New piece, new reconstruction and new theories: the Athena statue from Zeugma

A S I A M I N O R S T U D I E N B A N D 64 Forschungsstelle Asia Minor im Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster ASIA MINOR STUDIEN Band 64 Von Kummuḫ nach Telouch Historische und archäologische Untersuchungen in Kommagene Dolichener und Kommagenische Forschungen IV 2011 DR. RUDOLF HABELT GMBH ∙ BONN Forschungsstelle Asia Minor im Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster Von Kummuḫ nach Telouch Historische und archäologische Untersuchungen in Kommagene herausgegeben von Engelbert Winter 2011 DR. RUDOLF HABELT GMBH ∙ BONN Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und des Exzellenzclusters »Religion und Politik in den Kulturen der Vormoderne und Moderne« an der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster Abbildung Umschlag: Nekropole von Perrhe, Ausschnitt (Foto: M. Blömer) Beiträge und Anfragen sind zu richten an: Forschungsstelle ASIA MINOR im Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster Georgskommende 25 D– 48143 Münster Redaktion: Eva Strothenke ISBN 978-3-7749-3646-1 Ein Titeldatensatz ist bei der Deutschen Bibliothek erhältlich. (http://www.ddb.de) Copyright 2011 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn iNhaltsVeRZeichNis Vorwort – Önsöz VIII Dülük Baba Tepesi, Doliche und Iupiter Dolichenus E. Winter Der Kult des Iupiter Dolichenus und seine Ursprünge. Das Heiligtum auf dem Dülük Baba Tepesi bei Doliche 1 A. Schachner Die Welt des östlichen Mittelmeers in kleinen Bildern ‒ Weitere Beobachtungen zu den Siegeln und Kleinfunden der späten Eisenzeit vom Dülük Baba Tepesi 19 N. Pöllath ‒ J. Peters ʽSmoke on the Mountainʼ– Animal Sacriices for the Lord of Doliche 47 M. Blömer Die Stele von Doliche 69 T. Fischer Teile von römischen Waffen und militärischer Ausrüstung aus den Grabungen auf dem Dülük Baba Tepesi in den Jahren 2004‒2009 105 E. Strothenke Bemalte Nordsyrische Amphoren vom Dülük Baba Tepesi 121 C. Höpken Antike Spielbretter, Spielsteine und Würfel vom Dülük Baba Tepesi 141 M. Facella – M. Stanke Eine Inschriftenplatte für Theodoros Stratelates und weitere christliche Zeugnisse vom Dülük Baba Tepesi 157 P. G. Borbone – W. Oenbrink Das christianisierte Heiligtum auf dem Dülük Baba Tepesi. Eine syrische Inschrift, Architekturbefunde und Bauglieder 187 M. Facella – M. A. Speidel From Dacia to Doliche (and back). A New Gravestone for a Roman Soldier 207 A. Collar Military Networks and the Cult of Jupiter Dolichenus 217 M. Önal Die Tonbullae von Doliche 247 VI Inhaltsverzeichnis Varia – Kommagene W. Messerschmidt Grabstele eines Herrschers von Kummuḫ – zu den späthethitischen Wurzeln des kommagenischen Königs- und Ahnenkultes 283 N. Şahin Güçhan The Commagene Nemrut Conservation and Development Program: An Approach to the Conservation Problem of Nemrut Dağ Tumulus 309 K.-P. Krüger – M. Blömer Das Potenzial historischer Aufklärungssysteme zur virtuellen Generierung rezenter Landschaften am Beispiel von Samosata 341 C. Crowther – M. Facella A New Commagenian Nomos Text from Samosata 355 C. Crowther – M. Facella Inscriptions from the Necropolis of Perrhe 367 M. Blömer Das Felsrelief von Haydaran (Taşgedık) in der Kommagene 395 A. Beyazlar – C. Crowther A New Severan Milestone in Gaziantep Museum 409 K. Görkay New Piece, New Reconstruction and New Theories: The Athena Statue from Zeugma 417 K. Görkay A Votive Stele from Zeugma 437 Tafeln 1−81 Farbtafeln 1–15 3D-Brille, Tasche hintere Umschlagseite, für: K.-P. Krüger – M. Blömer, Das Potenzial historischer Aufklärungssysteme zur virtuellen Generierung rezenter Landschaften am Beispiel von Samosata, Farbtaf. 14 ‒15 VoRwoRt 1968 wurde die Forschungsstelle Asia Minor im Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster von Friedrich Karl Dörner gegründet. Eines der von ihm verfolgten Ziele war die dauerhafte Förderung von Forschungen in Kommagene. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt hatte er sich bereits 30 Jahre lang mit dieser Landschaft beschäftigt. Den Beginn markierte eine Forschungsreise, die er 1938 gemeinsam mit Rudolf Naumann unternommen hatte und deren Ergebnisse bereits im folgenden Jahr als Band der Istanbuler Forschungen publiziert werden konnten. Es folgten in den 1950er und 1960er Jahren die großen Entdeckungen in Arsameia a. Nymphaios und gemeinsam mit Theresa Goell auf dem Nemrud Dağ. Im Umfeld dieser Arbeiten begannen auch seine Schüler eigene Forschungen, die ein breites Spektrum von der hellenistischen Zeit bis in das christliche Mittelalter abdeckten. Besonders hervorzuheben sind hier die Arbeiten Hansgerd Hellenkempers, Sencer Şahins, Elmar Schwertheims und Jörg Wagners. Ein neues Kapitel der von der Forschungsstelle Asia Minor in Kommagene durchgeführten Arbeiten begann 30 Jahre nach ihrer Gründung 1998, als in der antiken Stadt Doliche mit den Grabungen in zwei dort entdeckten Mithräen begonnen wurde. Seit 2001 stellt das nahe der Stadt gelegene Zentralheiligtum des Iupiter Dolichenus auf dem Dülük Baba Tepesi einen neuen Forschungsschwerpunkt dar. Die Grabungen im Heiligtum dauern seitdem an und sind im Lauf der Zeit von einem kleinen Projekt mit wenigen Mitarbeitern zu einer Unternehmung angewachsen, an der im Jahr 2010 insgesamt 52 Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, Studierende und Grabungshelfer beteiligt waren. Der vorliegende Band möchte zunächst Rechenschaft ablegen über die von 2007 bis 2009 durchgeführten Arbeiten und präsentiert ein breites Spektrum von Ergebnissen aus den einzelnen Arbeitsbereichen und Epochen der langen Geschichte dieses Kultplatzes (vgl. zu den jüngsten Resultaten www.doliche.de). Darüber hinaus sind während der vergangenen Jahre im Umfeld der Dolichener Grabung Studien, Projekte und Forschungen zu verschiedenen Aspekten der Geschichte und Archäologie der gesamten Region realisiert worden. Einen neuen Schwerpunkt stellt dabei die wissenschaftliche Aufarbeitung der Bestände des Museums Adɩyaman und insbesondere der Funde aus der Grabung in der Nekropole von Perrhe dar. Daneben sind landeskundliche Studien zu nennen, die regelmäßig in enger Kooperation mit den Museen Gaziantep und Adɩyaman durchgeführt werden und immer wieder wichtige neue Denkmäler zu erschließen vermögen. Ergebnisse dieser Arbeiten sind ebenfalls in diesem Band vorgelegt, weitere Publikationen in Vorbereitung. Ziel dieses Bandes ist es nicht nur, die eigenen Arbeiten zu dokumentieren. Er soll gleichzeitig eine Plattform für alle Forscher in Kommagene bieten, ihre Arbeiten vorzustellen. Hier ist vor allem das Zeugma-Projekt zu nennen, das unter der Leitung von Kutalmɩş Görkay (Ankara) in Kooperation mit türkischen und internationalen Forschern neben dem eigentlichen Stadtgebiet zunehmend auch die weitere Umgebung in seine Untersuchungen einbezieht. ÖNsÖZ 1968 yılında Münster Westfalya Wilhelms Üniversitesi, Eski Çağ Tarihi bölümüne bağlı olarak Friedrich Karl Dörner tarafından Küçük Asya Araştırma Merkezi kurulmuştur. Dörnerʼin bu araştırma merkezini kurmasının hedelerinden birisi de Kommagene bölgesinde sürekli gelişecek araştırmaların desteklenmesidir. Dörner bu kurumu kurduğu dönemde amade 30 yıldır bu bölgede araştırmalarını gerçekleştirmekteydi. Bu araştırmaların başlangıcını, 1938 yılında Rudolf Naumann ile beraber yapmış olduğu ve bunun sonuçlarının bir sonraki yılda Istanbul Araştırmalarıʼnda (Istanbuler Forschungen) bütün bir cild olarak yayınlanmış olan araştırma gezisi damgalamıştır. Bunları 1950ʼli ve 1960ʼlı yıllarda Nymphaios Arsameiaʼsındaki ve Theresa Goell ile beraber Nemrut Dağıʼndaki büyük keşileri takip etmiştir. Bu çalışmaların çerçevesinde öğrenciler de bölgede, Hellenistik döneminden Hıristiyanlığın Orta Çağına kadarki evreyi kapsayan, kendi araştırmalarına başlamışlardır. Burada özellikle değinilmesi gereken isimler Hansgerd Hellenkempers, Wolfram Hoepfners, Sencer Şahin, Elmar Schwertheim ve Jörg Wagnerʼdir. Küçük Asya Araştırma Merkezi tarafından Kommageneʼdeki çalışmalarının yeni bir başlığını, kuruluşundan 30 yıl sonra, 1998 yılında antik kent Dolicheʼde keşfedilmiş iki Mithraeum kazısının yapılmasıyla oluşturmuştur. 2001 yılından beri antik kentin yakınında yer alan Dülük Baba Tepesiʼndeki Jüpiter Dolichenusʼun merkezi kutsal alanı araştırmaların ağırlık noktasını kazanmıştır. Kutsal alandaki kazı çalışmaları bu tarihten günümüze dek devam etmekte ve zamanla az sayıdaki personele sahip küçük bir proje konumundan daha büyük bir müessese konumuna ulaşmıştır. 2010 yılında akademisyen, üniversite öğrencileri ve kazının iziksel iş gücünü sağlayan elemanlarla toplam 52 kişilik bir ekip çalışmaları gerçekleştirmiştir. Önümüzdeki kitap öncelikle 2007ʼden 2009 yılına dek sürdürülmüş olunan çalışmalar hakkında bilgi vermekte ve bu kült alanında gerçekleştirilmiş her bir çalışma sahasına ve uzun tarihinin her bir evresine ait çeşitli sonuçlarını sunmaktadır (en genç neticler için bkz.: www.doliche.de). Bunun ötesinde Doliche kazılarının kapsamında geçmiş yıllarda bilimsel incelemeler, projeler ve araştırmalar bölgede tarihi ve arkeolojik açıdan değişik değerlendirme şekilleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bunların arasında en önemli çalışma noktasını Adıyaman Müzesi`nde bulunan eserlerin ve özellikle Perrhe Nekropolü kazılarından gelen eserlerin bilimsel incelenip, belgelenme çalışmaları oluşturmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra devamlı Gaziantep Müzesi ve Adıyaman Müzesi ile yakın ilişkilerle gerçekleştirilen ve her seferinde önemli, yeni anıtları ortaya koyan, coğrai araştırmalar da belirtilmelidir. Bu çalışmaların sonuçları da bu ciltte toplanmış olup, gelecek yayınlar ise hazırlanma aşamasındadır. Fakat bu cildin amacı sadece kendi çalışmalarımızı belgelemek değildir. Aynı zamada Kommageneʼde bütün araştırmacıların çalışmalarını sunabilecekleri bir platform oluşturmak istenmiştir. Bu noktada özellikle Kutalmış Görkay (Ankara) başkanlığında Türk ve uluslararası araştırmacılarla beraber yürütülen, sadece kent içinde değil çevresinde de araştırmaları kapsayan, X Vorwort Daneben hat ein neues Nemrud Dağ-Projekt der Middle East Technical University unter der Leitung von Neriman Şahin Güçhan (Ankara) damit begonnen, diese herausragende Kult- und Grabstätte Antiochos I. von Kommagene systematisch zu dokumentieren und zu konservieren sowie das Kerngebiet des kommagenischen Königreiches besser zu erschließen. Insgesamt hoffen wir, einen Band vorlegen zu können, der ein umfangreiches Tableau neuer Forschungsergebnisse zu Kommagene präsentiert. Diese Vielfalt sollte sich auch im Titel des Bandes niederschlagen: »Von Kummuḫ nach Telouch«. Er drückt die große Bandbreite der hier versammelten Beiträge aus, die vom eisenzeitlichen Königreich Kummuḫ bis zum Doliche der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit reicht, als der Ort unter dem Namen Telouch bekannt war. Angesichts der sich abzeichnenden weitreichenden Perspektiven sowohl für die Grabungen in Doliche als auch für die Vielzahl laufender wie geplanter Projekte in Kommagene erscheint es uns sinnvoll, innerhalb der etablierten Asia Minor Studien die Unterreihe ʽDolichener und Kommagenische Forschungenʼ zu begründen, die der regelmäßigen Veröffentlichung von Einzelstudien und Sammelbänden zur Geschichte und Archäologie Kommagenes verplichtet ist. Da der vorliegende Band nach den Bänden 47 (2003), 52 (2004) und 60 (2008) bereits der vierte ist, der sich ausschließlich der Kommagene widmet, erscheint er nun als Band IV dieser neuen Reihe. Die drei vorangegangenen Bände werden rückwirkend in die Reihe eingebunden. Deren vorrangiges Ziel ist es, die wissenschaftliche Erforschung der Region zwischen Taurus und Euphrat zu fördern und wichtige Neufunde zeitnah der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion zugänglich zu machen. Allen Forschern, die zur Geschichte und Archäologie der Landschaft Kommagene arbeiten, soll auf diesem Wege die Möglichkeit geboten werden, ihre Ergebnisse in dieser Reihe zu veröffentlichen. Abschließend ist es eine angenehme Plicht, all denen zu danken, ohne deren Engagement die erfolgreiche Durchführung der Arbeiten vor Ort nicht möglich gewesen wäre. Hier sei zunächst allen Mitarbeitern der Grabung in Doliche und der weiteren von der Forschungsstelle Asia Minor initiierten Projekte in Kommagene gedankt, die mit großem Engagement den Erfolg der Grabung und auch der Forschungen in deren Umfeld erst möglich gemacht haben. Für die inanzielle Förderung gilt unser Dank insbesondere der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, ebenso der Gerda Henkel Stiftung, der Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, der Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster e. V., dem Exzellenzcluster „Religion und Politik in den Kulturen der Vormoderne und Moderne“ an der WWU Münster sowie dem Historisch-Archäologischen Freundeskreis Münster e.V. Die Generaldirektion für Kulturschätze und Museen im Kultusministerium der Republik Türkei erteilte uns dankenswerterweise kontinuierlich die Erlaubnis zu unseren Arbeiten in Kommagene. Darüber hinaus gilt unser Dank den Direktoren der Museen in Adɩyaman und Gaziantep, Fehmi Erarslan und Ahmet Denizhanoğullarɩ für ihre Gastfreundschaft, ebenso allen weiteren Mitarbeitern der beiden genannten Museen. Ahmet Beyazlar (Gaziantep) und Memet Önal (Urfa), die mit eigenen Aufsätzen diesen Band bereichert haben, sowie Fatma Bulgan (Gaziantep) danken wir zudem Önsöz XI Zeugma-Projesi anılmalıdır. Bunun yanı sıra Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi tarafından Neriman Şahin Güçhan (Ankara) başkanlığında başlatılmış olunan yeni Nemrut Dağı-Projesi; Kommagene kraliyetinin merkezi alanını daha iyi değerlendirebilmek için, Kommagene`nin I. Antiochosʼun muhteşem kült ve mezar alanını sistematik olarak belgelemeye ve koruma altına alınmaya başlanmıştır. Böylelikle bütünüyle Kommageneʼdeki araştırmalarının sonuçlarını kapsamlı bir tablo halinde sunan bir cild yayınlayabilmeyi ümit etmekteyiz. Bu çeşitlilik kitabın başlığında da belirtilmeliydi. Başlık »Kummuhʼtan Telouchʼa« olarak seçildi ve böylelikle burada sunulan, Demir Çağının Kummuh Kraliyetiʼnden; ismi bu dönemde Telouch olarak bilinen, Orta Bizans Dönemi Doliche`sine dek konulu makaleleri ifade etmektedir. Hem Dolicheʼdeki arkeolojik kazıların hem de Kommageneʼde çok sayıdaki devam eden ve de planlanan projelerin uzun süreli perspektiinde bizim için kendine has bir yayın sırasının başlatılması mantıklı gelmektedir. Bu yayında, Kommageneʼdeki hem tekil çalışmalar hem de bölgenin tarihi ve arkeolojik çalışmalarının düzenli olarak yer alabilir. Böylelikle Asia Minor Studien yayın silsilesinin „Doliche ve Kommagene Araştırmaları“ başlığı altında bir alt yayın sırası kurulmuştur. Önümüzdeki kitap, 47 (2003), 52 (2004) ve 60 (2008) cildlerinden sonra tamamen Kommagene konulu dördüncü cild olduğundan bu yayın sırasının Cild IV olarak yayınlanmaktadır. Bundan önceki diğer üç cild de geriye dönük olarak bu sıraya bağlanacaktır. Bunların öncelikli hedei; Toros ile Fırat arasındaki bölgede gerçekleştirilen bilimsel araştırmaları desteklemek ve önemli yeni buluntuları bilimsel tartışmaların güncelliğinde sunabilmektir. Kommagene coğrafyasında tarihi ve arkeolojik çalışmalarını yürüten bütün araştırmacılar için çalışmalarının sonuçlarını bu yayın sırasında yayınlayabilmelerine olasılık tanınması arzu edilmektedir. Bu noktada son sözü mahhalinde yapılan çalışmalar esnasında angajmanı olmadan bu çalışmanın gerçekleşemeyeceği insanlara teşekkür etmek isterim. Burada ilk olarak, angajmanlarıyla kazı çalışmalarında ve çevresindeki araştırmaların gerçekleştirilebilmesi sağlanabildiği, Doliche Kazı Ekibine ve de Küçük Asya Araştırma Merkeziʼnin ön ayak olmuş olduğu Kommagene projelerine takdirde bulunulmaktadır. Maddi desteklerini sağladıkları için Alman Araştırma Kurumu`na, Gerda Henkel Vakfıʼna, Fritz Thyssen Vakfıʼna, Münster Westfalya-Wilhelms Üniversitesiʼnin Destekleme Dernekʼine, WWU Münsterʼdeki „Modern Öncesi ve Modern Kültürlerin Din ve Siyaset“ başlıklı Exzellensclusterʼine ve de Tarih-Arkeoloji Dostluk Birliğiʼne takdirlerimizi sunmaktayız. T. C. Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü takdire şayan bir şekilde aralıksız olarak Kommageneʼdeki çalışmalarımız için izin yazılarını bize ulaştırmıştır. Bunun dışında teşekkürlerimiz misairperverlikleri için Adıyaman ve Gaziantep Müzeleriʼnin Müdürleri Fehmi Erarslan ve Ahmet Denizhanoğullarıʼnadır. Bu aynı şekilde iki müzenin de çalışanları için geçerlidir. Makaleleriyle yayınımıza zenginlik katmış olan Ahmet Beyazlarʼa (Gaziantep) ve Mehmet Önalʼa (Urfa); bütün yardımlarıyla her zaman Kommageneʼde miras kalmış kültürlerin açıklanmasında bilimsel çabaları ile işbirliğine hazır olan Fatma Bulganʼa (Gaziantep) XII Vorwort für ihre Großzügigkeit und ihre Kooperationsbereitschaft bei dem gemeinsamen Bemühen um die wissenschaftliche Erschließung der kulturellen Hinterlassenschaften Kommagenes. Taner Atalay (Gaziantep), Mahmut Altunçan (Karaman) und Sainas Akbaş (Karamanmaraş) waren uns im Berichtszeitraum als zuständige Kommissare während der Grabungen auf dem Dülük Baba Tepesi stets eine große Hilfe. Dilek Çobanoğlu (Münster) und Aylin Tanrɩöver (Münster) haben dankenswerterweise für den vorliegenden Band die in türkischer Sprache verfassten Beiträge ins Deutsche übertragen. Münster im Januar 2011 Engelbert Winter Önsöz XIII sonsuz Teşekkürlerimizi sunarız. Taner Atalay (Gaziantep), Mahmut Altunçan (Karaman) ve Sainaz Akbaş (Kahramanmaraş) Dülük Baba Tepesiʼnde gerçekleştirilen kazı dönemlerinde bakanlık temsilcisi olarak kazı ekibi için büyük yardımlar sağlamışlardır. Dilek Çobanoğlu (Münster) ve Aylin Tanrıöver (Münster) takdire şayan bir şekilde önümüzdeki yayının Türkçe ve Almanca çevirilerini gerçekleştirmişlerdir. Münster, Ocak 2011 Engelbert Winter New Piece, New RecoNstRuctioN aNd New theoRies: the atheNa statue fRom Zeugma1 (Pl. 77–80) In memory of H. Wiegartz This paper reassesses the colossal torso of Athena in local limestone which has been recorded on the site of Zeugma for over a century (pl.w, 1). The dimensions of the torso and its ind spot, a lat piece of land located north of Belkıs Tepe, the hill-top sanctuary of the city,2 indicate that this Athena was a cult statue. The torso most probably tumbled down from the Belkıs Tepe to this area which is near the Agora. The conjectured presence of the statue in the sanctuary implies a cult of the goddess on the city’s prominent hill. This cult has also been recently attested by an epigraphic ind in excavations in a domestic sector 250 m north-east of Belkıs Tepe, a Roman limestone votive stele bearing the image of the goddess with a dedicatory inscription.3 Although the extant part of the inscription does not mention the goddess to whom the stele was dedicated, the representation of the deity on the rear side clearly is Athena. Archaeological work at Zeugma is supported by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey and the General Directorate of Monuments and Museums. Generous assistance is provided by the Governorship of Gaziantep, Ankara University, Verbundplan Birecik Baraj İşletmesi A.Ş., Koç Holding, Kamasan, Meteksan, SEZA Ltd, SEMA Ltd and several private donors. We are grateful to the Minister of Culture and Tourism and the General Directorate of Monuments and Museums for their permission to carry out research at Zeugma and for their continuing inancial support for this project. We are also indebted to the Governorship of Gaziantep, Municipality of Nizip, the British Institute at Ankara and companies and institutions mentioned above for their support and assistance. My research on Zeugma was supported by an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship held in 2008–2009, and a series of Visiting Fellowships from Oxford University in 2009–2010 (Christ Church, All Souls College, Wolfson College) as well as an Ilse and George Hanfmann Fellowship. I am indebted to A. Chaniotis, N. Malcolm, F. Fless, J. Penney for their supports and especially to C. Crowther, J. Lenaghan and R. R. R. Smith for their invaluable comments on this paper. I am also grateful to A. Denizhanoğulları, the director of the Gaziantep Archaeological Museum, and to the archaeologists U. Alagöz, H. Yaman and M. S. Yılmaz for their immense help in supervising the ield work, plotting the ind spots of the statue pieces on the ield and providing the detailed pictures of the statue. I extend a special thank to the Zeugma workmen who labored with heart and soul under the roasting Zeugma sun. 2 Belkıs Tepe, the highest point of the city, has different layers of geological beddings most of which are marlylimestone. The hill has a lat piece of ground at the top which was probably formed by shaving off the harder chertylimestone crust as an acropolis plateau. For the geological feature of the region and Zeugma see D. Kennedy – J. Banbury, Geography and environment, in: Kennedy 1998, 19–30, here 27; G. Algaze – R. Breuninger – J. Knudstad, The Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: inal report of the Birecik and Carchemis Dam survey areas, Anatolica 20, 1994, 311–324 and C. Karaca, Geological Investigations in Zeugma, Turkey (Unpublished Master Thesis submitted to Middle East Technical University and supervised by V. Toprak, Ankara 2008), 8–13. This lat area forms an irregular polygonal circuit which overlaps with the city’s earliest bastion. Scholars have proposed that Belkıs Tepe is the φρούριον τῆς Μεσοποταμίας (ʽfortress of Mesopotamiaʼ) mentioned by Strabo in connection with Seleucia (Strab. 16,2,3). Wagner 1976, 93–93 and D. Kennedy – J. Kennedy, The Twin Towns and the Region, in: Kennedy 1998, 31–60, here 37 propose that Belkıs Tepe could be the phrourion mentioned by Strabo. Wagner interprets the structure as a bastion based on Polybius’ account (Polybius 5,43,1); contrary C. Abadie-Reynal proposes a small fortress at Karatepe (C. Abadie-Reynal, Le Dévelopment Urbain en Syrie du Nord, Étude des cas de Séleucie et Apamée de l’Euphrate, Topoi Supplement 4, 2003, 149–169, here 154–155). Although it has been generally accepted that Zeugma had no earlier settlement prior to its foundation by Seleucus I Nicator, recent archaeological and epigraphic evidence have proved its pre-Hellenistic date. Some Iron Age pottery sherds collected from the surface and found in the trenches opened in 2008 at the temple on the summit show that the hill was occupied earlier than the Hellenistic Period. Moreover, a recently found Iron Age Semitic, probably old Aramaic inscription written on a basalt block seems to point to a pre-Hellenistic religious context of this summit in the 9th or 8th centuries BC. (for recent works see Görkay forthcoming). 3 See in this volume K. Görkay, A Votive Stele from Zeugma, S. 437– 442. 1 418 Kutalmış Görkay In 2008, a series of surveys conducted on the southern slopes of the Belkıs Tepe revealed a large fragment of the lower legs of a female statue. This separately worked piece was well-preserved except for minor cracks, abrasions and erosions, and deinitively belonged to the same statue as the torso of the colossal Athena known on site since the early twentieth century. This discovery enabled us to reconstruct the ancient appearance of the whole statue and to reassess its technical, iconographic and stylistic aspects. In addition, this signiicant ind raised new questions concerning chronology and context. Discovery of the torso and early interpretations Early archaeological accounts of Belkıs Tepe are given by Metheny, Chapot and Cumont. Metheny describes the shrine and the cella of the temple at Belkıs Tepe, as well as the upper body of an Athena and a head which he believed belonged to the same statue.4 Chapot, without mentioning the Athena torso, describes a helmeted head of a statue lying on the slope of the hill. According to him the head might be dated to 2nd century AD on the basis of the pupils of the eyes.5 The helmeted head mentioned by Chapot and Metheny, however, had already been sold to a merchant from Aleppo when Cumont visited the site in 1907.6 In 1917 Cumont published the upper body of the statue which he described with reference to his 1907 visit as lying at the north slope of the Belkıs Tepe (pl. 77, 1).7 He may have also seen the lower legs but he did not connect the two.8 In 1972, the torso was rediscovered and studied by J. Wagner who had it transported to the garden of Gaziantep Museum (pl. 77, 2). 9 Wagner suggested that the lost head and the torso might belong to each other, but he also considered it possible that the head might belong to a so-called Tyche10 statue, also from the Belkıs Tepe, which was irst published in 1929.11 Wagner interpreted the statue as a version of the Athena Parthenos on account of its aegis and pose.12 In contrast, J. R. Metheny, Road notes from Cilicia and North Syria, JAOS 28, 1907, 155–162, here 159. Chapot 1907, 279: »Au lanc d’un coteau, une tête casquée colossale; la pupille de I’œil étant indiquée, nous avons une date: IIe siècle.« 6 Cumont 1917, 138 note 1. 7 Cumont 1917, 137 ig. 48. 8 The dimension given by Cumont seems also close, see Cumont 1917, 138: »La seconde statue était celle dʼune femme drapée, mais la partie inferieure en subsiste seule [h. 1m,10; 1..0m, 62]: elle était debout sur un socle carre, appuyée sur la jambe droite, la gauche un peu repliée; sa tunique talaire était recouverte dʼun manteau, dont les plis descendaient jusqu’au genoux.« 9 Wagner 1976, 127–128 pl. 20a; for the ind spot, see Wagner 1976, map II, point 40, see also Parlasca 2005, 231. 10 For the Tyche statue see, Wagner 1976, 123–127. Wagner 1976, 87 proposes that the head could be from the Athena statue, whereas, on p. 128 in the same publication, he thinks that the head could belong to the so called Tyche statue. He then repeats the same idea in J. Wagner, Samosata und Seleukeia am Euphrat/Zeugma. Entdeckung und zweiter Untergang römischer Grenzstädte am Euphrat, NüBlA 20, 2004, 131–154, here 142 by writing that the head might have had a mural crown instead of a helmet, and therefore could be associated with the Tyche statue. 11 An enthroned female cult statue in pieces from Belkıs Tepe was irst mentioned by H. H. von der Osten, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor, 1929, Oriental Institute Communications 8 (Chicago 1930) 68 pl. 67–70. He suggests that the statue was a male protecting or blessing deity of the city. The statue was identiied as Tyche of the city by Wagner 1976, 123–127. Excavations carried out in 2008 on the Belkıs Tepe revealed a third statue, a seated male igure (Görkay forthcoming). 12 Wagner 1976, 128. Athena Parthenos is not well known in the region, except for some examples: a bronze Athena Parthenos statue from Zeugma, see R. Fleischer, Bronzestatuette der Athena Parthenos aus Nizip, Türkei, ÖJh 49, 1968–71, 68–72; a igure of Athena on a votive stele from Zeugma (see in this volume K. Görkay, A Votive Stele from Zeugma, S. 437– 442); an altar depicting the goddess from Adana/Ceyhan, see H. Williams, An Athena Par4 5 The Athena Statue from Zeugma 419 Prag13 stressed the torso’s difference from the known versions of the Parthenos and emphasized its similarity with the Athena Velletri type. In his comprehensive study of the Parthenos type, Nick excluded the Zeugma torso as a version of the Parthenos.14 Friedland, in her last article on the visualization of Athena and Athena-Allat in the Roman Near East, did not take a position and described the Zeugma statue in her catalogue as an Athena Parthenos or Velletri, and, just as Parlasca,15 called it only Athena in the text.16 Discovery of the new piece of the statue Surveys carried out on the southern slope of Belkıs Tepe in 2008 uncovered statue fragments that had tumbled down from the acropolis where the chief sanctuary of the city is located.17 The exact locations of these fragments were plotted, and a preliminary project of documentation was initiated in order to understand their features and distribution. This documentation project was designed to enable us to reconstruct as fully as possible the visual setting of the sanctuary at the Acropolis. Initial work carried out in 2009 revealed that a large fragment, a separately worked piece of the lower legs, probably came from the so called Athena Parthenos statue recorded by Chapot, Metheny and Cumont and published by Wagner in 1972. The front of the piece and parts of worked surfaces were barely visible on the surface of the slope. The work to lift the piece was carried out in dificult conditions on a steep slope (pl. 78, 1–2). After it was lifted, measurements and experiments with digital images revealed clearly that it was the missing lower part of the Athena statue (pl. 78, 3–79, 3). Material and Technical Details The material of the Athena statue is cherty-limestone18 which comes from the upper crust of Belkıs Tepe.19 This indicates that the statue was carved in-situ on the Belkıs Tepe to be placed in the sanctuary; the same is true for the other two cult statues found on the Tepe.20 Considering thenos from Cilicia, AnSt 27, 1977, 105–110; see also on the discussion concerning a statue of Athena Parthenos from Ninica-Claudiopolis (today Mut) G. E. Bean – T. B. Mitford, Cilicia Antiquities. Journeys in Rough Cilicia in 1962 and 1963 (Wien 1970) 233 nr. 271. 13 A. J. N. W. Prag stresses that the prominent feature of her cloak does not match to the other authentic statues of Parthenos. Prag suggests that the type of Athena Velletri is the closest parallel for the Zeugma torso on the basis of her apron (Prag 1984, 183); see also LIMC II, 1, 980, nr. 247. (La Pallas de Velletri), Louvre MA 464, see also Friedland 2008, 208. 345 cat. nr. 24. 14 G. Nick, Die Athena Parthenos. Studien zum griechischen Kultbild und seiner Rezeption (Mainz 2002) 200 nr. 1346. 15 Parlasca 2005, 231. 16 Friedland 2008, 332. 345 nr. 24. 17 Some of these fragments were mentioned by Cumont 1917, 138–139. Some statues that Cumont mentioned are funerary statues and have been already transported to the museum of Gaziantep in the 60s. However, a number of them located at the same area are colossal and clearly belong to the cult statues at the Tepe. 18 The material of the statue was described by Prag 1984, 183 and Friedland 2008, 332. 345 cat. nr. 24 as marble, however it is obviously local hard limestone with cherty inclusion. 19 I am grateful to V. Toprak for sharing me his observations about the geological layers of Belkıs Tepe. For the geological layers of Belkis Tepe see also Karaca op. cit. (note 2) 8. 20 Apart from the so called Tyche cult statue, excavations carried out in 2008 unearthed a second seated cult statue of a male divinity, most probably Zeus. The preliminary publication of these statues is in progress (Görkay forthcoming). 420 Kutalmış Görkay that the acropolis plateau was already enclosed by a circuit,21 one may surmise that quarrying the block from the bedrock inside the sanctuary was practical and economic; this is the case with the other two cult statues. The quality of the material itself is not high; therefore the blemishes caused by cherty inclusions appear to have been illed with stucco some of which is preserved in a large hollow at the back of the statue. Stucco in this hole is visible in the old picture of the statue published by Cumont (pl. 77, 1).22 A large eroded surface on the right side of the upper right leg also seems to have been covered with stucco, since there appears to be a raised border around a recessed surface which could have served as bedding for the stucco.23 The statue appears to have been carved in at least three major pieces: (1) head, (2) torso and upper legs, and (3) lower legs with plinth. The left forearm also seems to have been worked separately and possibly also the right arm, though for this latter piece there is simply not enough preserved to be certain. The largest piece (2) extends from the shoulders to the knees and is now on display in the garden of the Gaziantep Archaeological Museum (pl.77, 2). It is about 1,9 m high and 0,9 m wide. The lower legs from knee to plinth (3) are about 1,47 m and 0,73 m wide at the top and 1,07 m at the bottom. The combined height of the preserved parts of the statue is about 3,37 m. The total height of the complete statue including the missing helmeted head (3) was probably c. 4,20 m. Some surfaces of the both the torso and lower body are abraded and worn. The parts that were less exposed to weather, such as the left side of the torso, the right toe, and the folds of the chiton below the knees have been given a matte rasp inish. The drill seems to have been used only to create the channels between the deep folds in the drapery of the himation which wraps around the left shoulder and arm (pl. 79, 4). The head of the statue was carved as a separate piece which was inserted with a tenon into the main torso.24 At the top of the main torso is a recessed lat surface in the middle of which is a large square socket for a stone or wooden dowel or the tenon of the head piece (pl. 80, 1). There is also a wide, shallow pour channel on the right shoulder side that runs into the socket.25 The left forearm of the statue also seems to have been attached as a separate piece. A rounded cut out area with one especially deep impression is clearly preserved at the left hip. It seems to have functioned as a socket and bedding into which the tenon of the separate arm piece was inserted. Belkıs Tepe is surrounded by an ashlar circuit whose parts are preserved to a certain extent. The remains of the circuit are visible on the northwestern part of the lat acropolis plateau where they appear to have a form of a corner or a tower. The visible walls are polygonal, a technique that was used in the walls of Apamea. See G. Algaze 1994, 33 ig. 36; C. Abadie-Reynal et al., Mission archéologique de Zeugma rapport sur la campagne de Prospection 1995, Anatolia Antiqua 4, 1996, 311–324, here 316 ig. 5; C. Abadie-Reynal – Rifat Ergeç et al., Mission de Zeugma-Moyenne Vallée de l’Euphrate, Anatolia Antiqua 5, 1997, 349–370, here 368 ig. 21; C. Abadie-Reynal – R. Ergeç – E. Bucak et al., Zeugma-Moyenne Vallée de l’Euphrate Rapport Préliminaire de la Campagne de Fouilles de 1998, Anatolia Antiqua 7, 1999, 311–366, here 341 ig. 23. The wall that surrounds Belkıs Tepe seems to be similar to those at Apamea in terms of building techniques. The remains of the doubled-wall main body of the wall are visible on some parts at the northern and eastern borders of the acropolis. Based on this provisional observation one may suggest that the circuit wall on Belkıs Tepe could have been built as early as the Hellenistic Period, probably in the same defense system with Apamea. 22 Cumont 1917, 137, ig. 48. 23 Damaged surfaces of the statue could have been illed with stucco. 24 For the description of the missing head, see Chapot 1907, 279: »Au lanc d’un coteau, une tête casquée colossale; la pupille de l’œil étant indiquée, nous avons une date: IIe siècle.« 25 A similar technique is intensively practiced on the colossal statues at Nemrud Dağ. See Sanders 1996, 420. 21 The Athena Statue from Zeugma 421 The underside of the large fragment (at the knees) is lattened to join the lower piece. Neither the socket at the neck nor the socket at the knees preserves any trace of a metal rivet or clamp to attach the supplementary pieces. Thus, the pieces seem to have been ixed solely by means of tight sockets and tenon ittings, perhaps with some additional stucco. There are two small square lifting holes at right below the neck at the back (pl. 80, 1). The holes are not deep enough to have been used. Thus, the boss was probably originally larger and then carved back. When the torso was positioned, the un-worked boss was carved off and reduced on the sides. A roughly carved, rectangular section of the boss that projects from the right scapula and continues to the neck was left for the hair but was never carved.26 The back of the statue was worked with less detail than the front (pl. 79, 2). This is especially obvious on the lower piece, but on the upper piece there is also an unusual transition at the right hip. The upper roll of the himation does not continue evenly from front to back, though there might have been a section of stucco repair here. The plinth has an uneven rectangular form which appears to be oval due to damaged corners. The feature of the plinth implies that the statue was set up on recessed hollow bedding opened on a base. Posture The igure stands with the weight on the right leg; the left is bent and the foot placed to side. The left foot points outward and seems raised at the back. The preserved parts of the arms indicate that the right arm was probably extended forward or raised.27 The left arm was bent most probably with the left hand resting on the hip. The position of the drapery around the left side suggests that the arm did not extend forward. Costume The igure wears a chiton, aegis, himation and closed footwear. The neckline of the broad and richly folded chiton is preserved on the upper chest. Over the chiton, the goddess has an aegis with a Medusa medallion in the centre (pl. 77, 2). The scales of the aegis are represented upside down. The lower oval edge of the aegis is adorned with schematic scrolls that should be snakes but are devoid of real physical features, thus giving the impression of a looping rope or chain. The chiton is belted beneath the snake-scroll border of the aegis with a lat cord. The lower border of the chiton ends in “omega” folds that spill over the feet and plinth, so that only the front of the feet is visible (pl. 80, 2). Over the chiton the statue wears a himation with a triangular overfold. The overfold is like an apron which protects her upper legs and front. The himation wraps around the left shoulder and is pulled across the back, where it falls in several broad, curving folds from the left shoulder to the lower right legs. The representation of these folds does not continue onto the back of the newly-found lower piece, where the surface was left only roughly inished. For hair detail onVescovali type see Schürmann 2000, 45 nr. S-4, (Apollonia) igs. 13–14 pl. 22, 46, nr. S-5, (Benevent), ig. 15 pl. 23, 55–56 nr. S-16, (New York, Herrmann Coll.), ig. 22 pl. 35, 50 nr. S-9 (Liverpool), pl. 26–27, 51, nr. S-11 (Oxford), pl. 30–31, 55, nr. S-15 (Tivoli), pl. 34, 57, nr. S-19 (Rome), pl. 37. 27 Wagner 1976, 128 suggests that the right arm was raised. 26 422 Kutalmış Görkay At the front of the body, the folded upper edge of the himation passes below the belt as a roll. It unfurls into a triangular apron that reaches the right knee. The lower edge of the himation follows a line from below of the right knee to above of the left knee. On the left side, the lateral edge of the himation falls in series of stacked zig-zag folds behind the left leg. The igure wears closed shoes carved as if made of soft leather (pl. 80, 2). Evaluation and Remarks The material The material of the life size or over life size statues found in the city is limestone, with two exceptions; a marble Aphrodite Louvre/Naples type statue,28 and a marble portrait of a Republican man whose provenance is likely Zeugma.29Although the pool of examples is limited, it is clear that the use of marble for statuary is rare in Zeugma. To date, the majority of extant life size or over life size statues are private portraits from the south necropolis of the city, a funerary context. The type of limestone varies; whereas some types are local, others might possibly come from other regions in Northern Syria. Therefore, although many statues were locally quarried and carved, others might have been carved regionally. The two examples of marble statuary, the Aphrodite and the portrait head (now in Ankara), are foreign-made and were imported to the city from afar. This use of marble statuary seems to occur in conjunction with the initial presence of Roman rule in the region. The private marble portrait head may well date back to the middle of the irst century BC. Marble architectural pieces, including an Attic-Ionic column base and Corinthian capitals, were also imported, but perhaps a little later. Some of these architectural pieces, which are dated to the irst century AD, were found reused in the late antique houses of the ifth and sixth century AD at Zeugma. It is likely that they were also brought to the site to be used in buildings from far northern regions via the Euphrates which was a major transport artery. These items clearly demonstrate that economic constraints on the import of marble were not insurmountable in Roman Zeugma.30 However, for statuary the local tradition seems to have been to use limestone which was quarried locally or regionally. Based on the abundant examples from the site, it is likely that the local and regional carvers preferred limestone, not only because they were accustomed to carving it, but also because it was more economic for both the consumer and the carver. The limestone species vary among statues, and the exact provenance of the different limestone in the region cannot be determined without analysis.31 Nonetheless, the material of the dexiosis stele and cult statues Wagner 1976, 129 pl. 20b; Parlasca 2005, 231; for the type see M. Brinke, Die Aphrodite Louvre – Neaple, Antike Plastik 25, 1996, 7–64. 29 The portrait head is now in the Ankara Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. I am indebted to the Archaeologist C. Zoroğlu for making me aware of this portrait. 30 For recent arguments, see I. B. Romano – M. L. Fischer, Roman Marble and Limestone Sculpture from Beth Shean, Israel, in: V. Gaggadis-Robin et al. (eds.), Les ateliers de sculpture régionaux. Techniques, styles, et iconographie. Actes du Xe Colloque international sur lʼart provincial romain, Arles et Aix-en-Provence 21–23 mai 2007 (Arles 2009) 391–400; M. L. Fischer, Sculpture in Roman Palestine. Import and Local Production: An Overview, in: Gaggadis-Robin op. cit. 401–415; I. Skupinska-Lovset, Workshop of Northern Palestine. Use of Toothed Tools in Local Workshops in Relation to the Question of Sculptural Techniques and Choice of Materials, in: GaggadisRobin op. cit. 417–424. 31 Limestone species in the region are documented in ZAP regional survey project which is carried out together with V. Toprak of the Middle East Technical University, Geological Engineering Faculty and Geo-archaeological Program. 28 The Athena Statue from Zeugma 423 on the Belkıs Tepe, including the Athena, so called Tyche and the recently found seated male divinity, (most probably Zeus) is local cherty limestone which was quarried from the upper crust of the summit. It is therefore dificult to give a single answer to the question of what played a role in selecting the material of the statues - tradition, preference, practicality and economics all contributed to the selection. Given the existence however of examples of marble on site, one would expect for a signiicant commission, especially in the Roman period, that a iner material could have been acquired. Yet the colossal statues on the Belkıs Tepe, the city’s sanctuary, are of limestone. In light of the poor quality of the limestone quarried from Belkıs Tepe, which has holes and is full of inclusions, the statue may have been coated with ine stucco and painted which would have disguised the inferior local material and given an impression of a iner material such as marble. Posture and Costume Examination of the colossal Athena statue in light of the new found piece allows us to reconstruct conidently the overall appearance of the statue. The motion of the right shoulder suggests that the right arm was raised as if she were holding a spear.32 The effect of this dynamic posture is noticeable in the movement of the aegis as well as in the belt which tilted to the left as a result of the raised right arm. Wagner had proposed that the left arm extended down and away from the body with the hand resting on a shield.33 He believed that the hole on the left side of the waist was to hold the shield and the arm.34 This reconstruction would also suit the iconography of the Athena Parthenos, an idea that he had proposed.35 It moreover corresponds exactly to the image on the votive stele that was found in 2006. However, the new ind allows for another possible reconstruction. The new piece which preserves the plinth seems to show no room for a shield next to the left leg, a fundamental element in the Athena Parthenos type. Although the plinth’s left edge is worn, it seems to project only enough for the extent of the left foot which points outward. The projection on the left upper edge of the lower piece is the continuation of the corner of the himation that falls with zig-zag overfolds behind the left leg. The hole on the left waist suggests another option for the position of the arm (pl. 79, 4). The angle of the circular socket on her left hip gives the angle for the insertion direction of the separately worked forearm piece. According to this detail her left hand should be reconstructed as resting on her left hip. Further evidence for this is the drapery of the himation on the left shoulder, which seems to have been squeezed between the body and the arm. Wagner 1976, 128. Wagner 1976, 128. 34 Wagner 1976, 128. 35 That the statue wears chiton instead of peplos may conlict with the iconography of Athena Parthenos. 32 33 424 Kutalmış Görkay In terms of posture the statue recalls the Athena Vescovali36 type whose original model is dated to the middle of the 4th century BC.37 Versions of the type display minor variations in the position of the right arm which is sometimes extended forward.38 The left arm bends at the elbow and the hand rests on the left hip. In this type the large himation wraps around the lower body like an apron which bunches in a roll below the breasts and unfurls to the knee. The Zeugma statue is closer to the type in terms of its posture than the costume, even though it does have the basic components of the costume of the Vescovali type. The dissimilarities in costume include the position of the aegis, the location of the aegis, the position of the upper rolled edge of the himation, the absence of the triangular apron fold, and the path of the lower hem of the himation which rises to just above the left knee. Unlike the tightly rolled border of the himation across the chest of the Vescovali type, the Zeugma Athena has a loosely twisted roll of himation which leaves the chiton uncovered on the stomach. The articulation of the triangular apron folds on the front of the Zeugma statue inds close parallels in relief statuary. For instance, one of the weeping women on the sarcophagus from Sidon39 as well as the Demeter igure on the Dodekatheon stele in Ostia.40 The closest parallel may be perhaps the bronze statuette of Minerva igure in the Fog Art Museum.41 The formulation of the apron on the Zeugma statue is in fact reminiscent of that of the Athena Velletri42 type. Even before the evidence provided by our new fragment, Prag had considered the Zeugma statue to depend on the Velletri type on the basis of the triangular apron of the himation.43 The statue’s relationship to the Vescovali type and the Velletri type (and perhaps even the Parthenos) gives the impression that the sculptor did not aim to create one particular type but rather made an Athena, drawing upon his own background, knowledge and repertoire. A peculiar feature of the Zeugma Athena is that the goddess wears closed shoes instead of sandals, the characteristic footwear of all classical goddesses. It is deinitely not a result of an uninished work since the rasped inish on the surface is well-preserved. LIMC II 1, p.1086 nr.156 (Tipo Vescovali). For recent detailed studies see Schürmann 2000, 37–84; see also A. Mantis, Eine wiedergewonnene Athena-Statue auf der Athener Akropolis, AntPl 27, 2000, 85–90; for earlier scholarship see W. Amelung, Die Basis des Praxiteles aus Mantinea (München 1895) 16–17; A. J. B. Wace, Some Sculptures at Turin, JHS 26, 1906, 235–242, for the list of the group see 237–238; C. Walston, Alcamenes and the Establishment of the Classical Type in Greek Art (Cambridge 1926) 183–196; G. Lippold, Die Griechische Plastik (München 1950) 240; W. Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, vol. II (Tübingen 1966) 451; R. Kabus-Jahn, Studien zu Fraueniguren des vierten Jahrhunderts vor Christus (Darmstadt 1963) 88–92; B. Waywell, Athena Mattei, BSA 66, 1971, 373–382; I. E. Altripp, Zu den Athena Typen Raspiogliosi und Vescovali. Die Geschichte einer Verwechslung, AA 1996, 83–94. 37 For Praxiteles and his workshop, see Wace op. cit. (note 36) 235–242; Waywell op. cit. (note 36) 378; Schürmann is sceptical about associating the type with Praxiteles (Schürmann 2000, 80); A. Corso, The Art of Praxiteles. The Development of Praxiteles’ Workshop and its Cultural Tradition until the Sculptorʼs Acme (364–1 BC) (Rome 2004) 86 and Corso 2007, 193 suggests Cephisodotus the Elder. 38 Schürmann 2000, pl. 45–46 (Umbildung). 39 Corso 2007, 80–82. 40 Corso 2007, 193 ig. 112. 41 D. G. Mitten – S. F. Doeringer, Master Bronzes from the Classical World (Mainz am Rhein 1967) 286 nr. 280. 42 LIMC II 1, 980 nr. 247 (La Pallas de Velletri), for Minerva versions also see LIMC II, 1, 1085 nr. 146a–b, (Tipo Velletri). 43 Prag 1984, 183. 36 The Athena Statue from Zeugma 425 The major components of the iconography of the Athena from Zeugma are to some extent close to the representations of Athena/Allat. There is no particular Athena type for Allat; the goddess’ representations vary.44 A consistent type or development for the iconography of Athena/Allat cannot be traced.45 In some representation of Allat, the goddess wears a himation in a similar way as the Zeugma Athena does. The himation takes the form of an apron on the front and is rolled right below her belly. However, unlike the apron of the Zeugma Athena, the lower end of the apron is rather long and parallel to the ground line and does not make a triangular fold.46 Two votive stelai representing the goddess depicts the aegis and the apron in a more similar way but without the triangular fold.47 The posture and iconography of the Allat igure on the Palmyra stele (Palmyra CD147/75) can be accepted as the closest example. Dating The statue itself presents limited evidence for a secure dating. The use of limestone as well as certain technical characteristics, however, enable us to make some suggestions. Although there are many potential reasons for the choice of limestone, as mentioned above, it is undeniably an aspect of the general trend and tradition in statuary in the Hellenistic period in this region. As noted above, small scale imported marble statues as well as marble architectural pieces begin to appear in the city with Roman supremacy. Most of the Hellenistic examples, such as small size portrait statues, reliefs, and colossal statues, on the other hand, were carved from local stone. The material is various, such as hard and sandy limestone, as well as basalt. The best examples in the territory of the Commagenian Kingdom in the Hellenistic period are found at Nemrud Dağı, Arsameia on Nymphaios and Samosata.48 All of the large-scale statuary found on and around the Belkıs Tepe at Zeugma and seemingly of Hellenistic date was carved from the upper crust of the Belkıs Tepe. These include the Athena statue, the two other cult statues, and a dexiosis which was discovered by Wagner in two pieces on the slope,49 as well as other colossal statue fragments. Some examples of smaller statuary on the Tepe, again probably Hellenistic in date, were made of ine local limestone. LIMC II, 1, 564–570; H. Seyrig, Antiquités Syriennes. Les dieux armés et les Arabes en Syrie, Syria 47, 1970, 77–100; H. J. W. Drijvers, De matre inter leones sedente. Iconography and character of the Arab goddess Allât, in : M. B. de Boer – T. A. Edridge (eds.), Hommages ̀ Maarten J. Vermaseren. Recueil dʼétudes offert par les auteurs de la série Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans lʼEmpire romain ̀ Maarten J. Vermaseren ̀ lʼoccasion de son soixantième anniversaire le 7 avril 1978, vol. I (Leiden 1978) 331–351 pl. 63–74; M. Gawlikowski, Le premier Temple d’Allat, in: P. Matthiae – M. van Loon – H. Weiss (eds.), Resurrecting the past. A joint tribute to Adnan Bounni (Leiden 1990) 101–108; P. Figueras, The Roman Worship of Athena-Allat in the Decapolis and Negev, ARAM 4, 1992, 173–183; Friedland 2008, 315–350. 45 T. Kaizer, The Religious Life of Palmyra: a Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period (Stuttgart 2002) 105. 46 Palmyra CD 42, LIMC II, 1, 356, nr. 2 (seated); Palmyra: LIMC II, 1, 356 nr. 3 (seated); Damascus-Khirbet Quadi Souâné: LIMC II, 1, 566 nr. 15; see H. Seyrig, Khirbet el’Sané, Syria 14, 1933, 12–19 pl. 4, 1. 47 Palmyra CD147/75: LIMC II, 1 p. 565 nr. 13; Seyrig op. cit. (note 43) 84 ig. 7. 48 Samosata: a late Hellenistic ruler head, see Zoroğlu 2000, 75–83, here 79–80 ig. 109; a late Hellenistic bearded head: Zoroğlu 2000, 77–78 ig. 105 (limestone?); Arsameia am Nymphaios: colossal statues, see Hoepfner 1983, 42–49 pl. 20–27 and for the head of Antiochus I, 69–70 pl. 24, B (EK 276); for a head of a queen (Laodice?) pl. 24, C (EK 1065); see also Dörner – Goell 1963, 197–227 pl. 48–54. 49 Wagner 1976, 117–123 ig. 11. Cumont 1917, 138 mentions a large statue of Ares (?) on the slopes of Belkıs Tepe. The statue is now lost. For the same statue see also Wagner 1976, 129. 44 426 Kutalmış Görkay The piecing of the Athena statue is reminiscent of Hellenistic practice. Especially the square socket on the top of the Athena torso to ix the head piece is a typical joining technique that was used by the sculptors of the colossal statues at Nemrud Dağı. The separately worked head and tiara piece of the head of the Nemrud Apollo, for instance, were joined to each other with a wooden or stone dowel that was inserted into large squarish empolion (20–25 cm) or socket opened on both adjoining surfaces.50 The colossal head of Antiochus has a sharply inclined pour channel at the back, to ix the tenon with lead in place.51 A similar technique is seen in the colossal statues at Arsameia on Nymphaios. There the limestone pieces appear to have been itted with circular dowels or tenons as well as clamps52 except for one piece which has a square dowel hole.53 The lifting holes preserved at the Athena statue’s back are similar to those on the colossal statues at Nemrud Dağı.54 They appear also on the columns at Karakuş.55 In general, the holes are square in form and 8–9 cm in size and opened on the upper part of the pieces to balance the piece during lifting. The lifting holes on the shoulder pieces of the gods at Nemrud Dağı are also located at the back right below the shoulders.56 Lack of the corresponding holes at the front of the Zeugma Athena statue can be explained to some extent by the hypothesis that they were removed when the un-worked boss at the front was carved off. In conclusion, the presence of these holes indicates that the Athena statue at Zeugma was raised with the same lifting system which was also used for the colossal statues on the Nemrud Dağı. The surface, though barely visible on some parts, can be described as a matt rasp inish, a common feature when the material is not marble. The channels in the draperies were mostly opened and modeled by a lat chisel except for three drilled (?) channels in the folds of himation that wrapped around her left shoulder. The centers of the schematic snakes of the aegis also have been carved with the drill. This drill-work is similar to that visible on a hair lock of a relief head of a ruler from Nemrud Dağı.57 The use of the drill in a modest way does not exclude a Hellenistic date.58 The overall style of the Athena statue recalls local Hellenistic workmanship. The rather lat drapery folds and shallow drapery have parallels in the series of dexiosis reliefs in Commagene.59 This workmanship and technique may be compared with a few limestone sculptures outside of the immediate area, such as the 3rd century BC statue of wreathed worshiper and the 2nd century BC woman with child from Cyprus.60 Sanders 1996, vol.1, 186, vol. 2, 29 ig. 47. 58–60 ig. 97–103 (Apollo); there are also circular sockets on the other statues, see p. 61 ig. 106 (Zeus); p. 869 ig. 125–126 (Antiochus); for similar square joining sockets on the cult statues at Claros, see E. I. Faulstich, Hellenistische Kultstatuen und ihre Vorbilder (Frankfurt am Main 1997) 195–196 ig. 15 (right leg of Apollo) and 197–198 ig. 25 (square sockets on Artemis). 51 Sanders 1996, vol.1, 192, vol. 2, 70 ig. 129. 52 Hoepfner 1983, 47 ig. 23 (EK 1039. EK 105) pl. 22a. 53 Hoepfner 1983, 45 ig. 22 (EK 1007). 54 Sanders 1996, vol. 2, 56 ig. 91, 63. 111, 68. 122–123, 71. 131, 74. 139, 76. 142, 78. 146–147, 86. 160–162, 88. 164, 89. 166, 101. 189. 55 J. Wagner, Die Könige von Kommagene und ihr Herrscherkult, in: Wagner 2000 op. cit. (note 48) 11–25, especially 21 igs. 27–28. 56 Sanders 1996, vol. 2, 88. 164. 57 Sanders 1996, vol. 2, 240 ig. 468, also see ig. 469. 58 for example Sanders 1996, vol. 2, 240 ig. 468 (head). 59 For shallow folds on the apron, see Sanders 1996, 153 ig. 273, 155. 277 (Antiochus – Commagene dexiosis stele). 198 ig. 370–371 (forearm piece). 175 ig. 316 (unidentiied woman). 60 R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture (London 1991) igs. 256, 1. 257. 50 The Athena Statue from Zeugma 427 According to Chapot the eyes of the Athena had marked pupils, and therefore he placed the head in the second century.61 Chapot’s succinct description is not suficient evidence for such a date since pupils could be marked in various ways even in the Hellenistic period.62 Thus, the technical and stylistic analysis of the statue suggests a general date range between hellenistic and early imperial periods. If Chapot had truly seen drilled pupils, we might imagine that the original head of the statue had been replaced with a Roman-made head. The shallow carved channel through the square socket on the bedding is most likely a pour channel; however one could assume that it might have been opened if the head of the dismantled and replaced. Possible Context Without pressing any one hypothesis, we may sketch three possible contexts for the Athena statue. These potential contexts would suit both the kind of statue we have and the kind of evidence surviving for Athena cults in this area. Early Hellenistic The cult of the goddess is known in Seleucid foundations. Best known is her cult at Antioch. A bronze statue of Athena was set up by Seleucus Nicator at Antioch for the Athenian settlers who were brought from Antigoneia to settle in Antioch.63 Malalas writes of a temple for Athena which was located near the city in the vicinity of Daphne (Malalas 8. 20). On Seleucid coins Athena Promachos,64 Athena Nikephoros65 and Athena Parthenos66 are well represented. Seleucid gold staters also featured Athena.67 Considering the fact that Zeugma was founded by Seleucus Nicator as Seleucia on the Euphrates, one might imagine that the cult was brought here in the Hellenistic period. As in Antioch, some of the irst settlers of Zeugma could have been Athenians whom Seleucus Nicator, as he did in Antioch, might have allowed to bring their old cult to their new city. We may also take into consideration the account provided by Diodorus who mentions worship of Athena Cyrrhestis in Macedonia (Diodorus 18, 4, 5). Cohen believes that worship of the same goddess can be traced in Cyrrhestice, based on the account provided by Stephanos of Byzanz who mentions Athena Cyrrhestis in connection with Cyrrhus.68 Although Strabo (Strabo 16. 2. 7) states that the temple was located twenty stadia distant from Heracleia, neither the localization of Heracleia nor the temple is known.69 The cult of Athena Cyrrhestis might have spread to Chapot 1907, 279: »Au lanc d’un coteau, une tête casquée colossale; la pupille de I’œil étant indiquée, nous avons une date: IIe siècle.« 62 They are marked in some examples, see Smith op. cit. (note 59) igs. 292. 1–2; 240, ig. 300 (inset eyes). 63 Malalas 8, 15; G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton 1961) 76; see also Diod. 20, 47, 6–7. 64 Houghton et al. 2002, 19–20, nrs.15–17, (Seleucus I – Royal Bronze Coinage – Serie IA), p. 141–142, nr. 381–387, (Antiochus I), p. 479, nr. Ad37 (Antiochus III), pl. 101; p. 211, nr. 604 (Antiochus II), pl. 78. 65 Houghton et al. 2002, vol. I, p.179, nr. 498, vol. II, pl. 23. 66 For Athena Parthenos depiction, see Houghton et al. 2002, p. 208–209, nr. 591–593 (Antiochus II), pl. 78. 67 Houghton et al. 2002, 5. 68 Cohen 2006, 182. 69 For discussions see Cohen 2006, 182 notes 11–12. 61 428 Kutalmış Görkay Zeugma which was initially among the cities of ancient Cyrrhestice. Athena is also represented on the coins of Antiochia ad Euphratem minted in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.70 The city is perhaps identical with ancient Urima, the site identiied with either Rumkale or Horum Höyük, both located a short distance north of Zeugma. Late Hellenistic Athena’s cult does not have any connection with the Commagenian pantheon, except for numismatic evidence. A coin of Mithradates I Callinicus depicts the goddess on its reverse.71 Moreover there is no particular historical account or epigraphic evidence that Antiochus I Theos was fond of Athena and that he included her in the pantheon of his kingdom. The presence of the cult of Athena (equivalent to Roman Minerva) in the city may be connected to the Roman occupation in the city in the irst century BC. In this case the existence of the statue in a prominent sanctuary of the city makes us think of a possible scenario related not to Antiochus himself but perhaps to his successors. Mithradates II of Commagene, for example, might have been responsible for the erection of the statue in the sanctuary. We know that Mithradates II abandoned the title of philhellen and used philohromaios instead72 after he had handed Zeugma over to Rome (under pressure from Augustus).73 As mentioned by Malalas (8, 31), the bronze statue of Athena and a statue of Zeus erected by Seleucus Nicator at Antioch were brought to Rome as war booty by the powerful general Byblos (Calpurnius Bibulus) in c. 51 BC.74 He probably did this in an attempt to gain favour. This might suggest that these deities were particularly esteemed by the Romans which leads us to question whether the Zeugma Athena (Minerva) statue might have been erected in the same era to curry favour with the new Roman regime. At that time the statues of Zeus and the so-called Tyche/ City Goddess/Commagene/Hera Teleia75 most probably were already standing in the temple, K. Butcher, Coinage in Roman Syria, Northern Syria, 64 BC – AD 253 (London 2004) 466 pl. 30. Zoroğlu op. cit. (note 48) 82 ig. 115b. 72 Inscription from Damlıca and the discussion, see S. Şahin, Forschungen in Kommagene I: Epigraphik, EpigrAnat 18, 1991, 99–113, here 102–105; Facella 2006, 307–308. 73 It has been generally accepted that Octavian removed the city of Zeugma from the kingdom of Commagene and transferred it to the province of Syria in c. 31 BC. Wagner 1976, 64; R. D. Sullivan, The Near Eastern Royalty and the Rome, 100–30 BC. (Toronto 1990) 197–198 note. 20; F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 BC–AD 337 (London 1993) 29. 74 H. G. Martin, Römische Tempelkultbilder (Rome 1987) 124–125 note 604.14. 75 The recent excavations revealed a relief of a winged-lion on the throne of the so called Tyche and raised further questions about the coverage and context of the goddess’ identity (Görkay forthcoming). In the pantheon of Commagene that Antiochus consecrated, the single female deity whose name had been continually changed is the goddess of fertility whom Antiochus called in the earlier version of a nomos inscription as Hera Teleia as partner of Zeus, whereas in the last years of his reign as Commagene, the Fertility Goddess or the Goddess of his fertile kingdom. Hera Teleia was mentioned in two copies of the nomos inscriptions of which one is from Samosata (F. K. Dörner – R. Naumann, Forschungen im Kommagene [Berlin 1939] 30–43; H. Waldmann, Die Kommagenischen Kultreformen unter König Mithradates I. Kallinikos und seinem Sohne Antiochos I. [Leiden 1973], 28–32) and the other is from Arsameia am Nymphaios (see Dörner – Goell 1963, 56, line 231, 58; 251; H. Dörrie, Der Königskult des Antiochos von Kommagene im Lichte neuer Inschriften-Funde [Göttingen 1964] 114. 125); see also for a proposed reconstruction of this composite text: J. Wagner – G. Petzl, Relief- und Inschriftenfragmente des kommagenischen Herrscherkultes aus Ancoz, in: G. Heedemann – E. Winter (eds.), Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens, AMS 49 (2003) 84–96, 95, line 183, line 202. In the nomos inscription at Arsameia am Nymphaios in line 251 Hera Teleia was mentioned as standing next to Zeus, παραστάτιν Ἥραν Τελείαν (Dörner – Goell 1963, 58, line 251). However the Goddess was called Commagene instead of Hera 70 71 The Athena Statue from Zeugma 429 and accordingly, the erection of the Athena statue might have constituted almost a visualization of the Capitoline Triad.76 Early Roman Another and related hypothesis might imagine that the statue was erected when the city became part of the Roman Empire in the time of Tiberius. A recent numismatic study has suggested that the civic era of the city, which had been thought to be dated after Actium, might only have been initiated in 17 AD,77 when the city became part of the Roman province of Syria. Most probably in this period the temenos for the Commagenian syncretistic pantheon and for Antiochus’ ruler cult, which had been consecrated in the city,78 was adjusted to suit the new political situation. The Teleia at Nemrud Dağı (L. Jalabert – R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie I, Commagene at Cyrrhestique [Paris 1929] 16–17, lines 57); see also J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Iran and Griechenland in der Kommagene, Xenia 12, 1984, 7–22, here 14 and Kirsten suggests that goddess Commagene at Nemrud Dağ can be interpreted as Artemis Diktynne who was also substituted with Hera Teleia (E. Kirsten, Artemis von Ephesos und Eleuthera von Myra, mit Seitenblicken auf St. Nicolaus und auf Kommagene, in S. Şahin – E. Schwertheim – J. Wagner (eds.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens, Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28 Februar 1976 [Leiden 1978] 457–488, here 487); see also E. Schwertheim, Monumente des Mithraskultes in Kommagene, AW 6, 1975, 63–68, especially 63; for the relationship between Atargatis and Artemis see Lightfoot 2003, 438. Duchesne-Guillemin explains the presence of the goddess Commagene or Hera Teleia among the other gods with the relevant Iranian Gods contemporary with Antiochus’ reign. According to Duchesne-Guillemin the main Iranian god at that time were Ohrmazd – Mithra – Varhran – Anahit. Since Anahit’s equivalent was Artemis in Greek, and furthermore Artemis-Anahita recalls prostitution, she would not have been suitable to be put next to Zeus (one of the two chief gods for Macedonians, and perhaps for this reason Antiochus changed Artemis with Hera Teleia and then afterwards with Commagene (Duchesne-Guillemin op. cit., 12. 16–17). In the inscription at Gerger, on the other hand, the goddess’ name was Argandene, probably an indigenous deity who was equated with the goddess of fertility, see K. Humann – O. Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, ausgeführt im Auftrage der Kgl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin 1890) 363, col. 3, line.14; Waldmann op. cit., 126 and Sanders 1996, 102. On the other hand the visual iconographic language of the enthroned goddess at Belkıs Tepe, except for the style which is more Greek, displays her oriental character especially with the igure of a winged-lion on the throne which was uncovered in 2008 (Görkay forthcoming). The igure possesses Anatolian, Semitic, Mesopotamian and Egyptian inluences and has a protective character. The igure of the winged-lion associates the so-called Tyche also with Kybele, Isis, Astarte, Atargatis and Anahit whose iconographic language employs such mixed feline depiction. In this respect, the nature and the function of the goddess at Belkıs Tepe has close resemblance with a city Goddess, personiication of city, perhaps Assyrian Hera or Dea Syria who had hybrid character as described by Lucian of Samosata, see Lightfoot 2003 and H. J. W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa (Leiden 1980) 31. 77–121. 76 Athena was worshiped with other deities in Thrace and Moesia, of which the colonists were primarily of Eastern origin and veterans, see Chaniotis – Mylonopoulos 2006, 361 nr. 45; I. Doncheva, Iconographic features of Athena’s Images on Votive Reliefs from Moesia and Thracia, Archeologija 43.3 (Soia 2002) 18–27; SEG LII 657. According to Gočeva the representations of Athena, Zeus and Hera are related to the worship of the Capitoline triad which is epigraphically attested in particular in Nicopolis ad Istrum, see Chaniotis – Mylonopoulos 2006, 363 nr. 58. Zeus Olympios, Hera Zygia and Athena Polias constitute the cult of the Capitoline Triad which is, according to Z. Gočeva, Kaiserkult in Nicopolis ad Istrum, in: The Roman and Late Roman City. The International Conference, Veliko Turnovo 26–30 July 2000 (Soia 2002) 81–84, here 83 also connected to the Imperial cult. See also SEG LII 717; Chaniotis – Mylonopoulos 2006, 371, nr. 96; P. Loungarova, Les cultes du territoire de Nicopolis ad Istrum, The Roman and Late Roman City. The International Conference, Veliko Turnovo 26–30 July 2000 (Soia 2002), 91–98; for worship of Zeus Kapitolios see M. Ricl, Inscriptions votives inédites au Musée dʼEskisehir, ŽA 44, 1994, 157–174 no. 18. I am indebted to A. Chaniotis for making me aware of the above mentioned publications. For the Capitoline Triad in the Roman military colonies in the Roman Near East, see M. Sartre, The Middle East under Rome (Cambridge 2005) 303–305. 77 K. Butcher, The Euphrates Frontier and the Civic Era of Zeugma, in: O. Tekin – A. Erol (eds.), Ancient History, Numismatics and Epigraphy in the Mediterranean Worlds, Studies in memory of Clemens E. Bosch and Sabahat Atlan and in honor of Nezahat Baydur (Istanbul 2009) 81–83. 78 Two dexiosis stele recovered in 2000 (Crowther 2003, 57–67; Crowther – Facella 2003, 41–80) and in 2002 (M. Önal, Zeugma’da Antiokhos’un İzleri, Ayıntap 5, 2005, 15–18) at the north of the Hellenistic Agora indicate 430 Kutalmış Görkay temenos was stripped of his images and transformed into a Greco-roman sanctuary or a public building.79 The Athena statue could then be considered a dedication by the noble supporters of Roman rule in the city. Tacitus mentions that the Commagenians were divided into two groups after Antiochus III died in AD 17; the noble families in Commagene supported Roman rule, whereas the masses were loyal to their dynasty. The decision was made in Rome, and Commagene became part of the Roman province of Syria.80 If the Athena statue was erected by the upper classes in this tumultuous phase of the city, it would perhaps make sense here again to interpret it as an attempt to constitute an allusion to the Capitoline Triad under Roman rule. It could be understood as a deliberate policy of the freshly annexed city to indicate its loyalty to the empire. It would in particular demonstrate the Roman triumph by replacing in the city the posthumous Persian-Greek syncretistic Commagenian religious tradition and ruler cult with a conventional Greco-Roman sanctuary.81 the presence of a temenos which was consecrated by Antiochus I of Commagene for Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo, Mithras - Helios, Artagnes, Heracles - Ares and the ruler cult (Crowther 2003, 59–62, 64; Crowther – Facella 2003, 45–54, 57–61). On the basis of a complicated epigraphic discussion, it has been argued that the earliest cults of Zeugma are related to Apollo Epekoos and Artemis Diktyne. A dexiosis stele found in the rescue excavations in 2000 in Zeugma bears two inscriptions on its reverse (for the erased text [BEe] see Crowther 2003, 64 and Crowther – Facella 2003, 57–61; for the second text BEc see Crowther 2003, 59–62 and Crowther – Facella 2003, 45–54). The irst inscription, which was erased on the stele (BEe), is the copy of the Sofraz inscription (SO) (for the Sofraz text, see Wagner – Petzl op. cit. (note 75) 201–223 and Crowther – Facella 2003, 71–74), which mentions the establishment of a temenos for Apollo Epekoos and Artemis Diktyne at Sofraz. However, the second inscription (BEc) which is better preserved on the Belkıs inscriptions, mentions the establishment of a temenos by Antiochus for Zeus Oromasdes, Apollo Mithras and Helios, Artagnes Heracles and Ares. Since the irst four lines were not preserved in the Belkıs stele (BEe), considering the text is the copy of Sofraz inscription, B. Rose suggests that the irst lines of Belkıs text (BEe) should be completed as in the Sofraz text and proposes the idea that the irst sanctuary established by Antiochus at Zeugma might have been dedicated to Apollo and Artemis as well as in Sofraz (B. Rose, A New Relief of Antiochus I of Commagene and other Stone sculpture from Zeugma, in: W. Aylward (ed.), Zeugma 2000: Rescue Excavations[forthcoming 2010]. I am indebted to B. Rose for sending me yet the unpublished manuscript of his article.) Crowther – Facella 2003, 61 on the other hand, ind it more likely that Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo, Mithras and Helios, Artagnes, Heracles and Ares were written in the irst four lines of the copy of Sofraz text on the Belkıs stele. 79 The stele depicting Antiochus in dexiosis with Apollo was found at a circular stone structure in an earthen illing that was dated, based on ceramics found in it, to the late Augustan–Early Tiberian period. This may be an indication that the temenos dedicated to the syncretistic ruler cult of Antiochus was either demolished or stripped of its iconography in the late Augustan–Early Tiberian period (Crowther 2003, 67 note 11), with the stele used in earthen illings associated with new construction activity. Nevertheless, it is more likely that a new circular building project was initiated in the early imperial period perhaps as a temple project solely for Apollo, Heracles or Ares right over the previous sanctuary that had been established by Antiochus for the same deities on the same spot, but the Roman project excluded the images of Antiochus in dexiosis with the deities. Another possibility is that the circular building had nothing to do with any sacred purpose but was perhaps a commercial purpose, such as a macellum (?). 80 Tac. ann. 42, 5; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century After Christ, 2 vols. (Princeton 1950) 495; Facella 2006, 316. 81 An inscription found at Damlıca can be cited here to show how such a transformation occurred in the epithets of Zeus even in the time of Mithradates II (36 – 20 BC), (pl. 80, 3). The Damlıca inscription was found carved on a rock at Turuş, in the vicinity of Kuyulu, located at the south of the Atatürk Dam on the Euphrates. The inscription tells of the achievements of Ariaramnes, royal architect and sculptor, as well as his completion of the uninished cult statues (?) and projects of Antiochus Theos in the time of his son Mithradates II. The inscription also indicates a modiication in the epithets of the Commagenian syncretistic god Zeus Oromasdes (Persian equivalent Ahuramazda) to the Greek form Zeus Soter which would suit the new political reality that the kingdom faced. Political pressure on Antiochus’ successors seems evident in the Damlıca inscription which also avoided using the epithet of “Theos” for Antiochus of Commagene. Şahin op. cit. (note 72) 102–105; Facella 2006, 307–309. The Athena Statue from Zeugma 431 Being the protector of the city82 as well as of craftsmen, the statue of the goddess might have been set up in the early years of Roman supremacy, when major building activities, in which craftsman and different guilds (collegia) were commissioned, were initiated.83 This may well have occurred after the legions were stationed at the city. One inscription from Apamea may well be related to the goddess.84 The inscription is located on the eastern bank of the river Euphrates upstream of Apamea and carved on a rock outcrop at the bend of a rutted ancient road to a quarry.85 Though poorly preserved, the letters may well be reconstructed as Athena. Here the goddess image might have been carved together with the inscription near the road as protector of the collegia86 probably employed in the quarries. Similar dedicatory inscriptions to Athena are well known in Rough Cilicia87 some of which are written on rocks. Most of the dedications in Cilicia are mostly to Athena Oreia, a mountain goddess whose depiction is sometimes given with the inscription.88 The Goddess is also associated with Mēter Oreia.89 Apart from being the major crossing point, Zeugma was also a meeting point for the supreme diplomatic negotiations between Roman and Parthian rulers and generals.90 Several accounts relating the diplomatic meetings at Zeugma91 clearly show the city’s representative function. An account regarding the preparation of Gordian II for his Persian campaign relates that the emperor, having decided to campaign against Persia in 243/244, opened the gates of the temple of Janus before leaving Rome to march east (SHA Gord. 26.3). According to L. Robert he also sought the protection of Athena Promachos who had supported Athenians in their success over the Persians at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC. (L. Robert, Deux concours grecs ̀ Rome, CRAI 1970, 6–27, here 14–18); see also D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle (Oxford 1990) 371–372 and P. M. Edwell, Between Rome and Persia. The Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra under Roman control (New York 2008) 170 note 39 of chapter 5. The Goddess protective character might have had a similar symbolic meaning for setting up the statue to the sanctuary. Also see Chaniotis 2005, 147: »(...) ptotector of citadels (Polias, Poliouchos) (...)«. 83 As for the function of Minerva in the roman empire see C. Gmyrek, Römische Kaiser und Griechische Göttin. Die religiös-politische Funktion der Athena/Minerva in der Selbst- und Reichsdarstellung der römischen Kaiser, Nomismata, Historisch-numismatische Forschungen (Milano 1998). 84 D. Kennedy – D. Graf, Inscriptions on Stone, Ceramic and Mosaic, in: Kennedy 1998, 92–108, here 102–103 ig. 26 nr. 26. 85 Kennedy – Kennedy op. cit. (note 2) 57–58 ig. 3.33. 86 For the function of the Athena and Minerva, see W. Schürmann, Typologie und Bedeutung der stadtrömischen Minerva-Kultbilder (Supplementi alla RdA 2) (Rom 1985) 89; Gmyrek op. cit. (note 83) 175. 87 Sömek-Adamkayalar: S. Durugönül, Die Felsreliefs im Rauhen Kilikien, BAR International Series 511, (Oxford 1989) 50 nr. 42, 128; S. Durugönül, Athena Krisoa Oreia, EpigrAnat 10, 1987, 115–118; Sayağzı-Silifke: MAMA III, nr. 33; TAM V/1, no. 611; Şahin 2009, 223, ig. 2; Mopsuhestia-Adana/Yakapınar: M. Sayar, Athena Oreia, in: H. Heftner – K. Tomaschitz (eds.), Ad fontes! Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am 15. September 2004 (Wien 2004) 455–458, especially 457; H. Şahin, A new dedication to Athena from Diocaesarea (Uzuncaburç), Adalya 12, 2009, 222–230, especially 224; Ötekale/Eyceli-Silifke: Şahin op. cit., 230 ig. 3–4; S. Hagel – K. Tomaschitz, Repertorium der westkilikischen Inschriften nach den Scheden der Kleinasiatischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien 1998) 38–39 nr. 65 (Thea Glaukopis Athena). nr. 85 (Pallas Athena). p. 41 nr. 190; H. Şahin – F. Sağlam-Şahin, Diokaisareia’dan Yeni bir Tanrıça Athena Yazıtı, Colloquium Anatolicum VII, 2008, 247–260. 88 Durugönül op. cit. (note 87) 50 nr. 42, 128; Durugönül op. cit. (note 88) 115–118; see also E. Borgia, Il Culto di Athena Oreia in Cilicia, in: C. Kubaba (ed.), La Campagne antique. Espace, Sauvage, Terre domestique (Paris 2003) 73–89. 89 Şahin – Sağlam-Şahin op. cit. (note 87) 249, especially for the discussion see note 9. 90 For all see Vell. Ll. 101, 1–3; Frontin. strat. 1, 1, 6; Cass. Dio 49, 19, 3–20, 3; Ios. bell. Iud. 7, 105. 18, 101; Suet. Cal. 14; Suet. Vit. 2. 91 These negotiations and meeting were most probably held in At Meydanı, the large area located between Bahçe 82 432 Kutalmış Görkay Velleius Paterculus (II. 101. 1–3) for instance, tells the story of an event he witnessed in which Gaius Caesar met Phraates V of Parthia on an island in the Euphrates in AD 1. This event most probably took place on the island in the Euphrates between Seleucia and Apamea.92 The incident also indicates the city’s military representative importance in the early imperial period. Suetonius relates that Artabanus, king of the Parthians, who was always outspoken in his hatred and contempt for Tiberius, voluntarily sought Caligula’s friendship and came to a conference with the consular governor; then crossing the Euphrates, he paid homage to the Roman eagles and standards and to the statues of the Caesars.93 This incident might have taken place at Zeugma. Meetings between Roman and Parthian representatives were held at Zeugma in AD 49 and in AD 71 Vespasian’s son Titus met a deputation from Vologaeses I at Zeugma which presented him with a golden crown in recognition of his recent victory over the Jews.94 For this reason, the city might have had an important representative function as the inal outpost of Roman rule in the face of the eastern world.95 Perhaps the setting up of the statue of Athena next to the existing cult statues on the Belkıs Tepe simply announced to all high rank representatives, who visited the city from east and west, the Roman presence in the territory. Although the idea of the Capitoline Triad is appealing, it is dificult to prove and other possibilities cannot be excluded. For example, the Athena statue might have been worshiped by the locals as Allat given the widespread worship of this goddess in Syria.96 Possibly this Athena statue represented a subdivision of a particular syncretistic goddess, such as Dea Syria, who incorporated different religious phenomena as Lucian of Samosata describes.97 This interpretation would take into consideration the other, yet to be identiied, colossal statue fragments from the Tepe. One has to take into consideration also that worship was not conined to a single deity in antiquity; there was a tendency to worship groups of gods at the same time, perhaps even in a single naos.98 Dere and the Belkıs Tepe and on which the major military headquarter was built. The imperial and military representative appearance of this headquarter may have been indicated by massive city walls and the gate which was perhaps built to commemorate Titus’s victory during his visit (Ios. bell. iud. 7, 105.). For the picture of the opening (a gate ?) see M. Hartmann – M. Speidel, The Roman Army at Zeugma: Recent Research Results, in: J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Zeugma: Interim Reports. Rescue Excavations, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 51 (Portsmouth 2003), 101–125, here 110–111 ig. 12. 92 This idea was proposed by Edwell op. cit. (note 82) 9 and is probably correct, since the island was visible before it was looded by Birecik Dam. See also E. Winter, Die Bedeutung des Grenzraumes für den diplomatischen Verkehr: Das Imperium Romanum und seine östlichen Nachbarn, in: E. Olshausen – H. Sonnabend (Hrsg.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 4, Geographica Historica 7 (Amsterdam 1994) 589–607, especially 593–594. 93 See also Suet. Cal. 14; Suet. Vit. 2. 94 Tac. ann. 12, 12, 3 and Ios. bell. Iud. 7, 105. 95 Hartmann – Speidel op. cit. (note 91) 112–114 report several Latin building inscriptions as having been found on the western slope of the Belkıs Tepe. The letter size of the inscriptions shows that they belong to massive buildings overlooking the military headquarters at At Meydanı from the western part of the Belkıs Tepe. 96 Drijvers op. cit. (note 44) 331–351 pl. 63–74; see also Friedland 2008, 315–350. 97 Lukian. 32: »But when you examine Hera, her image appears to be of many forms. While the overall effect is certainly that of Hera, she also has something of Athena and Aphrodite and Selena and Rhea and Artemis and Nemesis and the Fates.« See also Lightfoot 2003, 268–269. 434–446. 98 According to M. L. Fischer, Sculpture in Roman Palestine and its Architectural and Social Milieu: Adaptability, Imitation, Originality? The Ascalon Basilica as an Example, in: Y. Z. Eliav – E. A. Friedland – S. Herbert (eds.), The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Relections on Culture, Ideolog, and Power (Leuven 2008) 483–508, here 490 this tendency was accelerated by the imperial cult, which was practiced from the beginning in The Athena Statue from Zeugma 433 Conclusion A complete reconstruction of the colossal Athena statue is enabled by the discovery of its lower legs on the southern slope of Belkıs Tepe in 2008. The statue wears an aegis, a himation with a triangular apron, a chiton, and shoes. It probably held a spear in its right hand. The head, though lost, is recorded as helmeted. The statue depends upon three well-known classical models, the Athena Parthenos, the Athena Velletri, and the Athena Vescovali. The ind locations of the various parts of the statue clearly demonstrate that it was once in the city’s main sanctuary. There it can be placed within the context of at least another two colossal statues, a seated female igure and a Zeus. The technical details are mainly determined by local tradition. Nonetheless, the careful piecing and the choice of local material, rather than marble, suggest a date in the Hellenistic period or at latest Early Roman. The historical context of this period gives several appealing reasons for which the statue might have been set up in the city. Since three colossal statues are clearly preserved, it is dificult to resist the temptation to see this Athena as completing a sort of Capitoline triad in an important frontier city. conjunction with the worship of traditional gods; see also note 75 above. 434 Kutalmış Görkay List of abbreviations In addition to the abbreviations of the guidelines of the German Archaeological Institute 2006 (AA 2005/2, 314–399) the following abbreviations are used: Chaniotis – Mylonopoulos 2006 A. Chaniotis – J. Mylonopoulos, Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2003 (EBGR 2003), Kernos 19, 2006, 343–390 Chaniotis 2005 A. Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World (Oxford 2005) Chapot 1907 V. Chapot, La Frontière de l’Euphrate de Pompée ̀ la conquête arabe (Paris 1907) Cohen 2006 G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa (Berkeley 2006) A. Corso, The Art of Praxiteles: II: The mature years (Roma 2007) Corso 2007 Crowther 2003 C. Crowther, Inscription of Antiochus I of Commagene and other Epigraphical Finds, in: J. H. Humphrey (ed.), Zeugma: Interim Reports, Rescue Excavations, JRA, Supplementary Series 51 (2003) 57–67 Crowther – Facella 2003 C. Crowther – M. Facella, New Evidence for the Ruler Cult of Antiochus of Commagene from Zeugma, in: G. Heedemann – E. Winter (eds.), Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens, AMS 49 (Bonn 2003) 41–80 Cumont 1917 F. Cumont, Études Syriennes (Paris 1917) Dörner – Goell 1963 F. K. Dörner – T. Goell, Arsameia am Nymphaios, Band I: Die Ausgrabungen im Hierothesion des Mithradates Kallinikos von 1953–1956 (Tübingen 1963) Facella 2006 M. Facella, La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana (Pisa 2006) Friedland 2008 E. A. Friedland, Visualizing Deities in the Roman Near East: Aspects of Athena and Athena-Allat, in: Y. Z. Eliav – E. A. Friedland – S. Herbert (eds.), The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Relections on Culture, Ideology and Power (Leuven 2008) 315–350 Hoepfner 1983 W. Hoepfner, Arsameia am Nymphaios, Band II: Die Ausgrabungen im Hierothesion des Mithradates Kallinikos von 1953–1956 (Tübingen 1983) Houghton et al. 2002 A. Houghton – C. Lorber – O. Hoover, Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, Part 1: Seleucus I through Antiochus III, Vol. I–II, American Numismatic Society (New York 2002) Kennedy 1998 D. Kennedy (ed.), The Twin Towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates. Rescue work and historical studies, JRA. Supplementary series 27 (Portsmouth 1998) Lightfoot 2003 J. L. Lightfoot, Lucian, On the Syrian Goddess (Oxford 2003) Parlasca 2005 K. Parlasca, Skulpturen aus Zeugma-Seleukeia am Euphrat – Idealplastik und sepulkrale Bildwerke, in: D. Kreikenbom – K.-U. Mahler – T. M. Weber (eds.), Urbanistik und städtische Kultur in Westasien und Nordafrika unter den Severern, Beiträge zur Table Ronde in Mainz am 3. und 4. Dezember 2004 (Werne 2005) 231–239 The Athena Statue from Zeugma 435 Prag 1984 A. J. N. W. Prag, New Copies of the Athena Parthenos from the East, in: E. Berger (ed.), Parthenon-Kongress Basel. Referate und Berichte, 4. bis 8. April 1982, 2 vols. (Mainz am Rhein 1984) 182–187 Sanders 1996 D. H. Sanders (ed.), Nemrud Dağı. The Hierothesion of Antiochus I of Commagene. Results of the American Excavations directed by Theresa B. Goell. Vol. 1: Text, vol. 2: Plates (Winona Lake 1996) Schürmann 2000 W. Schürmann, Der Typus der Athena Vescovali und seine Umbildung, AntPl 27, 2000, 37–84 Wagner 1976 J. Wagner, Seleukeia am Euphrat/Zeugma, Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B 10 (Wiesbaden 1976) Zoroğlu 2000 L. Zoroğlu, Samosata. Ausgrabungen in der kommagenischen Hauptstadt, in: J. Wagner (ed.), Gottkönige am Euphrat. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene, (Mainz am Rhein 2000) 75–83 List of plates Pl. 77, 1 The torso of Athena (Cumont 1917, 137 ig. 48) Pl. 77, 2 The torso of Athena, Gaziantep Archaeological Museum, Inv. 6201 (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 78, 1 Belkıs Tepe (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 78, 2 Lifting work of the new lower piece (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 78, 3 New lower piece (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 78, 4 New lower piece (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 79, 1 New lower piece (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 79, 2 New lower piece (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 79, 3 Reconstruction of the statue (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 79, 4 Detail from the statue (picture by M. S. Yılmaz) Pl. 80, 1 Detail of the socket for head piece (photo M. S. Yılmaz) Pl. 80, 2 Detail from the Athena’s right foot (photo K. Görkay) Pl. 80, 3 Damlıca inscription (S. Şahin, Forschungen in Kommagene I: Epigraphik, EpigrAnat 18, 1991, 102 mit Taf. 11) Doç. Dr. Kutalmış Görkay, Ankara Üniversitesi, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, 06100 Sıhhiye/Ankara, Turkey; e-mail: kgorkay@yahoo.com TAFEL 77 1 2 TAFEL 78 1 2 3 4 TAFEL 79 2 1 3 4 TAFEL 80 1 2 3