The event brought together world-leading experts on Parthian and Sasanian art, as well as the art of Anatolia and Roman-period Cilicia and Syria. The discussion focused on issues of iconography, placement, form, and function of rock-cut reliefs from the Parthian, Roman, and early Sasanian Near East, as well as on other monuments related to them for their iconography or placement.

In the introduction, the organizers gave a brief overview of the phenomenon of rock-carving as an artistic endeavor with multiple functions (marking the land, commemorating people, events or rituals, etc.). They highlighted how the rock-carved reliefs of the region from south-east Turkey to western Iran, dating from the 2nd c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE, had not attracted as much scholarly attention as reliefs of earlier periods, but they are of fundamental importance for understanding Roman, Parthian, and Sasanian ideologies and histories.

The first two papers of the conference, however, focused on neighboring regions, since rock-carving was not an exclusive phenomenon of the Near East. Lucia Nováková (Trnava University) presented the rock-cut tombs of Lycia and Caria (Southwestern Anatolia), of the Hellenistic to Early Imperial Roman periods. After a short introduction to the phenomenon in the region and the tombs’ architectural features, such as the imitation of wooden architecture, she discussed how the tombs were used, re-used and adapted, and emphasized how they were also locations of worship and cult.  

Sarah Madole Lewis (City University of New York) gave a paper on the freestanding and rock-cut and sarcophagi of Cilicia, coastal Syria, and Lebanon, analyzing the relationship between figurative and symbolic decorations. By focusing on the iconography of sarcophagi and rock-cut tombs, she showed eastern and western influences on the imagery used on sarcophagi. Her discussion of the location of these monuments highlighted that the relationship between the exterior (public) and the interior (private) was fundamental in the conceptualization of these tombs.

Jacopo Bruno (Austrian Academy of Sciences) discussed the group of clay statues from Mithradatkert, a site that most likely was the ancient Parthian capital Nisa of written sources. Sculptures were found in several areas of the site, and Bruno’s discussion focused on those found in the central monumental complex. They were made of clay formed around a wooden core, and they can be distinguished between two groups based primarily on costume and style of execution, the ‘Greek’ and the ‘Iranian’. The statues may have been displayed in the upper gallery of the Round Hall, a building possibly dedicated to the cult of the rulers.

Henry Colburn (Hofstra University) presented the problems of analysis of Arsacid period rock-cut reliefs in western Iran such as that of the identification of figures depicted, their dating based on stylistic criteria, and their context. He then proceeded into identifying a set of criteria for analyzing and studying rock-carved reliefs, which followed after patterns of placement, form, and function. These patterns demonstrated how the sponsors of the reliefs interacted with the landscape to construct their identities. The themes and iconographies depicted, which focused on scenes of investiture, religious offerings, and hunting, led the speaker to identify recurring patterns that formed what he described as a ‘mythological landscape’.

Olympia Bobou and Rubina Raja (Aarhus University) spoke about a particular subset of men in Palmyrene funerary iconography: that of men carrying non-Roman weapons. These figures were most likely the armed escorts of trade caravans of Palmyrene merchants and had themselves represented with the tools of their trade. The iconography of their weapons showed influences from Parthian military art, as well as the weapons that must have been used by the nomads, and belongs to a shared equipment of weapons seen across Syro-Mesopotamia.

The first day closed with a visit to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, where the participants had the opportunity to study closely objects from the Near Eastern but also the Roman collections of the museum.

The second day of the conference started with a session focused on Parthian Elymais. Vito Messina (University of Turin) discussed the rock-carved reliefs of the region and contextualized them within the corpus of Parthian art. He demonstrated how they were a prominent group, that was distinct from reliefs from other regions. Their location and connection to the mountainsides was also emphasized, showing how the reliefs served as visual markers for the people using the landscape.

Gunvor Lindström (Institute for the Study of the Ancient World) presented the group of statues from the sanctuary at Kal-e Chendar/Shami, especially the fragments in bronze and marble recovered by Aurel Stein in the 1930s, and comparable material from the sanctuaries at Bard-e Nechandeh and Masjid-i Suleiman. Her presentation showed that there were different artistic and stylistic traditions at work at the same time in Elymais, showing that both different craftsmanship and audiences could appear at the same location.

Fabrizio Sinisi (Austrian Academy of Sciences) discussed the complex relationship between Parthian coin imagery and monumental art, especially that of rock-reliefs. He highlighted how coinage is an often overlooked but highly important vehicle of ideology and how iconography on coins is directly connected with that of reliefs. He proposed that by studying the two in tandem, we can refine our understanding of the function of portraiture on rock reliefs.

In her presentation, Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (British Museum) also considered Iranian rock reliefs, with a focus on early Sasanian examples from Persis, and connected them to the development of Sasanian art in the 3rd c. CE. She traced the campaigns of the first Sasanian king Ardashir I and examined which reliefs he may have seen as he waged war across Mesopotamia. She showed that, rather than using Parthian Elymais reliefs as inspiration, Ardashir I was primarily influenced by the reliefs of the Achaemenid kings, and his reliefs were created in dialogue and for the purpose of legitimizing his new dynasty by presenting them as successors to them, rather than the overthrown Parthians.

Michael Blömer (University of Münster) presented three rock reliefs that had been discovered in the early 20^th century but had remained largely ignored by scholarship. The reliefs located in Northern Mesopotamia show connections to both the Roman and the Parthian empires but also hail from local traditions. As such, they could be used as markers of identity.

Lucinda Dirven (Radboud University) discussed the iconography of kings in both the coins and reliefs of Parthian Iran, and its vassal state of Hatra (Northern Iraq). She effectively illustrated the connection between the depiction of lords and rulers in Hatra and the representation of Arsacid kings on coins, as well as other rulers depicted in the reliefs of Elymais. Her analysis revealed that distinctive iconographic features, such as the tiara and hairstyle, symbolized kingship. In the case of Hatra, these symbols were exclusively used by the city's lords, reflecting the regal status granted to the local elite and expressing their loyalty to the Arsacid royal dynasty.

Ilaria Bucci (Aarhus University) presented a series of pictorial graffiti featuring equestrian iconography from Hatra (Northern Iraq) and Dura-Europos (Syria), dating to the late 2nd-3rd centuries CE. These graffiti, which predominantly depict mounted archers, share a distinct set of features, suggesting a broader spread of equestrian imagery across different media, such as rock reliefs and wall paintings. The contextual analysis of the evidence from these sites encourages further exploration of the meaning behind these graffiti, which appear to be linked to the elite activities of hunting and combat, and carry connotations of prestige and status.

During the concluding remarks, the organizers focused on two issues. First, the importance of landscape for creating reliefs, and for linking reliefs – and their meaning, and secondly, the question that dominated the lively discussions that followed each paper: when is an image a portrait? While there was no unanimous answer to that, there is no doubt that the conference provided all the participants with plenty to think about and consider.