DOI Heft:
Artikuły / Articles
DOI Artikel:Wójcikowski, Robert S.: Zeus Aëtophoros in the coinage of Seleucus I Nicator
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43282#0065
ZEUS AETOPHOROS...
Contrary to the above-cited views of some modern scholars, Tarn also posits
that the Seleucids may have been concerned, most likely especially in the early
period of their rule, with drawing a link between their dynasty and the Macedonian
kings as well as of the Old Persian rulers. According to M.J. Olbrycht, Seleucus I,
following the extension of his power to the Upper Satrapies, may have even assumed
the Persian (Achaemenid) royal title xsayatiya, as Macedonian royal titles would have
been incomprehensible to the Iranians.127 Such acts should not come as a surprise,
considering the fact that despite the foundation of the colonies commenced by
Seleucus I, the actual beginning of the processes of the empire’s colonization and
stabilization would only take place during the reign of his son, Antiochus I.128 On
the one hand, Seleucus I presented himself as the successor to Alexander III; on
the other hand, he strived to gain the support of the local Asiatic elites. These two
political goals need not be considered contrary to each other. Zeus Aetophoros is
the example of a motif which perfectly combined both aims.
After his second arrival at Babylon, Seleucus I became involved in an eventually
victorious power struggle aimed at building his own state and, following his victory
over Lysimachus, he faced the prospect of spreading his rule into Europę, including
his native Macedon. The resources of his Asian provinces rendered such an enterprise
possible. Perhaps it is exactly in this context that we should view the appointment of
Antiochus I as govemor of the Upper Satrapies, for this would have enabled Seleucus to
focus on his western policy. This called for obtaining the support from the Babylonian
and Iranian political elites, in an attempt to ensure peace and the mobilization of troops
in the eastern regions of the empire. In this context, the popularity of the enthroned
Zeus motif throughout the rule of Seleucus I appears to have been part of a broader
political agenda, with the intention of representing himself as the legitimate successor
both to Alexander the Great and the Achaemenid dynasty, or at least to gain consent for
the administration of his power in Iran by means of establishing relations with the native
aristocracy. The motif of Zeus Aetophoros proved to be useful to the achievement
of his goals also on account of the fact that its form would not be objectionable to
the Macedonians and or Greeks while atthe same time being intelligible to the Asians.
REFERENCES
ANSON, E.M. 2013. Alexander the Great: Themes and Issues, London, New York.
ARNOLD-BIUCCHI, C. 2006. Alexander 's Coins and Alexander's Image, Cambridge.
BAINES, J. 1995. “Origin of Egyptian Kingship”. In. D. BOURKE O’CONNOR and
D.R SILVERMAN (eds), Ancient Egyptian Kingship, Leiden: 95-156.
127 OLBRYCHT 2013: 171.
128 SHERWIN-WHITE and KUHRT 1993: 20-22.
Contrary to the above-cited views of some modern scholars, Tarn also posits
that the Seleucids may have been concerned, most likely especially in the early
period of their rule, with drawing a link between their dynasty and the Macedonian
kings as well as of the Old Persian rulers. According to M.J. Olbrycht, Seleucus I,
following the extension of his power to the Upper Satrapies, may have even assumed
the Persian (Achaemenid) royal title xsayatiya, as Macedonian royal titles would have
been incomprehensible to the Iranians.127 Such acts should not come as a surprise,
considering the fact that despite the foundation of the colonies commenced by
Seleucus I, the actual beginning of the processes of the empire’s colonization and
stabilization would only take place during the reign of his son, Antiochus I.128 On
the one hand, Seleucus I presented himself as the successor to Alexander III; on
the other hand, he strived to gain the support of the local Asiatic elites. These two
political goals need not be considered contrary to each other. Zeus Aetophoros is
the example of a motif which perfectly combined both aims.
After his second arrival at Babylon, Seleucus I became involved in an eventually
victorious power struggle aimed at building his own state and, following his victory
over Lysimachus, he faced the prospect of spreading his rule into Europę, including
his native Macedon. The resources of his Asian provinces rendered such an enterprise
possible. Perhaps it is exactly in this context that we should view the appointment of
Antiochus I as govemor of the Upper Satrapies, for this would have enabled Seleucus to
focus on his western policy. This called for obtaining the support from the Babylonian
and Iranian political elites, in an attempt to ensure peace and the mobilization of troops
in the eastern regions of the empire. In this context, the popularity of the enthroned
Zeus motif throughout the rule of Seleucus I appears to have been part of a broader
political agenda, with the intention of representing himself as the legitimate successor
both to Alexander the Great and the Achaemenid dynasty, or at least to gain consent for
the administration of his power in Iran by means of establishing relations with the native
aristocracy. The motif of Zeus Aetophoros proved to be useful to the achievement
of his goals also on account of the fact that its form would not be objectionable to
the Macedonians and or Greeks while atthe same time being intelligible to the Asians.
REFERENCES
ANSON, E.M. 2013. Alexander the Great: Themes and Issues, London, New York.
ARNOLD-BIUCCHI, C. 2006. Alexander 's Coins and Alexander's Image, Cambridge.
BAINES, J. 1995. “Origin of Egyptian Kingship”. In. D. BOURKE O’CONNOR and
D.R SILVERMAN (eds), Ancient Egyptian Kingship, Leiden: 95-156.
127 OLBRYCHT 2013: 171.
128 SHERWIN-WHITE and KUHRT 1993: 20-22.