1 Antioch was founded about 300 BC by Seleukos I Nikator, the founder of the Seleukid Dynasty, and it became the principal capital of the Seleukid Empire. The city was named after a family name Antiochos, passed from his father to his son (Antiochos I Soter). There were a number of other cities by the same name and this Antioch was known as Antioch on the Orontes (i.e. the Orontes River, along which it was located).

2 The city was founded in 312 BC by Seleukos I Nikator at the confluence of the Tigris River and a major canal from the Euphrates. Seleukeia on the Tigris was one of the great Hellenistic cities and a very important trading centre.

Appian, Syriake 58, tolds the following legend about how the city was established: ... They say, also, that when the Magians were ordered to indicate the propitious day and hour for beginning the foundations of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris they falsified as to the hour because they did not want to have such a stronghold built against themselves. While the king (Seleukos I Nikator) was waiting in his tent for the appointed hour, and the army, in readiness to begin the work, stood quietly till Seleucus should give the signal, suddenly, at the true hour of destiny, they seemed to hear a voice ordering them on. So they sprang to their work with such alacrity that the heralds who tried to stop them were not able to do so. When the work was brought to an end Seleucus, being troubled in his mind, again made inquiry of the Magians concerning his city, and they, having first secured a promise of impunity, replied, “That which is fated, o king, whether it be for better or worse, neither man nor city can change, for there is a fate for cities as well as for men. It pleases the gods that this city shall endure for ages, because it was begun on the hour on which it was begun. We feared lest it should be a stronghold against ourselves, and falsified the appointed time. Destiny is stronger than crafty Magians or an unsuspecting king. For that reason the deity announced the more propitious hour to the army. It is permitted you to know these things so surely that you need not suspect us of deception still, for you were presiding over the army yourself, as king, and you had yourself ordered them to wait; but the army, ever obedient to you in facing danger and toil, could not now be restrained, even when you gave them the order to stop, but sprang to their work, not a part of them merely, but all together, and their officers with them, thinking that the order had been given. In fact it had been given. That was the reason why not even you could hold them back. What can be stronger in human affairs than a king, unless it be a god, who overcame your intention and supplanted us in giving you directions about the city; for the god is in hostility to us and to all the people round about? What can our resources avail hereafter with a more powerful race settled along side of us? This city of yours has had a fortunate beginning, it will be great and enduring. We beg that you will confirm your pardon of our fault which we committed from fear of the loss of our own prosperity.” The king was pleased with what the Magians said and pardoned them. This is what I have heard about Seleucia.

3 Sellwood type 17.1-4; see Parthia.com, Phraates II.

4 My sincere thanks to Arthur A. Houghton and Oliver D. Hoover for their opinion on this coin.

5 Demetrios I: Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, SC II, 1617.4 (drachms); Alexander I: ibid, 1778.2 (drachms); Demetrios II, first reign: ibid, 1895 (drachms); Antiochos VII: ibid, 2057b (tetradrachms), 2058.1c and 2058.2 (drachms); Demetrios II, second reign: ibid, 2159 and 2160.1 (tetradrachms), 2161 (drachms); Alexander II: ibid, 2212.4 (drachms); Antiochos VIII: ibid, 2286d and 2288.2a (tetradrachms); Antiochos IX: ibid, 2348 and 2350b (tetradrachms), 2351.1 (drachms).

6 Demetrios I: Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, SC II, 1614-1616 (tetradrachms), 1617.1-3 (drachms); Alexander II: ibid, 2212.2-3 (drachms).

7 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.

8 Note that there is a dated bronze issue of Antiochos VII (obverse: helmeted head of Athena; reverse: tripod flanked by the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ, Seleukid date in exergue) which was previously attributed to Seleukeia on the Tigris. These coins are dated ΒΠΡ = 182 SEM (October 131 - October 130 BC; see BMC 4, 63; ANS, Accession Nos. 1944.100.77938 and 1944.100.77939), and perhaps also ΓΠΡ = 183 SEM (October 130 - September 129 BC). There is also a unique coin of this type in the collection of the British Museum (BM 1956-4-9-57) whose Seleukid date might be ΔΠΡ = 184 SEM, i.e. September 129 - October 128 BC. Nevertheless, a recent examination of this coin showed that the date is likely to be ΑΠΡ = 181 SEM (September 132 - October 131 BC), see the Hellenistica Discussion List, December 2005, messages Nos. 664 and 665. This reading means that this issue was struck in a western mint because Seleukeia on the Tigris was still controlled by the Parthians in 181 SEM.

9 Isis was considered the personification of the Pharaoh’s throne and her original headdress was in the shape of a throne. Later, Isis assimilated many of the roles of Hathor (a cow goddess and the personification of the principles of joy, feminine love, and motherhood) and her headdress was replaced with that of Hathor: Hathor’s horns with the solar disk between them and often with plumes rising above (all these three parts are visible on this coins).

10 An ornamented high end of the stern of ancient galleys (the up-curving timbers of the hull terminated in a fan-like or plum-like ornament).

11 Coins of this type dated ΕΟΡ usually have ‘ΔΙ’ monogram above a symbol in the outer left field, see Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, SC II, 2068.3.

12 SNG Spaer, 2133, is tentatively dated SE 178 (135/4 BC) but its reverse is worn and the reading of the date is very uncertain. SNG Spaer, 2146, is tentatively dated SE 180 (133/2 BC) but the date is partly off flan.