The Solitary Obelisk
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
- THE SOLITARY OBELISK - The Significance of Cult in Hierapolis of Phrygia Anne Nyquist Masteroppgave i arkeologi Institutt for arkeologi, konservering og historie Humanistisk fakultet UNIVERSITETET I OSLO November 2014 © Anne Nyquist 2014 The Solitary Obelisk Anne Nyquist http://www.duo.uio.no/ Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo Cover illustration: The Solitary obelisk seen from the back (northeast) where the collapsed, triangular pillar parts are to be found. A view on the Lykos valley (photograph by Anne Nyquist 2011). II “The universe is either a confusion, and a mutual involution of things, and a dispersion; or it is unity and order and providence. If then it is the former, why do I desire to tarry in a fortuitous combination of things and such a disorder? And why do I care about anything else than how I shall at last become earth? And why am I disturbed, for the dispersion of my elements will happen whatever I do. But if the other supposition is true, I venerate, and I am firm, and I trust in him who governs” (Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations, book six). In memory of my father, Peter Nyquist (8/8/1938 - 7/5/2002) and my mother in law, Anna Renna (11/4/1940 - 22/10/2014) III Acknowledgements One evening in May my daughter Julia asked me if we could watch the sun set together. My first thought was that I didn’t have time, but on second thought I realized that certain requests are not turned down. We had only a few minutes before the sun would set, and we ran down an alley of trees, up along a field’s edge to reach the Viking burial mounds of Stavhella. We got there just in time to see the sun set in the west, and Julia said: “Mamma, it is fantastic!”. And I could tell that she was right. I would like to thank my daughters and my mother for their never-ending patience. I thank my father for reading the Iliad and the Odyssey to me as a child. I am also grateful to my workplace and in particular to Steinar Kneppen who has always arranged for me to have permissions of leave to participate at the excavations of U. I O. in Hierapolis. Further I thank Elisabet Janssen for reading my text and giving helpful advice, and Siri Berrefjord for technical support. Helena Neumann and Mimi Koppang have many a time generously facilitated the encounter with the formalities of the master’s program. Germana Graziosi of The Norwegian institute in Rome and the personnel of The German Institute of Istanbul helped greatly with literature. I thank Ioannis Liritzis of the University of the Aegean, professor of physics in archaeology, for interesting perspectives on imaginary alignments. I give my warmest thanks to my two former tutors of my Cand.Philol.-degree in Bergen, Jørgen Christian Meyer (U. i B.) and Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen (University of Southern Denmark) for discussions, articles and availability. From the Italian Archaeological Mission of Hierapolis in Phrygia (MAIER) I particularly thank the director of the excavations, Francesco D’Andria for advice and communication, Donatella Ronchetta for information on the Solitary obelisk, Massimo Limoncelli for making a 3D-model of the solitary obelisk and Grazia Semeraro, Tullia Ritti and Pio Panarelli for help with details on recent finds and Italian research on the sanctuary. Finally I especially thank Johann Rasmus Brandt for sharing of his immense expertise and for his sound counselling upon reading my work. Last, but not least I warmly thank Sven Ahrens for being my tutor. His detailed knowledge on tombs of the Mediterranean area has been an inspiration to my work and of great help. I thank them both for long and rewarding conversations on tombs and cult of the Mediterranean area in general, and on Hierapolis in particular. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 BACKGROUND AND FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Research history .............................................................................................................. 2 Problem statement ........................................................................................................... 3 Methodical approach and theoretical framework ............................................................ 5 2 THE TRIANGULAR OBELISKS OF ASIA MINOR............................................................ 9 The Solitary Obelisk as a monument ............................................................................... 9 The Sacerdos obelisk ..................................................................................................... 11 The Sacerdos obelisk as a monument (as deduced from the inscription) ...................... 14 The Philiskos obelisk as a monument ........................................................................... 14 Summary of the tombs as monuments ........................................................................... 16 2.5.1 The Solitary obelisk ............................................................................................... 16 2.5.2 The Sacerdos obelisk ............................................................................................. 16 2.5.3 The Philiskos obelisk ............................................................................................. 17 The Nikaian tomb owners and their position in society ................................................ 17 2.6.1 The Sacerdos obelisk ............................................................................................. 17 2.6.2 The Philiskos obelisk ............................................................................................. 20 Cult, cosmology and mythology as indicated by the Nikaian tombs ............................ 22 2.7.1 The Sacerdos obelisk ............................................................................................. 22 2.7.2 The Philiskos obelisk ............................................................................................. 23 3 COMPARATIVE MATERIAL ............................................................................................ 25 Monumental pyramid and obelisks as tombs ................................................................ 25 3.1.1 Semitic tombs (mostly Hellenistic) ....................................................................... 25 3.1.2 North-African obelisk tombs and mausolea (Hellenistic and Roman) .................. 26 3.1.3 Rome – Out of Africa ............................................................................................ 27 Triangular tombs ........................................................................................................... 29 3.2.1 Sabratha (North Africa) ......................................................................................... 29 3.2.2 The Tripod tomb at Knidos (Asia Minor) ............................................................. 29 3.2.3 Kerameikos (Athens) ............................................................................................. 30 Monumental pyramid and obelisks as tombs in Asia Minor ......................................... 30 4 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 33 The origin – the Egyptian belief pattern ........................................................................ 33 A summary comment on Triebel’s claim to common symbology ................................ 34 The obelisks of Asia Minor according to Triebel’s description .................................... 34 4.3.1 The Sacerdos obelisk ............................................................................................. 34 4.3.2 The Philiskos obelisk ............................................................................................. 36 4.3.3 The Solitary obelisk ............................................................................................... 36 4.3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 37 V Theoretical propositions of cultic significance for the Nikaian obelisks ..................... 38 4.4.1 The Sacerdos obelisk ............................................................................................. 38 4.4.2 The Philiskos obelisk ............................................................................................. 40 5 THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS OF CULTIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SOLITARY OBELISK ................................................................................................................. 43 Landscape architecture - Cities Built as Images ............................................................ 43 The city of Hierapolis .................................................................................................... 44 Hierapolis built as an image? ........................................................................................ 45 The Solitary obelisk as part of the city plan .................................................................. 45 The triangular form ....................................................................................................... 47 5.5.1 Possible religio-philosophical connotations of the triangular form ....................... 48 5.5.2 Cities of contrasting principles-The probability of Orphism in Hierapolis ........... 51 6 THE PLACE OF THE OBELISK TOMB ...........................................................................