Kubaba 2: Journal of Ancient Southwest Asia and Eastern Mediterranean Studies 9781607246792, 1607246791, 9781607246794

Citation preview

KUBABA Journal of Ancient Southwest Asia and Eastern Mediterranean Studies

KUBABA Journal of Ancient Southwest Asia and Eastern Mediterranean Studies

GENERAL-EDITOR Miguel Valério (Universitat de Barcelona) EDITORIAL BOARD Carlos Duarte (IAP) Edgar Fernandes (Universidade Nova de Lisboa / IAP) Filipe Oliveira (Universidade Nova de Lisboa / IAP) Marcel Monte (Universidade Nova de Lisboa / CHAM) ADVISORY BOARD Francisco Caramelo (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Ilya Yakubovich (University of Oxford) Leonor Santa Bárbara (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Mª Helena Trindade Lopes (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Michael Franklin Lane (University of Maryland)

KUBABA Journal of Ancient Southwest Asia and Eastern Mediterranean Studies

Volume 2 2011

Published by

©2011 Carlos Duarte, Edgar Fernandes, Filipe Oliveira, Marcel Monte, and Miguel Valério All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this volume may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers, Carlos Duarte, Edgar Fernandes, Filipe Oliveira, Marcel Monte, and Miguel Valério, and the copublisher, Gorgias Press LLC. All inquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Co-Published by Gorgias Press LLC 180 Centennial Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA Internet: www.gorgiaspress.com Email: [email protected] ISBN 978-1-60724-679-2 ISSN 2162-8947 This volume is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standard for Permanence of paper for Printed Library Materials. Printed in the United States of America Kubaba – Journal of Ancient Southwest Asia and Eastern Mediterranean Studies is distributed electronically free of charge at: http://www.fcsh.unl.pt/kubaba Email: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES ........................................................................................... 1 Margarita GLEBA: Textiles Studies: Sources and Methods ............. 3 Szilvia SÖVEGJÁRTÓ: The Sumerian Equative Case: a Study of its Constructions ................................................................... 31 Brent DAVIS: Cypro-Minoan in Philistia? ...................................... 49 Graciela GESTOSO SINGER: El pecio de Cabo Gelidonya: una introducción ...................................................................... 101 REVIEWS ........................................................................................ 113 Vladimir SAZONOV: Peeter Espak: The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology (PhD Dissertation) .......................... 115 David SORIA MOLINA: Domingo Saura: Las estelas mágicas de «Horus sobre los cocodrilos». formación, evolución y sentido de un tipo iconográfico .................................................................................. 119

ARTICLES

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS MARGARITA GLEBA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON ABSTRACT The importance of textiles and textile production in ancient societies can hardly be overestimated. The sources for the study of ancient textile production are diverse, ranging from texts and iconography to archaeological material, including textiles themselves, as well as tools and installations used in their production. The article provides a review of the available materials and approaches to textile studies with particular emphasis on the Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern material. RESUMO A importância dos têxteis e da produção têxtil nas sociedades antigas dificilmente estará sobrestimada. As fontes para o estudo da produção têxtil antiga são diversas, desde os textos à iconografia, passando pelos materiais arqueológicos, que incluem os próprios têxteis, bem como pelas ferramentas e instalações utilizadas no seu fabrico. Este artigo oferece uma revista dos materiais e abordagens disponíveis para o estudo dos têxteis, com particular ênfase no material estemediterrânico e próximo-oriental.

4

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

INTRODUCTION Throughout Antiquity, textile manufacture was practiced on all levels of society and was one of the most labour-intensive of all occupations. As such, it was an industry of great cultural and social importance and should be factored into any balanced assessment of the ancient economy. Over the last few decades, textile studies have developed into an important new field of archaeology (Good 2001; Andersson et al. 2010). The accumulation of data and the constant development of analytical techniques are permitting more precise fibre and dye identifications. The work on textile tools is allowing to assess the scale and specialisation of textile production on individual sites. This proliferation of technical studies is finally permitting a more synthetic approach to the history of textile technology. Numerous publications on the topic (Barber 1991; Breniquet 2008; Völling 2008) are demonstrating how much we can learn about the culture, society, technology and economy of the ancient world through textiles.1 Some of the earliest textile remains come from the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. Thus, charred twisted fibres interpreted as cord fragments dating to the Palaeolithic (19,300 BP) have been found at Ohalo II in Israel (Nadel et al. 1994). Textiles dating to the Middle PPNB have been found in the Levant at Jericho (Crowfoot 1960; 1965; 1982), Nahal Hemar (Bar-Yosef 1985; Schieck 1988) and Tel Halula (Alfaro 2002). Even more numerous are textile finds of the following periods: Çatal Höyük in Anatolia (Helbaek 1963; Burnham 1965; Ryder 1965; Vogelsang-Eastwood 1988), Jarmo in the Zagros Mountains (Adovasio 1977), El Kowm2 in the oasis of Palmyra (Stordeur 1989) and Khirokitia on Cyprus (Stordeur 1989). These earliest textile remains are of primary importance for our understanding of the first textile materials and techniques. Furthermore, they may help us in reconstructing the 1 Over the last 30 years, much of the archaeological textile research has been published in the Archaeological Textiles Newsletter (www.atnfriends.com) and Bulletin of Centre International d’Études des Textiles Anciens, as well as proceedings of the North European Symposium for Archeological Textiles (NESAT issues 1-10) and Ancient Mediterranean Textiles and Dyes Symposium (Purpureae Vestes issues 1-3).

MARGARITA GLEBA

5

pathways of domestication and secondary products revolution, since flax and sheep are both believed to have been first domesticated in the Fertile Crescent (Zohary and Hopf 2000: 125-132; Peters et al. 2005). Flax was cultivated for fibre as early as the PPNB, while the direct evidence for the use of wool fibre for textile production consists of the earliest textile remains made of sheep wool found at Shahr-i Shōkhta, Eastern Iran (Good 1999), and at Novosvobodnaya in the North Caucasus (Shishlina et al. 2003), both dated to the 4th millennium BC. Textiles were used for a variety of purposes in past societies and textile production was an integral part of local and regional economies and local, regional and long-distance exchange (Bier 1995). The social significance of textile production was expressed in funerary ritual through the inclusion of textiles and textile implements among the burial goods, as well as in religious activities through the deposition of textile tools in votive deposits. The sources for the study of ancient textile production are diverse, ranging from texts and iconography to archaeological material, including textiles themselves, as well as tools and installations used in their production. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the available materials and approaches to textile studies. The bibliography is far from exhaustive and is intended as a starting point to anyone interested in the subject.

WRITTEN SOURCES Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern textile industry has been largely investigated through written sources. An array of ancient written texts contains information on textile materials, technologies, uses and trade, which are among the most extensive in the ancient world. In the Near East and the Aegean area, textiles are frequently mentioned in administrative texts related to temple and palatial economies, providing detailed data on textile production organisation, or in legal documents, such as marriage contracts, dowry lists and inventories of household items. These sources provide us with terms for types of textiles, dyes, garments, quantities of raw materials needed for their production and quantities of finished products being traded.

6

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

Thus, the royal archives of Ebla, dated to the 3rd millennium BC, describe textiles produced, used and exchanged in Ebla itself, throughout Syria and in Mesopotamia, including for example monthly accounts of textile deliveries to the palace (Sollberger 1986; Biga 2010). From the end of the 3rd millennium BC, many thousands of the cuneiform tablets from the Ur III Dynasty preserve information on textile production, exchange and tribute in Sumer (Waetzoldt 1972; Pomponio 2010). Among the most detailed and best studied are the records of the Old Assyrian traders found in the Anatolian city of Kaneš, dated to the 19th-18th centuries BC (Veenhof 1972; Michel and Veenhof 2010). The traders imported to Anatolia vast quantities of woollen textiles woven in Assyria and the records found in Kaneš document the daily realities of the trade and associated legal transactions. The Akkadian texts found in Ugarit (Ras Shamra), dated to the 14th-12th centuries BC, mention textile prices, raw materials, costumes and other relevant information in a variety of contexts (Ribichini and Xella 1985; Vita 2010). Meanwhile, the Linear B tablet archives found on Crete and on the Greek mainland provide us with extensive information about textile production in the Late Bronze Age Mycenaean kingdoms (Killen 2007; Del Freo et al. 2010). One of the striking aspects of the Mycenaean textile industry is its extreme specialisation. These archives present an extraordinary documentation of the centralised scale of textile industry during the Bronze Age in the Aegean and the Near East. While extremely useful, written sources have to be treated with caution. One of the biggest limitations is the semantics of terminology (see Michel and Nosch 2010): the meaning of a particular word is oftentimes unknown or has changed through time, leading to translations such as “a garment or fabric” (Vita 2010: 334), or “a kind of red-brown” (Del Freo 2010: 348). Furthermore, in the rare instances when descriptions of production processes are preserved in written accounts, they are not always clear or sufficiently detailed: sometimes the authors themselves did not fully understand the technology or omitted information that seemed obvious to them but is lost to us. Another major problem is the fact that some periods and geographical areas are well documented while others left no written evidence. For these reasons, the use of ancient literary sources is most reliable when the information they provide is corroborated by other kinds of evidence. Archaeological

MARGARITA GLEBA

7

material in particular can shed new light on issues previously investigated only through texts.

ICONOGRAPHY After written evidence, iconographic material has been the most frequently cited source of information on ancient textiles. Ancient Near Eastern art encompasses one of the most interesting and informative collections of visual material in the ancient world. The proliferation of textiles on reliefs, paintings, statuary and other media has been noted by numerous scholars (Bier 1995). This vast corpus of representations of textiles has been used in studies of ancient dress (e.g. Canby 1971; Bittner 1985; Barber 1991). Richly patterned cloth in royal or cultic contexts, for example those shown on Assyrian reliefs from Nineveh and paintings of Til Barsip (Albenda 2005), and Bronze Age Aegean frescoes (Barber 1991: 311-357) demonstrate not only the sophistication of textile technology reached by the various cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, but also the role of textiles as visible symbols of power and wealth. The study of patterns is also important for understanding religious and symbolic meaning of textiles as they transmit information about specific people, places, or events. In addition to garments represented on people, iconographic sources show a variety of utilitarian textiles, such as awnings, canopies, parasols, carpets and nets. Depictions of elaborate carpets, for example, are known from Assyria (Canby 1971; Albenda 1978). They have been compared to the carpet found in a 4th century BC Scythian burial in Pazyryk, Siberia (Stronach 1993). While informative about many aspects of ancient cultures, representations of textiles, however, offer little information about the technical details of ancient Near Eastern textiles. Few actual images of the various stages of textile production or tools associated with it exist in ancient art. They are, however, of great importance to our understanding and reconstruction of this ancient technology. Thus, the earliest depiction of a woolly sheep, dated to c. 5000 BC comes from Tepe Sarab in Iraq (Ryder 1983: 52). One of the earliest depictions of a horizontal ground loom and weavers appears on a seal from Susa, dated before 3000 BC (Wild 2003a: 46). An aristocratic lady on a relief from Susa depicted with a spin-

8

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

dle, dated c. 1000 BC, demonstrates the symbolic importance acquired by the textile craft in the Early Iron Age (Wild 2003b: 49). A detailed study of Mesopotamian iconography of textile production was recently published by Breniquet (2008; also see 2006; 2010). The use of iconographic material, although not to be omitted, is nevertheless limited. Uneven geographical distribution of extant representations precludes meaningful comparisons between different regions, while artistic conventions and abbreviations inhibit our ability to read the surviving iconographic sources with confidence.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE: TEXTILES The most direct but paradoxically least explored type of evidence for ancient textile manufacturing activities consists of archaeological material, that is, textiles and tools used to produce them. Like any organic material, textiles are subject to rapid decomposition in archaeological contexts and their preservation requires special conditions to prohibit their destruction by microorganisms (Wild 1988: 7-13; Gillis and Nosch 2007). Thus, dry climates have preserved textiles by desiccation as for instance, in the case of the textiles recovered from the early Levantine sites of Nahal Hemar (Schieck 1988) and Nahal Mishmar (Zindorf et al. 1971), as well as Roman-period desert cities of Dura Europos (Pfister and Bellinger 1945) and Palmyra (Pfister 1934; 1937; 1940; Schmidt Colinet et al. 2000; Stauffer 2000) in Syria and Masada in Israel (Sheffer and Granger-Taylor 1996). Wet environments can also be favourable for preservation of organic materials. The alkaline conditions of the Alpine lakes and acidic environment in the Danish bogs have conserved textiles in Central and Northern Europe. The pH value of water or soil significantly influences conservation: vegetal fibres are not preserved in acidic environments, while animal fibres are for the most part destroyed by basic conditions. Thus, in Denmark, only woollens have been preserved (Hald 1980), while Swiss and Italian lakes have yielded predominantly fabrics made of plant fibres (Bazzanella et al. 2003). Temperatures below 0°C preserve all organic material almost unaltered. A mummy known as the Iceman, the Man of Similaun or Ötzi, dated by radiocarbon to 3350-3100 BC, was discovered in

MARGARITA GLEBA

9

the Alpine glacier of Italy (Spindler 1995). The Iceman’s garments were also preserved in permafrost conditions, providing a first glimpse of the European Bronze Age costume practices. In Eurasia, the contents of Scythian tombs were frozen as well, preserving fabrics almost perfectly (Polosmak and Barkova 2005). Salt has preserved mummies and fabrics in Iran (Aali 2005) and the Taklamakan Desert in northwest China (Barber 1999). Dry conditions and the presence of salt are particularly favourable for dye preservation while wet environments usually degrade colouring agents. Textiles can also be preserved through exposure to fire, which leads to creation of charred samples. Plant fibres, in fact, are often more stable in charred or carbonized state than in the original shape. The Palaeolithic cord fragments from Ohalo II in Israel have survived in a charred state (Nadel et al. 1994), as did the textiles at Çatal Höyük in Anatolia (Helbaek 1963; Burnham 1965; Ryder 1965), at Akrotiri on Thera (Moulhérat and Spantidaki 2007; 2008), and at Chania on Crete (Moulhérat and Spantidaki 2009). Numerous charred textile fragments have also been excavated in the destruction levels of Hasanlu, Iran, dated c. 800 BC (de Schauensee 2011). In the presence of metal objects, textiles may become pseudomorphs – mineralized formations in which metal corrosion products form casts around fibres retaining their external morphology and size almost unaltered (Jakes and Sibley 1984; Janaway 1987; Chen et al. 1998). The formation of mineralised textiles depends on pH value, oxidation potential and moisture, as well as the composition of the fibre, and on the elemental composition of the soil and metal (Janaway 1987: 136-142; Gillard et al. 1994). Iron and bronze in particular favour formation of easily legible traces. Most of these corrosion-preserved textiles come from inhumation graves. Even when minute, these traces can provide a considerable amount of information about ancient textiles. A pseudomorph from Çayönü composed of bast fibre is dated ca. 7000 BC (Good 1998: 657). Mineralised textiles present on bronze peg figures from foundation deposits in Mesopotamia dating to the Ur III Dynasty, e.g. at Nippur, probably served to protect the pegs and were part of the foundation ritual (Garcia-Ventura 2008). The Late Bronze Age textiles found mineralised on bronze objects deposited in the anthropoid coffins discovered in tombs at Deir El-Balah in the Gaza

10

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

Strip probably served as wrappings for the burial gifts (Dothan 1979: 68, Ills. 154, 156). Textiles can also be preserved in the presence of calcium minerals, as in the case of the Middle Bronze Age remains from Qatna, Syria (James et al. 2009; Reifarth and Drewello 2011). Here, the dyes were also preserved, allowing the identification of shellfish purple. Last but not least, textiles can also be preserved in the form of imprints. These are negatives of the original fabrics, created for example when fabric comes in contact with bitumen or with clay objects or surfaces before they are fired. Some of the earliest evidence for woven fabric, in fact, comes in the shape of such imprints, as in the case of examples from Jarmo dated c. 7000 (Adovasio 1977). At Tel Halula, balls of galena were found with textile imprints on the surface, indicating that textiles served as containers or wrapping (Molist et al. 2010). Impressions of fine textile on fragments of lime found at Dhuweila in eastern Jordan even permitted identification of the earliest cotton in the Near East (Betts et al. 1997). Whatever the condition of preservation, textile recovery greatly depends on excavation methodology and conservation procedures (cf. Gillis and Nosch 2007). Thus, the micro-excavation approach, in which entire blocks of earth containing archaeological material are lifted and brought to the laboratory, where they are then carefully excavated by conservators using special equipment and under controlled conditions, has been especially successful in textile recovery and preservation. Their prompt consolidation, documentation and conservation, given the usually advanced state of degradation, are then essential. The exact conservation technique depends on the environment, from which the piece was recovered, and the types of damage, whether mechanical, biological or chemical. Archaeological textile remains can be subjected to a wide variety of established and new analytical techniques, which result in important discoveries regarding their materials, date and provenance, thereby providing data about their function, movement, meaning and role in ancient societies.

MARGARITA GLEBA

11

FIBRE ANALYSIS Textile quality and appearance are dependent on the material of which the textile has been made, that is fibre. The biological source of fibres may be identified by microscopy in well-preserved textiles. However, much degraded samples require chemical tests, such as solubility measurements which can distinguish cellulose fibres from protein-based ones, although they will not help to identify a specific species. The new methods of amino acid composition (Good 2001) and DNA (Brandt et al. 2011) analyses are being developed for protein-based fibres. Hemp and flax differentiation of modern fibres is possible under a polarized light microscope through the difference in micro-fibrillar orientation, hemp being z-oriented and flax and nettle being s-oriented. Recent research has also produced a new means of differentiating between flax on the one hand, and hemp and nettle on the other, on the basis of the presence of calcium oxalate cluster crystals in nettle and hemp, but not in flax (Bergfjord and Holst 2010). In degraded textiles, alternative methods of differentiation have been further developed, using synchrotron radiation micro-beam diffraction and micro-fluorescence (Müller et al. 2006). Fibre investigation, however, is more than just identification of material source. By studying fibre on a microscopic level we can come closer to understanding issues of selective breeding / cultivation, selection, and processing of fibres, and their wear. These issues are essential to the understanding of ancient agriculture, animal husbandry, domestication, and technology. Analyses of wool fibre fineness are used to determine the fleece type of prehistoric sheep. Assessment of fibre quality is based on the diameter measurement of 100 fibres per thread and statistical analyses resulting in a distribution diagram. Wool contains three parts differing in structure and size: kemp, hair, and the wool itself. Michael Ryder (1969; 1983) established an evolutionary scheme for wool development based on fibre diameter measurements. Early varieties of sheep had coats containing more hair and kemp than wool. Ryder demonstrated that, over the course of time, selective breeding has produced increasingly finer and more uniform wool. Wool fibre investigations of archaeological textiles may help in tracing these developments in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (cf. Good 1999).

12

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

DYE ANALYSIS Although archaeological textiles often survive as brown or colourless rags, it does not always follow that they looked this way when made. Addition of colour has been an integral part of textile making (Cardon 2007). Dye and mordant identification usually requires sophisticated chemical analyses. The most advanced method for natural organic dye analysis is currently high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), which allows the identification of the chemical dye components. Since the sources for dyestuffs are numerous throughout the world, it is important to take into account the archaeobotanical data from the area where the dyed textile has been found. Dye analysis is a key to the understanding of dyeing technology, dye exchange, as well as aesthetics, value and meaning of colour. Among ancient dyes, in a category of its own stands shellfish (also known as true, Royal or Tyrian) purple, extracted from a gland in several species of marine molluscs, such as Hexaplex (Murex) trunculus, Bolinus (Murex) brandaris and Stramonita (Purpura) haemastoma. Purple production is usually associated with the Phoenician cities of the Levant, especially Tyre and Sidon (Jensen 1963). Purple was worn by Near Eastern kings, from whom it was adopted by Alexander the Great and Hellenistic rulers, coming to signify royalty and power. A certain shade of bluish purple, tekhelet, had special significance in Hebrew Bible (Ziderman 2008). Until recently, the earliest archaeological evidence of purple production was associated with Crete, where substantial quantities of shells have been found at Palaikastro, Kommos and Kouphonisi dated to the 1900-1800 BC (Stieglitz 1994). Recently, however, dye analysis identified shellfish purple in the textiles from the Middle Bronze Age royal burial in Qatna, Syria, making them the earliest shellfish purple-dyed textiles known to date (James et al. 2009).

RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS When textiles are sufficiently well preserved they can be dated in relative terms on stylistic / typological grounds, although usually within very wide chronological brackets. More often, however, textiles are dated by context or association with other archaeological objects. Textiles, however, are particularly suitable for 14C dating

MARGARITA GLEBA

13

using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry since they have a short life and may even give more precise dates than other material (van der Plicht et al. 2004: 488). Thus, the 14C method was used to date numerous late antique tunics from Egypt, which had been separated from their context and could not be dated by other means (Pritchard 2006:13-25; Schrenk 2004: 476-478).2 Furthermore, even if the absolute dates are imprecise, they can make it possible to demonstrate the contemporary existence of what were thought previously to be chronologically differentiated styles.

ISOTOPIC TRACING Identifying provenance of archaeological artefacts in absolute terms is often difficult if not impossible. This is especially true of archaeological textiles, which are made with widespread and longlasting techniques and materials and often defy typological classification. Strontium (Sr) isotope ratios have recently been shown to be a unique indicator for wool fibre provenance, demonstrating for example that not all Early Iron Age textiles found in Danish bogs had local origin (Frei et al. 2009a; 2009b). Strontium and oxygen isotope ratios can also be used to determine the origin of plants, as in the case of willow and tule used to manufacture prehistoric basketry and matting from archaeological sites in the western Great Basin of the USA which were shown to have been harvested from different sources, suggesting the use of both local and non-local raw materials (Benson et al. 2006).

MOLECULAR ANALYSIS DNA analysis is a rapidly developing research field with great potential in archaeology. Techniques and methods are getting more refined, allowing extraction of minute amounts of DNA, such as present in hair shafts, which can then be replicated (Gilbert et al. 2 An on-line database for 14C-dated textiles has been launched recently (www.textile-dates.info).

14

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

2004). A recent study has demonstrated that, while dependent on preservation conditions and presence of dyes and mordants, trace amounts of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA may be recovered from textiles made of sheep wool (Brandt et al. 2011). Technology from modern wool proteomics can further be used to analyse the proteome and changing properties of ancient wools (Plowman et al. 2000). DNA of textile plant species is also currently being investigated, in particular with the aim to explore ancient flax genetics (Allaby et al. 2005). DNA analysis was used recently to identify flax and hemp in the ropes from Christmas Cave in the Dead Sea Area (Murphy et al. 2011).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE: TEXTILE IMPLEMENTS The study of implements in the investigation of textile production in ancient societies is an even more recent development than textile analysis. In fact, textile tools have rarely been given attention in archaeological literature beyond general observations or, at best, the publication of a tool catalogue. In the last few years, however, important studies have been carried out for Ebla in Syria (Peyronel 2004; 2007), Gordion in Anatolia (Burke 2007; 2010), and a variety of sites in Israel (Shamir 1994; 1997; 2008). Currently, a large-scale project on textile tools of Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean is on the way (Andersson Strand and Nosch in press; see also Nosch and Laffineur in press). Unlike the textiles themselves, textile implements are ubiquitous on Near Eastern archaeological sites and constitute the single most important and plentiful type of evidence for the assessment of the scale of production and the technology of the weaving industry in the ancient Near East. Spindle whorls appear already in the 6th millennium BC, indicating the use of suspended spindle for spinning yarn and can be used to hypothesise about the level of textile production (e.g. Sudo 2010). Likewise, the series of loom weights found in rows on the floor at Gordion suggest the presence of a vertical warp-weighted loom in Anatolia (Burke 2007). As with any archaeological source, there are several problems associated with the study of textile tools. Implements made of organic materials are usually not preserved, and the function of some

MARGARITA GLEBA

15

surviving tools is unknown or, at best, ambiguous. Thus, the horizontal loom used in Mesopotamia and other parts of the Near East leaves no archaeological traces. Any statistical analysis of the implements recovered at a given site is additionally compromised, since it is virtually impossible to ascertain what proportion of tools has survived in the archaeological record. Investigation is further complicated by problematic contexts and the extent to which a site has been excavated. Nevertheless, the great number of implements associated with textile manufacture can be used to study the craft and its technological and economic aspects. Furthermore, many textile tools have been found in burial and votive contexts, providing another interpretative framework.

ETHNOGRAPHIC THNOGRAPHIC STUDIES AND EXPERIMENTAL EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Experimental archaeology and ethnographic investigation have been important complementary approaches to the study of ancient textile implements (Peacock 2001: 186). Tools found in archaeological contexts may be tested for their function and suitability by using replicas to reproduce particular types of textiles. Through ethnographic studies we often have knowledge about the tool function and different processes like fibre preparation, weaving techniques, and/or tools made of perishable material (Landreau 1980).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE: RAW MATERIALS The study of textiles and tools can be enriched by the investigation of plant and animal resources used in textile production. Archaeobotany and archaeozoology can provide important information about availability and exploitation of these resources. Plants represent one of the most important and earliest raw materials in textile production, providing fibre, for example: flax (Linum usitatissimum), hemp (Cannabis sativa), or cotton (Gossypium sp.); dyestuffs, for example: woad (Isatis tinctoria L.), indigo (Indigofera tinctoria L.), weld (Reseda luteola L.), madder (Rubia tinctorum L.), safflower (Carthamus tinctoria L.), saffron (Crocus sativus L), and bedstraw (Galium verum L.); and washing agents such as soapwort

16

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

(Saponaria officinalis). The plant remains most commonly retrievable archaeologically include seeds, pollen and/or phytoliths. The earliest evidence for cultivation of flax, for example, comes in the form of linseed from the 8th millennium BC Tell Aswad in Syria (Miller 1991: 142). Archaeozoological evidence in the form of sheep bones permits analysis of slaughter patterns, which may indicate whether animals were kept for wool or meat. Predominance in the flock of adult animals, in particular castrated males, generally indicates wool production. The study of bone assemblages, landscape, and transhumance patterns can give valuable information on the development of society’s strategies in wool production and identify sites and regions with specialized production (Davis 1993; Helmer et al. 2007). It is particularly useful when combined with other sources of information, particularly texts (Halstead 2003). Another archaeozoological material important for textile and dye studies consists of muricid shells found on Mediterranean sites, where large accumulations of them evince the production of one of the most celebrated dyes of antiquity, Royal or Tyrian purple (Alfaro and Karali 2008; Alfaro et al. 2004; Haubrichs 2005). A more integrated study of archaeobotanical and archaeozoological assemblages, as well as geological and palaeoenvironmental data, can help in locating and mapping the areas of exploitation of textile resources in time and space, thereby advancing our knowledge of not only textile production but also of agriculture, animal husbandry and resource exploitation.

CONCLUSION The study of ancient Near Eastern textiles has progressed much more slowly in comparison to the situation in Europe, but recent publications by Breniquet (2008) and Völling (2008) demonstrate how much information we can gain by exploring the various sources of information available to us to study ancient textile production. The comprehensive analysis of textiles is needed before one can speak more concretely of developmental trends in ancient technology. Further studies will permit us to trace the appearance of new techniques and their relationship to textile technology in the various periods and regions. An in depth analysis of the icono-

MARGARITA GLEBA

17

graphic material is needed to correlate the patterns of the surviving textiles with those depicted in art. Research into ancient dyeing is still in its infancy, and one may hope that it will soon yield important results for textile studies. Here, paleoethnobotanic and geological studies are crucial to find the possible sources of ancient dyes. Furthermore, different classes of tools must be studied in their varied contexts. Thus, implements found in burials must be correlated with other burial good and votive contexts must be examined more carefully, while implement distribution studies are necessary for the settlements. Most importantly, physical parameters for various implements have to be published and analysed. Finally, diachronic and synchronic comparison between the different regions of the Mediterranean and the Near East is needed. It is my hope that this short overview will draw the attention of excavators to this frequently overlooked class of archaeological material, leading towards a better understanding of the ancient textile technology and broader issues connected to it.

REFERENCES Aali, Abolfazl 2005. Salt Men. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research. Adovasio, James M. 1977. “The textile and basketry impressions from Jarmo”. Paléorient 3, 223-230. Adovasio, James M., Andrews, Rhonda, and Carlisle, M.R. 1978. “Textile remains and basketry impressions from Bâb edhDhrà”. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 43, 57-60. Adovasio, James M., and Andrews, Rhonda L. 1982. “Selected Perishable Artifacts from Bâb edh-Dhrà”. BASOR 247, 59-69.

18

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

Albenda, Pauline 1978. “Assyrian Carpets in Stone”. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Society 10, 1-34. 2005. Ornamental Wall Painting in the Art of the Assyrian Empire. Leiden and Boston: Brill/Styx. Alfaro, Carmen 2002. “Étoffes cordées du site néolithique de Tell Halula (Syrie – VIIIe millénaire avant J.-C.) ». Bulletin du CIETA 79, 1725. Allaby, Robin G., Petersen, Gregory W., Merriwether, David Andrew and Fu, Yong-Bi 2005. “Evidence of the domestication history of flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) from genetic diversity of the sad2 locus”. TheorApplGenet 112, 58-65. Andersson, Eva B., Frei, Karin Margarita, Gleba, Margarita, Mannering, Ulla, Nosch, Marie-Louise Bech and Skals, Irene 2010. “Old textiles – new approaches”. European Journal of Archaeology 13(2), 149-173. Andersson Strand, Eva and Nosch, Marie-Louise (eds.) In press. Tools, Textiles and Contexts. Investigations of Textile Production in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Barber, Elizabeth J. Wayland 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1999. The Mummies of Ürümchi. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. Bar-Yosef, Ofer 1985. A Cave in the Desert: Nahal Hemar. Jerusalem. Bazzanella, Marta, Mayr, Anna, Moser, Luise and Rast-Eicher, Antoinette 2003. Textiles. Intrecci e tessuti dalla preistoria europea. Trento. Bellinger, Louise 1962. “Textiles from Gordion”. Bulletin of the Needle and Bobbin Club 46, nos. 1-2, 5-34.

MARGARITA GLEBA

19

Benson, Larry V., Hattori, E.M., Taylor H.E., Poulson, S.R. and Jolie Edward A. 2006. “Isotope sourcing of prehistoric willow and tule textiles recovered from western great Basin rock shelters and caves – proof of concept”. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(11), 1588–1599. Bergfjord, Christian and Holst, Bodil 2010. “A new method for identifying textile bast fibres using microscopy”. Ultramicroscopy 110(9), 1192-1197. Betts, Alison, van der Borg, Klaas, de Jong, Ari, McClintock, Catherine, van Strydonc, Mark 1997. “Early cotton in north Arabia”. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 489-499. Bier, Carol 1995. “Textile Arts in Ancient Western Asia”. In: J. Sasson and K. Rubinson (eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York, 1567-1588. Biga, Maria Giovanna 2010. “Textiles in the administrative texts of the royal archives of Ebla (Syria, 24th century BC) with particular emphasis on coloured textiles”. In: C. Michel and M.L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennnia BC, Oxford, 146-172. Bittner, Stefan 1985. Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden. München. Brandt, Luise Ø.; Tranekjer, Lene D. ; Mannering, Ulla; Ringgaard, Maj; Frei, Karin Margarita; Willerslev, Eske; Gleba, Margarita; and Gilbert, M. Thomas P. 2011. “Characterising the potential of sheep wool for ancient DNA analyses”. Archaeological and Anthropoplogical Sciences 3, 209-221. Breniquet, Catherine 2006. « Le travail de la laine en Mésopotamie (époques d'Uruk, Djemdet Nasr, Dynastique Archaique) ». In: P. Charvát, B. Lafont, J. Mynárová and L. Pecha (eds.), L'Etat, le

20

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

pouvoir, les prestations et leurs formes en Mésopotamie ancienne. Actes du Colloque assyriologique franco-tchèque. Paris, 7-8 novembre 2002, Prague, 78-92. 2008. Essai sur le tissage en Mésopotamie. Des premièrese communautés sédentaires au milieu du IIIe millénaire avant J.-C. Paris: De Boccard. 2010. “Weaving in Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age: Archaeology, techniques, iconography”. In: C. Michel and M.L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennnia BC, Oxford, 52-67. Burke, Brendan 2007. “The Kingdom of Midas and Royal Cloth Production”. In: C. Gillis and M. L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient textiles: production, craft and society, Oxford, 54-70. 2010. From Minos to Midas: Ancient Cloth Production in the Aegean and in Anatolia. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Burnham, Harold B. 1965. “Çatal Hüyük - the textiles and twine fabrics”. Anatolian Studies 15, 169-174. Canby, Jeanny Vorys 1971. “Decorated Garments in Ashurnasirpal’s Sculpture”. Iraq 33, 31-53. Cardon, Dominique 2007. Natural Dyes. Sources, Tradition, Technology and Science. London: Archetype Publications. Chen, H. L., Jakes K. A., and Foreman D. W. 1998. “Preservation of Archaeological Textiles Through Fibre Mineralization”. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 10151021. Crowfoot, Elisabeth 1960. “Appendix A: Textiles, Matting and Basketry”. In: K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho I: Tombs Excavated in 1962-54, London, 519-526. 1965. “Textiles, Matting and Basketry”. In: K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho I: Tombs. London.

MARGARITA GLEBA

21

1982. “Textiles, Matting and Basketry”. In: K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho IV, London, 546-550. 1995. “Textiles from Recent Excavations at Nimrud”. Iraq 57, 113118. Dalley, Stephanie 1977. “Old Babylonian Trade in Textiles at Tell al Rimah”. Iraq 39, 155-159. Davis, S. J. M. 1993. “The zoo-archaeology of sheep and goat in Mesopotamia”. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 7, 1-7. de Schauensee, Maud 2011. People and Crafts in Period IVB at Hasanlu, Iran. Philadelpiha. Del Freo, Maurizio, Nosch, Marie-Louise and Rougemont, Françoise 2010. “The Terminology of Textiles in the Linear B Tablets, including Some Considerations on Linear A Logograms and Abbreviations”. In: C. Michel and M.L. Nosch (edss), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennnia BC, Oxford, 338-373. Dothan, Trudy 1979. Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir El-Balah. Qedem 10. Jerusalem. Frei, Karin Margarita; Frei, Robert; Mannering, Ulla; Gleba, Margarita; Nosch, Marie-Louise; and Lyngstrøm, Henriette 2009a. “Provenance of ancient textiles - a pilot study evaluating the Sr isotope system in wool”. Archaeometry 51(2), 252-276. Frei, Karin Margarita; Skals, Irene; Mannering, Ulla; Gleba, Margarita; and Lyngstrøm, Henriette 2009b. “The Huldremose Iron Age textiles, Denmark: an attempt to define their provenance applying the strontium isotope system”. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(9), 19651971.

22

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

Garcia-Ventura, Agnes 2008. “Neo-Sumerian Textile Wrappings: Revisiting some Foundation Figurines from Nippur”. Zeitschrift für Orient Archäologie 1, 246-254. Gilbert, M. Thomas P., Wilson, Andrew S., Bunce, Michael, Hansen, Anders J., Willerslev, Eske, Shapiro, Beth, HIgham, Thomas F.J., Richards, Michael P., T. O’Connell, Thamsin C., Tobin, Desmond J., Janaway, Robert C. and Cooper, Alan 2004. “Ancient mitochondrial DNA from hair”. Current Biology 14(12), R463-R464. Gillard, R. D., Hardman, S.M., Thomas, R.G., and Watkinson, D.E. 1994. “The mineralization of fibres in burial environments”. Studies in Conservation 39, 132-140. Gillis, Carol and Nosch, Marie-Louise Bech (eds.) 2007. First Aid for the Excavation of Archaeological Textiles, Ancient Textiles Series 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Good, Irene 1998. “Bronze Age cloth and clothing of the Tarim Basin: the Chärchän evidence”. In V. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age People of Eastern Central Asia, Washington, DC, 656-668. 1999. The Ecology of Exchange: Textiles from Shahr-I Sokhta, Eastern Iran. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. 2001. “Archaeological Textiles: A Review of Current Research”. Annual Review of Anthropology 30, 209-226. Granger-Taylor, Hero 1983. “The Textile Fragments from PG16”. In: J. Curtis, Late Assyrian Bronze Coffins. Anatolian Studies 33 (Special Number in Honour of the Seventy-Fifth Birthday of Dr. Richard Barnett), 94-95. Hald, Margrethe 1980. Ancient Danish Textiles from Bogs and Burials. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.

MARGARITA GLEBA

23

Halstead, Paul 2003. “Texts and Bones: Contrasting Linear B and Archaeozoological Evidence for Animal Exploitation in Mycenaean Southern Greece”. In: E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble and P. Elefanti (eds.), Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, London, 257-261. Helbaek, Hans 1963. “Textiles from Çatal Hüyük”. Archaeology 16(1), 39-46. Helmer, Daniel, Gourichon, Lionel and Vila, Emmanuelle 2007. “The development of the exploitation of products from Capra and Ovis (meat, milk and fleece) from the PPNB to the Early Bronze in the northern Near East (8700 to 2000 BC cal.)”. Anthropozoologica 42(2), 41-69. Jakes, Kathryn A. and Sibley, Lucy R. 1984. “An Examination of the Phenomenon of Textile Fabric Pseudomorphism”. In: J. B. Lambert (ed.), Archaeological Chemistry III, Washington DC, 403-424. James, Matthew A.; Reifarth, Nicole; Mukherjee, Anna J.; Crump, Matthew P., Gates, Paul J.; Sandor, Peter; Robertson, Francesca; Pfälzner, Peter; and Evershed, Richard P. 2009. “High prestige Royal Purple dyed textiles from the Bronze Age royal tomb at Qatna, Syria”. Antiquity 83 (322), 1109–1118. Janaway, Robert C. 1987. “The preservation of organic materials in association with metal artifacts deposited in inhumation graves”. In: A. Boddington, A. N. Garland, and R. C. Janaway (eds.), Death, decay and reconstruction. Approaches to archaeology and forensic science, Manchester, 127-148. Jensen, Lloyd B. 1963. “Royal Purple of Tyre”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22, 104118. Kawami, Trudy 1992. “Archaeological Evidence for Textiles in Pre-Islamic Iran”. Iranian Studies 23 (3-4), 1-12.

24

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

Killen, John T. 2007. “Cloth Production in Late Bronze Age Greece: the Documentary Evidence”. In: C. Gillis and M. L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient textiles: production, craft and society, Oxford, 50-58. Landreau, Anthony N. 1978. Yörük: The Nomadic Weaving Tradition of the Middle East. Pittsburgh. Michel, Cécile and Nosch, Marie-Louise (eds.) 2010. Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennnia BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Michel, Cécile and Veenhof, Klaas R. 2010. “The textiles traded by the Assyrians in Anatolia (19th–18th centuries BC)”. In: C. Michel and M.L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennnia BC, Oxford, 210271. Miller, Naomi F. 1991. “The Near East”. In: W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa and K.-E. Behre (eds.), Progress in the Old World Palaeoethnobotany. A Retrospective View on the Occasion of 20 Years of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, Rotterdam, 133-160. Molist, M., Montero-Ruiz, I., Clop, X., Rovira, S., Guerrero, E. And Anfruns, J. 2010. “New Metalluric Findings from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic: Tell Halula (Euphrates Valley, Syria)”. Paléorient 35(2), 33-48. Moulhérat, Christophe and Spantidaki, Youlie 2007. “Preliminary results from the textiles discovered in Santorini”. In: A. Rast-Eicher and R. Windler (eds), NESAT IX, Archäologisch Textilfunde, Braunwald, 18-21 May 2005, Ennenda, 49-52. 2008. « Première attestation de laine sur le site protohistorique d’Akrotiri à Théra ». In: C. Alfaro and L. Karali (eds.),

MARGARITA GLEBA

25

Purpureae Vestes II. Vestidos, Textiles y Tintes, València, 3742. 2009. “Cloth from Kastelli Khania”. Arachne 3, 8-15. Müller, M.; Murphy, B.; Burghammer, M.; Riekel, C.; Gunneweg, J.; and Pantos, E. 2006. “Identification of single archaeological textile fibres from the Cave of Letters using synchrotron radiation microbeam diffraction and microfluorescence”. Applied Physics A 83, 183–188. Murphy, Terence M.; Ben-Yehuda, Nahum; Taylor, R.E.; and Southon, John R. 2011. “Hemp in Ancient Rope and Fabric from the Christmas Cave in Israel: Talmudic Background and DNA Sequence Identification”. Journal of Archaeological Science. Nadel, D., Danin, A., Werker, E., Schick, T., Kislev, M.E. and Stewart, K. 1994. “19,000-Year-Old Twisted Fibers from Ohalo II“. Current Anthropology 35 (4), 451-458. Nosch, Marie-Louise Bech and Laffineur, Robert (In press) KOSMOS. Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. 13th International Aegean Conference held at Copenhagen, April 2010. Aegaeum. Liège: Université de Liège. Peacock, Elisabeth E. 2001. “The contribution of experimental archaeology to the research of ancient textiles”. In: P. Walton Rogers, L. Bender Jørgensen and A. Rast-Eicher (edss), The Roman Textile Industry and its Influence. A Birthday Tribute to John Peter Wild, Exeter, 181-192. Peters, Joris, von den Driesch, Angela and Helmer, Daniel 2005. “The upper Euphrates Tigris Basin: cradle of agropastoralism?” In: J.-D. Vigne, J. Peters and D. Helmers (eds.), The First Steps of Animal Domestication, Oxford, 96123. Peyronel, Luca 2004. Gli Strumenti di tessitura dall’Età del Bronzo all’epoca Persiana. Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla IV. Roma.

26

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

2007. “Spinning and Weaving at Tell Mardikh-Ebla (Syria): Some Observations on Spindle-Whorls and Loom-weights from the Bronze and Iron Ages”. In: C. Gillis and M.-L. B. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production, Crafts and Society, Oxford, 26-35. Pfister, Rudolph 1934. Textiles de Palmyre. Paris. 1937. Nouveaux Textiles de Palmyre. Paris. 1940. Textiles de Palmyre III. Paris. Pfister, Rudolph and Bellinger, Luise 1945. Part II. The Textiles. In: M. I. Rostovtzeff (ed.), The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report IV. New Haven: Yale University Press. Plowman, Jeffrey E., Bryson, Warren G. and Jordan, T. William 2000. “Application of proteomics for determining protein markers for wool quality traits”. Electrophoresis 21, 1899-1906. Polosmak, Natalya V. and Barkova, L.L. 2005. Костюм и текстиль пазырыкцев Алтая. (IV-III вв. до н. э.). Novosibirsk: Infolio. Pomponio, Francesco 2010. “New texts regarding the neo-Sumerian textiles”. In C. Michel and M.L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennnia BC, Oxford, 186-200. Pritchard, Frances 2006. Clothing Culture: Dress in Egypt in the First Millennium AD. Manchester: The Whitworth Art Gallery, University of Manchester. Reifarth, Nicole and Drewello, Rainer 2011. “Textile Spuren in der Königsgruft Vorbericht zu ersten Ergebnissen und dem Potential zukünftiger Forschungen”. In: P. Pfälzner (ed.), Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Königsgruft von Qatna, Qatna Studien I, Wiesbaden, 469482. Ribichini, Sergio and Xella, Paolo 1985. La terminologia dei tessili nei testi di Ugarit. Rome.

MARGARITA GLEBA

27

Ryder, Michael L. 1965. “Report of Textiles from Çatal Hüyük”. Anatolian Studies 15, 175-176. 1969. “Changes in the fleece of sheep following domestication”. In: P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby (eds), The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, London, 495-521. 1983. Sheep and Man. London: Duckworth. Schick, Tamar 1998. The Cave of the Warrior: a Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 5). Jerusalem. Schmidt Colinet, Andreas; Stauffer, Annemarie; and al-As’ad, Khaled 2000. Die Textilien aus Palmyra. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Schrenk, Sabine

2004. Textilien des Mittelmeerraumes aus spätantiker bis früislamischer Zeit. Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung. Shamir, Orit 1994. “Loomweights from Masada”. In Y. Aviram, G. Foerster and E. Netzer (eds.), Masada IV, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965, Final Reports, Jerusalem, 265-282. 1997. “Loomweights of the Persian Period from Khirbet Nimra”. ‘Atiquot 32, 1-8. 2008. “Loomweights and Textile Production at Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Preliminary Report”. In: Crawford et al. (eds.), Up to the Gates of Ekron, Jerusalem, 43-49. Sheffer, Avigail and Granger-Taylor, Hero 1996. “Textiles from Masada”. In Y. Aviram, G. Foerster and E. Netzer (edss), Masada IV, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965, Final Reports, Jerusalem, 152-265. Shishlina, Natalia I., Orfinskaya, Olga V. and Golikov, Valery P. 2003. “Bronze Age Textiles from North Caucasus: new evidence of fourth millennium BC fibers and fabrics”. Oxford Journal of Archaoelogy 22 (4), 331-344.

28

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

Sollberger, Edmond 1986. Administrative Texts Chiefly Concerning Textiles (L. 2752), Archivi Reali di Ebla: Testi 8. Rome. Spindler, Konrad (ed.) 1995. Der Mann im Eis. Neue Funde und Ergebnisse 2. Veröffentlichung des Forschungsinstituts für Alpine Vorzeit der Universität Innsbruck 2. Wien and New York: Springer-Verlag. Stauffer, Annemarie 2000. “The textiles from Palmyra: technical analyses and their evidence for archaeological research”. In: D. Cardon and M. Feugère (eds.), Archéologie des textiles des origines au Ve siècle, Actes du colloque de Lattes, oct. 1999, Montpellier, 247-252. Stieglitz, Robert R. 1994. “The Minoan origin of Tyrian Purple”. Biblical Archaeologist 57, 46-54. Stordeur, Danielle 1989. « Vannerie et tissage au Proche-Orient néolithique : IXe-Ve millénaire ». In: J.-L. Fiches and D. Stordeur (eds.), Tissage, Corderie, Vannerie (IXe Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, octobre 1988), Valbonne, 19-39. Stronach, David 1993. “Patterns of Prestige in the Pazyryk Carpet: Notes on the Representational Role of Textiles in the First Millennium B.C.”. Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies 4, 19-34. Sudo, Hiroshi 2010. “The development of wool exploitation in Ubaid-period settlements of North Mesopotamia”. In: R.A. Carter and G. Philip (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East, Chicago, 169-179.

MARGARITA GLEBA

29

van der Plicht, J., van der Sanden, W.A.B., Aerts, A.T. and Streurman, H.J. 2004. „Dating bog bodies by means of 14C-AMS”. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(4), 471-491. Veenhof, Klaas R. 1972. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology. Studia et Documenta 10. Leiden. Vita, Juan-Pablo 2010. “Textile Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts”. In: C. Michel and M.L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennnia BC, Oxford, 323-337. Völling, Elisabeth 2008. Textiltechnik im Alten Orient: Rohstoffe und Herstellung. Wurzburg. Vogelsang-Eastwood, Gillian M. 1988. “A re-examination of the fibres from the Çatal Hüyük textiles”. Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies 3/1, 15-19. Waetzoldt, Hartmut 1972. Unterzuchungen zur Neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Studi Economici e Tecnologici I. Rome. Wild, John Peter 1988. Textiles in archaeology. Aylesbury: Osprey Books. 2003a. “Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Levant in the Bronze Age, c. 3500-1100 BC”. In: D. Jenkins (ed.), The Cambridge History of Western Textiles, Cambridge, 43-47. 2003b. “The Near East in the Iron Age, c. 1100-500 BC”. In: D. Jenkins (ed.), The Cambridge History of Western Textiles, Cambridge, 48-52. Yedlowski, N. Luffman, and Adovasio, James M. 1989. “Perishable Artifacts from Bâb edh-Dhrà”. In: R. T. Schaub, and W. E. Rast (eds.), Bâb edh-Dhrà: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed By Paul W. Lapp (1965-1967), Winona Lake (IN), 521-543.

30

TEXTILES STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS

Ziderman, I. Irving 2008. “The Biblical Dye Tekhelet and its Use in Jewish Texts”. Dyes in History and Archaeology 21, 36-44. Zindorf, A., Horowitz, S. and Blum, R. 1971. “Textile Remains of Nahal Mishmar”. In: P. Bar-Adon, The Cave of the Treasure, Jerusalem, 248-250. Zohary, Daniel and Hopf, Maria 2000. Domestication of plants in the Old World. Oxford.

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE: A ∗ STUDY OF ITS CONSTRUCTIONS

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY, JENA ABSTRACT The Sumerian equative morpheme is widely accepted as an adnominal case marker because it only occurs on the noun phrase without a corresponding verbal affix on the finite verb. In some cases, however, the equative obviously indicates a semantic relation with the verb and not with another noun phrase. Moreover, there are sporadic examples where two non-appositional noun phrases are marked with the equative morpheme which contradicts its function as a casemarker. In this paper I compare the syntax of the equative and the genitive case marker as well as the adverbial marker /eš/. I argue that the syntactical position of the noun phrase marked with the equative differs from that of a noun phrase marked with the genitive case, the other adnominal case in Sumerian. It is, however, similar to that of the adverbial ∗ This paper is based on a conference talk held on the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Rome. I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Manfred Krebernik for his suggestions during the preparation of this paper. Needless to say, all errors are mine.

32

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

marker /eš/. My aim is to prove that the equative morpheme is actually not a case marker but an adverbial marker of sentence adverbials. RESUME Le morphème du équatif sumérien est largement accepté comme un marqueur de dépendance adnominale, car il ne se produit que sur la phrase nominale, sans un affixe correspondant verbal sur le verbe fini. Cependant, on observe des situations où l’équatif indique évidemment une relation sémantique avec le verbe et non avec une autre phrase nominale. Par ailleurs, il y a des exemples sporadiques, où deux phrases nominales, qui ne sont pas en apposition, sont marquées par le morphème équatif, ce qui contredit sa fonction comme un cas. Dans cet article, je compare la syntaxe de l’équatif et le génitif autant que l’adverbiatif /eš/. À mon avis, la position syntaxique du syntagme nominal marqué par l’équatif diffère de celle du syntagme nominal marqué par le génitif, l’autre cas adnominal en sumérien. Cependant, il est similaire à celle de l’adverbiatif /eš/. Mon but est de prouver que le morphème équatif n’est pas un marqueur de cas, mais un marqueur adverbial des compléments circonstanciels. The status of the equative case marker does not belong to the much debated topics of the Sumerian grammar. It is usually regarded as one of the adnominal cases together with the genitive case because of the lack of a verbal affix co-referential with the noun phrase in the equative case.3 It is accordingly undoubted that 3 So Foxvog (2008: 39): “The genitive and equative cases indicate relationships between one noun (or pronoun) and another and so may be described as adnominal in function. The remaining cases are adverbial in function, serving to indicate relationships between nouns and verbs. Since they only relate substantives, the genitive and equative cases are marked

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

33

the equative case marks primarily a noun phrase used in comparison with another noun phrase. There are, however, some reasons to doubt that this definition holds true in every case. First, the function of the Sumerian equative case has to be defined on the basis of the linguistic terminology.4 The so-called “equative construction” should express by definition equality, more specifically equal extent. In case of Sumerian, the equative case appears with such a meaning with stative verbs as example (1) illustrates.5 Proper name in DP 112 v 6; 24th c. BCE (Allotte de la Fuÿe 1909) dBa-u -gen 2 7

-a-ba

-sag9

Bau=gen

aba=∅

sag-∅

DN=EQU

who=ABS

beautiful-NFIN

“Who is as good as Bau?”

only by nominal postpositions. The adverbial cases, which mark verbal subjects, agents, and objects, and convey locational or directional ideas, are, by contrast, marked not only by nominal postpositions, but often also by corresponding affixes in verbal forms.” The same thesis is to be found recently in Jagersma (2010: 203): “The equative case primarily expresses a relation of comparison between two noun phrases. Thus, like the genitive case, it does not indicate a semantic relation with the verb. This is undoubtedly the reason why finite verbal forms never contain an affix which is coreferential with a noun phrase in the equative or genitive case. All other cases designate some semantic relation with the verb and have their counterparts in some verbal affix.” 4 On the difference between equative and similative constructions see Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998: 313): “Semantically, the difference between equatives and similatives is not so much that similatives express approximate similarity, while equatives express true equality, but rather that similatives express identity of manner, while equatives express identity of degree or extent, or in other words, similatives express quality while equatives express quantity”. 5 For some further examples see Jagersma (2010: 204-205). This construction is, however, very rare in Sumerian.

34

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

The more typical construction expressed by the Sumerian equative case is the “similative construction”. Similative constructions express likeliness or equality of manner, that is, the equivalence is of qualitative nature as examples (2) and (3) indicate. (2) Gudea Cyl. A xxiv 10; 22nd c. BCE (Edzard 1997) ud-sakar

gibil-gen7

men

bi2-il2

udsakar

gibil=gen

men=∅

b-i-n-il-∅

crescent moon

new=EQU tiara=ABS

3NH-LOC3-3H.A-raise.PT-3SG.P

“He (Gudea) had it (the temple) wear a tiara like the new moon.”

(3) Gudea Cyl. A xxvii 6-7; 22nd c. BCE E2-ninnu

ni2-bi

kur-kur-ra

Eninnu=ak

ni=bi=∅

kur~kur=’a

TN=GEN

fear=3NH.POSS=ABS

mountain~PL=LOC2

tug2-gen7

im-dul4

tug=gen

i-m-b-(i)-dul-∅

cloth=EQU

FIN-VEN-3NH-LOC2-cover.PT-3SG.S

“The fearsomeness of the E-ninnu covers all the lands like a garment.”

The distinction between the two constructions has to be formalized on the basis of the linguistic terminology.6 There are lan6 For the terminology applied here see Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998: 279).

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

35

guages where equative and similative constructions have different structures. As English belongs to those languages, in the following table the equative and the similative constructions in English are compared:

PARAMETER COMPAREE

STANDARD PARAMETER

MARKER

She

sings

She

sings

as

STANDARD MARKER

beautifully

as

a nightingale.

like

a nightingale.

Table 1 – The equative and the similative constructions in English.

There is a maximum of three lexical items involved in equative or similative constructions: the comparee, the parameter and the standard. Moreover, there may be one or two functional elements in the construction, the parameter marker and the standard marker.

STANDARD

STANDARD MARKER

COMPAREE

dBa-u

-gen7

a-ba

sag9

-gen7

men

bi2-il2

2

ud-sakar gibil

Table 2 – The equative and the similative constructions in Sumerian.

In the case of the Sumerian equative and similative constructions, as the table above shows, there is no parameter marker but a standard marker. Furthermore, the parameter —in other languages usually an adjective— is missing in the equative construction because it is part of the verbal head. On the basis of syntactical and semantical criteria the Sumerian “equative case” should be rather called “similative case”.

36

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

It is, moreover, questionable if this construction encodes the relationship of two noun phrases. First of all, semantical reasons imply that the equative or similative case is not always an adnominal case but the noun phrase marked with it has a close relationship to the verb. The following table lists a number of examples from the Gudea Cylinders A and B where the comparee is the same noun: e2 ‘house’.

COMPAREE

Cyl. A xxi 19 Cyl. B xxiv 9 Cyl. A xxi 21 Cyl. A xxiv 14

e2 ‘house’

STANDARD

VERB

ḫursag̃ ‘mountain’

mu2 ‘grow high’

kur gal ‘great mountain’ us2 ‘reach (to the sky)’ gud ‘bull’ dutu

‘sun’

si – il2 ‘raise the horn’ e3 ‘come out’

Table 3 – Elements of similative constructions from the Gudea Cylinders A and B.

On the basis of these examples it is plausible that the standard of comparison is determined by the verb and not by the comparee, with other words, the head of the construction where the equative noun phrase belongs is the verb and not the other noun phrase. Therefore an adverbial use of the noun phrase marked with the equative case seems here obvious. As the Sumerian equative is usually regarded as one of the two Sumerian adnominal cases, it is worth comparing it with the other adnominal case, the genitive. The common feature designated to both cases is that they are marked only on the noun phrase without a corresponding element in the verbal prefix chain. The structure of the genitive and the equative construction, however, differs significantly.

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

37

(4) Gudea St. B ii 1-3; 22nd c. BCE (Edzard 1997) [P1 P3[P1-P5GEN]-P5α] dNin-g̃ir-su

ur-sag̃

kal-ga

dEn-lil -la -ra 2 2

Ning̃irsu

ursag̃

kalag

Enlil=ak=ra

DN

warrior

strong

DN=GEN=DAT

“For Ning̃irsu, the strong warrior of Enlil (...)”

As example (4) shows, in the genitive construction the enclitic case marker of the head noun (P5α) is attached to the phrase after the genitive case marker. That is, when the head noun is followed by a modifying genitive construction, its case marker cannot be directly linked to the lexical head. Just like other modifiers of the head noun, also the genitive modifier has to be placed between the head noun and its enclitic case marker.

(5) Lugalzagesi 1 ii 31-32; 24th c. BCE (Frayne 2008) [P1-(P3)-P5α] [P1-(P3)-P5EQU] urim2ki-e

gud-gen7

sag̃

GN=e

gud=gen

sag=∅

Ur=ERG

bull=EQU

head=ABS

an-še3

mu-dab6-il2

an=še

mu-n-da-b-il-∅

sky=TERM

VEN-3H-COM-3NH.A-rise.PT-3SG.P

“Ur raised his head to the sky like a bull.”

38

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

The construction involving a noun phrase in the equative case is different, as example (5) demonstrates. Here the case marker of the head noun (P5α) has to precede the noun phrase marked with the equative case. In this type of construction the noun phrase marked with the equative case always constitutes a separate noun phrase. The structural sketch aims to summarize and illustrate the difference between the two constructions. There is, however, no feasible reason why two adnominal cases should appear in such distinct constructions. Furthermore, the genitive noun phrase is similarly located as the other modifiers of the head noun. The equative construction, however, appears to diverge. Another possibility is to regard the Sumerian similative or equative construction as manner adverbial. The interpretation of similative constructions as manner adverbials is straightforward cross-linguistically. In addition to the similative construction there is another common means of expressing manner adverbials in Sumerian, namely the so-called adverbiative marker -eš (Jagersma 2010: 84). (6) Gudea Cyl. A xxiv 8; 22nd c. BCE e2

lugal-na

e

lugal=ani=ak=∅

house

master=3H.POSS=GEN=ABS

zid-de3-eš2

mu-du3

zid=eš

mu-n-du-∅

right=ADV

VEN-3H.A-built.PT-3SG.P

“He built the house of his master appropriately.”

The status of the adverbiative marker in the Sumerian grammar is not yet set. It is, however, worth to mention that the resemblance

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

39

to the equative marker is not merely semantical. The noun phrase marked with the adverbiative also constitutes a separate noun phrase from the head noun and it does not have a co-referential element in the verbal prefix chain. The reason for this behaviour of the equative and the adverbiative is hard to discuss while the constitution of the Sumerian verbal prefix chain remains unsolved. It is, however, a possibility that both cases mark so-called sentence adverbials. That is, these elements are no verbal arguments but adjuncts, and for this reason they do not have such a close relationship to the verb as that of the verbal arguments forming part of the verbal prefix chain. 7 Another problematic construction of the equative is known from Early Dynastic evidence. There are some examples for a construction where in a nominal clause both noun phrases involved in a comparison are marked with the equative case. The first known example for this so-called “archaic construction” stems from an Early Dynastic proverb and it had been preserved in archaic personal names up to the Ur III period (Jagersma 2010: 205) as it is stated by examples (7) and (8). This structure changed in later periods and the second equative morpheme was dropped from the noun phrase, maybe under Akkadian influence (Krebernik 1998: 260). (7) Early Dynastic Proverbs l. 3; 26th c. BCE (Alster 1991-1992) ka-zu-gen7

gala4-zu-gen7

ka=zu=gen

gala=zu=gen

mouth=2H.POSS=EQU

vulva=2H.POSS=EQU

“As is your mouth, so is your vulva.”

7 The distribution of the adverbiative and the equative is also a problematic question. A preliminary observation is that the adverbiative occurs most frequently with adjectives and the equative with nouns. A more precise research would be, however, desirable.

40

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

(8) Proper name in STA 4 iii 23; 21st c. BCE (Chiera 1922) Nin-gen7

-a-ba-gen7

nin=gen

aba=gen

lady=EQU

who=EQU

“Who is like the lady?”

If we consider the archaic construction a productive construction of the equative, it would indicate that two non-appositional noun phrases could be marked with the equative morpheme that contradicts its function as a case-marker, at least in the Early Dynastic period. It is, however, not the only possibility. According to these examples it seems sure that this archaic construction was not common in Early Dynastic texts: both examples have had specific uses being a proverb and a personal name. It is important to mention that the “archaic construction” was not the only option to build a nominal similative construction in the Early Dynastic period: the simple nominal construction could also be applied with the same meaning as example (9) indicates. Furthermore, the similative construction with adverbial use is also attested in this period according to examples (10) and (11). In all these sentence types the second equative case marker is missing. (9) AAICAB I/1 pl. 38 Ashm. 1911-229 1:18; 21st c. BCE (Grégoire 1996) A-ba

-nin

-gen7

aba

nin

-gen

who

lady

-EQU

“Who is like the lady?”

(10) Za3-mi2 hymns ll. 27-28; 26th c. BCE (Biggs 1974)

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

Kul-aba

an-gen7

šu

nu-ti

Kulaba=’a

an=gen

šu=∅

nu-ti-∅

GN=LOC2

sky=EQU

hand=ABS

NEG-approach-NFIN

41

“Like the sky, Kulaba cannot be opposed.”

(11) ARET 5, 24 ll. 1-3; 25th c. BCE (Krebernik 1997) lugal

an-ki

nu-dub2!

lugal=∅

an=gen

nu-dub-∅

king=ABS

sky=EQU

NEG-tremble-NFIN

ki-gen7

nu-siki

ki=gen

nu-siki-∅

earth=EQU

NEG-scatter-NFIN

“Lord (who) cannot be shaken like the sky, (who) cannot be scattered like the earth.”

The question is, if this double-equative construction is an archaic remain which is not productive any more in the Early Dynastic period, or if it is a still productive but poorly attested construction at this time. Both examples for the “archaic construction” have a remarkable feature in common: namely, in both cases we lack the head of the comparison which should be expressed by a verb or a copula. Here two noun phrases are compared with each other. This is, however, a special type of sentence called balanced sentence. The difference between a nominal sentence and the more specific balanced sentence —which is not necessarily nominal— could be described as follows:

42

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

Early Dynastic Proverbs l. 35; 26th c. BCE NOMINAL SENTENCE:

A (is) B

šag4-gal ašag “Food supply (is) a field.” Early Dynastic Proverbs l. 28; 26th c. BCE

BALANCED SENTENCE:

A (is) A’

šag4 min bar min “Two hearts (are) two minds.”

While the nominal sentence has the structure “A is B”, the balanced sentence has a structure “A is A’”, the first component of the sentence being in both cases the subject and the second component being the predicate. Moreover, in the case of a balanced sentence both components are topicalized, which is not the case in a nominal sentence. Let us see some more examples for the balanced sentence from the same Early Dynastic proverb collection.

(12) Early Dynastic Proverbs l. 62; 26th c. BCE gud u2

gud giš kešda

gud u=∅

gud giš=∅ kešda-∅

ox grass=ABS

ox wood=ABS bound-NFIN

“An ox of grass (is) an ox bound to the yoke.”

(13) Early Dynastic Proverbs ll. 102-103; 26th c. BCE munus tibir2 nu-tuku

munus addir nu-tuku

munus tibir=∅ nu-tuku-∅

munus addir=∅ nu-tuku-∅

woman fist=ABS NEG-have-NFIN

woman wages=ABS NEG-have-NFIN

“A woman without fists (is) a woman without wages.”

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

43

As these examples indicate, the use of the balanced sentence was not limited to express similarity but it was common, for example in proverbs where the content was truncated or abbreviated. It is possible that an early construction to express the similarity of two noun phrases was developed in form of the balanced sentence in Sumerian but it was not necessarily the case. What is sure, however, is that in this sentence type the equative case marker should be regarded as the head of the construction because it is the repeating element. The question is how the equative construction emerged and functioned. There are two possibilities to solve this question: assuming the word written with the sign DIM2 or GEN7, from which the equative morpheme emerged, was originally of nominal or of verbal nature. If we suppose that it was a noun then the lexical noun completed with GEN7 should function as a composite noun where GEN7 means ‘sort’, ‘kind’. The translation would be then “A-sort is B-sort”. There is, however, a problem with this solution: Sumerian composita function generally in another way. In Sumerian composite nouns one of the two nouns has an adjectival meaning. This noun is, however, always the second part of the compositum. That is the case for example in the composita an-šag4 ‘inner heaven’ and an-dul3 ‘dark heaven’, among others. Consequently in our case, assuming that GEN7 was the head of the compositum with nominal meaning modified by another noun, it should be the first part of the compositum and not the second. The other possibility is that GEN7 was once a verb semantically related to DIM2 ‘to make, to create’.8 In this case, the noun before GEN7 could easily be the subject or the object of a nonfinite verb of the LAL-type. This solution is better with regard to the structure of the phrase. So the meaning of the balanced sentence would be “As your mouth is acting is as your vulva is acting”, the nouns being the subject of the non-finite verb. In case of sentences with an adverbial similative construction this schema can also be applied: “Ur raised his head to the sky making / representing a bull”, where the noun preceding GEN7 would be its object. 8 As there is no phonetic similarity of the two forms, a semantical relation should explain the more or less consequent use of the same sign.

44

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

The derivation from this meaning to the similative one seems obvious. The verbal origin of the equative case marker is also supported by the fact that the equative noun phrase refers mostly to the subject of the verb or to a topicalized element in the sentence.9 Furthermore, such an innovation is not unique cross-linguistically —here it is enough to mention the direct object marker in Chinese which emerged from the verb ‘to take’. Moreover, this phenomenon is not unique in case of the Sumerian language —most probably the dative marker -/ra/ is also of verbal origin emerging from the verb /rah/ ‘to beat’.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2H 3H 3NH 3SG A ABS ADV COM DAT DN EQU ERG FIN GEN LOC2 LOC3

second person, human third person, human third person, non-human third person, singular agent absolutive case marker adverbiative marker comitative case marker dative case marker divine name equative marker ergative case marker finite marker prefix genitive case marker locative case marker (locative-terminative) locative case marker (directive)

9 So Jagersma (2010: 203): “Mostly, the compared item is the subject or the object.” The only sure exception known for me stems from an Old Babylonian literary text cited by Jagersma (2010: 204) (333). In case of participant-oriented adjuncts such a restriction is well-attested (Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt 2005: 1).

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

NEG NFIN P PL POSS PT S TERM VEN

45

negation non-finite marker patient plural marker possessive pronoun past tense subject terminative case marker ventive

REFERENCES Allotte de la Fuÿe, François Maurice 1909. Documents présargoniques. Fasc.I.P.2. Paris: Leroux. Alster, Bendt 1991-1992. “Early Dynastic Proverbs,” Archiv für Orientforschung 38, 1-51. Biggs, Robert Dale 1974. Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (Oriental Institute Publications 99), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Black, Jeremy A. 2002. “Sumerian Lexical Categories,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 92, 60-77. Chiera, Edward 1922. Selected temple accounts from Telloh, Yokha and Drehem, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Edzard, Dietz Otto 1997. Gudea and his dynasty – The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early periods 3/1, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

46

THE SUMERIAN EQUATIVE CASE

Foxvog, Daniel A. 2008. Introduction to Sumerian Grammar. Berkeley: MS. Frayne, Douglas 2008. Presargonic period – The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early periods 1, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Grégoire, Jean-Pierre 1996. Archives administratives et inscriptions cunéiformes de l’Ashmolean Museum et de la Bodleian Collection d’Oxford I/1, Paris: Geuthner. Haspelmath, Martin and Buchholz, Oda 1998. “Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe,” in: J. van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe – Empirical Approaches to Language Typology/EUROTYP 20-3, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 277-334. Heine, Bernd 2009. “Grammaticalization of Cases,” in: A. Malchukov and A. Spencer, The Oxford Handbook of Case – Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 458-469. Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Schultze-Berndt, Eva 2005. “Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: an introduction,” in: N.P. Himmelmann and E. Schulze-Berndt (eds.), Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-67. Jagersma, Abraham Hendrik 2010. A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian. Leiden: MS. Krebernik, Manfred 1997. “Zur Interpretation von ARET 5, 24-26,” in: B. PongratzLeisten, H. Kühne and P. Xella (eds.), Ana šadî Labnāni lū allik. Beiträge zur altorientalischen und mittel-

SZILVIA SÖVEGJÁRTÓ

47

meerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig – Alter Orient und Altes Testament 247, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 185-192. 1998. “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ,” in: J. Bauer, R. K. Englund and M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit – Orbis Bibilicus et Orientalis 160/1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 235-427.

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

BRENT DAVIS CLASSICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE ABSTRACT In this paper, claims that Cypro-Minoan inscriptions have been found in Philistia are discussed and evaluated. First, an overview of Cypro-Minoan is presented, including discussions of Masson’s division of the script into four varieties, the evidence for her divisions, the reasons for the scarceness of Cypro-Minoan clay documents, and the purposes for which the script was apparently used. The special problems posed by Cypro-Minoan paleography are then reviewed, and it is shown that the absence of a definitive Cypro-Minoan corpus, the lack of a comprehensive paleographic study of the script (or even a universally-accepted sign list), and the smallness and simplicity of the repertoire of known prealphabetic signs from early Philistia, all combine to make any demonstration of direct relatedness between Philistine pre-alphabetic writing and Cypro-Minoan quite problematic at this time. RESUMEN Este trabajo evalúa las propuestas defendiendo que algunas inscripciones encontradas en Filistea son chiprominoicas.

50

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

La primera parte contiene un resumen sobre la escritura chiprominoica, incluyendo un análisis de la clasificación de la escritura por Masson en cuatro variantes, la evidencia de sus divisiones, las razones de la escasez de documentos chiprominoicos de arcilla y los usos aparentes de la escritura. En la segunda sección se revisan los problemas que la paleografía chiprominoica plantea y se demuestra que la ausencia de un corpus definitivo chiprominoico, la falta de un estudio paleográfico exhaustivo de la escritura (o incluso una lista de signos universalmente aceptada) y el exiguo repertorio de signos pre-alfabéticos conocidos de Filistea antigua, no permiten demostrar, en estos momentos, una relación directa entre el chiprominoico y la escritura prealfabética de los filisteos.

INTRODUCTION The recent identification by Maeir et al. (2008) of an Old Canaanite alphabetic inscription from an IA I/II Philistine context at Tell eṣṢâfi / Gath adds to a growing body of evidence that the Philistines began adopting the alphabetic writing-system of their Canaanite neighbors sometime around the turn of the first millennium B.C.E. The nature of Philistine writing before this point remains less clear— though there are indications that the Philistines may initially have used a writing-system of their own, one brought with them from their place of origin, or adopted (or adapted) soon after arrival in the Levant at the end of the Bronze Age. Specifically, several objects associated with early Philistia are inscribed with scripts that have been likened to the various linear scripts of the Bronze Age Aegean and Cyprus, especially the script known as Cypro-Minoan. A (pre-Philistine) potmark on a 13th-century B.C.E. amphora handle from Stratum XII at Aphek, for example, is described as a “possible Cypro-Minoan sign” (Yasur-Landau and Goren 2004). A cylinder- and stamp-seal found at Ashdod are inscribed with symbols that have been compared to Cypro-Minoan characters (Dothan 1972: 6ff.; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 166-7). Ashkelon has yielded an ostracon and 18 jar handles that are described as being “inscribed in the Cypro-Minoan script” (Cross and Stager 2006, 129).

BRENT DAVIS

51

For specialists in the archaeology of Israel, one of the barriers to a critical assessment of such claims is the relative lack of readily accessible, up-to-date reference material on the Cypro-Minoan script itself. This paper helps to remove that barrier by providing the reader with (1) a thoroughly referenced overview of CyproMinoan and its corpus of inscriptions, and (2) an explanation of the special problems posed by its paleography, problems which have a direct bearing on the identification of pre-alphabetic Philistine writing as Cypro-Minoan.

OVERVIEW OF CYPRO-MINOAN

Origins of the script Cypro-Minoan (“CM”) is an undeciphered Bronze-Age linear script10 evidently designed for the indigenous language(s) of Cyprus. The CM script is clearly based on Linear A, the much older (and also undeciphered) writing system of the Minoans on Crete. One of the earliest inscriptions in CM is on a well-known clay tablet from Enkomi dated to ca. 1500 B.C.E. (and discussed later in this paper); the shape of the tablet resembles the shape of Minoan tablets rather than Near Eastern ones (Niemeier 1998: 38), and the script itself resembles Linear A so closely that relatedness is clearly indicated, not just influence (E. Masson 1987b: 368; Palaima 1989b: 40-41; Kanta 1998: 37). In fact, this early tablet was found together with Late Minoan I pottery at Enkomi, highlighting what must have been close cultural interconnections between the two islands (Kanta 1998: 37; Niemeier 1998: 38). Cyprus was also part of a flourishing Near Eastern, Levantine and Egyptian trade network from at least the 16th through the 13th 10 Linear script: a script whose symbols are written sequentially along a single baseline (as opposed to a hieroglyphic script, in which symbols can also be stacked vertically within the line).

52

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

centuries B.C.E., and so there is naturally a strong Near Eastern influence on the island as well (Niemeier 1998: 38). It is unknown why the inhabitants of Cyprus chose Linear A as their model, rather than a Near Eastern script such as cuneiform, though the relative simplicity of the 65-sign Linear A syllabary may have recommended it over the more complex cuneiform system (Palaima 1989a: 161-2). With somewhere around 100 signs, CM has too many signs for an alphabet, but too few for a logographic system, in which signs represent whole words. CM must therefore be a syllabary, like its parent Linear A, with a sign for each possible syllable in the language it expresses.

Masson’s four varieties of CyproCypro-Minoan CM inscriptions are typically classified according to the variety of CM that they contain. In the early 1970s, Masson published a classification of CM signs, in which she distinguished between four different varieties of CM: “archaic CM”, “CM1”, “CM2”, and “CM3” (E. Masson 1974: 12-15, figs. 1-4; see Figs. 3 and 16–18 in this paper). The evidence for each of Masson’s four subtypes of CM is outlined in the sections that follow.11

Objects containing “archaic CM” inscriptions Masson distinguished an “archaic CM” on the very oldest inscribed objects, dating from the last half of the 16th century through the 15th century B.C.E. (E. Masson 1974: 11). The earliest secure CM document is a clay weight from Enkomi (ca. 1550 B.C.E.; Schaeffer et al. 1968: 266, fig. 3; Baurain 1980: 566-70; ibid. 1984, 155, fig. 22) containing six signs plus a word-divider (which appears as a single vertical stroke): 11 In the following sections, dates given for objects are the excavators’ dates. Due to the nature of the excavations that produced the objects, many of these dates are problematic; assessment of these problems is beyond the scope of this paper.

BRENT DAVIS

53

Fig. 1. Inscription on clay weight from Enkomi (ca. 1550 B.C.E.; after E. Masson 1979a: 135, fig. 1b).

The other major document of archaic CM is the Linear-A-like tablet mentioned earlier, Enkomi 1885 (ca. 1500 B.C.E.; O. Masson 1957b: 23, no. 264, pl. 6:25; E. Masson 1969: 64-77), containing 23 signs:

Fig. 2. Inscription on tablet Enkomi 1885 (ca. 1500 B.C.E.; after Godart and Sacconi 1979: 130, figs. 1-2).

Masson does not state a rationale for distinguishing this variety of CM other than the supposed age of the objects on which it is found, but it is worth noting that the signs on these objects do not tend to display the familiar cuneiform-style ductus12 characteristic of later CM documents. Instead, the ductus resembles that of Linear A, in that the signs are composed largely of lines rather than wedges. 12 Ductus: in paleography, the appearance and order of the various strokes that make up a sign.

54

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

The remaining evidence for archaic CM is limited to just two objects: four signs on a cylinder seal from Enkomi, dated to Late Cypriot I (ca. 1550-1400; O. Masson 1957a: 7-8, no. 1, fig. 1; ibid. 1957b: 21, no. 241); and three signs on a jug from Katydhata (15th c.; O. Masson 1957b: 13, no. 46, pl. 2:3; E. Masson 1979a: 134-5, fig. 1c; Palaima 1989a: 181, fig. 14b). The entire body of attested archaic CM inscriptions thus consists of only 36 signs on four objects, from which Masson has extracted a list of 30 different signs:

Fig. 3. Masson’s “Archaic CM” signs (after E. Masson 1974: 12, fig. 1).

The 15 signs in the left column recur in other versions of CM, while the 15 signs in the right column, many of which resemble Linear A signs, are not attested in CM inscriptions after about 1400 B.C.E. (E. Masson 1974: 12).

BRENT DAVIS

55

Objects containing CM1 inscriptions Masson characterized CM1 signs as still retaining a very linear ductus, but one that is more “supple”, and that lends a “certain elegance” to the aspect13 of the writing (E. Masson 1974: 15). She assigned this variety to the majority of CM inscriptions, the largest of which is found on the clay cylinder Enkomi 19.10 (14th c.; 179 signs; Schaeffer et al. 1968: 267-8, fig. 5):

Fig. 4. Inscription on clay cylinder Enkomi 19.10 (14th. c. B.C.E.; after Palaima 1989a, 182, fig. 15).

13 Aspect: in paleography, the overall “look” of a piece of writing, without regard to its individual letters or signs.

56

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

In this document, the cuneiform ductus characteristic of later CM inscriptions is now beginning to become apparent, giving the writing an aspect reminiscent of Japanese kana. Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios has yielded five smaller, mostly fragmentary clay cylinders, dated to ca. 1275-1225 (South 1983: 98100; ibid. 1984: 21, 23-5; E. Masson 1986: 181-3, fig. 2; Smith and Hirschfeld 1999: 130; Smith 2002: 20-25, fig. 5). Together, these five cylinders contain 167 signs. In addition, two fragmentary tablets containing CM1 signs have been found at Ras Shamra; they have been dated to the 13th century B.C.E., and so constitute important evidence for the presence of Late Bronze Age Cypriots in Ugarit. The tablets are RS 19.01, with eight signs, and RS 19.02, with 24 signs (O. Masson 1957b: 27, nos. 358, 359; E. Masson 1974: 20-23). Following is a sample from the inscription on RS 19.01:

Fig. 5. Part of inscription on tablet RS 19.01 from Ras Shamra (13th c. B.C.E.; after E. Masson 1974: 23, fig. 9).

In all, the clay cylinders and tablets contain 378 signs. CM1 signs occur on a wide variety of other objects as well. A number of inscribed clay balls (dated ca. 1250-1075 B.C.E.) found at Enkomi, Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke provide almost as many signs as do the clay cylinders and tablets. So far, 83 of these clay balls have been published (Dikaios 1971: 881-91, pls. 318-19; E. Masson 1971: 28, 38 nn. 119-121; Karageorghis 1976a: 238, fig. 8; Öbrink 1979: 3, 43, 46, 89, fig. 286); on average, they contain three to five signs each, with the longest inscription containing eight signs. Together, the clay balls contain 359 signs (Palaima 1989a: 124).

BRENT DAVIS

57

Inscribed and painted pottery supplies a much smaller body of inscriptions, once the objects containing single signs are omitted.14 The longest inscription (15 signs, not counting word-dividers) is found on a fragment of a clay offering-roaster from Enkomi, dated to the end of the Mycenaean period (ca. 1200 B.C.E.; E. Masson 1979c: 210-13, pl. 20). Figure 6 depicts a portion of the inscription:

Fig. 6. Part of inscription on offering-roaster from Enkomi (ca. 1150; after E. Masson 1979c: pl. 20:2).

In all, the CM1 inscriptions on pottery contain a total of 100 signs:

14 For undeciphered scripts, the convention is to limit the term “inscription” to sequences of two or more signs, and to refer to single signs as “potmarks” if on clay or ceramics, and “masons’ marks” if on stone.

58

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Table 1. CM1 inscriptions on ceramic supports.15

1.

Site

Object

Arpera

pithos fragment

6

2 pot-handles + 1 handle fragment

6

2.

# of Signs

3.

Kourion-Bamboula

vase

2

4.

Dhali

pot-handle

4

5.

Enkomi

fragment of offering-roaster

15

6.

crater

4

7.

vase

2

8.

3 pots

6

9.

2 pot-handles

5

10.

jug handle

6

11.

2 handle fragments

4

12.

pithos fragment

5

13.

pithos rim

9 th

th

14.

terracotta plaque (12 -11 c.)

2

15.

fragment of deep buff-ware bowl

4

(ca. 1230-1190) 16. Famagousta

figurine of a zebu-bull

4

15 References for each row of the table: [1] O. Masson 1957b: 17, no. 174, pl. 3:7; Palaima 1989a: 181, fig. 14c; [2] O. Masson 1957b: 17, nos. 173, 176, 177; [3] ibid.: 15, no. 136; [4] ibid.: 16, no. 167, pl. 2:6; [5] E. Masson 1979c: pl. 20:2; [6] O. Masson 1957b: 20, no. 211, pl. 4:13; [7] ibid.: 22, no. 243; [8] ibid.: 20, nos. 203, 204, 205; [9] ibid.: 21, nos. 216, 236, pl. 4:16-17; [10] ibid.: 22, no. 250; [11] ibid.: 22, nos. 244, 246; [12] ibid.: 20, no. 214, pl. 4:14; [13] E. Masson 1979b: 560-61, fig. 2; [14] Caubet and Courtois 1986: 74-5, fig. 6, pl. 19:3; [15] Dikaios 1967: 80-84; Palaima 1989a: 182, fig. 16; [16] E. Masson 1973, 96; [17] O. Masson 1957b: 13, no. 45, pl. 2:2; Heubeck 1979: 56; [18] O. Masson 1957b: 18, no. 187; [19] ibid.: 15, no. 152; E. Masson 1972: 129-32, fig. 1; [20] O. Masson 1957b: 26, no. 342; [21] ibid.: 23, nos. 298, 299.

BRENT DAVIS

Site

59

Object

# of Signs

17. Katydhata (Tomb 11)

plain white-ware jug (15th c.)

4

18. Pyla-Kokkinokremos

amphora base

2

th

th

19. Myrtou-Pighades (sanc- jug (late 13 -early 12 c.)

4

tuary) 20. Ras Shamra

hydria fragment

2

21. (unknown)

2 pot-handles

4

Metal items supply an even smaller body of CM1 inscriptions containing a total of 83 signs: Table 2. CM1 inscriptions on metal supports.16

Site 1.

Enkomi

Object 3 small votive copper ingots (12

# of Signs th

11

c.) 2.

2 bronze fragments

6

3.

ploughshare blade and flat axe (12th

6

c.) 4.

bronze jeweler’s anvil

6

16 References for each row of the table: [1] O. Masson 1957b: 23, no. 297, pl. 7:26; ibid. 1971: 451-54; [2] ibid. 1957b: 23, nos. 293, 294; [3] E. Masson 1973: 93-4; [4] ibid. 1979b: 559-60; ibid. 1986: 190-1, fig. 7.2; ibid. 1987a: 201, fig. 8; [5] Palaima 1989a: 185, fig. 21; [6] O. Masson 1957a: 22-3, no 16; ibid. 1957b: 13, no. 38; [7] ibid. 1957a: 20-22, no. 15, fig. 15; ibid. 1957b: 18, no. 186; Palaima 1989a: 177, fig. 8; [8] Åström and Nicolaou 1980: 30, 32, no. 5; [9] Karageorghis 1976b: 82, color pl. V; E. Masson 1987a: 194-5, fig. 4; [10] Karageorghis 1976b: 82, pl. 10; E. Masson 1985: pl. B:8; [11] O. Masson 1957b: 15, nos. 153, 154; E. Masson 1973: 94; [12] O. Masson 1957b: 25, no. 315, pl. 7:30; [13] ibid. 1957b: 24, no. 307; ibid. 1968: 66-72, figs. 1, 3-4, pls. I-II; E. Masson 1973: 93; Palaima 1989a: 153 n.48.

60

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Site 5.

Object silver bowl (‘Enkomi 16.63’, 13

# of Signs th

4

c.) 6.

Evreti (east of Kouklia- gold ring

2

Palaepaphos) 7.

Hala Sultan Tekke-

gold ring

4

lead sling-bullet (12th c.)

2

2 gold rings (14th c.)

8

Vizaja 8. 9.

Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios

10. Kition (earliest floor of bronze votive liver

3

Temple 2) 11. Myrtou-Pighades (sanc- 2 bronze tripod support rings (12th tuary)

6

c.)

12. (unknown)

small bronze plaque

3

13. (unknown; likely

3 bronze bowls

22

Enkomi or Kouklia)

The number of CM1 inscriptions on stone is smaller still, yielding an additional 44 signs:17

17 Palaima (1989a: 152) includes two additional cylinder seals in this list, one from Sinda and one from Toumba tou Skourou; but each of these seals contains only a single sign (Sinda: O. Masson 1957a: 14-15, no. 9, fig. 9; Toumba tou Skourou: Vermeule and Wolsky 1976: 72-5, no. 13, fig. 3). By consensus, a single sign is not considered an inscription; see Note 5.

BRENT DAVIS

61

Table 3. CM1 inscriptions on stone supports.18 Site

Object

# of Signs

1.

Kition

stone block (graffito)

3

2.

Dhali

steatite spindle-whorl

3

3.

(unknown)

hematite seal (prob. 12th c.) th

2

th

4.

Enkomi

3 cylinder seals (14 -13 c.)

8

5.

Kourion-Bamboula

cylinder seal (ca. 1400-1375)

5

6.

Hala Sultan Tekke-

cylinder seal (ca. 1400-1200)

5

cylinder seal (13th c.)

4

Vizaja 7.

Pyla-Verghi

th

8.

Nicosia-Ayia Paraskevi cylinder seal (13 c.)

9.

Ayia Irini

10. (unknown)

4

cylinder seal

4 th

2 cylinder seals (prob. early 14 c.)

6

In addition, Dhali and Enkomi have each yielded one inscribed faience cylinder seal (O. Masson 1957a: 17-19, nos. 12, 13, figs. 12, 13; ibid. 1957b: 16, 22, nos. 169, 261), while three inscribed ivory objects were recovered from Kition Temple 4 (Room 38C, between floors III and IIIA, ca. 1190-1150 B.C.E.): a plaque of the Egyptian god Bes, an ivory bar, and an opium pipe (Karageorghis 1976a: 232-5, figs. 3-5; ibid. 1985: 116-17, nos. 4250, 4252, 4267; E. 18 References for each row of the table: [1] E. Masson 1985: pl. A:4; Hitchcock 2003: 260, pl. 51a; [2] O. Masson 1957b: 16, no. 168; [3] ibid. 1957a: 23, no. 17; ibid. 1957b: 25, no. 316; [4] ibid. 1957a: 8-9,13-14, nos. 2, 7, 8, figs. 2, 7, 8; ibid. 1957b: 19-21, nos. 196, 210, 215; [5] ibid. 1957a: 10-11, no. 4, fig. 4; ibid. 1957b: 14, no. 54; [6] E. Masson 1976: 130-1; Porada 1976: 99-100, fig. 78; [7] O. Masson 1957a: 12-13, no. 6, fig. 6; ibid. 1957b: 18, no. 189; [8] ibid. 1957a: 15-17, no. 10, fig. 10; ibid. 1957b: 16, no. 164; [9] Pecorella 1977: 22, no. 3.17, fig. 32; [10] O. Masson 1957a: 9-12, nos. 3, 5, figs. 3, 5; ibid. 1957b: 24-5, nos. 313, 314a.

62

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Masson 1985: pls. A-B; ibid. 1986: 180-82, 197, 199, fig. 11). In all, the inscriptions on ivory and faience objects contain 35 signs. Thus CM1 occurs “sur des objects très varies” (E. Masson 1974: 12), yet this wide assortment of objects yields slightly less than 260 signs. With the 378 signs on clay cylinders and tablets, and the 359 signs on clay balls, the body of attested CM1 inscriptions amounts to just under 1000 signs on around 160 objects (83 of which are clay balls). From these inscriptions, Masson has extracted a list of 85 individual CM1 signs, as shown in the “CM1” column of Figs. 16–18 at the end of this paper.

Objects containing CM2 inscriptions In contrast to the “supple” ductus and “elegant” aspect of CM1 signs, Masson characterizes CM2 signs as “square and squat” (E. Masson 1974: 15). The evidence for this variety of CM is limited to just three clay tablets, all of which probably date to ca. 1220-1190 B.C.E. (Palaima 1989a: 155). The first tablet, Enkomi 53.5 (O. Masson 1957b: 22, no. 257; E. Masson 1986: 187, fig. 6), contains many repeated word-units, especially on side A, which (unlike side B) is divided into registers. Figure 7 shows a portion of the inscription on each side:

BRENT DAVIS

63

Fig. 7a-b. Part of inscription on tablet Enkomi 53.5 (1220-1190 B.C.E.; after Palaima 1989a: 179, 184, figs. 10, 18).

From its appearance and layout, the tablet might contain a hymn, a medical text, or a genealogy (Palaima 1989a: 160). The second tablet, Enkomi 1687 (O. Masson 1957b: 23, no. 263, pl. 6:24; Dikaios 1953: 233-7, figs. 1-2, pls. 4-5; Palaima 1989a: 183, fig. 17), contains no registers at all, and so might represent a letter or some other official text. Figure 8 depicts part of the inscription on side A:

64

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Fig. 8. Part of inscription on tablet Enkomi 1687, side A (1220-1190 B.C.E.; after Dikaios 1971: pl. 318:3).

The third tablet is Enkomi 1193+20.01 (O. Masson 1957b: 23, no. 262, pl. 6:23; Dikaios 1971: 885-7). Figure 9 shows a portion of the inscription on the larger fragment:

Fig. 9. Part of inscription on tablet Enkomi 1193 (1220-1190 B.C.E.; after Dikaios 1971: pl. 320:1).

Like Enkomi 1687, Enkomi 1193+20.01 lacks registers, and thus may be part of a letter or similar text.

BRENT DAVIS

65

Together, all three tablets contain about 1310 signs. Thus the body of attested CM2 inscriptions is actually about 300 signs larger than the body of CM1 inscriptions; and yet these 1310 CM2 signs come from just three objects. From the CM2 inscriptions, Masson has extracted a list of 59 individual CM2 signs, as shown in the “CM2” column of Figs. 16– 18. Objects containing CM3 inscriptions Masson distinguishes CM3 as a separate variety of CM used only at Ugarit, noting that this variety appears to include some signs not present in other varieties. According to Masson, CM3 inscriptions have an aspect that “differs” from those of the other varieties—she does not say how—while employing a ductus not entirely dissimilar to the more linear (and less cuneiform) ductus of CM1 (E. Masson 1974: 16). As is the case with CM2, objects containing CM3 inscriptions are very few in number. The most important documents are two tablets from Ras Shamra: RS 17.06 (60 signs) and RS 20.25 (159 signs). The first is divided into registers, while the second is not. Figure 10 shows a portion of each tablet:

66

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Fig. 10a-b. Part of inscription on tablets RS 17.06, side B (upper image) and RS 20.25, side A (lower image) from Ras Shamra (1275-1200 B.C.E.; after E. Masson 1974: 26, 31, 33, figs. 12, 13, 16, 17).

RS 17.06 was found in a private library, together with a large number of texts in both Akkadian syllabic and Ugaritic alphabetic cuneiform; the library has been dated to ca. 1275-1200 B.C.E. With its convex surface and small (40mm x 43mm) square shape, RS 17.06 resembles the numerous small Akkadian tablets found at Ras Shamra (Schaeffer 1954: 39-40; ibid. 1956: 228-9; O. Masson 1956: 239-40, 245-6; ibid. 1957b: 26-7, no. 357; E. Masson 1974: 24-9, 59 n.63, figs. 12-13; ibid. 1986: 185-7, fig. 5). RS 20.25, on the other hand, has a shape and size (68mm x 58mm x 17mm) reminiscent of the oblong Ugaritic tablets found at the site; and from the layout of its text, it may contain a genealogy consisting of a list of names with patronymics (O. Masson 1957b: 27, no. 360; E. Masson 1974: 29-45, figs. 16, 17). The remaining evidence for CM3 is restricted to three objects: a pithos rim (Courtois 1978: 280-82, fig. 29.1, 29.4; E. Masson 1986: 180-2, fig. 1) and a silver bowl (Schaeffer 1932: 22-23, pl.

BRENT DAVIS

67

16:1, fig. 15; ibid. 1956: 228 n.2; O. Masson 1957b: 25, no. 320; E. Masson 1974: 19-20, fig. 5; Palaima 1989a: 185, fig. 20a) from Ras Shamra, and a cylinder seal from Latakia, 10 km south of Ugarit (ca. 1400); these objects contain a total of nine signs (Buchanan and Masson 1968: 410-15; E. Masson 1974: 23-4; Palaima 1989a: 185, fig. 20). The body of attested CM3 inscriptions, then, consists of 228 signs on just five objects; and all the objects are from the area around Ugarit. From these inscriptions, Masson has extracted a list of 44 individual CM3 signs, as shown in the “CM3” column of Figs. 16–18.

The size of the the CyproCypro-Minoan corpus The entire body of attested CM inscriptions of all four varieties thus amounts to around 2570 signs, a much smaller number than for Linear A (7362 signs) or Linear B (57398 signs, and ca. 30000 at the time of its decipherment; Olivier 1989: 55, fig. 1; Palaima 1989a: 124). As CM was in use for over four centuries, we would expect more than just 2570 signs to have survived; yet the chief reason for the small size of the CM corpus becomes clear if we look instead at the reasons why the number of preserved Linear A and B signs is so much larger. Most Linear A and B signs are on clay administrative documents, such as tablets and sealings. Minoan and Mycenaean sites were usually destroyed by intense fires that transformed the clay into a durable ceramic, thus preserving the writing. Importantly, few of these sites were subsequently rebuilt after their final destruction by fire. The pattern on Cyprus is different, however; the violent destructions that occurred throughout the eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age do not seem to have been as prevalent or as devastating there. Several of the smaller settlements, such as Maroni, Alassa, Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios, and PylaKokkinokremos were simply abandoned early in the early 12th c., as their people moved to larger, more fortified cities. Of the largest population centers, Enkomi and Hala Sultan Tekke appear to have suffered at least some destruction during this period, but both cities were quickly rebuilt, only to be abandoned about a generation later as their harbors silted up to the point of being unnavigable. Similarly, Maa-Palaeokastro was destroyed but rebuilt, then abandoned a

68

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

generation later. Kition and Kouklia-Palaipaphos also survived the destructions, but were never abandoned; instead, they expanded as they absorbed the populations of the other centers, and were inhabited on into the Iron Age (Drews 1995: 12; Gates 2003: 156; Iacovou 2006: 325-6). Thus none of these centers ended their lives in a final conflagration; all were either rebuilt, or abandoned to the elements. At sites that were rebuilt, any clay documents transformed into ceramic by the destructive fire would have been at risk of being disturbed, damaged, or simply cleared away as rubble during the process of rebuilding. At sites that were abandoned, clay documents would simply have remained clay, soluble in water, and would not have lasted long once exposed to moisture. As an illustration of the devastating effect that the dissolution of such documents must have had on the size of the CM corpus, we can consider the Minoan villa at Haghia Triada, repository of a large archive of Linear A administrative documents. If this single villa had not been destroyed by fire, thus baking and preserving its clay archive—or if the villa had been rebuilt, and the old archive cleared away—then the number of surviving Linear A signs would now be even smaller than that for CM.

The uses of CyproCypro-Minoan It would thus be unwise to assume that because so few CM clay tablets survive, CM must have had few administrative uses—quite the contrary, as the surviving tablets must represent only a fraction of what once existed. Furthermore, many important survivals look administrative, such as the clay cylinders from Enkomi and Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios; the latter set of cylinders, long interpreted as foundation deposits, have now been identified as economic records (Smith and Hirschfeld 1999: 130). As both Linear A and Linear B played important roles in administration, it would be least surprising if CM were used in this way as well, and so this possibility should not be discounted unless evidence is found that clearly indicates otherwise. Yet CM is certainly present on some non-administrative documents too. Its use on objects such as the votive copper ingots from Enkomi, the votive liver from Kition, and the bull figurine

BRENT DAVIS

69

from Famagousta (Masson 1973: 96) shows that the script had ritual uses, like its parent Linear A—but unlike Linear B, which seems to have been used solely for administration.

SPECIAL PROBLEMS POSED POSED BY CYPRO-MINOAN PALEOGRAPHY

The lack of a definitive CyproCypro-Minoan corpus Though the rather small number of surviving CM signs would seem a serious obstacle to decipherment, the existence of some very long inscriptions (such as Enkomi 1687 in Fig. 8) should make it possible to glean at least some information about the structure of the language that CM records. Yet the study of CM remains in its infancy, compared to (say) the study of Linear A, which is also undeciphered. Catalogues of Linear A sign-groups have been available for nearly forty years (see, for example, Raison and Pope 1971); but one searches in vain for catalogues of CM sign-groups, or indeed even for a sign-list upon which everyone agrees. The reason is that CM, unlike the other Aegean scripts, still lacks an official, definitive corpus of inscriptions, such as Godart and Olivier’s (1985) five-volume Recueil des inscriptions en Linéaire A. Instead, scholars of CM are forced to rely on hundreds of individual sources published over the last century. Many of these publications are obscure, difficult to find, and poorly printed; a great many contain inadequate descriptions, inaccurate transcriptions, imprecise drawings, and grainy photographs (Smith and Hirschfeld 1999: 129). As a result, much of the work that has been based on these sources is itself flawed; and the literature is now so confusing that after a century of study, scholars still cannot agree on a definitive sign-list. The number of CM inscriptions may be relatively small; but even if it were several times larger than it is, the script could never be deciphered while there is still disagreement about such basic issues as the number of signs in the syllabary.

70

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

The subjectivity of CyproCypro-Minoan Minoan paleography The implication is that Masson’s longstanding division of CM signs into four varieties was very much premature; and in fact, in an important and much-cited article, Palaima states that “the current classification into four subdivisions of writing... is invalid, being based on false paleographic assumptions” (Palaima 1989a: 121). His reference to paleography is an indirect reference to the lack of a definitive corpus, an important part of which is a paleographic study of each sign in the script. Following is an example based on Godart and Olivier’s paleographic survey of Linear A:

Fig. 11. Paleography of Linear A sign AB80 (after Godart and Olivier 1985: pl. 41).

A paleographic study such as this documents the regional and temporal variants of each sign, thus establishing the full acceptable range of variation for each sign. This enables scholars to interpret all the variants of a particular sign as the same sign, which is an essential prerequisite to decipherment. Thus a truly definitive sign-list can be produced only through a paleographic study of the entire corpus; whereas with CM, Masson’s four sign-lists were rather subjectively created (Palaima 1989a: 146) in the absence of such a study—and also in the absence of a definitive corpus, which is a prerequisite to such a study. With Masson’s sign-lists, then, the cart is before two horses. Palaima also provides evidence (and there is much of it) that something is seriously amiss with Masson’s subdivisions. For ex-

BRENT DAVIS

71

ample: whenever CM signs are incised into metal or into fired pottery, they are quite naturally incised with a linear ductus, simply because it is more difficult to incise wedge-shapes into hard surfaces. This remains true throughout the entire life of CM (Palaima 1989a: 154):

Fig. 12. Inscription on Enkomi buff-ware bowl (ca. 1230-1190; after Palaima 1989a: 182, fig. 16), and excerpt from Linear A tablet HT 117a (ca. 1490; after Duhoux 1989: 112, fig. 3).

The CM inscription on the buff-ware bowl from Enkomi is quite late; yet it is incised in a linear ductus similar to that of the much earlier Linear A tablet. This calls into question the validity of Masson’s “archaic CM” script, whose distinguishing feature (aside from age) is its linear ductus—and also the validity of her division between CM1 and CM2, which is based almost entirely on how linear the ductus is. Conversely, there are numerous examples of Linear A drawn with a cuneiform ductus, as on the gold ring from Knossos known as KN Zf 13. The ring is cast; but when the mold was incised, each sign was created by a number of jabs with a wedge-shaped stylus, no doubt because this is a much easier way of incising tiny letters into a soft medium. The resulting ductus is very similar to that found on the Enkomi clay balls:

Fig. 13. Inscriptions on gold ring from Knossos (KN Zf 13, ca. 17501580; after Godart and Olivier 1982: 153) and on clay balls 1 and 2 from Enkomi (after E. Masson 1971: 11-12, figs. 1 and 2).

72

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Thus Masson’s separation of CM into varieties based on type of ductus is actually an arbitrary measure: as Figs. 12 and 13 show, ductus is heavily conditioned both by the medium and by the scale of the writing, and scribes tended to choose the ductus that suited both, regardless of which period (or region) they lived in. Palaima specifically makes this case against Masson’s CM2 classification: CM2 is attested on just three tablets whose signs are uniformly tiny, such that most of the differences between CM1 and CM2 signs could have resulted solely from the smallness of the writing on the CM2 tablets (Palaima 1989a: 155-6). Masson’s own sign-lists (in Figs. 16–18) enlarge the CM2 signs to the size of the CM1 signs, which makes the problem more apparent, in that the two varieties of signs are revealed to resemble each other to a large degree. In addition, many CM2 signs that Masson shows as having no CM1 analog actually do resemble attested CM1 signs. For example, consider Masson’s signs 50 through 55:

Fig. 14. Masson’s CM signs 50-55 (after E. Masson 1974: 14).

CM2 signs 51, 52 and 54 are shown with no analog in CM1; yet they closely resemble CM1 signs 50, 53, and 55, which are shown with two variants each. Meanwhile, all 11 of these signs are descendants of the Linear A “cat face” sign whose widely-varying paleography was shown in Fig. 11. This raises an important question: if the parent sign in Linear A can vary so widely while remain-

BRENT DAVIS

73

ing the same sign, then on what basis can any of these CM descendants be called “separate signs”? And by the same token: if signs in the parent script (Linear A) can display such a wide range of variation, then on what basis can CM1 and CM2 be called “separate scripts” at all? Meanwhile, the rationale for CM3 seems no less arbitrary, and in fact appears to be mainly geographic (Palaima 1989a: 158), with only objects from Ugarit displaying this variety. Yet as with CM2, most CM3 signs are virtually indistinguishable from their CM1 and CM2 counterparts, as Figs. 16–18 show. Furthermore, CM1 inscriptions are also attested at Ugarit, and they are contemporary with the CM3 inscriptions. But now compare the inscriptions on the CM3 tablets from Ugarit (RS 17.06 and RS 20.25, in Fig. 10) with the inscription on the CM1 tablet from Ugarit (RS 19.01, in Fig. 5). It is easy to see that the differences, such as they are, are quite minor when compared to the degree of variation evident in Fig. 11, and in fact could simply be the result of individual scribal idiosyncrasies. The sizes of the various sign-lists are also telling, when compared to the variety of objects yielding the signs. The CM1 sign-list contains by far the largest number of signs (85); but then, CM1 is attested on by far the largest number of objects (ca. 160). The CM2 and CM3 sign-lists contain just 59 and 44 signs, respectively; but together, CM2 and CM3 are attested on just eight objects, and one CM2 object (Enkomi 53.5; see Fig. 7) contains many repeated signgroups. Considering the rarity of some signs in the parent script (Linear A), it would seem naive to expect to glean anything like a complete CM syllabary from these eight objects alone; and the implication is that the varying sizes of Masson’s sign-lists are (at least in part) artifacts of the process by which she has created the lists. Finally: even if we put aside the problems inherent in dating any inscription by its paleography (see Maier et al. 2008), the apparent chronology for the various scripts suggests that something may be wrong with the classification system. A review of the evidence presented in this paper shows that the four CM scripts are reportedly attested during the following periods:

74

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Fig. 15. Periods during which Masson’s four varieties of CM are reportedly attested.

As can be seen, CM1 (which is found on the greatest number of objects) is attested for the longest period of time —indeed, for the entire known lifetime of CM except for the first fifty years. CM2 and CM3 simply seem to come and go; but during the periods when they are in use, CM1 never ceases to be used alongside them; and this (together with the similarity of their signs) makes it seem even more likely that all three varieties are in fact the same script. As for “archaic CM”: it may very well be that some of the earliest CM documents do represent an initial period of experimentation; this would seem normal. But Fig. 11 shows that early Linear A looked very different from late Linear A, while remaining the same script; and the inscription on the late buff-ware bowl from Enkomi (Fig. 12) demonstrates the dangers of distinguishing scripts by their ductus without reference to a comprehensive paleographic study.

The hazards of identifying CyproCypro-Minoan in Philistia “We need a unified and standardized corpus of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions that will allow us to see the whole script and its various classes of inscriptions—not subsystems of the script itself—in a clear historical context,” says Palaima. “Until this is done, we shall continue to be plagued by piecemeal readings, guesses, and speculation” (Palaima 1989a: 162). The implications of this statement for the identification of CM in Philistia are clear: without a definitive inventory of CM signs, it is unsafe to assume that one particular sign is a variant of another even in Cypro-Minoan itself. Thus, in the absence of a “unified and standardized corpus” of CM, identifying a Philistine sign as a variant of a CM sign can never amount to more than conjecture, no matter how good the intentions of the epigrapher. As for the notion that the Philistine objects are actually

BRENT DAVIS

75

inscribed with CM itself: no matter how many pre-alphabetic Philistine inscriptions are found, this idea can never convincingly be assessed until we have both a definitive CM sign-list against which to compare the inscriptions, and a solid picture of the acceptable degree of variation for each sign; and these things must await the compilation of a CM corpus, with its attendant paleographic study. Fortunately, the wait may be relatively brief. In 1996, Joanna Smith and Nicolle Hirschfeld founded the Cypro-Minoan Corpus Project, whose aim is to “further the study of the script by means of a complete and widely disseminated corpus—in the form of an electronic database and a printed publication—containing accurate line drawings, photographs, descriptions, and archaeological and epigraphical discussions of all the evidence” (Smith and Hirschfeld 1999: 129). Though still incomplete, the project has already borne fruit, in the collection of studies published by the AIA as Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages.19 The compilation of the corpus (which will include objects with single signs) and the completion of the paleographic study are mammoth undertakings, and may not be available for some time; but when they do become available, we will then have the tools necessary for objectively assessing the degree of similarity between CM signs and Philistine pre-alphabetic signs. However, the creation of these tools will not signal the end of problems in identifying the script(s) from which the Philistine signs were derived, as demonstrating direct relatedness to any script will require a great deal more Philistine material than has been found to date. Table 4 at the end of this paper illustrates the problem by presenting a compendium of most of the known or suspected prealphabetic signs from early Philistia, including 30 signs from ob19 Smith wrote in 2002 that the corpus would “soon appear” (Smith 2002: 29-30); it has not yet. Work on the corpus has been impeded to some extent by the fact that Smith and Hirschfeld are now based in different cities; but the project still continues, and over the past year, the two scholars have been discussing ways of completing it (Smith, personal communication 18-Dec-2008). In the meantime, both scholars recommend Ferrara (2009) as the best currently available source on the CM corpus and its paleography.

76

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

jects found at Ashkelon, Aphek and Ashdod; the table also includes an additional 18 signs from the Deir ‛Alla tablets, though the identification of this latter script as Philistine is far from certain (see Maeir et al. 2008). A few signs in the table are attested at more than one site. For each sign, the table displays the most similar sign in nine other non-alphabetic Bronze Age scripts: Linear A, CyproMinoan, Linear B, Cretan Hieroglyphic, Anatolian hieroglyphs, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Proto-Cuneiform, Proto-Elamite, and the Indus script. If a script contains nothing resembling a particular Philistine sign, the corresponding cell has been left empty. It is plausible that some of these scripts, particularly the Aegean and Cypriot ones, might be related to Philistine pre-alphabetic writing, while other scripts (such as the Indus script) are almost certainly not related; yet as the table shows, each of these scripts contains identical counterparts to some Philistine signs, close approximations of others, and distant approximations of still others, while lacking even approximations for at least some Philistine signs. Notice how the simpler shapes are much more likely to recur in the same form in multiple scripts. Naturally, each script also contains scores or hundreds of signs that are not attested in Philistia at all, and when this fact is considered together with the table as a whole, the problem becomes apparent: in terms of morphological similarity to Philistine writing, CM does not really fare much better than the other scripts. Most of the similarities between Philistine signs and CM involve simple shapes that are employed by many scripts, while similarities involving more complex shapes are much rarer. Furthermore, many Philistine signs, including some of the most complex ones, have their closest counterparts in an impossible array of scripts: Linear A (signs 25 and 29 in the table), ProtoCuneiform (signs 15 and 38), Linear B (sign 21), Egyptian hieroglyphs (sign 39), Proto-Elamite (sign 27), and so on. These are all clear indications that the repertoire of Philistine signs is simply not yet large and complex enough to enable us to determine the pedigree of the signs based on their shapes alone. Thus a demonstration of direct relatedness between prealphabetic Philistine writing and CM must await not only the creation of a definitive list of CM signs and their variants, but also the discovery of a substantial number of distinctively CM signs (not new variants!) on Philistine objects. In the meantime, publications of Philistine inscriptions should draw comparanda from specific CM

BRENT DAVIS

77

inscriptions rather than from Masson’s tables, while considering comparanda from a range of other scripts as well; and for the time being, scholars should regard with skepticism any claims that Philistine inscriptions are written in Cypro-Minoan, or in a directlyrelated script. Given the current evidence, CM influence on prealphabetic Philistine writing remains a tantalizing possibility; but at the moment, that is all that can reliably be asserted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Drs. Joe Uziel and Itzik Shai (Bar-Ilan University, Israel) for their specific comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Drs. Joanna Smith, Nicolle Hirschfeld, and Sylvia Ferrara for their correspondence regarding the current state of the Cypro-Minoan corpus. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Aren Maeir (Bar-Ilan University), and to my mentor Dr. Louise Hitchcock (University of Melbourne), for their generous support and encouragement during the writing of this paper.

78

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Fig. 16. Masson’s Cypro-Minoan signs 1–38 (after E. Masson 1974: 13–15).

BRENT DAVIS

Fig. 17. Masson’s Cypro-Minoan signs 39–76 (after E. Masson 1974: 13–15).

79

80

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Fig. 18. Masson’s Cypro-Minoan signs 77–114 (after E. Masson 1974: 13–15).

81

*

*

BRENT DAVIS

*

* *

*

*

*

*

ProtoCuneiform

*

ProtoElamite

*

Indus script

Egyptian Anatolian Hieroglyphs

*

Cretan Hieroglyphs Linear B CyproMinoan Linear A

5.

4.

3. Ashkelon inscription 4.5 (Cross and Stager 2006, 131-4, fig. 1)

Source

2.

No.

1.

Sign

Source

10.

9.

8.

Linear A

*

*

Linear B

Ashkelon handle 1 (ibid.: 135, fig. 5) Ashkelon handle 2 (ibid.: 135-6, fig. 6) Ashkelon handle 3 (ibid.: 136-8, fig. 7)

No.

7.

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

ProtoCuneiform

6.

ProtoElamite

Ashkelon inscription 4.5 (Cross and Stager 2006, 131-4, fig. 1)

82 CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Indus script

Egyptian

Cretan Hieroglyphs

CyproMinoan

Sign

No.

Source +

*

*

Cretan Hieroglyphs

15.

*

*

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

14.

13.

12.

CyproMinoan +

*

*

*

*

* *

*

ProtoCuneiform

11.

*

*

*

*

ProtoElamite

Ashkelon handle 4 (ibid.: 138, fig. 8) Ashkelon handle 5 (ibid.: 139, fig. 9) Ashkelon handle 6 (ibid.: 140, fig. 10) Ashkelon handle 7 (ibid.: 140-41, fig. 11) Ashkelon handle 8 (ibid.: 141, fig. 12)

*

*

BRENT DAVIS 83

Indus script

Egyptian

Linear B

Linear A

Sign

Source

20.

*

Cretan Hieroglyphs

*

*

*

*

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

19.

Linear B

* * *

*

ProtoCuneiform

*

CyproMinoan

*

*

*

ProtoElamite

18.

Linear A

*

*

*

*

Indus script

17.

16.

No.

Ashkelon handle 9 (ibid.: 142-3, fig. 13) Ashkelon handle 10 (ibid.: 143-4, fig. 14) Ashkelon handle 11 (ibid.: 144, fig. 15) Ashkelon handle 12 (ibid.: 144-5, fig. 16) Ashkelon handle 15 (ibid.: 147, fig. 19)

84 CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Egyptian

Sign

24.

*

Cretan Hieroglyphs

23.

CyproMinoan

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

ProtoElamite

Ashdod block seal (after Dothan and Dothan 1992: pl. 10)

22.

Source

Aphek pot handle (YasurLandau and Goren 2004: 23, fig. 1)

No.

21.

ProtoCuneiform

Ashkelon handle 18 (ibid.: 150, fig. 22)

BRENT DAVIS 85

Indus script

Egyptian

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

Linear B

Linear A

Sign

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

*

86

*

*

ProtoCuneiform

*

*

*

*

ProtoElamite

*

Indus script

Egyptian

*

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

*

Cretan Hieroglyphs

*

Linear B

*

CyproMinoan

*

Linear A

29.

27.

26.

28. Ashdod cylinder seal (ibid.: pl. 11)

Source

Ashdod block seal (after Dothan and Dothan 1992: pl. 10)

No.

25.

Sign

BRENT DAVIS

87

*

ProtoElamite

*

*

*

Indus script

*

*

ProtoCuneiform

Egyptian Anatolian Hieroglyphs

*

Cretan Hieroglyphs Linear B CyproMinoan

*

Linear A

34.

33.

31.

32.

Deir ‘Alla tablet 1440 (Franken 1964: 378, pl. 1)

Source

Ashdod cylinder seal (ibid.: pl. 11)

No.

30.

Sign

*

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

*

88

*

* *

*

ProtoCuneiform

*

* *

ProtoElamite

*

Indus script

*

Egyptian Anatolian Hieroglyphs Cretan Hieroglyphs Linear B CyproMinoan Linear A

39.

38.

37. Deir ‘Alla tablet 1440 (Franken 1964: 378, pl. 1)

Source

36.

No.

35.

Sign

89

*

BRENT DAVIS

*

*

ProtoElamite

*

Indus script

*

ProtoCuneiform

Egyptian

*

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

Linear B

*

*

Cretan Hieroglyphs

CyproMinoan

* *

Linear A

44.

43.

41.

40.

42. Deir ‘Alla tablet 1440 (Franken 1964: 378, pl. 1)

Source

No.

*

Sign

90

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Indus script

*

ProtoElamite

*

ProtoCuneiform

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

*

*

Egyptian

Cretan Hieroglyphs Linear B

CyproMinoan Linear A

Sign

49. Aphek tablet (see Nos. 5057)

48.

47. Deir ‘Alla tablet 1449 (ibid.: 379)

46.

Deir ‘Alla tablet 1440 (Franken 1964: 378, pl. 1)

Source

45.

No.

BRENT DAVIS

91

* *

*

* *

ProtoCuneiform

*

ProtoElamite

*

Indus script

Egyptian

Anatolian Hieroglyphs Cretan Hieroglyphs Linear B

CyproMinoan Linear A

Sign

54.

53.

51.

52. Aphek tablet 47111.1 (Singer 2009a, 405; ibid. 2009b, 474)

Source

50.

No.

*

*

Indus script

Egyptian

Anatolian Hieroglyphs

Cretan Hieroglyphs

Linear B

CyproMinoan

Linear A

Sign

No.

Table 4. Pre-alphabetic signs from early Philistia and Deir ‘Alla, with comparanda from other non-alphabetic Bronze-Age scripts. Comparanda with asterisks have been rotated. Cypro-Minoan comparanda for signs from the Ashkelon objects are those suggested in Cross and Stager 2006. The pot handle from Aphek is pre-Philistine; see Yasur-Landau and Goren 2004. The identification of the Deir ‘Alla inscriptions as Philistine is far from certain; see Maeir et al. 2008.

*

ProtoElamite

57.

56.

55.

ProtoCuneiform

Aphek tablet 47111.1 (Singer 2009a, 405; ibid. 2009b, 474)

Source

92 CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

BRENT DAVIS

93

REFERENCES Åström, P. and Nicolaou, I. 1980. “Lead Sling Bullets from Hala Sultan Tekke.” Opuscula atheniensia 13, 29-33. Baurain, C. 1980. “Chypre et le monde égéen. ” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 104, 565-580. 1984. Chypre et la Méditerranée orientale au Bronze Récent. Études chypriotes VI. Paris: Boccard. Buchanan, B. and Masson, O. 1968. “A Cypriote Cylinder at Yale (Newell Collection 358).” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 92, 410-415. Caubet, A. and Courtois, J.-C. 1986. “Un modèle de foie d’Enkomi.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1986, 72-77. Courtois, J.-C. 1978. “Corpus céramique de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. ” In: C.F.-A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica VII. Mission de Ras Shamra XVIII. Paris: Geuthner, 191-370. Cross, F.M., and Stager, L.E. 2006. “Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions Found in Ashkelon.” Israel Exploration Journal 56/2, 129-159. Dikaios, P. 1953. “A Second Inscribed Clay Tablet from Enkomi.” Antiquity 27, 233-237. 1967. “More Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions from Enkomi.” In: W. Brice (ed.), Europa: Studien zur Geschichte und Epigrafik der frühen Aegaeis, Berlin: De Gruyter, 80-87. 1971. Enkomi; Excavations 1948-1958 II. Mainz: von Zabern. Dothan, M. 1972. “Ashdod: Seven Seasons of Excavation.” Qadmoniot 5/1, 213.

94

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Dothan, T. and Dothan, M. 1992. People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan. Drews, R. 1995. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton: Princeton University. Duhoux, Y. 1989. “Le Linéaire A: problèmes de déchiffrement. ” In : Y. Duhoux, T.G. Palaima and J. Bennet (eds.), Problems in Decipherment, eds. Bibliothéque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 49. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters, 59-119. Ferrara, S. 2009. An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Cypro-Minoan Script. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London. Franken, H.J. 1964. “Clay Tablets from Deir ‘Alla, Jordan.” Vetus Testamentum 14/3, 377-379. Gates, C. 2003. Ancient cities: the archaeology of urban life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome. London: Routledge. Godart, L. and Olivier, J.-P. 1982. Recueil des inscriptions en Linéaire A, vol. 4: Autres documents. Études crétoises 21/4. Paris: Geuthner. 1985. Recueil des inscriptions en Linéaire A, vol. 5: Addenda, corigenda, concordances, index et planches des signes. Études crétoises 21/5. Paris: Geuthner. Godart, L. and Sacconi, A. 1979. “La plus ancienne tablette d’Enkomi et le Linéaire A. ” In: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 BC’, Nicosia, 16-22 April 1978. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 128-133.

BRENT DAVIS

95

Heubeck, A. 1979. Schrift. Archaeologia Homerica X.III. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Hitchcock, L.A. 2003. “And above were costly stones, hewn according to measurement...”: Documentation of Pre-Classical Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: K.P. Foster and R. Laffineur (eds.), Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 24. Austin: University of Texas, 257-266. Iacovou, M. 2006. “From the Mycenaean qa-si-re-u to the Cypriote pa-si-le-wo-se: the basileus in the kingdoms of Cyprus. In: S. DegerJalkotzy and I.S. Lemos, Ancient Greece: from the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, eds.. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 315-336. Kanta, A. 1998. “Introduction: 16th-11th c. BC.” In: N. Stampolidis, A. Karetsou and A. Kanta (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: CyprusDodecanese-Crete, 16th-6th c. BC. Heraklion: Archaeological Museum, 30-66. Karageorghis, V. 1976a. “Le quartier sacré de Kition: campagnes de fouilles 19731975.” Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 1976/2, 229-245. 1976b. Kition: Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries in Cyprus. London: Thames and Hudson. 1985. Excavations at Kition, V.2. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. Maier, A.M.; Wimmer, S.J.; Zukerman, A.; and Demsky, A. 2008. “A Late Iron Age I/Early Iron Age II Old Canaanite Inscription from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfī/Gath, Israel: Paleography, Dating, and Historical-Cultural Significance.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 351, 39–71. Masson, E. 1969. “La plus ancienne tablette chypro-minoenne (Enkomi 1955).” Minos 10, 64-77.

96

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

1971. Étude de vingt-six boules d’argile inscrites trouvées à Enkomi et Hala Sultan Tekké (Chypre). Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 31/1. Göteborg: Åström. 1972. “Quelques inscriptions chypro-minoennes du nord-ouest de Chypre.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1972, 129-133. 1973. “La diffusion de l’écriture à Chypre à la fin de l’âge du Bronze.” In: P. Dikaios (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean’, Nicosia 27th March - 2nd April 1972. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 88-100. 1974. Cyprominoica: répertoires; documents de Ras Shamra; essais d’interprétation. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 31/2. Göteborg: Åström. 1976. “Les témoignages épigraphiques.” In: P. Åström, D.M. Bailey and V. Karageorghis (eds.), Hala Sultan Tekke 1,. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45/1. Göteborg: Åström, 130-135. 1979a. “L’apparition de l’écriture à Chypre: Temoignage probable des contacts entre l’île de Chypre au cours de la première moitié du Deuxième Millénaire.” In: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 BC’, Nicosia, 16-22 April 1978. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 134-138. 1979b. “Quelques inscriptions inédites d’Enkomi.” UgaritForschungen 11, 560-562. 1979c. “Une inscription peinte d’Enkomi en caractères chyprominoens.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1979, 210-213. 1985. “Inscriptions et marques chypro-minoennes à Kition.” In: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Excavations at Kition V/2,. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 280-284. 1986. “Les écritures Cyprominoennes: Reflet fidèle du brassage des civilisations sur l’île pendant le Bronze Récent.” In: V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident’, Nicosia, 8-14 September 1985, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 180-200.

BRENT DAVIS

97

1987a. “Les écritures chypro-minoennes: État présent des connaissances et des ignorances.” In: P.H. Ilievski and L. Crepajac. (eds.), Tractata Mycenaea: Proceedings of the Eighth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies held in Ohrid, 1520 September 1985, Skopje: Macedonian Academy, 189202. 1987b. “La part du fond commun égéen dans les écritures chyprominoennes et son apport possible pour leur déchiffrement.” Minos 20-22, 367-381.

Masson, O. 1956. “Documents chypro-minoens de Ras Shamra.” In: C.F.-A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica III, Mission de Ras Shamra VIII. Paris: Geuthner, 233-250. 1957a. “Cylindres et cachets chypriotes portants des caractères chypro-minoens.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 81, 637. 1957b. “Répertoire des inscriptions chypro-minoennes.” Minos 5, 927. 1968. “Études d’épigraphie chypro-minoenne I: trois bols de bronze du Musée de Nicosie.” Minos 9, 66-72. 1971. “Deux petits lingots de cuivre inscrits d’Enkomi (1953).” In: C.F.-A. Schaeffer (ed.), Alasia I, Paris: Mission archéologique d’Alasia, 449-455. Niemeier, W.-D. 1998. “The Minoans in the South-Eastern Aegean and in Cyprus.” In: V. Karageorghis and N.C. Stampolidis. (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete, 16th-6th c. BC: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymnon, Crete in May 1997, Rethymnon: University of Crete, 29-47. Öbrink, U. 1979. Hala Sultan Tekke 5. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45.5. Göteborg: Åström.

Olivier, J.-P. 1989. “The Possible Methods in Deciphering the Pictographic Cretan Script.” In: Y. Duhoux, T.G. Palaima and J. Bennet (eds.), Problems in Decipherment, Bibliothéque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 49. Louvain-LaNeuve: Peeters, 39-58.

98

CYPRO-MINOAN IN PHILISTIA?

Palaima, T.G. 1989a. “Cypro-Minoan Scripts: Problems of Historical Context.” In: Y. Duhoux, T.G. Palaima and J. Bennet (eds.), Problems in Decipherment, Bibliothéque des Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 49. Louvain-LaNeuve: Peeters, 121-187. 1989b. “Ideograms and Supplementals and Regional Interaction among Aegean and Cypriote Scripts.” Minos 24, 29-54. Pecorella, P.E. 1977. Le tombe dell’età del Bronzo Tardo della necropoli a mare di Ayia Irini, Paleokastro. Biblioteca di antichità cipriote 4/1. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle richerche. Porada, E. 1976. “Three Cylinder Seals from Tombs 1 and 2 of Hala Sultan Tekke.” In: P. Åström, D.M. Bailey and V. Karageorghis (eds.), Hala Sultan Tekke 1, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45/1. Göteborg: Åström, 98-103. Raison, J. and Pope, M. 1971. Index du linéaire A. Incunabula Graeca 41. Rome: Edizione dell’Ataneo. Schaeffer, C.F.-A. 1932. “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras Shamra: troisième campagne (printemps 1931), rapport sommaire.” Syria: revue d'art oriental et d'archéologie 13, 1-24. 1954. “Les fouilles de Ras Shamra, Ugarit: quinzième, seizième et dix-septième campagnes (1951, 1952 et 1953).” Syria: revue d'art oriental et d'archéologie 31, 14-67. 1956. “Matériaux pour l’étude des relations entre Ugarit et Chypre.” In: C.F.-A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica III, Mission de Ras Shamra VIII. Paris: Geuthner, 227-232. Schaeffer, C.F.-A.; Courtois, J.C.; and Lagarce, J., 1968. “Fouilles d’Enkomi-Alasia dans l’île de Chypre, campagne de 1967.” Syria: revue d'art oriental et d'archéologie 45, 263-274. Singer, I. 2009a. “A Fragmentary Text from Tel Aphek with Unknown Script”. In: J. D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Long Duree:

BRENT DAVIS

99

Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 403-414. 2009b. “A Fragmentary Text from Tel Aphek with Unknown Script.” In: Y. Gadot and E. Yadin (eds.), APHEKANTIPATRIS II: The Remains on the Acropolis. The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations. Tel Aviv: Kedem, 472-484. Smith, J.S. 2002. “Problems and Prospects in the Study of Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages.” In J.S. Smith (ed.), Script and Seal Use on Cyprus in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia and Conference Papers 4. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 1-47. Smith, J.S. and Hirschfeld, N.E. 1999. “The Cypro-Minoan Corpus Project Takes an Archaeological Approach.” Near Eastern Archaeology 62/2, 129-130. South, A.K. 1983. “Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1982.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1983, 92-116. 1984. “Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios 1983. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1984, 14-41. Vermeule, E. and Wolsky, F. 1976. “Pot-Marks and Graffiti from Toumba tou Skourou, Cyprus.” Kadmos 15: 61-76. Yasur-Landau, A. and Goren, Y. 2004. “A Cypro-Minoan Potmark from Aphek.” Tel Aviv 31/1, 2231.

EL PECIO DE CABO GELIDONYA: UNA INTRODUCCIÓN

GRACIELA GESTOSO SINGER UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE [email protected]

RESUMEN El barco naufragado en las cercanías de Cabo Gelidonya pudo haber sido utilizado para el transporte de metales y de fundidores y forjadores de metales itinerantes. Este pequeño barco mercante transportó —al menos— una tonelada de metal (tales como lingotes de cobre y estaño, y fragmentos de herramientas de bronce, ya en desuso). Su carga es una fuente significativa de evidencia para el estudio del intercambio y metalurgia del Período del Bronce Tardío en el Mediterráneo Oriental. ABSTRACT The ship sunken at Cape Gelidonya could have served both as a carrier of metals and as a sort of itinerant smithy. The ship was a small merchant vessel, which was carrying—at least—a ton of metal (such as copper and tin ingots, and scrap bronze tools). Its cargo remains an invaluable source of evidence for the study of trade, and metallurgy in the Late Bronze Age of the cosmopolitan Eastern Mediterranean world.

102

EL PECIO DE CABO GELIDONYA

1. EL BARCO En 1954, Kemal Aras, un buzo de Bodrum, que recolectaba esponjas en la zona, halló los restos de un barco hundido a unos 26 ó 28 metros de profundidad en el lecho rocoso al nordeste de la isla Devecitaşı Ada (la mayor de las islas Beşadalar, o «Las Cinco Islas»), ubicada frente a Cabo Gelidonya, en el extremo occidental del Golfo de Finike, el principal golfo en la costa meridional de Anatolia (en la actual Turquía) (Bass 1967; 1973: 29-38; 1988: 2-5; 1991). La zona de Cabo Gelidonya (una adaptación al turco del nombre griego original, que significa «Cabo de las Golondrinas») fue conocida por los marinos en la Antigüedad y en la actualidad como un punto de riesgo en las rutas de navegación de cabotaje (Bass 1966). En 1958, el buzo describió su hallazgo a Peter Throckmorton (1960: 682-703; 1962: 696-711), quien trabajaba en la realización de un catálogo de antiguos barcos hundidos en la costa sudoeste turca. Este localizó el área en 1959 y solicitó a la Universidad de Pennsylvania la organización de la primera campaña de excavación, bajo la dirección de George Bass del Instituto de Arqueología Náutica (INA) de la Universidad de Texas (Bass 1996: 25-35). A mediados del 2010, George Bass y Nicolle Hirschfeld volvieron al sitio en ocasión de los 50 años del descubrimiento y regresaron a la costa con 350 artefactos, entre ellos fragmentos de lingotes, cerámica (una jarra chipriota), ocho pesas de balanza y un ancla chipriota (Bass 2010: 797). Bass y su equipo de investigación están preparando una nueva publicación, que incluye la reinterpretación de todo el material hallado en el sitio desde 1960 hasta la fecha (Bass et al. en preparación). Lamentablemente, se ha conservado muy poco del casco del barco; mientras que la mayor parte de los restos arqueológicos hallados consiste en la carga, que fue localizada en el fondo del mar casi en la misma posición y distribución, en que fue originalmente cargada en su puerto de origen. Este fue un barco de reducida capacidad (una tonelada) y dimensión (unos 10 metros de longitud). Actualmente, se cree que su longitud habría superado los 10 metros.

GRACIELA GESTOSO SINGER

103

2. LA CRONOLOGÍA El análisis de los restos de la carga encontrados durante la campaña de 1980, dirigida por Bass, ha permitido datar el naufragio a fines del siglo XIII a.C., o en los inicios del siglo XII a.C., a juzgar por el hallazgo in situ de dos jarras de estribo del Micénico IIIB, casi intactas (Bass 1996: 25-35). Los análisis de radiocarbono efectuados en la madera de leña encontrada en el área del naufragio permiten confirmar esta datación hacia el 1200 a.C. (± 50 años). Asimismo, Gale (1991: 204) data el hundimiento aproximadamente en el 1240/1200 a.C. Schulman (1961: 24-25) y, años más tarde, Giveon (1985: 99-101) han estudiado los cinco escarabajos hallados a bordo, los que contribuyen fundamentalmente a la datación del hundimiento durante los reinados de Ramsés III (c. 1186-1155 a.C.) o Ramsés IV (c. 1155-1149 a.C.), en la Dinastía XX.

3. LA RUTA El barco habría partido de un puerto sirio, probablemente en el estado de Ugarit. Se han hallado restos de un taller especializado en la fundición de metales y el único molde para la manufactura de lingotes con cuatro asas, en el palacio de Ras Ibn-Hani, al sur de Ugarit (Craddock et al. 1997: 4). El puerto de Minet el-Beida, muy cercano a este palacio, se habría desempeñado como centro de almacenaje y distribución de los lingotes y otras materias primas destinadas a los circuitos de intercambio del Mediterráneo Oriental de la época (Linder 1972: 163-164). Este barco habría seguido una ruta (en el sentido contrario a las agujas del reloj) con muchas escalas, bordeando las costas del Mediterráneo oriental, desde algún puerto en el Levante, en Siria (probablemente Minet el-Beida) o en la isla de Chipre (o con al menos una escala en esta isla), hacia el área egea (Gestoso Singer 2010: 8).

4. LA CARGA Su carga consistió principalmente de lingotes de metal (de cobre y estaño), fragmentos de armas y herramientas para reciclaje (de bronce), elementos personales de la tripulación (como pesas, sellos,

104

EL PECIO DE CABO GELIDONYA

escarabajos, cuencos y lámparas de aceite) y cerámica fina (Bass 2005: 48-55). La carga del barco consistió en aproximadamente una tonelada de metal. El análisis de los lingotes de cobre permite afirmar que eran de origen chipriota (Stos-Gale et al. 1997: 107, 109). Se hallaron 34 lingotes de cobre (de unos 25 kg y 60 cm de largo), en forma de piel de buey extendida (oxhide-shape), de los cuales 27 tienen marcas, que estarían relacionadas con diversos mineros o fundidores de metal (Stos-Gale et al. 1997: 107). Lingotes similares han sido hallados en Siria-Palestina (Tell Beit Mirsim; Ras Shamra), Chipre (Enkomi; Mathiati), en la costa de Anatolia (Uluburun; Gelidonya), Creta (Palaikastro; Zakro; Mochlos; Cnossos; Kommos; Ayia Triadha), Grecia continental (Micenas; la costa de Euboea), Sicilia, y Cerdeña. Pequeñas réplicas de estos lingotes fueron encontrados en Tebas (Egipto). Desde el reinado de Tuthmosis III (c. 1490-1436 a.C.) y en adelante, en los relieves de las tumbas tebanas egipcias (como las de Useramón, Rekhmira y Meryra), se hallan representaciones de estos lingotes (Wachsmann 1987: 6-13, 41-52). Las últimas representaciones, datadas en el reinado de Ramsés III (siglo XII a.C.) son las de Medinet Habu, seguramente una copia de las representaciones originales del Ramesseum de Ramsés II (siglo XIII a.C.) en Tebas. También se encontraron representaciones de estos lingotes en las tablillas inscritas en Lineal B de Cnossos y en algunos sellos minoicos y chipriotas del Bronce Tardío. Lingotes similares pueden ser hallados en dos estatuillas de bronce de origen chipriota, datadas en el siglo XII a.C., tales como el «portador del lingote» de Kourion (Knapp 1986: 30-34) y el denominado «dios del lingote» de Enkomi. Los portadores de estos lingotes fueron identificados en las tumbas tebanas (de Senmut, Puimira, Intef, Useramón, Menkheperreson, Rekhmira, Meryra y Nebamón) como sirios (de la «Tierra del Retenu») y cretenses o egeos (lit. «Los jefes de Keftiu y de las islas que están en el medio del mar») (Wachsmann 1987: 6-13, 31, 41-46, 50-52; Rehak 1998: 40). Bass (2010: 797-803) sugiere que mercaderes del Levante, ya fueran sirios o cananeos, se habrían destacado en el intercambio de lingotes de cobre. La evidencia analizada permite afirmar —según Bass— que el cobre utilizado en estos lingotes procedió de la isla de Chipre, en donde la producción del mismo habría estado bajo control sirio y minoico. Después del c. 1400 a.C., y ante el colapso de los palacios minoicos, Bass cree que el

GRACIELA GESTOSO SINGER

105

control de la producción de lingotes de cobre habría sido ejercido por Siria. Un número significativo de lingotes de cobre fueron expuestos a análisis de isótopos del plomo, a fin de resolver el problema del origen de los mismos. En el caso de los lingotes hallados en las cercanías de Uluburun y Cabo Gelidonya, se puede afirmar que éstos fueron producidos con cobre de origen chipriota, así como los fragmentos de lingotes del Minoico Tardío III (MT III) hallados en el puerto minoico de Kommos. Los lingotes de Aghia Triadha, datados en el Minoico Tardío I (MT I), son una excepción, ya que se cree proceden de minas de cobre en Anatolia (Turquía) (Stos-Gale et al. 1997: 83-123). Estos lingotes habrían sido usados como medio de «pago» en las transacciones de la época en el Mediterráneo Oriental (Sherratt 2000: 83). Asimismo, c. 1400 a.C., en las «Cartas de El Amarna» (EA 35, 10-12, 19-22; EA 37, 8-12, 18) se registra que lingotes de cobre fueron intercambiados por pagos en «plata (...) en grandes cantidades» (EA 35, 19-22) y, en varios casos, éstos fueron incluidos en las listas de «regalos de salutación» entre los grandes reyes de la época (Gestoso Singer 2005: 197-205; 2007: 24-25). Por ejemplo, en una de estas cartas se afirma: «Los regalos de salutación para mi hermano consisten en cinco talentos de cobre (c. 162 kg) y cinco yuntas de caballos, entonces, ¡Envíame plata (…)!» (EA 37, 9-18). La transacción consistió en el intercambio de cinco lingotes de cobre (c. 30 kg cada uno), más 5 yuntas de caballos, como «pago anticipado» por la plata (probablemente anillos de plata, como los descriptos en la Tumba Tebana de Rekhmira) (Davies 1943: lám. XLVIII). En el sitio del naufragio fueron encontrados unos 20 discos plano-convexos (bun-shape) de cobre puro, de unos 20 cm de diámetro y 3 kg de peso, almacenados probablemente en canastas de mimbre, a juzgar por los restos de una cesta hallados en el fondo del mar (Bass 2010: 800). Ninguno de estos lingotes tiene marcas. En Acemhöyük y Alacahöyük se han encontrado lingotes similares, aunque datados en el Bronce Medio. En la cabina del capitán del barco naufragado se encontraron 18 lingotes de cobre, en forma de barra (slab ingots), de 20 a 30 cm de largo, en dos unidades diferentes, de 0.5 y 1 kg (Bass 1967: 82; 2010: 800), que habrían sido usados como «medio de intercambio» o «pagos» (Sherratt 2000: 87). El mínimo contenido de estaño (1 a 1.83 %), hallado en estos lingotes de cobre, nos permite afirmar

106

EL PECIO DE CABO GELIDONYA

que éstos fueron producidos con metal reciclado, probablemente restos de objetos de bronce y cobre, y fragmentos de lingotes de cobre. La composición de los lingotes de cobre nos permite sugerir que un lingote habría sido dividido en pequeños trozos de metal, con el simple golpe de un martillo o herramienta pesada, con el fin de ser empleado como forma de «pago» en las transacciones (Hauptmann et al. 2002: 19). Evidentemente, estos pequeños lingotes, barras, fragmentos de metal (lump) y trozos extraídos deliberadamente de objetos y herramientas de bronce (scrap) fueron usados como medios de «pago» (bullion) (Gestoso Singer 2005: 197-205; Singer 2006: 256-257; Cline y Yasur-Landau 2007: 125-141). En las aéreas G y P, debajo del sector de los lingotes de cobre, se hallaron 8 kg de óxido de estaño (en tres acumulaciones de pasta blanca), que se estima eran restos de los lingotes de estaño originalmente a bordo. La fuente de origen del estaño hallado in situ permanece aún bajo estudio, aunque se puede afirmar que no es chipriota (Bass 2010: 800). Las armas encontradas en el sitio consisten en puntas de lanza, hojas de dagas y puñales de bronce, probablemente de origen chipriota, y en un estado muy fragmentario, por lo que se estima fueron destinadas al reciclaje de metal. Se cree que fueron almacenadas en cestas de mimbres de origen levantino, a juzgar por los restos hallados en el fondo del mar. También se hallaron fragmentos de navajas de afeitar, espátulas, brazaletes, anillos, garfios, trípodes y lingotes, destinados a la fundición de metal, ya que fueron clasificados y almacenados, según diferentes categorías, en diversas canastas (Bass 2010: 800). Se encontró un conjunto de herramientas (como picos, palas, azadas, azuelas, rejas de arado y hachas dobles), probablemente usadas por un agricultor; y el equipo completo de un experto en metalurgia o fundidor (un cincel, un punzón y un yunque de bronce, de origen chipriota, y varios morteros, martillos, mazas y pulidores de piedra) (Bass 1988: 2-5). Entre los efectos personales de la tripulación a bordo se hallaron sellos cilindro, pesas, cinco escarabajos, cuencos y lámparas de aceite de origen sirio-palestino (Bass 1973: 29-38). En la cabina del capitán del barco fue hallado un sello cilindro, probablemente de origen sirio y datado en el siglo XVIII a.C. (Bass 2010: 801).

GRACIELA GESTOSO SINGER

107

Las 60 pesas halladas en el sitio del naufragio indicarían: 1) la presencia de mercaderes a bordo, o 2) la participación del capitán del barco en las transacciones económicas, a juzgar por las 58 pesas halladas en su cabina. Ocho de éstas son de metal; mientras que 52 son de piedra. Según Bass (2010: 800), estas pesas representarían siete «unidades de peso» de: 1) 7.30 a 7.32 g («unidad fenicia»); 2) 9.32 a 9.33 g (qedet egipcio); 3) 9.50 g (qedet sirio-palestino); 4) 10.30 g (nesef sirio); 5) 10.50 g (nesef fenicio); 6) 11.50 g (shekel cananeo), y 7) 12.30 g (unidad desconocida), que habrían permitido a los mercaderes del barco o su capitán concretar transacciones en Egipto, Siria, Canaán, Chipre, Hatti, Creta y Grecia continental. En la cabina del capitán, se encontraron cinco escarabajos de origen sirio-palestino (imitación de modelos egipcios), usados probablemente como talismanes o sellos por miembros de la tripulación. Estos fueron datados desde el Segundo Periodo Intermedio (c. 1785-1567 a.C.) y hasta la Dinastía XIX (fines del siglo XIII a.C.) (Bass 2010: 800-801). La cerámica fina, hallada en el sitio, consiste en jarras de almacenaje, jarras de estribo (con resina de terebinto) y otras vasijas de origen chipriota, sirio o micénico, en un pobre estado de conservación (datada en c. 1250-1150 a.C.). Asimismo, fueron encontrados en el fondo del mar cuentas de collar, entre ellas de cristal de roca. En el área G (adyacente a lo que se estima era la cabina del capitán) fueron encontrados un astrágalo de oveja y restos de alimentos (espinas de pescado y frutos de olivo.

5. LA TRIPULACIÓN Las armas y herramientas chipriotas halladas a bordo —ya mencionadas al analizar la carga del barco— se encuentran en un estado muy fragmentario y habrían sido destinadas al reciclaje de metal, como la elaboración de nuevos artefactos, armas o herramientas de bronce. Probablemente, este barco habría realizado una escala en algún puerto de la isla de Chipre, con el fin de cargar una considerable cantidad de fragmentos de metal, armas y herramientas, ya en desuso, para su reciclaje. El equipo completo de un experto en metalurgia (cinceles, punzones, yunques, morteros, martillos, mazas y pulidores de piedra) permite afirmar que —al menos— uno o dos fundidores de

108

EL PECIO DE CABO GELIDONYA

metales se habrían hallado a bordo de este barco (Bass 1988: 2-5). Se cree que éstos habrían sido de origen sirio, a juzgar por los restos de un taller especializado en la fundición de metales hallados en el palacio de Ras Ibn-Hani, al sur de Ugarit (Siria) (Craddock et al. 1997: 4; Catling 1986: 68-71). Asimismo, la mayor parte de los efectos personales de la tripulación a bordo (sellos cilindro, pesas, escarabajos, cuencos y lámparas de aceite, antes mencionados) es de origen sirio-palestino (Bass 1973: 29-38). Finalmente, como ya hemos afirmado, en la cabina del capitán, se encontraron cinco escarabajos de origen sirio-palestino, usados por miembros de la tripulación. Si bien la mayor parte de la carga (como lingotes, armas y herramientas de fundición) es de origen chipriota, esto no nos permite probar la existencia de mercaderes o tripulantes chipriotas a bordo, sino simplemente el origen chipriota de la carga. Sin embargo, la evidencia analizada anteriormente (principalmente, los efectos personales) probaría la presencia de una tripulación siria.

6. CONCLUSIONES En sus primeros informes, Bass sostiene que se trató de una aventura o «empresa privada» de pequeña envergadura, realizada por un mercader de origen cananeo o de la costa fenicia (Bass 1961a: 267-276; 1961b: 2-11; 1961c: 78-87; 1967: 164-167; 1973: 34, nota 42; 1991: 74), aunque no descarta el posible origen chipriota del mismo (Bass 1973: 36-37; 1991: 69; 2010: 802). Maddin y Muhly (1974: 25) afirman que ésta fue una empresa comercial de mayor escala y bien organizada y de origen micénico. Bachhuber (2003: 144-146, 158; 2006: 355) destaca la presencia de emisarios micénicos, parte de una elite administrativa de palacio, a bordo del barco naufragado en Uluburun; mientras que sugiere la existencia de mercaderes independientes, probablemente de diversos orígenes, para el caso del barco hallado en Cabo Gelidonya (2003: 80, 95, 103). Knapp (1993: 335) sostiene que esta empresa fue de origen sirio, debido a los efectos y adornos personales de la tripulación hallados a bordo. Creemos que el barco formó parte de una iniciativa privada y de pequeña envergadura, que habría navegado por una ruta especí-

GRACIELA GESTOSO SINGER

109

fica y corta con sentido este-oeste, con varias escalas, desde la costa siria, y a través de la isla de Chipre, hacia el Egeo, a juzgar por la evidencia analizada: 1) La dimensión (10 metros de largo) y capacidad (una tonelada) reducida del barco, 2) la carga consistente casi exclusivamente en cobre (de origen chipriota), 3) los pequeños lingotes, pesas y metal para reciclaje hallados en la cabina del capitán-mercader, 4) los efectos personales de la tripulación (en su mayor parte de origen sirio-palestino), 5) las herramientas (en su mayor parte de origen chipriota) destinadas al reciclaje de metal por fundidores y forjadores de metales (probablemente de origen sirio), 6) el hallazgo —contemporáneo a la primera campaña en Cabo Gelidonya— del único molde para la manufactura de lingotes con cuatro asas, en el palacio de Ras Ibn-Hani, en las cercanías del puerto de Minet el-Beida, en Ugarit (Siria), y 7) el hallazgo de un ancla de piedra, aparentemente perteneciente al barco hundido en Cabo Gelidonya, de tipología siriopalestina o chipriota.

BIBLIOGRAFIA Bachhuber, Christoph 2003. Aspects of Late Helladic Sea Trade, Disertación de Máster: Universidad de Texas A & M University. 2006. «Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship», American Journal of Archaeology 110, 345-363. Bass, George F. 1961a. «Cape Gelidonya Wreck: Preliminary Report», American Journal of Archaeology 65, 267-276. 1961b. «A Bronze Age Shipwreck», Expedition 3.2, 2-11. 1966. Archaeology Under Water, Londres: Thames and Hudson.

110

EL PECIO DE CABO GELIDONYA

1967. Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Filadelfia: American Philosophical Society. 1973. «Cape Gelidonya and Bronze Age Maritime Trade». In: H. A. Hoffner, Jr. (ed.), Orient and Occident, Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22, Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 29-38. 1988. «Return to Cape Gelidonya», Newsletter of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology 15.2, 1-5. 1991. «Evidence of Trade from Bronze Age Shipwrecks». In: N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90, Gotemburgo: Paul Åström Förlag, 69-82. 1996. «Cape Gelidonya». In: Shipwrecks in the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology, Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology Publications 3, Bodrum: Museum of Underwater Archaeology, 25-35. 2005. «Cargo from the Age of Bronze: Cape Gelidonya, Turkey», G. F. Bass (ed.), Beneath the Seven Seas, Londres: Thames & Hudson, 48-55. 2010. «Cape Gelidonya shipwreck». In: E. H. Cline (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 797-803. Bass, George F. y Throckmorton, Peter 1961c. «Excavating a Bronze Age Shipwreck», Archaeology 14.2, 7887. Catling, Hector W. 1986. «The Date of the Cape Gelidonya Ship and Cypriot Bronzework», Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (RDAC), 68-71. Cline, Eric y Yasur-Landau, Assaf 2007. «Musings from a distant shore: the nature and destination of the Uluburun ship and its cargo», Tel Aviv 34/2, 125141. Craddock, Paul T.; Freestone, Ian C.; y Dawe Clifford D. 1997. «Casting Metals in Limestone Moulds», The Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 31, 1-7.

GRACIELA GESTOSO SINGER

111

Davies, Norman de Garis 1943. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Rē at Thebes, Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 11, Nueva York: Plantin Press. Gale, Noel H. 1991. Bronze Age Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90, Gotemburgo: Paul Åström Förlag. Gestoso Singer, Graciela 2005. «Some Economical Terms in the Amarna Letters», Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie 7/8, 197-205. 2007. «El barco naufragado en Ulu Burun y el intercambio de bienes en el Mediterráneo Oriental», Davar Logos 7/1, 1932. 2010. «El uso de pagos en los sistemas de intercambio en el Levante», Davar Logos 9/1, 1-8. Giveon, Raphael 1985. «Dating the Cape Gelidonya Shipwreck», Anatolian Studies 35, 99-101. Hauptmann, Andreas; Maddin, Robert; y Prange, Michael 2002. «On the Structure and Composition of Copper and Tin Ingots Excavated from the Shipwreck of Uluburun», Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 328, 1-30. Knapp, Bernard 1986. «Copper production and divine protection. Archaeology, ideology and social complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus», Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 42, Gotemburgo: Paul Aströms Förlag. 1993. «Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean trade: Making and breaking a myth». In: J. Oates (ed.), Ancient trade: new perspectives, Word Archaeology 24/3, Londres: Routledge, 332-347. Linder, Elisha 1972. «A Sea-faring Merchant from Ugarit and the Cape Gelidonya Wreck», International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 1, 163-164.

112

EL PECIO DE CABO GELIDONYA

Maddin, Robert y Muhly, James 1974. «Some notes on the copper trade in the ancient Mid-East», Journal of Metals 26/5, 24-30. Rehak, Paul 1998. «Aegean Natives in the Theban Tomb Paintings: The Keftiu Revisited». In: E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Aegaeum 18, Liège/Austin: Universidad de Liège/Universidad de Texas, 39-51. Schulman, Alan R. 1961. «Three Shipwrecked Scarabs», Expedition 3, 24-25. Sherratt, Susan 2000. «Circulation of metals and the end of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean». In: Ch. F. E. Pare (ed.), Metals make the World go round. The Supply and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe, Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in June 1997, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 82-98.

Singer, Itamar 2006. «Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523», Altorientalische Forschungen 33/2, 242-262. Stos-Gale, Zophia A.; Maliotis, George; Gale Noel H.; y Annetts, N. 1997. «Lead Isotope Characteristics of the Cyprus Copper Ore Deposits Applied to Provenance Studies of Copper Oxhide Ingots», Archaeometry 39, 83-123. Throckmorton, Peter 1960. «Thirty-Three Centuries Under the Sea», National Geographic 117/5, 682-703. Throckmorton, Peter 1962. «Oldest Known Shipwreck Yields Bronze Age Cargo», National Geographic 121/5, 696-711. Wachsmann, Shelley 1987. Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. Leuven: Peeters.

REVIEWS

PEETER ESPAK: THE GOD ENKI IN

SUMERIAN ROYAL IDEOLOGY AND MYTHOLOGY (PHD DISSERTATION)∗

VLADIMIR SAZONOV HEAD OF LANGUAGE CENTRE OF ESTONIAN DEFENCE FORCES ESTONIAN NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE, THE CENTRE FOR ORIENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF TARTU ABSTRACT / RESUMO Peeter Espak: The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology (2010), Tartu: Tartu University Press, 284 pp. In Estonia, a small European State with a population of approximately 1,300,000 people, Assyriology is a nascent field (it is about 14/15-years old). Peeter Espak’s doctoral thesis is the second Assyriological doctoral thesis defended in the University of Tartu.20 ∗ I am thankful, for editing this text and for critical remarks, to my wife Sirje Kupp-Sazonov, Mr. Parviz Partovi and Mr. Janusz Peters. 20 The first Estonian who defended his doctoral thesis in Assyriological studies was Dr. Amar Annus, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Theology. His thesis is The God Ninurta in the Mythology of Ancient Mesopotamia (2002), State Archives of Assyria Studies, volume

116 PEETER ESPAK: THE GOD ENKI IN SUMERIAN ROYAL IDEOLOGY AND MYTHOLOGY (PHD DISSERTATION)

Peeter Espak’s thesis, The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology, written in English, belongs to the field of Sumeriological studies and contains 284 pages. This monograph is a very profound analysis of the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian god Enki/Ea in Sumerian religion and in royal ideology. The research is dealing with a great number of hypotheses and some complicated questions concerning the cult of Enki, his role in royal ideology, position in the pantheon, mythological and other texts (e.g. royal inscriptions etc), which are either dedicated to Enki or where Enki is mentioned. The doctoral thesis was excellently defended by Espak on the 14th of December, 2010, in the University of Tartu. Nevertheless it must be mentioned that it is not the first thoroughgoing work in Sumerology, leaving aside the articles concerning the question of Enki/Ea. It is the third monograph that is dedicated to the subject. The first solid research was written by Margaret W. Green (1975)21 and the second important work dedicated to Ea/Enki is the doctoral thesis of Hannes D. Galter22. Obviously the quantity of articles or some other studies that in some way are dedicated or connected with the questions about the god Enki/Ea are notable; however, it is essential to know that these researches deal with only certain aspects connected to the cult of Enki and mythology, etc.23 Prior to the publishing of Espak’s research in XIV, The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project of University of Helsinki, Institute for Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland. Dr. Amar Annus was supervised by the Finnish Prof. Dr. Simo Parpola and defended his thesis at the University of Helsinki, not in Tartu. 21 Margaret W. Green (1975), Eridu in Sumerian Literature. PhD Dissertation: University of Chicago. 22 Hannes D. Galter (1983), Der Gott Ea/Enki in der akkadischen Überlieferung. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des vorhandenen Materials. Dissertationen der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. 23 See for examples concerning Innana and Enki: Gertrud FarberFlügge (1973), Der Mythos ‘Inanna und Enki’ unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Liste der ME (Studia Pohl 10, Dissertationes scientificae de rebus orientis antiqui), Roma: Biblical Institute Press; Владимир В. Емельянов (2004), Инанна и Энки: текст и ритуал. – Ассириология и египтология. Санкт-Петербург, 73-85; Horst Steible

VLADIMIR SAZONOV

117

2010, in the University of Tartu’s publishing house, a new authentic and solid approach concerning this Sumerian deity, a treatment of his role and position in Mesopotamian religion and royal ideology was missing in Assyriological specialized literature. Since this thesis is written in English it can be used internationally by assyriologists, sumerologists, theologians, and historians of religions. In his doctoral thesis Espak continues the research that he had started in his Master’s thesis24. The time frame of his research covers the Early Dynastic period (Pre-Sargonic) until the OldBabylonian period (from Ur-Nanše of Lagaš to Ammi-saduqa of Babylon). The author scrupulously analyzed all the significant written sources from Mesopotamia in the Sumerian and Akkadian languages in the period from 2500 to 1500 BCE. The thesis consists of 9 chapters —Early dynastic period; The Dynasty of Akkad; The Second Dynasty of Lagaš; Ur III period; The Dynasty of Isin; The Dynasty of Larsa; The First Dynasty of Babylon; Enki (Ea) in the mythology of creation; Enki and the archaic Sumerian religion: the question of rivalry between the theologies of Enki and Enlil— and a General Conclusion. The first seven chapters of the thesis form one large section (159 pp.), at the same time built logically and clearly structured using a chronological order. These chapters (from the Early dynastic period until the First Dynasty of Babylon) give a detailed view concerning the development of the history of the cult of Enki/Ea during the Early Dynastic period, Akkadian epoch, the period of Gutian domination, Ur III, Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian periods. The 8th chapter of Espak’s monograph, Enki (Ea) in the mythology of creation, deals with the role of the god Enki/Ea in Sumerian and Akkadian mythology: first of all, of course, regarding the cosmogonies, the author analyses scrupulously all the existing myths (1967), Ein Lied an den Gott Haja mit Bitte für den König Rīm-Sîn von Larsa. Ph.D. Dissertation: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität zu Freiburg. 24 Peeter Espak (2006), Ancient Near Eastern Gods Enki and Ea: Diachronical Analysis of Texts and Images from the Earliest Sources to the Neo-Sumerian Period. Master's thesis: The University of Tartu. This work is available in the World Wide Web at: http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/958/espakpeeter. pdf?sequence=5.

118 PEETER ESPAK: THE GOD ENKI IN SUMERIAN ROYAL IDEOLOGY AND MYTHOLOGY (PHD DISSERTATION)

and texts within the mythological background, in which either Enki/Ea was mentioned or which were dedicated to this important Mesopotamian deity. The present work gains its laurels with the last comparative chapter: Enki and the archaic Sumerian religion: the Question of Rivalry between the theologies of Enki and Enlil. Notable is that the contest between the two most important Sumerian theological systems —the system of Enlil with its main residence in Nippur and the system of Enki (whose main centre was Eridu) — was not deeply considered or analyzed in the earliest Assyriological studies. Espak was successful in creating an image of the cults of these two main Mesopotamian deities and of the rivalry between these two theological systems that lasted for a long time and strongly influenced the formation of Mesopotamian religions and their ideological worldview. Notable is the fact that, in Espak’s opinion, this rivalry between Enki and Enlil might not have existed. Let us hope that, if Espak is planning in the future to continue examining the question of Enki/Ea, he is able to publish a monograph that also includes the material of the later periods of Mesopotamian history.

DOMINGO SAURA: LAS ESTELAS MÁGICAS DE «HORUS SOBRE LOS COCODRILOS». FORMACIÓN, EVOLUCIÓN Y SENTIDO DE UN TIPO ICONOGRÁFICO

DAVID SORIA MOLINA UNIVERSIDAD DE MURCIA RESUMEN / ABSTRACT Domingo Saura: Las estelas mágicas de “Horus sobre los cocodrilos”. Formación, evolución y sentido de un tipo iconográfico (2009), Madrid: Signifer Libros, 279 pp. ISBN: 978-84-935734-6-1. Este libro, según plantea el propio autor en la introducción, busca no sólo analizar los aspectos formales de una imagen, sino explicar las razones que llevaron a la formación de tales aspectos. En este caso la imagen la componen las estelas mágicas que representan un relato mítico referido a la infancia de Horus, donde el niño-dios es picado por un escorpión y salvado por intervención divina. La finalidad de estas estelas era desencadenar una especie de magia simpatética para que su utilización curase a la persona afectada por un ataque de una serie de animales salvajes concretos, al igual que Horus fue curado de su picadura. Tras introducir la materia de estudio, Saura consagra el primer capítulo a un necesario y exhaustivo repaso de todos los estudios previos más destacados en torno a las citadas estelas y cuestiones relacionadas, desde monografías hasta catálogos de exposición.

120 DOMINGO SAURA: LAS ESTELAS MÁGICAS DE «HORUS SOBRE LOS COCODRILOS»

Acto seguido, en el segundo capítulo se introduce de lleno en el tema que centra el libro. Por una parte aborda los aspectos formales de estas estelas, las imágenes representadas en las mismas, tomando como imagen-tipo y paradigma la llamada estela Metternich. El autor pone especial énfasis en la relativa continuidad de los elementos representados en las estelas, independientemente del periodo o el contexto cultural en que éstas se elaborasen. Cabe destacar un detallado apartado en torno a los textos grabados en estas estelas, a los que se dedica un interesante y pormenorizado análisis no sólo de los grabados en las estelas, sino de textos análogos encontrados en papiros. La palabra en la cultura egipcia, nos explica el autor, ostentaba el privilegio de crear, por lo tanto la importancia de estos textos y su recitación era fundamental para conseguir el efecto apropiado de la estela. Seguidamente, Saura aborda los diversos rituales de uso de estas estelas, aunando aquí los aspectos formales, la información aportada por los textos y otros aspectos. El capítulo finaliza con una crítica a un intento concreto de estructurar estas estelas en una tipología, la realizada por Stenberg-El Hotabi, considerando innecesaria una tipología de semejante clase. El siguiente capítulo, que ocupa la mayor parte del libro, está consagrado a analizar los diversos aspectos de la evolución del tipo iconográfico de las estelas de Horus sobre los cocodrilos. Saura comienza analizando los precedentes más indirectos, los cuchillos y bastones mágicos con la imagen de A-ha, daímon dominador de las bestias, los primeros ejemplos de los cuales datan del 2800 a.C. El siguiente precedente data del Reino Nuevo, en las dinastías XVIII y XIX. Se trata de las estelas curativas del dios Ched, que presentan gran cantidad de paralelismos formales y funcionales con las de «Horus sobre los cocodrilos». Ched, dios del desierto, es representado dominando animales peligrosos de dicho ambiente. Por último, entre los precedentes se reseñan también las estelas del Próximo Oriente, como las de la diosa sirio-palestina Qedeshet o las estelas neo-asirias de Pazuzu y Lamastu, las cuales presentan de nuevo paralelos formales y funcionales con la imagen-tipo, a la vez que sirven de ejemplo de influencias foráneas en Egipto. A continuación, Saura nos introduce en las primeras estelas de «Horus sobre los cocodrilos» conocidas, aquellas realizadas en el periodo Saíta (XXVI dinastía, s. VII a.C.) y aquellas elaboradas en el Egipto bajo dominio aqueménida. La antigua imagen de Ched es asimilado así ahora a la de Horus, buscándose en el plano del estilo una tenden-

DAVID SORIA MOLINA

121

cia arcaizante y un rechazo a la innovación, asentándose la mayor parte de los aspectos formales principales de este tipo de estelas. Las estelas de época persa disponen un modelo de ejecución más tosco a la vez que más homogéneo, tendiendo a reducir sensiblemente su tamaño. A continuación Saura analiza en profundidad la formación y características de la imagen-tipo, la estela Metternich, datada entre 363-341 a.C., y fruto de un generalizado impulso de las artes y las manifestaciones culturales egipcias realizado por las dinastías XXVIII a XXX. Es durante este periodo cuando la imagen de «Horus sobre los cocodrilos» alcanza su configuración definitiva y contempla el comienzo de su apogeo. La estela está ya claramente destinada a la protección del niño y de cualquier enfermo, en cualquier territorio de Egipto. Esta imagen-tipo conoce su fase de expansión en el Egipto ptolemaico o lágida (305-30 d.C.), exportándose el tipo iconográfico a otros espacios del Mediterráneo, recibiendo nuevas influencias y adoptando así nuevas configuraciones. En este sentido el autor considera hasta cinco variantes distintas derivadas de la imagen-tipo en este periodo, variantes que se tratan individual y pormenorizadamente en sucesivos apartados. Mención aparte reciben las estelas de la fase ptolemaica tardía, fruto de las influencias que reciben como resultado del intercambio cultural habido entre Oriente y Roma, donde se tiende a imágenes de fuerte esquematismo y abstracción. La imagen tipo entra así, desde el s. I a.C., en su fase de disolución. El autor destina también otro apartado a analizar las estelas de «Horus sobre los cocodrilos» encontradas fuera de Egipto. A lo largo de los ss. I y II d.C. la imagen-tipo se descompone finalmente, fabricándose cada vez modelos más esquemáticos y reducidos, apareciendo por separado algunos de sus elementos, descontextualizados o «reciclados» con fines similares o distintos, fruto de la pérdida de identidad acelerada de la cultura faraónica en mitad de un mundo caracterizado por un constante sincretismo cultural. Llama especialmente la atención un apartado destinado a la progresiva conversión de la iconografía de las estelas de Horus en arquetipos empleados con diversos fines y en diversas imágenes por culturas posteriores. Destaca especialmente el rescate de la imagen del niño-dios por parte del cristianismo para representar a Cristo triunfante sobre animales relacionados con el mal, o imágenes cristianas análogas propias ya de la Alta Edad Media, y donde aún pueden reconocerse aspectos formales propios de las antiguas estelas de Horus.

122 DOMINGO SAURA: LAS ESTELAS MÁGICAS DE «HORUS SOBRE LOS COCODRILOS»

El cuarto capítulo queda destinado al análisis individual de los diversos elementos incorporados a la imagen-tipo, repasando algunos aspectos ya desglosados en capítulos anteriores, y pasando por la imagen de Horus-Harpócrates, los diversos animales representados, deteniéndose en particular en el caso del cocodrilo (que posee una doble lectura), y la máscara de Bes, hasta analizar los diversos diseños florales y la presencia de otras divinidades en la estela. Finalmente, Saura dispone una serie de conclusiones donde reafirma la definición de la imagen de «Horus sobre los cocodrilos» como tipo iconográfico, realizando una breve valoración y recapitulación. El libro se completa con el apartado bibliográfico de rigor, un completo índice de abreviaturas (situado al inicio) seguido de un índice con la procedencia de las ilustraciones. Éstas últimas, distribuidas a lo largo de las páginas del libro así como en un apartado de imágenes y fotografías situado al final, constituyen el necesario apartado gráfico de la obra. Redactado de forma accesible sin renunciar al omnipresente rigor científico, el libro cumple sobradamente las expectativas tanto del lector más o menos profano como del especialista en la materia. Ésta se presenta, además, organizada con gran sencillez y claridad, a la vez que con ordenada meticulosidad, lo que no hace más que ayudar a la consecución de los objetivos que el libro (según los planteamientos del autor) se propone. En este sentido el aparato gráfico, imprescindible en cualquier obra destinada al estudio de un tipo iconográfico, resulta de gran ayuda, y se presenta dispuesto de una forma lógica, acompañando al texto en la mayor parte de las ocasiones muy oportunamente, si bien sin mediatizar el libro y su presentación. La presentación de un apartado gráfico específico al final, con fotografías más amplias y detalladas que las presentadas con el texto, amplía convenientemente este aspecto de por sí muy bien planteado. El lector experto, por otra parte, encontrará un aparato crítico cuando menos muy completo, con toda la información necesaria para profundizar (aún más) en la materia por sí mismo. En definitiva, y a modo de conclusión, se trata de un libro que alcanza sobradamente las metas propuestas por el autor en su introducción, capaz de plantear y transmitir al lector con amenidad y rigor una materia no siempre sencilla, aunando no solo aspectos puramente iconográficos, sino realizando a partir del mismo un auténtico, profundo y encomiable estudio que abarca desde aspec-

DAVID SORIA MOLINA

123

tos puramente relacionados con la Historia de las religiones y las mentalidades, hasta la propia Historia política.