Deities in hellenized asia

CHAPTER V
Conclusion
This thesis has examined the varying utilization of Greek art in the
anthropomorphic representation of deities in the eastern lands conquered by
Alexander the Great. To illustrate different approaches, case studies from three
different cultures were presented. All three cultures, despite their social, political and
religious difference, had direct contacts with Greek civilization.  As a consequence
of this interaction, they responded differently to Greek culture. Some cultures
adopted Greek artistic principles and religious iconography, incorporating them into
their local artistic traditions, whereas others were impervious to Greek art. By
exploring sculptural examples in the religious art of these cultures, the nature and the
reasons of borrowings from Greek art have been investigated. In each case study, in
order to evaluate the case better, a brief history of the region and a history of
research were given. Moreover, the unique problems facing the study of the
archaeological and artistic evidence have been mentioned.
The first case study concerned Parthian art. The predecessors of the
Parthians, the Achaemenids, used Greek artistic forms very heavily. The written

96
documents also testify that Greek artists and craftsmen were employed in the
imperial projects of the Achaemenid Empires from the 6
th
 century BC onwards.
Normally, it could be expected that this active influence of Greek art would continue
during the Parthian period. However, in this era, the Parthians were selective in their
adaptation. Greek language was used for administration, coins were struck in Greek
fashion, and the Parthian rulers adopted titles such as “Philhellenes”. In contrast, in
the few sculptural examples surviving from the Parthian period, the influence of
Greek art is not attested.  And the Greek idea of anthropomorphic representation of
deities was not adopted for Zoroastrian divinities.
The reason for this isolation of Parthian art is not certain. The problems with
historical sources and paucity of examples from central Iran make the research
harder. This isolation might be due to the political and social structure of the
Parthian Empire. The Parthians had a nomadic background.  However, they
conquered a land that had been a cradle of a major civilization of the world.  With
their nomadic background, the Parthians presumably did not have the social and
cultural characteristics needed to establish an artistic tradition of their own. The
Parthians were praised for their military skills. Therefore, art could be not one of
their priorities in the structure of their empire. Moreover, the Parthian Empire was
constituted of client kings and feudal lords. Therefore, unlike the Achaemenids,
there was no central court to promote artistic creation.
Lastly, we do not know to what extant the Parthians adopted Zoroastrianism
as their state religion. As new rulers with a different background, it is probable that
they maintained a tolerant policy toward their subjects and they might have allowed

97
the worship of all the religions within their borders. As a result, the artistic creation
was left to the patronage of local kings and individuals, and the initiative of the local
artists who chose to follow the ancient artistic heritage of the Near East.
In the second case, a single monument from the Commagene Kingdom in
southeast Asia Minor was reviewed, the Hierostheion built by King Antiochus I on
the summit of Nemrut Dağı. This site reveals another approach to the utilization of
Greek art for the anthropomorphic representation of divinities. The Commagene
Kingdom was contemporary with the Parthian Empire. However, unlike in Parthian
art, on Nemrud Dağı, a Greek artistic repertoire and in particular Greek religious
iconography was used to a great extent together with Persian elements. The
sculptural program on the site reflects the political propaganda of Antiochus I. As
the ruler of a buffer state between two major powers, Antiochus I wanted to
reinforce the position of Commagene. Also, by claiming divine approval for his
reign and immortal status, he reinforced his position in the eyes of his people.
Antiochus I claimed descent from Alexander the Great through his maternal
ancestors and from Darius through his paternal ancestors. Like Parthian rulers, he
adopted Greek titles such as “Philromanos” and “Philhellenes”. Likewise, he wrote
his Nomos (Holy Edict) in Greek. His claim to be an heir of both Greek and Persian
cultures is reflected in the sculptural decoration of his Hierothesion. On the site the
composite deities – Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes, Artagnes-
Herakles-Ares, and Commagene – were shown according to Greek religious
iconography but were depicted in Parthian costumes. And by placing his statue
among these gods, the king showed his divine nature. This divine status was once

98
more indicated in the dexiosis reliefs on which Antiochus I is shown shaking hands
with deities on his pantheon, as if on equal terms.  Moreover, the Lion Horoscope
relief connected his rule to an astral context. Lastly, he used the reliefs of his
maternal and paternal ancestors to stress his descent from Greece and Achaemenid
Persia.
In this visual expression of Antiochus I’s propaganda, parallel to his Greek
and Persian descent, Greek and Parthian iconographic and stylistic elements were
used. The anthropomorphic representation of gods and their iconographical
attributes were taken from the Greek repertoire. The attempt for optical illusion and
the successful rendering of anatomical features of the figures are Greek stylistic
elements.
The Parthian iconographical elements are mainly the costumes and the
headdresses of the gods. The weaponry of the gods was also taken from Parthian art.
In addition to these, the barsom, an element of the Zoroastrian regalia, was
incorporated into the religious iconography on Nemrut Dağı.
As illustrated above, Antiochus I established a syncretism by using Greek
and Persian art and religious iconography. His sculptural program on the
Hierothesion at Nemrut Dağı reveals a uniform synthetic character. Each piece
visually corroborates the political propaganda of Antiochus I that aspired to
emphasize and justify his rule on a national and international scale.
The last case study examined the Buddha image from Gandhara, how Greek
artistic principles were adapted and incorporated into the local artistic tradition in the
creation of a unique Buddha image in anthropomorphic form. The Buddha images in

99
anthropomorphic form appeared in the region in the 1
st
 century AD, during the reign
of the Kushan Dynasty. Gandhara Buddhas, unlike the contemporary Mathura
examples, recall Greek models. In the early 19
th
 century, western scholars claimed
that after an aniconic period in early Buddhist art, the idea of showing the Buddha in
human form was taken from Greek culture and they asserted that the Greek Apollo
was the model for this iconography. On the other hand, Indian scholars have
emphasized the native Indian contribution. Some recent studies have rejected the
existence of aniconism; moreover they present early examples of the Buddha image
in human form made before the 1
st
 century AD. However, these early examples are
few in number and are not well studied and published. Apart from these isolated
examples, the Buddhas image in anthropomorphic image started to be produced
heavily during the reign of the Kushan ruler, Kanishka. These early Gandharan
Buddhas cannot be attributed solely to Greek art but there are indisputable
borrowings from the Greek tradition. The treatment of drapery of the costumes, the
attempt for optical illusionism on the figures, the hairstyle of the Buddha figures, the
realistic rendering of anatomy and the muscled torso of the figures are taken from
Greek art. These Greek features were incorporated into the local artistic tradition to
create a Buddha image unique to the Gandhara region. The reason behind this is
political. I suggest that, like the Parthians, the Kushans were a nomadic tribe and
they conquered an area that already had a very ancient culture. To unite the people
under their rule and to show their royal patronage, they might have promoted the
intensive production of the Buddha images in human form. At this point, artists
might have turned to the Greek artistic tradition that they were familiar with, first

100
from the Greek colonies in Bactria and later through trade contacts with the Roman
Empire. Consequently, they borrowed certain features from Greek art in the creation
of the Gandharan Buddha. Then, the artists could have incorporated these Greek
artistic principles into the Indian artistic heritage that supplied the religious
iconography. Changes in the Buddhist doctrine, and the stability and prosperity
established during the Kushan dynasty might have stimulated the dynamic artistic
production. Greek cultural and artistic traditions had lived long in the area. Three
centuries after Alexander’s conquest, Greek art contributed to the creation of a new
religious image.
All three case studies have illustrated various ways in which Greek art
confronted and was integrated into Western Asian art forms. The three cultures had
direct relations with the Greek art. However, each responded differently to this
interaction. The main factor behind the varying utilization of the Greek artistic
principles is politics. The rulers used artistic media as a tool for their political
propaganda. In their political propaganda in visual art, they either rejected or
adapted Greek art forms. The Parthians, without a centralized rule that might include
an imperial artistic formula, did not utilize Greek artistic tradition. However, in a
neighboring region, Antiochus I used a Greek artistic repertoire and religious
iconography together with Persian elements to reinforce the position of his kingdom
as a buffer state between the Roman and Parthian Empires and also to justify his rule
in the eyes of his subjects. Further east, in Gandhara, the Kushans, like the Parthians,
were the new conquerors of a region whose complex cultures went back to
prehistoric times. Kanishka promoted the creation and the production of the local

101
Buddha images in human form to show his role as a royal patron. Moreover, familiar
Buddha images were used as a common cultural and religious symbol to unite the
subjects in the expanding empire.
Art has a strong power on people and rulers have always used art as an
effective tool for their propaganda. The kingdoms in the lands conquered by
Alexander the Great proved no exception. The rulers of these lands were given a
new art system, which was there to be used for their political purposes. The aim of
this thesis has been to examine how different states took advantage of this new
possibility.

102
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auboyer, J. 1968. The Art of Afghanistan. Middlesex: Paul  Hamlyn.
Başgelen, N. 1996a. "Nemrut Dağı'nın Keşfi," Art Decor 36: 78-82.
---.
1996b. "Nemrut Dağı-Kommagene'de Dünden Bugüne Tahribatlar,"
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Dergisi 74: 18-20.
---.
1997 "Nemrut Dağı'nın Yüzü Asıldı", Art Decor 52/53: 144- 148
---.
1998. Tanrılar Dağı Nemrut. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Bernard, P, et al.1973. Fouilles d’Ai Khanoum I (campagnes 1965-8), rapport
préliminaire. MDAFA, XXI. Paris: Klincksieck.
---, et al.1985. Fouilles d’Ai Khanoum IV: Les monnaies hors trésors. MDAFA,
XXVIII. Paris: Diffusion de Bocard.
Bickerman, E. 1986. “The Seleucid Period.” In E. Yarshater, ed., Cambridge
History of Iran. Vol 3 (2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-21.
Bivar, A.D.H. 1986. “The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids.” In E.
Yarshater, ed., Cambridge History of Iran. Vol 3 (2). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 21-100.
Boardman, J. (ed.) 1984. Cambridge Ancient History. (vol. VII). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
----. 1994. 
The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
----. 1993. 
Classical Art in Eastern Translation. Oxford: Leopard’s Head.
Boyce, M. 1987. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and  Practices. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Boyce, M. and Grenet, F. 1991. A History of Zoroastrianism. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Bussagli, M. 1965. Arte del Gandhara. Firenze: Sadea/Sansani Editori.
Cimok, F. 1995. Commagene Nemrut. İstanbul : A Turizm Yayınları. .
Colledge, M.A.R. 1976a. The Art of Palmyra. Colorado: Westview Press.
---.
1977. Parthian Art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
---.
1986. The Parthian Period. The Iconography of Religions XIV,3. Leiden:
E. J. Brill.

103
---.
1987. “Greek and non- Greek Interaction in the Art and Architecture of
the Hellenistic East.” In A. Kuhrt & S. Sherwin White, eds., Hellenism in
the East.  California: University of California Press, 134- 162.
---.
1990. “ Interpretation Romano: the Semitic Population of Syria and
Mesopotamia.” In  Bilde, Engberg & Pedersen, eds., Religion and
Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Denmark: Esberg, 221-230.
Coomaraswamy, A.K. 1927. “The Origin of the Buddha Image,” The Art
Bulletin 9, 287-238.
---.
1985a (reprinted). Dance of Siva. New York: Dover Pub.
---.
1985b (reprinted). History of Indian and Indonesian Art. New York:
Dover Pub.
---.
1991 (reprinted). Introduction to Indian Art. Edinburg: Aspect Pub.
Craven, R.C. 1987. Indian Art. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Curtis, J. 1989. Ancient Persia. London: British Museum Publications.
Davidson,R.(forthcoming). “Mahayana in Gandhara: the Problem of Artistic
Representations, Textual Sources and the Public Intellectual.” In K.
Behrendt and P. Brancaccio, eds., Sources of Gandhara Buddhism:
Archaeology, Art and Texts.
Dörner, F. K. 1953 "Die grosse Königsinschrift von Kommagene," Die Umschau
53.5: 143-46.
---.
1963. "Nemrud Dagh." Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale
5: 409-13.
---.
1967. "Zur Rekonstruktion der Ahnengalerie des Königs Antiochos I.
Von Kommagene," Istanbuler Mitteilungen 17: 195-210.
---.
1969-70. "Kommagene: Forschungsarbeiten van 1967 bis 1969,"
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20: 255-88.
---.
1971. Kommagene: ein wiederentdecktes Königreich. 2
nd
 ed. Böblingen:
Codex-verlag.
---.
1975. "Die Ahnengalerie der kommagenischen Königsdynastie," Antike
Welt sondernummer: 26-31.
---.
1978b. "Mithras in Kommagene." In Études Mithriaques: Actes du 2e
Congrès International Teheran, du 1er au 8 septembre 1975. E.J.Brill:
Leiden, 123-133.
---.
1981.  Kommagene: Götterthrone und Königsgräber am Euphrat. Lübbe:
Bergisch Gladbach.

104
---.
1987. Der Thron der Götter auf dem Nemrud Dag:  Kommagene, 
das
grosse archäologische Abenteuer in  der  östlichen  Türkei. 2d ed. Lübbe:
Bergisch Gladbach.
---.
1990.  Nemrud Dağının Zirvesinde Tanrıların Tahtları. Translated by
Vural Ülkü.  Ankara : Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Dörner, F. K., and Goell, T. B. 1955. "The Tomb Sanctuary of Mithradates of
Kommagene, and the Discovery of a Super Relief. Recent Excavations at
Arsameia, in Turkey," Illustrated London News 227 (July 2): 23-25.
Drijvers, H.J.W. 1976. The Religion of Palmyra. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 1978. “Iran and Greece in Commagene”. In Études
Mithriaques : Actes du 2e Congrès International Teheran, du 1er au 8
septembre 1975. Leiden : E.J.Brill, 187-199.
----.
1986. “ Zoroastrian Religion.” In E. Yarshater, ed., Cambridge History of
Iran. Vol 3 (2). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 866- 909.
Errington, E. and Cribb, J. (eds.) 1992. The Crossroads of Asia: Transformation
in Image and Symbol. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust.
Foucher, A. 1905. L’art Gréco-bouddhique du Gandhara. 2 vols. Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale.
---. 1917. 
The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays in Indian and
Central Asian Archaeology. Paris: Paul Geutner.
Fox, R.L. 1980. The Search for Alexander. Boston: Little, Brown &Company.
---.
1988.(Reprinted) Alexander the Great. London : Penguin Books.
Frye, R.N. 1963. The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland & New York: The World
Publishing Company.
Ghirshman, R.  1946. Bégram: recherches archéologiques et historiques sur les
Kouchans. MDAFA, XII.Cairo: L’Institut Francais d’Archeologie
Orientale.
---.
1962 . Persian Art: The Parthian and Sassanian Dynasties. 249 B.C.-
A.D. 651. New York: Golden Press.
---. 1964. 
Persia from Origins to Alexander the  Great.  London: Thames and
Hudson.
---. 1976. 
Terrasses Sacrées de Bardé Néchandeh et Masjid-i Solaiman.
Paris: Mémories de al Délégation Archaéologique en Iran.
---.
1978. Iran. Great Britain: Penguin Books Ltd.

105
Goell, T. B. 1952. "Nimrud Dagh: The Tomb of Antiochos I, King of
Commagene," Archaeology 5.3: 136-44.
---.
1956. "Report of the Preliminary Survey of the Tomb of Antiochos I,
King of Commagene Conducted by the American Schools of Oriental
Research in 1953," Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 6.1: 3-6.
---.
1957. "The Excavation of the Hierothesion of Antiochos I of Commagene
on Nemrud Dagh (1953-1956)," Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 147: 4-22.
---.
1958. "Archaeological Work at Nemrud Dag, Turkey," Yearbook of the
American Philosophical Society: 366-372.
---.
1961. "Throne Above the Euphrates," National Geographic 119: 390-
405.
---.
1968. "Geophysical Survey of the Hierothesion and Tomb of Antiochos I
of Commagene, Turkey," National Geographic Society Research 
Reports, 1963 Projects:  83-102.
---.
1969. "The Nemrud Dagh (Turkey) Geophysical Surveys of 1964,"
National Geographic Society Research Reports, 1964 Projects: 61-81.
---.
1974. "Samosata Archaeological Excavations, Turkey, 1967," National
Geographic Society Research Reports, 1967 Projects: 83-109.
Goell, T. B., and Dörner, F. K. 1955. "The Last Resting-Place of Antiochos I,
King of Kommagene: The Colossal Statuary of a Fantastic Mountain-top
Burial Monument," Illustrated London News 226 (June 18): 1094- 1097.
---.
1956."The Tomb of Antiochos I," Scientific American 195.1: 38-44.
Goetz, Hermann. 1964. The Art of India. New York: Greystone Press.
Green, P. 1991. Alexander of Macedon: A Historical Biography. Berkeley, Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Grousset, R. 1995. The Civilizations of the East. (vols. 2, 3) New Delhi: Aryan
Books International.
Hackin, J.and Hackin, J.R. 1939. Recherches archéologiques à Begram. 2 vols.
Paris: Les Editions d’Art et d’ Histoire.
Hackin, J., et al. 1954. Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Begram. 2 vols.
Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,  Presses Universitaires.
Hallade, M. 1968. Gandharan Art of North India. New York: H.N. Abrams.
Hamdy O., and Effendi, O. 1883. Le tumulus de Nemroud-Dagh: voyages,
description, inscriptions. Constantinople: Péra, Loeffler.

106
---.
1987. Le tumulus de Nemroud-Dagh: voyages, description, inscriptions
Reprint (ed. Nezih Basgelen). Istanbul: Archaeology and Art
Publications.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1994. Alexander the Great: King, Commander and
Statesman. London: Bristol Classical Press.
Harle, J.C. 1984. The Art and the Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Herzfeld, E.E. 1988 (reprinted). Iran in the Ancient East. New York: Hacker Art
Books.
Hjerrild, B. 1990. “ The Survival and Modification of Zoroastrianism in Seleucid
Times.” In Bilde, Engberg & Pedersen, eds.,  Religion and Religious
Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Denmark: Esberg, 140-150.
Holt, F.L. 1995. (2
nd
 edition). Alexander the Great and Bactria. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
Honour, H and Fleming, J. 1991. A World History of Art. 4
th
 edition. London:
Laurence King. 
Hopkins, C. 1979. The Discovery of Dura-Europus. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Hornblower,S and Spawforth, A. (eds.) 1996.  The Oxford Classical Dictionary
(3
rd
 ed.).Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
---.
1998.  The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Huart, C. 1996. Ancient Persia and Roman Civilization. London: Routledge.
---.
1994. Asiatic Mythology. New Delhi: Asian Education Services.
Humann, K., and Puchstein, O. 1890.  Reisen in Kleinasien und  Nordsyrien. 2
vols. Berlin: Reimer.
Huntington, S.1985. The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. New York:
Weatherhill.
---. 
1990. “Early Buddhist Art and The Theory of Aniconism,” Art Journal
49, Winter 1990: 401-407.
Iliffe, J.H. 1989. “ Persia and the Ancient World.” In A.J. Arberry, ed., The
Legacy of Persia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1-38.
Invernizzi, A. 1998. “A New Archaeological Research in Old Nisa, 1990-1991.”
In V.S. Curtis, R. Hillenbrand, and  J.M. Rogers, eds., The Art and
Archaeology of Ancient Persia. London and New York : I.B. Tauris, 8-
13.

107
Kawami, T.S. 1987. The Monumental Art of The Parthian Period. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
Keal, E. 1989.“The Art of Parthians.” In R.W. Ferrier, ed., The Arts of Persia.
New Haven andLondon: Yale University Press, 49-59.
Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S.(eds.) 1987. Hellenism in the East. London:
Duckworth.
Lukonin, V.G. 1967. Persia II. Cleveland & New York: World Publishing
Company.
Lyons, E. 1985. Buddhism: History and Diversity of a Great Tradition.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The University Museum.
Lyons, I and Ingholt, H. 1957. Gandharan Art in Pakistan. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Marshall, J. 1951. Taxila. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
---.
1960. The Buddhist Art of Gandhara. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Matheson, S. B. 1982. Dura Europus.  New Haven:Yale University Art Gallery.
Mathews, T.F. 1993. The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian
Art. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Mathiesen, H.E. 1992. Sculpture in The Parthian Empire: A Study in
Chronology. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Meyers, E. (ed.) 1997. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near
East. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitter, P. 1992. Much Maligned Monsters: A History of European Reactions to
Indian Art. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
---.
2001. Indian Art. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Narain, A.K. 1957. The Indo-Greeks. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Perera, A.D.T.E. 1992. ‘Evolution of the Buddha Image.’ In G. Kuppuram and
K. Kumudamani, eds., Buddhist Heritage in India and Abroad. Delhi:
Sundeep Prakashan. 307-316.
Pollitt, J.J. 1986. Art in Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porada, E. 1965. Ancient Iran. London: Methuen.
Pope, A.U. (ed.) 1964. A Survey of Persian Art. Teheran: Manafzadeh Group.
Puchstein, O. 1883. “Bericht über eine Reise in Kurdistan.” In Sitzungsberichte
der Königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

108
Ramage, N.H. and Ramage, A. 1995. Roman Art (2
nd
 ed.). London: Laurence
King.
Rowland, B. 1953. The Art and the Architecture of Indian:  Buddhist, 
Hindu,
Jain. Baltimore, Madison: Penguin.
----.
1966.  Ancient Art from Afghanistan: Treasures of the Kabul Museum.
New York: The Asia Society
Rosenfield, J.M. 1967. The Dynastic Art of the Kushans. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Rostovtzeff, M.I. 1998 (reprinted). The Social and Economic History of
Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
---.
1978. Dura Europus and Its Art. New York: AMS Press.
Şahin, S., Schwertheim, E., and Wagner, J. (eds.) 1978. Studien zur Religion und
Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65.
Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976. 2 vols. Documenta et Monumenta
Orientis Antiqui. Leiden: Brill.
Şahin, S., and Wagner, J. 1989. "Das Grabmal von König Antiochos I. Von
Kommagene auf dem Nemrut Dag," Antike Welt 20: 55-58.
Sanders,D (ed.).1996. Nemrud Dağı: The Hierothesion of Antiochus I of
Commagene. Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns.
Schlumberger, D. 1964. Monuments Preislamiques d’ Afghanistan. Paris:
Librarie C. Klincksieck.
---.
1986. “Parthian Art.” In E. Yarshater, ed., Cambridge History of Iran.
Vol 3 (2). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1027-1055.
Seckel, D. 1964. The Art of Buddhism. New York: Crown.
----.
1989.  Buddhist Art of East Asia. Bellingham: Western Washington
University.
Sengupta, A. 1991. Gandhara Holdings in the Indian Museum. Calcutta: Indian
Museum.
Sharma, S.K. 1991. ‘A Survey of Hellenistic Types in Early Indian Art.’ In U.P.
Arora, ed., Graeco-India. New Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhaman, 11-13.
Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A.1993. From Samarkand to Sardis. London:
Duckworth.
Smith, R.R.R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
---.
1995. Hellenistic Sculpture. London: Thames& Hudson.

109
Smith, V.1969 (reprinted). A History of Fine Arts in India and Ceylon. Bombay:
DB Taraporevala Sons & Co.
----.
1981 (reprinted). The Oxford History of India. Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture. 2 vols. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
Stillwell, R. (ed.) 1976. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Talbert, R.J.A. (ed.) 2000. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World.
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Talbot Rice, T. 1965. Ancient Arts of Central Asia. New York: Frederick A.
Praeger.
Tarn, W.W. 1938. The Greeks in Bactria & India. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ulansey, D. 1989. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries. New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
von Moltke, H. 1893. Gesammelte Schriften und Denkwürdigkeiten 8: Briefen
Über Zustände und Begebenheiten in der Türkei aus den Jahren 1835 bis
1839, Berlin.
Wheeler, R.E.M. 1954. Rome Beyond the Imperial Frontiers. London: G.Bell.
Widengren, G. 1986. “ Sources of Parthian and Sasanian History.” In E.
Yarshater, ed., Cambridge History of Iran. Vol 3 (2). Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 1261-1284.
Wiesehofer, J. 1996.  Ancient Persia from 500 BC to 650 AD. London: I.B.
Tauris.
Yamamoto, C. 1990. Introduction to Buddhist Art. New Delhi: International
Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan.
Yarshater, E. 1986. “ Introduction” In E. Yarshater, ed., Cambridge History of
Iran. Vol 3 (2). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, xvii- lxxv.
Young, J. H. 1964. "Commagenian Tiaras: Royal and Divine," American Journal
of Archaeology 68: 29-35.
Zimmer, H. 1963. Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Culture. New York:
Bollingen Foundation.
----.
1983. The Art of Indian Asia: Mythology and Transformations. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

110
----. 1984. 
Artistic Form and Yoga in the Sacred  Images  of  India. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Zwalf, W. (ed.) 1985. Buddhism: Art and Faith. New York: Macmillan.

111
FIGURES