This book is likely to be controversial. It reflects a view on how ancient economic history could be written that is probably not shared by the majority of scholars. It also ventures across a number of disciplines, where those more knowledgeable than I am may well find fault with my methods.

The book is influenced by several factors. It reflects an original training in engineering, where I was taught two things well: mathematics and how to go about analysing a problem from first principles. A career followed in the computer-software business, where I learned that the logical approach of systems analysis can also be put to good use in the field of ancient history. A side benefit is that the ability to actually program a computer certainly gives one greater freedom in exploring problems.

The study of ancient history had occupied me for many years, and when I received formal training, it was at the hands of excellent teachers at University College London. This resulted in a Ph.D. in February 2000 and the dissertation on which this book is based. Amélie Kuhrt, my main supervisor, first interested me in the Seleukids, but it was, more importantly, the influence of her teaching of the history of the ancient Near East that decided me to embark upon a study of the Seleukid empire as, in many ways, a continuation of its predecessors in the region. Amélie painstakingly read and corrected my work and continuously added to my knowledge as I progressed.

The finances and financial administration of the Seleukid empire have usually been considered only briefly in general surveys of the Seleukids or the Hellenistic world. Some attention has, however, been given to the subject in more specialized works dealing with Seleukid institutions, society and economy.

There is a great deal that is unclear. How did the Seleukid kings derive their revenue? On what subject populations and activities were tribute and taxes assessed and what forms did these take? Was the system generalized or was it adapted to the specific conditions of each region? How large was the resulting income for the kings? What other incomes accrued to them? In what way did the kings exploit the land and the natural resources of their empire? What role was played by the new city foundations and the temples? Why were land grants made? What expenses were incurred by the Seleukids to run their empire? What was the purpose of coinage in the economy and what considerations determined the denominations minted and the levels of production at different mints? What was the organization that managed the finances of the empire and of the kings personally? And what was the bottom line? Was this a wealthy empire or did it live a hand-to-mouth existence, which developed into an acute financial crisis following its defeat by Rome at Magnesia (190 bc)? Finally, how did the Seleukid state compare, in the way it ran its economy, with a modern one?

In previous chapters a case was made for a Seleukid royal economy whose different elements – the foundation and support of cities, the policy concerning royal land and its produce, the system of tribute and taxation, and the manner in which coinage was used – were planned in such a way so as to ensure for the kings an increase in their revenue, primarily that in silver. What was required was an efficient system to collect this revenue.

In this chapter the rather limited evidence is examined in an attempt to produce an outline and assessment of the Seleukid system of financial administration.

To begin with, it will be necessary to review what one knows of the Achaemenid system and any changes introduced by Alexander. Administrative practices throughout history have been relatively insensitive to political change, as new masters are reluctant to replace something that works well, as long as they continue to benefit, just as their predecessors did before them. In principle, therefore, one would expect some continuity from the Achaemenids to the Seleukids (and, indeed, the Ptolemies), since the underlying problems of empire remained essentially the same and the method of administration had proved itself over two centuries. While this is likely to be true, it has been more of an assumption than a proven fact.

Fortunately one can make use of a so far underutilized source, the Persepolis Fortification Texts (ch. 1.4b), which provide many details of Achaemenid administration.

In this chapter the regular sources of income of the Seleukid kings are identified and, wherever possible, the manner in which these were tapped, with the description of the satrapal economy in ps.-Aristotle's Oikonomika (ch. 7) serving as a useful guide. Following this, various cases of ad hoc revenue generation are discussed. The question of what form the revenue mainly took, whether in silver or commodities, is also addressed, but the assessment of the total level of revenue at different times is left to chapter 12.

REVENUE FROM LAND

In the overwhelmingly agricultural economies of the ancient Near East, taxation of land and its produce was a major source of revenue for ruling powers.

Two well-known inscriptions of the third century bc are the starting point when trying to determine the manner in which revenue was generated by the Seleukid administration from royal and tributary land and land grants. This is followed by a study of inscriptions relating to the taxation of city and temple land.

The Mnesimachos inscription (Document 5)

Mnesimachos listed the land grants he had received from Antigonos (Monophthalmos) and the annual tribute (phoros) assessed on each.

That is how ps.-Aristotle reduced the king's coinage problem to its essentials. But one might also add ‘and where and why’. Or, in other words, what was the Seleukid coinage policy and how was it administered?

It has been suggested, as a hypothesis (ch. 3), that the kings' primary objective was to ensure an adequate supply of coined money from tribute and taxation with which to meet military and administrative expenses.

The first task will be to examine what the Seleukids actually coined, the mints and their production. Here Newell's two catalogues are invaluable, although they reach only to the reign of Antiochos III and new issues have been added and new attributions made since then. The picture has somewhat changed and a revised and much more extensive catalogue has now been published. Mørkholm has also contributed a detailed analysis of the coinage of Antiochos IV, while a number of articles deal with the production of specific mints or issues and will be referred to where appropriate.

Next I shall consider the different categories of coinage and their uses and it will become apparent that the silver tetradrachm was by far the most important denomination.

Finally, the circulation of tetradrachms within the empire will be studied, based on hoard and die evidence, and a picture should hopefully emerge of Seleukid coinage policy and its application.

In chapter 7.1b on the Oikonomika it was suggested that the second and third aspects of the royal economy represented the interaction between this and the other types of economy in terms of goods and silver that crossed their respective boundaries in either direction. Although the terms εἰσαγώγιμα (eisagōgima) and ἐξαγώγιμα (exagōgima) can indeed denote imports and exports in the modern sense, of a Greek polis for instance, here the meaning is more specific. It concerns the management of the surplus collected by the king from tribute and taxation and the natural resources he controlled. It includes items transported even within a province to and from royal land, treasuries and storehouses.

Fortunately there is a source which can show how the management of surplus was handled in detail at some point in time and place in the Achaemenid empire. This may help to illuminate several Hellenistic-period texts and Seleukid administrative practice.

EVIDENCE FROM THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE

Surplus, exchange and price in the Persepolis Fortification Texts

It will be recalled (ch. 1.4b) that the Persepolis Fortification Texts of the time of Darius I deal with the movement of commodities to and from storehouses in an administrative area centred on Persepolis, which probably coincided with the later Seleukid satrapy of Persis.

The main regular expenses of the empire concerned the maintenance of armed forces and satrapal administration and the upkeep of king and court. Ad hoc expenditure aided the kings' foreign and domestic policies and included the funding of city construction, grants of tribute and taxation relief and gifts to cities, temples and individuals. And one should not forget losses suffered in war, in particular the Roman indemnity after Magnesia.

Expenditure was incurred both in silver and in kind and my theme has been that, increasingly, it took the form of silver, as this was what its major destination, the Seleukid armed forces, required. An attempt will be made in chapter 12.4 to estimate total expenditure.

MILITARY EXPENSES

No figures are given in the sources for the military costs of the Seleukids at any time and yet, as will be seen below, this represented the major expense item of the royal economy. This was a ‘spear-won’ empire, retaining its hold on the land, as its predecessors had done in the Near East, primarily through the threat and application of military force. An army was maintained in order to exact tribute and fed off the process of this tribute.

THE SOLVING OF A PROBLEM

Although the source material concerning the Seleukid empire is quite sparse, it proves sufficient, particularly when different genres of evidence are combined, to enable one to form at least an outline picture of the royal economy and its relationship to the underlying economy. In previous chapters conclusions have been presented on the policies of the Seleukid kings and their implementation with regard to land, revenue, surpluses, expenditure and coinage and on their system of financial administration, none of which will be repeated here.

What will be considered instead is whether the problem posed in chapter 3 was indeed solved. It was stated there, as a hypothesis, that Seleukos I had need of silver, with which to face the predominantly monetary expenses of a Hellenistic king. His task was to transform the mainly commodity-based economy of his empire into a monetary one, from which to extract as much silver revenue as possible. In order to achieve this, he apparently took certain measures, which are nowhere stated explicitly in some royal decree, but can be surmised from their effects.

City-building on an unprecedented scale and the strengthening of existing urban centres created the markets where it was possible for rural communities to sell their produce and afterwards pay their taxes in coin. The royal administration thus had the means to settle its expenses with silver, which it increasingly did, particularly for the armed forces, rather than with commodities, which had been the norm under the Achaemenids.

It was suggested as a hypothesis in chapter 3 that the founding of new cities by the first Seleukid kings and the policy of land grants to cities, temples and individuals were part of a systematic effort to intensify economic activity and generate more silver revenue for the royal exchequer.

LAND OWNERSHIP

The starting point in any discussion of land ownership is the arrival of Alexander in Asia. In his edict to Priene (OGIS 1) Alexander made clear to a Greek city what he considered the status of land in its vicinity would be:

CLASSICAL LITERATURE

The classical authors usually employed as sources for Seleukid history have been exhaustively discussed by others and so will not be treated here yet again, but only referred to where appropriate. However, the source net has been spread to include those writers reporting on the Achaemenid empire (e.g. Herodotos, Xenophon, the Alexander historians), and particularly on its administrative practices, because of the considerable degree of continuity that seems to have existed in this area between it and its Seleukid successors, as will hopefully be demonstrated.

PS.-ARISTOTLE'S OIKONOMIKA, BOOK 2

This economic treatise has been attributed to the school of Aristotle and is fundamental in any study of the economy of the Hellenistic world, despite its brevity and difficulty of detailed comprehension. A short theoretical section deals with the four types of financial administrations (‘economies’) that could be observed at the time, in decreasing order of importance: those of a kingdom, a satrapy, a city and a household. This is followed by a presentation of stratagems by which rulers or administrators solved specific financial problems.

In chapter 7 the theoretical section is translated and discussed at some length, including the question of its date. In chapters 8–11 the evidence from the Seleukid period for the different aspects of the royal and satrapal economies, as referred to by ps.-Aristotle, is presented and analysed in detail.

1. Antigonos' letter to Teos regarding the synoikism with Lebedos

2. The Aristodikides dossier

3. The Laodike dossier

4. The Ptolemaios dossier

5. The Mnesimachos inscription

6. The Laodike letter to Iasos

7. The Apollonia-Salbake decree

8. The Achaios decree

9. The letter of Antiochos III to the Sardians

10. The letters of Antiochos and Zeuxis to Herakleia-Latmos

11. The Sardeis land conveyance

12. Antiochos III's letter concerning Jerusalem

13. Demetrios I's letter to Jonathan

14. Demetrios II's letter to Jonathan

15. The Baitokaike grant

The version of each text used is that of the first reference given in each case, unless otherwise stated. Only relevant parts of the texts have been provided, with my own translation. Interpolations in round brackets are simply intended to make the translation more readable.

DOCUMENT 1. ANTIGONOS' LETTER TO TEOS REGARDING THE SYNOIKISM WITH LEBEDOS

RC3.

Summary §1–9

Antigonos Monophthalmos settled the details of the synoikism between Teos and Lebedos.

Summary §10, lines 72–80

The Lebedians wished to be allowed to set up a fund to import grain in order to create a reserve, which the Teians seconded and even asked for more money. Antigonos was not pleased with the idea.

At its peak, the Seleukid empire stretched from the Aegean to the borders of India. In this vast area existed regions with quite different physical characteristics and climates, which naturally had a bearing on the sizes of populations that could be supported and their economic activities.

For the purposes of this study, five major regions are considered (see map), which not only had a certain uniformity within themselves, but also some continuity in their association with the Seleukids. The original core of the empire was Mesopotamia, to which were soon added the Upper Satrapies – the eastern regions as far as India – followed by northern Syria and Kilikia. Asia Minor did not have a continuous history of Seleukid rule and the last major region to be acquired was Koile Syria, that is, southern Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine.

Because of the scarcity of evidence, the analysis that follows is rather sketchy, but aims nevertheless at rough regional estimates of population, which were obviously one of the determining factors in the Seleukid economy.

Since population figures are clearly going to be the subject of much disagreement, it should be emphasized that great accuracy is not a requirement here. What is presented, based on the available evidence, is simply a best estimate of a range of figures. While there is a certain probability that any other figure outside the range may be true, this probability becomes increasingly smaller the further one diverges from the best estimate.