![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
During the Parthian era (ca. 238 BC–224 AD), rupestrian art was mainly the product of the patronage of kings, independent aristocrats, subjugated vassals, or peripheral rulers, which often developed independently from the main authorities conventions, shaping a proper tradition through the canonisation of certain motifs. In the minor kingdom of Elymais, the socio-political situation seems to have stimulated a creative combination of native, Hellenistic and Parthian artistic elements. Within this panorama, the enigmatic carving of Hung-e Azhdar within the Zagros-Bakhtiari region in southwestern Iran embraces a tradition of two to three centuries of Iranian art, starting from the use of well-rooted Hellenistic heritage at Izeh-Malamir. The choice of this specific boulder, already bearing an Elamite relief, suggests that this enclosed spot represented a regionally important cult site where the reaffirmation of royal power and the necessity of political propaganda was evoked by the kings of Elymais.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my deep gratitude to my colleague and friend Yasmina Wicks (Macquarie University) for her kind help in proofreading and editing my work. I am also particularly indebted to prof. Javier Álvarez-Mon (Macquarie University) and Gian Pietro Basello (L’Orientale University, Naples) for their constructive feedback in the final stage of the article. I am then particularly thankful to the Classical Numismatic Group (CNG), LLC, http://www.cngcoins.com, for the copyright permissions of the coins images present in this article. To conclude I cannot forget to thank my friend, Ms. Negar Momtaz Jahromi, and her family for the support during my travels in Iran.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Layard, A description, 106–14.
2 For main sources and history of scholarship: see Messina (Hung-e Azhdar), the primary and most recent study on Hung-e Azhdar. For the artistic analysis, see Vanden Berghe and Schippmann (Les relief rupestres, 32–8); Kawami (Monumental Art, 119–25); Mathiesen (A note on, 191–6; Sculpture in the Parthian Empire, 17–19, 119–21). For historical data, see Shayegan, (Arsacids and Sasanians); Potts, (The Archaeology of Elam). For numismatics, see van’t Haaff, Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage. For a comprehensive approach to the material culture of Elymais, see Salaris (The Kingdom of Elymais).
3 Messina, Hung-e Azhdar.
4 On the wetlands of Izeh-Malamir plain, see Jafari et al., The consequences.
5 Find at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5269/.
6 The main source with regard to the Elamite rock reliefs is the recent work of prof. Javier Álvarez-Mon, The Monumental Reliefs Of The Elamite Highlands. See also, Potts, The Archaeology of Elam, 253–6; Waters, A survey, 82–5, 116; Álvarez-Mon, A Platform Bearer; Álvarez-Mon, Braids of Glory; Álvarez-Mon, Platform of Exaltation.
7 Wright, Archaeological Investigations.
8 Messina, A new proposal, 336; Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 175–7. Considering the new archaeological and iconographical discoveries (Messina, Hung-e Azhdar), Hung-e Azhdar can confidently be considered as a cult site of regional importance in Iran, however, there is no direct evidence of who or what it was directed towards. Perhaps the site could have been focused on deceased local rulers, but the absence of solid data (at the moment only on hints from coinage) may hardly assert the hypothesis that it was specifically related to a dynastic cult. There are many sites in Iran with images of rulers that are not necessarily dynastic cults, though they do indeed create a sense of dynastic continuity (Canepa, Dynastic Sanctuaries). However, the issues to prove or disprove the existence of an Elymaean dynastic cult at Hung-e Azhdar and more generally in Elymais is far beyond the scope of this article and will not discuss here, even though it could represent the subject for future papers. For a recent discussion on varieties and problematics of Iranian dynastic cults, see Canepa, The Iranian Expanse, 235–50.
9 Cellerino, The Pottery, 123–76; Cellerino et al., The Small Findings, 177–94.
10 Cellerino, The Pottery, 167–8; Cellerino et al, The Small Findings, 194.
11 Messina, A new proposal, 336.
12 The inhabitants of these valleys, the nomadic Bakhtiari people, pronounce “x” or “kh” as the letter “h” (glottal fricative). This is a reason why the word hung is pronounced as khong or xong (Mehr Kian 2000, 57, footnote 3) and this sometimes generates confusion when transliterating the name of the site, which in some cases is translated as Xong-e Azhdar or Khong-e Azhdar (also Khung-e Azhdar). In this article, to facilitate a more rapid and simple identification, I have preferred to refer to the name of the relief in its most well-known form at the academic level, that is, Hung-e Azhdar. Often in the past, archaeologists have erroneously called the site Hung-e Nauruzi (or Nowruzi). In reality, Nauruzi does not indicate a toponym, but rather the name of a clan in the Bakhtiari tribe which had its winter encampment in the valley (Hinz, Zwei neuentdeckte partische Felsreliefs, 169; De Waele, La sculpture rupestre d'Elymaïde, 61, footnote 1).
13 Messina et al, 3D laser scanning; Ardissone, Laser scanner; Rinaudo, Geomantic and Archaeology.
14 Faraji et al., Survey at Hung-e Azhdar; Faraji et al., Excavation at Hung-e Azhdar.
15 Vanden Berghe, Le relief parthe, 165–7. For the numismatic portraits of Mithridates I, Vanden Berghe consulted: J. de Morgan, Numismatique, pls. II.11–16, III.1–7; Pope, A survey of, pl. 140.E, F, H, J. Noteworthy, Mørkholm’s assumption (A Greek coin, 151–2) established that the three issues attributed to Mithridates I, as evidence of his conquest of Elymais, could be instead ascribed to other rulers (e.g., Phraates II).
16 Schlumberger, L’Orient hellénisé, 40; Weidemann, Untersuchungen, 148; Invernizzi, Elymaeans, Seleucids, 234–41, 256–8; Lewit-Tawil, The Purim Panel, 95; idem., The Enthroned King, 66, 76.
17 Gall, Entwicklung und Gestalt, 308.
18 De Waele, La sculpture rupestre d’Elymaïde, 61, footnote 2.
19 For the interpretation of the tallest central figure as a deity, see Colledge, Parthian Art, 92; Lewit-Tawil, The Purim Panel, 95.
20 Kawami, Monumental Art, 124.
21 Mathiesen, A note on, footnote 112; Mathiesen, Sculpture in the Parthian Empire, 120.
22 Mathiesen, A note on, 196; Mathiesen, Sculpture in the Parthian Empire, 121.
23 Messina and Mehr Kian, The Iranian-Italian joint expedition, 42; Messina er al, 3D laser scanning, 157–8; Messina, A new proposal, 334–6.
24 Colledge, Parthian Art, 92.
25 Herrmann, The Iranian Revival, 65ff.
26 Downey, The stone, 285.
27 Kawami, Monumental Art, 174.
28 Invernizzi, Elymaeans, Seleucids, 258.
29 Mathiesen, Ikaros, 78, footnote 112.
30 Debevoise, Rock Reliefs, 103.
31 Hüsing, Der Zagros, 56.
32 Erdmann, Der Kunst Irans, 58.
33 Schmidt, Persepolis III, 140.
34 Messina, A new proposal, 336–7.
35 The choice of the hidden rock-face does not seem to derive from the condition of the surface on the more visible side, which has instead a large area suitable for carving, and where a modest relief, divided into two registers, was placed. The surface of the latter is heavily eroded, but on the lower register, seven figures in profile can be discerned advancing solemnly towards a personality seated at the left side of the scene. The imagery, which recurs in the relief of Elamite era (HA:elam), characterised by a seated individual receiving long processions of people, is very well-known in Mesopotamia and Elam (Amiet, Glyptique susienne, nos. 1562, 1566; Collon, Catalogue, nos. 158, 160, 161). After the comparison with glyptic seals, Vanden Berghe (Les relief parthe, 38–9) suggested a first dating at the end of the 3rd millennium BC and a reading of the scene as the homage to a king on his throne. Later, the same scholar proposed a chronology in the twentieth to eighteenth centuries BC and a re-reading of the seated figure as a deity (Vanden Berghe, Reliefs rupestres, 27, 103). Álvarez-Mon in the most updated analysis of the Elamite relief provides a dating around the tenth to seventh centuries BC on the basis of evaluation regarding the garment style and the iconography (Álvarez-Mon, The Monumental Relief, 12).
36 Haruta, Elymaean and Parthian, 473.
37 Messina et al., 3D laser scanning, 157–8.
38 Messina and Mehr Kian, Ricognizione dei rilievi, 217, footnote 6. For the debate, prior 2009, on the possible existence of an inscription carved on the Hung-e Azhdar relief, see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 283–5.
39 Moghaddam and Miri, Archaeological research; Alizadeh, Ancient Settlement Systems.
40 Salaris and Basello, Mountain tribes, 81–8.
41 Briant, Brigandage, 177; Henkelman, Of Tapyroi, 5–6. Balatti, Mountain Peoples, 135–94.
42 For a similar situation described along the Caucasus Mountains, see Gregoratti, The Caucasus.
43 Cf. Rowton, Urban Autonomy, 202.
44 Henkelman, The Other Gods, 44–57; idem. Parnakka’s, 4–9. Elymais was the final product of that historic-political koine typical of the Zagros area, and had probably its origin in the Neo-Elamite period (ca. 1100-539 BC) during that process of Elamite-Iranian acculturation behind the genesis of the Achaemenid culture and power. In the Zagros-Bakhtiari highland (agro-)pastoral communities of native (Elamites) and newcomers (Iranians) had been coexisting together for at least 500/1000 years in a progressive and almost natural process of integration through new tribal affiliations resulting in the creation of original shared identities (ibid.). If on one side this socio-cultural scenario may have constituted the prelude of the Persian culture, on the other hand, it may have had the same effect for the ethnogenesis of Elymais.
45 Although Kamnaskires Megas Soter is generally accepted as the founder and eponym of the Kamnaskirid dynasty in Elymais (Potts, The Archaeology of Elam, 348; on the diatribe between Kamnaskires Megas Soter and Kamnaskires Nikephoros, see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 79–80, 309–13), the lacunose epigraph [KBNŠ](K)[Y]R MLK’ at Bard-e Neshandeh could backdate the “official” origin of the dynasty of few decades. If Harmatta’s reconstruction of inscription A is correct (Harmatta, Iscriptions, 294), the Kabnashkir the King at Bard-e Neshandeh between 171 and 151 BC may represent the first ruler attested in Elymais. However, Harmatta restored the distinctive royal name KBNŠKYR where the only ascertained letter is the last R, likely only because is followed by the term MLK’. Significantly, if the monetary legends report this sentence, there are currently no rock-cut inscriptions in Elymais indicating KBNŠKYR MLK’.
46 Assar, History and Coinage, 54, series I, II, III; van’t Haaff, Catalogue of, types 1.1, 1A.1, and 1.2
47 Cf. Henkelman, The Other Gods, 35.
48 Van’t Haaff, Catalogue of,
49 Alram, Iranisches Personennamenbuch, 120–1; Schuol, Die Charakene, 399; Sinisi, The Coinage, 289
50 The list of Orodid kings is still under debate among the scholars. For a useful overview on this topic, see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 316–22.
51 Tacitus, Annals, VI.44.
52 Dabrowa, A troublesome vassal, 65; idem, Arsacid Dynastic Marriages.
53 During the period of the Early and Late Kamnaskires (first two centuries BC) all the kings of Elymais, excluding some usurpations from local and external rulers, used the attestation Kamnaskires. If it was the personal name or an honorific dynastic designation to evoke the belonging to the founder family of the kingdom, similar to the term Arsaces, is hard to assume. Henning (The monuments, 165) proposed that the name Kamnaskires could have been a dynastic title and not a personal name. He thought that such a term might have been derived from a word whose pronunciation would have been approximately Kabneškir. Written in Aramaic (i.e., Elymaic; see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, chapter 8) on several Elymaean coin issues, the word KBNŠΚYΡ was suggested to be a more ancient Achaemenid-Elamite title, the kap-nu-iš-ki-ra, namely the “treasurer” (see also Henkelman, The Other Gods, 26). Henning also suggested that during the Achaemenid period the chief duty of the satraps of Susiana was to protect the royal treasure stored at Susa and, therefore, it was probably used a local word in the Elamite language for “treasurer.” Harmatta (Parthia and Elymais, 209; see also Vanden Berghe and Schippmann, Les reliefs, 15) has gone so far to indicate that Kamnaskires I may have been the treasurer of the Elymaean temple of Bel which Antiochus III attempted to raid, and that he assumed the title of “king” after the Seleucid disastrous expedition. In reality, the kapnuiškira seems to have controlled centres of handicraft activity (i.e., kapnuški; see Henkelman, The Other Gods, 120–1). Although many scholars interpreted kapnuški as “treasury” on the basis of the Persepolis Treasury texts (Cameron, Persepolis Treasury), it should be pointed out the difference between the kapnuški at Persepolis – which can confidently be identified with “treasury” (Kawase, Kapnuški, 263) – and the kapnuški situated in the local districts, as Susa and the Bakhtiari regions (Elymais?) comparable with storehouses (the term literally means “[place] to keep KAP [bag?]”). According to Kawase (ibid, 207) the local kapnuški were centres for leather production rather than storing places for treasure, diminishing so the importance of the kapnuiškira. Whether it was the original function later developed in treasury along the lines of the common tradition in Mesopotamia (the Nuzi texts from the modern Kirkuk province in northern Iraq associate the term “leather bag” to “treasury”; see The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 8, 432), it can only be hypothesized .
54 Adams, Land Behind, 63; Wenke, Elymeans, 313; Neely, Parthian and, 240.
55 Le Rider, Suse, 269; Salaris and Basello, Mountain tribes, 81 (footnote nr. 6).
56 Van’t Haaff, Catalogue of, 18–19, 83ff.
57 Wenke, Elymeans, 310–13.
58 Dabrowa, A troublesome vassal, 65
59 Canepa, Topographies of power, 64.
60 Henkelman and Khaksar, Elam’s Dormant, 228.
61 Henkelman, The Other Gods, 43–9.
62 Salaris and Basello, Mountain tribes, 88–93.
63 Titus Livy, The History of Rome, XXVII.40; see also Appian, The Roman History, LXVI.6.32.
64 Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries. For the excerpts regarding the Elymaean campaigns in Mesopotamia, see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, Table 1.
65 Cf. Martinez-Sève, Les figurines,197. Roman Ghirshman proposed the presence of a village (“lower town”) ca. 200 m west of the sacred terraces at Bard-e Neshandeh without providing a precise documentation (Ghirshman, Terrasses sacrées, 9–10). Similarly, Ghirshman reported the existence of an urban agglomerate south-eastern of Masjed-e Soleyman (ibid., 55, 61,72–3, 190)
66 Bivar and Shaked, The inscription at, fig. 1; Henning, The monuments, 165–6.
67 Vardanian, A propos de, 158.
68 Hansman, The great gods, 229–32.
69 Van’t Haaff, Catalogue of, 12–13 table 4.
70 Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, Pl. LVI.
71 Hansman, The great gods, 231–2.
72 TS.II:Wa (=AWa in Henning, The Monuments and Inscriptions), and TS.II:Wbα (=AWbα in Henning, The monuments and inscriptions). For an updated classification of the relief at Tang-e Sarvak, see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 181–92.
73 Vanden Berghe and Schippmann, Les reliefs rupestres d’Elymaïde, fig. 3.
74 Kawami, Monumental Art, Pl. 6, cat. no.4.
75 Messina and Mehr Kian, The Iranian-Italian joint expedition, 42; Messina er al, 3D laser scanning, 158; Messina, A new proposal, 334–6.
76 Stein, Old Routes, 134, fig. 49 (marble heads); ibid., Pl. IV (bronze facial pieces); Callieri, Hellenistic Art, 15–16.
77 Messina, Hung-e Azhdar, 50.
78 On Bid Zard, see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 228–31.
80 Mathiesen, Sculpture in the Parthian Empire, cat. no. 183.
81 Kawami, Monumental Art, 120–2.
82 Wiesehöfer, King of Kings; Curtis, Parthian Coins, 69.
83 Kawami, Monumental Art, 121–2.
84 Sartre-Fauriat, Une Stèle au Cavalier, 189, fig. 3.
85 Mathiesen, Sculpture in the Parthian Empire, no. 181; Sartre-Fauriat, Une stele au cavalier, 193, figs. 1–3.
86 Pl. V.3 (Phraates II); Pl. V.5 (Artabanus I); Pl. V.7 (Mithridates II). I am deliberately not mentioning Mithridates I, since his battle and victory over Elymais is highly questionable in the light of new textual evidence from the Astronomical Diaries. On the historical events of these years, see Shayegan, Arsacids and Sasanians, 96–7, 108; Potts, The Archaeology of Elam, 411–15; Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 80–7.
87 Kawami, Monumental Art, 124 (Kamnaskires II); Messina, A new proposal, 337–9 (Kamnaskires III, IV, V). For the problem of interpretation regarding the coin issues of Kamnaskires IV and Kamnaskires V, and their identification like the same king in different stage of life, see Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 315–16.
88 Van’t Haaff, Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage, 49–55.
89 Messina seems to recognise a circular object (i.e., an earring) at the right earlobe of HA:1. According to the Italian scholar, this element would support the iconographic association of HA:1 with a Late Kamnaskirid king, like Kamnaskirid III (Messina, A new proposal, 335–7). However, despite the excellent digital images provided, the earring is hardly identifiable and the protrusion seems more likely to be a naturalistic reproduction of the beard in irregular tufts, as for several monetary portraits of the early Arsacid kings (Pl. V.1–7; see van’t Haaff, Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage, 57, type 4.1, Assar, A revised … 161-91 BC, fig, 6, 18, 24, 27).
90 Van’t Haaff, Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage, 74, type 9.1, subtype 1–1.
91 As reported in the Astronomical Diaries, the Arsacid king who “[…] went to Elam and fought Qabinaškiri, the king of Elam, and out […] in it, and the cities […] / […] … the few troops which were with him, turned away from him and went up to the mountains. I heard that towards the mountains when […]” (Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries, 502–3, no. -77 B ‘rev’ 13′–14′; Del Monte, Testi della Babilonia Ellenistica, 180; Assar, A revised … 91-55 BC, 77–9). The chronology of the passage is still discussed. For different interpretations and chronologies, see Nodelman, A Preliminary History, 87; Guépin, A contribution to, 19; Hansman, Seleucia, 154; Harmatta, Parthia and Elymais, 207.
92 Messina, A new proposal, 336–7.
93 Callieri, Hellenistic Art, 16.
94 Monetary production: Van’t Haaff, Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage; Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 309–16; Textual source: Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries, 502–3, no. -77 B ‘rev’ 13′–14′; Del Monte, Testi della Babilonia Ellenistica, 180; Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 70–94.
95 An example is the statue of Abygyd at Hatra from the second century AD (Mathiesen, Sculpture in the Parthian Empire, 207–8, cat. no. 201A.
96 See also Kawami, Monumental Art, 123.
97 Messina, Hung-e Azhdar, 50.
98 See also Haruta (Elymaean and Parthian,. 473), who suggests that “something oval like a human head is depicted beneath the left foreleg of the horse just like in Ardaxšīr’s reliefs at Naqš-e Rostam.”
99 Schmidt, Persepolis III, pls. 81 (NRu I), 89 (NRu IV-V). According to some scholars, the Sasanian rock reliefs might have been somehow inspired by the Elymaean rock sculpture (Harper, Silver vessels, 86; Herrmann, The Rock Reliefs, 36; Sinisi, Sources for, 46–7).
100 Shayegan (Arsacids and Sasanians, 97–8, 108–10) based on texts from the Astronomical Babylonian Diaries (Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries, 230–1, no. -132 D2 ‘rev.’ 16′–21′; pp. 231–2, no. -132 D1 ‘rev.’ 7–10′).
101 The Arsacids commonly represented their lineage through the use of naturalism present in the stylistic language of the Hellenistic heritage which was, however, revised locally. As convincingly assumed by Callieri, “the spread of the Hellenistic culture, iconographies of Western origin also found circulation, transmitted in various ways but almost always with full awareness of their original significance, above all in the case of themes of a religious nature; however, these motifs were frequently rendered in the stylistic language of the various areas of reception” (Callieri, Hellenistic Art, 14).
102 Kawami, Monumental Art, 140–5.
103 Messina et al, 3D laser scanning, 158; Messina, Hung-e Azhdar, 50.
104 A flying bird (eagle?) with wreath and palm branch was noted at Palmyra (Seyrig and Starcky, Genneas, Pl. XI) and among the Roman symbols of victory (Hölscher, Victoria Romana, 100f, pl. 12.2). A similar bird holding a wreath in its beak and another in its claws was found at Bard-e Neshandeh (Ghirshman, Terrasses sacrées, Pl. XXX.2). A bird with a wreath in its beak, following a horseman, is also at Dura-Europos (Sartre-Fauriat Una Stèle au Cavalier, 188, fig 3).
105 Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides, 77, no. 90; pl. 9, nos. 90.4–10.
106 Van’t Haaff, Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage, 57, type 2.7.
107 Messina, A new proposal, 339.
108 Dabrowa, A troublesome vassal, 65.
109 Dabrowa, A troublesome vassal, 63–7.
110 TS.II:Na (=ANa in Henning, The monuments and inscriptions).
111 For the coin issues and chronology of Kamnaskires-Orodes, see Auge et al., Terrasses sacrées, pL XVI:2370–2371; Vardanian, La monetazione di bronzo, 121–5; van’t Haaff, Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage, 94–105, 159–60; Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 316–23.
112 Footnote 54. See also Dabrowa, A troublesome vassal, 65.
113 Vanden Berghe and Schippmann, Les reliefs; Invernizzi, Parthian Art; Sinisi, Sources for, 32, 38, 45.
114 Cf. Canepa, Topographies of power, 63.
115 Messina, Hung-e Azhdar, 70.
116 Martinez-Sève, Les sanctuaires autochtones, 252–72; Messina, Gli dei dell’altopiano; Messina and Mehr Kian, The sanctuary and cemetery; Salaris, A Case of Religious Architecture; Salaris, The Kingdom of Elymais, 107–80.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112444/Skyscraper-humanities.png"})