STUDIA HELLENISTICA 51 MORE THAN MEN, LESS THAN GODS STUDIES ON ROYAL CULT AND IMPERIAL WORSHIP PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ORGANIZED BY THE BELGIAN SCHOOL AT ATHENS (NOVEMBER 1-2, 2007) edited by Panagiotis P. IOSSIF, Andrzej S. CHANKOWSKI and Catharine C. LORBER PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS - WALPOLE, MA 2011 993846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd3846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd IIIIII 33/11/11/11/11 009:579:57 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . IX List of Contributors . XI List of Abbreviations. XIII INTRODUCTION Le culte des souverains aux époques hellénistique et impériale dans la partie orientale du monde méditerranéen: questions actuelles. 1 Andrzej S. CHANKOWSKI I. THE PRE-HELLENISTIC DIVINE KINGSHIP By the Favor of Auramazda: Kingship and the Divine in the Early Achaemenid Period. 15 Mark B. GARRISON Identities of the Indigenous Coinages of Palestine under Achae- menid Rule: the Dissemination of the Image of the Great King . 105 Haim GITLER La contribution des Teucrides aux cultes royaux de l’époque hellé- nistique . 121 Claude BAURAIN II. THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD: ROYAL CULT AND DIVINE KINGSHIP The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality. 157 Angelos CHANIOTIS Never Mind the Bullocks: Taurine Imagery as a Multicultural Expression of Royal and Divine Power under Seleukos I Nikator. 197 Oliver D. HOOVER 993846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd3846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd V 33/11/11/11/11 009:579:57 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS Apollo Toxotes and the Seleukids: Comme un air de famille . 229 Panagiotis P. IOSSIF Theos Aigiochos: the Aegis in Ptolemaic Portraits of Divine Rulers 293 Catharine C. LORBER Ptolémée III et Bérénice II, divinités cosmiques . 357 Hans HAUBEN The Iconography of Assimilation. Isis and Royal Imagery on Ptolemaic Seal Impressions . 389 Dimitris PLANTZOS The Pattern of Royal Epithets on Hellenistic Coinages . 417 François DE CALLATAY & Catharine C. LORBER III. THE EMPEROR WORSHIP: ROMAN IMPERATORS AND EMPERORS Des honneurs divins pour Marc Antoine à Thessalonique? . 457 Emmanuel VOUTIRAS The Creation of Imperial Gods: Not only Imposition versus Spontaneity. 475 Fernando LOZANO Étude comparative de l’introduction du culte impérial à Pergame, à Athènes et à Éphese . 521 Maria KANTIRÉA Honorific and other Dedications to Emperors in the Greek East 553 Mika KAJAVA Le culte impérial en Phénicie: culte civique ou culte provincial? . 593 Ziad SAWAYA Celebrating Supermen: Divine Honors for Roman Emperors in Greek Papyri from Egypt . 619 Janneke DE JONG 993846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd3846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd VIVI 33/11/11/11/11 009:579:57 TABLE OF CONTENTS VII IV. THE PERIPHERY OF THE GREEK AND ROMAN ROYAL CULT: THE ARSAKIDS Royal Cult in Arsakid Parthia. 649 Antonio INVERNIZZI SUMMATION More than Men, Less than Gods: Concluding Thoughts and New Perspectives . 691 Panagiotis P. IOSSIF & Catharine C. LORBER Indices. 711 993846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd3846_StHellenistica_51_VW.indd VIIVII 33/11/11/11/11 009:579:57 THE PATTERN OF ROYAL EPITHETS ON HELLENISTIC COINAGES François DE CALLATAY and Catharine C. LORBER* Introduction Any book on the Hellenistic period provides some comments about the royal epithets used by rulers of that time1. They are generally inserted in a chapter about ruler cults or representations of kingship2. These epi- thets can be found in both literary and epigraphic written sources, as well as on coins. The views and conclusions which may be drawn from each of the three sets of documents may prove to be very different. Antiochos I of Kommagene struck bronze coins with only the sober legend [nomisma] basileos Antiochou (of King Antiochos), whereas inscriptions left at Nemrud Dag, on the back of the thrones of the seated colossal statues, proclaim that he is the “Great King Antiochos, divine, just, manifest (visible), friend of the Romans and the Greeks.”3 The same inscription adds that he is the grandson of Antiochos epiphanes philometor kallinikos, that is, the Seleucid Antiochos VIII, who is only epiphanes on his coinage4. Conversely, some grandiloquent legends on Parthian coins, which have easily four or five epithets, are not attested in our epigraphic record. By definition, nicknames (sobriquets) are not to be confused with epi- thets, since this last word literally means êpíqeton (imposed, placed upon). Nicknames unofficially promoted by popular perception are found only in literary sources. Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of some nicknames placed in modern alphabetical order, excluding geographical names (e.g., Asiatikos or Sidetes): Auletes (flute-player, oboist) for * Warm thanks to Bethany Isenberg who revised an earlier version of this paper. 1 All dates are B.C. unless otherwise indicated. 2 Green 1993, 402-3 (ruler cults); Shipley 2000, 65-6 (representations of kingship). 3 OGIS 383. For an English translation, see Burstein 1985, 63-5. 4 The title philometor is attested on an extremely rare issue (see Table I). 993846_StHellenistica_51_11.indd3846_StHellenistica_51_11.indd 417417 33/11/11/11/11 110:120:12 418 F. DE CALLATAY – C. LORBER Ptolemy XII; Doson (doubtful meaning: “the one who will give,” since he constantly promised and never gave?) for Antigonos III; Gonatas (doubtful meaning: “from Gonnoi” or “knock-kneed,” from a piece of armor covering the knee) for Antigonos II5, Grypos (hook-nose) for Antiochos VIII; Hierax (falcon) for Antiochos, the son of Antiochos II; Keraunos (thunderbolt) for Ptolemy, stepson of Ptolemy I, and for Seleukos III; Lathyros (chickpea) for Ptolemy XI; Monophthalmos (one- eyed) for Antigonos I; Physkon (fat-belly) for Ptolemy VIII; or Pogon (bearded) for Seleukos II6. It is not surprising that these nicknames are completely absent from the epigraphic and numismatic records. Royal epithets referred to in epigraphic inscriptions and on coins are presumed to reflect the official will of the kings, the way they chose to be qualified, as an important part of the way they wanted to be perceived (a view that may be disputed). Apart from numerous studies concerning specific epithets or cases, few historians have attempted to propose a general pattern of explanation for these royal epithets. Among those, Alfred von Gutschmid (1831-1887), a specialist of the Parthians and ancient Iran, built an ingenious theory in which each epithet was personally linked to the ruler for a specific and bio- graphical reason7. As was quickly recognized, we can accept that these epithets were chosen intentionally when they first occurred, but habits must have played a role thereafter, especially with the Parthians8. Another pivotal question addressed by Gutschmid was to investigate if kings were free to designate themselves as they wished or if this was left to a sacerdotal decree, as proposed by Gutschmid himself (an idea that never received strong support). Ancient authors are not very help- ful since some of them quite erroneously attribute both royal epithets and nicknames to the vox populi 9. For the Seleukid kingdom, Elias 5 See Brown 1979. 6 Bikerman 1938, 236-7; Shipley 2000, 65. Tryphon is to be placed in another category since it was the name consciously taken by Diodotos (142-138) to reign. Literally, it means “the licentious.” Modern historians have shown how the concept of tryphe (luxury) was promoted in these hard days of constant internal fighting. 7 von Gutschmid 1893. 8 Bouché-Leclercq 1914, 610-1. 9 The “Syrians” according to App. Syr. 45 (Antiochos V), 67 (Demetrios II), 69 (Antiochos X); the “army” for Antiochos I Kallinikos according to Lucian Zeuxis 11 (but Antiochos I is never presented as kallinikos elsewhere). See Bikerman 1938, 237. 993846_StHellenistica_51_11.indd3846_StHellenistica_51_11.indd 418418 33/11/11/11/11 110:120:12 THE PATTERN OF ROYAL EPITHETS ON HELLENISTIC COINAGES 419 Joseph Bikerman (1897-1981) strongly advocated that there was no uni- form use of these royal epithets. In royal correspondence with cities, kings did not make use of the epithets they were given by civic com- munities. Yet there were clear instances where royal epithets were given by cities. The Milesians called Antiochos II theos because he delivered them from the tyrant Timarchos10. The Babylonians did the same with Demetrios I when they acclaimed him soter11. Moreover, the same king may have been designated differently on coins of various cities. Con- centrating on the coins of Antiochos IV, Bikerman noticed that leg- ends changed through his reign at Antioch and that these changes, which were consistent with the epigraphic record at Antioch, were not applied everywhere. In his view, royal epithets (both on coins and in epigraphic inscriptions) were very often given by cities to kings who never tried to make uniform the various names they were offered. In all cases, they were official epithets and not merely the result of some personal fantasy of the engravers. Consequently, epithets could differ from one city to another. In Bikerman’s view, epithets can be best understood as a civic phenomenon12. The aim of this paper is to offer a broad view of the numismatic evi- dence for all of the Hellenistic kings ranging from Sicily to India. We must be reminded that this evidence may be deceptive and misleading: (1) with few exceptions, royal epithets on coins began to appear only in the second quarter of the second century, thus more than a century later than what we know from literary and epigraphic sources (this is per se interesting); (2) although abundant on coins, these royal epithets are mute since they give no information about the reasons for their choice and use. On the other hand, traditional advantages of numismatic evi- dence are fully appreciated here: (1) coins are likely to be trustworthy documents since they seem to be the consequence of the highest level of power (they are the king’s first prerogative in the royal economy as described by the Pseudo-Aristotle); (2) having been massively produced, they give us nowadays a good chance to obtain an uninterrupted sequence of all types struck. Hence, the classic opposition between numismatics and epigraphy: a dry but continuous information here in 10 App.