CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Ancient Near East HistoryClassical Antiquity StudiesAncient Egypt and Archaeology

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Gestures of proskynēsis in the Achaemenid Empire

Open access
Rung, Eduard V.·2020·Klio
DOI 10.1515/klio-2019-1001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: In October of 2018 a new trilingual Achaemenid inscription from Naqsh-e Rostam was discovered and in March of 2019 a detailed investigation of it with linguistic and historical commentary was published online in ARTA. The inscription includes a previously unknown Old Persian verb, a-f-r-[?]-a-t-i-y, which the first publishers Soheil Delshad and Mojtaba Doroodi read as *ā-fra-yāti(perhaps “he comes forward to”) or *ā-fra-θāti(“he speaks forth to”). They conclude that “an Old Persian verb with the meaning ‘to greet, to bless’ (etc.) seems to be called for”. It is clear that as a result of this discovery we get an Old Persian verb which could refer to an act which the Greek verb προσκυνεῖν may have described relating to the Persians. This new evidence stimulates further discussion about the practice and meaning of proskynēsis at the royal court in the Achaemenid Empire. My article shows that all literary and pictorial evidences on proskynēsis may be divided into two groups: 1) Greek authors’ information that represents proskynēsis mainly as prostration before the King; 2) Persian bas-reliefs that depict the scenes with proskynēsis as a hand-kissing gesture. It is supposed that the previously unknown Old Persian verb (like προσκυνεῖν in Ancient Greek usage) refers not only to specific gestures, but relates to a model of behaviour (‘salutation’, ‘obeisance’, ‘greeting’, ‘worship’, ‘respect’ etc.). It is argued that Achaemenid officials performed proskynēsis before the King as hand-kissing, while the rest of the people bowed down, kneeled or prostrated. Exceptions were made only for members of the royal family who did not perform proskynēsis, but kissed the King and got a kiss from him.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/klio-2019-1001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Esther's high position, her royal status, may also serve as an additional explanation, at least psychologically, for why Mordechai did not want to bow to Haman, since he is the closest relative of the queen who raised and nurtured her.

    “Столь высокое положение Эсфири, ее царский статус, кажется, также может служить дополнительным объяснением, по крайней мере с психологической точки зрения, того, почему Мордехай не хотел кланяться Аману - ведь он ближайший родственник царицы, который вскормил и выпестовал ее 65 .”

    From Anti-Semitism v.s. Jewish Identity in the Book of Esther (2026) · cites this paper as Rung 2020

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Abe 2018: T. Abe, Proskynēsis. From a Persian Court Protocol to a Greek Religious Practice, Tekmeria 14, 2018, 1–45. · DOI
  2. Allen 2005: L. Allen, Le Roi Imaginaire. An Audience with the Achaemenid Kings, in: O. Hekster – R. Fowler (eds.), Imaginary Kings. Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, Stuttgart 2005, 39–62.
  3. Álvares-Mon 2013: J. Álvares-Mon, Braids of Glory. Elamite Sculptural Reliefs from the Highlands Kūl-e Farah IV, in: K. De Graef – J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives, Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17 2009, Leiden 2013, 207–248. · DOI
  4. Azoulay 2004: V. Azoulay, The Medo-Persian Ceremonial. Xenophon, Cyrus and the King’s Body, in: C. J. Tuplin (ed.), Xenophon and his World, Stuttgart 2004, 147–173.
  5. Balsdon 1950: J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Divinity of Alexander, Historia 1, 1950, 363–388. · DOI
  6. Binder 2008: C. Binder, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes. Ein historischer Kommentar, Berlin 2008. · DOI
  7. Bosworth 1995: A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander II, Oxford 1995. · DOI
  8. Bowden 2013: H. Bowden, On Kissing and Making Up. Court Protocol and Historiography in Alexander the Great’s Experiment with Proskynēsis, BICS 56.2, 2013, 55–77. · DOI
  9. Bowra 1961: C. M. Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetry, from Alcman to Simonides, Oxford 1961.
  10. Briant 2002: P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake 2002. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Brosius 2010: M. Brosius, The Royal Audience Scene Reconsidered, in: J. Curtis – St. J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, London 2010, 141–152. · DOI
  12. Calabro 2014: D. M. Calabro, Understanding Ritual Hand Gestures of the Ancient World. Some Basic Tools, in: M. B. Brown – J. M. Bradshaw – S. D. Ricks – J. S. Thompson (eds.), Ancient Temple Worship, Salt Lake City 2014, 143–157.
  13. Choksy 1990: J. Choksy, Gesture in Ancient Iran and Central Asia, II: Proskynēsis and Bent Forefinger, Bulletin of the Asia Institute New Series 4, 1990, 201–204.
  14. Choksy 2002: J. Choksy, In Reverence for Deities and Submission to King. A Few Gestures in Ancient Near Eastern Societies, IA 37, 2002, 7–29. · DOI
  15. Collins 2014: A. Collins, The Divinity of the Pharaoh in Greek Sources, CQ 64, 841–844. · DOI
  16. Couch 1931: H. N. Couch, Proskynēsis and Abasement in Aeschylus, CPh 26, 1931, 316–318. · DOI
  17. Cumont 1930: F. Cumont, Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Suse, CRAI 74, 1930, 208–220. · DOI
  18. Dorman 2002: P. F. Dorman, The Biographical Inscription of Ptahshepses from Saqqara. A Newly Identified Fragment, JEA 88, 2002, 95–110. · DOI
  19. Dousa 2014: T. M. Dousa, Common Motifs in the ‘Orphic’ B Tablets and Egyptian Funerary Texts. Continuity or Convergence?, in: R. G. Edmonds III (ed.), The ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets and Greek Religion. Further along the Path, Cambridge 2014, 120–164. · DOI
  20. Finkel 2013: I. Finkel, The Cyrus Cylinder. The Babylonian Perspective, in: I. Finkel (ed.), The Cyrus Cylinder. The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon, London 2013, 4–34. · DOI
  21. Frijhoff 1993: W. Frijhoff, The Kiss Sacred and Profane. Reflection on a Cross-Cultural Confrontation, in: J. Bremmer – H. Roodenburg (eds.), A Cultural History of Gesture. From Antiquity to the Present Day, Cambridge 1993, 210–236.
  22. Frost 1980: F. J. Frost, Plutarch’s Themistocles. A Historical Commentary, Princeton 1980. · DOI
  23. Hamilton 1969: J. R. Hamilton (ed.), Plutarch, Alexander. A Commentary, Oxford 1969.
  24. Heckel 1978: W. Heckel, Leonnatos, Polyperchon and the Introduction of Proskynēsis, AJPh 109, 1978, 459–461. · DOI
  25. Henkelman 2003: W. Henkelman, An Elamite Memorial. The Šumar of Cambyses and Hystaspes, in: W. Henkelman – A. Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Leiden 2003, 102–115.
  26. Keaveney 2010: A. P. Keaveney, The Chiliarch and the Person of the King, in: B. Jacobs – R. Rollinger (eds.), Der Achämenidenhof. The Achaemenid Court, Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen“, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007, Wiesbaden 2010, 499–508.
  27. Keaveney 2012: A. P. Keaveney, The Trial of Orontas. Xenophon, Anabasis I, 6, AC 81, 2012, 31–41. · DOI
  28. Llewellyn-Jones 2013: L. Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia (550 to 331 BCE), Edinburgh 2013. · DOI
  29. Llewellyn-Jones 2017: L. Llewellyn-Jones, Persianisms. The Achaemenid Court in Greek Art, 380–330 BCE, Iranian Studies 50, 2017, 1–22. · DOI
  30. Marti 1936: B. M. Marti, Proskynēsis and Adorare, Language 12, 1936, 272–282. · DOI
  31. Moran 1992: W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1992. · DOI
  32. Morris 2006: E. F. Morris, Bowing and Scraping in the Ancient Near East. An Investigation into Obsequiousness in the Amarna Letters, JNES 65, 2006, 179–196. · DOI
  33. Muccioli 2016: F. Muccioli, Classical Sources and Proskynesis. History of a Misunderstanding, in: C. Bearzot – F. Landucci (eds.), Alexander’s Legacy, Atti del Convegno Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milano 2015, Rome 2016, 41–59.
  34. Page 1965: D. L. Page, The Song of Hybrias the Cretan, PCPhS 11, 1965, 62–65. · DOI
  35. Papola 1987: S. Papola (ed.), The Correspondence of Sargon II, I: Letters from Assyria and the West, Helsinki 1987.
  36. Petit 2004: T. Petit, Xénophon et la vassalité achéménide, in: C. J. Tuplin (ed.), Xenophon and his World, Stuttgart 2004, 175–199.
  37. Pontier 2012: P. Pontier, Xenophon and the Persian Kiss, in: F. Hobden – C. J. Tuplin (eds.), Xenophon. Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, Leiden 2012, 611–630. · DOI
  38. Ribeiro Santos 2014: J. B. Ribeiro Santos, El proskynēsis del rey israelita Yehu el rey asirio Šulmānu-ašaridu al ‘Obelisco Negro’: un retrato contextual del relevo, Revista Caminhando 19, 2014, 85–99. · DOI
  39. Richards 1934: G. C. Richards, Proskynēsis, CR 48, 1934, 168–170. · DOI
  40. Rollinger 2011: R. Rollinger, Herrscherkult und Königsvergöttlichung bei Teispiden und Achaimeniden. Realität oder Fiktion?, in: L.-M. Günther – S. Plischke (eds.), Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscherkult. Verdichtung und Erweiterung von Traditionsgeflechten, Berlin 2011, 23–40.
  41. Root 1979: M. C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art. Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire, Leiden 1979. · DOI
  42. Schmidt 1953: E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis, I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, Chicago 1953. · DOI
  43. Schmitt 2019: R. Schmitt. Überlegungen zu zwei neuen altpersichen Inschriften (Phanagoreia, Naqš-i Rustam), Nartamongae 14, 2019, 34–49. · DOI
  44. Shafer 2007: A. Shafer, Assyrian Royal Monuments on the Periphery. Ritual and the Making of Imperial Space, in: J. Cheng – M. H. Feldman (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context. Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter, Leiden 2007, 134–159.
  45. Tarn 1928: W. W. Tarn, The Hellenistic Ruler-Cult and the Daemon, JHS 48, 1928, 206–219. · DOI
  46. Tarn 1948: W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, II: Sources and Studies, Cambridge 1948.
  47. Taylor 1927: L. R. Taylor, The Proskynēsis and the Hellenistic Ruler Cult, JHS 47, 1927, 53–62. · DOI
  48. Widengren 1959: G. Widengren, The Sacral Kingship of Iran, in: La regalità sacra / The Sacral Kingship IV, Leiden 1959, 242–257. · DOI
  49. Wiesehöfer 2003: J. Wiesehöfer, “Denn ihr huldigt nicht einem Menschen als eurem Herrscher, sondern nur den Göttern”. Bemerkungen zur Proskynese in Iran, in: C. Cereti – M. Maggi – E. Provasi (eds.), Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli, Wiesbaden 2003, 447–452.
  50. Wiesehöfer 2006: J. Wiesehöfer, s.v. Proskynesis, in: DNP online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_dnp_e1010900, last accessed: 20.07.2020) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rung, E. V.
Venue
Klio
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
2020-11-01
Volume
102
Issue
2
Pages
405-444
ISSN
  • 0075-6334 (ISSN-L)
  • 2192-7669
DOI
10.1515/klio-2019-1001
OpenAlex
W3108083813
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Klio (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Near East History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Classics › Classical Antiquity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
Keywords
proskynesis, Achaemenid Persian Empire, prostration, Old Persian language

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review