Religion and Cults in the Sanctuary as Forerunners of the Imperial Cult 213

Not many agree with Hanfmann’s stylistic identification of eration is the possibility that the dual cult images of Artemis
the colossal bearded head as Zeus/Achaeus. The contextual and Zeus shared the same temple cella—probably the same
evidence speaks against this identification; the “Zeus” head image podium—and were worshipped together.278 Two or
was found in or near the temple along with six or seven more deities sharing a temple (without any architectural di-
similar heads firmly believed to belong to members of the vision) was not an unfamiliar scenario in Roman tradition.279
Antonine family. Additionally, the head in question has been It is impossible to know what happened to the cult of
identified by R. R. R. Smith as Marcus Aurelius on specific Zeus Polieus when the temple was redesigned and became
iconographic grounds.276 Still, the severely damaged state the center of the imperial cult during the Roman era, cer-
of the head makes any identification a matter of educated tainly by the mid-second century. It is unlikely, though not
opinion at best. impossible, that the independent cult of Zeus (as opposed
How can we reconcile the strong testimony of the Me- to some emperor’s identification with Zeus) was in some
nogenes inscription (and other inscriptions found at or way conflated with imperial cult inside the crowded cella.
near the temple that also record the continuing presence In the cosmopolitan world of post-Hellenistic and Roman
of various cults of Zeus at Sardis: Lydios, Polieus, Baradates, Sardis, religion could be inclusive and accommodating; the
and Olympios) for the association and perhaps conflation of city’s sophisticated Lydian past and privileged position un-
the “sacred precinct of Zeus Polieus and Artemis” with the der the Persian satrapal administration may have made such
archaeological facts on the ground? There was no temple heterogeneous religious practices unremarkable. Further-
of Zeus inside the precinct of Artemis, and the Hellenistic more, conflating and overlapping sacred spaces and honors
temple of Artemis had a single cella until the Roman impe- between the “old gods” and “new gods” was not a theological
rial period.277 The simple solution might be that the popular problem for the Romans.280 Apart from many other Greek
cult of Zeus Polieus was introduced into the Sanctuary of and Anatolian cults, such as that of Cybele/Kybebe with its
Artemis at some point during the late Hellenistic period and special relationship to the sanctuary, Sardis had several lo-
remained without an independent temple. However, we have cal, regional, and foreign cults of Zeus starting with its own
no idea when this might have happened (the Menogenes in- venerable, Archaic Zeus Lydios, Levs. These cults tended to
scription is Augustan). Less likely but still worthy of consid- borrow rituals from each other and assumed each other’s
identities over the passage of time due to changing percep-
tions, the pressures of political expediency, or mere mood
dividing the two cellas does not bond into the long walls cannot stand
up against the certainty of the above evidence” (Hanfmann, SPRT, p. and fashion.281 In a focused study of Lydian and Anatolian
118). Although temple-sharing in the case of Zeus Polieus/Artemis
(same cella), and later Zeus/Antoninus Pius and Artemis/Faustina 278
The images of Roma and Augustus shared the cella of their Au-
(two cellas) at Sardis appears never to have been the case, there are gustan temple in Ankara; see p. 254 with Fig. 4.25. On temple-sharing:
numerous examples of this phenomenon during the Imperial period Robert 1975, p. 321; Bowersock 1976, pp. 112–21; Nock 1972b. On po-
and under imperial policy. The Trajaneum at Pergamon accommodat- tential evidence for Roman emperors and members of the imperial
ed Zeus/Trajan (and later Hadrian) in the same space (see p. 199, note family in partnership with deities and heroes (and traditional sanc-
210); the colossal temples at Cyzicus and Tarsus honored a Zeus/ tuaries that came to include the imperial cult), see Nock 1972b, pp.
Hadrian cult; the Olympieion at Ephesus honored Zeus/Hadrian; 223–34; Talloen 2007, pp. 237–38. Epigraphic evidence on this subject
at Nicaea, Hadrian and Roma shared a temple; and Antoninus Pius is rich, but we must consider Nock’s justifiable caution on “temple-
shared his temple at Sagalassus with Zeus. In all of these instances, sharing,” with the significant exception of Asia Minor, where the em-
however, deities or a deity and an emperor shared the same cella peror and native deities entered into “intimate associations” more
space, not a divided temple with different cellas. See Gülbay 2009, pp. readily (1972b, p. 231); see also Nock 1972a;Yegül 1982b, p. 14. The idea
67–69; Price 1984, pp. 245–60; Burrell 2003, pp. 38–39. of a dual cult of Artemis-Zeus is also supported by Howe (1999, p. 204
276
As noted by Greenewalt, this head was also identified as Mar- and n. 169). All things considered, Cahill’s cautious and sensible com-
cus Aurelius by “members of the Butler expedition.” For a summary ment on the subject is well taken: “The case . . . for a shared statue base
discussion of the specific iconographic features underlying Smith’s [and temple] is circumstantial at best. . . . Is there any evidence left
identification, see Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, p. 676, no. 84; Sar- for the presence of Zeus in the temple, as opposed to the precinct?
dis VII.1, p. 72. For Marcus Aurelius “Type III” portraits, see Fittschen If not, why worry about it?” (Cahill, “Comments on Yegül, Temple of
and Zanker 1985, nos. 65–66, 70–71, pl. 75. Artemis, April 6, 2009,” p. 14). On whether the elusive figure/deity
277
Caution must still be advised in concluding the historic search Q dãns, whose cult was honored together with Artemis in her sanc-
for the alleged Temple of Zeus Polieus or Olympios. We do not quite tuary, could have been related to Zeus Polieus, see Cahill 2019b, p. 26.
know the ancient boundaries of the Sanctuary of Artemis; large ar- 279
Not only did the primary religion of the Roman state require what
eas, especially to the north, northeast, and southwest (eroded by in essence could be called temple-sharing among three gods (Jupiter,
the Pactolus) of the present temple, may still hide a small temple. Juno, and Minerva, often in separate, side-by-side cellas), but minor
For instance, we do not know what kind of small, Doric shrine is gods and their images could be worshipped in the same cella, such as
represented by the finely carved, right pediment cornice found just the arrangement seen on a shop-sign depicting a Roman temple with
northeast of the North Building in the same precinct (some 60–70 m the goddesses Roma and Annona peering out between the Corinthian
north of the temple). Could it be a naiskos dedicated to Zeus? I con- columns (Musei Vaticani, inv. no. 471; see Rüpke 2007, p. 146, fig. 13).
cur with Homer A. Thompson that this fine marble piece is no later 280
Rüpke 2007, pp. 16–17; Gladigow 1988.
than the second century B.C. See Sardis R1, p. 63, figs. 81, 82. 281
On questions concerning the exceptionally diverse cultural and
214 3. Building History and Chronology

cults, the late R. L. Bengisu, underlined the cogency of What is significant here is not so much the “linear con-
the cult of Carian Zeus at Sardis and observed that “Lyd- tinuity” of a particular cult, but rather the reception, sin-
ian identification with the cult of Zeus Karios provide[d] cere or superficial, of old and new ways of belief in Lydian,
a broad base . . . regarding [its] applied relationship to the Persian, and a plethora of Anatolian cults and their overlap-
local cults of Zeus, Cybele, Artemis, Apollo and Mên.” She ping identities, some of which were celebrated in their new
observed the continuity of these cults in the countryside, incarnation through emotional rites and mysteries even
even though the broader acceptance of religious syncretism, under Roman rule. Thus, we do not have a simple cultural
characteristic of urban cultures of the Hellenistic (and Ro- issue of “change” but a hermeneutic problem of the signi-
man) periods, saw the decline of the Anatolian element at fication and interpretation of change—a change dictated
Sardis.282 by society at large, negotiated by its leaders and followers
There are several inscriptions dating from the late Hel- alike and subject to its unwritten laws and traditions. This
lenistic to the Roman era that bear dedications to Zeus is a change rooted in the memory-politics of the city, an
“from the servants of Zeus” that attest to the continuing “imaginary Sardis” shaped by its mythical past and remem-
observance of some aspect of Zeus cult at Sardis.283 Apart bered as it wished to be remembered.286 As pointed out by
from these, of particular interest is the so-called Droapher- A. Berlin in her assessment of ceramic diversity in late- and
nes inscription, found on the east bank of the Pactolus, rela- post-Achaemenid Sardis, the strength of the system seems
tively near the temple; it is a second-century A.D. copy of a to have been rooted in the flexibility of cultural choices and
fourth-century B.C. Achaemenid original carrying a dedica- variability in social, cultural, and religious frameworks.287
tion of a statue to “Zeus of Baradates.”284 Neither the nature In a 1950 essay, Lionel Trilling, the prominent literary
of this cult (except for its early date and Iranian origin), nor critic, mused that “literature is the human activity that takes
the name and identity of this deity are clearly known, nor its fullest and most precise account of variousness, possibility,
is its presence in the Temple of Artemis established. How- complexity, and difficulty.”288 If we substitute “religion” for
ever, the presence and continuity of Zeus cults at Sardis, “literature” (a multiple view of religion and cult) in Trilling’s
even with a Persian “twist,” supports the larger reality of the perceptive quote, we could come close to expressing the mul-
continuing cosmopolitan, heterogeneous religious life and tiple and variable choices available to Sardis and its Artemis
syncretism of imperial Sardis—a thesis supported by many sanctuary throughout their memorable lives. While staying
scholars, including the late L. Robert and P. Herrmann.285 faithful to the core concepts and structures of past religions,
the various and changing cults, primarily the cults of Zeus
demographic nature of Sardis (“a Janus—one face a ‘free city,’ the associated with the Temple of Artemis, must have been se-
other a royal residence, a seat of the satrap and the strategos of Lydia, lected and scripted as relevant responses to the city’s civic and
and a center under the Seleucids of royal power . . . with the royal religious need to fashion an image of itself and perpetuate a
archive and the Royal Mint” [SPRT, p. 113]), see Hanfmann, SPRT, pp. plausible, flexible, and filtered memory of such an image.289
74, 90–96, 112–14, 128–35; Hanfmann 1987.
282
Bengisu 1996. The same volume contains many essays that un-
derline the flexible nature of Anatolian cults (with particular refer- the significance of the “copy” for the Roman period), that the city
ence to the dynamic kinship between the cults of Cybele and Arte- presented a heterogeneous picture in which multiple cultures, peo-
mis). This might be the appropriate moment to honor the memory ples, and religions were mixing and creating “something fully new
of Rose L. Bengisu, whose deep interest in the history and archaeol- and idiosyncratic to Sardis itself ” (Dusinberre 2003, p. 118, and see
ogy of Lydia, especially the Tmolos/Bozdağ region (where she and also p. 233 n. 40); for the existence of similar religious dynamics at
her late husband, Uğur, spent their summers), and knowledge of its Sardis in connection with the cult of Artemis during Achaemenid
many hidden gems could serve as a model for responsible and en- rule, Dusinberre 2013, pp. 226–30. For the similar phenomenon of
lightened amateurs everywhere, especially Turkey. See Robert 1964, pantheism and syncretism of overlapping religions and cults and the
pp. 35–36; Hanfmann, SPRT, p. 98. For further evidence of the pres- proliferation of parallel, faith-based belief systems in the Sanctuary
ence of Carian Zeus at Sardis, see Métraux 1971; see also de Hoz of Demeter in Pergamon during the Roman period, see Radt 1999,
2016, pp. 211–12; Foss 1979, pp. 21–60; 1982, pp. 178–205. pp. 184–85.
283
Sardis inv. IN74.2, ca. 100 B.C.: Petzl, Sardis M14, pp. 108–9, no. 286
Hanfmann, SPRT, pp. 104, 135, 137–38; Hanfmann 1975, pp. 45,
435. Sardis inv. IN91.10, late first to early second century A.D.: Petzl, 56, 66–68, 74;Yegül 1987. On memory in Hellenistic and Roman Sar-
Sardis M14, p. 54, no. 354. See Sardis VII.1, pp. 47–48, no. 22; Sardis R2, dis, see Rojas 2010.
pp. 128–29, no. 161, figs. 308–9; AASOR 53 (1995): 9. 287
Noting that at least some of the locals at Sardis had begun to
284
Sardis inv. IN74.1: Petzl, Sardis M14, pp. 106–8, no. 434. Sardis enjoy table settings displaying hybrid, Lydian-Greek-Persian wares
R2, pp. 176–77, no. 273, figs. 463–64; Hanfmann, SPRT, pp. 104, 131; through the fourth century B.C., Berlin observes that “Alexander’s ad-
Mellink 1975, p. 216, pl. 42, figs. 18–19. vent may have spurred local citizenry to assert a new-found pride in
285
Robert 1975; Herrmann 1996, pp. 329–35. For serious skepti- their socio-political [and I add “religious”] identity, but this identity
cism on the nature and extent of Iranian religious influence at Sardis, existed side by side with other cultural innovations. Pottery is vari-
see Briant 1985; Briant 1998; Frei and Koch 1984, pp. 19–21. See also ous, just like the people who use it” (Berlin 2016, p. 358).
Chaumont 1990, p. 583; Gschinitzer 1986. E. Dusinberre follows Bri- 288
Trilling 1950, “preface.”
ant’s interpretation only in a general way and considers, at least as 289
Yegül 2000. The intolerance of the Sardians toward the Ephesian
far as the Achaemenid period is concerned (she does not deal with envoy of Artemis (and being put to death for this transgression as a
Imperial Cult and the Artemis Temple 215

A relatively obscure and fragmentary inscription found slightly earlier under Hadrian? Recent evidence—epi-
at Sardis in 1914, dated around the middle of the second graphic, literary, archaeological, and architectural—favors
century A.D. (about the same time the temple was being Hadrian (see below). It is a working hypothesis (and a well-
rebuilt or had recently been rebuilt to accommodate the published one) that the renewal of major Roman construc-
imperial cult), records a dedication in Greek by an asso- tion in our temple, including the division of the cella, rep-
ciation to honor a “priest of the Augusti and (hierophant) resented a direct response to earning a second neokorate;
of the [imperial] mysteries.”290 This evidence is crucial not the city needed to prepare Artemis’s temple for its new im-
only for recording the existence of mysteries of imperial perial guests.293
cult—well attested at other sites and in a variety of civic It is also logical that the choice of the city’s venerable
contexts—but as a testimony to the remarkable continuity Artemision as the shared seat of the imperial cult was trig-
of the mystery nature and structure of Sardian religions.291 gered by more complex concerns about public skepticism
Could this underlying mystery structure—and this is a regarding the nature of the imperial cult in the city and its
long shot—embedded within the “cult of the Augusti” have relationship with Rome, rather than the simple exigency of
formed a backbone, a bridge, that facilitated the full-blown providing an ample and appropriate space for the new cult
establishment of the imperial cult in the temple itself by the in short order. Still, it would be economically feasible to
second century A.D.? use such an existing facility, which could, with reasonable
changes, accommodate both divine functions. Those con-
cerns bring to mind, at the everyday level, how and why the
IMPERIAL CULT venerable goddess would vacate a good part of her temple
AND THE ARTEMIS TEMPLE for imperial newcomers, and in the process lose some of
her prominence, at least architecturally speaking.294 For us,
A central matter in our understanding of the Roman his- to have been able to eavesdrop upon the politics of the day,
tory of the Temple of Artemis is when Sardis was awarded such as they might have been, would be worth far more than
its neokorate (“temple-warden”) status or honors, espe- the masses of theories we could air and reams of sources we
cially its second one.292 Was it under Antoninus Pius, or could quote.295

reverse display of intolerance!) might represent an instance when tween a provincial imperial cult temple and a municipal one should
the city (or this group of Sardians) acted in a xenophobic manner be underlined; the former was the official seat of the cult of the em-
toward what they considered to be an unwelcome infiltration by a peror, a privilege voted by the koinon of the province and accepted by
foreign cult, in order to uphold their very own. This kind of behav- the Roman Senate and the emperor himself; the latter did not require
ior must have shown the other side of the cultural coin, with its such stringent official permissions and control. The establishment of
“open-minded approach in adapting aspects of worship . . . from municipal cult temples only reflected an extravagant form of honor
other cults or cultures” in heterogeneous post-Lydian Sardis, such as and gratitude toward the emperor at the city level. Temple warden-
a transformed Iranian cult in a thoroughly Hellenized sanctuary; see ship, as a basic and limited appellation for a city’s relationship to a
Dusinberre 2013, p. 230. particular deity, not necessarily the imperial cult, existed already by
290
Sardis VII.1, pp. 73–74, no. 62. See also Herrmann 1996, p. 341. the middle of the first century A.D., as evident at Ephesus, which re-
291
Herrmann 1996, pp. 322 n. 24, 329–35. Pleket 1965; Yegül 1982b. ferred to itself as the “neokoros of Artemis” in a coin of A.D. 65/66 and
See also Keil 1923; Robert 1960, pp. 317–24. Unbound by rules of a second time as the “temple keeper of the great Artemis,” in the Acts
linear development, different religious or cultic manifestations might of the Apostles 19:35, dating probably sometime in the late first or
have shared a common ancestry. It is tempting to imagine that the second century A.D. However, these unofficial neokorate descriptions
original cult honored in the sanctuary along with Artemis and Ky- were replaced by the traditional signification of the title neokoros with
bebe was, indeed, the Lydian Zeus (Levs) or a version of it such as the imperial cult. Friesen 1995, pp. 229–36; Keil 1919; Pick 1906.
the Lydian Q dãns (equated with Apollo, “Lord,” “Ruler and King”), 293
That the Temple of Artemis became an official seat of the im-
which yielded to or was joined by the Persian Zeus Baradatas in the perial cult sometime in the second century A.D. is not a hard “fact”
early Hellenistic era (itself a manifestation of Zeus Ahuramazda). This verified by written evidence, such as an inscription declaring it. The
hybrid cult could have been transformed to Zeus Polieus in the later difficulty, indeed near impossibility, of the identification of such a
Hellenistic and Early Imperial periods, perhaps with a nod toward temple, “one that makes its city neokoros,” has been recognized by
the growing urban concerns of the Roman city. Here we can revisit Burrell: “The ideal way of recognizing such a structure would be
Hanfmann’s vision of the larger picture for Sardis—his belief that the discovery of an inscription on it that calls it a provincial temple,
change was deliberate, eclectic, sometimes even contradictory, but mentions its designation for a particular emperor or emperors, and
mainly motivated by the city’s sense of self-determination through names the city neokoros. Unfortunately, this happy situation is rare
its choices, as cities of Asia Minor tried to recapture their past “as a to nonexistent. . . . Identifications of such precincts is generally based
source of pride and superiority toward the Romans” (SPRT, p. 135). on a concordance of literary, numismatic, epigraphic, and archaeo-
292
The term broadly referred to a person, or occasionally a group, logical evidence” (Burrell 2004, p. 12).
in charge of a temple of the imperial cult. On the derivation of the 294
In reality, of course, conservative factions in Roman Sardis might
word neokoros and its broader meanings, either as a person or as a city have considered such sharing outrageous, but, in fighting against it,
awarded the privilege of establishing and maintaining such a temple lost.
at the provincial level, see Burrell 2004, pp. 3–6. The difference be- 295
The controversial and ambiguous nature of the imperial cult vis-