Catalogue

The inscribed fragment was found in the ‘Isthme’ excavation area (location indicated in Martinez-Sève 2002: 46, fig. 6), near the southern tip of the Mound of the ‘Ville Royale’. It was first published by Franz Cumont (1938, with black and white photograph p. 306; see subsequently: Canali De Rossi 2004: no. 181 [photograph after Cumont], Rougemont 2012a: no. 28 and photograph pl. 14, fig. 28, with a detailed description following autopsy, and an inquiry [L. Martinez-Sève] into the archaeological context of the find).

The inscribed surface, and seemingly the sides, of this now mutilated limestone plaque were finely polished. Remains of a reddish-ochre color have been detected in the engraved letters [Louvre]. Only the Greek term archiereus ‘chief priest’ is completely preserved. In the case of the single letter representing a second line of text, the beginnings of the horizontal bars of an epsilon, as observed by Georges Rougemont (and, as he notes, by Jean Pouilloux before him), are not easily discernible in the published photographs and on the squeeze (illustrated here) that was taken by Susan Sherwin-White (cf. Cumont: ‘I’ or, perhaps, ‘E’; Canali De Rossi: ‘I’). In different estimates, the writing ‘could date back to the third century, without ruling out, however, the early second century’ (Rougemont), or to the first half of the second century BC (Cumont).

Cumont (and Canali De Rossi) inclined to an interpretation of the archiereus mentioned in this instance as being most likely one of the ‘grands prêtres du culte officiel des rois de Syrie (i.e., the Seleucids)’. The latter functionnaries are explicitly attested by an edict of Antiochus III (r. 222-187 BC) concerning the institution and organization of religious honors for his consort Laodice in 193 BC, which also mentions archiereis of the king himself and his progonoi ‘(royal) ancestors’ (e.g., Rougemont 2012a: no. 66, ll. 20-26, and no. 68, ll. 5-13).

In Seleucid contexts, archiereis ‘chief priests’ are not uniquely mentioned in connection with the ruler cult (e.g., Müller 2000, Rougemont 2012a: 74, both with further literature). One may recall, for instance, Antiochus III’s formulation of the appointment, in 209 BC, of his loyal ‘Friend’ Nicanor as ἀρχιερέα τῶν ἱερῶν πάντων ‘chief priest of all the sanctuaries’ in the region beyond (i.e., north of) Taurus, as well as ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τὰς προσόδους τούτων, that is, superintendent of the sanctuaries and responsible for their sacred revenues ([PHI]; Ma 1999: 288-292, document no. 4, ll. 29-41, and pp. 26-28, arguing for the different character of the appointments as ‘chief priest of all the sanctuaries’ and ‘chief priest of the ruler cult’; cf. Capdetrey 2007: 323-327; but see also, e.g., Müller 2000, Van Nuffelen 2004, for a possible lack of a clear separation). In yet another instance, dated to 189 BC, the appointment of another ‘Friend’ of Antiochus III as archiereus of Apollo and Artemis Daittai and the other sanctuaries in the Seleucid religious center of Daphne (Dittenberger 1903: no. 244; Jalabert and Mouterde 1953: no. 992; Welles 1934: no. 44; [PHI]) may be broadly referred to, once again, to authority over the local priests of these sanctuaries and, presumably also, the administration of these sanctuaries’ income. The archiereus mentioned in the present fragment could have been ‘in charge of the celebration of the ruler cult, the finances of the sanctuaries, or their general management’ (cf. Martinez-Sève 2015).
 

Certain Parthian period references in the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries led Yasuyuki Mitsuma to speculate that the office of ‘chief priest of all the sanctuaries’ -as it related to the financial administration of the temples- was installed by the Seleucids in the Upper Satrapies as well, and was perpetuated under the Arsacids (Mitsuma 2005; Spek et al. 2025: Diary -129A₂: 21΄ and p. 653, and Diary -72: 10΄ and p. 860).

In the Greek epigraphic corpus from Iran, a further reference to an archiereus might be alluded to by the phrase ‘of all the sanctuaries’ ([τ]ῶν ἱερῶν πάντω̣[ν]) in a highly fragmentary inscription found at Ayvān-e Karḵa, but probably originating, like the present inscription, from Susa (Rougemont 2012b: 27 n. 107; Coloru and Shabani 2026).