Editing Antiochus X Eusebes (section)

=== Year of death ===
[[File:Market weight of Antiochus X.jpg|thumb|Market weight bearing Antiochus X's name, 92 BC]]
No known coins issued by the king in Antioch contain a date.{{sfn|Schürer|1973|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=oG5jAgAAQBAJ&pg=135 135]}} Josephus wrote that the king fell soon after Demetrius III's interference, but this statement is vague.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 290}} Most scholars, such as [[Edward Theodore Newell]], understood Josephus's statement to indicate 92{{nbsp}}BC. According to Hoover, the dating of Newell is apparently based on combining the statement of Josephus with that of Eusebius, who wrote that Antiochus{{nbsp}}X was ejected from the capital in 220 SE (93/92 BC) by Philip I. Hoover considered Newell's dating hard to accept; a market weight from Antioch bearing Antiochus X's name, from 92 BC, might contradict the dating of 220 SE (93/92 BC).{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 290}} On the other hand, in the year 221 SE (92/91{{nbsp}}BC), the city of Antioch issued civic coinage mentioning no king;{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 290}} Hoover noted that the civic coinage mentions Antioch as the "metropolis" but not as autonomous, and this might be explained as a reward from Antiochus{{nbsp}}X bestowed upon the city for supporting him in his struggle against his cousins.{{#tag:ref|The civic coins were made of bronze and were minted until 69{{nbsp}}BC; they were produced alongside royal coins, evidenced by the coins of Antiochus X's successors in the city, Demetrius III and Philip I, which were made of silver, indicating that issuing silver coinage remained a royal privilege.{{sfn|Dumitru|2016|pp= 266, 267}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p=290}}

In 2007, using a methodology based on estimating the annual [[Coining (mint)#Ancient coin dies|die]] usage average rate (the Esty formula), Hoover proposed the year 224 SE (89/88 BC) for the end of Antiochus X's reign.{{#tag:ref|The Esty formula was developed by the mathematician Warren W. Esty; it is a mathematical formula that can calculate the relative number of obverse dies used to produce a certain coin series. The calculation can be used to measure the coinage's production of a certain king and thus estimate the length of his reign.{{sfn|Hoover|2007|pp= 282–284}}|group=note}}{{sfn|Hoover|2007|p= 294}} Later in 2011, Hoover noted that this date is hard to accept considering that during Antiochus X's second reign in the capital, only one or two dies were used per year, far too few for the Seleucid average rate to justify a long reign.{{sfn|Hoover|2011|p= 259}} Hoover then noted that there seem to be several indications that the coinage of Antiochus X's second reign in the capital, along with the coinages of Antiochus XI and Demetrius III, were re-coined by Philip I who eventually took Antioch {{circa|87 BC}}, thus explaining the rarity of those kings' coins.{{sfn|Hoover|2011|pp= 259–262}} Hoover admitted that his conclusion is "troubling".{{sfn|Hoover|2011|p= 265}} The historian {{ill|Marek Jan Olbrycht|pl}} considered Hoover's dating and arguments too speculative, as they contradict ancient literature.{{sfn|Olbrycht|2009|p= 181}}