0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_11_Strugnell 09-01-2008 14:59 Pagina 275 Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLIII, 2008 doi: 10.2143/IA.43.0.2024051 THEA MUSA, ROMAN QUEEN OF PARTHIA BY Emma STRUGNELL (University of Melbourne) Abstract: This article considers the ancient and modern evidence for recon- structing the life of Thea Musa, Roman Queen of Parthia. This singular woman rose to prominence in Parthia just prior to the turn of the millennium, and is iden- tified as a gift of Augustus himself to King Phraates IV. Through this gift Augus- tus sought to undermine Parthian succession. Yet incredibly, Musa receives no specific mention in any Latin source. It is argued that the omission of her narra- tive is deliberate and an indication of the vexation felt by Augustus at his failure to maintain the so-called ‘Parthian Peace’ first negotiated in 20 BC. Musa’s ascen- dance in Parthia marks a resurgence of Parthian claims to the disputed territory of Armenia. Outright war is averted only by the intervention of Gaius Caesar. The decision to send the Parthian heirs to Rome, it is argued, should not be interpreted as Parthian acceptance of Roman hegemony, but rather as part of Musa’s desire to ensure her political position and that of her son, Phraataces. Keywords: Thea Musa, Phraates IV, Augustus, Parthian Standards This paper takes as its subject the remarkable life of Thea Musa, Roman Queen of Parthia. This singular woman is the first Parthian Basilíssa, and the first woman to be deified within her own lifetime1. Musa in fact held such a position of political authority that she, and not her husbands, seems to have directed Parthian foreign policy. Musa is responsible for the presence of the first Parthian ‘hostages’ at Rome, of which Augustus famously boasts at Res Gestae 29. Musa plays a critical role in both the return of the stan- dards in 20 BC, and Gaius Caesar’s concordat with Parthia in AD 2. And yet, Musa receives no mention in the Res Gestae or indeed in any other Latin source. This article considers the extant literary and numismatic evidence, and attempts to elucidate the reasons for Musa’s obscurity. 1 As Qeamousa or Qesmousa. See Gardner 1877: 46; Wroth 1964: 172; Sellwood 1980: 58.8,9,10,12; Shore 1993: no. 324, 5. 0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_11_Strugnell 09-01-2008 14:59 Pagina 276 276 E. STRUGNELL This paper commences with a discussion of the ancient and modern lit- erary sources for the life of Musa. I will then discuss the ‘Parthian prob- lem’ and the significance of Augustus’ settlement of eastern affairs in 20 BC. The presence of the Parthian heirs at Rome, I propose, should not be perceived as a sign of submission, but rather as part of Musa’s efforts to secure the permanence of her own position, by ensuring the elevation of Phraataces. I then consider Parthian intervention in the disputes of Arme- nia, and contend that Phraates IV invoked the ancestral claim to this terri- tory at a time when he was very much under Musa’s influence. She may be perceived behind this shift in policy. Finally, I discuss Musa and Phraat- aces’ expulsion and downfall. The Sources — Ancient and Modern The most informative ancient literary source on the life of Musa is Jose- phus’ Jewish Antiquities, which devotes considerable space to domestic affairs in Parthia2. For Josephus, such unrest provides a background for the revolt of two brothers, Asinaeus and Anilaeus, who established an inde- pendent Jewish state at Nearda in Babylonia (AJ 18.325ff). Josephus iden- tifies Musa as an Italian slave given to Phraates IV by Augustus, and reveals that she was treated as concubine until after the birth of a male heir. Josephus credits Musa with the plot to send Phraates’ heirs to Rome and to murder her husband. He considers as truth the allegations of incest, as Musa married her son Phraataces and ruled jointly with him as deified Queen3. Musa and Phraataces are said to have openly supported the anti- Roman revolution in Armenia, and Josephus ascribes the overthrow of Musa and Phraataces to the Parthians’ disgust of the two crimes of parri- cide and incest. References to affairs in Parthia are found in other Greek sources, such as Dio Cassius, although the rise of Musa herself is omitted4. Perhaps more significant are literary sources in which Musa does not appear, where we would certainly anticipate her inclusion. It must be remembered, of course, 2 Jos. AJ is the only ancient source for Musa cited by Karras-Klapproth 1988: 95. 3 Although rejected by Bigwood 2004: 44. 4 Dio (55.20f) mentions the revolt of Armenia in 6 BC and Phraataces’ letter to Augus- tus, which he places after Gaius’ arrival in the East, but does not mention Musa at all nor her rise to prominence. 0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_11_Strugnell 09-01-2008 14:59 Pagina 277 THEA MUSA 277 that Musa was given to Phraates IV as a present from Augustus, and this woman, a Roman, had risen to the position of Parthian Queen. Foremost in this category is the Res Gestae of Augustus himself. I can only conclude that Augustus’ silence on this issue is indicative of his vexation. Other sources which deliberately obscure Musa’s role are Velleius Paterculus, an eyewitness to the historic meeting of 2 BC, Horace, Propertius, and Strabo. Josephus’ testimony would seem fanciful, were it not corroborated by extensive numismatic and visual evidence. This paper considers key items of visual culture, which I believe, provide some insight into Musa’s moti- vations as Basilíssa, the joint coinage of Phraataces and Musa and a marble portrait of Musa as Hellenistic Monarch. This paper also considers several Latin texts which may contain allusions to Musa. These include Lucan’s Pharsalia, M.Felix’ Octavius, and the Oracula Sibyllina5. The silence of Latin authors is reflected by modern historians, who reduce Musa’s role to a few sentences at most, and fail to appreciate her true role as the decisive factor in Parthian politics. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2003) concedes Musa a mere three sentences, all of which appear under the entries of her husband and son-husband, Phraates IV and Phraataces, (Phraates V), respectively. Phraates IV, it is noted, was ‘assassinated by his wife Musa, a former Roman slave presented to Phraates by Augustus’. Phraataces is implicated in the murder plot in his own entry. The relation- ship of Musa and Phraataces is neatly compacted into a single, somewhat awkward sentence; ‘In AD 4, Phraates, who had married his mother Musa in AD 2, was deposed by the Parthian nobles’ (Wiesehöfer 2003). The Enzyklopädie der Antike elucidates some additional information, although here too Musa appears under the entries of husband and son. It correctly states that Musa became influential in the latter years of her hus- band’s rule, only after she had produced a male heir, and it was she who engineered the plot to send the four legitimate sons of Phraates to Italy, to secure succession for her own son6. Musa’s marriage to her son Phraataces is said to have ‘polit.-religiöse Gründe,’ and is cited as a key reason for 5 Lucan Phar. 8.401-10, Min. Fel. Oct 31.3, and the Orac. Sib. 7.38-50. 6 Pauly Wissowa Enzyklopädie der Antike. ‘Anläßlich der Geburt eines Sohnes wurde sie zur königlichen Gemahlin erhoben, vier bereits erwachsene Söhne von anderen Frauen wurden auf ihr Betreiben 10 v. Chr. Ins Römische Reich abgeschoben. Damit war der Weg für Musa und ihren Sohn frei,’ vol. 9: 959. Compare RG 32; Tac. Ann.: 2.1; Jos. AJ. 18.2.4. 0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_11_Strugnell 09-01-2008 14:59 Pagina 278 278 E. STRUGNELL popular resentment towards him. The emphasis on political and religious grounds alludes to attempts to explain the union as evidence of the grow- ing influence of Zoroastrian culture, and of xvaetvadath, next of kin mar- riage, within it7. Modern historical analyses show a similar tendency to overlook this important figure. Musa is mentioned by Rawlinson8, Taylor9, Debevoise10, Bivar11, and Sullivan12. Other scholars have correctly stated her role in the sending of the Parthian heirs to Rome13. In all accounts, however, Musa is always associated with her husbands, and her role reduced to a few lines at most. Significantly, Musa does not receive mention in the canon of Augustan histories: T. Rice Holmes’ The Architect of the Roman Empire, Syme’s Roman Revolution, or A.H.M Jones’ Augustus14. Nor does Musa appear in Sherwin-White’s Roman Foreign Policy in the East15 or Sartre’s The Mid- dle East under Rome. 7 As argued by Debevoise 1938: 149. There is no evidence that it was advocated in Zoroastrian thought in the Parthian period, as no passages in the Avesta clearly indicate the nature of the relationship. Buch 1919: 152; Perikhanian 1983: 644. Examples of incestu- ous marriages include Queen Denak, sister and wife of Ardashir I, and Queen Atur-Anahit, daughter and wife of Shapur I. Such marriages also occurred among the Ptolemies of Egypt, the best-known example of which are Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, known as the ‘filádelfoi’. 8 Rawlinson 1873: 214-5. 9 Taylor alludes to Musa, but does not name her, and never accords her status above that of a concubine. Taylor, 1936: 163. 10 Debevoise 1938: 147. 11 Bivar notes that an Italian slave girl ‘of unusual accomplishments’ had been pre- sented to Phraates by Augustus, possibly as explicit compensation for his previous losses. Bivar cites Musa as the reason why the Parthian heirs were sent to Rome, but agrees with the line taken by Josephus, that Musa and Phraataces were expelled by the detestation of incest.