
This
> would place his death in the region 92/88. This is irreconcilable
> with the accounts of Appian and Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicorum I
> (ed. Schoene) 261. Also against this date is the coin published by
A.
> R. Bellinger, ANSMN 5 (1952) 53, showing Selene acting as regent for
> a child. Since Selene still acted on behalf of Antiochus XIII in 76,
> the latter can have been at most a toddler in the period 92/88.
> Bellinger, supposing the coin to have been minted at Antioch, dates
> it immediated after the death of Antiochus X c. 92 and before its
> occupation by Demetrius III in 92/1. He suggests that the son is not
> shown as an infant for propaganda reasons. But there is no proof
that
> the coin was minted at Antioch, and a date of c. 83 or shortly
after,
> by which time Antiochus X no longer controlled Antioch, is much more
> consistent with the age of the child as portrayed on the coin."
>
> My only objection is that I have never seen a coin with a child
> identifiable as a toddler. Antiochus XIII might have been born ca
94-
> 92 if he was a son of Antiochos X, but he took over Kleopatra Thea
as
> wife from his father Antiochos IX upon the latters death, and IMHO
> there is no excluding the possibility that she was pregnant by then,
> so that Antiochos XIII in fact was the younger brother of Antiochos
X
> (which Justin writes, 40.1). In that case, he might have been born
in
> 95.
>
> By the way, what do the titles Eusebes and Eukareos (Demetrios III)
> mean? It starts with good/true, that much I've figured out. Is
> Eukareos the same as eukaryot (cell)? Also, Balas means lord, but
> what does Zabinas mean?
>
> --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Passehl" <mpassehl@c...>
> wrote:
> > Though in many respects the best we have, there seems to be
> something wrong
> > with Josephus' account of the late Seleukidai. Perhaps this has
> something to
> > do with his desire not to recount too many details from the time
of
> the
> > Jewish civil war (circa 93-87 BC). But not everything, because
that
> terrible
> > conflict was well over by the time of Tigran's conquest of Syria
in
> 83 BC,
> > yet Josephus omits all mention that momentous event, let alone
> Jewish
> > reaction to it.
> >
> > We have already observed that Plutarch (Lucullus 14; following
> Sallust or
> > Livy or Strabo) mentions Tigran's destruction of kings (plural)
> descended
> > from Seleukos. But according to Josephus' account of the royal
sons
> of the
> > Antiochoi (Grypos and Kyzikenos), only one of them was alive in
> Syria in 83
> > BC:
> > Seleukos VI assassinated in 95 BC (Arch.xiii.368)
> > Antiochos XI his brother, defeated and killed in 94
> (Arch.xiii.369)
> > Philippos I, another brother, still living in 84 BC
> (Arch.xiii.387ff.)
> > Antiochos X Eusebes, son of Kyzikenos, killed assisting Queen
> Laodike of the
> > "Samenoi" fight the Parthians in the late 90s (Arch.xiii.367)
> > Demetrios III, a fourth brother, went into Parthian captivity 87
BC
> and
> > never returned (Arch.xiii.384ff.), dying sometime 86/78 BC.
> > Antiochos XII Dionysos, a brother of Philip, killed in 84 fighting
> the
> > Nabataeans (Arch.xiii.390-1).
> >
> > Plutarch's plural "basileis" is supported by Appian's brief
account
> of
> > Tigran's invasion (Syr.48,69), which mentions the defeat and
> dethronement of
> > Antiochos Eusebes but does not mention Philip at all. Thus
> Josephus' error
> > is most likely to concern the date and circumstances of the death
of
> > Antiochos Eusebes. This is reinforced by the fact that Porphyrius
> > (ap.Eusebius Chron.) mentions Eusebes' flight to the Parthians -
> the very
> > same enemy fighting whom Josephus says he died.
> > Josephus may well have mistaken a description of Eusebes' defeat
in
> battle
> > and perhaps falling into the hands of the victorious Parthians as
> falling
> > down in death.
> > Furthermore, Eusebes' reemergence in his source's description of
> Tigran's
> > invasion of Syria might partly explain why Josephus decided to
omit
> Tigran's
> > invasion altogether. Was he confused ? Or was he also a bit
> embarassed ?
> > - because, as also mentioned previously, Yannai Alexander may well
> have
> > submitted to Tigran and agreed to accept the status of vassal king
> to the
> > Armenian King of Kings.
> >
> > Now Bellinger too recognises error in Josephus, and seeks to
> resolve it by
> > multiplying the error and additionally imputing error/confusion to
> Appian's
> > account of Antiochos Eusebes' opposition to Tigran AND to
> Porphyrius'
> > testimony about Eusebes' flight to the Parthians. But as we have
> seen, there
> > really is no need for such radical tampering with the sources.
> Antiochos XII
> > Dionysos is attested by Josephus as a brother of Philip, and there
> is no
> > clear evidence against this that I know of. Bellinger would make
> him son of
> > Antiochos Eusebes (i.e. a prince of the "other" branch of the
royal
> family)
> > and challenges Josephus' notice of his death in battle fighting an
> Arab
> > cavalry army. But there is no evidence upon which to base such a
> challenge -
> > quite unlike the case of Eusebes' death notice in Josephus.
> > Dionysos' use of the name Antiochos as a throne name is perfectly
> > appropriate for a brother of Philip from 87 BC (when he first
> emerged
> > wearing the diadem) because the elder brother who previously used
> that name
> > was killed back in circa 94 BC. The obvious parallel is the way
that
> > Antiochos Epiphanes assumed the name Antiochos only after the
> premature
> > death of his elder brother of that name.
> >
> > Everything is resolved and consistent if we assume that in 92/1
BC,
> when the
> > Arsakid internal wars were just beginning, Antiochos Eusebes
> assisted a
> > Kommagenian or Mesopotamian Queen in her effort to throw off
> Parthian
> > hegemony but was defeated and (contra Josephus by a slip) was not
> killed but
> > went into Parthian captivity.
> > Just prior to his invasion of Syria, Tigran took advantage of
> developments
> > in the Parthian internal wars to invade and annex all the
important
> vassal
> > states of the north-west, i.e. Atropatian Media, Korduene,
> Adiabene/the
> > Arbelitis and most of the rest of northern Mesopotamia (esp. the
> great
> > fortress of Nisibis). According to Parthian numismatic and
> Babylonian
> > cuneiform evidence it would appear that Tigran was able to effect
> such
> > extensive intrusions into the Arsakid Empire (86/5-84 BC) because
> the
> > current rivals for the Arsakid diadem, Santruk and Mithradates
III,
> were
> > locked in a bitter struggle at the other end of their dominions
(in
> > Margiana, Areia, etc.). It is also likely (not directly attested)
> that
> > Mithradates III disengaged from that contest for a time (circa
84-3
> BC) to
> > return to (what was left of) the western provinces to shore-up
> confidence
> > and garrisons, before resuming the struggle in the north east. In
> the
> > current situation there was little the Parthian monarch could do
in
> person
> > against Tigran, but it is quite possible that he inserted
Antiochos
> Eusebes
> > back into Syria and Phoenicia in winter 84-3 with a modest force
> (say 5,000
> > horsearchers recruited in the east) to strengthen the resistance
to
> Tigran's
> > impending invasion.
> > This scenario would explain Eusebes' presence there in 83 BC
> (attested by
> > Appian) and also why there is no evidence (in coinage or Josephus'
> text) of
> > his presence in Syria in the period late 90s to 84 BC.
> > This also raises the question of the whereabouts and activities of
> Kleopatra
> > Selene during Antiochos X's long absence in Parthia. Unless they
> bear dates
> > which refute such a notion, it may be that her coinage struck in
the
> > Canaanite cities (including those with portraits of her two sons
by
> Eusebes)
> > belongs to the 80s BC BEFORE Tigran's invasion. It is certainly
> noteable in
> > this regard that Antiochos X first assumed the diadem at Arados
> (Josephus
> > Arch.xiii.367), one of the most powerful city-states in Syria-
> Phoenicia. If
> > this is so then Kleopatra Selene may never have set foot in Syria-
> Phoenicia
> > during Tigran's rule there until 72 BC, perhaps finding refuge in
> Lagid
> > Cyprus.
> >
> > Finally, the interesting question of whether Yannai Alexander
might
> have
> > submitted to Tigran in 83 BC. This is suggested by the comments in
> both
> > Plutarch (Lucullus 14) and Appian (Syr.48) that Tigran's sway in
> Syria
> > extended all the way to Egypt/embraced Syria Palaistina as well as
> Syria
> > proper. Also, Josephus' silence about Tigran until 71 BC and his
> siege of
> > Kleoptra Selene in Ptolemais might be construed as silence to veil
> the
> > national embarassment of such a submission.
> > But there is something else.
> > Dr.Assar has kindly conveyed to me some of his translations of
> various
> > cuneiform texts from the 80s BC attesting significant unrest and
> troubles in
> > Babylonia, which culminated in the insurrection of yet another
> claimant to
> > the Arsakid diadem (Orodes I) in that province in 80 BC.
> > Unfortunately these texts are uniformly fragmentary and it is very
> difficult
> > to work out any coherent sequence of events. But down to summer 84
> BC (after
> > which he vanishes from the record) there are several references to
> a certain
> > Mithrates who was the "chief of troops" for Mithradates III in
> Babylonia,
> > and after his disappearance (killed in battle ??) we hear (in a
> text dated
> > March 82 BC) of a certain Raznumitra who seems to have taken his
> place,
> > though this is not certain. Between these notices is another
> referring to
> > citizens of Seleukeia-on-Tigris either retreating into or
deploying
> forth
> > from their great city "for fear of Alexander". This text dates to
> October 83
> > BC (A.J.Sachs & H.Hunger "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts
> from
> > Babylonia", vol.3: "Diaries from 164 BC to 61 BC", Vienna, 1996,
> pp.476-7,
> > No.82A).
> > Dr.Assar suggested to me that this might refer to the Jewish King
> Yannai,
> > but I was inclined to doubt him owing to the impossibility (in my
> mind) of
> > the (independent) King of Judaea desiring (let alone managing) an
> invasion
> > of Babylonia in 83 BC. Now, however, it seems to me quite possible
> that King
> > Yannai took part in an autumnal raid/expedition into Babylonia
(from
> > Armenian Mesopotamia) as a vassal of Tigran, King of Kings.
> >
> > Mark K.P.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@s...>
> > To: <seleukids@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 12:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: [seleukids] The death of Antiochus X Eusebes
> >
> >
> > > The reign of Antiochus X at Antioch can be partially
> reconstructed from
> > the
> > > evidence of the coinage. He appears to have had two periods of
> reign in
> > > Antioch, from 94-early 93 and late 93-92, separated by a brief
> interlude
> > by
> > > Antiochus XI and Philip I. It is likely that Antiochus X
> maintained some
> > > modicum of authority elsewhere in (northern?) Syria after his
> final
> > eviction
> > > from Antioch, since he is said to have died in a Parthian war
> while allied
> > > with a certain Laodice, thought by some to have been the ruler
of
> > Samosata.
> > > Bellinger is probably right to interpret the various accounts of
> his
> > flight
> > > to the Parthian court and his removal by Tigranes II as
confusion
> with
> > > events in the life of his son Antiochus XII.
> > >
> > > Oliver D. Hoover
> > > Epimeletes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Community email addresses:
> > > Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Shortcut URL to this page:
> > > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukids
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >