X. The Ethnic “Babylon Ian”

THE ETHNIC “BABYLON IAN”

IG XII.5 715 ( = I. Estremo Oriente 99) is an inscription from the island of Andros. It records a decree of Andros that honors a certain Dromon son of Phanodemos, a Βαβυλώνιος, and is dated palaeographically to the third century B.C.1 In studying this inscription some scholars have generally— and understandably—assumed that Dromon was from Bab ylon, i.e., the city. But was Dromon necessarily from Babylon? In other words, does the term “Babylonian” as used in the inscription indicate that Dromon was (a) from the city of Babylon, (b) the region of Babylonia, or (c) the city of Seleukeia on the Tigris? In fact, on this question, opinions vary. Susan Sherwin-White, following G. Le Rider, believed it was used as a city ethnic for Babylon. Tarn, on the other hand, assumed it meant that Dromon was a Seleukeian, i.e., that the term was used as a city ethnic for Seleukeia on the Tigris.²

If Dromon was, in fact, from Babylon we would have evidence to support the contention that in the third century B.C. (a) there was a Greek community in Babylon, and (b) the city still retained its old name. I should, therefore, like to consider whether or not the Andrian inscription definitely indicates Dromon was from the city of Babylon.

When Seleukos I Nikator founded Seleukeia on the Tigris he transferred to it settlers from Babylon (Paus. 1.16.3).3 Strabo (16.1.16), writing in the late first century B.C./early first century A.D., said that Seleukeia had replaced Babylon as the “metropolis of Assyria.” By the mid-first century A.D. Pliny described Babylon as “deserted” (NH 6.122).⁴

Along with a number of other scholars, Tarn assumed that Antiochos IV Epiphanes founded Babylon as a “Greek city.” The major support for this position was OGIS 253, an inscription dated to 167/6 B.C. by the Seleucid calendar, 166/5 by the Babylonian (l. 3) and that mentions (l. 8) the Seleucid era 144 (i.e., 169/8 B.C.); it records a dedication that reads, in part: Βασιλεύοντος Ἀντιόχου θ[εοῦ Ἐπιφανοῦς] | σωτῆρος τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ κτίσ[του καὶ εὐεργέτου] | τῆς πόλεως; and further on it specifically mentions the dedication to θεῶι Ἐπιφαν[εῖ].⁵ The assumption had been that this inscription came from Babylon. In fact, as Sherwin-White pointed out, its provenience is not known. As a result, one cannot use the dedication to support the claim that Epiphanes founded a settlement at Babylon. Having disposed of the support for Antiochos IV as founder of a settlement at Babylon, Sherwin-White pointed to various indications of a Greek presence at Babylon in the third century B.C., among them the theater, an ostracon with Greek names dated palaeographically to the third century B.C., and IG XII.5 715, the Andrian inscription.⁶ Furthermore, Sherwin-White correctly noted that since the decree from Andros is a public document, we should expect that Βαβυλώνιος is used here as the ethnic of a city. However, there is a problem with the term “Babylonian.” Let us briefly review the pertinent evidence.

Pliny (NH 6.122; see also 212) says that Seleukeia on the Tigris “tamen Babylonia cognominatur.” Strabo remarked (16.1.16): ὥσπερ δὲ Βαβυλωνίαν τὴν χώραν καλοῦμεν, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας τοὺς ἐκεῖθεν Βαβυλωνίους καλοῦμεν, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως, ἀλλ ̓ ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας. ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Σελευκείας ἧττον, κἂν ἐκεῖθεν ὦσι, καθάπερ Διογένη τὸν Στωικὸν φιλόσοφον (“And as we call the country Babylonia, so also we call the men from there Babylonians, that is, not after the city, but after the country; but we do not call men after Seleuceia, if they are from there, as, for example, Diogenes the Stoic philosopher,” trans. Jones). Strabo’s observation that Diogenes the Stoic, although from Seleukeia, was often called “the Babylonian” was echoed by other authors: for example, Cicero De nat. deorum 1.41, De officiis 3.51; see also Diogenes Laertius 6.81: στωικός, γένος Σελευκεύς, ὁ καὶ Βαβυλώνιος καλούμενος διὰ τὴν γειτονίαν; cf. Athen. 5.211b: Διογένης . . . τὸ μὲν γένος ἦν ἐκ Σελευκείας τῆς ἐν Βαβυλωνίᾳ; Stephanos s.v. “Babylon”: Σελεύκεια καλουμένη; Eustathius Comment. 1005 ( = GGM 2.390): ῞Ετεροι δὲ Σελεύκειάν ποτε καλεῖσθαι τὴν τοιαύτην Βαβυλῶνά φασι; George Cedrenus 292.

Essentially, two explanations are given in the ancient literature for the fact that Seleukeia was surnamed “Babylonian”: (1) According to Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes the Stoic was called “the Babylonian” because Seleukeia was near Babylon. (2) Strabo says that people from the region of Babylonia were called Babylonians, i.e., they were called after the region rather than the city. Hence, according to him, Diogenes the Stoic, who was from Seleukeia (which was in Babylonia) was known as “the Babylonian” rather than as “the Seleukeian.” Confirmation that Strabo used the term “Babylonian” to refer to a region rather than as an ethnic for a city can be seen by considering the way he describes Seleukos the astronomer, who was from Seleukeia. The question is: which Seleukeia? In the past scholars have often assumed the latter was from Seleukeia on the Tigris or from Babylon.7 Strabo refers three times to the astronomer: (a) Σέλευκος ὁ Βαβυλώνιος (1.1.9), (b) Σέλευκος δ᾽ ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς Σελευκείας and Χαλδαῖος (16.1.6), (c) Σέλευκος ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάττης (3.5.9). In addition, Stobaios (1.21.3a, ed. Wachsmuth and Hense) calls him Σέλευκος ὁ Ἐρυθραῖος. In short, as Franz Cumont has convincingly demonstrated, Seleukos the astronomer was from Seleukeia on the Erythraean Sea, not from Seleukeia on the Tigris.⁸ Furthermore, Strabo’s mention of Seleukos as ὁ Βαβυλώνιος—like his characterization of Diogenes the Stoic—refers to the region, not to the city.

One last item remains to be considered: How early is the evidence for the use of the term “Babylonian” to refer to the region? The earliest attested literary citation for referring to people from Seleukeia as “Babylonians” is found in Cicero, who dates from the mid-first century B.C. However, the evidence may go back earlier. Strabo lived in the late first century B.C./ early first century A.D. Yet the attestation for Strabo’s use of the ethnic “Babylonian” may actually date from an earlier period, depending on the date for his source. For example, the astronomer Hipparchus, whom Strabo cites in his reference to “Seleukos the Babylonian” (1.1.9), lived in the latter part of the second century B.C. Eratosthenes and Posidonius, two of the authors on whom Strabo often relied and who were his sources of information for his discussion about naphtha in Babylonia (16.1.15), lived, respectively c. 275–194 B.C. and c. 135–c. 50 B.C. Eratosthenes in turn frequently used the work of Polyclitus of Larissa, who lived in the late fourth century B.C.; the latter is also mentioned by Strabo (16.1.13) in his discussion of the Euphrates.

Finally, Sherwin-White suggested that in Greek public documents the ethnic that one was likely to encounter was the city (rather than the regional) ethnic.9 Not always. Regional ethnics are occasionally found in public documents. For example, in Europe, inhabitants of Hellenistic Thessalonike frequently called themselves “Macedonians.”¹⁰ Furthermore, as one proceeds east references to persons by regional ethnics in Delian and Delphic public documents are not uncommon. For example, a Delphic proxenos decree honored Asklepiades, a Phoenician (SGDI 2589), and documents from Delos refer to Sosikrates (I. Delos 2598.27), Theokritos (IG XI.4 591.3), and Xenodemos (IG XI.4 633.3–4), all Syrians, as well as Hyspsianos, a Bactrian (I. Delos 442.B.108, 1432.AII.27). Of course, city ethnics for Syrian and Phoenician and even Babylonian individuals are also be found in Delphic, Delian, and other public documents; thus, for example, Antioch and Laodikeia (presumably the Syrian cities), Sidon, Tyre, Beirut (I. Delos, 2598), and Seleukeia on the Tigris (I. Delos 2429 and 2445; see also Klee, Gymnischen Agone 16 [Kos, 182–178 B.C.] and EAD 30:292 [second/first century B.C.]).¹¹ However, the appearance of multiple examples of regional ethnics is significant. For purposes of this brief investigation, it removes one further support for the argument that in IG XII.5 715 “Babylonian” should be read as a city ethnic.

In short, the appearance of the term “Babylonian” in IG XII.5 715 may refer to the city of Babylon. However, it is also possible it refers to the region of Babylonia. If the latter is the case then we must remove IG XII.5 715 from the body of definite evidence available to us for reconstructing the history of Hellenistic Babylon.

1. For the dating see Hiller von Gaertringen ad IG XII.5 715; Sherwin-White suggested it probably was from the second half of the century (ZPE 47 [1982] 68).

2. See, for example, Le Rider, Suse 37 n. 3; see also Sherwin-White, (above, n. 1); Tarn, GBI² 15 and n. 8: “Seleuceia was sometimes called Babylon and Seleucians more often than not were called Babylonians; indeed a Greek called a ‘Babylonian’ generally means a Seleucian. . . . Prior to Antiochus IV a Greek called a Babylonian must, it would seem, be a Seleucian, like Dromon son of Phanοdemus at Andros in the third century.”

3. A Babylonian cuneiform text that records events in the reign of Antiochos I had been understood to indicate that in 274 B.C. the king transferred Babylonians to Seleukeia. However, recently R. J. van der Spek has argued that the text deals with the sending of an embassy of Babylonian members of the Temple Council, three days after “messages of the king form [sic] Sardis arrived”; see BABYLON, n. 2.

4. For Babylon continuing as a religious and cultural center in the Hellenistic period and beyond (until the mid-third century A.D.)—despite Pliny’s claim—see BABYLON and n. 16.

5. On OGIS 253 ( = I. Estremo Oriente 103 = Euphrat 509) see the improved text of M. Zambelli, Riv. fil. 88 (1960) 363–98, esp. 374–80; J. Robert and L. Robert, BE (1962) 321; J. G. Bunge, Chiron 6 (1976) 58–62; Sherwin-White, ZPE 47 (1982) 64–66; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 157.

6. For the ostracon see Sherwin-White (ZPE 47 [1982] 54-64; see earlier, bibliography and editions on p. 54).

7. See, for example, Gossen, RE s.v. “Seleukos 38”; Heath, OCD1 and OCD2 s.v. “Seleucus 5” (corrected by G. J. Toomer in the third edition of the OCD).

8. Syria 8 (1927) 83–84; see also Biffi, Strabone 143; and Radt, Kommentar 8:270.

9. ZPE 47 (1982) 68.

10. For Thessalonike see, for example, C. Michel, Recueil 389.13, 34 (cf. 322); see also W. Dittenberger, Sylloge3 492; IG IX.2 367; IG X.2[1] 1031; and FD III.1 577.

We may also note the case of Alexandreia Troas. During the Hellenistic period the ethnic for Alexandreia Troas was Ἀλεξανδρεύς (e.g., Bellinger, Troy: The Coins; Supplementary Monograph 2, p. 91, no. A123ff.). In the Imperial period, however, the toponym is often found as Τρωάς (e.g., BCH 15 [1891] 449; Acts 16:8, 11; 20:5–6; 2 Corinthians 12:2; 2 Timothy 4:13. See also Ruge, RE s.v. “Troas,” 583–84; L. Robert, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec 296 n. 2; id., Hellenica 2 [1946] 67–68; Habicht’s commentary on I. Pergamon VIII.3 74) and the ethnic as Ἀλεξανδρεὺς ἐκ τᾶς Τρωιάδος (Syll.3 585.44), Τρὼς ἀπὸ Ἀλεξανδρείας (Syll.3 585.40), Αἰολεὺς ἀπ᾽ Ἀλεξανδρείας (BCH 59 [1935] 56, no. 2, l. 35), and Τρωαδεύς (FD III.1 551.26–27; I. Pergamon VIII.3 74), which succeeded Τρὼς ἀπὸ Ἀλεξανδρείας.

11. Persons from Seleukeia on the Tigris are also mentioned in inscriptions as agonistic victors or residents at Lebedeia in Boeotia (S. N . Koumanoudes, AD 26 [1971] 36 [second/ first century B.C.]), Rhodes (C. P. Jones, Tyche 7 [1992] 124, l. A.16 [second/first century B.C.]), Athens (C. Habicht and S. V. Tracy, Hesperia 60 [1991] 188 [ = SEG 41:115], col. I.6 [170/69 B.C.]), and Olympia (Eusebius, Chron. I [ed. Schoene, 1875] 212 [100 B.C.]).