1Tainia was a light fabric ribbon or band tied around the head or body.

2 The thunderbolt was a frequent symbol on the coins of Seleukeia in Pieria. The thunderbolt was a cultus-object of Zeus Keraunios (“Zeus of the Thunderbolt”) and, according to Appian, Syriake, 9.58, it was connected with the foundation of the city: They say that when he (Seleukos I) was about to build the two Seleucias (Seleukeia in Pieria and Seleukeia on the Tigris) a portent of thunder preceded the foundation of the one by the sea, for which reason he consecrated thunder as a divinity of the place. Accordingly the inhabitants worship thunder and sing its praises to this day.

3 The Seleukid Era is based on a lunar calendar, beginning with the autumn of 312 BC. It means that if x is a Seleukid year (and x<312) then the corresponding BC time interval is from 313–x to 312–x.

The beginning of the Seleukid Era was set as follows: In 311 BC, shortly after capturing Babylon, Seleukos I Nikator began the enumeration of his satrapal years there. However, after his decisive victory over Antigonos Monophthalmos in 307/6 BC, he backdated his “fictitious” first regnal year to coincide with Nisanu 1, 311 BC (New Year’s Day in the Babylonian calendar). This marked the antedated epoch of the Seleukid calendar according to the Babylonian reckoning. Later in 305/4 BC, when Seleukos I took the diadem and assumed the royal title “King”, he retained the numbering of his regnal years in Babylon but employed the Makedonian calendar and thus pushed his accession year back to Dios, 312 BC (Dios was the first month of the Makedonian calendar; it corresponds to October-November). This became the antedated epoch of the Seleukid era on the Macedonian calendar. (Assar, Recent Studies in Parthian History, Part I, p. 6)

The Seleukid Era was used at least until the first century AD in some Eastern countries.

4 It was suggested that the coins were minted by an alliance of the tetrapolis of Seleukeia, Antioch, Apameia and Laodikeia (see Strabo, Geography, 16.2.4, for the close relationships between these cities). However, this hypothesis was disproved by Seyrig, see Bellinger, The End of the Seleucids, p. 60, n. 6, and Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, p. 133, n. 12.

Strabo, Geography, 16.2.4: Seleucis is the best of the above-mentioned portions of Syria. It is called and is a Tetrapolis, and derives its name from the four distinguished cities which it contains; for there are more than four cities, but the four largest are Antioch Epidaphne (Antioch near Daphne. i.e. Antioch on the Orontes), Seleuceia in Pieria (Seleukeia in Pieria), Apameia (Apameia on the Axios), and Laodiceia (Laodikeia ad Mare). They were called Sisters from the concord which existed between them. They were founded by Seleucus Nicator (Seleukos I). The largest bore the name of his father (Antioch), and the strongest his own (Seleukeia). Of the others, Apameia had its name from his wife Apama, and Laodiceia from his mother (Laodike).

5 By Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, p. 292, by Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, p. 127, and by Grainger, The Cities of Seleukid Syria, p. 162, Seleukeia received the title “holy” (ιερα) about c. 146-144 BC, which by 138 BC become “holy and inviolable” (ιερα και ασυλοσ). They slightly differ just in the specification of the period of the granting of the title of “holy” (Welles: about 145 BC, Cohen: by c. 145 BC, Grainger: in the early 140s BC). All these authors refer to a letter from Edward T. Newell, President of the American Numismatic Society, to Welles dated January 19, 1933, which is quoted by Welles in note 3 on p. 292:

“We have coins of Antiochus IV and Alexander I which bear only the inscription: ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΜ ΠΙΕΡΙΑΙ. The latter are dated ΒΞΡ (151/0 B.C.) and ΖΞΡ (147/6 B.C.). Both silver and bronze bear the types: obverse, Head of Zeus to r., reverse, Fulmen in wreath. Now in my collection I possess two bronze coins of these same types and practically the same style and fabric (but undated) and bearing the inscription: ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΜ ΠΙΕΡΙΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ. Style and fabric show that these coins could not possibly have been struck more than a year or two after the preceding coins of Alexander I. My guess is that they were struck under Demetrius II at the time of his first reign in Antioch (146-144 B.C.), though it is also possible that they could have been issued in the last year of Alexander I (146). In style they are identical with a series of bronze coins struck by Demetrius II in 146-144 at Antioch. They suggest, to me at least, that the title of ιερα was given to Seleucia either by Alexander or by Demetrius to attach it to their cause, or in recognition of the city’s loyalty during this time.”

“The coin which you found described by Eckhel (J. Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, III 1794, 324, no. 2) exists, so far as the short time at my disposal allowed me to ascertain, only in my own collection and at Berlin. You will find a good reproduction of this coin in the Zeitschr. für Numismatik. XXIX (1912), Pl. V, 5. It bears the inscription, ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΜ ΠΙΕΡΙΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ, and is dated ΔΟΡ (138 B.C.). Hence it would seem as if the title ασυλος had been added to that of ιερα somethine between, say, 144 and 138, possibly by Tryphon or by Antiochus VII himself, for political reasons, of course.”

The coin with the title ασυλος described in the second paragraph of Newell’s letter belongs to a quasi-municipal bronze issue struck under Antiochos VII. This issue is now known from two Seleukid years: ΔΟΡ (139/8 BC) and ΕΟΡ (138/7 BC), see Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, SC II, Vol. I, p. 370, types 2074.1 and 2074.2 (denomination A: 25-26 mm, 10.89-16.46 g). According to Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, ibid, Antiochos VII conferred the status of asylia on the city upon his arrival in 138 BC. The grant reflected his gratitude for Seleukeia’s role in his return and accession to power in Syria. Seyrig, Notes on Syrian Coins, p. 21, n. 49, also attributes the grant of the title ασυλος to Antiochos VII (he excluded Tryphon as the potential donator of the title because Seleukeia was constantly loyal to the legitimate Seleukid dynasty). He supposes (ibid, p. 13, n. 21) that this coinage was struck “on the king’s arrival from Side, obviously to congratulate him on his accession, on his marriage to the legitimate queen Cleopatra who was then residing at Seleucia, and on his will to restore legitimacy and lawful order in the realm of his fathers.” Similarly as Newell, Seyrig also supposes that the title “inviolable” was granted to Seleukeia later than the title “holy”. He describes the procedure for acquiring the privilege of asylia and the importance of this title as follows (ibid, pp. 20-21):

“The king, as a sovereign, consecrated the town to one of its principal deities, making it “sacred”, ιερα, and probably thereby renouncing some of his rights in favour of the god, to whom the city now was reputed to belong. The town then sent embassies to the foreign powers, including the great sanctuaries of the ancient world, asking them to recognize it is “inviolable,” ασυλος. As a result, every violation of the town was considered as a sacrilege, and the transgressor was liable to be outlawed. It is difficult for us to see in what measure and fashion such offences were really punished, but the eagerness shown by Hellenistic cities to acquire that form of inviolability certainly testifies that a deep religious fear was attached to such violation, perhaps less by some cynical generals or condottieri, than by their simpler minded troops.”

However, Rigsby, Asylia, p. 486, does not agree with Newell’s and Seyrig’s chronological sequence of the titles “holy” and “inviolable”. He objects that style of the coins with the legend ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΜ ΠΙΕΡΙΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ cannot establish such a fine distinction in date, nor is the omission of the title ασυλος sufficient to show that the city possessed less than the full title of inviolability. He notes (ibid, pp. 487-8) that when the city was declared free in 109 BC, “autonomous” supplanted “inviolable” on the coins thereafter, but the inscriptions on stone show that “holy and autonomous” and “autonomous” are abridgments for “holy and inviolable and autonomous” (while only infrequently attested, these titles persist through imperial times with no known interruption). So, the ommision of ασυλος could have been caused by a lack of space on the coins. Note that Le Rider, L’atelier de Posideion et les monnaies de la fouille de Bassit en Syrie, p. 407, also mentions the possibility that the title ασυλος could sometimes have been omitted from the coins. Rigsby even suggests (ibid, p. 486) that some or all bronze coins without the title ασυλος may belong to the period after 139/8 BC (he also mentions in note 34 that the layout of this issue is similar to that of the small silver dating to 97/6 BC).

Rigsby (ibid, p. 488) agrees with Seyrig that the emission of the large and heavy quasi-municipal coins struck under Antiochos VII was a commemorative issue (cf. Seyrig’s note 21 on p. 13 quoted above). He suggests that the city was declared “holy and inviolable” by Antiochos VII in the course of the first year of his reign when he was prevailed upon to grant to his ancestral city an honor equal to that recently granted Tyre by his brother Demetrios II.

I do not agree with Rigsby’s argument that “style cannot establish such a fine distinction in date”. In my opinion, style and fabric of these coins allows a careful conclusion about the minting period. For this reason, I accept the chronological sequence of the titles “holy” and “inviolable” held by the other authors mentioned above and I tentatively assume the following time boundaries of pre-autonomous municipal coins of Seleukeia:

• large denominations with the inscription ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΜ ΠΙΕΡΙΑΙ: c. 150 BC (the beginning of the rule of Alexander I) – c. 145 BC (the granting of the title “holy”)
• large denominations with the inscription ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΜ ΠΙΕΡΙΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ: c. 145 BC (the granting of the title “holy”) – 138 BC (the granting of the title “inviolable”)
• small denominations with the inscription ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΜ ΠΙΕΡΙΑΙ when the absence of the title “holy” (ιερα) can be explained by the lack of space: c. 150 BC (the beginning of the rule of Alexander I) – 109 BC (the granting of autonomy)

6 According to Polybios, Histories, 5.60, there was a temple of the Dioskuri at Seleukeia:

Polybios, Histories (the Loeb edition), 5.60.1-5: Antiochus (Antiochos III) first of all sent messages to those in charge of the town (Seleukeia in Pieria), offering them money and promising all kinds of rewards if he were put in possession of the place without fighting. But being unable to persuade the officers in command, he corrupted some of their subordinates, and relying on their assistance he got his forces ready, intending to deliver the attack on the seaward side with the men of his fleet and on the land side with his army. He divided his forces into three parts, and after addressing them in terms suitable to the occasion, and promising both the private soldiers and officers great rewards and crowns for valour, he stationed Zeuxis and his division outside the gate leading to Antioch (Antioch on the Orontes), Hermogenes was posted near the Dioscurium (temple of the Dioskuri), and the task of attacking the port and suburb was entrusted to Ardys and Diognetus, since an agreement had been come to with the king’s partisans within, that if he could take the suburb by storm, the town would be delivered up to him.

Polybios, Histories (the Macmillan edition), 5.60.1-5: Antiochus (Antiochos III) first tried sending messages to the magistrates of Seleucia (Seleukeia in Pieria), offering money and other rewards on condition of having the city surrendered without fighting. And though he failed to persuade the chief authorities, he corrupted some of the subordinate commanders; and relying on them, he made preparations to assault the town on the sea-ward side with the men of his fleet, and on the land side with his soldiers. He divided his forces therefore into three parts, and addressed suitable words of exhortation to them, causing a herald to proclaim a promise to men and officers alike of great gifts and crowns that should be bestowed for gallantry in action. To the division under Zeuxis he entrusted the attack upon the gate leading to Antioch (Antioch on the Orontes); to Hermogenes that upon the walls near the temple of Castor and Pollux (Kastor and Polydeukes, the Dioskuri); and to Ardys and Diognetus the assault upon the docks and the lower town: in accordance with his understanding with his partisans in the town, whereby it had been agreed that, if he could carry the lower town by assault, the city also should then be put into his hands.

7 My sincere thanks to Panagiotis Iossif for information about the specimens in SNG Copenhagen. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, p. 131, n. 9, lists also the following references:

Waage, Dorothy B.: Antioch-on-the-Orontes, IV, part 2, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ coins. Princeton University Press, 1952. – No. 726

Lindgren, Henry Clay; Kovacs, Frank L.: Ancient bronze coins of Asia Minor and the Levant from the Lindgren collection. Chrysopylon Publications, San Francisco, 1985. – No. 2121

8 The civic era is counted from the year 204 of the Seleukid Era, i.e. from 109/108 BC. This means that if x is a year of the civic era then the corresponding BC time interval is from 110–x to 109–x.

Seleukeia was granted its autonomy by Antiochos VIII (or, less probably, by Antiochos IX) in September 109 BC (the end of the year 203 of the Seleukid Era); see Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, pp. 288-294 (a detailed analysis of a letter of a King Antiochos to King Ptolemy X Alexander announcing the granting of the autonomy), and Bellinger, The End of the Seleucids, p. 69. However, Seleukeia reckoned the era from the Seleukid year 204 (109/8 BC), see Rigsby, Asylia, p. 486, paragraph D. Thus Antiochos VIII was not in Seleukeia that time and his decision took a month or more to reach the city (ibid, n. 35 on p. 486). Note that the autonomous status was recognized by Pompey the Great when he established the province of Syria in 64 BC (Strabo, Geography, 16.2.8).

Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, pp. 289-290, Letter 71: King Antiochus (probably Antiochos VIII) to king Ptolemy (Ptolemy X Alexander I Philometor), also called Alexander, his brother, greeting. If you were well it would be as we wish; we ourselves were well and were remembering you with love. The people of Seleucia in Pieria, the city holy and inviolable, [from of old] supported our father and throughout maintained steadfast their good-will toward him. They have been constant in their love toward us and have shown it [through many] fine deeds especially in the most desperate times we have experienced. We have therefore hitherto furthered their interests generously as they deserve and have brought them into [more conspicuous] honor. Now, being anxious to reward them fittingly with the first [and greatest] benefaction, [we have decided that they be] for all time free, [and we have entered them in the treaties] which we have mutually concluded, [thinking] that thus [our piety and generosity] toward our ancestral city will be more apparent. [So that you also may] know [these concessions, it seemed] best [to write you]. Farewell. Year 203, Gorpiaeus 29 (September 109 BC). (Note: Ptolemy X is numbered as Ptolemy IX by Welles. For the numbering see Bennett, Egyptian Royal Genealogy: Ptolemy X.)

Strabo, Geography, 16.2.8: Seleuceia formerly had the name of Hydatopotami (rivers of water). It is a considerable fortress, and may defy all attacks; wherefore Pompey, having excluded from it Tigranes (Tigranes II the Great) declared it a free city.

9 Das Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (State Museum Berlin Coin Cabinet), formerly in the Dr. F. Imhoof-Blumer Collection.