The article considers the opinion that Antigonus I the One-Eyed, the first of the diadochi to assume the royal title in the so-called year of kings (306-304 BC), calculated his "reign" not from 306 BC, but from an earlier time (as did his rivals Seleucus I and Ptolemy I). In some parts of Antigonus ' empire - Babylonia and Edom - there is indeed a system of dating documents with his name from 317/316 BC (since the death of Philip III Arrhidaeus). This system was introduced by Antigonus retrospectively in 315/314 BC; the most recent documents using it (originating in Babylonia) However, there is no clear evidence that Antigonus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes applied this system of reckoning after 306 BC, when they officially assumed the royal titles. The decree from the city of Caunum to Caria is obviously dated to the" fifteenth year " of the reign of Antigonus II Gonatus (283-239 BC), and not to Antigonus I the One-Eyed, and the manumission from Beroi, despite problems with the interpretation of its mysterious dating ("twenty-seventh year of the reign of Demetrius"), should be associated with Demetrius II (239-229 BC), and not with Poliorcetes (who, according to E. Grzybek, used the" era " of Antigonus from 317/316 BC during his rule in Macedonia in 294-288 BC).

Key words: Antigonids, Antigonus I the One-Eyed, Demetrius I Polyorcetes, Diadochi, dynastic era, Hellenism, Babylonia, Edom, Macedonia.

The view that Antigonus I the One-eyed (Monophthalmus), the first of the diadochi to assume the royal title and initiate the so-called Year of kings (306-304 BC), 1 is now becoming increasingly widespread, and counted his reign not from 306 BC, but from an earlier time, as it is now known. It was made by his rivals Seleucus I and Ptolemy I 2. It is even suggested that Seleucus may have only imitated the experience of Antigonus [Boiy, 2009, p. 476, p. 30]. However, as will be shown later, in the case of the founder of the Antigonid dynasty, the retrospective dating of his reign after he was proclaimed king in 306 BC is questionable.

E. Grzybek was the first to substantiate the point of view about the "era" of Antigonus I (however, without using this definition) in connection with the dating of the manumission from Beroi in Macedonia, which he tried to give using Eastern sources. Long ago, researchers drew attention to the dating of a number of Babylonian documents from 317/316 BC (after the death of Philip III Arrhidaeus) by the name of Antigonus I without a royal title: he is referred to in them by his first name and as "military commander"3. Based on this, E. Yerzhi-

1 Diod.XX.53.2 3; Plut. Demetr. 17.5-18.1; idem. Aem. 8.1; App. Syr. 54; lust. XV.2.10; Pap. Koln. VI. 2471, vv. 18-21. Cf.: [Muller, 1973, S. 78-93]. The semi-official use of the title βασιλευς before 306 BC by Antigonus and his son Demetrius, as well as by some other diadochi, seems doubtful [Paschidis, 2013, pp. 121-141]. It is obvious that the adoption of royal titles by the first two Antigonids came as a surprise to their rivals [Mileta, 2012, pp. 315-326].

2 Seleucus counted his reign after the "year of kings "from his return to Babylon in the spring of 311 BC and, apparently, his usurpation as" strategist of Asia " [Van der Spek, 2014, p. 323-342]. Later, the Seleucid era began to count from this time: from 312 BC according to the Macedonian calendar, from 311 BC according to the Babylonian calendar. Ptolemy, having assumed the royal title, in Greek documents continued to count the years from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, when he took over Egypt, while in Egyptian Demotic documents his reign was counted from 305/304 BC [Savalli-Lestrade, 2010, pp. 57-59].

3 For example: VSNRZ.Rev. 4. See for details: [Boiy, 2001, p. 645-649; Boiy, 2009, p. 467-476]. At present, there is no doubt that the first year retrospectively dated by the name of Antigonus was precisely 317/316 BC.

page 42
beck suggested that it is possible to calculate the "reign" of Antigonus not after the official adoption of the royal title in 306 BC, but from 317/316 BC, and that this system was also used by his son Demetrius I Poliorcetes during the reign in Macedonia in 294-288 BC. According to Grzybek, the manumission from Beroi must date back to 291 or 290 BC (Grzybek, 1993, pp. 521-527). However, in the case of this document, he was wrong; the manumission, despite problems with its dating, should be associated with Demetrius II (239-229 BC), the grandson of Polyorcetes.4
Nevertheless, the opinion of E. Grzybek on the possibility of using the " era " from 317/316 BC in Macedonia under Demetrius Poliorcetes was widely supported [Knoepfler, 2001, p. 145, p. 232-233; Schmitt and Nolle, 2005, p. 69, Anm. 5; Boiy, 2009,p. 475-476; Boiy, 2009, p. 475-476]. 2011, p. 18, n. 27; Bennett, 2011, p. 155]. Sometimes the calculation of the "era" of Antigonus is extended, however, without any justification, up to 148 BC, when the Romans finally put an end to the independence of Macedonia [McLean, 2002, p. 171, 173, p. 115].

But was a similar system of dating applied by Antigonus the One-Eyed and his son outside of Babylonia, especially after the Antigonids lost control of it after 311 BC? 5 And was there a universal system of chronology in the realm of Antigonus and Demetrius before its collapse in 301 BC after the disaster at Ipsus?

The earliest documents with the name of Antigonus I of Babylonia are dated to the third year (315/314 BC), the latest-to the ninth (ca. 308 BC).6. T. Boyi convincingly showed the fallacy of the opinion that one cuneiform text is dated to the fourteenth year of Antigonus, the reliability of which was previously recognized by E. Grzybek [Grzybek, 1993, p. 525] and was an important element of his hypothesis that Antigonus the One-eyed and after the" year of kings " counted his reign from 317/316 BC. [Boiy, 2001, p. 648-649].

In the 1990s, ostracons were published in Aramaic from Idumea, dated with the names of Alexander (III or IV, which is more likely), Philip III with royal titles, and Antigonus the One-Eyed without it. On ostracons named Antigone

4 The act of manumission from Beroi is dated to the twenty-seventh year of the reign of a certain Demetrius [EKM I.45, vv. 2-3]. However, both Macedonian kings, who bore this name Demetrius 1 Poliorcetes and his grandson Demetrius II, ruled less. If we count the years of Demetrius 1's reign from the time of his assumption of the royal title in 306 BC. e. after the victory at Salamis of Cyprus and until his death in 283 BC. e., we get no more than 23-24 years. Demetrius II, son of Antigonus II Gonatus, reigned for only ten years (239-229 BC) (Polyb. 11.44.2; cf.: Pint. Acm. 8.2; Euscb. Chron. 1.237-238, 243 Schocne). Many ancient historians are inclined to explain the dating of the manumission by the fact that Antigonus Gonatus involved his son in the administration (this is evidenced, for example, by another inscription from Beroi [EKM I. 3]). This could lead to the fact that after becoming king in 239 BC, Demetrius began to calculate his reign from the beginning of participation in state affairs (respectively, no later than 256 BC; 229+27=256). It is of interest that in Polyaenus ' account of the events of the mid-240sbc, the son of Antigonus Gonatus is called "a young man and a king" during his father's lifetime (Polyaen. IV. 6. I). However, there are two documents that indicate that Demetrius II counted his reign from the time of the death of Antigonus Gonatus in 239 BC [SVA III. 498, vol. 1-2; Bull. Epigr. 2011, no. 399]. Thus, the dating of the Beroi manumission remains a mystery, but it seems that it is the theory of Demetrius ' involvement in public administration by his father that best explains it. R. M. Errington believes that the act of manumission from Beroi dates back to the "reign" of Demetrius Poliorcetes from 306 BC to around 280-279 BC, after the death of Demetrius Poliorcetes. after he not only lost power over Macedonia, but also died [Errington, 1977, p. 115-122]. See for more details about the joint rule of Antigonus Gonatus and Demetrius II and its reflection in the sources: [Kuzmin, 2013, p.108-123]. It can be assumed that under Demetrius II in Macedonia, two systems of dating documents could be used: from the beginning of the sole reign and the beginning of the involvement of the father in state affairs. It is also permissible for Demetrius II to introduce a retrospective dating of the reign, replacing the calculation from the death of Gonatus.

5 The struggle for Babylonia between Seleucus and the Antigonids continued until 308 BC [Wheatley, 2002, p. 39-47; Smirnov, 2013, p. 52-62; Van der Spek, 2014, p. 327-335].

6 Documents mentioning the second year of Antigonus were probably compiled later, and the date was given retrospectively [Boiy, 2009, p. 471-473].

page 43
There are dates from the third and fifth years [Lemaire, 1999, p. 13-14; Boiy, 2007, p. 37-38]. If the Babylonian calculus system was used here from 317/316 BC, they refer to 315/314 and 313/312 BC [Boiy, 2007, p. 90-91; Boiy, 2011, p.18-21]. But E. Anson assumed that the Edomite ostracons record a local system of reckoning from 314/313 BC, when Edomea could have fallen under the rule of Antigonus the One-Eyed, and dated them to 312/311 and 310/309 BC, respectively (Anson, 2005, pp. 263-266). However, it is most likely that this is the same system as in Babylonia [Boiy, 2011, p. 18-21], which was later agreed by E. Anson [Anson, 2014, p.120-121].

In connection with the hypothesis of E. Grzybek, it is interesting to note from Eusebius that after Philip 111 Arridaeus (323-317 BC), "Antigonus the first reigned in Asia and ruled for eighteen years" (Euseb. Chron. I. 247-248 Schoene: [Α]ντιγονος· [ο] πρωτο? εβασιλευσε τη? Ασιας·, και ηρξε μεν ετεσιν οκτω και δεκα). Eusebius gives a period that is close in duration to the "reign" of Antigonus according to the concept of E. Grzybek. But it can be assumed that in the Porphyry-Eusebius source, the reign of Monophthalmus, who died in the battle of Ipsus in 301 BC, was counted not from the death of Arridaeus (317 BC), but from the agreement of the diadochi in Triparadis (320 BC)7, when Antigonus became " strategos of the royal army"or" Asia Strategist "(Diod. XVIII.39.7-40.1). However, Eusebius ' report, unnoticed by E. Grzybek and his supporters, may indirectly support the theory that Antigonus officially calculated his reign from an earlier time than 306 BC.

In 2006, K. Marek published a decree from Caunum to Caria, dated to the fifteenth year of the reign of a certain Antigonus (IKaunos 4: βασιλευοντο5·αντιγ [νο]u [ετ]ει πεν·τΕκαιδ6κα[τ]ω[i, μην]oς' Απελλαιου). Of the three kings who bore the name "Antigonus", whose interests at various times were connected with Caria and neighboring regions (all of them were representatives of the Antigonid dynasty), only Antigonus II Gonatus (283-239 BC) held the royal title for more than fifteen years. It could also have been dated to the reign of Antigonus I the One-Eyed from 317/316 BC, i.e. around 302 BC [Meadows, 2006, p. 462-463; Savalli-Lestrade, 2010, p. 59-60; Bennett, 2013, p.6-7].

The publisher of this inscription, K. Marek, refrained from unequivocally preferring Monophthalmos or Gonata. Nevertheless, taking into account the theory of E. Grzybek, he leaned towards the candidacy of the founder of the Antigonid dynasty. According to paleographic criteria, K. Marek attributed the decree from Kavn to the end of the IV century BC (Marek, 2006, S. 97, 133-136, 267). However, K. Hallof [8] dated the font of the inscription to the second half of the third century BC, a time closer to the end of century 9. So, which of the Antigons is mentioned in the inscription from Caunum, which two well-known epigraphists dated so diametrically opposite with a difference of up to a hundred years?

At the end of the fourth century BC, the Antigonids controlled a number of sites in Caria (IG XII 6 1.31, vv. 6-7; Diod. XX. 46.6; 82.4), but there is no direct evidence for the Cavernum. However, even the assumption that Antigonus I and Demetrius Poliorcetes owned Caunum at the end of the fourth century BC does not exclude the possibility of dating the decree of IKaunos 4 to the reign of Antigonus II Gonatus. In the event that this inscription referred to the time of Antigonus

7 The dating of the Triparadis meeting is one of the most important problems in the chronology of the Diadochi. At present, it is almost generally accepted that the date is 320 BC, rather than 321 BC (Anson, 2002-2003, p.373-390; Boiy, 2007, p. 111 136, 148).

8 K. Hallof (lnscriptioncs Graccac, Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences) expressed his opinion in a private correspondence with the assistance of K. Mileta (Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenbsrge). I am happy to express my gratitude to both of them.

9 Antigonus III Dawson, who made an expedition to Caria around 227 BC [Le Bohcc, 1993, p. 327-361], cannot be the king mentioned in the inscription from Caunum, since he reigned only nine years (229-221 BC). Inscriptions from Perrebia, dated to the eighth and ninth The years of Dawson's reign show that it was calculated from 229 BC, when Demetrius II died [Bull. Epigr., 2011, no. 399].

page 44
One-eyed, the name of his official co-ruler Demetrius Poliorcetes, whose role in the military command and administration of the state was extremely important, would probably be included in the dating formula.10
It seems that the decree of IKaunos 4 can be dated to the reign of Antigonus Gonatus-the time around 269-268 BC, on the eve of the beginning of the Chremonid War (≈268-262 BC) (see for details: [Kuzmin, 2012, pp. 337-350]). Thus, the dating of the decree from Caunum cannot serve as a confirmation of the use by Antigonus One-Eye of the calculation of the reign from 317/316 BC and after the "year of the kings".

As for the dating of the reign of Demetrius Poliorcetes, M. Hadzopoulos, based on a palaeographic analysis of an inscription from the Macedonian city of Dios, suggested that he was the king who resolved the territorial dispute between Pherae and Demetriades, which is mentioned in a document dated to the sixteenth year and the twelfth day of the insertion month (ετους ς 'και i' εμβολιμου i,β') the reign of a monarch whose name has not been preserved (previously it was believed that it was Philip V) [Hatzopoulos, 2006, p. 85, 88-89]; cf.: [Bull. Epigr., 2000, no. 453.5; SEG XLVIII.782]). Thus, the Diya inscription should be dated to around 290 BC. Its context may be related to the foundation of Demetriades by Polyorcetes in Magnesia (some time after 294 BC [Cohen, 1995, p. 111-112]). If M. Hadzopoulos ' interpretation is correct, then the Diya inscription indicates that Demetrius I Poliorcetes counted down his reign from the victory at Salamis of Cyprus in 306 BC.

The dating of the Diya inscription by M. Hadzopoulos was disputed by C. Bennett, who attributed it to the reign of Antigonus Gonatus. However, the reason for this was only the agreement of K. Bennett with the theory of E. Grzybek that Poliorcetes calculated the reign exclusively from 317/316 BC. e. and, accordingly, could not be the monarch who wrote this letter in the sixteenth year of his reign, since at the end of the IV century. Before BC, the Antigonids did not control Macedonia (Bennett, 2011, p. 215).

Of course, one can hypothetically assume that Demetrius Poliorcetes used the "era" of Antigonus the One-Eyed proposed by E. Grzybek during his reign in Macedonia in 294-288 BC to emphasize the dynastic succession, given his desire to restore his father's power destroyed after the battle of Ipsa (Plut. Demetr. 43.3-4). However, it seems that for Poliorcetes, a more important marker for calculating the beginning of his reign was his victory at Salamis of Cyprus in 306 BC, after which his father assumed the royal title, naming his victorious son as well. The factor of military victory, as is known, played an important role in the ideology and propaganda of the Hellenistic era. It was the victory at Salamis that was immortalized in the issues of Demetrius Poliorcetes-coins minted both in the eastern courts and in Macedonia. 11
Antigonus I and Demetrius Poliorcetes had a resounding victory as the starting point for establishing a dynasty and calculating reigns, and their opponents were proclaimed kings without similar military successes. They were forced to

10 Despite repeated references to Antigonus I and Demetrius Poliorcetes with royal titles in Greek inscriptions (contracts, dedications, etc.; for example, ISE I. 7; SVA III. 446; Syll. 3 I. 350-351; SEG I. 357), there is not a single document with the date of their joint reign (cf.: [Savalli-Lestrade, 2010, p. 60]). Among the Seleucids, the joint reign of Seleucus I and Antiochus 1 is reflected in Babylonian documents almost immediately after its beginning in the second half of the 290s BC [Boiy, 2004, p. 138-139]. There are also joint references to them as kings in Greek inscriptions (OGIS I. 214, 215). In Ptolemaic Egypt, the first attested inclusion of a co-ruler in the dating of documents (in the first half of the 260s BC) is associated with Ptolemy 11 Philadelphus and the mysterious "Ptolemy's Son" (Niel, 1998, pp. 229-234).

11 The most famous types of tetradrachmas minted in the name of Polyorcetes, associated with the Battle of Salamis, bear images: 1) Nicknames on the bow of a warship (obverse) and Poseidon (reverse); 2) portraits of the king (obverse) and Poseidon (reverse).

page 45
look for other ways to legitimize their power. It is possible that Seleucus and Ptolemy also found them in the earlier dates of their reigns.12
The following question may be relevant: why did the hypothetical "era" of Antigonus 1 not be used by the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, Antigonus Gonatus (while the heir of Seleucus I, Antiochus I, continued to calculate the reign by the years of his father and actually established the Seleucid era)11.At the same time, Gonatus, having captured Macedonia around 276 BC, did not enter the date from his statement here. He continued to calculate the kingship from an earlier time - from 283 BC, when his father Demetrius Poliorcetes died and he himself became king, although in fact without a kingdom (at that time he controlled only Piraeus, Corinth and Demetriada), which seems to be quite conducive to using the hypothetical "Eras of " Antigonus I. The above question can only be answered in this way: Gonatus did not continue the hypothetical "era" of Antigonus the One-eyed, since it is only a construction of modern historiography.

So, at least in some parts of Antigonus the One-Eyed's empire-Babylonia and Edom-the system of dating his name from 317/316 BC was used. It is significant that there are no Babylonian and Edomite documents that accurately date Antigonus 'name earlier than his third year (315/314 BC)' 5. This corresponds to the fact that by this time, after the defeat of Eumenes (316 BC), the power ambitions of Antigonus were clearly defined (the expulsion of Seleucus from Babylon, the accusation of Cassander in usurpation of power in Macedonia, etc.), which should have been supported by the inclusion of his name in the dating of documents.

There is no evidence of Antigonus 1 and his son using this system of reckoning after 306 BC , just as Seleucus I and Ptolemy I continued counting from earlier dates after they assumed their royal titles in the "year of kings" .16 The decree from Caunum is apparently dated to the reign of Antigonus II Gonatus, and Manumissius from Beroi despite the remaining problems with its dating, it should be associated with Demetrius II.

It is significant that many proponents of the theory of calculating the reign of Antigonus the One-eyed and after the "year of the kings" are orientalists not from 306, but from 317/316 BC or work at the junction of ancient and Oriental studies (E. Grzybek, T. Boyi, K. Bennett). This seems to reflect a generally objective trend in recent years.-

12 There are no surviving documents dating from the reigns of the other two diadochs, Cassander and Lysimachus.

13 However, it should be taken into account that Antiochus was for a long time the official co-ruler of his father and bore the royal title.

14 A decree from Amphipolis (IG XII 4 1.2201), dated to the forty-first year of the reign of Antigonus Gonatus (243 or 242 BC), indicates that he counted it precisely from the death of Polyorcetes in 283 BC. For the dating of the beginning of the reign of Gonatus to 284/283 or 283/282 BC, see: [Chambers, 1954, p. 385-394; Hammond and Walbank, 1988, p. 581-583; EKM I, p. 93-94]. P. Wheatley allowed that Gonatus assumed the royal title shortly before the death of Demetrius Poliorcetes due to his actual abdication, alluding to which he sees in Plutarch's report (Demetr. 51.1)that that Polyorcetes, after being captured by Seleucus, declared that Antigonus, as well as the garrison commanders and "friends", should not believe his letters, but should consider himself as if he were dead (Wheatley, 1997, p. 23-27). However, this original concept is questionable.

15 There are Babylonian cuneiform documents dated to the first and second years of the reign of Alexander IV, i.e. 316-315 BC [Boiy, 2004, p. 123]. For a retrospective reference to the second year of Antigonus, see note 6.

16 Another point to note is that Monophthalmus and Polyorcetes did not have a center of dominion with cultural and political traditions, like Babylonia for Seleucus or Egypt for Ptolemy. The degree of centralization of the Asia Minor-Middle East power of the first two Antigonids, which lasted until 301 BC, and the possibility of using a unified dating system from 317/316 BC in the territories subject to Monophthalmus and Polyorcetes after 306 BC, as Boiy admits [Boiy, 2011, p.20-21], remain questionable.

page 46
This is due to an increase in attention to Eastern sources and their growing role in the study of the early Hellenistic period, especially in terms of reconstructing the chronology of the Diadochi era.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AJPh - American Journal of Philology.

BCHP-Finkel I., Van der Spek R. J. Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period (pre-publication: http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chroniclcs/chron00.html).

Bull. Epigr. - Bulletin cpigraphique.

EKM I - ΓονναροΗουλου Α., Χατζοπουλος Μ.Β.'Επιγραφες Κατω Μακεδονιας. Τ.Α'. 'Επιγραφες· Βεροιας. 'Αθηνα, 1998.

GRBS - Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies.

JAOS - Journal of the American Oriental Society.

JNES - Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

IG - Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin.

IKaunas - Marek Ch. Die Inschriften von Kaunos. Munchen, 2006.

ISE - Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche / Testo critico, traduzione e commento a cura di L. Morctti, F. Canali De Rossi. Vols. 1-3. Fircnzc-Roma, 1967 2006.

OGIS - Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae / Ed. G. Dittenberger. Vols. 1-2. Lipsiac, 1903-1905.

SEG - Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum.

SVA III - Die Staatsvertrage des Altertums / Hrsg. von H.H. Schmitt. Bd. 3. Munchen, 1969.

ZPE - Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

list of literature

Kuzmin Yu. N. IvKaunos, 4: Monophthalmos or Gonat? // Questions of epigraphy. Vyi. 6. Moscow: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science, 2012.

Kuzmin Yu. N. Aristokratii Veroi v epokhu hellenizma [Aristocracy by Faith in the Hellenistic Era], Moscow: Russian Foundation for Assistance to Education and Science, 2013.

Smirnov S. V. The State of Seleucus I (politics, Economy, Society), Moscow: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science, 2013.

Anson Ε.Μ. The Dating of Perdiccas' Death and the Assembly at Triparadcisus // GRBS. Vol. 43. 2002-2003.

Anson E.M. Idumaean Ostraca and Early Hellenistic Chronology II JAOS. Vol. 125. No. 2. 2005.

Anson E.M. Alexander's Heirs. The Age of the Successors. Maiden, Mass.: Wiley Blackwcll, 2014.

Bennett Ch. Alexandria and the Moon. An Investigation into the Lunar Macedonian Calendar of Ptolemaic Egypt. Leuven-Paris-Walpole (Mass.): Peeters, 2011.

Bennett Ch. Alexandria and the Moon. Addenda and corrigenda. 5th cd. 17 July 2013. (https://www.academia.cdu/1134799/Alexandria and the Moon Addenda et Corrigenda).

Le Bohec S. Antigone Doson, roi de Macedoine: Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1993.

Boiy T. Dating Problem in Cuneiform Tablets concerning the reign of Antigonus Monophthalmus // JAOS. Vol. 121. No. 4. 2001.

Boiy T. Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

Boiy T. Between High and Low: A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 2007.

Boiy T. Date Formulas in Cuneiform Tablets and Antigonus Monophthalmus, Again // JAOS. Vol. 129. No. 3. 2009.

Boiy T. Local and Imperial Dates at the Beginning of the Hellenistic Period // New Studies on the Seleucids. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press, 2011 (Electrum. Vol. 18).

Chambers M. The First Regnal Year of Antigonus Gonatas // AJPh. Vol. 75. No. 4. 1954.

Cohen G.M. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press, 1995.

Errington R.M. An Inscription from Beroea and the Alleged Corule of Demetrius II // Ancient Macedonia-II. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1977.

Grzybek E. Eine Inschrift aus Bcroia und die Jahrcszahlweiscn der Diadochcn// Ancient Macedonia - V. 1. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1993.

Hammond N.G.L., Walbank F.W. A History of Macedonia. Vol. 3. 336 167 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Hatzopoulos M.B. La Macedoine: Geographie historique Langue Cultes et croyances Institutions. P.: De Boccard, 2006.

Huß W. Ptolemaios der Sohn // ZPE. Bd. 121. 1998.

page 47
Knoepfler D. Decrets eretriens de proxenie et de citoyennete. Lausanne: Editions Payott, 2001.

Lemaire A. Der Beitrag idumaischcr Ostraka zur Geschichte Palastinas im Ubergang von der persischen zur hellenistischen Zeit // Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins. Bd. 115. Ht. I. 1999.

Marck Ch. Die Inschriften von Kaunas. Munchen: Beck, 2006.

McLean В.H. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constanline (323 B.C. - A.D. 337). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

Meadows A. The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27. 929 // The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia. Vol. 2. Antalya: Sunna, 2006.

Mileta Ch. Ein Agon um Macht und Ehre. Beobachtungen zu den agonalcn Aspekten der Konigserhebungen im "Jahr der Konige" // Das Diadem der hellenistischen Herrscher: Ubernahme, Transformation oder Neuschopfung eines Herrschaftszeichens?. Bonn: Habclt, 2012.

Muller O. Antigonos Monophthalmus und "Das Jahr der Konige". Bonn: Habclt, 1973.

Paschidis P. Agora XVI 107 and the Royal Title of Demetrius Poliorcetes // After Alexander. The Time of the Diadochi (323-281 BC). Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2013.

Savalli-Lcstradc 1. Les rois hellenistiques, maitres du temps // Des rois au prince. Pratiques du pouvoir monarchique dans l'Orient hellenistique et romain (IVe siecle avant J.-C - IIe siecle apres J.-C). Grenoble: ELLUG, 2010.

Schmitt H.H., Nolle J. Antigonidcn(reich) // Lexikon des Hellenismus. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2005.

Van der Spck B. Sclcukos, Self-Appointcd General (Strategos) of Asia (311-305 B.C.), and the Satrapy of Babylonia // The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323-276 B.C.). Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

Wheatley P. The Lifespan of Demetrius Polioreetes // Historia. Bd. 46. Ht. 1. 1997.

Wheatley P. Antigonus Monophthalmus in Babylonia, 310-308 B.C. // JNES. Vol. 61. 2002.

page 48

Permanent link to this publication: