Collection « ISTA »

Anagranes the ΤΡΟΦΕΥΣ : the court of caucasian Iberia in the

second-third centuries AD
David Braund

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Braund David. Anagranes the ΤΡΟΦΕΥΣ : the court of caucasian Iberia in the second-third centuries AD . In: Autour de la mer
Noire. Hommage de Otar Lordkipanidzé. Besançon : Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l'Antiquité, 2002. pp. 23-34.
(Collection « ISTA », 862);

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ista_0000-0000_2002_ant_862_1_1953

Fichier pdf généré le 06/05/2018

 Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé, 23-34

ANAGRANES THE ΤΡΟΦΕΥΣ : THE COURT OF CAUCASIAN IBERIA

IN THE SECOND-THIRD CENTURIES AD

Two new inscriptions from Georgia shed fresh light on the royal court of
Caucasian Iberia in the Roman period. They offer important new information
particularly about the titulature of the court and about relations between Iberia
and Armenia, including personages hitherto unknown. One such is Anagranes,
who bears the title τροφευς. It seems fitting to offer a study of such a man to
Otar Lordkipanidze, who over the years has provided intellectual τροφή for
so many foreigners engaged with Georgian antiquity, including myself.
The new inscriptions, both in Greek and both on stone plaques, hâve
been unearthed in the course of renewed excavation at Bagineti on the lower
slope of the fortified hill-cum-acropolis usually (and no doubt rightly) identi-
fied with the principal strongpoint of the sprawling city of Mtskheta, namely
the Harmozike of the literary tradition. They were found in association with
a bath-building, itself in close proximity to structures long since identified as
a palace of the Iberian kings, looking northwards across the River Cyrus (mod.
Mtkvari) to the hill of Jvari and the mouth of the River Aragus (mod. Aragvi).

The inscriptions hâve been published with admirable speed by Prof.

Tinatin Qaukhchishvili1. Since her publications are not readily accessible and
since some additional points may be contributed, I shall first consider the texts
in some détail.
1. The better-preserved stone (henceforth, no.l) may be read without
difficulty :
.../ 'Αρμενίας Ούολο / γαίσου, γυναικΐ δε / βασιλέως Ιβήρων /
μεγάλου Άμαζάσ / που Άναγράνης ό / τροφευς και έπιτρ / <ο>πος ίδια
δυνάμ<ε>ι / το βαλανΐόν άφιε'ρω / σεν

* David Braund.
1. Qaukhchishvili 1996, 1998 and 1999. I am most grateful to Guram Qipiani, deputy director of
the Bagineti expédition, for providing me with photographs.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

24 David Braund

ττουανλπρ

1. Inscription n° 1.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

Anagranes the τροφευς: the court ofCaucasian Iberia... 25

2. Inscription n° 2.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

26 David Braund

Evidently the beginning of the inscription was eut on a separate stone,

for the extant stone is undamaged. Despite the initial lacuna, however, there is
no difficulty in translating the text as we hâve it :
To...(?daughter) ... of (...?king) Vologaeses (?...) of Armenia, and wife of
Amazaspus, king oflberians, great, Anagranes the foster-father (τροφεΰς) and steward
(επίτροπος) with his own resources dedicated the bath-building.
The bath-building in question must be that currently under excavation,
substantial in size. Although there are enfiladed baths of this period in Iberia
(at Dzalisi and elsewhere in Mtskheta itself), this bath-building seems to hâve
followed the more random plan typical of the Greek βαλανεΤον (or as our text
prefers, βαλανΤον)2.
2. The second stone (henceforth, no.2) has survived less well, having lost
its upper right-hand side. Nevertheless, there is enough to indicate that its
contents were substantially similar to those of no.l, as we shall see. Hère again
the beginning of the inscription was eut on a separate stone and has been lost.
Yet once more the loss can be overcome. The inscription is to be read as
f ollows :
...[βασι] / λέως [Άναγ]ράνης [τρο]φεί)[ς και επί] / τροπο[ς ίδια
δυ]νάμ[<ε>ι ? το βαλ]ανΐον αρτισας / ίδια τροφίμη / Δρακόντιδι βασ /
ιλισ(σ)η άφιερωσεν.
... of... king, Anagranes foster-father and steward with his own resources
having fitted ont (?) the bath-building (?) for his own nurtured Drakontis, queen,
dedicated (it).
Some explanations and cautionary observations are required. The resto-
ration [ Άναγ]ράνης may be made with some confidence, for we evidently hâve
the titles found in no.l : the letters which begin line 3 of no.2 can only be the
end of τροφεύς, while line 4 is therefore presumably the end of επίτροπος.
The coïncidence of titulature and the survival of the last five letters of the name
(line 2, where a rho may be read) establishes the présence of Anagranes, omitted
by Qaukhchishvili, and once more as dedicator. However, lines 5-6 are more
troubling. Qaukhchishvili may be right to read [βαλ]αν(ε)Τον κτΐσα[ς] , 'having
built the bath-building', though the final sigma is clear on the stone and requires

2. The bath-building will be published in due course. On the random βαλανεΤον, see Nielsen 1993, 9,
with Braund 1994 on baths in Iberia.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

Anagranes the τροφεύς : the court of Caucasian Iberia ... 27

no restoration3. Yet, although both Qaukhchishvili and I hâve proposed a

βαλανΤον, one could wish for greater certainty on the matter. The aorist parti-
ciple evidently dénotes construction or adornment, though its précise
identification too remains elusive. Be that as it may, we may be sure enough of [ιδία
δυ]νάμ[ει in Unes 4-5, given the use of the expression in no.l (line 7) ; there is no
need, pace Qaukhchishvili, to propose the odd νδμα (a poetic word for running
water), which would leave an awkward space at the end of line 4 in any case.
Problematic as thèse matters may be, however, they do not affect the
présent discussion in any significant fashion. The key observation must be
(pace Qaukhchishvili) that both inscriptions name Anagranes as dedicator,
apparently of the bath-building, but possibly of the bath-building as a whole
(no.l) and of some part or feature thereof (no.2).

II

We may now turn to personages and titulature. In no.l the dedicatee is

a female, indeed a royal female. In no.2, where one could wish for the lost
opening Unes, the dedicatee seems also to be a royal female. Given that in both
cases the dedicator is Anagranes there is a strong prima facte case for identifying
the two royal ladies. I suggest that we must consider the possibility that
Drakontis of no.2 is the daughter (as it seems) of Vologaeses of Armenia and
wife of Amazaspus found in no.l. One may wonder why the dedication should
be inscribed twice in that case, but so much is not implausible in so large a
structure and (it is to be stressed once more) we cannot be sure that no.2 refers
to the whole bath-building and not some part or feature thereof, in which case
the two dedications would be distinct.
In both inscriptions Anagranes boasts the title(s) τροφευς και επίτροπος,
"foster-father and steward". The latter term may well indicate financial
responsibility, but it is a title of broad applicability. Indeed it has long been
known in the Iberian royal court for it occurs on the epitaph of Serapeitis, where
it seems to encompass also a military rôle4.
By contrast, this is the first τροφεύς known at the Iberian court. The title
and position are more familiar elsewhere and rather earlier, in the courts of the

3. Pace Qaukhchishvili 1999, 31.

4. On this inscription, see Braund 1994, 213.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

28 David Braund

Seleucids and Ptolemies, where they hâve prompted a good deal of scholarly
discussion. Naturally, we cannot assume blithely that the τροφεΰς Anagranes
was entirely the same in status or function as his earlier Seleucid and Ptolemaic
counterparts. However, it seems worthwhile to consider those counterparts
and possible similarities, especially in view of the (rather neglected) fact that
hellenistic Iberia (as also Armenia) had fallen within the impérial sphère of the
Seleucids. It is entirely likely that Iberian and Armenian court structures owed
something to Seleucid institutions. There is even some reason to suspect that
the Iberian kings were proud of the Seleucid link, which may be hinted at in the
epitaph of an Iberian prince early in the second century AD5.
Our fullest information on the workings of the relationship between the
τροφεΰς and his ward is Polybius' narrative of the résidence in Rome of the
future Demetrius I Soter of Syria in the second century BC. Demetrius had been
sent to Rome from Syria as a boy of some ten years of âge. It has often been
thought that he had been accompanied to Rome by his τροφεΰς, one Diodorus,
whom Polybius describes acting as a key agent of Demetrius after he had
reached adulthood, coming to report to the prince in Rome upon the situation
in Syria. According to Polybius, who was himself very closely involved in thèse
events, it was the arguments of Diodorus the τροφεύς which convinced
Demetrius to escape from Rome and to seize for himself the kingdom of Syria.
And it was Diodorus whom Demetrius sent on ahead (Polyb. 31.12). Polybius'
account nicely illustrâtes the fact that the τροφεύς could retain a spécial
relationship with his ward well after the ward had reached an âge at which
he or she was capable of independent action. A range of inscriptions tends to
confirm the point and to underline the prominent position that a τροφεΰς could
continue to hold, especially no doubt as one particularly trusted by his former
charge. For example, an honorific inscription from Athens orders the érection of
a bronze statue to a τροφεΰς named as [Me]nodorus (or [Ze]nodorus or the like)
in the agora, beside the statue of his former charge, Antiochus (IV ?)6. Similar is
another Seleucid instance from Delos, where Craterus the τροφεύς was
honoured with a statue on the same base as the statue of his former charge
Antiochus IX, in the period 130-117 BC7.

5. IGRR 1. 192, with Braund 1994, 230-1.

6. Meritt 1967, 59-63, no.6, improved by Robert 1969, 6.
7. Durrbach 1921, no. 109-110 ; OGIS 255-6.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

Anagranes the τροφεύς : the court ofCaucasian Iberia.. . 29

Thèse cases concern rulers who were brought up outside their

paternal realms, whether in Rome (Demetrius, following Antiochus IV) or
elsewhere (Antiochus IX was brought up at Cyzicus). Yet, as the classic
discussion of Corradi insists, while the rôle of the τροφεύς doubtless took
on particular importance in cases where the future ruler was brought up
abroad, we should not imagine that the τροφεύς was only important in such
circumstances8.
Be that as it may, the key point for the présent discussion must be
the continued prominence of the τροφεύς even after his ward had become
a ruler. This is attested elsewhere for royal females : the eunuch τροφεύς
of the Tarcondimotid princess Julia boasted both his own title and the
royal title of his former charge in his epitaph around the end of the first
century BC (βασιλίδος 'Ιουλίας νεωτέρας τροφεύς)9. It is well attested
also at the court of the Ptolemies, both in Egypt and in other of their
possessions : note especially from Ptolemaic Cyprus c. 100 BC the case
of Helenus τροφεύς του βασιλέως10. The potential power of the τροφεύς is
not to be underestimated : as Bikerman observed long ago, the Seleucid
king might well leave power at home in the hands of his τροφεύς when he went
off on campaign11.
There is nothing remarkable in the survival of this important institution
into the Roman period : a third century AD case happens to be known for the
king of Tanukh, also influenced no doubt by Seleucid predecessors12. Indeed,
even in non-royal circles the τροφεύς continued to be significant and to retain a
spécial link with his ward into adulthood : around AD 100, for example, at
Salamis on Cyprus the τροφεύς Boethus set up a statue for a member of the
local élite, evidently his former charge13. The concept of τροφεία had long since
entered the discourse too of civic benefaction14.

8. Corradi 1929, 277-81.

9. On the dynasty, see Sullivan 1990, 405.
10. Bernand 1975, 24-9, no.5 (c. 130 BC), with Mooren 1975, 86-7 ; Mitford and Nicolaou 1974, 18-19
no. 6, with Mitford 1959, on Helenus ; cf. Mooren 1975, 208 ; Robert 1963, 74-5.
11. Bikerman 1938, 21.
12. Bellinger and Welles 1935, 126 n.21.
13. Mitford and Nicolaou 1974, 148-9, no.lll.
14. Robert 1960 ; 1967, 66-7 ; Engelmann and Merkelbach 1972, 161.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

30 David Braund

Thèse brief remarks are suggestive for our Iberian case. Anagranes
présents himself as τροφεΰς of royal Drakontis in no.2, in particular15. As we
hâve seen, it was quite usual for the τροφεΰς to retain not only his title but also
much of his significance into the adult life of his former charge. More
challenging is the question of the circumstances in which Anagranes had been
her τροφεΰς at ail. Had he played the rôle in her father's kingdom or abroad ?
Or both ? If Drakontis was indeed the royal female of no.l, as I tend to believe,
and if, as is the likeliest hypothesis16, she is named there as daughter of
Vologaeses, then her father's realm was (or at least included) Armenia. Should
we then consider Anagranes to be an Armenian who accompanied his former
charge to the court of her husband in Iberia, enjoying some prominence there ?
Possibly so, but we are at (indeed, beyond) the limits of our évidence,
particularly as we cannot be completely sure that Drakontis is indeed the royal
female of no.l. And, in any case, we cannot assume that a king would always
appoint a τροφεύς from within his kingdom : an outsider might well be
préférable. Indeed, Anagranes might even be an Iberian !
The identification of Vologaeses and Amazaspus would no doubt
improve our understanding of thèse relationships. Of course, in very gênerai
terms, it is well known that the rulers of Iberia and Armenia often enjoyed close
relations, not only in antiquity, but also in later periods17. The fact that thèse
relations could also become hostile scarcely affects the matter18. However, we
need to identify thèse particular rulers, if we are to make further historical use
of thèse new inscriptions.
As Qaukhchishvili rightly notes19, the name Amazaspus is attested for
several différent personages among the rulers of Iberia, both in the classical
évidence and in the Georgian mediaeval tradition. The évidence for a ruler of
Armenia with the name Vologaeses (Valarsh in the Armenian tradition) is
hardly more restricted. It seems now to be orthodox to date the reign of Valarsh
I as AD 116-144 and Valarsh II as AD 186-198. Qaukhchishvili may well be right

15. It is perhaps worth noting in that context the ambivalence of the adjective τρόφιμος, which can
encompass not only Anagranes' nurturing of Drakontis but also in adulthood her nurturing of him,
for the adjective can be both active and passive in force, as LSJ observes.
16. So too Qaukhchishvili 1998, 12.
17. Qaukhchishvili 1998, 13.
18. For example, see Braund 1994, 224 on the évidence of Tacitus' Annals.
19. Qaukhchishvili 1998, 13.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

Anagranes the τροφεύς : the court ofCaucasian Iberia.. . 31

in opting for the latter, which would place the inscriptions and the baths in the
late second or early third centuries AD. The letter forms of the two inscriptions
(evidently eut by différent masons) cannot be pressed to provide a date,
especially in view of the scanty epigraphical record from the area20, but they
seem to be consonant with a date c. AD 200. On broad historical grounds too,
it is easy enough to imagine development and prosperity in Iberia around this
date, when, for example, the diplomatie silverware of Marcus Aurelius found
its way into a burial at Mtskheta, indeed at Bagineti itself, hard by our bath-
building21. However, for ail that, we need also to find an appropriate
Amazaspus ; indeed a prominent one, if his grandiloquent title is to be given
any substance. Perhaps, as Qaukhchishvili seems to believe, he is to be
identified as the Amazaspus mentioned in the so-called Res Gestae of Shapur I
in the middle of the third century, around AD 26222.
The essential difficulty, which is worth recognizing explicitly, is that we
simply do not hâve information on the rulers of Iberia or Armenia in thèse years
of a type sufficient to provide strong chronology, notwithstanding the efforts
of many fine scholars. While there are a very few firm landmarks in thèse
dynasties, the great mass is a matter of hypothesis and spéculation.
If we accept Qaukhchishvili's reasonable hypothesis on the identity
of Amazaspus, we need a Vologaeses who could be described as king of
Armenia. There is a wide range of possibilities, in part discussed by
Qaukhchishvili, but we should consider also those kings for whom we hâve
no name : it is likely enough that one or two of them were also called
Vologaeses. It is perhaps worth considering in particular the king of Armenia
who was removed by Caracalla around AD 214. The emperor had tricked
him into visiting Rome in the expectation that a dispute between the king
and his children might be settled. Instead Caracalla detained him. It would not
be surprising if at least some of his family accompanied the king to Rome,
for there was a dispute within the family to be settled and subsequently there
is no mention of the king's children playing a rôle in the Armenian
uprising against Caracalla which ensued. We happen to be told that an (the ?)

20. Compare the wide variation in modem dating of the Greek inscription from Aparan in
Armenia : Chaumont 1976, esp. 185-8.
21. Braund 1994, 235-7, with illustration.
22. Braund 1994, 239-41, with the literature there cited.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

32 David Braund

Armenian queen was among those detained, as well as the king23. Was this
the immédiate family of Drakontis ? Are we to identify her father Vologaeses as
the king dethroned and detained by Caracalla24 ? We cannot know, but the
possibility abides.
If Vologaeses was in place in Armenia until removed by Caracalla around
AD 214, his daughter might well hâve married (whether before or after
her father's removal) the man mentioned in Shapur's court around AD 262.
Moreover, the prominence of Amazaspus at Shapur's court would accord well
with the title "Great", accorded to him in no.l. Accordingly, on thèse arguments,
we might wish to date the inscriptions and the construction of the bath-building
at Bagineti rather later than Qaukhchishvili's c. AD 200, perhaps by several
décades. We need not suppose that Vologaeses was still alive at the time that
the inscriptions were eut. It is to be hoped that the completion and publication
of the more récent excavations at Bagineti will give a stronger idea of the date
at which the bath-building was built.
And what of the relationship between our principal personages ?
Was Drakontis held in Rome with her father and the rest of her family ?
Was Anagranes there too, acting as τροφεύς ? Ail dépends on the date of her
marriage to Amazaspus and the attendant circumstances, about which we can
only wonder. If she was not yet married at the time of her father's (on this
argument) déposition, she will either hâve journeyed with him to Rome and
been kept there for some time, or she will hâve been left in Armenia, unless the
dispute in the family mentioned by Dio was sufficient to send her elsewhere,
even to Iberia. Whatever the case Anagranes will hâve been with her. The
political significance of her marriage is similarly unclear. We might imagine
that her marriage to a king so well-connected with Shapur is to be linked with
anti-Roman tendencies in her family, especially perhaps if the marriage took
place after her father's removal.
With the king dethroned, Anagranes the τροφεύς was no doubt ail
the more significant. That may give a particular meaning to his other title,
επίτροπος. Once again earlier hellenistic practice may be instructive, for we find
single individuals holding both positions in that context too, whether in

23. Dio 78.27.4, with Chaumont 1976, 155-7, esp. 156 n.481.
24. If so, then this was presumably not the king mentioned under Severus : see Chaumont 1976, 155.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé

Anagranes the τροφεύς : the court of Caucasian Iberia ... 33

the perhaps-imprecise terminology of the literary tradition25 or in the probably

more considered language of the inscriptions26.
There is every reason to suppose that Anagranes was a man of the first
importance in the kingdom of Amazaspus, however we imagine his ethnicity.
His close bond with Amazaspus' queen aside, the very scale and prime location
of the baths he dedicated provide clear évidence of that. It was usual enough in
antiquity for such baths to be known by the names of those who built them :
perhaps thèse baths were known as "the baths of Anagranes"27. Yet there was a
price to be paid : those who built such baths might be expected to pay not only
for their construction but also for their maintenance and running costs, for
example by providing oil for bathers (presumably a costly commodity in Iberia,
whish is rich in vines but not in olive trees)28. Or was the bath-building known
rather as "the baths of Drakontis", conceivably a bath-building especially
for females, as are attested elsewhere29 ? Answers are elusive, but the questions
are worthy of considération. For, as Otar Lordkipanidze has always shown,
scholarship proceeds best by a judicious mixture of hard-headed research and
controlled use of the well-informed imagination.

Bibliography

Bellinger, A.R., and Welles, C.B. 1935, "A third century contract of sale from Edessa", Yale Classical
Studies 5. 95-156.
Bernand, E. 1975, Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum I (Leiden).
Bikerman, E. 1938, Institutions des Séleucides (Paris).
Braund, D. 1994, Georgia in antiquity : a history ofColchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, c.550 BC-AD 562
(Oxford).
Chaumont, M.-L. 1976, "L'Arménie entre Rome et l'Iran (I)", in W. Haase and H. Temporini (eds.),
Aufstieg und Niedergang der roem.isch.en Welt II.9.1 (Berlin), 71-194.
Corradi, G. 1929, Studi ellenistici (Turin).
Crampa, J. 1972, Labraunda III.2 (Stockholm).

25. Polyb. 28. 21 with Diod. Sic 30.15 on Eulaeus at the Ptolemaic court ; see Walbank 1979, 355-6
and the literature he cites.
26. OGIS 141 with Mooren 1975, 207.
27. Nielsen 1993, 120 n.ll.
28. Crampa 1972, 134.
29. Ginouvès 1962, 220-4 ; Nielsen 1993, 7, esp. n.l7.This article owes much to the help of Joyce
Reynolds ; faults are my own.

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidze

34 David Braund

Durrbach, F. 1921, Choix d'inscriptions de Délos (Paris).

Engelmann, H., and Merkelbach, R. 1972, Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai I (Bonn).
Ginouvès, R. 1962, Balaneutike : recherches sur le bain dans l'antiquité grecque (Paris).
Meritt, B.D. 1967, "Greek inscriptions", Hesperia 36. 57-101.
Mitford, T.B. 1959, "Helenos governor of Cyprus", Journal ofHellenic Studies 79. 94-131.
Mitford, T.B., and Nicolaou, I. K. 1974, The Greek and Latin inscriptions front Salamis (Nicosia).
Mooren, L. 1975, The aulic titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt (Brussels).
Nielsen, 1. 1993, Thermae et balnea (Aarhus, 2nd. edn.).
Qaukhchishvili, T. 1996, "Akhali berdznuli tsartserebi armazistsikhe-baginetidan (New Greek
inscriptions from Armazistsikhe-Bagineti)", Mtskheta 11. 81-92.
Qaukhchishvili, T. 1998, "Akhali berdznuli tsartsera armazistsikhe-baginetidan (II) (A new Greek
inscription from Armazistsikhe-Bagineti)", Narkvevebi (khelovnebis sakhelmtsipo muzeumis) (Essays
ofthe State Muséum of Art) 1998. 11-14.
Qaukhchishvili, T. 1999, "Dzveli berdznuli tsartserebis shesakheb sakartveloshi (On ancient Greek
inscriptions in Georgia)", in Kalakebi da saMako tskhovreba dzvel sakartveloshi I (Cities and city life
in ancient Georgia : abstracts of a conférence in honour of A. Apakidze) (Tbilisi), 27-32.
Robert, L. 1960, "τροφεύς et άριστευς", Hellenica 11-12. 569-76.
Robert, L. 1963, Review of P.M. Fraser, Samothrace 11.1, Gnomon 35. 50-79.
Robert, L. 1967, Monnaies grecques (Geneva-Paris).
Robert, L. 1969, "Inscriptions d'Athènes et de la Grèce Centrale. I. Décret d'Athènes pour un
courtisan Séleucide", Αρχαιολογική Εφημερις 1-58, esp. 1-6.
Sullivan, R.D. 1990, Near eastern royalty and Rome, 100-30 BC (Toronto)
Walbank, F.W. 1979, A Historical Commentary on Polybius III (Oxford).

Autour de la mer Noire. Hommage à Otar Lordkipanidzé