Investiture Or Mithra. Towards a New Interpretation of So Called Investiture Scenes in Parthian and Sasanian Art

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLIV, 2009 doi: 10.2143/IA.44.0.2034384

INVESTITURE OR MITHRA. TOWARDS A NEW INTERPRETATION OF SO CALLED INVESTITURE SCENES IN PARTHIAN AND SASANIAN ART

Barbara KAIM (Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University)

Abstract: It is commonly accepted among scholars that the investiture or coronation scenes appear regularly in Parthian and Sasanian art. A key to this interpretation lies is the presence of a ring. Deemed to be a symbol of royal power, the ring is, however, mentioned as the insignia of royal power in no textual sources. A review of the ring involving scenes, provided that the symbol concerned retains its meaning irrespectively of context, permits to believe that the ring should be perceived as a symbolic expression of a contract or covenant (mithra). The noun mithra has a strong ethical tinge and is closely relating to Mithra, the divinity who not only presides over contracts but also warrants their inviolability.

Keywords: Parthian and Sasanian periods, rock reliefs, numismatics, glyptic, investiture, mithra.

Ten out of twenty eight Sasanian rock reliefs are commonly interpreted as showing a royal investiture (De Waele 1989: 811-823). They depict a deity, either standing or mounted on horseback, presenting a beribboned ring to, and facing, standing or mounted king. The earliest scenes of this kind are on reliefs commissioned by founder of the dynasty, Ardashir I. Two of them portray the king and the deity, both standing and facing each other (Firuzabad I, Naqsh-e Rajab III), while one shows the monarch and the deity, each mounted on horseback (Naqsh-e Rustam I). The date for the reliefs has been subject to a scholarly dispute. W. Hinz contended that the Firuzabad relief is the earliest “investiture” scene of Ardashir I, executed soon after the king’s coronation at Ctesiphon in 226. The relief at Naqsh-e Rajab was considered chronologically the second by the scholar, and followed by the scene carved at Naqsh-e Rustam (Hinz 1969: 123). G. Herrmann shares the view of W. Hinz (Herrmann 1969: 65-74), while W. Lukonin, comparing Ardashir’s crowns pictured on coins with those

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 440303 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0212:55:02 404 B. KAIM

on the reliefs, asserted all reliefs concerned commissioned by Ardashir were not carved before the 30s of the third century, with the Nasqsh-e Rajab relief being the earliest, and the Naqsh-e Rustam sculpture being the latest (Loukonin 1968: 106-17). Accepting the chronological sequence proposed for the “investiture” reliefs of Ardashir I by W. Lukonin, D. Shepherd was the fi rst to note that the Naqsh-e Rustam relief was actually executed many years after the coronation of Ardashir, and, thus, the return to the investiture theme almost at the end of the king’s rule appears somewhat surprising, if not unreasonable (Shepherd 1983: 1079-80). D. Shepherd suggested that the scenes should be perceived as a sort of apotheosis of the ruler rather then the illustration of any specifi c event (Shepherd 1983: 1080-1082). D. Shepherd’s interpretation has been criticized by J. K. Choksy arguing that no evidence is in place to support the view that Sasanian monarchs were treated as gods. However, J. K. Choksy sustains the traditional interpretation of the reliefs and regards them as visual representations of one of most signifi cant events of the ruler’s political and religious life, i.e. moment of being endowed by the deity with supreme power and authority to rule the material world (Choksy 1988: 47). L. Vanden Berghe pointed out that the scenes of the “investiture” depict the king wearing his characteristic crown, and, therefore, it is likely that the coronation event already took place. As one cannot imagine any more suitable moment for the deity than the coronation ceremony to transfer the symbol of royal power, the scholar asserted that the scenes which show a deity extending its hand with a beribboned ring toward the king illustrate the endowment of the already crowned king with xwarrah, a symbol of royal glory (Vanden Berghe 1988: 1511-1531). Though worth considera- tion, Vanden Berghe’s view has gained no supporters. The traditional interpretations rest on the assumption that, received by Sasanian rulers, the ring with large ribbons was a symbol of royal power. Attention should be, however, given to a somewhat carefree and inter- changeable use of such terms as: ring, diadem or wreath, for objects shown in scenes commonly interpreted as the investiture. This approach is particularly striking in Encyclopaedia Iranica where authors of the Investiture entry use the term ‘diadem’ to describe a round object presented by a deity to a Sasanian king, an oval beribboned piece, a ribbon around a royal crown as well as a wreath carried by Nike hovering above a king’s head on Parthian coins (see Curtis 2005; Rose 2005).

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 440404 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0312:55:03 NEW INTERPRETATION OF INVESTITURE SCENES 405

To make this examination exact, we decide to use the term ring for a round object made most probably of any hard material, and the term diadem for a ribbon usually gracing the king’s forehead. The diadem as a symbol of kingship is known already from the Achaemenid art where it appears worn by the king and his closest circles, i.e. ‘relatives’ (Ritter 1965: 6-18). The diadem as a symbol of royalty continued to be used by Alexander the Great and Diadochi (Fredricksmeyer 1997: 97-1080), and, subsequently, under Mithridates I and his successors, following the con- quest of Seleucia-Tigris in 141 BC (Sellwood 1980: 130). While describ- ing the power of Surena, Plutarch wrote that “The honour had long belonged to his family, that at the king’s coronation he put the crown upon his head.” (Crassus ii, 290). And, as evidenced in textual sources and on coins, wherever Roman Emperors were placing their protégés on the Arme- nian throne, the respective ceremony used to consist in placing the crown on the head of the king-to-be, and not in presenting any ring to him (Cas- sius Dio, LXIII, 3, 4: Suetionius, Nero 13). This is probably a diadem in the hand of a deity iconographically similar to Tyche and depicted on Parthian coins struck starting with Phraates IV (Sellwood 1980: 50.2-3). Though widely depicted on coins struck in mints of the western part of the Empire (Pl. 1:1), similar representations rarely occur at Ecbatana (Sell- wood 1980: 69.1-6) and remains yet unknown from Margiana regions. Are those scenes really illustrating the symbolic investiture of the Parthian king by the city-goddess? On some coins of Orodes II and Phraates IV, there is Tyche depicted kneeling before the king (Pl. 1:2) (Sellwood 1980: 45.1) and it is generally accepted that the gesture of kneeling was a sign of sub- mission, respect and obedience. These were probably invoked by scenes on tetradrachms of Artabanus II, where a standing female fi gure offers a palm branch to the enthroned king, and a male fi gure in Parthian attire is shown standing behind her and holding a diadem (Pl. 1:4) (Sellwood 1980: 62.1). D. Sellwood has identifi ed the man as Vonones. Probably the same person was depicted kneeling in front of Artabanus and presenting a diadem to the king, on a coin issued in Susa (Pl. 1:3) (Sellwood 1980: 62.8). This interpretation appears to be confi rmed by texts touching upon Cinnamus who presented his diadem to the king, as an act of recognition of Artabanus’ right to the crown (Josephus, AJ 20.65). Accordingly, it appears plausible that the Tyche-involving scenes described above should be interpreted as the ruling king’s power and authority recognition rather than illustrations of his coronation.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 440505 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0312:55:03 406 B. KAIM

As a primary emblem of king’s authority, a diadem was adopted also by Sasanians. ‘Dydymy’ is referred to both by Narse in his inscription at Paikuli (Humbach & Skjœrvø 1983: 93), and by Kavad II in his letter to Heraclius (Petrusi 1971: 610). Cologne Mani Codex reads as follows: (Ardashir I) “subjugated the city of Hatra and King Shapur I, his son, placed on his head the great (royal) diadem” (see Sundermann 1990: 295). Therefore, textual sources clearly indicate that the coronation is an act of putting a diadem on a head of a new ruler. Sasanian rock reliefs show the diadem tied in a bow with long, wavy ends, adorning bases of royal crowns, while the ring adorned with long ribbons is held in hands of either the monarchs or Ahuramazda. The motif of a ring held in hands of deities is known already from the Mesopotamian iconography of the 3rd millennium B.C., where it served as a symbol of divine authority. Retaining its meaning, the ring was adopted by the Achaemenids and shown in hands of a male fi gure emerging from a winged disk (Shahbazi 1990: 134-144). In Parthian art, the ring is present in hands of both rulers and their vassals. As such, it appears on the relief at Hung-e Yar Alivand carved at the northern end of the Izeh-Malamir valley (Kawami 1987: 126-128, pl. 62). Regrettably, the relief is both damaged and uninscribed; its precise dating is thus prevented. Nothing but outlines of two standing fi gures survived, one seeming to hold a small ring in his hand kept down. This scene cannot be thus interpreted differently but as a non-investiture illustration, at least as far as a feudal meaning of the investiture ceremony is concerned. Similar in terms of interpretation is the Parthian relief at Sar-e Pol-e Zohab, which shows a rider, identifi ed with a “great king” by the accompanying inscription, facing a standing male fi gure who seems to hold a ring in his right hand bent at elbow (Kawami 1987: 45-48, Pl. 6). In this scene, therefore, the ring is seen held by a vassal and not by a senior. The scene carved on NE-side of Block II at Tang-e Sarvak, shows a male fi gure holding a ring in his right hand, and reclining on kline in the presence of three other persons. Although identifi cation of the fi gures remains unsure, the relief is usually regarded as illustrating the investiture with the ring being a deciding element here (Curtis 2005; see also Vanden Berghe & Schippmann 1985: 68-70). A similar banquet scene appears on the rock relief of Kuh-e Tina (Bard-e But), also in Elymais. Here a reclining male fi gure holds a ring in his right hand and behind him stands a fi gure with a stylised cornucopia or fan (Vanden Berghe 1984: 122, fi g. 8).

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 440606 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0312:55:03 NEW INTERPRETATION OF INVESTITURE SCENES 407

As the above-mentioned scenes do not involve the gesture of handing over the ring, their interpretation as illustrations of the investiture may be safely rejected. Same cannot be applied to the commemorative stela of Kwasak, satrap of Susa, where the ring is held both by the offi cial and his sovereign, Artaban (Kawami 1987: 48-51, Pl. 7). The question, however, remains open what a symbolic meaning of the ring is in the Parthian period when the ring started to be employed in Iranian art again after a several century interruption. Obviously, it was not longer deemed to serve as a divine attribute, a function adopted under the Achaemenids. In Sasanian art, scenes with the presentation of a ring may be classifi ed into the following two categories: 1) scenes with the presentation of a ribbonless ring. A rock relief from Salmas may serve as an example here, this showing Ardashir I and his heir designate, Shapur, both mounted on horses and presenting the ring to vassals standing in front of them (Hinz 1965) 2) scenes with the presentation of a beribboned ring. This group includes all rock reliefs showing a deity handing a beribboned ring to a king (Pl. 2) and glyptic images of couples. In contrast to the second category where main fi gures are rendered in iso- cephaly, the fi rst category manifests differences as far as height of a king and a vassal is concerned. Apparently, this was the method for emphasiz- ing a different status of the ring receivers; it is likely, however, that the message communicated by both categories was similar. But are these scenes really illustrations of the investiture of the vassal by the king, or the king by the deity? The relief commissioned by Narseh at Naqsh-e Rustam shows the king receiving a beribboned ring from a female wearing corona muralis. Until recently, it has been commonly accepted, in view of special devotion of Narseh to Anahita, that the scene illustrates the monarch receiving the investiture from the goddess. It was Sh. A. Shahbazi to notice that the left hand of the female is concealed inside the sleeve of her garment. Since the concealment of a hand inside a sleeve is an old Iranian sign of subordina- tion, one can hardly imagine that this is really Anahita depicted and not the king’s spouse, for example (Shahbazi 1983: 255-268). The latter interpretation turns our eyes towards Sasanian glyptic scenes representing couples. They are most probably married for inscriptions that accompany the scenes sometimes mention names of both a male and a female. Besides depictions of couples holding a beribboned ring, there are also scenes showing couples

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 440707 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0412:55:04 408 B. KAIM

holding a ribbonless ring or shaking hands (Horn & Steindorff 1891: no. 1110: Göbl 1973: Taf. 8; Gignoux & Gyselen 1982: no. 11.3, 22.3). Therefore, if we assume the ring motif retains its meaning across vari- ous contexts in which it is shown, the interpretation of the married couples involving scenes as the illustrations of the investiture lacks reasonable grounds. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the scenes show the act of performing the solemnization of the marriage since there is no evidence whatsoever that the ring played any role during the marriage ceremony. Here, an Avestan hymn to Mithra (Yast 10) demands quotation, with its particularly interesting paragraphs 115-118 giving a sketch of moral hier- archy: mithra between friends is 20-fold, 30-fold between fellow-citizens, 40-fold between partners, 50-fold between husband and wife. Certainly, the most sanctity, 10 000-fold, is the mithra of religion. Though scholarly debates on and about an exact meaning of the common noun mithra have failed to yield any deciding conclusion, the commonly accepted meaning is “pact, contract, covenant” (Boyce 1989: 24-26). If, therefore, glyptic depictions do not illustrate the solemnization of marriage, the beribboned or ribbonless ring held by the husband and the wife may be regarded as most directly expressing the notion of contract (mithra) made between a husband and a wife. The same meaning may be attributed to the scenes showing the man and the woman shaking hands as Vendidat mentions two methods for entering into contracts: a mithra concluded by word and one by handshake (Vd. 4.2). It is likely that Hathevaro, modern Zoroastrian ceremony of uniting hands of newlyweds, is reminiscence of the old tradition. Moreover, Ven- didat refers to numerous connections between the marriage ceremony and Mithra, Lord of Covenant. Furthermore; one of Sogdian documents dated to the 9th century A.D. includes a marriage contract made before Mithra, Judge of Creation (Gershevitch 1959: 34-5). A handshake motif was widely observed both in the Greek (Davies 1985) and Near Eastern world (Orthman 1985: Pl. 208). As far as Iranian tradition is concerned, a handshake appears to be a sign of an agreement or treaty made, i.e. mithra. Such interpretation of the handshake appears to be conﬁ rmed by classical authors, especially Nepos writing as follows: “for Mithridates promised the king that he would kill Datames, if the king would allow him to do with impunity whatever he wished, and would give him a pledge to that effect with his right hand after the manner of the Persians” (Datames 10,1.).

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 440808 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0412:55:04 NEW INTERPRETATION OF INVESTITURE SCENES 409

If the above-presented interpretation of the scenes where the ring is presented by one person to another as illustration of the act of making the mithra is accepted, there is, however, one more problem that needs to be addressed as far as Sasanian rock reliefs are concerned: a kind of mithra made between the king and his deity, Ahuramazda. The explanation is offered by the relief commissioned by Ardashir I at Naqsh-e Rustam. Both the king and the deity are shown mounted on horses trampling over dead bodies of enemies (Pl. 2:1). Thanks to his specifi c headgear, the male fi gure being stepped upon by the king’s horse is easily identifi able as Artaban IV, last ruler of the Parthian dynasty. The male fi gure trampled by Ahuramazda’s horse is Ahriman, evil spirit, God of Darkness and Wickedness. Ahriman’s curls look like bodies of snakes, but only in the front is a snake head clearly recognizable, indicating the sculptor’s intent. Ardashir I is, therefore, represented as victorious over Artaban, with his success compared to a victory won by Ahuramazda over Ahriman. The king is thus shown exercising same functions in the material world as Ahuramazda, universal ruler of material and spiritual worlds, does (Choksy 1988: 37). We can, therefore, assume that the relief of Ardashir I illustrates not only a political but, and fi rst of all, religious victory of the king, shared with Ahuramazda, highest deity worshipped by him. The victory was closely associated with an eschatological role the monarchy was to play in the future Renovation of the world (Denkard, 293.1). Winning from the last representative of the dynasty which Sasanian propagandists attempted to present neglectful of Iranian cultural and religious traditions, Ardashir both fulfi lled his obligation imposed by his religion, and contributed to the fi nal Renovation. As Ahuramazda is to protect asa in the universe, the Iranian king is to maintain asa in his kingdom. To retain asa, fi ghting against a lie and evil is a priority. Through combating evil in his monarchy, the king brings a victory over the Spirit of Evil closer, and contributes to the Renovation. Asa which means the harmonious order of the universe consists in the preservation of contract, so a lie is the violation of contract and the denial of the Mithra who personifi es the contract. A beribboned ring is likely to symbolize a covenant here, an alliance, mithra on religion, made between the deity and the king, and, as such, the most inviolate one under Mithra Yasht which reads as follows: “mithra is ten thousandfold when connected with the Law of Mazda, and then he will be every day of victorious strength” (Yast 10.117).

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 440909 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0412:55:04 410 B. KAIM

If I am correct in the above-presented interpretation of reliefs showing the king receiving the ring from the deity, repetition of the same motif to emphasize a specifi c and constant relationship between two persons is no longer surprising. Two other reliefs commissioned by Ardashir I (Firuzabad and Naqsh-e Rajab) show the king receiving a beribboned ring, accompanied by his family and members of his court. Given the signifi cant role of the royal family in dynastic monarchies, inclusion of the family and court members into a symbolic act of entering into a covenant with the deity gives no rise to amazement. The scenes concerned perfectly match royal power and authority propaganda. Mithra as Lord of the Covenant or mithra, was both a natural enemy of a contract-violating sinner, mithro.druj, and a friend of a good man. Thus, it is not surprising to see Mithra in his specifi c ray crown presented beside Ardashir II and a mural crown wearing fi gure on the late 4th century relief (Pl. 2:3) (Fukai & Horiuchi 1972: Pl. LXXIV). Because Ardashir II was not a natural successor of Shapur II, R. Frye suggested that the reason for portraying Mithra on the king’s relief was the recognition of the deity as presiding over a contract made between Ardashir II and Shapur II, on returning the throne to Shapur III in due time (Frye 1977: 209). As already mentioned in this paper, a separate category of representations is created by scenes showing a ribbonless ring being presented by a superior to a person having a lower rank. Assuming that the symbol retains its meaning notwithstanding the context, and having in mind the evidence brought to light by G. Widengren to prove that Iranian texts relating to the feudal investiture mention that the rite was connected with the presentation of a felt hat, kulah, and a belt, kamar (Widengren 1956: 260), it is likely that the scenes concerned do not illustrate the investiture but any agreement or covenant rather between the ruler and his subject. This interpretation seems to be valid also for the Parthian reliefs at Hung-e Yar Alivand, Sar-e Pol-e Zohab, Tang-e Sarvak as well as for the above mentioned stele of Kwasak from Susa. Presumably, the investiture understood to mean a ceremony of formal enthronement of a king-to-be through presenting him with the royal insignia must have been a signifi cant moment for a new ruler. A scant number of textual sources referring to this ceremony is thus surprising. However, this phenomenon is not restricted to Sasanians only and occurs for earlier ruling dynasties as well, either Mesopotamian or Iranian. Moreover, the

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 441010 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0512:55:05 NEW INTERPRETATION OF INVESTITURE SCENES 411

topic is hardly touched upon by ancient Near Eastern art. We actually know none but one depiction, this showing the goddess Ishtar putting the crown on the head of an Assyrian monarch, that can be undoubtedly interpreted as the coronation scene (Bron & Seidl 1995: Abb. 22). To explain this issue, some more dedicated studies are required though scholars deal- ing with ancient concepts of royal power would certainly oppose here. Further investigation is also needed to understand an Iranian concept of royal power which had apparently nothing in common with the Mesopota- mian one. While examining the role of religion in the Achaemenid impe- rial ideology, B. Lincoln has reached the conclusion that there appears to have been the “theology of empire, in which the king is theorized as God’s chosen, who reunites the world and restores its perfection” (Lincoln 2008: 233). Indubitably, under the reign of Sasanians, the already existing inter- relationship between royal power and religion became stronger than ever. The role of the covenant between the king and the deity signiﬁ cantly increased, ultimately reaching an eschatological level. Consequently, it appears reasonable to assume that not the moment of enthronement itself, which seems to be less important for dynastic monarchies with strictly deﬁ ned rules of succession, but the covenant (mithra) rather constituted a topic readily dealt with by and illustrated in art of ancient Iran. This covenant was not, however, understood as a one-off act but a constant relationship between the king and his deity. In the society adhering to Zoroastrian values, the role of mithra was therefore underscored, on my opinion, not only by religious texts but also by iconography.

Bibliography

BRON, H. & SEIDL, U., 1995. Schutzwaffen aus Assyrien und Urartu (Sammlung Axel Guttmann, Bd. 4), Berlin/Mainz. BOYCE, M., 1989. A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. I, Leiden/ Köln. BOYCE, M., 1982. A History of Zoroastrianism, vol. II, Leiden/Köln. CHOKSY, J. K., 1988. Sacral Kingship in Sasanian Iran, Bulletin of Asia Institute 2: 35-52. CURTIS, V. Sh, 2005. Investiture II. The Parthian Period, in: Yarshater E. (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 13, fasc. 2: 182-184. DAVIES, G., 1985. The Signiﬁ cance of the Handshake Motif in Classical Funerary Art, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 89, No. 4: 627-640. DE WAELE, E., 1989. L’investiture et le triomphe dans la thématique de la sculpture rupestre sassanide, Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Gent: 811-823.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 441111 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0512:55:05 412 B. KAIM

FREDRICKSMEZER, E. A., 1997. The Origin of Alexander’s Royal Insignia, Trans- actions of the American Philological Association, 127: 97-109. FRYE, R. N., 1978. Mithra in Iranian Archaeology, in: Études Mithraiques, (Acta Iranica IV; Leiden/Teheran/Liège: 205-212. FUKAI, SH. & HORIUCHI, K., 1972. Taq-i Bustan II, Tokyo. GERSHEVITCH, I., 1959. The Avestan hymn to Mithra, Cambridge. GIGNOUX, Ph. & GYSELEN, R., 1982. Sceaux Sasanides de diverses collections privées, Leuven. GÖBL, R., 1973. Der Sasanidische Siegelkanon. Braunschweig. GROPP, G., 1968, Die parthische Inschrift von Sar-Pol-e Zohab, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft: 118, 315-319. HINZ, W., 1965. Das Sassanidische Felsrelief von Salmas, Iranica Antiqua V: 148-160. HINZ, W., 1969. Altiranische Funde und Forschungen, Berlin. HERRMANN, G., 1969. The Darabgird relief — Ardashir or Shapur? A Discussion in the Context of Early Sasanian Sculpture, Iran VII: 63-88. HORN, P. & STEINDORFF, G., 1891. Sassandische Siegelsteine, Berlin. HUMBACH, H. & SKJÆRVØ, P. O., 1983. The Sassanian Inscription. of Paikuli. Part 3.1, Munich. KAWAMI, T. S., 1987. Monumental Art of the Parthian Period in Iran (=Acta Iranica XXVI), Leiden. LINCOLN, B., 2008. The Role of Religion in Achaemenian Imperialism, in: Brish N. (ed.), Religion and Power. Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, Chicago: 221-242. LOUKONIN, V. G., 1968. Monnaie d’Ardashir I et l’art ofﬁ ciel sassanide, Iranica Antiqua VIII: 106-17. ORTHMANN, W., 1985. Der Alte Orient, Berlin. PERTUSI, A., 1971. La Persia nelle fonti bizantine del secolo VII, in: Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul Tema, „La Persia nel Medioevo” (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), Roma: 605- 32. RITTER, H. W., 1965. Diadem und Königsherrschaft. Untersuchungen zu Zeremo- nien und Rechtsgrundlagen des Herschaftsantritts bei den Persen, bei Alexan- der den Grossen und in Hellenismus, Wiesbaden. ROSE, J., 2005. Investiture. III. Sasanian period, in: Yarshater E. (ed.), Encyclo- paedia Iranica, vol. XIII, fasc. 2: 184-188. SUNDERMANN, W., 1990. Shapur’s Coronation. The Evidence of the Cologne Mani Codex reconsidered and compared with other texts, Bulletin of the Asia Insti- tute IV: 295-99. SHAHBAZI, A. Sh., 1974. An Achaemenid Symbol. I: A Farewell to ‘Fravahr’ and ‘Ahuramazda’, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran NF. 7: 135-44. SHAHBAZI, A. Sh., 1983. Studies in Sasanian prosopography, Archäologische Mit- teilungen aus Iran NF. 16: 255-268. SHEPHERD, D., 1983. Sasanian Art, Cambridge History of Iran, vol. III, 2: 1079-80. VANDEN BERGHE, L., 1983. Reliefs rupestres de l’Iran ancien, Musée royaux d’art et d’histoire, Bruxelles.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 441212 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0512:55:05 NEW INTERPRETATION OF INVESTITURE SCENES 413

VANDEN BERGHE, L., 1988. Les scènes d’investiture sur les reliefs rupestres de l’Iran ancien: évolution et signiﬁ cation, in: Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata, vol. III, Roma: 1511-1531. VANDEN BERGHE, L. & SCHIPPMANN, K., 1985. Les reliefs rupestres d’Elymaïde (Iran) de l’époque parthe, Louvain. WIDENGREN, G., 1956. Recherches sur le féodalisme iranien, Orientalia Suecana V: 79-182.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 441313 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0612:55:06 414 B. KAIM

Pl. 1. Parthian coins 1. Phraates IV (source: http://www.parthia.com/pdc_19015.jpg.Pars coins) 2. Orodes II (source: http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=40134) 3. Artabanus II (source: http://www.parthia.com/pdc_13652.jpg. Collection Sadollah Vadavi) 4. Artabanus II (source: http://www.parthia.com/pdc_20895.jpg)

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 441414 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0612:55:06 NEW INTERPRETATION OF INVESTITURE SCENES 415

P.2. Sasanian rock reliefs 1. Relief of Ardashir I at Naqsh-e Rustam 2. Central part of Ardashir’s I relief at Naqsh-e Radjab 3. Relief of Ardashir II at Taq-e Bustan

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_11 441515 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:55:0712:55:07