DOCSLIB.ORG

Downloaded from Brill.Com09/30/2021 08:01:41AM Via Free Access 46 Benoist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAPTER 4 The Emperor Beyond the Frontiers: A Double-Mirror as a ‘Political Discourse’ Stéphane Benoist 1 This is a contribution about ‘an imperial discourse’ in which long-term notions of the Roman Empire in the worlds outside of that empire, and of the out- side worlds from within the Roman Empire, are related to the multiple fig- ures of the princeps. It raises diverse (Roman and alien) conceptions of the imperial power during the first five centuries of the Principate, and analyses the various messages we can find during periods of peace and war. Epigraphic, numismatic, juridical, and iconographic evidence, e.g., from the Res Gestae diui Augusti to the so-called Res Gestae diui Saporis, is used to analyse different aspects of the conception of the princeps by insiders and outsiders.1 This contribution is part of a research program which interprets the imperial identity through the various ‘forms, practices, and representations of the impe- rial power at Rome and in the Roman world from the beginnings to the Late Antique Empire.’ The process of construction of a discourse involving a sort of ‘double-entendre’2 (various meanings depending on diverse audiences) will be the main focus of this inquiry. It sees political discourse essentially as part of a dialogue, in which rhetoric plays a crucial role.3 1 For a few preliminary aspects about the frontiers of the Roman Empire and the concep- tion of imperial power: Stéphane Benoist, ‘Penser la limite: de la cité au territoire impérial’, in Olivier Hekster and Ted Kaizer (eds.), Frontiers in the Roman World, Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Durham, 16–19 April 2009), (Leiden/Boston 2011), 31–47. 2 About ‘double-entendre’ and the nature of a ‘subtext,’ see Stéphane Benoist, ‘Fragments de mémoire, en quête de paroles condamnées’, in Bénédicte Delignon and Yves Roman (eds.), Le Poète irrévérencieux. Modèles hellénistiques et réalités romaines, collection du CEROR 32 (Paris 2009), 49–64, for a general overview. 3 E.g. Stéphane Benoist, ‘Identité(s) du prince et discours impérial, l’exemple des titulatures, des Sévères à Julien’, in Moïra Crété (ed.), Discours et systèmes de représentation: modèles et transferts de l’écrit dans l’Empire romain (Besançon 2016) forthcoming; and the conclu- sion of the same volume: Id., ‘Miroir des princes et discours d’éloge, quelques remarques © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/97890043�6750_005 Stéphane Benoist - 9789004326750 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:01:41AM via free access 46 Benoist 2 This interpretation of imperial power can be illustrated through two well- known situations at the margins of the Imperium Romanum. Both deal with the apparatus of the emperor handling foreign embassies. The two examples show how, on the one hand, the image of an all-powerful Rome, which had dominated the first three centuries of the Principate, is still put forward in the second half of the third century, but contrasts sharply with testimonies pro- duced by enemies of Rome during the second part of the 3rd, or during the 4th and 5th centuries AD.4 Dexippus, in a fragment, describes Aurelian’s negotiations with the Iuthungi, in probably 270.5 He gives us a very interesting description: the army was arranged around the prince, who was seated on a high stage, as accom- panied by eikones Basileioi and gold eagles.6 Those signa and imagines were taken from the sacellum of the military camp, and were used to boost the notion of solemnity at the reception of the ambassadors of the Iuthungi. This spectacular imperial manifestation will certainly have impressed the visitors; but what was the real meaning of this staging? For whom was it primarily intended? Was it chiefly aimed at the Roman soldiers (insiders), or at the for- eign ambassadors (outsiders)? Was it meant to give the Roman emperor the necessary auctoritas to maintain his power under very difficult circumstances, or did it seek to inspire awe into his enemies (the latter being the traditional interpretation of the passage)?7 The physical link that was created between the ruler (Aurelian) and his predecessors (the diui = eikones basileioi) created a concrete expression of the eternity of Rome (Roma Æterna) and of the statio conclusives’; Id., ‘Rhétorique, politique et pratique épigraphique monumentale’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 25 (2014), 209–214. 4 See the accurate inquiry by Audrey Becker, Les relations diplomatiques romano-barbares en Occident au Ve siècle. Acteurs, fonctions, modalités (Paris 2013) on this radical change of per- spectives from a conquering Rome to a much more disputed situation. 5 Jacoby FGRH II.A = Dex., Frag. 6.3. 6 For a commentary about ‘the images of emperor and empire’ citing this testimony (i.e. Excerpta de legationibus, Dexippus 1 de Boor [FHG fr. 24 = Dindorf, HGM fr. 22]), see Clifford Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley 2000), 263. 7 E.g. Ando 2000, 263: “On the appointed day, the emperor ordered the legions to assemble as if for battle, to terrify the enemy (. .) Aurelian’s preparations were successful: the Juthungi, we are told, were stunned and remained silent for a long time.” Stéphane Benoist - 9789004326750 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:01:41AM via free access The Emperor Beyond The Frontiers 47 principis (Æternus Augustus or perpetuus Augustus), visible to every partici- pant in this political ritual.8 About a century later, the situation had changed profoundly. Ammianus Marcellinus gives us an account of the meeting between Athanaric’s Visigoths and the emperor Valens in order to prepare the treaty of 369. It was finally concluded in the middle of the Danube, because neither the Romans nor the Visigoths were able to convince the others to cross the river. “Because Athanaric asserted that an oath pronounced with formidable curses stopped him from ever walking on Roman ground, that his father in his recommenda- tions had forbidden it, and that it was, moreover, impossible to oblige him to do so, and because on the other hand the emperor would have to dishonour himself and stoop to crossing the river to meet him, some counsellors with a straight judgment decided that ships should be rowed into the middle of the river, the one carrying the emperor with his guards, the other the judge of the people of this country with his own guards, to conclude the peace in the terms that had been agreed upon.”9 As a matter of fact, the weakness of the Roman Empire was demonstrated clearly, as was the importance of the physi- cal presence of the emperor, at the Danube frontier during the second part of the 4th century AD. In the period of time between our two introductory examples, several orators still tried to celebrate an imperium sine fine, but it no longer existed. Panegyrists may have asserted that “beyond the Rhine everything is Roman!”,10 8 See Stéphane Benoist, ‘Images des dieux, images des hommes. Réflexions sur le ‘culte impérial’ au IIIe siècle’, in Marie-Henriette Quet (ed.), La “crise” de l’empire romain de Marc Aurèle à Constantin (Paris 2006), 27–64: the display of imagines of deceased emperors, probably the diui, reminds us of Decius’ use of a monetary series of diui from Augustus onwards. The conception of the Eternity of the Empire and the emperor was central from the very beginning of the Principate, but increasingly became so during the 3rd century AD: Stéphane Benoist, Rome, le prince et la Cité. Pouvoir impérial et cérémonies publiques (Ier siècle av.–début du IVe siècle ap. J.-C.), collection Le Nœud Gordien (Paris 2005), chap- ters VII–VIII, 273–333. 9 Amm. Marc. XXVII.5.9: et quoniam adserebat Athanaricus sub timenda exsecratione iurandi se esse obstrictum, mandatisque prohibitum patris ne solum calcaret aliquando Romanorum, et adigi non poterat, indecorumque erat et uile ad eum imperatorem transire, recte noscentibus placuit, nauibus remigio directis in medium flumen, quae uehebant cum armigeris principem gentisque iudicem inde cum suis, foederari, ut statutum est, pacem. Becker 2013, op. cit. (n. 4), quotes this passage in her introduction (15–16), underlining the symbolic aspect of the Danube as an appropriate space belonging to nobody, neither the Romans, nor the Visigoths. 10 Mamertinus, Maximiano Augusto, Pan. 10 [II].7.7: quidquid ultra Rhenum prospicio, Romanum est. Stéphane Benoist - 9789004326750 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:01:41AM via free access 48 Benoist and that “in its peaceful embrace the Roman power (Romana res publica) embraces all which, in the succession and the diversity of time, was at some moment Roman, and this greatness, which often had tottered as under an excessive weight, found its cohesion in an ultimately unshakable Empire (solido imperio).”11 However, the Pax Romana embodied by the Imperator Caesar Augustus had failed. These two case studies illustrate the scope in which an empire made of words differed from the empire as it was experienced by contemporaries. It is worth while to consider this in perspective of ‘an imperial discourse,’ composed of words, monuments, and acts. This will help us to understand relationships between ‘Ours’ and ‘Theirs’, insiders and outsiders, Romans and Barbarians in the period from Augustus to Theodosius. 3 Following the two examples from the Rhine and Danube limites in the 3rd and the 4th centuries AD, we will further concentrate on the Oriental frontier, looking at diplomatic as well as military relationships between Romans and Parthians/Persians, from the very beginnings of the Empire onwards. Some rel- evant elements are already visible in the so-called “Königin der Inschriften”; the famous Res Gestae diui Augusti.12 Five passages that are important in this context deal with Armenian affairs (27.2), the recovery of military standards by Tiberius in Augustus’ name (29.2), embassies from faraway kings (31.1–2), royal fugitives and hostages (32.1–2), and finally rulers imposed by Rome to foreign kingdoms (33).
Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D

    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D

    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
  • Exam Sample Question

    Exam Sample Question

    Latin II St. Charles Preparatory School Sample Second Semester Examination Questions PART I Background and History (Questions 1-35) Directions: On the answer sheet cover the letter of the response which correctly completes each statement about Caesar or his armies. 1. The commander-in-chief of a Roman army who had won a significant victory was known as a. dux b. imperator c. signifer d. sagittarius e. legatus 2. Caesar was consul for the first time in the year a. 65 B.C. b. 70 B.C. c. 59 B.C. d. 44 B.C. e. 51 B.C. PART II Vocabulary (Questions 36-85) Directions: On the answer sheet provided cover the letter of the correct meaning for the boldfaced Latin word in the left band column. 36. doctus a. edge b. entrance c. learned d. record e. friendly 37. incipio a. stop b. speaker c. rest d. happen e. begin PART III Prepared Translation, Passage A (Questions 86-95) Directions: On the answer sheet provided cover the letter of the best translation for each Latin sentence or fragment. 86. Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. a. The Gauls divided themselves into three parts b. All of Gaul was divided into three parts c. Three parts of Gaul have been divided d. Everyone in Gaul was divided into three parts PART IV Prepared Translation, Passage B (Questions 96-105) Directions: On the answer sheet provided cover the letter of the best translation for each Latin sentence or fragment. 96. Galli se Celtas appellant. Romani autem eos Gallos appellant.
  • RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian's “Great

    RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian's “Great

    ABSTRACT RICE, CARL ROSS. Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy. (Under the direction of Prof. S. Thomas Parker) In the year 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian and the other members of the Tetrarchy launched a series of persecutions against Christians that is remembered as the most severe, widespread, and systematic persecution in the Church’s history. Around that time, the Tetrarchy also issued a rescript to the Pronconsul of Africa ordering similar persecutory actions against a religious group known as the Manichaeans. At first glance, the Tetrarchy’s actions appear to be the result of tensions between traditional classical paganism and religious groups that were not part of that system. However, when the status of Jewish populations in the Empire is examined, it becomes apparent that the Tetrarchy only persecuted Christians and Manichaeans. This thesis explores the relationship between the Tetrarchy and each of these three minority groups as it attempts to understand the Tetrarchy’s policies towards minority religions. In doing so, this thesis will discuss the relationship between the Roman state and minority religious groups in the era just before the Empire’s formal conversion to Christianity. It is only around certain moments in the various religions’ relationships with the state that the Tetrarchs order violence. Consequently, I argue that violence towards minority religions was a means by which the Roman state policed boundaries around its conceptions of Roman identity. © Copyright 2016 Carl Ross Rice All Rights Reserved Diocletian’s “Great Persecutions”: Minority Religions and the Roman Tetrarchy by Carl Ross Rice A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History Raleigh, North Carolina 2016 APPROVED BY: ______________________________ _______________________________ S.
  • Hadrian and the Greek East

    Hadrian and the Greek East

    HADRIAN AND THE GREEK EAST: IMPERIAL POLICY AND COMMUNICATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Demetrios Kritsotakis, B.A, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Fritz Graf, Adviser Professor Tom Hawkins ____________________________ Professor Anthony Kaldellis Adviser Greek and Latin Graduate Program Copyright by Demetrios Kritsotakis 2008 ABSTRACT The Roman Emperor Hadrian pursued a policy of unification of the vast Empire. After his accession, he abandoned the expansionist policy of his predecessor Trajan and focused on securing the frontiers of the empire and on maintaining its stability. Of the utmost importance was the further integration and participation in his program of the peoples of the Greek East, especially of the Greek mainland and Asia Minor. Hadrian now invited them to become active members of the empire. By his lengthy travels and benefactions to the people of the region and by the creation of the Panhellenion, Hadrian attempted to create a second center of the Empire. Rome, in the West, was the first center; now a second one, in the East, would draw together the Greek people on both sides of the Aegean Sea. Thus he could accelerate the unification of the empire by focusing on its two most important elements, Romans and Greeks. Hadrian channeled his intentions in a number of ways, including the use of specific iconographical types on the coinage of his reign and religious language and themes in his interactions with the Greeks. In both cases it becomes evident that the Greeks not only understood his messages, but they also reacted in a positive way.
  • Lecture 27 Sasanian Empire

    Lecture 27 Sasanian Empire

    4/12/2012 Lecture 27 Sasanian Empire HIST 213 Spring 2012 Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE) Successors of the Achaemenids 224 CE Ardashir I • a descendant of Sasan – gave his name to the new Sasanian dynasty, • defeated the Parthians • The Sasanians saw themselves as the successors of the Achaemenid Persians. 1 4/12/2012 Shapur I (r. 241–72 CE) • One of the most energetic and able Sasanian rulers • the central government was strengthened • the coinage was reformed • Zoroastrianism was made the state religion • The expansion of Sasanian power in the west brought conflict with Rome Shapur I the Conqueror • conquers Bactria and Kushan in east • led several campaigns against Rome in west Penetrating deep into Eastern-Roman territory • conquered Antiochia (253 or 256) Defeated the Roman emperors: • Gordian III (238–244) • Philip the Arab (244–249) • Valerian (253–260) – 259 Valerian taken into captivity after the Battle of Edessa – disgrace for the Romans • Shapur I celebrated his victory by carving the impressive rock reliefs in Naqsh-e Rostam. Rome defeated in battle Relief of Shapur I at Naqsh-e Rostam, showing the two defeated Roman Emperors, Valerian and Philip the Arab 2 4/12/2012 Terry Jones, Barbarians (BBC 2006) clip 1=9:00 to end clip 2 start - … • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_WqUbp RChU&feature=related • http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&featu re=endscreen&v=QxS6V3lc6vM Shapur I Religiously Tolerant Intensive development plans • founded many cities, some settled in part by Roman emigrants. – included Christians who could exercise their faith freely under Sasanian rule • Shapur I particularly favored Manichaeism – He protected Mani and sent many Manichaean missionaries abroad • Shapur I befriends Babylonian rabbi Shmuel – This friendship was advantageous for the Jewish community and gave them a respite from the oppressive laws enacted against them.
  • Heads Or Tails

    Heads Or Tails

    Heads or Tails Representation and Acceptance in Hadrian’s Imperial Coinage Name: Thomas van Erp Student number: S4501268 Course: Master’s Thesis Course code: (LET-GESM4300-2018-SCRSEM2-V) Supervisor: Mw. dr. E.E.J. Manders (Erika) 2 Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 1: Proportions of Coin Types Hadrian ........................................................................ 5 Figure 2: Dynastic Representation in Comparison ................................................................ 5 Figure 3: Euergesia in Comparison ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Virtues ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5: Liberalitas in Comparison ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 6: Iustitias in Comparison ........................................................................................... 5 Figure 7: Military Representation in Comparison .................................................................. 5 Figure 8: Divine Association in Comparison ......................................................................... 5 Figure 9: Proportions of Coin Types Domitian ...................................................................... 5 Figure 10: Proportions of Coin Types Trajan .......................................................................
  • The Sumerian King List the Sumerian King List (SKL) Dates from Around 2100 BCE—Near the Time When Abram Was in Ur

    The Sumerian King List the Sumerian King List (SKL) Dates from Around 2100 BCE—Near the Time When Abram Was in Ur

    BcResources Genesis The Sumerian King List The Sumerian King List (SKL) dates from around 2100 BCE—near the time when Abram was in Ur. Most ANE scholars (following Jacobsen) attribute the original form of the SKL to Utu-hejel, king of Uruk, and his desire to legiti- mize his reign after his defeat of the Gutians. Later versions included a reference or Long Chronology), 1646 (Middle to the Great Flood and prefaced the Chronology), or 1582 (Low or Short list of postdiluvian kings with a rela- Chronology). The following chart uses tively short list of what appear to be the Middle Chronology. extremely long-reigning antediluvian Text. The SKL text for the following kings. One explanation: transcription chart was originally in a narrative form or translation errors resulting from and consisted of a composite of several confusion of the Sumerian base-60 versions (see Black, J.A., Cunningham, and the Akkadian base-10 systems G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., of numbering. Dividing each ante- and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text diluvian figure by 60 returns reigns Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http:// in harmony with Biblical norms (the www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford bracketed figures in the antediluvian 1998-). The text was modified by the portion of the chart). elimination of manuscript references Final versions of the SKL extended and by the addition of alternative the list to include kings up to the reign name spellings, clarifying notes, and of Damiq-ilicu, king of Isin (c. 1816- historical dates (typically in paren- 1794 BCE). thesis or brackets). The narrative was Dates.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    TABLE OF CONTENTS Language Cited: Hamito-Semitic xv Language Cited: Indo-European xv Abbreviations for some Dictionaries and References xvi Grammatical Terminology and Other Abbreviations and Symbols xvii PREFACE 1 CHAPTER ONE HAMITO-SEMITIC LANGUAGE FAMILY 5 1.1 Hamito-Semitic languages 5 1.1.1 Semitic languages 6 1.1.1.1 Acadian 6 1.1.1.2 Canaanite 6 1.1.1.3 Aramaic 7 1.1.1.4 Classical Arabic 7 1.1.1.5 South Arabic 8 1.1.1.6 Ethiopie or Gefez 8 1.1.2 Hamitic languages 8 1.1.2.1 Egyptian 8 1.1.2.2 Berber 8 1.1.2.3 Cushitic 9 1.1.2.4 Chadic 9 1.2 Late PHS sound system 10 1.2.1 Sound correspondences between Semitic and Egyptian 11 1.2.1.1 Stops 18 1.2.1.2 Fricatives 20 1.2.1.3 Nasals 24 1.2.1.4 Laterals 24 1.2.1.5 R-sound 24 1.2.1.6 Glides 25 1.2.1.7 Consonants /s/, /h/ and ImJ 26 1.2.2 Vowels 29 1.2.3 Diphthongs 33 1.3 Hamito-Semitic grammatical system 34 1.3.1 stem I 35 1.3.2 stem II 35 1.3.3 stem III 35 1.3.4 stem IV 36 1.3.4.1 Other HS causative prefixes 36 1.3.4.2 Hamito-Semitic causative affixes and world’s languages 38 1.3.5 stem V 38 1.3.6 stem VI 39 1.3.7 stem VII 39 1.3.8 stem VIII 40 1.3.9 stem IX 40 1.3.10 stemX 41 1.3.11 stem XI 41 1.3.12 stem XII 41 1.3.13 Some other stems 41 CHAPTER TWO SUMERIAN 43 2.1 Introduction 43 2.1.1 Sumerian dialects: Emegir and Emesal 44 2.1.2 Sumerian and other languages 48 2.1.3 Typological classification of Sumerian 51 2.1.3.1 Typology and stages of language development 52 2.1.4 Sumerian writing system 54 CHAPTER THREE SUMERIAN AND HAMITO-SEMITIC: SOUNDS AND LEXICONS 57 3.1 Introduction 57 3.1.1
  • Tertullian on the Paradox of the Roman Amphitheatre Games: De Spectaculis 22

    Tertullian on the Paradox of the Roman Amphitheatre Games: De Spectaculis 22

    VOX PATRUM 36 (2016) t. 65 Bogdan BURLIGA* TERTULLIAN ON THE PARADOX OF THE ROMAN AMPHITHEATRE GAMES: DE SPECTACULIS 22 As an co-author I recently worked upon the introduction and commentary on the Polish translation of Martial’s collection of epigrams, the famous Liber spectaculorum (On the Spectacles), written on the occasion of the inaugura- tion of the amphitheatrum Flavianum (later known as Colosseum) in the year 801, during the reign of the Emperor Titus2. The preparation of the commen- tary was for many reasons an exceptionally advantageous experience, and one of the most challenging problems that emerged at that time was the question: how was the Romans’ attitude towards cruelty?; how to understand their ap- parent fascination with it? Was it only a terrifying (for us) allure with mayhem, carnage and blood? Should one take it as a macabre grand-guignol entertain- ment, aimed at enjoying (by presenting the scenes of terror) the voracious populus Romanus and bloodthirsty plebs Romana, and consequently arranged by the magistrates, politicians or nobles as a tool by which the editores gained popularity and wielded power or control – both in the urbs aeterna as in other municipal cities? Or, could we ever hope to come nearer to the understanding of the cruel practices by expressing our moral judgment: disgust, detestation and rejection, as did openly Michael Grant in his Gladiators?3 How far should historians proceed in their investigations to avoid the risk of falling into an open moralizing? The more questions, the more doubts and uncertainties. Moral abhorrence, repulsion and condemnation are understandable enough to any sensitive man studying the phenomenon of the Roman ludi circenses now4: * Dr hab.
  • The Politics of Parthian Coinage in Media

    The Politics of Parthian Coinage in Media

    The Politics of Parthian Coinage in Media Author(s): Farhang Khademi Nadooshan, Seyed Sadrudin Moosavi, Frouzandeh Jafarzadeh Pour Reviewed work(s): Source: Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 68, No. 3, Archaeology in Iran (Sep., 2005), pp. 123-127 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067611 . Accessed: 06/11/2011 07:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Near Eastern Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org The Parthians (174 BCE-224CE) suc- , The coins discussed here are primarily from ceeded in the the Lorestan Museum, which houses the establishing longest jyj^' in the ancient coins of southern Media.1 However, lasting empire J0^%^ 1 Near East.At its Parthian JF the coins of northern Media are also height, ^S^ considered thanks to the collection ruleextended Anatolia to M from ^^^/;. housed in the Azerbaijan Museum theIndus and the Valley from Ef-'?S&f?'''' in the city of Tabriz. Most of the Sea to the Persian m Caspian ^^^/// coins of the Azerbaijan Museum Farhang Khademi Gulf Consummate horsemen el /?/ have been donated by local ^^ i Nadooshan, Seyed indigenoustoCentral Asia, the ? people and have been reported ?| ?????J SadrudinMoosavi, Parthians achieved fame for Is u1 and documented in their names.
  • Diocletian's New Empire

    Diocletian's New Empire

    1 Diocletian's New Empire Eutropius, Brevarium, 9.18-27.2 (Eutr. 9.18-27.2) 18. After the death of Probus, CARUS was created emperor, a native of Narbo in Gaul, who immediately made his sons, Carinus and Numerianus, Caesars, and reigned, in conjunction with them, two years. News being brought, while he was engaged in a war with the Sarmatians, of an insurrection among the Persians, he set out for the east, and achieved some noble exploits against that people; he routed them in the field, and took Seleucia and Ctesiphon, their noblest cities, but, while he was encamped on the Tigris, he was killed by lightning. His son NUMERIANUS, too, whom he had taken with him to Persia, a young man of very great ability, while, from being affected with a disease in his eyes, he was carried in a litter, was cut off by a plot of which Aper, his father-in-law, was the promoter; and his death, though attempted craftily to be concealed until Aper could seize the throne, was made known by the odour of his dead body; for the soldiers, who attended him, being struck by the smell, and opening the curtains of his litter, discovered his death some days after it had taken place. 19. 1. In the meantime CARINUS, whom Carus, when he set out to the war with Parthia, had left, with the authority of Caesar, to command in Illyricum, Gaul, and Italy, disgraced himself by all manner of crimes; he put to death many innocent persons on false accusations, formed illicit connexions with the wives of noblemen, and wrought the ruin of several of his school-fellows, who happened to have offended him at school by some slight provocation.
  • The Crossing of the Danube and the Gothic Conversion , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) P.289

    The Crossing of the Danube and the Gothic Conversion , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) P.289

    HEATHER, PETER, The Crossing of the Danube and the Gothic Conversion , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) p.289 The Crossing of the Danube and the Gothic Conversion Peter Heather MMIANUS MARCELLINUS provides a detailed account of the re­ A lations between the Emperor Valens and the Goths during the period 367-378. But essentially because Ammianus does not mention it, there has been much controversy over the date of a Gothic conversion to Christianity ascribed in other sources to the reign of Valens. Equally, because the historians Socrates and So­ zomen link a civil war among the Goths to the conversion, it has also been unclear when this split might have taken place. It will be argued here that the primary accounts found in Socrates, Sozomen, and Eunapius can be reconciled with the secondary ones of Jordanes, Theodoret, and Orosius to suggest a Gothic conversion in 376. Fur­ ther, combined with Ammianus, they strongly indicate that Christian­ ity initially affected only elements of one Gothic group, the Tervingi, and was part of the agreement by which Valens allowed them to cross the Danube and enter the Empire in 376. It also becomes clear that the split too affected only the Tervingi, and occurred immediately before the crossing and conversion. This reconstruction in turn highlights the Huns' role in overturning the established order in Gothic society: their attacks first divided the Tervingi, who were unable to agree on an appropriate response, and prompted the larger group to seek asylum in the Empire and accept conversion to Christianity.