Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:03:35.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ritual for a Seleucid king at Babylon?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

S. M. Sherwin-White
S. M. Sherwin-White
Affiliation:
Bedford College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A. K. Grayson's valuable volume, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, contains not only a rich collection of historiographic writing from the period before the Macedonian conquest, but has also added several new fragments to the Babylonian Chronicles series for the early hellenistic period, in addition to a useful re-edition of the Chronicle of the Diadochoi. These fragments constitute what survives (or is known at present to survive) from the apparently last chronicles of the corpus which began in the reign of Nabonassar (747–34 bc) and continued down to and into the early Seleucid period. When precisely (and why) the corpus came to an end is at present unknown. The new post-Alexander fragments are probably all from the third century bc, nos 11 and 12 from the early third century, while nos 13 and 13b are of later third century date.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 103 , November 1983 , pp. 156 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1983

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.)

References

1 Texts from Cuneiform Sources v (Locust Valley, NY 1975) (hereafter ‘Grayson’).

2 Grayson no. 10.

3 See Grayson 8–28 and ‘Assyria and Babylonia’, Orientalia xlix (1980) 140–94, at 173–5Google Scholar.

4 See Grayson 26–8, for discussion of the dating of no. 11, concerning Antiochus the Crown Prince, probably Antiochus I; no. 12 is securely dated to the end of the reign of Seleucus I from the reference in the 2nd section of the obverse, line 3, to the 30th year of the Seleucid era (282/1 BC). On the problems of dating no. 13, possibly to the reigns of Seleucus II and III, see Grayson 27–8. On 13b see below.

5 Pinches, T. G., ‘Rough notes on some texts of the Seleucidae’, Bab. Or. Rec. vi (1892–1893) 35–6 at 36Google Scholar; Grayson 283–4 no. 13b (plates xi, transcript, xxvi, photo) with discussion also at 277–8. The tablet is BM 35421.

6 On the functions of the shatammu in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods see Nicolò, M. San, Beiträge zu einer Prosopographie neubabylonischer Beamten der Zivil- und Tempelverwaltung, SBAW München (1941) 25–6 n. 37, 26 n. 40Google Scholar; Dandamayev, M. A., ‘State and Temple in Babylonia in the 1st Millenium BC’, in Lipinski, E., ed., State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East ii, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta vi (1979) 589–96Google Scholar.

7 The conventional translation of shatammu as ‘bishop’ of Esagil has the wrong connotations.

8 Pinches (n. 5) 36 and see Grayson's remarks 284 on line 3.

9 I owe thanks to Mr C. B. F. Walker of the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities in the British Museum for kindly checking (and confirming) the reading of these numerals in this line.

10 For the chronology of Seleucus IV see Sachs, A. J. and Wiseman, D. J., ‘A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period’, Iraq xvi (1954) 202–12, at 208, 210Google Scholar; Parker, R. A. and Dubberstein, W. H., Babylonian Chronology 626 BC–AD 75, Brown U. Stud, xix (1956) 22–3Google Scholar.

11 Information kindly supplied by Mr C. B. F. Walker. This is presumably why Grayson does not mention Seleucus II in his discussion.

12 Grayson 277 and 284 on line 3.

13 For the chronology of Seleucus III see Sachs and Wiseman (n. 10) 207, 210; Schmitt, H. H., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Anliochos' des grossen und seiner Zeit, Historia Einzels. vi (1964) 2–3, 27–8Google Scholar.

14 Euseb. Chron. i p. 253 (Sch.); Hieron. in Dan. xi 10, ‘exercitus qui erat in Syria Antiochum fratrem eius cognomento Magnum de Babylone vocavit ad regnum…. Antiochus Magnus venerit de Babylone in Syriam’. Schmitt (n. 13) 109, thinks Antiochus' place of residence must be Seleucia-Tigris, not Babylon, and adds (ibid. n. 1) ‘vielleicht ist Babylonia statt Babylon zu verstehen’. This may be right, though all that the text indicates is Antiochus' presence at Babylon at the time of his call to the throne.

15 Cf. App. Syr. 66; Euseb. Chron. i 251, 253 (Sch.); Justin, , Hist. Phil. xxix 1.3Google Scholar. See the discussion of Schmitt (n. 13) 27–8 (with previous bibliography).

16 See Schmitt (n. 13) 27–8.

17 v 40.4–7; see also iv 2.5, 48.9–10; v 34.2.

18 Cf. F. Stähelin, RE ii.A 1 (1921) 1241–2 no. 5; Schmitt (n. 13) 27–8. The alternative, a uniquely ‘secure’ cover up by Antiochus III's supporters of the suppression of any sons of Seleucus III, is not convincing.

19 Cf. the ‘decree’ of 7s SE (236 BC, reign of Seleucus II), ‘promulgated’ by the shatammu of Esagil, with the Babylonian assembly, to record the land grants made from royal land, previously held in fief, to the towns of Babylon, Borsippa and Cuthah in the reign of Antiochus II, and preserved on a copy of SE 139 (173/2 Be): Lehmann, C. F., Zeits. Assyr. vii (1892) 328–34 at 330–2Google Scholar; Sarkisian, G. K., ‘City Land in Seleucid Babylonia’, in Diakonov, I. M., ed., Ancient Mesopotamia (Moscow 1969) 312–35, at 321–3Google Scholar. See Oelsner, J., ‘Ein Beitrag zu keilschriftlichen Königs-titulaturen in hellenistischer Zeit’, Zeits. Assyr. xxii (1964) 262–74, at 268–70Google Scholar, for the change in Babylonian titulature from the reign of Seleucus II on, when šarru (king) became the usual title of Seleucid kings on documents and the title šar mātāte (king of lands) was dropped.

20 Grayson 278, 284 on line 7, citing Bickerman, E., Institutions des Séleucides, Bibl. arch, et hist, xxvi (Paris 1938) 236–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Eddy, S. K., The King is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334–31 BC (Lincoln, Nebraska 1961) 118 and n. 39Google Scholar; cf. McEwan, G. J. P., Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia, Freiburger altorient. Stud. iv (Wiesbaden 1981) 161–2Google Scholar. Bickerman does not support Grayson's thesis since his whole discussion rests on the recognition that the royal cult was not imposed on autonomous cities, whether Greek poleis, or places such as Babylon and Uruk which enjoyed local autonomy in the Seleucid period. Eddy also acknowledges that the king was absent from the pantheon of Uruk. The only (cuneiform) text from Babylonia cited here by Eddy (Clay, A. T., Legal Documents from Erech Dated in the Seleucid Era (312–65 BC) [New York 1913] 33–4 no. 53.3–5)Google Scholar does not in fact attest a Seleucid royal cult but simply the private dedication at Uruk of a girl slave ‘for the sake of the king’ (on this formula see below) to work in the ‘House of the Gods’. The text is of the Parthian period: see Clay 13.

21 See Bickerman (n. 20) ch. 7; Robert, L., ‘Inscriptions Séleucides de Phrygie et d'Iran’, Hellenica vii (Paris 1949) 5–29Google Scholar; id., CRAI 1967, 281–96.

22 E. Bickerman (n. 20) 236–57.

23 For Seleucia-Tigris see Hopkins, C., Topography and Architecture of Seleucia on the Tigris (Ann Arbor 1972) 24–5, pl. VGoogle Scholar (McDowell, R. M., Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia on the Tigris, U. Mich. Stud. xxxvi [Ann Arbor 1935] 258Google Scholar, cf. Mouterde, R. P., Mél. U.St.Jos. xix [1935] 119–20Google Scholar; C. Hopkins, ibid. xxxvii [1961] 237–46). For Antioch-Persis see OGIS 233 (205 BC) 2–5.

24 See Sherwin-White, S. M., ‘A Greek ostrakon from Babylon of the early third century BC’, ZPE xlvii (1982) 51–70Google Scholar for discussion of the uncertain provenance of OGIS 253.

25 Bouché-Leclerq, A., Histoires des Séleucides (Paris 1913) 471Google Scholar; Bickerman (n. 20) 248, 251, 255–6; Rutten, M., Contrats de l'époque Séleucide conservés au Musée du Louvre, Babyloniaca xv (Paris 1935) 51–2Google Scholar; Eddy (n. 20) 118; Préaux, C., Le Monde hellénistique i (Paris 1978) 261Google Scholar. For the Uruk pantheon in the Seleucid period see Rutten 25–52; see also the useful survey of North, R., ‘Status of the Warka Excavations’, Orientalia xxvi (1957) 185–253Google Scholar.

26 Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World2 (Oxford 1953) 437Google Scholar.

27 Schröder, O., Kontrakte der Seleukidenzeit aus Warka, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler xv (Leipzig 1916) no. 16 (SE 100 + x)Google Scholar. Rutten (n. 25) 52, cited this text to qualify Bouché-Leclerq on the absence of any trace of Seleucid royal cult in Babylonian religious life, though the practice it may attest is thoroughly Babylonian, as Bickerman (n. 20) 256 noted; cf. Rostovtzeff (n. 26) 437, Eddy (n. 20) 118, Préaux (n. 25) 261. On this Babylonian custom of offerings before the images of ruling and deceased kings see Labat, R., Le Caractère religieux de la Royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris 1939) 369 ffGoogle Scholar; Frankfort, H., Kingship and the Gods (Chicago 1948) 302–6Google Scholar. Schröder (n. 27) vii was tentative about connecting his text with this Babylonian practice. The reading is uncertain. But for another cuneiform text from Uruk, of the Seleucid period, which refers to offerings on the table of the image(s) of the kings, see Doty, L. T., Cuneiform Archives from Hellenistic Uruk, U. Microfilms International (Michigan 1981) 136Google Scholar.

28 See e.g. Oppenheim, A. L., Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (rev. ed. Chicago 1977) 358 n. 19Google Scholar, citing Strassmaier, J. P., Inschriften von Cyrus König von Babylon (538–329 v. Chr.) (Leipzig 1890) Cyr. 250. 9, Cam. 150.4Google Scholar.

29 Cf. Labat and Frankfort (n. 27).

30 Rostovtzeff (n. 26) iii 1428 n. 237. See A. Stein, GJ xcii (1938) 324–6; id., Old Routes of Western Iran (London 1940) 130–4, 141–59 (figs 46–50, 52–3; pls iv–vi, xxvii.21); Godard, A., ‘Les statues Parthes de Shami’, Athar-e Iran ii (1937) 285–305Google Scholar; Schippmann, K., Die iranischen Feuerheiligtümer (Berlin/New York 1971) 227–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mathieson, S. A., Persia: an Archaeological Guide (London 1973) 162–3Google Scholar; Colledge, M., Parthian Art (London 1979) 41–2, 47, 82, 86Google Scholar. For association of the site with a Seleucid dynastic cult see Stein, , Old Routes 155Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff (n. 26) iii 1428 n. 237; Ghirshman, R., Persian Art: The Parthian and Sassanian Dynasties 249 BC–AD 651, Arts of Mankind iii (London 1962) 19–21Google Scholar; Préaux (n. 25) 261.

31 For fuller discussion see my forthcoming article, ‘Shami, the Seleucids and dynastic cult: a note’, Iran xxii (1984)Google Scholar.

32 See The Assyrian Dictionary iii (Chicago 1959) 173–7Google Scholar, s.v. dullu; von Soden, W., Akkadisches Handworterbuch i (Wiesbaden 1965) 175Google Scholar.

33 Loc. cit. (n. 5).

34 Cf. von Soden (n. 32) 175, s.v. dullu.

35 Cf. The Assyrian Dictionary ii (Chicago 1965) 311–12Google Scholar, s.v. bultu.

36 Moore, E. W., Neo-babylonian Business and Administrative Documents (Ann Arbor 1935) 16–19 no. 13, 1–2Google Scholar. See also W. von Soden (n. 32) 175, for dullu for king and country.

37 Clay, A. T., Yale Oriental Series i (New Haven 1915) 81–4 no. 52Google Scholar (Nisan SE 68 = 244 BC), Falkenstein, A., Topographie von Uruk i: Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka iii (Leipzig 1941) 1–5Google Scholar (transliteration, translation); cf. Ellis, R. S., Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia, Yale Near Eastern Researches ii (New Haven 1968) 114Google Scholar. Note the anachronism in the dedication ‘for the life of’ of the reference to the joint reign of Antiochus II (d. 246 BC) and Seleucus (II). On the Seleucid period building in the sanctuary, of thoroughly Neobabylonian style, see North (n. 25) 228 ff.

38 Falkenstein (n. 37) 6–8 line 10 (ana muḫ-ḫi bul-ṭu ša an-ti-' -i-ku-su šarri be-ēl-ia).

39 See n. 20.

40 Cf. Grayson 278, who notes the survival of the ritual for 8 Nisan at Uruk where offerings to Anu play a major role. See Thureau-Dangin, F., Rituels Accadiens (Paris 1921) 89–96Google Scholar, where at line 23 the priest sprinkles water on king and people. For the ritual texts for the Akitu festival see Thureau-Dangin; cf. Pritchard, J. B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament3 (Princeton 1969) 331–4Google Scholar (Seleucid period copy of ritual for Nisan 2–5 at Babylon). For recent discussion of the king in the Akitu see Grayson, A. K., ‘Chronicles and the Akitu’, Actes de la XVII' Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 1969 (Comité beige de Recherches en Mésopotamie 1970) 160–70Google Scholar.

41 See Grayson, , Babylonian Historical–Literary Texts, Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies iii (Toronto 1975) 19–20, n. 29Google Scholar, and Grayson (n. 1) 278 n. 2, for useful collections of the considerable evidence on Seleucid patronage of Babylonian cults; cf. (in the present context) the offerings of Antiochus, crown prince (probably Antiochus I), to Sin of the temple of Egishnugal (no. 11, obv. 6–9). For earlier attestation of rituals for both king and son see ANET 3 626; for reference to daily prayers in Babylonian cities for the long life of the reigning king and son see ANET 3 316.

42 Grayson 278.

43 See Grayson (n. 40) 161–4, 164 n. 2, for discussion of the problem of the apparently infrequent mention of the Akitu festival in the Chronicles series. If the Akitu festival is mentioned only when something abnormal or special occurs, as Grayson suggests, it would follow that Seleucid benefaction of it was not automatic.

44 Cf. ANET 3 343–5 (cf. F. Thureau-Dangin [n. 40] 62 ff., 74 ff.) at 345, for Kidinanu of Uruk, mašmašu-priest of Anu and Antum, who found and copied ‘in the land of Elam, in the reigns of Seleucus (I) and Antiochus (I),’ tablets listing the daily sacrifices for the city gods carried off as plunder by Nabopolassar, king of the Sea Land.

45 See n. 41. See Dandamayev (n. 6) 593–6, for Achaemenid treatment of, and taxation of, the temples of Babylonia.

46 Best attested in the cuneiform cylinder foundation inscription of Antiochus I as restorer of the temples of Esagil and Ezida: Weissbach, F. H., Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, Vorderasiatische Bibl. iii (Leipzig 1911), 132–5Google Scholar; ANET 3 317; Ellis (n. 37) Appendix A no. 42. This text illustrates a Seleucid sensitivity to Babylonian traditions which required the king to be personally involved in the rituals concerning temple building, even in manual work; cf. Ellis 20–6. The text attests Antiochus' symbolic brick-making, in true Mesopotamian style, and his direct participation in laying the foundation in the new building of Ezida at Borsippa.

47 Cf. Root, M. C., The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Essays in the Creation of an Iconography of Empire, Acta Iranica ser. 3 ix. 19 (Leiden 1980) 123Google Scholar, for the probable role of Egyptian temple authorities in the presentation of the Achaemenid king as true pharoah in temple reliefs.