Features of Seleucid Temple construction: Architecture in a political context

Sivkina Nataliya Yurievna Doctor of History Professor, Department of Ancient and Medieval History, N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod 603005, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Ulyanova str., 2 natalia-sivkina@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Guseva Anastasiya Sergeevna Graduate student; Department of History of the Ancient World and the Middle Ages; Nizhny Novgorod State University named after N.I. Lobachevsky 603005, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Ulyanova str., 2 anast.gusewa2018@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Subject matter and relevance. The Seleucid state occupied vast territories inhabited by numerous Eastern peoples who differed from each other in language, religion, and culture and were joined together within the framework of one state by force of arms. Seleucus I, like other diadochi, faced the issue of strengthening his power. Since the Greek-Macedonian population was in the minority in relation to the local peoples, the threat of rebellion, overthrow or invitation of another claimant to the throne posed a real threat to the ruling dynasty. Despite this circumstance, the reign of Seleucus Nicator and his son Antiochus is one of the most stable in the history of the Seleucid empire. This was probably the result of a well-thought-out internal policy of the first tsars.

In historiography, the issues of management, urban planning, and the specifics of the interaction between the center and the periphery have been raised repeatedly ^{[5; 6; 8; 11; 14; 20; 21]}, but they remain controversial and relevant to this day. In addition, such issues are still on the agenda at the moment, so studying various trends and directions of domestic policy in the past, understanding mistakes and successes is not just relevant, it allows you to anticipate the consequences of making a decision.

The theoretical basis. The source base of this research is based on narrative and, mainly, epigraphic sources. Unfortunately, the narrative information is fragmentary and contains only some references to the politics of the early Seleucids (Diodorus, Appian, Arrian). The epigraphy (OGIS 213; 214; 215) includes royal decrees revealing some features of the relationship between the ruler and temples. Cuneiform sources, mainly chronicles, provide information about the kings' patronage of Mesopotamian temples (BCHP 5, BCHP 6, BCHP 7, BCHP 8, etc.). The modern works used in the work can be divided into two groups: these are works devoted directly to architecture and urban planning of the early Seleucids ^[15-19] and works of a more general nature necessary to recreate a holistic picture of the past, for example, on the imperial nature of power and the management system. ^{[1, 3, 6, 10, 13]}, about cultural and ideological issues ^{[5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 21]}.

The novelty of the work lies in the authors' attempt to consider one of the controversial issues on the implementation of the policy of "merging nations" through the study of the features of temple architecture. Given the state of the source base, the material evidence makes it possible to supplement existing knowledge about the internal politics of the first Seleucids.

The research methods used were both the traditional general philosophical methods of analysis and synthesis for this type of work, as well as the method of systematization of materials, since the authors summarized the accumulated data and analyzed them in the context of the political situation of that period of history.

Results. Seleucus, a participant in Alexander the Great's Eastern Campaign (App. Syr. 56), began his career as head of the personal guard of the Hypaspist king (Arr. Anab. V. 13. 4). After the death of the great conqueror, he took part in the wars of the Diadochi and, by decision of Triparades, was given control of Babylonia (Diod. XVIII. 39. 6; Diod. XIX. 12.2). Later, he proclaimed himself king and actively increased his subordinate territories.

It is known that Seleucus I Nicator pursued an active urban planning policy, being the founder of 75 cities that were to become centers of interaction between the European and Eastern spheres of culture. To understand whether Seleucus continued Alexander the Great's policy of "merging nations" or not, researchers usually compare the cities they founded, as well as the environment that existed in them, to find out possible integration options.

It is believed that Seleucus' policy towards cities was quite different from Alexander's plan. For Diadochus, the founding of new cities was associated with the task of colonizing vast spaces and consolidating the state ^{[2, p. 76]} in an effort to recreate the empire ^{[13, p. 125]}. It is also assumed that the purpose of urban planning was not so much the desire to Hellenize the local population as to attract the Hellenes to these lands. Indeed, cities were scattered throughout the state, but their greatest concentration was observed in Syria and Asia Minor. There are suggestions that the construction of cities also took place in Bactria, the satrapy most prone to separatism ^{[1, p. 33]}. In general, Seleucus, although he created new cities throughout the state, like Alexander the Great, but Diadochus was more oriented in his policy towards the Greek population. Even the priests of local religions lost their positions and were replaced by other people ^{[4, p. 221 cf.]}. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to consider the features of temple architecture in the context of the religious policy of the early Seleucids, which will allow a different look at the problem of integrating the population of the state.

Seleucus I provided patronage to Greek temples and temple communities, as attested in his decrees (OGIS 213; 214; 215). The affairs of the temples were strictly controlled through a policy organization in the case of the Greek population and through urban communities in the case of the Macedonian. Such differences in control were explained by the fact that the Greek population, according to tradition, perceived the monarchy as a tyranny, in contrast to the Macedonians ^{[10; p. 285]}.

Unlike the Hellenic sanctuaries, temples in the Ancient East focused not only on religious, but also on administrative functions at the local level, so it was important for the rulers to maintain a balance in their relations with them. This explains the kings' favor for temples, in which they begin to carry out construction work upon their accession ^[8]. Most of the information about the work authorized by the king in the temples is associated with the name of Antiochus I, the son and co-ruler of Seleucus, and then his successor: it is known that repairs were carried out in Esagila and Ezida (BCHP 5, BCHP 6, BCHP 7, BCHP 8) ^{[3, p. 56]}. The texts of the Babylonian chronicles often mention construction debris, ruins and bricks prepared for repair, which indicate that extensive restoration work was carried out during the reign of the first Seleucids.

In general, religious policy in relation to the Eastern peoples was determined by two important principles: external respect and non-interference ^{[7; p. 198]}. It is worth noting that the Antigonids failed in Babylonia, looting temples and the local population ^[8]. And Seleucus' religious policy led to mutual benefits: the priesthood provided for its own needs, as evidenced by the temple decrees of the Babylonian community (P305851; P296744). At the same time, Seleucus was shown marked respect – the priests called him the king of Babylon (King List 6), although, formally, until 306 BC, he was only a satrap.

It is noteworthy that we can trace such a respectful attitude towards ancient buildings, not only for sacred purposes, beyond the borders of Babylon. Examples of this are the theaters in Babylon and Ai-Khanum, which were architecturally purely Greek structures, but the roofs of the buildings surrounding the theater were flat, which is typical only for Persian architecture. The Babylonian Theater was a part of the urban architecture, as was the building in Dura–Europos, and was used both for religious festivals of the Babylonians and for Greek performances ^{[15; p. 8]}.

Before considering the specific manifestations of Seleucus' religious policy, it is worth noting that his son Antiochus Soter can rightfully be considered a "restorer" not only of the old Babylonian temples, but also of the old order. He provided financial support to temples, as evidenced by the temple decrees (P502942; P502944), performed religious rituals (BCHP 5), was called the successor of the Assyro-Babylonian kings (Antiochus Cylinder) and the "Great" King (King List 6). It is important to understand that by pursuing this policy, he hardly contradicted the decisions of his father: Seleucus, apparently, laid the foundations for interaction, and Antiochus deepened these relationships based on the specific political situation.

Modern research has identified four types of temple structures dating back to the reign of the early Seleucids. In the first type, the key element is a staircase to the roof, typical of Mesopotamian and Syrian architecture. Therefore, temples of this type are called "Assyrian", but Greek elements are often found in this type. In this context, two Hellenistic temples in Umm el-Amed and the temple of Apollo in Didim, built at the end of the 3rd century BC, are considered. They are characterized by columns with Ionic capitals and attic Ionic bases. The staircase was on the side and was located on the north side, which is a purely Assyrian element. It is also worth mentioning that the temples were located in the center of an enclosed courtyard, which is a purely Western Semitic feature. At the same time, all these elements are combined with an elongated rectangular foundation typical of Greek architecture ^{[17; p. 138-140]}.

The second group of structures is equipped with pointed doors that date back to the classical temple of Artemis of Ephesus. In the pediments of these temples, in the center of which there is a large door, flanked by two smaller doors. It is important to note that the geographical location of these temples and the time of their construction coincide with the type described above. They are distinguished into a separate type, since no stairs to the roof-terrace have been found in any of them ^{[16; p.139]}.

The third group, the so–called "Babylonian type", has Ionic columns, at the base of which are the bells characteristic of the palaces of Persepolis and Susa. Temples in Ai–Khanum and Dura–Europos have this feature, but they are located outside the city, unlike the temples of Susa and Babylon. It is not clear where the sacrificial altar was located, but marble fragments of the arms and legs of a colossal statue were discovered, which could have been worshipped by both the Greeks and the local population. The cult center of the temple — the naos, the vestibule and the side rooms — was isolated from the larger courtyard complex of the Babylonian tradition. However, the religious buildings do not stand freely in the courtyard, but are firmly connected to the narrow courtyard in front of them. The Greek element, on the contrary, represents strict axial symmetry ^{[18; pp. 156-157]}.

The situation is much more complicated with the temples of the "Iranian type" – the fourth group. Common to all temples of this group is not only the Iranian (t–shaped) plan, but also its combination with elements of Greek origin ^{[19; p. 66]}. These are mostly free-standing temples in the Greek style, decorated with Greek columns. In addition to this formal combination of architectural elements and characteristics, we can also observe rooms for various cults — at least in the Takht-i Sangin temple of Oxos, where archaeological evidence shows the juxtaposition of the Iranian cult of fire and Greek sacrifice. At the same time, the second group clearly dominates. ^{[19; p. 77]}.

It is also interesting that Babylonia was the center of the empire first of Alexander, then of the early Seleucids. It was from here that Seleucus and his son extended their power over neighboring territories ^[8]. It would be quite expected that the construction work on the restoration of temples would be carried out mainly in Babylonia. However, this is not the case. Moreover, the rulers did not give preference to any one style. All four types of temples (temples of the "Assyrian type", temples with pointed doors, temples of the "Babylonian type" and temples of the "Iranian type") are common throughout the territory of the Seleucid Empire ^{[19; p. 65]}. This fact can only be explained by the deliberate policy of Seleucus Nicator, formed at his court in order to demonstrate his authority and strength, while reducing the influence of local cultures, but not completely erasing them, without giving preference to any one.

At the same time, the Seleucids were not pioneers in this syncretic construction. They drew on previous experience, Achaemenid court art, which combined elements of Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Greco-Ionian and Iranian traditions. Such a mixture of styles was necessary to strengthen the power of the Persian kings and demonstrate the formal unity of the various peoples of the empire through the adoption of their achievements in sacred architecture. However, the difference lies in the fact that such construction activities of the Persian kings were limited only to the royal palaces of Pasargadae, Persepolis, Susa and Ecbatana. ^{[19; p. 77]}, unlike the first Seleucids, who extended this practice to sacred architecture throughout the empire.

Conclusions. For ethnically homogeneous empires of other diadochs, the idea of bringing different peoples closer together was either unacceptable or took on a different form of interaction, such as in Egypt through the cult of Sarapis ^[9]. But Seleucus I and his descendants had to look for their own model of interaction with the eastern peoples, which differed from the policy of the Achaemenid kings, since it contributed to the development of not only the center of the empire, but also the remote provinces. At the same time, the Seleucids did not seek, like Alexander, to create a state with a homogeneous ethnic population. Nevertheless, using the example of architectural monuments, it can be argued that integration in the cultural and religious spheres did not just take place, but was the result of a deliberate policy of the early Seleucids. Accordingly, the rapprochement of peoples took place within the framework of a new integration model.

The historical paradox lies in the fact that, in the end, the construct of the early Seleucids turned out to be close to the prototype of Alexander the Great, which was negatively perceived during the reign of the famous conqueror and rejected after his death. The success of this policy is confirmed by the widespread use of various types of sacred architectural structures throughout the country.