The article deals with the question of the validity of the use of the concept of "dominant ethnic class" by Charles Edson and P. Briand in the study of Seleucid society. The perception of the Seleucid state by its contemporaries as a Syrian kingdom, the absence of a tendency for the ruling dynasty to consider itself Macedonians, as well as the internal policy of the Seleucids towards their Eastern subjects prove that the social classes of the Seleucid period were multiethnic, and therefore it is not possible to consider the Greek-Macedonians as the dominant class in society.

Key words: dominant ethnic class, Seleucids, Macedonians.

Among experts on Hellenism, it is widely believed that the emergence of the Seleucid empire was marked by a complete break with Eastern polytheism.-

page 12
Alexander the Great and the consolidation of the dominant position of the Greek-Macedonian conquerors who enslaved the local population [Tarn, 1949, p. 133, 143; Edson, 1958, p. 156, 164; Bokshchanin, 1960, p. 138, 155; Will, 1966, p. 243; Preaux, 1978, p. 680; Bryant, 1978, p. 92; Koshelenko, 1979, p. 32, 49; Frye, 1984, p. 173; Levesque, 1989, p. 75; Marinovich, 1990, p. 90-91; Walbank, 1993, p. 14-15,63,65, 125]. Such an understanding of the nature of the Seleucid state could not but lead to the perception of the invaders as the dominant element in society. This view was quite clearly formulated in the article by Ch. Edson, who, however, avoided using the term "class" and preferred to refer to the Macedonians as "imperial" or "dominant people" [Edson, 1958, p. 156, 164]. Reasoning of Ch. Edson's research was based solely on terminology. Having raised the question of how the Seleucid empire was perceived by ancient and Byzantine authors, he came to the conclusion that its generally accepted and official designation as Macedonian can only be explained by the dominant role of the corresponding ethnic group [Edson, 1958, p. 164]. This approach was supported by F. A. Koshelenko, with the only difference being that the latter included the Greeks in the dominant ethnic group (Koshelenko, 1979, pp. 222-225).

The term "dominant ethnic class" owes its origin to P. Briant [Bryant, 1978, p. 92; Bryant, 1994, p. 461]. Unlike Ch. Edson Briand proceeded from an analysis of the social structure of Hellenistic states. In his opinion, the Greek-Macedonian conquest and colonization of the East led, on the one hand, to the establishment of socio - economic domination and political monopoly of the conquerors, their descendants and new Greek immigrants, and on the other-to the political disenfranchisement and helotization of the local population. The relations of domination and subordination were also reinforced by spatial segregation: the Greeks were mainly concentrated in the cities, and the natives in the countryside [Bryant, 1978, p. 82, 92]. Recently, S. V. Smirnov has been actively developing the theory of P. Briand on the basis of the Early Selevkid material [Smirnov, 2013, pp. 269-271; Smirnov, 2014(1), pp. 318-328; Smirnov, 2014(2), pp. 145-164].

Although the opinion that the Seleucids broke with Alexander's Eastern policy does not correspond to reality [Balakhvantsev, 2014(1), pp. 298-316], this cannot serve as a reason for automatically rejecting the concept of "dominant ethnic class" without a preliminary analysis of the arguments on which it is based. Let's start by analyzing the arguments of Ch. Edson's. He cites a large number of examples from Justin, Arrian, Herodian, Ammianus Marcellinus, Procopius of Caesarea, The Courts, Jerome, Syncellus, Anpian, Lucan, Strabo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Diodorus of Sicily, Memnon, Libanius, Tacitus, the Second Book of Maccabees, which, according to the researcher, prove that the Seleucid state was called the "power of the Macedonians".

However, the validity of such a straightforward approach raises serious doubts. First of all, Ch. Edson doesn't ask himself what was behind the word "Macedonian." Meanwhile, even under Antiochus II, one of his favorites, a native of Cyprus, was called Theos the Macedonian (Athen. VII. 289f). Due to the widespread practice of arming Eastern recruits in the Macedonian manner (Diod. XIX. 27. 6), when applied to the army, the appellative "Macedonian" began to mean only "a soldier armed according to the Macedonian model" [Bryant, 1973, p. 44; Koshelenko, 1979, p. 239, note. 70; Balakhvantsev, 2014, p. 304]. These facts support the conclusion of N. Secunda, according to which the ethnonym "Macedonian" in the Seleucid empire turned into a pseudo-ethnonym (Sekunda, 1994, p. 13).

In addition, the terminology used in the selected parts is The authors ' Edson model is not at all as unambiguous as it may seem. Indeed, Josephus calls the Seleucid state "the kingdom of the Syrians" (Joseph. AJ. XIII.253) or "the kingdom of Syria" (Joseph. AJ. XIII. 270). Justin constantly uses the appellative "Syriac"

page 13
applied to Kings Antiochus II Theos (Just. XXVII.1.1), Antiochus III the Great (Just. XXX. 1.4; XXXI. 1.1), Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Just. XXXIV.2.7), Demetrius II Nicator (Just. XXXVIII.9.1), Antiochus VII Sidetes (Just. XLII. 1.2), Antiochus XIII Asiaticus (Just. XL. 2. 2). Similarly, the" Syrian " throne is called (Just. XXXV 1.6; XXXVIII.9.3; XL. 1.4) and the Seleucid State (Just. XXXI.7.8; XXXII.2.1 ; XXXIV.3.8; XXXVI.1; XXXVI.1.7-8; XXXVIII.9.10; XXXIX.1.3, 2.1, 3.5, 5.4; XL.1.1). Jerome uses only the expression "kings of Syria" in reference to the Seleucids (Hieron. Comm. in Dan. 11.6-9 = Porph. FGH 260, F. 43), and to their state - " the kingdom of Syria "(Hieron. Comm. in Dan. 11.20-21 = Porph. FGH 260, F. 48-49). Only once in his work is the Seleucid garrison of Jerusalem called praesidio Macedonian - "Macedonian garrison" (Hieron. Comm. in Dan. 11.29-30 = Porph. FGH 260, F. 50), which indicates only the presence of Macedonian-armed soldiers in the fortress.

A very strange impression is made by the absence of Ch from the list. Edson's sources that came from the pen of contemporaries of the Seleucid empire are Polybius ' Histories (mid-second century BC) and the first two Books of the Maccabees (second half of the second - beginning of the first century BC) [Braginskaya and Shmaina-Velikanova, 2014, p.47]. Polybius sees the great Hellenistic powers as territorial kingdoms, each of which is named after its main region. Therefore, the Seleucids in his work are only kings of Syria (Polyb. V. 34. 6; X. 40. 7; XXVIII.1.3, 20.6; Fr. 154). Accordingly, the Seleucid state is called the "kingdom of Syria" or Syria (Polyb. II. 71. 4; III.5.3; IV.2.7, 48.5; XXXI. 11. 1, 12.9; XXXIX. 19. 5), their subjects, like the soldiers of the Seleucid army (Polyb. V. 85.10; X. 30.8), were Syrians (Polyb. XXXI. 20. 5; XXXIII. 19). Only once, When describing the parade held by Antiochus IV at Daphne, Polybius mentions Macedonians among the soldiers (Polyb. XXXI. 3. 5).

The authors of the First and Second Books of the Maccabees call the Seleucid state "the kingdom of the Hellenes" (I Mass. 1.10) or "the kingdom of Asia" (I Mass. 11.13, 12.39, 13.32). Although Alexander the Great is always called a Macedonian (I Mass. 1.1, 6.2), this appeal is never applied to the Seleucids: they are the kings of Asia (1 Mass. 8.6; II Mass. 3.3) or Syria (I Mass. 11.2). Accordingly, the Seleucid army is the " Syrian army "(I Mass. 7.39, 11.60), and the Seleucid general is the" Syrian general " (I Mass. 3.13). The only mention of Macedonians in the Seleucid empire refers only to the Seleucid soldiers (II Mass. 8.20).

Add epigraphic data to these narrative sources. A genealogical inscription from Miletus records the service of Antigonus, son of Menophilus, as navarch of "Alexander 1, King of Syria" (SEG XXXVII, 992). Similarly, the Seleucids are mentioned as kings of Syria in the Roman law of 101 BC (SEG L1, 1517).

Of course, Charles Edson was well aware of the tendency to refer to the Seleucid empire as Syria, but he did not attach much importance to this, considering that this name had no official or legal meaning [Edson, 1958, p. 165]. Other researchers, on the contrary, believe that such frequent definitions of the Seleucids by ancient authors as" kings of Syria " should be perceived as an expression of the dynasty's self-presentation [Ma, 1999, p. 8; Kosmin, 2014, p. 112]. However, it is impossible to agree with either point of view. In order to judge the official name of the Seleucid empire, and even more so how the ruling dynasty positioned itself, it is necessary to turn not to the literary tradition, but to sources that the kings themselves or their close associates participated in compiling.

The only time when the name of the tsar was accompanied by the ethnicon "Macedonian" in an official document was the dedication of a statue of Antiochus III on a pedestal.

1 Most likely, we are talking about Alexander I Bala (150-145 BC). Less likely is the candidacy of Alexander II Zabina (128-122 BC).

page 14
St. Peter the Great on Delos, erected by his ambassador Menippus c. 192 BC (OGIS 239). However, to properly understand this fact, it is necessary to take into account the historical context of this inscription. On the eve of the outbreak of war with Antiochus, the Romans launched a fierce propaganda campaign against him [Kosmin, 2014, p. 125], portraying the Seleucid king as an eastern despot trying to enslave the Hellenes (Liv. XXXIV.58.8-13, 59.4-5, XXXV.16.11). The ethnic argument also played an important role in Roman propaganda. Titus Quinctius Flamininus, one of the creators of Rome's Eastern policy at that time, mockingly declared that the soldiers of Antiochus were "Syrians, and therefore slaves rather than warriors" (Liv. XXXV.49.8; Plut. Mor. 197C - D, Flam. 17.5), which indirectly affected the king himself. Flaminin's words could not fail to find a response in the hearts of the Greeks: both because of the long-standing [Tod, 1951, N 79] and widespread practice of using Syriac slaves [Blavatsky, 1969, p. 39], and because the name "Sire" ("Sira") Since the time of Aristophanes (Ar. Pax 1146), it has become typical of slaves in the Attic comedy (Athen. IV. 137d, 176a; VII.290b, d). These accusations required an immediate response, which was given by Menippus in the form of a Delian dedication.

The action taken by the ambassador of Antiochus III had an exclusively external orientation and was addressed only to the Hellenes of the Aegis and the Balkan Peninsula. In a similar dedication from Pergamum (OGIS 240), Antiochus III is mentioned without an ethnicon. The Menippus inscription does not indicate the structure of Seleucid society, but only one, albeit very important episode of external politics. Naturally, this document can by no means serve as proof that in the Seleucid empire, the king and even more so the entire ruling class 2 declared themselves Macedonians.

The cylinder of Antiochus I Soter of Borsippa brings the final clarity to the issue under discussion. In this document, written in March 268 BC in Akkadian, the late father of Antiochus is referred to as "king, Macedonian 3, king of Babylon", but among the much longer titulature of Antiochus himself, the ethnicon "Macedonian" did not find a place [Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, 1991, p. 75-77]. This circumstance, with one exception [Kosmin, 2014, p. 113], has been ignored by researchers [Kuhrt and Sherwin - White, 1991, p. 83; Bryant, 1994, p. 459-463; Stevens, 2014, p. 76]. And yet, when studying the titulature of Antiochus, it is necessary to analyze not only what is in it and was thoroughly analyzed by K. Kropotkin. Stevens [2014, p. 72-77], but what is there-compared to Seleucus I-is not.

Noting the Macedonian origin of his father, Antiochus nevertheless did not declare himself a Macedonian. 4 The reason for this, apparently, may be this: unlike the Ptolemies, who liked to call themselves Macedonians (Paus. X.7.8), the king considered it politically harmful and unacceptable to emphasize his alienness in relation to the vast majority of his subjects. However, the presence of this motive in the actions of Antiochus does not agree with the assumption that in the Seleucid state the ruling class headed by the king was a certain cor-

2 One of the officials of Antiochus III, Zeuxides son of Cynagus, is called "Macedonian" in an inscription from Amizon (OGIS 235), but the dedication from Pergamum (OGIS 236) does not contain this appeal.

3 Attempts to interpret this part of Seleucus 'title as" king of the Macedonians " [Stevens, 2014, p. 76, p. 52 (with previous literature)] cannot be recognized as successful. Not only is there no plural indicator in Makkadunaya [Bryant, 1994, p. 461-462], but above all, such a reading would detract from the royal dignity of Antiochus I, clearly indicating that he lost the power over the Macedonians that his father possessed. Meanwhile, the tradition of royal inscriptions in the East, under the influence of which the cylinder of Antiochus was created [Stevens, 2014, p. 72-75], did not allow references to the fall of previously conquered countries or peoples [Balakhvantsev, 2006, p.367].

4 This is in sharp contrast to the behavior of Darius I, who claimed in inscriptions from Naqsh-i Rustam (DNa 13-15) and Suz (DSc 12-14) that he was "a Persian, the son of a Persian, an Aryan, from the Aryan family" (Kent, 1953, p. 137-138, 141-142; Lecoq, 1997, p. 170, 219, 232].

page 15
According to the Macedonians, concealing the existence of such an association or corps (Bryant, 1978, p. 92) would not only be impossible, but also pointless.

Thus, the material discussed above once again confirms E. Bickerman's conclusion that there was no official name for the Seleucid state [Bickerman, 1985, p.8]. Despite this, contemporaries preferred to call the Seleucid empire the Syrian kingdom. Although the appellative "Macedonian" had a high prestige, 5 the terminology of sources does not give reason to consider the Macedonians the dominant people in the Seleucid Empire.

Now let us turn to the features of socio-economic and political relations in the Seleucid society, which, according to P. Briand and S. V. Smirnov, allow us to postulate the presence of social categories distinguished by nationality [Smirnov, 2014(2), p. 146]. Let's start with the socio-economic situation of Greek-Macedonians and Easterners. I have already written about the existence of deep property and social inequality among the descendants of the conquerors, which forced some of them to go abroad in search of earnings or become dependent on clients [Balakhvantsev, 2014 (1), p.310]. The size of their land plots (clerks) did not allow them to place any local residents there and, accordingly, exploit them. This is evidenced by the Babylonian astronomical diary for 163 BC, which noted that when the Hellenic citizens of Babylon (Polites) went out of the city to perform agricultural work, 6 they took their women and their laborers with them.7 The participation of the owners of the clerks, together with their family members, in the cultivation of the land proves the comparatively small size of their farms.

The composition of local residents was equally heterogeneous. Thus, in Asia Minor, sources record both the presence of tsarist people attached to the land (λαοι βασιλικοι) and the free peasantry (Golubtsova, 1969, p.145, 181). The decree of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of 261/260 BC notes the presence of free commoners in the territories of Syria and Phoenicia captured by the Lagids and prohibits buying them and taking them as collateral [Ranovich, 1950, p. 159; Zelin, 1960, p.142-143; Pavlovskaya, 1969, p. 230-235]. Clearly, the Medes Sarapion, son of Demetrius [Balakhvantsev, 2014(1), p.312] and Orontes 8, released in Locrida Ozolskaya in 140/139 BC [Blavatsky, 1969, p. 31, 65] did not belong to the number of λαοι βασιλικοι. Thus, the thesis about the transformation of the local population into a mass of disenfranchised Helots, forced to work in the farms of the conquerors, distorts a much more complex picture of social relations in the Seleucid state.

It was not only the Greek-Macedonians who had the right to exploit λαοι. Antiochus II's gift of cultivated land to his wife Laodice and their sons, followed by the addition of these possessions to the territories of Babylon, Borsippa, and Kuta, as in the case of the sale of lands in Asia Minor to Laodice (OGIS 225), meant that together with the land of

5 Otherwise, it would be difficult to understand why the Cypriot Themison would call himself a Macedonian (Athcn. VII. 2890-

6 If we take into account that all this happened in the fifth month (Abu, August 10, September 9) according to the Babylonian calendar, on the eve of the beginning of plowing and sowing of winter crops, it is extremely difficult to find another reason for their mass exodus to the rural district.

7 See [Sachs and Hunger, 1996, No. 162, Rev. 11]. An attempt to translate lu ERIN mes-su-nu as "their troops" [Van der Spek, 2009, p. III, n. 50] and see here the story of the Babylonian revolt against the Hellenes [Ibid.; Smirnov, 2014(2), pp. 160-161] cannot be considered successful, since It is based on random recovery of lost places.

8 Of course, any forced farmer could have been enslaved by external enemies, but the passage of a slave from Media captured by the Parthians in 148/147 BC to Balkan Greece seems improbable. Most likely, Orontes served in the Seleucid army and, like the future participants of the First Sicilian Slave Revolt, was captured during one of the wars in the reign of Demetrius I or Alexander 1 in 150-140 BC.

page 16
The λαοι were also transferred, which eventually became an object of exploitation by the civil temple community of Babylon (Sarkisyan, 1953, pp. 66-67, 72-73). It is unlikely that it would be too risky to assume the use of labor-along with slaves and tenants (Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1980, p. 144-149) - on the estates of the Iranian and Babylonian nobility.

Turning to the analysis of the state of affairs in the political sphere, one should immediately strongly object to the statements about the political monopoly of the Greek-Macedonians, which was manifested in their occupation of all leading positions in the army, at the court, and in the regional administration [Bryant, 1978, p. 92; Smirnov, 2014 (1), p. 318; Smirnov, 2014 (2), p. 147]. It is known that representatives of the eastern - primarily Iranian-nobility (Aribaz, Anuuballit-Nikarch, Anuuballit-Kefalon, Artaxy, Zariadr, Gispaosin, Ptolemy, Ardaya, Dionysius) they were at the head of the Seleucid satrapies and cities. In 217 BC, during the Battle of Raffia, the Median Aspasian commanded a corps consisting of five thousand Iranians [Balakhvantsev, 2014(1), pp. 306-307]. Local residents were even more massively represented at the lower levels of the state apparatus [Balakhvantsev, 2014(2), pp. 93-94]. It should be emphasized that the joint service of the Hellenes and" barbarians " did not imply a privileged position of the former and a belittled position of the latter. Thus, Cephisodorus, strategist of Til (Bahrain) and the Persian Gulf Islands, who dedicated the temple of the Dioscuri for King Gispaosin and Queen Thalassus (Galier, Lombard, al-Sindi, 2002, p. 223-226; Kosmin, 2013, p. 62), was most likely a subordinate of Gispaosin even when the latter was not a member of the Dioscuri family. the Seleucid viceroy of Charaena. Recognition of the fact of integration of local elites into the dominant ethnic class [Smirnov, 2014(1), p. 324; Smirnov, 2014(2), pp. 147-148] deprives this socio-political category of even a shadow of ethnicity.

No more convincing is the thesis about the existence of ethnic segregation in the military settlements and polis of the Seleucid state [Smirnov, 2014(1), pp. 326-327; Smirnov, 2014 (2), p. 157] or even "apartheid" in Babylon [Van der Spek, 2009, p. 107]. First, spatial segregation existed within the Greek-Macedonians themselves. This is evidenced by the consistent separation of the citadel or palace from the quarters of ordinary citizens in Seleucid cities [Kosmin, 2014, p. 200-203]. Secondly, the chasm between the Hellenes and barbarians, dug by the efforts of a number of researchers, was actually not so impassable. This is proved by the widespread practice of interethnic marriages and the appearance of native speakers of Greek names in the Eastern language environment [Balakhvantsev, 2014(1), p. 311-312; Balakhvantsev, 2014(2), p. 93].

In particular, the influence of Greek ceramics on the formation of the Central Asian ceramic complex of the Hellenistic era speaks about everyday contacts between Hellenic immigrants and residents of the East [Bolelov, 2014, p. 65] (with previous literature). Finally, it is necessary to emphasize once again the importance of the penetration of representatives of the peoples of the East not only beyond the walls of the Hellenic city, but also into the civil collective [Balakhvantsev, 2014(1), pp. 308-309; Smirnov, 2014(2), p.159]. Thus, in the first century AD, three quarters of Antioch, the former capital of the Seleucid empire, bore Iranian names (SEG XXXV, 1483) after their original owners (Feissel, 1985, p. 100-102; Kosmin, 2014, p. 206). Among them, a special interest is caused by the gymnasiarch Pharnak, who did not just become a resident of the capital city.-

9 I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the attempt to see evidence of segregation in the requirement for a slave seller to guarantee that the sold person does not serve in the royal cavalry or chariot troops (Smirnov, 2013, p.242) is a clear misunderstanding. The expansion of the guarantee formula in contracts for the sale of slaves took place as early as the Achaemenid period [Dandamaev, 1974, p.112] and clearly indicates the extremely poor situation of holders of military allotments "horse, chariot", etc., who were ready to go even to fraud, allowing a fake sale of themselves into slavery in order to deceive the buyer.

page 17
yes, but he received civil morals and even took one of the most important city posts related to the education of young people in the Hellenic spirit [Koshelenko, 1979, p. 290].

Thus, the available data show that the ethnic and social divisions in Seleucid society did not coincide, and the classes that made up it were polyethnic in their composition. All this does not allow us to consider the Greek-Macedonians as the dominant social class, and also to use the very concept of "dominant ethnic class" when studying the social structure of the Seleucid state.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

FGH - Fragmente der griechischen Historiker / Hrsg. von F. Jacoby. Berlin Leiden, 1923.

OGIS - Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Leipzig: apud S. Hirzel, 1903-1905.

SEG - Supplementum Epigraphicum Graeeum. Leiden.

list of literature

Balakhvantsev A. S. K voprosu o vremya otpadeniya Khorezma ot derzhavy Akhemenidov: istochnikovedcheskiy aspekt [On the question of the time of the fall of Khorezm from the Achaemenid Empire: a source study aspect]. Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeliya Rossiiskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, vol. II, St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2006.

Balakhvantsev A. S. The Eastern Policy of Alexander the Great and the Seleucids: a gap or Continuity? // The oldest states of Eastern Europe. 2012: Problems of Hellenism and Education of the Bosporan Kingdom, Moscow, 2014(1).
Balakhvantsev A. S. A new inscription from Takhti-Sangin and some problems of Eastern Hellenism// Russian archeology. 2014(2). N 4.

Bikerman E. The Seleucid State, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985.
Blavatskaya T. V. Iz istorii rabovladeniya v severo-zapadnykh zemli Greke [From the history of slave ownership in the North-Western lands of Greece]. Rabstvo v hellenisticheskikh gosudarstv v III-I vv. B.C. Moscow: Nauka, 1969.

Bokshchanin A. G. Parthia i Rim. Ch. I. M.: MSU Publishing House, 1960.

Bolelov S. B. Zametki o baktriiskoi keramike (k voprosu o datirovke liteynoi formy bronzovogo kotla iz Khrama Oksa, Takhti-Sangin) [Notes on Bactrian ceramics (on the issue of dating the foundry form of a bronze cauldron from the Oxa Temple, Takhti-Sangin)]. 2014. N 4.

Braginskaya N. V., Shmaina-Velikanova A. I. Introduction 11. Two different books about the same events / / Four Books of the Maccabees, Moscow: Mosty kul'tury / Gesharim, 2014.

Rabstvo v hellenisticheskikh gosudarstvov v III-I vv. B.C. Rabstvo i zavisimost ' v hellenisticheskoi Maloi Azii [Slavery and dependence in Hellenistic Asia Minor].

Dandamaev M. A. Rabstvo v Vavilonii VII-IV vv. B.C. (626-331 gg.) [Slavery in Babylonia of the VII-IV centuries B.C. (626-331 gg.)]. Moscow: Nauka, 1974.

Dandamaev M. A., Lukonin V. G. Kul'tura i ekonomika drevnego Irana [Culture and Economy of ancient Iran]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980.

Selin K. K. studies on the history of land relations in Hellenistic Egypt, the II-I centuries B. C. M.: Izd-vo an SSSR, 1960.

Koshelenko G. A. Grecheskiy polis na hellenisticheskom Vostoke [Greek Polis in the Hellenistic East]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1979.

Leveque P. Hellenistic world / Translated from French. Moscow: Nauka, 1989.

Marinovich L. P. Aleksandar Makedonskiy i stanovlenie hellenizma [Alexander the Great and the Formation of Hellenism].
Rabstvo v hellenisticheskikh gosudarstvov v III-I vv. b.c. Rabstvo v hellenisticheskikh gosudarstv v III-I vv. b.c. Rabstvo v hellenisticheskom Egipte [Slavery in Hellenistic Egypt].

Ranovich A. B. Hellenism and its historical role. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.

O gorodskoy zemlem v Seleukidskoy Vavilonii [On urban land in Seleucid Babylonia]. Vestnik drevnoi istorii, Moscow, 1953, No. 1.

Smirnov S. V. The State of Seleucus I (politics, Economy, Society), Moscow: Dmitry Pozharsky University, 2013.

Smirnov S. V. "The dominant ethnoclass" in the Seleucid state under Seleucus I and Antiochus I: main problems // The oldest states of Eastern Europe. 2012: Problems of Hellenism and the formation of the Bosporan Kingdom, Moscow, 2014(1).
Smirnov S. V. "Svoi" i "chuzhye"["Friends" and "strangers"]. To the question of the relationship between the "dominant ethnic class" and local elites in Seleucid Babylonia / / Civilization and Barbarism: mechanisms, tools and subjects of interaction. Issue III. Moscow: Akvilon Publ., 2014 (2).

Tarn V. Hellenistic Civilization / Translated from English, Moscow: Foreign Literature Publishing House, 1949.

10 Pharnaces ' migration to Antioch may have occurred between the city's founding in 300 BC and its last expansion under Antiochus IV (Strab. XVI. 2. 4).

page 18
Briant P. D'Alexandre le Grand aux diadoques: le cas d'Eumenc de Kardia (suite et fin) // Revue des Eludes Anciennes. 1973. T. 75.

Briant P. Colonisation hellenistique et populations indigenes. La phase d'installation// Klio. 1978. Bd. 60(1).

Briant P. De Samarkand a Sardes cl de la ville de Suse au pays des Hanecns // Topoi. Orient-Occident. 1994. Vol. 4(2).

Edson Ch. Imperium Macedonicum: The Sclcucid Empire and the Literary Evidence // Classical Philology. 1958. Vol. 53 (3).

Feissel D. Deux listes de quartiers d'Antiochc astreints au creusement d'un canal, 73-74 apres J.C. // Syria. Revue d'art oriental et d'archeologie. 1985. T. 62.

Frye R.N. The History of Ancient Iran. Munchen: С.H. Beek'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1984.

Gatier P.L., Lombard P., al-Sindi Kh.M. Greek Inscriptions from Bahrain // Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy. 2002. Vol. 13.

Kent R.G. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1953.

Kosmin P. Rethinking the Hellenistic Gulf: the New Greek Inscription from Bahrain // Journal of Hellenic-Studies. 2013. Vol. 133.

Kosmin P. The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge, Mass.; L.: Harvard University Press, 2014.

Kuhrt A., Sherwin-White S. Aspects of Seleucid Royal Ideology: The Cylinder ol'Antiochus I from Borsippa // Journal of Hellenic Studies. 1991. Vol. III.

Lecoq P. Les inscriptions de la Perse achemenide. P.: Gallimard, 1997.

Preaux С. Le monde hellenistique: la Grece et l'Orient (323-146 av. J.-C.). P.: Presses Universitaires de France, 1978.

Sachs A.J., Hunger H. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. III. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischcn Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996.

Sekunda N. Seleucid and Ptolemaic Reformed Armies 168-145 ВС. Vol. 1. Dewsbery: Montvert Publications, 1994.

Spek R.J. van der. Multi-ethnicity and ethnic segregation in Hellenistic Babylon // Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition. Amsterdam: University Press, 2009.

Stevens K. The Antiochus Cylinder, Babylonian Scholarship and Seleucid Imperial Ideology// Journal of Hellenic Studies. 2014. Vol. 134.

Tod M.N. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

Walbank F.W. The Hellenistic World. L.: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Will E. Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av. J.-C.). T. 1. Nancy: Publ. par la Faculte des letters et des sciences humaines de l'Univ. de Nancy, 1966.

page 19

Permanent link to this publication: