THE HELLENISTIC AGE
The gradual infiltration of Greek commercial and cultural influences into Syria was suddenly accelerated and intensified by its military conquest under the energetic and illustrious Macedonian known to us as Alexander the Great, and to his oriental subjects as Iskandar dhu-al-Qarnayn (the two-horned). After liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor from Persian rule, his skilled and disciplined forces defeated the numerically superior Persian army at Issus in 333 b.c. To commemorate this decisive victory, the city of Alexandretta (Iskenderun, in the part of Syria now in Turkish hands) was founded near the site.
The Syrian satrapy lay defenceless before Alexander, who sent a cavalry detachment up the Orontes valley to occupy Damascus while he himself followed the coastal route and received the submission of Aradus, Byblus, Sidon and other ports. Only Tyre held out, but the Greeks built a wide mole out to the island stronghold and, after a seven-months 5 siege, captured it, hanging its leaders and selling about 30,000 of its inhabitants into slavery. After thus extinguishing the last spark of Phoenician spirit, Alexander repeated the lesson with the last of the Philistine cities, Gaza, overpowering its garrison after a heroic but futile resistance lasting two months. Its population, too, was sold into slavery, and enormous stores of the spices for which it was a celebrated depot were captured.
With Alexander's further conquests—in Egypt, where he founded Alexandria and accepted divine honours; in Mesopotamia, after crossing the Euphrates and founding al-Raqqah; in Persia, where the Achamaenid capitals of Susa and Persepolis were sacked; in Media, Parthia, Bactria and India, where his weary troops finally insisted on turning back—we are not concerned. He did not return to Syria due to his death at Babylon in 323, but his political and cultural legacy altered Syrian history for centuries to come. He had sought fervently to fuse Greek and oriental ideas and institutions, by intermarriage, by adopting local garb and customs, and—most importantly—by planting Greek colonies in existing or newly founded cities wherever he passed. These cities served the triple purpose of providing settlements for his discharged warriors, forming a chain of military posts on the lines of communication and creating centres for radiating Hellenic cultural influence. Greek soon became the language of learning, though Aramaean remained the language of commerce and both were used in political administration.
The hastily assembled far-flung Macedonian empire fell to pieces at the death of its founder. His generals scrambled for its choicest provinces, for which they waged bloody and protracted wars. Out of the chaos four generals emerged at the head of four states: Ptolemy in Egypt, Seleucus in the satrapy of Babylonia, Antigonus in Asia Minor and Antipater in Macedonia. Syria, including Palestine, at first fell to Antigonus, but in 312 b.c. Ptolemy—the shrewdest of the four—and Seleucus—the ablest—combined to defeat him at Gaza. The victors divided Syria between them, with Ptolemy receiving Palestine and Seleucus seizing northern and eastern Syria, to which he made good his claim by participating in another victory over Antigonus in 301. The year 312, however, is reckoned as marking the birth of the Syrian monarchy and as the starting-point of the Seleucid era, the standard calendar of which was a notable Seleucid achievement.
The boundary between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid territories fluctuated violently and constantly, as did the extent of the domains ruled from the newly established capital at Antioch on the lower Orontes. By 280 Seleucus I, surnamed Nicator (victor), had expanded his realm as far as the Oxus and the Indus, making it for a time much the most extensive and powerful of all the states which arose from the fragments of Alexander's ephemeral empire. While seeking to add Macedonia to his holdings, he was assassinated there in 280.
The most enduring accomplishment of Seleucus I, however, was not his territorial conquests, but the Greek cities he had founded in an effort to further the Hellenization policy projected by Alexander. These numbered over thirty, of which the most important inside Syria were the political and cultural capital Antioch, the military base and treasury at Apamea on the middle Orontes, and the port of Latakia (Laodicea). All sites for new cities were chosen with care, at strategic spots which were both readily accessible and yet easily defended. In many cases native hamlets or fortresses were transformed into Greco-Macedonian cities, both by Seleucus and his successors in the north, and by the Egyptian Ptolemies in the south. Old towns with Semitic names, which were recolonized and renamed, included Acre (Ptolemais), Beth-shean (Scythopolis), Hamah (Epiphania), Shayzar (Larissa) and Aleppo (Beroea). None of the new names survived, except Tripoli. In these recolonized cities the native element was allowed a larger place than in the new settlements, and in consequence the colonists themselves often went native, so that in due course these cities shed their thin veneer of Hellenism along with the Greek nomenclature and reasserted their Semitic character. Likewise most districts, mountains and rivers which were given Greek names eventually reverted to Semitic forms.
The new Greek city-colonies were laid out according to a preconceived plan characterized by straight streets intersecting at right angles, and were provided with forums, theatres, gymnasiums, baths and other institutions. In them the constitutional form of the Greek city-state was maintained with ample provision for the self-realization of the citizen as an integral part of the community. In all this the new settlements differed from the old Semitic ones, which were usually built around a fortress, a spring or a shrine as a nucleus, grew without plan and had no channels for a democratic way of life to find expression. The colonists were primarily Greek and Macedonian soldiers settled by royal decree. Wives were obtained partly from the native stock. Indigenous and alien civilians, attracted by opportunities to prosper, thronged to these settlements. In time half-breeds and natives who had put on the externals of Hellenism were added to the colonial population, which then came to comprise traders, artists, scholars and slaves. Syria now had more cities than ever before.
The empire built by Seleucus I was all but lost under his successors. Egyptian invasion, Parthian rebellion, Anatolian secession and other disasters sapped the strength of the Seleucid state, so that it had lost much of its territory and brilliance by 223 b.c., when Antiochus III became king and undertook to restore them. Antiochus first reconquered the Iranian territory as far as Bactria and India, and then in 198 defeated the Egyptian forces and recovered the amputated southern part of Syria. In this victory he used elephants, of which he had brought a fresh supply from India. By twenty years of incessant fighting Antiochus III had won back almost all that his predecessors had lost, and had earned the epithet the Great.
At this time an embassy from Rome appeared in his court to warn him to keep hands off Egypt. This is the first communication we hear of between Rome and Antioch; it marks a new era in ancient international affairs. It was then that Hannibal sought asylum in Syria and urged Antiochus to invade Italy. Antiochus was not fully conscious of the might of the new giant looming in the west. He ventured to strike a blow for Greece, where the Romans were penetrating, and there he met defeat at their hands at Thermopylae (191 b.c.). In the following year he suffered another defeat from the Romans near Magnesia, in western Asia Minor, and in 188 was forced to cede to them all his dominions beyond the Taurus and pay a heavy war indemnity. Asia Minor with its land trade routes and direct access to Greek civilization was permanently lost.
The ignominious peace and heavy tribute left Syria in a feeble condition, but by 169 b.c. Antiochus IV was strong enough to defeat the Egyptian army, capture Ptolemy VI and occupy lower Egypt. Only Alexandria refused to submit and was subjected to a siege. This was soon raised, however, under pressure from Rome, to whom Antiochus was still paying instalments of the war indemnity. The Syrian conqueror evacuated the land and returned home.
While Rome could circumscribe Antiochus's military activity, it certainly could not check his missionary activity as a champion of Hellenism. In this he was following the traditional policy of the Seleucid house, which considered Hellenism the common denominator on which all their subjects should meet. But Antiochus went too far. He proclaimed his own divinity, which was acceptable to most of his Syrian subjects, but not to some of the Jews. Although the rich and the aristocrats of Jerusalem had responded favourably to Hellenization, adopting the Greek language and customs and even garb, the fundamentalists and nationalists were united in their determined opposition to everything Greek, and especially to mongrelization of their rigid monotheism and defilement of their Temple.
In 168 B.C. a revolt broke out in Judaea under the leadership of one Judas, later called Maccabeus. At first the uprising was directed more against the upper class, who exploited the masses, than against the central government. Judas with his brothers organized guerrilla bands which operated in the hills and avoided pitched battles with the royal forces. At length Jerusalem was captured, the Temple was cleansed and the daily sacrifice was restored. Though of a religious character at the outset, the movement developed into a national revolt aimed at liberating the land. The clash was not only with the Syrian forces but also between nationalist fundamentalists who were unwavering in their devotion to Hebraism and adherents to the new culture who constituted the Hellenistic or Reform party. In both conflicts victory went to the Maccabean side. In 141 b.c. Judas's brother Simon was elected high priest and ruler, and Jewish independence was recognized by the Seleucid king, Demetrius II. A new Jewish commonwealth was born, lasting until the advent of the Romans eighty years later. The Maccabees forcibly Judaized the Aramaic-speaking pagan Arabs (Ituraeans) of Galilee and the Idumaeans of southern Judaea by offering them a choice between expulsion and circumcision. The latter was preferred by the majority.
The Jews were not the only nation to take advantage of Seleucid weakness. Parthia, Bactria and adjoining lands succeeded in reasserting their independence. Arab dynasties were established at Edessa, at Palmyra, at Horns and in the Biqa, reducing the incompetent successors of Antiochus IV from an imperial house to rulers of a local state in northern Syria. The entire century between his death in 164 and the Roman conquest in 64 b.c. presents a confused picture of native revolts, internal dissension, family quarrels and steady loss of territory.
Among the Arabians, the Nabataeans, established south of the Dead Sea at Petra, were now becoming a considerable power. They first appear early in the sixth pre-Christian century as nomadic tribes in the desert east of what is today Transjordan and was then the Aramaean states of Edom and Moab. In 400, while Syria was under Persian rule, they were still mostly nomads, living in tents, speaking Arabic, abhorring wine and uninterested in agriculture. In the following century they abandoned the pastoral way of life in favour of agriculture and trade, gradually evolving into a highly organized, culturally advanced, progressive and opulent society. Theirs was another case illustrating an ever-recurring theme of ancient Near Eastern history—the theme of herders becoming tillers and then traders in lands deficient in resources but favourably located for caravan commerce. In 312 b.c. they repulsed Antigonus's attacks against Petra which, as the only town between the Jordan and Hejaz with abundant pure water, they had developed into a strongly fortified caravan station at the junction of incense and spice routes. From Petra they extended their sway northward, rebuilding and resettling old Aramaean cities, erecting posts to guard the caravan routes to Gaza and Damascus, exploiting the mineral resources and using their skill in hydraulic engineering to irrigate and cultivate more of the desert margin than any other Arabian people before or after.
Little is heard of Nabataea in the third century while its settlers were developing their potentialities. Early in the second it emerged as a force to be reckoned with in Near Eastern politics, although it was for a time under Ptolemaic influence. In 169 b.c. a series of definitely known Nabataean kings commenced with Harithath I, who figured as an ally of the Maccabees against the Seleucid kings of Syria. Later the two houses became rivals. In 96 b.c. Harithath II rushed to the aid of Gaza, besieged by the Maccabean Alexander Jannaeus. A few years later the Nabataean king Obidath I defeated Jannaeus in a pivotal battle fought on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee and opened the way for the occupation of south-eastern Syria, now the Hawran plateau and Jabal al-Duruz. Taking advantage of the decline of their Seleucid and Ptolemaic neighbours, Obidath and his successor Harithath III continued to push the Arabian frontier northward until the Romans appeared on the scene.
This Harithath, whose enthusiastic response to Hellenistic civilization earned him the epithet Philhellene, was the real founder of Nabataean power and the first to strike Nabataean coinage. He repeatedly defeated the Judaean army and laid siege to Jerusalem. In response to an invitation from Damascus he installed himself in 85 B.C. as the master of that Seleucid city and of the rich plain dominated by it. The invitation was prompted by Damascene hatred for the Ituraean ruler of the Biqa, who had devastated the fields of Byblus and Beirut and aspired to the rule of all Syria. Twelve years later Harithath repulsed an attack by Pompey, the first direct Nabataean contact with Rome. The later history of Nabataea is linked with that of Roman Syria and belongs to the next chapter, but its main lines were already well established.
Arabic in speech, Aramaic in writing, Semitic in religion, Hellenistic in art and architecture, the Nabataean culture was synthetic, superficially Hellenic but basically Arabian, and so it remained. Petra, carved from the living multi- coloured sandstone in a unique application of art to nature, began to take on the aspect of a typically Hellenistic city, with a beautiful main street and several religious and public buildings. Inspired by Greek models, Nabataean artisans introduced a new type of pottery which stands out among the finest produced in southern Syria. Remains of cups, saucers, dishes, jugs and bowls are of amazing eggshell thinness and superior workmanship. The clay used is reddish buff, the designs usually stylized floral or leaf patterns. The prevalence of grapes and vine leaves in ceramic and architectural decoration is another indication that the earlier abstinence from wine was no longer practised.
With their proficiency in ceramics, architecture and hydraulic engineering the Nabataeans combined exceptional merchandising skill. Petran commerce penetrated as far as Italy and the Persian Gulf, and is even attested by Chinese records of traffic in raw silk. Myrrh, spices and frankincense from southern Arabia, rich silk fabrics from Damascus and Gaza, henna from Ascalon, glassware and purple from Sidon and Tyre and pearls from the Persian Gulf constituted the principal commodities. The native produce of Nabataea comprised gold, silver and sesame oil and probably asphalt and other remunerative minerals from the shores of the Dead Sea. Greek and Roman imports were brought in Attic jars, fragments of which can still be found around Petra. Nabataean forces protected the caravan routes and collected taxes on goods in transit. Presumably the mer- chants spoke not only Arabic and Aramaic but Greek and even Latin. A distinctive Nabataean script gradually differ- entiated itself from the Aramaic and eventually became in turn the source of the Arabic alphabet.
Nabataean religion was of the common Semitic type based on agricultural fertility rites. It preserved elements of the old worship associated with high places and standing stones. At the head of the pantheon stood the sun god Dushara, who was worshipped in the form of an unhewn black stone or obelisk. Associated with him was the moon goddess Allat, chief deity of Arabia. The Aramaean goddess Atargatis became the Nabataean goddess of grain, foliage, fruit and fish. Other deities also correspond to those of Syria and of Arabia. Serpent worship formed a part of this religion. As Hellenistic ways of thought gained favour, these old Semitic deities took on Greek guise, Dushara being equated with Dionysus. Further research would probably reveal a larger measure of Nabataean influence over infant Christianity and Islam than has generally been realized.
The delineation of Nabataean national character in Strabo and Diodorus is doubtless exaggerated but must be basically correct. The general picture is that of a sensible, acquisitive, orderly, democratic people absorbed in trade and agriculture. The society had few slaves and no paupers. The king was so close to his subjects that he often rendered an account of his kingship to the popular assembly.
While Jews and Arabs were troubling the southern and eastern frontiers of Seleucid Syria, the Phoenician ports were regaining their autonomy in the west and a new power was rising to the north. King Tigranes of Armenia overran Mesopotamia, then under Parthian rule, and by 85 B.C. was attacking Cilicia and northern Syria. Worn out by civil wars and dynastic feuds, the Syrians were neither able nor eager to offer resistance, and even the Greek cities acquiesced in the new rule. In their southward drive the Armenians reached Acre and thus threatened both the Jewish kingdom and Egypt, where the Ptolemaic house was tottering, but in 69 B.C. the Romans forced their withdrawal from all Syria. Pompey's victories in Asia Minor over Mithradates of Pontus left Syria open to Roman occupation, ending the last throes of its once-glorious Seleucid period.
The Hellenistic civilization enjoyed a far longer span of life in Syria than did Greek political dominance, surviving for nearly a thousand years under Seleucids, Romans and Byzantines, and colouring the Arab civilization which re- placed it in the seventh century of the Christian era. Hellenistic culture was synthetic and eclectic, in contrast to the pure Hellenic culture of Greece, and achieved supremacy not only in Syria but throughout south-western Asia and Egypt. Naturally different parts of Syria re- sponded in differing measure to Hellenistic stimuli. In the north native deities were identified with Greek gods and rechristened, Baal becoming Zeus Olympus. A shrine south of Antioch was given the name of Daphne, the nymph beloved by Apollo and metamorphosed into a laurel tree. Pilgrims flocked from all over Syria to the sanctuary of Apollo there, making it a notorious centre of licentiousness. In fact, northern Syria became a second Macedonia, where the intrusive Greek element made itself thoroughly at home.
The Phoenician cities had already had contacts with the Greek world for several centuries and had no hesitancy in adopting the new synthesis. The Hellenism that developed in Phoenician Syria was more vigorous and productive than that of Aramaean Syria and exhibited none of the internal stresses which characterized contemporary Jewish society. Greek philosophy and literature were assiduously cultivated there, no less than in Greek cities such as Antioch. Farther south, Ascalon was a centre of Hellenistic culture, but most of the other coastal cities of Palestine stood desolate, ruined by the militant Maccabean Jews, who also chastised the pro-Hellenes in their own midst and in Samaria and Galilee.
Despite the general recognition of the superiority of Greek literature and civilization, the many educated Syrians who studied Greek and wrote in it produced little of lasting value. Aramaic persisted throughout as the vernacular of the people, who remained Semitic in their customs and manner of living. Basically they were no more Hellenized than modern Syrians were Frenchified. What the introduction of Greek thought did do was to disrupt the purely Semitic political and intellectual structure and to open the door for subsequent Romanizing influences. A thousand years had to pass before a reintegration was pos- sible. Nor has Aramaic literature of Seleucid Syria left any remains, as indigenous literary activity apparently shrank to almost nothing, out of a sense of inferiority. Presumably some was written but did not survive. Certain Hebrew works would have met the same fate had they not found a Greek translator and been accepted among the Apocrypha. One of our main sources of knowledge of this era, i Mac- cabees, was evidently written between 105 and 63 B.C. and translated into Greek from a Hebrew original. Two Hebrew works of the Seleucid era worked their way into the canon: Ecclesiastes, written about 200 B.C. by an aristocratic Hel- lenized Jew, and Daniel, composed in the second pre- Christian century. Of the two, Ecclesiastes has much the closer affinity with Greek thought.
No part of the Seleucid empire developed into a real centre of artistic, literary or scientific creativeness. The kings were never munificent patrons of learning, though they established libraries in the capitals ; Antioch had an outstanding one. Considering the improvement in com- munication and the spread of a common civilization with a common speech, learning would have flourished more had it received royal encouragement. Hellenistic Syria pro- duced a couple of historian geographers, a few astronomers, a limited number of poets none of whom was of first rank, and a remarkable number of philosophers mainly of the Stoic school. Almost all belonged to the second or early first century before Christ. Stoicism from the outset estab- lished close connection with the Semitic conception of life and remained throughout its career congenial to the Semitized Greeks as well as to the Hellenized Semites. In its stress on brotherhood and a world state, virtue and ethical living, and in considering all that had to do with the body — strength and weakness, health and sickness, wealth and poverty — as a matter of indifference, this philosophy was in a sense a precursor of Christianity.
The political institutions of the Seleucid realm were a strange mixture of Greco-Macedonian and Syro-Persian elements, among which the latter predominated. At the head of the state stood the king with absolute power. In fact he was the state. All authority stemmed from him. He appointed and dismissed officials at his pleasure. His rule was personal and dynastic based on the right of con- quest and succession. He was surrounded by a divine halo, a heritage from Alexander and the oriental monarchs. The divine descent of the founder of the house was proclaimed early in his career by an oracle and was generally accepted. The native Semitic population maintained an attitude which may best be described as passive acquiescence.
The régime of the palace, with its display of crimson and gold and the conspicuousness of its chamberlains and eunuchs, was more oriental than occidental. On state occasions the monarch wore on his head a diadem, symbol of his royalty. The signet ring also served as emblem of royalty. The monarch's dress remained the old national garb of Macedonia but glorified and made of purple cloth, with all its priestly and regal associations. Splendid banquets with lavish gifts and prodigal displays of wealth were, together with hunting and horsemanship, the chief recrea- tion of the king and his court, comprised of the Macedonian nobility and the new official class.
The highest office was that of 'minister for affairs', a continuation of the Persian office of vizir. The hierarchy included the head of the royal chancery, the finance minister, the financial secretary, the quartermaster and the chief physician. In the provinces the officials were satraps, district governors, secretaries and overseers of taxes. The ministry of finance was an especially coveted office. In general, the Seleucids and Ptolemies were monogamous but kept mistresses. Members of both houses practised sister mar- riage, as the Pharaohs and Persian kings had done. Members of the royal family and of the official corps had a plethora of slaves. Hellenistic society everywhere was poor in machines, rich in slaves.
The Seleucid army, which in its early stages consisted of all the male Macedonians and Greeks in the realm, was influential in state affairs, with the cavalry ranking higher and receiving more pay than the infantry. Like the navy, the army was the king's, and provided a principal means by which men could rise to power. Its nucleus was the phalanx, armed with swords and twenty-one-foot-long spears, and protected by helmets and shields. The missile shooters consisted of archers, slingers and javelineers drawn from the non-Hellenic element of the population. The artillery of the Hellenistic kings, including catapults, opened a new chapter in the history of siegecraft and provoked a corresponding improvement in the art of city fortification. Persian and Kurdish bowmen and slingers, Median cavalry and Arabian archers mounted on dromedaries fought along- side Greeks and Syrians.
The camel and horse as instruments of warfare had been known in south-western Asia for centuries, but the elephant was a new feature of the Seleucid army and appears as an emblem on their coins. The Syrian kings alone could pro- cure elephants from India, and kept about 500 in a training depot at Apamea. In battle an Indian mahout straddled the neck of the elephant, which carried a wooden tower with four fighting men. The animals were used not only against enemy elephants (the Ptolemies used elephants from Africa), but as a screen against cavalry and to break into fortified positions. In 163 B.C. the Romans sent a mission to destroy the war elephants of Syria, virtually ending the only period in history in which this animal played an important part in warfare outside India.
The same Roman mission which destroyed the war elephants was charged with burning the Seleucid fleet, which had been increased beyond the number allowed to Antiochus III in the treaty of 188. While the fleet played no decisive role in any of the recorded battles, yet it must have had enough nuisance value to necessitate inclusion in the treaty of a clause limiting the number of its units and confining its sphere of activity to Asiatic waters. A small part of it was evidently maintained in the Persian Gulf. On the whole, the function of the navy was to support the army and to protect military transports. It was no doubt manned mostly by Phoenicians. The ships were quinqueremes, having a single row of oars with five men to each oar. They could be used for ramming, a practice in which the Phoenicians excelled.
The unity of the Seleucid empire found expression in the uniformity of its military organization and in the administrative system of the provinces inherited in large part from the Persians. Of the local provincial government not much is known, but it is evident that the old govern- mental machinery was maintained. The administrative division kept its Persian name, satrapy, and was sub- divided into districts for administrative purposes. The royal mint was, of course, at Antioch, but provincial mints existed at Tyre, Sidon, Aradus and other important cities. The towns were required to pay taxes and obey occasional royal ordinances, but were allowed to administer their own in- ternal affairs and even to control neighbouring territories.
The native peasantry lived in villages that maintained their status and way of life unmindful of dynastic changes. The land they cultivated was mostly the king's or some landowner's and the tenants were bought and sold with it as serfs. In rural districts the Seleucids continued the practice customary in south-western Asia of collecting tithes, one-tenth of the harvest. From sporadic references it would seem that the tax was imposed not on the individual but on the community. A large part of it was paid in kind in the name of the city, people or tribe by the chief or high priest. Royal revenues were also derived from a poll tax and a tax on salt, while mines, quarries, forests and fisheries were probably owned and operated by the crown.
The trade of Syria on both the domestic and foreign levels was of great consequence to the kingdom and to its population. The Seleucid policy seems to have been first to attract to their country Arabian, Indian and Central Asian merchandise for local consumption and for transit, and secondly to promote Syrian commercial relations with the West, especially the Greco-Roman world. In bidding for transit trade Egypt was the rival of Syria. The unceasing military conflicts between Seleucids and Ptolemies, there- fore, had economic as well as political bases.
During the period when southern Syria was a part of the Ptolemaic domain, the Seleucids received their chief supply of Arabian and Indian merchandise by way of the Persian Gulf. This merchandise consisted of myrrh, frankincense and other aromatics, which burned on every altar in the Hellenistic world. Cinnamon was another prized tropical product. These commodities were partly consumed in Syria and partly re-exported westward. Seleucid trade with the West followed land as well as sea routes and contributed no small share to the prosperity of Syria. It consisted of agricultural and industrial products of Syria as well as of goods in transit from lands east of it. An important com- ponent of this trade was the slave traffic, which was most active at this time, with the Seleucids more interested in it than the Ptolemies. War supplied the slave market with prisoners, and piracy supplied it with victims of kidnapping. Throughout the third and second centuries a steady flow of slaves moved from Syria and neighbouring lands into the cities of Greece. Slaves were in demand as domestic ser- vants and as labourers in mines, construction and public works.
In this commercial renaissance of Seleucid Syria the Jews seem to have played no more conspicuous a part than in any earlier period. In the words of their historian and spokesman Josephus : c We neither inhabit a maritime country nor delight in commerce, nor in such intercourse with other men as arises from it'.
In the later Hellenistic age Syria developed into an im- portant agricultural-horticultural country. The upward curve began under the Ptolemies in the Biqa, Phoenicia and Palestine. Stimulated by greater demand, the traditional crops of barley and wheat, grapes and other fruits, wine and vegetables were increased by improved methods. A wider market for unguents for which native flowers were used was now created. The lively intercourse with neighbouring foreign lands resulted in the exchange of agricultural pro- ducts and the introduction of new plants — Egyptian beans, lentils, mustard and gourds from Egypt; pistachio trees from Persia; apricot, peach and cherry trees from Persia by way, strangely enough, of Italy. Attempts to acclimatize aromatic and cinnamon shrubs were unsuccessful.
Under the Ptolemies the wine and oil industry became more lively. These two products, together with olives, bread and fish formed a substantial part of the diet of the people. In Hellenistic times the lumber industry was no less flourishing than in Pharaonic days. Treeless Egypt drew on the cedars of Lebanon, always a royal domain, and on the oaks of Bashan. The exploitation of Syria's and Lebanon's forests was the privilege of the sovereigns under the Seleucids as it was under the Persians, the Assyrians and the Phoenicians. The Sea of Galilee supplied scented bushes and Jericho had a monopoly of balsam.
The textile industry maintained its primacy. Syrian manufacturers continued to use the same skill and technique but varied the designs to suit the tastes of a varied clientele. The demand for woollen cloth and purple-dyed stuffs remained brisk. In pottery and glassware, a specialty of the Near East from time immemorial, Syria upheld its ancient reputation. Greek pottery, which subsequent to Alexander's conquest flooded the Near Eastern market, was soon imitated by Syrians and produced locally. Especially popular at first was black-glazed pottery, later superseded by a type of red ware with a fine brilliant glaze introduced in the second century. Sidon, near which excellent sand for use in glass was found, Tyre and other Phoenician cities continued to manufacture and export the best glass in the Hellenistic world. This glass was cast, as the epoch-making invention of glass-blowing did not occur until the Roman period. In the Hellenistic age clay tablets give way as writing material to parchment or papyrus rolls. Parchment was a monopoly of Pergamum (whence it got its name) in Asia Minor, while Alexandria supplied papyrus, although some was evidently grown locally in Syria.
The art of metalwork took long strides forward at this time. Silver and gold came from Nabataean Arabia; silver and iron from the Taurus mountains. Iron was also obtained locally in Palestine and Lebanon. For economic purposes this metal was undoubtedly the most valuable. The Ptolemies may also have exploited the copper and other minerals of the Lebanon range. In all the Hellenistic monarchies the coinage of money was promoted as an instrument for developing trade. Money as a medium of exchange gradually superseded the ancient system of barter. Uniform royal weights were also issued by the various governments.
With the increase of trade and its implementation with money and official weights, and with the improvement and progress of agriculture, Seleucid Syria enjoyed a period of comparative prosperity. The general standard of living was high, despite the political unrest and the constant raids and invasions. The population increased in size, until in the early Roman period it is estimated that five to six million people dwelt in Syria, of whom two million lived in Palestine.