Pagan Roman Religious Acculturation? an Inquiry Into the Domestic Cult at Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-Europos: the First to Fifth Centuries Ce

Home , Aedicula, Arsu, En (deity), Ephesos Museum, Karanis, Malakbel

PAGAN ROMAN RELIGIOUS ACCULTURATION? AN INQUIRY INTO THE DOMESTIC CULT AT KARANIS, EPHESOS, AND DURA-EUROPOS: THE FIRST TO FIFTH CENTURIES CE

A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by Amy C. Yandek August 2013

Examining Committee Members:

Dr. Jane DeRose Evans, Advisory Chair, Art History Dr. Elizabeth S. Bolman, Art History Dr. Philip P. Betancourt, Art History Dr. Marcus Rautman, External Member, University of Missouri

Amy C. Yandek

ABSTRACT

The ancient Roman domestic cult is often overlooked and marginalized in favor

of state sponsored practices, monuments, and temples; yet it can give us insights into

daily life, cultural interactions, and personal identity in the Empire. In my dissertation, I

recreate a selection of domestic contexts in order to learn more about private cultic

practices, thus illuminating those activities and behaviors that may be far removed from

what appears in the literary sources or in monumental reliefs and paintings. Furthermore,

the era considered is a crucial period in the history of the western world that included the

rise of Christianity and dramatic changes in Roman pagan cults. By concentrating on the

Roman East, I produce information relating to these changes outside of Italy and study

the impact on cross-cultural exchanges and identities formulated by the Roman

colonization of these cities.

The Roman domestic cult in Italy invoked specific gods to maintain the well-

being of the home in small shrines within the house. Material evidence for these practices

survives in the form of statuettes and wall paintings of the gods, incense burners, and

altars. Other divinities chosen by the head of the household could join or supplant the

traditional domestic deities. These additions to private shrines acted as protective patron

gods of the household and they reveal a personal relationship between deity and devotee.

One barrier to the understanding of the domestic cult in its original context is the

nature of multiculturalism in the Roman Empire. In the nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries, scholars tended to equate the Roman Empire with the concept of the modern nation-state. The Empire was seen as a cultural juggernaut that disseminated a uniform

Roman identity that was sent out from Italy to the provinces. Evidence for

iii

“Romanization” was noted in the introduction of the Roman city plan, and Roman habits

were seen in new types of public buildings such as baths or amphitheaters, the adoption

of Roman coinage, the toga and the Latin language, and the introduction of Roman cults,

especially the cult of the emperor. Most scholars today prefer to view the expansion of the Empire as a process that included reciprocal acculturation between natives and their

Roman masters. Using this model, I examine religious cross-currents on a domestic scale,

thus contributing to the current scholarly discussion. By exploring the cult in the home, we can get a better indication of the interaction between native and Roman in the private sphere.

Scholars agree that we can learn more from smaller, regional studies; it cannot be assumed that the same things occurred in all parts of the empire and at all times. The case-study approach has replaced the sweeping and sometimes vague histories of years past. I have chosen three sites from the Roman East since they have an abundance of material evidence that has not been exploited to its full potential: Karanis (modern

Egypt), Ephesos (modern Turkey), and Dura-Europos (modern Syria).

The significance of my project is three-fold. I present previously unpublished material from important sites in the Roman East. By looking at these three sites, I expand the dialogue from the singular discussion of domestic religion in first-century Italy, thus enriching it substantially. Through the consideration of acculturation between east and west I contribute to the discussion of “Romanization” in the first to fifth centuries CE. By comparing these sites with those better published, such as Pompeii and Ostia (Rome’s port, largely abandoned in the second half of the third into the fourth centuries), I can more clearly show the contrast between the two halves of the Empire. My goals will be to

iv determine how (and if) “Romanization” can be seen in these locations, what the impact of local artistic styles and indigenous deities is, and how the reciprocal relationship manifests in daily religious practices within the home.

To My Parents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor, Jane DeRose Evans. She has been with me every step of the way, dedicating large amounts of her time to ensure my successful completion of the requirements for this degree. Her advice, feedback, and encouragement are invaluable. I would also like to thank my committee members,

Elizabeth Bolman, Philip Betancourt, and Marcus Rautman for their comments, which greatly improved the contents of this dissertation. Dr. Bolman especially offered her assistance at various stages of this project.

The completion of this dissertation was aided in part through two grants from

Temple University. The first was an Art History dissertation research grant in Rome for the fall semester of 2012. The second was the Dissertation Completion Grant from the

Graduate School for 2013. I thank Marcia Hall for her assistance in making this possible.

I would also like to thank the individuals who facilitated my archival research.

Susan Matheson and Lisa Brody permitted me to visit the Dura-Europos archives at the

Yale University Art Gallery. I additionally thank them for their time, advice, and encouragement. Megan Doyon was also a great help to me in the archives.

From the University of Michigan I would like to thank Terry Wilfong who provided me with excellent advice and enabled me to access archival materials. I would also like to thank Sebastian Encina who assisted in the logistics of receiving object lists and photographs.

I am grateful to Sabine Ladstätter of the Österreichischen Archäologischen

Instituts. She expedited my addition to the team list for 2012 and permitted me access to

vii all parts of the Terrace Houses. I also express my thanks to her assistants, Gottfried Parrer and Filiz Öztürk.

Lastly I would like to thank the additional readers. Thanks to Maite Barragán

Bothwell for her suggestions and comments. And most of all I would like to thank my parents for their unrelenting support and for the proof-reading they have done all through my academic career.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….. ii DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………….. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………. vii LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………... xii ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………... xvi

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. 1 Overview of the Project……………………………………………………... 1 “Romanization:” Approach and Methodology……………………………… 5 The Domestic Cult in Italy…………………………………………………... 13 Exempla…………………...... 19

2. THE HISTORY OF KARANIS AND OVERVIEW OF THE SITE……………… 28 History of the Town……………...... 28 Excavation History and Problems…………………………………… 30 Identity of Inhabitants……………………………………………………….. 33 Greek………………………………………………………………… 35 Egyptian in the Roman Period………………………………………. 36 Roman……………………………………………………………….. 38 Art…………………………………………………………………………… 40 Religion at Karanis………………………………………………………….. 44 Domestic Religion…………………………………………………… 46

3. KARANIS CATALOG…………………………………………………………….. 50 Karanis Catalog 1: House C29………………………………………………. 52 Karanis Catalog 2: House C45………………………………………………. 54 Karanis Catalog 3: House C50/51…………………………………………… 59 Karanis Catalog 4: House C57………………………………………………. 64 Karanis Catalog 5: House C62………………………………………………. 70 Karanis Catalog 6: House B11………………………………………………. 76 Karanis Catalog 7: House B47………………………………………………. 79 Karanis Catalog 8: House B507……………………………………………... 81 Karanis Catalog 9: House 5002……………………………………………... 84 Karanis Catalog 10: House 5008……………………………………………. 86

4. KARANIS DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………. 90 Niches………………………………………………………………………... 90 Altars………………………………………………………………………… 91 Sculptural Medium…………………………………………………………... 91 Sculptural Style and Subject………………………………………………… 92

Conclusions……………………………………………………………….. 94

5. THE HISTORY OF EPHESOS AND OVERVIEW OF THE SITE……………. 97 History of the City………………………………………………………… 98 Terrace Houses……………………………………………………. 102 Excavation History………………………………………………... 103 Identity of Inhabitants…………………………………………………….. 105 Greek……………………………………………………………… 105 Roman……………………………………………………………... 106 Art and Architecture………………………………………………………. 108 Religion…………………………………………………………………… 111 Artemis……………………………………………………………. 111 Imperial Cult………………………………………………………. 113 Other Cults………………………………………………………… 115 Domestic Religion………………………………………………… 116

6. EPHESOS CATALOG…………………………………………………………... 117 Terrace Houses Catalog 1: Hanghaus 1, “Domus”………………………... 118 Terrace Houses Catalog 2: Hanghaus 1, Housing Unit 3…………………. 123 Terrace Houses Catalog 3: Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 2…………………. 126 Terrace Houses Catalog 4: Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 4…………………. 135 Terrace Houses Catalog 5: Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 7…………………. 147

7. EPHESOS DISCUSSION………………………………………………………... 151 Altars………………………………………………………………………. 151 Style of Sculpture and Wall Decoration…………………………………... 152 Subjects of Sculpture and Wall Decoration……………………………….. 153 Conclusions………………………………………………………………... 154

8. THE HISTORY OF DURA-EUROPOS AND OVERVIEW OF THE SITE…… 156 History…………………………………………………………………….. 156 Excavation History and Problems…………………………………. 160 Identity of Inhabitants…………...... 162 Macedonian………………………………………………………... 162 Parthian……………………………………………………………. 164 Palmyrene…………………………………………………………. 166 Syrian or Durene…………………………………………………... 168 Roman Army………………………………………………………. 170 Art…………………………………………………………………………. 174 Greco-Roman Style………………………………………………... 174 Palmyrene Style…………………………………………………… 176 Syrian Style………………………………………………………... 178 Religion at Dura-Europos…………………………………………………. 181 Macedonian……………………………………………………….. 181 Syrian/Aramaic……………………………………………………. 183 Palmyrene………………………………………………………….. 185

Domestic Religion…………………………………………………. 187

9. DURA-EUROPOS CATALOG………………………………………………….. 190 Dura-Europos Catalog 1: House B2B………………………………………. 191 Dura-Europos Catalog 2: House C3D………………………………………. 196 Dura-Europos Catalog 3: House C7A2……………………………………... 206 Dura-Europos Catalog 4: House C7G………………………………………. 210 Dura-Europos Catalog 5: House G1 “A”…………………………………… 214 Dura-Europos Catalog 6: House G1B………………………………………. 218 Dura-Europos Catalog 7: House G3H……………………………………… 224 Dura-Europos Catalog 8: House G3J……………………………………….. 227 Dura-Europos Catalog 9: House M7W……………………………………... 231 Dura-Europos Catalog 10: House N8A…………………………………….. 239

10. DURA-EUROPOS DISCUSSION……………………………………………... 243 Altars………………………………………………………………………... 243 Style………………………………………………………………………… 244 Subjects in Paintings, Graffiti, and Sculpture……………………………… 248 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………. 250

11. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………. 253 Acculturation………………………………………………………………... 254 Differentiation………………………………………………………………. 255 “Romanization”……………………………………………………………... 256 Late Antiquity………………………………………………………………. 258

REFERENCES CITED……………………………………………………………... 261

APPENDIX: PERMISSIONS………………………………………………………. 284

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

1.1. Typical house shrine at Pompeii (I.viii.8)………………………………… 15 1.2 Detail of 1.1………………………………………………………………. 16 1.3. Plan of House of the Skeleton, Herculaneum…………………………….. 19 1.4. Niche in ala, House of the Skeleton, Herculaneum………………………. 21 1.5. Nymphaeum, House of the Skeleton, Herculaneum……………………… 21 1.6. Detail of nymphaeum niche, House of the Skeleton, Herculaneum……… 21 1.7. Pseudo-aedicula shrine with altar, House of the Skeleton, Herculaneum… 21 1.8. Plan of House of Fortuna Annonaria, Ostia………………………………. 22 1.9. Statue of Fortuna Annonaria, Marble, House of Fortuna Annonaria, Ostia 23 1.10. Aedicula with Artemis, House of Fortuna Annonaria, Ostia……………... 23 1.11. Hall 15, from the peristyle garden, House of Fortuna Annonaria, Ostia…. 24 1.12. Nymphaeum on left of 15, House of Fortuna Annonaria, Ostia………….. 24 1.13. Bust of Kore, House of Fortuna Annonaria, Marble, Ostia Museum...... 24 1.14. Crouching Aphrodite, House of Fortuna Annonaria, Marble, Ostia Museum…………………………………………………………………… 24 2.1 Two niches from House C51, room A, Karanis…………………………... 47 3.1. Plan of House C29, Karanis………………………………………………. 52 3.2. Incense burner, House C29, Limestone, Karanis…………………………. 53 3.3. Plan of House C45, Karanis………………………………………………. 54 3.4. Painted niche, House C45, Karanis……………………………………….. 55 3.5. Drawing of fig. 3.4………………………………………………………... 55 3.6. Horse and rider, Terracotta, House C45, Karanis………………………… 57 3.7. Toy horse, Wood, Karanis………………………………………………... 58 3.8. Plan of House C50/51, Karanis…………………………………………… 59 3.9. Cult niche, House C50/51, Karanis……………………………………….. 61 3.10. Head of Serapis statuette, House C50/51, Alabaster, Karanis……………. 61 3.11. Orant, House C50/51, Terracotta, Karanis………………………………... 62 3.12. Plan of House C57, Karanis………………………………………………. 64 3.13. Burner fragment, House C57, Stone, Karanis…………………………….. 65 3.14. Serapis statuette, House, C57, Bronze, Karanis…………………………... 66 3.15. Sphinx statuette, House C57, Stone, Karanis……………………………... 66 3.16. Orant, House C57, Terracotta, Karanis…………………………………… 67 3.17. Serapis relief, House C57, Limestone, Karanis…………………………... 68 3.18. Plan of House C62, Karanis………………………………………………. 70 3.19. Seated goddess (?), House C62, Limestone, Karanis…………………….. 71 3.20. Orant, House C62, Terracotta, Karanis…………………………………… 72 3.21. Orant in situ, House C62, Karanis………………………………………... 72 3.22. Isiac figurine, House C62, Terracotta, Karanis…………………………… 73 3.23. Horse figurine, House C62, Terracotta, Karanis………………………….. 73 3.24. Painted niche (drawing), House C62, Karanis……………………………. 73 3.25. Detail of niche, House C62, Karanis……………………………………… 74

xii

3.26. Fragment of sphinx or lion, House C62, Stone, Karanis…………………. 75 3.27. Plan of House B11, Karanis………………………………………………. 76 3.28. Head of Aphrodite, House B11, Marble, Karanis………………………… 77 3.29. Osiris canopus, House B11, Terracotta, Karanis…………………………. 77 3.30. Shrine niche in B14D, similar to one in B47 F, Karanis…………………. 79 3.31. Incense altar, House B47, Stone, Karanis………………………………… 80 3.32. Plan of B507, Karanis…………………………………………………….. 81 3.33. Horse figurine, Terracotta, House B507, Karanis………………………… 82 3.34. Drawing of painted niche, House 5002, Karanis…………………………. 84 3.35. Altar, House 5002, Marble, Karanis……………………………………… 85 3.36. Lion or sphinx, House 5002, Limestone, Karanis………………………… 85 3.37. Cult Niche, House 5008, Karanis…………………………………………. 87 3.38. Detail of niche, House 5008, Karanis…………………………………….. 87 3.39. Isis-Thermouthis relief, House 5008, Limestone, Karanis……………….. 87 3.40. Sphinx, House 5008, Limestone, Karanis………………………………… 87 5.1. Plan of Terrace Houses, Ephesos…………………………………………. 97 5.2. Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 5, room 18, Ephesos…………………………. 109 5.3. Eros, detail of 5.2…………………………………………………………. 109 5.4. Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 3, room 16a, Ephesos………………………... 110 5.5. Candelabra, detail of 5.4………………………………………………….. 110 5.6. Artemis Ephesia, Marble, Selçuk…………………………………………. 112 6.1. Plan of Hanghaus 1 with domus, Ephesos………………………………... 118 6.2. Herm S 9A, Domus, Hanghaus 1, Marble, Ephesos……………………… 120 6.3. Herm S 9D, Domus, Hanghaus 1, Marble, Ephesos……………………… 120 6.4. Eros, Domus, Hanghaus 1, Marble, Ephesos……………………………... 120 6.5. Idealized head, Domus, Hanghaus 1, Terracotta, Ephesos……………….. 121 6.6. Leopard figurine, Domus, Hanghaus 1, Terracotta, Ephesos…………….. 121 6.7. Camel figurine, Domus, Hanghaus 1, Terracotta, Ephesos………………. 121 6.8. Plan of Hanghaus 1, Housing Unit 3, Ephesos…………………………… 123 6.9. Grave Relief, Housing Unit 3, Hanghaus 1, Marble, Ephesos……………. 124 6.10. Head of a Hero, Housing Unit 3, Hanghaus 1, Marble, Ephesos…………. 124 6.11. Goddess with Polos, Housing Unit 3, Hanghaus 1, Marble, Ephesos……. 124 6.12. Plan of Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 2, Ephesos…………………………… 126 6.13. Bust of Dionysos, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Marble, Selçuk………… 127 6.14. Athena statuette, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Bronze, Selçuk………….. 128 6.15. Isis-Panthea statuette, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Bronze, Selçuk…….. 128 6.16. Serapis statuette, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Bronze, Selçuk…………. 128 6.17. Altar, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Bronze, Selçuk……………………... 128 6.18. Hero relief in situ, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos……………….. 129 6.19. Hero relief, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Marble, Ephesos……………… 130 6.20. Grave relief, Marble, Istanbul…………………………………………….. 130 6.21. Exedra GEW D, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos…………………. 132 6.22. Dionysos and Ariadne, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Mosaic, Ephesos…. 132 6.23. Emperor bust (?), Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Marble, Selçuk………… 132 6.24. Looking into peristyle from SR 24, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos…………………………………………………………………… 132

xiii

6.25. Detail of left niche SR 24, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos………. 133 6.26. Detail of right niche SR 24, Housing Unit 2, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos……... 133 6.27. Plan of Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 4, Ephesos…………………………… 135 6.28. Totenmahl relief, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos………………… 136 6.29. Artemis Statue, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Selçuk……………………. 139 6.30. Totenmahl relief, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Selçuk………………….. 140 6.31. Totenmahl relief, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Selçuk………………….. 140 6.32. Looking down into rooms 19, 4, and 5 from housing unit 1……………… 142 6.33. Rooms 4 and 5, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos…………………... 142 6.34. Snake painting, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos…………………... 142 6.35. Nymph relief, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos……………………. 145 6.36. Relief in situ, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos…………………….. 145 6.37. Serapis thymiaterion, Housing Unit 4, Hanghaus 2, Terracotta………….. 146 6.38. Plan of Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 7……………………………………… 147 6.39. Reconstruction of shrine from 38b, Housing Unit 7, Hanghaus 2, Selçuk.. 148 6.40. Marble table and altar (replicas), Housing Unit 7, Hanghaus 2, Ephesos... 150 8.1. Aphrodite with a Turtle, Temple of Artemis, Marble, Dura-Europos……. 176 8.2. Bas Relief of Abgal and Asar, Drawing, Palmyra………………………... 177 8.3. Sarcophagus, Palmyra…………………………………………………….. 177 8.4. Parthian (?) King Sacrificing, Drawing, Bisutun…………………………. 179 8.5 Artabanus giving ring of power to Khwasak, Drawing, Susa…………….. 179 8.6. Presentation of (or reception of) Ring of Investiture, Drawing, Tang-I- Sarvak……………………………………………………………………... 180 8.7. Aphlad relief, Temple of Aphlad, Dura-Europos…………………………. 185 8.8. Horse, Terracotta, Dura-Europos…………………………………………. 189 8.9. Rider, Terracotta, Dura-Europos………………………………………….. 189 9.1. Plan of House B2B, Dura-Europos……………………………………….. 191 9.2. Animal altar, House B2B, Glazed terracotta, Dura-Europos……………... 192 9.3. Cylindrical altar, House B2B, Stone, Dura-Europos……………………... 192 9.4. Camel burner, House B2B, Glazed terracotta, Dura-Europos……………. 193 9.5. Mouflon burner, Drawing, Unprovenanced………………………………. 193 9.6. Nike (?) statuette, House B2B, Alabaster, Dura-Europos………………… 194 9.7. Plan of C3D, Dura-Europos………………………………………………. 196 9.8. Bull graffito, House C3D, Dura-Europos………………………………… 197 9.9. Radiate man (?), House C3D, Graffito, Dura-Europos…………………… 197 9.10. Parthian warrior, House C3D, Graffito, Dura-Europos…………………... 198 9.11. Reclining figures, House C3D, Graffito, Dura-Europos………………….. 198 9.12. Horse, House C3D, Graffito, Dura-Europos……………………………… 199 9.13. Man in prayer, House C3D, Graffito, Dura-Europos……………………... 199 9.14. Iarhibol and man, House C3D, Graffito, Dura-Europos………………….. 199 9.15. Nude with two men, House C3D, Graffito, Dura-Europos………………. 199 9.16. West cave with D3 above, House C3D, Dura-Europos…………………... 200 9.17. West cave, House C3D, Dura-Europos…………………………………… 200 9.18. Woman with tympanum, House C3D, Terracotta, Dura-Europos………... 202 9.19. Ancient Mesopotamian women with tympana, Terracotta……………….. 202 9.20. Parthian figure sacrificing, House C3D, Terracotta, Dura-Europos……… 203

xiv

9.21. Serapis (?), House C3D, Terracotta, Dura-Europos………………………. 204 9.22. Plan of House C7A2, Dura-Europos……………………………………… 206 9.23. Camel burner, House C7A2, Faience, Dura-Europos……………………... 206 9.24. Bird statuette, House C7A2, Alabaster, Dura-Europos…………………… 207 9.25. Drawing after painting in Aphlad Temple, Dura-Europos……………….. 207 9.26. Lion figurine, House C7A2, Terracotta, Dura-Europos…………………... 208 9.27. Plan of House C7G, Dura-Europos……………………………………….. 210 9.28. Hadad relief, House C7G, Limestone, Dura-Europos…………………….. 211 9.29. Hermes statuette, House C7G, Gypsum, Dura-Europos………………….. 211 9.30. Plan of House G1 “A,” Dura-Europos……………………………………. 214 9.31. God with a bow, House G1A, Gypsum, Dura-Europos…………………... 216 9.32. Stone altar, House G1A, Dura-Europos…………………………………... 217 9.33. Bronze altar, House G1A, Dura-Europos………………………………… 217 9.34. Plan of G1B, Dura-Europos………………………………………………. 218 9.35. Thymiaterion, House G1B, Faience, Dura-Europos……………………… 219 9.36. Thymiaterion, House G1B, Faience, Dura-Europos……………………… 219 9.37. Fragment of Aphrodite relief, House G1B, Plaster, Dura-Europos………. 220 9.38. Aphrodite relief, House G5C2, Plaster, Dura-Europos…………………… 220 9.39. Herakles fragment, House G1B, Gypsum, Dura-Europos………………... 221 9.40. Second face of stone altar, House G1B, Gypsum, Dura-Europos………... 222 9.41. Fourth face of the altar, House G1B, Gypsum, Dura-Europos…………… 222 9.42. Plan of House G3H, Dura-Europos……………………………………….. 224 9.43. Bull’s head, House G3H, Plaster, Dura-Europos…………………………. 225 9.44. Head of a goddess, House G3H, Plaster, Dura-Europos………………….. 225 9.45. Athena-Allât relief, House G3H, Gypsum, Dura-Europos……………….. 226 9.46. Plan of House G3J, Dura-Europos………………………………………... 227 9.47. Altar with graffito, House G3J, Drawing, Dura-Europos………………… 227 9.48. Aphrodite statuette, House G3J, Alabaster, Dura-Europos……………….. 227 9.49. Painted shrine, House G3J, Plaster, Dura-Europos……………………….. 229 9.50. Drawing of plaster shrine, House G3J, Dura-Europos……………………. 229 9.51. Plan of House M7W, Dura-Europos……………………………………… 231 9.52. Drawing of west wall banquet, House M7W, Dura-Europos…………….. 232 9.53. West wall paintings, House M7W, Dura-Europos………………………... 232 9.54. Drawing of south wall paintings, House M7W, Dura-Europos…………... 234 9.55. South wall banquet and wild ass hunt, House M7W, Dura-Europos……... 234 9.56. Evil eye, House M7W, Drawing, Dura-Europos…………………………. 236 9.57. Goddess on cone, House M7W, Gypsum, Dura-Europos………………… 237 9.58. Female on mountain, Drawing……………………………………………. 237 9.59. Plan of House N8A, Dura-Europos……………………………………….. 239 9.60. Graffito with lion, House N8A, Drawing, Dura-Europos………………… 240 9.61. Bronze gazelles, similar to ones in N8A, Dura-Europos…………………. 241

ABBREVIATIONS

Allen diss. Allen, Marti Lu. “The Terracotta Figurines from Karanis: A Study of Technique, Style, and Chronology in Fayoumic Coroplastics.” Dissertation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1985.

Baird, Vol. 1 Baird, Jennifer A. “Housing and Households at Dura- Europos: A Study in Identity on Rome’s Eastern Frontier,” Ph.D. Diss., University of Leicester: 2006. Text.

Baird, Vol. 2 Catalog.

Baird, Oblist PDF object list.

Boak Boak, A. E. R. Karanis: The Temples, Coin Hoards, Botanical and Zoological Reports, Seasons 1924-31. University of Michigan Studies 30. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1933.

Boak and Peterson Boak, A. E. R., and Enoch Peterson. Karanis, Topographical and Architectural Report of Excavations during the Seasons 1924-28. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1931.

Dirven 1999 Dirven, Lucinda. The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Downey 2003 Downey, Susan B. Terracotta Figurines and Plaques from Dura- Europos. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.

FiE 8/4 Lang-Auinger, Claudia, et al. Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/4. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003.

FiE 8/6 Thür, Hilke, et al. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: die Wohneinheit 4; Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/6 Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,

xvi

2005.

FiE 8/8 Krinzinger, Fritz, et al. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Wohneinheiten 1 und 2; Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/8. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010.

FR 3.1 Downey, Susan B. The Excavations at Dura-Europos; Final Report 3, pt. 1: The Herakles Sculpture. New Haven: Dura- Europos Publications, 1969.

FR 3.1.2 Downey, Susan B. The Excavations at Dura-Europos; Final report 3, pt. 1, fasc. 2: The Stone and Plaster Sculpture. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1977.

FR 4 Baur, P.C.V. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report 4, pt. 3: The Lamps. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947.

FR 5.1 Welles, C. Bradford, Robert O. Fink, and Frank J. Gilliam. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report 5.1. The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.

Gottry Gottry, Heather C. “Domestic Religion in Graeco-Roman Karanis: Origins, Theories, and New Approaches.” Honors Thesis, University of Michigan, 1995.

Guardians Gazda, Elaine, ed. Guardians of the Nile: Sculptures from Karanis in the Fayoum (c. 250 BC-AD 450): Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 14- December 17, 1978. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1978.

Husselman Husselman, Elinor and Enoch Peterson. Karanis Excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt, 1928-1935: Topography and Architecture: a Summary of the Reports of the Director, Enoch E. Peterson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1979.

xvii

Karanis Gazda, Elaine, ed. Karanis, an Egyptian Town in Roman Times: Discoveries of the University of Michigan Expedition to Egypt (1924-1935). 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 2004.

PR 3 Baur, P.V.C., M.I. Rostovtzeff, and A.R. Bellinger, eds. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of third season of work, November 1929 - March 1930. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932.

PR 4 Baur, P.V.C., M.I. Rostovtzeff, and A.R. Bellinger, eds. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of fourth season of work, October 1930-March 1931. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933.

PR 5 Baur, P.V.C., M.I. Rostovtzeff, and P.T. Toll, eds. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of the fifth season of work, October 1931 – March 1932. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934.

PR 6 Rostovtzeff, M.I., A.R. Bellinger, C. Hopkins, and C.B. Welles, eds. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of sixth season of work, October 1932-March 1933. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936.

PR 7/8 Rostovtzeff, M. I., F.E. Brown, and C.B. Welles, eds. Excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of the seventh and eighth seasons at work, 1933-1934 and 1934-1935. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939.

PR 9.1 Rostovtzeff, M.I., ed. The excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of the ninth season of work, 1935 – 1936, Part 1: The agora and bazaar. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1944.

xviii

Quatember Diss. Quatember, Ursula. “Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos im Spiegel seiner Hausheiligtümer: Evidenzen für private Religionsausübung im östlichen Mittelmeerraum in römischer Zeit.” Ph. D. Diss, University of Vienna, 2000.

Rathmayr Rathmayr, Elisabeth. “Gotter- und Kaiserkult im privaten Wohnbereich anhand von Skulpturen aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos.” Römische historische Mitteilungen 48 (2006): 103-135.

Wall Painting Zimmermann, N. and S. Ladstätter. Wall Painting in Ephesos: From the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider S.R.L., 2011.

xix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Overview of the Project

The ancient Roman domestic cult is often overlooked and marginalized in favor

of state sponsored practices, monuments, and temples; yet it can give us insights into

daily life, cultural interactions, and personal identity. I recreate a selection of domestic

contexts to learn more about private cultic practices, thus illuminating those practices that

may be far removed from what appears in the literary sources and in monumental reliefs

and paintings. Furthermore, the era considered is a crucial period in the history of the

western world that included the rise of Christianity and changes in Roman pagan cults.

By concentrating on the Roman East I will produce information relating to these changes outside of Italy and study the impact on cross-cultural exchanges and the identities formulated by the Roman colonization of these sites.

Scholars agree that we can learn more from smaller, regional studies rather than the sweeping and sometimes vague histories of years past. The case-study approach has as its premise the assumption that the same things did not occur in all parts of the empire and at all times.1 I have chosen three sites from the Roman East: Karanis (modern

Egypt), Ephesos (modern Turkey), and Dura-Europos (modern Syria). These three sites

1 Natalie Kampen, “On Writing Histories on Roman Art,” Art Bulletin 85.2 (2003): 371-386; Miguel John

Versluys, “Exploring Identities in the Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman East,” Bibliotheca Orientalis

65.3-4 (2008): 345; David J. Mattingly. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).

have an abundance of material evidence that has not been exploited to its full potential. I was able to access unpublished material, which allowed me to consider the sites in new ways. Furthermore, the natures of these three vastly different locations—a veteran colony, a large metropolis, and a garrison town—will create stimulating comparison.

Traditionally, domestic life in general was greatly neglected by the archaeological field; if it was addressed, the small finds and the buildings from which they came were considered separately.2 In contrast, I recontextualize the objects into their original find- spots, a method put forward by Penelope Allison in the 1990s but one that is still all too rarely utilized.3 Moreover, by looking at these three sites, I am able to move the dialogue away from the near singular discussion of the practice of domestic cult in first-century

Italy, especially the towns buried by the debris of Mount Vesuvius. My discussion will center on cities and times when the domestic cult was rapidly changing and being affected by the advent of new cults from the east, whether the cult of Isis and Serapis, which enjoyed widespread popularity, or gods more specific to a region such as Baal or

Hadad in Syria.

Considering the physical remains of the domestic cult in the East during this time of great change permits me to contribute to the discussion of “Romanization” in the first

2 A. Ault Bradley and Lisa C. Nevett, “Digging Houses: Archaeologies of Classical and Hellenistic Greek

Domestic Assemblages,” in The Archaeology of Household Activities, Penelope Allison (ed.), (London:

Routledge, 1999), 43.

3 Penelope Allison, “How do we identify the use of Space in Roman Housing?” in Function and Spatial

Analysis of Wall Paintings, E.M. Moormann (ed.) (Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 4-11; Penelope Allison,

Pompeian Households: An Analysis of the Material Culture (Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Technology,

2004).

to fifth centuries CE. By comparing these sites with those much better published, such as

Pompeii and Ostia (Rome’s port, which was largely abandoned in the second half of the third into the fourth centuries), I can more clearly show the contrast between the eastern and western regions of the Empire. My goals will be to determine how (and if)

“Romanization” can be seen in these locations, the impact of local artistic styles and indigenous deities, and how the reciprocal relationship is evident in daily religious practices within the home.

Karanis, an agricultural town in the Fayoum region of Egypt, was the focus of excavations by the University of Michigan in the 1920s and 1930s. The site has yielded finds from the town’s founding in the Ptolemaic period (circa 250 BCE) into late antiquity (fifth to sixth centuries CE). Egypt was annexed by Rome after the defeat of

Antony and Cleopatra in 30 BCE, and Karanis became a veteran colony. Throughout the

Roman period, the town enjoyed relative prosperity until around the fifth century when it was gradually abandoned.

Unlike Karanis, which was a small, middle-class town, Ephesos was an enormous city, with deep roots in its Greek past, housing the famous cult center of the goddess

Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Brought under Roman sway in the second century BCE, it became the Roman capital of the province of Asia in 29 BCE.

It was also an important center for the Christian church, until the seventh century, when natural disasters and Arab attacks facilitated its decline.

For Ephesos, I focus on the Terrace Houses, which are a series of upper-class homes built on the hillside above the main forum of Roman Ephesos. They consist of two major building units, Hanghaus One and Hanghaus Two. Each “house” was a large

structure that was divided into several apartments. Based on the size of the domestic units and the decorative finds, they appear to have been occupied by a range of wealthy to very wealthy inhabitants. The houses were excavated by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in the 1960s and 70s.

Dura-Europos (excavated by Yale in the 1920s and 30s) is most famous for its synagogue, house-church, and mithraeum, preserved under an embankment created to fortify the city walls against its ultimate sack by Sassanian Persians in 256 CE. It is also valuable for my thesis because of its diverse population and rich history that began with the town’s founding as a Hellenized Seleucid settlement in 303 BCE. It became part of the Parthian Empire in 113 BCE and subsequently fell to the Romans circa 165 CE. After the sack the town was left abandoned.

My consideration of the domestic cult begins with the description of what can be found in the three sites I have chosen to study. The cult can be seen in the particular deities represented as both sculptures and paintings within the house. Other evidence for the practice of domestic cult includes architectural features (such as shrines built into house walls), altars, and portable incense burners. The number of homes and the material evidence is too extensive to attempt a reconstruction of the domestic cult in all the houses from these three sites; therefore, parameters are necessary. I have selected homes that have multiple indications of domestic religion. For instance, a lone statue of a deity found in a home is not sufficient evidence for religious practice. The houses must have a combination of different types of objects, where possible in a single room.

Each of the sites will be analyzed in three chapters. The first will include a historical overview that will encompass a history of the site in antiquity, a survey of the

excavations, and an examination of the cultural identities of the inhabitants as presented

in previous scholarship (chapters 2, 5 and 8). The latter will be illuminated through

textual and epigraphic evidence, an analysis of artistic styles, and a synopsis of religious practices at each location. In these sections I will also lay out my descriptive terminology as the three sites are not homogenous.

The chapters following the overview will present my case-studies (chapters 3, 6, and 9). Each home will be presented as an individual catalog entry. Religious objects from the homes are discussed room by room, as I consider subject and style. A brief summary in view of the cultural identity of the inhabitants will follow each catalog entry.

The third sections will analyze the case-studies as a group by site (chapters 4, 7,

and 10). I will take into account the contents of the homes in relation to each other as

well as the evidence presented previously in the overview chapters. Finally, my

conclusion will consider the way these sites compared to one another and to the domestic

cult in Italy.

Before I begin my case-studies, I will present the problems associated with

Romanization and acculturation. This will include my methodological framework.

Finally in this chapter, I will provide a brief overview of the Roman domestic cult in

Italy.

“Romanization:” Approach and Methodology

One barrier to understanding the domestic cult in its original context is the

multicultural nature of the Roman Empire. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

scholars tended to equate the Roman Empire with the concept of the modern nation-state. 5

The Empire was seen as a cultural juggernaut that spawned a uniform Roman identity transmitted from Italy to the provinces.4 Evidence for “Romanization” was noted in new types of public buildings such as baths or amphitheaters, the adoption of Roman coinage, the toga and the Latin language, as well as the introduction of Roman cults, especially the cult of the emperor.5 Most scholars today prefer to view the Empire’s expansion as a process that included reciprocal acculturation between natives and their Roman masters.6

Using this model, I examine religious cross-currents on a domestic scale, thus contributing to the current scholarly discussion. By exploring the cult in the home, we

4 Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen, “Introduction,” in Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation,

Resistance. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg,

January 23-26, 2005, Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen, ed. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2006), 10.

5 Nicola Terranato, “Introduction.” in Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, S. Keay and

N. Terrenato, eds. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001), 1. Louise Revell, Roman Imperialism and Local

Identities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 5-6; David J. Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 38-40.

6 The bibliography is extensive. Some key dialogues framing the current discussion appear in: Susan B.

Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the East (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997); Greg Woolf, “Beyond

Romans and Natives,” World Archaeology 28, no. 3 (1997): 339-350; Elizabeth Fentress, ed.,

Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures: Proceedings of a Conference held at the American Academy in Rome to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Excavations at Cosa (Portsmouth:

Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000); S. Keay and N. Terrenato, eds., Italy and the West: Comparative

Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001); Roman Roth and Johannes Keller, eds., Roman by

Integration: Dimensions of Group Identity in Material Culture and Text. Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Supplementary Series, 66 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2007); Revell, Roman

Imperialism; Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity.

can form a better conception of the interaction between native and Roman in the private

sphere.

The terminology surrounding issues of multiculturalism and identity is complex

and problematic. Romanization has been rejected, dissected, and reimagined. Some

scholars have even called for its complete removal from the vocabulary of Roman

studies.7 Yet it remains in use within the scholarship in different capacities and with

varying definitions. The primary reason for the rejection of its use is that the term implies

a one-way dissemination of Roman culture from the top down.8 Thus the term

acculturation became its replacement—implying that the relationship between Rome and

the provinces was not one-sided but rather interactive; both groups contributed to a new

kind of identity.9 Nevertheless even this term has recently been rejected by scholars as too simplistic. Indeed, there are differences among provinces, among inhabitants of provinces, and even in degrees of Romanness. There was not one uniform type of Roman culture.

Louise Revell sums up part of this problem: “Rather than expecting homogeneity

within the archaeology of the provinces of the empire, we need to acknowledge that there

7 Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity, 40; Revell, Roman Imperialism, 7.

8 Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity, 38-9.

9 Simon Keay, “Introduction (Part Two),” in Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization,

Simon Keay and Nicola Terrenato, eds. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001), 113; Susan B. Alcock, “Heroic

Myths, but not for our times,” in Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures:

Proceedings of a Conference held at the American Academy in Rome to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of

the Excavations at Cosa, Elizabeth Fentress, ed. (Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000), 222.

is an inherent paradox of similarity and variability….”10 Miguel John Versluys warns that

acculturation “describes but does not explain.”11 In some circles the term cultural

bricolage is preferred as a means to understand how identity is expressed. In this model

objects and ideas are given new functions, thus implying agency instead of a faulty sense

of cultural change occurring “naturally.”12

I accept that the notion of acculturation is inherently flawed when viewed on an

empire-wide stage. Yet, it is a useful term so long as it is used with caution and in specific

contexts. This is why the case-study approach is essential to understanding

multiculturalism. Although the nature of the evidence does not permit total understanding

of a region’s cultural identity, smaller studies permit a general reading—such as the

degree to which Roman religion or cultural values impacted a local culture.

One issue that I will be dealing with in my case-studies is the Romanization of the

east. In the west, Rome conquered lands whose indigenous identities were relatively

constant. In the east, however, the native peoples had already been conquered by Greeks.

Thus, this makes the character of my choice of sites even more complicated. One

example of this is the cult of Artemis of Ephesos. Her native Anatolian characteristics

were eclipsed by her new, Greek identity as “Artemis” although she could retain a very

non-Greek appearance.13

10 Revell, Roman Identity, 2.

11 Versluys, “Exploring Identities,” 355.

12 Miguel John Versluys, “Material Culture and Identity in the Late Roman Republic (c. 200-c. 20),” in A

Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic, Jane DeRose Evans, ed. (Malden: Blackwell,

2013), 434.

13 Richard E. Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate.” ANRW II.18.3 (1990): 1726-28.

Furthermore, the Romans themselves appropriated aspects of Hellenic culture

despite their wariness of the “decadence” of the Greeks. This appropriation is evident in

religion, the arts, and in elite education.14 For instance, on the domestic level, the snakes

so common in Pompeian house shrines appear to have had a Greek origin.15 In some

cases it will be impossible to distinguish between Greek and Roman and so Greco-

Roman will be employed as a descriptor, especially in arguments related to style.

Moreover, there is the issue of elite provincials. David Mattingly questions what

we know of provincials besides elites and the Roman army, but cannot provide an answer.

We get our very notions of Romanization and acculturation from provincial elites.16 We

do not have first-hand accounts of what a non-elite thought about being incorporated into

the Roman Empire.17 Jane Webster put forth a new model of creolization for this very

reason. Creolization is based on the idea that two cultures come together to create a new

blended one. Inherent in this notion is the fact that one culture is dominant.18 Webster

sees provincial non-elite adaptation of certain Roman elements as something that is little more than a fact of life. The use of Roman pottery for instance may simply have been

14 Greg Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40

(1995):118-120.

15 Martin P. Nilsson, “Roman and Greek Domestic Cult,” Opuscula Romana 1 (1954): 79.

16 Martin Millett, “Romanization: Historical Issues and Archaeological Interpretation,” in The Early Roman

Empire in the West, Thomas Blagg and Martin Millet (eds.) (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1990); Revell, Roman

Imperialism, 6-7.

17 Mattingly, Imperialism, Power, and Identity, 26-27.

18 Jane Webster, “Creolizing the Roman Provinces,” AJA 105.2 (2001): 217.

what was available to them and not something that they actively sought out.19

The material evidence at Karanis and Dura-Europos will aid in redressing the

imbalance regarding elite versus non-elite “Romanization.” While the populations at

these sites had individuals who were wealthier than the majority of the city’s inhabitants, they were not on the same level of the urban elites in a powerful city such as Ephesos. As will be demonstrated below, even the upper class citizens at Karanis and Dura-Europos did not have access to the Roman political system. Their political and economic status pivoted on agriculture or trade, not on public service.20 At Ephesos we see elite resistance

to Roman culture with the simultaneous embrace of select Roman cultural aspects to gain

power and status.21

One other major problem I would like to address is that of style. Versluys has

cautioned that it is dangerous to use style as a means for identifying cultural identity,

particularly when attempting to label an object as either Greek or Roman.22 It is true that

stylistic choice cannot be used as an index of cultural identity; we must use it in

conjunction with all of the evidence available: textual, epigraphic, and artifactual.

Furthermore, there is a difference between the artistic style of a public monument and the

style of an object chosen by an individual for one’s home. I apply an analysis of style

with the understanding that sometimes it can create the illusion that we understand more

19 Webster, “Creolizing the Roman Provinces,” 218-19.

20 The exception to this is the Macedonian “aristocracy” at Dura-Europos who did maintain some civic

authority, but this was only in the first years of the Roman conquest of the city. See chapter 8.

21 For example see: Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” 116-143.

22 Versluys, “Exploring Identities,” 344; Versluys, “Material Culture and Identity,” 432-434.

about a group than we do. Yet at other times it is the best tool for interpreting an object.

Furthermore, style must be seen as a mode of visual language, assigning meaning to an

object’s functionality and not simply as an expression of taste. An example of such would

be the rejection by non-elite Romans of a highly naturalistic style in favor of one that

better expresses their identity.23

I will also consider the theory of religious identity, employing the method laid out

by Lucinda Dirven.24 She discusses three types of religious interaction: assimilation,

acculturation, and differentiation. Although her study focuses on natives of Palmyra, her

approach will be equally meaningful in my assessments for Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-

Europos. “Assimilation” describes religious interaction that occurs when a person

transforms foreign elements into his or her own culture. The meaning of these elements

may or may not change. It creates a dialogue between the cultures and permits them to

understand one another. For instance, in Syria the eastern goddess Allât appropriates the

costume of Athena. For some the visual representation of Athena would invoke the idea

of Allât and vice versa.25 Religious “acculturation” occurs when multiple frames of

reference can exist harmoniously even if they appear to be contradictory. An example of

this would involve a person’s acceptance of a foreign cult without changing it, even if it

is different from another one of this individual’s beliefs. “Differentiation” is when a

23 John Clarke, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: Visual Representation and Non-Elite Viewers in Italy,

100 B.C. – A.D. 315 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 272.

24 Lucinda Dirven, The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria.

(Leiden: Brill, 1999).

25 See chapters 8-9.

group tries to retain its original cultural identity.26 This does not necessarily indicate a complete rejection of another culture’s religious ideas, but rather the continuation of practices that may speak better to the local populace. This is seen at Karanis in the preference for deities that express agrarian values as the town’s economy revolved around farming.27 As I have already noted in my discussion of “Romanization,” these concepts

can overlap, and individuals within a community may experience varying levels of

assimilation, acculturation, and differentiation.

Dirven criticizes the use of the term syncretism when applied to religion;

therefore I must address my use of the term. She asserts that in religious study

“syncretism” has taken on a negative connotation which implies that one group

contaminates another. Although perhaps this is the case in complex discussions of

religious theory, I have yet to come across this interpretation in my own research. Dirven

also adds that all religions have a composite origin and thus the concept is irrelevant.28 I

agree that the term should not be used to describe an entire religious environment, such as

“the religion of the Roman East was syncretistic,” yet when addressing a specific

situation—such as Isis Panthea—it is appropriate to call the image syncretistic.29 In this

guise the goddess clearly appropriates the attributes (and powers), that is, the visual

markers of other goddesses such as Athena, Nike, and Fortuna, while retaining her

identity of Isis as evinced through the adornment of her crown. I believe that syncretism

26 Dirven 1999, xx-xxi.

27 See chapter 4.

28 Dirven 1999, xix.

29 See for instance Chapter 6, Terrace Houses Cat. 3.

is an applicable term to this kind of overt blending of deities.

The Domestic Cult in Italy

Finally, before presenting my case-studies from the Roman East, an overview of

the traditional Roman domestic cult is necessary. In Italy, Romans invoked specific gods

to maintain the well-being of the home in small shrines within the house. Material

evidence for these practices survives in the form of statuettes and wall paintings of the

gods, incense burners, and altars. Other divinities chosen by the head of the household

could join or supplant the traditional domestic deities. These additions to private shrines

acted as protective patron gods of the household and reveal a personal relationship

between deity and devotee.

The seminal works on Roman Italy are those of George Boyce and David Orr.30

Boyce’s corpus is a valuable undertaking that cataloged the shrines from Pompeii. Orr’s

study expanded on that of Boyce, by adding Herculaneum, but also by attempting a more

interpretive approach to the material. The most recent large-scale survey is by Thomas

Frölich.31 This includes a detailed catalog as well, adding the painted shrines discovered

after Boyce’s 1937 book. Yet, Frölich does not consider what was in the room along with

30 George K. Boyce, “Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 14

(1937). David Gerald Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion. A Study of the Roman Household Deities and their

Shrines at Pompeii and Herculaneum,” PhD Diss., University of Maryland, 1972.

31 Thomas Frölich, Lararian- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten. Untersuchen zur “Volkstümlichen”

Pompejanischen Malerei (Mainz: Zabern, 1991).

these paintings. His analysis is primarily art historical and thus it contributes more to our

knowledge of Roman painting rather than domestic religion.

Only one substantial publication on the domestic cult at Ostia exists: Jan Theo

Bakker’s book from 1994.32 Bakker includes all private religion—any religion that was

not run by the state. He was the first to consider this very important and neglected aspect

of religion at Ostia and he carefully compiled an extensive catalog in addition to a discussion of the evidence.

Although some aspects of domestic religion were pervasive throughout the ancient world, there are some practices and deities that have a specifically Italic origin.

The deities include the Lares, the Penates, and the Genius. The Roman house was a center for both family life and domestic religion. The activities were likely presided over by the head of the household, but all members would have taken part.33

The Lares were gods of very ancient origins, but their early history is shrouded in

mystery. By the third century BCE they had become deities of the home who protected

the family (lar familiaris).34 The familia included all members of a household, including

32 Jan Theo Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods: Studies of Evidence for Private Religion and its

Material Environment in the City of Ostia (100-500 AD) (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1994).

33 Mary Beard, John North and Simon Price, Religions of Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1998), 102.

34 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 13-14; Plautus, Aulularia, 1-5.

slaves.35 The Lares are worshiped in pairs and are depicted as dancing youths wearing

tunics and holding rhytons (see fig. 1.2). Typical offerings to them include incense, spelt,

Fig. 1.1. Typical painted shrine at Pompeii from a thermopolium with attached apartment (I.viii.8). Note the shelf for offerings and stucco aedicular decoration (photo: author).

grapes, grain, honey cakes, honeycomb, first fruit, wine, and blood sacrifices. They also

received special offerings on occasions important to the family such as a youth’s first

beard before he dons the toga virilis.36

The Penates were originally numina of the pantry (penus). They were associated with Vesta and the hearth.37 The word Penates can also be used to describe all of the

35 John Bodel, “Cicero’s Minerva, Penates, and the Mother of the Lares: An Outline of Roman Domestic

Religion” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. eds. (Malden,

MA: Blackwell, 2008), 248.

36 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 19-23.

domestic deities. Unlike the Lares, there was not a formula for the representation of the

Penates.38 Rather, they materialized more as patron deities of the home, chosen by the

owner who had a particular affinity for their powers.39

Fig. 1.2. Detail of 1.1. Center: Genius; flanking the Genius are the Lares; outside: Hermes and Dionysos; below: two serpents approach an altar (photo: author).

The third component was the Genius (fig. 1.2). This was not a god but a numen,

the spirit of the paterfamilias, the head of the household.40 He was responsible for the

37 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 34-40.

38 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 43.

39 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 44; Bodel, “Cicero’s Minerva,” 261-2.

continuation of the family. The Genius was depicted as a togate man, holding a

cornucopia, and sacrificing at an altar.41 He can also be identified due to the fact that he

is generally accompanied by Lares and serpents. The serpents are shown singly or in

pairs. They approach an altar that holds offerings such as pinecones or eggs, symbols of

42 regeneration.

The exact meaning of the snakes is unknown, but they were associated with

fertility and good fortune in the ancient world.43 It has been suggested that they represent

the Genius of the paterfamilias, but Boyce questions this. He believed they were the

“Genius of the Place” because the Genius of the Paterfamilias was already represented as

a man in the company of the snakes.44 It has also been suggested that these snakes

depicted Agathos-Daimon, a quasi-Greek version of the Genius, but this proposal has

been rejected.45 Initially, Agathos-Daimon was represented anthropomorphically, but

later he appears as a snake at Alexandria. The snakes on Italian house shrines do not

follow the conventions of the snake form of Agathos-Daimon, such as wearing Egyptian

40 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 45.

41 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 54.

42 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 105.

43 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 59, 64.

44 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 80; George K. Boyce, “Significance of the Serpents on Pompeian

House Shrines,” American Journal of Archaeology 46.1 (1942): 15-18; David Orr, “Learning from Lararia:

Notes on the Household Shrines of Pompeii,” Stvdia Pompeiana & Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F.

Jashemski, vol. 1, Robert I. Curtis (ed.) (New Rochelle: Orpheus Publishing, 1988), 354.

45 David Orr, “Snakes on Pompeiian Household Shrines,” in The Natural History of Pompeii, Wilhelmina

Feemster Jashemski and Frederick G. Meyer (eds.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 352-3;

headgear, so they should not be viewed as such.46 It is likely that they are both protectors

of the home and extensions of the regenerative powers of the paterfamilias.47

The worship of the household gods could take various forms. Shrines are generally of three types: niche, aedicula, or painting. Shrine niches are distinguished from ordinary niches by including some sort of embellishment, typically an aedicular façade.

Aedicula shrines are actual structures that resemble miniature temples. Both niches and aedicula can have painted decorations but the gods are generally represented by statuettes of various media. In addition to these two types it is also possible to have a wall painting of the domestic gods, alleviating the need for statuettes (fig. 1.1). In all cases provisions for sacrifice, such as an altar, would have been present but these do not always survive.48

Typically in Campania shrines were located in kitchens, whereas at Ostia most shrines were located in peristyles and gardens.49 It was not uncommon for homes to have

more than one shrine, especially in the larger houses. These would accommodate the

various groups within the household including slaves.50 At Pompeii, smaller homes and

places of business tended to have a single shrine in the kitchen. Larger houses would add

46 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 77

47 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 80; Bodel, “Cicero’s Minerva,” 257; Beard, Price, and North,

Religions of Rome, 103.

48 Boyce, “Corpus of the Lararia,” 10-18.

49 Bodel, “Cicero’s Minerva,” 255-6.

50 Annemarie Kaufmann-Heinimann, “Religion in the House,” in A Companion to Roman Religion, Jörg

Rüpke, ed. (Malden: Blackwell, 2007), 199.

shrines in gardens, peristyles, and atria.51 The House of Menander at Pompeii had as

many as six shrines.52

The entire traditional ensemble functioned as a means to ensure the wellbeing of

the home. The family was sustained through the protection of its food stores. The

domestic cult also guarded against evil forces that could potentially make their way into

the house. Finally, the maintenance of the Genius ensured the continuation of the family.

Exempla

Fig. 1.3. Plan of House of the Skeleton, adapted from Maiuri, fig. 213.

51 Pedar W. Foss, “Watchful Lares: Roman Household organization and the rituals of cooking and eating,” in Domestic Space in the Roman World, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and Ray Laurence, eds. (Portsmouth:

Journal of Roman Studies, 1997), 206-7.

52 Foss, “Watchful Lares,” 213; Penelope Allison, The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii, vol. III (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 2006), 56, 80-85, 309.

I will briefly present two examples that can be considered typical of Italian

domestic religious ensembles of the upper middle class. The first is the House of the

Skeleton from Herculaneum (fig. 1.3).53 This home contained multiple elements that can

be considered typical of what can be expected from first-century Campania. Upon entering the home the visitor arrives in the atrium. In the left ala (d) is a niche high on the wall (fig. 1.4). Its location close to the entrance of the home and its shallow depth suggests that it served as a small painted shrine.54 Another small shrine with a shelf was

found in room 17. This is thought to be the kitchen.55

Two other rooms contained elaborate shrines. Across from room 6 was a

nymphaeum (fig. 1.5). In addition to a mosaic niche there were two rectangular basins on

either side. Although in some homes domestic nymphaea may have functioned simply as

decorative fountains, in others they irrefutably served as shrines to the nymphs.56 The

niche is decorated with fictive curtains and candelabra (fig. 1.6). Above, three of the

original mosaic panels survive. The one farthest to the left represents a shepherd and a goat. To its right is an altar and garlands. On the far right is a woman carrying a platter.

53 Casa dell Scheletro III.3; Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 193, corpus B, cats 1-3.

54 A. Maiuri, Ecrolano: I Nuovi Scavi (Rome: Instituto poligrafico dello Stata, Libreria della Stato, 1958),

270

55 Not pictured. The room was inaccessible at time of my visit. See Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” pl. 1,

fig. 1.

56 See chapter 6.

Fig. 1.4. Niche in ala. Fig. 1.5. Nymphaeum (Photos: author)

Fig. 1.6. Detail of nymphaeum niche. Fig. 1.7. Pseudo-aedicula shrine (photos: author)

The final item of note is a pseudo-aedicula niche located opposite oecus 10 (fig.

1.7). It is labeled as a nymphaeum as there was a pool there but Maiuri also identifies this

extension of the room as a sacello.57 The shrine is covered in mosaic. Inside the niche is

the head of a gorgon, a common apotropaic device. Situated before the structure are the

possible remains of a masonry altar or a podium for a statuette.58 This home represents

the typical domestic assemblage of a wealthy family. Some of the shrines are finely

decorated and in reception rooms that would have been accessible to elite guests. Other

shrines are smaller and more in keeping with the day to day activities of the familia.

Fig. 1.8. Plan of House of Fortuna Annonaria, adaoted from Becatti, fig 23. North is north.

At Ostia we have evidence for the domestic cult surviving from the third and

fourth centuries.59 The nature of the site is different in that it was gradually abandoned

unlike Pompeii or Herculaneum. This means there is not as much preserved because

57 Maiuri, Ercolano, 271.

58 Maiuri, Ercolano, 272.

59 Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods, 178.

people would have taken items with them.60 Furthermore, the decorative wall paintings

and other items were left to the elements before finally being buried by time.

The House of Fortuna Annonaria provides an example of a typical wealthy home

in Ostia from the fourth century CE (fig. 1.8).61 A large number of sculptures of a

religious nature were rediscovered in the home, some in situ. Its name comes from the

statue of Fortuna of the grain supply located in section 13 of the peristyle garden (fig.

1.9).62 The entrance, room 1, is on the north side of the house. Immediately upon entering

Fig. 1.9. Statue of Fortuna Annonaria Fig. 1.10. Aedicula with Artemis (cast) (photos: author)

60 Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods, 13.

61 The home was constructed in the second century but went under renovations in the fourth century.

Johannes S. Boersma, Amoenissima Civitas: Block V.ii at Ostia (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), 47.

62 Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods, 35-6, 236, cats. A 81-3.

the viewer sees an aedicula on the far side of the garden. A statue of Hera or Demeter was found in the niche although currently a statue of Artemis is displayed there; it originally came from room 15 (fig.1.10).63

Fig. 1.11. Hall 15, from the peristyle garden Fig. 1.12. Nymphaeum on left of 15 (photos: author)

Fig. 1.13. Crouching Aphrodite, Ostia Museum Fig. 1.14. Bust of Kore, Ostia Museum (Photos: Author)

63 Giovanni Becatti, Case Ostiensi del Tardo Impero (Roma: La Libreria dello Stato, 1949), 23. The original statue is now lost.

To the right of the garden is a hall (15) that contained a nymphaeum on its south

wall (figs. 1.11 and 1.12).64 Within one of the niches a statue of a crouching Aphrodite was found (fig. 1.13). A statue of a Genius, supposedly of Autumn, was also found in the nymphaeum.65 A statue of Ceres was located in the lone niche on the apsidal portion of

15.66 In addition to these statues were several busts, including an archaizing bust of Kore

(fig. 1.14).67

No traditional lararium was found in the home. It was suggested that a niche in

room 3 served this function, but there is no evidence to support this.68 In Bakker’s

catalog of the evidence for all private religion at Ostia, the Lares are only depicted

twice.69 This may be due to the nature of the evidence that has survived. As Theodosius

outlawed the worship of the Lares, Penates, and Genius in the fourth century, this would

suggest this practice still existed then.70 However, it is equally possible the role of the

traditional Italian household cult had diminished by this time.

64 Becatti, Case Ostiensi, 24; Boersma, Amoenissima Civitas, 52-3.

65 Becatti, Case Ostiensi, 24; Boersma, Amoenissima Civitas, 158.

66 Becatti, Case Ostiensi, 24.

67 Becatti, Case Ostiensi, 24. The other busts are now lost.

68 The niche as a lararium was suggested by Becatti but rejected by Boersma. Becatti, Case Ostiensi, 25;

Boersma, Amoenissima Civitas, 146.

69 Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods, cats. B1 and C.

70 Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods, 12; Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 80; Cod. Theodosian.

XVI.10.2.

What does remain from the House of Fortuna Annonaria, reveals a preference for

traditional Greco-Roman deities. The style of these figures is also strongly rooted in the

Greco-Roman tradition. The crouching Aphrodite was a popular type throughout the

empire, based ultimately on a Greek Hellenistic prototype.71 The Fortuna follows the

conventions of this type. She wears a girt chiton and himation with the drapery

painstakingly carved and revealing her body beneath. She is enthroned, wears a mural

crown, and holds a cornucopia and oar in her left hand.72

It is evident that Artemis was represented as a young woman despite her missing

head. She stands in contrapposto and wears her standard hunting tunic, which slips off

slightly at her right shoulder. The support is in the form of a tree trunk with an animal

pelt laid upon it.

The bust of Kore is “archaizing” in the sense that it draws on the art of sixth

century Greece but also employs the more naturalistic execution of later styles.73 The archaizing element can be seen in the stylized hair and the almond shaped eyes. Although first attested in the Hellenistic period, archaistic styles continued to be used by the

71 Christine Mitchell Havelock, The Aphrodite of Knidos and her Successors: A Historical Review of the

Female Nude in Greek Art (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 80-83.

72 Bakker, Living and Working with the Gods, 22n9. The mural crown she wears has led some to suggest she was a Tyche of Ostia.

73 J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 177.

Romans to create a sacred mood or ambiance, to draw on the types of feelings

encountered when one experiences an ancient religious relic.74

In the homes at both Pompeii and Ostia there is an affinity for deities of the

Greco-Roman pantheon. The only true exception to this is the prevalence of Egyptian

deities Isis, Serapis, and Harpokrates. Yet they do not generally appear in their Egyptian

form, but rather as Greco-Roman gods. Most commonly Isis appears in the guise of Isis-

Fortuna.75 Her association with prosperity and abundance complemented the other

domestic gods.76 It seems that in some cases Egyptian deities even took over the roles of some of the traditional household gods.77 Thus, outside of Egypt, I categorize Isis and

Serapis as Greco-Roman deities. In Egypt, the picture is more complex and this will be discussed in chapter 2.

Clearly cultural identity is a very complicated issue, and one that is difficult to

define, especially among the lower classes due to a paucity of textual and epigraphic

evidence. In the chapters that follow I will present in more detail some of the problems

specifically associated with the sites of Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-Europos in

conjunction with material evidence from the homes that has not been previously studied

to this degree. With the added consideration of personal religious choices, I will be able

to contribute new evidence to the discussion of multiculturalism in the Roman Empire.

74 Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, 184.

75 David Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion: the Evidence of Household Shrines,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II.16.2 (1978): 1580.

76 V. Tam Tran Tinh, Essai sur le Culte d’Isis à Pompéi (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1964), 109.

77 Tinh, Essai sur le Culte d’Isis à Pompéi, 106.

CHAPTER 2

THE HISTORY OF KARANIS AND OVERVIEW OF THE SITE

History of the Town

Karanis was one of the many towns created in the Fayoum region of Egypt under

Ptolemy II Philadelphos (reigned 285-247 BCE). Under his patronage, Lake Moeris was

partially drained to increase the fertile area of the region, in the hopes that ethnic Greek

immigrants would settle there. Creating a new, farmable area encouraged the integration

of Greek and local Egyptians.78 Karanis was larger than many of the villages in the

region and enjoyed a prosperous economy.79 Throughout the town’s existence, probably into the sixth century CE, the economy remained an agricultural one.

Augustus’ annexation of Egypt in 30 BCE brought new landlords (everything after this date will henceforth be referred to as the “Roman Period”). At Karanis, the transition from Ptolemaic to Roman rule occurred with little or no incident. Greek remained the official language of documents, and the farmers kept farming. A considerable veteran community existed at Karanis, but, as will be discussed below, they

80 were likely native Egyptians.

The entire Fayoum faced a major recession in the late second century, in part due

78 Guardians, 9.

79 Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1994), 55-6. Based on tax returns the average village had about 1000-1500 inhabitants whereas Karanis had 4000 (in the second century before the Antonine plague).

80 Gabriele Wesch-Klein, "Recruits and Veterans." in A Companion to the Roman Army, ed. Paul Erdkamp

(Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 438.

to a plague that severely depopulated the area.81 Yet, improvements came and the

Severan period is thought to have been a time of relative economic prosperity.82 The

second quarter of the third century brought crisis all over the Empire. Specifically in

Egypt, the state ceased to fund Egyptian temples, which explains the apparent closure of

the temples at Karanis at this time.83

At some point the decline was irreversible and the town was abandoned. It is

generally agreed that this happened gradually, with the excavators proposing it began in

the fourth century with complete abandonment by the fifth. But recent evidence suggests

the town continued to exist, even thrive to a point, beyond this. Nigel Pollard has

demonstrated that the pottery evidence shows that the town was occupied until at least the

sixth century and remained prosperous through the fifth; proper comparanda of pottery

types did not exist at the time of the initial excavations.84 The town may have been at its

economic peak from around the third century to 500 CE rather than the first century BCE

81 Guardians, 9-10; Allen diss., 131-2. The severity and degree of impact of the plague is debated, but it is agreed that it would have affected the population on some level. See for instance Walter Scheidel, “A

model of change in Egypt after the plague of A.D. 165,” JRA 15.1 (2002): 97-114 Bagnall’s response: “The

effects of plague: model and evidence,” JRA 15.1 (2002): 114-120.

82 Allen diss., 131-2.

83 Allen diss., 132; David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance

(Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1998), 27-30.

84 Nigel Pollard, “The Chronology and Economic Condition of Late Roman Karanis: An

Archaeological Reassessment,” JARCE 35 (1998): 147-8.

85 to 300 CE proposed by the excavators.

From the Karanis papyri we have considerable evidence for the importance of the

grain supply and information about its owners which included the state, temples, and

individuals.86 Excavators found a total of seventeen granaries, with ten of them being of

considerable size. These were used by a variety of clients; they housed the grain gathered

to pay taxes, but portions of the warehouses could also be leased for private use.87 The secondary source of income was the textile industry which primarily produced wool cloth. Shearers, weavers, fullers, and sellers are attested in the records as well as considerable material evidence in the form of tools.88

Excavation History and Problems

The town of Karanis was identified and surveyed by Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur

S. Hunt, and David G. Hogarth from Oxford in 1895.89 The University of Michigan

excavated at Karanis from 1924-35. This was thanks to the initiative of Francis Kelsey who wanted to shift focus away from Pharaonic Egypt. Greco-Roman sites had received some recent attention but more by people interested in pilfering papyri and not as a

means to try and understand daily life. Kelsey desired to find archaeological evidence

85 Richard Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History (London: Routledge, 1995), 119-

20.

86 Karanis, 10.

87 Karanis, 11.

88 Karanis, 15; Thelma Thomas, Textiles from Karanis (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology,

2001), 13.

89 Guardians, 10.

that could be used in conjunction with the papyrological finds.90

Although the town is a rich source for our understanding of daily life in antiquity, the site and the excavations are plagued with numerous problems that compromise our ability to have a full understanding of the material evidence. For instance, the final excavation reports were never fully published. In the early 1930s a fraction of the findings were published in two small reports.91 After the death of Enoch Peterson in 1978

(who directed the excavations between 1927-1935), Elinor Husselman published a short summary of his notes.92 Fortunately there have since been several excellent exhibitions put on by the Kelsey Museum that have published catalogs.93

Furthermore, the chronology set up by the excavators is somewhat problematic.

This is not entirely their fault; they made every attempt available to them at the time to

90 Karanis, 2; Peter van Minnen, “House-to-house Enquiries: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Roman

Karanis,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994): 227.

91 A.E.R. Boak, Karanis: The Temples, Coin Hoards, Botanical and Zoological Reports, Seasons 1924-31.

University of Michigan Studies 30 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1933); A.E.R. Boak and

Enoch Peterson, Karanis, Topographical and Architectural Report of Excavations during the Seasons

1924-28 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1931).

92 Elinor Husselman and Enoch Peterson, Karanis Excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt:

1928-1935; Topography and Architecture (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1979).

93 In particular: Elaine Gazda, Elaine, et al., Guardians of the Nile: Sculptures from Karanis in the Fayoum

(c. 250 BC-AD 450): Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 14-

December 17, 1978 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1978) and Elaine Gazda, Karanis, an

Egyptian Town in Roman Times: Discoveries of the University of Michigan Expedition to Egypt (1924-

1935). 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 2004). They continue creatively exhibit the material with an excellent exhibition taking place just last year curated by Terry Wilfong.

mark and record find spots carefully and they did not have Roman period Egyptian

pottery typologies to utilize.

The nature of the site itself also presents issues: new homes were frequently built

on top of old ones due to rubbish buildup and the constant influx of sand.94 In many cases

a first floor from a previous house would be converted into a basement for the new house,

thus compromising periods of use. There are also many cases where houses were thought

by the excavators to be from the same building periods, as they were on the same

physical level, but were not chronologically parallel.95

The Sebbakhim destroyed any possible chance of stratigraphy in certain areas in

their quest for mudbrick for use as fertilizer. These portions of the site were therefore

unexcavated as they would not be able to provide any kind of accurate dating. Part of this

area included what would have been the center of town so we have little information

about public religion outside of the two temples excavated by Michigan.96 In addition to

the search for fertilizer we do not know what other potentially damaging activities may

have occurred—such as quarrying for papyri, which had a huge market value.97

And, of course, as with any site we need to also consider simple accidents of time.

If the site was abandoned, certain items would have been taken with the owners. There is

94 Karanis, 19.

95 Thomas, Textiles, 26; Karanis, 22.

96 Alston, Soldier and Society, 120.

97 Lisa Nevett, “Family and Household, Ancient History and Archaeology: A Case Study from Roman

Egypt, in A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. ed. Beryl Rawson. (West Sussex:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2011), 19.

also always the possibility items were moved and dumped in antiquity.98 Many items

were used as fill when a lower level of a house was no longer in use. House contents

therefore must always be considered with this caveat.

Identity of Inhabitants

The problem of identity could, it would be thought, be aided by the plentiful

papyrological evidence. From Egypt over 300 census returns survive from between 11/12

to 257/58 CE with most from the second and early third century.99 From Karanis there are

22.100 But early studies of identity often gave undue significance to personal names of

individuals. A theophoric name based on one belonging to an Egyptian god but written in

Greek is difficult to interpret. Then there is the problem of individual families that utilize

a combination of names of Greek, Egyptian and Greco-Egyptian origins. A particularly

nice example of this is a papyrus from 291. Three generations are included, with some

family members holding Alexandrian or metropolitan citizenship. Even siblings can

alternate between Greek or Egyptian names. For example: Philippos (Greek), Gaios

(Roman), Melaina/Anoubiaina (double name), and Taeous (Egyptian).101

This same problem is faced by scholars of Roman era Egyptian portrait mummies.

Initial analysis of the names was though to reveal an elite group of Greek ancestry; this

98 Van Minnen, “House-to-house Enquiries,” 230.

99 Roger S. Bagnall and Bruce W. Frier, The Demography of Roman Egypt (Cambridge; New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1994), xv.

100 Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 57.

101 Roger S. Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 233; P. Corn.

18 (BL).

was primarily because the names were written in Greek, and many displayed Greek

characteristics. It is now thought that these names are in fact a complex, theophoric

combination of both Greek and Egyptian language as well as religious ideas. There is no

way to be sure of the subject’s ethnicity.102

Although the language of official documents was Greek we must assume most

people spoke Egyptian.103 Nor does is it seem that only Greek was used for legal

documents. Demotic contracts, even among people with Greek names, are known.104

Many people were illiterate and employed scribes to write in Greek or Egyptian. Yet there

is some evidence for individuals with Greek names who did not speak or understand this

language.105 Frankfurter posits that by the third century the Egyptian language was really

a combination of Egyptian and Greek.106 Thus, we cannot presume a person’s “identityˮ from his or her name or the language used in legal documents. The general situation in

Roman Egypt, outside of Alexandria, seems to be of a culturally blended Greco-Egyptian community with very little appearance of Latin.

In their Demography of Roman Egypt, Roger Bagnall and Bruce Frier do not attempt an ethnic reading of village populations. They prefer to focus on what we can

102 Lorelei H. Corcoran, Portrait Mummies from Roman Egypt (I-IV Centuries A.D.) (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1995), 67-8.

103 The official language of the Roman military and administration was, of course, Latin (Bagnall, Egypt in

Late Antiquity, 231-2).

104 Roger S. Bagnall, “Greeks and Egyptians: Ethnicity, Status, and Culture” in Cleopatra‘s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies, ed. Robert S. Bianchi (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1988), 22.

105 Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 234.

106 Frankfurter, Religion In Roman Egypt, 248.

learn, such as the make-up of household units. But even this is complicated by the very

nature of village living. Censuses were taken by household and there would often be

more than one family in a house. Sometimes residents may be related but textual

evidence shows that multiple owners were quite common. And the distinction is, naturally, not necessarily evident in the archaeology.107 In general in Egyptian villages,

complex family groups often lived together—about two thirds of the papyrological data

shows this.108 It was also not uncommon for a house or part of a house to be rented by a

family unrelated to the owner.109

Greek

Evidence supports the notion that very few individuals at Karanis would have

self-identified strictly as a Greek by the Roman period. Although some early scholars,

such as Klaus Wessel, saw the Roman age as an extension of the Ptolemaic in which

nothing changed, this is no longer the consensus. In this out of date construct there are

only two groups: 1) Greeks, descendants of Greeks, and Egyptian elites who have

assimilated themselves to Greek culture and 2) native Egyptians who rejected Greek

culture.110 The reality was much more complex. Although this extreme differentiation

107 Nevett, “Family and Household,” 28.

108 Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 66.

109 Bagnall and Frier, Demography, 69.

110 Klaus Wessel, Coptic Art, trans. Jean Carrol and Sheila Hatton (New York: McGraw, 1965), 55-65;

Contra Wessel and others see: Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 230; László Török, Transfigurations of

Hellenism: Aspects of Late Antique Art in Egypt AD 250-700 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 12-17; Christina Riggs,

between Greek and Egyptian may be valid for the early Ptolemaic period, it can hardly be

applied to the third century CE and later, the period of most of my case-studies. Indeed,

Christina Riggs notes unsurprisingly that elite identity under the Ptolemies was socially constructed. Thus, even if someone were ethnically Egyptian, as an elite, they were considered Greek. But Riggs adds that this two party system evolved into much more layered and nuanced web through centuries of intermarriage and acculturation. She even suggests that being “Greek” or “Egyptian” had ceased to exist as two different states before the Romans arrived, but rather, there was a variety of both on multiple levels.111

Additionally, there is a major difference between the populations of Alexandria,

Ptolemais, Naukratis, and Antinoopolis, which were “Greek” cities, and an agricultural

town in the Fayoum.112

Egyptian in the Roman Period

To the Romans, anyone who was not a citizen of one of the four “Greek” cities

mentioned above was “Egyptian.” This label included the members of the metropolitan

class from the nome capitols. These citizens did enjoy a higher social status, but there is

nothing to indicate that these individuals are predominantly Greek.113 Although Greek

heritage was surely important, most of the populace likely saw themselves as Egyptians

The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt: Art, Identity, and Funerary Religion (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2005), 16.

111 Riggs, Beautiful Burial, 20-23.

112 Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 232.

113 Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 157.

or Greco-Egyptians.

For instance, there are numerous people who have double names: one Greek, one

Egyptian. The Greek name would be used in most documents—but this does not mean they would have self-identified as Greeks. Bagnall believes Greek was for public and

Egyptian for private use.114 There are even examples of Egyptian priests with these double names with the Greek used in an official capacity.115

At Karanis there is little indication of some kind of ethnic hierarchy in the town,

Greek or Roman.116 In fact the Roman system of government seems to have made an ethnic hierarchy nearly impossible. No imperial officer is known from Karanis. Nor is there any evidence for some kind of town council, although this is not to say that one could not have existed.117 The system in Roman Egypt revolved around taxes with the nome capitols responsible for the tax revenue of the villages. The highest village official was the komarchs, who answered to the strategos. The komarchs then appointed the local supervisors, tax collectors and secretaries.118 As these positions were for landholders, a small group, there were not many individuals from which to choose. The positions lasted one year and so, with rotation, all landholders would likely have served at some point. In fact it has been suggested that these positions would often be unwanted as there was no monetary compensation and the duties would have taken the landowner away from his

114 Bagnall, “Greeks and Egyptians,” 22-23.

115 Bagnall, “Greeks and Egyptians,” 25; Török, Transfigurations, 61.

116 Alston, Soldier and Society, 138-42.

117 Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 136-7.

118 Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 134.

own work.119 There is nothing to indicate these elite landowners were ethnically Greek.

Roman

Fourteen percent of the population from the tax records of 171-4 had Latin names.120 Although we know a large veteran population lived in Karanis we cannot

assume all of the men with Latin names were veterans. And even those who identify

themselves as veterans generally do not provide much more information—such as even the legion to which they belonged.121 It appears that the veterans came predominantly

from legions stationed in Egypt. This is not surprising as most recruits by this time were

conscripted from their own province.122 The period where we have the most

papyrological evidence for veterans at Karanis is from the late first to early third

centuries CE.123

In Egypt, Roman and Alexandrian citizenship was controlled by the stipulation

that both parents have this status.124 Even though Roman legal practice encouraged the

marriage of Romans with other Romans that does not necessarily seem to have been the

case at Karanis. The veteran community in the town would have been large enough to

accommodate marriage to a Roman citizen woman. Illegitimate children of two citizens

119 Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 135-6.

120 Alston, Soldier and Society, 123.

121 Alston, Soldier and Society, 123-25.

122 Wesch-Klein, "Recruits and Veterans," 438.

123 Alston, Soldier and Society, 125-6.

124 Alston, Soldier and Society, 138; Riggs, Beautiful Burial, 17.

could also gain citizenship and legally inherit.125 Yet, even prior to 212, it appears that the guarantee of citizenship for their children was not important to the veterans as they continued to marry local, non-citizen women. This suggests even these former Roman soldiers identified themselves primarily as Egyptian. Besides a few letters in Latin little else connects Karanis veterans with Roman “culture.”126

Alston concludes that veterans were not a separate class at Karanis. They engaged

in the same agricultural activities of the rest of the town. If Romanitas was important it

only came up in legal matters, to assert one's legal rights. In general it appears the Roman

citizens had no real impact on the overall culture of the village.127 It seems that veterans preferred to stay out of political life. The lack of evidence for veterans among the municipal elite of Karanis seems to mirror the general situation throughout Egypt.128

Perhaps civic buildings existed that could have shed more light on this, but they were destroyed by the Sebbakhim. The only other “public” building besides the temples was the so-called barracks (building C63). But there is no evidence for a garrison being stationed at Karanis and Roger Bagnall has called this building identification

“doubtful.”129 Nor do we have many dedicatory inscriptions to provide information on

how an elite, of any type, would have chosen to be perceived.130

125 Brian Campbell, The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1994), 155.

126 Alston, Soldier and Society, 138.

127 Alston, Soldier and Society, 138-142.

128 Wesch-Klein, "Recruits and Veterans," 447-48.

129 Mentioned briefly in Guardians, 9; Husselman, 55-56; Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 113n24.

130 The one exception is the dedicatory inscription from the South Temple (Boak, 50).

Art

In the Ptolemaic period there are three dominant artistic styles in Egypt:

Pharaonic, Hellenistic, and Greco-Egyptian. The Pharaonic style is a continuation of the state art of the pharaohs. It is formal, frontal, rigid, and schematized, exuding permanence and strength.131

The Hellenistic style, brought in by the Ptolemies, continues the Greek tradition

of striving for naturalism. Here we have an interest in art based on observation and

natural anatomy and drapery. In Egypt, this was the art of Greek elites and of

Alexandria.132 The Greeks also introduced their terracotta tradition to Egypt. This in

particular was adopted and adapted by the Egyptian population.133

The Greco-Egyptian style is a conflation of the two traditions mentioned above.

R.R.R. Smith notes that this last category is difficult to define due to its many

variations.134 It is in fact even more complicated as Smith is discussing ruler portraits and

not popular art. On one hand it can trace its creation back to Ptolemaic portraits135 but a

more popular and less formal art form also existed from the time of the pharaohs. This is

seen in the native portraiture of non-rulers, particularly from the Late Period.136 Greco-

131 Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits, 87; Riggs, Beautiful Burial, 8-9.

132 Allen diss., 87.

133 Allen diss., 81.

134 R.R.R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 86.

135 László Török, Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt (Rome: “L’erma” di Bretschneider, 1995).

24. (contra R.S. Bianchi, “The Pharaonic Art of Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Cleopatra‘s Egypt: Age of the

Ptolemies. Ed. Robert S. Bianchi. (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1988), 55-80.

136 Bianchi, “Pharaonic Art,” 55-59.

Egyptian is heir to both of these traditions.

Greco-Egyptian portraits are first known from the reign of Ptolemy IV Philometor

(reigned 180-145 BCE) although Smith believes this type of portrait would have been in existence earlier.137 The ruler wears regalia typical of the pharaoh, but the facial features

are more naturally rendered than the stylized faces of native Egyptian rulers. We also see

a blended style in the popular art of this period. László Török argues that early Ptolemaic

terracottas as displaying the dual style, but as time passes the forms become more and

more Greek.138 This reveals non-elites and native Egyptians adopted characteristics of the

Hellenistic style that appealed to them.

Robert S. Bianchi resolutely argues against a dual style, but it should be noted that

the crux of his argument is based upon denouncing the idea that Hellenistic art

“influenced” Pharaonic art. He is discussing native Egyptian portraiture in the age of the

Ptolemies which exhibits a softer, more naturalistic style than the rigid portraiture of the

pharaohs. He is correct in asserting the native tradition of these types of portraits, and that

they do not represent a Hellenistic “influence.” Yet, this is not to say Hellenism had no

impact on Egyptian art. What comes to be Greco-Egyptian draws on all of the variations

and gradations of both cultures’ visual traditions through artistic acculturation. Both

Hellenistic and Pharaonic could be combined on various levels into Greco-Egyptian since

both modes of representation could lend themselves to visual needs of this diverse

population.

I will retain some of this nomenclature for the Roman period material at Karanis

137 Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits, 87, 93. See cats. 70-72 and also 73 and 77-82.

138 Török, Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas, 23-24.

for simplicity’s sake. Although most of my material dates to 300 years after the fall of

Cleopatra VII, the same visual trends, at least on a superficial level, endure. Pharaonic association with religion and power endures. The Hellenistic becomes the Greco-Roman style. This continues to be produced in major cities and embraced by the elites. Greco-

Egyptian style endures as a conflation of both visual traditions on various levels. By the

Roman period this last category would be best termed Greco-Roman-Egyptian but I will continue to call it Greco-Egyptian. The definition is, again, quite broad since there are many gradations within the category.139 Some objects may appear more Greco-Roman,

others more Egyptian in style. Some Greco-Roman examples may be of higher quality or

made of a more expensive medium such as stone. This may cause confusion when

compared with a terracotta in the Greco-Roman style. They are mass produced and

inexpensive so their forms can sometimes appear to have been executed in a haphazard way. Yet, both the stone and the terracotta are still representative of the Greco-Egyptian style. I am aware of the problems and difficulties surrounding stylistic labels but some simplification is necessary in order to draw any conclusions.

Specifically among the terracottas, only about six percent from Karanis have been labeled by Marti Lu Allen as being Pharaonic.140 The Greco-Egyptian and Greco-Roman

style are the most common. All of the domestic religious items, regardless of style, are

generally small and constructed of local stones or terracotta. More rarely we see luxury

pieces which can be seen as status symbols. Often they are made of more expensive

materials such as marble or bronze, and their skilled craftsmanship implies they would

139 Allen diss., 82-83.

140 Allen diss., 93-95.

have been imported from major centers of production.141

Allen’s careful analysis of the terracottas can be broadly applied to other types of material evidence in the next chapter.142 She, like Françoise Dunand in her Religion

Populaire en Égypt Romaine: Les terre cuites isiaques du Musée du Caire, sees their usage and style as being specifically related to the chora, or countryside, and as innately domestic, religious, and agrarian in character.143 In particular there is an affinity for frontality, geometric abstraction and surface detail.144 As in any community, a style contributes to the visual language and the needs of the inhabitants. At Karanis this relates particularly to agrarian interests. Frankfurter suggests that the Greco-Roman forms and modes of representation actually created a new ability, with their inclusion in Greco-

Egyptian style, to represent concepts that were always a form of popular belief.145 An example he notes is Isis’ combination with Aphrodite. In particular, the nudity better

141 Allen diss., 88; Karanis, 17. On the evidence for possible terracotta workshops at Karanis see Allen diss., 139-142. Although Alexandria is generally thought to be a major center of art production there is not archaeological evidence to support this. Memphis, however, produced evidence for artist workshops working in all of the artistic styles. See: Sally-Ann Ashton, “Ptolemaic and Roman Period Memphis as a

Production Centre,” in Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials,

Marcos Martinón-Torres and Thilo Rehren, eds. (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2009), 102.

142 For continuity’s sake I will be terming Greco-Egyptian what Allen calls Roman-Egyptian. She uses this label with the understanding that it draws on Hellenistic style and culture.

143 Françoise Dunand, Religion Populaire en Égypt Romaine: Les terre cuites isiaques du Musée du Caire

(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), 140-3 and 160-61; Allen diss., 101.

144 Allen diss., 101.

145 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 103-4; David Frankfurter, “Religious Practice and Piety,” in The

Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt, Christina Riggs, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 322.

expresses the concepts of fecundity and marital happiness.

Religion at Karanis

I will provide a brief overview of the official cults at Karanis in order to better

distinguish the practice of domestic cult. The evidence for public religion comes from the

remains of two temples and the priestly occupations from the tax rolls. The two

monuments, known as the North and South Temples, appear to have been primarily dedicated to forms of the Egyptian crocodile deity, Sobek: Pnepheros, Petesouchos and

Soknopaios. The plan of the North Temple is distinctly Egyptian, rather than Greek.146 In

addition to some figures of the falcon headed crocodile god, Soknopaios, there is

evidence for the worship of Zeus-Amun-Serapis from a Greek-style face on one of the fire altars located in the temple.147 A marble statue of Isis and other fragments of female figures suggest that Isis may well have been worshiped in this temple as well, and we have records of priests serving her from the papyri.148

The South Temple’s function is better understood thanks to an inscription on the

lintel over the main doorway.149 It was dedicated to Pnepheros and Petesouchos and

appears to have been in use from the first to the third century CE. It is possible that an

earlier structure existed on the same site from the first century BCE.150 It is also typically

146 Boak, 5.

147 On Soknopaios see Guardians 39-40, cats 31 and 32; Boak, 10-12

148 Boak, 9-10,14; Guardians, 13 and 34, cat. 24; Karanis, 39; Winfried J R. Rübsam, Götter und Kulte in

Faijum während der griechisch-römisch-byzantinischen Zeit (Bonn: Habelt, 1974), 99.

149 Boak, 50.

150 Boak, 20, 50.

Egyptian in its construction and yielded figurines of Horus and Osiris.151 Fragments of

Aphrodite statuettes were also discovered here. This is not surprising due to her having

been commonly syncretized with Isis.152

Sobek was particularly popular in the Fayoum. It was common for different towns

to have their own “types” of the god.153 Temples also commonly contained oracles, as has been suggested for the temples of Karanis.154 Yet Sobek is not well documented in the home.

Some other deities known to have priests or buildings from the tax rolls include

Anubis, Demeter, Horus, Imhotep-Asklepios, and Aphrodite.155 As mentioned above, the center of town was destroyed and unexcavated so we do not know what other temples or shrines may have existed. Other gods that were clearly popular based on their figurines were Harpokrates, Isis, Serapis, Aphrodite, and Eros. Bes is commonly found in the form of blue glaze amulets.156

In the third century a major shift occurs with the primary place of worship moving

to the home. When Egypt was annexed by Rome, the temples lost some financial control

and power, but were still supported through imperial stipends. Yet by the third century,

when the economy took a turn for the worse, the traditional infrastructure of the temple

system crumbled as state financial support was completely withdrawn. Thus, accordingly,

151 Karanis, 38-40.

152 Guardians, 14.

153 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 99.

154 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 150-51.

155 Karanis, 38; Rübsam, Götter und Kulte in Faijum, 98-104.

156 The lack of figurines is surprising but the amulets are plentiful in the object list.

people turned to their homes as the primary locus of religion.157

Domestic Religion

The domestic cult in both Greco-Roman Egypt and Karanis itself has been only

summarily studied. Herman Keinath’s dissertation from 1937 attempted a broad

understanding of the domestic cult in Egypt in both the Hellenistic and Roman periods.158

Heather Gottry’s 1995 honor’s thesis contains the most work done on the domestic cult

solely at Karanis.159 Keinath’s work is fairly general as he considers a large period of

time (circa 250 BCE to 500 CE) and material from a wide range of sources (i.e., objects

and papyri both provenanced and unprovenanced from sites all over Egypt). Gottry, in

focusing on Karanis itself, and in cataloging finds of niches and incense altars from the

Kelsey Museum, gives a much clearer picture of domestic ritual. What she does not focus

on are the deities except in the context of the painted niches. Her project is more about

perceiving sacred space in the home and whether or not we can determine indications of

Egyptian, Greek or Roman practices.

Gottry creates typologies and lists of both niches and incense altars. Niches were

quite common in the homes but most were used simply as cupboards. As an example, two

niches are illustrated from the same room in house C51. One can be assumed to have a

157 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 27-30.

158 Herman O.A. Keinath, “Pagan Domestic Religion in Greco-Roman Egypt” (PhD Diss., University of

Michigan, 1937).

159 Heather C. Gottry, “Domestic Religion in Graeco-Roman Karanis: Origins, Theories, and New

Approaches” Honors Thesis, University of Michigan, 1995.

cultic function based on its architectonic decoration. This alone indicates its importance, but it also implies that a greater expense went into creating it. The other is small, unadorned and contains shelves revealing a storage function.

Fig. 2.1 Two niches from House C51, room A (west and north walls). Boak and Peterson, pl. 39, figs. 77 and 78, © University of Michigan Press, reproduced by permission of University of Michigan Press.

We know that certain niches were used for religious reasons. A fourth-century Coptic text discusses the domestic worship of Kothos and tells us that his image was mounted in niches.160

Gottry divides the niches that can be assumed to have a cultic function into three main categories: Greco-Roman, traditional (Egyptian), and traditional with paintings. Her

Greco-Roman type is designated as such based on its employment of Greco-Roman

160 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 132. Panegyric ms. M609 V.1, 3-4.

architectural decoration and because of its similarities to some kinds of domestic shrines

at sites in Italy. Traditional are called such because they have more in common with

shrine niches known from New Kingdom Egypt.161 These are simple, rectangular and

plain. The only indications of their importance often come from their size and location in

the house. I only make use of two of these categories in my selections: Greco-Roman and

traditional with paintings.162 Of course, the distinction of Greco-Roman and traditional

types is not a clear indication of the identities of the inhabitants. There is always the

simple matter of personal taste. Both modes of representation would have been costly,

and, as discussed above, there is no evidence for a Greco-Roman hierarchy in the town.

Furthermore, most houses were rarely occupied continuously by the same family, but

rather there is good evidence for their changing hands quite often. In homes from which

we have repeated census reports, there are few repeat owners for subsequent fourteen

year periods.163 The people living in the home may not have commissioned the niche.

Gottry makes the important observation that the niches are not the only indicator

of domestic worship, so she also focuses on the evidence for incense burners and altars

from Karanis that had been essentially ignored. She creates a complex typology which is

valuable but excessive for my study. What is helpful is her consideration of larger types.

For instance she notes that the descriptions the excavators used defined these objects as

161 Gottry, 33; Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 98, 133. And see for instance Robert K. Ritner,

“Household and Family Religion in Ancient Egypt,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, eds. J.

Bodel and S. Olyan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 171-96.

162 Gottry, 9-14.

163 Nevett, “Family and Household,” 24.

either Greco-Roman or Egyptian. “Altar” was something similar to the Greco-Roman tradition; “burner” was something more Egyptian (or simply perhaps not Greco-

Roman).164 The same was assumed for types made of stone versus clay: stone meant

Greco-Roman and clay meant Egyptian. The validity of this distinction is certainly

questionable.

Neither Keinath nor Gottry were particularly interested in piecing together room

or house contents related to the cult. This does not diminish the importance of these

works, as we can still learn much from them. My contribution can only be better

understood thanks to broader overviews. For instance, although surface finds are

problematic due to their lack of archaeological context, they can still provide more

general information. The materials in the next chapter are provenanced and

recontextualized into homes from which they came. This allows us to perceive something

more about the personal identity of the inhabitants of Karanis in their private life.

164 Gottry, 21-22.

CHAPTER 3

KARANIS CATALOG

Before presenting the case-studies I will discuss the chronology. Thelma Thomas words it well: “dates assigned to stratigraphic layers at Karanis should be considered approximate at best.”165 With that being said I will still present the excavators’ datings

but will add additional information where available for specific houses. The structures I

have chosen are all from the later Roman periods of the city. The excavators broke the

chronology into time periods noted by alphabetic letters: a “C” level house dates to the

mid first to mid third centuries CE; late “C” to the mid second to mid third centuries; “B”

to the second half of the third to the first half of the fourth; and “A” from the fourth

century to the end of the city.166 It should also be considered that sometimes B and C

houses ended up being contemporary.167 Additionally, in the earlier seasons structures

were not given letter designations for levels but rather these were identified by number.

Hence two of the chosen houses have building numbers in the 5000s. These numbers

correspond to the mid first to the early third century.168 For the most part the finds from

the homes can be assigned to the latest dates of these broad periods of use.169

Where plans for the houses exist, they are included. Directional marks are added

where possible. The same is true for dimensions of objects. First and foremost I cite items

165 Thomas, Textiles, 21.

166 Marti Lu Allen, “A note on stratigraphy,” Guardians, 11.

167 Van Minnen, “House-to-house Enquiries,” 228.

168 Allen diss., 242.

169 Allen diss, 245.

with their object numbers. This is because many objects were discarded or lost. All object

numbers come from the record of objects.170

Where an accession number is known I have included it. Numbers preceded by

“Kelsey” are accession numbers for objects in the Kelsey Museum. Ones preceded by

“Cairo” are in the Egyptian Museum. In some cases I have also included the photo

number from the Kelsey Archives. These numbers will be preceded by “Photo.” When an

additional number is given with the photo number it indicates that the object was

photographed with several other objects. I have cropped that photo in most cases. Finally,

with some of the case-studies a number of cultic items can be placed within a single

room. In other examples it is necessary to consider the objects spread throughout the

home. The following chapter will present my analyses.

170 The record of objects was acquired by written permission of the Kelsey Museum. It has been digitized into an Excel spreadsheet making it easily searchable. A sample object designation is as follows: 33-

B507B-K. This lamp was found in 1933 in house 507 in level B. It was found in room/space B of this house 507 and is object “K” from this room. Thanks again to Terry Wilfong and Sebastian Encina.

Karanis Catalog 1: House C29

N Fig. 3.1. Plan of C29, adapted from Husselman, map 12, area F10.

C29 was excavated under the direction of Enoch Peterson from 1927-1929.171 It was used in both the C and B periods.172 The house contained numerous papyri dating from the third to early fourth century CE. In Room A was found a bronze arm and hand, a head of a blue glaze statuette, and the base of large terracotta statue.173 In stairwell G a

fragment of a limestone incense burner was found (fig. 3.2).174 Gottry groups this

171 Boak and Peterson, 39.

172 Boak and Peterson, 51.

173 27-C29A-VI; 27-C29A-YII; 27-C29A-FIII

174 27-C29G-C; Kelsey 25893 but lost; Photo 5.4163 (10)

particular shape with known elongated pottery incense burners from Amarna.175

However, as this is both stone and fragmentary it is difficult to make any decisive designation. Overall there is little from this home to indicate the cultural identity of the owner. I have included it to demonstrate the state of much of the archival evidence.

Fig. 3.2. Incense burner, Photo 5.4163 (10), by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan.

175 Gottry, 26-27 and appendix 3 spreadsheet 2.

Karanis Catalog 2: House C45

N Fig. 3.3. Plan of C45, after Boak and Peterson, Plan VI, section F10, © University of Michigan Press, reproduced by permission of University of Michigan Press.

House C45 was also excavated in the 1927-1929 seasons. Despite its “C” designation, which corresponds to a vague date of mid first to mid third century, the objects in the house seem to be fairly securely datable to the late third to early fourth century.176 Room B contained a painted niche that has been suggested to contain

Christian symbols (figs. 3.4-5).177 To one side of the cross-like symbol is a palm branch and above it is a radiate sun or crown. As these symbols are difficult to discern, even in line drawing form, it cannot be said that this is indeed a Christian home. The “cross” does not correspond exactly to any typical type, although similar to the crux ansata or ankh

176 Allen diss., 477.

177 Husselman, 36; Gottry, 17.

cross.178 Yet the circular portion does not sit on the cross. The vertical line through the

circle also does not make sense. There should be no line at all or two crossed ones. The

palms and crown could very well relate to a martyr, but are also commonly found in

pagan iconography. Although Elaine Gazda wrote that most of the people had converted

to Christianity by the late Roman era, she admits that this is only evident from lamps and

pottery and that pagan belief endured among a “significant number of inhabitants.”179

There were no figurines from the room which may have shed some light on this issue and

it seems it was buried by the B period.180

Fig. 3.4. Painted niche, after Photo 5.2690 Fig. 3.5. drawing of fig. 3.4, after Gottry, fig. 21 By Permission of the Kelsey Museum of (after Vokes fig. 48) Archaeology, University of Michigan.

178 Emile Maher Ishaq, “Ankh,” in The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. Aziz S. Atiya, vol. 1 (New York:

Macmillan, 1991), 134-5; Pierre du Bourguet, S.J., “Symbols in Coptic Art: The Cross,” in The Coptic

Encyclopedia, ed. Aziz S. Atiya, vol. 7 (New York: Macmillan, 1991), 2164-6.

179 Guardians, 15n36.

180 Husselman, 69.

What can be said is that the niche is evidently of some importance if the owners

paid the great expense of having it painted. It is located off a flag floored entrance court

(room C), so it occupies a place of prominence in the home. This, and the size of the

house, suggests it may have been owned by a wealthy family. As it does not have the

Greco-Roman-inspired architectonic decoration like other niches at Karanis it can be

181 placed into the “Egyptian” or traditional category.

In the stairs (L) were found a faience hippo fragment, a base of a figurine with the

feet remaining, and a pottery lamp.182 The hippopotamus may be associated with the fertility goddess, Tawerert.183 Underground room N seems to have been used for storage based on the plethora of domestic items found in it in addition to two coin hoards.

Possible items of interest include terracottas of a showman or rider, a horse and a human

figure.184 There were also a stone base with female feet, a bust of a female blue glaze

figure, two animal horns and numerous lamps including one with a figure of

Harpokrates.185

The showman rides a horse side saddle (fig. 3.6). The horse’s head and neck are

missing. He wears a sleeveless tunic with a rosette clasp, a pointed cap, and holds a

switch. Allen dates it stylistically to the second half of the third century, in keeping with

181 Gottry, 16-17 and appendix 3, spreadsheet 1.

182 27-C45L-F; 27-C45L-H, Kelsey 25813; 27-C45L-L, Kelsey 7067.

183 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 121.

184 27-C45N-G, Cairo 65597, Photo 7.2506 (48), Allen diss., 476-8, cat. 113; 27-C45N-X, 27-C45N-W.

185 27-C45L-H, Kelsey 25812; 27-C45N-Z, 27-C45N-V. Lamps: 27-C45N-K, Cairo 52636; 27-C45N-L,

Cairo 52718; 27-C45N-M (frog); 27-C45N-S, Cairo 52635; 27-C45N-U, Cairo 52717; 27-C45N-Q

(Harpokrates), Cairo 52619.

the general house level of third to fourth. Although we cannot be sure of this object’s

religious meaning, it is possible it served as a sort of votive. Another was found

associated with the South Temple complex at Karanis.186 As it will be demonstrated, riders were quite popular at Dura-Europos.

Fig. 3.6. Terracotta rider, after Photo 7.2506 (48), 8.65 cm h. By permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

Although it may appear like a child’s toy, and we have definite examples of toy

horses from Karanis, the material and the decoration would not have lasted long in the

hands of a child (fig. 3.7).187 It is more likely the figure was meant to be looked at and

admired, either as an ornament or more likely as an object related to religion.188 The fact

that the horses wore not just amulets, but garlands, may suggest a religious connotation,

186 Allen diss., 475, cat. 112.

187 See Terry G. Wilfong, “Images from the Karanis Excavations,” in The Oxford Handbook to Roman

Egypt, Christina Riggs, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 236-7, fig. 14.15.

188 M.L. Allen, “Terracottas,” Guardians, 60.

perhaps votive. Such objects are also not unknown from temple or burial contexts.189

Fig. 3.7. Toy horse, 28-204A*-D; Kelsey 7692, from Kelsey Museum Online, by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

From the contents of this house we can assume the owners would have culturally

identified with Egyptians. A niche in the Egyptian style, possibly even Coptic if the ankh

cross can be seen in the symbols, would suggest this. Furthermore the faience

hippopotamus and a lamp with the figure of Harpokrates present further evidence. The

lamp seems at odds with the Christian symbols in the niche but there could be various

ways to explain this: the niche may not be Christian, these items may be from different

owners, or even a religiously mixed household.

189 Wilhelmina Van Ingen, Figurines from Seleucia on the Tigris, discovered by the expeditions conducted by the University of Michigan with the cooperation of the Toledo Museum of Art and the Cleveland

Museum of Art, 1927-1932 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1939), 27-28. Specifically at

Karanis we have camels, dogs, and horses found at the temples (object list and for example see Allen diss.,

560-592).

Karanis Catalog 3: House C50/51.

N Fig. 3.8. Plan of C50/51, adapted from Husselman, plan 9.

House C50/51 is located in area F10. Very soon after construction, C50A became part of house C51.190 The period of use is likely late second to third century.191 The cult niche from room C51A was presented in the previous chapter as an example of the difference between a cult niche and a cupboard niche (fig 2.1 and 3.9).192 It can be seen

190 Husselman, 70.

191 Guardians, 38.

192 Boak and Peterson, 60; Husselmann, 48; Gottry, 10 and appendix 3, spreadsheet 1.

on the plan in the west wall with two cupboard niches flanking the cultic one. Another

photograph of it is illustrated here. Certainly many similar types of niches are known

from sites such as Pompeii and Ostia presented in the introduction. Its architectonic

elements speak strongly to the Greco-Roman tradition, and thus can be placed in the

Greco-Roman category.

The argument for a cultic function is also supported by a stone altar found in the

room.193 As a large room opening off an entrance room this is another example of a cult

niche being located in a prominent location in the home. Also from this room are two

clay frog lamps and a wooden lamp stand.194 All of these items come from the C-level of

the house. In particular the altar was found below and slightly to the north of the niche.

The niche may have functioned differently in the B layer since an amphora was found

inside of it and at that period the bottom of the niche was on the same level as the

floor.195

In the adjoining entrance vestibule C50A an alabaster head of Serapis was found

(fig 3.9). This deity is by his very nature Greco-Egyptian. He was created by a Greek,

Ptolemy I Soter, as a combination of Osiris and Zeus in an attempt to reconcile the religion of the Greeks with the native Egyptians.196 Yet in appearance he is Greco-Roman and is generally represented in the Greco-Roman style. His mature, idealized features liken him to Zeus, but four locks of hair falling over his forehead and the modius crown

193 27-C50A-U, Kelsey 8523, Guardians, 38, cat. 29; 27-C51A-EII, Cairo 55817.

194 27-C51A-VII and 27-C51A-WII (Kelsey 7029 and 7031); 27-C51A-CII, Kelsey 7424.

195 Allen diss., 435n4.

196 Guardians, 15.

are typical attributes of Serapis.197

Fig. 3.9. Cult niche, after Photo 5.2544, Fig. 3.10. Serapis, after Guardians, cat 29, 9.5 cm h. by permission of the Kelsey Museum permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. of Archaeology.

Underground room J contained a terracotta female orant as well as now lost

terracotta fragments of a horse statuette and one of a child (fig. 3.11).198 Orant figures of

this kind were extremely popular at Karanis, making up 32% of the figural terracottas

excavated.199 The woman is seated in a cross-legged typed position with her knees extended out to either side. She wears a short garment, cloak and jewelry. Some paint survives such as red for the garment, black for the cloak, and black for hair and eyes. The

197 Guardians, 38.

198 27-C51J-N, Kelsey 6472, Photo 7.2507 (14), Allen diss., 423-6, cat. 86; 27-C51J-UI; 27-C51J-VI

199 Allen diss., 137.

items in these rooms can be assigned to the same period as the items from room A as the

use of this room was phased out by the B period.200

Fig. 3.11. Orant, after Photo 7.2507 (14), 13.65 cm h., by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

These praying figures likely served as stand-ins for their owner in prayer. They are generally well dressed and seated. Dunand suggests this pose is specifically Egyptian because Greco-Roman orants are always standing.201 This is an interesting observation,

yet, to my knowledge, in Pharaonic art Egyptians pagans are usually shown standing or

kneeling with arms raised in front when offering prayer.202 Perhaps this is simply a case

200 Allen diss., 423-4.

201 Dunand, Religion Populaire, 100-101.

202 For example the New Kingdom funerary relief of Horemheb standing, “…with my two arms raised in adoration… (of Osiris).” Gay Robbins, The Art of Ancient Egypt (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1997), 164, fig. 195. Also the Ptolemaic period funerary stela of Newsy depicts him crouched on one knee offering prayer to the gods. Gay Robbins, The Art of Ancient Egypt (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1997), 247, fig. 297.

of a pose being labeled Egyptian due to it not being Greco-Roman.

A Greco-Roman niche with a stone altar could indicate this home was occupied

by individuals that identify with a Greco-Roman aesthetic, but I do not believe we can make the jump to an assumption that they were ethnically Greek or primarily identified with Greek culture. The Serapis is in a Greco-Roman style, but he is still a Greco-

Egyptian deity in the context of Roman Egypt. The orant and horse are some of the most popular terracotta subjects at Karanis and thus seem to be in line with the interests of the town as a whole. The more expensive items simply imply the household was fairly wealthy.

Karanis Catalog 4: House C57

N Fig. 3.12. Plan of C57, adapted from Husselman, plan 42.

House C57 in area F10 was excavated with the other C-level houses and probably

dates to the second to third century based on items in the object record. In room C (stairs)

was a small, stone libation altar with a spout-like projection on one side. Its whereabouts

are now unknown.203 Room D is said to have had a large niche that was decorated with architectural designs and flanked by plain rectangular niches. Unfortunately there is no

picture of the niche but it is described as having engaged columns and a wooden

203 27-C57C-A.

architrave.204 There was also a stone incense burner found in this room (fig. 3.13).205

Gottry places the latter into a sub-type of small box-like burners of which several others have been found at Karanis. As it is decorated with supposed dentils, she has deemed this type Greco-Roman, although in my opinion it is too fragmentary to say this.206 Room D

was accessed from the entrance court K and can be presumed to be a busy room in the

house as it also connects to the stairwell. Certainly this niche would have been a focal

point for visitors.

Fig. 3.13. Burner fragment, after Photo 5.4164 (18), by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

Room E contained a bronze statuette of Serapis-Zeus-Amun (fig. 3.14). This is a quality piece due to both the medium and the craftsmanship and must have been very expensive. The god raises his left hand up with his right arm stretched out before him.

204 Husselman, 73.

205 27-C57D-S, Kelsey 22296; 27-C57D-X, Kelsey 8194, Photo 5.4164(18).

206 Gottry, 29 and appendix 3, spreadsheet 2.

His headdress includes an Atef-crown with sun disk and ram’s horns. Additional ram’s

horns protrude from the sides of his curly hair. Furthermore, the bearded, mature

representation of the god speaks to the Hellenistic Serapis. These attributes associate him

with Osiris, Serapis, Amun, and Zeus-Amun. The Atef crown can be worn by both Amun and Osiris. The ram is associated with Amun, Osiris, and Zeus as Zeus-Amun. Thus this statuette represents a complexly syncretized ruler deity of the sky. The discovery of a fire altar in the North Temple with a similar figure depicted on it may speak to this god’s popularity.207

Fig. 3.14. Serapis, Guardians, cat. 47, 14.6 cm h. Fig. 3.15. Sphinx, after Photo 5.4177 (2), 0.11 m by permission of the Kelsey Museum h., by permission of the Kelsey Museum of of Archaeology. Archaeology.

He stands in an exaggerated contrapposto pose and wears Greek-style garments: a

chiton and himation. The find spot indicates a date of second to third century although,

207 Boak, 10-12; Guardians, 53, cat. 47.

stylistically, it has been suggested to be representative of the Antonine period due to the

interest in naturalism typical of that era.208

In the same room a very different style stone sculpture of a sphinx was found (fig.

3.15).209 Although difficult to interpret the face is clearly human. It seems to be wearing

some sort of garment over the head, possibly the nemes headdress. The rear of the

creature is easiest to read. There are indications of haunches and a feline tail laying over

them. The style and subject are representative of the Pharaonic style. It may be possible

to associate this sphinx with Tutu. Tutu was a primarily protective deity that enjoyed

great popularity in the Roman period. His apotropaic powers came from his power over

the demon-like army of Sekhmet. Frankfurter notes that by the Roman period Tutu

appropriates military powers traditionally associated with the pharaoh.210 Thus, there is a

likely apotropaic function.

Fig. 3.16. Orant, after Photo 7.2507 (19), 10.8 cm h., by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

208 Guardians, 52, cat. 47; 27-C57E-A; Kelsey 10881.

209 27-C57E-B, Photo 5.4177 (2), very similar to Guardians, 28, cat. 13.

210 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 115-116.

A seated orant figure, in Greco-Egyptian style, was found in underground room H

(fig. 3.16).211 It had a small niche which was probably used to hold a lamp. Like the orant from house C51, the figure is seated with knees out and the now missing hands once extended upwards in prayer. Like the other figurine she is finely dressed with jewelry and a shawl. Her belly and navel protrude through her clothing. This likely indicates a function related to fertility. It has been suggested that she may also be crowned with a sun disc and lotus blossoms.212

From the same room a fragment of a limestone relief of Serapis was recovered

(fig. 3.17). However, it was later discovered that another smaller piece of this same sculpture was found in house C35 room B.213 It is thus possible that the relief was not

Fig. 3.17. Serapis relief, after Guardians, cat. 30, 19 cm h., by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

211 27-C57H-B, Kelsey 6477, 7.2507 (19), Allen diss., 427-30, cat. 87.

212 Allen diss., 427.

213 Guardians, 38, cat. 30; 27-C57H-Q, Kelsey 8214, Photo 5.4165 (4).

originally from house C57 although the fact that a bronze Serapis was also found in the

house would make it appealing to assume he was a favorite deity of the inhabitants. This

Serapis is different from in style from the bronze one. It is much more schematically

rendered, and can be considered stylistically Greco-Egyptian due to the frontality and the

schematized features. By the god’s side is a tiny Cerberus, alluding to his role as god of

the dead.214

Here we have not one, but two examples of the Greco-Egyptian god, Serapis. One is stylistically Greco-Roman but the other is Greco-Egyptian. The Greco-Roman style niche likely simply indicates the personal taste of the owner, and is not a sign of personal identity. The sphinx and orant would have provided protection and prayer for owners of farmland who hope that Serapis, a god associated with agrarian fertility, would bless their home.

214 Guardians, 38.

Karanis Catalog 5: House C62

N Fig. 3.18. Plan of C62, adapted from Husselman, plan 40.

House C62 was occupied possibly from the late third to the first half of the fourth

centuries CE.215 Entrance room A yielded a wooden ureaus, discarded, although this

could have been part of a piece of furniture.216 Also from this room is the lower half of a limestone draped female seated figure (fig. 3.19).217 The upper portion was found in

room H of the same house.

215 Husselman, 72; Allen diss., 400.

216 27-C62A-P

217 Lower portion: 27-C62A-N, Kelsey 25905, Photo 5.4165 (19); Upper portion: 27-C62H-A, Kelsey

25905, Photo 5.4165 (17).

The shape of the figure may indicate that it was made to fit into a niche, perhaps

from adjoining room C.218 Both hands rest on the knees. The figure holds grapes in the

left hand and sheaves of wheat—which makes Gazda’s suggestion that it is a worshiper

giving an offering to an agrarian deity, perhaps Ceres or Isis-Thermouthis, very

appealing.219 However, the figure could also depict a goddess since she is seated or

enthroned. The hands and feet are large and blocky. The drapery is stylized and does not

reveal the body underneath. The stiff frontality associates it with Pharaonic art, but the

attributes and the veil are representative of the Greco-Roman tradition. Thus we can call this Greco-Egyptian.

Fig. 3.19. Seated goddess?, after Guardians, cat. 36, 0.50 m h., by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

Room B (not pictured on plan, but located above room C) contained a terracotta

218 On the plan, C indicates the ground floor. H is the lower level.

219 Guardians, 42, cat. 36.

orant figure that was dressed in a textile in a doll-like manner (fig. 3.20-21).220 Unlike the

previous orants she is standing—rare for so early a date (fourth century based on its find

context). Allen suggests it may be one of the earliest of the type.221 It is a woman due to

its small, subtle breasts, and there are some indications of its being painted.

Fig. 3.20. Orant, after Photo 7.2507(21), 25 cm h. Fig. 3.21. Orant in situ, after Photo 5.2821. By permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

Room C was a large room with six niches. Accessed by an immediate right off the

entrance room, it was likely used to receive visitors. Within were found a seated

terracotta Isis or Isiac (a worshiper or priestess of Isis) and a terracotta horse (figs. 3.22-

222 23).

220 See Husselman, plan 40.

221 27-C62B-B, Cairo 65600, Photo 7.2507(21), Allen diss., 446-7, cat. 95.

222 27-C62C-U, Kelsey 6986, Photo 7.2507 (6), Allen diss., 400-401, cat. 74; 27-C62C-L, Kelsey 6889,

Photo 7.2506 (9), Allen diss., 323-25, cat. 34.

Fig. 3.22. Isiac, after Photo 7.2507(6), 6.2 cm h. Fig. 3.23. Horse, after Photo 7.2506(9), 8.5 cm h. By permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

The Isis is possibly enthroned as she appears to sit in a high backed chair.

Furthermore her feet are elevated with a footrest. I would suggest, therefore, that this figure represents Isis herself rather than an Isiac, although the lack of a crown is odd. She has a characteristic Isis-knot on her breast. The horse is similar to others found at the site, notably the one discussed below from house B507. There is still a trace of lime wash and it wears bullae, bridle and yoke.

Fig. 3.24. Painted niche (drawing), after Gottry, fig. 14 (after Vokes, fig. 14b).

Fig. 3.25. Detail of niche, after Photo 5.2822, by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

Room F contained a square niche decorated with paintings (figs. 3.24-5). The

paintings covered the entire south wall of the room. It has been suggested to represent grapes and an Eros figure and, thus, has been read as possibly dionysiac in nature.223 The

grape vines are fairly legible, but the identification of an Eros seems to be an optimistic

reading of the figure. All that can said is that it has two arms with four fingers each, two

legs, a head, and possibly some kind of crown or nimbus; there appears to be no wings.

The style of the niche, a simple square recess in the wall with painted decoration, can be

placed into Gottry’s Egyptian category.224 The dionysiac interpretation is also suspect.

223 Husselman, 1979, 36.

224 Gottry, 15-16 and appendix 3, spreadsheet 1.

Although Dionysos is mentioned in relationship to a tax for vineyard owners, there is no

evidence Dionysos was worsipped at Karanis.225

Fig. 3.26. Fragment of sphinx or lion, after Photo 5.4167(8), By permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

The location of paintings in this room, rather than in room C, is interesting in that

it is only accessible through the stairwell or the back court. This may have been a place

used by members of the household for private religious reflection because most shrines at

Karanis tend to be in more public spaces. No sculptural finds came from the room

although there were two stone lions (or sphinxes?) from stairwell G (fig. 3.26).226

The interests of the residents of this house are clearly related to the farming

profession, perhaps even wine. The mysterious grape deity, a Greco-Egyptian style

fertility figure, and Isis make this abundantly clear. A possibly votive horse and two

protective lions are in keeping with what we have seen thus far in the homes of residents

concerned with protection and agrarian well-being.

225 Rübsam, Götter und Kulte in Faijum, 102.

226 27-C62G-G, Kelsey 25782; 27-C62G-Q, discarded, Photo 5.4167(8)

Karanis Catalog 6: B11

Fig. 3.27. Plan of B11, after of Boak and Peterson, Plan II, Area G. © University of Michigan Press, reproduced by permission of University of Michigan Press.

House B11 was excavated in the 1926-27 season under Peterson and it dates from roughly to the early second to early third centuries.227 It was not discussed in detail in the reports, and the only plan is illustrated here.228 In room F a marble head of Aphrodite

Anadyomene was recovered (fig. 3.28).229 This type, showing the goddess emerging from the sea and wringing her tresses, was known since the Hellenistic period but may very well have become even more popular in the Roman period judging by the many surviving

227 Allen diss., 242.

228 Boak and Peterson, 9.

229 26-B11F-J; Kelsey 25817; Guardians 29, Cat. 16.

versions and replicas.230 Although little remains, the positioning of the hair clearly

reveals that she was extending it to either side. The face is both naturalistic and idealized,

typical of a Greek goddess. In the same room were fragments of a terracotta horse and a

human figure, now lost.231

Fig. 3.28. Aphrodite, after Guardians, cat. 16. 5.3 cm h., Fig. 3.29. Osiris canopus, after Photo Permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. 7.2507 (12), 18.5 cm h., by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

Room G contained a terracotta of Osiris Canopus (fig. 3.29).232 Such a distinctly

Pharaonic form in the same house as a very Greek one is interesting. As Osiris Canopus,

the god is generally in the form of a canopic jar but in this case he appears as a mummy.

230 Guardians, 29. On the prevalence of these types throughout the Empire see Christine Mitchell

Havelock, The Aphrodite of Knidos and her Successors: A Historical Review of the Female Nude in Greek

Art (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 92-3.

231 26-B11F-H; 26-B11F-G.

232 26-B11G-A, Kelsey 6478, Photo7.2507 (12), Allen diss., 386-7, Cat. 66.

This relates to his function as the Egyptian god of the underworld. As Serapis had gained popularity in this role by this time the choice of Osiris is somewhat surprising.233 The figure is frontal and static. There is no negative space. On his head he wears a nemes headdress. Above that is a crown consisting of ram’s horns, sun disk, and two feathers.234

Naturalistic proportion and anatomical accuracy were clearly not an interest to the artist or patrons. Based on the simple mold technique and the execution, it is most likely of local fayoumic manufacture. A second example of this type was discovered in a home near the South Temple complex (pictured as 13).235

The choice of Aphrodite over Isis may indicate that the residents identified more with Greek culture than the local Egyptian culture. Yet the rest of the house contents refute this assumption, especially the conservative choice of Osiris over Serapis. The more obvious conclusion is that the family was concerned with abundance and rebirth. It is possible the Aphrodite here was syncretized with Isis and shared her regenerative powers, but this would not change the overall meaning of fertility or concerns of the homeowners.

233 Guardians, 15.

234 Allen diss. 386.

235 Allen diss., 384, cat. 65; 29-E44A-A; Kelsey 6579.

Karanis Catalog 7: House B47

There is no plan for house B47 as area G was never completely mapped out. Like

other B level houses of area G, it was excavated in the 1926-27 season. B47 dates from roughly the late third to the mid fourth centuries.236 Room F contained a decorative niche

of the Greco-Roman type in its north wall, but it was not photographed. The niche in

house B14 room D is said to have been similar and is illustrated here (fig. 3.30). The

columns flanking the recess were made of mud plaster over a brick core. 237 The fluted

columns and shell motif in the apse are common in the Greco-Roman tradition.

Fig. 3.30. Shrine niche in B14D similar to one in B47F, after Boak and Peterson, fig. 18. © University of Michigan Press, reproduced by permission of University of Michigan Press.

236 Allen diss., 242.

237 Boak and Peterson, 31-2; Gottry, 10 and appendix 3, spreadsheet 1.

A stone incense altar was found in room H.238 The object list states it is now lost but directs the reader to photograph 5.2404 (fig. 3.31). This altar looks remarkably similar to Kelsey Museum accession number 8167 pictured in Gottry as figure 53 and described as a surface find.239 Yet this museum number does not appear in the object

records. If this finely crafted, stone altar did indeed come from this home then it would

complement the shrine niche in the other room as both are indebted to the Greco-Roman

tradition. This is interesting as the smaller terracotta objects found in these rooms, a

camel in room F and another animal fragment in room H, would suggest that the residents

had chora related interests but preferred a Greco-Roman decorative style.240

Fig. 3.31. Incense altar, after Photo 5.2404, by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

238 26-B47H-A, Photo 5.2404.

239 Gottry, 27-28 and Appendix 3, spreadsheet 2.

240 26-B47F-D; 26-B47H-D.

Karanis Catalog 8: House B507

Fig. 3.32. Plan of B507, adapted from Husselman, map 18, area H8.

House B507 was excavated during seasons 1927 to 1929 and it dates roughly to

the third to early fourth centuries. In stairwell B were five terracotta lamps in addition to

a number of figurines, a limestone footprint, and a fragment of a stone incense burner.241

Several of these items are now lost: a limestone lion, the fragment of incense burner, and

a terracotta camel with rider.242 Still extant are the footprint, two terracotta horses, the

foot and an unidentifiable fragment of an alabaster statuette.243 One of the horses in

particular is complete, well photographed, and discussed by Allen (fig. 3.33).244 She

241 33-B507B-K, Kelsey 22393; Lamp II: ?; 33-B508A-D; 33-B507B-X, Kelsey 22423; 33-B507B-V,

Kelsey 22420.

242 33-B507B-O; 33-B507B-P; 33-B507B-BI.

243 Guardians, 71, appendix, cat. 17; 33-B507B-N, Kelsey25812; 33-B507B-CI, Kelsey 6895, h. 11, w. 5, l.

12.5, Allen diss., 326-7, cat. 35; alabaster statuette: 33-B507B-Z, Kelsey 25828.

244 33-B507B-L; Kelsey 6895, Photo 7.2506 (2). In Guardians, 62, cat. 59 and Allen diss., 328, cat. 36.

notes there are still traces of paint on it, such as black for the eyes and some pink on the

legs. Both of the horses are bedecked with garlands and trappings. These types of horses

are very popular and are often bridled and saddled with collars containing bullae. Most

important is the question of function.

Fig. 3.33. Horse, after Photo 7.2506 (2), 12.6 cm h., by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

It is tempting to assign a votive function to the imprint of a foot as well. A second

limestone foot was found in the courtyard of another house. In the Fayoum, these types of

votives were often dedicated to Isis-Thermouthis.245 These feet have been suggested to

commemorate pilgrim journeys to major sanctuaries as they are often found there.246

245 Guardians, 14, 41, cat. 34, 28-C56N-RI, Kelsey 8197. It should be noted that in the object list the foot from B507 is listed as plaster but in the publication it is listed as limestone.

246 Sarolta A. Takács,” Divine and Human Feet: Records of Pilgrims Honouring Isis,” in Pilgrimage in

Graceo-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods, eds., J. Elsner and I. Rutherford (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2005), 353-369.

As the other contents of B507 included agrarian themed terracottas this indicates once again crop abundance was a major interest among the members of the household.

Karanis Catalog 9: House 5002

Fig. 3.34. Drawing of painted niche, after Gottry fig. 16 (after Vokes fig. 37).

No plans have been published since this home was excavated in the first seasons of work. The excavations of 1924-26 were under the direction of J.L. Starkey. The object records were well kept, but much of the site was not mapped out. The issue can also be assumed in the lack of a plan for house 5008. Other finds in the object list from house

5002, such as coins and ostraca, seem to support a date of third to fourth century. Room B contained a cult niche with painted decoration on its north wall (fig. 3.34). It has been suggested that the painting represents a figure enthroned, but the state of preservation makes this hard to confirm. The lack of any Greco-Roman architectural elements would put this niche into the Egyptian category.247

A marble altar was found in room E (fig. 3.35). Its round shape, stone medium,

247 Gottry, 14 and 16. Also appendix 3.

and its designation as “altar” by the excavators puts it into Gottry’s Greco-Roman category.248

Fig. 3.35. Altar, after Photo 5.4165(7). Fig. 3.36. Lion or Sphinx, after Photo 5.4167(3). By permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology.

In the same room were a terracotta horse, a terracotta dog, two limestone lions, and two pottery lamps. All were discarded although one of the lions was photographed

(fig. 3.36).249 Despite this Greco-Roman style altar, there is little to suggest that the inhabitants identified with Greek or Roman culture. The niche and the objects seem to indicate the tastes of rural Egyptians.

248 Gottry, 27-28 and appendix 3, spreadsheet 2; 24-5002E-Q, Kelsey 25808, Photo 5.4165(7).

249 24-5002E-H; 24-5002E-I; 24-5002E-O and 24-5002E-P (O is 5.4167(3)); 24-5002E-K; 24-5002E-L

Karanis Catalog 10: House 5008

House 5008 had a period of use from the late third to early fourth century CE

based on various unpublished ostraca, which, are noted in the object list as dating from

this period. Room A contained a niche in its north wall that was decorated both inside and

around it (figs. 3.37-8). There appears to be a date palm tree and palm frond yet the

condition and the execution of the paintings make identification difficult. Furthermore,

the unidentified decoration in the interior wall of the niche leaves little for interpretation.

Based on the fact that it was decorated and on other contents of the room, including a

limestone relief of Isis-Thermouthis, a limestone sphinx, and a limestone altar, it is safe to assume that this niche was used for a cultic function.250 It has been suggested that the

vegetation was intended as offerings to whatever deity occupied the niche.251

Isis-Thermouthis was particularly related to agricultural fertility (fig. 3.39). In

Egypt, temples were dedicated to her—whom Frankfurter calls one of Isis’ “agricultural

avatars.”252 In this guise, she can take various forms: as a crowned cobra, a cobra’s body

with a human bust, or, as in this case, a cobra’s lower half with human head, torso, and

arms. The ureaus is a combination of Isis with the Egyptian snake-goddess,

Renenoutet.253

250 Object list. Also noted by Gottry, 16. The Isis-Thermouthis was found in the N.E. corner of the room just below floor level: 24-5008A-Q; Cairo 55845, Photo 5.4166 (12); sphinx: 24-5008A-R; Photo 5.4167

(12); altar: 24-5008A-P, Cairo 55850.

251 Gottry, 16 (citing Vokes Seminar paper, p. 20).

252 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 40.

253 V. Tran Tam Tinh, “Isis-Thermouthis,” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 2,

(Munich: Artemis, 1990), 788-89.

Fig. 3.37. Niche, after Photo 5.2316. Fig. 3.38. Detail of niche, after Photo 5.2317.

Fig. 3.39. Isis-Thermouthis, Fig. 3.40. Sphinx, after Photo 5.4167(12). after Photo 5.4166 (12). (photos: by permission of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology)

Like Isis, this goddess was related to the grain harvest.254 Isis-Thermouthis is Greco-

Egyptian in nature as she is not known prior to the Hellenistic period nor is she as well

254 Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 104.

documented outside of Egypt.255

Here Isis wears a crown typical of Egyptian Isis but retained by her Greco-Roman

counterpart. Her garment is also characteristically Greek including the Isis-knot and she

holds a staff or torch. Thus, this is a perfect example of the Greco-Egyptian style, synthesizing elements of both cultures to create the strongest meaning. In particular, this version is the most anthropomorphic of the choices available for the representations of this goddess.

It is tempting to associate the relief of Isis with the niche as both were found in the northern part of the room (although the relief was found to the east of the niche and slightly below ground level). Vegetative offerings would be appreciated by an agricultural goddess.

The sphinx is now lost, and the photograph is of low quality, but it is possible to recognize the body of a lion with a tail resting on the haunches (fig. 3.40).256 The human

head wears a nemes headdress. Again, the sphinx may represent the god, Tutu, or it may

just be a protective symbol.

The fact that this niche is not decorated with Greco-Roman architectural elements

and is a simple, square shape puts it into the category of niches that Gottry associates

more with indigenous preferences. The “Egyptian” style niche, combined with a version

of Isis known predominantly from Egypt, as well as an Egyptian style sphinx, suggest a

fairly typical local religious ensemble in an Egyptian home. Although elements of

Hellenism can be charted in the representation of Isis, by the Roman period this would

255 Tinh, “Isis-Thermouthis,” 788.

256 Found near the west door of the room according to the object list. But no plan of the house.

have been typically Egyptian. The residents of the home were clearly very wealthy as

decorated niches of any kind were very rare at Karanis and therefore expensive. Further,

the stone relief is also a luxury item.257

257 It should be noted that the object list includes three pieces of limestone incense burner, now lost, from room B of this house (24-5008B-F).

CHAPTER 4

KARANIS DISCUSSION

I will now assess the material by type of evidence: niche, altar, sculptural

medium, and sculptural style and subject. I have only chosen the items that can be firmly

identified in terms of their subject or style. Some sculptural items will differ from

category to category.

Niches

Of the ten houses surveyed, seven contained cult niches. Four of these would be

considered traditional or “Egyptian” as they retain the plain rectangular shape known

from as far back as the New Kingdom and are decorated only with paintings.258 They are also considered Egyptian simply because they do not look Greco-Roman. The other three niches are of this latter type.259 They exhibit architectural decoration consistent with

Greco-Roman architecture, in particular fluted columns and arches. Yet the homes that do

contain these Greco-Roman style cult niches oftentimes contain Egyptian deities, rather

than Greek ones. Therefore, I believe that the choice of niche style is more a matter of

aesthetic preference and not a gauge of any kind of cultural association. Either style

indicates the household was fairly wealthy.

258 Houses C45, B507, 5002, 5008.

259 Houses C50/51, C57, B47

Altars

Altars and burners in this study can only be considered as indicators of ritual

taking place in a home. There are not enough images of these items and when these exist

they do not provide an indication of the cultural identity of their owners. Of the seven

altars and burners I would categorize the two cylindrical ones as Greco-Roman and the

rest as undetermined.260 This identification is frankly moot, as, like the niches, I do not

believe an altar or incense burner, at least among my chosen case-studies from Karanis,

can reveal much about an individual’s cultural identity. There are no inscriptions or

representations of deities on these items to provide more information.

Sculptural Medium

A few interesting observations can be made concerning the medium. Clearly,

terracottas, being the less expensive choice, are the most prevalent. In several of the

homes we have more than one item of this medium.261 Stone is not uncommon but as an

item of higher cost is clearly less so than terracotta. The most common stone type is local

with seven examples of limestone and one of alabaster, the Serapis from C50A.262 The one marble piece is, not unsurprisingly, the Aphrodite from B11. This would likely have been an imported item.

Faience, which one would expect to be quite common was not a major factor in

260 Undetermined: C29G, C51A, C57C, C57D, B507B. Greco-Roman: B47H and 5002E.

261 Two in C45N, two C51J, C57H, C62B, two in C62C, two in B11, three in B507, 5002E, and two in

5008A.

262 Limestone: C57E, C57H, C62A/H, C62G, B507B, and two in 5002E.

these case-studies but is found throughout the object list with the excavators referring to

it alternately as blue glaze or faience. Many times all that remained was a fragment so the

figure was unidentifiable and most of these items were discarded by the excavators. One

exception is the faience hippo from C45L, a subject traditionally of this medium. Another

very Egyptian traditional choice was the use of stone for lions and sphinxes. Their

protective qualities must have warranted their being made of a durable material.

The marble Aphrodite and the bronze Serapis from C57E are the most Greco-

Roman of the sculpture surveyed and they are made of the most expensive material. This

is due to their being imported from major Egyptian centers of production or even further

afield where the Greco-Roman style was the dominant one.

Sculptural Style and Subject

In respect to style, Greco-Egyptian is heavily favored with nine items out of

sixteen being assigned to this category. These include a rider, the Serapis relief, orants, a

fertility figure, Isis, a horse, and Isis-Thermouthis.263 The second most popular style is

Pharaonic claiming the two sphinxes, two lions, and Osiris Canopus.264 Least popular, at

least among these case-studies, is the Greco-Roman style represented only by the two

sculptures of Serapis and the Aphrodite.265 It seems the preference among the residents of

Karanis lay aesthetically with items that can be linked with the native Egyptian style and

263 Rider (C45N), Serapis (C57H), Orants (C51J, C57H, C62B), fertility figure (C62A/H), Isis and horse

(C62C), Isis-Thermouthis (5008A).

264 Sphinxes (C57E, 5008A), lions (C62G), Osiris (B11G).

265 Serapis (C50A, C57E), Aphrodite (B11F). I grant that my sample is not very large.

the style that was created in Egypt in the Hellenistic period. Although the latter is newer,

it can still, by the late Roman period, be considered essentially an alternate Egyptian

style.

When examining the subjects and deities the result becomes clear. The residents

of Karanis heavily favored native Egyptian deities and figures associated with them.266 A

sampling of twenty-six items (including some not pictured but at least of a recorded subject) Serapis appears three times, Isis two, Osiris once, and Harpokrates once. Four are lions or sphinxes, traditionally protective figures in Egypt. Although Serapis may

appear in the Greco-Roman style he was embraced everywhere in the Roman Empire,

and he seems especially popular among the rural inhabitants of the Fayoum. His name

was commonly invoked in personal greetings known from letters at Karanis: senders

wrote of their acts of obeisance for the receiver in the presence of Serapis.267

Other subjects are more ambiguous, such as animals, but can still be assumed to

indicate an overall votive and agrarian interest. The latter is true of the other deities

chosen as well: all are associated with fertility, including our one truly Greco-Roman

266 Deities: Aphrodite (B11F), Grape Deity (C62F), Harpokrates lamp (C45N), Isis (C62C, 5008A), Osiris

(B11G), Serapis (C50A, C57E, C57H); Dunand, Religione Populaire, 151.

Protective: Fertility figure (C62A/H), Lion (C62G, B507B), Orant (C51J, C57H, C62B), Sphinx (C57E,

5008A).

Animals: Camel (B47H), Hippo (C45L), Horse (C45N, C51J, C62C, B11F, 2 B507B, 5002E), Rider

(C45N, B507B).

267 To name just a few: P.Mich. 8: 489 (p. 88); P.Mich. 8: 493 (p. 100); P.Mich. 8: 508 and 509 (p. 137),

P.Mich. 513 (p. 148). H.C. Youtie and J.G. Winter, Papyri and Ostraca from Karanis.2nd Series (Michigan

Papyri VIII) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1951).

example of Aphrodite. The choice of this goddess is not surprising. Her statues were found in the South Temple and it is even suggested that the Egyptian representations of

Aphrodite Anadyomene were based on the cult statue of Arsinoe II in Alexandria. This associates her with Isis.268 The unidentified deities, such as the painted grape god and the seated worshiper or goddess from C62, also speak to these same needs: a deity that will ensure the owner’s continued agricultural successes.

Conclusions

The material from Karanis is quite illuminating in terms of creating a clear understanding of the personal identities of its inhabitants. Two dominant and overlapping identities exist. One is vocational. The community’s farming interests are a major theme in its religious accoutrements. The second type of identity is cultural. It is evident that the majority of residents at Karanis would have viewed themselves as Egyptian. This is not to say some would not have identified with Greek or Roman culture on some level, but this, especially in regards to the latter, is not seen in the material evidence from the homes.

The assumption that these people must consider themselves as only Greek,

Egyptian, or Roman is not valid. Nor is the old-fashioned assumption that rural Egyptians rejected Greek culture.269 As Robert Ritner suggested, the Egyptians, “absorbed,

268 Guardians, 14.

269 Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 230; Riggs, Beautiful Burial, 16.

modified, or rejected foreign influences.”270 Surely it was all of the above and this

process was a reciprocal one with their Greek neighbors living in the chora. By the

Roman period being Egyptian meant embracing and adopting various aspects of Greek

and Egyptian culture. This is in opposition to the conclusion of Dunand.271 She believes

the inhabitants of the chora to be Egyptian (in a socio-cultural sense) and that there was

no mixed class. I prefer the interpretation of Riggs: that the nature of being Egyptian at

this time was inherently blended. 272 Greco-Roman style and religion were part of the mixed fabric of the region. Karanis, from its founding in the early Hellenistic period, was a racially mixed town where acculturation occurred over centuries creating a new style of

Egyptian identity. Yet, I do not believe we can speak with certainty about the ethnic identity of these Egyptians by the Roman period.

Another assumption that could be made is that Greco-Roman style art and deities would only appeal to Greeks and Romans or native Egyptians who were trying to assimilate themselves to these cultures. The residents at Karanis do seem to prefer their local deities but embrace a mixed style based on Hellenism. They enjoy Greco-Roman décor and in some cases Greco-Roman deities. It is safe to assume that for some this was also a style known to be associated with the privileged classes and that fact contributed to its appeal.273

270 Robert K. Ritner, “Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Vol. 3. The Late Period by

Miriam Lichtheim,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45.3 (1986): 243; Corcoran, Portrait Mummies,78.

271 Dunand, Religion Populaire, 160-61.

272 Riggs, Beautiful Burial, 20-23.

273 Allen diss., 87.

The most interesting find is the lack of Roman religious impact on domestic

material culture. In terms of the bigger picture the lack of any specifically Roman

indicators may be related to the nature of the evidence. All that was excavated were

homes and temples. One day was spent on the necropolis. We do not have any large scale

statuary, portraits or dedicatory inscriptions.274

Yet, as discussed in chapter 2, the veteran population utilized their Roman citizenship in legal matters but as individuals they appear to have been native Egyptians

in a geographical and cultural sense. They did not, as far as can be told, occupy political

positions in the city, nor is there evidence from the homes that there was any particular

affinity for traditional Roman deities such as Jupiter or Mars. Similarly, there is no

indication that the imperial cult held any interest for the residents of the town. While we

do not have a means to consider how residents of Karanis wanted to be perceived in their

public life, we do have the evidence from the home. And this evidence indicates the

Roman Empire, or being Roman, was not a major concern in the private lives of these

individuals.275

274 Guardians, 12.

275 This is in keeping with the general picture of personal identity in Roman Egypt. See Katelijn Vandorpe,

“Identity,” in The Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt, Christina Riggs, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2012), 272.

CHAPTER 5

THE HISTORY OF EPHESOS AND OVERVIEW OF THE SITE

Figure 5.1 Plan of Terrace Houses, After FiE 8/3, fig. 56, by permission of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 97

History of the City

The city of Ephesos was located on the Ionian coast in modern Turkey. The area

was settled as far back as the Bronze Age, with evidence for inhabitance on Ayasoluk

hill.276 The city proper was founded by Greek colonists between the tenth to eighth

centuries BCE. In the Archaic period it was captured by the Lydian king, Kroisos. It was

under his patronage that a town and the first Artemision was built, although there is

evidence for earlier cultic activity to Artemis at the site.277

In 546, the Persians brought an end to the Lydian kingdom and Ephesos became part of their Empire. Ephesos took part in the Ionian revolt that triggered the Persian

Wars. At the end of the wars, the city joined the Delian League.278 In 387, the Persians

regained control of Ephesos, but this ended soon after with the arrival of Alexander the

Great. Around this time, ground water level rose necessitating the rebuilding of the

Artemision on higher ground. The legend of Herostratos burning the Artemision, for no

reason than to become famous, is probably fictional. The temple was more likely burned

276 Peter Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period to Late Antiquity,” in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, ed. Helmut Koester

(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 3.

277 Peter Scherrer, “The Historical Topography of Ephesos” in Urbanism in Western Asia Minor JRA Supp.

45, ed. David Parrish (Portsmouth: Rhode Island, 2001), 58-61; Dieter Knibbe, “Via Sacra Ephesiaca: New

Aspects of the Cult of Artemis Ephesia,” in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, ed. Helmut Koester (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995),

143.

278 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 2-3.

by the priests in order to justify the erection of a new temple.279

After the death of Alexander in 323, Lysimachus (reigned 360-281), initiated the construction of the city on a new site near the harbor around 290 BCE. He named it

Arsinoeia after his Egyptian wife, the future Arsinoe II of Egypt.280 Following

Lysimachus’ death, the city’s name reverted to Ephesos and it came under first Seleucid

and later Ptolemaic control. In 190, the Seleucid king, Antiochus III, attempted to regain

control of the region but was defeated by Lucius Cornelius Scipio. Ephesos was annexed

by Pergamon, under which it retained its status as a free city, and the harbor was

enlarged. With the death of the last Pergamene king in 133, Ephesos became part of

Rome.281

In the early years of Roman rule the Ephesians sided with their new masters and

regained the status of free city when the province of Asia was established in 129 BCE.

But heavy taxation created resentment and the Ephesians welcomed Mithridates VI

Eupator of Pontos into city in the early 1st c. BCE. Once the Romans retaliated, the

Ephesians quickly reversed their loyalty, but they lost their free status. This status was

returned a few decades later, and the city attracted many prominent Romans such as

Antony (with Cleopatra) and the opposition Senate displeased with Octavian.282

279 Knibbe, “Via Sacra Ephesiaca ,”145.

280 Wall Painting, 28.

281 Wall Painting, 28-29; Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 3; Mehmet Fatih Yavuz, “Ephesus,” In The

Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Gagarin, Michael, ed. (Oxford University Press, 2010). http://www.oxfordreference.com.libproxy.temple.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780195170726.001.0001/acref-

9780195170726-e-433.

282 Wall Painting, 29.

In 29 BCE, Octavian, now sole ruler of the Roman Empire, spent half a year at

Ephesos and made it the capital of the Roman province of Asia. Building projects to

accommodate the governor and the administration resulted in the “State Agora.”283 Its

role as capital of the province ensured its prosperity, and building projects were funded

by both the state and wealthy local elites.284 As typical of a large city under Roman rule,

local elites were provided with citizenship, and they perpetuated the imperial cult. This

system was mutually beneficial to both the elites and the emperor.285 Although this relationship was traditionally viewed as a recruitment and Romanization of elites, the reality was much more reciprocal than one-sided.286

Almost immediately upon receiving its new honors as a capital, the city erected a

temenos to Augustus and Artemis in 25 BCE.287 In a period of about forty years the

“State Agora” was created, combining government buildings with local cults in a new

Prytaneion. The economy was run by imperial freedmen, the conventus civium

Romanorum, and Augustus put them in charge of the temple to Iulius and Roma, for the

use of Roman citizens.288

283 Scherrer, “The Historical Topography of Ephesos,” 69; Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 4.

284 Wall Painting, 35.

285 Athanasios Rizakis, “Urban Elites in the Roman East: Enhancing Regional Positions and Social

Superiority” in A Companion to Roman Religion, Jörg Rüpke, ed. (Malden: Blackwell, 2007), 317.

286 L. Michael White, “Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos,” in Ephesos:

Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, ed. Helmut

Koester (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 32.

287 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 5.

288 Scherrer, “The Historical Topography of Ephesos,” 69-71.

100

The city’s status increased in the late first century when it housed a neokorate

temple, the wardenship of the imperial cult.289 Permission was granted to build a

structure in honor of the Flavian dynasty, and the city erected a second imperial cult

building in the reign of Hadrian, possibly in conjunction with his visit in 129.290

The city was plagued by frequent earthquakes in 17 CE and again in 26.291 Yet, the first century was still an important time for the early Christian Church. The apostle

Paul brought Christianity to Ephesos and spent several years there. It is thought that he may have been imprisoned for part of this time.292 The city gradually recovered from the first-century earthquakes and completed many large-scale building projects in the second century.293 In this period it is estimated the population was as large as 200,000, and

Ephesos was the most important and prosperous city in the Roman East after

Alexandria.294

Another series of earthquakes hit the city around 230. In the mid-third century the

city was plundered by Goths, the Artemision pillaged. Several more devastating

289 White, “Urban Development,” 34.

290 Wall Painting, 38-40.

291 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 7. This is the Olympeion, not the “Temple of Hadrian” on Curetes street.

292 Pauline studies and chronologies are a scholarly field all their own and cannot be adequately summarized here. For a recent overview see Rainer Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” in The Blackwell

Companion to Paul, Stephen Westerholm, ed. (Malden: Blackwell, 2011), 9-29.

293 White, “Urban Development,” 30.

294 White, “Urban Development,” 40-43.

101

earthquakes struck in the third quarter of the third century.295 Recovery did not begin

until the mid-fourth century and so true economic stability did not return until the late fourth and early fifth centuries.296 The Christianization of the city coincided with this

period, and it greatly altering the religious fabric of the city.297 The public cult buildings

of the State Agora ceased to function, and the Neokorate temple of the Flavians was torn

down and its materials reused. The harbor area became the primary site of residence and

administration, and there was considerable building in that area.298 The fact that Ephesos

was chosen for Third Ecumenical Council in 431 speaks to its prosperity and importance

in the Christian world. Not only was it easily accessible by land and by sea, but it was

wealthy and large enough to accommodate its participants.299 The city retained its

importance until the seventh century when it was sacked by Persians and later Arabs.300

Terrace Houses

The Terrace Houses, which are a series of upper-class homes built on the hillside above the main forum of Roman Ephesus, consist of two major building units, Hanghaus

1 and Hanghaus 2. They overlook one of the main thoroughfares, Curetes Street, called such because it was lined in late antiquity with spoliate columns inscribed with yearly

295 Wall Painting, 41.

296 Wall Painting, 160.

297 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 15-16, 23.

298 Wall Painting, 161.

299 Wall Painting, 163.

300 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 2; Fatih Yavuz, “Ephesus.”

102

lists of priests from the Prytaneion.301 The houses were discovered in the 1960s under the

directorship of Hermann Vetters of the Austrian Archaeological Institute. Soon after it

was decided that the finds should remain in situ, and construction of a protective building

over Hanghaus 2 was begun.302

Each “house” was a large structure that was divided into several separate but architecturally-connected housing units. These homes were erected between the first century BCE and the first century CE. The apartments were largely abandoned after the earthquakes of the late third century CE, preserving impressive interior decorations as well as luxury objects.303 The units within the Terrace Houses were by wealthy

inhabitants who could afford sumptuous interior décor such as wall paintings and

mosaics. The sculptural finds includes statuettes, reliefs, and life-sized statues.

Excavation History

Ephesos is still an active archaeological site in Turkey under a permit issued to the

Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts (Austrian Archaeological Institute). The

excavation license is a long-standing one, and the Institute abides by the Turkish

regulation that it regularly publish its fieldwork results.

The first excavations took place in the second half of the nineteenth century under

the initiative of the British Museum, which sent the railroad engineer, John Turtle Wood,

to locate the Artemision. As he incorrectly assumed it to be located in the heart of the

301 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos, 21.

302 Wall Painting, 24.

303 Wall Painting, 45-49.

103

city, he instead partially excavated the bouleuterion and the theater. Although Wood did

rediscover the correct site in 1869, the project was discontinued due the lack of finds and

poor state of the sanctuary.304

In 1893, Otto Benndorf, of the University of Vienna, instigated new excavations

at Ephesos and soon after, in 1898, the Austrian Archaeological Institute was founded.

From the very beginning the institute employed very modern excavation practices; they

did not dismiss the Selçuk and Ottoman period monuments in favor of the Greco-Roman

ones. Although the two world wars put a halt to excavations for a time, the institute has

been there since.305

Most of the earlier interpretive publications from the Austrian Institute focus on

the architectural history of the buildings. The decorative finds, primarily the wall-

paintings and mosaics, are beautifully presented with extensive photographs. Initially it

appeared that the intention of the excavators was chiefly to make the material evidence

available to scholars, leaving the interpretive work for others.306 Publications that discuss

304 Wall Painting, 20.

305 Wall Painting, 20-24.

306 To list a few: Werner Jobst, Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos die Hanghäuser des Embolos (Vienna:

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977); Volker Michael Strocka and Hermann

Vetters, Die Wandmalerei der Hanghäuser in Ephesos (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften, 1977); Maria Aurenhammer, Die Skulpturen von Ephesos: Bildwerke aus Stein (Vienna:

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990); Claudia Lang-Auinger, et al., Hanghaus

1 in Ephesos: der Baubefund, Forschungen in Ephesos 8, 3 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996); Herwig Friesinger, ed., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos:

Akten des Symposions, Wien 1995 (Wien: Verlag der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,

104

the sculpture present the finds in relation to the history of the building in which they were

found, and place less emphasis on the sculptures’ function and style. This has changed of

late with three important publications on the Terrace Houses since 2005. Two of these

consist of detailed studies of housing units 1, 2, and 4 in Hanghaus 2.307 In both, the

chronology is carefully considered and finds are presented in catalogs by material. Most

importantly though, they also include sections where the objects are presented in their

original contexts, with the find-spots indicated on floor plans.

The third of these recent publications is a volume on the wall paintings, published in German and in English. Although an overview of the paintings of the entire site, it also

contains a large section on the paintings of Terrace House 2, carefully considering

chronology and context, as well as style.308

Identity of Inhabitants

Greek

Ephesos was founded by Greeks and retained its Greek identity throughout its

1999); Claudia Lang-Auinger, et al., Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, Forschungen in

Ephesos 8, 4 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003).

307 Hilke Thür, et al, Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: die Wohneinheit 4; Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde (Wien:

Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005) and Fritz Krinzinger, et al. Hanghaus 2

in Ephesos: Wohneinheiten 1 und 2 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,

2010).

308 N. Zimmermann and S. Landstätter, Wall Paintings in Ephesos from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine

Periods (Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 2011).

105

history, despite a period of Persian control. Even after the imposition of Roman rule,

Greek identity was perpetuated by the privileged status of the Greek language over that of

Latin, by the preservation of Greek forms of civic government due to its status as a free

city, and in the rejection of certain Roman civic building forms such as the amphitheater

or forum.309 In the second century CE, the Second Sophistic movement placed a great

emphasis on the superiority of Greek culture and history—in part to gloss over the role of

provincial elites in the Roman power structure.310

On a more local level, we see the basis of Ephesian identity firmly rooted in its mythological Greek founding through Androkles, an Athenian prince. Promoting a direct link to Greece’s glorious past was standard for the foundation myths of the cities of

Asia.311 Local religious festivals heavily favored Greek deities that had a special tie to

Ephesos, such as Artemis and Dionysos. Religion in the city will be discussed further in

section 4 below.

Roman

The people of Ephesos did embrace certain aspects of Roman culture. Examples

occur in the adoption of Roman bath rituals, gladiatorial games, the imperial cult, and the

enfranchisement of the equestrian and senatorial orders. However, as Greg Woolf asserts,

309 Greg Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society

40 (1995): 117.

310 Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” 125-6.

311 See Zahra Newby, “Art and Identity in Asia Minor,” in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, eds.

Sarah Scott and Jane Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

106

these Roman cultural markers were accepted by the populace with the understanding that

they did not inherently affect its actual Hellenism.312 The adoption of the imperial cult

occurred in a traditionally Greek way, based on the worship of Hellenistic kings and not

on a Roman model.313 Furthermore, the worship of the emperor is incorporated into the

traditions of the city; he is worshiped alongside Greek gods and processed among images

of its Greek founder.314

One Roman cultural institution the elites of Ephesos embraced wholeheartedly

was civic munificence through dedications. Service careers were the expectation of any

elite male citizen in all parts of the Roman Empire, and men at Ephesos pursued this path,

sometimes at the cost of 400,000 to a million sesterces to obtain equestrian or senatorial

status.315 There is evidence that both Greek and Roman identities were important to at

least some of the elite, but how deeply this was manifested on a cultural level is not

evident.316 In general, I believe that most people in Ephesos, even when holding Roman

names or positions, would have identified first and foremost with Greek culture.

312 Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” 128-30.

313 Newby, “Art and Identity in Asia Minor,” 199.

314 S.R.F. Price. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1984), 235.

315 Fikret K. Yegül, “Memory, Metaphor, and Meaning in the Cities of Asia Minor,” in Urbanism in

Western Asia Minor, JRA Supp. 45, edited by David Parrish (Portsmouth: Rhode Island, 2001), 137.

316 Newby, “Art and Identity in Asia Minor,” 192; R.R.R. Smith, “Cultural Choice and Political Identity in

Honorific Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the Second Century A.D,” JRS 88 (1998): 56-93. Although the choice of costume (predominantly himation over toga) would indicate a Greek identity, Smith notes there is a dual Roman-Greek identity in many of these public monuments.

107

Art and Architecture

This was a city of purely Greco-Roman art. It is Greek because public art strictly follows the legacy of the Greek Classical and Hellenistic stylistic traditions, and Roman in the sense that Rome appropriated these styles for itself, using them in a distinctly

Roman fashion.317 In public architecture there is an adoption of Roman, even Italic form,

in conjunction with traditional Greek ones.318 This is evident in the elite residences as well, and as the picture of artistic style is far clearer at Ephesos than at Karanis or Dura-

Europos, I will address this specifically in terms of the Terrace Houses.319

Shelly Hales considers these residences in her book on the Roman house. She

asserts that although initially appearing very Greek, there are clear elements of

Romanness in private architecture at Ephesos.320 One of her criteria for Roman domestic

architecture is visibility: in the Terrace Houses there is no immediate opportunity for

social display from the entrance, with visual accessibility to the finest rooms in the house.

She sees the focus of the viewer’s gaze as on the immediate environment and not on the

continuation of architectural space.321 I would argue that this is partially due to the

apartment-like arrangement of the housing units and add that the peristyles are generally

317 Roman art is far more complex than this, but as this is not evident at Ephesos I will not go into detail here.

318 Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” 116.

319 Woolf, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek,” 116.

320 Shelly Hales, The Roman House and Social Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003),

221.

321 Hales, The Roman House, 223-4.

108

the focus of one’s gaze from various points in the homes.322

Hales states that the one Roman style house is the so-called domus in Hanghaus 1

because it contains an atrium, defined as such because it had an impluvium and

compluvium.323 The scholarly definition of a Roman domus with atrium is based on

Vitruvius’ writings of the Augustan period and the first century homes from Pompeii that

fit this mold.324 The fact that the home had an atrium does not necessarily indicate it was

truly “Roman.” Hales concludes it was just “Roman-like.”325

Fig. 5.2. Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 5, room 18. Fig. 5.3. Detail of Eros from room 18. (photos: author).

In terms of the decorative schemes and wall systems employed, the paintings

322 David Parrish. “Architectural Function and Decorative Programs in the Terrace Houses at Ephesos.”

Topoi: Orient-Occident 7.2 (1997): 581.

323 Hales, The Roman House, 227.

324 On the problems of applying Vitruvius to all Roman houses see Allison, “How do we identify the use of

Space in Roman Housing?,” 1993.

325 Hales, The Roman House, 226-227.

109

share a lot of characteristics with contemporary wall paintings from the West. This can be seen in the colors: in particular the use of red, yellow, and especially the white ground.

Fictive architectural elements, in particular implausible ones constructed of vegetation, are also common. The tripartite division of the walls is known from the Hellenistic period all over the Mediterranean.326

Fig. 5.4. Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 3, room 16a. Fig. 5.5. Detail of candelabra from room 16a (photos: author).

Above all, prestige was important. This can be seen in the abundance of rooms marked specifically for display and entertainment. Elite competition, common to Romans and adopted by Ephesians, is clearly at play.327 In terms of the decoration, such as mosaics, sculpture, and paintings, there is a distinct hierarchy in the types of rooms.328

Stylistically and thematically the ornaments reveal Greco-Roman taste. There are

326 Wall Painting, 120-23; Parrish, “Architectural Function and Decorative programs,” 584-88.

327 Hales, The Roman House, 227-230.

328 Parrish, “Architectural Function and Decorative programs,” 584.

110

naturalistic animal vignettes, classicizing sculptures, and paintings of muses, theater

scenes, and philosophers.

Religion

Artemis

The cult of Artemis Ephesia overshadowed all other cults at Ephesos until around

the third century CE when it began to fade.329 The Artemision was home to cultic

activities prior to the Archaic period temple of Kroisos, but it was at this time that she

became the region’s premier goddess.330 Her main festival, likely older but first attested

in the Hellenistic period, involved the reenactment of the goddess’ birth in the grove of

Ortygia. A procession made its way there every spring and the curetes, chosen every year,

frightened jealous Hera with their noise making, to avert her from locating the pregnant

Leto.331 The names of these priests were recorded in the Prytaneion, another temple

associated with Artemis in the city proper, but which also contained the sacred flame of

Hestia.332

The other major festival, in the month of Artemisia, included athletic and

theatrical competitions.333 Besides the festivals, the worship of Artemis brought people to

329 Guy Maclean Rogers, The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos: Cult, Polis, and Change in the Graeco-

Roman World (Yale University Press, 2012), 4.

330 Knibbe, “Via Sacra Ephesiaca,” 143.

331 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 2; Rogers, The Mysteries of Artemis, 3; Richard E. Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate” in ANRW II.18.3 (1990), 1706-1711.

332 Knibbe, “Via Sacra Ephesiaca,” 145-6.

333 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1708.

111

the Artemision as a place of asylum.334 There is also some evidence for oracular activities having taken place there.335 In addition to the revenue collected from all of the above, the temple had extensive land holdings. It also acted as a bank, lending money in return for interest.336

Figure 5.6. Artemis Ephesia. 2nd c. CE., Selçuk (photo: author).

The appearance of the goddess differed greatly from the traditional girlish hunter

known in the west. She is frontal and static; her garment is decorated with intricate

designs of animals. Her headdress may include animals as well and often contains both a

334 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1714.

335 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1724.

336 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1717-1719.

112

mural crown and a temple, a symbol of the relationship between her sanctuary and the

city of Ephesos.337 Her most famous attributes are the numerous breast-like appendages on her chest, although it is agreed they are likely not breasts.338 In addition to the type of

Artemis Ephesia, the traditional Greek version of Artemis, as a huntress, is also known in

sculpture from the city, including the Terrace Houses.339

Imperial Cult

As mentioned above, the emperor cult was extremely important at Ephesos in the imperial period, serving not just as a religious institution but also a means of obtaining, expressing, and maintaining social prestige. The other Asian cities competed with each other for imperial honors and favors for civic pride, but also to distinguish their elites. In the reign of Augustus a koinon was established with the leader known as the chief priest of Asia. Sons of these men were given equestrian status, and the system continuously

evolved eventually even permitting Asian senators in Rome.340

Beyond the local elites who benefitted from the presence of the imperial cult, other citizens stood to gain financially from the influx of pilgrims at festival times.341 In

337 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1701; Robert Fleischer, “Artemis Ephesia,” in Lexicon

Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol 2 (Munich: Artemis, 1984), 763.

338 Oster,” Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1725; Fleischer, “Artemis Ephesia,” 763.

339 Maria Aurenhammer, “Sculptures of Gods and Heroes from Ephesos,” in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, ed. Helmut Koester (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 254.

340 Guy Maclean Rogers, The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City (London:

Routledge, 1991), 8-9.

341 Rogers, The Sacred Identity, 10-11.

113

addition, they experienced the pride of being able to call their city a neokorate.

There is evidence from the reign of Augustus that a temple existed for the

combined cult of Divus Iulius and Dea Roma in 29 BCE and for a Sebasteion in 25 BCE.

The former was part of Octavian’s reorganization of the province and was apparently not

requested by the local elites but set up for Roman citizens living in the city.342 The latter is known from an inscription.343 The Basilike “Stoa,” built in 11 BCE, was dedicated to

Artemis, Augustus, Tiberius, and the city of Ephesos, and it is thought other members of

the imperial family were also honored on the east end where there were monumental

statues of Livia and Augustus.344

The bestowal of neokorate status by Domitian seems to have been created for or

by Ephesos as this is the earliest example of this title being used in relation to the

imperial cult.345 Previously the word simply indicated that a person or community was

warden of a sanctuary. It was only in the first century that this became a special honor in

relation to the imperial cult.346 The new temple was located in the vicinity of the Basilike

342 Steven Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (Leiden:

Brill, 1993), 10; Barbara Burrell, Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 59;

Dio Cassius 50.20.6-7.

343 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 5.

344 Scherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 4-5.

345 Steven Friesen, “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos: Temple Wardens, City Titles, and the

Interpretation of the Revelation of John,” in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, ed. Helmut Koester (Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1995), 230; Friesen, Twice Neokoros, 49, 55-58; Burrell, Neokoroi, 60-62 argues for Neronian neokorate status but with the temple not being built until the Flavian period.

346 Friesen, “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos,” 229-230.

114

“Stoa,” and the Prytaneion in the Upper Agora.347 After Domitian’s damnatio memoriae, the temple continued to function as a place of worship for the other Flavian emperors, although the Olympic games instituted in Domitian’s honor as Zeus Olympios were discontinued. These games were reinstated under Hadrian when a second neokorate temple was granted.348 This temple is thought to be the Olympieion where Hadrian was worshiped as Zeus Olympios.349

Other Cults

The other major deities were traditional Greek ones. While some locations of their temples are still unknown, there is epigraphic evidence for their existence. Pythian Apollo had a temple at Ephesos. Athena had one outside the city.350 Demeter had a festival celebrated in her honor, and there was a shrine to her in the Prytaneion.351 Dionysos was said to have visited Ephesos in a legend that pitted him against the Amazons, who sought shelter at the Artemision. His festival was celebrated in winter, and there is epigraphic evidence for his priesthood.352 Other popular deities include Asclepius, Zeus, and Kybele, although the latter was greatly overshadowed by Artemis after the Kroisos’ patronage of the Artemision in the Archaic period.353

347 Friesen, Twice Neokoros, 59.

348 Friesen, Twice Neokoros, 118-19.

349 Sherrer, “The City of Ephesos,” 13.

350 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1667-1668.

351 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1672-1673.

352 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1673-1674.

353 Oster, “Ephesus as a Religious Center,” 1670, 1687-1688, 1693.

115

Androklos, the mythical founder of Ephesos, was also honored into the Roman period. He was said to be the son of the Athenian King Krodos, who followed the instructions of the Delphic oracle to found a city where he killed a boar.354 A heroon in

his honor on Curetes Street was likely the locus of his cult.355

Domestic Religion

Work has been done by the Austrians on the domestic cult in the Terrace Houses, particularly by Elisabeth Rathmayr on the domestic and imperial cult in Hanghaus 2.356

Where feasible Rathmayr attempts to place her finds into the larger context of the eastern

Mediterranean, but there is a perceptible lack of published comparanda for her to cite.

Ursula Quatember’s 2000 dissertation focused on the function of a handful of the cultic

objects from Terrace House 2. She considered them individually rather than

contextualizing them. She did attempt to place the evidence into the context of the

Eastern Mediterranean by including discussion of Delos and Priene, but these sites are

not as informative as Dura-Europos or Karanis for creating a more general understanding

of the domestic cult in the eastern Mediterranean.

354 Aurenhammer, “Sculptures of Gods and Heroes,” 262; Rogers, Sacred Identity of Ephesos,” 66, 144.

355 Aurenhammer, “Sculptures of Gods and Hereos,” 271 and especially Hilke Thür, “The Processional

Way in Ephesus as a Place of Cult and Burial,” in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, ed. Helmut Koester

(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 157-199.

356 Elisabeth Rathmyr, “Gotter- und Kaiserkult im privaten Wohnbereich anhand von Skulpturen aus dem

Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos,” Römische historische Mitteilungen 48 (2006): 103-135.

116

CHAPTER 6

EPHESOS CATALOG

Of the two Terrace Houses, the chronology is best understood for Terrace House

2. Both were likely built in the late first century BCE, and the areas were used into the

sixth or seventh centuries. This does not mean that they were elite residences for this

large period of time; it appears that this phase of the units came to an end after the

destruction of the third quarter of the third century CE. Hanghaus 2 had four major

building phases: Augustan to Tiberian (1), late Trajanic to early Hadrianic (2), mid-

second century (3), and second quarter of the third century (4).357 These structures also

were never returned to their former glory after their destruction by an earthquake in the

third quarter of the third century CE. There is evidence for later uses such as workshops,

stables, and even burials.358

The find context is thorough in part because the excavations of the Terrace

Houses took place decades after those of Karanis and Dura-Europos. Field numbers (FN)

and accession numbers for the Ephesos Museum in Selçuk (EM) are included in the footnotes. All photographs are either by the author or from the series Forschungen in

Ephesos.

357 Wall Painting, 78.

358 Wall Painting, 49.

117

Terrace Houses Catalog 1: Hanghaus 1, “Domus”

Fig. 6.1. Plan of Hanghaus 1 with domus and housing unit 3, adapted from fold out map in Strocka, Die Wandmalerei der Hanghäuser in Ephesos.

The domus, as it is called, is the largest dwelling unit in both Hanghaus 1 and

118

Hanghaus 2. The finds included below date to the second phase of the building and all

come from the peristyle. The imperial period phases of Hanghaus 1 were not as well

preserved as those of Hanghaus 2; therefore, it is difficult to place things into a reliable

find-context. Additionally, many of the finer items were recovered from various fills, so it

is impossible to know their original room locations. There is also a dearth of mosaic and

wall decoration. This is most evident from the near absence of mosaics and wall paintings

from Hanghaus 1 in the volumes on both of these mediums.359

This domus began as a peristyle house in the Hellenistic period. Major rebuilding occurred in late first century creating what the excavators call the older domus.360 The

younger domus, including the peristyle, was remodeled in the second half of the second

century.361 The domus and other homes in Hanghaus 1 were inhabited into the seventh century CE but not as luxury residences.362

One of the main discoveries from the peristyle was a herm fence. Considerable

359 Jobst Werner, Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos I: Die Hanghäuser des Embolos, Forschungen in

Ephesos 8/2 (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1977); Volker Michael

Strocka, Die Wandmalerei der Hanghäuser in Ephesos, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/1 (Wien: Verlag der

Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977).

360 Gerhard Lang, “Die Rekonstruktion der Domus im Hanghaus 1,” in 100 Jahre Österreichische

Forschungen in Ephesos, eds. H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999), 496.

361 Maria Aurenhammer, “Zur Skulpturenausstattung des Hanghauses I von Ephesos,” in 100 Jahre

Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, eds. H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger (Wien: Verlag der

Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999), 536; Lang, “Die Rekonstruktion der Domus im

Hanghaus 1,” 497.

362 FiE 8/4, 18.

119

portions of the fence as well as parts of the herm statues were recovered—four in total

(figs. 6.2-3).363 The herms are mature, idealized males and are similar in appearance to many others in the Greco-Roman world. Although they are dated to the early imperial period, they were not employed in the fence of the peristyle until the third century CE.364

Despite their decorative nature and their likely expense, there was also a sacred function for these types of structures as they held reproductive, liminal, and protective powers.365

Fig. 6.2-3. Herms S 9A and S 9D. after FiE 8/4, taf. 79 and 80. Fig. 6.4. Eros, after Aurenhammer, (photos: by permission of the Österreichischen Nr. 73. 61.5 cm h. Akademie der Wissenschaften).

In the fountain area of the peristyle a statuette of Eros with a hare and a dog was

363 For instance: FiE 8/4 Aurenhammer, 192-3, cats S 9 A-L. Heads are S 9 A (EM 1575; FN H 60/5), B

(EM 3/56/72, FN H 61/6), C (EM 2/36/72; FN 60/91 and H61/6) , and D (Essen Inv. 67:249).

364 Robert Fleischer, “Skulpturen aus den Hanghauseren I und II,” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen

Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 50 (1972-75): 438.

365 Gérard Siebert, “Hermes” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 5 (Munich: Artemis,

1990), 375-6.

120

found (fig. 6.4). The remains of the dog can be seen on the left leg of Eros. It was leaping

at the hare that Eros teasingly pulled away from him. The excavators view the statue as

an Antonine replica of a Hellenistic prototype.366 Also from the fountain area was a female idealized head from a statuette (fig. 6.5). It was found in a late Antonine to

Severan find-context.367

From the rubble over the peristyle came several interesting terracotta fragments of animal statuettes: a head of a leopard, legs of a bear, and a head and neck of a camel.368

Both the leopard and the camel exhibit strong stylization (figs. 6.6-7). The anatomical

features of the leopard’s head are highly unnaturalistic with a mouth that almost curves

into a smile and large eyes topped with deeply carved lids.

Fig. 6.5. Idealized head, Fig. 6.6. Leopard. Fig. 6.7. Camel, FiE 8.4, FiE 8/4, taf. 85, 12.5 cm h. FiE 8/4, taf. 131, 6.3 cm h. taf. 131, 6.8 cm. (photos: by permission of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften).

366FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 193-194, cat. S 10; EM 1563; FN H 60/8; Fleischer, “Skulpturen aus den

Hanghauseren I und II,” 435-6.

367FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 194, cat. S 12; EM 1947; FN H 60/6.

368 FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 248, cats. TK 101 (GHD InvNr 61/73/s92); TK 102 (GHD 61/71/S89); TK 103

(GHD 61/71/S90).

121

The camel wears a halter and a neck cover with intricate patterns. It is appealing to imagine these creatures as play things for a child, but if this were their function one would expect them to be made of a more durable, child-proof material.

With the exception of the terracottas the finds in the home are typical of what one might expect of a wealthy home in Ephesos. The subjects of the statuary follow typical

Greco-Roman themes with a dual function of sacred and secular. Stylistically they exhibit an interest in naturalism and a reliance on ubiquitous types such as the mature Hermes and the playful Eros.

122

Terrace Houses Catalog 2: Hanghaus 1, Housing Unit 3

Fig. 6.8. Plan of Hanghaus 1, housing unit 3, adapted from fold out map in Strocka.

The level of housing unit 3 that contained the most items that could be

recontextualized is from around the first century CE. These objects come from peristyle

SR14 and adjoining room SR15, a large room that was likely used for entertaining. In the

south wall of the peristyle was a nymphaeum with niches that likely held statues.369

In this room a fragment of an animal group from a statuette of Artemis Ephesia

was found.370 In addition to this was a grave relief depicting a young nude boy holding a

bird, inscribed “…]isskos, son of Zenon (fig. 6.9).”371 The child sits with his left leg bent

and holds the bird’s beak. The excavators date it to the third century BCE based on style.

369Claudia Lang-Auinger et al., Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: der Baubefund, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/3

(Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 155.

370 FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 205-206, cat. S 100; FN H1/67/2.

371 FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 206, cat. S 101; EM 2331 FN H1/65/17+18.

123

Other housing units contained reused funerary reliefs (Hanghaus 2, units 2 and 4), but

they depicted hero-types, not children. They were located in similar locations such as the

peristyle or in a room near an entrance to the home. Their domestic function is believed

to be predominantly apotropaic.372 The function of this child’s relief is less clear.

Fig. 6.9. Grave Relief, Fig. 6.10. Hero, Fig. 6.11. Goddess with Polos, FiE 8/4, taf. 112, 42.5 cm h. FiE 8/4, taf. 113, 21 cm h. FiE 8/4, taf. 115, 19 cm h. (photos: by permission of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften).

Room SR15 contained several statues of what are believed to be deities, but not

enough of them survives to be certain. One of these is a head of a youthful figure wearing

a crown (fig. 6.10). 373 His deeply cut eyes and dramatic head turn evoke portraits of

Alexander the Great. It is possible he represented a hero such as Androkles. There was

also part of a near life-sized male head.374 Finally, an archaizing head of a goddess

372 Rathmayr, 110.

373FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 206, cat. S 103; EM 2335; FN H1/65/25.

374FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 206, cat. S 104; EM 2335; FN H1/65/25.

124

wearing a polos was recovered as well (fig. 6.11).375 Her face exhibits an Archaic smile and her polos is decorated with a wreath.

The finds from this home appear to draw strongly on subjects and types from the

Hellenistic period such as the grave relief, the hero, and the archaizing goddess. The inclusion of the fragment from a statuette of Artemis Ephesia would suggest an Ephesian identity for the inhabitants.

375FiE 8/4, Aurenhammer, 206, cat. S 105; EM 1903; FN H1/65/24.

125

Terrace Houses Catalog 3: Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 2

Fig. 6.12. Plan of Hanghaus 2, housing unit 2, building phase IV, after Wall Painting, fig.76, by permission of Norbert Zimmermann, Austrian Archaeological Institute.

Housing unit 2 in Terrace House 2 has the most evidence for cultic activities centered in the peristyle and its adjoining rooms. This is not surprising as this would have been a location for social display, of both wealth and piety. The lavish interior decoration, including frescoes, colored marbles, and mosaics, dates to the fourth building phase, after the earthquakes in the late Severan period.376 In room SR 16 was found a bronze lamp holder,377 a miniature herm of young Dionysos (fig. 6.13),378 and a marble penis, perhaps

376 Wall Painting, 79.

377 FiE 8/8: Trinkl, “Funde aus Metall und Bein,” 629, Cat. B-B 32.

378 FiE 8/8: Christof, “Skulpturen,” 665, Cat. B-S 6. 2nd h. of 2nd c.

126

part of the herm, now lost. 379 The Dionysos could have come from the peristyle as

similar objects were found there.

Fig. 6.13. Dionysos, Selçuk Museum. 15 cm h. (photo: author).

In the peristyle, SR22/23, a torso of Apollo Kitharoidos380 was found as was a

torso of Asklepios.381 Several bronze statuettes and a bronze incense altar also came from

this room, although it has been suggested that these came from the upper story.382 The first of these statuettes represents Athena (fig. 6.14).383 The type has been likened to those

of the Medici and Velletri Athenas, and it has been dated on stylistic grounds to the

379 FiE 8/8: Christof, “Skulpturen,” 665, Cat. B-S 7.

380 FiE 10/1 Maria Aurenhammer Die Skulpturen von Ephesos: Bildwerke aus Stein: Idealplastik I (1990),

41, cat. 16; EM 2203; FN P 5/69; h. 0.128m. But not in FiE 8/8.

381 Aurenhammer, Skulpturen von Ephesos, 42, cat.17, EM 2166; FN P 7/69; FiE 8/8: Christof,

“Skulpturen,” 665, cat. B-S 4; late Hellenistic to Imperial.

382 Quatember Diss., 71; Excavation book 1969 2.10/S 36.

383 FiE 8/8: Trinkl, “Funde aus Metall und Bein,” 633, cat. B-B 83; EM 28/25/75, FN 69/24.

127

Fig. 6.14. Athena, Selçuk, 15.9 cm h. Fig. 6.15. Isis-Panthea, Selçuk, 14,6 cm h. (photos: author).

Fig. 6.16. Serapis, Selçuk, 11.9 cm h. Fig. 6.17. Altar, after FiE 8/8, taf. 476, (photo: author). 8.9 cm h., by permission of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

second century CE.384 This statuette appears to have been part of a religious assemblage

384 Rathmayr, 109.

128

with bronze Isis and Serapis statuettes and a bronze, Egyptian-style altar; all are dated to the second to third century (figs. 6.15-17).385The Serapis type is based on the cult statue

at Alexandria and Isis is in her syncretized form as “Panthea.”386 She wears her standard

crown, a sun disk and feathers, with the addition of some sun rays on either side. On her

Greek style garment is the aegis of Athena. Behind her extend the wings of Nike, and she

holds the cornucopia of Fortuna.387 In her now missing right hand was likely the rudder

of Fortuna as well. Although Egyptian deities, they are fully Hellenized in form and in

style. The Greco-Roman style is further exemplified in the Athena who is modeled after

Fig. 6.18. Hero relief in situ, 48.5 cm h. (photo: author).

385 Isis: FiE 8/8: Trinkl, “Funde aus Metall und Bein,” 633, cat. B-B 84; EM 29/25/75; FN 69/23.

Serapis: FiE 8/8: Trinkl, “Funde aus Metall und Bein,” 633, cat. B-B 85; EM 30/25/75; FN 69/22.

Altar: FiE 8/8: Trinkl, “Funde aus Metall und Bein,” 633, cat. B-B 86; EM no number.

386 Rathmayr, 109.

387 Quatember Diss., 72; Rathmayr, 109.

129

specific statue types known from Greece that were replicated by the Romans.

Fig. 6.19. Hero Relief. Fig. 6.20. Grave Relief, Istanbul (photos: author).

Also in the peristyle, a hero relief was found in situ in a niche (figs 6.18-19).388

The niche goes back to the earliest phase of construction and was retained throughout the subsequent building phases.389 The relief is dated to the late Hellenistic to first century

CE based on the long lasting popularity of the subject matter and the fact that the relief

was in place in the first building phase.390 A similar terracotta hero relief was found in

Hanghaus 1.391 The “hero” wears a mantel and carries a spear. He approaches an altar attended by a man, perhaps leaving the hero an offering. A tree with a snake intertwined among its branches rises from behind the altar. The function is likely apotropaic.392 The

type is also known from throughout the region in funerary contexts, such as this example

388 FiE 8/8: Christof, “Sculpture,” 665, cat. B-S 1. In situ.

389 Quatember Diss., 68.

390 Rathmayr, 110.

391 Quatember Diss., 69; Rathmayr, 110.

392 Rathmayr, 110.

130

from Thessaloniki in the first century (fig. 6.20).393 The subject of the immortalization or

even deification of the hero in addition to the snake in the tree are chthonic in nature.394

This is likely the reason for the subject’s popularity on gravestones, although the original

function of this relief cannot be known.

Two small marble herms of Dionysos were found in the peristyle.395 It is possible

they are related to the other one found in room SR 16. In recess GEW D a torso of

Artemis Ephesia was found.396 The ceiling and lunette of the recess are covered in glass mosaics depicting grapes, erotes, and birds, which have been argued to represent themes such as paradise, triumph over death, and good fortune (fig. 6.21).397 On the ceiling is a

tondo of Ariadne and Dionysos (fig. 6.22). Although perhaps more a display of wealth

rather than a functional shrine, it does seem that Dionysiac themes, such as rebirth and

immortality, were important to the inhabitants of the home.398 The hero relief

complements these themes.

393 Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, Inv. 240 T.

394 Quatember Diss., 91.

395 FiE 8/8: Christof, “Sculpture,” 665, cat. B-S 3, EM 2174, FN P 15/69; FiE 8/8: Christof, “Sculpture,”

665, cat. B-S 5, EM 2171, FN P 12/69.

396 FiE 8/8: Christof, “Sculpture,” 666, cat. B-S 12; EM 2172; FN P 13/69.

397 Werner, Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos, 70-71.

398 These themes were also popular for contemporary funerary monuments such as sarcophagi. See for example Michael Koortbojian, Myth, Meaning and Memory on Roman Sarcophagi (Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1995) and Paul Zanker and Björn Christian Ewald, Mit Mythen Leben: Die Bilderwelt der römischen Sarkophage (Munich: Hirmer, 2004).

131

Fig. 6.21. Exedra GEW D. Fig. 6.22. Dionysos and Ariadne (photos: author).

Room SR 24 was likely the triclinium as its floor mosaic was arranged in a t-

shape.399 It contained two fountain niches decorated with glass mosaics (figs. 6.23-5).

The better preserved of the two appears to reveal a couchant nymph (fig. 6.25). She is

half-draped and flanked by what appears to be doves.400

Fig. 6.23. Emperor bust? Fig. 6.24. Looking into peristyle from SR 24 (photos: author). Selçuk 19.5 cm h.

399 Jobst, Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos, 84.

400 Jobst, Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos, 87-88.

132

Fig. 6.25 Detail of left niche SR 24. Fig. 6.26. Detail of right niche SR 24 (photos: author).

Also from this room were two portrait busts. One is not pictured in the reports; the

other is identified as an emperor of the first half of the third century CE (fig. 6.23).401

This portrait resembles the portrait in the Capitoline Museums generally identified as

Gordian I.402 Although his joint reign with Gordian II only lasted a few weeks, his grandson ruled for six years (238-244). Gordian III’s rule was also likely legitimized by the deification of the first two Gordians.403 If this is the identification of the bust it would

be interesting as a domestic manifestation of the imperial cult, as the tending of it is a

great public role of the elite. The location off of a lavish peristyle would suggest this

presence of the emperor’s bust would be not only for his worship, but also for social

display, reinforcing the elite identity of the owner. It is also possible this is merely a

portrait, perhaps of a homeowner or ancestor.404 Overall the contents of the home exhibit

401 FiE 8/8: Christof, “Sculpture,” 665, cat. B-S 10; FiE 8/8: Christof, “Sculpture,” 665, cat. B-S 9; EM

2395, FN P 3/69 and P 11/69.

402 Inv. No. MC475.

403 “The Three Gordians,” trans. David Magie in Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1924), 409-411, 441; S.H.A., “Gordiani Tres,” 16.4 and 31.3.

404 Fleischer, “Skulpturen aus den Hanghauseren I und II,” 452.

133

multiple levels of acculturation with a menagerie of deities popular throughout the Greco-

Roman world including Hellenized Egyptian deities and traditional Greek gods such as

Athena, Dionysos, and Artemis Ephesia.

134

Terrace Houses Catalog 4: Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 4

Fig. 6.27. Plan of Hanghaus 2, housing unit 4, building phase IV, after Wall Painting, fig. 93, by permission of Norbert Zimmermann, Austrian Archaeological Institute.

For housing unit 4, I will be focusing on the third and fourth building phases.

Building phase three dates to the mid-second century and corresponds to an expansion of

adjacent residence 6. Building phase four dates to the late Severan period.405 The plan

above represents the lowest of three floors.

A totenmahl relief, which the excavators date to the second century BCE, was

found in room 4 (fig. 28). This is adjacent to entrance area 2 on the plan. This is one of

three totenmahl reliefs from this home. Two more were found in adjoining room 5 (figs.

405 Wall Painting, 79.

135

6.30-31).406 All three are dated by the excavators to the Hellenistic period. This would imply reuse, possibly over generations, as has been suggested for the hero relief in the peristyle of housing unit 2 in Hanghaus 2. 407

Fig. 6.28. Totenmahl Relief, after FiE 8.6, taf. 138, 31cm h., by permission of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

This totenmahl type retains its same basic form over hundreds of years. A man reclines on a couch and partakes of food placed before him on a table. He drinks wine and is accompanied by a woman seated on the end of his couch or in a chair next to his couch. The earliest examples in a funerary context appear in Asia Minor during the

Persian period.408 Although the term implies a banquet of the dead (or for the dead),

406 Quatember Diss., 78.

407 Quatember, 82; George M. A. Hanfmann, From Croesus to Constantine: The Cities of Western Asia

Minor and Their Arts in Greek and Roman Times (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975), 61.

408 Maria Stamatopoulou, “‘Totenmahl’ Reliefs of the 4th-2nd Centuries BC and the Archaeology of Feasting in a Funerary Context,” in Cultural Messages in the Graeco-Roman World: Acta of the BABESCH 80th

136

when this motif reached the Greek mainland, it was employed in votive reliefs to Greek

heroes. A funerary function eventually overshadowed the votive one, especially in the

Hellenistic period when these types are best attested.409 It has been argued that there is a

shift in the subject, that originally these reclining figures were heroes, which is why there

are often worshipers present. This transforms into the heroization of the individual or

family member, both promoting the family’s status and also ensuring the deceased

watched over the living.410

Although it is certainly possible this relief dates to the Hellenistic period, it seems

just as possible it could date to the imperial period. These Hellenistic types continued to

thrive in the Roman period, sometimes with little or no change.411 Furthermore, many can

be assigned to the Hellenistic period through epigraphy, but many others cannot and are

unprovenanced.412

The relief in Hanghaus 2 follows the basic conventions: a man reclines on a bed, raising a cup in his right hand while holding a plate with his left. Perched at the end of the bed is a veiled woman of comparable size, adjusting her veil. She must be his wife, due to her bridal gesture, and her presence indicates her wifely loyalty. Between the figures is a

Anniversary Workshop Radboud University Nijmegen, September 8th 2006, eds. Olivier Hekster and

Stephan T.A.M. Mols. (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 11; Katherine M.D. Dunbabin: The Roman Banquet:

Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 104-6; Hanfmann, From Croesus

to Constantine, 18-19, 61, see fig. 41

409 Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet, 105; Quatember Diss., 90.

410 Stamatopoulou, “‘Totenmahl’ Reliefs,” 16; Hanfmann, From Croesus to Constantine, 60.

411 Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet, 107-8.

412 Stamatopoulou, “‘Totenmahl’ Reliefs,” 12.

137

table with a snake approaching. Behind the woman’s head is a barely visible horse head,

peeking around the stable door. A smaller person, likely a servant, stands on the left. To

the left of this figure are seven medium-sized worshipers.413 They appear almost to have been made with a die. There is no individualism; the folds of the garments are stylized and their feet and hands are all in the same position.

In particular, I find the choice of style for this relief intriguing. It does appear to be as classicizing as the other objects in the home (such as the Artemis from room 7, fig.

6.29). Nor does it precisely mimic other Hellenistic period examples of these reliefs. In ones from Samos, and in figure 6.30 below from the adjoining room, the drapery is more convincingly three-dimensional and the bodies exhibit more dynamic poses. Figures appear more individualized and even the way they are arranged in space is more logical.

The relief is higher allowing for more depth.

Joanna Fabricius discusses the style of the Totenmahl reliefs in general as using abstraction in order to represent complex ideas. In the Hellenistic period, new ways of thinking permitted major changes in the artistic tradition. In the grave reliefs, focus shifts

from a single figure to a number of pictorial elements that signify individual components

that combine to create the story of the hero depicted.414 She warns the loss of naturalism

should not be seen in a negative light, but rather as an innovation.415

In the relief from room 4, the composition is flat and unbalanced with the hero

413 Fleischer, “Skulpturen aus den Hanghauseren I und II,” 443.

414 Johanna Fabricius, Die hellenistischen Totenmahlreliefs: Grabrepräsentation und Wertvorstellungen in ostgriechischen Städten (Munich: Pfeil, 1999), 51-52.

415 Fabricius, Die hellenistischen Totenmahlreliefs, 55.

138

Fig. 6.29. Artemis, Selçuk (photo: author).

pushed to the right of the relief.416 This style is more keeping with the Roman non-elite style than with the more naturalistic Hellenistic Totenmahl reliefs, despite their abstraction. Although scholars do not follow the hard line of Bianchi Bandinelli—that this “non-elite” or “plebeian” style was utilized only by the lower classes—they do accept this was not a degenerate form of art and that its function was to ensure absolute clarity of an object’s message. This style, in Italy as in other provinces, was ultimately

416 See for example Stamatopoulou, “‘Totenmahl’ Reliefs,” 12, figs. 10-11 or Hanfmann, From Croesus to

Constantine, figs.126-7.

139

based on an indigenous pictorial tradition.417 Yet, it appears that in the east, elites tend to favor a more naturalistic art style, especially in a city such as Ephesos, rich in the Greek tradition. The late Hellenistic date assigned and followed by later scholars is likely a reconciliation of the popularity of the totenmahl type with the relief’s “poor” quality.418

Fig. 6.30. Totenmahl, 47 cm h. (photo: author). Fig. 6.31. Totenmahl, after FiE 8/6, taf. 138, 27 cm h., by permission of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Two more totenmahl reliefs were discovered in room 5; one was still affixed to the south wall.419 Across from the relief, on the north wall, is a snake painting (still in situ, figs. 6.32-4). This dates to the third building phase. It was covered over in the fourth

417 Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, “Two Traditions: Plebeian and Patrician,” 51-105 in Rome, the center of power, 500 B.C. to A.D. 200 (New York: G. Braziller, 1970). For the current, rightly more cautious view see for instance Paul Zanker, Roman Art, trans. Henry Heitmann-Gordon (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty

Museum, 2010), 176, who notes style does not conform to a particular class.

418 Fleischer, “Skulpturen aus den Hanghauseren I und II,” 443.

419 FiE 8/6: Rathmayr, “Sculpture,” 227, cat. S 3; EM 1590, FN 17/62; FiE 8/6: Rathmayr, “Sculpture,”

227, cat. S 4; EM 1591; FN 15/62.

140

phase but the relief stayed in place.420 The first of these totenmahl reliefs is dated to the

second century BCE, surely due to its style (fig. 6.30). As mentioned above, multiple

layers of relief provide several levels of depth. The reclining figure is in the center, in a

position of prominence. The drapery falls convincingly over the bodies of the women.

The same disproportion between the figures denotes importance, as a tiny servant tends the wine. The reclining figure raises a rhyton in the air and looks out at the viewer.

To his right a woman holds a snake; a second woman sits on his left, possibly his wife due to her veil. Armor hangs on the wall: a shield, sword, corselet, and greaves. A horse seems to peer in through the window.421 These are the common trappings of a hero.422

The third relief was found on the floor in this room (fig. 6.31). It was dated to the late Hellenistic because of the less careful craftsmanship; again, no reason is provided other than that. The scene is typical of the type. The deceased holds a dish and reclines before a table. He is joined by his seated wife as well as a man and a young girl. The small figure in the front may be a servant. Behind the reclining man is a tree with a snake wrapped among the branches. 423 Similar examples are known from Samos.424

420 Rathmayr, 112.

421 Fleischer, “Skulpturen aus den Hanghauseren I und II,” 440-442.

422 Quatember Diss. 79; Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet, 105; Stamatopoulou, “‘Totenmahl’ Reliefs,” 16.

423 Fleischer, “Skulpturen aus den Hanghauseren I und II,” 442-443.

424 In particular, see Fabricius, Die hellenistischen Totenmahlreliefs, taf. 13a, Samos-Vathy, Inv. Nr. 220.

141

Fig. 6.32. Looking down into rooms 19, 4, and 5 from housing unit 1 (photo: author.)

The snake painting and the prominence of the snakes in the hero reliefs present the same types of problems of interpretation as at Pompeii. As mentioned above, snakes were associated with chthonic qualities due to their habit of disappearing underground, especially to hibernate. They symbolized regenerative powers in their ability to shed their

Fig. 6.33. Rooms 4 and 5. Fig. 6.34. Snake painting (photos: author). 142

skin. The simplest interpretation is the most likely, that the snakes represent fertility or

rebirth. They also likely had an apotropaic quality. The possibility of them representing

Agathos-Daimon, rejected by both Boyce and Orr, or the genius loci, as put forward by

Boyce, is unlikely. The genius loci is not well attested and Agathos-Daimon, a spirit of

good fortune, has a consistent iconography.425 He is generally shown with Agathos Tyche

in his anthropomorphic type. When he is depicted as a snake, he is usually with Isis-

Thermouthis, and he wears a crown. He can also be syncretized with Serapis, but in this case he has the head of Serapis and the body of a snake. This snake form of Agathos-

Daimon is mostly found in an Egyptian context as he was combined with the Egyptian god Shai.426 The connection between the snakes and the Genius of the paterfamilias in

Italy is also unlikely here as this form of the Genius is not attested at Ephesos. Regardless of whether the snake painting represented a specific snake figure, it complements the totenmahl reliefs thematically. The location near the entrance further adds to the apotropaic function as these items would protect the home. A thymiaterion was found in room five as well but can no longer be found.427

A surprising number of thymiateria were found in this housing unit. Room 14

425 George K. Boyce, “The Significance of Serpents on Pompeian House Shrines,” American Journal of

Archaeology 46.1 (1942); Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 55-77; Quatember Diss., 83-87; Rathmayr,

112.

426 Françoise Dunand “Agathodaimon” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 1 (Munich:

Artemis, 1981), 280-81.

427 Rathmayr, 112Fn 22 (from the day book from 3.11.1962).

143

alone contained three thymiateria and three lamps.428 The find context for all is the last

phase of the house. One of the three lamps has a bust of Dionysos.429 The finer of the two

thymiateria was decorated with a bust of Dionysos, a satyr, and garlands.430

Several more items that can be assumed to relate to domestic cult practices were

found in the rooms to the south of the peristyle. 14a contained two thymiateria

fragments.431 14b had some sculptural fragments, including a bust of Aphrodite. 432 14cG,

a small recess of room 14c, contained a base for a statuette of Hygeia.433 Room 15

contained a marble altar.434

Finally, room 19 had a nymphaeum.435 This included a fountain and basin as well

as a relief depicting three nymphs found in situ (figs 6.35-6). The relief is dated to the first century BCE. 436 While in some cases nymphaea in a domestic context may be

assumed to be little more than a decorative fountain, the placement of the nymph relief

would suggest there is something more sacred at play in this example. Instead of being

428 FiE 8/6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 338-9, cats. K 728, K 730-31; FiE 8/6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 344-5, cat. K 792.

429 FiE 8/6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 338, cat. K 729.

430 FiE 8/6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 343-4, cat. K 784.

431 FiE 8/6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 350, cats. K839-9.

432 FiE 8/6: Rathmayr, “Sculpture,” 228, cat. S 9; EM 2406; FN P 10/70; FiE 8/6: Rathmayr, “Sculpture,”

228, cat. S 10; EM 2407, FN 11/70.

433 FiE 8/6: Rathmayr, “Sculpture,” 228, cats. S11-12. Hygieia: FN P 71/42

434 FiE 8/6: Ursula Quatember, “Marble,” 411, cat. MI 2.

435 Rathmayr, “Kult,” 117.

436 FiE 8/6: Rathmayr, “Sculpture,” 228, cat. S 13. In situ.

144

displayed on eye level it was installed in the floor near what was once a deep well.437

Fig. 6.35. Nymph Relief, 67 cm h. Fig. 6.36. Relief in situ (photos: author).

The nymphs of springs, or naiades, were commonly venerated at both natural and

man-made water sources in the Roman Imperial era.438 Here they are depicted under a

garland, holding hands. They stand in contrapposto and wear himations over their

chitons. Stylistically, their representation follows Greco-Roman conventions.

Found in the same room were two thymiateria. One was decorated with a pine cone, typical of non-blood offerings to the gods, such as those set out for the snakes in

Pompeian lararia paintings.439 The other depicts Serapis (fig. 6.37). He wears a modius

crown and has sheaves of wheat tucked into his belt.440 Additionally there were also four

437 Rathmayr, 112-13.

438 Rathmayr, 113; Jennifer Larson, Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2001), 8.

439 FiE 8:6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 345-46, cat. K 799; EM 70/6, no FN.

440 FiE 8/6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 346, cat. K 800.

145

441 lamps and a third thymiaterion. It can be assumed these were used to honor the nymphs.

Fig. 6.37. Serapis thymiaterion, after FiE 8.6, K 799, taf. 453, 13.7 cm h., by permission of the Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

The lack of items that could be specifically called “Roman” may indicate the inhabitants of the home identified more with their Greek heritage. The three hero reliefs, predominantly known from the eastern portion of the Empire, would support this assertion. Yet the rest of the house exhibits items that can be considered of typical of the

Mediterranean region such as protective snakes, Serapis, and honoring of the nymphs who guard the water supply.

441 FiE 8/6: Ladstätter, “Ceramic,” 346 cats. K 796-798, K 801-802.

146

Terrace Houses Catalog 5: Hanghaus 2, Housing Unit 7

Fig. 6.38. Plan of Hanghaus 2, housing unit 7, after Wall Painting, fig. 104, by permission of Norbert Zimmermann, Austrian Archaeological Institute.

In the final building phase from the late Severan era, it is believed that housing

unit 7 was joined with housing unit 6 on an upper floor. If this is the case, then it is

possible to associate this residence with a specific family if the residences were kept

within it. The owner of the third phase of housing unit 6 is believed to have been one

Caius Flavius Furius Aptus, named on statue base found in the home. His family is

known from several inscriptions from the city. He himself was a priest of Dionysos.442

442 Wall Painting, 79; Rathmayr, 114.

147

Peristyle 38 contained a shrine to the imperial cult. Although the emperor bust in

housing unit 2 is in question, there is no ambiguity here. Uncovered in situ were busts of

Livia and Tiberius.443 They were set in a niche with a large, coiled, bronze snake (fig.

6.39).444 The fact that members of the imperial family from the first century were still

being honored in the third century is surprising, but speaks to the enduring strength of the

emperor cult in the east—in particular, the family of Augustus, an emperor that bestowed

the city of Ephesos with the honor of becoming the provincial capital.

Fig. 6.39. Reconstruction of shrine from 38b, Selçuk, Snake: 0.82m h., Tiberius: 0.495m h., Livia (head): 0.23m h. (photo: author).

443 Rathmayr, 124-5; Quatember, 114-124. Livia: EM 80/59/80; FN P 12/80. Tiberius: EM 81/59/80; FN P

13/80.

444 EM 83/59/80; FN P 14/80.

148

It has also been suggested that the presence of Julio-Claudian busts can be

explained by the stability of this dynasty in comparison to the tumultuous era of soldier

emperors in the third century. 445 This seems unlikely because it would imply that this

ensemble was a conscious choice for this particular period, as though these busts were

purchased or taken out of storage, and not continually honored.

The snake, like the painting in housing unit 4, has been explained as Agathos-

Daimon or even Glykon.446 I reject the interpretation as Agathos-Daimon for the same

reasons given above. Without any specific iconography to identify it as such there is no

reason to assume this. Glykon is a snake deity whose cult appeared in the second century

CE. Like Agathos-Daimon, he has a specific iconography.447 Although depicted as a

coiled snake, he has long hair and human-like facial features. This snake is missing its

head but the hair would have been apparent had it existed.448 A massive, bronze snake is

an intriguing find, especially when displayed with two busts of the imperial family, but

there is simply not enough information, as in inscriptions or parallels, to interpret this as

anything more than carrying with it a meaning of protection or fertility. The presence of a

Priapus statuette in the room may reinforce this interpretation.449

A marble table and round marble altar were set up before the shrine (fig. 6.40).450

445 Rathmayr, 128; Quatember, 121.

446 Rathmayr, 125n84; Quatember Diss., 118.

447 Gabriella Bordenache Battaglia, “Glykon,” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 4

(Munich: Artemis, 1988), 279-283.

448 Louis Roberts, “Dans une maison d’Ephese un serpent et un chiffre,” CRAI 126.1 (1982): 129.

449 Aurenhammer, Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, 82-3, cat. 61; EM 111/38/81; FN P 6/81

450 Quatember Diss., 125: see excavation book 1981: 4.9/S 36.

149

The altar is decorated with an eagle and shows no signs of use, although it does not have

to have been used for burned offerings.451 Yet it could also be that the ensemble was created more as a way to express elite values, as a display of piety.452 Regardless, the

presence of a shrine to the Imperial cult would indicate that this home had individuals

who embraced at least certain aspects of Romanitas.

Fig. 6.40. Marble table and altar (replicas) set up before the cult niche (photo: author).

451 Rathmayr, 124; Quatember Diss., 126.

452 Quatember Diss., 122-3.

150

CHAPTER 7

EPHESOS DISCUSSION

The discussion of Ephesian cultural identity and domestic religious practices is more straightforward than that of Karanis or Dura-Europos. Firstly, the inhabitants of the

Terrace Houses were very wealthy members of the upper class in a provincial capital.

Elite values and taste are better understood than those of the lower classes. These individuals wrote the texts that are so vital to our understanding of Roman life and their identities and dedications are recorded on public monuments. Secondly, the city of

Ephesos retained a Greek identity throughout its history. Indigenous artistic or religious beliefs were essentially eradicated with the colonization and Hellenization of the region.

As has been demonstrated above, on both a public and private level Greco-Roman deities were the preference among Ephesians, in particular Greek deities such as Artemis and

Dionysos.

Altars

In general we do not see stone altars in the Terraces Houses. Only two examples from the case-studies exist: the marble round altar from peristyle 38 in housing unit 7 and the smaller marble altar from room 15 in housing unit 4. More prominent are the terracotta thymiateria. Three of these were decorated with imagery typical of Greco-

Roman religion: a Dionysos, a Serapis and a pine cone.453 Overall, these altars and incense burners fit into the tradition of domestic ritual associated with typically Greco-

Roman practices.

453 From housing unit 4, rooms 14 and 19. 151

Style of Sculpture and Wall Decoration

All of the items in the Terrace Houses follow the stylistic characteristics of the

Greco-Roman tradition with the exception of the terracotta animal statuettes from the

domus. There is a preference for naturalism in anatomy, drapery and spatial relations.

Figures wear typically Greco-Roman garments. Of the 30 items discussed in the previous

chapter (both pictured and of a recognizable subject) all are Greco-Roman in style. As can be expected in a wealthy home, most items are made of expensive materials, and marble and bronze are common.

Stylistically several of the items do stand out in terms of discussion. These are the hero reliefs and the snake painting from housing unit 4. The latter may at first seem surprising when juxtaposed with the traditional wall decoration. It is not what one might typically expect of an elite residence interested in promoting the latest decorative fashions. Yet there are precedents, especially Italic ones, at Pompeii and Herculaneum as discussed in the introduction. Snakes also have a long history in the Greek domestic religious tradition.454 The snake did not need to complement the home’s decoration as it

served a specific function—to protect the home.

The hero and totenmahl reliefs do not fit stylistically with the other highly

naturalistic sculptures found in these homes.455 As mentioned previously, their style is more concerned with clarity than with naturalism, something usually associated with popular or non-elite Roman art. Yet these types of reliefs are found in culturally Greek

454 Martin P. Nilsson, “Roman and Greek Domestic Cult,” Opuscula Romana 1 (1954): 77-85.

455 Housing unit 2, SR 22/23; Housing unit 4, rooms 4 and 5.

152

locations such as Attica, Byzantium, Kyzikos, Rhodes, Samos, and Smyrna.456 Even

though they are stylistically different than other highly naturalistic items of the Classical

or Hellenistic periods, they are still more demonstrative of a Greek tradition than a

Roman one. If the excavators’ assertion that these reliefs were recycled is true then this

could also indicate a reverence for the Greek past.

Subjects of Sculpture and Wall Decoration

The subjects further support the claim that the individuals inhabiting the Terrace

Houses strongly identified with can be broadly defined as Greco-Roman values, but in

particular they preferred traditional Greek deities. Dionysos is the most popular appearing

six times, one time with Ariadne.457 Artemis Ephesia and Serapis both appear twice.458

The choice of Artemis in her Ephesian form demonstrates civic pride. Serapis, as we have seen, was a Greco-Egyptian deity with a Greek appearance. Nymphs, although at times it is difficult to determine if their representation was purely decorative, appear twice in relation to water. The nymph relief by the well in housing unit 4 is the strongest candidate for ritual activity in their honor due to the placement of the relief near the floor and the thymiateria discovered in the vicinity. The mosaic nymphs decorating the fountains in the triclinium of housing unit 2 are less clearly religious in function.

456 Stamatopoulou. “‘Totenmahl’ Reliefs,” 11-22; Fabricius, Die hellenistischen Totenmahlreliefs.

457 Housing unit 2 had four representations of Dionysos: three herms and one mosaic tondo with Ariadne.

Housing unit 4 had a lamp and a thymiaterion decorated with his bust.

458 Artemis Ephesia: peristyle of the domus and peristyle of housing unit 2. Serapis: peristyle of housing unit 2 and room 19 of housing unit 4.

153

The other deities are Hermes, Eros, Athena, Isis, Aphrodite, Hygeia, and

Priapus.459 The Asklepios and Apollo from SR22/23 are rather fragmentary so I will omit them from the totals as it is hard to be sure these were truly the original subjects of these sculptures.

The only overtly Roman subjects are the busts of the imperial family, and they are

evocative of the acculturation that occurred between the elites of the cities of Asia Minor

and their Roman rulers.460 As discussed above, the nature of emperor worship in the

Greek east is based on Greek models. Furthermore, the emperor cult is appropriated by

Greek elites in order to distinguish themselves within the Roman power structure and in

civic competition. Emperor worship in the Terrace Houses is illustrative of blended

identities created under these conditions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the religious contents of the Terrace Houses exhibit items and

practices that can be viewed as a representative of the Greco-Roman world. Themes relate to the well-being of the home and the dominant artistic style is one primarily based on naturalism and observation. These homes fit into a Mediterranean-wide koine, and a reciprocal acculturation is evidence between Ephesian elites and their Roman masters.

There is no evidence for an overtly Roman style domestic cult with the typical Italian deities, but it is unclear how popular the worship of the Lares and Genius was even in

459 Hermes: domus peristyle; Eros: domus peristyle; Athena: housing unit 2, SR22/23: Isis: housing unit 2, peristyle SR 22/23; Aphrodite: housing unit 4, room 14b; Hygeia: housing unit 4, room 14cG; Priapus: housing unit 7, peristyle 38.

460 Gordian? In housing unit 2, room 24; Tiberius and Livia in housing unit 7, peristyle 38. 154

Italy after the first century. The style and choice of deities is complementary to what is known from contemporary wealthy homes at Ostia. As we are looking only at the upper class homes it is difficult to imagine what a non-elite might claim as their cultural identity. Among the elites though there is some evidence of assimilation with Roman ideas which creates what may have been a specifically elite identity for the Ionian coast.

It does seem evident that there is some differentiation, especially in relationship to the history of the city, its cults, and the golden age of Greece. This is most evident form the preference of Artemis Ephesia and the popularity of Dionysos.

155

CHAPTER 8

THE HISTORY OF DURA EUROPOS AND OVERVIEW OF THE SITE

History

The site of Dura-Europos is situated in Mesopotamia on the Euphrates. Its history

extends from circa 300 BCE to 256 CE. Over this period the city was controlled by the

Seleucids, the Parthians, and the Romans. The Sassanians won it in the end but opted not

to retain it, leaving the city abandoned.461 The Roman period is what this study focuses

on since the finds that survive are dated to the end of the life of the city. Yet, the nature of

the site was multicultural throughout its history.462

The Hellenistic period began with the town’s founding as the colony of Europos under Nikanor, a Macedonian general of Seleukos Nikator, around 300 BCE. The name of Europos was probably chosen in honor of Seleukos’ home-town in Macedonia. The name Dura (or Doura) means “fortress” in the Semitic languages and did not come into use until much later. Nikator’s position as “founder” meant that he retained his importance throughout the history of the city, and he was worshiped even into the Roman period.463 From the fairly recent work done on the site by the Franco-Syrian team, it is

461 Jennifer A. Baird, “Housing and Households at Dura-Europos: A Study in Identity on Rome’s Eastern

Frontier,” Ph.D. Diss., University of Leicester: 2006, 49.

462 Gail M. Hoffman, “Theory and Methodology: Study of Identities Using Archaeological Evidence from

Dura Europos,” in Dura-Europos: Crossroads of Antiquity, eds. Lisa R. Brody and Gail L. Hoffman

(Chestnut Hill: McMullen Museum of Art: 2011), esp. 50-52.

463Susan Matheson, Dura-Europos: The Ancient City and the Yale Collection (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1982), 1-2.

156

apparent that at its earliest stage the city was a small military outpost. It was then expanded slowly with the larger structures not being built until the second century

BCE.464

Not long after the expansion, around 113 BCE, the Parthians took control. This

does not seem to have included major societal or political changes. Rather, the city

continued to develop, an elite Macedonian group retained its important role, and Greek

continued to be used as the language of administration.465 Deities consisted of a variety

of Semitic and Hellenistic gods and goddesses. Artistic styles varied from Hellenic to

“Eastern.” It was this world that the Romans inherited when they took control of the city.

The Romans held Dura-Europos briefly under Trajan from 115-117 CE, but the

true era of Roman occupation did not begin until 165.466 The Parthians had a long history

of conflict with Rome, too extensive to recount here. In the joint reign of Marcus

Aurelius and Lucius Verus the Parthian King, Vologases III, opted to antagonize the

Romans by placing a member of his family on the throne of Armenia. This was a client

state of Rome and his action was in opposition to the agreement in place between the two

empires since the reign of Nero.467 The Roman response included military campaigns led

464 Pierre Leriche, “Le Chreophylakeion de Doura-Europos et la mise en place du plan hippodamien de la ville,” in Archives et scéaux du monde hellénistique, eds. M.F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi, BHC Suppl. 29

(Athens: French School of Athens, 1997), 158-69); Baird, Vol. 1, 77.

465 Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 448; Hoffman

“Theory and Methodology,” 53.

466Baird, Vol. 1, 48.

467 Peter M. Edwell, Between Rome and Persia: the Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia, and Palmyra under

Roman Rule (London: Routledge, 2008), 23.

157

by Verus, who pushed back the Parthians farther than they had ever been before. The

Parthians were driven from their stronghold of Dura-Europos. Roman grasp on the region was further strengthened by the later campaigns of Septimius Severus. The conflicts in

Syria, between himself and his rival, Niger, presented a picture of instability in the region to the Parthians. They attempted to take advantage of the situation, but Severus gained even more of their territory. Under the rule of Severus, the provinces of the region were reorganized, and in 194 Dura became part of the new province of Coele-Syria.468

Roman occupation of Dura-Europos was not immediate. From 166 to almost 200

Roman control was indirect. The only military presence was the small unit of Palmyrene

archers stationed in the city. This state of affairs changed with the creation of Coele-

Syria.469 Only then was a Roman camp installed in the north of the city, and Dura gained

colonial status.470 It was at this time that accommodations were built for the army such as

the amphitheater and baths.471 This area was separated from the rest of the city by a wall,

but there is evidence that soldiers were billeted in residential parts of the city as well.472

468 Edwell, Between Rome and Persia, 26-30; Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1993), 121-22.

469 Dirven 1999, 12.

470 Baird Vol. 1, 48; Dirven 1999, 15.

471 Baird, Vol. 1, 81.

472 Baird, Vol. 1, 82; Nigel Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000),106.

158

Depending on the date there was anywhere between one to three legions stationed in the city. 473

The Sassanian invasion seems to have occurred in two stages. The first was likely in 253/4. The second was in 256/7.474 The earlier date comes from P. Dura 32, a divorce document dated to 254 which uses the old Macedonian name “Europos” instead of Dura and identifies the city as a colony—Bradford Welles speculates this return to the former name was in honor of the city being reclaimed after the first Sassanian invasion.475

Furthermore, a rampart inside the city contained a Persian graffito dated to 253 with a military order from Shapur, the Sassanian king.476

The final siege is indicated through various factors. Hoarding, apparent from 253, started again in 256.477 The latest coins found in the city are dated to 256, including those found on the bodies of soldiers in the siege mines. This sudden end to the city strongly

473 Bradford C. Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” pp. 251-274 in Studies in Roman Economic and

Social History in Honor of A.C. Johnson. Ed. Paul R. Coleman-Norton (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1969, reprint from 1951), 254-7.

474 The current consensus is that the Sassanians did hold Dura briefly, but there is still a debate on the date.

For the latest bibliography see Simon James, The Excavations at Dura-Europos; Final report 7: The Arms and Armour and other Military Equipment (London: British Museum Press, 2004), 23. See especially: F.

Grenet, “Les Sassanides a Doura-Europos (253 ap. J.C.). Réexamen du matériel épigraphique iranien du site,” in Geographie historique au proche-orient (Syrie, Phénicie, Arabie, grecques, romaines, byzantines).

Actes de la Table Ronde de Valbonne, 16-18 septembre 1985, ed. P.-L. Gatier, et.al. (Paris: Centre de recherches archéologiques, 1988).

475 Baird, Vol. 1, 70; FR 5.1, 5-6, 166-69.

476 Edwell, Between Rome and Persia, 91n131. Baird, Vol. 1, 71; PR 4, 199-206.

477 Baird, Vol. 1, 71.

159

affects the nature of the evidence left behind. It is likely that either before or after the first invasion most of the residents abandoned their homes. There are clear examples of caching in the coin hoards, implying some meant to return. The lack of finds in other homes would imply some residents left permanently before the siege.478

Excavation History and Problems

The city was rediscovered in 1920 by the British who brought James Henry

Breasted to study the wall paintings. His report was the stimulus for the first excavations,

performed under the auspices of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.

These were led by Franz Cumont from 1922-23. Excavations resumed in 1928 and the

Académie was joined by Yale University with the project being overseen by Michael

Rostovtzeff.479 As I will be dealing with the material evidence from the Yale era it is

important to note some of the issues surrounding it. Stratigraphic excavation was not

employed by the excavators, and they dealt only with the top layer of the city, i.e. the end

of the Roman period or what they considered were the destruction and abandonment

layers. Another problem is that there are almost no object records from the earliest years

of the excavations. This is due to Maurice Pillet, the first director of the excavations from

1928-31, who refused to record object find-spots despite the efforts of other members of

478 Baird, Vol. 1, 71.

479 Dirven 1999, XVI-XVII; Hopkins, “The Palmyrene Gods of Dura-Europos,” Journal of the American

Oriental Society 51 (1931), 119-137.

160

the team.480 Under the subsequent directors, Clark Hopkins (1931-35) and Frank Brown

(1935-37), this procedure changed significantly. As part of her 2006 dissertation Jennifer

Baird digitized the object lists. They clearly illustrate the differences between Pillet’s

tenure and those of the Americans: the file for the first through fourth seasons is ten

pages; the one for the fifth through tenth is over 1,000.

Yet even with this improvement and a clear effort by the excavators to engage in

the best possible archaeological practices, there are still undesignated find-spots, missing room designations within houses, and sometimes mistakes. There are also very few photographs of objects taken in situ or of architectural elements, such as elaborate niches, discussed in the reports. The reports themselves have also been criticized by later scholars. The preliminary reports were published quickly, too quickly perhaps with a rush to judgment in terms of the various interpretations of the excavators.481 The final reports

were finished too slowly with some of the material still unpublished. The lack of a final publication on the houses has been supplemented by the massive dissertation of Baird who compiled all of the known Yale archival material on the houses and their objects.

This will be published in the near future.

480 See for instance Clark Hopkins’ memoirs and the recently published collection of Susan Hopkins’ letters home to her family. The Discovery of Dura-Europos (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979) and My

Dura-Europos: the letters of Susan M. Hopkins, 1927-1935, Bernard M. Goldman and Norma W. Goldman

(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2011).

481 Fergus Millar, “Dura Europos under Parthian Rule,” pp. 406-431 in Rome, the Greek World, and the

East, vol. 3, edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers (Chapel Hill: North Carolina University

Press, 2002), 406, 408.

161

Identity of Inhabitants

Determining the cultural identity of the inhabitants of Dura can help us speculate

on how “Roman” the city was at the time of its demise. This is no easy task, and it is

plagued with potential problems. Early studies were based almost entirely on textual

evidence, which is why the assessment of the material evidence is so important. In

addition to this, the community at Dura is far more diverse than that of either Karanis or

Ephesos. Cultural markers and styles sometimes overlap, confusing things further. Yet,

consideration of ethnicity, artistic style, and local religion will shed some light on the

diversity of this community.

Macedonian

Even after the city came under Parthian control, there is evidence that the

Macedonian aristocracy maintained their prominent position in the city. We see continued

reference to the strategos, the head of the civic government; a predominance of

Macedonian names in relation to important city contributions; and reference to elites as

Europaioi. The strategos was a seemingly hereditary position held by a man of

Macedonian background.482 To our knowledge, the self-identifying term Europaioi was initially used only by elite citizens and indicates a special status. Fergus Millar sees Dura-

Europos as remaining a “Greek” city throughout its history.483 His study relies on texts,

482 Bradford C. Welles, “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” pp. 50-65 in Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968. Eds. Ruth Stiehl and Hans Erich Stier

(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970), 52.

483 Millar, The Roman Near East, 469-70.

162

which Baird believes limits his ability to assess properly the complex nature of the city’s inhabitants.484 Clearly, this is true, as all evidence—papyrological, epigraphic, and material—should be considered. Millar utilizes ten parchments in Greek dated between the years of 80 to 160 in the period of Parthian control to discern the personal identities of the inhabitants. These documents use the Parthian calendar but also retain the Seleucid one as well. Furthermore, even though they refer to Parthian rulers, the language used is still Greek. There are no bilingual records. It is not until the Roman period that Semitic languages become prominent in city’s material record.485

Millar believes this primarily Macedonian identity continued throughout the

Roman period, at least at the aristocratic level. Thus, by the time of the Sassanian invasion the civic identity of Dura was truly “Greco-Roman” thanks to its Hellenistic base and the Roman army. Millar’s evidence for the continuation of Greek identity comes from one papyrus in the period of Roman control, the divorce document mentioned above, in which the city is identified as “the colony of the Europaioi of Seleukos

Nikator.”486 Millar argues that if this document of 254, written right before the fall of the city, refers to the colony by its Macedonian founder and mentions the Macedonian identifier of Europaioi, then this must indicate the continuation of the Greek identity.

Baird disagrees, explaining that the situation was much more complex and that the

484 Baird, Vol. 1, 12.

485 Millar, “Dura Europos under Parthian Rule,” 413-14.

486 Millar, The Roman Near East, 469-70; P. Dura 32.

163

majority of the populace was never Macedonian or Roman; indeed, the subsequent

evidence paints a very different picture.487

Millar’s conclusion is in stark contrast to the study of Bradford Welles, which is

still the most complete treatment on the diversity of the population of Dura.488 He rightly

warns that race and language cannot be seen as synonymous; yet his study is based on

personal names.489 Welles sees the continued relevance of the Macedonian aristocracy in the early Roman period but once the army arrived around 190 CE this ethnic group seems to disappear completely.490 In fact, from 165 on there is a shift with an increasing number

of Semitic names and he believes the main spoken language of the city was in fact

Aramaic, not Greek.491

Parthian

Since the city was under Parthian control for about 250 years, it is necessary to

examine what cultural markers they left among the population of Dura. The Parthians

were originally a group called the Parni, nomads from the Eurasian Steppes. Their king,

Arsaces, conquered the area now known as Iran. His descendants expanded their territory

to include Mesopotamia and the former Seleucid Empire. Initially the Parthians, or the

Arsacids as they are also known, were Philhellenes; they adopted the artistic style and the

487 Baird, Vol. 1, 12.

488 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 251-274.

489 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 262-3.

490 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 262; Edwell, Between Rome and Persia, 117.

491 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 265-7; Welles, “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” 52; Downey

2003, 6-7; Baird Vol. 1, 202-3.

164

language of their Greek predecessors. It has also been suggested that early Parthians were

vassal kings to the Seleucids and their embrace of Greek culture was in part a political

move. Regardless, by the first century BCE there was a shift in the artistic style and

cultural identity of the Parthians.492 The Hellenism is replaced by a Neo-Iranian artistic style indebted to Iran’s prior indigenous rulers, the Achaemenids.493

But this transition did not reach Dura. The Parthian Empire was not a centralized

power. Images of their rulers are only common on coins; statuary is rare. There is no a

“national” artistic style. It is not until the Late Parthian period (circa 150-225) that a

group of recognizably “Parthian” characteristics emerge—frontality, a preference for the

representational rather than the naturalistic, a tripartite hairstyle, and costumes that have

trousers and long sleeves. Even so, some of these stylistic characteristics are an amalgam

of styles from all over the territory covered by the Parthian Empire, a near eastern, artistic koine.494

Dura remained relatively unchanged under Parthian rule, and any extra-artistic

cultural markers of the Parthians in the city are rare. Greek continued to be the

492 R. Ghirshman, Iran: Parthians and Sassanians, trans. S. Gilbert and J. Emmons (London: Thames and

Hudson, 1962), 29. A. Invernizzi, “The Cult of Parthian Nisa between Steppe and Empire,” pp. 163-177 in

After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. Eds. J. Cribb and G. Herrmann. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2007), 163 and 172.

493 M. Rostovtzeff, Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art (New Haven: Yale Classical Studies, 1935), 295-

6. Ghirshman, Iran, 6.

494 Hans Erik Mathiesen, Sculpture in the Parthian Empire: A Study in Chronology (Aarhus: Aarhus

University Press, 1992), 13, 58.

165

administrative language. 495 Even though Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Parthian

kings, is not attested at Dura, Rostovtzeff envisioned a syncretistic “Parthian” religion at

Dura despite his admission to a lack of evidence for it.496 Ann Perkins questions whether we can determine if the Parthian costume came to Dura direct from Iran, from Parthian

Mesopotamia, or even from Palmyra. At Dura it seems it was simply popular and not an

indication of Parthian “influence.”497 Furthermore, there is simply not enough known

about Parthian Zoroastrianism itself, let alone how it would be manifested at Dura, for us

to identify it in the surviving record.

Palmyrene

The presence of natives of Palmyra at Dura is well attested. This is made evident

in Palmyrene script (a local variant of Aramaic), in personal names, and in particular

deities. They appear to have come to the city in the Parthian period (by at least 33 BCE)

and were among its inhabitants at the time of its demise.498 Even with the continued prominence of the Macedonian aristocracy there were likely a few Palmyrenes of high

495 Millar, The Roman Near East, 451.

496 M.I. Rostovtzeff, Dura Europos and its Arts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938), 60. One example of

Rostovtzeffs’ theory are the wall paintings in the Temple of Zeus Theos. See the discussion on pagan

temples below.

497 Ann Perkins, The Art of Dura-Europos (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 125.

498 Dirven 1999, XXII. The date of 33 BCE comes from the inscription from the Temple of Bel in the necropolis (Dirven 1999, 29-30).

166

standing, based on epigraphic evidence.499 The Palmyrene population continued to grow

throughout the Parthian period and into the Roman one. Under the Romans we have

evidence for the stationing of a group of Palmyrene archers in the city and later the

Cohors XX Palmyrenorum.500 They are identified through their inscriptions in the Temple

of the Gadde and the Mithraeum.501

These immigrants brought with them an array of deities: Bel, Iarhibol, Aglibol,

Arsu, Malakbel, and possibly others.502 These gods were the center of Palmyrene

religion; the city of Palmyra itself claimed over sixty gods with the ones mentioned above

being the most prominent. Much of Palmyrene belief was private or related to the city’s

tribal identities. But the deities we find at Dura are the most commonly worshipped and

seem to reproduce the civic cult from Palmyra.503 Lucinda Dirven sees the Palmyrenes as

being particularly interested in maintaining their own cultural identity at Dura-Europos.

She notes that although the Palmyrene gods are prominent in the archaeological record,

499 Dirven 1999, 5. An example would be the inclusion of Palmyrene names in the Temple of Artemis, which was predominantly a place of worship for Macedonians.

500 Dirven 1999, 13, 102. Although it was assumed the Palmyrene archers were at Dura prior to the Romans

Dirven questions this since it would be strange for the Parthians to install a group of archers from what was at the time a Roman city (1999, 13, 100). Pollard follows the 150 CE date of Brown for the installation of the archers in the city. The Cohors XX Palmyrenorum was likely recruited from Palmyra (Pollard, Soldiers,

Cities, and Civilians, 126).

501 Undated relief of Iarhibol in Temple of the Gadde: Dirven 1999, 253 pl. VI; PR 7/8, 264f, no. 909;

Mithraeum: 168-9 CE: Dirven 1999, 262, inscription 27. Additionally there are the papyrological records in the offices of the garrison, in the former Temple of Azzakanatha (FR 5.1).

502 Dirven 1999, 9.

503 Dirven 1999, 97.

167

epigraphy shows the evidence is predominantly related to Durene inhabitants of

Palmyrene origin. This is not to say that Palmyrenes did not partake in other religious

cults of the city, but the Palmyrene gods did not draw worshippers of other cultural

identities. 504

Syrian or Durene

If the Palmyrenes enjoyed their own civic identity in terms of language, religion,

and art then we may be able to gauge certain cultural characteristics at Dura that are

specifically Durene. By extension, perhaps there is a more broadly definable Syrian

identity at play as well. Millar does not believe that a “Syrian” identity existed—or at

least that they saw themselves as such.505 This seems likely but perhaps there are some

markers for categorization that we can see as local, if not specifically Syrian.

How do Durenes identify themselves in the Roman period? After around 200 the

references to Europaioi vanish and are replaced by references to Douranos. Thus the popular, and likely official, name of the city was changed to Dura.506 But then there is the

strange divorce contract from 254 that suddenly identifies the city as Europos. This is

either an anomaly or it might reflect some new honors placed on the city after the

successful repulsion of the first Sassanian invasion. Yet, even though the name of the city

returns to its Macedonian one, the participants in the contract are referred to as being “of

504 Dirven 1999, 190-95.

505 Dirven 1999, 111-14.

506 PR 5.1, 5.

168

Dura.”507 This ethnic Douranos also exists in three other third-century documents; the

name of the city of Dura is in another three.508

There also seem to have been some elites among the native population as well. P.

Dura 13 describes 9 individuals as Europaioi. Three do not have typically Macedonian

names: two are Persian and one Semitic.509 There are a small number of Aramaic names

among the elite group of women whose names are recorded from the temple of

Azzanathkona.510 Several double names exist from the pre-Roman period. In one

example the men are Europaios yet they have both Greek and Semitic names, public and private.511

Even if the city was no longer called Europos for most of the third century there is

still evidence that the city continued to honor Seleukos Nikator as its founder. There is

papyrological evidence for a priest of the divine founder in 180 CE.512 He also appears on

a relief from the so-called Temple of the Gadde—Semitic equivalents of the Greek,

507 PR 5.1, P. Dura 32, 167.

508 PR 5.1, P. Dura 27, 29 and 38. P. Dura 46, 60B, and 129. All date to the 3rd c. (27 (ca. 225-40, p. 141f),

29 (251 CE, p. 149f), 32, and 38 (3rd c., p. 173f) City name Dura: 46 (unclear where the reference to Dura is, p. 183f, early 3rd c.) 60B (208 CE, pp. 223-4), 129 (225 CE, pp. 403-4)

509 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 255. Unfortunately this is not dated and not the same as P.

Dura 13 in FR 5.

510 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 262-3. Although it should be noted this was converted into a

military office when the Roman camp took over the north of the city.

511 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 265.

512 Dirven 1999, 120; PR 5.1, no. 25.

169

Tyche. 513 The Gad of Dura is depicted as a bearded male in Greek clothes seated on a throne decorated with eagles. Dirven believes this incarnation of the Gad was equated with Zeus Megistos, one of the earliest gods worshipped at Dura. Accompanying and crowning the god is a young man in military clothing. The inscription identifies him as

Seleukos Nikator.514 The date of the relief is disputed. The excavators assigned it to 150 when the temple was refurbished; Dirven dates it to after the arrival of the Romans in

165.515 Regardless, it appears that the temple and relief were in use until the end of the

life of the city. 516

Roman/Army

The issue of “Romanness” is central to this dissertation, but it must be questioned

whether we can identify any type of indicators that Durenes ever saw themselves as

“Roman.” Even when considering the military we have to ask ourselves if the soldiers

saw their membership as a cultural or an institutional identity. Nigel Pollard argues for

the latter: soldiers lose some of their ethnic identity when they are recruited but they do

not become Roman, they simply become part of the Roman army.517 He likewise sees the

use of the Roman tria nomina as another example of institutional identity—people who

513 There is some debate as to whether the temple was actually dedicated to the Gadde or Malakbel, but this is not pertinent to this discussion. Edwell, Between Rome and Persia, 2008, 108; Dirven 1999, 157.

514 PR 7/8, 260, 278 no. 907.

515 Dirven 1999, 99-100.

516 PR 7/8, 256.

517 Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians, 8

170

adopt this nomenclature want to have the legal and social advantages of citizens of the

Roman Empire, but this does not necessarily reflect an individual’s private identity.518

The ethnic make-up of the army living at Dura is unclear but soldiers’

geographical origins are not. From an overall study of Roman recruitment practice it

seems that from the reign of Nero onwards most of the recruits were provincial, not

Italian. It also appears that legions based in the east were made of troops from these

provinces (though not always their home province). In particular, according to epigraphic

evidence, troops stationed in Syria were from that province.519 Two large rosters from

Dura, dated to 219 and 222, list names of Roman soldiers with most of them having

Greco-Macedonian or Semitic names.520

There also seems to be a religious identity among the soldiers in their choice of cults. Oliver Stoll identifies two types of religious practices: private and public. This first

type includes the Mithraeum and the Dolichenum with the second type best represented

by the feriale Duranum—a list of official festivals of Roman cults for Roman deities.521

Dura’s feriale is the best example of religious activities related to the army preserved

from the Roman Empire. It includes such festivals as those to state gods such as Mars

Pater and Vesta Mater, ones specific to the military, and celebration of the emperor

518 Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians, 111-12.

519 Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians, 115-16, 132. See also Gabriele Wesch-Klein, "Recruits and

Veterans," pp. 435-450 in A Companion to the Roman Army, ed. Paul Erdkamp (Malden: Blackwell

Publishing, 2007).

520 Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians, 128. PR 5.1, 34, 37, nos. 100 and 101.

521 FR 5.1, no. 54, 191-212; Oliver Stoll, “The Religions of the Armies,” pp. 451-476 in A Companion to the Roman Army ed. Paul Erdkamp (Malden: Blackwell, 2007), 452.

171

cult.522 Yet, as Stoll pointedly asks, “Does a certain piece of evidence pertain to a private religious need, or is it a testimony of an obligation of service duty and of prescribed rituals of state religion and emperor cult?”523

The fact that the army camp was walled off in 211 has suggested that the army was socially and thus culturally cut off from the rest of the population. Their purpose- built structures in the camp such as the amphitheater, baths, barracks, and praetorium are the traditional markers of “Romanization” but here they are separate from the citizens of the city.524 Downey believes the Romans never intended to Romanize the city itself—the

Roman “markers” were used solely by the soldiers.525 Baird argues that this theory is perhaps negated by the discovery of the remains of colonnaded streets, implying the

Romans were embellishing the city. The late date of the Roman colonization and the destruction of the city would have left their designs on the city incomplete or unrecognizable.526 Regardless, it does not appear the Romans were terribly concerned with leaving a “cultural” mark on the city. Yet, since soldiers were billeted throughout

Dura, it will be interesting to see how the official gods of the army interact with the regional deities on the domestic level. It seems much more likely there was a reciprocal relationship among the soldiers and civilians, especially if many of the recruits were locals.527

522 Stoll, “The Religions of the Armies,” 453.

523 Stoll, “The Religions of the Armies,” 452.

524 Edwell, Beyond Rome and Persia, 119-123; Welles, “The Inhabitants of Dura-Europos,” 258-9.

525 Downey 2003, 156-57; Baird Vol. 1, 83.

526 Baird Vol. 1, 83.

527 My opinion is in opposition to that of Pollard who was only considering the official cults in the city.

172

Beyond the army, the Roman period brings with it the appearance of some Latin,

which only weakly competed with Semitic languages such as Palmyrene, Aramaic, and

Syriac. The Latin tria nomina appears after the Constitutio Antoniniana and personal

names are known in both Greek and Semitic languages.528 The city’s identification of a

colony seems to have had some significance since it was transliterated into various

languages including Hebrew, Aramaic, Palmyrene, and Syriac.529

In general it seems the fabric of the city changed dramatically between 194 and

211. Dura truly became a fortress. The military occupied a large portion of the city

exclusively and was billeted throughout. Most of the commercial activities of the town

appear to have revolved around the needs of the army.530 The system of local government

headed by the strategos comes to an end. The last mention of this position dates from this

period.531 It must be questioned whether Dura exhibits any real Romanization. Civilians

who remained were Durenes who lived in a Roman fortress. Fittingly this is the time

when the name Dura seems to completely replace that of Europos.532

528 Fergus Millar, “The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Interactions,” pp. 164-222 in

Rome, the Greek World, and the East, vol. 3, edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers (Chapel

Hill: North Carolina University Press, 2002), 220.

529 Millar, “The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Interactions,” 220.

530 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 260.

531 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 261.

532 Welles, “The Population of Roman Dura,” 261. With the exception of the previously mentioned P. Dura

32.

173

Art

There are three main styles at Dura-Europos: Greco-Roman, Syrian, and

Palmyrene. These are somewhat superficial labels and I will try to demonstrate their

characteristics as well as problems of their use. At Dura, there is epigraphic evidence to

aid us in an interpretation of the visual material, such as dedications.

Greco-Roman Style

In the material evidence, Greco-Roman repertoire takes precedence over Greco-

Roman style. Figures such as Aphrodite and Herakles are the most popular Greco-Roman figures at Dura. They retain their traditional attributes and poses. Herakles, the most commonly represented Greco-Roman deity in the city, is always seen carrying his lion skin and club. He is not generally represented in statuette form, but rather as a plaque that would be set into a wall. Only five of the forty-two Herakles images found were statuettes. Fifteen are known to be from houses, but the provenance for many of them is either unknown or unclear, such as in a street.533 Yet, it must be questioned as to whether

this figure is a purely Greco-Roman Herakles or if he has been combined with a Near

Eastern god. Downey does not discount the likelihood that residents of Dura may well

have syncretized him with Negral, a Babylonian god with whom Herakles is associated at other sites. But, there is not really evidence for this god at Dura, nor of Verethragna, another god with whom Herakles was syncretized, whereas Herakles representations are

plentiful.534

533 FR 3.1.1, 37.

534 FR 3.1.1, 83.

174

Aphrodite is generally shown in contrapposto and either nude or half draped.

There are indicators of Greco-Roman style in the types (such as Aphrodite with a mirror or the Knidia), but there is no real interest in slavishly executing a highly classicizing style. Schematic drapery and a lack of anatomical perfection are the norm. One exception is the marble Aphrodite with a Turtle discovered by Cumont in the Temple of Artemis.535

Now in the Louvre, it is a rare example of a life-sized freestanding sculpture from

Dura.536 She stands in an exaggerated s-curve and wears the standard Greek costume of chiton and himation. The drapery is naturalistic and reveals the body underneath in the typical Greco-Roman manner. The material and craftsmanship indicate it was imported.

Furthermore, it seems likely that it is at least loosely based on a specific Greek statue type: Phidias created a chryselephantine statue of Aphrodite with a turtle for the sanctuary of Elis (Paus. 6.25.1) (fig 8.1). Although she is often assimilated with many eastern goddesses it seems that the examples in the homes studied here prefer Greco-

Roman types like the Knidia and Aphrodite Anadyomene (see the next chapter). Although this does not preclude the syncretization of her with another goddess by the owner it does seem that in these examples she is more Greco-Roman than Semitic. This is in contrast to other eastern sites such as Warka, Assur, and Seleucia where nude female figures tend to echo Near Eastern types.537

535 Temple of Artemis, chapel of Aphrodite, room B. H: 57 cm; L: 22 cm.

536 The primary cult images in the temples at Dura are generally in relief.

537 FR 3.1.2, 166.

175

Fig. 8.1: Aphrodite with a Turtle, Louvre (photo: Rama, Wikimedia Commons)

Palmyrene Style

Rostovtzeff considers the presence of the Palmyrenes in his assessment of the

Parthian or eastern elements in Durene art. Their art follows many of the conventions of

other eastern art including frontality and linear rendering of the drapery. There is

sometimes overlap of figures and objects to create a suggestion of depth. In the example below, the worshiper in the center has foreshortened feet, while the riders provide a sense of depth by overlapping the figure of the worshipper (fig. 8.2).538 This is further

538 M.I. Rostovtzeff, Dura And the Problem of Parthian Art (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935),

238

176

evidenced in the sacrifice scene from Palmyra in comparison the Parthian example below

(fig. 8.4). The typical Palmyrene reclining pose, is another

Fig. 8.2. Bas Relief of Abgal and Asar, 154 CE, Damascus, 50 cm h., after Colledge, Art of Palmyra, fig. 43.

Fig. 8.3. Sarcophagus, Palmyra, 200 CE, ArtStor.

177

common characteristic. The figure has one leg bent and elevated. The opposite leg is bent

and tucked under its mate. Palmyrene art tends to have a different style in its treatment of

drapery and costume; although the drapery is still schematized there is a desire to reveal

the impression of the body underneath the garments (fig. 8.3).

Syrian Style

What I am calling Syrian, for lack of a better descriptor, draws on the eastern

artistic tradition. Parthian religion is not attested at Dura, but there is some evidence for

characteristics typical of its art. Rostovtzeff attempted to define Parthian art at Dura early

on. His “Neo-Iranian” style, when combined with Hellenistic precedents and the local

Syrian and Mesopotamian traditions is what I am defining as “Syrian.” Frontal, static

figures engaged with the viewer, creating a spiritual mood. Clarity of representation is

preferred to slavish naturalism. Some examples incorporate the Greco-Roman repertoire of figure types such as Aphrodite and others show very Iranian subjects such as hunt scenes with animals in the “flying gallop.” Rostovtzeff sees the latter at Dura as being specifically Parthian, but this does not mean the creators of these images saw themselves as such.539 In reality, the Syrian art of Dura Europos is an effective example of the artistic

koine in a land that was occupied by a wide variety of peoples: Macedonian, Iranian,

Mesopotamian, etc. The coming of the Romans in 165 did nothing to alter this tradition.

539 M.I. Rostovtzeff, Caravan Cities, trans. D. and T. Talbot Rice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), 193-5,

215.

178

Fig 8.4. Parthian (?) King Sacrificing Fig. 8.5 Artabanus giving ring Bisutun, 190-200 CE, drawing after of power to the satrap, Khwasak, Susa, 215 CE, Ghirshman, Iran, fig. 66. drawing after Ghirshman, Iran, fig. 70.

I show some of the rare examples of imperial Parthian art for comparison to the finds at Dura. As the excavators frequently label artwork as Parthian, it is important understand their criteria, even if this label may not be entirely accurate. As mentioned above, frontality is a basic requirement of relief sculpture—this is unlike Achaemenid art where figures are often in profile—but by the Late Parthian period (150-225 CE) we start to see some attempts at three-quarter views (figs. 8.4-6). A common activity depicted is the pouring of a libation on an altar. This is seen in the rock relief of Vologases, generally identified as Vologases IV (Fig. 8.4).540 His right foot is frontal and makes an attempt at foreshortening while the left foot is in profile.

Other aspects of Parthian art include the specific iconography of the hairstyles and tiaras. Vologases wears a diadem and some kind of skull cap. More typical is Artabanus’ dress while investing power to Khwasak: the king wears his kingly tiara while the satrap has what appears to be four tiers of curls (fig. 8.5). Artabanus is rendered in a three-

540 Mathieson, Sculpture, 55, cat. 96.

179

quarter position, and his throne is indicated through intuitive perspective. Khwasak, too,

stands in a three-quarter view, but it is more subtle and the frontality in both cases is

Fig 8.6. Presentation of (or reception of) Ring of Investiture, Block II (Group 3, relief ANa) Tang-I- Sarvak, 200-220 CE (adapted from drawing by Erik Smekens, Ghent University).

still evident.541 The other common Parthian hairstyle consists of bunches of hair on either

side of the face, often with a third bunch sitting on top of the head—the Parthian tripartite

hairstyle. The relief from Tang-I-Sarvak demonstrates this hairstyle in combination with a hat or headpiece (Fig. 8.6). The couchant figure is clearly the main subject; he is largest, in the center of the relief, and reclining. The particular way of propping up the right leg with the other leg tucked beneath is thought to be a Palmyrene trait adopted by the Parthians.542

541 Mathieson, Sculpture, 60, cat. 87.

542 Mathieson, Sculpture, 61-61, cat. 10.

180

Ann Perkins defines a Durene art style as having schematic body types, large

eyes, frontality, rejecting of classical drapery, and a disinterest in spatial relationships.543

Yet I believe her “Durene” style is little more than the artistic koine of a land full of

Macedonians, Iranians and Mesopotamians Hence I have decided to call the style

“Syrian” in order to note the cultural heterogeneity of the style’s origins.

Religion at Dura-Europos

In terms of the religious identity of the Durenes, I will be omitting discussion of the Synagogue, Christian building, Mithraeum and Dolicheneum: the first two, because this dissertation focuses on pagan religion; the latter two because these are mystery cults that, at Dura, do not contribute to our understanding of household religion. This is because there is no evidence for the worship of either of these deities inside the home, unlike most of the gods mentioned below. Furthermore these two shrines were located in

the military quarter separated from the rest of the city.

Macedonian

The temples that we can associate with Macedonian identity are few. One of the

oldest temples, to Zeus Megistos (the Greatest), has foundations that date back to the

Hellenistic period.544 It retained its importance throughout the Parthian and Roman

543 Perkins, The Art of Dura Europos, 114-17.

544 Dirven 1999, 114; Susan Downey, “Excavations in the Temple of Zeus Megistos at Dura-Europos,

1994-1998,” in Doura-Europos Etudes V: 1994-1997, Pierre Leriche, ed. (Paris: P. Geuthner, 2004), 54-55.

181

eras.545 Found inside were five representations of Herakles, implying a Macedonian

patron, but with these depictions were representations of Hadad and Arsu, suggesting that

the cult was multicultural.546 The oriental-type architecture seems to confirm this and it is likely that Zeus Megistos was actually identified with Baalshamin.547

Another early “Greek” temple is thought to be dedicated to Artemis but there is

evidence that the site was also associated with Nanaia. Therefore it is often referred to as

the Temple of Artemis-Nanaia, but Downey cautions that the official dedications only

refer to Artemis and the Nanaia reference is simply a graffito.548 It is not known how

early the temple to Artemis dates but an inscription from 33/32 BCE mentions the

rebuilding of the temple.549 The majority of dedications, including those on seats of the

temple, carry Greek names and there were also altars dedicated in 2 CE to Artemis and

Apollo Archegoi, patron deities of the Seleucids.550

545 Or at least in the early Roman period based on an inscription for the renovation of the temple in 169/70 paid for by the strategos (Dirven 1999, 114). The two dedications to Zeus Megistos from around 250 in the

Dolicheneum may indicate this Zeus’ continued importance (Welles, “The Gods of Dura Europos,” 55).

546 Welles, “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” 1970, 54.

547 Susan B. Downey, Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1988), 95-96.

548 PR 6, 397-415; FR 3.1.2, 170.

549 PR 6, 404-411; FR 3.1.2, 170.

550 FR 3.1.2, 170.

182

Syrian/Aramaic

The other Zeus temples have a much more Semitic character. One, to Zeus

Kyrios-Baalshamin contained a bilingual relief in Greek and Palmyrene.551 It is thought this conflated sky god came to Dura from Palmyra.552 Another small temple was dedicated to Zeus Theos. The dedications date to the Parthian period and the frescoes appear to be stylistically indebted to the influence of Iran, more so than in any other temple examples. Frank Brown noted that the figures are hieratic, isolated, and frontal.553

A young beardless Zeus stands in front of a chariot—Brown compared this, perhaps too eagerly, to the chariot of Ahura Mazda described by Herodotus among others in the description of an Achaemenid ceremony.554

Atargatis was a popular Syrian goddess whose cult was centered at Hierapolis.555

Her consort both there and at Dura was Hadad. It has been suggested that her Dura temple was similar in its layout to the great one at Hierapolis described by Lucian.

Additionally, in both cities Atargatis seemed to enjoy a higher status than her consort; she is larger than Hadad on the cult relief from Dura, and her throne is flanked by lions.556

The Temple of Adonis was the latest built of the pagan temples of Dura—the earliest phase is dated to around 150-160 CE and a second between 175 and 182.557

551 FR 3.1.2, 31, 208.

552 Dirven 1999, 115-16; Welles, “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” 60.

553 PR 7/8, 209-10 and Welles, “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” 61.

554 PR 7/8, 201; Herodotus 7.40.4; 7.55.3 and also Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VII.3.12.

555 FR 3.1.2, 9.

556 FR 3.1.2, 172-4.

557 PR 7/8, 152.

183

Adonis is named in several inscriptions and is pictured in the naos. He was worshipped there in tandem with Apollo and his intermittent consort Atargatis.558 As a god of

Phoenician origin tied to Atargatis he can be included among the Syrian deities. Lucian mentions his worship at Byblos as well.559

Two other deities thought to be Syrian are Aphlad and Azzanathkona.560 Aphlad is known from his relief inscription to come from Anat(h); it was suggested based on the name Azzanathkona that she hailed from there as well.561 However, these gods are not known from anywhere besides Dura. The Temple of Azzanathkona ceased to function as such once the northern sector was converted into a military zone; it became an office for the Cohort XX Palmyrenorum.562 Aphlad’s temple seems to have continued in use though and the dedication of his relief to “Apladda, son of Hadad” may also support his Syrian origin as a son of this god (fig. 8.7).563

558 PR 7/8, 153.

559 Lucian, De Dea Syria 6; Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, trans., The Syrian Goddess Attributed to Lucian (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 13-15. For the problems surrounding this texts see Attridge and

Oden, The Syrian Goddess, 1-3 and for additional problems see Jaś Elsner, “Describing Self in the language of Other: Pseudo (?) Lucian at the temple of Hierapolis,” in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural

Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire, ed. Simon Goldhill (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2001), 123-153. Regardless of the issues such as authorship and whether it is satire, I believe it has value in that it is the only primary text that tells us about Syrian religion to this extent.

560 Edwell, Beyond Rome and Persia, 104.

561 FR 3.1.2, 11, 185.

562 Edwell, Beyond Rome and Persia, 119.

563 FR 3.1.2, 7; Susan B. Downey, “The Role of Sculpture in Worship at the Temples of Dura-Europos,” in

The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power, eds.

184

Fig. 8.7. Aphlad relief, after Neg. # dura-e103~01, 0.515 m. h.

Palmyrene

Specifically Palmyrene gods are attested in several temples at Dura. The earliest

was a temple to Bel located outside the city in the Necropolis.564 Although Bel is distantly related to the Babylonian god, Marduk, by the time of his appearance at Dura he is a purely Palmyrene deity.565 In addition to Bel other gods in the temple are Iarhibol,

possibly Herakles-Nergal, and Aglibol, among others.566 Iarhibol (the sun) and Aglibol

Yaron Z. Eliav, Elise A. Friedland, and Sharon Herbert (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 415.

564 See PR 7/8; Dirven 1999, 29.

565 Dirven 1999, 44.

566 Dirven 1999, 45.

185

(the moon) are often worshipped in conjunction with Bel (the sky).567 Although located outside the walls of the city and in the necropolis these gods are not known to be associated with the dead. It is thought that this temple served the needs of Palmyrenes before they were able to build a temple inside the city proper.568

The Temple of the Gadde dates to the mid-second century CE with some evidence

that there was a Palmyrene religious building on the site even earlier.569 Gadde are

commonly found at both Palmyra and Hatra, as the tutelary deities of these places, akin to

the Greek Tyche. The Gad of Tadmor (Palmyra) is styled after the Tyche of Antioch while

the Gad of Dura is modeled after Zeus.570 There is also evidence for another popular

Palmyrene deity, Malakbel, being worshipped here as well. It has even been suggested

that this messenger god was the primary deity of the sanctuary.571

The so-called Temple of Palmyrene Gods (also called the Temple of Bel) was the

first discovery at Dura in 1920 and was the catalyst for the subsequent campaigns. A

British army officer came across the remains of some wall paintings in 1920 and they

were subsequently published by Breasted in his 1924 Oriental Forerunners of Byzantine

Painting. The temple was excavated under Cumont’s direction in 1922-23 and later by

the Yale team.572 In the Parthian period it appears to have been dedicated to Zeus but by

the Roman period the frescoes reveal various Palmyrene deities. In room K was a fresco

567 Dirven 1999, 55.

568 Downey, Mesopotamian Architecture, 98.

569 Dirven 1999, 29-30; FR 3.1.2, 15-17.

570 Dirven 1999, 101-3; 113.

571 Dirven 1999, 157-9.

572 Dirven 1999, xvi-ii.

186

commissioned by a man named Otes, generally dated to 160 CE. He and another man are

offering sacrifice to five deities: Bel, Iarhibol, Aglibol, Arsu and probably Allât-

Athena.573

Another painting, the well-known Julius Ternentius dedication, was located in the pronaos of the temple and dated to before 239 (when he died). He and his men sacrifice to Iarhibol, Aglibol, Arsu and the Tyches of Dura and Palmyra.574 Arsu was a god of Arab origin that was adopted by the Palmyrenes and associated with Bel.575 At Palmyra in

particular he seems to have been associated with a particular tribe, the Bene Mattabal.

This rider god has traditionally been seen as a guardian of the caravan.576

Domestic Religion

A specialized study of pagan domestic religion has never been attempted for

Dura-Europos. Household religion was mentioned in brief throughout the reports with the

excavators identifying the court as the usual locus of worship.577 Downey’s study on the

Herakles sculptures posits that they served a predominantly apotropaic function.578

Jennifer Baird gives a general overview, but does not go into great depth as her goal was

to present all of the houses.

The main types of evidence consist of altars and representations of deities.

573 Dirven 1999, 295-302.

574 Dirven 1999, 302-314. FR 3.2.1 19, 213.

575 FR 3.1.2 195; Dirven 1999, 68.

576 Dirven 1999, 97.

577 FR 3.1.1, 82.

578 PR 5, 54; Downey 2003, 14.

187

Elaborate shrines are not known from this site. Altars at Dura consist of four main types:

horned, cylindrical, animal, and columnar. The horned altars can be split into sub groups:

integrated horns or separated horns.579 The cylindrical and horned altars cannot really tell

us much about who used them. These are extremely common.580 Four larger scale horned

altars were found in the court of the mansion-sized “House of Lysias.”581 Without an

inscription or decoration these altars can really only be taken as indicators of a religious

activity occurring in a particular part of the home.

The animal altars provide more information. When they are decorated with

creatures commonly associated with certain gods we can infer at least a particular

religious preference. Specific examples will be discussed in the following chapter. In

addition, these types of altars are traditionally associated with the Mesopotamia rather

than any Greco-Roman tradition.582

Deities and votive figurines can take the form of plaster plaques, stone statuettes

579 The designations “integrated” and “separated” follow the nomenclature in Déonna Waldemar. “Mobilier délien.” In: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 58 (1934), 381-86.

580 See for instance Marie-José Chavane, Salamine de Chypre IV: Les Petits Objets (Paris: Boccard, 1975), pls. 36-7.

581 C. Douglas Gunn, “The House of Lysias in Block D-1,” Yale University Seminar report, 1965, 3, notes these altars are similar to ones found in the Parthian city of Assur. See Walter Andrae and Heinz Lenzen,

Ausgrabungen der Deutschen orient-Gesellschaft in Assur VIII: Die Partherstadt Assur (Osnabrück: Otto

Zeller, 1967 (reprint 1933)), pp. 70-71; plate 36.

582 Claude Doumet Serhal, The Klat Collection: Near Eastern Terracotta Models and Figurines, translated

by Mandy Khalifé-Johnson and Diane Klat (Beirut: Raidy Printing Group, 2009), 145, cat. 27. See also

142, cat, 20 for another nice example of a horse or cow burner. Citations include provenanced examples.

188

or reliefs, and terracotta reliefs or figurines. The most common of the terracotta figures

are horses or horses with riders.583 These can be assumed to have a votive character. I

have illustrated two examples here as the ones discussed in the case-studies were too fragmentary or discarded.584 The deities and votive objects that individuals chose for their

homes provide us with the most information in terms of both the subject and the style that

appealing to Durenes. Altars are more problematic, especially due to the way they are

described by the excavators. Throughout the preliminary reports they label items as

“Parthian” or “Palmyrene” but do not provide suitable comparanda to justify these

descriptors. At times there may be one example, at others none.

Fig. 8.8. Horse, after Neg. # 1929’306~01. Fig. 8.9. Rider, after Neg. # 1932’1258~01.

Dura-Europos exhibits a plurality of identities that can be charted in ethnicity,

artistic style and repertoires, institutions, and religion. In some cases, an individual may

even have had multiple identities. Regardless, this survey can be applied to the material

evidence presented in the case-studies in the next chapter.

583 Downey 2003, 9-10.

584 YUAG 1929.306; YUAG 1932.1258. 189

CHAPTER 9

DURA-EUROPOS CATALOG

Houses and rooms are identified as follows: B2B1 describes room or area 1 in structure B from the second block of area B. I have provided other object information in a variety of ways. FN indicates a field number. Where applicable a Yale University Art

Gallery accession number will be preceded by YUAG. Items in Damascus will be preceded by DM. Some of the objects are now missing and do not have an accession number. If a photograph is included from the Yale University Art Gallery it will be labeled Neg. #. Almost all of these are now digitized and available on ArtStor. Numbers after “Baird Oblist” are page numbers to her pdf object list, a supplement to her dissertation and accessible at the Yale University Art Gallery. If dimensions for an object are known they will be included in the photo caption. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the period of use for all of the homes corresponds roughly to the end of the city in 256 CE.

190

Dura-Europos Catalog 1: House B2B

House B in block B2 was excavated in the 1932-33 season under the supervision

of Robert du Mesnil du Boisson and Brown with Hopkins as director. Block B2 has also

been more recently studied by Anny Allara in her published dissertation.585

Fig. 9.1. Plan of B2B, after Allara, fig. 107 (after Neg. # h62a~01).

In court B1 a glazed ceramic altar decorated with unidentified animal heads was

found (fig. 9.2). In Baird’s object list it is recorded as faience, and the heads are identified

585 Anny Allara, Problemi di architettura domestica a Dura-Europos sull’euphrate, L’isolato dei Vasai

(B2) (Naples: instituto universitario orientale, 2002), 121-129.

191

as boars.586 Room B4/G4, was originally part of house G but had been joined to house B sometime prior to 256. It contained a cylindrical stone altar with inscription (fig. 9.3).587

Fig. 9.2. Animal altar, after Neg. # yale 1331. Fig. 9.3. Cylindrical altar, after Neg. # 1938’318~01.

The inscription at the top is in the form of a tabula ansata so we can assume this altar had some sort of dedication, now illegible. (pictured) A fragmentary terracotta horse figurine was also found.588 In B5 another incense altar was found. It is glazed terracotta with two

586 FN F231; DM 10396; Allara, Problemi di architettura domestica a Dura-Europos, 228, no. H09; Baird

Oblist, 396.

587 Originally YUAG 1933.318 but now YUAG 1933.32; FN F228; Neg. # 1938'318~01; Allara, Problemi di architettura domestica a Dura-Europos, 230, no. J05; Baird Oblist, 390.

588 Altar: FN F229; YUAG 1934.609c; Neg. # yale 1331; Allara, Problemi di architettura domestica a

Dura-Europos, 227, no. G05; Baird Oblist, 396.

192

animals supporting the bowl (fig. 9.4).589 Although possibly gazelles or rams, the shape

of the horns appears more like those of bulls. These types of animal burners have a long

history in the Near East going back to the late Bronze Age. One in particular, of a

Fig. 9.4. Camel burner, photo from locus file. Fig. 9.5. Mouflon burner, drawing after Serhal, The Klat Collection, cat. 27, h. 0.075 m

mouflon, is a particularly nice comparison (fig. 9.5).590 Bulls are associated with Hadad.

They decorate his throne on the cult relief found at Dura and Lucian provides the same

description for his cult statue at Hierapolis.591

B10 was the entrance corridor to the house. The lower half of an alabaster

statuette was found here (fig. 9.6).592 It is most likely a female figure and has been

589 FN F233 ; DM 10395; Allara, Problemi di architettura domestica a Dura-Europos, 228, no. H10 and

232, and see in tab. 36 that B2B5 = B2G5. Baird Oblist, 396.

590 Serhal, The Klat Collection: Near Eastern Terracotta Models and Figurines, 145, cat. 27. Although unprovenanced, thermoluminescent dating yielded a result of 4000-2500 BP and there are other similar examples from datable contexts.

591 De Dea Syria 31. Attrigde and Oden, Syrian Goddess,43.

193

tentatively identified as Nike based on the drapery that slightly flows out in back and

presses tightly across the front of the legs suggesting the figure is in motion. Additionally

the downward pointed feet may indicate flight or an imminent take-off. The drapery on the left leg is curiously bunched in what appears to be a zigzag. Overall too little remains to positively identify this figure as a particular goddess, but the fact that it is made of stone (not terracotta) and its small size recommends its use as an object of private devotion.

Fig. 9.6. Nike?, after Neg. # 1933-306~01, 0.085 m h.

This house contained three altars, all in different rooms. Only in one, room B4,

was there a possible religious figurine found in addition to the altar. The altar itself is

likely inscribed but the records suggest it was illegible even to the excavators. The only

592 FN F1757; YUAG 1933.306; Neg. # 1933-306~01; FR 3.2.1., no 98; Allara, Problemi di architettura domestica a Dura-Europos, 230, no. K03 and 232—B and G10 may overlap—; Baird Oblist, 288.

194

clear mark is the tabula ansata which is often associated with votives and army

dedications.593

The overall religious finds from the house seem to indicate a preference for

indigenous gods. The fragmentary horse figurine and the half-preserved, draped figure

from room 10 do not indicate particular deities. The “horse” is fragmentary and is typical

of the animal figurines at Dura which are frankly difficult to identify in terms of species.

We can still assume a votive function. The draped figure’s garments are not distinct

enough to identify it definitively with Nike, although this is the best candidate. The

animal altars do seem to indicate a Syrian identity and it may be possible to associate the

boars with Adonis, to whom there was a temple at Dura. Furthermore Lucian tells us that

Adonis’ encounter with the boar was believed to have occurred in Syria.594 As mentioned

above, the bulls may be associated with Hadad.

593 J.A. Baird, “The Graffiti of Dura Europos,” in Ancient Graffiti in Context ed. J.A. Baird and Claire

Taylor (New York: Routledge, 2011), 58.

594 De Dea Syria 6; Attridge and Olen, Syrian Goddess, 13-15. 195

Dura-Europos Catalog 2: House C3D

House D in block C3 was excavated in the 1932-33 season under Hopkins. It appears to be composed of several levels and was built against a slope which included two natural caves attached to the house. Rooms 1, 3, 4, 5, and 12 are on the highest level.

D8 is in communication with the two caves and is on the lower level with rooms 6, 7, and

10. D9 and 13 are on an even lower level and may be part of a different house.595

N Fig. 9.7. Plan of C3D, after Neg. # y-9~01.

Room D1 contained a graffito of a priest standing before an altar. The figure

wears a round cap the excavators identified as similar to one worn by a priest from the

595 PR 6, 115-19.

196

cult relief in the Temple of Aphlad (see previous chapter).596 He holds a goblet in his left hand. On the same wall are two frontal figures wearing baggy pants and possibly holding spear(s). Neither of these examples are illustrated, nor are the dimensions recorded for all of the graffiti.597

D3 was designated the court. It is a long, narrow room higher than some of the

other rooms of the house. A graffito in the room depicts a humped bull with a swastika on

its flank (fig. 9.8).598 The finds included a terracotta horse head and an animal figurine.599

Fig. 9.8. Bull, after PR 6, fig. 4, 0.19 x 0.15 m. Fig. 9.9. Radiate man?, after PR 6, fig. 7. Rostovtzeff, et al., The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary report of sixth season of work, October 1932-March 1933 (permission of Yale University Press ©).

D5 contained a large number of graffiti and a fragment of a horse figurine.600

Included in the drawings were:

596 PR 6, 124.

597 PR 6, 125.

598 PR 6, 124. The name above, Zenobius, was popular at Palmyra (PR 6, 128-9).

599 Baird Oblist, 291 and 346.

197

1. a bearded man with spiked hair or a radiate crown. He is frontal, static, and

engages with the viewers (fig. 9.9).

2. a Parthian warrior dressed in a helmet and armor (fig. 9.10). He holds a spear

and lunges to the left. Despite his sideways movement, the composite view

employed allowed the graffitist to retain a frontal orientation.

3. two figures reclining on a couch (fig. 9.11).601 Only one is fairly clear. He

wears a short tunic and possibly leggings and long sleeves. The sideways pose

and frontal face permit him to be seen more clearly although his relationship

to the couch becomes awkward.

Fig. 9.10. Parthian warrior, after PR 6, fig. 8. Fig. 9.11. Reclining figures, after PR 6, fig. 9. Rostovtzeff, et al., The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary report of sixth season of work, October 1932-March 1933 (permission of Yale University Press ©).

4. a include a horse’s head (fig. 9.12). The features are abstracted and a

composite view is again utilized. The head, ears, and neck are in profile but

the eyes are frontal.602

600 Baird Oblist, 290.

601 PR 6, 126, figs. 7-9.

602 PR 6, 127, figs. 11-13. 12 and13 are not included here; they represent two birds, and a palm tree.

198

Fig. 9.12. Horse, after PR 6, fig. 11. Fig. 9.13. Man in prayer, after PR 6, fig. 7, 0.64 m h. Rostovtzeff, et al., The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary report of sixth season of work, October 1932-March 1933 (permission of Yale University Press ©).

Fig. 9.14. Iarhibol and man, after PR 6, fig. 6 Fig. 9.15. Nude with two men, fig. 10. Rostovtzeff, et al., The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary report of sixth season of work, October 1932-March 1933 (permission of Yale University Press ©).

Three others suggest a religious connotation more strongly and are as follows:

1. a man standing before what was described by the excavators as a “high

goblet” and stalks of wheat (fig. 9.13).603 The “goblet” appears more like a

lamp stand or thymiaterion and the wheat could be interpreted as some sort of

offering. His arms are raised in an action of prayer. Although his costume is

difficult to make out—it is not Greek, and he has curly hair.

603 PR 6, 124, fig. 5.

199

2. a radiate, seated deity with a man wearing a round cap on his right (fig. 9.14).

Both figures are frontal and do not truly engage one another despite the fact

that the deity is offering the second figure an unknown object. The excavators

suggest the god is Iarhibol, the Palmyrene sun god.604

3. a nude woman being approached by two men in pointed hats with two

amphorae between them (fig. 9.15). The excavators tentatively suggest she is

a goddess.605 The female is completely frontal and stands with a bent leg and

one arm on her hip. The men appear to be reaching for her. Although figures

of nude females has a long history in Mesopotamian art, the pose of this figure

Pose does not correspond to a particular type and the other females we see at

Dura are clothed.

Fig. 9.16. West cave with D3 above, after Neg. # 585. Fig. 9.17. West cave. after Neg. # 580.

604 PR 6, 124, fig. 6.

605 PR 6, 126, fig. 10.

200

Room 8 was in communication with two natural caves (figs. 9.16-17). These probably

functioned as rooms although there is a possibility they may have served a more sacred

function. The north wall of one of the caves was finished with plaster, giving the

impression it had some importance.606 D8 contained various utilitarian objects and coins,

but it also had a clay imprint of a child’s foot and two round plaster plaques decorated

with dots and affixed to the wall. Although the excavators suggested the imprint may

have simply been something akin to our own practice of impressing baby hand prints, it is

more likely it served as a votive.607 Similar plaster disks were also found in a few other

locations at Dura. The excavators associated them with an unknown cultic function.608

Room 10 contained two items of note. One is a terracotta plaque of a woman

holding a circular object to her abdomen (fig. 9.18).609 This object has been identified by

Downey as tympanum. 610 The figure is headless; the breasts reveal its sex. The rendering is extremely rudimentary making the tympanum a difficult attribute to confirm. A platter has also been suggested.611 The manner in which the figure holds the object is at odds

with Downey’s number 41, which seems to be in a more naturalistic action of playing an

instrument. The preliminary reports liken the woman from D10 to Babylonian nude

606 PR 6, 118

607 FN F1787; Baird Oblist, 290; PR 6, 118.

608 Baird Vol.1, 157: from C7E2, C7A22 (PR 5, 41) AND C7A23 (PR 5, 36).

609 FN 2159; YUAG 1934.609b; Neg. # 1935’609b~01; Baird Oblist, 350.

610 Downey 2003, 88-89, cat 42.

611 PR 6, 123.

201

female goddesses or priestesses holding a tympanum (fig. 9.19).612 The excavators believed the Dura woman was topless. I agree with Downey, rather that the horizontal marks over the breast indicate a continuous garment.613 This differentiates it from

Ancient Near Eastern examples as does its manufacture, which is hand-made rather than mold-made.614

Fig. 9.18. Woman with tympanum Fig. 9.19. Women with tympana, after Van Buren, Clay after Neg. # 1935’609b~01, 0.08 m h. Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria cats. 449 and 454, figs. 123-4 (permission of Yale University Press ©).

Also found in room 10 was a mold-made terracotta plaque of a man in Parthian dress (fig. 9.20). It is unfortunately now lost.615 He wears leggings and a belted long-

612 PR 6, 122-3; E. Douglas van Buren. Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria (New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1980 (1930), figs. 123-4.

613 Downey 2003, 89.

614 Van Buren, Clay Figurines, 89-91, cats. 449 and 454, figs. 123-4

615 FN F2210; PR 6, 121-22; Neg. # y228; Baird Oblist, 362.

202

sleeved tunic. He is frontal and appears to hold an object in his left hand. His feet are

flanked by rosettes. Above this appear another, less defined, rosette on the viewer’s

Fig. 9.20. Parthian sacrificing, after Neg. # y228, 0.095 m h.

right and a small undecorated altar on the viewer’s left which his right hand reaches

toward. Beside his shoulders are square shapes with figures inside; to either side of his

face are two busts, possibly the sun and the moon. The figure’s face is simple, abstracted,

and surrounded by short hair. The clothing is rich with schematic carvings that indicate

folds, or more likely, patterns on the garments. Downey identifies the object in the left

hand as a sword; it looks more like a round object in my opinion. This could even be a

flower, perhaps related to the plant-like object that seems to extend from the altar.

Downey describes the altar as either horned or in flame.616 I believe the former is more

likely since he is in the act of sacrifice.

616 Downey 2003, 76-77, cat. 34, fig. 32.

203

Room 9, which may not be part of this house, contained a plaster mold and relief cast from it of a deity that resembles Serapis (fig. 9.21).617 This is due to his beard, polos, and Greek-style garment. Furthermore, his facial features are rendered in amore naturalistic way than other figures at Dura, like the Parthian warrior above. Yet he does not wear the typical Serapis hairstyle or beard and may represent a different male deity such as Hadad who can also wear a polos. It should be noted neither Isis nor Serapis appeared elsewhere in the city. Although the original excavators were skeptical about including this room with those discussed above it is also possible that the three levels were once three different dwellings had been combined into one large house.618

Fig. 9.21. Serapis?, after Neg. # Yale 1314-~01, 0.105 m h.

617 FN F2208; YUAG 1933.329; PR 6, 120-21.

618 PR 6, 119-22.

204

House C3D contained a considerable amount of information about its last

inhabitants. Syrian religious practices are evident in the pointed hats of the “priests” in

the graffiti from room 5. The costume connects them to a depiction of a priest standing

before an altar in the Aphlad cult relief.619 If the graffito deity with the radiate crown can

be identified as Iarhibol this would also indicate indigenous beliefs. A Parthian warrior,

although difficult to interpret, could have had an apotropaic function. Furthermore the

clay figurine of the woman with the tympanum is derived from long standing traditions in

Mesopotamian art and may indicate a worshiper or priestess.620 Finally the relief with a

man in Parthian clothes sacrificing further adds to this overwhelmingly Syrian

environment. Except for the slight possibility the medallion represented Serapis, there is

little to connect this home with Greco-Roman culture. The nude woman poses in a manner that could be associated with Aphrodite—hand on hip and a bent knee—yet the

style and the costume of her attendants suggests a more indigenous tradtion.

619 See fig. 8.7. PR 6, 124.

620 PR 6, 122-23; Van Buren, Clay Figurines, xlix-l and 89-91, cats. 449 and 454.

205

Dura-Europos Catalog 3: House C7A2

House A2 in block C7 was excavated in 1930-31 under Pillet and again in 1931-

32 under Hopkins.621 It consisted of two shops, 4 and 5, connected to a living area (6 and

8) which had its own entrance and a second floor or roof access.622

N Fig. 9.22. Plan of C7A2, after Neg. # dura-c7~01. Fig. 9.23. Camel burner, Neg. # dura-e114~01, ~0.12 m. h

In court 6 a faience incense burner in the shape of a camel was found (fig. 9.22).

This is similar to other types of animal incense burners found at Dura such as those recovered from house B2B.623 Camels are associated with the god, Arsu, a protector of caravans who gained popularity north of his Arabian roots.624 He is commonly shown

621 Baird, Vol. 2., 122.

622 Jennifer Baird, “Shopping, Eating, and Drinking at Dura Europos,” in Objects in Context, Objects in

Use. Eds. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift, and Toon Putzeys (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 434.

623 FN E295a and b; YUAG 1932.1266; Neg. # dura-e114~01, PR 5, 37; Baird Oblist, 93.

624 FR 3.1.2, 195; Pascale Linant de Bellefonds, “Arsu .ˮ pp. 615-618 in Lexicon Iconographicum

Mythologiae Classicae, vol. II (Munich: Artemis, 1984), cats. 3, 8 and 11.

206

riding one in examples from Palmyra and on a relief from the temple of Adonis at Dura-

Europos. He can also appear in military garb emphasizing his protective qualities.625

Fig. 9.24. Stone bird, Fig. 9.25. Drawing after painting in Aphlad Temple, after Neg. # dura-e113~01, 0.175 m h. after Neg. # y-540-01.

In this room was also found a stone bird statuette, a terracotta animal, and a

bronze covered animal hoof.626 The bird, made of alabaster, has been called either an

eagle or a hawk (fig. 9.24).627 If it can be identified as an eagle this would suggest an

association with Zeus or Bel.628 Hopkins likens it to a painting in Temple of Aphlad that

has a bird perched on the horns of an altar and he thus posits the base of the statuette may

have been an altar (fig. 9.25). Yet this painting is now lost and only survives in the form of a drawing. This bird can hardly be positively identified as an eagle.

625 Linant de Bellefonds, “Arsu,ˮ 617.

626 Baird Oblist, 99.

627 FN E346a and b; YUAG 1932.1219; Neg. # dura-e113~01; PR 5, 36-7; FR 3.2.1., 138, cat. 165; Baird

Oblist, 98.

628 Dirven 1999, 87.

207

Yet the statuette in question from house C7A2 bears little in the way of

resemblance to the physical characteristics of an eagle. The wings are far too condensed

to be those of any bird of prey. Their features are much more in keeping with a profile of

a bird in the dove family. The same can be said about the neck shape. If this last

identification is accurate then it is possible the bird is related to Atargatis in whose

temple Lucian tells us these types of birds were sacred.629 This goddess was also

worshiped at Ascalon and a number of reverse types on this city’s coins depict the city

goddess (identified with Atargatis) with a dove on an altar on her right.630

Fig. 9.26. Lion, after Neg. # yale-1314~01, 0.085 m h.

629 De Dea Syria 14 and 54; Attridge and Oden, Syrian Goddess, 21-23 and 57.

630 Otto Mørkholm, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Danish

National Museum: Palestine-Characene (Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1961), plate 2, Judaea: Ascalon

33-35, 38-40. On Atargatis at Ascalon and equated with Dercato see Strabo, Geography, 16.4.27; Horace

Leonard Jones, trans., The Geography of Strabo (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 373 and De

Dea Syria 14.

208

The animal figurine has been identified by Downey as a cow (fig. 9.26). She sees the

back right foot as a hoof.631 It is described as a lion or bull in Baird’s object list. I see the

lion, or lioness, as far more likely. The shape of the head is distinctly feline. The

protrusion from the jowl and down the front of the animal may be loose skin as Downey

suggests but it call also read as fur. The incision on the side of the face may indicate another attempt at fur although Downey suggests part of a halter. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Lucian tells us that the throne of the Syrian goddess was decorated with lions.632 This could mean the terracotta statuette is also a reference to Atargatis,

especially since she is also seen at Dura with a lion throne. The other possibility is Allat

who is also associated with the lion and its protective qualities.633

I will argue a cultic function for the animal sculptures in this small house. The

altar and the two figurines were all found in the same room. The types of animals: dove,

lion, and camel, are all related to local deities of the area. A bronze covered animal hoof

is perhaps a votive object.

631 FN E297; YUAG 1932.1254; Downey 2003, 195, cat. 139; Baird Oblist, 93.

632 De Dea Syria 31; Attridge and Oden, Syrian Goddess, 43.

633 H.J.W. Drijvers, “Sanctuaries and Social Safety. The iconography of divine peace in Hellenistic Syria”

Commemorative Figures: Papers Presented to Dr. Th. P. van Baaren on the Occasion of his Seventieth

Birthday, May 13, 1982. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), 67.

209

Dura-Europos Catalog 4: House C7G

House G in block C7 was excavated under Hopkins in the 1931-32 season.634 By the end of the city’s life this house had been combined with houses C and G2. C also connected with B2. The connection of these homes most likely related to the army, and the resulting large building may have served for billeting troops.635

N Fig. 9.27. Plan of C7G, after Neg. # dura-e11a~01.

634 Baird Vol. 2, 147-48.

635 Baird Vol. 2, 128

210

In court G1 a limestone relief identified as the god, Hadad was found (fig.

9.28).636 He is frontal and enthroned holding a double axe. Beside his head is a

thunderbolt. Flanking his throne are two bulls. The drapery is extremely schematized and

the hair and beard are stylized, the hair especially so as it is rendered as two tiers of u-

shaped curls. Hopkins believes the four small columns found in the court were originally

constructed as a small portico shrine that held the Hadad relief.637

Fig. 9.28. Hadad, after Neg. # dam-109~01, Fig. 9.29. Hermes, after Neg. # dam-113~01, 0.45 m h. 0.39 m h.

636 FN E2 and E60; Hopkins day book Oct. 31, 1931 and Nov 3, 1931; DM 4489; Neg. # dam-109~01;

Baird Oblist, 116 and 117; PR 5, 42-45; Rostovtzeff, Parthian Art, 232f; Perkins, Art, 100f; FR 3.1.2, 61-2, cat. 46.

637 PR 5, 41-42.

211

A terracotta figure of a quadruped possibly comes from room C7G2, although this find-

spot is noted on the field card as questionable.638 The tail, neck, and head were not found.

What does remain is nearly identical to the lion in C7A2 (fig. 9.25). In G5 a bronze bas-

relief head was found and was described as having wings.639

In entrance G214 was found a gypsum statue of a man with a ram (fig. 9.29).640

The figure is a heroic nude in contrapposto. A leaf-shaped mantle hands over his right

shoulder. The head, arms, lower legs and feet are missing. The left hand survives and

appears resting on the abdomen holding a broken staff. The ram is relatively well

preserved except for the feet and portions of the legs. It has almond shaped eyes, horns,

and schematized wool. Hopkins suggests this is a depiction of Zeus Amun (who is often

shown as Zeus with a ram’s horns curling around his ears) or an unknown protector god.

Downey makes the tentative suggestion that it is Hermes because a ram is one of his

attributes. This may be a better solution considering the style is more indebted to the

Greco-Roman tradition than any eastern one.

C7C11 contained a plaster figurine of a female. All that remained was the bust

and its current whereabouts are unknown. It was nude with prominent breasts and wore a

necklace. It is possible that it depicted Aphrodite.641

If members of the army were billeted here this may be the reason for a combination of native and Greco-Roman deities. There does not seem to be an

638 FN E100, discarded, Neg. # dam-88~01; PR 5, 45-46; Downey 2003, 198, cat. 145; Baird Oblist, 113.

639 FN E83; Baird Oblist, 133.

640 FN E95a-c; Neg. # dam-113~01; FR 3.1.1., 34-36, cat. 42; Baird Oblist, 135.

641 FN E447; Fr 3.1.2. 45, cat. 29; Baird Oblist, 103.

212

overwhelming preference for Greco-Roman style or definitively recognizable Greco-

Roman deities within the city as a whole, making this large house unusual.

213

Dura-Europos Catalog 5: House G1 “A”

The houses in block G1 were not lettered in the same fashion as the other blocks. The room numbers therefore vary greatly within houses. This is the largest house on the block and it was excavated in the in the 1931-32 and 1936-37 seasons directed by Hopkins and

Brown respectively.642

N Fig. 9.30. Plan of G1 “A,” after Neg. # y721c~01.

Room A14 primarily yielded a large number of utilitarian objects, many of bronze, and coins. The preliminary reports suggest it was a stable based on what was identified as a

642 Baird Vol 2, 254-55

214

trough, but Baird finds this unlikely based on the richness of the finds.643 Additionally, it

is located off the court (A10) with no direct access to the street, which would be unlikely

for a stable.

One item of interest to this study is a gypsum bas-relief of a deity from the

doorway between room 14 and the court (fig. 9.31). Baird describes it as a bas-relief head

of a woman.644 Although the hair may represent an up-do of a female, it seems more

likely to be a short-haired male. The object next on the god’s right was initially identified

as a snake or lance but Brown revised this and it has since been called a bow. He suggests

this indicates the divinity should be seen as a god of the hunt or protector of the caravan

and that the location of the relief in a stable is therefore significant.645 The style of the

bow is akin those wielded by Persian kings.646 Hopkins’ original analysis of the plaque

saw it as stylistically similar to Palmyrene art: the lack of eyebrows and eyelids, and hair

divided into three tiers of curls.647 The face is beardless, perhaps why it was described by

Baird as being female.648 Downey agrees with the identification of the figure as a god

643 PR 5, 50. PR 9.1, 141; Baird Vol, 2, 254.

644 FN E367; DM DM327; Baird Vol 2, 254 and Oblist 2, 114.

645 PR 5, 50; PR 9.1, 141n42; FR 3.1.2, cat. 59

646 See for instance the bowl depicting a Sassanian king in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (late 5th-early

6th century), silver gilt and niello, Fletcher Fund, 1934 (34.33).

647 PR 5, 50-52. He also compares to much more ancient Syrian sculpted head from Mishrifé dated to the thirteenth century BCE. The curls and large eyes may allude to a long standing tradition (see PR 5, Pl. XV,

2). An example of the style closer to our time period is found in the Metropolitan Museum, Standing Man,

1st–2nd century A.D., Parthian period, Iran, Rogers fund 1951 (51.72.1)

648 This also may simply be what it was recorded as in the original object records.

215

Fig. 9.31. God with bow, after Neg. # dura-e106~01, 0.435 m h.

with a bow and does not offer much additional interpretation.649 Beardless horsemen,

such as Abgal, are often shown with a bow and quiver. These are known from several

examples from Palmyra.650

Room A28 is one of a trio (with 36 and 38) designated by the excavators as the

“women's quarter” due to the nature of the finds and the rooms’ more restricted location

in terms of accessibility from the court. Yet the incense altar found within the room does

not seem to have a specifically female association.651 The small stone altar is consistent

with other examples found at Dura and in the Near East. It is a rectangular pillar with

integrated horns (fig. 9.32).

649 FR 3.1.2., 76, cat., 59.

650 H.J.W. Drijvers, The Religion of Palmyra (Iconography of Religions Section XV: Mesopotamia and the

Near East: Fascicle Fifteen (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), 20-21.

651 Altar: FN E474; Hopkins' day book 27 Nov 1931; PR 5, 49; Baird Oblist, 131.

216

Fig. 9.32. Stone altar, after Neg. # dura-e58~01. Fig. 9.33. Bronze altar, after photo from G1 locus file.

A36 was designated the “servants’ quarters” by the excavator although there is no physical evidence to support this assertion. A “Roman” lamp and bronze “Parthian” style altar with separated horns were found within the room (fig. 9.33).652 The final report on

the lamps recatalogued the type as more “Hellenistic” than Roman.653 Furthermore this

style of altar is common throughout the eastern Mediterranean with one at Ephesos as

well.654 There seems to be nothing to label this particular example Parthian. Yet the

combination of two very common altar types known throughout the Mediterranean does

not prove the patron identified with Greco-Roman culture. Moreover, the god with a bow

indicates a preference for an eastern aesthetic.

652 Lamp: FN E494; FR 4 no. 43; Baird Oblist, 133. Altar: FN E562 ; PR 5, 49 ; Baird Oblist, 143.

653 FR 4, 11-12.

654 See Catalogue Général des Antiquitiés égyptiennes du Musée di Caire: Greek Bronzes by M.C.C.

Edgar, Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1904), plate XV, 27.810, 27.813,

27.814 and Waldemar, “Mobilier délien,” 398, figs. 60, 62, and 63. For Ephesos see chapter 6, cat. 3)

217

Dura-Europos Catalog 6: House G1B

This house was also excavated in 1931-32 and 1936-7.655

N Fig. 9.34. Plan of G1B, after Neg. # y721c~01.

The so-called “diwan” (B8) yielded a fragmentary figurine of a cow’s head and one of three fragments of a faience thymiaterion (figs. 9.35-6).656 One other fragment of the thymiaterion was found in the same house in room 23. Another was found in room 9 of

655 FNs E178a-b, E241, E397; YUAG 1932.13; Baird Vol. 2, 258-59.

656 Baird Oblist, 94 and 88, 95, 118.

218

the neighboring house “C.”657 It is possible the incense burner was originally from house

B. Hopkins suggested that the single portion found in the court of house C may mean the burner originated there since the court is often the center of the household cult.658

The bowl of the thymiaterion is supported by fluted columns and surrounded by the four

horns, typical for this type of object. Between each horn is a head, of which the nose and

the gorgon-like mouth remain best-preserved. Hopkins saw the altar as “typically

Fig. 9.35. Thymiaterion, after Neg. # 1932’1271~01. Fig. 9.36. Thymiaterion, after Neg. # dura- e135a~01.

Parthian” due to the horns and the heads which he likened to those on ornamental jars. He

noted the singularity of this style of at Dura indicates it would have been imported from a

657 PR 5, 53.

658 PR 5, 55.

219

Parthian center.659 I have been unable to find any suitable comparanda.660 It can at the

very least be stated it is very non-western in appearance.

Court B18 was clearly the center of the household cult. Two relief plaques of

Greco-Roman deities were rediscovered. One was identified by the excavators as the

remains of a man’s leg next to a column due to what looks like the bottom of a

Fig. 9.37. Fragment of Aphrodite relief, Fig. 9.38. Aphrodite relief, after Neg. # dam-116~01, 0.15 m h after Neg. # yale1469~01, 0.53 m h.

trouser (fig. 9.37). Downey suggested it was an anklet and put forth the identification of

Aphrodite. Although this piece is fragmentary she demonstrates the similarity to other

659 PR 5, 53.

660 See, e.g., E. Haerinck, La Céramique en Iran pendant la Période Parthe (ca. 250 av. J.C. à ca. 225 après J.C.): typologie, chronologie et distribution (Gent: Iranica Antiqua, 1983). There is one example (of the 353 jar types) of a molded head on a Parthian jar in Neilson C. Debevoise, Parthian Pottery from

Seleucia on the Tigris (Ann Arbor U. M. Press, 1934), 110, fig. 332.

220

analogous plaster reliefs found at Dura in which the nude goddess is shown standing

under a columned arch admiring herself in a mirror (fig. 9.38).661

Fig. 9.39. Herakles fragment, after Neg. # dura-e110~01, 0.18 m h.

The other relief is a gypsum plaque and was identified by Hopkins as Heracles and this

attribution is supported by Downey (fig. 9.39).662 The lower half is all that is preserved

and the execution and condition make it difficult to interpret. The man is nude and his

two feet point to the viewer’s right. It appears his body is frontal. Hopkins likens the

composite view to Assyrian art. In several other examples found at Dura the identification of a similarly posed figure is more clearly Heracles.663 The hero holds his

club downwards in his right hand and has the lion skin draped over his right. The shapes

on either side of the plaque from B18 could represent these attributes but it is very

661 FN E415; PR 5, 54; FR 3.1.2, cat. 23; Baird Oblist, 120. Also pictured is 3.1.2., cat. 21 (from house

G5C2).

662 FN E406; PR 5, 54-55; FR 3.1.1, 21-22, cat. 8; Baird Oblist, 119.

663 FR 3.1.1, cats. 1-4.

221

difficult to tell. Downey identifies the lion skin over the left arm.664 Overall, the identification as Heracles is satisfying.

Also from the court is a small gypsum altar with the Greek inscription “Good fortune to Kyrilla with god throughout her (figs. 9.40-41).”665 Hopkins describes the altar, “The shaft is stepped in from the base and supports a top which projects over the four sides and carries a small bowl for incense on top,” which he identifies as

Palmyrene.666 It seems simply to be an altar with integrated horns. The Greek name,

Kyrilla, is not uncommon but otherwise unattested at Dura.667 It was insinuated that the nature of the

664 FR 3.1.1, 22.

665 FN E415, DM but present whereabouts unknown; PR 5, 54, Inscription #404; Baird Oblist, 120.

666 PR 5, 54. Downey says “Parthian horned altar” in FR 3.1.1, 40.

667 PR 5, 54. An example is the sarcophagus of Aurelia Kyrilla in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, from

Rome, c. 300 CE.

222

Figs. 9.40-41. Second and fourth faces of the altar (second and fourth parts of inscription) 0.0675 x 0.0425 m. ΚΥΡI ΛΛΑ ΕΥΤΥ ΧΙΑ CΥΝ ΘΕW ΔΙΑ ΒΙΟΥ. Neg. # dura-e60a~01 and Neg. # dura- e60b~01. inscription may refer to a monotheistic deity based on the use of the word god instead of

a specific name of a deity.668 The fact that this was found in the court along with a very

Greco-Roman style plaque of a nude Aphrodite suggests that the individuals of this house

primarily identified with Greco-Roman values. A potsherd inscribed Abarnaios, a Semitic

name, was also found in this home attesting to the multicultural nature of Dura.669

Furthermore, the fragmentary Hercules plaque brings to mind Syrian rather than Greco-

Roman style with its awkward composite view. The likelihood that the inhabitants

identified with a more local culture is just as possible. Overall, the finds in this home

appear to reveal both religious and artistic acculturation.

668 PR 5, 54; FR 3.1.2, 164.

669 PR 5, 53; FR 3.1.2, 169.

223

Dura-Europos Catalog 7: House G3H

House H of block G3 was excavated in 1931-32 and 1936-37 under Hopkins and Brown respectively.670

N Fig. 9.42. Plan of G3H, after Neg. # y721h~01.

A plaster bull’s head was found in H2 (fig. 9.43).671 As it is an entrance room it could have had an apotropaic function. As mentioned above, bulls are also often associated with Hadad.

Room H5 yielded a plaster relief plaque of a female with what is described as a

Parthian hairstyle (fig. 9.44). The object is also called a relief of a mask of the head and

670 Baird Vol. 2, 295.

671 FR 3.1.2 no, 159 and Baird Oblist, 597.

224

neck.672 I am unsure as to why it is labeled a “mask” as the relief is broken at the neck,

leaving us unsure of how much more of the body could have existed. Downey noted that

she wears a veil over her tri-partite hairstyle. The facial features are large and

exaggerated, and the mouth appears to be smiling. As the features are more idealized than

individualized it does not seem likely it could be a portrait and may represent a deity.

Fig. 9.43. Bull’s head, after Neg. # yale1510~01. Fig. 9.44. Goddess, after Neg. # 1935’48~01, 0.185 m h.

In stairwell H10 a bas-relief of a goddess in military dress was found (fig.

9.45).673 On the back traces of plaster were preserved indicating it was once affixed to a

wall, perhaps in the stairwell.674 The figure appears to wear a sleeveless garment and holds a spear in her right hand and a shield in her left. On her head is what Downey

672 FN G168; YUAG 1935.48; PR 9.1, 163-64; FR 3.1.2., 102, cat. 92; Baird Oblist, 602.

673 PR 9.1, 87; Baird Oblist, 941.

674 P.R. 9.1, 163.

225

identifies as a misunderstood Corinthian helmet.675 The excavators identified the figure as Athena-Allât.676 Downey discusses the iconography of Allât in combination with

Athena.

Fig. 9.45. Athena-Allât, after Neg. # k66a~01, 0.328 m h.

Although Allât was also associated with the great goddess in Syria, by the Greco-

Roman period she is typically syncretized with Athena. Examples from Palmyra and

Hatra support this.677 Allât, an unidentified goddess with a Parthian hairstyle, and a bull

675 FR 3.2.1., 48-49, cat. 35.

676 PR 9.1, 163

677 FR 3.1.2., 183-4. There are quite a few examples from Palmyra and elsewhere in the region. See for example Starcky, Jean. “Allath.ˮ in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. I, (Munich:

Artemis, 1981), 565-568, especially cats. 13-15, 18, 20, and 28. The latter is the Athena Parthenos from the

Allat temple at Palmyra. For the latter see H.J.W. Drijvers, “Das Heiligtum der arabischen Göttin Allât im

Westlichen Stadtteil von Palmyra,” Antike Welt 7 (1977): 28-38.

226

would suggest a Syrian identity. The artistic style of the pieces is more indebted to this

tradition as well.

Dura-Europos Catalog 8: House G3J

House J was excavated in 1931-32 and 1936-7 under Hopkins and Brown respectively.

N Fig. 9.46. Plan of G3J, after Neg. # y721h~01.

In J1-J2, a part of the court, a small limestone altar was found (fig. 9.47). It is a horned altar with integrated horns. The bowl was discovered blackened from much use. On one

Fig. 9.47. Altar with graffito, after PR 9.1, Fig. 9.48. Aphrodite, after Neg. # dura-g767b~01, fig. 86, 0.155 m h. 0.17 m h.

227

Rostovtzeff, M.I., ed. The excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary report of the ninth season of work, 1935 – 1936, Part 1: The agora and bazaar (permission of Yale University Press ©).

side a deity scratched or painted on the surface appears to raise its hand in “benediction.”

Only the head, shoulders, and one arm survived, or were depicted. It is has Parthian

tripartite hairstyle.678 The figure is frontal and contains no detail in its anatomical

features.

Also in the court was the lower half of an alabaster statuette of a nude female with

one hand covering the genitals (fig. 9.48). This pose is known in statuary as the Knidian

Aphrodite type.679 The s-curve and pudica pose place this firmly in the Greco-Roma

tradition. The local stone and execution, such as the disproportionately large hand, would

suggest regional manufacture.

The south wall of so-called ‘diwan’ J6 had an “applied plaster shrine” with cult

image inside and scattered graffiti (figs. 9.49-50).680 The central figure is a frontal,

beardless male. He stands on a podium and is being crowned by a Nike. She extends a

palm branch and wears a girt chiton. They seem to be inside some sort of aedicula.681

678 PR 9.1, 86, 161-2, fig. 86. Possibly FN G245, Baird Oblist, 669.

679 FN G246; YUAG 1935.53; PR 9.1, 162. FR 3.1.2. 39-40, cat. 20. In Baird Oblist, 669, said to be from the court of house K. In Vol. 2, 198, she cites its correct find spot of J1; Both Brown and Downey note it is most likely a “crude” local type of the Knidia.

680 FN G127; YUAG 1935.94; PR 9.1, 162-3; Neg. # 1935'94~01 and Neg. # y62a~01; Baird Oblist, 543.

681 PR 9.1, 162.

228

It is tempting to associate this youth with Adonis or Attis. Both are eastern, young, beautiful, and reborn. As mentioned above Byblos had temple to Syrian

Aphrodite where the rites of Adonis were celebrated and it was said that his death

Fig. 9.49. Plaster shrine, after Neg. # 1935'94~01, 0.40 m h.

Fig. 9.50. Drawing of plaster shrine, after Neg. # y62a~01. The note referring to G3H11 is erroneous.

229

occurred in Syria.682 Moreover, there was a temple to Adonis at Dura.683 The identification as Adonis would complement the statuette of Aphrodite from the court. His cult appears to be of an eastern origin, suggesting the patron would share this identity. Its location in the diwan, generally thought to be a reception room, denotes its importance.

682 De Dea Syria 6; Attridge and Oden, Syrian Goddess, 13-15.

683 See pervious chapter. 230

Dura-Europos Catalog 9: House M7W

Block M7 house W was excavated in 1932-33 with Hopkins as director.684 Area

M is adjacent to area L, where the synagogue was located. House W abutted Wall Street

(the street along the wall), which was covered by the embankment built to fortify the walls during the Sassanian invasion. House W therefore has some walls that were better preserved than other houses. Court W4 did not contain many finds that could be related to domestic religion. Several rooms of the house had niches but no photographs survive indicating whether they were decorative (and possibly cultic) or simple cupboards.

N Fig. 9.51. Plan of M7W, after Neg. # h31a~01.

Diwan W6 contained extraordinary wall paintings. The diwan was obviously the most important room in the house given the paintings and its masonry doorway. Inside was a plaster bench that extended all the way around the room, giving rise to the room’s identification as ‘diwan.’ This bench ends, east of the doorway, at a basin.685 The most significant rediscovery was the wall paintings. The western and southern walls depicted a

684 PR 6, 140-143.

685 PR 6, 142-43.

231

banquet scenes and a combined scene of banqueting and of hunting. The eastern wall lay outside of the embankment and therefore its mural decoration was not preserved.

Fig. 9.52. Drawing of west wall banquet, after Yale Neg. # y779~01.

Fig. 9.53. West wall, after Neg. # dura-FII77~01, 0.65 m. h. (1.7 m. from the floor).

The wall decoration on the west wall consisted of a banquet scene (figs. 9.52-3).

The better preserved portion on the right depicts three men reclining on a couch and attended by two servants. Each man appears to be partaking in a beverage, likely wine— which is indicated with pink paint inside the cups. The reclining man furthest to the viewer’s left has his name, Barathe, inscribed in both the Greek and Palmyrene alphabets.

It is assumed this bilingual labeling extended to all of the figures, but it does not survive in all cases. Hopkins draws a parallel between Barathe’s leg position and other reclining

232

figures from Palmyra.686 Even the servants are named with one, Gadda, written in

Palmyrene and partially repeated in Greek at the bottom of the painting.687

Less preserved is the left panel, which is separated from the banquet scene by a

painted frame. A standing woman is visible, who appears to be attending a female

banquet.688 To the far right is an inscription written in Greek reading “May the painter be remembered.”689

On the west part of south wall is an inscription in Palmyrene:

May be remembered and blessed the men who have been painted here, before Bel and Iarhibol and Aglibol and Arsu; and may be remembered Elahshamsh, the son of Ṣelat, and T[aim]a, the son of Iah[iba], who have painted this painting in (the month) Tebe[th] of the year 505 (194 CE).690

The date of 194 is significant, as it is about the time that the nature of the city’s

inhabitants change and its transformation into a Roman fortress began.

To the left of the inscription is a painting of a hunt (figs. 9.54-5). Three wild

asses, or onagers, are pursued by a lone bowman. These horses are in the “flying gallop”

pose usually identified with Parthian art. This scene is separated from the banquet to the

left by a figure of Eros—he is labeled as such in Greek although this is not clear from the

drawing. He is represented as a winged youth and holds what appears to be a downward

facing torch.691 The legs that are crossed are the opposite of the usual depictions.692

686 PR 6, 147-8.

687 PR 6, 149.

688 PR 6, 150-51.

689 Baird Vol. 2, 483.

690 Dirven 1999, 282. Dirven’s translation is slightly revised from the original translation in PR 6, 167-69.

691 PR 6, 153.

233

Fig. 9.54. Drawing of south wall paintings, after PR 6, pl. XLII.I.

Fig. 9.55. South wall banquet and wild ass hunt, after Neg. # y340~01.

Normally, Eros’ downward facing torch and crossed legs signifies a funerary function,

especially on cinerary urns and sarcophagi.693 Yet in the second to third century this type

of Eros is popular on coins from Asia Minor and Macedonia for reasons that are

obscure.694

The banquet includes a woman at the head of the table, seated, while five men

recline frontally.695 The names of the men were included in Greek below the border; most do not survive. The built-in bench, the religious inscription, and the subject of the wall

692 See Hermary, “Eros,” cats. 981-2, 986-7, 989.

693 PR 6, 153; Perkins, Art, 66.

694 Antoine Hermary, “Eros,” pp. 850-942 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. III

(Munich: Artemis, 1986), 938-9.

695 PR 6, 153.

234

paintings suggest this was a triclinium that held a large number of people for ritual meals.

Hopkins goes so far as to suggest that the four gods mentioned in the inscription were

likely pictured as well—perhaps on the missing east wall or on a portion of the walls that

does not survive.

The presence of the funerary Eros with a banquet suggests it is a funerary

banquet, as in the Totenmahl reliefs from Ephesos.696 Yet the deities named are not

known to have a funerary function. Also problematic is the funerary theme of this type

located in a home and the function of the Palmyrene deities mentioned in the inscription.

Although the meaning of the murals may be unclear, the style is firmly in the Syrian

tradition. The figures are frontal or in a composite view. There is little interest in

naturalistically rendered facial features or anatomy. The reclining pose and flying gallop

are commonly seen in the region.

A depiction of the evil eye was placed below the mural on the south wall and

immediately opposite the door serving an apotropaic function (fig. 9.56). The eye is

pierced with weapons and is attacked by a chicken, snake, scorpion, and waterfowl.697

The mural’s location would have protected the occupants of the room from evil entering

through the door. This motif is widespread throughout the Roman world in mosaics and

jewelry.698

696 See chapter 6, cat. 4. The Totenmahl aspect is also mentioned by Hopkins in PR 6, 157.

697 PR 6, 156.

698 Similar motifs are known from the synagogue ceiling. See Karen B. Stern, “Mapping Devotion in

Roman Dura Europos: A Reconsideration of the Synagogue Ceiling, AJA 14.3 (2010), fig. 8. Other examples of this include: the Evil Eye Mosaic from Antioch, 2nd c. CE, Antakya Museum, Inv. 1024; a gold amulet in the Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum, 2nd c. CE, Inv. FIC.07.225; and see also Katherine

235

Fig. 9.56. Evil eye, after Neg. # y523~01, 0.26 m. h.

Other finds from room 6 include two plaster blocks adorned with boys’ heads.

These could simply be architectural decorations. No images record their appearance and the description is lacking.699 Additionally a fragment of a terracotta horse figurine was found.700

One last item of note is a gypsum statuette known as “goddess on a cone (fig.

9.57).”701 A female figure is seated or enthroned. She holds a patera in her right hand and wears a floor length garment and veil. The goddess is positioned on a “cone” that

Hopkins likened to ones seen in various Syrian figurines and protective figures as well as

Cybele or the Great Mother. His interpretation of the figure is based on an older publication by Léon Heuzy who noted that at Babylon these types were generally found

M.D. Dunbabin and M.W. Dickie, “Invida Rumpantur Pectora: The Iconography of Phthorios/Invidia in

Graeco-Roman Art,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26 (1983), 3-37.

699 Hopkins’ field notes Dec. 26th, 1932 ; PR 6, 144.

700 FN F952; PR 6, 145; Baird Oblist, 498; Whereabouts unknown.

701 FN F322; PR 6, 144-45; FR 3.2.1, 101, cat. 90; Baird Oblist, 408.

236

at the Greco-Babylonian levels.702 Hopkins argued that the veil, clothing, and patera are common attributes of Cybele and added that in lower Mesopotamia she was known as

“the lady of the mountain.”703

Fig. 9.57. Goddess on cone, after Fig. 9.58. Female on a mountain, drawing after Karvonen- Neg. # dam-166~01, 0.087 m. h. Kannas, cat. 127.

Some comparanda can be found in Karvonen-Kannas’ 1995 monograph on terracotta figurines (figs. 9.58). Two from the Louvre were surely in Heuzy’s corpus.704 Karvonen-

Kannas does not identify these female figures with a particular goddess, or even a deity.

702 Léon Heuzy, Catalogue des Figurines Antiques de Terre Cuite du Musée du Louvre (Paris: Imprimeries réunies, 1882). n.s.

703 See also Erika Simon, “Kybele,” 744-766 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. VIII

(Munich: Artemis, 1997), 744-5.

704 Kerttu Karvonen-Kannas, The Seleucid and Parthian Terracotta Figurines from Babylon in the Iraq

Museum, the British Museum, and the Louvre (Florence: Casa Editrice le Lettre, 1995), 133, cat. 127 and

135, cat. 138 (Louvre A0 24719 and 24699 respectively.)

237

They are both described as “draped women seated on a cone.” There are also many examples of a youth sitting on a cone which Karvonen-Kannas interprets variously as boys/Erotes/hydrophoroi/Attis.705

This home presents an interesting array of evidence for religious identity, one that is difficult to interpret. Hunting, Palmyrene gods, funerary (?) banquets, Eros, and a possible representation of Cybele do not seem to paint a clear picture of what kind of activities would have gone on in the ‘diwan.’ It seems safe to say that some kind of ritual activities took place in the room, but the suggestion of ritual meals cannot be proven.

Palmyrene participants can be assumed based on the use of this script and the inclusion of their gods in the inscription. Overall, the picture is more Syrian and Palmyrene than

Greco-Roman.

705 For example see Karvonen-Kannas, Seleucid and Parthian Terracotta, cats. 228-238.

238

Dura-Europos Catalog 10: House N8A

House A in block N8 lies next to the Temple of Aphlad. It was excavated in 1931-

32 and again in 1934-35, both seasons under the direction of Hopkins. A final plan was not created for the house and the few sketches that exist do not have consistent room designations or in some cases no room designations. The rooms I have labeled on the plan are the exceptions.706 It was not fully excavated.707

Fig. 9.59. Plan of N8A, after Baird, figs. 405-407.

Room A1 only had one sculptural find and this was most likely decorative. It did have a graffito with a “lion” and several illegible inscriptions in tabulae ansatae. The inscriptions/dedications do not seem to be related to the lion (fig. 9.60). 708 As mentioned

706 Baird Vol. 2, 520-525.

707 PR 7/8, 372.

708 PR 7/8, 373-76, #927; Bernard M. Goldman "Pictorial Graffiti of Dura-Europos," Parthica i (1999), 61,

E.4

239

above, lions can be associated with Atargatis or Allât. In this example, the lion is depicted in a composite view. Its frontal face appears somewhat bovine, but the hair seems to support its identification as a lion.

Fig. 9.60. Graffito with lion, after Neg. # y482c~01, 0.32 m. h.

Room A2 was full of interesting finds that, when taken together, appear to reveal some cultic activity. There were fragments of several lamps and numerous statuettes.709

Among the terracotta statuettes were a human, a man with wings, a camel, and another unidentified animal.710 There was also a bronze gazelle—not pictured—but others were photographed from the excavations to get a sense of its appearance (fig. 9.61).711 Such

709 Lamps: FNS G1116, G1343, G1345; Baird Oblist, 522 and 554.

710 FNS G1122, G805f, G871, G937; Baird Oblist 523, 738, 745, 757.

711 FN G1129; Baird Oblist, 524.

240

bronzes were clearly very popular pendants. The gazelle is known to be associated with

Allât. One sits between the legs of a lion at the Allât Temple in Palmyra.712 In Arabia the

gazelles which inhabited the pastures surrounding her sanctuary were forbidden to be

hunted or killed.713

Another item not photographed was an ivory disk.714 Additionally Hopkins’ field

notes from December 22nd 1933 mention a wall painting of a face—of which nothing else

is known.

Fig. 9.61. Bronze gazelles, after Neg. # yale760~01.

For the most part I have omitted houses that were not as carefully recorded from

my study but this particular house had so many items in one room I chose to include it.

Its close proximity to the sanctuary to Aphlad may indicate the reason for all of these

712 Drijvers, “Sanctuaries and Social Safety,” 65; M. Gawlikowski, “The Statues of the Sanctuary of Allat in Palmyra,” pp. 397-411 in The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East, Yaron Z. Eliav, Elise A.

Friedland, and Sharon Herbert eds. (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 407-8.

713 Drijvers, “Sanctuaries and Social Safety,” 69.

714 FN G1413e; Baird Oblist, 565.

241

items as it could be argued it was not just a house; it may have had some relationship to the temple. Yet other items in room 2 (including coins, vessels, a comb, weaving tools, and a weight) seem to indicate this was not the case. The inclusion of a lion and a gazelle, two animals associated with Allât, suggests the inhabitants would have identified with

Syrian culture rather than Greco-Roman.

242

CHAPTER 10

DURA-EUROPOS DISCUSSION

I will now assess the material by type of evidence: altar, sculptural or painting style and subject. As before, I have only chosen the items that can be firmly identified in terms of their subject or style and some items will differ from category to category.

Altars

We are fortunate in having so many altars recovered from known find-spots recorded and photographed. Although in most cases these altars can tell us little more than that a religious ritual occurred in a home, they can still reveal certain types of evidence.715 The absence of altars in half of the homes should be seen as the result of their possible abandonment prior to the final siege. Of the homes that still contained altars four out of five had one in the court and three had more than one altar.716 This corroborates the excavators’ assertion that the court was the customary locus of domestic worship, along with other activities. It also seems likely that domestic ritual could take place in multiple places within the home.

Altars as indicators of identity are the exception rather than the norm. Of the nine altars, six include additional information such as figures or inscriptions, but these potential clues at times appear contradictory. For instance B2 B has two animal altars,

715 Homes with altars: B2B, C7A2, G1A, G1B, G3J.

716 In court: B2B 1, C7A2, G1B, G3J. Multiple altars: 3 in B2B, 2 in G1A, 2 in G1B.

243

which would imply a native Syrian identity of the worshiper, yet one contains an

inscribed tabula ansata, which could indicate Roman identity. The altar in J1, with a

graffito of a deity in a Parthian hairstyle, is accompanied by a statuette of Aphrodite. The

most consistent sense of identity is seen in G1B since it contained an altar inscribed in

Greek with a Greek name. In this court were also an Aphrodite and a Herakles. Yet, as

we have seen throughout this dissertation, language and names are not necessarily an

indicator of ethnicity or cultural identity. Furthermore, it is difficult to be sure as to how

Aphrodite or Herakles translated to certain inhabitants of the near east. The examples just

described may at first appear incongruous but as stated previously this is the very nature

of acculturation. The owners opted for various items that by the Roman era were all part

of their cultural milieu. Multiple religious concepts and practices could exist in a home

without losing their meaning.

Style

When considering style I have defined three categories: Greco-Roman,

Palmyrene, and Syrian. Syrian refers broadly to characteristics that draw on a variety of native traditions, in particular Mesopotamian and Parthian. Greco-Roman exhibits an interest in naturalism and observation. Palmyrene is a branch of Syrian style that contains some of its own idiosyncrasies, such as the crossed-leg reclining pose. Medium is not much of a factor in the determination of style, as the overwhelming majority of sculptural items are made of local materials such as gypsum alabaster, plaster, or terracotta. Of the items surveyed only one was made of limestone, the Hadad from C7G1.

244

Of the three sites chosen for this dissertation, Dura-Europos displays the fewest tendencies of Greco-Roman style. There are no Greco-Roman style shrines or cult niches.

The only shrine in my case-studies is a plaster construction that is unknown from the west and also uncommon at Dura itself.717 The overwhelming majority of objects are

Syrian in style and contain Palmyrene, Parthian, and generally eastern tendencies that are clearly not Greco-Roman.

Parthian style (or motifs at least) can be seen in the clothing of certain figures.

Examples of this include the graffito from C3D5 and the relief of a man in Parthian clothes sacrificing from C3D10. Terracotta horse figurines are often labeled by the excavators as “Parthian” and this can be applied in the sense that they were popular throughout the territory of the Parthian empire. The other clearly Parthian example is the hunt scene from M7W6. Both the theme of the hunt and the flying gallop of the onagers are typical of this descriptor. I caution, though, that it is unlikely patrons employing this style would have seen it as “Parthian.” They likely would merely have utilized it as a typical choice from their multicultural Syrian artistic environment.

Other items that can be placed in the Syrian category employ basic features that can be broadly viewed as typical of this time and place, drawing on multiple eastern traditions. This includes a preference for representational art, frontality, and rigidity. We have also seen stylization in the drapery or the hairstyles of many figures. The enthroned

Hadad, the unnamed goddess, the Athena-Allât, and the god with a bow are all typical of

717 G3J1.

245

this tradition.718 Even the fragmentary Heracles from G1B18, in his proportions and his

composite pose, stylistically belongs more in this category than among objects of a more

Greco-Roman tradition.

Although Palmyrene is often considered its own style, it is firmly rooted in the

general style of the area so I will include it among the Syrian category. This is also

because there are few examples from my case-studies that can definitively be called

Palmyrene. This distinction is more suited to the next category of subject. The banquet

scenes of M7W6 are the only truly Palmyrene examples in the case-studies and this is

due mostly to the crossed leg reclining position of the diners and the Palmyrene script

used in the inscriptions.

Overall, of 32 items that are pictured, I consider 28 to be of Syrian style.719

Greco-Roman style is seen in the two Aphrodites (G1B18 and G3J1), the evil eye scene, and the god with a ram from C7G214 (Hermes?). The Aphrodite from B1B18, although

fragmentary, has been shown by Downey to be part of a composition that included the

nude goddess admiring herself in a mirror. She stands in contrapposto and looks into the

718 C7G1, G3H5, G3H10, G1A14.

719 Sculpture: Allat (G3H10), bull burner (B2B5), bull head (G3H2), boar burner (B2B1), camel burner

(C7A26), dove (C7A26), god with bow (G1A14), unknown goddess (G3H5), gazelle (N8A2), Hadad

(C7G1), Heracles (G1B18), “Serapis” (C3D9), Parthian figure sacrificing (C3D10), terracotta lions

(C7A26, G7G2), woman on cone (M7W6), woman with tympanum (C3D10) . (17)

Painting: Banquet (M7W6), Hunt (M7W6), Shrine (G3J6). (3 total).

Graffiti: bull (C3D3), god on altar in Parthian hairstyle (G3J1), horse (C3D5), Iarhibol (C3D5), lion

(N8A1), Parthian warrior (C3D5), priests with nude woman (C3D5), priest with offering (C3D5). (8 total).

246

mirror to her left. She does not stand statically and look out towards the viewer as a more

eastern-style goddess might. Furthermore, this basic motif, appropriate for the goddess of

beauty, is well known from the Greco-Roman tradition in both vase painting and sculpture.

The Knidia-type from G3J1 follows an even more Greco-Roman type. The nude

goddess, standing in an s-curve or contrapposto, and modestly covering her pudenda has

origins in the Hellenistic period. Although only the lower portion of the statuette remains,

it is still clear that this is an eastern version of Greco-Roman style. The goddess’ body does not have the soft curves expected of a Greco-Roman Aphrodite or even with that of the relief from B1B18. Yet her pose, with bent knees and the twist of the torso, is firmly outside of any native Syrian tradition.

The evil eye scene, with animals and weapons attacking the eye, is typical of various examples found in the Roman Empire.720 Although the concept of the evil eye is

pervasive throughout the Mediterranean this particular motif appears dates to the imperial

era and is popular in Italy as well as in the Roman East.

Finally the god with a Ram, and I will accept that it is Hermes, is the only other

example of Greco-Roman style. My agreement with the Hermes identification is based

predominantly on the execution of the statuette. The nudity, as we have seen, is not

typical of any of the Syrian or Palmyrene gods. The fairly naturalistic anatomy and the

contrapposto pose also remove the figure from these artistic traditions.

720 M7W6.

247

Subjects in Paintings, Graffiti and Sculpture

We have very few Greco-Roman deities: three possible Aphrodites, one Herakles, one Hermes, and an Eros.721 It is difficult to be sure that the individual who purchased an image of one of these gods saw it in a particularly Greco-Roman light. Aphrodite and

Herakles are the most popular representations of western gods at Dura-Europos and are very popular in the region in general. This may simply be because their forms are adopted by locals to express visual concepts of their own gods. The Eros is the only one identified by a label, yet his presence is odd amongst a Palmyrene banquet and hunt scene with an inscription that mentions Palmyrene gods. Furthermore, his downward torch is difficult to explain. The same can be said for the Nike in the shrine in G3J6. Here is a seemingly

Greco-Roman goddess but adopted for an outwardly Syrian use as there is not an exact

Greco-Roman parallel in the god that she crowns.

Gods that seem to be specifically Palmyrene are Bel, Iarhibol, and Abgibol. The three of them are known from the dedication in the diwan of M7W. Iarhibol may be recognizable in the radiate figure from a graffito in C3D5. Other gods that can be associated with Palmyra are Abgal—the possible identity of the god with a bow, Arsu, and Allât, although the latter two were not adopted exclusively by the Palmyrenes. Of the ten houses chosen for the case studies the only one that can be associated with a specifically Palmyrene identity is M7W. This is due to the mention of specifically

Palmyrene gods, the use of Palmyrene script, and commonly Palmyrene (or at least

Semitic) names.

721 Aphrodite (C7C11, G1B18, G3J1), Heracles (G1B18), Hermes (C7G214), Eros (M7W6).

248

One problem with the identification of certain deities is that there are so many at

Dura, and, some of which are unknown from other sites. An example of this is the shrine

from G3J6. Although it would be appealing to see this figure as a triumphant Adonis or

Attis reborn, there is no real precedent for either of those figures to be depicted in that

manner. Slightly more likely are the identifications of the “Serapis” of C3D9 as Hadad or

some other Syrian deity who wears a polos and the woman on the cone from M7W6 as

Cybele.

Although Arsu and Allât originated in Arabia, they were well integrated into

religious life in Syria by the time of the Roman conquest. Allât can be combined with

Athena in a very visually literal way, as the Parthenos in the temple at Palmyra, but in the

example from G3H10 we see simply a military goddess. For instance, she does note wear

anything that would specifically identify her as Athena, such as her aegis. The garment is

perhaps a misunderstood peplos, but this cannot be said with certainty. This is simply an

example of a native goddess being given the warrior attributes she needs to better convey

her protective qualities, and it is a nice example of religious assimilation.

Although Arsu was popular among Palmyrenes, they were not his only adherents.

The camel burner from C7A26 might relate to him. With the dove and the lion from the same room, two symbols of Atargatis, this may place him in a more broadly Syrian context (although lions could also represent Allât).722

The last god is Hadad from C7G1. The thunderbolt, throne, and bulls refer to his

role as the Syrian god of the heavens. The popular bull motif, present in three of the ten

722 Lion (C7G2), lion graffito (N8A1), gazelle (N8A2).

249

homes, likely refers to him although the bull figures may simply be apotropaic devices.723

Other subjects that can be seen as Syrian in subject are the Parthian figures, the graffito

and the relief of the sacrificer, the woman with a tympanum and representations of

horses.724 Of thirty-five identifiable subjects (including gods mentioned from M7W6),

seven can be placed somewhat loosely into the Greco-Roman category, 21 in the Syrian,

and five are specifically Palmyrene.

From the Mesopotamian tradition we see various types that evolved into Syrian

ones. One example is the woman with tympanum from C3D10. Although not a full

parallel, the goddess on cone (or Cybele) from M7W6 can be connected at least in part to

similar compositions from the area. As was demonstrated earlier, the animal incense

burners also have a long history in the region.

Conclusions

It does not seem that Roman rule made much of an impact on personal identities

of the inhabitants of the city. Certainly the arrival of the army changes the lives of Dura’s

residents, but they appear to have exhibited differentiation in regards to Roman religion

or way of life. This does not mean there was a conscious rejection of Roman religion;

rather, it perhaps did not fulfill a need for the inhabitants. Although soldiers certainly

participated in Roman religion, as demonstrated from the feriale duranum, there is not much to indicate that official state cults were a part of their cultural identity. Rather, they

723 bull burner (B2B5), bull head (G3H2), bull graffito (C3D3).

724 Graffito (C3D5), relief (C3D10), woman with tympanum (C3D10), horses (C3D3, B2B4, C3D3), and horse graffito (C3D5).

250

were likely part of their institutional identity, as members of the Roman army. This group

identity extended to the Mithraeum and Dolicheneum, which were only used by members

of the military.725 With separate temples (and likely baths) for the people and the army, it

appears Dura was almost two separate towns with two separate identities: army and

Durene.726 The billeting of troops in residential parts of the city would suggest that the

reality was not a strict dichotomy, but the evidence for shared religious structures is not

apparent.727

The real focus of this study, however, is not on those in active service in the

Roman military; it is the inhabitants of the town which suddenly in 165 CE, after over

four hundred years of existence, became Roman. The fact that the army did not arrive in

force for another thirty years means that there were only about seventy years of direct

Roman control. There is little evidence civilians would have seen themselves as Roman,

but rather as individuals living in the Roman Empire.728 We do not see any

overwhelmingly Roman deities in the home or any indication of emperor worship. There

is an underlying Hellenism in some of the religious subjects that could be associated with

725 Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians, 50-51.

726 Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians, 52-54. 103-9 discusses possible unhappy interactions, such as tax collecting and billeting.

727 For instance the Temple of Bel was used by civilians prior to the third century CE, but after the transformation of this part of the city into a military camp the evidence points to its use by the military

(Dirven 1999, 302-314).

728 Edwell, Beyond Rome and Persia, 119-123; Welles, “The Inhabitants of Dura-Europos,” 258-9.

251

Greco-Roman culture. However, these also existed in the Parthian period.729 Although

Latin appears with the Romans there is a prevalence of Semitic languages in Roman era

and Aramaic likely remained the spoken language of the inhabitants. “Romanness” was a

part of life at Dura-Europos but not a dominant part of the cultural identity of its

civilians.

729 For example, dedications dating to the Parthian period were found in the temples of Artemis and Zeus

Megistos (Welles, “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” 52, 56-7).

252

CHAPTER 11

CONCLUSION

My goal for this project was three-fold. Firstly, I have brought attention to domestic material culture, demonstrating its capacity to open up new paths of scholarly discussion. In particular, utilizing the archival material from sites excavated in the 1920s and 30s, such as Karanis and Dura-Europos, demonstrates well-known sites can benefit from being considered in a new light.

Secondly, I have underscored the lacuna in scholarship on the domestic cult during the Roman Imperial period, specifically in the Roman East. The domestic cult was pervasive throughout the Roman Empire until its decline with the rise of Christianity.

Although Campania provides well preserved domestic assemblages, there is a limit to what the sites can reveal as the evidence is confined to Italy in the first century CE.

Lastly, I wanted to show that the domestic cult could and would benefit from being considered through current methodological trends. Identity, although a difficult concept to elucidate, is important to our interpretation of Roman material culture. Cultic material from homes, including homes of provincial elites and non-elites, provides a means for understanding private cultural identity that is not as perceptible in state temples, public monuments, and honorific statuary.

253

I will now consider the levels of acculturation and differentiation among the sites

of Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-Europos. To conclude, I will briefly survey the Italian

domestic cult and its place in the provinces.

Acculturation

As should be expected, the three sites of Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-Europos all

exhibited characteristics of acculturation. The ways in which acculturation was

manifested at each of the sites varied by degrees of native, Greek, and Roman culture. At

Karanis the population had already gone through a process that included a blending of

Egyptian and Greek deities and artistic styles, which resulted in a new category called

Greco-Egyptian. The arrival of the Romans affected the native population in terms of

military service, citizenship, and taxation. On a domestic level, Roman culture did not

seem to impact personal religious identities at Karanis.

At Ephesos, through the objects and evidence in elite homes, it is apparent that

acculturation visible in euergetistic activities and honorific monuments extended to the

private sphere as well. Similar to wealthy homes in Italy itself, domestic space often

blurred the public and private spheres.730 Display of piety and prestige were key elements

of elite identity. Above all, the inclusion of sculpture related to the Imperial cult

mimicked the upper class role in these activities in the public realm in their desire to

curry favor with Rome. Among this social class, Greek, Ephesian, and Roman identities

could coexist harmoniously.

730 Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “The Social Structure of the Roman House,” Papers of the British School at

Rome 56 (1988): 43-97.

254

Of the three sites, Dura-Europos was under Roman rule for the shortest period of time. Furthermore, in its last stage it was a frontier town under the control of the Roman military. Local elites did not have the same access to the Roman power structure, nor did they have the wealth of upper class Ephesians to garner it. For these reasons it is unsurprising that the local population, outside of the military, seems to have preferred their indigenous deities. The previous rulers, the Parthians, did not curtail the worship of

Greek gods made popular during the town’s time as a Seleucid colony. Thus, some of the inhabitants continued to worship a variety of deities, including Greek ones such as

Aphrodite and Herakles. It does not appear that the Roman army brought with it practices that would have induced the locals to adopt specifically Roman gods or religious practices. The Semitic deities remained the most popular until city’s sack and abandonment. This is not to say that Rome had no impact on the citizens of Dura, but there is no evidence for “Romanization” among the religious assemblages of the homes.

Differentiation

Just as each site exhibited characteristics of acculturation, differentiation occurred on various levels as well. At Karanis, this is most evident in the lack of any evidence for the cult of the emperor. Despite the fact that many residents of the town were Roman veterans, they do not seem to have continued the types of official cultic activities they would have engaged in as members of the army. Furthermore, the choice of deity in a home was primarily based on personal needs, such as protection and especially the sustenance of their livelihood—the field.

255

Although the Terrace Houses can be considered fairly standard models of what one might expect to find in an elite home in the Greco-Roman world, there are some indications that the connection to the Greek past and civic pride remained an important part of the identity of these inhabitants. This is most evident in the popularity of Artemis

Ephesia, Dionysos, and reused Hellenistic grave reliefs.

Dura-Europos exhibited the strongest degree of differentiation among the three sites. Despite evidence of the army honoring the emperor, this practice did not make its way into the homes of the town’s inhabitants. The Greco-Roman deities of relative prominence such as Aphrodite and Herakles were popular throughout the region and in lands conquered by Hellenistic kings. On a stylistic level, the preferred means of visual representation remained Syrian and indebted to an eastern rather than western pictorial tradition.

“Romanization”

It is clear the model of “Romanization” put forth decades ago does not hold up in the face of the evidence. The idea that Romans during the Imperial period were promoting official programs towards the dissemination of Roman culture is fundamentally flawed. The provincial people under consideration appropriated aspects of

Roman culture where it was desirable for them. The expression of this appropriation is manifest in the Terrace Houses at Ephesos, but it is not nearly so clear in homes at

Karanis or Dura-Europos.

Expanding on this idea, it is evident that there was not a systematic exportation of the Italian domestic cult. We do not see representations of the Lares or the Genius, and 256

there are no inscriptions referencing the Penates or the paterfamilias. At Karanis, we see

shrines with western architectural elements that appear to mimic the ones from

Campania. In reality, these examples are more likely a means to identify a space as

sacred, because Greco-Roman style architecture was seen as something grand or upper

class. In the Terrace Houses, where acculturation is most evident, one might expect to see

something more typical of the Roman domestic cult. Yet there are no shrines, and the

snake in housing unit 4 likely refers to protective and regenerative powers not the Genius

of the paterfamilias.

The most commonly cited evidence for the Italian house cult in the East is from

Delos.731 Marcel Bulard presented many exempla of what he saw as clear indicators of

the Italian domestic cult on the island. Since then Philippe Bruneau has argued

convincingly that many of Bulard’s interpretations were optimistic.732 To be sure there

are several definite representations of Lares from Delos, but this does not necessarily

show the adoption of the Italian cult by locals; rather these items were more likely to

have been used by the large population of Italian merchants living on the island.

Furthermore, the sack of the island in 69 BCE and its subsequent decline means the

731 Marcel Bulard, La religion domestique dans la colonie italienne de Délos (Paris, Boccard, 1926); Beard,

North, and Price, Religions of Rome, 102; Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 142-43; Quatember Diss, 60.

732 Philippe Bruneau, Researches sur les Cultes de Délos a l’Époque Hellénistique et a l’Époque Impériale,

Biblioteque des Ecoles Francaises d’Athenes et de Rome 217 (Paris: Boccard, 1970), 642.

257

evidence does not provide us with a picture of the domestic cult far beyond the early

imperial period.733

In general the evidence for the Italian cult outside of Italy comes from the western

provinces. Orr notes statuettes of the Genius and Lares from Austria, Pannonia, and

Britain among others.734 More recently Annemarie Kaufmann-Heinimann has cataloged

bronze assemblages for the domestic cult throughout the Empire, but Karanis, Ephesos,

and Dura-Europos are not included.735

Late Antiquity

One final item of note is the nature of the personal religious choices in the

chronological context of late antiquity. Although a time of great change with the rise of

Christianity in the fourth century, this is not evident in the homes. Despite Egypt being known as a center of Early Christianity, the papyrological evidence shows the religion did not make strong inroads to the chora until the third century. Furthermore, the evidence suggests this popularity of the new religion paled there in comparison to the

733 Nicholas K. Rauh and Monika Trümper, "Delos," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and

Rome, Gagarin, Michael, ed. (Oxford University Press, 2010). http://www.oxfordreference.com.libproxy.temple.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780195170726.001.0001/acref-

9780195170726-e-354.

734 Orr, “Roman Domestic Religion,” 145-49. Not all of the evidence he sites relates specifically to the

Italian house cult, just domestic religion in general.

735 Annemarie Kaufmann-Heinimann, Götter und Lararien aus Augusta Raurica: Herstellung,

Fundzusammenhänge und sakrale Funktion figürlicher Bronzen in einer römischen Stadt (Augst:

Römermuseum, 1998).

258

Christian population in Alexandria.736 Also interesting is that one would expect the third-

century closure of the Karanis temples to Sobek to have increased this god’s popularity in

the domestic sphere, yet this is not the case. It seems the residents at Karanis remained

conservative and consistent in their personal religious choices well into late antiquity.

Although Ephesos was introduced to Christianity by the apostle Paul in the first

century, the religion did not gain adherents in the occupants of the Terrace Houses. The

true era of Ephesian Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries occurs after the

destruction of these wealthy homes in the late third century CE. Prior to this the choices,

among my case-studies, remained traditional and in keeping with centuries of Greco-

Roman religion.

In spite of the presence of a house church at Dura-Europos, the majority of the

residents continued to embrace pagan gods. It appears that Christianity had yet to make

much of an impact on Dura-Europos. Nor do we see evidence for known savior deities—

presumably at their height in the third century—in the houses.

In conclusion, the sites of Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-Europos provide us with

new information on domestic cult practices in the Roman East. Furthermore, I have

demonstrated that when considering acculturation and identity it is important to consider

smaller regional sites as they each provide us with a distinct cultural and religious

history. It is my hope that my case-studies and analyses will promote further studies of

736 Malcolm Choat, “Christianity,” in The Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt, Christina Riggs, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 474, 483.

259

the domestic cult and identity in the region. Specifically, there is a need for scholarship to consider provincial non-elite homes and individuals.

260

REFERENCES CITED

Alcock, Susan B., ed. The Early Roman Empire in the East. Oxford: Oxbow Books,

1997.

Allara, Anny. Problemi di architettura domestica a Dura-Europos sull’euphrate, L’isolato dei Vasai (B2). Naples : instituto universitario orientale, 2002.

Allen, Marti Lu. “The Terracotta Figurines from Karanis: A Study of Technique, Style, and Chronology in Fayoumic Coroplastics.” PhD Diss., University of Michigan, 1985.

Allison, Penelope M. “How do we identify the use of Space in Roman Housing?” 4-11 in Function and Spatial Analysis of Wall Paintings, edited by E.M. Moormann. Leuven: Peeters, 1993.

_____, ed. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London; New York: Routledge, 1999.

_____. Pompeian Households: An Analysis of the Material Culture. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Technology, 2004.

_____. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii, vol III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.

Alston, Richard. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History. London: Routledge, 1995.

Andrae, Walter and Heinz Lenzen, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen orient-Gesellschaft in Assur VIII: Die Partherstadt Assur. Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967 (reprint 1933).

Ashton, Sally-Ann. “Ptolemaic and Roman Period Memphis as a Production Centre.” 101-115 in Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials, edited by Marcos Martinón-Torres and Thilo Rehren. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2009.

261

Atiya, Aziz S., ed. The Coptic Encyclopedia. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

Attridge, Harold W. and Robert A. Oden, trans. The Syrian Goddess Attributed to Lucian. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.

Ault, Bradley A., and Lisa C. Nevett. “Digging Houses: Archaeologies of Classical and Hellenistic Greek Domestic Assemblages.” 43-56 in The Archaeology of Household Activities, edited by Penelope Allison. London: Routledge, 1999.

Aurenhammer, Maria. Die Skulpturen von Ephesos: Bildwerke aus Stein, Forschungen in Ephesos 10/1. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990.

_____. “Sculptures of Gods and Heroes from Ephesos,” 251-80 in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, edited by Helmut Koester. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

———. “Zur Skulpturenausstattung des Hanghauses I von Ephesos.” in 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions, Wien 1995, edited by Herwig Friesinger. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999.

Baird, Jennifer. “Housing and Households at Dura-Europos: A Study in Identity on Rome’s Eastern Frontier,” Ph.D. Diss., University of Leicester: 2006.

______. “Shopping, Eating, and Drinking at Dura Europos,” in Objects in Context, Objects in Use. Eds. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift, and Toon Putzeys. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

______. “The Graffiti of Dura Europos.” In Ancient Graffiti in Context, eds. J.A. Baird and Claire Taylor, 49-68. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Bagnall, Roger S. Columbia Papyri VII: Fourth Century Documents from Karanis. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

______. “Greeks and Egyptians: Ethnicity, Status, and Culture” In Cleopatra‘s Egypt: 262

Age of the Ptolemies, edited by Robert S. Bianchi. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1988.

______. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

______. “The effects of plague: model and evidence.” JRA 15.1 (2002): 114-120.

Bagnall, Roger S. and Bruce W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Bakker, Jan Theo. Living and Working with the Gods: Studies of Evidence for Private Religion and its Material Environment in the City of Ostia (100-500 AD). Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1994.

Baur, P.C.V. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report 4, pt. 3: The Lamps. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947.

Baur, P.V.C., M.I. Rostovtzeff, and A.R. Bellinger eds. The excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of third season of work, November 1929 - March 1930. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932.

______. The excavations at Dura-Europos, conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: preliminary report of fourth season of work, October 1930-March 1931. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933.

Baur, P.V.C., M.I. Rostovtzeff, and P.T. Toll, eds. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of the fifth season of work, October 1931 – March 1932. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934.

Beard, Mary, John North and Simon Price. Religions of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Becatti, Giovanni. Case Ostiensi del Tardo Impero. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, 1949.

263

Bekker-Nielsen, Tønnes. “Introduction.” 9-14 in Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation, Resistance. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, January 23-26, 2005, edited by Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2006.

_____, ed. Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation, Resistance. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, January 23-26, 2005. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2006.

Bianchi, Robert S, ed. Cleopatra‘s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1988.

Bianchi, Robert S. “The Pharaonic Art of Ptolemaic Egypt,” In Cleopatra‘s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies, edited by Robert S. Bianchi. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1988.

Boak, A. E. R. Karanis: The Temples, Coin Hoards, Botanical and Zoological Reports, Seasons 1924-31. University of Michigan Studies 30. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1933.

Boak, A. E. R., and Enoch Peterson. Karanis, Topographical and Architectural Report of Excavations during the Seasons 1924-28. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1931.

Bodel, John. “Cicero’s Minerva, Penates, and the Mother of the Lares: An Outline of Roman Domestic Religion” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, edited by John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

Bodel, John and Saul M. Olyan, eds. Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

Boersma, Johannes S. Amoenissima Civitas: Block V.ii at Ostia. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985.

Bordenache Battaglia, Gabriella. “Glykon,” 279-283 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 4. Munich: Artemis, 1988.

264

Boussac, M.F. and A. Invernizzi , eds. Archives et scéaux du monde hellénistique, BHC Suppl. 29. Athens: French School of Athens, 1997.

Boyce, George K. “Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 14 (1937).

_____. “Significance of the Serpents on Pompeian House Shrines,” American Journal of Archaeology 46.1 (1942): 13-22.

Brody, Lisa, ed. Dura-Europos: Crossroads of Antiquity. Chestnut Hill, Mass.: McMullen Museum of Art, 2011.

Bruneau, Philippe. Researches sur les Cultes de Délos a l’Époque Hellénistique et a l’Époque Impériale, Biblioteque des Ecoles Francaises d’Athenes et de Rome 217. Paris: Boccard, 1970.

Bulard, Marcel. La religion domestique dans la colonie italienne de Délos. Paris: Boccard, 1926.

Burrell, Barbara. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Campbell, Brian. The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1994.

Chavane, Marie-José. Salamine de Chypre IV: Les Petits Objets. Paris: Boccard, 1975.

Choat, Malcolm. “Christianity.” 474-489 in The Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt, edited by Christina Riggs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Coleman-Norton, Paul R., ed. Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of A.C. Johnson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, reprint from 1951.

Colledge, Malcolm A.R. The Art of Palmyra. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc., 1976.

265

Corcoran, Lorelei H. Portrait Mummies from Roman Egypt (I-IV Centuries A.D.). Chicago: University of Chicago, 1995.

Cumont, Franz. Fouilles de Doura-Europos (1922-1923). Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1926.

Curtis, Robert I. Stvdia Pompeiana & Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, vol. 1. New Rochelle: Orpheus Publishing, 1988.

Debevoise, Neilson C. Parthian Pottery from Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1934.

Dirven, Lucinda. The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: A Study of Religious Interaction in Roman Syria. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Downey, Susan B. The Excavations at Dura-Europos; Final Report 3, pt. 1: The Heracles Sculpture. New Haven: Dura-Europos Publications, 1969.

______. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final report 3, pt. 1, fasc. 2: The Stone and Plaster Sculpture. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1977.

______. Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

______. Terracotta Figurines and Plaques from Dura-Europos. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.

______. “Excavations in the Temple of Zeus Megistos at Dura-Europos, 1994-1998,” In Doura-Europos etudes V: 1994-1997, edited by Pierre Leriche. Paris: P. Geuthner.

______. “The Role of Sculpture in Worship at the Temples of Dura-Europos.” In The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power, edited by Yaron Z. Eliav, Elise A. Friedland, and Sharon Herbert, 413-35. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.

266

Drijvers, H.J.W. The Religion of Palmyra (Iconography of Religions Section XV: Mesopotamia and the Near East: Fascicle Fifteen. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.

______. “Das Heiligtum der arabischen Göttin Allât im Westlichen Stadtteil von Palmyra. Antike Welt 7 (1977), 28-38.

______. “Sanctuaries and Social Safety. The iconography of divine peace in Hellenistic Syria.” 65-57 in Commemorative Figures: Papers Presented to Dr. Th. P. van Baaren on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, May 13, 1982, edited by H.G. Kippenberg, et.al. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982.

du Bourguet, S.J., Pierre. “Symbols in Coptic Art: The Cross,” In The Coptic Encyclopedia, edited by Aziz S. Atiya, vol. 7. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

Dunand, Françoise. Religion Populaire en Égypt Romaine: Les terre cuites isiaques du Musée du Caire. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979.

_____. “Agathodaimon,” 277-282 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 1. Munich: Artemis, 1981.

Dunbabin, Katherine M.D. The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Dunbabin, Katherine M.D. and M.W. Dickie. “Invida Rumpantur Pectora: The Iconography of Phthorios/Invidia in Graeco-Roman Art.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 26 (1983): 3-37.

Edgar, M.C.C. Catalogue Général des Antiquitiés égyptiennes du Musée di Caire: Greek Bronzes. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1904.

Edwell, Peter M. Between Rome and Persia: the Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia, and Palmyra under Roman Rule. London: Routledge, 2008.

Eliav, Yaron Z., Elise A. Friedland, and Sharon Herbert, eds. The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. 267

Elsner, Jaś. “Describing Self in the language of Other: Pseudo (?) Lucian at the temple of Hierapolis.” In Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire, edited by Simon Goldhill, 123-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Elsner, Jaś. and I. Rutherford, eds. Pilgrimage in Graceo-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Erdkamp, Paul, ed. A Companion to the Roman Army. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Evans, Jane DeRose, ed. A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic. Malden: Blackwell, 2013.

Fabricius, Johanna. Die hellenistischen Totenmahlreliefs: Grabrepräsentation und Wertvorstellungen in ostgriechischen Städten. Munich: Pfeil, 1999.

Fatih Yavuz, Mehmet. “Ephesus,” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, edited by Gagarin, Michael. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. http://www.oxfordreference.com.libproxy.temple.edu/view/10.1093/acref/978019 5170726.001.0001/acref-9780195170726-e-433.

Fentress, Elizabeth, ed. Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures: Proceedings of a Conference held at the American Academy in Rome to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Excavations at Cosa. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000.

Fleischer, Robert. “Skulpturen aus den Hanghauseren I und II.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 50 (75 1072): 433-462.

_____. “Artemis Ephesia,” 755-763 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol 2. Munich: Artemis, 1984.

Foss, Pedar W. “Watchful Lares: Roman Household organization and the rituals of cooking and eating.” 197-218 in Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii 268

and Beyond, edited by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and Ray Laurence. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Studies, 1997.

Frankfurter, David. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.

_____. “Religious Practice and Piety.” 319-336 in The Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt, edited by Christina Riggs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Friesen, Steven. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

_____. “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos: Temple Wardens, City Titles, and the Interpretation of the Revelation of John,” 229-250 in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, edited by Helmut Koester. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Friesinger, Herwig, ed. 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions, Wien 1995. Wien: Verlag der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999.

Frölich, Thomas. Lararian- und Fassadenbilder in den Vesuvstädten. Untersuchen zur “Volkstümlichen” Pompejanischen Malerei. Mainz: Zabern, 1991.

Gagarin, Michael, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Gatier, P.-L., et.al Geographie historique au proche-orient (Syrie, Phénicie, Arabie, grecques, romaines, byzantines). Actes de la Table Ronde de Valbonne, 16-18 septembre 1985. Paris: Centre de recherches archéologiques, 1988.

Gazda, Elaine, et al. Guardians of the Nile: Sculptures from Karanis in the Fayoum (c. 250 BC-AD 450): Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 14-December 17, 1978. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1978.

Gazda, Elaine. Karanis, an Egyptian Town in Roman Times: Discoveries of the University 269

of Michigan Expedition to Egypt (1924-1935). 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 2004.

Gawlikowski, M. “The Statues of the Sanctuary of Allat in Palmyra,” pp. 397-411 in The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East, edited by Yaron Z. Eliav, Elise A. Friedland, and Sharon Herbert. Leuven: Peeters, 2008.

Ghirshman, R. Iran: Parthians and Sassanians, trans. S. Gilbert and J. Emmons. London: Thames and Hudson, 1962.

Goldhill, Simon, ed. Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic, and the Development of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Goldman, Bernard M. "Pictorial Graffiti of Dura. Europos," Parthica i (1999): 11-38.

Goldman, Bernard M and Norma W. Goldman. Dura-Europos: the letters of Susan M. Hopkins, 1927-1935. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2011.

Gottry, Heather C. “Domestic Religion in Graeco-Roman Karanis: Origins, Theories, and New Approaches.” Undergraduate honors thesis, University of Michigan, 1995.

Grenet, F. “Les Sassanides a Doura-Europos (253 ap. J.C.). Réexamen du matériel épigraphique iranien du site.” 133-158 in Geographie historique au proche-orient (Syrie, Phénicie, Arabie, grecques, romaines, byzantines). Actes de la Table Ronde de Valbonne, 16-18 septembre 1985, edited by P.-L. Gatier, et.al. Paris: Centre de recherches archéologiques, 1988.

Gunn, C. Douglas. “The House of Lysias in Block D-1.” Yale University Seminar report, 1965.

Haerinck, E. La Céramique en Iran pendant la Période Parthe (ca. 250 av. J.C. à ca. 225 après J.C.): typologie, chronologie et distribution. Gent: Iranica Antiqua, 1983.

Hales, Shelly. The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

270

Havelock, Christine Mitchell. The Aphrodite of Knidos and her Successors: A Historical Review of the Female Nude in Greek Art. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995.

Hekster, Olivier and Stephan T.A.M. Mols. Cultural Messages in the Graeco-Roman World: Acta of the BABESCH 80th Anniversary Workshop Radboud University Nijmegen, September 8th 2006. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.

Hermary, Antoine. “Eros.” Pp. 850-942 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. III. Munich: Artemis, 1986.

Hopkins, Clark. “The Palmyrene Gods of Dura-Europos,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 51 (1931), 119-137.

Hopkins, Clark. The Discovery of Dura-Europos. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.

Husselman, Elinor. Karanis Excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt, 1928- 1935: Topography and Architecture: a Summary of the Reports of the Director, Enoch E. Peterson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1979.

———. Papyri from Karanis, third series. Cleveland: Published for the American Philological Association by the Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1971.

Invernizzi, A. “The Cult of Parthian Nisa between Steppe and Empire,” pp. 163-177 in After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. Eds. J. Cribb and G. Herrmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Ishaq, Emile Maher. “Ankh,” in The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. Aziz S. Atiya, vol. 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1991), 134-5; Pierre du Bourguet, S.J., “”Symbols in Coptic Art: The Cross,” in The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. Aziz S. Atiya, vol. 7 (New York: Macmillan, 1991), 2164-6.

James, Simon. The Excavations at Dura-Europos; Final report 7: The Arms and Armour and other Military Equipment. London: British Museum Press, 2004.

271

Jashemski, Wilhelmina Feemster and Frederick G. Meyer, eds. The Natural History of Pompeii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Jobst, Werner. Römische Mosaiken aus Ephesos I die Hanghäuser des Embolos. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977.

Jones, Horace Leonard, trans. The Geography of Strabo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Kaizer, Ted. “Religion in the Roman East” 446-456 in A Companion to Roman Religion, edited by Jörg Rüpke. Malden: Blackwell, 2007.

Kampen, Natalie, “On Writing Histories on Roman Art.” Art Bulletin 85.2 (2003): 371- 386.

Karvonen-Kannas, Kerttu. The Seleucid and Parthian Terracotta Figurines from Babylon in the Iraq Museum, the British Museum, and the Louvre. Florence: Casa Editrice le Lettre, 1995.

Keay, S. and Terrenato, N., eds. Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001.

Kaufmann-Heinimann, Annemarie. Götter und Lararien aus Augusta Raurica : Herstellung, Fundzusammenhänge und sakrale Funktion figürlicher Bronzen in einer römischen Stadt. Augst: Römermuseum, 1998.

_____. “Religion in the House.” 188-201 in A Companion to Roman Religion, edited by Jörg Rüpke. Malden: Blackwell, 2007.

Keinath, Herman O. A. “Pagan Domestic Religion in Greco-Roman Egypt.” PhD Diss., University of Michigan, 1937.

Kippenberg, H.G., et al. Commemorative Figures: Papers Presented to Dr. Th. P. van Baaren on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, May 13, 1982. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982. 272

Koester, Helmut, ed. Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Krinzinger, Fritz, et.al. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Wohneinheiten 1 und 2; Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, Forschungen in Ephesos VIII.8. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010.

Lang, Gerhard. “Die Rekonstruktion der Domus im Hanghaus 1.” 495-500 in 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999.

Lang-Auinger, Claudia, et al. Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: der Baubefund, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/3. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996.

———. Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/4. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003.

Larson, Jennifer. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Linant de Bellefonds, Pascale. “Arsu .ˮ pp. 615-618 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. II. Munich: Artemis, 1984.

Leriche, Pierre. “Le Chreophylakeion de Doura-Europos et la mise en place du plan hippodamien de la ville,” In Archives et scéaux du monde hellénistique, BHC Suppl. 29, edited by M.F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi, 157-69. Athens: French School of Athens, 1997.

______, ed. Doura-Europos études V: 1994-1997. Paris: P. Geuthner, 2004.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

273

Maiuri, A. Ecrolano: I Nuovi Scavi. Rome: Instituto poligrafico dello Stata, Libreria della Stato, 1958.

Martinón-Torres, Marcos and Thilo Rehren, eds. Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2009.

Matheson, Susan. Dura-Europos: The Ancient City and the Yale Collection. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.

Mathiesen, Hans Erik. Sculpture in the Parthian Empire: A Study in Chronology. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992.

Mattingly, David J. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

______. “Dura Europos under Parthian Rule,” In Rome, the Greek World, and the East, vol. 3, edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers, 406-431. Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 2002.

______. “The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Interactions,” In Rome, the Greek World, and the East, vol. 3, edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers, 164-222. Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 2002.

Millett, Martin. “Romanization: Historical Issues and Archaeological Interpretation.” in The Early Roman Empire in the West, edited by Thomas Blagg and Martin Millet. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1990.

Mørkholm, Otto. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Danish National Museum: Palestine-Characene. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1961.

Nevett, Lisa C. “Family and Household, Ancient History and Archaeology: A Case Study 274

from Roman Egypt.” in A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds, edited by Beryl Rawson. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Newby, Zahra. “Art and Identity in Asia Minor,” 192-213 in Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, edited by Sarah Scott and Jane Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Nilsson, Martin P. “Roman and Greek Domestic Cult.” Opuscula Romana 1 (1954): 77- 85.

Orr, David Gerald. “Roman Domestic Religion. A Study of the Roman Household Deities and their Shrines at Pompeii and Herculaneum. PhD Diss., University of Maryland, 1972.

_____. “Roman Domestic Religion: the Evidence of Household Shrines.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II.16.2 (1978): 1662-1570.

_____. “Learning from Lararia: Notes on the Household Shrines of Pompeii.” 293-303 in Stvdia Pompeiana & Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, vol. 1, edited by Robert I. Curtis. New Rochelle: Orpheus Publishing, 1988.

_____. “Snakes on Pompeiian Household Shrines.” 350-356 in The Natural History of Pompeii, edited by Wilhelmina Feemster Jashemski and Frederick G. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Oster, Richard E. “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate.” ANRW II.18.3 (1990): 1661-1728.

Parrish, David. “Architectural Function and Decorative Programs in the Terrace Houses at Ephesos.” Topoi: Orient-Occident 7, no. 2 (1997): 579-633.

Perkins, Ann. The Art of Dura Europos. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.

Pollard, Nigel. “The Chronology and Economic Condition of Late Roman Karanis: An Archaeological Reassessment,” JARCE 35 (1998): 147-162.

275

_____. Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.

Pollitt, J.J. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Price, S.R.F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Quatember, Ursula. “Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos im Spiegel seiner Hausheiligtümer: Evidenzen für private Religionsausübung im östlichen Mittelmeerraum in römischer Zeit.” Ph. D. Diss, University of Vienna, 2000.

Rathmayr, Elisabeth. “Gotter- und Kaiserkult im privaten Wohnbereich anhand von Skulpturen aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos.” Römische historische Mitteilungen 48 (2006): 103-135.

Riesner, Rainer. “Pauline Chronology.” 9-29 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul, edited by Stephen Westerholm. Malden: Blackwell, 2011.

Revell, Louise. Roman Imperialism and Local Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Riggs, Christina. The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt: Art, Identity, and Funerary Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

_____, ed. The Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Ritner, Robert K. “Household and Family Religion in Ancient Egypt,” In Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, edited by J. Bodel and S. Olyan, 171-96. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

______. “Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings. Vol. 3. The Late Period Miriam Lichtheim” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45.3 (1986): 243-244.

276

Rawson, Beryl. A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Rizakis, Athanasios. “Urban Elites in the Roman East: Enhancing Regional Positions and Social Superiority.” 317-330 in A Companion to Roman Religion, edited by Jörg Rüpke. Malden: Blackwell, 2007.

Roberts, Louis. “Dans une maison d’Ephese un serpent et un chiffre,” CRAI 126.1 (1982): 126-132.

Robbins, Gay. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Rogers, Guy Maclean. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London: Routledge, 1991.

_____. The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos: Cult, Polis, and Change in the Graeco- Roman World. Yale University Press, 2012.

Rose, Jenny. Zoroastrianism: An Introduction. London: I.B. Tauris, 2011.

Rostovtzeff, M.I. Caravan Cities, trans. D. and T. Talbot Rice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932.

______. The excavations at Dura-Europos, conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: preliminary report of fifth season of work, October 1931-March 1932. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934.

______. Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art. New Haven: Yale Classical Studies, 1935.

______, ed. The excavations at Dura-Europos: preliminary report of the ninth season of work 1935 – 1936, Part 1: The agora and bazaar. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1944.

277

_____. Dura Europos and its Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938.

Rostovtzeff, M.I., A.R. Bellinger, C. Hopkins, and C.B. Welles. The Excavations at Dura-Europos, conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: preliminary report of sixth season of work, October 1932-March 1933. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936.

Rostovtzeff, M. I., F.E. Brown, and C.B. Welles. Excavations at Dura-Europos. Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of the seventh and eighth seasons at work, 1933-1934 and 1934-1935. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1939.

Rostovtzeff, M. I., and Alan Little. “La maison des fresques de Doura-Europos.” Académie des inscriptions & belles-lettres (France) Mémoires de l’Institut national de France (1933): 167-90.

Roth, Roman and Johannes Keller, eds. Roman by Integration: Dimensions of Group Identity in Material Culture and Text. Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplementary Series, 66. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2007.

Rübsam, Winfried J R. Götter und Kulte in Faijum während der griechisch-römisch- byzantinischen Zeit. Bonn: Habelt, 1974.

Rüpke, Jörg, ed. A Companion to Roman Religion. Malden: Blackwell, 2007.

Scheidel, Walter. “A model of change in Egypt after the plague of A.D. 165.” JRA 15.1 (2002): 97-114.

Scherrer, Peter. “The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period to Late Antiquity,” pp. 1-25 in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, edited by Helmut Koester. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

_____. “The Historical Topography of Ephesos” 57-87 in Urbanism in Western Asia Minor JRA Supp. 45, edited by David Parrish. Portsmouth: Rhode Island, 2001.

278

Scott, Sarah and Jane Webster Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Serhal, Claude Doumet. The Klat Collection: Near Eastern Terracotta Models and Figurines, translated by Mandy Khalifé-Johnson and Diane Klat. Beirut: Raidy Printing Group, 2009.

Seyrig, Henri. “Antiquités syriennes. 89. Les Dieux Armés et les Arabes en Syrie.” Syria 47.1/2 (1970): 77-116.

Siebert, Gérard. “Hermes” 285-386 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 5. Munich: Artemis, 1990.

Simon, Erica. “Kybele.” pp. 744-766 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. VIII. Munich: Artemis, 1997.

Smith, R.R.R. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

_____. “Cultural Choice and Political Identity in Honorific Portrait Statues in the Greek East in the Second Century A.D.” JRS 88 (1998): 56-93.

Stamatopoulou, Maria. ‘Totenmahl’ Reliefs of the 4th-2nd Centuries BC and the Archaeology of Feasting in a Funerary Context, 11-22 in Cultural Messages in the Graeco-Roman World: Acta of the BABESCH 80th Anniversary Workshop Radboud University Nijmegen, September 8th 2006, edited by Olivier Hekster and Stephan T.A.M. Mols. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.

Starcky, Jean. “Allath.ˮ pp. 564-570 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. I. Munich: Artemis, 1981.

Stern, Karen B. “Mapping Devotion in Roman Dura Europos: A Reconsideration of the Synagogue Ceiling.ˮ AJA 14.3 (2010): 473-504.

Stiehl, Ruth and Hans Erich Stier, eds. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. 279

Stoll, Oliver. “The Religions of the Armies” In A Companion to the Roman Army, edited by Paul Erdkamp, 451-476. Malden: Blackwell, 2007.

Strocka, Volker Michael. Die Wandmalerei der Hanghäuser in Ephesos, Forschungen in Ephesos 8/1. Vienna: Verl. d. Österr. Akad. d. Wiss. in Komm., 1977.

Takács, Sarolta A. “Divine and Human Feet: Records of Pilgrims Honouring Isis,” in Pilgrimage in Graceo-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods, edited by J. Elsner and I. Rutherford, 353-369. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Terranato, Nicola. “Introduction.” in Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by S. Keay and N. Terrenato. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2001.

Thomas, Thelma. Textiles from Karanis, Egypt in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology: Artifacts of Everyday Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

Thür, Hilke, et al. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: die Wohneinheit 4; Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, Forschungen in Ephesos 8.6. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2005.

Török, László. Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. Rome: “L’erma” di Bretschneider, 1995.

______. Transfigurations of Hellenism: Aspects of Late Antique Art in Egypt AD 250- 700. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Tinh, V. Tam Tran. Essai sur le Culte d’Isis à Pompéi. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1964.

_____. “Isis-Thermouthis,” 788-9 in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 2. Munich: Artemis, 1990.

Vandorpe,Katelijn. “Identity.” 262-276 in The Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt, edited by Christina Riggs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 280

van Ingen, Wilhelmina. Figurines from Seleucia on the Tigris, discovered by the expeditions conducted by the University of Michigan with the cooperation of the Toledo Museum of Art and the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1927-1932. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1939.

van Minnen, Peter. “House-to-house Enquiries: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Roman Karanis.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100 (1994): 227-251.

Versluys, Miguel John. “Exploring Identities in the Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman East.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 65.3-4 (2008): 342-356.

_____. “Material Culture and Identity in the Late Roman Republic (c. 200-c. 20).” 429- 440 in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic, edited by Jane DeRose Evans. Malden: Blackwell, 2013.

Vetters, Hermann. “Die Hanghauser and der Kuretenstrasse.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 50 (75 1972): 333-379.

Vokes, Mary. “Karanis Egypt: The Complete Corpus of Late Roman and Antique Wall and Niche Painting.” Unpublished paper, HA 642. University of Michigan, 1992.

Waldemar, Déonna. “Mobilier délien.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 58 (1934): 381-86.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “The Social Structure of the Roman House,” Papers of the British School at Rome 56 (1988): 43-97.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew and Ray Laurence, eds. Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Studies, 1997.

Webster, Jane. “Creolizing the Roman Provinces,” AJA 105.2 (2001): 209-225.

Welles, C. Bradford. “The Population of Roman Dura,” pp. 251-274 in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of A.C. Johnson. Ed. Paul R. Coleman- 281

Norton. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, reprint from 1951.

______. “The Gods of Dura-Europos,” In Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Festschrift für Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968, edited by Ruth Stiehl and Hans Erich Stier, 50-65. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.

Welles, C. Bradford, Robert O. Fink, and Frank J. Gilliam. The Excavations at Dura- Europos: Final Report 5.1. The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.

Wesch-Klein, Gabriele. "Recruits and Veterans." In A Companion to the Roman Army, edited by Paul Erdkamp, 435-450. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Wessel, Klaus. Coptic Art. Translated by Jean Carrol and Sheila Hatton. New York: McGraw, 1965.

White, Michael L. “Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos,” pp. 27- 79 in Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, edited by Helmut Koester. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Wilfong, Terry G. “Images from the Karanis Excavations.” 223-243 in The Oxford Handbook to Roman Egypt, edited by Christina Riggs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Woolf, Greg. “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40 (1995): 116-143.

_____. “Beyond Romans and Natives.” World Archaeology 28.3 (1997): 339-350.

Yegül, Fikret K. “Memory, Metaphor, and Meaning in the Cities of Asia Minor.” 133-53 in Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, JRA Supp. 45, edited by David Parris Portsmouth: Rhode Island, 2001.

Youtie, H. C., and O. M. Pearl. Papyri and Ostraca from Karanis. University of Michigan Studies 47. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1944.

282

Youtie, H. C., and J. G. Winter. Papyri and Ostraca fom Karanis. University of Michigan Studies 50. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1951.

Zimmermann N., Ladstätter S. Wall Painting in Ephesos: From the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider S.R.L., 2011.

283

June 12. 2013

Amy C. Yandek, PhD Candidate Art History Tyler School of Art Temple University

Dear Ms. Yandek,

The Kelsey hereby grants permission for you to publish the attached list of images in your doctoral dissertation entitled “Pagan Roman Religious Acculturation? An Inquiry into the Domestic Cult at Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-Europos: The First to Fifth Centuries CE.”

This is a onetime permission, and if you have any desire to use the images again (in publications unrelated to your dissertation), you will need to request permission from the Kelsey at that time. Due to the academic nature of your publication, there will be no fee associated with this endeavor.

I believe you already have the photo captions. Please also cite “Kelsey Museum of Archaeology." If space permits, feel free to add "University of Michigan."

When the publication is ready, the Kelsey would appreciate receiving one copy of the work for our files. If one copy cannot be procured, we would appreciate a photocopy of the section in which the images appear. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Please let me know if can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely, Michelle Fontenot, Registrar Kelsey Museum of Archaeology [email protected]

284 Kelsey Museum Archive Negatives:

Photo 5.4163

Photo 5.2690

Photo 7.2506

Photo 5.2544

Photo 7.2507

Photo 5.4164

Photo 5.4177

Photo 7.2507

Photo 5.2821

Photo 7.2507

Photo 7.2506

Photo 5.2822

Photo 5.4167

Photo 7.2507

Photo 5.2404

Photo 7.2506

Photo 5.4165

Photo 5.4167

Photo 5.2316

Photo 5.2317

Photo 5.4167

Photo 5.4166

Toy horse, 28-204A*-D; Kelsey 7692, from Kelsey Museum Online

Gazda, Elaine, ed. Guardians of the Nile: Sculptures from Karanis in the Fayoum (c. 250 BC-AD 450): Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 14-December 17, 1978. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archarology, 1978: cats. 16, 29, 30, 36, 47. 285 ,.-..,, I~ITHE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS III 839 Greene Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48\ 04-3209

To: Amy C. Yandek, PhD Candidate Date: June 12, 20 I 3 Art History Tyler School of Art Temple University 131 S. 22nd St. #7 Philadelphia, PA \9\ 03 Email: Amy.yandek(a;temple.edu

From: Debra Shafer Pages: Permissions Fax: 734-615-1540 Tel: 734-6\5-6478

PERMISSION TO REPRINT

Dear Ms. Yandek,

Thank you for your request to reprint plate 39, figs. 77 and 78; Plan VI, section F 10; Plan II, Area G; figure 18 from Karanis, Topographical and Architectural Report of Excavations during the Seasons /924-28. by A. E. R. Boak and Enoch Peterson (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1931).

Permission to reprint the work specified above in a doctoral dissertation,"Pagan Roman Religious Acculturation? An Inquiry into the Domestic Cult at Karanis, Ephesos, and Dura-Europos: The First to Fifth Centuries CE" by Amy C. Yandek, to be published in 2013, by Proquest Information and Learning, is granted subject to the following terms:

A credit line citing author/editor, title. publisher, and copyright notice as it appears in volume quoted will appear on the copyright page, on the page on which the selection begins, or in your customary acknowledgment section.

Permission covers only use specified in your request referenced above and covers only material copyrighted by The University of Michigan; it does not apply to excerpts or graphic material from other sources that may be incorporated in the material.

This non-exclusive agreement covers all language World rights for this Dissertation edition. This includes permission to reproduce the material in Braille (or similar tactile SymbOIS)s~~i/di~ form for distribution with visual or physical disabilities. Please reapply for future u/

The Press waives its customary fee. /

Permission shall be void if any of the above terms are violated. /

If these terms are acceptable, please countersign this form and return it now to complete our agreement, which is not valid unless signed by both parties. Please retain one copy of this agreement for your files.

Date: 06/12/13 Permission granted by: ~~~ebra Shafer. Permissions for the University of Michigan Press

Signat re of pplicant:

Request permission online at http://www.press.umich.edu/contact.jsp#perms

286 287 288 289

May 3, 2013

Amy C. Yandek, PhD Candidate Art History Tyler School of Art Temple University 131 S. 22nd St. #7 Philadelphia, PA 19103

Regarding: Rostovtzeff, M.I., ed. The excavations at Dura-Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of the ninth season of work, 1935 – 1936, Part 1: The agora and bazaar. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1944: fig. 9.47.

Rostovtzeff, M.I., A.R. Bellinger, C. Hopkins, and C.B. Welles, eds. The Excavations at Dura- Europos: conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary report of sixth season of work, October 1932-March 1933. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936: figs. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. van Buren, E. Douglas. Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980 (1930): figs. 123-4.

Thank you for your letter requesting permission to use the above-referenced material. We are pleased to grant permission free of charge only for the use in your dissertation (including offering through ProQuest), unless special conditions are mentioned under (3) below, and no subsequent use may be made without additional approval. This permission is subject to the following terms:

1. Proper acknowledgment of this reprinted material shall be made, including notice of author (translator or editor), title, Yale University Press as publisher, and full copyright notice.

2. This permission does not include any part of the selection independently copyrighted or bearing a separate source notation. The responsibility for determining the source of the material rests with the prospective publisher of the quoted material.

3. Remarks and additional conditions: Permission extends ONLY for the noncommercial use in your dissertation. Should you transform your dissertation into a commercial publication, that will be subject to renewed permission, and will be subject to a republication fee.

Donna Anstey Permissions and Ancillary Rights Manager

E-mail: [email protected]

290