Hubbry Logo
CommageneCommageneMain
Open search
Commagene
Community hub
Commagene
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Commagene
Commagene
Commagene
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Anatolia in the early 1st century AD with Commagene as a Roman client state

Key Information

Commagene (Ancient Greek: Κομμαγηνή) was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Orontids, a dynasty of Iranian origin, that had ruled over the Satrapy of Armenia.[5] The kingdom was located in and around the ancient city of Samosata, which served as its capital. The Iron Age name of Samosata, Kummuh, probably gives its name to Commagene.[6]

Commagene has been characterized as a "buffer state" between Armenia, Parthia, Syria, and Rome;[7] culturally, it was correspondingly mixed.[8][9] The kings of the Kingdom of Commagene claimed descent from Orontes with Darius I of Persia as their ancestor, by his marriage to Rhodogune, daughter of Artaxerxes II who had a family descent from king Darius I.[10] The territory of Commagene corresponded roughly to the modern Turkish provinces of Adıyaman and northern Antep.[11]

Little is known of the region of Commagene before the beginning of the 2nd century BC. However, it seems that, from what little evidence remains, Commagene formed part of a larger state that also included the Kingdom of Sophene. This situation lasted until c. 163 BC, when the local satrap, Ptolemaeus of Commagene, established himself as an independent ruler following the death of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.[12]

The Kingdom of Commagene maintained its independence until 17 AD, when it was made a Roman province by Emperor Tiberius. It re-emerged as an independent kingdom when Antiochus IV of Commagene was reinstated to the throne by order of Caligula, then deprived of it by that same emperor, then restored to it a couple of years later by his successor, Claudius. The re-emergent state lasted until 72 AD, when the Emperor Vespasian finally and definitively made it part of the Roman Empire.[13]

One of the kingdom's most lasting visible remains is the archaeological site on Mount Nemrut, a sanctuary dedicated by King Antiochus Theos to a number of syncretistic Graeco-Iranian deities as well as to himself and the deified land of Commagene.[14] It is now a World Heritage Site.[15]

Cultural identity

[edit]
Part of a series on the
History of Armenia
Coat of Arms of Armenia
Coat of Arms of Armenia
Prehistory
Antiquity
Middle Ages
Early modern age
Modern age
Timeline • Origins • Etymology
Monumental head of the goddess Commagene (Tyche-Bakht) from Mount Nemrut
Antiochus I of Commagene, shaking hands with Herakles.

The cultural identity of the Kingdom of Commagene has been variously characterized. Pierre Merlat suggests that the Commagenian city of Doliche, like others in its vicinity, was "half Iranianized and half Hellenized".[9] David M. Lang describes Commagene as "a former Armenian satellite kingdom",[8] while Blömer and Winter call it a "Hellenistic kingdom".[16] Millar suggests that a local dialect of Aramaic might have been spoken there,[3] Fergus Millar considers that, "in some parts of the Euphrates region, such as Commagene, nothing approaching an answer to questions about local culture is possible."[17]

While the language used on public monuments was typically Greek, Commagene's rulers made no secret of their Persian affinities. The kings of Commagene claimed descent from the Orontid dynasty and would therefore have been related to the family that founded the Kingdom of Armenia;[18] while Sartre states the accuracy of these claims is uncertain.[19] At Antiochus Theos' sanctuary at Mount Nemrut, the king erected monumental statues of deities with mixed Greek and Iranian names, such as Zeus-Oromasdes, while celebrating his own descent from the royal families of Persia and Armenia in a Greek-language inscription.[8]

The Commagenean rulers had Iranian and Greek names (Antiochus, Samos, Mithridates).[20][21] The various Iranian onomasticons located in Commagene demonstrate the extensive Iranization in the region.[22] Over the course of the first centuries BC and AD, the names given on a tomb at Sofraz Köy show a mix of "typical Hellenistic dynastic names with an early introduction of Latin personal names."[23] Lang notes the vitality of Graeco-Roman culture in Commagene.[7]

While few things about his origins are known with certainty, 2nd-century Attic Greek poet Lucian of Samosata claimed to have been born in Samosata in the former kingdom of Commagene, and described himself in one satirical work as "an Assyrian".[3] Despite writing well after the Roman conquest of Commagene, Lucian claimed to be "still barbarous in speech and almost wearing a jacket (kandys) in the Assyrian style". This has been taken as a possible, but not definitive, allusion to the possibility that his native language was an Aramaic dialect.[24]

In keeping with Commagene Greek and Iranian cultural elements, Antiochus' cult was a synthesis of Greco-Iranian religion, which had existed in Commagene before his time.[25]

History

[edit]
See also: Royal Family of Commagene
Mithras-Helios, in Phrygian cap with solar rays, with Antiochus I of Commagene. (Mt Nemrut, 1st century BC)

Commagene was originally a small Syro-Hittite kingdom,[26] located in modern south-central Turkey, with its capital at Samosata (modern Samsat, near the Euphrates). It was first mentioned in Assyrian texts as Kummuhu, which was normally an ally of Assyria, but eventually annexed as a province in 708 BC under Sargon II. The Achaemenid Empire then conquered Commagene in the 6th century BC and Alexander the Great conquered the territory in the 4th century BC. After the breakup of the Empire of Alexander the Great, the region became part of the Hellenistic Seleucids, and Commagene emerged in about 163 BC as a state and province in the Greco-Syrian Seleucid Empire. Perhaps Commagene was part of the kingdom of Armenia in the early Hellenistic period, and was possibly annexed to the Seleucid kingdom soon after Armenia's conquest[27][a]

The Hellenistic kingdom of Commagene, bounded by Cilicia on the west and Cappadocia on the north, arose in 162 BC when its governor, Ptolemy, a satrap of the disintegrating Seleucid Empire, declared himself independent. Ptolemy's dynasty was related to the Parthian kings, but his descendant Mithridates I Callinicus (109 BC – 70 BC) embraced Hellenistic culture and married the Syrian Greek Princess Laodice VII Thea. His dynasty could thus claim ties with both Alexander the Great and the Persian kings. This marriage may also have been part of a peace treaty between Commagene and the Seleucid Empire. From this point on, the kingdom of Commagene became more Greek than Persian. With Sophene, it was to serve as an important centre for the transmission of Hellenistic and Roman culture in the region.[7] Details are sketchy, but Mithridates Callinicus is thought have accepted Armenian suzerainty during the reign of Tigranes II the Great.[29]

Mithridates and Laodice's son was King Antiochus I Theos of Commagene (reigned 70 –38 BC). Antiochus was an ally of the Roman general Pompey during the latter's campaigns against Mithridates VI of Pontus in 64 BC. Thanks to his diplomatic skills, Antiochus was able to keep Commagene independent from the Romans. In 17 when Antiochus III of Commagene died, Emperor Tiberius annexed Commagene to the province of Syria. According to Josephus, this move was supported by the local nobility but opposed by the mass of the common people, who preferred to remain under their kings as before;[17] Tacitus, on the other hand, states that "most preferred Roman, but others royal rule".[30]

In 38 AD, Caligula reinstated Antiochus III's son Antiochus IV[30] and also gave him the wild areas of Cilicia to govern.[31] Antiochus IV was the only client king of Commagene under the Roman Empire. Deposed by Caligula and restored again upon Claudius' accession in 41 AD, Antiochus reigned until 72, when Emperor Vespasian deposed the dynasty and definitively re-annexed the territory to the Roman Empire, acting on allegations "that Antiochus was about to revolt.[32] The Legio VI Ferrata, which Paetus led into Commagene, was not resisted by the populace; a day-long battle with Antiochus' sons Epiphanes and Callinicus ended in a draw, and Antiochus surrendered.[33] The Legio III Gallica would occupy the area by 73 AD.[33] A 1st-century letter in Syriac by Mara Bar Serapion describes refugees fleeing the Romans across the Euphrates and bemoans the Romans' refusal to let the refugees return;[34] this might describe the Roman takeover of either 18 or 72.[35] The descendants of Antiochus IV lived prosperously and in distinction in Anatolia, Greece, Italy, and the Middle East. As a testament to the descendants of Antiochus IV, the citizens of Athens erected a funeral monument in honor of his grandson Philopappos, who was a benefactor of the city, upon his death in 116. Another descendant of Antiochus IV was the historian Gaius Asinius Quadratus, who lived in the 3rd century.

Geography

[edit]

Commagene extended from the right bank of the Euphrates to the Taurus[36] and Amanus Mountains. Strabo, who counts Commagene as part of Syria,[37] notes the kingdom's fertility.[38] Its capital and chief city was Samosata (now submerged under Atatürk Reservoir).

The boundaries of Commagene fluctuated over time. Under Antiochus Theos, the Kingdom of Commagene controlled a particularly large area.[16] Doliche was under Commagenian rule "for about 35 years";[16] after being governed by Antiochus Theos, it might have been incorporated into the Roman province of Syria as early as 31 BC.[23] Germanicea declared itself a Commagenian city in Roman times, although originally it was not.[16] On the other hand, Zeugma, while ruled for a time by Commagene, was popularly and traditionally considered to belong to the region of Cyrrhestica;[16] Strabo says it had been assigned to Commagene by Pompey.[39]

Archaeological remains

[edit]
Eagle-topped column from the royal burial mound at Karakuş

The limestone propaganda-like statues and reliefs built during Antiochus Theos' reign reflect the Parthian influence in their sculpture.[40]

When the Romans conquered Commagene, the great royal sanctuary at Mount Nemrut was abandoned. The Romans looted the burial tumuli of their goods and the Legio XVI Flavia Firma built and dedicated a bridge. The surrounding thick forests were cut down and cleared by the Romans for wood, timber and charcoal, causing much erosion to the area.[citation needed]

Another important archaeological site dating to the Kingdom of Commagene is the sanctuary of Zeus Soter at Damlıca, dedicated in the time of Mithridates II.[41]

In Commagene, there is a column topped by an eagle, which has earned the mound the name Karakuş, or Black Bird. An inscription there indicates the presence of a royal tomb[42] that housed three women. The vault of that tomb, however, has also been looted. The main excavations on the site were carried out by Friedrich Karl Dörner of the University of Münster. Another royal burial site is at Arsameia, which also served as a residence of the kings of Commagene.[43]

Many of the ancient artifacts from the Kingdom of Commagene are on display at the Adıyaman Archaeological Museum.[44]

List of rulers of Commagene

[edit]
Main article: List of kings of Commagene

Satraps of Commagene, 290–163 BC

[edit]

Kings of Commagene, 163 BC – 72 AD

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Commagene

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Commagene was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom situated in the highlands of southwestern Asia Minor, corresponding to modern southeastern between the and the River, which emerged around 163 BCE under , a former Seleucid , following the weakening of Seleucid control in the region. The kingdom's rulers, from the of Iranian origin but Hellenized, claimed descent from both Achaemenid Persians and Macedonian Seleucids to legitimize their authority through syncretic heritage. It functioned as a strategic between the expanding Roman and Parthian empires, maintaining precarious independence through diplomatic marriages and tribute until its definitive annexation by in 72 CE under Emperor . Key rulers included , who reigned from circa 109 BCE and fostered relations with both and , and his son Antiochus I Theos, who ruled from approximately 69 to 31 BCE and is celebrated for institutionalizing a state religion that fused Greek, Persian, and local deities to promote cultural unity and royal divinity. This syncretism is epitomized by the colossal hierotheseion (temple-tomb) on , where Antiochus I erected massive statues of himself alongside hybrid gods such as Zeus-Oromasdes and Apollo-Mithras-Helios, alongside extensive inscriptions detailing the cult's rituals and genealogy. The kingdom's art and architecture, blending Hellenistic realism with Persian grandeur, reflect its position at the cultural crossroads of , , and the , leaving a legacy of monumental tomb complexes like Karakuş and Sofraz that underscore the rulers' emphasis on eternal commemoration and divine kingship. Commagene's defining characteristic was its religious policy under Antiochus I, which mandated communal feasts and processions to honor the pantheon of "great gods" and ancestors, aiming to forge loyalty among diverse subjects including , Iranians, , and amid geopolitical pressures. Despite brief restorations after initial Roman interventions, such as under Antiochus IV in the CE, the kingdom's autonomy ended with Vespasian's campaign, integrating it into the province of and dispersing its . Its archaeological remains, particularly designated a , continue to illustrate the innovative fusion of Eastern and Western traditions in a era of imperial transitions.

History

Origins and Formation

The region of Commagene, situated in the western astride the upper River in southeastern , experienced successive dominations by major Near Eastern empires prior to its Hellenistic era. During the Neo-Assyrian period, the area fell under Assyrian control as part of campaigns extending into and northern by the 8th-7th centuries BCE. Following the Achaemenid conquest of the Assyrian Empire around 547 BCE, Commagene's territory was integrated into the Persian satrapal system, likely as a subdivision of the vast Armenian satrapy or adjacent Cappadocian holdings, where local Iranian-origin dynasties like the Orontids administered under Achaemenid overlordship. The Orontids, claiming descent from Darius I through their eponymous founder Orontes, maintained influence in Armenian and related regions from the Achaemenid era onward, blending Persian administrative traditions with local Anatolian elements. After Alexander the Great's conquests dismantled Achaemenid control circa 330 BCE, the incorporated Commagene into its provincial structure, appointing Orontid scions as satraps to govern the rugged frontier zone. This satrapy, encompassing approximately the modern and surrounding highlands, served as a strategic buffer amid the Taurus range, positioned between the Seleucid heartlands in , Cappadocian kingdoms to the north, and Armenian principalities eastward. The Orontid ruler Sames (circa 260 BCE) is credited with early consolidation of Commagene alongside , exploiting Seleucid distractions to assert semi-autonomy, though formal independence emerged later. The kingdom's formal establishment as an independent entity occurred circa 163 BCE amid the Seleucid Empire's accelerating fragmentation following the death of in 164 BCE, which precipitated dynastic civil wars and territorial losses to Parthian incursions. Ptolemaeus, the incumbent Orontid of Commagene, capitalized on this to proclaim , transforming the satrapy into a client adept at navigating alliances among declining Seleucids, rising Parthians, and neighboring Armenian realms. This opportunistic underscored Commagene's causal role in regional instability: its defensible terrain and pivotal location facilitated survival as a minor power, insulating greater empires from direct clashes while extracting concessions through diplomatic pliancy. Initial borders approximated the ' bend southward, with northern limits at the Anti-Taurus passes and eastern flanks abutting , enabling control over key riverine routes without provoking immediate reconquest.

Independence under Early Rulers

, ruling circa 109 to 70 BCE, consolidated Commagene's independence amid the Seleucid Empire's fragmentation following internal civil wars and territorial losses to . Originally a Seleucid satrapy, Commagene had achieved nominal autonomy under around 163 BCE during Antiochus IV's eastern campaigns, but Mithridates I exploited the dynasty's weakened hold—exemplified by the contested reigns of and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus—to assert effective sovereignty by the 80s BCE. To secure his position, Mithridates I pursued strategic dynastic marriages, including to Laodice VII Thea, daughter of Seleucid king , which linked Commagene to Hellenistic royal houses and provided diplomatic leverage against residual Seleucid claims. His Orontid lineage, tracing to Armenian rulers of and Armavir, further tied the dynasty to regional Iranian and , fostering alliances that buffered against expansionist threats from Greater Armenia under Artavasdes I and Pontus under . Inscriptions from his era, such as those on statue bases, proclaimed a hybrid Greco-Persian ancestry—claiming descent from Achaemenid kings like Darius I and Macedonian figures like —to legitimize rule over a diverse populace blending Hellenistic, Persian, and local Anatolian elements. Diplomatic accommodation with , whose kings Mithridates I and were concurrently eroding Seleucid , enabled Commagene to avoid direct subjugation; the kingdom's position as a minor power necessitated balancing overtures to Parthian overlords while preserving ties to western Hellenistic spheres. Internal stability was maintained through the development of fortified settlements, including the establishment of Arsameia-on-the-Euphrates as an early capital with defensive structures, which supported administrative control and deterred incursions without reliance on expansive military campaigns. These measures ensured continuity until the succession of his son, Antiochus I, amid ongoing regional volatility.

Peak under Antiochus I

Antiochus I Theos ruled Commagene from approximately 70 to 31 BCE, a period marking the kingdom's height of autonomy and cultural prominence amid Roman expansion in the East. Through astute diplomacy, he preserved independence by aligning selectively with emerging powers while asserting a syncretic royal ideology that blended Hellenistic, Persian, and local elements. His reign facilitated territorial gains, such as the addition of (modern Zeugma) by in the 60s BCE, enhancing control over crossings vital for trade and defense. Central to Antiochus I's legacy was his self-presentation as a divine figure, evidenced by extensive hieroglyphic inscriptions on monumental stelae and reliefs. These texts proclaim his descent from both Greek (via ) and Achaemenid Persian nobility, positioning him as a universal sovereign bridging East and West. He established multiple hierotheseia—sacred complexes combining tomb, temple, and divine assembly—where he was venerated alongside syncretized deities like Zeus-Oromasdes and Apollo-Mithras. The most renowned, on , features colossal statues and reliefs depicting Antiochus in divine communion, constructed during his reign in the mid-1st century BCE, with the lion horoscope relief interpreted by scholars like Otto Neugebauer as recording a celestial event on July 7, 62 BCE, possibly tied to his accession or a rite. Diplomatically, Antiochus balanced relations with , , and . In 66–64 BCE, he supported 's campaigns against Mithridates VI and , submitting to Roman alliance when subdued the region, which rewarded Commagene with territorial concessions and recognition as a . He warned Roman authorities of Parthian incursions in 51 BCE and provided mounted archers to during the Roman civil wars of 49–48 BCE, yet cultivated ties with Parthian kings and successor through marriage alliances and strategic neutrality, enabling Commagene to avoid direct subjugation until after his death. These maneuvers, corroborated by contemporary historians like and inscriptions touting his "philorhomaios" (Rome-loving) alongside Persian heritage, underscore Commagene's pivotal role in the geopolitical between empires.

Integration into Roman Sphere and Annexation

Following the Roman campaigns against Mithridates VI of Pontus and of in 69 BCE, Commagene under King Antiochus I aligned with Roman forces led by and later , transitioning from a tributary status under Armenian influence to a client kingdom serving as a buffer against Parthian expansion. 's settlement in 66–63 BCE formalized this arrangement, granting Antiochus I autonomy in exchange for military support and tribute, though tensions arose in 38 BCE when Antiochus briefly harbored Parthian forces, prompting a Roman siege of Samosata by Bassus; peace was negotiated before Antiochus's death later that year, preserving the kingdom's client status. Under the early , Commagene's client relationship endured with interruptions. King Antiochus III ruled from approximately 12 BCE until his death in 17 CE, after which Emperor annexed the kingdom to the province of due to the minority of his heirs, reflecting Rome's policy of direct administration for strategic border regions. The kingdom was restored in 38 CE by to Antiochus IV, though briefly revoked in 39 CE before reinstated it, maintaining Commagene as a loyal ally providing troops for Roman campaigns in and against Jewish rebels during the First Jewish-Roman . The final annexation occurred in 72 CE under Emperor , prompted by accusations from Syrian governor Lucius Caesennius Paetus of conspiracy between Antiochus IV, his sons, and Parthian or Vitellian forces amid the recent Roman civil war. Roman legions invaded, capturing Samosata with minimal resistance; incorporated Commagene into the enlarged of Cappadocia-Galatia, resettling portions of the population to and to secure loyalty and exploit resources, as direct provincial rule reduced the administrative costs of client intermediaries and enhanced fiscal control in a consolidated eastern frontier where buffer states were increasingly obsolete. This move aligned with 's broader strategy of imperial stabilization post-69 CE turmoil, prioritizing revenue from Commagene's fertile lands and strategic passes over nominal independence.

Geography and Economy

Territorial Extent and Physical Features

Commagene encompassed a compact territory in the northern of southeastern , extending eastward from the western escarpments near the [Cilician Gates](/page/Cilician Gates) to the River's great bend. The kingdom's core area measured approximately 5,000 to 7,000 km², roughly aligning with the modern Turkish province of , where Samosata stood as capital on the ' right bank. Its boundaries varied amid rival influences, bordering Seleucid to the southwest beyond the Amanus range, Parthian holdings across the to the southeast, and Armenian realms to the north toward . The landscape consisted of folded Taurus ridges and deep valleys, conferring isolation and defensibility through impassable heights and narrow defiles that channeled potential attackers into vulnerable positions. The formed a formidable eastern barrier, its swift flow and seasonal floods augmenting natural fortifications. Precipitation sustained pockets of fertile suitable for orchards and grains in riverine and foothill zones, yet the dominant elevations and sparse lowlands constrained large urban developments, favoring dispersed highland strongholds.

Settlements and Infrastructure

The kingdom of Commagene featured Samosata as its primary political and administrative hub, situated on the western bank of the River near modern , . This city, re-founded or expanded under the , served as the capital and a key crossing point for regional traffic. Archaeological evidence from the area indicates urban development including fortifications and public structures, though much was submerged by the Atatürk Dam in the 20th century. Arsameia on the Nymphaios, located at the base of and associated with the Kahta River, functioned as a royal summer residence and ceremonial center, named after , founder of the dynasty. Similarly, Arsameia on the represented another dynastic foundation, emphasizing the rulers' strategy of establishing administrative and sacred sites along river valleys for control and ritual purposes. These settlements, alongside others like Doliche and Perre attested in royal inscriptions, formed the core urban network, with hilltop fortifications such as the Nemrut Dağı hierothesion providing elevated vantage points for oversight and defense. Infrastructure in Commagene supported connectivity for governance and pilgrimage, including roads linking urban centers to remote sanctuaries like Nemrut Dağı, as implied by the logistical demands of monumental constructions described in Antiochus I's inscriptions. Bridges and crossings over the , notably at Zeugma (ancient ), facilitated movement and administrative integration, with the site's name deriving from its bridging function. Terraces engineered into hillsides at sanctuary sites, evidenced by surviving structural remains and dedicatory texts, aided in stabilizing access routes and accommodating gatherings, though direct evidence for aqueducts remains tied to later Roman enhancements around Samosata.

Resources and Trade Networks

The economy of Commagene was grounded in within its fertile valleys along the and its tributaries, where alluvial soils supported crop cultivation including grains, supplemented by in suitable microclimates. Pastoralism, involving sheep and goats, complemented arable farming, particularly in transitional zones between valleys and uplands, fostering a degree of self-sufficiency in foodstuffs. The provided timber resources essential for construction and fuel, extracted from coniferous forests that covered higher elevations. Royal coinage under kings such as Antiochus I (r. c. 69–34 BC) and Antiochus IV (r. AD 38–72) featured bilingual Greek-Persian inscriptions and motifs like the and zodiac symbols, reflecting a monetized integrated with Hellenistic and Achaemenid traditions. These issues, minted primarily at Samosata, circulated along local and regional networks, facilitating transactions in agricultural surpluses and extracted resources. Commagene's strategic location positioned it as an intermediary on north-south trade routes linking the Mediterranean via to across the , with key crossings at Zeugma (comprising and Apamea) enabling toll collection on caravans transporting goods eastward. This role extended to precursors of paths skirting the Taurus, channeling commodities like timber and pastoral products toward Parthian territories while importing eastern luxuries, thereby augmenting royal revenues without full dependence on external powers.

Government and Dynasties

Royal Lineage and Succession

The royal dynasty of Commagene originated from the Orontid family of Armenian satraps, with appointed as of the region around 200 BCE under Seleucid oversight, establishing the basis for later . This Orontid lineage claimed descent from the Achaemenid king Darius I through the satrap Orontes, who purportedly married Rhodogune, daughter of , a genealogical assertion emphasized in royal inscriptions to assert ancient Persian legitimacy amid Hellenistic influences. By the late BCE, 's descendants formalized the kingdom's autonomy from the weakening around 163 BCE, with rulers strategically invoking this Iranian heritage to position Commagene as a cultural bridge between Persian and Greek worlds. Mithridates I Callinicus (r. 109–70 BCE), son of , consolidated the dynasty's rule and propagated its dual heritage through monumental inscriptions, linking paternal ancestry to Achaemenid royalty while incorporating maternal Seleucid ties via intermarriages. His son, (r. 69–34 BCE), further amplified these claims in the Nemrut Dağ hierothesion inscriptions, explicitly tracing his father's line to Darius I and his mother's to Seleucid kings like through Laodice VII Thea, whose role as queen consort underscored the dynasty's Hellenistic credentials for diplomatic legitimacy with and . This syncretic genealogy served as a core strategy for hereditary legitimacy, portraying rulers as divine heirs blending Eastern imperial traditions with Western monarchic norms. Subsequent succession followed patrilineal patterns among Antiochus I's descendants, including Mithridates II (r. c. 36–20 BCE), Antiochus II (r. c. 20 BCE–12 BCE), and Mithridates III (r. c. 12 BCE–17 CE), though internal rivalries occasionally involved fratricidal conflicts, as evidenced by fragmentary accounts of brotherly disputes over thrones in the late 1st century BCE. Roman interventions disrupted this line post-17 CE, when Emperor annexed Commagene as a following Antiochus III's death, only for Emperor to restore it in 38 CE to (r. 38–72 CE), grandson of Antiochus I, under conditional client kingship. Antiochus IV's execution in 72 CE by Emperor marked the dynasty's end, with no viable heirs resuming rule despite prior reliance on female regents like Laodice in stabilizing transitions during male-line gaps.
RulerReign (BCE/CE)Key Genealogical Claim or Succession Note
c. 200–130 BCEOrontid satrap; foundational Achaemenid descent via Orontes.
Mithridates I Callinicus109–70 BCESon of ; emphasized Persian roots in early independence.
Antiochus I Theos69–34 BCESon of Mithridates I and Seleucid Laodice VII; dual Achaemenid-Seleucid inscriptions at Nemrut.
Mithridates IIc. 36–20 BCESon of Antiochus I; potential fratricidal tensions with siblings.
38–72 CERestored by post-annexation; final ruler before permanent provincialization.

Administrative and Military Organization

The kingdom of Commagene operated under a centralized monarchical where the king exercised absolute , drawing on Achaemenid satrapal precedents adapted to Hellenistic practices, with structured around royal estates and agricultural production to maintain economic control. Epigraphic evidence from the reign of Antiochus I (c. 69–34 BCE), including decrees inscribed at sites like Nemrut Dağ, indicates the division of the realm into administrative districts or nomoi, overseen by local officials such as governors or estate managers who collected revenues and enforced edicts, ensuring loyalty through land allocations tied to service. These officials, often of noble or dynastic lineage, handled taxation primarily via tithes on royal domains and grants of , which fostered dependency without institutional democratic or representative elements. Militarily, Commagene maintained a modest standing force suited to its buffer-state position between Roman and Parthian spheres, emphasizing defensive alliances over aggressive expansion, with armies comprising Hellenistic-style supplemented by Iranian-influenced units capable of rapid maneuvers. Mercenaries, likely including Greek hoplites and eastern horsemen, bolstered core levies drawn from estates, as evidenced by historical accounts of engagements like the defense against Parthian incursions in the BCE. Key fortifications, such as those at Doliche, served as strategic outposts along military routes through the and valley, housing garrisons to deter invasions and control trade passes, with evidence of temporary unit stationing during periods of tension. This prioritized flexibility and , as seen in Antiochus I's pacts with , allowing the kingdom to preserve until annexation in 72 CE.

Religion and Ideology

The Syncretic Cult of Commagene

The Syncretic Cult of Commagene was a formalized by King Antiochus I Theos (r. c. 69–34 BCE), integrating royal ancestor worship with a pantheon of syncretized Greco-Persian deities to foster dynastic loyalty across the kingdom's diverse populace. Antiochus I reorganized the cult originally instituted by his father , establishing regulations for festivals, priestly duties, and communal participation to bind subjects to the royal lineage through shared piety. Inscriptions at hierothesia, such as Nemrut Dağ, mandate perpetual honors for the king and his ancestors alongside the gods, portraying Antiochus as a divine mediator between heaven and earth. Central to the cult was a selective pantheon equating Greek and Persian divinities: with Oromasdes (), with Mithras-Helios-Hermes, and with Artagnes-Ares, accompanied by the anthropomorphic goddess Commagene representing the land itself. These deities, depicted in colossal statues flanking Antiochus I at summits, symbolized the kingdom's hybrid heritage, with the king clasping hands with each in reliefs to signify personal divine favor and legitimacy derived from both Achaemenid and Seleucid ancestries. The cult's inscriptions, carved in Greek during the late 1st century BCE, explicitly detail this , as in Antiochus' declaration: "I have set up these divine images of -Oromasdes and of Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes and of Artagnes--Ares." Hierothesia functioned as eternal tomb-sanctuaries for the royal family, combining funerary and cultic roles while enforcing loyalty through prescribed rituals. Antiochus I's edicts required annual processions, sacrifices, and symposia at these sites, alongside oaths swearing fidelity to the gods, ancestors, and successors, ensuring the cult's perpetuation as a mechanism of political cohesion. These Greek inscriptions, found at multiple hierothesia like Arsameia and Nemrut Dağ, outline the rituals' structure, including specific dates for honoring planetary associations with the deities, thus embedding the cult in the kingdom's calendar and administrative framework.

Key Deities and Rituals

The syncretic pantheon established by King Antiochus I of Commagene emphasized a ruler-centric theology, integrating Persian, Greek, and indigenous elements to legitimize royal authority over a diverse populace. At its apex stood Oromasdes, the supreme Iranian deity equated with Zeus and representing Ahuramazda as the creator and upholder of cosmic order. Flanking this figure were Zeus-Mithras (combining the Greek sky god with the Persian solar mediator) and Heracles-Apollo (fusing the heroic protector with the radiant archer-sun god), forming a triad that symbolized strength, enlightenment, and sovereignty. The pantheon also prominently featured the goddess Commagene, a local earth and fortune deity akin to Tyche or Anaïtis, invoked as the kingdom's protective patroness. Antiochus I's inscriptions, such as those at Nemrut Dağ, canonized these deities in a structured where the king served as eternal between the divine and human realms, ensuring the pantheon's reinforced dynastic continuity. This fusion pragmatically accommodated the multicultural subject base—, , and Anatolians—by invoking dual ancestral lineages of the dynasty, prioritizing political cohesion over doctrinal egalitarianism. Rituals mandated by Antiochus' nomoi (edicts) centered on regular sacrifices and festivals to perpetuate the gods' favor and the king's deified status. Monthly observances occurred on the 10th (commemorating his ) and 16th, involving priestly offerings of animals and libations at hierothesia (sacred precincts). Annual festivals included processions, communal banquets, and astrological rites, such as consultations tied to royal nativity; a notable 62 BCE comet sighting on July 7 was ritually interpreted as signaling Antiochus' celestial ascent. These practices, enforced across the kingdom's sanctuaries, underscored the cult's role in maintaining social hierarchy and imperial harmony through structured veneration.

Historical Interpretations and Debates

Historians debate the primacy of Zoroastrian versus Hellenistic influences in Commagene's royal cult, with some scholars arguing for a foundational Zoroastrian dynastic ideology under Antiochus I, evidenced by fire altars and ancestor veneration akin to Achaemenid practices. Inscriptional records from Mount Nemrut, however, demonstrate a top-down eclecticism orchestrated by the ruler, pairing Greek deities like Apollo with Persian counterparts such as Mithra in a structured pantheon, prioritizing political legitimacy over spontaneous folk syncretism. This approach reconciled Seleucid heritage with Achaemenid claims, as Antiochus invoked both Greek and Iranian ancestries to navigate Roman and Parthian pressures, rather than evidencing deep Zoroastrian dominance or unmediated Hellenistic diffusion. The relief at Nemrut Dağ, depicting lunar crescent, stars, and planets alongside a , has fueled controversies over dating and origins, with astronomical reconstructions proposing July 62 BCE—tied to a observation—or July 14, 109 BCE, aligning with Antiochus's purported kingdom founding. These divergent dates underscore interpretive challenges, as the 's zodiacal configuration resists unique resolution without auxiliary epigraphic or historical anchors, complicating claims of early establishment versus mid-reign . Interpretations framing Commagene's religious blending as emphasize its function in reshaping power topographies, where Antiochus I strategically localized imperial motifs to project in a contested border zone. Matthew Canepa's analysis posits this as deliberate adaptation among elites, not grassroots multiculturalism, amid threats from expansive empires; Persian elements, while prominent in Iranianist , appear calibrated for legitimacy rather than cultural revival, as inscriptions reveal symmetric Greco-Iranian equivalences without disproportionate Zoroastrian primacy. Such views critique overreliance on ideological narratives, favoring causal explanations rooted in geopolitical exigency over romanticized .

Culture and Society

Ethnic Composition and Identity

The ethnic composition of Commagene reflected its position as a frontier kingdom at the crossroads of , , and the , featuring a mix of indigenous populations, Hellenistic settlers, and elite strata with Iranian and Armenian ties. Local inhabitants likely included Anatolian groups such as or related indigenous peoples from the Taurus region, alongside Syrian or Aramean elements near the , though Semitic influences remained peripheral compared to core Mesopotamian areas. Hellenistic Greek colonists, introduced during Seleucid rule from the 3rd century BCE, formed urban elites in centers like Samosata, evident from Greek onomastics in administrative records and dedications. The ruling dynasty, originating from the Orontid line with roots in Armenian satrapies like , intermarried with Seleucid Greek nobility and invoked Achaemenid Persian ancestry, as seen in genealogies tracing to Darius I and Apollo through inscriptions at Nemrut Dağı. Kings such as Antiochus I (r. c. 69–34 BCE) emphasized this hybrid descent—combining Iranian nobility, Greek heritage, and Armenian dynastic claims—to legitimize authority over diverse subjects, promoting a cohesive identity tied to both eastern and western imperial traditions rather than a singular ethnic . Armenian influences, while prominent in royal propaganda via Orontid lineage and marriages, did not dominate the broader populace, as textual and epigraphic evidence prioritizes Greco-Persian over widespread Armenian settlement. Identity in Commagene was constructed top-down through royal cults and monuments, where elites self-identified via mixed ancestries to bridge cultural divides, but no sources indicate egalitarian ethnic integration or self-conceptions. Inscriptions from Antiochus I's era, such as those detailing divine honors linking Persian and Greek forebears, enforced this hybrid framework for political stability, with underlying ethnic divisions—between local Semitic-Anatolian groups and immigrant Iranian-Greek families—manifesting in reported rivalries under Roman oversight from 17 CE onward. Local resistances or alternative identities remain undocumented, suggesting elite narratives overshadowed subaltern perspectives in preserved records.

Art, Architecture, and Iconography

The of Commagene exhibits a distinctive , blending Hellenistic terrace systems with Persian-influenced , as evidenced in royal funerary monuments constructed under King Antiochus I (r. 69–34 BC). These structures typically feature an artificial earthen mound, or , piled to heights exceeding 50 meters, flanked by multi-tiered terraces carved into bedrock and supported by megalithic retaining walls. This form reflects practical adaptations to rugged terrain and limited resources, mobilizing local labor for quarrying and transport of blocks weighing up to several tons, while eschewing more elaborate urban temple complexes seen elsewhere in the Hellenistic world. Colossal statues, measuring 7–10 meters in height, dominate these terraces, sculpted in a megalithic style from local and depicting syncretized figures with torsos in Persian-style tunics and trousers but facial features aligned with Greek canons. The statues' bases and thrones bear Greek inscriptions identifying hybrid deities, such as Zeus-Oromasdes, yet their attire evokes Achaemenid prototypes, suggesting a deliberate stylistic fusion driven by the kingdom's position at cultural crossroads rather than pure innovation. Many heads have toppled and lie scattered, attributable to seismic activity in the region, with historical records and geological evidence indicating recurrent earthquakes since antiquity that exploited joints in the monolithic construction. Iconographic elements include the dexiosis, or handshaking motif, recurring in reliefs where the king clasps hands with deified figures like Heracles-Artagnes, carved in both Greek and Persian formats to signify contractual alliances between ruler and divine powers. Reliefs on terrace walls also incorporate zodiacal symbols, such as a horizon with stellar markers for , Mercury, Mars, and a , integrated into orthostats that align with solstice orientations, pointing to astronomical precision in layout amid stylistic . This visual vocabulary, while propagandistic, stems from material imperatives of quarried stone's durability and the logistical feasibility of repetitive motifs in a labor-constrained context.

Language and Epigraphy

The epigraphic record of Commagene from the Hellenistic royal period is dominated by Greek inscriptions, which served as the primary medium for administrative decrees, royal , and regulations. These texts, carved on monumental stelae, orthostats, and temple structures, reflect the kingdom's adoption of Greek as the of officialdom, likely influenced by Seleucid administrative practices and the dynasty's claims to Achaemenid and Macedonian heritage. No royal inscriptions in , the probable vernacular of much of the population, or other local have been identified, suggesting an elite-imposed that prioritized Greek for legitimacy across diverse subjects. Prominent examples include the extensive nomos (law or ) of Antiochus I Theos (r. circa 69–34 BCE) at Nemrut Dağ, comprising approximately 237 lines inscribed on the backs of colossal throne statues on both eastern and western terraces. This text outlines the king's genealogy—tracing descent from and —establishes rituals for his deification, and syncretizes Greek and Iranian deities (e.g., Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo-Mithras), while enumerating officials like dynastai (local lords) and stratēgoi (generals) to enforce cult observance. Similar Greek inscriptions at Arsameia-on-the-Nymphaios, including the longest known in (over 200 lines), detail public works, divine honors, and legal exhortations to obedience, underscoring epigraphy's role in propagating royal ideology rather than everyday governance. Earlier, pre-Hellenistic inscriptions in the region, such as the Boybeypınar blocks, employ Hieroglyphic Luwian script—an Anatolian system unrelated to Iranian or hieroglyphs—featuring compound phrases for royal or ritual purposes, but these do not connect directly to the Orontid dynasty's output. The absence of undeciphered "Iranian hieroglyphs" or bilingual royal texts indicates that Persianate prestige was asserted through content (ancestral claims) rather than script, with Greek fulfilling both practical and symbolic functions. Epigraphic evidence points to confined largely to sacerdotal and contexts, as inscriptions cluster at hierothesia (temple-tombs) like Nemrut and Karakuş, with no broad societal distribution implying widespread popular engagement.

Archaeology and Legacy

Major Sites and Monuments

Nemrut Dağı, located in the near modern Adıyaman, , hosts the kingdom's most iconic hierothesion, constructed by King Antiochus I during his reign from 69 to 34 BCE. The site centers on a mound of unhewn stones measuring 145 meters in diameter and originally 50 meters high, intended as the royal tomb and sanctuary for syncretic worship. Flanking terraces on the east and west sides originally supported rows of colossal seated statues, up to 9 meters tall, representing deities such as , Apollo-Mithras, and Heracles-Artagnes, alongside deified ancestors and the king himself; many statues now lie toppled by earthquakes. Inscriptions on the terraces, including procession lists and regulations, date the complex to circa 62 BCE and outline ritual practices. The site's design and materials, verified through epigraphic and , exemplify Commagene's Hellenistic-Persian fusion in monumental . Arsameia on the Nymphaios, near the River and approximately 50 kilometers from Nemrut Dağı, functioned as a royal capital and secondary hierothesion dedicated by Antiochus I to his father, Mithridates I Kallinikos. Key features include a massive rock-cut inscription in Greek, spanning five columns and over 200 lines, which recounts the site's founding by in the BCE and details the sanctuary's construction for ancestral . A monumental stela and adjacent tunnels, possibly for processional or symbolic purposes, underscore the site's ceremonial role, with evident in nearby nymph-related water features. Structural remnants, including bridge foundations across the Nymphaios stream, indicate integrated infrastructure supporting elite gatherings, dated to the late 2nd to early BCE via . The Sofraz tumuli, now known as Üçgöz near Kahta, comprise a pair of earthen mounds designated as the Great and Small Tumuli, serving as elite burial sites from the Commagene period. Excavations reveal internal passageways carved into bedrock leading to multi-chambered tombs beneath the fill, with the southern Small Tumulus positioned adjacent to the larger northern one; pottery and architectural styles align these with 1st-century BCE royal practices. These structures, smaller than Nemrut but similarly oriented for visibility, highlight distributed funerary traditions across the kingdom's landscape. Sesönk Tumulus, or Dikilitaş, perched on a high ridge in rural southeastern Turkey, represents a distinctive rock-hewn tomb atypical of piled-earth mounds, featuring a carved staircase descending to an underground burial chamber. Attributed to the late Commagene dynasty, possibly for Mithridates II around the mid-1st century BCE, its exposed bedrock construction and monumental scale suggest defensive and symbolic prominence, with surface erosion preserving core form despite 2,000 years of exposure. Doliche, modern Dülük northeast of , stood as one of Commagene's four principal cities with strategic fortifications overlooking trade routes, functioning as a regional outpost amid Hellenistic and early Roman threats. While later renowned for the originating cult temple of , contemporary evidence from coins and pottery confirms 1st-century BCE occupation tied to royal administration and defense.

Key Artifacts and Inscriptions

The principal inscriptions of Commagene consist of Greek-language texts carved on and stelae, which enumerate the divine and royal genealogies asserted by rulers such as Antiochus I (r. circa 69–34 BC). These texts claim descent from Achaemenid Persian kings like on the paternal side and from Macedonian Seleucid forebears on the maternal side, thereby integrating Hellenistic and Iranian heroic lineages without explicit references to figures like or Achilles in preserved fragments. Numismatic artifacts, primarily bronze coins minted under Antiochus I, feature his portrait wearing a five-pointed Armenian adorned with an eight-rayed star and two eagles on the obverse, paired with reverses depicting a , capricorn, or eagle standing, motifs echoing Parthian and Seleucid iconographic influences amid local adaptations. Reliefs on fragmentary stelae illustrate processional scenes of deified kings clasping hands with hybrid Greco-Persian gods, such as Antiochus with Mithras-Apollo-Helios, underscoring the kingdom's syncretic ideology through detailed hieroglyphic and figural elements. A standout inscriptional artifact is the Lion Horoscope slab, a measuring approximately 1.75 by 2.40 meters, depicting a lion representing the constellation Leo adorned with 19 stars (eight-pointed rays each), alongside three labeled planets—identified in Greek as Mars, , and Mercury—and lunar crescents. This , tied to Antiochus I's , has been astronomically dated to July 14, 109 BC based on planetary positions and stellar configurations, though debates persist over exact alignments accounting for and potential symbolic additions beyond strict . Marble sculptures and statue fragments, isotopically traced to imported sources like quarries rather than local , attest to Commagene's integration into broader trade networks for elite materials.

Modern Discoveries and Preservation Challenges

The monumental sanctuary of was first documented in 1881 by German engineer Karl Sester during Ottoman surveys, leading to initial excavations that revealed colossal statues and inscriptions dedicated to Antiochus I. Subsequent German-led efforts in the early , including those by Puchstein, mapped the site's hierothesion and , establishing its Hellenistic royal context without penetrating the central burial chamber. Recent Turkish archaeological surveys have highlighted additional tumuli, such as the Sesönk (Dikilitaş) in , identified in 2025 assessments as the likely of Mithridates II, son of Antiochus I, based on its architectural parallels to known Commagene royal monuments and epigraphic traces. In 2024, geophysical evaluations at Nemrut Dağ confirmed the of Antiochus I remains unexcavated and potentially intact beneath the 50-meter , prompting calls for non-invasive technologies to avoid structural risks. Preservation faces acute threats from environmental erosion, with Nemrut's sculptures deteriorating due to freeze-thaw cycles and abrasion, as documented in ongoing monitoring since the site's 1987 inscription. Increased , exceeding 100,000 visitors annually in peak seasons, exacerbates surface wear on statues and pathways, while proximity to the Syrian border heightens vulnerabilities to illicit excavation amid regional instability, though Turkish patrols have limited confirmed looting incidents. The Commagene Nemrut Conservation and Development Programme, initiated in the , prioritizes stabilization over reconstructive restoration to maintain material authenticity, employing techniques like nanolime consolidation tested since 2022. Debates among conservators emphasize minimal intervention, rejecting full statue re-erection due to seismic risks in the , with seismic modeling supporting in-situ protection rather than relocation.

References

  1. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/commagene-a-portion-of-southwestern-asia-minor-modern-turkey/
  2. https://www.ebruliturizm.com/anatolian-civilizations/kingdom-of-commagene-163-bc-72-ad/
  3. https://herculean.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/the-kingdom-of-commagene/
  4. https://www.livius.org/articles/person/antiochus-i-theos-of-commagene/
  5. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/antiochus-of-commagene/
  6. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/448/
  7. https://turkisharchaeonews.net/site/mount-nemrut
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/visual-style-and-constructing-identity-in-the-hellenistic-world/commagene-a-historical-geography/AAA7FCCF07F0B4F9DFA23A2C3F56A376
  9. https://www.worldhistory.org/Orontid_Dynasty/
  10. https://www.livius.org/articles/dynasty/orontids/
  11. https://www.worldhistory.org/Commagene/
  12. https://publications.dainst.org/journals/istmitt/article/view/4359/8068
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20188770
  14. http://nemrud.nl/index.php/tourist-information/lion-horoscope/
  15. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-the-mithridatic-wars/appian-the-mithridatic-wars-24/
  16. https://www.academia.edu/1481097/Early_Roman_Rule_in_Commagene
  17. https://www.academia.edu/7712515/For_Might_or_For_Money_Reexamining_the_Roman_Conquest_of_Commagene_Syria_in_72_CE
  18. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/deimos/article/download/112743/108412
  19. https://www.repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/Content/123508/PDF/HALAMUS_PRINT_EOS-2018-2d.pdf
  20. https://www.britannica.com/place/Commagene
  21. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/taurus/
  22. https://alexander-the-great.org/settlements/samosata
  23. https://turkisharchaeonews.net/site/arsameia-nymphaios
  24. https://blog.turkishairlines.com/en/the-cradle-of-civilization-ancient-cities-in-the-mesopotamian-region/
  25. https://www.academia.edu/50930764/Common_Dwelling_Place_of_all_the_Gods_Commagene_in_its_Local_Regional_and_Global_Context
  26. https://edspace.american.edu/silkroadjournal/wp-content/uploads/sites/984/2017/09/On-Ancient-Tracks-in-Eastern-Anatolia.pdf
  27. https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/1/3852
  28. https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/commagene/kings/antiochos_IV/i.html
  29. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/euphrates/
  30. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781614516224.38/html
  31. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/arsameia/
  32. https://www.academia.edu/129394922/Commagene
  33. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/e284569f-1827-4bda-8bf6-866ff9c6d715/external_content.pdf
  34. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/religious-networks-in-the-roman-empire/jupiter-dolichenus-military-networks-on-the-edges-of-empire/D0637592F45F5FFF2A7185F6015AEA7F
  35. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789004233010/B9789004233010_006.pdf
  36. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nemrud-dagi/
  37. https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2011/07/02/mithras-in-commagene-the-hierothesion-at-nemrud-dag/
  38. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8044
  39. https://mithras.tertullian.org/display.php?page=cimrm32
  40. https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/mount-nemrut-and-god-king-commagene-001900
  41. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%253A3256547/download
  42. https://www.academia.edu/38302284/Jacobs_2016_Commagenian_Greco_Iranian_Religious_Syncretism
  43. http://research.iac.es/proyecto/arqueoastronomia/media/BelmonteGonzalez_JHA2010.pdf
  44. https://www.[academia.edu](/page/Academia.edu)/40253150/The_Lion_horoscope_proposal_for_a_new_dating
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354680277_Hellenistic_Commagene_in_Context_Is_%27Global%27_the_Answer_and_Do_We_Have_to_Overcome_Cultural_%27Containers%27
  46. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004293915/B9789004293915-s011.pdf
  47. https://edwebcontent.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/commagenian_funerary_monuments_-_ancestry_and_identity_in_the_roman_east.pdf
  48. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004233010/B9789004233010_004.pdf
  49. https://edubirdie.com/docs/university-of-edinburgh/anhi08013-ancient-history-2b-themes-a/72419-commagenian-funerary-monuments
  50. https://www.bibleplaces.com/nemrut-dag/
  51. https://blog.getboat.com/news/nemrut-dagi-ancient-guardians-archaeological-site/
  52. https://berlinarchaeology.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/rose-zeugma.pdf
  53. https://etc.worldhistory.org/travel/stunning-nemrut-dagi-and-the-kingdom-of-commagene/
  54. https://www.peopleofar.com/2012/07/07/armenian-kingdom-of-commagene/
  55. https://www.livius.org/articles/place/nemrud-dagi/
  56. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0496-2
  57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3642589
  58. https://www.academia.edu/23770481/The_Boybeypinari_Inscription_of_Commagene
  59. https://www.learningsites.com/NemrudDagi/NemrudDagi_home.php
  60. https://www.anatolianarchaeology.net/silent-witnesses-of-commagene-sofraz-tumuli/
  61. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/mount-nemrut-dag-wonder-of-the-ancient-world
  62. http://www.anatolianarchaeology.net/commagene-kingdoms-monument-defying-time-sesonk-tumulus/
  63. https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/sesnk-tumulus-the-commagene-kingdoms-monument-that-defies-time
  64. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1930-0611-1
  65. https://www.coinarchives.com/a/results.php?search=Commagene
  66. https://mithras.tertullian.org/display.php?page=cimrm31
  67. https://www.academia.edu/40253150/The_Lion_horoscope_proposal_for_a_new_dating
  68. https://greekastrologer.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/the-antiochus-of-commagene-lion-horoscope/
  69. http://nemrut.org.tr/en/about-nemrut/
  70. https://www.dailysabah.com/life/travel/commagene-kings-tomb-draws-interest-in-remote-turkish-highlands
  71. http://nemrut.org.tr/en/management-plan/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1296207414000909
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283725339_The_Commagene_Nemrut_Conservation_and_Development_Program_An_Approach_to_the_Conservation_Problem_of_Nemrut_DaG_Tumulus
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.