This contribution considers the palatial complex of the Commagenian kings at their capital Samosata The main aims are to highlight the potential of the preserved materi-al and to suggest materi-alternative methodologicmateri-al approaches to the data in order to better understand the developments and (self-)positioning of the Commagenian kingdom within the wider Hellenistic world As a basis for contextualizing the palatial complex we will first reconsider the issue of the Antiochan programme and possible earlier de-velopments in Hellenistic Commagene and relate this debate to the material evidence including the situation at Samosata We argue that a severe shift within the materi-al repertoire is well observable but cannot indisputably be connected to Antiochos I alone To better understand the make-up and development of the Commagenian ma-terial culture we therefore propose the methodological approach of objectscapes In the second part of this contribution, this approach will be applied to several elements of the palatial complex in order to emphasize the active participation of the Comma-genian kingdom in global networks It will become clear that, for the palatial context, a simple reduction of material culture to either a ‘Greek’ or a ‘Persian’ cultural affiliation does not do right to the complex global genealogies of many of the objects discussed Rather, in some cases, it can be argued that such object genealogies in fact played an active role in the transformation of styles of elite consumption in Commagene in the early 1st c BCE
Introduction: Hellenistic Commagene – Of Watersheds, Globalization and Objectscapes
Debates about the position of the kingdom of Commagene within the wider Hellen-istic world are mainly centred around its most famous ruler, Antiochos I This is es-pecially due to the available literary and archaeological evidence attesting the king a leading role in many respects Consequently, the opinio communis in Commagenian
scholarship is that Antiochos I initiated a systematic and highly ambitious ruler-cult centred upon his person which declined after his death The most fully developed and telling monument in this regard is his tomb-sanctuary (hierothesion) on Nemrud Dağ but also most remains from the other hierothesia and other cult-places (temene) are related to Antiochos’ building activities And although evidence pre-dating the An-tiochan programme is often discussed and even a later phase of the dynastic cult is preserved in the tumulus at Karakuş, the monumentality of his building programme and the related fame of his name ensure Antiochos I the perception of being a true watershed in Commagenian history This perspective is strengthened by the political development since the defeat of the Armenian king Tigranes II (the Great) by Pompey in 66/65 BCE enabled Antiochos to partly fill in the occurring power vacuum making Commagene a notable regional kingdom until its position was again challenged after the battle of Actium in 31 BCE, five years after his death 1
The perception of Antiochos I as the most ambitious and important ruler of the Commagenian kingdom encouraged the focus on his monuments and activities in scholarship In this, especially the alleged syncretism of his religious programme bearing influences from Greek and Persian traditions plays a crucial role which be-comes most evident when considering the role which has long been ascribed to the material culture of the Antiochan programme, and, by extent, its cultural affiliations:
either such traditional approaches have followed an ‘Eastern model’ that frames the material culture of Commagene as a degeneration of the Greek ideal2, or a ‘Western model’ that interprets Commagene as the last outpost of Greek culture towards the East 3 Although the misleading cultural dichotomy of East and West has rightly been challenged from within by various Commagene-scholars4, the image of a peripheral, out-of-the-ordinary and insignificant region still prevails in the broader research of an-tiquity 5 However, from shifting the view towards a more global perspective and trying to integrate Commagene into contemporary developments in the Mediterranean and Eurasia a different picture seems to emerge6 to which the observable changes in the material repertoire of Samosata considerably contribute
1 For the history of Commagene with strong focus on the Hellenistic and Roman periods see espe-cially the seminal work of Facella 2006 The Commagenian support of Marc Antony led to the loss of the important city of Zeugma and probably further territory in the western part of the kingdom which was accompanied by a reduction of power to an in fact semi-independent Roman ally – a status that the kingdom obviously also held under Augustus (cf Facella 2006, 299–300; Wagner 2012, 38)
2 Cf Waldmann 1991, 33–38; Fowler 2005, 127–128 3 Cf Dörner 1981, 8; Metzler 2012, 109
4 Cf Jacobs 2012; Canepa 2015, 81–84; Versluys 2017a, 108–254; Riedel 2018
5 E g Pollitt 1986, 275; Stewart 2014, 267 Cf also the evaluation of the scholarly perception of Com-magene in Versluys 2017a, 13 20–21
6 Cf Kropp 2013; Canepa 2015; Michels 2017; Versluys 2017a; Canepa 2018; Riedel 2018
In this contribution, we analyse changes observed in Samosata in terms of ‘trans-forming objectscapes’, a methodology developed by Miguel John Versluys 7 An ob-jectscape is defined as the total repertoire of objects present at a certain locality during a specific period, for instance in Samosata during the early 1st c BCE An important first step in investigating an objectscape is to establish change in comparison to a preceding objectscape: which objects were added to the repertoire and which became obsolete?
Analysing objectscapes, however, goes beyond merely documenting these reper-toires Rather, objectscapes are used to investigate the socio-cultural impact of these changes, focusing on the question what objects do instead of what they represent 8 One way to investigate such impact is by analysing the global genealogies of objects that newly enter an objectscape: where and when do we see these objects as well? And what roles did they play in previous contexts? The diachronic development of objects can help us understand the potential impact they had in their new objectscape 9
This objectscape methodology already has proven to be fruitful as a middle-range theory to investigate the impact of changing repertoires in localities 10 Importantly, it increases the comparability of localities on a regional and global scale, something which is highly desirable for the inter-connected world of mid- to late-Hellenistic Afro- Eurasia
We will analyse two subsequent objectscapes of Samosata in relation to each other First, we will consider the material culture of the pre-palatial, mid-Hellenistic object-scape (ca 3rd c – late 2nd c BCE) of Samosata and Commagene at large The second part deals with the palatial, late-Hellenistic objectscape (late 2nd c BCE – early 1st c CE) of Samosata and investigates the potential impact of transforming objectscapes by ex-ploring some of its object genealogies in more detail
The Kingdom of Commagene prior to Antiochos I – Reconsidering the Evidence
From a historical perspective, the main political lines of the development of the Com-magenian kingdom are basically known After the defection of the region from the flagging Seleucid Empire in 163 BCE the former governor Ptolemy proclaimed himself king and thus founded the kingdom of Commagene He is succeeded by Samos II (ca 130–100 BCE) and Mithradates I (ca 100–69 BCE) before Antiochos I ascends the
7 Versluys 2017b, 196–199 A key-publication is Pitts – Versluys 2021 8 Versluys 2017b
9 This methodology draws on a by now longstanding body of scholarly work on object biographies and itineraries, emphasizing the individual histories of cultural elements Cf van Oyen – Pitts 2017, 14–17 who argue for the analysis of such object trajectories as a way to overcome what they call the
“representational model of material culture”
10 E g Pitts 2018
throne in 69 BCE 11 As outlined above, the political development presents Antiochos I as a watershed of Commagenian history since before the defeat of Tigranes II of Ar-menia by the Romans under Pompey the Commagenian rulers seem to have taken on a subordinate role to their Armenian neighbour with whom they shared the descend from the Orontids12 in order to consolidate their regional power This can be deduced from the depictions of Samos II and Mithradates I (fig 1) preserved in their coinage Both wear a conical, pointed tiara which most likely indicates a subordinate status to the Armenians since it is used to depict rulers of satrapal status in the ancestral gallery of Antiochos I on Nemrud Dağ13 and furthermore finds a strong parallel in the coinage of the neighbouring kingdom of Sophene at an even earlier time 14 The use of this spe-cific headdress attests to the first Commagenian kings’ firm awareness of the regional balance of power to which they adapted This balance of power severely altered shortly after Antiochos I’s accession to the throne when the Romans and their rivalry with the Armenians and later the Parthians set the political tone in the region which in turn also functioned as catalyst for the Antiochan programme 15
11 The history of the Commagenian kingdom is to be found in Facella 2006, esp 199–358 Tellingly, only about a sixth of the study deals with the Commagenian kings prior to Antiochos I (Facella 2006, 199–224), saying much about the available sources A more summarizing account highlight-ing the main lines of development and touchhighlight-ing upon the most important historical sources is pre-sented by Wagner 2012 revealing a similar treatment of the first 100 years of Commagenian history, presented in about a fifth of his contribution (Wagner 2012, 33–35)
12 Cf Jacobs 2002, 77 and the contribution by Matthew Canepa in this volume
13 For the use of the conical, pointed tiara in Commagenian iconography see Riedel 2018, 118–120 14 A pointed tiara obviously differing from the Armenian one is to be found on coins of the
Sophe-nian rulers Arsames I (Bedoukian 1983, 82 no 2), Abdissares and Xerxes (Alram 1986, 66) who all date to the 3rd c BCE (cf Bedoukian 1983, 82 84–85 and the criticism in Alram 1986, 66) 15 Cf Riedel 2018, 127
Fig. 1 Obverse of a bronze coin depicting Mithradates I with the conical, pointed tiara – not to scale (original dm 18 mm), courtesy of the Münzkabinett Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
18248758 (Photograph: Reinhard Saczewski)
However, apart from the royal portraiture current knowledge about the material culture of the Commagenian kingdom prior to Antiochos I which could nuance this view is remarkably scarce In order to contextualize and highlight the importance of the material from Samosata, it is therefore necessary to briefly discuss the Hellenis-tic, pre-Antiochan material repertoires available and re-evaluate the debate centred around the Antiochan programme
The crucial point of this debate is the question whether the ambitious programme – and connected to this its monumental anchoring in the Commagenian material cul-ture – was originally launched by Antiochos I or draws on developments starting at least under his father Mithradates I The latter opinion was strongly advocated by Helmut Waldmann who attributed the initial dynastic religious programme to Antio-chos I’s father Waldmann primarily argued from the extensive inscriptions and the icono graphy of some dexiosis-stelae 16 However, in their preserved entity these all date to the time of Antiochos I His attempt has therefore rightly been rejected by empha-sizing that these can only be connected with certainty to Antiochos I 17 Since most material remains from this period in Commagene are directly related to the hierothe-sia, they are mainly equally ascribed to Antiochos I culminating in the view “that the Commagenean archaeological record presents an extremely one-sided picture: it is largely Antiochan All monumental contexts date to the reign of Antiochos”18 But it must be acknowledged that the reasons for such statements rest on a slightly unbal-anced basis Just as the opinion which favours Mithradates I as initiator of the religious re-modelling of the kingdom has correctly been accused for taking the information in the Antiochan inscriptions as historical fact19, the latter perspective primarily focusses on the monumental architectural remains which admittedly date to Antiochos I’s reign devoting the information given in the inscriptions to the service of Antiochos I’s ambi-tious goals In this vein, Antiochos’ hints at earlier building activities carried out by his predecessors are interpreted as an ‘invention of tradition’ to support the ruler’s claim to be of extraordinary descent 20
16 Waldmann 1973; Waldmann 1991
17 Regarding the inscriptions, the authorship of Antiochos I is undoubted since it is stated therein For the dexiosis-stelae the one from Sofraz Köy, which was found 1974 (cf Wagner – Petzl 1976, 204–205) after Waldmann’s first treatise of the subject, proves that all depictions of the king on these stelae show Antiochos I since the ruler is depicted wearing the Armenian tiara for which the inscription on the Sofraz Köy-stele emphasises that it was Antiochos I who first adopted it (Wagner – Petzl 1976, 206–207) However, although Waldmann later accepts this suggestion, he insists on the identification of two ruler-depictions on stelae at Arsameia on the Nymphaios (Aq and As) with Mithradates I since their headdress is no longer discernible and directly relates them to a pre-Antiochan phase at the site (Waldmann 1991, 59)
18 Versluys 2017, 104 19 Cf Versluys 2017, 176 20 Cf Versluys 2017, 172–178
Key-evidence in both argumentations is the hierothesion at Arsameia on the Nym-phaios In the great cult inscription found at the place, Antiochos I mentions the foun-dation and fortification of both plateaus in Arsameia by Arsames, the Armenian sa-trap in the 3rd c BCE and paternal ancestor of the Commagenian dynasty, and also the preparation of the place to hold his burial by Mithradates I, which he claims to have renewed and embellished 21 Such embellishment of previously occupied places is not surprising given the kingdom’s and region’s history and is also indicated elsewhere in Commagene22 but until now only little archaeological material can be attributed to Hellenistic, pre-Antiochan times In Arsameia, pottery finds in lower strata attest that the spot of the later hierothesion was obviously reoccupied in the 3rd c BCE23 fitting to the overall picture painted in Antiochos I’s inscription and at least partly vindicating its value as historical source But apart from the few pottery finds, which comprise bowls, cups and cooking pots24, nothing has been observed that contributes to the under-standing of the appearance and function of the place prior to the erection of the sanc-tuary’s architecture Only one torus-base found in a lower stratum next to the staircase is tentatively attributed to the early-Hellenistic phase25 which allows no reconstruc-tion whatsoever This evidence leaves us with a severe gap in the archaeological record from the early-Hellenistic period in the 3rd c BCE until the hierothesion’s main phase which the excavators attribute to the mid-1st c BCE, i e the reign of Antiochos I 26 This would mean that the building activities by Mithradates I which are mentioned in the inscription are indeed invented by Antiochos I and their existence the wishful
21 Cf Dörner – Goell 1963, 40–42 l 13–58
22 Older building activities can be assumed in Arsameia on the Euphrates, where the hierothesion of Antiochos I’s grandfather Samos was located It was integrated into the existing sanctuary of the goddess Argandene (cf Dörner – Naumann 1939, 23; Waldmann 1973, 12; Schwertheim 1991, 29;
Oenbrink 2017, 8) The integration of the dynastic cult into pre-existing sanctuaries might also have been the case in the sanctuary of Iupiter Dolichenus (indicated by the find of a stele-fragment for the Antiochan ruler-cult: Wagner 1982, 136 161–162; Wagner 1983, 191; Schwertheim 1991, 35–36;
Waldmann 1991, 67; Winter 2011, 6; Blömer 2012, 78; Oenbrink 2017, 151) and a sanctuary dedicat-ed to Apollo and Artemis (mentiondedicat-ed in the stele found at Sofraz Köy, although the pre-exist-ence of this sanctuary in not certain: cf Wagner – Petzl 1976, 215; Schwertheim 1991, 35) Matthew Canepa interprets Arsameia on the Euphrates and also Samosata as (re-)foundations on spots with late-Hittite traditions through the Orontids of Sophene in the 3rd c BCE which were embellished by the kings of Commagene, most notably Antiochos I (cf Canepa in this volume; Canepa 2018, 109–112 242–244)
23 Dörner – Goell 1963, 234–237; Dörner et al 1965, 199–200; Hoepfner 1983, 6–7 The reoccupation can be assumed by the observed stratigraphy on top of the plateau (Dörner et al 1965, 199–200 with fig 4) as well as next to the hierothesion’s staircase according to which the layer containing the early-Hellenistic pottery directly follows the stratum dating to the Middle Bronze Age (Hoepfner 1983, 6) However, it must be noted that a granite torus belonging to a base with separate plinth has been discovered which Oenbrink 2017, 36–37 dates to the Achaemenid period
24 Dörner – Goell 1963, 236–237 do not list cooking pots which were obviously only found in the trench close to the staircase (Hoepfner 1983, 92)
25 Hoepfner 1983, 6–7; Oenbrink 2017, 37–38
26 Dörner et al 1965, 218–221; Hoepfner 1983, 51–52 ; Hoepfner 2012, 129
thinking of modern scholars 27 However, albeit Antiochos I undoubtedly enlarged and monumentalized the cult installations at Arsameia on the Nymphaios, this rather radi-cal interpretation of its material remains largely neglects the few indications for earlier activities at the site and ignores one of the major issues about Commagenian material culture, i e the absolute chronology of the (local) pottery
Reconsidering the material evidence, already the mosaics (fig 2), which are mainly dated to the end of the 2nd or beginning of the 1st c BCE28, indicate a pre-Antiochan building-phase of the sanctuary In order to conciliate this with the identification of Antiochos I as sole builder of the structures, Wolfram Hoepfner explains the mosaics
27 Hoepfner in a later article mentions that the excavators – including himself – were intrigued by finding the mentioned earlier phase but in the end failed to do so (Hoepfner 2012, 129) Cf Ver-sluys 2017, 176–177
28 Dörner – Goell 1963, 196 (I Lavin); Balty 1981, 355–357; Salzmann 1982, 68 120 nos 146–149; Balty 1995, 161; Oenbrink 2017, 120 Cf also Haug in this volume
Fig. 2 Reconstucted drawing of the mosaic from room 1 in Arsameia on the Nymphaios, detail from Hoepfner 1983, plan 1, courtesy of the Forschungsstelle Asia Minor, WWU Münster
as well as the wall-paintings as classicistic recourses to Pergamenian art of the mid-2nd c BCE in Commagene around the mid-1st c BCE 29 This hypothesis seems to be support-ed by pottery found “in the trench beneath mosaic I” of which the youngest pieces are dated to the mid-1st c BCE 30 But it must be remarked that Hoepfner’s picture is much less clear than he presents it Against his claims that all pottery, “including those from the deepest layers, [belongs] to single period around the mid-1st c BCE”31, already the quoted publication of the excavations advises caution since it also mentions pottery from the layers he refers to, dating to 2nd – and even late-2nd – c BCE 32 Furthermore, the first excavators of Arsameia, Friedrich Karl Dörner and Theresa Goell, mention that most of the pottery they observed belongs to the so-called Hellenistic-Pergame-nian ware whose use in Commagene they roughly date from the late-2nd c BCE to the 1st c CE 33 According to their evaluation, all pottery that can be dated to the 2nd c BCE is imported although for most of the finds they cannot give a place or region of origin 34 Generally, this is not a sole problem at Arsameia on the Nymphaios but can also be observed in other places of Commagene where especially the pottery from around the 3rd to the early 1st c BCE is very difficult to date more precisely 35 This problem seems to be due to the lacking imports which could provide a more detailed chronology since, contrary to the assumption of Dörner and Goell, most of the pottery of this periods seems to be regionally or locally produced 36 In consequence, the pottery found at Ar-sameia does not allow for an exclusive dating of the structures to the mid-1st c BCE and
29 Hoepfner 1983, 73
30 Hoepfner 1983, 93 (“FO: Im Schnitt unter Mosaik I”) The pottery in question was obviously found in the southern part of the room where the mosaic was preserved best (cf Hoepfner 1983, 12)
30 Hoepfner 1983, 93 (“FO: Im Schnitt unter Mosaik I”) The pottery in question was obviously found in the southern part of the room where the mosaic was preserved best (cf Hoepfner 1983, 12)