Dura Europos is a ruined city on the Euphrates River coast between Antioch and Seleucia, which was built in 303 BC by Nicanor, the general of Seleucus I, and flourished under the Parthian rule.
This place is in present-day Syria, on a plateau protected from the east by a citadel built on a slope overlooking the river, from the north and south by valleys, and the west by a strong rampart with powerful defensive towers. The military function of the Greek period of the fortress was abandoned during the Parthian period, and instead it turned into an important commercial, administrative, and economic center with a 100 km wide plain that stretched between the confluence of the Khabur and Euphrates rivers and the Abu Kamal Canyon in the south.
Archeology and history
The first archeological excavation of the city was done in 1920-1922 under the supervision of Franz Cumont and with the support of the Academy of Belles-Letters (des Inscriptions et Belles-Letters) Paris. From 1929 to 1937, with the help of Yale University and the Paris Academy, excavations were carried out at the initiative of M. I. Rostovtzeff, a Russian historian, which led to the publication of the book “Dura Europos and its Art,” a combination of the history of the city and its civilization established between Greek, Semitic and Iranians. This work has been the basis for all the subsequent research on the site. However, in reality, understanding the history of Dura Europos has depended mainly on written material (parchment, papyrus, petroglyphs, and graffiti), paintings, graves, and portable artifacts (coins, bronze and lamps) and less attention has been paid to the architectural remains. Although nearly a third of the city has been excavated, about the architectural remains there has been no mention except for a few abstracts. For this reason, in 1986, the Franco-Syrian Dura Europos mission was developed under the joint management of the author and Asad Al Mahmoud. The main aim was to reconsider the archaeological data, make the complete documentation of the previous excavations available, and save the historical structures from destruction.
Dura Europos entered the cultural field of Iran after the Parthian conquest around 113 BC. This dominance lasted three centuries, interrupted by the Roman occupation in 115-17 AD during Trajan’s movement to Ctesiphon. In 165, Dura was conquered by Avidius Cassius and became a stronghold in the Roman defense system along the empire’s eastern frontier. Nevertheless, despite significant effort to strengthen its defense forces, the city could not withstand a major attack by the Sasanian Shapur I (240-70) in 256. The city was conquered after a lengthy siege and the population was exiled, thus ending the city’s existence (The town was abandoned).
Parthian Period: Based on recent discoveries, Dura Europos, originally a fortress, had turned into a city only at the end of the Hellenistic period and had a small population during Greek rule. However, during the Parthian period, the city gained importance; as revealed by the explorers, the city’s configuration was only partially changed by the Roman occupation, except for transforming the northern part into a Roman camp. The new Franco-Siren mission has allowed these images to be revised. Certain structures previously attributed to the Parthian can now be attributed to the Hellenistic period. For example, according to Armin von Gerkan, the Parthians built the stone-hewn fortifications of Dura Europos because they feared the strength of the Greek walls, which were made of unbaked bricks, was insufficient against a Roman attack.
Only the northern part of the main western wall remains intact, which Franco Sirin cited as evidence that doing so was unnecessary due to the peace treaty between the Parthians and Augustus in 20 BC. This conclusion was mainly based on guesses taken from the reports of ancient historians rather than architectural findings, and the results of current investigations and cleaning of previous ditches contradict it. It is clear that the Greeks built these stone fortifications in the second half of the second century BC, and the use of clay bricks was due to the sudden threat of the Parthians, which forced the builders to finish the wall with more easily accessible and easy-to-use materials subsequently, reconstruction of the Stratex palace and its expansion to the north, as well as the construction of the second palace in the citadel with many similarities, were attributed to the Parthian period. But the new excavations in the interior and the base of the facade of the previous building show that it is from the second century BC, that is, the period of the Greeks. In the most recent research, Susan Downey (1988) has also questioned the reconstruction of a palace with a porch, which is suggested in the Yale publication and implies a Parthian construction.
The Parthian period is therefore thought to have been more of a development phase in Dura Europos. This development was welcomed after its military functions stopped. In his famous book about the caravanserai, has reasoned that this property could have developed due to the city’s position as a trading center and caravan stations. But this hypothesis has been rejected since none of the excavation findings prove it. Instead, Dura Europos owes its development to its role as a regional capital, which is well represented by the contents of inscriptions, parchment papers, and papyrus.
In the Parthian period, the Greek institutions remained (Arnaud), and the zoning plan of the areas established in the Hellenistic period was observed in the new constructions. The buildings were kept within the boundaries of pre-existing blocks with dimensions of 70 x 35 meters, which are uniformly placed on the entire plateau surface, even to a large extent in the inner valleys. The only exception was the city’s suburbs in the southeast of the citadel, which was occupied before it was divided into plots of land, and also a part of the agora that was invaded by internal buildings. The ramparts were neglected; household refuse piled up along the rim and eventually formed a thick mass that blocked access to certain towers on the western wall.
In the Parthian period, the gradual evolution of Greek concepts and taking towards new formulas in which regional traditions, especially those originating from Babylon, played an increasing role in the architecture of that period. These innovations affected religious and domestic buildings. No secular public structures were built during the Parthian period, except for a bath built of hewn stone in the northeastern part of the city. The evolved Parthian formations generally continued into the Roman period, except for the Roman camp buildings in the northern third of the town, for example, the Palace of Dux Ripae and the Praetorium.
The architecture of private houses differed in detail according to the owner’s wealth. The systematic plan of the Greek town, in which each house was supposed to occupy one-eighth of a block (about 300 square meters), was abandoned or modified through re-subdivision and consolidation resulting from sale or inheritance. Most small houses occupied a quarter or even less of a Greek plot, while the more luxurious examples might occupy up to half a block. But the house’s organizing principle was the same: the main door that led to the street was more in the corner of the house and opened to a corridor that reached the central courtyard, which provided access and light to the house’s various rooms. The main room, interio, was usually located in the southern corner and opened to the north, and all four walls were covered with a bench, which was used as a reception room. In some houses that had columns, the gable roofs were replaced by terraces, the rooms got irregular shapes, and several houses had a second story.
Religious architecture underwent a measurable evolution traced through numerous excavated buildings: the sanctuaries of Artemis Nanaya II and Zeus Megistus II, the necropolis sanctuaries, and the sanctuaries of Artemis Azanatkona, Zeus Kyrios, Atargatis, Aphlad, Zeus Theos, Gad, and Adonis. The architecture of synagogues moved further away from the supposed Greek model if such a model was introduced in Dura Europos. All temples of the Parthian period have the same basic plan with minor changes. A temno (sacred enclosure) generally consists of a square surrounded by a blank wall. Naos (temple sanctuary) is behind the inner courtyard facing the entrance door. In front of the interior wall of the enclosure is a set of rooms for services or secondary cults, which the offerors usually built. When the nave is placed against the back wall of the temno, a narrow space is left between them to separate the cell from the outside world. This structure is small and usually has a square plan, and is placed on a two or three-step platform with one or more altars in front of it. The interior space is divided into two parts: the pronaeus (the vestibule in front of the synagogue), which occupies the entire width of the building and is sometimes equipped with rows of benches on both sides of the entrance, and the cell, which is usually enclosed by two side chapels or shrines. The cult image is on the wall opposite the door, either mounted on a plinth or painted directly on the surface. All that remains of the Greek tradition is the occasional colonnade in front of the chapel or porticoes along either side of the courtyard, as in the Bell Chapel.
In some houses that had columns, the gable roofs were replaced by terraces, the rooms got irregular shapes, and several houses had a second story, both in religious constructions and in domestic buildings. Babylonian elements were dominant, along with special Greek seasonings, but the unmistakable Iranian influences were not evident in them. The formula of religious structures was observed in all synagogues, regardless of their type of worship, Greek or Semitic.
The only Iranian religion known in Dura Europos was the Mithras religion, which Roman soldiers introduced to the city in 168 AD. The Mithraeum was located near the western wall of the Roman camp, dedicated to this cult by the Romans. It has nothing in common with the other religious structures at Dura Europos, except that it stands on a platform. It is believed there was a single room of relatively small dimensions with a bench on each of the larger sides. Above the central aisle was a raised ceiling with a shelf. A niche containing two religious’ reliefs with an altar was at the end of the room. The entire surface of the room was covered with painted decorations: scenes from the life of Mithras, representations of the Magi and the zodiac around the niche reliefs, and hunting scenes mounted on the side walls. Although it is difficult to find the influence of Iranian architecture in Dura Europos, it is much more visible in figurative art.
In fact, due to the burial of garbage the religious buildings have been preserved along the wall. Dura bears witness to a decorative art that seems to have developed in the Parthian realm, reflecting the ancient near eastern traditions and of the Greek world. Moreover, in the religious environment, the principle of the “Parthian frontier” prevailed for fully illustrated people. This convention, by which all figures, human and divine, face straight forward, with eyes gazing at the spectator, appeared in the oldest painting, of the present sacrifice, in the Temple of Bel at Dura (probably), as in the wall paintings of the synagogue, which date back to the year 245. This continued until the destruction of the city. It was equally evident in sculpture and pottery (except for the statue of Artemis with a tortoise, which comes from a Hellenistic center) and, for example, in two reliefs from the Gads of Dura and Palmyra. On the other hand, in the narrative scenes of repeated battle and mounted hunting, like Mithraeum scenes, galloping horses and wild animals are depicted, a feature that was to be developed in Sasanian art.
The Sassanid siege of Dura Europos in 256 AD ended the city’s existence. Shapur’s army was immobilized for several months due to the determined resistance of the residents, which forced the attackers to use various tactics to encircle the city, which finally led to the city’s conquest. Defensive systems, mines, and ramparts remained in the city after the invasion and depopulation, allowing researchers to understand Sasanian and Roman military techniques in the mid-3rd century.
It is unknown where the Sasanians pitched their camp, but traces of their operations against the city wall remain (du Mesnil du Buisson). To protect against a Sassanid invasion, which was expected since the foundation of the Sasanian Empire, the Romans extended and strengthened the outer parts of the western and northern ramparts by covering them with thick layers of mud bricks, thereby burying the buildings along the inside of the wall. The Iranians destroyed towers 19 and 14 on the western border in order to bring them down, but there were not destroyed because they were full and had obstacles.
In the city’s southeast corner, they built an offensive ramp 40 meters long and 10 meters high against the wall so that the troops could enter. The ramp was made of a solid mass between two brick walls and paved with baked bricks, allowing the siege machine to move close to the wall. Two tunnels, each wide enough to allow several men to advance side by side, were dug near the body of the ramp. No textual description of the siege of Dura Europos survives, but Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the siege of Amida a century later, in which similar techniques were used, allows for a reconstruction of the operation at Dura. The primary siege weapons were catapults, mobile towers, and even elephants. The Sassanid army had a sophisticated knowledge of siege techniques.
Valuable information has also been obtained from the discovery of the body of a Sasanian soldier in one of the trenches. He was equipped with an armored coat, a sword decorated with a jade disc of the Central Asian type, and an iron helmet made of two halves with an iron crown located vertically in the center of the front, of purely Mesopotamian and Persian origin. Those accepted in the Roman Empire in the third century used this type of hat.
The timing of the siege operation has created a debate that still needs to be resolved. The discovery of Pahlavi inscriptions on the synagogue’s walls does not prove that the Sasanians captured the city for the first time in the campaign in 253, three years before the final siege. Also, it is unlikely that a house near the Nusrat Arch on the main street, where a Sassanid style wall painting shows a cavalry battle, is related to this speculation. It is believed that this wall painting and several Pahlavi-language strata in the Dukes of Ripe Palace and the graves discovered in the city are the result of the temporary settlement of a small group of Iranians by the river in the town after the victory of 256.
