Rome and the East
modern Semitising constructions. In the epigraphy of the Bekaa valley, not
a single allusion to Hadad occurs, still less an equation with Zeus or Iuppi-
ter. Atargatis is indeed recorded once in the area; not, however, at Heliopolis
but in the hills on the opposite side of the valley, in themonumentumof Och-
maea at Niha,virgini vati Deae Syr(iae) Nihat(enae), or in Greekπαρθένοςθεᾶς
Ἀταργάτεις, put up by aveteranusnamed Sex. Allius Iullus (IGLSVI ).
The contrast with the epigraphy of Heliopolis itself which this inscription
presents is extremely important; for in this case a local deityisidentified as
local, Nihatena, and as the ‘‘Syrian Goddess’’ and (in Greek) as Atargatis. No
such identifications are ever made by contemporary documents in relation
to the gods of Heliopolis. We arenotentitled to assert thatIuppiter Optimus
MaximusHeliopolitanuswas Hadad (or Hadaran); and all the less so because the
same Ochmaea (or Hocmaea) is also described at Niha, in another inscrip-
tion, asvirgo dei Hadaranis(IGLSVI ). At Niha Atargatis and Hadaran
may indeed have been worshipped as a divine couple.
There is in fact at Heliopolis no documentary equation of Venus with any
‘‘Semitic’’ goddess, or of Zeus or Mercurius with any ‘‘Semitic’’ god. But nor,
to make confusion worse, is there any real indication that these three deities
were conceived of as a triad at all (no ‘‘triad’’ of deities is represented on
the third-century coins of the city). There are in fact precisely two inscrip-
tions from Heliopolis, both very fragmentary and heavily restored, where
we may read in the one case[I.O.M.,V.,] M., Diis Heliopol(itanis)(IGLSVI
), and in the other [I.O.]M.,V.M.,DiisHeliopol(itanis), where the firstM
andVhave not been seen since the early eighteenth century (IGLSVI ).
OtherwiseI(uppiter) O(ptimus) M(aximus) H(eliopolitanus)is referred to alone
on nearly thirty inscriptions;^63 or dedications are addressed in Greek to him
alone, asΔιὶἩλ[ι]οπολίτῃorΔιὶμεγ[ίσ]τῳἩλιοπολίτῃ(IGLSVI ;
cf. , also ). Venus/Aphrodite is much more rarely recorded (–,
). Mercurius/Hermes appears more frequently (IGLSVI –, ,
–; ?, ).
The inscriptional record from Heliopolis itself and the Bekaa valley thus
gives not the slightest justification for any notion of a triad; confirms the pre-
dominance of the localisedIuppiter Optimus Maximuswho was worshipped,
mainly in Latin, by the colonial population; and also attests, if weakly, that
Venus and Mercurius, as Roman deities, were also worshipped there. From
what is said above, however, it will be clear that the whole context of the
evolution of the cults of Heliopolis is that of theterritoriumof thecoloniaof
. SeeIGLSVI, index v.