Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 251-278 brill.com/acss Rulership and Sovereignty at Akchakhan-kala in Chorasmia Fiona J. Kidd* New York University Abu Dhabi [email protected] Abstract Starting from the fall of the Seleucid Empire, scholars have noted changes to the prac- tice of kingship manifest in the emergence of what has been described as a ruler cult based on a blending of Iranian and Greek or Hellenistic practices. The mix of indig- enous Iranian ideas of kingship and (“Zoroastrian”) religion with Greek and Hellenistic ideas is key to understanding the practice of Central Asian rulership after the arrival of Alexander the Great. Chorasmia has not traditionally been part of this conversation: here the issue of a post-Seleucid transformation of Iranian kingship is nuanced by the fact that Alexander never visited the region, and the remains of Hellenism are rather scant. Nevertheless, the most recent findings at the mid 1st century BC – mid 1st cen- tury AD Ceremonial Complex at Akchakhan-kala suggest new practices of rule also in this region. This paper examines these new ideas against the background of changing practices in kingship across eastern Iran, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Keywords Chorasmia – kingship – sovereignty – architecture 1 Introduction The late 1st millennium BC witnessed sweeping changes across Central Asia. In Sogdiana and Bactria the arrival of waves of mobile populations from the north and the east brought about the fall of the Graeco-Bactrian Empire, and the * NYU Abu Dhabi, Saadiyat Campus, P.O. Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700577-12341332Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 08:45:18PM via free access 252 Kidd rise of the Yuezhi in Bactria, and the Kangju in Sogdiana. In Chorasmia the 2nd/1st century BC is a transitional period following the post-Achaemenid period, which is characterized by a flourishing material culture.1 The end of this so-called Kangyuï period is marked by the general destruction and aban- donment of many of the sites, and the rise of the “Chorasmian Era” at the end of the 1st century BC or the early decades of the 1st century AD.2 At the same time, across the broad region of eastern Iran, the Caucasus and Central Asia, scholars have noted changes to the practice of kingship. Starting from the fall of the Seleucid Empire, these changes are manifest in the emergence of what has been described as a ruler cult based on a blending of Iranian and Greek or Hellenistic practices.3 The mix of indigenous Iranian ideas of kingship and (“Zoroastrian”4) religion with Greek and Hellenistic ideas is key to understand- ing the practice of Central Asian rulership after the arrival of Alexander the Great. Chorasmia has not traditionally been part of this conversation: here the issue of a post-Seleucid transformation of Iranian kingship is nuanced by the fact that Alexander never visited the region, and the remains of Hellenism are rather scant.5 However, the most recent findings at the mid 1st century BC – mid 1st century AD Ceremonial Complex at Akchakhan-kala (fig. 1) provide a new impetus to examine ideas of rulership in this region against this background of changing practices in kingship. Monumental images of Zoroastrian deities depicted on the wall paintings of the Ceremonial Complex have been interpreted by Grenet as Srōsh, the Fravashis, embodied in a single figure, and Spandarmad.6 He describes these images as “the first known attempt to create an original Zoroastrian art”.7 In addition to the “portrait” gallery in the Complex, which is currently seen as a gallery of ancestors, or, perhaps, political delegates, the new paintings raise important issues about the nature of rulership and how it is practiced in early 1 For the most recent overviews and discussion of this period see Rapoport et alii 2000, Negus Cleary 2013 and Minardi 2015. 2 The Chorasmian Era is traditionally thought to begin in the early decades of the 1st century AD – see Livshits 1968. Most recently Minardi 2015, 122-123 has suggested a start date of between 50 and 26 BC for the beginning of this era. 3 This view is discussed over several articles by Canepa (2015a; 2015b; 2017). 4 De Jong 2015, 85. 5 For a general discussion of Zoroastrianism and Hellenism see Boyce & Grenet 1991, 51-68. For discussion of Hellenism in Chorasmia see Bongard-Levin & Koshelenko 2005; Kidd 2011, 255- 263; Minardi 2015, 104-113 and Minardi 2016. 6 Betts et alii 2015, 1391-1396; Betts et alii 2016, 134. 7 Betts et alii 2016, 139. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/05/2021 251-278 08:45:18PM via free access Rulership and Sovereignty at Akchakhan-kala in Chorasmia 253 figure 1 Akchakhan-kala: general plan (KAE). Chorasmia.8 The mural art and its architectural setting at Akchakhan-kala recall the description of the dynastic sanctuary at Rabatak, known from a stone inscription which was probably made around 132 AD.9 The text describes images of Zoroastrian deities, including Srōsh, and of the king and his royal ancestors in a temple – bagolaggo – setting.10 Bagolaggo has been interpreted by Cribb to mean either an “abode of the gods” (as at Rabatak and Surkh Kotal) or a reference to “images of the gods attended by images of the royal 8 See Betts et alii 2015 for discussion of the Zoroastrian divinities, and Yagodin et alii 2009 for the gallery. 9 Sims-Williams & Falk 2014. 10 For the most recent discussion of the Rabatak text see Sims-Williams 2004. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 251-278 from Brill.com10/05/2021 08:45:18PM via free access 254 Kidd family (as at Khalchayan)”.11 The most recent discussion of dynastic sanctu- aries illuminates a number of common elements at sites thought to house such sanctuaries, including Nisa, Shami, Kommagene, Surkh Kotal, Rabatak and Mathura.12 Many of these elements – discussed below – are present at Akchakhan-kala. M. Canepa suggests that these six sites manifest a new genre of kingship that differed intrinsically from Persian kingship: “no Persian pri- mary sources attest to an Achaemenid ‘ruler cult’ focused on the living king or his ancestors, empire-wide or in the Persian homeland”.13 A recent publication of a Babylonian tablet in the British Museum demonstrates that a statue of Darius I in the Ebabbar temple of Sippar received daily rations during the reign of Xerxes,14 but Waerzeggers notes that this can be understood as the continu- ation of a Mesopotamian tradition in an Achaemenid context. Although later, Shenkar has proposed that the statues of Kushan kings mentioned in the Rabatak inscription could have been “the recipients of offerings and the sub- ject of veneration themselves.”15 He suggests that the practice of such a cult at Rabatak similarly carries on a Mesopotamian tradition, which he proposes entered Bactria during the Achaemenid period, although a Seleucid origin is also possible.16 Nevertheless the nature of the ruler cult at the sites mentioned above is often questioned because there is little consensus on exactly what such a cult comprised.17 The lack of uniformity across these sanctuaries is manifest in the diverse architectural and visual language of these structures, and sug- gests that no central “formula” was being followed in their creation. This is not surprising – no uniform temple style had developed under the Achaemenids, nor did the Greeks import specific temple architecture.18 Although scholars suggest that the appearance of temples (and statues) in eastern Iran and adja- cent regions was due to Greek or Hellenistic influence,19 these structures mark a clear difference to other, earlier religious sites. 11 Sims-Williams & Cribb 1996, 109. 12 For discussion of these sites see Canepa 2015a; 2015b. 13 Canepa 2015a, 67. 14 BM 72747. Waerzeggers 2014. 15 Shenkar 2017b, 56. 16 Shenkar 2017b, 56; Sherwin-White 1983. 17 See for example, Verardi & Grossato 1983, Dabrowa 2011, Sherwin-White 1984. 18 Shenkar 2011, 117 and 131. 19 See Boyce & Grenet 1991, 66, and Shenkar 2017a. The timing of this influence should not necessarily be attributed to Alexander the Great – Greeks also worked at Achaemenid period sites. Boyce & Grenet 1991, 65 suggest that there are few clear attempts on the part of the Greeks and Hellenes at syncretism with local religious practices in eastern Iran and Central Asia during this earlier period. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/05/2021 251-278 08:45:18PM via free access Rulership and Sovereignty at Akchakhan-kala in Chorasmia 255 It is tempting to see the Akchakhan-kala Ceremonial Complex broadly associated with the widespread changes to the practice of kingship across the wider Iranian world from the late 1st millennium BC. The site has been described as a dynastic seat, and “a site designed for royal processions and cer- emonies to stress the links between the king and the divine”.20 However, the complexity of questions arising from more specific interpretations of dynas- tic sanctuaries in Central Asia, the cults practiced in these structures, and the role of Zoroastrianism make it premature to understand Akchakhan-kala as a “dynastic sanctuary”. Kingship certainly is a valuable perspective from which to explore Akchakhan-kala.21 It too, however, is an ambiguous term, especially in post-Achaemenid Chorasmia where the system of rule remains unknown, making it unclear if this term is even appropriate.22 Certainly Arrian refers to Pharasmanes as the “king of the Chorasmians” (IV, 15.4), but what does “king” mean in the context of Chorasmia?23 Questions regarding the identity of the rulers of Chorasmia during this period remain open.