1 According to Johannes Malalas (Chronographia, 8.199), a Greek chronicler from Antioch of the 6th century AD, Seleukeia in Pieria was founded on 23 Xanthikos after Seleukos I’s victory over Antigonos, i.e. about the beginning of April 300 BC. Grainger, The Cities of Seleukid Syria, p. 48, notes that Malalas’s dates of foundations of Seleukeia in Pieria and Antioch on the Orontes (22 Artemisios) were well attested because of local celebrations of these events.

Malalas, Chronographia, 8.198-199: Immediately after his victory over Antigonus Poliorcetes (Antigonos Monophthalmos, ‘Poliorcetes’ was the epithet of his son Demetrios), Seleucus Nicator (Seleukos I), who wanted to establish some eminent cities, began to found [cities] by the coast of Syria. Going down by the sea, he saw a small city situated on the mountain, which had been founded by Syrus son of Agenor. On the 23rd day of the month of Xanthicus, Seleucus went up to Mount Casius in order to sacrifice to Zeus Casius. After completing the sacrifice and cutting the meat, Seleucus prayed [to be shown] where to found a city. Suddenly an eagle snatched the meat from the sacrifice and took it away to the old city. Following behind with his augurs, Seleucus found that the meat had been dropped near the sea below the old city, in the place called the trading-station of Pieria. Immediately he constructed walls and built the foundations of a city, which he called Seleuceia after his own name.

2 According to Strabo, Geography , 16.2.7, Seleukeia was distant from the mouth of the river 40 stadiums. Provided that the lenght of Strabo’s stadium was 157.5 m, we receive 40 × 157.5 = 6,300 meters.

Strabo, Geography, 14.5.20: After Cilicia, the first Syrian city is Seleucia-in-Pieria; near it the river Orontes empties itself. From Seleucia to Soli is a voyage in a straight line of nearly 1000 stadia.

Strabo, Geography, 16.2.2: Beginning from Cilicia and Mount Amanus, we set down as parts of Syria, Commagene, and the Seleucis of Syria, as it is called, then Coele-Syria, lastly, on the coast, Phoenicia, and in the interior, Judaea. Some writers divide the whole of Syria into Coelo-Syrians, Syrians, and Phoenicians, and say that there are intermixed with these four other nations, Jews, Idumaeans, Gazaeans, and Azotii, some of whom are husbandmen, as the Syrians and Coelo-Syrians, and others merchants, as the Phoenicians.

Strabo, Geography, 16.2.7: The river Orontes [...] traverses the territory of Apameia to Antioch, approching the latter city, and then descends to the sea at Seleuceia. [...] On the west the sea, into which the Orontes discharges itself, is situated below Antioch in Seleuceia, which is distant from the mouth of the river 40, and from Antioch 120 stadia. The ascent by the river to Antioch is performed in one day.

3 See Grainger, The Cities of Seleukid Syria, pp. 70-71, for a detailed description of the position and arrangement of the city.

Polybios, Histories, 5.59: The situation of Seleucia and the natural features of the surrounding country are of this kind. The city stands on the sea coast between Cilicia and Phoenicia; and has close to it a very great mountain called Coryphaeus, which on the west is washed by the last waves of the sea which lies between Cyprus and Phoenicia; while its eastern slopes overlook the territories of Antioch and Seleucia. It is on the southern skirt of this mountain that the town of Seleucia lies, separated from it by a deep and difficult ravine. The town extends down to the sea in a straggling line broken by irregularities of the soil, and is surrounded on most parts by cliffs and precipitous rocks. On the side facing the sea, where the ground is level, stand the market-places, and the lower town strongly walled. Similarly the whole of the main town has been fortified by walls of a costly construction, and splendidly decorated with temples and other elaborate buildings. There is only one approach to it on the seaward side, which is an artificial ascent cut in the form of a stair, interrupted by frequently occurring drops and awkward places. Not far from the town is the mouth of the river Orontes, which rises in the district of Libanus and Anti-Libanus, and after traversing the plain of Amyca reaches Antioch; through which it flows, and carrying off by the force of its current all the sewage of that town, finally discharges itself into this sea not far from Seleucia.

4 The Macedonian Pieria was a narrow strip of country on the southeastern coast of Macedonia, extending from the mouth of the Peneus in Thessaly to the Haliacmon, and bounded on the west by Mount Olympus and its offshoots. A portion of these mountains was called by the ancient writers Pierus, or the Pierian Mountain. The inhabitants of this country, the Pieres, were a Thracian people, and are celebrated in the early history of Greek poetry and music, since their country was one of the earliest seats of the worship of the Muses, hence called Pierides, and Orpheus is said to have been buried there. After the establishment of the Macedonian kingdom in Emathia in the seventh century BC Pieria was conquered by the Macedonians, and the inhabitants were driven out of the country. See Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities - Pieria (1), (3).

Pausanias, Description of Greece , 9.29.3-4, describes the following myth: But they say that afterwards Pierus, a Macedonian, after whom the mountain in Macedonia was named, came to Thespiae and established nine Muses, changing their names to the present ones. Pierus was of this opinion either because it seemed to him wiser, or because an oracle so ordered, or having so learned from one of the Thracians. For the Thracians had the reputation of old of being more clever than the Macedonians, and in particular of being not so careless in religious matters. There are some who say that Pierus himself had nine daughters, that their names were the same as those of the goddesses, and that those whom the Greeks called the children of the Muses were sons of the daughters of Pierus. Mimnermus, who composed elegiac verses about the battle between the Smyrnaeans and the Lydians under Gyges, says in the preface that the elder Muses are daughters of Uranus, and that there are other and younger Muses, children of Zeus.

5 Strabo, Geography, 16.2.8, remarks that Seleukeia was previously called Hydatos Potamoi (Water Rivers): After these places, near the sea, are Seleuceia and Pieria, a mountain continuous with the Amanus and Rhosus, situated between Issus and Seleuceia. Seleuceia formerly had the name of Hydatopotami.

Diodorus Siculus mentions in Library of History, 19.79.6, a settlement called Potamoi Karon in Upper Syria, which was captured by Ptolemy I in 313 BC: “... but he himself (Ptolemy I) with his army, sailing toward Upper Syria, as it is called, captured and sacked Poseidium and Potami Caron.” It is possible that it was a settlement of Carian veterans founded by Antigonos Monophthalmos and identical with Hydatos Potamoi. See Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, n. 1 on p. 128, who refers to R. A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley, 1990), p. 299.

6 See Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, p. 126 and n. 2 on p. 128, and also Grainger, The Cities of Seleukid Syria, p. 111. Antigoneia was a large city founded by Antigonos Monophthalmos in 306 BC and destroyed by Seleukos I in 301 BC. Al-Mina did cease to exist in the late 4th century BC. It is not excluded that both Strabo’s Hydatos Potamoi and Diodorus’s Potamoi Karon (see footnote 5) were identical with al-Mina.

7 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 on the Orontes), Seleuceia in Pieria, Apameia, 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, and the strongest his own. Of the others, Apameia had its name from his wife Apama, and Laodiceia from his mother.

8 See Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, p. 126 and n. 3 on pp. 128-130, for a detailed overview.

9 For the huge size of the fortification walls, see Grainger, The Cities of Seleukid Syria, p. 84.

Strabo, Geography , 16.2.8, says that “Seleuceia [...] is a considerable fortress, and may defy all attacks; wherefore Pompey, having excluded from it Tigranes, declared it a free city”. See also Polybios, Histories, 5.59, cited in footnote 3 above, for the fortification of Seleukeia.

The military importance of the city is also illustrated by Polybios, Histories, 5.58, in his description of the liberation of Seleukeia from Ptolemaic occupation during the Fourth Syrian War: ... he (Antiochos III) summoned a council of his friends to advise as to the invasion of Coele-Syria. Many suggestions having been made in this respect about the nature of the country, about the preparations requisite and about the collaboration of the fleet, Apollophanes, a native of Seleucia (Seleukeia in Pieria), of whom I have already spoken, cut short all these expressions of opinion. For, as he said, it was foolish to covet Coele-Syria and invade that country while permitting the occupation by Ptolemy (Ptolemy IV) of Seleucia which was the capital seat and, one might almost say, the sacred hearth of their empire. Apart from the disgrace inflicted on the kingdom by this city being garrisoned by the kings of Egypt, it was of first-class importance. “While held by the enemy” he said, “it is the greatest possible hindrance to all our enterprises; for in whatever direction we decide to advance, the precautions we have to take to protect our own country from the menace of this place give us just as much trouble as our preparations for attacking the enemy. Once, however, it is in our hands, not only will it securely protect our own country, but owing to its advantageous situation it will be of the greatest possible service for all our projects and undertakings by land and sea alike.” All were convinced by these arguments, and it was decided to capture this city in the first place. For Seleucia had been garrisoned by the kings of Egypt ever since the time of Ptolemy Euergetes (Ptolemy III), when that prince, owing to his indignation at the murder of Berenice (Berenike Syra, the second wife of Antiochos II), invaded Syria and seized on this town.

10 Appian, Syriake , 10.63: Philetaerus (Philetairos, the founder of the Attalid dynasty), the prince of Pergamum, bought the body of Seleucus (Seleukos I) from Keraunos (Ptolemy Keraunos, son of Ptolemy I) for a large sum of money, burned it, and sent the ashes to his son Antiochus (Antiochos I) . The latter deposited them at Seleucia-by-the-Sea (Seleukeia in Pieria) , where he erected a temple to his father on consecrated ground, to which ground he gave the name of Nicatoreum.

11 Polybios, Histories, 5.61: The king (Antiochos III) received them (commissioners of Seleukeia’s commander sent to Antiochos III) and agreed to spare the lives of all the free population, numbering about six thousand. When put in possession of the city (Seleukeia in Pieria) he not only spared the free inhabitants, but brought home the Seleucian exiles and restored to them their civic rights and their property. He placed garrisons in the port and citadel.

Note that the figure of 6,000 for the free population is suspiciously low. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. I, p. 587, suggests that the figure may in fact represent free citizens or men at military age. See also Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, n. 7 on p. 128, and Grainger, The Cities of Seleukid Syria, pp. 96-97.

12 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.

13 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).

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.)

14 Strabo, Geography, 16.2.8: Seleuceia [...] 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.

15 See Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, p. 128 and n. 16 on p. 134.

Zeus Keraunios (“Zeus of the Thunderbolt”) was, according to Appian, Syriake, 9.58, 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.

A thunderbolt often occurs on the reverse of Seleukeia’s coins as the symbol of the cult of Zeus Keraunios, see the section Hellenistic Coins on this webpage. The name of Zeus Keraunios is explicitly attached to the image of thunderbolt on some coins from the Roman imperial period (see Butcher, CRS, p. 421 - Antoninus Pius, p. 422 - Septimius Severus, and p. 423 - Caracalla).

According to Cook, Zeus, Vol. 2: Zeus, God of the Dark Sky (Thunder and Lightning), p. 809, the object of veneration was probably a bolt of lightning made out of gold: “Seleukos I Nikator, when founding the city, followed the guidance of a thunderbolt, regarding it as a ‘Zeus-sign’ (Diosemia). He therefore bade the citizens treat the thunderbolt as a god: which they did, worshipping it with ritual and hymns. Probably the object of their veneration was an actual bolt wrought of gold, like those that were borne along in the great pageant of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. In favour of this supposition is the fact that at Seleukeia in the reign of Seleukos IV Philopator (187—175 B.C.) certain priests were annually appointed to act as keraunophoroi or ‘thunderbolt-bearers’.” See Cook’s notes 3-4 on p. 809 for sources, and p. 4 ff for the Diosemia. See also Cohen, ibid, for further comments and sources.

Zeus Kasios, i.e. “Zeus of Mount Kasios”, appears in the foundation myth recorded by Johannes Malalas in Chronographia, 8.199 (for the citation, see footnote 1 above). His worship is also well attested inclusive of coins from the Roman imperial period (a sacred stone was his symbol). For details, see Cohen, ibid (n. 16 on p. 134), and Cook, ibid, pp. 981-983.

16 Mentioned by Strabo in Geography, 7.5.8, who quotes Greek philosopher, historian, and scientist Posidonius (2nd-1st century BC).

Strabo, Geography, 7.5.8: He (Posidonius) also speaks of the asphaltic vine-earth which is mined at the Pierian Seleuceia as a cure for the infested vine; for, he says, if it is smeared on together with olive oil, it kills the insects before they can mount the sprouts of the roots; and, he adds, earth of this sort was also discovered in Rhodes when he was in office there as Prytanis, but it required more olive oil.

17 Although Seleukeia had been granted its autonomy in 109 BC by Antiochos VIII, it minted some royal issues of Demetrios III in the period 97/6 - 88/7 BC. As Houghton, Lorber and Hoover explain in SC II, Vol. I, p. 588, the attribution of the royal bronze type No. 2247 to Seleukeia is assured by its reverse type, which was also employed on the city’s autonomous tetradrachms and bronze coins (see Types 18 and 24 above). They add that “it is perhaps not so surprising that a son of the city’s benefactor should have been allowed temporary use of its facilities”.

18 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 on coins up to the 3rd century AD (some coins of the Roman usurper Uranius Antoninus dated to the Seleukid year 565, i.e. 253/4 AD, and some coins of the Parthian king Vologases VI dated to the Seleukid year 539, i.e. 227/8 AD). Even after that, this era was further used outside of coinage for a long time, especially by the Church of the East (it was still used, for example, by a Christian community in a Chinese port city known as Zayton, present-day Quanzhou, in the 14th century AD).

19 If x is a year of the civic era then the corresponding BC time interval is from 110–x to 109–x. See also footnote 13 above for the explanation of the time difference between the royal decree and the effective beginning of the autonomy status.

20 See footnote 15 above.

21 See e.g. Butcher, CRS, p. 414 ff, and Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, pp. 131-132, n. 11.

22 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).

23Tainia was a light fabric ribbon or band tied around the head or body.

24 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.

25 I tentatively assume the following time boundaries of Seleukeia’s pre-autonomous municipal coins (for details, see footnote 12 above):

• coins 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”)
• coins 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”)

26 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