Jacobs 2014, Images and Inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the Perception of Ancient Visitors

Herman A. G. Brijder Nemrud Dag1 Recent Archaeological Research and Conservation Activities in the Tomb Sanctuary on Mount Nemrud With Contributions by Hans Garlich, Rien Kremers, Klaus-Dieter Kiepsch, Jitte Waagen, Tesse Stek, Ellen Thiermann, Kurt Heinrichs, Bernd Fitzner, Eberhard Wendler, Predrag Gavrilovic, Christoph Kronewirth, Y. ｓ･ｬｾｵｫ＠ Sen er, Marlies Schipperheijn, Onno van Nijf, Bruno Jacobs, Abraham van As, Rudy Dillen, Maurice Crijns, Miguel John Versluys, Eric M. Moormann DE GRUYTER ISBN 978-1-61451-713-9 e-ISBN 978-1-61451-622.-4 Llbrary of Congress Cataloglng-ln-Publlcatlon data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographie Information publlshed by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http ://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 Walter de Gruyter lnc., Boston /Berlin The publisher, together with the authors and editors, has taken great pains to ensure that all information presented in this work (programs, applications, amounts, dosages, etc.) reflects the standard of knowledge at the time of publication. Despite careful manuscript preparation and proof correction, errors can nevertheless occur. Authors, editors and publisher disclaim all responsibility and for any errors or omissions or liability for the results obtained from use of the information, or parts thereof, contained in this work. The citation of registe red names, Irade names, Irade marks, etc. in this work does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from laws and regulations protecting trade marks etc. and therefore free for general use. Typesetting: fidus Publikations-Service GmbH, Nördlingen Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH und Co. KG, Göttingen Cover image: Antoine A. Roeloffs, Amsterdam [photo taken in 2011] 9 Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com IJ, FSC - MIX _„.,._, Papiw••vermntwor· FSC- C016439 Bruno Jacobs V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors The sculptures and inscriptions, which were ordered by the Commagenian King Antiochus I as décor for his sanctuaries, form an extensive corpus of sources.¹ As regards content – from a modern point of view – the inscriptions, not unexpectedly, are more weighty. Inter alia, they offer informa- 1 Bibliography & abbreviations, other than in the general bibliography at the end of the book: – Boyce & Grenet 1991: M. Boyce & F. Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism – III. Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule, Handbuch der Orientalistik I.8.1.2.2. (Leiden 1991). – Dörrie 1978: H. Dörrie, ‘Das gute Beispiel – καλὸν ὑπόδειγμα. Ein Lehrstück vom politischen Nutzen sakraler Stiftungen in Kommagene und Rom’, in: Festschrift Dörner 1978, 245–62. – Ehrenberg 2008: E. Ehrenberg, ‘Dieu et Mon Droit: Kingship in Late Babylonian and Early Persian Times’, in: N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power – Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and beyond, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago – Oriental Institute Seminars 4 (Chicago 2008) 103–31. – Facella 2009: M. Facella, ‘Darius and the Achaemenids in Commagene’, in: P. Briant & M. Chauveau (eds.), Organisation des pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans les pays de l’empire achéménide, Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la “Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre” (GDR 2538 CNRS), 9–10 novembre 2007, Persika 14 (Paris) 379–414. – Greenfield & Porten 1982: J. C. Greenfield & B. Porten, The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great – Aramaic Version, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum I.V.I. (London 1982). – Henkelman 2003: W. F. M. Henkelman, ‘An Elamite Memorial: The Šumar of Cambyses and Hystaspes’, in: W. Henkelman/A. Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective – Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Achaemenid History XIII (Leiden 2003) 101–72. – Jacobs & Trampedach 2014: B. Jacobs & K. Trampedach, ‘Das Konzept der achämenidischen Monarchie nach den Primärquellen und nach den Historien des Herodot’, in: N. Zenzen, T. Hölscher & K. Trampedach (eds.), Aneignung und Abgrenzung – Wechselnde Perspektiven auf die Antithese von ‘Ost’ und ‘West’ in der griechischen Antike, Oikumene – Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 10 (Heidelberg 2013) 60-92. – Jacobs (2014): B. Jacobs, ‘Kriegsentscheidung durch göttliche Gunst – Zur Bewertung von DBi §§ 72 und 75’, in: H. Neumann et al. (eds), Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien, Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, 17.–21. Juli 2006, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 401 (Münster 2014) 387-95. – Jacobs (in press): B. Jacobs, ‘Historische Aussagen in den Achämenideninschriften im Licht sich wandelnder Legitimationsstrategien’, in: A. Greco, S. Ponchia, R. Rollinger, D. Morandi & S. Gaspa (eds.), Festschrift für Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Alter Orient und Altes Testament (in press). – Kuhrt 2007a: A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire – A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period I/II (London – New York 2007). – Kuhrt 2007b: A. Kuhrt, ‘The Problem of Achaemenid ‘Religious Policy‘, in: B. Groneberg & H. Spieckermann (eds.), Die Welt der Götterbilder, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 376 (Berlin – New York 2007) 117–42. – Luschey 1968: H. Luschey, ‘Studien zu dem Darius-Relief in Bisutun‘, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran – Neue Folge 1 (1968) 63–94. – Magie 1950: D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton 1950). – Messerschmidt 1990: W. Messerschmidt, ‘Armenien von der Epoche Alexanders des Grossen bis zum Beginn der römischen Kaiserzeit‘, in: E. M. Ruprechtsberger (ed.), Armenien – Frühzeit bis 1. Jahrtausend – Sprache, Kunst und Geschichte, Linzer Archäologische Forschungen 18 (Linz 1990) 47–55. – Radner 2005: K. Radner, ‘Die Macht des Namens – Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung‘, in: SANTAG – Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde 8 (Wiesbaden 2005) 203–78. – Rollinger & Niedermayr 2007: R. Rollinger & H. Niedermayr, ‘Von Assur nach Rom: Dexiosis und ‚Staatsvertrag‘ – Zur Geschichte eines rechtssymbolischen Aktes‘, in: R. Rollinger & H. Barta (eds.), Rechtsgeschichte und Interkulturalität – Zum Verhältnis des östlichen Mittelmeerraums und „Europas“ im Altertum (Wiesbaden 2007). Professor Bruno Jacobs, Departement Altertumswissenschaften, Vorderasiatische Altertumswissenschaft, Petersgraben 51 CH–4051 Basel, e-mail: Bruno.Jacobs@unibas.ch 512 V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors tion about the composition of the pantheon and the changes within it, about funding of the sanctuaries in order to carry out the ceremonies and to appoint and maintain the staff, about the performance of the festivities, and about the participation of the general public in them. Sporadically, references to local history can be found, for instance when the nomos inscription at Arsameia-onthe-Nymphaeus makes mention of the foundation of the city and its sanctuary by Arsames, a predecessor of Antiochus (A 13–30). The nomos inscription on Nemrud Dağı – when telling about great dangers, which Antiochus I was confronted with (N 20–22) – may even allude to foreign-policy conflicts. And the hints given in the same inscriptions, that the reliefs at the borders of the terraces were representations of ancestors (N 46–49, 124–27), when combined with the inscriptions on the backsides of the stelae, indirectly draw the attention to Antiochus’ familiar relations with Seleucids and Achaemenids. But it must not be failed to notice that most of what we know or believe to know about Commagene in the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the 1st century BCE, is not based directly on those inscriptions, but on interpretations, on the combination of their testimony with otherwise available sources and on its fitting into well-known contemporary constellations. So the mighty neighbours, which decisively influenced the history of Commagene in that epoch – Rome on the one hand and Parthia on the other – are not at all named in the inscriptions.² The names of the Roman generals Lucullus, Pompey, Ventidius Bassus and Antonius, who, one after the other, were active in that area during the reign of Antiochus,³ do not occur in the texts. Just as little one can find on the Parthian commanders Pacorus and Labienus, who transgressed the Euphrates in 40 BC and crossed Antiochus’ kingdom with their army. The family relations with Achaemenids and Seleucids are, admittedly, touched by the wording “ancient lore of Persians and Greeks – the fortunate roots of my ancestry” (N 29–31; transl. Dörner), but Antiochus’ illustration – Rollinger 2011: R. Rollinger, ‘Herrscherkult und Königsvergöttlichung bei Teispiden und Achaimeniden. Realität oder Fiktion?,‘ in: L.-M. Günther & S. Plischke (eds.), Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscherkult, Oikumene – Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 9 (Berlin 2011) 11–54. – Root 1979: M. Cool Root, King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art – Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire, Acta Iranica 19 (Leiden 1979). – Sallaberger 2002: W. Sallaberger, ‘Stillstellung von Geschichte in den Texten des Herrschers im frühen Mesopotamien’, Archiv orientálni 70 (2002) 117–24. – Sallaberger 2005: W. Sallaberger, ‘Wie im frühen Mesopotamien ein Herrscher seine Taten darstellt’, in: B. Nevling Porter (ed.), Ritual and Politics in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Haven 2005) 63–98. – Schmitt 2000: R. Schmitt, Die iranischen Sprachen in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Wiesbaden 2000). – Seidl 1999: U. Seidl, ‘Ein Monument Darius’ I. aus Babylon, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 89 (1999) 101–14. – Sims-Williams 1981: N. Sims-Williams, ‘The Final Paragraph of the Tomb-Inscription of Darius I (DNb, 50–60): The Old Persian Text in the Light of an Aramaic Version’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 44 (1981) 1–7. – Sullivan 1980: R. D. Sullivan, ‘The Dynasty of Cappadocia’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II 7,2 (Berlin – New York 1980) 1125–68. – Sullivan 1990: R. D. Sullivan, ‘Near Eastern Royality and Rome, 100–30 BC’, Phoenix – Journal of the Classical Association of Canada – Supplementary Volume XXIV (Toronto – Buffalo – London 1990). – Waerzeggers (2014): C. Waerzeggers, ‘A Statue of Darius in the Temple of Sippar’, in: M. Kozuh, W. F. M. Henkelman, Ch. E. Jones & Chr. Woods (eds.), Extraction and Control – Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 68 (Chicago 2014) 323-29. – Waldmann 1995: H. Waldmann, ‘Die kommagenischen Gottkönige und ihre θεοὶ ὑπήκοοι’, in: B. G. Fragner et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies Held in Bamberg, 30th September – 4th October 1991, by the Societas Iranologica Europaea, Istituto per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente – Serie Orientale Roma LXXIII (Roma 1995) 719–43. 2 φιλορώμαιος in the titulature of Antiochus is, of course, no compensation for that. 3 On the campaigns of Lucullus and Pompey and the territorial reorganization after the conference at Amisus, see: Wagner 1976, 57; Sullivan 1980, 1135. Generally on confrontations of Antiochus with the Romans, see: Facella 2006, 225–48. V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors 513 of this relationship can only be followed by identifying the men depicted on the ancestors’ stelae with otherwise well-known historical personage. These identifications are in many cases not unproblematic and have, therefore, been object of numerous treatises.⁴ Finally, the relationship by marriage to the Arsacid dynasty, known to us from Cassius Dio (XLIX.23. 4), is documented in an inscription placed only by Antiochus’ successor Mithradates II.⁵ The inscriptions do not even inform about the circumstances under which the kingdom’s territory was amplified and the adjacencies of Seleucia-on-the-Euphrates/Zeugma added (cf. App., Mithr. 114. 558f.; Strab. XVI.2. 3). Even in the religious field, our knowledge stays vague, although texts and images nearly exclusively deal with religious topics. The informations provided did not only give room to highly speculative conceptions,⁶ but also triggered off discussions about quite basic questions, if, for instance, Greek or Iranian perceptions were the intellectual starting point of the syncretistic theological concept.⁷ Which intentions stood behind the theokrasiai, which are characteristic of the male part of the divinities,⁸ is as well subject to interpretation as is the choice or the replacement of the female deity in the row.⁹ It may be noticed that the complexity of our knowlegde achieved by scholarly analyses easily makes forget – or at least blurs – to what extent the Commagenian sources directly contributed to it. This brings up two questions. One of them aims at the intrinsic concern of the Commagenian texts and images, the other at their communicative function. Above was already stated, that the main emphasis of the texts is on religious issues. On the other hand, the lack of references to actuality is downright characteristic. This is manifest for instance in the nearly complete absence of toponyms and proper names. Proper names, which occur in the inscriptions, belong to those gods, who are privileged within the pantheon by inscriptional naming and pictorial representation, and to the ancestors and relatives of the ruler. The exceptionally detailed presentation of ancestors and family members on Nemrud Dağı is due to Antiochus’ wish, on the one hand, to picture himself as destination of a historical development by programmatically parallelizing his own descendancy with the theokrasiai, generated from Greek and Iranian elements, and, on the other, to present himself amidst his wife and his sons as starting point of a boundless future.¹⁰ Not by chance the chronological perspective of the inscriptions is not oriented towards the present, but towards eternity: Undestructable stelae, everlasting existence of the established institutions and eternal glory give expression to that vision.¹¹ Similar observations can be made on inscriptions of the Achaemenids. Leaving aside the Bisotun-inscription, which originated in the very beginning of Darius I under extreme need of legitimization and, describing Darius’ fight for Persian kingship, actually refers to historical events, the texts are mainly preoccupied with the king’s rapport to Auramazdā and to his subjects and finally mirror, with waxing exclusivity, his relation to the divine sphere. Names of persons and places, which would imply an adhesion to past and present, vanish from the texts; historical events which initially 4 Dörner 1967; Fischer 1971; Messerschmidt 1990, 47–53; Dörner 1996; Facella 1999; Messerschmidt 2000; Jacobs 2000; Facella 2009, 385–90. 5 In the so-called Laodice inscription in Karakuş: Wagner 1983, 209–12; cf. also: Waldmann 1991, 201. 6 Boyce & Grenet 1991, 309–51; Waldmann 1991; Waldmann 1995; Petroff 1998. 7 Petroff (1998, 50f.), e.g., argues that primarily the Iranian aspect of the gods is addressed. Comparably, J. Duchesne-Guillemin (1984, 12) understands the Greek constituents of the gods’ names as attempts to interpret the Iranian component. In contrast, H. Dörrie (1964) is convinced of the primacy of the Greek component; cf. Jacobs 2000c, 47. 8 Jacobs 2000c, 49. 9 Duchesne-Guillemin 1984, 16f.; Jacobs 1998, 44f. 10 Jacobs 2002. 11 Quoting only from the Great Nomos Inscriptions of Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaeus and from Nemrud Dağı it is possible to collect a multitude of expressions which aim at imperishability: ἀσύλωι στήληι (A 11), ἐν στήλαις ἀσύλοις (A 81, N 109f.), κρηπεῖδα ἀπόρθητον χρόνου (N 36f.), ἐς ἀφθάρτους μνήμας (A 65), κλέος αἰῶνος (A 246f.), χρόνος ἄπειρος (A 83f., N 112f.), ἐν ἅπαντι χρόνωι (N 179f.), εἰς χρόνον … αἰώνιον (N 9f.), εἰς τὸν ἄπειρον αἰῶνα (N 43), μέχρι παντὸς αἰῶνος (A 105f.). 514 V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors are still vaguely circumscribed are finally completely omitted.¹² The similarities between the Achaemenid inscriptions and those of Antiochus in phrasing the ideology of power are unmistakable. Regarding a distinctively earlier epoch, Walter Sallaberger has made similar observations. In the transition period from late Akkad to Ur III times, he states an increased attentiveness to the position of the king in relation to the divine sphere. In contrast, the interest in deeds of the king in the human sphere and generally in mundane occurences in their historical singularity fades away. The ebbing of historical information and the vanishing of toponyms and personal names from the texts coincides with a banishment of dramatical events from depictions. Here and there, pious deeds of the ruler, above all the construction of sanctuaries, come to the fore of the accounts. These reports present, as Sallaberger has put it, “eine rituell-zeitlose Sicht.”¹³ If the pre-conditions for the development described here are similar in the case of the Achaemenids – also there we can observe an abstinence from depicting historical and dramatical occurences –, has, of course, to be analyzed with caution. However, the postulate of an exceptional position of the king regarding his proximity to the divine sphere seems to have been – as in the late 3rd millennium BC – also in the Achaemenid epoch a given fact.¹⁴ The assumption considered as valid so far, that there were generally no tendencies to deify the Achaemenid rulers,¹⁵ has now been put into perspective by various observations.¹⁶ In the case of Antiochus I, a rapprochement to the divine sphere cannot be doubted, and this not only, because he called himself θεός following Hellenistic samples. The self-elevation was also documented by the presentation of himself as of equal rank with the deities, vividly expressed by his monumental likeness amidst their statues (fig. 292). This holds true, even though on the dexiosis reliefs, whose representations are, due to their iconographic tradition, marked by a certain asymmetry, Antiochus is presented as not completely equal in rank with the gods.¹⁷ One may object, that it cannot be surprising, if the account and praise of the piety of the king are preferential subjects in inscriptions, set in sanctuaries endowed by the ruler himself. On the other hand, also in those texts a development seems to be observable which reminds that of the Achaemenid inscriptions described above. To make this evident we join a dating of the décor of the hierothesia of Commagene that has been substantiated elsewhere. According to that argumentation, the sanctuary of Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaeus has got its fittings earlier than that on Nemrud Dağı.¹⁸ At the beginning of the Great Nomos Inscription of Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaeus (fig. 293), a retrospective on the achievements of Arsames, founder of the city and ancestor of Antiochus I, is given.¹⁹ The king vaunts the abundance of water at the place and the founder’s fortificatory accomplishments (A 13–27). Subsequently he goes into some detail regarding his own building activities at the palace and the city walls (A 48–50). Finally, he refers to the amelioration of water supply and to precautionary measures for the case of defence, namely the allocation of military equipment and grain (A 50–57). Arsames is also mentioned in the sanctuary of Arsameia-on-the-Euphrates, which chronologically should be moved close to the hierothesion of Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaeus (G 9).²⁰ And by the relief of Samos, the grandfather of Antiochus, which is placed widely visible 12 On this development, see soon: Jacobs (in press). 13 Sallaberger 2002; Sallaberger 2005. 14 Kuhrt 2007a, 475. 15 Cf. recently: Ehrenberg 2008, 103. 16 Henkelman 2003; Waerzeggers (2014); Rollinger (2011); Jacobs in: Jacobs & Trampedach (2014). 17 Rollinger in: Jacobs & Rollinger 2006, 144–50; Rollinger & Niedermayr 2007, 135–43. 18 The sequence is ascertained best from modifications within the various inscriptions and from archaeological evidence, as it is, for instance, given by the great number of unfinished pieces on Nemrud Dağı, which make a late date of the sculptures probable (on the dropping of sculptural working on Nemrud Dağı), see: Jacobs 1991, 135; Young in: Dörner & Young 1996, 193, 277; ND 1996, 152; Jacobs 2000b, 33; Facella 2006, 268; on the relative chronology of some important Commagenean sanctuaries, see: Jacobs 1998. 19 Facella 1999, 133f. 20 Facella 1999, 134f. V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors 515 on a flank of the castle mound of this very place (fig. 294),²¹ a predecessor is conspiciously singled out from the ancestors who normally figure merely in genealogies. Like details on local history this monument is documenting a historically individualizable reality. Fig. 292: View of the colossal statues on the East Terrace, before the heads were placed on the court, in front of the statues in 2003. Figs. 293a–b: Two views of the Great Cult Inscription and nomos, chiseled on the smoothed rock wall, in the hierothesion of Arsameia/on the Nymphaeus; (fig. 293 (a)) below the inscription, the entrance of the 158.1 m long rock tunnel; (fig. 293 (b)) upper left, right half of the dexiosis stela of Antiochus & Artagnes-Heracles. 21 Tanabe 1998, pls. 183–189. 516 V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors Fig. 294a–b: Two views of the rock relief of King Samos II at the hierotheseion of Arsameia-on-the-Euphrates [(b) 1998]. The like cannot longer be found in the Great Nomos Inscription on Nemrud Dağı. A well-known paradigm of the kind of verbalization practiced there, is the anonymous reference to “great dangers,” which to have escaped from, and to “hopeless situations,” which to have mastered, Antiochus prides himself (N 20–21). Who or what the source of those perils was, remains unsaid, and consequently, there is a wide choice of possibilities: One of them could be the siege to Samosata bei Lucullus, which is reported by Pliny (NH II.235). However, D. Magie and, more recently, M. Facella have convincingly dismissed this as a misinformation by Pliny.²² Rather Pompey’s political reshaping of the region, as well as Ventidius Bassus’ siege of the Commagenian capital (39/38 BCE), could be considered. These events were accounted for as possible threat to Antiochus by Ch. Crowther and M. Facella.²³ One could also speculate, if the “dangers” may allude to the transgression of the Euphrates by the Parthians in 51 BCE.²⁴ Finally, Antiochus’ remarks could possibly hint at occurences, about which the sources keep silent, or refer to critical situations during his regency in a very general way (cf. N 66). Based on comparable observations, H. Dörrie has described the development from inscription A at Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaeus to inscription N on Nemrud Dağı that way, that in the former the king’s intentions were directed more towards μνήμη, in the latter more towards εὐσέβεια.²⁵ 22 Magie 1950, 217; Facella 2006, 226f. 23 Crowther & Facella 2003, 49f.; Facella 2006, 244. 24 So already: Sullivan 1990, 196; cf. Wagner 1975, 72; Wagner 1976, 63f., Antiochus I (Cic., fam. XV.1.2; 3.1–2; 4.3), as well as the Galatian king Deiotarus (Cic., fam. VIII.8.1) warned the Romans of the Parthian activities. 25 Dörrie 1964, 172. V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors 517 Indeed, the commitment to piety takes up broad space here (N 11–23). Piety is said to be the “most secure possession” and “sweetest enjoyment” for people (N 11–13). Antiochus combines his report about the furnishing of the sanctuary with statements about his motivation – here again piety is relevant – and with explanations of his conception which propagated his closeness to the gods (N 35–67). Dispositions for financing and carrying out the festivities and for ensuring that every inhabitant of the kingdom could take part in them are dealt with in extenso (N 67–205). Whereas the inscription of Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaeus is describing deeds in service of the populace, in the Great Nomos Inscription on Nemrud Dağı action is directly or indirectly in service of worship. Now it certainly goes too far, to explain the similarities between the Commagenian King Antiochus and the Achaemenids in presenting the ideology of power in such a way, that Antiochus may have been familiar with conceptions of Achaemenid times or even with Achaemenid inscriptions.²⁶ Nevertheless, the comparability of the respective development in content is worth mentioning. The question, what may have caused this comparability, cannot be traced here further. But subsequently, certain similarities in the communicative role of monuments from Achaemenid times and from Hellenistic Commagene will be highlighted. The modern availability of the Achaemenid inscriptions in handy editions makes sometimes forget that in ancient times a huge part of this corpus was installed at places, which were hardly accessible or not at all, be it that they were placed high up on a rock face or on a building or in areas inside the residences with very restricted admittance. Another essential part of the texts consists of foundation documents and was, therefore, either included in deposits or buried and likewise illegible.²⁷ Therefore, the gods have been tentatively accounted for as addressees.²⁸ And, not by chance, the texts, if they speak to a human addressee, are directed at the successors to the throne, i.e., at those who had unlimited admittance to the places of installation or who were as initiators of building projects obliged to look for, retrieve and read foundation documents.²⁹ This means that the documents, referred to, were not part of the communication, which is essential for the functioning of a state. Only in particular cases it can be proved that copies of the texts were fabricated and circulated, and not by accident this is the case with two of the rare texts, whose weight justified that effort.³⁰ The major part of the Achaemenid inscriptions, however, lacked in the appropriate density of content. With regard to the Commagenian inscriptions things are different only at first glance. They were installed at places, where the whole populace of the kingdom was to assemble at regular intervals to celebrate the birthday and coronation day of the ruler. And their subject matter, containing information about the schedule of the festivities, instructions regarding the performance of rituals and the behaviour of the participants seems immediately to address the visitors. This has even led to an understanding of the inscriptions as instruments, which were to mediate political messages in religious guise. And the present author has presumed similar intentions, as far as the inscriptions lay stress on the Greco-Persian descent of the ruler presenting a parallelism with the syncretistic deities, whose names combine one or more Greek components with one Iranian. Antiochus who this way became the fourth Greco-Iranian god within the divine assembly may have been presented to the populace, which probably was largely of Iranian or Greek parentage, as an ideal exponent of this alliance. If this had indeed been intended, there had been set a goal to the décor of the hierothesia primarily in the field of home affairs.³¹ 26 So, e.g., Petroff 1998, 38–40. 27 Schmitt 2000, 30. 28 Luschey 1968, 66. 29 Radner 2005. 30 This concerns the texts DB and DNb, of which parts were found in Elephantine, copied on papyrus (Greenfield & Porten 1982, 22–57; cf. Sims-Williams 1981) and again DB, which could once be read on a truncated copy of the Bisotun relief from Babylon (Seidl 1999). 31 Jacobs 2000c, 49. 518 V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors Although these interpretations probably meet well with the political intentions of the ruler, it is questionable, if the texts, that were found, were actually thought to mediate these messages. The reservations put forward here are perhaps better understandable if one tries to account for the informative (or argumentative) profit actually obtainable from the inscriptions in this respect. The combination of celestial bodies, thought of as fateful and described in the Lion Horoscope reliefs, is not mentioned in the Great Nomos Inscription. The close correlation between this astral meeting and the selection of divinities to be named and depicted could not be deduced from the texts. Admittedly the parallelism between the Greco-Iranian gods and the θεός Antiochus with his Greco-Iranian descent could be understood more directly, but this connotation was not really mediated by the texts, but primarily by the sculptural decoration. Especially the assembly of colossal statues with the divine personification of the country, “All-Nourishing Commagene”, and the king, both sitting besides the male deities, made an easily comprehensible statement and presented the homeland and the ruler as objects of veneration and as a common good. The attitude which the visitor of the sanctuary was requested to show towards this group of divinities may have been similar to the approach which the Achaemenids claimed towards Auramazdā. Regarding the latter it has meanwhile been understood that propagating this god did not aim at making the populace of the country his adherents, but that veneration of Auramazdā rather was an exhibition of loyality towards the king.³² Things seem to have been similar in Commagene. Whoever took part in the celebrations, demonstrated loyality towards the sovereign. But the intellectual concept³³ behind Antiochus’ ritualistic reform, which in the end could be deduced only from the inscriptions, certainly did not have any noteworthy impact on the religious convictions of the common people. This is just proved by the fact that the “reform” could be revoked without further ado.³⁴ Under Mithradates II the syncretistic concept is no longer verifiable. Work on Nemrud Dağı probably ceased immediately after the death of the king,³⁵ and also at Zeugma the excavators were able to show that the sanctuary, where stela WS 510 was found, did not significantly outlast Antiochus I, because the stone was reused already in an Augustean context.³⁶ There is, after all, reason to doubt that the purpose of the inscriptions, which have come down to us, was to provide information and to give instructions. They rather were declarations of the king which did hardly reckon with readers. In this context the question raises anyway, what percentage of the populace was at all capable to read. And from a purely practical point of view one may dispute, if visitors were really envisaged to halt, for example, in front of the stelae, which were found beside the access ways to the sanctuary on Nemrud Dağı and which have subsequently been interpreted as a kind of information board, and read their texts (Np).³⁷ In Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaeus it is even the Great Nomos Inscription which is installed besides the trail. But although it is commonly visible (fig. 293), without a ladder it was at best partly readable. In view of the indicated scepticism regarding the communicative function of the inscriptions in general the situation on Nemrud Dağı is most illuminating. If one accepts the common view that the Eastern Terrace of the sanctuary was designated as its true centre, the visitor would have found himself there inside a rectangle, whose western side was dominated by the tumulus and the basements, which were erected in front of it to carry the reliefs with dexiosis-scenes and the monumental statues above. On the north and south side the close standing stelae of ancestors – 15 on the one, 17 on the other side – bordered the terrace surpassing the visitors by more than half a meter as a rule. On the fourth side there was a construction whose stepped platform today is normally 32 33 34 35 36 37 Root 1979, 170; Kuhrt 2007a, 157 n. 121; Kuhrt 2007b, 124; cf. Jacobs 2014. Cf. already Dörrie 1964, 224: “Der Synkretismus der sakralen Formen ist von Intellektuellen gestaltet; …” Crowther & Facella 2003, 66–68. Jacobs 2000b, 32f. Crowther & Facella 2003, 53. Dörner 1978; Jacobs 2013. V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors 519 interpreted as an altar. So the terrace was clearly delimited also on this side, albeit we do not know anything about elevation and possible superstructure of the platform and can hardly assess, how this hypaethral room was defined on that side.³⁸ Arranged this way, the images were turned towards the visitors, the inscriptions however completely hidden from sight. The Great Nomos Inscription is located on the backsides of the thrones of the gods (fig. 295),³⁹ accessible seemingly only by a small path from the northeast, which started outside the terrace (fig. 296a).⁴⁰ Following the American excavators, the two putative ramps, which led up to the upper podium on the west side, were not ascendable and ended blind in front of the bases of the monumental animal figures, which framed the colossal statues of the gods (see: figs. 20, 296b).⁴¹ According to Herman A. G. Brijder’s convincing argumentation, however, these alleged stairs did never exist (see: Ch. III.2). If the area on the backside of the statues was at all allowed for visitors may be doubted. If not, it would be a grave hint, that the texts, to which we owe our knowledge, were not those media, which provided information to the ancient viewer. The same is true for the inscriptions on the backsides of the dexiosis reliefs, which were standing below the statues. They were turned towards the terracing, on which the colossal statues rose (see: fig. 18).⁴² Fig. 295: Rear of the Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes statue on the East Terrace [1998]. 38 See the contradictory information in: Goell et al. 1996, 141f.; 161 n. 52f.; cf. n. 55, figs. 579–81; for the former appearance of the East Terrace, see: ND 1996, figs. 6–8, 12; cf. Jacobs 1997, 178. 39 Tanabe 1998, pls. 11, 20, 30, 39, 47. 40 Goell et al. 1996, 105f. 41 Goell et al.1996, 104f. 42 ND 1996, fig. 50. 520 V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors Fig. 296a–b: (a) The ramp, leading to the passage behind the colossal statues on the East Terrace; (b) reconstruction drawing of the plan and elevations of the East Terrace [drawing G. R. H. Wright 1955]. Also the arrangement of the representations of the ancestors supports the indicated reservations. The names of the forefathers, which are so important for us to describe the self-positioning of Antiochus, could be found on the backsides of the stelae. If a visitor had wanted to learn the name of one of the depicted persons placed near the middle of the row, he would, as the reliefs were arranged very close to each other, have had to count the stelae down to one end of the row, to be able to find the corresponding inscription on the back. That means that in practice, representations and texts did not at all complement each other as illustrative as a single stela alone suggests with its representation on the front and inscription on the rear. Admittedly there are also image representations which were not visible from the centre of the terrace. So the ancestor reliefs blocked the view on a second row of stelae. Here sons of Antiochus were represented on the north side; who was to be depicted on the unfinished stelae on the southside, is unknown.⁴³ But these sets of sculptures surely were secondary elements within the decorative program and their position result of a compromise.⁴⁴ This is not at all said to argue, that the people that were urged to visit the sanctuaries and feasted amidst the monuments, were not the latters’ primary addressees. But the impact they were to have may first of all have been to impress the visitors in a general way. Beyond this the sculptures communicated first and foremost – one may ponder, that, as far as we can judge, the standard decoration of the Commagenian sanctuaries consisted only of dexiosis scenes – a quite plain and easily understandable statement. This pertained to the relation of the ruler to the gods. More complex messages, however, were probably not mediated by the inscriptions, but, for instance, by the words of the priest. This perhaps becomes most evident, if one recalls, that it was in principle unproblematic to flaw an inscription just written on the back and sides of a stela by working out the relief on the front.⁴⁵ The factual legibility apparently was of secondary importance. Certainly the décor of the hierothesia and especially of that on Nemrud Dağı in its complexity was only partially directed to mundane addressees. From the beginning the performativity, by 43 Dörner & Young 1996, 276–80, 318–22; Jacobs 1997, 176. 44 Jacobs 2002, 82–86. 45 This is true for the inscriptions SO, AD and BEe (Crowther & Facella 2003, 57, 62f., pls. 5.3; 9.2–3; 10.3–4). It is, however, as could be demonstrated, no proof that the execution of the reliefs were to be chronologically separated from that of the inscriptions, as Ch. Crowther and M. Facella argued in their article (Crowther & Facella 2003, 62–64: against this claim and its consequences for the dating of Commagenian monuments, see: Jacobs & Rollinger 2006). V.2 Images and inscriptions of Nemrud Dağı in the perception of ancient visitors 521 which the passing down of the message “through immesurable time” was guaranteed, was more important. Finally these considerations may perhaps help to put an inconsistency into perspective which imposes itself on Nemrud Dağı: Exactly that sanctuary with the, as regards content, by far most complex concept finds itself at a place which is accessible only with great effort. And during a great part of the year weather conditions, snow and frost, preclude carrying through the ritual, which properly should take place monthly. This can best be explained, if, besides the ordinary visitors, mainly the gods and the successors to the throne were regarded as addressees. The attitude of the rulers of all epochs dealt with above, the Akkadian after Naramsin, the Achaemenid from Darius I onwards and the time of Antiochus I, is characterized by an intensive turning to the gods, the mundane present taking a back seat at the same time. Simultaneous with this an intensive reflection about the position of the ruler in relation to the divine sphere takes place. In Akkadian as well as in Achaemenid times this process seems to be moulded by a deep personal piety. This may be reason enough to seriously discuss Antiochus’ commitment to piety as his “most secure possession” and “sweetest enjoyment,” before discarding it as an instrument of calculated political manipulation.⁴⁶ 46 Thus Dörrie 1978, who regards Antiochus’ understanding of εὐσέβεια as determined mainly by the Hellenistic enlightenment. There was assumed, that “der Bereich des Religiösen seit Urzeiten profan-politischen Zwecken nutzbar gemacht worden sei” (l.c., 260). Religiousness, which was exploited for the exertion of power, would, however, have been an abstract of a kind which was, as Dörrie is on the other hand firmly convicted, unknown to men in antiquity (l.c., 247). Bibliography 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 – Elmar Schwertheim zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet, Asia Minor Studien 49 (Bonn) 41-80. Dörner 1967 F. K. Dörner, ‘Zur Rekonstruktion der Ahnengalerie des Königs Antiochos I. von Kommagene’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 17, 195-210. Dörner 1978 F. K. Dörner, ‘Das Problem der προπύλαιαι ὁδοί zu den Hierothesia in Arsameia am Nymphaios und auf dem Nemrud Dağ’, in: M. B. de Boer & T. A. Edridge (eds.), Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren, Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 68-1 (Leiden) 322-330. Dörner 1996 F. K. Dörner, ‘Epigraphy Analysis’, in: Sanders 1996, 361-377. Dörner & Young 1996 F. K. Dörner & J. H. Young, ‘Sculpture and Inscription Catalogue’, in: Sanders 1996, 175-360. Dörrie 1964 H. Dörrie, Der Königskult des Antiochos von Kommagene im Lichte neuer Inschriftenfunde, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen – Philologisch-Historische Klasse III. Folge Nr. 60 (Göttingen). Duchesne-Guillemin 1984 J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Iran und Griechenland in der Kommagene, Xenia 12 (Konstanz). Facella 1999 M. Facella, ‘Basileus Arsames. Sulla storia dinastica di Commagene’, Studi Ellenistici XII (Pisa) 127158. Facella 2006 M. Facella, La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana, Studi Ellenistici 17 (Pisa). Fischer 1972 Th. Fischer, ‘Zum Kult des Antiochos I. von Kommagene für seine seleukidischen Ahnen’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 22, 141-144. Goell et al. 1996 Th. Goell, O. Neugebaur, D. H. Sanders & J. H. Young, Ch. 4, ‘Architecture’, in: Sanders 1996, 86-170. Jacobs 1991 B. Jacobs, ‘Forschungen in Kommagene: III: Archäologie, Der Kopf des Antiochos von der Ostterrasse des Hierothesions auf dem Nemrud Dağı’, Epigraphica Anatolica 18, 133-139. Jacobs 1997 B. Jacobs, ‘Beobachtungen zu den Tuffitskulpturen vom Nemrud Dağı’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47, 171178. Jacobs 1998 B. Jacobs, ‘Zur relativen Datierung einiger kommagenischer Heiligtümer: Sofraz Köy - Samosata Arsameia am Nymphaios - Nemrud Dağı’, in: R. Rolle & K. Schmidt (eds.), Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, Veröffentlichungen der Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg 87, 37-47. Jacobs 2000a B. Jacobs, ‘Die Reliefs der Vorfahren des Antiochos I. von Kommagene auf dem Nemrud Dağı – Versuch einer Neubenennung der Frauendarstellungen in den mütterlichen Ahnenreihen’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50, 297-306. Jacobs 2000b B. Jacobs, ‘Das Heiligtum auf dem Nemrud Dağı – Zur Baupolitik des Antiochos I. von Kommagene und seines Mithradates II.’, in: J. Wagner (ed.), Gottkönige am Euphrat – Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene (Mainz) 27-35. Jacobs 2000c B. Jacobs, ‘Die Religionspolitik des Antiochos I. von Kommagene’, in: J. Wagner (ed.), Gottkönige am Euphrat – Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene (Mainz) 45-49. Jacobs 2002 B. Jacobs, ‘Die Galerien der Ahnen des Königs Antiochos I. von Kommagene auf dem Nemrud Dağı’, in: J. M. Højte (ed.), Images of Ancestors, Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity V (Aarhus) 75-88. Jacobs & Rollinger 2006 B. Jacobs & R. Rollinger, ‘Die “himmlischen Hände” der Götter – Zu zwei neuen Datierungsvorschlägen für die kommagenischen Reliefstelen’, Parthica 7, 137-154. Jacobs 2013 B. Jacobs, ‘Die Heiligtümer Antiochos’ I. von Kommagene als sakrale und soziale Räume’, in: M. A. Guggisberg (ed.), Grenzen in Ritual und Kult der Antike – Internationales Kolloquium, Basel, 5.-6. November 2009, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 40 (Basel) 157-170. Mannzmann 1978 A. Mannzmann, ‘Herrschaft unter dem Aspekt königlicher Machtpolitik’, in: S. Şahin / E. Schwertheim / J. Wagner (eds.), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens - Festschrift für F. K. Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976 - II, Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain 66 (Leiden) 565-594. Messerschmidt 2000 W. Messerschmidt, ‘Die Ahnengalerie des Antiochos I. von Kommagene – Ein Zeugnis für die Geschichte des östlichen Hellenismus’, in: J. Wagner (ed.), Gottkönige am Euphrat – Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene (Mainz) 37-43. ND siehe Sanders 1996. Petroff 1998 P. Petroff, ‘Die griechisch-persische Tradition in Kultordnung und Herrscherrepräsentation des Antiochos I. von Kommagene’, in: L. Schumacher (ed.), Religion– Wirtschaft – Technik. Althistorische Beiträge zur Entstehung neuer kultureller Strukturmuster im historischen Raum, Nordafrika / Kleinasien / Syrien, Mainzer Althistorische Forschungen 1, 21-97 Sanders 1996 D. H. Sanders (ed.), Nemrud Dağı, The Hierothesion of Antiochus I of Commagene I: results of the American excavations directed by Theresa B. Goell (Winona Lake, Ind.) Tanabe 1998 K. Tanabe, Sculptures of Commagene Kingdom, Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum II (Tokyo). Wagner 1975 J. Wagner, ‘Die Römer am Euphrat’, in: F. K. Dörner (ed.), Kommagene, Antike Welt 6 – Sondernummer, 68-82. Wagner 1976 J. Wagner, Seleukia am Euphrat / Zeugma – Studien zur historischen Topographie und Geschichte, Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B 10 (Wiesbaden). Wagner 1983 J. Wagner, ‘Dynastie und Herrscherkult in Kommagene – Forschungsgeschichte und neuere Funde’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 33, 177-224. Waldmann 1991 H. Waldmann, Der kommagenische Mazdaismus, Istanbuler Mitteilungen – Beiheft 37 (Tübingen).