Deities in hellenized asia

To my parents and my husband

GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE ANTHROPOMORPHIC REPRESENTATION OF
DEITIES IN HELLENIZED ASIA:
PARTHIA, NEMRUT DAĞI, AND GANDHARA
The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
of
Bilkent University
by
FUNDA BAŞAK UÇAR
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ART
in
THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ART
BILKENT UNIVERSITY
ANKARA
January 2003

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is full adequate, in scope
and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of
Archaeology and History of Art.
---------------------------------
Dr. Charles Gates
Supervisor
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is full adequate, in scope
and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of
Archaeology and History of Art.
---------------------------------
Dr. Marie-Henriette Gates
Examining Commiteee Member
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is full adequate, in scope
and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of
Archaeology and History of Art.
---------------------------------
Dr. John Groch
Examining Committee Member
Approval of the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
---------------------------------
Dr. Kürşat Aydoğan
Director

iii
ABSTRACT
GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE  ANTHROPOMORPHIC
REPRESENTATION OF DEITIES IN HELLENIZED ASIA:
PARTHIA, NEMRUT DAĞI, AND GANDHARA
Uçar, Funda Başak
M.A., Department of Archaeology and History of Art
Supervisor: Dr. Charles Gates
January 2003
This thesis analyzes the varying utilization of the Greek idea of
anthropomorphic representation of deities in the Hellenized western Asia. In order to
explore the different ways in which Greek models were absorbed and utilized by
Eastern cultural and artistic traditions, three case studies are examined. Sculptural
media is the focus, with subject matter, style, iconography, and patronage to be
considered. The cultural, social, religious, and political circumstances are
investigated to obtain insight about the nature and reasons of borrowings from the
Greek artistic repertoire.
The first case study is Parthian art.  The Parthians were selective in their
adaptation. The Greek language was used for administration along with Aramaic and
the Parthians struck coins in Greek fashion. In contrast, in the few sculptural

iv
examples surviving from the Parthian period, the influence of Greek art is not
attested.
The second case study is Nemrut Dağı, a mountaintop sanctuary in
Commagene. In the sculptural decoration of the monument, Greek religious
repertoire and iconography are used extensively together with Persian elements in
the visual expression of the political propaganda of the Commagene dynasty.
The third case study is Gandharan art. Here, Greek artistic principles were
adapted and incorporated into the local artistic tradition in the creation of the
Buddha image in anthropomorphic form, unique to the region. In this study it is
suggested that the intensive production of the Buddha images in the reign of the
Kushan dynasty might be due to the aim to unite the people under their rule and to
show their royal patronage.
These three cultures had direct relations with Greek art. Each, however,
responded differently to this interaction. In the course of this thesis, it is observed
that the main factor behind the varying utilization of Greek artistic principles is
politics. The kingdoms in the lands conquered by Alexander the Great used Greek
art for political propaganda.
Keywords: Greek art, anthropomorphic representation, Parthia, Nemrut Dağı,
Gandhara, sculpture, religious iconography, artistic interaction, artistic adaptation
and integration, political propaganda

v
ÖZET
HELLENİZE ASYA’DA
 İNSAN FORMUNDAKİ TANRI TASVİRLERİNDE YUNAN ETKİSİ:
PARTHİA, NEMRUD DAĞI VE GANDHARA
Uçar, Funda Başak
Master, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Tarihi Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Dr. Charles Gates
Ocak 2003
Bu tezde, Hellenize Batı Asya’da,  antik Yunan kültürüne ait “tanrıları insan
biçiminde tasvir etme” fikrinin değişik kullanımları incelenmiştir. Antik Yunan
sanatsal modellerinin, Doğu kültürleri tarafından çeşitli uyarlamalarının ve
kullanımlarının değişik yönlerini incelemek için üç bölge seçilmiştir. Bu
bölgelerdeki heykel sanatına ait örnekler konu, stil ve ikonografik olarak
incelenmiştir. Antik Yunan sanatından alınan özelliklerin doğası ve nedenlerini daha
iyi anlamak için, kültürel, sosyal, dinsel ve politik şartlar da gözönünde
bulundurulmuştur.
Araştırılan ilk örnek Parth sanatıdır. Parthlar antik Yunan kültürünü
benimseme konusunda seçiçi davranmışlardır. Yunancayı devlet işlerinde kullanmış

vi
ve sikkelerini Yunan stilinde basmışlardır. Ancak, dönemden kalan az sayıdaki sanat
yapıtında antik Yunan sanatının etkilerine rastlanmamıştır.
İkinci örnek, Kommagene krallığındaki Nemrut Dağındaki mabed alanıdır.
Bu mabedin dekorasyonunda Yunan dinsel sanatı ve ikonografyası Parth öğeleri ile
birlikte Kommagene hanedanın politik propagandasının görsel ifadesinde yoğun
olarak kullanılmıştır.
Üçüncü örnek Gandhara sanatıdır. Burada Yunan sanatının biçemsel
özellikleri bölgedeki yerel sanat tarafından benimsenmiş ve Buda’nın bölgeye özgü
insan biçimindeki tasvirlerinde kullanılmıştır. Kuşhan hanedanı dönemindeki  Buda
figürlerinin yoğun sanatsal üretimin arkasında bu hanedanın kontrolü altındaki
halkları birleştirmek ve mutlak egemenliklerini göstermek olgusunun olabileceği
önerilmiştir.
Araştırma için seçilen yukarıda adı geçen üç bölge de antik Yunan kültürü ile
direkt etkileşimde bulunmuşlardır ancak bu etkileşime verdikleri tepkiler farklıdır.
Bu tez çalışmasında Yunan sanatının bu değişik kullanımlarının ardındaki temel
faktörün politika olduğu önerilmiştir. Büyük İskender tarafından fethedilen
bölgelerdeki yerel krallıklar, karşılaştıkları antik Yunan sanatını değişik ölçülerde ve
şekillerde politik propaganda için kullanmışlardır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Antik Yunan sanatı, tanrıların insan biçimde tasviri, Parthia,
Nemrut Dağı, Gandhara, heykel sanatı, dinsel ikonografi, sanatsal etkileşim, sanatsal
uyarlama, politik propaganda

vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Charles Gates, my advisor, for kindly letting me study on
a subject that I like, guiding me all through the project, for teaching me how to
write and most of all for the inspiring talk which put me back to work again
when I lost my enthusiasm. I am also grateful to the members of my jury, Marie-
Henriette Gates and John Groch for their valuable insights and creative
comments.
I am thankful to all my teachers in the department, Jean Greenhalgh,
Jacques Morin, Julian Bennett, Deniz Kaptan, and Yaşar Ersoy for their work on
me. I owe a debt of gratitude to late Norbert Karg, great scholar and great friend.
It was a privilege to know him. I also wish to gratefully acknowledge the sincere
inspiration and gracious compassion of İlknur Özgen as a mentor.
I also thank to my precious friends Banu Yazıcı, Petek Sunay, and
Zeynep Öztekin for their understanding and continuos support during the course
of my thesis.
I am deeply indebted to my mother and my father, my guardian angels on
earth, for their love and trust. Every passing day, I understand and appreciate
them more. They let me free in the quest of my dreams and they intimately
supported me in all of my choices. I feel so blessed to have them. I also thank to
each member of my remarkable family for their encouragement and sympathy.
Finally, I am grateful to my beloved husband Bora, for his love, faith,
patience, and consolation. He spent countless hours to review the chapters; I
benefited a lot from his creative and critical intellect. I am also thankful to him
for his invaluable technical support. I could not achieve without him.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................iii
ÖZET.....................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................ix
CHAPTER I:  INTRODUCTION .....................................................................1
CHAPTER II:  PARTHIAN 
ART: 
INDIFFERENCE TO GREEK ART..........4
2.1
History of Research............................................................................5
2.2
Problems.............................................................................................7
2.3
History................................................................................................10
2.4
Zoroastrianism....................................................................................15
2.5
Parthian Art: General Characteristics.................................................17
2.6
Religious Iconography .......................................................................21
2.6.1 Ahura Mazda ..............................................................................23
2.6.2 Mithra .........................................................................................25
2.6.3 Anahita........................................................................................26
2.6.4 Verethraghna ..............................................................................27
2.7
Discussion ..........................................................................................29
CHAPTER III:  NEMRUT DAĞI: A GREEK AND PERSIAN SYNTHESIS ..34
3.1
History of Research............................................................................35
3.2
History................................................................................................37
3.3
The Cult of Antiochus I......................................................................39
3.4
The Hierothesion................................................................................41
3.5
Religious Iconography .......................................................................44
3.5.1 Zeus-Oromasdes .........................................................................44
3.5.2 Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes..................................................46
3.5.3 Artagnes-Herakles-Ares .............................................................47
3.5.4 The Goddess Commagene ..........................................................49
3.6
Discussion ..........................................................................................50
CHAPTER IV:   BUDDHIST ART OF GANDHARA: GREEK STYLE FOR A
LOCAL ICONOGRAPHY..........................................................................55
4.1
History of Research............................................................................57
4.2
Problems.............................................................................................59
4.3
History................................................................................................61
4.4
Religious Iconography .......................................................................65
4.4.1 The Buddha Images ....................................................................68
4.4.2 The Bodhisattva Images .............................................................75
4.4.3 The Other Deities........................................................................76
4.5
The Emergence of the Anthropomorphic Image of the Buddha ........79
4.6
Discussion ..........................................................................................84
CHAPTER V:  CONCLUSION..........................................................................95
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................102
FIGURES ..............................................................................................................111

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.1. Map of western Asia. (Colledge 1986: map).
Fig.2. Parthian Prince Sacrificing At An Altar. Bisitun.1
st
-2
nd
 century AD. Rock
Relief. In situ. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.66).
Fig.3.  The God Zurvan Giving Birth to Twins Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. Luristan.
8
th
-7
th
 century BC. Silver Plaque. H. c. 12.5 cm. W. c. 25.5 cm. Cincinnati
Art Museum, Cincinnati. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.11).
Fig.4.   Sketch of Bas Relief of Mithridates II Made by Guillaume- Joseph Grelot in
1673-1674. Bisitun.1
st
 century BC- 1
st
 century AD. Rock Relief. In Situ.
(Ghirshman 1964: Fig.65).
Fig.5. Gotarzes Relief. Bisitun. 1
st
 century BC-1
st
 century AD. Rock Relief. In Situ.
(Kawami 1987: Pl.13)
Fig.6. Male Figures Beside a Naked Figure. Shimbar. 1
st
-3
rd
 century AD. Rock
Relief. In Situ. (Colledge 1986: Pl.VIII).
Fig.7. Male Figures By an Altar. Bard-i Nishandeh. 3
rd
 century AD. Rock Relief.
55x107x39 cm. Boston Museum: Boston. (Kawami 1987: Pl.26).
Fig.8. Male Figures Near a Betyl. Tang-i Sarvak. 1
st
-3
rd
 century AD. Rock Relief.
In Situ. (Kawami 1987: Pl.35).
Fig.9. Nergal. Hatra. 2
nd
 century AD. Limestone Relief. 90x75x16 cm. Baghdad
Museum, Baghdad. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.98).
Fig.10. Allat. Hatra. 1
st
 century AD. Limestone Relief. 118x72 cm. Baghdad
Museum, Baghdad. (Colledge 1976: Pl. XXXIII).
Fig.11. The Tomb of Darius the Great. Naqsh-i Rustam. 6
th
-5
th
 century BC. Rock
Relief. In situ. (Ghirshman 1964: Fig.279).
Fig.12. Ahura Mazda on the Bas Relief of Darius. Bisitun. 6
th
 century BC. Rock
Relief. In situ. (Ghirshman 1964: Fig.278).
Fig.13. Artaxerxes Enthroned. South Door of the Hall of A Hundred Columns.
Persepolis. 5
th
 century BC. Rock Relief. In Situ. (Ghirshman 1964: Fig. 248).
Fig.14. Reclining Figure Holding the Ring of Power. Tang-i Sarvak. 1
st
-3
rd
 century
AD. Rock Relief. In Situ. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.67).
Fig.15. Mithras Slaying the Bull and Zodiac. Dura Europus. AD 170/1.Gypsum.
76x106x11 cm. Yale University Art Gallery. (Colledge 1986: Pl. XLVII).

x
Fig.16. Illustration of a Column Capital with a Male Figure. Bard-i Nishandeh. 2
nd
century AD. Limestone. H.53 cm. Susa Museum: Susa. (Colledge 1986: Pl.
XLVII).
Fig.17. Illustration of a Column Capital with a Female Figure. Bard-i Nishandeh.
Late Parthian Period. Limestone. H. 53 cm. Susa Museum: Susa. (Colledge
1986: Pl.X).
Fig.18. Naked Male Figure. Assur. 3
rd
 century AD. Rock Relief. H. 70cm. Istanbul
Oriental Museum: Istanbul. (Mathiesen 1992: Fig.46).
Fig.19. Illustration of a Male Figure Strangling Lion. Masjid-i  Suliaman.1
st
-3
rd
century AD. Rock Relief. H.2.40 m. Susa Musem: Susa. (Colledge 1987: Pl.
IX).
Fig.20. Basin Decoration with Silenus Heads. Denavar. 3
rd
- 2
nd
 century BC. Stone.
Archaeological Museum: Teheran. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.21)
Fig.21. Figurines. Nihawand. 3
rd
-2
nd
 century BC. Bronze. Archaeological Museum:
Teheran. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.23).
Fig.22. Fragments of a Male Head, Antiochus IV (?). Shami. 2
nd
 century BC.
Bronze. H. c. 26 cm. Archaeological Museum: Teheran. (Ghirshman 1962:
Fig.28)
Fig.23. Female Torso. Bakhtiari Mountains. 2
nd
-1
st
 century BC. Alabaster. H.c.32
cm. Archaeological Museum: Teheran. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.28).
Fig.24. Acanthus Leaved Capital. Istakhr. 3
rd
-2
nd
 century BC. (Ghirshman 1962:
Fig.29).
Fig.25. Rhytons. Nisa. 2
nd
 century BC. Ivory. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.41).
Fig.26. Female Statuettes. Nisa. 2
nd
 century BC. Marble. (Ghirshman 1962: Fig.38)
Fig.27. Female Figurine. Nisa,  2
nd
 century BC. Silver Gilt. (Ghirshman 1962: 40a)
Fig.28. Map of Anatolia at the time of Antiochus I (Sanders 1996: Fig 1).
Fig.29. Aerial view of Nemrut with the East Terrace on the foreground. (Sanders
1996: Fig 12).
Fig.30. Antiochus I and Zeus-Oromasdes dexiosis relief, upper section. Sandstone
H.of full relief 3.04 m. W. 2.30 m. West Terrace, Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders
1996: Fig. 281).
Fig.31. Antiochus I and Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes dexiosis relief. Sandstone.
H.2.30 m. W.1.50 m. West Terrace, Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders 1996: Fig 279).
Fig.32. Antiochus I and Artagnes-Herakles-Ares dexiosis relief. Sandstone. H.2.59
m. W.1.50 m. West Terrace, Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders 1996: Fig 293).

xi
Fig.33. Antiochus I and Commagene dexiosis relief fragments taken to Berlin by
Humann and Puchstein in 1883. Sandstone. H.2.15 m. W.1.50 m. Staatliche
Museen, Berlin. (Sanders 1996: Fig 275).
Fig.34. Darius. Relief. Sandstone. H. 2.25m. W.1.15m. West Terrace, Nemrut Dağı.
(Sanders 1996: Fig 383).
Fig.35. Guardian Lion. Sandstone. H.2 m. West Terrace, Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders
1996: Fig 301).
Fig.36. Guardian Eagle, head block. Sandstone. West Terrace, Nemrut Dağı.
(Sanders 1996: Fig 208).
Fig.37. Colossal Statues of Antiochus I, Commagene, Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo-
Mithras-Helios-Hermes, Artagnes-Herakles-Ares. Limestone. East Terrace,
Nemrut Dağı. (Cimok 1995: 8).
Fig.38. Lion Horoscope Relief. Sandstone.H. 1.75 m. W.2.40 m. West Terrace,
Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders 1996: Fig 325).
Fig.39. Head of Zeus-Oromasdes. Limestone. H.2.70 m. West Terrace, Nemrut Dağı.
(Sanders 1996: Fig 178).
Fig.40. Head of Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes. Limestone. H. 2.50 m. West
Terrace, Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders 1996: Fig 168).
Fig.41. Head of Artagnes-Herakles-Ares. Limestone. H. 2.58 m. West Terrace,
Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders 1996: Fig 158)
Fig.42. Head of the Goddess Commagene. Limestone. H. 2.90 m. West Terrace,
Nemrut Dağı. (Sanders 1996: Fig 184).
Fig.43. Map of the Gandhara region (Errington 1992: 6).
Fig.44. Standing Buddha. Hoti Mardon. 1
st
 century-2
nd
 century AD. Relief. Formerly
Guides’ Mess, Hoti Mardon, Pakhistan. present location unknown. (Rowland
1953: Pl.31).
Fig.45. The Birth of Buddha. Gandhara. 2
nd
 century AD. Schist relief. Smithsonian
Institution, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC. (Craven 1987: Fig.52).
Fig.46. First Sermon in the Deer Park and Paninirvana. Gandhara. Late 2
nd 
- early 3
rd
century AD. Schist relief. H. 67cm.  Smithsonian Institution, Freer Gallery
of Art, Washington DC. (Craven 1987: Fig.54).
Fig.47. Bimaran Reliquary. Gandhara. Early-mid 1
st
 century AD. Gold inset with
rubies. H. 7cm. British Museum, London. (Craven 1987: Fig 59).
Fig.48. Kanishka Reliquary. Shah-ji-ki-Dheri, near Peshawar, Pakistan. ca. 2
nd
century AD. Metal. H.19cm. Peshawar Museum, Peshawar. (Huntington
1985: Fig 8.19).

xii
Fig.49. Gold coin of Kanishka (bearing representations of Buddha and Kanishka).
Late 1
st
 century-early 2
nd
 century AD. Formerly Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston, Seth K. Sweeter Foundation, British Museum, London. (Craven
1987: Fig. 50).
Fig.50. Seated Buddha. Loriyan Tangai. 2
nd
 century-3
rd
 century AD. Schist relief. H.
60 cm. Indian Museum, Calcutta. (Huntington 1985: Fig.8.12).
Fig.51. Standing Buddha. Gandhara region. Kushan period. Schist relief. H. ca.
150cm. Lahore Museum, Lahore. (Huntington 1985: Fig.8.10).
Fig.52. Yaksha. Patna. c. 200 BC. Chunar sandstone. H. 165cm. National Museum,
New Delhi. (Craven 1987: Fig. 22).
Fig.53.“Kassel” Apollo. (Roman copy). Original ca. 405 BC. H. 197 cm. Kassel
(Stewart 1990: Fig.312).
Fig.54. Demosthenes. (Roman copy). Original 280/279 BC. H.202 cm. Copenhagen.
(Stewart 1990: Fig.614).
Fig.55. Fasting Siddharta (Ascetic Buddha). Sikri, Pakistan. 1
st
-2
nd
 century AD.
Schist relief. H. 84cm. Lahore Museum, Lahore. (Huntington 1985: Fig.
8.20).
Fig.56. Funerary Stele with Three Children and Their Nurse. Early 2
nd
 century AD.
Relief. W. 56 cm. Palmyra Museum. (Colledge 1976: Fig.72).
Fig.57. Standing Bodhisattva. Gandhara. c. AD 150-200. Schist relief. H. 56cm.
Museum of Fine Arts, St Petersburg. (Craven 1987: Fig. 55).
Fig.58. Doryphoros. Roman copy. Pompeii. Original ca. 440 BC. H. 212 cm. Naples.
(Stewart 1990: Fig. 378).
Fig.59. Pancika and Hariti. Takht-i Bahi. 3
rd
 century AD. Phyllite. H. 27.3 cm.
British Museum, London. (Errington 1992: Fig. 136).
Fig.60. Kuvera/Pancika. Tackal, near Peshawar, Pakistan. Schist relief. H.180 cm.
Lahore Museum, Lahore. (Huntington 1985: Fig. 8.25).
Fig.61. Vajrapani. Gandhara. 2
nd
 century-3
rd
 century AD. Phyllite relief. H. 53.9cm.
British Museum, London. (Errington 1992: Fig. 135).
Fig.62. Garuda and Naga. Sanghao. (Smith 1969: Pl. 50a).
Fig.63. Athena. Gandhara. Late 2
nd
 century AD. Schist relief. H. 83 cm. Central
Museum, Lahore. (Smith 1969: pl 50c).
Fig.64. Detail, East Torano, Stupa I (Great Stupa). Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh, India.
ca. 1
st
 century AD. (Huntington 1985: Fig. 6.10).

xiii
Fig.65.The Buddha Seated on a Lion Throne. Katra Mound, Mathura, India. c. AD
130. Sikri sandstone relief. H. 69 cm. Archeological Museum, Mathura.
(Craven 1987:  Fig. 69).
Fig.66. “Belvedere” Apollo. Roman copy. Original ca. 330 BC. H. 224 cm. Rome.
(Stewart 1990: Fig. 573).
Fig.67. Regaling Couples. Peshawar Valley. 1
st
 century-2
nd
 century AD. Schist relief.
H. 46.8cm. Victoria and Albert Museum, London. (Errington 1992: Fig.
130).
Fig.68. Couples. Takht-i Bahi. 1
st
 century-2
nd
 century AD. Schist relief. H. 33 cm.
British Museum, London. (Errington 1992: Fig. 131).
Fig.69. Marine Figures. Peshawar Valley. 1
st
-2
nd
 century AD. Serpentinite relief. H.
43.4cm. British Museum, London. (Errington 1992:  Fig.129).
Fig.70. Fragmentary Relief. Mardon District, Peshawar Valley. 2
nd
 century AD.
Phyllite. H. 25.4cm. British Museum, London. (Errington 1992: Fig.133).
Fig.71. Stone Atlas. Jamalgarhi. 2
nd
 century-3
rd
 century AD. Schist relief. H. 23cm.
British Museum, London. (Errington 1992: Fig.125).
Fig.72. Putti with Garlands. Gandhara. Late 2
nd
 century AD. Phyllite relief. H.
50.8cm. British Museum, London. (Errington 1992: Fig. 132).
Fig.73. Kanishka. Mat Shrine, Mathura, India. ca. 2
nd
 century AD. Reddish stone. H.
170cm. Mathura Museum, Mathura. (Huntington 1985: Fig. 8.3)

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
 
The ancient Greeks humanized their deities. In the Greek pantheon, gods,
goddesses and heroes, despite their immortal nature, have human characters; for
example they have their vices and wisdom. These human traits are reflected in
Greek art as well. Greek deities were shown in anthropomorphic fashion in
Greek art. This approach to showing the Greek gods was followed to different
degrees by the cultures of western Asia following the conquest of Alexander the
Great. Some civilizations adapted and adopted Greek religious iconography and
integrated it into their local artistic tradition whereas some cultures stayed aloof
from any artistic interaction.
This study will examine the varying utilization of the Greek idea of
anthropomorphic representation of deities in the lands conquered by Alexander
the Great. Sculptural media will be the focus, with subject matter, style,
iconography and patronage to be considered. The nature and the reasons for
borrowings from the Greek artistic repertoire will be analyzed. The cultural,
social, religious, and political circumstances will be explored to obtain insight
about the process.

2
In order to analyze the different ways in which Greek models were
absorbed and utilized by Eastern cultural and artistic traditions, three case studies
will be examined.
The first case study will be Parthian art.  The Parthians were a nomadic
tribe from Central Asia that ruled the Persian homeland from the 3
rd
 century BC
to the 3
rd
 century AD. Their territory is roughly modern Iran bordered by
Mesopotamia on the west, the Caspian Sea on the north and the lowlands of
Turkmenistan and the deserts of Afghanistan on the east. Greek art in the area
has a long history even before the conquest of Alexander the Great.  The
Achaemenids, the predecessors of the Parthians, used Greek art forms. Greek
artists and craftsmen worked in the great art and architectural projects in the
imperial cities of Pasargadae, Persepolis and Susa. However, surprisingly, during
the Parthian period, although the Parthian state had contact with Greeks, even
adopting Greek coinage and language, they remained impervious to the Greek art
style and religious iconography. The aim of this chapter is to understand these
distinctive choices of cultural adaptation.
The second case study is Nemrut Dağı, a mountaintop sanctuary in
Commagene, a small Hellenistic kingdom located in the southeast of modern
Turkey. In contrast to the neighboring Parthians, the ruler of Commagene used
Greek artistic models and religious iconography intensively for visual political
propaganda. King Antiochus I (69-36 BC) built a sanctuary for his cult on the
summit of Nemrut. Antiochus I claimed descent from both Greek and
Achaemenid rulers. Parallel to this, the sculptural program on Nemrut Dağı
shows clear syncretism between Greek and Persian art. The composite deities

3
were shown with Greek religious iconography although they were depicted in
Achaemenid and Parthian costumes.
Lastly, the art of Gandhara from further east will be explored. Gandhara
covers the upper Indus Valley in today’s northern Pakistan and eastern
Afghanistan up to Kabul. Here a different type of synthesis of Greek and local art
is seen. The representation of the Buddha in anthropomorphic form appears in
the region in the 2
nd
 century AD. In the Buddha images from the Gandhara
region, Greek stylistic principles such as the rendering of drapery and hair and
the representation of the anatomical features were integrated into the local
Buddhist iconography.
These case studies were selected from three regions that had direct
relations with Greek culture. But each state reacted differently. This study will
illustrate the different ways in which Greek art traditions and the idea of
anthropomorphic representation of deities were confronted in Asia Minor, the
Near East and West Asia.

4
CHAPTER II