This publication expands on the number of scholarly papers devoted to Hellenistic art and political ideology. Some of the seventeen contributions were presented at a conference, Culture and Ideology under the Seleucids: an Interdisciplinary Approach, held at Macquarie University in Sydney in March 2019. The collection offers a multifaceted reassessment of cultural dynamics in the Seleucid Empire. In contrast to the synthesising works aimed at the ruler cult, there is a clear departure from the traditional Hellenocentric view of royal self-presentation. The papers emphasise the cultural hybridity of the empire and the application of new methodological procedures (the analysis of cuneiform texts, the sociology of clothing, political realism), outlining starting points for further research. In the introductory chapter, ‘Un-Framing Seleukid Ideology’, the editors, Anagnostou-Laoutides and Pfeiffer, emphasise a holistic approach to the evaluation of archaeological, numismatic and written sources.
The formation of the Seleucid royal identity was the effort of several generations. The image of the ruler, pointing to his military abilities and personal charisma, was soon complemented by family scenes referring to the hereditary transfer of power (G.R. Dumke: ‘Alexander vs. Soter vs. Nikator. Die Rolle Alexanders, Ptolemaios’ I. und Seleukos’ I. in der politischen Legitimation ihrer Nachfolger’). While the Ptolemies developed a conjugal portrait, the Seleucid family's image of the ruling triad came to the fore (A. McAuley: ‘The Seleukid Royal Family as a Reigning Triad’). These depictions representing basic family relationships were understandable to every inhabitant of the empire from the Aegean Sea to the Iranian plateau. It is also likely that the family depiction of the Anatolian dynasts from the previous period provided a model for portraying the rulers (A. Diler [ed.], Uzunyuva Hekatomneion in Mylasa/Mylasa Uzunyuva Hekatomneion'u [2020]).
The motifs and images of royal iconography spread in different contexts, but always with a clear message of reign and power (M. Trundle † and C. de Lisle: ‘Coinage and the Creation of the Seleukid Kingdom’). They were polysemic, and their multi-significance not only appealed to various linguistic and cultural groups within the empire, but also to its neighbours, who adapted them to their own needs (D. Hunter: ‘The Influence of Seleukid Coinage upon the Bithynian and Pontic Monarchies to the Reign of Mithridates VI’). The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek rulers adopted the behaviours and ideologies of Western kings (R. Mairs: ‘Kingship and Ruler Cult in Hellenistic Bactria: Beyond the Numismatic Sources’). The authors not only note the formation of royal ideology, but also the reaction of the empire's population to its spread, and in many cases re-evaluate the dynasty's relationship with different social groups (from ordinary people to provincial administrators and soldiers). The size of the domain, the multi-ethnic population and the cultural diversity posed a challenge for the Seleucid monarchs, but they offered certain advantages: the decentralisation of the empire's political and economic governance did not necessarily mean its decline. At some point vassalisation became a mainstay of government. The mutually beneficial relationship between central government and local political and religious elites came to the fore, which appears almost as often as the covert (or overt) resistance of the wider population (R. Wenghofer: ‘Popular Resistance to Seleukid Claims of Hegemony’). The apparent political loyalty of Judean leaders may have been one way of fighting for independence (A. Coşkun: ‘The Reception of Seleukid Ideology in Second-Century bce Judaea’).
Military success and power were inseparable aspects of reigning, but the support of cities and cultural patronage also had a significant impact. The Seleucid kings often relied on the loyalty of Greek cities based on cultural ties and their regional power, often citing their Macedonian origins. It remains an open question whether to consider Asia Minor as the periphery of the empire. It represented one of its richest parts and the place with the narrowest zone of interaction with the Greek world. From the King's Peace to the Treaty of Apamea, the Temenids and the Seleucids, as well as the Ptolemies and the Romans, took on a role as guardians of the ‘freedom’ of Greek communities on the coast. Cities took advantage of this relationship: recognition of the ruler's legitimacy and superiority was accompanied by political and military support for self-government, construction and urban renewal. Poleis did not hesitate to be associated with their ideal of freedom and autonomy and the designation ‘Great King’, which until then had had a negative meaning for them (Pfeiffer: ‘Great King Ptolemy III and Great King Antiochos III: Remarks on the Significance of a “Persian” Title in their Representation’). Sacrifices on altars for rulers and their families were documented beginning in the Fourth Diadoch War (OGIS 6), and it seems they also took place during the time of the Hecatomnids. This practice was not limited to members of the ruling dynasties, and similar honours seem to have been given from the middle of the third century bce. Local military commanders also received them, indicating their growing influence (CCRN 150). They served as intermediaries between Greek cities and rulers, and they supported central government in times of domestic and foreign conflict (P. McKechnie: ‘Wars of the Brothers: the Contested Coalescence of Seleukid Statehood in mid-Third-Century Asia Minor’).
At its biggest, the Seleucid Empire stretched from Anatolia to the Indus Valley. As in other areas, the Seleucids deployed a strategy that Macedonian rulers had already begun to use. It included the establishment of eponymous cities that promoted the stability of the empire, justified the right of the royal government and unified heterogeneous territories. The first generations of rulers supported the migration of the Greek-Macedonian population from Europe, which headed to Syria for the most part (T. Brüggemann: ‘Mehr als Schall und Rauch? Das Seleukidenreich und seine antiken Namen’). This area was connected by trade routes between the East (the spice trade, the Silk Road, the Royal Road) and the Mediterranean. The geographical, military and economic position predestined the Syrian Tetrapolis for development that lasted longer than the dynasty itself. However, the memory of the Seleucids as founders and generous supporters of Greek cities persisted in the Roman period (M.T. Olszewski: ‘Memory and Ideology of the First Successors of Alexander the Great as inscribed on Roman Mosaics from Apameia of Syria’). The paintings and sculptures associated with the establishment of the cities were propagandistic in nature and testified to the close ties between the royal benefactors and the cities. The founding myths served the same purpose, and they mainly developed in the period when the dynasty claimed Herakleidian / Temenid origin (D. Ogden: ‘Seleucus and the Typology of Heracles’).
The Seleucids used syncretism as a means of promoting their own legitimacy and their God-given right to rule. Construction activities in the western Levant were promoted with reference to Heracles’ deeds as well as Babylonian mythology. The identification of Greek, Babylonian and local gods and heroes took place in the context of royal propaganda. The stories of the founding of the empire's capital, Antioch, brought the western part of the empire closer to Babylonia (Anagnostou-Laoutides: ‘Flexing Mythologies in Babylon and Antioch-on-the-Orontes: Divine Champions and their Aquatic Enemies under the Early Seleukids’). Babylon remained an important part of the Seleucid kingdom. The rulers supported local temples, while the religious elite helped them to express themselves with regard to local cultural and social customs (P.M. Michel and M. Widmer: ‘Au sujet de la puissance symbolique des vêtements du souverain en Babylonie et dans l'Orient grec hellénistiques’). The designation ‘Great King’ still symbolised the central position of power here, but it seems that this title was regionally limited (A. Mehl: ‘How to understand Seleukids as Babylonian “Great Kings”’). A new wave of Hellenisation, which came after the signing of the peace treaty in Apamea, served to strengthen the cohesion of the empire. By transforming cities with civic institutions using the Greek model, Babylonian priests lost their positions of power to administrators and assemblies of Greek and Hellenised citizens. In this context, it is necessary to study the records of Babylonian, Jewish and Greek historiographers from the period (P.-A. Beaulieu: ‘The Death of Antiochos IV in the Context of Babylonian Hellenistic Historiography’). It is essential to look at the Seleucid Empire as being the most diverse region among the kingdoms of the Diadochi.
The publication, which will please even the most demanding readers, greatly broadens our view on the rulers of the Seleucid dynasty. Using the example of the formation and dissemination of royal ideology, the authors manage to capture various aspects of a cosmopolitan society. This applies not only to the most important centres of the Seleucid Empire, but also to the Far East, where inhabitants formed part of the Hellenistic oikumene. In particular, strong regional identity comes to the fore, as do the changing relationships of local communities to central power. Ultimately, the borders of the empire and even more relationships within the dynasty were dynamic. Readers can look forward to the outputs from the upcoming workshop dedicated to the Ptolemaic dynasty, which, as the editors have announced, is to take place at the Martin-Luther-Universität in Halle-Wittenberg in 2023.
