1

What was Scythian about the “Scythian Diana” at Nemi?

Pia Guldager Bilde, January 2004

The main aim of this paper is to ask, when and why Diana Nemorensis in her Central Italian

sanctuary by Lake Nemi was conceived of as the “Scythian” Artemis/Diana1 and why her cult

was thought to originate in the land of the Taurians.2

Introduction

The Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis, that is “Diana of the Sacred Grove”, is situated by Lake

Nemi in the Alban Hills, just 25 km southeast of Rome. It was one of Italy’s most important

sanctuaries - and certainly one of the largest and richest. Strabon provides us with the longest

and most precise description of it preserved from antiquity (5.3.12):

“...to the left of the way as you go up from Aricia, lies the Artemisium, which they call

Nemus. The temple of the Arician [Artemis], they say, is a copy of the Tauropolos. And

in fact a barbaric, and Scythian, element predominates in the sacred usages, for the

people set up as priest merely a run-away slave who has slain with his own hand the man

previously consecrated to that office; accordingly the priest is always armed with a

sword, looking around for the attacks, and ready to defend himself” (translation: H.L.

Jones).

We shall return to the sanctuary at Nemi and its cult later. But first: who was Strabon’s

Tauropolos, and why did he describe the cult in the Sanctuary of Diana by Lake Nemi as having

“barbaric and Scythian elements”?

From Parthenos to Tauropolos

1Ov. Met. 14.331; Strab. 5.3.12; Luc. Bell. Civ. 3.86; Solin. 2.10-11; Pseudoacron Hor. Carm. 1.7.10. 2Serv. Verg. Aen., 6.136; 7.764; Solin. 2.10-11; Pseudoacron Hor. Carm. 1.7.10.

2

There can be no doubt that Strabon based his particular combination of the elements “barbarian”,

“Scythian”, “Tauropolos”, “human sacrifice” and Diana (Artemis) on Euripides’ play Iphigenia

in Tauris (IT) written in 412 BC or slightly earlier. As is well known this play describes how

Iphigenia administered the sinister cult of a Taurian goddess on the southern shore of the Crimea.

Euripides’ description of the Taurian deity and her cult in turn drew on Herodotos’ story of the

Taurian Parthenos (4.103) created a few decennia earlier, in the third quarter of the 5th century

BC (or on a source common to both of them).

Euripides elaborated on Herodotos (or his sources) providing new facets to the story, first

of all an interpretatio graeca of the deity: she is now furnished with the name of a Greek

goddess (Artemis), though the reference to her being called Parthenos (v. 1230, as in Herodotos)

is also given. But also the way the human sacrifice is described is more in line with Greek

sacrificial practice than is Herodotos’ description. In IT the victim is first sprinkled with water

and then stabbed with a sword, not, as in Herodotos, struck on the head with a club. But of

particular importance to our discussion of the later reception of the deity are the two new epithets

for her, tauropolos and elaphochthonos, which do not occur in Herodotos.

The closing lines of IT reveal Euripides’ main aim with his play: to explain the rites in

the Sanctuary of Artemis at Halai Araphnides3 that included a symbolic human offering.

Euripides’ plays frequently ended with an aetiological myth. At Halai Araphnides, probably

modern Loutsa in Attica, there was a famous temple dedicated to (Artemis) Tauropolos, which is

also known from inscriptions.4 Euripides must have been inspired by Herodotos’ (or his

sources’) description of the foreign, savage goddess in the Taurian lands by the name of

Parthenos, which allowed him to relocate the origin of the rite of a (symbolic) human sacrifice at

Halai to the marginal area of Greek civilisation: the barbarian milieu of the distant, northern

shores of the Black Sea, and at the same time to provide an explanation for the epiklesis

Tauropolos of the Halai Artemis. The point of view of the two authors evidently differs: whereas

Herodotos operated within a general Greek discourse Euripides provided the description of a

complete outsider. He had never visited the Black Sea, but more importantly, he operated within

3Also Rives 1995. 4Kotzias 1925-1926, 168-177; Stauropoullos 1932, 30-32; Papadimitriou 1956, 87-89; 1957, 45-47; Knell 1983,

39-43; inscriptions: see also SEG XXXIV, 103.

3

a specific Athenian discourse.

With the explanation that Tauró-polos meant “worshipped by the Taurians”, Euripides

created a false etymology, as he thereby suggested that the root -polos is passive. The root is

active, and tauro-pólos signifies a person handling or taming bulls in a real context, e.g.

agricultural, or in a symbolic context, e.g. in cult or ritual.5 This “handling” of a bull must have

played a certain role in the ritual makeup of the Halai sanctuary. We do unfortunately not

possess any evidence of this. But it is significant that in two further sanctuaries of Tauropolos

closely connected with Halai, Brauron6 and Amphipolis,7 Tauropolos was with certainty depicted

as a bull-handler riding side-saddle on a bull, frequently with a torch in her hand.

The cult of the Tauropolos, frequently as an epithet of Artemis but also in one case of

Hekate, is known from other sources, inscriptions and literary texts.8 Considering the fact that

with the exception of Euripides mentioning the Taurian goddess Tauropolos, in the Crimea there

is no evidence that either the Taurian deity, or the later Greek Parthenos were ever celebrated as

Tauropolos, and none of them were ever depicted as a bull-handler. The connection between the

various Tauropoloi is therefore still to be studied. It seems most likely that we are dealing with

two separate phenomena:

5I am grateful to G. Hinge for providing me with the reading of the word Tauropolos. Oppermann (1934, 35) reached

the same conclusion with different arguments. Braund has recently combined the two poles, suggesting that

Tauropolos means “Mistress of the Taurians” (Braund, forthcoming). Though the suggestion is interesting, we have

absolutely no evidence that the Chersonesean deity was ever locally worshipped under the name of Tauropolos. This

epithet is applied to her from the outside, and it remained extraneous to her cult. 6Terracotta reliefs, c. 500 BC; see Kahil 1984, 674, nos. 700-701. 7Kahil 1984, 674, no. 703. This was the dominant reverse type of civic bronze coins minted in Amphipolis between

Augustus and Commodus (Lorber 1990, 13); cf. SNG American Numismatic Society 7 (Macedonia I), 1987, nos.

150-154, 195 and numerous coins in-between. The identification is ascertained by frequent inscriptions on the coins

naming her Tauropolos. 8The only general study of Tauropolos is Hans Oppermann’s short article in the RE from 1934 (33-38). Tauropolos

has not yet been included in LIMC. Note that Oppermann erroneously refers to Aricia as a place, where Tauropolos

was venerated. The cult place was, in fact, the sanctuary by Lake Nemi, which was administered by Aricia, but not

within the limits of that town. Since the appearance of Oppermann 1934, the inscriptions have become noticeably

much more numerous. This makes a modern, updated study of the Tauropolos a desideratum. See Guldager Bilde

2003, 166-168.

4

(a) an actual cult of a “bull-handling” female deity (Tauro-pólos) originating in Halai and

(perhaps) spreading with the Macedonians through Amphipolis, to the Hellenised East as far as

Ikaros in the Arabian Gulf. The knowledge of this cult is mainly based on epigraphical evidence,

the majority of which is documented in the 4th-2nd centuries BC.9 Though interesting, this deity

need not concern us here.

(b) cult(?) of a female deity “worshipped by the Taurians”, (Tauró-polos), based on the false

etymology created by Euripides. The notion of this cult was spread throughout the ancient world

and especially promoted in Strabon’s writings10 as a literary topos of long-standing popularity.

The locations of the cult are mentioned exclusively in literary sources, predominantly Roman,

first of all in connection with aetiological explanations of local bloody rites. The vehicle is the

presence of the cult image removed by Orestes from the Taurian sanctuary.

With the exception of what is probably the oldest location celebrating the cult of Tauropolos

(Halai Araphnides), there is no overlapping between the two above- mentioned groups.

Parthenos as elaphochthonos

The second novelty in Euripides’ IT is the epithet elaphochthonos, deer-killing. This epithet is

extremely uncommon. It is exclusively found in Iphigenia in Tauris and in one later source,

Apollonius Dyscolus Grammaticus from the 2nd century AD.11 Similarly, other terms for the

deer, such as elaphos, or the young deer, ellos, combined with a suffix denoting “killing”, either

-phonos, -ctonos, or -bolos are equally unusual, and they are found exclusively as epithets for

Artemis.12Nebroctonos=ellophonos: Schol. Kallimachos, Hymn to Artemis 190. Elaphebolos

9Guldager Bilde 2003, fig. 2. 10Guldager Bilde 2003, fig. 1. 11De Adverbiis part 2 1.1, 189, l. 8. 12Elaphoctonos: Euripides, IT 1113; Apollonius Dyscolus Grammaticus, De Adverbiis part 2 1.1, 189, l. 8.

Elaphebolos: Homeric Hymn to Artemis 27.2; Anakreon fragm. 3.1; Soph. Trach. l. 214; Nonnos, Dionysiaca

44.198; Apollonius Dyscolus Grammaticus De Adverbiis part 2 1.1, 189, l. 8. Also the festival Elaphebolía in the

town of Hyampolis in Phocis was celebrated in honour of Artemis. Nothing is known about the festival with the

exception that a certain kind of cakes, elaphoi, probably in the shape of stags, were offered to the goddess (Ath. 15,

p. 646 e).

5

seems to be the main one of these deer-killing epithets, found as early as in the Homeric Hymn

to Artemis and in Anakreon.13

The rarity of the term deer-killer in ancient literature is equally matched by an almost

complete paucity of depictions of a deer-killing deity. Some of the depictions of a female deer-

killer have been collected in the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae by L. Kahil in

her 1984 article on Artemis, others may be added.14

Considering the extreme rarity, it is striking that not only was the Taurian goddess

mentioned as elaphochthonos, but also that the later great goddess of western Crimea, the

Chersonesean Parthenos,15 was portrayed repeatedly as deer-killer on coins minted in the city.

On coins from the late 4th century BC, continuing basically unaltered but for brief intervals right

up to the latest issues of the city in the mid-3rd century AD we see Parthenos pushing her right

knee into the back of the deer forcing it down and at the same time with the right hand thrusting

a spear into its neck.16 The same scene is repeated on a handsome, but fragmentary, marble relief

found in Chersonesos in 1911, now in the Archaeological Museum of Sevastopol’ probably

dating to the late Classical or Hellenistic period.17

Ellophonos: Kallimachos Hymn to Artemis 190 (Britomaris) and commentary in Etymologicum genuinum; Papyri

magica Preisendanz 4, 2722 (Artemis Hekate); Etymologicum magnum, Kallierges 331, 55 (Artemis).

Nebros, also signifying deer, combined with a “killing-suffix”, is used predominantly in connection with

males:

Nebrophonos: Antoninus Liberalis Myth., Metamorphoseon synagoge 20.6 (Apollon); Nonnos, Dionysiaca 13.115

(Odysseus); 25.225 (Herakles); 44.198 (Dionysos).

13See preceding note. 14Additional examples are discussed in Guldager Bilde 2003. 15Basic literature on the Chersonesean Parthenos is E. Diehl’s article from 1949 in the RE and the recent monograph

Rusjaeva & Rusjaeva 1999. Parthenos is also briefly mentioned in Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1997. 16Stolba 1989, 62-63. The date is now further confirmed by the stratigraphy of Panskoe I, U6, see Gilevi� 2002,

248-249. 17Inv. 22226; Ivanova et al. 1976, no. 94, fig. 55. The relief has been interpreted mistakenly as Mithras killing the

Bull, and has, accordingly, been dated (probably wrongly, but I have not had the opportunity to see the relief) to the

Roman period. The person kneeling on the back of the animal, far too slender to represent a bull, has bare legs, and

is not, as Mithras invariably does, wearing trousers. There can, therefore, be no doubt that Parthenos as

elaphochthonos is intended.

6

The connection between Herodotos’ and Euripides’ Taurian goddess on the one hand and

the Chersonesean Parthenos on the other has long been debated.18 There can hardly be any doubt

that the Chersoneseans regarded Parthenos as a goddess in her own right, as demonstrated by

local inscriptions and coins. Chersonesean coins are the most reliable sources of Parthenos’

iconography, as expressions of state cult institutions,19 and from these we can easily deduce, why

Euripides reinterpreted Parthenos as Artemis, as her iconography, at least from the 4th century

BC, coincided with that of the Greek goddess. It is difficult to imagine that the Greek settlers of

Chersonesos did not incorporate elements into their own state cult of a powerful local deity of

the land recently settled, just as they did, for example, in Ephesos, Perge or Aphrodisias.20

However, phenomenologically speaking Parthenos shared many of the characteristics also

revealed by Artemis, which is why outsiders (Euripides, later authors, and modern researchers)

have readily identified Parthenos as Artemis.

The coincidence of the rare epithet elaphochthonos mentioned by Euripides concerning

the Taurian Parthenos and the consistent iconographical representation of a deer-killing goddess

in the Chersonesean coins cannot be fortuitous. Whether deer-killing was a particular element in

the cult of the Taurian deity, which then inspired Euripides, or whether it was rather an element,

which the Chersoneseans took up precisely because it was described by Euripides as an element

of an older (local) cult, is unknown. But as the Chersonesean coins with the deer-killing goddess

are no older than late 4th century BC, the last-mentioned interpretation is certainly a possibility.

Diana Nemorensis and the sanctuary’s “Scythian cult”

But what, then, of the connection to Nemi? What was Scythian about the Diana at Nemi? Roman

authors unanimously described the cult of Diana by Lake Nemi as “cruel”, immitis21 or non

18Zograf 1922 and Diehl 1949, 1965-1967 with earlier literature; see also D. Braund, forthcoming. 19Anochin 1980; Stolba 1996. 20It should not be overlooked that our earliest written source for the cult of Parthenos, Herodotos, also provides us

with the insight that the Taurians may have been subjected to so much Greek influence by his day as to reinterpret

their own deity in Greek terms as Iphigenia! On the Hellenisation of the Tauroi and the cultural cross-fertilisation

between the Chersoneseans and the Taurians, see Ščeglov 1988; Braund, forthcoming. 21Sil. Pun. 8.367

7

mitis22, and her altar was with an euphemistical expression “easy to placate”, placabilis ara

Dianae, by implication “needed to be placated”.23 As mentioned above, the cruelty was

frequently explained through the myth placing the origin of the cult in the land of the Taurians.24

Strabon, as the only author, mentions the same epiklesis to the Nemi Artemis as did Euripides to

the Taurian goddess, namely Tauropolos.25

With Euripides’ IT, the image from the Taurian Sanctuary had become an image that

wandered throughout the eastern Mediterranean regions.26 The sanctuary by Lake Nemi is the

only certain instance, where the image came to the West.27

Diana Nemorensis was a goddess of many faces. Her main epiklesis was Trivia,28 literally

“of the crossroads”, also frequently used for Hekate, referring to one of her more sinister sides as

a deity of the Underworld. She was depicted as a huntress in a long or a short dress with a bow, a

spear or a torch, but she is never seen engaged in actual killing.29 She was a goddess of healing

powers and perhaps also of oracles. Phenomenologically speaking, accordingly, the similarity to

the Taurian goddess is on a very general level. Why then “Scythian”?

The two earliest sources of the concept of Diana Nemorensis being of Scythian origins

are more or less contemporary. Ovid in his Metamorphoses 14.331 calls her the “Scythian Diana

in her forest kingdom”, quaeque colunt Scytiae regnum nemorale Dianae.30 Far more elaborate

is Strabon as already quoted above. He explicitly gives the reason for calling the Sanctuary of

22Valerius Flaccus Argonautica 2.305. 23Verg. Aen. 7.764. 24 The alternative, calling her “Mycenaean”, that is pre-historic, as an explanation of the cult’s “cruelty”, is offered

by Lucanius (Bell. Civ., 6.74-75). 25Strab. 5.3.12. 26Graf 1979; Guldager Bilde 2003. 27Perhaps the image was also thought to have been brought to Rhegion as Artemis Phakelitis: see J. Schmidt,

Phakelitis, RE XIX, 1937, 1609; Graf 1979, note 4 with references, but the sources are late and inconclusive. 28It is perhaps worth noticing that Ovidius in Ex Ponto 3.2.71 describes the Taurian goddess with the same

vocabulary as Diana Nemorensis: inmitis Trivia (see also n. 21-22 concerning Diana Nemorensis as immitis/non

mitis). 29Guldager Bilde 2000, 102-104; Guldager Bilde & Moltesen 2002. 30From his exile in Tomis, Ovidius also later returned to the myth on Iphigenia and the Taurian goddess: Tristia

4.61-85 and Ex Ponto 3.2.43-96.

8

Diana “barbarian and Scythian” as being due to the practice of a ritualised human sacrifice,

namely the duel between the reigning priest, the Rex Nemorensis and his challenger. How much

did he actually know about the sanctuary by Lake Nemi? and was he the original author of the

aition explaining the duel between the Rex Nemorensis and his challenger with the sanctuary’s

Taurian origin?

Strabon stayed several years in Rome under Caesar and Augustus, and was well

acquainted with the court circles. Lake Nemi with the Sanctuary of Diana and the villa of Caesar

was a significant area frequented by the Roman elite in those years,31 so it is difficult to imagine

that Strabon did not visit this place. Also, his detailed description contains several topographical

details that must have been based on personal acquaintance with the area (5.3.12 continued):

“The temple is in a sacred grove, and in front of it is a lake which resembles an open sea,

and round about in a circle lies an unbroken and very high mountain-brow, which

encloses both the temple and the water in a place that is hollow and deep. You can see the

springs, it is true, from which the lake is fed (one of them is ”Egeria”, as it is called after

a certain deity), but the outflows of the lake itself are not apparent, though they are

pointed out to you at a distance outside the hollow, where they rise to the surface”.

“Near these places is also Mount Albanus, which rises considerably above the

Artemisium and the mountain-brows around it, though they too are high and rather steep”

(translation: H.L. Jones).32

The sanctuary was administered by the nearby town of Aricia. Since the excavations in the late

19th century, it has been certain that the so-called Arician Sanctuary of Diana was situated by

Lake Nemi.33 Aricia was the home town of Augustus’ mother, Atia, and her family: the Atii and

later Augustus himself were deeply involved in the sanctuary.34 It is therefore hardly likely, that

31Guldager Bilde, forthcoming. 32The description could have been made standing on the southern rim of the crater lake, where all the features

mentioned are visible. The outflows mentioned is the Lake Nemi emissary. It was constructed around 300 BC

according to new Nordic investigations, and made in order to keep a constant water level in the lake (Ucelli 1950,

45-56). 33Summary in Guldager Bilde 2000, 94-96. 34Guldager Bilde, forthcoming.

9

it was in the Augustan age that the notion of the sanctuary’s cult as “barbaric and Scythian” was

established. Even though we have no earlier sources than Ovidius or Strabon, this myth must be

older. The question is, then, how much older?

Caesar, who possessed a palatial villa in Diana’s sacred wood by Lake Nemi,35 was

favourably disposed not only to the local cult at Nemi, but also to Chersonesos. In 46 BC, he

recognised Chersonesos’ freedom.36 Identifying the Nemi cult as “barbaric” and “Scythian”

would hardly have occurred under his rule either. I would accordingly suggest that the date is at

least pre-Caesarian.

The Sanctuary of Diana by Lake Nemi37 might have been very old indeed - at least, the

ritualised human sacrifice reflected in the duel between the Rex Nemorensis and his challenger

might well have had very ancient roots. However, the oldest literary and archaeological sources

for cult activity in the sanctuary are no older than ca. 500 BC. The sanctuary was founded as an

open-air sanctuary by clearing a sacred space, the lucus, in the woods. It is not until ca. 300 BC

that the earliest temple was built. However, its main period of flourishing was in the late

Republican period, in the late 2nd century BC, when the sanctuary was completely rebuilt on a

grand scale in Hellenistic style on vast artificial terraces and with immense porticoes and

probably a new temple. The sanctuary was a place of worship until it was destroyed by a natural

catastrophe in the second half of the 2nd century AD.

To me, the most obvious time to establish the aition for the ritual killing of the Rex

Nemorensis, would be the late Republican period, when activities in the sanctuary were booming

and architecture and sculpture were demonstrably under thorough Hellenistic influence. But how

well was the myth of the Taurian goddess and her Greek successor, the Chersonesean Parthenos,

known in Italy by this time? And can the date of the myth’s transmission be determined more

accurately?

35Cic. Att. 6.1.25; Suet. Iul. 46. The villa is probably to be identified with the palatial structure recently excavated

by the Nordic Institutes in Rome in the locality S. Maria by the southwestern shore of the lake (1998-2002), see

Guldager Bilde, forthcoming. 36Plin. NH 4.85. 37Overview over the sanctuary’s architecture and cult: Sacred Grove 1997.

10

Late Hellenistic representations of a deer-killing goddess

The myth of Iphigenia in Tauris had enjoyed a certain popularity in Italy in contrast to mainland

Greece.38 It was illustrated on South Italian vases of the 4th century BC and on Etruscan urns of

the 3rd and 2nd century BC.39 These monuments show no fixed iconography of the Taurian

goddess. In the 2nd century BC the Roman playwright Pacuvius produced his own version of

Euripides’ play in Rome with significant success,40 so there is no doubt that in Italy the myth

complex surrounding Iphigenia and Orestes in Tauris was well known at least as early as the 4th

century BC.

Around 100 BC three or four iconographically identical statue groups of a deer-killing

female deity were created. Two of these were found in Delos,41 and one was found in Rome.42

One further representation can probably be identified in a badly known and little discussed statue

segment in Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio.43 This piece was bought in Rome in 1914 by Henry

Goldmann from a Roman art dealer by the name of Alfredo Barsanti. Around 1900, the presence

of late Hellenistic art for sale in Rome was rare. In the Sanctuary of Diana by Lake Nemi, an

extraordinarily large number of pieces of late Hellenistic sculpture have been found.44 Barsanti

sold several objects from that sanctuary to the University Museum in Philadelphia in the late

19th century and possibly in the beginning of the 20th century.45 The possibility cannot be

excluded that the Barsanti statue came from Nemi, though this cannot be proved. If that was not

the case, it most probably came from Rome itself as did the group from the horti Tauriani.

38Kahil 1990. 39Kahil 1990; Krauskopf 1990. 40Cic. Amic. 24. 41Quartiere du theàtre, House III S: Exploration archéologique à Délos VIII. Paris 1922, 222, fig. 98; Kahil 1984

no. 402; Sanctuary complex on the Mount Kynthos: Exploration archéologique à Délos XI. Paris 1928, 127, fig.

28; Kahil 1984 no. 403. 42Esquiline Hill in via del Principe Umberto, where the Horti Tauriani belonging to Statilius Taurus(!) were

situated: Museo capitolino, Palazzo dei conservatori, inv. 320: Stuart Jones 1926, 95-96, pl. 34.12; Mustili 1939,

136, pl. 85. 43Inv. 1937.5. Guldager Bilde 2003, 172-173, fig. 6, note 49 with references. 44Guldager Bilde & Moltesen 2002. 45Guldager Bilde & Moltesen 2002, 10.

11

Representations of Tauropolos as elaphochthonos - the role of Mithridates VI?

The deer-killing is found on a few rare eastern Mediterranean coins as well.46 None of them are

earlier than the late Hellenistic period, and, accordingly, contemporary with or slightly later than

the marble sculptures. As it was established above, the term elaphochchthonos as well as the

depiction of a deer-killing female deity are so rare that it is difficult not to connect the sculpture

groups and the Chersonesean coins. The very eccentricity of the iconography showing an act of

actual killing, could have been decisive for the choice of iconography for the Tauropolos in

addition to the Crimean origin of both myth and image. Accordingly, it is likely that in the late

Hellenistic and Roman period, the iconography of the wandering image of the Taurian goddess,

the Tauró-polos in the Euripidean sense, may have been understood in terms of the deer-killing

deity known from Taurian Chersonesos.

Where did this reinterpretation take place? Delos, the melting-pot of the oikumene, where

two statues of a deer-killing deity were found, is one possibility. However, the earliest coin

produced outside of Chersonesos depicting a deer-killing deity may point to a different location

for the transmission. In Lydian Hierakome, later called Hierokaisareia , two coin types have

been established with a deer-killing female deity:

(a) Obv. Bearded head with Persian cap turned right

Rev. Deer-killing female in short dress turned right. Monogram IEP.47

Date: (early) 1st century BC?48

(b) Obv. Bust of Artemis with bow and quiver on her back turned right.

Rev. Deer-killing female in short dress turned right. Inscription HIEROKAISAREON.49

Whereas type (b) is firmly ascribed to Hierokaisareia due to its reverse inscription, type (a) has

been attributed to various locations with names starting with the syllable “Hier-”.50 Only one

46Guldager Bilde 2003, 173-175. 47SNG Copenhagen (Lydia), 1947, no. 172; Imhoof-Blumer 1883, 354, no. 23a, pl. H.7; Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 6-7,

pl. I.3; Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 447. 48Imhoof-Blumer (1897, 6) suggests a date in the 1st century BC or (1897, 10-11) in the period of “Augustus or

earlier”. 49Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 13, pl. I.9; Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum (Lydia), 1901, 102, no. 3. 50Imhoof-Blumer 1883, 354; Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 447. The issue was finally settled by Imhoof-Blumer

himself (1897, 5-11). However, much confusion still exists in the scientific literature; see Robert 1964, 47-51,

12

additional coin type provides us with the same monogram, namely, coins with a bust of Artemis

on the obverse, occasionally inscribed with the name of Persike and with the forepart of a

kneeling stag and the monogram on the reverse.51

The male head wearing a Persian cap of type (a) is related to representations on

anonymous Pontic obols dating to the time of Mithridates VI.52 However, in contrast to the

clean-shaven youth on the Pontic obols, the coin from Hierakome-Hierokaisareia represents a

male with a beard. In both cases, however, the male with the Persian cap may allude to the cult’s

Persian priesthood. With some probability, the coin from Hierakome-Hierokaisareia can be dated

to the time of Mithridates VI.

The inscriptions on the coins from Hierakome-Hierokaisareia offer an identification of

the deer-killing goddess, namely, as the Persian Artemis, Artemis or Thea Persike. Stone

inscriptions reveal that Persike was worshipped in Hierakome-Hierokaisareia,53 where a Persian

or Persianised cult prevailed, as vividly described by Pausanias (5.27.5). It is tempting to accept

Imhoof-Blumer’s identification of the above-mentioned male with a Persian cap on the obverse

of the coin type (a) of Hierakome as that of a Persian priest.54

In connection with identifying the deer-killing goddess on the coins of Hierakome-

Hierokaisareia as (Artemis) Persike, a passage by Pausanias concerning the rival myths of

possession of the Taurian image, should briefly be mentioned:

“And yet, right down to the present day, the fame of the Tauric goddess has remained so

high that the Cappadocians dwelling on the Euxine claim that the image is among them, a

like claim being made by those Lydians also who have a sanctuary of Artemis Anaeitis”

which discusses this further. 51Imhoof-Blumer 1883, 353-354, no. 23; Imhoof-Blumer 1887, 5-6, pl. 1.2 (with the inscription PERSIKE);

Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 447 (with the correct attribution). SNG Copenhagen (Lydia), 1947, no. 170-171; SNG

Deutschland (v. Aulock, Lydien), 1963, no. 2951 (with the inscription PERSIKE). An anonymous single bronze

coin with the head of Apollo carries the same monogram. It has been ascribed to Hierakome too (Imhoof-Blumer

1897, 11). 52Golenko 1969, 130-154. 53TAM V, Asia Minor, nos. 1244-1245 and 1396. The find spot of 1396 is uncertain but is probably in a village

near Hierakome; see Welles 1966, 2, 273-276. The inscription is dated to the late Hellenistic period, 138 BC or

later. See also Tac. Ann. 3.62.1 (Diana Persica). 54Imhoof-Blumer 1897, 10-11; Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 447.

13

(3.16.8. Translation: G. P. Gould (ed.)).

With Artemis Anaitis and Artemis Persike the same deity is intended, a Persianised hypostasis of

Artemis.55 It is more than likely that Hierakome-Hierakaisareia, the main sanctuary of Persike, is

to be identified with the Lydian locality mentioned by Pausanias as housing the image of the

Taurian goddess, whereas the first location must refer to Komana Pontike. In both instances, the

goddess was seemingly synonymous with Tauropolos, as her image was claimed to be venerated

in both places.

The idea of shaping the image of the movable Taurian image in accordance with the

Chersonesean deer-killing Parthenos may have sprung up in the Persian milieu of the Pontic

Kingdom. Komana Pontike, was a significant religious site in that kingdom.56 The main deity

worshiped in Komana was Ma. She was occasionally regarded as Artemis Anaitis. It may well be

that the cult’s Persian elements were introduced during Mithridates VI’s reign, but regrettably,

not much is known about the cult. However, it should not be overlooked that at the time when

the statue groups and perhaps the earliest coins were made, Chersonesos was firmly situated

within the orbit of Mithridates’ Pontic Kingdom.57 The connection between Ma and Parthenos is

also known later from the northern Black Sea region, as these two goddesses together are noted

as the divine overseers of the act of manumitting a slave (CIRB 74; findspot and -time unknown,

previously in the museum in Kerč’, now in the British Museum; second half of the 2nd century

AD).

The Mithridatic Wars celebrated in the Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis

The Mithridatic link is not without interest for the relationship to the Sanctuary of Diana

Nemorensis. The Roman victories over Mithridates VI in the 3rd Mithridatic War were

celebrated in the sanctuary by the Roman generals with several major monuments. One was a

55Brosius (1998) thoroughly discusses the relationship between the Persian Artemises and the actual Persian

Anahita, concluding that Anahita is not a Hellenised Persian goddess, but rather that the Persian Artemises signal

the Persianisation of a Greek deity. 56Saprykin 1996, 248-266. 57E.g. IOSPE 12 352.

14

bronze statue erected on a tall, highly elaborated column.58 Its bilingual inscription in Greek and

Latin tells us that it was donated by the Mysians living in the areas of Abbaitis and Phrygian

Epiktetos to the Roman legatus and pro praetor C. Sallvius C. f. Naso, because he had saved

them during the war against Mithridates. Sallvius Naso is not known from any other historical

sources. His deed probably took place in an early phase of the war, in 74 or 73 BC,59 when the

Romans won a decisive battle at Apollonia apud Rhyndacum situated within the lands of the

donors.

The second is an epistyle made of Travertine limestone.60 The inscription celebrates the

erection of a building by a [...]Licinius L. f. and a C. Voconius C. f. Unfortunately the inscription

has since been lost. However, the use of Travertine for building purposes and the spelling

Leicinius both point to a date in the late Republican period.

The Voconii was a local family from Aricia. We only know of one historical moment

when a L. Licinius and a Voconius appear in the same context, namely at the beginning of the

3rd Mithridatic War, when a certain Voconius, whose first name is unfortunately not known, was

an officer under L. Licinius (L. f.) Lucullus in Asia Minor.61

Voconius’ presence in the 3rd Mithridatic War immediately followed the Battle of

Apollonia mentioned above. After one part of Mithridates’ army was defeated by the Romans at

Apollonia, the remaining part of the army fled to Kyzikos. Soon this part of the army was also

defeated.62 Lucullus then sent a certain Voconius after Mithridates, so that he would escape no

further than Nikomedia in Bithynia.63 However, Voconius was busy being initiated into the

mysteries at Samothrace, which is why Mithridates got past him and the Roman army.64 But by

58Found in 1866, now in Castello Ruspoli, Nemi. The column with base and capital is 1.86 m high. CIL XIV,

2218; Magie 1975 2.1208, n. 15; Broughton 1952, 105; 106-107; 113; ILLRP no. 372; Tuchelt 1979, 49-51; 194;

pl. 10-11. 59Broughton 1952, 105-107; 113 Tuchelt 1979, 49; 194. 60Epistyle of Travertine, found between 1866 and 1885, present whereabouts unknown; CIL I2, 1434 = CIL XIV,

2222. 61 Plut. Luc. 13.1. F. Coarelli has reached the same conclusion (Coarelli 1987, 178-179). 62 Plut. Luc. 11.6. 63 Plut. Luc. 13.1. 64 Plut. Luc. 13.2.

15

the help of Artemis of Priapos, however, Mithridates’ navy was destroyed in a storm, and,

according to Plutarch only Mithridates himself escaped.65

There were, thus, good reasons for the victorious officers on their return to Italy to

celebrate Artemis-Diana with handsome votives in one of her principal Italian sanctuaries. Also

later in the 3rd Mithridatic War Artemis played a decisive role: in 69 BC, Lucullus marched

against Armenia, where Mithridates was in hiding. Upon crossing the Euphrates swollen with

winter rain, the river parted before the Roman troops as the Red Sea had for Moses.66 At the

opposite side of the river, Lucullus received a favourable sign.67 Oxen sacred to Artemis Persike,

the deity “whom the barbarians at that side of the river venerate most highly” were grazing

there.68 One of the oxen freely consented to be sacrificed.69 This was to become the preamble for

Lucullus’ great victory at Tigranokerta.70

Even though the line of reconstruction may be considered thin, it nevertheless is a

possibility that the notion of the Tauropolos as an explanation of the still savage cult in the

Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis was established in the wake of the 3rd Mithridatic War. It would

push the creation of the aition beyond not only the period of Strabon and Caesar, but it would

also explain this as the result of the Roman troops meeting this strange Artemis conceived of as

Tauropolos and Persike in the Pontic milieu, a deity which in turn iconographically by the time

of Mithridates VI may have been reformulated along the lines of the original Tauró-polos, the

Chersonesean deer-killer, Parthenos.

Summing up

(a) As already Strabon noted, the Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis was called “Scythian” because

of the custom of a ritualised human sacrifice.

(b) Strabon probably knew the Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis at first hand. It is hardly likely

that he is the creator of the aition of the cult being a copy of the Tauropolos though he (and his

65 Plut. Luc. 13.4. 66 Plut. Luc. 24.4-5. 67 Plut. Luc. 24.6. 68 Plut. Luc. 24.6. 69 Plut. Luc. 24.6-7.

16

contemporary Ovid) are the first to formulate this.

(c) The creation of the visual representation of the travelling Taurian image, the Tauró-polos in

Euripidean sense, probably occurred around 100 BC modelled upon the image of the later

“Taurian” goddess, Chersonesean Parthenos. The link between Euripides’ description of

Tauropolos as elaphochthonos and the representations through three quarters of a millennium in

Chersonesos of a deer-killing deity, which is otherwise extremely rare, is decisive.

(d) This iconographical (re)interpretation may have been created in the Pontic Kingdom of

Mithridates VI.

(e) The Romans could have encountered the representations of a deer-killing deity in either

Chersonesos, Delos or in the Pontic Kingdom.

(f) Considering Artemis (Persike)’s role in the 3rd Mithridatic War and considering the fact that

at least one, more likely two major monuments were erected in the Sanctuary by one or two

victorious Roman officers of that war, it is possible that that prompted the reinterpretation the

cult of Diana Nemorensis as that of Tauropolos.

70 Plut. Luc. 29.2-3.

17

Bibliography

Anochin, V.A. 1980. The Coinage of Chersonesos. BAR 69. Oxford.

Braund, D. forthcoming. Parthenos and the Nymphs at Crimean Chersonesus: colonial

appropriation and native integration, to be printed in the conference volume: Cités

grecques, sociétés indigènes et empires mondiaux dans la region nord-pontique: origins et

développement d’une koiné politique, économique et culturelle (VIIe s. a.C. – IIIe s.

p.C.). Bordeaux.

Brosius, M. 1998. Artemis Persike and Artemis Anaitis, in: Achemenid History 11. Essays in

Memory of David M. Lewis. Leiden, 227-238.

Broughton, T.R.S. 1952. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic II (Philological Monographs

published by the American Philological Association XV). New York

Coarelli, F. 1987. I santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana (Studi NIS Archeologia 7). Roma.

Diehl, E. 1949. Parthenos (2), RE 18.4, 1957-1967.

Gilevič, A.M. 2002. Coins, in: L. Hannestad, V.F. Stolba & A.N. Ščeglov (eds.), Panskoye I.

Vol. I. The Monumental Building U6. Aarhus.

Golenko, K.V. 1969. Pontijskaja anonimnaja med’, VDI 1, 130-154.

Graf, F. 1979. Das Götterbild aus dem Taurerland, Antike Welt 10.4, 33-41.

Guldager Bilde, P. 2000. The Sculptures from the Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis, Types and

Contextualisation: An Overview, in: Nemi - Status Quo. Rome, 93-109.

18

Guldager Bilde, P. 2003. Wandering Images: From Taurian (and Chersonesean) Parthenos to

(Artemis) Tauropolos and (Artemis) Persike, in: P. Guldager Bilde, J.M. Højte & V.F.

Stolba, The Cauldron of Ariantas. Studies presented to A.N. Ščeglov on the occasion of

his 70th birthday. Aarhus, 165-183.

Guldager Bilde, P. forthcoming. Caesar’s villa? Nordic excavations of a Roman villa by Lake

Nemi, loc. S. Maria, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, in press.

Guldager Bilde, P. & M. Moltesen 2002. A Catalogue of Sculptures from the Sanctuary of Diana

Nemorensis in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Analecta Romana

Instituti Danici 29.

Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1883. Monnaies grecques. Paris & Leipzig.

Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1897. Lydische Stadtmünzen. Genf & Leipzig.

Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1901-1902. Kleinasiatische Münzen I-II. Wien.

Ivanova, A. P. et al. 1976. Antičnaja skul’ptura Chersonesa. Kiev.

Kahil, L. 1984. Artemis, LIMC II. Zürich & München, 618-753.

Kahil, L. 1990. Iphigeneia, LIMC V. Zürich & München, 706-729.

Knell, H. 1983. Der Tempel der Artemis Tauropolos in Lutsa, AA 1983, 39-43.

Kotzias, N. 1925-1926. Démotikon pséphisma Halon ton Raphnidon, ArchEph 168-177.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, H. 1997. Parthenos, LIMC VIII. Zürich & Dusseldorf, 944-948.

19

Krauskopf, I. 1990. Iphigeneia in Etruria, LIMC V. Zürich & München, 729-734.

Lorber, C.C. 1990. Amphipolis. The Civic Coinage in Silver and Gold. Los Angeles.

Magie, D. 1975. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. New York.

Mustili, D. 1939. Il Museo Mussolini. Roma.

Oppermann, H. 1934. Tauropolos, RE 2.5, 34-38.

Papadimitriou, J. 1956. Anaskaphai en Brauróni, Praktika, 87-89.

Papadimitriou, J. 1957. Anaskaphai en Brauróni, Praktika, 45-47.

Rives, J. 1995. Human sacrifice among pagans and Christians, JRS 85, 65-85.

Robert, L. 1964. La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala (Cilicie). Paris.

Rusjaeva, A. & M. Rusjaeva 1999. Verchovnaja boginja antičnoj Tavriki. Kiev.

Sacred Grove 1997. I Dianas hellige lund. Fund fra en helligdom i Nemi (In the Sacred Grove of

Diana. Finds from a Sanctuary at Nemi). Copenhagen.

Saprykin, S. Ju. 1996. Pontijskoe carstvo. Moskva.

Schmidt, J. 1937. Phakelitis, RE 19, 1609.

Stauropoullos, Ph. 1932. Timétikon pséphisma Halon ton Araphnidon, ArchEph Archaiologika

chronika, 30-32.

20

Stolba, V. F. 1989. Novoe posvjaščenie iz Severo-Zapadnogo Kyma i aspekty kul’ta Gerakla v

Chersonesskom gosudarstve, VDI 4, 55-70.

Stolba, V.F. 1996. La couronne de la déesse Parthénos: Á propos d’un aspect du monnayage de

Chersonèse au IV-IIe siècle av. J.C., Bulletin de l’Association des amis du Cabinet des

médailles, Lausanne, 11-20.

Stuart Jones, H. 1926. A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Municipa

Collections of Rome. The Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Oxford.

Tuchelt, K. 1979. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien (IstMitt Suppl. 23).

Ucelli, G. 1950. Le navi di Nemi. Roma.

Welles, C.B. 1966. Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period. Roma.

Zograf, A. N. 1922. Statuarnye izobra_enija Devy v Chersonese po dannym numazmatiki,

Izvestija Rossijskoj Akademii Istorii Material’noj Kul’tury 2, 337-360.

ANS The American Numismatic Society

CIRB Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani

IGSK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien

LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae

ILLRP Degrassi, A.1957. Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Firenze

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum