More than 2.000 km east of Rome, in Ankara, Anatolia, is found a temple, dedicated to Augustus and Rome with the inscription of the deeds of Augustus, the Res Gestae. In this study we will see if there is an explanation for the presence of these cult-structures in Ancient Ancyra and our research-method will be the Social Network Analysis. It will turn out then that Ancyra as a cult-place fits logically in the larger whole of the
network of the Roman imperial cult.
Introduction
The find of a temple, dedicated to Rome and the Roman emperor, even with the actions of Augustus being engraved on its walls, in the Anatolian city Ankara, may seem a little weird! Ankara and Rome are clearly not neighbours. In this essay we will explain why the existence of the temple of Ancient Ancyra and the so-called Monumentum Ancyranum is not that strange, by embedding the fact in the broader subject of ‘The Roman Imperial Cult as a Global Network’. Ankara or Ancyra with his temple for Augustus and Rome and the Res Gestae was not unique; many
cities in the territory occupied by Romans had imperial memorial - and cult places for Augustus. These shared religious practices, honouring the same Roman ruler, were the result of and resulted in connection with Rome and communication between the cult-places from different regions.
It will be interesting to know more about the position of Ancyra within this Rome-oriented group. Our research-question therefore is ‘How was
Ancyra connected to Rome through the imperial cult and especially through the temple to Rome and Augustus?’ In our research we encounter questions as why Ancyra can be called an imperial cult-place, in what networks did Ancyra participate and how was the connection Rome - Ancyra instigated.
network of the Roman imperial cult.
Introduction
The find of a temple, dedicated to Rome and the Roman emperor, even with the actions of Augustus being engraved on its walls, in the Anatolian city Ankara, may seem a little weird! Ankara and Rome are clearly not neighbours. In this essay we will explain why the existence of the temple of Ancient Ancyra and the so-called Monumentum Ancyranum is not that strange, by embedding the fact in the broader subject of ‘The Roman Imperial Cult as a Global Network’. Ankara or Ancyra with his temple for Augustus and Rome and the Res Gestae was not unique; many
cities in the territory occupied by Romans had imperial memorial - and cult places for Augustus. These shared religious practices, honouring the same Roman ruler, were the result of and resulted in connection with Rome and communication between the cult-places from different regions.
It will be interesting to know more about the position of Ancyra within this Rome-oriented group. Our research-question therefore is ‘How was
Ancyra connected to Rome through the imperial cult and especially through the temple to Rome and Augustus?’ In our research we encounter questions as why Ancyra can be called an imperial cult-place, in what networks did Ancyra participate and how was the connection Rome - Ancyra instigated.
Definition of the subject, state of affairs
The discussion is limited to the period of the first century AD, the time of expansion of the Roman Empire, and to the area of Asia Minor. Main-roles are for Rome and Ankara, especially the temple and inscriptions. About the spread of the imperial cult over the vast Roman Empire several scholars published valuable studies. Putting the phenomenon under the umbrella of ‘Romanization’ is accepted and bypassed, the
adequate concept is ‘Globalization’, the process of integration by interchanges of cultures, whereby, when we speak about ‘cultures’ we focus in
this study on religion, more accurate: the imperial-cult. This ruler-cult is the worshipping, as if divine, of a mostly deified individual because of his position or power. Price and Rubin both claim that Asia Minor was familiar with the ruler-cult. Although scholars differ about its origin, all of them, Collar included, agree about the massive, political meaning of the ruler-cult. The above applied to our topic shows us: peoples of different descent shared the practice of the imperial cult and this tribute to the Roman emperor brings them together in an integration into the Roman Empire.
Still pending is research into how did the Roman imperial cult come to the remote Ankara in Asia Minor.
The discussion is limited to the period of the first century AD, the time of expansion of the Roman Empire, and to the area of Asia Minor. Main-roles are for Rome and Ankara, especially the temple and inscriptions. About the spread of the imperial cult over the vast Roman Empire several scholars published valuable studies. Putting the phenomenon under the umbrella of ‘Romanization’ is accepted and bypassed, the
adequate concept is ‘Globalization’, the process of integration by interchanges of cultures, whereby, when we speak about ‘cultures’ we focus in
this study on religion, more accurate: the imperial-cult. This ruler-cult is the worshipping, as if divine, of a mostly deified individual because of his position or power. Price and Rubin both claim that Asia Minor was familiar with the ruler-cult. Although scholars differ about its origin, all of them, Collar included, agree about the massive, political meaning of the ruler-cult. The above applied to our topic shows us: peoples of different descent shared the practice of the imperial cult and this tribute to the Roman emperor brings them together in an integration into the Roman Empire.
Still pending is research into how did the Roman imperial cult come to the remote Ankara in Asia Minor.
the Method of research
The area of the Mediterranean, just about the Roman Empire, is like a living organism with a constantly shaping and changing appearance. For our research of the role of cult-place Ankara in a larger perspective, the Social Network Analysis fits well. According Burkhardt, Malkin and Woolf the SNA highlights the importance of relations between different units and examines patterns and implications of these relations. This heuristic way of observing is descriptive, not directive, covers distances, and bypasses hierarchies and boundaries. Using this template it is possible to define aspects of spread of the imperial cult, where detailed and individual data are lacking. The SNA-model forces us to search for elements of this theory like actors, ties, nodes, hubs, brokers and flows and thus invites to insert the several players and activities in the field of religious practice into a frame. To find an answer on our research-question, we will, assuming the Social Network Analysis is a bit too heavy, use the derivative method; Social Network Thinking when we look at our archaeological and epigraphical source; Ancyra's temple with the inscriptions. |
Ancyra, an imperial cult-place
The Temple of Augustus and Rome with the Monumentum Ancyranum is located at the geocoordinates of 39°56′40″N 32°51′30″E, Turkey, Ankara. The structure was built of marble, measured 36 x 54.82 meter and was pseudodipteral, that is surrounded by forty-six columns, fifteen Corinthian on the long sections and eight Ionic on the short sides. The entry to the naos had four columns and the opisthodomos two in the back of the temple, a corridor from the pronaos gave access to the higher cella. On both sides of the inner walls of the pronaos is chiselled an inscription of 2.70 m height by 4 metres length; a copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti in Latin. The outer walls show the Greek version. The text recounts military and political events and is both an official narrative of Augustus and a subjective document; his auto-apologia.
The temple was built between 25 and 20 BC and possibly originally dedicated to the Phrygian gods Cybele and Men. After conquest of Central Anatolia by the Roman Empire and formation of the Province of Galatia with Ancyra as administrative capital, the king of Pylamenes of Galatia, son of king Amintos, rededicated in 25 AD the temple for the cult of the Roman goddess Roma and the deified emperor Augustus. With this expression of loyalty and fidelity Pylamenes accepted subjection to Rome and accordingly granted the emperor a place in the framework of traditional cults of the gods of the city.
The Temple of Augustus and Rome with the Monumentum Ancyranum is located at the geocoordinates of 39°56′40″N 32°51′30″E, Turkey, Ankara. The structure was built of marble, measured 36 x 54.82 meter and was pseudodipteral, that is surrounded by forty-six columns, fifteen Corinthian on the long sections and eight Ionic on the short sides. The entry to the naos had four columns and the opisthodomos two in the back of the temple, a corridor from the pronaos gave access to the higher cella. On both sides of the inner walls of the pronaos is chiselled an inscription of 2.70 m height by 4 metres length; a copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti in Latin. The outer walls show the Greek version. The text recounts military and political events and is both an official narrative of Augustus and a subjective document; his auto-apologia.
The temple was built between 25 and 20 BC and possibly originally dedicated to the Phrygian gods Cybele and Men. After conquest of Central Anatolia by the Roman Empire and formation of the Province of Galatia with Ancyra as administrative capital, the king of Pylamenes of Galatia, son of king Amintos, rededicated in 25 AD the temple for the cult of the Roman goddess Roma and the deified emperor Augustus. With this expression of loyalty and fidelity Pylamenes accepted subjection to Rome and accordingly granted the emperor a place in the framework of traditional cults of the gods of the city.
Ancyra, part of imperial cult-networks
The first check is whether we can speak of a network. Looking at the criteria of Burkhardt (in short: 1) voluntary participation 2) shared goal 3) advantages derived from transfers through network 4) flat hierarchies 5) each actor has at least two ties with other participants 6) no formal membership or organization) we meet quite a lot of his requirements. The Temple in Ancyra is one of the many structures in Asia Minor, dedicated at free will to the imperial dynasty. By this tie, the imperial cult, the temples, in network terms the nodes, are all connected with the emperor,
having residence in Rome. The temples aim at the same goal; political positioning of the emperor, and share the corresponding religious practice; rituals, celebrations and festivals to involve the citizens. In this sense, they are all linked to Rome and to each other and form a religious network. And as the English proverb already says “All roads lead to Rome”, it is clear Rome is the centre, here, in network-terms, we have a hub in a centralized network. In sync with and inherent to the cult-network, we can detect other networks like the network of venues for festivals & games, an overlapping, intricate and well-stocked network with as actors, reciprocal visiting athletes, officials and spectators. Other decentralized networks are the network of Sebasteia or Augustea, formed by Ancyra and cities in the East, each having a temple of Rome and Augustus, and the even larger network of cities with temples dedicated to the emperors after Augustus. Within these networks is the small one of three cities: Apollonia, Pisidian Antioch and Ancyra; they shared the exhibition of the visual articulation of the Roman power, the engraved Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Finally, Ancyra was a node in the network of ’the provincial koinon, a loose federation of cities which came together periodically to worship the Roman emperor and his family.
The first check is whether we can speak of a network. Looking at the criteria of Burkhardt (in short: 1) voluntary participation 2) shared goal 3) advantages derived from transfers through network 4) flat hierarchies 5) each actor has at least two ties with other participants 6) no formal membership or organization) we meet quite a lot of his requirements. The Temple in Ancyra is one of the many structures in Asia Minor, dedicated at free will to the imperial dynasty. By this tie, the imperial cult, the temples, in network terms the nodes, are all connected with the emperor,
having residence in Rome. The temples aim at the same goal; political positioning of the emperor, and share the corresponding religious practice; rituals, celebrations and festivals to involve the citizens. In this sense, they are all linked to Rome and to each other and form a religious network. And as the English proverb already says “All roads lead to Rome”, it is clear Rome is the centre, here, in network-terms, we have a hub in a centralized network. In sync with and inherent to the cult-network, we can detect other networks like the network of venues for festivals & games, an overlapping, intricate and well-stocked network with as actors, reciprocal visiting athletes, officials and spectators. Other decentralized networks are the network of Sebasteia or Augustea, formed by Ancyra and cities in the East, each having a temple of Rome and Augustus, and the even larger network of cities with temples dedicated to the emperors after Augustus. Within these networks is the small one of three cities: Apollonia, Pisidian Antioch and Ancyra; they shared the exhibition of the visual articulation of the Roman power, the engraved Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Finally, Ancyra was a node in the network of ’the provincial koinon, a loose federation of cities which came together periodically to worship the Roman emperor and his family.
Ancyra connects with Rome by imperial cult
How was the connection with the centre, Rome instigated? As broker, an important actor connecting one network with the other, of course the Roman emperor is rated high, for he decided to establish his own imperial cult everywhere in the empire. With equal conviction king Pylamenes of Ancyra is favoured as broker, he dedicated the temple in honour of Augustus. If Pylamenes operated on his own, in network-rankings his relation to Rome could been called a weak tie, it is however more likely that he was supported by the civic aristocracy, benefactors and local grandees. According to Price, Rubin and Galli (apart from personal involvement of the emperor and Senate) the local elites together with imperial delegates were busy in cult- architecture of the conquered cities. The 'Roman connection' was a strong tie. Because Ancyra was part of multiple networks, very likely there was mutual contact and exchange between the other nodes of the networks. Over these ties new information, the flow, travelled vice versa from centre to periphery or random between the nodes. In our network, among others, ‘the imperial cult’ was brought from Rome to Asia Minor. Following Collar and Price religion was predominantly political business and governed by the elites, they decided about religious innovations and transmission and couched the imperial worship into the existing cult and rituals.
Conclusion
The presence of the temple of Rome and Augustus with the Monumentum Ancyranum in Ancient Ancyra, an Anatolian city far from Rome, could be understood using networkthinking. By collecting the network-elements we could discover cult-connections, activities of cult-officials
and the larger mechanism of wide-spread imperial-cult. We could build a visible web and learned that Ancyra, after all, was a logical place for the
temple and Res Gestae.
References
Burkhardt, Mike, ‘Networks as Social Structures in Late Medieval and Early Modern Towns: A Theoretical Approach to Historical Network Analysis’
in: Commercial Networks and European Cities 1400-1800, ed. A. Caracausi and C. Jeggle, (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014).
Burrell, B., Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman Emperors (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
Collar, Anna, Religious networks in the Roman Empire. The spread of new ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Galli, Marco, ‘The celebration of Lucius Verus in the Provincia Achaia: Imperial Cult, Ritual Actors and Religious Networks' in: Roman Power and
Greek Sanctuaries: Forms of interaction and Communication, edited by M.Galli. (Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 2013).
Malkin, Irad, C. Constantakopolou and K. Panagopoulou, ‘Preface: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean’ in: Mediterranean Historical
Review 22.1 (2007).
Mitchell, S., Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
Price, S.R.F., Rituals and Power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
Rubin, Benjamin B., (Re)presenting Empire: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, 31 BC - 68 AD (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2008).
Woolf, Greg, ‘Only connect? Network analysis and religious change in the Roman world’ in: Hélade, vol.2, 2, 2016, 43-58.
Primary source: Archaeological and epigraphical remains of the Temple of Augustus and Rome with the Res Gestae in Ankara, Turkey.
How was the connection with the centre, Rome instigated? As broker, an important actor connecting one network with the other, of course the Roman emperor is rated high, for he decided to establish his own imperial cult everywhere in the empire. With equal conviction king Pylamenes of Ancyra is favoured as broker, he dedicated the temple in honour of Augustus. If Pylamenes operated on his own, in network-rankings his relation to Rome could been called a weak tie, it is however more likely that he was supported by the civic aristocracy, benefactors and local grandees. According to Price, Rubin and Galli (apart from personal involvement of the emperor and Senate) the local elites together with imperial delegates were busy in cult- architecture of the conquered cities. The 'Roman connection' was a strong tie. Because Ancyra was part of multiple networks, very likely there was mutual contact and exchange between the other nodes of the networks. Over these ties new information, the flow, travelled vice versa from centre to periphery or random between the nodes. In our network, among others, ‘the imperial cult’ was brought from Rome to Asia Minor. Following Collar and Price religion was predominantly political business and governed by the elites, they decided about religious innovations and transmission and couched the imperial worship into the existing cult and rituals.
Conclusion
The presence of the temple of Rome and Augustus with the Monumentum Ancyranum in Ancient Ancyra, an Anatolian city far from Rome, could be understood using networkthinking. By collecting the network-elements we could discover cult-connections, activities of cult-officials
and the larger mechanism of wide-spread imperial-cult. We could build a visible web and learned that Ancyra, after all, was a logical place for the
temple and Res Gestae.
References
Burkhardt, Mike, ‘Networks as Social Structures in Late Medieval and Early Modern Towns: A Theoretical Approach to Historical Network Analysis’
in: Commercial Networks and European Cities 1400-1800, ed. A. Caracausi and C. Jeggle, (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2014).
Burrell, B., Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman Emperors (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
Collar, Anna, Religious networks in the Roman Empire. The spread of new ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Galli, Marco, ‘The celebration of Lucius Verus in the Provincia Achaia: Imperial Cult, Ritual Actors and Religious Networks' in: Roman Power and
Greek Sanctuaries: Forms of interaction and Communication, edited by M.Galli. (Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 2013).
Malkin, Irad, C. Constantakopolou and K. Panagopoulou, ‘Preface: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean’ in: Mediterranean Historical
Review 22.1 (2007).
Mitchell, S., Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
Price, S.R.F., Rituals and Power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
Rubin, Benjamin B., (Re)presenting Empire: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, 31 BC - 68 AD (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2008).
Woolf, Greg, ‘Only connect? Network analysis and religious change in the Roman world’ in: Hélade, vol.2, 2, 2016, 43-58.
Primary source: Archaeological and epigraphical remains of the Temple of Augustus and Rome with the Res Gestae in Ankara, Turkey.