Divine Kings and Sacred Spaces: Power and Religion in Hellenistic Syria (301-64 BC) 9781407310541, 9781407340302

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION: MODERN APPROACHES TO THE SELEUKIDS AND THEIR WORLD
CHAPTER 1 A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY
CHAPTER 2 STATE PATRONAGE OFRELIGION
CHAPTER 3 DIVINE KINGS
CHAPTER 4 SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA
CHAPTER 5 SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA
CHAPTER 6 CULTIC ADMINISTRATION
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
APPENDIX: CONCORDANCE OF SITE NAMES
ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES

Citation preview

BAR S2450 2012

Divine Kings and Sacred Spaces: Power and Religion in Hellenistic Syria (301–64 BC)

WRIGHT

Nicholas L. Wright

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

B A R Wright 2450 cover.indd 1

BAR International Series 2450 2012

20/11/2012 16:16:50

Divine Kings and Sacred Spaces: Power and Religion in Hellenistic Syria (301–64 BC)

Nicholas L. Wright

BAR International Series 2450 2012

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2450 Divine Kings and Sacred Spaces: Power and Religion in Hellenistic Syria (301-64 BC) © N L Wright and the Publisher 2012 COVER IMAGE

limestone betyl or Herm from Jebel Khalid, Syria.

The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407310541 paperback ISBN 9781407340302 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310541 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2012. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

For L.F.W. and C.J.E.W.

Contents Preface and acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... vii Modern approaches to the Seleukids and their world ....................................................................................................... vii A methodological approach to Seleukid religion ............................................................................................................. viii 1. A Macedonian hegemony ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 A geographic outline of Hellenistic Syria ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The historical narrative ................................................................................................................................................. 2 From Issos to Ipsos (333-301 BC)........................................................................................................................ 2 The early Seleukid period (301-175 BC) ............................................................................................................. 5 The late Seleukid I period (175-121 BC) ............................................................................................................. 8 The late Seleukid II period (121-64 BC) ............................................................................................................ 11 A Seleukid epilogue – Kommagene ................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 Questions of ethnicity in the Hellenistic East ............................................................................................................. 15 The ‘ethnicity’ of the royal house....................................................................................................................... 17 Ethnic composition of the Seleukid army........................................................................................................... 19 Ethnicity and the archaeological record ............................................................................................................. 21 1.4 Reflections on a Macedonian hegemony .................................................................................................................... 22 2. State patronage of religion ......................................................................................................................................... 25 2.1 Divine patronage......................................................................................................................................................... 25 The early Seleukid period (312-175 BC) ........................................................................................................... 25 The late Seleukid I period (175-121 BC) ........................................................................................................... 29 Egyptian imports ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Ancient Luwians................................................................................................................................................. 32 Syncretised Semites ............................................................................................................................................ 33 The ‘royal archer’ and Apollo in the East .......................................................................................................... 37 The late Seleukid II period (121-64 BC) ............................................................................................................ 41 2.2 The impact of numismatic iconography ..................................................................................................................... 44 2.3 Reflections on divine patronage ................................................................................................................................. 47 3. Divine kings ................................................................................................................................................................. 49 3.1 Royal cult and Hellenistic kingshi .............................................................................................................................. 49 3.2 Official titulature ........................................................................................................................................................ 52 3.3 The trappings of divinity ............................................................................................................................................ 55 Bull’s horns ........................................................................................................................................................ 55 Goat-horned helmet ............................................................................................................................................ 59 The winged diadem ............................................................................................................................................ 60 Radiate crowns and the Hieròs Gámos............................................................................................................... 60 Queens as goddesses .......................................................................................................................................... 64 The king as goddess? .......................................................................................................................................... 67 Wreaths............................................................................................................................................................... 68 Lion- and elephant-scalp headdresses ................................................................................................................ 68 3.4 Reflections on the royal cult ....................................................................................................................................... 69 4. Sacred spaces – North Syria ...................................................................................................................................... 71 4.1 The ‘Charonion’ at Antioch ........................................................................................................................................ 71 4.2 The Doric temple at Seleukeia-Pieria ......................................................................................................................... 73 4.3 Holy Heavenly Zeus of Baitokaike ............................................................................................................................. 77 The main temenos .............................................................................................................................................. 77 The Seleukid inscription ..................................................................................................................................... 80 The north complex.............................................................................................................................................. 80 4.4 Jebel Khalid Area B .................................................................................................................................................... 81 The temple .......................................................................................................................................................... 81 The temenos ....................................................................................................................................................... 82 Statuary............................................................................................................................................................... 86 Temple staff........................................................................................................................................................ 89 4.5 Hierapolis-Bambyke ................................................................................................................................................... 90 The sanctuary ..................................................................................................................................................... 91 i

The temple .......................................................................................................................................................... 91 Cult statues and honorary dedications ................................................................................................................ 93 Sacred pools and holy fish.................................................................................................................................. 95 Ceremonies ......................................................................................................................................................... 99 Daily rituals ...................................................................................................................................................... 101 Water festivals .................................................................................................................................................. 101 The fire-festival ................................................................................................................................................ 103 4.6 Reflections on North Syria ....................................................................................................................................... 103 5. Sacred spaces – Phoenicia and Koile-Syria ............................................................................................................ 107 5.1 Umm el-Amed .......................................................................................................................................................... 107 The sanctuary of Milk’ashtart .......................................................................................................................... 107 The east sanctuary ............................................................................................................................................ 110 5.2 Seleukid cult at Damascus ........................................................................................................................................ 113 5.3 The Mount Hermon Panion ...................................................................................................................................... 117 5.4 Gadara....................................................................................................................................................................... 120 The temple ........................................................................................................................................................ 120 The temenos ..................................................................................................................................................... 122 5.5 Gerasa ....................................................................................................................................................................... 125 A Seleukid Zeus sanctuary? ............................................................................................................................ 126 Temple C .......................................................................................................................................................... 132 The Lagynophoria ............................................................................................................................................ 134 Birketein ........................................................................................................................................................... 135 5.6 Tel Beersheba ........................................................................................................................................................... 137 5.7 Reflections on Phoenicia and Koile-Syria ................................................................................................................ 141 6. Cultic administration................................................................................................................................................ 143 6.1 Cult and the Seleukid administration ........................................................................................................................ 143 6.2 Sacrifice and sacred dining ....................................................................................................................................... 145 Concluding thoughts..................................................................................................................................................... 151 Appendix – Concordance of site names ...................................................................................................................... 153 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................ 155 References...................................................................................................................................................................... 157

ii

Figure 1. Stemma of the Seleukid kings showing regnal dates.

iii

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This volume is substantially based on my doctoral dissertation, Religion in Seleukid Syria: gods at the crossroads (30164 BC), submitted to the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, in August 2010 and passed by the senate of the university in December that year. In preparing this work, I have attempted to compile a body of research that will benefit the wider community of scholars interested in aspects of the Hellenistic world. This study synthesises evidence drawn from different aspects of ancient world studies, principally archaeology, numismatics and ancient history. In order to cater for a multidisciplinary readership I have tried to avoid the use of specialised terminology or jargon while trying not to undermine the complex issues discussed. To this end I have, for example, avoided the inclusion of large amounts of Greek text and provided the unabbreviated standard English translation for the titles of ancient literary works. Thus the reader will find reference to Lucian’s The Syrian Goddess rather than Luc. Syr. D., or Aelian’s On animals rather than Ael. NA. Any references to specific modern editions of ancient texts have been cited in the relevant footnotes. A special note must be made regarding the transliteration of names from non-Latin based alphabets. There are no fixed rules for transliteration with regards to the study of the Hellenistic world. This makes it difficult to be a hundred percent consistent with any single convention and any system employed is destined to estrange some. As is the author’s prerogative, I have opted for a system that is not flawless but which does have a sense of cohesive logic. With Greek names I have tried to be strict and adhere to a direct transliteration, maintaining the Hellenised rather than Latinised form. This follows the practice employed by scholars such as John D. Grainger, Richard A. Billows, G.G. Aperghis and John Ma in their many works on the period. Thus, we have Seleukos II Kallinikos rather than the Seleucus II Callinicus, Koile-Syria rather than Coele-Syria, Laodikeia-by-the-Sea rather than Laodicea-ad-Mare and so on. There are many exceptions, however, most of which are used where the familiarity of an anglicised name would make its Hellenisation distracting. Thus Alexander of Macedon is used rather than the more accurate rendering Alexandros of Makedon. The anglicised name Ptolemy is used for the rulers of Egypt whilst the less familiar but more accurate Ptolemaios is retained for the strategos of Koile-Syria, the king of Kommagene and the tetrarch of Chalkis. To avoid any potential confusion of sources, names of ancient authors are rendered in the form employed by the Oxford Classical Dictionary. In the geographic descriptions and locations throughout the work, I have used the ancient names whenever these are known and the context makes their use possible. Appendix A provides a concordance of the Hellenistic period names with their modern locations including the name of the modern country within whose borders the site now lies. Where these sites lie within disputed territories, the terminology utilised follows the divisions maintained by the United Nations. A number of bodies provided financial aid throughout the preparation of the thesis upon which this volume is based. I acknowledge thankfully that without their generous support much more of my research would have been restricted to the university library: Macquarie University Division of Humanities and its successor, the Faculty of Arts (Macquarie Research Excellence Scholarship 2007-2010, travel grants 2007, 2008); the Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies (Junior Fellowship 2007, grant-in-aid 2008); Macquarie International (travel grants 2007, 2008); the Society for the Study of Early Christianity (grant-in-aid 2008). At times, the pursuit of reliable information on the Seleukid religious experience has brought to mind the memorable speech delivered by the former US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, at a Department of Defence briefing on 12 February, 2002: “…because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.” Indeed the farcical brilliance of Rumsfeld’s speech is so appropriate that it might have been originally written to preface a study of Hellenistic cult rather than the so-called ‘War on Terror’. In my own quest to piece together a synthesis of an ephemeral subject in an enigmatic period I have benefited from the assistance of my supervisory panel; Dr Peter Edwell (Macquarie University), Assoc. Prof. Ken Sheedy (Macquarie University), Prof. Graeme Clarke (Australian National University) and Dr Ina Kehrberg (University of Sydney). The impact of their expert advice has clearly informed many of the positions maintained in this volume and their input will be obvious to any familiar with their work. I should also like to express my gratitude to the examiners of the original dissertation, Prof. Susan Downey (University of California, Los Angeles), Prof. Frank Holt (University of Houston), for their constructive comments and encouraging feedback.

iv

In addition, of the numerous faculty members and colleagues who have provided advice and assistance over the years, or just provided stimulating conversation, I would like to give a few special acknowledgements: Dr Claudia Bührig (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut), Ross Burns (Macquarie University), Robert M. Chapple (formerly of Northern Archaeological Consultancy), Prof. Shimon Dar (Bar-Ilan University), Dr Kyle Erickson (University of Wales Trinity Saint David), Dr Trevor Evans (Macquarie University), Oliver Hoover (American Numismatic Society), Dr Panos Iossif (Belgian School at Athens), Dr Heather Jackson (University of Melbourne), Assoc. Prof. Ted Nixon (Macquarie University), Karl Van Dyke (Macquarie University Museum of Ancient Cultures). For their provision of images and/or generous permission to publish such, I should like to thank the following bodies and individuals: APAAME – the Aerial Photographic Archive of Archaeology in the Middle East (www.classics.uwa.edu.au/aerial_archaeology), ACANS – the Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies, the Trustees of the British Museum, Baldwin’s Auctions (www.baldwin.co.uk), Ross Burns, Graeme Clarke, Classical Numismatic Group (www.cngcoins.com), Shimon Dar, Robert Fleischer, Ina Kehrberg, Numismatica Ars Classica (www.arsclassicacoins.com), Numismatik Lanz München (www.numislanz.de), Lastly I would like to thank my wife Laura for her love, enthusiasm, practical assistance and all-encompassing support. I know how many sacrifices she made during my doctoral journey and the subsequent preparation of this volume and cannot express my gratitude enough. Nicholas L. Wright Belfast, June 2012

v

vi

INTRODUCTION extent and character of the supposed process of Hellenization and movement towards a unified culture in the Seleucid kingdom in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, with special reference to religion and religious practice.”3 The latter focus of the 1990 investigation centred precisely on the topic of this present research although, enlightening as the resulting publication was, the volume was textually heavy and failed to fully divulge a proper understanding of the role of religion at its various social or political levels under the Seleukid kings. In an article published shortly after the Fuglsang conference, Tzaferis dismissed the complexities of syncretism under the Seleukids as a result of a “religious laxity” and “general indifference” towards the religious traditions of the Hellenic colonists.4 Such dismissive remarks can prove damaging to the study of both the period and the religious phenomenon and have tainted scholarly discourse for many years. One particularly illuminating remark found in Green’s Alexander to Actium – a volume often used as an undergraduate text for the study of the Hellenistic period – is symptomatic of the tenacity of the traditional approach:

INTRODUCTION MODERN APPROACHES TO THE SELEUKIDS AND THEIR WORLD At its height, the Seleukid empire (312-64 BC) controlled a vast territory stretching from the Aegean Sea to beyond the Oxus River and from Armenia to the Sinai Peninsula. The heart of the empire, if not its centre, was the Syrian littoral, the strip of land between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates which connected its eastern domain with the wider Hellenistic world. For 250 years, the Seleukid kings and their Greco-Macedonian elite built cities and fortresses, raised massive armies and patronised temples but with the exception of a handful of sites, there is little archaeological evidence to show for this once mighty empire. The scant literary references are generally hostile, painting the Seleukid regime as everything from xenophobic Hellenes, effeminate eastern barbarians or cruel and impious tyrants; the kings were shown as easily outwitted and their servants cowardly. How then should the modern scholar approach aspects of the Seleukid dynasty and its empire, especially those of a religious nature?

“If the word ‘degeneration’ has any meaning at all, then the later Seleucids ... were degenerate: selfish, greedy, murderous, weak, stupid, vicious, sensual, vengeful ... we also find the cumulative effect of centuries of ruthless exploitation: a foreign ruling elite, with no long-term economic insight, aiming at little more than immediate profits and dynastic self perpetuation ...”5

“…it is very difficult indeed to determine the shares that the various influences contributed, from the conquests of Alexander to the Roman domination, to make Syrian paganism what it became under the Caesars. The civilization of the Seleucid empire is little known, and we cannot determine what caused the alliance of Greek thought with the Semitic traditions.”1

It will become quite clear that much of the colonial approach prevalent through the Bevan-Tarn-GreenWalbank generations of Hellenistic academia is outdated and laden with considerable Romanised bias when viewed beside the scholarship of the likes of SherwinWhite, Kuhrt, Downey, Grainger and Ma. That is not to dismiss the earlier works out of hand nor to say that I give myself wholly to the newer doctrines. The Hellenistic scholarship of the last two and a half decades, like so many disciplines, would not be possible were it not for the tremendous efforts of the giants of the early and mid-twentieth century – French and German as well as Anglophone. After all, who could deny the immense influence of scholars such as Droysen, Dussaud, Seyrig or indeed Cumont?

Thus spoke Franz Cumont in the beginning of the last century. However, there has been much work on aspects of the Seleukid empire in the last 25 years, specifically in the field of numismatics, in the form of numerous regional studies and in terms of archaeological fieldwork. Although none of these surpass the likes of Bevan’s The house of Seleucus (1902) in regard to its comprehensive political narrative, they have proved vital in the reinterpretation of what it was to rule – or to be ruled by – the Seleukid state. Perhaps now it is becoming possible to critically challenge Cumont’s authority of the religious processes that took place under the Seleukids.2 An important attempt was made in 1990 at a conference held at Fuglsang Manor in Denmark investigating “the

The post-colonial push of the 1990s to recognise the indigenous (eastern) contribution to the Seleukid empire, driven by Sherwin-White and Kuhrt among others, went a long way towards rectifying the traditional focus on the Greco-Roman and ancient Jewish written records. For Kuhrt and Sherwin-White the empire was not a culturally dominating colonial force but a network of co-operation between the ruling dynasts and the various indigenous elites – a system of control largely inherited from their

1

Cumont 1911: 121. However, the 1911 publication was a direct English translation of Cumont’s earlier Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain originally published in 1906. Cumont’s alliance of thought and tradition is manifested in the religious phenomenon known as syncretism. The terms, syncretism/syncretic/syncretised are used throughout this study in reference to the process of reconciling two sets of competing belief systems through the merging or amalgamation of foreign deities with familiar or indigenous gods. It illuminates the religious and cultural acceptance of aspects of alien religious traditions without a whole-hearted adoption or conversion. 2 However, note the underlying pessimism inherent in works such as Millar 1987: 130-1, “Given this absence of evidence, we cannot expect to know much about the culture of Syria in this period, or whether there was, except along the coast, any significant evolution towards the mixed culture which came to be so vividly expressed in the Roman period.”

3

Bilde et al. 1990: 7. Tzaferis 1992: 128. 5 Green 1990: 554-5. For other examples see, Cary 1951: 365-6; Tarn 1952: 336-7; Bickerman 1966: 97; Zahle 1990: 133; Walbank 1992: 209; Shipley 2000: 155. 4

vii

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Achaemenid predecessors.6 However, works such as Sherwin-White and Kuhrt’s From Samarkhand to Sardis (1993) are at risk of becoming ‘Babylocentric’ in the same way that the study of fifth century BC Greece is so often ‘Athenocentric’. Obviously, the Seleukids considered Babylonia and Iran to be crucial components of their empire – the massive military force raised by Antiochos VII Sidetes (80-100,000 strong) to recover the region from the Parthians clearly indicates the area’s ideological and material value. However, the sheer volume of material relating to Seleukid Babylonia (preserved through the medium of inscribed clay tablets)7 leaves the impression that outside of Babylonia, all other parts of the empire were peripheral. The study and publication of these cuneiform texts continues and adds increasingly to our understanding of daily life in Hellenistic Babylonia. However, the Babylocentric view of the empire as a whole may be refocused through an illustration drawn from the reign of Antiochos III the Great – the Seleukid king whose reign is best documented. Although he had served as viceroy of the East during his brother’s short rule, presumably residing more or less permanently in Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris, during his own 36-year reign, the king spent parts of a mere three years in Babylonia (in 220, 204 and 188/7 BC)8.

Each of these regions had their own centre and each region formed an integral part of the ‘whole’. The loss of Media caused just as much consternation in the court as the loss of the Anatolian satrapies. This holistic approach to understanding the dynamics of the Seleukid empire was championed by many of the scholars participating in a conference dedicated to the Seleukids held at the University of Exeter in 200811 and such views are beginning to dominate in the scholarship of the early twenty-first century. A significant step towards an understanding of Syrian religion under the sway of a Mediterranean based empire came in 2003 with the publication of Lightfoot’s Lucian: on the Syrian Goddess. Taking a holistic approach to the study of Lucian’s treatise on the sanctuary at HierapolisBambyke, Lightfoot accumulated an impressive corpus of comparative material, both historical and archaeological, with which to support or reject the various statements of Lucian as pilgrim. Lightfoot’s work is so comprehensive that except for a few points of contention, it is hard to see how there could be any need for another reappraisal of Lucian’s The Syrian Goddess in the near future. Although Lucian flourished in the mid-second century AD, two centuries after the fall of the last Seleukid kings, much of the historical material of his predominantly ethnographic study pertained to the lifetime of Seleukos I. In Lucian’s day, the standing temple was believed to have been funded by that monarch. The work is therefore a possible source for the Hellenistic period sanctuary at Hierapolis in lieu of any archaeological evidence. The most significant contentious belief of Lightfoot is that Lucian’s temple could not have been a Seleukid construction but must date to a later Roman-dominated period. This conviction obviously has significant ramifications for the use of Lucian as a source and serves to highlight the continued uncertainty that surrounds the study of Syrian religion.

By the same token, the excellent works of Grainger (especially The cities of Seleukid Syria, 1990) carry their own Mediterranean based prejudices, emphasising the colonising projects of the kings which saw large numbers of Hellenised migrants settling in north Syria. Ma’s Antiochos III and the cities of western Asia Minor (2000, reprinted with addenda 2002), although necessarily focused on the far western fringe of the Seleukid empire, provides abundant information which impacts on our understanding of the wider empire. Ma freely acknowledges that his geographic unit was one of many foci within the state. What needs to be continually stressed is the extensive and diverse nature of the Seleukid empire from its inception and the fact that there was no centre except the person of the king and his itinerant court.9 We find time and again that the empire was broken down into separate ‘commands’, often held by members of the king’s immediate family, that saw viceroys set over Anatolia, Syria, Babylonia and Media.10

As recently as 2005, Winfried Held attempted to collate archaeological material to form a comprehensive picture of sacred architecture under the Seleukid kings.12 Although the study resulted in several interesting observations regarding eastern traditions of worship from temple roof tops, the principal obstacle faced by Held’s research lay in the real dearth of architectural remains for the period, especially within the religious sphere. Unaware of the Jebel Khalid excavations at the time of publication, Held was forced to rely on Roman period material to extrapolate his findings.

6

Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993. See for example, Linssen 2004. 8 Ma 2002: 7-8. 9 Austin 2003: 125. 10 Antiochos I was co-regent over the Upper satrapies from 293-281 BC (Diodorus Siculus Library of History 21.1.21; Plutarch Demetrius 38). Alexander, son of Achaios acted as strategos or viceroy of Anatolia beyond the Taurus for his brother-in-law, Antiochos II (OGIS 229.100-5 = Austin 2006: no.174) and Antiochos Hierax initially held the same position for his brother Seleukos II (Justin Epitome 37.2.6). Antiochos III seems to have acted as viceroy in Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris during the reign of his brother (Eusebius Chronicle Schoene-Petermann edition p.253; Polyaenus Stratagems 2.71.4). Under Antiochos III, Anatolia beyond the Taurus was held by the royal kinsman Achaios before the latter’s move to independence (Polyaenus Stratagems 5.40.7). Antiochos, son of Antiochos III was left as viceroy in Antioch-on-theOrontes during his father’s Anatolian campaign in the early 190s (Appian Syrian Wars 4; Livy History of Rome 33.49.6) and was 7

The primary focus of the present study, the Syrian or Levantine satrapies (particularly Seleukis, Kyrrhestis and Koile-Syria), does not reflect my own sense of ‘centre’ or even the most important part of the empire. In contrast, it reflects the selection of just one of the centres of the subsequently sent to administer the Upper satrapies (Livy History of Rome 35.13.5, 35.15.3) while the future Seleukos IV was established in the same period as viceroy at Lysimacheia (Appian Syrian Wars 3, Livy History of Rome 33.40.6, 33.41.4, Polybius Histories 18.51.8). 11 14th – 17th July 2008. 12 Held 2005.

viii

INTRODUCTION kingdom and, pragmatically, it makes sense that the area under investigation was occupied by a Seleukid state (or often several Seleukid states) longer than any other part of the empire – between 301 and 64 BC. Of course the very nature of the Levant as a crossroads between Europe, Asia and Africa led to the region being susceptible to syncretism, in religion as in other facets of culture, and as such provides an illuminating microcosm in which to analyse the processes and effects of Hellenisation. Perhaps the most significant archaeological site in terms of the provision of new evidence for this study has been Jebel Khalid, situated on the Euphrates river on the border between Syria and Mesopotamia. An Australian team led by Professor Graeme Clarke of the Australian National University has systematically excavated select areas of the site since 1986. Of particular importance to the present study are the rather fine acropolis palace and the temple and temenos courtyard known together as Area B.13 As the situation dictates (and more importantly, as the evidence allows), comparative material will be drawn from other sites within the Levant and where necessary, from further afield.

all modern interpretations of the ancient world are compounded when past beliefs are approached rationally from a culture versed in Judaeo-Christian monotheism and educated in twenty-first century cynicism.14 Further complexities of researching a population’s religious belief structures have been well summed up in a recent study of the political and religious history of seventeenth century Ireland. Although dealing with a subject geographically, culturally and chronologically detached from the focus of the present study, the basic problems remain unaltered. “Measuring the impact of the intangible spiritual lives of contemporaries on their actions is fraught with difficulty, which is why historians have preferred to deal with belief in the organised, corporate form of religion. However, this is to ignore the untidy reality which belief represents. People were part of a religious grouping for many overlapping reasons. For some it was custom ... For others it was primarily a badge of belonging ... For others, religion was the result of emotionally charged experiences that convinced them of their need for supernatural assistance in their lives.”15

The site of Aï Khanoum in Afghanistan provides an invaluable insight into Hellenistic civilisation in Central Asia and Dura-Europos has provided a comparable basis of investigation for pseudo-Hellenistic (Greco-Parthian and Roman) processes on the cusp of Mesopotamia. In like manner, it is hoped that in future, Jebel Khalid will be acknowledged as a flagship of Seleukid settlement analysis in northern Syria. However, in historical terms, Jebel Khalid played so small a role that its ancient name may not even have survived in the extant sources – the settlement was overshadowed by the great cities of the Syrian Tetrapolis and even by the provincial centres, Beroia (Aleppo) and Hierapolis-Bambyke (Membij). However, these larger settlements continued to prosper following the Hellenistic period and more than two thousand years of occupation obscures the Seleukid period settlements. Further, unlike the well preserved ancient remains of either Aï Khanoum or Dura-Europos, the urbanised occupation of Jebel Khalid was confined to the Seleukid period. The site was colonised in the early years of the dynasty and abandoned just before the demise of the last kings. The totality of evidence provided by the site is therefore relevant to the study of aspects of Seleukid colonisation.

Such a multifaceted understanding of religion provides a myriad of avenues of investigation, especially when it comes to cult in the Hellenistic world. However, the same multifaceted approach has the power to create a scholarly Will o’ the Wisp. The following study of Syrian religion under the Seleukid kings aims to avoid some of the pitfalls of too broad a subject whilst utilising a varied and comprehensive assortment of evidence to draw out a workable, adaptable but ultimately overarching hypothesis regarding the religious beliefs and practices maintained in Syria during the period of Seleukid rule. With this aim in mind, it is important to establish a framework within which the wider study may evolve. Crucial to this is the definition of ‘religion’. Throughout this study the terms religion and cult, religious and cultic, are used more or less interchangeably and are not intended to carry any form of subjective bias. Both are used to refer to some form of structured or organised system of practices. Gillespie’s “untidy reality” of actual, personal, belief is much harder to pin down, especially in an era which has left few clues regarding cognitive processes. For the purpose of this study, the basic understanding of religion or of a religious complex may be identified as a combination of one or more of the following:  A sacred topography;  A physical delineation of the boundary between sacred and profane space;  Veneration of some form of supernatural entity or entities;  Group beliefs and ideological structures;  A mythologically based narrative system, recorded or reported by a literary elite and/or

A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SELEUKID RELIGION Any examination of the religious beliefs and practices of past societies is plagued by a myriad of challenges. The usual problems of distance in space and time which afflict 13

The first ten years of excavation, including the acropolis, parts of the necropolis, fortifications and aspects of the domestic quarter have been published as JK 1. The terracotta figurines, predominantly from the domestic quarter have been published as JK 2. The ceramic corpus from Jebel Khalid has been published as JK 3. Preliminary reports on Area B can be found in Clarke et al. 2000: 123-6; Clarke and Jackson 2002: 116-21; Clarke et al. 2003: 171-5; Clarke et al. 2005: 128-35; Clarke et al. 2008: 59-64.

14 15

ix

Patrich 2005: 95. Gillespie 2006: 15-6.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

      

depicted visually and thereby accessible to the wider (illiterate) community; Cultic practices including, but not restricted to, sacrifices, parades and pilgrimage; Prayers, either liturgical or personal; Monumental architecture (especially for civic cult); Sculpture and other high status decoration; Material culture not normally associated with other types of sites; Architectural and other evidence paralleled at other known cultic sites; Spatial continuity of religious activity.16

possible. Although it is sometimes difficult to avoid, the extrapolation of information from post-Seleukid phases of sites will be kept to a minimum. Apart from excavation material, information from the accounts of early modern European travellers has been used to supplement what is known materially of specific sites (especially important for Hierapolis-Bambyke) and of course ancient written sources have been scrutinised to assist in the cognitive understanding of the material culture. When dealing with ancient written evidence it is unfortunately even harder, and at times impossible, to resist the need to extrapolate information from sources of different periods. The great dearth of surviving literature written during the Hellenistic age is no secret to any scholar of the period but the problem is accentuated when it comes to the Seleukids and their empire, the more so in regards to religious material. The modern scholar is forced to rely on the biased and often hostile views expressed by Appian, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Justin, Josephus, Eusebius, Athenaeus and the books of the Maccabees. It is only in Lucian’s treatise on HierapolisBambyke that we are provided with any attempt to discuss religious observances within the kingdom and even he is of the most dubious reliability.20

Within the scheme of colonialism and imperialism that existed across the Hellenistic East, religion provided “a major, if not the main, area in which patriotic localism could coexist with allegiance to the centre”.17 Through the adoption, adaption or manipulation of indigenous belief systems, the ruling foreign power could reach a modicum of understanding with its native subjects. This Seleukid inclination to assimilate indigenous traditions resulted in the generally peaceful co-existence of otherwise alien social systems. The underlying Semitic religious practices found in the cities of Syria and Mesopotamia during the Greco-Roman period show distinct local variation within equally distinct universal patterns.18 Naturally, individuals in any cultic complex (ancient or modern) pay more or less observance to their religious systems in accordance with their means and personal beliefs – a concept epitomised in the sixth century BC by Drakon’s Law.19

State documentation of religious matters is restricted to a small number of inscriptions naming holders of priesthoods and the numismatic record. Often an underutilised resource, royally-authorised coinage provides an insightful keyhole through which to observe changing state attitudes towards religious matters. While the obverses of most Seleukid coins bore the image of the king (often religious images in themselves), the majority of reverses held iconography of religious significance – state deities or those of local prominence that had gained state patronage. Much of the study of the Seleukid patronage of specific deities and the development of the royal cult may be established through numismatic evidence.

In order to identify religious elements within Seleukid Syria, a variety of evidence has been utilised. As already mentioned, the excavated remains at Jebel Khalid will be used to provide one primary set of material evidence. In addition to Jebel Khalid, archaeological data will also be utilised from other significant sites across the Levant – principally Hierapolis-Bambyke, Seleukeia-Pieria, Baitokaike, Umm el-Amed, Gadara, and Gerasa. The study is therefore informed by sites ranging from the north-eastern Mediterranean coast, inland to the Euphrates and south to Jordan and Israel. Where necessary, other sites from across the wider empire such as Edessa or Dura-Europos in Mesopotamia, and Aï Khanoum in Baktria will also be called upon for supplementary data. By narrowing the focus of study to a small number of sites, the body of evidence can be collated with greater cohesion than might otherwise be

In summary, this volume takes an integrative approach to the study of Hellenistic cult and cultic practices in an important part of western Asia by employing a combination of archaeological, numismatic and historical evidence. Although any thorough investigation of Seleukid religion would prove illuminating in itself, this research uses religion as a lens through which to explore the processes of acculturation and rejection within a colonial context. It discusses the state attitude towards, and manipulation of, both Hellenic and indigenous beliefs and places this within a framework developed out of a series of case studies exploring evidence for religion at a regional level. The study outlines the development of religious practices and expression in the region which formed the birthplace of the modern world’s three most influential monotheistic religions

16 Coogan (1987: 2-3) reduced the requirements to identify a cultic site to one or more of four criteria: isolation, exotic materials, continuity and parallels. While his criteria may suit the needs of Iron Age sites in the southern Levant, they are too restrictive for the nuances of the Hellenistic period. 17 Lightfoot 2003: 207. 18 Drijvers 1980: 6. Semitic/Semite are used here and throughout as general terms to discuss the indigenous populations of the Levant (west Semitic) and Mesopotamia/Babylonia (east Semitic). 19 “People should worship the gods and the local heroes, communally in accordance with ancestral laws, privately in accordance with their means.” In Porphyry On Abstinence 4.22 translation from van Straten 1993: 261.

Without a detailed analysis of the political and cultural history of Hellenistic Syria there can be no basis on 20

x

See Chapter 4.5 below.

INTRODUCTION which to build an understanding of the religious climate of the Seleukid kingdom nor of the relationship between the kings and the belief systems of their subjects. Therefore, this study begins with a narrative account of the Hellenistic occupation of, and the continued Seleukid control over, Syria (Chapter 1). The first chapter includes a brief enquiry into the nature of the perceived ethnic groupings within the region and how these may have influenced the assimilation or rejection of religious beliefs. A more comprehensive consideration of religion under the Seleukids follows, beginning with a review of deities patronised by the kings (Chapter 2) and continuing with an analysis of the development of the royal cult in which the kings initially received posthumous deification but which grew to include the worship of not only the living king and queen, but even their living children (Chapter 3). Devolving from a state to a regional level, evidence for worship conducted at various Levantine sites, both civic and extra-mural, is investigated, divided geographically into northern (Chapter 4) and southern (Chapter 5) groupings. The shorter penultimate chapter (Chapter 6) discusses the evidence for the official administration of cultic practices and the variety of sacrificial rites available for royal and private participants. The concluding chapter evaluates the available evidence and attempts to refute the statement by Cumont with which this introduction opened. A century on, it is possible to determine with some confidence the cause which allied Greek and Semitic traditions in the last three centuries BC.

xi

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY the death of Seleukos IV in 175 BC, including the Seleukid conquest of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia. The later Seleukid period is subdivided into two sections. The late Seleukid I period begins with the usurpation of Antiochos IV Epiphanes in 175 BC and covers the time of dynastic strife down to the death of Kleopatra Thea in 121 BC. This period saw chronic fighting between the senior branch of the Seleukid family and the descendants of Epiphanes, but also a change in the religious perceptions of the monarchy. The late Seleukid II period runs from the sole reign of Antiochos VIII Grypos (12196 BC) until the transformation of the kingdom into the Roman province of Syria in 64 BC. The period was again disrupted by endemic feuding between two branches of the royal house and the dramatic rise in localised autonomy felt by both cities and indigenous dynasts. The third section of this chapter discusses numerous perceptions of ethnicity and questions the total dominance of Hellenism in Seleukid Syria.

CHAPTER 1 A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY The title of this chapter is intended to be as much a question as it is a label. Too often, the Macedonian conquest of the old Achaemenid domains is seen in terms of unquestionable western military and political superiority by which the indigenous populations were subdued and suppressed leaving their own cultures with little room to develop or flourish. However, this was clearly not the case across the majority of the newly occupied territories. Undoubtedly, the Macedonian military machine was more powerful and versatile than that which had previously existed and this, by the very nature of ancient geo-politics, led to the domination of Hellenised political institutions. But these political institutions were not untempered by the political, social and religious environment over which they were created to rule. The earlier pre-conquest systems of government and religion were incorporated by various degrees within the new colonial world and were used as legitimators of the Hellenistic kings. In addition, religious beliefs held the potential to provide one of the few unifying forces in what proved to be, politically, a tumultuous period in Syrian history.

1.1

A GEOGRAPHIC OUTLINE OF HELLENISTIC SYRIA

The terms ‘Syria’ and ‘Levant’ are used synonymously throughout this work as encompassing terms for the grouping of disparate geographic units at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is essential to emphasise from the outset that although much of modern Syria falls within its ancient counterpart, the Hellenistic appellation covers a far more extensive stretch of land extending from the Taurus mountains of Anatolia in the north, to the Negev desert in the south.3 The Mediterranean coastline forms the western border which contrasts with its far more malleable eastern counterpart. The western extent of the Euphrates river provides a fixed border between Syria and Mesopotamia in the north-east but south of that, the eastern fringe gradually fades into the Arabian desert and out of the immediate focus of this work.

The extent to which the Greco-Macedonians truly held a cultural hegemony over Seleukid Syria is certainly a subject open to question. The term Hellenistic, coined by Droysen to define the epoch of cultural interaction after Alexander the Great,1 was derived from the Greek hellenistai, a term from the New Testament Book of Acts (6.1, 9.29) used to identify non-Greeks who had chosen to imitate the Greek colonisers. An equally appropriate term, hellenismos was used in II Maccabees 4.13 to segregate those Jerusalemite Jews who had adopted Greek athletic practices to the abhorrence of some of their contemporaries. It is this cultural interaction at the very heart of the concept ‘Hellenistic’ which is considered below.

The region is subdivided by a number of mountainous or highland zones which roughly align north-south to create two parallel ranges reaching their highest peaks in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges which rise to 3,088 and 2,629 metres above sea level respectively.4 Between these ranges, the Massyas/Bekaa valley (a northern extension of Africa’s Great Rift Valley) forms the watershed for the Orontes and Jordan rivers which, along with the Euphrates, form the three main water courses of the region. From the Bekaa, the Orontes river flows north, reaching the Mediterranean through the gap between the Amanos and Bargylos mountains. The Jordan river passes south below Mount Hermon (a southern extension of the Anti-Lebanon rising to 2,814 metres above sea level),5 briefly widens into the Sea of Galilee before emptying into the Dead Sea. A populous

This chapter provides the narrative framework upon which the religious discussion of the following chapters may rest – without the political narrative, the actions of individual kings and communities cannot be placed in their proper cultural context.2 The account begins with a brief geographic outline of the regions to be discussed throughout the study and is to be read in conjunction with the accompanying map (fig.2). The chronological outline which follows arranges the history of the Hellenistic Levant into four discreet units. The first covers the period between Alexander’s conquest of the area in 333 BC until the division of the Levant between Seleukos I Nikator and Ptolemy I Soter following the battle of Ipsos in 301 BC. The second division encompasses the early Seleukid period, an epoch typified by dynastic unity and strength, covering the occupation of north Syria from 301 BC until

3

Strabo Geography 16.2.1-2. For more on the application of the toponym ‘Syria’ see (among others) Jones 1937: 227-8; Butcher 2003: 10-1; Green 2003: 153-4; Cohen 2006: 22. 4 Dar 1993: 2. 5 Dar 1993: 2.

1

Droysen 1877. This is especially true in regards to the numismatic data discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, see for example the preface of Mørkholm 1966: 7. 2

1

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES and naturally fertile coastal strip exists between the Amanos-Bargylos-Lebanon range and the sea and broadens out into a wider plain to the south of the Galilean highlands. Highlands also exist further inland, descending from the Taurus in the north and stretching from the Auran along the east bank of the Jordan. These highland zones gradually flatten out into an arable upland steppe before merging with the desert. This ill-defined “desert coast”6 to the south and east of the mountains and highlands is punctuated by perennial springs and fertile oases which enabled large inland polities to grow and survive.7

Before the Hellenistic period, most urbanised settlements appear to have existed along the Mediterranean coast, principally in Kilikia Pedias and Phoenicia. The village or tribe seems to have been the dominant community type of the interior with the exception of a few centres such as Aleppo/Beroia, Manbog/Bambyke, Damascus and Petra.12 The latter settlement is a reminder that beyond the desert frontier, the Nabataeans maintained a culturally sophisticated, mixed settled-nomadic, existence which not only included many small permanent settlement sites but did much to irrigate and utilise what would otherwise have been unusable desert.13 Such was the situation on the eve of the Macedonian conquest. Beyond this, as Millar has stated, “... we find that almost nothing is known, from either literary or documentary or archaeological evidence, about what these places were like in the Achaemenid period ...”14

Today, ancient ‘Syria’ is divided between six modern political entities: the Republic of Turkey, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Lebanon, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the State of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. By the Hellenistic period, Syria’s numerous sub-regions had acquired Greek names which shall be employed throughout this work to distinguish between the various areas. Starting in the north-west, the two Kilikias formed the gateway between the Anatolian plateau and Syria proper. Kilikia Pedias (Smooth Kilikia) formed a fertile alluvial plain watered by rivers which drained from the Taurus mountains. The ring of the Taurus which framed Kilikia Pedias to the west and north was known as Kilikia Tracheia (Rough Kilikia).8 Immediately to the east, Mount Amanos divided Kilikia from the highlands of Kommagene and the steppe of northern Syria which was itself roughly sub-divided into Seleukis in the west along the Orontes, Kyrrhestis further north and east and Chalkidike on the south-eastern steppe.9 South of Seleukis, between the coast and the massif of Mount Lebanon lay Phoenicia. Beyond the mountain to the east and south lay Koile-Syria (Hollow Syria)10 which like its northern counterpart was further subdivided to include Massyas and Abilene on either side of the Anti-Lebanon and the highlands of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis and Auranitis. Continuing south of Phoenicia, the Galilean highlands flattened out into Samareitis, Judaea and Idumaea between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. East of the Jordan lay the smaller regions of Peraea, Ammanitis and Moab, much of which would later form Pompey’s Decapolis.11

1.2

THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE

FROM ISSOS TO IPSOS (333-301 BC) Early in 333 BC, the Macedonian king Alexander III (the Great) passed through the Taurus mountains into the plains of Kilikia Pedias, leaving behind him Kappadokia, Anatolia and Europe. After a tour of the Kilikian cities, prolonged in Tarsos by a bout of fever, Alexander continued east, headed for northern Syria through the socalled Syrian Gates between Mount Amanos and the Mediterranean.15 The Achaemenid Persian king, Darius III, passed Alexander on the far side of the Amanos and emerged north of the Macedonian position, effectively cutting off the latter’s supply lines. Alexander promptly turned back and on the banks of the Pinaros River near the town of Issos, the Macedonian and Persian kings fought for control of the Levant. The battle was a resounding victory for Alexander and Darius withdrew east towards Babylon.16 Alexander sent his most trusted lieutenant Parmenion to capture Damascus while the king continued south to Marathos where he accepted the submission of Strato, prince of Arados and the neighbouring settlements and rejected peace terms sent by Darius.17 The Macedonian king moved further south accepting the surrender of each

6

Jones 1937: 227-8. Bevan 1902: 1.207-22; Jones 1937: 227-8; Butcher 2003: 11-5. Strabo Geography 14.5.1-20. 9 Strabo Geography 16.2.1-12. 10 The exact parameters of Koile-Syria as a geographic unit were confused and changed throughout antiquity (see Bickerman 1947). It is used here in the general sense known to Polybius (Histories 1.3.1, 2.71.9, 5.67.3-8, 28.1.1-9) and later specified by Strabo (Geography 16.2.21) as “... the whole of the country above the territory of Seleuceia [Seleukis], extending approximately to Aegypt and Arabia ...” (Loeb translation). This use of the term essentially covered the inland area of the Ptolemaic province of ‘Phoenicia and Syria’ before the battle of Panion in 200 BC. After its incorporation within the Seleukid empire, the same territory was known as ‘Phoenicia and Koile-Syria’ to distinguish it from the northern satrapy. 11 Strabo Geography 16.2.13-37. However, the first references of any kind to the Decapolis are much later, in the first century AD, see Mark 5.20, 7.31; Matthew 4.25; Pliny Natural History 5.74. Although Strabo was clearly interested in city leagues (eg the Lykian League, Geography 14.3.2-3) and refers to individual cities of the Decapolis after Pompey’s

removal of them from Judaean control (Geography 16.2.46), he fails to mention any formal political unit in the region. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 14.74-6; id. Jewish War 1.155-7) likewise discusses Pompey’s removal of the Koile-Syrian cities from the Hasmonaeans and their incorporation within the province of Syria but speaks nothing of the creation of the Decapolis. On the Imperial foundation of the Decapolis see Wenning 1994: 1-2, 11-2. 12 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.97-8; Strabo Geography 16.2.20; Jones 1937: 197-8; 235-7; Seyrig 1970b: 293-8; 1971: 11-21; Lightfoot 2003: 8-9, 38-9. 13 Glueck 1965: 47-64; Bowersock 1994: 12-27. 14 Millar 1987: 111; see also Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). 15 Arrian Anabasis 2.4-6; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 3.4.17.15; Justin Epitome 11.8. 16 Arrian Anabasis 2.7-12; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 3.9.111.27; Justin Epitome 11.9. 17 Arrian Anabasis 2.14-6; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 3.13.14.1.14; Justin Epitome 11.10.1-9. Further terms were sent to Alexander during the course of the siege of Tyre which he again rejected; see Arrian Anabasis 2.26; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 4.5.1-7.

7 8

2

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY “indifference”.25 The region had been continually occupied in a political sense since the rise of Assyria in the mid-late eighth century BC and the death of one more alien conqueror would have resulted in little latent nationalism. In fact the only immediate effect of Alexander’s death was the revolt of Greek veterans settled by the late king in Baktria (quashed by Peithon, satrap of Media) and a federated attempt by the Greek cities to break free from Macedonian hegemony (the Lamian war) which was dealt with by Alexander’s old regent Antipater.26

of the Phoenician cities in turn until he arrived off Tyre which resisted a six month siege before falling.18 The rest of Koile-Syria offered little resistance with the exception of Gaza which was held briefly for the Achaemenid cause by the eunuch Batis and a body of Arab mercenaries. 19 Beyond Gaza to the west, Alexander reached the border fortress of Peleusion and passed into Egypt. He spent the winter in Egypt including six weeks travelling to Siwa in the Libyan desert before he passed back through KoileSyria en route to Mesopotamia in the spring and summer of 331 BC.20 Although he personally spent less than two years in the area of this study, Alexander’s conquest brought long lasting political and cultural ramifications to the region and its people.

However, among the various Macedonian officers who had served under Alexander, conflict broke out within days of the latter’s death. The resulting wars over the succession were to last the next 51 years. Two opposing camps initially formed either side of the notion of ‘imperial unity’. The centralists, ostensibly fighting to maintain the integrity of the empire for the new joint kings – Philip III Arrhidaios, the disabled half-brother of Alexander, and Alexander IV, the latter’s posthumous half-Iranian son by the Sogdian Rhoxane, were led by the Macedonian aristocrat Perdikkas and Eumenes, a Greek from Kardia. Opposed to Perdikkas was an alliance led by Antipater in Macedonia, Antigonos Monophthalmos in Phrygia and Ptolemy in Egypt, separatist satraps who resented Perdikkas’ authority and distrusted his ambitions.27 Perdikkas left Eumenes in Asia Minor to guard against aggression from Europe and turned first against Ptolemy. After a disastrous attempt by Perdikkas to cross the Nile in the spring of 321 BC, a group of his officers including Seleukos, the hipparch of the hetairoi (roughly the equivalent of a modern chief-of-staff) – estranged by his arrogance – murdered the regent in his tent.28 The army went over to Ptolemy en-masse.29 The separatists met with the murderers at Triparadeisos in northern Syria late in 321 BC. Here Antipater, as the most senior in age and experience, redistributed the satrapies, rewarding those who had assisted the separatist cause and punishing those who had remained loyal to Perdikkas. Eumenes fled into the eastern Taurus, Antipater obtained the guardianship of the two kings, Ptolemy retained Egypt (and presumably much of the army of Perdikkas) and Seleukos was rewarded for his assistance with the central satrapy of Babylonia.

With the departure of Alexander, the ancient sources lose interest in Syria until the wars of the Diadochoi following the king’s death in 323 BC. However, some scraps of information concerning Syria during the intervening years can be pieced together. One glimpse is provided by the sanctuary at Bambyke (later renamed Hierapolis). Just as the Phoenician cities had been left with their traditional forms of government, at least this one settlement of the interior held similar privileges. Bambyke started to produce quasi-autonomous silver coinage in this period. The issues bear Aramaic legends initially naming the high-priests, Abdhadad or Abyata, as the issuing authority and only later, perhaps prudently, included the name Alexander.21 Shortly before production ceased, around 300 BC or just after, the name of Alexander was replaced by the letters probably in reference to Seleukos.22 Lucian of Samosata informs us that a temple already standing on the site was rebuilt early in the third century BC by Stratonike, then wife of Seleukos I. 23 The Seleukid restoration of the site corresponded with the extension of the king’s power and therefore necessitated the cessation of all statements of even the most local autonomy. Within ten years of the Macedonian conquest of the Levant, Alexander was dead (June, 323 BC). He left no competent heir and moments before his death, was said to have prophetically uttered “I foresee that a great combat of my friends will be my funeral games.” 24 The news of the conqueror’s death bore little or no effect on the indigenous population of Syria. Will is almost certainly correct in interpreting the native response as

Antigonos Monophthalmos, appointed strategos (general) of Asia, carried on the war against the refugee Eumenes of Kardia. The former’s ambitions were made blatant to his colleagues when he began rounding off his own territory by annexing neighbouring satrapies. Antigonos was now the major threat to the autonomy of the various

18

Arrian Anabasis 2.16-25; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 4.1.15-26, 4.2.1-4.19; Justin Epitome 11.10.10-4. 19 Arrian Anabasis 2.26-7; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 4.6.731; Wilcken 1967: 112. 20 Arrian Anabasis 3.1-6; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 4.7.18.16. 21 Seyrig 1971: 11-21; Millar 1987: 126; Zahle 1990: 128-9; Mildenberg 1999: nos.1-6, 9-24. 22 SC 1: 26-7. Bambyke would not have the relative autonomy to mint its own coins again until the reign of Antiochos IV in the mid-second century BC, see SC 2: nos.1432-3. 23 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 17. 24 Arrian Anabasis 7.26; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 10.5.5; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 17.4-5; Justin Epitome 12.15.6-8; Heckel 2002: 81-95; Antela-Bernadez 2011.

25

Will 1984: 29. On the Baktrian revolt: Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.7. On the Lamian war: Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.3.1-3, 18.8-18; Justin Epitome 13.5. 27 Arrian Events after Alexander 1.5; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.14.1-2, 18.25.4; Justin Epitome 13.6.4-20, 13.8.1. Will (1984: 29) uses the wonderful expressions “unitary” and “particularist tendencies” to describe the opposing parties. 28 Justin Epitome 13.8.2. 29 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.34.6-36.5. 26

3

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES satraps and his actions showed that he did not feel at all bound by the treaty of Triparadeisos.30 In response, Ptolemy advanced from Peleusion into Koile-Syria and Phoenicia, establishing a military buffer zone between Egypt and the greater powers of Asia in the manner of his Pharaonic predecessors. In 319 BC, word of the death of Antipater removed the last check holding the various parts of the empire together.31 The following year Eumenes crossed the Taurus into Kilikia where he levied soldiers to continue the fight against Antigonos. 32 He moved south to push Ptolemy out of his Levantine holdings but the arrival of Antigonos in Kilikia forced Eumenes to retire east, into the Upper Satrapies across the Euphrates. In Babylonia, Seleukos put up a nominal resistance to Eumenes but appears to have allowed the latter to pass through to the Iranian plateau. 33

unmolested when Antigonos approached with a superior land force.39 The following years saw Ptolemaic and Antigonid forces moving up and down the Levant and across Cyprus. In 312 BC Ptolemy and Seleukos faced Demetrios the son of Antigonos outside Gaza and completely routed the Antigonid army. Ptolemy once more occupied KoileSyria and provided Seleukos with a small land force for an attack on Babylon.40 Seleukos crossed the Euphrates and marched into Babylonia where he was welcomed by the indigenous population on account of the good relations he had maintained there in the years after Triparadeisos.41 Ptolemy held his Levantine possessions for less than a year before Antigonos joined his son and once more drove the Ptolemaic forces back to Egypt. Early in 311 BC, Ptolemy, Kassandros and Lysimachos agreed on a peace treaty with Antigonos based on the status quo. Seleukos, who was campaigning against the Antigonid satraps of the Iranian plateau, was not included.42

Antigonos followed Eumenes in due course and late in 317 or early 316 BC Eumenes and his allies were finally defeated in a great battle in the region of Gabiene, western Iran.34 Antigonos wintered in Media and reorganised the satrapal commands of the East. In 316 BC he was well received by Seleukos until he demanded that the latter account for all his revenues. Stating that Antigonos did not hold the authority to command an audit and fearful of his power and ambition, Seleukos took flight across the desert and sought sanctuary with Ptolemy in Egypt. Seleukos was made navarch (admiral) of the Egyptian fleet and Ptolemy formed an alliance with Antipater’s son Kassandros and Lysimachos, satrap of Thrace against the power of Antigonos Monophthalmos and his son Demetrios (later to be called Poliorketes).35 Antigonos campaigned through Syria for much of the following year, gaining control of Kilikia and the Phoenician port-cities of Tripolis, Byblos and Sidon, and perhaps others.36 Seleukos meanwhile cruised up and down the coast and it is possible that at this stage he seized control of Arados and used it as his base of operations and mint.37 Houghton and Lorber’s rejection of Seleukos’ occupation of Arados based on Diodorus’ statement that Antigonos was in Phoenicia is flawed. 38 Although Antigonos was certainly active in the area, Diodorus clearly states that Antigonos’ forces were disheartened because Seleukos dominated the sea. The capture of the Phoenician port-cities by Antigonos was part of an attempt to construct an Antigonid fleet to try to counter the Ptolemaic threat posed by Seleukos. Arados was, and still is, an island and control of the seas enabled Seleukos to land anywhere at will. In 315 BC for example, Seleukos besieged Erythrai in the middle of Antigonid controlled Ionia and was able to slip away

Intermittent fighting flared up between Ptolemaic and Antigonid forces in Kilikia, Lykia and Cyprus in the ensuing years although, until 306 BC, there were no actions of any consequence.43 In that year Demetrios defeated Ptolemy in a vicious naval battle off Salamis in Cyprus. The victory had two immediate results, Ptolemy abandoned Cyprus to the Antigonids and Antigonos and Demetrios both assumed the diadem, becoming the first of the Diadochoi to claim the kingship in their own names.44 Philip III Arrhidaios and Alexander IV had both been murdered in the Machiavellian struggles for power in Macedonia and the Antigonid proclamation of kingship was soon mirrored by Ptolemy, Lysimachos, Kassandros and Seleukos. After an abortive Antigonid assault on Egypt through Koile-Syria (306 BC)45 and the equally unsuccessful siege of Rhodes (305-304 BC, during which Demetrios received his popular epithet ‘Poliorketes’ or the Besieger), 46 the remaining Diadochoi formed a last alliance against Antigonos and Demetrios which reached its climax in 301 BC on the field of Ipsos in Phrygia where Lysimachos and Seleukos defeated the Antigonids. Antigonos was killed during the fighting and his son was driven from Asia with the exception of a few port-cities.47 Throughout the period 333-301 BC, Greco-Macedonian armies and navies campaigned the length of Syria numerous times as the nominal borders between 39

Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.60.4. Appian Syrian Wars 54; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.82-6; Justin Epitome 15.1.6-9; Plutarch Demetrius 5-6. 41 Appian Syrian Wars 54; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.90-1. 42 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.105.1-5; Will 1984: 49-50. 43 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.19.3-5, 19.21, 19.27. 44 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.49-53; Plutarch Demetrius 16-8. 45 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.73-6. 46 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.91-100. 47 Diodorus Siculus (Library of History 20.106-13) provides a detailed commentary on the build up of the opposing forces although sadly his account of the battle itself has been lost. 40

30

Heckel 2002: 91. Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.50-2. Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.59.1-3, 18.61.4-5. 33 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.73. 34 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.39-44. 35 Appian Syrian Wars 53; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.55-7. 36 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.58.3. 37 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.58.5; Houghton 1991: 116; Kritt 1997: 87. 38 SC 1: 34-5. 31 32

4

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY successor states waxed and waned. One can only wonder at the effect this had on the settled local population. We know that Bambyke continued to mint its quasiautonomous coinage in the name of Alexander and it appears that the Phoenician and Kilikian cities provided shipyards and recruiting grounds for the various Macedonian navies. Beyond these two cases, we know little of the social and cultural impact on the ground. What we can say is that during the first three decades after Alexander’s conquest, the foundations were laid which would transform the region politically from an oppressed political backwater into one of the foremost centres of Hellenism in the Mediterranean. Numerous colonies of Greco-Macedonian or at least Hellenised settlers appeared across the less urbanised zones of the Levant (particularly northern Syria and inland KoileSyria) in this initial phase of occupation. In 307 BC, Antigonos consolidated his personal rule over Syria by founding the short lived capital of his new empire at Antigoneia on the Orontes river.48 Alexandreia-by-Issos in Kilikia Pedias was probably founded in this period either by Alexander himself, or else in his name by one of the satraps in commemoration of the great victory. 49 A colony of Macedonians was settled at Pella on the upper Orontes on the site later refounded by Seleukos as Apameia.50 Kyrrhos in Kyrrhestis and Marathos and Orthosia in Phoenicia may also have received Macedonian settlers.51 Tyre was rebuilt by Alexander after the siege and repopulated. By 321 BC it was once again a fully fortified city of great importance. 52 In KoileSyria, there is evidence for Greco-Macedonian settlement in this early period at Dion, Gerasa, Pella and Samareia.53

territorial base. Ptolemy had taken no part in the Ipsos campaign and as such, the victors assigned him none of the spoils. His occupation of the Levant as far north as the Eleutheros river meant that he controlled a significant proportion of the new territory nominally in the possession of his friend and ally Seleukos.54 Seleukos is said to have overlooked the immediate disagreement on account of the good relations between the two kings, but the foundation had been laid for a state of perpetual hostility between the two houses which amounted to six separate disputes (the Syrian Wars) over the next century and a half. In the division of 301 BC, Ptolemy secured the vast majority of the urbanised areas of the Levantine coast and probably the important inland centre of Damascus. Under the Ptolemies, these cities lost their relative autonomy and by 274 BC, the last of the Phoenician dynasts had been removed.55 All that remained to Seleukos was the open steppe of northern Syria, the inland centres of Beroia/Aleppo and Hierapolis-Bambyke, Arados off the coast and the half constructed Antigoneia-on-the-Orontes. His first action seems to have been the consolidation of his hold over this predominantly rural territory. To this end, Seleukos furthered the colonising work of his immediate predecessors and laid the foundations of the tetrapolis of Seleukis, the four great cities given the dynastic names Seleukeia-Pieria (after the king), Antiocheia-on-the-Orontes (after the king’s father), Laodikeia-by-the-Sea (after the king’s mother) and Apameia-on-the-Orontes (after Seleukos’ Baktrian wife). Antigoneia suffered under the new regime and it would appear that much of its population was resettled in Antioch and Seleukeia.56 All told, Appian states that Seleukos built nine Seleukeias, sixteen Antiochs, five Laodikeias, three Apameias and one Stratonikeia (after his second wife). Appian then goes on to cite a large number of settlements bearing the names of towns in Greece and Macedonia of which the certified Syrian examples include Aigeai, Beroia, Arethusa, Larissa, Perinthos, Tegeia, Maroneia, Chalkis-on-Belos and Amphipolis.57 Like their Ptolemaic counterparts, the early Seleukids do not seem to have favoured local dynasts in their urbanised centres. As noted above, the priestlydynasts of Hierapolis-Bambyke lost their autonomy in the early 290s BC and the ruling Aradian dynasty was suppressed in 259 BC.58

THE EARLY SELEUKID PERIOD (301-175 BC) By the time the dust of Ipsos had settled, the borders of the Levant had been redrawn and, with them, the seeds of animosity were sown between the previously friendly courts of Seleukos and Ptolemy. Ptolemy first marched into southern Syria in 320 BC and continued to return at every opportunity until his final conquest of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia in 301 BC – while Antigonos and Demetrios were distracted north of the Taurus by Seleukos and Lysimachos. By right of conquest, these last two divided the Antigonid Asiatic possessions between them. Lysimachos received the Anatolian lands north of the Taurus and Seleukos claimed Syria, KoileSyria, Phoenicia and those parts of Mesopotamia not already occupied by Seleukid forces. Kassandros, who had provided the victors with men and money, was granted free reign in Greece and Macedonia and his brother Pleistarchos was awarded Kilikia. The defeated Demetrios Poliorketes still controlled a strong fleet and a few strategic cities in Greece, Cyprus and Phoenicia but for the meantime maintained a kingdom without a true

The battle of Ipsos marked the ultimate collapse of any unitary ideology maintained by the remaining monarchs. Each was established with equal legitimacy, roughly comparable resources and with the exception of Seleukos in his last few months, no king was in a position to restore Alexander’s empire into a single state. 59 In the

48

Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.47.5; Cohen 2006: 76-7. Cohen 2006: 75. Cohen 2006: 94-5, 121-4. 51 Cohen 2006: 181, 211-2. 52 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 18.37.3-4; Justin Epitome 18.3.19; Cohen 2006: 221-2. 53 Cohen 2006: 245, 248, 265, 274-6. 49

54

50

55

Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.113, 21.1.5. Jones 1937: 239. 56 Cohen 2006: 77-8. 57 Appian Syrian Wars 57. 58 Jones 1937: 239. 59 Cohen 1974: 177-9.

5

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 3. Stemma of the early Seleukid kings showing dynastic marriages.

6

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY political fallout following the division of territory in 301 BC, new dynastic links were forged between Alexander’s remaining successors. Lysimachos and his son both married daughters of Ptolemy. Demetrios was reconciled with Seleukos when the latter married Demetrios’ beautiful and well connected daughter, Stratonike.60 Demetrios himself soon drove Pleistarchos out of Kilikia and established a new power base in Macedonia. His meteoric rise in fortune prompted the other kings to form a second alliance against him and in the ensuing war Demetrios was driven from his new conquests and ended up drinking himself to death under house arrest in northern Syria. Kilikia was joined as a natural extension to Seleukid Syria and for a few years formed the empire’s north-western border. However, in the late 280s BC Lysimachos and Seleukos fell out and the latter rounded off his kingdom with the conquest of Lysimachos’ territories in Anatolia and Thrace. At this point the disinherited eldest son of Ptolemy of Egypt, known as Ptolemy Keraunos, attached himself to the Seleukid court and as Seleukos marched through Thrace towards Macedonia, turned on his elderly patron and quite literally stabbed him in the back.61

Koile-Syria. In turn, Ptolemy II’s grandson would succeed to the Seleukid throne.65 Laodike, however, did not take kindly to the thought of her own children being disinherited. Antiochos II was lured to Sardes where Laodike had him poisoned (246 BC). Their eldest son Seleukos II was proclaimed king and Ptolemy III, the new king of Egypt marched on Seleukis to defend the rights of his sister Berenike and her newborn son.66 Thus opened the third Syrian or ‘Laodikean’ War. Ptolemy III was ultimately repulsed from most of Seleukis but retained a garrison in the strategically important and dynastically significant portcity of Seleukeia-Pieria.67 Seleukos I had been buried at Seleukeia-Pieria and while it remained in Ptolemaic hands it lingered as both a strategic and ideological thorn in the side of Seleukid Syria. The reign of Seleukos II – called Kallinikos after his initial victories against Ptolemy III – was not one of stability. His mother Laodike promoted his younger brother Antiochos Hierax to the throne in Sardes and while the royal family was divided by internecine struggles in Syria, Baktria and Parthia seceded from the empire’s East while the Attalids of Pergamon took most of the Seleukid possessions in Anatolia.68

The fragile peace between the Seleukids and Ptolemies did not outlive the dynastic founders by long. Two decades into the third century BC saw the second generation of Hellenistic kings in Asia and Egypt. The son and successor to Seleukos, Antiochos I (who unlike any of the Ptolemies, had actually fought at Ipsos) did not bear the same respect and camaraderie for Ptolemy II that had kept the peace between their fathers. The late 270s BC saw the outbreak of the first of the so-called Syrian Wars, where both houses struggled to assert their dominance over the disputed territories of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia. The First Syrian War appears to have had little lasting impact, although at some stage in the 270s BC,62 there was a moment when it looked like Antiochos might lose northern Syria to revolt.63 Likewise, the Second Syrian War (260-253 BC) had little effect on the wider political situation.64 A marriage between Antiochos II and Berenike, daughter of Ptolemy II, was intended to secure a more permanent peace but took no account of the spirit and determination of Antiochos II’s first wife Laodike. Berenike brought with her a tremendous dowry (after which she received the nickname Phernephoros – dowry-bearer) which included the Ptolemaic holdings in Kilikia Tracheia and the income of Ptolemaic controlled

Meanwhile, the Ptolemaic empire under Ptolemy III Euergetes reached its most powerful. Ptolemy seems to have held for a brief moment not only the entire Levantine coast, but also crossed the Euphrates and plundered the Seleukid eastern provinces. Seleukid Thrace was also won over by Egyptian admirals during Ptolemy III’s reign. Whether he ever intended to maintain permanent control of the newly won eastern territories is uncertain. When Ptolemy was called back to Egypt to face some uncertain trouble, he carried back with him over 40,000 talents of silver and images of the gods taken by the Persians during their rule over Egypt.69 In Ptolemy’s absence, Seleukos II was able to reconquer most of northern Syria as far as Damascus as well as Mesopotamia and Media. Over the course of the next generation, the tables were turned in favour of the Seleukid house. Seleukos II’s younger son Antiochos III (the elder son falling victim to a palace plot) reigned 36 years and would come to be known as Megas Antiochos, Antiochos the Great. Under his rule the Seleukid empire stretched once more from Thrace to Sogdiana and for the first time, from Armenia as far south as Gaza.70 In 192/1 BC he even occupied much of central Greece. During the Fourth Syrian War (221-217 BC) Antiochos pushed the Ptolemies out of Phoenicia and Koile-Syria, however, at Raphia on the Egyptian border he suffered a disastrous reverse at the

60 The pseudo-love triangle that emerged between Seleukos, Stratonike and Antiochos is one of the few well documented events in early Seleukid history, see Appian Syrian Wars 59-61; Lucian The Syrian Goddess 17-8; Plutarch Demetrius 38. 61 Appian Syrian Wars 62; Justin Epitome 17.1.7-2.5. It was Ptolemy Keraunos’ fate to die fighting against the Galatians in northern Macedon the following year. His head left the battlefield on the tip of an enemy spear, see Justin Epitome 24.5.1-7. 62 Grainger 2010: 73-87. 63 Known as the War of the Seleukid Succession and perhaps prompted by Ptolemy II, the disruption is known only from an inscription at Ilion, see OGIS 219 = Austin 2006: no.162. 64 Grainger 2010: 117-36.

65

Macurdy 1932: 87. Appian Syrian Wars 65; Justin Epitome 27.1.1-8. Grainger 2010: 153-70. 68 Appian Syrian Wars 65; Justin Epitome 27.3.1-5, 41.4.3-10; Holt 1999: 94-8. 69 Bevan 1927: 192-203. 70 Appian Syrian Wars 1. 66 67

7

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES hands of Ptolemy IV and withdrew back to Seleukis.71 It was not until the Fifth Syrian War of 202-198 BC that he was in a position to challenge the Ptolemies again and in the Jordan valley near the small sanctuary at Panion, Antiochos III won the decisive victory over the young Ptolemy V that secured Phoenicia and Koile-Syria as Seleukid provinces.72 In the intervening years Antiochos had imposed his authority over most of western and central Asia and finally succeeded in expelling the Ptolemaic garrison from Seleukeia-Pieria.73

THE LATE SELEUKID I PERIOD (175-121 BC) In 175 BC, Seleukos IV died, leaving two sons, neither of whom were in a position to rule the Seleukid kingdom competently; one (Demetrios I) was a hostage in Rome and the other (Antiochos ‘the son’) was still a minor. Seleukos’ brother Antiochos IV Epiphanes returned to Syria from Athens (where he had been resident) and as the most senior adult representative of the royal house assumed power, initially co-reigning with his young nephew Antiochos. Although technically a usurper, Epiphanes’ rule proved popular with the Syrian population and he was able to restore the kingdom to a position of regional dominance.78

Although the Seleukids now politically dominated all of Greater Syria, in cultural terms, the south was still subject to the Ptolemaic influence it had felt for the previous century. For the population on the ground, there could not have been too many life changing ramifications of Seleukid domination. Hellenised Egyptian cults continued to flourish (as they did all along the Levantine coast)74 and the local elites transferred their allegiance quickly and quietly to the new overlords. They may even have been thankful for the apparent incorporation of the local non-Greek elite within the Seleukid provincial administration.75 Many Phoenician cities minted regal coinage for the Seleukid kings although these were often produced on a dual standard – a series based on the Attic tetradrachm of 16.8 grams with types akin to the central mint of Antioch for trade with the rest of the Seleukid empire, and a local series based on the Phoenician (and Ptolemaic) tetradrachm of 14.3 grams with reverse types very similar to their Ptolemaic forebears, presumably for local use.76

In 170-168 BC the Sixth Syrian War was fought between Ptolemy VI and Antiochos Epiphanes. Ptolemy, attempting to re-impose Ptolemaic control over KoileSyria, was not only defeated by Epiphanes but was captured, restored as a Seleukid puppet, revolted, defeated again and besieged in Egyptian Alexandreia by the Seleukid king. A provincial administration was established in Egypt and agents of the Syrian king actively encouraged the Egyptian populace to rise up against the Ptolemies.79 Only the timely intervention by the Roman ambassador G. Popillius Laenas (known as the Day of Eleusis after the Alexandreian suburb in which Popillius encountered Epiphanes) prevented the unification of the two kingdoms under the Seleukid king. Epiphanes retired as far as Palestine, keeping control of Peleusion as an open gateway directly into Egypt should the need arise in the future. Under Epiphanes the integrity of the Seleukid kingdom was both strengthened and weakened. There appears to have been a concerted program of unification of the disparate parts of the empire through the worship of the king as the manifestation of the supreme god of the sky, thunder and mountains – a syncretised Ba’al-Zeus figure.80 At the same time, Epiphanes fostered a sense of civic pride and quasi-autonomy within individual cities. Over the course of the next century, the autonomy of civic centres and the power exercised by indigenous elites was recognised with increasing regularity by Seleukid princes and can be viewed as one of the factors that brought about the downfall of the kingdom.

Between 192 and 188 BC, Antiochos the Great fought an unsuccessful campaign against Republican Rome and her allies. In the general peace signed at Apameia in Phrygia (188 BC), Antiochos acknowledged defeat and conceded his European possessions, along with all Anatolian territories north of the Taurus mountains.77 The huge war indemnities imposed on the Seleukid king saw Antiochos once more campaigning in the East in an attempt to fill the royal coffers. In 187 BC during an attempted sack of a temple in Elymais, the king was killed and the throne passed to his eldest surviving son, Seleukos IV. The shock of the king’s death caused a ripple of unrest during which many of his eastern conquests managed to secede from the empire and regain their independence. Little is recorded of the reign of Seleukos IV and he appears to have spent much of his time consolidating what was left of his still substantial kingdom (including Kilikia, the whole of the Levant, Mesopotamia, Elymais and Media) and paying off the war debt to Rome.

After the death of Epiphanes in 164 BC, civil war between quarrelling branches of the Seleukid house became endemic. During the late Seleukid I period, conflict arose between the descendants of Antiochos Epiphanes, several of whom had only dubious claims to the throne, and the senior branch stemming from Seleukos IV; Demetrios I (who escaped from Rome and ruled Syria 162-150 BC), his sons and grandsons. During this period, members of the house of Ptolemy once more crept into positions of power within Syria, only now they

71

Polybius Histories 5.79-87; Grainger 2010: 195-218. Polybius Histories 16.18-9; 28.1.3; Grainger 2010: 245-71. 73 Polybius Histories 5.61.1-2. 74 See for example, Magness 2001; Sosin 2005; See also Chapters 5.1, 5.5.3 and 5.6 below. 75 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 50. 76 Rogers 1927: 2-3; Mørkholm 1991: 9. 77 Livy History of Rome 38.38. For a modern treatment on Antiochos’ war with Rome see Grainger 2002. 72

78 Appian Syrian Wars 45; Athenaeus Banquet of the Learned 5.193d; Livy History of Rome 41.20-1; Polybius Histories 30.25-6. 79 Plantzos 2002; Lorber 2007; Grainger 2010: 291-308. 80 Wright 2005.

8

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY

Figure 4. Stemma of the late Seleukid kings showing dynastic marriages.

9

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES came as wives and queens rather than generals. Although the Seleukids were not yet weak enough to allow for an easy Ptolemaic military coup, in their struggle for control of the state, numerous Seleukid princes married into the Ptolemaic family in order to use the economic resources of Egypt and Cyprus in their own struggles. These resources appear to have been freely given by an Egyptian court that (when not engaged in civil war itself) must have been delighted to watch its ancestral enemy literally tear itself apart. On a few occasions Ptolemaic armies did march once more across Koile-Syria but these were fleeting.81

year of sole-rule by Kleopatra before she brought Demetrios II’s second son, Antiochos VIII Grypos, home from an education in exile at Athens and raised him to the throne, maintaining her position as dowager-queen and regent for her young son.90 Whatever reasons she may have had for recalling Grypos are now lost but it is quite possible that the Syrian population had a problem with the sole rule of a monarch who was both female and a Ptolemy by birth. Grypos soon married his cousin, the Ptolemaic princess Kleopatra Tryphaina whose dowry included the financial support of the court at Alexandreia.91 He simultaneously embarked on a campaign against Alexander II Zabinas, a supposed illegitimate son of Alexander I Balas who had also been adopted by Antiochos Sidetes and claimed the throne following the latter’s death.92 Antiochos Grypos soon established a distinct disregard for his mother’s seniority and in 121/0 BC the dominating Kleopatra Thea was fated to drink poisoned wine she had prepared for her restless son. The start of Antiochos VIII Grypos’ sole reign in 121 BC initiated the last five or six peaceful years to be experienced by any ruling member of the Seleukid house.93

The vehicle of three Syro-Egyptian alliances was manifested in the form of the Ptolemaic princess Kleopatra Thea.82 This most extraordinary of women married Alexander I Balas, an illegitimate son of Epiphanes shortly after he launched his claim for the Seleukid throne (150 BC).83 Although only in her early teens at the time of the marriage, Kleopatra seems to have taken a leading role in the Seleukid court.84 In 148/7 BC Kleopatra’s father Ptolemy VI dissolved her marriage to Alexander and transferred Kleopatra and Ptolemaic support to the young Demetrios II, son of Demetrios I. Kleopatra’s second marriage did not last much longer than her first. Following Alexander Balas’ death (145 BC), his son by Kleopatra was brought forward as a new (rival) king by a Macedonian officer called Diodotos Tryphon. Rather than confront the immediate threat of Tryphon and his ward Antiochos VI Dionysos, Demetrios II marched east to attack the Parthians and was there captured.85 Kleopatra, fearing the aggression of Tryphon, invited Demetrios’ young brother Antiochos (VII Sidetes) to marry her and succeed to the Seleukid throne (138 BC). Thus began her third and perhaps most successful marriage.86 Antiochos Sidetes proved to be “not only opportune but able”87 and soon unified what remained of the Seleukid kingdom, now reduced to Kilikia, northern Syria and most of Phoenicia and Koile-Syria.88 Sidetes too marched east against the Parthians. He briefly reoccupied Mesopotamia and Babylonia before dying in battle. His brother Demetrios II, released by the Parthians just weeks before the death of Sidetes to create internal strife among the Seleukidai, resumed his throne but not his wife.

Although the Syrian Wars and internecine struggles occupied much of the competing Seleukid and Ptolemaic monarchies’ time, there is evidence to suggest that the colonising actions of the first Diadochoi were followed by the successors of Seleukos and Ptolemy I. Ptolemy II founded Philadelphia, Philoteria (somewhere on the Sea of Galilee) and perhaps Skythopolis in Koile-Syria and refounded Ake as Ptolemaïs in Phoenicia whilst Pella was refounded as Berenike under Ptolemy III.94 The Seleukid plantation scheme in Syria ceased following the death of Seleukos I but began afresh under the sons of Antiochos the Great. Seleukos IV established colonies in KoileSyria at Gadara, Seleukeia-Abila, Gaza and Seleukeia-inthe-Gaulan.95 His younger brother Antiochos IV Epiphanes developed a wide range of settlements into colonies including Tarsos and Epiphaneia in Kilikia Pedias, Antioch-Pieria and Epiphaneia in Seleukis, Epiphaneia-on-the-Euphrates in Kyrrhestis, Antioch-byHippos, Gerasa and Jerusalem in Koile-Syria. In Phoenicia, Epiphanes refounded Berytos as Laodikeia-inCanaan and once again refounded Ake-Ptolemaïs as Antioch-in-Ptolemaïs.96 Damascus was briefly renamed Demetrias, probably under Demetrios II in the late second century BC and the same king may also have refounded Amphipolis on the Euphrates as Nikatoris.97

Kleopatra, tired of the lack of Seleukid competence had Demetrios murdered (126/5 BC).89 Her eldest son by Demetrios, Seleukos V now made a claim for the throne but the ambitious Kleopatra Thea, fearful that an adult son would relieve her of her powers had him slain within months. What followed appears to have been roughly a

90

Appian Syrian Wars 69; Justin Epitome 39.1.9; Bellinger 1949: 64; Wright 2008. 91 Whitehorne 1994: 161. 92 Wright 2007-08: 537-8. 93 Justin Epitome 39.2.7-8; Bellinger 1949: 66. 94 Cohen 2006: 213, 265, 268, 273, 290-3. 95 Cohen 2006: 277, 282-3, 286, 289. 96 Pliny Natural History 5.93; II Maccabees. 4.9-10; Cohen 2006: 79, 106, 169, 206, 213-4, 227, 231, 248-9; SC 2: 55. 97 Cohen 2006: 242-3; see also Chapter 5.2 below. A study of Amphipolis-Nikatoris is currently underway for publication. The city can probably be identified with the site of Jebel Khalid.

81

Strabo Geography 16.2.8. Whitehorne 1994: 149-63. Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.80-2; I Maccabees 10.51. 84 Houghton 1988. 85 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 32.27.9d; Justin Epitome 36.1.7; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.131-2. 86 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.222. 87 Bellinger 1949: 57-8. 88 Eusebius Chronicle Schoene-Petermann edition p.256. 89 Newell 1939: no.7. 82 83

10

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY pattern continued for the better part of 20 years – one prince gaining the upper hand for a short period of time before over-extending his resources and being forced to withdraw until both claimants had exhausted all revenue. Josephus describes the two as boxers or wrestlers who found themselves exhausted yet were both too proud to yield.104 The bitter enmity between these two Seleukids was fuelled by animosity felt between their respective wives, Kleopatra Tryphaina and Kleopatra IV, both daughters of Ptolemy VIII. When Antiochos Grypos returned from Aspendos, he captured Kleopatra IV in Antioch. Against Grypos’ wishes, Tryphaina sent soldiers to execute her sister as she clung to the cult statue in one of the city’s temples.105 When Kyzikenos took Antioch back in 109 BC, he slew Kleopatra Tryphaina in revenge.

THE LATE SELEUKID II PERIOD (121-64 BC) The turbulent career of Kleopatra Thea ultimately laid the foundations for the next stage of instability and civil war. Conflict had already existed between her own court and rival parties formed around her sons Antiochos VI Dionysos (her son by Alexander I) and Seleukos V (her son by Demetrios II). Following her death, the major internal conflict within the Seleukid kingdom developed between Antiochos VIII Grypos (Thea’s second son by Demetrios II) and Antiochos IX Kyzikenos (Thea’s third son by Antiochos VII Sidetes) and continued between and among their sons and grandsons. This last period of Seleukid rule is notoriously badly documented in the ancient sources and the same pattern has been carried forward into the modern narratives. Bevan devotes a single chapter of his two volume work The house of Seleucus to the last 15 Seleukid monarchs.98 Bellinger made a major contribution to the understanding of the period with a more detailed study which has become the cornerstone of late Seleukid history; his account still covered a century in only 51 pages.99 Downey sums up the period with a succinct: “From this time until the occupation of Syria by the Romans in 64 BC, the history of Syria ... is a confusing and depressing record of growing weakness and dissolution …”100 The reigns of Ptolemaic-born Seleukid queens have received slightly more attention than their husbands and sons in the publications of Macurdy and in Whitehorne’s Cleopatras.101

At this stage, the inter-relations between the Ptolemaic and Seleukid courts became further entangled. Antiochos Grypos took the third daughter of Ptolemy VIII, Kleopatra Selene, as his new wife. Selene had previously been married to her brother, Ptolemy IX whose own first wife was the Kleopatra IV mentioned above, the later wife of Antiochos IX! When Ptolemy IX was expelled from Egypt by his co-reigning mother, Kleopatra III, his marriage to Selene was dissolved and the latter was dispatched to Syria to marry Grypos and tie him once more into a dynastic alliance with Kleopatra III’s court in Alexandreia.106 In 96 BC, Antiochos Grypos was assassinated by Herakleon, one of his own officers, and Antiochos Kyzikenos gained control of all of the Seleukid kingdom and married his brother’s widow, Kleopatra Selene.107 Herakleon established himself as independent tyrant of Herakleia and Hierapolis-Bambyke in Kyrrhestis. There was a contemporary tyrant named Strato who controlled nearby Beroia but he was removed by either Herakleon or his son and successor Dionysios who thus added the city to their territory to form a political unit of some importance in north-eastern Syria.108 Kyzikenos was himself dispossessed and killed by the eldest son of Grypos, Seleukos VI, in the following year. Kyzikenos’ son Antiochos X Eusebes claimed the throne as his father’s legitimate successor and to secure his position, became the fourth husband of his stepmother Kleopatra Selene.109

Much of what is known of the chronology of the period has been deduced from studies of the coinage of the rival Seleukid kings which, outside of Antioch, often bore dates in this period based on a Seleukid era starting in 312/1 BC – the return of Seleukos I to Babylon. Without the numismatic studies of scholars like Newell, Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, modern historians would have little material to work with.102 In recent years, the possibility of a previously unattested king, the elusive Seleukos VII, has been hotly debated on numismatic grounds and the issue has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.103 Shortly after Antiochos VIII Grypos’ assumption of sole rule, Antiochos IX Kyzikenos also declared his claim to the Seleukid throne and invaded the reduced kingdom. A testament to the extent of Seleukid dynastic discord, the warring claimants Grypos and Kyzikenos were at the same time half-brothers, cousins and brothers-in-law. Kyzikenos was initially successful and Grypos was forced to abandon Syria completely, spending a brief exile in Aspendos in Pamphylia (113/2 BC). In 112 BC Grypos returned with fresh forces and drove Kyzikenos from Seleukis and much of the Levantine coast. Thus the

Despite these internecine conflicts, the chronology of the principal Seleukid seats of the late Seleukid II period, Antioch and Damascus, has been untangled through a series of numismatic studies.110 Antiochos X Eusebes defeated Seleukos VI who was forced to commit suicide. However, Grypos had five sons and the death of the eldest amounted to chopping the head off a Seleukid hydra. Three of his brothers came forward to take their 104

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.327. Justin Epitome 39.3.5-12. 106 Justin Epitome 39.3.2, 39.4.1-4. 107 Appian Syrian Wars 69; Eusebius Chronicle Schoene-Petermann edition p.259. 108 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.365, 13.384; Strabo Geography 16.2.7. 109 Appian Syrian Wars 69. 110 Newell 1939; Houghton and Müseler 1990; Hoover 2007.

98

105

Bevan 1902: 2.247-68. 99 Bellinger 1949. 100 Downey 1961: 126. 101 Macurdy 1932: 93-101; Whitehorne 1994: 149-73. 102 See Bibliography for the extent of these scholars’ works. For the most recent (and much needed) revision of the traditional chronology see Hoover 2007. 103 Kritt 2002; Burgess 2004; Hoover 2005.

11

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES revenge on Eusebes. Demetrios III Eukairos was established in Damascus with the backing of Ptolemy IX. Demetrios’ brothers Antiochos XI and Philip I, the twins Philadelphoi, struck at Antioch from a base in Kilikia. According to Josephus, Antiochos X Eusebes was defeated and killed by the Parthians around 92 BC111 although how they were involved in the conflict is unclear. Perhaps they were already allied with Philip I as they would be later in his war against Demetrios III. Appian however, declares that Antiochos X Eusebes continued to reign somewhere in Syria for a further decade although it is possible that Appian has confused Eusebes with his son Antiochos XIII Asiatikos in this passage.112 Regardless, with Eusebes either dead, captured or a spent force, Philip I and Demetrios III turned on each other in the struggle to control Antioch. The dynasts of Hierapolis-Bambyke and Beroia were powerful enough to influence the outcome of the war and although Demetrios managed to drive Philip out of Seleukis, Philip sought shelter in Beroia and called upon the assistance of Aziz, the local Arab phylarch (chieftain), and Mithridates, the Parthian satrap of Mesopotamia. Demetrios III was captured and spent the rest of his life in sumptuous captivity at the Parthian royal court. Philip regained Antioch and in the south, the fifth son of Grypos, Antiochos XII Dionysos assumed the diadem in Damascus (88/7 BC).113

Alexander’s defeat of Darius at Gaugamela in 331 BC, Orontes, the Achaemenid satrap of Armenia declared his independence and with few interludes his dynasty retained its autonomy until the reign of Antiochos III the Great.117 Antiochos III intervened in the internal politics of Armenia and established the Armenian prince Artaxias as one of his strategoi over what was intended to remain a Seleukid satrapy. Following the Peace of Apameia in 188 BC, Artaxias assumed the Armenian throne in his own name and established a new dynasty. Antiochos IV Epiphanes again brought Armenia within the Seleukid empire but during the troubles of the late Seleukid I period it again seceded.118 Henceforth, Armenians played little role in the ambitions and careers of the Seleukid kings until the reign of Tigranes II (95-55 BC). Justin states that Tigranes was invited by the cities of northern Syria to replace the squabbling Seleukid princes as their monarch although Appian’s account makes his acquisitions (of all the lands between Kilikia and Egypt) far more sinister.119 Tigranes certainly entered Antioch around 74 BC and Damascus by 72/1 BC and established his dominance over the local kings and dynasts. 120 The Armenian king besieged Kleopatra Selene in AkePtolemaïs in 69 BC and captured her along with the city. Selene was taken to Seleukeia-Zeugma in Kommagene and there executed. The Armenian noble Magadates was made governor of the new Artaxiad satrapy of Syria while Tigranes retired to northern Mesopotamia where he forcibly settled 300,000 Arabs, Greeks, Kappadokians and Kilikians at his new southern capital which he named – with Hellenistic aplomb – Tigranokerta, after himself.121 The ancient sources concerning Tigranokerta’s exact location contradict each other and modern scholarship has tended to place it at either Meiafarkin or Tell Ermen/Kiziltepe to the north or south of the Tigris respectively.122 Tigranes maintained complete control of most of Syria until the campaign of L. Lucullus in 69 BC forced him to withdraw his forces.

Philip reigned for an uncertain period of time in Antioch and we are not provided with an account of his death. Antiochos XII maintained control of Damascus although he suffered from endemic depredations from Ptolemaios the tetrarch of the Ituraeans, the Nabataean king Aretas III, and the Hasmonaean ruler Alexander Jannaeus. He died in battle against a combined Judaeo-Nabataean force in 83 BC and Damascus opened its gates to Aretas rather than accept the neighbouring Ituraeans as its new rulers.114 Meanwhile, the claim of the sons of Antiochos X Eusebes and Kleopatra Selene to the Seleukid throne were upheld by the boys’ mother. The eldest son, Antiochos XIII Asiatikos certainly co-reigned with Selene maintaining their position in Koile-Syria around Damascus and parts of the coast. Coin hoard evidence suggests that sometime after 80 BC, the pair reclaimed Damascus for the Seleukid house although they were not fated to hold it for too long.115 Selene may have become estranged from Antiochos XIII at some stage between 83 and 75 BC and co-reigned separately with a second son named Seleukos (VII) although this is highly conjectural and depends wholly on the reading of a single badly preserved bronze coin.116

In the wake of Tigranes’ withdrawal, the victorious Lucullus accepted the rights of Antiochos XIII Asiatikos to his ancestral throne and Antiochos seems to have been

117

Justin Epitome 38.7.2; Burney and Lang 1971: 191; Redgate 1998: 61-3; Chahin 2001: 188. Whilst Burney, Lang and Redgate give only summary accounts, Chahin’s more detailed but fiercely partisan outlook must be treated with caution. 118 Strabo Geography 11.14.15; Burney and Lang 1971: 192; Gera and Horowitz 1997: 241, 243-8; Redgate 1998: 67; Chahin 2001: 193-6. 119 Justin Epitome 40.1 seems to date the advent of Tigranes to 83 BC, however Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.419-20 supported by the numismatic evidence (Hoover 2007: 296-8) makes it almost certain that Tigranes’ occupation of Seleukis could not have happened until c.74/3 BC. Appian Syrian Wars 48. 120 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.419-21; Strabo Geography 16.2.3; Redgate 1998: 69; contra Safrastian (1970) whose nationalistic approach to Tigranes’ Levantine campaigns must be treated with much caution. 121 Appian Mithridatic Wars 67, 84; Plutarch Lucullus 21.4, 26.1; Strabo Geography 11.14.15, 12.2.9; Holmes 1917; Burney and Lang 1971: 198; Syme 1983: 61. 122 See for example Holmes 1917; Burney and Lang 1971: 198; Syme 1983.

One non-Seleukid monarch who emerged in the early first century BC would come to impact greatly on Seleukid Syria – Tigranes II of Armenia. Following 111

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.371. Appian Syrian Wars 47, 70; Bellinger 1949: 75 n.73. 113 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.384-7. 114 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.387-92. 115 Hoover 2005: 98-9; SC 2: 615-6; Wright 2010: 243 no.200. 116 Kritt 2002; Burgess 2004; Hoover 2005. 112

12

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY established as a Roman client-king.123 Sometime around 67/6 BC, Philip II Philorhomaios (also known as Philip Barypous) the son of Philip I Philadelphos, made his own claim for the kingship and with the assistance of Aziz the Arab (probably the same dynast who had aided Philip I against Demetrios III) managed to expel Antiochos XIII Asiatikos from Antioch. Antiochos sought an alliance with Sampsigeramos, the phylarch of the Emesenoi but the latter made a private agreement with Aziz to divide Syria between them. Antiochos was held prisoner although Philip managed to hold off Aziz outside of Antioch where the Seleukid prince was recognised as an allied king by Q. Marcius Rex, proconsul of Roman Kilikia.124 In 66/5 BC, P. Clodius Pulcher (the archagitator of the late Roman Republic), arrived in Antioch offering his assistance in the war against the Arabs. For unrecorded reasons, Clodius incited the Antiochene population to rebel against their king and Philip II temporarily vanished from the scene.125 Sampsigeramos, hoping to install a puppet king, released Antiochos who resumed his place as ruler in the great Syrian metropolis. In 64 BC, Gn. Pompey commenced his famous ‘settlement’ of the East in which he reordered the disparate assemblage of Syrian dynasts, cities and kingdoms along lines which he found most profitable or beneficial towards his own ends. As part of the settlement, Antiochos XIII was removed from power and Syria was converted into a Roman province, with Antioch granted the status of a free city. 126

was still alive and so we must understand that he had died by this date.131 Thirty-six years later, the Ituraean tetrarch Zenodoros was detained in Antioch by the Roman government and he likewise died of a sudden, mysterious illness. It seems that Roman Antioch did not agree with the health of ambitious eastern royalty. 132 The situation in the countryside during the late Seleukid II period appears to have closely resembled the disturbances that had wreaked havoc in Babylonia in the 130s and 120s BC. The Babylonian Astronomical Diaries indicate that following the collapse of firm Seleukid control, Babylon faced attacks from neighbouring dynasts and Arab tribes. For long periods the hinterland of the city remained unsafe and agricultural production suffered, resulting in economic turmoil. Arabs tribes managed to sack the city on one occasion although at other times they were bought off.133 The chronic political instability was perpetuated by the numerous petty kings and dynasts (both Seleukids and their indigenous successors) who each vied for power. None powerful enough to achieve complete hegemony, but all too assertive to allow another to reign unchallenged. The new indigenous successor states were the real victors during the late Seleukid civil wars. As each new Seleukid prince entered the stage, they vied with one another for the support not only of Ptolemaic Egypt but also from the indigenous dynasts who ruled small principalities within the Seleukid state. Of the Levantine states that arose out of the collapsing Seleukid kingdom, the most powerful seem to have been (from north to south) Kommagene along the upper Euphrates, Emesa on the desert frontier south of Apameia, the Ituraean tetrarchy in the Massyas valley between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges, the Hasmonaean kingdom in Judaea and the Nabataeans of Arabia.

Although Antiochos is not mentioned in any of the extant sources following his removal by Pompey, both his brother Seleukos and Philip II later played minor parts in the history of the Ptolemies in Alexandreia. In 58 BC Ptolemy XII Auletes was driven out of Alexandreia by his daughter Berenike IV who assumed control of the government in her own name.127 She summoned Seleukos – nicknamed Kybiosaktes, ‘fishmonger’ or ‘packer of salted fish’ – to Egypt whom she married and ruled with briefly as king-consort before having him strangled. 128 Porphyry (quoted in Eusebius) claims that an unnamed Seleukid prince invited to marry Berenike died of a sudden illness before arriving in Egypt.129 This has often been supposed to relate to Seleukos although he is not the only candidate. We know that around 56 BC the dethroned Philip II (Eusebius confused him with his father Philip I) put himself forward as a potential groom for Berenike and therefore a potential king of Egypt. He was compelled by Gabinius to stay in Syria and there is a good case to suggest that it was he who died suddenly. 130 From 55 BC, the Roman provincial government in Syria started to produce posthumous issues in the name of Philip I (or Philip II), a move inconceivable if Philip II

A SELEUKID EPILOGUE – KOMMAGENE Rule by members of the Seleukid house over Syria did not totally cease with Pompey’s eastern settlement in 64 BC. The Orontid kings of Kommagene intermarried with the Seleukids and to a limited extent perpetuated their rule. When Antiochos III the Great established Artaxias as satrap of Greater Armenia, princes of the old Armenian dynasty established by Orontes were appointed to rule over the upland principality of Kommagene. The region lay below the Taurus mountains on the western banks of the Euphrates river. The principality controlled the northern access routes across the river and between Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Although Kommagene was occasionally incorporated into the satrapal system of the Seleukid state, it would appear that in earlier periods it had been incorporated into the Greater Armenian kingdom. It is possible that Samos, the Orontid king of Armenia (c.260 BC) was responsible for the foundation of Samosata, the capital of the later independent Kommagene. Likewise, his son Arsames (before 228 BC)

123

Appian Syrian Wars 49; Justin Epitome 40.2.2. Downey 1951: 151-8. 125 Cassius Dio Roman History 36.17.3; Bellinger 1949: 82-4. 126 Appian Mithridatic Wars 106; Appian Syrian War 49-50, 70; Justin Epitome 40.2.3-5. 127 Macurdy 1932: 180-4. 128 Cassius Dio Roman History 39.57; Strabo Geography 17.1.11. 129 Eusebius Chronicle Schoene-Petermann edition p.261. 130 Bevan 1902: 2.268; id. 1927: 356. 124

131

RPC 606-7; Burgess 2004: 24; Hoover 2007: 299-300; CSE 2: nos. 825-9. 132 Joseph Jewish Antiquities 15.359. 133 Grainger 1999: 319.

13

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES is the likely founder of the other main centres, Asameia and Arsamosata.134 The population of Kommagene differed from its north Syrian neighbours in that whilst the latter were predominantly Semitic, the Kommagenians were initially Indo-Aryan refugees pushed west of the Euphrates by the Assyrians in the seventh century BC and were thus closely related to the main populations of the Iranian plateau. 135

civil wars and in the face of the ever worsening RomanoParthian relations – a task to which Antiochos I ultimately proved his worth.141 Antiochos I’s most visible undertaking was the construction of the Hierothesion at Nemrud Dağ. His inscriptions on the mountain state that the site was to be his burial place and the location from where he would join the gods in the heavens. He bequeathed funds to enable the establishment of his cult as god-king along with the cults of his Iranian and Seleukid ancestors with special instructions for annual religious observances of his birthday (16 Audnaios) and the day he ascended the throne (10 Loos).142 The monument itself took the form of a 50 metre high tumulus on top of the 2150 metre high mountain spur. To the north, east and west, large terraces were constructed to bear colossal sculptures of the king and his ancestors alongside syncretised Greco-Iranian gods, lions and eagles. To quote Theresa Goell, the 1950s survey and excavation director: “The sanctuary is a most important monument because : 1) It is the most striking and most informative monument of the Hellenistic ruler cult. 2) It is geographically situated to present an almost perfect example of the fusion of Iranian, Hellenic and Anatolian traditions in architectural and sculptural styles. 3) It bears significant witness to the development of religious syncretism in the period just preceding our era.”143

Under Antiochos IV Epiphanes, the Kommagenian satrapy was held for the Seleukids by the epistatos (administrative governor) Ptolemaios who is known to have been the grandson of the Orontid king Arsames. 136 Ptolemaios took advantage of (Roman encouraged) disdain for the Seleukid king Demetrios I and the Maccabean revolt. In an alliance with Timarchos the rebellious Seleukid satrap of Media and Artaxias I of Armenia, Kommagene seceded from the Seleukid empire.137 The secession may have taken place late in 163 BC under the Seleukid boy-king Antiochos V but the events of 162 (the invasion of Demetrios and the revolts of Timarchos and Judas Maccabeus) surely consolidated Ptolemaios’ position. Ptolemaios was succeeded by his son Samos of whom little is known. On his coins (the first of the Kommagenian dynasty) he appears both radiate in the tradition of the contemporary Seleukid king Antiochos VI, and wearing a tiara which recalls the dress of his Iranian/Armenian forebears and the divine figures at Nemrud Dağ.138 The son of Samos, Mithridates I Kallinikos, allied himself with the Seleukid house by marrying Laodike Thea Philadelphos, daughter of Antiochos VIII Grypos and the Ptolemaic princess Kleopatra Tryphaena. Sometime between 83 and 75 BC Tigranes II of Armenia traversed Kommagene during his great expansion of the Armenian empire and Mithridates lost his independence to become one of the vassal-monarchs at the command of the Armenian ‘King of kings’. 139 In 69 BC, Antiochos I (the son of Mithridates and Laodike and therefore the grandson of Antiochos Grypos, ruled 70-36 BC) found it expedient to ally himself with Lucullus against Tigranes II and henceforth joined the growing ranks of Rome’s friendly kings. However, his succession to the Kommagenian throne took place under Tigranes and Antiochos initially appears on coins wearing the traditional Armenian tiara.140 Later, as a friend and ally of Rome, the king of Kommagene faced the complicated challenge of keeping his throne throughout the Roman

Antiochos’ successors were not so adept at playing the Romano-Parthian game. Mithridates II chose the wrong side at Actium. He was restored to his kingdom by Octavian although the latter showed no such clemency to the dissenting Antiochos II.144 Antiochos III appears to have received Roman citizenship although Rome annexed Kommagene on his death in AD 17.145 There seems to have been something of a class struggle following Antiochos III’s death with the majority calling for the continuity of the monarchy whilst the aristocracy, perhaps seeing more opportunities for advancement without a king, called for unification with the Roman province of Syria.146 Caligula restored the late king’s son, Antiochos IV to the throne of Kommagene in AD 37 and added parts of Armenia and Kilikia to the kingdom. 147 Four years later Caligula removed the king, but he was promptly re-instated in the same year by Claudius upon the latter’s succession in Rome.148 In return, Antiochos founded several cities named after his patrons, Germanicopolis, Claudiopolis and Neronias in Kilikia

134

141

Redgate 1998: 63; Chahin 2001: 190-1. Jones 1937: 265 prefers Samos, king of Kommagene (140-143 BC) as the founder of Samosata. 135 King 1913: 358-9. 136 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 31.19a; Sullivan 1977: 736; Redgate 1998: 68. 137 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 31.27a; Sullivan 1977: 743-6 poses the possibility of whether the ‘revolt’ of Ptolemaios was not in fact an officially sanctioned grant of autonomy to establish a strong subject principality to help control a rowdy Kappadokia. The Ituraean state seems to have been created in such a manner half a century later. 138 Young 1964: 30; Sullivan 1977: 749-50. 139 Sullivan 1977: 753-5. 140 Appian Mithridatic Wars 106; Plutarch Pompey 38; Young 1964: 301; Sullivan 1977: 763.

Caesar Civil War 3.4; id. Alexandrian War 65: Cicero Ad familiares 15.1.2, 15.4.4; Plutarch Antony 34; Butcher 2003: 90. 142 Goell 1957: 4-5. It is interesting that of all the influences that contributed to Kommagenian culture and the variety of local calendars available that Antiochos should use that of the Macedonians. 143 Goell 1957: 7. 144 Sullivan 1977: 778, although Antiochos’ son, Mithridates III, was given Kommagene by Octavian in 20 BC, see Cassius Dio Roman History 54.9.3. 145 Tacitus Annals 2.42; Sullivan 1977: 783-5. 146 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.53. 147 Cassius Dio Roman History 59.8.2. 148 Cassius Dio Roman History 60.8.1; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 19.276.

14

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY and Germanicia Caesarea in Kommagene itself. 149 However, the kingdom did not long outlive its JulioClaudian benefactors. Three years after Antiochos IV and his sons Epiphanes and Kallinikos had enthusiastically assisted Rome in the Jewish war and been influential in the promotion of Vespasian to imperial power, Kommagene was again annexed on suspicion of collaboration with the Parthians (AD 72).150 1.3

architecture to ceramics and diet although these indicators lack the explicit ethnic labels found in the written sources.151 Cultural ethnicity may exist as multiple layers of identity; at a family or community level, within a civic framework, under umbrella ‘national’ labels, or based upon a perceived ancestry. But how much of this ethnic definition is a realistic reflection of Hellenistic attitudes and how much is a modern imposition? We know from historical sources that in Antioch-on-the-Orontes, the citizen population was considered ‘Antiochene’, but individual Antiochenes also treasured internal divisions which connected them with their ancestral origins, real or perceived. Thus we find that among the Antiochene demos for example, there existed a distinct memory of whether individuals were descended from Athenians, Macedonians, Argives, or any number of discreet Hellenic populations, together with Jews (who shared in the citizenship) and a multitude of other non-Greeks (who did not).152 Claimed ethnicities based on descent may also have been preserved and perpetuated by the formation of Antioch’s 18 phyle or tribes which may have been based on the origins of the colonists. 153 Similar ethnic distinctions are perhaps best illustrated by the many preserved papyri fragments from contemporary Egypt. In a record of a dispute dated to 218 BC, the plaintiff describes himself as an “Argive by descendance” whilst the accused is a “Lykian by descendance”. It is obvious from the context of the dispute that both men’s families had been settled in Egypt for some time but their ‘ethnic’ origins were considered a thing of great importance. 154 Nevertheless, both parties listed in this example should be considered Hellenised as opposed to the great number of non-Hellenic indigenous populations who co-habited the same regions. At Dura-Europos on the Middle Euphrates, there are no known cases of non-Greeks names as Europaioi – citizens of Europos – on the earliest surviving register dated to 190 BC.155 Nor indeed are there any in records until after AD 180, despite the commencement of non-Greek political control in the period around 100 BC.156

QUESTIONS OF ETHNICITY IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

The Semitic populations of Syria had lost their political independence centuries before the arrival of Alexander the Great and the Greco-Macedonians. However, the indigenous communities continued to maintain a strong cultural identity which they expressed through their religious beliefs and practices. The royal patronage of certain aspects of their subjects’ indigenous heritage had the potential to translate into a wider support base for the royal house. Therefore, it is expedient to consider the diversity of ethnic groups present in Syria during the Seleukid period. A group or individual’s sense of identity and belonging must be taken into account when discussing their religious beliefs and practices; it is suggested here that the variety and fusion of the religious forms and processes visible during the period is directly related to the mixture of ethnic entities in Hellenistic Syria. The concept of ‘ethnicity’ can be best defined as a social construction – a series of delineated groupings that enable a population to be broken down and categorised according to definable sub-groups. However, it falls to modern scholars to discern how exact or defined these sub-groups may have been in any given time and space and just as importantly, what significance was placed upon them in their original context. Broadly speaking, ethnicity itself may be broken down into two principal categories: 1) genetic or physical ethnicity and 2) cultural ethnicity. Genetic or physical ethnicity is something that is passed down to an individual through the genes of their parents and is thus unalterable. It determines physical appearance but has no real impact on thoughts or actions. Other than subtle variations in bone structure or DNA analysis, there is no archaeological way to differentiate genetic ethnicity as per definition 1) and any cultural conclusions drawn through such investigations must be particularly broad. Cultural ethnicity is quite different. It is based on internal and/or external perceptions of an individual or group and is therefore malleable. Cultural ethnicity must be learned but may be based upon environmental factors, or assumed or adopted through conscious choice. Cultural ethnicity, by its intrinsic meaning, may leave traces of ‘material culture’ in the archaeological record. Material indicators of cultural ethnicity may be found in all aspects of the archaeological record, from town planning and 149 150

It has often been found convenient to draw an ethnic schism between the ‘Hellenised’ urban centres and their indigenous hinterlands: “Outside the cities, the peasants lived according to the rhythms of the seasons and their ancestral habits; languages, gods, attitudes changed but slowly here.”157 To a large extent this appears to have been the case, but the distinction was certainly not exclusive. Hierapolis-Bambyke once more provides a 151

On the distinction between genetic and cultural ethnicity see Weber 1978: 385-98; Morely 2004: 100-4. Central to the ongoing discussion of of cultural identity is Barth 1969; id. 1994. For archaeological identifiers see Jones 1997; Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). 152 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.119; Libanius Oration 11.91, 11.119; Malalas Chronicle 8.15, 8.30; Strabo Geography 16.2.5. 153 Ramsay 1918: 184-5. 154 P. Enteuxeis 66; Lewis 2001: 65-6. 155 P. Dura 12; Welles 1951: 262. 156 P. Dura 19. 28-9; Welles 1951: 255; Edwell 2008: 101-2. 157 Harl 1987: 2.

Butcher 2003: 91. Josephus Jewish War 2.500-1, 7.238-9; Tacitus Annals 2.81.1.

15

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES little clarity in an otherwise blurred overview. A papyrus letter from the Zenon archive, dated to 156 BC, mentions a slave who was “by race a Syrian from Bambyke ... tattooed on the right wrist with two barbarian letters.” 158 The non-Greek practice of tattooing was still practised at Hierapolis at the time of Lucian’s visit in the second century AD159 even though the city had probably been ‘Hellenised’ and received a Greco-Macedonian colony by the reign of Antiochos IV Epiphanes and produced Seleukid period municipal coinage that conformed to normal Greek types. Despite the close contact between Greek and native facilitated during the Hellenistic period there could still be ethnic disparity within the urban centres.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (first century BC) defined to Hellenikon, being Greek, as the use of the Greek language, living in a Greek manner, acknowledging the same gods and living by reasonable laws. 164 This perception of what made an individual ‘Greek’ echoes the discussion of Herodotus on the same subject165 although where Herodotus placed emphasis on blood kinship, any reference to genetic ancestry or lineage is distinctly absent from Dionysius – perhaps because the latter was trying to reconcile the Hellenised East with Roman rule. By Dionysius’ definition, Meleager was Greek and yet Meleager himself claimed to be Syrian. 166 Was this perhaps a case of a geographic distinction? Did Meleager perceive himself to be Greek in a cultural sense within a Syrian context, but Syrian in the geographic sense when living abroad in the Greek Aegean? Unfortunately we are unable to say, but clearly such identities did matter to individuals in the Hellenistic age, much as they continue to do today. Cohen demonstrated the malleable tendencies of seemingly simple ethnic umbrella labels when she identified the eleven different meanings for the term Ioudaios/Judaeus in the Greco-Roman world which ranged from ancestry to association and geography. 167 In Ptolemaic Egypt too, “the cleavage between the two ethnic groups [Greek and Egyptian], and the consciousness of their separateness, remained the dominant fact of socio-political life”.168

Prior to the Macedonian conquest, cuneiform archives from Mesopotamia reveal the region to have been alive with ethnic awareness, a proverbial melting pot of Babylonian, Aramaic, Arabic, Jewish, Iranian, Kilikian, Phoenician and Egyptian populations who maintained their ethnic consciousness for generations, even after intermarriage with other groups. 160 Elsewhere we find little evidence in the written record of the perceptions held by non-Hellenic populations, either of themselves or of their neighbours until after the Achaemenid period; even after Alexander’s conquests the evidence is less than plentiful. What little we do have from the Hellenistic period is recorded in Greek, the language of the colonists, so that it is clear that even here we are only dealing with the perceptions of an educated elite. The economic pressures involved in obtaining a Greek education and enrolment in the gymnasion or palaistra ensured a certain sense of exclusivity and granted its participants a common social identity apart from the cultural melange of the rest of the population. 161

In the second century AD the works of the satirist Lucian of Samosata and the novelist and rhetorician, Iamblichos (both writing in Greek) provide a supplementary body of evidence to the investigation of Hellenistic ethnic perceptions. Lucian was born in Samosata, the capital of Roman Kommagene and described himself as a Syrian speaking a barbarian tongue (or perhaps heavily accented Greek) and wearing Assyrian garb in his youth.169 Iamblichos saw himself as “not one of the Greeks inhabiting Syria, but one of the natives, speaking their language and living by their customs”. 170 Iamblichos was born in the Hellenised Ituraean city of Chalkis-underLibanos in Koile-Syria and although he clearly received a Greek education, he bore an indigenous name, claimed that both his father and mother were non-Greek Syrians, and perceived himself to be apart from the Greek colonisers.171 Both individuals espouse their Syrian origins while embracing many, if not most, aspects of

The complexities of ethnic perception in the Hellenised East are illustrated by the autobiographical brief provided (in Greek) by Meleager of Gadara: “The island of Tyre reared me but the land where I was born is Gadara, the new Attica of the Syrians ... Is there anything surprising if I am a Syrian? The only fatherland, foreigner, is the world we inhabit. The same chaos has produced all mortals”.162 Meleager was born around 140 BC in the Macedonian colony of Gadara which probably received Greek polis status (and further colonists?) in the reign of Seleukos IV Philopator and was thereafter known officially as Seleukeia.163 Meleager was obviously well educated in Greek, although that education seems to have been acquired in the Hellenised Phoenician city of Tyre. In the early first century BC he moved to the Aegean island of Kos where he was based until his death, yet throughout this period he could be perceived as ‘Syrian’.

164

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 1.89.4. Herodotus The Histories 8.144. Indeed, if patronymics can be used to approximate racial ethnicity then there is a case to define Meleager, the son of Eukrates, as a Greek even by Herodotus’ much narrower definition. 167 Cohen 1990. 168 Lewis 2001: 29. 169 Lucian Double Indictment 14, 27; id. The Way to Write History 24; id. The Scythian 9. Lucian may have been responsible for the production of The Syrian Goddess, which provides further insights into the author’s concepts of ethnicity and self perceptions (especially The Syrian Goddess 1 and 60; Dirven 1997:163-9; see also Chapter 4.5 below) although his authorship has been hotly debated, see Stocks 1937: 16; Goossens 1943: 17; Oden 1977: 4-24; Dirven 1997; Polański 1998; Lightfoot 2003: 184-208. 170 Millar 1971: 6. 171 Vanderspoel 1988. 165 166

158

P. Zenon 121. Lucian The Syrian Goddess 59. Dandamayev 2004. 161 Harl 1987: 4. 162 Meleager Greek Anthology 8.418 (translation in Teixidor 1990: 70). On Gadara as a centre of Hellenic learning, see Geiger 1985. 163 Cohen 2006: 282-6. 159 160

16

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY Hellenic education and culture. It is this same type of synthesis between Hellenic and Semitic culture that appears to have been present already in Syria by the midlate second century BC (late Seleukid II period) if not before, and continued to flourish into the Roman period.

clearly a royal interest in learning about their pre-Greek forebears. The Iranian connection was refreshed four generations later when Soter’s great-grandson and namesake, Antiochos III the Great, married into the Iranian Mithridatidai of Pontos. The marriage was ceremonially conducted on the bridge at Zeugma (221 BC), symbolically uniting the twin towns of Seleukeia and Apameia, bride and groom, Macedonian and Persian, West and East. The bride, Laodike (III) was the daughter of a Seleukid princess although her father, Mithridates II, was descended from one of the seven great noble families of Achaemenid Persia.178 Both sons who succeeded Antiochos the Great were born of Laodike III and thus, all subsequent Seleukid kings were further incorporated into an eastern dynastic complex. It even seems that the boy who would grow up to be Antiochos IV Epiphanes may have been initially named Mithridates in honour of his maternal grandfather and only adopted his dynastic name after the death of his eldest brother, Antiochos. 179 The use of Iranian nomenclature for a legitimate child of Antiochos the Great emphasises that intermarriage with Iranian dynasts was not merely a pragmatic process to secure foreign relations. The Iranian descent of Antiochos’ children was stressed with the naming of Mithridates-Antiochos as indeed it was with his brother Ardys and his daughter (or sister) Nysa.180

THE ‘ETHNICITY’ OF THE ROYAL HOUSE The litany of unions between the Seleukid royal house and neighbouring dynasties reflects a program of cementing foreign policy through marriage. However, the ultimate result was to undermine any sense of ethnic homogeneity maintained by the royal family. With the exception of a marriage between Antiochos, the eldest son of Antiochos III the Great, and his sister Laodike (196/5 BC),172 no attempt seems to have been made to retain any sort of purity of dynastic blood as was found repeatedly in the court of their Ptolemaic contemporaries.173 In contrast, Seleukos I Nikator had been the only prominent Diadoch not to repudiate his Iranian wife following the death of Alexander the Great. In 324 BC Seleukos had married Apame, the daughter of the Baktrian noble Spitamenes, at the mass wedding organised by Alexander at Susa. 174 The Persian and Median wives of Ptolemy, Perdikkas and their associates disappear from the sources following 323 BC and the various generals proceeded to marry amongst themselves to shore up their relative positions in the prevailing uncertainty. Seleukos must have found marriage to the Iranian Apame favourable in his eastern landscape and if the names of city foundations are any basis, appears to have been proud of his match. 175 Apame bore Seleukos his son and heir (later Antiochos I Soter) within a year or two of the marriage, probably in Babylon. Antiochos I therefore was not only half-Iranian by descent, but was born and raised in Asia. He never travelled to mainland Greece and any ‘Greek thought’ or belief he may have held would have been taught. To be sure, Seleukos’ court (as with those of his successors) appears to have been dominated by a Greco-Macedonian elite, but these cannot have been the only influences on the young Antiochos. 176 It is interesting to note for example that Antiochos I had the Babylonian priest Berossos prepare three books on his native history. These were based on the Babylonian chronicles but produced in Greek and followed the principles of Hellenistic historiography. 177 There was

That is not to say that Greco-Macedonian princesses were excluded from the dynasty. Rather, until the middle of the second century, all other Seleukid queens appear to have come from a Hellenised elite. The wife of Antiochos Soter was Stratonike, the beautiful daughter of Demetrios Poliorketes, granddaughter of both Antigonos Monophthalmos and Antipater, Alexander the Great’s Macedonian regent.181 The wives of Antiochos II Theos, Seleukos II Kallinikos and Seleukos III Soter were all daughters of an eminent Greco-Macedonian family from Asia-Minor who have been tentatively reported to have been a junior branch of the Seleukid family, descended from Seleukos Nikator and Apame.182 Seleukos IV and Antiochos IV married Laodike IV in turn, and there are good grounds to view her as an Antigonid by birth. 183 Where we have the information, it is clear that the later queens of the Seleukid kingdom were drawn primarily from the Ptolemaic dynasty – a house of predominantly Macedonian stock but with a modicum of Egyptianisation in customs.184

172

Appian Syrian Wars 4. Contra Ogden 1999: 117-70 throughout. Arrian Anabasis 7.4. Spitamenes led the Baktrian and Sogdian resistance to Alexander the Great (329-328 BC) and has been described as the “most formidable opponent who ever faced Alexander”, see Rubin 1987: 343; Holt 2005: 45-81. 175 Appian (Syrian Wars 57) cites three Apameias founded by Seleukos including the colony commonly referred to as Seleukeia-Zeugma where the Seleukeia (on the west bank of the Euphrates) was joined by a bridge with its twin settlement, Apameia, on the east bank. See also Tarn 1929: 139-40; Macurdy 1932: 77-8; Grainger 1990a: 12. The memory of the Iranian blood of Apame was perpetuated in the names of the Apame, daughter of Antiochos I, and Apames, son of Antiochos II. 176 Eddy 1961:62-4 stresses the important role of the queen mother in legitimating the king’s right to rule in the eyes of the Iranian nobility; see also Bernard 1976b: 257. 177 Kuhrt 1987: 53-6. 173 174

178

Justin Epitome 38.7.1; Polybius Histories 5.43; Bosworth and Wheatley 1998: 155. 179 Grainger 1997: 22. 180 Ardys, Livy History of Rome 33.19.9-10; although see also Grainger (1997: 81) who disputes Ardys’ royal parentage. Nysa: Grainger 1997: 52. 181 Appian Syrian Wars 59-61; Lucian On the Syrian Goddess 17-8; Plutarch Demetrius 38. 182 Strabo Geography 13.4.2; Bevan 1902: 1.157. This is disputed by Grainger 1997: 127-8. 183 Helliesen 1981: 224-8. 184 Kleopatra Thea, Kleopatra IV, Kleopatra Tryphaina and Kleopatra Selene. See Macurdy 1932: 93-101; Whitehorne 1994: 149-73.

17

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Where clothing is concerned, the scarcity of full-body representations of Seleukid rulers leaves a significant lacuna. Seleukid heads are well illustrated through numismatic portraiture and a small number of surviving sculpted busts, but the few coin depictions of standing or mounted kings grant little indication of dress. 185 The numismatic portraits and sculptural remains universally depict the king wearing a diadem, the physical Hellenistic expression of kingship developed by Alexander the Great out of Achaemenid traditions.186 A small and unusual series of silver coins produced by Seleukos I at Ekbatana provides one illuminating full body illustration. Here a mounted warrior was shown wearing a horned Attic helmet, a long-sleeved chiton with a flowing chlamys and, perhaps, even a pair of trousers. 187 The identity of the figure has been much disputed but in reality, can be no one except the reigning king, Seleukos I. 188 Seleukos’ Macedonian heritage is expressed through his Attic helmet and kontos, the long Greco-Macedonian cavalry spear. However, the long-sleeved chiton and possible trousers signify the possibility of an Iranian influence infusing the royal iconography. 189 Certain bronze coin reverses of Seleukos II and Antiochos III also show the full length figure of the king190 although of these, only one image is large enough to confidently discern the costume of the monarch. On this coin, a large bronze from the monogram mint associated with Antiochon-the-Orontes, the mounted king is described by Houghton and Lorber as in “Macedonian attire”, he is diademed and wears a long-sleeved chiton and flowing chlamys. There is no evidence for trousers. 191

shoulder. His legs are left bare except for a pair of cavalry boots.193 One constant in all the above examples is the longsleeved chiton. To Classical Greeks, male garments with long sleeves were considered to be characteristic of barbarian, especially Iranian, garb.194 Alexander had adopted aspects of Achaemenid dress, but rejected others (such as trousers) to create a fusion, symbolic of his new world empire.195 Alexander was shown wearing a longsleeved chiton in the Alexander mosaic from Pompeii although the event depicted (probably the battle of Issos) predates his supposed adoption of Persian dress. Long sleeves also feature on the sarcophagus of Abdalonymos from Sidon, worn by all of the clothed Macedonians, as well as the Persians (or Persianised Sidonians). It is therefore difficult to attribute the long-sleeved chiton to a purely Iranian origin. It may have been a feature of preAlexandrian Macedonian military dress. Alternatively, it may have been shown on the later mosaic and sarcophagus as an illustration of Alexander’s trend towards a fusion of styles and perhaps influenced by fashions current at the Seleukid court. The Seleukid monarchs ultimately expressed themselves as Greco-Macedonians, utilised Greek language and ruled over their kingdom with the aid of a Hellenised elite. To all intents and purposes, the dynasty’s outward appearance was that of a Hellenic monarchy. However, there was no sense of exclusion from the government based on race. Rather, the use of the language of government, Greek, appears to have been the precondition of holding power within the kingdom. 196 During the Laodikean war, the unfortunate Seleukid satrap of Kilikia bore the Iranian name Aribazos,197 as did his namesake, the strategos of Sardes under Achaios198 and the Seleukid military commander in Persis, Oborzos.199 Thirteen Seleukid divisional commanders were named at the battle of Raphia and these include two non-Greek names (Aspasianos the Mede and Zabdibelos the Arab) and a third figure who was a barbarian with a Greek name (Lysimachos the Galatian). The others are specifically or implicitly Greco-Macedonians from Hellenised areas (such as Menedemos of Alabanda in Karia).200

The ancestor stelae of Antiochos I of Kommagene provide a further set of Seleukid portraits. All told, fragments of seven Seleukid kings are depicted on the Hierothesion at Nemrud Dağ, none of which are complete. However, from the known remains, it is clear that each king was dressed in a similar fashion, wearing a diadem tied around the hair and a long-sleeved chiton below a muscled cuirass. Their legs were left bare in the Greek manner.192 A possible final posthumous depiction of Seleukos I (AD 159) from the temple of the Gaddé at Dura-Europos may show the king in military dress; a plain cuirass with elaborate pteryges over a long-sleeved chiton with a chlamys fastened with a brooch at the right

193

Rostovtzeff et al. 1939: 258-60. The figure may actually represent the Gad or Tyche of Europos in the form of Seleukos, see Rostovtzteff 1939: 288-9. 194 See for example, Herodotus The Histories 7.61-2; Strabo Geography 15.3.19; Xenophon Cyropaedia 8.3.13; Miller 1997: 156-65. 195 Arrian Anabasis 4.7.4, 4.9.9, 7.6.2; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 17.77.5; Justin Epitome 12.3.8; Plutarch Alexander 45; id. On the fortune of Alexander 8; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 6.6.110. 196 Sherwin-White 1983a: 214-5; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 153. 197 P. Petrie 2.45; Bevan 1902: 1.185; Jones and Habicht 1989: 335. 198 Bevan 1902: 2.7. 199 Polyaenus Stratagems 7.40. 200 Polybius Histories 5.79. Although Habicht (2006: 30-1) admits the presence of non-Greeks among the Seleukid ruling class, he unnecessarily downplays any possibility of their significant involvement in power.

185

For the sculptural remains see Houghton 1986; Smith 1988: nos. 21, 30, 32-3, 36, 93-5, 121. 186 Smith 1988: 34-8. 187 SC 1: nos.203, 209, 213. The presence of trousers is maintained by Hoover (2002b), although iconographically the evidence is tenuous. 188 See Chapter 3.3 below. On the contested identity see Newell 1938: nos.481-2 (Seleukos I); Houghton and Stewart 1999 (Alexander on Boukephalos); SC 1: no.203 (Hero “with Dionysiac attributes”); Hoover 2002b (Seleukos I); Millar and Walters 2004 (Seleukos I). 189 Hoover 2002b. 190 Seleukos II – SC 1: nos.709, 767-8 (mounted), 779-80 (on foot); Antiochos III – SC 1: nos.1259-63 (mounted). 191 SC 1: 709. 192 Sanders 1996: 430-3.

18

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY The dynasty itself, whilst maintaining a definite ‘Greekness’, reinforced through intermarriage with other Macedonian dynasties, was localised beyond the old Greek heartland and was situated very much in an eastern landscape. To the wider Mediterranean oriented world, the Seleukids ruled over a kingdom of Syrians and were themselves perceived as ‘Syrian’. 201 However, imprecise though this perception was, the kings must have accepted both the reality of their geography, and their joint descent from the old Persian nobility through Apame and Laodike III – a descent advertised through the use of Iranian names for members of the royal house. From the scant evidence available, it appears that the dominating ‘culture’ of the royal family was an uneven synthesis, dominated by Hellenic traditions but incorporating customs and behaviours pre-eminent in the Achaemenid court – a fusion of Persian and older traditions inherited from Babylonia and Mesopotamia, hereafter termed ‘Babylo-Iranian’.202

were broken down into the following contingents: 20,000 phalangites and 10,000 elite agyraspidai all equipped in ‘Macedonian’ fashion; 5,000 Greek mercenaries; 1,500 Cretans; 1,000 neo-Cretans; 2,000 Thracians; 500 Lydian javelineers; 1,000 Kardakes; 2,000 Agrianian and Persian archers; 5,000 mixed Dahai and Kilikian light infantry; 5,000 mixed Medes, Kadousians, Karmanians and Kissians and 10,000 Arabs. The cavalry are described as being in two bodies, 2,000 and 4,000 strong respectively. The former most likely composed of the elite hetairoi and agema regiments (both normally represented as units of 1,000 each), the latter representing the line and light cavalry. By 190 BC, Antiochos the Great was on the defensive in western Anatolia. Faced by two experienced Roman legions aided by Achaian and Pergamene allies, Antiochos issued an emergency call-to-arms and mobilised all available royal forces. The opposing sides faced off in the Hermos valley just to the north-east of the city of Magnesia and although the Seleukid right flank (once more led by Antiochos himself) carried all before it, the Romans prevailed on the Seleukid left and centre and the victory ultimately went to Rome. The resulting Peace of Apameia (ratified in 188 BC) was to have a far reaching affect on the course of Seleukid history. Appian and Livy provide complementary accounts of the Seleukid army at Magnesia which can be reconstructed as follows.205 Infantry: 16,000 phalangites (including 6,000 agyraspidai) fighting in the ‘Macedonian’ fashion; 3,000 Galatians; 3,000 Trallians, 1,500 Cretans, 1,000 neoCretans, 1,500 Karians and Kilikians; 6,700 assorted Phrygians, Lykians, Pisidians and Pamphylians; 2,500 Thysian archers; 8,000 Kyrtian slingers and Elymaiote archers and 2,000 Kappadokian auxiliaries furnished by Antiochos’ son-in-law, Ariarathes IV. The mounted arm was no less diverse: an uncertain amount of hetairoi cavalry; 1,000 agema cavalry; agyraspidai cavalry of uncertain strength; 6,000 cataphracts; 2,500 Galatian cavalry; a unit of Tarantines; 1,400 Mysian, Dahai, and Elymaiote mounted archers and what must have been a large host of Arab camelry. The Seleukid line was supported by numerous scythed chariots and 54 elephants. The total strength of the army is given at 70,000 men although only 56,100 of these are accounted for among the contingents named by the ancient sources. The hetairoi cavalry probably numbered 1,000 as they did at Daphne and the bulk of the remaining discrepancy was probably made up by the Arabs whose contingent at Raphia had numbered 10,000.

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE SELEUKID ARMY The bulwark of Seleukid power was the military, particularly the royal army.203 The support of the army enabled Seleukos I to establish himself first as satrap of Babylon and later as king – none of his successors were able to maintain their position without the army’s support. As a body, the army provides a second insight into the ethnic composition of the population living under the kings. Unfortunately the extant historical sources, deficient at the best of times in regards to the Seleukids, provide the modern scholar with only three detailed breakdowns (listing nationalities and numbers) of the Seleukid order of battle. Of these, two represent the army in pitched battle (Raphia, 217 BC and Magnesia, 190 BC), the other is a description of a festive military parade (Daphne, 167 BC). That said, the three examples taken together can be used to extract a great deal of information regarding the sources of manpower in the royal army during the late third and early second centuries BC. In 217 BC, the Fourth Syrian War was decided outside Raphia on the border of Koile-Syria and Egypt. Antiochos III the Great commanded a large field army that had thus far been successful in driving the Ptolemies out of Koile-Syria. Polybius provides a detailed description of the troops present and their respective roles in the battle in which Antiochos commanded the right flank in person and forced his opponents to flee the field. With their commander distracted, the Seleukid left flank was defeated and the centre outflanked and routed. 204 Antiochos was forced to abandon his conquests and the region remained Ptolemaic for another 17 years until the Koile-Syrian question was settled in favour of Antiochos at the battle of Panion. The Seleukid infantry at Raphia

Following the cessation of the Sixth Syrian War, Antiochos IV Epiphanes organised a pseudo-Triumph at the Antiochene sanctuary-suburb of Daphne (167 BC), perhaps mimicking that held by L. Aemilius Paullus at Amphipolis.206 Whilst not representing an actual field

201

Livy History of Rome 39.16; Strabo Geography 17.1.11. Bevan 1902: 2.273-84; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 48-51, 90; McKenzie 1994; Austin 2006: no.166. During the first Syrian War, Antiochos I had his entire army celebrate a “Persian festival”, see Polyaenus Stratagems 4.15. 203 Mittag 2008. 204 Polybius Histories 5.79-87. 202

205

Appian Syrian Wars 32-3; Livy History of Rome 37.40. The Daphne parade was either followed or preceded by a similar celebration of the kingdom’s military vitality held at Babylon (dated to 169 BC) commemorating the same campaigns, see Gera and Horowitz 206

19

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES army, Polybius’ list of the forces represented at the parade displays the military power available to the Seleukids and was surely meant as a reminder that even after the Peace of Apameia and despite the embarrassment of the Day of Eleusis, the Seleukid kingdom was not an entity to be trifled with. 207 Represented in the pseudo-triumph were 5,000 agyraspidai reformed as imitation legionaries; a phalanx equipped in ‘Macedonian’ fashion (including unreformed agyraspidai) 20,000 strong; 5,000 Galatians; 3,000 Thracians; 5,000 Mysians; 3,000 Kilikians; 1,000 hetairoi cavalry; 1,000 agema cavalry; a further 1,000 Median cavalry; a contingent of royal philoi, again 1,000 strong; 3,000 civic militia cavalry; an unspecified number of cataphracts; 140 scythed chariots and 36 elephants. 208

purpose of the Fourth Syrian War. Proportionately, 54.35% of his field army was sourced from Hellenised populations from both within and without the kingdom. The remaining 45.65% were non-Greeks. Antiochos’ army 27 years later at Magnesia, however, was hastily brought together in an emergency and we see the relative proportions (Hellenised, 31.19%: non-Greek, 68.81%) inversed dramatically. The proportion of the actual national contingents at Magnesia would almost certainly increase if we were provided with the number of Arabs in the army. At Daphne we see the return of similar proportions to Raphia with 62.5% Hellenised and 37.5% non-Greek forces.212 The rough proportions of the Seleukid standing army both before and after Apameia seems to have hovered between 50:50 and 60:40 in favour of the Hellenised elements of the kingdom. In times of crisis, additional non-Greek national contingents could swell the army until they reached 70% or more of the total number of soldiers. Polybius specifically states that the king was accompanied by interpreters when making his pre-battle orations at Raphia and it can only be presumed that for the Seleukids this must have been common practice.213

We can perhaps view the three lists as examples of the Seleukid army in different states of preparedness. We can assume that the Seleukid phalanx was composed of Greco-Macedonian colonists almost certainly supplemented by non-Greeks who had received a Greek education and training.209 Together with the hetairoi cavalry (described as “Syrian” at Magnesia, probably referring to Greco-Macedonian colonists) and assorted Greek mercenaries, these troops comprised the ‘Greek’ component of the Seleukid army. 210 The bulk of the cavalry was composed of Iranians with the agema (forming the elite regiment) described as the best of the Medes and the surrounding peoples.211 The remainder of the army comprised national contingents from among the non-Greek populations such as the Kilikians, Elymaiotes and Arabs who fought, and we may imply were educated, in their pre-Greek traditional manner.

As the chronic war between the descendants of Seleukos IV Philopator and Antiochos IV Epiphanes progressed, the kingdom continued to lose territory and therefore recruitment potential, particularly in the East. The manpower shortage seems to have been filled at least partially by the increased presence of southern Syrians. We have already seen large contingents of Arabs serving under Antiochos the Great and it can only be presumed that such forces continued to appear in the armies of his successors. Alexander I was decapitated by an Arab prince, Zabdiel, in the service of Demetrios II and Ptolemy VI.214 Antiochos the Great had also realised the military potential of the (Babylonian) Jews and settled 2,000 Jewish families as military settlers in Phrygia (c.200 BC).215 In 152 or 151 BC Demetrios I Soter offered to enrol 30,000 Judaean Jews into his army although the high-priest Jonathan seems to have equipped a smaller force for Alexander I Balas instead.216 A contingent of 3,000 Jewish soldiers suppressed the Antiochene mob for Demetrios II and a great many more (led by the Jewish high-priest, John Hyrkanos I) accompanied Antiochos VII Sidetes on his anabasis (130-129 BC).217

At Raphia, Antiochos the Great commanded a successful field army that appears to have been formed for the 1997: 240-3; Linssen 2004: 119-20. It is probable that the event was not restricted to these two cities alone. 207 Polybius Histories 30.25; Aperghis 2004: 191. 208 The scythed chariot corps, present also at Ipsos (301 BC), against Demetrios Poliorketes in Kyrrhestis (285 BC) as well as Magnesia (190 BC) and perhaps with Lysias in Judaea (162 BC) testifies to the continued Seleukid willingness to experiment with traditional Persian arms, see Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.113; Livy History of Rome 37.41-2; Plutarch Demetrius 28.3, 48.2; II. Maccabees 13.2; BarKochva 1979: 83-4. 209 Bar-Kochva 1979: 40, 45, 56, 296-7. Alexander the Great had provided Macedonian training and Greek education to 30,000 epigonoi, non-Greek youths who were to form the basis of his future phalanx (Arrian Anabasis 7.6; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 17.6; Plutarch Alexander 47.6; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 8.5.1) and Eumenes and Antigonos Monophthalmos are both recorded as having employed pantodapoi, phalangites of mixed origins during the late fourth century BC, see Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.27, 19.29; Griffith 1935: 48-9; Billows 1997: 357; Aperghis 2004: 195-6. 210 I have classified the neo-Cretans as non-Greeks on the interpretation that they were a body of Asians equipped after the Cretan fashion (bow, sword and pelta) and used the same way (elite skirmishers). The designation neo-Cretan therefore being a pseudo-ethnic title. However, note that Spyridakis (1977) makes a plausible case for viewing the neoCretans as newly enfranchised non-Dorians from Crete, comparable to Spartan Neodamodes. However, as the strength of the contingent is only ever listed as 1,000 strong, their nationality makes little impact statistically on the overall make up of the Seleukid army. 211 Livy History of Rome 37.40; Polybius Histories 5.44.1; Bar-Kochva 1979: 45.

Like the Seleukid royal house, the Seleukid military exhibited a Hellenised core around which non-Greek auxiliaries were appended. Perhaps representing the 212

Many of the forces (the Galatians, Mysians and Thracians, not to mention the elephant corps) marching at Daphne also clearly showed Antiochos Epiphanes’ disregard for the stipulations of Apameia which stated in no uncertain terms that the Seleukids were not to recruit north of the Taurus, nor were they permitted to own elephants, Livy History of Rome 38.38. 213 Polybius Histories 5.83.7. 214 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.118. 215 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.147-53. 216 I. Maccabees 10.36-7; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.38, 13.45-6. 217 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.134-42. 13.249-50.

20

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY limits of Hellenic manpower, the proportion of GrecoMacedonians in the army never reached as high as 65%. Naval forces appear to have been drawn almost exclusively from Kilikia and Phoenicia. Non-Greek elements were therefore of crucial importance to the kingdom’s defence and prowess and must have formed an integral part of the ‘Seleukid’ consciousness.

with Laconian style terracotta roof tiles, and decorated internally with painted plaster which, as at the acropolis palace, conforms with Hellenistic masonry style. 224 Flooring was much more utilitarian, probably making use of tapestries or carpets over packed earth, a practice which was neither specifically Greek nor Eastern, but practical none the less.225 The layout of rooms, arranged around a central courtyard, is again non-specific in terms of cultural influences but the entry vestibule with offset doorways argues for a Semitic rather than Greek antecedent.226 The domestic pottery is dominated by imported or locally produced Hellenic table wares suggestive of Greek-style dining practices although prevailing cooking ware vessels were produced in line with traditional Iron Age Syrian shapes. 227 Clarke and Jackson suggest that the dearth of Greek casseroles in the domestic quarter228 may be related to another surprising absence from the housing insulae – fish bones. Fish was a major part of the Greek diet and one of the principal ingredients in casserole cooking. The Euphrates, even in its reduced modern state as it passes Jebel Khalid, continues to provide large fish for the local population and one would have expected the ancient settlers to make use of the food source. However, the indigenous Syrian abstinence of fish meat and the prominence of the nearby indigenous sanctuary of Hierapolis-Bambyke where fish were sacred, may have influenced dietary habits at Jebel Khalid.229 While cooking practices may have been influenced by the cooks themselves, probably indigenous Syrians, the house owners were apparently acquiescent to local traditions. The Jebel Khalid mortuary practices “suggests the overlay of a basic local grave tradition with Hellenistic refinement.”230 Bodies were lain supine in wooden coffins and placed in vernacular capped cists cut into the bedrock. Simple burial goods were placed with the bodies – any valuables appear to have been looted but locally produced dining, drinking and food preparation ceramic vessels have been found in situ. A large torpedo shaped amphora was placed on top of each capstone, against the wall of the pit in a similar manner to the jars found in the Hellenistic tombs at Dura-Europos.231

ETHNICITY AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD An attempt to show the difficulties in discerning cultural or ethnic identities from archaeological evidence in Syria has recently been undertaken by Clarke and Jackson, the principal excavators of the Seleukid settlement at Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates.218 Their analysis deals with a variety of material remains including town planning, ceramics and cuisine and some of the key issues deserve to be summarised below as a showcase of the complexities of ‘ethnicity’ in the archaeological record.219 The initial settlement at Jebel Khalid was planned according to a Hippodamian grid, adhering to a strictly orthogonal (north-south/east-west) street plan with regular insulae and civic structures flanking the principal axis and a great circuit wall which utilised the topography to greatest effect. All of these features conformed to Hellenistic ideals of town planning. 220 The administrative structure or palace on the acropolis was also predominantly Greek in design and appearance with orthogonal wings opening off a Doric peristyle court, with evidence for internal plastered walls in masonry style and an upper level in the Ionic order. However, the central court had gardens and broad antechambers that separated this area from the main hypostyle reception rooms to north and south – features inherent in the Babylo-Iranian traditions of the Achaemenids. 221 The Jebel Khalid temple will be dealt with below (Chapter 4.4) but it suffices to say that it too, while bearing a superficial resemblance to Greek design, was laid out, and must have functioned, after a Mesopotamian fashion. North of the temple but situated on the same main street, lay the palaistra – that characteristically Greek educational facility which so alienated some of the indigenous populations under Seleukid control. 222 The establishment of such an institution implies an active wish of the civic body to participate in, and have their children brought up according to, a Hellenic agoge (training) and paideia (education).

While the written language of a settlement may not reveal the ethnicity of its population, it does illuminate the dominant cultural influences acting upon the settlers. The corpus of written material from Jebel Khalid is comprised of six dipinti, 67 graffiti, 95 stamped amphorae handles,

The location of the main housing insulae, just to the north of the civic area situated on a south-facing slope, suggests a further familiarity with Hellenic ideals of town planning.223 The insulae were built of fieldstones, roofed

224

Jackson 2009. A similar practice seems to have been employed for the flooring of the houses at Aï Khanoum, see Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). 226 Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming), where the Jebel Khalid private entrances are compared with Assyrian Assur (Preusser 1954: pl.11), Seleukid Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris (Coppa 1981: 727) and Parthian Dura (Hopkins 1934: 31). 227 JK 3 common wares types 21-3. 228 Casseroles or lopades were common at most Greek sites, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean, see Berlin 1997: 94; Rotroff 2004: 459. 229 Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). On the taboo regarding consumption of fish, see Chapter 6.2 below. 230 JK 1: 69. 231 JK 1: 103-6; Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). 225

218

Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). See also the useful comparative material from Baktria compiled by Mairs (2006; 2008). 220 Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). 221 Nielsen 1999: 47-51. 222 I Maccabees. 1.14-5; II Maccabees. 4.9-15; Lucian Anacharsis. The initial report on the palaistra will be published in Meditarch 22, Graeme Clarke pers. comm. 223 Aristotle Economics 1.4.7; Xenophon Memoirs of Socrates 3.8; id. The Economist 9.4. 219

21

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES and numerous masons marks.232 Within the corpus, the lettering and onomastics are overwhelmingly Greek suggesting that among the majority of the literate population, Greek was the dominant language. However, two of the stamped amphorae types contain Semitic theophoric names transliterated into Greek script (Abidsalma and Bargates) and two of the dipinti contain Semitic names written in Aramaic (Abdalaha and Abimah) – as pointed out by Clarke and Jackson, a fruitless exercise unless legible by their users. 233 It is particularly noteworthy that the stamped handles in question belonged to locally manufactured pseudo-Coan vessels designed for the transport and storage of olive oil and wine, both quintessentially Greek.234 All evidence of Semitic onomastics come from the late Hellenistic phase at Jebel Khalid (after c.145 BC) but it does indicate some form of integration of non-Greeks into the settlement at different levels of society. While the dipinti could only have been utilised by individuals literate in Aramaic and may have served a purely private purpose, the stamped handles, by their very nature commercial, must have been produced to serve a designated purpose, be it commercial or administrative, within the settlement.

suggest that, at Jebel Khalid, we are dealing with temple administrators after the Judaean examples rather than potters or merchants. If this is the case, then we find further illuminating evidence in support of a strong Semitic flavour inherent in the Jebel Khalid temple. 239 1.4

REFLECTIONS ON A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY

How is it best to summarise the Macedonian hegemony over Syria during the period 301-64 BC? There can be no question that politically speaking, the region was dominated by Hellenic or Hellenised populations and that there was, at least in places, a conscious adoption of Greco-Macedonian institutions such as the palaistra to better fit within a Hellenic dominated world. From its inception, the Seleukid state employed a policy of benign if expedient Hellenisation. It was Greek language that was the key to political or senior military office rather than Greek birth and it was possible for non-Greeks to reach the highest levels of satrapal governance. The royal dynasty preserved an outwardly Macedonian appearance and was maintained by a military that adhered, as best it could, to Hellenistic ideals. However, just as the army and navy could not have functioned without large nonGreek national contingents, so the Seleukid house could not have ruled efficiently without its own non-Greek aspects. From the second generation, the Seleukids carried Iranian blood in their veins and with it the seeming acceptance from a great part of the empire’s populace of their right to rule. Antiochos I Soter’s commission of Berossos’ Babylonian history speaks volumes of a Seleukid interest in their realm and its population and shies away from the concept of a broadly imposed xenophobic Hellenic imperialism. 240

Comparative material for the stamped handles may be found in Koile-Syria. A large archive of late sixth century BC bullae from Achaemenid Judaea has been shown to correspond with the vernacular ceramic stamped handles of the same period. Many of the inscriptions, including official titles and even one personal name along with the name of the province (YHWD/ḤNNH – Yehud/Ḥanana) link the two artefact types to a common purpose – provincial administration.235 The sixth century BC names stamped on ceramic vessels in Judaea are thus considered to give official sanction to the jars’ contents which are presumed to be a collection of taxes-in-kind.236 A similar system of official stamps on jar handles continued into the Ptolemaic administration of Judaea, perhaps even differentiating between taxes gathered for the temple and those gathered for the government. 237 At Jebel Khalid, Abidsalma and Bargates represent examples of Semitic individuals manufacturing a product for a Hellenised market. While their names were transliterated into Greek text, it is apparent that they did not feel the need to adopt Greek names themselves. Furthermore, of the nine stamped handles in the names of Abidsalma or Bargates,238 two were found in the acropolis palace excavations while the other seven all came from the immediate vicinity of the temple. This evidence may

Seleukid settlement foundations appear to have housed a mixed Hellenic and indigenous population although, on the whole, it would seem that the two functioned on disparate social levels. The thought that a purpose-built military colony such as Jebel Khalid might be established and expected to flourish without an indigenous element is untenable. Without a domestic population, especially women, a katoikia would remain nothing more than a permanent military camp – and even military camps were known to collect followers. The large scale movement of ‘valuable’ Greco-Macedonian families and women to a minor provincial settlement like Jebel Khalid is most unlikely and given the nature of people, a large proportion of the site’s population after the first generation must have been non-Greek, genetically if not culturally. Jebel Khalid is important in archaeologically exhibiting many Hellenising features; the palaistra, the façade of the palace and temple, the urban plan and placement of certain structures; while illustrating that all of these Greek features are tempered, to a greater or lesser extent, by non-Greek aspects. The temple especially was only superficially Greek and may even

232

Dipinti and graffiti: JK 1:206-16; Clarke and Jackson 2005. Stamped amphora handles: JK 1: 273-89; Clarke 2005; Clarke 2008a. For examples of masons marks: JK 1: 38. 233 Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming); JK 1: 216, 286-7; Clarke 2005: 181-3, 198. 234 The olive seems to have been introduced to the Jebel Khalid hinterland during the Seleukid period, see Fairburn and Asouti 2005. 235 Avigad 1976. 236 Avigad 1976: 21, 35. 237 Lapp 1963: 33-4. 238 In the name of : JK SH.39 (Inv. 89.774), JK SH.40 (Inv. 87.029), JK SH.41 (Inv. 89.899), JK SH.63 (Inv. 02.499), JK SH.64 (Inv. 93.771), JK SH.65 (Inv. 05.980). In the name of : JK SH.42 (Inv. 87.169), JK SH.66 (Inv. 02.248) JK SH.67 (Inv. 05.572).

239

See Chapter 4.4 below. See also Chapter 2 below for further indications of the Seleukid interest in their non-Greek subjects and heritage. 240

22

A MACEDONIAN HEGEMONY have been run by a Semitic priesthood. In Jebel Khalid we have a physical manifestation of Droysen’s concept of Hellenismus and the Hellenistic age, a fusion of GrecoMacedonian and eastern cultures into a composite, if at times confusing, whole.241 It is under the umbrella of religion that we find the greatest malleability of cultural distinctions. To repeat Lightfoot’s assertion, the syncretic nature of polytheistic belief systems provided a theatre through which “patriotic localism could coexist with allegiance to the centre”. 242 Although the Semitic populations of Syria had long ago lost their political independence, they could still maintain a cultural identity expressed through their religious beliefs and practices. Seleukid patronage of such indigenous beliefs could in turn reorient local loyalties towards loyalty to the royal house.

241 242

Droysen 1877. Lightfoot 2003: 207.

23

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 5. AR tetradrachm, Seleukos I, Antigoneia-onthe-Orontes or Seleukeia-Pieria (SC 1: pl.1.28.2a).

Figure 6. AR tetradrachm, Seleukos I, Seleukeia-Pieria (SC 1: pl.1.29.1b).

Figure 7. AR stater, Mazaios, Tarsos (SNG Levante pl.6.106).

24

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION

CHAPTER 2 STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION

coinage.2 A discussion of the impact of coin iconography on its audience is discussed below in Chapter 2.2.

The study of the Seleukid state’s attitude towards religion (and by inference, the kings’ own beliefs) is illuminated best through a numismatic approach supplemented by other types of evidence where possible. As emphasised by Touratsoglou, “at no other time in the past did issues of coins produce formats on which were imprinted so eloquently the ambitions, tenacity, and absurdity of the rulers.”1 The imagery that was used to define and decorate ancient coinage was directly linked to the heart of the state’s prestige and power – a practice that continues into modern times. The modern Euro might carry the badge of the European Union on the obverse, but the reverse retains iconography specific to the populations who produce and use them – for example, the iconic Attic owl for Greece or the Irish harp. The Seleukid kings or their agents prepared coin types that illustrated specific issues that were considered important to the reigning monarch and the continuation of the kingdom. Although some Seleukid coins bore military and naval themes stressing the prowess of the armed forces, the vast majority highlighted the prevailing religious trends of the king, court and, by inference, the kingdom.

THE EARLY SELEUKID PERIOD (312-175 BC) Although there was considerable variation, Seleukos I’s production of silver drachms and tetradrachms was dominated by iconography that utilised Alexander’s familiar coin types, thereby linking his legitimacy back to a relationship with his ultimate predecessor, Alexander the Great. The principal type combined a youthful head of Herakles with a seated mature Zeus (figs.5-6).3 The silver denominations of the eastern mints were dominated by the imagery of Zeus on the obverse and various elephant-based themes emphasising military strength and prowess on the reverse.4 Unlike Lysimachos in Thrace or Ptolemy in Egypt (whose coin issues would have been familiar from the period of Seleukos’ service as Ptolemaic navarch and the kings’ subsequent close relationship),5 Seleukos made little use of direct Alexander portraiture, focusing instead on the established Herakles/Zeus type that had become so iconically ‘Alexandrian’ following its inception after 333 BC. Although Zeus had long been a symbol of the kings of Macedon, it has been argued that Alexander’s use of the Zeus and Herakles imagery not only referred to the king’s supposed divine descent but used images that were familiar to his new Oriental subjects.

2.1

The true strength of the numismatic evidence is found in the completeness of the record. Our knowledge of much of late Seleukid History is heavily based on the evidence from royal coin production, but the same material can be used to inform us of wider religio-cultural patterns. In no other data set can we find symbols or messages laid out for almost every Seleukid ruler. Nor can any other type of evidence show us how consistent or varied the production of such messages were across the whole extent of the Seleukid realm. The task of using Seleukid coins as a major source of evidence has recently been rendered immeasurably easier with the publication of the two volume work Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover (2002 and 2008). Seleucid coins obviously owes a great deal to earlier studies by the likes of Babelon, Newell, Seyrig, Mørkholm and Le Rider, but supersedes its predecessors in terms of the comprehensive nature of the investigation and in the analytical approach to the attribution of coins to specific rulers and mints.

Both Zeus and Herakles already enjoyed a history of syncretic adoption in Asia where Zeus was associated with the numerous localised Ba’als. The form of the enthroned Zeus employed by Alexander and Seleukos is often referred to as Zeus Olympios and at first glance appears to have been inspired by the monumental cult statue of Zeus at Olympia by Pheidias.6 However, a comparable seated bearded deity with sceptre and eagle was already identified in Aramaic on Tarsiote coinage as the local Ba’al (Ba’altars) in the mid-fourth century BC (fig.7). Alexander’s earliest issues often adorned the brow of the seated Zeus with a wreath of berries in the tradition of Ba’altars in northern Syria and Kilikia, or else bull’s horns in Damascus, Phoenicia, Babylon and Egypt reminiscent of Assyrian and other traditional Semitic

2

A recent analysis by Aperghis (2004: 213-46) has shown the large silver tetradrachm to have been the dominant coin type both in terms of quantities produced and distribution. 3 It might be noted that following initial emissions of the Zeus Aitophoros reverse, Seleukos modified the type by replacing the eagle with a wreath-bearing Nike, the so called Nikephoros type. The Nikephoros variety dominates the western mints and the change may allude to the Seleukid victories against the Antigonids or later, Lysimachos, see SC 1: 8. 4 SC 1: 7-8. 5 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.55-7, 21.1.5. Seleukos’ close relationship with Ptolemy I probably informed his use of the elephantdrawn chariot, produced by Ptolemy after 300 BC and introduced at the Seleukid mints at Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris and Susa around 295 BC (Mørkholm 1980: 154; SC 1: 7; Lorber 2005: 60; Bosworth 2007: 21-2). Other than this one example, the Ptolemies appear to have had little iconographic impact on Seleukos I’s choice of coin types. 6 Pausanias Description of Greece 5.11.1-9; Richter 1966.

Most Seleukid coinage, whether of gold, silver or bronze, followed a pattern whereby the obverse was occupied by a head or bust (usually of the king but often of a deity), while the reverse depicted the full length figure of the king’s or region’s patron god or goddess. Seleukid gold coinage was rarely produced, useful only for very large state payments and would have seen little circulation; therefore, the following study (and that of Chapter 3) will predominantly focus on the abundant silver and bronze 1

DIVINE PATRONAGE

Touratsoglou 2000: 65.

25

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES of Seleukos or early in the reign of Antiochos I.12 Regardless of the prophesies from Didyma,13 Seleukos Nikator was far more concerned with showing his dedication to the cult of Zeus. A famous oracular sanctuary of Apollo (and Artemis) may have been established by the king in the Antiochene suburb of Daphne, but the tutelary deity of both Antioch and Seleukeia-Pieria – the two most important settlements in North Syria – was the sky-god Zeus.14 Historically, the kings of the Macedonians held the roles of the chief priest of Zeus and president of their kingdom’s religious festivals.15 Close links were forged between Macedonian kings and the king of the gods and both Philip II and Alexander III the Great ultimately assumed part of the deity’s greatness. After Philip II’s benefactions to Eresos on Lesbos, the demos dedicated two altars to a syncretised Zeus Philippeios.16 In the following generation, Apelles depicted Alexander the Great holding a thunderbolt in a painting for the temple of Artemis at Ephesos17 and the king is shown with the same attribute on the reverse of the famous ‘elephant medallion’ dekadrachm dated c.324 BC (fig.8).18

Figure 8. AR dekadrachm, Alexander III ‘Elephant Medallion’ (©Trustees of the British Museum 1926.4.2.1).

images of the divine. It might also be noted that the Pheidian Zeus’ Hellenic Nike was replaced with a more versatile eagle on the coinage of Alexander and the early issues of Seleukos I. By the fourth century BC, Herakles was also identified with certain eastern deities such as the Luwian Sandan, Phoenician Melkart, Mesopotamian Nergal, Babylonian Gilgamesh and the Iranian Verethraghna, the Zoroastrian yazata of victory.7 Alexander’s choice of images “conform with his ideas of a ‘fusion’ of Greek and Orientals in order to create a stable government.”8 Posthumous coins of the Alexander type were recognisable and acceptable to a broad audience. They lacked explicit reference to individual power but relied instead on the memory of the Macedonian conqueror-king.9

Inscriptions from the mountain sanctuary of Olba in Kilikia Tracheia19 show that Seleukos I was concerned with the repair and maintenance of the local Zeus sanctuary and, in Kyrrhestis, the great indigenous cult centre of Atargatis and Zeus-Ba’al Hadad at HierapolisBambyke received significant royal attention during this period.20 Combined with the total dominance of Zeus as a coin type, the epigraphic and historic record suggest that Seleukos appears to have played the role of the ‘Macedonian king’ by making Zeus the primary focus of his religious attention. In giving pre-eminence to ZeusBa’al, the Macedonian king was also conforming to vernacular Semitic traditions which saw the ruler’s authority as a derivative of the power of the local skygod.21 Seleukos’ legitimacy as king of Asia stemmed initially from his friendship with Alexander the Great, but was ultimately ‘spear-won’, made through his own

Just as coin issues of Seleukos I focused on Zeus as the new kingdom’s patron, so it would seem that Zeus in his various local incarnations received the most attention and benefaction from the first Seleukid. The oracle of Apollo at Didyma was responsible for a series of prophesies foretelling the foundation of the Seleukid kingdom and was indeed honoured with specific reverence by the kings.10 Seleukos I funded the rebuilding of the Didyma sanctuary shortly after the battle of Ipsos and returned the cult statue of Apollo that had been removed by Darius following the Ionian revolt in 493 BC.11 However, the dynastic mythology that made Apollo the family’s progenitor seems to have solidified only late in the reign

12

Justin Epitome 15.4; Hadley 1969: 152 argues that the Justin passage post dated the battle of Ipsos (301 BC) but was probably current by 278 BC since Apollo is referred to as the ancestor of the dynasty in OGIS 219 = Austin 2006: no.162. 13 It should be remembered that Seleukos also received prophesies from other sources, such as the Chaldaean astronomers of Babylon (Appian Syrian Wars 56; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.55.7-9); see Hadley 1969 for a full account of early Seleukid mythology. 14 Libanius Oration 11.85-8; Malalas Chronicle 8.12-3; Strabo Geography 2.6; CIG 4458; Downey 1961: 67-8, 82-6; Cabouret 1997: 1007-13. The epithet “Daittai”, given to Artemis at Daphne and at Susa is difficult to ascribe to a Hellenic origin and it has been conjectured that it may be an adopted non-Greek title perhaps referring to a local syncretised deity, see Welles 1934: 183; Boyce and Grenet 1991: 25, 37-8. 15 le Bohec-Bouhet 2002: 44. See also the discussion of Archelaos’ foundation of the Olympian games at Dion found in Badian 1982: 35; Borza 1990: 173-4, n.30. 16 le Bohec-Bouhet 2002: 43. 17 Pliny Natural History 35.92; Plutarch Alexander 4.3. 18 For a comprehensive account of the elephant medallion discussion, see Holt 2003. 19 Cook 1940: 642 n.1; MacKay 1968: 82-3; Teixidor 1989: 88. 20 Aelian On Animals 12.2; Lucian The Syrian Goddess 17. 21 Green 2003: 172-3, 285-8.

7

Frazer 1932: 96; Zervos 1979: 296-303; Zahle 1990: 126-7. Zahle 1990: 126-7, although the model of conscious unification by Alexander of his Macedonian and eastern subjects is controversial, see also Bosworth 1980. 9 Posthumous Alexanders continued to be minted by smaller cities well into the Hellenistic period. A total of 59 autonomous cities are known to have minted posthumous Alexanders, many of which never directly encountered the Macedonian king, and some of which were not founded until after his death. 10 Appian Syrian Wars 56; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.90; Welles 1934: no.5; OGIS 227 = Rehm 1958: no.493; Dignas 2002: 3943; Austin 2006: no.175. 11 Pausanias Description of Greece 1.16.3, 8.46.3; OGIS 213-4; Rehm 1958: no.480; Parke 1986: 125; Austin 2006: no.51. 8

26

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION military conquests.22 He never ruled in his homeland. Although he founded many new cities over the course of his reign, Seleukos was still forced to rely greatly on his Oriental subjects to whom he was potentially just another alien ruler.23 Through the iconography used on his coin types, Seleukos was showing the sources of his legitimacy, his relationship with Alexander and the obvious divine consent from the king of the gods. It mattered not whether the king of the gods was the Zeus of the Greco-Macedonian settlers or the Semitic Ba’al in one of his many local manifestations.24 The true plasticity of Zeus iconography and the figure’s inherent popularity would become abundantly clear in later generations. However, in the interim, Seleukos’ son and successor, Antiochos I Soter, produced an entirely different series of coin types. Although his first issues were duplicates of those of his father, Antiochos soon began to employ various images and/or attributes of the god Apollo on his coin types in both bronze and silver.25 To a large extent, Antiochos Soter standardised the types that would remain dominant until after the accession of Antiochos IV Epiphanes in 175 BC. For the next century, Apollo dominated both the silver and bronze issues either as a laureate head, a full length figure standing by a tripod or seated on the omphalos, or else alluded to through attributes such as the kithara or tripod (figs.918). Numerous stories linked Apollo to the Seleukid House and, as we have seen, Apollo had already received limited Seleukid attention under the kingdom’s founder. Apollo of Didyma was said to have foretold both Seleukos Nikator’s kingship and his death.26 Justin built on this and relays the slightly later myth that Apollo was the divine father of Seleukos and thus the progenitor of the Seleukid dynasty.27

Figure 9. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos I, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 1: pl.18.335.4c).

Figure 10. Æ denomination, Antiochos I, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 1: pl.70.336).

Antiochos I was the first of the Hellenistic monarchs able to subdue the savage Galatians who were rampaging through Anatolia in the 270s.28 In so doing, the king assumed the role that the god Apollo Soter (Apollo the Saviour) was believed to have taken in the defence of Delphi against the same foe several years earlier. The legitimacy of Antiochos I was based upon divine right. Apollo was his grandfather, Apollo’s priests at Didyma had foretold the creation of the Seleukid empire and, through the grace of Apollo, Antiochos had defeated the barbarians and protected his Greek subjects.29 After Figure 11. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos II, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 1: pl.27.571.1). 22 In an interesting parallel, “Baal’s preeminence in the Syrian pantheon was gained not by divine right through hereditary succession but by divine power through conquest,” see Green 2003: 176. 23 Appian Syrian Wars 57-8. 24 Note however, that the many Ba’als were essentially local manifestations of Hadad, see Green 2003: 173-5. 25 SC 1: 115-6. 26 Appian Syrian Wars 56. 27 Justin Epitome 15.4.3-9. 28 Appian Syrian Wars 65; see also Bar-Kochva 1973: 1-8. 29 The paucity of evidence relating to the Galatian campaign means that it is difficult to assess the relevance of the Antiochos’ Elephant victory on the introduction of the new Apollo types. The change-over between the Alexander type and Apollo cannot be firmly dated, nor can the Elephant victory (perhaps after 272 BC, see Bar-Kochva 1973: 5) but the possibility must be allowed that besides alluding to the divine

suppressing rebels in northern Syria at the beginning of his reign,30 Antiochos did not face the uncertainty over his support base which must have plagued his father. He was able to produce coinage bearing the unmistakably Greek image of the naked Apollo – the paragon of the Hellenic pantheon, the patron of Greek civilisation and the arts.

ancestry, the new types directly commemorated Antiochos’ success against the Galatians. 30 OGIS 219 = Austin: 2006: no.162.

27

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 12. Æ denomination, Antiochos II, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 1: pl.77.572a).

Figure 16. AV octodrachm, Antiochos III, Antioch-on-the Orontes (SC 1: pl.53.1040).

Figure 13. AR tetradrachm, Seleukos II, perhaps Antioch-on-the-Orontes (SC 1: pl.33.704.1b).

Figure 17. AR tetradrachm, Seleukos IV, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.2.1313.1).

Figure 14. AR drachm, Seleukos II, Antioch-onthe-Orontes (SC 1: pl.33.691.2).

Figure 18. Æ denomination, Seleukos IV, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.59.1315.3e).

The most common Apollo types, the god on the omphalos and the god by the tripod bore distinct Delphic connotations which at first sight jars with both the Seleukid empire’s eastern setting and the kings’ adoption of Apollo of Didyma as their patron. However, the Hellenistic period oracle of Didyma had been restored following the Delphic model rather than a resurrection of the pre-Persian sack rites – the exact rituals of which seem to have been forgotten over the intervening century and a half.31 In the second century BC, a new omphalos

Figure 15. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos III, Tarsos (SC 1: pl.52.1025c).

31

28

Parke 1986: 124.

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION or ‘navel’ was to be created at the crossroads of Epiphaneia, the Antiochene suburb founded by Antiochos IV – further reinforcing the sense of ‘Greekness’ in the new eastern landscape. Therefore, while still unmistakably Greek in concept and design, the attributes of the Seleukid Apollo could equally locate the god in the new world of the Hellenistic East. Like his father, Antiochos Soter was an active patron of native temples, specifically the Babylonian sanctuaries of Esagila (Babylon) and Ezida (Borsippa). The Babylonian astronomical diaries of 274/3 and 271/0 BC refer to the manufacture of temple bricks and the completion of the renovation of the great temple of Marduk (Esagila) initiated by Alexander the Great as well as the provision of beasts for regular sacrifice. Beyond sporadic direct involvement in local rituals, the acknowledgement of the power and benefactions of the Seleukid king and his family were inserted into the indigenous ceremonies at Esagila from the reign of Seleukos III.32 At Borsippa, Antiochos I funded the vernacular construction of the Ezida temple dedicated to Nabû, god of writing and enlightenment.33 Under Antiochos II and Antiochos III, continued building work is recorded at the Rēš sanctuary of Anu and Antu at Uruk.34 The comparison drawn by Sherwin-White and Kuhrt between the Seleukid patronage of indigenous sanctuaries and the attitude of the British colonial administration in India perhaps best illustrates the practicalities of such actions. However, contrary to Hellenistic thought, there was little room in the British colonial mentality for ‘going native’ through the adoption of local religious customs.35 Under the Seleukids, especially in the last century of the kingdom, the kings stressed their adoption of, and participation in, the vernacular cults.36 However, despite the obvious royal interest in these indigenous religious centres during the early Seleukid period, any explicit reference to native deities was completely absent from the state ideology as expressed by the numismatic record.

Figure 19. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos IV, Antioch-on-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.5.1397a).

silver issues.37 Through grants of pseudo-autonomous minting rights, Epiphanes and his sons also opened the gate to a proverbial flood of new variations within the corpus of bronze coin types. By using the seated Zeus, Epiphanes may have been associating himself with the kingdom’s glorious founder although there is good reason to see Epiphanes’ Zeus as a syncretic deity who could be understood as Ba’al, the all-pervasive Semitic sky god, in a Hellenised render.38 The reverse legends on Epiphanes’ regal coinage began to list deifying epithets and at the same time his obverse came to wear a radiate crown on most of the bronze and some of the smaller silver denominations. We can only understand these images as the physical attributes identifying the king as a living god. The fact that the radiate portraits were only produced on lower value denominations indicates that the image was intended for a domestic audience rather than the wider Greek world. While his brother, nephews and their sons employed the dynastic Apollo and sought support from their traditional powerbase, the soldiers and large cities, Antiochos Epiphanes – a usurper from the junior line of the family – needed to establish his own pool of support. It could be suggested that by granting special minting rights to municipal centres and the reintroduction of the Zeus coin type (fig.19), adaptable and palatable to both his Hellenic and Semitic subjects, Epiphanes was securing his own position and that of his descendants. Newell saw the adoption of Zeus by Antiochos Epiphanes as an attempt to standardise the multiple manifestations of Ba’al found across the kingdom into a single common figure.39 Combining the Hellenic cult of Zeus and the indigenous worship of Ba’al into a Seleukid royal cult, Epiphanes

THE LATE SELEUKID I PERIOD (175-121 BC) Two of the sons of Antiochos III the Great, Seleukos IV and Antiochos IV Epiphanes, succeeded their father in turn. Both of these men left successors of their own and the next 50 years saw chronic bouts of civil war between the two branches of the Seleukid house. A study of the coin types produced in western – Levantine – mints by the competing branches reveals a distinct pattern. Although not mutually exclusive, the descendants of Seleukos IV maintained their visual affinity with the dynastic Apollo or introduced personal types (such as the standing Athena Nikephoros). Opposed to them were Antiochos Epiphanes and his line who reintroduced Zeus Nikephoros as the dominant reverse type for their western

37 SC 2: 48. It should be noted that from the reign of Epiphanes until the loss of the satrapies east of the Euphrates (c.140 BC), the eastern mints predominantly maintained the Apollo reverse type and were not subject to the constant changes seen in the west. This will be discussed in greater detail below. 38 Bickerman 1937: 94-6; Rostovtzeff 1939: 294-5; Seyrig 1939c: 300; Wright 2005; id. 2007-2008; Aliquot 2008: 84-5. The attempt by Lichtenberger (2008: 135-6) to dismiss the syncretic nature of the enthroned Zeus is unconvincing. 39 Newell 1918: 23.

32

Arrian Anabasis 3.16, 7.17; Kuhrt 1996: 47-8. Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1991; Austin 2006: no.166. 34 Kuhrt 1996: 50. 35 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 155. 36 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 38-9. 33

29

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES was creating a unifying focal point for the diverse population of the Seleukid kingdom in the aftermath of the Treaty of Apameia and the loss of the Hellenic stronghold of western Asia Minor. By employing ZeusBa’al iconography, Epiphanes was also tapping into the mythological traditions of both his Hellenic and Semitic subjects; just as Epiphanes had seized power that was not his by right of direct hereditary descent, so too had Zeus and Ba’al-Hadad.40 For the late Seleukids, culturally isolated in a foreign landscape, the campaign for dominion over, and acceptance by, their subjects did not call for the imposition of blatant Hellenic institutions as has often been suggested.41 Instead, continued Seleukid rule required a meshing of two cultures which resulted in the integration of Greek ideas and beliefs with the existing framework of Oriental culture and religion. Sullivan’s statement regarding the religious policies of the later kings of Kommagene and their neighbours might just as easily be applied to the Seleukids: “the cultivation of religious loyalty among the populace accorded both with Eastern tradition and with sound national policy.”42

Figure 20. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Antioch-on-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.63.1414).

EGYPTIAN IMPORTS Under Antiochos IV Epiphanes, the earliest indication of flourishing non-Greek cults began to appear in the Seleukid numismatic record. However, the first of these non-Greek deities to be utilised as Seleukid coin types were not indigenous Syrian gods but Hellenised Egyptians. A corn-wreathed head of Isis occupied the obverse of a large Ptolemaic style bronze denomination produced at Antioch during the Sixth Syrian War (170168 BC).43 The issue was paired with two even larger types adorned with a curly haired head of Zeus recalling the Zeus-Sarapis of Ptolemaic Alexandreia (figs.20-2).44 All three types utilised the Ptolemaic eagle standing on the thunderbolt on the reverse, although the Seleukid bird faces left rather than the more customary Ptolemaic right. Newell linked the issues to Epiphanes’ victories over Egypt, suggesting a celebratory nature for the iconography.45 The lack of any reference on the coins to Nike (or even the military) combined with the unusually large size, weakens the suggestion. Mørkholm took an alternate view and saw the issues as propaganda intended for a domestic audience, advertising the intended invasion.46 However, it is clear that prior to the Day of Eleusis (168 BC), Antiochos planned to annex Cyprus and perhaps parts of Egypt proper. The Egyptianising series was perhaps produced in anticipation of the need for an acceptable, familiar currency in the newly acquired Ptolemaic territories.47 The eagle imagery used by the

Figure 21. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Antioch-on-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.63.1412).

40

Burkert 1985: 127; Green 2003: 176. See for example, Bevan 1902: 1.17; Bellinger 1949: 55; Tarn 1952: 54-5, 162-3; Walbank 1992: 125; Lichtenberger 2008: 134-6. 42 Sullivan 1978: 915. 43 SC 2: no.1414. 44 SC 2: nos.1412-3. 45 Newell 1918: 26-7. 46 Mørkholm 1963: 22-3. 47 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 31.1-2; Livy History of Rome 45.11; Polybius Histories 26. 41

Figure 22. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Antioch-on-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.63.1413).

30

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION

Figure 23. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Byblos (SC 2: pl.64.1442).

Figure 24. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Byblos (SC 2: pl.65.1445).

Ptolemies as a representation of Zeus, was also well established as the avatar of Hadad/Ba’al Šamīn in the Semitic Levant.48 Its increasing use as a reverse type by late Seleukid rulers, especially in Phoenicia, was perhaps as much an adoption of a local motif as it was a symbol of anti- or pro-Ptolemaic policy or the pragmatic use of a familiar coin type. A contemporary but completely different set of Egyptian imagery appeared at Epiphanes’ mint at Byblos. The millennia of continuous contact between Egypt and Phoenicia was clearly indicated by the strength of Egyptian cults at the city. Byblos produced three bronze denominations that employed religious iconography referring to Egyptian cult during the reign of Epiphanes. A standing Isis wearing a kalathos and holding a sceptre, or holding a sail and tiller occupied the reverse of the two larger denominations. The two smaller bronze fractions showed the child Harpokrates-Horus squatting on a lotus flower sucking his thumb and a facing bovine head crowned by the headdress of Isis (figs.23-6).49

Figure 25. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Byblos (SC 2: pl.65.1446).

Figure 26. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Byblos (SC 2: pl.65.1447).

In the generations that succeeded Antiochos Epiphanes, military and financial support from Ptolemaic Egypt perpetuated a prolonged period of dynastic strife. It benefited Egypt politically to prevent the Seleukid kingdom from dominating its neighbours as it had during the reigns of Antiochos III and IV. Ptolemaic support in the period 150-121 BC was conveyed in the guise of the princess Kleopatra Thea who as we saw in Chapter 1.2, married three successive Seleukid kings in turn as their predecessors lost favour with the Alexandreian court. With Kleopatra’s ascendancy, Egyptian themes further influenced Seleukid coinage. The headdress of Isis became the most common reverse type on the bronze coinage of Antioch under her third husband Antiochos VII Sidetes50 and reappeared on the coinage of her son Antiochos VIII Grypos. Grypos used the type at AkePtolemaïs during the period of his mother’s regency (125121) but it quickly disappeared after his mother’s murder and with it went the last of the overtly Egyptian religious motifs to adorn Seleukid coinage (figs.27-8).51

Figure 27. Æ denomination, Antiochos VII, Antioch-on-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.84.2071).

Figure 28. Æ denomination, Kleopatra Thea and Antiochos VIII, Ake-Ptolemaïs (SC 2: pl.88.2274.3).

48

Cook 1914: 188-93; Glueck 1965: 472. SC 2: nos.1442, 1445-7. SC 2: nos.2066-7. 51 SC 2: no.2274. 49 50

31

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES ANCIENT LUWIANS Further north, Tarsos in Kilikia (under the dynastic name Antioch-on-the-Kydnos) was one of more than a dozen cities that received special minting rights during the reign of Antiochos IV Epiphanes. Perhaps in acknowledgement of the importance of the city as the main centre of the Kilikian satrapy (the kingdom’s north-western border since 188 BC), the mint was allowed to produce pseudoautonomous bronze coinage that omitted the king’s obverse portrait and replaced it with the turreted head of the Tyche of the city.52 The reverse of these issues depict a local Kilikian god in a vernacular manner reminiscent of Hittite prototypes (fig.29). The god in question, Sandan, was equated by the Greeks with Herakles and the latter’s club had been used as a control mark of the Seleukid mint at Tarsos since the reign of Antiochos I Soter (281-264 BC).53 However, the new representation showed a bearded deity standing stiffly in profile, facing right. He wears either a tall conical hat or the kalathos typical of Hellenised eastern fertility gods and (normally) a long tunic. The right hand is raised in salute and the left holds a labrys or double-headed axe. Several objects, interpreted as bow, quiver and sword sheath project from the back of the figure. Sandan stands on the back of a horned lion whose folded wings are sometimes visible. The image is a world away from Hellenistic Greek conventions but occurs on contemporary terracotta votive plaques found during the excavations at Tarsos.54 It is clear that while an indigenous (Luwian) cult continued to flourish at Tarsos following the Greco-Macedonian conquest, it did not find expression on a state level until the mid-second century BC and even then the pseudoautonomous coins which bore the image were only intended for local circulation.

Figure 29. Æ denomination, reign of Antiochus IV, Tarsus (Classical Numismatic Group).

Figure 30. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios I, Mallos (SC 2: pl.12.1618).

Epiphanes’ nephew and ultimate successor, Demetrios I Soter, went further still in acknowledging the vernacular religious traditions of Kilikia. At some stage, probably late in his reign, a small workshop was opened in the Kilikian city of Mallos and began striking royal silver coins in the king’s name and bearing his portrait as the obverse type. The reverse depicted the cult statue of the goddess of Magarsos (a sanctuary attached to Mallos), identified by the Greeks as Athena Magarsia (fig.30).55 The deity is depicted standing in a stiff frontal pose on a tiered basis. Her upper arms are held close to her body and her forearms extend to either side. She wears a triple crested helmet such as the one that had adorned the obverses of the earlier Classical coinage of the city. The figure is dressed in a peplos with a circular disc between her breasts reminiscent of both Athena’s gorgonion and the Semitic tradition of using celestial deities as pectorals. Multiple snake heads fringe the statue below the arms to complete the allusion to the aegis. A spear is held in the right hand and two stars or suns float either side of her

Figure 31. AR drachm, Alexander I, Tarsos (SC 2: pl.21.1778).

Figure 32. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos VIII, Tarsos (SC 2: pl.47.2288.1).

52

SNG Levante nos.1270-81. Zoroğlu 2004: 377. SC 1: no.332.1. 54 Goldman 1940: 544-5; id. 1949: 169-70, 174. For comparative iconography employed by the Iron Age Luwian god see Bunnens 2006. 55 SC 2: nos.1618-9. 53

32

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION head.56 While the helmet, aegis and spear make it clear that the goddess was to be understood as Athena, the eastern nature of the representation suggests that the Athena identity had been grafted onto an earlier cult figure, perhaps involving a local variant of one of the Semitic warrior goddesses, Ištar/Astarte or Anat.57 While Sandan had already occupied the reverse of bronze coinage for local use, the Athena Magarsia coins of Demetrios I represent the first instance of an indigenous cult figure adorning silver coins issued in the name of a Seleukid king. With the exception of the short usurpation of Diodotos Tryphon (142-138 BC), every Seleukid king to hold Mallos continued to utilise the local type for their silver regal issues produced there. Following the city’s independence, Athena Magarsia continued to appear on the civic coinage of Mallos.

the addition of a lion sub-type (figs.33-5).62 The lion was known as the companion and avatar of Atargatis and its appearance beside the Zeus of Hierapolis cements the type to the sanctuary and its divine couple, Ba’al Hadad and Atargatis. A related type, utilising a Zeus-Ba’altars figure seated on a diphros, holding a palm branch and accompanied by a seated lion had been produced by the Bambyke mint before its annexation by Seleukos I (fig.36).63 A rare variation of the Hierapolis bronzes under Epiphanes replaced the lion sub-type with a bull, the zoomorphic manifestation of Hadad himself.64 The local religious significance was apparent in the issues of Antiochos IV but the iconography had been Hellenised to a point where Hadad was now indistinguishable from Zeus and indeed, so it was with the deity’s cult statue at Hierapolis.65

Under Alexander I Balas (150-145 BC), the precedent set by Demetrios I at Mallos spread back to Tarsos and for the first time Sandan appeared on Tarsiote regal silver coinage.58 The god would preside as the main reverse type of the mint until the city seceded from Seleukid control in the first century. On the drachms the deity continued to be shown standing on the back of his horned lion, but on the larger tetradrachms (from the reign of Antiochos VI),59 Sandan and his companion were shown on a built sub-structure within (or before) a triangular feature topped by an eagle, the avatar of Zeus-Ba’al (figs.31-2). The same composition was shown on the terracotta plaques from Tarsos and interpretations vary as to whether it depicts the cult statue before a holy mountain (such as Mount Argaios shown on Kappadokian coinage) or an effigy of the god standing within a ritual pyre.60

Alongside the three Egyptian types at Byblos, Epiphanes produced a fourth bronze denomination which showed El, the local supreme sky-god, syncretised by the Greek colonists with Kronos.66 The deity walks stiffly to the left while his torso is depicted frontally in a formal Egyptianised style (fig.37). As a ruler-god, Ēl-Kronos holds out an Egyptianised was-sceptre in his right hand. The truly exceptional aspects of the figure are the three wings that extend from behind each shoulder which further distinguishes the type from any Greek iconographic traditions. The fusion of Greek and nonGreek deities persisted, although at Byblos the non-Greek iconography predominated, retaining only the Greek name. The deity on the reverse is shown with the same radiate crown as the king on the obverse, further assimilating the monarch with the local supreme god. The type was replicated by Epiphanes’ illegitimate son, Alexander Balas, on a smaller denomination and thereafter the Byblian mint ceased production until its independence in the late second century BC. Upon resumption of coining, the city continued to produce the types instituted under Epiphanes replacing the king’s head with that of Tyche or Astarte.

SYNCRETISED SEMITES When Antiochos IV Epiphanes allowed Tarsos to produce its pseudo-autonomous bronze coinage following the conclusion of the Sixth Syrian War, the privilege was extended to nineteen other cities across the western half of the kingdom.61 In the Seleukid Levant, these issues gave voice to the indigenous gods worshipped in the Seleukid heartland for the first time in both syncretised and purely vernacular forms. The pseudo-autonomous bronzes almost exclusively used the radiate royal portrait as the obverse type but combined it with a reverse type which usually had local significance. The holy city of Hierapolis-Bambyke in Kyrrhestis was among the mints granted pseudo-autonomy in this period. The radiate king’s head took up the obverse while the reverse utilised an image of a standing Zeus holding out a wreath. This Zeus appears to resemble one of the most popular reverse types used across the Levant under Epiphanes except for

However, Epiphanes’ program of religious fusion was not universally popular. It produced an indigenous backlash in Judaea and to a much lesser extent, in Babylonia. In Babylon, the installation of “unsuitable” Hellenised

62 SC 2: nos.1432-3.2. Other examples of the standing Zeus Stephanophoros were produced at Antioch (SC 2: nos.1416-8) and AkePtolemaïs (SC 2: no.1480), or at Laodikeia-by-the-Sea where the god was accompanied by a dolphin (SC 2: no.1429). Zeus also appeared with alternative familiars on the quasi-autonomous coinage of Epiphanes’ son Alexander I Balas at Kyrrhos (an owl, SC 2: no.1809) and Laodikeia-by-the-Sea (a dolphin, SC 2: no.1807). 63 The type is known only from a unique example bearing the name of Alexander in Aramaic ('LKSND[R]) that failed to sell in the Numismatica Ars Classica’s auction 46, 2 April 2008, lot 286. The association between Atargatis and lions at Hierapolis is amply illustrated on other pre-Seleukid coins produced by the city, see for example Mildenberg 1999: nos. 28-9, 31-5. 64 SC 2: no.1433.3. 65 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 31-2; see also Chapter 4.5 below. 66 SC 2: nos.1443-4.

56 Fleischer 1973: 260-3. Note that Fleischer attributes the earliest coinage of this type to Demetrios II. The revised chronology showing that the coinage was initiated under Demetrios I is provided in SC 2: 162. 57 Houghton 1984: 104-10. The star was often used as the symbol of Ištar and her associated goddesses Astarte, Nanâ, Anāhitā and Atargatis. 58 SC 2: no.1778. 59 SC 2: no.1996. 60 Goldman 1949. 61 SC 2: 45-6.

33

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 33. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Hierapolis-Bambyke (SC 2: pl.64.1432.5).

Figure 37. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Byblos (SC 2: pl.64.1444.1).

statues into the Esagila sanctuary (dedicated to Marduk) roused the anger of certain Babylonian individuals who forced their way into the sanctuary and removed the statues. The vandals were later dragged before the proSeleukid authorities and condemned to death.67 In Jerusalem, Epiphanes attempted to integrate the worship of Zeus and Dionysos with the indigenous Yahweh cult.68 The resulting unrest was carried forward by a wave of public support that had been lacking for the dissenters in Babylon. The Judaean (Maccabean) revolt was thus more successful and ultimately resulted in the establishment of the fully autonomous Hasmonaean kingdom by 129 BC.

Figure 34. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.63.1416.3).

For almost half a century after the death of Antiochos IV Epiphanes (164 BC), his reigning descendants were challenged (and eventually ousted) by the legitimate branch of the Seleukidai. Throughout the period, the Epiphanaic line continued to make great use of the seated Zeus Nikephoros reverse type for their larger silver coins (fig.38-40). Meanwhile, the legitimate line (descendants of Epiphanes’ older brother Seleukos IV) utilised new personalised deities or else returned to the dynastic Apollo as its primary coin types. The senior line did not make use of Epiphanes’ radiate form of portraiture. With the exception of the coinage of Demetrios Soter, the main silver types of each of these kings maintained purely Greek forms for their respective deities. In a wide ranging reform, Demetrios introduced a new type as his personal badge on his tetradrachms at Antioch and across the kingdom from Kilikia to Mesopotamia. The reverse depicted a seated goddess of uncertain origin.69 The

Figure 35. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Ake-Ptolemaïs (SC 2: pl.66.1480.1d).

67

Eddy 1961: 135-6, 144-5. I Maccabees 1.20-4, 41-55; II Maccabees 5.15-21; 6.1-6; Mørkholm 1966: 147; Collins 2001: 51-2. Scurlock (2000: 142-5) views Epiphanes’ policy towards the Jews in 167 BC in terms of an educated Greek reform of Judaism in line with what was perceived to be the historic cult of the Jews, namely an Egyptianised Dionysos. Seven years earlier, Jerusalem had been renamed Antioch and ‘promoted’ to the status of polis. Interestingly, religious change had not been part of this transition, although cultural change was: see Mørkholm 1966: 137-45; Kennell 2005: 10-24. Religious reform only came about as a result of political instability in the region. 69 SC 2: nos. 1609-17, 1620-2, 1624-6, 1633-41, 1643, 1649-53, 1659, 1678, 1681-2, 1686-90. The confused identity of the figure was noted but left unexplored by Newell 1918: 37-8. Helliesen 1981: 219-28 explored the question more thoroughly although here too the conclusions reached were not totally satisfactory. One suggestion put forward was that the goddess matched Malalas’ description of the Tyche of Antigoneia-on-the-Orontes (Malalas Chronicle 8.14) and alluded to the king’s joint Antigonid descent. Helliesen further suggests 68

Figure 36. AR stater, Alexander III the Great, Bambyke (Numismatica Ars Classica).

34

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION

Figure 38. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos V, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.10.1575.5).

Figure 40. AR tetradrachm, Alexander II, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.43.2217.3b).

Figure 41. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios I, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.14.1635b).

Figure 39. AR tetradrachm, Alexander I, Ake-Ptolemaïs (SC 2: pl.23.1841).

figure, commonly accepted as representing Tyche, sits on a diphros or stool supported by a winged tritoness. Her hair is pulled back in a bun and she usually wears the kalathos headdress. Her lower half is always draped although she initially appeared naked to the waist.70 She holds a sceptre in her extended right hand and cradles a cornucopia in her left arm (figs.41-2). Demetrios’ goddess is certainly expressed in a Greek style although her various attributes preclude her identification as any of the Olympian goddesses and the type is certainly distinct from the polis Tyche seen at Antioch and Damascus during Tigranes II’s occupation

Figure 42. AV stater, Demetrios I, Seleukeiaon-the-Tigris (SC 2: pl.16.1684).

(74-69 BC).71 The turreted crown that linked Tyche directly to the protection of a particular city is absent; instead she wears the fecund kalathos. To the author’s knowledge, Tyche is never depicted in an undraped state during the Hellenistic period, nor, with the exception of Aphrodite, do the Olympian goddesses appear naked or semi-naked.72 As with Aphrodite’s nudity, we can

that the wreath surrounding the obverse portrait may allude to Apollo and the return of the legitimate Seleukidai. However, as Professor John Pearn pointed out at the Numismatic Association of Australia Conference (24th Nov. 2007), the wreath borders utilised on the silver tetradrachms of Demetrios I and his successors (Demetrios II, Antiochos VII, VIII, IX, Demetrios III and Antiochos XII) have lanceolate leaves which sprout opposite each other from the stems, as an olive (Olea europaea) or myrtle (Myrtus communis) bough, rather than sprouting alternatively as a laurel (Laurus nobilis). These coins may perhaps be intended to fit within a local stephanophoroi tradition but the wreaths should not be seen as allusions to Apollo. 70 SC 2: nos.1633-6.

71

Bedoukian 1978: 13-4, nos.7-87, 89, 91-8, 108-11. The Roman period syncretised Astarte-Isis-Tyche of Caesarea Maritima was depicted with the right breast bared, “dressed as a fighting Amazon,” see Gersht 1996: 307-11. 72

35

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Selene, Rhea, Artemis, Nemesis and the Fates.73 Certainly Demetrios’ goddess amalgamated aspects of some of these figures, particularly Aphrodite, Rhea and Hera. In addition, the tritoness figure who supports the seated goddess recalls both Atargatis’ coastal alter-ego Derketo and a lost relief sculpture from HierapolisBambyke noted by several early European travellers on which two tritonesses supported the Syrian Goddess with their joined fish tails.74 The only king to reproduce the type of Demetrios I was his son Demetrios II Nikator during his first reign (145140 BC), and then only at Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris (fig.43). In the Levantine mints he returned once more to a seated Apollo type, or a Ptolemaic style Phoenician eagle (figs.44-5).75 A small bronze issue from an uncertain mint in Syria or northern Mesopotamia during this reign may further the identification of Demetrios I’s goddess with a Hellenised rendering of Atargatis. The issue in question depicts a standing draped goddess clasping the hand of a standing draped, bearded god (both deities had appeared separately on the coinage of Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris under Demetrios I).76 Both figures wear the kalathos and carry cornucopiae (fig.46). Again the identity of the deities is disputed77 but the composition and attributes suggest a divine couple who were clearly worshipped as providers of fertility and abundance – the supreme couple of the Hellenistic Semitic pantheon, Atargatis and Hadad, are the most likely candidates.

Figure 43. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios II, Seleukeiaon-the-Tigris (SC 2: pl.28.1984.1).

In Koile-Syria, local cult was by no means ignored. At Askalon, Gaza and Marisa, Alexander Balas produced bronze denominations utilising images of a local deity as the reverse type (fig.47). The god is probably to be identified as Ba’al Marnas “Lord of the rains” who was particularly revered at Gaza and its surrounds.78 Unlike other Seleukid depictions of Zeus, the figure does not hold up a wreath or other symbol. Rather, in all three depictions of ‘Marnas’, the god is shown to extend his right arm as some form of ritualised gesture or salutation similar to that maintained by Sandan at Tarsos.79

Figure 44. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios II, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.26.1906.2f).

At Jerusalem – more often than not a problematic city for the Seleukids – strong indigenous religious traditions were also maintained. However, unlike other centres, the vernacular traditions were reflected on the city’s coinage through not displaying the local cult.80 Under Antiochos VII Sidetes (138-129 BC), the only Seleukid known to Figure 45. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios II, Tyre (SC 2: pl.28.1959.1a).

73

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 31-2; see also Chapter 4.5.1.2 below. Lucian The Syrian Goddess 14; Maundrell 1740: 154; Pocoke 1745: 166-7; Drummond 1754: 211; Lightfoot 2003: 67. 75 le Rider 1995: 391-404. 76 SC 2: no.1695-5 (Demetrios I), 1978-80 (Demetrios II). 77 Here I follow the identification of the supreme Semitic couple posited by Seyrig (1970a: 86-7); for alternative identifications, see BMC Syria 78 (describing the couple as Tyche and a figure in Parthian costume) and Moore 1986: 130-5 (suggesting the couple represent Agathos Daimon and Agathe Tyche). 78 Mark the Deacon Life of Porphyry of Gaza 19.7-10; SC 2: nos.1847, 1850, 1853. 79 Mussies 1990: 2446-7. 80 Exodus 20.22-3; Deuteronomy 4.15-9. 74

perhaps read in Demetrios’ goddess a reproductive motherly aspect. Likewise, the cornucopia underlines the fertile, productive nature of the figure, while the sceptre speaks of sovereignty and authority. Lucian’s (second century AD) description of the great Syrian mothergoddess, Atargatis, states that her image takes many forms, resembling at once Hera, Athena, Aphrodite,

36

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION have minted coins in the city, the Jewish prohibition on graven images was respected (fig.48).81 Rather than the king’s divine head, the obverse of Antiochos’ Jerusalemite bronzes was occupied by a lily flower as an inoffensive symbol of prosperity. The reverse bore the king’s name and title around an anchor, a symbol of stability but also one of the dynastic symbols that had been in use as a sub-type since the earliest coins of Seleukos I.82 Seleukid rule and the benefits it brought were plainly alluded to by the Jerusalem series, although Antiochos clearly appreciated the vigour of contemporary Jewish sensibilities.

Figure 46. Æ denomination, Demetrios II, uncertain Syrian or Mesopotamian mint (SC 2: pl.81.1978).

THE ‘ROYAL ARCHER’ AND APOLLO IN THE EAST83 The constant iconographic changes to coin types during the late Seleukid I period outlined above effected only the mints situated west of the Tigris river, in the Luwian and Semitic regions of the Levant and Mesopotamia. The mints among the Iranian populations east of the Tigris (Susa, Antioch-on-the-Persian Gulf, Ekbatana and a further as yet unidentified mint), maintained a strict continuation of the Apollo seated on the omphalos type for their silver issues under Antiochos IV, Antiochos V, Demetrios I and Alexander I (fig.49). Apollo continued to dominate in this area despite the reforms undertaken by both Antiochos IV and Demetrios I, until the Parthian conquest in the late 140s BC. Indeed, early Parthian issues adapted the seated Apollo type for their own use – modified only slightly to take the form of a bearded, diademed archer seated on the omphalos. The coinage of the first two Parthian kings, Arsakes I and Arsakes II (c.238-191 BC) depicted a royal archer seated on a throne or diphros (this type was returned to in the later part of the reign of Mithridates II, 123-88 BC). However, in the period following their renewed independence from the Seleukids – under Mithridates I (171-138 BC), Phraates II (138-127 BC), Artabanos I (127-124 BC) and Mithridates II (123-88 BC) – the archer on the reverse of Parthian silver coinage appropriated Apollo’s omphalos as his seat of choice.84 Although strictly a departure from the Syrian focus of this work, a digression to discuss the reception of Seleukid iconography further east will provide insight into the royal understanding and manipulation of indigenous traditions.

Figure 47. Æ denomination, Alexander I, Marisa (SC 2: pl.77.1850.2).

Figure 48. Æ denomination, Antiochos VII, Jerusalem (SC 2: pl.85.2123.2).

The continued use of the Apollo type in the East down to the Parthian conquest is evidence that the same imagery might be understood to contain different symbolism depending on the cultural predilections of the audience.

Figure 49. AR tetradrachm, Alexander I, Susa (SC 2: pl.23.1867.1).

Among the Iranian populations, the Seleukid Apollo may have been understood as the Hellenised Mithras. The Hierothesion of Antiochos I of Kommagene at Nemrud Dağ included two colossi of a god identified epigraphically as Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes together with two relief sculptures showing a dexiosis (hand clasping) scene between the deceased king and the

81

An earlier series of bronze coins depicting the radiate head of Antiochos IV Epiphanes on the obverse and a seated goddess on the reverse have been attributed to Jerusalem by Barag (2000-2: 59-77) although the rationale behind the attribution is somewhat flawed and the suggestion has been dismissed by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover (SC 2: 94-5) whose view is followed here. 82 SC 2: no.2123. 83 This sub-section is an expansion of a paper prepared in collaboration with Kyle Erickson (then of the University of Exeter) for the 14th International Numismatic Congress (Glasgow) delivered on 1st September 2009. 84 Shore 1993: nos.5-20, 24-7, 29 (Mithridates I), 40-55 (Phraates II), 57-65 (Artabanos I), 66-76 (Mithridates II).

37

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES sigloi or darics east of the Taurus mountains are limited and Carradice’s suggestion that the intended area of use of Achaemenid regal coinage was oriented towards the coin-using populations of the Greek or Hellenised west is probably well founded.88 However, sigloi and darics did travel beyond this area with a number of published coin hoards including sigloi recorded from Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia and even east of the Tigris.89 South of the Taurus, along the Mediterranean coast, semi-autonomous silver ‘satrapal’ issues were struck by the Achaemenids depicting a variety of themes, but these do not seem to have been produced in anywhere near the quantity of the sigloi, nor do they seem to have travelled as extensively. The most eastern mint of the Achaemenid empire was located at Hierapolis-Bambyke and produced a semiautonomous series of didrachms based on the Attic standard, not the Achaemenid regal type of the archer.90 It is almost certain that the crowned archer depicted on Achaemenid sigloi and darics was intended to be understood as an image of the king – a royal portrait following in the traditions of Assyrian and Pharaonic art which emphasised continuity and stability rather than the individual’s features.91 Following Alexander the Great’s occupation of Babylon, he established a workshop that continued the output of darics with only a more naturalised style and the introduction of Greek letters or monograms to distinguish the Babylonian issues from their Sardiote forebears (fig.51).92 The Macedonian king was depicted on the darics in the guise of the royal Achaemenid archer, regardless of the fact that he did not physically conform to the image in reality. Alexander produced his own usual tetradrachms as an imperial series in parallel with the daric issues in Babylon and it may be in the eastern satrapies that we can also trace the initial misunderstanding of Alexander’s favoured Herakles obverse type as a depiction of the king himself. The continuity of the Alexander type under Seleukos I and briefly under Antiochos I played into the traditions

Figure 50. AR siglos, Achaemenid, Sardes (Numismatik Lanz München).

Figure 51. AV double daric, Alexander III, Babylon (ACANS Westmorland coll. no.26).

syncretic deity.85 The trouble with making the ApolloMithras connection for the second century BC eastern Seleukid silver lies in the chronology. There is no record of any syncretic association between the Greek Apollo and Mithras, the junior Zoroastrian figure, before the construction of the Hierothesion. To be sure, Antiochos I of Kommagene must have been drawing upon established religious models, but through the rest of his sculpture program it is clear that he was consciously blending his dual Seleukid-Hellenic and Achaemenid-Iranian ancestry into a single composite form. It is unclear to what extent the Nemrud Dağ figures were established deities and how much they were the personal innovation of Antiochos I of Kommagene. The Parthian adaption of the seated Apollo type may allude to a second explanation for the continued use of Apollo as the sole Seleukid silver coin type in the East. There seems to have been a broad tradition in the East which saw a depiction of the ‘archer’ as the preferred representation on coins – from the sigloi and darics of the Achaemenids and Alexander, through the Apollo on the omphalos of the Seleukids to the bearded archer on the omphalos under the Parthians. Under the Achaemenids, a massive quantity of silver sigloi and gold darics were struck at the city of Sardes bearing the Achaemenid type of the running archer wearing the royal crown (fig.50).86 When Agesilaos, king of Sparta, was forced to abandon his Asiatic campaign in 394 BC, he stated that he had been defeated by the Persian king’s 30,000 archers – referring to the money sent by the Achaemenid king to fund rebellions in the Greek mainland.87 Compared to the extensive finds of sigloi hoards in Anatolia, finds of

88

Carradice 1987: 92-3. Egypt: IGCH 1654, 1656; CH VIII 44*, 57. The Levant: IGCH 1481, 1482, 1483; CH I 14, 21; CH VI 4; CH VII 28*; CH VIII 45, 126, 143*, 153*; CH IX 363. Mesopotamia: IGCH 1747*, 1748; CH VIII 90*, 188. The upper satrapies: IGCH 1791*, 1792, 1822*, 1830*, 1831; CH IX 343. Note that only those entries marked with an asterisk contained more than five sigloi. Xenophon (Anabasis 1.5.10, 2.4.28) describes the purchase of provisions in Mesopotamia with coined metal, giving equivalents of sigloi to Attic obols (401 BC). The first recognisable word in cuneiform texts for ‘coin’, istatirru, was a Hellenistic development, based on the Greek stater (Powell 1996: 234). However, the establishment of the Babylonian daric mint under Alexander the Great makes it clear that darics and sigloi must have achieved a more significant level of distribution in the East than is illustrated by the published hoard evidence. On the mixed nature of the coinage (including darics) circulating in Babylonia under Alexander and Seleukos I, see Price 1991b; Nicolet-Pierre 1999 and van Alfen 2000: 36-41. 90 Mildenberg 1999: 280. 91 For comparative material see the upper register reliefs of the king at prayer above the tombs of Darius I and Xerxes I at Naqš-i Rustam and Artaxerxes II at Persepolis and the many Achaemenid period seals depicting the archer-hero/king in battle, see for example St Petersburg 19499, British Museum ANE129571 and ANE1932-10-8,192. Archery was such a part of Achaemenid iconography that Aeschylus was compelled to deride Darius I as the toxarchos or chief bowman (Aeschylus Persians 556). 92 Carradice 1987: 86-8. 89

85 Sanders 1996: 184-7, 197-9, 225-6, 237-40; Moormann and Versluys 2002: 87. 86 Carradice 1987. 87 Plutarch Artaxerxes 20.

38

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION established under the Achaemenids of a constant ‘royal’ image as the main coin type. In this case, it was the continued usage of the Herakles head that was understood to be the ‘portrait’ of the king.93 From the reign of Antiochos I, the reverse Apollo/archer imagery provided a continuity of royal ideology through six generations of Seleukid rule in Iran. While the Achaemenid royal coinage does not present an exact parallel to the Apollo on the omphalos type, it may form a lens through which to view this image in the Seleukid East. However, a series of satrapal coins produced in Kilikia during the period of the Satrap’s Revolt (369-361 BC)94 provide a clear antecedent. While the obverse imagery conformed to the Kilikian satrapal type of Ba’altars seated on a diphros, the reverse featured a bearded archer seated right on a similar diphros (fig.52). The figure wears typical Median/Persian dress with tiara, trousers, a sleeved-cloak and arm guards. The figure examines an arrow held in both hands. A bow stands in the lower right field while in the upper field is filled with the winged disc of Ahura Mazda.95 The Aramaic reverse legend reads TRKMW or Tarkumuwa, a Luwian name of some antiquity.96 The identity of theissuer, traditionally equated with Datames, satrap of Pontic Kappadokia, has caused some controversy. Harrison, followed by Casabonne, argued that Tarkumuwa should not be identified with Datames but should instead be seen as a local Anatolian dynast.97

Figure 52. AR stater, Tarkumuwa, Kilikian mint (©Trustees of the British Museum 1888.1208.6).

the obverse identifies the deity. The reverse type of this coinage reflects the important martial imagery of the Persian archer. The coin should be interpreted as an expression of Persian power, regardless of whether that power symbolised revolt from or support of the king. Moysey argues that the imagery attempts to legitimate Datames’ [sic] revolt from the Persian King in terms of Persian iconography.100 By usurping the image of the archer and associating himself with Ahura Mazda, Datames/Tarkumuwa could portray his part in the satraps’ revolt (whatever it may have been) as a legitimate act of rule. The established timeframe places the coins approximately 80 years before the introduction of the Seleukid Apollo type. However, the type may have been known to Antiochos I through its continued circulation in Asia Minor or through Mazaios, successor to Datames, who issued coins under Seleukos I at Babylon.101 Kilikia was a long distance from the Persian heartland and although the Tarkumuwa coins were clearly minted to demonstrate Persian royal power, it is difficult to determine how the iconography would have been received in Persia itself. Tarkumuwa’s archer can be taken to represent a Persian king due to the accompanying Zoroastrian sub-type, the common representation of the king as archer and the adoption of a similar type by the Parthian royal house after 238 BC. It seems likely that if the Seleukid court came across this imagery it would have understood it in a similar fashion and therefore may have adapted it for their own purposes.

The problems with identifying the issuer of the Tarkumuwa coins should not preclude their interpretation. Harrison argues that the Persian satrapal coinage types were largely generated by local mints and should not be viewed as elements of Persian propaganda.98 Root, however, sees this coinage as depicting an image of the king or at least the expression of the concept of kingship.99 Harrison’s interpretation of this particular coinage is persuasive only if the coinage is not minted by either a Persian satrap in revolt or a local ruler attempting to win royal favour against the revolting satraps. As this coinage clearly draws on the royal elements of the winged-disc and the royal archer, it reflects and interprets royal propaganda to further the issuer’s message. The presence of Ahura Mazda precludes the identification of the archer as a deity and he must, therefore, represent either the king or revolting satrap. In this instance, the latter is perhaps a more favourable conclusion owing to the accompanying legend which identifies the reverse figure just as the legend on

The similarities between the Tarkumuwa archer and the Seleukid Apollo on the omphalos are significant and although there are obvious differences between the coin types, these are not so great as to prevent a similar interpretation for these coin types. The most distinct difference is that the Seleukid Apollo is either nude or lightly draped whereas the Tarkumuwa archer is dressed in Persian attire. The issue of dress on the two coinage types is seen as the most significant barrier to identifying the ideological message in the same way. The nudity of Apollo might be seen to detract from an Iranian identification of the image as the royal archer because of their negative views on nudity and its associations with Greece.

93

Smith 1988: 1; Sheedy 2007: 15-6. The similarities of the obverse of these coins to those issued by Pharnabazos in the 370s BC and to those issued by Mazaios sometime before 350 BC confirm a date within that timeframe, see Harrison 1982: 321-336. 95 SNG Levante nos.85-8. 96 Houwink Ten Cate 1965: 126-8, 166-9; Moran 1987: EA 31. 97 Nöldeke 1884: 298; Six 1884: 114-7; Harrison 1982: 321-36; Casabonne 2001. See also Bing 1988 n.55 for a bibliography of the continued attribution of the Tarkumuwa coinage to Datames. 98 Harrison 1982: 439. 99 Root 1979: 116-118. 94

100 101

39

Moysey 1986: 20. SC 1: 43-4.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES likely the direct antecedent for the Parthian archer type. Further differences between the coin types which might interfere with our hypothesis include the lack of the Zoroastrian winged-disc sub-type and the position of the archer’s bow. The winged-disc has clear significance as it identifies the figure as the Persian king (or revolting satrap) receiving divine support from Ahura Mazda. As the Seleukids did not claim their right to rule from Ahura Mazda, it is not surprising that the winged-disc does not appear on any of their coinage.103 However, the lack of the winged-disc should not prevent the identification of the figure as a king. There is ample Parthian evidence that suggests that the seated archer can be identified with a king without the presence of the winged-disc. Where the bow of the Tarkumuwa archer appears to have been placed in the open space at the foot of the figure, the Seleukid Apollo rests his left hand naturally on the bow which stands upright behind him. The manner in which Apollo holds the bow is also reminiscent of AssyroPersian iconographic traditions in which the king holds the bow by the end with the string turned towards him rather than away from him.104

Figure 53. AR tetradrachm, Mithridates II of Parthia, Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris (Classical Numismatic Group).

However, if the image of the royal archer is understood as an abstract concept of kingship rather than specifically referring to an Achaemenid king, then the objection to the clothing/nudity should dissolve. If the Iranian audience of Seleukid coinage believed that the archer image was a reflection of royal power, and understood that they were ruled by a Greek king, it should have been possible to make the connection between the two image types. Even if the connection was not explicit, certainly a Greek court might believe that an association could have been evoked in the minds of the Iranian subjects. Furthermore, the Apollo on the omphalos coins were issued by a Seleukid administration which consistently chose a Greek manner of representation until the late second and first centuries BC. Finally, the image of Apollo on the omphalos minted in the eastern part of the Seleukid territory under Antiochos I and Antiochos II was usually shown as a draped figure. The gold and silver coins minted at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, Ekbatana, and Aï Khanoum all show Apollo with a draped cloth over at least one leg. 102 Although the Apollo is not in Persian dress, this would not have precluded some Iranians from interpreting the message of this coinage as a Greek king ruling over Iranian lands.

The link between the Apollo on the omphalos coinage and the Tarkumuwa archer coinage is reinforced by the appearance of comparative iconography on Parthian coinage from the reign of Arsakes I (c.238-211 BC). The Parthian kings appear to have established their legitimacy based on their connection to the Achaemenids – one method for advertising this claim was the recreation of Achaemenid satrapal type coinage. This is an interesting choice if the Tarkumuwa coinage was minted as an act of rebellion against the Achaemenid king. However, any original intention behind the production of this coinage as an expression of rebellion appears to have been lost by the Parthian period, perhaps through Seleukid interpretations of the coinage as representations of the reigning king. Therefore, it seems highly likely that the Parthian numismatic iconography was not directly descended from the Tarkumuwa type which had been issued briefly in Kilikia more than a hundred years previously, but rather that the image was filtered through a Seleukid lens of the Apollo on the omphalos coinage.

A second distinct difference is the object upon which the archer sits. The Seleukid Apollo generally sits on an omphalos while the Tarkumuwa archer sits on a diphros. The omphalos is important in reflecting Apollo’s mantic qualities for the Greek audience. However, it seems to have lost this importance in the Iranian interpretation of the image. In fact the Parthian coinage which at first featured the image of an archer seated on a diphros, ultimately replaced the stool with the Seleukid omphalos (fig.53). This suggests that the two images had become interchangeable in Iran by the Parthian period. That the figure’s seat was an insignificant factor in the iconography during the Parthian period and could be replaced without changing the central meaning of the type is further evidence that the Seleukid Apollo was

As the Parthian kings began their empire at the expense of Seleukid territory, it is likely that they were acquainted with the dominant Seleukid coin types which were circulating in the late third and second centuries BC. 105 The most prominent Seleukid coin type during this period was the Apollo on the omphalos image produced under Antiochos I and II. Arsakes I, the first king of the 103

This may also reflect a desire by the Seleukids not to encroach on the religious authority of the Zoroastrian priests. The Seleukids appear to have largely left them alone to develop their religion without interference of state sponsorship, see Hjerrild 1990: 144-147. Moreover, to their more Hellenised subjects, appending Zoroastrian iconography to the image of Apollo may have sent conflicting messages regarding cultural dominance. 104 For a comparison between Persian and Assyrian bows, see Root 1979: 167-168. 105 For example, see the use of the title on Parthian coinage as a deliberate echo of the coinage of the Seleukid king, Alexander I Balas, see: Gariboldi 2004.

102

SC 1: Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, nos.378-80; Ekbatana, nos.409-410; Aï Khanoum, nos.435-9. Note that it is not clear whether the Apollo depicted on the bronze coinage minted at Ekbatana was draped or not, see SC 1: nos.415-7, 419-20.

40

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION Parthian Empire, began to issue coinage after he defeated the rebellious Seleukid satrap Andragoras around the beginning of the reign of Seleukos II.106 As discussed, the coins that Arsakes I minted were similar to both the Tarkumuwa coinage and the Seleukid Apollo on the omphalos type.107 The similarities between the Parthian and Seleukid types of coinage are more striking given that the coinage of the independent Baktrian kings departed radically from the Seleukid model, even during their periods of nominal vassalage.108 Under Seleukos II, the Seleukid Apollo on the omphalos was replaced by a standing Apollo resting on a tripod. It is possible that the Parthians felt able to create a distinctive coinage that drew on Seleukid models and royal iconography without appearing too closely aligned to the coinage of the reigning Seleukid king. Additionally, as the Parthian kings were not rebelling directly from Seleukid authority but rather conquering territory from a rebellious satrap they could more comfortably adopt a similar image. The familiarity of the seated archer type would have aided the acceptance of the new Parthian coinage by a wider audience. Furthermore, if the coinage was understood among the Iranian populations as representative of ‘the king’ then a more Persian version of this king would fit more neatly with Parthian royal ideology.

development of the Parthian manifestation of this type was the replacement of the diphros with the omphalos during the reign of Mithridates I (c.171-138 BC)112 which suggests an awareness of the similarities between the Parthian and Seleukid counterpart types. A further early Arsakid departure from the Tarkumuwa coinage saw the Parthian archer un-bearded. This feature may be related to the early Hellenistic preference for un-bearded royal imagery instigated by Alexander, and indeed, Arsakes I himself is clean shaven on the obverse. This represents a significant inheritance from the Seleukids rather than from an Achaemenid prototype. A further similarity between the Parthian and Seleukid types is the positioning of the feet of the seated figure. On the Tarkumuwa coinage, the archer’s feet are parallel as if seated stiffly on the stool. The Seleukid Apollo pulls his right (rear) leg back so that his foot rests against the omphalos in a more natural fashion. This posture is adopted by the Parthian archer even when seated on the diphros. The seated archer on Parthian coinage is often interpreted as the image of the king or of royal power in the same manner as the running archer of Achaemenid sigloi and darics and the seated archer of Tarkumuwa. It is therefore plausible to interpret the Seleukid use of Apollo in the same manner. If this is the case, it further demonstrates the broad potential for the understanding of the Seleukid Apollo outside of a restrictive Greek interpretation. This suggests that under Antiochos I, the Seleukids created an image of royal authority that could be broadly recognised across the entire empire, thereby implying that the Seleukid court was aware of the various iconographic traditions of the empire’s subjects. Furthermore, this shows that the Apollo on the omphalos image was not part of an attempt to impose an entirely Greek image on the empire, but rather it presented a message that the subjects of the kingdom were under the rule of a Greek king who was aware of local traditions and ideologies.

The reverse of the Arsakes I coinage featured a figure seated on a diphros wearing a tiara with cheek flaps, a long-sleeved cloak and trouser suit. Curtis suggests that the closest parallel for the long-sleeved coat is the Tarkumuwa seated archer coinage, as the cloak is not a typical feature of Parthian dress. 109 She views the adoption of the trouser suit as a significant departure from Hellenistic practice specifically citing Alexander’s refusal to adopt Persian trousers in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander (45.1-3).110 The royal tiara which is worn by both the Parthian king on the obverse and the archer on the reverse suggests that the two figures should be interpreted as the same individual. The clothing on the figure emphasises its Iranian attributes, clearly marking a difference between the Parthian and Seleukid iconography. The Seleukid figure will always appear Greek owing to his nudity, even when partially draped. The clothing on the Parthian figure marked a return to Iranian rule. The major difference between early Arsakid coinage and the Tarkumuwa issues is that the figure on the Arsakid archer holds a bow rather than an arrow.111 Another interesting

THE LATE SELEUKID II PERIOD (121-64 BC) During the late Seleukid II period, the rise in popularity of the syncretic Zeus is evident across Seleukid Syria. The Epiphanaic branch of the Seleukid family produced five kings (including the two Alexanders) over 50 years. These kings continued to find enough popular support to make renewed efforts to grasp control of the kingdom from their cousins.113 Following the extinction of the Epiphanaic line in 123 BC, Antiochos VIII Grypos and Kleopatra Thea adopted the seated Zeus Nikephoros type (and accompanying obverse radiate portrait style) of their

106

The dating for the independence of Parthia is unclear. Andragoras had been appointed by Antiochos II, and therefore the revolt either took place before Antiochos II’s death or in the immediate aftermath. The difficult conditions faced by Seleukos II in the west at the start of his reign and his brother’s subsequent revolt provide a better context for the revolt. However, by the middle of Seleukos II’s reign the Parthians were independent enough that Seleukos II was obliged to undertake a campaign against them. 107 Shore 1993: nos.1-3. 108 Holt 1999: 94-106; SC 1: nos. 628-37. 109 Curtis 1998: 66. 110 Curtis 1998: 66-7. 111 This difference may be best explained by the pose of Apollo on some of the coinage of Antiochos I and II. On these coins Apollo held a bow in his outstretched hand rather than the arrow. This coinage became the most common type minted at Magnesia-on-the-Meander under Antiochos II, having first been minted there under Antiochos I.

Interestingly, the bow is held by both Apollo and the Parthian archer with the string facing away from him. This pose appears slightly unnatural as the figures’ wrists are twisted outward. This suggests a perceived ideological inspiration for the Arsakes coinage from a Seleukid prototype that was circulating directly before his invasion, rather than just a Parthian reproduction of the Tarkumuwa type. 112 Shore 1993: nos.5-20, 24-7, 29. 113 Of course Epiphanes was installed with the aid of the Attalids (Appian Syrian Wars 45) and both Alexanders received initial Ptolemaic backing (Appian Syrian Wars 67; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.267).

41

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES erstwhile rivals for their co-regency coinage (fig.54).114 Grypos’ father Demetrios II had briefly used the seated Zeus reverse type on his silver coinage after his return from Parthian captivity in 129 BC although his rule was neither complete nor lasting and Zeus was not his single dominant motif.115 It was only after the taint of Epiphanaic opposition was removed in 123 BC that Zeus became a favoured theme for the legitimate branch of the Seleukidai. Grypos’ independence quickly manifested itself in a new variation on the recently adopted Epiphanaic Zeus reverse type for his silver tetradrachms. During his sole reigns at Antioch, Ake-Ptolemaïs, Damascus and Sidon (he did not often control all mints simultaneously), Grypos’ adaption of Zeus took the form of Zeus Ouranios. The god was shown as a standing bearded male holding a sceptre in his left hand in the manner of the seated Zeus, but holding an eight-pointed star – the symbol of Astarte and her associate goddesses – in his right hand. He was crowned by a horizontal crescent moon (figs.55-6).116 Just as the Epiphanaic Zeus was associated on an individual basis with regional Ba’als, Zeus Ouranios has been seen as the direct Hellenisation of Hadad, the Semitic ‘master of the heavens’, often referred to simply by his vocational epithet, Ba’al Šamīn.117 The astrological attributes distinguish the figure from the earlier representations of Zeus and represent him as a truly enlightened and universal figure.118 The popularity of Zeus across the Levant during the late Hellenistic period is accentuated by the fact that he was utilised and remained the dominant reverse type by both branches of the Seleukid family throughout the three generations of the next civil war.

Figure 54. AR tetradrachm, Kleopatra Thea and Antiochos VIII, Ake-Ptolemaïs (SC 2: pl.45.2271.1).

Figure 55. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos VIII, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.47.2302.1g).

Following the assassination of Grypos, the Syrian goddess Atargatis may again have been represented in Hellenised guise on a limited series of bronze coins produced at Uncertain mint 121 by Antiochos IX

114

SC 2: nos.2259, 2261-3, 2267-8, 2271, 2274. SC 2: 412. The suggestion by Lorber and Iossif (2009: 105-7) that the aspect of Apollo shown seated on the omphalos was abandoned by the Seleukid dynasty because he failed to heed the prayers of Demetrios II during the Parthian campaign is not really tenable. The Seleukids had faced military reverses in the past which had not resulted in a dynastywide change of religious focus. The emerging dominance of ZeusHadad as a supreme and omnipotent god after 175 BC is a more likely reason for the replacement of Apollo than a loss of faith brought on by a single failed campaign. Kings could not afford to bear grudges against their divine cousins. As Lorber and Iossif are right to point out, Apollo did not retire in disgrace in the late Seleukid II period, but was relegated to a few small silver denominations and bronzes. 116 SC 2: nos.2280-3, 2292-8, 2302, 2321-4, 2329-30, 2335-6. Although the star and crescent moon are here believed to be directly linked to the syncretism between Zeus Ouranios and his eastern counterpart Ba’al Šamīn, it is acknowledged that celestial attributes do occur as subsidiary decoration in strictly western depictions of Zeus, see for example the gem in the Cabinet des Médailles, Paris (no.1421a) discussed by Richter 1966: 168-70, pl.54. 117 Dussaud 1936a; Rostovzeff et al. 1939: 301; Cook 1940: 945; Niehr 2003: 49. For a recent survey of the syncretic nature of Zeus-Ba’al-Bel, see Downey 2004a. The Luwian incarnation of Ba’al Šamīn was rendered ‘Celestial Tarhunza’ on a bilingual inscription from Karatepe, see Bunnens 2006: 81-2. 118 Seyrig 1939c: 300. 115

Figure 56. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos VIII, Ake-Ptolemaïs (SC 2: pl.49.2335.2a).

42

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION Kyzikenos.119 The obverse type uniquely shows the king’s head radiate, a divinising attribute otherwise unknown for Antiochos IX. The reverse type depicts a standing goddess holding an ear of grain and a poppy in her right hand and cradling a cornucopia in her left arm. The goddess has conventionally been identified as Demeter, but the novelty of that goddess on a Seleukid issue is readily acknowledged.120 The cornucopiae carried by other deities on Seleukid coinage have not led to a similar attribution; instead they are seen as symbols of Tyche, Astarte or, as stated above, Atargatis. The other attributes of Kyzikenos’ goddess – the ear of grain and the poppy flower – were symbols associated with Atargatis, depicted unambiguously on the silver coinage of Demetrios III discussed below. The interpretation of Kyzikenos’ goddess as a Hellenised Atargatis would mark a partial return to the iconographic program of Demetrios I and a continuation of that of Antiochos VIII which saw Semitic deities depicted in a Greek form on royal Seleukid coinage. The choice of reverse type and its association with the radiate portrait would suggest that Uncertain mint 121 should be located at one of the major sanctuaries of the Syrian gods of which only Damascus remained under Seleukid control after 96 BC.

Figure 57. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios III, Damascus (SC 2: pl.55.2450.3).

One last development that would demonstrate beyond all doubt the continuing strength of the pre-Greek cults in Seleukid Syria occurred in the following generation. Throughout the reigns of the two sons of Grypos, Demetrios III Eukairos (96-87 BC) and Antiochos XII Dionysos (87-84 BC), the wholly indigenous cult statues of Atargatis and Hadad respectively were employed as the reverse type on the primary series of the kings’ silver tetradrachms.121 The two brothers successively ruled a Seleukid principality based on Damascus, an ancient centre with enduring indigenous religious traditions. The contemporary bronze coinage employed a radiate (for Demetrios) or diademed (for both Demetrios and Antiochos) portrait on the obverse combined with classical Greek styled deities – Zeus, Tyche, Apollo, Hermes and Nike – taking up the reverse.

Figure 58. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios III, Damascus (SC 2: pl.55.2451.6).

long tails of a fillet tie or, more rarely, a veil, extend down either side of her torso. Her body and legs are covered in small circular or semi-circular objects reminiscent of the cult statue of Artemis of Ephesos but in this case perhaps representing the snake scales of an aegis. A facing head adorns her chest which should be understood as either a gorgonion or the personification of one of the celestial bodies. In her left hand she holds a poppy flower and an ear of grain appears to sprout from behind each shoulder. The overall composition presents Atargatis as an all powerful goddess with control over the earth and the stars. The prevailing link between Ištar, Anat, Atargatis and Athena is perhaps indicated by the statue’s aegis and gorgonion.124

Although the silver coinage of Demetrios III still carried the king’s diademed head on the obverse, the reverse depicted Atargatis in her most eastern guise (figs.57-8).122 The frontal cult statue stands rigidly with the upper arms close against the body and forearms extended to either side in the same pose as the statue of Athena Magarsia. Although the statue’s basis is not shown, she stands on a short ground line which indicates its existence. Atargatis’ head emanates rays such as those suggested by Demetrios’ radiate crown on his bronze coinage123 and

Likewise, the tetradrachms of Antiochos XII bore the king’s diademed head on the obverse while the reverse carried the eastern cult statue of Ba’al Hadad with none of the familiar Hellenising that had been present in the reigns of his father and predecessors (fig.59).125 The god stands in the same stiff manner as his consort Atargatis, with his arms projecting away from the body at the elbows. He is bearded and cloaked and wears a conical

119

SC 2: no.2376. CSE 2: no.772; SC 2: 524. 121 Fleischer 1973: 263-9. For further discussion on late Seleukid Damascus and its coinage, see Chapter 5.2 below. 122 SC 2: nos.2450-1. 123 Atargatis had already assumed certain celestial attributes in the years before the Macedonian conquest. She was depicted on the coinage of Hierapolis with her head surmounted (or otherwise accompanied) by a star, see Mildenberg 1999: 279, nos.7-8, 10-11. 120

124 125

43

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 32. SC 2: nos. 2471-2A.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Syria and Kilikia in the mid-70s BC he also replaced the numerous Seleukid/indigenous types with various Hellenised statues of Tyche. Zeus returned briefly to Antioch as a reverse type during the troubled reign of the restored Antiochos XIII Asiatikos (69-64 BC) and was continued during the Roman Republican era at Antioch.129 By the Julio-Claudian period, a ubiquitous Tyche dominated the Levant as the most common type. In the centres that had seceded from the Seleukid kingdom before the Roman annexation, certain indigenous figures such as Athena Magarsia and Sandan still appeared in the company of Tyche, but the cult statues of Atargatis and Hadad were never reproduced on the coinage of Damascus. Figure 59. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos XII, Damascus (SC 2: pl.57.2471.3).

Other indicators of religious patronage in this period involved the process of granting of asylia – inviolability and semi-autonomy including exemption from taxes and billeting – to temples or even whole cities. The city of Nysa received letters from at least two Seleukid kings confirming a grant of inviolability and tax exemption for the temple of Pluto and Kore “because I wish to increase the friendship felt towards us.”130 Concessions tended to be made to cities that were consecrated to divinities with major local significance and were the manifestation of the administration’s acceptance of the sanctity of the site.131 A late second or first century memorandum from an Antiochos (perhaps Grypos?) granted property as well as inviolability and freedom from billeting to the village and temple of Zeus of Baitokaike in the Apameian satrapy.132 Concessions to settlements such as Baitokaike were in effect grants of semi-autonomy to regions at the very heart of the empire – an indication of the fragility of Seleukid control by the second century BC.133

hat similar to that worn by Sandan at Tarsos, by Abdhadad, the sacrificing priest on the pre-Seleukid coinage of Hierapolis-Bambyke and shown on later Hatrene priestly statues.126 It should be remembered at this stage that along with Hierapolis-Bambyke, Damascus and Heliopolis-Ba’albek were the most holy sanctuaries of Hadad and Atargatis.127 The Damascene cult statue holds a large ear of grain in his left hand symbolising his original role as a fertility deity. In the case of Hadad, the two-tiered basis is clearly represented and here it supports both the god and the two bulls who flank him. The conical headdress, bull, and vegetal attributes formed key features in the iconography of Ba’al Hadad from the earliest depictions in the second millennium BC.128 Any interpretatio graeca, dominant in earlier Seleukid depictions of the Zeus-Ba’al figure, is a mere memory on the tetradrachms of Antiochos XII. The Damascene Seleukidai produced silver coinage that emphasised the importance of local religious traditions. Indeed if size matters, there were few Seleukid kings whose territories were as small or so localised as the Damascene principality of Demetrios III and Antiochos XII. The kings clearly accepted that the importance of the local indigenous cult heightened in inverse proportion with the reduced state of the principality. When, in the last years of the reign of Demetrios III the king occupied Antioch, he began producing tetradrachms there that reverted to the Epiphanaic type of the seated Zeus Nikephoros. While Atargatis continued to appear at Damascus, Zeus was the dominant and traditional type of Antioch by this date and so he continued on the Antiochene coins of Demetrios III. Antiochos XII was preoccupied with maintaining his hold on Damascus and so Hadad remained unchallenged on his silver coinage.

2.2

THE IMPACT OF NUMISMATIC ICONOGRAPHY

Any analysis of an iconographic program approached through the medium of coinage must take into account the minting authority and the intended audience – that is to say, the principal recipients of coined currency and the population among whom such currency circulated. The identity of the minting authority of Seleukid regal coins is in no doubt. The kings’ title, names and epithets constitute the reverse legend while, more often than not, the royal portrait adorns the obverse. However, the individual or group responsible for the choice of the types, especially on the reverse, is much harder to establish with any certainty. The appearance of the goathorned helmet on the coinage of the child-king Antiochos VI may suggest that the king and his immediate circle were ultimately responsible for the choice of types. The goat-horned helmet134 was the badge of Diodotos

Following the death of Antiochos XII, the Nabataean king Aretas III occupied Damascus. He did not produce any silver denominations but produced a bronze coinage which replaced all Seleukid types with a simple seated or standing Tyche. When Tigranes II of Armenia annexed

129

SC 2: nos.2487-91. Welles 1934: nos.9, 64. 131 Seyrig 1939a: 37-8; Teixidor 1989: 89. 132 Austin 2006: no.172 = Welles 1934: no.70. See also Chapter 4.3 below. 133 Zahle 1990: 128-34 stresses the direct link between religious and political freedom. 134 Discussed in detail in Chapter 3.3 below. 130

126

Mildenberg 1999: nos.20-5; Dirven 2008: 223-6. Lucian The Syrian Goddess; Joseph. Jewish Antiquities 9.93; Justin Epitome 36.2.2; Macrobius Saturnalia 1.23.10-20; Avi-Yonah 1959: 8. 128 Green 2003: 154-7. 127

44

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION Tryphon, the king’s guardian, and its appearance as a royal type under Antiochos VI suggests a directive from the royal court. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover posit that the appearance of the helmet in the final year of Antiochos’ reign may have been an intentional step taken by Tryphon in his own seizure of power.135

to facilitate trade, either foreign or local, was at best a secondary concern to the coins’ producers.139 If it is accepted that the primary recipients for the coin imagery were military personnel, some of the explicit type changes can be explained through a systematic examination of the changing composition of the army over time. As has been noted in Chapter 1.3, the extant historical sources leave much to be desired when it comes to understanding the composition of the Seleukid armed forces. Although we are given good accounts of Raphia (217 BC), Magnesia (190 BC) and Daphne (167 BC), the source of military manpower outside of this confined period must be made through extrapolation. Broadly speaking, the army can be broken down into the Hellenised phalanx (equipped and trained as Macedonians but not necessarily of Greco-Macedonian ancestry), Iranian dominated cavalry and auxiliary ‘national’ contingents of non-Hellenised extraction; while the fleet can be presumed to have been raised primarily from among the Phoenician and Kilikian maritime cities. At Raphia, 54.35% of the royal army was sourced from Hellenised populations from both within (urban centres of Seleukis and military colonies) and without (mercenaries) the kingdom. The remaining 45.65% were non-Greeks. Twenty seven years later at Magnesia, we see the relative proportions (Hellenised, 31.19%: non-Greek, 68.81%) inversed dramatically. At Daphne we see the return of similar proportions to Raphia with 62.5% Hellenised and 37.5% non-Greek forces. The rough proportions of the Seleukid standing army both before and after Apameia seems to have hovered between 50:50 and 60:40 in favour of the Hellenised elements of the kingdom. In times of crisis, additional national contingents could swell the army until they reached 70% or more of the total number of soldiers.

Alternative views might see the choice of coin types as the responsibility of the satrapal dioiketai (financial administrators) or left to the initiative of individual mint magistrates. The kings directly corresponded with their dioiketai in parallel with the strategoi (military governors) and would no doubt have been consulted on any matters of importance.136 However, the evidence would suggest that the dioiketos was more involved with the collection of taxation than the minting of money. Mint magistracies could be held for extended periods of time in the cities of Seleukid Syria, even through violent changes of regime. Voulgaridis views this as evidence that, for the most part, mint magistrates were neither “high-ranking officials, nor highly placed socially”.137 Entrusting the royal iconographic program to the judgement of minor public servants hardly seems likely – it is almost certain that even if the king did not directly decide his own iconographic policy, he must have been consulted and retained the final word on any imagery produced in his name.138 The primary purposes for ancient coinage have long been accepted as the expression of ‘national’ pride and the payment of government expenses. The largest single government expense and the embodiment of national pride (especially in periods of heightened political tension) was the payment of soldiers, sailors and mercenaries to protect the state and maintain the position of the governing body. In Seleukid terms this meant that throughout the kingdom’s existence and increasingly as the territory deteriorated, the kings both maintained and expressed their authority through the production of coinage bearing badges of specific relevance to the state’s position and safety The audience for any messages borne through numismatic imagery was, in the first instance, the Seleukid military establishment. The provision of coinage

Regardless of the distinctions between the regular army, national auxiliaries or mercenaries – with the possible exception of Ariarathes’ Kappadokians at Magnesia and Hyrkanos’ Jews with Antiochos VII in Babylonia – the Seleukid king must have been expected to fund all these forces in terms of both provisions and regular pay. In 220 BC, the army being prepared for the third campaign against Molon, mutinied on account of arrears with their pay. The crisis was averted by Hermeias, the king’s epi ton pragmaton (chief minister), who personally paid them what was owed – and used it to his political advantage.140 Evidence for the rate of military pay in the Hellenistic period is sparse but it has been estimated that at the end of the fourth century BC, a mercenary hoplite might expect four obols a day, cavalry perhaps double. Alexander the Great’s elite hypaspists received one drachm, the equivalent of six obols. The inflation resulting from long-hoarded Persian silver and gold flooding the market following Alexander’s conquests probably meant that by the early third century, rates of

135 SC 2: 337. Sutherland (1951: 184) proposes a similar situation at Imperial Rome where the princeps directly determined and authorised the mint’s iconographic program. 136 Aperghis 2004: 269-76. 137 Voulgaridis 2008: 69. Note the contrast between the position of mint magistrate in the monarchic system as opposed to Republican Rome where membership of the tresviri monetales (board of moneyers) was a first step towards important public office. However, even in Rome, the mint magistrate was a very junior role. 138 Butcher (2005: 144-5), adapting the work of Levick (1982) and Wallace-Harill (1984) has suggested that while the ruler and his aides were influential in the choice of coin iconography, the images were produced as much to legitimate the rulers in their own eyes as it was to pass on a message to the wider population; “Symbols are more meaningful to those that wield them than those who passively accept them.”

139 Cook 1958: 26; Kraay 1964: 88-90; Howgego 1990: 8-11; Martin 1996: 258-9, 282-3; Aperghis 2004:189; Houghton 2004: 52-4; Melville-Jones 2006: 27-30. 140 Polybius Histories 5.50.1-9.

45

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES pay had begun to increase dramatically.141 Under the Seleukids, it has been suggested that the daily rate of pay for a phalangite or mercenary might have been as high as a drachm, plus two to three obols in ration allowance giving an approximate total of 45 drachms per man per month (more for officers). As in the fourth century BC, the wage of a cavalryman must have been around double that.142 The cost of paying the army (infantry and cavalry) during the reign of Antiochos III thus (conservatively) comes to between 7,000 and 10,000 talents of coined silver per year.143

community through merchants, wine sellers and brothels, bearing its iconographic message to the wider population – provided the population maintained some sort of moneyed economy. Here the excavation of numerous small sites with Hellenistic occupation from across Syria indicate that coins did not necessarily penetrate too deeply into the hinterland of the urban centres except where we see potential military garrisons such as Jebel Khalid.150 We thus return full circle to the principle that the royal military were the primary recipients of coinage and thus the intended audience of the state message conveyed within.

Large as the Seleukid military was, it must always be remembered that it was only ever a tiny fraction of the total population living under Seleukid rule. Demographic estimates are difficult to ascertain and vary wildly, from Green’s 30,000,000 during the height of the empire, to Aperghis’ much more conservative 14-18,000,000.144 The largest mobilisation of Seleukid military forces reported in the ancient sources were the 80-100,000 strong armies raised by Antiochos III (212-205 BC) and Antiochos VII Sidetes (130 BC) for their respective anabaseis to recover Mesopotamia and the Upper Satrapies.145 Placing even these immense forces in the context of Aperghis’ low demographic estimates for the years in question, the military accounted for between one and 1.6 percent of the total population.146 The royal messages carried by the coins was primarily targeted at a small but very powerful component of the wider community.

Given that 40-70% of the royal military (the principal recipients of coinage) can be classed as non-Greek, it is surprising that for so long it was the Greco-Macedonian aspect of the empire (Apollo – naked and youthful) that was given expression through coin types while any reference to non-Greek cult was distinctly absent. Seleukos I may have been following Alexander the Great by intentionally using an ambiguous image identifiable by both his Greco-Macedonian colonists and soldiers, and his new Semitic subjects. However, his abundant colony foundations would seem to indicate that he felt uneasy about the amount of support he could call upon from the majority of his Asian subjects.151 Seleukos I, alone among the successors, did not repudiate his Baktrian wife Apame following Alexander’s death. It may be that the couple had found an actual love match but the marriage could not but have helped Seleukos’ occupation and control of the Upper Satrapies.152 By the time his (halfBaktrian) son succeeded to the throne, a Hellenic population had been established in Syria and the surrounding territories for a generation and it would seem that Antiochos felt secure employing the very Greek Apollo on his coins. The utilisation of a naked uncircumcised youthful god may have estranged his Semitic subjects, but the strength of the kingdom and support of the Greco-Macedonian cities and colonies (certainly following the Galatian war if not before) could have reduced the significance of this effect.153 To the king’s Greek (or at least Hellenised) subjects, Apollo was an image which advertised Antiochos’ role as protector of Greek cities, but perhaps more importantly, alluded to his divine descent.154

Of course coined money could be and was used to make large non-military (and even non-governmental) payments where it was deemed convenient. In Ptolemaic Egypt we find state payments being made to Demetrios the physician who received a salary of 80 drachms a month,147 while at the opposite end of the spectrum, unskilled labourers could received a daily rate of a mere three-quarters of an obol.148 Although such payments would rarely have come anywhere close to the amounts expended on the military, the examples do illustrate the range of non-military, principal recipients of coinage. In some cases of coin-based exchanges, the type of coin could even be specified. The archive of Nanâ-iddin, a Babylonian notable, itemised the payment for the private sale of a plot of land in the early third century as “silver, 6 minas 6 shekels, staters of Alexander in good condition.”149 Naturally, any coin supply regardless of its origins could be expected to diffuse into all sectors of the

150

JK 1:297, 299; Nixon 2006: 93. Seleukos had expected and received a vast amount of support from his Babylonian subjects who were a key to the successful establishment of Babylonia as his territorial powerbase in the war against the Antigonids (312-308 BC), see Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.91; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 10, 124. 152 Arrian Anabasis 7.4.6; Sherwin-White and Kurht 1993: 24-6, 124-6. 153 This was not of course the only, nor even necessarily need it be the primary, reason for Seleukid colonisation (see Aperghis 2005) but it was undeniably a factor. 154 The miniature scale of the images on individual coins make the assumption that Apollo was depicted uncircumcised, impossible to prove. However, the iconography of the coin type conforms to the Greek ideal which traditionally showed Apollo as a naked, uncircumcised, clean-faced, youthful god. Where Apollo appeared in a Semitic context – as at Hierapolis-Bambyke and Dura-Europos – he was depicted as a mature, bearded god and arrayed fully clothed, see Lucian The Syrian Goddess 35; Macrobius Saturnalia 1.17.66-7; Rostovtzeff et al. 1939: 266, 281, pl.36.1; Drijvers 1980: 72; Lightfoot 2003: 456-69; 151

141

Parke 1933: 233; Griffith 1935: 294-307. Aperghis 2004: 202-3. 143 Aperghis 2004: 204-5. The quantity of coined silver may have been reduced by the production of special military bronze issues intended to function as sitarchia (the regular ration allowance) with highly inflated face values, see Wright 2009: 49-50. 144 Green 1990: 371; Aperghis 2004: 57. 145 Justin Epitome 38.10.1, 41.5.7; Bar-Kochva 1979: 10-1. 146 Aperghis 2004: 57 fig.41. 147 P. Hamburg no.171; Lewis 2001: 50. 148 Lewis 2001: 52. 149 Doty 1978: 69. Grainger (1999: 305) notes the regularity of Babylonian civil contracts that specify monetary amounts in terms of coined currency; see also Powell (1996) who cites the example dated to 218 BC: “two-thirds mina of silver, purified, worked, good, staters of Antiochus.” 142

46

STATE PATRONAGE OF RELIGION 2.3

REFLECTIONS ON DIVINE PATRONAGE

By partially turning their backs on a purely Greek Apollo and associating themselves specifically with the syncretisable Zeus, the later Seleukid kings could hope to count on an ethnically wider support base (within the Levant) than was considered necessary by their predecessors, a hope that reflected the true geographic and political realities of the kingdom after the treaty of Apameia. Under the late Seleukids, increasing localised autonomy was mirrored by the increasing visibility of Semitic and Luwian (and even Egyptian) cults as coin types. The dominance of Kleopatra Thea added further Egyptian imagery into the already varied pool of influences. Antiochos VIII Grypos issued silver coinage emblazoned with pre-Greek Luwian (Athena Magarsia and Sandan) deities in Kilikia, a Hellenised Semitic (or naturalised Hellenic – Ba’al Šamīn/Zeus Ouranios) deity in Syria and Phoenicia, while his bronze coinage continued to display traditional Greek gods such as Apollo and Artemis. It would appear that such regionalism of type choices illustrates the kings’ awareness of specific target audiences. In Damascus, Demetrios III and Antiochos XII combined Semitic cult statues on their silver issues, with more Hellenised figures on their bronzes. Within the larger heterogeneous Seleukid kingdom, the religious traditions of the colonists met, vied and merged with those of the colonised and there does not appear to have been any one overriding tradition. As the territory under royal control gradually shrank the relative importance of each of the component parts increased. With that importance, the local gods rose to a new prominence and the numismatic iconography became ever more localised. Although detailed accounts of the composition of Seleukid armies in their last century are lacking, it is clear that with the loss of the western and eastern parts of the empire, Seleukid forces must have been increasingly sourced from the local Luwian and Semitic areas under direct control. It must have helped that the coin types produced to pay these forces bore the images of deities that the individuals could identify and relate to. With the absorption of the former Seleukid territories into the Roman empire, some of the indigenous types such as Athena Magarsia flourished while others such as Atargatis and Ba’al Hadad were once more omitted from the repertoire of coin types. It is difficult to satisfactorily explain why select non-Greek deities were retained while others were discarded. It may very well be that there was enough recognisably Greek about Athena Magarsia to facilitate her retention, while the abandoned types were just too foreign for the new rulers and their Mediterranean empire. Eastern deities would not appear in strength again until the period of the Severan emperors in the early third century AD where, in a reverse of fortune, Semitic gods actively went west. Haider 2008: 202 on the assimilation of Apollo and Nabû. On the divine descent of the king see Chapters 2.1 and 3.1.

47

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 60. Detail of Alexander III with thunderbolt from the so-called ‘Elephant Medallion’ (Sy Weintraub coll.).

48

DIVINE KINGS specific moment.7 Broadly speaking, this ideology together with Euhemerism found favour across the Hellenic world during the late Classical and Hellenistic periods at least on a practical level.8 As mentioned in Chapter 2.1, Philip II of Macedon was honoured by the demos of Eresos as Zeus Philippeios and Alexander the Great was depicted by Apelles and on the so-called Elephant Medallions bearing Zeus’ thunderbolt as his own weapon (figs.8, 60).9 Appian has Anaxarchos state that it was more reasonable for the Macedonians to honour Alexander as a god than to worship Herakles or Dionysos.10 Within this context it is not always easy to draw a distinction between comparison and identification.11 By the mid-first century BC, Cicero could cynically note that several mortals had been admitted to the celestial citizenship in recent times.12

CHAPTER 3 DIVINE KINGS 3.1

ROYAL CULT AND HELLENISTIC KINGSHIP

The Seleukidai ruled over such a disparate population that the adoption of a single concept of what it was to be a monarch would hardly have been in the king’s interest. The lack of any legislative body for the kingdom perpetuated the personal and charismatic nature of the kingship – l’état c’est moi. However, the monarchic traditions of both the Greco-Macedonians and the various non-Greek peoples of the kingdom imposed precedents that the Seleukids obviously saw fit to follow.1 In the fifth century BC, Herodotus had written sympathetically on the Achaemenid notion that, provided the king was the most virtuous of beings, the institution of kingship afforded the ideal political structure.2 At the turn of the century, Xenophon, perhaps inspired by Socrates’ ideal ‘philosopher-king’ as much as his admiration for Cyrus the Younger and Agesilaos of Sparta, pursued a similar outlook.3 By the start of the Hellenistic period, the earlier Pythagorean, Platonic and Stoic theorising had consolidated into a philosophic school (following Diotogenes and Ekphantos) that advocated the sole rule of an individual endowed with supreme power on earth that corresponded with the rule of Zeus over the heavens. The basic tenets of the Diotogenes-Ekphantos philosophic school explicitly stated that in return for omnipotence, three duties were expected of kings: successful military leadership, the provision of just laws, and pious observance of the gods. Goodenough surmises that such a threefold premise of kingship was adopted as universal Hellenistic royal policy and formed the basis of official behaviour.4

In Mesopotamia, a vaguely parallel belief existed that all things belonged to the god of the city and the king was, at the least, his earthly deputy. From the reign of Sargon of Akkade (c.2333-2279 BC) the kings were begotten by gods if not gods themselves.13 A funerary ritual performed for Niqmaddu III of Ugarit (c.1225-1215 BC) known as the Document of the sacrifices for the shades included sacrifices for the king’s father, grandfather and the “assembly of Didānu”, where Didānu was seen as the dynastic progenitor. Royal ancestors thus received sacrifices after the fashion of deities, by name for two or three generations and thereafter as part of the assembly.14 Such traditions continued to flourish under the Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians.15 During the reign of Antiochos III, four texts are known from Uruk which describe offerings made before the statues of the ‘kings’ in the Rēš sanctuary. It is unclear whether the kings were Seleukids or from one of the previous dynasties; however, living Seleukid kings were likely included among them.16 According to Aramaic ideology, the king belonged to the race of the gods and was their earthly representative.17 Eusebius (quoting Philo Judaeaus) wrote that to the Phoenicians, the notion of a living god was in no way an abstract concept – for the Phoenicians, some gods were

Euhemeros of Messene, an ambassador of Kassandros of Macedon (306/5-297 BC), told the apocryphal story of travelling to an island beyond Arabia called Panachaia. Here he was informed that the first gods were men who were deified on account of their conquests and benefactions.5 The same rationalisation of the gods found echoes in Diodorus Siculus who stated that the gods and many heroes had all achieved apotheosis, transcending their human form to become gods after the completion of great deeds.6 From the Archaic period, Greeks regarded certain individuals as imbued with characteristics greater than other humans. Such individuals could be recognised in intentionally ambiguous language as theoi, gods, either unreservedly or with reference to another individual or

7

Nock 1928: 31. Even if part of the intellectual elite saw little theological value in Euhemerism (see for example Plutarch Moralia 359e-360), the basic tenets were still in circulation during the late first century BC and made an impact on the writing of Diodorus Siculus, see also Price 1984: 29. 9 Pliny Natural History 35.92; Plutarch Alexander 4.3; le Bohec-Bouhet 2002: 43; Holt 2003. Alexander was, of course, also believed to have been recognised as the son of Zeus-Ammon at Siwa, see Arrian Annabasis 3.3-4; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 17.51; Justin Epitome 11.11.2-12; Plutarch Alexander 26; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 4.7.5-28. 10 Appian Anabasis 4.10.5 11 Nock 1928: 32. 12 Cicero, Nature of the Gods 3.15. 13 See for example Goodnick Westenholz 1997: 34-5. See also the cuneiform determinatives on the Borsippa cylinder where both the deity Marduk and Antiochos I might be viewed as man-gods (Kosim forthcoming). 14 van der Toorn 1996: 163. 15 McEwan 1934: 8-17; Goodnick Westenholz 1997: 1-2; Green 2003: 285-8. 16 Kuhrt 1996: 50-1; Linssen 2004: 126. 17 van der Toorn 1996: 170. 8

1

Mooren 1983: 208. Herodotus The Histories 3.82. 3 Xenophon Cyropaedia; id. Hiero. 4 Goodenough 1928: 64-6, 99-100. The role of the king as supreme priest of the kingdom is aptly demonstrated by a series of inscriptions dating to the reign of Antiochos III the Great where we repeatedly see the king autocratically distributing priesthoods to individuals whom he wished to see honoured, see Welles 1934: nos.36-7, 44; Mørkholm 1966: 144; Malay 1987. 5 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 6.1.4-10. 6 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 6.2, 6.6.1. 2

49

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES immortal while others were not.18 Further east, the Achaemenids were viewed (perhaps wrongly) by the Greeks as recipients of divine honours although Arrian does describe what appear to be regular offerings presented at the tomb of Cyrus the Great.19 After establishing himself in Babylonia, Seleukos I Nikator (followed by his successors) made a concerted effort to conform to the Achaemenid and Babylonian royal models. This was a requirement in order to fully access the enormous resource potential of the satrapy and included the adoption of traditional roles and titulature.20

the ideological transition from king and subject to deity and devotee enabled them to reconcile their theoretic status (free) with their actual position (subject).26 Such Hellenic rationalising may have been the trigger which ultimately produced the Hellenistic royal cults. It appears that the first steps towards the deification of Hellenistic kings were taken by the subject Hellenic cities rather than by the kings themselves.27 Athens had been among the first cities to recognise the divinity of Alexander the Great, Antigonos Monophthalmos and Demetrios Poliorketes. In all three instances, the city acted as a free agent, conferring divine status on its own initiative (although it is doubtful that a Hellenistic king would have ever denied his godhead).28 Whatever the sincerity, it is clear that different cities found various reasons to worship the Hellenistic kings. New foundations such as Seleukeia-Pieria and Dura-Europos could worship the oikist or city-founder as hero or god29 while older cities such as Miletos might honour a king as benefactor or saviour.30

In the second century AD, Plutarch derided royal apotheosis with the statement that any king may be applauded as Apollo if he hums, Dionysos if he drinks or Herakles if he wrestles.21 However, it must be remembered that Plutarch was both a scholar and a priest of the sanctuary of Delphi who grew up in a world governed by extravagant and excessive Roman principes among whom were the later Julio-Claudians and the likes of Domitian. His cynicism regarding royal cult is understandable from a modern perspective but does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the mainstream populace of the Hellenistic East. Hellenistic disillusionment with the traditional gods and a growing religious scepticism allowed for the admission of the king into an already crowded pantheon.22 The paradigm is presented clearly by McEwan: “one might believe vaguely in the power and the glory of the Olympians, but he could see and feel the glory and the power of the Diadochoi. The local god fed nobody in time of famine, but the king could and did.”23 Apollo was said to have turned away the Galatians at Delphi, but Antiochos I had heroically defeated them in Phrygia and their settlement and pacification was physical proof of his god-like power.24

There was also a flourishing Hellenistic tradition of synnaoi theoi which saw the new royal cult appended onto an existing religious structure or sanctuary where the king and/or queen would share the divine honours paid to the traditional god. Although there are few confirmed accounts of synnaoi theoi within the Seleukid kingdom, such activities were widespread in Ptolemaic Egypt, Attalid Pergamon and Kommagene.31 The gymnasium at Soli in Kilikia provides one certain instance of Seleukid synnaoi theoi where there was a dedication made to Hermes, Herakles and the “Great King” Antiochos [III].32 Another instance is known from Teos where statues of both Antiochos III and Laodike III were erected within the sanctuary of Dionysos.33 Cuneiform texts confirm that a moderated process of synnaoi theoi was adopted in Babylon (at least from the reign of Seleukos III) which saw the king and often members of his family honoured in rituals in conjunction with the “great gods” but without being provided with the dingir, the cuneiform prefix for divinities. Although closer to receiving overt worship than their precursors, the Seleukid kings assumed a superhuman status rather than an incorporation into the Babylonian pantheon. Linssen views this arrangement as an interpretatio Babylonica of contemporary Greek practice.34 All this together suggests that the scarcity of Seleukid synnaoi

The establishment of cities was also seen as a typical act of the “culture-hero” of the Hellenistic period and city foundation (and refoundation) was certainly a favoured pastime of the Seleukid kings.25 Furthermore, deification enabled the Seleukid king legitimately to expect the subservience of all his subjects regardless of race; while to the Hellenised cities which so longed for autonomy, 18

Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel 1.9.29. Aeschylus Persians 155-9; Arrian Anabasis 4.11, 6.29.7; McEwan 1934: 19-23; Mooren 1983: 222-4; Tuplin 2004: 161, n.22. 20 Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1991: 77-8, 83; Kuhrt 1996: 42-3; Davies 2002: 3; Austin 2006: no.166. 21 Plutarch Moralia 360d. 22 The Spartan strategos Lysander was worshipped as a living god in the last years of the fifth century BC by the Greeks of Asia Minor. Plutarch (Lysander 18) states that he was the first living being to be honoured in such a way by the Greeks, see also Price 1984: 27. 23 McEwan 1934: 26. van Straten 1993: 255-6, 263-4 has also noticed a growing physical distance and a developing “verticality” between deities and devotees in votive reliefs between the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The same process is perhaps illustrated by the perceived distancing of the gods during sacrificial rituals, see Gill 1974: 127-33, 137. 24 Appian Syrian Wars 65; Lucian Zeuxis 8-11; Bar-Kochva 1973. For the importance of the Galatian wars to Hellenistic royal propaganda in general see Strootman 2005. 25 Nock 1928: 27. For an example of royal settlements, see Appian Syrian Wars 57. 19

26

Bevan 1901: 631-2; Downey, 1941: 165; Price 1984: 29-30; Shipley 2000: 65-6. 27 Bevan 1901; Downey 1941: 168-9. 28 Arrian Anabasis 7.23.2; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 20.46; Plutarch Demetrius 10; Bevan 1901: 626. 29 Appian Syrian Wars 63; CIG 4458 = Austin 2006: no.207; P.Dura 25.3-4; Rostovtzeff 1935: 58. 30 Appian Syrian Wars 63. 31 Nock 1930: 42-3. Sokolowski (1972: 174) understands all instances of royal syncretism – Seleukos Zeus Nikator, Aphrodite Stratonikis etc – as synnaoi theoi. 32 Radet and Paris 1890; OGIS 230; Nock 1930: 51-2. 33 Herrmann 1965; Sokolowski 1972: 171; Price 1984: 29-30; Austin 2006: no.191. 34 Linssen 2004: 127-8.

50

DIVINE KINGS theoi from Syria can be accounted for not so much by a lack of action, as a lack of extant sources.

Ma considers that the drive to worship Seleukid ancestors received a renewed impetus under Antiochos III who aspired to the restoration of his ancestral empire.42 An inscription from Seleukeia-Pieria dated to the reign of Seleukos IV shows that each subsequent Seleukid king was posthumously honoured with divine titles in a cult organised under a single dynastic priest.43

Although it is often hard to distinguish one from the other, there was obviously a perceived distinction between the official or state-organised dynastic cult and divine honours granted to individual kings and queens by specific cities as a civic cult. Presumably where there was dynastic worship as opposed to individual worship, the cult was official, although this is purely conjectural. Certainly where individual monarchs received synnaos theos status, the impetus came from within the city rather than the court. Antiochos III appointed the courtier Nikanor as chief priest of all sanctuaries north-west of the Taurus, a role which is known to have incorporated the high-priesthood of the official dynastic cult. At Xanthos, however, a distinction was made between the role of Nikanor, priest of the royal cult and the ‘urban’ priest of the kings, Garison.35 Presumably Nikanor administered the state-organised dynastic cult while Garison oversaw a polis-sponsored cult developed as a response to benefaction.

During the Roman Imperial period, a cult dedicated to Zeus Seleukeios is attested in Lydia, at Delphi and at Egyptian Alexandreia. The origin of the cult epithet is obscure but may refer to the deified Seleukos I, or perhaps the Zeus of Seleukeia-Pieria who was both part of the pre-Greek religious landscape and intimately entwined with the cult of the first Seleukid.44 A papyrus fragment found at Dura-Europos records the existence of a priesthood of Seleukos Nikator operating in AD 180 which was presumably a continuation of a Seleukid period cult.45 Here Seleukos was probably worshipped in the guise of the city’s oikist and was thus an integral part of the civic identity regardless of the wider political situation which saw the city under Parthian occupation by the early first century BC and incorporated within the Roman province of Syria from AD 165. Unfortunately, the priesthood is not attested before the second century AD and there remains the possibility that the cult was an archaising Seleukid revival as part of the Second Sophistic rather than a perpetual cult of the city’s founder.

The geographic extent of Nikanor’s religious ‘command’, the Seleukid Anatolian possessions, mirrored the civil and military command of the viceroy Zeuxis.36 In 178 BC Seleukos IV appointed Olympiodoros to administer the “whole variety of local cults” in the satrapy of KoileSyria and Phoenicia thereby granting him similar authority over the high-priests of the various shrines and sanctuaries in that region. In the same dossier appointing Olympiodoros it was made clear that each division of the empire likewise received regional high-priests.37 No real indication is given of Olympiodoros receiving a geographically far-reaching authority (such as Nikanor’s across all Anatolia) nor of any superior religious figure overseeing Olympiodoros and it is possible that the Trans-Tauric satrapies were treated differently from the geographically central provinces.38

Civic priests of Antiochos I are known at Ilion from c.277 BC.46 Cults dedicated to Antiochos as Soteros (saviour) in the face of the Galatian threat were active at Bargylia, Teos and Smyrna.47 A temenos, altar, statue, regular sacrifices, games and a Stephanephoria festival were conferred upon Antiochos I, Stratonike and Antiochos [II] their son by the Ionian league.48 Like his father, Antiochos I also posthumously received a naos at Lemnos.49 Bevan suggests that Antiochos I and Stratonike were honoured at Didyma posthumously as the theoi soteres, the Saviour Gods, although Welles denies that the Seleukids were ever worshipped as divine couples after the fashion of the Ptolemies and indeed, there are no other Seleukid examples of such a practice.50

A civic cult of Seleukos I was installed at Ilion during the king’s lifetime which included an altar, games and the renaming of a month in the king’s honour. Similar games were held at Erythrai39 while at Lemnos, Seleukos was honoured posthumously with the construction of a naiskos and had his name substituted for that of Zeus in festive libations.40 Seleukos was buried below the Nikatoreion, a temple-heroön or hero shrine, constructed to honour Seleukos Zeus Nikator at Seleukeia-Pieria by Antiochos I.41 This can perhaps be viewed as the first official institution of the state-sponsored dynastic cult.

However, at Smyrna, further cults were established by the reign of Seleukos II dedicated to “Antiochos [II] Theos” and “Stratonike Thea” (his mother), the latter of whom was additionally honoured as Aphrodite Stratonikis.51 The honour was probably posthumous but, as with Zeus Seleukeios, continued into the Roman period. Tacitus records that the driving force behind the cult of Aphrodite

35

Malay 1987: 7-15. Grainger 1997: 122-3; Dignas 2002: 45-52. 37 Cotton and Wörrle 2007: 197. 38 The suggestion posited by Cotton and Wörrle (2007: 201) that the Dorymenes mentioned in the Heliodoros dossier functioned as a ‘divisional’ high-priest with authority over Olympiodoros is of course possible, but unfortunately unsupportable and thus must remain hypothetical. 39 Bevan 1901: 627; OGIS 212. 40 Bevan 1901: 627. 41 Appian Syrian Wars 63; CIG 4458 = Austin 2006: no.207; see also Chapter 4.2 below. 36

42

Ma 2002: 32, 64; see also Schmitt 1964: 85. CIG 4458.10-20 = Austin 2006: no.207. 44 Seyrig 1939c; Fraser 1949. 45 P.Dura 25.3-4. 46 OGIS 219 = Austin 2006: nos. 162. 47 Bargylia: SIG 426; Teos: CIG 3075; Smyrna: OGIS 229 = Austin 2006: no.174.100. 48 OGIS 222 = Austin 2006: nos. 169. 49 Bevan 1901: 627. 50 Welles 1934: 36. 51 OGIS 229 = Austin 2006: no.174.10. 43

51

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Stratonikis was an oracle given by Apollo.52 This was probably the oracle at Didyma with whom the Seleukids continued to have close relations. The story brings to mind Arrian’s statement that even Herakles only received divine honours on the request of the Pythia of Delphi and illustrates that the old gods could still wield influence over which mortals were admitted among their number.53

king. Other sculptural fragments were suggestive of Zeus, Aphrodite, Dionysos, various figures in Parthian or Iranian dress and a miniature limestone altar. The excavator considered the shrine to have combined the worship of local gods with regional royalty – synnaoi theoi – dated from the second century BC to the first or second century AD.60 Most recently, the youthful head has been identified as Antiochos VII, the last of the Seleukids to control the region. The hypothesis is that his statue may have been erected (and cult established) during the king’s anabasis (130-129 BC) as a show of renewed loyalty by the local population.61

At Antioch-in-Persis the dynastic priesthood honoured “Seleukos [I] Nikator and Antiochos [I] Soter and Antiochos [II] Theos and Seleukos [II] Kallinikos and King Seleukos [III]” posthumously along with the cult of the living Antiochos III and Antiochos the princeregent.54 In the late nineteenth century, an inscription from Susa was published in which it appeared that Antiochos II had established a state cult for his first queen, Laodike I.55 However, the dating of the inscription has since proved to be erroneous and it is clear that the official dynastic cult only included the queen from the reign of Antiochos III the Great.56 Antiochos III appointed Berenike (a descendant of the Diadoch Lysimachos) as chief priestess of a new cult of the living queen, Laodike III, which was to be established across the empire in conjunction with the king’s own cult.

At the Hierothesion of Antiochos I of Kommagene on Nemrud Dağ, 17 ancestors were honoured in the dynastic cult. Among the broken remains of stele of these ancestors, Antiochos VIII Grypos has been identified along with fragments of other Seleukid kings. The ‘Hellenic’ branch of the Kommagene family ran through the Seleukids to Alexander the Great who is mythically shown as the line’s ultimate progenitor. From the remains of the male Seleukids, it appears that they were depicted in Greek armour adorned with medallions decorated with thunderbolts or the bust of Apollo (figs.61-5).62 Beyond being references to the two principal patrons of the dynasty, one can only wonder if the application of the different divine symbols bore any specific reference to the various kings in question. Unfortunately, scant fragments of the Hellenic ancestor stelae remain at the site and a reconciliation of divine symbolism and recognisable monarchs remains elusive. Where the associations have been proposed however, it is curiously Antiochos I and Seleukos IV who wear the thunderbolt design (Seleukos IV also wears a broach with the bust of Herakles), while Antiochos IV, the patron of Zeus, is depicted with the bust of Apollo.

As well as receiving synnaoi theoi honours in the sanctuary of Dionysos at Teos, Antiochos III and Laodike III received further altars throughout the city and a statue with associated honours established in the bouleuterion (council building). The first fruits of the season were offered to the royal gods, and a fountain with certain rites erected in honour of Laodike.57 Laodike III was also the focus of a civic cult from Iasos where she was syncretised with Aphrodite as a patroness of girls who wanted to marry.58 It is unclear exactly how the dynastic cult of the queens was to be organised although it is clear that the cult established at Susa was not applied retrospectively to previous queens. However, by the reign of Seleukos IV, it did include Laodike IV, wife of the king and even Laodike, their daughter.59

3.2

OFFICIAL TITULATURE

The Seleukids presented themselves as the heirs to both the Greco-Macedonian and the Babylo-Iranian traditions of their subjects. Although in the Babylonian cuneiform texts neither Alexander the Great nor the Seleukids received divine epithets or cultic titles,63 both traditions provided precedents for royal apotheosis and it is no wonder that by the mid-second century BC the kings

Archaeological and epigraphic evidence for royal cults, either civic or dynastic is distinctly absent for the late Seleukid period. To a great degree this lacuna must be understood as a modern construction – in the late period the kingdom was reduced in geographic terms and comparatively little excavation and survey has been conducted in Seleukid Syria. At Shami in Elymais stand the remains of a structure generally acknowledged as a shrine. Among a collection of sculptural fragments found across the site were two parts of a larger than life-size bronze head of a youthful, diademed male executed in fine Hellenistic style which may represent a late Seleukid

60 Stein 1940: 150-6. Sherwin-White (1984: 161) questions the assumption that the presence of a statue of a royal Seleukid in a sanctuary necessarily means that the king was worshipped there and states that no Seleukid kings were known to be worshipped in Babylonian or Iranian native temples. As we have already seen, the Rēš sanctuary at Uruk included statues of kings and Antiochos Epiphanes introduced “unsuitable” Hellenised statues into the Esagila in Babylon – both of which may be examples of Seleukid royal cult appended to existing Babylonian centres. While caution must always be used, the possibility should not be discounted; see also Linssen 2004: 127-8. 61 Smith 1988: 102. 62 OGIS 388-401; Tarn 1929: 141; Goell 1957: 14; Sanders 1996: 30655, 430-5. 63 “Sehr wichtig ist es, daß die babylonischen Priester die Göttlichkeit Alexanders und der Seleukiden niemals anerkannt haben, wie das fehlen des Gottesdeterminatius vor den Namen dieser Könige in den Keilschrifttexten beweist”, Schnabel 1926: 411.

52

Tacitus Annals 3.63; Bevan 1901: 628. Arrian Anabasis 4.11.7; Parke 1986: 126. 54 Bevan 1901: 636; Austin 2006: no.190. 55 Holleaux 1889. 56 Welles 1934: nos.36-7; Austin 2006: no.200. 57 Sokolowski 1972: 171-2; Austin 2006: no.191. 58 Sokolowski 1972: 174. 59 Haussoullier 1923. 53

52

DIVINE KINGS

Figure 61. Nemrud Dağ east terrace (N.L. Wright).

Figure 64. Nemrud Dağ ancestor stele identified as Seleukos IV (Sanders 1996: fig.511, courtesy Eisenbrauns).

Figure 62. Nemrud Dağ west terrace (N.L. Wright).

Figure 63. Nemrud Dağ ancestor stele identified as Antiochos I (Sanders 1996: fig.497, courtesy Eisenbrauns).

Figure 65. Nemrud Dağ ancestor stele identified as Antiochos IV (Sanders 1996: fig.515, courtesy Eisenbrauns).

53

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES could be numismatically portrayed as living manifestations of the divine.64 The coin legends of the early Seleukid period bear witness to the official stance of the Greco-Macedonian administration. Although granted honorary titles by various cities, the early Seleukids, like their Ptolemaic counterparts, never presumed to publish such divine honours on their coinage. 65 Antiochos II was surnamed Theos (the God) by the citizens of Miletos 66 for example, and Seleukos III was named Keraunos (the Thunderbolt) by his soldiers.67 At Seleukeia-Pieria and Antioch-in-Persis, inscriptions naming the priest of the royal cult provide the cultic epithets employed for the deified (dead) kings, although none had yet been used as legends on their life-time coin issues, nor does the reigning king appear to receive an epithet in the cult lists.68 Interestingly at Seleukeia-Pieria, while Seleukos I and Antiochos I include the names Zeus and Apollo respectively as part of their divine titles, the succeeding kings are merely deified mortals. With one exception, all coin legends on royal Seleukid issues before 175 BC list only the royal title, , and the king’s name. Of note however is a series known as the ‘Soter coinage’ on account of the legend , which appears on the reverse of gold, silver and bronze issues. The series does not use the royal title and is generally believed to have been issued in northern Syria (Antioch or Apameia) during the short interregnum between the death of Antiochos II (246) and the reconquest of the region by Seleukos II (244).69 The types recall the iconography of the reign of Antiochos I Soter and utilise that king’s portrait for the obverse type. The legend makes no claim that the coins were minted by any ‘king’ as such – they were issues of Antiochos the Saviour. Although long dead, Antiochos I was recognised as a god.70

vernacular Aramaic or Babylonian title used in parallel by the Seleukid kings is uncertain but they certainly made use of customary Babylonian titulature in cuneiform texts.72 Although Epiphanes itself does not intrinsically imply divinity, Antiochos IV qualified the meaning when he used the title in combination with his other epithets. 73 Demetrios I was hailed as Soter (the Saviour) following his relief of Babylonia from Timarchos 74 and promptly employed the title on his coin reverses as part of his standard legend, first at Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris, and later across the kingdom. Antiochos VII Sidetes was called Eusebes (the Pious) by the Jews but tactfully chose to leave anything approaching an epithet or cult title off his Jerusalemite coin issues.75 On his more common issues from across the kingdom, Antiochos Sidetes employed perhaps the most modest of the late Seleukid epithets, calling himself merely Euergetes (the Benefactor). Sidetes is usually considered the last successful Seleukid and following his death his successors seem to have adopted epithets in inverse proportion to the size of their holdings. Antiochos XII, who controlled only Damascus, produced coins on which he was titled

Antiochos IV received the epithets Theos Epiphanes (the Divine Manifestation) after his arrival in Syria 71 and from some time during his reign until the dissolution of the dynasty, the ruling monarch chose to emblazon the reverse of his (or her) coinage with what became, in some cases, an impressive combination of distinguishing epithets. Under Epiphanes, the king was no longer merely Basileus Antiochos; he was – King Antiochos the manifestation of the conquering God. Epiphanes and his successors shared none of their forebears’ qualms about promoting their own status as a god incarnate on their royal coin issues. The title Epiphanes itself was used initially in Ptolemaic Egypt where it was matched by an exact Egyptian counterpart (“he who comes forth”) in the multilingual Rosetta stone. Whether there was any

Seleukos I Antiochos I Antiochos II Seleukos II Antiochos Hierax (not listed) Seleukos III Antiochos III Seleukos IV

– King Antiochos, Dionysos made manifest, father-loving and beautiful in victory. The following lists are a compilation of the official titles employed for the king on state documents including coin legends based upon the Seleukeia-Pieria cult list (CIG 4458) and accumulated numismatic evidence from SC 1, SC 2, Kritt (2002), Hoover (2005). Unless otherwise stated, the coin legends were produced on life-time coin issues. The Seleukeia-Pieria inscription lists cult titles in use during the reign of Seleukos IV (187-175 BC): EARLY SELEUKID PERIOD SELEUKEIA-PIERIA CULT LISTS

(reigning)

EARLY SELEUKID PERIOD COIN LEGENDS Seleukos I Antiochos I (posthumous) Antiochos II Seleukos II Antiochos Hierax Seleukos III Antiochos III Seleukos IV

64

I strongly disagree here with Bevan (1901) who denies any Oriental precedents for royal apotheosis. 65 Johnson 1999: 54-5. 66 Appian Syrian Wars 63. 67 Eusebius Chronicle Schoene-Petermann edition p.253. 68 CIG 4458.10-20 = Austin 2006: no.207; Austin 2006: no.190. 69 SC 1: 225-8. 70 The epithet “Soter” was often employed in the worship of gods, see Weinreich 1912: 11, 15, 18, 24, 51; Bilde 1990: 161-2; Teixidor 1989: 82-5. 71 Appian Syrian Wars 45.

72

Nock 1928: 39. For examples of Babylonian titulature employed for Antiochos I, see Glassner 1993: no.32; Austin 2006: no.166. Whether Antiochos was personally aware that he was being awarded such titles cannot be confirmed but it must be considered probable. 73 Nock 1928: 40-1. 74 Appian Syrian Wars 47. 75 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.244; see also Chapter 2.1.2.3 above.

54

DIVINE KINGS LATE SELEUKID PERIOD COIN LEGENDS Antiochos the son of Seleukos IV Antiochos IV





 Antiochos V Demetrios I   Alexander I

 





 

Demetrios II (1st)







Figure 66. AR tetradrachm, Seleukos I, Susa (SC 1: pl.10.173.14).



  Antiochos VI



Antiochos VII



Demetrios II (2nd)

 





 Alexander II Seleukos V Kleopatra Thea     Antiochos VIII

(no known issues)







Figure 67. AR tetradrachm, Seleukos I, Ekbatana (SC 1: pl.11.203).





Antiochos IX Demetrios III







BULL’S HORNS The identification of a horned warrior bust on the obverse of Seleukos I’s victory coinage from Susa has long been questioned.76 The figure is iconographically linked with a mounted warrior on the reverse of the small issue of silver coins issued by Seleukos I at Ekbatana (figs.667).77 The Susa bust depicts the warrior wearing an Attic helmet rendered to represent the skin of a panther or leopard while two legs of a similar animal wrap around the figure’s shoulders to be tied in the front recalling the lion skin cowl of Herakles on the Alexander type silver coinage. The Ekbatana warrior likewise wears an Attic helmet. The figure is too small to make out any animal skin rendering (although the saddlecloth appears to be lion, panther or bull skin), but both helmets are adorned with bull’s horns and ears. The horse on the Ekbatana issue sports an identical set of bull’s horns.

  

Seleukos VI Antiochos X Antiochos XI











Philip I Antiochos XII

  

Kleopatra Selene Antiochos XIII   Seleukos VII Philip II

3.3



 (possible)

The original assertion of Babelon (also found in Newell and to a lesser extent still current in Houghton and Lorber’s work) identifies the hero as none other than the

(probable)

THE TRAPPINGS OF DIVINITY

As well as being declared gods through popular acclamation, state-issued documents in the form of official letters and the coins (from the late Seleukid I period), and establishing their own dynastic cult, Seleukid kings (and the occasional queen) found other, visual, ways to express their divinity. Again, the evidence is primarily numismatic and the message presumably explicit to the target audience.

76

For example, Imhoof-Blumer 1883: 424-5 (Seleukos I or Alexander); Babelon 1890: xv-xvi (Seleukos I); Newell 1938: 156 (Seleukos I); Hadley 1974a (Alexander); 1974b: 55-7 (Alexander); Houghton 1986: 57-8 (Alexander); Kritt 1997: 11 (‘Hero’); SC 1: no.173-5 (Hero “assimilating Seleucus, Alexander, and Dionysus”). 77 Newell 1938: nos.481-2 (Seleukos I); Houghton and Stewart 1999 (Alexander on Boukephalos); SC 1: no.203 (Hero “with Dionysiac attributes”); Hoover 2002b (Seleukos I).

55

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES divine honours in his lifetime from the Greek centres of Ilion and Erythrai and there were certainly BabyloIranian traditions of veneration if not direct worship of kings, both living and dead.80 Further, a distinction may be drawn between actual divine attributes and attributes worn as attire. In the case of the Susa and Ekbatana coins, the attributes form part of the warrior’s armour rather than part of his own body. The reference to divine status is here a clear allusion rather than a direct statement.81 Appian recalls that Seleukos once secured a wild bull with his bare hands and was henceforth depicted in statuary adorned with bull’s horns.82 Libanius states that a horned statue of Seleukos was erected by the population of Antigoneia-on-the-Orontes whom he had resettled in Antioch.83 According to Libanius, the horns were added as the mark of Io, the mythical heroine who caused the first legendary Greek settlement to be founded on the slopes of Mount Silpios above Antioch. While Appian’s aetiological, and Libanius’ mythical explanations may well refer to an actual event or popular belief, bulls and bulls’ horns enjoyed a long history as symbols of strength and fertility in both Greek and Near Eastern traditions and the underlying message of the horned statue must be one of divinity and strength.84 Both the Susa and the Ekbatana coin types were among the first regal issues of Seleukos I to replace Alexander’s name in the legend with Seleukos’ own at their respective mints and it is likely that the types showing the horned king were illustrative of the change of coin legend.

Figure 68. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos I, Sardes (SC 1: pl.18.322).

A number of other horned busts were utilised on Seleukid coinage. Seleukos I was posthumously depicted with bull’s horns in the same position as those on the Susa and Ekbatana types, but sprouting from his temples rather than worn as a helmet. These were produced during the reign of Antiochos I on silver issues at Sardes and at an uncertain mint in Baktria (figs.68-70).85 The similarity in composition between the bare-headed variety from Baktria and the horned helmet variety from Susa makes Babelon’s identification of the horned warrior as Seleukos I almost certain although the helmeted head is more idealised than the posthumous portraits. Hadley’s attribution is further challenged by the horned horse on the Ekbatana tetradrachms. The identification of the rider

Figure 69. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos I, Sardes (SC 1: pl.18.323.2b).

Figure 70. AV stater, Antiochos I, Baktrian mint (SC 1: pl.21.469.1).

80 Aeschylus Persians 155-9; Arrian Anabasis ;4.11, 6.29.7; Bevan 1901: 627; McEwan 1934: 8-17, 19-23; Eddy 1961; Mooren 1983: 2224. 81 Smith 1988: 39. The bull-horned helmet reappears (minus the warrior) on the reverse of a number of bronze coins from Aï Khanoum during the reign of Antiochos I (SC 1: nos.448-51). It seems that the horned helmet imagery was restricted to eastern (Iranian) mints. There may be a direct correlation between the use of divinising apparel rather than outright divine imagery and vernacular Zoroastrian traditions which considered Ahura Mazda the highest object of worship and only true god. 82 Appian Syrian Wars 57. 83 Libanius Oration 11.93. 84 Euripides Bacchae 610-20; Cook 1914: 576-82; 1940: 628-34; Goodenough 1958: 3-23; Smith 1988: 40-1. One need only look at the famous victory stele of Naram-Sin (2254-2218 BC) now housed in the Louvre, Paris, to understand the ancestry and impact of such imagery in Mesopotamia, see Bartz and König 2005: 64-5. 85 SC 1: no.322-3, 469, 471-2.

78

first Seleukid king. Hadley’s hypothesis – that the warrior represents Alexander the Great – has caused several modern scholars to reconsider the iconography. Hadley rightly points out that the image is loaded with divinising attributes. However, he claims that the figure cannot be the living king as there is no evidence to suggest Seleukos received divine honours from his Greco-Macedonian subjects before his death and his eastern subjects “were not accustomed to worshipping their rulers”.79 As has been demonstrated above, both of these arguments carry inherent flaws. Seleukos I received 78 79

Babelon 1890: xv-xvi; Newell 1938: 156; SC 1: no.173-5. Hadley 1974a: 12.

56

DIVINE KINGS as Alexander enforces an identification of the horse with Boukephalos.86 However, the horned horse head appeared repeatedly as a type or sub-type on bronze, silver and gold coins produced across the kingdom from the reign of Seleukos I to Seleukos II. There can be no reason for the memory of Boukephalos to be perpetuated in such a way under the Seleukids.87 A slightly more plausible suggestion might be to view the horned horse as the animal that carried Seleukos away from Antigonos’ agents during the former’s flight from Babylon in 316/5 BC. This is perhaps supported by John Malalas who states that Seleukos later erected an inscribed monument in Antioch honouring the animal’s service.88

Figure 71. Æ denomination, Seleukos II, Seleukeiaon-the-Tigris (SC 1: pl.82.767).

Seleukos II, Antiochos III and Demetrios I all employed a three-quarter facing, draped, bust adorned with bull’s horns on their bronze issues from Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris and Susa (figs.71-2).89 The foreshortened aspect of the bust makes exact identification of the figure difficult but it is plausible to suggest that the horned figure is again Seleukos I Nikator being shown as the founder of the dynasty – perhaps even specifically as founder of the settlements in question.90 However, a bronze series from Susa presents a number of right facing heads showing the features of a youthful Antiochos III the Great which also sport horns, albeit proportionately much smaller than those of the three-quarter busts (fig.73).91 We are left with the feeling that perhaps Seleukos II, Antiochos III and Demetrios I all showed themselves with bull’s horns which then raises the question of the significance of the three-quarter aspect of the bust. It is more likely that Seleukos II, Antiochos III and Demetrios I produced coins showing a horned Seleukos I (reminiscent of strength and legitimacy, perhaps based on a statue prototype) but that Antiochos III produced a series showing his own horned head in addition, thereby declaring himself as the physical and spiritual heir of Seleukos I.92 Houghton and Lorber identify a “hornlike lock” of hair above the ear on some of Antiochos III’s issues of gold and silver from Antioch but these are decidedly subtle and not overly convincing.93

Figure 72. Æ denomination, Demetrios I, Seleukeiaon-the-Tigris (SC 2: pl.72.1694).

Figure 73. Æ denomination, Antiochos III, Susa (SC 1: pl.93.1218).

family. However, Antiochos Epiphanes, while never employing bull’s horn attributes on his own portraiture may have been somehow incorporated into a similar ‘divine bull’ theme. Like Seleukos I who was said to have restrained a wild bull being sacrificed by Alexander,94 Epiphanes was commemorated in a bronze statue in Antioch performing the same action. Libanius states that the statue group was erected by the cities of Kilikia in honour of the king who suppressed a group of bandits in the Taurus mountains, thereby metaphorically ‘taming the bull’.95 It is likely that here too, the Libanius account, written 500 years after the event, relates a distorted version of history. In ritualistic terms, the taming or

Horned heads and busts were only employed by rulers stemming from the senior (legitimate) branch of the

86

Houghton and Stewart 1999: 29. SC 1: nos.1-2 (Pergamon), 322 (Sardes), 35 (Apameia-on-theOrontes), 363, 367-8 (Dura-Europos), 47 (Karrhai), 756-8 (Nisibis), 145-6, 775 (Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris), 88.9, 101-4 (Babylon), 112, 376-7 (Mesopotamian mint?), 160, 164.3-4, 168, 170-1, 183 190, 407 (Susa), 203, 208.3, 219-23, 813 (Ekbatana), 426-34, 440 (Aï Khanoum), Ad21, 254, 256, 267-8, 461-72 (Baktrian or Sogdian mint?); see also Millar and Walters 2004. 88 Malalas Chronicle 8.17; Babelon 1890: xx; SC 1: 7. Presumably the monument was erected in the Antiochene suburb, Hippokephalos, mentioned in Ammianus Marcellinus Roman History 21.15.2. 89 SC 1: nos.767, 768 combined with a reverse of a horseman similar to the Ekbatana silvers of Seleukos I (Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris), 800-1, 1220-3 (Susa); SC 2: nos.1694-5 (Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris). 90 Hellenistic Susa had been refounded by Seleukos I as Seleukeia-onthe-Eulaios. 91 SC 1: nos.1216-9. 92 Houghton 1986: 56. 93 SC 1: nos.1038, 1043-5. 87

94 Appian Syrian Wars 57. This story is also the presumed logic behind Seleukos I’s ‘charging bull’ reverse type used on bronze coinage across the kingdom, see SC 1: nos.6, 21-4, 47, 125-7, 148-53, 191-3, 224-5, 283A (this bull has a bearded male head suggestive of a river-god), 28487, 290, along with numerous other standing bulls or parts of bulls used as types. 95 Libanius Oration 11.123.

57

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 75. AR tetradrachm, Demetrios II, Damascus (SC 2: pl.41.2180).

Figure 74. Marble head from Alexandreia-by-Issos, Antakya Archaeological Museum (N.L. Wright).

controlling of the bull may have interplayed with the ancient notions of sacrifice and worship where the god and his chosen sacrificial victim were identical.96 Zeus transformed himself into a bull in pursuit of Europa, while the bull was also a favoured sacrificial victim. In the complementary west Semitic traditions the bull was seen as both the avatar and companion of Ba’al Hadad and was later ever present in the company of the much syncretised gods of Heliopolis and Doliche.97 The bull taming topos may very well have illustrated the overpowering of, and at the same time assimilation with and rebirth of, the great god.98 The latter act may have been behind Seleukos I’s adoption of the bull-horned attribute while as we shall see, Antiochos IV more commonly manifested his divinity through solar attributes.

Figure 76. AR tetradrachm, Seleukos VI, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.53.2415e).

found together with a marble portrait of Antiochos IX Kyzikenos and both appear to have been made in the same workshop. Only two late Seleukid rulers employed the bull horn attributes on their coin portraits and these were of very different form from those of their early Seleukid forbears. Whereas the earlier representations had all depicted the large, curving horns of a mature bull, the Antiochene coin portraits of Demetrios II (second reign, 129-125 BC) and Seleukos VI (95-94 BC) show the respective kings with the small, stubby horns of a juvenile bull (figs.75-6).101 Dürr associates the type with the goddess Io who was worshipped as the moon at Iopolis, an Argive settlement on Mount Silpios although surely the pre-Greek tradition of horned gods and kings followed by the early Seleukids was a far stronger source of inspiration.102 As Smith has identified, the small horns of these late Seleukids bear a certain resemblance to the horned portraits produced by Demetrios Poliorketes at his western mints following 292 BC.103 More interesting is Mittag’s suggestion that the long beard sported by Demetrios II on his horned portraits was worn in imitation of the supreme god,

It seems probable that most depictions of a Seleukid king sporting bull’s horns were thus intended to represent Seleukos I, the founder of the dynasty and the only Seleukid ruler for whom we have non-numismatic evidence for the use of the bull horn attribute. Houghton has identified a colossal marble head with the remnants of bull’s horns, discovered at Alexandreia-Issos, as a late Hellenistic representation of Seleukos I (fig.74).99 Along with the written accounts of Appian and Libanius, this presents a long running tradition of the cultic depiction of the first Seleukid king.100 The fragmentary statue was

96

101

Cook 1940: 563; Burkert 1983: 76-8. Cook 1914: 567-70; Green 2003: 154-8. 98 Cook 1940 605-6. 99 Houghton 1986: 53, 61. 100 Appian Syrian Wars 57; Libanius Oration 11.93.

SC 2: 411-2, 552. Dürr 1973: 91-2; 1979: 8. 103 Babelon (1890: cxlvi) proposed that Demetrios may have depicted himself in imitation of Dionysos Pogon, the bearded Dionysos, but this is unsupported by any other iconographic evidence.

97

102

58

DIVINE KINGS Zeus.104 The short horns combined with a full beard present an iconographic assemblage which was directly descended from the Alexander coinage produced at Damascus, in Phoenicia, Egypt and Babylon where the recently adopted enthroned Zeus image was still shown with the bull’s horns inherent in his Semitic prototype. 105 The allusion drawn by the Seleukid use of such imagery may be to highlight any one of a number of points – or perhaps all of them: the direct, legitimate, succession of these kings from Seleukos I; to remind their audience that they were in addition, descendants of the Antigonid kings of Macedonia; and almost certainly to further incorporate the kings within the increasingly important cult of Ba’al as a god of fertility, rebirth and salvation. 106

Figure 77. AR drachm, Antiochos VI, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.30.2003d).

GOAT-HORNED HELMET A further variation of the ‘horned’ type occurred on the coins of Antiochos VI Dionysos and his (perhaps murderous) regent and successor Diodotos Tryphon. The type occurred initially on the reverse of an undated series of silver drachms, produced in the name of Antiochos VI, probably in the last year of his reign (142/1 BC).107 The iconography consisted of an unusual variant of a Boiotian helmet with a broad brim, check pieces and a tall spike emerging from the crown. A single large wild goat’s horn emerges from the brow of the helmet and the ends of a diadem are shown dangling from the back (figs.77-8).108 On the issues produced under Antiochos VI, the letters are present between the horn and spike thereby confirming the importance of Tryphon in the royal court, and his direct association with the type. Following Hoover, it is possible to draw a connection between the goat-horned helmet and Macedonian traditions.109 The goat had been the iconic symbol of the old Macedonian capital Aigai since the early fifth century BC. 110 Pyrrhos of Epeiros wore a helmet with towering crest and goat’s horns during his campaign of 287 BC after which he was proclaimed king of Macedonia111 and the Antigonid king, Philip V was depicted on a Roman denarius dated to 113/2 BC wearing a diademed helmet with two small

Figure 78. AR tetradrachm, Tryphon, uncertain Syrian mint (SC 2: pl.31.2037).

goat’s horns.112 Again, a distinction must be drawn between actual divine attributes and attributes worn as attire. As in the case of the bull-horned helmet of Seleukos I Nikator, the goat horn(s) of Tryphon, Pyrrhos and Philip V form part of the warriors’ armour rather than part of their body. Any reference to divine status is an allusion, not a direct statement, although the inference drawn from the diadem is that the allusion is to be applied directly to the king and thus elevates him above contemporary mortals. Diodotos Tryphon was a Macedonian colonist of the officer class from Apameia in the Seleukis. He was thus a member of the colonial elite and in his rebellion against Demetrios II, first under the figure-head of Antiochos VI and later alone, appears to have been championing rights of the Greco-Macedonian derived citizenry and soldiery against the tyranny imposed by Demetrios’ Cretan and Jewish auxiliaries.113 His use of a diademed, goat-horned helmet may have been an illustration of his ancestry and his new policies. The legend on Tryphon’s coin issues defined a clear break with the Seleukid dynasty. He made no claim of dynastic legitimacy but simply called himself – King Tryphon (the Magnificent One) who made himself powerful. Nor did Tryphon employ any deifying epithets after the manner of his Seleukid rivals. He may have been presenting himself

104

Mittag 2002: 389-98. Zervos 1979: 302. 106 Smith 1988: 45 n.133; see also Newell 1927. If the statue of Seleukos I erected by the Antigoneians at Antioch (Libanius Oration 11.93) used the bull horn iconography current in Antigonid propaganda (depicted after 292 BC on Demetrios Poliorketes’ coin portraits), perhaps the late Seleukid portraits were taking this AntogonidAntiochene statue as a prototype for their own portrait types. 107 Newell 1918: 70; SC 2: no.2003. 108 Alexander Balas had earlier shown himself wearing a broad brimmed crested helmet on his Antiochene bronzes and the enlarged brim can be seen as an eastern innovation on traditional Greek forms, appropriate for the bright Levantine environment. In describing the horn as that of a goat I follow the argument presented in CSE 2: 100 which varies from the traditional suggestion identifying the horn as that of an ibex, see for example Newell 1918: 70; SNG Spaer nos.1816-9, 1822-40. However, as the wild goat (Capra aegagrus) is one of six sub-species of the ibex, there seems little need to stress the differentiation. 109 CSE 2: 100; SC 2: 337-8. Ehling (1997) prefers to see the goat horn as a symbol of Crete and links its use to the presence of Cretan mercenaries in Syria in the late 140s BC. 110 Macedonia I nos.58-66; Macedonia II nos.12-5, 24-6, 64. 111 Plutarch Pyrrhus 11.5-6. 105

112

RRC: no.293.1. I Maccabees 11.38-51; Appian Syrian Wars 68; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 33.4; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.131-44. 113

59

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES was utilised under the kings.115 The fact that the production of the winged diadem imagery was so specifically localised suggests that perhaps the attribute carried purely local significance although its use as the obverse type on tetradrachms shows that the imagery would still have travelled beyond the area of production. Although the identity of the Seleukid monarch portrayed with the winged diadem is difficult to confirm, he is often taken to be Antiochos I Soter – the portrait and associated attributes being therefore posthumous. Antiochos II Theos is probably also depicted although it is doubtful that his deified portrait was produced before the reign of his usurping younger son, Antiochos Hierax.116 Hierax displayed multiple royal portraits upon his coins from Alexandreia-Troas, each shown with the winged diadem. The majority of portraits on Hierax’s issues are believed to be Antiochos I and Antiochos II, while a few are uncertainly ascribed to Hierax himself. The suggestion that Hierax chose to depict himself with the attributes of a god and thus imply that he should be seen as the deity incarnate is unlikely (though still possible) considering the lack of precedent. Nevertheless, in depicting his deified father and grandfather, Hierax was clearly making a dynastic claim for the legitimacy of his own usurpation.117 Non-Seleukid use of a winged diadem was restricted to the obverse (lifetime) portraits on the coinage of the Bithynian king, Prusias II (182-149 BC) whose grandmother was the daughter of Antiochos I, the sister of Antiochos II and whose aunt had married Antiochos Hierax. Prusias’s realm was also localised in north-western Anatolia and offers further evidence for the assimilation of the royal person into the cult of some, as yet, unknown divine being.

Figure 79. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos II, Alexandreia-Troas (SC 1: pl.23.492).

Figure 80. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos Hierax, Alexandreia-Troas (SC 1: pl.42.881).

The winged head motif returned briefly, late in the first reign of Demetrios II (144-138 BC). Produced at an uncertain Phoenician or Koile-Syrian mint, the small series of bronzes employed a youthful head bearing no resemblance to the king, adorned with a winged tainia or fillet.118 There is no knot behind the head to suggest a diadem and the figure must be viewed as divine. The reverse type of a filleted kerykeion cements the identity of the obverse head as Hermes. The head of Hermes wearing a winged petasos had previously been employed by Antiochos Epiphanes as a small issue from Ekbatana119 and together with the Demetrios II issue should probably be seen as unrelated to the royal image with winged diadem from Alexandreia-Troas.

as a monarch along the more restrained lines of the kings of Macedonia and an advocate of pro-‘Macedonian’ policies rather than the more integrative programs of the ‘Orientalising’ Seleukids. Whatever his strategy, Tryphon was decisively defeated by Antiochos VII Sidetes (who likewise used minimal deifying epithets and no attributes) in 138/7 BC and the use of the goat horn-helmet in Syria died with him. THE WINGED DIADEM The only other divine attribute associated with early Seleukid kings dates from the reigns of Antiochos II Theos (261–246 BC) and Antiochos Hierax (246–227 BC), and was minted exclusively from the city of Alexandreia-Troas in north-western Asia Minor. The obverses of several drachms and tetradrachms from Alexandreia-Troas in these reigns have wings emerging from the diadem just above the ear of a royal portrait (figs.79-80).114 Wings stemming from the brow or headdress are commonly found as attributes of Hermes, Perseus, Medusa, Tethys and in the Roman Republic, Mutinus Titinus (Priapos). However, none of these known deities impacted directly upon Seleukid mythology and it is difficult to see why such an attribute 114

RADIATE CROWNS AND THE HIERÒS GÁMOS120 The major development of the late Seleukid period in terms of divine attributes was use of the radiate crown. The first Seleukid monarch to make use of such an 115

Babelon 1890: lv proposed that the wings may have been intended to draw the king within a local Perseus cult although this is debated by MacDonald 1903: 102. 116 MacDonald 1903: 107, 113-4; Golenko 1993: 129-30; SC 1:176-7. 117 SC 1: 293. 118 SC 2: no.1973. 119 SC 2: nos.1151-2. 120 The basis of this subsection (3.3.4) was first outlined in Wright 2005.

MacDonald 1903: 101; SC 1: nos.490-2, 874-83.

60

DIVINE KINGS attribute was Antiochos IV Epiphanes. On his obverse coin portraits, the king continued to show himself wearing the diadem to denote his role as monarch. In addition, on some issues he also introduced the new radiate crown. The crown took the form of a series of rays extending away from the king’s head in the region between his brow and the nape of the neck (figs.81-2). The attribute is commonly said to associate the being of the king with the dynastic patron Apollo as a god of the sun.121 The crown was certainly an attribute meant to associate the monarch with some deity imbued with solar or astrological meaning. However, in the copious images of Apollo (whether shown as a head or as a full figure) across the corpus of Seleukid coinage, there is not a single instance where the god is shown with any device akin to the radiate crown. The contemporary coinage of the island of Rhodes did indeed use the radiate motif to crown the image of a sun god on the obverse, but the Rhodian god was Helios rather than Apollo.122

Figure 81. AR drachm, Antiochos IV, uncertain eastern mint (SC 2: pl.7.1520.4).

That it is indeed the king as a god, and not the god himself who is portrayed, is indicated by the continued depiction of the royal diadem on all such images. To date, however, there has been little evidence to suggest that Helios may have been considered a dynastic god so important to the Seleukids that the ruling scion of that house should adopt the deity’s attributes. Bunge has suggested that Helios’ position as unconditional ruler of the heavens was implied to be comparable with Epiphanes’ position as unconditional ruler of the kingdom. This is quite a reasonable assumption given Helios’ incorporation within the syncretistic religious environment of Hellenistic Syria.123 However, through the process of assimilation, the deity represented by the radiate crown need not be specifically ‘Helios’ as he existed in the old Greek religious system. In his description of Zeus-Hadad, Macrobius describes the deity as radiate and it is apparent that in Syria, Hadad was not only a storm-god but also the god of the sun, the antecedent of the later Jupiter Heliopolitanus.124

Figure 82. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.63.1415).

no definite occurrences of the imagery until after 169/8 BC. Bunge suggests a date of 170 (following Epiphanes’ removal of his co-regent Antiochos, son of Seleukos IV) for the introduction of the new iconography. Le Rider, following Mørkholm, allows a date as early as 173/2 for both the radiate crown and the more extensive reverse legend which were both employed on one of a series of Egyptianising bronzes produced either just before or during Antiochos IV’s Egyptian campaigns.127 The radiate crown was first used on posthumous coin portraits of Ptolemy III (produced 221-204 BC) and divine epithets were employed from the reign of Ptolemy V (204-180 BC). Antiochos IV Epiphanes may have adopted the deifying formulae in preparation for the conquest of Egypt. However, the radiate crown attribute was combined together with the aegis and trident by the Ptolemies and may, as suggested by Smith, have been used as a generic display of divinity in Egypt rather than as an allusion to a specific deity.128 Furthermore, Epiphanes’ Egyptianising series has now been downdated to 169/8 BC,129 in line with Bunge’s more logical chronology and the Seleukid radiate crown appears to have had a more explicit meaning than its Ptolemaic counterpart.

A celestial Zeus, bearing the epithet Ouranios, could also be seen to manipulate the power of the sun and the Semitic deity directly equated with Zeus Ouranios was Ba’al Šamīn, a god whose cult was related to that of Hadad well before the Seleukid period.125 The name Ba’al Šamīn was perhaps related to Šamaš, Shem or Shemsh, the Semitic word for the sun or sun-god which may have assisted in the absorption of the cult in the Hellenistic period.126 Exactly when Epiphanes started to employ the radiate crown is uncertain, although there are

A parallel series of events in the reign of Antiochos Epiphanes saw the king ritually marry a number of indigenous goddesses. Granius Licinianus tells us that “at Hierapolis he [Antiochos IV] pretended to take the goddess Diana to wife.”130 Epiphanes may also be implicated in a similar holy marriage to Ištar in

121

See for example Casey 1986: 26. Fleischer 1996: 38. 123 Bunge 1975: 174. Fauth 1995: 189-222. However, Smith (1988: 42) denies any explicit link between the attribute and a specific deity, preferring to see the radiate crown as a manifestation of the king’s “godlike brilliance”. 124 Macrobius Saturnalia 1.23.19; Dussaud 1930. 125 Ba’al was initially little more than one of the titles of Hadad but the term subsequently evolved into a pseudonym, see Cook 1940: 945; Teixidor 1989: 84; van der Toorn 1996: 174; Green 2003: 173-5. 126 Jones 1937: 249. 122

127

Newell 1918: 26-7; Bunge 1975: 171; Mørkholm 1963: 36-7; Le Rider 1994: 17–34. 128 Smith 1988: 44; Johnson 1999. 129 SC 2: no.1415. 130 Granius Licinianus History of Rome 28.6.

61

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Babylon131 and an analogous event is recorded during the king’s campaigns in Persia where he is said to have attempted to marry the goddess Nanâ at Susa. Nanâ, like Atargatis at Hierapolis-Bambyke, appears to have been locally identified as a vernacular (Elamite) equivalent to Aphrodite and Artemis/Diana.132 Festivals surrounding more traditional hieròi gámoi (holy marriages) between deities had a long history in the Mediterranean basin, especially along the Levant. Avagianou removes any union of a deity and mortal from the sphere of Greek hieròi gámoi and restricts the use of the term to the marriages between Zeus and Hera and Hades and Persephone which were modelled on human rituals.133 However, in the sense that Antiochos Epiphanes was clearly deified during his reign, the ritual at Hierapolis cast the king as a living Zeus, fulfilling his divine role as the husband of Hera-Atargatis. The marriage between mortal king and goddess finds direct Babylonian precedents and appears to cement the Seleukid king firmly within a Semitic religious context.134

who was technically a usurper from a junior line of the Seleukid house.141 Epiphanes’ coinage reforms (illustrated by his radiate crown and elaborate epithets) remain the primary illustration of his process of living apotheosis. Whether the transformation was begun immediately following the death of Antiochos the son of Seleukos IV or following Epiphanes’ marriage at Hierapolis (which may have happened any time during his reign) is impossible to test. It would seem unlikely that Epiphanes would have broken with the traditional Seleukid coin types while the legitimate king (Antiochos, the son of Seleukos IV) still lived and employed the dynastic iconography. It is possible (though by no means provable with the available evidence) that kings with radiate portraits were ritually married to Atargatis or her local equivalent at one of the major sanctuaries. If the king participated in the marriage in order to illuminate his role as part of a Semitic divine couple (or triad), then the radiate crown was the perfect outward expression of the king’s divinity. Initiates of the Isiac mysteries were said to adorn their heads with palm leaves in imitation of the rays of the sun in order to be identified with Osiris.142 Of the reverse types of Seleukid coinage, only the Kronos-El (supreme sky-god) of Byblos under Epiphanes and the Atargatis of Damascus (mother goddess) of Demetrios III were depicted with a similar headdress (figs.37, 57). The hypothesis offered here suggests that the radiate obverse attribute was only shown on the coins of kings who had participated in a hieròs gámos with the supreme mother goddess. Among the many titles of Anat (the principal pre-Hellenistic forerunner of Atargatis) were “Queen of Kingship” and “Queen of Dominion”.143 It is likely that these roles, as with Anat's other responsibilities, were carried forward and brought within the Hellenistic cult. In like manner, the name Nanâ equates to the title “Princess of Heaven”.144

Sargon of Akkade (c.2333-2279 BC), the founder of the Akkadian empire, was said to have ruled as king only after Ištar had loved him.135 Isin-Dagan, king of Isin (c.2250 BC), ritually married the great mother-goddess Inanna and through the process became identified with the god Tammuz.136 The Babylonian ceremonies initially took place between the king – the earthly manifestation of the god – and a priestess as the representative of the goddess, although over time the mortal participants were normally replaced by cult statues of the deities. The hieròs gámos symbolically marked the resurrection of the god/king which coincided with the return of spring and renewed prosperity for the kingdom.137 Early Israelite tradition saw their own version of sacred marriage138 and similar traditions undoubtedly existed among their textually deficient neighbours. By the Hellenistic period, there is good evidence for hieròi gámoi held annually for Ištar at Uruk and for both Marduk (to Zarpanītu?) and Nabû (to Ningal) at Babylon.139 In later Persian tradition, it would seem that Alexander the Great was believed to have married the Iranian goddess, Anāhitā.140 It is worth noting that the deities associated with mortal husbands, Ištar, Nanâ, Anāhitā and Atargatis were all powerful goddesses of fertility and can all be seen to fulfil the same ritualised role. The Seleukid monarch’s marriage to Atargatis-Ištar-Nanâ would confirm the groom’s preeminent position within the Semitic religious complex – certainly a useful device for a king such as Epiphanes

The small group of Seleukid monarchs who followed Epiphanes in the use of the radiate crown on their coin portraits during the late Seleukid I period consisted solely of those kings who traced their legitimacy back to Antiochos IV – Alexander I, Antiochos VI, Alexander II (figs.83-5). This would seem to imply that during the late Seleukid I period the native priesthood was patronised, and in return supported, the Epiphanaic line. It is only with the extinction of that branch of the Seleukidai that Antiochos Grypos began to use the imagery (late Seleukid II period). Grypos’ adoption of the radiate portraiture was followed by Antiochos IX Kyzikenos and finally Demetrios III but only in the period after the death of Grypos (figs.86-8). No two Seleukid kings made simultaneous use of the radiate iconography. It should be

131 Eddy 1961: 141-5, although Eddy’s interpretation goes some way towards proverbially fitting a square peg into a round hole. 132 II Maccabees 1.13-5; Polybius Histories 31.9; Azarpay 1976: 537; Lightfoot 2003: 42 n.93, 438 n.8. 133 Avagianou 2008: 148. 134 Pongratz-Leisten 2008. 135 King 1907: 3, 90-1; Goodnick Westenholz 1997: 34-5. 136 Langdon 1914: 27; McEwan 1934: 10. 137 Langdon 1914: 27-8; Linssen 2004: 70. 138 May 1932: 85-94; Brooks 1941: 228. 139 Linssen 2004: 71. 140 Hanaway 1982.

141

Bahrani 2002: 19; although this notion is questioned by PongratzLeisten 2008: 53. 142 Tinh 1982: 113. 143 Kaiser 1973: 156. 144 Langdon 1914: 27; McEwan 1934: 10.

62

DIVINE KINGS

Figure 87. Æ denomination, Antiochos IX, uncertain Syrian mint (SC 2: pl.90.2377). Figure 83. Æ denomination, Alexander I, Seleukeia-Pieria (SC 2: pl.75.1799).

Figure 88. Æ denomination, Demetrios III, Damascus (SC 2: pl.93.2456.2).

reiterated at this point that in the late Seleukid I period it was the Epiphanaic line who predominantly utilised the Zeus and veiled goddess reverse types – images accessible to Hellenes and Orientals alike. The Zeus type, like the radiate crown, was taken over by the legitimate branch of the Seleukidai only in the late Seleukid II period, after the disappearance of the Epiphanaic branch of the Seleukidai. Figure 84. AR tetradrachm, Antiochos VI, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.29.2000.3e).

Mints producing coins with the radiate portrait of Antiochos Epiphanes as an obverse type were geographically widespread, comprising thirteen cities stretching between Antioch-on-the-Orontes and Antiochin-Persis. However, with the exception of Antioch-onthe-Orontes in the west and Susa in the east, the image appeared exclusively on bronze issues. At Antioch and Susa the radiate image was used on silver coinage, but never on denominations larger than a drachm, and the pattern of not using the imagery on higher silver denominations seemed to continue under his successors with the exception of the boy-king Antiochos VI. It appears probable that the image was intended only for distribution within the kingdom and not in international exchanges. It was propaganda targeted at the population of the Seleukid kingdom where it would be understood within the context of the established religious environment.

Figure 85. Æ denomination, Alexander II, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.87.2233.1b).

Of the late Seleukid II kings, only Grypos, Kyzikenos and Demetrios III Eukairos utilised radiate crowns on their coin portraits. If the link between the radiate crown and rituals undergone at one of the major sanctuaries of Atargatis (and Ba’al Hadad) had existed as I surmise, then an explanation as to the crown’s disappearance presents itself. The three major sanctuaries of the cult were found at Hierapolis-Bambyke, Heliopolis-Ba’albek, Figure 86. Æ denomination, Antiochos VIII, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.88.2307.2).

63

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES and Damascus.145 Granius Licinianus’ marriage ceremony took place at Hierapolis, but all three centres lay within the Seleukid kingdom in the Late Seleukid I period. In the late second century, Heliopolis-Ba’albek became the religious centre for the Ituraean tetrarchy centred around Chalkis, whose dynasts titled themselves tetrarchs and high-priests on the reverse of their coins.146 The Ituraean tetrarchy was probably created around 115 BC by Antiochos IX Kyzikenos to be an aid in the fight against Antiochos VIII Grypos and the tetrarchs appear to have carried the conflict into the next generation against the sons of Grypos, Demetrios III and Antiochos XII. Between 96 and 69 BC, Hierapolis-Bambyke formed the religious centre of the breakaway principality of Beroia and was no longer available to the Seleukid kings.147 Of the principal seats of Atargatis and Hadad in the first century BC, only Damascus remained in Seleukid hands. There were smaller centres of worship of course such as at Karnaim in Gaulanitis, but the holiest cities were lost.148 The only king after Grypos to employ the radiate crown, Demetrios III, was based almost exclusively out of Damascus and minted silver tetradrachms in the city which displayed the cult statue of Atargatis on the reverse. If marriage to Atargatis was the active expression of royal deification, the only Seleukid king of the first century in a position to so marry was indeed Demetrios III. His younger brother Antiochos XII Dionysos also reigned in Damascus, though his reign was short and troubled and he produced no radiate portraiture. In addition, for as long as Demetrios III lived on in Parthian captivity (and Josephus provides no date for his death),149 it could be argued that Atargatis already had a husband. As no two kings had previously employed the radiate crown simultaneously, presumably whatever ritual lay behind its adoption would have to wait the death of the present incumbent even if he was presently a spent force in Parthian captivity.

Figure 89. Æ denomination, Seleukos IV, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.59.1318.1c).

Figure 90. Æ denomination, Antiochos son of Seleukos IV, Antioch-on-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.61.1371).

Figure 91. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Ake-Ptolemaïs (SC 2: pl.66.1477.2c).

QUEENS AS GODDESSES The first numismatic evidence we have depicting a queen with divinising attributes comes from the cusp of the early Seleukid – late Seleukid I periods. Seleukos IV issued a series of bronze coins that used a veiled female bust wearing a stephane as the obverse type, matched with an elephant head reverse from Antioch-on-theOrontes and Ake-Ptolemaïs (fig.89).150 The type combination was continued during the short co-reign of Antiochos the son of Seleukos IV and Antiochos IV Epiphanes (175-170 BC) (figs.90-1). During the latter period, the series is known to have been issued at Antioch, Seleukeia-Pieria and Ake-Ptolemaïs. The veiled bust follows the pattern of Hellenistic royal portraiture and it is believed to be a representation of a Seleukid

Figure 92. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Ake-Ptolemaïs (SC 2: pl.66.1479).

Figure 93. Æ denomination, Antiochos IV, Samareia (SC 2: pl.67.1489.2i).

145 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 10; Josephus Jewish War 9.93; Justin Epitome 36.2.2; Macrobius Saturnalia 1.23.10-20; see also Dussaud 1922: 219-21; Rostovtzeff 1932: 100, 178; Avi-Yonah 1959: 8; Teixidor 1989: 71. 146 Herman 2006. 147 Strabo Geography 16.2.7; see also Goossens 1943: 100. 148 I Maccabees 5.43-4; II Maccabees 12.26; Cohen 1990: 217. 149 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.386. 150 SC 2: nos.1318, 1332, 1371, 1421-2, 1477.

64

DIVINE KINGS queen. One particularly clear example of the series in the name of Antiochos (whether this is to be understood as the son or Epiphanes is unclear) shows what may be the tip of a sceptre emerging from behind the figure’s shoulder, a common attribute used on Ptolemaic coinage to assimilate the queen with Aphrodite-Isis.151 The identity of the divine queen has been comfortably assigned to Laodike IV, the wife of Seleukos IV and Antiochos IV Epiphanes respectively and mother of Antiochos, son of Seleukos IV.152 She is also present on an issue of Epiphanes from Tripolis which uses two jugate portraits as the obverse type. Although the queen does not wear any overtly divine attributes on the Tripolis issue, the king is adorned with the radiate crown which surely makes Laodike a goddess by association. The appearance of the divinised queen in the reigns of Seleukos IV and Antiochos IV ties in well with the epigraphic evidence cited above153 which showed that the state-cult of the queen was only instigated in the reign of Antiochos the Great and was seen to flourish under his sons.

the syncretic worship of Atargatis. In Babylonia and Elymais, the imagery likely brought to mind Nanâ, the consort of Nabû who was sometimes syncretised with Ištar.157 It may be of significance that we have good evidence to suggest that Epiphanes celebrated hieròi gámoi with the very deities who were assimilated with Laodike IV.158 Within the west-Semitic religious complex, as within the wider Mediterranean world, the concept of the dying god was an almost universal tradition. For Burkert, the principal figure in the ritual was not the god himself, but the goddess, “the permanence of the throne” who represents continuity and rebirth.159 We see such a notion expressed in the divine titles held by goddesses such as Atargatis and Nanâ: ‘Queen of Kingship’, ‘Queen of Dominion’, ‘Princess of Heaven’ and so on. One of the more noticeable features of the late Seleukid dynastic system was that queens tended to enjoy much longer reigns than their husbands and thus provided a comparative sense of continuity and stability as a bridge between old and new regimes. On several significant occasions, in-coming royal claimants married themselves to incumbent queens, the widows of their predecessors. This form of pseudo-levirate marriage appears to have developed out of three complementary phenomena: the centrally recognised divinity of the queen; the ultimate descent of the queen from Antiochos III the Great – the last of the incontestably legitimate Seleukids – and the foreign backing which may have been manifested in the queen’s person.

Links have also been drawn between the veiled LaodikeAphrodite and the mysterious standing, sceptre-bearing, veiled goddess who appears as the reverse type (paired with the radiate head of the king on the obverse) on a large series of bronzes from Ake-Ptolemaïs under Epiphanes (fig.92).154 The small size of the bronzes makes a secure identification of the figure prohibitive but in all likelihood she represents a Hellenised Atargatis, employing attributes of both Aphrodite and Hera, perhaps even taking in elements of the cult of Laodike IV.155 Epiphanes introduced one further coin type which depicted the divine Laodike IV. At Seleukeia-on-theTigris, Susa and Samareia, Antiochos IV issued bronze coinage utilising a seated female figure holding Nike in her outstretched right hand, often accompanied by a swan or goose (fig.93). The type has received an in-depth study by Iossif and Lorber of which only the most significant points are repeated below.156 The figure is intimately linked with the appearance of Epiphanes’ own deifying attributes and epithets on his coins. She looks to be a composite manifestation of Aphrodite, indicative of the goddess’ triple role of victory bringer, patron of marriage and ruler of the heavens. It is principally through the second of these roles that the figure embraces the cult of the living queen Laodike IV, just as it was specifically Aphrodite-Laodike (II) who was patroness of marriage at Iasos. Through Laodike IV’s second marriage to Antiochos Epiphanes (her brother-in-law), the queen ensured a smooth succession and helped maintain the solidarity of the Seleukid house. As has been noted above, the divine Laodike was probably incorporated into

The state cult established for the queens ran parallel to, but was otherwise distinct from, the worship of the reigning king and once established, the worship of the reigning queen continued into the succeeding generations.160 Although this may not have posed any conceptual flaws while the Seleukid family remained united, it did constitute an ideological conundrum to potential usurpers. If the king was a god and his queen was a goddess, the removal of the king, whether malignly or accidentally could not negate the state-sanctioned divinity of his queen. Unless the would-be successor was the son of the previous king, he was faced with a potential rival in the dowager queen, her court and her offspring. Among all of the contention, bloodshed and murders that engulfed the later Seleukids, there is only one known instance of a queen being murdered by a competing court (Kleopatra IV) and on that occasion, the perpetrator (Kleopatra Tryphaina) was another Seleukid queen who happened to be the victim’s full sister.161 157

Iossif and Lorber 2007: 85-7. Granius Licinianus History of Rome 28.6; II Maccabees 1.13-5. In a not altogether unrelated note, a number of coins produced in Karia dated to AD 202 celebrate the marriage of the emperor Caracalla to Plautilla who was portrayed as the new Hera, so that “the imperial marriage became a symbolic re-enactment of the celestial one”, see Harl 1987: 41; Laumonier 1958: 714-5. 159 Burkert 1983: 81. 160 Haussoullier 1923. 161 Both were daughters of Ptolemy VIII and Kleopatra III of Egypt and considered the war between their respective Seleukid husbands as a very personal matter, see Justin Epitome 39.3.5-12. 158

151 Hoover 2002a: 82 although Iossif and Lorber 2007: 70 state that Hoover’s sceptre tip is nothing more than a fragmentary monogram. Note also the earlier assimilation of Stratonike and Laodike III with Aphrodite in the civic cults of Asia Minor, see Sokolowski 1972: 174; Austin 2006: no.174. 152 Hoover 2002a: 82-3. 153 Welles 1934: nos.36-7; Austin 2006: no.200. 154 SC 2: no.1479. 155 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 31-2; Hoover 2002a: 84-5. 156 Iossif and Lorber 2007: 63-88.

65

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Epiphanes. Shortly after his invasion of Syria, Alexander I Balas was offered the hand of Kleopatra Thea, daughter of Ptolemy VI of Egypt. His acceptance is no surprise considering the prevailing political situation. Balas was the illegitimate son of Antiochos IV Epiphanes who was himself a usurper. Although his claim to the throne had been supported by a number of neighbouring states hostile to the incumbent king, Demetrios I, it was, perhaps, legally tenuous.168 However, the marriage between Alexander and Kleopatra did more than just display Alexander’s acceptance in a wider political sense, nor was Kleopatra merely the embodiment of specifically Ptolemaic military support. Kleopatra Thea’s paternal and maternal grandmother was Kleopatra the daughter of Antiochos III the great. The dubious legitimacy of Alexander I Balas was significantly enhanced by marriage to a direct descendant of the greatest Seleukid king.

A far more pragmatic approach for both parties saw a new marriage between the succeeding king and the divine wife of his predecessor. As we have seen, the first king to take this step, Antiochos IV Epiphanes, married his brother’s widow Laodike IV as soon as he reached Syria. To reduce the threat of further internal divisions within the family he also adopted his nephew Antiochos, son of Laodike and Seleukos IV.162 With the divine Laodike safely on side, Epiphanes was able to perpetuate a traditional Seleukid diarchic kingship, retaining his adopted son Antiochos in the position of junior king. The younger Antiochos retained this position in safety until Epiphanes and Laodike produced an heir of their own (Antiochos V) at which time the son of Seleukos IV became spurious and was removed.163 Through marriage to his brother’s widow and the adoption of his brother’s son, Epiphanes was uniting the available Seleukidai into a single branch, thereby negating the stigma of his own usurpation.164 From the second century BC the situation in the Hellenistic East reproduced, albeit unintentionally, the prevailing trend of Homeric Greece which saw the queen as the earthly representative of the mother-goddess who, through her marriage to the king assured his authority.165

That Kleopatra Thea attained immediate prominence within the kingdom is illustrated by the production of a gold stater produced in her own name and a series of impressive tetradrachms in the name of Alexander I but depicting the couple’s jugate heads with Kleopatra Thea occupying the dominant, more visible, position in front of her husband (fig.39).169 Both issues were minted at Alexander’s capital, Ake-Ptolemaïs. On the jugate portrait, Kleopatra was adorned with the deifying kalathos and cornucopia indicating that her apotheosis was undertaken immediately upon her marriage and coronation. United with Alexander Balas (who utilised the radiate crown on his bronze coinage) as Zeus-Ba’al Hadad, the king and queen were depicted as the divine couple incarnate. As the contemporary religio-political situation in Ptolemaic Egypt saw the queen as the living embodiment of Aphrodite-Tyche-Isis,170 Kleopatra Thea would have faced no inherent problems in assimilating herself into the role of Tyche-Atargatis. Indeed both the author of the Oxyrhynchus papyrus 11 and Apuleius were able to view Atargatis and Isis as different facets of the same universal mother goddess.171

Despite her clear importance in the Seleukid court, the paternity and origin of the divine queen, Laodike IV remains a mystery. Ogden insists that Laodike was the daughter of Antiochos III the Great and therefore the full sister of both Seleukos IV and Epiphanes. Such a succession of incestuous marriages within this generation of Seleukidai – a homonymous daughter of Antiochos III is known to have married another full brother, Antiochos the Son – is hard to accept in a dynasty that did not usually practice such unions. Grainger rejected the theory completely, abandoning Laodike’s origin as a mystery, while Helliesen had earlier proposed that Laodike may have been an Antigonid by birth.166 Whether the queen was a daughter of Antiochos III or an Antigonid princess – in light of the prevalence of Antigonid names among her descendants, the latter suggestion is more likely – the benefits she brought Antiochos IV Epiphanes, be it royal blood or foreign backing, were perhaps less critical than the divinity and the dynastic continuity she manifested.167 The growing influence of both the Ptolemaic court and the vernacular Semitic cults’ incorporation of the living monarchs steadily gained expression in the numismatic record during the late Seleukid I period. In the generation after Epiphanes, a second divine queen married a succession of Seleukid princes and their inspiration may not have been very different from that of Antiochos IV

In due course, Balas and his father-in-law, Ptolemy VI, fell out and in a brilliant political coup, Kleopatra’s marriage was annulled and she was given to Balas’ rival, Demetrios II. Ptolemaic backing helped to guarantee Demetrios’ establishment in Antioch where he was joined by the divine Kleopatra. Five years later, with the Parthian capture of Demetrios II, Antiochos VII Sidetes took up the family cause and assumed the diadem. Although the relationship between Demetrios II and Sidetes appears to have been collegial, Demetrios’ ten year detention in Parthia allowed for the establishment of

162

168

163

Mørkholm 1964: 74-6. Diodorus Siculus Library of History 30.7.2; Austin 2006: no.158.10-

Diodorus Siculus Library of History 31.32a; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.43-6; Justin Epitome 35.1.5-6; I Maccabees 10.51-8; Polybius Histories 33.18. 169 SC 2: nos. 1840-1; Whitehorne 1994: 149-63. 170 Tinh 1982: 103-4; Kee 1983: 117; Smith 1994: 88-9, 92-3; Gersht 1996: 311-3. Houghton (1988: 93) prefers to identify Kleopatra with Tyche who, being a Hellenised manifestation of Atargatis, ultimately amounts to the same thing. 171 P. Oxyrhynchus 11.1380; Apuleius Metamorphosis 8.25, 9.5.

5.

164

A program with similar aims and results was pursued by Leonidas II and Kleomenes in Hellenistic Sparta, see Plutarch Agesilaus 16.2; Pausanias Description of Greece 2.9.1; McQueen 1990: 178. 165 Finkelberg 1991: 315. 166 Ogden 1999: 135-6; Grainger 1997: 50; Helliesen 1981: 227-8. 167 Finkelberg 1991: 307.

66

DIVINE KINGS Sidetes who proved to be a most successful and popular monarch. However, Demetrios II’s absence left a great many dynastic loose ends to potentially complicate his brother’s reign. Demetrios left two sons (the future Seleukos V and Antiochos VIII) and a daughter (Laodike) of his own, together with Zabinas, the second son of Alexander I Balas and last of the line of Antiochos Epiphanes. In a pragmatic show of fraternal solidarity, Sidetes married Kleopatra Thea and adopted the everincreasing brood of future kings.172 Trouble in the Ptolemaic court meant that by the time of her third marriage, Kleopatra was no longer a symbol of Ptolemaic support. However, her importance as divine queen and status as descendant of Antiochos III the Great had certainly not diminished and meant that she commanded a great deal of support among the Greco-Syrian ruling class.

Figure 94. Æ denomination, Antiochos VIII, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.88.2301.2).

THE KING AS GODDESS? A small series of bronze coins minted during Antiochos VIII Grypos’ first (sole) reign at Antioch (121-113 BC) utilised a curious bust of Artemis as the obverse type (fig.94).178 The type presents a unique development in Grypos’ iconographic program in that it alone employed a deity rather than the king for the obverse image. However, on closer examination, the actual identity of the obverse portrait is a little ambiguous. When compared with Antiochos Grypos’ other bronzes, the face of Artemis is shown to be reminiscent of the face of the king. The similarity in the execution of the eyes could be put down to contemporary trends in the die workshops, but the likeness is all-encompassing. Sometimes the goddess even bears the king’s prominent nose after which he was called Grypos. Artemis is also shown with Grypos’ recessed mouth and a protruding chin which juts forward out of a fleshy jowl. Although she had often been utilised on the coins of previous Seleukid kings, Artemis had never been manifested in such a manly fashion. If it were not for her combined attributes of bow and quiver (along with an extremely elaborate hairstyle), Grypos’ obverse type could perhaps be ascribed as a portrait of Antiochos Grypos himself. It almost appears as if Grypos was depicting his own bust with the attributes of the goddess.

The continuity provided by Kleopatra Thea from 150-121 BC was soon matched by her niece Kleopatra Selene who, like Thea before her, combined Ptolemaic military support, descent from Antiochos III the Great and even before her Syrian coronation, divine status. Initially married to her brother Ptolemy IX of Egypt, Selene was forcibly divorced and transferred by her mother to replace Antiochos VIII Grypos’ deceased first wife (Tryphaina, a sister of Selene).173 Kleopatra appears to have arrived in Syria already bearing the divinising epithet Selene – an earthly embodiment of the moon, queen of the heavens – which she presumably assumed in the Alexandrian court.174 The epithet was equally applicable in Seleukid Syria and as noted in Chapter 1.2 Selene went on to enjoy a lengthy, if turbulent career.175 Following Grypos’ death, Selene offered herself to his rival Kyzikenos and on his death shortly afterwards, to her stepson and nephew, Antiochos X Eusebes, son of Kyzikenos and Selene’s sister, Kleopatra IV.176 Eusebes could claim legitimacy through his own ancestry, but he was also married to a woman who could boast having been the queen of Egypt, queen of two previous Seleukid kings and a goddess in her own right. Eusebes’ death is a mystery but Selene later co-ruled with at least one of her sons by Eusebes, Antiochos XIII, and was active in the defence of Syria against the invasion of Tigranes of Armenia.177 The deified Kleopatra Selene excelled as an emblem of regime continuity despite inveterate dynastic haemorrhaging.

Whether we see here the king’s actual penchant for the adoption of female dress is of course doubtful but perhaps not completely ridiculous. Grypos was one of a handful of Seleukid kings who had themselves depicted with physical attributes explicitly spelling out his divine nature (the radiate crown). To a struggling Hellenistic king, true divine power might be viewed as sexless. After all, a precedent in divine cross-dressing had been set by the paragon of Hellenistic kingship, Alexander the Great (or at least by his contemporary biographer Ephippus of Olynthos). In Ephippus’ sensationalised account of the death of Alexander, he recounts how the king was wont to dress in imitation of various gods at symposia, “and sometimes he would imitate Artemis, whose dress he often wore while driving in his chariot; having on also a Persian robe, but displaying above his shoulders the bow and javelin of the goddess”.179 While Alexander’s imitation of Ammon, Herakles and Hermes has been accepted by some modern scholars, tales of divine transvestism have been dismissed as slander.180 This is

172

Vatin 1970: 98. Justin Epitome 39.42. 174 Kleopatra Selene’s namesake, the daughter of Kleopatra VII and Mark Antony may have borne the epithet from birth (40 BC) and certainly had it bestowed before Octavian’s dissolution of the Ptolemaic court in 30 BC. 175 Nonnus (Dionysiaca 38.149) assimilates Selene with Eileithyia who was worshipped as an aspect of Atargatis at Hierapolis-Bambyke, see Chapter 4.5.1.2 below. 176 Appian Syrian Wars 69. 177 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.419-20; Strabo Geography 16.2.3; SC 2: nos.2484-6. 173

178

Newell 1918: 95; SC 2: no.2301. Ephippus of Olynthus FGrH 126 F 5, trans. C.D. Younge, cited in Robinson 1953: 87. 180 Pearson 1960: 63-4; Lane Fox 1986: 446-7; Smith 1988: 39. 179

67

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES drawn.185 As we have seen, the famous Alexander coin type employed a youthful Herakles head on the obverse, and the Macedonian king was often depicted wearing a lion-scalp helmet.186 However, as Smith rightly posits, there was also the secondary evocation of the mortalcum-god Herakles, ancestor of the Macedonian royal house and prototype of the process of apotheosis through benefaction.187

perhaps not the ideal place to open a debate on the matter but the numismatic evidence under Antiochos Grypos clearly shows the bust of Artemis with the king’s own distinctive features. Whether Grypos is shown as Artemis or the goddess’ divine nature is shown by the similarity it bears to the royal portrait, the two figures are intentionally confused on the royal iconography from Antioch. Fleischer has recognised a similar intentional resemblance between Grypos and the bust of the Tyche of Seleukeia-Pieria on the city’s autonomous coinage which again stresses the divine nature of the Seleukid king.181

The elephant-scalp headdress is perhaps more specifically oriented towards Alexander the Great, echoing images of the king’s conquest of the East (specifically India) produced first by Ptolemy I at Alexandreia188 and later by Seleukos I at Babylon, Susa and Ekbatana.189 However, the earliest models of this type clearly drew their inspiration from Alexander’s own Herakles obverse and although not central, the god should not be left completely out of our understanding of the imagery. Specifically, the elephant-scalp headdress could be seen as an allusion to the Bacchic conquest of the East and it may be significant that it is only Alexander II Zabinas, who utilised extensive Dionysiac imagery elsewhere who also made use of the elephant-scalp headdress.190

WREATHS Houghton and Lorber identify several heads on Antiochene bronze issues of Antiochos III as portraits of the king depicted as Apollo, wearing a laurel wreath.182 The attribution of the heads as such is not unreasonable given the king’s adoption of bull’s horns on eastern issues. However, the likeness between the wreathed head and the diademed king from other coin portraits is variable and the intention may have been to show the god in the likeness of the king in order to stress the latter’s own inherent divinity. However, two late Seleukid monarchs (Antiochos VI and Antiochos XII) adopted, or were presented, with the epithet ‘Dionysos’ which may perhaps have something to do with both the royal cult and the proposed ritual involving the hieròs gámos. Both of these kings’ fathers (Alexander I Balas and Antiochos VIII Grypos respectively) had shown themselves with radiate portraits on their coins and thus, following the argument, had married into divinity. Further, the obverse coin portraits of Antiochos VI, son of Alexander I, showed the king’s head wreathed with ivy in conjunction with the radiate crown (fig.95). If the reigning king saw himself as the supreme god and was married to Atargatis, then for his son to be proclaimed Dionysos (the saviour-son god) would make the child not only the political but also the spiritual heir to the kingdom and the land itself. Within the religio-political context of Hellenistic Syria such a suggestion is far from unreasonable although, due to the sporadic nature of the sources, much must necessarily be left as conjecture.

One final hypothesis might be offered for Alexander I Balas’ initial resumption of the lion-scalp headdress iconography. The king drew his legitimacy from his father, Antiochos IV Epiphanes, although he was certainly subject to negative propaganda which cast doubt upon his parentage. At best, Alexander Balas was accepted as a Seleukid king without comment,191 at worst he was derided as a young man of the lowest station who falsely claimed royal paternity.192 He was accepted in Rome as the legitimate successor of Antiochos Epiphanes although in Appian he is three times referred to as Alexandros Nothos – Alexander the Bastard.193 It is within this claim of bastardy that we may find the original reason behind Balas’ accusation of illegitimacy. Besides his wife Laodike IV, Antiochos Epiphanes was known to have bestowed great honours upon his concubine Antiochis and it seems likely that this woman was the mother of Epiphanes’ second son, Alexander I Balas.194 All previous Seleukid rulers had been the legitimate children of a Seleukid king and his queen – in Alexander Balas we may have the first example of a son of a concubine to assume the Seleukid diadem. His mother’s lack of royal status could cast him as both low born and a bastard although as the eldest surviving son of

LION- AND ELEPHANT-SCALP HEADDRESSES The iconographic program of two Seleukid rulers, Alexander I and Alexander II, included heads of the king wearing the scalp of a lion (figs.96-7)183 or elephant184 as a headdress. Under Alexander I the type was produced at both Antioch and Apameia, while Alexander II produced his at the central mint of Antioch alone. The types are traditionally seen as alluding to the kings’ successful namesake, Alexander the Great, and there can be little doubt that a rather hope-filled parallel was being

185

Newell 1918: 54-5; SC 2: 212, 443. See for example the famous sarcophagus of Abdalonymos from Sidon now in the Istanbul Museum, Smith 1988: 63-4. 187 Smith 1988: 40. 188 Zervos 1967: series B-D; Lorber 2005. 189 SC 1: nos.101, 188-90, 222-3; SC 2: no.1696. 190 Smith 1988: 41. 191 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 31.32a; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.35. 192 Athenaeus Banquet of the Learned 5.211a; Appian Syrian Wars 67; Justin Epitome 35.1.6-8; 2.4; Livy History of Rome 52. 193 Polybius Histories 33.18; Appian Syrian Wars 67-9. 194 II Maccabees 4.30; Odgen 1999: 145-6; Wright 2007-08: 536-7. 186

181 Fleischer 1996: 36, 38; see also Mørkholm 1987: 60. It will be remembered that Antiochos VIII Grypos granted Seleukeia-Pieria its freedom in 109 BC, (see OGIS 257 = Austin 2006: no.222) and must have been viewed with great support and sympathy by the population. 182 SC 1: nos.1048-9, 1051-5. 183 SC 2: nos.1795 and 1805 (Alexander I), 2231 (Alexander II). 184 SC 2: no.2234 (Alexander II).

68

DIVINE KINGS the popular Epiphanes he was able to make a successful bid for the royal title.195 Regardless of his actual paternity, Alexander Balas issued coins as the true successor of Antiochos Epiphanes and the latter’s eldest son, Antiochos V. Aside from a more general application of the radiate crown and Zeus imagery, Balas allowed emissions of quasi-municipal coinage at numerous mints across the Levant, a privilege previously allowed by Antiochos IV Epiphanes and Antiochos V.196 He also produced regal coinage employing the epithet Theopator in reference to his descent from the divine Antiochos Epiphanes; as well as issuing posthumous issues in honour of both Epiphanes and Antiochos V, thereby cementing his filial and fraternal relationships with his predecessors.197 The eldest son of Alexander I Balas, Antiochos VI, was also designated Nothos by Appian although his parentage was indisputably legitimate and royal on both sides. The term nothos may here imply that his father’s illegitimacy was carried over, or perhaps merely infers that as a member of the cadet line of the Seleukidai, he was therefore spurious rather than a bastard.198

Figure 95. Æ denomination, Antiochos VI, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.82.2006a).

Both Herakles and Alexander the Great were beings of unconventional paternity. It was widely put about that Alexander’s father was not Philip II but Zeus-Ammon199 and Plutarch states that the Athenians went so far as to acknowledge Herakles as the patron of nothoi because, as the son of a divine father and mortal mother, he was himself a nothos among the gods.200 One of the official epithets used by Alexander Balas, Theopator, stressed the king’s divine paternity but said nothing of the nature of the king’s mother. Her status was irrelevant next to the illustrious bearing of his divine father, Antiochos Epiphanes. It could be said that this type of iconographic manipulation was a potentially dangerous line for Balas to take but if his illegitimacy was a commonly accepted fact, the Herakles imagery suggested that it was enough that the king was the son of a god. Beyond merely associating Alexander Balas with the Macedonian conqueror, his employment of Heraklean imagery annulled the negative connotations of the monarch’s bastardy by bringing to mind the illegitimacy inherent in two of the Hellenistic world’s greatest culture heroes.

Figure 96. Æ denomination, Alexander I, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.75.1795.2).

Figure 97. Æ denomination, Alexander II, Antiochon-the-Orontes (SC 2: pl.87.2231.1b).

3.4

REFLECTIONS ON THE ROYAL CULT

It is clear that in the early Seleukid period, when the royal house acted largely with internal, cohesive integrity and the empire ranged over a vast area, the dynasty followed a policy of ethnic and religious neutrality, verging towards active Hellenisation. The early Seleukids enthusiastically patronised both Greek and non-Greek religious centres, although despite the obvious royal interest in indigenous centres, native deities were completely absent from the state ideology expressed through the numismatic record and it was only Greek divinities that were illustrated as the dynastic patrons on the coins. The kings accepted divine honours bestowed by their subjects during their lifetime, but did not adopt such cultic titles on an official, empire-wide level. The dynastic cult was in existence but where their ancestors were granted cultic epithets, the reigning king used only his title (Basileus) and personal name in inscriptions and on his coin legends. Seleukos I Nikator probably depicted himself wearing a divinising horned helmet, but it was only after his death that bull’s horns were shown

195 In apparently similar circumstances, the non-royal maternity of Ptolemy XII of Egypt would cause him to be defined Nothos, either specifically or by implication by opponents of his reign, see Trogus Prologue 39; Cicero In Verrem 2.4.27-30; id. De lege agraria 2.42; Pausanias Description of Greece 1.9.3. 196 SC 2: nos. 1799, 1800, 1803, 1806-10, 1820, 1822-3, 1825-8, 18334, 1838, 1847-53. 197 Mørkholm 1960: 29; 1983: 59-60; Le Rider 1995: 394; Garaboldi 2004: 370; SC 2: nos.1883-7. 198 Appian Syrian Wars 69; Ogden 1999: 144. 199 See for example Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 4.7.25-30; Plutarch Alexander 27. 200 Plutarch Themistocles 1. See also Aristophanes Birds 1640-70; Ogden 1996: 199-203; Belfiore 2000: 80.

69

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES of the Seleukid and Antigonid heritage embodied by the kings, but also incorporated the cult of Zeus-Ba’al and, perhaps, a growing Levantine emphasis on Dionysos as a saviour god who could bring redemption and enlightenment after the chaos of life in the first century BC.

sprouting from the king’s divine brow. Thereafter, bull’s horns seem to have been associated specifically with the posthumously deified Seleukos I with the exception of the small bronze issues of Antiochos III which may show the reigning king in the manner of the dynastic founder. Otherwise, it is only the (probably) posthumous portraits produced in north-west Anatolia which use deifying attributes such as winged diadems in this early period. In the late Seleukid I period, the technical illegitimacy of Antiochos IV Epiphanes saw the king adopt a multifaceted approach to ensure support: a reorientation of dynastic favour from Apollo back to Zeus, the concession of certain regional rights to provincial centres and an emphasis on the king’s godhead. Moreover, the apotheosis of the king took in much more of the vernacular Semitic traditions than had previously been openly expressed by the ruling house. Through marrying numerous local goddesses, especially Atargatis, the late Seleukid kings were showing themselves to be the successors of the Babylonian kings and the divinelysanctioned rulers of the Semitic heartland of Mesopotamia and the Levant. The radiate crowns, perhaps a physical representation of this sacred marriage, left no doubt for their intended audience as to the godhead of the king and those who were literate in Greek could read the accompanying statement on the coins’ reverses. As the senior and Epiphanaic branches of the Seleukidai fought for supremacy, the civic centres obtained successive favours and graces until they stood on the brink of full autonomy. It was largely through maintaining their new, vigorous religious position that the kings could maintain control over the populations which provided support to the ruling house. The principal recipients of this advertised state position to cult and divine kingship – the armed forces – were comprised of approximately 30-60% Hellenised personnel during the early period and this does not seem to have changed too dramatically following the Peace of Apameia. However, in the late Seleukid II period when the kingdom was reduced to northern Syria and Kilikia, it must be assumed that the non-Greek Levantine proportion of each king’s army increased dramatically. This must have been especially felt by kings who did not hold the great metropolis of Antioch. The growing visibility of Luwian and Semitic cult figures used as coin types throughout this period appears to reflect this demographic shift within the military towards the increasing reliance on indigenous auxiliaries. By the late Seleukid II period, Zeus had achieved total dominance at Antioch and as a dynastic god. Around the wider empire, a renewed sense of civic autonomy and pride saw various cities utilise local badges (such as the Atargatis or Hadad of Damascus) as reverse types on their regal coin issues. At Antioch, the bull horned portraits returned but took a different form from the original images of Seleukos I. The late kings stressed their own divinity but they were not larger-than-life, all conquering generals like Seleukos I and Antiochos III. The late period horned portraits reminded their audience 70

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA repeated across many sites.3 However, the great difficulty with religious architecture, as with all fields of Seleukid studies, is the scarcity of the evidence. Held’s approach was to extrapolate information on Seleukid temples from Parthian and Roman period structures. While many locations exhibit a continuity of the sacred topography which allows for some inferences to be made, the reconstruction of earlier architectural forms from later examples is dangerous. Where possible, such a methodology is avoided below. The following site case studies present the full spectrum of obstacles that one faces in the search for religious activity in the Seleukid period. Antioch has no surviving temples, Seleukeia has one, but the excavation was conducted hastily and is not well published. The sanctuary at Baitokaike has a number of Hellenistic elements, but most were enclosed or otherwise altered during its long post-Seleukid history. Jebel Khalid’s temple has suffered extensive stone robbing and the lack of epigraphy or literary references makes its interpretation challenging. Hierapolis-Bambyke is the best documented sanctuary of the Hellenistic East, but in material terms, next to nothing exists of its glorious past and the principal literary account is of questionable reliability. A comprehensive picture may only be garnered from a holistic approach which makes allowances for the various inconsistencies in evidence and reliability.

CHAPTER 4 SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA In this chapter the emphasis moves away from the statecontrolled production of official images – so important to the understanding of the ideology of the court – and into a world of regional polities. While the coin evidence may show the religious penchant of a ruler, the everyday beliefs of the population are better expressed through the building of temples and shrines, whether they be erected through public or private expense. This chapter, is intended to encompass all manner of religious activity for which we have evidence, where the activity lay more with the population at large than simply the whim of the king. The nature of archaeological survival has necessitated that this chapter be dominated by sanctuaries and temples, although there are exceptions. Excavations at the great metropolis of Antioch for example have not revealed the remains of any Seleukid period temples but Antioch may still prove informative. Whilst some, or perhaps all, of the Hellenistic temple constructions discussed below may have been initiated by the king and his council, the historic and epigraphic record is unfortunately too sporadic to say for certain. While the evidence discussed in Chapter 2.3 above suggests that all must have been ratified by the satrapal high-priest, the onus of worship appears to have been locally driven.

4.1

The great metropolis of Syria, Antiocheia-on-the-Orontes was known to house numerous shrines and sanctuaries constructed during the Hellenistic period.4 Among the most prominent mentioned in the literary sources were those of Zeus (separately as Zeus Battaios and as Zeus Keraunios) and Athena,5 both the Tyches of Antioch and of Antigoneia,6 and the sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis Daittai at Daphne.7 The muse Kalliope is also mentioned as one of the deities honoured publicly at Antioch, although references to her particular reverence are restricted to the fourth century AD and so fall outside the focus of this study.8 Unfortunately Antioch’s combination of a prosperous Roman phase, an active Christian community, earthquakes and the silt-laden Orontes have left very little evidence of the Seleukid city and none regarding its sanctuaries or other sacred spaces.9

The geographic division ‘north Syria’ is used here to encompass the Levantine territory which was occupied by Seleukos I Nikator following the victory at Ipsos in 301 BC, that is to say, the part of Syria which came first under the control of the Seleukids. Geographically, this region was primarily composed of Seleukis in the northwest (relatively urbanised from the early third century BC), across to the more rural Kyrrhestis in the east. Starting in Seleukis, the true heartland of Seleukid Syria, this chapter discusses the available evidence from Antiocheia-on-the-Orontes and Seleukeia-Pieria, the principal cities of the tetrapolis, before looking at the remains of the rural sanctuary at Baitokaike in the satrapy of Apameia. From Seleukis, we move eastwards to Kyrrhestis with a more in-depth analysis of the religious remains at Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates and at Hierapolis-Bambyke, the holiest city of them all.1

However, one vibrant memory of the Seleukid phase of Antioch remains intact, if not undamaged. A monumental relief of a veiled bust was carved into the face of Mount Silpios, above the Hellenistic agora and overlooking the

A paper presented by Hannestad and Potts at the conference at Fuglsang Manor in 1990 cast a wider net and conducted a selective survey of religious architecture from across the Seleukid empire. Their findings declared that “there was no such thing as a uniform religious architecture that might be called Seleucid”.2 The statement has been disputed by Held who sought to identify an overarching Seleukid canon to the temples produced throughout the empire and it is certain that within Syria at least, certain groups of deities are found 1 2

THE ‘CHARONION’ AT ANTIOCH

3

Held 2002; 2005. Cabouret 1997. 5 Libanius Oration 11.76; Malalas Chronicle 8.200, 8.212. 6 Malalas Chronicle 8.201; Pausanias Description of Greece 6.2.7. 7 Libanius Oration 11.56, 11.94-9, 11.233-6; Strabo Geography 16.2.6. 8 Julian Misopogon 357c; Libanius Oration 1.102, 11.276, 15.79, 20.51, 60.13; Cabouret 1997: 1015-7. 9 The ancient remains in some places are said to be ten metres or more below the modern surface. See Campbell’s diary entry of May 4, 1938, for an example of the alluvial deposits and other destruction caused by flooding in Antioch, published in Stillwell 1941: 5-6. 4

Phoenicia and Koile-Syria are dealt with in Chapter 5 below. Hannestad and Potts 1990: 122.

71

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES “During his reign [Antiochos IV Epiphanes], when there was a plague and many people in the city perished, Leios, a wonder worker, ordered that a rock from the mountain above the city be carved with an enormous mask, crowned and looking towards the city and valley. He wrote an inscription on it and stopped the deaths from the plague. To the present day the Antiochenes call this mask Charonion.”12 One need only read a few passages of the Chronicle before it becomes clear that Malalas’ account of the Seleukid period is fraught with errors. However, as will be discussed below, the subject matter of the Charonion would suggest that Malalas’ dating is plausible. It is apparent from the extant remains that the carving was never completed: the smooth areas of the throat were not properly finished and the left shoulder was only sculptured in rough outline. A channel was cut into part of the escarpment to the figure’s left as the first stage of its removal. This would have widened the ledge in front of the Charonion but as with the relief itself, work terminated before completion.13 If we can rely on Malalas for the basic information regarding the Charonion’s purpose, it would appear that the plague abated before the relief’s completion and that the apotropaic or votary nature of the work was forgotten and soon abandoned. The inscription which Malalas attributes to Leios may once have been carved into the figure’s chest although this part of the relief is no longer extant. At some stage after its creation, the Charonion suffered intentional defacement with significant damage across the chest and face. The vandalism may even have taken place before the early sixth century AD as the chronicler appears to have no idea of the nature or content of the Hellenistic inscription.14

Figure 98. The Charonion at Antioch (N.L. Wright).

Figure 99. The view from the Charonion overlooking modern Antakya (N.L. Wright).

The remaining elements of the Charonion depict a beardless face with a stern countenance framed by a long veil which descends on either side of the face and drapes over the figure’s right shoulder. Above that same shoulder stands a badly weathered, full length draped figure wearing a kalathos on its head.15 The face of the smaller figure is badly damaged and its sex indeterminable. From what remains, it is clear that the Charonion originally bore a definite likeness to the veiled female head on the pre-Seleukid coinage of HierapolisBambyke (fig.100.) as well as several bronze coin issues from the reigns of Seleukos IV, his son Antiochos, and Antiochos IV Epiphanes (figs.89-91.).16 It has also been compared with the obverse image of a Greco-Roman apotropaic amulet found near Beroia (modern Aleppo).17 Each of these comparable images can be argued to depict the Syrian goddess Atargatis, or in the Seleukid

entire city (figs.98-9). The relief has been erroneously referred to as the Charonion – the mask of Charon, ferryman of the dead – since the sixth century AD, although the bust is generally now understood to be female.10 The Charonion first came under scholarly scrutiny as part of the Princeton excavations at Antioch. The face of the bust had always been exposed but until the early twentieth century, the shoulders and chest had been covered by debris fallen from higher up the slope of Mount Silpios. In 1932, George Elderkin led the Princeton team to clear away the tumble to expose the full 5.4 metre height of the relief.11 There are no chronologically defining features on the Charonion itself and dating based upon stylistic grounds is difficult. The carving of the relief is generally dated to the reign of Antiochos IV Epiphanes based on a passage in John Malalas’ Chronicle:

12

Malalas Chronicle 8.22, trans. Jeffreys et al. 1986. Elderkin 1934: 84. Elderkin 1934: 83-4; Downey 1935: 63-5. 15 Elderkin 1934: 84. 16 Mildenberg 1999: nos.20-3; SC 2: nos. 1332, 1371, 1407, 1421-2. See also Chapter 3.3 above. 17 Mouterde 1930: 65, fig.3; Elderkin 1934: 84.

10

13

Malalas Chronicle 8.22. Elderkin (1934) recognised the bust as representing a goddess during his 1932 season and during a visit to the site in 2008 it was revealed that modern Antiochenes living below her gaze refer to the figure as Miriam or Mary, relating the carving to the nearby cave-church of St Peter. 11 Elderkin 1934.

14

72

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA Elderkin saw the shape of the Charonion’s veil as reminiscent of the heads of Persians and Amazons in Greek art. That is to say, the image, although produced by an outwardly Greek city, was intentionally orientalising in thematic expression. The physical act of carving the monumental relief is also seen as evidence of a continued pre-Greek tradition of carving large depictions of important fertility deities out of living rock, a phenomenon best represented by the Hittite reliefs at Yazılıkaya.21 The Charonion, specifically the act of its creation, could therefore be presented as the Hellenistic interpretatio graeca of a well established eastern practice perpetuated by the new population.

Figure 100. AR stater, Abdhadad, Bambyke (Baldwin's Auctions Ltd).

examples, the image of the queen in the guise of Atargatis. Realistically there is no more plausible candidate for the subject of the Charonion within a Seleukid context. The goddess was supreme in Syria and the surrounding territories before the advent of the Macedonians and her prominence continued undiminished under Roman control. As has been demonstrated in preceding chapters, Atargatis assumed a new, increased visibility both on Seleukid coinage and in the literary sources, from the early second century BC (under Seleukos IV, Antiochos IV and Demetrios I) – precisely the period given by Malalas for the construction of the Charonion. The secondary figure is impossible to identify with certainty, although the obvious association between it and the larger bust leads to the suggestion that it probably represented the goddess’ consort Zeus-Hadad in the guise in which he occurs on the bronze coinage of Demetrios I and II and, to a lesser extent, that of Antiochos XII at Damascus.18

4.2

THE DORIC TEMPLE AT SELEUKEIAPIERIA

Of the other cities of the tetrapolis of Seleukis, Laodikeia-by-the-Sea lies buried below the modern sprawl of Lattakia and although Apameia-on-the-Orontes has begun to reveal Hellenistic material through excavation, there is as yet no evidence for religious activity.22 Only Seleukeia-Pieria provides any evidence of a religious structure dating from the Hellenistic period in the form of a well-constructed limestone Doric temple, yet even that edifice has proven enigmatic. The survey and excavation of parts of Seleukeia were conducted as part of the 1937-39 Princeton expeditions to neighbouring Antioch. A preliminary study of the Doric temple together with an Ionic temple in marble had been conducted by Seyrig and Perdrizet in 1924 but unfortunately the resulting drawings and plans were lost before reaching France and thus were never published.23 The Princeton team procured the lease on the land surrounding both temples in 1937 and amid rising political tensions the remains of the Doric temple were excavated in 1938 (figs.101-2.).24 The outbreak of hostilities in Europe in 1939 caused the premature cessation of the Princeton expedition and the exposed remains of the Doric temple now lie among small farm plots, untended and overgrown, above the small resort town of Çevlik (fig.103).

Malalas claims that the creation of the Charonion was instigated by the Antiochene soothsayer Leios and not on royal instruction. If this can be taken at face value, it implies that Atargatis and Hadad were not merely venerated by Semitic Syrians or the royal dynasty trying to draw Semitic support. Rather, as the gods of the region, the divine couple were also honoured by the Hellenic settlers as providers of fertility, good health and theoi epikooi – the gods who listen (and respond) to prayers.19 Indeed theoi epikooi are precisely the type of saviour gods who might be relied upon to protect the civic body from plague. No other material remains or ashy deposits were reported during the clearance of the terrace in front of the Charonion. If any cultic rituals were undertaken in the vicinity of the monumental carving, they were either brief and have left no record, or else were performed further down the slope, perhaps in the area of the later cave church of St Peter. In light of the use of caves in the Hellenistic cults at the Mount Hermon Panion, Gadara and Gerasa, the use of St Peter’s cave during the Seleukid period seems almost certain.20

In accordance with Greek planning principles, the Doric temple was placed conspicuously on the edge of the large terrace on Mount Koryphos which formed Seleukeia’s upper city. The temple was visible from the surrounding colony, particularly from the lower city and harbour directly below.25 The location afforded dramatic views south along the coast to Mount Kasios, a key feature in the foundation myth of Seleukeia-Pieria and sacred to Ba’al-Zeus (fig.104).26 Little remains of the temple superstructure, much of which was reused “at one time”

18

See Chapter 2.1 above. The inscription from Hellenistic Ake-Ptolemaïs dedicated by Diodotos son of Neoptolemos to “Hadad and Atargatis the gods who listen to prayer” supports this supposition, see Avi-Yonah 1959. For evidence of the worship of a syncretised Aphrodite Epikoos during the reign of Demetrios I, see Hoover 2000: 109-10. Sarapis and Isis received the same veneration from Levantine Greeks as they too were theoi epikooi, see Magness 2001: 158-9. On theoi epikooi more generally, see Weinreich 1912. 20 See Chapter 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 below. 19

21 Elderkin 1934: 84; Metzger 1948: 75-6; For other evidence of this continuity in Greek representations see Metzler 1994. 22 Hannestad and Potts 1990: 115 n.22. 23 Stillwell 1941: 5 n.5. 24 Stillwell 1941: 4-5, 7. 25 Malkin 1987: 147-8. 26 Malalas Chronicle 8.199; Chapot 1907: 222-3; Fisher 1973: 318-324.

73

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 101. Seleukeia-Pieria Doric temple (Stillwell 1941 plan 9).

Figure 103. The Seleukeia-Pieria Doric temple in 2008 (N.L. Wright).

Figure 102. Seleukeia-Pieria Doric temple (N.L. Wright after Stillwell 1941 plan 9).

Figure 104. The view from the Seleukeia-Pieria Doric temple south to Mt Kasios (N.L. Wright).

to build a bastion on the site.27 The fortification works presumably date from the medieval or early modern period although the excavators do not discuss the chronology. From the remains of the temple foundations the building can be reconstructed as an east facing peripteral hexastyle Doric temple with a distyle in-antis pronaos and 12 columns along each long side. Stillwell presumes the standard three-stepped krepidoma and there does not appear to be any evidence to suggest otherwise. The overall dimensions of the foundations measure 18.6 by 36.9 metres. The naos of the temple probably led to an adyton although from the layout of the foundations, any internal wall dividing naos and adyton looks to have been located much further east than would be considered normal in a canonical Greek temple. The excavators dismiss the possibility of an epinaos or opisthodomos. The northern half of the adyton was given over to a stairway which led down towards the east to a finely constructed square crypt measuring approximately 4.5 metres across (fig.105). There was apparently a second passageway under the adyton into the crypt from outside, evidenced by alterations at the western end of the southern face of the krepidoma (between the third and fourth columns) and signs of wear on what should otherwise have been covered foundations. The route of the passage is unclear. It is suspected that this secondary access to the crypt was a later improvement although there is no clear indication of date in situ or provided by

the excavators for either the initial construction or the alterations.28 Examination of fragments of moulding together with the use of such finely worked ashlar blocks for the crypt and temple foundations led the excavators to posit a probable construction date at the end of the fourth century BC, but allowing a caveat for a first century BC date. There is no evidence for Roman period building works over the remains of the earlier foundations.29 It would seem that no pottery, coins or other small finds were recorded during the hurried excavation that might have further assisted with the monument’s dating. Indeed the only small find noted from the context of the Doric temple was a damaged bronze statuette of “Isis-Aphrodite” found in the fill between pavement supports.30 One would imagine that the statuette became lodged there during the demolition phase of the monument rather than construction although this too is unclear from the report. Stillwell suggests that the figure may be associated with the deity worshipped at the temple but advanced no further analysis of either the statuette nor the resident divinity.31 The bronze statuette is of a female figure styled in a classical form, measuring 17.5 cm to the top of her head. 28

Stillwell 1941: 33-4. Stillwell 1941: 33-4. Stillwell 1941: 124 no.365. 31 Stillwell 1941: 34. 29 30

27

Stillwell 1941: 33.

74

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA The face of the statuette is badly worn and the body is crushed. Her right leg has been broken off below the knee, her left arm is raised but her left hand too has been lost. She is naked but for a headdress composed of a sundisc flanked by cow horns and feathers (or ears of grain) which rises from the crown of her head (fig.106). The headdress was a common symbol in the Hellenistic period and is well known as an attribute of the Egyptian goddess Isis. The cult of Isis was endemic across the Hellenistic Mediterranean and despite the political differences between Alexandreia and Antioch, she was a commonly honoured deity in Seleukid Syria.32 It might also be remembered that Seleukeia-Pieria was a Ptolemaic possession from c.246 BC until 219 BC. A Ptolemaic phase in the city may have resulted in an increase in prominence of Egyptian gods such as Isis although there is no extant evidence for such a development.

Figure 105. The Seleukeia-Pieria Doric temple crypt (Stillwell 1941: fig.42).

As discussed in Chapter 2.1. the headdress of Isis was even used as a reverse type on Seleukid royal coinage from the mid-second century BC, coming to dominate royal bronzes under Antiochos Sidetes. Stillwell’s identification of the figure as a composite Isis-Aphrodite seems to stem from the Hellenised style and perhaps the figure’s nudity. However, the very syncretic nature of Isis (as with Atargatis) in the Hellenistic period makes such a specific identification unnecessary and Isis was often depicted naked in the Hellenistic period.33 Like Atargatis, the Hellenised Isis was a multifaceted and flexible goddess, patron of royalty, women, sailors and dispenser of personal salvation.34 However, as noted above, the depositional history of the Isis statuette is completely unknown. Her relevance to the deity worshipped at the Doric temple may be purely tangential and after all, bronze though it may be, the statuette hardly constitutes the xoanon (cult statue) for a major temple but more likely represents an ancillary goddess, a votive offering or perhaps a figure from a domestic shrine, relocated to the site of the temple during or following the structure’s demolition. The presence of the crypt below the adyton led Hannestad and Potts to suggest that the Doric temple may in fact be the Nikatoreion, the temple and temenos built around the sepulchre of Seleukos I Nikator.35 Physical evidence for royal burials during the Hellenistic period is practically non-existent. From a multitude of kings and dynasts, only two known Hellenistic tombs are certifiably royal – the ‘royal tomb II’ at Vergina (ancient Aigai), Macedonia, and the Hierothesion at Nemrud Dağ in Kommagene, both of which took the form of tumuli. Vergina royal tomb II belonged to either Philip II or Philip III Arrhidaios, and Nemrud Dağ, was constructed for

Figure 106. Aphrodite-Isis statue from the SeleukeiaPieria Doric temple (Stillwell 1941: pl.16.365).

Antiochos I of Kommagene.36 We thus have evidence for either end of the Hellenistic period, but very little information on the intervening generations.37 A passage from Appian provides limited insight into the burial of Seleukos I following his murder by Ptolemy Keraunos: “Philetairos, the prince of Pergamon, bought the body of Seleukos from Keraunos for a large sum of money, burned it, and sent the ashes to his son Antiochos. The latter deposited them at Seleukeia-by-the-Sea, where he

32

Turcan 1996: 76-8; Sosin 2005. P. Oxyrhynchus 11.1380; Witt 1971: 126; Merkelbach 1995: 96. 34 Kee 1983: 127. 35 Hannestad and Potts 1990: 116, followed by Høtje 2009: 124 n.15, contra Held 2002: 240-1. 33

36 On Vergina, see Andronikas 1978; id. 1984; Borza 1981; id. 1985; Bartsiokas 2000. On Nemrud Dag, see Sanders 1996; see also Appendix C. 37 Høtje 2009: 124 n.15.

75

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES erected a temple to his father, and made a precinct round it. The precinct is called Nikatoreion.”38 The cremated remains of Seleukos would have reached Antiochos late in the Spring of 280 BC giving a construction date for the Nikatoreion in the first quarter of the third century BC.39 This date falls slightly after, but is not altogether inconsistent with the Doric temple’s preferred construction date of c.300 BC. The establishment of a founder cult for Seleukos at Seleukeia is accepted by modern scholars but it has been claimed that the erection of a temenos and temple with all associated rituals and paraphernalia was unprecedented.40 While it may be true that the Nikatoreion was a prototype, it is not without parallel in the Hellenistic East. The several heroa which are known combine a naiskos with a crypt which held the remains of a local hero. The founder of Aï Khanoum, Kineas, was buried beneath one such structure and, as Kineas and Seleukos both served with Alexander the Great, the earliest phase of the heroön must be close in date to the construction of the Nikatoreion. The first phase heroön consisted of a southeast facing, mud-brick, distyle in-antis structure on a three-stepped krepidoma. The pronaos was slightly wider than the adyton which resulted in the building assuming an inverted T-shape. Below the adyton, a mud-brick lined crypt contained a limestone sarcophagus with a round hole drilled into the lid. It is presumed that libations were poured directly into the sarcophagus from the adyton above.41 Although built using local building methods and materials, the structure adhered to a Hellenistic form and even incorporated a number of maxims received directly from Delphi in the early third century BC and inscribed in the surrounding temenos.42 Similar heroa were built during the second century BC at Kalydon in Aitolia and for Attalos I and Eumenes II at Pergamon.43

Figure 107. Aï Khanoum mausoleum (N.L. Wright after Bernard 1975: fig.9).

of the mausoleum is uncertain but probably belongs in the third century BC. Its construction followed an earlier structure on the site which had the same orientation and dimensions. Like the heroön of Kineas, the Aï Khanoum mausoleum seems to be an early feature of the city which, due to the mud-brick construction, required restoration and successive phases of rebuilding.45 As with the heroön, the excavators conjecture libation pouring at the mausoleum while the presence of the altar suggests that there may have been other forms of offering conducted for, or on behalf of, the dead.46 The posthumous veneration of Seleukos I Nikator at an impressive temple at Seleukeia is not unusual when it is remembered that the king was assimilated with Zeus, the king of the gods and patron of Seleukeia-Pieria. In an early third century BC inscription listing annual priesthoods at Seleukeia, priests for the gods Zeus Olympios, Zeus Koryphaios, and Zeus Kasios are followed immediately by the priest of Seleukos Zeus Nikator.47 While the temple plan and altar of the Aï Khanoum mausoleum might be seen as truly exceptional, Seleukos Nikator was deified posthumously and assimilated with the god Zeus. There was surely nothing strange about the construction of a temple over the resting place of a god’s earthly remains. Indeed the Christian Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, first built under Constantine I, may be seen to serve the same purpose.48 The situation of the Doric temple at Seleukeia provides circumstantial support for the attribution of the building as the Nikatoreion. The temple overlooked the main lower city and harbour and in turn the temple complex would have been visible from them. Such a location might be deemed desirable in the temple dedicated to the city’s founder and patron. Furthermore, the temple was intervisible with both the summit of

A second structure from Aï Khanoum – identified as a mausoleum – was even closer in form to the Nikatoreion. The mausoleum took the form of a south-east facing, Ionic order, peripteral mud-brick temple built on a threestepped krepidoma (fig.107). The superstructure measured 21.5 by 11.75 metres and was composed of a pronaos (with two columns in-antis), naos and adyton. A set of stairs descended from the centre of the naos to a crypt measuring 4.5 by 2.3 metres, located below the adyton. The crypt contained the remains of two sarcophagi and five individuals. A further burial was interred in a later mud-brick repository built within the northern half of the naos. The temple form was completed with the addition of an altar measuring 1.5 metres square located immediately to the east.44 The date

38

Appian Syrian Wars 63 (translation after the Loeb edition). Grainger 1990a: 199. 40 Brodersen 1989: 184-5. 41 Bernard 1973: 85-111. 42 Robert 1968: 421-6. 43 Kalydon: Dyggve et al. 1934; Pergamon: Boehringer and Krauss 1937: 84. See also chapter 5.5 below. 44 Bernard 1975: 180-5. 39

45

Bernard 1975: 187. Bernard 1975: 189. 47 CIG 4458.1-10 = Austin 2006: no.207. See also the discussion on the deification of the kings in Chapter 3 above. 48 Itinerarium Burdigalense 594. 46

76

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA Mount Koryphos above and the summit of Mount Kasios to the south, both of which were considered the abodes of Zeus. Rituals within the temenos would have been within sight of all of the most significant topographical features in the region. The early modern erection of fortifications using spolia from the superstructure of the Doric temple at Seleukeia, combined with the hastily conducted excavations and cursory publication of the temple remains mean that we may never be able to confirm the nature of the only surviving Seleukid period temple from the tetrapolis of Seleukis. The presence of the finely worked crypt supported by comparative evidence from the Aï Khanoum mausoleum and heroön, the thoughtful placement of the temple at a key location within both the natural and built environment of the city and the structure’s survival through the Roman period with no evidence for a Roman building phase, all lend their weight to Hannestad and Pott’s tentative suggestion. The Doric temple at Seleukeia-Pieria probably does represent the remains of the Nikatoreion. The presence of the statuette of Isis among the temple foundations need not alter this interpretation. As discussed above, the statuette may well be intrusive. Even if it were not, the role of Isis as the patron of kingship might see her joining the godking Seleukos Zeus Nikator in an auxiliary capacity – not the major cult focus of the temple, but a minor synnaos thea. 4.3

Figure 108. Baitokaike (N.L. Wright after Steinsapir 1999: 184 and Freyberger 2004: fig.1).

HOLY HEAVENLY ZEUS OF BAITOKAIKE

Located in the Bargylos mountains behind Marathos, 30km from the Mediterranean coast, the sanctuary of Zeus Ouranios at Baitokaike (modern Hosn Soleiman) has yet to be formally excavated. Although there is evidence of a recent sondage having been opened by the Syrian Department of Antiquities between the two GrecoRoman complexes at the site, the work has not been published to date. Impressive standing remains – dating primarily to the second and third centuries AD49 – are visible at the site and were first recorded in detail by René Dussaud in 1897. Further scholarly studies were conducted by Krencker and Zschietzschmann in 1938 and more recently by Steinsapir (1999) and Freyberger (2004) (fig.108).

Figure 109. Baitokaike main temenos (courtesy Ross Burns).

complexes. Rather than conforming to a cardinal eastwest axis, the successive temples within the larger complex were orientated north-east to south-west due to the irregularity of the terrain. The site’s hilly topography and the sacral nature of construction necessitated that the Roman period structure was built directly above its Hellenistic predecessor.51 The north-east to south-west axis was mirrored by the rectangular temenos measuring 134 by 85 metres enclosed by a monumental wall.52 Freyberger dates the construction of the temenos wall to the second or first centuries BC which would makes it the earliest of the visible remains.53 Certain features of the temenos wall such as the sculpted lintels and Roman inscriptions were later additions and attest to the continued use of the site.

THE MAIN TEMENOS The site of Baitokaike represents an extramural sanctuary whose associated settlement grew up around the shrine, rather than a religious complex within a civic or urban landscape. The Greco-Roman sanctuary at Baitokaike was contained within a depression, surrounded by higher peaks (fig.109).50 This unusual placement was determined by the location of a seasonal spring and two sacred outcrops of rock, both of which were incorporated within the walls of the larger of the sanctuary’s two

A monumental propylaia with internal and external hexastyle porticos was located midway along the northwestern end of the temenos, aligned with the central axis of the temple. An individual entering through the 51

Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: figs.119-20, pl.35. Niehr 2003: 68. 53 Freyberger 2004: 31.

49

52

Steinsapir 1999: 184; Freyberger 2004: 29-31. 50 Steinsapir 1999: 183.

77

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES entombed.56 Three flights of stairs alternated with two broad landings to connect the walking surface of the temenos with the top of the Roman podium from the north-east. The lower and larger of the landings included an altar platform which jutted forward over the lower flight of stairs. This landing could also be approached by a second stairway from the north-west. The seasonal spring mentioned above floods the entire area to the north-east of the podium annually from late winter until early summer and presumably did so in antiquity. This flooding prevented the direct approach from the propylaia to the north-east base of the stairs, access being diverted via the north-west.57

Figure 110. Baitokaike second century AD temple (courtesy Ross Burns).

Measuring approximately 25 by 14 metres, the second century AD temple was pseudoperipteral with six Ionic half columns along each flank and four across the rear wall (fig.110).58 Little remains of the pronaos although it has been confidently reconstructed as quadrastyle prostyle.59 A narrow staircase was built into the northwestern wall of the naos, accessed internally, which may once have led to a roof terrace for the performance of specific rituals.60 Both gabled and flat roofs have been proposed for the structure although without the documented recovery of pediment or ceramic roof tiles (or lack thereof) from the vicinity of the temple, a true reconstruction must remain elusive.61

Figure 111. Baitokaike temple ‘window’ (courtesy Ross Burns).

Within the temenos a monumental altar measuring eight square metres was built around an exposed rocky outcrop.62 The outcrop was located between the naos and temenos wall, in the south-east of the temenos, visible from the propylaia and the south-eastern and southwestern gateways. The west face of the altar (that closest to the temple) was inscribed with a second century AD dedication to holy, heavenly, fruit-bringing Zeus of Baitokaike.63 The monumental altar was squarely aligned with an elaborate window built into a crypt within the temple podium. Steinsapir suggests some form of dawn solar ritual involving “a reenactment of the epiphany of the deity” whose statue may have stood behind the window. However, she concedes that there may be other explanations for the correlation of altar and window and it would seem that her main theory is most unlikely. The window grants access to a small passage through which remains of the Hellenistic structure encased within the

propylaia would have been presented with a frontal view of the temple’s façade, raised above the level of entry by both the lay of the land and, in the Roman phase, by the temple’s podium. Two smaller entrances into the temenos were located opposite each other in the middle of the two long walls and thus perpendicular to the main axis. Although the approach through either side gate would present a three-quarter view of the main temple structure conforming to the Hellenic ideal,54 these side gates were clearly of secondary importance to the north-eastern entrance. Importantly, the lintel of the south-east gate bore the remains of a late dedicatory inscription reconstructed by Dussaud with certainty as or theo Askaloneai, the Goddess of Askalon.55 The presence of the deity, a goddess known variously as Derketo or Atargatis to the Greeks, is important for the understanding of the nature of the cult during the Greco-Roman period. A fourth and much smaller opening was located opposite the main propylaia to the rear of the temple.

56

Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: 67; Gawlikowski 1989: 337-9; Steinsapir 1999: 188; Freyberber 2004: 23. 57 Steinsapir 1999: 186-7. 58 Steinsapir 1999: 185; Niehr 2003: 68-70; Freyberger 2004: 22. 59 Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: pl.35. 60 Steinsapir 1999: 185-6; see also Amy 1950; Downey 1976; Held 2005. 61 Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: pl.37; Steinsapir 1999: 186. 62 Steinsapir 1999: 187; Freyberger 2004: 26-7. See also the AraboIturaean tendency to hew sacred architecture and altars out of living rock, Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: 40-6; Aliquot 2008: 78. 63 “höchsten, heiligen und Früchte bringenden Zeus von Baitokaike”, Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: no.8; Freyberger 2004: 26. The portrayal of the god of the sky and heavens as the provider of earthly fertility is well attested in the Semitic world, see for example the reference to Adad (Hadad) in the Code of Hammurabi where the deity is called “lord of abundance, the irrigator of heaven and earth,” (Meek 1969: 179).

The Roman period temple occupied a natural rise at the centre of the temenos, a height further accentuated by an elevated podium. The remains of an earlier (probably Hellenistic) temple or altar, lacking any raised platform of its own, were entirely encased within the podium of the later Roman structure. Although not a grand feature, the earlier structure was obviously too sacred to be demolished during later renovations and was thus

54

See the discussion on the possible staged approach to the Jebel Khalid temple below. 55 Dussaud 1897: 323-5.

78

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA Roman podium can be accessed. The Hellenistic wall in turn was provided with a portal beyond which lay a second large outcrop of living rock cracked with a great fissure (fig.111). It seems clear that whatever the ancient understanding of the two outcrops at Baitokaike, they were intended to be intervisible, even after the construction of the successive monuments. The windows provided visible access to the living rock from the outside world in general and from the rock-altar specifically.64 The construction of the temple above a natural fissure in the rock recalls the construction of the temple of Atargatis at Hierapolis-Bambyke above the small, natural chasm. At Hierapolis too, access to the chasm was maintained even after the Greco-Roman building works.65 While the preserved architectural remains at Baitokaike preclude the identification of identical cultic practices at the two sites, they clearly belonged to the same religious milieu. It should be noted that the naos of the Zeus temple at Baitokaike is currently filled with tumble from the collapsed superstructure which may indeed hide a further opening in the naos floor through which the rocky outcrop could be accessed from inside the naos as at Hierapolis. Certainly the two deities honoured through inscriptions at Baitokaike, Zeus and the Goddess of Askalon are directly paralleled by the principal gods honoured at Hierapolis, Zeus-Hadad and Hera-Atargatis. A similar assemblage of living rock encased by a Hellenistic altar, all below a Roman structure was found at the Lower Zeus temple at Gerasa.66

Figure 112. Baitokaike temenos eagle (courtesy Ross Burns).

Figure 113. Baitokaike temenos lion (courtesy Ross Burns).

Two iconographic themes were repeatedly employed for the figurative decoration around the main temenos at Baitokaike. Although the remains of the propylaia do not allow for the reconstruction of its decoration, the secondary entrances along the north-west and south-east flanks of the temenos provide some informative images. An eagle, the avatar of the sun or sky god, flanked by twin youths – probably representing the morning and evening stars Azizos and Monimos – adorned the soffits of both lintels (fig.112).67 The eagle carries a kerykeion in its talons which has prompted some scholars to plausibly suggest a psychopompic role for the Zeus at Baitokaike. 68 However, it may well be that the representation of the kerykeion above such portals was related to the transition from the secular to the sacral spheres rather than the transition between life and death. Similar iconography was employed over the entrances of the Roman period ‘Bacchus’ temple at Heliopolis-Ba’albek and at the contemporary ‘great’ temple at Hosn Niha. 69

Figure 114. Iraq al-Amir lion (Zayadine 2004: pl.12).

A second and more prominent figurative subject at Baitokaike was the lion which featured on both external corners of the north-western temenos wall (fig.113), on either side of the propylaia, on the interior of the lintels of the north-west and south-east gateways and incorporated into the north-eastern (front) pediment of the temple itself.70 The lion is sometimes linked to the worship of “the mountain Baal” and the sun, both of which were incorporated in the worship of Ba’al Šamīn.71 However, the lion to the western side of the propylaia stands beside a carved relief of a Cyprus tree, the evergreen symbol of fertility and regeneration, which may suggest that the lion here, as at Hierapolis-Bambyke, was intended as the avatar of the pan-Syrian goddess, Atargatis, the .72 Stylistically comparable lions were employed as decoration on the Tobiad palace (Qasr al-

64

Steinsapir 1999: 188; Freyberger 2004: 23-4. For a full discussion of Hierapolis, see Chapter 4.5 below. 66 See Chapter 5.5 below. 67 Dussaud 1903: 128-33; Hill 1911: 57; Steinsapir 1999: 190. 68 Dussaud 1903: 142-8; Ronzevalle 1912: 38; Steinsapir 1999: 190; Freyberger 2004: 19. In both Old Babylonian and Ugaritic mythologies the sun-deity was believed to rule over the dead during his nocturnal voyages through the underworld, see van der Toorn 1996: 160. 69 At Hosn Niha the flanking figures are identified as Nike to left and a Nike and Eros to right, see Freyberger 2004: 20. 65

70

Freyberger 2004: figs. 4-5. Hill 1911: 57; Steinsapir 1999: 191. 72 Hill 1911: 57. 71

79

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Abd) at Iraq al-Amir, constructed in the period 182-175 BC (fig.114).73

Zeus/Ba’al Šamīn, Antiochos VIII Grypos is perhaps the most likely candidate.79 The Seleukid grant stipulates that on account of “the power of the god” the king permanently ceded the village of Baitokaike (formerly a private holding) to the sanctuary and its god. The god, referred to simply as Zeus of Baitokaike in the Hellenistic document, was identified specifically as Zeus Ouranios in the second century AD monumental altar inscription. Whether or not the local Zeus already carried the heavenly appellation during the Hellenistic period is impossible to know although presumably the Seleukid memorandum would have employed the epithet if it was in common use. Regardless, the deity who would become known as Zeus Ouranios is identifiable as the interpretatio graeca of Ba’al Šamīn, the vernacular lord of the heavens.80 His worship at Baitokaike, incorporating celestial and chthonic or fecund elements can be seen as a clear continuation of the Semitic, pre-Greek cult.81 Interestingly, the toponym Baitokaike was derived from the Semitic Betoceicei or ‘house of ricin’ and referred to a locally cultivated herb that was believed to have had a medicinal value. The local god, it seems, was also famous for his healing powers.82 One further interesting aside that comes out of the Baitokaike inscription is that the priest of Zeus does not seem to be a political appointment but rather was believed to have been an individual “designated by the god”. Following the royal grant of property and taxes to be used as the priest saw fit, he certainly would have assumed worldly, if only regional, importance.83

THE SELEUKID INSCRIPTION The outside face of the north-east temenos wall was inscribed with a decree issued by the emperor Valerian (AD 253-260). The inscription, set up by the katochoi74 of Holy Heavenly Zeus (Zeus Ouranios), maintains that the ancient rights granted to the sanctuary under the Seleukids and Augustus were to be upheld.75 This was presumably a response to continued antagonism between the sanctuary and the neighbouring city of Arados. The Roman inscription contained a copy of the original Seleukid grant of privileges bestowed by an unknown king Antiochos:76 Letter of King Antiochos. King Antiochos to Euphemos, greetings. I have issued the memorandum which is appended below. Let action be taken as instructed on the matters which you are to carry out. A report having been brought to me about the power of the god Zeus of Baitokaike, I have decided to concede to him for all time the source of the god’s power, the village of Baitokaike, formerly held by Demetrios son of Demetrios, grandson of Mnaseas, at Tourgona in the satrapy of Apameia, together with everything that appertains and belongs to it according to the existing surveys, and including the revenues of the present year, so that the revenue from this village may be spent for the celebration of the monthly sacrifices and the other things that increase the prestige of the sanctuary by the priest designated by the god, as is the custom. Fairs exempt from taxation are also to be held every month on the fifteenth and thirtieth; the sanctuary is to be inviolate and the village exempt from billeting, as no objection has been lodged against this. Anyone who opposes any of the above-mentioned instructions shall be held guilty of impiety. A copy is to be inscribed on a stone stele and placed in this same sanctuary. It will therefore be necessary to write to the usual officials so that action is taken in accordance with these instructions.77

THE NORTH COMPLEX A smaller complex lies 57 metres away from the propylaia to the north. The standing structure was built in the first century AD but was probably based upon an earlier feature of the site.84 The complex takes the form of an open court with a number of buildings incorporated into the surrounding wall. Almost square in plan and oriented to the cardinal points, the south-eastern corner was composed of a plain Doric distyle in-antis temple, opening to the south and inaccessible from within the complex (fig.115). Although typically Hellenistic, the structure is usually considered to be contemporary with the rest of the north complex. The principal structure within the complex was an apsidal, recessed platform built into the northern wall at the highest natural point within the enclosure. The sculptured torso of a life-size male figure was discovered on the raised platform and is thought to have represented an honorary dedication from one of the benefactors of Baitokaike.85 From the raised location of the apsidal platform, the façade and north-

In essence, the Seleukid memorandum removed any profane obligations owed by the sanctuary to the king.78 The king in question is disputed among modern scholars although he probably ruled in the late Seleukid period and, in light of his well advertised patronage of a celestial 73 Will and Larché 1991, especially François Queyrel’s contribution in the same volume dealing with the sculptural decoration, 209-51; Zayadine 2004: 273-5. 74 Literally translated the ‘withdrawn’ or ‘possessed’, it is unclear whether the katochoi were hierodules (sacred slaves), priests, administrators or something else entirely, see Feissel 1993: 19-20; Dignas 2002: 165-6; Freyberger 2004: 33. 75 Steinsapir 1999: 185. 76 Austin 2006: no.172 = Welles 1934: no.70. 77 After Austin 2006: no.172. 78 Aperghis (2004: 111) states that the memorandum does no such thing, suggesting instead that the sanctuary was still required to pay regular tribute.

79 Welles 1934: 282-4; Seyrig 1951: 200-2; Rigsby 1980: 248-54; Shipley 2000: 297; Dignas 2002: 78; Niehr 2003: 48; Freybergr 2004: 32; Austin 2006: 311. On Antiochos VIII and Zeus Ouranios, see Chapter 2.1.4 above. 80 See the discussion in Chapters 2 and 3 above. 81 Green 2003: 198-200, 208-14; Niehr 2003: 50. 82 Dussaud 1897: 329; Dignas 2002: 80. 83 Dignas 2002: 79-80. 84 Freyberger 2004: 34, 39. 85 Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: 100; Steinsapir 1999: 188.

80

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA represent Ba’al, is more often the goddess manifest. 90 As both the naos and the monumental altar were dedicated to Zeus in the Roman period, his consort must have been honoured as a synaos theos (as suggested by the inscription above the south-east gate), or was perhaps worshipped in the small distyle temple attached to the north complex. Of course without a comprehensive program of excavation, assigning any location for the worship of the Goddess of Askalon at Seleukid Baitokaike must necessarily remain purely speculative. 4.4

Figure 115. Baitokaike north temple (courtesy Ross Burns).

west flank of the Roman period temple within the main temenos is clearly visible above the intervening walls. The purpose of the smaller complex is unclear with suggestions varying from a temenos dedicated to a second deity, a site for preparatory activities before the monthly ceremonies, the location of the bi-monthly market or domestic quarters for the temple administrators and functionaries.86 However, the main gateway of the southern wall is decorated with a relief showing a male figure with multiple water jars which led Steinsapir to suggest that the complex may have housed a water pouring ceremony in some way related to the seasonal spring in the main temenos.87

JEBEL KHALID AREA B91

The excavated temple at Jebel Khalid provides the modern scholar with the best evidence of a certifiably Seleukid religious structure anywhere in northern Syria. 92 The chronology of the settlement’s occupation firmly places the construction of the temple and temenos – known together as Area B – within the first phase of activity on the site and although Area B had a period of use following the abandonment of the settlement, the naos and other central elements appear to have remained fundamentally unchanged. Jebel Khalid’s construction upon virgin soil ensures that the establishment of a temple structure with non-Greek elements was not determined by any pre-existing local population. However, as will be made quite clear, the Area B structures exhibit a deliberate fusion of Greek and Mesopotamian aspects to produce an entirely Hellenistic religious complex.

The cultic assemblage of a seasonal spring with possible water pouring rituals, together with the iconographic prominence of the eagle and lion provide further parallels with Lucian’s description of the cult of Hera-Atargatis and Zeus-Hadad at Hierapolis-Bambyke. The disparity between the two sites proves to be no real obstacle for the identification of a related cult. Where Hierapolis had the perennial sacred pool as a physical manifestation of the goddess’s fecundity, Baitokaike laid claim to its seasonal spring, a symbol, and indeed the vehicle, of annual renewal and fertility – evidence of the deities’ continued benefactions to mankind.88 This spring was also probably the source of Zeus’s later “fruit-bringing” epithet. This holy, heavenly (syncretic) Zeus was undoubtedly the presiding deity at Baitokaike. The dichotomy of the god’s role, between the heavens and earth, link him inexorably with the nature of the Semitic Ba’al Hadad/Šamīn. However, just as Ba’al was seldom worshipped unaccompanied,89 it is almost certain that his counterpart in both celestial and chthonic spheres, Atargatis by whatever name, was honoured at Baitokaike. The duality of the two outcrops of living rock suggests the veneration of a divine couple, the water carrier relief is suggestive of Hierapolitan libation rituals and the lion, which may

THE TEMPLE Contrary to the usual practice of both the Greek and Semitic worlds, Jebel Khalid’s temple was sited at one of the lowest occupied points of the city, above a gully which led down to the Euphrates river (fig.116). In this fashion, the topographic situation of Area B resembled the temple of Zeus at Baitokaike discussed above. Furthermore, topographical requirements suggest that the temple of Atargatis at Edessa must also have been sited in the depression below the citadel in order for it to be located near the sacred pools.93 The Jebel Khalid Area B complex is overlooked to the south by the fortified acropolis and to the north by the settlement’s principal domestic quarter. The sanctuary was constructed early in the life of the Seleukid colony, evidenced by fragments of

90

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 13, 31, 41; Hogarth 1907-08: 188-9, fig.2; Hill 1911: 57; Drijvers 1982. 91 An early version of this section (4.4) was presented at the Seleukid conference held at University of Exeter July 16 2008, see Wright 2011. 92 Much of Jebel Khalid remains unexcavated and the possibility of further temples cannot be ruled out although there is no surface evidence to suggest that the city had more than a single sanctuary. It should be noted that current research suggests that Dura-Europos may not have had any Seleukid period temple structures at all (Downey 2004: 55) even though the colony seems to have been important enough to house a royal mint under Antiochos I (SC I p.136-7) and again under Antiochos IV (SC II p.77) and is known to have had a priesthood of Seleukos Nikator operating c.AD 180 (P.Dura 25.3-4) which may have been a continuation of a Hellenistic cult. 93 Edessa is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.5 below.

86

Dussaud 1897: 326-8; Steinsapir 1999: 189; Freyberger 2004: 35-7. Steinsapir 1999: 189; Freyberger 2004: 34-6; see also Fischer, Ovadiah and Roll 1984: 153-4 for comparative reliefs from Roman Kadesh; see also Chapter 4.5 below. 88 Note however that even though Lucian claimed that the sacred pool at Hierapolis was perennial, it was reportedly a dry bowl when visited by Maundrell (1740) and Pococke (1745), yet full of water when seen by Hogarth (1908) and Bell (1909). While the surrounding water table may have been responsible for changes in water level over centuries, there could have been seasonal variation, even in antiquity. 89 Green 2003: 200-5. 87

81

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES memory of a pre-existing sacred space on the jebel that was respected by the new population.95 The temple was built as an east-facing hexastyle amphiprostyle structure. Both the east and west façades were pseudo-Doric, employing faceted columns of relatively squat proportions.96 However, several standard Doric features were absent: there was no course between the architrave and the triglyphs and metopes, and there were no decorative regulae or mutules. The metopes were left without sculptural decoration and there is no evidence to suggest that there was any sculptural adornment on the pediment. The whole would have afforded an unpretentious, if rather stark, appearance (fig.117).97 The naos of the temple was built upon a two-tiered krepidoma after the Greek fashion with the lower step made of worked bedrock, above which a second riser formed the stylobate. Both tiers were 60cm high.98 However, the layout of the naos provided further distinctions from traditional Greco-Macedonian religious structures. Rather than the elongated dimensions seen in traditional Classical and Hellenistic temples, the naos of the Jebel Khalid temple measured just 10 by 12.8 metres, making it fractionally broader than it was long and conforming to a Mesopotamian style ground plan. In addition, the western half of the naos was divided by internal walls to provide a triple adyton, also common in earlier Mesopotamian structures and mirrored by the later – Parthian and Roman period – temples of Artemis (building of c.40-32 BC) and Atargatis at Dura-Europos and by the early-phase extramural temple at Aï Khanoum.99 The tripartite division allowed for the admission of cult statues of different gods and therefore accommodated for the worship of multiple deities within the one structure.

Figure 116. Jebel Khalid (N.L. Wright after JK 2: fig.2).

THE TEMENOS The phase one temenos (c.300-145 BC) narrowly surrounded the temple in contemporary Greek fashion (fig.118). It included a colonnade along the north and at 95

Plato Laws 704b-705c; Malkin 1987: 138, 145-56. However, see Arrian Anabasis 3.1.5 of Alexander’s choice of deities to be honoured at Alexandreia-by-Egypt. 96 A complete column from the western portico was found where it fell allowing for the ratio of width to height to be calculated at 1:5.2 rather than the contemporary standard of 1:7+. 97 The sanctuary of Ptolemy III and Berenike II at Hermopolis Magna in Egypt was brightly painted, proving that the Classical tradition of temple decoration continued to flourish during the Hellenistic period, even in provincial areas (McKenzie 2007: 57-8). The Jebel Khalid temple may also have been originally painted which would have compensated for its lack of sculptural decoration. 98 Clarke et al. 2008: 63. 99 Artemis: Downey 1988: 89-92. Atargatis: Downey 1988: 102-5. Temple hors-les-murs: Bernard 1976a: 303-7; Downey 1988: 73-5; Hannestad and Potts 1990: 94-5. It should be noted that although the temple hors-les-murs conforms to the same general ground plan, it made use of an open court rather than a pronaos. Only Dura’s Artemis temple of 40-32 BC employed a covered pronaos as was used at Jebel Khalid. It was initially believed that the first phase of the temple of Zeus Megistos at Dura included a triple adyton (Zeus Megistos: Downey 1988: 79-86; Hannestad and Potts 1990: 104-5), however, this analysis appears to be incorrect, see Downey 1985. On the late date for the Dura temples, see Downey 2004: 54-5.

Figure 117. Jebel Khalid temple façade (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

an early third century BC Attic kantharos along with contemporary lamp fragments and coins of Seleukos I and Lysimachos which were found below the stylobate foundations. The early third century material with no later intrusions confirm that the sacred space was part of the initial settlement.94 The marking out of sacred precincts was one of the first tasks for the oikist of any Hellenic colony, integrally linked with the topographic organisation of the new urban space. An oikist did not normally decide which gods and heroes were worshipped, but he was entitled to decide the placement of their sanctuaries. Just as at Baitokaike, Area B’s strange location may have been determined by the knowledge or 94

Clarke et al. 2005: 130-1.

82

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA least part of the west walls although the layout of the east and south walls are less clear.100 A cordiform (heartshaped) column base and two drums found in situ in the north-west corner of the temenos confirms that the colonnade originally extended south along the west wall. In order to maximise the space between the eastern portico of the temple and the altar area, the temple structure was set well towards the western end of the sanctuary and any western colonnade of the temenos would have passed within a metre of the west façade of the temple.101 Due to later building and stone robbing activities, it is difficult to make any further observations of the first phase of construction. Sometime, perhaps around the middle of the second century BC the structures within the temenos were remodelled, adapting the existing temenos wall and constructing new internal buildings (fig.119). This period can be designated phase two and is dated here to c.145-74 BC, corresponding with the increased activity across the site as indicated by an increase in coin numbers and rebuilding elsewhere.102 New structures were erected in the north-east and south-east corners of the temenos, extending eastwards beyond the temenos wall. The western room of the north-east structure was used as a storage room and the whole structure appears to have served some form of domestic function – perhaps a preparation space for ritual meals, housing for a priest or a hostel for pilgrims. A similar domestic feature was incorporated into the north-east corner of the original temenos of the temple of Artemis (c.40-32 BC) at DuraEuropos and more were added throughout the period of that temple’s use.103

Figure 118. Area B, phase one (N.L. Wright after site plans by Barry Rowney).

In the north-west corner of the temenos, behind the cordiform column of phase one, a small room was constructed which opened off the northern colonnade. A large key was found on the threshold and we can assume that this room was secured with a locked door. The room contained a large assemblage of common-ware jars, jugs, kraters and other vessels used for storing and serving liquids such as wine or oil.104 The north-western structure was mirrored in the south-west by another small structure of which there is little as yet to indicate its function (fig.120). Successive uneven ashy deposits had accumulated on the floor of the structure to a depth of 42cm which included a scattering of local and imported ceramic fragments and large amounts of unburnt bone. However, immediately to the east of this structure, open to the air but still within the temenos court, similar ashy deposits were uncovered in uniform layers to a depth of 70cm. The external ash deposits also contained small

Figure 119. Area B, phase two (N.L. Wright after site plans by Barry Rowney).

100

Clarke et al. 2008: 62. Such an arrangement was common in Hellenistic sanctuaries where the visual emphasis was on the eastern façade, altar and forecourt at the expense of the western façade, see Williams Lehman 1954: 15; Winter 2006: 16-7. Downey (1976: 22-3) stresses the Mesopotamian origin of such cultic ground plans. 102 Jackson 2009; id. 2011; Wright 2011. 103 Downey 1988: 89-90. 104 Clarke et al. 2008: 62-3. 101

Figure 120. Area B, ashy deposits in the south-western structure (N.L. Wright).

83

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 122. The Euphrates from Area B (N.L. Wright).

construction is reinforced by the use of upturned column drums as part of the wall face. The column drums appear to have been spolia from the colonnade of the earlier temenos. The phase three temenos wall enclosed the sacred space to the north, west and south but there is no evidence of any form of late wall along the eastern edge of the sanctuary which may have been left open. An individual standing within the sanctuary to the east of the temple itself would have thus had an uninterrupted view of the Euphrates below (fig.122). The space within the temenos was filled with material from the surrounding area and covered with a walking surface of crushed limestone which brought the entire sacred area up to the same level as the top of the temple stylobate. Due to the angle of the slope of the underlying topography, the eastern extent of this surface was three metres above bedrock and any structures built to the east (down slope) of the sacred area are unlikely to have hindered the view of the river to any extent.

Figure 121. Area B, phase three (N.L. Wright after site plans by Barry Rowney).

fragments of ceramics and large burnt animal bones (seemingly ovid/caprid and bovine). Floating within the ashy deposits was a large limestone basin with drainage hole.105 It is tempting to view the deep ashy deposit with burnt bone as the remains of a sacrificial dump although reconciling this with the shallower ashy deposit with unburnt bone within the south-western structure proves difficult; to date there is no evidence for any form of altar appropriate for such burnt sacrifices. Samples of the ash and bone were taken from both deposits although no results have yet been returned to confirm the species of animals that were represented. The basin may have been used in ritualised ablutions which were known to take place before religious activity in Seleukid Babylonia and contemporary Judaea.106 Area B suffered a short period of disuse and neglect along with the remainder of the settlement from around 75/4 BC. However, at some stage following the systematic abandonment of Jebel Khalid, a tertiary temenos wall was constructed of slightly different dimensions than the wall of the first two phases (fig.121).107 The earliest coin from the third phase of Area B was a denarius of M. Aemilius Scaurus dated to 58 BC.108 The few Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) ceramic fragments found in this phase were probably Augustan although contact between Jebel Khalid and the wider world was apparently much reduced in this period.109 The phase three temenos was constructed of rough field stones built on a deposit of fine soil above the remains of the earlier structures. The secondary nature of the

The route up the gully from the Euphrates towards the temple appears to have been the principal approach to the sanctuary although a small doorway is present through the west wall of the phase three temenos suggesting that in the late period access could be gained directly from the west. As stated above, the fortified citadel impacts immediately upon entry to the settlement through the main (west) gate. A view from this approach to the temple would have been obscured by both the saddle of the jebel and any intervening buildings (of which there is evidence visible on the modern ground surface) between the gate and Area B. The proximity of the western façade of the temple with the western temenos colonnade would have further reduced the visual impact of the structure when viewed from outside the sanctuary to the west.110

105

Clarke et al. 2005: 133. Hultgård 1987:88-9. At the New Year festival, the high-priest at Babylon ritually bathed in water drawn from the Euphrates and Tigris, otherwise the source of the water is not specified, see Linssen 2004: 152. 107 Clarke et al. 2005: 133-4; 2008: 63. 108 Nixon 2008: no.577, Jebel Khalid inv. no.06.391. The third phase of occupation in the domestic quarter has revealed a single bronze of Antiochos I of Kommagene (c.69-34 BC) which probably dates to the earliest part of his reign due to the use of the Armenian style tiara on the obverse portrait, see Nixon 2008: no.573, Jebel Khalid inv. no.05.917.) 109 See Appendix D. 106

110 Note that the staged approach from the main gate around the side of the temenos to the eastern entrance would have provided a “slow but dramatic revelation” of the temple as was common to Classical and Hellenistic constructions ranging from the Parthenon in Athens to the Sarapion of Alexandria, (Graeme Clarke, pers. comm.; Stillwell 1954: 4, 6; McKenzie 2007: 54). However, Doxiadis (1972: 23) states with reference to the siting of Greek style temples that “No building could be obstructed so that it emerged only partially from behind another structure; nor could the continuation of a building be hidden from view. Adherence to this law was universal.” The approach from the west, from the main gate, across the saddle of the Jebel and past intervening

84

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA

Figure 123. Area B main altar sump (N.L. Wright).

However, on the ascent from the river, the view up into the settlement is focused on, and indeed crowned by, the temple area. It is clear that the temple was always intended to be viewed from this angle.111 An angled view from below may also have served to superficially lengthen the squat dimensions of the temple’s colonnade, giving it the appearance of more canonical Hellenic proportions.

Figure 124. Area B fluted altar (N.L. Wright).

The principal altar of Jebel Khalid Area B was erected, following Greek practice, to the east of the temple in the centre of the temenos forecourt. Remains of the large circular foot of the altar were uncovered on the temple platform level with the entrance of the temple. It was situated immediately to the south of a built drainage sump which comprised a course of worked stone above a fill of fine, loose soil (fig.123). Below the platform, specially designed drainage channels had been carved into the bedrock to carry away run-off collected in the sump and it is clear that some sort of libation ritual was intended to take place.112 The worked bedrock also suggests that this activity was an original aspect of the cultic ritual at Jebel Khalid from the first phase of the temple. A similar arrangement of altar and drain may be present in the second-third century AD tomb of a prominent woman at Shash Hamdan, located only 2km south of Jebel Khalid. There, an octagonal altar of living rock was carved in the centre of the main chamber of the rock-cut tomb. The altar, situated in front of a recess carved in the shape of a facing bull, was equipped with two drainage channels. Immediately to the west of the altar, a 10cm diameter pipe of indeterminable length was dug into the tomb floor, presumably to carry away run-off from ritual activities around the altar. Eighty five percent of the ceramic material recovered from the tomb came from large jars made for the storage of liquid.113 Together, the presence of the high proportion of jars, the

Figure 125. Area B incense altar (N.L. Wright).

Figure 126. Area B incense altar (N.L. Wright).

drainage channels of the altar itself and the accompanying pipe cut all suggest a regional continuation of the ritual activities carried out at Hellenistic Jebel Khalid.

buildings would certainly have been the antithesis of Doxiadis’ canon but in line with Stillwell and McKenzie. 111 Winter 2006: 17-8. 112 Clarke and Jackson 2002: 120; Clarke et al. 2005: 131. 113 In general on Shash Hamdan tomb 1, see Clarke et al. 1998. The pipe cut into the tomb floor was discovered during a restoration project carried out by the Aleppo Museum in February 2010, pers. comm. Graeme Clarke.

85

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES rationale behind the changes to the temenos, it seems clear that the Jebel Khalid temple retained a local prominence beyond its purpose as the shrine of a Seleukid colonial outpost. Area B continued to receive pilgrims into the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods, long after the decline of the city and its founding dynasty.117 STATUARY A number of marble and limestone statue fragments have been uncovered during the excavation of Area B. None of the figures represented by the sculptural fragments are easily interpreted and a thorough investigation is in preparation by Clarke and Jackson for future publication. Most of the marble fragments appear to have been carved from small pieces and show evidence of having dowel and socket joints to enable them to be pieced together in a composite whole. All the marble fragments come from limbs, including an elbow, part of a forearm, a thigh, a knee and parts of three over-life-sized feet, all of a slightly different scale thus suggesting at least three individual sculptures (figs.127-8). As there are no remains of any torso or drapery fragments, the suggestion has been put forward that the Jebel Khalid marbles may have come from a number of acrolithic sculptures; that is, with exposed limbs of marble but a torso of cheaper material such as clay or plaster which was then covered with expensive robes. This form of cult statue was also found in the Hellenistic temple à redans (also known as the temple à niches indentées) at Aï Khanoum in Afghanistan which, like Syria, had no marble sources of its own.118

Figure 127. Jebel Khalid marble foot fragment (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

Figure 128. Jebel Khalid marble limb fragments (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

One striking feature unique to the period of subHellenistic ‘squatter’ occupation at Jebel Khalid was the erection of 23 small altars in Area B, evenly spaced and set into a pi-shaped row of limestone ashlar blocks around the north, west and south sides of the naos.114 The altars, the remains of several of which remain in situ, were formed of low, fluted, columns crowned with four ‘horns’ and central depression (fig.124). The small central depression would have been suitable for small libations, incense, fruit or cereal offerings, but hardly appropriate for blood sacrifice.115 Unusually large numbers of basalt grinding stones were found in the immediate vicinity of the phase three altar line and these were perhaps related to the preparation of sacrificial grain-cakes. Several small incense altars were also found in the vicinity of the temenos and these may be viewed as votive offerings or private shrines (figs.125-6).116 The extensive alterations to the Area B temenos in phase three contrast with the seemingly transitory sub-Hellenistic structures found across the rest of the site. Whatever the

Samples from two of the marble feet from Jebel Khalid were submitted for Stable Isotope Ratio Analysis to determine their place of origin. The results confirmed that both were sourced from the Lychnites mine on the Aegean island of Paros, a mine which produced marble so fine that its use was restricted under Roman law for portraits of the Imperial family.119 Obviously the subjects of the Jebel Khalid sculptures were considered to be of such significance to the colonists that they imported marble from the finest and most exclusive source in the Aegean. It is unfortunate that there are not enough fragments to reconstruct the identity of any of the figures although the feet are unsandaled suggesting a divine or heroic figure and the owner of the bare thigh and knee should be considered male. If the sculpture was indeed acrolithic, the figures must be presumed to have been draped. While divine figures were commonly shown bare-footed when nude, it is less common to find clothed figures with bare feet with the exception of Herakles and Hermes. The foot of the acrolithic sculpture from the temple à redans at Aï Khanoum, perhaps representing a

114

The placement of the primary altar between the temple entrance and the propylaia, accompanied by subsidiary altars placed throughout the temenos court can also be traced back to Mesopotamian proto-types, see Downey 1976: 22-3. The fourth phase of the comparable temple à redans at Aï Khanoum also had multiple small altars around three sides of the naos, although unlike at Jebel Khalid, these were erected on the crepis of the temple, up against the external wall of the naos itself and were irregularly spaced, see Bernard and Francfort 1971: 417 fig.17, 426; Downey 1988: 69. 115 Clarke et al. 2000: 126; Clarke and Jackson 2002: 118-9. The size of the altar drums makes it possible that they were spolia of the phase one and two temenos colonnade. 116 Clarke et al. 2005: 134.

117

Wright 2011. Clarke 2008b: 117; Colledge 1987: 145; Bernard 1976a: 303-7; Downey 1988: 71; Hannestad and Potts 1990: 93-4. While acrolithic statues were a feature of traditional Greek cultic experience (see for example the statue of Athena Areia at Plataia dated to shortly after 490 BC, Pausanias Description of Greece 9.4.1), the clothing of a cult statue in expensive robes also had a Mesopotamian precedent, see Oppenheim 1949. 119 Pliny Natural History 36.4.14; Strabo Geography 10.5.7; Clarke 2008b: 115. 118

86

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA seated Zeus, was depicted wearing a sandal of Greek type.120 However, according to Semitic traditions, it was customary to enter temples without footwear and it was common to show clothed deities without boots or sandals.121 A single, smaller than life-size, marble head was recovered which showed a stylised, beardless face with straight nose descending from a heavy brow and deep-set eyes (figs.129-30). The hair at the back of the head appears to come together in a bun, although the very back of the head is a worked flat surface and it appears that the sculpture was intended to be set against a wall or in a shallow niche. There is every possibility that the head may have been a secondary reuse of part of an earlier, larger Parian marble sculpture, although without close parallels it is very difficult to date. The style of the head has been compared to the eye-betyls found in the Nabataean south. However, rudimentary as the Jebel Khalid marble head is, it still possesses much more definition than its Nabataean counterparts.122 The squared ‘shoulder’ at the rear of the piece is reminiscent of a Greek Herm and it may be that the marble head was intended to represent some form of vernacular, apotropaic, guardian of entrances.123 Figure 129. Jebel Khalid marble head (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

Several limestone statue fragments have also come to light including multiple pieces of drapery and two further heads. The first of the heads is a fascinating slightly smaller than life-size bearded head with an elaborate hairstyle (figs.131-4).124 The hair is incised in a manner resembling a tortoise shell and a long thick braid or ringlet is shown descending behind each ear. The whole composition is held in place by a tainia. The sculpture breaks off just below the band at the back of the head but it appears that there was no attempt to depict the knot of a diadem. The figure’s right ear is adorned with an earring, a particularly ‘eastern’ trait in antiquity and although the left ear is damaged, it is clear that it never held similar decoration.125 The close cropped beard is shown coming from in front of the ears and continuing under the chin but without a moustache. The identity of the figure in its present state is ambiguous and it is possible to view it as a depiction of a local notable, a late Seleukid king – several of whom were depicted with similarly trimmed beards, or even a deity although it was clearly of lesser

120

Downey 1988: 71-3. Cumont 1926: 61; Homes-Fredericq 1963: 30. See also the reliefs depicting bare-foot high-priest Alexandros from Hierapolis, see fig.149 below and Stucky 1976: pl.5). 122 Clarke et al. 2003: 173. On Nabataean eye idols: Patrich 1990: 82-6 (see especially the stele of the goddess of Ḥyn son of Nybt, Ill.28); Merklein and Wenning 1998: 71; Wenning 2001: 83-5. 123 The Arsinoeion at Zephyrion and the Sarapion of Alexandria also housed statues of both Greek and indigenous (Egyptian) types, see McKenzie 2007: 52, 55. 124 Clarke and Jackson 2002: 120. 125 Juvenal Satire 1.104-5; Petronius Satyricon 102.14; Pliny Natural History 2.50.136; Xenophon Anabasis 3.1.31; Ghirshman 1976: 93; Butcher 2003: 328. See also the earring on the limestone head wearing a polos from the Zeus Megistos temple at Dura-Europos, Downey 2004c: 155-6, fig.6. 121

Figure 130. Jebel Khalid marble head (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

87

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 131. Jebel Khalid limestone head (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

Figure 133. Jebel Khalid limestone head (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

Figure 132. Jebel Khalid limestone head (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

Figure 134. Jebel Khalid limestone head (courtesy Graeme Clarke).

88

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA along with small stub-like protrusions at the shoulder to suggest the appearance of arms. 130 Its discovery perched upon the basalt slab suggests some sort of late votive offering or even the subject of veneration, the slab perhaps acting as a table for some form of bloodless offering.131 Like the marble head, this figure may represent some sort of betyl or Herm, although the iconography is so crude that it is hard to interpret. TEMPLE STAFF As discussed in Chapter 1.3, a number of locally produced stamped amphora handles discovered during the excavation of Area B bear one of two Semitic theophoric names, Abidsalma ( ) and Bargates ( ). While other stamped amphorae, predominantly Rhodian imports but all bearing Greek names, have been found scattered across the site, in civic, commercial and domestic contexts,132 those stamped with Semitic names have only been found in the context of the acropolis palace133 and Area B.134 All examples derive from strata which can be dated to phase two of the site (c.145 – c.75/4 BC). This concentration within the administrative, specifically religious, spheres of the settlement may not be accidental. It is here posited that the Semitic individuals named on the stamped amphorae were members of the religious administration of Jebel Khalid. Indigenous temple administration is documented at other sites in the Levant such as HierapolisBambyke135, Umm el-Amed,136 Dura-Europos,137 and Jerusalem,138 in Babylonia139 and in Kilikia Tracheia140 from the Achaemenid through to the Roman periods. It should therefore come as no surprise for a structure as non-Greek in ground plan as the Jebel Khalid temple to be staffed by non-Greeks, at least by the late second century BC. The vessels in which these names were stamped may have contained the produce of the temple’s estates outside of the walls of the settlement and/or taxesin-kind to be paid by the sanctuary to the royal bureaucracy.141

Figure 135. Jebel Khalid limestone figure (N.L. Wright).

importance than the figures who received Parian marble effigies. The earring and braids are reminiscent of attributes of Dionysos and Herakles, gods known to be incorporated in aspects of the royal cult. 126 Indeed, the Jebel Khalid limestone head bears quite a close resemblance to two Seleukid period sculptures from the temple of Herakles at Masjid-i Soleiman in Susania. One of these is undoubtedly Herakles himself and the other is almost certainly the same hero.127 Both Masjid-i Soleiman heads are bearded and have earrings in their right ears although neither has braids comparable to the Jebel Khalid head. An alternative is to see the braids and tainia as attributes of Apollo. Braids or ringlets and the tainia are constant fixtures of his iconography on Seleukid coinage and although the beard certainly is not, wherever Apollo appeared in a Semitic context – as at nearby Hierapolis Bambyke and Dura-Europos – he was syncretised with the Mesopotamian god Nabû and depicted as a mature, bearded god.128

The architecture, altars and statuary of the Jebel Khalid temple and temenos are intimately linked to the nature of

The second limestone head was found on a small basalt ‘table’ slab in the fill of the phase three temenos and presents its own curious problems (fig.135).129 The figure is crudely carved from a moderate sized piece of stone (the sculpture measures 19cm in height) and shows small inset eyes, an oversized, almost leonine, nose and chin

130

The schematic manner in which the nose, lips and chin are portrayed is reminiscent of an alabaster head of similar size in the Louvre from southern Arabia, believed to date from the third to the first centuries BC, see Bartz and König 2005: 91. 131 Gill 1974: 117-8. 132 JK 1 273-89; Clarke 2005; 2008a. 133 In the name of : JK SH.39 (Inv. 89.774), JK SH.41 (Inv. 89.899). 134 In the name of : JK SH.40 (Inv. 87.029), JK SH.63 (Inv. 02.499), JK SH.64 (Inv. 93.771), JK SH.65 (Inv. 05.980). In the name of : JK SH.42 (Inv. 87.169), JK SH.66 (Inv. 02.248) JK SH.67 (Inv. 05.572). 135 See for example Lucian The Syrian Goddess 19; Mildenberg 1999: 281-3. 136 See for example Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96 nos.5-6, 16. 137 See for example the relief from the temple of the Gaddé showing the priest Hairan, son of Maliku, Rostovtzeff et al. 1939: 259-60. 138 See for example I Maccabees 2.1-2, 13.36, 14.47; II Maccabees 3.16, 4.7-17; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.145, 12.156-62. 139 Linssen 2004: 16-8. 140 MacKay 1968: 161-4. 141 Judaea provides good comparative cases from the Achaemenid and Ptolemaic periods, see Lapp 1963; Avigad 1976.

126

In the flourishing Hellenistic tradition of synnaoi theoi, the new royal cult was often appended onto existing religious structures or sanctuaries where the king and/or queen would share the divine honours paid to the traditional god. Although there are few confirmed accounts of synnaoi theoi within the Seleukid kingdom, such activities were widespread in Ptolemaic Egypt, Attalid Pergamon and Kommagene and it may be not so much a lack of action, as a lack of extant sources that prevent our better understanding of such activities in Syria, see also the discussion in Chapter 3.1 above. 127 Ghirshman 1976: 93-4, pls. 70-1. This comparison is favoured by Graeme Clarke (pers. comm.) 128 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 35; Macrobius Saturnalia 1.17.66-7; Rostovtzeff et al. 1939: 266, 281, pl.36.1; Drijvers 1980: 72; Dirven 1999: 128-56; Lightfoot 2003: 456-69; Haider 2008: 202; Erickson (forthcoming). See also the Parthian period evidence for a temple of Apollo-Nabû at Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris, Al-Salihi 1987: 162-5. 129 Clarke et al. 2005: 134.

89

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES its cults and the identity of the worshippers. The apparent fusion of Greek and Mesopotamian influences can therefore be seen as wholly deliberate. The pseudo-Doric façade and Greek style temenos with peristyle colonnade was joined with a Mesopotamian broad room naos with triple adyton.142 Although there may be evidence for the preparation and sacrifice of animals within the temenos,143 a sacrificial altar suitable for such actions is distinctly lacking. The main altar on the eastern forecourt was equipped with an elaborate drainage system which may have been intended to deal with “copious libations”, perhaps for something as seemingly mundane as water.144 Hierapolis-Bambyke, the major sanctuary to the Syrian gods Atargatis and Hadad, lay only a day’s journey away from Jebel Khalid to the west and the second century AD description of the temple and its rituals provided by Lucian of Samosata provide a number of parallels with Seleukid Jebel Khalid. It is to Hierapolis that we must now turn.

David Hogarth and Gertrude Bell both passed through the site in the first decade of the twentieth century (1908 and 1909 respectively). While each noted several things absent from the other’s visit, their accounts are mostly complementary. They were followed shortly after by the esteemed Franz Cumont who published his account of the site in 1917. Unfortunately, with each passing scholar, less and less remained of the ancient site to be seen and little was ever documented in any thorough manner. Thus for any quantity of evidence regarding the ancient city we must turn to the historical sources, flawed though they undoubtedly are, to gain an understanding of the structures and rituals at this most sacred site in Syria. The most comprehensive account is The Syrian Goddess, perhaps written by Lucian of Samosata, which can be supplemented by a number of other Greek, Roman and Syriac authors from the period of Roman political control,147 the modern travellers’ accounts and comparative archaeological material.

4.5

A vast number of scholars over the years have pondered, commented on and discussed the various qualities of The Syrian Goddess as an historic source, debating its purpose, reliability and even its authorship.148 The treatise has traditionally been held as a work of the well known satirist Lucian of Samosata who, as discussed in Chapter 1.3, was a Hellenised Syrian writing in the mid-second century AD. This current study is not so much concerned with the authorship of The Syrian Goddess as it is with the treatise’s worth as an historic and ethnographic account of Hierapolis-Bambyke under Roman political control. Nevertheless, the very nature of Lucian’s other writings – religiously sceptical and critical of the gullible149 – makes the authorship debate of some importance.150 The most important contributions to the debate in recent years continue to illustrate the schism that has split scholarly opinion over the last century and beyond. Oden considered the author’s naïve manner and use of the Ionic dialect as a parody of Herodotean ethnography apt for a satirist during the Second Sophistic. The several references to “costly works” are considered a subtle barb, ridiculing an eastern obsession with the accumulation of wealth and numerous puns as suitable evidence of Lucian’s style.151 The treatise then is one of mockery based loosely on fact. Indeed, a farce can only be effective if it is grounded in reality. Taking up the opposite argument, Dirven and Polański, in two rather different articles, deny Lucian’s involvement in the text and thereby promote its value as a legitimate piece of religious writing, devoid of sarcasm and satire. For Dirven in particular, the information divulged in The

HIERAPOLIS-BAMBYKE

“These are the ancient and great sanctuaries of Syria. But many of them as there are, none seems to me to be greater than those in the Holy City [Hierapolis], nor any other temple holier, nor any country more sacred.”145 Little of note remains today of the holiest city of Hellenistic and Roman Syria, the great sanctuary of Atargatis and Hadad at Hierapolis-Bambyke (modern Membij). The journalist and travel writer Charles Glass was moved enough to say “If every town on earth were vying for the name ‘Nowhere,’ a mere two or three could hope to compete with Menbij.”146 While Glass’ opinion is perhaps a little critical, it is true that the glorious past of Membij is well disguised. A number of European travellers and archaeologists passed through the site between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries documenting the gradual disappearance of the city’s Greco-Roman past. No archaeological program of excavations has been conducted at the site and continued occupation over the old city has ensured that most of what lies buried will remain so for the foreseeable future. The first recorded visit by a European to the site of ancient Hierapolis was the English reverend, Henry Maundrell (1699), followed by Pococke and Drummond in the mid-eighteenth century. E.G. Rey visited Membij as part of his 1864-1865 expedition to north Syria and 142 A similar synthesis of cultural traditions visible through the religious architecture can be seen at contemporary Aï Khanoum (“Āy Ḵānom’s religious architecture indicates that no purely Greek or Macedonian temple existed in the city or its environs and that many of the colonists settled there were familiar with Mesopotamian religious architecture” see Lerner 2003-2004: 386) and its neighbouring temple site on the Oxus at Takht-i Sangin which fused Hellenistic elements (column bases, cult statue) within a wider Iranian architectural program (ayvan and twinned ātashgāhs), Lerner 2002. 143 As indicated by the deep ashy deposits with high bone content. 144 Clarke and Jackson 2002: 120, n.4. 145 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 10. This and all subsequent quotes have been taken from the translation in Lightfoot 2003. 146 Glass 1990: 146.

147 Such as Aelian On Animals 12.2; Macrobius Saturnalia 23.10-20; Pliny Natural History 5.81; Plutarch Crassus 17; Ptolemy Geography 5.14.10; Strabo Geography 16.1.27; Teaching of Addai Howard edition p.49. 148 See for example Stocks 1937: 16; Goossens 1943: 17-8; Oden 1977: 4-24; Bilde 1990: 162-6; Dirven 1997; Polański 1998; Lightfoot 2003: 184-208. 149 See for examples: Lucian Alexander the False Prophet; id. Assembly of the Gods; id. Dionysus; id. Heracles; id. Peregrinus; id. On Sacrifice; id. Saturnalia; id. Zeus Cross Examined; id. Zeus Tragoedus. 150 Millar 1993: 245-6. 151 Oden 1977: 17-22.

90

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA Syrian Goddess, where it is able to be tested against comparative material, is largely accurate and may therefore be relied upon in those cases where comparative material is unavailable.152

Lucian’s walls must have enclosed the sanctuary grounds. The two unbelievably tall phalloi stood on either side of the propylaia which were said to bear Greek dedicatory inscriptions from the god Dionysos. 161

In her monumental commentary on The Syrian Goddess, Lightfoot approaches the topic of authorship rather cautiously. However, in favourably comparing the work with the Astrologia, a contemporary text written in a similar pseudo-Ionic dialect and also attributed to Lucian, Lightfoot ultimately comes down on the side of those who would make The Syrian Goddess Lucian’s.153 The work is the product of a “master imitator” of Herodotus, from the journalistic approach to the application of the overriding interpretatio graeca which so hinders our own understanding of the text’s theology. 154 The prevailing satire then is anti-Herodotean rather than antiHierapolitan – but what impact has this had on the text’s reliability? Lucian himself described Herodotus as sensible enough except for his vice for romanticising his subject matter.155 As Dirven had demonstrated, much of Lucian’s description is verifiable156 but the same text contains a number of sure falsities. To take a case in point; the phalloi said to have been erected either side of the Hierapolis propylaia have indeed found parallels in similar features at the Atargatis temples at Dura-Europos and Delos – even if Lucian’s stated height for these enormous uprights (300 fathoms or 549 metres) strains credulity.157 At the end of the day, one is inclined to follow Lightfoot and accept Lucian’s account with liberal caution; “the accuracy of his descriptions of material objects counterbalances his occasional inaccuracies”.158

The first appearance of the Greek name of the city occurs on the metropolitan bronze coin issues of Antiochos IV Epiphanes which gives it as , Hieropolis or ‘the city of the sanctuary’ as opposed to the later use of Hierapolis or ‘sacred city’. There is no firm evidence to suggest that the city was of any great size during the Seleukid period and it is clear that the focus of settlement was the temple and its temenos.162 It is even uncertain whether the ‘old’ wall dates to a Seleukid phase at Hierapolis, a concept dismissed by Lightfoot. It is probably safe to suggest that the settlement proper did not receive fortifications until well into the Roman period.163 THE TEMPLE The temple was oriented so that its entrance faced east. It was constructed upon a raised podium approached by a stairway which led up to gilded doors. The structure was described as built along the lines of the temples found in Ionia which may allude to an outwardly Greek design constructed in the Ionic order.164 Inside, the naos was built over two levels although it is unclear which part was higher than the other. The biannual water pouring ceremony discussed below may suggest that the inner space or adyton was at the lower level and provided access to the sacred chasm. Although the two areas were not physically divided by any form of internal wall, the adyton – reached by a second stairway – was only accessible to a select number of priests. 165 A number of deities were represented by statues in the west of the naos but only Atargatis, Hadad and the curious semeion were housed in the adyton.166 There are no extant remains of the temple in the modern town. The vestiges of many buildings, either mostly concealed below ground, heaped in piles or else reused in modern walls were noted by Maundrell, Pococke, Hogarth and Cumont while Gertrude Bell commented on the stone robbing activities of the Circassian colonists established on the site in 1879.167

THE SANCTUARY According to Lucian, the temple that stood in his lifetime was the work of Stratonike, wife of Seleukos I, who was commanded during a dream to commence the work by the goddess Hera. The actual construction project was carried out by Kombabos, evidently a notable of nonGreek background in the court of the king. 159 The identity of the goddess responsible for Stratonike’s dream shall be dealt with below but it is sufficient to note here that she was the Hellenised face of Atargatis, the Syrian Goddess. The sanctuary was built on a rise in the centre of the settlement, with the temple constructed over the mouth of a small chasm that was said to have drained the waters after the great flood. Lucian describes two walls around the sanctuary of which one was considered old, the other new.160 It might be possible to view the older wall as the boundary of the temenos, while the later wall may have enclosed the wider settlement. The temenos was provided with a north facing propylaia which suggests that one of

Lieutenant Colonel Chesney identified two temples at Hierapolis of which a substantial amount of the smaller was still standing in the 1830s. However, he provided no

161

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 16, 28. Phalloi were also employed either side of the propylaia of the temple of Atargatis at Dura Europos, (Frye et al. 1955: 129 no.1; Dirven 1977: 163; Downey 1988: 104) and Delos (Bruneau 1970: 473). 162 SC 2: p.76-7; Tarn 1952: 140. On the transformation of Bambyke into Hierapolis see Aelian On Animals 12.2; Goossens 1943: 189-92; Cohen 1978: 13, 2006: 173-4; Grainger 1990b: 53. 163 Lightfoot 2003: 421. 164 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 30; Gawlikowski 1989: 323; Lightfoot 2003: 428. 165 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 31. 166 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 32-8, see below. 167 Maundrell 1740: 154; Pococke 1745: 166; Rey 1866: 348; Hogarth 1907-08: 189; Gertrude Bell diaries: 16 February 1909. For a brief, near contemporary, account of the Circassian exodus see Walker 1894.

152

Dirven 1997; Polański 1998. Lightfoot 2003: 191-5. 154 Lightfoot 2003: 197. 155 Lucian The Liar 2. 156 Dirven 1997: 159-63. 157 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 16, 28; Bruneau 1970: 473; Dirven 1977: 163; Downey 1988: 104. 158 Lightfoot 2003: 216. 159 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 19-26. 160 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 13, 28. 153

91

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Lightfoot is right, however, in stating that Lucian’s account of the Hierapolis temple bears little in common with the classically Mesopotamian open-court architecture which marked the temples of Atargatis on Delos (second century BC) and at Dura Europos (late first century BC). Regardless, Hierapolis does provide a striking similarity with another monumental temple constructed by the early Seleukids, Didyma in Ionia. The relationship between Didyma and the Seleukid dynasty went back to 334 BC when the previously defunct oracle was believed to have uttered a prophesy to the effect that Seleukos I would become king of Asia.172 The sanctuary at Didyma subsequently received royal patronage on a large scale with funding for the reconstruction of Apollo’s temple by Seleukos I, followed by the return of the cult statue of Apollo (taken by the Persians in either 494 or 479 BC) and an impressive array of gifts in 300/299 BC and again in 288/7 BC.173 The temple of Apollo at Didyma, the Didymeion, measured a substantial 7,080 square metres, making it the third largest temple in the Hellenistic world after the Artemision at Ephesos and the Heraion on Samos. It was built upon a stepped krepidoma crowned by an Ionic order decastyle dipteral temple with two rows of 21 columns along the north and south sides.174 The Didymeion was provided with a pronoas to the east which contained a further 12 columns in-antis. Further progress westwards into the temple was obstructed by a 1.5 metre high threshold over which the inner chamber could be viewed but not accessed, although the threshold looks to have been a later addition.175 The inner chamber gave access to a flight of stairs which led down to a lowered adyton which accommodated a freestanding naiskos which in-turn housed the cult statue of Apollo. The adyton at Didyma was open to the sky and contained sacred laurel trees.176

Figure 136. Modern Membij (courtesy Ross Burns).

Figure 137. Membij Great or ‘new’ Mosque (courtesy Ross Burns).

clue as to their locations and neither were visible to later travellers.168 Cumont identified a walled enclosure around a well to the south-east of the lake which he considered to be the forecourt of the temple of Atargatis. Pococke located the remains of the temple on a rise “two hundred paces within the east gate” of the settlement. Unfortunately the east gate can no longer be located with any confidence. Both Hogarth and Bell, following Rey, observed the likelihood that an antique temple lay below the mediaeval mosque of Melek ez Zaher, located between the lake and the cemetery on a slight rise, perhaps coinciding with Pococke’s location. The remains of the Melek ez Zaher mosque were covered by a “new” mosque constructed in the 1880s.169 I am inclined to follow Rey, Hogarth and Bell in locating the temple in the vicinity of the Ottoman mosque, if only because of the natural tenacity of holy sites to remain sacred despite the cultural evolution of the environment and populations around them, a cultural memory of the sacred topography (figs.136-7).170 Both Millar and Lightfoot have expressed doubts that the temple of Lucian’s day was the same one constructed by Stratonike and Kombabos but, while caution must be employed with Lucian’s narrative, there does not appear to be any overriding reason why the temple of his time could not have been a Hellenistic structure.171

The krepidoma was a typically Greek architectural feature and its absence from Lucian’s temple, along with the author’s description of a tall podium is used by lightfoot as evidence to suggest that his temple was not a Hellenistic construction.177 Temples built on podiums are generally considered to be of Roman date. However, the two temples at Umm el-Amed and the temple at Gadara178 were all built on podiums rather than a krepidoma and the second phase of the heroön of Kineas at Aï Khanoum saw the conversion of the original krepidoma into a podium.179 All three sites can be securely dated to the Hellenistic period and while Gadara 172

Appian Syrian Wars 56; Diodorus Siculus Library of History 19.90. Pausanias Description of Greece 1.16.3, 8.46.3; Welles 1934: no.5; Rehm 1958: nos.480, 493 = OGIS 227; Parke 1986: 125; Fontenrose 1988: 12-3, 16-8, 34; Grainger 1997: 711 (dating the second dedication to 286/5 BC); Dignas 2002: 39-43; Austin 2006: nos.51, 175. The principal construction program may not have been completed until the mid-second century BC and some decorative features were never finished. 174 Fontenrose 1988: 34-7. 175 Voigtländer 1976: 33; Parke 1986: 126. 176 Parke 1986: 121; Fontenrose 1988: 37-41. 177 Lightfoot 2003: 428. 178 For Umm el-Amed and Gadara, see Chapter 5.1 and 5.4 below. 179 Bernard 1973: 85-111. 173

168

Chesney 1850: 420-1. Pococke 1745: 166; Rey 1866: 348; Hogarth 1907-08: 189; Gertrude Bell diaries: 16 February 1909, “Below its pavement they found another which they say belonged to a Xian [i.e. Christian] church. There were a good many columns about and one cap. but it was antique not Xian.” Cumont 1917: 36-8, fig.9. 170 Seton Williams 1949: 78, n.1; Oppenheim 1965: 131; Barghouti 1984: 213; Coogan 1987: 3; Mare 1997: 277. 171 Millar 1993: 246; Lightfoot 2003: 428, 431. 169

92

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA flourished under Roman control, neither Umm el-Amed nor Aï Khanoum underwent Roman period building works. Indeed Hoffmann goes so far as to suggest that the podium in greater Syria may have been connected with indigenous cults long before the Roman period.180 The krepidoma may not be as crucial in dismissing Lucian as Lightfoot suggests.

Lucian states that the empty throne belonged to the sun, a deity worshipped as the solar disc or manifested as an eagle across much of the Arab frontier (from Auranitis to Mygdonia).186 In a Hierapolitan context, Apollo is almost universally accepted as the interpretatio graeca of Nabû, “upholder of the world”, the Mesopotamian god of wisdom, writing and power who was worshipped across the Semitic world by the Hellenistic period.187 The priests were thought to consult the god’s oracular statue on all matters and would take no action without its consent. Such mantic beliefs probably helped cement the understanding of the fundamentally Semitic deity as Apollo, the Greek god of oracles.188 The identification of Atlas proves more difficult but not disheartening; one significant clue may lie in the identification of his companion. Hermes had a long standing identity in the East as the Hellenised Monimos (known as Arṣu at Palmyra). Monimos-Arṣu was elsewhere depicted as a rider on horseback or dromedary and was one of the principal gods of the Syrian steppe, riding before his devotees as a protective presence in the manner of a caravan guard. The identification of Monimos with Hermes was related to the latter’s multiple roles as divine guide, god of travellers and patron of herdsmen.189 Hermes-Monimos-Arṣu was usually (but not always) paired with a second desert god (often depicted as a horseman), Azizos, who was often rendered as Ares when viewed through Hellenised eyes.190

The open court of the Didymeion also varies from Lucian’s account of Hierapolis even though it was a common feature of Mesopotamian temple design. However, the Ionic order and spatial separation through differing floor levels was a feature at both Hierapolis and Didyma, as was the use of water for ceremonies inside the naos.181 Lucian’s description of Hierapolis as resembling “the temples they build in Ionia”182 may allude to Didyma as a source of inspiration behind the Hellenistic construction at Hierapolis Bambyke. Both were funded by Seleukos I although the involvement of Stratonike at Hierapolis can date that building program later in the king’s reign than his first benefactions to Didyma. CULT STATUES AND HONORARY DEDICATIONS The eastern half of the naos of Lucian’s temple at Hierapolis was home to an empty throne for the sun along with multiple xoana – a clothed and bearded statute of Apollo along with Atlas, Hermes and Eileithyia.183 Lightfoot appears to despair at this stage in her commentary at ever being able to disentangle Lucian’s descriptions from the web created by his tendency towards vague observations, combined with what may or may not be his own interpretation of the most adequate Hellenised rendering of the various gods.184 While Lucian’s interpretations do present an awkward assemblage of gods, it may be possible to scratch away at the interpretatio graeca to reveal the Semitic deities below. Stocks attempted to place these synnaoi theoi, the gods who share the temple, within some sort of cosmological program which saw the sun represented by his throne, Apollo (detached from Nabû) as equated with Ares-Mars, Atlas as Kronos-Saturn, Hermes as NabûMercury and Eileithyia as Aphrodite-Venus.185

The assimilation of Azizos with Ares perhaps stressed the positive, defensive aspects of Ares’ character rather than his aggressive, violent nature.191 When paired with Hermes-Monimos-Arṣu, the two were seen as saviour gods manifested as the morning and the evening stars.192 Julian’s Antiochene oration on Helios in AD 362 explicitly linked the sun with Hermes-Monimos and Ares-Azizos who preceded and followed Helios respectively and were declared his assessors and the channel of his blessing.193 Although Atlas is generally thought of purely in the guise of the supporter of the heavens, this role seems to have been understood in antiquity as encompassing the understanding of astronomy and the dispensation of the knowledge of

180 “Höchst ungewöhnlich oder zunächst gar undenkbar mag die Kombination des hellenistischen Tempels mit einem Podium erscheinen, ein Element, das als italische Bauform eigentlich erst in der römischen Kaiserzeit über Italien hinaus weite Verbreitung findet. Vereinzelt wird das Podium jedoch auch im Osten sogar schon in frühhellenistischer Zeit verwendet. Ein Podium zeichnete darüber hinaus bereits den hellenistischen Bau des Jupiter HeliopolitanusTempels in Baalbek aus, der mit ähnlichen Zielen wie das Heiligtum in Gadara an die Stelle eines älteren, indigenen Kultplatzes gesetzt worden ist. Seine Erklärung mag der Podienbau in Gadara in der Person seines möglichen Auftraggebers oder Initiators finden, der in diesem Zusammenhang eine entscheidende Rolle gespielt haben könnte.” (Hoffmann 1999: 812). 181 Hierapolis: Lucian The Syrian Goddess 13, 48 (see below). Didyma: Iamblichos Mysteries 3.11; Parke 1986: 124; Fontenrose 1988: 783-4. 182 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 30. 183 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 34-5, 38. 184 Lightfoot 2003: 469-72. 185 Stocks 1937: 5, 36-7, 39-40. A similar astral interpretation was provided by Glueck (1965: 453-93) for the Nabataean temple at Khirbet et-Tannür.

186 Lightfoot 2003: 449-55, questions Lucian’s source but provides a number of examples of empty, carved thrones bearing celestial decoration found in Phoenicia, perhaps linked with the cult of Astarte; see for example the thrones from Umm el-Amed discussed in Chapter 5.1.2 below. 187 See for example Drijvers 1972: 196; Al-Salihi 1987: 162-5; Teixidor 1990: 73; Dirven 1999:128-56; Lightfoot 2003: 456-69; Haider 2008: 202. However, Oden 1977: 125-6, following Dussaud 1943: 147-8, contests the usual identification and considers the Hierapolitan Apollo to be an interpretatio graeca of a local Canaanite-style cult of Ēl. 188 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 36. 189 Drijvers 1980: 149, 168. 190 Drijvers 1980: 146-7. 191 Drijvers 1980: 163. 192 Segal 1953: 107-8; Drijvers 1980: 147. At Palmyra the two were called the “good and rewarding gods” or, Azizos alone, the “good and merciful god”, see Drijvers 1980: 159. 193 Julian Oration 150 C-D, derived from the works of Iamblichos of Chalkis, see Drijvers 1980: 146-7. For the relationship between the sun and the morning and evening stars see Glueck 1965: 464-5.

93

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES navigation.194 It is the celestial association of Azizos, as the evening star and therefore the connection with nightnavigation, together with his theological connection with both the Sun and Hermes-Monimos which may have provided a point of comparison with Atlas. The Semitic goddess identified by Lucian as Eileithyia is less clear. However, Eileithyia’s assimilation with Selene, queen of the heavens, and her direct role as goddess of labour pains, child birth and motherhood implies some form of duel celestial-chthonic, fertility figure, suggestive of a specific aspect of Atargatis rather than a distinct deity.195 In mainland Greece, Eileithyia could be identified as Artemis who in turn could also be equated with both the moon and the Syrian Goddess.196

Lucian explicitly states that despite stories he had heard, Derketo – as worshipped in Phoenicia – was distinct from the goddess at Hierapolis and unrelated to the holy city.203 Lucian’s description of Hera-Atargatis, bizarre though it is, finds a number of parallels in the iconography of the goddess from Hellenistic Damascus. The Damascene cult statue of Atargatis was used as a reverse type on the silver coinage of the Seleukid king, Demetrios III Eukairos (97/6-88/7 BC).204 Alone among Hellenistic depictions of the goddess, the Damascene iconography depicts her stripped bare of Hellenised features (figs.578). Standing frontally, the goddess’s head emanates celestial rays while the tails of the kestos are normally shown hanging down either side of the torso. Her lions are not depicted but ears of grain, evidence of her role as a fertility goddess, sprout from behind either shoulder. The iconographic connection with Athena, so ambiguous in Lucian, becomes apparent on the cult statue. The centre of the goddess’ chest is decorated with a facing head from which small circular or semi-circular objects radiate to cover the statue’s entire body and legs. The overall effect of the decoration recalls Hellenistic depictions of Athena’s aegis which had long since replaced the original goat’s skin with Medusa’s scaly hide. The dual nature of the Damascene Atargatis – the celestial crown combined with the ears of grain – was also reflected in her cult at Edessa where both her celestial and chthonic aspects were honoured, manifested through both the worship of her physical presence as the planet Venus, and the veneration of her sacred fish.205

The adyton contained the principal cult statues of Hierapolis: Hera seated on a lion throne, Zeus enthroned on bulls and between them the curious golden semeion. The god identified as Zeus, “whom they call by a different name” looked to Lucian entirely Greek in features, clothes and even posture. However, the female deity, known as the Syrian Goddess and identified by Lucian with Hera, was the cultic focus of the sanctuary. Where to Lucian the Hierapolitan Zeus could be no other god, he admits that the goddess encompasses aspects of many named Greek deities of whom Hera takes preeminence.197 The other aspects of the goddess which receive interpretatio graeca include Athena with whom there is no explicit literary connection; Aphrodite Ourania whose kestos (girdle) adorns the cult statue; Selene, perhaps on account of Atargatis’ celestial attributes or the presence of the illuminating lychnis stone; Rhea, surely connected to the goddess’ mural crown, lion companions and tympanon;198 Artemis – although identified with Atargatis by Granius Licinianus,199 iconographically there are few similarities and the association may be of the goddesses’ respective natures; and Nemesis and the Moirai, possibly implied through the statue’s spindle and Atargatis’ cultic role as the supreme tyche and controller of mankind’s destiny.200 Likewise, in Semitic terms, Atargatis was viewed as the supreme goddess, a composite of the older deities Ašerah, Astarte and Anat.201 Interestingly, Derketo, a goddess tantamount to Atargatis, is distinctly absent from Lucian’s list of deities.202 In the archaeologia of The Syrian Goddess,

The third focus of reverence housed in the adyton at Hierapolis was the semeion or ‘sign’, a golden statue with “no shape of its own, but bears the forms of the other gods,” the apex of which was surmounted by a gold dove. Located between the cult statues of Zeus-Hadad and Hera-Atargatis, Lucian states that the semeion was linked to either Deukalion, Dionysos or Semiramis which has led some scholars to view the object as the third aspect of a divine triad either as one of the figures mentioned by Lucian or else the representation of a distinct, aniconic, deity Simios/Simia.206 However, Seyrig unequivocally illustrated that the hypothetical divine triad was established upon various modern assumptions which are groundless in the Levant before the second century AD and noted merely that the semeion was probably in some way related to Hadad.207 Alternatively, Oden associated

194 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 4.26.2; Homer Odyssey 1.52; Pausanias Description of Greece 9.20.3; Suda ‘Prometheus’. 195 Nonnus Dionysiaca 38.149; Lightfoot 2003: 471. 196 Walbank 1981: 278. On the identification of Artemis as Atargatis see Granius Licinianus History of Rome 28.6; Lucian The Syrian Goddess 32. 197 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 31-3. 198 See also Lucian The Syrian Goddess 15. On the mural crown and its long standing association with pre- and post-Hellenistic goddesses, see Metzler 1994. Atargatis is sometimes shown with the mural crown on the late fourth century BC coinage from Bambyke (fig.97), see Mildenberg 1999: nos. 12-24. 199 Granius Licinianus History of Rome 28.6. 200 Lightfoot 2003: 436-40. 201 Oden 1977: 107; Kaizer 2002: 154. 202 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 2.4.2, Pliny Natural History 5.19. Atargatis and Derketo appear to be Hellenised derivations of the same Aramaic goddess known as Atar’ata or Tar’ata; see Robertson Smith 1887: 313-4; Goossens 1943: 48; Glueck 1965: 382-3; Seyrig

1971: 13; Drijvers 1980: 88-9; Bilde 1990: 151; Oden 1977: 98-9; Dirven 1997: 161-2, 168. 203 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 14. Lightfoot 2003: 354-5 questions whether there were any historical claims that Dekerto was associated with Atargatis at Hierapolis. However, the half-human, half-fish iconography associated with Dekerto was well represented at Hierapolis (Maundrell 1740: 154; Pocoke 1745: 166-7; Drummond 1754: 211), Edessa and perhaps on the silver coinage of Demetrios I (see Chapter 2.1 above). 204 SC 2: 2450-1. 205 Segal, 1953: 107-9. 206 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 33; Ronzevalle 1903: 44; von Baudissin 1911: 16 n.1; Stocks 1937: 15; Tubach 1986: 208. 207 Seyrig 1960: 244; Drijvers 1980: 96-6.

94

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA the semeion with Atargatis as the focus of her worship.208 Although the concept of the ‘sign’ of the god/goddess is demonstratably both early (Persian period) and autochthonous,209 the only clear illustrations of the semeion located between Hadad and Atargatis postdate the Hellenistic period (fig.138) – a relief from Edessa once believed to be a second century BC representation of the divine couple flanking a betyl-like semeion is now known to depict two male figures dating from the third millennium BC.210 A large assortment of xoana, in this case statues of bronze, also adorned the altar area outside the temple (presumably to the east of the naos) and elsewhere around the temenos. Among them were various founders and benefactors of the sanctuary of whom Semiramis (represented at least twice); Sardanaparlos (the last Assyrian king, Aššurbanipal); Stratonike and Alexander the Great were named. Curiously absent from the named list was Seleukos I, the individual responsible for funding the Hellenistic edifice. The latter may have been one of the “countless other bronze statues of priests and kings” but it is strange that Alexander, who was otherwise unrelated to the sanctuary, takes precedence in Lucian’s list. As the project manager for the Seleukid temple construction, the castrated Kombabos was included among the named figures who received statues although he seems to have been rather ironically juxtaposed with the phalloi of Dionysos (by the propylaia) and a further ithyphallic bronze figure.211 The multitude of “priests and kings” depicted at Hierapolis recalls the assemblage of more than 120 quasi-secular statues discovered in sacred contexts at Hatra.212

Figure 138. The Syrian Gods relief, DuraEuropos (Rostovtzeff 1932: fig.xxx.2).

husband Seleukos I (Lucian’s Alexander?) and the crossdressing Kombabos (Sardanaparlos?), her associate in the construction of the Hellenistic temple at Hierapolis. The already confusing collection of semi-mythical figures is exacerbated by the list of heroes and heroines from the Trojan cycle who are also listed as depicted within the Hierapolis temenos: Helen, Hekuba, Andromache, Paris, Hektor, Achilles and Nireus along with, Philomela, Prokne and Tereus.214 As with the other statues, it is unclear how many if any of the heroic figures described by Lucian are interpretatio graeca and how many are genuine identifications.215 However, the Philomela and Prokne myth may once again return to the castration topos that underlies so much of Lucian’s description of Hierapolis.216

The character of Sardanaparlos as described by Diodorus Siculus bears a number of parallels with Lucian’s Kombabos and the galloi; Sardanaparlos lived the life of a woman, assumed female attire and cosmetics and spent his time conducting feminine tasks such as spinning and working wool.213 The contrast that Lucian makes between the life-like Alexander figure (surely in military garb) and the xoanon identified as Sardanaparlos in “other shape and raiment” suggests that like Kombabos, Sardanaparlos was displayed in sculptured transvestism. Like Alexander, the antihero Sardanaparlos was not otherwise associated with Hierapolis and it is possible that the identification of both figures was Lucian’s own interpretation rather than information garnered from local knowledge. Perhaps the answer lies in the association of the statues of ‘Alexander’ and ‘Sardanaparlos’ with the “very beautiful” statue of Stratonike. One would expect Stratonike to be grouped with her militarily successful

SACRED POOLS AND HOLY FISH One of the ritual accoutrements of Atargatis’ worship was the veneration of holy fish, kept in pampered state in sacred pools. Lucian describes the presence of a lake located “not far from the temple” which was filled with fish of various kinds that were so tame that some of them came when called. All of the fish were considered sacred but one of them was especially revered and was adorned with gold jewellery.217 A large stone altar stood (or floated as tradition would have it) in the centre of the

208

Oden 1977: 139-40, 149. Seyrig 1960: 233-41; Linder 1973: 185. 210 Seyrig 1972; Drijvers 1980: 80-2; Lightfoot 2003: 542. 211 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 16, 26, 39-40. Although few of Lucian’s temenos statues represent deities in any strict sense, the term xoana, used 66 times by Pausanias in his Description of Greece, is reserved for wooden cult statues, see Bennett 1917: 12-4 (table A), 16. 212 Dirven 2008. 213 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 2.23.1. 209

214

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 40. Lightfoot 2003: 474. 216 Maxwell 2001: 22-23. 217 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 14, 45; Pliny Natural History 32.8; Stocks 1937: 6; Goossens 1943: 62; Lightfoot 2003: 65-72. 215

95

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 142. Marathos temple pool (courtesy Ross Burns).

wall or revetment, with water-stairs at intervals” along the western and southern sides of the same area which in his time appears to have reverted to a perennial spring.220 The following year, Gertrude Bell watered her pack animals at the same pool (fig.139).221 Today the area of the lake remains free of modern structures but has been filled in to serve as the town’s soccer field. Of the revetments noted by Hogarth, only a small part of the southern wall, constructed out of large ashlar blocks of limestone, is still visible (fig.140). The large stone altar in the centre of the pool had seemingly disappeared before the end of the seventeenth century. The tradition of a centrally located water feature has been retained at modern Membij, as elsewhere across the Middle East, in the form of a pool and fountain in the park which abuts the soccer ground (fig.141).

Figure 139. Hierapolis sacred pool in 1909 (Photo J_15, The Gertrude Bell Archive, Newcastle University).

Other sites across Syria and Mesopotamia had similar pools with sacred fish and it is clear that the phenomenon was not confined to Hierapolis, nor were the rituals restricted in time to the Roman period. The implication is that the veneration of fish sacred to the Syrian Goddess was a widespread phenomenon in the Hellenistic Levant.222 The sixth century BC sanctuary at Marathos was composed of a raised naos surrounded by a sacred artificial lake which may have contained fish (fig.142).223 A chapel in the territory of Sidon contained a divine throne surrounded by a similar built pool.224 Both show evidence of continued use into the Hellenistic period. Xenophon encountered sacred fish – and pigeons – in 401 BC, apparently swimming freely, rather than in enclosed sacred pools, in the river Chalos (modern Afrin), four days march inland from Myriandros.225 The veneration of holy fish was also known at the sanctuary of the Syrian Gods on the island of Delos, at Askalon and at the

Figure 140. Hierapolis sacred pool in 2008 (N.L. Wright).

Figure 141. Membij park fountain (N.L. Wright).

pool which was the focus of a daily swimming ritual.218 Maundrell commented on the abundance of “pillars and ruins” which surrounded and partially filled the “deep pit of about one hundred yards diameter” to the west of the seventeenth century settlement. Both Maundrell and Pococke found this area, presumed to be Lucian’s sacred lake, to be dry although they were undoubtedly correct in their identification.219 In 1908, Hogarth noted the “quay-

218 219

220

Hogarth 1907-8: 187. Gertrude Bell diaries: 16 February 1909. 222 Porphyry On Abstinence 2.61; Athenaeus Banquet of the Learned 8.346c-e; Burkert 1983: 204-8. For comparative veneration of sacred fish in East Asia, see Anderson 1969. 223 The naos at the centre of the lake is reminiscent of Lucian’s stone altar (The Syrian Goddess 46) although Atargatis does not appear to have been connected with the worship at Marathos. Melkart emerges as the principal divinity, perhaps accompanied by Eschmun, see Stocks 1937: 6-7; Goossens 1943: 119; Will 1957-58: 140; Dunand and Saliby 1985: 11-20; Lightfoot 2003: 491. 224 Dunand 1971; Betlyon 1985. 225 Xenophon Anabasis 1.4; Farrell 1961: 153. 221

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 46. Maundrell 1740: 154; Pococke 1745: 166.

96

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA

Figure 144. Edessa, Ayn-i Zeliha (N.L. Wright).

Figure 143. Edessa, Balikli Göl (N.L. Wright).

Nabataean temple at Khirbet et-Tannür.226 In 1937, Glueck knew of a dervish monastery at Qubbet elBeddâwī near Phoenician Tripolis where a walled pool still contained untouchable sacred fish.227 Hogarth had earlier noted two further walled springs filled with “enormous fish”, probably carp, in his travels at the small villages of Sam and Chaiwan between the modern centre of Gaziantep and ancient Doliche.228 Aelian described the presence of tame fish at the confluence of the Khabur and Euphrates rivers where Hera was said to have bathed following her union with Zeus.229 A further Mesopotamian example of fish veneration that is particularly useful from an ethnographical standpoint continues to the present day at Edessa (modern Şanliurfa) in Osrhoene.230

Figure 145. Edessa, Balikli Göl sacred fish (N.L. Wright).

Gölbaşi, a lush, natural depression overlooked from the south by the fortifications of the Edessa citadel, contains two sacred pools, the Balıklı Göl and Ayn-i Zeliha, connected by a series of canals (fig.143-4). Any vestige of pre-Muslim mythology related to the area has disappeared and the site is considered the birthplace of the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) who is said to have been born in a cave below the citadel. When still a youth, Ibrahim confronted Nimrod, king of Urfa, condemning the latter’s idolatry and gaining the affections of Zeliha, the king’s daughter in the process. Nimrod, evidently displeased with the course of events had a pyre

Figure 146. Edessa, Balikli Göl sacred fish (N.L. Wright).

constructed on the citadel and there attempted to burn Ibrahim to death. However, Allah turned the fire into water (the future Balıklı Göl) and the burning logs were transformed into fish.231 The Ayn-i Zeliha is said to have been formed from the tears shed by Nimrod’s daughter at Ibrahim’s immolation. Today pilgrims come from across the Islamic world to visit the birth cave and venerate the holy fish. Small dishes of puffed rice are available for purchase which are fed by the devotees to the sacred carp (fig.145-6). The ancient taboo of physically contacting the fish is still current, the modern belief holds that to touch a fish will cause the pilgrim to go blind.

226

Diodorus Siculus Library of History 2.4; Glueck 1937: 373; id. 1965: 391-2; Bruneau 1970: 467-73. 227 Glueck 1937: 374 n.4. 228 Hogarth 1907-08: 188-9. 229 Aelian On Animals 12.40. 230 Drijvers 1977: 79-84.

231

97

The official version of the tale is contained in The Koran 21.50-69.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES and indeed still feed, the pools of Gölbaşi and it is to these waters that the Kallirhoe must refer.232 There is also some evidence to suggest that the Ayn-i Zeliha may even have borne the name Ayn Seloq – the pool/fountain of Seleukos – in the period before the Arab conquest.233 Lucian of Samosata states that pilgrims came to Hierapolis from beyond the Euphrates which, though a fairly broad statement, must include the area of Osrhoene, occupying the nearest portion of Mesopotamia to Hierapolis, but may include regions much further afield.234 Strabo conflates his accounts of HierapolisBambyke and Edessa into a single passage: “... above the river [Euphrates], at a distance of four schoeni, lies Bambycê, which is also called Edessa and Hierapolis, where the Syrian goddess Atargatis is worshipped”.235 The location specified by Strabo, “above” the river, is more suggestive of Edessa in Osrhoene than Hierapolis in Kyrrhestis although the statement about Atargatis has tempted some scholars to disregard Strabo’s Edessene reference.236 However, in the Teaching of Addai, the apocryphal correspondence between King Abgar V of Edessa, Jesus and Addai (the apostle Thaddaeus), we find that the Edessenes were known to worship “Taratha, like the inhabitants of Mabug”.237 Although the treatise in its current form is a fourth century AD (or later) compilation, the episode takes place in the period of AD 31-32 and the reference to Taratha of Mabug, the Aramaic names for Atargatis and Hierapolis-Bambyke respectively, suggests that there was certainly a perceived religious link between the two centres in the past if not the fourth century present. Further evidence for the Edessene cult of Atargatis is provided by the second century AD Book of the Laws of Countries which records a decree forbidding the self-emasculation of followers of the Syrian Goddess at Edessa.238 Therefore there can be no denying that an Atargatis cult existed at Edessa which bore many of the trappings of the goddess’s worship at her native Hierapolis-Bambyke. It is equally certain that her Hierapolitan companions, Zeus-Hadad (in the form of Bēl) and Apollo-Nabû joined her as the principal deities in the capital of Osrhoene.239

Figure 147. Orthostat of Allât from Palmyra, (courtesy Ross Burns).

The final physical description of Hierapolis-Bambyke provided by Lucian pertains to the many sacred animals which roamed freely around the sanctuary. As already noted, fish were particularly sacred to Atargatis-Derketo but so too were doves, especially where her character fused with Semiramis and Aphrodite. While both animals were fed at Hierapolis, neither were allowed to be touched by any human and thus both flourished despite

Figure 148. Basalt lion from Membij park (N.L. Wright).

That the modern Edessene custom is a continuation of the same ancient rituals that were practiced at Hierapolis is suggested by the site’s Seleukid period name, and confirmed by Roman period authors. Under Antiochos IV Epiphanes, Edessa minted quasi-municipal coinage bearing the dynastic name Antioch-on-the-Kallirhoe – Antioch on the beautiful water. The river Skirtos (‘leaping’ river) by which Edessa was located is scarce more than a trickle for much of the year, running in spate in Spring, sporadically flooding the city. Undoubtedly the origin of the site’s alternate Hellenistic name, Edessa, derived from the Archaic Macedonian capital which was prone to similar flooding: the Skirtos is an unlikely candidate of the title ‘beautiful’. An alternate source of water at the site was provided by the springs which fed,

232

Pliny Natural History 5.86; Segal 1970: 6. Segal 1970: 8; 54-5. 234 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 13. 235 Strabo Geography 16.1.27, Loeb translation (2000 edition). 236 von Baudissin 1878: 159, 166; Stocks 1937: 6 n.15; Ross 2001: 16. 237 Teaching of Addai Howard edition p.49. 238 Book of the laws of countries Drijvers edition p.58. 239 Drijvers 1970: 41-121; Ross 2001: 89-90. 233

98

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA the impracticality of the belief.240 Further complicating human-animal interactions, large tame cattle, lions, bears, horses and even eagles were said to wander about the temenos in harmony with man and with each other.241 The description of the sacred animals seems to draw Hierapolis within a religious tradition encompassing much of the Mediterranean and Middle East, especially the Arabian steppe, that saw sanctuaries dedicated to a goddess (usually Artemis or Allât) in which bloodshed of any sort was forbidden.242 An early first century AD orthostat from the temple of Allât at Palmyra provides an interesting parallel. The orthostat, taking the form of a monumental lion sheltering an antelope between its forelegs, bears an inscription granting Allât’s blessing upon all who refrain from shedding blood within the temenos (fig.147).243 The sculpture and inscription together echo Lucian’s description of the concord that existed between the animals at Hierapolis, the lion stands protectively above a creature that outside of the sanctuary would constitute a regular meal. Drijvers emphasises the location of the temenos, outside of the Palmyrene city walls on the boundary between settled, Hellenised oasis and nomadic, Arabian steppe. He suggests the taboo on bloodletting, a sort of pseudo-asylia, is appropriate for such a nodal location. However, his suggestion that the entirety of the Hierapolis sanctuary bore a similar prohibition is contrary to the rest of Lucian’s account and disputed by Lightfoot.244 Despite the peace reigning between her sacred animals, there could still be blood sacrifice in the Holy City. Although there is obviously little archaeological evidence for the presence of harmonious fauna at Hierapolis, three of the animals reported as present by Lucian, the lion, eagle and bull, were associated directly with the divine couple and eagles are particularly visible in the few extant Roman period stele known from the site. A recumbent limestone lion was noted by Hogarth in the vicinity of the lake and while a limestone lion is no longer visible, the remains of a large basalt lion still dominates the sculpture garden in Membij park (fig.148).245

Figure 149. Relief of the priest Alexandros from Hierapolis (Stucky 1976: pl.5).

procedures. Distinguishing which features showed continuity from the pre-Roman past and which were Roman period adoptions is hazardous guesswork and it is for this reason that they are all included below – even if the account is not to be taken as a wholly accurate portrayal of Hellenistic cult practice. Lightfoot is rightly somewhat Rumsfeld-esqe on the matter, stating: “... there is an unknowable amount that Lucian is not saying about the Hierapolitan festival in his own day, and an infinite amount that remains unknown about its prehistory.”246 In the mid-second century AD, more than three hundred priests attended the daily sacrifice at HierapolisBambyke. The religious hierarchy was well stratified and included “those who sacrifice”, libation bearers, fire bearers and altar attendants although all wore the same simple white gowns to the ankle and a pointed felt cap.247 Priestesses are not mentioned by Lucian but are known to have been present at other sanctuaries of Atargatis such as Delos, the Piraeus and at Philadelphia in the Fayum.248 A high-priest was appointed yearly and was distinguished by a purple gown and a gold tiara.249 Vestments matching Lucian’s description are worn by the priestly figure performing sacrifice on the late fourth century BC coinage produced in the name of the high-priest Abdhadad at Hierapolis-Bambyke (fig.100) and we can

CEREMONIES Lucian provides an equally detailed summary of the various religious personnel and the rituals they carried out at Hierapolis-Bambyke. Although Lucian’s behavioural study belongs to a period long after the collapse of the Seleukid state, some of the activities may have been a continuation, or an adaptation of earlier

240

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 14, 45, 54; see also Diodorus Siculus Library of History 2.4. One need look no further than a cow on the streets of modern Delhi to see the chaos that can ensue around animal inviolability. 241 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 41. 242 Aelian On Animals 11.7, 11.9, 12.23; Strabo Geography 5.1.9, 14.1.29; Drijvers 1982; Lightfoot 2003: 476-9. 243 Drijvers 1982: 65. 244 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 49, 58; Drijvers 1982: 67; Lightfoot 2003: 477-8. There is no guarantee that animal sacrifice at Hierapolis was not a later, Roman-period, innovation, but nor is there any indication that it was. 245 Hogarth 1907-08: 188-9, fig.2.

246

Lightfoot 2003: 501. Lucian The Syrian Goddess 31, 42. 248 Lightfoot 2003: 480. 249 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 42. Whether he was elected from among a certain class of priest or was politically appointed is unclear. Evidence for other high-priesthoods under the Seleukids appear to have been primarily political and administrative positions distributed directly by the king, see Chapter 2.3 above; see also Lightfoot 2003: 485. 247

99

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 152. Relief of a priest from Umm el-Amed (Dunand and Duru 1962: pl.27.1).

presume that they continued to be worn throughout the Seleukid period.250 The high-priest Alexandros is shown in almost identical attire on a mid-first century BC basalt relief found at the city (fig.149).251 Similar caps are worn by Bronze Age Syro-Hittite deities, a Syrian delegation shown on a relief at Achaemenid Persepolis and the rider god on the fourth century BC coinage of Hierapolis, the late Hellenistic depictions of the god Sandan at Tarsos, Narkissos, the second century AD high-priest of Hadaranes at Hosn Niha, the relief of a sacrificing priest from Hammam and importantly, a relief showing a priest from Seleukid Umm el-Amed (figs.150-2). Butcher suggests that the cap may have been part of the preHellenistic formal dress of Syria and its continued use under the Seleukids and Romans represents a conscious, conservative, ‘Syrianising’ of religious costumes despite political Hellenisation.252 Separate groups of non-priestly “sacred persons” completed the population of the sanctuary; sacred flutists and syrinx-players, maddened women and the infamous galloi, eunuchs dedicated to the goddess.253 The legal status of the various sacred persons is unclear. Whereas the galloi and maddened women would presumably be free persons attached to the sanctuary, the various musicians may have been hierodules – serfs belonging to the goddess.254

Figure 150. Relief of a priest from Hammam (Gatier 1998: fig.3).

Figure 151. Relief of the high-priest Narkisos from Hosn Niha (Butcher 2003: fig.152).

250

Mildenberg 1999: nos.20-5. Seyrig 1939b; Stucky 1976; Millar 1993: 245. 252 Butcher 2003: 331. See also Cassius Dio Roman History 80.11.2 for the continued “Assyria” dress of the indigenous priesthood. 253 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 43. 254 Lightfoot 2003: 486. 251

100

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA the altar in the temenos, perform the preliminary sacrificial rituals and pour a libation but not slay the animal. Rather, the victim is brought back to the pilgrim’s home where it is sacrificed and eaten in celebration. A curious alternative sacrificial ritual saw the victims let go free from the propylaia and “when they fall down they die”. A mock version was also conducted using children rather than animals, covering their eyes and leading them by hand rather than letting them loose. Lucian may be suggesting that the animal victims are thrown to their deaths from the height of the propylaia although this is not explicitly stated.262

DAILY RITUALS The priests performed sacrifice twice-daily to both ZeusHadad and Hera-Atargatis.255 The rites were performed in silence before Hadad, but with much singing and music for Atargatis. The usual victims were bulls, goats or sheep. Lucian could not decide if pigs were considered unclean or sacred but either way they were not considered appropriate for sacrifice, nor of course were Atargatis’ sacred fish or doves. As in Hellenistic Babylonia, all offerings to the divine couple at Hierapolis were accompanied by fumigation rituals involving a great deal of Arabian incense so that “even when you depart: your garments long retain a whiff of it”.256 Large numbers of priests organised in a caste system, the twice-daily ritual and the prohibition of swine all find comparative aspects in biblical accounts of the temple at Jerusalem.257

WATER FESTIVALS Twice a year a curious festival was held which saw the semeion brought down to the Mediterranean sea. Open squares at the base of the semeion on the coinage of Hierapolis in the reign of Alexander Severus (AD 222235) are perhaps intended to represent sockets with which to receive poles for transportation.263 Once at the coast, the Hierapolitan priests collected sea water and carried it back with them to the Holy City in ceramic jars. Lucian states that the whole population of Syria, Arabia and “beyond the Euphrates” took part in this ritual, with each person bringing their jar of water back to Hierapolis. There the jars were inspected by a sacred cock which removed the sealing and the water was then poured out inside the naos of the temple where it drained into the small chasm above which the temple had been constructed.264

Another daily practice at Hierapolis was a ritual swim across the sacred lake. Many individuals took part in the act in which they swam, wearing garlands, to the built stone altar at the pool’s centre in accordance with certain unspecified vows. The altar is described as wreathed (perhaps by the swimmers’ garlands?) and containing burning spices, presumably lit on incense altars by the swimmers. 258 How multiple individuals were to swim the lake without touching any of the tame fish is left unexplained. A separate process was followed by those making a pilgrimage to Hierapolis-Bambyke. Before first setting out from their place of origin, the pilgrim shaved off their hair, including the eyebrows, and donned garlands. A sheep was sacrificed and the pilgrim retained the fleece as a journey-specific prayer rug. They were not permitted to sleep in a bed nor wash with warm water until the journey to Hierapolis was completed.259 On arrival each traveller was met by a local “teacher”, some sort of hereditary position in which certain Hierapolitan families maintained ritualised friendly relations with specific cities – a Syrian equivalent to the Greek xenia. The teacher played host to all pilgrims from their specified city and instructed the visitors in all religious procedures.260 It seems that young men kept part of their first beard, or a sacred side-lock (Lucian says both) when they shaved their head and dedicated it in the temple upon their arrival.261 The usual culmination of a pilgrimage saw the devotee bring a sacrificial victim to

As mentioned above, this chasm was said to have been the point through which the deluge subsided in the days of Deukalion and it seems that in Lucian’s time, it still drained away substantial amounts of water. By deduction, the chasm which predated the construction of the temple must have been situated at ground level. The chasm must have remained accessible for the water pouring ceremony even though the naos of the temple was constructed around it. Therefore, following Lucian’s enigmatic description of the central chamber of the temple being built over two different levels, we return to the hypothesis that the Hierapolis temple – like that at Didyma – was constructed in such a way that the approach took the devotee up the external eastern stairway to a raised eastern chamber from which a second set of stairs descended to the adyton which was built immediately above ground level.265 In this way, the chasm might still be accessed, and all water poured out inside the temple would drain into the chasm from the adyton without the risk of running out the door and down the stairs. Oden, following Lucian’s own explanation believes that the

255 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 44. Lucian here directly contradicts Drijvers’ assertion (1982) that no blood was spilt within the temenos. Brown suggests that the twice-daily ritual involved a prototypical ‘call to prayer’, still practiced by Islamic muezzins (Rostovtzeff et al. 1939: 143-4). 256 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 14, 30, 44-5, 54; Linssen 2004: 145-7. 257 Exodus 29.38-41; Numbers 4.48; II Kings 16.15; I Chronicles 23.3-5; Nehemiah 11.10-9. 258 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 46. 259 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 55. 260 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 56. 261 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 60. The practice of dedicating shaved hair to the Great Goddess is attested much earlier; see for example the ninth century BC inscribed red-slip bowl from the Phoenician temple of Astarte at Kition. The inscription dedicates the bowl and its contents, the hair of Moula of Tamassos, to Astarte, the goddess who listened to his prayers; see Markoe 2000: 120-1.

262

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 57-8. Lightfoot 2003: 543. 264 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 13, 33, 48. The Syriac text of PseudoMeliton also contains an account of the Hierapolitan water pouring ceremony, see Lightfoot 2003: 214. 265 The second century AD temple of Allât at Palmyra shared the phenomenon of a raised pronaos from which one descended 70 cm down to the walking surface of the naos proper. In the case of Palmyra, the naos seems to have been part of the original first century BC sanctuary while the raised pronaos was a later addition; see Kaizer 2002: 102-4. 263

101

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES most natural explanation for the water-pouring rite was as “an apotropaic gesture to prevent the recurrence of the deluge.”266 However, surely in an environment as precariously arid as the north Syrian steppe, the sacrifice of something as essential and life giving as water might be seen as a way of ensuring the continued fertility and abundance for which the immediate environs of the temple were well known, even in modern times – do ut des.267

which saw a river of life flowing from the Temple out into its hinterland.274 Mentioned separately, though almost certainly related to the water-pouring festival at Hierapolis-Bambyke was a biannual ritual which saw a man known as a phallobatos, undoubtedly a priest, climb one of the monumental phalloi by the propylaia. The individual climbed to the top of the phallus and stayed there for a period of seven days. During this time the phallobatai were believed to converse with the gods and pray for the blessing of all of Syria. Pilgrims who left votives of gold, silver or bronze at the base of the pillar received additional blessings, the priest making vows on their behalf. Throughout the period, the phallobatai were not permitted to sleep but continuously struck a bronze instrument of some type that emitted a shrill noise.275

The water ceremonies of Hierapolis-Bambyke were paralleled elsewhere in the Levant. In 135 BC Antiochos VII Sidetes suspended his siege of Jerusalem to provide the city’s inhabitants with sacrificial victims for Sukkot, a festival known more commonly in English as the Feast of the Tabernacles.268 Beyond his perceived obligations – to support Jewish cult as the ruler of Judaea – Sidetes may have been particularly keen to be seen to patronise Sukkot in particular on account of its obvious parallels with the water pouring ceremonies at Hierapolis, rituals devoted to a goddess at the very heart of Seleukid-indigenous relations. The annual Sukkot festival celebrated the end of the harvest season and drew pilgrims from across Judaea. In AD 66, a Roman force advancing on the market-town of Lydda found the settlement empty, the population having gone en masse to Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkot.269 The festival was such an important part of the Jewish year that it dominated the iconography of the autonomous Jewish coins during the Bar Kokhba revolt (AD 132136).270

In a review of hagiographic research relating to stylitism, Frankfurter observed a “rudimentary asceticism” in the sleepless activities of the phallobatai. He posits that the phalloi were probably in reality simple pillars – only Lucian’s obsession regarding Dionysiac connections at Hierapolis brings the author to designate the objects as phalloi. For Frankfurter, Lucian is both ignorant and dismissive of the local knowledge which might have informed him otherwise.276 The phallus/pillar cult, practiced outside the propylaia, was perhaps older than the Hellenised cult within the temenos and had evolved out of the same complex of abstract religious ambiguities that ultimately gave form to the semeion.277 The similarities between the phallobatai and the stylite ascetics of early Christian Syria do lend credence to the possibility that pillar-cults were a deeply ingrained part of a general religious environment in the area.278 In a less satisfactory analysis, Polański considers the Hierapolitan phallobasia phenomenon was not a longstanding traditional activity, but a thinly veiled attack against Christian stylitism. However, the fourth century AD authorship date for the Syrian Goddess necessitated by such a suggestion is rightly treated with caution by Lightfoot.279

The highlight of Sukkot was the nisuch hamayim, the ritual pouring of water, which occurred daily except for the first day. During the nisuch hamayim, priests recited Isaiah 12.3 “with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation”271 while the spectators were compelled to sing and dance. It was said that whoever did not see the joy of the nisuch hamayim would never see joy in their life.272 Water for the libation ceremony was drawn from the sacred Siloam pool south of Jerusalem’s city walls and brought in state through the Water Gate to the Temple where it was poured over the altar in order that God might provide appropriate rain for the agricultural cycle. The specific accoutrements of the water pouring ceremony, the water jug and palm branch, feature as a prominent type on the Bar Kokhba coinage, while other types represented various musical instruments used during the ceremony as described in the Mishnah Sukkah.273 As at Hierapolis-Bambyke, the ritualised sacrifice of life giving water at Jerusalem during Sukkot ensured the continued fertility and abundance of surrounding lands. The perceived rewards of the nisuch hamayim were made clear in the prophecies of Ezekiel

A series of festivals which may also have been connected to the water pouring ceremony in some way involved a ritual called the “descents to the lake”. During this time, the cult statues of all the deities housed in the temple were brought down to the lake side. We are told that Hera took precedence over Zeus at this festival and stood between him and the pool – if Zeus was to catch sight of the sacred fish we are told, they would all perish.280 Lucian is more concerned about the welfare of the fish 274

Ezekiel 47.1-12. Lucian The Syrian Goddess 28-9; Lightfoot 2003: 418-27. 276 Frankfurter 1990: 171. 277 Frankfurter 1990: 176, 181-4. 278 The first of the stylite aesthetics was St Simeon the Elder, born in Sisan near the Kilikian border in the last decade of the fourth century AD; he lived from AD 422-459 atop an ever heightening pillar 30 km north west of Beroia-Aleppo at the site now known as Qal’al Sim’an; see Theodoret Life of St Simeon; id. Religious history 26. 279 Polański 1998: 177-9; Lightfoot 2003: 203. 280 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 47. 275

266

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 13; Oden 1977: 110 n.5. Hogarth 1907-08: 186-7. 268 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.243; see Chapter 2.1.2.3 above. For Sukkot itself see Leviticus 23:42-3; Nehemiah 8.13-7. 269 Josephus Jewish War 2.515. 270 Fine 2009. 271 NIV translation. 272 Mishnah Sukkah 5.1. 273 Reifenberg 1947: 37; Romanoff 1944: 146; Fine 2009: 86-8. 267

102

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA than the purpose behind the descents and no explanation is provided. However, a number of similar cult festivals were celebrated throughout the Mediterranean, predominantly involving goddesses associated with Atargatis, Derketo, Hera and Kybele.281 Aelian and Pliny provide a variant of Lucian’s example where the cult statue of Hera/Juno was ritually bathed in the Aborrhas river (the modern Khabour) – in the company of tame sacred fish – following her marriage (hieròs gámos) with Zeus.282 At Askalon, the statues of Derketo and her partner Dagon were brought down to the beach and ritually bathed in the sea before their marriage, thus ensuring the continuance of the Spring rains.283 For Pausanias, the bath of the Argive Hera in the river Kanathos restored her to a virgin state.284

festival, the non-priestly sacred groups of the sanctuary gathered outside the temple (but within the temenos?) for their own rites. Existing galloi danced wildly, accompanied by singing, aulos playing and drums, while flagellating and beating each other’s backs.289 These rites were believed to spontaneously compel “many who have come as spectators” to castrate themselves before the assembled crowd and join the ranks of the galloi, donning feminine attire as an outward expression of their new status. Lucian states that such self emasculation was done to console Kombabos or to show their favour to HeraAtargatis.290 The whole feel of the fire-festival is totally removed from the rituals regarding the collection and pouring of water. The entire process is conducted outside of the temple and indeed Lucian states that those who “perform the rites” are not permitted inside the naos.291 Lightfoot cites a number of other festivals from around the Roman empire which parallel various aspects to the fire-festival although the evidence for all of them is as late or later than Lucian and just as vague.292 The Hierapolitan erection of the wooden pillars, covered in valuable goods and their destruction, may have metaphorical allusions to the ritual act of castration and thus the whole ritual appears more concerned with the reenactment of the Kombabos or Attis myths than with the Syrian Goddess herself.293 However, if this was the case, why would pilgrims be drawn to the festival from across Syria and the neighbouring lands?

The rituals all appear concerned with the act of marriage or at least with a guarantee of fertility and productivity. It is entirely possible that at Hierapolis too, the festival involved the hieròs gámos, or holy marriage, where the repetition of the marriage rites between two gods of fertility perpetuated their continued benefactions. Lightfoot urges caution regarding the acceptance of all such stories, seeing them as Hellenised literary topoi rather than indigenous traditions.285 However, as the descent to the lake/river theme runs in parallel with the water-pouring ceremonies and ultimately strived to achieve the same result – continued fertility and agricultural prosperity – there are good reasons to accept a kernel of truth behind the tales. Dirven has pointed out that the root of the Semitic name for HierapolisBambyke, Membij or Manbog, was derived from the meaning “to bring forth” and was surely associated with the prominence of the chasm, the lake and the agricultural abundance of the region.286

4.6

REFLECTIONS ON NORTH SYRIA

A number of significant parallels link Lucian’s description of Hierapolis-Bambyke with the remains excavated at Jebel Khalid Area B. Both Hierapolis and Jebel Khalid were situated close to life-giving sources of water in an otherwise dry environment. The temple at Hierapolis was (in the second century AD) believed to have been built by Stratonike, the wife of Seleukos I – royal favour was therefore being shown to Hierapolis during the period of the foundation of Jebel Khalid. Both temples were home to a number of deities which at Hierapolis included Hera-Atargatis and Zeus-Ba’al Hadad, a bearded image of Apollo-Nabû, as well as numerous statues of priests and kings. At Hierapolis, a very small chasm was said to have drained the waters away after the Great Flood and was hence venerated and provided with an altar over which ritual libations of water were made at regular festivals, perhaps paralleling the main altar-drainage sump feature at Jebel Khalid. These festivals at Hierapolis were linked to the veneration of open bodies of water, the sacred lake and even the Mediterranean sea. The Jebel Khalid temple located within a settlement far from a lake or sea, was

THE FIRE-FESTIVAL A wholly distinct festival known as the “fire-festival” or “torch” was held each Spring and as indicated by its name, concerned fire rather than water. Lucian describes it as the greatest of the Hierapolis festivities but spends less time in total discussing it than the other activities, which may leave his assertion in doubt.287 Tall wooden pillar-altars were made from tree-trunks and erected within the temenos. These were adorned with all manner of silver and gold objects, clothes, live sheep, goats and even birds. Other offerings (or perhaps sacred objects or images) were paraded around the pillars and the whole set alight. As with the water-pouring ceremony, the firefestival drew pilgrims from across Syria and “the surrounding countries”, all of whom brought their own offerings and standards.288 On set days during the fire281

Lightfoot 2003: 492-4. Aelian On Animals 12.30; Pliny Natural History 31.37, 32.16. 283 Albright 1922: 16. See also the story of Diodorus Siculus (Library of History 2.4.2-4) which saw the divine Derketo plunge herself into the sacred lake in an attempted suicide after copulating with her mortal devotee. 284 Pausanias Description of Greece 2.38.2; Avagianou 2008: 162. 285 Lightfoot 2003: 492-4. 286 Dirven 1997: 161. 287 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 49-51. 288 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 49. 282

289

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 50. Lucian The Syrian Goddess 27, 51. The galloi are portrayed in all manner of derogatory ways in the literature of Imperial Rome, ranging from charlatans to catamites but one constant reference is to their frenzied manner and habitual flagellation; see for example Apuleius Metamorphosis 8.27.3-5, 8.28.2-3; Lucian Nigrinus 37; Plutarch Moralia 1127c; Propertius Elegies 2.22.15. 291 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 50. 292 Lightfoot 2003: 500-4. 293 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 15, 19-27. 290

103

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES statement of Hannestad and Potts that the Seleukids imposed no uniformity upon the religious architecture in their empire, is entirely supported by the archaeological and documentary remains for northern Syria.294 Neither the layout, nor the architectural orders of temples and their sanctuaries were forced to conform to a royally ordained template. The cultic assemblages in northern Syria were greatly Hellenised as one would expect in the heart of the Seleukid Levant, and yet even there the underlying memory of the vernacular, Semitic, beliefs and practices was not wholly blanketed. In some instances it was barely veiled. The Charonion was a stubborn reminder of the tenacity of the Syrian Goddess, even within a centre of Hellenism such as Antioch. The Doric temple at Seleukeia, presumed to be the sepulchre of Seleukos I Nikator, was founded within the conceptual framework of royal apotheosis, a direct result of the interaction of Greek and non-Greek in the East. Given that Seleukos I repeatedly emphasised his personal relationship with Zeus-Ba’al-Bel on his coinage, it was fitting that he was posthumously incorporated into the cult of the supreme god.

nevertheless situated directly above the gully that led to the Euphrates, with unhindered views of the great river. In the Spring fire-festival at Hierapolis, animals were sacrificed on temporary wooden pillar-altars that were burnt along with the victims, something which may account for the presence of so much burnt bone and ash, despite the lack of any permanent blood altar at Jebel Khalid. However, the comparisons may only be taken so far. The settlement at Hierapolis was secondary to the temple and may not even have been walled during the Hellenistic period. Jebel Khalid on the other hand was a strategically placed, garrisoned fortress which also happened to contain a temple and sacred area. The emphasis at Jebel Khalid was on a show of imperial strength, rather than a show of beneficence to a local (if regionally important) cult centre. While the Hierapolis temple was built to conform to Ionic traditions, contained only a single adyton and was perhaps inspired by the Seleukid restoration of Didyma, the Jebel Khalid structure was based on a Mesopotamian design and where Greek features were used, they were in the Doric order. The chasm of Hierapolis was inside the naos, whereas the drainage sump of Jebel Khalid was outside, to the east of the temple entrance. Although there was a large limestone basin found within the Jebel Khalid temenos, it was certainly too small to have housed anything larger than a few goldfish. Its final location, above the ashy deposits and below the line of the phase three altars makes it impossible to ascertain its original purpose with certainty although as mentioned above, it was probably related to ritual ablutions. Likewise, there is as yet no evidence for in situ burning within the temenos to link the ash deposits with a fire-festival-like ceremony and there is always the possibility, however unlikely given the sanctity of the place, that the ash deposit may have been a secondary dump of domestic refuse.

Evidence from Baitokaike further emphasises the continuity of topographic sanctity despite an evolving population and reinforces the royal favour shown to Zeus-Ba’al. The clearly Semitic Ba’al Šamīn was acknowledged by the king under the guise of Zeus and the sanctuary prospered. Jebel Khalid Area B fused Hellenic and Mesopotamian aspects to create a truly dynamic ‘Hellenistic’ sanctuary. The two influences were integrally combined from the earliest phases of colonial occupation. Despite the apparent Greco-Macedonian cultural dominance in the settlement, a deliberate orientalising program was undertaken for its religious needs. The pantheon venerated at Jebel Khalid is unclear. There are certain parallels with Hierapolis, but there is no sense of an exact replication. One thing that can be assured is that the pedigree of the deities at Jebel Khalid were no less diluted than the environment in which they were worshipped. The holy city of Hierapolis-Bambyke fell within the Seleukid empire after Ipsos and within seven years had received significant royal funding for the construction of a new temple dedicated to the great Syrian gods Atargatis and Hadad. By the second century BC these deities had assumed a Hellenised form, but if anything, this fusion only heightened their acceptability among a Greek audience, while doing little to diminish their Semitic characteristics.

While we cannot consider the Seleukid temple at Jebel Khalid to be a miniature version of Lucian’s HierapolisBambyke, there are clearly a number of aspects that suggest a shared heritage between the two sites. Therefore, we might appropriately consider that the Jebel Khalid temple and temenos provide an insight into Hellenistic processes of acculturation – an early Seleukid attempt to accommodate some aspects of an indigenous cultic complex within the context of a GrecoMacedonian, colonial, settlement. Externally the appearance provided the audience with familiar, Hellenised forms, whilst functionally, many of the basic components of the Syrian cult were preserved. It is apparent that the Jebel Khalid sanctuary became such a fundamental component of the settlement’s life that it was the only public space to be restored to its original purpose following the abandonment of the site. All other public areas show evidence of domestic squatter occupation in phase three of the settlement’s life.

At each site discussed above, the same familiar divine figures have emerged as the focus of worship: the supreme sky-god in the form of Zeus-Ba’al, and the great mother Atargatis. One must ask how much of this is the lottery of survival, and how much it represents the actual state of affairs in Seleukid North Syria. The literary record makes it clear that Apollo, Artemis and Athena received honours at Antioch, Herakles may have been represented at Jebel Khalid, and a number of ambiguous secondary gods were honoured at Hierapolis. However,

The assembled evidence from northern Syria can be used to establish a composite image of religious processes across the region during the Seleukid period. The

294

104

Hannestad and Potts 1990: 122.

SACRED SPACES – NORTH SYRIA the dominant figures across the region continued to be the divine couple. It is little wonder that by the second century BC the Seleukidai began to transfer their allegiance to the divine couple away from Apollo, and it was the cults of Zeus-Ba’al and Atargatis with whom the royal cult was assimilated.

105

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 153. Umm el-Amed (N.L. Wright after Dunand and Duru 1962: fig.20).

106

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA period and eight years later Ernest Renan conducted the first of a series of excavations at the site. Further archaeological research was conducted by Eustache de Lorey in 1921 (unpublished) and most recently by Maurice Dunand and Raymond Duru between 1943 and 1945.1 The settlement of Umm el-Amed occupied a plateau overlooking the narrow coastal strip to the west and the Wadi Hamoul to the south. The site encompassed approximately 18 hectares, much of which was covered with the remains of domestic structures. Dunand and Duru believe that the site was not permanently settled before the Achaemenid period although several flint blades and some eighth and seventh century BC Cypriotstyle ceramics were found on the site which implies some form of earlier occupation.2 The name of the site during the Hellenistic period may have been Alexandrouskene (Alexander’s tent) although there is little archaeological foundation for the attribution.3

CHAPTER 5 SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA The satrapy of Phoenicia and Koile-Syria was part of the original Levantine territory awarded to Seleukos I after the battle of Ipsos (301 BC). However, it was not until the Fifth Syrian War (202-198 BC) that the Seleukids were able to wrest control of the region away from their Ptolemaic rivals. Although Damascus may have changed hands several times in the intervening century, the majority of the southern Levant only fell within the Seleukid sphere from the early second century BC. The familiar problems inherent in the study of religion in North Syria – a lack of excavated sites, archaeological dominance of later phases on those sites which have been excavated, and a scarcity of historical sources – continue to haunt the study of the South. Furthermore, within two generations of the Seleukid conquest, the satrapy of Phoenicia and Koile-Syria began to fragment into independent polities – Maccabaean/Hasmonaean Judaea, Ituraean Chalkis, autonomous coastal cities and independent local tyrants. Seleukid political control was never as secure in the South as it was in the North. As such, it might be plausible to argue that there was less opportunity for Seleukid political wants and needs to influence the Hellenistic religious forms of Phoenicia and Koile-Syria. A further obstruction to the study of religious developments in the southern Levant is the manifest politicisation of the historical and archaeological records – that bogeyman of all historical enquiry. Ongoing political, religious and ideological friction between Israel, the Palestinian territories and neighbouring states has led to the over- or underemphasis of the extent of Hellenistic or Jewish control and influence by different parties. Rightly or wrongly, this volume skirts the issue by dealing with Judaean material in only a peripheral sense.

The dominating features of the settlement were two large temple complexes, to the west and east ends of the plateau respectively which were constructed in the late fourth or early third century BC although there may have been an earlier predecessor (fig.153).4 Unfortunately, the claim of El-Nassery, that a terminus ante quem for the construction of the temples can be provided by a coin of Ptolemy I discovered inside the western sanctuary does not take into account the prolonged circulation of coinage long after its production.5 The larger of the two temples, situated to the west of the plateau, was dedicated to the vernacular god, Milk’ashtart (fig.154).6 The slightly smaller temple at the eastern extent of the plateau was probably dedicated to the principal Phoenician goddess, Astarte (fig.155).7 The excavators found no evidence of Roman period construction on the site and its importance seems to have diminished until its rebirth as a Byzantine centre of Christianity in the fourth century AD. In the absence of excavated Hellenistic sanctuaries in the larger Phoenician centres, Umm el-Amed provides an insightful archaeological window into Phoenician religion under the Ptolemies and Seleukids.

This chapter will follow the west-east, north-south itinerary set out in Chapter 4. Beginning at Umm elAmed in the hinterland of Phoenician Tyre, we cross the Lebanon and Antilebanon ranges to Koile-Syria. The scant evidence for the Hellenistic period at Damascus is discussed before travelling south to the Panion in the foothills below Mount Hermon, Gadara and Gerasa in what would become the Decapolis, finishing at the Idumaean temple complex at Tel Beersheba. 5.1

THE SANCTUARY OF MILK’ASHTART The exact identity of the god worshipped at the larger of Umm el-Amed’s two temples is ambiguous. The ‘Great’ temple, situated at the western end of the plateau, contained 16 inscriptions, all in Phoenician, dated to the third and second centuries BC. A number of these were

1 Cassas 1799: no.87; de Vogüé 1855: 37; Renan 1864: 695-749; Dunand and Duru 1962. 2 Dunand and Duru 1962: 11, 19, 22 n.2., 203-4; Mellink 1965: 326. 3 Dunand and Duru 1962: 242. 4 Hannestad and Potts 1990: 118. 5 El-Nassery 1966. As illustrated in Wright 2010, an issue of coinage might remain in circulation for well over a century after the date of production provided it found acceptance in the market. Within the closed economic environment of the Ptolemaic empire, a coin of Ptolemy I might be expected to remain in circulation long after the death of the king. Such a possibility is only heightened by Umm elAhmed’s location in provincial Phoenicia. 6 Dunand and Duru 1962: 195. 7 Dunand and Duru 1962: 169.

UMM EL-AMED

Nineteen kilometres south of ancient Tyre and less than a kilometre from the coast, the remains of the rural settlement at Umm el-Amed first came to European attention following the publication of the 1772 tour of Syria, Phoenicia and Egypt by Louis-François Cassas. The first scholarly investigation of the site by Comte Melichor de Vogüé in 1853 determined that the extant monumental surface remains dated to the Hellenistic 107

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES dedicated to MLK ʾTTRT, Milk’ashtart, a deity further defined epigraphically as the El Ḥammon.8 The Phoenician name of the god, MLK ʾTTRT has been understood as the ‘deity of the city of Ashtarot’ to the east of the Jordan River.9 The addition of the appellation El Ḥammon10 has caused an alternate translation of Milk’ashtart El Ḥammon as ‘consort of Astarte, the god of Ḥammon’, that is, according to Clifford, the god of Mount Amanos.11 Seyrig proposed a slight change, viewing the deity as the ‘son of Astarte, god of Ḥammon.’12 The prevailing identification of Milk’ashtart as the god of Ashtarot (south-east of Tyre) need not preclude him from also being the god of Amanos to the north. Both places are located some distance from the Phoenician heartland, at what might be considered the metaphorical extent of Phoenician influence across the Levantine mainland just as “from Dan to Beersheba” could be used as a formulaic expression of Iron Age Israelite influence.13 The titulature ‘god of Ashtarot, god of Amanos’ may therefore be seen as something akin to ‘god of the north and south’ or ‘god of all’ implying the deity’s supreme rule. As a further alternative, Niehr views Ḥammon as the Phoenician name of the settlement at Umm el-Amed, thereby making Milk’ashtart the god of the specific location of his temple.14 This suggestion was almost posited by Dunand and Duru who made the connection between Ḥammon and the modern name of the Wadi Hamoul. However, a direct equation of Ḥammon with Umm el-Amed was dismissed on chronological grounds.15

Figure 154. Umm el-Amed west temple (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: fig.10).

The chief god of Umm el-Amed has also been tentatively viewed as synonymous with the principal Tyrian god Melkart, the ‘king of the city/underworld’ whose death and resurrection brought fertility to the world.16 Pardee suggests that Melkart may have been one of the titles of Milk’ashtart which later emerged as an independent pseudonym, much like the relationship between Hadad and Ba’al.17 Pardee’s position is supported by the discovery of a 23cm high Hellenistic statue fragment identified as Herakles, Melkart’s interpretatio graeca, in one of the southern rooms of the Milk’ashtart temenos

Figure 155. Umm el-Amed east temple (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: fig.17).

8

Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96, nos.2, 6, 13-4; Pardee 1988. Pardee 1988: 62-7; id. 1990: 370. On Ashtarot in Jordan see for example, I Chronicles 6.71; Deuteronomy 1.4; Joshua 9.10, 12.4, 13.31; Kellermann 1981. 10 See for example Pardee 1988: nos. II-IV, VI-VII. 11 Dunand and Duru 1962: 195; Clifford 1990: 57, 60, 62. A variant of El Ḥammon is given as ‘god of the brazier’ although this is considered less likely by Clifford. 12 Seyrig 1963: 28. 13 Biran 1974: 27. Reports of, or evidence for, colonies of Phoenicians are known from inland sites such as Samareia, (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 11.344; Lemaire 1994), Marisa (Kasher 1990: 24; Berlin 2002: 139-40), the Decapolis cities (Kasher 1990: 25; Lichtenberger 2003: 357) and perhaps Palmyra (Garbini 1998, but contra Kaizer 2002:110). An association between Phoenicia and Ashtarot is not an unreasonable conjecture. 14 Niehr 2003: 45. 15 Dunand and Duru 1962: 11. A biblical reference to Ḥammon (Joshua 19.28) implied an earlier date for the establishment of that settlement than is so far attested archaeologically at Umm el-Amed. 16 Hannestad and Potts 1990: 116-9; Clifford 1990: 56, 59-60. 17 Pardee 1988: 68. 9

Figure 156. Herakles statue from Umm el-Amed (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: pl.35.4).

108

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA (fig.156).18 In addition to Milk’ashtart, the western temenos appears to have been shared with a powerful synnaios theos. Ba’al Šamīn – that ubiquitous god of the heavens – is also honoured epigraphically within the sanctuary walls.19 Incidentally, this association favours the proposition of Seyrig that Melkart be seen as the son of Astarte (MLK ʾTTRT) and Ba’al Šamīn.20 The sanctuary of Milk’ashtart took the form of a large rectangular temple within a paved and walled temenos (measuring 49.5 by 24 metres) which included numerous outbuildings including a pi-shaped stoa and hypostyle hall. The temple itself was isolated from surrounding structures in accordance with normal west Semitic practice. The retaining terrace built to ensure a level surface of the temenos was constructed in the same manner as the earlier Ešmoun temple from Sidon but the technique was also employed at Pasargadae, Persepolis and Susa and perhaps represents residual Achaemenid influences or practices during the period of the Milk’ashtart sanctuary’s construction.21

Figure 157. Bull orthostat from Umm el-Amed (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: pl.28.1).

large as 10 square metres.25 The altar appears to have been decorated with relief carvings, many fragments of which were recovered from the area to the east of the temple. Chief among the decorated blocks was a large relief of a kneeling bull and another interesting multifaced orthostat featuring (on two of its faces) a human male wearing a pointed cap similar to those worn by the indigenous priests of inland Syria (figs.152, 157).26

The temple of Milk’ashtart, measuring 24 by 8.5 metres, stood on a podium built of irregular limestone blocks which raised it 1.2 metres higher than the surrounding temenos pavement. The podium fill included remains of fourth century BC Attic black-glaze ware and a number of Phoenician jars which provide a terminus post quem for the construction of the temple itself.22 The temple was east-facing, with a single large naos provided with a typically eastern flat roof. The naos was fronted by a prostyle tetrastyle Ionic portico. Access from the temenos court was provided by eight broad steps which approached the portico from the east and by a secondary stairway which rose along the northern edge of the podium and gave access directly into the naos. The principal (eastern) stairway was guarded, at the level of the podium, by two recumbent sphinxes (or perhaps lions).23 The Ionic order portico and added Greek architectural mouldings fail to conceal the entirely vernacular nature of the architecture and building techniques of Milk’ashtart’s earthly abode. The use of a podium rather than stepped krepidoma, together with the Ionic order frontispiece is reminiscent of Lucian’s description of the appearance of the great temple at Hierapolis, supposedly a contemporary construction, and may support the usefulness of Lucian’s account.24

The hypostyle hall, measuring 19.6 by 18.8 metres, was situated north of the temple, in the north-eastern corner of the temenos. The open southern face of the hall was provided with an Ionic hexastyle colonnade. Within the hall, the roof beams were supported by three further rows of six columns, of the plainer Doric order.27 Hypostyle halls were prevalent throughout Asia from Egypt to Chorasmia. The building practice exhibited through the Umm el-Amed columned hall should therefore be seen to manifest persisting non-Greek tradition, while individual architectural features, principally the column orders, speak of a limited Hellenisation permeating the region under the Ptolemies, and later the Seleukids. The pi-shaped Doric stoa was built at the eastern end of the sanctuary. The east run of the stoa ran the full width of the temenos, flanking the eastern propylaia. The wings returned a little under 12 metres to the north and south making the stoa a major feature of the overall sanctuary design.28 A dedication inscription, again written in Phoenician, dates the construction of the stoa to 222/1 BC. Such a large modification to the sanctuary suggests a growing prosperity for the site which clearly flourished under Ptolemaic supremacy.29 Between the stoa and hypostyle hall to the north and west from the stoa along the southern and western edges of the temenos were a number of ancillary magazines and chapels, several of which contained sculptural fragments.30

A monumental altar was located east of the temple in the temenos forecourt. Dunand and Duru could discern little of its layout, estimating that it may have measured as

18

Dunand and Duru 1962: 159. Renan 1864: 710-26; Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96, no.1; Niehr 2003: 45-7. 20 Seyrig 1963: 28. 21 Dunand and Duru 1962: 22 n.2, 23, 27-9. 22 Dunand and Duru 1962: 20, 24; El-Nassery 1966: 284. 23 Dunand and Duru 1962: 25-6; Hannestad and Potts 1990: 118. 24 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 30. See also the discussion in Chapter 4.5 above. 19

25

Dunand and Duru 1962: 28, 143. Dunand and Duru 1962:143-6. Dunand and Duru 1962: 29-34; Hannestad and Potts 1990: 118. 28 Dunand and Duru 1962: 34-9; Hannestad and Potts 1990: 118. 29 Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96 no.4; El-Nassery 1966: 284; Grainger 1991: 81; Hannestad and Potts 1990: 118. 30 Dunand and Duru 1962: 39-47. 26 27

109

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES the era of Tyrians (year 143).31 The year 132/1 BC marked one of the few high points in the late Seleukid period. Antiochos VII Sidetes had successfully unified the fractious Levant and recently subdued Judaea and the Hasmonaean leadership. Preparations were underway for the king’s anabasis and as a result, large quantities of money were flowing out of the royal treasury into the wider population via the army and its camp followers. Although the sanctuary must have had one or even two earlier propylaia (one dating to the initial fourth-third century BC construction phase and/or one built into the late third century BC stoa) the edifice that was to last was constructed during the brief Seleukid resurgence. To the northern side of the exterior of the propylaia, a trapezoidal statue basis was found in situ. The bare feet (to the ankle) of the statue were still attached to the basis while the upper legs, torso and left arm were found in a single piece among the adjacent tumble. The statue clearly depicted a male in a stiff pose with the right foot placed squarely on the ground in front of the right. Unfortunately there is no sign of the raised right arm, nor of the head. The only clothing worn by the figure was an Egyptian style kilt and it is clear that the sculpture was produced in a heavily Egyptianised environment (figs.158-9).32 The front of the statue base carried an inscription dedicating the sculpture to Milk’ashtart ElḤammon from Abdeshmun on behalf of his son. It may be possible to identify the sculpted figure as a representation of the god, but that the votary is represented is equally possible.33 There appears to have been the foundations of a second statue base installed to the south of the portal which would have granted the propylaia a finer sense of symmetry.

Figure 158. Egyptianised statue body from Umm el-Amed (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: pl.30.1).

A secondary entrance was located to the north, between the hypostyle hall and neighbouring storage rooms. This entrance gave direct access from the temenos to a second row of storage magazines located behind the northern wing of the stoa. Dunand and Duru posit that this secondary approach may have provided the earliest access to the temenos, before the construction of the stoa and propylaia.34 THE EAST SANCTUARY In many ways, the east sanctuary at Umm el-Amed is comparable to its western counterpart. The temenos itself was mildly larger, forming an irregular rectangle measuring 60 by 35 metres. However, the temple and ancillary buildings within the temenos were smaller and less impressive. Like the temple dedicated to Milk’ashtart, the temple of the east sanctuary was built on a low podium (50cm high), opened to the east, was fronted by a tetrastyle Ionic portico and was accessed

Figure 159. Egyptianised statue feet and basis from Umm el-Amed (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: pl.30.3).

The propylaia was located in the southern half of the eastern run of the stoa, offset from the principal axis of the sanctuary and providing a three-quarter view of the temple façade. The portal was 2.05 metres wide, built out of large dressed stones. A Phoenician dedication dates the final form of the entrance’s completion to 132/1 BC, dated in both the Seleukid era (year 180) and according to

31

Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96 no.1. Dunand and Duru 1962: 48, 156-7. 33 Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96 no.2. Susan Downey (pers. comm.) has suggested that the raised hand may suggest a pose of adoration more likely to represent the devotee than the deity. While this may be correct, it cannot be seen as conclusive – note the raised right arm on coin depictions of the gods Sandan and Marnas, figs.26, 28-9, 44. 34 Dunand and Duru 1962: 49-50. 32

110

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA from the east by three large steps. The naos measured 14.5 by 7.8 metres of which the front section formed a single large hall. As in the Milk’ashtart temple, a secondary entrance led into the naos through the eastern half of its northern wall. The last (westernmost) three metres of the naos were divided by an internal wall into two unequal adytons, the northern being the narrower, measuring two metres wide while the southern adyton measured three square metres.35 The temple sat in an irregularly shaped paved court, on a different axis to the surrounding structures of the temenos. Two long porticos along the entire northern and eastern limits of the temenos formed an L-shaped stoa.36 As in the Milk’ashtart sanctuary, the western and southern limits of the temenos were lined with ancillary storage rooms and/or chapels. Those to the west abutted the rear of the temple itself. The temenos could be accessed from the surrounding domestic area through three different monumental gateways, to the north-west, north-east and south-east. The gateway lintels were each decorated with an Egyptianised, winged, sun-disc with twin Uraei to left and right.37 It appears that no improvements were made to the east sanctuary after its initial construction and no dedicatory inscriptions were recovered from the area. The east sanctuary can therefore be seen as secondary in importance to its western neighbour.

Figure 160. Throne from Umm el-Amed, now in the Louvre (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: pl.87.1).

A large empty stone throne was recovered during Renan’s 1861 excavations and removed from Umm elAmed to the Louvre (fig.160). Although badly damaged it appears that the seat was flanked by sphinxes. The front of the backrest carries a winged sun-disc which brings to mind both the north-west gateway and Lucian’s description of the throne of the sun at HierapolisBambyke.38 Beyond the fact that it was found in the eastern sanctuary, there is no record of its precise provenance. Fragments of a second empty stone throne were later found by Dunand and Duru within the temenos of the eastern sanctuary, among the remains of rooms 33 and 34 to the north of the temple itself. It would appear that the second throne once sat on a podium in the northwest corner of the temenos, analogous to the location of the hypostyle hall in the Milk’ashtart sanctuary. Enough material was preserved for much of the throne to be confidently restored (fig.161). Both flanks are formed of standing sphinxes, their wings rising to form elaborate armrests.39 It is the presence of these two thrones that has led the excavators to suggest that the east sanctuary was dedicated to Astarte. However, although empty thrones have a proven epigraphic link to the Astarte cult, the spiritual presence of alternate deities were also known to have been, or are suspected of having been, represented

Figure 161. Sphinx throne from Umm el-Amed (courtesy Jean Maisonneuve, Dunand and Duru 1962: pl.67.1).

through the provision of an empty throne.40 Be that as it may, the two thrones from Umm el-Amed with sphinx armrests can be ascribed to Astarte with little doubt. The sphinx was the perpetual creature of the goddess and the carved sphinxes on both Umm el-Amed thrones provide a striking comparison to a third, found midway between

35

Dunand and Duru 1962: 56-9. Dunand and Duru 1962: 61-4. 37 Dunand and Duru 1962: 69-75. 38 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 34. 39 Renan 1864: 707; Dunand and Duru 1962: 168-9, pls.67, 87.1. 36

40 For inscriptions linking similar thrones to Astarte, see Bordreuil 1985: 182-3; Davila and Zuckerman 1993. For alternate deities, see Betylon 1985 (Ašerah); Lightfoot 2003: 449-55 (the sun?).

111

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES that settlement and Tyre which bore a Phoenician dedication to Astarte dated to the Hellenistic period.41

Egyptian link were found in the patronymics of the individuals named in the dedications, suggesting that Egyptianisation was stronger in the generation before the bulk of the inscriptions were written (in the second century BC) than they were after the battle of Panion.

Hannestad and Potts declared “the evidence offered us by Umm el-Amed suggests that in the Hellenistic period the provincial religious architecture of Syria which, more than any other of the provinces of their realm, was to be the homeland of the Seleucids, was not whole-heartedly Greek in character.”42 A similar line was followed, and accentuated by Grainger who saw in the sanctuaries of Umm el-Amed “no sign of being other than the traditional Phoenician type.”43 However, despite their overtly Phoenician outward expression, the assembled deities at Umm el-Amed present an underlying familiarity with the religious complexes in existence across the west Semitic world: a god of storms, a fierce fertility goddess with a dichotomy of celestial and chthonic roles, and a powerful younger god whose existence was dominated by annual death and rebirth. In the guise of HeraklesMelkart, Zeus-Ba’al Šamīn and Astarte, the same three gods were worshipped as the supreme triad of nearby Hellenistic Tyre.44

The hypostyle hall, although necessarily similar in form to its Egyptian namesakes, probably played a role more akin to the columned reception halls of Iranian tradition as at Persepolis and Aï Khanoum and that can still be seen at the Djuma mosque in Khiva (Uzbekistan). Specific architectural features, column capitals and bases and architrave mouldings, speak of an invasive Hellenisation as do the temple and stoa façades and the superficially Greek angled view of the temples from their respective propylaia. The overall architectural style, the temple podiums, flat roofs and courtyard plans perhaps owed most to west Semitic antecedents. One aspect of the material culture of Umm el-Amed which showed indisputable Hellenisation however was the ceramic assemblage. Although dominated by locally produced coarseware vessels which have been generally classed as of the “usual local type”47, most of the shapes conformed to well established Hellenistic models despite being produced in a local fabric. The incurved-rim bowls, unguentaria, lagynoi, casseroles, frequent fishplates and an amphoriskos would not be out of place on any other Hellenised site in Syria. Attic black-glaze vessels and Rhodian amphorae were present in the fourth-third century BC deposits while a noticeable increase in imported Hellenistic pottery is apparent from the early second century with the inclusion of Megarian bowls and Eastern Sigillata A into the ceramic corpus.48

It is true that all sixteen third-second century BC inscriptions recovered from the sanctuary of Milk’ashtart were written in Phoenician. The only evidence of Greek language from the site came from the legends carried on Ptolemaic, Seleukid and Phoenician civic coinage which found their way onto the sanctuaries. Several of the Phoenician inscriptions bore the names of priests and other staff who serviced the sanctuary of Milk’ashtart: Ba’alyaton, son of Ba’alyaton, the “high-priest” of the sanctuary; Ba’alyaton son of Abdhor, “priest of Milk’ashtart” and Ba’alshamar the chief gatekeeper, son of Abdosir the chief gatekeeper.45 From their names it is apparent that all were indigenous Phoenicians. There is however, another noticeable trend present in the epigraphic corpus; two of the three patronymics provided were theophoric names alluding to Egyptian deities – Abdhor, ‘servant of Horus’ and Abdosir, ‘servant of Osiris’. Several other dedications exist mentioning further theophoric names derived from both Phoenicia and Egypt. Among the latter category are included Isibarak, ‘blessing of Isis’ and Abdoubast, ‘servant of Bastet’.46

It is clear that the sanctuaries of Umm el-Amed, constructed early in the Hellenistic period, represented a truly vernacular fusion of merging cultural influences. Essentially ‘Phoenician’, the site combined local and Iranian construction techniques and forms, with a mix of Semitic, Egyptianising and Hellenising iconography. Egyptian influence may have been strengthened during the period of Ptolemaic political dominance but appears to have waned slightly following the battle of Panion (200 BC) and the ensuing Seleukid takeover. The height of the Milk’ashtart sanctuary’s prosperity appears to have spanned the late Seleukid I period, crowned by the construction of the new propylaia in 132/1 BC. There are few remains dateable to the first century BC and the unsettled political climate in the late Seleukid II and early Roman period probably saw the demise of Umm el-Amed as a satellite of Tyre.

The onomastic evidence, combined with the repetition of Egyptianising iconographic motifs within the sanctuaries; the sphinxes, winged sun-discs, statues flanking the Milk’ashtart propylaia; all stress the persistent Egyptian cultural influence exerted over Phoenicia since the Old Kingdom. Ptolemaic political control during the formative period of Umm el-Amed’s construction merely reinforced an already existing cultural exchange. It may be significant that many of the names illustrating this 41

Davila and Zuckerman 1993. Seyrig (1959: 51-2) catalogues further examples of thrones with sphinxes from Phoenicia which has been supplemented by numerous scholars, see Lightfoot 2003: 450 n.3. 42 Hannestad and Potts 1990: 119. 43 Grainger 1991: 82. 44 Seyrig 1963. 45 Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96 nos.5-6, 16. 46 Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96 nos.11-2.

47 48

112

Dunand and Duru 1962: 181-96 nos.197-203; Grainger 1991: 82. Dunand and Duru 1962: 203-8; El-Nassery 1966: 284.

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA 5.2

SELEUKID CULT AT DAMASCUS

A thriving city from the early Iron Age if not before,49 Damascus was one of the few inland Syrian cities of note during the campaigns of Alexander the Great. Parmenion, the conqueror’s most trusted lieutenant, was despatched to secure the city, its treasury and the resident Achaemenid harem for the Macedonian cause. Parmenion took Damascus late in 333 BC and a royal mint was established there shortly after.50 The Ptolemies were certainly in control of Damascus by 274 BC although they probably seized it along with the rest of Koile-Syria in 301 BC. The output of the Ptolemaic mint was minimal, suggesting that the city was not a major centre of Ptolemaic administration in Koile-Syria.51 Intermittent Seleukid control of the city and the dislocation of the north-south and east-west trade routes – the latter between the Middle Euphrates and Phoenicia across the desert via Damascus – brought about by the division of the Levant from 301 BC probably goes some way to explain the city’s loss of prominence. Following the Fifth Syrian War, the reintegration of Phoenicia and KoileSyria with Northern Syria and Mesopotamia initiated a new era of prosperity in which Damascus rose to be one of the principal Seleukid administrative and economic centres.52 During the reign of Demetrios II and his successors, Damascus appears to have borne the dynastic name Demetrias, although it reverted to Damascus following the withdrawal of Tigranes II (69 BC).53 By the first century BC, the city was the capital of a Seleukid principality under the brothers Demetrios III (96-87 BC) and Antiochos XII (87-84 BC)54 and probably served as the capital during the joint reign of Kleopatra Selene and Antiochos XIII (c.82-c.72 BC).55

Figure 162. Lion relief from Damascus (Wulzinger and Watzinger 1924: fig.13c).

Figure 163. Lion relief from Iraq al-Amir (courtesy Ross Burns).

although it is clear that the right foreleg was raised. The left hind leg is missing in its entirety. The tail rises up over the back of the animal and the head inclines slightly to the left. The relief was dated by Wulzinger and Watzinger to the Mamluk period although there does not appear to be any foundation for their dating and the ‘matching’ lion relief which they identify from the Mamluk restoration of the north-west tower bears no stylistic resemblance. However, the piece from the citadel courtyard does bare a strong similarity in both pose and style to the well known panther reliefs from the Tobiad palace (Qasr al-Abd) at Iraq al-Amir, constructed in the period 182-175 BC (fig.163). Weber posits a similar Hellenistic date for the Damascus relief.57 Beyond this conjectural piece of evidence, Seleukid Damascus has been lost.

Today, there are no physical remains of Damascus’ Hellenistic past. The city, which vies in popular culture for the title of oldest inhabited city in the world, has been rebuilt countless times since the fall of the last Seleukids. One fragmentary limestone relief carving of a lion or panther recovered from the courtyard of the Ayyubid citadel may be the last record of the city’s Hellenistic palace. There is, as yet, no evidence for Hellenistic activity on the site of the later citadel itself and if the relief fragment was Hellenistic, it may have found its way to the citadel as spolia. The relief was first noted by Wulzinger and Watzinger in 1917 but has since been lost (fig.162).56 The legs of the animal had been truncated

The old part of Damascus to the east of the Umayyad Mosque still conforms to the Hippodamian, gridded, street plan which was probably laid down during the Hellenistic period.58 Likewise, to the north of the Umayyad Mosque, the layout of the Seleukid period

49

Burns 2005: 10-6. Arrian Anabasis 2.15; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 13.1-16. Price 1991a: 398-401 nos. 3197-215. 51 Svoronos 1904: no.1289. 52 Rostovtzeff 1932: 95-6; Cohen 2006: 242. 53 Newell 1939: 83-4; Cohen 2006: 242-5; Wright 2010: 253-4 (where the refoundation is probably erroneously dated to the reign of Demetrios III). 54 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.370, 387; SC 2: 581-2; 607. 55 Hoover 2005: 98-9; SC 2: 615-6; Wright 2010: 243 no.200. 56 Wulzinger and Watzinger 1924: 180. I am grateful to Ross Burns for drawing my attention to the existence of the lion relief which he discussed in a paper presented at Macquarie University, 17 August 2005. 50

57 Weber 1993: 149. On Iraq al-Amir, see Will and Larché 1991, especially François Queyrel’s contribution in the same volume dealing with the sculptural decoration, 1991: 209-51; Zayadine 2004: 273-5. 58 Burns 2005: 35-6.

113

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

Figure 167. Conjectural layout of Hellenistic Damascus (courtesy Ross Burns).

Figure 164. The west propylaia, Damascus (N.L. Wright).

church of St John the Baptist (the prophet’s head is still believed to be housed in a shrine within the Umayyad Mosque).61 Architectural elements from the Roman temple adorn the garden along the northern entrance to the mosque. The monumental remains of a west propylaia still stand where the Souq al-Hamidyya opens into a plaza to the west of the Umayyad Mosque (figs.164-6) and the vestiges of the east propylaia are still present at the intersection of Sharia al-Qaimariyya and Sharia Qasr athThaqafa. Given the tenacity of cultural memory and sacred space,62 it would be incredible if the Umayyad Mosque was not also the location of the principal temple complex of the Seleukid period (fig.167).63 Although we can say little or nothing about the physical structures of Damascene religion in the Hellenistic period, the coinage produced at the city’s mint is instructive regarding the nature of the Seleukid cult. The first Seleukid issues were struck at Damascus during the reign of Antiochos VII.64 Until the first century BC, the city produced silver coinage on the Attic standard with the same types as the central mint at Antioch. The mint’s bronze output was sporadic but did not produce any unusual types with one possible exception during the reign of Antiochos VIII Grypos. The issue in question employed the king’s diademed head on the obverse and the standing Zeus Ouranios (a type otherwise restricted to silver issues, see Chapter 2.1) on the reverse. The coin issue is tentatively attributed to Damascus by Newell. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover assigned it to a mint in Phoenicia or southern Koile-Syria (based on commercial sources) but refused to commit themselves to a full attribution.65 The presence of 22 examples of this coin type in a hoard discovered in the hinterland of Damascus suggests that Newell may have been correct in his identification.66 If the type were to be attributed to Damascus it would imply that the syncretic imagery of

Figure 165. The west propylaia, Damascus (N.L. Wright).

Figure 166. The Umayyad Mosque from the west propylaia, Damascus (N.L. Wright).

Hippodrome59 can still be vaguely discerned in the area of the Dahdah cemetery, the Madrasa Nahhasin and the al-Tawba mosque. From the slight evidence available, it becomes clear that the area of the Umayyad Mosque was central to what we know of the Hellenistic city. It is almost certain that the same space was once occupied by the Iron Age temple (of which one stone survives, now in the Damascus National Museum),60 the great temple of Jupiter dating to the Roman period and the Christian

59 60

61

Dussaud 1922. See for example Seton Williams 1949: 78, n.1; Oppenheim 1965: 131; Barghouti 1984: 213; Coogan 1987: 3; Mare 1997: 277. 63 Fleischer 1973: 263. 64 Newell 1939: 41; SC 2: 351. 65 Newell 1939: 77-8; SC 2: no.2342. 66 Wright 2010: 238 nos.18-35. Note however that the monogram employed on the issue would seem to suggest an attribution to AkePtolemaïs. 62

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.389. Abd al-Kader 1949; Burns 2005: 16.

114

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA Zeus Ouranios/Ba’al Šamīn was widely accepted by the army and populace in the city and surrounding area. The most significant numismatic innovation undertaken by the Damascene mint was the introduction of the cult statues of the Syrian Gods, Atargatis and Hadad, on the respective silver coinage of Demetrios III and Antiochos XII.67 The iconography of these issues has already been discussed above (Chapter 2.1) but it may be beneficial to repeat the main points here. The coinage of the Damascene Seleukids marks a departure from previous minting habits by representing unabashedly Semitic deities on the coinage of a major Seleukid mint. As previously stated, Damascus was the only major city held by Demetrios III before his occupation of Antioch in the year of his own enslavement (88/7 BC) and the only centre held by Antiochos XII. The iconography utilised by these kings at Damascus was therefore at the very heart of their projected self representation and ideology. Both deities are clearly represented by cult statues. The figures are shown frontally with their upper arms held rigidly against their torsos, their forearms perpendicular, projecting away from the body to either side. Atargatis is often shown radiate and/or veiled. She holds a poppy flower in her left hand and has an ear of grain above each shoulder. Her body and legs are adorned with disc-like protuberances which may represent breasts, fruit or scales. A frontal head – probably intended to represent a gorgonion – stares out from the centre of her chest (figs.57-8).68 Hadad wears a conical, pointed cap, he is robed and wears a cloak over his shoulders. He carries an ear of grain in his left hand and is flanked by two bulls – the same composition is seen in Roman period statues of the vernacular Jupiter Heliopolitanus (figs.59, 168-9).69 The statue basis is visible on the numismatic depiction of the Hadad statue but is absent from the representation of Atargatis.

Figure 168. Jupiter Heliopolitanus now in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (Fleischer 1973: pl.148).

We can interpret the representations of indigenous cult statues on royal Seleukid silver coinage as a manifestation of the overwhelming importance of the Syrian Gods in Hellenistic Damascus. What may be seen as quiet acceptance of the syncretic nature of the gods on the bronze issue of Antiochos Grypos, a generation later has bloomed into a wholly naturalised affair. Greek elements may still be found in abundance on the coinage of Demetrios III and Antiochos XII – the all encompassing reverse wreaths, Greek legends, obverse portraiture and the entire iconographic corpus for the bronze coinage all exhibit a concerted effort on the part of the administration to be viewed as a Hellenic regime. The main silver reverse types belie that attempt. The depiction of the Syrian Gods on the silver coinage of Seleukid Damascus cements the city as one of the three principal centres of their worship (along with HierapolisFigure 169. Jupiter Heliopolitanus now in the Louvre (Fleischer 1973: pl.157).

67

On the different interpretations of the Atargatis cult statue by modern scholars, see Fleischer 1973: 264-6. SC 2: nos.2450-1. 69 SC 2: nos.2471-2a. 68

115

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Bambyke and Heliopolis-Ba’albek).70 In Chapter 3.3 it was posited that the use of the radiate crown by Seleukid rulers was intimately related to the cult of Atargatis and the centres of her worship. Demetrios III was the only ruler of his generation to make use of the radiate iconography. A significant relationship between Atargatis and the king is made clear in the numismatic corpus; the radiate crown adorns the goddess on the silver issues, but the king himself on the accompanying bronzes. As a legitimate successor of his father, Antiochos VIII Grypos, and the ruler of Damascus with its important sanctuary of the Syrian gods, Demetrios III was literally the last king in a position to partake in an hieròs gámos at one of the major sanctuaries and I would suggest that he took advantage of that position. Antiochos XII succeeded his brother at Damascus but for some reason he chose not to be represented as radiate and utilised Hadad rather than Atargatis as his patron and principal silver coin type. Perhaps, as suggested above, his brother’s continuing life, even if he was a hostage at the Parthian court, prevented Antiochos from undertaking his own hieròs gámos thereby prohibiting the use of the radiate crown. The cult statue of Atargatis depicted on the coinage of Demetrios III resembles the well known image of the Artemis of Ephesos, especially if one considers the disc or pendant pattern to represent breast or fruit rather than scales.71 A series of other, fragmentary cult statues – all Roman in date – have been discovered in what was Seleukid Koile-Syria, at Heliopolis-Ba’albek (numerous examples), Caesarea Maritima and Gadara among others (figs.170-1).72 The figures have all been traditionally interpreted as statues of Artemis Ephesia. Kampen posits that prominence of the Artemis Ephesia cult in Roman Syria and Palestine was a consciously engineered development: “Perhaps Artemis was one of the deities transplanted by the Romans into the cities of the Decapolis as they attempted to ‘reclaim’ these cities that had been under Hasmonean rule.”73 However, understanding all such deities as the Artemis of Ephesos should not be a foregone conclusion. Indeed the very existence of the late Seleukid use of the imagery at Damascus should indicate that this was not the case at all. The proximity of these sites to Damascus with its great sanctuary of Atargatis and Hadad (not to mention the great cult centre at Heliopolis) would suggest a more promising, localised, source for the origin of the KoileSyrian goddesses than distant Ephesos.74

Figure 170. Artemis Ephesia now in the Selçuk museum (Fleischer 1973: pl.18).

70 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 10; Josephus Jewish War 9.93; Justin Epitome 36.2.2; Macrobius Saturnalia 1.23.10-20; see also Dussaud 1922: 219-21; Rostovtzeff 1932: 100, 178; Avi-Yonah 1959: 8; Teixidor 1989: 71. 71 Fleischer 1973: 263-9. For an extended discussion of the so-called breasts, see pages 74-88 in the same volume. 72 Heliopolis Ba’albek: Fleischer 1973: 273-5. Caesarea Maritima: Frova 1962. Gadara: Bol et al. 1990: 203-4. 73 Kampen 2003: 211. 74 Fleischer 1978: 327; Kampen 2003: 215.

Figure 171. Artemis Ephesia now in the Tripoli museum (Fleischer 1973: pl.34).

116

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA 5.3

THE MOUNT HERMON PANION

The Panion, or sanctuary of Pan, was centred around a terrace with a natural cave and a complex of springs at the southern foot of Mount Hermon, immediately above the headwaters of the River Jordan. Until the last quarter of the first century BC the site remained a small rural sanctuary, free from built structures and far from any urbanised centres. The location of the sanctuary has been known to European travellers since the early nineteenth century, identified through Roman period inscriptions located above the mouth of the cave.75 However, following an earthquake in 1837, the terrace was strewn with large fallen rocks and access to the cave itself was obstructed.76 Over six seasons, from 1988-1994, the Israeli Antiquities Authority cleared the terrace and conducted the first scholarly excavations of the Panion (fig.172).77 Josephus describes the shrine in the first century AD as located below a mountain whose top was perpetually encased in cloud (Mount Hermon). The cave of Pan itself was veiled with thick vegetation and contained a bottomless pit with sheer sides filled with still water.78 By Josephus’ time the sanctuary had already undergone a dramatic redevelopment from its simplistic Hellenistic origins. Herod the Great had established a marble temple of Augustus on the site following his occupation of the southern Ituraean territories (c.23 BC), and his son Philip founded the city of Caesarea-Philippi around the once rural shrine (c.2 BC).79 Worship continued at the Panion until the fourth century AD when the growing influence of Christianity spelt its ultimate demise.80 By the nineteenth century the Panion had reverted to an Arcadian, idyllic, state (fig.173). Thomson describes the “merry laugh” of the Jordan which “swells up the sides of the echoing hills!”81 This environmental setting was undoubtedly a determining factor in the original location of the sanctuary. The Hellenistic phase of the site preceded the erection of any structure or monument in the vicinity of the cave dedicated to Pan.82 The evidence that does exist for cultic practices at the Panion in this period is entirely ceramic and appears predominantly Hellenic in character. There is no epigraphic, iconographic or historic evidence to suggest syncretism between the traditional Greek god of wild places and a local Semitic cult.83 The ‘natural’ form of the temenos, with no built structures conforms with the rural worship of a Greek Pan but does not provide any architectural clues that might prove or deny the presence of an indigenous influence.

Figure 172. The Panion (Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority, Ma'oz 1996: fig.1).

Figure 173. The Panion in the mid-nineteenth century (Thomson 1862: 229).

Exactly when the cult of Pan was established below Mount Hermon is unclear. The mountain itself was considered holy to the local Ituraean population and was home to many vernacular cult centres during the GrecoRoman period.84 The Hellenistic ceramic assemblage at the Panion includes vessels datable from the third to midfirst centuries BC. However, many third century shapes continued to be produced well into the second century and in this instance the pottery dates can provide no more than a chronological guideline.85 Maʾoz suggests that the Panion was established c.260 BC either by Ptolemaic officials or spontaneously by itinerant Greeks.86 Polybius tells us that the battle between Antiochos III the Great and the Ptolemaic strategos Skopas was fought in the vicinity of the Panion in 200 BC.87 This may also be seen to imply a Ptolemaic foundation for the sanctuary. However, as rightly noted by Tzaferis, Polybius was

75

Seetzen 1810: 15-6; Burckhardt 1822: 38-9. Berlin 1999: 28-9. 77 Maʾoz 1995; id. 1996; id. (forthcoming). 78 Josephus Jewish War 1.21.3. 79 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 15.344-53; id. Jewish War 2.9.1. 80 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 7.17. 81 Thomson 1862: 228-31. 82 Berlin 1999: 28-9. 83 Tzaferis 1992: 129, 131; contra Cohen 2006: 264. 76

84

Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel 1.10.9. On the cult locations see Dar 1993; Aliquot 2008. 85 Berlin 1999: 30. 86 Ma’oz 2007a: 3-4; id. 2007b: 6-8. 87 Polybius Histories 16.18.2, 28.1.3.

117

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES writing two generations after the event in question and there is no record of the sanctuary prior to the battle.88 There were fragments of Achaemenid period pottery found below the terrace although these were few and unstratified and are not believed to represent the existence of a sanctuary before the Hellenistic period.89 Tzaferis posits that Pan may have been credited with the Seleukid success following the panic which spread through the enemy ranks.90 The Panion could therefore be viewed as a Seleukid monument of thanks to the god for very specific divine assistance. Certainly the only built component of the Hellenistic sanctuary, a retaining wall built upslope from the approach ramp, does not date to before the early second century BC.91

Figure 174. AR tetradrachm, Antigonos II Gonatos (Freeman & Sear).

Pan had been honoured with a new sanctuary at Athens (the cave of Pan below the acropolis) as a result of his intervention at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC.92 The great-granduncle of Antiochos III, Antigonos II Gonatos, also recognised Pan’s terrifying role in his victory over the Galatians at Lysimacheia in 277 BC.93 Following the victory, Antigonos employed the deity for the first time as the dominant Macedonian coin type, either in the form of a shield crest on the obverse of silver tetradrachms or else depicting the god in the act of erecting a military trophy on the reverse of bronzes (figs.174-5).94 Antigonos further instigated the celebration of the Paneia festival on Delos in 245 BC, either relating to his victory at Lysimacheia or perhaps in thanks for his victory at Andros over the Ptolemaic fleet.95 It is feasible, even probable, that the Panion below Mount Hermon was recognised as sacred in similar victorious circumstances. If so, the encounter between Antiochos III and Skopas in 200 BC marks the most likely occasion.

Figure 175. Æ unit, Antigonos II Gonatos (Classical Numismatic Group).

The Pan of Hermon has been viewed as the interpretatio graeca of an indigenous god of the local spring but supporting evidence is almost non-existent.96 There had been an earlier bāmâ sanctuary (a Semitic open air ‘high place’) located in the Iron Age settlement at Tel Dan (Biblical Laish) 3 km to the east of the Panion. Dan was abandoned during the Iron Age although worship continued at the bāmâ sanctuary through Achaemenid, Ptolemaic, Seleukid and Roman domination.97 As at Seleukid Jebel Khalid, the sacral aspect of Tel Dan outlived the secular reason for its existence. There are no literary references to the bāmâ sanctuary in the Greco-Roman period. A marble torso of a naked female, presumed to be Aphrodite (fig.176), was found in 88

Tzaferis 1992: 132-3. Berlin 1999: 30 n.5. 90 Tzaferis 1992: 132-3. 91 Maʾoz 1995: 5. 92 Herodotus The Histories 6.105; Pausanias Description of Greece 8.54.6; Pritchett 1979: 25. 93 Pritchett 1979: 32-4. 94 See for example SNG Alpha Bank nos.986-9, 1010-45. 95 Champion 2004-2005. 96 Dussaud 1936b; Lipiński 1971: 16; Aliquot 2008: 85 n.45. 97 Biran 1974: 40-3; Tzaferis 1992: 129-31; Fried 2002: 442-3. For a discussion of the use of the word bāmôt/bāmâ in the Tanakh and the Septuagint, see Fried 2002: 437-41. 89

Figure 176. Aphrodite from Tel Dan (©1974 American Schools of Oriental Research, all rights reserved. Republished by permission of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Biran 1974: fig.15).

118

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA the city.105 Despite the groans of the mageiros, the sacrificer-cum-cook, the banquet assumes a festive atmosphere with even the play’s misanthropic namesake being incited to celebrate by the closing lines.

the vicinity of the Tel Dan high place but cannot be firmly attributed to the sanctuary.98 A Hellenistic Greek and Aramaic bilingual inscription found during the 1976 excavations at Tel Dan does reveal that the resident deity was not provided with an interpretatio graeca but remained theoi to en Danois – the god of Dan.99 The bāmâ sanctuary and the Panion coexisted with seemingly little interaction throughout the Seleukid period. The distance of both sites from any settlement (the closest known site was the villa and associated outbuildings or village at Tel Anafa, six kilometres to the south-west)100 and the rugged terrain of the Mount Hermon-Golan region resulted in a truly secluded setting. Neither sanctuary was a convenient site to visit and a pilgrimage from anywhere other than Tel Anafa would have required significant planning and preparation.101

By the Hellenistic period (and probably much earlier) the vicinity of Mount Hermon – the highlands of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis and Auranitis together with Massyas and Abilene – was populated by Arabic Ituraeans. The Ituraeans were supposedly descended from the Biblical Yetur, one of the twelve sons of Ishmael.106 Where they originated is something of a mystery but by 333 BC they controlled the mountains behind Phoenicia. Alexander the Great was forced to leave his siege-works around Tyre and lead an elite force into the mountains to suppress the ‘Arab’ tribesmen of the Anti-Lebanon.107

Of the Hellenistic ceramic assemblage at the Panion, 84% of vessels were produced locally in a local fabric, made of clay sourced from the region around Mount Hermon, Gaulanitis and the Hula valley. The remaining 16% was composed of finer Phoenician black-slip ware or Antiochene or Phoenician Eastern Sigillata A together with fragments of two imported Cycladic wine amphorae.102 Berlin asserts that while the ceramic assemblage may have been owned by the sanctuary, the lack of associated storage facilities (such as the magazines at the second phase of Jebel Khalid Area B and Umm el-Amed) would seem to suggest that the pottery was brought to the Panion by devotees expressly for use at the sanctuary on specific occasions. The minimal proportion of alien wares among the assemblage is indicative of the continuing vernacular and private nature of the cult during the Hellenistic period. Devotees were clearly drawn from the surrounding rural populations who “were neither well off nor generous.”103

Above the Panion, on the slopes of Mount Hermon at Har Senaim, lie a number of feature-clusters interpreted as an indigenous Ituraean cult site. While the name Har Senaim was only given to the site following the Six Day War (1967), the Arabic name for the site, which is still used locally, is Jebel Halawa or Mountain of Sweetness. In conjunction with nearby Wadi ‘Asal, the wadi of honey, the Har Senaim cult sites have been tentatively linked to the cult of Pan as the patron of beehives.108 However, there is no evidence for beekeeping at the site and the association is largely based on the presumption that the influence of the Panion was widespread among the local population. There does not appear to be any real evidence that the Greek Pan had anything to do with the indigenous cult sites at Har Senaim.109 It is difficult to ascertain how the Panion maintained a purely Greek character among a non-Greek population. There are no known Hellenic settlements in the immediate neighbourhood with the exception of the villa at Tel Anafa where the inhabitants appear to have been highly Hellenised Phoenicians.110 Are we to understand that the rural Ituraean population worshipped the Hellenic Pan in a Greek manner without instruction or GrecoMacedonian example? Or was worship at the Panion relegated to the residents of Greco-Phoenician Tel Anafa and their Hellenised attendants? It is possible that there was a much more extensive colonial population inhabiting similar villas across the rural landscape which remain unidentified in the archaeological record. The high proportion of locally made ceramics prohibits the suggestion that the bulk of devotees were making pilgrimages to the Panion from much further afield and the continued worship at the Panion does provide

The form of the Hellenistic vessels are even more instructive than their fabric. Over 90% of the remains consisted of cookware, almost all of which showed signs of use. Some may have been left at the cave in a votive capacity but most seem to have been used in the preparation of banquets at the sanctuary.104 Menander’s classic comedy Old Cantankerous, produced for the Athenian Lenaia of 316 BC, provides an interesting, if fictional, illustration of sacred dining experiences held at a Panion. The play is set at the rural shrine of Pan at Phyle in Attica where the protagonist’s mother is intent on honouring the deity with a banquet in response to an encounter with the god in a dream. The devotees in Old Cantankerous bring all of their own accoutrements from their home in Athens – ranging from rugs and couches to cooking vessels and the sacrificial sheep – to the shrine at Phyle located in the mountains 16 km to the north-west of

105

Menander Old Cantankerous 390-430. Genesis 25.15; I Chronicles 1.31; Schürer 1973: 562-3; Said 2006. 107 Arrian Anabasis 2.20; Quintus Curtius History of Alexander 4.2.183.1. 108 Dar 1993: 28. 109 Dar 1993: 28-92. 110 Although much of the material from Tel Anafa suggests a geographically Phoenician origin for the inhabitants, the use of certain Hellenic ceramic forms and the evidence for a non-Semitic diet prove the culturally Hellenised nature of the occupants. See for example Weinberg 1971: 108-9; Herbert 1994: 16-8; Redding 1994: 281-2, 2902; Berlin 1997: 21-9, 94-103. 106

98

Biran 1974: 43. Biran and Tzaferis 1978; Tzaferis 1992: 131. Herbert 1994; 1997; Weinberg 1971: 86-7. 101 Tzaferis 1992: 129; Berlin 1999: 31. 102 Berlin 1999: 31. 103 Berlin 1999: 31. 104 Berlin 1999: 30. 99

100

119

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES evidence for a more pervasive Greco-Macedonian presence in the rural areas of Syria than the literary sources would indicate. 5.4

GADARA

The settlement of Gadara is located on a plateau east of the River Jordan and south of the River Hieromax (the modern Yarmuk). It overlooks the Sea of Galilee and controlled several major transport routes in the GrecoRoman period.111 Although the settlement’s name is almost certainly derived from the Semitic toponym ‘Gader’ (relating to a wall or boundary) there is only very limited evidence to suggest a pre-Hellenistic town of any size.112 Gadara was controlled by the Ptolemies until the Fourth Syrian War when it was besieged and captured by Antiochos III (218 BC). The town reverted to Ptolemaic control following the battle of Raphia but was again secured by Antiochos during the Fifth Syrian War. The site must, therefore, have been occupied during the early Hellenistic period but little material evidence of a Ptolemaic phase has been uncovered.113 By the late third century BC the settlement was considered the strongest and most important city of the region and this importance was probably heightened in the following generation when the city was refounded as a polis by Seleukos IV. At this point the settlement received new city walls and adopted the dynastic name Seleukeia.114 As noted in Chapter 1.3, Gadara was a highly Hellenised centre and was known by the second century BC as the “new Attica of the Syrians”.115 Despite its prominence in the literary record as a centre of Hellenic culture, Gadara remained small, the Hellenistic fortifications enclosing a settlement of only 5.25 hectares116 – less than a fifth the size of contemporary Jebel Khalid. It remained in Seleukid control for a century before its capture and sack by the Hasmonaean king, Alexander Jannaeus (100 BC).117

Figure 177. Gadara (N.L. Wright after Hoffmann 1999: fig.5).

plateau to the north of the settlement overlooking the Yarmuk valley. A program of excavations conducted by the DAI between 1995 and 1998 revealed the remains of a large Hellenistic temenos and related features including a second century BC temple (fig.177).119

The ruins of Umm Qays were first recognised as Gadara by Seetzen in 1806 although in 1812 Burckhardt erroneously suggested that the abandoned settlement should in fact be identified with Gamala. The site was included (as Gadara) in Schumacher’s 1890 survey of the Aljoun region of Transjordan but it was not until 1974 that intensive research was initiated by the Deutsches Evangelisches Institut (DEI). The DEI, in conjunction with Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) started annual excavations in 1987 which continue as a joint project with the National Museum of Berlin.118 In 1995, restrictions were lifted on a military zone situated on the

THE TEMPLE As at contemporary Umm el-Amed, the Gadara temple was built on a podium rather than a krepidoma. At Gadara, the construction debris surrounding the podium dated the extended building phase to the second half of the second century BC, well into the period of Seleukid control.120 Both Gadara and Umm el-Amed therefore provide securely dated Hellenistic examples of temple podiums which lend credence to Lucian’s Seleukid date for the temple podium at Hierapolis-Bambyke. The preserved height of the Gadara podium stood 2.45 metres above the Hellenistic surface level of the surrounding temenos court. The uppermost 90cm of the podium was inset by 20cm on all sides which perhaps gave the appearance of a krepidoma step without actually adhering to Hellenic conventions.121

111

Hoffmann 2001: 391; Bührig 2009: 98. Schmid 2008: 353. 113 The earliest stamped amphora handle recovered from the temple area dates to 243 BC but is as yet unpublished, Claudia Bührig pers. comm. 114 Polybius Histories 5.71.3, 5.86.7, 16.39.3; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.136; Hoffman 2001: 391-3; Cohen 2006: 282-6. 115 Meleager Greek Anthology 8.418; Geiger 1985. 116 Bührig 2009: 98 n.12. 117 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.356; id. Jewish War 1.2.2. 118 Seetzen 1810: 27-9; Burckhardt 1822: 271; Schumacher 1890; Wagner-Lux et al. 1978; Weber 1991 (with a detailed account of earlier investigations); Hoffmann 1993; id. 1999: 795; Weber 2002. 112

Unusually for the Hellenistic period, the Gadara temple appears to have been oriented to the south. The northern 119

Hoffmann 1999: 797-8; id. 2001: 395. Hoffmann 1999: 806, 812; id. 2001: 395-6. 121 Hoffmann 1999: 799. 120

120

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA (rear) end of the podium was built directly on bedrock. Although the temenos area was naturally sloping to the south, the southern extent of the temple podium rested on a rocky spur (Hoffmann’s “gewachsenen Kalkstein”) which rose up three metres from the bedrock creating a solid area of foundations. The construction of the Baitokaike temple around a rock feature might suggest that the Gadara temple was sited on the spur for religious reasons. However, it is just as likely that the temple placement was pragmatic, the spur providing a natural building platform and reducing the economic strains of foundation construction. The orientation of the rocky spur may also account for the unusual southern axis of the temple.122 The podium was made of local limestone and measured 11.2 by 19.35 metres. Within the podium were three partially submerged, corbelled rooms or crypts (figs.178-9). Two, running parallel and oriented northsouth (2.65 by 9.85 and 2.7 by 9.85 metres respectively), filled the bulk of the podium. The third room was located at the southern end of the structure and ran the width of the podium (6.5 by 2.7 metres). All three rooms were connected by doorways and accessed via a stairway which led up through the northern wall opening into the naos/adyton area of the temple above. Hoffmann posits, probably correctly, that the crypts may have functioned as the opisthodomos, the sacred storage area or temple treasury.123

Figure 178. Gadara temple podium (Hoffmann 1999: fig.4).

Figure 179. Gadara temple podium (courtesy Ross Burns).

Nothing of the superstructure remains in situ but Hoffmann reconstructs the temple layout based upon the positioning of the three crypts – the two parallel crypts occupying the space below the naos while the southern, transverse crypt was below the pronoas (fig.180).124 The north wall of the southern crypt could therefore bear the load of the wall between the naos and pronoas. No provision was made for the inclusion of a built partition dividing the main naos from an adyton although a system of screens or curtains should not be ruled out.125 A Doric column drum, a triglyph and metope frieze block and several pieces of Doric cornicing and pediment fragments indicate that the superstructure of the temple was constructed in line with the Doric (or pseudo-Doric) canon (fig.181). An abundance of ceramic roof tiles

122

The siting of temples, shrines or altars on rock outcrops appears to be a common feature of Hellenistic Syrian religion. The example from Baitokaike is discussed above (Chapter 4.3) but the phenomenon is repeated at Gerasa at the Lower Zeus temple (Chaper 5.5) and later at the Upper Zeus temple. The whole Upper Zeus temenos was literally hewn out of the rock but during the IFAPO excavations of 1999-2000 it was discovered that within the temple podium an outcrop of rock was left standing so that the podium encases it. The adyton was built on the remains of an earlier built structure which is unable to be dated due to the overlaying standing structure. The excavators believed the construction method to be an economic use of labour, minimising the amount of quarrying required, Ina Kehrberg pers. comm. 123 Hoffmann 1999: 797-8; id. 2001: 395. 124 Hoffmann 1999: 799. 125 See for example the curtains which covered the doorway into the naos and separated the naos from the adyton of the Jerusalem Temple, see Letter of Aristeas 86-7; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.318; id. Jewish War 5.212-3, 219; I Maccabees 4.51; Matthew 27.51; Mark 15.38; Luke 23.45; Hebrews 9.3. One curtain (or both?) was apparently removed by Antiochos IV and may have been rededicated at the temple of Zeus at Olympia, see Pausanias Description of Greece 5.12.4.

Figure 180. Gadara temple façade (Hoffmann 1999: fig.21).

testified to the gabled nature of the building and a lionheaded water spout from the horizontal sima was uncovered in the vicinity of the podium further confirming the Hellenised form of the building (fig.182).126 Small fragments of Ionic and Corinthian capitals were also recovered from the temple area although these have not been assigned to the original Hellenistic structure.127

126 127

121

Hoffmann 1999: 800; id. 2001: 395-6. Hoffmann 1999: 807-8.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES THE TEMENOS The enclosed Hellenistic temenos measured 94.5 by 97 metres (figs.183-4).131 It was entered from the south through a monumental propylaia measuring 11.45 by 7.9 metres and provided with a tetrastyle portico across its southern, or external, face. Two distinct building phases were observed by the excavators although, of the whole, only the foundations and part of the threshold remain.132 To east and west of the propylaia, the temenos wall was provided with an internal colonnade which was probably peristyle, extending around the entire sacred enclosure. Unfortunately, traces were only uncovered along the southern boundary.133 The temenos wall itself was a massive structure, measuring 2.2 metres thick and conforming in size and construction style with the Hellenistic period city wall known from the acropolis area. The wall served a double purpose. It clearly differentiated the sacred space within from the profane world without. However, in practical terms it also functioned as a retaining wall, allowing for the creation of a level surface within the naturally sloping temenos.134 A similar purpose was served by the temenos enclosure at Jebel Khalid, certainly during phase three and probably in the earlier stages.

Figure 181. Gadara temple frieze block (Hoffmann 1999: fig.11).

The approach to the temple was marked out by a paved path or ‘sacred way’ which travels north from the propylaia directly towards the podium.135 At its northern end, the construction materials of the sacred way included spolia although it is unclear whether the spolia was part of the original construction or indicates a period of repair. The sacred way was raised 85 cm above the surrounding court but how access to the temple was achieved is unclear as there is no recognisable evidence for external temple stairs leading up from the path to the top of the podium.136 Hoffmann posits that the ad hoc nature of the final approach implies that the architects may not have been familiar with this type of temple form.137 Such a suggestion is certainly reasonable given the unorthodox nature of the Gadarene temple from a Greek perspective.

Figure 182. Gadara temple lion-head water spout (Hoffmann 1999: fig.12).

Remains of the blocks of local limestone used to construct the temple were coated in painted plaster in imitation of marble. The plaster has been likened to the Hellenistic masonry style and the Pompeian First style wall decoration and is reminiscent of the same traditions exhibited at Jebel Khalid and elsewhere.128 Without any evidence for the placement of columns, the temple façade has been reconstructed as either tetrastyle prostyle or distyle in-antis.129 Several coin issues produced at Gadara during the Roman period may bear witness to the original form of the temple.130 The reverse types on the coins show an enthroned Zeus Nikephoros within a tetrastyle temple. There is reason to link the Hellenistic Gadarene temple with the worship of a Zeus-like figure (see below) and we may therefore lean towards an interpretation which sees the structure as tetrastyle although this is far from certain.

Adjacent to the northern opening of the propylaia and west of the so-called sacred way, a rectangular basin was cut into the exposed bedrock. The basin ran parallel to the sacred way and was quite substantial, measuring 5.6 metres by 1.9 metres, with an approximate depth of 90 centimetres. Immediately to the north of the basin, a rockcut cistern provided a suitable water source.138 The situation of the basin at the entrance of the temenos suggests that the water was provided for ritual ablutions 131

Hoffmann 1999: 797-8; id. 2001: 395. The measurements given by Hoffmann and Bührig (2000: 207) are 94 by 109 metres. 132 Hoffmann 1999: 801-2. 133 Hoffmann 1999: 798; id. 2001: 396. 134 Hoffmann 1999: 798, 803-4; Hoffmann and Bührig 2000: 207-9. 135 Hoffmann (1999: 801) uses the term “Steindamm” or dyke to describe the path. 136 Hoffmann 1999: 800-1. 137 “Anzeichen für irgendeine andere Art eines Aufgangs zum Tempel jedenfalls sind nicht erkennbar, und auch Spuren für die bei Podienbauten geläufige Form des Aufgangs als vorgelegte Treppe fehlen in Gadara. Es scheint, als seien die Baumeister unsicher im Umgang mit dieser Architekturform gewesen.” Hoffmann 1999: 801 n.17. 138 Hoffmann 1999: 802; id. 2001: 396.

128

Hoffmann 2001: 396. The second Hellenistic altar at the Zeus sanctuary at Gerasa was also decorated with painted plaster which exhibited elements of both Pompeian First and Second style. The structure is dated to the mid-first century BC, see Eristov and Seigne 2003. 129 Hoffmann 2001: 395. 130 See for example SNG ANS 6 nos.1305, 1309, 1321, 1324-5, 1339-40.

122

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA to purify those entering the sacred space. Hellenistic priests in Judaea and Babylon had to ritually bathe when entering the temple before further washing their hands and feet in a basin before approaching the altar,139 and we have already discussed the presence of the limestone basin found within the Jebel Khalid temenos.140 This ritualised washing was mirrored to some extent in Greek practice although perhaps more emphasis was placed on the symbolic nature of the ablutions in the Semitic rituals. Ritualised cleansing finds continuity in the biblical Psalm 26.6,141 modern Islamic cleansing rituals before prayer, and even the Catholic ritual of making the sign of the cross with holy-water before entry into a church. To the north of the main temenos, a rocky spur which projects out over the Yarmuk valley was enclosed in a secondary temenos wall. The outcrop was pitted with bowl-like depressions and a number of man-made channels and terraces which do not appear to relate in any logical order.142 A cave in the northern face of the outcrop contained fragments of a drum altar which is believed to date to the Roman period.143 Hoffmann posits that the rocky area had been the original, indigenous, rural sanctuary upon which the later Hellenistic temple was based – perhaps another example of a west Semitic ‘high place’. This suggestion is supported by the fact that no evidence for an altar of any form has been found in the temenos proper. Instead, ritual activity appears to have continued to focus on the outcrop of natural rock. Although the pre-Hellenistic period of Gadara is not well understood, a fragment of an Iron Age terracotta statuette was found near the outcrop which locates some of the earliest evidence for activity on the site at the high place and tentatively confirms the outcrop’s religious importance.144

Figure 183. Gadara temenos, the high place from the temple podium (courtesy Ross Burns).

Figure 184. Gadara temenos looking north (courtesy Ross Burns).

Nabataean Petra is known for its many high places.146 The Biblical bāmôt sanctuaries appear to have been connected specifically with the worship of the supreme god Ba’al or the goddess Ašerah, the Bronze and Iron Age prototype of Atargatis.147 Indeed the ecstatic procession of prophets described as returning from one Philistine high place might be seen as a prototype for the musical worship of Atargatis at Hierapolis and the frantic activity of her galloi.148 The association between these two fertility deities and high places may be taken further. High place sanctuaries may have originated as the place of winnowing during the harvest season, located at high points in or near settlements in order that the wind might take away the chaff. The general association between grain production and the local fertility deity may be taken for granted, but the numerous Biblical references to prostitution taking place at both bāmôt sanctuaries and threshing floors falls within the same assemblage of cultic rites.149 The act of winnowing, by its very nature, would not be expected to leave many archaeological indicators and thus to declare that all high places performed the dual role of cult place and threshing floor is impossible. Needless to say, it would also be a moot point. The worship of Ba’al and/or his consort as fecund

Open air ‘high places’ (bāmâ or plural bāmôt) were a ubiquitous feature of the Levantine cultic experience from the Bronze Age through to Late Antiquity. They feature commonly in the Old Testament as both Jewish and non-Jewish places of worship.145 As we have already seen, the bāmâ at Tel Dan continued to function as a place of worship well into the Roman period and

139

Hultgård 1987: 88-9; Linssen 2004: 151-3. Clarke et al. 2005: 133. “I wash my hands in innocence, and go about your altar, O Lord,” NIV translation. 142 Similar bowl-like depressions were found at the possible Edomite (Iron II) high place at Jabal al-Qṣeir, see Lindner et al. 1996: 147. 143 Hoffmann 1999: 798, 804-5; id. 2001: 396. 144 Hoffmann 1999: 805, n.27. 145 See for example I Samuel 9.14; I Kings 3.2-4, 12.31, 15.14; II Kings 23.8; II Chronicles 11.14; Isaiah 57.5-7; Jeremiah 7.31; Ezekiel 6.3-6, 16.16-22, 20.28-31; Hosea 4.13. While some bāmôt sanctuaries may have incorporated built platforms as at Tel Dan, the pre-Islamic Arabic equivalent, ḥugbâ, implies secluded sacred space that is not enclosed within a building but rather an open sanctuary or high place. Ḥugbâ appear across the Arab frontier from Mecca to Edessa, see Gawlikowski 1984: 302. It may be that the Gadara high place was more in line with Arabic traditions than those of the Judaeo-Canaanites. 140 141

146

See for example Robinson 1908. Ba’al: Jeremiah 19.5, 32.35. Ašerah: I Kings 14.23; II Kings 17.10-1. Oden 1977: 107; Kaizer 2002: 154. 148 I Samuel 10.5-6; Lucian The Syrian Goddess 44, 50-1. 149 For an example of prostitution and the threshing floor see Hosea 9.1; May (1932: 92 n.3, 95; id. 1939) considers the nocturnal meeting of Ruth and Boaz at the Bethlehem threshing floor (Ruth 3) as a sanitised example of a standard fertility ritual in which Ruth played the part of a sacred prostitute. 147

123

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES may have provided extra facilities to the sanctuary just as the northern temenos at Baitokaike must have provided facilities for the temple of Zeus. A second, Roman period, podium temple was built as part of the theatre complex. This second temple was built above the remains of Hellenistic period structures although the exact purpose of the earlier remains have yet to be confirmed.152 A 52cm high marble statue discovered in the temenos area in 1975 is now in the Umm Qays archaeology museum (fig.185).153 The seated male figure is missing its head, right arm, left forearm and left foot but the extant remains leave little doubt as to its interpretation. The pose and costume conform to the archetypal Pheidian Zeus that was used as the basis of so much Seleukid numismatic iconography. The figure is naked to the waist but has the end of his himation trailed over the left shoulder. The legs are bent in a naturalistic fashion, the right foot drawn back towards the diphros while the left extends forward. The left arm is raised, the remains of the forearm indicating where the hand would have grasped an upright sceptre. The attribute originally held in the right hand, an eagle or the goddess Nike, has been lost but the seated Zeus Nikephoros illustrated within the temple on the Gadarene Roman provincial coins154 suggests that Nike would have been a more likely candidate. The sculpture dates to the Roman Imperial period but provides the best evidence as to the nature of at least one of the deities worshipped within the temenos during the Seleukid period. This presence of Zeus Nikephoros at the Gadara sanctuary has prompted Hoffmann and others to view the temple and its cult as an innovation of Antiochos IV Epiphanes.155 However, as stated above, the proximity of the Hellenistic temple to the rocky high place with its grotto makes it realistic to propose a preexisting sanctity attached to the topography. Elsewhere, such as at Baitokaike and Gerasa, a cult of the local Ba’al was attached to abnormal rocky features in the landscape. The cultural memory of such holy sites permeated Greek colonial traditions and the vernacular Ba’al was absorbed into the Seleukid consciousness as a manifestation of the omnipresent Zeus. This acculturation may have been encouraged or accelerated by Antiochos Epiphanes, but its roots surely go back to the beginning of Seleukid rule.156 Interestingly, there is no evidence at all to suggest that the Hellenistic sanctuary suffered as a result of Hasmonaean occupation in 100 BC.157 Rather it continued to flourish into the Roman period as is evidenced by the Roman period Zeus statue and the drum altar from the northern high place.158

Figure 185. Gadara Zeus statue now in the Umm Qays Museum (courtesy Ross Burns).

providers at high places, even those which may not have originated as threshing floors, would have been a very natural progression for the Semitic fertility cult. The Seleukid temple at Gadara may therefore be seen as evidence for the process of the Hellenisation of indigenous sacred space – a process which maintained the original topographic focus of worship despite the appendage of Greco-Macedonian religious architecture to the site. There was no evidence for Greco-Roman votive offerings found on or around the high place but the presence of a Byzantine wine-press reveals that the location continued to be used throughout the later history of the site.150 Any pagan offerings visible during periods of Christian or Islamic dominance are likely to have been removed and/or destroyed. The Hellenistic temenos at Gadara does not appear to have incorporated any secondary shrine structures or magazines. This draws the sanctuary in line with the main temenos at Baitokaike and the (Roman) Zeus temple at Gerasa (discussed below), but distinguishes it from the temples at Umm el-Amed and from Jebel Khalid which were provided with storage rooms and other enclosed ritual spaces. The need for such subsidiary structures may have been mitigated by the presence of the three crypts within the temple podium. However, the crypts were surely never used for sacred dining or to accommodate pilgrims – any structures appropriate for these purposes must either have been temporary erections or located outside of the sanctuary. In the Roman period, a theatre (the so-called north theatre) with all its associated amenities was constructed immediately south of the propylaia and may have facilitated any overflow from the temenos during periods of increased ritual activity.151 The area of the north theatre is the focus of a current investigation led by Claudia Bührig of the DAI, the results of which are not yet fully published. The theatre complex looks to have been a first century AD construction although earlier structures in the vicinity

From the second century AD, the thermal springs located at Amatha (modern Ḥammat Gader), four kilometres north of Gadara on the Yarmuk River, were developed as 152

Bührig 2010; Claudia Bührig pers. comm. Hoffmann 1999: 813; id. 2001: 396. See for example SNG ANS 6 nos.1305, 1309, 1321, 1324-5, 1339-40. 155 Hoffmann 1999: 813; Reidl 2005: 108-12. 156 See Chapter 2. 157 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.356; id. Jewish War 1.2.2. 158 Hoffmann 1999: 806-7. 153 154

150

Hoffmann 1999: 804-5. Segal 1995: 46-8; Sear 2006: 547. The second century AD Zeus sanctuary at Gerasa was not only located adjacent to the south theatre, but was also adjacent a separate banqueting hall, see Braun 1998: 598.

151

124

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA a suburb of Gadara with the construction of a bath complex and theatre. The site was renowned in antiquity for its therapeutic qualities159 and it might be expected that the area would have been developed during the Hellenistic period. However, despite a reference by Josephus to the location early in the first century BC, there does not appear to be any material evidence for the Hellenistic use of the site. A passage in Strabo suggests that the area was considered unhealthy and avoided before the Roman period.160 If Amatha was considered sacred during the period of Seleukid dominance, no trace remains to mark that veneration. 5.5

this date the area formed a steep gully between the two pieces of high ground.167 It was on the high-ground to the west of the piazza that a temple of Zeus was constructed in the mid-first century AD. By that date the irregularly shaped piazza was already in place. Watts and Martin Watts prefer to locate the Seleukid settlement on the east bank of the Chrysorhoas, below the Circassian town, where they consider the nineteenth and twentieth century street plan “approximated the size and proportions” of Seleukid foundations.168 However, archaeologically speaking, significantly more Hellenistic material has been discovered in the western half of the city and the occupation to the east may have been less developed before the first-second century AD Roman building programs. The placement of the core of the Seleukid city in south Jarash is supported by the fact that the Oval Piazza and the Zeus sanctuary on its distinctive of rocky terrain fail to fit within the geometrical master plan for Gerasa ascribed by Watts and Martin Watts to the Roman city. The credible theoretical lines of urban planning that constitute their first Roman phase of the city are restricted to areas north of the piazza entrance.169 In the second (Hadrianic) phase of the enlargement and embellishment of the Roman city, the Upper Zeus temple and its surrounds once more defied urban planning – it was oriented on a completely different axis – even though it was drawn within the southern extension of a geometric model.170 Regardless of the Seleukid centre, Hellenistic ceramic scatters, architectural fragments and burials found throughout the western half of the city (the eastern half below the modern city is necessarily less well known) prove that the entire space of the later Roman settlement was already being used from the second century BC.171

GERASA

Gerasa may have been founded as a Hellenised colony in the first generation of the Macedonian conquest, either by Alexander himself, or more probably, by the regent Perdikkas (323-321 BC). There were a succession of preGreek indigenous settlements on or near the site, remains of which have been dated from the Early Bronze to Middle Iron Ages although clear evidence for the immediate pre-Greek period is lacking.161 When Gerasa passed to the Seleukids during the Fifth Syrian War the settlement could not have been inconsiderable as it was soon refounded and granted the dynastic name Antiochon-the-Chrysorhoas (some time before 143/2 BC).162 The presence of an iron strigil in the hypogean tomb of a young child dated to shortly after 162 BC confirms the presence of Hellenic or Hellenising populations in the city during the Seleukid period.163 Following the disastrous defeat of Antiochos VII Sidetes in 129 BC, Gerasa fell successively under the control of the tyrants of Philadelphia, the Hasmonaeans and Pompey who may have established the city as one of the founding members of the Decapolis.164

From the period of the Jewish revolt until the late third century AD – peaking in the century after Hadrian’s visit in 129/30 AD – the settlement flourished as a magnificent example of a Greco-Roman city on the empire’s eastern frontier. Under the Byzantines, Gerasa was home to a vibrant Christian community which utilised the physical (temple) remains of the pagan past to aid in the construction of their new churches.172 Contrary to Kraeling, the Muslim conquest in the seventh century AD and a series of earthquakes in the seventh and eighth

Very little is known structurally of Hellenistic Gerasa.165 The settlement probably centred around the location of the so-called Oval Piazza, occasionally referred to erroneously as the ‘forum’, located in the south of the Roman city. To the east of the piazza, the tel known as ‘Camp Hill’ may be the site of the original Macedonian colony while to the west, a rocky spur rises 12 metres above the piazza.166 The piazza itself appears to have been a construction of the first centuries BC/AD. Before 159

167

Eusebius Onomasticon; Origen Commentary on John 6.4. Josephus Jewish War 1.86; Strabo Geography 16.5; Hirschfeld and Solar 1981: 199. 161 Fink 1933: 110; Gerasa 27-9; Glueck 1939; Kennedy 1998: 54-5; Kehrberg and Manley 2002b: 8; March 2002: 11; Cohen 2006: 248; Lichtenberger 2008: 134-5. 162 Gerasa 30-2, 461-2 no.251; Cohen 2006: 248-9. Rostovtzeff (1932: 62) preferred to view the Seleukid city as the first Greco-Macedonian colony established at Gerasa. He dates the settlement to the reign of Antiochos IV (175-164 BC). 163 Kehrberg and Manley 2002a: 197-9; id. 2002b; id. 2002c: 8; Kehrberg 2006: 299. 164 Josephus Jewish War 1.104, 1.155-7; Fink 1933 112 n.23; Gerasa 33-4; Watts and Martin Watts 1992: 306; Kampen 2003: 207-8. On Pompey and the Decapolis, see Chapter 1.1 above. 165 Parapetti 1984: 256; Cohen 2006: 249. 166 Gerasa 17, 28, 31; Seigne 1997: 993; Ball 2001: 188; Cohen 2006: 249.

Rostovtzeff 1931: 77. Watts and Martin Watts 1992: 307. 169 Watts and Martin Watts 1992: 308-11. 170 Gerasa 17, 156-7; Watts and Martin Watts 1992: 311-4. By the midsecond century AD construction of the Upper Zeus temple, the sanctuary had begun to be crowded by the first century AD South Theatre and the associated banqueting hall. The new building developments had to allow for the preceeding structures and accommodated them through the arrangement of an irregular temenos wall. However, the first century BC/AD orientation of the Zeus sanctuary was retained which was at odds with the axis of the planned city, Ina Kehrberg pers. comm.; J.-P. Braun, et al. final excavation report in preparation. 171 For examples see Gerasa 32, 138, 146, 460 nos.243, 246; Kraeling 1941: 11; Kehrberg and Manley 2001: 440; id. 2002a: 197-9; id. 2002b; id. 2002c. Most of the numerous surface scatters and stratified Hellenistic ceramics remain to be published, Ina Kehrberg pers. comm. 172 March 2002.

160

168

125

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES location was chosen by the Ottoman government for the settlement of Circassian colonists in 1878, giving birth to modern Jarash.175 It is largely a fragmentary picture that needs to be pieced together in order to reconstruct the features of the Seleukid past and, among those fragments, evidence of the religious life of the city is particularly ephemeral. The long history of post-Seleukid Gerasa – Hasmonaean, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Circassian and modern – has resulted in the obliteration of almost all of the aboveground Hellenistic city. The rocky terrain has meant that, across the site, earlier structures were successively erased and their material reused or incorporated into later buildings.176 The first archaeological investigation of Jarash was begun by an Anglo-American team in 1928.177 The extent of ancient and medieval occupation has meant that excavation, survey and reconstruction work has continued to the present day, conducted by teams from America, Australia, Britain, Denmark, France, Italy, Jordan, Poland, Spain, and Switzerland (fig.186).

Figure 186. Gerasa (Braun et al. 2001: fig.1).

A SELEUKID ZEUS SANCTUARY? The Gerasa Zeus sanctuary was first surveyed by Schumacher who used the designations “südlichen Tempels” and “bēt et-tei” to distinguish it from the more northern Artemis temple complex (Schumacher’s “Sonnentempel”).178 The god honoured at the sanctuary was identified epigraphically during the Anglo-American expedition179 but it was not until the 1970s that the Jordanian Department of Antiquities started preliminary excavations and restoration. The project passed to the Institut Français d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient (IFAPO) in 1982 as part of the international ‘Jerash Archaeological Project’180 and work conducted by various French teams has continued until today.

Figure 187. Gerasa Zeus sanctuary viewed from the Oval Piazza (courtesy Ina Kehrberg).

By the mid-second century AD, the sanctuary of Zeus was composed of two major terraces with a smaller intermediate ‘landing’ rising from the area of the Oval Piazza up to a number of grottos at the westernmost crest of the spur, all enclosed by the city wall (figs.187-9). The first century AD lower temenos wall was incorporated in the city wall at the southern junction of the lower and upper terraces. The rocky spur was associated with early cultic activities and respected by the city fortifications, abutted by the upper temenos wall and projecting southwards and uphill around the crest of the rocky outcrops.181 Josephus suggests that the Hellenistic city was already fortified but the only city walls known archaeologically were erected in the early second century AD. In the south-west, west and north-west, the city wall

Figure 188. Gerasa Zeus sanctuary from the air (courtesy APAAME, photo by David L. Kennedy).

centuries AD saw little impact on the productivity and vitality of the site. The settlement’s decline paralleled the decline of the north-south trade routes following the ninth century relocation of the Abbasid capital from Damascus to Baghdad. By the period of the crusades, Jarash-Gerasa was considered to have been long abandoned.173 The city visited by Seetzen, and later by Burckhardt, in the early nineteenth century was still abandoned except for the occasional Arab tribesmen who caused fear among the Europeans’ guides.174 Like Hierapolis/Membij, the 173 174

175

Gerasa 1. See also Walker 1894 who dates the Circassian colony to 1881. 176 Kehrberg 2004: 189. 177 Gerasa 5. 178 Schumacher 1902: 29-32. 179 Gerasa 17, 374 no.3, 380 no.11. 180 Seigne et al. 1986. 181 Gerasa 13 n.12, 18; Braun 1998.

Gerasa 36-69; Ina Kehrberg 2000: 152. Seetzen 1810: 32-4; Burckhardt 1822: 252-64.

126

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA foundations cut through the remains of late Hellenistic necropoleis (fig.190).182 Kraeling suggested that the origin of the sanctuary of Zeus should be looked for in the Seleukid period and that its construction probably dates to the refoundation of the settlement as Antioch-on-the-Chrysorhoas during the reign of Antiochos IV Epiphanes.183 The argument may be summarised as follows.  Successive temples to Zeus were built in honour of Zeus Olympios and were initially the preeminent religious structures of Gerasa.  The Roman period Zeus temples did not conform to the grid of the planned Roman city so they must relate to, or respect, a pre-Roman layout.  The first century AD temple possessed the right of asylia or inviolability.  Shrines possessing asylia were usually granted that privilege during the Hellenistic period. Further evidence for a Hellenistic grant of asylia is commonly derived from Josephus’ story of the late second century BC tyrants of Philadelphia, Zeno Kotylas and Theodoros, who took advantage of the inviolability of Gerasa and stored their treasury within the sacred grounds.184  The Hellenistic right of asylia was retained by the temple of Zeus under the Roman administration and was clearly a functioning aspect of the sanctuary in AD 69/70 when the suppliant Theon and his children sought safety during a time of regional uncertainty.185  Antiochos IV Epiphanes favoured the cult of Zeus and identified the god with the indigenous Ba’al.186  The Gerasa Zeus sanctuary was built over a space presumed to be sacred to Ba’al Šamīn. Therefore, the Zeus temple must have been built in the reign of Antiochos IV and by the same logic, if Antiochos IV was bestowing honours upon the sanctuary then he must also be responsible for the refoundation of the city.

Figure 189. Gerasa Zeus sanctuary from the air (courtesy APAAME, photo by David L. Kennedy).

Figure 190. Gerasa Zeus sanctuary (Seigne et al. 1986: fig.13).

suggestion is generally believed to be plausible. The correlation between those Seleukid settlements which were granted dynastic names, the prominent worship of Zeus and the bestowal of the right of asylia is accepted by Lichtenberger who is, however, critical of Kraeling’s assertion that Zeus was prominent due to the earlier importance of a Ba’al who was venerated in the same locality.187 Kraeling’s suggestion rested on the belief that the grottos behind the later Zeus sanctuary may have been the focus of the original pre-Hellenistic worship at the site, probably related to the cult of Ba’al Šamīn. Seigne, following Kraeling (and Rostovtzeff), posited that the grottos were an Iron Age cult centre, a precursor to the Seleukid period cult of Zeus and the ultimate reason for the placement of the Hellenistic sanctuary.188 This association between pre-Hellenistic and Hellenistic cult is rejected by Lichtenberger who sees no possibility for

Kraeling’s argument, based on logic but lacking any material evidence, is somewhat circular. Essentially it can be reduced to the concept that Antiochos Epiphanes favoured Zeus, therefore if there was a sanctuary of Zeus at a settlement named Antioch it must have been founded or promoted by Epiphanes. Nevertheless, the basis of the

182 Josephus Jewish War 1.104; Kehrberg and Manley 2001; id. 2002a: 199-202; id. 2002b; Kehrberg 2006. 183 Gerasa 30-1. 184 Josephus Jewish War 1.104. 185 Fink 1933: 114; Bickerman 1937: 118; Gerasa 377; Seigne 1985; Rigsby 2000. 186 While I agree fully with this assessment of Epiphanes’ religious activities, Kraeling cites the temple of Zeus Megistos at Dura as evidence of the activities of Antiochos Epiphanes. That structure is now thought to date to the period after the Parthian occupation of the city, see Downey 2004b: 54-5.

187

Lichtenberger 2008: 148-50. Rostovtzeff 1931: 76; Gerasa 1938: 17-8, 28; Seigne 1997: 995; id. 2002: 13; Seigne et al. 1986: 41. 188

127

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES period.190 It would be incredible for a population to xenophobically maintain the purely Greek worship of a deity, while simultaneously altering the physical and architectural space to reflect vernacular traditions. Cultic space is dictated by the needs of the religion and rituals in question. It is unlikely to be heavily influenced by foreign traditions from which the cult is actively kept aloof. Furthermore, Zeus’ assimilation with Poseidon, Sarapis, Kronos and Helios (found throughout the epigraphic record at Roman Gerasa) suggests that the deity’s exact nature was confused.191 The most likely explanation for such a multifaceted figure would be to view the god as a clumsily Hellenised, but universally supreme, Ba’al. Just like Lucian’s description of the many aspects of Atargatis, the Ba’al of Gerasa was Hellenised into a deity who was essentially Zeus, but with enough individuality to necessitate further distinction. An early dedication at the temple of Zeus was inscribed for one Zabdion, son of Aristomachos, Priest of Caesar, normally dated to AD 22.192 While dating to over a century after the period of Seleukid control over the city, the dedication speaks of the cultural milieu present in the city. As a priest of the Imperial cult, Zabdion was clearly a man of some importance. While his patronymic is Greek, his own name is Semitic suggesting that his family were more likely Hellenised Semites than genetic Hellenes. The deity worshipped by Zabdion at the sanctuary of Zeus was a result of similar processes of acculturation – a Hellenised Ba’al rather than an untainted Zeus brought from the Greek mainland. Apart from a single second century AD inscription in which Zeus was associated with Tyche there is no evidence for the presence of a parhedra or consort at the sanctuary of Zeus.193

Figure 191. Conjectured development of the Gerasa Zeus sanctuary (after Rasson and Seigne: 1989 fig.1).

The earliest known built component of the sanctuary consisted of a simple square altar, constructed on top of a natural outcrop of rock, at the northern end of what would later become the lower terrace. Seigne dates the construction of the altar to the first quarter of the first century BC – at a time that Seleukid influence south of Damascus was very much on the wane and when direct Seleukid control over Gerasa had almost certainly ceased.194 Given the presumed prominence of the Zeus cult in the Seleukid city, the lack of a built monument is surprising. According to Seigne, a monumental, walled altar, the “naos hellénistique” was built around the earlier structure in the later part of the first century BC and raised rocky surface surrounding the monument was

cultic continuity on the site due to the large lacuna in evidence from the sixth century BC until the presumed foundation of the Zeus cult under Antiochos Epiphanes.189 While Lichtenberger is right to approach the matter with caution, his assertion that the Hellenised settlers and their Semitic co-habitants at Gerasa bore no trace of the sort of cultural memory visible elsewhere is dangerous. As has already been discussed, such cultural memories appear quite clearly at the very similar sanctuary of Zeus at Gadara and the worship of Zeus (the Greek sky-god) at a natural depression at Baitokaike. It can still be seen in the modern vernacular understanding of the Charonion of Antioch as an effigy of the Virgin Mary and in the Christian (and subsequent Islamic) usurpation of sacred space at Hierapolis and Damascus. Lichtenberger’s rejection of this kind of cultic memory stems from his wish to view Zeus as a wholly Greek dynastic god, imported by the Seleukids and worshipped by the Hellenic colonists apart from the indigenous population. Lichtenberger dismisses any syncretic possibility for the Gerasene Zeus but he nonetheless acknowledges the ‘orientalised’ layout of the temple during the Roman

189

190 Lichtenberger 2008: 145; see also Richardson 2002: 81. Regardless of its ‘orientalisation’ the proportions used in the construction of the lower Zeus temple may be mathematically ascribed to a sanctuary for “a god equivalent to Zeus” if not the deity himself, see Kalayan 1984: 2467. Kalayan’s hypothesis (based on Vitruvius On Architecture 3.1.) supposes that each Greco-Roman deity had a discernable set of symmetry and proportions that dictated the form of their temple architecture. The changing understanding of Bel as Zeus for example saw modifications made to the proportions of his temple at Palmyra (Kalayan 1984: 248). 191 Fink 1933: 114; Gerasa 382 no. 15, 392-3 no.39. 192 Fink 1933: 113-4; Gerasa 373-4 no.2. 193 Gerasa 381 no.13. 194 Josephus Jewish War 1.86-7, 1.104. Seigne 1997: 995-6.

Lichtenberger 2008: 135.

128

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA terraced to produce a level court. It was not until the early first century AD (AD 27/8) that a monumental vaulted temenos wall was built around the terrace.195 It was also in the first century AD (AD 69/70) when the so-called lower Zeus temple – a limestone podium crowned by a walled court – was constructed above and around the remains of the Hellenistic altars, preserving the earliest monument within the new structures (figs.191-3).196 This configuration of a rocky outcrop capped by a Hellenistic altar which was itself enclosed by a later Roman structure is a replication of the practice seen at Baitokaike.197 The sacral nature of the natural topography was remembered and the associated late Hellenistic remains considered sacred enough for later populations to feel the need to preserve them within successive monuments. The west temenos vault was covered by the second century AD grand stairway to the upper Zeus temple. Below the stair foundations, the natural terraced slope behind the temenos enclosure was retained, marked with small cavities containing ceramic fragments and ashy deposits indicative of sacrificial remains. The earliest ceramics date to the late second-first centuries BC, presumably predating and contemporary with the construction of the Hellenistic altar below. The rituals carried out on the rock terrace, only metres away from the altar, were almost certainly associated in some way. They seem to indicate a continuation of sacrifice after the construction of the lower sanctuary and may also have borne some relation with activities carried out in and around the grottos above.198 The grottos on the spur of the hill above the Hellenistic altar showed evidence that there had once been one or more irregular enclosure walls abutting the rocky spur. A large number of limestone statuette fragments representing stylised eagle-like birds of prey (figs.194-6), presumably votive offerings, as well as many fragmentary incense altars were recovered from the area during the IFAPO excavations undertaken by Kehrberg in 1999.199 Their context would suggest a date preceding the Roman sanctuary development but their simplistic style and fragmentary nature hinder accurate dating.

Figure 192. Lower Zeus naos (Seigne 1989: fig.2).

Figure 193. Lower Zeus naos (Eristov and Seigne 2003: fig.1).

At least two second-first century BC shaft tombs were destroyed during construction of a banqueting hall between the city wall and the south temenos wall of the Upper Zeus temple, immediately below the grottos. The structure could date to the first or early second centuries AD and perhaps was designed to accompany the South Figure 194. Unpublished plan of the Zeus sanctuary and grotto area, E. Laroze and J.-P. Braun, December 2000 (courtesy Ina Kehrberg).

195

Seigne; 1985: 104-5; id. 1989: 104-9; id. 1997: 996-8; Eristov and Seigne 2003. The upper terrace with a second Zeus temple was built in the period AD 161-6 making use of spolia from the earlier structures. The remains of the Upper Zeus temple still crown the rise today, see Gerasa 18, 31; Seigne 1997: 1000-1; March 2002: 28-9. 196 Ball 2001: 188; Eristov and Seigne 2003: 270. 197 See Chapter 4.3 above. See also the note regarding the placement of the Gadara Zeus temple, Chapter 5.4 above. 198 Kehrberg 2004: 189, 192; Kehrberg in Braun et al. (forthcoming). 199 The excavations of the whole Upper Zeus temple complex were part of the IFAPO restoration project 1996-2000 directed by J.-P. Braun, see Braun et al. (forthcoming), for the ceramics see Kehrberg 2004.

129

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES BC although he admits that providing fixed dates is problematic given the scant evidence.202 A close parallel for the early cultic activity behind the Zeus sanctuary at Gerasa may be found at Har Senaim on Mount Hermon. Both of the Ituraean sanctuaries at Har Senaim were composed of various irregular walled structures built up against natural outcrops of rock with similar grottos to those behind the Zeus sanctuary at Gerasa (figs.197-9). The site’s built features appear to have included open and roofed walled structures, hearths and a single centralised burial cave and mausoleum at the foot of the rise. The assemblage of small finds is consistent with activities at ritual sites, scatterings of coins dating from the reign of Antiochos III through to the Byzantine period along with ceramic fragments of both locally made cooking ware and occasional imported table wares such as Eastern Sigillata, glass and burnt ovid-caprid bones. Of a more sacred nature, a number of betyls (upper sanctuary), stone and bronze altars and stone votive eagle statuettes (lower sanctuary) were also found at the Har Senaim sanctuaries.203 The structures and materials (especially the presence of eagle statuettes) recorded at Har Senaim, closely resemble the fragmentary record of activity at the Gerasa grotto area.

Figure 195. Limestone eagle wing from the Gerasa grottos (courtesy Ina Kehrberg).

Although nine inscriptions were recovered from the lower sanctuary at Har Senaim, none provide the name of the god being venerated at the site. The presence of the eagle statuettes (fig.200) and a Roman period altar showing a radiate bust in relief have led the excavators to suggest that the god worshipped at Har Senaim was none other than Ba’al Šamīn, either in that guise, Hellenised or Latinised as Zeus-Jupiter Heliopolitanus, or perhaps both – as Ba’al at the upper sanctuary and Zeus-Jupiter at the lower.204 It would appear that the idyllic natural setting of Har Senaim with its rocky outcrops and panoramic views unhindered by high enclosing walls was the focus of a pre-Hellenistic cult. Together with the equivalent cult site at Gerasa, they should be seen as examples of pre-Islamic Arabic ḥugbâ sites.205 It was only in the wake of Hellenisation from the second century BC that either cult site received their first built structures which were further embellished during the later Hellenistic and Roman periods.206 The mausoleum at Har Senaim and the careful treatment of the burials at the Gerasa grotto area suggest that some form of ancestor cult may have occurred in tandem with the early worship of Ba’al-Zeus at these sites.

Figure 196. Limestone eagle leg from the Gerasa grottos (courtesy Ina Kehrberg).

Theatre or Lower Zeus temple.200 The tombs were clearly not looted but carefully emptied and subsequently refilled with earth and debris. The original tomb contents appear to have been reburied elsewhere, with some debris being placed in a Hellenistic quarry cut and natural cavity in the side of the spur referred to as ‘cave G18.’ The presence of the Hellenistic burials and the careful manner in which the graves were destroyed has led Kehrberg to posit that the area may have been functioning as some sort of funerary garden used for funerary feasts and a perpetual ancestor cult.201 The later banqueting hall, possibly associated with the Zeus sanctuary, could be seen as evidence for the continuation of the earlier phase of site use. Seigne suggests that the site may have been of cultic significance from as early as the seventh century

The presumption regarding a Seleukid grant of asylia for the dynastically sponsored sanctuary of Zeus at Gerasa found in Kraeling and all who have followed him, is not supported by the meagre material evidence from the site of the later sanctuary of Zeus.207 Lichtenberger’s

200 Braun 1997. The excavated hall may have already been destroyed by the late second or early third century AD. The upper temple construction blocked access to the banqueting hall from within the city although access could still be gained via one of the caves in the outcrop which passed below the city wall, Kehrberg in Braun et al. (forthcoming). 201 Kehrberg 2002c; 2004: 192; id. 2006; Kehrberg in Braun et al. (forthcoming). For the association between necropoleis and feasting among the Arab populations of the Syrian steppe, see Patrich 2005: 101.

202

Seigne 1997: 995. Dar 1993: 28-92. 204 Dar 1993: 65-9, 76-8, 87-8. 205 Gawlikowski 1984: 302. 206 Dar 1993: 85-6. 207 Gerasa 30-1. 203

130

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA

Figure 197. Upper sanctuary at Har Senaim (courtesy Shimon Dar).

argument, although opposed to Kraeling’s assumption vis-à-vis Zeus’s vernacular origins, is still based very much on the premise that the Gerasa Zeus cult was an initiative promoted by the Seleukid dynasty.208 However, any cultic activities that may have been undertaken at that location – and that they did take place is almost undeniable – have left little permanent trace on the landscape. How could that be the case if the sanctuary was grand enough to warrant royal Seleukid concessions and the right of asylia? The sanctuary clearly exercised that right by the period of the Jewish Revolt (AD 69/70) when Theon and his children sought asylum within the temenos.209 But the Jewish Revolt was essentially a reaction against 130 years of Roman influence and presence in Judaea and the rest of Koile-Syria. The period in question is 230 years after the reign of Antiochos IV Epiphanes and 140 years after the latest possible period in which the Seleukidai (in the form of Kleopatra Selene and Antiochos XIII) might have exercised influence over Gerasa. The Theon inscription is hardly incontrovertible evidence when discussing a royal Seleukid grant of privileges.

Figure 198. Lower sanctuary at Har Senaim (courtesy Shimon Dar).

Kraeling’s interpretation was ultimately founded on a single passage in Josephus’ Jewish War in which the Hasmonaean king, Alexander Jannaeus, besieged and took Gerasa where Theodoros son of Zeno, tyrant of Philadelphia-Amman, had stored his treasure.210 The insinuation that Theodoros was taking advantage of the sanctuary’s inviolability is worth entertaining. Unfortunately, Josephus’ accuracy at this juncture is troubling. In an earlier incident, Alexander Jannaeus is said to have captured the most valuable belongings of Theodoros son of Zeno at Gadara.211 To my knowledge no-one has yet suggested that the tyrant’s treasury was stored at Gadara on account of a grant of asylia. The disparity is never considered, yet as discussed above, Gadara did possess a significant temple and sanctuary to

Figure 199. Conjectural reconstruction of the lower sanctuary at Har Senaim (courtesy Shimon Dar).

Figure 200. Basalt eagle fragments from the lower sanctuary at Har Senaim (Dar 1993: pl.44). 208

Lichtenberger 2008: 134-6. Fink 1933: 114; Bickerman 1937: 118; Gerasa 377; Seigne 1985; Rigsby 2000. 210 Josephus Jewish War 1.104. 211 Josephus Jewish War 1.86. 209

131

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Antiochos (VIII Grypos) Aspendios and he is called only once.215 Regarding the following generation, Josephus speaks of Antiochos (XII) Dionysos, brother of Demetrios (III), as the last Seleukid king. Not only did the Seleukidai continue to rule parts of Syria and Kilikia for another two decades after the death of Antiochos Dionysos, but it would appear that they continued to rule in Koile-Syria, at Damascus and Ake-Ptolemaïs for another decade and a half – a fact that Josephus himself acknowledged elsewhere.216 By relying on Josephus, the modern discourse discussing an early date for the Gerasa Zeus sanctuary’s grant of asylia, rests on some very unstable foundations. While the claim for a Seleukid grant of asylia to the sanctuary of Zeus at Gerasa is not groundless, enough doubt surrounds the source material that such an assertion is clearly contentious. Direct royal Seleukid patronage for Gerasa’s Zeus sanctuary should not be taken for granted.

Figure 201. Gerasa Temple C (N.L. Wright after Gerasa pls.22, 46).

TEMPLE C With the Seleukid origins of the Gerasa Zeus sanctuary in question, it seems doubtful to secure a Seleukid date for any religious monument in the city. However, fragments of information provided by the structure known as Temple C can be used to suggest some form of Hellenistic religious activities (fig.201). Temple C is located immediately west of the church of St Theodore, south of the Artemis sanctuary. The structure was built directly on bedrock in foundation cuts which show the same quarry marks as those underlying the upper terrain of the grottos, tombs and Zeus sanctuary. The area surrounding Temple C also appears to have functioned as one of the necropoleis of Seleukid Gerasa.217 The sanctuary is the smallest temple complex known at Gerasa, measuring 24 by 27 metres. The temple was constructed as an inverted T-shape, the pronoas (6.3 by 3.85 metres) being wider than the adyton (2.9 by 3.0 metres). Temple C was adorned with Ionic pilasters, but the tetrastyle prostyle portico employed Corinthian columns. The structure was built on a low podium, one metre above the paved temenos court. The temenos was defined by an Ionic peristyle colonnade which attached directly to the rear of the pronoas enclosing an area measuring 15.3 by 9.4 metres. A 1.6 metre square altar was situated in the centre of the paved court. The temple podium covered two subterranean crypts below the pronoas and adyton, the latter of which could be entered via a doorway in the north face of the podium.218 Following the destruction of the temple superstructure in

Zeus in this period, a feature lacking at Gerasa. In the parallel passage of one (or both) episodes in Jewish Antiquities, Josephus states that Alexander Jannaeus besieged and took the city of Essa where the greatest part of the treasury of the tyrant of Philadelphia was stored. In the latter passage the tyrant is Zeno rather than his son.212 Both the Jewish Antiquities passage and the Jewish War passage regarding the capture of Gerasa provide the same secondary information about Alexander’s ejection of Demetrios the governor of Gamla and thus indicate that the two passages should be seen as a doublet.213 Whether the third incident relating to Gadara should be considered a further repetition of the same event remains to be seen. Regardless, Josephus provides three accounts of the capture of a settlement by Alexander Jannaeus in which he was able to gain control of the greater part of the treasury of the tyrant of Philadelphia. In each account the name of the settlement changes; Gadara, Gerasa, Essa. Is it to be believed that the tyrant’s treasury was kept in two or three different locations around Koile-Syria (each claiming to be the largest portion), or has Josephus confused his narrative, providing alternative accounts of a single, or perhaps two, events? If his account is a doublet, why should more credence be given to a passage in Jewish Wars (citing Gerasa) rather than the Jewish Antiquities passage (citing Essa) when Jewish Antiquities is generally much more detailed for this period? Further proof of Josephus’ confusion about the events of these years can be easily found. In the same passage as Alexander’s seizure of Gadara, he speaks of the capture of Amatha – a site which, as discussed above, was probably not developed until after the Roman annexation.214 Earlier, Josephus stated in Jewish Antiquities that the people of Samareia called on Antiochos (IX) Kyzikenos for aid twice during the siege of John Hyrkanos I. In the parallel passage in Jewish Wars the king called upon is Kyzikenos’ nemesis

215

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.276-9; id. Jewish War 1.64-6. Josephus Jewish War 1.99. On the reign of Kleopatra Selene and Antiochos XIII in Koile-Syria see Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.16.4; Hoover 2005: 98-9; SC 2: 615-6; Wright 2010: 243 no.200. 217 Gerasa 139; Ina Kehrberg pers. comm. Many caves were used for burials in the vicinity of Temple C, the Artemis temple and synagogue. The foundations of the second century AD west city wall, directly in line with Temple C incorporated a Late Hellenistic building; its stuccoed and painted plaster remains as well as contemporary pottery and burnt and butchered (sacrificial) bones made up the fill for the Roman foundation wall. Kehrberg interpretes the building as a naos or heroön from the Hellenistic necropolis; see Kehrberg and Manley 2003: 84-5. 218 Gerasa 140-1. 216

212

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.393. Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.394; id. Jewish War 1.105. 214 Josephus Jewish War 1.86. 213

132

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA the third century AD, access to the adyton crypt was maintained with the construction of purpose-designed rooms situated immediately north of the podium – clearly the importance of the crypt’s contents outlived the sanctity of the temenos above.219 A cave (Cave 5) was situated below the north-eastern corner of the sanctuary and could be entered directly from the temenos or from outside.220 Temple C has proved problematic to date, the sanctuary has produced a scattering of Hellenistic Rhodian stamped amphora handles, first century AD terra sigillata and coins ranging from the Seleukids and Hasmonaeans through to Constantine.221 Cave 5 appears to have been used as a manufacturing site for the production of olive oil in the third century AD and was later used as a repository for material cleared out of the temple as waste, providing ceramic sherds datable from the first to the fourth centuries AD.222 Kraeling proposes that Temple C should be dated to the mid-second century AD, contemporaneous with the neighbouring Artemis temple complex citing the stylistic date of a single Ionic pilaster capital as the principal evidence, supported by the use of the Corinthian capitals of the portico.223 Although stating that the Ionic capital was difficult to date “within even a century,” he dismissed the early dates provided by the coins, Rhodian amphorae and terra sigillata as representing “survivals” relating to the use of the area as a burial ground prior to the construction of Temple C.224 Temple C’s inverted T shaped naos and attached temenos is reminiscent of the second century BC heroön of Attalos I and Eumenes II at Pergamon, a similar second century BC structure at Kalydon in Aitolia and the early third century BC (phase 1) heroön of Kineas from Aï Khanoum (figs.202-3).225 Kraeling sees the crypt and inverted T-form as strong indications that the structure functioned as a heroön and views the use of the Hellenistic layout in the second century AD as evidence for the continued influence of Greek culture at Gerasa – the glorious Second Sophistic writ in stone.226 His assertion is not wholly convincing and he admits that “any attribution of the structure must be tentative, and the more precise it is, the more difficult to uphold.”227 Temple C was thickly covered with debris and not fully excavated. Those areas that were uncovered showed that much of the temenos peristyle and paving had been robbed out for reuse elsewhere.228

Figure 202. The heroön at Pergamon (Boehringer 1937: fig.22).

Figure 203. The heroön at Kalydon (Dyggve 1934: pl.5).

Theodore and perceived similarities with Nabataean temples at Ramm, Khirbet et-Tannür and Petra.229 Providing another alternative, Lichtenberger prefers to see Temple C as a sanctuary dedicated to “North Syrian Deities”, Atargatis and Hadad.230 However, neither scholar’s view takes into consideration the clear heroön form of the temple, the Hellenistic and early Roman use of the surrounding landscape as a necropolis, nor the presence of the crypts below the pronaos and adyton.231 Unlike the neighbouring Artemis sanctuary or the pagan temple-cum-cathedral complex, Temple C is not aligned

Vincent proposed that Temple C might in fact represent a Nabataean temple dedicated to Dusares-Dionysos based on inscriptions found in the area of the church of St

219

Gerasa 141-3. Gerasa 144-5. 221 Gerasa 144. 222 Gerasa 144-5. 223 Gerasa 145. 224 Gerasa 146; Kraeling 1941: 9, 11. 225 Dyggve et al. 1934: pl.5; Boehringer and Krauss 1937: 84 fig. 22; Bernard 1973: 85-111. 226 Gerasa 148; Kraeling 1941: 11; Kampen 2003: 207-8. 227 Kraeling 1941: 8-9. 228 Gerasa 139. 220

229 Vincent 1939; id. 1940. The inscriptions in question are published in Gerasa 383-6 nos. 17-22. 230 Lichtenberger 2003: 238-41; id. 2008: 144. 231 Kraeling 1941: 9.

133

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES with the second century AD Roman street plan. Nor does it front onto the cardo, but sits well to the west, behind the St Theodore complex. As demonstrated by Kraeling, a Roman temple underneath the cathedral was probably dedicated to the syncretised Dusares-Dionysos.232 The inscriptions mentioning the Nabataean god found in St Theodore’s were probably from that vicinity originally, not brought there from Temple C. There is certainly good circumstantial evidence for placing a Dionysos sanctuary in the location later occupied by the Christian complex. Architectural elements of a Roman temple were incorporated into the fifth century cathedral which was superimposed above.233 Additional spolia from a monumental Roman building was used in the construction of the stairs of St Theodore’s propylaia, including metope and triglyph blocks which probably date to the first centuries BC or AD. Yet more monumental architectural fragments including first century BC or AD capitals of the pseudo-Corinthian order like those discovered at the Zeus ‘naos hellénistique’ have recently been uncovered by Swiss excavators in the space between the church, the nymphaeum and the Artemis temple complex. 234 In the fourth century AD the fountain at the fountain court of the cathedral was said to flow with wine each year on the anniversary of the Gospel story of the wedding at Cana, a ritualised miracle which was probably Dionysiac in origin.235 Lichtenberger’s suggestion that Temple C belonged to the Syrian Gods is wholly unsupported.

second century BC heroön dedicated to the settlement’s (Seleukid?) oikist in the Greek tradition as illustrated by the heroön of Kineas at Aï Khanoum.238 THE LAGYNOPHORIA Although structural evidence for Seleukid period cultic activity at Gerasa is hard to determine, it would appear that the population partook in the Lagynophoria, a festival established by the Ptolemaic court in the third century BC. The festival honoured Dionysos and involved a gathering of the population from all social classes. Each participant reclined on a rush mat and ate food provided for them by the festival organiser. However, each individual brought their own wine which they drank straight from their lagynos or wine flask.239 The lagynos was a narrow-necked carinated table jug apparently developed at Alexandreia-by-Egypt in the early third century BC. It is most commonly found in those areas under direct Ptolemaic control: Alexandreia itself, the Aegean, Cyprus, south-west Anatolia and the Levant, especially in the south.240 However, lagynoi are conspicuously absent from Judaean sites, even during the period of Ptolemaic rule. This distribution pattern is believed to derive from the more-or-less exclusive use of the lagynos in conjunction with the Lagynophoria as a religious festival linked to Dionysos and the Ptolemaic dynasty. The absence from (monotheistic) Jewish contexts is therefore understandable.241 The relatively low expense required to obtain a lagynos – especially following the production of regional imitations of the Alexandreian originals – meant that an individual’s financial status need not prohibit participation in the Lagynophoria. Furthermore, the flexibility of the food provided meant that differing cultural dietary prohibitions could be easily accommodated within the otherwise ‘Greek’ festival. The festival could therefore “be practiced across cultural and socio-economic divides” which “probably encouraged its widespread occurrence.”242 The mid-second century BC hypogean tomb excavated at Gerasa in 2001 provides explicit evidence for the practice of the Lagynophoria at Seleukid Gerasa. The tomb (as mentioned above) contained a single child burial with an intact assemblage of ceramic and glass toys, together with a strigil and an elaborate gold pectoral or wreath. Among the other ceramic items in the tomb were an Iranian influenced rhyton, a

It can be argued that Temple C illustrates the principal of Occam’s razor; the complex which looks like a heroön, is located where one might expect to find a heroön and is built over crypts in the tradition of heroai, was probably a heroön. Kraeling’s dating however, appears too forced. Why construct a heroön over a necropolis at the very date of the necropolis’ closure and redevelopment? Given Kraeling’s inability to date the Ionic components of the structure and the proven early use of the Corinthian order at Gerasa (as at the first century BC ‘naos hellénistique’),236 there is no real reason to date Temple C as late as the mid-second century AD. What is more, even if some architectural elements could be firmly dated to a later period, that is not to say that they must have been part of the original structure.237 Temple C’s orientation and placement puts it at odds with a date after the establishment of the Roman road plan in the late firstearly second centuries of our era. The foundation cuts, architectural plan, ceramics and coins all point towards a date in the second or first centuries BC. There is every reason to posit that Temple C may represent the earliest known built religious structure at Gerasa. Without further excavation, such a suggestion must remain conjectural but the possibility should be raised that Temple C was a

238

Graham 1964: 29. Athenaeus Banquet of the Learned 7.276a-c; Fraser 1972: 1.203-4, 2.334 n.112; Berlin (1997: 42-3) dates the foundation of the Lagynophoria to the reign of Ptolemy II, 284-246 BC, although Rotroff (2006: 83) is in favour of a date later in the century. 240 For a sample of Levantine sites with lagynoi see: Antioch (Waagé 1948: nos.17-23); Jebel Khalid (Clarke 2005: 183); Umm el-Amed (Dunand and Duru 1962: 203-8); Tel Anafa, identified as both Aegean or Cypriot imports and also as locally made imitations (Berlin 1997: 223, 42-7); Gerasa, identified as both Cypriot imports and local imitations (Kehrberg 2004: 195; id. 2006: 304); Pella (McNicoll et al. 1992: 116); Philadelphia-Amman (Zayadine 1977-78: 27-9; Bennett 1979: 276) and Beersheba where a single example is known, identified as a possible Chian import (Coulson et al. 1997: no.7). Lagynoi have also been found at other major centres such as Athens, see Rotroff 2006: 82-4. 241 Berlin 1997: 42-3. 242 Kehrberg 2006: 302. 239

232

Kraeling 1941: 8, 12-4. For a recent assessment of the relationship between Dionysos and Dusares, see Patrich 2005. 233 Gerasa 20 n.39, 201, 222; Jäggi et al. 1997. 234 Eristov and Seigne 2003: 273; Ina Kehrberg pers. comm. 235 Epiphanius Against the heresies 51.30.1-2; John 2.1-11; Kraeling 1941: 12-3. 236 Eristov and Seigne 2003: 273. 237 Gerasa 140.

134

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA clepsydra, a zoomorphic vase in the shape of a bull and a lagynos (figs.204-5).243 The bull vessel was painted with a tainia and decorated horns in imitation of a sacrificial victim. The model had been broken at the hind leg with the missing limb deposited outside the grave in the tomb’s dromos.244 Kehrberg posits that the prevalence of funerary provenances for lagynoi suggests that Lagynophoriae may have taken place as part of a funerary banquet akin to the Phoenician MRZḤ or Hebrew marzēah.245 Although nothing is mentioned in Athenaeus regarding a relationship between the Lagynophoria and burial, such a suggestion is certainly valid in light of the presence of lagynoi as grave goods,246 the sacrificial practices at the Zeus sanctuary grottos with their nearby necropolis and the later banqueting hall construction directly above Hellenistic graves. The continued practice of a festival developed by the Ptolemies at Seleukid Gerasa is hardly surprising – especially so if the Lagynophoria was related to funerary practice. Until the Fifth Syrian War, Gerasa and all of its neighbours were part of the Ptolemaic empire. As has been demonstrated numerous times above, the disputes between the Seleukid dynasty and their Ptolemaic cousins were political and did not carry a cultural or religious bias. Egyptian cults and culture continued to influence religious life in Seleukid Syria at every level, from the iconography of royal coin types to private dedications.247

Figure 204. Ceramic bull vase from the Hellenistic tomb, Gerasa (courtesy Ina Kehrberg).

BIRKETAYN Twelve hundred metres north of Roman Gerasa’s north gate lay a natural spring which is known today as Birketayn, the two pools, on account of the remains of its Roman period structures (figs.206-7). The ruins at the spring were examined in 1931 by the Anglo-American team at which time it was determined that Birketayn was to Gerasa/Antioch-on-the-Chrysorhoas as Daphne was to Antioch-on-the-Orontes, a “semi-sacred pleasure ground watered by abundant springs.”248 Nineteenth century European travellers considered the location idyllic. Burckhardt described “the remains of a large reservoir for water, with some ruined buildings near it. This is a most romantic spot; large oak and walnut trees overshade the stream, which higher up flows over a rocky bed ...”249 As with many cult places located by springs such as Daphne or the Panion, it was the natural beauty as well as the abundant fertility which drew worshippers to the site.

Figure 205. Lagynos from the Hellenistic tomb, Gerasa (courtesy Ina Kehrberg).

evenly worked limestone ashlars. The pools are 43.5 metres wide. The larger, northern pool is 67.7 metres long. At its southern end a 2.8 metre thick wall divides it from the southern pool with extends a further 18 metres. Both pools are three metres deep. The dividing wall is somewhat lower than the sides of the pool and in 1931 was noted as being submerged below the waterline. The natural spring fed directly into the southern pool and the dividing wall was fitted with sluice gates to control the level of water which flowed into the northern basin. That the pools were flooded and the wall submerged at the time of the Anglo-American investigations was presumably due to centuries of negligent water regulation.250 There is little to indicate the construction date of the pools themselves but a portico that surrounded the pools was erected in the period AD 209-211.251 Some

The two pools from which Birketayn gets its modern name are contiguous, aligned north-south, and built of

243

Kehrberg and Manley 2002a; id. 2002b; id. 2002c; Kehrberg 2006. Kehrberg 2006: 300-301. 245 Kehrberg 2004: 195; id. 2006: 300-1, 306. 246 Kehrberg 2006: 306. 247 See for example the private worship of Isis at Laodikeia-by-the-Sea (Sosin 2005) or the propylaia statue dedications at Umm el-Amed (Dunand and Duru 1962: 48, 156-7). 248 Gerasa 8, 159. 249 Burckhardt 1822: 265. 244

250 251

135

Gerasa 160-2; Richardson 2002: 90. Gerasa 58-9, 167, 428 no.153.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES date.253 There can be no date ascribed to the temple’s original construction. Two Hellenistic coins found at Birketayn are the only indication that the site was utilised during the Seleukid period. In fact the two Hellenistic coins from Birketayn (a Tyrian bronze of Ptolemy II and a Sidonian bronze of Antiochos VII) were the two earliest coins recovered anywhere at Gerasa during the Anglo-American excavations.254 Given the long circulation of bronze coins in Koile-Syria255 a claim that there was activity at Birketayn during the reign of Ptolemy II (283-246 BC) would be unjustified. However, the continued circulation of coinage after comprehensive regime changes – for example, Ptolemaic to Seleukid or Seleukid to Hasmonaean/Roman – can be considered unusual. Therefore it should be safe to suggest some manner of activity took place at Birketayn during the Seleukid period if not before. The nature of that activity is impossible to pin down but it was likely the prototype of the activities carried out at the same location under the Romans. The absence of known structures dating to the Seleukid period should not prohibit us from assuming the cultic importance of the natural site. The Roman structures at Birketayn were provided as facilities for the Maiouma. The Semitic water festival proved especially popular (or at least notorious) in late antiquity and may have originated at the synonymous port-town located three kilometres north of Gaza.256 However, this assertion has recently been contested with numerous locations across the Levant identified with the same or related names.257 The term maiouma was derived from Semitic roots which at their most basic relate the festival to the concepts of water and rejoicing.258 However, due to the moralising nature of several literary works which mention the Maiouma, it has come to be viewed as “an erotic and esoteric cult” although admittedly “not very well known”.259

Figure 206. Birketayn (Gerasa 161 fig.2).

The celebration of the festival can be certified at seven locations around the Mediterranean, heavily concentrated in the eastern Roman provinces; Constantinople in Thrace, Nikaia and Aphrodisias in Anatolia, Antioch, Tyre and Gerasa-Birketayn in the Levant, but also at Ostia in Italy. It was a triennial, nocturnal festival held in Spring during the Greco-Macedonian month of Artemisios (May) and supposedly incorporated the mysteries of Aphrodite and Dionysos.260 John Chrysostom derides a practice, often presumed to be the Maiouma, which saw the populace gather at a theatre in order to watch women bathing naked in public.261 According to another late account, the Maiouma celebrated at Ostia saw the leading men of Rome descend

Figure 207. Birketayn (courtesy APAAME, photo by David L. Kennedy).

time later, perhaps in the third or early fourth century, the colonnaded pool was joined by the so-called ‘festival theatre’ which was associated with the festival of Maiouma.252 Somewhere in the vicinity of Birketayn was a shrine or temple of Zeus Epikarpios (‘fruit-bringing’ Zeus as at Baitokaike), in whom we may recognise a Semitic fertility god such as Hadad-Ba’al Šamīn. Only an inscribed lintel is known from the building and there is no indication where the structure would have stood. The lintel was found near the mid-second century AD tomb of Germanus situated just to the north of the pools and theatre. The inscription indicates that the shrine was refounded by an auxiliary centurion returning from service abroad, which suggests a second century AD

253

Gerasa 25, 393-4 inscription no.42; Richardson 2002: 90. Gerasa 30, 167, 500; Cohen 2006: 248. 255 See for example Wright (2010) where a hoard with a burial date after 72 BC contained bronzes dating back to the third century BC. 256 Avi Yonah 1954: 41; Cumont 1911 110, no.16; Bowersock et al. 1999: 553. 257 Belayche 2004: 14-6. 258 Belayche 2004: 19. 259 Richardson 2002: 90. 260 Malalas Chronicle 12.284-5; Belayche 2004: 16-7. 261 John Chrysostom Homily on Matthew 7.7. 254

252

Gerasa 55, 159, 162-6, 470-1 no.279; Segal 1995: 11; Sear 2006: 312.

136

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA on the port-city in order to spend a debauched month throwing each other into the sea.262 Christianised Roman emperors fluctuated in their stance on the festival, ultimately banning it on account of its shameful license.263 The true details of the festival are hazardous to reconstruct due to the nature of the historical sources which are predominantly Byzantine in date and thus disconnected from the festival both chronologically and culturally. Indeed, it may even be the case that later authors used the designation ‘Maiouma’ indiscriminately to describe multiple, different, festivals.264 However, that the festival was a well structured part of civic life in the Roman East is attested archaeologically. An inscription associated with a large shallow pool at Aphrodisias honours the Maioumarch, an official responsible for the festival at the city.265

established on the artificial hill. The fortress continued in use throughout the late Hellenistic period and into the Herodian and Roman periods before being replaced by a Roman castellum in the second century AD.268 The name of Tel Beersheba during the Hellenistic period is unknown, but it appears as Berosaba in records dating to the Romano-Byzantine period.269 Thirty-nine stamped amphora handles have been recovered from the site. All can be dated to Grace’s Rhodian export periods II-V (c.240-c.108 BC) with eighteen belonging to the last period (c.146-c.108 BC). None of the handles were found in securely dated contexts but they do reveal the vitality of Beersheba in the Hellenistic period, especially in the later second century BC.270 Beersheba was considered one of the most important religious centres of Judaism from the time of the Patriarchs until the eighth or seventh centuries BC.271 There is no material evidence for occupation on Tel Beersheba in the Bronze Age or earlier, but an Iron Age bāmâ has been identified within the walls of the fortified tel272 which appears to have been thrown down around the late eighth or seventh century in line with the Hezekian/Josiahan religious reforms.273 However, it came as a surprise to the excavators when they unearthed the remains of a Hellenistic period temple complex during the 1971, 1972 and 1974 seasons. Of the 39 Hellenistic stamped handles found at Tel Beersheba, 19 were recovered from the temple excavations verifying the complex’s importance within the Hellenistic settlement.274

As indicated by its name, the presence of water appears to have been the key feature necessitated by the festival of Maiouma. At Ostia the water seems to have been provided in the form of the Tyrrhenian Sea, at inland sites such as Aphrodisias and Birketayn, the rites were conducted by an artificial pool. Brought back to its basic form, a joyful ceremony conducted adjacent to or in a body of water, it is possible to view the Roman period Maiouma as a development of the earlier purification ceremonies discussed in Chapter 4.5 in relation to Hierapolis-Bambyke and known from other centres such as Askalon or at the Aborrhas and Kanathos rivers. At Hierapolis at least, the sacred pool was used for both the ritual cleansing of the cult statues and also religious bathing or swimming.266 The public bathing undertaken during the Roman period Maiouma can be seen as an extension of the divine rites. Just as the deity must be ritually purified in order to perpetuate the cycle of the seasons, so the Maiouma provided a publicly sanctioned venue whereby individuals could be ritually cleansed, whether in preparation for marriage, or to remove the metaphoric stain of some kind of impurity. The origin of the Maiouma is uncertain, but claims of lewd spectacles including nocturnal gatherings, public bathing and generally licentious behaviour are tainted by the biased nature of the historical sources. 5.6

The temple complex consisted of a walled court aligned north-east to south-west (figs.208-10). The principal roofed chamber was built across its south-western end, while two subsidiary chambers and an appended ‘alcove’ were built into the northern corner. The entire superstructure of the complex was constructed of unfired mud bricks built on foundations of unworked fieldstones. The foundations of the eastern corner of the complex incorporated the standing elements of an eighth century structure which previously occupied the site but was ruinous by the time of the Hellenistic complex’s

TEL BEERSHEBA 268 Achaemenid period occupation appears to have been limited to temporary “Tax collection centres” although Derfler dates the construction of the temple complex to the last quarter of the fourth century BC, he does not provide any datable evidence earlier than the second quarter of the second century BC, see Derfler 1993: 52-3. 269 Derfler 1993: 10 n.4. 270 Grace 1985: 42-3; Coulson et al. 1997: 47-8. The lack of secure contexts may have as much to do with the excavators’ diligence with the Hellenistic layers at Beersheba, as with the specific post-depositional history of the site, see Derfler 1993: 9, 11. 271 Genesis 21.31-3, 26.23-6, 41.1-5; Judges 20.1; I Samuel 8.2; I Kings 5.5; II Kings 23.8; I Chronicles 21.2; Amos 5.5, 8.14, Josephus Jewish Antiquities 6.32. 272 The site of the bāmâ is disputed, see Yadin 1976: 7-14; Herzog et al. 1977: 53-8; Fried 2002: 448. 273 Herzog et al. (1977: 57) and Derfler (1993: 14-5) use II Kings 18.22 to support their date of 722 BC, the reign of Hezekiah, for the destruction of the Beersheba bāmâ. However, Yadin (1976) argues that the bāmâ was specifically said to have been pulled down in the following century by Josiah (II Kings 23.8). 274 Coulson et al. 1997: 47-8.

The tel site nine kilometres outside of modern Beersheba was excavated between 1969 and 1976 by the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. It is apparent that the tel was occupied continuously from the thirteenth century BC until its sack and abandonment in the late Iron Age.267 Thereafter occupation was limited until the third-second centuries BC when a substantial fortress was 262

John Lydus On the Months 4.80. Belayche 2004: 18. 264 Belayche 2004: 15. 265 Roueché 1993: 188-9 no.65. 266 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 46. 267 Derfler (1993: 10-1) prefers to date the destruction of the city to the 701 BC campaign of Sennacherib. However, see Yadin (1976: 5-7) and Herzog et al. (1977: 49-52) for the debate regarding the chronology of Iron Age Beersheba. 263

137

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES the Hellenistic population were Idumaeans rather than Judaeans. Idumaeans certainly occupied neighbouring Adora and Marisa (both situated north of Beersheba) and remained aloof from Jewish customs and beliefs until the forced conversions of the late second century BC.277 Architecturally speaking, there is no evidence for Hellenic influence in either building style or form at Hellenistic Tel Beersheba. The layout conforms wholly to the vernacular traditions.278 Two distinct building phases were identified in the Hellenistic period structure, chiefly distinguished by an apparent alteration in the site’s cultic practices. This is considered to be reflective of a fundamental change in religious beliefs and traditions from Hellenistic syncretism to Judaism.279 The change can be dated to the last quarter of the second century BC.280 The period following the death of Antiochos VII Sidetes (129 BC) saw the Hasmonaean priest-king John Hyrkanos I free himself from Seleukid domination and assert his authority in Judaea and the adjoining territories. There are no references to Beersheba in the literary accounts of the campaigns of Hyrkanos although Derfler has argued that this is due to biases in the sources, not wishing to attribute a ‘pious’ act – the destruction of a pagan temple and the creation of a Jewish centre of worship – to a ‘bad’ king.281 The insignificance of the Tel Beersheba fort and its temple during the Hellenistic period is probably just as likely the cause for its omission from the literary record.

Figure 208. Hellenistic temple at Tel Beersheba, phase 1 (N.L. Wright after Derfler 1993: 193).

Figure 209. Hellenistic temple at Tel Beersheba, phase 2 (N.L. Wright after Derfler 1993: 193).

The largest area of the temple complex was the un-roofed court measuring 18.4 by 10.1 metres.282 The court contained a number of ovens along the northern wall belonging to both the first and the second phases. A noteworthy ashy deposit near one oven included pig bones. This is used by Derfler to prove the “pagan” nature of the worship at Tel Beersheba during phase one.283 The presence of pig bones certainly suggests a Hellenised presence, even if it does not dismiss the possibility that the population were Semitic.284 Derfler is probably correct to suggest that the ovens were used by the temple attendants to prepare for ritual meals.285 A large square altar was situated at the south-western end of the court, aligned with the entrance of the south-western 277 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.257-8, 15.253-5; Strabo Geography 16.2.34; Cohen 1990: 211-16. 278 Herzog et al. 1977: 53. 279 Derfler 1993: 3, 57. 280 Three Tyrian tetradrachms (attributed to Gaza by Derfler) belonging to the second reign of Demetrios II were found mixed into the mortar of the second phase rebuilt cross-wall of the main chamber as something of a foundation deposit. They are dated either all to the period 129-8 BC or else to 128, 127 and 126 BC respectively, see Derfler 1993: 55 (dating the coins 129-8 BC) or 33, 148-151 no.119 (dating the coins 128-6 BC). The published images are not clear enough to allow the dates to be checked. 281 For a discussion of the major episodes of John Hyrkanos I’s reign, see Derfler 1993: 17-33. 282 Derfler 1993: 39, 50. 283 Derfler 1993: 44. 284 Remains of pigs have been found in the Hellenised Phoenician deposits at Tel Anafa (Herbert 1994: 16-8; Redding 1994: 290-2; Berlin 1997: 23-9) and at the lower sanctuary at Ituraean Har Senaim (Dar 1993: 84). See also Chapter 6.2. 285 Derfler 1993: 62.

Figure 210. Reconstruction of the Hellenistic temple at Tel Beersheba, phase 2 (Derfler 1993: 203).

construction.275 The alignment of the temple complex, 50 degrees north of due east, was apparently oriented towards the rising sun on the summer solstice. The suggestion that the focus of the temple may have been a solar cult is certainly worthy of consideration – contrary to the presumption of the excavators, there is no need to assume that the Hellenistic temple should have conformed strictly to stipulations laid down in the Old Testament.276 Beersheba was the southern limit of Israelite settlement in the Iron Age. Following the sack and abandonment of the city it no longer existed as a Jewish settlement and there is every reason to suspect that 275 276

Derfler 1993: 40-1. I Kings 6.1-13; Derfler 1993: 59-60, 169.

138

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA chamber. Derfler dates the construction of the altar to the second phase of the temple complex although he claims that it was sunk through the second phase court surface to sit directly on the first phase floor. His interpretation reads awkwardly and is not overly convincing. Without being able to discern the presence of a foundation cut through the second phase floor,286 Derfler’s description suggests that the altar actually belonged to the initial phase of the temple and that the phase two floor surface was built up around it. The altar’s remains were found to be covered with a great amount of charcoal and a partial animal skeleton indicating that it was utilised in the second phase. Presumably this use in the second phase is what prompted the excavators to date the altar only to the second temple – the reuse of a pagan altar in a newly sanctified Jewish sacred space was considered by them to be inconceivable.287

raised 0.95 metres above the external walking surface. There were no distinguishing features found within the chamber but the entire north-east wall was rebuilt as part of the phase two conversion.291 A favissa, a ritual pitdeposit, uncovered to the south-west of the temple complex but directly aligned with the chamber’s entrance and the stone altar suggests that the south-western corner of the main chamber may have been provided with a niche which originally projected south-west over the location of the favissa. The south-western chamber might then be considered the ‘naos’ of the complex, the niche within which the favissa was dug could be considered the ‘adyton’.292 Five other favissae were found within the court, clustered around the altar base. These were clearly associated with the period of rebuilding between the two occupation phases and were capped by the phase two wadi-stone surface of the court. The alignment of the south-western favissa with the door of the south-western chamber and the altar, together with the fact that while other favissae clustered around the altar but respected it – none appear to have undercut the stone foundations – adds further weight to the suggestion that the altar was an original feature of the temple complex, not a phase two addition. All favissae contained small finds which have been associated by the excavators with a Hellenistic cult combining elements of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Hellenic origins. Further pits contained “unusual occupation debris”, deposits of bones (including pig), abundant ash and over 100 snail shells.293 One favissa included a coin attributed to John Hyrkanos I, dating to the period following Hasmonaean independence (129 BC). The coin was considered too heavily corroded to provide any further corroborative dating.294

The north-western subsidiary chamber measured 3.7 by 2.5 metres and was entered via a doorway marked by a large flint threshold discovered in its eastern corner. During the complex’s first phase the chamber was equipped with a bench or platform built of stone in the western corner and an oven in the centre of the room. During phase two the chamber’s entrance was moved to the western corner and a crude semi-circular bin-feature was constructed across the old doorway. Neither the stone bench-platform, nor the oven were reused in the second phase.288 The north-eastern subsidiary chamber originally measured 3.5 by 2.05 metres and was entered through the western corner of the room. Unlike its western counterpart, there were no built features within the room. In the second phase the north-eastern chamber was subdivided by a rough fieldstone wall 1.6 metres from its eastern end. The excavators noted a relative lack of finds, ceramic or otherwise, from this context. Only two complete ceramic vessels were recovered, a juglet and a small bowl, both dateable to the second century BC.289 The so-called alcove was formed by an L-shaped wall which extended out from the wall of the north-eastern chamber, projecting into the court. It appears to have been used only in the first phase and was thereafter abandoned. Derfler posits that the subdivision in the north-eastern chamber may have created a new space which fulfilled the same purpose as the alcove and caused the latter to be abandoned. The same subdivision is used as evidence that the subsidiary chambers and alcove were storage magazines and service rooms for the temple’s needs.290 This interpretation appears to be sound.

Derfler has published a full listing of the small finds of the Beersheba temple complex, but it is worthwhile listing those with a direct cultic association here, if only to demonstrate the truly varied religious influences which effected the cult in the southern Levant.295 The cultic objects from phase one are provided below together with Derfler’s catalogue number in parentheses:  A miniature Egyptian bronze crown (8);  A bronze statuette of the Egyptian goddess Neith (9);  A bronze figurine of a bull identified with Sarapis (10);  A bronze figurine of a bird with a woman’s head identified as an Egyptian Ba (11);  A bronze dolphin figurine associated by Derfler with the Nabataean deity Delphinos (12). Note that Derfler’s “wings” lack any indication of

The main south-western chamber was only preserved in its northern half, the remainder being destroyed by subsequent activity on the site. The original dimensions appear to have been 4.25 by 11.8 metres. The room was entered from the court via three steps up to an entrance in the north-eastern wall. The floor of the chamber was

291

Derfler 1993: 49-51. Derfler (1993: 59-63) uses the Hebrew Hekal, the holy place, and Devir, the holy of holies, to much the same effect. 293 Derfler 1993: 36, 51-2. 294 Derfler 1993: 56. 295 Derfler 1993: 67-166. Unfortunately the plates, some of which are reproduced here, do not provide high quality images to supplement the limited descriptions. 292

286 The few section drawings in the excavation report do not include the altar area, see Derfler 1993: 197-202. 287 Derfler 1993: 44-5, 50, 55, 173. 288 Derfler 1993: 46-7. 289 Derfler 1993: 48-9. 290 Derfler 1993: 47-8, 61.

139

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

      

Figure 211. Bronze dolphin from Tel Beersheba (Derfler 1993: pl.14).

 



feathers and appear instead to be a large crescent moon which suggests that an association with Atargatis might be more accurate (fig.211);296 An iron incense shovel (14); An ivory figurine of a naked female in an Egyptianised style (49) (fig.212); A faience amulet representing the Egyptian god Horus in the form of a falcon (53); A fragmentary faience figure with what appear to be lion’s feet (56); A faience spouted bowl decorated with three lion figures and a frog around the rim (57); Seven stone incense altars including one decorated with a monkey or baboon (76-82); A ceramic votive in the shape of a miniature storage jar (104); A ceramic bust of a Tanagra-style Greek veiled female (107) (fig.213); A ceramic bust of a bearded male with stylised hair (108). The style of the bust is reminiscent of the Jebel Khalid limestone head and the later Parthianised statuary from Hatra in Mesopotamia and Masjid-i Soleiman in Susania.297 It probably represents a vernacular stylistic tradition, inspired by Hellenic contact but is not in itself highly Hellenised (fig.214); A ceramic Tanagra-style statuette representing two female Greek deities, probably Demeter and Persephone (109) (fig.215).

With regard to the cultic objects, it would seem that throughout the second century BC, Egyptian traditions had the strongest influence on the religious beliefs and practices at Beersheba. This is not surprising given the general Egyptianisation seen in Koile-Syrian cult under the Seleukids, especially at a site so close to the Egyptian border. Indigenous traditions are evidenced by the dolphin pendant and male ceramic bust and the scarcest Hellenisation is visible in the Tanagra-style figurines. Phase two was distinct on account of its relative lack of small finds and the complete absence of any artefacts which could be attributed to religious practice, the “objects ascribed to this phase are utilitarian and rather austere, seemingly in line with the nature of Judean cults as reestablished by Hyrcanus.”298 It is only the immediate reoccupation of the cultic complex and the ongoing use of the altar which confirm that religious practices continued after the reforms of c.125 BC although the nature of the practices had necessarily changed.

Figure 212. Egyptianised ivory figure from Tel Beersheba (Derfler 1993: pl.23.1).

The stray ceramic vessel sherds unearthed during the excavation were not recorded and therefore the assemblage of vessels from Hellenistic Beersheba must be seen as incomplete. Excluding the stamped amphora handles, only 12 complete or restorable vessels are reported by Derfler.299 Of these, five were imported terra sigillata (presumably Eastern Sigillata A), three fish

Figure 213. Tanagra style female bust from Tel Beersheba (Derfler 1993: pl.43.1).

296

Glueck 1965: 31-60. Homes-Fredericq 1963; Ghirshman 1976: 93-4, pls. 70-1. Derfler 1993: 68. 299 Derfler 1993: 134-40. 297 298

140

SACRED SPACES – PHOENICIA AND KOILE-SYRIA plates and two bowls, while the remaining seven were locally produced plain wares, bowls, jugs and the miniature storage jar. All in situ vessels were found in phase one contexts. It is clear that even though the architecture of the Beersheba temple complex was not informed by Greek styles, imported Greek ceramic shapes were highly represented in the recorded ceramics. By implication, this would suggest that Hellenised dining habits had been adopted by at least some of the priests and/or devotees at Beersheba. Beersheba straddled the southernmost east-west road from the Jordan valley to the Mediterranean and it is this location on a major trading route which may have accelerated the sense of syncretism inherent in the Hellenistic world. Gods from Egypt, Syria and Greece – one struggles to find overt evidence for Derfler’s Mesopotamian influences – met and merged just as they did across the polytheistic Levant. Derfler states that the reconfiguration of the Beersheba temple in the late second century BC “clearly indicates that Hyrcanus’ religious reforms were major deeds that he carried out early in his reign as a reaction to the threat of assimilation that he saw embodied in the Hellenization movement.”300 Just how early in the reign of John Hyrkanos I the changes took place is debatable.

Figure 214. Ceramic male head from Tel Beersheba (Derfler 1993: pl.43.2).

Derfler’s claim for an immediate Hasmonaean takeover and reconstruction after the death of Antiochos VII Sidetes is weakened by the inconsistency with which he dates the Seleukid coins from the second phase foundation deposit.301 Regardless, the changes appear to have been undertaken around the turn of the last quarter of the second century BC, within the reign of John Hyrkanos I. Clearly the pious lifetime actions carried out in Judaea by Antiochos (VII Sidetes) Eusebes and his concessional approach to coin iconography at Jerusalem did little to pacify the religious conservatives among the Jewish population whose passions were ignited by the Maccabean revolt and subsequent Hasmonaean expansion. It would appear that along with Adora and Marisa, the population at Beersheba underwent a sudden, probably forced, conversion to Judaism. The old votives and paraphernalia of the syncretic cult were gathered and buried in ritual pits within the temple complex before the sacred space was rededicated to the Jewish god Yahweh, thus effectively ending the legacy of Ptolemaic and Seleukid religious fusion at the site. 5.7 REFLECTIONS KOILE-SYRIA

ON

PHOENICIA

Figure 215. Ceramic goddesses from Tel Beersheba (Derfler 1993: fig.14.1).

religious sphere.”302 As observed in Chapter 4, the lack of uniformity in Seleukid period religious structures is everywhere made apparent. In Phoenicia and Koile-Syria, even if the Seleukid kings had wished to impose a sense of uniformity of religious architecture and cultic practice, such a wish was hindered by erratic political control and strong non-Greek traditions. The Hellenistic temple remains at Umm el-Amed provide a vivid reminder that the world which the Seleukidai sought to control was far older than the dynasty itself. The geographic parameters of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia meant that it has often formed an appendage to the Egyptian state, from the New Kingdom expansionism to the Pan-Arabic movements of the twentieth century. By the Hellenistic period, the local Phoenician cult was inexorably linked with Egyptian iconography and, no doubt, with Egyptianising beliefs. Egyptianisation was a constant feature in an otherwise changing world. The onomastic evidence from Umm el-Amed illustrates that

AND

In any study of religion under the Seleukids, it is hard to not to agree with the position of Hannestad and Potts: “... we can hardly escape the conclusion that there was no official programme of Hellenization of the religious sphere during Seleucid rule ... the Seleucid kings, like many later colonizers, encouraged traditionalism in the

300 301

Derfler 1993: 5. Derfler 1993: 54, for the inconsistencies see 33, 55, 148-151 no.119.

302

141

Hannestad and Potts 1990: 123.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES areas. If the Seleukid period cult centres of Phoenicia and Koile-Syria were not totally Hellenised, it was because of the political instability which haunted the late Seleukid period, accentuated by the political and religious strength of the indigenous cultures. In Damascus it was ultimately the Seleukids themselves who were naturalised, embracing the local cult rather than enforcing their own.

under Ptolemaic control, a high proportion of Phoenician personal names included Egyptian theophoric elements. The extent of active Egyptianisation may have waned following the Fifth Syrian War and the generations born thereafter appear less likely to be named in honour of Egyptian gods. However, to say that Egyptianisation waned in the second century BC is not to suggest that its cultural influence over the southern Levant disappeared completely, merely that adherence to Egyptian cults and the assimilation of Hellenised Egyptian culture was less likely to be pursued as a means to find favour with the ruling elite. The evidence from Tel Beersheba reinforces the picture of a pervasive Egyptian influence in the religious sphere, the majority of statuettes and amulets from the first phase testifying to the perpetuation of Egyptianisation in Idumaea even under Seleukid rule. This tenacity is also illustrated by the spread of the Lagynophoria. The cult which started as the state sponsored veneration of the Ptolemaic patron Dionysos spread to the limits of the Ptolemaic state and beyond. Lagynoi occur at sites across Syria but are concentrated in Phoenicia and Koile-Syria, the territories dominated by Ptolemaic Egypt for a century. The practice of the Lagynophoria at Seleukid Gerasa/Antioch-on-the-Chrysorhoas illustrates that the flexibility of the cult could outstrip its original meaning and be embraced generations after its purpose as a political tool had been removed. The Seleukid adoption or appropriation of vernacular preHellenistic cult seen in northern Syria is also visibly repeated in the southern Levant. This is perhaps highlighted by the ritual activity carried out at the cult centre of Damascus, the Zeus sanctuaries at Gadara and Gerasa, and the sanctuary at Tel Beersheba. These sites clearly exhibit the direct adoption of pre-Hellenistic sacred space as a place of Seleukid period cult. In contrast, the Panion on Mount Hermon seemingly illustrates the imposition of a Hellenic cult upon the indigenous landscape with little evidence for syncretism. However, even at the Panion, the sacral nature of Mount Hermon and the source of the Jordan is evidenced by the neighbouring and contemporaneous indigenous cult sites at Tel Dan and Har Senaim. Given the tendency to provide supernatural residents for natural anomalies such as caves and springs, the lack of a pre-Hellenistic deity at the site of the Panion would be surprising. At many sites across Koile-Syria it is possible to perceive that at the heart of Semitic cult was the view that natural phenomena were the earthly manifestation of a divine presence. Repeatedly we observe religious activity centred on unusual rock formations, caves and artesian springs. Such locations were venerated before the Macedonian conquest and during the Seleukid period were accepted, adopted and appropriated by the colonial population. At all these sites, the dominance of HadadBa’al Šamīn was paramount, thinly veiled in a Zeusshaped suit. Atargatis too continued as a powerful presence in Koile-Syria, especially at Damascus from where her influence emanated out to the surrounding 142

CULTIC ADMINISTRATION galliforms (land-fowl), 11.96%; pig, 13.04%; bos (genus of the bovinae including wild cattle and oxen), 14.13%.

CHAPTER 6 CULTIC ADMINISTRATION 6.1

CULT AND THE SELEUKID ADMINISTRATION

A further avenue through which to shed light on the attitudes towards religion in Hellenistic Syria is the manner in which the Seleukid court administered and sanctioned religious activity. Although evidence for such activity is incredibly scarce in Syria when compared to other parts of the empire,1 limited information may be garnered from religious features in administrative buildings and through evidence from ancient texts and inscriptions outlining royal subsidies provided for public sacrifices. A large structure occupying the centre of the fortified acropolis at Jebel Khalid has been confidently identified as the palace (residence and entertaining space) of the local epistates, the royally appointed administrator (fig.216).2 The building was constructed around a colonnaded central courtyard built in the Doric order and equipped with typically Greek lion-headed waterspouts of carved limestone. Reception and dining areas took up the bulk of the north and south wings and most of the structure appears to have originally been roofed with ceramic tiles. Room 22 in the south-west yielded two official Seleukid bitumen bullae on the level of its earliest floor surface and a third (of unbaked clay) was recovered from the adjacent doorway of room 24, further cementing the official nature of the building.3 The palace was constructed sometime during the third century BC and occupied until the general abandonment of the settlement at the end of the first quarter of the first century BC – it was therefore part of the first building phase of Jebel Khalid and must have formed part of the original settlement plan. A smaller secondary courtyard (dubbed room 3) occupied the western side of the building’s north wing. It could not be entered directly from the main courtyard, but only through the north antechamber (room 1). The space was undecorated and littered with an assemblage of food preparation equipment (basalt grinders etc) although there was no evidence of actual cooking activity. The principal feature of room 3 was an uninscribed drum altar, standing 67cm and measuring 63cm diameter at the base, found in situ on its original pedestal in the south-west corner of the courtyard. Unfortunately the altar disappeared following the 1993 excavation season. The surrounding fill had a high ashy content and included much charcoal along with “an unusually heavy deposit of bone”. Along with approximately 3,000 indistinguishable burnt fragments, there were 92 diagnostic bones showing evidence of butchering. The breakdown of the identifiable remains are as follows: ovid-caprid, 55.43%; equid, 5.43%;

Figure 216. Jebel Khalid acropolis palace and altar (N.L. Wright after JK 1: 26 fig.1, 33 fig.11).

The excavators posit that the altar may have been the focus of the worship of dynastic and/or household gods.4 The incorporation of ritual or cultic areas within what was effectively an administrative structure is not unexpected, although other certified examples are few. In Macedonia, sacrifices were apparently held within the

1

See for example Dignas 2002 and Linssen 2004. Clarke 1994; Clarke and Connor 1995: 119-121; Clarke and Connor 1996/7: 243-6; Clarke et al. 1999: 157-9; JK 1: 25-48; Clarke 2003. 3 JK 1: 44, 201-3; Clarke 2003: 24-5. 2

4

143

Clarke 1994:72-3; JK 1: 33; Clarke 2003: 10-1; see also Chapter 6.2.

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Argead palaces at Aigai and Pella for the ancestral patron of the royal house, Herakles Patroüs.5 In the Hellenistic period, Herakles certainly seems to have continued to be worshipped within the Aigai palace and the royal palace at Pella appears to have included a sanctuary dedicated to the dynastic cult housed in apsidal rooms opening off one of the peristyle courtyards.6 At Pergamon, a small sanctuary of Dionysos as the progenitor of the Attalid dynasty was likewise attached to the peristyle of the principal building, Palace V, and a second sanctuary may have occupied a similar position in Palace IV.7 Within the Seleukid kingdom itself, the palaces at Seleukeia-on-theTigris and Antioch-on-the-Orontes probably included some manner of religious area although so little is known about their exact location and layout that their cultic function may only be conjectured.8

It appears that the royal bureaucracy subsidised the cost of public sacrifices at some, if not all, sanctuaries. Nikanor, archieros (high-priest) of all the Anatolian possessions of Antiochos III was responsible for the provision of subsidies to the shrines within his jurisdiction.12 In perhaps a similar manner, annual funds were provided via the strategos of Koile-Syria to Onias III, the royally appointed Jewish high-priest of the Temple in Jerusalem under Antiochos III and Seleukos IV Philopator.13 That the order was given via the provincial governor and not a separate religious administrator is linked to the unique situation of the southern Levant following the Seleukid conquest. When Ptolemaios son of Thraseas, the Ptolemaic governor of ‘Syria and Phoenicia’ defected to Antiochos III during the Fifth Syrian War he was confirmed in his previous position as strategos and archieros of the newly formed Seleukid satrapy of Koile-Syria and Phoenicia. This combination of secular and religious authority held by a single official is otherwise unheard of within the Seleukid administration (with the exception of the king) and did not survive its creation. With the succession of Apollonios (Ptolemaios’ brother) as the strategos of the region, the role of high-priest was detached from the job description and granted to one Olympiodoros, thereby bringing the administration of Koile-Syria in line with the rest of the empire.14 Demetrios I continued to be a benefactor of the Jerusalem Temple15 and Antiochos VII Sidetes continued to perform his religious obligation to his ‘subjects’ by providing sacrificial victims to Jerusalem for the Sukkot festival, even as he besieged the city (135 BC). For these actions he was dubbed Eusebes or ‘Pious’ by the Jews who soon capitulated on account of his forbearance and benefactions.16

The provincial Seleukid ‘Redoubt’ palace at DuraEuropos was built in line with a Mesopotamian ground plan. There is no clear evidence for religious activity taking place within the structure itself although, sometime after the first half of the second century BC, a temple to Zeus Megistos was constructed adjacent the palace, on the far side of a peristyle court.9 The Seleukid period palace at Nippur again combined a Mesopotamian ground plan with Greco-Macedonian decorative elements.10 There may have been a large circular altar along the south-east wall of the peristyle court (room IV) by the presumed portico of the andron. Fisher describes the feature as “certainly the altar which we find in every Greek house, situated somewhere in the main court near its principal axis.”11 As such, the Nippur palace provides the closest direct analogy for the altar area of the Jebel Khalid governor’s palace although there are still two significant discrepancies. At Jebel Khalid, room 3 could not be accessed directly from the central peristyle but had to be entered via an antechamber. Room 3 was also unroofed, allowing the vapours from the burnt sacrifice to rise directly to the gods. At Nippur, the presumed altar is within the main courtyard, but more importantly, underneath the roofed colonnade, away from the area that was open to the sky. On a practical level this would have resulted in smoke gathering within the nearby portico, forced away from the opening of the peristyle by the angle of the roof. The context of the altar is badly recorded and there is no report of any associated signs of burning or ashy deposits. While there is no alternative explanation as to the purpose of the feature, reservations must be expressed as to its use as a sacrificial Greek-style altar in its current position.

At Baitokaike in the Apameian satrapy, the Seleukid kings are not recorded to have provided subsidies for festivals personally. However, as discussed in Chapter 4.3, one Seleukid (probably Antiochos VIII Grypos) wrote a letter to the governor Euphemos which granted the temple possession of the synonymous village. The settlement was exempted from royal taxes “so that the revenue from this village may be spent for the celebration of the monthly sacrifices.” In addition, the temple and settlement were made inviolate and exempt from billeting obligations.17 The decree made clear that anyone who would challenge the royal authority on the matter was to be considered impious – the inherent threat was presumably angled towards some competitive civic body, perhaps Arados which was later jealous of the sanctuary’s fiscal prosperity.18 It is interesting to note that the king here holds the religious authority to brand a third party impious should they contravene the royal will. Dignas rightly questions how much of the benevolent royal policy towards sanctuaries was really directed towards

5 Hammond 1989: 31, although Hammond does not cite any reference for his statement and “no palaces of the pre-Hellenistic period have been preserved in Macedonia”, Nielsen 1999: 81. Perhaps Hammond was extrapolating from the Hellenistic palace at Aigai, see Andronicos 1984: 34, 42. 6 Nielsen 1999: 82-3, 91-2. 7 Nielsen 1999:105-6. 8 Nielsen 1999: 111-5; Held 2002: 233-5, fig. 8. 9 Downey 1988: 83; Nielsen 1999: 116-9. Downey 2004b: 54-5 has recently down-dated the earliest phase of the Zeus Megistos temple to the Parthian period. 10 Marquand 1905; Nielsen 1999: 112-3, 278-9. 11 Fisher 1904: 425.

12

Ma 2002: no.4.30-40. II Maccabees 3.2-3; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.140. Cotton and Wörrle 2007: 198. 15 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.55. 16 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.243. 17 Austin 2006: no.172 = Welles 1934: no.70. 18 Dignas 2002: 79, 82-3, 156-65. 13 14

144

CULTIC ADMINISTRATION the sanctuaries themselves rather than to the populations who worshipped there, particularly the indigenous elements.19 Likewise, there is little evidence for regular subsidies towards sanctuaries in Babylonia20 although there are multiple references to royal building and maintenance projects, as there are for HierapolisBambyke, and Kilikian Olba.21

6.2

SACRIFICE AND SACRED DINING

Sacrifice, (Greek thusia) was a feature of religious practice for all cultures of the Mediterranean and Middle East and can be viewed as the single most important ritual act in civic religion.25 A brief discussion of Hellenistic sacrificial rituals highlights both the variegated nature of sacrificial rites within cultures, and the multiple parallels and between different cultural groups. The basic tenet behind the act of sacrifice was ‘I give in order that you may give’ – epitomised by the Latin do ut des. Furthermore, among both Hellenic and Semitic populations, sacrificial ritual and communal dining were integrally linked.

A regular or continuing royal benefaction of cult sites brought with it a certain royal omnipresence over even the most localised of sacred activities. The priest of Apollo at Pleura (modern Marmara Gölü, north of Sardes), in Lydia found it necessary to make deferential overtures to his royally appointed superiors (Nikanor under Antiochos III and later Euthydemos under Eumenes II) just to erect a stele within the sacred space which listed the shrine’s initiates.22 One must wonder at the impact that royal control may have had over construction work or alterations within other shrines and whether this varied between civic and rural sanctuaries? For instance, did the priests or community at a relatively small settlement like Jebel Khalid have to seek permission to perform the alteration to their temenos area (discussed in Chapter 4.4)?

In early 400 BC, Xenophon and the remains of the Ten Thousand passed from Mesopotamia into Armenia and were overjoyed to discover villages well stocked with wheat, wine, pulses and most importantly sacrificial victims.26 The Greek soldiers were perhaps not concerned with the ability to sacrifice so much as the availability of fresh meat but Xenophon’s expression provides a perfect illustration of the technical rule that meat from domesticated animals was only consumed as part of the proceedings of a blood sacrifice.27 As further evidence for this custom, there was no distinction in Greek between the role of a butcher, an individual performing a sacrifice, or a cook, the title mageiros was used indiscriminately for all three.28 According to Herodotus, no Egyptian would touch a Greek dining implement nor make contact with the mouth of a Greek because of the association between these objects and Hellenic sacrificial rituals which differed from those of Egypt.29 Whether Herodotus is a trustworthy source on Egyptian customs is beside the point, implicit is that Greek sacrifice and dining coincide.

Of course a counterpoint to royal control could be sought through royal protection. At Laodikeia-by-the-Sea, three priests who not only ran a private shrine dedicated to Sarapis and Isis but also owned the insula in which it was housed, sought the assistance of Asklepiades, Laodikeia’s epistates against a civic decree. A loophole in the decree threatened to encroach upon the property of their religious association by allowing uninvited dedicatory statues to be erected on their private sanctuary free of charge, thus altering, crowding or otherwise devaluing their religious space.23 In this instance Asklepiades, together with the city archons and peliganes (ruling oligarchs) found in favour of the shrine – much to the satisfaction of its priests – while imposing a new tax on the unwelcome dedications, to the satisfaction of the city. The fact remains that the priests appealed in the first instance to the epistates and not to the peliganes.

However, it is hard to reconcile this generalisation with the archaeological evidence. At Jebel Khalid and elsewhere, animal bones are commonly found in domestic contexts, pressed into floor surfaces or in domestic dumps. Perhaps we should understand these remains as the result of home-sacrifices?30 Written sources also fail to mention the fate of elderly or sick animals. To sacrifice imperfect animals to the gods was impious and yet it would be dubious to suggest that the produce of such animals would have gone to waste.31 To suggest that the meat and skin of domestic animals that died outside of sacrifice in the Hellenistic period was left to rot is inexplicable.

From the epigraphic record it would appear that the state (Seleukid and later, Roman) tended to support religious bodies in their disputes with civic polities.24 Of course the evidence must necessarily present a biased picture – the prestige of a sanctuary could only be damaged by advertising its subservience to a civic body and a successful polity was less likely to stress any previous conflict with religious institutions and the associated stigma of impiety.

25

Detienne 1989: 6; Zaidman and Pantel 2002: 30-1. Xenophon Anabasis 4.4.9. 27 Detienne 1989: 3, 11; Parker 2004: 139, n.22; OCD ‘animals in cult’ 93. 28 Detienne 1989: 8, 11; Wilkins 2000: 369-70; Zaidman and Pantel 2002: 33. 29 Herodotus The Histories 2.41. 30 For an early example see Homer Odyssey 4.418-38. 31 To use a modern analogy from rural northern Syria today, a culture of scarcity means that absolutely nothing is thrown away without exhausting every possible use – even old plastic bags are kept well beyond the point usefulness and ingeniously recycled by the village children to make slings for hunting birds and hares. 26

19

Dignas 2002: 83. Sherwin-White 1983b; Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1991; Aperghis 2004: 208. 21 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 19-26; Cook 1940: 642 n.1; MacKay 1968: 82-3; Teixidor 1989: 88. 22 Ma 2002: 146-147, no.49. 23 Austin 2006: no. 210 = IGLS 4.1261; Dignas 2002: 80 n.162; Sosin 2005. 24 Aside from the example at Laodikeia-by-the-Sea, see also Seleukos II’s support of the sanctuary of Zeus Labraundos against Mylasa (Austin 2006: no.179). 20

145

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Despite this disparity between the written and material records, the importance of the communal meal within sacrificial ritual is reinforced by numerous examples in the classical literature.32 In the Odyssey, Nestor sacrifices a heifer to Athena. While the beast has its horns gilded to make it pleasing for the goddess, the deity’s portion is confined to a tuft of hair and the thigh bones wrapped in fat, covered by a small portion of the raw meat which is then burnt.33 The remainder of the beast was roasted on skewers and consumed by the assembled human company. The skin and horns were generally given to the temple or priest. The same division of the sacrificial victim (an ox) was being prepared for a sacrifice to ‘the Nymphs’ before the death of Aigisthos of Mycenae.34 Again, it was the sharing of the sacrifice among the guests that appears to have been a major component of the ritual. In Aristophanes’ Birds, Peisthetairos worries that the sacrificial victim (a goat) is too small for the crowd that has assembled,35 while in Old Cantankerous, Knemon observed with much annoyance that the sacrifice at the shrine of Pan was more party than piety. Indeed as discussed in Chapter 5.3 the family of the protagonist is described as bringing all manner of dining couches and rugs into the shrine for the celebration. One character even insists that no one should refuse an invitation to eat at the banquet following a sacrifice.36 While the examples cited above are fictitious accounts, the sacrifices were not intended to be seen as marvellous or strange by the audience. Rather, they were intended to be familiar accounts around which the fictitious narrative revolved. Fourth century BC epigraphic testimony from a cult association in Attica supports the literary evidence with a decree that the official in charge of the sacrifice was to distribute a set share of the sacrificial victim to each member of the assembled devotees.37

Hellenic practice, the sacrificial beast was always domesticated, most commonly oxen, sheep, goats and pigs.42 An analysis of the representation of sacrificial victims in the Greek world through epigraphic sources, votive offerings and iconographic representations on painted pottery has confirmed that the cost of the species to be slain played perhaps the biggest factor in its selection. In non-specific art works (painted pottery) bovine victims (costing 40-90 drachms) are by far the most prominent sacrificial beasts. However, official state calendars specify the sacrifice of sheep (of both sexes, 417 drachms) at public festivals, while personal votive offerings most often illustrate pigs (20-40 or only 4 drachms for piglets) as the chosen victim.43 The idealised fiction depicted in the painted pottery contrasts with the more pragmatic prices of reality as portrayed in the votives. It is clear that in most cases, the animal remains related to a sacrificial dump are of little help in divining the identity of the deity being worshipped. Lucian goes into some details about the animals that were sacrificed at Hierapolis-Bambyke in the second century AD: bulls, cows, sheep and goats were the regular offerings. Pigs were excluded from rituals, although Lucian is ambivalent as to whether this was caused by the animals being considered impure or particularly sacred. A similar contradiction surrounds doves which were considered holy and were thus sacrosanct, yet to touch one caused the individual to be polluted.44 Cumont explains this ambivalence as a symptom of evolutionary nature of Syrian cult in which certain entities and actions were considered sacred and/or profane as a result of an “original confusion” which had failed to differentiate between prohibitions.45 Some recorded Semitic sacrifices took a similar form to their Hellenic counterparts. Lucian describes what sounds like standard Hellenic sacrificial feasts as part of the process of pilgrimage to Hierapolis except that the fleece (the victim was a sheep) was used in further ceremonies, not immediately handed over to the priest.46 A variant form of sacrifice at Hierapolis saw animals brought before the altar where a libation was poured, the victim then returned home with the devotee where it was sacrificed and again eaten at a feast.47 Although necessarily distinct from a ‘public’ temple ritual, once home the sacrifice was presumably carried out in a similar manner. The ritual also fused the process of blood sacrifice directly with the bloodless libation ceremonies at Hierapolis. A cuneiform tablet from the Rēš temple at Uruk dating from the second century BC provides great insight into the sacrifice and ritual meals provided for the gods who shared the sanctuary.48 The produce was provided by the extensive land holdings of the temple. Four meals were

Although certain deities were ritually awarded specific animal sacrifices, (such as the pigs sacrificed to Demeter during the Thesmophoria)38 most attempts to identify the recipient of a sacrifice through the anatomy of its victim are doomed to failure due to the pragmatic Greek approach to worship. The archaic Athenian law-maker, Drakon, stated that the population should worship the gods in accordance with the laws, but that an individual must worship privately within their means.39 Perceptions of piety had changed little by the early Hellenistic period and Theophrastus reinforced the belief that it is not the type, amount or cost of the sacrifice that concerned gods, but the ethics behind the devotee’s choice of beast that mattered40 – such appears to have been common practice. As Burkert notes so concisely, “The most noble sacrificial animal is the ox, especially the bull; the most common is the sheep.”41 It is notable that in standard 32

Gill 1974: 123-6. Homer Odyssey 3.430-74. Euripides Electra 780-840. 35 Aristophanes Birds 860-90. 36 Menander, Old Cantankerous 390-480, 610-20. 37 Sokolowski 1969: no.20. 38 Burkert 1985: 242-6. 39 Porphyry On Abstinence 4.22. 40 Theophrastus On Piety fr.7. 41 Burkert 1985: 55. 33 34

42

Detienne 1989: 8-9. van Straten 1987. Lucian The Syrian Goddess 54. 45 Cumont 1911: 120-1. 46 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 55. 47 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 57. 48 TU 38, see Linssen 2004: Chapter 3. 43 44

146

CULTIC ADMINISTRATION presented before the cult statue of the sky god Anu daily, a main and a second in the morning and a main and second meal in the evening. The quantity and nature of each meal as laid out in the tablet are quite specific. The main morning meal comprised:  six golden containers of barley beer;  five golden containers of labku beer;  one golden container of nāšu beer;  one golden container of zarbābu beer;  four golden containers of wine;  an alabaster container of milk;  eight loaves of bread;  a combination of choice dates, Dilmun dates, figs, raisins and ḫiṣṣaṣātu cakes in equal weight to the loaves;  seven first quality sheep;  one kālû sheep;  one adult ox;  one suckling calf;  ten sheep of lesser quality.

Of the five sacrificial processes allowed to the Jews in Leviticus, three conformed closely to wider Mediterranean practices. Fellowship, Sin and Guilt offerings52 required the specified animal to be slaughtered before the altar. Blood was sprinkled around the altar and portions of the beast, predominantly the fat, offal and head, were arranged and burnt while the majority of the meat was kept and eaten by the priest.53 West Semitic agricultural cult too bore many parallels to Greek practice. Devotees brought their flocks to a central shrine where they were butchered and devoured as part of a common meal in which the god, priests and commoners all received a share. Meat was only eaten in conjunction with sacrifice, and every part of grain production and consumption was related directly to the god/s.54 Supposing that Babylonian sacrificial-dining traditions did not differ overly from their western neighbours, it is possible to view the immense divine consumption at the Uruk Rēš temple as the measure of the enormous number of priests and other staff that must have attended to the temple on a daily basis.

The second morning meal contained the same liquids, breads and fruit except for the milk which was omitted. The meat offerings of the second meal were still extensive, although of lesser value:  six fat, pure sheep;  one kālû sheep;  five fat sheep of lesser quality;  one adult ox;  eight lambs;  five ducks;  two ducks of lesser quality;  three geese;  four ušummu mice;  30 marratu birds;  20 turtledoves;  three ostrich eggs;  three duck eggs.

Although the burnt remains from the potential sacrificial dump located in Jebel Khalid Area B55 have yet to be analysed, the Jebel Khalid acropolis building did include a small open-roofed court with an in situ drum-altar (room 3) as discussed above.56 The distribution of identifiable remains from the sacrificial deposits in room 3 follows the above noted Hellenic trends, although there are two less common intruders. Sheep and/or goats make up more than half of all diagnostic bones (55.43%), followed by bovine remains (14.13%). This is well in line with Clarke’s assessment that the altar was used in the worship of the official dynastic gods. The next largest group represented is pig (13.04%) which would be equally appropriate for Hellenic worship, but unusual if the deity worshipped was Semitic. The burnt remains of land-fowl (11.96%) are less common but not unusual as evidence of Greek practices although as noted above, birds formed a common sacrificial offering at Seleukid Uruk. Most curious of all the animal remains from Jebel Khalid acropolis room 3 were burnt equid bones which amounted to 5.43% of the diagnostic remains.

Each of the evening meals included the same liquid offerings, again without the milk, seven loaves and an equal weight of fruit and cakes, four fat, pure sheep, one kālû sheep, five sheep of lesser quality and ten turtledoves.49

The horse was highly unusual as a Greek sacrificial victim, mentioned only rarely and in a context where the sacrifice was not usually followed by the consumption of the victim. It is most commonly associated with funerary offerings at elite burials.57 Herodotus recounts that the

The daily offerings consigned to Anu totalled a vast quantity; 52 containers of beer, 16 of wine, one of milk, 30 loaves and accompanying fruit and cakes, 50 sheep, eight lambs, two oxen, one calf, seven ducks, three geese, four mice, 30 marratu birds, 40 turtledoves, three ostrich eggs and three duck eggs. All meat offerings were slaughtered before presentation but there was no tradition of holocausts during the daily rituals.50 Further offerings were consigned to the other deities sharing the Rēš temple, Antu, Ištar and Nanāja and of course larger meals could be expected during festivals or if the king happened to be present in the city.51

52

Leviticus 3.1-17, 4.3-35, 5.14-9. Leviticus 6.25-9, 7.2-18. 54 Deuteronomy 12.5-7; I Samuel 2.13; Hosea 4.10, 5.6, 8.13; May 1932: 94. See also the potential relationship between threshing floors and sacred high places in Chapter 5.4 above. 55 See Chapter 4.4 above. 56 Clarke 1994:72-3; JK 1: 33; Clarke 2003: 10-1; see Chapter 2.3 above. 57 OCD ‘sacrifice, Greek’ 1344. The burial of ritually killed chariot horses at their owners’ funerals is known for Bronze Age burials from the Argolid, Attica and Crete and continued on Cyprus as late as the seventh century BC, see Burkert 1983: 51 n.10; 1985: 34; Kosmetatou 1993. A similar ritual was carried out at the funeral of Patroklos (Homer Iliad 23.171-84) although all of these examples clearly fulfilled a very different function to the later activities in the Jebel Khalid palace. 53

49

Linssen 2004: 132-6. Linssen 2004: 158. 51 Linssen 2004: 135. 50

147

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Achaemenid king Xerxes sacrificed white horses to appease the river Strymon during the second Persian War.58 It is unclear whether he was performing a local Greek or Thraco-Macedonian ritual or some form of Persian rite. In a unique situation, a filly was sacrificed by the Boiotians before the battle of Leuktra (371 BC) as a substitute for a maiden demanded by a dream.59 The sacrifice of donkeys in a Greek context is equally rare, known only in connection with Priapos whose ithyphallic nature was associated with the presumed virility of the donkey.60

holocaustic variant when he describes the spring festival known as the “Fire-festival” or “Torch” at HierapolisBambyke.68 During the Hierapolis Fire-festival, tall trees were cut down and erected as pillars in the temenos of the temple. Live, domestic animals were hung from the pillars, as were other expensive adornments (gold, silver, cloth), the whole composition was then set alight. In contemporary (east Semitic) Babylonia, holocausts were conducted on occasion but were not the standard for sacrifice during daily rituals.69 For the Greeks, ritual holocausts were predominantly confined to the worship of chthonic deities and veneration of the dead (although there were of course exceptions).70

However, two second millennium BC Ugaritic texts (RS 1.002 and RS 24.266) mention a ritual which also involved the sacrifice of a donkey. While the purpose of the sacrifice in RS 24.226 is unclear, a donkey was offered to Ba’al together with a variety of other beasts including a bull, sheep and a number of birds.61 The combined sacrifice of different species on a single occasion at Ugarit illustrates a pan-Semitic custom which continued at Seleukid Uruk and reoccurred at Lucian’s fire-festival at Hierapolis-Bambyke.62 The donkey of RS 1.002 was sacrificed specifically “to cement political accord between ethnic groups” and between the mortal and divine world. It is believed that (as in the rare Greek examples) the donkey at Ugarit was probably not eaten after its sacrifice.63 It would be attractive to relate the Seleukid acropolis equid sacrifice to the Ugaritic precedent, a symbol of the unification of colonists and their indigenous co-habitants but of course such an association, while not completely fanciful, is otherwise unfounded. As the Boiotian example illustrates, in a world where the divine communicate directly with individuals, the inexplicable cannot be ruled out.

Common to both Greek and Semitic sacrifice of all periods were the so-called bloodless offerings, the “deposition” of various kinds of food (mostly cakes, fruit and libations) at a location designated for the god to receive it.71 At the Prytaneion in Athens, a table was set for the Dioskouri which was provided daily with “cheese, a barley cake, ripe olives and leeks.”72 As noted above, regular offerings of loaves and date cakes set out on wooden or golden tables were part of the daily cultic ritual at the Rēš temple in Seleukid Uruk as they doubtless were across Babylonia and presumably in all Semitic areas.73 In Judaea, offerings of flour formed one of the five accepted sacrificial media.74 Fine flour, oil and incense were given to the priests who kept a portion of the flour and combined the rest into cakes which are burnt. Alternatively, the devotee could offer fruit cakes which were again partially burnt with the remainder being kept by the presiding priest. Small altars suitable for the burning of cakes or incense have been uncovered in Hellenistic contexts at Jebel Khalid, Umm el-Amed, Gadara, Gerasa and Tel Beersheba, testifying to the widespread practice of the ritual. Libations were equally common in Greek and Semitic traditions with wine used for celestial deities but utilising pure water, milk or honey for chthonic gods.75

Holocausts, šrp (Ugaritic) or ‘olāh (Hebrew), formed another common west Semitic sacrificial ritual. It varied from blood sacrifices in that no part of the animal was eaten by the assembled mortals.64 The choice of animal was dependant on the occasion and even the sex and age was strictly regulated.65 As in the blood sacrifice the animal was killed at the altar and butchered according to precise instructions. Although the skin was granted to the priest or temple, the flesh and bones were wholly consumed by fire, the ashes later removed to be deposited in a ritually clean area.66 The thick ash and burnt bone deposits in the south-west of the Jebel Khalid temenos may represent a similar ritual deposit of sacrificial ‘waste’.67 It certainly appears that Lucian refers to a

At various points in this study, the issue of dietary prohibition has been touched upon. The most extensive list of dietary prohibitions imposed on populations of the Levant may be found in Leviticus book 11. Among land animals, only those that chew on cud and have cloven hooves were considered clean, while the camel, hyrax (a large rodent native to the Levant and Africa), rabbit, swine, weasel, rat and lizard were singled out as being particularly unclean.76 Of marine creatures, only fish were permitted to be touched or eaten.77 Most carnivorous birds and bats are listed as unclean as were

58

Herodotus Histories 5.113. Perhaps at Jebel Khalid too, the Syrian Amphipolis, the equid sacrifice was performed to appease the local river. 59 Pausanias Description of Greece 9.13.3; Plutarch Pelopidas 21-2. 60 Burkert 1983: 69. 61 Pardee 2002: no.13. 62 See Chapter 4.5 above. 63 Pardee 2000: 234; 2002: no.22 section V. 64 Leviticus 1.2-14, 5.7-10, 6.8-13; Porphyry On Abstinence 2.26; Pardee 2000: 234; Lightfoot 2003: 503-4. 65 Leviticus 1.2, 1.14, 22.19-20. The victim was always a flock or herd animal without defect, cattle, sheep, goats, doves and pigeons being stipulated as appropriate. 66 Leviticus 1.5-13, 6.8-13; Hultgård 1987. 67 See Chapter 4.4 above.

68

Lucian The Syrian Goddess 49. See also Chapter 4.5 above. Linssen 2004: 165-6. 70 Burkert 1985: 63-4. For one notable exception, see Pausanias’ account of the worship of Artemis Laphria at Patrai (Description of Greece 7.18.7). 71 Gill 1974: 117-8. 72 Gill 1974: 121. 73 Linssen 2004: 129; 140-2. 74 Leviticus 2.1-14, 5.11-3, 24.5-9. 75 Aeschylus Libation Bearers 125-56; Zaidman and Pantel 2002: 41. 76 Leviticus 11.3-8, 11.26-31. 77 Leviticus 11.9-12. This is at variance with North Syrian traditions. 69

148

CULTIC ADMINISTRATION occupancy of the Tel Anafa villa.88 As with the consumption of fish, the dietary acceptance of pork is indicative of the highly Hellenised nature of the Phoenician settlers. The ceramic assemblage supports this view, “suited to a wealthy and cosmopolitan lifestyle and similar to those of the large Hellenistic Greek cities of the eastern Mediterranean.” Although the source of much of the villa’s crockery was southern Phoenician, the forms were highly Hellenised.89

all insects with the exception of locusts and related orthoptera.78 In addition, the Jews were also instructed that the consumption of the blood or fat of any animal was strictly forbidden.79 Lucian of Samosata notes that at Hierapolis fish, doves and swine were considered so sacred or so unclean that devotees of Atargatis were forbidden from touching, sacrificing or consuming them. These customs were apparently practiced across Syria.80 As a result, doves in particular were to be found living in great numbers in settlements sacred to the Syrian Goddess, at HierapolisBambyke particularly, but also at Askalon where Philo Judaeus reported that the birds abused their immunity and created a nuisance.81 At Jebel Khalid which, as we have seen appears to have followed Hierapolitan religious traditions,82 there is a noticeable lack of fish bones found in Hellenistic deposits. Although so-called fish plates occur in abundance across the site, only a single casserole cooking pot has been discovered and that was not in a domestic context. Aside from being a standard Greek cooking shape, casseroles were used extensively for the preparation of fish.83 Euphrates fish are eaten with relish by the modern villagers and the lack of Hellenistic period fish bones or the cook-ware suitable for fish cooking appears deliberate, probably a result of an intentional abstinence from an abundant food source. In contrast, fish bones were present in quantity in the Hellenistic layers at Tel Anafa together with numerous casserole dishes providing some indication of the culturally Hellenised nature of the population.84

Although the Ituraeans and Idumaeans were both Semitic populations, the sanctuaries at Har Senaim and Tel Beersheba have both produced rare evidence for the sacrifice of pigs.90 The Har Senaim excavators posited that pig remains might be evidence for the Phoenician ritual of Ba’al-Adonis mentioned in the Old Testament,91 although here too we might see evidence of Hellenisation creeping into even the most vernacular of sanctuaries.

One of the most widely held Semitic prohibitions was against the consumption of pigs.85 The Emesene born emperor of Rome, Elagabalus (AD 218-223), was said to have given away all manner of tame animals as largess with the exception of swine which he abstained from in accordance with ‘Phoenician’ laws.86 However, despite the indigenous prohibition, swine were utilised and kept in large numbers around the Hellenised civic centres as illustrated by the Christian gospel accounts of Jesus at Gadara or Gerasa where exorcised demons fled into a herd of two thousand domestic pigs.87 As noted above, swine were the third most common victim sacrificed at the acropolis room 3 altar at Jebel Khalid. Domesticated pigs appear to have been eaten for the first time at Tel Anafa in the late-second to early-first centuries BC. Interestingly enough this was the phase which saw a Hellenised family unit from Tyre or Sidon take over the

78

Leviticus 11.13-23. Leviticus 3.17, 7.23-7, 19.26. 80 Lucian The Syrian Goddess 14, 54; Athenaeus Banquet of the Learned 8.346e-e; Porphyry On Abstinence 2.61; Xenophon Anabasis 1.4.9; see also Chapter 4.5 above. 81 Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel 8.14.50. 82 See Chapter 4.5 above. 83 Berlin 1997: 94; Clarke and Jackson (forthcoming). 84 Redding 1994: 281-2; Berlin 1997: 21-2, 94-103. 85 Porphyry On Abstinence 2.9, 2.61. 86 Herodian 5.6.9. 87 Mathew 8.30-3 (locating the event at Gadara). See also Mark 5.11-4 and Luke 8.32-4 who locate the same event in the territory of Gerasa. 79

88

Herbert 1994: 16-8; Redding 1994: 290-2; Berlin 1997: 23-9. Berlin 1997: 21-2. Dar 1993: 84; Derfler 1993: 44, 52. 91 Isaiah 65.4, 66.17. 89 90

149

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS certain individuals or groups of individuals aligning themselves visually with different deities and with different sets of religious iconography. The numismatic evidence is particularly valuable for the investigation of settlements where the archaeological evidence has yet to be fully documented or where it has been destroyed or obscured by later activity. In this last respect, the discussion of Seleukid Damascus provides a case in point. Chapters 4 and 5 surveyed the archaeological evidence for non-royal religious activity in Seleukid Syria. With the exception of the Charonion at Antioch, the nature of the published archaeological evidence meant that the discussion focused on data derived from public temples and shrines. As with the historical sources, the archaeological record has been shown to be incomplete and biased towards later – Roman – levels of occupation. In addition, access to Hellenistic temple remains from major centres like Antioch or Damascus is impossible. So few Hellenistic temples have been excavated that the importance of remains that we do have (mostly from smaller, regional centres) is necessarily escalated out of proportion to the importance of the sites in antiquity. However, the evidence garnered from the more provincial temples still provides a broad overview of regional practices. The importance of Jebel Khalid, Umm el-Amed and Gadara are further accentuated in providing the only well published material relating to cult and cultic practice from Hellenistic Syria. The one constant at all sites was the lack of uniformity in temple or temenos design. The Seleukid rulers may have maintained a strict iconographic focus for the attention of their numismatic programs, but the regional populations worshipped in their own unique structures which drew upon a range of influences, both indigenous and imported.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS Cumont declared the Seleukid kingdom to be little known and the cultural processes which drove it unfathomable.1 To an extent the Seleukids and their subjects remain enigmatic. Beyond anything else this research may have established, it has highlighted the enormous disparity between the “known knowns” and the “known unknowns” with regards to religion (and life in general) under Seleukid rule. No single written source provides unbiased or reliable documentation of Hellenistic Syrian religious life. No one site has produced material evidence that can provide an irrefutable narrative of cultic practice. The only known Syrian temple structures which can be qualified as specifically ‘Seleukid’ are those at Jebel Khalid, Umm el-Amed, Gadara and Tel Beersheba. The great cities of the Seleukid tetrapolis provide only limited clues and although the identification of the SeleukeiaPieria temple as the Nikatoreion is likely, the excavators were not able to confirm whether the construction date should lie in the fourth-third or first centuries BC. Even at sites as extensively excavated as Gerasa, actual evidence for religious activities during the period of Seleukid domination is extremely scant. No coin, divorced from the cultural milieu in which it was produced, can speak to a modern audience with the same clarity that it held for the population for whom it was intended. However, even within the fog of historical enquiry, there is still room for optimism. By producing an integrated multidisciplinary approach to the Seleukids, this research has revealed insights which may help bring modern scholarship closer to understanding the complexities of life in the Hellenistic Near East. This study set out to provide an overview of religious beliefs and practices in Syria during the reign of the Seleukid kings. For the most part, I have attempted to dispense with the conventional Greek/non-Greek dichotomy used to discuss the Hellenistic world. Instead I have sought to view the subject of Seleukid religion from a more integrative, synthetic approach, combining archaeological and numismatic data with the historical record. Chapter 1 provided the political and cultural background on which the religious discussion of the following chapters was built. Chapters 2 and 3, dealt with religion from the perspective of the king and court and were dominated by the iconographic data provided through the numismatic record. Before the publication of Houghton, Lorber and Hoover’s Seleucid coins, any conclusions drawn from the corpus of Seleukid coinage were compromised by the incomplete nature of the evidence. A patchwork of publications existed, dealing with individual rulers or mints, but nothing that provided a comprehensive account – ruler by ruler, mint by mint – of the Seleukid corpus. Armed with a complete numismatic data set, this research has been able to provide new interpretations of the Seleukid iconographic program in light of when and where certain types were employed. Distinct patterns have emerged which show 1

Throughout this study, each chapter has been provided with concluding reflections on the value of the material discussed and the patterns that may be seen in the data. Several broad observations remain to be made. Over the course of 250 years the Seleukids and their subjects remoulded their world, creating political, economic, demographic, religious and cultural spaces that linked the familiar with the foreign. The processes of cultic assimilation at work in Seleukid Syria need not be seen as an exception to religious developments found elsewhere. Rather, within polytheistic societies syncretism should be seen as the norm – a mechanism to reconcile the meeting and competing of belief systems. Christianity (itself a result of the cultural and religious milieu of Hellenistic Syria) illustrates the development of the same processes. It continued to express a syncretic nature as it spread across western Europe. The early Seleukids had stared into the proverbial abyss of Syrian religion and, by the second century BC if not earlier, had changed, having absorbed almost as many indigenous traditions as they had expounded those of their own Macedonian background. The numinous presence of pre-Greek deities clung tenaciously to the Syrian landscape. Throughout the dissertation, this divine presence has been distilled down to the concept of ‘cultural memory’ – the lingering knowledge passed

Cumont 1911: 121.

151

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES apparent in the archaeological record at Antioch, Seleukeia-Pieria, Baitokaike, Jebel Khalid, HierapolisBambyke, Umm el-Amed, Damascus and Tel Beersheba. Just as the kings incorporated their cult with the worship of Zeus-Ba’al, so the queens were associated with Atargatis-Tyche, the fortune of the kingdom and bodily manifestation of the dynasty’s fertility and continuity.

down over generations of the sacred nature of a particular location. While the identity of the deity may have varied with a changing demographic, the sacral nature of the topography was never questioned. The Seleukids absorbed the cultural memory of their landscape and incorporated it within their own religious framework. The Macedonian hegemony over Seleukid Syria was little more than a fragile veneer, capping but not smothering the underlying traditions. One need only look at the remains of the main temenos at Baitokaike to see these processes writ in stone. Any attempt to import a foreign deity into the sacred landscape was destined to result in the dilution of both rather than the dominance of either.

The divine couple were accompanied in the Seleukid period by a whole swathe of lesser gods and goddesses, extracted from Hellenic, Semitic, Luwian and Egyptian traditions: Apollo, Pan, Herakles, Melkart, Sandan, Dionysos, Hermes, Monimos, Azizos, Harpokrates, Athena, Allât, Artemis and Eileithyia. Some of these such as Herakles and Azizos received only limited royal support while the likes of Apollo and Dionysos were assumed directly as divine pseudonyms by the kings.

The early Seleukidai promoted Apollo as their dynastic god par excellence. He was the dynastic progenitor and yet also manifest in the person of Antiochos I. Apollo was an emblem of the empire’s ruling Hellenised elite and yet a symbol of the continuity of Achaemenid-style kingship. After almost a century and a half of rule, the Seleukid kings began to change the focus of their patronage towards the great Syrian God. As Syria and the adjoining territories increasingly became the heart of the Seleukid realm, the dramatic rise of the syncretised Zeus in the second century BC reflected the changing demographic emphasis of the kingdom. In parallel to the shift from Apollo to Zeus, the kings embraced an active program of living apotheosis. They had been honoured by Greek poleis from the first generation, but by the beginning of the second century BC the royal cult was institutionalised across the kingdom. Under Antiochos IV Epiphanes, Zeus, Ba’al and the king were fused into a single living manifestation of divine power. To the freedom-loving ‘Hellenised’ centres, the king’s divinity reconciled their own obedience. To the rural indigenous populations, the king perpetuated the timeless traditions of Semitic kingship, he honoured the same gods and partook in the sacred marriage which would guarantee the continued cycle of the seasons.

On the ground, the extant evidence suggests that there was no sense of an imposed uniformity which impacted on sacred architecture. The temples at Jebel Khalid and Umm el-Amed saw thinly veiled attempts to put a Hellenised façade on a structure which otherwise conformed wholly to vernacular traditions. The Jebel Khalid temple may have been dedicated to Atargatis or to the Syrian Gods together, although Lucian’s description of the Hierapolis temple bears little relation to Jebel Khalid’s physical remains. At Tel Beersheba, no attempt was made to make the temple conform in any sense to Hellenic norms. At Gadara the apparently Greek temple was built upon an indigenous vaulted podium and oriented in a way which would put it at odds with Greek practices. The evidence from Gadara, Baitokaike and Gerasa all connect the veneration of ‘Zeus’ to naturally occurring but unusual rock formations. These formations were presumably considered betyls in the most primal sense – the rock was literally the house of the god on earth or, if not his house, then evidence of his presence. It is surely no coincidence that all of these sites provide evidence for a pre-Hellenic population and some sense of continuity with indigenous religious traditions.

Across the different forms of evidence – historic, epigraphic, archaeological and numismatic – the overarching popularity and omnipresence of the Syrian God is clearly visible. Whether known as Zeus, Hadad, Ba’al Šamīn or some other name, he was the supreme god of the sky and mountains, provider of fertility through his command of the rains, represented by an eagle or bull. The growth of his worship can be traced through royal Seleukid coin issues and on the ground by his presence at Seleukeia-Pieria, Baitokaike, Hierapolis-Bambyke, Umm el-Amed, Damascus, Gadara and Gerasa. It was with this supreme god that the Seleukid royal cult was assimilated from its inception with the posthumous creation of Seleukos Zeus Nikator and increasingly so from the reign of Antiochos Epiphanes.

It is time for the common misconceptions, developed in the nineteenth century and perpetuated by modern works such as Green’s Alexander to Actium to be reconsidered. This is not the first time a voice has been raised against the traditional view, indeed the last two decades have seen repeated calls for a reinterpretation of the Hellenistic East, but old prejudices die hard. This study has reinforced that the Seleukid state was an eastern empire – a metaphoric Phoenix of the Achaemenid and earlier empires, born from the ashes of Alexander the Great’s conquests. The written and verbal language of rule may have changed with the coming of the GrecoMacedonians, but the language of action, the way in which the Seleukidai interacted with the physical landscape and its populations remained inherently vernacular.

Zeus-Ba’al reigned over Syria in conjunction with his consort, the Great Goddess. Represented as Tyche, Hera, Atargatis, Astarte or Isis; she was the divine manifestation of the earth’s fecundity and queen of the heavens, represented by her lion, dove, dolphin or fish. Veneration of the goddess in the Seleukid period is 152

APPENDIX

APPENDIX CONCORDANCE OF SITE NAMES OSRHOENE Edessa / Şanliurfa (Turkey) Antioch-on-the-Kallirhoe Karrhai Harran (Turkey) Nikephorion Raqqa (Syria)

KILIKIA TRACHEIA AND KILIKIA PEDIAS Adana / Adana (Turkey) Antioch-on-the-Saros Aigeai Yumurtalik-Ayaş (Turkey) Anazarbos Anavarza (Turkey) Epiphaneia Gösene (Turkey) Elaiussa Ayaş (Turkey) Hieropolis-Kastabala Bodrum/Kastabala (Turkey) Korykos Kizkalesi (Turkey) Lamos Lamas (Turkey) Magarsos Karataş (Turkey) Mallos Kiziltahta (Turkey) Mopsos / Misis (Turkey) Seleukeia-on-the-Pyramos Mt Amanos Nur Dağları (Turkey) Myriandos / Iskenderun (Turkey) Alexandreia-by-Issos Olba Ura (Turkey) Seleukeia-on-theSilifke (Turkey) Kalykadnos Soli Mezetlu-Viranşehir (Turkey) Tarsos / Gözlü Kule (Turkey) Antioch-on-the-Kydnos Rhosos Arsuz (Turkey) Zephyrion Mersin (Turkey)

PHOENICIA Ake-Ptolemaïs / Antioch-in-Ptolemaïs Arados Askalon Berytos / Laodikeia Botrys Byblos Dora Gaza / Seleukeia Ioppe Marathos Orthosia / Eupatreia Sidon Strato’s Tower Tripolis Tyre

Tell Acco (Israel) Arwad (Syria) Ashkelon (Israel) Beirut (Lebanon) Batroun (Lebanon) Jbeil (Lebanon) Tell Dor (Israel) Gaza (Palestinian Territories) Tell-Aviv Yafo (Israel) Amrit (Syria) Ard Artousi (Lebanon) Saida (Lebanon) Qeysarya (Israel) Tripoli (Lebanon) es-Sur (Lebanon)

KOILE-SYRIA, JUDAEA AND ARABIA Abila Suk (Lebanon) Adora Dura (Palestinian Territories) Bostra Bosra (Syria) Chalkis-under-Libanos Anjarr (Lebanon) Damascus / Demetrias Damascus (Syria) Gadara / Seleukeia Umm Qays (Jordan) Gerasa / Jarash (Jordan) Antioch-on-the-Chrysorhoas Heliopolis-Ba’albek Baalbek (Lebanon) Herakleia-Arka Tell ‘Arqâ (Lebanon) Jerusalem Jerusalem (Palestinian Territories) Mt Hermon Jebel ash-Sheikh (Lebanon, Syria, Israel) Marisa Tel Maresha (Israel) Palmyra Tadmor (Syria) Panion Banyas (Syria) Pella Tabaqat Fahl (Jordan) Petra Petra (Jordan) Philadelphia Amman (Jordan) Raphia Rafah (Palestinian Territories) Samareia Sebastiya (Palestinian Territories) Seleukeia-Abila Quailibah (Jordan) Skythopolis Beth Shean (Israel)

SELEUKIS, KYRRHESTIS AND KOMMAGENE Amphipolis/Nikatoris (?) Jebel Khalid (Syria) Antioch-on-the-Orontes Antakya (Turkey) Apameia-on-the-Orontes Afamia (Syria) Arethousa Rastan (Syria) Arsameia Gerger (Turkey) Baitokaike Hosn Soleiman (Syria) Batnai Al Bab (Syria) Beroia Haleb (Syria) Chalkis-on-Belos Nebi Is (Syria) Doliche Dulük (Turkey) Emesa Homs (Syria) Epiphaneia Hama (Syria) Europos-Carchemish Jerablus (Syria) Hierapolis-Bambyke Membij (Syria) Kadesh / Tell Nebi Mend (Syria) Laodikeia-near-Libanos Kyrrhos Nebi Houri (Syria) Laodikeia-by-the-Sea Lattakia (Syria) Larissa Shaizar (Syria) Lysias Qala’at Bourzey (Syria) Mt Kasios Al-Akra (Turkey) Samosata Samsat (Turkey) Seleukeia-Pieria Çevlik (Turkey) Seleukeia-Zeugma Balqis (Turkey)

153

ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS ADAJ AJA ANRW ANSMN APAAME BASOR BMC Syria CH I-X CIG CRAI CSE 2

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. American Journal of Archaeology. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes. The Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East. (www.classics.uwa.edu.au/Aerial_archaeology). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Catalogue of Greek coins in the British Museum: Seleucid kings of Syria. 1878. London: British Museum Publication. Coin Hoards, volumes 1-10. 1975-2008. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Franzius, I. (ed.) 1977: Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum (vol. 3). Hildeshiem: Georg Olms. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres. Hoover, O.D. 2007: Coins of the Seleucid empire from the collection of Arthur Houghton part II. New York: American Numismatic Society. Gerasa Kraeling, C.H. (ed.) 1938: Gerasa, city of the Decapolis: an account embodying the record of a joint excavation conducted by Yale University and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928-1930), and Yale University and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930-1931, 1933-1934). New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Gertrude Bell diaries The Gertrude Bell diaries, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Special Collections Department. Historia Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. IGCH Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O. and Kraay, C.M. 1973: An inventory of Greek coin hoards. New York: American Numismatic Society. JDAI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies. JK 1 Clarke, G.W., Connor, P.J., Crewe, L., Frohlich, B., Jackson, H., Littleton, J., Nixon, C.E.V., O’Hea, M. and Steele, D. 2002: Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates volume 1: report on excavations 1986-1996. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 5. JK 2 Jackson, H. 2006: Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates volume 2: the terracotta figurines. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 6. JK 3 Jackson, H. and Tidmarsh, J. 2011: Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates volume 3: the pottery. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 7. JRS Journal of Roman Studies. Macedonia I Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum ANS 7, Macedonia I: cities, Thraco-Macedonian tribes, Paeonian kings. 1987. New York: American Numismatic Society. Macedonia II Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum ANS 8, Macedonia II: Alexander I – Philip II. 1994. New York: American Numismatic Society. Meditarch Mediterranean Archaeology: Australian and New Zealand journal for the archaeology of the Mediterranean world. NC Numismatic Chronicle. OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition. 1996. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OGIS Dittenberger, W. (ed.) 1970: Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae: supplementum sylloges inscriptionum Graecorum (vol. 1). Hildeshiem: Georg Olms. RPC Burnett, A., Amandry, M. and Ripollès, P.P. 1992: Roman provincial coinage I: from the death of Caesar to the death of Vitellius (2 volumes). London: British Museum Press. RRC Crawford, M.H. 1974: Roman Republican coinage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SC 1 Houghton, A. and Lorber, C. 2002: Seleucid coins, a comprehensive catalogue part I: Seleucus I through Antiochus III (2 volumes). New York: American Numismatic Society. SC 2 Houghton, A., Lorber, C. and Hoover, O. 2008: Seleucid coins, a comprehensive catalogue part II: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII (2 volumes). New York: American Numismatic Society. SchwMbll Schweizer Münzblätter. SchwNumRu Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau. SHAJ Studies in the history and archaeology of Jordan. SIG Dittenberger, W. 1914-1924: Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecorum (3rd ed. 4 volumes). Leipzig: Hirsel. SNG Alpha Bank Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Greece II, the Alpha Bank collection: Macedonia I, Alexander I – Perseus. 2000. Athens: Alpha Bank. SNG ANS 6 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum the collection of the American Numismatic Society part 6: Palestine-South Arabia. 1981. New York: American Numismatic Society. SNG Levante Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Switzerland I: Levante-Cilicia. 1986. Berne: Credit Suisse Berne, Numismatic Department. SNG Spaer Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Israel I: The Arnold Spaer collection of Seleucid coins. 1998. London: Italo Vecchi. Syria Syria: revue d’art oriental et d’archéologie. Topoi Topoi Orient-Occident. ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

155

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES

156

REFERENCES Bartz, G. and König, E. 2005: The Louvre. Cologne: Könemann. Bedoukian, P.Z. 1978: Coinage of the Artaxiads of Armenia. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Belayche, N. 2004: “Pagan festivals in fourth century Gaza.” In BittonAshkelony, B. and Kofsky, A. Christian Gaza in late Antiquity, 5-22. Leiden: Brill. Belfiore, E.S. 2000: Murder among friends: violation of Philia in Greek tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bellinger, A.R. 1949: “The end of the Seleucids.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 38: 51-102. Bennett, C.M. 1979: “Excavations in the citadel (Al Qal’a), Amman, 1978. Fourth preliminary report.” ADAJ 23: 161-70. Bennett, F.M. 1917: “A study of the word ΞΟΑΝΟΝ.” AJA 21: 8-21. Berlin, A.M. 1997: “The plain wares.” In Herbert, S.C. (ed.) Tel Anafa 2.i: The Hellenistic and Roman pottery, ix-247. Ann Arbor: JRA Supplementary Series no. 10.2. ________ 1999: “The archaeology of ritual: the sanctuary of Pan at Banias/Caesarea Philippi.” BASOR 315: 27-45. ________ 2002: “Power and its afterlife: tombs in Hellenistic Palestine.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 138-48. Bernard, P. 1973: Fouilles d’Aï-Khanoum I: Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Paris: Klincksieck. ________ 1975: “Campagne de fouilles 1974 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan).” CRAI 119: 167-92. ________ 1976a: “La campagne de fouilles de 1975 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan): le temple hors-les-murs.” CRAI 120: 303-7 ________ 1976b: “Les traditions orientales dans l’architecture grécobactrienne.” Journal Asiatique 264: 245-75. Bernard, P. and Francfort, H.-P. 1971: “La campagne de fouilles de 1970 a Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan): le temple a redans et son sanctuaire.” CRAI 114: 414-31. Bevan, E.R. 1901: “The deification of kings in the Greek cities.” English Historical Review 64: 625-39. ________ 1902: The house of Seleucus (2 volumes). Chicago: Ares Publishers (1985 reprint). ________ 1927: The house of Ptolemy: a history of Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty. Chicago: Ares Publishers (1985 reprint). Betlyon, J.W. 1985: “The cult of ‘Ašerah/’Ēlat at Sidon.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44: 53-6. Bickerman, E. 1937: Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen iiber Sinn und Ursprung der makkabaischen Erhebung. Berlin: Schocken Verlag. ________ 1947: “La Coelé-Syrie: notes de géographie historique.” Revue Biblique 54: 256-68. ________ 1966: “The Seleucids and the Achaemenids.” In Atti del Convegno sul tema: la Persia e il mondo greco-romano (Roma 11-14 aprile 1965), 87-117. Rome: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Bilde, P. 1990: “Atargatis/Dea Syria: Hellenization of her cult in the Hellenistic-Roman period?” In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Religion and religious practice in the Seleucid kingdom, 151-87. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Billows, R.A. 1997: Antigonos the one-eyed and the creation of the Hellenistic state. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bing, J.D. 1988: “Datames and Mazaeus: the iconography of revolt and restoration in Cilicia.” Historia 47: 41-76. Biran, A. 1974: “Tel Dan.” Biblical Archaeologist 37: 26-51. Biran, A. and Tzaferis, V. 1978: “A bilingual dedicatory inscription from Tel Dan.” Qadmoniot 10: 114-5. Boehringer, E. and Krauss, F. 1937: Altertümer von Pergamon Band 9: Das Temenos für den Herrscherkult, Prinzessinnen Palais. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bol, C.P., Hoffmann, A. and Weber, T. 1990: “Gadara in der Dekapolis: Deutsche Ausgrabungen bei Umm Qais in Nordjordanien 1986 bis 1988. Vorberichtet.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 193-266. Bordreuil, P. 1985: “Bulletin d'Antiquités archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues II.” Syria 62: 171-86. Borza, E.N. 1981: “The Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina: some cautionary notes.” Archaeological News 10: 73-87. ________ 1985: “A Macedonian skull.” Association of Ancient Historians Newsletter 36: 3-4. ________ 1990: In the shadow of Olympus: the emergence of Macedon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bosworth, A.B. 1980: “Alexander and the Iranians.” JHS 100: 1-21.

REFERENCES Abd al-Kader, D. 1949: “Un orthostate du Temple de Hadad à Damas.” Syria 26: 191-5. Al-Salihi, W.I. 1987: “The weary Hercules of Mesene.” Mesopotamia 22: 159-67. Albright, W.F. 1922: “The excavations at Ascalon.” BASOR 6: 11-18. Aliquot, J. 2008: “Sanctuaries and villages on Mt Hermon during the Roman period.” In Kaizer, T. (ed.) The variety of local religious life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, 73-96. Leiden: Brill. Amy, R. 1950: “Temples à éscalier.” Syria 27: 82-162. Anderson Jr., E.N. 1969: “Sacred fish.” Man 4: 443-9. Andronikos, M. 1978: “The royal tomb of Philip II.” Archaeology 31: 33-41. ________ 1984: Vergina: the royal tombs and the ancient city. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon. Antela-Bernardez, B. 2011: “Simply the Best. Alexander’s Last Words, and the Macedonian Kingship.” Eirene 47: 118-26. Aperghis, G.G. 2004: The Seleukid royal economy: the finances and financial administration of the Seleukid empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ________ 2005: “City building and the Seleukid royal economy.” In Archibald, Z.H., Davies, J.K. and Gabrielsen, V. (eds.) Making, moving and managing: the new world of ancient economies 323–31 BC, 27-43. London: Oxbow Books. Austin, M. 2003: “The Seleukids and Asia.” In Erskine A. (ed.) A companion to the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell. ________ 2006: The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest: a selection of ancient sources in translation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Avagianou, A.A. 2008: “Hieros gamos in ancient Greek religion: the human aspect of a sacred ritual.” In Nissinen, M. and Uro, R. (eds.) Sacred marriages: the divine-human sexual metaphor from Sumer to early Christianity, 145-71. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Avi-Yonah, M. 1954: The Madaba mosaic map. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ________ 1959: “Syrian gods at Ptolemias-Accho.” Israel Exploration Journal 9: 1-12. Avigad, N. 1976: Bullae and seals from a post-exilic Judean archive. Jerusalem: Qedem 4. Azarpay, G. 1976: “Nanâ, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess of Transoxiana.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 96: 536-42. Babelon, E. 1890: Les Rois de Syrie, d'Arménie et de la Commagène. Paris: Rollin and Feuardent. Badian, E. 1982: “Greeks and Macedonians.” In Barr-Sharrar, B. and Borza, E.N. (eds.) Macedonia and Greece in late Classical and early Hellenistic times, 33-51. Washington: National Gallery of Art. Bahrani, Z. 2002: “Performativity and the image: narrative, representation, and the Uruk vase.” In Ehrenberg, E. (ed.) Leaving no stones unturned: essays on the ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hanson, 15-22. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ball, W. 2001: Rome in the east: the transformation of an empire. London: Routledge. Bar-Kochva, B. 1973: “On the sources and chronology of Antiochus I’s battle against the Galatians.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 199: 1-8. ________ 1979: The Seleucid army: organization and tactics in the great campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barag, D. 2000-2: “The mint of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem, numismatic evidence on the prelude to the Maccabean revolt.” Israel Numismatic Journal 14: 59-77. Barghouti, A.N. 1984: “Urbanization of Palestine and Jordan in Hellenistic and Roman times.” SHAJ 1: 209-29. Barth, F. 1969: Ethnic groups and boundaries. London: Allen & Unwin. ________ 1994: “Enduring and emerging issues in the analysis of ethnicity.” In Vermeulen, H. and Govers, C. (eds.) The anthropology of ethnicity: beyond ‘ethnic groups and boundaries’, 11-32. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis Publishers. Bartsiokas, A. 2000: “The eye injury of king Philip II and the skeletal evidence from the royal tomb II at Vergina.” Science 288: 511-4.

157

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES ________ 2007: “Rider in the chariot: Ptolemy, Alexander and the elephants.” In Sheedy, K.A. (ed.) Alexander and the Hellenistic kingdoms, coins, image and the creation of identity: the Westmoreland collection, 17-22. Sydney: Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies. Bosworth, A.B. and Wheatley, P.V. 1998: “The origins of the Pontic house.” JHS 118: 155-64. Bowersock, G.W. 1994: Roman Arabia. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Bowersock, G.W., Brown, P. and Grabar, O. 1999: Late Antiquity: a guide to the postclassical world. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Boyce, M. and Grenet, F. 1991: A history of Zoroastrianism volume 3: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman rule. Brill: Leiden. Braun, J.-P. 1998: “Archaeology in Jordan: Gerasa, sanctuary of Zeus.” AJA 102: 597-9. Braun, J.-P. et al. 2001: “The Town Plan of Gerasa in A.D. 2000: a revised edition.” ADAJ 45: 433-6. Braun, J.-P., March, C., Kehrberg, I. and Larose, E. (forthcoming): The final report. IFAPO 1996-2000 project of the Upper Temple of Zeus at Gerasa, directed by J.-P.Braun. Architectural studies and archaeological explorations for the restoration and presentation of the Upper Temple complex. Brodersen, K. 1989: Appians Abriss der Seleukidengeschichte (Syriake 45, 232-70, 369): Text und Kommentar. Munich: Editio Maris. Brooks, B.A. 1941: “Fertility cult in the Old Testament.” Journal of Biblical Literature 60: 227-53. Bruneau, P. 1970: Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale. Paris: De Boccard. Bührig, C. 2009: “Gadara/Jadar/Umm Qais: continuity and change of urban structures from a Hellenistic hilltop site to an Umayyad scattered settlement.” In Bartl, K. and al-Razzaq Moatz, A. (eds.) Residences, castles, settlements: transformation processes from late antiquity to early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, 97-114. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. ________ 2010 (forthcoming): “The theatre-temple complex in Gadara: architectural structures of the eastern city entrance.” SHAJ 9. Bunge, J.G. 1975: “‘Antiochos-Helios’: Methoden und Ergebnisse der Reichspolitik Antiochos IV Epiphanes von Syrien im Spiegel seiner Münzen.” Historia 24: 164-88. Bunnens, G. 2006: A new Luwian stele and the cult of the storm-god at Til Barsib-Masuwari. Louvain: Peeters. Burckhardt, J.L. 1822: Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London: Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa. Burgess, M. 2004: “The moon is a harsh mistress – the rise and fall of Cleopatra II Selene, Seleukid queen of Syria” The Celator 18.3: 18-25. Burkert, W. 1983: Homo necans: the anthropology of ancient Greek sacrificial ritual and myth. Translated from German by Bing, P. Berkeley: University of California Press. ________ 1985: Greek religion. Translated from German by Raffan, J. Oxford: Blackwell. Burney, C. and Lang, D.M. 1971: The peoples of the hills: ancient Ararat and Caucasus. London: Phoenix Press. Burns, R. 2005: Damascus: a history. London: Routledge. Butcher, K. 2003: Roman Syria and the Near East. London: British Museum Press. ________ 2005: “Information, legitimation, or self-legitimation? Popular and elite designs on the coin types of Syria.” In Howgego, C., Heuchert, V. and Burnett, A. (eds.) Coinage and identity in the Roman provinces, 143-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cabouret, B. 1997: “Les cultes grecs d'Antioche.” Topoi 7: 1005-1022. Carradice, I. 1987: “The ‘regal’ coinage of the Persian empire.” In Carradice, I. (ed.) Coinage and administration in the Athenian and Persian empires: the ninth Oxford symposium on coinage and monetary history, 73-95. Oxford: BAR International Series 343. Cary, M. 1951: A history of the Greek world: from 323 to 146 BC (2nd ed.). London: Methuen & Co. Casabonne, O. 2001: “De Tarse à Mazaka et de Tarkumuwa à Datâmes: D'une Cilicie à l'autre ?” In Jean, É., Dinçol, A.M. and Durugönül, S. (eds.) La Cilicie. Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C. – 4e siècle ap. J.-C.): Actes de la

Table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, 2-5 novembre 1999, 243-63. Paris: Varia Anatolica XIII. Casey, P.J. 1986: Understanding ancient coins: an introduction for archaeologists and historians. London: B.T. Batsford. Cassas, L.P. 1799: Voyage pittoresque de la Syrie, de la Phénicie, de la Palestine, et de la Basse-Egypte. Paris: Imprimerie de la République. Chahin, M. 2001: The kingdom of Armenia. London: Routledge Curzon. Champion, C.B. 2004-2005: “In defence of Hellas: the Antigonid Soteria and Paneia at Delos and the Aetolian Soteria at Delphi.” American Journal of Ancient History 3-4: 72-88. Chapot, V. 1907: “ Séleucie de Piérie.” Mémoires de la Société des Antiquités de France 66: 149-226. Chesney, F.R. 1838: “On the bay of Antioch, and the ruins of Seleucia Pieria.” Journal of the Royal Geographic Society of London 8: 228-34. ________ 1850: The expedition for the survey of the rivers Euphrates and Tigris: carried on by order of the British Government in the years 1835, 1836, and 1837; preceded by geographical and historical notices of the regions situated between the rivers Nile and Indus (volume 1). London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. Clarke, G.W. 1994: “Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates: the acropolis building.” Meditarch 7: 69-75. ________ 2003: Excavating and interpreting the governor’s palace, acropolis, Jebel Kahlid [sic]. Canberra: The Australian Academy of the Humanities. ________ 2005: “Jebel Khalid: stamped amphora handles 2000-2005.” Meditarch 18: 175-91. ________ 2008a: “Jebel Khalid: stamped amphora handles 2006-2008.” Meditarch 21: 105-14. ________ 2008b: “The Jebel Khalid marbles.” Meditarch 21: 115-8. Clarke, G.W. and Connor, P.J. 1995: “Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates: 1993 season.” Meditarch 8: 119-24. ________ 1996/7: “Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates: 1995 season.” Meditarch 9/10: 243-9. Clarke, G.W. and Jackson, H. 2002: “Jebel Khalid: the 2001 season.” Meditarch 15: 116-26. ________ 2005: “Jebel Khalid: graffiti and dipinti 2000-2005.” Meditarch 18: 193-8. ________ (forthcoming) “Evaluating cultural and ethnic identities from archaeological remains: the case of Hellenistic Jebel Khalid.” In Festschrift for Fergus Millar. Clarke, G.W., Frohlich, B., Littleton, J., Rowney, B. and Steele, D. 1998: “Who built Shash Hamdan tomb 1?” Meditarch 11: 83-158. Clarke, G.W., Jackson, H., Fairbairn, A. and Mairs, L. 2003: “Jebel Khalid: the 2002 season.” Meditarch 16: 171-89. Clarke, G.W., Jackson, H., McConchie, M., Mairs, L. and Tidmarsh, J. 2000: “Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates.” Meditarch 13: 12349. Clarke, G.W., Jackson, H., Nixon, T., Reade, W., Tidmarsh, J. and Thornley, R. 2008: “Jebel Khalid: the 2006 season.” Meditarch 21: 59-78. Clarke, G.W., Jackson, H., Thornley, R., Wright, N.L., McConchie, M., Reade, W., Coogle, L., Tidmarsh, J. and Al-Azm, A. 2005: “Jebel Khalid: the 2004 and 2005 seasons.” Meditarch 18: 119-60. Clarke, G.W., Rowney, B., Nixon, C.E.V., Littleton, J., Crewe, L., Connor, P.J. and Jackson, H. 1999: “Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, 1996-1999.” Meditarch 12: 156-71. Clifford, R.J. 1990: “Phoenician religion.” BASOR 279: 55-64. Cohen, G.M. 1974: “The Diadochoi and the new monarchies.” Athenaeum 52: 177-9. ________ 1978: The Seleucid colonies: studies in founding, administration and organization. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. ________ 2006: The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea basin, and north Africa. Berkeley: The University of California Press. Cohen, S.J.D. 1990: “Religion, ethnicity and ‘Hellenism’ in the emergence of Jewish identity in Maccabean Palestine.” In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Religion and religious practice in the Seleucid kingdom, 204-23. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Colledge, M. 1987: “Greek and non-Greek interaction in the art and architecture of the Hellenistic east.” In Kuhrt, A. and

158

REFERENCES Sherwin-White, S. (eds.) Hellenism in the east: the interaction of Greek and non-Greek civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, 134-62. London: Duckworth. Collins, J.J. 2001: “Cult and culture: the limits of Hellenization in Judea.” In Collins, J.J. and Sterling G.E. (eds.) Hellenism in the land of Israel, 38-61. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame. Comfort, A., Abadie-Reynal, C. and Ergeç, R. 2000: “Crossing the Euphrates in antiquity: Zeugma seen from space.” Anatolian Studies 50: 99-126. Comfort, A. and Ergeç, R. 2001: “Following the Euphrates in antiquity: north-south routes around Zeugma.” Anatolian Studies 51: 19-49. Coppa, M. 1981: Storia dell’urbanistica: Le età ellenistiche (volume 2). Rome: Officina Edizioni. Coogan, M.D. 1987: “Of cults and cultures: reflections on the interpretation of archaeological evidence.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 119: 1-8. Cook, A.B. 1914: Zeus, a study in ancient religion volume I: Zeus god of the bright sky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ________ 1940: Zeus, a study in ancient religion volume III: Zeus god of the dark sky (earthquakes, clouds, wind, dew, rain, meteorites) (2 volumes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, R.M. 1958: “Speculations on the origins of coinage.” Historia 7: 257-62. Cotton, H.M. and Wörrle, M. 2007: “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: a new dossier of royal correspondence from Israel.” ZPE 159: 191205. Coulson, W.D.E., Mook, M.S. and Rehard, J.W. 1997: “Stamped amphora handles from Tel Beersheba.” BASOR 306: 47-62. Cumont, F. 1906: Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain. Paris: Ernest Leroux. ________ 1911: Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. New York: Dover Publications (1956 reprint). ________ 1917: Études syriennes. Paris: Auguste Picard. ________ 1926: Fouilles de Doura-Europos 1922-1923. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Curtis, V.S. 1998: “The Parthian costume and headdress.” In Wiesehöfer, J. (ed.) Das Partherreich und Seine Zeugnisse: Beiträge des Internationalen Colloquiums, Eutin (27-30 Juni 1996), 61-74. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Dandamayev, M. 2004: “Twin towns and ethnic minorities in firstmillennium Babylonia.” In Rollinger, R. and Ulf, C. (eds.) Commerce and monetary systems in the ancient world: means of transmission and cultural interaction, 137-51. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Dar, Sh. 1993: Settlements and cult sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean culture in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Oxford: BAR. Davies, J.K. 2002: “The interpretation of Hellenistic sovereignties.” In Ogden, D. (ed.) The Hellenistic world: new perspectives, 121. London: Duckworth. Davila, J.R. and Zuckerman, B. 1993: “The throne of ‘Ashtart inscription.” BASOR 289: 67-80. de Vogüé, M. 1855: Fragments d’un journal de voyage en Orient: Côtes de la Phénicie. Paris: Ed. E. Thunot. Derfler, S.L. 1993: The Hellenistic temple at Tel Beersheva. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press. Detienne, M. 1989: “Culinary practices and the spirit of sacrifice.” In Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P. (eds.) The cuisine of sacrifice among the Greeks, 1-20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dignas, B. 2002: Economy of the sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dirven, L. 1997: “The author of ‘De Dea Syria’ and his cultural heritage.” Numen 44.2: 153-79. ________ 1999: The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europus: a study of religious interaction in Roman Syria. Leiden: Brill. ________ 2008: “Aspects of Hatrene religion: a note on the statues of kings and nobles from Hatra.” In Kaizer, T. (ed.) The variety of local religious life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, 209-46. Leiden: Brill. Doty, L.T. 1978: “The archive of the Nanâ-iddin family from Uruk.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30.2: 65-90.

Downey, G. 1941: “The Seleucids: the theory of monarchy.” In Prentice, W.K. (ed.) The Greek political experience: essays in honour of William Kelly Prentice, 162-72. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ________ 1951: “The occupation of Syria by the Romans.” Transaction and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 82: 149-63. ________ 1961: A history of Antioch in Syria: from Seleucus to the Arab conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Downey, R.E.G. 1935: “References to inscriptions in the Chronicle of Malalas.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 66: 55-72. Downey, S.B. 1976: “Temples à éscalier: the Dura evidence.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 9: 21-39. ________ 1985: “Two buildings at Dura-Europos and the early history of the iwan.” Mesopotamia 20: 111-29. ________ 1988: Mesopotamian religious architecture: Alexander through the Parthians. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ________ 2004a: “Zeus the Greatest in Syria.” Parthica 6: 117-28. ________ 2004b: “Excavations in the temple of Zeus Megistos at DuraEuropos, 1994-1998.” In Leriche, P., Geline, M. and Dandrau, A. (eds.) Doura-Europos: études V, 1994-1997: publication de la Mission franco-syrienne de DouraEuropos, 41-55. Damascus: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. ________ 2004c: “Sculptures of divinities from the temple of Zeus at Dura-Europos.” In Leriche, P., Geline, M. and Dandrau, A. (eds.) Doura-Europos: études V, 1994-1997: publication de la Mission franco-syrienne de Doura-Europos, 153-61. Damascus: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Doxiadis, C.A. 1972: Architectural space in ancient Greece. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Drummond, A. 1754: Travels through different cities of Germany, Italy, Greece, and several parts of Asia, as far as the banks of the Euphrates in a series of letters: containing, an account of what is most remarkable in their present state, as well as in their monuments of antiquity. London: W. Strahan. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1976: “Bardaisan of Edessa and the Hermetica: the Aramaic philosopher and the philosophy of his time.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap "Ex Oriente Lux" 22: 190-210. ________ 1977: “Hatra, Palmyra und Edessa: Die Städte der syrischmesopotamischen Wüste in politischer, kulturgeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung.” ANRW 2.8: 799906. ________ 1980: Cults and beliefs at Edessa. Leiden: Brill. ________ 1982: “Sanctuaries and social safety: the iconography of divine peace in Hellenistic Syria.” Visible Religion 1: 65-75. ________ (trans.) 2007: The book of the laws of countries: dialogue on fate of Bardaisan of Edessa. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Droysen, J.G. 1877: Geschichte des Hellenismus (3 volumes). Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes. Dunand, M. 1971: “La Piscine du trône d’Astarté dans le temple d’Echmoun à Sidon.” Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 24: 1925. Dunand, M. and Duru, R. 1962: Oumm el-‘Amed, une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr. Paris: A. Maisonneuve. Dunand, M. and Saliby, N. 1985: Le Temple d’Amrith dans le Pérée d’Aradus. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Dürr, N. 1973: “Bemerkungen zur Hellenistischen Münzprägung.” SchwMbll 91: 90-4. ________ 1979: “Das horn des Demetrios II.” SchwMbll 113: 7-9. Dussaud, R. 1897: “Voyage en Syrie.” Revue Archéologique 30: 30557. ________ 1903: “Notes de mythologie syrienne.” Revue Archéologique 1: 124-48. ________ 1922: “Le Temple de Jupiter Damascénien et ses transformations aux époques chrétiennes et Musulmane.” Syria 3: 219-50. ________ 1927: Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale. Paris: Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. ________ 1930: “Hadad et la Soleil.” Syria 11: 365-9. ________ 1936a: “Le vrai nom de Ba’al.” Revue de l'histoire des religions 113: 5-20. ________ 1936b: “Cultes cananéens aux sources du Jourdain d’après les textes de Ras Shamra.” Syria 17: 283-95.

159

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES ________ 1943: “Peut-on identifier l’Apollon barbu de Hiérapolis de Syrie?” Revue de l’ histoire des religions 126: 128-49. Dyggve, E., Poulsen, F. and Rhomaios, K. 1934: Das Heroon von Kalydon. Copenhagen: Memoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences et des Lettres de Danemark. Eddy, S.K. 1961: The king is dead: studies in the Near Eastern resistance to Hellenism 334-31 BC. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Edwell, P.M. 2008: Between Rome and Persia: the middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra under Roman control. London: Routledge. Ehling, K. 1997: “Überlegungen zur Hernkunft und Bedeutung des Helms auf den Münzen Antiochos’ VI und Tryphons.” Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 47: 21-7. El-Nassery, S.A.A. 1966: “Review of Oumm el-‘Amed, une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr by M. Dunand; R. Duru.” JHS 86: 284-5. Elderkin, G.W. 1934: “The Charonion.” In Elderkin, G.W. (ed.) Antioch-on-the-Orontes I: the excavations of 1932, 83-4. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Erickson, K. (forthcoming): “Apollo-Nabû: the Babylonian policy of Antiochus I.” In Erickson, K. and Ramsey, G. (eds.) Seleucid dissolution: the sinking of the anchor. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Eristov, H. and Seigne, J. 2003: “Le ‘naos hellénistique’ du sanctuaire de Zeus olympien à Jerash (Jordanie). Études préliminaires de restitution” Topoi supplement 4: 269-98. Fairburn, A. and Asouti, E. 2005: “Evidence for olive wood and deforestation at Jebel Khalid.” Meditarch 18: 190-1. Farrell, W.J. 1961: “A revised itinerary of the route followed by Cyrus the younger through Syria, 401 BC.” JHS 81: 153-5. Fauth, W. 1995: Helios Megistos: Zur synkretistischen Theologie der Spätantike. Leiden: Brill. Feissel, D. 1993: “Les privilèges de Baitokaikè: Remarques sur le rescrit de Valérien et le colophon du dossier.” Syria 70: 1326. Fine, G.M. 2009: “Coins of Bar Kokhba: the Temple water drawing ceremony and the holiday of Sukkot.” Israel Numismatic Research 4: 83-93. Fink, R.O. 1933: “Jerash in the first century A.D.” JRS 23: 109-124. Finkelberg, M. 1991: “Royal succession in Heroic Greece.” Classical Quarterly 41.2: 303-16. Fischer, M., Ovadiah, A. and Roll, I. 1984: “The Roman temple at Kedesh in Upper Galilee.” Tel Aviv 11: 146-72. Fisher, C.S. 1904: “The Mycenaean palace at Nippur.” AJA 8.4: 403-32. Fisher, L.R. 1971: Ras Shamra parallels: the texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible (volume 2). Rome: Pontifical Institute. Fleischer, R. 1973: Artemis von Ephesos und Verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. Leiden: Brill. ________ 1978: “Artemis von Ephesos und Verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien: suppliment.” In Şahin, S., Schwertheim, E. and Wagner, J. (eds.) Studien Zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift fur Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976 (volume 1), 324-58. Leiden: Brill. ________ 1996: “Hellenistic royal iconography on coins.” In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Aspects of Hellenistic kingship, 28-40. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Fontenrose, J. 1988: Didyma: Apollo’s oracle, cult and companions. Berkeley: University of California Press. Frankfurter, D.T.M. 1990: “Stylites and phallobates: pillar religions in late antique Syria.” Vigiliae Christianae 44: 168-98. Fraser, P.[M.] 1949: “Zeus Seleukeios.” Classical Review 63.3/4: 92-4. ________ 1972: Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 volumes). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Frazer, J. 1932: Adonis: a study in the history of Oriental religion. London: C.A. Watts and Co. Freyberger, K.S. 2004: “Des Heiligtum in Hössn Soleiman (Baitokaike): Religion und Handel im syrischen Küstengbirge in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit.” Damaszener Mitteilungen 14: 13-40. Fried, L.S. 2002: “The high places (bāmôt) and the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: an archaeological investigation.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122: 437-65. Frova, A. 1962: “La statua di Artemide Efesia a ‘Caesarea Maritima.’” Bollettino d’arte 47: 305-313.

Frye, R.N., Gilliam, J.F., Ingolt, H. and Welles, C.B. 1955: “Inscriptions from Dura-Europos.” Yale Classical Studies 14: 127-213. Garbini, G. 1998: “Gli dèi fenici di Palmira.” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti 9: 23-37. Gariboldi, A. 2004: “Royal ideological patterns between Seleucid and Parthian coins: the case of Θεοπάτωρ.” In Rollinger, R. and Ulf, C. (eds.) Commerce and monetary systems in the ancient world: means of transmission and cultural interaction, 367-84. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Gatier, P.-L. 1985: “Nouvelles inscriptions de Gerasa.” Syria 62: 297312. ________ 1988: “Inscriptions religieuses de Gérasa (II).” ADAJ 32: 151-6. ________ 1998: “Monuments du culte ‘dolichénien’ en Cyrrhestique.” Syria 75: 161-9. Gawlikowski, M. 1984: “The sacred space in ancient Arab religions.” SHAJ 1: 301-3. ________ 1989: “Les temples dans la Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine.” In Dentzer, J.-M. and Orthmann, W. (eds.) Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie II: la Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam, 323-46. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. ________ 1996: “Thapsacus and Zeugma: the crossing of the Euphrates in antiquity.” Iraq 58: 123-33. Geiger, J. 1985: “Athens in Syria: Greek intellectuals of Gadara.” Cathedra 35: 3-16. (Hebrew). Gera, D. and Horowitz, W. 1997: “Antiochus IV in life and death: evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117: 240-52. Gersht, R. 1996: “Representations of deities and the cults of Caesarea.” In Raban, A. and Holum, K.G. (eds.) Caesarea Maritima: a retrospective after two millennia, 305-24. Leiden: Brill. Ghirshman, R. 1976: Terrasses sacrées de Bard-è Néchandeh et Masjid-i Solaiman: L’Iran du Sud-Ouest du VIIIe s. av. n. ère au Ve s. de n. ère (2 volumes). Leiden: Brill. Gill, D. 1974: “Trapezomata: a neglected aspect of Greek sacrifice.” Harvard Theological Review 67: 117-37. Gillespie, R. 2006: Seventeenth century Ireland: making Ireland modern. Dublin: Gill and MacMillan. Glass, C. 1990: Tribes with flags: a journey curtailed. London: Secker & Warburg. Glassner, J.-J. 1993: Chroniques mesopotamiennes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Glueck, N. 1937: “A newly discovered Nabataean temple of Atargatis and Hadad at Khirbet et-Tannür, Transjordania.” AJA 41: 361-76. ________ 1939: “The earliest history of Jerash.” BASOR 75: 22-30. ________ 1965: Deities and dolphins: the story of the Nabataeans. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Goell, T. 1957: “The excavations of the ‘Hierothesion’ of Antiochos I of Commagene on Nemrud Dagh (1953-1956).” BASOR 147: 4-22. Goldman, H. 1940: “The Sandon Monument of Tarsus.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 60: 544-53. ________ 1949: “Sandon and Herakles.” Commemorative studies in honor of Theodore Leslie Shear, 164-174. Baltimore: Hesperia Supplements 8. Golenko, V.K. 1993: “Notes on the coinage and currency of the early Seleucid state.” Mesopotamia 28: 71-203. Goodenough, E.R. 1928: “The political philosophy of Hellenistic kingship.” Yale Classical Studies 1: 54-102. ________ 1958: Jewish symbols in the Greco-Roman period VII: pagan symbols in Judaism. New York: Pantheon Books. Goodnick Westenholz, J. 1997: Legends of the kings of Akkade. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Goossens, G. 1943: Hiérapolis de Syrie: essai de monographie historique. Louvain: Bibliothèque de l'Université. Grace, V.R. 1985: “The middle stoa dated by amphora stamps.” Hesperia 54: 1-54. Graham, A.J. 1964: Colony and mother city in ancient Greece. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Grainger, J.D. 1990a: Seleukos Nikator: constructing a Hellenistic kingdom. London: Routledge. ________ 1990b: The cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ________ 1991: Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ________ 1997: A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer. Leiden: Brill.

160

REFERENCES ________ 1999: “Prices in Hellenistic Babylonia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42: 303-25. ________ 2002: The Roman war of Antiochos the Great. Leiden: Brill. ________ 2010: The Syrian Wars. Leiden: Brill. Green, A.R.W. 2003: The storm-god in the ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Green, P. 1990: Alexander to Actium: the historical evolution of the Hellenistic age. Berkeley: University of California Press. Griffith, G.T. 1935: The mercenaries of the Hellenistic world. Chicago: Ares Publishers (1984 reprint). Habicht, C. 2006: The Hellenistic monarchies: selected papers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Hadley, R.A. 1969: “Hieronymus of Cardia and early Seleucid mythology.” Historia 18: 142-52. ________ 1974a: “Seleucus, Dionysus, or Alexander?” NC 14: 9-13. ________ 1974b: “Royal propaganda of Seleucus I and Lysimachus.” JHS 94: 50-65. Haider, P. 2008: “Tradition and change in the beliefs at Assur, Nineveh and Nisibis between 300 BC and AD 300.” In Kaizer, T. (ed.) The variety of local religious life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, 193-207. Leiden: Brill. Hammond, N.G.L. 1989: The Macedonian state: the origins, institutions and history. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hanaway, W.L. 1985: “Anāhitā and Alexander.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 102: 285-95. Hannestad, L. and Potts, D. 1990: “Temple architecture in the Seleucid kingdom.” In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Religion and religious practice in the Seleucid kingdom, 91-124. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Harl, K. 1987: Civic coins and civic politics: in the Roman east A.D. 180-275. Berkeley: University of California Press. Harrison, C.M. 1982: Coins of the Persian satraps. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. Haussoullier, B. 1923: “Inscription Grecque de Suse.” In Buckler, W.H. and Calder, W.M. (eds.) Anatolian Studies presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, 187-93. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Haynes, D.E.L. 1951: “A bronze arrow head from Cyrene.” British Museum Quarterly 16.2: 45-46. Heckel, W. 1992: The marshals of Alexander’s empire. London: Routledge. ________ 2002: “The politics of distrust: Alexander and his successors.” In Ogden, D. (ed.) The Hellenistic World: New Perspectives, 81-95. London: Duckworth. Held, W. 2002: “Die residenzstädte der Seleukiden: Babylon, Seleukeia am Tigris, Ai Khanum, Seleukeia in Pieria, Antiocheia am Orontes.” JDAI 117: 217-49. ________ 2005: “Kult auf dem Dach: Eine Deutung der Tempel mit Treppenhäusern und Giebeltüren als Zeugnis seleukidischer Sakralarchitektur.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 55: 119-60. Helliesen, J.M. 1981: “Demetrius I Soter: a Seleucid king with an Antigonid name.” In Dell, H.J. (ed.) Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honour of Charles F. Edson, 219-28. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies. Herbert, S.C. (ed.) 1994: Tel Anafa 1: final report on ten years of excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman settlement in northern Israel (2 volumes). Ann Arbor: JRA Supplementary Series no. 10.1. ________ 1997: Tel Anafa 2.i: The Hellenistic and Roman pottery. Ann Arbor: JRA Supplementary Series no. 10.2. Herman, D. 2006: “The coins of the Itureans.” Israel Numismatic Research 1: 51-72. Herrmann, P. 1965: “Antiochos der Grosse und Teos.” Anadolu 9: 29159. Herzog, Z., Rainey, A.F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1977: “The stratigraphy at Beer-sheba and the location of the sanctuary.” BASOR 225: 49-58. Hill, G.F. 1911: “Some Graeco-Phoenician shrines.” JHS 31: 56-64. Hirschfeld, Y. and Solar, G. 1981: “The Roman thermae at Ḥammat Gader: preliminary report of three seasons of excavations.” Israel Exploration Journal 31: 197-219. Hjerrild, B. 1990: “The survival and modification of Zoroastrianism in Seleucid times.” In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Religion and religious practice in the Seleucid kingdom, 140-50. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Hoffmann, A. 1993: “Gadara – Umm Qeis. Preliminary report on the 1991 and 1992 seasons.” ADAJ 37: 359-74. ________ 1999: “Ein Hellenistisches Heiligtum in Gadara.” Topoi 9: 795-831. ________ 2001: “Hellenistic Gadara.” SHAJ 7: 391-7. Hoffmann, A. and Bührig, C. 2000: “Die Stadtmauern der hellenistischrömischen Dekapolisstadt Gadara. Zusammenfassender Bericht über die seit 1991 durchgeführten Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 175-233. Hogarth, D.G. 1907-1908: “Hierapolis Syriae.” Annual of the British School at Athens 14: 183-96. Holleux, M. 1889: “Edit du roi Antiochos II.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 13: 523-9. Holmes, T.R. 1917: “Tigranocerta.” JRS 7: 120-38. Holt, F.L. 1999: Thundering Zeus: the making of Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley: University of California Press. ________ 2003: Alexander the Great and the mystery of the elephant medallions. Berkeley: University of California Press. ________ 2005: Into the land of bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Homes-Fredericq, D. 1963: Hatra et ses sculptures parthes: Etude stylistique et iconographique. Istanbul: l'Institut historique et archéologique de Stamboul. Hoover, O. 2000: “A dedication to Aphrodite Epekoos for Demetrius I Soter and his family.” ZPE 131: 106-10. ________ 2002a: “Laodice IV on the bronze coinages of Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV.” American Journal of Numismatics 14: 81-7. ________ 2002b: “The identity of the helmeted head on the ‘Victory’ coinage of Susa.” SchwNumRu 81: 51-62. ________ 2005: “Dethroning Seleukos VII Philometor (Cybiosactes): epigraphical arguments against a late Seleucid monarch.” ZPE 151: 95-9. ________ 2007: “A revised chronology for the late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0-64/3 BC).” Historia 56: 281-301. Hopkins, C. 1934: “Private houses.” In Rostovtzeff, M. (ed.) The excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: preliminary report of the fifth season of work 1931-1932, 3172. New Haven: Yale University Press. Høtje, J.M. 2009: “The death and burial of Mithridates VI.” In Høtje, J.M. (ed.) Mithridates VI and the Pontic kingdom, 121-30. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Houghton, A. 1984: “The Seleucid mint of Mallus and the cult figure of Athena Magarsia.” In Houghton, A., Hunter, S. and Scott, J.A. (eds.) Festschrift für Leo Mildenberg: Numismatik, Kunstgeschichte, Archaologie, 91-110. Wetteren: Cultura. ________ 1986: “A colossal head in Antakya and the portraits of Seleucus I.” Antike Kunst 29: 52-62. ________ 1988: “The double portrait coins of Alexander I Balas and Cleopatra Thea.” SchwNumRu 67: 85-93. ________ 1991: “Some Alexander coinages of Seleucus I with anchors.” Meditarch 4: 99-117. ________ 2004: “Seleucid coinage and monetary policy of the 2nd century BC: reflections on the Monetization of the Seleucid economy.” Topoi supplement 6: 49-79. Houghton, A. and Müseler, W. 1990: “The reigns of Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX at Damascus.” SchwMbll 159: 57-62. Houghton, A. and Stewart, A. 1999: “The equestrian statue of Alexander the Great on a new tetradrachm of Seleucus I.” SchwNumRu 78: 27-35. Houwink Ten Cate, P.H.J. 1961: The Luwian population groups of Lycia and Cilicia Asperia during the Hellenistic Period. Leiden: Brill. Howard, G. (trans.) 1981: The teaching of Addai. Ann Arbor: The Society of Biblical Literature. Howgego, C.J. 1990: “Why did ancient states strike coins?” NC 150: 125. Hultgård, A. 1987: “The burnt-offering in early Jewish religion.” In Linders, T. and Nordquist, G. (eds.) Gifts to the gods: proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, 83-91. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1883: Monnaies grecques. Amsterdam: J. Muller. Iossif, P. and Lorber, C. 2007: “Laodikai and the Goddess Nikephoros.” Antiquité Classique 76: 63-88. See also Lorber, C. and Iossif, P.

161

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Jackson, H. 2009: “Erotes on the Euphrates: a figures frieze in a private house at Hellenistic Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates.” AJA 113: 231-53. ________ 2011: “Late Seleukid occupation of the housing insula at Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates.” In Erickson, K. and Ramsey, G. (eds.) Seleucid dissolution: the sinking of the anchor, 133-48. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Jäggi, C., Meier, H.-R., Brent, B. and Kehrberg, I. 1997: “New data for the chronology of the early Christian cathedral of Gerasa: the third interim report on the Jarash cathedral project.” ADAJ 41: 311-20. Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys, M. and Scott, R. 1986: The Chronicle of John Malalas: A Translation. Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. Johnson, C.G. 1999: “The divinization of the Ptolemies and the gold octodrachms honouring Ptolemy III.” Phoenix 53: 50-6. Jones, A.H.M. 1937: The cities of the eastern Roman provinces. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jones, S. 1997: The archaeology of ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present. London: Routledge. Jones, C.P. and Habicht, C. 1989: “A Hellenistic inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia.” Phoenix 43: 317-46. Kaiser, W.C. 1973: The Ugaritic pantheon. PhD diss. Brandeis University. Kaizer, T. 2002: The religious life of Palmyra: a study of the social patterns of worship in the Roman period. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Kalayan, H. 1984: “The symmetry and harmonic proportions of the temples of Artemis and Zeus at Jerash; and the origin of numerals as used in the enlargement of the south theatre in Jerash.” SHAJ 1: 243-54. Kampen, J. 2003: “The cult of Artemis and the Essenes in SyroPalestine.” Dead Sea Discoveries 10: 205-20. Kasher, A. 1990: Jews and Hellenistic cities in Eretz-Israel: relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic cities during the second temple period (332 BCE – 70 CE). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Kee, H.C. 1983: Miracle in the early Christian world: a study in sociohistorical method. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kehrberg, I. 2000: “Jerash (Gerasa).” In Kehrberg, I., al-Asad, M., Bisheh, G., Zayadine, F. and Tohme, L. (eds.) The Umayyads: the rise of Islamic art, 146-157. Madrid: Museum With No Frontiers. ________ 2004: “Late Hellenistic and early Roman pottery of Gerasa in view of international norms in the Eastern Mediterranean.” SHAJ 8: 189-96. ________ 2006: “A late Hellenistic link between Jordan and Cyprus: a view from Gerasa.” Meditarch 17 (2004 volume): 299-306. Kehrberg, I. and Manley, J. 2001: “New archaeological finds for the dating of the Gerasa Roman city wall.” ADAJ 45: 437-46. ________ 2002a: “The 2001 season of the Jarash city walls project: preliminary report.” ADAJ 46: 197-203. ________ 2002b: “Archaeology in Jordan: Jerash.” AJA 106: 443-5. ________ 2002c: “The earliest Hellenistic tomb find in Jerash or Antioch on the Chrysorhoas. The Jerash city walls project: excavations 2001.” Occident and Orient 7: 7-8. ________ 2003: “The Jerash city walls project (JCWP) 2001-2003: report of preliminary findings of the second season 21st September – 14th October 2002.” ADAJ 47: 83-6. Kellermann, D. 1981: “Aštārōt – ‘Aštārōt Qarnayim – Qarnayim: Historisch-geographische Erwägungen zu Orten im nordlichen Ostjordanland.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 97: 45-61. Kennedy, D. 1998: “The identity of Roman Gerasa: an archaeological approach.” Meditarch 11: 39-69. Kennell, N.M. 2005: “New light on 2 Maccabees 4:7–15.” Journal of Jewish Studies 61: 10-24. King, L.W. 1907: Chronicles concerning early Babylonian kings, including records of the early history of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea (volume 2). London: Luzac and Co. ________ 1913: “On the origin of the province of Kommagene.” JHS 33: 356-9. Kosim, P.J. (forthcoming): “Monarchic ideology and cultural interaction in the Borsippa cylinder.” In Erickson, K. and Ramsey, G. (eds.) Seleucid dissolution: the sinking of the anchor. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Kosmetatou, E. 1993: “Horse sacrifices in Greece and Cyprus.” Journal of Prehistoric Religion 7: 31-41. Kraay, C.M. 1964: “Hoards, small change and the origin of coinage.” JHS 84: 76-91. Kraeling, C.H. 1941: “The Nabataean sanctuary at Gerasa.” BASOR 83: 7-14. Krencker, D. and Zschietzschmann, W. 1938: Römische Tempel in Syrien. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kritt, B. 1997: The early Seleucid mint of Susa. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Classical Numismatic Group. ________ 2002: “Numismatic evidence for a new Seleucid king: Seleucus (VII) Philometor.” The Celator 16: 25-36. Kuhrt, A. 1987: “Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid rule in Babylonia.” In Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S.[M.] (eds.) Hellenism in the East: the interactions of Greek and nonGreek civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, 32-56. London: Duckworth. ________ 1996: “The Seleucid kings and Babylonia: new perspectives on the Seleucid realm in the East.” In Bilde, P., EngbergPedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Aspects of Hellenistic kingship, 41-54. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. [M.] 1991: “Aspects of Seleucid royal ideology: the cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa.” JHS 111: 71-86. See also Sherwin-White, S.[M.] and Kuhrt, A. Lapp, P.W. 1963: “Ptolemaic stamped handles from Judah.” BASOR 172: 22-35. Lane Fox, R. 1986: Alexander the Great. London: Penguin. Langdon, S. 1914: Tammuz and Ishtar: a monograph upon Babylonian religion and theology containing extensive extracts from the Tammuz liturgies and all of the Arbella oracles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Laumonier, A. 1958: Les Cultes indigenes en Carie. Paris: De Boccard. le Bohec-Bouhet, S. 2002: “The kings of Macedon and the cult of Zeus in the Hellenistic period.” In Ogden, D. (ed.) The Hellenistic world: new perspectives, 41-57. London: Duckworth. Le Rider, G. 1994: “Antiochos IV (175–164) et le monnayage de bronze Séleucide.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 118: 1734. ________ 1995: “La politique monétaire des Séleucides en Coelé Syrie et en Phénicie après 200.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 119: 391-404. Leriche, P. 1996: “Le Chreophylakeion de Doura-Europos et la mise en place du plan Hippodamien de la ville.” In Boussac, M.-F. and Invernizzi, A. (eds.) Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique: Archivi e sigilli nel mondo ellenistico, Torino, Villa Gualino, 13-16 Gennaio 1993, 157-169. Paris: Ecole Française d'Athènes. ________ 1997: “Pourquoi et comment Europos a été fondé à et comment Doura?” In Brule P. and Oulhen, J. (eds.) Esclavage, guerre, ´economie en Grece ancienne: Hommages a Yvon Garlan, 191-210. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Lemaire, A. 1994: “Populations et territories de la Palestine.” In Laperrousat, E.-M. and Lemaire, A. (eds.) La Palestine à l’époque perse, 31-74. Paris: Editions du Cerf. Lerner, J.D. 2002: “Review: The Hellenistic temple of the Oxus in Bactria (South Tajikistan). Vol.1, excavations, architecture, religious life (in Russian) by A.A. Litvinsky; I.R. Pichikian.” AJA 106.3: 486-487. ________ 2003-2004: “Correcting the early history at Āy Ḵānom.” Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35/36: 373-410. Levick, B. 1982: “Propaganda and the Imperial coinage.” Antichton 16: 104-16. Lewis, N. 2001: Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: case studies in the social history of the Hellenistic world. Oakville, Connecticut: American Society of Papyrologists. Lichtenberger, A. 2003: Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis: Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäologischen und epigraphischen Zeugnissen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ________ 2008: “Artemis and Zeus Olympios in Roman Gerasa and Seleucid religious policy.” In Kaizer, T. (ed.) The variety of local religious life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, 133-53. Leiden: Brill.

162

REFERENCES Lightfoot, J.L. 2003: Lucian: On the Syrian Goddess. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindner, M., Knauf, E.A., Zeitler, J.P. and Hübl, H. 1996: “Jabal alQṣeir: a fortified Iron II (Edomite) mountain stronghold in southern Jordan, its pottery and its historical context.” ADAJ 40: 137-66. Lipiński, E. 1971: “El’s abode. Mythological traditions related to Mount Hermon and to the mountains of Armenia.” Orientalia Lovaniesia Periodica 2: 13-69. Linder, E. 1973: “A cargo of Phoenicio-Punic figurines.” Archaeology 26: 182-7. Linssen, M.J.H. 2004: The cults of Uruk and Babylon: the temple ritual texts as evidence for Hellenistic cult practice. Leiden: Brill. Lorber, C. 2005: “A revised chronology of the coinage of Ptolemy I.” NC 165: 45-64. ________ 2007: “Ptolemaic bronzes of Antiochus IV.” Revue Belge de Numismatique 153: 31-44. Lorber, C. and Iossif, P. 2009: “Seleukid campaign beards.” L’Antiquité Classique 78: 87-115. See also Iossif, P. and Lorber, C. Ma, J. 2002: Antiochos III and the cities of western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacDonald, G. 1903: “Early Seleucid portraits.” JHS 23: 92-116. MacKay, T.S. 1968: Olba in Rough Cilicia. PhD diss. Bryn Mawr College. Macurdy, G.H. 1932: Hellenistic Queens: a study of woman-power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt. Chicago: Ares Publishers (1985 reprint). Magness, J. 2001: “The cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.” Harvard Theological Review 94: 157-77. Mairs, R. 2006: Ethnic identity in the Hellenistic Far East. PhD diss. St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. ________ 2008: “Greek identity and the settler community in Hellenistic Bactria and Arachosia.” Migrations & Identities 1: 19-43. Malay, H. 1987: “Letter of Antiochos III to Zeuxis with two covering letters (209 B.C.).” Epigraphica Anatolica 10: 7-17. Malkin, I. 1987: Religion and colonization in ancient Greece. Leiden: Brill. Maʾoz, Z. 1995: “Banias, temple of Pan – 1991/1992.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 13: 2-7. ________ 1996: “Banias, temple of Pan – 1993.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15: 1-5. ________ 2007a: Baniyas, Upper Galilee and the Lebanon Beqa’ in the Hellenistic period. Qazrin: Archaostyle. ________ 2007b: Baniyas in the Greco-Roman period: a history based on the excavations. Qazrin: Archaostyle. ________ (forthcoming): Panion I: excavations at the sanctuary of Pan at Caesarea Philippi/Banias 1988-1993. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Reports. Mare, W.H. 1997: “The Artemis statue excavated at Abila in the Decapolis in 1994.” ADAJ 41: 277-81. March, C. 2002: La réutilisation des sanctuaires romains de Gerasa a la période byzantine: Le temple haut du sanctuaire de Zeus et autres exemples. Master 2 diss. Université Lumière Lyon 2. Markoe, G.E. 2000: Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press. Martin, T.R. 1996: “Why did the Greek polis originally need coins?” Historia 45: 257-83. Marquand, A. 1905: “The palace at Nippur not Mycenaean but Hellenistic.” AJA 9: 7-10. Maundrell, H. 1740: A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem at Easter A.D. 1697. London: A. Peisley. Maxwell, C. 2001: The female sublime from Milton to Swinburne: bearing blindness. Manchester: Manchester University Press. May, H.G. 1932: “The fertility cult in Hosea.” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 48: 73-98. ________ 1939: “Ruth’s visit to the high place at Bethlehem.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 75-8. McConchie, M. 2009 (forthcoming): “Preliminary report on metals – Jebel Khalid.” Meditarch 22. McEwan, C.W. 1934: The Oriental origin of Hellenistic kingship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McKenzie, J. 2007: The architecture of Alexandria and Egypt c. 300 BC to AD 700. New Haven: Yale University Press. McKenzie, L. 1994: “Patterns in Seleucid administration: Macedonian or Near Eastern?” Meditarch 7: 61-8. McNicoll, A.W., Edwards, P.C., Hanbury-Tenison, J., Hennessy, J.B., Potts, T.F., Smith, R.H., Walmsley, A. and Watson, P. 1992: Pella in Jordan 2: the second interim report of the joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster excavations at Pella 1982-1985. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 2. Meek, T.J. 1969: “The Code of Hammurabi.” In Pritchard, J.B. (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.), 163-79. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mellink, M.J. 1965: “Review of Oumm el-‘Amed, une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr by Maurice Dunand; Raymond Duru.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84: 326-28. Melville-Jones, J. 2006: “Why did the Ancient Greeks strike coins?” Journal of the Numismatic Association of Australia 17: 2130. Merkelbach, R. 1995: Isis regina, Zeus Sarapis. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner. Merklein, H. and Wenning, R. 1998: “Ein neuentdeckter Augenbetyl in der Ḥrēmīye-Schlucht nebst einer Übersicht über die bekannten nabatäischen Augenbetyle.” In Hübner, U., Knauf, E.A. and Wenning, R. (eds.) Nach Petra und ins Königreich der Nabatäer: Notizen von Reisegefährten für Manfred Lindner zum 80 Geburtstag, 71-91. Bodenheim: Philo. Metzger, B.M. 1948: “Antioch-on-the-Orontes.” The Biblical Archaeologist 11.4: 69-88. Metzler, D. 1994: “Mural crowns in the ancient Near East and Greece.” In Matheson, S.B. (ed.) An obsession with Fortune: Tyche in Greek and Roman art, 77-85. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery. Mildenberg, L. 1999: “A note on the coinage of Hierapolis-Bambyce.” In Amandry, M. and Hurter, S. (eds.) Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider, 277-84. London: Spink. Millar, F. 1971: “Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: the church, local culture and political allegiance in third-century Syria.” JRS 61: 1-17. ________ 1987: “The problem of Hellenistic Syria.” In Kuht, A. and Sherwin-White, S. (eds.) Hellenism in the east: the interaction of Greek and non-Greek civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, 110-33. London: Duckworth. ________ 1993: The Roman Near East: 31 BC – AD 337. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Millar, R.P. and Walters K.R. 2004: “Seleucid coinage and the legend of the horned Bucephalas.” SchwNumRu 83: 45-56. Miller, M.C. 1997: Athens and Persia in the fifth century: a study in cultural receptivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mittag, P.F. 2002: “Beim Barte des Demetrios: Überlegungen zur parthischen Gefangenschaft Demetrios II.” Klio 84: 373-99. ________ 2008: “Blood and money: on the loyalty of the Seleucid army.” Electrum 14: 47-56. Mooren, L. 1983: “The nature of the Hellenistic monarchy.” In Van’t Dack, E. and Van Dessel, P. (eds.) Egypt and the Hellenistic world, 205-40. Leuven: Lovanii. Moore, W. 1986: “The Divine Couple of Demetrius II, Nicator, and his coinage at Nisibis.” ANSMN 31: 130-5. Moormann, E.M. and Verslyus, M.J. 2002: “The Nemrud Dağ Project: first interim report.” Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 77: 73-111. Moran, W.L. 1987: The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mørkholm, O. 1960: “A posthumous issue of Antiochus IV of Syria.” NC 120: 25-30. ________ 1963: Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV. Copenhagen: Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historiskfilosofiske Meddelelser. ________ 1964: “The accession of Antiochos IV of Syria: a numismatic comment.” ANSMN 11: 63-76. ________ 1966: Antiochus IV of Syria. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel. ________ 1980: “Cyrene and Ptolemy I: some numismatic comments.” Chiron 10: 145-59.

163

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES ________ 1983: “A posthumous issue of Antiochus IV of Syria.” NC 143: 57-63. ________ 1987: “The date of the autonomous tetradrachms of Aegeae in Cilicia.” ANSMN 32: 57-60. ________ 1991: Early Hellenistic coinage: from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morley, N. 2004: Theories, models and concepts in ancient history. London: Routledge. Mouterde, P.R. 1930: Le Glaive de Dardanos: Objets et inscriptions magiques de Syrie. Beirut: Imprimerie catholique. Moysey, R.A. 1986: “The silver stater issues of Pharnabazos and Datames from the mint of Yarsus in Cilicia.” ANSMN 31: 762. Mussies, G. 1990: “Marnas god of Gaza.” ANRW 2.18: 2412-57. Napoli, J. 2000: “Les remparts de la forteresse de Djazla sur le MoyenEuphrate.” Syria 77: 117-36. Newell, E.T. 1918: The Seleucid mint of Antioch. New York: The American Numismatic Society. ________ 1927: The coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes. London: Oxford University Press. ________ 1939: Late Seleucid mints in Ake-Ptolemais and Damascus. New York: The American Numismatic Society. Nicolet-Pierre, H. 1999: “Agent et or frappes en Babylonie entre 331 et 311 ou de Mazdai à Séleucos.” In Amandry, M. and Hurter, S. (eds.) Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider, 285-306. London: Spink. Niehr, H. 2003: Ba’alšamem: Studien zu Herkunft, Geshichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. Leuven: Peeters. Nielsen, I. 1999: Hellenistic palaces: tradition and renewal. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Nixon, C.E.V. 2006: “The coins from Jebel Khalid, a Hellenistic city in Syria.” Journal of the Numismatic Association of Australia 17: 92-6. ________ 2008: Jebel Khalid: catalogue of the coins 2000-2006.” Meditarch 21: 119-61. Nock, A.D. 1928: “Notes on ruler cult, I-IV.” JHS 48: 21-43. ________ 1930: “Συνναοσ Θεοσ.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 41: 1-62. Nöldeke, T. 1884: “Review of P. Krumbholz, De Asiae minoris satrapis persicis.” Göttingische gelehrte Anzeiger 8: 290-300. Oden, R.A. 1977: Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Ogden, D. 1996: Greek bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ________ 1999: Polygamy, prostitutes and death: the Hellenistic dynasties. London: Duckworth. Oppenheim, A.L. 1949: “The golden garments of the gods.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8: 172-93. ________ 1965: Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parapetti, R. 1984: “The architectural significance of the sanctuary of Artemis at Gerasa.” SHAJ 1: 255-60. Pardee, D.[G.] 1988: “A new datum for the meaning of the divine name Milkashtart.” In Eslinger, L. and Taylor, G. (eds.) Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and other essays in memory of Peter C. Craigie, 55-68. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ________ 1990: “Review of The cult of Molek: a reassessment by George C, Heider.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49: 3702. ________ 2000: “Divinatory and sacrificial rites.” Near Eastern Archaeology 63: 232-4. ________ 2002: Ritual and cult at Ugarit. Leiden: Brill. Parke, H.W. 1933: Greek mercenary soldiers: from the earliest times to the battle of Ipsus. Chicago: Ares Publishers (1981 reprint). ________ 1986: “The temple of Apollo at Didyma: the building and its function.” JHS 106: 121-31. Parker, R. 2004: “One man’s piety: the religious dimension of the Anabasis.” In Lane Fox, R. (ed.) The long march: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand, 131-53. New Haven: Yale University Press. Patrich, J. 1990: The formation of Nabatean art: prohibition of a graven image among the Nabateans. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. ________ 2005: “Was Dionysos, the wine god, venerated by the Nabataeans.” ARAM 17: 95-113.

Pearson, L. 1969: The lost histories of Alexander the Great. New York: The American Philological Association. Plantzos, D. 2002: “A royal seal of Antiochos IV of Syria and some contemporary minima Ptolemaica.” Revue Belge de Numismatique 148: 33-9. Pococke, R. 1745: Description of the east and some other countries, volume II: observations on Palestine of the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus and Candia. London: W. Bowyer. Polański, T. 1998: “Is it or is it not Lucian’s? An art historian’s supplement to the controversy over the authorship of the ‘Syrian Goddess.’” Polska Akademia Umiejętności: Prace Komisji Filologii Klaycznej 27: 161-84. Pongratz-Leisten, B. 2008: “Sacred marriage and the transfer of divine knowledge: alliance between gods and the king in ancient Mesopotamia.” In Nissinen, M. and Uro, R. (eds.) Sacred marriages: the divine-human sexual metaphor from Sumer to early Christianity, 43-73. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Powell, M.A. 1996: “Money in Mesopotamia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 39: 224-42. Preusser, C. 1954: Die Wohnhäuser in Assur. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Price, M.J. 1991a: The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. London: British Museum Press. ________ 1991b: “Circulation at Babylon in 323 BC.” In Metcalf, W.E. (ed.) Mnemata: papers in memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, 63-72. New York: American Numismatic Society. Price, S.R.F. 1984: Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1979: The Greek state at war, volume 3. Berkeley: University of California Press. Radet, G. and Paris, P. 1890: “Inscription relative a Ptolémé fils de Thraseas.” Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 14: 5879. Ramsay, W.M. 1918: “The utilisation of old epigraphic copies.” JHS 38: 124-92. Rasson, A.-M. and Seigne, J. 1989: “Une citerne byzantino-omeyyade sur le Sanctuaire de Zeus.” Syria 66: 117-51. Redding, R.W. 1994: “The vertebrate fauna.” In Herbert, S.C. (ed.) Tel Anafa 1: final report on ten years of excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman settlement in northern Israel (2 volumes), 279-322. Ann Arbor: JRA Supplementary Series no. 10.1. Redgate, A.E. 1998: The Armenians. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Rehm, A. 1958: Didyma II: die inschriften. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Reifenberg, A. 1947: Ancient Jewish coins (2nd ed.). Jerusalem: Rubin Mass. Renan, E. 1864: Mission de Phénicie. Paris: Imprimerie impériale. Rendel Harris, J. 1913: Boanerges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rey, E.G. 1866: “Rapport sur une mission scientifique accomplice en 1864-1865 dans le nord de la Syrie.” Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires 3: 329-73. Richardson, P. 2002: City and sanctuary: religion and architecture in the Roman Near East. London: SCM Press. Richter, G.M.A. 1966: “The Pheidian Zeus at Olympia.” Hesperia 35: 166-70. Reidl, N. 2005: Gottheiten und Kulte in der Dekapolis. PhD diss. Free University of Berlin. Rigsby, K.J. 1980: “Seleucid notes.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 110: 233-54. ________ 2000: “A suppliant at Gerasa.” Phoenix 54: 99-106. Robert, L. 1968: “De Delphes à l’Oxus: Inscriptions grecques nouvelles de la Bactriane.” CRAI 112: 416-57. Robertson Smith, W. 1887: “Ctesias and the Semiramis legend.” English Historical Review 2: 303-17. Robinson, C.A. 1953: The history of Alexander the Great. Providence: Brown University. Robinson, G.L. 1908: “The high places of Petra.” The Biblical World 31: 8-21. Rogers, E. 1927: The second and third Seleucid coinage of Tyre. New York: American Numismatic Society. Romanoff, P. 1944: Jewish symbols on ancient Jewish coins. Philadephia: Dropsie College. Ronzevalle, S.S.J. 1903: “Inscription bilingue de Deir el Qala’a.” Revue Archéologique 2: 29-49.

164

REFERENCES ________ 1912: “L’aigle funéraire en Syrie.” Mélanges de la faculté orientale de Beyrouth (l’Universite St Joseph) 5: 1-62. Root, M.C. 1979: The king and kingship in Achaemenid art: essays on the creation of an iconography of empire. Leiden: Brill. Ross, S.K. 2001: Roman Edessa: politics and culture on the eastern fringes of the Roman empire, 114-242 CE. London: Routledge. Rostovtzeff, M.I. 1932: Caravan cities. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ________ 1935: “ Προγονοι.” JHS 55: 56-66. ________ 1939: “Le Gad de Doura et Seleucos Nicator.” In Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud (volume 1), 28195. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Rostovtzeff, M.I., Brown, F.E. and Welles C.B. (eds.) 1939: The excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: preliminary report of the seventh and eighth seasons of work 1933-1934 and 1934-1935. New Haven: Yale University Press. Roueché, C. 1993: Performers and partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and late Roman periods. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Rotroff, S. 2004: “Coarse wares at the Athenian agora.” Praktika 159: 455-60. ________ 2006: The Athenian Agora, results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens volume 33: Hellenistic pottery, the plain wares. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rubin, B. 1987: “Human rights in Afghanistan.” In Klass, R. (ed.) Afghanistan: the Great Game revisited, 335-58. New York: Freedom House. Sanders, D.H. (ed.) 1996: Nemrud Daği: the Hierothesion of Antiochos I of Commagene (2 volumes). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Safrastian, A. 1970: “The Armenian empire in Syria.” Armenian Revue 23.4: 15-9. Said, S. 2006: “Two new Greek inscriptions with the name YTWR from Um al-Jimāl.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 138: 125-32. Schmid, S.G. 2008: “The Hellenistic period and the Nabataeans.” In Adams, R.B. (ed.) Jordan: an archaeological reader, 353411. London: Equinox. Schmitt, H. 1964: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Grossen und seiner Zeit. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Schnabel, P. 1926: “Zur frage der Selbstvergötterung Alexanders.” Klio 20: 398-414. Schoene, A., Petermann, H. and Roediger, E. (trans.) 1866: Eusebi Chronicorum Canonum Quae Supersunt. Dublin/Zürich: Weidmann (1967 reprint). Schumacher, G. 1890: Northern ‘Ajlûn, ‘within the Decapolis’. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. ________ 1902: Dscherasch. Leipzig: Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 25. Schürer, E. 1973: “History of Chalcis, Ituraea and Abilene.” In Vermes, G. and Millar, F. (eds.) The history of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC – AD 135) (volume 1), 561573. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Scurlock, J.A. 2000: “167 BCE: Hellenism or reform.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 31: 125-61. Sear, F. 2006: Roman theatres: an architectural study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seetzen, U.J. 1810: A brief account of the countries adjoining Lake Tiberias, the Jordan and the Dead Sea. London: Palestine Association of London. Segal, A. 1995: Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia. Leiden: Brill. Segal, J.B. 1953: “Pagan Syriac monuments in the vilayet of Urfa.” Anatolian Studies 3: 97-119. ________ 1970: Edessa ‘the blessed city’. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seigne, J. 1985: “Le sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash: éléments de chronologie.” Syria 62: 287-95. ________ 1989: “Monuments disparus sur photographies oubliées. Le naos de la terrasse inférieure du Sanctuaire de Zeus et autres monuments de Jérash.” Syria 66: 99-116. ________ 1997: “De la grotte au périptère. Le sanctuaire de Zeus Olympien à Jérash.” Topoi 7: 993-1004. ________ 2002: “Gerasa-Jerash – Stadt der 1000 Säulen.” In Hoffmann, A. and Kerner, S. (eds.) Gadara–Gerasa und die Dekapolis, 6-22. Mainz: Zabern.

Seigne, J. Augé, C., Braemer, F., Dentzer-Feydy, J., de Montlivauit, E., Dussart, O., Gatier, P.-L. and Rasson, A.-M. 1986: “Recherches sur le sanctuaire de Zeus a Jérash (Octobre 1982 – Décembre 1983): Rapport préliminaire.” In Zayadine, F. (ed.) Jerash archaeological project (volume 1) 1981-1983, 29-105. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Seton Williams, M.V. 1949: “Palestinian temples.” Iraq 11: 77-89. Seyrig, H. 1939a: “Les rois Séleucides et la concession de l’asylie.” Syria 20: 35-9. ________ 1939b: “Stèle d’un grand-prêtre de Hiérapolis.” Syria 20: 183-8. ________ 1939c: “A propos du culte de Zeus à Séleucie.” Syria 20: 296-301. ________ 1951: “Aradus et Baetocaecé.” Syria 28: 199-228. ________ 1959: “Divinités de Sidon.” Syria 36: 48-56. ________ 1960: “Les dieux de Hiérapolis.” Syria 37: 233-52. ________ 1963: “Les grands dieux de Tyr à l’époque grecque et romaine.” Syria 40: 19-28. ________ 1970a: “Les dieux armés et les Arabes en Syrie.” Syria 47: 77-112. ________ 1970b: “Séleucus I et la foundation de la monarchie syrienne.” Syria 47: 290-311. ________ 1971: “Le monnayage de Hiérapolis de Syrie à l’époque d’Alexandre.” Revue Numismatique 13: 11-21. ________ 1972: “Bas-relief des dieux de Hiérapolis.” Syria 49: 104-8. Sheedy, K.A. 2007: “Magically back to life: Some thoughts on ancient coins and the study of Hellenistic royal portraits.” In Sheedy, K.A. (ed.) Alexander and the Hellenistic kingdoms, coins, image and the creation of identity: the Westmoreland collection, 11-6. Sydney: Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies. Sherwin-White, S.[M.] 1983a: “Aristeas Ardibelteios: some aspects of the use of double names in Seleucid Babylonia.” ZPE 50: 209-21. ________ 1983b: “Ritual for a Seleucid king at Babylon?” JHS 103: 156-9. ________ 1984: “Shami, the Seleucids and dynastic cult: a note.” Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 22: 160-1. Sherwin-White, S.[M.] and Kuhrt, A. 1993: From Samarkhand to Sardis: a new approach to the Seleucid empire. London: Duckworth. See also Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S.[M.]. Shipley, G. 2000: The Greek world after Alexander: 323-30 BC. London: Routledge. Shore, F.B. 1993: Parthian coins & history: ten dragons against Rome. Quarryville: Classical Numismatic Group. Six, J.P. 1884: “Le satrap Mazaios.” Numismatic Chronicle 4: 97-159. Smith, A.C. 1994: “Queens and empresses as goddesses: the public role of the personal Tyche in the Graeco-Roman world.” In Matherson, S.B. (ed.) An obsession with fortune: Tyche in Greek and Roman art, 87-105. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery. Smith, R.R.R. 1988: Hellenistic royal portraits. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Snodgrass, A.M. 1999: Arms and armor of the Greeks. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Sokolowski, F. 1969: Lois sacrées des cites grecques. Paris: E. de Boccard. ________ 1972: “Divine honours for Antiochos and Laodike at Teos and Iasos.” Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 13: 171-6. Sourdel, D. 1952: Les cultes du Hauran a l’epoque romaine. Paris: Bibliothèque Archéologique et historique. Sosin, J.D. 2005: “Unwelcome dedications: public law and private religion in Hellenistic Laodicea by the Sea.” Classical Quarterly 55: 130-9. Spyridakis, S. 1977: “Cretans and Neocretans.” The Classical Journal 72: 299-307. Stillwell, R. 1941: Antioch-on-the-Orontes III: the excavations 19371939. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ________ 1954: “The setting of Classical Greek temples.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 13.4: 3-8. Stein, A. 1940: Old routes of western Īrān: narrative of an archaeological journey carried out and recorded by Sir Aurel Stein, K.C.I.E. London: MacMillan and Co.

165

DIVINE KINGS AND SACRED SPACES Steinsapir, A.I. 1999: “Landscape and the sacred: the sanctuary dedicated to Holy, Heavenly Zeus Baetocaece.” Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 182-94. Stocks, H. 1937: “Studien zu Lukians ‘De Syria Dea.’” Berytus 4: 1-40. Strootman, R. 2005: “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.” In Enenkel, K. and Leonard Pfeijffer, I. (eds.) The Manipulative mode: political propaganda in antiquity, 101-41. Leiden: Brill. Stucky, R. 1976: “Prêtres syriens 2: Hiérapolis.” Syria 53: 127-40. Sullivan, R.D. 1977: “The dynasty of Commagene.” ANRW 2.8: 732-98. ________ 1978: “Priesthoods of the eastern dynastic aristocracy.” In Şahin, S., Schwertheim, E. and Wagner, J. (eds.) Studien Zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschift fur Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976 (volume 2), 914-39. Leiden: Brill. Sutherland, C.H.V. 1951: Coinage in Roman imperial policy, 31 BC-AD 68. London: Barnes and Noble. Svonoros, J.N. 1904: Τα Νομίσματα τοῦ Κρατουσ τῶν Πτολεμαίον. Athens: Sakellariou. Syme, R. 1983: “Tigranocerta. A problem misconceived.” In Mitchell, S. (ed.) Armies and frontiers in Byzantine Anatolia, 61-70. Oxford: BAR International Series 156. Tarn, W.W. 1929: “Queen Ptolemais and Apama.” Classical Quarterly 24: 138-41. ________ 1952: Hellenistic Civilisation (3rd ed.). London: Methuen & Co. Teixidor, J. 1989: “Sur quelques aspects de la vie religieuse dans la Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine.” In Dentzer, J.-M. and Orthmann, W. (eds.) Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie, II: La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam, 81-95. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. ________ 1990: “Interpretations and misinterpretations of the east in Hellenistic times.” In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Religion and religious practice in the Seleucid kingdom, 66-78. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Thomson, W.M. 1862: The land and the book; or, Biblical illustrations drawn from the manners and customs, the scenes and scenery of the Holy Land. London: T. Nelson and Sons. Tinh, T.T. 1982: “Sarapis and Isis.” In Meyer, B.F. and Sanders, E.P. (eds.) Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, III: SelfDefinition in the Greco-Roman World, 101-17. London: SCM Press. Touratsoglou, I. 2000: The Alexander of the Coins. Nicosia: The Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation. Tubach, J. 1986: Im Schatten des Sonnengottes: Der Sonnenkult in Edessa, Harran und Hatra am Vorabend der christlichen Mission. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Tuplin, C. 2004: “The Persian empire.” In Lane Fox, R. (ed.) The long march: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand, 154-83. New Haven: Yale University Press. Turcan, R. 1996: The cults of the Roman empire. Oxford: Blackwell. Tzaferis, V. 1992: “The ‘god who is in Dan’ and the cult of Pan at Banias in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.” Eretz-Israel: archaeological, historical and geographical studies 23: 12835. van Alfen, P. G. 2000: “The ‘owls’ from the 1973 Iraq hoard.” AJN 12: 9-58. van der Toorn, K. 1996: Family religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: continuity and change in the forms of religious life. Leiden: Brill. van Straten, F. 1987: “Greek sacrificial representations: livestock prices and religious mentality.” In Linders, T. and Nordquist, G. (eds) Gifts to the gods: proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, 159-75. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ________ 1993: “Images of gods and men in a changing society: selfidentity in Hellenistic religion.” In Bulloch, A., Gruen, E.S., Long, A.A. and Stewart, A. (eds.) Images and ideologies: self-definition in the Hellenistic world, 248-64. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vanderspoel, J. 1988: “Themistios and the origin of Iamblichos.” Hermes 116: 125-8. Vatin, C. 1970: Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’époque hellénistique. Paris: E. de Boccard.

Vincent, L.-H. 1939: “Un sanctuaire nabatéen à Gerasa au Ier siècle de notre ère.” CRAI 83: 433. ________ 1940: “Le dieu saint Paqeidas a Gérasa.” Revue Biblique 49: 98-129. Voigtländer, W. 1976: Der jungste Apollontempel von Didyma. Tübingen: Istanbuler Mitteilungen 14. von Baudissin, W.W. 1878: Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (volume 2). Leipzig: Grunow. ________ 1911: Adonis und Esmun: Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Auferstehungsgötter und an Heilgötter. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Voulgaridis, G. 2008: “Some thoughts on mints, monograms and monetary magistrates. Two case studies: the mints of ‘AkkoPtolemais and of Ascalon under the Seleucids.” Israel Numismatic Research 3: 65-79. Waagé, O.F. 1948: “Hellenistic and Roman tableware from North Syria.” In Waagé, O.F. (ed.) Antioch IV.i: ceramics and Islamic coins, 1-60. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wagner-Lux, U., Krueger, E.W., Vriezen, K.J.H. and Vriezen-van der Flier, T. 1978: “Bericht über die Oberflächenforschung in Gadara (Umm Qês) in Jordanien im Jahre 1974. ” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 94: 135-44. Walbank, F.W. 1992: The Hellenistic world (revised ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Walbank, M.B. 1981: “Artemis Bear-Leader.” Classical Quarterly 31: 276-281. Walker D.A. 1894: “The Circassian colonies of Amman and Jerash.” The Biblical World 4: 202-4. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1986: “Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus.” JHS 76: 66-87. Watts, D.J. and Martin Watts, C. 1992: “The role of monuments in the geometrical ordering of the Roman master plan of Gerasa.” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51: 306-14. Weber, M. 1978: Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weber, T.[M.] 1991: “Gadara of the Decapolis: preliminary report on the 1990 season at Umm Qeis.” ADAJ 35: 223-35. ________ 1993: “‘Damaskos Polis Episemos.’ Hellenistische, römische und byzantische Bauwerke in Damaskus aus der Sicht griechischer und lateinischer Schriftquellen.” Damaszener Mitteilungen 7: 135-76. ________ 2002: Gadara-Umm Qes, I. Gadara Decapolitana. Untersuchungen Zur Topographie, Geschichte und der bildenden Kunst einer „Polis Hellenis“ im Ostjordanland. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz. Weinberg, S.S. 1971: “Tel Anafa: the Hellenistic town.” Israel Exploration Journal 21: 86-109. Weinreich, O. 1912: “ Θεοι επιηκοοι.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 37: 1-68. Welles, C.B. 1934: Royal correspondence in the Hellenistic period: a study in Greek epigraphy. Chicago: Ares Publishers (1974 reprint). ________ 1951: “The population of Roman Dura.” In Coleman-Norton, P.R. (ed.) Studies in Roman economic and social history in honor of Allen Chester Johnson, 251-74. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wenning, R. 1994: “Die Dekapolis und die Nabatäer.” Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 110: 1-35. ________ 2001: “The betyls of Petra.” BASOR 324: 79-95. Wharton, A.J. 1995: Refiguring the post classical city: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitehorne, J. 1994: Cleopatras. London: Routledge. Wilcken, U. 1967: Alexander the Great. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Wilkins, J. 2000: The boastful chef: the discourse of food in ancient Greek comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Will, E. 1957-58: “L’adyton dans le temple syrien.” Études d'archéologie classique 2: 136-45. ________ 1984: “The succession to Alexander.” In Walbank, F.W., Astin, A.E., Frederiksen, M.W. and Ogilvie, R.M. (eds.) The Cambridge ancient history VII.1: the Hellenistic world, 2361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Will, E. and Larché, F. 1991: ‘Iraq al-Amir, le château du Tobiade Hyrcan. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

166

REFERENCES Williams Lehmann, P. 1954: “The setting of Hellenistic temples.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 13.4: 1520. Winter, F.E. 2006: Studies in Hellenistic Architecture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Witt, R.E. 1971: Isis in the Graeco-Roman world. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wulzinger, K. and Watzinger, C. 1924: Damaskus, die Islamische Stadt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Wright, N.L. 2005: “Seleucid royal cult, indigenous religious traditions, and radiate crowns: the numismatic evidence.” Meditarch 18: 67-82. ________ 2007-08: “From Zeus to Apollo and back again: a note on the changing face of western Seleukid coinage.” Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia 39-40 (part 2): 527-39. ________ 2008: “A note on Cleopatra Thea, Antiochus Grypus and Athens.” Meditarch 21: 39-42. ________ 2009: “Two new imitative issues from the Fifth Syrian War (202-198 BCE).” Israel Numismatic Research 4: 47-50. ________ 2010: “A late Seleukid bronze hoard, c.1988.” In Hoover, O., Meadows, A. and Wartenberg, U. (eds.) Coin Hoards volume X, 245-64. New York: American Numismatic Society. ________ 2011: “The last days of a Seleucid city: Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates and its temple.” In Erickson, K. and Ramsey, G. (eds.) Seleucid dissolution: the sinking of the anchor, 11732. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Yadin, Y. 1976: “The high place destroyed by King Josiah.” BASOR 222: 5-17. Young, J.H. 1964: “Commagenian tiaras: royal and divine.” AJA 68: 2934. Zahle, J. 1990: “Religious motifs on Seleucid coins.” In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L. and Zahle, J. (eds.) Religion and religious practice in the Seleucid kingdom, 125-39. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Zaidman, L.B. and Pantel, P.S. 2002: Religion in the ancient Greek city. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zayadine, F. 1977-78: “Excavations on the Upper Citadel of Amman – Area A (1975-77).” ADAJ 22: 20-56. ________ 2004: “Le grand domaine des Tobiades en Jordanie et la politique économique des Lagides et des Séleucides.” Topoi supplement 6: 267-90. Zervos, O.[H.] 1967: “The early tetradrachms of Ptolemy I.” ANSMN 13: 1-16. ________ 1979: “Near Eastern elements in the tetradrachms of Alexander the Great: the Eastern mints.” In Mørkholm, O. and Waggoner, N.M. (eds.) Greek numismatics and archaeology: essays in honor of Margaret Thompson, 295305.Wetteren: Editions NR. Zoroğlu, L. 2004: “Antioch on the Cyndus.” Topoi supplement 5: 373-9.

167